Skip to main content

Full text of "Antiquities of Shropshire"

See other formats 


Google 



This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on Hbrary shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 

to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 

publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we liave taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 
We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at |http : //books . google . com/| 



il 



I 

1 



I 



ANTIQUITIES 



OF 



SHROPSHIRE. 



BT 



THE REV. R. W. EYTON, 

BBCTOB OP BYTON. 



Non omnia grandior »tas 



Qvm fugiamus habet. 



VOL. IX. 



LONDON : 
JOHN EITSSELL SMITH, 36, SOHO SQUAEE. 

B. LiBBDDOW, 8HIBTKAL, SALOP. 
IfDCCCLIX. 



Mr I • 



* w 



"^MAR 29 1918"^ 



rSIMTSD BT 
iOBK BDWABD TATIA>B, LITTLB QUBBK 8TBBBT, 
LIKCOLW't IBM FIBLOB. 



LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. 



VOL. IX. 



1. To precede page 1. Map ojt Fast of Shbopshire (triplicftte).^ 

2. To fiioe page 28. Wbogkwabdike Ghitboh. v Ber. J. Brooke, deL 

8. To &oe page 50. Wsllxnotov Ohttboh (taken down*) ^ , ^ . 

. ,^^. f Ber. J. Brooke, <fc/. V 

m 1789). J ^ 

4. To &oe page 112. MoKmosNT, High ErealLv Ber. J. Brooke, del. 

I -c C Ber. J. Brooke, ie^ 

6. To £m» page 126. Esoxond Chttsoh. ^ Be?. J. Brooke, cfe/. 

7. — — FoKT, Bdgmond. ^ Ber. J. Brooke, del, 

8. To prooede page 167. Kap op Past op Shbopshibb. v 

9. To hcd page 177. Wsx Ghusoh (taken down in 1811) DaTid Farkes, del.>/ 

10. To &ce page 179. EDflTASTON Chapel. Ber. J. Brook^ del, ^ 

11. — — DooBWAT, Bdataston. Bey. J. Brooke, dehy/ 

12. To fiu» page 840. Hodvbt GHtmoH, from the North-) _ , 

™ ,«,! f ^•▼id Farkea, «fc/. v^ 

Baat ; A.D. 1816. J 

13. — — FoKT, Hodnet Bey. J. Brooke, (fe/. • 



% 










AfdLow 






'wihn 



S T -P E E T 



HiwdJuiMt^ 






Wesfcoa 






J6l4 



Miihbtay 







^Bjwnhartgp { eSm^a^ 




AlfanMli 



, J^ 



SI 



1! 

1 






^D^nton. 



The Manor^ known in later times as Poynton^ seems to have con- 
tained two Yills at Domesday. It is thus described in that Record. 
— '' Uluiet holds Peventone and Tunestan of the Earl. He also 
held it (in Saxon times) for two Manors. Here is a hide and half. 
There is arable land for iii ox-teams. In demesne are i team and 
II Serfs. The Manor was worth 11^. (in Saxon times). Now it is 
worth 12^.^'^ As to the viU of Tunestan, named in this passage^ I 
cannot identify it with any modem locality. It seems indeed to 
have been lost in the 13th century, when Poynton maintained its 
Domesday hidage without any declared adjunct. 

Of Uluiet^ the Saxon, I shouM observe^ that this is now the 
eighth Manor in which such a person has appeared to have had 
an interest in the Confessor^s time; and yet that it is the first in 
which he retained any interest at Domesday. As I have often ob- 
servedj the process of Saxon degradation continued after Domesday. 
No descendant of Uluiet can be supposed to have held Poynton ; 
and it is exceedingly probable that the Manor was annexed to the 
Honour of Montgomery as early as the reign of Henry I. Under 
the Lords of Montgomery, Poynton was held by a race of Feoffees^ 
who took their name from the place. The earliest whom I can 
mention of this family was — 

Roger de Penniton^ who attests a Deed of the Lord of High 
Ercall at the very close of the twelfth century. 

Philip de Peninton is found attesting several local Deeds be- 
tween the years 1200 and 1212. In two instances Hamo de Penin- 
ton (probably his brother) is his fellow- witness. Matilda widow of 
Roger de Peninton is found suing PhiUp de Peninton, for her dower, 
after an interval of at least fifteen years from what I take to have 
been the period of her husband's decease. She sued him at the 
Assizes of November 1221, for thirds of one carucate and 1^ virgates, 

* Dametdai/, fo. 259, b, 2. 
IX. 1 



-I. ■ «_ 



POYNTON. 



2 gardens^ and a Fishery^ in Peninton. To this Philip pleaded that 
the Plaintiff already held two half-virgates in Peninton, and a mes- 
suage and something else in Ercall, as the dower wherein she had 
been endowed at the Monastery-Gate (when married). He offered 
proof of this, but she, not denying it, was nonsuited.^ From his 
attestation of Deeds we may suppose Philip de Peninton (I.) to 
have been living in 1240. 

Stephen de Peninton, probably his successor, occurs as a wit- 
ness in August 1245, and again about 1250. He was apparently 
deceased in 1255, leaving a son or brother, or nephew, named Philip, 
in minority. The Bradford Hundred-Roll of that date states as 
follows. — 

'' Pevinton is a hide and half, and pays 6d. motfee and 6d. stret- 
ward, Philip de Pevinton is Lord of Pevinton, and is in the custody 
of his mother, by purchase from William de Cantilupe (the late 
Lord of the Honour of Montgomery). And it is of William de 
Cantilupe^s fee, and is held by an annual rent of a pair of gilt spurs, 
payable at Easter, to William de Cantilupe. It does no suit to 
County or Hundred.''^ 

I cannot determine whether — 

Philip de Pevinton, who sat as a Juror for Bradford Hundred 
at the Assizes of 1272, was identical with the aforesaid Minor, or 
was his son. The latter seems improbable, because a Minor in 
1255 will hardly have had a son of full age in 1272. Assuming 
then that the two were identical, we learn further that this second 
Philip de Penington was son of a former Philip ; for at the Assizes 
of 1272, it was found that Philip de Penynton had died seized of a 
messuage in Ercall, now held by John de Ercalu, and that Philip, 
son and heir of the said Philip, was now entitled to hold the same 
under the said John.^ I find this second Philip de Peninton 
as Juror or witness on very many occasions, viz. in 1274, 1276, 
1277, 1292, and 1298. He occurs also as one of the Verderers of 
the Shropshire Forests in 1292 and 1296. Cotemporary with him 
was one Robert de Peninton (perhaps his brother) whom we have 
seen attesting a Deed about 127O-80> 

In Easter Term 1284 Milisent, sister and coheir of George de 
Cantilupe, was suing the various tenants of her purparty in her late 
Brother's Barony, for their services. Among others she sued Philip 



* Ataize RoU^ 6 Hen. III., m. 5, dorto. 

> Uot. Hundred. II. 56. 

' Attizes, 56 Hen. III., m. 8 dorto. 



Damages of 6s. Bd, were given against 
John de Ercalu. 
* Supra> Vol. VII. p. 281. 



POTNTON. 



de Peninton for half a knight's-fee in Peninton. At length in 
Hilary Term 1288 Philip de Penynton acknowledged his obligation 
to MiUsent de Montalt, — bo called with reference to her first hus- 
band.^ 

Meantime the Feodaries of 1284-6 specify Philip de Penynton's 
tenure to be nnder Milisent la Zuche, and state her to hold it of 
the Fee of Montgomery^ bat the service dne thereon is not men- 
tioned. . 

Between the years 1272 and 1284 Philip^ Lord of Penynton^ 
gave to Haghmon Abbey two meadows [Overmedewe and Nether* 
medewe) and five seylions in Penynton. Witnesses, John de Ercalwe, 
John fitz Aer, Robert Corbet, knights.* 

On Jnly 8, 1319, we have a Deed attested by three brothers, — 
Geoffrey, John, and Philip, de Peninton.* Of these, probably the 
sons of Philip de Peninton (II.), — 

Geoffrey de Peninton was undoubtedly the eldest, and Lord 
of Foynton. As Greof&ey de Penynton he stands first witness to 
an Ercall Deed of February 14, 1323. Before the year 1828 
GeoflBrey had been succeeded by his son and heir, — 

Philip be Peninton (III.). On May 25, 1334, Philip de Penin- 
ton releases to Nicholas, Abbot of Haghmon, a parcel of land in 
Haghmon Wood. Witnesses, Sir WiUiam de Erkalewe, Sir Robert 
Corbet of Moreton, knights ; and Master Robert de Preston.^ 

By a Deed variously dated on June 12 and June 24, 1334, 
Nicholas, Abbot of Haghmon, demises to Philip fitz Geoffirey, Lord 
of Penynton, a parcel of waste land, for a rent of 2d. in perpe- 
tuity. 

On March 26, 1340, Philip, son of Geoffrey de Penynton, releases 
to the same Abbot his right in 4^ acres of land at Upton. Wit- 
nesses, Roger Trumwin, John de Withiforde, John Malveysin, and 
Stephen de Lee. Nicholas de Harley, Clerk, and John Grabbe 
are the Attorneys, deputed to give the Abbot seizin.^ 

All I shall say further of this succession is that Philip de Penin- 
ton (III.) was living in 1349.* 

PoTNTON Chafel. Foynton is in the Parish of High Ercall. 



An earlier Plea*BoU (of Hilaxy Term, 
1283) makes Joht^ de Fenmngtoii to be 
Tenant of half a fee assigned to Hilisen 
la Zoache. The Christian name is prob- 
ablj enoneoas. 
> Haoghmond Chartulaiy, TU. Feyn- 



ton. In Jane 1327, the Abbot demises 
these meadows " on the Biver Boden*' to 
John and Bichord, sons of William Brid, 
for their lives, at a rent of 6s. Sd. 

» Supra, Vol. VH. p. 282. 

^ '* Hanghmond Chaitulary, fo. 79. 

• Vide supra, Vol. VIII. p. 288. 



4 



UPPINOTON. 



ItB ancient Chapel must be taken therefore as an affiliation of Ercall 
Churchy founded by the Lords of the Manor, and remaining in 
their presentation. It has been disused for ages^ but its west end 
is still visible as part of a stable. 

The early history of Poynton Chapel is confined to the names of 
a few Incumbents and Patrons. — 

JoHN^ Rector of Penynton^ died March 7^ 1328; and on April 
22, following — 

RicHABD DE Brewod, Chaplain, was instituted to this Chapel. 
Patron, — Philip Lord of Penynton. Richard^ Rector of Pevynton, 
died about August 10, 1349 (probably of the Pestilence). On 
January 16, 1350— 

John de Upton, Priest, was admitted. Patron, Philip de Pe- 
nynton. 

Roger, Rector of Pevynton, resigned in 1370 ; and on May 29 
of that year — 

Hamund de la More was instituted at presentation of Dame 
Isolda Lady of Pevynton. He resigned in 1388. On May 25 of 
that year — 

John db Btriton, Priest, was instituted to this Free Chapel, at 
presentation of Philip de Williley. 



IMngton. 



Some Saxon Uffa will have established this settlement. The 
name Uffington is in fiill, the town of the children of Uffa. In 
Edward the Confessor's time the Manor was held in severalty by 
two Saxons, Genut and Elveva.^ At the Conquest of Mercia Earl 
Roger bestowed it on his follower, Helgot. Hence Domesday says, 
— " The same Helgot holds Ofitone. Genut and Elveva held it, for 
two Manors, and were free. Here are v hides, geldable. There is 
arable land for xii ox-teams. In demesne there is a team and half, 
with III male and mi female Serfs; and (there are) iii Villains, 
II Boors, and ii Frenchmen, with ii teams. Here is half a league 



^ It is singular that the same Qemut 
and Elveta appear to have had shares in 
the distant Manor of Stantune, and there 



also to hare made way for Helgot, and for 
the Oastle, to which he gare a name (su- 
pra. Vol. lY. p. 51). 



UPPINGTON. 5 

of wood. The value of the Manor in Bang Edward's time was 30*. 
{per ammm). Now it is of the same value.^'^ 

Helgot's further connection with Uffington is shown in his grant 
otMoor, and of a Fishery in the Severn, to Shrewsbury Abbey. This 
was probably soon after Domesday and in the time of Earl Roger. 
'The Charters of Henry I. and Stephen both particularize the 
grant, explaining that Mora was near the Biver Severn, and that it 
was called Mora with reference to a small wood adjacent thereto. 
This etymology shows perhaps that the Charter which embodied it 
was drawn up by a Norman Monk : for the primitive meaning of 
the Saxon word, Mor, is waste-land, either mountain or fen, but 
not wood. Stephen's Confirmation specifies Helgot's gift to have 
been a hide of land. We shall see that, though Monkmoor was 
detached from UfSngton, both physically by the River Severn, and 
manorially by Helgot's grant, yet Uffington putatively retained its 
Domesday hidage in the 13th century. 

I have spoken of Richard de la Mare, himself or his wife a de- 
scendant of Helgot, and living in the reign of Stephen or of Henry 
II.' This Richard, though Ancestor of the late Lords of Holgate, 
was only a Feoffee and Relation of the earlier Barons. In fact he 
held Uffington under them. 

The Confirmation of Pope Alexander III. to Haghmon Abbey 
bears date May 14, 1172. It enumerates the following grants of 
Richard de la Mare and Robert his son, viz. (1) the mill of Pune- 
lege, (2) half a virgate and one noke in Uffirdon, and (3) LedeU 
acre, which was between the boundaries of Sundre (Sundom) and 
Uffington. 

One of Henry II.'s earliest Confirmations to Haghmon alludes 
incidentally to the Abbot's Tenants at Offinton. This adds a much 
higher antiquity to Richard de la Mare's grant than I could other- 
wise establish.. The Charter shall be more fully described under 
Astley. Another Confirmation of the same King recites that '' Ro- 
bert de la Mara had given to the Abbey one mansure in the vill 
of Offinton, with the Mill of Pimbeleg, which land and Mill his 
&ther had previously given to the Canons.''^ Pimley Mill was, I 
should observe, in Uffington Manor. I have shown elsewhere how 
the Haughmond Canons improved Richard de la Mare's gift by ob- 
taining the Pimley side of the stream.^ 

I need not repeat the circumstances of Robert de la Mare's death 

> Domesday^ fo. 258, b, 1. I ' Haughmond ChartuUiy, iTo. 166, b. 

' Supra, Vol. IV. p. 57. I * Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 304, 806. 



6 UFPINGTON. 

at Benevento in 1192.^ I will now give the curious and authentic 
document wherein the dying Crusader tells his own story and be- 
queaths the whole of Uffington to Haughmond Abbey. — Reverendis 
in Christo patribus et dominis A.^ Dei gratid Sancti Johannis Ago- 
manni Abbati, totique yusdem ecclesuB CofwerUui, Roberttis de Mara 
salutem in Domino. Universitati vestra notumfdcio quod rediens a 
partUms Iherosolimitanis veni Befieventum, ibique gravi ipfirmitate 
detentiM, dum adhuc sanam et claram haberem memoriam, pro re- 
medio aninuB mea et ancessorum meorum, legitimo testamento, vobis et 
ecclesue legavi, dedi, et concesH, in presentid plurimorum Jwminam, 
villam Offitonam, cum omnibus pertinenciis suUy videlicet terris, aquis, 
pratis, et nemoribus, inperpetuum pacifice possidendam, et de ed, no- 
mine ecclesue vestra, Alanum de Mara, consanguineum meum inves- 
tivi. Utautem hac mea donacio rata habeatur in posterum etfirma, 
presentem car tarn indefactam sigillo meo et subscripcione testium ro- 
boravi. + Ego Martinus frater et Preceptor domUs Hospitalis sitte et 
(read in) Benevento {snpflj subscripsij + Ego Adam Confrater pre- 
dicta domUs (supply subscripsi) . 

" Agnes de la Mare daughter and heir of Robert de la Mare^ with 
consent of her heirs^ Thomas and Robert^ and for the souls of her 
father^ her mother^ and her husband^ Robert Mauduthj confirmed 
the above gift of her Father to Haghmon, quit of all services, and 
as freely as her said Father had held it. Witnesses^ William fitz 
Alan^ William des Botereus, John le Strange/' 

The significancies of the last Deed have been already stated/ as 
well as the fact that Agnes de la Mare^ when^ in 1194^ she became 
the wife of a second husband^ Ralph de Ardem^ wished to nullify 
her previous grant. This led to a lawsuit^ indicated by the follow- 
ing entries on the Plea- Rolls. — 

October27^ 1194^ Aunies de la Mare appoints Ralph de Har- 
dem^ her husband^ to be her Attorney in a suit of land against the 
Canons of Hagemont. Richard Abbot of Hagemon essoigns his at- 
tendance in his suit against Ralph de Ardern^ by Norman de Hage- 
man.^ 

November 16^ 1194. The Abbot again essoigns his attendance 
on the ground of illness at Hageman. The suit is described as 

» Supra, Vol. IV. p. 58. 
* Tlie letter A. iniiBt not be taken as 
the initial letter of the existing Abbot's 



name ; bat as a general term, indicating 
any Abbot who might be in office ; just 
as we now use oolloquiaUy the letters A. 



and B. It is probable that the then 
Abbot's name was Richard. Alured had 
been dead at least ten years (vide Vol. 
VII. p. 299). 

• Supra, Vol. IV. p. 59. 

* Hot. Cur. Reffist I. 18, 103. 



UPFTNOTON. 7 

against Ralph de Arden and Agnes his wife. Walter Hageman and 
Richard Godacre are the Abbotts Essoignors.* 

A Fine, levied on February 14, 1195, purports to be '^between 
the Abbot of Haghmon and Thomas de la Mare' (Tenants), and 
Ralph de Ardem and Agnes his wife (Pli^ntiffs), of the vill of UfiS- 
tone which the Canons of Haghmon had, by gift of Robert, father of 
the said Agnes, and which gift had been confirmed by Agnes when 
a Widow. Ralph and Agnes now quitclaim the premises, receiving 
40 merks from the Abbot." 

Hubert Archbishop of Canterbury (he was now Chief- Justice of 
England) recites in a formal document Robert de la Mare^s bequest 
to "Abbot A."; — Agnes's confirmation thereof, when a widow; — 
her remarriage to Ardem, the strifes which ensued with the Abbey, 
and the above Fine. The Archbishop now "perpetuates the said 
settlement by his own authority and reduces It to writing. Wit- 
nesses, Gteoflfrey de Bocland," &c. 

I have shown a probability that Thomas, eldest son of Robert 
Mauduit and Agnes de la Mare, came of age about 1203-4.^ That 
may well be the date of a Deed whereby " Thomas Maudut son of 
Robert Maudut confirmed the donation which Robert de la Mare 
his grandfather, and Agnes his mother, made to Hagmon Abbey of 
all their land in Offitone.'' 

The Abbot and Canons allowed that the " Grantor and his heirs 
should always have one Canon in the Abbey for the souls' health of 
the Grantor, his Ancestors, and his heirs : so that on the decease of 
every such Canon another should continuously be substituted in his 
room. Witnesses, William fitz Alan, John le Strange.'^ 

Subsequently Thomas Mauduit, in the presence of William and 
Robert his brothers, released the Abbey from the above obligation 
to maintain a Canon of his selection. In future he would require 
nothing but the masses and prayers of the Convent. 

We may now follow the history of Uffington as an estate of 
Haughmond Abbey, but still held under the Barons of Holgate. 
The Bradford Hundred-Roll of 1255, says as follows.—" The Abbot 
of Haweman holds the vill of Offinton, by gift of Robert de la 
Mare, and in frank almoign, of William Mauduit's Barony of 
Castle Holegod. The Manor does no suit to County or lesser 
Hundred- Court, but only to the Great Hundred-Court, twice yearly 



I Bot. Cur. Eeffit, Vol. I. page 121. 
' Thomas de la Mare had probably been 
Tenant or Feoffee of Robert de la Mare, 



and now stood in the same relation to the 
Abbot of Haughmond. 
» Supra, Vol. IV. p. 62. 



8 



TJFFINGTON. 



at the Sheriff s-Tovm. It is five hides. It pays 8*. for motfee ; 
nothing for stretward. Half an acre of assart is in the Forest of 
Haweman and the Manor pays therefore \\d, yearly to the King/'^ 
When the Knights-Templars were seized of the Barony of Hol- 
gate it seems that they withdrew all such snit as Uffington had 
owed to Bradford Hundred. This fact was stated in an Inquest, 
which I have before quoted.* The Bradford Tenure- Roll (about 
1285) says that *' the Abbot of Haughmond holds the vill of Uffyn- 
ton in free alms/' and that '^ the vill was of the fee of Castle Hole- 
god and used to be geldable ; but the Templars changed its status, 
by attracting it to their Liberty of Castle Holegod, which Liberty 
Robert Bumell Bishop of Bath now holds.'' 

The Taxation of 1291 values the Abbot of Haghmon's temporali- 
ties at UfTeton as foUows. — 

Two carucates of land, worth yearly .... £1 10 

Assized rents, producing yearly 18 

A certain meadow, worth yearly 10 

£2 9 08 

At the Assizes of 1292, the Bradford Jurors represented how King 
Henry III. had been seized of 3^. per annum for the stretward and 
motfee of Ofiynton, and how the said due had been withdrawn by 
the Abbot of Hawemon. The Abbot appeared and stated that on 
entering office he found no such burden on the vill. The King 
however recovered the due and its arrears. 

The Abbot was further questioned for having withdrawn the 
Hundred-suits of Walcot and Uffinton, 12 years back. The Crown 
recovered the Suit of the Sheriff s-Toum, worth 2«. per annum^ and 
24^. for arrears thereof: but the Abbot proved that the Crown had 
never been seized of the lesser suit ; viz. that due every third week 
to the Hundred-Court.* 

This, or a similar, prosecution about the Suits of Bradford Hun- 
dred is somewhat garbled in the Haughmond Chartulary. There it 
would appear that the Abbot got a dismissal sine die on both points, 
viz. his liability to attend the greater, as well as the lesser. Hun- 
dred Courts. 

Another document iu the same Chartulary is perhaps rather an 
explanation than a falsification of the Plea-Roll. It states that at 
the Assizes of 1292 '^ Gilbert, Abbot of Haghmon, procured that 



> HoU ffundred. U. 67. 

2 Supra, Vol. VI. p. 217, note 12. 



> Pope Nich. TaxaHon, p. 260. 

^ PlacUa Corona^ 20 Edw. I., m. 15. 



THE CHAPEL. 9 

two appearances, which he had been used to make yearly at Castle 
Holgot for the vill of Offinton^ should be adjudicated to Bradford 
Hundred/' 

The Vdkr of 1534-5^ gives the Abbot of Haghmond no less than 
£37. 9s. 6d. of assized rents in Ufiyngton. He still paid stretward 
and motfee to the Crown for the viU, but the charge was now 9s, dd. 
per annum. To Richard Colfox^ Bailiffof Ufiyngton and Muryden, 
he paid a salary of 4/Os. per annum.^ 

As Undertenants in Uffington^ I may name Richard fitz Ra- 
nulf of Huffiton and his wife Edith^ who^ in February 1256^ enfeoff 
one Simon fitz Grervase of Cotes in 3 acres at Cotes (Coton Hill). 
Also there was a Walter Cresset of Uffington^ living in 1339 and 
1349^ but who^ as well as some other Tenants here^ has been men- 
tioned elsewhere. 

UFFINaTON CHAPEL. 

Uffington Manor was originally in the Shrewsbury Parish of St. 
Alkmund, which^ as I have before observed^^ included Sundorn also. 
I should attribute the foundation of a Chapel here to the De la 
Mares or to the ancient Chapter of St. Alkmund, rather than to 
the later representatives of either party. That is neither the Canons 
of Haughmond, as Lords of the Manor^ nor the Canons of Lilies- 
hall^ as Impropriators of St. Alkmund's Churchy were likely to have 
founded this district-chapel. 

Whenever founded^ this Chapel remained for centuries with all 
the features of an ajBSliation of St. Alkmund's. 

The Abbot of LiUeshall had the Great-Tithes of Uffington ; and 
the Chapel was of his Advowson^ as Rector of St. Alkmund's. 

Much disputation seems to have existed between the Abbeys of 
LiUeshall and Haughmond with respect to certain tithes of Uffing- 
ton.' Haughmond, it will be remembered^ was exempted by Papal 
Privileges from paying tithes on its novalia, and its working cattle. 
Between the years 1220 and 1250^ LiUeshall quitclaims to Haugh- 
mond the smaU-tithes of aU animals which Haughmond had in the 
viU of Uffinton^ also the tithes of Assarts^ Vivaries^ and Mills/ then 
existing. This settlement was made in the presence of the Abbot 



1 l^a^or JroeZtfMOfeicM, m. 192, 193. 

» Snpra, VoL VII. p. 280. 

> Haughmond ChftrtulArj, fos. 2l7-'b, 
uid 218. 

* This aUudes to Pimley Mill and the 
farm which had been added thereto by the 

IX. 



Oanons of Haughmond. The Mill itself 
was originally in Uffington Manor (supra, 
VoL YII. p. 804), and I suppose its pre- 
cinct had come to be so reputed. Hence 
the Abbot of LilleshaU's title to deal 
with the tithes. 

2 



10 



UFFINQTON. 



and Prior of Shrewsbury, the Prior of Wombridge, and GeoflErey 
Griffin. 

Another, and, I think, later arrangement between the two 
Houses, divides the tithes of nearly thirty tenements and gardens, 
which all went under the name of assarts. In some cases Haugh- 
mond takes two-thirds, and Lilleshall one-third, of the said tithes. 
In other cases, Haughmond and Lilleshall respectively take the 
whole tithes. 

On September 9, 1478, Robert, Abbot of Lilleshull, and John, 
Abbot of Haghmon, came to another kind of agreement on this 
subject. The former now gave to the latter a 99 years' lease of all 
tithes, oblations, fruits, and profits, which belonged to the Paro- 
chial Chapel of Abbot John^s vill of Uffinton, and also of all tithes, 
&c., of the same Abbot's ferm or Grange of Pimley, except the 
tithes of such meadows and assarts as already belonged rightfully 
to Haughmond. The rent reserved to Lilleshall was 40*. per an- 
num, and the Abbot bound his Convent to renew the lease, under a 
penalty of £9. Besides paying this rent, the Abbot of Haughmond 
was to provide a Chaplain, secular or regular, to serve Uffington 
Chapel, and to administer the sacraments to the Parishioners as 
heretofore. Also he was to be responsible for all other dues belong- 
ing to the said Chapel except a portion or pension, " if there was 
one,'' due to the Parish Church of Holgate.^ 

The Valor of 1534-5 does not recognize the existence of Uffing- 
ton Chapel ; neither do the Abbots of Lilleshall and Haughmond 
include, in their returns of income and expenditure, any notice of 
the above transaction. 

As to Early Incumbents of Uffington, we need not, after what 
has been said above, look to the Diocesan Registers for any evi- 
dence of their succession. In the present instance, however, we 
have the means of showing how such Cures were provided for, when 
the Diocesan Bishop did not, or could not, exercise any supervision. 
The Abbot of Lilleshall, as Rector of St. Alkmund, appointed whom 
he would to be Chaplain of Uffington, or what was worse, sold the 



1 This looks as if Uffington Chapel had 
been founded by some ancient Lord of 
Holgate, who had charged it with a pen- 
sion to the once Collegiate Church of Hoi- 
gate. The pension was apparently obso- 
lete, or nearly so, at the date of the aboTe 
Lease ; and I find no other mention of it. 



I think little of the possibility that 
Bishop BumeU, while Lord of Holgate, 
may have chaiged Uffington with this pen- 
sion. The case of Leighton (Vol. YII. p. 
338) is not analogous; for the Bishop 
was not Patron of Uffington, as he was of 
Leighton. 



WOODCOT£. 1 1 

appointment to any Fermor or Mtddle-man who might be willing 
to trade in such matters. 

One document will prove this. We have seen a certain Herbert 
de Etingham^ Chaplain, attesting certain grants to Wombridge 
Priory about the year 1235.^ 

A Deed in the Lilleshall Chartulary acknowledges the terms on 
which " Herbert de Ettingeham, Chaplain, had received from the 
Abbot and Convent of Lilleshull their Chapel of Uflinton, to farm 
for the whole term of his life. He will pay the Abbot an annual 
rent of 2 merks for the same. Any right pertaining to the Mother- 
Church of St. Alkmund is to be preserved. If the Lessee neglect 
to pay his rent at stated terms, the penalty is to be one merk. He 
win sustain all burdens of the Chapel, temporal and spiritual, and 
will provide for its services." 

How the latter duty was performed we need not inquire. 



StSooHeote. 



This was one of the Manors which Domesday records to have 
been held by Robert fitz Tetbald under the Norman Earl. — 

" The same Robert holds Udecote, and Tochi holds it of him. 
Aluric held it (in Saxon times) . Here are iii hides. In demesne 
there is one ox-team; and there are ii Neatherds, i Villain, iii 
Boors, and iii Freemen, with two teams amongst them all; and 
still there is room for three additional teams. The Manor was 
worth (in Saxon times) 20*. {per annum). Now it is worth 10«."* 

Of the Saxon Tochi I shall have more to say hereafter. 

A reperusal of what I have said under Kemberton* will show 
how Robert fitz Tetbald^s Seigneury at Woodcote passed, with his 
Sussex Honour of Petworth, to Josceline de Lovain, and so to the 
House of Percy. It was an extraordinary transition for a Shrop- 
shire Manor ; but it enables us to enter on the list of Shropshire 
Feudatories one of the greatest of England's historic names. 

In the twelfth century Percy's Tenant at Woodcote was — 

» Supra, pp. 163, 168, 169. | » Supra, Vol. IH. pp. 1, 2. 

» JDoinetday, fo. 266, b, 2. I * Supra, Vol. II. p. 169. 



1 2 WOODCOTE. 

Richard de Woodcote. As Richard Wudecote he stands wit- 
ness to a Deed of uncertain but ancient date, which I have quoted 
under Hatton.^ The Pipe-Roll of 1176 tells how Richard de Wude- 
cote had been amerced £2 for not producing his brother Roger to 
undergo trial. 

All that I can say further of Richard de Woodcote is, that he 
had a daughter, Avelina, to whom, on her marriage with Adam de 
Doditon, he gave certain field-land in the Abbey Forgate of Shrews- 
bury.^ The said Avelina had also a daughter Hawise, who became 
wife of Adam son of Adam de Chetwynd. 

Robert de Woodcote (I.) was probably son and heir of Richard. 
Had he not been so, he would not have succeeded to Woodcote in 
preference to Richard^s other descendants. Ri)bert de Woodcote's 
earliest appearance is about the year 1191, when we have seen that 
he had disseized another of a tenement at Cheswell, near Longford.^ 
On November 24, 1194, Robert de Wodecot was one of three 
Knights who appeared at Westminster as Visor in a Shropshire 
Suit already described.* The suit whereby, in 1200-1203, he en- 
deavoured to obtain Aston Boterell has been also alluded to.'^ It 
convinces me that Robert de Woodcote was descended from Tochi 
or Tochil, the Domesday Lord of both Woodcote and Aston ; and 
perhaps we may further conclude that Tochi was akin to Aluric or 
Elric, the previous Saxon Lord of both Manors. 

At the Assizes of 1203 Robert de Wodecot was one of the 
Knights empanelled in causes of Grand-Assize. At this time Ave- 
lina de Dutdinton,' his presumed sister, was a widow, for she es» 
soigned her attendance at these Assizes. 

Within fifteen years, as I think, of this time, Robert de Wode- 
cote stands first witness of a Deed whereby Avelina, formerly wife 
of Adam de Doditun, gives to Adam, son of Adam de Chetwinde, 
in frank marriage with Hawise her daughter^ a rent of 12d. receiv- 
able yearly from land held by Stephen de Hawemag, together with 
a full half of that field-land in Monks-Foriete (Shrewsbury), which 
Richard de Wodecote, Avelina's father, had given to herself, on her 
marriage with the aforesaid Adam (de Doditun). The other wit- 
nesses of this Deed are Adam de Brunton (of Longford) and Alan 
fitz Jordan (of Shrewsbury).* 

About the year 1215 Thomas de Costantyn grants to Robert de 



» Supra, VoL II. p. 169. 
« Salop Chartulary, No. 177. 
» Supra, p. 106. 



♦ Supra, Vol. I. p. 47. 

* Supra, Vol. I. 224. 

« Salop Ohartulary, No. 177. 



WOODCOTE. 



13 



Wodecote, for 17 merks paid down^ and for a rent of I2d., certain 
land and wood^ which (from the very garbled transcript of the Deed 
supplied by the Wombridge Chartulary) I- infer to have lain be- 
tween Rushton and Eaton Ck)n8tantine. This Deed has the attes- 
tations of Robert de Terroys (perhaps Teneraye), Hugh de Upinton, 
and Robert de Stanton.^ 

About the same time^ Robert de Wodeootte stands first witness 
of a Deed which I have quoted under Tibberton.^ 

Robert de Woodcote (I.) probably died about the year 1220; at 
least we have had mention in November 1221 of his widow Milisent 
and his successor Robert.' His grant to Lilleshall Abbey must be 
taken as a closing act of his life^ seeing that it was accompanied by 
a bequest of his body, in burial. It was of certajn land in Saker- 
lawe (Shakerley) which the Grantor seems to have inherited firom 
his Uncle {avunctUo) Robert, who had had it by the feoffment of 
Sir Richard de Beaumeys. The services due to the Lord of the 
Fee are reserved.* 

Mi LIS ANT, wife and widow of Robert de Wodecote (I.), was 
probably an heiress. In her widowhood and liege power, for the 
souls' health of herself, her ancestors, and successors, she gave to 
LilleshuU Abbey, together with her body (in burial), a virgate of 
land in Horselawe, one noke of which was held by Adam White. 

Robert de Wodecote (II.) > calling himself ''son and heir of 
Robert de Wudechot,'' confirmed this grant of a virgate in Horse- 
lawe, reserving the scutage assessable thereon, unless it should 
appear that the land had been freed of scutage under the franchises 
of LilleshuU Abbey. This Confirmation, the said Robert handed 
over to the Canons in the full County-Court of Stafford in the time 
of that " noble personage, Henry de Audley, then Sheriff.^'* This 
notification serves to date the deed as having passed either between 
1218 and 1220 or else between 1227 and 1232. I prefer the last 
limits, because it seems probable that the Confirmation passed 
after Milisant de Woodcote's death, and she was living in 1221. 

Orslow, I should observe, was a member of Church-Eaton 
(Staffordshire). Hence we hear also of a Charter by Sir Adam de 
Brimton, Knight, Lord of Eyton, confirming Milisant de Wood- 
cote^s grant. 

Between the years 1220 and 1224, Robert, son of Robert de 



1 Chartulary, TU. Upinton, No. OXIY. 
3 Supra, VoL VHI. p. 47. 
* Supra, Vol. VII. p. 836. 



* MonoiHoon, Tl, 26^ Num. XIII. 
(Vide supra, Vol. II. p. 176.) 

* Lilleshall Chartulary, fo. 64. 



14 WOODCOTE. 

Wodecote^ for the souls^ health of his Father^ Robert, his Mother^ 
Milisant, himself, his wife, his ancestors, and successors, gave to 
Wombridge Priory the land (near Bushton) which his Father had 
purchased from Sir Thomas de Constantine, the Canons being bound 
to pay the reserved rent of 12d. to the said Sir Thomas. Wit- 
nesses, Richard de Leyghton, Robert de Brocton, Adam de Cherle- 
ton, &e.^ 

Also between 1220 and 1224, Thomas de Constantyn gave to 
Wombridge the whole wood with its appiu*tenances, which he had 
sold to Sir Robert de Wodecotte, so that the Canons pay the 
Grantor and his heirs 1:2^. yearly. Witnesses, Baldwin de Hodnet, 
Hugh Forester (of Solas, I presume), William de Hedley.^ 

About the year 1241, Robert de Wodecote was second of the 
Jurors who decided the lands of LilleshuU Abbey not to be liable 
to the custom of canine eapeditation. Again in 1249 we have 
Robert de Wodecot as Foreman of a Leegomery Inquest, and about 
1250 we have him attesting Geofirey Griffin's grant of Howie to 
the Abbeys of Lilleshull and Haughmond. I am nearly sure that 
about this time there was a step in the succession of the Lords of 
Woodcote.' At all events, I venture to state that it was — 

Robert de Woodcotb (III.)> ^bo, in his grant to Buildwas 
Abbey about 1253, styles himself, " Robert, son of Robert de 
Wodecote.^' 

The Bradford Hundred-Roll of 1255 describes Wodecot as a 
Manor of three hides, and as paying \2d. (yearly) for motfee, and 
12rf. for stretward. " Robert (de Wodecot) was Lord of the Vill, 
holding it of the fee of Henry de Persy, and doing due suit to 
County- and Himdred. The Manor was geldable."^ 

Robert de Woodcote (III.) seems to have had a sister married 
to Michael de Morton. To Michael, son of the said Michael, and 
therefore his own Nephew, Robert de Woodcote sold the fee-simple 
of Eye, but, as we shall see, without barring the dower of his wife, 
Isabella. 

All that I shall say further of the third Robert de Woodcote, 
is, that, being deceased on May 26, 1278, a Writ of Dieni clatisit 



*•' Wombridge Chartulary, TU. XJpin- 
ton, No8. CXV. OXIIJ. 

' This idea is confirmed by the Foreet- 
BoU of 1262. Robert de Woodcote and 
another were Agistators of the Hayes of 
Wellington and Morf^ and so responsible 
for the Autumnal pannage of the years 



1249-1253, inclusire. But in February 
1262, they being dead, their heirs had to 
answer for their receipts. I infer that 
Robert de Woodcote (II.) died about 
1253. Robert de Woodcote of 1262 is 
expressly named as his son and heir. 
* Sot. Hundred. II. 56. 



WOODCOTB. 15 

issued on the occasion. The Inquest which followed reported that 
he had held nothing in capite, but had held all his lands of Henry 
de Perci^ by an annual rent of lOv. The said lands were valued at 
30^. 8d. per annum. Thomas^ son and heir of the deceased^ was 
found to be 23 years of age and more.^ 

It is probable that Thomas de Woodcote alienated the mesne- 
interest of all his estates to William Kondulf^ a thriving Burgess 
of Newport. John and Philip de Wodecote, who appear on an 
Edgmond Inquest in January 1283, were probably Cadets or 
Undertenants. 

William Bondult of Newport, with whom I now proceed, occurs 
on general and local Juries in 1283, 1290, 1292, 1296, 1300, and 
1302. The Feodary of 1284 says that '' William Bandulfe holds 
the vills of Wodecote and Eye of Henry de Percy, who holds of 
the King in capiie.'^ The nearly cotemporary Tenure-Eoll of Brad- 
ford Hundred repeats this information, adding, that Michael de 
Morton was William Rondulf's Feoffee as regarded the vill of Eye. 
Of this vill I shall speak elsewhere. 

William Rondulf had several sons, of whom I shall here mention 
Geoffrey and Simon. Geoffirey, the eldest, had even in his Father's 
lifetime attained a high position as a Burgess of Shrewsbury. He 
occurs from 1288 to 1323 in various capacities. He was in office 
as Bailiff of Shrewsbury six times in and between the years 1290 
and 1323. He was returned as a Burgess of Parliament for the 
same town no less than nine times in and between the years 1295 
and 1318. On the last occasion Simon Rondulf (his brother) was 
one of his Manucaptors. 

It appears that the third Robert de Woodcote had another sister, 
Helen, whom he had enfeoffed in a parcel of land at Woodcote. 
About the year 1290 '' Helena, daughter of Robert, formerly Lord 
of Wodecote, gives to Simon, son of WiUiam Rondulf of Neuport 
a parcel of land in the field of Wodecote, the Grantee performing 
such homage and service as were stipulated for in the Charter 
which she (Helena) had from her brother Robert. Witnesses, 
William Rondulf of Neuport, William, son of Michael de Morton, 
and John, his brother.'^' 

William de Morton, the second witness of the above Deed, had a 
son Edmund, between whom and Geoffrey Rondulf there arose much 
litigation about Woodcote. I can teU little about the proceedings; 
but it was probably before the year 1316 that Edmund, son of 

1 Inqm$itioni, 6 Edw. I., No. 12. > I^etoport Evidences. 



16 THE EtB. 

William de Morton, recovcTed, by process of law, two-thirds of the 
Manor of Woodcote against Oeoffrey Bondulf.^ Hence it came, I 
presume, that in the Nomina Villarum of 1316 Edmund de Morton 
is set down as Lord of Woodcote. 

It further appears that, relying on the above sentence in his 
favour, Edmund de Morton disseized Geofirey Rondulf of certain 
parcels of Woodcote which proved to be not included in the above 
two-thirds. 

Bondulf hereupon brought a second action, and in Hilary Term 
1322 recovered the following parcels in the Manor of Wodecote 
juxta Hetkull, viz. 2 messuages, 1 Water-Mill, 1 virgate, and 30 
acres of land, and a piece of ground measuring 300 perches by 200 
perches, which were no parcel of those two-thirds of the Manor to 
which Morton was entitled.' 

Woodcote Chapel. This Chapel has architectural features, 
which prove it to have been founded at least as early as the 12th 
century. Its subjection to the Mother-Church of Sheriff Hales, a 
status which it still retains, naturally obscures its early history. Its 
Incumbents were the Vicars of Sheriff Hales, who probably served 
it by Deputy. The said Vicars were themselves presented by the 
Prior of Ware, or by some other Proctor of the Abbot of St. 
Evroult of Uticum,* who was Impropriator of Sheriff Hales. 

Parochially Woodcote was in the Archdeaconry of Stafford, and 
the Deanery of Lapley and Trysull. 



CJe €^t. 



The Domesday notice of Woodcote is immediately succeeded by 
the following supplementary entry, in paler ink than the body of 
the Record. — 

^' The same Bobert (fitz Tetbald) holds a Manor of one virgate 
of land, and Tochi holds it of him. It is in the same Hundred 
(Becordin). The arable land is that of one ox-team. Here are 
one Villain and ii Serfs, and they have nothing (i. e. no team- 
power). The Manor used to be worth 5«. yearly.'' 

> • « Abhrev. FiacUorum, p. 889. ' Yid© iupra, Vol. VII. p. 207. 



THB EYE. 



17 



There is little difficulty in identifying this Manor. West of 
Leightou and South of Eaton Constantine the River Severn forms 
three sides of a square. The land thus enclosed is now known as 
the Eye Farm. This was Robert fitz Tetbald's anonymous Manor, 
and from him the Seigneury, like that of Woodcote, passed to 
Percy. So also Tochi's tenancy passed to the Woodcotes ; and it 
was their tenure of Eye which brought the Woodcotes into this 
neighbourhood, and induced them to make those purchases iu 
Leightou and Eaton Constantine which have already been de- 
scribed. 

Robert de Woodcote (III.) sold Eye (that is the fee-simple) to 
his Nephew Michael, — son of Michael de Moreton, by * * * de 
Woodcote : but on the said Robertas death (in 1278), his widow, 
Tsabel, seems to have claimed dower in Eye. So I interpret a 
Deed whereby it was agreed between " Michael, son of Michael de 
Morton and Dame Ysabella, late wife of Robert, Lord of Wode- 
cote,'' as follows, viz. that Michael conceded and demised to Ysa- 
bella, one-third of his land of E, which land he (Michael) formerly 
bought of Robert, Lord of Wodecote, his Unde (avunculo) ; — to 
hold to Tsabella for life at a rent of one pair of white gloves. 
Witnesses, Bertram de Burgo, Michael de Morton, Hugh de 
Weston, Richard de Leycton.^ 

We have seen that the mesne tenure of Eye, like that of Wood- 
cote, passed between the years 1278 and 1284 from Thomas de 
Woodcote to WiUiam Rondulf of Newport, and that in or about 
the year 1285 Michael de Morton was holding Eye under William 
Rondulf. The following Deed, which perhaps passed fifteen years 
later, I take to be by Richard de Leightou (V). It shows conclu- 
sively that the Manor, so continuously mentioned in connection 
with Woodcote in other records, and now held by Michael de 
Morton, was in fact the Manor of Eye. I give an abstract of the 
Deed itself. — 

Recardi48 dominus de Leghton concessi Michaeli de Morton et he- 
redUnis quod si averia Michaelia pro defectu custoduB evaserint ifffira 
clausuram meam de Rudon (videlicet de Spedehelde usque ad Calde- 
weUe et de CaldeweUejuxta sepem usque ad comeraim de Middelfeld 
qtue est proxima semita qtue ducit de Eye versus le Lode ad inferius 
capud de Baxtonebeche de EyeJ, sine aliqud redempcione rejugentur, 
quousque predicta placia claudatur. In cujus rei, ^c. Hiis testi- 
bus, Magistro Payn de Preston, Johanne de Hauckestan, Philippolde 

* Newport Emdeneet. 

IX. 3 



1 8 WROCKWAllDINE. 

Leffhton, Capellano, Henrico de Garmeston, WUUelmo Payn de 
Leghton, ^c.^ 

This grant associates itself with a former Deed already noticed^ 
and which was drawn up in 1300^ when Sir Richard de Leighton 
was contemplating the formation of a Park at Leighton. Several 
of the localities named in the present Deed will be found to corre- 
spond with the proposed boundaries of Leighton Park.^ 



SlBrotlttortitne. 



The Cambro-British word Wrch signifies, ** that which is high 
or round/' The town of Wrexham in North Wales was probably 
so called with reference to the mountainous range adjacent. So 
too in Shropshire, Wroxeter and Wrockwardine got their names, 
one as being a City or Station [castrum) near the Wrekin, the 
other as being a worthing, or village, under the same mountain. 

In Saxon times, Wrockwardine was a royal Manor, and CapuU of 
the Hundred to which it gave a name. Such Manors are usually 
if not uniformly found in Domesday to be classified as demesnes of 
the Palatine Earl. — 

*^ Earl Roger holds Recordine. King Edward held it. To this 
Manor belong seven and a half Berewichs. Here are five hides, 
geldable. In demesne are iiii ox-teams; and xni Villains, iiii 
Boors, a Priest and a Radman have, among them all, xii teams. 
Here are viii Neatherds, a Mill of \2a. (annual value), and aWood, 
one league long and half a league wide.'' 

*' The Church of St. Peter holds the Church of this Manor, with 
one hide, and thereon it has one ox-team, and another team might 
be added. It (this hide) is worth 5«. (per annunC)" 

*' Two denarii of the Hundred of Recordin'used in King Edward's 
time to belong to this Manor. The Earl (of Merda) had the ter- 
cium denarium,^' 

" In King Edward's time the Manor used to yield (yearly) £6. 
I3s. Sd. Now it pays a ferm of £12. 10s." ^ 

1 Charter in possession of Mr. George I * Tide supra, ToL Vll. p. 937, note 34. 
Morris of Shrewsbury. I ^ Domesday, fo. 263, a, 2. 



WROCKWAEDINS. 19 

Wrockwardine^ with the exception perhaps of one of its Bere- 
wicks (Cherlton)^ reached the hands of Henry 11.^ in the usual 
course, as a Manor of Boyal Demesne. Of the severance of 
Cherlton from the central Manor I will speak elsewhere. The re- 
puted fiscal value of Wrockwardine in 1156 was £14! per annum. 
So then, from the year 1156 to the year 1171 inclusive, Wrockwar- 
dine may be taken to have annually contributed £14 to that sum 
of iE265. 15«. for which the Sheriff was accountable as the Firma 
ComUatHs. 

In the year 1 172, and while Wrockwardine was thus reputed to 
be a Manor of £14 fiscal value. King Henry II. assigned 7 librates, 
or one-half thereof, to Roger de Powis, and his brother Jonas.^ 
This continued till the year 1174 inclusive. In 1175, however, 
14 librates, being the whole value of the Manor, were similarly 
assigned to the two brethren. We may therefore set down these 
favoured Servants of Henry II. as, affcer Kings and Earls, the first 
Lords of Wrockwardine. However, their interest here was tem- 
porary, and so I shall postpone a fuller account of their career to a 
future occasion. 

In 1176 and 1177 the Sheriff seems to have made good the pay- 
ment of Roger de Powis's share, viz. £7 in each year : but he re- 
tained Jonas de Powis's share in hand, '' because the said Jonas 
had not as yet brought to the Sheriff the King's Writ,'' authorizing 
the payment. In 1178 the King acquitted the Sheriff of this 
arrear of £14, that is, made him a present of it; but another £14, 
being the whole fiscal value of Wrockwardine for the current year, 
was made over to Roger de Powis singly. This annual payment of 
£14 yearly to Roger de Powis continued till the year 1186 inclu- 
sive; but at Michaelmas 1187 both he and his son, Meredyth, 
were dead, the latter having been paid £10. 109. 9d. of the current 
year's value of the Manor, and the balance (£3. 6^. Zd,) being ac- 
counted for by the Sheriff as due to the Crown. We may conclude 
that Meredyth, son of Roger de Powis, died in July 1187. 

In ] 188 the Sheriff paid to the Crown £6. %8. Sd. for the year's 
issues of Wrockwardine, instead of the ordinary £14 : but the 
reason of this is not stated. In 1189 the Sheriff similarly paid 
only £7. 13*. 5rf. ; in 1190, 1191, and 1192, he paid £7 yearly, 
while £20. I3s. Ad, had been spent in stocking the Manor. In 
1193 and 1194 Wrockwardine may be presumed to have yielded 
£12 yearly to the Exchequer and £2 to the Canons of Haughmond. 

* In terriidaiis. — Et Bogero de Powitei Jonefratriejut VII Hb, in Wrochewurdin. 



20 WROCKWARDINE. 

The latter was the proportionate value of AUscot Mill, long before 
granted to the Canons, but now first alleged in Exchequer accounts 
as diminishing the ferm of Wrockwardine by £2. In 1195^ besides 
the charge in favour of the Canons, Archbishop Hubert had 
authorized the Sheriff to bestow 10 librates in Wrockwardine on 
Meurich, another son of Boger de Powis. This continued in 1196, 
1197, 1198, and 1199; but in 1200, only half the said income 
went to Mewrich de Powis, whilst 6 librates or half a year's value 
of the whole Manor (exclusive of Allscote Mill) had been bestowed 
on Hamo le Strange. The fact is, that Meurich de Powis died 
about May 1200, and nothing in Wrockwardine went to his son 
Wrenoc. The latter, as I have shown under Worfidd, received 
substantial marks of Royal favour in another quarter.^ 

Haho le Strange, who was now for a time Lord of Wrockwar- 
dine, was a younger brother of John le Strange (II.) of Ness and 
Cheswardine. He had been enfeoffed by King John, whilst Earl 
of Moreton, in the Leicestershire Manor of Foston. Foston was 
one of the estates which WiDiam Peverel of Nottingham had for- 
feited to King Henry II., but the Record, which implies that Henry 
11. enfeoffed Hamo le Strange therein, is erroneous in more than 
one particular.^ On the accession of King John, his previous grant 
of Foston to Hamo le Strange did not hold good. Hence in 1199 
we find Hamo le Strange fining 40 merks for a reasonable equiva- 
lent in lieu of Foston,^ but he not at length obtaining such ex- 
change, the debt of 40 merks was cancelled on the Pipe- Roll of 
1200 by order of the Barons of the Exchequer. In the latter year 
the above Fine was replaced by one of 60 merks, and which was 
more specific. It was that the said " Hamo might have the Manor 
of Wrocwrthin, late held by Meuric de Powis, with all its stock 
and implements, until the King should furnish forth, out of his 
escheats, a fair exchange either for Wrocwrthin or for the land 
which he had, as Earl, given to Hamo. And when such exchange 
should have been completed, Wrocwrthin, with its stock, &c., was 
to revert to the King.^^* 

In 1201 and 1202 Hamo le Strange pays instalments on his Fine 
of 60 merks. In the former year he is entered as entitled to £12, 
or the fall fiscal value of the Manor ; in the latter year he had only 
had £9. The inference is, that his arrangement about Wrockwar- 
dine expired about June 1202. As Hamo was still alive, we may 



» Supra, Vol. Til. pp. 106, 107. 
3 Testa de Nevill, p. 88. 



• • * Oblatay pp. 14, 60. John le Strange 
was Bccurity for the last fine. 



WBOCKWABDINB. 



21 



presume that King John had provided for him an equivalent else- 
where. In the fiscal year which ended at Michaelmas 1203 — 

John lb Strange (II.) fined 60 merks ''to have custody of 
Wrockwardine Manor^ formerly held by his brother Hamo^ till the 
King should return into England ^ and dispose otherwise thereof/' 
Accordingly, in the Pipe-Roll of 1203, the SheriflF discharges 
Wrockwardine from the Firma Comitatm in the manner following. 
In terris datis, Et Johanm Extraneo xii lib, in terrd de Wrocumr- 
din quam ipse custodit per breve Regis, de quibus debet respondere. 
And below is John le Strange's private account of his trust. — 
Johannes Ewiraneus r. c, de xii lib. de terrd de Wrochwurdin quam 
custodit. In ihesauro nichil. Et in perdonis per breve Regis ipsi 
Johanm xii lib. Et Quiettis est. So then the King had made this, 
his trusty servant, a present of his year's rent. The same thing 
followed in the years 1204 and 1205.' In 1209 John le Strange 
owed ^48 or four years' arrears, but was excused £24 by Writ 
Royal. Subsequent accounts are not very regular, and for half the 
year 1215 and the whole of the years 1216 and 1217 there were no 
accounts at all. At Michaelmas 1226 John le Strange owed £12 
for the current year's /erm of Wrockwardine, and £163 for arrears. 
King Henry III. had excused the whole debt, the £12 being ex- 
pressly bestowed on Le Strange '' to support him in the King's 
service."* Wrockwardine was still however held, subject to the 
King's pleasure. 

We are now in a condition to understand what is meant in a Roll 
of the year 1211, where it is said that " John le Strange holds the 
Manor of Wrocwrth'in at ferm, of the Bailiwick {de ballivo) of 
King John, and is accustomed to pay £12, with the stock ;"* — that 
is, for the Manor and the stock thereon. 

In 1227 John le Strange's account of £12 for the year's ferm of 
Wrockwardine is duly entered. The King returns it in considera- 
tion of the Accountant's ^' good and faithfrd services to King John 
and to himself."^ Moreover by Writ, the King pardons all Aiture 



1 The King was abBent from May 1201 
to December 1203. 

' A Writ preserred on the Liberate 
BoUs (page 101) and of date about May 
1204, is express as to aoquittmg John le 
Strange of all demands made against him 
for the issues of the Manor of Wroowur- 
thin. 

3 JRot. Pip, 10 Hen. III., Salop. These 



faroors were conferred by Writs-Close 
dated at Salop on August 29, 1226 {Claiu. 
II. p. 135). The remittance of arrears 
was in consideration of " great services 
rendered to King John and Heniy III., 
and of Le Strange's large outlay and 
losses." 

< Testa de NeviU, p. 66. 

* Sot Pip. 11 Heniy III., Salop. 



22 WROCKWARDIKB. 

payment so long as the Accountant should live.^ From 1228 to 
1233 inclusive the yearns ferm of Wrockwardine is continuously 
accounted of as returned to John le Strange^ *^ to sustain him in 
the King's service while he lives/' But in 1234 John le Strange 
is represented as paying £4 out of £12^ for the. current year's ferm 
of Wrockwardine. Such is the evidence of the Pipe-Rolls^ but 
the Charter- Bolls exhibit the affair in quite another aspect. — John 
le Strange (II.) had been a public character for more than the 50 
years which had transpired since his father's death in 1178. His 
life- lease of Wrockwardine was therefore of small value when^ on 
May 26, 1231, he obtained the King's Charter granting the Manor 
to bis son, " John le Estrange, Junior," to hold in fee and inherit- 
ance, for a rent of £8, payable at the Exchequer, in lieu of all 
other services. The Manor was further to be quit of all Tallages.' 
This Charter bears date at Wenloc and was attested by Hubert de 
Bui^h, John fitz Alan, Ralph de Mortimer, and others.' 

It was not till October 10, 1234, that the Barons of the Exche- 
quer were informed of this grant ; but then at length they are or- 
dered to enrol it.^ Consequently the Pipe-Rolls take no notice of 
the arrangement till the year ending Michaelmas 1235. Then the 
Record is accurate in every particular. John le Strange pays £A 
as the arrears of last year, and £8 for the ferm of the current year, 
and is quit. Thereafter the title of John le Strange to hold the 
Manor in fee, at a rent of £8, is distinctly recognized. The Ac- 
countant discharges his liabilities, and is styled Johannes Extraneus 
without the addition of Junior. It is nevertheless certain that his 
father was still living, a matter of which I shall speak elsewhere. 

In the year 1236 the Sheriff discharges his liabilities in respect 
of Wrockwardine, setting off £2 as bestowed on the Canons of 
Haughznond and £\2 as bestowed on John le Strange '^ ad se sus- 
tentandum." The latter entry was mere routine, but correct for all 
fiscal purposes, for doubtless the Sheriff got nothing from the Manor 
and was entitled to obliterate its fiscal value in the Corpus Comi- 
tates. In a separate schedule, John le Strange accounts £8 for the 
ferm of Wrockwardine. As the Pipe-Rolls now cease to instruct us 

rears of the ferm thereof Binoe he first 



1 Mot. Pip. 11 Henry III., Salop. I 
do not find any previous Writ, authoriz- 
ing the implied change from a temtre du- 
ring plecuwre to a tenure for life. How- 
ever a Writ-aose of May 18, 1228, is to 
that effect. It gives the Manor to Le 
Strange for life, and quitclaims all ar- 



held it {Clans. 12 Henry III.). 

a From the Table (given Vol. VI. p. 11) 
it appears that Wrockwardine had not 
been assessed to any Tallage since 1194-6. 

• Mot. Cart. 15 Hen. III., m. 8. 

< not. Fimum^ 18 Hen. III., m. 2. 



WROCKWARDINB. 28 

as to any change or succession in Le Strange's tenure of Wrock- 
wardine, I ^ill merely say that the King's rent continued to be 
paid^ nominally by some John le Strange. The chronological his- 
tory of the family of Le Strange must be gathered from^ other sources. 

A grant by John le Strange (II.) to Wombridge Priory, I con- 
sider to be nearly cotemporary with a similar grant by Thomas 
Tuschet, already described.^ The locality alluded to is distant from 
Wrockwardine, but was associated with that Manor. It is still 
known as Wrockwardine Wood. If the grant passed^ as I suppose, 
about the year 1220, it was while John le Strange was only Fermor 
of Wrockwardine. — 

As " John Extraneus, Lord of Enokyn, for the souls' health of 
himself and King John, he concedes to the Priory all the right he 
had by reason of his Manor of Wrockwardine, in that land, wood, 
and pasture, which the illustrious King Henry (Henry II. is meant) 
did concede to the Priory.'' The land lay, lengthways between Wat- 
lingstreet and Hethegrene, and was bounded, on one side, by the 
Grantor's bosc contiguous, on the other, by a watercourse running 
between Stamforde in Watlingstreet and Hethegrene aforesaid. 
William de Ercalew, Hugh fitz Bobert, Robert fitz Aher, John de 
Andelawe, and Robert de Brokton attested the Deed.' 

John le Strange (III.) undoubtedly became Lord of Wrock- 
wardine in 1231 and in the lifetime of bis father. The date of his 
said father's death may perhaps be deduced firom the OriginaHa-Rott 
of 1237-8, where the son stipulates " in the King's presence to 
satisfy the King touching his Relief, according to the judgment of 
the King's Court." 

About the year 1231, as I think, *^John le Strange tercius,*son of 
John le Strange, concedes to Wombridge Priory the donation which 
his Father had made in the bosc of Wombridge. Witnesses, Hugh 
fitz Robert, William de Hedlege, John de Ondeslawe, Robert de 
Brokton, and Philip de Peninton."^ * 

A nearly cotemporary Deed exhibits the same grant in another 
form. — ''John le Strange terdus, for the souls' health of himself, 
his wife Lucia, and his &ther, gives to the Priory all such assarts 
and boscs as it possessed by concession of his Father. Witnesses, 
Hugh fitz Robert; William de Hedleg; Nicholas de Wileleye; 
GeofBrey GriflSn, Clerk ; Bertram, his brother ; Peter de Eyton ; 
Thomas Corbet of Hedleg ; Walter de Upton ; Leonard de L^a ; 
and Walter his son."^ 

1 Supn,yoLyiI.p. 84S. >'*'^ Chartulary, ^. Lega Priom, Not. 8> 9, 10. 



24 WROCKWAEDINB. 

The following feoffment is by John le Strange (III.) and belongs 
to Wrockwardine.^ Its date is about 1235. Thereby — '^ John le 
Strange gives to Hamund son of Eobert de Hadleg^ for his homage 
and for 5 merks (paid down), all that land which Henry Cocus the 
Grantee^s Father-in-law had held of the Grantor. — Rent 4*. — 
Witnesses, Sir William de Ercalue, Sir Hugh fitz Robert, Sir Peter 
de Eyton, Sir Thomas Corbet of Hedley, Wydo de Perpund, Ro- 
bert de Brocton, Roger de Eppeleg, Thomas de Erleton, Robert de 
Clotleg, Adam de Cherlton, Radulf Provost.^'^ 

A younger son of John le Strange (III.) was that Hamo le 
Strange, who has been so often mentioned in these pages, as one 
in whom all the enei^ and loyalty of his house ever shone conspi- 
cuous. To this Hamo his Father consigned the Manor of Wrock- 
wardine sometime before the year 1255. This was apparently with 
full license of the Crown, for, though John le Strange continues 
nominally to account on the Pipe-Roll for the yearly ferm of £8, 
it is clear that Hamo was the actual TcTiant'in-capite and the real 
Accountant. 

Hence the Bradford Hundred-Roll of 1255, declares that ^' Hamo 
Extraneus holds the Manor of Wrecwrthin, in-capUe of the King, 
and pays £8 to the Exchequer at London. He does no suit to 
County or Hundred, and has the King's Charter.'^* 

Hamo le Strangers contest with the Abbot of LilleshuU in 1256, 
has been already recited.^ I need only observe that he stated his 
title to Wrockwardine to be by feoffment of his Father. I can 
show no other evidence of Hamo le Strangers seizin than a grant 
to Wombridge Priory which passed between 1247 and^l259, pro- 
bably about 1252. — " Hamo Extraneus with consent of Sir John, 
his father, grants all his part of the wood of Wombridge which was 
common to him and Sir Walter de Dunstanville.'^ The boundaries 
of this grant are " Stamford in Watelyngstret, the JRed Sichet, 
Witestoc, the Thassichos, and so along Watlingstret back to Stam- 
ford.^' " Whatever within these limits pertained to^Wrockwardine 
Manor was to pass to the Priory.^' Of course the locality was 
Wrockwardine-Wood. The Charter was attested by Sir Walter de 
Dunstanville, Sir Madoc de Sutton, Sir Walter de Kembricton 
Rector of the Church of Ydeshall, Roger Corbet (of Hadley), Philip 
de Pres, and Ralph Brito, Clerk.* 



' Ibidem, TU, Lopinton, No. IX. 

2 Probably Le Strange's Bailiff at 
WTOckwardine. He oocun elsewhere as 
holding land near Allscote Mill. 



» B<tt, Hundred, II. 56. 

* Supra, Vol. VIII. pp. 235, 236. 

* Wombridge Chartulary, TU, Le 
Prions, No. XI. 



WROCKWARDINE. 25 

It is certain that Hamo le Strange accompanied Prince Edward 
on the Crusade of 1270. I can fix on no more p/obable period than 
this for the ascertained fact that the said Hamo gave Wrockwardine 
to his younger brother^ — 

Robert le Strange, who like himself went to Palestine. The 
elder brother perished in the expedition ; the younger barely survived 
it. The transfer from the former to the latter was apparently im- 
pugned as unlawful, for, in the year 1278, the Sheriff is ordered to 
seize Stretton, Ellesmere, and Wrockwardine, into the King^s-hand; 
and of Stretton it is particularly stated that the reason of the seizure 
was because Hamo le Strange, being Tenant-in^capite thereof, had 
alienated it without license.^ In 1275, Wrockwardine, Stretton, 
and Ellesmere, were committed to the custody of B<^ de Enovill,' 
but in the same year the King accepted the homage of Robert le 
Strange for Wrockwardine, ^' as that which Hamo le Strange had 
formerly given to the said Robert by Charter .'' Robert ia hence- 
forth to hold the Manor, in-capite, by service of one-twentieth of a 
Knighf s-fee.^ Concurrently with this, Robert le Strange obtained 
the following Quitclaim from John le Strange (IV.) ^ the elder 
brother of himself and Hamo. — 

^' John le Strange Lord of Enokyn gives by spontaneous will, 
concedes, licenses, and quitclaims, for himself and heirs, all right in 
Wrocwardin Manor, to Robert le Strange his brother, who is to 
do homage to the King therefore. Given at Knokyn on Ascension 
Day (May 28) 3 Edw. I. (1275).^'* 

On September 10, 1276, Robert le Strange was dead, as we 
know from a Writ of that date concerning the dower of his widow.* 
We also have a Writ of the same year consigning Wrockwardine to 
the custody of the Bishop of St. Asaph during the nonage of Rob- 
ert le Strange's heir : the King reserving his fee-farm rent of £S.^ 

The Wombridge Chartulary preserves one Deed by Robert le 
Strange. It probably passed during his short seizin of 1275-6. — 

As " Robert le Strange Lord of Wrokwardyn," he gives to Henry 
son of Hamund de Wodehus,^ for £2. 68. Sd. paid down, and a rent 
of 2s., all that land which Isota relict of Payn Carpenter held near 
Watlyngstrete. Witnesses, John de Apley, Peter de Eyton, and 
Sir Hugh Bumell. 

The heir of Robert le Strange was his eldest son, viz. — 



>•»•» Oriffinalia, VoL I. pp. 19, 20, 
22,23. 

** Clavt. 3 Edw. I., m. 16 darto. 



* Claus. 4 Edw. I., m. 4. 

* Originaliaf I. p. 27. 

7 Vide supra. Vol. II. p. 319. 



IX. 4 



26 WROCKWARDINE. 

John le Strange^ usually styled Lord of Whitchurch. The 
Feodary of 1284 gives the said John as holding Wrocwarthin and 
its members in^capite, by a rent of ^8. A nearly cotemporary 
Tenure-BoU repeats this statement^ and gives the members of 
Wrockwardine as Admaston^ Aldescote (Allscot)^ Leyton (Leaton), 
Burcote^ Nesse^ Clotley^ and Walcott. This statement is inaccu- 
rate as regards Walcott^ which was a member both of the Manor 
and Parish of Wellington. " With these exceptions/' says the Re- 
cord^ '^ John le Strange holds the whole Manor in demesne^ main- 
taining there his free-Court y with its pleas of bloodshed, and hue 
and cry, and gallows; — all which franchises he uses/* 

On June 18, 1289, the King's writ of Diem clausit announced 
the death of John, son of Robert le Strange.^ His heir was found 
to be his next brother, viz., — 

FuLK LE Strange, who, according to one Inquest, was 21, ac- 
cording to another, 22 years of age at the time of his brother's 
death. 

Of this Fulk I have said much already as Lord of Sutton Mad- 
dock, Corfham, and Longnor.^ At the Assizes of 1292, the Brad- 
ford Jurors presented him as of full age and yet not a Knight, also 
as claiming Free-Warren, Free- Court, gallows, and the Assize of 
bread and beer in Wrocwrthyn. They also remembered Hamo le 
Strangers tenure of the Manor by a Fee-farm rent of £8, and stated 
its full value to be £18. Fulco le Strange was, as a matter of 
course, prosecuted under a Writ of Quo WaranJto for the exercise of 
his Franchises in Wrockwardine. He claimed them all, as appur- 
tenant to the Manor, and as having been exercised by Henry III. 
and his predecessors. He recited how Henry III. had granted the 
Manor with all its franchises and free customs to his Ancestor^ 
John le Strange, and his heirs. He stated himself to be heir of 
the said John le Strange. The Crown Lawyer might have shown 
the falsity of this last assertion, but he adopted the routine argu- 
ment, viz. that Iitfangethef snA two free-Courts were not expressly 
conveyed in Henry III.'s Charter, and that TVat/fsxid Warren were 
distinct things of themselves, and no appurtenances of any Manor, 
and not separable from the Crown without special grant.^ The 
cause was adjourned, and I lose the result ; but I think that the 
decision, as to Free- Warren at least, must have been in favour of the 
Crown. 



* InquisiHofu, 17 Edw. I., No. 17. 
3 Supra, Vol. II. pp. 121-2 ; Vol. V. 



p. 163 ; Vol. VI. p. 64 
' Quo Waranto, pp. 684, 687. 



THE CHURCH. 27 

In the Nomina ViUarum of 1316, Fulco Extraneus is duly en- 
tered aa Lord of Wrockwardine. The Writ of Diem clausit on his 
death is dated January 23^ 1324. An Inquest held at Shrewsbury 
on July 12, found him to have held Wrocworthin in-capUe, for one- 
twentieth of a knight's-fee, and by payment of £S rent through the 
Sheriff. John his son and heir was found to have attained the age 
of 18 years on January 25, 1324.^ I may here add that in 1333 
this John le Strange obtained a Charter of Free- Warren in bis 
demesnes at Wrockwardine. 

The Wombridge Chartulary supplies two Deeds illustrative of 
Fulk le Strange's cq^nection with Wrockwardine, — 

Between the years 1289 and 1296, as Lord thereof, he enfeoffs 
Henry son of Hamund de Wodhouse in a parcel of land in his 
wood of Busshemore, for 40^. paid, and 28. rent. Witnesses, Master 
John de Gherleton, Hector of the Church of Wrocwardyn, John de 
Appley, William de Erleton, John fitz Ralph of Wrocwardyn, and 
John de Leyton. 

On January 25, 1305, he enfeoffis the same Henry and his wife 
Amice, for 60a. paid and 28. rent, in a parcel of land in his Wood 
of Wrocwardyn, extending from the Wood of Lyleshul to the 
watercourse of Busshemere. He further concedes 2 acres in the 
Wood of Wrockwardyn, between Hauckehurstbrok and the Hun- 
deshoc, at a further rent of 2^., and reserving suit to his two great 
Courts, half-yearly. Witnesses, Master John de Chorleton, Peter 
de Eyton, Pagan de Preston, ***•»«•* Je Erleton, Richard de 
Mokeleston, &c. It is evident that Wrockwardine-Wood was the 
locality of both these grants. 

WEO0K^VARDINE CHURCH. 

This was a Saxon Foundation, and the Mother-Church of a dis- 
trict. Earl Roger in his Charter to Shrewsbury Abbey grants 
thereto the Church of Worgordina, and confirms one hide in Chor- 
leton which Oilerius the Priest had given to the Abbey. These 
gifts I take to be the Church and Hide mentioned in Domesday as 
hdd by St. Peter, that is by Shrewsbury Abbey. The Confirmation 
of William Rufus to that House includes the Church of Werecordin. 
The Confirmations of Henry I., Stephen, and Henry II., include 
both the Church and the Hide of land. 

Earl Hugh's suspected Charter to Shrewsbury Abbey conveys 
the tithes of his demesne of Worocordin ; but his less suspected 

* Inquintions, 17 Edw. II., No. 78. 



28 



WROCKWARDIHE. 



Charter is more credible in this very particular^ viz. that it gives 
but two-thirds of the said tithes. 

Roger (de Clinton)^ Bishop of Cioventry, inspected and confirmed 
some Charter of Earl Hugh^ conveying two-thirds of the tithes of 
his demesnes of Wrockwardine to Shrewsbury Abbey.^ The same 
Roger^ calling himself Bishop of Chester^ confirmed the Abbey in 
its possession of the Church of Wrockwardine/^ with its Chapels/' 
and an annual pension of 20s. receivable therefirool.' 

Bishop Walter Durdent similarly confirmed ''the Church of 
Worocwordin with the tithe of the vill^ and with the chapels per- 
taining thereto/' Bishop Richard Peche similarly confirmed two- 
thirds of the demesne tithes of Wrockwardine, and a pension of 209. 
from the Church. Other Confirmations, Archiepiscopal and Dio- 
cesan, are in consonance with the above. 

The Taxation of 1291 values the Church of Wrocworthin, in the 
Deanery of Salop, at £10 per annum ; but says nothing about a 
Pension.' 

In 1341 the Assessors of the Ninth quoted the above Taxation, 
but reduced the current tax to 10 merks. The reasons were, — be- 
cause the Rector of Wrocwarthin had a carucate of land, and rents 
in the Parish, which were not assessable to the Ninth (though they 
served to swell the Taxation). Also there were few sheep in the 
Parish because of an insufficiency of sheep-pasture.^ 

Meanwhile, a Patent of Edward III., dated July 26, 1329, had 
given license for the Abbot of Shrewsbury to appropriate this 
Church.^ I find no Record as to how this was done, either in the 
Lichfield Registers or the Salop Chartulary ; but the first Vicar of 
Wrockwardine was instituted in 1M41. 

A Rent- Roll of Salop Abbey (about 1490) values the Rectorial 
tithes of Wrokewardyn at £17. 6s. Sd. The Valor of 1534-5 re- 
duces this to £14;^ and values the Vicarage of Wrockwardyn, 
then held by William Butler, at £8 per annum, less 7s. 6d. for 
procurations and 49. for synodals.^ The Abbot of Shrewsbury, it 
appears, paid out of his Rectorial receipts an annuity of dSs. 4d. 
to Thomas Freer, Dean of the Church of Rocordyn.^ This was by 
ordinance of the Bishop who first allowed the appropriation, llie 
Annuitant, alluded to, was probably the Rural Dean of the Deanery 
of Salop. 



1 Salop Chartulary, No. 825. 
* Harl. MS. 3868, fo. 7, b. 
' Pop* Ifick, TaxaUon, p. 247. 



^ Iitquit, Nomtrwrn^ p. 182. 

* Jlot. Patent. 3 Sdw. III., m. 6. 

• • 7 • • Valor Eccle». III. 189, 184, 191 



THE CHURCH. 29 



BABLY mCUMBBNTS. 



OiLBRixrs^ the Priest, who gave a hide in Gherlton to Shrewsbury 
Abbey, was, I take it, Hector of Wrockwardine. We may further 
identify him with '^ Odelirius of Orleans, son of Constantius ; — one 
of the three wise Clerks, whose society was much affected by Earl 
Roger, and by whose counsels he was advantageously guided/' 
Odelirius was also Incumbent of that Wooden Chapel in the East- 
Formate of Shrewsbury, which made way, by his cession, for the 
magnificent Abbey of St. Peter; a foimdation to which Odelirius 
contributed not a little. He gave thereto not only his estate at 
Cherlton and his living at Shrewsbury ; but he lent all the efScacy 
of his oratory to persuade the Earl to the undertaking ; he paid 
£15 sterling when the buildings were commenced; and he cove- 
nanted to consign half his fortune with his son Benedict, when the 
latter should become a Monk of the House.^ He had two other 
sons, viz. Ebrard, for whom he purposed the other half of his for- 
tune, and Ordericus, the Historian. — So much for the clerical celi- 
bacy of the period. 

Odelirius, after his Patron's death (an event which according to 
this passage of Ordericus must have taken place as early as July 27, 
1092),^ became himself a Monk of Shrewsbury. In this capacity 
he lived seven years, and, if his Son's account be verball;^ correct, 
died on Friday, June 3, 1099. 

Master John de Cherleton is a very frequent witness of 
local Deeds, the earliest of which I should date about 1260. Be- 
fore 1296 he styles himself Rector of the Church of Wrockwardine, 
and occurs as such in February 1809 and in May 1320. He had a 
daughter, as we have seen, espoused about 1275 to Richard le Bere 
of Muxton.* 

John was the name of the Rector of Wrockwardine on June 8, 
1332, when the Bishop makes him Penitentiary for the Archdea- 
conry of Salop. He is said to have been still here in 16 Edward 
III., 1342-3,^ but this hardly seems consistent with what follows. 

Adam de Hethete, Deacon, first Vicar of Wrockwardine, was 
instituted May 21, 1341,^ at the presentation of the Abbot and 
Convent of Salop. On Sept. 22, 1349, he exchanged preferment 
with — 

* The coyenant was fulfilled apparently I relaotantly differ firom the note of the 
by a gift of £200 sterling ; — an enonnous learned Editor. 

sum at that period. ' Supra, YoL YIH. p. 232. 

* Orderious, Tom. II. p. 422 (Augustus * Blakeway's MSS. 

le Prerost, 1840). In this matter of date * JRegiit. Northhurg^ io. 217, b. 



30 WROCKWAEDINE. 

Geoffrey Berford, late Chaplain of Esnebrugge (Isombridge).^ 
The same Patrons presented. On Dec. 18, 1859 — 

Sir Richard de Morton was instituted, the same Patrons 
presenting. He occurs in December 1873/ and was still here in 
11 Rich. II. (1887-8). 

Sir Thomas Qrilleshuui resigned this Vicarage and went to 
Wellington in 1^8, when, on August 9, — 

Sir John Watrts, Chaplain, was instituted here on the usual 
presentation. He occurs as John de Water and John atte Water 
in 8 Henry IV. (1406-7) and 2 Henry V. (1414-15). He died in 
1422. 

CHABLTON. 

I suppose that the following places nearly corresponded with the 
seven-and-a-half Berewicks which are assigned in Domesday to 
Wrockwardine. — Charlton, Admaston, Allscot, Burcot, Leaton, 
Clotley, aud a place called Nesse, were at a later period members 
of Wrockwardine. 

As to Charlton, the hide there, which Oilerius gave to Shrews- 
bury Abbey, must not be taken for the whole township. The 
Shrewsbury Churches of St. Mary and St. Julian had at a later 
period a distinct estate at Charlton; and I think it very probable 
that it was bestowed on those Churches by the same Oilerius, within 
thirteen years after Domesday, I will first speak distinctively of 
the two estates into which Charlton was thus divided, and after- 
wards say something on the early history of that great family which 
drew its name and origin from this locality. 

Shrewsbury Abbey Fee. Between the years 1175 and 1190 
Radulf de CherP (Cherlton I presume) attests an agreement be- 
tween Ralph Abbot of Shrewsbury and Walter de Dunstanvill. 
Between the years 1227 and 1241, Richard, son of Philip de Cherl- 
ton, attests an Uppington Deed, and in 1246 Walter de Cherlton 
sat on an Uppington Jury. These two persons, I think, occur again 
in the following transactions. In November 1248 Richard de 
Cherlton sued Walter le Peleter of Cherlton, under writ of mart 
d'ancestre for two-thirds of a half-vii^ate in Cherlton. Walter sur- 
rendered the premises. Soon afterwards Richard de Cherlton dis- 
seized the same Walter of 6 acres in Cherlton, alleging that they 
were part {de corpore) of the said half-virgate. For this Walter 
prosecuted him at the Assizes of 1266, proving that his own Mother 

' Suppa, Vol. Vm. p. 264. » Supra, Vol. VI. p. 220. 



CHARLTON. 81 

had held the said 6 acres at the time of the Trial of 1248 and for 
long affcer^ till they came to himself by hereditary rights so that 
he held them peacefully for a whole year. The Jury fomid for 
Walter.! 

Abont the year 1274 Richard de Cherleton grants to Richard de 
Soggedon^ Clerk^ all his land of Cherleton^ with houses^ curtilages^ 
rents^ homages^ &c. for service of one rose-blossom payable yearly^ 
on the Nativity of St. John Baptist^ at the Grantor's House of 
Cherleton. Witnesses, Sir John de Erkelewe, Robert de Stanton, 
Philip de Pevinton, Henry de Rodinton.' 

It would seem that this deed was contemplative of a surrender to 
Shrewsbury Abbey ; for in a subsequent Deed Richard de Sugge- 
don. Clerk, grants the identical premises to the Abbey, with the 
addition of certain land near his garden " which he had of William 
Skinner's land.''» The witnesses of this Deed are not given ; and 
perhaps it was inoperative. 

Abont the year 1280, Richard de Soggedon for the souls'-health 
of himself and Alia his wife gave, for the sustenance of two wax 
candles before the Altar of the Vii^in, in Hagmon Abbey, a mes- 
suage and 4^ acres in Cherleton. Witnesses, Master John de 
Cherleton, Ralph de Cherleton, Richard de Bury, John de Appele, 
Henry de Rodinton.* 

We have seen one Robert de Cherlton attesting Uppington Deeds 
firom about 1220 to 1265. He further appears on Juries of 1248, 
1246, 1249, 1258, 1259, 1260, and 1262.* It is doubtful whether 
he was not the same person with one who in several instances is 
called '' Robert son of William de Cherlton.''^ He left as it seems 
two sons. — 

About the year 1280 Richard son of Robert de Cherleton gives 
to Robert his brother, certain rents in Aston (under Wrekin) which 
were clearly held of Shrewsbury Abbey. He also gives him a cer- 
tain meadow (called Radulph's meadow) in the field of Cherleton, 
towards UkitonJ This too I conceive to have been held of Shrews- 
bury Abbey, bnt I infer that the Grantor was a different person 
firom the Richard de Cherlton of 1248-1274, whose Deed above- 
qnoted, must have divested him of all interest in Charlton. 



> ilmcM,40Hen.ni.,m.7. 

* ' * Salop Chftrtnluy, Noe. 120, 127. 

< Hangfamond Chartulary, fo. 43. The 
Deed mentions Master John de Cherleton, 
Bichard Withinde, and Bichard de Bury, 
as a^yoining Landholders, and Walcoie, 



Hokywton^ MoneiUnoe^ Le Lee,and Colds- 
walkul, as near localities. 

* Supra, Vol. YII. pp. 187-190,^a«ftm. 

« Ibidem, p. 168 &i#. 

7 WombridgeChartulaiy, Tit, Upinton, 
No. clL 



32 WROCKWARDINB. 

In 1294 Alicia de Charleton, daughter of Bichard son of Robert 
(de Charlton) demises for four years to Gilian^ daughter of Richard 
le Knave and to Margery, Alicia's own sister, a parcel of land near 
the said Gilian^s house. Witnesses, Robert de Charleton, John de 
Pirhull, Robert de Forton, Adam Bemehoud, Robert Yve.^ 

Robert de Cherlton, whom I take to have been son of Robert, 
and Grandson of William, and Grantee of his brother Richard, 
as above stated, occurs on Juries of 1283, 1285, and 1293, and as 
a witness of Deeds about 7 years later. 

This Robert was probably the father of John de Cherlton of 
Powis, of Alan de Cherlton of Apley, and of Thomas de Cherlton, 
Bishop of Hereford. Certain at least it is that John de Cherlton 
succeeded to the tenancy under Shrewsbury Abbey and built Charl- 
ton Castle thereon. 

In what I shall now say of this illustrious personage I shall be 
specially careful to trace his history as a Tenant of Shrewsbury 
Abbey. One document of the year 1806 names him, while as yet 
he was not a knight, and before his tatare Patron, King Edward II., 
had ascended the throne. 

^'William Fraunceys of Cherleton concedes to Richard Beme- 
houd of Cherleton an acre in the fields towards Walcote, upon Sun- 
domehuU, to hold from Michaelmas 1306, till six crops should have 
been taken therefrom.^' The premises were boupded by lands of 
John de Cherleton and Michael de Laueley. " The Ghrantor also 
concedes another acre V)ward8 La Lee, for three crops, at a rent of 
one Rose. Witnesses, Adam Bemehoud, Alan le Pokere, John de 
Pyrhull, Robert fitz Roger, and Adam Pyrum.^'^ 

The next deed, dated at Cherleton on Wednesday, Sept. 18, 1308, 
marks well the growing importance of John de Cherleton. — 

'^ William Fraunceis of Cherleton gives to Roger le Monck of 
Salop and Juliana his wife, for a sum of money, one messuage, to- 
gether with all his land of Cherleton, to hold of the Lords of the 
Fee.'' The messuage is described as lying between the land of Sir 
John de Cherleton, Knight, and the tenement which belonged to the 
Church of St. Mary, Salop. The Deed was attested by John de la 
Leye, Adam Bemehoud, Richard Bemehoud, Alan le Pokere, Tho- 
mas le Fox, William de la Baillie of Salop, John de Rodinton, and 
Thomas de Wythinton.^ Parallel with this local evidence of John de 
Cherlton's advancement we have the evidence of national Records. — 

I have noticed in a former Volume how Edward II., not yet 

^ Newport Evidences. ^ • > Deeds in possession of Mr. George Monia. 



CHARLTON. 33 

three months on the throne^ speaks of one John de Cherlton as di^ 
lectus valetius nosier and gives him a Charter of Free Warren in all 
his demesne lands at Cherlton and Pontesbory, in the County of 
Salop.i This was on September 18, 1307. On June 25, 1309, 
Griffin ap Owen, Prince of Powis, was deceased, without issue ; and 
on Aug. 26, John de Cherlton, having by license and gift of the 
King, married Hawyse, sister and heir of the said Griffin, had livery 
of the Barony of Pole, saving the dower of Ela, widow of the do- 
ceased Griffin.^ In February 1309, that is before his greater eleva- 
tion, we find John de Cherlton, though resident at Dublin, pur- 
chasing land at Haughton near Shiffiial. In August of the same 
year his estate at Haughton is increased or secured by a second 
Deed; and on September 15 following, being at Shrewsbury, he 
entails his Haughton purchase on his brother Alan and his bodily 
heirs, with remainder to himself and his heirs.' On November 17, 
1316, John de Cherlton is empowered by Patent to crenellate, or 
embattle, and to surround with a stone wall, his mansion at Cherl- 
ton. On Sept. 14, 1325, another Patent enables him to fortify his 
house at Shrewsbury^ with battlements and a wall of stone. In 
1337^ being appointed Justice of Ireland, he landed there on Tues- 
day, October 14, accompanied by his brother Thomas. The latter 
having been previously a Canon of York, Archdeacon of Wells and 
Northumberland, and King's Treasurer, had been consecrated 
Bishop of Hereford on Oct. 18, 1327, and was now Chancellor of 
Ireland. He died on January 11, 1344, and was buried in Here- 
ford Cathedral. 

The Inquest on the death of John de Cherleton himself was or- 
dered by Writ of December 24, 1353, and was held at Welsh Pool 
on January 3, 1354. By a Fine, previously levied, the lands and 
tenements which he had held at Cherleton, under the Abbot of 
Shrewsbury by service of 6s, Sd, per annum, were his for life only ; 
that is, he had entailed them. They consisted of a carucate of poor 
land, and of a messuage which was worth nothing beyond its ex- 
penses.^ Such was the description of Charlton Castle, before it had 
stood forty years. 

John de Cherleton (II), son and heir of the above, was deceased 
on August 30, 1360. An Inquest, held at Welsh Pool, on Sept. 7 



» Supra, VoL Vn. p. 134. 

> Sot JVfwifffi, 3 Edw. II., m. 14. 

3 Supra, VoL tl, p. 324. 

* Charlton Hall, the hostel or towu- 



house of the Lords of Powis, was on the 
site now occupied bj Shrewshury Theatre. 
(See Blaheway'a Sheriff^, p. 48). 
» Inqvis. 27 Edw., III. No. 70. 



IX. 5 



34 



WBOCKWARDINE. 



following, found bim to have held certain lands and tenements at 
Cherleton under the Abbot of Shrewsbury, by a rent of 6*. 8rf. 
They had been settled by Fine on the heirs of his body. They 
consisted of a messuage, worth nothing beyond its cost ; — a garden, 
the fruits of which were worth 1*., and the summer herbage whereof 
was worth 6rf. per annum ; — of a carucate of poor land worth 20*., 
and of 2 acres of meadow worth 4*. per annum, John, son and 
heir of the deceased, was 26 years of age at Easter (April 5) 1360.* 

*' John de Cherleton de Powys,'' as the third John de Cherleton 
was styled, died on July 13, 1374.* — I shall here say no more of 
him than that he transmitted Charlton Castle to many generations 
of his heirs, and that John de Cherleton (IV.), his eldest son/ was 
born on April 25, 1362, and was consequently in minority at his 
father's death. 

I now follow to its conclusion the history of the Abbot of Shrews- 
bury's seigneury over the Barons of Powis, in respect of Charlton. — 

A Rent-Boll of Shrewsbury Abbey, about 1490, gives only two 
items of receipt from Charlton, amounting to 2*. It also gives 
13«. 4d. as received from one Dycher "for the ferme at Becarden,'' 
but I doubt what Abbatial estate was thus alluded to. 

The Vakr of 1534 declares the Abbot's receipts from Chorleton 
to be £2. 4«. ^d. However an Account of the Assets of the Dis- 
solved Abbey names only 19*. receipts, viz. 17*. from lands in 
Chorleton, and 2*. for the " free rent of the Lord Powis for lands 
in Chorleton." So then the Baron Grey de Powis was Tenant of 
the Abbot of Shrewsbury's land, just as his Ancestors the Barons 
Cherlton of Powis had been two centuries before, though the ser- 
vices were altered from 6*. 8«?. to 2*. 

St. Mary's and St. Julian's Fee. We have seen that William 
de Cherlton, alias William de la Curt, alias William de Buri, alias 
William de Uppington, who died in 1243, held one virgate in 
Cherlton of the Church of St. Mary, and at a rent of 1*.* I have 
traced both his Ancestors and Descendants under Uppington. It 
does not appear that the latter retained their estate in Charlton, 
but how they parted with it, I know not. I think however that it 
was far less than the whole of St. Mary's and St. Julian's Fee. 



1 Jfi^w. 34 Edw. III., No. 79. 

> Inquis. 48 Edw. III., No. 19. 

' The aocouDts which giro only three 
John de Cherletone in Bucoeesion are, bo 
far, inaccurate. The error conBiata in 



making hut one person of the second and 
third Barons. I haye not seen it cor- 
rected in any genealogical work as yet 
published. 
* Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 178. 



CHARLTON. 36 

Two cotemporariea of the name of Cherlton here deserve a brief 
notice, viz. — 

(1) Alan son of Yvo de Cherlton who occurs as a witness from 
about 1241 to about 1253, and as a Juror in 1243 and 1246. About 
the year 1245, Alan son of Yvo de Cherlton gives to Hamo de Alderis- 
cot (late Servant of Master John Bacon), for his homage and ser- 
vice and for 18s. paid, 4 acres of his land in that field of Cherlton 
towards Uppington, which is called Uauckershull, of which the first 
acre lies between Uppington Chapel and Charlton, and the fourth 
lies near to Watling street, to the North thereof and extends to- 
wards Uckington. Rent one penny. Witnesses, Sir Hugh fitz Ro- 
bertj Knight, William de Erkalewe, knight, Robert de Cherleton.^ 

(2) John Clerk, or John Clerk of Cherlton, attests Deeds in and 
shortly before the year 1241, and in 1248 is called John de Cherl- 
ton.^ It is this person, I presume, who occurs on the Assize- Roll 
of 1272 as John son of Adam de Cherlton and as Replevyer on be- 
half of one Stephen de Rushton. This would make him of the 
Uppington branch. One of the above two persons, as 1 should sup- 
pose, was father of that Master John de Cherlton, whom I have put 
down in my list of Rectors of Wrockwardine as living from 1260 to 
1320. I have something now to add about Master John de Cherl- 
ton in his lay capacity. 

In Michaehnas Term 1266 and Hilary Term 1267, Matilda, 
widow of Madoc de Milnehethe was suing John de Cherlton for 
half a vii^te in Cherlton, which she claimed as her right. The re- 
sult does not appear. 

At the Assizes of 1272, Petronilla, widow of Robert de Day, neg- 
lected to prosecute a suit de ingressu against John the Clerk (John 
de Cherlton, I presume), and Robert de Horsleg, concerning a tene- 
ment in Cherlton. Her Surety was Thomas le Hore of Aston. 

The Feodary of 1284, says that Master John de Cherlton holds 
the vill of Cherleton under the Churches of St. Mary and St. Julian 
at Shrewsbury, Chapels of the King, and pays 16*. per annum in 
lieu of all services. The nearly cotemporary Tenure-Roll of Brad- 
ford Hundred^ repeats the statement, almost verbatim. 

In 1309, we have Master John de Cherlton acting as Attorney 
for Sir John de Cherlton (of Powys), in respect of a purchase at 
Haughton.^ 

In November 1316, Master John de Cherlton appears with 

Wombridgc Chart., Upinton, No. x. I 'In possession of tho Author. 
' Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 164, 169, 176. I * Supra, Vol. II. p. 324. 



36 



WROCKWARDINE. 



Master Thomas de Cherlton (afterward Bishop of Hereford) in King 
Edward II/s Court at York. Both were officially concerned in ex- 
pediting certain Patents of that date. Their joint appearance per- 
haps points to some affinity between the two families, beyond that 
of mere neighbourhood or acquaintance. 

On December 21, 1319, Master John de Cherleton stands first 
witness of a Deed whereby " Richard Bemehout of Cherleton gives 
to Henry de Adbaston (Admaston) a seilion of his land in that field 
of Cherleton which is called the Lefield,^ and which lies above Weht- 
hull,* and extends above the furrow (foruram) of John Bossell ; — to 
hold of the Lords of the Fee.^^ The other witnesses are Roger de 
Mokeleye, Wyoth, Alan le Poer, and Richard del Buri of Upping- 
ton. The Deed is dated at Cherleton.* 

Charlton Chapel. This probably was a private Chapel, some- 
time attached to Charlton Castle. On October 29, 1341, Sir John 
de Cherlton obtained an Episcopal license, empowering him '^to cause 
divine services to be celebrated in the Chapel of his Manor of Cherl- 
ton, firom December 23, 1341, for one year following."* 

AliliSOOT. 

Henry II. granted AUscot Mill to Haughmond Abbey in a Deed 
which probably passed late in the year 1176. — Henrictis Dei gratia 
Rex Anglia, Dux NormannuB et Aquitanie, Comes Andegavue, 
Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, ^-c. salutem. Sciatis me concessisse et 
confirmasse AbbatuB de Haghmon, pro salute med et succeissorumy 
molendinum de Worocheumrthin, quod est apud Aldedriscotam, cum 
multurd et omnibus pertineniiis, sicut illud habebam in dominio meo. 
Quare volo, ^c. sicut illud eis concessi et dedi et sicut Jubc carta mea 
testatur, Testibus, Ricardo de Luci ; Wellielmo filio Adelini dapi- 
fero; Hugone de Lad; Roberto Marmion; Willielmo Malveisin; 
Sechero de Quinci ; Waltero de DunstanvUle ; Gerardo de Camvill ; 
Willielmo filio Radulfi; Widone Extraneo. Apud Salopesbir^.^ 

It is singular that the Pipe-Rolls take no cotemporary notice of 
the diminished value which the severance of Allscot Mill must have 
caused to the Manor of Wrockwardine. The deduction was never 
made till the fifth year of Richard I. (1193), when the following 
item appears as a set-oflf to the Sherifi'^s liabilities. — Et Canonids 
de Hageman 40 sol. in molendino de Wrochwurdin, 



* * ' The localities ore still marked by 
the Lea-Uocky and by Wheathill. 
' Woinbr. Chart. Vpinton, No. ccxii. 



* Seffist. Northburghy fo. 10, b. 

• Cartm Antiq. P. 11. Compare supra, 



Vol. VII. pp. 292-3. 



ALLSCOT. 87 

This abatement was allowed at the Exchequer without comment^ 
then or afterwards. So Wrockwardine remained as a Manor of <£12 
reputed fiscal value, instead of £14 as before. It will be observed 
that below AUscot-Mill the Manor of Isombridge abuts on the 
Western bank of the River Tern. The Haghmon Canons had, pre- 
vious to obtaining AUscot Mill, got the Fishery of Isombridge from 
William fitz Ulger.^ Hugh fitz Robert (William fitz Ulger's grand- 
son) quitclaimed the gift of his said Grandfather, calling it the 
" Fishery of Retheresford." 

The said Hugh, for a sum of 8 merks, further empowered the 
Canons of Haghmon to make good all breaches or fractures then 
or afterwards existing, in his land along his bank of Time, as 
the said bank extended from the " old fishery of Retheresforde to 
Aldredescote Mill.'^» 

About the year 1235, the Abbot of Haghmon gives to the Church 
of Wrockwardine 4 acres pertaining to AUscot-Mill held by Radulf 
the Provost. The Rector of Wrockwardine in return empowers 
the Abbot to take turves and soil frt>m Gretholers Moor, to repair 
the stank of Allscot-Mill.'^* 

The Taxation of 1291, values the Abbot of Haghmon^s Mill of 
Alderescote at 4«. per annum. In subsequent Valuations, this item 
is probably included in the Abbot's receipts from Walcot. 

It would seem that Master John Bacon was at one timeaFeofiee 
in AUscot. A Wombridge Charter, already set forth, speaks of one 
Hamo as being then a " Client of Master John Bacon at Aldres- 
cote.^'^ This was about 1238. The same Hamo is in other Deeds, 
earlier than, or passing in, 1241, caUed merely Serviens or Cliens 
of Master John Bacon. I know nothing more of John Bacon 
than what belongs to a period long antecedent. In July 1221, being 
called " Clerk of the Lord Legate '^ (some Papal Legate, I pre- 
sume), he was Custos of the lands of Shrewsbury Abbey during a 
vacancy.^ 

His servant or CUent at AUscot was perhaps a sort of Steward. 
He was a frequent Grantee of lands in Uppington, but such grants 
as seem to be later than 1241, speak of him either as " formerly 
servant of John Bacon,^' or else as Hamo de Aldrescote. In 1249, 
as '' Hamo de Aldreschot,'' he officiated on a local Jury. About the 
year 1262, as Hamund de Alderescote he conveyed aU his acquisi- 
tions in Uppington to Wombridge Priory, viz. three nokes, which he 



• Supra, Vol. VIU. pp. 266-6. 

' ' ' Haugbmond Chartulary, fo. 5, b. 



* Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 160. 

* Rot. Claus. 5 Hen. III., m. 6. 



38 WEOCKWARDINE. 

had purchased from "William Dod of Alvythdeg; 8i acres pur- 
chased from Alianore Mussun ; 3^ acres from Reginald Corbrond^ 
one acre from Richard de Bruges, one acre from William Sybem, 
8cc. Witnesses, Sir Walter de Dunstanvill, Madoc de Sutton, 
John de Ercalew.^ 

ADMASTON. 

I cannot limit the antiquity of date at which the Burnells may 
have had a feoffment in Admaston. Whether William fitz Alan's 
recognition of Wombridge Priory be as early as 1138 or as late as 
1160, it is attested by William Burnel,^ whose connection with the 
matter I cannot account for, unless he had some local interest. Any 
feoffment in Wrockwardine previous to 1155, would not appear on 
the Pipe-Rolls. Again, I cannot account for a later William Bumel 
being assessed in l;i09, under " Regard of the Forest of Mount Gil- 
bert,''^ unless he had land at Admaston. 

We see Sir Hugh Bumel attesting a Deed of Robert le Strange's 
at least as early as 1275*6.^ 

In the Bradford Tenure-Roll (about 1285) Hugh Burnell is said 
to hold certain rents (the amount left blank) in Admaston, a mem- 
ber of Wrockwardine. Sir Hugh Burnell, brother of the Chan- 
cellor, and father of the Chancellor's heir, Philip, died in 1286, and 
the Escheator-citra-Trent was duly ordered to seize his lands.^ I 
do not find any Inquest taken on his death. At the Assizes of 
1292, the Bradford Jurors presented Sibil Bumel (his widow) for 
non-attendance.^ They also presented how Sibil Bumel held 100«. 
rent in Ademonston, which was a member of the once Royal Manor 
of Wrocwardyn. To this Sibil appeared, and stated that she held 
nothing, save by will of Philip Bumel (her son), whose free tene- 
ment was thus in question. Philip (thus called to warranty) further 
called Nicholas de Gamages of Gloucestershire. He was to produce 
the said Nicholas at Lichfield in January 1293; but the Sheriff of 
Gloucestershire neglected his duty, and the cause was again ad- 
journed.'^ I neither know the result nor can I divine what Nicholas 
de Gamages can have had to do with the matter, except perhaps as a 
Trustee. 



1 Wombridge Ghartulaiy, TU. Uppin- 
ton, No. Izxvi. 

« • » Supra, VoL VH. p. 863 ; Vol. VI. 
p. 123. 



* OrigifuiUa^ VoL I. p. 51. 

• • 7 Plao. CoroM, 20 Edw. I., m. 14 
dorso; Quo Waranto^ pp. 676, 720. In 
the last entry, Ademoneston is most erro- 



^ Supra, page 25. I neously stated to be in Herefordshire. 



CLUDDLET. 



39 



I can say nothing fhrther of the Bumel interest in Admaston.^ 

CLOTLEY, NOW CLUDDLET. 

The first tenant of this member of Wrockwardine was perhaps 
Walter de Clotley, who has been seen to attest a Tibberton Deed 
between 1175 and 1180. 

At the Assizes of 1203^ Richard fitz Ralph and Alan de Clotley 
accorded a previous dispute. Alan was to take down a fence which 
he had erected to the injury of Richard fitz Ralph's tenement in 
Clotley. He was also to become Richard's tenant {homo) in respect 
of half a yirgate of land and to pay him 10^. For leave to make 
this agreement Alan fined half a merk^ his Surety being Walter de 
Witefeld.^ Prom this we may venture to put down Richard fitz 
Ralph as second known Lord of Clotley. 

Of Henry de Clotley, occurring about 1237, of his probable iden- 
tity with Henry de Burton, and of his daughter Felicia I have 
spoken under Uppington.^ His tenure in Clotley was not, I think^ 
the principal one, for cotemporary with him was one Robert de 
Clotley. 

This Robert attests a Charter of Johnle Strange about 1235, and 
occurs as a Juror or a witness from thence till about 1250, but spe- 
cifically in 1243 and 1249. After Robert, one Ralph de Clotley oc- 
curs, viz. on Juries of 1256 and 1260. John de Clotley was Juror 
on a Rodington Inquest in January 1274. 

The Tenure-Roll of 1285 brings up another Ralph de Clotley, 
fully stated to be holding Clotley, a member of Wrockwardine, under 
John le Strange. Ralph was Hving in 1300. 

The tenement which the Erletons held in Clotley has been no- 
ticed elsewhere.* It was under the Church of Wroxeter, not under 
the Lords of Wrockwardine. On this exceptional matter I have no 
further evidence. Nor yet can I tell how Shrewsbury Abbey ob- 
tained any footing in Clotley ; but in the Rent-Roil of 1490, a rent 
of 6d. was receivable by the Abbey firom Mayster Clock (Mr. Chidde) 
for something in Clotleyn.^ 

the original Inquest speakB only of suit 
due to Shrawardine for Sugdon. 

' ^«Mze»,5John,m. 5. 

» Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 173. 

* Supra, Vol. VIII. pp. 277, 278. 

> Hut, Shrewsbwy, II. 506. 



1 The InquitUion of 22 Edw. I. on 
Philip Bumel's death (according to the 
OalendoTy Vc^ I. p. 120) contained this 
item. — Wrockwardine Cw^ Beef. It is 
yery possible that the deceased had owed 
suit to Wrockwardine for Admaston ; but 



40 



(S^idltnjston* 



While Earl Roger seized upon Wrockwardine as a demesne-manor 
of the Saxon Kings, he also appropriated Wellington and High Er- 
call as demesne-manors of the Saxon Earls. Domesday says — " The 
Earl himself holds Walitone. Earl Eduin held it with five Berewicks. 
Here are xiiii hides, geldable. In demesne are vi ox-teams ; and 
XII Neat-herds, xii Villains, and viii Boors, with a Priest, have ix 
Teams ; and there might be other ix Teams. Here is a Mill of 12s. 
(annual value) and two Fisheries of Ss. In King Edward^s time 
the Manor was worth £20 {per annum). Now it is worth £18.^'^ 

The earliest severance of any member of Wellington was that of 
Dawley, presumed to have been one of its Saxon Berewicks, but 
given by Earl Roger himself to William Pantulf. This took place 
before Domesday, and is certified in that Record, as we have already 
seen, when treating of Dawley as a distinct Manor.^ 

The next alienation was that of three carucates of land at Walcot 
and of Walcot Mill to Haughmond Abbey. This was in or before 
1141, the Rival Donors being the Empress Maud and King Stephen. 

The next, or rather a cotemporary, alienation, was also by the 
Empress, who about 1141 gave Aston, a member of Wellington, to 
Shrewsbury Abbey. Henry II., while yet only a claimant of the 
Crown, gave 7 librates of land in "his Manor of Wellington " to 
Hamo le Strange, but, as we shall see under Cheswardine, the 
grant was commuted at the Restoration. 

Hence Wellington came to the hands of Henry II. as a Manor 
of Royal Demesne whose gross fiscal value was £13. lis. 44. per 
annum, but whose net value was £6. lis. 4d. in consequence of his 
instant recognition of the Abbot of Haughmond's claim to Walcot 
(valued at £3. lis. 4J.), and of the Abbot of Shrewsbury's claim 
to Aston (valued at £8. Ss. 8d.) . 

In the year 1167, Henry II ., after eleven years' acquiescence, seems 
to have disallowed the alienation of Aston, but in 1 190 in consequence 
of a different view taken by Richard I., the Abbot of Shrewsbury re- 
gained the vill ; but its fiscal value was thenceforth put at £3 only. 
The relative changes in the value of the Manor of WeUington will 

1 Domesday, fo. 258, b, 2. > Supra, Vol YII. p. 287. 



WELLINGTON. 41 

be apparent without further remark. It remained a Manor of £7 
net annual value. Meanwhile^ for the quarter ending Michaelmas 
1177, the Sheriff was ordered by Writ Royal to assign lands^ less* 
ening by a sum of £4 the revenues of Wellington and Edgmond^ to 
Simon fitz Simon^ who was Gustos of Stretton Castle. The fiill 
allowance of £16 per annum was made out to the same person firom 
1178 to 1189 inclusive. Then his tenure ceased. 

During the twelve years in which he was thus interested in Wel- 
lington^ Symon fitz Symon appears to have had the power of grant- 
ing sub-feoffments. One such is preserved in the Shrewsbury 
Chartnlary. He gives to Thomas fitz Geofirey and his heirs^ for 
their service and for a rent of 6«.^ a virgate in the vill of Beitune 
sub Wreken} Witnesses, Robert, Monk ; John fitz Symon ; Walter 
de Meintone; Walter de AppeP; Walter fitz Hugh; William 
Wyard ; Hemming de Dotrel (probably Dothill) ; Heyluiet de 
Eston; William de Herdulveston (Arleston) ; John de AppeF; 
Richard, Priest ; Philip de Welintone ; and Master Ralph de Mai- 
ling, "who wrote this Charter.*'* 

On the Forest-Roll of 1180, Simon fitz Simon stands assessed at 
13«. for imblademenis, viz. 10 acres of wheat and 6 acres of oats (in 
the Forest of Mount Gilbert probably). 

Simon fitz Simon, Castellan of Stretton, seems to have left 
Wellington and Edgmond somewhat impoverished in respect of 
manorial stock. In the years ending Michaelmas 1190 and 1191, 
and in the half-year ending Easter 1192, the Sheriff accounted for 
the ferm of those Manors in a way which shows that they realized 
50^. per annum less than they ought. This was firom the default of 
their stock, as left by Simon fitz Simon.* 

But about Easter 1192, 20 librates of land in Stretton, Edgmond, 
and Wellington were assigned to William fitz Simon and James his 
brother, by Writ Royal. They were, I suppose, sons of Simon fitz 
Simon. They received a reputed income of £40 in this way, for 
the King's order was suspended after Easter 1194. — 

Then Wian son of Jonas de Powis had the King's mandate for 7 
librates of land, in Wellington only. He thus received £3. 10^. in 
1194, £7 in each of the years 1196, 1196, and 1197, and £3. 10^. 
for the half-year ending Easter 1198. At Michaelmas 1198, the 
Sheriff again claims a deduction of 50«. for default of stock at 
Wellington and Edgmond. The accounts of 1198 are repeated in 

' This ffiU is now lost. It was probably ' Shrewsbury Ghartulary, Ko. 301, b. 



contiguoas to ABton-under-Wrekin. 



* Oompare Vol. III. (supra), pp. 67-69. 



iz. 6 



42 WELLINGTON. 

1199; but, in 1200, Wian fitz Jonas again received his fiill yearly 
income of £7 from Wellington, though 50«. were expended on de* 
fault of stock in Wellington and Edgmond. This continued till 
1209 inclusive; but in 1210 only eight months' proportion of such 
revenue (viz. £4. 13«. ^d.) is assigned to Wion fitz Jonas, whose 
interest therefore ceased in May 1210. 

Meantime, that is in 1204, I find Wianus Walensis (as he is 
called) assessed 6 merks to the fifth Scutage of King John. His 
liability doubtless arose from his ienure-in-capite at Wellington. 
Of him, as sometime Lord of Overton (Flintshire), I shall have to 
say more when I come to the history of the Borders. 

About Midsummer 1210 Thomas de Erdington appears to have 
obtained a fee-farm grant of Wellington from King John. About 
Midsummer 1211 the fee-farm grant was changed into a more 
absolute one, viz. to support the Grantee in the King's service. 
Hence at Michaelmas 1212 the Sheriff holds Thomas de Erdington 
responsible for that £7 which was the year's fiscal value of the 
Manor whilst the said Thomas held it in fee-farm (de ballivo Regis) ; 
but as to the £8. 15^., or fifteen months' revenue which had still 
to be accounted for, he writes off that sum as absolutely given to 
Erdington and no longer chargeable on himself. He certifies 
further that the whole fiscal value of WeDington {£7) was hence- 
forth to be similarly made over to Erdington, according to a gift 
and charter of the King. 

This is minutely consistent with a Roll of Shropshire Tenures 
which 1 have always quoted as having been returnable on June 25, 
1211. The entry now pertinent is — 

Thomas de Erdinton tenet manerium de Welinton de Ballivo do-- 
mini Regis Johannis et solet reddere ad scaccarium £7^ In other 
words, the entry was made just before that period when the Pipe- 
Rolls teach us that Erdington's responsibility to the Exchequer was 
waived by the King. 

Another point of comparative dates is not so satisfactory. King 
John's second Charter to Erdington is extant, but it bears date, not 
before Michaelmas 1212 (as the Pipe- Roll would lead us to expect), 
but on November 3, 1212. The inference is either that the Pipe- 
Rolls, though they contain monetary accounts down to Michaelmas, 
were sometimes made up at a later date, or else that King John 
expedited two Charters to Erdington, the latest of which only is 
enrolled. The Charter, such as we have it, gives Welinton to Er- 

1 Tetta de NevUl, p. 56. 



WELLINGTON. 43 

dinton and his heirs^ to hold in capite by service of a knight's fee; 
also Saghebiry (Shawbury), — to hold by a like service; with all 
franchises and free customs.^ 

After this we ordinarily find Wellington discharged from the 
Corpus Comitates, as seven libraies of land^ for which the Sheriff 
was no longer accountable ; but I think Egidius de Erdinton (son 
and heir of Thomas) is first written as the recipient in 1229. 

It is further observable that Wellington was assessed to no 
King's-tallage after 1199.* This may be partly explained by what 
has been said above ; but I cannpt explain why Erdinton and his 
successors^ as Tenants in capite of Wellington and Shawbury^ were 
never assessed to scutages proportionate to two knights'-fees.^ 

At the Assizes of 1221 a curious cause was heard. Elena^ 
daughter of Lewellyn, Prince of Wales, had obtained possession of 
Wellington, alleging a gift of the Manor by a certain Wyandus 
(Wian fitz Jonas is meant), to whom the King (Henry III.) and 
his Council had committed it. Now Giles de Erdinton, though a 
Minor, sued Elena for the Manor under Writ of m43rt d?ancestre, 
viz. as heir of his father, Thomas. Ostricius, Lewellyu's Clerk, 
defended Elena's title as above, and called the King's Council to 
warranty. To this Giles de Erdinton rejoined, that Wyandus had 
never had seizin of the Manor since Thomas de Erdinton's death 
(in 1218). The case was adjourned, till the Justiciars should confer 
with the Eang and his Council, in Hilary Term at Westminster.^ 

I have further notices of this Suit in Trinity Term 1222 when 
Peter de Eyton was the only Recognizor in attendance; — in 
Michaelmas Term 1224, when Elen ap Lewellyn and her husband 
(John de Stok) are associated as Defendants ; — in Hilary, Trinity, 
and Michaelmas Terms 1225, when the cause was again adjourned ; 
— and in Easter Term 1226, when it was sent back to the Country 
for the adjudication of Justices Itinerant, who were to determine 
it, whether Elena appeared or not, she having made repeated de- 
fftults. On this last occasion Thomas de Constantine and Peter de 
Eyton were the only Recognizors who appeared at Westminster. 
There can be no doubt that Giles de Erdinton obtained recognition 
of his rights before 1229, and probably on the true ground, viz. 
that Wian de Powis's seizin was an old affair, long since obliterated 
by the feoffinent of Thomas de Erdinton, who had undoubtedly died 
in possession of the Manor. 

1 Rot. Chartamm, p. 189. ' Tide supra, Vol. YIII. p. 241. 

' SupRH YoL yi. p. 11. * Auiie-BoU, 6 Hen. 111., m. 3 dorto. 



44 WBLLINGTON. 

In 1244 (as we have seen under Shawbory ^) Qiles de Erdinton 
obtained a Charter for a Fair and Market at Wellington. 

The Bradford Hundred-BoU of 1255 speaks as follows of Well- 
ington. — '^ Egidins de Herdinton holds Wellinton with its appurte- 
nances; — a firee Manor^ which King John gave to Thomas de 
Herdinton^ father of the said Egidins^ to hold as freely as the King 
held it^ and by the aforesaid service (alluding to the Knighf s-fee 
by which Shawbnry and Wellington had in the previous sentence 
been stated to be held). And the said Egidius is wont to have 
husbote and haybote de husseto (Query^ deforesfd?), by delivery of 
the Seneschal^ but the Jurors knew not by what warranty. And 
his (Egidius's) Seneschal comes twice a year, at the Sheriff's 
Toum, to the Hundred Court, and (there) demands (to hold) his 
own free Court. And the same Egidius has Market and Fair at 
Welinton by Royal Charter.'^* 

How Sir Hugh Bumel acquired Wellington from Giles de Er- 
dinton, I have never been able to discover. On June 1, 1283, the 
said Sir Hugh obtained a Charter, enabling him to hold a market 
here on Thursdays, and two annual Fairs on the vigil, day, and 
morrow of St. Barnabas (June 10, 11, and 12), and the vigil, day, 
and morrow of the Decollation of John Baptist (August 28, 29, 
and 80) .* It will be observed that this Charter was partly in re- 
newal, partly in augmentation, of that previously obtained by 
Erdinton. I infer that an Assignee or Purchaser, such as I take 
Bumel to have been, was not legally entitled to avail himself of 
privileges granted merely to Erdinton and his heirs. However, in 
some later cases of Quo Waranto, the Crown Lawyers did not suc- 
ceed in establishing such a distinction. 

On April 8 and May 12, 1284, an Inquest was ordered and held, 
as to Hugh Bumell's right to take oak-timber, and as to the right 
of his Tenants at Wellington and Ardelfeston (Arleston) to take 
estovers and common pasture, from and in the Hayeof Wellington.^ 
The Jurors found that Thomas de Erdinton, King John's Grantee, 
as well as his men, had enjoyed the privileges in question. Th^ 
added a piece of history not elsewhere, as I think, related, viz. that 
John gave Wellington to Erdinton in reward for the services ren- 
dered by the latter in the Court of Rome at the time of the Inter- 
dict. The Jurors further pointed out that Roger de Clifford, Jus- 
tice of the Forest, was the first who had abridged these franchises. 



» Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 142. 
2 Roe. Hwtdred, II. 56. 



» Rot, Chart. 11 Bdw. I., m. 4. 
^ InqmtitiotUt 12 Bdw. I., No. 88. 



, WSLLINGTON. 45 

yk. by a precept issued to John fitz Hugh (of Bolas)^ who^ acting 
thereon^ had restrained Hugh Bumd^ now Lord of Wellington^ from 
eiercising the said franchises. Finally the Jurors notified that^ at 
the time of King John^s gift^ there were only 14 hearths in Welling- 
ton and 24 hearths in Ardelfeston. 

So then in John's reign Arleston, the member^ was a more popu- 
lous place than Wellington, the caput. The increase in one of the 
two^ or both places^ but probably in Wellington^ within a century, 
is implied by the very nature of the Jurors' remark. 

It is singular that the Feodaries of 1284-5 take no notice of 
Wellington. On Hugh Bumell's death in 1286 Wellington and 
Eudon Bumell were assigned as the dower of his widow, Sibil. In 
the year 1805-6 I find both Manors in the Escheator's hands, be- 
cause Sibil Bumel was dead, and Edward, her grandson and heir, 
was in ward to the Crown. The year's revenue of the two Manors 
was jesO.i 

I suppose that PhiUp Burners Widow had in turn her dower in 
Wellington ; for Edward Bumel at his death in 1815 was seized of 
only two parts of the Manor. He further was in receipt of 25^. O^d, 
rent, from 12 free tenants^ and of 5ds. rent, from eight customary 
tenants in the vill of Ardeleston.^ 

In the Nomina ViUarum of March 1816, John de Hanlowe (as 
husband of Maud Bumd) is entered as Lord of Welinton,^ but an 
Escheator's BoU, which just preceded Hanlowe's livery, shows that 
only two parts of Welynton and Ardesleston had as yet fallen to 
Edward BumeFs heir.^ 

SoHB UxDERTENANTs of Wellington will appear in connection 
with the members of the Manor. Others were as follows. — 

Chilip de Wellington occurs before 1189 and after 1215; but 
possibly there were two cotemporaries, one a Clerk, the other a 
Layman. Philip de Wellington, if a single person, was a Clerk, 
and Hector of the Church ; but he had a son Thomas. In the year 
1200 Philip de Welinton fines one merk for license to make assart 
of some fore8t*land. By a Fine levied on November 19, 1286, 
Egidins de Erdinton, Plaintiff, in a suit of mort d'ancestre against 
Thomas fitz Philip, Tenant, of a virgate in Weliuton, concedes the 
same for a sum of lOOs. to be held in fee, by Thomas and his heirs, 
under Egidius and his heirs at a rent of 6s. The Feoffee here is 
doubtless identical with that Thomas de Welintun who has been 

1 SoL Forintec. 83-4, Kdw. I. I > ParUamentary Writs, IT. 397. 

3 Inquit, 9 Edw. II., No. 67. I * Transcript, in Kirby's Qu£9t, 



46 WELLINGTON. , 

seen to attest an Orleton Deed in 1248^ and who occurs on local 
Inquests in 1243, 1258, and 1260. 

In 1262 1 should suppose him to have been deceased, for, on' the 
Forest-Roll of that date, his name appears under the heading Essorda 
Mortis, the Essoignor being Roger fitz William. 

About the year 1230, Henry Prior of Wombridge grants to 
Richard son of Hugh de Loskesford (Losford) that virgate in the 
vill of Valeton which Seeburga mother of Alan de Hadley had given 
to the Priory. Rent, a pound of cummin or 6J. In exchange, 
Richard gives to the Priory his Mill in the Manor of Chelwordin 
(Cheswardine) at a rent of 10». The Priory is also to pay a further 
rent of 3s, which Richard would hand over to the Abbot of Haugh- 
mond, under whom the said Mill was held. Besides it was agreed 
that if Richard had swine in the wood of Ercalew he should give 
one hog annually to the Priory. Witnesses, Hugh fitz Robert, 
William de Hadley, Walter de Optim (Waters Upton), Philip de 
Peninton, Thomas de Hadley, Roger de Eppelee.^ 

At the Forest-Iter of 1262, the Justices assessed the men of the 
Manor of Wellington iOs. for license to get marl in the King's 
Haye there. 

Forester's Fee. This consisted of half a virgate of land in 
Wellington, held by seijeantry. The Tenant's duty was to take 
custody of fVellington-Haye, or that portion of the Wrekin Forest 
which is still marked by the locality called the Hay-Gate. This 
Seijeantry was probably established by one of the Norman Earls, 
or by Henry I. ; for, if it had been endowed so late as the reign of 
Henry II., it would have worked a diminution of the manorial re- 
venue of Wellington, which diminution the Sheri£f must have noticed 
on the Pipe-RoUs. As to Stephen's dealings vdth Royal Manors 
they are out of the question, as having been annulled by his suc- 
cessor. 

The first whom I can name as probable Tenant of this Seijeantry 
was — 

Hugh Forester, whom we have seen attesting a Leegomery Deed, 
about 1187-97.* In or about the year 1200, the Tenant of the 
same Seijeantry was called — 

Robert de Wellington. In the Carnage assessed at that time 
(as I have described it under Bolas^) Robert de Wolint' is enrolled 
as " holding a Seijeantry of the King, viz. half a virgate by custody 

» Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Wei- ' Supra, Vol. VII, p. 341. 

lington, No. iuj. ' Sup^, Vol. VIII. p. 266. 



WELLINGTON. 47 

and preserving of the Ring's Haye/' Its value was 4«. per annum ; 
and the Tenant proffered to compound for the current tax by pay- 
ment of half a merk.^ 

At the Forest Assizes of 1209^ Robert the Forester is one of 
those who was assessed for cultivation of land within the Forest of 
Mount Gilbert. 

A Fragment of an Assize-Boll^ belonging to the year 1227, calls 
the Wellington-Haye the Haye of Eyton, and enters Robert de 
Welinton as Gustos thereof by Serjeantry. I think it must have 
been a second '^' Robert Forester of Wellington/' who stands sixth 
Rec(^izor in that great technical question which was tried about 
the year 1242, by the Sheriff, Chief Forester, and Verderers of 
Shropshire, viz. the expedUation of dogs on the estates of Lilleshall 
Abbey. — 

His seal is one of those which still remains appended to the 
Jurors' return.^ It exhibits a rude cruciform device, and the Le- 
gend, — S' ROBERTl DE WeUNTON. 

In 1249, Robert Forester was a Juror on the Inquest which fol- 
lowed the death of his chief, — Hugh fitz Robert of Bolas. 

In GeoflBrey de Langley^s arrentation of assarts (about January 
1250) it appears that 4^ acres of the King's demesne at Welinton 
had been assigned to Robert de Welinton, for which he was to pay 
an annual Crown-rent of 6s, 9d. Three years' arrears of this rent 
are charged in the Pipe-Roll of 1252. 

The Hundred-Roll of 1255 describes the above acquisition of 
Robert Forester as '^a pourpresture of 4 acres and 1 rood (read 
2 roods), made since the eyre of John BtUet, and for which 18^^. per 
acre, or a sum of 6s. 9d,, was annually payable to the King.'' 

As to the Serjeantry of Robert Forester of Welinton the same 
Record describes it as '^ half a vii^ate, held freely of the King, to- 
wards the custody of Wellington Haye." The customs of the said 
Haye are fully, but not very intelligibly, enumerated. The cattle 
(averia) of the men of Wellington were admitted throughout the 
year except in St. John Baptist's month (June) and between Mi- 
chaelmas and Martinmas. The chaises for pannage were 2d. for 
yearling swine. Id. for swine six months old, but nothing for lesser 
swine {nichil pro porceUis). These exceptions and charges seem to 
be justified by the Record, as arising from the ^^imparkment of the 
said haye, both in grass-time and pesson-time." The following 
perquisites were Robert Forester's, viz. the retropannage (by which 

1 2V«to d9 NeviUf p. 67. ' The Origiiial, at Tientham. 



4S WELLINGTON. 

I tmderstand what was left after the peason season)^ the dead wood, 
and all windfalls (boughs or whole oak-trees), unless more than five 
oaks were blown down at a time. In that case the surplus went to 
the King. Two burnings of lime are further mentioned as haying 
recently taken place in Wellington Haye. The lime was for use of 
the Crown ; and the quantity may be imagined from the number of 
oak trees (500), stated to have heea consumed in the operation. 
Becent Sales of 52 oak-trees and of eight shillings' worth of sand 
{sablicii) from Wellington Haye, by the proper Officers, are likewise 
enumerated.^ 

In 1258 I find Robert de Welinton attending a Leegomery In- 
quest. At the Forest- Assizes of February 1262, Robert de Welin- 
ton, Forester, answered for the agistment of the Hayes of Welinton 
and Morf for eight preceding years. In 1255, 1256, 1258, 1259, 
1260, and 1262, the pesson of the preceding Autumn had failed. 
The two remaining years (1257 and 1261) only yielded I9s. Sd. 

Robert de Welinton, one of the five FdTesteTS'of'the'fee for 
Shropshire, is so entitled, when attending an Inquest at Bridgnorth 
in 1262. 

It is very remarkable that a Writ issued on June 28, 1278, an- 
nouncing the death of ^Roger le Forester of Wellyngton, and that a 
Jury sat in consequence and took no notice of the error of the Writ 
as regarded the Christian name of the deceased. The Jurors found 
the said Roger to have held a messuage, a nokate, and an assart in 
capite, by service of keeping the haye of Wellington, which was 
within the Forest of the Wrekene. Roger his son and heir was 26 
years of age on July 25, 1278.* 

In consequence I presume of more than one error in this Inquest 
another Writ of Diem clausit issued on August 24, 1279. Here 
the deceased is called Robert le Forester. An Inquest taken at 
Wellington on Sept. 29, 1279, found him to have held a half-vir- 
gate in Wellington, worth Ss. per annum, " by service of assisting 
to keep the bailiwick of the Forest of Mount Oilbert/' also to have 
held one assart, for which he paid a rent of Ss. 4d, to the Sheriff. 
Roger his son and heir was again found to be of full age.' 

lU^er fits Robert de Welinton was deceased on December 12, 
1288, and John fits Hugh of Solas was claiming custody of his 
heirs, as also of the heirs of any other Bailiff of a Shropshire 
Forest. Roger le Strange, then Justice of the Forest, was desired 
by Writ Royal to inquire into this claim. He assembled a Jury 

> Sot ffmdred, II. 56. * - * In^imsUioiu, 6 Edw. I., No. 106 ; 7 Sdw. I., No. 78. 



WELLINGTON. 



49 



on April 8, 1284, which found that " Wardship of the Bailiwick, 
late Boger fitz Robert's, in La Wrekene, did not pertain to the 
King, but to John fitz Hugh, till the heir should be of age ; that 
John fitz Hugh's ancestors had always had such wardship ; and that 
it was worth 10*. per annum!^^ 

It is curious here to mark the sequence of events. John fitz 
Hugh died in July following. On August 5, 1284, the King ac- 
cepted the homage of Hugh fitz John, his heir ; and yet on May 
14, 1285, the King issued a Writ of I>iem clausit announcing the 
(long previous) decease of Roger le Forester of Welinton. A Jury, 
which met July 4, 1285, found that the deceased had held a half- 
virgate and seven small assarts in capite. He had been Custos of 
the bailiwick of Wellington Haye and had paid a Crown-rent of 
6*. 8rf. His whole estate was valued at 18*. 4rf. per annum. His 
son and heir, Roger, was found to have attained his majority on 
May 8, 1285.2 

At the Assizes of 1292 the Bradford Jurors presented the state 
of Robert le Forester's Seijeantry j how it was worth 10*. per an- 
num. Jacob de Morton now held a messuage in Wellington, worth 
8*. per annum, and which had been alienated from this Seijeantry. 
The Court ordered the seizure of this tenement in consequence of 
Jacob de Morton not appearing to give account of his possession 
thereof. 

Of six Royal Foresters-of-the-fee who met on June 6, 1300, to 
assist at the Great Perambulation of Shropshire Forests, Roger 
de Welinton was one. This Roger, whom we may call Roger le 
Forester (II.), appears to have been admitted a Burgess of Shrews- 
bury in 1319. When he died I know not, but it was while his suu 
and heir was in minority j for an Inquest was held at Wellington 
on October 17, 1835, to prove the age of — 

'^ John, son and heir of Roger le Forester of Welynton.^' The 
Jurors found the said John to have been bom and baptized at Wel- 
lington on the Feast of St. Margaret the Virgin, 8 Edward II. 
(July 20, 1814) ; consequently that he had attained his frill age on 
Thursday, July 20, 1335.» 



1 Inqumtians, 12 Edw. I., No. 89. 

» Inqvis. 13 Edw. I., No. 2. This In- 
qaest, vhen collsted with a former one, 
would show Boger Forester (II.) to have 
been bom when his father was not yet ele- 
ven years old. The error is doubtless in the 
former Inquest, which must have consider- 

IX. 



ably understated the Father's age in 1278. 
' Inquis. 9 Edw. III., No. 64. One of 
the witnesses who prored the date of John 
Forestez^s birth remembered it because it 
was on the same day that the Abbot of 
Shrewsbury presented his Sacristan, Wil- 
liam, to Bodington Church. 

7 



50 WELLINGTON. 

For a further account of this family I refer elsewhere.^ 
There can be little doubt that the now ennobled House of Fo- 
rester is descended from these ancient Tenants of the Crown^ and 
that property near Wellington^ which is or was in the possession of 
the present Lord Forester, included the very half-virgate of which 
I have said so much. This topographical fact will become more 
apparent when we shall have to trace the boundaries of Wellington 
Haye. 

WELLINGTON CHURCH. 

The Domesday mention of a Priest, resident at Wellington, indi- 
cates the coexistence of a Church. Earl Hewer's Charter to Shrews- 
bury Abbey proves that within eight, perhaps within six, years after 
Domesday, he gave the said Church (called the Church of Woolk- 
ington) to Shrewsbury Abbey. The Grant was specifically con- 
firmed by William Rufus, Henry I., Stephen, Henry IL, and 
Henrv III. 

Earl Hughes spurious Charter to Shrewsbury Abbey gives thereto 
the tithes of his demesne of Welinton. His less suspected Charter 
gives the whole tithes of his dcmeanes of Ardiilveston (Arleston), 
and of Eston (Aston- under- Wrekin) ; and two-thirds of the tithes 
of his demesnes of Walington (Wellington) , Hetleg (Hadley), and 
Walccote (Walcot). 

Bisliop Clinton inspects and confirms a Charter of Earl Hugh, 
conveying two-thirds of the demesne-tithes of Welinton, Hedley, 
and Walecote, and the whole demesne-tithes of one virgate in Er- 
dulfestou, and of Eston. The same Prelate confirms to the Abbey 
the Church of Welintun with its Chapels, and its pension of 2 
merks. Bishop Durdent's Confirmation specifies " the Church of 
Welinton with the tithe of the Manor and the tithe of Walecote^ 
and the Chapels pertaining^' (to Wellington Church) . Bishop Peche's 
Confirmation specifies the tithes of Estone as tithes of the Shrews- 
bury Monks' own demesne (a matter very consistent with what we 
shall see in the history of Aston) . As '^ tithes of others'' the same 
Confirmation specifies two-thirds of the demesne-tithes of Wolinton 
and Wallecote. It also recognizes the pension of 2 merks^ payable 
to the Abbey from Wellington Church. 

Later Confirmations, Episcopal and Archiepiscopal, are but repe- 
titions of one or other of the above. Wellington remained a Rec- 
tory, in the gift of Shrewsbury Abbey, and endowed with all great 

» Sherifft of ShroptMre, p. 126. 



THE CHURCH. 51 

and small tithes of its Parish^ except the demesne-tithes above spe- 
cified, till the year 1232. Then did Alexander de Stavenby, Bishop 
of Lichfield, unite with Henry Abbot of Shrewsbury, in an unholy 
conspiracy. A parochial Church was to be looted, and the plun- 
derers were to share the spoil : that is, half the gain was to increase 
the revenues of Shrewsbury Abbey, and half was to furnish forth a 
new Stall in the distant Cathedral of Lichfield. 

Bead by this light Bishop Stavenby^s Charter, appropriating the 
Abbot's share of this Rectory, is a piece of consummate hypocrisy, 
and something worse. He premises how the Almighty had given 
him a place in his Church, to the end that he should pity and assist 
the indigent. He goes on to explain whom he means by the indi- 
gent. They are the Abbot and Monks of Shrewsbury, whose hos- 
pitality and penury (however inconsistent the two attributes appear 
to us) had attracted the Bishop's notice and claimed his aid. He 
gives them then half of all the garbs (i. e, corn-tithes) of the Church 
of WelyrUon under Mount Gilbert, and of the Chapels annexed to 
that Church, and of all its hamlets [villularum) ; — to hold for their 
proper uses. He also reserves to the Abbey its previous receipts in 
the said Parish, as already confirmed by his Predecessors. He re- 
serves too for the uses of those perpetual Vicars who were hence- 
forth to minister in the said Church, these things, viz. the small 
tithes, the altarage receipts, the arable glebe, the rents of those who 
held lands of the Church, the tithes of Mills, and all pensions of 
Chapels. The future Vicars were to be presented by the Abbey, 
and being instituted were to bear all Archidiaconal burdens. This 
Charter was expedited by hand of Philip, the Bishop's Chaplain, on 
Jiily 1, 1232, and was attested by Master R. de Longcdon his Offi- 
cial, Alexander Archdeacon of Salop, Master Ralph de Lacok, Mas- 
ter Alexander Blund, and others.^ 

William Prior of Coventry (in office 1249 and 1257) afterwards 
joined with his Convent, in sanctioning the above Appropriation.^ 
William Dean of Lichfield, and his Chapter, concurred in sanction- 
ing the same, in a Charter which passed on September 18, 1246.^ 

Nothing is here said about the Bishop's other motives, or how, 
obtaining the other moiety of the Great Tithes of Wellington as a 
reward of his complicity, he was enabled to found therewith the 
Prebend of Wellington in Lichfield Cathedral. Such however was 
the unwritten or unrecorded part of the original bargain. 

On Feb. 23, 1248, Roger de Weseham, then Bishop of Lichfield, 

> - ' Lichfield Begister, A. fo. 14, b. ' Salop Ohartulary, No. 69. 



52 WELLINGTON. 

settled a dispate which had arisen between Adam (II.) Abbot of 
Salop and Soger de Corthover, Canon of Lichfield^ about their 
shares of the tithes of Wellington. The Bishop first decrees that 
'' Roger de Corthover be restored to his Prebend of Welintone/' 
which is to comprise the following items^ viz. half the tithes of 13 
bovates of arable land in Aston^ which were held in villainage under 
Shrewsbury Abbey; the hay-tithes to the same land belonging; 
the common-right to the said Prebend belonging ; half the tithes of 
novalia brought into cultivation since Bishop Stavensby^s Ordma" 
(ion, and of all novalia hereafter to be brought into cultivation in 
Wellington Parish. To the Abbey are reserved the following, — 
viz. the hay-tithes of Wellington Parish (generally) ; — ^the tithes of 
the Abbatial demesnes at Aston; — and two-thirds of all tithes of 
Hadley, Welinton, Erdleveston (Arleston),and Walcote. This set- 
tlement was made at Wombridge^ in the presence of Richard Arch- 
deacon of Chester, Henry de Wysawe the Bishop's Official, and 
several Clerks.^ 

The Taxation of 1291 values the Church of Welinton (in Salop 
Deanery) at £6 for the part of Shrewsbury Abbey, and at £2. 13*. 
4d. for the Vicarage.^ The Prebend of Welinton was valued at £10.* 

The assessment of Wellington Parish to the ninthy in 1341, in- 
volves a complex blunder. The Assessors first quote the Ckurch- 
Taxation as 9 merks (or £6. 13«. 4^.), a sum which taUies with 
nothing in Pope Nicholas's Valor. They then assess the Parish at 
16 merks (£10. 13s. M.) to the current tax, adding that such assess- 
ment was £7. 13s. id, in excess of the Taxation.^ I must leave 
this matter as it stands. It is only evident that when the Assessors 
quote the Church-Taxation as 9 merks, they were deceived in par- 
ticulars, but knew well enough that such data did not afford a pro- 
per criterion for their assessment. 

Among the receipts of Shrewsbury Abbey, given in the Valor of 
1534-5, are the following. — 

Income from a moiety of the tithes of Wellington £10. 

Portion of tithes in Welyngton, Ardston, and Hadley £1.^ 

At the same time Nicholas Stokysby, Prebendary of Wellington, 
received £10 per annum in tithes and other emoluments.^ As to 
the Vicarage, Alan Charleton, Incumbent thereof, received on an 
average £10 per annuniy out of which he paid 5«. for synodals and 
10*. for Procurations.^ 

^ Salop Chartulary, No. 66. * Inquis. Nonarum, p. 182. 



s • s Pope Nich. Taxation, 247, 246, 243. 



» • 6 . 7 Valor Eccles, III. 189, 132, 185. 



THE CHURCH. 53 

EAELY INCUMBENTS. 

Philip pb Wblinton, Parson or Rector of this Churchy occurs 
before 1189 and after 1215^ unless there were a Layman^ his co- 
temporary, from whom I cannot distinguish him. 

Sib Thomas Lyart occurs between 1275 and 1285 as Perpetual 
Vicar of Wellington. He was perhaps also Rector of Preston.^ 

Alexander, Vicar of Wellington, had letters of Protection in 25 
Edw. I. (1296-7) .» 

Philip de Byriton, Priest, was instituted to this Vicarage July 
25, 1302; — the Abbot and Convent of Salop presenting. On 
March 23, 1329, Philip, Vicar of Welynton, being worn out with 
age and infirmity, the Bishop appoints Sir Benedict de Frodesley, 
Chaplain, to be his Coadjutor. An Inventory was to be taken of 
the Vicar's goods, of which the Coadjutor would have to give ac- 
count. 

Sir John, Vicar of Wellington, died July 28, 1349, — probably 
of the pestilence. His successor was, — 

John de Umfreston, Chaplain, instituted August 5, 1349, at 
the presentation of Shrewsbury Abbey. 

Hugh, Vicar of Wellington, is named in a Deed which must have 
passed very shortly after 1349.' 

John Hychcok, Vicar of Wellington, has a year's license of 
non-residence, dated Oct. 23, 1366. 

William de Sontford is named as Vicar in 50 Edw. III. 
(1376-7), but in 1385— 

John Hychcok occurs again, and it was on his death that — 

Sir Thomas Orilleshull, Chaplain, was instituted. This was 
on July 24, 1403, the Abbot and Convent of Salop presenting. 
Orilleshull resigned in 1419. 

FBEnBBNDABIES OF WELLINGTON. 

The following list will be found to add a few particulars to one 
already printed.* — 

BooER BE CoRTHovER held the Prebend in 1248. 

Thomas de Alberburt held it in 1298-9. 

Sir Philip de Everdon was collated Feb. 15, 1299, vice Alber- 
bury. 

William de Atremtnne held it in 1325, when he was conse- 
crated Bishop of Norwich. 



> Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 260, note 1. 
» Ptynne, III. 713. 



» Supra, Vol. VII. p. 858. 

* Le Neve*9 FagH, Vol. I. p. 636. 



64 WELLINGTON. 

Mast£r Robert de Norburoh was collated Oct. 28^ 1325. 

Sir Symon de Clopton, Clerk, was collated Sept. 26, 1339. 

Sir John de Bredon was ordered to be installed by fiishop 
Northburgh in a letter of Aug. 22, 1349. He had been nominated 
by Pope Clement VI. 

Nigel de Weaver is said to have had the Prebend in the same 
year (1349) .^ 

John de Pipe was collated Aug. 2, 1351, and died in 13G1, 
being then Archdeacon of Coventry. 



Five Berewicks are mentioned in Domesday as appurtenances 
of the Manor of Wellington. It is probable that the Record did 
not intend to make Dawley one of the five, for it had been sepa- 
rated, as to tenure, firom Wellington, as early as Edward the Con- 
fessor's reign. In other words it was no part of Earl Edwin's De- 
mesne-Manor of Wellington, for Grim held it in Saxon times. 

Excluding then Dawley, we may identify with wonderful cer- 
tainty the five Berewicks, to which Domesday alludes. They were 
Apley, Arleston, Aston, Dothill, and Walcot. 

APLBY, now APLEY CASTLE. 

John de Appeley attests Ivo Pantulf's Confirmation of Buttery 
to Shrewsbury Abbey.* This was about 1170-1175. Between 
1177 and 1189 a Charter of Symon fitz Symon (then Lord of Wel- 
lington) is attested first by Walter de Appel', and then by John de 
AppeP. Again between 1187 and 1197 we have Walter de Eppelle 
attesting John de Cumbray's grant to Wombridge Priory, and this 
I doubt not was the person whose name is written as Walter de 
Elpole, and who having been Recognizor in a Longford Suit about 
1191 was living to certify the particulars thereof in 1200.* At the 
Assizes of October 1203 Walter de Eppele was amerced half a merk. 
Cotemporary with the latter part of Walter de Apley^s career, Roger 
de Apley occurs, viz. as witness of a Wombridge Charter which 
must have passed as early as 1202-3.^ This Roger occurs on Jury 
Lists of all but certain date, viz. in 1220 and 1242, and in the 
latter instance he sat as one of the Verderers of the Forest. His 
attestations of Charters range a few years later. It was perhaps 
he who married Clarice, Coheiress of Rodington. Meanwhile Wil- 
liam de Apley occurs twice as a witness between 1236 and 1241, 
so that I cannot but think that there were two families, both 

» Le Neve's FasHy Vol. L p. 636. « • > • « Supra, Vol. VIII. pp. 28, 106, 183. 



APLEY CASTLE. 



Da 



originally of Apley, but one of Rodington also. In 1258 Walter 
and John de Apley sat on a Leegomery Jury. The latter was of 
Rodington.^ After this I hear of a John de Apley only. As the 
male line of Apley of Rodington was now extinct, I think this 
John must have been of Apley. He occurs as a Juryman in In- 
quests of 1264, 1279, 1280, 1281, 1284, 1285, 1292, 1293, 1294, 
and 1295. In one instance (that of 1285) he sat as a Regarder of 
the Forest. 

How Alan de Cherlton became possessed of Apley I have not 
been able to discover. We have seen^ that in 1309 he obtained an 
estate at Haughton, near ShiiShal, by favour of John de Cherlton, 
his elder* brother. The Feodary of 1316 makes him to have been 
liord of Walton in Stottesden Hundred,* but I find no evidence as 
to the origin or continuance of such a feoffment. In 1322 several 
Writs are addressed to him as Gustos of the Castle and Land of 
Wigmore. This was in consequence of the forfeiture which then 
lay on the house of Mortimer. In May 1324 Sir Alan de Cherl- 
ton was summoned in two Counties, Somersetshire and Hertford- 
shire (probably Herefordshire was meant), to attend a Great Council 
at Westminster. In 1324 and 1325 several Writs are addressed to 
him in connection with military levies in Shropshire and Stafford- 
shire, but on April 18, 1325, he was superseded in these commis- 
sions, being employed on active duty under the King. In January 
1326 he occurs again as a Chief Inspector of array in Herefordshire 
and Worcestershire.^ 

One of the first acts of King Edward III. was granting a license 
to Alan de Cherleton, enabling him to embattle his Mansions of 
Apley and Withforde (Withy forde) .* Here, as regards Withy ford, 
we light on a dironological difficulty which has probably been the 
root of all the errors with which the genealogy of Charlton of Apley 
is encumbered. 

It is not known and can only be guessed what interest Alan de 
Cherlton had at Withyford in 1327. It was his son, a second Alan, 
who afterwards married Margery fitz Aer, the heiress of Withyford. 



> Vide supra, Vol. VII. p. 380. 
« Supra, VoL II. p. 324. 

> The statement (Blakeway^s Sheriff^, 
p. 76) that Alan de Cherlton of Apley 
was elder brother of John de Cherlton of 
Powis, and father of Alan de Cherlton 
(of Apley in 1327) seems to me quite in- 
accurate. Alan (of Apley in 1327) was 



clearly younger brother, not nephew, of 
John de Cherlton (I.) of Fowis. If both 
Alan and John were sons of some pre- 
vious Alan (which I doubt), that Alan 
was certainly not of Apley. 

* • » ParUametUaiy Writs, IV. 898, 665. 

^ Sot. Patent, 1 Edward III., pars. 2, 
membrane 2. 



56 



WELLINGTON. 



Possibly Alan de Cherlton Senior was her Guardian in 1327^ and 
thus took care of her interests as the affianced wife of his son^ but 
I know of no second Licentia crenellandi granted under such cir- 
cumstances. 

The wife of Alan de Cherlton (I.) was Elena la Zouch, eldest 
daughter and Coheir of Alan^ last Baron Zouche of Ashby, who 
died in 1314.^ From various Inquests* I gather the following 
dates. — 

Elena la Zouche w^ bom about June 1287. In August 1314, 
she was found to be 27 years of age, and was then the wife of 
Nicholas de St. Maur. By him she had two sons, viz. Thomas, vari- 
ously stated to have been bom in 1304, 1306, and 1307, and Nicho- 
las who must have been bom in or before 1317, seeing that in De- 
cember 1816, his father died. Of these two, Thomas died without 
issue, and Nicholas, the eventual heir of his Mother, and Continuator 
of the line, died in 1361. 

On her first husband^s death, and about 1317-8^ Elena la Zouch, 
now 30 years of age, remarried with Alan de Cherlton of Apley.* 
To him she bore a son, Alan, of whom I shall speak presently. She 
died long before her husband, but he, as Tenant by Courtesy of 
England, held her Devonshire estates till his own death, which took 
place on December 3, 1360. — 

Then they reverted to his late wife's son and heir, viz. to Nicho- 
las de St. Maur (II.). 

Alan de Cherlton (II.) may possibly have been bom as early as 
1318. His wife Margery fitz Aer was bom April 14, 1314. The 
date of their marriage may be surmised from the fact that their 
eldest son John de Cherlton was bom on February 2, 1340. 

Alan de Cherlton (II.), probably as a precaution, demised his 
wife's estates at Aston Eyre, and Withyford, to his own father, to 
hold for life, at a rent of £20 payable to the son or his heirs. His 
Father survived him long; for Alan Junior fell a victim to that 
Great Pestilence which desolated England in 1349. He died on or 
about the third of May in that year, leaving his eldest son, John, 
an infant of nine years. On this occasion the King, as Custos of 
the Infant Tenant-in-capite of Harcott, seized on the £20 rent 



1 Vide Bupns VoL 11. p. 209. 

s Inquis, 7 Edw. II., No. 86 ; 10 Edw. 
II., No. 69 ; 84 Edw. III., No. 52 ; 28 
Edw. III., No. 14 ; SO Edw. III., No. 46. 

' The LiUeehail Ghartulary oontains an 



mterestixig fact in connection with Alan 
de Cherlton (I.) and his wi& Elena. In 
7 Edw. III. (1338-4) they gave the Ad- 
YOWBon of Northmolton (Deronshire) and 
an acre of land there, to the eaid Abbey. 



ARLESTON. 57 

which constitated his other estate^ but afterwards entrusted Harcott 
to Alan de Cherlton Senior till his Grandson should be of age. In 
1356, Richard Earl of Arundel complained of the above seizure^ as- 
serting his own claim to the above rent and to the custody of the 
heir, because the said Earl was Seigneural Lord of Aston-Eyre and 
Withyford. 

The curious evidence, which was elicited by this question of law 
and usage, I will give under Great- Withyford, as it does not relate 
to Apley . Suffice it here to say that it was all in favour of the Earl, 
who proved by Inquest that Harcott was held of the King, not De 
Corand, but De Eschaetd; and that such tenure did not entitle the 
King to wardship over the person or the other estates of the heir of 
Harcott. The Earl further adduced a precedent, viz. that, when 
Mai^ery fitz Aer was in minority, Edward II. had indeed custody 
of Harcott, but Edmund, then Earl of Arundel, had custody of Aston- 
Eyre, and Withiford. 

Probably Richard Earl of Arundel became entitled to the ward- 
ship of John de Cherlton in 1356, and received £20 rent from Alan 
de Cherlton Senior, till the death of the latter in December 1360. 
Within half a year of that event John de Cherlton will have attained 
his majority. 

AELESTON. 

I have told how Henry II. granted a part of Arleston to Seburga 
de Hadley.^ The story of the King's making Arleston his abode, 
whilst on a hunting expedition, is corroborated by a topographical 
observation, viz. that Arleston formed one boundary of that well- 
preserved part of the Wrekin Forest which was known as Welling- 
ton Haye, 

In the Forest-Boll of 1180, the men of Erdelveston are assessed 
Zs. 6d. for imbladements of 3^ acres, sown with corn. Between 
1178 and 1189, we have seen William de Herdulveston attesting a 
Deed of Simon fitz Simon, then Lord of Wellington. In the 
Forest-Boll of 1209, the Yill of Erdulveston is collectively assessed 
by the Boarders of Mount Gilbert ; and Bichard Siward, a Free- 
holder there, is separately charged for imbladements. At this period, 
as we have seen, Arleston was a more populous place than Welling- 
ton. 

In October 1283, a Fine was levied, whereby John de Aure and 
Eve his wife, for themselves and the heirs of Eve, quitclaimed 5 

1 Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 353, 354. 
IX. 8 



58 



WELLINGTON. 



messuages^ 2 acres of meadow^ and 1^ virgates of land in Ardulston^ 
to Hugh Burnell (who was then Lord of Wellington, and probably 
held over the Quitclaimants) . A sore sparrow-hawk is the alleged 
consideration of this surrender. 

Hugh Bumell^s Seigneury over Arleston has been further illus- 
trated by an Inquest of the year 1284, as I have set it forth under 
Wellington. Here the place is called Ardejfeston, which suggests 
its real etymology, viz. Ardulfs-town. 

ASTON UNDER THE WEEKIN. 

This member of Wellington was given by the Empress Maude to 
Shrewsbury Abbey. Her Charter is dated at Devizes, and probably 
passed in 1141, when she first obtained possession of that town, and 
held Stephen as her Prisoner. 

Styling herself " Matilda the Empress, daughter of King Henry," 
and addressing William fitz Alan and all her lieges, French and 
English, in Shropshire, she certifies her said gift of the vill of Eston. 
The Deed is attested by Rainaldo Vicecomite (it should surely be 
Comite) de ComwalP ; William fitz Alan ; Robert de Dunestavill 
and Goc' (Joceas) de Dinan.^ 

This grant was confirmed by Theobald Archbishop of Canterbury, 
and also by Henry II., when before Bridgnorth in 1155. It is re- 
cognized in all the Pipe-Rolls, from 1156 to 1166, the Sheriff de- 
ducting the assumed value of Aston from the Firma Comitatils, in 
the following or some similar words. — In terris datis : — Monachis 
de Sahpesbia 6Ss, 8d. in Eston. 

In 1167, this entry is discontinued, and it is clear that the Monks 
lost the estate. All that I can offer in explanation of this is that 
the date coincides with the year of Abbot Robert's death, and 
that his successor, Adam, was deposed in 1175. Between the years 
1178 and 1189, we have Hayluiet de Eston attesting a Charter of 
Simon fitz Simon, Lord of Wellington, and it is probable that the 
said Hayluiet held under the said Simon, and not under the Abbey. 

Now again we shall have occasion to observe the consonance of a 
Monastic Record with the Pipe-Rolls. If Henry II. took Aston 
from the Abbey, Richard I. restored it. By a Charter dated at 
Poitiers on Febiaiary 18, 1190, that King informs WiUiam fitz 
Alan (he was Sheriff at the time) that he has conceded the vill 



' Chaitulaiy, No. 50. In her more 
general Charter to the Abbej (No. 40) 
the Empress mentions her own grant of 



Eston last of anj. This Charter is at- 
tested like the one in the text, except that 
Rainald is called Comes. 



ASTON. 59 

called EstoQ to Salop Abbey. This Deed was attested by William 
Bishop of Poiutou, Peter Bertin Seneschal of Poitou^ Osbert de 
Roveray and Stephen de Longchamp^ Sewers (Dapiferis) . It was 
also expedited by hand of John de Alencun, Archdeacon of Liseux.^ 

The Pipe-Boll for the year ending Michaelmas 1190^ gives appa- 
rent effect to this Writ by according the Abbot of Shrewsbury 
" 60 solidates of land in Eston^ a member of Welinton according to 
Charter of the Eing/^^ This entry was repeated at Michaelmas 
1191 ; but at Easter 1192^ only 30«. (or half a year's fruition of the 
land itself) are assigned to the Monks. It is obvious that the King's 
Writ of that year (which included Aston among the Royal estates 
which were to furnish a half-year's income of £10 to William and 
James fitz Simon) operated, whether by accident or not, to disseize 
the Monks of the land. Accordingly we find the Sheriff giving the 
Monks £2 in money pro terrd quam Rex dedit eta in Eston donee 
eadem terra eis delibetur. So too in 1193, he gave them £2 in 
money; but in 1194 (the very year of King Richard's return) the 
land was restored to the Monks ; its fiscal value being computed as 
20«. for the first half of the current year, and as SOa. for the last 
half. In 1195, the Sheriff returned to the old formula — Et Mona- 
chia de Salop 60a. in terrd de Eaton ; and this continued as long as 
the Pipe-Rolls are evidence on such matters. 

Thomas de Eston was a notable person in the affairs of Shrews- 
bury Abbey, and doubtless held lands here. Among his numerous 
attestations of Abbatial Deeds some are at least as early as 1210, 
others at least as late as 1226. In two instances he is called Se- 
neschal, and I have no doubt that he held that office in the Abbot's 
Manorial Court in the Abbey-Foregate of Shrewsbury. 

Thomas de Eston was succeeded in estate, and perhaps in Office, 
by his son Benedict, who attests Deeds in 1231, 1232, and 1234, 
and perhaps later; but, as we shall see^ he was dead in 1240. The 
following Deed is in the nature of a surrender from Tenant to Lord. 
— " Benedict de Aston, son late of Thomas de Aston, gives to Salop 
Abbey two moors in the fields of Aston (one called Aylwyesmor 
and the other called Bradelemor), together with a stank for the 
Vivary above Bradewey and with the overflow {refullacione aqtue) 
of the said Vivary. For this he received 40*. Witnesses, William 
de Draiton Chaplain^ Alan his son."^ 

On November 12, 1240, a Fine was levied, whereby Isolda widow 

' Salop Chartulary, No. 44. j lue of Aston (68«.8<{.) to 60«. is observable. 

' The change from the former fiscal va- I ' Salop Chartulary, No. 125. 



60 WELLINGTON. 

of Benedict de Aston (Plaintiff) quitclaims to Stephen de Aston 
and his heirs^ for 10 merks^ a carucate of land in Subegh, whereof 
had been Suit-at-law. I cannot tell where Subegh was^ nor do I know 
anything further of Stephen de Aston^ as connected with Aston. 

Thomas le Hore of Aston occurs as a Surety in 1272. 

About the year 1280 Richard son of Robert de Cherleton gives 
to Robert his brother for 5«. paid^ annual rents of 3«. 8d. arising 
from land which Alan son of William de Ejrton held of the Grrantor 
in the vill of Aston under Wreken. He also gives a certain mea- 
dow in the field of Cherleton (as before described). For the afore- 
said rent^ the Grantee is to pay two pounds of wax yearly, for the 
lights of St. Nicholas in Uppington Churchy and 7d, at Michaelmas 
to Salop Abbey. To the Grantor he must pay a rent of one rose. 
Witnesses, Peter de Eyton, knight ; John de Prers (Praers) ; Mas- 
ter John de Cherleton and John de Appeley.^ 

By Deed dated at Salop on Wednesday in the feast of Calixtus 
the Martyr 1283 (probably a mistake for 1282^. J. (John de 
Drayton) Abbot of Shrewsbury, with his Chapter's consent, assigns 
all the Abbatial rents of Aston-subtus-Mount-Gilbert, to the Kit- 
chen of his Convent. He bequeaths curses and maledictions to any 
succeeding Abbot who should intromit with the said rent.^ 

We have seen, under Eyton-upon- Severn, that in 1285 Aston 
was accounted a member of that Manor. I have accordingly under 
Ey ton, given some account of its value, as stated in the later Rent- 
Roils of the Abbey. 

DOTHILL. 

We have seen Hemming de Dotrel attesting a Deed of Simon 
fitz Simon, Lord of Wellington, between 1178 and 1189. 

A Fine of November 15, 1248, is practically a feoffment of John 
de Preers in Dothill by Giles de Erdinton, then Lord of Wel- 
lington. The Pine purports to be between John de Preers, Plain- 
tiff, and Egidius de Erdinton, Impedient, of one carucate in Dot- 
hull, whereof waa Plea of Charter Warranty between them. Now 
Erdinton acknowledges himself to have given the premises (viz. 
all the lands which he had in the said vill) to Preers. More- 
over he concedes all lands which William Godeshore and William 
Tranaunt held under him in villeinage in Wellinton ;--the whole, 

* Womb. Chart. Upinton, No. clL fell on Wednesday, was 1282. 

2 The only year during John de Dray- » In possession of Mr. George Morris 

ton's Abbacy, in which Caliitus's Day of Shrewsbury. 



WAX/COT. 61 

to hold to John de Preers and the heirs of his body^ by service 
of one-sixth part of a knight's-fee; — with remainder to William 
de Preers, brother of John, and the heirs of his body ; — with re- 
mainder to Erdinton himself. I find John de Praers on local Ju- 
ries of 1279 and 1293, and fireqnently attesting Deeds of the period. 
In Easter Term 1282, a Fine was levied whereby Adam Bache and 
his wife Sibil, Matthew le Seijaunt of Dunchirche and his wife 
Isabel, for themselves and the heirs of Sibil and Isabel, quitclaim 
to John le Preyer (Tenant), a messuage and six bovates in Appeley, 
whereof was Suit-at-law. For this John le Preyer gave 60^. 

WALCOT. 

This member of Wellington, comprising three carucates of land 
and a Mill, was given by the Empress Maude to the Monastery of 
Haughmond. The Charters and Confirmations which treat of this 
gift have already been recited.^ The fiscal value of Walcot was 
£3. lis. isd. ; and we find from the Pipe-Bolls that Henry II., im- 
mediately on his accession, recognized his mother's grant. — 

The Sheriff of 1156 discharges his own liabilities of a sum of 
£3. lis. Ad, for land given to the Abbot of Hageman. This item 
of account never varies, but some later Pipe-Bolls express the loca- 
lity of the grant, viz. in Walecotd. 

In 1255 the Bradford Hundred-BoU says that ''the Abbot of 
Haemon holds Walcot, (taken) out of the Manor of Welinton, by 
gift of King Henry. It is one hide, and does no suit to County or 
Hundred.^'* 

The Feodary of 1284 erroneously makes Walcote a member of 
Wrockwardine, and states that the Abbot of Hamond held it in 
free alms of John le Strange; — a second error the consequence of 
the first. 

Surely the Bradford Jurors of 1292 had the evidenqe of this 
Feodary, in sight or in mind, when they presented that the " Abbot 
of Haghmon held Walcote, which the Ancestors of Fulk le Strange 
used to hold in-capite, of the King,'' and that they (the Jurors) 
knew not the Abbot's warrant. The Abbot soon appeared in Court 
and produced his warrant. It was the Empress's Charter. He was 
dismissed sine die? 

All that the Taxation of 1291 gives to the said Abbot in Walle- 
cote, is a Mill, worth 5«., and a meadow, worth 2^., per annum.* 

On Oct. 31, 1331, Bichard Pigot released to Abbot Nicholas his 



> Supra, VoL VII. pp. 287, 291, 292. 
' Roi, Hundred. II. 67. 



3 PlacUa Corona, 20 Edw. I., m. 16. 
* Pope Nich, Taxaiion, p. 260. 



62 



HIGH SBCALL. 



right in the Fulling-mill of Waloot^ which he had lately received 
from the Abbot at ferm. 

On Sept. 16, 1470, the Abbot demises Walcot Mill to John Tre- 
Tenant and John Gogh for their lives. Bent 83s. 

On March 31, 1477, William Onnyslowe of Bodington gives to 
the Abbey a Weir called Ekynnes-were, situated between the Ab- 
bejr's meadow, called Rondeleshey, and the Great meadow of Wal- 
cote. Witness, Sir Richard Corbet, Knight. 

On March 31, 1482, the same gives to the same, land in Walcote 
called Lye, near Lye Mills. Same witness.^ 

The Valor of 1535-^ reckons the Abbot of Haughmond's estate 
at Walcote to yield £13, 6a. Sd. yearly;' but this probably included 
whatever was arising from AUscot. 

In 1541, the Ministers^ Accounts include among the assets of the 
late Monastery only £4. 19s. 44. as arising from Walcote, viz. — 
From pasturage £1. 18^.; fit)m assized rents ISs. 6d.; and from 
rents of Tenants-at-will £2. 2s. lOd.^ 



I^i^ ercall 



With the Manor of High Ercall are associated some of the great- 
est names in Shropshire history. Here the Coheirs of Hamo Peve- 
rel retained their last hold on the County which had nursed his 
fortunes. Here the Chancellor Bumell, never sated with acquisi- 
tion, reconsolidated in himself a Seigneury which had been severed 
for more than a century. Li later times Ercall was the Caput of 
those vast estates which formed the heritage of the Newports; — a 
heritage than which none greater has accrued to any single Shrop- 
shire family, since the advent of the Normans. 

As regards its Saxon and Domesday status, High Ercall corre- 
sponds with Wellington. '^ The Earl himself holds Archelou. Earl 
Eduin held it with five Berewicks. Here are vii hides. In de- 
mesne there are vi ox-teams and xii Neat-herds.^ Here xxix Vil- 



1 Haugbmond Chartularj, fos. 221, 
222,228. 

' VcUor EceUnasHeui, III. p. 192. 
3 MonasUeoH, Yol. VI. p. 114. 



4 This direct afiaociation of oz-teamB 
and Neat-herds, however natural it may 
appear, is very unusual in the text of 



HIGH EECALL. 63 

lains and xii Boors have xv teams. Here two Mills render (or 
pay) XII measares of com (yearly) ; and there is a Fishery of {i.e. 
annually productive of) 1502 great eels. Here is one league of 
wood. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth £20 per 
annum. Now it is worth the same. According to a custom, when 
the Countess visited the Manor, eighteen sums of 20d.^ (each) used 
to be brought to her.^'^ 

The five Berewicks of Ercall I take to have been Tern, Sleap, 
Crudgington, and two places called Wilsithland and Scurlow in an- 
cient documents. It had other members of less prominent note, 
and perhaps of later origin, or involved in some of the Berewicks. 
As to proportionate hidage. Tern was 1 hide, Sleap and Crudgington 
were 1^ hides, and Ercall, with its other members, was 4^ hides. 

Now if we were to believe Earl Hugh's spurious Charter to 
Shrewsbury Abbey, we should infer that within twelve years after 
Domesday, he or his Father had enfeoffed Hamo Peverel in Ercall. 
In the said Charter the Earl is made to state that one of his Barons^ 
Hamo Peverel, standing with him before Earl Roger's tomb, and 
moved by his (Earl Hugh's) example and request, granted the tithes 
of his demesnes to the said Abbey. Among the said demesnes, 
Arkaloua, Wilsitheland, Cleya (read Sclepa), and Brugeltona (read 
Crugeltona) are specified. All that we can conclude fi^m this 
statement is that the Monk, who foiled this Charter (long aftier its 
ostensible era), found his Abbey seized of the said tithes, or parts 
thereof, and knew that Hamo Peverel had some time been Lord of 
Ercall and its members. The Monk thought it no wrong to asso- 
ciate the two facts according to a theory of his own. 

Turning to that Charter of Earl Hugh, which I have always up* 
held as somewhat less suspicious than the above, I find that he 
himself gave two-thirds of the tithes of his demesne of Ercalou to 
Shrewsbury Abbey. I also find that Bishop Clinton, having in- 
spected this last or some other Charter of Earl Hugh, to the Abbey, 
within 50 years of the Earl's decease, corroborated the fact of the 
Earl's having himself given the said two-thirds of the demesne-tithes 
of Archalou. 

That Hamo Peverel attended the Court of Hugh Earl of Shrews- 
bury is certain. He was truly too one of his Barons, for he had mar- 
ried Sibil, daughter and heir (or coheir) of Gerard de Tomay. But 
it was evidently King Henry I. who originally invested Hamo Pe- 
verel in High Ercall. 

> Ociod0cim ore denariorum, i.e. 20s. ' Domuday, fo. 268, b, 2. 



64 HIGH ERCALL. 

I have already dwelt at some length on the origin and succession 
of the Shropshire Peverels.^ Many of the difficulties which then 
beset the subject have now vanished. One clear rule of succession 
is established by the case of High Ercall, viz. that this Manor^ as 
being given to Hamo Peverel himself^ was allowed to descend to 
his collateral heirs. Other Manors however, which he acquired 
with the heiress of Tomay, though he endeavoured to settle tnem 
on his own collateral heirs, were ultimately reseized by King Henry 
II. as Escheats, either because Gerard de Tomay^s forfeiture had 
only been qualified by a life-grant to Hamo Peverel and his wife, or 
because Gerard de Tomay^s heirs were extinct. 

A Tabular Pedigree will best show the succession of Hamo Pe- 
verel's collateral heirs, but we have an extraordinary number of 
documents, which must needs be quoted to illustrate the mode of 
their descent. 

I have shown under Kinnerley that Hamo Peverel, immediately 
after Henry I.^s death, and so probably in 1136, gave the two vills 
of Sleap and Crudgington to Shrewsbury Abbey, and how the grant 
was independent of his wife.* 

I have shown under Uppington how Walcheline Maminoht, one 
of Hamo PevereFs presumed heirs, endeavoured, between the years 
1138 and 1141, to get Crugelton back from the Monks, by giving 
Uppington instead ; and I have shown how and why the bargain 
ultimately failed, though the Empress confirmed it in her Charter 
of 1141.^ In the same Charter the Empress speaks of Slepe in 
another way, viz. as an estate given to the Abbey since her father's 
death by Hamo Peverel. Crugelton and Sleap were thus severed 
from High Ercall, and continued the property of Shrewsbury Abbey 
till its Dissolution. 

As to Ercall and its other members, at Hamo PeverePs death, in 
or about 1138, they went to William Peverel (II.) of Dover, and to 
Walcheline Maminoht. Now it is certain that William Peverel 
(II.) was brother's son to Hamo Peverel : and in one of his deeds 
the Nephew expresses the exact relationship by speaking of Hamo 
as pcUruus metia. 

But it is far from certain how Walcheline Maminoht was related 
to Hamo Peverel. In one of his Deeds the said Walcheline de- 
scribes William Peverel (I.) as his maternal Unde, avunculus meus. 
Consequently he would have described Hamo Peverel, who was 
the said William's brother, by the same term. Omitting for the 

> Supra, Vol. II. pp. 104r-107. « • » Supra, Tol. VIII. pp. 127-8, 152-3. 



HIGH BRCAXL. 65 

inoment to contend for the stricter meaning of the word avunculus, 
and taking it to mean either paternal or maternal Uncle, it is im- 
possible to imagine that Walcheline Maminoht can have stood in 
the former relation to Hamo PevereL His Mother then must have 
been a Peverel, and the word avunculus advisedly used by him. 
But how then could Walcheline Maminoht, the sister's son, have 
stood pari passu, as a Coheir, with William Peverel (II.)> the 
brother's son ? That he did so, for a time, is clear, and the impro- 
priety of his doing so is perhaps proved by the simple fact, that 
neither he nor his heirs continued to do so. 

But, for the present, I am to speak of the period when William 
Peverel (II.) and Walcheline Maminoht stood in amity with each 
other as Coheirs of Ercall. — 

As we have seen, William Peverel of Dover confirmed the grant 
of Crudginton which Hamo his Uncle {patruus) had made to 
Shrewsbury Abbey, and Walcheline Maminot stood first witness of 
the confirmation. Again we have seen that Maminot's proposed 
bargain with the Abbey was with William PevereFs sanction {con- 
cedente Willielmo Peverel) and attestation. 

But the history of Ercall shows these Coheirs in yet another com- 
bination. To Ercall belonged two Mills, as Domesday has shown 
us. One of these was Bradford Mill, and the locality is the more 
interesting as that which afterwards gave a name to a Hundred and 
a title to an Earldom. — 

This Mill Walcheline Maminoht and William Peverel agreed to 
bestow on the infant Monastery of Haughmond. Their Charters 
are preserved, one in substance, the other in reality. 

These monuments of an age of terror belong to the interval be- 
tween 1141 and 1148. I give them verbatim. — 

Waikelirms Maminot omnibus hominibus Francis et Anglis et 
omnibus amicis suis, salutem, Notum sit vobis, tarn futuris quam 
illis qui sunt, me dedisse pro Deo in elemosinam Ecclesue Sancti 
Johannis de Haghmon, pro animd med, et patris mei, et meorum an^ 
cessorum, molendinum de Bradeforde, et quicquid ad molendinum per^ 
tinet, in aqud et infra, et prato, et de bosco ad molendinum paran^ 
dum si frangat. Testibus istis, Rogerofilio Warini, et Falcone fra- 
tre suo ; Stephana de Haia, et Michaele fratre suo} 

WUlielmus Peverel de Dovera omnibus hominibus suis de Scrape- 
scira et amicis, necnon et omnibus Sanctce Dei EcclesiiB filiis, salutes 
in Christo. Notum vobisfacio quod ego ex med parte do et concedo 

^ Haughmond CLartularf, fo. 39, collated with HarL MS. 2188, fo. 123. 

IX. 9 



66 HIGH SRCALL. 

molendinum Bradefordia, quodpertinet HarchalmuB, Sancto Johantd 
et Canonicis de Haiman, stent Dominua Walchelinus Maminot eis 
dedit pro amore Dei et pro animd Rogeri de Haia. Similiter ego 
volo et concedo ut habeant illud molendinum in pace et liberi et ut 
meliiM eis poterimus iensare et custodire pro amore Dei et redemp- 
tione animarum nostrorum antecessorum, et amid nostri Rogeri de 
Haia, Testibus his, Hugone de Lisoris; Walterofilio Hugonis; An- 
selmo de Hwichintona ; Stefano de Haia ; Michaele de Haia ; Ma^ 
tilla mea conjuge; et Matilla de Dovera mea sorore ; et Acelina 
mea sorore ; et Jordano de Hedleia ; et WiUielmo Clerico. Valete 
omnes in Deo^ 

Besides being associates in works of piety^ Walcheline Maminoht 
and William Peverel (II.) stood side by side in the cause of the 
Empress. They joined the first outbreak against Stephen in 1138. 
William Peyerel raised his Vassals in Shropshire and Cambridge- 
shire^ where he inherited^ from his Father or Unde^ the great Ho- 
nour of Brunne. Walcheline Maminoht took the field as Castellan 
of Dover. William PevereVs operations belong to a future Chap- 
ter of our History^ for it was at Whittington and Ellesmere that his 
chief influence lay. On July 25, 1241, when the Empress, then 
at Oxford, gave to Milo de Gloucester the Earldom of Hereford^ 
William de Dovra (as William Peverel is called) and Walcheline 
Maminot were attesting witnesses. 

After this, and in 1144 (as I suppose) William de Dovre appears 
in Wiltshire. The Author of the Gesta Stepkani, a partisan of the 
Usurper, describes William de Dovre as a " man of military genius, 
crafty and fierce.'^ In the year supposed, he built a Castle at 
Cricklade, subdued the Country^ north and south of the Thames, 
harassed Stephen's partisans in every direction, especially those 
who occupied Oxford and Malmesbury.^ Similar was William de 
Dovre's work in the year 1145, when he caught the Castellan of 
Malmesbury, one of Stephen's ablest Lieutenants, in an ambuscade^ 
and handed him over a prisoner to the Countess of Anjou^ as the 
Stephanite Chronicler calls the Empress. 

At last, says the same Aathor,* '^ repenting of the evils and mise- 
ries which he had ruthlessly worked upon folk, he sought the sacred 
precincts of Jerusalem, to expiate his sins, and there^ performing 
many glorious deeds against the obstinate foes of Christianity, he 
was gloriously slain. ''^ 

^ The original Deed, lat^ in poBaeesion i : • > • < Qetia Siephani Regit (Edition 
of Mr. Oeorge MorriB of Shrewebuiy. I 1846), pp. 106, 107, 111. 



COHEIRS OF PKVEREL. 67 

Here the crusade^ which left England and France in 1147^ must 
be alluded to. We may date the death of William Peverel (II.) of 
Dover as having taken place in 1148^ the same year in which Roger 
de Clinton^ Bishop of Lichfield^ fought and died in the same enter- 
prise. 

Of WalcheUne Maminoht^ as claiming or holding anything in 
Shropshire^ we shall hear no more. William Peverel died childless, 
and his Manor of Ercail, no less than his Barony of Brunne was 
now divided. He left four Sisters, his Coheirs. They were, (1) 
Matilda, wife of Hugh de Dover of Chilham, Kent ; (2) Alice, wife 
of Hamo Peche; (3) Roisia, wife of Rollo de Harcourt; and (4) 
Ascelina, wife of GeoiFrey de Walterville. 

Of the third sister, Roisia, I need say but little, as nothing was 
given to her in Shropshire. Ercall and Tern were divided in equal 
shares among the other three sisters ;— of all and each of whom I 
proceed to give some account. — 

It seems that the three Coheirs of Peverel were unwilling to 
make good the Abbot of Shrewsbury's title to Crugelton. Hence 
the following precept^ of King Henry II. issued between the years 
1155 and 1158, that is before he had been three years on the 
throne. — 

Henricus Rex Anglue ^c, Hamoni Peech, et Gaufrido de Walter^ 
vitt et Hugoni de Dour a, salviem. Pr(Bcipio qtwd jtiste et sine dila- 
done reddatis Abbatia Salop' S^c, terram suam de Crugeltona quam 
Hamo PevereUus, cyjus heredes vos estis eis dedit ^c. Teste Can^ 
cellario apud Brantonam? 

HuoH DE Dover and Matilda his wife complied sooner or later 
with this order, and in its fullest sense. By their Deed (which 
must have passed between 1161 and 1172) they concede to the said 
Abbey a third part of Crugelton and of Slepe, as Hamo Peverel 
had given and confirmed it. Witnesses, Geofirey Peeche; Jordan, 
Clerk; Droco de Waltervill; Matilda, daughter of GeoflOrey de 
Waltervill; Ralph de Lindesey; Hodo; Walter fitz Harduin; 
Alan and William de Hetley ; Ralph son of Theold de Time ; Wil- 
liam fitz Warin of Burewasley (Broseley) ; Robert fitz Nigel of 
Schawbery ; William de Bans ; and Richard de Linley.' 

Two of these witnesses require special notice. — Radulf de Time 
had attested Charters of Hamo Peverel both before and after the 
death of Heary I. He was in fact Hamo Peverel's Feofiee at Tern, 



> Salop Chartulary, No. 43-b. 

' BnmtoB, in Huntingdonshire, is pro- 



bably the place here intended, 
* Salop Chartulary, No. 30. 



68 



COHEIES AND KINDBED OP THE PSYEBBLS 

Origin unknown. 

8 4 



Sibil, dsu. and 
heir of Gerard 
de Tomai. 
Ob. «. p. 



Hamo Peyerel of 
High Eroall. 
Living 1094- 
1136. 

Deftmatw 1188. 
a. p. I. 



Emma Feverel, 
supposed wife of 
Hugh Maminot. 



William Peyerel of Porer. 
Occurs 1101-1183. 
Obiit 9, p. 



8 



Seburga, natural 
dau. of Hamo 
Peverel, and 
wife of William 
de Hadley (I.). 



I 
Walchehne 

Maminot (I.) 

Oco. 1186- 

1155. Def. 

1157. 



Matilda 
Occurs 
e. 1145. 



EsOAiiL, aUof 
Hadley, op 

HlOH 

Eboaix. 



I 
William Peverel 

(II.) of Bourne 

and Dover. 

Occurs 1121- 

1145. Died in 

Palestine circa 

1147-8. 

».p. 



Alice Peverel 
Nupta 1184. 
Supersies 
1185. 



8 



Hamo Peche 
Occ. 1165-8. 
Def, 1185. 



2 



Maminot 

and Sat. 



I 
Matilda 

Peche. 
Nata 1185. 
Married 
first to 
Baldwin de 
Boueestre. 
Had two 
later hus- 
bands. 



Geoffrey Peche 
Occurs 1159. 
Living 1189. 
Def^. 1190. 

9. p. 9. 



=-••«• 



Alice fitz =r Gilben 



widow of Walter. 
Bichard 8vtp€r9te9 



de Cole- 
ham. 



1213. 



2 



Peche. 

Occurs 

1190. 

OhiU 

circa 

July 

1212. 



Balph de 
Boueestre. 
Living 
1186. 



I I I I I I i I I 
Ten other children. 



Eva__ 



Hamo Peche. 
Inf. <Bi. 1218. 
Occurs 1218 
& 1282. 
OhiU circa 
1241. 



t, 



Alice Peche. 
Occurs as a 
Hostage in 
1218. 



4 



6 5 8 2 



1st wife, Matilda 
de Hastings. 
Oh. circa 1164. 



John Peche 
Occ. 1274. 



Gilbert Peche == 2nd wife, 
Occurs 1255- ' Joan, dau. of 
1274. OhiU I Simon de 
drca 1291. . Grey, 

! 



I ... J 

Gilbert Peche. 
Occurs 1299- 
1316. 



Bobert Peche ^H^M 
(probably the B g oS | 
Mesne-Lord 5 i E® 

1285). ||p.| 

CD <& 



Edmund Peche. 



'f 



69 



OP DOVER, OF BOURNE, AND OF HIGH EROALL. 



I 
Pagan FeTerel of Bourne. 

linng 1096-1133. 



AdeliaiA s:^ Bobert FevereL 

(Vide Monasticony 

VoL n. p. 601, No. VIII.) 



tilda = 



Ma 

PevereL 

1185. 



Hugh de Dover 
of Ghilham. 
Occurs 1161-7. 
l>ep, 1172. 
«. p. ». 



I 
Aaoelina 
Pererel. 
Super- 
ties. 
1162-5. 



1 



QeoSeey de 
Watery ille. 
Oco. 1141- 
1160. 
Def*. 1162. 



Boisia 

Peverel. 

Nvpta 

circa 

1134. 



• • • • de 

Torpei. 



I. 
Ancelinade 

Watenrille. 

Occurs 

1189. 

06. 1220. 



lujfi 



Badulf de 
Watenrille. 
Occ. 1165. 
Def. 1185. 
a. p, 9. 



8 

I 
Matilda de 

Waterville. 

Nata circa 

1150. 

Living 

1202. 



BoUode 
Harcourt. 



2 



8 



William 
do Diva. 



I 

Albreda de 

Harcourt. 

Nata c. 

1135. 

Living 

1201. 



William Trusbut 
of Watre. 
Occurs 1138-1165. 
DeJ^. 1180. 



3 



4 2 1 



~ Boger ae Torpel. 

LiTery 1220. ^ ^ 

Def9. Oct. 1225. | ? 




o 



Q 



Hugh de 
Diva. 
Nai.U9 
c. 1175. 
Ob. e. p. 



Balph 

de 

Diva. 



n 



Matildis 
de Diva, 
vnfe of 
William 
fits 
Otho. 



Everard 
deBoos, 
Infr. at. 
1165. 
Vefune- 
tu8 1186. 



zp Itoger de TorpeL 
Under age, 1225, 
bat married. 
Had Livery in 
I>eoeinber 1226. 
OhOi 1229. 



Boesia 

Trusbut. 

Nata e. 

1151. 

Superstee 

1185. 



r 



Isabel, daughter : 
of William the 
Lion, King of 
Scotland. 



J. 



Bobert de Boos. 
Natus 1172. 
Had Livery 
ante 1190. 
ObiU 1227. 



I 
ITeirs under age 

in 1229. 



William de Boos, named as Coheir of 
Hillaria Trusbut in 12a. 06t«^ 1258. 




Boos OF Uahulke. 



70 HIGH ERCALL. 

which he held for a fourth of a knight's-fee^ accounted to be of old 
feoffment. William de Hetley or Hadley^ waa second son of Wil- 
liam de Hadley (I.) by Seburga^ natural daughter of Hamo Peverel^ 
which Seburga was Matilda de Dover's Cousin. After the death of 
Henry I., either Hamo Peverel, or William Peverel (II.) > or his 
three Sisters in conjunction^ enfeoffed William de Hadley in Ercall^ 
by service of one knight^s-fee. 

Hence in 1165 when Hugh de Dover made a return of his Cam- 
bridgeshire Fees^ he added these items to his account. — " Radulfus 
de Tima (tenet) xiiam partem (unius feodi) in Salopescire/^ and — 

"De novo fefamento; Willelmus de Helleia (tenet) tertiam par- 
tem militis in Salopescire post mortem H. (Henrici) Regis/'^ 

I cannot stop to rectify many erroneous statements which have 
been made about Hugh de Dover^ his Barony^ and his successors. 
Suffice it to say that he was a great Baron of Kent and Sheriff of 
that County from 1161 to 1167; and that he did not get his name 
" De Dover*' from his wife : moreover that in the year 1172 he was 
deceased^ without issue ; when his Nephew, John de Dover, suc- 
ceeded to his Kentish Barony and was in turn succeeded by his son 
Fulbert. 

Matilda Peverel, or de Dover, survived her husband, holding of 
course her share of the Barony of Brunne and of the Seigneury of 
Ercall and Tern. She was deceased in 1185, when all her inherit- 
ances were or ought to have been divided into three parts and dis- 
tributed between the representatives of her three sisters. There 
was some litigation as to the partition, and we shall see, with regard 
to Ercall and Tern, that two only of her sisters came to be repre- 
sented there. 

Hamo Peche and Alice Peyerel, his wife, must have been mar- 
ried as early as 1134, for they had a daughter aged 50 in 1185. 

Between the years 1161 and 1172 " Hamo Peeche, and his wife, 
and their son, Greoffrey, conceded to Shrewsbury Abbey a third part 
of Crugelton and of Slepe,^' mentioning how Hamo Peverel had 
made, and how William Peverel, his nephew, had heretofore con- 
ceded and confirmed the grant. Witnesses, Richard (Peche) Bishop 
of Chester; the Abbot of Haemon; John and Wido le Strange; 
Alan and William de Hethley (Hadley); Robert fitz Nichel (of 
Shawbury) ; and Radulf de Time.^ 



* These entries are giyen bj He&me 
{Liber Niger, I. 254), in a way which 
would lead to the erroneous idea that 
Tern was of tiew feoffment. The original 



Record (fo. 65) is more aathoritative, 
making Tern of oM, and Ercall of new 
feoff)nent. 

* Salop Chartulary, No. 29. 



COHEIRS OF psveeeb: ' 71 

Hamo Peche was in his own right seized of a Barony in Suffolk, 
consisting of 12 old fees^ which he duly returned in 1165. But 
there is a long supplement to this return^ stating what Hamo Peche 
held in Cambridgeshire and Shropshire, ''of the Honour of Wil- 
liam Peverel, and of the inheritance of his (Hamo's) wife/' Hamo 
Peche speaks of two Cambridgeshire fees " which William Peverel 
had given him in frank marriage with his sister/' and part of which 
he himself had since bestowed on Baldwin de Boucestre with his own 
daughter in marriage. This is quite consistent with the idea that 
Hamo Peche was married as early as 1134, for William Peverel 
(II.) probably succeeded to the honour of Brunne, before he suc- 
ceeded his Uncle, Hamo. 

But to continue; — Hamo Peche's return has these finrther items. 
''Et in Salopescire: Badulfus de Tirene (tenet) xiiam partem i 
militis. Et de novo fefamento, Willelmus de Hetlega tertiam par- 
tem I militis in Arcalun/'^ 

Hamo Peche was Sheriff of Cambridgeshire from 1164 till Easter 
1166. He was living in 1168 a;id paid scutage on 19 knights'-fees 
in that year. He died before 1185, leaving Alice Peverel his wife 
surviving, and leaving two sons, Oeoffirey and Gilbert, of whom 
Geoffrey was the eldest.* 

Oeoffret Peche is named on the Shropshire Pipe-Boll long 
before his Father's death. In 1159 the Sheriff had paid 20«. to 
Geoffrey Peccatum, by order of the King. 

In 1185 Alice Peverel and Greoffrey, her son, fined 100 merks to 
have their reasonable part of Brunne, as that which had been Ma- 
tilda de Dover's. The opposing claimant was Albreda Trussebut 
who fined 50 merks for a like settlement.^ Of course each of the 
two parties was claiming a third of Matilda de Dover's inheritance, 
generally; or, in other words, a ninth of the Barony and estates 
of Peverel of Dover: for Albreda Trussebut, nee Harcourt, was 
daughter and sole heir of Boisia Peverel. 

At this time (1186) Geoffrey Peche had married the widow of 
one Bichard de Coleham. He was Uving in 1188-9, when he paid 
an instalment of some amercement set on him in Lincolnshire. He 
was deceased without issue in 1190; when — 

Gilbert Peche (his brother and heir) was charged scutage on 



1 Libtr Niger (Heame), I. 261, 262. 
Tern was of old^ Eroall of newfeofiknent, 
if we take the Becord as a guide. The 
distinction is accurately in keeping with 
other eyidences. 



' A Monastic Stmnma {AfoiuuUcon, YI. 
p. 86, Num. n.) wrongly makes (Hlbert 
the elder brother. 

' Bot Pipe, 31 Hen. II., Cambridge- 
shire and Huntingdonshire. 



r* 



2 HIGH BRCALL. 



19tt knights'-fees in Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire and on 
4 fees in Norfolk and Suffolk. 

In 1194 Gilbert Peche paid scutage on an item of 1-; knights'- 
fees, which was distinct from either of the above. It was clearly, 
I think, for his third share of the estates of Matilda de Dover, his 
Aunt. That these assessments included something in Shropshire, 
we are assured by the Pipe- Roll of 1204; for, though the Coheirs 
of Peverel were never assessed in Shropshire, Gilbert Peche's tiC' 
quittal of King John's fifth Scutage is entered under that County 
in the year specified. 

In 1210 Gilbert Peche fined for permission to send two knights 
with King John to Ireland in lieu of himself. On July 9, 1212, 
he was dead ; and his lands were in custody of the King,^ who, on 
January 1, 1213, gave the said custody, and the marriage of Gilbert 
Peche's heir, to Hugh de Boues.* Another entry on this subject 
speaks of Gilbert Peche's tenure as a " Barony .''* 

It will be remembered that William de Hadley (II.) held one- 
third of Ercall under Matilda de Dover and one-third under Peche. 
William de Hadley (II.) seems to have died subsequently to the time 
when Matilda de Dover's third of the Seigneury went to her Co- 
heirs, and when consequently a ninth of such Seigneury devolved 
on Gilbert Peche. Hence the following Charter or renewal, re- 
specting this specific Ninth, from Gilbert Peche to William de 

Hadley (HI.).— 

Gillebertus Peccatum omnUms haminibus suis et amicis, Francis 
et Anfflis, salutem. Sciant presentes et futuri me dedisse et can- 
cessisse et hdc cartd med confirmasse Willielmo filio WUlielmi de 
Hetleia totam terciam partem iUius terne quam Matildis de Dovre, 
amita mea habuit in Harcalud, in omnibus rebus et libertatibus ad 
predictam terram pertinentibus, ipsi et heredibus suis, tenendam de 
me et heredibus meis, libere et quiete et honorifice per servitium nome 
partis unius militis. Hiis testibus ; Falcone filio Warini; Willielmo 
de Rideware; Rogero de Oramavilla; Petro Giffard; Willielmo 
Giffard, fratre ejus ; Hugone de Craudene ; Willielmo filio Aerii ; 
Willielmo de Calna; Gaufrido clerico de Oddewelle; Jordano Bacun; 
Henrico et Adam fratribus efus; Reginaldo Capellano, et muUis 
aliis.* 

The wife and widow of Gilbert Peche was Alice fitz Walter, 
sister of that famous Robert fitz Walter who led the Barons' party 
in the time of King John. On Fitz Walter's banishment his said 

» • ' • » Rot. Patent, pp. 93, 94, 16. * Newport Evidences, 



COHEIRS OF PEVEREL. 73 

Sister had to find hostages for her loyalty. One of these hostages 
was her own daughter Alice. Accordingly, on July 21, 1213, Fitz 
Walter having returned firom exile, the King orders Alice Peche's 
daughter, Alice, and her other hostages to be restored.^ 

Hamo Peche (II.) was son and heir of Gilbert Peche. A minor 
in 1213, 1 find no assurance of his having obtained his majority till 
1218, when he paid scutage on 17tV knights' -fees of his own Barony 
and on 5 knights'-fees of the Barony of Brunne. 

He is named in a Plea- Roll of Michaelmas Term 1232 as Hamo 
Pechie, and as suing one William de Henl' in a Plea of Customs 
and Service, alleged to be due on some land in Shropshire. I can- 
not show that this affair related to Ercall or Tern. 

For some further particulars of Hamo Peche (II.) I refer else- 
where.^ He married an Alien, by name Eve, and died in 1241 
either in going on, or returning from, a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. 
Hamo Peche left six sons, Gilbert, Hamo, Hugh, Eobert, Thomas, 
and William. The eldest, whom we may call — 

Gilbert Peche (II.)^ translated the remains of his grandfather 
and grandmother, Gilbert and Alice, to a marble tomb in the 
Church of Barnwell Priory,* of which House he was Patron, as 
being the eldest Coheir of Pagan Peverel its founder. His homage 
was accepted on December 11, 1241, the King's Writ noticing the 
circumstances of his Father's journey to Palestine, and death.^ 

The Bradford Hundred-Boll of 1255, as touching the Seigneury 
of High Ercall only says that the Tenant held it " of the fee of 
Hamo Peverel ;'* but in respect of Tern, the late Tenant-in-fee is 
expressly said to have held it under Gilbert Peche. These are but 
incomplete statements, as statements respecting divided Seigneuries 
usually are. I take it that Gilbert Peche had four-ninths, or per- 
haps a fuU half, of the Seigneury of Ercall and Tern. Whatever 
his share, it is clear that between the years 1271 and 1274, he 
made Robert Bumell (then Archdeacon of York) Mesne-Lord, be- 
tween himself and John de Ercall, the Tenant-in-fee of Ercall. 

This is shown in a Deed whereby " Gilbert Pecche grants to Sir 
R. Bumell, Archdeacon of York, for his homage and service, the 
homage of Sir John de Erkalewe and his heirs, and the service of 
the same Sir John, which he or his ancestors had at any time ren- 
dered to the Grantor or his Ancestors.'^ He further gives " the 
homage of Thomas Corbet, Lord of Hedle (Hadley), and the service 

' Rot Patent, p. 101. | ' LelatuFs Collectanea^ Vol. T. p. 283. 

' Duffd, Baronage, I. 677. I * Sot. Finium, I. 363. 

IX. 10 



74 



HIGH ERCALL. 



of the said Thomas/' Of this clause in the Deed I shall speak 
elsewhere. The Deed goes on to provide that Sir Robert Bumell, 
his heirs and assigns^ shall hold the premises under the Grantor 
and his heirs at the annual rent of one Chaplet of Roses. 

Another Deed or Writ is a Certificate from Gilbert Pecche to 
'^ his beloved friend, Sir John de Erkalewe," whom he informs of 
the above transaction with Archdeacon Bumell, and on whom he 
enjoins all attention, obedience^ and responsibility, henceforth due 
to the said Archdeacon. 

There are some diflBculties about the further descent of Peche's 
Barony with which I deal briefly in a note.^ Suffice it here to say 
that in 1285 the (then nominal) seigneury of Peche at High Ercall 
had passed to Robert Feche, whom I suspect to have been one of 
Gilbert Peche^s younger brothers. Under Robert Peche, Robert 
Burnell, now Bishop of Bath and Wells, held the Manor, freely 
and without doing any service to the Crown ; and under Robert 
Burnell held William de Ercall, the Tenant-in-fee. — 

Again this account is incomplete, the part being put for the 
whole, as we shall hereafter see. 

On the death of Philip Burnell (nephew and heir of the Bishop) 
in 1294, William de Erkalewe was found to have been holding the 
Manor of Erkalewe, under the said Philip, by service of a knight's- 
fee, and it was valued at £'Z0 per annum.^ 



* Dugdale ha« confused Gilbert Peche 
(IT.) with a subBeqaent GKlbert, — ^pro- 
bably his younger son. Gilbert Peche 
(II.), by his first wife Matilda de Hast- 
ings, had two sons, viz. John and Ed- 
mund. The said Matilda died apparently 
about 1264-5, or during the period of 
Montfort's usurpation. Gilbert Peche 
(II.) remarried with Joan, daughter of 
Sir Simon de Grey, on whose children he 
oontriTed to settle the bulk of his estates. 
The residue of bis Barony he gave to 
King Edward I., probably about the year 
1284. He died in 19 Edward I. (1290-1). 

Thus much I gather from Leland, and 
from the Monastic Stemma already cited : 
but a more authentic Record partly con- 
firms the story of Gilbert Peche*s dishe- 
ritance of his eldest son, though the latter 
would seem to have been a Toluntary suf- 
ferer. In January 1274 Gilbert Peche 
enfeoifed John, his son and heir, in the 



Essex Manor of Plecheden. John was 
seized thereof fire months, but then set- 
tled it on his father, Gilbert, and on Gil- 
bert's wife, Joan, conjointly; — ^with re- 
mainder to the heirs of Gilbert by the 
said Joan. In December 1291 Joan wid- 
ow of GKlbert Peche complained that the 
Eschetor had seized Plecheden and Magna 
Trillawe (Suffolk) for the Grown, though 
she and her late husband were Joint- Feof- 
fees thereof. The Inquest which followed 
fotmd the above facts as regards Pleche- 
den {InquM, 20 Edw. I., No. 48). I take 
it, then, that the Gilbert Peche who had 
miUtary summons as a Baron in 1299» 
and who was Lord of Great Thurlow 
(Suffolk) in 1316, was eldest son of GU- 
bert Peche (II.) by Joan de Grey, and 
the Founder of a new Barony. What be- 
came of the right heirs of Gilbert Peche 
(II.) ]» matter of conjecture. 
3 Inq^titUionM, 22 Edw. I., No. 45, d. 



COHEIRS OP PEVEREL. 75 



After this, I hear nothing more of the Tenure of Ereall^ except 
as held, by the Tenant-in-fee, under the Bumells, and, by the Bur- 
nells, in capite. Such mesne rights as had been retained by Peche 
were merely nominal, and, in accordance with the spirit of the age, 
were likely to become obsolete. 

I must now return to speak of — 

BoLLO OE Harcourt and his wife Boisia, third sister and co- 
heir of William Peverel (II.) . In the first partition of William 
Feverel's estates, Boisia took nothing in Ercall and Tern. Her 
share was made up to her elsewhere, principally at Brauuston in 
Northamptonshire. But on Matilda de Dover's death, about 1 185, 
a third of the Seigneury of Ercall and Tern must have stood for 
division between three coheirs. Boisia's representative was now her 
daughter Albreda, wife of William de Trussebut of Wartre (Co. 
York). The said Albreda should, in the ordinary course, have had 
a ninth of the said Seigneury, but I do not find that she or her 
heirs (of whom I shall have to speak elsewhere) obtained or held 
such a share. Probably it became merged in the two greater divi- 
sions of four-ninths each which accrued to the heirs respectively of 
Matilda and Ascelina Peverel. This brings us to— 

Geopfrbt oe Walte&ville and his wife Ascelina, fourth sister 
and coheir of William Peverel (II.). — 

About 1141, we have Greoffirey de Waterville attesting a Charter of 
the Empress Maud.^ Somewhat later we have seen Ascelina (Peve- 
rel) attesting her brother^s grant to Haughmond Abbey. Between 
1155 and 1158, we have seen Henry II. addressing (reoflrey de 
Walterville as one of Hamo PevereVs Coheirs, concerned in Ercall. 

But better than all this we have a Deed which speaks plainly of 
Geoffirey de Waltervill^s tenure of one-third of Ercall. It is his 
actual grant thereof to that same WiUiam ,de Hadley whom we 
have seen obtaining the other two-thirds of the Manor. The Deed 
passed between 1155 and 1162, probably about 116(). 

G. de Waltervilla omnibus amicis suis Francigenis et Anglis, 
Dedi WUlielmo de Hetlehe pro suo servicio totam meam partem de 
Herchalun, et consensu Acelina tutoris mete et Radulfi filii mei. In 
feodo et hereditate sibi et heredibus suis, de me et keredibus nieiSy et 
cum hoc meam partem de feudo Huponis de Loci ;^ et hanc terram 

' MotuuUeonf V. 409. | on Hamo Peverel, and had descended to 

' It is probable, from this expression, Hamo Peyerel's coheirs. The restora- 



ihat during Lack's forfeiture, and towards 
the end of Henry I.'s reign, something in 
his Shropshiro Fief had been bestowed 



tion of the Lacies by Henry II. possibly 
obliterated the specific alienation, by rein- 
vesting them with the estate in question. 



76 HIGH ERCALL. 

quam hie nominavi dedi illi pro servicio tercue partis unitis militis 
faciendo ; et ideo volo et firmiter precipio quod per hoc servicium 
quod hie nominavi earn teneat i ^ bene et in paee cum omnibus liber- 
tatibus et eum omnibus pertinenciis, sieut Homo Piperettus avunculus 
Mxoris mea usque ^ illam melius et quietius uno die et una node 
ienuerit. Testibus, Hugone de Luisures ; H. Picart ; Drugone ^ de 
Watervill; Widone de Watervill; Roberto Malet; fViUielmo de Seto 
Georgio; G, fratre ejus; Toroldo de Suton ; Rogero de Millinton; 
Roberto filio Willielmi ; Simone de Sumeri ; Williehno Bastart ; 
Hamelino; Uioc Capellano; Willielmo filio Petri; Petro de Seto 
Martino,^ 

Geoflfrey de Walterville was deceased in 1162. Consequently it 
is his widow who, as Ascelin' de Waltervill, was assessed to the 
scutage of that year, as Tenant of five knights^-fees in Camhridge- 
shire and Huntingdonshire ;— obviously her share of the Barony of 
Brunne. 

The IMer Niger of 1165 contains no return by Ascelina de Wal- 
tervill ; but I suspect it to have been her who is written as Ascelinus 
de Waltervill, and who held half a fee in Lincolnshire under Simon 
Earl of Northampton.* Probably too it was her son who in one 
place is called Ralph de Waltervilla,^ and in another, Balph fitz As- 
celine,^ in the same Record, but who does not yet appear as a 
Tenant'in-capite, 

Between the years 1161 and 1173, 1 date the Deed whereby As- 
celina de Waltervill (evidently a widow) and Radulf her son, con- 
cede to Shrewsbury Abbey, a third of Crugelton and Slepe, as given 
previously by Hamo Peverel, &c. Witnesses, Nicholas, Canon; 
Bartholomew d' Andevill ; Droco de Waltervill ; Radulf de Linde- 
sey ; Hodo ; Walter fitz Harduin ; Acelina daughter of Geoflfrey 
de Waltervill ; Alan de Haleie (read Hadley) ; Radulf son of Teold 
de Terne ; William fitz Warin of Burewardesley (Broseley) ; William 
de Bans ; Richard de Linley.^ 

Radul? de Walterville probably survived, and succeeded his 
Mother. He granted to Barnwell Priory the Church of Bertone in 
Eetstevene, but was deceased without issue before 1185. At his 
death his sisters became his heirs. These were Matilda, wife of 
William de Diva, and Ascelina, wife of * * * * de Torpel. 

Matilda, widow of William de Diva and daughter of Walter de 
Geoffreyvill (as the Record by a curious transposition of names calls 

>•» 'BJesAUawsi^.unqwm. <•*•• l^er iVi^cr, 1. 271, 269, 198. 

' The late Mr. George Morris's Deeds. ^ Salop Chartulaiy, No. 31. 



COHEIllS or PEVEREL. 77 

}ier Father) 9 was 35 years of age in 1185. She was then in the 
King's gift. The land of Corebij held under the See of Lincoln^ 
was her marriage portion (surely it was part of her inheritance) . 
She had in 1185 two sons and two daughters^ of whom the heir was 
aged ten years.^ In her charter to Barnwell she^ as Matildis de 
Diva, confirms her brother's gift of Bertone Church.^ In her grant 
of a third of Corby Church to Stanford Nunnery she names her 
father^ Geoffrey de fValtervUl, her maternal aunt {matertera) Ma- 
tildia de Dovere, and her husband^ William.^ She was living in 
1202 or later. Her eldest son was named Hugh^ but her second 
son, Ralph de Diva, continued the line. She had also a daughter, 
Matildis, wife of William fitz Otho. 

More of this descent I cannot here discuss. 

AscELiNA, sister and coheir of Radulf de Waltervill, was wife of 
* * * de Torpel. As Ascelina de Waltervill, she confirmed her 
brother Badulf's grant to Barnwell Priory.^ In her grants to 
Stamford Nunnery, about Corby Church, she names two of her 
sons, Oeofirey and Thomas : and one of the said Charters is attested 
by Roger de Torpell and Badulph de Diva, — her eldest son and her 
nephew, as I take it. In 1 Richard I. (1189-90) Ascelina de 
Watervil (with assent of her son and heir Roger de Thorpel) and 
Matilda de Diva (with assent of her son and heir Hugh de Diva) 
made a grant in Eylesurrthe to Hugh de Longchamp, Nephew of 
William Bishop of Ely, the King's Chancellor.^ A Scutage-Roll 
of King John's reign calls this Lady Ascelinus de WaltervUe, but 
couples her and her sister, Matilda de Diva,, as together responsible 
on 9i fees in Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire. She must 
have lived to a great age, for her son Roger de Torpel had not livery 
of his inheritance as her heir till April 1220.^ That inheritance is 
well defined as the sixth part of a Barony ; for it was exactly that 
proportion of the Barony of Brunne. Its Caput was Hinxton in 
Cambridgeshire. Roger de Torpel (I.) died in 1225, when he was 
succeeded by his son and heir another Roger, who though imder 
age was already married.^ 

It is time to show the bearing of these discursive notes on our 
present subject. The above Matilda and Ascelina, as daughters 
and eventual coheirs of Ascelina Feverel, and as nieces and coheirs 
of Matilda Feverel, should have had, and perhaps did have, four- 

1 Rot. de DornhMhut (Grimaldi), p. 7. 1 * Manatticon, YI. 87, Num. V. 
s MonaHuHm, VI. 87, Num. VI. » Glover's CoUeetiatu, B. p. 91. 

3 Monatticon, IV. 262, Num. XII. i < • 7 Sot. Fimum, I. pp. 46, 183. 



78 HIGH EBCAU^. 

ninths of the Seigneury of Ercall and Tern. The said four-ninths^ 
or rather^ a reputed half of the Seigneury of Ercall, is found after 
a silence of about a century (1170 to 1270) to have been in Geofirey 
de Gresley. There is no genealogy of the Gresleys, known to me, 
which will account for this ; nevertheless I cannot but think that 
this feudal right came to the said Geoffirey by inheritance. That 
GeofTrey de Gresley had it, the sole but sufficient proof is the fol- 
lowing Deed, which must have passed between 1271 and 1274, that 
is, at the precise period when Robert Bumell acquired another 
moiety of this Seigneury from Gilbert Peche. — 

" Geofirey de Gresseleg, son and heir of Sir William de Gresse- 
leg, grants to Sir Robert BumeU, Archdeacon of York, the homage 
and service of Sir John de Erkalewe, in which homage and service 
he (the said John) was bound to the Grantor, for one moiety of 
the Manor of Erkalewe."^ 

Geoffrey de Gresley^s cotemporary certificate to the Tenant-in-fee 
may be given in brief as follows. — 

Dilecto amico mo, Domino Johanni de Erkalwe, Galfridus de 
Gresselegy s€UtUem, ^c. Scias me dedisse homagium et servicium 
vestrum et heredum vestrorum, in quibus nobis tenebamini, pro me- 
dietate Mancrii de Erkalwe^ venerabili viro, Domino Roberto Bumel? 

It may serve as a starting-point for some future inquiry if I in- 
dicate precisely who the above Geofirey de Gresley was, besides be- 
ing son of Sir William. He was Lord of Drakelow (Derbyshire) 
and of Moiton and Kingston (Stafibrdshire) . He had been ac- 
cused of disloyalty in the rebellion of 1264-5, and Thomas Corbet 
(of Hadley) had apparently obtained a grant of his estates, thus 
forfeited. In 1273 Corbet was endeavouring to force Geofirey de 
Gresley to the usual composition (under the Dictum de Kenilworth), 
for lands in the aforesaid Manors. Gresley resisted, asserting that 
in the time of disturbance his loyalty had not been shaken. It was 
very possibly the expense, likely to be incurred at such a juncture, 
which prompted Gresley to sell his seigneury at High Ercall to 
Archdeacon Bumcl. 

I have now done with the Mesne-Lords of High Ercall, and shall 
proceed to speak of the Feoflee whom they, by common consent, 
invested with the Manor, — of him, his parentage, and descendants. 

William de Hadlby (II.) otherwise William de Ercall (I.) 
was second son of W^illiam de Hadley (I.) by Seburga, natural 
daughter of Hamo Peverel. 

* • ' Newport Evidence*. 



HIGH KRCALL. 



79 



We have seen William de Hadley (II.), perhaps then a mere 
child, following his father (William) and elder brother (Alan) in 
attesting Charters of his grandfather (Hamo Peverel), which passed 
about 1134.^ His feoffment in Ercall, by service of one knight's- 
fee, was certainly later than 1135. It may have been the act of 
William Peverel (II.) his kinsman, but I much prefer to consider 
it as the joint act of the said William Peverel's coheirs, and to have 
taken place between 1155 and 1165. The Charters or Records 
which prove William de Hadley (II.) to have been enfeoffed in three- 
thirds, that is in the whole, of the Manor, before 1165, have been 
already given. 

We have seen him, as William brother of Alan de Hadley, at- 
testing William fitz Alan's so called Foundation-Charter of Wom- 
bridge Priory. We have seen him as William de Ercalew, granting 
a ninth of all his tithable possessions to the same House.' This 
was before 1181. His further grants to Wombridge (not being 
specified in the general Confirmations of King Henry II. and Pope 
Urban III. in 1181 and 1187) I take to have been later than 1187. 
They are partly combined in the following Deed. — 

William de Hedlega grants for the health (of the souls) of him- 
self, his ancestors, his father and mother, and his wife Sibil, that 
land of Schurlawe, which was then held by Turstan de Schurlawe, 
William his son, and Reiner nephew of Odo de Ercalewe, and 
bounded by an old ditch which separated the grant from the land 
of his men of Ercalwe. He also gives the Canons common-pasture 
in all the Manor of Ercalwe ; also, by assent of his heir, a ninth 
part of all his effects which were renewed yearly {innovantur per 
annum), whereof tithe was wont and ought to be given. Witnesses^ 
Master Robert of Salopesbury, Pagan de Hedleg, Peter de Eyton, 
Ralph Panton, Alan de Hedleg, Richard his brother, Walter Chap- 
lain of Ercalewe, Baldwin Wischart, and twenty others.* 

The same William de Hedley is further said to have given to 
Wombridge the whole land of Podeford with all its appurtenances.^ 

Of the above witnesses I suspect that Pagan de Hadley was the 



> • 2 Sapns Vol VII. p. 862, 364. 
• Abstract of Newport Evidences. — 
The original Deed seems to have in- 
cluded a grant ofpeston, in Ercall Wood, 
for the swine of the Canons, and their 
men ; — ^the former to be quit of pannage* 
but the pannage of the latter to be re 
ceired by the Canons, as ** tho Qrantor 



and his Antecessors had been used to re- 
ceive it" (Motuuticonf VI. 890). I quote 
the above to show how loosely the word 
AnUces8ore9 was used in early Charters. 

« 3rofkw<icoN,VI.890,a.— Polfordwas 
a member of Cold Hatton, not of Ercall. 
William de ErcalVs alleged interest there 
will form matter of future comment. 



^ 



80 HIGH ERCALL. 

Grantor's brother, and that Alan and Richard de Hadley were the 
Grantor's younger sons. The grant if it probably passed after 1187 
certainly passed before 1197, when the first witness became Bishop 
of Bangor. 

The latest attestations which I can suppose to belong to William 
de Hadley (II.) alias William de Ercall (I.) are involved in the 
following combinations.— 

Between 1175 and 1180, Alan de Hadley, William de Ercalew, 
and Pagan de Hadley (three brothers I think) attest a Charter 
already given under Tibberton.^ 

In the same interval Alan de Hadley's grant to Wombridge is 
attested by William de Ercalew and Payn his brother.^ 

About 1186-7, William de Ercalew, and Pagan de Hadley, with 
* * ♦ * and Richard his nephews, attest a Charter given under 
Sutton Maddock.^ 

About 1188, William de Hedlega attests a Charter of Walter de 
Dunstanvill (I.)^ ; and about the same time Alan de Hadley is fol- 
lowed by William de Ercalou in a Pimley Deed.^ 

That William de Hadley (II.) was living after these attestations 
would indicate, I infer from the fact that his son and heir, William, 
was called in one instance juvems, and in another, minor, between 
the years 1191 and 1197. Perhaps the latest notice we have of 
William de Hadley (II.) is his suit with Richard deLeighton in 
December 1194,* for no limit of age would preclude his name thus 
appearing. When he died I know not, for it is clear that at the 
close of his life his public ftmctions devolved upon his heir, so en- 
tirely as that the acting son is only distinguished from the super- 
annuated father in the two exceptional instances above alluded to. 

William de Hadley (III.) otherwise William de Ercall (II.) 
must be taken to be that heir who consented to his Father's grant 
to Wombridge, but we have perhaps earlier notices of him than 
that. It is he who about 1189 (certainly between 1187 and 1191), 
as WilUam de Hedley, and with his brothers Alan, Hamund, and 
Richard, attests Roger Mussun's two Grants to Wombridge. It 
was he who as William de Hadley acted as Deputy- Sheriflf for 
William fitz Alan in the year ending Michaelmas 1 191. It was he 
who as William de Hedlehe attested Bishop Novant's charter at, 
and to, Buildwas Abbey on November 22, 1192.^ Lastly, between 



1 • « Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 47 ; Vol. VII. 
p. 356. 
3 Supra, Vol. II. p. 112, note 14. I 7 Supra, Vol. W. p. 329. 



* Supra, Vol. II. p. 279, noto 51. 
» • « Supra, Vol. VII. p. 305, 327. 



HIGH EBCALL. 81 

the jean 1190 and 1194^ we have him as William Juvenis de 
Hedleia, and followed by Alan de Hedleia, who must therefore be 
taken as his brother : we haye him twice as William de Hadley^ 
and followed by Hamo his brother : and we have him as William de 
Hedley minor .^ 

Before the year 1201^ '' William son of William de Hedl^a con- 
cedes and confirms to Hanghmond Abbey^ the Mill of Bradeforde 
and all th^ right therein which pertained to him or his heirs. Wit- 
nessesy — ^The Prior of Wombridge^ John le Strange^ Hamo le 
Strange^ Roger de Peninton^ Wido de Shawbury^ Baldwin Wiscard^ 
and Hugh le Strange/' 

In return probably for this^ '^ Richard Abbot of Haghmon con- 
cedes the same Mill to William son of William de Hedley, to 
hold hereditarily to him and his heirs at an annual rent of 2 merks ; 
but if at any time this rent should be unpaid, the Abbot retained a 
power of reseizin. Witness, John le Strange/^ 

At the Assizes of 1203, William de Edleg essoigned his attend- 
ance; Baldwin the Prwost being Ids Essoignor. About this time 
three cotemporary Wombridge Charters are attested, two of them 
by " William de Hadley and William his son,^^ one of them by 
" William de Hadley and William his brother." The last attes- 
tation probably involves a scribal error, to be corrected by the two 
others. On the whole we at least have an early appearance of the 
son and heir of William de Hadley (III.)« 

It appears that, besides being Tenant of Bradford Mill, William 
de Hadley (III.) obtained &om Griffin son of Gervas Grohc (then 
Lord of Rowton and Ellerdine) such concessions as enabled him to 
make a Vivary and Mill on the little stream which divided Ercall 
from Rowton and Ellerdine, and which was called Petidelat. The 
Mill and Vivary, when made, were called The Lake. This will ex- 
plain the following Deed which passed between 1201 and 1216, 
probably about 1208.— 

WtUiehnue de Herkelawe dedi, Sfc. Baldwino Wischart ^ et here- 
dibus liberitUem molendi bladum in omnibus molendinis meis, prima 
post bladum quod invenitur in tremnd, excepto meo et blado Stephani 
de Stanton in molendino de Bradeford et blado Griffinifilii Gervasii 
Goh in molendino de la Lake. His testibus, Stephana de Stantona, 
Willielmo filio Walteri, Philippo de Penintona, Johanne de Hqptona, 
Daumaro de Suggedona, Ham&ne de Penintona.^ 

1 Snpn, YoL II. pp. 112, 133, 282 ; * He was Lord of Cold Hatton. 

Vol. YII. p. 341. ' The late Mr. Gkorge Morrii's Deeds. 

IX. . 11 



82 



HIGH SRCALL. 



We have William de Ercall attesting a Deed of Reiner, Bishop 
of St. Asaph, in 1217 or 1218 ; and we have William de Hedley at- 
testing a Deed abeady given, and supposed to have passed about 
1223. I take the witness in both cases to have been William de 
Hadley (1II.)> but possibly his son may have ere this succeeded 
him. However it is singular that the very interval which 1 should 
fix upon as distinguishing the public seras of William de Hadley 
(III.) and William de Hadley (IV.) is occupied by one Hugh db 
Hadlet, who (as we have seen^) attests a Deed between 1225 and 
1227, and occupies a high position therein. I cannot account for 
any Hugh de Hadley in the succession of the Lords of Ercall. It 
is dear that the eventual, and probable that the long presumptive, 
heir of William de Hadley (III.) was — 

William db Hadlby (IV.) ali€u William db Ercall (III.)- 
Touching him and his career of 28 years we have an almost im- 
broken chain of evidences. — 

In October 1227, Reginald de Thime quitclaims to WiUiam de 
Hedleg and his heirs, as their right, whatever he had had, both in 
heath and in land, tilled or to be tilled, according to certain bounda- 
ries, agreed upon between the said William and Radulf, Reginald's 
brother, as a Charter of Radulf which William held, did testify. 
Witnesses, Sir Thomas de Muleton, Sir Robert de Lexinton, Sir 
Maurice de Grant, and Sir Ralph Musard, then Justices itinerant at 
Shrewsbury; Sir John le Strange; Sir Roger la Zuche; Sir Henry 
then Abbot of Shrewsbury ; Sir John le Strange son of John ]e 
Strange; Sir Hamo brother of the same (Sir John); Sir Roger 
Sprenghose ; Sir William de Stanton ; and Sir Richard de Middle- 
hope.* 

The following curious Deed of 1229,' I must give more in its 
original form.— 

Htec est convencio facta anno 1229 inter Dominium Madocum 
filmm Griffini Gohg ex und parte et Dominum Willielmum de 
Hetleyd ex alid parte. — Madoc quief clamavit Willielmo totam piS" 
cariam mam et batellum in vivario de La Lake quam Griffinus pater 
Madoci retinuit sibi in cartd quam Willielmus habet.^ WUlielmus 
relaxat Madoco (potestatem) sumendi terram secundum formam 
carta predictis ubi commodius illijuerit, ut dictus Willielmus capiat 



1 Snpra, VoL VIIL p. 30. 
' * ' Charters late in possession of Mr. 
George Morris of Slirewsbuiy. 
^ B£adoc*s Father, in the former agree- 



ment {circa 1201), had reserved a right 
of fishing in Hadley's Yiyary and using 
Hadley's boat, and had given Hadley an 
indefinite right to take soil on his estate. 



HIGH ERCALL. 



83 



terrain in certo loco scilicet inter molendinum de la Lake et terminos 
positos coram miUtibus, scilicet, Bartholomeo Toret, Gtdfrido de 
Folevile, Gerardo Toret, Hamone Extraneo, Hugone de Becheburi, 
Hugone Forsterio,^ Thomd Corbet, Odone de Hodnet, Alexandro 
Vicario de Hercalewe 8f i». a. 

On May 13, 1234, William de Ercalew and the Abbot of Shrews- 
bury came to an agreement about the stank of a new Mill and 
Fishery which the Abbot had made under Crugelton. It was settled 
that the stank should be raised no higher than it was already. In 
return Ercalew quitclaimed to the Abbey 4 acres of land, which 
had been given in exchatige by his Ancestors, and pasture for 200 
sheep at Osbemeston (Osbaston). Witnesses, Hugh fitz Robert, 
Peter de Eyton, Madoc de Sutton, Baldwin Wischart, William de 
Eyton, Ranulf de Rodinton, Reginald de Time, Robert de Brocton, 
Benedict de Eston, William de Weston, Clerk.' 

At Michaehnas 1235 and Easter 1236, William de Ercalue ap- 
pears as Collector in Shropshire of the Aid on marriage of the 
King's Sister.* 

A Roll of about the year 1240, has " William de Hedleg as hold- 
ing one knight's-fee in Ercalew of the Fees of Peverel/'^ — an accu- 
rate and intelligible expression which needs no further comment. 

On November 21, 1240, WUliam de Edlegh is the first-named of 
four provincial Knights who were to try a Suit between the Abbots 
of Haghmon and Buildwas. His attestations at this period are 
very numerous. Sometimes he is called De Ercall and sometimes 
De Hadley, sometimes styled Dominus, sometimes not. 

I give an abstract of an agreement made on August 16, 1245, 
between Sir William de Hadley and Sir Madoc de Sutton, Lord of 
Rowton and Ellerdine. — 

Ita convenit inter Dominum Madocum de Suttone et Dominum 
Willielmum de Hedleg in crastino Assumpdonis B. M. anno regni 
Regis Henrici filii Regis Johannis xxix^. — Dominus Madocus con- 
cessit WiUielmo et heredibus ut facial molendinum suum de La Lake 
cum ChoyseUo^ vel alio modo ad voluntatem suam, — stagnum non eo?- 
altabii ultra formam convencionis quondam inita inter ipsos, scilicet 
coram B, Toret et aliis militibus in dicta convencione nominatis. 
Concessit WiUielmus quod Madocus et heredes possint herbam falcare 
extra aquam vivarii sui (ita quod fcdcatores in aquam non intrentj, 
et animalia sua et hominum suorum pascere per totum vivarium 



I Sir Hugh fitz Bobert of Solas. 
' Salop Ohaitulary, Nob. 284, 395. 



> • « Testa de NeviU, pp. 61, 46. 
* That is, with a Beservoir. 



84 



HIGH ERCALL. 



suum. In hujus ret testimonium utraque pars, ifc. H. T. Domino 
Odone de Hodenet, Alano Corbet, Stephano de Peninton, Johanne de 
Pres.^ 

On October 6^ 1245^ a Fine was levied at Westminster between 
William de Hedleg^ Plaintiff, and Baldwin Prior of Wombridge, 
''inasmuch as the Prior required from the Plaintiff a ninth of all 
things which were renewed to him yearly within the Manor of Er- 
kelewe" The Plaintiff^s grievance was that the Prior had draped 
him into a Court-Christian concerning chattels which were not the 
subject of any Will or Marriage-Contract {qtuB nonfuertmt de tes- 
timonio vel matrimonio) . Now the Plaintiff concedes that the Priory 
shall have a ninth of all garbs and hay, arising from 3 carucates 
which he held in demesne at Erkalewe, and also a similar ninth from 
all lands in the said Manor which should be assarted by him or his 
heirs. The Prior renounced all right to his previous exactions of a 
ninth of the garbs and hay of the vill of Mora (now Moor-town), 
and of a ninth of the Plaintiff's movables. 

On November 15, 1248, a Pine was levied between Baldwin 
Prior of Wombridge, Plaintiff, and William de Ercalewe, Defor- 
ciant, concerning a right of common asserted by the Prior in the 
Manor of Ercalwe. William now allows such right, for the Prior's 
own cattle at Shirlawe, and for the cattle of any of the Prior's men 
of Ercalewe, except in Heltesmore, which was only to be common 
between Martinmas (November 11) and the Purification (February 
2) . In return th^ Prior renounced all right of common in William's 
Park, save for 8 oxen. 

In February 1249, the ninth Juror in a Bolas Inquest is written 
as WiU. de Ercalewe Morvan, The individual was not the person 
I am treating of, but some one distinguished from him in this im- 
intelligible way. In fact William de Hedleye himself presided over 
the Inquest as Escheator for Shropshire. 

In March 1253, the Abbot of Shrewsbury was suing William de 
Ercalew for disseizin in Ercalew. 

In 1255, the Jurors of Bradford Hundred reported the state of 
this Manor as foUows. — 

''William de Hercalue holds Hercalue with its appurtenances by 
(service of) a third part* of a knight's-fee, of the Fee of Hamo Pe- 
verel. He does no suit to County or Hundred, but we know not 



1 Charter, late in possession of Mr. 
George Morris of Shrewsbury. 
* This was probably an error of the 



Jurors. The coUeotive serTloe due to the 
Coheirs of Peverel was prerioosly that of 
a whole knight's-fee. 



HIGH ERCALL. 



85 



his warranty (for the exemption). He pays ISd. for stretward and 
18rf. to the Provosfs Aid.''^ 

The Prior of Womburg has one canicate of land of the fee of 
Hercalue in pnre almoign^ by gift of William de Hercalue^s grand- 
father^ and by gift of Ysonda de Wilfichelond. The aforesaid Wil- 
liam has free-warren, but we know not by what warranty/'^ 

I should here observe that the ISd. payable for stretward indi- 
cates a Manor of 4^ hides. Ercall had therefore lost 2^ hides of 
its Domesday area. The loss may be computed as Sleap and Crud- 
gington (1^ hides) and Tern (1 hide). 

At the Assizes of January 1256 William de Erkalue had four 
Lawsuits, real or fictitious, in hand. He was sued by Anora de 
Erkalewe and Cecilia her Sister in a Plea of Charter- Warranty, 
which was compounded by license, and for a Fine of 6^. Sd. The 
Cyrograph (which followed as a matter of course) is not preserved. 

Further, William de Erkalue had suits of novel disseizin with 
Henry Mauvesin, and with William le Fraunceys (probably of 
Meeson), and a suit of Charter-Warranty with the Prioress of fire- 
wood. In these three Suits he names his son John as his Attorney, 
but I only find the result of the last. This is in the shape of a Fine 
levied at Shrewsbury on Feb. 3, 1256, between Agnes, Prioress of 
St. Leonard of Brewood, Plaintifi*, and William de Ercalew, Impe- 
dient (by Hamo fitz William de Sholton, his Attorney) concerning 
a ninth of the garbs produced by two carucates of William^s land 
in La More, and by one carucate in Erkalue, and a ninth of Wil- 
liam's hay in Thyme except the hay of Wrennesmore meadow,* 
concerning all which ninths, there was Plea of warranty, &c. Now 
William concedes the same as his gift to the Prioress. He fiirther 
concedes sl place at La More, where the Prioress's grange was built. 
The Prioress in return vouchsafed the prayers and good offices of 
her House to the Grantor and his heirs. The Fine is indorsed 
with a memorandum that — ^'The Prior of Wombridge apposes his 
claim." 

The above Fine is fully explained by a preceding or a concurrent 
Charter, which gives the name of William de Ercall's wife. — 

" William de Ercal, for the souls of himself and his wife, Emma, 
gives to St. Leonard and to the White Nuns of Brewode a ninth of 



' Ad<mmUumPrap<uiii,amUds — ano- 
ther term for Motfee (yide supra, YoL I. 
p. 92, note 886). 

' SaU Uumdred. IL 65. 



* Wrennemore meadow waa apparently 
yery extenfliye. Part of it, as we haye 
seen, was in Bodington Manor (yide eu- 
pra, Vol. VII. p. 376). 



86 HIGH ERCALL. 

the sheaves^ of two carucates^ and one caracate^ in his demesnes of 
La More and Ercal respectively, he not being bound to pay the said 
ninths to the House of Wombrugg according to a Cyrograph made 
between himself and the said House. He further gives to Brewode 
a ninth of his hay ntar Tyme except that of Wennemor-meadow. 
As security he gives a power of distress on Ercal Mill, to the extent 
of 20 measures of best com. He further gives the Nuns 40 feet of 
land near his Court of La More to make a Weir. Witnesses, Ro- 
bert Corbet, Lord of Morton, Eoger Corbet of Hedleg, John fitz 
Hugh, Sir Hamund le Strange, Odo de Hodnet, Roger de Pyvelsdon, 
and Jurdan de Pyvelesdon.'^^ 

John de Ercall, with whom I now proceed, was son and heir 
of WiUiam de Ercall (III.), to whom he succeeded within the seven 
months which followed the Fine of February 1256. Neither he 
nor any of his descendants were called De Hadley. In the very 
year of his father's death John de Ercalew was presented as a 
Tenant of 15 lAbrates of land and not yet a knight. Li the same 
year he fines one merk for some writ. On Sept. 14, 1256, John 
fitz Aaer and Margery his wife are set down as having a suit of 
novel disseizin against John de Ercalew for a tenement in Suthleg.^ 
As far as I can judge firom his attestation of Deeds, John de Ercall 
remained unknighted till 1266-7. However in August 1267 he 
appears with that dignity, but not in an otherwise creditable posi- 
tion. King Henry III. was in that month presiding in his Curia 
at Shrewsbury, when Cecily, daughter of Sir William de Ercalue, 
came before the King and complained of Sir John de Ercalue her 
brother, who had threatened herself in life and limb, and her house 
with burning. She asked the King's peace and the King gave it. 
So also did Robert de BlecheF, William le Forester, and Hugh 
Clerk, obtain the King's peace in respect of the same Sir John.' 

On May 12, 1267, John de Ercalewe had a grant of a weekly 
market (on Mondays) at Ercalewe, and also of an annual fair, to be 
held on the eve, day, and morrow of the nativity of the Virgin 
(Sept. 7, 8 and 9) .* 

On November 8, 1268, John de Ercalew is appointed to deliver 
Bridgnorth Gaol. A Patent of July 1269 puts him on a similar 
commission for the Gaols of Stafford and Shrewsbury. At this 
period his attestations of Charters are very numerous, and he is al- 
ways entitled Dominus. 



1 Newport Hmdences. 

' Sudelej, a member of Cheswardino. 



' Coram Rege^ 51 Hen. III., m. 3. 
* Rot. Cartitruntf 51 Hen. III. 



HIGH ERCALL. 87 

About March 1271^ " Richard de Loskeford concedes to John de 
Erkal, Lord of Erkal^ for his service and for 4 merks paid^ a mes- 
suage^ croft, and curtilage, bounded hj certain Gades^ which had 
been placed by view of the vicinage, also a noke of land in Waleton. 
Reyner le Wyne, William Pygun, and Elyas, the Grantor's son, 
are Tenants named in the Deed, which was a lease for 24 years, 
commencing Lady Day 1271, at an annual rent of one rose-blossom. 
Witnesses, Sir Odo de Hodenet, Robert Corbet, Lord of Morton, 
John fitz Aery, Philip de Peninton, Henry Mauveysin, Reginald 
and Richard de Tjme." 

At the Assizes of 1272 John de Erkelewe was Elisor (Chooser of 
the Jury) for Bradford Hundred. 

John de Ercall, sometimes called Escheaior, and sometimes Sub- 
escheatoTf occurs in that office from November 1273 to February 
1275. I presume that Shropshire only was his province. 

John, Lord of Ercalewe granted that the Wombridge Canons 
should take a ninth of all his com and hay in all his lands at Er- 
calewe, except in the land of La Mora, which he had bought from 
Hamo Pichard.' 

As John, Lord of Erkelewe, he confirmed his Ancestors' Char- 
ters, concerning 2 merks rent, payable to Haughmond Abbey for 
Bradford Mill. Witnesses, Sir John fitz Hugh and John fitz Aer, 
knights; Robert de Stanton.^ 

It seems that Sir John de Ercall's wife was named Alice. To 
the said Sir John and Alice did Sir Hugh de Crofte give the viU of 
Saut/Ueke with an entail on the heirs of their bodies.^ 

On March 27, 1278, Sir John de Ercalewe, knight, officiated on 
a Perambulation made between the lands of the Bishop of Hereford 
and Peter Corbet of Cans. — 

This is the latest notice which I have of Sir John de Ercall. He 
had succeeded to his inheritance as a Vassal of the coheirs of Peverel. 
He died a Vassal of Bishop Bumel. There is some probability 
that, at his death, his son and heir was in minority or at least un- 
married, for he married a Bumel, viz. Petronilla a niece of the 
Bishop's, and their eldest son was bom in December 1284. In that 
very year — 

William de Ercall (IV.), son of John de Ercall, and husband 
of Petronilla Bumel, appears in possession of his estate.^ 



^ Gkules, t. «. limites, metoi tormini 
(Du Gange). 
> Monaitieon, YI. 890. 



* Haughmond Chartnlaiy, fo. 39. 

* Newport Smdenoei, 

' Mr. Blakeway {Sheriffk^ P^gw 8 and 



88 



HIQH BRCALL. 



The Feodary of 1284 merely says that ''William de Ercalewe 
holds the Manor of Ercalewe^ with its members^ of Robert Bumell, 
who holds of the King, but without doing any service to the King/' 
The Bradford Tenure-BoU (about 1285) is much fuller. It says 
that '' William de Arcall holds the Manor of Arcall with its mem- 
bers (yis. Walton, Cotwall, Osbaston, More, Wildislond, and Scur- 
low), of Robert Bumell, and he holds of Robert Peche, freely, do- 
ing no seryioe to the King, but by what title of exemption it is not 
known. Of the said members the Prior of Wombridge holds tiie 
vill of Scurlow in frank dimoign under the aforesaid William; and 
Thomas de Berewicke holds Wildislow of the aforesaid William/' 

The Assize-Roll of October 1292 contains various entries about 
William de Ercall (IV.). Under the heading De vaiettis he is pre- 
sented as holding a knight's-fee and being of full age, but not a 
knight. As William, son of John de Erkalewe, he acknowledges a 
debt of 8 merks to John de la Mare. As William de Erkalewe he 
was presented as exercising free- warren in Erkalewe. Also it was 
presented how 3^. which had used to be received by the King, for 
Btretward and motfee of the vill of Magna Ercalwe, tiU 30 years 
since, had been withdrawn : but William de Ercalwe, the present 
Tenant of the Vill, could not appear, he being in the Bishop's 
Prison as one convicted of felony : so the case was adjourned for 
the present. This brings us to another presentment among the 
Bradford Crown-Pleas, — 

It appears that Alice, Lady of Ercall,^ had had 15 swine in her 
keeping, for the purpose of fattening them. When fat, her Swine- 
herd {pcrcariua) had driven them to Crugelton Bridge, where two 
men of William de Ercalwe came and seized them. To prove his 
complicity it was stated that the swine were afterwards slain by his 
order and put into his Larder. To this chaise he appeared, and 
claimed his privilege as a Clerk. The Dean of Sdlop also demanded 
to have custody of him for the like reason. The Jurors in tlie 
Crown Court valued his lay^chattels at £56. 5«. 

I have already given the sequel of this story,' ending apparently 



47) giyes " Hemy de Ercalwe, Lord of 
High Brcall,'* as Sheriff for three-quarters 
of the jear ending Michaelmas 1291. Mr. 
Blakeway suggeBts that the Christian 
name of the indiyidual in question should 
he either William or John. But the er> 
ror is not merely in a Christian name. 
It is certain from the Pipe-BoU of 1291 



that William de Titteley was Sheriff for 
the whole of the jear in question. I sus- 
pect that William de Hadley (the Sheriff 
of 1191) haa been conrerted into Setuy^ 
and his esra put a century too late in some 
list which Mr. Blakeway followed. 
^ Widow, I presume^ of John de ErcalL 
» Supra, Vol VI. pp. 187, 188. 



HIGH ERCALL. 89 

in the restoration of William de ErcalPs liberty and estate. William 
de ErcalPs anomalous status is more than I can explain. 'A wealthy 
landholder, a married man^ and pronounced to be in misericordid 
for not taking knighthood, he is also a Clerk, and had been desig- 
nated, years before, as Domirms, by his wife's Uncle. I am much 
mistaken however if William de Ercall (IV.) did not actually be- 
come a Knight before his death.^ 

In 1297, as holding lands or rents of £20 yearly value, William 
de Ercalwe was summoned to be at London on July 7, prepared 
with horse and arms for foreign service. In 1301 he was similarly 
summoned to attend Muster at Berwick upon Tweed, on June 24, 
for military service against the Scots. 

On August 25, 1300, William Bumel, Provost of Wells {Prepo- 
situs Wellensis) appoints two Attorneys to take seizin of a carucate 
in Erkalwe and of the rents. Sec., issuing therefrom, in the vill of 
Walton, which he had by feoffinent of Sir William de Erkalwe, 
knight.* This Deed is dated at Eudon (Eudon Burnell). William 
Bumel is evidently a Feoffee-in-trust, and the nature of his trust 
will presently be apparent. 

Whereas William de Ercalewe held under Philip Bumel's heir, 
and that heir was in ward to the Crown, a Writ of Diem clavsit, 
dated at St. Andrew's on February 20, 1304, announces these facts, 
and the death of William de Ercalewe. A Jury, which met at 
Wellington on March 15 following, found that the deceased had 
held the Manor of Ercal under Philip BumePs heir, by service of 
6d, rent. The Jury valued the Capital Messuage at nothing, four 
carucates of land (containing 60 acres each) at 40*., ten acres of 
meadow at 10*., 10 acres of bosc at 10^., a Dovecot at 6d., aWater 
Mill at 6s, 8rf., and the assized rents of free tenants at 7*. 6rf. per 
annum. Besides this he and his wife Petronilla had held conjointly, 
by feoffiment of Master William Bumel, a carucate of land and 
£6. 5s. rent in Ercall.* 

Further the deceased had held 60s. rent at Parva Soutley under 
John, son of Roger le Strange, by service of 1*. William, son and 
heir of the deceased, was 19 years of age on December 29, 1303. 
This Return being imsatisfactory, a second Writ of the King recites 
it in part, and inquires whether the deceased had held anything in 
capite, elsewhere than at Ercall, and whether the joint feoffment of 



» See -Vol. n. p. 56, note 25. 
' Abstract of Nevyport "Evidences. The 
same is the authoritv for all the Deeds 



which are quoted under High Ercall, 
without a specific reference. 

3 Inquisitions, 32 Edw. I., No. 21. 



IX. 12 



90 HIGH BRCALL. 

himself and wife existed on the day of his death ? A Jury sitting 
at Ercall on April 16^ 1304^ answered the first question in the nega- 
tive, the second in the afiSrmative.^ 

In the same year (J.304) William^ son of William de Ercalew 
(though still a Minor)^ did fealty to the King for lands held at Er- 
call under Philip Bumel's heir by service of 6d.^ 

One or two Deeds of William de Ercall (IV.) and his wife Petro- 
nilla should be mentioned here. — 

Between the years 1284 and 1300 William de Ercal^ for the 
souls' health of himself and his wife Petronilla, reiterates that grant 
of tithes^ &c., to Brewood Nunnery, which we know to have origi- 
nated with his Grandfather. Witnesses, Sir Robert Corbet, Sir 
William de Hodnet, Sir Thomas Corbet. 

Within the same period (1284-1300) William, Lord of Erkalua 
Magna, for the souls' health of himself, his wife PetroniUa, and 
their children, gives to Sir Geoffrey de Wayinton, Chaplain, for life, 
and to his Successors after him, in free alms, half a virgate of land 
with a garden, croft, and other appurtenances, which William Henry 
formerly held of the Grantor, in the vill of Erkalewe. The object 
of this endowment was '^ the celebration of certain Masses of the 
Virgin in the Church of St. Edward of Erkalue.'' The Grantee 
and his Successors were to have common-pasture throughout the 
Manor, save in the Grantor's enclosures, and certain allowances of 
wood, under view of the Grantor's Forester, and were to feed four 
swine in theforinsec bosc, without paying pannage. If the Grantee 
or his successors committed any crime, they were to be expelled, 
and another fit Priest appointed. Witnesses, Sir WUliam de Hode- 
net. Sir Thomas Corbet, Sir Peter de Eyton, Sir Nicholas, Vicar of 
Erkalewe. 

Petronilla Burnsl, widow of William de Ercall (IV.), had, it 
seems, full benefit of the conjoint feoffment above mentioned. — As 
" Dame Petronilla, Lady of Erkaluwe," she grants to John, son of 
Roger Bareson of Salop, and others, certain land in her waste of 
Ercaluwe, in the heath of Cottewalle. By another Deed she grants 
to John le Mercer of La More certain land of her waste above 
Brondecroft. This Deed had a lozenge-shaped seal, bearing the 
impress of a Buck^s-head, caboahed, and a motto on the margin. 

William de Ercall (V.) had livery, as I have intimated, in 
1304, not being yet 20 years of age. The Inquisition, taken Octo- 
ber 28, 1315, on the death of Edward Bumell, represents him as 

> InquisUioHS, 32 Edw. I., No. 21. = Oriffi^alia, I. p. 134. 



HIGH ERCALL. 91 

having been seized of half the Manor of Great Ercall^ conjointly 
with Alina his wife. They had the said half by feoffment and gift 
of their own Tenant^ William de Ercalewe ; to whom and to whose 
heirs it would revert on Alina^s death. The value of the estate was 
£8. 10s, per annum ; and it was now held under Edward fiumePs 
heirs by service of a sore sparrow-hawk.^ It is evident from this, 
that William de Ercall (Y.) had had some transaction with his 
Suzerain which deprived him for a time of the fee-simple of half 
his estate. The Inquest is well supported by a French Deed which 
passed at Buildwas on October 15, 1315. Thereby Alyne, widow 
of Sir Edward fiurnel, sells for a sum of money, to Sir fVylliam 
de Ercahtwe, Chyvaler^ all her goods and chattels in the manojr of 
Grant Ercaluwe} 

In the Nomina ViUarum of 1316, William de Ercalwe stands as 
sole Lord of the Yills of Ercalwe, Acton Reynald, and Grinshill, 
and as joint Lord of Millichope (a matter which has already been 
noticed).^ In 1322 the Arms of Sire William Arcalou are on the 
Roll of the Battle of Boroughbridge, viz. D' argent ove Hi gemels de 
sable. 

In 1323 he was a Commissioner to levy Archers in the Counties 
of Salop and Stafford. In 1324 and 1325 he was twice returned 
to Parliament, as a Knight of the Shire, for Salop. In August 
1325 he was named as one of the Conservators of the Peace, for 
the same County. To the Parliament summoned to meet at West- 
minster on December 14, 1326, but prorogued to January 7, 1327, 
William de Ercalwe was again returned for Shropshire. He him- 
self makes the return of the elections for Shropshire and Stafford- 
shire, viz. as Sheriff of the two Counties.^ His tenure of the 
latter office is not supported by any other authority that I am aware 
of.^ The political confiision of the period possibly had something 
to do with this anomaly of a double Shrievalty. 

On October 3, 1831, King Edward III. orders an Inquest to be 
held as to a proposal by William de Ercalwe, viz. that he should 
bestow £20 of annual rent in Ercalwe on six Chaplains, who were 
to perform services, &c., in the Chapel of All Saints in the Cemetery 

' InqiUntumty 9 Edw. II., No. 67. I account of Shropshire, but the Koll of 



* Deed late in possession of Mr. George 
Morris of Shrewsbury. 

' Supra, Vol IV. p. 4. 

* JParUametUary }VHts,IV.Slb,S16. 

* The Pipe-BoU for the year ending 
Michaehnas 1327 does not include any 



1328 shows that Heniy de fiushbuiy was 
Sheriff for three-quarters of the year end- 
ing Michaehnas 1327, and that John de 
Hynkele held the office for the fourth 
quarter of that year, and the whole of the 
following year. 



92 HIGH ERCALL. 

of Ercall Church, for the souls of his father, William, and his Mo- 
ther, for ever ? The Return to this inquiry states that the project 
was not injurious to the Crown ; — that the premises, being one- 
fourth of the Manor of Ercall, were held of John and Matilda de 
Handlo by service of a fourth part of 6rf. rent or of a sparrow- 
hawk.^ 

The above scheme was not carried out, and a second Inquest was 
ordered by Writ of August 2, 1334, as to the propriety of William 
de Ercalwe^s endowing the same six Chaplains with a messuage, 6 
acres of land, two acres of meadow, and certain rights of pasture 
and pannage. The return dated at Wellington, on September 1, 
1334*, was again favourable to the project. The Jurors now stated 
that William de Ercalwe's rent to "John de Hawlowe, Lord of 
Acton Burnell,'^ was a sore sparrow-hawk or 2^., and that 80 librates 
of land would remain to William de Ercalwe after the proposed 
endowment.3 

The sera of William de Ercall (V.) was exactly that when the 
custom of dating Deeds first began to prevail. Consequently we 
find some of his Deeds undated and others dated. — As " William, 
Lord of Magna Ercaluwe,'^ he leases to Philip de Moclyton and 
his wife Alina, for the longest of their two lives, a parcel of land 
and pasture, taken out of his waste of Ercaluwe, at Smaltboms. A 
rent of ISd, and a heriot of 2s. on lapse of the shorter life, are re- 
served to the Lessor. Witnesses, William Cresset, William fitz 
Baldwin of Walton, Thomas Fraunceis of Rowelton, Roger fitz 
John of Rowelton, John fitz Godith of Rowelton, Richard del 
HuUe of Mocliton, Richard Wercoks of Egebaldenham.* 

Sir WiUiam de Ercaluwe leases to Roger fitz Ralph of Hatton 
and his son Roger for their lives, a parcel of meadow and pasture in 
the waste of Ercaluwe. A rent of Ss, and a heriot of 4ldd. are re- 
served to the Lessor. Witnesses, William, son of Richard del Hul 
of Mocliton, Richard his brother, John Worcofcs of Egebaldenham, 
William son of Robert Henry, and Thomas de Meston.* 



1 Inquis. 5 Edw. III., 2nd Kos., No. 55. 

3 Ad Quad Damnum, 8 Edw. III., No. 
25. The Jurors further made a great 
mistake in stating that ''John de Ley. 
hourne, Lord of Caus," was mesne-lord 
between Hawlowe and the Crown in re- 
spect of Ercall. Such a status was true 
onl^ in respect of Acton Burnell. 

3 The late Mr. George Morris's Deeds. — 

Pons Isabella, Oampiunnesdieh^ Brod^- 



laJeedich, the terra doming, and the rood 
from Mocliton to Oseharston,9xe the boun- 
daries named for this grant. 

* The late Mr. G^eorge Morris's Deeds. — 
Le Smalthomes, Le Campiunsdich, Le 
Brokelakdich, the land of the Lord of 
Roulton and Ellewardin, the bridge of 
Isabella Fors^, Le JRuskthurste, and Le 
Smethebruche,aTe boundaries named in tliis 
Deed. 



HIGH ERCALL. 93 

William de Erkalewe^ knight^ grants to John, son of Roger 
Baresone of Salop and others, land in Cottewall-Heath, between 
the Grantor^s waste and the waste of Dame Petronilla his Mother. 
Witnesses, John de Styvynton, John le Taylur of Rodinton, &c. 

The same grants to Robert de Praunce and others, land in Ercall 
waste, between the land of Dame Petronilla, Lady of Ercalewe, 
and the lands of John de Ercaluwe, Robert his son, and Agnes his 
daughter. Witnesses, John de Styvinton, Geoffrey, Lord of Pen- 
inton, &c. 

In 3 Edw. II. (1309^10) Richard, son and heir of Sir Richard, 
late of Caveresalle, sells to William, Lord of Great Ercalwe, for 
£60, all his goods movable and immovable, live and dead, in his 
Manor of Cavereswalle. 

On December 25, 1312, William, Lord of Great Ercalwe, con- 
cedes to John his brother, Robert, John's son, and Agnes, John's 
daughter, for their lives, six acres in Ercall- waste, lying above 
Broncrofte, between the wood of Dame Petronilla the Grantor's 
mother, &c. Witnesses, Sir Hugh le fitz Aer, knight ; John, son 
of Thomas du Lee ; John de Styvinton, Geoflfrey, Lord of Penyn- 
ton, Philip de Moclyton, &c. 

On January 20, 1312, John, son of Alan Ffeysaunt of Ercall, 
sells to Sir William de Ercall, his Lord, all his vessels, utensils, and 
goods. Witnesses, Thomas du Lee, John his son, John de Styvin- 
ton, and Thomas de Wythinton. 

On March 9, 1316, Sir William de Ercalewe, knight, leases to 
Sir Hamund de la More, Rector of the Chapel of Esnebrugg, and 
to Petronilla daughter of Robert de Drayton, for their lives, 8 acres 
in Ercall-waste, for 4*. rent and a heriot. Witnesses, John du Lee, 
Lord of Roden, Alan de Roden, John le Taylour of Rodington, 
Geoffrey de Penington, and others. 

I know not why Dame Alyne Burnel should repeat her Deed of 
1315, but being at Ercall on Monday, December 13, 1322, she 
gives all her goods in her Manor of Erkalewe to Sir William de 
Ercalewe. 

On Monday, February 14, 1323, William de Ercaluwe gives to 
Richard, son of Huwe de Mokulleston, and to John his brother, 
for their lives, four acres in Cottewall- waste. Witnesses, Geoffrey 
de Peninton, John de Wythiford, and Philip, Clerk of Moclinton. 

In 7 Edward III. (1333-4) John de Westbury of Salop and 
Sibil his wife sell to Sir William de Ercalue, knight, all their goods, 
&c., in Astleye. 



94 



HIGH £ECALL. 



On May 9, 1834, William de Cavereswell^ by Deed, dated at 
Lutywode (Staffordshire), sells to Sir William de Ercalewe all his 
goods in his Manors of Lutywode and Haymes. This Deed had a 
Seal of Arms, — Pretty with afeage. 

On the same day William de Ercalwe, by Deed dated at Ercalewe, 
sells to Robert de Ercalewe and Richard de Adbaston all his goods 
in his Manors of Ercalewe, Alvethemere, Brocton, Hopton-Wafre, 
and Southlye, in the County of Salop. 

By Pine levied at York on July 1, 1334, William de Ercalwe 
(Plaintiff) acknowledges himself to have granted, to the same two 
Trustees, the Manors of Alvithemere, Brocton, Hoptou Wafre, 
Soule, and Ercalewe (except a messuage, 3 acres of land, and 20 
librates of rent, in Ercalwe).* The Trustees restore the premises 
to the Orantor, to hold for life under the Lords of the Fee ; with 
remainder to William de Careswell and his heirs, to hold in like 
manner. To this Fine '^ Fetronilla daughter of William de Er- 
calwe apposed her claim.'^ There can be little doubt that it was 
intended to, and did, work her disheritance. 

On February 14, 1339, William de Ercalewe, Chivaler, releases 
to Sir Nicholas, Abbot of Haghmon, all actions, &c., from the be- 
ginning of the world. This is dated at London, but a similar re- 
lease bears date at Haghmon on February 28, 1339. 

After this I hear no more of William de Ercall (V.), unless the 
year 1344 were indeed the date of a Commission which empowers 
him, with other chief men of Shropshire, to raise levies in that 
County for foreign service.' At his death, which must have taken 
place within the next two years, the Fine of 1334 came into opera- 
tion, and — 

William de Caverswell took possession of Ercall. 

1 know that this William de Caverswell was son and heir of that 
Richard de Caverswell who in 1309-10 had some negotiation with 
William de Ercall (V.). My lull belief is, that the said Richard's 
wife, Joan, was another daughter of William de Ercall (V.), and 
that she became, in her issue, his heir, to the exclusion of her sister 
Fetronilla. On Richard de Caverswell's death, Joan seems to have 
become the second wife of Sir John de Chetwynd. She appears to 
have left issue by both husbands, but William de Caverswell was 
her immediate heir.' 



1 KennetCs Parochial Antiq. p. 459. 
* ThiB will satisfactorily aoooant for 
what puzsled Erdesmck so much, viz. 



that Sir William de Carersweirs tomb was 
embellishecL with the arms of Ercall (Vide 
Erduwioie» Survey, Bdn. 1844, p. 251). 



HIGH ERCALL. 95 

In 19 Edward III. (1845-6), William de Caverswall, Lord of 
Ercalwe, demises waste in Brondecroft to Adam Scot. 

On September 26, 1846, Dame Scolastica, widow of Sir William 
de Ercalewe, knight, acknowledges the receipt of £10. 13^. 4id. 
from Sir William de Caverswall, knight. This Deed is dated at 
Ercall, and sealed with Arms, — a Lion rampant. 

A Patent of April 6, 1847, recites Henry III.'s Charter of 
Market and Fair, to John de Erkelowe, and allows, although those 
privileges had not been exercised by the heirs of the said John, 
that WiUiam de Careswell, his Cousin {consanguinetis) and heir, 
should now use them.' 

Sir William de Cavereswell died on February 27, 1349. Great 
estates in Warwickshire which he had held for life, and ever since 
the decease of his wife, Mary, went to Joan de Langley, daughter 
of Geoffrey, son of Geoffrey de Langley, the first husband of the 
said Mary ; which Joan was now 17 years of age and wife of John, 
son of Alan^ son of Sir Alan de Cherlton.^ But as to High Ercall, 
that went to — 

Fbtbr de Cayebswell, as son and heir of William de Cavers- 
well. 

In 4 Richard II. (188Q-1) Peter de Kareswall, knight, demises 
to Richard Bridde of Halghton, a messuage in Walton^ to hold for 
life, at a rent of 10^., and the Grantee doing suit to the Grantor's 
Court at Ercaloe. 

By Deed dated at Brompton in 10 Richard II. (1886-7), Thomas 
Cotes and Elianor his wife acknowledge to have received from Sir 
Peter de Carswall two and a half merks, which he was bound to 
pay them as their rent of Ercalwe. 

In the same year (1386-7) Sir Peter and Mary de Caryswall, 
" Lord and Lady of Ercalowe Magna," demise Bradford Mill for 
12 years to William Kytewylde of Ercall. 

On October 6, 13S0, a Pine was levied at Westminster, between 
Thomas Neuport, Parson of the Church of Eyton, and Thomas 
Corbet, Chaplain (Plaintifis), and Peter de Caverswall and Mary 
his wife (deforciants), of the Manor of Ercalwe, whereof was Pka 
of Convention. The Deforciants first acknowledge the Plaintiflfe* 
right. The latter then settle the Manor on the Deforciants ; — to 
hold for their lives, of the King by the usual services ; with re- 
mainder to Thomas Gech and Isabel his wife, and Thomas, son of 

1 Pateni. 21 Edw. III., p. 1, m. 14. » Inquisition, 33 Edw. III., No. 21. 



96 HIGH ERCALL. 

Thomas Gech, and his heirs, — ^to hold of the King^ " by whose 
precept this Fine was levied/'* 

On April 16, 1391, Peter de Cavereswall, knight, acknowledges 
himself to be bound to Thomas Gech in a sum of 100 merks, re- 
ceived on loan^ and to be repaid at Newport on Michaelmas Day 
following. 

On June 12, 1391, an Inquest was held at Shrewsbury, which 
found that it would be no injury to the Crown, if the King should 
allow Peter de Careswell an4 Mary his wife to enfeoff Thomas 
Newport, Parson of the Church of Eyton, and Thomas Corbet, 
Chaplain in the Manor of Ercalwe, so that the said Feoffees, being 
seized^ should grant the same to the said Peter and Mary for their 
lives, with remainder to Thomas Gech and Isabel his wife and 
Thomas, son of the said Thomas Gech, and the heirs of the said 
Thomas Gech, — to hold of the King in capiie. The Manor, said 
the Jurors, was held of the King for half a knight's-fee, and was 
worth ^10 per annum. Peter and Mary would still have 3 
messuages and 3 carucates of land at Aldemere, held under the 
Lord BumeU, and worth 5 merks per annum.^ It seems strange that 
this Inquest should follow the Fine above quoted. I suppose that 
* in fact it preceded it, and that the original docimients involve some 
error of date. 

In 15 Richard II. (June 1391-June 1392), Thomas Gech, Isa- 
bel his wife, and Thomas his son, demise to Peter de Cavereswall, 
knight, and Mary his wife, for their lives, a meadow called Wrennes- 
more, with a right of road thereto. 

In 20 Richard II. (1396-7), the same demisc'to the same, certain 
lands which John Boyd and Alice his wife formerly held, by demise 
of the said Peter, in Cotwall and Great Ercalwe. This was for a 
term of 40 years, and at a rent of 8 merks payable to the Lessors. 

On October 6, 1398, a Fine was levied at Westminster whereby 
Peter de Cavereswall, Knight, and Mary his wife, surrender their 
life-interest in the Manor of Ercalwe, to Thomas Gech, Isabel his 
wife, and Thomas his son, to hold of the King by usual services. 
A rent of £50 per annum is reserved by the Grantors, with powers 
of distress. A sum of £200 is also stated to be paid for the grant. 

Thus it was that the Newports became Lords of High Ercall. 
Thomas Newport, it appears, with Isabel his wife, procured a license 
from the Bishop of Lichfield (dated January 6, 1398) to cause di- 
vine service to be performed before them in any of their oratories 

1 Pedes Fimum, 14 Rich. II., No. 46. > Inquis. 14 Eich. II., No. 84. 



TERN. 97 

within the said Diocese.^ This Thomas Newport was identical with 
Thomas Gech the elder, who figures in the above Fines. He was 
deceased in 1401, and Thomas Newport, Esq., then of Ercall, was 
identical with Thomas Gech the younger. On June 27, 1402, with 
Margaret his wife, he obtained an Episcopal license, similar to that 
previously granted to his Father:^ and in 1403-4 he served as 
Sheriff of Shropshire. , 

I have far overstepped my usual limits in order to introduce a 
name which continued pre-eminent in Shropshire History for more 
than three centuries. The estates of the Newports have constituted 
the largest tenure-in-fee which the County has known since Domes-' 
day. One word in conclusion as to their acquisition of Ercall. — 
They obtained it by purchase, says Leland; and the documents 
which I have quoted bear out the assertion. However, the New- 
ports were a family of consequence before they acquired Ercall, and 
I am much mistaken if they had not some hereditary claims to the 
estate, independent of the money which passed. There are three 
grounds for this theory; — first, because tradition asserts it, though 
with much inaccuracy as to the mode of the relationship ; secondly, 
because the Newports uniformly quartered the arms of Ercall ; and 
thirdly, because the muniments of the Ercalls, whether they related* 
to Ercall or other estates, were afterwards held by the Newports. 

As to the Caverswells who came between the Ercalls and the 
Newports, it is probable that they were related to both families, but 
I have never been able to discover any absolute proof as to how 
Caverswell was so descended from Ercall as to be entitled his heir, 
as he undoubtedly was entitled, and that in an authentic docu- 
ment.* 

TEEN. 

This must be taken as one of the Bomesday-Beretvicks of Ercall. 
Among the witnesses of Hamo Peverel^s Charters, as early as 1134, 
and of the Charters of his heirs, as late as 1165, is Radulfde Tima, 
or Radulffitz Theald, or Radulffiiz Theold de Tima. 

In his attestations of 1134-1136, this Uadulf is usually accom- 
panied by his brother, called Alanfitz Thebald or Alan fit z Theald, 
With the latter person I have nothing more to do. It is clear from 
the Liber Niger of 1166 that Radulf de Tern was then living, that 
\na feoffment was old, that is of earlier date than 1135, and that it 
/ was a feoffment by service of one-fourth of a knight's-fee. In 

' • * Sherifft of Hhroptkire^ p. 58. ' Vide supra, p. 95. 

II. 13 



98 



HIGH ERCALL. 



other words^ he had been enfeoffed by Hamo Peverel in Tei^i^ a 
member of Ercall ; and in 1165 he held Tern under three of Hamo 
PeverePs coheirs by service of one-twelfth of a fee to each of his 
Suzerains. 

Reginald de Tem^ successor to Badulf^ was amerced 20«. for un- 
just disseizin^ in 1180. In 1194 he occurs as Surety^ in a sum of 
three merks^ for his neighbour Guy de Shawbury. 

The Pipe- Roll of 1202 names Reginald de Time and Wiomarus 
(probably Guomar de Rodinton) as Affistators of the Shropshire 
Forests^ and as accountable for the proceeds of the pannoffe during 
several preceding years. 

At Assizes held in November 1208^ and recorded in the Pipe-Roll 
of 1209, Reginald de Tume was found responsible for the sum of 
31^. for the chattels of a Felon. He would therefore appear to 
have held some Bailiwick or provincial office under the Crown. 
The sera of Reginald de Time (I.) is thus marked as from 1180 to 
1208. I refer to his attestations of several Deeds during that in- 
terval.^ Reginald de Tern had two sons^ Radulf and Reginald. 
Radulf de Tern (II.) occurs on an Inquest of 1220, and with his 
brother Reginald attests a Charter already given under Eaton.' In 
1227 (as we have seen^) Radulf de Tern had come to some agree- 
ment with William de Hedley which necessitated a quitclaim on 
the part of Reginald, his (RadulPs) brother, who had probably, 
some tenant interest in the matter. I shall say more of this Regi- 
nald presently. Radulf de Tern (II.) was succeeded by his son 
and heir, William de Tern, whose aera and position are ascertained 
by the following documents. — 

In the year 1237, William de Tyme for a sum of 14*. leases for 
a term of 25 yedrs his meadow called Le Pleches, near the meadow 
called Wulfivyeseie, The Lessees are William Culbel of Osbaston, 
and Hamo Dulthac of Walton, his brother. The Deed is attested 
by William de Hedleg, Richard Dean, and Philip de Penintone.* 
In 1246 William de Tyme delivers to Shrewsbury Abbey a meadow 
called Le Plac which Alice his mother held. This is for a term of 
15 years, commencing April 15, 1246, and in consideration of 40*. 
paid by the Abbey. Witnesses, Richard de Tyme and William 
Wischard.^ 

About 1247-9 William, son of Radulf de Tyrne, gives to Salop 



1 Supra, Vol. ll. pp. 124, 133, 170; 
Vol. VI. p. 269 ; Vol. VII. p. 341 ; Vol. 
VIII. p. 54. 



» Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 65. 

* Supra, p. 82. 

*•* Salop Chartulaiy, Noa. 112, 406. 



TERN. 



09 



Abbey, for 8 merks, the meadow called Le Phkkes, — to hold for 
ever. Witnesses, Master Reginald Pynznn, Richard de Momerfeld, 
Thomas de Weston.^ By another Deed, which I should ascribe to 
the same period, William, son of Radulf de Tyrne gives to the 
Abbey half a virgate in the vill of Tyrne (lately held by Richard, 
son of Alan le Sonde), with the meadows appurten&nt; — also three 
acres of his demesne, and a certain meadow in the same yUI, some- 
time held by his mother Alice, and called Le Ploc. Witnesses, Sir 
William de Hedleg ; Sir Gregory de Ercalwe, Vicar ; Roger de 
Pivelesdon.* 

I suppose that William de Tyrne, who follows Reginald de Tyrne 
on a Jury-List of September 1249, was son of the last William. 
We may therefore call him — William de Tern (II.). His. grants to 
Shrewsbury Abbey about 1250, have been noticed under Waters 
Upton, where he seems to have had some interest. In 1251 we 
first hear of the Abbot of Lilleshall having acquired a footing in 
Tern, for it seems that he had levelled a stank there, to the injury 
of the Abbot of Buildwas.' These conflicting interests are ex* 
plained by the Hundred-Roll of 1255, which states that — " William, 
Lord of Time, used to hold {tenuit) Time, of Gilbert Peche * by 
service of one-fourth of a knight's-fee ; and the same William gave 
in free alms to the Abbot of Lilleshull the whole viU of Time, with 
all homages, rents, and appurtenances belonging to the said vill^ 
except a virgate of land which Cecilia de Kent is holding of the 
Abbot of Buildwas, at a rent of 4rf. And the viUate of Time is 
one hide ; and pays Sd. for motfee, and does suit to County and 
Hundred.''* 

This Record presumes transactions which were not as yet com- 
plete: for the Assize- Roll of January 1256 exhibits William de 
Time as fining half a merk, for leave to compound a plea of Char- 
ter-warranty with the Abbot of Lilleshull.* The Fine, which fol- 
lowed on February 9th, is preserved. Thereby William de Time 
(Impedient) acknowledges himself to have given to Ralph, Abbot 
of Lilleshull (Plaintiff), a virgate in Tyrne (whereof was plea of 
charter 'Warranty), The Abbot is to pay 6rf. rent, to William and 
his heirs, and to perform all forinsec services. He also undertakes 



1 Salop Chartolarj, No. 118. 
* Ibidem, No. 114. 
. » Supra, Vol. Vni. p. 235. 
^ Gilbert Peche was one of the Coheirs 
of Pererel (vide sapra, p. 73) ; but how 



or whether he had acquired the whole 
mesne-lordship of Tern, I am ignorant or 
doubtful. 

> Eot. Hundred. IT. 58. 

* Amie-ItoU, 40 Hen. III., m. 4. 



100 HIOH ERCALL. 

to provide two daily corrodies for William and his wife Agnes^ dur- 
ing their lives, and one daily corrody for the Survivor. 

At these same Assizes of 1256, a quarrel between the Abbots of 
Shrewsbury and Lilleshull came to an issue. The Abbot of Lilles- 
huU was complained of^ as having erected a stank in Time, thereby 
injuring the Abbot of Shrewsbury's tenement. The Defendant got 
a quietus on the ground that if any such injury had been done, it 
was in the time of Abbot Richard his predecessor. The latter we 
know died in 1253. 

We have seen that William, son of William de Tern, was, as 
early as 1250, a Coparcener in Waters Upton. I think he acquired 
this with his wife Agnes. Notwithstanding his grant to Lilleshall 
Abbey, he seems to have maintained the position of a landowner 
long after. It was perhaps he who as William de Tyme appears as 
a Regarder of the Forest in 1262, and who, as William de Tyeme, 
was responsible for a fine of half a merk, for contempt Afterwards, 
in 1274 and 1288, it is perhaps he who is called William de Upton; 
and in 1283, we have seen a WiUiam de Tyme of Opton occurring 
with a coheiress for his wife, but she is called Agatha} Lastly we 
have seen that William de Upton with a wife Agnes had a share of 
Waters Upton in 1292.* 

I now return to say something more of Reginald, second son of 
Reginald de Tern. It is he who attests in or about 1223, and oc- 
curs in 1227. It is probably he who attests in 1234 and who occurs 
on a Leegomery Inquest in 1249. There was also a Reginald de 
Tern living in or after the year 1256. But meantime, that is in 
1250, Reginald's son, called Ranald de Upton, had acquired a 
share of Waters Upton, probably by marriage. The appearance 
that his son, whom I will call Reginald (III.), was deceased in 
1255, and had been succeeded by a son (called William fitz RegU 
nald in the Hundred-Roll of that year) is, I think, delusive. For 
William fitz Reginald of the Record, I should read Reginald fitz 
Reginald; which would make Reginald (III.) to be the person 
meant. 

In proof of the error of the Hundred-Roll I would observe that 
no other document mentions any WiUiam fitz Reginald, but that an 
Ercall Deed of 1271 is attested by Reginald de Terne, who would 
therefore seem to be living sixteen years aftex the date of the Hun- 
dred-Roll. 

The difficulties of this descent have been already stated under 

» • « Supra^ Vol. VIII. pp. 56, 57. 



TERN. 



101 



Waters Upton. There were other members of this family^ of whom 
I can give no satisfactory account^ for instance^ — a Solas Inquest of 
1349 was attended by one Badulf de Time^ and Richard de Time 
is a witness of an Ercall Deed in 1271.^ 

I proceed to give a few notes of Tern as divided between the 
three Abbeys of Lilleshull^ Shrewsbury, and Buildwas. 

LiLLESHALL Fee. On Novcmbcr 29, 1265, King Henry III., 
confirming the acquisitions of Lilleshull Abbey, includes " the dona* 
tion and concession which William de Tyrne did make thereto, of 
the vill of Tyrne with its appurtenances.^' The Feodary of 1284-5 
says that ^' the Abbot of Lilleshill holds the vill of Tieme in free 
alms and by confirmatory Charter of King Henry III.'' The Tawa- 
tion of 1291 gives the Abbot of Lilleshull as having £\ assized rent 
in Time.' At the Assizes of 1292, the Abbot acknowledged his 
obligation to pay %d. for the stretward and motfee of Tern. He 
had further to pay £1. Is, 4id., or 82 years' arrears of the same. 
A List of Crown-dues in the Abbey Chartulary includes this item, 
adding that the Vill itself was to dischai^e the same. 

The Valor of 1535--6 masses the Abbot of Lilleshall's receipts 
from Tern with those from Longdon and Coldhatton. The whole 
amounted to £16 per annum; but inasmuch as Lilleshall now 
leased the Buildwas estates at Longdon and Tern, at a fee-farm 
rent of £4. Ss, 4d., the net receipts of Lilleshall must be put at 
£11. 16*. 8rf.» 

Buildwas Abbey Fee. There is apparently no Record as to 
how Buildwas acquired its virgate at Tern. It was possessed there- 
pf before the year 1251, when, as we have seen, it had a quarrel 
with Lilleshull about a stank, destroyed by the latter. Nor was 
this their only quarrel, for on January 30, 1251, Sir Robert de 
Grendon, then Sherifi*, held an Inquest, pursuant to a King's Writ, 
which set forth a complaint by the Abbot of Buildwas, viz. that 
the Abbot of Lilleshull had erected a MiU in Suggedon, injuriously 
to the Abbot of Buildwas's tenement in Tyrne. The Jury found 
that the Abbot of LilleshiUl's Mill had not been erected in Sugge- 
don, but in his own tenement of Longedon.^ 

In 1255, Buildwas only received 4rf. rent for its virgate at Tern;* 
but in 1291, its receipts had increased to £2. ISs, 4^.^ Afterwards, 



' I have suggested something about 
this Bichard under Waters Upton (Vol. 
Vin. p. 57). 

< Pope Nioh. Taxcftion^ p. 261. 



» Vahr Eocles, III. pp. 191, 197. 
* LilleshaU Chartulary, fo. 125. 
' Vide supra, p. 99. 
« Pope Nieh, TaxaUon, p. 261. 



Id2 HIGH EEC ALL. 

as we have seen above^ it leased its estate or estates in this quarter 
to Lilleshall at a fee-farm reat of £4. Ss. Ad, 

Shrewsbury Abbey Fee. The valuations of this Abbey's estates 
must be taken usually to include its receipts from Tern with those 
from Sleap and Crudgington. However one Bent-Roll (that drawn 
up about 1490) has these items^ viz. '' The rent of TSfron 6«. ^The 
Hall-orchard 6^. :''^ while Sleap and Ciiidgington are separately 
valued. 

SLEAP AND CEUDaiNGTON. 

The mode in which these two members of Ercall came into the 
possession of Shrewsbury Abbey has been already described. 

On January 7^ 1228^ the King appoints William Pantun (of 
Hales) and others to try an Assize of novel-disseizin between the 
Abbot of Salop and Hugh fitz Robert concerning common-pasture 
in Crugeleston and Merston (Meeson). 

. The Franktons of Welch Frankton seem to have been Tenants of 
Shrewsbury Abbey at Crudgington. Hence the following Deeds in 
the Salop Chartulary. — 

About 1236-40, " Agnes, Relict of Reyner de Francheton con- 
cedes to the Abbey, for 10^., all that share of the land ^hich her 
husband had held under the Abbey at Crugelton, that share namely 
which belonged to her in the name of dower. Witnesses, Nicholas, 
then Provost of the Foriete, Benedict de Estone, William de Stan- 
wordine.''* 

Within the same interval, ^' Margaret, Relict of Reyner, son of 
Reyner de Franketon, concedes to the Abbey, for 10^., her dower in 
the land which her said husband had sold to the Abbey at Crugel- 
tun. Witnesses, Nicholas, then Provost of the Foriete, Benedict 
de Eston,. James fitz Martin, Adam fitz Thomas.'^^ 

About 1240-1250, " Eynon ap Owen (whom I know to have been 
Lord of Frankton at the time) concedes to Kenewrec de Salefeld, for 
5*., half a virgate in Crugelton. Witnesses,. Sir Qriffin de Albo 
Monasterio, William de Calverhall."* 

The Hundred- Roll of 1255 says that " the Abbot of Salop holds 
Slepe in pure alms, by gift of Hamo Peverel, viz. 2\ hides. It 
does no suit to County or Hundred.^*^ This description must be 
taken to include Crudgington and Kinnersley. 

Another series of Deeds now occur in the Abbey Chartulary. — 

> EiH, Shrewsbury, 11. 508. I • Ibidem, Nos. 114r-b.; 286-b. 

* Salop CJhartnlaiy, No. 110-b. I < Rot. Hundred. 11. 57. 



SLEAP AND CRUDGINOTON. 108 

- About 1260^ '^ Richard son of Reginald de Franketon gave half a 
yii^te in Crugelton to the Altar of the Virgin in Shrewsbury Ab- 
bey. Witnesses, John Lord of Ercalewe, John Lord of Aston Aer.^ 

" Margery widow of Reginald de Franketon recites and confirms 
the last Deed. Witnesses — as the last, with William le Palerin of 
Draytone, and William de Dray tone.''* 

'^ On June 24, 1263, Richard son of Reginald de Franketon ac- 
knowledges 40s., as received from Brother Lucas, Monk, and Gustos 
of the aforesaid Altar, for half a virgate in the vill of Sleppe, which 
Alan Rotarius used to hold of the said Richard.'' Witnesses, Thomas, 
then Abbot of Shrewsbury ; Stephen, then Kitchener of Wenlock ; 
Philip, then Prior of Shrewsbury ; Alan Bonel, Monk of the same 
House ; and Master Robert de Stokes. — " And the said Richard, 
not having a seal of his own used that of Master Richard (Query 
Robert) de Stokes."* 

About this time, '^ Sibil, daughter of Robert, son of Stephen de 
Crugelton, gave to the Abbey a noke with a meadow in Crugelton, 
which were of her inheritance." Witnesses, John Lord of Ercalewe, 
Richard de Franketon, Reginald de Tirne.^ 

Between the years 1266 and 1271, " William Abbot of Salop 
demises to Philip de Podford and Isabel his wife, and the heirs of 
their bodies, half a virgate in Crugelton, which belonged to the 
Altar of the Virgin ; and for which the Grantees were to pay a 
rent of 8^. to the Gustos of the said Altar." Witnesses, Sir John de 
Ercalewe, Knight ; Sir John Schory, Chaplain.* 

The Bradford Tenure-Roll (about 1285) makes Crugulton, Kyn- 
nersley, and Butterly (i. e. Buttery), to be members of the Abbof s 
Manor of Slepe. The Taa^ation of 1291, probably includes those 
places when it gives £10. 17^. 6^. as the annual value of Slepe.* 
The items of receipt were — ^^Two Carucates of land £1 ; Assized 
rents £7. 7s. 6rf. ; a Mill £1 ; Aids, Pleas, and Perquisites £1. 10*. 

At the Assizes of 1292, the Abbot of Shrewsbury's exercise of Free- 
Warren, in Eyton (near Wroxeter) and Slepe, was noted by the 
Bradford Jurors. 

About 1490, the following valuation extends to Sleap and Crudg- 
ington only. — Eight items of receipt from Slepe realized £7. 15s. 4rf. 
per annum; and eleven items from Crogelton realized £6. 9s. lOd. 

The same Rent-Roil, when it says that the bulk of assized rents 
firom Slepe was £30. 8*. lid., means to include not only these par- 
ticular receipts from Slepe and Crudgington, but those from Kin- 

I•J•».4.«No•.236-l^c,Mldd; 111; 237. • Pope NM, TaxaUon, t^, 2/60, 



104 HIGH ERCALL. 

nersley^ Tibberton^ Osbaaton^ Buttery^ Tern, and other places, in- 
cluding perhaps Charlton near 'Wrockwardine. It is in fact a sum- 
mary of what had gone before. 

The VaUyr of 1534 gives £30. 17«. ^d. as the Abbot's annual 
receipts from Slepe and Crogington.^ This must include Kinners- 
ley, Tibberton, Osbaston, Buttery, and Tern. Richard Charleton, 
Bailiff of Slepe, had a salary of £1 from the Abbey. 

In 33 Henry VIII. (1541-2) the same estates are probably com- 
prised under the following title, viz. ^* The Lordship {dominium) of 
Slepe, Crogelton, and Kemsey'* (i.e. Kinnersley). Their value 
was £32. 18«. 5^^^. per annum^ viz. Assized rents 12«. ; rents -of cus- 
tomary tenants £13. Os. 4i\d, ; rents of Tenants-at-will £4. 8«. 5rf. ; 
diverse ferms £11. 17^. 4d.; ferm of tithes £3; Perquisites of 
Ck>urt 5*. 4rf.* 

Sleaf Chapel. Tradition speaks of such a foundation. Of 
course it was a mere Dependency of Ercall Church. 

SHUELOW. 

This member of Ercall is now lost. I have described the mode 
in which it passed to Wombridge Priory,' but rhe Deeds which 
should relate to the locality are missing in the Chartulary of that 
House. 

In 1251, the Prior of Wombridge was suing the Abbot of Salop 
for disseizing him of a tenement in Cruggelton.^ I presume that 
Crudgington and Shurlow were adjoining vills. 

John Lord of Ercall (1256-1278) gave to Wombridge Priory a 
piece of cultivated land lying between the White stone and the 
ffreen way which led towards Ercall.^ Between the years 1284 and 
1304, " William, Lord of Ercalwe, son and heir of Sir John de 
Ercalwe, allowed that the Canons of Wombridge might ^ improve 
their waste ' at Shirlowe, in the Manor of Ercalwe.^'^ 

The Taxation of 1291 values a carucate at Surlowe, among the 
estates of Wombridge Priory, at 12*. per annum. The Valor of 
1534-5 gives £15. 17s. lOd. as the gross rental of 11 messuages iu 
Cherrington, Tibberton, Shorlo, and Podforde, of 2 tenements in f 
Hatton (Hiueheath), and 3 cottages in Broughton (Brockton).^ 

The Ministers^ Accounts, two years later, distinguish these estates. 



1 Valor EooletiaHicus, III. 189. 
> See Moruuticon, III. 627. 
* Supra, p. 79. 



* Jiot Patent. 35 Hen, III., dorto. 

» Manasiicon, VI. 890. 

> Valor SceleMioitUms, III. 194. 



WILSITHLAND. 105 

showing that a messuage at Padforde yielded ISs. Ad,^ and Sher- 
lowe Orange £2.^ 

WILSITHLAND. 

This member of High Ercall is also lost. So too is that part 
of the Wombridge Chartulary which should aid us in making out 
its history. Edward II.'s Confirmation to Wombridge^ speaks of 
'* William de Hedleg having conceded to the Priory all his moor 
under the Vivary of Wilsithelond as it was bounded by a ditch.^' 
The Grantor was probably either WiUiam de Hadley (III.) or 
William de Hadley (IV.). 

From the same authority we learn how '^ William Wiscart^ son 
of Baldwin Wiscart, gave to Wombridge a virgate of land in Wil- 
sidelond, with its appurtenances and meadows^ and with common 
pasture for all the Prior^s live stock at Shurlowe in the whole te- 
nement of Wilsidelond, and with free pasture, for all the Prior^s 
oxen at Shurlowe, throughout the Grantor's fenced lands, in his 
whole tenement of Wilsidelond, both in meadows and in any other 
pastures.^' 

Another grant by " William Wiscart^' to the Priory was of 3 
acres in Wilsidelond.* This William Wiscart was Lord of Cold 
Hatton in the middle of the 13th century. He doubtless held the 
whole or part of Wilsithland under the Ercalls. 

We have seen that in 1255 Ysonda de WUfichelond was spoken 
of as having granted something in Ercall Manor to Wombridge 
Priory.* She too, I suppose, was a Tenant here. 

An entry on the Assize- Roll of 1256 will indicate the situation of 
Wilsithland as South-west of Ercall. A Plaintiff (whom the Re- 
cord omits to name) sued William de Arkelewe and five others for 
levelling a stank in Rodenhurst, to the injury of the Plaintiff's 
tenement in Wylsithelond. The Plaintiff when the stank existed, 
had been able, from the flow of water over the said stank, to have a 
free fishery there, and to take luces (pike), bream, and other fishes 
at pleasure. William de Arkelewe was ordered to restore the stank 
at his own cost and to pay 2s, damages. 

It would seem that Henry Malvoisin of Ashfield and Berwick, 
living from 1231 to 1256, had held Wilsithland under the Ercalls. 
At his death he left, besides his two sons already^ mentioned (viz. 
Thomas and Philip), an elder son, Henry. This son, Henry, be- 

« 

> MonatHeoHy Vol. YI. p. 391. I ' Supra, page 85. 

a Monastieon, Vol. VI. 390. I * Supra, VoL YII. p. 397. 

IX. 14. 



106 HIGH ERCALL. 

come seized of Wilsithland^ but fell from a tree whesa only 16 yein 
of age. Wishing on his deathbed to advance his younger brother, 
Philip, he enfeoffed him in Wilsithland. Soon afterwards Henry 
Mauveisin (II.) died, by the said fall and left no issue. On his 
death, John de Ercalew, as Seigneural Lord, seized on Wilsithlond, 
and then rendered it up to Thomas Malvoisin, as brother and next 
heir to Henry. 

In June 1272 Philip Mauveisin takes out a writ of disseizin, 
against Thomas Mauyeisin, for a tenement in Wilaelond, but in 
July the Writ is amended by one against Thomas Mauveisin, and 
others. The cause was tried at the Assizes of October 1272, when 
Thomas Mauveysin, John de Erkelewe and three others appeared 
to defend their having disseized Philip Mauveysin of two-thirds of 
a messuage and carucate in Wilsidelond. — 

The facts of the case I have given above, as the Jury found them. 
It was true that Henry Mauveysin had enfeoffed Philip, and so had 
not died seized of the premises. It was also true that Philip had 
begun to plough the land when John de Ercalewe disseized him ; 
but Philip took nothing, ^^ because he had had no esplees from the 
land, and because he had been enfeoffed by a Minor .'^^ We have 
seen that Thomas de Berwick continued to hold Wilsithland in 
1285.« 

OsBASTON. Hamund Pichard, who probably held this vill and 
Moor-town under the Ercalls, gave, as we have seen, a fomdell in 
Hosberton to Wombridge Priory.^ This was before 1181. In 1187 
Pope Urban^s Bull confirms it as a virgate in Osbemeston, given 
by Hamund Pichart. 

In 1256 William le Franceys (probably the Prior of Wombridge's 
Tenant in Osbaston) was at issue with William de Ercalewe. 

Between 1256 and 1278 the above virgate in Osbaston was held 
under Wombridge Priory by Richard de Loskesford and John de 
Espeley, but the Priory gave it to Sir John de Ercall in exchange 
for something elsewhere. We have seen that Shrewsbury Abbey 
had 4 acres of land in Ercall and a right of common at Osbemeston.^ 
Between 1272 and 1278, Luke Abbot of Shrewsbury gave to Sir 
John de Ercalewe, knight, all the land which the Abbey had in Er- 
calewe, viz. 4 nokes, exclusive of one noke held by WiDiam Suter. 
In return the said Knight gave to the Abbey that virgate in Osber- 
neston which he bad acquired from Wombridge Priory. He also 

^ AssUet, 66 SCen. III., m. 2, dorso. I 9 Supra, Vol TIT. p. 364. 
' Supra, page fiS. I * Supra, page 83. 



THE CHURCH. 107 

oonoeded that the Abbot might have 200 sheep (counted by the 
long-'hundred) , and not more^ in virtue of a certain Charter of his 
Ancestors^ and two milking cows, anywhere in his pastures of Er- 
call, where his men had common. He allowed also free-passage 
through his land, for the Abbot's men to carry grain and hay to 
Osbemeston.^ 

Soon affcer this. Abbot Luke concedes, to the same Sir John, 
William Sutor's noke in Ercall, and also gave Sir John a license 
and £Eu;ulty to petition the Convent of Shrewsbury concerning the 
admission of a certain Chaplain to the ofiSce of Sacristan in their 
Church of Ercall. Witnesses, Sir Odo de Hodnet, Sir John fitz 
Aer, Sir John fitz Hugh, knights.' 

The only Rent-Roll which gives the Abbot of Shrewsbury's re- 
ceipts from Osbaston as distinct from Sleap and Crudgington is that 
of 1490. Three items of receipt at Osbaston realized £1. 14^.' 

MooRTowN. The Pichards also held this member of Ercall, but 
I suspect that they had surrendered their tenancy, and that the vill 
was in the demesne of William de Ercall (111.)^ in 1245, when the 
Prior of Wombridge claimed a right of tithing it. When John de 
Ercall's Deed (later than 1256) exempts the land from this tithe he 
states himself to have bought it irom Hamo Pichard ;^ but I suspect 
that it was one of his ancestors who had so bought it. In 1269 
William de Hales and Cecilia his wife were suing John de Erkalewe 
for disseizing them of a tenement in La More. Cecilia was pro- 
bably that Sister of John de Erkalewe who had complained to the 
King of his violent conduct in 1267. 

The Valor of 1585-6 gives the Prioress of White Ladies Qs, 8rf. 
rent in Ercall,^ probably a composition for all her interests in Moor- 
town. 

Walton and Cotwall, though mentioned as members of Ercall, 
seem to have been held in demesne by the Lords of the Manor. 
They have, at all events, no distinct history, unless 1 may instance 
a Deed of July 21, 1309, whereby William de Ercalewe gives to 
William le Eu of Ideshale, and Johanna his daughter, 3 acres of 
wofte in CocteuHdl} 

HI&H ERCALL CHUBCH AND PARISH. 

Ercall Church was dedicated to St. Edward ; — a proof in itself 
that it was not an ancient Saxon Foundation ; for the original pa- 
rochial divisions of the Province must have been assigned long be- 



1 ' s Salop Chartulary, Nos. 394, 396. 
> HUi. SkrewBhury, Vol. II. 506. 



* Valor EcclesiaHicus, 111. l9^. 

* The Ute Mr. George Morrises Deedi. 



108 HIGH ERCALL. 

fore the death or canonization of the Martjr-King. St. Michael is 
now assigned as the Patron Saint of Ercall Churchy on what autho- 
rity I know not^ save that it is not on the authority of ancient 
Records. 

Domesday gives no indication of the existence of any Church at 
Ereal]. I have explained this under Rodington^ where the Mother 
Church of the district probably stood in 1086. ' However the supre- 
macy was transferred to Ercall within eight years of that date; for 
Earl Roger himself gave the *! Church of ArcheUma with all things 
pertaining thereto," to Shrewsbury Abbey, and the Earl died in 
1093-4. The Charter of William Ruins confirmed this grant as 
that of the Church of Ercalow, and it had the uniform sanction of 
his Royal Successors. Earl Hugh, as I have explained, granted 
two-thirds of the tithes of his demesne of Ercalou to Shrewsbury 
Abbey. He added the same proportion of the tithes of Heitona. 
Now Heitona is identical with Cold Hatton, which had been Gerard 
de Tornai^s at Domesday. I infer that the Earl granted these tithes 
while Gerard de Tomai^s estates were an Escheat, and not yet 
granted to Hamo Peverel. The latter Baron is however said to 
have granted the tithes of his demesnes of Arkalou, Heiton, Wil- 
sitheland, Sleap, and Crugelton to the Abbey. As usual I test 
these discordant statements by the express words of Bishop Clinton's 
Charter, which passed within 50 years of Earl Hugh's death. — An 
extract will suffice. 

Omnibus §•(?. Rogerus D. G. Coventr^ Episcopus salutem. Umver- 
sati vestrcB siffnificanius nos dilectis filiis nostris Abbati et Mona- 
chis SalopuB concessisse et confirmasse omnes decimas quas Hugo 
Comes SalopuB, de dominiis suis, eisdem ad constructionem ecclesuB 
sufB dedit et per cartam suam, quam inspeximus, confirmavit, viz. 
de dominio de Archalou et de terrd Wischardi duos partes decima- 
rum,^ That Wischard's land is the same as Cold Hatton we shall 
see when we come to that Manor. 

Another Charter of Bishop Clinton's to Shrewsbury Abbey con- 
firms the " Church of Archalou, with its Chapels, and a pension of 
20^."^ Bishop Durdenf s Confirmation is still more exact. It en- 
sures the Church of Archalou, with the tithe of that Manor, and 
with the tithe of Wiscard's land, and the tithe of Rodintone, and 
with the Chapels pertaining to the same Church.* Bishop Peche's 
Confirmation enumerates two-thirds of the demesne-tithes of Erka- 
lou, Hetton, and Wilsithelond, as granted by others to Shrewsbury 

» • ' • ' Salop aiartulary, Nop. 325, 328, 327. 



THE CHURCH. 



109 



Abbey^ but the whole tithes of Slepe as tithes of the Abbot's demesne. 
The Bishop also confirms a pension of 20«. from the Church of Er- 
kalou; and of 16». from the Chapel of Rodinton^ in lieu of two- 
thirds of the demesne-tithes of that vill.^ It was Bishop Alexander 
de Stavensby who first allowed the Monks of Shrewsbury to appro- 
priate Ercall Church. Up to his time the constitution of the 
Church was almost Collegiate^ for it had a resident Rector and 
Yicar^ whose incomes were portionary. Bishop Stavensby^s Charter 
of Appropriation begins with the hypocritical pleas usual to such 
occasions. He finds that the Church-patronage of the Abbey has 
hitherto been rather a burden than an advantage to itself. He re- 
serves the rights of Nicholas, then Rector of Ercall, till he should 
die, or resign. The Vicarage, endowed with 16 merks per awnumy 
was so to remain, and Alexander, the present Vicar, was to hold it 
for his life. The Vicar was to bear all Church burdens, as at pre- 
sent, except the Abbofs Procuration, which henceforth the Abbot 
was to provide himself. Witnesses, Master Richard de Gloucester, 
Chancellor of Lichfield and OfiScial of the Bishop ; Sir Richard de 
Stavenesbi, the Bishop's brother {germano). Dated at Canterbury, 
11 kal. Nov., and in the 5th year of the Bishop's pontificate (i. e, 
Oct. 22, 1228) .« 

G. (Geoffrey), Prior of Coventry, and his Convent, confirmed the 
above appropriation. Their Deed is dated 7 kal. June, in the 5th 
year of Bishop Alexander's pontificate. This date is equivalent ta 
May 26, 1228, and is therefore erroneous.' The real date of the 
Deed was probably May 26, 1229, and so in the 6th year of Bishop 
Alexander. W. (William), Dean of Lichfield and his Chapter, con- 
firmed the above appropriation on Sept. 18, 1246. Witnesses, 
Master Thomas de Wymundham, Prseoentor of Lichfield ; Master 
R. de Gloucester, Treasurer of Lichfield ; Master W. de Luoeby, 
Archdeacon of Derby.^ In tlus same year (1246), the Abbot of 
Shrewsbury had a dispute with the Prior of Wombridge as to the 
small tithes of the Prior's demesne at Schurlawe, valued at 8s., and 
claimed by the Abbot. A rescript of Pope Innocent IV. dated 
May 25, 1246, bore on the matter. At length on May 9, 1247, 
the Prior quitclaimed two-thirds of the said small-tithes, and agreed 



> Salop Chartulary, No. 329. 

> Lichfield EegUter^ A. fo. 7, b. 

• The Writer of the Confirmation pro- 
bably had the Bishop's Charter before 
him, and followed it too closely, not ad- 



verting to the fact that the 6th year of the 
Bishop's pontificate had set in on April 
14th, 1229, the date of his consecration 
being April 14» 1224. 

* Salop Chartulary, No. 69. 



110 HIGH KBCALL. 

to pay the Abbot ISd. yearly in lieu thereof.^ Ten years after this 
period the tithes of Ercall Parish must have been divisible in a most 
complex way. The great and small tithes of the whole Parish (ex- 
cept demesnes) went to the Abbot of Shrewsbury^ as Rector^ after 
the Vicar's Portion of 15 merks had been satisfied. As to de- 
mesnes they were doubly tithable ; that is liable to pay two-tenths 
of their whole produce. One of these tenths was subdivided as fol- 
lows. The Abbot of Shrewsbury took two-thirds thereof, in virtue 
of the arbitrary consecration by Earl Hugh. The remaining third 
he took also^ as Impropriate Rector of Ercall Church. The other 
tenth of demesne-tithes was of course a ninth of the residuary pro- 
duce. That^ as we have seen^ was subdivided between the Prior of 
Wombridge and the Prioress of firewood^ the title of each arising 
by arbitrary consecration of the Lords of Ercall. Such will have 
been the general rule of division, but, in the case of Shurlow, it is 
not easy to see why Shrewsbury Abbey claimed only two-thirds of 
the small-tithes of its demesne. Perhaps the remaining third, 
originally belonging to the Parish Church, was now annexed to the 
Vicarage. On August 17, 1280, Archbishop Peckham, having 
visited this Diocese as Metropolitan, and examined the Charters of 
Shrewsbury Abbey, found, and approved of. Earl Roger's original 
grant of Ercall Church, Bishop Stavensby's appropriation thereof, 
the confirmations of the Chapters of Lichfield and Coventry, and 
lastly of a Bull of Pope Gregory IX. (1227-1241) sanctioning the 
same appropriation.' The Abbot's title to a pension of 20«. from 
Ercall Church, though formally sanctioned in the Archbishop's 
Charter, was probably represented by a different sum payable by 
the Vicar. 

In the Taxation of 1291 the Church of Ercalwe (in the Deanery 
of Salop) is valued at £20. This was I suppose the Rectory. The 
Vicarage was apparently untaxed, as not liable to Tenths, except 
that a sum of £1. 4^., receivable therefrom bv the Abbot of 
Shrewsbury, is stated to be thus liable.' 

On April 19, 1324, Johanna and Matildis, daughters of Roger le 
Archer of Slope (Sleap), grant to Sir Richard de Adbaston, Chap- 
lain, and his successors, for celebration of the Mass of the blessed 
Mary in the Church of Ercalewe, for the souls' health of Roger and 
Cecilia, father and mother of the Orantresses, an acre in the field 
of Crugelton. Witnesses, William de Ercalewe, Knight; Sir John 

> Salop Chartulary, No. 390. I Cliartulaiy, Number 62. 

» Harl. MS. 8868, fo. 8 j and Salop I » Pope Nieh, Taxaiion, p. 247. 



THE CHXTBCH. Ill 

de Morton, Perpetual Vicar of Ercalwe; William Baudewjn of 
Walton; Alan de Bodene; William Fraunceys of Boulton, &c. 
Dated at Crugelton.^ 

In 1841 the Taxation of Great Ercall Church is quoted, rightly 
or wrongly, as jE20. This sum the Assessors reduced to a tax of 
£13. 6«. %d.y for the Ninth of wheat, wool, and lamb, now to be 
levied in the Parish. Their reasons for the reduction were because 
the Chapels of Bodington and Upton Parva (Waters Upton), were 
now separated from the Mother Churchy and assessed as distinct 
Parishes to the current tax; — also because the small tithes and 
other income of Ercall Church were worth £\Oper annumy that is, 
constituted iSlO of the Church Taxation, but were not to be com- 
puted as an index of the value of the Ninth. The temporalities of 
Shrewsbury Abbey in Ercall Parish are certified to have been in- 
cluded in the above assessment of £13. Gs. Sd.^ 

In a Rental of Shrewsbury Abbey (about 1490) the following 
items of receipt relate to Ercall Rectory. — 

Tithes of the Church of ErcaU £15 

Rodynton 18 4 

Tithes of Pevynton (farmed apparently by one 

Collay) 18 4 

John Newport, for his own proper tithes . . 16 8 
Passing now to the Valor of 1584-5^ we find the preferment of 
Nicholas Cartwright, Vicar of Miche-ErcaU, valued at £18. 19.9, 4c/. 
per annum, less 82«. Sd. 

The said deductions were a pension of 209. still payable to Shrews- 
bury Abbey ; 10^. for Archdeacons' Procurations ; and 2s. Sd. for 
Synodals.' 

Among the Abbot of Shrewsbury's Spiritualities the same Record 
gives the following receipts, viz. 

Tithes of Ercall Church £13 

Perm of the tithes of Slepe and Crogington . 3 
Annual pension from Ercall Church ... 100 
Portion of the tithes of Shirloue, receivable 

from the Abbot (read Prior) of Wombridge 16 
Portion of the Demesne-tithes of Rodynton . 14^ 
Among the prior of Wombridge's receipts the same Record gives 
a free rent of ISs. Ad. payable by Thomas Newport for ErcalL*^ It 
was probably a oomposition in lieu of tithes. 

1 The late Mr. George Morris's Beedfi. I * * ^ ' ' Valor EcclencuH(m$,Yol m. pp. 
s InquU. N<marwm, p. 184. I 184s 189, 190, 194. 



112 HIGH SRCALL. 

Cnvwcn Notes. In ocnmection with the &bric of Ercall Chmdi, 
three objects of yarions interest ^nire a passing notice. — 

1. The Monumental Efligy (of which a drawing is annexed) is of 
Free-stone, and stands in the East end of the North Aisle. The 
Tradition of the last Century assigned it to one of the ErcaUs, 

2. Asepnlchralalab, to the memory of Dame Eleanor Le Strange, 
will be more fully noticed under Whitchurch, the seat of that Lady's 
Ancestors and Descendants. I can assign no reason for her hayiiig 
been buried at Ercall. 

3. An ancient Font, of rude Norman design, which belonged to 
Ercall Church, is now in Shrewsbury Abbey. At what precise pe- 
riod, or for what reason, it was removed, I cannot determine. 

EAALY INCUMBENTS. 

Nicholas, last Rector of Ercall, occurs in 1228. 

Alexander, the Cotemporary Vicar, occurs again in 1229, and 
between 1232 and 1238. 

Oeeoobt, Vicar of Ercall, occurs about 1248 and 1250. 

Nicholas occurs as Vicar about the close of the century, and is 
spoken of as former Vicar in 1307. 

John de Morton, Priest, was instituted September 16, 1305, 
the Abbot and Convent of Salop 'presenting. He was here in. 
1324. 

Richard Marchall exchanges this Vicarage on May 20, 1345, 
for the preferment of— 

John de Mere, ^' Sacristan of the Sacristy " of Lichfield, and 
Incumbent of Kyngton (Wygom. Dioc.). In June 1358, Meere 
being superannuated, John de Greyby, a Canon of St. Chad's 
(Shrewsbury), was appointed his Coadjutor. 

BiCHARD DE LA MoRE, Priest, instituted April 21, 1362, on 
the usual presentation, resigned the same year, when, on November 
16,- 

SiR Roger de Aston, Priest, was instituted. Same Patrons. 
On October 16, 1378, Aston exchanges with — 

Richard de Preston, late Rector of Edgmond. 

John de Roulton occurs October 29, 1384, as holding the 
Church of Ercall Magna and the Chapel of Roulton (Rowton). 
On April 30, 1394— 

William Hamynet, Vicar of Ercall, exchanges with — 

Thomas Corbet, late Rector of Stoke-upon-Tem. Corbet was 
here in 1408-9. 



CHAPELS OF ERCALL. 113 



EBCALL CHANTRY. 



This Chantry, dedicated to All Saints^ and situated in the Ceme- 
tery of Ereall Churchy was in contemplation^ as we have seen, in 
1331. On December 22, 1334, its building was completed^ and 
the Bishop instituted — 

Benedict de Froddesley^ Priest, to be Custos thereof, he 
having been presented by Sir William de ErcaU, knight, " the true 
Patron." At the same time, 

Richard de Adbaston, Priest, is instituted, as Subctutos. On 
Benedict de Prodsley's resignation (July 8, 1348), and on August 
12 following, — 

John de Neuton, Chaplain, was admitted as Custos, Sir Wil- 
liam de Careswall, knight, presenting. 

CHAPELS OF ERCALL. 

The Chapels belonging to the Parish, which owned Ereall as its 
Mother Church, were numerous. Of these Bodington and Waters 
Upton are now distinct Churches ; but there were Chapels also at 
Isombridge, Sleap,^ Poynton, Boden, and Bowton, which were affili- 
ations of ErcaU, but are now destroyed. 

Most of these have been or shall be noticed in their proper places, 
but I have omitted thus to speak of — 

Boden Chapel, and will therefore supply the deficiency here. 
Its Incumbents were presented by the Lords of the Manor and so 
appear on the Diocesan Begisters. They were — 

Adam de Neweport, Priest, instituted July 11, 1306. Patron, 
Thomas de Lee. 

John de Bodene, Priest, collated June 30, 1350. Patron — 
The Bishop, by lapse. 

Sir John le Heyr, who died in 1369. 

John de Tong, Subdeacon, instituted March 11, 1370, at pre- 
sentation of Catherine de Lee, Lady of Boden. 

Sir John Beymond resigned in 1378. 

Philip de Chetwynd, "having the first tonsure;" — instituted 
July 12, 1378. Patron, William de Chetewynd, Lord of Calvyn- 
ton. 

Thomas Alkoc of Hemyngbui'gh, "having his first tonsure," 
instituted August 12, 1379. Patron, Bobert de Lee, Lord of 
Boden. 

^ Tradition is the only authority for the exietence of a Chapel at Sleap. 

IX. * 15 



114 EDOMOND. 

Thomas de Baddeby^ late Rector of Newport^ who came here 
by exchange with Alkoc on August 15^ 1379^ but resigned in six 
days. 

Philip de Chetewynd, instituted August 21, 1379. Same 
Patron. 

Sir John de Moreton, Priest, instituted May 23, 1381. Same 
Patron. 

Master Robert Mundevill, late Canon of St. Chad's, who 
came here by exchange with Moreton on May 25, 1381. 

Philip de Chetwynd, still " having his first tonsure,^^ was a third 
time instituted to Roden Chapel on June 7, 1381. 

Robert de Chetwynd was instituted October 23, 1382, Robert 
de Lee again presenting. 

Roger Saundre, Priest, instituted July 1, 1392 (the same Pa- 
tron presenting), resigned in 1406. 



€lrjjnwiHr» 



This extensive Manor is noticed in Domesday as follows. — 

" The Earl himself holds Edmendune. Leuinus Cilt held it (in 
Saxon times) with vi Berewicks. Here are xiiii hides, geldable. 
In demesne are vi ox-teams and xii Neat-herds ; and one Female 
Serf, xxxiii Villains, and viii Boors, with two Frenchmen, have xi 
teams; and yet there might be xi more teams here. Here a M.ll 
with a fishery, pays lO*. (yearly). In King Edward's time, the 
Manor used to pay £14 {per annum). Now it pays £15.'^^ 

I cannot give a decided opinion as to the personage above de- 
scribed as Leuinus Cilt. As a usual resource of ignorance I venture 
on a guess, viz. that it was Leofwine, one of the sons of Earl God- 
win. The said Leofwine fell by the side of King Harold his brother, 
at the, so-called, Battle of Hastings. 

As to the six Berewicks of Edgmond, I take five of them to have 
been Adeney; Field Aston, Cliurch Aston, Pickstock, and L ttle 
Hales. 

Earl Roger's only known dealings with this Manor of his demesne 

* Domesday, fo. 253, b, 2. 



BDGMOND. 115 

consisted in the foundation of a Church, not ten years after Domes- 
day ^ — a subject of which I shall. speak hereafter. So also shall I 
have to discourse on the origin of the Town of Newport ; — a Nor- 
man foundation in this same Manor of Edgmond. 

Edgmond with all its appurtenances, Saxon and Norman, came to 
the hands of King Henry II. as a Manor of Royal-demesne, whose 
fiscal value was in the proportion of £\2. 28. Sd. to £265. 15«. ; — 
the latter being the gross value of that Firma ComUaiUs for which 
the Sheriff was annually responsible at the Exchequer. 

About Midsummer 1165, Whittington Castle was surrendered to 
the Crown by GeoflBrey de Vere, its previous Lord. The King in 
lieu thereof granted a charge of £12 per annum on Edgmond to 
Geoffrey de Vere. The Sheriff paid £3 of this charge at Michael- 
mas 1165, £12 at Michaelmas 1166, £12 at Michaelmas 1167, and 
so every year till 1170 inclusive. Then, in CQnsequence I presume 
of Geoflfrey de Vere's death, the payment was discontinued. 

No further charge on the reputed revenue of Edgmond appears on 
the Pipe-Bolls tiU the year 1177. Then began those joint charges 
on the Manors of Edgmond and Wellington which lasted till 1194, 
the amount and recipients of which have been set forth under Wel- 
lington. Meanwhile the Pipe-Boll of 1193 shows a charge on 
Edgmond to have been renewed by a Writ of King Bichard in 
favour of Henry de Vere : and at the same time an annuity of £14 
had been similarly ordered for a second Geofirey de Vere, ad se sus- 
tentandum in servitio Regis. Nothing was said about Whittington 
in either case. Of Henry de Vere^s annuity or charge on Edgmond^ 
he only received £3, or one quarter's instalment. 

At Easter 1194, Edgmond was again farmed by the Sheriff and its 
revenues paid into the Exchequer. This continued till 1209, ex- 
cept that in 1198, 1199, and 1200, certain charges, already speci- 
fied,^ were made by the Sheriff for the deficient stock which he 
found on the Manors of Wellington and Edgmond, and except that 
from 1202 to 1209, Edgmond was one of the Manors which exhi- 
bited a similar deficiency.* Meantime, that is, on February 2, 1206, 
King John, being at Nottingham, granted all Edwyney (Adeney), 
a member of his Manor of Egemenden in pure alms, to the Abbot 
and Convent of Croxden (Staffordshire) . The grant was in lieu of 
an annuity of 100^. which the Monks had previously received as 
Boyal Alms at the Exchequer. The King's Charter was witnessed, 
among others, by Hugh Pantulf.^ The fiscal value of Adeney was 

* Supra, page 41. * Supra, Vol. III. p. 68. • JRot. Chartarum, p. 162. 



116 



EDGMOND. 



£2. 2s. 8d. The King^s grant therefore reduced the fiscal value of 
Edgmond to £10. This change is not noticed on the Pipe-Rolls 
till 1209. Then the Sheriflf discharges his liabilities of a sum of 
£S. lOs. Sd., or four years' reputed revenue of " Edwiney, given to 
the Monks of Crokesden, by Writ Royal/' 

Edgmond itself continued virtually to contribute its annual £10 
to the Firma ComitaiHa till 1217 inclusive. In that or the next year 
King Henry III. assigned this revenue to Henry de Audley, ^' where- 
VFith to support him in the Royal service^ and during the Royal 
pleasure.^' Hence^ at Michaelmas 1220^ the Sheriff discharges his 
liabilities of £30^ or three previous years of the revenue of Egmen- 
don.i From 1221 to 1225, Henry de Audley enjoyed the full an- 
nual income of £10 from Edgmond.' He also had 50«. for a quarter 
of the next fiscal year; but three quarters' revenue due Michaelmas 
1226, was accounted for by the Sheriff at the Exchequer, Edgmond 
having been for that period in manu Regis. On January 1, 1227, 
the King commits the Manor of New Borough^ cum pertinentiis, to 
Henry de Audley ad se sustentandum in servitio Regis, and pending 
the King's pleasure ;* but on July 22, 1227, the King, by Charter, 
dated at Westminster, grants the Manor of Egmundon cum Novo 
Burgo to Henry de Audley and his heirs, to hold of the Crown, by 
the service of one sore sparrow-hawk, payable yearly at the Exche- 
quer.* A Writ 'Close of February 17, 1228, informs the Barons of 
the Exchequer of this grant. Meanwhile the full effect of the above 
Charter is seen on the Pipe-Roll of 1227. — First, the Sheriff as- 
signs £10 in Egmendon to Henry de Audley ad se sustentandum, as 
before, but the entry is interlined and corrected, by a statement that 
Audley had the Manor by Royal gift, to him and his heirs, and 
would answer for the ferm thereof himself. Below, on the same 
RoU, " Henry de Aldithde accounts one mewed sparrow-hawk for 
the ferm of Egmendon cum Novo Burgo, according as the King had 
given the Manor to him at such a ferm. The hawk had been paid 
to the King himself; and Audley was Quit" 

Thus did the Audleys become Lords of Edgmond and Newport. 
The Sheriffs continued for ages to discharge their own account of 



* The reason why Henry de Audley's 
tenure of Edgmond had not been annually 
entered was that he himself was Sheriff 
and had a large current account with the 
Grown. 

^ It appears that Edgmond and New- 



port were seized into the King's hand for 
a short period in 1224; but a Writ of 
April 80 in that year restored them to 
Audley {Claus. I. 696). 

> Hot. Clous, Vol. II. p. 164. 

* Rot, Cart. 11 Hen. III., p. 1, m. 7. 



ISDOMOND. 



117 



the proportionate liability of £10, and Audley, in lieu of £10, an- 
swered, more or less regularly, for the mewed sparrow-hawk. 

Having given the succession of the Barons Audley, under Ford, I 
need not repeat it here. Their dealings -with Edgmond and New- 
port will appear in due course. As to the King's Tallages assessable 
on Edgmond and Newport, I may refer to a former Table, which 
will show that they ceased in 1223 ;^ — that is, while Henry de Aud- 
ley's tenure of the Manor was only conditional. 

I now turn to other details in the history of Edgmond. On 
October 13, 1200, a cause pending at Westminster between King 
John and the Abbot of LilleshuU was adjourned to the hearing of 
Jtistices-in-Eyre, The Abbot had made pourpresiure on land and 
wood in Egemendon; and the Recognizors who had been em- 
panelled were unfit to try a cause to which the King was a party .^ 
The Sheriff was ordered to empanel knights and gentlemen {pro- 
bos homines) to try the cause.^ A renewal of this suit has perhaps 
appeared already,^ though different terms are employed, as was 
usual in questions of boundary. Perhaps the Sequel is embodied 
in the following extract from the Assize- Boll of 1203. — 

I should first observe that Edgmond and Newport were repre- 
sented at the Assizes, each by its own community. This was be- 
cause they were ewtra-hundredal, and '^kept their own Pleas of the 
Crown,'^ as the term was. At these Assizes then, the Jurors of 
Egmendun said that the Abbot of Lillishul had made pourpresture 
in a spot where the King's men of Egmendun were wont to have 
pasture and easements. It was decided that there was nopourpres- 
turey and the Jurors were in misericordid. On the Amercement- 
Boll of the same Assizes I find several persons fined 6s. Sd: each 
pro f also dicto. William de Hales, Nicholas de Eston, Beginald de 
Egemund, Garnegoc, Bobert de Hales, and Henry de Ponte, follow 
each other in this predicament.^ They were, I think, the Edgmond 
Jurors. 

At the Assizes of 1221 the Vill of Egemundun was represented 
by twelve Jurors. Their only presentment was a case of murder. 
At the Inquisitions of Hundreds, in 1255, twelve Jurors gave ac- 
count of the joint Manor of Edgmond and Newport.* They were 
Stephen de Pessal, Bayner le Taylur, Nicholas le Pulleyn, Nicholas 



» Supra, Vol. VI. p. 11. 

^ " Becognitores tales sunt qui non 
poBsiint Tel debent esse in a88iz& Tenos 
dominum Begem.'* 



' Placita, 2 John, m. 1, dorao. 
* Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 280. 
^ Asiiae-Eoll, 6 John, m. 6 dorio. 
" Mot. Hundred. II. 66. 



118 



EDOMOND. 



Ase, Henry de Bedeford, Hugh le Palmer, Walter Provost, Bdchard 
Siward, Robert de Pickstoke, John de Aston, Philip de Aston, and 
Eobert de Hales. They recalled the former Royal status of the 
Manors of Egmundon and Novus Burgus, the grant thereof to 
Henry de Audley (for a rent of a mewed sparrow-hawk), and the 
existing tenure of James de Audley. They valued the Vill and 
Mill of Newport at 20 merks, and the Manor of Edgmond ait £7. 
19«. &d, per annum. Both communities paid tallage (to the Lord), 
whenever there was a Tallage on the King^s Boroughs and Manors. 
The Tallage of Newport was 36 merks, that of Edgmond 50 merks. 
Henry de Andley had made a Mill at Brademore, in Edgmond 
Manor, and broken up 4 acres of waste there. The Mill paid 2 
merks j9er annum} 

At the Assizes of January 1256 the Manor of Egemundon ap- 
peared by its Bailiff, John de Hauckeston, and the following Jurors, 
viz. Stephen de Pessehal, Ranulf Cissor, Nicholas Pullus, Nicholas 
fitz Alexander, William de la Yenel, Richard Syward, Robert de 
Pickstock, Robert de Hales, Richard Strut, Adam le Paumer, 
Philip and John de Eston. At these Assizes James de Audley un- 
dertook to restore to John de Chetwynd and his heirs certain heath- 
land in Chetwynd, and common-pasture in Edgmond. There was 
also a Perambulation between Audley's land in Aston, and Chet- 
wynd's land in Slattan. Brian de Brompton conducted it. The 
ditch of GeofErey de Thorp and the Cross of Robert de Stockton 
were among the landmarks. 

At the Assizes of October 1272 the Manor of Edgmond and 
Borough of Newburgh appeared by a Chief Bailiff, Nicholas Ran- 
dolf, and twelve Jurors, viz. Ranulf Tynctor, Robert de Pykestock, 
Alexander de Axda, Adam Marescall, Robert de Aula, Richard fitz 
Walter, William fitz Ranulph, Phihp Jarnegod, Richard Hancok, 
John de Hales, Adam le Provost, and Benedict de Adeney. In 
November 1274 twelve Jurors made Inquest as to the state of the 
same Liberty.^ Their names were, Alexander de Aula, Nicholas 
Roundulf, John le Porcher, William Day, Saunder de Mere, Wil- 
Uam Noblet, Walter del Hale, Richard Seward, Robert and Roger 
de Pykestock (written Sykestock), Robert fitz Walter, and Richard 
de Hoston (probably Hasten). These Jurors told the history of 
their Manor and Borough, substantively as I have given it, but 



^ The Bradford Jurors also presented 
this Mill, apparently as a pourpresture 
on the Forest, and combined with an as- 



sart of Z\ acres of Forest land {Mot, Hun- 
dred. Vol. II. p. 58). 
3 ItoL Hundred. II. 95, 96. 



BD6M0ND. 



119 



with a few verbal inaccuracies^ which need not mislead us. They 
particularized King John^s grant of Adeney to Croxden Abbey^ and 
Henry III.^s feoffinent of the Audleys^ of whom four had now held 
the Manor^ viz. Henry^ James (I.), James (11.)^ s^d Henry (II.)> 
(the existing Owner). The latter had franchises, allowed by the 
King, and he used them in a fitting and good manner. Newport 
was held under Audley by the free service of its Burgesses, Edgmond 
by the service of its Bonds} The Jurors complained of various ex- 
tortions in their Liberty by Hugh de Mortimer, when . Sheriff, by 
John Baril (Undersheriff), by William le Child, Bailiff of Bradford 
Hundred, by Elyas de Stoke, by Brian (read Urian) de St. Pierre, 
when Sheriff, by Elyas de Birkewey, his Receiver, find by William 
Snelj Under-Bailiff of Bradford Hundred. On the death of Sir 
James de Audley (I.), Peter Melysaunt, Clerk to Sir John fitz Aer, 
then Subescheator, seized Edgmond and Newport in manu Begis^ 
and on that pretext took 4^. fix)m Edgmond and 6s. Sd. from New- 
port for his own uses.^ Again, on the death of James de Audley 
(II.), that is, on November 11, 1272, John de Ercalue, Subescheator, 
seized the lands of the deceased, and held them till April 29, 1278, 
receiving all the issues. From the vill oiNewbvrgh he took 20». for 
his own uses. 

My former account of the Audleys will explain the following 
extracts from the Inquests taken at their deaths. — Henry de Audley 
(II.) dying in 1276, was seized of two-thirds of Newburgh, and 
was responsible for two-thirds only of the Crown rent (the Sparrow- 
Hawk). The value of these two-thirds was £11, according to one 
Inquest, and £18 according to another.* Matilda, widow of James 
de Audley (II.) > dying soon after Heniy de Audley, had one-third 
of Ford and two-thirds of Edgmond ; — together valued at £6. 2^. 9d. 
William de Audley, deceased in December 1282, had all Edgmond, 
except his Mother's dower. His receipts were £5. 18«. O^^f., and 
a pair of white gloves. His interest in Newport I reserve for its 
proper place. 

The Tenure-Roll of Bradford Hundred, taken about 1285, is 
very lucid on the subject of this Manor. — ^' Nicholas de Audeley 
holds the Manor of Egemond with its members, viz. Adeney, Great 
Aston, Little Aston, Little Halis, Pickestoke, with the vill of New- 
porte, of the King in capiie, by Charter; — ^rendering yearly a 
mewed sparrow-hawk in lieu of all services. The said Manor was 



^ Bondgf i.e. Tenants-in-Yillemage. 
« Compare Vol. VII. p. 188. 



' Inqviniiones post mortem^ 4 Edw.I., 
No. 60 ; and 6 Kdw. I., No. 46. 



120 BDRMOND. 

a demesne-manor of the Eling. Of the said members William 
Eysseby holds Great Aston of the said Nicholas; the Abbot of 
Crokesden holds Adeney ; John de Halis holds Little Halis ; and 
the Burgesses of Neuport hold Neuport, as a free borough, of the 
said Nicholas. And here the said Nicholas has his Free C!ourt, 
and Pleas of bloodshed, and hue-and-cry, and gallows, warren. 
Market, and Fair ; and these he has used/' 

At the Assizes of October 1292 the borough of Neuport and the 
Manor of Edgmond were for the first time represented by distinct 
Jurors, though William Noblet was Chief Bailiflf for both. The 
Edgmond Jurors were John de Halis, Richard de Holeweye, William 
de la Grene, Boger de Pycstoke, William fitz Edyth, and Richard 
Bryd. The presentments of these two Juries seem to be combined. 
They stated that Nicholas de Audley's rent to the Crown was one 
Hawk, and 4s8. 4id. de mcremenio. Audley had to show that he had 
paid such rent, and he called the Pipe-RoUs to warranty. The 
truth of this was to be tested ad proximum Parliamenium. At these 
same Assizes, the Jurors of Bradford Hundred presented Nicholas 
de Audley for exercising the following franchises in Neuport, viz. 
holding a free-court, twice yearly ; having a gallows ; and holding 
emendals of bread and beer. This presentment was, as usual, fol- 
lowed up by a Writ of Quo Waranto, calling on Audley to prove 
his right to hold Pleas of the Crown, and to have wayf, market, 
fair, and the said emendals, and free warren, in Egemundon and 
Newburgh. Audley defended his rights on the ground that Henry 
III.'s Charter to his Ancestor included ^rancAwe* andyrcc-CM*/o«w, 
and on the ground of prescriptive usage. The Crown Lawyer in- 
sisted that such Franchises, as inherent in the Crown, could not be 
conveyed to a subject without being categorically included in a 
Charter. The cause was adjourned.^ 

On Nicholas de Audley's death in 1299 his tenure of Egemandon 
and Novus Burgus seems to have been recorded,^ but the Inquest is 
iUegible. Thomas de Audley, deceased in 1308, had been seized of 
one-third only of Egemundon and its members. The net revenue 
from this was £7, 6«. \\d? John de Bruynione is set down as Lord 
of Egmindon in the Novum Villarum of March 1316. He was per- 
haps the second husband of some Widow of an Audley. 

Nicholas de Audley (11.) dying in December 1316 had enjoyed a 
revenue of £39. 168. 6d, from Egemond, Novus Burgus, and Ford.^ 

^ Quo WaratUo, p. 678. ^ Inquis. 1 Edw. 11., No. 63. 

, s Calend. Inquig, Vol. I. p. 150. * InquU. 10 Edw. II., No. 73. 



EDQMOND. 121 

Adeney. I have already shown how this member of Edgmond 
was granted to Croxden Abbey by King John in 1206. Its reputed 
fiscal value was £2, 2s. Sd. per annum ; and the subsequent Pipe- 
Bolls usiially deduct that sum from the Firma ComitatHs as so much 
land given to the " Monks of Crokesdene in Edwineie/' A Tenure- 
Boll of the year 1211 seems to contradict the fiscal language of the 
Pipe-BoUs. It says that " the Abbot of Crokesden holds^ by gift 
of King John^ Edimeyy a member otEgnuden, in perpetual alms/' 
that '^the estate usually pays 40«. per annum, but wiU be (read 
was) given to them (the Monks) for 60*/^^ The truth is that fiscal^ 
or reputed^ value is not here alluded to. The entry means to say 
that the actual income from Adeney was only 40^.^ while King John 
meant to give the monks 60 solidates of land. If we look at King 
John's Charters, the last idea will prove to have been erroneous. It 
was 100 solidates of land which King John was morally bound to 
provide for the said Monks.* 

In 1255 Croxden Abbey was receiving £4. 16«. from its estate at 
Audoney. Clement de Audoney, perhaps an Undertenant of the 
Abbey, had given his land to the Knights Templars of Keel, and 
had become their Vassal, paying them 2^. per annum for their ad- 
vowry? The Assize-Boll of January 1256 shows the Abbot of 
Crokesden fining half a merk for license to accord with James de 
Audley in eiplacitum cheminii. Their Fine is preserved. Thereby 
Geoflfrey de Thorp (Audley's Attorney) allows Walter, Abbot of 
Crokesden, to have a road through Audlej^s land of Egemendun. 
For this the Abbot paid 5 merks. 

In 1287 the Monks of Croxden gave Edwineye to Buildwas 
Abbey, receiving in exchange, from the Monks of Buildwas, the 
Grange of Caldon in Staffordshire.* This transaction was ratified 
by a Charter of Henry de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, dated June 10, 
1287.** (The Earl was Seigneural Lord of Caldon.) Hence in the 
Taxation of 1291 we find the Abbot of Buildwas deriving from 
Edewyneye £3 of rents, and 6*. Sd. for Pleas and Perquisites.* In 
1292-3 the Abbot of Buildwas was prosecuted by the Crown for 
the Manor of Adoney juxta Egemundon.^ Of course he called the 
Abbot of Croxden to warranty, and of course that Abbot appeared 



^ Testa de Neville p. 66. 
^ Yide supra, p. 115, aud Sot, Char- 
tarum^ p. 61, b. 

' Eot. SuMdred, II. 65. 

* Collectanea Topographica el Oenea- 



hfficay Vol. II. p. 300. 

* Monaeticon, V. 360, Num. XXIII. 

• Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 260. 

^ PlacUa de Quo Waranto, pages 678 
and 719. 



IX. 1 () 



122 ED6M0ND. 

with a ready warranty, and with King John's Charter in his hand. 
This settled the question, and enables us to judge of the vexatious 
spirit in which these Crown prosecutions were instituted. While 
the Justices, who tried them, were in StaJSbrdshire, the Abbot of 
Croxden expended no less a sum than £30. 98, M. in law.^ 

The Valor of 1584-5 gives the Abbot of Build was £4 rents in 
Adney. Two years later the Ministers' Accounts afford fiiller par- 
ticulars, as follows. — 

Bents of customary Tenants £1 : — rent of certain land Ss. 4d. ; 
rent of one messuage Ss. 4d. ; ferm of a messuage and land 15s. ; 
ferm of a messuage or cottage 14«. Sd. ; ferm of a messuage and 
arable land I9s. Total £4. 69. 4d.* 

GREAT ASTON, now CHETWYND-ASTON, or FIELD-ASTON. 

The history of this member of Edgmond is very curious. — 

In July 1155 Henry II. granted part of it to one Bx)bert Finzun, 
whose service was to be a Sergeantry, viz. to provide two trusses of 
hay for the Eing^s chamber whenever he visited Edgmond. The 
King's Charter runs as follows. — 

Henricus Rew AngluB et Dux Normannue et AqvitanuB et Comes 
AndegavuB, WiUidmo filio Alani et omnibw fidelibus suis Francis et 
Anglis de Salop' salutem. Sciatis me dedisse Roberto Pinzun et 
suis heredUms tres virgatas terrte in Estona, liberas et quietas ah 
omni consuetudine et exactione, pro dualms tmssis fern, quas mihi 
dare debet, quando apud Egmundon jacuero, pro omni servicio, 
Quare volo et firmiter prcscipio ut ipsas tres virgatas terrte bene et 
in pace habeat et teneat, et a nullo homine molestiam vel gravamen 
inde sustineat. Testibus, Comite Reginaldo de Comubia, Ricardo de 
Humez, Hugone de Mortemer. Apud Brug} 

I have already pointed out one historical rignificance of this 
Charter, viz. its constructive allusion to Hugh de Mortimer's sub- 
mission.^ It tells yet another story, — a piece of Exchequer-history. 
The deduction which this grant must have made on the net value 
of Edgmond, was never brought into the Exchequer accounts or 
Pipe-RoUs, as any similar and later grant of Henry II.'s would 
have been. Consequently we know that the Firma ComitatHs of 
Shropshire was not settled till after the date of this Charter, that 
is, till after Mortimer's submission. The Chroniclers tell us of 
Henry II.'s early reorganization of his Exchequer. The above 

1 Collectanea (ut supra). I ' Salop Chartulary, No. 162. 

Monadieon, Y. 361. ' « Supra, Vol. I. pp. 260, 251. 



GBBAT ASTON. 123 

Deed; coupled with the fragmentary and all but lost Pipe- Roll of 
1155; and the full and extant Pip&-Roll of 1156; shows us the pro- 
cess of that reoj^anization. 

Bobert Pinzun was succeeded by Nicholas Finzun^ living in 12^11. 
A Tenure-BoU of that year has this passage. — 

Nicholas Pitkun (sic) tenet in eodem Manerio (scilicet EgnudenJ 
Ui mrgatcts terrmper servicium quod debet invenire ij trusses feni ad 
cameram Regis cum venit apud Egumdon} 

Nicholas Pinzun had property in Shrewsbury. He makes two 
grants in Frankwell; one to William Bussel; the other to William^ 
Son of Symon Sproht, whom he calls his brother.^ Early in Henry 
III.'s reigU; Isabella; widow of Nicholas PinzuU; sells to Reginald 
her son all her dower within the borough of Shrewsbury.* 

The above Reginald afterwards appears as Master Reginald Pin- 
zun, son of Nicholas Pinzun of Salop. Under that name, and pro- 
bably in the year 1241, he gives to Shrewsbury Abbey two virgates 
of land in Aston juxta Novum Burgum, and binds himself and his 
heirs to discharge the rent; due on the said two virgates and on his 
other land in AstoU; viz. " two trusses of hay when the King shall 
lie at Eychmundune.^' Witnesses; Sir John le StrangC; then Sheriff 
of Salop; Nicholas de Weleleth (Wililey); Undersheriff ; and Robert 
de Geros.* 

After thiS; Master Reginald Pinzun seems to have given or sold 
a very large property in Shrewsbury to the same Abbey; reserving 
in one instance considerable rents for his own hfe. Finally he re- 
leases the said rents for the souls of himself and Aena his late wife.^ 

The Hundred-Roll of 1255 says that ''the Abbot of Salop holds 
two virgates of land in the vill of Aston Magna by an ancient grant; 
and takes thence one merk.'^ 

The interest acquired by Shrewsbury Abbey in Aston remained 
till the Dissolution. The Vahr of 1534 gives the Abbot 6s. Sd. 
rent from Monke Aston juxta Newporte,^ so that it would seem that 
this part of Aston had acquired a distinctive name indicative of its 
owners. 

LiLLBSHULL Fee. It is clcaT that there was still a virgate in A»- 
tou; included in Henry II.'s grant to Robert PinzaU; but nottrane^ 
ferred by Reginald Pinzun to Shrewsbury Abbey. 

Perhaps this was the vii^ate which Roger; son of Philip de 
Badger; held in the beginning of the 13th century. If sO; he must 

^ TeHa de NeviU, p. 56, a. *'^ Salop Ghartulary, Nob. 161, 168. 



3.1 



Salop Chartulary, No. 176. 



6 Valor EccUsioiHcut, III. 189. 



124 EDGMOND. 

have held it under Pinzun. His Under-tenant was Gemegod de 
Aston^ otherwise called Gemegod, son of Drogo the Chaplain, and 
perhaps the very person whom we have seen in the apparent posi- 
tion of an Edgmond Juror in 1203^ when he is called Gamegoc.^ 

Between the years 1200 and 1225 (as I infer), Roger de Bajesor, 
son of Philip de Bajesor,^ gives to Lilleshall Abbey, for the souls' 
health of himself and Amice his wife, the homage, service, and rent 
of Gernegod, son of Drwy the Chaplain, arising out of one virgate 
which the said Gernegod held in Eston, by a rent of 5«., payable to 
the Grantor. The Grant further stipulates that Gemegod himself 
shall discharge all forinsec services thereon.^ 

There are two Confirmations of Henry III. to LiUeshull Abbey, 
both dated 29th Nov. 1265. One confirms " the donation and con- 
cession which Roger de Bagesovere made of a rent of 5^. in La 
Lya.'^ The other confirms " the donation and concession which 
Roger de Baggeshovere made of 5s, rent in Magna Aston, and of 
the homage «md service of Gemegod, son of Drogo the Chaplain, 
arising from one virgate in the same vill." It is clear that in the 
first of these confirmations there is a large omission, and that the 
person who really granted 5^. rent in La Lya was Ralph de Hodnet, 
as the second Confirmation proceeds to say. La Lya and Aston 
were therefore unconnected ; and Roger de Badger had nothing to 
do with the former. This will correct a mistake, which I made 
when previously alluding to this subject.* 

An old Rent-RoU of Lilleshull Abbey includes a half-yearly rent 
of 2s. 6d. receivable from Gernegod de Eston.^ 

The Hundred-Roll of 1255 puts the Abbot of Lilleshull's rent, 
from one virgate in Aston Magna, at 5^. 4id. The estate must have 
been improved, for at the Dissolution £2. lis. 44. of rents from 
Magna Ashton were among the assets of the late Abbey.' 

Thorpe Fee. The residue or rather bulk of Great Aston seems 
to have remained in the demesne of the Manorial Lords, till James 
de Audley (I.) enfeofled Geoflfrey. de Thorp therein, except one vir- 
gate which in 1255 was held by Edith, a Widow of Newport, who 
had 4». rent therefrom. At the same date GeoflBrey de Thorp had 
broken up two carucates of the waste of the said Yill, and was now 
taking a fourth crop therefrom .^ 



* Supra, p. 117. 

» Vide flupra, Vol. II. p. 65. 
s Lilleshall Chartularj, fo. 60. 

* Supra, Vol. II. p. 68. 

* Chartulary, fo. 93. Doubtless Philip 



Jarnegod, the Juror of 1272 (supra, p. 
118), was descended from this stock. 

* Afonastieon, VI. 266. 

7 Rot, Hundred, II. 65. The Bradford 
Jurors also presented C^ffirey de Thorpe's 



LITTLE ASTON. 



125 



It appears from a later Record, in 1274^ that Greodrey de Thorpes 
service for the hamkt of Aston Major was a pair of white gloves, 
value Id., at Christmas.^ 

In 1285^ as we have seen, William Eysseby was Audley^s Tenant 
at Great Aston. I cannot account for this interruption in the 
otherwise direct descent of the Thorps. On October 10, 1296, 
Basilia, daughter of William Stevensone of New Borough, being a 
widow, gives to Adam, younger son of William Randoulf of the same, 
an acre in the waste of Magna Aston. This Deed, which is attested 
by William Bondulf, John Bondulf, John de Hales, and Nicholas 
le Colt, mentions lands of ^^ John Bondulf, Lord of Aston.*^^ 

By a Fine levied on January 27, 1304, Edmund^ son of GeoflTrey 
de Thorp (Impedient), gives a messuage and 17 aores in Magna^ 
Aston-juxia-Newporti to John Randolf (PlaintiflF), for 20 merks. 

By another Fine of May 31, 1304, the same John Randolf 
(Plaintiff) recognizes the right of Edmund de Thorp to 14 acres in 
Magna Aston, and, paying 10 merks, is allowed to hold them for 
life at a rose-^ent. 



LITTLE ASTON, now CHURCH-ASTON. 

Of this place, as distinct &om Great Aston, I have only one early 
notice. — On January 20, 1271, Adam de Brimton (of Longford) took 
out a Writ against James de Audley^ for disseizing him of common- 
pasture in Parva Aston. 

Aston Chapel. I cannot tell when this was founded, but Little 
Aston was also called Church Aston at least as early as the reign of 
Henry VIII. We may presume that it got this distinctive name 
from its Chapel. The said Chapel was probably of much earlier 
foundation than this, but at any rate it was a mere affiliation of 
Edgmond Church, and entirely subject thereto, so that its Incum- 
bents or Ministers are not noticed in the early Diocesan Registers. 

PiCKSTocK, or rather that part of the township which is in Edg- 
mond Parish, was also a member of Edgmond Manor. I know 
nothing of the Tenants of this part of Pickstock except from seeing 
their names on Edgmond Jury Lists^ or in other documents. Thus 
we have Thomas de Pickstock occuring in 1249 and 1250, Robert 
de Pickstock in 1255, 1256, 1272, and 1274, and Roger de Pick- 
stock in 1274 and 1292. 



prooeedings in the vill of Aston (Ibidem, 
p. 58, where for WiUo we should read 
ViUd). The grieyuioe was the destruc- 
tion of common-rights, and here stated to 



have been of two years' standing. Each 
carucate was worth 40f. per annum, 

1 Rot. Hundred. 11. 94. 

3 Harl. MS. 2063, fo. 6. 



126 BDGMOND. 

Little Hales. This outlying member of the Manor and Parish 
of Edgmond seems to me to have sometime oonstitnted a Seijeantrj. 
I can offer nothing but surmises on the matter^ for it is only at one 
period that we hear of such a Seijeantry as existing. — In the year 
1211 there were four persons who held lands in Shropshire by ser- 
vice of accompanying the Sheriff when he conveyed the half-yearly 
ferm of the County to the Exchequer. Two of these Serjeants re- 
sided near Stottesden, and one near Worfield. The fourth was 
William de Hales,^ whose tenure and abode I venture to place at 
Little-Hales. Previously and subsequently to 1211 the owners of 
Little. Hales occur frequently on Edgmond Juries. We have had 
William and Robert de Hales thus occurring in 1203. At the 
Assizes of 1221 WiUiam de Parva Hales pays half a merk for license 
to accord with William de Stokes^ his Surety being William Pantulf. 
The Fine thus contemplated is preserved. — Hugh Long and Emma 
his wife^ William de Stokes and Matilda his wife^ Plaintiffs^ in a 
suit of tnort d'ancestre against William de Parva Hales, for half a 
Mill in Parva Hales, quitclaim their right for 20». 

In 1255 and 1256 Robert de Hales occurs. In 1272, 1274, 1281, 
1284, 1285, 1296, and 1306, John de Hales, or de Parva Hales oc- 
curs on various Juries, and we know that in 1285 he held Little 
Hales under Audley. In 1292 he was Foreman of an Edgmond 
Jury. In May 1284, William de Hales occun on the same Jury 
with John ; and in April 1298, William de Parva Hales and Wil- 
liam Wyan, of the same, are on a local Jury.* 

I presume that, when Edgmond was granted io the Audleys, the 
Serjeantry of Little Hales naturally became obsolete. 

EDGMOND CHURCH. 

There is no proof that this was a Saxon foundation ; for it is not 
mentioned in Domesday. Still it had its Chapels, and, if not ex- 
istent at Domesday, must have been founded, within eight years 
after that survey was taken, by Earl Roger de Montgomery. It 
was in short one of the Churches which he gave, with all its appur- 
tenances, to Shrewsbury Abbey. In these respects its origin would 
be very similar to that of such Churches as Tong and Donington. 
Within 60 years after Domesday the Church of Newport had been 



> Testa de Neville p. 66, a. Liher Ru- 
ber Scacoarii, fo. oxxxvii. 

' Under Tibberton (Vol VIII. pp. 48, 
49, 60), we haye also had a John de Hales 



(occurring 1242-1266), a Beginald de 
Panra Hiles (ooeomng about 1242-6), 
and a William de HaleB, son of the said 
Seginald. 



FONT, BUG HON D. 



THE CHURCH. 



127 



founded within the Parish of Edgmond. Hence Bishop Clinton's 
Confirmation to Shrewsbury Abbey includes '^ the Church of Edg- 
mund with its Chapels^ and a pension of 40^., and the Church of 
New Boroughy with its pension of 10«."* Bishop Durdent's Charter 
confirms '' the Church of Egmundon with the tithe of that vill and 
with the Chapels pertaining to the said Church ; — also the Church 
of New Borough." Bishop Peche's Charter confirms the aforesaid 
Pensions^ viz. 3 merks from the Church of Egnudune^ and \Q$, 
from the Church of New-Borough. It is remarkable that Henry 
II.'s great Charter to Shrewsbury Abbey speaks of the Churches of 
Egmendon and New-Borough as Earl Roger's gifts. The anachro- 
nism was unperceived when the Charter was framed^ aod destroys 
neither the credit of the Deed nor its Draughtsman, for the earlier 
gift yirtually involved its consequents. Bishop Novant conceded to 
Shrewsbury Abbey, its receipt, of 3 merks per annumy from the 
Church of Egemendon. Archbishop Peckham confirmed the above 
pensions of 40«. from Edgmond and lOff. from Newborough. 

The Taxaiifm of 1291 values the Church of Egemindon (iu New- 
port Deanery) at £12 ^er annumy over and above its ckcimablepeiu 
9um, The latter is entered as £\. 10«. receivable by Salop Abbey 
and liable to Tenths.^ In 1341 the Chvrch-Taxation of Egemudon 
was quoted as £20, but the Parish was only assessed £11 for the 
Ninth of its wheat, wool, and lamb. The reasons of the reduction 
were because the Church-Taxation was high, and because £1 thereof 
was alien to the present assessment.^ The Valor of 1534-5 gives 
(in one place) to the Abbot of Shrewsbury, a pension of £1. 10^. 
from Egmonde.' The Church itself, still a Rectory, was held by 
Thomas Brerewood, whose gross income was the goodly sum of 
£48. His net income was £46. Ss. ; the Procurations being Ss,, 
the Synodals 4:8., and the Abbot of Shrewsbury's pension being 
here put at 20*.** 

The Chancel- Windows of Edgmond Church were formerly adorned 
with the following armorial insignia. — In the North Windows were 



^ The original Chapelries of Edgmond 
were probably Tibberton, Longford, and 
Newport. 

> HarL MS. 8868, fo. 7, b. 

' Fope Nich. Taxation, p. 248. 

* Inguit. Nonarum, p. 184. 

*•• FatorJ!'cctew«<ici«*,III.189,187.— 

Mr. Dukes (p. 167) says that the Ad- 
Towaoa of Edgmond was appropriated 



to Shrewsbury Abbey by Patent of 34 
Hen. III., and given to the Carthusians 
at Shortley, near CoTentry, by Patent of 
10 Henry YII. The Patent first quoted 
is a presewtaiion to the Church, as will 
appear below. The Church was never 
appropriated. The second Patent (that 
of 10 Henry YII.) 1 cannot find on the 
original Boll. 



128 



EDGMOND. 



the Coats of Mortimer^ Earl of March^ and of Warren^ Earl of 
Surrey. In tha South Windows were the Coats of Verdon (or, 
fretty gules), and of Fitz Alan, Earl of Arundel (Gu. a Lion ram- 
pant, or).^ 

EARLY INCUMBENTS. . 

Gbopprey Geifpin, Clerk (of whom I have spoken under Howie 
and Cherrington^), is said to have been Rector of Edgmond. He 
died in 1253, says my authority, leaving > 20 merks for subsidy of 
the Holy Land, and appointing the Abbot of Haughmond and the 
Priors of Trentham and Wombridge his Executors.^ I presume 
that Geoffirey Griffin did not hold the Rectory of Edgmond till his 
death ; for on July 9, 1250, the King, by Letters Patent addressed 
to R. Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, presents — 

Artald de Sancto Romano to the Church of Egemendon. The 
King thus presented because the Abbacy of Shrewsbury was va- 
cant.^ For. the same reason, a Patent of May 29, 1266, presents — 

Robert de Knithton to the Church of Egemondon. 

Ralph be la Bolde, Clerk, was instituted to this Church on 
July 25, 1305. (Patrons, The Abbot and Convent of Shrewsbury.) 

He has licenses of non-residence, sttidendi gratid, in 1308, and in 
1311, being at length styled Rector and Priest. 

John de Scheynton was instituted May 14, 1319. (Same 
Patrons.) He had dispensations in 1320, 1321, and 1322, being 
ordained Deacon and Priest in the latter year. In 1323, 1324, and 
1325, he had similar licenses, the first and last, at the desire of Sir 
John de Cherlton, on whose following {obsequiis) he was to be in- 
tendant ; — the second for the sake of literary study. He had con- 
tinuous licenses for non-residence from 1348 to 1355, and on Sept. 
6, 1356, he exchanged preferments with — 



» Harl. MS. 2129, fo. 170, b. 

* Supra, Vol. VIII. pp. 91, 199. 

' Loxdale^t Staffordshire Collectiont. — 

A note to this extract says that " the 
date, 1253, should be read, 1236, because 
the death took place in the time of Wil- 
liam Bishop of Worcester " (1218-1236) 
*' and Robert Bishop of Lincohi " (1234- 
53). This argument would indeed go to 
establish the interral between 1284 and 
1286 as the date of (Geoffirey Griffin's 
death; but it is certain, on other evi- 
dence, that he must have died about 1258. 



The note further quotes a receipt for 
Greoffirey Griffin's bequest from B., Arch- 
deacon of Middlesex, Conservator of the 
Cruci^eri in England and Wales. This 
again would establish 1253 as the proxi- 
mate date of the bequest ; — ^for B., Arch- 
deacon of Middlesex, entered on his office 
after 1244 and held it in 1251 and 1259. 
* This alleged vacancy of the Abbacy 
of Shrewsbury is an element in a question 
already raised (supra. Vol, VI. p. 150, 
note 7). The recent election of Adam 
III. would seem to have been nugatory. 



NEWPORT. 129 

Master William db Cherlton^ late Prebendary or Portiouer 
of Pontesbury.^ 

Sir Hugh Carles^ Rector of Edgmond^ retracts on October 1^ 
1369, his previous desire to exchange.^ 

John de Bouland was appointed by a Patent of Feb. 8, 1376; 
but the Patent was cancelled on May 25 following. On Nov. 16, 
1378— 

Richard db Preston exchanges this Rectory for the preferment 
of— 

John Knode, late Vicar of Ercall. Knode again, in 1379, ex- 
changes with 

William de Shrewbsbury, Archdeacon of Salop (Lichf. Dioc.) . 

Sir Richard Elmeban exchanges this Rectory, on Feb. 5, 1384, 
for the preferment of — 

Master Nicholas de Peshale, late Rector of Kyngeslyne 
(Line. Dioc.). Peshale has the Bishop's License to hear confes- 
sions, dated March 2, 1402. He resigned this Rectory in Septem- 
ber 1425. 



0t\X)J^OXt, formerly fio^Om BUtgUS 



How much history is involved in names 1 — When the Norman 
Scribes of Domesday are ascertained to have called a place Aldcbe- 
rie (Oldbury) we learn that that place was in their time reputed to 
be of ancient foundation.^ So too when a place, unmentioned in 
Domesday, is found to have been called Novus Burgus in Henry I.'s 
reign, we know at once that it must have been recently founded. 

I have spoken already of the three classes of Boroughs.'* New- 
port belongs to the first class, for it was founded by a King^ though 
it eventually became an appendage of the Barony of Audley. This 
was because it was founded within the Royal Manor of Edgmond, 
which Manor, with its appurtenances, was afterwards granted by 
Henry III. to Henry de Audley. 



» Vide supra. Vol. VII. p. 140. 

* Mr. Blakewaj says that on "Sept. 
27, 1886," Hugh Carles certified himself 
to bo holding the Rectory of Edgmond 



and a Prebend in Gnowsall Church. The 
date seems improbable. 

> Supra, Vol. I. p. 132. 

^ Supra, Vol. III. p. 253. 



IX. 17 



1 30 NEWPORT. 

The Burgesses of Newport enjoyed Franchines and had Customs 
in the time of Henry I. Newport was therefore a Borough, or 
Corporate town, in that King's reign, and was doubtless foundted by 
the King himself. Nay more, we are assured that Newport had a 
Church in the same reign, for immediately after the King's death 
Richard Priest of New-borough, and Pagan de Novoburgo, are 
found attesting a Grant by Hamo Peverel to Shrewsbury Abbey : 
and Bishop Clinton, who died in 1148, confirmed the Church of 
New-Borough to the same Abbey. 

The next evidence which I have of the existence of this Royal 
Borough is Henry II.^s Charter thereto, dated at Brewood. It un- 
doubtedly passed between the years 1163 and 1166. It runs as 
follows. — 

Henricus, Rex Angiia et Dux Normannue et AquitanuR et Comes 
Andegavice omAibtis, ^c. Sciatis me concessisse Burgensibus m^eis 
de Novo Burgo omnes libertates et rectas consuetudines suas, sicut 
eas melius et liberius habuerunt tempore Regis Henrici avi mei ; et 
ideo prohibeo ne quis super hoc eis injuriam faciat, seu contum^Iiam. 
Et si quis, de libertatibus et consuetudinibus suis, vel in alio, eisforis- 
fecerit, plenariam eis sine dilacione inde (justitiam) facialis. Tes- 
tibus, Galfindo Archidiacono Cantuar. ; Johanne Cumin, 8^c. Apud 
Breuwood} 

Under Bridgnorth, I have described an annual increment on the 
ferm of that Borough, which arose to the Crown in 1167, «. e, after 
the ordinary /crm had been settled.* It was probably for some re- 
cently discovered pourpresture on the Royal demesnes. The same 
thing occurred in the case of Newport, in the year 1 1 76. The Pipe- 
Roll of that year has the following entry. — Idem Vicecomes r. c, de 
III sol. de III domibus in Novo Burgo noviter recognitis per Justi- 
ciarios errantes. In tliesauro liberavit. Et quietus est. In other 
words the Justices-in-eyre had discovered three houses in Newport, 
built in such a place or manner, as that they were in the nature 
of a pourpresture, and were not protected by the general ferm 
(j612. Zs. Sd.) for which the Liberty of Edgmond and Newport 
was responsible. The Justices therefore set an extra ferm of 3^. 
on these houses. 

Under the head of " Pourprestures and Escheats,*' the above sum 
was paid by the Sheriff till the year 1184 inclusive. In 1185 
the Sheriff's receipt, de quibusdam domibus in Novo Burgo, was 
raised to 6^. This continued till 1189, when this item of account 

» Ilarl. MS. 1985, fo. 240. = Supra, Vol. I. p. 359. 



NEWPORT. 



131 



vanishes from the Pipe-Bolls, having been probably transferred to 
the Escheator's Boll, now lost. Where the Escheators' Bolls are 
incidentally preserved (as in 1 194, 1 1 95, and 1 196) the receipt of 6*. 
per an»«'/», de redditu quorundam domorum in Novo Burgo, is duly 
acknowledged. In 1197, the item appears on the Pipe-Boll, that 
is the Sheriff receives 6«. as before ; he pays 49. Ad. into the Exche- 
quer, but \8. Sd. he pays to Hugh Pantulf as part of 40 solidates 
of land, which the said Hugh was to have by gift of the King. 
This was repeated in 1198, but in 1199 the Sheriff accounts only 
4«. 4^., and says nothing about Hugh Pantulf whose grant of 20 
denariaies in Newport must henceforth be considered as absolute. 
In fact he had so much in land or houses which he managed him- 
self, and the Sheriff was no longer accountable for what he did not 
receive. The Sheriff continued to be annually charged with49. 4rf. 
de cremento de Novo Burgo till 1234 or thereabouts. In 1235, this 
debt or liability is charged against Henry de Audley, as I should have 
expected it to have been charged long before, and as it was charged 
for long after. I need say no more on this subject, but that it is 
probable that there was some doubt about Audley's liability. At 
least in 1273, James de Audley (though his Sparrow-hawk-rent for 
Edgmond was eleven years in arrears), owed £4. 15«. 44,, or 23 
years' arrears of this other rent of 49. 4td. 

I now return to the year 1176, when Shropshire had been visited 
by Bertram de Yerdon and his companions, as Justiciars. They had 
amerced William de Novo Burgo 40^., Adwin Telarius 40^., the 
Yill of Novus Burgus 2 merks, and Nicholas Pulcer 2 merks ; — all 
for entertaining some excommunicated person. 

At the Assizes of 1203, it was alleged against the community 
of New Borough that the Assize of Bread was not kept in their 
town. 

A Tenure- Boll of the year 1211, enters Hugh Pantulf among 
those who held de dominicis Regis. " He held 20 denariaies of 
land in New Borough, which King Bichard did give him in com- 
plement of 7 librates of land, which the King had granted him in 
Herefordshire,^ per servicium unites moleschi."^ 

At the Assizes of 1221, as previously at those of 1203,^ the 



' Hagh Pantulf 8 grant wu in Stan- 
ford, Herefordshire. There he had 5 li- 
brates. It was towards making up the 
remaining 40 solidates that King Kiehard 
gaye him 20 denariaies in Newport. 



s Testa de Nevill, p. 56. For molescM 
we may perhaps read molossiy and suppose 
the annual rent to hare been a hound of 
some choice breed. 

> Supra, page 117. 



132 NEWPOET. 

Borough of Newport was represented by its 12 Jurors. — Matilda de 
Stafford was named as complainant against William de Picksdock^ 
Nicholas de Neuport^ and Reginald fitz Alexander in a matter of the 
King's peace. This is the earliest instance I know of^ in which the 
name Neuport is substituted for Newborough (Novus Burgus). 

The history of the Town now becomes involved with that of the 
Manor of Edgmond^ under which many particulars have already 
transpired. A Writ of January 1^ 1226^ aptly illustrates a former 
remark. King Henry III. concedes to Henry de Audley, 19 days' 
seizin of the Manor of New^Borough^ so that in the meantime he 
may more eajsdly remove his effects therefrom.^ A second Writ of 
January 21, prolongs this privilege to February 7.* A third ex- 
tends it three weeks more.' 

Thus for two months of the fiscal year ending Michaelmas 1226^ 
Henry de Audley was seized of the Manor. The Pipe- Roll virtu- 
ally computes the period of his seizin as three months. 

Henry de Audley became, as we have seen, Lord of Edgmond 
and Newport in July 1227. In October 1228, William Rufus, 
Attorney of Henry de Audley, who prosecuted for the King, was 
suing various persons by Quo Waranto, as to their right of holding 
messuages or Burgages in the King's demesne of Newport. The 
Prior of Ware, Hugh fitz Robert, Thomas de Bagesour, and Regi- 
nald de Appel^ were impleaded, each for a messuage, the Prior 
of Wombridge, for a burgage, and Robert de Wodecote, for two 
messuages. Alexander le Peschur, William Barat, Robert de As- 
pel, Adam de Brinton, James de Morton, and Robert de Offeleg 
were similarly impleaded. The result does not appear. The last 
Defendant said that his son Ralph was the actual Tenant.^ Of 
course Audley was the real Prosecutor, though he was entitled to 
use the King's name. 

On November 14, 1236, Nicholas fitz Richard, Tenant of two 
messuages in Novo Burgo, quitclaims his right to Alan de Burgo 
and Amice his wife, who in turn allow him to hold one croft in fee, 
at a rent of Is., and capital services. 

There was a famous Vivary at Newport, of which I shall have to 
say more hereafter. One of the services of the Bui^esses was to 
convey the fish, taken in this Vivary, to the King's Court. This 
custom continued as a right due to the Audleys. Hence between 
the years 1247 and 1253 we have the following curious release. — 
" James, son of Henry de Audley, quitclaims to the Burgesses of 

13.3 ci^^^ IX. 92, 94, 96. < Placitu Mich. Tm. 12 and 13 Hen. III., mm. 4, 6. 



NEWPORT. 133 

New Borough the following, viz. that they shall not carry the fish 
of the Vivary of New Borough anywhither except within the 
boundaries of Shropshire.'* The Burgesses paid £6 for the release, 
and it was attested by William de Audley, William de Henlinger, 
Adam de Brinton, John de Chetewind, Geoflrey Griffin, Roger de 
Pyvelesdon, and Philip de Prees.^ 

A presentment in the Inquest of 1255 is curious. — A Burgess of 
Chester had constrained a Burgess of New Borough to travel to 
Birkenhead, " which was 16 leagues from Chester,'' in defence of 
some suit. Hervey de Essebume is also mentioned in this Inquest 
as a litigious Burgess of New Borough. 

On February 22, 1259, four Justices are appointed by Patent to 
hear certain matters of variance between James de Audley and 
Roger de Somery. Somery's men had trespassed on the Vivary 
of Neuport. This place is again called Neuport in the Assize- Roll 
of 1267. — One John ate Pole had died, leaving a daughter, Agnes, 
now wife of Nicholas ate Pole. He had also apparently left a 
Widow now wife of Alexander at Pole. The question was whether 
Agnes was heir to a messuage in Neuport, or whether Alexander at 
Pole, who held the whole, was entitled to a third thereof. The 
Jury found that Agnes' mother had no dower therein, and that her 
father, whose heir she was, had died seized thereof. So Nicholas 
and Agnes recovered.' At these or some other Assizes of 1267, 
the Men of the Liberty of Norms Burgus were amerced 2 merks 
for non-attendance. WUliam de Audley, who died in 1282, had 
only a partial interest in Neuport, his Mother, Ela, holding the 
greater portion in dower. He had 6«. 2d. in rent : his sixth of the 
Mill and Vivary was worth 6 .merks (£3. 6*. 8d.) : his tolls from 
the Market were 10*. ; and his receipts from local Pleas were 10*. 
The Burgesses^ obligation to carry his fish anywhither in Shrop- 
shire was mentioned, but not valued as an asset. Between the 
years 1285 and 1292, Nicholas de Audley grants to his Burgesses of 
Norms Burgtes a right of common in Brodemerss. The vill of No- 
vus Burgus, the ditch of Longe Meduwe, the fields of Magna Aston 
and Northbrom (now Norbrom), are mentioned as boundaries of 
the grant. It is attested by Sir Robert Corbet, Sir Adam de 
Bruynton (Brimton), Sir William de Hodnet, and Sir Peter de 
Eyton, Knights; also by Reginald de Chetwynd; Roger de Py- 
velesdon ; John de Weston, then Seneschal ; and John de Parva 
Hales. Between the same limits of date, Nicholas de Audley 

» Harl. MS. 1986, fo. 246. ' Msizes, 51 Hen. III.,m. 3. 



184 



NEWPORT. 



grants to the Bargesses a parcel of land in the Vill of Novus Bur- 
gus^ at a rent of 8^.^ and for 208. paid. Witnesses^ Adam de Brin- 
ton, Peter de Eyton, Roger de Pyvelesdon, Knights ; Reginald de 
Chetwynd ; Michael de Morton; John de Weston^ Seneschall ; and 
William de Caynton.^ 

On January 23, 1287^ King Edward I.^ being at Salop^ inspected 
and confirmed Henry II/s Charter to the Burgesses of Novus Bur- 
gus. Further, out of special favour to Nicholas Levere, a Burgess 
of the town, whom the King calls hospitem nostrum, he exempts 
the Burgesses from murage throughout the realm.^ At the Assizes 
of 1292 the "Vill of Neuport^' was represented by its Chief 
Bailiff, — William Noblet, and by William Rondulf, Richard Ale- 
mond^ Robert de Morton, Richard de la Lone, John Rondulf, and 
Roger Priest, — Jurors. Under the head, De Libertibus, it was pre- 
sented at these Assizes that the Burgesses of Novus Burgus claimed 
to have a Court, to assize bread and beer, and to have a Merchant- 
Guild. The Burgesses appeared, and said that they had exercised 
these franchises from time whereof memory was not : they adduced 
Henry II.^s Charter (as before recited) and said that, both before 
and after that Charter, they had exercised these franchises. It does 
not appear that the Burgesses were molested by any ulterior pro- 
cess of Quo Waranto, 

Another presentment seems to have been a complaint of their 
own, viz. that the Lords of Wem had been accustomed to provide 
Sergeants of the Peace to guard the pasp {transitum) of Shakel ''*•*,* 
on account of robbers, for 15 days, before and after the Feasts of 
St. Michael and St. John Baptist, and to take from the men of 
other Counties, who might pass, a passage-fee {passagium), viz. 2rf. 
for every cart. Now they took this fee from men of the County 
(of Salop), to the grievance of the neighbourhood. This matter 
could not be entered into by the Justices, because William le Bo- 
tyler (of Wem) was under age. 

By Deed dated at New Borough on April 5, 1293, Nicholas Peye 
of New Borough gives to Peter, son of Peter Fuller, a messuage 
and curtilage in that vill, bounded by land of William de Kynar- 



^ One of the landmarks of this grant 
is *' The GroBS set up for the soul of Boger 
de Fynelesdon." I suppose this must 
have been that Boger who was deceased 
in 1272 (supra, Yol. VIH. p. 96). The 
witness, Sir Boger, was probably he who 
perished in the Welsh Bebellion of 1294 



(supra. Vol. VIII. p. 97). 

> Harl. MS. 1985, fo. 244 b. 

' LE. Shakelford. — It is curious that 
in 1255 the Bradford Jurors had present- 
ed Balph de Botyler for exacting chemin- 
age at Wem and at Shakelford {Rot. Hun- 
dred. II. 58). 



NEWPORT. 135 

disey, and land late Nicholas Colt's [Nicholai Pulli). Witnesses, 
John de Weston, Seneschal of Sir Nicholas de Audley ; Roger de 
Pyvelesdon ; William Rondulf of Neuport} By Deed, dated at New 
Borongh, August 17, 1302, WiUiam, sumamed Le Knythes-knave, 
of New Borough and Alice his wife give to Master Richard de 
Geydon, Rector of the Church of New Borough, a messuage, cur- 
tilage, and croft, in the viU of Neuport, between the messuage of 
William le Turnur, &c. Rent, a rose to the Grantors, and 8*. to 
Agnes de Verdon. Witnesses, William Rondulf, then King's Co- 
roner ; William fitz Yvo ; Nicholas le Colt ; Peter PuUour; Nicho- 
las le Turnur; Richard Mansquant ; William le Hendemon.* About 
this time, Henry de Ledebury gives to William de Onne (Cissori), 
for 2*. paid, a penny rent receivable firom that burgage in Neuport 
which William Capci formerly had. Witnesses, William Rondulf, 
Nicholas le Colt, Nicholas le Toumour, Adam and Robert Bront.^ 
On March 15, 1805-6, the Executors of the Will of Christiana, 
wife of Adam Cadel of Neuport, appeared before William de Nor- 
ton, Sub-Sequestrator in the Archdeaconry of Salop, and rendered 
account of their executorship, proclamation having been first made 
in the Church of Neuport, where the Testatrix had lived, as the 
Dean of Novus-Burgus had certified to the Sub-Sequestrator, who 
now discharges the Executors from their trust.* On November 
18, 1306, a Pine was levied whereby Nicholas Cam of Neuport 
(Plaintiff), acknowledges himself to have given a messuage in Neu- 
port juxta Egemundon to John Gamel, who restores it to Nicholas 
for life, at a rose-rent. On June 30, 1309, a Newport Deed is at- 
tested by Richard de Heydon {Query, Geydon), Rector of Neuport, 
John de Chetwynd, and John Rondulf.* On May 2nd, 1311, King 
Edward II. inspects and confirms his Father's Charter of 1287 to 
the Burgesses of Novus Burgus. In 8 Edw. II. (1314-5), Richard 
de Heydon (read Geydon), Rector of Newport, makes a grant to 
the Community of Newport. Witnesses, William de Caynton, 
Roger, son of Jordan de Pivelesdon, &c.* 

The half of Novus Burgus of which Nicholas de Audley (II.) 
died seized (as valued in the Inquest of January 1317) comprised a 
Water-Mill, a Vivary, 25s. of assized rents, and 60*. foi* the tolls 
of Market and Fairs.*^ 

On May 13, 1322, Alice, widow of William Hurre of Mere, gives 
to Peter le Walkere of Neuport, half a burgage in Neuport. Wit- 

» NewpoH Evidences. I 246, 24a-b, 241--b. 

2.3.4.6.6 i£arl. MS. 1985, fo3. 235 -b, . ' Inquintions, 10 Edw. II., No. 73. 



136 



NEWPORT. 



uesses^ Greofirey Bondolf, William Bondulf^ William in le Stones^ 
John le Tornour^ and William le Hendemon.^ 

I will close these desultory notes with one more extract^ showing 
how the Borough of Newport was farmed under the Audleys. — On 
July 9, 1358, James de Audley, Seigneur de Ruge-Chastiel (Red 
Castle) et de Helegh, acknowledges himself to have received from 
Roger Rondulf and William Longe a sum of £4. 8«. 4^^. for the 
Ferm of the Vill of Neuport, for the Term of St. John Baptist last 
past. — " Given at our Castle of Helegh, le Lundi proschein apres la 
feste de la translation de St. Thomas," 82 Edw. III.''^ 

LiLLBSHULL Abbet Fbe. This tenure in Newport deserves a 
distinct notice. — In November 1228, the Abbot of Lillishull names 
Brother Walter de Peshal his Attorney, in a suit of land in Novtis 
Burgtis, wherein Henry de Audley was PlaintiflF and the Abbot was 
Tenant. Between the years 1235 and 1240, S. Abbot of Lilleshull 
quitclaims to Amelia de Hal and her heirs his right in half a mes- 
suage in Novo Burgo held by Joeta, widow of Adam fitz Reyner. 
Amelia covenants to pay 6tf. rent to the Abbey, and to sell the 
premises to no one, save to Nicholas le Tumur, or to Lilleshull 
Abbey.* 

A Rent-Roll of Lilleshull Abbey, which I conceive to be at least 
as old as the above Deed, speaks of a much larger interest in New- 
borough than I can trace in Charters. Rents amounting to 50«. 
\0d, per annum are enumerated, among which one of 6«. was pay- 
able by Alexander de Pickstock. 

About 1252-^, Edelina, daughter of Durandus the Priest, Widow, 
gives to the Abbey two messuages in Novo Burgo, viz. those which 
Durandus bought and gave to her. The Abbot was to pay Edelina 
a life annuity of 4«. and provide her with a daily Ccrrrody of bread 
and beer. If Roger, son of Stephen, son of the said Edelina, sur- 
vived her, he was to receive the life-annuity of 4». but not the Cor- 
rody. Edelina gave the Abbot seizin in the Full Hundred-Court of 
Novus Burgus, before Sir Geoffrey Griffin ; Robert de Wudecote ; 
Roger de Pivelesdon ; Alexander Piscator ; Dionisius de Fortelest ; 
Philip de Mortun ; Robert de Waletun, and the whole Hundred of 
Novus Burgus.* 

In 1274 the Jurors of Edgmond and Newport complained that 
the Abbot of Lilleshull having 40«. rent in the Vill of Newport, 
had withdrawn his suit, due thrice a year to the local Court. At 



* The late Mr. George Morrises Deeds. 
3 Ilarl. M8. 1985, fo. 245. 



' Lillcshall Chartulary, fo. 85. 
* MonatiicoHy VI. 264, xii. 



THE SERJEANTRY. 137 

some unknown period, ^' Bandulf Dubbelday, by consent of Germa- 
n as his son and heir^ gave to the Abbey land in Novo Burgo, to 
which he had established a right in the King's Court against Osbert 
Changun. The land adjoined the house of Nicholas fitz Robert, 
Chaplain/'^ At the Assiz^ of 1292 the Crown prosecuted the 
Abbot of LilleshuU, under Writ of Quo TVaranto for 40«. rent in 
Novo Burgo, on the pretence that the said teTiements had been the 
seizin of Henry III. A provincial Jury decided that the Abbot 
had the better right.^ 

The Valor of 1534-5 gives the Abbot of LiUeshuU only 16*. 
rent in Newport. The Ministers' Accounts, six years later, put the 
same item at £\. 6^. ^d, 

WoMBRiDOE Priory Fee. Rainald, a Monk of Wombridge, 
gave two menses and 4 acres in Novo Burgo, to his Priory. This 
was before 1187, but I find no evidence of the Monks retaining 
such a property. 

The Abbot of Buildwas had also a burgage in Newport ; how 
acquired I know not. In 1534-5 it yielded 4«. 2d. rent.* The 
Prior of Ware (in Hertfordshire) had sometime a bm^age in New- 
port. It was obtaiaed doubtless with relation to those Staffordshire 
interests which the Prior overlooked, on the part of the Norman 
Abbey of St. Evroult at Uticum. 

THE SERJEANTRY OF NEWPORT. 

The arms of the Town of Newport (three fishes in pale) are al- 
lusive to the famous Vivary which adjoined the town, and to a cer- 
tain service, by which the Burgesses seem to have held their Liber- 
ties. — They had to convey to the King's Court, wherever it might 
be, the fish taken in this Vivaiy. The Custos of Newport Vivary 
was also a Tenant-in-capite by Serjeantry, as will presently appear. 

Reiner de Novo Burgo, the first of these Keepers whom I 
can name, was succeeded at the close of the 12th century by his 
son — 

Alexander de Novo Burgo, of whom we have had some account 
imder Uppington.* A Record of about 1200 says that '^Alexander 



^ Lilleshall Ghartulary, fo. 75. In the 
beginning of the 14th century, Banul^ 
Bon of Gterman Dubeldai of Chester, gives 
to Adam Balle of Nwma Bwrgut^ a mea- 
0tiage in that Till, between the house of 
Hugh de Donintun and the messuage late 
Bichurd le Kochebol's. Bent \d. Wit- 



nesses, Walter Long of Novus Burgus, 
Boger Piscator, Nicholas PuUus, Bichard 
Almund, Peter Fullo, Bichard le Fumur, 
(HarL MS. 1985, fo. 246.) 

2 Quo WaraiUo, pp. 680-1. 

» Valor EccleaiatticM,Ul. 191. 

* Supra, Vol. VIII. pp. 161, 162. 



IX. 18 



138 NEWPORT. 

de Hanebui^o (read Novo Burgo) holds in Serjeantrj one MiU^ 
worth 2 merks {per annum), and one bovate of land, worth 2s. 
and a ponnd of cummin (the rents thereof), in Novo Bnrgo. The 
same Alexander holds in Shrewsbury 68. lOd. of assized rents, and 
other rents consisting of a pair of spurs, value 2d., and four horse- 
shoes/^^ Again, a Record of June 1211 says that ''Alexander de 
Novo Burgo ought of his service to keep the King's Vivary of No- 
vus Burgus ;" ^ and (in another place) that " Alexander Fisher 
(Piscator) of Novus Burgus holds five Burgages in Salop with two 
cultures, all involved in his service, viz. that he must keep the 
King's Vivary at Novus Burgus as aforesaid.'^' Alexander le 
Peschur, whom we have seen to have been living in 1228, was pro- 
bably the person in question. Of course, when Newport and its 
Vivary passed to the Audleys, this Serjeantry ceased ; but Alexan- 
der's descendants continued to hold their property in Newport and 
Shrewsbury by some other tenure. Having traced this descent al- 
ready, what I have now to say is merely supplementary. — 

Roger de Novo Burgo, son of Alexander, is called Roger de 
Neuport, when sitting as Foreman of a Leegomery Inquest in 1249. 
This is an early instance of the name Neuport occurring as a sub- 
stitute for Novus Burffus, 

Alexander fitz Roger, who succeeded his Father in December 
1252,^ is I presume the Alexander Piscator who attests about that 
time a grant to Lilleshall Abbey. In Trinity Term 1269 Philip (fe 
MamiUon (read Marmion) was suing Roger de Brumtone, Ralph de 
Loskessford, and Alexander de Neuport, for a violent raid on his 
property at Norbury (Staflfordshire) . Alexander de Aula, the New- 
port Juror of 1272 and 1274, was identical with the last of the 
three Defendants. The Inquest taken on his death in 1275 has 
been given und^r Uppington. 

William de Aula or de la Sale, son and heir of Alexander, 
sat on a Chetwynd Jury in 1281,^ and died in 1283, leaving a son 



> • » • » Testa de Nevill, pp. 61, 56, 56. 

* ^e Inquest on the death of Roger de 
Novo Bni^ is arranged among the Re- 
cords of 37 Henry III. (1252-3); and 
there is good, but not internal, evidence 
that such was its date. The following 
Trial of January 1256 relates therefore to 
a different person. — 

'* Roger fitz Alexander sues Nicholas 
Colt for a messuage in Newport as his 
right, seeing that ho had demised it when 



under age. Nicholas pleads that Roger 
had, since he came of age, accepted his 
serrice, vis. It. per ammm^ and up to Mi- 
chaelmas last, when 6<i. had been so ac- 
cepted. The parties accorded, Nicholas 
surrendering the premises, and Roger con- 
ceding him a life-tenure of half thereof 
at \d. rent, with remainder to himself and 
his heirs.** (Aesieee, 40 Hen. III., m. 2.) 

* Nicholas de Aula was on the same 
Jury. 



THK CHURCH. 139 

Boger^ only 3 years of age. From the Assize-Boll of 1292^ it ap- 
pears that Nicholas le Colt of Neuport had commenced a suit 
against Nicholas de Andley for custody of the land and heir of 
William atte Halle of Neuport^ a suit which he now declined to 
prosecute. 

BooER BE LA Sale^ arriving at full age in October 1301, is pro- 
bably identical with Roger Piscator, whom we have seen attesting 
a Deed about that time.^ When this family ceased to hold in-capUe 
at Uppingtou the Inquests cease to mark the succession of its re- 
presentatives. 

Two other families, resident in Newport, deserve a brief notice. — 
Nicholas Colt, who was at issue in 1256 with Boger fitz Alex- 
ander,' seems to be the person called Nicholas fitz Alexander in a 
Jury-List of the same year. He occurs, as Nicholas le Colt, on a 
Chetwynd Jury in 1281, and appears as a witness 20 years later. I 
have some idea that he was the person who has been mentioned 
under Brockton, as living from 1261 to 1292, and as being called 
Nicholas le fValeys or le Messenger? His Tenant at Brockton, 
called Alexander U Cold in 1284, was probably a relation. 

The Family op Bandolf, originally traders of Newport, became 
of importance there and elsewhere. Of William Bandolf and his 
three sons, GeoflVey, Simon, and Adam, we have spoken under 
Woodcote, and Church Aston.* Geoffrey will recur to our notice 
under Bicton. There was also a John Bandolf, who occurs in local 
affairs firom 1292 to 1304, and who, in one instance, was called 
" Lord of Magna Aston.*' He was probably another son, or a 
brother, of William Bandolf. 

NEWPORT CHURCH. 

This Church, probably founded by Henry I., and coeval with 
the Borough, was necessarily an affiliation of Edgmond and in the 
patronage of Shrewsbury Abbey. 

Its earlier history I have given with that of Edgmond Church. 

Bishop Clinton's (1129-1148) Confirmation to Shrewsbury 
Abbey treats of the Churches of Edgmond and Novus Burgus as 
distinct properties, not of the latter as being among the Chapelries 
of the former. The inference is, that Newport Church had been 
founded before Bishop Clinton's time^ and so, early rather than 

' Supra, page 187, note 1. j ^ Supra, Vol. II. pp. 95, 96. 

' Supra, page 138, note 4. I * Supra, pp. 15, 125. 



140 NEWPORT. 

late in Henry I.'s reign. Be that as it may, the Bishop's Charter 
entitles the Monks of Shrewsbury to the Advowson of Novas Bnr- 
gus, and to an annual pension of 10*., receivable from the Incum- 
bent thereof.* Bishop Peche's Confirmation uses precisely the same 

terms.* 

That a Church and Borough founded as late as Henry I.'s reign 
should have given name to a Rural-Deanery is an important fact. 
It shows that the Rural Deaneries, as they appear arranged in the 
Taxation of 1291, had been so constituted less than two centuries 
before. A similar possibility has been spoken of in respect of the 
Rural Deanery of Ludlow, viz. that it may have got its name after 
the Conquest.* Further, when we find, as in the cases of Eyton, 
Waters Upton, and Preston,* that the Saxon distinction of Parishes 
was forgotten or ignored, when our Rural Deaneries were consti- 
tuted, that is, that the Mother Church was placed in one Deanery, 
the Daughter in another, we may presume that Rural Deaneries 
originated no earlier than the 12th century. 

The Church of Newport was, as might be expected, most slen- 
derly endowed. The Taxation of 1291 puts its Revenues at £2. 
13*. 4d^ 

By Inquisition, taken at Newport on May 24, 1313, it was found 
to be noninjurious to the Crown, if the King should allow Nicholas 
de Audeleye to give, in pure almoign, to Master Richard de Gey- 
don, Parson of the Church of Newport, one acre of land in New- 
port, whereon to build houses and dwelling for the said Parson 
and his Successors. The value of the proposed grant was 3d. per 
annum.^ 

In 1341 the Parish of Newport was assessed to the Ninth at 40*., 
and not more, becltuse the small tithes and oblations of the Parish 
went to make up the greater sum (at which the Church was taxed), 
and were not relevant to the curre.nt assessment.*^ 

On March 29, 1442, King Henry VI. empowers the Abbot of 
Salop, Patron of Newport Church (valued at 17 merks per annum), 
to alienate the same with its tithes and oblations, and the tithes of 
Littel and Muchel Astone, in Edgmond Parish, to Thomas Draper 
and his heirs, so that the said Thomas might found a Collie in the 
said Church, to the praise of Ood and the Virgin Mary, and also a 
Chantry of two Chaplains, who were to perform divine service in a 



» • « Harl. MS. 3868, fos. 7-b, 8. 
» Supra, Vol. V. pp. 293-4. 



» Pope Nich, Taxation, p. 245. 

* A, Q. Damnum, 6 £dw. II., No. 47. 



♦ SnpTB» Vol. VIII. p. 260, note 2. ' Inquis. Nonarum, p. 193. 



THE CHUECH. 



141 



Chapel of the said Church daily. The College was to consist of a 
Warden, in Priest's orders, and four Chaplains or Fellows, who were 
to pray for the King and Boyal family, for the soul of Humphrey, 
Duke of Gloucester, and for the brethren and sisters of the frater- 
nity of St. Mary's Guild in the said Church of Newport, as the said 
Thomas Draper should order. The -Fellows were to elect their 
Warden, and present him to the Abbot of Salop. The said Warden 
was to have the Cure of souls among the Parishioners of Newport, 
and a sufQcient sum was to be annually distributed among the poor 
Parishioners according to the Statute De appropriationibus} — 

Such were the resources adopted by good and honest men to re- 
medy the spiritual destitution of the period. The working Church 
was in fact to be reorganized and re-endowed by the Laity, while 
the Monks either sold or held fast the revenues arising from local 
tithes. 

In the Valtrr of 1534-5, the " Church of the Guild of Newporte'' 
appears with far less than its contemplated Revenues, viz. as re- 
ceiving a salary or pension of £6. 13«. 4rf. (10 merks), payable by 
the Seneschall of the said Guild.^ 

The following Coats of Arms formerly adorned the Windows of 
Newport Church. 

(1) France and England quarterly. 

(2) France and England, quarterly, within a Border Arg. 

(3) Arg, a Fesse between three Mullets, Or. 

(4) Arg, a Chevron Sa, between three Pellets. 

EABLY INCUMBENTS. 

The Abbot and Convent of Shrewsbury were Patrons in all the 
under-mentioned presentations, except where the contrary is ex- 
pressed. 

John, Parson of Newport, is mentioned in the Assize-Rolls of 
August 1267, when Adam de Castro, Alice, his wife, and Juliana, 
Alice^s sister, failed to prosecute a suit of disseizin against him.^ 

Master Richard de Bernard,* Clerk, occurs as Rector in 18 
Edw. I. (1289-90). 

Richard de Gerdon or Geydon, already mentioned as Rector 
in 1302 and 1318, died Jan. 1, 1315. 



1 Patent. 20 Hen. VI. pars 4, m. 2. 
« Valor :EccU9iaH%cu9,l\\.^.\^. 
' Atnxes, 51 Hen. III., m. 5. 



* He was probably identical with a per- 
son already mentioned (vide supra, Vol. 
VIII. p. 226, n. 2.) 



142 NEWPORT. 

William de la Rode^ Acolyte^ admitted Feb. 7^ 1315^ resigiied 
in the same year. 

Sib Thomas djb Coventay, Chaplain, admitted Oct. 6, 1815^ re- 
signed May 2, 1320.^ 

Thomas de Nbuvill admitted May 9, 1820, resigned Sqp. 12, 
1822. 

John de London, Subdeacon, admitted Oct. 20, 1322, and 
having dispensations siudendi gratid in 1323 and 1325, exchanges 
on July 26, 1331, with— 

Sib Roger de Rodbbham, late Vicar of Orreby (Line. Dioc.). 
This Rector has dispensations in 1331, 1333, and 1339, the last 
quod possit stare in obsequiis WUlielmi de Birmyvgham. On June 
17, 1345,— 

John de Walton, Rector of this Church, exchanges with — 

John de Honton, or Henton, late Rector of a moiety of South- 
wyme (Line. Dioc). Again, on Oct. 25, 1346, Henton or Howton 
exchanges with — 

Simon de Ryhal, late Rector of Wywell (Line. Dioc.),' who is 
presented to Newport by Adam, Abbot of Salop. On Oct. 20, 
1349, Biggeley had resigned; and — 

William le Cok, of Newport, Chaplain, was admitted here. 
On May 13, 1354, William Cook, exchanges with — 

John de Ascheby, Priest, late Rector of Addirley. On Dec. 6, 
1355— 

John de Bayrby, Rector of Newport, exchanges with — 

William de Wolaton, Vicar of Westhaddon (Line. Dioc.). 

Sir William de Newenham exchanges this Rectory on May 

21, 1379, for the preferment of — 

Thomas de Baddeby, late Rector of Solihull (Warwickshire) ; 
who on Aug. 15, 1379, again exchanges with — 

Thomas Alcok, late Rector of Roden Chapel. Again, on April 

22, 1380. Thomas Alcok, of Hemingburgh, exchanges with — 
Master William Harlyno, late Perpetual Chaplain of the 

Chantry founded in Lichfield Cathedral for the soul of John de 
Kynardesey, sometime Canon of Lichfield. 

Walter, Rector of Newport, occurs in 1395. On Nov. 5, 
1396— 

William Cachepoll exchanges this Rectory for that of Muns- 
low, lately held by — 



' Apparently going to Donington (su- 
pra, Vol. II. p. 184). 



- Patent. 20 Edw. III., p. 8, in. 25.— 
Wywell wa« in the King's gift. 



THE FOREST OF MOUNT GILBE&T. 143 

William BTCHAaDYNO^^ who^ on Sept. 6^ 1899^ exchanges pre- 
ferments with— 

Master Thomas db Stretton, Dean of Lichfield and Vicar of 
Buggeley^ the latter of which he resigns for Newport. Dean Stret- 
ton resigned Newport in 1404. 



CJe Sovtut of 



Momt ^Hhtxt, or CJe WixtUn. 



How the Wrekin acquired the name of Mount Gilbert is a ques- 
tion which probably will never be answered. The fact is too old for 
investigation. 

In the time of Henry III. we find the Jurisdiction of this Forest 
subdivided into two principal districts^ viz. the Bailiwick of Hagh- 
man, and the Bailiwick of JVombridge. Now those two Monastic 
Houses did not grow into any repute till the reign of Henry II. ; and 
there can be no doubt that the rights of the Crown, in respect 
of Forests^ were strictly renewed, if not largely increased by that 
Monarch. The new names, which obtained in the Wrekin Forest, 
certainly indicate aggrandizement rather than revival. I know of 
nothing in the character of Henry II. to defend him from any 
chaise of selfish injustice or extortionate wrong. 

The Wrekin Hill was the principal feature of this Forest, but it 
was far from central. The Forest-Jurisdiction lay wholly on the 
Eastern or Wrekin side of the Severn. 

The Domesday Hundred of Becordine was almost pervaded by 
the said Jurisdiction, but it also extended partially into the Hun- 
dreds of Alnodestreu, Patinton, and Bascherch; and into the very 
Liberties of Shrewsbury. At Sheriff-Hales it included a part of 
Stafibrdshire. The scope and exercise of this Jurisdiction will ap- 
pear best from the successive documents which allude to it. The 
Forest- Boll of 1180 points to a few concessions or rather sales of 
Forest-land, made by Henry II. to his lieges near the Wrekin. — 
Pourprestures or Wastes were compounded for at Ruckley, Haughton 

» Sup«s Vol. V. p. 144. 



144 THE FOREST OF MOUNT GILBERT. 

(near Shiffiial)^ Lilleshall^ Donington^ Tibberton^ (Little) Bnildwas, 
Leighton^ Hales (probably Sheriff Hales)^ Chetwynd^ Lawley^ Ast* 
ley (near Shrewsbury)^ and Albrighton (near Shrewsbury), /m- 
blademenis or assarts were assessed in Lilleshall^ Priors Lee^ Ket- 
ley, Idsall^ Goldestan (Goldstone)^ Cipenol (Chipnall)^ Lawley, 
Arleston, Hencott (near Shrewsbury)^ Leegomery^ and Leighton. 

On the Forest-Roll of 1209 there are two Regards of Mount 
Gilbert^ that is^ assessments or fines set on persons or places within 
the Jurisdiction. The places which seem to be indicated are Eyton 
Abbots^ Kemberton^ Ketley, Dawley, Priors Lee, Wombridge, 
Drayton (near Idsall), Tibberton, Haughton (near Idsall), Calving- 
ton, Lee Gomery, Arleston, Lawley, Hales (probably Sheriff Hales), 
Horton, Preston (on the Wealdmoors), Idshall, Leighton, and Pirn- 
ley, with some others not so easy to identify. At these Assizes one 
criminal prosecution is worth notice. It was stated how four 
County Serjeants {Servientes Comitatils), viz. Richard de Holton, 
"Wilikine de Estlegh, Hulle de Hineton, and Hulle Robucke, had 
found venison in the house of Hugh le Scot; and how the said 
Hugh took asylum in a Church. Then came the Verderers and 
Foresters to that Church and questioned Hugh as to whence he got 
the venison; and he and one Roger de Welinton confessed that 
they had killed a doe {bissam) which furnished the venison. Hugh 
declined to quit the Church, and lived a month there ; but after- 
wards escaped in woman's clothes (in specie mulieris). Both he 
and Roger de Welinton were now Fugitives. The Sheriff was or- 
dered to summon them in form (quod exigantur^), and, on their 
appearance, to have them outlawed. In reference probably to this 
matter the next clause on the Roll states that the vills of Welling- 
ton, Arleston, Lawley, and Ketley, were " in misericordid, because 
they denied what they had before acknowledged.'* 

The Survey of Shropshire Forests, taken in 1235, speaks as fol- 
lows, on the state of those woods, which I presume to have been 
subject to the Jurisdiction of Mount-Gilbert. — Item, visi fuerurd 
bosci de PimeP et de Horlavescot,^ multum vastati tempore ultima 
guerra dum Com^s Lincoln' et Milites apud Saloppiam, ad villam 
custodiendam, moram faciebant} 



^ The process of exigatur was per- 
formed in the County Court. Thus a 
memorandum on the same Boll sajs, 
Soff' de WeUfdon et Hugo le Scot exi- 
gendi sunt ad proximium Comitatumj t. e. 



' Pimley and Harlcscott. 

' A fact of County History, already 
alluded to (Vol. YII. p. 185), yis. thai 
John de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, was spe- 
cially deputed as Custos of Shrewsbury 



at the next sitting of the Court. ) in 1233. It was doubtless the rebellion 



THE FOREST OP MOUNT GILBERT. 



145 



Item vistisfuit boscus de O *** * cot^ Abbatis de lAUeshuU, vas- 
iatus ut supra ; etpredictus Abbas capit inde ad placitum suum per 
liberiatem quam habet, ut dicit. 

Item visijuerunt Bosci de Edbricton, * * * -J^-^i Hadenhal, et de 
Estleff,^ pa/rum vastati tempore libertatis, et de novo rationabiliier 
custoditi ut de Werekwud? 

Item, visifuerunt Bosci de Hageman, Haleton, Radon, et de Upton,^ 
bene custoditi de quercu et svhbosco, sed aliquantulum vastati tem- 
pore libertatis, De Bestiis nihil fuit visum. 

The above may" be taken as belongiDg to the Bailiwick of Haugh- 
mond. The following, appertained mostly to the Bailwick of Worn- 
bridge.— 

Item visi fuerunt Bosci de Lee-Cumbray, et de Lee Leonardi,^ 
bene custoditi de quercu et subbosco. 

Item visusjuit Boscus pertinens ad Manerium de Ideshal, multum 
tenuis per loca, et vastatus de veteri et aliquantulum de novo. 

Item visijuerunt Bosci de Wroctvurthin, de Eyton, de lAlleshull, 
de Hales, de Lusyard, de Ideshal, de Stirchleg, et de Dalileg-Pantulf,^ 
bene custoditi de quercu et subbosco. 

Item visusjuit Boscus de Parva Dalileg, vastatus de quercu, tarn 
de veteri quam de novo. 

Item visijuerunt bosci de Maddeleg et de Parva-JVenlak Prioris 
de Weniak, qui sunt extra vastum et regardum, ut idem Prior dicit, 
per Cartam domini Regis, sufficienter custoditi. 

Item visus Juit Boscus de Kembricton,^ bene custoditus de quercu 
et subbosco. 

Item, visusjuit Boscus de Sutton,^ multum vastatus tam de veteri 
quam de novo. 

Item visa Juit Hay a domini Regis de Welinton ad Montem Gil- 
berti, et omnes alii bosci pertinentes ad forestam Montis Gilberti ; 
— bene custoditi de quercu et subbosco, excepto parvulo bosco de 
Upinton, pertinentead eandem forestam, qui ex antiquo tempore Juit 
vastatus. In hiis predictis boscis rara frequentacio bestiarum. 



of RichaTd, Earl Manhal, which suggested 
BO unuBual a provision (compare Vol. YI. 
p. 15). 

' Probably the name of some wood 
near Henoot and Albrightlee is here obli- 
terated. 

^ Albrighton (near Shrewsbury), Had- 
nail, and AsUey. 

» Vide supra, Vol. VI. p. 339, note 23. 

IX. 



* Haughmond, Haughton, Boden, and 
Upton Magna. 

* Leegomery and Leonard's Lee. Vide 
supra, VoLVII.p. 339, and Vol. II. p. 814. 

* Wrockwardine Wood, Eyton-on-the- 
Wealdmoors, Lilleshall, Sheriff-Hales, the 
Lizard (near Shiffiial), Ideshal (now Shiff- 
nal), Stirchley, and Qreat Dawloy. 

7 * ^ Eemberton and Sutton Maddoek. 

19 a 



146 



THE FOBBST OF MOUNT GILBERT. 



So then, the Haye of fFelKngton was the only Eoyal-Preserve 
maintained in the Jurisdiction of Mount Gilbert. 

We now pass to the Iter of GeoflBrey de Langley in 1250. — His 
arrentations exempted from wcLste and regwrdy numerous parcels of 
land^ previously within this Jurisdiction. Among the localities thus 
benefited were Wellington, Pimley, Sundorn, Coalbrookdale, Harles- 
cott, Albrighton, and Astley (near Shrewsbury), Idshal, Haughton, 
Eyton (on the Wealdmoors), Hadley, Horton, Wombridge, Sheriff- 
Hales, Burlaughton, Heathull,^ and Woodcote, Sutton Haddock, 
Dawley, and Upton (near ShiflFnal). 

In 1255, the Bradford Jurors reported how John fitz Hugh (of 
Bolas) was Chief Forester of Haymon (the Bailiwick is meant), and 
had under him two Valets, each of whom paid him 20«. per annnin^ 
the Jurors knew not by what warrant. For cheminage ^ too, a sum 
of 28. per annum seems to have been levied, and paid over to the 
King^s Exchequer. The freemen who had boscs in Haughmoncl 
(Bailiwick) demanded, apparently, that all attachments for Forest-law 
should be made before the Seneschal of the King's Forests. The 
men of Haughton paid 4^. per annum to John fitz Alan for half 
an acre of assart in the Forest. . Of this the Jurors knew not the 
warranty.* 

Some particulars about Wellington-Haye supplied by these Ju- 
rors have already been given.* Bobert de Halton and Thomas de 
Boshall had sold 52 oak-trees therein since Easter 1255, but the 
Jurors knew not the price obtained. Also Hugh de Lee and Ralph 
de la Lowe had sold 8^. worth of sand {sablicium) in the same 
Haye. 

The same Jurors presented that John de Beulewas (identical with 
John fitz Hugh) was Capital Forester of Mount Gilbert and of 
Wombrug, and had in the Forest of Wombrug two Under-foresters, 
who paid him 12*. per annum each, the Jurors knew not by what 
warranty. He had also one Under- Forester in Mount Gilbert, but 
he paid nothing.^ The Jurors of Pimhill, again, complained of 
John fitz Hugh's exaction of cheminage, viz. from \d, to 2rf. per 
annum on different kinds of carts plying in Haumon-Forest.® The 



1 Heath-Hill I take to be the high 
ridge which separates Woodcote and Lil- 
leshall. 

- Cheminage was a toll levied by Fo- 
resters on teams and pack-horses plying 
in their jurisdiction. King John's Char- 
ter of the Forest forbid it to be levied ex- 



cept by such Foresters-of-the-Fee as paid 
a rent to the Crown for their Bailiwicks. 
This was not the case, I think, with John 
fitz Hugh. 

s Rot. Hundred. 11. 56. 

* Supra, pp. 47, 48. 

« • « Mot. Hundred. II. 58, 76. 



THB FOREST OF MOUNT OILBBRT. 



147 



Foresters of this Bailiwick had further exacted contributions of oats^ 
wheat,^ and poultry, from Harlescott and HadnaU, as their due. 
At the Forest Assizes of 1262, the Regard of the Jurisdiction, now 
under notice, is called the Regard of fVombrig, of Mount Gilbert 
and of Hawemon. An assart of 17 acres by the Abbot of Haugh- 
mon at Sundom, was of long standing and justified by Royal 
Charter. The Bosc of William Banastre (of Hadnall, I presume) 
was wasted of old time and recently, by the said William. He was 
put in miaericordidy and the wood was seized in manu Regis. At 
the Forest Assizes of 1271, Michael de Burgo and other Stafford- 
shire people were presented as habitual malrfactors with respect to 
yenison, in the Forest of Moimt Gilbert and Wombrugge. 

The First Perambulation of the Forests, in Edward I.^s time, next 
demands our notice. The following Vills, Boscs, and lands, which 
had pertaiped to the Forestership of Wellington were now disforested, 
viz. the Vill of Clotleye with two plains ; half the vill of Astone 
with half its plains and with the Bosc of Mount Gilbert ; the bosc 
of Rugston (probably Bnshton) with one plain; half the vill of 
Garmeston with one plain ; half the vill of Leygchton with a bosc 
and two plains ; the boscs of Opiton, Build was and Little Caldebroc 
(Coalbrookdale) ; half Sutton (Maddock) with a bosc and two plains; 
half Brocton, with one plain ; the vill of Madeleye, with its bosc and 
two plains ; the vill of Great DalUeye with its bosc and plain ; Little 
Dalileye ; — a messuage at La Holte* ; the Vill of Laueleye with two 
plains; Little*Wenloke with its plain and woods; the vill of Unti- 
done (Huntington) with its plains; and the YiU of Ardelestone 
(Arleston) with two plains. 

These details relate but to a part of the Wrekin Forest, viz. that 
part which lay more immediately round the Wrekin. The Great 
and final Perambulation of 1300 is much fuller as to the Jurisdic- 
tion abandoned, and also gives a minute description of that which 
was retained. — " The Jurors say that the Lord King hath in Shrop- 
shire a certain Haye, which is called the Haye of Welinton ; and it 
is Forest according to these bounds, viz. from Clerl^enebrugge in 
Watlingestrete, going up, along the Stonibrok,' to the top of Ra- 
dulf de Clotlegh^s garden ; thence up along Stonybrok to the Quyk- 
sond ; thence up along a certain road to the Merok ; thence up to 



^ Viz. "XTI windellos arenflB et zxxii 
garbas wemagii," from each yilL 

' Near Buildwas, I think (supra, Vol. 
VII. pp. 323, 824). 



' The Stony-brook waa probably the 
Biyulet which croeses the Watling Street 
a little to the West of the Hay-Gate, and 
flows thence Northwards. 



143 THE FOREST OF MOUNT GILBERT. 

the Salyn ; and thence up to the Fountain called The Sprungwall 
in the field of Huntiton. Then along the hedge of the said field to 
the Mapelene-hacche^ and still along the same hedge to Huntitones- 
hacche ; and thence up to the Stanidelf (stone-quarry) and thence 
down to Huntitonestile; and so down to a certain oak^ standing in 
Maysemore ; and so up to Boynhale-Bume ; and thence along a 
certain hedge to Boynhale-Lydeyat ; and then^ down along the high- 
way^ to the Dede Queneok (dead Queen-oak) ; thence down along 
the said way to the Overe Smethe (Upper Smithy) and down by 
the Nethersmethe to the Horestone in Ardlestones-grene (Arleston 
Oreen) ; thence straight to Wothuinesford^ to the comer of the 
field of Ardleston ; and so by B.adewey stile down to Bayleybrok ; 
and then up along Bayleybrok to Watlingstrete^ and down along 
Watlingstrete to the Wodewardes-Shute; and thence along the 
aforesaid road to Clerkenebrugge where the first boundary begins/' 
The localities now to be exempt from this Jurisdiction seem to 
be the following^ the Jurors declaring that they had been occupied 
and afforested by the King's Ancestors or their Ministers^ since the 
Coronation of King Henry fitz Empress, and ought to be disforested 
according to the Great Charter of the Forest^ — that of King John^ 
I presume. The list begins with the Capital messuage of Shirve- 
hales (Sheriff Hales) ^ and half Little Hales with its boscs and plains. 
Then we have the boscs of Wodecote^ the Abbey of Idlleshull^ the 
vill of Lilleshull^ Muccleston (Muxton)^ Doniton (Donnington 
Wood), the Gb*ange of Cherishale (Cheswell),^ the Grange of Wilde- 
more^ and the Grange of Watlingestrete, with all their boscs, wastes, 
plains, and moors : the vills of Longford, Brocton, and Chersale 
(Cheswell)^ with boscs, moors, and plains; the vill of Egemundone, 
half of Novus Burgus, Little Aston, Little Hales, and Adoney, with 
boscs, moors, and plains ; the boscs of Henelqueneacre, with the 
fields and heaths adjacent; the vill of Howie, Dotingcote-Grange, 
Calvinton, Caynton, the vill of Tibrihton, the vills of Cherynton, 
Meston (Meeson), half Great Boulwas, Upton (Waters), Slepe and 
Crugelton, with fields, wastes, moors, and plains ; the vill of Eiton 
(on the Wealdmoors), Kynardsey (Kinnersley), Botereye, Preston, 
Horton, and Hadlegh, with their boscs, &c. ; Wombrugge Priory, 
with its boscs and plains, the Bosc of Wrokwardyn, the vills of Legh- 
Combreys (Leegomery), Quatmimdeshale (Wappenshall), Kette- 
legh. Little Dawley, Lauelegh, Appelegh juxta Welinton, four 
Burgages in the North quarter of Welinton, the Vills of Ardeston 

' * ' Belonging to liilleshall Abbey. ' The Vill, aa distinct from the Orange. 



THE FOREST OP MOUNT GILBERT. 149 

(Arleston), Great Dalilegh, Stirchlegh, Oulemore,^ Maleyneslegh, 
Priores Legh, Wodehous, half Dreyton (near Shiflhal), Haghton, 
La CnoUe, Trillewardyn,* Wyk, and half of Hemme, with their 
boscs^ moors^ and plains ; the Bosc of Kembrithton, a third of the 
vill of Sutton (Maddock), half the vUl of Brocton, with hoses, &c. ; 
the vills of Madelegh, Capsi/ Caldebrok, Little Wenlok, Huntiton 
and Little Buldewas, with boscs, &c. ; the Abbot of Buildwas's 
boscs ; two- thirds of the vill of Leghton and the Overe Garmnndes- 
ton (Upper Garmeston) ; the Abbot of Salop's bosc in Mount Gil- 
bert;* the bosc of Opinton (Uppington), half the vill of Aston, the 
vill of Clothlegh, with boscs, wastes, &c. ; the Abbey of Hagwemon, 
with its boscs, roads, and plains, the Earl of ArundeFs bosc of 
Upton (Magna), the boscs of Bodene and Bodintone, the vills of 
Halghton, Astlegh, with boscs, &c., the bosc of Hadenhale ; Half 
Monkes Albrithton,^ with boscs and plains, the vills of Adbrithton- 
Hese (Albright Hussey), Herlascote, Pimbelegh, and Adbrithelegh, 
with boscs, &c. ; the Grange of Sundorn, and half the vill of OiBn- 
ton (Uffington), with its boscs and plains. 

The Wbekin Hermitage. I cannot pass away from the Wre- 
kin Forest without noticing this feature of the wilderness, though 
I cannot identify its situation. That there was a Hermitage on the 
Wrekin, in Henry III.'s reign, is proved by the simple fact that 
there was a '^ Hermit of Mount Gilbert,^^ who benefited by that 
Monarches alms. Nicholas de Denton was this hermit^s name. By 
a Patent of September 17, 1267, the King grants to ''Nicholas de 
Denton, Heremite of Mount Gilbert, six quarters of com to be paid 
him by the Sheriff of Shropshire, out of the issues of Pendleston 
Mill/'* The object announced, is " to give the Hermit greater leisure 
for holy exercises [ut possit liberius vacare divinis), and to support 
him during his life, so long as he shall be a Heremite on the afore- 
said Mountain/' From the Pipe-Bolls I learn that the Sheriff of 
1268 and 1269 paid the Hermit 24«. per annum in lieu of the 
above corn ; for the fact was that the Sheriff did not receive the 
rents of Pendleston Mill at all ; and the Burgesses of Bridgnorth 
who paid the said rents, paid them, not in kind, but in money ."^ A 
second Patent of King Henry III., dated March 29, 1270, orders 



' Probably Ooahnore. 

» Vide supra. Vol. II. pp. 811, 312. 

» This place, apparentiy a member of 
Madeley, is now lost. Its deriyatiye, in 
the shape of a samame, '* Gapsey," is 
still to be met with in Shropshire. 



* AL-eady alluded to, Vol. VI. p. 178. 

* Albrighton, near Shrewsbury. It be- 
longed to Shrewsbury Abbey, and so got 
the distinctire name here given. 

« Vide supra, Vol. I. p. 304. 
' Supra, Vol. I. p. 310. 



IX, 19 b 



150 ODENBT HUNDRED. 

an annuity of 2 merks, out of Pendleston Mill, to be paid to 
" Nicholas de Denton, Eremite of Mount Gilbert/' 

The payment of half-a-year's proportion of this annuity, by the 
Burgesses of Bridgnorth (who farmed Pendleston Mill under the 
Crown), has already been noticed. The said payment was first cer- 
tified in 1273, when, if the Hermit had been living and resident, it 
should have been eightfold. 

We may conclude that he had vacated his stormy post, but 
whether by necessity or choice, let the Idealist or the Utilitarian 
decide. 



^irmet f^uiOrrelr^ 



The general representative of the Domesday Hundred of Odenet 
is the present Hundred of Bradford-North. The annexed Table 
win show four exceptions to that Rule. So also a Table, already 
given,! will show how Bradford-North contains eleven Manors which 
were not in the Domesday Hundred of Odenet, but in the Domesday 
Hundred of Recordine. 

Again, the Hundred of Odenet contained one Manor (Tirley) 
which is now reputed to be in Staffordshire j and, vice t>cr»«r, North- 
Bradford Hundred now contains two Manors (Cheswardine and 
Chipnall) which Domesday had place in Staffordshire. Also North- 
Bradford Hundred contains three Manors or parts of Manors, two 
of which (Moreton Corbet and part of Preston-Brockhurst) Domes- 
day had placed in Bascherch Hundred, and one of which (Sleap 
Magna), the Domesday Scribes had, by some inadvertency fixed in 
Culvestan Hundred. 

And now aa to the exact letter of Domesday ,— the annexed Table 
places four^ Manors in Odenet Hundred which Domesday does not 
declare to have been so situated. There are also two" cases of doubt- 
ful identity, in which the letter of the Record is preserved, though 
the interpretation thereof may be problematical or hopeless. Such 
cases I leave to be discussed under the Manors themselves. 

' Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 198-201. I ton, and Moston. 

' Viz. Lee Brookhuret, Ludeoote, Soul- I » Viz. Lai and Ludecote. 



ODENET HUNDRED. 151 

I may now turn to the history of Bradford-Hundred aLready 
promised;^ — a Hundred, which, in its Northern and Southern divi- 
sions combined, very nearly represents the Domesday Hundred of 
Recordine and Odenet united. 

Before Odenet Hundred was thus absorbed in Bradford, its caput 
was Hodnet. It was, as a Hundred, held in demesne, first, by the 
Palatine Earls of Shrewsbury, and then by King Henry I. From 
the Hundred and Manor of Odenet Earl Roger derived a revenue 
of £8;^ the greater part of that sum probably arising from the 
Hundred. Though it was King Henry I. who undoubtedly reor- 
ganized the Shropshire Hundreds, I find no mention of Bradford 
Hundred till the year 1203, when it was duly represented at the 
County Assizes. On this occasion five murders and one case of 
accidental death were reported by the Jurors ; and the Justices 
made orders apposite to each case. — 

The sixth Plea of the Crown, given under Bradford Hundred, is 
connected with an interesting event in County- History, — the rebel- 
lion and outlawry of Fulk fitz Warin. This outbreak, it will be 
remembered had commenced in 1201, and the Outlaw was not 
pardoned till November 1203, a month after the Assizes. At the 
Assizes " William Wigun challenged William Provost of Ercalew 
(High Ercall) for having entertained the King^s Outlaws in his 
House, to wit, Fulk fitz Warin and his associates.'^ The Provost 
now appeared, denied the charge, and ofiered a fine of one mark to 
have an Inquest on the subject. The Fine was accepted, Hugh 
Pantulf being Security for its payment. The Jurors (of the In- 
quest) and the whole County Court found that the Provost was not 
guilty, that he was a liege man, and that the AppeUant had accused 
him in malice, and with the view of getting some land which was 
in dispute between them. So the Provost had his quietiis and his 
Accuser was pronounced in misericordid. It was explained at the 
Inquest that though the alleged reception of the Outlaws pur- 
ported to date three years back, according to the Appellant's evidence, 
yet he, the Appellant, had never mentioned it till June last. One 
inference due to the above premises is that Fitz Warin's rebellion 
commenced in 1200, not as I have elsewhere stated, in 1201.* 

At the Assizes of 1221 the presentments for Bradford Himdred 
included seven cases of murder, one of accidental death, one of ar- 
son and robbery, and two of assault, actual or threatened. One of 
the murdered persons was Thomas de Erkalewe, and his two mur- 

» Supra, Vol. VII. p. 202. ' Domesday, fo. 253, a, 2. « Supra, Vol. VII. p. 72. 



152 



TABLE OF THE DOMESDAY 



Bomeidftj 
Name. 



fildredelei 

Alchetune .... 

Estmie 

Bardeetune . . . 
Baitune 

Cavrahalle .... 

Hatnne 

Cote 

Dodetane .... 

Derintune .... 

Edealai 

Bianestane . . . . 
Elleardine .... 
Chnrehungre . . 
Harpeoote .... 
Hetane 

Odenet 



Hotune . 
Hortune 
iBtefelt . 
Lach. . . 
Lai.... 



Lege 



Bndtime . . . 
Walanceslau 
Ludecote. . . 



Maroemeslei . . 



Dnitune 
Mortune 

Mofltune 

Nortune , 
Anelege . 

Pree 



Boutune 



Saxon Owner 

or Owners, 

t.B.B. 



{ 



Sanford 

Sayintune .... 

Suletune 

Sponelege .... 
Stantune 



Edric 

Elmer 

Uluiet& Elmer 

Ulgar 

Ulchete 

fEdmnr and 

\ Eluui .... 

Godric 

Wighe and 
Grichetel . . 

{Eduinus 
Comes 

fLeuuin and 
\ Edrio .... 
Aluric 

{Ordui and 
Alvera . . . 

Dodo 

r Aluric and 
I Ulgar .... 

Turtin 

f ^Iric, Ulfac, 
\ Uluiet,Leuric 

Bex Edwardus 

Edric 

Elveva 

Uluiet 

Elnod 

Eluui 

f Uluiet, Wic- 
\ trie, Elfac . . 

{GodevaComi- 
tisaa 

Uluiet 

J Dunning and 
I SauuinuB . . . 

{Seuuar and 
Aliuric 

Goduin 

Elmund 

{Dodo and 
rrigar 

Azor 

Edric 

rEpiBcopus de 

1 Cestre 

/ Morcar and 

[Dot 

Uluiet 

Dodo 

Brictric 

Dunning 

Sauuard 



Domefldftj 
TenBnt im OapUs. 



Bogeriufl Comes. . . 

Idem 

Idem 

Idem 

Idem 

y Idem 

Idem 



Dotneadflj 
Mesne, or next Tenant. 



} 
} 
} 



Idem 
Idem. 



Idem 
Idem . 
i-Idem 
Idem . 



} 



Idem 
Idem . 
>Idem 

Idem . 



Idem . 
Idem . 
Idem . 
Idem . 
Idem . 

[•Idem 

yidem 
Idem . 
Idem 



Idem 



Idem 
Idem 

Idem 



NigeUus '. . . ." 

Willielmus Pantulf . 
WillielmusPantulf. 

Turoldus 

Gerardus 



Nigellus 

Gerardus 

Willielmus Pantulf. 



Bogerins de Curcelle. . 

Willielmus Malbedeng 
Bogerius de Curoelle . . 
Willielmus Pantulf. . . 

Gerardus 

Willielmus Malbedeng 
WillielmusPantulf... 
Bainaldus Yicecomcs . 



Bogerius de Laci . . 
WillielmusPantulf. 

Gkrardus 

Ranulf Peverel. . . . 
Bogerius de Laci . . 

NormannuB 



Snb-Tenaot. 



Walter 



Idem 

Idem 

1 EpiBcopus de 

J Cestre 

! Bogerius Comes . . 

Idem 

Idem 

Idem 

Idem 

Idem 



Turoldus 

Gerardus 

Badulfus Cocus and Thoclii 

Bainaldus Yioecomes . . . . 

WilUelmus Pantulf. 

Bogerius de Laci 

Bogerius Venator 

Helgot 

WilLelmus Malbedeng . . . 

Anschitil. Fuloher .... 



Bicardtts 



} 



Eddiet 

Gerardus 

Nigellus 

Ecclesia Sti Michaelis 

Nigellus 

Bamaldus Y icecomes 



Walter . . . 



Willielmus. 



HUNDRED OF ODENET. 



153 



Domeadfty Features. 



Sflva 

n. Haitt 

Sava 

Molinum. Silva 

MoHnum. Silva. Tres hauo . 

Silva 

SilTa. Haia 

Sflya 

Silva 

Haja 

rEcclesia. Piesbiter. Fneposi- 
\ tus. Silva 

kh^y.'////////.'/. '/.'/.',[ 
Presbiter. Silva. Busb Haia . 

Molinum 

Molinum. Silva. Haia 

Presbiter 

Silva 

Silva 

Presbiter. Silva 

Presbiter 

Silva. Haia 

Eccleaia. Presbiter. Molirium 



Domesday 
Hidage. 



3 hides, 
li hides. 
1 hide. 

1 hide. 
3 hides. 

If hides. 

f hide. 

2 hides. 

1 hide. 



Bomesdav 
FoUo. 



} 



1 
1 
2 

u 

1 

i 

2 

u 
i 

2 
2 
21 

1 
1 



hide. 

hide. 

hides. 

hides. 

hide. 

hide. 

hides. 

hides. 

hide, 
hides, 
hides, 
virg. 

bide. 

hide. 



1 hide. 
3 hides. 

2 hides. 

6i hides. 

2 hides. 

3 hides. 

2~ hides. 

8 hides, 
i hide. 

8 hides. 

2 hides. 

3 hides. 
i hide. 

1 hide. 
1 hide. 
1 hide. 



269, a. ] 
257, a. 2 

257, a. 2 

258, a. 1 

259, a. 1 

259, a. 1 
258, b. 2 
257, a. 2 

256, a. 2 

257, b. 1 

256, a. 2 

257, a. 2 

258, b. 2 
257, b. 1 

257, a. 2 
254, a. 2 

258, a. 2 

256, b. 1 

257, a. 2 

259, a. 1 
256, b. 2 

256, a. 2 
259, a. 1 

258, a. 1 

259, a. 1 
259, a. 2 

254, a. 2 

257, a. 2 

256, a. 2 

259, a. 2 

258, b. 1 

257, b. 1 

252, a. 2 

259, b. 1 

258, b. 2 
259) a. 1 
252, b. 2 

259, a. 1 
254, a. 2 



Modem 
Hundred. 



Bradford 
Bradford 
Bradford 
Bradford 
Bradford 



North 
North 
North 
North 
North 



Bradford North 
Bradford South 
Bradford North 

Bradford North 

Bradford North 
Bradford North 
Bradford North 
Bradford South 
Bradford North 
Bradford North 
Bradford North 

Bradford North 



Bradford 
Bradford 
Bradford 
Bradford 

Bradford 

Bradford 



North 
North 
North 
North 

North 

North 



Bradford North 
Bradford North 
Bradford North ? 

Bradford North 

Bradford North 
Bradford North 

Bradford North 

Bradford North 
Bradford North 

Bradford North 
Bradford South 



Bradford 
Bradford 
Bradford 
Bradford 
Bradford 



North 
North 
North 
North 
North 



Later, or 
Modem Name. 



Adderley. 
Alkington. 
Aston (nr.Wem). 
Bearstone. 
Betton in Hales. 

Cloverley. 

Cold Hatton. 

r Cotton (near 

IWem). 

f Doddington 

\ (Whitchurch). 

Dorrington. 

Edgeley. " 

Edstaston. 

Ellardine. 

Gravenhunger. 

Harcourt. 

High Hatton. 

Hodnet. 

Hopton & Espley. 
Horton (Wem). 
Ightfield. 
I^toon. 

(Audley Brow ?) 

Lee Brockhirst. 

Little Drayton. 

Longslow. 
I" Cotton upon 
tTem? 

Marchamley. 

Market Drayton. 
Moreton Say. 

Moston. 

Norton in Hales. 
Onneley. 

Prees. 

B>owton. 

Sandford. 

Shavington. 

Soulton. 

Spoonley. 

StantonHineheath. 



154 



TABLE OF DOMESDAY 



Dameadaj 



Stile 

Tirelire . . . . 
Weme 

Wostune . . . 
Weetune . . . 
Wicford . . . 
Wicford . . . 

Wicford . . . 
Witehala... 
TJlwardelege 
TJlaretone . . 
Waure . . . . 



Baxon Owner 

or Owners, 

T.B.E. 



rAlffar,Colliiic, 
<< Bnctric, Tur- 

Lgw 

{Uluric, Bau- 
esusrd 

r Wighe, LeuQ- 
< inuB, Alyeva, 
(^ Rivera .... 

Edric Salvage . 

{HeralduB 
Comea 

Carle 

{Sten and 
Wikffrip . . . 
rUlunc and 

I Carlo 

^Idid 

r Wigha and 

( Elmer 

Oflchetel 

r Leuuin and 
lEdric 



Tenant Me^ptfe. 



^Idem 
vldem 
>Idem 

Idem . 
Videm 
Idem . 
I Idem 

I Idem 
Idem . 
i>Idem 
Idem . 
lldem 



I, or next Tenjuit. 



Bogerina deCuroeUe 



WiUielmnsFantuIf 



WilliebnuBPantiilf. 



Banulf Fererel 

WillieknoB de Warene . 
WillielmiuFantalf. .. 
BamaldosYioeoomea . 

BainalduaYieeoomes . 

Ranolf Pererel 

WillielmnaPantulf. .. 

GkrarduB 

Willielmna llalbedeng 



Daakndmy 
Sub-Tenant. 



AlchfT. . 

Albert . . 



Table of Part of the Domesday 



Ciseworde and 
Ceppecanole . . 



} 



Godeva 



{Bobertna de 
Stafford . . . 



VGialebert 



derers had been outlawed at the suit of William^ Provost of Erka- 
lewe^ brother to the deceased. 

Another murderer was Robert de Bode^ a Chaplain^ who had 
killed his own servant. He had been in the Bishop's prison^ and 
had been transferred by the Bishop to the custody of the Dean of 
Newport^ who now failed to produce him before the King's Justices. 
This^ as regarded the Bishop^ was a matter reserved for the King's 
cognizance. The Chattels of the murderer consisted of 5 oxen^ be- 
sides 208. which the Bishop had had.^ 

About the middle of the 13th century Geoffrey de Cure was 
Bailiff of Bradford Hundred. He paid the Sheriff 26 merks per 

1 The Pipe-BoU of 1221 charges W.,Bi- catallis BobeHi de Bodes fugitivi qua* 
shop of CoTentry, aa a debtor of 20s. de ipse reeepit. 



155 



HUNDRED OF ODENET.— (Co«<t««erf.) 



Domesdaj Fe«tares. 



Silya 



Aire accipitris. Silva. Hais 



SUra. Tres Hai® 



Molinum 



Molinum. SilTa. 



Silra 



Doraesday 
Hidage. 



1 hide. 
1 hide. 
4 hides. 

3 hides. 

7i hides. 

i hide. 

2i hides. 

1 hide. 

1 hide. 

3 hides. 

1 hide. 

1 hide. 



96| liides. 



Domesday 
FoUo. 



256, a. 2 

257, a. 2 
257, a. 2 

256, b. 2 

257, a. 2 
257, a. 2 
254, a. 2 

254, a. 2 

256, b. 2 

257, a. 2 
259, a. 1 
257, b. 1 



Modem 
Hundred. 



Bradford North 

fPirehiU, Staf- 
\ fordshire .... 

Bradford North 



Bradford North 
Bradford North 
Bradford North 
Bradford North 

Bradford North 
Bradford North 
Bradford North 
Bradford North 
Bradford North 



Later, or 
Modem Name. 



Steel. 

l-Tirley Castle. 
Wem. 

Weston. 
Whitchurch. 
WilJhyford, Great. 
Withyford, Great. 

Withyford, Great. 
rWhixall(near 
[Prees). 
Wolyerley. 

Woolerton. 

Woore. 



Hundred op Pireholle, Staffordshire. 



Silva 



2 hides. 



Bradford North 



Cheswardine and 
Chipnall. 



annum for his oflSce, but could not realize more than 11 merks^ so the 
Sheriflf obtained the residue by distraint on the BailiflPs Sureties. 

In 1255 Hugh de Beckbury was Fermor or Bailiff of Bradford 
Hundred. He paid the Sheriff 23 merks per annum for the office. 
At the Assizes of January 1256^ Thomas de Schepele appeared as 
Chief-Bailiff. His rent to the Sheriff seems to have been 20 merks, 
but his Sureties had to make it good. The next Bailiff (about 
1263), was Elyas de Stoke. He paid the Sheriff 15 merks; but 
could realize only 8 merks. The rest was supplied out of his own 
chattels. On May 20, 1264, a Jury sat at Wellington to ascer- 
tain the real value of this Hundred. They narrated many of the 
above particulars, and returned the present value of the Hundred 
as £5. The whole country, they said, was well-nigh consumed 



156 ODENET HUNDRED. 

{iota pairiafere ccmbutta est) .^ They alluded to the ciTil-war then 
raging. 

Walter de Pedwardine's appointment to this Bailiwick on June 
24, 1267, at a rent of 8 merks, has been already noticed.' 

The Patent-Roll of 1271 contains a memorandum which shows 
the heavy responsibilities which attached to a Hundred, in virtue of 
its jurisdiction, or rather its "keeping of Crown-Pleas/' as the 
phrase was. On November 4th in that year the men of Bradford 
Hundred paid the King lOOtf., because a Felon had escaped from 
their custody. 

At the Assizes of 1272, William le Enfiiunt (a well-known dealer 
in Ferms of this kind) was Chief Bailiff of Bradford Hundred. I 
suppose that he rented the office under Pedwardine. One of the 
statements of the Jury was, that the Hundred was worth 28 merks, 
and that it was a Demesne-Hundred of the King, and that Sir 
Walter de Pedwardyne held it for life, at a rent of 8 merks. His 
Charter to that effect was produced in Court. John Coly was the 
next Bailiff of this Hundred who has occurred to my notice. Some- 
time previous to the year 1291, Bradford Hundred was found to 
bear a proportionate value of 20 merks in the a^r^ate ferms which 
went under the name of the Corpus Comitatis. William de Tittele, 
Sheriff in that year, claims the said reduction from his liabilities ; 
and Walter de Pedwardine, as Fermor of the Hundred, renders a 
separate account of his lighter liabilities, under the Boyal grant. 

At the Assizes of October 1292 William Cresset stands on the 
Jury List as Chief Buliff of Bradford Hundred. The strict accu- 
racy of this may be doubted if we look at the presentments of the 
Jury. " Walter de Pedwardin,'' they said, " holds the Hundred 
for 8 merks; and he had made it over to William Crasset for 36 
merks {per annum), to the injury of all the Freeholders.'^ The 
* Justices, on its being further stated that William Crasset now lay 
under an indictment for murder and other evil deeds, ordered Ped- 
wardin's Bailiwick to be seized in manu Regis; but allowed him to 
replevy it. Several of William Crasset^s evil deeds are narrated in 
this Assize-Roll, for instance, he had embezzled 6s. (the value of 
the Chattels of a Bobber) at a Sheriff's Toum, His trial for murder 
escapes my search. 

1 ^iqmntiont, 48 Hen. in., No. 7. * Supra, YoL Yin. p. 82. 




ViOJU. Jl, nnn^tm^iJjf. h/Jtj^ZSfU 



157 



Wim. 



The possession of eleven Manors in Odenet Hundred gave to the 
name of Pantnlf a clear precedence in the North-east of Shrop- 
shire. Wem, always reputed to have been the Caput of William 
Pantuirs Barony, is described in Domesday as follows. — 

" The same William holds Weme (under the Earl Roger) : Wighe, 
Leuuinus, Alveva, and ^Iveva held it (in Saxon times) for four 
Manors, and were free. Here are iiii hides, geldable. There 
is (arable) land for viii ox-teams. In demesne is one team; 
and there are ii Serfs, iiii Villains, and viii Boors with one team. 
Here is a Hawks-serie, a Wood which will fatten 100 swine, and a 
Haye. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 27*. (per 
annum). Now it is worth 40*. He (William Pantulf) found it 
waste.'^^ 

Among the great Feudatories who followed Earl Roger and 
shared in the spoils of Mercia, we know more of the personal his- 
tory of William Pantulf of Wem than of any other. This is be- 
cause his benefactions to the Abbey of St. Evroul of Uticum be- 
spoke the gratitude of a certain cotemporary Monk of that House, 
and because that Monk happened to be the greatest Historian of 
his day. From the pages of Ordericus we gather a biography of — 

William Pantulf, first Baron of Wem. — 

For reasons, often before stated, we cannot date the investiture 
of Roger de Montgomery with the Earldom of Shrewsbury before 
the year 1071, when the Earls Morcar and Edwin suffered forfeit- 
ure. Six persons are prominently named as having been entrusted 
by the new Earl with the prefecture or government of his Western 
province. Warin, his Sheriff, naturally heads the list, and William, 
surnamed Pantulf, comes second. In Normandy, William Pantulf s 
principal possessions lay at Noron, a town situated a little to the 
West of Falaise, while Falaise was a Bailiwick, or department, of 
Roger de Montgomery's great Vicomte of the Oximin. In the 
year 1073, William Pantulf, " by concession of Earl Roger, his 
Lord,'* gave to the Abbey of St. Evroul the two Churches of Noron, 
one dedicated to St. Peter, the other to St. Cyr. He also gave the 

' Domesday, fo. 257, a, 2. 

IX. 20 



158 



WEM. 



TFhole tithe of Noron. Many other and later gifts^ both in land 
and money^ did William Pantulf confer on St. Evroul. Among 
them I may specify the tithes of half the Mill of Noron; the 
Church of Esmiville^ with tithes and land there ; two-thirds of the 
tithes of Maisnil Bachelar,* whether arising from his own demesne 
or from the lands of his men ; the whole land which Beatrix his 
Mother was holding in demesne at Fossae;' and the tithes of cer- 
tain Tenants of his at Alberi-Vicus,* where also his Sister, Heloise, 
by his concession, had already given her marriage portion. It is 
immaterial that the later of these gifts were specified to be bene- 
factions to St. Peter of Noron. That Church had become a cell of 
St. Evroul. Thereto William Pantulf at length granted all the 
Churches, and the tithes of all places, whether in England, or Nor- 
mandy, or in any other locality, where his Honour should happen 
to increase ; also the tithes of all his personal possessions, such as 
mares, kine, cheeses, and all things which ought to be tithed. He 
also gave one whole part of his substance ; — ^to be divided at his 
decease between the Monks of St. Evroul and the Monks of Noron. 

" All these things,'' says Ordericus, " did William (Pantulf) and 
Leclina, his wife, concede and confirm in the Chapter of St. Evroul 
and before the assembled Monks. Then also did the same William 
give 40 merks into the hands of those Monks, who were about to 
go and build a Cell at Noron, and who begged his assistance." 

It was after all this, says Ordericus, that Earl Roger being at 
Belesme, was visited by many Bishops, Abbots, and Laymen, on 
the day of St. Leonard the Confessor.*^ Among others came 
Manicr Abbot of Uticum and William Pantulf, and obtained from 
the Earl a full confirmation of PantulTs grants above-mentioned. 
Ordericus's list of the persons who witnessed this ceremony includes 
one Bishop, who was not consecrated till after November 1080,* 
otherwise we should date Earl Roger's visit as between 1074 and 
1077. I still prefer the latter interval for reasons too long to state, 
and notwithstanding the apparent objection. 

Meantime William Pantulf had been on a Pilgrimage to St. Giles, 



' " Emierille, between CaenandTroam," 
says M. Le Prorost, in the notes to his in- 
Taloable edition of Ordericus. Troam was 
one of Earl Roger's Norman estates. 

' "Mesnil Baclai, near Liyarot," says 
the same authority. Livarot is on the 
BiTcr Vie, a little north of Montgommeri. 

3 ''La Fosse, between Livarot and 



Moutiers Hubert," suggests M. Le Pro- 
vost. 

■* Afterwards " Aubri-le-Pantou, and 
situated between the Rivers Touque and 
Vie." 

• " June 26," says M. Le Provost. 

• I owe this observation to M. Le Pro- 
vost's note on the passage. 



WEM. 



159 



a matter which I will not enlarge upon, as I think it very doubtful 
to what Shrine Ordericus alludes. That it was a distant one is 
probable from the circumstance that the Monks of St. Evroul gave 
the Pilgrim £16 towards his undertaking. 

In the year 1077 the dedication of the famous Abbey of Bee was 
attended by King William and a host of illustrious Visitors. Among 
others came Robert de Grentemaisnil, a former Abbot of St. Evroul, 
but now domiciled in Italy. The dedication took place on October 
23rd, and then Robert de Grentemaisnil returned to Italy, taking 
with him William Pantulf and Robert de Corded his nephew. 

At this period the Norman genius for conquest and dominion 
was being exemplified in Southern Italy no less than in England. 
Robert the Gruiscard, already illustrious by the conquest of Calabria, 
added Salerno to his dominions in this very year. He received 
William Pantulf with much honour, and being greatly desirous of 
retaining the services of so brave a soldier, placed Pantulf next him 
at table at an Easter Feast, and offered him three cities as an in- 
ducement to remain in Italy. Pantulf however returned to Nor- 
mandy, and had soon to stand on his defence, not only in respect of 
land and heritage, but of life and honour. — 

In December 1082 the Countess Mable, the Jezebel of Orderi- 
cus^s history, was assassinated at Bures-sur-Dive, by one Hugh de 
Jalgey, whom she had deprived of his Ancestral Castle of Roche- 
Jalgey.^ William Pantulf, already returned from Apulia, was sus- 
pected of being an accessory to this daring deed. He had been a 
friend and associate of the assassin : he had also suffered, like him, 
from Mable^s tyranny, for the Countess had deprived him of his 
Castle of Piretum? Pantulf, with his wife and children, sheltered 
themselves from the coming storm in the Cloisters of St. Evroul, 
while Earl Roger and his sons, fully convinced of Pantulf's treason, 
confiscated his estates, and sought his life. At length it was set- 
tled that he should purge himself by the ordeal of Iron. In the 
King's Court at Rouen, he underwent the question scatheless; — 
carrying in his naked hand a mass of iron, heated to a white heat, 
and yet remaining unharmed. Had he failed, there were persons 
present, ready to execute him on the spot. On his release Pantulf 
rewarded the Monks of St. Evroul, whose prayers to heaven, and 
intercessions with man, in his behalf, had been unceasing, with a 
present of four altar-cloths, the produce of the silk-looms of Apulia. 



* Thenceforward called La Boche Ma- 
bile, after the Countess herself. 



' *' Perai en Saonnais, between Mamers 
and Bonnetable," says M. Le ProTOSt. 



160 



WSM* 



Domesday, the Record of 1085-6, exhibits William Pantulf as if 
fully restored in estate and honour. Twenty nine Manors in Shrop- 
shire, and several in Staflfordshire and Warwickshire now owned 
his sway, and were held by him under Earl Roger de Montgomery. 

Soon after William the Conqueror's death (Sept. 9, 1087), Pan- 
tulf again visited Apulia. On this occasion he brought back, for 
the Monks of St. Peter at Noron, certain relics of St. Nicholas the 
Confessor,^ which were greatly prized by those Monks, and were 
indeed found to be of more than theoretical value. This gift took 
place in June 1092. Besides this, William Pantulf still continued 
to assist the Monks of Noron, with money for their buildings. His 
grant of the Manor and Church of Drayton in .Shropshire to the 
same Norman Monastery will be a subject of future argument, in- 
asmuch as Ordericus calls the place Traditon.^ 

There is no evidence as to what treatment William Pantulf re- 
ceived at the hands of Earl Hugh de Montgomery, while the latter 
bore sway in Shropshire : but when Robert de Belesme succeeded 
to the Earldom, Pantulf suffered an absolute forfeiture. Probably 
they had already been in collision in Normandy, for Belesme, as his 
Mother's heir, will have held the castle of which Pantulf had been 
deprived. Perhaps also Belesme's suspicions in respect of his mo- 
ther's death had not been obliterated by PantulPs compurgation. 
The son too much resembled the Mother to forget either her or her 
private animosities. 

When in the Autumn of 1102 the Rebel, Belesme, was threatened 
by the preparations of King Henry, the disinherited Pantulf is said 
by Ordericus to have proffered his services, in the first instance, to 
the Earl. The Earl spumed the offer with contempt, and Pantulf 
resorted to the King. Henry, well knowing the value of such aid, 
instantly appointed Pantulf to the command of 200 soldiers and to 
the custody of Stafford Castle. Belesme, till the day of his fall, 
foimd in Pantulf a steady and successful enemy. — '^ None, whether 
by contrivances or by arms, did him greater injury." At length it 
was by Pantulf's negotiations with his own relatives, the Defen- 
ders of Bridgnorth, that that stronghold was surrendered to King 
Henry. 

In a general way it may be stated that William Pantulf by his 
allegiance to King Henry regained his Domesday possessions. That 



^ Two fragments of the Saint's tomb, 
and the whole of one of his teeth. In the 
Monlu' handfl theee relics turned out to 



be specifics for fever. 

> And inasmuch as M. Le Provost iden- 
tifies Traditon with Trotton in Sussex. 



WEM. 161 

he got some further reward^ I have abready suggested ;^ but^ as a 
general rule^ Henry I. did not favour the aristocracy of Domesday. 
His policy was to depress it. All that I can learn further of the 
career of William Pantulf is from a passage of Ordericus^ written 
with remarkable consistency as to date and probability. — " In the 
year from our Lord^s Incarnation 1112^ Indiction 5^ 12 Henry I.^ 
and 4 Louis of France^ the said William^ in the fortieth year since 
that in which he had commenced a monastic Cell at Noron^ came 
to Uticum^ and mindful of ancient friendliness and gifts (above re- 
corded) reviewed them all^ and in a general assembly of the Monks 
confirmed them^ with Leclina, his wife.^' — 

''Then also Philip^ and Ivo, and Amulf^his sons^ conceded whatever 
their Father had given to St. Evroul^ and^ simultaneously with their 
£Either and mother^ placed the gifts upon the altar.^^ — 

I cannot imagine that William Pantulf lived long after this re- 
cognition. Ordericus gives April 16 as the day of his obit, and 
September 2l8t as the day of his wife's obit, but does not state the 
year in either case. They were both buried in the Cloisters of 
Noron. They left four sons, PhiUp, Robert, Ivo, and Amulf, 
''none of them/' says Ordericus, "emulative of their parents' vir- 
tues in respect of the Church." Philip succeeded to his father's 
Norman possessions, Robert to his English Fief. 

Robert Pantulf, heir to the English possessions of his house, 
had, it seems, acquired some notoriety previous to his father's de- 
cease. Soon after the death of King William I., a Nunnery at 
Caen was pillaged, and Robert Pantulf 's name figures among the 
Marauders.^ This fact, which could not but be known to Orderic- 
us, perhaps induced the contrast which he makei^ between the first 
and second generation of Pantulfs. 

There is a very ancient grant to Shrewsbury Abbey by William, 
Constable of Chester. All that I need say of it here is that it 
passed before 1130, that the first witness is Robert Pantulf, and the 
last witness is Ivo Pantulf. Robert Pantulf had a brother and a son, 
both named Ivo. It was his son, I imagine, who thus attested. 

The Bedfordshire Pipe-Roll of 1 130 contains the following notice 
of a recent Fine. — 

Hugo Malbaeng reddit compotum de vy marcis argenti pro placito 
Duelli iiUer eum et Robertum Pantulf, In thesawro £4. Et debet 
unam marcam argenti? — 

> Supra, VoL Vm. p. 46. I Provost, the Editor. 

' Ordericus, III. 221. Note by M. Lo I » RoL P«pe, 31 Hen. T., p. 104. 

IX. 21 



162 WEM. 

The Cheshire and Shropshire estates of Hugh Malbane were in 
many cases contiguous to estates of Robert Pantulf. Why the 
above Fine should be entered under Bedfordshire I cannot say, nor 
can I state the precise meaning of the Fine ; — whether it was to se- 
cure a trial by wager-of-battle, or to compound for the nonftdfil- 
ment of such an engagement. That Hugh Malbanc and Robert 
Pantulf had been or were personal foes is at any rate clear. 

Ivo Pantulp, probably the son, and clearly the successor of Ro- 
bert, comes into notice before the death of Henry I. He attests, 
between 1130 and 1135, a confirmation of the Church of Stone 
(StaflTordshire) and of land at Walton, to Kenilworth Priory. The 
person confirming is Nicholas, second Baron Stafford, under whom 
I have reason to think that Ivo Pantulf held more than one estate. 
For instance he will have held Cublesdon (near Stone) under the 
Barons Stafibrd, and, as we shall see, transmitted it to a younger 
son. Also, as we have seen already,^ Ivo Pantulf was, in the reign 
of Stephen, Mesne-Lord of Stallington (near Stone), and this I 
conceive must have been a Tenure under the same Barons. Thirdly, 
Ivo Pantulf was Mesne-Lord of Bagnal (near Newcastle, Stafford- 
shire), and there again I doubt not that the Lord Stafford was his 
Suzerain. 

Ivo Pantulfs grant to Shrewsbury Abbey, between 1141 and 
1155, has been discussed already :^ so has his Confirmation of Robert 
de Eyton's grant to the same House. 

Between 1155 and 1160 two Charters of the first William fitz 
Alan have the attestation of Ivo Pantulf. Though a Baron himself, 
he was Fitz Alan's Feoffee at Sheriff Hales, a fact alluded to in the 
Feodary of 1165, where Two Pantoy is entered as holding half a 
new fee in Fitz Alan's Barony.* 

In 1167 Sheriff Hales had been amerced half a merk by Alan de 
Nevill. It is described by its owner's name, viz. as Hales Ivonis 
PantuL The Staffordshire Pipe-Roll of the same year gives the 
same Justiciar as inflicting a Fine of 60«. on Ivo de Panton him- 
self. In 1176 the Staffordshire Pipe- Roll mentions Geoffrey de 
Codewalton and William Purcel, ''two men of Yvo Pantulf" who 
had been amerced 2 merks by the King for Forest-Trespass.^ This 
is the latest mention I have of Ivo Pantulf as living, if indeed he 
was yet alive; for, about this time, his son Hugh appears upon the 
public stage. 

1 Supra, Vol. TIL p. 888. i * Liber Niger, 1. 144. 

a Supra, Vol. VI. p. 368. I * Rot Pip. 22 Henry II. 



W£m« 



163 



I shall dose my account of Ivo Pantulf with a notice of one or 
two grants which verify what has been said above of his feudal re- 
lations. As Ivo de Pantune, he is described as enfeoffing Adam de 
Audley in that land of Baggenhall (Bagnal^ Staffordshire) which 
was of his tenure. Witnesses, Alexander Pantune, William Pur- 
cell, Roger fitz Liulf, Sar' de Chella,^ and the Grantor's whole 
Court; — also Hugh de Clivenhall and Matthew and Alan de Ba- 
genhall.^ 

Ivo Pantulf, with Brice his son, is stated to have given Brom- 
bale, Shipford, and Clive to Combermere Abbey. These places are 
now known as Shifford's Orange, Broom-HaU Orange, and Cliff 
Orange. The two first were probably members of Pantulfs Staf- 
fordshire Manor of Almington, the third was probably a part of his 
Shropshire Manor of Sutton.^ 

Ivo Pantulf s grant to Haughmond Abbey must be taken as a 
closing act of his life, and to have passed in 1175-6, ^hen William fitz 
Alan who assented thereto was first of age. It was of Hide, a 
member of Sheriff Hales ; but I give it in the original Latin. 

Omnibus Saricta Ecclesue filiis tarn futuris quam modo vivis, tarn 
Franc%8 quam Anglis, Ivo Pantul salutem. Notum sit vobis me de- 
disse Deo et Sancto Johanni et Canonicis de Haemanrda, ibidem Deo 
servientibtis, quandam ierram qtuB Hida vocatur qtue pertinet ad 
manerium Hales, et hoc, assensu WiUielmi filii Alani ; — liberam et 
ex omm exactione seculaH solutam et quietam, in bosco et in plana, 
in viis et in semitis, in pratis et in aquis et in omnibus pertinentiis 
ejus. Hanc prefatam terram dono eis pro salute animce mea etfilio- 
rum etfiliarum meorum, et omnium parentum meorum in stabilem et 
perpetuam elemosynam. Hiis testibus, Ivone Capellano, Alexandro 
fratre meo, Waltero Meverello, Radulpho Diablo.^ 

Ivo Pantulf had, I think, at least five sons, viz. Hugh, Hameline, 
Brice, William, and Norman. Of these, W^illiam and Norman seem 
to have been his sons by Alice de Verdon, probably a daughter of 
Norman de Verdon. These two had, apparently from their Mother, 
some property at Budyard in Staffordshire.^ Each of them also 
obtained from their father an estate at Sheriff Hales. Moreover 
William had an estate at Cublesdon, so that he is sometimes styled 
of Cublesdon, sometimes of Hales, Both William and Norman 



^ Frobablj the person called Cadiou de 
Chelda in 1165 (lAber Niger, I. p. 137). 

< Erde9wieV9Stafford9hire{E.di,V^4A), 
p. 14. 



» Vide supra, Vol. VIII. p. 62. 
^ Haaghmond Ghartulary, Tit. Guttes- 
ton juxta Hales. 
^ Erdeswick (ut supra), pp. 4d3-4. 



164 



W£M« 



seem to have been living in 1226^ but I must consign some further 
particulars of these two Cadets to a note.^ 

Hugh Pantulf^ eldest son and heir of Ivo, succeeded him as 
fourth Baron of Wem. He had been married at least five years 
before his Father's deaths to Christiana fitz Alan^ daughter of that 
William fitz Alan who died in 1160, leaving his son in minority. 
The proof of this marriage is a very complex one, but of exceeding 
interest. — Prom March 8 to June 24, 1170, King Henry II. was in 
England. About that time he issued a Writ to Ouy le Strange, 
then Custos of the Pitz-Alan estates, authorizing the said Ouy to 
deduct from the annual ferm of those estates a sum of £10, viz. 
the issues of the Manor of Badminton (Gloucestershire), "which 
the King had assigned as the marriage portion of William fitz 
Alan's daughter." In the current year (1170) the Custos dis- 
charges his liabilities of £5 on this accoimt ; — that is the said grant 
took effect about Easter 1170, and only absorbed half a year's pro- 
portion of the revenue assigned. In other years, and till 1175, 
when Guy le Strange's custody ceased, he deducts at the full rate 
o{ £10 per annum, for the ferm of Badminton, no longer received 
by him. 

That Pitz Alan's daughter was married in 1170, we gather firom 
another charge by Guy le Strange. — In obedience to the King^s 
order he charges £7 on the Pitz- Alan receipts ; which sum he had 
advanced for the Lady's wardrobe {pro pannis) . That it was Hugh 
Pantulf who married Pitz-Alan's daughter there can be no doubt ; 
for between the years 1215 and 1218 the said Hugh, with .the as- 
sent of his heirs, gave to Lilleshull Abbey all his right in the Church 
of Badminton.' 

But to return. — In 1175-6, we have seen Hugh Pantulf attest- 
ing a Charter of King Henry II. at Shrewsbury.* In 1178, as 



1 Wflliam Pantulf of Cubkedon and 
Hales, deceased in 1253, was probably 
son and heir of the abore WOliam. He 
left a widow, Alioe, called "Lady of 
Halys," in 1255, and an only daughter, 
Boisia. The latter married that Richard 
Tnusell who was slain at Evesham in 
1265. Their son and heir, William Trus- 
sell, having been bom in December 1261, 
was of full age at the death of his mother 
Boisia, in 1294, and succeeded to her es- 
tates at Cublesdon and SherijBT Hales. 
Korman Pantulf took to wife one Pe- 



tronilla. He seems to have left an only 
daughter, Alice. She married Boger le 
Poer, and, apparently being childless and 
a widow, gave her land in Gattesdon (a 
member of Hales) to Lilleshall Abbey. — 
Lilleshall Gliartulary, fo. 76. 

^ Lilleshall Chartulary, fo. 54. 

The Charter was attested by William, 
Bishop of Coventry (consecrated January 
25, 1215), and confirmed by Silvester, 
Bishop of Worcester, who died June 16, 
1218. 

3 Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 154 



WEM. 165 

Dugdale informs us^^ he was amerced for tresspass on the King's 
Forests in Northamptonshire. At Michaelmas 1179^ or soon after^ 
and probably on the death of Guy le Strange^ Hugh Pantulf was 
appointed to the Shrievalty of Shropshire. 

This, I doubt not^ was with reference to his connection with 
the Fitz Alans^ for the office was quasuhereditary, though the Fitz 
Alan of that day was hardly old enough to undertake it. Pantulf 
held it for ten years^ viz. till Michaelmas 1189^ when his latest ac- 
count was rendered^ and his Brother-in-law (William fitz Alan II.) 
obtained it. 

In his attestations of Charters^ which passed during the period 
of his Shrievalty^ Hugh Pantulf is seldom styled Vicecomes. In 
one instance^ perhaps as early as 1180^ he attests a transaction with 
Hameline and Brice his brothers.^ 

In January 1190^ Hugh Pantulf appears in the Court of King 
Richard at Westminster.' It is not^ I think^ improbable^ that he 
was one of those^ who^ soon afterwards^ accompanied the King to 
Palestine. We have heard how King Richard bestowed seven 
Librates of Crown-land on Hugh Pantulf.* In the Herefordshire 
Pipe- Roll of 1197, five Librates of the seven are assigned, by mis- 
take, in Stotiesdune, a Manor which could only appear, as thus 
charged, in a Shropshire Pipe- Roll. The Herefordshire Pipe-Roll 
of 1198, is more correct in assigning 100 solidates of land to Hugh 
Pantulf, in Stanford. We have seen how King Richard's fuU grant 
of seven librates was afterwards made up elsewhere.* 

The successive Shrievalties of Hugh Pantulf and William fitz 
Alan (II.) resulted in an enormous deficiency of stores and stock, 
in the King's Castles and Manors. We have seen how the question 
of liability was eventually decided between the brothers-in-law and 
the Crown, and the favour with which Hugh Pantulf 's delinquencies 
were regarded by King John.*' On August 1204, Robert Corbet 
and Hugh Pantulf were King John's messengers to Gwenwynwyn, 
Prince of Powis, for whom they were to ensure a safe-conduct to the 
English Court.* In 1206, we find Hugh Pantulf in the King's 
Court at Nottingham. At this time his younger sons, Ivo and 
Hugh, were Grantees of the King, in the way pointed out under 
Stottesden.^ 

Hugh Pantulf's grant to Shrewsbury Abbey, in which he makes 



^ Baronage^ I. 434. 
' Eist, 8hrew9bury, 11. 418. 
» Supra, VoL VII. p. 12. 
^ Supra, page 131. 



• Supra, Vol. m. pp. 68, 69. 

* Patent, p. 45. Dated at Badby (in 
Northamptonshire) . 

7 Supra, Vol. IV. p. 146. 



166 wfiM. 

mention of his wife Christiana^ has the attestation of Ivo Pantulf. 
I have noticed it more fully under Sutton.^ 

I now turn to the various Scutages^ assessed upon Hugh Pantulf^ 
and to the question of his tenure being per baroniam. His Fief 
(that which he held in capite) was fiscally reputed to consist of five 
knights' .fees^ three in Shropshire and two in Stafibrdshire. Hence^ 
in 1194^ he paid £3 in Shropshire^ and £2 in Staffordshire^ to the 
Scutage for King Richard's Redemption. The same thing followed 
in 1195-7 with respect to the two scutages of Normandy. I find 
no variation of this assessment^ in the first scutage of King John 
(levied in 1199^ at 2 merks per fee)^ in the second scutage of King 
John (levied in 1201^ at the same rate)^ or in the third scutage 
(levied in 1202, at the same rate) . To the fourth scutage, that of 
1203, Hugh Pantulf was assessed 10 merks in Shropshire alone, 
that is, his whole Barony was brought into one account. 

To the fifth scutage, levied in 1204, at the rate of 2^ merks, 
Hugh Pantulf is not assessed at all. A Writ-Close of July 24, 
1205, addressed to the Sheriff of Shropshire, empowers William 
Pantulf to receive his Father's scutage ;^ consequently we find Hugh 
Pantulf entered on the Pipe-Roll as having had quittance /?«• breve 
of the sixth scutage. Of the seventh Scutage, levied in 1206, he 
was also acquitted. So also in 1214, were the five fees of Hugh 
Pantulf released by Writ firom the scutage of Poitou. 

To the first scutage of Henry III. (assessed at 2 merks per fee in 
1218) Hugh Pantulf stands liable on the Pipe-Roll; but a Writ- 
Close (about October 1217) makes it apparent that he had been 
entitled to gather his own scutage.^ 

A Writ of February 1221, again empowers Hugh Pantulf to 
coUect his own Scutage;^ and his name does not appear in the 
Scutage of Bibam, levied in the same year. In 1224, he is entered 
as exempt from the two scutages of Montgomery and Bedford. 
Meanwhile a Tenure- Roll, of the year 1211, speaks of Hugh Pan- 
tulf as follows. — Under Staffordshire he is put down as holding 
two fees in capite by knight's service. Under Shropshire these 
two fees must be included in the clause which states that " Hugh 
Pantulf, Baron, is a Tenant-in-cajnte of the King, and owes the ser- 
vice of five knights."^ 

On December 28, 1224, Hugh Pantulf was dead, and the King 
had received the homage of William, his son and heir.* The Sheriff 

» Supra, Vol. VII. p. 364. « Testa de NeviU, pp. 54^ 55. 

« • s . 4 Claut, I. pp. 42, 372, 476. « Rot. Finium, Vol. I. p. 123. 



WEM. 



167 



of Salop and Staffordshire (as soon as he had obtained security for 
William Pantulf s Relief of £100) was to apprise the Sherifis of 
Worcestershire and Herefordshire. 

I cannot quit Hugh Pantulf ^s name without attempting to enu- 
merate his children^ and saying something more about his wife. I 
take it that she was the daughter of William fitz Alan (I.), not by 
Tsabel de Say, but by his first wife, Christiana, niece of Robert the 
Consul. That PantulPs wife was named Christiana, is a strong ar- 
gument in favour of the above supposition. We hear of no less 
than five sons of Hugh Pantulf, viz. William, Ivo, Alan, Hugh,^ 
and one, the initial letter of whose name was R., and who was a 
Prebendary of Bridgnorth.^ As to Hugh PantulPs daughters, I 
cannot but think that Emma, wife of Robert Corbet of Caus, was 
one of them. 

William Pantulp (II.), with whom we now proceed, had come 
into notice long before his father's death. — As early as the year 
1194, there is an entry on the Staffordshire Pipe- Roll, to the effect 
that William fitz Alan owed 10 merks as Surety for his Nephew, 
and that payment of the debt was to be sought in Shropshire. Ac- 
cordingly in later Rolls we find the chaise renewed under Shrop- 
shire. I cannot explain the entry further, but I may say that I 
know of no nephew of Fitz Alan's who can have been old enough 
thus to appear, unless it were William Pantulf. In 1205, we see 
WiUiam Pantulf receiving his {lather's scntage, doubtless in respect 
of personal services to King John, while his brothers, Ivo and Hugh, 
have grants of land at Stottesden. I conclude it to have been 
WiUiam Pantulf of Wem, who served as a Knight in King John's 
Irish Campaign of 1210. Thus, in June and July, we find him 
favoured with various Prmstita at Kilkenny, at Cells, at Carrickfer- 
gus, Fowre, and Dublin.^ Nineteen years aflerwards, that is in 
1229, these PrastUa, amounting to £S. lis. 4d., were charged 
against William Pantulf in the Shropshire Pipe-Roll.^ He was ex- 



> • » Supra, Vol. VII. p. 18 ; Vol.1. p.llS. 
* PreBstUo'SoU, 12 John, passim. — 
There was another William Fantalf^ 
one of the defenders of Camokfeigos, and 
who, on heing taken prisoner by King 
John, fined 15 znerkB for his release. 
Half of the sum was paid to Thomas de 
Erdinton, then Sheriff, and half was 
charged as* an arrear against William Pan- 
tulf ini the Shropshire Pipe-Boll of 1218. 
I doubt whether this was the same Wil- 



liam Pantulf, who in 1215 was one of the 
Insuigente who held Belroir Castle against 
King John, but who was pardoned in De* 
camber of that year (Jtot. Patent, p. 162). 

The first of these persons was perhaps 
William Pantulf of Cublesdon and Hales, 
the second was pet^ps a member of the 
family seated in Warwickshire and Lei- 
oestershire {DugdMs Warwiekskire, I, 
pp. 82, 90, 95). 

* Rot Pip. 13 Hen. III., Salop. 



168 WEM. 

cused £6. 12^.^ but owed the balance. In January 1215^ we read 
of 10 merks being paid to Henry fitz County Hugh Pantulf^ and 
William his brother^ by a trusted agent of King John. There is 
not a symptom^ that the sons of Hugh Pantulf halted in their al- 
legiance to the Crown at this critical period. On December 14, 
1225^ William Pantulf is named first of the Commissioners who 
were in February following to render account at Westminster of 
the tax of the fifteenth as levied in Salop and Staffordshire.^ On 
May 14, 1226, King Henry III. reduced William Pantulf's Belief 
from £100 to £25, ^' because it had been declared before the King 
that Pantulf only held five fees in capite, of the King's Escheats, 
which were once Robert de Belesme^s."^ 

On December 26, 1226, a Writ-Close orders that the variances, 
which subsisted between William Pantulf and Madoc ap OrifiSn 
(of Bromfield), should be settled at Oswestry, on a fixed day, and 
by arbitration of John fitz Alan, John le Strange, Bartholomew 
Turet, Robert de Girros and the Sheriff of Shropshire.^ 

A Writ of July 21, 1228, orders the Sheriff to give effect to a 
Perambulation which had been made between the Manors of Prees 
and Wem, under Royal Precept.* 

WilUam Pantulf's name appears on the Scutage-rolls of his time 
as foUows. In 1229, he was assessed at 10 merks, on 5 fees, to the 
scutage of Keri, but had subsequent acquittance by Writ Royal. 
On levy of the scutage of Brittany, at 3 merks per fee, in 1230, 
William Pantulf fined 25 merks as a composition pro pasaagio et 
scutagio de v militilms ne fiat miles hoc vice. I infer fix)m this 
that the composition covered his scutage and exempted him firom 
personal service. I cannot further conclude that one who had long 
occupied so prominent a position as William Pantulf was not yet a 
Knight. 

In 1231, William Pantulf was assessed at £10 to 5 fees for the 
scutage of Poitou, and in 1232, was acquitted by Writ of the Scu- 
tage of Elvein. 

On February 4, 1233, William Pantulf was dead, for then did 
Fulk fitz Warin give the King 600 merks for custody of his lands 
and heirs.^ The said heirs were, as I find from later evidence, two 
daughters, Matilda and Elizabeth ; but as we have no coeval mention 
of Elizabeth we may presume that she died unmarried, and soon 
after her father. 

» • » Mot. Clans, II. pp. 147, 111. I * Bot. Claut. 12 Hen. III., m. 5. 

s JRot Clamt. II. 206. I • Uot JVmiim, I. 237. 



WEM. 169 

Of Pulk Pitz Warin as Guardian^ and indeed as Grandfather^ of 
Matilda Pantulf I have said much under Alberbury.^ In September 
1235 and Easter 1236, when the Barony of Wem was assessed at 
10 merks to the Aid on marriage of the King^s Sister, Roger de 
Wyke, Seneschal of Wem, paid the first instalment, and Fulk fitz 
Warin the second.^ 

The Feodaries of 1240, notice the Barony of Wem without speci- 
fying who was seized thereof. It contained 4i fees in Shropshire, 
and 3 fees in Staffordshire. — There is some discrepancy between 
the several lists,^ but whereas Ralph Pinxiernator or Le Botiler is 
set down as holding one fee in Wem and Hinstock (Shropshire), 
and one fee in Alcminton (Staffordshire), we may conclude that 
he was already seized of the demesne-estates of the Barony and 
had married Matilda Pantulf. Certainly, as I have proved under 
Alberbury, such a marriage had taken place before 1243. On 
April 24, 1245,— 

Ralph le Botyler and Matilda his wife fine half a merk for a 
Pracipe (to remove some suit at law) from the County of Salop 
to Westminster.* In the same year they fine one merk pro haben- 
ddjuratd. Both these fines were probably incidental to the suit 
noticed under Corselle.^ In this same year, 100^., due on 5 fees 
to the Aid on marriage of the Princess Royal, are charged to the 
name of William Pantulf; but an interlineation (viz. Had. le Buiiler 
habet filiam et heredem) shows that there was a cotemporary sense 
of the error. 

And in 1246, when the 5 fees of Wem are marked as quit of the 
scutage of Gannok, the person acquitted is " Ralph le Buteiler who 
has William Pantulf ^s heir to wife/' In 1252, we have Ralph le 
Butiler and Margaret (read Matilda) his wife fining one merk for 
a writ of Pone. This probably related to a suit, which, on Novem- 
ber 3, 1253, was heard at Westminster.® — ^' Ralph le Butiler and 
Matilda his wife sued William del Atre for 7 acres of bosc in 
Wemme, as the right of Matilda, whereof Hugh de Pantun, Ma- 
tilda's grandfather,^ was once seized. From Hugh/' says this 
weighty Record, " the right descended to William, and firom William 
to Elizabeth and Matilda. Elizabeth died without an heir." The 



> Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 75-77. 
5 Testa de NetfiU, pp. 61, 60. 

• Ibidem, pp. 46, 48, 49, 60, 51. 
^ Rot. Finiumy I. 416. 

• Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 25. 

> PlacUa Michaelmas Term, 37 Hen. 



III., m. 32 dorto. 

' And yet Mr. Blakewaj (Sheriffs^ p. 
33) reckons Maud Pantulf as fourth in 
descent from Hugh, the Sheriff of 1180- 
1189. This addition of two generations 
to the Pedigree is quite unauthorized. 



IX. 22 



170 



W£M* 



Defendant William here procured an a^oumment af the case by 
appealing to a trial by Grand Assize. 

In 1254^ Ralph le Butiler was assessed £10 on 5 fees to the Aid 
for knighting Prince Edward; but^ in 1250^ he had quittance from 
a like assessment to the scutage of Wales. 

The Hundred-Roll of 1255 supplies the following information. — 
'^ Ralph le Botiler is Lord of Weme^ and holds the whole Manor 
in capite of the King, viz. as a Baron : and he does due suit by bis 
Seneschal to County and Hundred^ for his whole Barony^ except 
that for Upton (Waters Upton) and Eiton (Eyton) he does no suit : 
and he has a Park and Warren^ the Jurors know not by what title. 
The Manor (of Wem) is xiiii hides.'' ^^ Ralph le Butiler also, took 
advowries and emends of warren^ by a title unknown.''^ 

At the Assizes of 1256^ the Grand Assize between Ralph and 
Maud Botyler ajid William del Ake, concerning 7 acres of bosc^/was 
compounded by license^ the Defendant paying a fine of 1 merk pro 
licentid concordandi. 

By a Fine levied at these same Assizes, Ralph and Matilda le 
ButyUer grant a carucate in Wemme to Richard le Butyller^ to 
hold^ with other privileges in the Manor (excepting the hose and 
park of Brochurst), to him and his lawful issue, by a rent of gilt 
spurs; — with remainder to Ralph and Matilda and the heirs of 
Matilda. 

On October 2^ 1261^ the King allows by Patent the pi^oposed 
marriage of Ankaret, niece of James de Audley, to Williami son of 
Ralph le Butiller. 

At the Assizes of 1272, Radulf le Botiller and his wife had a 
placUum nativitatis against Robert, son of Elias CuUehare, or PuUe*- 
hare. The Fine, by which they allowed his freedom and manumis- 



> Bot Hundred, 11. 58. When the 
Manor of Wem is computed at 14 hides 
it must be taken to involve several Domes- 
day Manors, for Wem-proper was only 4 
hides in Domesday. However, when we 
proceed to enumerate the several Manors 
which are known to have been involved 
with Wem in 1255, and are either unmen- 
tioned or unkidaged in the Hundred-EoU, 
we get a complement far in excess of the 
14 hides which we should expect. — For 
instance, Wem proper (4 hides), Horton 
(2 hides), Edstaston (2 hides), Aston (1 
hide), Cotton (2 hides), Harpoote (i hide). 



Wolverley (3 hides), and Alkington (li 
hides), contain in Domesday an aggregate 
measurement of 15} hides. Besides these, 
there were the Domesday Manors of Tir- 
ley (1 hide), Edgeley (1 hide), and Steel 
(1 hide), which, not being mentioned in 
the Hundred-Boll of 1255, were perhaps 
also accounted members of Wem. — 

The inference is, what I have often 
before pointed out, viz. that where the 
Domesday arrangement was allowed to be 
tampered with, the result was always a 
diminution of aggregate hidage, and so a 
loss to the Grown and a gain to the Temant. 



WEM. 



171 



sioD^ cost the Vassal half a merk^ folr license to levy it^ and a sore- 
hawk^ given to the Recognizors. 

I might say much more of Ralph le Botyler and his Ancestors, 
the Lords of Oversley in Warwickshire; but the subject belongs to 
the history of another county. 

The Writ ot Diem clauHt on his death, bears date July 8, 1281. 
He was found to have held the Manor of Wem, of the inheritance 
of Matilda his wife, still surviving. A Fortalice, gardens, and two 
Parks, were among the adjuncts of the Manor.^ The fenced Park 
only contained 10 beasts of chace i the other, unfenced, contained 
none. Here were two Water Mills and one Windmill. The Tenants 
in villeinage were bound to execute all Castle- works at the will of 
the Lord. The Pleas and Perquisites of the Manor-Court realized 
the unusual sum of IQOs.'per annum. The deceased had held Wem, 
Hinstock, and Tirley, by service of three knights in the army of 
Wales, for 40 days at his own cost. He had held, says the Re- 
cord, nothing else in Shropshire or Staffordshire save the above, 
neither in capite nor otherwise. His gross income was computed at 
£57. 5«. 2d. per annum} 

Matilda Pantulf, Baroness of Wem, now remarried with — 
Walter de Hopton, a person of some eminence in the Law, 
and already associated with Shropshire. It will suffice here to state 
that on August 4, 1258, a Patent of Henry III.^s appoints Thomas 
de Roshall, Walter de Hopton, Richard Tyrel, and Robert de Lacy 
Justiciars to inquire concerning disturbances {excessibus) in Shrop- 
shire, according to an ordinance of the Parliament of Oxford. For 
the year ending Michaelmas 1268, Walter de Hopton had served 
the office of Sheriff of Shropshire and Staffordshire,^ though his 
account was not rendered till Michaelmas 1269, and then in con- 
junction with that of William de Caverswell his Successor. In Lent 
1277, 1 find Walter de Hopton sitting as a Justiciar at Ludlow with 
Ralph de Hengham. 

In Easter Term 1283, a Fine was levied whereby Walter de Hopton 
and his wife Matilda give the Manors of Wemme and Tyrle to one 



^ One item of manorial receipt is ex- 
pressed as follows : — Passagium cum po- 
turd Satellitwn valet 40s. — I suppose 
that Traders and Travellers who passed 
through Wem had to pay a toU {pasta- 
gittm), as well as to contribute something 
towards the maintenance of the Toll- 
keepers. We shall hear more on a cog- 



nate subject when we come to Montgo- 
mery, 

* Inqumtions, 9 Edw. I., No. 10. 

« A Writ of Henry III., dated at 
Montgomery, Sept. 29, 1267, addresses 
Eogef de Hopton as Sheriff of Salop and 
Stafford {Fixderay I. 473). It is a mere 
error as regards the Christian name. 



172 WEM. 

Roger le Rus. He in turn settles them on the Grantors ; — ^to hold 
of the King^ for Matilda's life. If Hopton survived his wife, Wemme 
was nevertheless to pass to her right heirs ; — to hold of the King, 
by accustomed services, and the holder paying an annuity of iil5 
to Hopton, viz. for Horton, Tilnleye (Tilley), and Aston, members 
of Wemme. Hopton was to hold Tirleye (Staflfordshire) for his 
life, and immediately of the King. At his death Tirleye and the 
aforesaid annuity were to revert to the right heirs of Matilda. This 
Pine was levied by consent and will of the King : and Le Rus quit- 
claimed all right in Wem and Tirleye, to Walter and Matilda and 
the heirs of Matilda.^ Such was the mode in which Matilda le 
Botyler contrived to make a settlement on her second husband. 

The Bradford Tenure-Roll (about 1286) says that ^^ Walter de 
Hopton, through his wife Matilda, holds the Manor of Wem with 
its members, viz. Aston, Stiell, Tilley, Dichelowe,* Horton, Wol- 
verley, Edistoston (Edstaston), Coton, Harpecote, Beslow, Dodyng- 
ton, Alkynton, and Edisley. He also holds the Manors of Hin- 
stocke, Upton (Waters Upton), Tibrighton, Dawley (Magna), 
Eton (Eyton), Brocketon (Bratton), and half the vill of Dawley 
(read Lawley), and half the vill of Parva Drayton of the King, in 
capite sine medio, freely, as a Barony, by service of three knights'- 
fees in lieu of all services: and he has at Wem, a Market and 
Fair, by Charter of King Henry III. He also holds there his free 
court, twice yearly, and has pleas of bloodshed and hue-and-cry; 
and gallows : and these franchises he has used for long time." 

At the Assizes of 1292 it was presented that Walter de Hopton, 
still living, was one of the SheriflFs who had been in office since the 
last Eyre (that of 1272). The Pipe-Rolls do not allow such a 
mode of dating Hopton's Shrievalty. 

Before these Assizes, Matilda Pantulf seems to have died. Though 
her second husband still retained Hinstock, he was not apparently 
seized thereof at the time of his death in 1305. He left a son 
Walter, two years of age at the father's decease,' and of course the 
child of a later wife than Maud Pantulf, who cannot have been 
less than fifty when she married Hopton. I may now return to — 

William le Botyler, eldest son of Matilda Pantulf and Ralph 
le Botyler. We have seen that about 1261 he married Ankaret, 
niece of James de Audley.* They had a son John, bom on July 17, 
1266 or 1267, for the Inquests vary as to the year of his birth. 

1 Fines divers. Comitat. 11 Edw. I. I * Inquisitions, 88 Edw. I., No. 77. 
3 Now Lowe and Ditches. I ^ Supra, page 170. 



WEM. 178 

William le Botiler was one of three Knights^ who were to perform 
the military service due from Ralph le Botiler (his father)^ when 
the army against Lewellyn lay under summons to meet at Worces- 
ter, on July 1, 1277. It should be noted that Ralph le Botiler 
himself was another of the three knights, and John de Brumpton 
the third. In the Welsh campaign of 1282, William le Boteler 
was ordered to serve under Roger de Mortimer, as Commander-in- 
chief. In the same year, in consequence of his tenures, he is no- 
ticed as liable to provide certain ward for Shrewsbury Castle, and 
he served personally on behalf of " Matilda de Pantolf, Lady of 
Wem,^^ his mother. Again in 1283 he was ordered to be at Mont- 
gomery on May 3, prepared for service in Wales, and on September 
80th of that year he was to attend a Parliament at Shrewsbury, 
being addressed as "William le Botiller de Wemme.'^* 

King Edward's Writ, announcing the death of William le Botiler 
of Weme, bears date at Leominster on Dec. 11, 1283. Besides his 
paternal estates at Oversley, he had enjoyed lands &c. at Dudinton 
(Dodington), which yielded an annual revenue of £12. 6^. 10^^., 
and a messuage &c. at Lopington which yielded £2. I9s. S^d. 
John, his eldest son and heir, was 17 years of age, — more or less, 
according as the several Inquests differ.^ 

At the Assizes of 1292 the Bradford Jurors presented that Age- 
harety widow of WiUiam le Botiller, held £10 rents in Dodynton, 
and being a widow in the King's gifb had remarried with Robert de 
Nevyle. Robert de Nevyle appeared and proved the King's grant 
of the said marriage to himself. 

John le Botiler of Wbmme^ to whom I now return, seems 
really to have been bom on July .17, 1266, for at his death in July 
1287 he was seized of his paternal estates in Warwickshire. The 
King's Writ of Diem clausit on John le Botiler's death is dated 
Oct. 20, 1287, and the Warwickshire Inquest, which followed, found 
that Oawan, brother and heir of the deceased, was 17 years of age 
on February 2nd, 1287.* 

But a previous Writ had issued on July 23, 1287, ordering the 
age of Alienore, widow of John le BotiQer, to be ascertained. This 
child^ whom I take to have been a daughter of Walter, Lord Beau- 
champ of Powyke, seems to have completed her twelfth year on 
November 11th, next after her husband's death.^ 

Gawan le Botiler had livery of the Barony of Wem before he 

^ ParUamentary Writs, I. 485. I ' JnqutsUiont, 15 Edw. I., No. 31. 

2 InquiaUianM, 12 Edw. I., No. 21. I * Inqumtiofu, 15 Edw. I., No. 31-b. 



174 WEM. 

came of age^ and probaUy on th^ death of Matilda Pantnlf^ his 
Grandmother. But death was ever basy in the house of Botiler^ 
and Gawan died at the age of twenty. A Writ of March 21^ 1290^ 
announces this events and an Inquest was held at Shrewsbury^ on 
April 7th following^ as to his estate.^ Some new particulars now 
transpired as to the tenure and other circumstances of the Manor 
of Wem. The Lord was to furnish one Setter {brctchetvm) yearly 
to the King^ to do suit to both the Himdreds of Bradford and 
Pymhill, every three weeks^ and to the County, monthly. Wem 
Castle was in a ruined state. A rent called KyUi was worth 70«. 
per annum to the deceased Lord. Four Boscs pertained to the 
Manor^ viz. Brochkurstf Le Holde Park, Northtpode, and Newe 
Park. Certain adjacent vills paid the following dues^ viz. Tilnelegh 
(Tilley) for pasture in the Olde Park, 2^. 6d, ; Legh, for pasture in 
Brochirste^ 3«. M, ; and Clive^ for ingress into the boscs^ paid 8 
quarters of oats and 29 plough-shares yearly. A passage (i. e. a toll 
upon traders who passed Wem) realized 6». %d, per annum. The 
gross income of the Manor was £54. 19«. \0d, : out of which Sir 
Walter de Hopton was henceforth to receive £15 yearly, far ser* 
vices rendered in the Curid Regis. The Advowson of Wem Churchj 
worth 40 merks per annum, and two-thirds of a messuage and estate 
at Loppington, worth £1. 19s, Sd. yearly, were also parcels of the 
estate of which Oawen le Botiler had died seized. William le Bo- 
tiler, his brother and heir, would be 16 years of age on June 11, 
1290. Gawan le Botiler left a widow, Alice, who in October 1292, 
was holding 30 librates of revenue in Wem, of the inheritance of 
William, son of William, and brother of Gawan, le Botiler, and 
was at the King's disposal as regarded any second marriage. 

William lv Botileb (Jl.), the heir in question, was a Minor 
in October 1292, and, the Bradford Jurors said, was heir to 30 
librates in Wem which his Father, William, had held in capUe. (His 
Father had obviously never been seized of such an estate.) The 
Minor was now in custody of Walter de Beauchamp (of Powyk I 
presume), who had tiie wardship from John de Bretagne, who had 
it from the King. The Bradford Jurors further presented that 
William le Botiler claimed firee-warren in Wem. 

On May 8, 1293, William, " brother and heir of Gawan le Boti- 
ler,^^ being as yet in minority, complained in the Curid Regis of the 
wastes and sales made by Walter de Hopton in respect of houses 
and woods, which he only held for life. One thousand oak-trees 

>M, 18 Edw. I., No. 30. 



WSM. 



175 



and a house at Alkementon^ h^ been sold. The oaks were worth Ss. 
each^ but the damage altogether was only laid at £60. Hopton's 
defence was that he did not hold the wasted estates^ as alleged^ for 
a term of years. The Guardian of William le Botiler afterwards 
withdrew his action by license of the Conrt.' 

WilHam le Sotiller of Wem was among those summoned to per* 
form military serrice in Flanders, the muster being at London on 
Feb. 2, 1298. A similar summons to serve against the Scots di- 
rected him to be at York on May 25, of the same year. In 1301 
there were two musters against the Scots returnable on June 24, 
one at Berwick-upon-Tweed, to serve under the King, the other at 
Carlisle, to serve under Prince Edward. WiUiam le Butiller of 
Wemme was directed to attend the second in lieu of the first.^ 

On June 24, 1302, William le Botiler of Wemme (Plaintiff in a 
Fine), receives a carucate in Wemme from Richard le Botikr (De*- 
forciaut), to whom he concedes the same for life, at a rose^rent. 
Between March 10, 1308, and January 24, 1326, 1 find more than 
eighty Writs of Edward II. addressed to William le Botiller o£ 
Wem as a Parliamentary Baron, a Tenant by military service, a 
Justice of Assize, a Conservator of the Peace, or a Commander of 
levies.^ He served probably both in Scotland and France. In the 
Nomina ViUarum of 1316, he is set down as Lord of Wemme, Wy- 
cheshale (WhixaU), and Hinstock (in Bradford Hundred), and of 
Almingtoa (in Staffordshire), all being, I presume, held by him in 
demesne. 

An Inquest held pursuant to a Writ of April 24, 1327, found that 
it would not injure the Crown if William le Botyler of Wemme 
was to enfeoff one William Hereward, Parson of Weston Turvill, in 
the MancMT of Dodyton, so that the said Trustee should forthwith 
settle it on William le Botyler for life, with remainder to John le 
Strange of Blancminster and Ankeret his wife, and their bodily 
heirs, or, in default of such heirs, with remainder to the right heirs 
of William le Botyler. Dodjrton was held in capite by one-third 
of a knight's-fee, and was worth 4 merks per annum. Two-thirds 
of the Manors of Wemme and Hynestock, worth £60 per annum, 
would remain to William le Botyler after the proposed settlement.^ 
Ankeret, here mentioned, was daughter of William le Botyler by 
his second wife, Ela, daughter and coheir of Roger de Hardebui^. 



1 Amington, Staffordshire. 
' Placiia coram Bege^ 21 Edw. I. ; 
Poick. 2Vi. m. 84 dar$o. 



' ParUamewtary WriU, I. 486. 

* Ibidem, Vol. IV. pp. 670-672. 

* JngiM. 1 Edw. in., 2nd Not., No. 81. 



176 



WSM. 



Ankeret became a coheiress by decease of two brothers without 
issue. 

William le Botiler (II.) died, as I have said under Hinstock,^ in 
1334. The Inquest taken on his death is much defaced; but an 
ancient notice thereof enumerated the Warwickshire Manors of 
Oversleye and Marshton Boteler, the Staffordshire Manor of Tyrley, 
and the Shropshire Manors of Wem, Hinstock^ and Dodyngton.* 

William le Botiler (III.) was son and heir of the last Wil- 
liam, by a former wife, and was aged 36 at his Father's death. 

On July 5th, 1343, it was found by Inquest to be no injury to 
the Crown if William le Botiller of Wemme were to enfeoff William, 
son of William le Botiller (i. e. his own son) and his wife Elizabeth, 
in the Manor of Lopynton, entailing it on them and their male 
heirs, with remainder to himself and his heirs. Lopington, Wemme, 
Hinstock, Dudynton (which was in the hand of John le Strange 
by grant of William le Butiler, deceased), and Tirley were all held 
in capite by service of 3 knights'-fees. The Jurors added that, after 
such settlement, no lands would remain to the proposed Grantor.^ 
The expression refers to this and another settlement (which has 
been given under Hinstock*), when taken conjunctively. The same 
two Inquests, when collated, wiU show how rightly it was said on 
the death of William le Botyler III. (which took place Dec. 18, 
1361) that he had died seized of nothing in demesne. As to Wem, 
Tyrley, and Hinstock, he held them in fee-tail ; and of course his 
son and heir, William, already seized of Loppington, took posses- 
sion of those three manors, under the said entail. On this occasion 
the knight's service, due distinctively on Wem and the Advowson 
thereof, was stated to be two-thirds of a fee.*' 

William le Botiler (IV), aged 30 at his Father's death, died 
as I have before said on August 14, 1369.* Besides the Writ of 
Diem clausit which followed on August 20th, another Writ of Au- 
gust 25 directs the Escheator to make special inquiry about entails 
on the heirs male of the deceased. The Inquests are very full and 
accurate on the point. — " Lopyngton was entailed on the deceased 
and Elizabeth his late wife and their heirs male;" but as there was 
a remainder to the heirs of the father of the deceased, it is obvious 
that this entail on heirs male cannot have barred the claim of Eliza- 
beth, only daughter of the deceased. There was no other entail on 



» Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 21. 

' Calend. Tnquia. Vol. II. p. 69. 

* InqiUsUiont, 17 Edw. III., No. 39. 



* Supra, Vol. VIII. pp. 21, 22. 

• Inquidtums, 35 Edw. III., No. 38. 
« Supra, Vol. VIII. page 22. 



THE CHURCH. 



177 



heirs male. Tyrley (held in capite by one Knight's-fee) was en- 
tailed on the bodily heirs of the deceased : so were Wem and Hin- 
stock. Quicksale (Whixall near Frees), which was held under James 
d' Audley by rent of a pair of spurs, was settled on the heirs of the 
deceased. The deceased had further held 89. rent in Parva Drayton, 
of the Abbot of Shrewsbury, by suit and service to the Abbot's 
Court at Betton.^ 

Some further account of the descent of this Barony has been 
given under Hinstock. 

WEM CnUECH. 

There is no symptom of a Church existing here at the time of 
Domesday, but neither, if we suppose Wem Church to have been 
at its foundation a Chapel, is it easy to assign its Mother Church. 
The Manorial Lords were probably its Founders, and they continued 
to be its Patrons. 

The Taxation of 1291 values the Church of Wemme (in the 
Deanery of Salop) at £13. 6«. %d. per annum? In 1341 the 
Assessors of the Ninth, quoting this Taxation of 20 merks, rated 
the Parish at £11 only. They said that £3. 69. Sd, of the Church- 
Taxation consisted of income, not computable in ascertaining the 
value of the Ninth? 

The Vahr of 1534-5 gives the income of John Dacre, Rector of 
Wemme, as £26. Ids. 4td. per annum, less 9s, for Synodals and 
Procurations.* 



EARLY INCUMBENTS. 

Ivo Pantulp is the earliest Rector of Wem, whom I can name. 
His »ra was probably the beginning of the 13th century. He left 
descendants, of whom 1 give some particulars in a note.^ 

Walter Estham was pre;3ented to the Chapel of Wem by Patent 



» InquisUions, 43 Edw. III. No. 17. 
3 Pope Nick. Taxcttion, p. 247. 
' Inguis. Nonarwn, p. 183. 

* Valor Ecclesiasticua, III. 187. 

* By Deed (sane date), " Ivo de Paun- 
tou, Bon of Ivo de Paimton, formerly Hec- 
tor of the Church of Weme, enfisoffs his 
son, Kobert, in the land which he held in 
the Till of Great Sugnall and in Little 
SognaU" {ReffiHrum Chartarmn apud 
lAchfieldy p. 119).— 

lyo Fantulf, the Grantor in the above 

IX. 



Deed, may virell have been the same with 
Sir Ivo Faunton, to whom Prince Ed- 
ward, being at Chester, on Augiut 14, 
1265, granted the tenancy of lands at 
Ashley (near Market Drayton), late held 
by Hugh Bedell, a Bebel {Bist. Shrews- 
bury, 1.12S).— 

The lands in Great and Little Sugnall, 
above mentioned, were held under the 
See of Lichfield. About 1265-95 the 
above Grantee, as " Robert, son of Ivo, 
son of Ivo de Paunton, Rector of Weme," 

23 



178 



HORTON. 



of December 3, 1295/ when William le Botiler (II.) was stated to 
be still in the King's Custody^ but I doubt whether he really was so. 
On December 18, 1309,— 

Master John de St. Amanb had been presented to this Church, 
but the Bishop, by letters of that date, and of November 14, 1313, 
treats the Living as sequestered, and provides for the administration 
of its income and duties. The Bishop's last letter does not allude 
to the resignation of John de St. Amand on October 18, 1313; 
but on December 24, 1313, the vacancy, thus caused, is fully set 
forth in a letter, admitting — 

Almaric le Botiller, Acolyte. He was presented by Sir Wil- 
liam le Botiller, Knight. This Rector has licenses of non-residence 
{studendi gratid), as an Acolyte in 1314, as a Subdeacon in 1315, 
and as a Priest in 1329. 

Master Edmund le Botiler, was instituted May 1, 1362, on 
presentation of Sir William le Botiler. He resigned on May 28th, 
but was re-instituted on June 27, having taken Priest's Orders in 
the interval. He ultimately resigned in 1372, when, on December 
4th,— 

Gilbert Neele, Priest, was instituted at presentation of Sir 
Robert Ferrars, knight. Neele resigned in 1404, when, on May 
22,— 

Master Thomas de Stretton, Chaplain, was instituted on pre- 
sentation of Thomas Molynton, Domicell.* On August 5, 1426, 
Stretton being dead, — 

Thomas Aukeland w*as instituted to this Church on the presen- 
tation of " John, Baron of Graystok and Baron of Wem." Auke- 
land resigned in 1435. 



ilorton* 



Doniesday treats this township of Wem as a distinct Manor. — 
*^ The same William Pantulf holds Hbrtune. Elveva held it (in 



quitclaiine the said tenements to " Father 
Roger de Menebmnde," that is, 1 suppose, 
to Roger, more commonly eaUed "de 
Molend," then Bishop of Lichfield. 



1 Patent. 24 Edw. I., m. 24. 

' He was third husband of Elizabeth le 
Botyler, Baroness of Wem (vide supra, 
Vol. Till, page 22). 



DOOBWAT, EDSTAfiTON CHAPBL. 



EDST ASTON. 



179 



Saxon times) and was a free woman. Here are ii hides^ geldable. 
There is (arable) land for iiii ox-teams. In demesne there is half 
a team ; and ii serfs and iii Boors, with half a team. Here is a 
wood which will fatten lx swine. The value of the Manor was and 
is 10*. {per annum), ''^ 

Horton seems, after Domesday , to have been completely annexed 
to Wcm. The Tenure- Roll of 1286 names Horton, Tilley, and 
Dichelowe as members of Wem. Dichelowe is now represented by 
Ditches and Lowe-Hill, places adjacent to Horton. A Greystock 
Inquest of 14th Henry VI. (1485-6) seems to have treated Horton 
as a separate estate.^ 



€tidtaston. 



I take the original name of this place to have been Edstane^s-ton. 
In Domesday it is called Stanestune, a syllable being apparently 
omitted. — " The same William Pantulf holds Stanestune. Ordui 
and Alveva held it (in Saxon times), and were free. Here are ii 
hides, geldable. There is (arable) land for ii ox-teams. Here iii 
Villains have one team. The wood wiU fatten 60 swine. In King 
Edward's time the Manor was worth 7s, {per annum) : now it is 
worth 20*. He (Pantulf) found it waste.' -^ 

Edstaston, like Horton, became manorially identified with Wem. 
The Tenure-Roll of 1286 names Edistoston as only a member of 
Wem j but the Greystock Inquest of 14 Henry VI. makes a dis- 
tinct valuation of the township of Eddestanton. 

Edstaston Chapel is a very interesting and mysterious founda- 
tion. Its architecture bespeaks a high antiquity, but tells us no- 
thing of its history. Not a word do I find in other Records to fill 
up the hiatus. 



1 Domesday^ fo. 257, a, 2. 

« Calend. Inquis. VoL IV. p. 165. 

' Dometdayy fo. 257, a, 2. Alveya is 



probably identical with Elveva, who held 
Horton, and with Alrera or .ZBlTeva, who 
were Coparceners of Wem. 



180 



^ston. 



This place got its name probably as lying East of Wem. Domes- 
day describes it as follows. — " The same William Pantulf holds 
£stnne and Walter holds it of him. Uluiet and Elmer held it (in 
Saxon times) for two Manors^ and were free. Here is one hide, 
geldable. There is (arable) land for iii ox-teams. In demesne is 
one team and one Serf, one Neatherd, and ii Boors. A Wood here 
will fatten xl swine. The manor was worth 20«. (in Saxon times). 
Now it is worth 10«."^ 

Aston, like Horton and Edstaston, was accounted a mere mem- 
ber of Wem in 1286; and, except at Domesday, seems uniformly 
to have been held in demesne by the Pantulfs and Botilers. 



Cote, now Cuttott* 



That places anciently called Cote should now be called Cotes or 
Cotton is no matter of surprise. The change is only from singu- 
lar to plural ; for Coten is the Saxon plural of Cote. 

Domesday says of this Manor. — '^The same William Pantulf 
holds Cote. Wighe and Grichetel held it (in Saxon times) for two 
Manors, and were free men. Here are ii hides, geldable. There 
is arable land for iii ox-teams. Here ii Radmaus with one Villain 
have one team. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 20s. 
{per annum). Now it is worth 12*. There is a wood here which 
will fatten lx swine, and there is one Haye.'^^ 

Cotton was afterwards reputed a mere member of Wem, as in 
the Tenure- Uoll of 1286, and I find no early instance of any estate 
here being treated as a free tenement. The Greystock Inquest of 
14 Henry VI., before alluded to, treats Coton as a distinct member 
of Wem, containing 60 parcels of land, &c. 

> • 3 JDometdmf, fo. 257, a, 2. 



181 



fiwc^tottf now J^axtomt 



This place was a separate Manor in the 11th century, but was 
accounted a member of Wem in the 18th century. Parochially it 
has always been annexed to Stanton Hineheath. Domesday says 
that,—" The same William Pantulf holds Harpecote. Turtin held 
it (in Saxon times) and was a free man. Here is half a hide, geld- 
able. There is (arable) land for an ox-team and half. Here one 
Badman has half a team. The Manor was worth (in Saxon times) 
8*. : now it is worth 2*. {per annum). ''^ 

The silence of the Hundred-Boll of 1255 about Harpcote, shows 
that the Suits which the Seneschal of Wem did to County and Hun- 
dred, covered any obligation from Harpcote individually. In short 
it was involved in the reputed 14 hides of Wem. — 

However it does not appear that Harpcote was held by the Barons 
of Wem so exclusively in demesne as some of the Manors I have 
lately noticed. — There was a family of freeholders which probably 
held the vill under those Barons during the whole of the 13th cen- 
tury. — At the dose of the 12th century we have seen a Roger de 
Harpcote with his son Roger, interested in Acton Pigot.^ 

Then there was a Walter de Harpcote, occurring in 1226, but 
who before 1255 had been succeeded by his son, Ranulph, at Acton 
Pigot. And this Ranulph de Harpcote, who occurs in various re- 
lations in 1256, 1272, and 1284,^ was, I think. Lord of Harpcote; 
for the Tenure- Roll of 1286, says of Harpecote and Stiell, members 
of Wem, that Ranulf de Harpecote held them for half a knight's- 
fee under Walter and Matilda de Hopton. 

Besides the above four persons who seem to have been in direct 
descent, there was a third Roger de Harpcote, living in 1231 and 
1237, and so cotemporary with Walter de Harpcote. This third Roger 
was amerced half a merk in 1231, for not producing one for whom 
he was Surety. In 1236-7 we have seen that he was in receipt of 
certain rents arising from Preston Brockhurst.^ He was perhaps a 
younger brother of Walter. 

* Domesdcnf, fo. 257, a, 2. I * Supra, Vol. V. p. 181 ; Vol. VI. p. 17. 

' Supra, Vol. VI. pp. 93, 94. I * Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 142. 



182 



WOLVERLEY. 



I have one more^ but that a very indistiuct^ notice of some member 
of this family. A much defaced Roll of Grants to Buildwas Abbey 
includes a gift of the land of Oilemor, by * * * * de Harpcote.^ — 

I think that Coalmore (near Stirchley) was the place meant^ and 
I connect the grant with the occurrence of Walter de Harpecote in 
that neighbourhood about 1220-30.2 



aaaoiberUp. 



Domesday describes this Manor as follows. — 

" William Pantulf holds Ulwardelege of Earl Roger. Wigha and 
Elmer held it (in Saxon times) for two Manors, and were free men. 
Here are iii hides, geldable. There is (arable) land for iiii ox- 
teams. Here are iii Villains, with one team, and a Radman. In 
King Edward^s time the Manor was worth 17*. {per annum). Now 
it is worth 8*. He (Pantulf) found it waste."^ 

Wolverley became more exclusively a member of Wem than 
Harpcote. The Hundred-Roll of 1255, does not name it; the 
Tenure-Roll of 1286, only names it as a member of Wem. I can- 
not find mention of any Free-Tenant here. On the contrary I find 
evidence of the second W^illiam Pantulf holding the place in de- 
mesne. — Between the years 1225 and 1233, William Pantulf, son 
of Hugh Pantulf, gives to Lilleshall Abbey the Mill of Wulfardeleg 
with the Vivary and all the fish thereof, and the messuage held by 
William the Miller, and the suit and service which the men of 
Wuwardeleg were wont to render to the Mill. The Deed reserves 
a rent of 28. to the Grantor, and is attested by Alexander Bishop of 
Coventry and Lichfield.* 

On October 14, 1254, the Abbot of Lilleshall has a W^rit against 
Ralph le Butiller for disseizing him of his tenement in Wolvardele. 



^ Blakeway's Parochial NoUeet^ I. 76. 
' Supra, Vol. II. p. 815. 
> Domesday^ fo. 257, a. 2. 



* Lilleshall Chartulary, fo. 61. The 
Grant is included in Henry III.'s Con- 
firmation of 1265 to the Abbey. 



183 



aifeinston* 



" The same William Pantulf holds Alchetune. Elmer held it (in 
Saxon times) and was a free man. Here are one hide and one vir- 
gate, geldable. There is (arable) land for v ox-teams. In demesne 
there is half a team ; and (there are) one Serf, two Villains, and one 
Boor, with half a team. There is a Wood capable of fattening 100 
Swine. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth £4. 3*. {per 
annum) ; and afterwards (it was worth) the same : now it is worth 
10*. only.^'i 

The Manor thus described in Domesday, differs from some which 
fell into implicit subjection to Wem, in the respect that it was 
very distant from Wem and in the Parish of Whitchurch. 

However the subjection became complete, and, in the Hundred- 
Roll of 1255, Alkington, not being mentioned as a distinct Manor, 
must be taken as involved in the 14 alleged hides of Wem, and as 
held in demesne or villeinage by or under the Barons of Wem. The 
Tenure- Roll of 1286 merely names Alkynton as a member of Wem, 
being held by Walter and Matilda de Hopton, and not, under them, 
by any free Tenant. However on October 18, 1299, we have John, 
son of Madoc de Alkinton, fining half a merk for a writ of trespass 
against some person unnamed.^ Also on April 19, 1304, a Fine 
was levied, whereby William le Knyght of Hethe (Deforciant) re- 
cognizes the right of Richard, son of William le Knyght (Plaintiff) 
to one messuage, 19 acres of (arable) land, 6 acres of meadow, 4 
acres of moor, and half an acre of bosc, in Alghjmton, whereof 
was Plea of convention. In return Richard cedes the premises to 
William for life, at a rose-rent, the lessee to perform all capital 
services. 

» Domesday, fo. 257, a, 2. » Rqi^ FvnUm, 27 Edw. I. 



184 



<[lreat WBitiyj^ioxr}. 



Domesday speaks of one out of three portions of this Manor as 
follows.—" The same William (Pantulf) holds Wicford. Carle held 
it (in Saxon times) . Here is half a hide, geldable. There is (arable) 
land for two ox-teams. Here one Villain and one Boor have one 
team. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth \0s, [per 
annum) . Afterwards it was worth Ss. Now it is worth 8*/'^ 

Nothing stamps the accnracy of Domesday, as a Record of feudal 
usage^ so much as any verification of its statements after a long in- 
terval of silence. — 

For 170 years after Domesday we hear nothing of Pantulf 's in- 
terest in Qreat Withyford, but in the Hundred-Roll of 1255 we 
again learn that " a virgate and half in Wytbyford was held by 
John fitz Aer of the Barony of Weme^ and that for the said land^ 
he rendered the sendee of two foot-soldiers with bows and arrows^ 
for 15 days, in time of war, at Weme.^'^ The rest of Great Withy- 
ford was held by John fitz Aer of a difierent Lord, and by a diflfer- 
ent tenure ; of which matter and its Domesday antecedents I shall 
speak elsewhere. On the death of John fitz Aer in 1293, the In- 
quest makes a statement, slightly diiBTering from the above, but by so 
much nearer to Domesday. It says that " he had held 1^ virgates 
and 1 noke in Wytbyford of the Fee of Wemme, by serjeantry, viz. 
to provide one man with bow and arrows, at Wemme, in time of 



war." 



The Inquest on the death of Hugh fitz Aer in December 1313, 
again varies the extent of his tenure and nature of his service. — 
" He had held half Withyford under Sir William le Botyler, by 
service of one man with a lance, at Wemme, for 20 days, in time 
of war with Wales ; and if the garrison (garnistura) should go out 
of the Castle (of Wem), the aforesaid lancer was still to abide therein, 
to keep watch over the fire {ad custodiendum ignem) "^ I know 
nothing further of the tenure of this part of Withyford. It was 
one of a kind which would naturally become obsolete after the sub- 
jugation of Wales, if not by force of a changing law, which was ever 
facilitating the abolition of feudal tenures by making them saleable. 

» Domesday, fo. 257, a, 2. » Sot Hundred. II. 57. - Jnquis. 7 Edw. II., Ko. 46. 



186 



Braptott iHajjna, or jHarfeet Braptun* 



" The same William (Pantulf) holds one Berewick, viz. Draitune. 
Goduin held it (in Saxon times) and was a free man. Here are ii 
hides^ geldable. There is (arable) land^ enough for viii ox-teams. 
In demesne there is one team; and there are ii Neat-herds^ a 
Priest^ and ii Boors^ with one team. The former value of the estate 
was 20*. Now it is worth 10«."^ 

There were two Draytons in Odenet Hundred. I cannot explain 
why Domesday calls the larger a Bereivick, especially when the men- 
tion of a Priest indicates that there was a Church there. Ordericus 
calls Drayton Ti^aditon, and relates how William Pantulf, return- 
ing from his third visit to Apulia, bestowed the Manor, the Mill, the 
Church, and the tithes of six vills, which pertained to the said 
Church of TVculiton, on the Monks of Noron.' The date of this 
gift is not quite clear; but I take it to have passed in the first 
twelve years of the twelfth century. Now the House of St. Peter 
at Norun, had been founded by William Pantulf himself, as a Cell 
of the great Norman Abbey of St. Evroul, and his gift of Drayton 
became in eflfect a gift to the Parent Abbey. The Proctor or Ma- 
nager of the English estates of St. Evroul was the Prior of Ware, 
a Cell of St. Evroul situated in Hertfor4shire. Combermere Abbey 
was founded about 1133; and it became the interest of the Com- 
bermere Monks to accept a perpetual lease of the Manor of Dray- 
ton, from the Prior of Ware, or from his Principal, the Abbot of 
St. Evroul. The date of this arrangement must have been early 
in the 13th century. Subsequent Records uniformly speak of the 
Monks of Combermere as Lords of Drayton, and it is evident that 
under their auspices the place increased in trading importance and 
became a town rather than an agricultural estate. On November 
8, 1245, King Henry III. being at Worcester grants to Simon Ab- 
bot of Combermere, the privilege of holding a weekly Market, on 
Tuesdays, at his Manor of Draiton; — also of holding an annual 
Fair on the eve, the day, and the morrow of the Nativity of the 
Virgin (Sept. 7, 8, 9) ; — also Blodwite and Infangthef; — also quit- 

^ Dometdoff, fo. 257, a, 2. The Editor has mistakenly identified 2Va- 

3 Ordericus (ed. 1S40)» Vol. II. p, 433. diton witli Trotton in Sussex. 

IX. 21 



186 MARKET DRATTON. 

tance of suits to County and Hundred^ of wapentake and of toll 
throughout the kingdom; — and such other franchises as were 
usually sought for a projected borough.^ This Charter, in which 
originated the distinctive name of Market Drayton, was attested 
{inter alios) by Henry and James de Audley, successive Lords of 
the neighbouring town of Newport. 

After these statements an entry on the Bradford Hundred-Roll of 
1255 becomes very intelligible. — " The Abbot of Cumbermere holds 
Draiton, of the Prior of Ware, with the Church of Draiton, of the 
Fee of Hugh Pounton.^ And the Abbot renders 20 merks per 
annum to the Prior of Ware, and has here a Market by Boyal 
Charter."* 

In January 1256, Alexander Bosse failed to prosecute his suit 
concerning a stank unjustly raised by the Abbot of Cumbermere in 
Drayton. The Sureties of the Defaulter were Henry le Lunr* and 
WiUiam de Cachepol.* 

A Confirmation of Henry III. to Combermere Abbey bears date 
April 4, 1266. It confirms the " Manor of Magna-Drayton-in- 
Hales, by concession of the Abbot and Convent of St. Ebrulf, with 
all its franchises and appurtenances."*' On July 2, 1270, Robert de 
Stoks had a Writ against the Abbot of Cumbermere for disseizin in 
Drayton. The Bradford Tenure-Roll (about 1285) says that ''the 
Abbot of Cumbermere holds the vill of Drayton, in pure alms, of 
the Barony of Wem, and has a Market and Fair by Charter of 
Henry III." The mesne interest of St. Evroul was perhaps un- 
known to the Jurors who ftimished this report. 

The Taxation of 1291 states that the Abbot of Combermere had 
£10 annual rent in the vill of Drayton.* At the Assizes of 1292 
the Abbot was questioned by Writ of Qim> Waranto for his Fran- 
chises at Drayton.7 He defended his right of Market and Fair by 
Henry III.^s Charter. As to holding two great Courts, equal in 
jurisdiction to the Sherifl's' Toums, he defended that by imme- 
morial usage of the Abbots of St. Ebrulph, from whom one of his 
Predecessors purchased Drayton. As to weyf he denied the exer- 
cise thereof. Hugh de Louther, the King's Attorney, having re- 
plied, the case went to a Jury, which found that no Abbot of St. 

» RoL ChaH, 4 Edw. III., m. 3. In- 



speximujB. 

^ The reference is to Hugh Fantulf, 
who had heen dead 30 years, but whose 
benefactions to Combermere probably 
suggested the use of his name when speak- 



ing of the Barony of Wem. 
> Rot. Hundred. II. 56. 
* AMizeSy 40 Hen. III., m. 2. 
« Monasticony V. 824, Num. HI. 
' Pope Nich. Taxationy p. 261. 
7 Quo WarantOy pp. 675-6. 



MARKET DRATTON. 



187 



Ebnilph had ever held a great court at Drayton j for that Drayton 
so long as it was held by those Abbots contained only six cottages^ 
that neither Thomas de Gillyng, that Abbot of Cumbermere to 
whom the Abbot of St. Ebrulph first demised these cottages^ nor 
Abbot Robert, Gillyng's successor, had held any such Court ; but 
that Abbot Simon, Robertas Successor, ten years^ after he had ob- 
tained the Charter of Market, &c., had first usurped the said Courts, 
and the franchises accruing therewith, which were worth 2^. per 
annum. The arrears of this damage, rated at 62^., were now re- 
covered by the Crown, but the Abbot was allowed the franchises for 
the future, on payment of a Fine of one merk. 

In the Nomina ViUarum of 1316, this Vill is called Drayton in 
le Hales, and the Abbot of Combermere entered as Lord. He re- 
mained so till the Dissolution, his rent to St. Evroul having proba- 
bly been bought up to avoid its confiscation as an asset of an Alien 
Monastery. In the Valor of 1534-5, the Abbot of Combermere's 
rents and receipts from Drayton are set down at j£24. ISs. id. per 
annum, and those from Shipforde Grange (which his House had by 
direct grant from Hugh Pantulf ) at 16s, Sd, Out of these receipts 
the Abbot paid one merk to the Crown for exercise of franchises at 
Drayton, and £\. 6s. Sd. to a local BailiflF.^ 

As TO Undertenants in Drayton I can only speak of them 
and the nature of their tenures by setting forth a few local Deeds. — 

About 1260-80 " Ralph le Counte gives to Master Robert de 
Stokes, 9 seylions in the field of Drayton, which he held of Com- 
bermere Abbey, whereof three lay beyond the sichet towards Spon- 
leg, three lay towards Alredde (Adderley), and three in the fields 
towards Betton. The Grantee is to pay the usual rent to the Ab- 
bey, at the same periods as the men of Drayton were accustomed to 
pay the ferm due from them to the Abbey. For this the Grantee 
gave one merk. Witnesses, Roger de Coleshasel, Hugh de Bosco, 
Henry de Pechesey, Elyas de Stokes, and John de Cotes."^ 

The following Deeds are apparently later. — 

'^ R. Abbot of Cumbremare concedes to Alan, son of Adam Smith 
of Magna-Drayton-in^Hales, and to his heirs, one burgage, one half- 
burgage, one market-stall {seudam), one strip of ground {landam 
terra) in the field towards Betton, and one acre in Gosemer, all 
which had been held by the Graiitee^s father ; — also half an acre in 



1 This would make Abbot Simon to 
have been in office as late ae 1265. We 
know however that an Abbot, Williun, 



had succeeded him in 1262. 

' MoHoHicon, Y. 827, Num. XII. 
3 Charter at Adderley. 



188 



MAEKET DRATTON. 



the BrodemoT^ between the lands of William Cobert and William le 
Bowiere. The Grantee is held by the same fealty and other ser- 
vices as his father had rendered, and not to assign the premises to 
any Religious body. Witnesses, Roger de Ethelarton, William de 
Piclesleye, Adam le Hore of Norton, Reginald le Hore of Norton, 
and WiUiam de HuUe/^i 

The same " Abbot R. gives to William de Lake a bai^age in 
Drayton (between the burgages of William Suetecot and William 
Hert) and 9 seylions in the field of Drayton, viz. three towards 
Wlonkeslowe, between the lands of Walter Hodi and Rondulf fitz 
Richard, three in the field towards Schifbrd, and three in the field 
towards Betton ; also gives one seylion in Longeforlong, and half 
an acre in Gosemere. The Grantee is to do fealty and other accus- 
tomed services, and to transmit the premises to his heirs or assigns, 
save religious persons and persons of rank {magnatibvs). Witnesses^ 
Stephen de Okeley, Richard de Weston, Hugh de Wlonkeslowe, 
Adam le Hore, and Adam Clerk/'^ 

The following Deed is practically a surrender, but I have nothing 
to guide me as regards its date. — " William Dulbeyn of Drayton 
gives in pure alms to the Church of the Blessed Mary and St. 
Michael of Cumbermare a messuage in Magna Drayton, and all the 
lands, arable or not, which he held within or without the said vill ; 
— to hold to the Abbey under the Grantor and his heirs, free of all 
services except the benefit of the Conventual prayers in his behalf. 
Witnesses, Alan Cocus of Drayton; Philip de Tunstal, Clerk; 
William le Cachepol ; William le Carter ; Adam le Fever ; Richard 
Knarrich, and Richard de Buntenesdal.^'^ 

THE CHURCH. 

Drayton was probably one of the Saxon Parishes of Shropshire,* 
and the Priest, resident here at the time of Domesday, was probably 
Rector of the Church. 

When William Pantulf gave this Church to St. Peters of Norun, 
the gift, according to Ordericus, involved the tithes of six Vills. It 
is difficult to say what vills were here alluded to ; but Magna Dray- 
ton, Sutton, Woodseaves, Buntingsdale, Tyrley, and Almington, will 
sufficiently correspond with the, perhaps general, expression used by 
Ordericus. 



1 Charters at Adderley. 
3 Tradition speaks of Chapels some- 
time existent at Bctton-in-Hales and at 



Hales-Green, in this Parish. These were 
probably not the only affiliations of Dray- 
ton Church. 



THE CHURCH. 189 

The Hundred-Roll of 1255 assigns the Churchy as well as the 
Manor^ of Drayton, to Combermere Abbey. However, the Ad- 
Yowson was afterwards recovered by the Abbey of St. Evroul. 

The Taxation of 1291 gives a great idea of the revenues of this 
Church. The Church of " Drayton in Hales" in the Deanery of 
Newport (that is, the Eectory) was worth £12 per annum^ over and 
above the Pension chargeable thereon.^ The said Pension was 
£1. 10^. payable to the Abbot of Shrewsbury, and was probably a 
composition in lieu of certain tithes, abandoned by the Abbot, as 
Lord of Betton-in-Hales and Bichwardine. Besides this, the Vicar- 
age of Drayton in Hales had a separate valuation of £6. 13«. 4rf.' 

At the Assizes of 1292 the Abbot of St. Ebrulph was sued for 
the Advowson of Magna Drayton as having descended to Edward 
I. firom Henry II., who was now alleged to have presented one 
John fitz Thomas, his Clerk, thereto. The Abbot appealed to a 
Jury, which decided his right to be better than that of the King.^ 

In 1341, the Assessors of the Ninth quoted the Taxation of the 
Church of Drayton in le Halys as one of £12. This they further 
reduced to £10 for the current assessment, saying that the glebe- 
land, rents, oblations, mortuaries, and other income of the Church, 
went to make up the assessment of £12, and had nothing to do 
with the present tax. To the Ninth, thus computed at £10, the 
Temporalities of Shrewsbury Abbey (at Little Drayton and Betton, 
I presume) furnished a quota.^ 

The Advowson of Market Drayton eventually escheated to the 
Crown as an Asset of an Alien Monastery. King Henry Y . granted 
to the Carthusians of Sheen (in Surrey), who had it at the Dis- 
solution. The Valor of 1534-5 gives the Vicarage, then held by 
Badtdph Tytteley, as worth £13. 68. 8rf. per annum. The charges on 
this income were 4*. for Synodals, 8*. for Procurations, 28. 4d. for 
an annual pension payable to Tyrley Chapel, and 1«. 9rf. for another 
pension payable to the Diocesan Bishop.^ 

EARLY INCUMBENTS. ' 

EoBERT, Priest of Dreiton, and his son Ivo, occur in 1186-7. 
John pitz Thomas has occurred above as the alleged Presentee 
of King Henry II. (between 1154 and 1189). 
Philip, Vicar of Drayton, occurs in 1256. 
Robert was the name of the Vicar between 1279 and 1281, 

» • * Pope Nich. Taxation^ pp. 248, 245. I * Inquis. Nanarum, p. 186. 

» Quo JFaratUo, p. 682. I * Valor Ecclenasticus, III. 187. 



190 



MARKBT DRAYTON. 



when the following alShir took plaee^ as I learn from the present- 
ments of the Bradford Jurors at the Assizes of 1292. — 

'^ It had been enjoined by Writ Boyal on Roger Sprengehoes^ 
Sheriff^ that^ taking with him the Posse Comitatus, he should go to 
the Church of Drayton^ for the purpose of removing a layman who 
had been placed therein by the Abbot of Combermere.^ And the 
said Boger went^ and^ with him^ William Tuder of Upton^ Ralph 
le Botiller^ Thomas his brother^ Robert de Rossale^ Parson of Ros- 
sale^ Henry le Macoun^ John Traynel^ Richard del Bury of Cherl- 
ton^ and others^ and removed the aforesaid Abbot's Layman. The 
Sheriff went away (rediit), and William Tuder^ Ralph le Botiller^ 
and all the rest, betook themselves to the House of the Vicar of 
Drayton, and departing thence towards Tyrley they came to the 
steps of the Cemetery of Drayton Church.* There they met Bro- 
ther Richard de Overton, Thomas, Seneschal of the Prior of Ware, 
Robert, Vicar of Drayton, Henry, a Vassal of the Prior of Ware, 
and sixteen others of the Abbot of Combermere's party. A quar- 
rel ensued. One Alan, son of Walter Hody, who had come with 
William Tuder, on the part of the Prior of Ware, shot Robert 
Brun, one of the Abbot's men. The latter went home to Dodicote, 
and died on the fourth day after. His Widow, Alice, brought his 
body to the place where he had received his death-wound, and the 
Vicar of Drayton buried it without View of the Coroner." 

Here were at least three matters pertaining to those Placita Co- 
rona for which the Hundred was responsible, viz. the breach of the 
peace, the manslaughter, and the burial sine visu Coronatoris. But 
a fourth matter remained, discovered, it appears, by scrutiny of the 
Coroner's Rolls (his memoranda). During the fight a Lay-monk^ 
of Combermere struck Ralph le Botiller's horse. The Baron went 
to Tyrley and armed himself. Thence, still accompanied by the 
Posse ComitatHSf he proceeded to the Abbof s Grange of Dodicote,^ 
and beat, wounded, and plundered the Abbot's men. 

Various arrests and other steps had since been made in these 



^ *' Ad removendum unum Unealem in 
eddem ecclesid per Abhatem de Cfumber' 
mere existentem** — I suppose that the 
Adyowson of Drayton being in dispute, 
some layman had been put in corporal 
possession of the Church by the Abbot of 
Combermere, in contrarention of the right 
of Patronage asserted by the Prior of 
Ware, as Prootor of St. £?roul. I refer 



to the Begittrum Brevium (pp. 69-61) for 
examples of the King's Writ, de vi laicd 
amovendd, and of the powers which it 
conferred on the Sheriff to enforce it, by 
aid of the Posse ComUaHs. 

^ Ad scalariam oimUerii predicts Sc- 
clesi€S, 

' I'k'ater conversus. 

* Vide supra, VoL VIII. p. 16. 



THE CHURCH. 191 

matters. IrUer alia, a Jury of the Hundred had pronounced^ or 
now pronounced^ Alan Hody blameless in the afiair. As to Robert^ 
Vicar of Drayton, he too was found to have been blameless, but 
whereas he had fled somewhither, his lay chattels, worth 25^., were 
confiscated. ♦ Henry, the Vassal of the Prior of Ware, had been 
also challenged as an accessory to Robert Brunts death, by the 
widow. The said widow was now deceased. The said Henry ap- 
peared in Court, but refused to put himself on trial by Jury. So 
the Court recommitted him to prison and adjudged him to suffer 
the statutory penalty {poenam statuti). The Jury of the Hundred, 
which tried Alan Hody, found John Traynel to have been guilty of 
the murder. He could not be found, and so was outlawed. From 
an interlineation in the Record it would seem that he was dead. It 
is certain from other authority that Ralph le Botiller also had been 
now dead eleven years, but of that fact the Record takes no notice. 
There are several other points in the narrative which I do not 
understand, for instance, the Prior of Ware having representatives 
on each side of the quarrel. However we have a picture of the 
f times, and of the predicaments of a Baron, a Sheriff, and a Priest, 
when an ordinary matter of official routine ended in a bloody 
riot. 

Walter de Petlings, Priest, was instituted to the Vicarage of 
Drayton-in-Hales on February 24, 1300, at the presentation of 
Ralph, Prior of Ware, and Proctor of the Abbot and Convent of 
St. Ebrulf. 

The Vicarage is said to have been vacant on June 4, 1828, in 
consequence of the death of — 

John de Pylarton, and on that day — 

Gilbert be Onne is said to have been instituted on the presen- 
tation of the Prior of Ware, &c. However — 

Walter Petlings, " last Vicar," is also said to have died on 
February 10, 1334, and to have made way for — 

Thomas le Foulen, Deacon, instituted April 7, 1334^ on the 
presentation of Brother John Guerard, Prior of Ware. This 
Vicar, or some successor, died July 31, 1354, and, on August 8 
foUowing,— 

Thomas fitz Peter of Melborn, Priest, was instituted, the 
King presenting, because the Priory of Ware was in his hand, pend- 
ing the war with France. On September 30, 1356, Thomas de 
Melborn exchanged preferments with — 

Sir John de Wychardelby, late Rector of Langeton (Line. 



192 TIELET CASTLE. 

Dioc.)> who was admitted to Drayton at presentation of the King. 
On January 4, 1370, — 

William db Montoohert, Vicar of Drayton, exchanges with — 

William Cookes, late Rector of Adderley, presented to Dray- 
ton by the Crown. Cookes died in 1875, when on January 10, — 

Thomas de Wynterton, Deacon, was instituted on a Crown 
presentation. On October 15, 1379, Wynterton exchanged with — 

Hugh de Ktnoelee, Priest, late Incumbent of Chedall. 

Hugh Tittelyng (perhaps the same person), died 1382, when 
on Decfember 2, — 

John Boltby, Priest, was instituted, the King again presenting 
in right of his Escheat of Alien Monasteries. 

Sir Thomas Sooenhull, Yicar of Drayton, died in 1408. 



CirUp CawtU, 



Domesday notices the Manor of Tirley in these words. — " The 
same William Pantulf holds Tirelire (of Earl Roger). Uluric and 
Bauesuard held it (in Saxon times) for two Manors, and were free. 
Here is one hide, geldable. There is (arable) land for ii ox-teams. 
Here are iiii Villains and one Serf, with one team. The former 
value of the Manor was 178. {per annum) : now it is worth 20*.''^ 

The River Tern, from which Tirley, or Temley, took its name, 
presented a better boundary for the Counties of Shropshire and 
Staffordshire than that which existed at Domesday. Tirley, being 
East of the Tern, was annexed to Staffordshire, probably in the 
time of Henry I. There may have been another reason for the 
change. William Pantulf had parted with Drayton, the nearest 
Shropshire Manor to Tirley, but retained Alminton, the nearest 
Staffordshire Manor. To throw the two latter into the same juris- 
diction was obviously convenient. In May 1247 1 find notice of a 
Suit concerning estovers in the bosc of Tyrle, in which the Abbot 
of Cumbermere was opposed to Ralph le Butiller and his wife Ma- 
tilda. At the Assizes of 1256, William de Goldstan withdrew his 
prosecution against the same Ralph and Matilda, who had disseized 
him of common-pasture in Tyrlegh. His Sureties de prosequendo 

1 Domeiday, fo. 25^, a, 2. 



TIRLET CASTLE. 198 

were William fitz Hugh and Thomas le Franceis, both of Seworthyn. 
At the Assizes of 1267 Alice B "'*' * *, having a suit of mort (Pan- 
cestre against Agnes de Tireleye, was allowed to amend her form of 
procedure. The above three Pleas, I should observe, are all en- 
tered on the Rolls as belonging to Shropshire, a circumstance 
which su^ests a doubt as to whether the annexation of Tirley to 
StafiPordshire was as yet recognized in the Courts of Law. 

We have seen how, about the year 1280, Ralph le Botiller, in- 
censed by a collision with the Abbot of Combermere^s men, in 
the streets of Drayton, and meditating an onslaught at Dodicote 
Grange, first retired to Tirley to arm himself. The circumstance 
is curious, for we happen to know that this very Baron was the 
Founder of Tirley Castle, and that dying in 1281, he left it incom- 
plete. The Inquest on his death makes Tirley a Shropshire Manor, 
and part of the inheritance of his wife Matilda. The Manor con- 
tained an unfinished Fortalice {fortelettum incepium), a messuage, 
a garden, an ill-fenced Park, and a great wood, which was a Free 
Chace?- 

From a Stafibrdshire Feodary of 1284, I find that the Manor of 
Cublesdon, near Stone, was held by Roese Trussel (she was heiress 
of Pantulf of Cublesdon and SherijBT Hales), of the Barony of 
Wem, and that the service due from Cublesdon was that of one foot^ 
Boldi^, to serve eight days at Trileg with bow and arrows. The 
Inquest on the death of William le Botiler (II.) in 1334, places his 
Manor of Tyrley in Stafibrdshire. So does the Inquest Ad quod 
damnum of 1343, already quoted under Hinstock. Subsequent In- 
quests make the same assignment of Tirley, which was uniformly 
retained as a demesne Manor by the Barons of Wem : but I need 
not here repeat particulars about Tirley which have already trans* 
pired. 

Broom Hall and Shipford. I am not quite clear that one or 
both of these places may not be considered as originally appurtenant 
to Tirley rather than to Alminton. Hugh Pantulf s grant of both 
to Combermere Abbey has already been treated of.* They both be* 
came Granges of that House and are still called Granges. 

In November 1271 William Shine' of Whiston had a suit of 
mort d'aTweatre against William de Drayton and Margery his wife 
for 3 acres and one rood in Bromhale. This Writ places Bromhale 
in Shropshire. 

TiRLsr Chapel. The earliest notice which I have of this founo 

I /ft^KifOtofw, 9 Kdw. I., No. 10. ' Supra, p. 163. 

IX. 25 



194 DODINGTON. 

dation is in the Valor of 1534-5, when it would appear to have 
been endowed with a charge of 2s. 4rf. on the Vicarage of Market 
Drayton. 



BoHington 



Having now disposed of William Pantulf s Domesday Manors in 
Odenet Hundred, I proceed with the three Manors of Roger de 
Curcelle, because, as I have remarked under Tibberton and Sutton, 
all Roger de Curcelle's Manors were eventually annexed to the 
Barony of Pantulf. — 

" The same Roger de Curcelle holds Dodetune of Earl Roger. 
Earl Eduin held it (in Saxon times). Here is one hide, geldable. 
Here are iiii Villains and one Radman, with two ox-teams ; and 
other two teams might be employed. The wood will fatten lx 
swine. The Manor used to be worth 16s. {per annum). Now it 
is worth 9*.'^^ 

At the present day, the vill of Dodington forms the southern 
portion of the town of Whitchurch. The name Dodington still 
exists, and the township, so called, contains 1626 acres; a very 
large area in proportion to the single hide of Domesday. The 
first notice which I have of Dodington, as annexed to the Barony 
of Wera, is in the Hundred-Roll of 1255. There, Duthinton, 
computed to contain IJ hides, is said to be of the Pee of Wem. 
" Ralph le Botiler, Lord of the Vill, did suit to County and 
Hundred through his Seneschal f' ^ that is, the suit of the Se- 
neschal of Wem covered any distinct liability of Dodington. The 
increase of half a hide on the Domesday hidage, which we ob- 
serve here, is unusual ; but if Edgeley and Steel (not mentioned in 
the Hundred- Roll) were taken into account, three Domesday hides 
were represented by the alleged 1 J hides. 

We have heard of the marriage, proposed in 1261, between 
Ralph le Botiler^s son William, and Ankaret, niece of James de 
Audley.* Here is a deed fixing their marriage portion. — 

Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Radulphus le Boteleer Dofninus 
de Wemme et Matildis uxor mea dedimus Willielmo filio nostro et 

1 Domesdatf, fo. 256, a, 2. ^ Sot. Hundred. II. 56. ' Supra, pa^ 170. 



DODINGTON. 195 

Ankareta filia Oriffini uxori stue, in Uberum mariioffium, duo Ma- 
neria scilicet Northborough in Com. Leyc. et Dodinton in Com. Salop. 
Teste, Domino Jacobo de Audelegh.^ 

This settlement^ so far as it relates to Dodington^ was confirmed 
by a Fine of June 23, 1280. Thereby William Bel-Enfaunt (Pair- 
child), attorney of Ralph le Butyler and Maud his wife (Impedi- 
ents), acknowledges their gift of the Manor of Dodinton to William 
le Butyler and Ingaretta his wife ; — to hold to them and the heirs 
of William, immediately of the King, by accustomed services. 
For this Fine William is said to have paid a sore goshawk (asturcum 
sorum) . It was levied by assent and will of the King. 

I have quoted the Inquest of January 1284, which shows William 
le Botiler to have died seized of Dudinton and Lopington, and I 
may here add of Norborough. The Bradford Tenure-Roll (about 
1286) reckons Dodington, Alkynton, and Edisley (Edgeley) to be 
members of Wem, but adds that Ankaret, widow of William But- 
teler, held all three, under Walter and Matilda de Hopton. Then 
follows this ungrammatical and otherwise inaccurate sentence ; — 
^' sed homagium facit Willielmus Domino Rege et servicium apud 
Wem.^^ — It means, I suppose, that the deceased, though the King 
had accepted his direct homage for Dodington, &c., had been bound 
to the usual and proportionate service at Wem Castle, and had so 
far held of the Baron of Wem. 

We have seen how Ankaret ap Griffin, then the wife of Robert 
de Nevyle, was holding Dodington in 1292. A Leicestershire Feo- 
dary of 1296 gives Ankaret, widow of William le Boteler, as hold- 
ing Norborough of Ralph le Botiler, while Ralph held of the Earl 
of Warwick.^ A mistake as to the date (1296) or the name 
{Ralph) is here apparent. The rest of the quotation is explained by 
what I have said about Norborough in a former Volume.^ 

A settlement of Dodyton, as proposed by William le Botyler (II.) 
in 1327, has been already given under Wem :^ where also I have 
shown how he died seized of Dodyugton in 1334, and how in 1343 
it was held by John le Strange of Whitchurch, in pursuance of the 
settlement of 1327. Its proximity to Whitchurch, as compared 
with its distance from Wem, doubtless suggested the said transfer. 

Of Undertenants in Dodington I must speak suggestively, for 
I am far from sure that all the persons now to be mentioned be- 
longed to the locality now under notice. — 

» • » Nichols' $ LeieeHenhire, Vol. IV. I ^ Supra, Vol VII. p. 76, note 62. 
Fart II. page 813. I * Supra, page 175. 



196 EDGELEY. 

In 1177^ Adam de Dunniton was amerced one merk by King 
Henry II., holding pleas of the Forest. In 1188, William de Do- 
rinton was amerced 2*. for default y by Justices of the Forest. ^. In 
1203, and afterwards, we hare bad mention under Woodcote of 
Avelina, daughter of Richard de Woodcote, and widow of Adam de 
Dodington. After this, from 1226 to 1251, we have repeated notices 
of another Adam de Dodinton, but only as concerned in South 
Shropshire.^ 

We may be sure that Adam de Dorinton, who sat on a Whit- 
church Jury in March 1281, was of the place now under notice. 



Ctiplep- 



" The same Roger de Curcelle holds Edeslai. Aluric held it (in 
Saxon times) and was a free man. Here is one hide, geldable. 
Here are i Radman, i Villain, and v Boors, with one ox-team, and 
there might be five more teams here. Here is one Serf. In King 
Edward's time the Manor was worth 40^. {per annum). Now it is 
worth \28. He (De Curcelle) found it waste.''* This place is never 
spoken of, after Domesday, except as a member of Wem. It was 
held in 1286 by Ankaret widow of William le Boteler, probably in 
dower. 

The Undertenants here, were probably those Meverels of 
whom we have frequent mention in connection with the Barons of 
Wem. For instance, we have seen Walter Meverel attesting, about 
1175-6, Ivo Pantulfs Charters to Shrewsbury and Haughmond 
Abbeys.* Among Pleas standing for trial at Shrewsbury in August 
1226, Ivo Meverel neglected to prosecute his suits of mort d^ances- 
tre against Roger Meverel for half a virgate in EdesP, and against 
William Pantulf for half a virgate in the same. 

In November 1236, the Justices in eyre amerced Thomas Meverel 
half a merk, for false claim ; and in 1261, Luke Meverel fined one 
merk for a Writ of Pone, but I cannot say that either of these 
persons was of Edgeley. A Sandford Inquest of 1308, vas attended 
by Roger Meverel. 

» Supra, Vol. I. pp. 191, 226 j Vol. II. I ^ Domesday, fo. 256, a, 2. 
p. 99 } Vol. IV. p. 282. I 3 Vol. VIII. p. 27-8 ; Vol. IX. p. 163. 



197 



Steele* 



" The same B.oger de Curcelle holds Stile. Algar, Collinc, Bric- 
tric^ and Turgar held it (in Saxon times) for four Manors and were 
free men. Here is one hide. Here are four villains and one 
Boor with one team^ and there might be two more teams. A wood 
here will fatten xxx swine. In King Edward's time the Manor 
was worth 18«. {per annum) ; now it is worth 6^.''^ 

Steele is in the Parish of Frees^ but it followed a uniform rule^ in 
passing from Koger de Curcelle to the Barony of Wem. It was 
also manorially considered a member of Wem. Thus in 1286^ 
Steill and Harpecote were both held by Ranulph de Harpecote^ for 
half a knightVfee, under Walter and Matilda de Hopton. The 
Greystock Inquest of 14 Henry VI., gives a distinct valuation of 
the Yill of Stile. It contained 34 messuages. 

The only Undertenants I can name here, were Adam ale StU 
chele, who attests a Sandford Deed about 1230, and William de 
Stywele, associated in 1253, with William de Blancminster in a 
raid on the estates of Combermere Abbey. About 1260-80, Hugh 
de Siiele, in one instance styled Lord of Stiele, is a witness of local 
Deeds. Of him we shall hear more under Whixall. Later in the 
Century one TTiomas de Siyele occurs in connection with Whixall. 



l^ttton in f^ales« 



Next to William PantulPs, the largest interest in the Domesday 
Hundred of Odenet was that of Gerard de Tomai. Out of the 
seven Manors which he held, I commence with Betton, because it is 
associated with the earlier history of Tornai's Fief. — "The same 
Gerard holds Baitune (of Earl Roger) . Ulchete held it (in Saxon 
times) and was a free man. Here are iii hides, geldable. There is 
(arable) land for vi ox-teams. In demesne are two teams ; and 

^ Dometday^ fo. 256, a, 2. 



198 BETTON IN HALES. 

(there are) ii Serfs^ ii Neatherds, and iii Boors^ with one team. 
Here is a Mill^ and a wood which will fatten lx swine ; and here are 
two Hayes, In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 4ld$, 
{per annum). Now it is worth 30«/'^ 

Between the year 1085 (the date of Domesday) and 1093-4 (the 
date of Earl Roger's death) ^ Gerard de Tornai gave the vill of Betton 
to Shrewsbury Abbey. Gerardus de Tomaco (dedit) Beitonamy 
says the Earl himself in his Confirmation to the Abbey. The fact 
is repeated in the various Confirmations of William II., Henry I., 
Stephen, Henry II., and Henry III. ; but, more than that, it is 
recited in a Charter of Hamo Peverel and his wife Sibil, which 
passed about 1134, and of which the following is an abstract. — 

Notum sit, ^c, quod Gyrardus de Toumay dedit villam appeUatam 
Beitonam cum molendinOj ^c. libere et quiete ab omni servicio et ah 
omni calumpmd successorum suorum, coram Rogero Comite, Domino 
suo, qui hanc donacionem concessit et confirmavit. Et nos Hdmo 
Peverel et Sibilla conjux mea, jure hereditario predicti Gyrardi sue- 
cessores, hanc donacionem firmam et stabilem inperpetuum Deo et 
Sancto Petro concessimus et presenti cartd confirmavimus. Testibus, 
Willielmo Peverel; Walchelino Maminot; Willielmo de Hedlega, et 
filiis suis, Alana et Willielmo ; Nigello de Sauberia, et Roberto filio 
suo; Ricardo de Linlega ; Radulfo de lima; Willielmo de Tomay; 
Alano filio Thebaldi; Henrico de Feolgeres ; Roberto de Meleboma ; 
Gerardo Pincema ; Osmundo de Tunstol; et multis aliis.^ 

It must not be supposed, from the above, that the gift of the vill 
of Betton implied the whole of the Domesday Manor. That it did 
not, I have good proof, without relying on Earl Hugh's spurious 
Charter to Shrewsbury Abbey, which represents Hamo Peverel as 
standing in the Earl's presence and giving the tithes of his demesne 
of Buton subtus Lima. It is probable that Hamo Peverel had no 
such demesne to charge. What he had, was the Seigneury of Tun- 
stal^ a member of Betton^ and this he conveyed to the Abbey about 
40 years afterwards, that is, after the death of Henry I., and probably 
in 1136-7. I again give an abstract of his Charter. — 

Notum sit, §-c. quod Hamo Peverel dedit EcclesuB Sancti Petri de 
Salopesbia villam qtuB vocatur Dunstal et servicium militis qui cam 
tenebat, ita ut ipse miles, Osmundus nomine, habeat cam in feudo, 
sibi et heredibus suis, et dabit Monachis quocunque anno ii solidos 
de recognicione adfestum Sti Michaelis; et ipse Miles hoc libenter 
concessit. His testibus, Radulfo filio Thealdi ; Radulfo filio Gavfridi ; 

I JDometda^f fo. 269, a, 1. > Salop Chartulary, No. 19. 



BETTON IN HALES. 199 

Radtdfo filio ClareV ; Roberto Presbitro de Dreitona ; Ivone filio 
ejus; Turstano fratre ejusdem Osmundi; Ricardo Presbitro de Novo 
Burgo ; Pagano de Novo Burgo et m, a.^ 

The Empress's Charter to Shrewsbury Abbey confirms Hamo 
Peverers grant of Tunstall, apparently as one made since her 
Father's death.^ This confirmation passed about 1141. Between 
1161 and 1182, Richard Peche, Bishop of Coventry, confirmed to 
the Abbey the tithes of Betton under Lime as tithes of its own de- 
mesnes.* Between 1175 and 1190, Ralph, Abbot of Shrewsbury, 
came to an agreement with Walter de Dunstanvill (as Lord of Ad- 
derley) . It was that Walter and his heirs, without any power of 
revocation by the Abbey, should hold a certain parcel of the wood of 
Beiton, which he, by the Abbotts permission, had enclosed in his 
Park. The Abbot on the other hand was similarly to hold a parcel 
of the wood of EthdredesV (probably Adderley is meant) which 
stood apart of itself, on one side of the road at Rugwardine (Rich- 
wardine) . Witnesses, — William and Thecelline, Clerks of Walter ; 
Robert de Lintot ; William de C * * ; Stephen de Acleth (Oak- 
ley) ; Ivo de Tunstall ; Radulf de CherV ; Robert de Longeford.* 

The Bradford Hundred-Roll of 1255, says that " the Abbot of 
Salop holds the Manor of Betton by gift of Gerard de Tomey, in 
free alms ; and it is vi hides and not geldable ; nor does it any suit 
to County or Hundred.''* When Betton is thus spoken of, as a 
Manor of six hides, it must be taken to include Norton in Hales, 
a Manor acquired by Shrewsbury Abbey in quite a different way 
from Betton, but which consisted of three Domesday hides and is 
not mentioned in the Hundred-Roll of 1255. 

On May 18, 1256, King Henry III. being at Reading, granted 
the Abbot of Salop license to hold a weekly Market, on Thursdays, 
at his Manor of Betton subtus Lime, and a yearly Fair of 4 days, 
viz. the vigil, the day of, and the two days following, the feast of St. 
Matthew the Apostle (September 20-23) .« King Henry III.'s 
Charter of Free Warren, passing at Windsor on May 21, 1256, 
allows the same Abbot that privilege in his demesnes of Betton sub- 
tus Lime, kcJ 

In September 1276, certain disputes were settled between the 
Abbot of Combermere, as Impropriator of the Rectory of Market . 
Drayton, and the Abbot of Shrewsbury about tithes of newly culti- 
vated land in Betton-subtus-Lime, which was within the Parish of 

^ Salop CJhartulary, No. 20. I • Sot. Hundred, II. 58. 

< • s - « Salop Chart. No6. 40, 829, 21. I * ' / Salop Ghartulary, Koe. 62, 58. 



200 BETTON IN HALES. 

Drayton. It was agreed that the Abbot of Shrewsbury should re- 
ceive all tithes of lands within the territory of Betton, Rugworthin 
(Bichwardine), and TunstaU^ as he was accustomed to do, and that 
he should pay to the Abbot of Combermere two merks yearly at the 
Church of Drayton.^ I do not find that this arrangement had any 
permanence, for (as we have seen), in 1291, the Abbot of Shrews- 
bury, instead of paying anything to, received a pension of 80«. from, 
Drayton Church. It is at the same time clear that he never aban- 
doned his tithes in the Parish. 

The Tenure-Roll of Bradford Hundred (about 1286) makes 
Norton, TunstaU, Rigwardine, Lees (now ''The Lees''), and half 
Little Drayton, to be members of the Abbot of Shrewsbury's Manor 
of Betton. This was with a view to oonciBeness rather than topo- 
graphical accuracy, as we shall see in the sequel. 

The Tojpation of 1291 gives the Abbot of Shrewsbury the follow- 
ing annual income from Burton 9ub Lima, viz. £2 from 2 carucates 
of land; £12. 5«. ^\d. from assized rents; £1. 10^. from a Mill; 
and 10«. from Pleas and Perquisites of Court.' The total of £16. 
5«. b\d. must be taken to include the Abbot's receipts from Betton, 
Tunstall, Bichwardine, Norton, Lees, and Little Drayton. 

In May 1294, there was an agreement between the Abbot of 
Shrewsbury and Stephen, son of Stephen de Ocleg, with respect to 
the Mill of Betton subtus Lime. It was attested by Sir William 
de Tyteleg, then Sheriff of Salop ; William de Hodnet ; Thomas 
Corbet ; Robert Bromleg ; and Henry de Cresswell, Knights ; Re- 
ginald de Shavinton, William de Norton, William de Calverhall, 
and Philip de Dunstale.^ 

A Ren(-Roll of Shrewsbury Abbey, drawn up about 1490, gives 
£23. l&ff. 7d. as the gross receipts from Betton under Lyne. This 
includes 25 items, among which are the Chief-rent of Norton — 
£1 ; the Chief-rent of Ryghtwarden — 12«. ; from Thomas Egerton 
of Leys — £2. Zs. \0d. ; from Richard Egerton, for Betton wood, 5 
nobles (i. e. £3. 6«. M.)> 

The Valor of 1534 gives £26. Us. 3d. as the Abbot of Shrews- 
bury's temporal receipts fit)m Betton subtus Lyne. His portion of 
the tithes thereof made a further asset of £4.' In 1541-2 the 
Ministers' Accounts reduce the late Abbey^s receipts from Betton 
subtus Line to £21. I3s. 5{d.^ 



» Salop Chartalary, No. 391. 
• Pope Nich. TaxatUmy p. 260. 
> Salop Chariulary, No. 278. 



* Hist. Shrewhwry, IT. 509. 

• Valor JEcclei, III. pp. 189, 190. 
< Monatiieon^ Vol. III. page 529. 



TUNSTALL. 201 

In all these valuations Betton must be taken to have included 
not only its own members of Tunstall, Richwardine, and The Lees, 
but the otherwise distinct Manors of Norton and Little Drayton. 

Betton Chapel. Tradition is the only authority I have for the 
former existence of this Chapel. The district belongs parochially 
to Market Drayton. 

TUNSTALL. 

We have seen that Osmund de Tunstall, living about 1134 -7, 
held Tunstall by 2*. rent, first under Hamo Peverel, and then under 
Shrewsbury Abbey .^ Ivo de Tunstall, who occurs about forty or 
fifty years later, was probably Osmund's successor in this tenure. 

We next hear of this Ivo's son, Richard. He, much I imagine 
to the annoyance of his Suzerains, the Monks of Salop, alienated 
part of Tunstall to the rival Abbey of Combermere. His deed, 
which passed about 1240, runs as follows. — 

Notum sit omnibus hoc scriptum visuris ^c, quod ego Ricardus 
filius Yvonuf, dominus de Tunstall, pro salute animce mea et ancesso- 
rum et successorum dedi Deo et Beata MaruB et Sancto Michaeli et 
Abbati et Conventui de Cumbermar in liberam, puram, et perpetuam 
elemosynam, una cum presenti corpore meo, duo prata de dominico 
meo de Tunstall, viz. pratum vocatum Brademedwe et pratum quod 
jacet inter Heldam subtus Turistal et aquam de Tyrne, Concessi 
etiam * * * * arf domum quandam Umgam consiruendam extra di- 
visas predicti prati supra terram meam, viz. subtus predict am Hel- 
dam, ubicunque sibi magis expedire indicaverint, et communiam 
pasture ad Tunstal pertinentis, preter sata et prata, ad alenda ave- 
ria sua, de Bromhale, ^c. ; — tenenda et habenda de me et keredibus, 
libere, absque omni servicio, sicut puram decet elemosynam. Hiis 
testibus ; — Domino Odone de Hodeneth ; Domino WUlielmo de Hed- 
leye; Domino Ricardo de Sandford; Domino Walter o de Say; 
Rogero de Pivlesdun, Edtvino de Wilauston, Henrico de Savinton 
et aliis.^ 

Among several Deeds of the same Grantor, I have quoted the 
above first, not as earliest in time, but as showing his parentage* 
Here follows the substance of several Deeds showing how he and 
his son gradually surrendered the rest of their estate to their omu 
Suzerain, the Abbot of Shrewsbury. — 

In 1232, as Richard de Tunstal, he concedes to Salop Abbey for 
3 merks, a virgate in Tunstal sometime held by William de Offeleg, 

* Supra, page 198. ' Charter at Adderley. 

IX. 26 



202 BETTON IN HALES. 

to hold to the Abbey for 24 years commencing March 25, 1232. 
Witnesses, Stephen de Hocle, Adam de Nortun, and Benedict de 
Estun.i 

About the same time, and as "Richard, Lord of Tnnstal, he 
gives to Thomas de Mosselowe, for his homage, &c., one parcel of 
the land called Hethilee, and one meadow which lay between He- 
thike and the water called Tyrne. Rent {d. Witnesses, William 
Cadugan of Wrugworthin (Richwardine) ; Hova, his brother ; Adam 
de Norton.*'* 

Soon afterwards, the same gives to the same, a stone-quarry and 
all the area of land which commenced at a certain siche called Lon- 
deresmessiche. Rent 6rf. Witnesses, Hugh de Rugworthin, Robert 
de Drayton, Thomas Rabaz, Robert de Forde, Stephen, son of Ste- 
phen de Ade.' 

The following Deed probably passed in 1241-2. Richard, Lord 
of Tunstal, gives to Thomas de Munselaw for his homage, &c., a 
certain particle of land which lay around the stone-quarry in the 
fields of Tunstall. He further concedes a certain fence {hegam) 
near the water called Hithsleye. Rent 6rf. Witnesses, Sir Walter 
de Dimstanvill ; Sir John, his brother ; Adam de Nortone.* 

Another Deed is an absolute surrender of the land previously 
leased for 24 years, but the surrender dates, I think, within 5 years 
of the lease, that is, between 1232 and 1237. — 

" Richard de Tonstal gives to Salop Abbey a virgate in Tonstall, 
sometime held by William de Oflfeleg, and also a small parcel of 
land near Schipford which the said William did assart. For this 
the Abbot paid 6 merks. Witnesses ; — James, Provost of the For- 
gate ; Gilbert Sadoc ; Hugh fitz Hamon ; Nicholas, his brother."^ 

On Sept. 16, 1242 (and evidently after his grant to Combermere), 
Richard de Tunstal binds himself to his Lord, the Abbot of Salop, 
not to sell, give, or in any way mortgage anything of his land of 
Tunstal, except to Salop Abbey. And if he did so alienate {elon* 
gare) any of the said land, except to the said Abbey, he covenanted 
that all his land of Tunstall, with all rents and profits thereof, 
should remain to the Abbey. Witnesses, Nicholas, then provost of 
the Foriet ; Hugh, his brother, Richard Cruch.* 

In the interval between 1242 and 1256 (when Richard de Tun- 
stall was dead), he surrendered the following to the Abbey. — As 
Richard de Tunstall, he gave La Helde with its appurtenances, in 
the field towards Bettone-sub-Lima, which lay near to Tyrne. Wit- 

1.8.3.4.5.8 Salop Chartulary, Nos. 90 ; 87-b ; 91-b. 94-b ; 88 ; 89. 



TUNSTALL, 



208 



nesaes^ William, son of Adam de Nortou, Stephen de Ocle, William 
fitz Richard, William de Wrugwrthin, Hugh de Wrugwrthin.^ As 
Richard de Tunstal he remits to the Abbey all that land which 
Thomas de Mosselowe held of him in the Manor of Betton subtus 
Lime, near the Quarry of Tunstall, and all the land called Hetheleg 
with the meadow near Hetheleg and near the bank of Tyme. Wit- 
nesses; William, son of Adam de Norton, Stephen de Acley, Wil- 
liam fitz Richard.' Lastly, as Richard de Tunstal, he gives to the 
Abbey 6\d. rent which Thomas de Monselowe used to pay him. 
Witnesses, as the last (William fitz Richard being called " of Nor- 
ton").* In January 1256, Richard de Tunstal was dead. Richard 
de Tunstal, who, at the Assizes then held, failed to prosecute a suit 
of disseizin against Henry Abbot of Shrewsbury, was his Eldest 
son. The Sureties of the said Richard (II.) were Henry, son of 
Richard de Tunstal (that is, his own brother), and Reginald de 
Shavinton.^ 

Richard de Tunstal (I.) had also left a widow, Juliana, who at 
these same assizes was opposed in a suit of dower by Hugh de 
Wlonkeslaue (Longslow), as attorney for Philip, Vicar of Drayton, 
and for Philip le Clerk.^ Another suit of dower the same Juliana, 
widow of Richard de Dunstal, had preferred against the Abbot of 
Shrewsbury, but she did not prosecute it. Her Sureties were Ri- 
chard and Henry, sons of Richard de Dunstal.^ The reason why 
her and her son^s suits against the Abbot were not urged, was doubt- 
less that the disputes had been arranged out of Court. 

As to the Abbot of Shrewsbury's composition with Richard de 
Tunstall (II.) > that appears in the two following Deeds which we may 
safely date about 1256. — '^ Richard de Tunestal, son of Richard de 
Tunestal, gives to Salop Abbey all his land of Tunestal and all his 
right in the said vill. Witnesses, William, son of Adam de Nor- 
thone, Stephen de Ocley, John de Prestecote.''^ ^jgo — " Brother 
H., Abbot of Salop, gives to Richard, son of Richard de Tunstal, 
in fee, a burgage, with 6 seylions of land, in the vill of Betton sub 
Lime ; — ^the grantee to pay a rent of 6d. for life, and his heirs to 
pay a rent of Is. The Abbot further gives to the Grantee for life 
the forestership and whole custody of Betton Bosc, for which he 
was to take a livery of one quarter of corn every six weeks, like 
other servants of the Abbot at Betton. Witnesses, William, son 



1 • « • » Ibidem, Noe. 92, 91, 94.— 
William fitz Bichard of Korton oocurs 
on a Hodnet Inqnest in 1267. 



«•>•<! Salop Jjtsizei, 4f)KerLlll.,mm, 
4, 9, 14. 

^ Salop Chartulaiy, No. 93, a. 



204 



BETTON IN HALES. 



of Adam de Norton, Stephen de Oeley, William fitz Richard of 
Norton."! 

" Richard, son of Richard de Tunstal/^ seems very soon to have 
sold his Burgage and 6 seylions at Betton to Master Robert de 
Stokes, for 4^ merks. The purchaser was held bound to pay 12rf. 
rent to Salop Abbey. This Deed was attested as the last, except 
that the third witness was Alan Cocus of Drayfon.^ 

Philip de Dunstal, a witness of Deeds from 1260 to 1294, was 
probably an Undertenant of Shrewsbury Abbey, and a Clerk. 

BICHWARDINE. 

In 1188 we hear of one Osbert de Ruggewurd^ as amerced half a 
merk for default. About 1202-3 the Abbot of Shrewsbury had a 
Tenant here, one Nicholas de Rufftvrthin. He, with the Abbot's 
consent, and for a sum of £2. Ss. paid, enfeoffed Alured, son of 
Gerard de Norton, in all his land at Rugwrthin. Rent 6s, Sd. at 
Martinmas and 12d. on St. Giles's day. Witnesses, Adam de Chet- 
wynt, John his son, and Richard iitz Siward.^ Somewhat later in 
the 13th century, but before the year 1226, Alured de Norton con. 
ceded to the Abbey all his land and right in Rugwrthin. Witnesses, 
Thomas de Halecton, then Constable of Shrewsbury, W^illiam de 
Bascherch.* Perhaps a similar quitclaim, of all right in Rugwor- 
thin, to the Abbey, by Thomas fitz Nicholas, was by the son of 
Alured de Norton's Feoffor. If so, it released the Abbey from an 
annual rent of 7s. Sd. and restored Richwardine to the Abbatial 
demesnes.^ One merk was paid by the Abbot for the surrender, 
and it was attested by Warm de Wililey, Stephen de Ocley and 
Ranulf de Warewic* 

We have seen William Cadugan of Richwardine and Hova, his 
brother, attesting a Deed about 1232. In Deeds of the next twenty 
years the former is called William de Rugwardine, and the latter is 
represented by a son, Hugh. In a Charter, which must have passed 
after 1236, the Abbot of Salop demises to Hugh, son of Hova de 
Rugworthin, the land in Rugworthin which his father had held ; — 
to hold in fee and inheritance paying 6^. rent for land, and Sd. for 
assart. Witnesses, Griifin, son of Madoc, Sir Howel, his brother, 
and Robert de Stokes.^ 

Hugh de Rugworthin died leaving a son, Hugh, under age, but 



* Salop Chartulary, No. 93-b. 

s Ibidem, No. 96. 

>•<•» Ibidem, Nob. 94r-c; 96; 97. 



' Other attestations of KaDulf de War- 
wick, Clerk, date about 1205-1210. 
7 Salop Chartulary, No. 271. 



WOOLERTON. 205 

, who at the Assizes of 1256 was seized of a virgate in Rugworthin. 
For this virgate the then Abbot of Shrewsbury sued Hugh, son of 
Hugh, alleging it to have been the seizin of a former Abbot (Hugh), 

.in the reign of King John. On like ground the Abbot of 1256 sued 
William Cadygan (whom I take to have been a cousin rather than 
Great Uncle, of Hugh, Junior) for half a virgate in Rugworthin. 
Hugh, son of Hugh, alleged on his part that his father having died 
in his infancy, he, the son, had been in ward to the Abbot as a 
tenant by military service, and that the Abbot had accepted his 
homage for the said virgate. The Abbot however recovered the vir- 
gate j — on what ground, after looking at the Deed last above quoted, 
I cannot imagine. As to William Cadygan he got judgment of 
dismissal, sine die, on a technical point, viz. that Thomas, his bro- 
ther, held the half-virgate for which he was sued.^ The Abbot had 
in fact sued the wrong man. Another action brought at these 
Assizes was by Hugh, son of Hugh de Rugwrthin against the Abbot 
for disseizing him of 2 acres in Rugwrthin. Here the Abbot proved 
that Hugh, the father, had only held the premises from year to 
year.* 



Wiooltxton. 



"The same Gerard (de Tornai) holds Ulvreton. Oschetel held 
it (in Saxon times) and was a free man. Here is one hide, geldable. 
There is (arable) land for iiii ox-teams. In demesne are ii teams; 
and there are vii Serfs, iii Villains, ii Boors, and i Radman, with 
one team. Here is a Mill of 10*. (annual value), and a wood which 
will fatten four-score swine. In King Edward^s time the Manor 
was worth lbs, {per annum) : now it is worth 25*. He (Gerard) 
found it waste.^'^ 

The next thing after Domesday that occurs about Woolerton is 
the grant of the demesne-tithes thereof to Shrewsbury Abbey. Earl 
Hughes spurious Charter says that Hamo Peverel in the EarPs own 
presence so granted the tithes of his demesnes of Wulrunton.* And 
it is possible that in this instance the spurious Charter contains 

^ -' Salop Asnxe9, 40 Hen. IIL, mm. I * Domesday, fo. 259. 
18 recto, 14 doreo. I * Salop Chaitolaiy, No. 5. 



206 WOOLEETON. 

more truth than any other. The less doubtful Charter of the Earl 
says nothing about these tithes^ but Bishop Clinton saw a Charter 
of Earl Hugh^ which as the Bishop^s Confirmation says^ conveyed 
the tithes of Wluruton, as tithes of the EarPs demesne.' We must 
conclude that either the Earl granted these tithes while Gerard de 
Tornai^s Fief was in his hands as an Escheat, or eUe that Hamo 
Peverel was the real Grantor and the Earl only a Confirmant. 
Somewhat similar diflSculties have been mentioned in the cases of 
Shawbury and Cold Hatton.^ In Bishop Peche's time, as indeed 
in Bishop Clinton^s, not only the tithes but the Manor of Wooler- 
ton belonged to the Abbey. Bishop Peche's Charter accordingly 
recognizes the change and confirms the said tithes of Wlverton as 
tithes of the Abbotts demesnes. 

There is a further difficulty about the date of an undoubted fact, 
viz. that Hamo Peverel gave the vill of Woolerton to Shrewsbury 
Abbey. King Henry I., in his Confirmation of 1121, sets forth at 
full how '' Hamo Peverel, successor of Gerard de Tomai, and who 
obtained the said Gerard's honowr with his daughter, at the request 
of his said well-disposed wife, gave a vill named Wlvreton ; Richard, 
Bishop of London attesting the grant.'' This would fix the grant 
as between 1108 and 112L If so, the actual Charter of Hamo 
Peverel, as preserved in the Salop Chartulary, must be taken as 
recordatory of the previous grant, for it belongs to a later period ; — 
about 1130-5. It runs, in brief, as follows. — 

Sciant, ^c. quod Hamo Peverel et Sibilla uxor, assensu Regis 
Henrici, dedimus villam, qua dicitur Wluruntona, cum molendino, 
ifc. sictU Gerardus de Tomay antecessor nosier et nos postmodum 
earn melius et qyietius tenuimus. Testibus, Willielmo Peverel ; WaU 
chelino Maminoht ; WUlielmp de Hedlega et filiis suis, Alano et 
Willielmo ; Nigello de Sanburia, et Roberto filio suo ; Ricardo de 
lAnlega ; Radulfo de Tirna ; Willielmo de Tomay ; Alano filio 
Thealdi ; Roberto filio de Beche (sic) ; Rogero de Haia ; Henrico 
de Feolgeres; Briano de Valle de Siul,^ Hugone de Leha ; Gerardo 
Pincema ; et m. a.* 

My List of the Abbots of Combermere hardly enables me to date 
a Charter,^ whereby T.,* Abbot of that House, binds himself to pay 
an annual rent of 200^. for a meadow and moor in WoUerton which 



> Salop Chartularj, No. 326. 
« Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 132 ; and Vol. 
IX. p. 108. 
' Elsewhere called .Biientiiu de Valle 



4. c 



Salop Chartulaiy, Nos. 24, 157. 



BodoUi (supra, Vo]. VIII. p. 129). I from 1201 till about 1220. 



* Thomas was Abbot of Combormere 
in 1200. He was deposed in 1201. 
Thomas de Gillyng, his suocessor, sat 



WOOLERTON. 



207 



had been conceded to him and his Convent by the monks of Shrews- 
bury. 

In the year 1242^ the Abbot of Shrewsbury quitclaimed the above 
rent of 20d., on condition that the Abbot of Combermere would 
allow him to erect a stank for his mill of WoUerton on the other 
side of the River,^ that is, on the Abbot of Combermere^s land of 
Chesthull. This agreement was tested by John le Strange, then 
Justice of Chester and Sheriff of Shropshire and Staffordshire, and 
by Sir William de Ercalewe.^ 

In the previous year, that is, on April 10, 1241, it was thus agreed 
between " Odo de Hodenet, Knight, son of Sir Baldwin, Knight,'' 
and the Abbot of Shrewsbury. Odo, for 4 merks, quitclaims all 
assarts made by himself or in his name, in the bosc of Wlfreton. 
The Abbot covenants to make no assarts for the future, in the bosc 
where Odo had a right of common, except with the consent of the 
said Odo or his heirs. Witnesses, Sir John le Strange, then Sheriff 
of Salop; Nicholas de Wililey, Under- Sheriff; Robert de Geros; 
Adulf de Brad ; Roger de Pivelesdon, then Clerk of the County ; 
Hugh fitz Robert ; William de Hercalewe ; Richard de Sontford ; 
Thomas de Rossall; Hugh de Hauckestan; Hugh de Lega; and 
Master G. de Weston, Parson of Hodeneth.' 

The Hundred-RoU of 1255, says that '' the Abbot of Salop holds 
the vill of Wulverton by gift of Hamo Peverel, in free alms,'' and 
that the vill " is not geldable, nor doing suit to Counly or Hun- 
• dred," and that '' it is one hide."* The Charter of Free- Warren 
granted to Shrewsbury Abbey on May 21, 1256, includes the Abbot's 
demesnes of Wlfreton.^ In 1269, the Abbot of Shrewsbury had a 
Writ against Odo de Hodnet for levelling a stank in Wolureton. 
Between the years 1272 and 1278, Odo de Hodenet allows that 
Luke, Abbot of Salop, may lawfully make the most of those assarts 
in the Manor of Wluretone, a right of common wherein had been 
recovered by the said Odo, under Writ of rwvel disseizin, tried by 
John le Bretun and his Fellow- Justices at Alford. Witnesses, Sirs 
John de Ercalowe, and John fitz Aer, knights ; William de Titte- 
leg ; Henry de Schavinton ; Robert de Say of Morton ; William de 
Norton; and Stephen de Edeg (probably Ocleg).^ 

The Taxation of 1291, values the Abbot of Shrewsburjr's estate 
of Wolverton at <£12. 2s. 8f (2. per annum, viz. from one carucate of 



* The Bailey-Brook, I presume, is here 
meant, not the Tern. 
3 Salop Chartulary, No. 391. 



' Ibidem, Nos. 26 and 406, collated. 

* Rot. Hundred, II. 58. 

* • • Salop Chartulary, Nos. 53, 27. 



208 IQHTFIELD. 

land'ia^.; assized rents £6. 3s. Oid,; a Mill £2; Pleas and Per- 
quisites of Court £1 ; Profits of live-stock £2. 68. Sd.^ 

An Abbey Rent-RoU, drawn up about 1490, gives eleven items 
of receipt from WoUerton, amounting to £14. 48. 8d. per annuni.^ 

The Valor of 1534, values the Abbatial estate of Wollerton at 
£14. 5*. per anmim? The Abbot of Combermere had a charge of 
3«. 4d. thereon.* It proves to have been a charger on the Mill of 
JJlverton.^ 

In the Ministers' Accounts of 1541-2, the receipts of the dis- 
solved Abbey of Shrewsbury from Wollerton, alias Ollarton, are put 
at £21. \Zs.h\d.^ 



fifijtfieiu. 



*' The same Gerard holds Istefelt. Uluiet held it (in Saxon times) 
and was a free man. Here are ii hides, geldable. There is arable 
land for iiii ox-teams. Here are a Priest and two Boors with one 
team; a wood, which will fatten 60 swine; and ii hayes. The 
value of the Manor was 15«. {per annum), and is now lO*.'^^ 

Ightfield, like many others of Gerard de Tornay's Manors, be- 
came a tenure-in-capite by Serjeantry. The following Fine, proffered 
in 1176, and paid in 1177, seems to relate to some litigation about 
Ightfield, and the representatives of the two Litigants afterwards 
appear as joint Lords of the Manor. The said Fine was one of 5 
merks profiered by Robert de Hichtefeld, to have his rights expe- 
dited against Ralph Hose (pro festinando Jure suo versus Radulfum 
Hose). The Surety of Robert de Hichtefeld was William fitz Ran- 
dulf. Lord, I think, of Whitchurch. 

At the Forest Assizes recorded on the Pipe- Roll of 1188, Roger 
de Hictefeld was amerced half a merk for some default. In the year 
1200, Robert de Hictefeld appears as Surety for one of the parties to 
a Longslow Lawsuit. 

Several Lists of Shropshire Serjeantries, drawn up about 1211, 
concur in representing Walter Hose (or Hosatus) and Roger de 



» Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 260. 

2 Hist. Shrewsbwy, II. 509. 

3 • 4 Valor Eccles. III. pp. 189, 190. 



« Valor Eccles. V. p. 216. 
« Monagiicon, V. 529. 
^ Domesdoff, 259, a, 1. 



IGHTFIELD. 209 

Ychtefeld (or Yatefeld) as holding their tenement by service of pro- 
viding one foot-soldier for ward of the (then Royal) Castle of Shra- 
wardine.^ Walter Hose was son and heir of Ralph Hose above 
mentioned, and had succeeded him at Albright Hussey and appa- 
rently at Ightfield ; 'but after this I find no proof of a Hussey re- 
taining any interest in Ightfield. 

Looking to the Scutage-RoUs^ already given, we find Ightfield 
usually assessed at half a fee, and may further observe that though 
Ralph Hose was the person assessed in 1204, Roger de Ightfield be- 
came responsible in 1214, and that his name is uniformly the one 
entered from thence till 1260.^ We shall presently see that this 
use of Roger de Ightfield's name, so late as 1260, was merely formal, 
and not accurate. — 

Among the Tornay Pees, recorded in the Feodary of 12^i0, Roger 
de Icheford stands as Tenant of half a knighfs-fee in Icheford.^ 
Within the next 15 years Roger de Ightfield seems to have given 
Ightfield, in exchange, to GriflSn de Warren, who seems to have 
been son of William de Warren of Whitchurch. This is what the 
Hundred-Roll of 1255 alludes to, when it states that ^^ Griffin de 
Warran' holds the vill of Ihttefeud, having exchanged the said land 
with Roger de Ihttefeud, who held the same of the King in capite, 
by service of one Muntor, for 40 days, at his own cost, at Shewur- 
thyn, in time of war.'* The vill was still reputed to contain ii 
hides, as at Domesday. It paid B^. yearly for streiward, and Sd, 
for motfee, and did due suit to County and Hundred.^ 

In Trinity Term 1263 Sibil, widow of Philip de Kant, having 
impleaded Amicia fitz Gwydo for a messuage and bovate in Ihe^ 
femdy and Amicia having called Thomas fitz Thomas to warranty, 
the latter appeared, and further called Griffin, son of William de 
Blancmunster, to warranty. But Griffin did not appear, and so an 
equivalent was ordered to be taken out of his lands and assigned to 
Thomas fitz Thomas.^ 

Griffin de Warren, alioB de Blancminster, alias de Ightfield, was 
living in 1272, but was afterwards succeeded by his son John. The 
Feodaries of 1284-5 state that John, son of Griffin de Ithefeld, was 
then holding the vill of Ithefeld of the King in capite for half a 
knighfs-fee. It appears however from the Assize-Roll^ of 1292 
that this John was even then in minority. The land which he 



* Te9ta de Nevill, p. 55. JLiber Ruber 
Seaecariit foe. oxxiii. cxxxvii. 
' Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 197. 
« Testa de Netnll, p, 46. 



* Rot Hundred. II. 57. 
« Placita, THn, Tm. 47 Hen. III., m. 
20 dorso. 
« Placita Corona^ 20 Edw. I. m. 7. 



IX. 27 



210 IGHTFIKLD. 

bad inherited from Griffin de Ithfel was valued at 40f . per anman. 
Ralph Sprenghose had custody thereof together with the heir^ for 
to him had Otho de Grandison transferred the said custody; and 
Otho de Grandison had it from the King. At these same Assizes 
Isabella de Ithfeld (widow^ I presume^ of Griffin) was presented as 
holding 13 solidates of land in Ithfeld^ and as being married to 
Warin de Grantvalour. The said Warin appeared and justified his 
position by exhibiting Letters Patent whereby the King, for a Fine 
of 100^., had allowed the said Isabella to marry at her own discre- 
tion. 

I think that it must have b^n John de Ightfield who in Septem- 
b^ 1310 was returned under the name of John de Warenne as one 
of the Servientes prepared to be at Tweedmouth and to discharge 
the military service due from Fulk le Strange, — ^then Lord of 
Whitchurch.^ Consistently with this we find John de Garenne 
entered on the Nomina Villarum of 1316 as Lord of the Yill of 
Tthefeld.» 

In 1356 Griffin, Lord of Ightfield, is found seeking to entail 
Ightfield on his Grandson Griffin, son of his son John. An Inquest 
held on July 5th in that year stated that it would not injure the 
King, if Griffin le Warenne were to enfeoflf William de Botefeld, 
Clerk, and William de Ightefeld in the estate, provided that those 
Trustees should forthwith settle it on Griffin for life, with remainder 
to Griffin, son of John, son of Griffin, and on Elizabeth his wife, 
and the bodily heirs of Griffin, Junior, and Elizabeth, with ultimate 
remainder to the right heirs of Griffin le Warenne (Senior). The 
estate, said the Jurors, was held of the Crown by Grand Serjeaniry, 
and was worth £S yearly, net value. It was Griffin le Warenne's 

Op Undertenants in Ightfield, I may name Richard, son of 
William de Ichtefeud, who, in February 1271, was moving a suit of 
mort d'ancesire against Alice, widow of John le Clerk, Hugh Calle^ 
and others, for a tenement in Ichtefeud. 

At the Assizes of 1272 Richard le Ostesvevn of Ittefdd failed 
to prosecute a suit of novel disseizin against John, Parson of Itte- 
feld. At the same Assizes, William de Icthefeld sued James de 
Audley for a messuage and half-carucate in Icthefeld, alleging that 
GKlbert fitz Robert, his (the PlaintifiTs) grandfather, had died 
seized thereof. Audley affirmed that his father, James, had died 
seized thereof, but the Suit was adjourned till the Defendant should 

> • » Pari. JTriYf, IV. 1688, 397. • InquU. 80 Edw. III., 2nd Numben, No. 20. 



IGHTFIJELD. 211 

be of age. The Inquest taken in January 1317^ on the death of 
Nicholas de Audley, mentions his having had 16*. 6rf. rent from 
Ightefeld ; bnt improperly treats the tenure as an appurtenance of 
Red Casile, when it was really nothing more than a sub-feofiment 
in Ightfield.i 

CoMBBRHERE Pee. From a Deed, printed in the Monasticon, 
we find that Roger, Lord of Ictefeld, having claimed a part of the 
Abbot of Combermere's wood of Wivelesde, which part was called 
Threpwode, as an appurtenance of Ightfield, was induced to renounce 
his claim for a sum of two merks. The boundaries of the wood of 
Wivelesde, as settled by this quitclaim, were to be, — ^from Oxefote^ 
mor to the top of Grenehul, thence to Spritlewithimle, and thence 
to Biseunthbroc. The Deed is attested by Norman de Verdoun, 
Reinald de Wilvastone, Hugh de Draicote, Maltheus de Scavintone, 
and Osbert de Esshe (now Ash).® 

By another Deed the same Roger de Ichtefeld gave in pure alms, 
to the same Abbey a moiety of the Church of Ichtefeld and half a 
feorwendel (virgate) of his own demesne there, and half a feorwen- 
del held by one Auger. This grant was for the souls of himself, 
bis wife, and all his relatives and friends. It was attested by 
Owen and William, Deacons; Adam and Peter, Clerks; Radulf fitz 
Anion ; Beiuald de Wlavestone ; Matthew de Scavintone ; Aldred 
de Dottecote ; Osbert de Esslie ; and Roger de Elfstanefeld.^ 

Assuming the above Deeds to be nearly cotemporary, their date 
must remain uncertain. All I can say on this point is that the 
Grantor seems to have been that Roger de Ightfield who, between 
the years 1240 and 1255, and probably late in his life, gave Ight- 
field to Griffin de Warren. His grants to Combermere seem to 
have been but partially efiectual, for the Hundred-Roll of 1255 
speaks of only one half- virgate in Ightfield as having been given by 
the said Roger de Ightfield to Combermere. Thomas fitz Robert 
now held it under the Abbot, doing no suit to County or Hundred. 
Henry III.'s Confirmation to the said Abbey bears date April 4, 
1266, and speaks of Roger de Ythfeld^s grant indefinitely, as '' all 
that land with the bosc called Trepwode. and with all appurte- 
nances.^'* 

At the Assizes of 1292 King Edward I. sued the Abbot of 
Combermere for. 400 acres of bosc in Yghtefeld as the sometime 
seizin of King Henry II. The Abbot proved himself to have only 

» InqmiaiUont, lOEdw. H., No. 73. » Moncuticon (ibidem). No. IX 

» MwuuUcon, Vol. V. p. 326, No. X. * MonatUeon, V. 324, Num. III. 



213 



IGHTFIELD. 



forty acres of bo8c^ and that his right thereto was better than the 
King's} 

IGHTFIELD CHTRCH. 

The mention of a Priest^ resident here at Dame$day, probably 
indicates the co-existence of a Church. There is no eridenoe of 
any other cotemporary Church in this district. Even the spadons 
Manor of Westune (afterwards called Whitchurch) was as yet 
Churchless. When Boger de Ightfield granted a moiety of the 
Advowson of Ightfield to Combermere Abbey we may question his 
title so to do^ for the grant was inoperatiye. Neither are we told 
who claimed the other moiety. Later Records uniformly treat this 
Advowson as belonging to the Lords of Whitchurch. I can only 
account for this by supposing that Whitchurch had come to be re- 
puted the Mother-Church of the district, and Ightfield a Depen- 
dency. 

The Taxation of 1291, placing the Church of Ithefeld in the 
Deanery of Newport and Archdeaconry of Salop, values it at £2. 
ISs. 4d, per annum, besides a pension of 2s. which the Abbot of 
Combermere received therefrom.^ This Pension may have been in 
composition of the Abbot's claim to a share in the Advowson. In 
1341 the Assessors of the Ninth taxel the Parish of Ightefeld at 
46s. They said that the Church was taxed at its true value, and^ 
as I understand their statement, that the difierence between such 
true value and the present assessment consisted of glebe and such 
small tithes as were not to be reckoned in computing the Ninth} 
The Valor of 1534-5 places Ightfelde in the Deanery of Salop. 
The income of Robert Maynwaryng, Rector thereof, was jE8. per 
annum, out of which he paid 3*. 4rf. for Procurations and 2s. for 
Synodals. A Chantry in this Church was further endowed with 
100«. per annum.^ 

EABLY INCUMBENTS. 

John, Parson of Ightfield, has occurred above as living in 1272. 
At the Assizes of 1292 this John was questioned for having, eight 
years before, withdrawn the suit of his Tenants from the Sheriff^s 
Toum and annexed their land (one virgate) to the privileged domain 
{sanctuarium) of his Church. The Rector appeared and stated 
that the said land was always de sanctuario, that it had never been 
let, except to annual tenants-at-will^ that he had now resumed it, 

* Quo WarantOy p. 683. ' InquU. Nonarum, p. 192. 

2 Fope Nick. Taxation, p. 245. * Valor JEcclenoHicus, III. 186, 186. 



THE CHURCH. 213 

and that the Crown had never been seized of the Suit aforesaid. 
This was contradicted by a Jury^ and the Rector was adjudged to 
pay 16^. damages to the Crown^ or 2d. per annum, for the value of 
the suit withdrawn.^ This favours the idea that the Glebe of Ight- 
field was no endowment of the original Church, but a later bene- 
faction. 

' Peter de Fomython or Futhun, Rector of Hythefeld, has a li- 
cense of non-residence dated November 16, 1309> to enable him to 
manage successfully certain business affecting his benefice. He 
died November 19, 1813, and, on December 26 following, — 

• Walter i>b Wrocwardyn, Priest, had been presented by Sir 
Fulk le Strange, Knight. 

FuLK Corbet, claiming to be Rector of Ightfield, resigned Nov. 
22, 1323 ; and, on December 20 following,— 

Bartholomew de Berdepeld, Acolyte, was admitted at the 
presentation of Sir Fulk le Strange, Lord of White-Minster. Ber* 
defeld resigned April 5, 1337; and, on April 16, — 

Roger le Spencer, Priest, was admitted, at the presentation of 
Sir John le Strange, Lord of Whitchirche. Spencer died August 
30, 1349 (probably of the Pestilence) ; and, on the next day, — 

John Clone, Chaplain, was admitted at presentation of Dame 
Angaret le Strange, Lady of White-Minster. 

On June 13, 1363, this Rector exchanged preferments with — 

William de Blakelow, Chaplain, late Vicar of Aldelym (Aud- 
lem), who was presented to Ightfield by the King, as Ouardian of 
the infant heir of John le Strange of Blakmere. On July 20, 1376, 
Blakelow exchanged preferments with — 

John de Sheyyndon, Priest, late Rector of Bidulf, the King 
presenting to Ightfield as before. On December 20, 1379, Shevyn- 
don exchanged with — 

Stephen de Prbes, Chaplain, late Rector of Donynton, the King 
again presenting to Ightfield. 

Stephen de la Hezth, probably the same person, died in 1385^ 
when on June 21, — 

• William de Neuton was admitted at the presentation of Sir 
Richard Talbot, Lord of Blakmere. However, on December 10^ 
1390, Ightfield is stated to have been vacant by resignation of fif/e- 
phen de Frees, last Vicar, and — 

John Pulford is admitted, at presentation of Sir Richard Tal- 
bot, Lord of Irchenfeld and Blakmere. Pulford resigned in 1405. 

^ PlacUa CoratkBt 20 Edw. I., m. 16 dor$o. 



214 



il[,onj978lo^« 



'^ The same Gerard holds Walanceslau. Uluiet held it (in Saxon 
times) and was a free man. Here are iii hides geldable. The 
(arable) land is (enough) for v ox-teams. In demesne there is one 
team^ and ii Serlb ; and there is one Tenant {homo) here^ paying a 
rent of 40d. In King Edward^s time the Manor was worth 109* 
{per annum) ; now it is worth 12*."^ 

This Manor became a Seijeantry^ the Tenant thereof being bound 
to perform certain services either at the Castle of Shrawardine^ or 
of Shrewsbury. The earliest Tenant^ of whom I find mention after 
Domesday, was — 

Hugh de Muntein^ living in the time of Henry II. (1154- 
1189). He mortgaged, and eventually lost the fee of, 80 acres of 
the Manor. If we are to interpret the word aiavus in its stricter 
sense, this Hugh was Oreat-great-grandfather of Hugh de Long- 
slow, living in 1265. 

Emma, mother of Hugh de Lonoslow (I.) was a Widow in the 
year 1200. Her husband's Christian name does not transpire. 
Possibly it was Richard ; for Richard de Wolncheslawe stands se- 
cond witness of a Styche Deed about 1196-1200. This Emma 
seems to have been an heiress, and was possibly Representative of 
Hugh de Muntein. On May 3, 1200, a Fine was' levied between 
Hugh de Wlenkeslawe and his Mother, Emma (Plaintiffs), and 
Walter fitz Robert (Tenant) of 4 vii^tes in Wlenkeslawe. The 
Tenant quitclaimed the premises, and in return received one virgate 
thereof (viz. that which his father, Robert, had held), to hold of the 
Plaintiffs and their heirs at a rent of a pair of spurs, value 2d,, and 
by discharge of all forinsec services. Moreover the Plaintiffs gave 
him 10 merks. In October 1200, 1 find Hugh de Wlenkelaw im* 
pleading Walter fitz Robert for non-observance of the above Fine. 
The Defendant and his Sureties, Richard de Ake and Robert de 
Hictefeld (Ightfield), were not forthcoming, and the Court took cer- 
tain measures to secure their attendance.^ A Roll, drawn up about 
the year 1212, enumerates Hugh de Wlenkeslawe among those 
who were Tenants in capite of the escheated estates of Gerard de 

1 IhmeicU^i fo. 259, a, 1. > Pkuriia Mich. Term, 2 John. 



LONOSLOW. 



215 



Tornay.^ His service is stated to be that of half a knighfs-fee. 
His first assessment to any Scutage was in 1214^ when^ according to 
a Table ahready giyen^ he was charged 20s. on half a knighfs-fee.^ 

HuoH DE LoNOSLow (II.) succceded his father at some unknown 
period, and it is quite by guess that I arrange the following notes 
under his name. — 

In June 1220, Hugh de Wlonkeslowe was Foreman of a Bradford 
Jury which determined a question as to the Abbot of Combermere's 
proposed assarts in the King's Forest. At the Assizes of 1221, 
Hugh de Wlonkeslawe was found never to have been seized of cer- 
tain common-pasture which he claimed as an appurtenance of 
Wlonkeslawe, and of which he accused the Prior of Ware, Hugh le 
Nonnan, Alexander le Deble, and Adam de Hales, of having dis- 
seized him. Hugh de Say was Surety for Hugh de Wlonkeslawe 
in this matter. Adam Osmund, Adam SUkenside, and his sons, 
Gilbert and Robert, are mentioned as Sureties of the Defendants.' 
The common-pasture claimed, was probably in Market Drayton. 

From what has been said elsewhere it would seem that Hugh de 
Longslow, living in 1228, and then married to Alice, a daughter or 
other relation of Hugh fitz Robert of Solas, was identical with 
Hugh de Longslow, living in 1256.^ I will call this person — 

Hugh de Longslow (III.)^ though I think that the word atavua, 
above referred to, suggests a greater number of generations in this 
de^nt than is consistent with average probability. 

A Tenure-Roll of 1240 has Hugh de Wlonkeslawe as holding 
half a knighfs-fee in the Fief of Tomay.^ The Bradford Hundred- 
Roll of 1255 puts down Wlonkislow as a vill of three geldable 
hides, thus preserving the Domesday estimate. — '' Hugh de Wlon- 
kislow, Lord of the Vill, held it in capite, by service of 40 days in 
time of war, at the Castle of Shrawardine, or of Shrewsbury, at his 
own cost. He was to be provided with a horse {runcino), a breast- 
plate, a chapel-de-fer, and a lance. The Vtll paid 12^. yearly for 
motfee and 12^^. for stretward, and did suit every three weeks to the 
Hundred-Court.'^* Of the mortgage of 30 acres by Hugh de Long- 
slow's ancestor {aiavus), Hugh de Muntein, in Henry II.'s time, 
the same Record states that " Ysabella de Dunton now holds three- 
fourths thereof and Robert de Furde one-fourth.^' The Jurors ap- 
parently put the value of the whole tenement at 4cf . per acre, or 2s» 



> Teita de NeviU, p. 66. 

« Supra, VoL VIII. p. 197. 

^ AMtUeSf 6 Hen. III., m. 2 darsa. 



* Supra, VoL VI. pp. 288, 289. 
< Testa de Nevilly p. 46. 

* Sot Hundred. TI. 66. 



216 LONGSLOW. 

in gross ; — where, I presume, we must read 10». in gross. In 1256 
we have seen Hngh de Wlonkeslaue engaged as an Attorney in a 
Drayton Lawsnit. In Hilary Term 1259 Hngh de Wlongeslawe 
was soing John de Verdon for permission to take estovers in the 
Bosc of Morton (Moreton Say). I assume that Hngh de Langes- 
lawe^ who in 1267 was amerced 2 merks for trespass, was son and 
heir of the above. Calling him — 

Hugh de Lomoslow (IV.), I find that in 1270 he had a Writ 
against William, son of John Hertte, for disseizing him of common 
pasture in Wlonkeslowe, At the Assizes of 1272 the name of Hugh 
de Wlonkeslowe as a Juror for Bradford Hundred is cancelled on 
the Boll. At these Arizes he recovered 20 acres in Wlonkeslowe, 
of whidi the Abbot of Combermere had disseized him. His cotem- 
porary success in a Cantlop suit I have related elsewhere.^ I find 
him employed on various Inquests in 1276, 1277, 1281, and 1284. 
The Feodaries of 1284-5 both specify lus tenure-in-capite of fFlen- 
ke$hale or Langislow, by service of half a knightVfee, which service, 
being now, I suppose, returnable at Montgomery Castle, Loi^slow 
is called, in one Feodary, a member of the Manor of Montgomery. 
At his death, in January 1290, Wlonkeslowe was valued ati£6. 2s. 4d. 
per annum. It comprised a messuage, two carucates of demesne 
land, and an inefficient Mill {molendinum ekbile) worth 6s. Sd. 
yearly. It was held by the deceased in capite for half a knight's^ 
fee, his service being to supply one horseman, with hauberk and 
chapel-de-fer, at Montgomery Castle, in time of war. 

Hir6H DS LoNGSLOw (Y.) was questioned, at the Assizes of 
1292, for having withdrawn 2s. Sd., such sum having been payable 
by the Vill of Wlonkeslowe, till 80 years since, for siretward and 
motfee. His defence, viz. that the King was still seized of the same 
due, was corroborated by the Sheriff. He was further questioned 
as to his discharge of the services due on his Serjeantry : to which 
he replied that nothing was in arrear, as he had only been three 
years in possession. His homage to the King had been rendered. 
Another Presentment, by the Bradford Jurors, recalled the original 
tenure-in-capiie of Hugh de Mounteny, and valued Wlonkeslowe at 
100s. per annum. The Jurors proceeded to allege several aliena- 
tions in this Serjeantry, viz. 23 acres held by William de Hodynet, 
•5 acres by Richard de la Forde, 2 acres by Thomas Rabaz, and a 
Mill by the Abbot of Combermere. These four parties were sum- 
moned. William de Hodynet vainly protested that all his land, 

1 Supra, Yol. VT. p. 289. 



LONGSLOW. 



217 



thus brought in question, was in Longford, a member of Hodnet. 
A Jury found the said 23 acres to be in Longslow and the King 
recovered them, but William de Hodyuet negotiated a Fine whereby 
he was henceforth to hold the premises in capite, at 10^. rent. It 
was further shown, in respect of Richard de Forde and Thomas 
Babaz, that they were tenants in villeinage under William de Hod- 
ynet. As to the Abbot, he fined for leave to retain his Mill ad 
proximum parliamentum. 

I find Hugh de Longslow on a local Jury in 1292, and as a Juror 
on the Forest perambulation of 1800. 

The King's Writ of Diem clausii announces his death on March 
8, 1314, when he must have been at least 64 years of age. An In- 
quest held at Drayton on April 2nd following, stated the tenure in 
capite of Longslow in the usual terms, but only valued the estate at 
£2. 28. 2id. per annum. The Coheirs of the deceased were his 
daughters, Isabel, aged 14 years on Dec. 25, 1313, and Eleanora, 
aged 10 years on November 1, 1313. Both these Infants were 
already married, — ^Isabel to Thomas, son of William de Stuch 
(Styche), and Eleanore to Hugh, son of William de la Hull.^ From 
these two Coheiresses the ennobled families of Clive and Hill are 
on good authority said to be descended. I refer elsewhere for some 
details of a later date than my limits will allow.^ 

In the Nomina ViUarum of March 1316, William de Stuche is 
alone entered as Lord of Wlonkeslowe. Here I conceive that not 
only the name of one Coparcener is suppressed, but that the other 
is erroneously given, that is, the Father's name substituted for the 
Son's. 

The only Undertenants in Longslow whose names I need add to 
the above account, are Peter de la Ford and Hugh his son, witnesses 
of a^Styche Deed about 1230; WiUiam de Longslow, Juror on a 
Wem Inquest in 1284; and Hugh de Furde, Juror on a Longslow 
Inquest in 1314. 



1 InquinHons, 7 Edw. II., No. 22.— 
William de la HuUe, &ther of Hagh, was 
of Hulle, near Borford. I have giyen 



account of hia anceetora elflewhere (Vol. 
IV. p. 345). 
* Bldkewcufs Sheriffs^ pp. 140, 142. 



IX. 



28 



218 



Coltr JIatton. 



''The same Gerard holds Hatune. Oodric held it (in Saxon 
times), and was free. Here are half a hide and two parts of a vir- 
gate, geldable. The arable land in these two Manors (meaning 
Ellardine and Hatton) is enough for iii ox-teams. In demesne 
there are ii teams ; and in Serfs, ii Neatherds, and vi Boors, with 
one team. In King Edward's time, the two Manors were worth 
38*. yearly. Now they are worth 20*. He (Gerard de Tomai) 
found them waste.^'^ 

The reason why Domesday associates the two Manors of Ellardine 
and Hatton is because they were contiguous, and both held in de- 
mesne by Gerard de Tomai, and because their hidage, being firac- 
tional when taken separately, amounted exactly to 2 hides when 
taken together. In other words Hatton was two-thirds of a hide 
and Ellardine was \^ hides. In all later aspects the histories of 
Cold Hatton and Ellardine will be found very distinct. 

I have discussed under Ercall Church the probability that Earl 
Hugh gave two parts of the tithes of Ercall and Cold Hatton to 
Shrewsbury Abbey before Hamo Peverel was seized of either estate.^ 
Bishop Clinton's Charter making mention of the said grant^ calls 
Cold Hatton by another name, viz. the land of Wiscard, This in- 
troduces us to the first known Feofiee of. Cold Hatton, viz. that 
WiscARD whose descendants held both Hatton and Wilsithland 
under the superior Lords of each estate. 

It is worth observing that in 1165 the Kentish Fief of Walche- 
line Maminot included two feoffments which, I think, must have 
been held by members of this family of Wiscard. Alan Wise held 
one fee, and Baldtuin Wise was a Coparcener in two fees of the said 
Barony.* 

Probably Baldwin Wise was a relation of, but not identical 
with, — 

Baldwin, son op Gilbert Wiscard, who was certainly Lord of 
Cold Hatton in succession to the said Gilbert. We know this from 
a Charter to Shrewsbury Abbey which passed between 1182 and 

> Dometday, fo. 258. b, 2. I ^ Salop Cliartulary, No. 326. 

' Supra, page 108. I * lAber Niger^ I. pp. 67, 68. 



COLD HATTON. 219 

1197, whereby Baldwin Wischard concedes to the Abbey that land 
of Podeleford which Gilbert his Father gave thereto.^ Now Polford 
was a member of Cold Hatton. It is true that William de Hedley 
(II.) is also said to have given the land of Podeford to Wombridge 
Priory,* but this does not invalidate the genuineness of Baldwin 
Wischard's Deed, whatever doubt it may create as to his title to 
Polford. 

The period when Baldwin Wischard succeeded his father, Gilbert, 
can be nearly ascertained. — The Pipe- Roll of 1182, records Baldwin 
Wischart as accounting 208. to the King for his Relief of a fifth 
part of a Knighf s-fee. It will presently appear that this must 
refer to his tenure in capite of Cold Hatton as a Tomai Escheat. 

A Feodary, drawn up about the year 1212, registers Baldwin 
Wischart as holding Hatton in capite, by ancient tenure. He is 
here said to owe the service of one-fourth of a knight^s-fee.^ The 
Scutage- Rolls, already given,* correct this, and show that Baldwin 
Wischard's service was one-fifth of a fee. His first contribution of 
this kind was in 1203, his last in 1235-6 (to the Aid on marriage 
of the King's Sister), when he paid 5*. Sd. or nearly one-fifth of 2 
merks. Subsequent Scutages, though nominally charged on Bald- 
win Wischard, were leaUy paid by- 

William Wischard, his son and heir. A Feodary of about 
1240, enters William Wyschard as holding one-fifth of a fee"^ in 
Hatton, of the fees of WUMam de Cantilupe} I take this to be a 
mere mistake as to tenure, for I cannot find that Cold Hatton was 
one of those Tomai Fees which owed ward to Montgomery Castle, 
otherwise the error might have been accounted for. William Wis- 
chard's name appears on Jury-Lists or Testing-clauses of the years 
1246, 1249, 1256, and 1259. In 1246 we have had mention of his 
brother, Robert.* 

The Bradford Hundred-Roll of 1255 notices Colde-hatton as a 
geldable Manor of half a hide (something less than its Domesday 
hidage), and as being held for one-fifth of a fee. William (Wis- 
chard), Lord of the Vill, held it in capite of the King, and did 20 
days' ward in time of war at the Castle of Slobir* (read Salopesbury) 
at his own cost, with horse, hauberk, lance, and chapel defer. The 
Vill paid 2d. yearly for motfee, and 2d. for stretward, and did suit 



^ Salop ChATtulary, No. 283, attested 
by Robert de Salop, Bichard (?) Griffin, 
Wido de Sagheberie, Gaimar de Bodin- 
ton, Bichard fitz Siward, Bobert de Lei- 
cestre, William de Humma, &c. 



' Supra, page 79, note 4. 
' Testa de NeviU, p. 66. 

♦ Supra, VoL VIII. p. 197. 

* Testa de NeviU, p. 46. 

8 Supra, Vol. VII. p. 381. 



220 COLD HATTOK. 

every three weeks to the Hundred. Thomas le Milkar held half a 
virgate in the said vill by gift of the Lord thereof^ and Thomas fits 
Thomas held a whole virgate by purchase firom Baldwin, the present 
Lord^s father.* 

In September 1257, William Wischard of Hatton appears on a 
Hodnet Inquest. 

Between the years 1260 and 1265, William Wischard gave Cold 
Hatton to Lilleshall Abbey, and the grant was specified and sanc- 
tioned in Henry III.'s Confirmation to LiUeshall, dated Nov. 29, 
1265, as " the donation and concession which William Wyschard 
had made of the vtU of Ooldehaton.'' 

In the respective grants of Polford by a Hadley and a Wischard 
to two difierent Monasteries, we have had a hint that the Lords of 
High Ercall asserted some claim on Cold Hatton. This idea is 
backed by a quitclaim which must have passed about the year 1270. 
Thereby John de Erkalewe releases to LilleshuU Abbey his claim 
in the vill of Colde-Hatton, saving only to himself and his heirs the 
suit which the Abbot's Tenants in Coldehatton owed to the Quit- 
claimant's Mill of La Lake. Witnesses, Sirs Odo de Hodnet, John 
fitz Hugh, and John fitz Aer, Knights ; Robert Corbet of Morton, 
Peter de Eyton, Robert de Stanton, and Philip de Peninton.' 

The following Fine, levied in Easter Term 1283, is, I presume, of 
a subtenure in Cold Hatton. Richard de Preston and Isolds, his 
wife (Impedients), acknowledge their grant of a messuage and half- 
virgate in Hacton to Robert, son of Henry Chardemere of Rowel- 
ton (Plaintiff), who pays 10 merks for the grant, and is to hold the 
premises under the Grantors and the heirs of Isolds, at a rose-rent. 

A Teuurc-RoU, about 1285, states that ''the Abbot of LilleshuU 
holds the vill of Cold Hatton of the gift of William Wechard, in 
pure alms, and by confirmation of King Henry III." At the As- 
sizes of 1292 the Bradford Jurors presented the Abbot for exer- 
cising rights of warren in Hattone and Langedone. The process of 
Quo fFaranto, which included this and other questions, has been 
already set forth,^ as also the Charter which justified the usage of 
Free Warren in Cold Hatton.^ Another question raised at these 
Assizes admitted that William Wyschard's grant of Cold Hatton 
to LilleshuU had received Royal sanction, but Hugh de Lowther 
(the Crown Prosecutor) insisted that the services due firom the ViU 
had never been cancelled. Vainly, and I think falsely, did the Ab- \ 

> SoL mtndred. II. 66. I • Supra, Vol. VIH. p. 222. 

' The late Mr. Qeorge Morrifl's Deeds. I * Ibidem, page 239. 



SiOIDFOIU). 



221 



bot assert that Henry III. had never been seized of any snch ser- 
yices. The King recovered both the services and the arrears thereof^ 
viz. 10». for arrears of stretwcerd^ and at the rate of 2«. per annum 
for suit. The last expression is explained by a list of Crown-dues 
acknowledged in the Chartulary of lilleshall Abbey.' It there ap- 
pears that the Abbot was bound to pay the King is, per annum at 
Michaelmas, in lieu of the ward due to Shrewsbury Castle, and the 
suit due to Bradford Hundred, from the Vill of Colde Hatton. The 
Yill itself is further entered as liable for 4tf . per annumy — the stret- 
ward and motfegh due at the same term. 

The Taxation of 1291 gives the Abbot of Lylleshull £1. 7s. of 
assized rents at Coldehatton.^ In 30 Edward I. (1301-2), Richard 
de Mora, a Tenant of the Abbey at Cold Hatton, died. His heir 
remained in ward to the Abbot for one fortnight. Then Ayota^ 
wife of Roger de Hatton, purchased the wardship for 5«. and mar- 
ried the ward to her daughter Agnes.^ 

In the Valor of 1534-5 the Abbot of LilleshulPs receipts from 
Cold Hatton, Longdon, and Tern, are massed together; but the 
Ministers^ Accounts, six years later, give a Free Rent, of 6s. 4^/. 
only, as arising from ColdhaUon.^ 



^attistorti. 



This was another of those Manors which Gerard de Tomai held 
wholly in demesne at Domesday, — 

'' The same Grerard holds Sanford (of the Earl). Uluiet held it 
(in Saxon times) and was free. Here are^ii hides, geldable. There 
is (arable) land (enough) for iii ox-teams. In demesne there are a 
team and a half-team ; and there are ii Serfs and iiii Villains with 
one team. Here is a Wood which will fatten 30 swine ; and a Haye. 
In King Edward's time the manor was worth 15«. {per annuni) : 
now it is worth 10*. He (Gerard) found it waste.'** 



^ The caloulation probably indnded 
motfee. The two were Ad. per awnumy 
and 10(. would be 30 yean' arrean, which 
would lead ub to date the Abbot's liabi- 
lity as commencing in 1262. 



s FoHo 134. 

' Pop€ Nich, Taxation^ p. 261. 
« Lilleshall Chartulary, fo. 158. 
s M(m(uiieo% YoL YI. p. 265. 
* Damesdatf, fo. 258, b, 2. 



222 SANBPOUD. 

The Seigneuiy of Sandford mast be taken to have passed in the 
usual course^ viz. from Gerard de Tomai to his daughter Sibil and 
her husband Hamo P^verel^ and subsequently to have escheated to 
the Crown by failure of all lineal descendants of Gerard de Tomai. 
Like other Tomai Escheats^ Sandford became a Tenure-m-capite 
de eschaetd, a thing which was distinguished firom a Tenure-in^capite 
de Corond in this way. — ^The King^ as Suzerain of Sandford^ merely 
represented Gerard de Tomai^ and was not entitled to custody or 
wardship of such lands as his Tenant at Sandford may have held 
under other Suzerains. The history of Sandford Manor is however 
more interesting in lespect of its Feo£fees than in respect of any 
abstract question of feudal usage. It is one of those very few Shrop- 
shire estates which can be said to be held by the lineal descendant^ 
in the male line^ of its earliest known Feoffee. Whether the Sand- 
fords of Sandford were first enfeoffed by Gerard de Tomai, by Hamo 
Peverel, or by Henry 11., is matter of conjecture. I incline to date 
their feoffment from the «era of Henry I.^ and if so must attribute 
it to Hamo Peverel. I think too that the Arms bom by the Sand- 
fords indicate an alliance with, or a descent fiom, that great House 
of Fitz Warin, which first came into notice during the reign of 
Henry I. 

Whether the Sandfords succeeded to Ruthall (another Tomai 
Escheat) as heirs of Gerelmus, its Domesday Tenant, is a question 
already stated to be incapable of solution.^ We may safely declare 
the Sandfords to have been Tenan^'in'Capite of both Manors, as 
early as the reign of Henry II. 

I now proceed to give such particulars of this family as have not 
already transpired under Ruthall, or under Sutton Maddock. — 

BiCHAED DB Sanford, the first known rq)resentative of his line, 
occurs in 1167, when he was amerced half a merk by Alan de Ne- 
viU, a Justice of the Forest. He renders account of the debt on the 
Pipe-Roll of 1169. 

Thomas de Sandfo&d, the next in this succession, was living in 
8 Richard I. (1196-7), and was, with his wife Amabil, daughter and 
coheir of Richard Cardiff, party to a fine then levied with Thomas 
de Bavis and Hadwiss his wife, the other coheir of Richard Cardiff. 
Sandford and his wife, as Tenants, concede to the other party, as 
Plaintiffs, a moiety of the following estates, viz. three-fourths of a 
knight^s-fee in Toppesfeld, one-fourth of a knight's-fee in Granten- 
don, one knight^s-fee in Hameledeun, one-fourth of a knight^s-fee 

» Suprft, Vol. IV. p. 48. 



8ANDF0RD. 228 

« 

in the New vUl of Glamorgan, one knight's-fee in Glamorgan-de-St. 
Hilary, and 3 hides and 1 virgate of land in Haiston, all which had 
been held by Richard Cardiff, father of Amabil and Hadwiss.^ I 
cannot trace any share in the above estates to any later member of 
the family of Sandford, bnt the subject is one on which extant evi- 
dence is hardly to be expected. 

It would seem that this Thomas de Sandford was a Knight, and 
that he lodged a complaint with the Court of Rome as to the spolia- 
tion of Sandford Chapel by the Co-Rectors of Frees, who had strip- 
ped it of certain land and rents, wherewith it had been endowed by 
the Complainant's Ancestors. It is both perplexing and remarkable 
that in a Rescript of Pope Innocent III., dated at St. Peter's on 
March 8, in the 17th year of the said Pope's Pontificate (i. e, March 
8, 1214), this complaint is treated as a recent one, while it is certain 
that Thomas de Sandford had been dead at least 10 years. — 

The Papal Letter is only half preserved, but enough remains to 
show that all Abbots of the Cistercian Order, within the Diocese of 
Coventry, and the Prior of Ranton are appointed Judges-delegate to 
remedy any injustice which may have been done to the " Knight, 
Thomas," the complainant.^ The well known delays, which attended- 
suits in the Court of Rome, and the possible loss of some previous 
documents, may perhaps account for the anachronism which sepa- 
^ rates this Papal Rescript from the sera of him who sought it. 

Ralph de Sandford, the successor, and either the son or brother, 
of Thomas, occurs almost continuously firom 1203 to 1231. Of this 
we have had much evidence under Sutton Maddock and Ruthall, to 
which I have something now to add. In Michaelmas Term 1207, 
Thomas Basset was impleading Ralph de Sanford for damages done 
by the Defendant's Cattle in breaking into the Plaintiff's Park. 
Sanford not appearing, his Securities for appearance in Hilary Term 
following, were ordered to be increased. I find nothing more of 
this suit and cannot indicate the precise locality in which Basset and 



^ DugdMa Vmtation of ShropMhire^ 
1663-4 (I» ColUgio Amwrvm\ fo. 105. 

3 Ibidem, fo. 104, b.— I give the tran- 
Bcript of the Papal Letter, marking some 
presumed omissions by parentheses. — In- 
nocenUua JEpUcopuSy 4*0., Abbatibus Oit- 
tereiencis Ordinis et Priori de Ranton^ 
Cavmtr. Dioo, (acUutem). Q^erelam 
Thorny MUitis aocepimus continentem 
quod Thomas et N, {Rectores) ecclesia {de 
Free) Covenir. Dioc. CktpeUam de San- 



fort qmbusdam reddiUtbus^ terrie, et aUie 
rebtu, qttas anceesores ipeiiunUlitia eidem 
conceesere Capella ad utum proborum de- 
eervientium in eddem^ contra jufticiam 
epoliarunt. Oum igitwr epoUaUs infuste 
ettccttrrendum (decemimtut), audioHs, ^c, 
Teetes autem {qui se odio, gratid, ^o» as 
in the usual form). Quod si nou omnee^ 
^c, (interesse poteritis, ^c, as in the usual 
form). Daf Home apud S. Petrum^ 5 
non. Mart,, Pontificates {nogtri) anno xvU, 



224 



SANBTORD. 



Sanford were likely thus to oome into collision. However I may 
observe that Thomas Basset of Colinton had estates^ both in Cheshire 
and North Shropshire^ with his wife Philippa^ daughter and coheir 
of William Malbanc. 

About 1212^ we have a list of Tenants who '' held in capUe of the 
Escheats of Gerard de Thumay/' Ralph de Sandford thus held San- 
ford by service of half a knighfs^fee.^ A letter written by the Sheriff 
of Salop and Staffordshire to King John contaius internal evidence of 
its date^ viz. the ^' Close of Easter ^* 1215. It is an able digest of the 
political state of the two Counties at that period of commotion.^ It 
certifies^ among other things, that Ralph de Sinfort was one of those 
Salopians who had been, and still continued, opposed to the Crown 
in the existing war. The effect of this intelligence on the vengeful 
King does not appear till March 8, 1216, when the Sheriff of Shrop- 
shire is ordered by a Writ-Close to give all the land in his Baili- 
wick which had been Ralph de Samford's to David de Malpas.^ In 
November 1217, another Writ of King Henry III. certifies the 
Sheriff of Shropshire that Ralph de Samford had returned to his 
allegiance, and orders a reversal of the disseizin, which he had 
suffered on his rebellion against King John.^ The following Fine, 
levied at Westminster on October 19, 1224, probably relates to a 
disputed marriage-portion, the portion, I think, of a sister of Ralph 
de Sanford. Henry de Dorlaveston (now Darliston), and Agnes 
his wife, tenants of 3 bovates in Samford, whereof was Suit at law,^ 
quitclaim the same to Ralph de Samford, Plaintiff. In return Ralph 
concedes the premises, to Henry and Agnes, and the heirs of Agnes' 
body, to hold under himself, at a rent of 2d.y payable annually at 
Christmas. If Agnes should die without issue, then, on the further 
decease of her husband, the premises were to revert to Samford, 
who now paid 3 merks to Henry and Agnes. The said Henry and 
Agnes further renoimced all claim to two vii^ates in Dorlaveston 
which had been in dispute between Samford and themselves. 

I have already given a synopsis of the Scutages to which Ralph 
de Sandford was assessed, from 1204 to 1232.^ 

The subsequent use of his name in Sctttage-Rolb is no proof that 



1 Testa de NetnU, p. 56. 

> Vincent, Vol IIL p. 98 (In CoUeff. 
Armomm), 

'*« Ctotw. I. p. 252, 375. 

* The Flea-Boll of Michaelmas Term 
1224 notes the suit (alluded to) in these 
words : — Uad* de S^f^ord peiii versus 



Senr^ de Dorlaveston et A^netem uxorem, 
tres hovaias terra in Sam»fbrd. Coneor^ 
dati sunt. Also the Fipe-BoU of 1225 
shows Balph de Sanford as accounting 
half a merk, pro lieeniid concordandi eum 
Henrico de Orlaveston, 
• Supra» VoL VIII. p. 197. 



SANDFORD. 



225 



he was living. In shorty we know that he was deceased at Michael- 
mas 1235. All that I have forther to say on this subject is that the 
Pipe.RoU of 1229 enters him as still owing half a merk for the 
Scutage of Montgomery^ which had been put in charge five years 
previously. 

Ralph de Sandford (I.) purchased Styche from Robert^ son of 
Robert Belle. Of that matter I shall speak elsewhere. The follow- 
ing Deed is more apposite to our present subject. — 

Between 1224 and 1234, "Radulf, Lord of Sanford/' gives to 
William, son of Richard de Lake, for his homage and service and 
for half a merk, paid on entry, an assart in Bromlege, containing 
29 seylions, near Berndehurste ; — also an assart called Evichesleg 
(Aychley), reaching from the old king's-highway to Stockenebrigge, 
and extending beyond Stockenebrigg to Hurst, on that side which 
was nearest Bromlege, and so on, close by the margin (costeram) of 
Hurst, to the Moor between Berdehurste and Evichesleg, and so 
going down from the said Hurst through the moor, according to the 
bounds made between the parties, and past a certain meadow, held 
by R. fitz Eda of the Grantor, and past a certain other meadow, 
from Ermittelegesford up to the boundary of Loskesford (Losford) ; 
— the whole to be held by the Grantee under the Grantor and his 
heirs, in fee, &c., with all easements pertaining to the Grantor's vill 
of Sanford. The Grantee is to pay an annual rent of 28. and one 
hog, when any swine of his, above seven in number, shall have been 
fattened on the Grantor's /^e^^on. Witnesses, William de Stanton, 
Hugh de Evechestan (probably Hawkstone), John de Leeton, Edwin 
de Wilaston, William de CuUeshasel, Alan de Nakinton, Adam de 
Stichele (Steel), Yvo de Suletone, and many others.^ 

Before I quit this notice of Ralph de Sandford (I.) I should set 
forth a certain Document in which the initial letter of his name 
occurs. It is an abstract of a Rescript by Pope Honorius III. and 
is of date September 18, 1218.* — "Honorius Episcoptts, ^c. dilectis 
filiis de Bildewas, de Hagemon (et) de Wanbruge Prioribus,^ Coventr. 
Dioc, fsalutemj. R. Laicus mam obtvlit questionem quod cum T, 
et N.y Rectores ecclesie de Frees, in CapeUd sua de Sanford divina 
celebrare officio teneantur, certis sUn propter hoc terria et decimis 
assignatis, iidem id efficere renuunt. Ideoque, partibus convocatis, 



^ Charter in posaesBion of T. H. Sand- 
ford, Esq., of Sandford. This Charter is 
indorsed as Carta de Acheley, showing 
that Aychley, near Micklny, was the place 
concerned. 



' I>ugdale*8 VintaHon (ut snpra). 

3 It was probably the AhhoU of Build- 
was and Haughmond, whom the Pope in- 
tended to address : — or perhaps the tran- 
scnpt is inaccurate. 



IX. 29 



226 SANDVORD. 

audiatis et terminetis (litem), Lateran\ 14 kal Oct., PontificatHs 
anno 8**. — The significances of this Document are, I presume, that 
the previous appeal by Thomas de Sandford to Pope Innocent III. 
had resulted in assigning both the duties and the emoluments of 
Sandford Chapelry to the Co- Rectors of Frees ; — ^that they had ac- 
cepted the benefice without any regard to its obligations ; — and that 
a second appeal, by the Representative of Thomas de Sandford to 
the Representative of St. Peter, was now put in course of arbitration. 
It is difficult, at this distance of time, to decide whether the ascend- 
ency acquired in England by Pope Innocent III., or the venality 
and sloth of the superior Clergy, did most to undermine that rami- 
fied parochial system, which owed its most liberal support, if not its 
prime organization, to the terror and remorse which prevailed in 
King Stephen^s time. — If it be true thaH; great evil may and does 
sometimes result in great good, it is hardly to be expected that 
the good, thus engendered, will be permanent. 

Richard de Sandfoed (II.), son and heir of Ralph, succeeded 
him between the years 1231 and 1335. At Michaelmas in the latter 
year, and at Easter 1236, Richard de Sonford is enrolled as paying, 
in two instalments, the sum of one merk (the proportion due on half 
a Tomai Fee) to the Aid on marriage of the King's Sister.^ In 
July 1241, 1 find Richard de Sanford named as a Justiciar to try a 
local cause. He died, as I have said under Sutton, in or about the 
year 1249, leaving a son and heir, Ralph, then 14 years of age, 
and a widow, Eleanor, who remarried to Richard Bumell. The In- 
quest on his death makes Sanford and Ruthall to have been held in 
capite, collectively for half a knight's-fee. Richard de Sanford had 
also held 7s. 4(1. assized rent in Derlawston {L e. Darliston), of the 
Bishop of Coventry. His whole estate (including £4. 4*. 8d. from 
Brockton and Caughley*) was computed at £13. Ss. 7d. per annum, 
an income which in those days was far above the average of knightly 
estates. Having now determined the sera of Sir Richard de Sand- 
ford, I proceed to notice a variety of documents, dated and undated, 
in which his name occurs. — The abstracted Deed which I first give, 
passed between 1232 and 1242, and is a grant by a Tenant of Sir 
Richard de Sandford to that Tenant's Nephew. — 

Adam Venator, filiua Wulrici de Wichishalle, in legid potestate 
dedi Willielmo filio Alicie sororis mee, pro komagio et pro sew mar- 
cis et dtmid\ unam dimidiam virgatam in villd de Sanford. H. T. 
Domino Ricardo domino de Sanford, Adam de Stieleg, Edwino de 

» Testa de Nevilly p. 61. ^ Supra, Vol. II. pp. 43, 127. 



SANDFORD. 



227 



WUavi^ton, Sicardo filio Roberfi Sanfort, Johanne de Darlaviaton.^ 
A Fine, levied at Shrewsbury on November 18, 1240, shows the 
above Adam Venator under the name of Adam le Veiner. He, as 
Tenant of li virgates in Saunford, and William fitz William, aa 
Tenant of half a virgate and 8 acres in the same vill, had been im- 
pleaded by Adam fitz Richard (whom I know to have been Adam 
Venator's nephew), for the said tenements. Both Defendants had 
called Richard de Saunford to warranty. The latter now ap- 
peared, as vouching the required warranty, and so becoming a party 
to the Pine. The said Fine was that Adam fitz Richard quitclaimed 
all his right in the premises to Richard de Saunford and his heirs, 
and also conceded to the said Richard de Saunford 3 nokes, viz. the 
whole land which the Quit-claimant held in the vill of Saunford, — 
to hold to Richard de Saunford and his heirs, under the Lords of the 
Fee. In return Richard de Saunford gave to the Quit-claimant 
one-fourth part of the Manor of W^hitekeshal, to hold to the said 
Quit-claimant and his heirs, under the Lords of the Fee, 

A Suit, tried at Westminster in October 1242, shows that the 
above Adam Venator was then dead, and that his widow, under the 
name of " Edith, widow of Adam le Hunter," was seeking dower in 
her husband's former estate at Sandford. She so sued Richard de 
Sanford for thirds of 2 bovates of land in Sandford, and she sued 
William de Sanford for a moiety of 12 denariates of rent there. The 
parties accorded, Richard de Sanford buying off the claim against 
him for 2 merks, and William de Sanford allowing a third of the 12 
denariates of rent held by him.^ 

A Deed, which must needs be dated between 1242 and 1249, shows 
Adam fitz Richard (the nephew of Adam Venator) re-exchanging 
his estate at Whixall for a tenement in Sandford.^ — Adam films 



^ Dugddle^B Vmtaiion (ut supra), fo. 
107. The Seal of this Deed is aUusive to 
the Grantor's profession. In the back- 
ground is a troe, or fleury device : in the 
foreground a Gfreyhound cowant. The 
Legend (SiaiLLUM Ade Yeitatobib) is 
▼cry distinct. — 

The Deed, I suppose, suggested the He- 
raldic statement that " Balph de Sandford 
married Alice, daughter of Wolfric of 
Quixhnll, and sister of Adam Yenator.** 
The Heralds have however altogether err- 
ed in making Alice's husband to be that 
Ralph de Sandford who died in 1308. — 

I think it a question whether Alice's 



husband was not William, a younger 
brother of Balph de Sanford (I.), by 
whom she had a son, a second William, 
the Grantee in the above Deed. If Wil- 
Uam, sou of Alice, had been brother or 
half-brother to Eichard de Sanford (II.), 
the latter would surely have so described 
him, and not called him " William son of 
Alice de Sanford," as he does in a subse- 
quent Deed. 

« Placita, Mich.Tm, 26 Hen. III., m. 16. 

' Charter in possession of T. H. Sand- 
ford, Esq. — This Deed has a Seal with 
the device of a Fleur de lys^ and the Le- 
gend — SiaiLL. AdE 7ILXI BiCABDI. 



228 SANDFORD. 

Ricardi filii Widfrici de Witekeshak dedi et concessi et quief cht^ 
mavi Ricardo Domino de Sanford et heredibus suis iotam quartam 
partem vUle de Witekeshale cum pertinenciis, scilicet toium jus et 
clameum que ego et heredes mei in totd villa de Witekeshale habuimus, 
^c. in excambium dimidie virgate terre et unius noke et cujusdam 
prati in villd de Sanford, quam dimidiam virgatam tenuit Editha 
vidua, et quam nokam tenuit fVillielmus filius Rogeri, et quod pra- 
turn fTillielmus filius WiUielmi, et Ricardus Spere assartaverunt ; — 
Reddendo de dictd parte de Wytekeshal Ricardo de Lache et heredi^ 
bus, in festo Sancti Martini, 21 den. pro omnibus, salvo forinseco 
servicio. H, T. Domino Willielmo de Albo-Monasterio, Domino 
Odone de Hodenhet, Odone de WUauston, Thoma de Frees, Grifino 
filio WUlielmi,^ Adam Clerico, Adam de Scakra, et multis aliis, 

A deed or fragment of a Deed^ which I date about 1240^ repre- 
sents '' Richard^ Lord of Sandford/^ as granting something to 
" William, son of Alice de Sanford, for his homage and for 20*." 
This Deed was sealed with the Sandford Arms, — Quarterly, per 
/esse indented ermine and azure, and was attested by Sir Radolf de 
Hodnet, Thomas de PJrees, Edwin de Willaveston, William de Cal- 
yerhall, Roger de Itefeld, Adam de Stiele, John de Leton, Philip, 
Clerk of Frees, John his brother, John de Hawekiston, John de 
Dorlawston, Richard, son of Robert de Sandford, Richard, son of 
Alexander de Wilaveston, and others.^ In another Deed, still more 
briefly given, I find Walter de Say (he was Lord of Moreton 
Say) granting to Sir Richard de Sontford, for his homage, a moor, 
called Wallmore, near Blechley.' 

The following Deed, which I date about 1245, induces me to 
think that Gilian, wife of Richard de Lake (ancestor of the Lacons) 
was a Sandford. If so, a probability arises that the Lacons as- 
sumed the Sandford Arms with reference to this match. — 

Ricardus filius Ricardi de Laka, proprid potestate existens, dedi 
Ricardo filio Roberti de Sonfort pro homagio et servicio sua et pro 
XX solidis, duos virgatas terre in viUd de Sonfort, scilicet illas quas 
Dominus Ricardus de Sonfort^ dedit cum GUi-and matre med Ricardo 
de Lake patri meo in Hbero maritagio, tfc, ; — tenemP et habend^ de 



^ Now or afterwards of Ightfield (su- 
pra, p. 209). 

« DugdaUt Vtsitation, fo. 106-b :— 
collated with Harl. MS. 1396, fo. 36S-b. 

' Dugdale (ut supra), fo. 105. 

^ The Bichard de Sandford, who thus 
portioned Gilian, must hare been Bichard 



de Sandford (I.) ; for Bichard de Sand- 
ford (II.), succeeding after 1231, cannot 
have BO sanctioned a marriage, the issue 
of which was of disposuig power before 
1249.— 

A fragment of a D^eed (quoted in Jhig- 
dale's Vmtatwn) alludes to Biohavd, 



SANDFORD. 229 

me et heredibus meiSy libere, ^c. ; — Reddendo 6 soUdos, SfC, et salvo 
/orimeco sermdo. Ego vero Ricardus de Laka, ^c. H. T, Domino 
Ricardo de Sonfort, Hugone de Say, WUUelmo de Calverhale, Ro- 
gerio de Ittefeld, Radig de Hinet, Adam de Stiekg, Ivone de Suleton, 
Johanne de Letton et aUis} 

Another Charter is the surrender of a dldin of tenancy to the 
Lord of the Fee. — Henricm clericus de Ictefeld filius WiUielmi fiiii 
Gutlie concessi et dimisi et quief clamavi Domino Ricardo de Son^ 
ford et heredibtis totum jus in dimidid mrgatd terre in villd de Son* 
ford et in le Wynais quam de eo tenere clamavi. Pro hdc Ricardus 
dedit mihi tres marcas. H, T. Edvnno de Wilaviston, Willielmo de 
Caverhale, Rogero de Ictefeld, Ada de Stick, Johanne de Letun, 
Ricardo filio AlexandH, Ricardo filio Roberti de Sonford et aliis} 

Ralph de Sandfobd (11.)^ son and heir of Bichard^ has already 
been spoken of as a Minor in September 1249 and January 1256^ 
and as in ward to Odo de Hodnet.' A Patent of 1251 shows 
Richard Bumell and Alianore his wife (she was Richard de Sand- 
ford's widow) impleading Odo de Hodenet for having disseized them 
of common pasture in Samford. By an entry on the Plea-Roll of 
November 1253^ it appears that Odo de Hodnet^ having been sued 
for seizing the Cattle of Richard Bumel^ had repeatedly failed to 
appear. William de Devenays was Bumel's Attorney in the Suit^ 
now again adjourned. 

The Hundred- Roll of 1255 uses a strange but quite inteUigible 
expression when it says that ^^ Odo de Hodnet^ as Guardian^ holds 
Ralph de Sawtford of the King in capite, by service of one Muntor 
at Shewarthyn (Shrawardine)^ for forty days in time of war, at his 
own cost. The Yill was iii hides (its Domesday measure) and paid 
12d, yearly for stretward and 12d. for motfee. It did due suit to 
County and Hundred^ and was geldable. Aliemara, Lady of San- 
ford, had been in the King's custody and was now married to 
Richard Bumell, the Jurors knew not by what authority. The 
land of the said Lady was worth 100^. per annum. The King 
had given the (above) wardship to Oermanus Cissor, and Odo de 
Hodnet had obtained it from the said Germanus.''^ The Pipe-Roll 
of this same year (1255) shows that ^' Richard Bumel was amerced 
10 merks^ because of his marriage with Alienora de Saunford being 



son of Bobert de Sanford, as Qrantee of 
lands in Sanford from Balph de Sanford. 
The Deed was sealed with the effigy of a 
knight on horseback. I conclude that 
the Qrantor was Balph de Bandford (I.), 



who, we know, used such a Seal (suprs^ 
VoL 11. p. 126, note 75). 

1 * ' Charters at Sandford. 

s Snpra^ Tol. II. pp. 127, 12& 

« Eot, Hundred. II. 67. 



280 



SANDFORD. 



without Boyal license/' His Securities were Robert de Staunton, 
Geoffrey de Thorp^ Henry de Shavinton^ and Hugh de Beckbury. 

Notwithstanding the continued minority of Ralph de Sanford in 
January 1256, it was found at the Assizes, then held, that Richard 
de Wardhull and five others had disseized him of half an acre 
in Saunford. At the Assizes of 1272 Ralph de Sondeford was 
Foreman of the Jurors of Bradford Hundred. The Feodary of 1284 
merely states that " Ralph de Sanford holds Sanford in capite for 
half a knight's-fee." That of 1285-6 says that " Ralph Sondford. 
holds the vill of Sondford, and also the vill of Rowthall, in the 
Hundred of Monslow, of the King, in capite sine medio, by service 
of finding one horseman at Montgomery in war-time, for 40 days, 
at his own cost/' 

A Jury-List of February 1290 exhibits Sir Ralph de Sanford as 
a knight. At the Assizes of October 1292 he was one of the Elizars 
for Bradford Hundred. Among the Placita Corona, his tenure of 
Saundford is properly classed as a Serjeantry, and the integrity of 
the Serjeantry was asserted, but I question with what accuracy, if 
by integrity it was meant that nothing in Sandford had been alien- 
ated by feofiment. The Manor was calculated to be worth £10 
per annum. As to the service due on his Serjeantry, Ralph de 
Sanford declared that he had discharged it in the late wars; and 
he cited the Records of Bogo de KnoviD, Gustos of Montgomery 
Castle, in proof of his assertion. He was dismissed sine die. 

I must here set forth another document in proof that Ralph de 
Sandford's services had been duly discharged. The campaign tech- 
nically known as '^ the war of Lewellyn and David" ended in the 
death of Lewellyn on Dec. 11, 1282. Ralph de Sandford was then 
about 47 years of age, and it would seem that he compounded by a 
pecuniary Fine for his personal services.— 

It is probable that the date expressed in the following receipt is 
inaccurate, for it is unlikely that such a composition should have 
remained due for a space of 24 years. — 

Universis ^c, Bogo de Cnovill, salutem. Sciatis me recepisse 40 
sol, pro bono et laudabili servicio Domini Radulfi de Sanford, tem- 
pore guerre Lewelini et David per Willielmum filium dicti Radulfi 
fideliter impensum (read impensos) . Dat^ apud Senitone 8 kal. MaV 
34 Regis Edwardi {i.e. April 24, 1306} .^ I suppose that Sir Bevis 



» DugdaUfa Vmtation, fo. 105, b.— 
The Hifitonaiu of Sbrewsburj (VoL I. 
p. 142, note 2) seem to haye miBiinder- 
Btood the meaning of this document. For 



impensum they supplied mpenso^ making 
the woivl to agree with sertncio. But it ia 
clear that William son of Ralph de San- 
ford cannot have been 10 years of age in 



SANDFORD. 281 

de Cnovill acknowledged the above payment^ as Gustos of Mont- 
gomery Castle. 

King Edward II/s Writ of Diem clausit on the death of Ralph 
de Sanford bears date on January 4^ 1308. An Inquest followed 
on January 14th at Sandford. It found that the deceased had held 
the hamlet of Sandford in capite, by service of one armed man^ 
with a horse^ not barbed^ at Montgomery^ for 40 days in war-time. 
Two shillings per annum were due on Sandford to the King's Bai- 
lifls, for stretward (and moifee, I presume). The Vill owed monthly 
suit to the County, and suit every three weeks to the Hundred of 
Bradford. The deceased had held 10«. rent in Derlaston and Mit- 
teneley (Mickley) under the Bishop of Chester, for which he was 
bound to do suit at the Manorial Court of Frees. Richard, son 
and heir of the deceased, was said to be 30 years of age.^ It is pro- 
bable that he was somewhat older. 

The public sera of Ralph de Sandford (II.) being now ascertained, 
as from 1256 to 1307, when he was 72 years of age, the following 
documents refer to the private affairs of himself and his family. — 

Between the years 1256 and 1272, Richard deEsche and his wife 
Agnes release and quitclaim to Ralph de Sanford, their Lord, 3 
bovates in the vill of Sanford, which were the right and inheritance 
of Agnes, and which she and her husband held under Ralph de San- 
ford by a rent of 2d. It is further stipulated that Ralph and his 
heirs should pay the said rent of 2d, to his Mother, Dame Elyanore, 
for her Ufe, and in the name of dower. Witnesses, Sir O. de Hode- 
net, Robert Corbet of Morton, Robert de Morton Say, Thomas de 
Wilaston, Robert son of Adam de Wilaston, Robert de Blecheleg, 
Robert de Heselchaue, and others.^ About the same time, William 
Pimot of Sontford gives and quitclaims to Ralph, son of Richard, 
Lord of Sontford, and his heirs, five acres in the fields of Sontford, 
viz. those which the Grantor had given to his son Thomas, one 
whereof lay in the field towards Willaston, in Le Pull, between the 
Lord's land and William Faber's land. Sec. Witnesses, Thomas, 
Lord of Willaston ; Robert fitz Adam of Willaston ; Richard fitz 
Godith of Willaston ; Hugh, Lord of Stiele ; and Reginald Modi 
of Frees.* 

1282. (My acknowledgment are due to wife of Heniy ie Darliston, who obtained 

the Ber. F. Le Grix White for this sound these 3 bovates by the Fine of 1224, al- 

piece of criticism.) ready recited (supra, p. 22-1). 

* InquiniionSf 1 £dw. II., No. 5. ' Charter ibidem. — Other localities 

" Charter at Sandford. It is erident named in this Deed are Le Middel&ld, 

that Agnes de Esche waa heiress of Agnes | Dunshursteforlond, Le Fulhume, Hesfor^ 



282 



SANDFORD. 



The same William Pimot of Sontford (at a later period, I think) 
^ves and quitclaims to Sir Ralph his Lord, a seylion which he held 
of him, bounded by Robert Alemare's garden, by the watercourse 
which led to the Lord's garden, by William fitz William's garden, 
and by John Sissor's land. For this Sir Ralph paid As. Witnesses, 
Thomas, Lord of Willaston ; Robert fitz Adam de WiUaston ; Hugh 
de Stiele ; Reginald Modi ; and Richard, Clerk of Mitnd^.^ 

About 1274-1284, Alina, daughter of William Pymot of Sonford, 
quitclaims to Sir Ralph de Sonford and his heirs, for 6 merks, all 
right in a virgate which her father gave her, and in a messuage 
which he formerly held in the vill of Sonford. Witnesses, Sir Odo 
de Hodnet ; Robert de Say, Lord of Moreton ; John de Hauckes- 
tan ; Ivo de Soleton ; Hugh de Stiele, and others.^ 

About the year 1284, Hugh, Lord of Stiele, sold to William, son 
of Ralph de Sanford, one-fourth of Wilkeshal, the Grantee covenant- 
ing to discharge all services due to the Lord of the Fee, and osten- 
sibly paying 20 merks to the Grantor. The Deed was attested by 
Sir Hodo de Hodenet, Sir Robert Corbet, William de Titneley, Ivo 
de Suleton and John de Hauckestan ;' but, as we shall see, the pur- 
chase was afterwards completed for other considerations. 

About 1285-90, Yvo fitz Adam of Wickeshale gave to Sir Ralph 
de Sontford all the Seigneury {dominium) which he had over John, 
son of John, son of Yovan Campion of Wickeshale, and over the 
land which the said John held under the Grantor in that vill, with 
all rents which he used to pay the Grantor, viz. 17d. per annum, 
and a pair of white gloves, and with all escheats, heriots, pannages, 
homages, wards, reliefs, incidentals (casibiui), and with all outgoings 
{eaiiibus) and services ; — to hold to Sir Ralph and his heirs, under 
the Grantor and his heirs, in fee and inheritance, by a rent of one 
pair of white gloves, payable at Sontford on Michaelmas-day. For 
this grant Sir Ralph paid 2 merks and 40d. (i. e. 30».). Witnesses, 
Sir Robert Corbet, Lord of Morton ; Sir William, Lord of Hode- 
net ; Robert de Say of Morton ; Hugh de Stiele ; Reginald Modi ; 
Philip de Montagu ; William de Hadleg ; Madoc de Wickeshale ; 
and others.^ 

In or about the year 1290, " Hugh, Lord of Stiele, in his liege 
power and full health, gives and quitclaims to William, son of Ralph 
Lord of Sonford, and to the heirs of the said William, a whole fourth 



long, «nd the field towards Durlaston. 
Intermixed lands were held by Philip 
MediouB, Richard fitz William, John Fo- 



rester, and William Letoke. 

1 . s . s . 4 Chaiters in possession of T. 
II . Sandford, Esq., of Sandford. 



BANDFORD. 283 

of the vill of Wilkeahal, with tac,tol, Haneth, and With, and other 
possible issues of the said land; — ^to hold in fee under the Grantor 
and his heirs, they retaining no demand thereon; but the Grantee 
rendering the service due to the Chief-Lord, viz. 15rf. in lieu of all 
services. For this grant, Ralph, father of the Grantee, gave the 
Grantor half a virgate in the vill of Sonford, to hold for life, with 
all victuals and clothing becomingly {horwrabiliter) necessary for 
him. Witnesses, Sir Robert Corbet; Sir JohnfitzAer; Sir William 
de Hodenet; Sir William de Titneleg, then Sheriff; Yvo de Sule- 
ton ; Robert de Say ; William de Hauckeston ; Philip de Monta- 
cute ; and many others.^^^ 

By Writ dated at Moundford on Wednesday before the feast of 
St. James, 18 Edward (i.e. on July 19, 1290), ''Hugh, Lord of 
Stiele, names his brother Richard^s son, Philip, his attorney, to give 
William, son of Sir Ralph de Sanford, seizin of the tenement which 
the said Hugh had in the vill of Quickeshalle.''^ 

From the same authority I learn, but without any means of dating 
or allocating the document, that there was sometime a dispute about 
fosses and bounds, between Sir Ralph de Sandford and Richard, son 
of William de Sanford. 

Before I proceed with any account of Richard de Sandford, eldest 
son and heir of Ralph de Sandford (11.)^ I will say something of the 
younger sons of the said Ralph. 

William de Sandford, one of the said yoimger sons, became 
enfeoffed, in a fourth part of Whixall, as we have seen by various 
documents of about 1284 and 1290. 

About 1305, Alice, wife (widow, I presume) of Madoc fitz William 
of Wyekesal surrenders to William de Sontford and his heirs all 
right, whether in the way of dower or otherwise, in a croft, grange and 
dovecote, which Robert de Radewey, formerly Vicar of Pres, bought 
from her husband. Witnesses, Philip de Montacute, William de 
Haddeleye, John fitz Yevan, John fitz William, William Young 
(Juvene), and others.^ 

About 1310, John, son of Richard de Wyekeshall gives to William, 
son of Sir Ralph de Sontford all his lands and tenements within 
and without the vill of Wyekeshall (except a capital messuage, &c. 
between the lands of Hugh fitz Alan and John de Montacute, which 
Wronou fitz Huninc formerly held, and except a croft called Blake- 
croft, between lands of Hugh fitz Alan and Richard fitz William) ; 
— to hold of the Lord of the Fee, by accustomed services. Wit- 

» Charter ibidem. * BugdaU's Vmtation, fo. 106. ' Charters at Sandford. 

IX. 30 



234 



8ANDP0RD. 



neeses^ William de Weston, Lord of Hauckestaue; Andrew de 
Kendal, Lord of Soulton ; William de Haddelee ; John de Mon- 
tacute; Thomas de Calverhall; Thomas fitz Heylin; John fitz 
William.1 

The indorsement of a Sandford Deed quotes a Darliston Conrt- 
SoU of 5 Edw. IL (1311-2) to prove that William de Sanford, of 
that date, was younger brother of Kichard and that his (Richard's) 
wife's name was Agnes.^ 

In October 1320, Sir William de Sontford, as Knight of the Shire, 
returned for Salop, attended the Parliament then held at West- 
minster. On January 2, 1322, he was appointed a Commissioner 
to raise levies in Shropshire, and forthwith to join the King in an 
effort to repress the existing disturbances. The unfortunate Edward 
was himself at Shrewsbury towards the close of the same month.' 
On March 16, following. Sir William de Saunford fought on the 
Royalist side at Boroughbridge. His arms were enrolled on the 
occasion, as Quartile endente dP azure et d^ermine ;* — showing that 
his cadency, as a younger brother, was marked, by interchanging 
the quarters of his paternal coat. 

Nicholas de Sandford, another son of Ralph de Sandford (II.) 
occurs in the reign of Edward II. As *' Nicholas, son of Ralph, 
Lord of Sanford," lie grants something unexpressed to Richard de 
Frees, Clerk, and his wife Milicent. Witnesses, Richard, Lord of 
Sanford ; William de * * * ; William de Wottenhull ; and Hugh 
fitz Alan.i^ 

By another Deed, '^ William le Botiler of Wem gives to Nicholas 
de Sanford, Alice his wife, and the bodily heirs of Nicholas, estovers 
in his wood of Cotton. Witnesses, William de Weston, Randulf 
Hord, Henry de Hexton, John de Lakyn, William de Wottenhull, 
and others."* 

In 1324, Nicholas de Sandford was returned by the Sheriff of 
Shropshire, pursuant to a Writ-Royal of May 9, as a Man-at-Arms, 
and as summoned to attend the Great Council, forthwith to be held 
at Westminster.^ 

Richard de Sandford (III.)> son and heir of Ralph de Sandford 
(II.) succeeded his father, as we have seen, in 1308. In the 
Nomina Villarum of 1316, Richard de Sontford is enrolled as Lord 
oftheVillofSontford.8 



* * ' Charters at Sandford. 

« • * Pari. WritSy TV, pp. 1444, 1397. 

* DugdMi ViiUatum, fo. 106-b. 



« Ibidem, fo. 107. 

7 Parliamentary Writs, IV. p. 1396. 

^ Ibidem^ page 897. 



SANDFORD. 



235 



From his attestation of a Brockton Deed^ in July 1818^ I should 
suppose Richard de Sandford to have been then a Knight/ but I do 
not find him so styled in any other document. 

On July 19, 1320, Richard, Lord of Sontford leaves to Hugh and 
Robin, sons of Robert de Achesleye, for their lives, a parcel of land 
called Hethihabt in Sontford Manor, for 9 merks paid, and at a rent 
of 5«. 4rf. Witnesses, Sir William de Sontford, Knight ; William 
de Weston ; Nicholas de Sontford ; Roger, son of Richard de Wylas- 
ton ; and Richard de Prez, Clerk.' 

The Writ of Diem clausit on the death of Richard de Sandford 
is dated February 10, 1327. He was found to have held the Vitiate 
of Sondford, and the hamlet of Rothale, in capite, by service of one 
man-at-arms with an unbarbed horse, in guard of Montgomery 
Castle, for 40 days, in case of war, at his own cost. The Capital 
Messuage at Sandford was then in a ruinous condition and valued 
at 40d. per annum ; two carucates, held in demesne, were valued 
only at £2, 14^. 4id.y because the land was sandy (hence the name 
of the place). The Tenure of the deceased at Brocton was by a 
rent of 2«. l^^., payable now to the King, as having custody of John, 
the infant heir of Fulk le Strange. Richard, son and heir of the 
deceased, had attained his full age on January 26, 1327.^ 

The Heraldic Pedigrees make Agnes, wife of that Richard de 
Sanford who died in 1327, to have been Sister of Robert de Say 
of Moreton. Such a match is quite consistent with chronology. 

RicHABD DE Sandford (IV.) was charged with a Relief oi^Os. 
on succession. The last instalment (13«. 4J.) is acknowledged by 
a Writ of the Sherifi'of Shropshire, dated April 1340. 

An Inquest, ordered by Writ of December 6, 1330, and held at 
Sandford on Sept 4, 1335, found that it would not injure the Crown 
if Richard de Sanford were to enlarge a stank at Sandford, by turn- 
ing the King's highway from Chester to Newport into another, and 
equally direct, course, through the vill of Sandford.* 

On June 25, 1332, Richard de Pres, Clerk, and his wife Alice, 
give to Richard, Lord of Sontford, 2 messuages and one carucate in 
Sontford, and the reversion of such land as Petronilla, widow of 
William, son of Richard de Sontford, still held in dower of the 



> Wombridge Chartulary, Tit, Brocton, 
No. XX. 

3 Charter at Sandford.— The seal has 
the device of a Pelican on its nest. As 



the Deed is bipartite, the said seal may be 
that of the Lessees. 

s Inquwitumt, 1 Edw. III., No. 76. 

* Transcript at Sandford. 



236 



iH 

I 



s 

I 

I 

! 




Ih 






\of^ 



'§'2 

II — 
I 

WO 



• o S 



o.S S S 



IH 



es 



CI 



^ ap^n;^ 



Ih 



"Big 

Is 

Sc 

OQ 3 

-•§63 
1 3 



Ih 



O CO o 

00 £ B 

I'll! 



»- — 

^ <^ r^ 

#5 ^- ^* 




>_Q00 



II 

S §01 



^ I 








&1 



,Sq • CO 



O r* 



00 








s 






no J» 



.3 

•S'O go 

II 

I 






8 
o 



237 



\Y 




I 



h 




li 



H 

00 



00 



I 

I 
a 

M 
Ih 



-si 



"■2 






Ih 



<N 9*11 






I 











04 







II 

I pi 
r^ p »* oQ 



^3 

1.1 



IF 



a 



ISs 



Is* 

CO 3* 






GQ 



■<■ 



288 SAKDPORD. 

said William's inheritance. Witnesses, John de Wanmne, Laurence 
de Calverhalle^ Nicholas de Sontford.^ 

On June 24, 1335, Richard, Lord of Sontford, grants the prenuaes, 
thns acquired, to Stephen, Rector of Weston, who, on June 26 (as 
FeoflEbe in trust) re^rants the same to Richard de Sontford, and his 
wife Isabella^ with remainder to the heirs of Ridiard. Witnesses, 
Sir Thomas de HaudLCston, Robert de Say, John de Wilaston, and 
John de Warenne.' 

On May 7, 1339, Richard, son of Richard, Clerk of Pres, quit- 
daims to Richard, Lord of Sandfinrd, all right in one acre of the 
land above granted by his father. Witnesses, Robert de Say, 
Nicholas de Sontford.' 

In 1340 and 1344, Isabella and Edith, daughters of Richard de 
Sandford, acknowledge the respectiye receipts of 6 merks and 30»., 
paid by their brother.Richard on account of certain debts, the first 
of which was 20 merks.^ 

On March 2, 1341, Richard, Lord of Sontford, grants to Adam 
Purdieu a year's lease of his Mills at Sontford, Astford, Acheley, 
and Bleccheley.^ 

By Patent, dated " near Calais,'' on September 4, 1346 (nine 
days after the Battle of Cressy), King Edward III., in consideration 
of Richard de Sanford's previous services in the French war, and 
on condition that he quit not the King's foUowing, without special 
leave, so long as the King should remain abroad, pardons the said 
Richard all homicides, felonies, outlawries, Sec. by him committed 
in the realm of England, so far as the King's peace was involved.^ 

On December 6, 1346, Griffin son of John le Wareyne acknow* 
ledges the receipt of £61 odd, in part payment of a debt of £100 
due to him from Richard, Lord of Sontford. 

The Writ of Diem claunt, on the death of Richard de Sondford, 
bears date October 17, 1347. By Inquest, taken at Newport on 
November 10 following, it was found that the deceased had held the 
hamlet of Sondford, in capite, for half a knighf s-fee. Of three 
Mills which appertained to his estate, he had only enjoyed two- 
thirds, the remaining third constituting the dower of his mother, 
Agnes, who was still alive. The deceased had died in foreign parts 
(obviously in the service abov^ alluded to), on Wednesday, Septem- 
ber 26, previous.^ His son and heir, Nicholas, was 13 years of 
age on September 29, 1347.^ 

1 . 9 . « . 4 . 1 . « Sandford Muniments. ! lowed the famous capitolation of Calais. 

' Two days before the truoe which fol- I ^ InquuiHom, 21 Bdw. III., No. 86. 



ELLABDINE AND ROWTON. 289 

The advantage which the perusal of original evidences has afforded 
me in compiling the above history of the Sandfords^ has also tempted 
me beyond my usual limits. I have embodied some further par- 
ticulars of the family in the concise form of a Tabular Grenealogy. 

Sandfobd Chaf£l. The evidence of the existence of this Chapel, 
and of its spoliation by the Hectors of the Mother Church of Frees, 
early in the 18th century, has been already given. I am unable to 
identify the parties to, or the date of, a Deed whereby " Richard, 
Lord of Sandford, grants to Balph de Sandford, and his son John, 
for their lives, an acre and five perches in the field, near the Chapel, 
towards Cotton. Witnesses, Thomas de Bolton, William fitz John/' 

The Deed was sealed with the Sandford Arms. It suggests that 
the site of Sandford Chapel was west of the vill, and towards 
WhixaU. 



€llartitn( antu Iio)jattin. 



As Domesday associates EUardine with Cold Hatton, so in the 
succeeding sera is it usually found in connection with Bowton. All 
three Manors are now townships or hamlets of the Parish of High 
Ercall. Domesday speaks of EUardine as a Manor of Gerard de 
Tornai. — " The same Gerard holds Elleurdine (of the Earl). Dodo 
held it (in Saxon times), and was a free man. Here are one hide, 
and a third part of another hide, geldable.^'^ The stock and valua- 
tion of the manor have been already given in conjunction with Cold 
Hatton. 

As to Bowton it had a Domesday status as follows. — ^^ Eddiet 
holds Boutone of the Earl. Morcar and Dot held it (in Saxon 
times) and were free men. Here are ii hides, geldable. There is 
(arable) land for iiii ox-teams. In demesne there is one team; 
and (there are) iii Serfs, a Priest, and iiii Boors, with one team. 
The Manor was worth 25s. (in Saxon times) ; now it is worth 15s. 
(per annum). "^ 

Eddiet, here mentioned, was, I suppose, a woman. She occurs 
nowhere else in the Shropshire Domesday. 

I have described, under Sutton Maddock, how Sutton, EUardine, 

1 • 3 Domesday, fos. 258 ; 259, b, 1. 



240 



BLLARDINE AND ROWTON. 



and Rowton^ being Escheats in the hands of Henry 11.^ or being 
otherwise at that King's disposal^ passed to Genrase Qochy and 
thenceforth constituted a Serjeantry.^ I have further traced the 
said Seijeantry from Grervase Goch to his son^ Griffin^ and to 
Griffin's son^ Madoc.' 

It was about the year 1200^ and while Bowton and EUardine 
were in the hands of Griffin ap Gervase^ that the following curious 
Deed passed. — 

Sciant preserUes et Juturi quod ego Griffinusfiliw Gervarii Choh 
dedi WiUielmo de Hadkia et fieredibus suis totam partem meam 
rivi de Pendelat, et ripam meam a loco ubi fait piscaria TVarini, 
9ur8um versus terram de MucIitutuP quantum oportuerit ad Gis- 
tarn aqtue unius vivarii, quantumcunque profundum et latum ipse 
WiUielmus voluerit, et ad faciendum stagnum et molendinum ad 
pectus et badas et -de terrd med quantum oportuerit, ^c. Dedi 
quoque et concessi predicto Wiilielmo sectam et molturam de RueU 
tuna et de HeUewrth,^ ita quod si aliquis hominum meorum de pre- 
dictis vUlis inventus fuerit ad aliud molendinum molere et a molturd 
alterius molendini redire, farina predicto Wittiebno et heredibus suis 
remaneat et miki et heredibus meis misericordia. Si vero aliquo 
casu evenerit, quod predictum molendinum molere non possit, sine 
calumnid per idem tempos alibi molant, quousque predictum molendi- 
num molere possit. Hoc autem solum mihi rettneo, quod cum in 
partes Ulas ego et heredes mei venerimus, cum propriis retibus nos- 
tris in supradicto vivario, ad opus nostrum, possimus piscari, et in 
batello suOy et ipsi batellum invement. Volo igitur, 6^c, — Reddendo 
duo calcaria deaurata, ^c, Et ut hac, ^c. Testibus kiis ; — Johanne 
Extraneo, et Hamundo fratre suo ; Bartkohmeo de Morton, et Ste- 
phano de Stanton; Widone de Shaeburi; Baldunno Wischard, et 
Gwimaro de Rodinton et m. a.^ 

An Inquest of 1227 records of Madoc ap Griffin^ that he ''Mad- 
doc^ son of Matilda le Strange^ was a Tenant of the King's in Brad- 
ford Hundred^ and that his land was worth 3 merks per annum "^ 
The allusion is to Bowton and EUardine. 

I have elsewhere given the Convention which took place in 1229 
between Madoc ap Griffin and the Lord of High Ercall respecting 
the vivary of La Lake/ which had been established in the river 
Pendelat, on the strength of Griffin's Charter^ just now recited. 



» Supra, VoL IL pp. 108, 109. 
» Ibidem, pp. 109-114. 
^ Muckleton ; EUardine. 



* The late Mr. G^ige Morris's I>eeds. 

* TeHa de NerUl, p. 53. 



^ Sapra, page6 82, 83. 



ELLARDINE AND ROWTON. 241 

Madoc ap GrifSn had a Tenant^ Madoc de EUardine. In May 
1253, Madoc de Elwardyn is entered as taking out a Writ oinoveU 
disseizin against Madoc^ son of Griffin Ooch and others, for a tene- 
ment in EUewardyn.^ In October 1253, Madoc de Sutton is in 
turn a Plaintiff against William de Ercalew and Madoc de El- 
wardyn, for disseizing him of a tenement in Buwelton and Elwar- 
dyn.^ 

The Hundred-Boll of 1255 says that '^ Madoc de Sutton holds 
the Manor of Rowelton, by Serjeantry of conducting the King in 
Wales, in time of Avar. The Manor was accounted to be iii hides, 
and paid \2d, motfee and \2d. streiward, and did due suit to County 
and Hundred.'^* By Rowelton we must here understand Rowton 
and EUardine, though the three hides given, fall short of the Domes* 
day complement by one-thii*d of a hide. 

At the Assizes of January 1256, John de Erkalewe appeared as 
Bailiff of his father William^ then sick, and vainly defended an ac- 
tion, brought against the said WiUiam de Erkalewe, by William le 
Franceys and John de Bewelton, for having injuriously set up a stank 
in Bewelton and Osberdiston (Osbaston), and thereby injuring the 
Plaintiffs' tenements. 

Between 1262 and 1265 (for that must be the date of the trans- 
action), Madoc de Sutton alienated Sutton, Bowton, and EUardine 
to John le Strange (III.), of Nesse and Cheswardine.^ — 

This fact I learn from the presentment De Serjanciis of the 
Bradford Jurors in 1292. They said that Madoc de Sutton's in- 
terest in " Sutton and its members, viz. Bowelton and Elworthyn, 
was worth 50^. per annum ; and that he had held them by Ser- 
jeantry of providing 4 foot soldiers in ward of Montgomery Castle, 
for 15 days, at his own cost.* So then the Serjeantry had been 
altogether changed firom the original one of serving the King, as 
Latimer, in his Welsh wars. But to continue ; — ^it must have been 
between 1262 and 1267 that John le Strange (III.)" enfeoffed 
John, his eldest son and heir, in Bowelton and EUeworthyn, re- 
serving a rent of one penny only thereon.* Again within the same 
interval the said John (the younger) gave the said tenements to his 
brother, Bobert.* This transfer partly explains a Patent of Sep- 
tember 1267, whereby Egidius de Erdinton is empowered to try a 



^ The Pipe-JEtoll of 1254 gives Madoc 
de Ellewardin as paying half a merk, and 
Madoc de Sutton as owing one merk, for 
these respective Writs. 



' Sot Sundred, II. p. 57. 
» Tide supra, VoL II. p. 118. 
* Placita Corona, 20 Edw. I., m. 16 
dorto. 



IX. 31 



242 BLLARDINB AND ROWTOK. 

suit of novel disseizin which John de Erkalewe had against Robert 
le Straunge and Richard Bumel^ who had dispossessed the said 
John of a right of common in Rowelton.^ 

Again referring to the Presentment of 1292^ I find that Robert 
le Strange gave Rowton and EUardine to that very Egidius de Er^ 
dinton, who was to try the above snit^ and that he so gave them in 
exchange for Mereburi (Marbury) in the County of Chester, re- 
serving however to himself and his heirs a rent of 7Ss. per annum. 
This exchange must have been between September 1267 and March 
1269, when Giles de Erdinton was dead.^ However there must 
have been some doubt about the validity of the exchange ; — for in 
November 1269, Henry de Erdinton (he was son and heir of Giles) 
was suing Robert le Strange under Writ of mort d^ancestre for a 
messuage and carucate in Rouleton and Eleworthin. Again in 
July 1270, John de Erkalewe sues Henry de Erdinton for disseizihg 
him of common-pasture in Ruylton, and Robert le Strange sues 
John de Erkalewe for a like act of disseizin (in Rowelton). 

We are sure by inferential evidence that the interest of Henry de 
Erdinton, was at length established in Rowton and EUerdine. He 
died in 1282, and the Feodaries of 1284-5 say plainly that ''Walter 
de Eyllesbur* (Aylesbury) holds the vills of Rowelton and EDewur- 
thin of Henry de Erdinton's heir, who holds o^ the King in capiteJ^ 

The Presentment of 1292 has one more statement as to these 
vills of Rowton and Ellardine, viz. that " Walter de Eylesbury now 
holds them, the Jurors know not by what warranty." The Court 
summoned the said Walter to appear, and he was forced to fine half 
a merk to keep possession of the estate usque prowimum parlia^ 
mentum. Walter de Eyllesbury, it elsewhere appears, was at this 
time exercising a right of free-warren in Rowelton and Elwurthin. 

Of Walter de Aylesbury I have already said much under another 
Rowton, and under Amaston.' Of Rowton and Ellardine he soon 
divested himself, by a sale to Laurence de Ludlow, or his son Wil- 
liam, for the Record leaves it uncertain whether the Father or Son 
made this important purchase. — A Fine was levied at Westminster 
on Nov. 25, 1293, and recorded on May 28, 1294, between Lau^ 
rence de Ludelawe (Plaintiff), and Walter de Aylesbury (Deforci- 
ant) of the Manors of Rowlton and Ellardine, whereof was Plea of 
Convention. Walter now recognized the right of William to the 



1 A Patent of October 23, 1269, makes 
John de Erkalewe's suit to be against 
different Defendants, Tiz. Walter le Clerk 



of Suuelion and others. 
« Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 143. 
» Supra, VoL VII. pp. 176, 177. 



ELLARDINE AND ROWTON. 248 

same, to hold to WUUam and his heirs of the chief lords of the Fee. 
For this WUliam paid 100 merks to Walter. 

From the Inqaest taken on the death of William de Ludlow in 
November 1316, it would s,eem that a mesne right in Bowton and 
EUardine had been always retained by the heirs of Bobert le 
Strange. — " William de Ludlow (deceased) had held the said vills 
under Fulk le Strange by service of one-sixth part of a knight's-fee, 
and by payment of 73«. rent.'' The gross value of the estates, to 
the deceased, was £6. 16«. per annum} 

Bonlton and Elwardyn were two of the estates which Lawrence 
de Ludlow, son and heir of William, conveyed about the year 1338 
to certain Feoffees-in-trust, as before noticed.' The estates re- 
mained with the Ludlows for some generations. 

Of Undertenants in Bowton and EUardine, I may name — 

Madoc de EUardine, who occurs on Juries or otherwise in 1249, 
1258, 1256, 1274, and 1278 ; WUUam le Franceys and John de 
Bowelton, who occur in 1256 ; Hamo de EUewordyn, a Juror in 
1298; Thomas Fraunceis of Bowton, who occurs about 1310; and 
WiUiam Fraunceys of Bowton, who occurs in April 1324. 

Parochially, Bowton and EUardine were subject to HighErcall. 
It would be difficult to overstate the antiquity of a grant whereby 
Wenlock Priory obtained the tithes of Bowton and EUardine. 
Hamo Peverel was perhaps the Benefactor. Of course this intru- 
sion into their Parish was offensive to the Patrons of ErcaU Church, 
— the Monks of Shrewsbury. On July 5, 1234, Henry, Abbot of 
Shrewsbury, agreed to pay to Humbert, Prior of Wenlock, a per- 
petual ferm of 2 merks for these tithes. Witnesses, Alexander, 
Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield ; Sir Bobert de Haye, Sheriff of 
Salop and Staffordshire ; Master Bichard de Langedon, Archdeacon 
of Stafford; Beginald de Cleedon, the above Bishop's Official; 
Alexander Blund ; and John Oemun.^ 

The Monks of Shrewsbury, in the first instance, bestowed the 
tithes thus acquired on " Master GUbert, their Clerk ;'' but subse- 
quently Abbot H. (probably Henry who died in or before 1244), 
annexed them to the buUding-fimd of his Monastery.^ 

Bowton Chapel. The Domesday mention of a Priest at Bowton 
indicates the coexistence of a Church or Chapel. Of course such 
a foundation did not remain, if ever it had been, independent. It 
became subject to Ercall Church. Bowton Chapel was existing in 

1 InqtiinUom^ 10 Edw. II.» No. 69. I '** Salop ChartulaTy, Nos. 888, 882. 
' Sopn, YoL yil. p. 69. I Compare But, S^rewOmnf^ 11. 92. 



244 



FREES. 



1384 and was then held by the Vicar of Ercall.^ Its remains are 
still visible, or were so at the beginning of the present century.* 



^rees 



This important Manor, held from a period, too early for written 
Records, by the Bishops of Chester, and still retaining some 
vestiges of its ancient status, is thus described in Domesday, — 

" The same Bishop holds Pres, and held it in the time of King 
Edward. Here are viii hides, geldable. In demesne are in ox- 
teams ; and (there are) ten Villeins, a Priest, and three Boors with 
V teams. Here are vi Neatherds, and a w^ood for (i. e, capable of 
fattening) 60 swine. Of this Manor, Anschitil holds half a hide, 
and Pulcher two hides, under the Bishop. In demesne they have 
two ox-teams, and two Villains with a team : and three other men, 
who till ploughland here (i. e. in this portion of the Manor), pay 10«. 
rent ; and there are two Neatherds here. The whole Manor was 
worth 50«. {per annum) in King Edward's time ;^ and was after- 
wards waste. Now, that which the Bishop has, is worth 40*. ; that 
which his men (Anschitil and Fiilchcr) have, is worth 28«. {per 
annum). There might be six ox-teams more here.''* 

The great and exclusive privileges, which attached to a purely 
Episcopal Manor, tend to exclude its history from public Records. 
My account of Frees must mainly therefore consist of mere scraps, 
or be derived from local Charters, of which we have a series more 
numerous than important. 

The next mention, after Domesday^ which I find of Prees, is in 
1196, when Bishop Novant was under forfeiture and exile. King 
Richard's Escheator, then accounting for the confiscated revenues 
of the See of Coventry, had received 5i merks for the ferm of 
Prees, arising in the first half of the current fiscal year.* 

Several entries on the Plea- Roll of Michaelmas Term l'^28 re- 
late to suits which Bishop Stavensby (by Thomas de Cabum, his 
Attorney) was urging against John de Leotun (Leeton), John fitz 



1 Supra, page 112. 

3 A sketch of the remains of Ruton Cha- 
pel, made about 1810-1815, is in MS, 



21,018, p. 17, at the British Museum. 
3 Domesda^y fo. 252, a, 2. 
* Rot. Pip, 8 Ric. I. JEsohaeUB. 



PR££S* 



245 



William^ Adam de Stiel, and John de Dorlaveston^ for five or more 
bovates of land in Frees and Darliston. We have the result of part 
of these Suits in two Fines of February 3 and May 6^ 1229. By 
the first Fine Adam de Styele (Tenant) surrenders one acre in 
Prese to the Bishop and the Church of Coventry. In return the 
Bishop enfeoffs him therein at a rent of 6id. By the second Fine^ 
John fitz William (Tenant) similarly surrenders two bovates in 
Fres^ for which the Bishop pays him 40«. 

The Bradford Hundred-RoU of 1255 says briefly that— "the 
Bishop of Chester holds the Manor of Fres of the King, the Jurors 
know not by what service; and it is 6^ hides geldable^ and does no 
suit to County or Hundred.^^^ Of this subtraction of 1^ hides fiK>m 
the Domesday Manor I can give no account whatever. 

By Charter dated at Woodstock, June 2, 1259, King Henry III. 
grants to his Kinsman, Roger, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, 
the privilege of Free Warren in Frees, and the right of holding, in 
the same Manor, a weekly Market on Tuesdays, and an annual 
Fair on the eve, the day, and the morrow, of St. Chad the Bishop 
(March 1, 2, 3),^ 

The Tenure- Roll of 1285 is explicit as to what were then con- 
sidered members of Frees. — 

"The Bishop of Chester holds the Manor of Frece with its 
members, viz. Darlaston, Leeton, Wotenhull (now lost), Mitteley 
(Mickley), Willastdn (Wooliston), and Milheyth (Millen-heath), of 
the King in capite, sine medio, freely, as a member of his Barony 
of Eccleshall ; and here the Bishop has, from ancient time, his free 
court and gallows. Also he has here a Market and Fair, by Charter 
of King Henry III." 

The Taxation of 1291 calls Frees a member of Eccleshall, and 
values the Episcopal Revenue therefrom at £10. 3«. 44, per annum; 
viz. 2 carucates of land with some meadow — i63 ; profits of stock — 
£\ ; assized rents — £3. 6s, 8d. ; aid of tenants-in-villeinage — £1 ; 
a Mill — £] I and perquisites of Court — 16s, Sd.^ 

The Bishop of Lichfield being questioned at the Assizes of 1292 
as to the above Free-Court and Gallows, it was deposed that " he 
found his Church seized of those privileges/' that is, he had not 
originated the^n. Moreover at these Assizes the Bradford Jurors 



> Bot Hundred. II. 57. 

^ Sot. Cartarum, 48 Hen. III., m. 4. 
Roger de Longespee, or de Meuland, the 
Qrantee in tluB Charter, was first Cousin 



to the King, heing third son of William 
Longespee, Earl of Salishniy, the Eing*s 
Uncle. 
3 Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 250. 



246 FREES. 

reported the Bishop (Roger de Meuland)^ as a Defaulter in respect 
of attendance. Next on the same list of Defaulters^ stand Richard^ 
Earl of Arundel^ and Roger le Strange. As a sequel to these 
Assizes came the Eing^s Suit of Quo Waranto against the Bishop 
as to his having gallows^ holding assize of bread and beer, and 
holding pleas of forbidden distress, and pleas of the Crown^ in Pres. 
In reply the Bishop's Attorney denied the holding of Fleas of /or- 
bidden distress, and justified the other usages by immemorial pre- 
cedent of former Bishops. To this the King's Attorney objected 
that whereas no Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry shared in the 
Conquest of England by William I., so the subsequent Bishops and 
their Church were to be considered as enfeoffed by others, and their 
Successor was bound to show some special document entitling him 
to the aforesaid liberties. Moreover the very lenity of the Episco- 
pal rule at Fres was made an argument against its validity. — The 
Bishop had no pillory, nor lumber eU, nor judgment, nor did he pro- 
ceed to execution of judgment against trespassers in the assize of 
bread and beer, but let them go unpunished, after exacting some 
pecuniary fine.^ The cause, thus originated and argued, was ad- 
journed to Lichfield, where the Justiciars proposed to be on January 
27, 1293 ; but I do not find it resumed at the said adjournment. I 
take the prosecution to have been arbitr^uy and vexatious, both as 
to the general principle and the specific details. 

By Charter, dated at Lanercost, on January 28, 1807, King Ed- 
ward I. empowers Bishop Langton to *have a weekly market, on 
Wednesdays, at Fres, and to exercise Free-warren in the said 
Manor.^ 

In an Inquest of September 1310 it is incidentally stated that 
Reginald de Chames held a virgate of land and 10 merks of rent 
within the Manor of Fres, under the Bishop of Chester, by services 
of two annual appearances at the Manorial Court of Fres, and of 
2s, rent. The said Reginald also held the viU of Chames, in 
Staffordshire, nnder the same Bishop.^ 

In the Nomina Villarum of 1316, the Bishop of Chester is duly 
enrolled as " Lord of the Vill of Frees." 

The Valor of 1534-5 estimates the Episcopal Manor of Frece as 
yielding £47. 10*. lOfrf. per annum; 10s. of which were perquisites 
of the Manorial Court.^ 

To trace the Manorial interest of the Bishops of Lichfield and 



I 1 Quo Waranto, p. 677. i * Ad quod Dammm, 4 Edw. II., No. 62. 

I 3 Hot Cartat-um, 35 Edw. I., m. 20. I * Valor HcelenoiticuSy III. 128. 

i 



F&£SS* 



247 



Coventry tlirough a later phrase^ we must now pass over another 
century. An Act of Parliament (of 9 October 1646) abolished aU 
Archbishopticks and Bishopricks^ and vested their lands in Trustees. 
In the following year, the Surveyors thereunto deputed, valued the 
rents and profits of the Manor of Frees at i£46, and the improve^ 
mevUs thereof at £133. 10s. 8rf. per annum.^ As a sequel to this, 
the Manor of Frees was sold, on December 18, 1647, for i£1122. 
6s. 2d. to one Henock Smith, and the '^ Sdte of the Manor of 
Frees'* was sold on April 21, 1648, to one Thomas Harpar, for 
£147.'13*. 5rf. 

How far these proceediugs were reversed at the Restoration, I 
have no documentary proof. The Commissioners then appointed to 
inquire into these '^pretended sales'' are said to have ^^ greatly 
satisfied" the several parties concerned.^ I cannot discover that 
the See of Lichfield retains any land, or other Manorial right 
whatever, in Frees. 

Of Undertenants, or residents, at Frees I may name Thomas 
de Frees, who attests about 1240-50, certain Deeds already given, 
and Fhilip de Frees, Clerk, and John his brother, who attest one of 
the same Deeds.' This Fhilip de Frees was a noted man in his day. 
From his frequent appearances as an Attorney I take him to have 
been of the Legal profession. The Charters attested by, and some 
of them perhaps penned by, him, are very numerous. The earliest 
which I can quote, passed about 1231. It has been given under 
Sutton Maddock,* where Fhilip de Frees was probably attending on 
behalf of Sir Ralph de Sandford (I.) . The latest of Fhilip de 
Frees's attestations are those of a Wrottesley Deed, between 1260 
and 1280,5 and of a Bishton Deed between 1272 and 1277. Of 
the last Deed, John de Frees is also a witness.® 

But Fhilip de Frees had a more important office than that of a 
Conveyancer. He was Clerk or Receiver to Robert de Grendon, 
during the first Shrievalty of the said Robert, a period which may 
be estimated as commencing in March 1250 and ending in October 
1255. He again acted as Receiver, subsequent to the year 1259, 
and perhaps during Robert de Grendon's second Shrievalty, that is 
in 1265-6. His conduct in this capacity does not appear to have 
been free from question.'^ 



' * ' Vide Collectanea Topogra^Mea et 
Chnecilogica^ YoL I. pp. 2, 4, 8 ; and Vol. 
III. p. 42. 

* Supra, page 228. 



< Supra, VoL II. p. 125, note 71. 
^ Shaw'a Siaffbrdshirey II. 288. 
• Supra, Vol. III. p. 19, note 38. 
7 Jtot. Hundred. Vol. II. p. 111. 



248 PEEKS. 

As to John de Frees, his attestations of Charters are nearly as 
numerous as his brother's. The earliest and latest ascertained 
dates at which he occurs, as a Witness or Juror, are 1245 and 
1273. 

MEMBEBS OF FREES. 

Dabliston. By a Fine of October 28, 1199, Richard fitz Wil- 
liam, Plaintiff in a suit of mori (Pancestre, against Sibil fitz Eynon 
and John her son, quitclaims a virgate and four acres in Derlaveston 
to them and their heirs. In return the said Sibil and Johu enfeoff 
the said Richard at \2d. rent in one-third of the premises, viz. in 
6 acres towards Hethe, 6 acres towards Pres, 6 acres towards San- j 

ford, aud 6 acres of assart, under Northwude. I 

1 think that the above John, son of Sibil, was the person after- 
wards called John de Darliston. — At the Assizes of November 
1221, Henry de Dervlaweston withdrew his suit against John de 
Dervlaweston, whom he had charged with disseizing him of a tene- 
ment in Tuddeley, Henry's Sureties de prosequendo were Ralph 
de Sanford and Richard de Chesthull. AVe have seen that in 1224 
Henry de Dorlaveston surrendered 2 virgates in Dorlaveston to 
Ralph de Sandford,^ a fact which accounts for the subsequent 
tenure of the Sandfords in Darliston. We have also seen John de 
Dorlaveston at issue with his Episcopal Suzerain in 1228 concerning 
lands in Dorlaveston.^ Lastly, we have seen the same or another 
John figuring as a Witness of Sandford Deeds at least as late as 
1235,' and it is clearly a second John, whom we shall find occurring 
about 20 years later.* After him, there is scant mention of any 
Tenants of Darliston except the Sandfords. In 1327 Adam fitz 
William of Derlaston was Juror on a Sandford Inquest. 

MiCKLEY. The Sandfords held a part of Mickley under the 
Bishops of Lichfield early in the 13th century. About 1241-1249 
John fitz Yerverth was Sir Richard de Sandford's tenant here. 

Peter de Milneleg, who occurs on an Uppington Jury in 1259, 
was possibly of this place. Later in the century we have local 
mention of Richard fitz William of Mitneleye and of Richard, 
Clerk of Mitneleye.^ In 1308, as we have already seen^ the Sand- 
fords were Mesne Lords of a part of Mitteneley.* 

WooLisTON. At the Assizes of October 1203, Thomas fitz 
Walter, a Minor, having preferred a suit of mort d'ancestre against 

» • ' Supra, pp. 224, 345. I * " * Infra, pp. 252, 263, 254. 

' Supra, pp. 227, 228. I * Supra, page 231. 



WOOLISTON. 249 

Odo fitz Eniow for 2i virgates in Willaveston, was unwilling to 
prosecute it, but put himself in misericordid, Ralph de Sanford 
being one of his Sureties. It is just possible that Odo de Wilaus- 
ton, occurring in 1236 and between 1242* and 1249, was identical 
with the above Odo fitz Eniow. 

Be that as it may, a certain Eudo (or Odo) de Willaveston had 
been succeeded by his son Thomas before January 1256, when 
Richard de Willaveston impleaded the said Thomas for a toft in 
Willaveston, which Richard claimed as heir of his father, Robert. 
Thomas, on the other hand, asserted that his father, Eudo, had had 
a grant thereof firom the said Robert. The Jury found that Robert 
had died seized of the land. So his son, Richard, recovered the 
same. In another suit Richard fitz Robert, as heir of his father, 
claimed 6^ acres in Wylaston against Thomas fitz Odo, but here 
the Plaintiff was unsuccessful. In a third suit, Thomas de Wyllas- 
ton failed to convict Odo de Hodnet of having disseized him of 
some right of common in Morton, alleged to belong to Wyllaston. 
There can be no doubt that Thomas fitz Odo was identical with 
Thomas de Wylaston, who attests so many Frees and Sandford 
Deeds between 1256 and 1280.^ In two instances he is called 
Lord of WiUaston, and at the Assizes of 1272 as Thomas de 
Wylardeston he sat as a Juror for Bradford Hundred. I suppose 
that the successor of Thomas de Willaston was Richard de Wylars- 
ton, a Juror for Bradford Hundred at the Assizes of 129&, and 
Juror on a Sandford Inquest in 1308. The latter Inquest was also 
attended by one Henry de Wylaston. In 1320 we have had men- 
tion of Roger, son of Richard de Wylaston ; but I take it, that 
John de Wylaston, who occurs in 1315, 1327, and 1335, was the 
successor of Richard. A Sandford Inquest of 1327 was attended 
by John, Roger, and Richard de Wylaston. In 1356, Thomas de 
Wylaston was a Juror on an Ightfield Inquest. 

The succession of a second family of Willastons seems to have 
been as follows. — ^About the year 1224 Richard de Wilauston and 
Adam his son attest a Wottenhul Deed. I also find the latter, as 
" Adam de Wylasston,^^ attesting a Styche Deed about 1230. In 
a third generation we have " Robert, son of Adam de Wylaston," 
attesting Sandford Deeds between 1256 and 1280.^ This Robert 
was Lord of the vill of WottenhuU, which he granted, about 1260, 
to his son Richard. Under WottenhuU, another member of Frees, 
I shall give some further account of this family. 

^ Supra, pp. 231 bis, 232. > Supra, pp. 231 bU, 232. 

IX. 32 



250 PREX8. 

Another family of Willastons was preceded by Edwin de Willa- 
veston^ who at the Assizes of 1203 withdrew a sait of mart d^an- 
cestre which he had against Thomas fitz Walter. This Edwin 
occurs also in 1227 in 'conjunction with the same Thomas fitz 
Walter^ as we shall see under Shavington. It was he whom we 
have seen attesting Sandford Deeds between 1232 and 1245. In 
one attestation (about 1232-42) this Edwin is followed by his son 
Reginald. This Reginald may or may not have been the person 
who, as Reinald de Wilvastone, or Wlavestone, attests two Deeds 
which have been given under Ightfield.^ 

Yet another family of Willastons was preceded by Robert de 
Willaston, whom we have seen to have been succeeded by his son 
Richard shortly before 1256. At the Assizes then held, Richard 
fitz Robert failed to prosecute his Writ of disseizin against Richard 
fitz Alexander for a tenement in Wylaston. His Sureties deprose^ 
quendo were William, son of Richard de Bechesleg, and Robert le 
Fevre of Bechesleg (probably Bletchley). 

We have heard of Richard fitz Alexander of Willaston before ; 
viz. as attesting Sandford Deeds, about 1240-49. Either he or 
Richard fitz Robert may have been identical with Richard fitz 
Godith of Willaston, who attests a Deed between 1256 and 1272 ; 
but more probably Richard fitz Alexander was the father of two 
brothers, William and Thomas fitz Richard, against whom jointly 
two Writs of novel disseizin issued in August 1257, the Plaintiff 
being Petronilla fitz Richard in one instance, and Emma, daughter 
of Walter de Harpcote, in the other. Tenements at Wylaveston 
were in each case the subject of dispute. 

A second Alexander de Willaston, probably of this family, occurs 
in 1315. 

WoTTENHULL. This member of Frees is now lost. I suppose 
it to have lain North-East of the town, in the direction of Millen 
Heath or WooUston.^ 

At the Assizes of November 1221, Edith de Wottenhull failed 
to prosecute some suit against Robert de Wottenhull. The subse- 
quent history of this member of Frees happens to be illustrated by 
a curious series of Deeds, the oldest of which, dating at least as 
early as 1224, I give in extenso, — 

1. Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Rodbertus de Wottenhull 
juvenis, dedi et concessi et hac presenti carta med confirmavi Thome 

^ Supra, page 211. | hill is preseired in the locality now called 

* Perhaps a part of the name Wotten-. I " Wathens Bough." 



WOTTENHULL. 251 

filio WiUielmi Capellani de Pres dimidietatem unius virgate terre in 

IVottenhul, scilicet totam dimidietatem illius virgate terre quam pater 

mens tenuit in dominio stio, et illud messuagium quod predictus 

WiUielmus Capellanus de Pres edificavit et tenuity cum orto et gar- 

dino ad illud messuagium pertinente, et unum messuagium in villa de 

Pres, in orto meo, scilicet de mensurd quadraginta pedum in longitu- 

dine et viginti pedum in latitudine, et liberum ingressum et egressum 

in apto loco illi messuagio ; — pro homagio et pro servicio suo, et pro 

viginti quatuor solidis argenti, quos prefatus Tomas mihi dedit ; — 

tenendum et habendum, ipse et heredes sui deme et de heredibus meis 

infeudo et her edit ate, libere et quiete, pacifice et honorifice et integre, 

in bosco et piano, inpascuis et pratis, in viis, in semitis, in aquis, in 

molendinis, et in omnibus heysiamentis et libertatibus ad predictam 

dimidietatem virgate terre et ad prefata messuagia pertinentibus ; 

reddendo inde annuatim, ipse et heredes sui, mihi et heredibus meis 

duos solidos argenti, scilicet duodecim denarios adfestum Sti Michae- 

lis et duodecim denarios ad annunciacionem beate Marie Marcialis, 

pro omnibus serviciis et pro omnibus secularibus exactionibus et de- 

mandis que ad me et ad heredes meos pertinent, salvis forinsecis 

serviciis, Et si forte prefatus Tomas a sponsd sud heredem non 

habeat, vel vitam suam mutare voluerit, quemcunque sibi placuerit 

sibi facial heredem, Et ego Bodberitis de TFotenhul, juvenis, et 

heredes mei prefato Tome et heredibus suis predictam dimidietatem 

virgate terre et nominata messuagia cum omnibus pertinenciis eorum 

contra omnes homines et omnes feminas warantizabimus. Et ut 

hec mea donacioet confirmaciofirma et stabilis permaneat, sigilli mei 

inpressione Ulam conjirmavi, Hiis testibus: Hugone Pantulfo; 

Hugone de Say ; Roberto de Say ; Reginaldo de Burctun ; Johannes 

(sic) et Rodbertus (sic) et Gikbertus (sic) filiis ejus ; Tomd persond 

de Pres; Adamd et WUlielmo Jratribus ejus; Nicholao clerico ; 

Philippofratre suo ; Radulfo de Sontford ; Ricardo filio ejus ; Wil- 

Uelmo de Tildestoke, et Adamd filio ejus ; Ricardo de fVilauston et 

Adamd filio ejus ; et aliis. 

The next Deed^ which I shall quote^ passed about 1256-60^ the last 
witness of the above Deed being father of the Grantee in this. — 

2, " William Meyler, son of Alditha de Wettenhul, concedes to 
Robert, son of Adam de Wilastou, for 5 merks, a bovate, a croft, 
and a messuage, in Wettenhul, viz. that which the Grantor's' 
mother Alditha formerly held under Robert de Wettenhul; — to 
hold in fee, with tacfe and tolfre in all the Bishop^a woods of Pres, 
wherein the free men of Pres had common ; — at a rent of one half- 



252 PREBS. 

penny^ payable to the Grantor and his heirs. Witnesses, Ralph 
de Sanford, Thomas de Wilaston^ William de Calverhale, Hanry de 
Savinton, John de Derlaveston^ Thomas de Wettenhnl^ William 
Mody, William de Albo Monasterio^ Clerk, and others/' 

The next Deed appears to be little later than the last, and shows 
the Grantee of the last, transferring the same and other lands to 
his own son. — 

3. "Robert, son of Adam de Wilaston, in liege power and ftdl health 
gives to Richard his son all his land in the vill and fields of Wot- 
tenhull, with messuages, gardens, &c., and with one messuage and 
one garden in the vill of Pres, near the Chercheiard (Chorehyard), 
with all wardships, reliefs, kc., of all his tenants in WottenhuU 
and in Mulnehethe (Millen-heath) ; to hold under the Grantor and 
his heirs, freely, quietly, &c., paying only the customary services due 
to the Lords of the Fee. Witnesses, Reginald de Schavinton, Wil- 
liam de Calverhale, Thomas de Wilaston, Ivo de Solton, WiUiam de 
Lakene, Hugh de Stewele (Steel), and Reginald Modi of Hethe." 

4. The same gives and quitclaims to the same and his heirs, the 
whole vill of Wottenhul, and all that land in Pres ^ which, with its 
messuage, Adam le Blake formerly held under himself. Witnesses, 
Ralph de Sandford, Thomas de Wylaston, William fitz Richard of 
Wylaston, Hugh de Styele, Reginald Modi, and Philip Clerk. 

The Charters which now follow exhibit the same Grantee as 
married, and as obtaining frurther feoffments in WottenhuU. This 
may be dated about 1280. — 

5. "William, son of Philip, Clerk of Wotunhul, gives, concedes, 
and confirms to Richard, son of Robert de Willauston, son of Adam 
in Wotunhul, and to Godith his (Richard's) wife, all the land whioh 
the Grantor had in the fields of Wotunhul, with his croft, and with 
all appurtenances, saving the Capital messuage, and that third of 
the said land which Margery the Grantor's Mother held in dower, 
and saving the curtilage of the Curia to the Grantor and his heirs. 
The premises are further settled on Richard and Godith conjointly, 
and separately to the survivor, with remainder to their joint heirs, 
and, in default, to the heirs of Richard. A rent of 2d. is further 
reserved; and the Grantees pay down 12 merks. Witnesses, Sir 
Ralph de Sauntford, William, Lord of Calverhale, Hugh de Stiele, 
Reginald Modi, Nicholas de Hethe, Richard fitz William of Mit- 
neleye, and Richard, Clerk of Mitneleye." 

* The prcmisos convoyed are " 6i lands I Middloficld, and 7 lands in a third field 
in the field towards Hethe, 7 lands in the I near the field of Pres.'' 



WOTTENHULL. 253 

6. The same gives^ concedes^ and confirms, to the same^ all hie 
land, &c., within and without the viU of Wotenhul, together with 
the dower still held by his mother Margery, and the Id. rent which 
she paid for the same, and together with a rent of one half-penny 
which Adam fitz Boger paid for a parcel of land in Wotecroft. The 
Grantees pay 22 merks for this. The premises are entailed as be- 
fore, except that the last remainder is explidned to be to the heirs 
of Richard, begotten previous to his marriage with Godith. The 
rent, now reserved, is a Rose on John Baptist's day, if the Grantor 
could be at Wottenhul to receive it ; if not, it was to be cancelled 
for that year. Witnesses, Henry, Lord of Scavinton, Thomas, 
Lord of Willanston, Hugh, Lord of Stiele, Reginald Modi, Nicho- 
las de Hethe, John Gageyn, and Richard Clerk. 

7. The same William quitclaims to Richard de Wettenhull and 
his heirs the 2d. rent reserved in the former Deed (No. 6). Wit- 
nesses, Reginald de Chames, Thomas de Wilaston, Hugh de Stiwele, 
Ranald Modi, and William de Colton. 

8. The same gives, concedes, confirms, and quitclaims, to Richard 
de Wotenhul, son of Robert de Willauston, and to Godith his 
wife, their heirs, grantees, or assigns, all his right in Wotenhul, and 
in his house, croft, and garden, and in his mother's dower, and in 
the house and curtilage which she still held. For this full release 
the Grantor received 12s. Witnesses, Sir Ralph de Sontford, Henry 
de Scavinton, Hugh de Stiele, R^inald Modi, Richard, Clerk of 
Mitneleg, Nicholas de Hethe, and William, Chaplain of Whitchurch 
{Albi Monasterii). 

9. Reginald de Wottenhul gives, concedes, and quitclaims, to 
Richard de Wottenhul, son of Robert de Willaston, and his heirs, 
sl\ his right in that land in Wottenhul, which Robert, son of Adam 
de Willaston the Grantee's father bought from the Grantor, from 
his mother Isabel, and from Agnes de Lanedi; Isabel's sister. For 
this the Grantee paid 2s. Witnesses, Sir Ralph de Sanford, Thomas 
de Willaston, William de Calverhale, Stephen de Lee, Reginald 
Modi, Nicholas de Hethe, and Richard de Scavinton, Clerk. 

10. ^' Roger PoutreU of Waterfal and Alena his wife, give, concede, 
and quitclaim, to the same, and to Godith his wife, their heirs, and 
assigns, all the Grantors' right in a messuage, toft, and croft, which 
they had in Wottenhul, and which they sometime bought from 
William, son of Philip, Clerk of Wottenhul, whose charter thereof 
they now give up to the present Grantees. For this, Richard and 
Godith gave 4 mcrks. Witnesses, Sir Ralph de Sontford, knight ; 



1 



254 



FREES. 



Sir Robert de Radewey, Vicar of Pres, Reginald Modi, William de 
Coiton, and Richard, Clerk of Mitneley." 

11. "Roger (de Molend), Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, en- 
feofis Richard de Wetenhnl-juxta-Pres, in those six seylions in the 
field of Wetenhul called the Oldefdd (which Philip de Leeton had 
previously held for a term), in exchange for a parcel of meadow iu 
Doggemor, near the Bishop's meadow ; — ^the Grantee paying to the 
Bishop the same rent of 4id, as he had previously paid for the 
meadow. Witnesses, Ralph de Sauntford, knight; Reginald de 
Chavernes; Thomas de Wylaxton; Hugh de Stywle; Reginald 
Modi; and Roger, then serviens of Pres.'^^ 

The latest of the foregoing eleven Deeds passed before the year 
1292. Richard de Wottenhul, the Grantee in the nine last, occurs 
as a Juror or a witness in 1308, 1311, 1315, and again in 1320. I' 
take the Grantee of the following Deed to be his son. — 

12. On April 14, 1320, Walter (de Langton), Bishop of Coventry 
and Lichfield, enfeofis William de WottenhuU and his wife Agnes, 
in 20 acres in the fields of Falles (Fauls) and Le Hey. Witnesses, 
William de Weston, Richard de WottenhuU, Alexander de Shavin- 
tone, Richard de Sontford, and Andrew de Kendall. Dated at 
Prees.' 

Within the next ten years, William de WottenhuU had, I think, 
succeeded his father, Richard. The foUowing seems to me to be a 
release of a younger, or perhaps elder brother's portion. — 

13. Henry de WottenhuU, son of Richard de WottenhuU, remits, 
releases, and quitclaims, to William de WottenhuU his brother, aU 
right in lands which he had by feofiment of his father, Richard. Wit- 
nesses, Nicholas de Sontford, Richard de Wistaneswik, and Thomas 
de WottenhuU. John de WottenhuU occurs on a local Inquest in 
1327. A Subsidy-RoU of 1332, assesses WUUam de WoctenhuU at 
&s. 4d., and Thomas de WottehuU at 4«. ; both under Prees. I 
have evidence of WiUiam de WottenhuU as living in 1350, and of 
his posterity being still at Prees a century later. John de Wetun- 
huU, occurs on an Ightfield Jury in 1356. 

Heath. This member of Prees is now known as TTie Heath, or 
Higher Heath. By Fine, levied January 20, 1256, WiUiam de Wot- 
tenhUl ^ and Isabel his wife, aUow their grant of one virgate and a 



' The aboTe eleven deeds and No. 18 
are in poBseesion of the Author. 

' UegUtrum Chartarum (apud Lich- 
field), foUo 109. 



* I take this William de Wottenhill to 
have been father of Bcginald de Wotten- 
hul, the Grantor in Deed No. 9 of the 
foregoing series. 



THE CHURCH. 265 

fourth part of a Mill in Hethe to Adam de Buz^ who pays Ss. 
down, and whose rent of Id. shall be payable to the Grantors and 
the heirs of Isabella. Here, rather than in Millen- Heathy were the 
feoffments of William Mody and his son Reginald, already noticed 
as witnesses. About 1270-80, "Roger (de Molend), Bishop of Co- 
ventry and Lichfield, gives to B;eginald Modi a parcel of heath and 
moor near the vill of Heth, in exchange for a messuage in Frees, 
bounded by the garden of William Modi, B;eginald^s father, by land 
of William Drury, and by the Vivary of Frees called Batticote. Wit- 
nesses, Ralph, Lord of Saimtford, GrifSn de Albo Monasterio, John 
de Haukestane, William de Titneleg, Robert de Say, Ivo de Soletou, 
and William de Lak.^^^ 

On March 24, 1311, Bishop Walter (de Langton) granted to 
John de Heth and Isabella his wife, 15 acres of waste, lying imder 
Le Lee, in the territory of Frees, 8 acres of which had previously 
been held by William de Thorp-Watervill (a former Vicar of Frees) ; 
— to hold to the present Grantees and the heirs of their bodies at 
a rent of 78. 6d; — with remainder, in default of such heirs, to the 
Bishop and his successors. Witnesses, Richard, Lord of Sandford, 
Reginald de Chames, William, son of Sir Ralph de Sandford, Sir 
William Herward, Richard de WottenhuU, William Gamel, William 
de Colton. The Fine to be paid pro ingressu for this grant was 
28^.^ John de Hethe occurs as witness of a Sandford Deed in 1815, 
and on a Sandford Jury in 1327. 

Pauls. On April 14, 1320, Walter Bishop of Coventry enfeoffs 
Richard de Fikelesleye in 10 acres (measured by the perch of 16 
feet) of his demesnes in Fallisheye and Todileye, with all liberties 
pertaining to the vill of Frees. Rent Ws. 8rf. Witnesses, William 
de Weston, &c. (as in No. 12 of the former series).^ 

Leeton. We have had John de Leotun, named as a Frees tenant 
in 1228; and attesting several Deeds within the next 20 years. We 
have also seen that one of the members of Frees was in 1285 called 
Leeton. The Vill of Leeton is now lost, but the name is curiously 
preserved. The Road running nearly due East from Frees Church 
is, for about the first 300 yards from the Church, called the Layton- 
Street. Doubtless it once led to the vill of Leeton. 

FREES CHTJECH. 

The tutelage of St. Chad, himself a Bishop of Lichfield, and the 

^ Meffigtrmn Chartarum (at supra). I ' Regittrum Chartarum (apud Lich- 
^ Iieffi$i. LangUm^ fo. 51 b. I field), folio 109. 



266 PBKE8. 

Patron-Saint of the Diocesan Cathedral, was proper to a Church 
which has for eight Centuries, and perhaps more, been in the gift 
of St. Chad's Successors. 

The Priest, mentioned in Domesday as a denizen of Prees, was 
probably a Co-Eector of the Church ; I say a Co-Rector, for I can- 
not doubt that this Saxon Foimdation was Collegiate. Indeed it 
seems to have remained so till the 13th century ; for the Bescripts 
of Pope Innocent and Pope Honorius (already quoted under Sand- 
ford) speak of two cotemporaiy Rectors of Prees. 

I cannot refer to any mention of a Rector or Parson of Prees as 
surely later than 1235 ; nor can I refer to any mention of a Vicar 
of Prees as surely earlier than 1280. — 

The interval will adumbrate the date when some Bishop of Lich- 
field, whose proceedings are unrecorded, demolished the Parochial 
foundation and appropriated the bulk of its revenues to furnish 
forth a Prebendal Stall in Lichfield Cathedral. Henceforth we hear 
of a Prebendary of Prees ; of course non-resident and richly paid, 
and of a Vicar of Prees who did all the work of this extensive 
Parish, and whose primary endowment is quite problematical. The 
TaxcUion of 1291 mentions an Episcopal estate at Prees, and a Pre- 
bend of Prees, but no Vicarage. In 1341 the Parish of Prees was 
taxed at 20 merks for the ninth of its wheat, wool, and lamb. The 
reason given for so low an assessment was that " two portions of 
Prees Church constituted a Prebend in a remote part of Stafford- 
shire,^ and were there taxed by the Abbot of Burton, as Collector 
for that County.''* 

The Valor of 1534-5 gives £10 as the clear value of the Vicarage 
of Prees, in the Deanery of Salop.* 

INCUMBENTS OF PKEES. 

Thomas and Nicholas, Co-Bectors of Prees, are probably indi- 
cated by the initial letters T. and N. in the Papal rescripts of 1214 
and 1218 (as already given under Sandford). 

Thomas, Parson of Prees, occurs also about 1224 and about 
1280. 

Robert de Badewet, was Vicar of Prees about 1280-90 ; and 
is spoken of as "former Vicar*' about 1305. 

William de Thorp- Watervill, was collated by the Bishop of 
Lichfield to this Vicarage on March 28, 1304. 

1 The alluBion Ib to the Prebend of Pipe ' Inquit, N%marum^ page 191. 
Minor {aUat Proee). ' Valor EcclesiasHcus, III. 185. 



THE CHURCH. 257 

Sib Thomas Crok, collated by the Bishop's Vicar on Dec. 30, 

1307, did not attend to receive institution within the term pre- 
scribed (Feb. 2, 1308). So the said Commissioner, on July 1, 

1308, collated and instituted — 

Sir John de Feittewbll, Priest. Prittewell exchanged this 
Vicarage, for the " Church of St. Dunstan, near the Tower of Lon- 
don,'' with — 

Sir Peter de Ware, Priest, who was collated to Prees on March 
24, 1311. He being dead, on December 7, 1314, — 

Richard db Norton, Priest, was appointed Custos of this Vi- 
carage, then sequestered ; but was collated thereto on June 5, 1315. 
He was here in 2 Edw. III. (1328-9) . 

Sir John de Oreiby, Priest, was collated June 27, 1338. On 
August 11, 1349, he exchanges with — 

Hugh de Greyby, Priest, late Prebendary of St. Chad^s, Shrews- 
bury. Again on April 15, 1355, Hugh de Greyby exchanges this 
Vicarage for the preferment of — 

Stephen del Hbth, Priest, late Canon and Prebendary of 
Whytgrave, in the Free Chapel of St. Mary, Stafford. 

John de Cokeslone was inducted to Prees Dec. 6, 1375; — the 
King presenting, because a vacancy of the Vicarage had occurred 
while the Temporalities of the See of Lichfield were in his hand.^ 

John, " Perpetual Vicar of the Prebendal Church of Prees," 
was summoned on July 18, 1393, to appear before the Dean of 
Lichfield and answer the appeal of Thomas de la Legh, whom he 
was yexatiously citing before some Court for undeclared offencesj 
and whom he had falsely denounced as excommunicate.^ 

Sir John Erdeston exchanged this Vicarage on Feb. 25, 1402, 
for the preferment of — 

Sir Nicholas Baxter, Chaplain, late Incumbent of St. Trinity, 
Chester. 

Sir William Coreley resignmg Prees, on July 18, 1422, — 

Sir Nicholas Sylian, Priest, late Rector of Middle, was col- 
lated. On his resignation, March 28, 1438, — 

Sir William Parker, Priest, was collated. 

Master Nicholas Blakborne, Vicar, being deceased ;— on Au- 
gust 16, 1480,— 

Sir Stephen Beche was collated. 



1 This is flingnlar. — ^Tbe most recent 
racancj of the See was that which ex- 
pired in September 1360, on the Gonae- 



oration of Biahop Stretton. 

' From the Muniments of T. H. Sand- 
ford, Esq., of Sandford. 



IX. 33 



258 



PBJSSS. 



Sib Hugh Bedyche was collated June 11^ 1486. 

Jacob Mobb was Vicar in 26 Heniy VIII. (1534-5). 

John Holbbooke^ Priest^ subscribed the Parochial Register in 
1598. 

BiCHABD Mainwabino^ VicBT of Ptccs, was buried at Prees, 81 
July, 1601- 

John Mobgan occurs as Vicar in 1606, 1630, and on May 13, 
1635. He was buried at Prees 13 May, 1635. 

James Fleetwood, subscribed the Parochial BiCgisters £rom 
May 15, 1638, to Jan. 21, 1642-3. He is said to have been ejected 
for his loyalty.^ 

Aylmeb Haughton, Vicar of Prees, was appointed by Parlia- 
mentary Ordinance, in April 1647, one of a Presbytery of " Or- 
daining Ministers.*^ He was ejected firom Prees in 1660-1. He af- 
terwards conformed. 

Robebt Hill is said to have been Vicar of Prees in 1660, and 
to have so died in 1663 ; but the accuracy of both statements is 
very doubtful.* 

Chbistofheb Comtn occurs as Vicar of Prees in 1661. He was 
buried Sept. 17, 1698.« On Sept. 19, following,— 

Edwabd Chandleb^ was collated to Prees. 

Thomas Hodgetts, M.A., was collated to Prees July 9, 1706, 
and occurs as Vicar in 1714. 

RicHABD Jackson, D.D., was Vicar in 1771. He died Nov. 12, 
1796, and was buried in Sandbach Church. 

Fbancis Meeke, Vicar of Prees, died March 22, 1801. His 
Monument is in Ecdeshall Church. 

Edwabd Nevile was collated to Prees 4 Sept. 1801, and died 
13 May, 1846. 

John Allen, collated to this Vicarage on June 6, 1846, was fur- 
ther collated to the rchdeaconry of Salop (Lichfield Diocese) on 
15 Dec. 1847.5 



' He was Prebendary of Eodeshall, in 
lichfield Cathedral ;— collated July 12, 
1636. He was appointed FrovoBt of 
King's College, Cambridge, in 1660, and 
consecrated Bishop of Worcester 29th 
July 1675. He died I7th July 1688, 
aged 81, and was buried in Worcester 
Cathedral. 

' Hobert Hill was admitted Frebendary 
of Frees on September 6, 1660, and was 
succeeded therein, by another, on October 



8, 1662. This may partially account for 
the supposed error of the text. 

* He also held the Prebend of Bishops- 
hill in Lichfield Cathedral from January 
26, 1664^ till his death. 

* He was already Prebendary of Prees 
(collated 2l3t April, 1697). He was con- 
secrated Bishop of Coventry and Lich- 
field 17th November 1717, and translated 
to Durham in 1730. 

* The later portion of the above list is 



THB PREBEND. 



250 



PBBBEND OF FIPA MOTOR, aUas FREES. 

The origin of this Stall in Lichfield Cathedral has already been 
pointed out. In the Taxaiidn of 1291 it is called the Prebend of 
Frees and valued at £26. 13*. 44. per annum} In 1292, — 

Sir Ralph de Hengham, a noted Justiciar of that period, had 
this Prebend. He sold the current year's tithe of the com and hay 
of Sandford for £5. Sir Ralph de Sandford, the purchaser, paid 
an instalment of £2 on this account in June 1293, and a receipt 
for the same, dated at Prees, was given by William de Leycester, 
Hengham's Chaplain.^ In 2 Edw. II. (1308-9), Richard de Sand- 
ford farmed the tithes of Sandford, Darliston, and Wooliston for 
25 merks, 4 merks of which are acknowledged by Ralph de Heng- 
ham himself, in a receipt dated at Shustok on 19 Sept. 1309.^ 
Ralph de Hengham died in 1311, and in June 1315 we have a re- 
ceipt of £10 due to him, his heirs, or executors, from Richard, Lord 
of Sandford, acknowledged by John de Hengham.^ 

John Clarel, Prebendary of Prees and Archdeacon of Stafford, 
died possessed of this Stall in June 1337. 

I refer elsewhere for a continued list of these Dignitaries.* Nich- 
olas Hethe, who had had the Prebend for one year (1360-1), be- 
ing in 1388 a Canon of Hereford, still held a penal bond of Nicho- 
las de Sandford, Senior, for £35, doubtless on account of some un- 
p^d ferm of tithes. The real consideration seems to have been 
£17. 10s. 4id. and to have been paid in subsequent instalments. 
Similarly in August 1373, Nicholas de Sandford and Richard le 
Clerk of Derlaston acknowledge a debt of £6. 13«. Ad. to Master 
Richard de Bermingham, Canon of Lichfield and Prebendary of 
Prees.* 

The Valor of 1534-5 gives the Income of Richard Strete, Pre- 
bendary of Pipa Minor, alias Preez, as £19 per annum, viz. £3. 16^. 
from glebe land in Typton and Lichfield (Staffordshire) ;— 4«. from 
perquisites of Court there; — and £15 from tithes and other emolu- 
ments at Preez,^ 



from Slakeway's MSS. ; — collated with 
the Parochial Begisten, and enlarged 
from other sources by the Yen. John Al> 
len, the present Vicar. 

1 Pope Nick. Taxation^ p. 244. 



' Muniments at Sandford. 
» Le Nev^s FaeH (Hardy), Vol. I. pp. 
618, 619. 
* Muniments at Sandford. 
> Vdhr EceLena8tious,lLl.lZ2. 



260 



jEoreton dap. 



At Domesday^ *' ^BJoga de Lad held Mortnne under Eail Boger, 
and William held it nnder De Laci. Elmnnd, a free man, had held 
it (in Saxon times). Here were iii hides, geldable. In demesne 
was one ox-team, and viii Ser&, mi Villains, and iin Boors, with 
two teams ; and there was work for ti additional teams. Hie wood 
would fatten 100 swine. In King Edward's time the Manor had 
been worth 40*. {per annum). Since that it had been waste. Now 
it was worth 30*.''* 

There is no probability that Lacy's Tenant, William, continued to 
be represented at Moreton. The Says, who held Stokesay, Stoke 
upon Tern, and WTieathill, under Lacy in Henry I.'s time, also held 
Moreton. My idea is that, between the years 1195 and 1222, 
Helias de Say (II.) enfeoffed his next brother, Robert, in Moreton, 
for I find Robert de Say acting as Mesne-Lord of Stych and And- 
ley (members of Moreton) in a Deed 'which must have preceded 
the date of Helias de Say's death (c. 1222). I further think that 
when Robert de Say became (by death of Helias without issue) 
representative of his family, he enfeoffed his younger brother, Hugh, 
in Moreton. A Lacon Deed which probably passed about 1200- 
1210 would make it appear that Robert de Say had a son, Hugh. 
If so, the said son died young and without issue ; — but I doubt the 
accuracy of the transcript of this Lacon Deed. We find Hugh de 
Say and Rol)ert de Say attesting a WottcnhuU Deed about 1224.^ 
These witnesses I take to be Hugh de Say, of Moreton, and Robert 
de Say, the Priest, third and fourth brothers of Helias de Say, then 
deceased, and younger brothers of Robert de Say and Walter de 
Say, still living. I have yet another evidence that Hugh de Say 
was Lord of Moreton during the lifetime of his elder brother Ro- 
bert. The very chief-rent which is reserved to Robert, as Lord of 
Styche, before 1222, is reserved to Hugh in a Deed which certainly 
passed before 1232, and yet Robert de Say was living in 1232 and 
was then amerced half a merk for some disseizin.^ 

As to Robert de Say, delegate d to try a local Suit, as a Justiciar, 

» Domenday, fo. 256, a, 2. I » Rot. Pip. 16 Hen. 111., Salop. Noea 

* Supra, page 261. I oblafa. 



MORETON SAT. 261 

about January 1241, I take him to have been the Churchman, the 
younger brother of both Robert and Hugh. All in the way of 
date that I can farther state about Hugh de Say of Moreton is that 
in 1243 he withdrew the suit of Moreton Say from County and 
Hundred, and that he must have died about 1248-9, if it were 
true (as alleged) that a lease granted by him, and cancelled by his 
son ''immediately after his death,'^ had been seven years dormant 
before January 1256. Again, when I see Hugh de Say and Robert 
de Say sitting on a Sandford Inquest in 1249 I feel assured that 
these are two sons of Hugh de Say of Moreton. Hugh, the elder, 
in 1250 procured, as we have seen, an entail of Stokesay and Stoke 
upon Tern, from his Uncle, Walter, and between 1250 and 1255, 
having succeeded the said Walter, transferred his interest in thosie 
two Manors to John de Verdon.^ But as to Moreton Say, that 
would again appear to have been the appanage of Hughes younger 
brother, Robert, though the mesne tenure of Hugh went to John 
de Verdon. 

In accordance with the above facts, inferences, and surmises, the 
Hundred-Roll of 1255 says as follows. — " Robert de Say is Lord 
of the Vill of Morton-de-Say in the Manor of Stoke, and he holds 
it of John de Verdon, and it is 1^ hides. It pays Id. (Query 6d.) 
tnotfee and 6rf. strelward. Hugh, father of the said Robert, with- 
drew Morton from suit of County and Hundred 12 years since, 
thus damaging the Crown at the rate of 2«. per annum "^ 

At the Assizes of January 1256 the Bradford Jurors reported 
that Robert de Say de AldeP was not in due attendance. They 
meant Robert de Say of Moreton, I think, for Audley was then a 
member of Morton. And, at these same Assizes, the following 
cause was tried. — Eline, or Elyas, son of Richard Cadigan, sought 
to hold Robert de Say to the terms of an agreement made between 
Richard, father of Elyas, and Hugh de Say, father of Robert, 
whereby Hugh had demised to Richard a messuage and half-virgate 
in Morton for 10 years. The Plaintiff alleged that when only 3 
years of the term had run, Hugh de Say died, and forthwith Robert 
de Say disseized the Plaintiff, so that 7 years of the said term, 
equal to damages of 100^., were now in arrear to the Plaintiff. It 
appears that the Plaintiff held neither Script nor Charter of the 
Lease, and could only allege a verbal demise by Hugh de Say : but 
he offered a Fine of one merk, that the truth of such verbal demise 
might be ascertained by Jury. Robert de Say, in absence of any 

» Supra, Vol. V. p. 33. » Hot Eundred. II. 67. 



262 MORETON SAT. 

written Deed, asked judgment in his own favour, not thinking that 
an action could lie, or an Inquisition be ordered, as to the fact of 
the alleged verbal agreement. The result does not appear on the 
Bolls, but the daughters of the Plaintiff were afterwards tenants of 
the Defendant at Audley. 

I find Robert de Say sitting on local Juries in 1257 and 1259. 
In the former instance he is described as " of Audetleye.^' At the 
Assizes of September 1272 his name was on the panel for Bradford- 
Hundred, as Bobert de Say of Morton, but was cancelled. He 
appears on other Juries of 1274, 1278, 1280, 1281, and 1284. 

The Feodariea of 1284-5 merely name Moreton Say and its mem- 
bers as so many members of Stoke upon Tern, and as held under 
Theobald de Verdon. It appears from the Assize- Boll of 1292, 
that Bobert de Say had served as a Coroner since the previous Iter 
(of 1272) and was still in ofiSce. Some irregularities were alleged 
against him. 

I find Hugh de Say sitting on a Wem Inquest in April 1290, 
that is I think, in his Father's lifetime, for it is evident that he 
eventually succeeded to Moreton. He occurs as Lord of Moreton 
in January 1308, and March 1310. In March 1317 he was found 
to be Tenant of one-fourth of a knight's-fee in Morton, held of the 
estate of Theobald de Verdon, deceased, and worth 20«. per annum.^ 
He occurs again in 1318. 

Pursuant to a Writ of May 9, 1324, Bobert de Say and William 
de Say, Men-at-arms, were returned by the Sheriff of Shropshire 
as summoned to attend a Great Council, to be held at Westminster.' 
Bobert de Say was, I think, of Moreton. He occurs as a witness 
or Juror in 1332 and 1339. 

The Church of Moreton Say was originally a Chapel of Hoduet. 
It is not mentioned in the early Diocesan Begisters, nor in Henry 
VIIL's Vahr. 

BLETCHLEY. 

This was originally a member of Moreton Say, and contributed 
l\ hides of the 3 hides which Domesday assigns to that Manor. 
Persons who took their name from the place were enfeoffed in 
Bletchley by the elder branch of the Says, but so as to exclude any 
mesne interest of the younger branch, viz. the Says of Moreton 
Say. Hence Bletchley, though much nearer to Moreton Say than 
to Stoke upon Tern, is more usually considered a member of the 
latter. 

1 Inquiaitiotu, 10 £dw. II., No. 71. ' ParUameiUary WHts, IV. 1403, 1404. 



i 



MORETON SAT. 268 

I have a few particulars of the descent of the Bletchleys. Very 
early in the 13th century " Nicholas de fileggeleg^ for the souls' 
health of himself and his wife Sabina, gave^ together with his body, 
to Lilleshull Abbey, the Mill of Blecheley, with the suit due there- 
to from his estate/'^ A very early Rent- Roll of Lilleshall Abbey 
contains an item, of 9«. 4d, receivable yearly at Lady Day for Blegge- 
leg Mill. Henry III.'s confirmation to Lilleshall speaks of the above 
gift as donacianem et concessionem guas Nicholas de BleccheV fecU 
eisdem Abbati et Conventui de guodam molendino et quodam vivario 
cum pertinendis in BleccheV. 

Nicholas de Bletchley was succeeded by his son William. We 
have seen that about the year 1222 Helias de Say of Stoke granted 
to Haughmond Abbey, that rent of 12s. 4fd. which was arising 
from the land of Blecheslee, then held by William, son of Nicholas 
de Blecheslee. About the same time William, son of Nicholas de 
Blechley, '^ concedes and allows^' his Father's grant of Blechley Mill 
to Lilleshall Abbey. He further gives the Canons power to raise 
.the stank thereof as high as they pleased ; he gives the Yivary and 
all Le Mulnehul (The Mill-hill), and a house and curtilage outside 
his own doors, and two acres of assart towards Bromley which Wal- 
ter the Miller held. He covenants that none of his heirs shall 
make a Mill at Blechley. For this the Canons gave him one merk.^ 

The Mill, thus conveyed, must have stood on the Bailey Brook, 
below Aychley and opposite Mickley. Sir Richard de Sandford, 
as Lord of the land on the western bank of the said brook, came 
to the following agreement with R. (Richard), Abbot of Lilleshull, 
between the years 1241 and 1249. Sir Richard allowed that the 
stank of Blecheley Mill should abut and lean upon his land of 
Mitteleg which John fitz Yerverth held. He also allowed the rais- 
ing of the stank and the consequent agistment of water towards the 
land of Mitteleg, notwithstanding that arable land might be thus 
inundated, and notwithstanding that this back-pounding of water 
might cause impediment to the downward flow of water from Sir 
Richard's Mill of Avicheleg (Aychley). On the other hand the 
Abbot undertook to move no suit against Sir Richard, neither in 
a Court spiritual nor secular, concerning the Mill which Sir Richard 
had constructed at Avicheleg.^ 

About this time (1240-50), " Robert, son of William de Blegge- 
leg, gives to Lilleshull Abbey all his wood called Overe." The said 
wood commenced at Bleggdeg Mill, and reached along the rivulet 

1* > • s LiUeshaU Ghartolary, fo. 62. 



264 MORETON SAT. 

to Armitdeleford : then it was bounded, by the Abbot of Comber- 
mere's land (probably Chesthill Orange) : then it reached to Longe- 
fordegate;^ and passed thence along a hedge^ which divided the 
arable land of Bleggeleg from the wood of Overe itself^ and so back 
to Bleggeleg Mill. This Deed fiirther conveys half the Grantor's 
meadow^ near the King's highway between Bleggeleg and Achel^^ 
and kusbote and common pasture through all the Grantor's lands.^ 

The same Grantor^ styling himself^ ^^ Sir Robert de Bleggelg/' 
gives to Lilleshall a half-virgate^ held by Geoffrey Cort^ in the vill 
of Bl^gelgj and also that half of his meadow which Richard^ son 
of Robert de Sanford^ held.^ 

Lastly, the same Sir Robert gave to the same Abbey a certain 
meadow near Bleggeleg Mill, viz. that which lay below the Mill- 
pound, between the two rivulets. He also conceded his father's 
grant of the said Mill with suit of his tenants, &c.' 

In a short time we find this small estate of Lilleshall Abbey 
called " the laud of Overe." In 1253-4 Robert, Abbot of Lille- 
shuU, concedes to P. C. W. and T. (four of his Tenants at Overe 
thus designated), and to their heirs, one-tenth of Overe, to be 
assarted. They are to pay a yearly rent of 16(/., and at each 
Tenant's death his best ox or cow, or 5^. in money, is to go to the 
Abbey. The Deed provides for free egress from Overe to Bleeche- 
leg, and gives the Grantees a right of common in Walter de Say's 
Wood.* The Grantor reserves a road from Bletchley past the 
Abbey-Mill to Armitelgeford.* 

At the same period (125S-4) " Robert, Abbot of Lilleshall con- 
cedes to Jordan de Bleocheleg and his wife Aldith, daughter of 
Thomas le Luttele, one-fourth of the land which the said Thomas 
had held in Overe, reserving a rent of 4d. and a heriot of 2s. The 
Abbot further gives common pasture in the bosc of Walter de 
Say.^'s 

But, to return to Bletchley itself, the Hundred-Roll of 1255 tells 
us that ^^ Robert de Blecheleg holds Blecheleg of Robert Corbet of 
Morton at an annual rent of 12^., and it is 1^ hides, and pays 6d. 
for siretward and 6d. for motfee. Robert, Lord of Blecheleg, does 
suit to County and Hundred for the whole vill."* 

thuB proved to have been IxTUig in 12&3. 

* Called Ermittelegesford in a former 
Deed (p. 225) ;— which also refers to 
Bromley, and Aychley. 

» Lilleshall Chartulary, foe. 86, 126. 

" Eot. Hundred. II. 56. 



1 A Gkite, that is, in the 'Roman Boad 
called ** The Longford." Vide supra, Vol. 
VIII. p. 202, n. 

« LiUeshall Chartulary, fo. 68. 

• Probably part of Moreton Wood, still 
retained by the Cliief of the S^ys, who is 



STYCflE. 266 

Here the Seigneury of John de Verdon^ then Lord of Stoke upon 
Tem^ is ignored ; but it appears dear that Corbet of Moreton CSor- 
bet had purchased or otherwise acquired the mesne interest of 
Haughmond Abbey at Bletchley^ such interest being previously re- 
presented by a rent of I2s. Ad,, but now of 12^. 

As to Robert de Bletchley of 1256^ we have seen that he was 
son of William fitz Nicholas. He sat as a Juror for ' Bradford 
Hundred at the Assizes of 1256 and 1272^ and he occurs on local 
Juries of 1259 and 1274. 

In the Feodary of 1285 Bletchley is put down as a member of 
Stoke upon Tern^ and Robert Corbet is said to hold the yill of 
Theobald de Yerdon. This was undoubtedly correct^ for the sub- 
tenure of Robert de Bletchley had ere this been bought up by Ro- 
bert Corbet. Hence by the Inquest taken in 1301 after Robert 
Corbef 8 deaths it was found that ^' he and his wife Matilda had 
been conjointly enfeoffed in the vill of Blechelee by Robert de 
Blechelee j and that it was held under Theobald de Yerdon^ by a 
rent of 12*.''^ 

Again^ Matilda Corbet, dying in 1309, was found to have held 
the vill of Blecheley under Theobald de Yerdon, but without pay- 
ing any rent {fdl reddendo).^ I suppose she had redeemed the 
chief-rent, or commuted it for knight^s service ; — ^for in the Inquest 
taken in 1H17, on the death of Theobald de Yerdon, it appears that 
the heirs of Thomas Corbet had held one- fourth of a knight's-fee 
in Blecchele under the deceased, and that the estate was worth 40«. 
per annum? 

Hugh de Blechley, who occurs on a Drayton Jury in 1314, was 
perhaps a descendant of the earlier Lords of Bletchley, rather than 
an Undertenant there. 

LiLLESHALL Abbet Fee. Au estate in Bletchley remained with 
the Abbey till the Dissolution. The Val&r of 1534-5 gives £7 as 
the joint income of the Abbey estates at Halls (Qy^ Hales), Howie, 
Blecheley, and Wyrmyngham.* 

STTCHB. 

This member of Moreton contained two estates. Of one the 
Says of Moreton were Mesne-Lords, holding it like Moreton under 
the Lords of Stoke-upon-Tem, but having their own Feoffee here. 
The other was held immediately of the Lords of Stoke. This 

1 IfiquitUums, 29 Edw. I., No. 45. I ' inquigiUonSy 10 Edw. II., No. 71. 

3 InquinHom^ 2 Edw. II., No. 34. I * Valor MxUsicuHcuty III. 197. 

IX. 34 



266 MOBSTOK SAT. 

feoAnenty tlie eariiest and greatert of the two, was that of Hugh 
de Bncfaenlrane, who held it about the year 1200, that ia at a time 
when Bobert de Say held M(»eton itself under his elder Brother, 
Helias. In 1203 this Hugh de Buchenhulle appears, I think, 
under the name of Hugh de Stnehe, when he. was amerced half a 
vasAprofaUo dicto. In or about the year 1222, the diief-ient of 
12J. due from Hugh de Stuche's hmd was given to Hanghmond 
Abbey by Helias de Say.^ The subsequent Tenants of this part of 
Styche occnr as follows, but nothing tranapires to show that they 
held under Hanghmond Abbey. — 

William de Stuche occors as a witness before 1240. He was a 
Juror for Bradford Hundred at the Inquests of 1255 and at the 
Assizes of 1256. He occurs on another Jury in 1259. 

John de Stuche and William Mangol of Stuche occur on a local 
Jury in 1274. Thomas de Stuche occors on similar Juries in 1281 
and 1284. His non-attendance at the Assizes of 1292 was reported 
by the Bradford Jurors. He occors on a Market Drayton Inquest 
in 1319. In 1318 William de Stuch attests a Moreton Deed; and, 
a few years later, William Stuch occurs as a tenant in Audley.* 

As to the other part of Styche it was held together with Moreton 
Say (about 1196-1200) by Bobert de Say. He enfeoffed Bobert 
fitz Leisinc therein, by the following curious and ancient Deed, — 

Notum rit tamfuttaris quam preseniibus quod ego Robertus de Sai 
dedi Roberto filio Leisinc terram de Stucha queest intermeam sepem 
et inter sepemmeorum hominum de Aldeleia (Audley) etinter divisam 
Huffonis de Buchenhulle^ et quoddam pratum i$^a sepem meamper 
divisas ductum ; — infeudo et hereditate, sibi et guts heredibu9,exme 
et meis heredibus, libere et quiete tenendam, in boMco, in piano, in 
viis, in semitis, in aqais, pratis, in pascuis, et in omnibus liberis con- 
suetudimbus, pro suo homagine et pro iiii soUdis modo in ingressu ; — 
III solidos inde annuatim adfestum Sti MichaeUs mibi reddendo pro 
omni servicio, excepto quod, si porcos habuerit phtsquam quatuor, 
dabit mihi unum ex omnibus tantum, scilicet tercium meliorem ,*^ et 
si ipse habuerit homines ibi, eandem habeant Ubertatem quam ipse de 
porcis suis. Teste, Hugone de BuccheuU, et Ricardo de Wolnches- 
lawe (Longslow), et Roberto de Longefordia, et Turstano fiUo ejus, 
et Petro de La-fordia (now Ford Hall), et Hugone filio e/us, et He^ 
refrei et Henneo filio efus, et muUis aliis.^ 



» Suppa> VoL Vin. p. 61. 

' Infra, page 270. 

' The third heH, as we should say. 

* Charter at Sandford. The Seal, of 



white wax, has the Effigy of a knight on 
horseback, with a drawn sword, a square 
hehnet, and a triangular shield. Of the 
L^gnid only the letters BODBS remun. 



WAHANSHALL. 



267 



The Grantor in the following abstract of a Deed^ I take to be 
the son or grandson of Robert fitz Leisinc^ sub-enfeoffing Sir Ralph 
de Sandford. It probably passed after the year 1222^ when Robert 
de Say having succeeded his elder Brother^ Helias^ at Stoke^ may 
be supposed to have surrendered Moreton as the appanage of his 
younger brother. Sir Ralph de Sandford's death^ in or before 
1286^ gives the later limit of the Deed. — 

Robertusfilius Boberti BeUe dedi Radu^o de Sanfori et heredibus 
totam terram meam de Stuche, propter v marcas quas dedii ; — tenen- 
dam et habendam de me et heredibus meia, sibi et heredibus suis in 
feudo, SfC, in bascho, ^c, sicut ego etancessoresmei melius et liberius 
habuimus et temdmus ; reddendo mihi et heredibus meis iii soHdos in 
die 3HchaeUspro omni servicio mihipertinente, quos (solidos) ego et 
heredes mei eodem die pro eddem terrd domino meo H. de Sai et he* 
redibus suis pro firmd persolvemius} Concessi itaque quod sipredicta 
firma in predicto termino sohUa non fueritf ut (sic) ego et heredes 
met sepedicto Radulfo et heredibus, dhnidiam marcam irtfra primos 
XV dies post terminum prenominatum, sub nomine pena persolvamus, 
Hiis testibuSj Toma Persona dePres, WiUielmo filio Eynon, Edwyno 
de Wylaston, Reginaldo filio sua, Bicardo de Lacke, Henrico de See- 
vinton, Adamd de Wylaston, Bicardo filio Alexandri et muUis aliis, 

I cannot tell what the Sandfords did with their share of Styche. 
The Feodary of 1285 merely mentions Stuche as a member of 
Stoke-upon-Tem, and says nothing of the tenure. 



WABAKSHAIiL. 

This place is now lost. I take it to have been originally a member 
of Moreton rather than of Stoke-upon-Tem, though the Lords of 
Stoke seem to have retained the immediate Seigneury^ or rather to 
have disallowed any mediate right of the Lords of Moreton. 

In August 1-268, I find Richard de Pywelesdon arraigning John 
de Verdon for having disseized him of his free tenement in Warfin- 
hall and Oldefeld. The Writ is thrice repeated, in January, July, 
and November 1269, against John de Verdon and others. Also in 
August 1270, Master Richard de Pyvelesdonhas a Writ against Hugh 
to Wlankeslowe (Longslow) concerning the destruction of a fence in 
Wemhdle. Lastly^ in June 1272, John de Verdon and othe^ are 



1 ThiB shows the diffioulty at that period 
of aettmg aside a mesne-teniire. The 
Lord*B chief-rent must go through the 
hands of the mesne-tenant. The serrioe, 



if ronderod directly hy a Subfeoffee^ was 
insufficient, unless the Seigneur chose to 
approve of a complete transfer, which 
process would entitle him to a Fine. 



268 JfOftBTOK SAT. 

VkaasliA againti Bidiaid de Peoliadoii in a wait whae Wmie$hale 
IS written at the ^boe oonoemed* I kncm of no lesoli to tfak fiti* 
gation* I hare ^oken of Master Bicbard de Pokadon befiire.^ In 
1285^ he bdd the riU of ^arraniAotf, a member of Stoke-iqpQQD-Te^ 
under the hdr of Badnlf de Albo-Monasterio, which heir hdd it 
under Theobald de Vernon. I presume that Badnlf deAIbo-Monaa* 
tario^ thna mentioned^ was some Cadet of the Warrens of Whit- 
chnidi, whose elder line was nowr^vesentedbyfismales; but I can 
say no more about this Badnlf, or Ins heir, or their mesne-tenurein 
WaranshalL 

Of Oldfield, a member of Moreton Say, and coupled with 
Waranshall, as abore, I can quote but litde. Hie Feodary of 1285 
dasses it as a member of Stoke. Ylehu^WUIiam^'-ihen-OldefM 
on a Wem Jury in 1284, Riekard de Oldfdd on a Hinstock Jury 
in 1306, and Thonuu de OU^ld on a Drayton Jury in 1314. 

Or Hulls, another member of Moreton Say, I may only state 
that James (Jaeopus) de Hnlle attests an Andley Deed (hereafter 
to be set forth) about 1254-5. At the Assises of 1272, Adam de 
Hull, who had brought an action de ingreetu against James de Hull 
and his son Hugh, concemiug a messuage and half-viigate in Hull, 
** in the parish of Hodnet,'' did not prosecute the suit. HugofiUna 
Jacobi sat on the Inquest taken at Stoke in November 1274, on 
John de Verdon's death. 

At the Assizes of 1292, Hugh de Hulle (the above son of James, 
I think) was a Juror for Bradford Hundred. 

In March 1317, William de la Hulle was a Juror on the Inquest 
taken after the death of Theobald de Yerdon; but he perhaps be- 
longed to another family.' 



iLai 



Domesday mentions this Manor next after Moreton and as held 
by Roger de Lacy of the Norman Earl. — 

" The same Boger holds Lai, and William holds it of him. Here 
is one hide, geldable. Eluui held it (in Saxon times) and was a free 
man. Here one free man has half an ox-team, and there might be 

» Supra, Vol. VIII. pp. 97, 98. • A'idc supra, p. 217, note 1. 



AUDLSY BROW. 269 

one additicHud team (employed). The value (in Saxon times) was 
6s. {per annum). The present value is 2^. He (Roger de Laci) 
found it waste.'^^ 

There is some difficulty in identifying this Manor of Lai. Its 
Domesday tenure was precisely that of Moreton^ and the fluctuations 
of its value since the Saxon sera were in the same ratio as those of 
Moreton. Its Saxon owner^ Eluui^ was Lord also of part of Calver- 
hall^ and Calverhall is the next Manor to Mcnreton on the North- 
West. It being certain that Lai has been absorbed by some other 
Manor, I should suppose it likely to have been absorbed by Moreton, 
and^ though the reputed hidage of Moreton does not appear to have 
been increased, that is no conclusive argument against my hypo- 
thesis. Indeed, taking the analc^ of Stoke-upon-Tem, another of 
Lacy's Manors, we should expect Moreton to have decreased in 
hidage ; and so, if its hidage remained the same, we may suppose 
that its real area was enlarged. 

I will, without quite insisting on the identity of the two, say 
under Lai what has to be said about — 

ATJDLEY, now AUDLEY BEOW. 

This either was originally, or became a member of Moreton. The 
word Audley (Saxon ^Id-leag or ^Id-lah) signifies Old-Lee, and 
so may be taken etymologically to represent the Lai of Domesday. 

We have seen that about the year 1200, Robert de Say of More- 
ton spoke of the men of Aldeleia as his Tenants.^ The following 
Deed passed about 1254-5, and therefore while the Grantee was 
hardly yet of age. I give it in brirf. — 

Ricardus Cadegan dedi Radulfo domino de Sonford totam iUam 
terram quam tenui in viUd de Aldelewe ; — habendam et tenendam de 
me et heredibus meis sibi et heredibus suis in feodo et hereditate ; — 
reddendo capitali domino 12d. die Sti Petri ad Vincla. Hits testi- 
bus ; — Henrico de Schavinton, Roberto de Say de Morton, Thoma 
de WylastoUy Willielmo de Stuche, Jacopo de HuUe, et tdiis.^ 

We have seen Eline, or Elyas, son of Richard Cadigan, claiming 
other property at Moreton-Say in January 1256. He left two 
daughters, Alyna and Margery, who, styling themselves '^ daughters 
of Elkyn Cadugan,'^ concede and quitclaim to Ralph de Sandford 
all right in the land which Richard Cadugan, their Grandfather, 
fornierly held in Aldeleg. Both the Sisters' Deeds are attested by 



^ Domesday J fo. 256, a, 2. 
3 Supra, page 266. 



' Charter in possession of T. U. Sand- 
ford, £sq., of Sandford. 



270 



MOEETOK SAT. Ain>LST BVOW. 



Sir Odo de Hodenel, Bobot CcyAet, Eoger de Pkoloii, Ho^ de 
Stile (Steel), and Bobert,«m of Adam deWylastoD.^ naenamea 
anggcat 1270-5, aa Ae prorimate date of theae Qiritrlaima. I bear 
notbing more of a Sandbrd eatate in Andky. 

Meantime, thoo^ Robert de Say of Moieton ia a^ried (aa we 
bare aeen) ''of Andlej'^ in 1256 and 1257, it ia dear tbat certain 
bmd in Andlej waa retained by bia dder bradier, Hng^, and bad 
been eon^qred bj tbe taid Hn^ (about 1254) to John de Verdon, 
aa part of the great cidiange wfaidi tben took place, 

Henoe, on tbe deatb of John de Verdon in 1274^ tbe Inqneat 
atatea tbat be bad held half a camcate of land in Alddeg, wbidi 
land he bad obtained by exdiange for land in Irehnd. It waa 
wortb £St. 140. ll^d. per ammm.* The further atatement that thia 
land waabddby Verdon of the beiri of Lacy of Lndknr, and neoea- 
aitated aott of Court to Lndlow, cannot ba^e any very pregnant 
meaning, aeeiiig that Verdon himaelf waa one of La^T^a CobeirB. 

On Mardi 24, 1317, William deAIdele waa finreman of the Jnron 
who made Inqneat aa to the eatate of Theobald de Verdon (11.), 
tben deoeaaed. These Jnrora aaid nothing about bia reoeipta fiom 
Audley; but an Escbeator'a-Boll, drawn up within the next 10 
years, accounts for an annual rent of £1. S$. Sd. from '' Aldeleye 
within the Manor of Stoke super Time,'' and which was payable on 
8 tenements, held for life, by William Stnche, of the inheritance of 
Theobald de Verdon, and which rent waa an escheat in nuam Regis, 
because Theobald'a heirs had not aa yet established their right 
thereto* 

The following Deed, or rather transcript, which purports to be 
dated at Aldeleg on Nov. 1, 12 Edward I., belongs, I think, to the 
12th year of Edward II., viz. 1318.— 

'' Richard de le Het (Heath) gives to Hugh Oerk of Huls, his 
wife Edith, and his heirs by her, all his land in the fields of Overe.' 
Witnesses, Hugh de Say of Morton, William de Stuche, Richard 
de Sumervile of Aderdel^, William de Alderley (Qy. Aldel^?). 



MA 



' Charter in pouenion of T. H. Sand- 
ford, Esq., of Sandford. 

* InquitUiont, 2 Edw. L, Ko. 84. 



' Over, near Bletehlej, I prarame (Tide 
Bupra, page 264). 
< Harleian MS. 2063, fo. &-b. 



271 



ilopton. 



J HAVE already alluded to^ and endeavoured to explain^ the terms 
in which Hopton^ near Hodnet, is described in Domesday} It is 
better in a case of much obscurilj to give the exact text of the Re- 
cord. After surveying Soger de Lacy's Manors of Moreton and 
Lai^ Domesday continues thus. — 

''In hoc Hundredo (scilicet Odenet) tenuit Edric unam bere- 
wicham^ Hotune^ de dimidi& hid&, et geldabilem ; et non poterat' 
haec terra separari a Manerio Stoches quern tenet Rogerius Laci. 
Hsec terra est appreciata in ipso Manerio^ in Recordin Hundredo.'^' 

There is some ground for a conjecture (but I do not trust it)^ 
that^ in the time of Henry I. or Stephen, when Lacy^s Fief was 
under forfeiture, the seigneury over Hopton may have been given 
to the then Baron of Pulverbatch. Of this matter I will speak pre- 
sently. Meantime we have direct evidence that Lacy's tenant at 
Stoke-upon-Tem continued to be tenant of the berewick of Hopton; 
for the said Tenant gave the very estate now under consideration to 
Haughmond Abbey. In 1172 (as we know from Pope Alexander's 
Confirmation) the Canons of Haughmond possessed ''half a hide in 
Hoppton, by gift of Elys^ de Say^ and with assent of Hugh his 
son.^' Other gifts which the Canons had, now and afterwards, in 
Hopton and Espley must be treated of elsewhere. They were in a 
different Manor than that of which Domesday speaks, as Hotune, 
and were not in Lacy's Fief. The Hundred-Roll of 1255, treating 
of Hopton generally and distinctively, marks well this difference. — 
*' The Abbot of Hagemon holds 2\ virgates in the said vill, of the 
fee of Stoke, and answers in Scutages, when Scutage is being levied, 
for his relative proportion.''^ 

The Feodaries of 1284-^ call the Abbot of Haughmond's tene- 
ment in Hopton " half the vill,'' and declare that the " Abbot held 
it of Philip Marmion, who held it in capite** This was tantamount 
to saying that the estate was reputed to be of the Fee of Ptdver^ 
batch : but there is not the smallest probability that such was really 
the condition of Hopton. 

The Inquest taken in 1317 states distinctly that the Tenant of 

> Suiwa, Vol. yni. pp. 68, 69. * Domesday, {o. 266, b,l. ^ Mai. Hmidred, TL tS* 



272 MARCHAMLET. 

Hopton (t. e. the Abbot of Haughmond) held by knight's-servioe 
under Theobald de Verdon (deceased) } It is obvious therefore that 
this part of Hopton was still held of the Fief of Lacy and not of 
Pulverbatch ; and that while the estate had been given by De Say 
to the Abbey, the services due thereon had never been abandoned 
by Lacy^s heirs. 

I will speak of the estate, thus and otherwise acquired by Haugh- 
mond Abbey, at Hopton and Espley, in the next Chapter. — 



iWartJamle^* 



" Batnald the Sheriff holds Marcemeslei of the Earl. Seuuar 
and Aluric held it in King Edward^s time for two Manors, and 
were free. Here are 5^ hides, geldable. In demesne are ii ox- 
teams; and (there are) mi Serfs, vi Villains, vii Boors, and ii 
Radmans, having three teams among them all; and 10 more teams 
might yet be (employed) here. Here is a Mill of 5«. (annual 
value) ; a Wood which will fatten 100 swine; and one Haye.'' 

" Of the above land Walter holds (under Baynald) 1^ hides, and 
has thereon one ox-team and one Serf; and there are a Villain and 
a Boor with half a team. The whole in King Edward's time was 
worth 100^. {per annum). Afterwards it was waste. Now it is 
worth 46*. 4d."^ 

It will be better to identify at once those 1^ hides in Marchamley 
which Domesday indicates as the feoffment of Bainald's tenant, 
Walter. The land lay in Espley, in Hopley, and in Hopton, — ^in 
that part of Hopton which was not of Lacy's Fief. At present I 
will speak chiefly of those four other hides which constituted Mar- 
chamley proper. They were bestowed on some Feoffee before the 
year 1185, and — 

BicHABD DE Merchomlet, probably the very Feoffee in ques- 
tion, stands first witness to a Deed of his Suzerain, William fitz 
Alan (I.), which must have passed before 116C(. In that year Wil- 
liam fitz Alan died, and it is evident that Richard de Marchomley 
was dead also. — A votive offering which Hugh Hose had made to 

1 Vide supra, Vol. YIII. pp. 68, 69. ' Domesday, fo. 254, a, 2. 



MARCHAMLEY. 273 

Haughmond Abbey " for the soul of Richard de Marchemley'' is 
recorded in another Deed of the same William fitz Alan. 

Richard de Marchomley (II.) occurs in 1165. As Richard 
de Marthemedlee he was then enrolled as Tenant of a whole 
knight's-fee in the Barony of Fitz Alan.^ 

John de Marchomley was the next in this succession. He 
seems to have held something under his neighbour^ the Lord of 
Hawkstone. In the Pipe-Roll of 1185^ John de Marchemesleg is 
recorded as paying an oblatum of one merk^ which he had proffered 
*' for having a trial-at-law concerning the customs and service which 
Roger de Hauckestan required from him.'^ 

I think it was as a Coparcener^ or Claimant^ or adjoining Proprie- 
tor^ rather than as having any lai^er right in Hopley^ that " John 
de Marchemesleg gave and confirmed^ to Haughmond Abbey^ Hop- 
peley with its appurtenances^ wishing that his body might be buried 
at Haughmond unless he happened to die in Essex.^' This Deed 
probably passed about 1190^ being attested by William fitz Alan, 
Hugh Pantun^ Hugh de Say, Peter de Mortun, Odo de Hodenet, 
Robert de Say, Jordan de Hespelee, Hugh de Loscefort, Roger de 
Hefkeston (Hawkstone), and Walter de Hopton.* 

By another Deed (about 1190-4) John de Merchemesley con- 
cedes and gives to the same Abbey a certain part of his wood, viz» 
from the path which led from Kentenesdene (Kinstone), betweeit 
his own wood and the Abbot's wood, towards Hodnet, according to 
the boundary of certain ditches, up to the rivulet where his Vivary 
was situated ; which Vivary the Grantor retained, with power to 
make it as large as he liked^ saving all easements for the Abbot'a 
live-stock at Hoppeley. This grant was in augmentation of that 
land of Hoppeley which he had previously given to the Abbey. He 
adds to the gift a right of common in the whole land of Kentenes- 
dene, like that which the men of Kentenesdene enjoyed in Hoppe- 
leg. If it happened that the Abbotts cattle should break out and 
cross th6 rivulet into the " part of Marchemesley/' it was not to 
be matter of prosecution {non incausentur Canonici). W^itnesses, 
Hugh de Sai; Helias his son; Odo de Hodenet; Baldwyn his son: 
Richard de Stretton ; Hugh de Loskesford ; Robert de Sai; Henry 
Chaplain of Hodenet, and Amfred his brother, and Paulinus; Alan, 
brother of Odo, and many others.^ 

John de Marchomley, dying within the next ten years, was sue- 



* ffeamtfa Liber Niger, Vol. I. p. 148. 
' Haughmond Chartulary (at Sundorn), 



fo. 114, dorao, 
> HarL MS. 446, Quatem. xii. fo. 12. 



IX. 35 



274 



MARCHAMLET. 



oeeded bj his two danghten, Johanna, wife of Richard de Essex, 
and Cecily, wife of Ernolf de Heading. These parties agreed to a 
partition of their inheritance by a Fine levied at Westminster on 
Jane 11, 1206« It was agreed that 3 camcates in Merchemelee 
(Shropshire) and one cameate in Mereton (Warwickshire)^ shoold 
remain to Richard de Essex and his wife Johanna, and two cam- 
cates in Berslede and Chikinton (Essex) should remain to Ernolf, 
son of Ranald de Hesdin, and his wife CecQy. 

Henry de Andley seems to have obtained some ingress, rightfully 
or not, into the estates of Richard de Essex. At the Assizes of 
November 1221, a Suit of mart d'ancestre which Richard de Essex 
and Matilda (ric) his wife had against Henry de Andley, concern- 
ing lands in Shropshire and Warwickshire, was adjommed to Hilary 
Term, at Westminster. At the Warwick Assizes of January 1222 
it was farther adjourned to Easter Term, Richard de Essex and his 
wife Matilda being again named as Plaintiffs. Nor is a Fine levied 
at Westminster on January 20, 1223, much more accurate as to 
names, for it represents Robert de Essex and his wife Johanna 
(Plaintiffs) quitting their daim of mart d^ancestre on the Manor of 
Marchemeleg, in favour of Henry de Audithel^ for the great sum 
of 220 merks. 

Henry de Audley, thus becoming Lord of Marchamley, had next 
1 negotiation with his Suzerain, John fitz Alan, who reduced the 
Knight's-service, dae on the Manor, from one fee, to a fourth part 
of a fee. Hence Henry III.'s Charter to Audley (passing in May 
1227) ratifies, inter alia, the following release. — 

Ex relaxacione et quieta clamacione Johanms filii WiUielmi filii 
Alani servicium unius mUitis quod de Manerio de Marchemeleg fieri 
fuit consuetum, usque ad quartam partem servicii unius militis. 

The three Feodaries, drawn up about 1240, give Henry de Au- 
dithleg as Fitz Alan^s Tenant at Marchomleg, two of them stating 
his service to be half a fee, and one correctly giving it as a quarter 
fee.« 

The Hundred-Roll of 1255 says of Sir James de Audley^s Manor 
of Marchimley that he held it of John fitz Alan by service of one- 
fourth part of a fee, returnable at White-Minster (Oswestry). 
There were four hides therein. It did suit neither to C!ounty nor 
Hundred. Marchimeleg and Weston were held with free-warren, 



' Probably Marton, which was held in 
Henry IU.'b time by one Ralph de Mar- 
chameleg, perhaps a son of Bichaxd de 



Essex. (See JOugdMt WarwickMhire, I. 
826 a.) 
' Terta de NevUl, pp. 44^ 47, 49. 



MARCH AMLET. 



275 



by Charter of the King^ and at Weston Sir James had a Park^ the 
Jurors knew not by what warranty.^ 

In 1256-7 James de Audley conceded and quitclaimed to Alex- 
ander^ Abbot of Haughmond^ that parcel of land in the heath of 
Hopley which lay under Yestercoumbe, outside the Abbot's ancient 
foss ; — ^along the road which led towards Mostone^ up to the green 
way which went towards Kentenesdene (Kinstone), and along that 
way to an old ditch which led towards Yestercoumbe. The Abbot 
had sued the Plaintiff for the premises^ under Writ of noveUdis^ 
seizin, and before Master Symon de Wanton and his associates^ 
Justices Itinerant at Salop ; and the Grantor had allowed the Ab- 
botts right as an appurtenance of his Orange of Hopley. The pre- 
sent Deed further allows the Abbot to enclose and cultivate the 
premises ; but retains the Grantor's right of common therein^ after 
harvest. The Abbot is also to grind toll-free in the Grantor's Mill 
called La Bechemulne^ in return for the Abbotts having conceded 
an abuttment for the mill-stank^ and back-poundage of water up to 
a certain oak on the paths between Hodenet and Kentenesdene and 
between Hopley and Marchimeley. Witnesses, Sir Odo de Hodenet, 
Sir Henry de Audley, Gteoffrey de Thorp, Robert de Espele, John 
de Hauekiston, William de Lake, Henry de Pechchiseye, Henry de 
Schavinton, and Robert de Heysawe.' 

The Inquest, taken in November 1273, on the second James de 
Audley's death, shows him to have held 1^ carucates in demesne at 
Marchumle. The personal service due thereon, viz. a fourth of a 
knight's-fee, in time of war, was due to John fitz Alan (he was dead 
at the time), but was now made returnable by the Lord of Loskes- 
ford, though at the charges of the Lord of Marchumle.^ 

Henry de Audley II. dying in 1276, had two-thirds of Marchum- 
leg and Kettensden ; — rvalue £8. 16*. 9rf. per annum^ His service to 
Fitz Alan is put at half a fee. In 1283, the estates of William de 
Audley (deceased), at Marchumley, Bed-Castle, and Weston, are 
surveyed together.* At the Assizes of 1292, Nicholas de Audley's 
exercise of Free- warren in Marchumleye, and his holding of a free- 
court twice yearly for Marchamley and Weston, were subjects of 
presentment by the Bradford Jurors. The Suit of (iuo Waranto 
which followed has been already recited in part.^ Audley defended 
his exercise of the above privileges in Marchumlegh and Weston, by 



1 BoL Hundred. II. 68. 
^ Harl. MS. (ut supra). 
3 Inqumtiont, 1 Edw. I., No. 30. 



* Inquisitions, 4 Edw. I., No. 50. 
' Inquisitions, 11 Edw. I., No. 34, 
^ Supra, page 120. 



276 MARCHAMLET. 

the immemorial usage of lis ancestors^ and of the ancestors of 
those from whom his ancestors purchased the said Manors. Hugh 
de Louther^ the King's Attorney, objected that Audley could show 
no specific grant of the above franchises, nor could he show that 
continuous usage since the reign of Richard I., which a recent act 
of Boyal grace would have made a sufficient defence. He ought not 
therefore to be admitted to any proof of the usage of his Ancestors' 
Feoffors, before the alleged purchase. The Suit was adjourned to 
Lichfield, but the result does not appear. 

I gather from an abstract of the Inquest, taken in 1299, on 
Nicholas de Audley's death, that his estate in Marchumleye and 
Kentensdon was surveyed.^ On Thomas de Audley's death in 1308, 
Marchnmleie was valued at £22. 6s. 1 ^d, per annum, and his tene- 
ments in Kentenesden (Einstone) at £3. 48, 6^d. The latter in- 
cluded a rabbit-warren {Cunicularium), yielding 6d. per annum. The 
Advowson of Marchomley Chapel, the only Advowson which Aud- 
ley had in Shropshire, was valued at 408. per annum.^ 

In the Nomina Villaram of 1316, Nicholas de Audley (II.) duly 
appears as Lord of Marchumleye. The Inquest on his death, in the 
same year, makes the Hamlet of Marchumley, as well as Ightfield 
and Oravenhunger, to be members of Red-Castle.^ 

Marchamley Chapel. This was originally subject to Hodnet, 
but founded by the Lords of the Manor with the probable view of 
making it independent. Indeed we have seen that in 1308, the Ad- 
vowson, worth 40«. per annum, was in the Audleys. 

Bishop Langton, dying in November 1821, left a cause pending 
between Philip de Say, Rector of Hodnet, and Geoffirey de Wolse- 
legh who, assuming himself to be Rector of the Chapel of Mar- 
chumle, contested Philip de Say^s right to the great tithes arising 
from all assarts in Marchumle. On October 19, 1322, Bishop 
Northburgh directs his Commissaries to proceed with, and decide^ 
this cause. 

The Valor of 1534-5, shows that the Rectory of Hodnet was 
charged with an annual pension of £3, payable to the Free Chapel 
at Marchomley.^ Probably this was the sole endowment of the 
Chapel, and represented some surrender of tithes to the Rectors of 
Hodnet. 

The sometime existence of this Chapel was known to Tradition 
at the beginning of the present century. 



1 Calend, Inqtds. YoL I. p. 150. 
3 In^uUiHoHt, 1 £dw. II., No. 68. 



» InquisUionSy 10 Edw. II., No. 73. 
* Valor EoeUiiasticua, III. 1S4». 



LOSPORD. 277 

LOSFOED. 

Losford and Hawkstone were undoubtedly among the original 
members of Marchamley. They constituted^ T think, a part of 
four hides in which, according to Domesday , Baynald Vicecomes had 
as yet no Feoffee. However, within ten years after Domesday Los- 
ford was held by one Hunald, as we shall presently see. This Hunald 
proves also to have had a Feoflfmcnt at Preston Boats,^ a member of 
Upton Magna, where Raynald Vicecomes must have been again his 
Feoffor. Earl Hugh's spurious Charter to Shrewsbury Abbey con- 
firms the tithes of Opton (Upton Magna), Prestona Supra (Preston 
on Severn) and Locesford as if they were his own demesnes ; — a 
fallacy which I have already exposed in the two first cases.* The 
same Earl's less suspicious Charter assigns the grant of two-thirds 
of the tithes of Opton to Warin Vicecomes, and the grant of two- 
thirds of the tithes of the demesnes of Loskesfort and of Prestone 
to Hunaldus.^ Henry I.'s Charter to the Abbey says how " Hunal- 
dus gave thereto the tithes of Preston and of Loscafort and the 
tithes of his own wild mares {decimam equarum suarum agrestium)/' 
including the grant among those which had been sanctioned by Earl 
Roger or one of his sons, Hugh or Robert.* The Charters of 
Stephen, Henry II., and Henry III. describe the grant in a similar 
way ; but Bishop Clinton's Charter, confirming some Charter of 
Earl Hugh^ not now in existence, limits the grants of tithes in Pres- 
ton and Loschesford to two-thirds of the demesne-tithes of each 
place.* Bishop Durdent's Charter, in mentioning these tithes, places 
Locheford in the same clause with Hodnet^ and Preston in the same 
clause with Opton.* 

Enough of these Charters has now been quoted to show the un- 
doubted state of the case, viz. that before the death of Earl Hugh 
(July, 1098) Hunald had been enfeoffed in Losford and in Preston, 
by Rainald^ the Lord Paramount of Marchamley and Upton Mag- 
na, and that Hanald, thus enfeoffed, had granted two-thirds of his 
demesne-tithes as a direct aid to the Monks of Shrewsbury. The 
remaining third, in each case, probably went to the respective Rec- 
tors of Hodnet and Upton Magna. 

The next question is, " Who was this Hunald ?" That he was 
father of that Roger fitz Hunald who gave Rca (another member 



> Kot Preston Brockhont, as suggest- 
ed in the History of Shrewsbury (Vol. II. 
p. 26); where also Hunald is wrongly 
identified with the Saxon, Hunnit. 



« Supra, VoL VII. p. 208. 

* Salop Chartulary, No. 3. 
* ' ^ Ibidem, Nos. 35, 825. 

* Ibidem, No. 61. 



278 MARCHAMLET. 

of Upton) to Haghmon Abbey/ there cannot be a doubt. But 
Roger fitz Hunald had two brothers, viz. Robert fitz Halnfri, who 
was his St;izerain at Bea, and therefore his elder brother^ and another 
brother, the initial letter of whose name was B., but whom we may 
at once call Richard fitz Halufri, for so he is named in a document 
which I shall have to quote hereafter. My iurther ideas on this 
subject are at present unfortified by adequate proof, but, as they 
square with all known facts, I will here state them. I think that 
Rainald's Domesday Tenant at Stanton Hineheath and other places, 
though his Christian name alone is given, might properly be called 
Richard fitz Halufri. I think that Hunald, of Earl Hughes time, 
was Richard's son and heir, and that it was Hunald who augmented 
the Fee of Stanton by acquisitions at Rea, Preston Boats, Roden, 
Rodenhurst, and, I may now add, Losford. It is dear that Roger 
fits Hunald, his younger son, had Rea. It is dear too, that Robert 
fitz Halufri, probably Hunald's eldest son, continued the line of 
Stietnton. 

As to Richard fitz Halufri, he was probably the second brother, 
and it will appear hereafter that he was Mesne Lord of Hopton, a 
place which, like Losford, was one of the original members of 
Marchamley. After the sera of Richard fitz Halufri, I find nothing 
to connect either Hopton or Losford with the Fee or family of 
Stanton. There must have been some change, which reunited both 
places under the Fee of Marchamley. The persons now to be men- 
tioned must be considered as holding Losford or parts thereof under 
the Lords of Marchamley. — 

We have seen Hugh de Loskesford attesting a grant of John de 
Marchomley about 1190--4. In 1199 Hugh de Lokesford was sued 
by Ralph de la Clde and Sibil, his wife, for a hide in Lokesford 
which the Plaintiflfe claimed under Writ of mort dPancesire. Hugh^ 
by a Fine, levied October 29, 1199, acknowledged the premises to 
be the right and inheritance of Ralph and Sibil, who, in turn, 
allowed him to hold the premises for life, paying a pair of spurs or 
2d,, as a rent to themselves. After Hugh's decease the land was 
to revert to the Plaintiffs and their heirs. 

The Pipe-Roll of 1202 exhibits Robert de Lokeswrd as having 
been amerced half a merk by GeoflBrey fitz Viers, pro /also clamore. 
The debt is renewed, and discharged, in 1204 as that of Hugh de 
Lokeswrde. On the death of Hugh de Losford, of course Ralph 
de la Cleie and his wife entered on possession. At the Assizes of 

» Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 271, 272. 



LOSFOBD. 279 

1221 they appear at issue with William, Bishop of Chester, about 
10 acres of bosc in Lokesford which they claimed under Writ of 
mort cPancestre, The case was adjourned to Warwick, Ralph and 
Sibil committing their interests to their son^ Robert.^ Probably 
the dispute was really one of boundary between Frees and Losford. 
At these same Assizes, the aforesaid Ralph and Sibil claimed^ under 
another Writ of mort d'ancestre, half a virgate in Loskesford then 
held by Werric de Loskesford. It was proved that Sibil's mother, 
Swanilda fitz Werric, had died seized thereof, and that Sibil was 
her heir. The misericordia of Werric, the Tenant^ was insured by 
Helias Cocus.' 

In September 1224, the Justices sitting at Salop amerced Ralph 
de Cley and Sibil his wife half a merk for some disseizin.' We 
have seen that about the year 1230, Richard, son of Hugh de Los- 
ford above mentioned, was exchanging Cheswardine-Mill for land 
in Wellington.^ But in 1240 we find him suing the son of Ralph 
de Cleia^ under Writ of nwrt d'ancestre, for a carucate in Loskes- 
ford, that very estate, I presume, of which his Father had disin- 
herited him by the Fine of 1199. Hugh fitz Ralph, as Ralph de 
Cley's son is called, had enfeoffed Roger le Conestable and Alice 
his wife in one-third of a carucate in Loskesford. The other two- 
thirds he held himself. As Warrantor or Owner of the whole he 
was sued by Richard fitz Hugh ; but obtained a quitclaim and Fine 
from the latter^ by payment of 40^.^ Had the Defendant in this 
Action known of the Fine of 1199 he might have stopped the suit 
of tnort d'ancestre in a cheaper way^ viz. by showing that the 
PlaintifiPs Father could not have died^ seized in dominico vi de 
feodo, 

I should^ before I descend later, mention one Bertram de Loch- 
esforde^ who, about the year 1220, gave to Haughmond Abbey his 
whole fourth part of a meadow in Lochesford called the Mill- 
meadow. Witnesses, Baldwin de Hodenet ; Richard de Chesthull ; 
Nycholas, Chaplain; Master William de Hodenet; Walter fitz 
Osanna, and others.^ 

At the Assizes of 1256 Roger de Loskesford ^ was reported by 
the Bradford Jurors as wanting in punctuality of attendance. At 
these same Assizes Roger Hasting compelled Robert de Say (of 



> ' > AnixeSy 6 Hen. III.i mm. 6 dorw^ 
6 redo* Helias Cocus was of Brockton. 
(See Vol. II. p. 129.) 

s Bot Fimum, Vol. I. p. 122. 

* Supni page 46. 



^ It would seem that Biohard de Los- 
ford afterwards settled at High Eicall, 
His son Elyas also occurs (supra, p. 87). 

• HarL MS. 446, Quatem. ziL fo. 10. 

' He was Lord of Chrayenhanger. 



280 MARCHAMLET. 

Moreton) to obeenre an agreement about a moiety of a Mill in 
Losford. Hugh de Say, Robert's &ther^ had given the Plaintiff a 
written Lease of the said moiety for 82 years. Eighteen years had 
run while Hugh de Say was living, and fourteen years had to run 
when Robert de Say disseized the Plaintiff. Judgment went for the 
Plaintiff, viz. that he do recover his full term. 

In February and June 1263 Hugh de Albo Monasterio has Writs 
against James de Audley and others^ for disseizing him of a tenement 
in Loskesford. 

In 1272 we find that Hugh de Cley had been succeeded by a son^ 
Roger^ — ^probably the Roger de Loskesford of 1256. This Rager^ 
son of Hugh le Cley, as his name is written on the Assize-Roll of 
1272, had seized a messuage and 32 acres in Loskesford, on the 
ground that Alan de Loskesford (the tenant thereof) had been exe- 
cuted for felony. He was sued for the same by William, son and 
heir of the said Alan, whose right he at length allowed, William 
paying a sore hawk, for the recognition.^ 

At these same Assizes, three daughters and coheirs of William 
de Albo Monasterio were suing James de Audley (II.) for three 
parts of a messuage and carucate in Loskesford, saying that James 
de Audley (I.) had disseized Hugh de Albo Monasterio, their Unde, 
of the same. The three Ladies who prosecuted this suit were Ali- 
anore wife of Robert le Strange, Joan wife of William de Barentyn, 
and Matilda wife of Robert de Brascy. A fourth Sister, Berta, 
and a fourth share of the estate were excluded from the suit be- 
cause Berta did not join in the prosecution. The reason for her 
not doing so will appear elsewhere. The cause was adjourned till 
James de Audley (II.) should be of age.* 

That Losford was now a mere member of Marchomley is proved 
by the Inquest, taken in November 1273, on the death of James de 
Audley (II.) . He had held Marchomley of Fitz Alan ; but the 
service due thereon, viz. one-fourth of a knight's service, in war 
time, was returnable by the Lord of Loskesford, as Audley's deputy. 
The deputy's charges were provided out of Marchomley.* 

In June 1276 Adam de Loskesford occurs on a Jury- list ; and in 
1281 Robert de Loskesford sat on an Inquest at Wem. In 1285 
one Richard de Loskesford was a Coparcener in Gravenhanger. In 
1308 the Tenements of Thomas de Audley, deceased, in Loskesford, 
were valued at £4. lOs. 6d. per annum, and Einstone and Loscas- 
ford are treated as if members of Marchamley. In 1316, the In- 

1 - > Mtue9, 56 Hen. III., mm. 3 and 10 d^w, * Inquis. 1 £dw. I., No. 30. 



HAWK8TONE. 281 

quest on Nicholas de Audley's death treats Ightfield, Whixall, 
Lolkeswode, and Kentesden, all as members of Bed-Castle. The 
meaning of this is apparent, though the accuracy is doubtful^ for 
Bed-Castle belonged to a different Fief from Marchomley. How- 
ever on this occasion the income from Lolkeswode alone is put at 
£5, 12s. 6d. per annum, viz. ISs. for the rent of a free tenant^ and 
£4s, 14*. 6rf. from the rents of Nativi.^ Subsequent Inquisitions 
on the deaths of the Audleys or their Heirs usually name Losford 
as a member of Bed-Castle. 

HAWKSTONE. 

I have said that Hawkstone must have been originally a member 
of Marchamley. Nevertheless it is clear^ from the entry given 
under Marchamley,^ that in the year 1185 Hawkstone and Mar- 
chamley were independent of each other, or at all events, that, if 
there was any dependence, it was that of the Lord of Marchomley 
on the Lord of Hawkstone. Perhaps John de Marchomley, be- 
sides his tenure in Marchomley which was immediate under Fitz 
Alan^ also held something mediately under Boger de Hawkston. 

A few years later and we have Boger de Hefkeston attesting a 
Deed of John de Marchamley. 

Next after Boger de Hawkston, we come to — 

Hugh de Hauckeston, who, with John his son^ attests a Hopton 
Deed about 1230/ and who is called Hugh de Evecheston in a 
Sandford Deed of nearly the same date. This Hugh attests several 
undated Charters^ and also a Woolerton Deed which passed on April 
10, 1241. 

John db Hauckeston succeeded his father, Hugh, and occurs 
in 1242, as we have seen under Cound.^ He is also a witness of 
various local Deeds ranging between the years 1253 and 1281. In 
Hilary Term 1254 the Abbot of Shrewsbury was suing John de 
Haucheston and Adam de Kent, for some trespass. In 1256 John 
de Hawkstone was Audley's Bailiff at Edgmond. In a testing- 
clause, about the year 1280, John de Hafketon is followed by John 
his son.^ Perhaps therefore John de Haukeston, who occurs as a 
Juror and witness in and about the year 1284, should be called — 

John de Haukeston (II.). Of him however I can say nothing 
further, unless it be he who attests a Leighton Deed about 1300.' 
Meanwhile one — 



1 Inqwmtunu, 10 Edw. H., No. 73. 
* Sapra, page 273. 
' Infins page 284. 



* Sapra, Vol. VI. p. 73. 

* Infin, page 285. 

« Supra, Vol. IX. p. 17. 



IX. 36 



282 MARCHAMLET. 

William de Haukeston sat on a Longslow Inquest in Fefaroary 
1290^ and about the same time attests a Whixall Deed.^ I think 
it probable that this William was identical with — 

William de Weston, " Lord of Hauckestone/' whom we have 
seen attesting a Whixall Deed about 1310.' The same William de 
Weston occurs in a dated Deed of 1320.* 

Sir Thomas de Hauckeston, who attests a Sandford Deed in 
1335/ was probably Lord of Hawkstone and a Knight. 

In an Inquest of 8 Henry Y. (1420) Haukeston is included 
among the members of Red-Castle.^ 

HOFTON, ESFLEY, aitd HOPLET. 

Half of Hopton, and the whole of Espley and Hopley^ seem to 
have formed those 1^ hides, which Domesday treskisBS the tenement 
of one Walter under Rainald Vicecomes, Lord of Marchamlcy. 

When William fitz Alan (I.) recovered his inheritance in 1155, 
his tenant, in at least a part of this estate, was one Osbert, vari- 
ously called " de Hopton,^' '' de Espley,'' and '* de Hopley." Rich- 
ard, Lord of Marchamley, and Richard fitz Halufri (probably a bro- 
ther of Robert fitz Halufiri, Lord of Stanton Hyneheath), had or 
assumed to have some claim on this estate, but whether as Copar- 
ceners, or as Mesne-Lords, or as Owners of adjoining estates of 
doubtful boundary, I cannot say. Helias de Say's interest in this 
part of Hopton is equally difficult to estimate or to account for. 
However, by the concurrence, necessary or only formal, of all these 
parties, the whole of Hopley, and half a virgate in Hopton, passed 
to Haughmond ; and William fitz Alan, as Seigneural Lord, sanc- 
tioned the transfer, by the following Charter, which we must date 
between 1155 and 1160. — 

WilUelmus filius Alani ommbus filiis matris Ecclesie salutem. 
Notum sit vobis Osbertum de Hopton concessisse et dedisse quod m 
juris erat in Hoppeleid fratrilms Hamonensis Ecclesie in perpetuam 
elmosynam ; et Hugonem Hose pro animd Ricardi de Merchondeid, 
et Helie (read Heliam), de Stoke pro animabus piatris et matris sue, 
calupniam, quam habebant in predictd terrd, dimisisse in sempiter- 
num, ut libere et quiete ab omm seclari servicio, in bosco et inplano, 
in viis et in semitis et in aquis et in omnibus locis, quantum ad istos 
et adpredictam terram pertinet, prenominati fratres possideant. Et 
scitote Osbertum de Hopton etiam de terrd sud de Hopton dimidium 
ferdellum dedisse in elemosynam tam libere et quiete sicut ipse libe^ 

1 .S.I. 4 gup,^^ pp. 298, 284, 286,238. • in^tMnfiofit, 8 Hen. Y., No.106. 



i 



HOPTON, ESPLET, AND HOPLET. 



283 



riu8 in elemasynam dare potuii, R, Ricardo (sic) filio Haluri con- 
cedente et testificanie cum hits aliis, scilicet, Johanne Extraneo, et 
Hemingo Sacerdote, et Waltero Hose, et R, fiUo Siwar^, et Alano 
fiHo Oliveri et Huone faic pro Hugone) filio Alberti cum aliis pbiri- 
bus. Falete} 

In 1172^ Pope Alexander's Bull distinguishes the above two 
grants as follows. ^Ex dono Elye de Say et Osberti de Espeleye, et 
heredum, Hcppeleyam ; and. Ex dono prefati Osberti de Hoppeieie 
dimidiam virgatam in Hopptond. 

The heir of Osbert de Hopton, de Espley, or de Hopley, was 
Walter de Hopton, perhaps that Walter, who, in 1165, is said to 
hold a Muntator's fee in Fitz Alan's Barony.' 

About the year 1200, '' Walter de Hopton concedes and gives to 
the Canons of Haghmon all his right and claim to a third of Hop- 
ley ; also with consent of Thomas, his heir, he concedes, gives, and 
confirms, that half-virgate in Hopton which Osbert de Hopton held. 
Witnesses, Robert de Hongeforde (probably Longford), John de 
Hopton, Paulinus de Hodnet, Stephen de Pimley, William Swiste, 
Reiner fitz Reiner, Roger Powis.''* 

About this time I find Walter de Hopton attesting other grants 
to Haughmond Abbey .^ Of Thomas, his heir, I find no independent 
mention ; but in 1255 the Bradford Jurors presented that Roger, 
son of Thomas de Hopton, having been captured in James de Aud- 
ley's Warren, had been imprisoned at Red Castle. The same 
Roger, son of Thomas, attests a Deed, about 15 years later ;^ but 
his family, which at no time held more than a share of the estate 
under notice, seems gradually to have sunk into obscurity. 

Reverting now to the close of the twelfth century we find one 
Jordan de Hespelee attesting in a position which would suggest his 
having a share in this estate. And from 1200 to 1259, a person or 
persons, called Robert de Espley, had not merely an interest but 
the chief apparent interest in the same. The following dated no- 
tices of this person, or these persons, I offer first. In 1203 Robert 
de Espeley was amerced half a merk pro fatso dicto. At the Assizes 
of August 1226, Robert de Espeleg was found to have unjustly dis- 
seized William, Abbot of Haghmon, of common pasture in Hagh- 
mon. Damages of 12^^. were given.^ The Feodaries of 1240 give 
Robert de Esple as holding one-fourth of a knight^s-fee in Hopton, 



^ Haughmond Chartulary, fo. 114, b. 

* Uber Niger, Vol. I. p. 144. 

' Ghartulary (ut ^upra), fo. 114-b. 



* Ibidem, fo. 117-b. 
' Infra, page 285. 

* Ahhmiaiio PlaeUorwm, p. 108. 



284 



MARCHAkLEY. 



under Fitz Alan.^ Robert de Espeleg occurs as Juror on an In- 
quest of 1249. The Hundred-Roll of 1265 says that " Robert de 
Espele holds one-fourth of a knight^s-fee in Hopton and in Espele 
of John fitz Alan^ by service of one Montarius for three weeks, in 
war-time, at Fitz Alan^s Castle of Oswestry. And Robert de 
Espele was to perform the said Castle-guard at his own cost. And 
the aforesaid vill of Hopton was 1^ hides. Robert de Espele did 
suit to County and Hundred and (paid) M. for stretward, and 6^. 
for motfee''^ (the sums proportionate to 1^ hides). Robert de Esp- 
ley occurs in Juries or testing-clauses of 1266, 1256-7, and 1259. 
At the Assizes of 1256 he failed in two prosecutions against Odo 
de Hodnet, one for erecting a hedge in Espele, the other for making 
a foss in Hopton, to the injury of the complainant^s tenements 
there. The Haughmond Chartulary supplies further but undated 
notices of at least two persons, called Robert de Espeley. — 

I presume it to have been about 1280, and with reference to his 
dispute with the Abbot, that *' Robert de Espeleg granted to the 
Abbey, for 3 merks paid down, and at a rent of 4£f., pasturage for 
50 sheep, 24 oxen, and 30 other animals (averia), in his land of 
Hopton. Witnesses, Sir William de Stanton ; Philip, Chaplain ; 
Alexander, his son; Hugh de Haukeston; and John, his son/'^ 
About 1235-40 (as I think) '^ Robert de Espeleg concedes and 
quitclaims to William, son of Philip de Hopton, and his heirs all 
right in two acres of land which the said William had of Haghmon 
Abbey. Witnesses, Sir Hodo de Hodenet, Hugh de Hauckeston, 
and Rog^ de Marchimeleg.'^^ 

Between the years 1268 and 1272 '' Robert Espeleg'' gave and 
confirmed to Haghmond Abbey, 2 solidates of rent in the vill of 
Hopton, issuing out of a messuage, croft, and 4 acres of land which 
Michael de Hopton sometime held. In return the •Grantor was to 
have participation in the prayers of the Abbey. Witnesses, Sir 
Odo de Hodenet, Robert Corbet of Morton, Thomas Corbet of 
Tasseleg.''* 

About the same time '^ Robert, Lord of Hespele, gave and con- 
firmed to the same Abbey, all that agreement which he had made 
with Thomas fiosse, son of Thomas Bosse, concerning that ward* 
ship of land in Hopton which Alexander, son of Helias, held by 



> TeHa de NeviU, pp. 44, 47, 49. 

' Hot. Hundred. II. 68. — A notice of 
the Haughmond estate of 2i yirgates is 
inserted between the two parts of this 



statement. I take it to be parenthetical, 
and hare remoyed it from a situation where 
it only creates confusion (supra, p. 27l). 
■ Chartulary (ut supra), fo. 117. 



HOPTON, SSPLET, AND HOPLET. 285 

right hereditary^ as was contained in an instrument which the said 
Thomas had of the Grantor. Witnesses, Henry de Pechesey, 
John de Cotes, Roger, son of Thomas de Hopton, Robert de 
Winckeshul (Whixall near Frees), John de Clive/'^ 

About the year 1280 John, son of Robert de Espeley, Lord of 
Espeley, gave to the Infirmary of Haghmon Abbey 4 solidates of 
rent issuing out of half a virgate which Robert, son of Adam de 
Preston, held in Hopton. Witnesses, Sir John (read Odo) de Hod- 
net, William his son, John de Hafketon, and John his son.^ 

The same Grantor as " Master John, Lord of Espleg,'' made a 
grant of lands in Hopton to one William Tudor,^ but the Deed is 
not preserved. 

About 1280-4, Master John de Espley will have conveyed his 
whole estate, either to Sir Odo de Hodnet or his son William. 
Hence the Feodariea of 1284-5 sav that William de Hodnet holds 
half the vill of Hopton under Richard fitz Alan for one-fourth of a 
knightVfee ; and that the same William holds the vill of Espley 
under the same Richard, who held in capite in both instances. 

Between the years 1284 and 1292 Sir William de Hodnet grants 
to Richard Cocus of Hopton and his heirs half a tract of waste {du 
midium ruralem vasti) in Espley, bounded by the new foss of Sir Wil- 
liam de Hodnet Lord of Espley.^ The Grantee pays 2s. down and 
furnishes a great knife {cuUellum) for the Grantor's kitchen. He 
is to pay a rent of one halfpenny, and not to assign the premises 
to Jews or Great Lords.^ Witnesses, Adam de Purtan, Henry de 
Savinton, WiUiam de CalverhaU. 

In the Nomina ViUarum of 1316, the Earl of Arundel is entered 
as Lord of the vill of Horton, in Bradford Hundred. I conceive 
that Hopton is meant. 

William de Hodnet's tenure of Hopton, under Fitz Alan, remained 
with his heirs general, the Ludlows, for several generations. 

Haxtohmond Abbey Fke. The interest acquired and fostered 
by Haughmond Abbey, in Hopley, Hopton, and Espley, is illus- 
trated by a number of documents, which would only have inter- 
rupted my attempt to trace the descent of the fee-simple. — 

About 1253-63, Alexander, Abbot of Haghmon, grants to Wil- 
liam, son of William Smith [Fabri) of Kentenesdene and to his 



' Ghartulary (ut supra), fo. 117. 

> Novd fostd Domini WUlielmi de 
Hodnet et Domini de Bepeleye s—'where 
I take the word 0^ to be strictly conjimc* 
tive and net disjuncttre; — ^that is, one 



person is described by two titles. 

* Magnie donUnis infuetifieiaUbiu, —i.e. 
Suzerains, too great to be subject to the 
Gbantor^s jurisdiction. The single word, 
moffnoHbuSy is oftener used in Charters. 



286 



MAECHAMLET. 



heirs by the daughter of Thomas Wedirooke of Hopton^ a soke of 
land in Hopton at a rent of ISd. ; — ^the Grantee to be amenable to 
the Grantor's Court at Hardwick. Witnesses, John de Hauckeston, 
Robert de Espeley^ Henry de Pechesey. 

About the same time Richard Smere, son of Thomas Wedirooke 
of Hopton^ quitclaims to Haghmon his right in a half-virgate and 
capital messuage which he held of the Abbey in the vill of Hopton, 
also in a noke, messuage, and croft, which Ralph, Vicar of Hodnet, 
held under the Grantor in Hopton ; also he quitclaims <aQ his 
seigneury, service, and rent, in half a yirgate which Roger, his 
brother, held of him, and in a noke, with a messuage and croft, 
which Michael fitz Edric held of him, and in 8 acres which Sibbota, 
daughter of the said Michael, held of him. Witnesses ; — as in the 
last Deed. 

About the year 1290, Sibil de Penington, widow of Master John 
de Espley, releases a rent of IGd. which she received in the way 
of dower, from the Abbot of Haghmon, out of that half-virgate ^ 
which the Canons bought from her late husband. Witnesses, Wil- 
liam Tuder of Hopton,' Richard Smethe of Hopton, William 
Horde, Richard Robert of Astley. 

The Taa^ation of 1291 gives the Abbot of Haghmon a carucate 
of land in Hoppley, worth lis. per atmum, and 4s. assized rents in 
Hopton.* 

We have seen Robert, son of Adam de Preston, named as Tenant 
of half a virgate in Hopton about 1280. He had since held it 
under the Abbey by 4>s. rent. But about the year 1810, he sold it, 
with a messuage, for 4 merks (paid him in great necessity) to Richard 
Cocus of Hopton, retaining a rose-rent to himself. Witnesses, 
Richard Tuder of Hopton, Roger de WekineshaU, and Richard de 
Lakyn. 

On July 15, 1807, Abbot Richard of Haghmon demises to 
Richard, son of William de Eentenesdene, a parcel of land in 
Hopley, towards Marchomley, near the road which led from Een- 
tenesdene (Kenstone) to Hodnet. On February 20, 1825, Roger^ 
son of Ralph de Hopton, with Alice his wife, had a life-lease from 
the Abbey of a messuage and half-virgate in Hopton. In April 
1888 Roger, son of Richard Cocus of Hopton, sold to John le 



^ What ihe Canons bought was 4». 
rent, issuing out of half a vii^te (supra, 
p. 285). The Vendor's Widow however 
was entitled to her thirds (viz. 16<2.). 



' Perhaps identical with William de 
Hopton, Juror on a High Hatton Inquest 
in 1300. 

> Pope Nieh. Taxation, p. 260. 



HIGH HATTON. 287 

Walische of Salop^ all his lands in Hopton and Hespley^ and an 
assart which he had in Hatton snper Hineheath. Witnesses^ Roger 
de Webbeley, Thomas de Hodnet. On March 12, 1338, John le 
Walsche of Salop released to Nicholas, Abbot of Haghmon, aU his 
daims to lands, then held by the Canons, in Hopton and Espley, and 
lately Jield by Roger de Hopton. Witnesses, Sir William de Er- 
calwe, Sir Robert Corbet, Knights, Richard Husee, William de 
Smethcote. On the same day Margaret, widow of Roger (son of 
Richaid) de Hopton, released all right in her late husband's lands 
in Hopton and Espley. Witnesses — as the last, and Philip de 
Peynton. On April 28, 1338, Abbot Nicholas grants a life-lease, 
at a rent of 16s,, to Henry, Clerk of Hodnet, his wife Eleanor, and 
their daughter Elizabeth, of a house in Hopton in which Roger, 
son of Richard le Coke, late resided, and of a virgate adjoining. 
About the year 1350 (as 1 suppose), Thomas, son of Thomas Tuder 
of Hopton, gives to Haghmon Abbey all his lands in Hopton, with 
an acre of pasture, and with all escheats, &c., in Hopton and Esp- 
ley, as enumerated in a Ghrant firom Master John, late Lord of 
Espley, to William Tuder, the present Grantor's Grandfather.^ 
Witnesses, Sir William le Botiler, Lord of Weme; Sir Robert 
Corbet; Sir Laurence de Ludlow; Sir John his son, knights; John 
de Leghton ; Philip de Peynton ; and Walter Cresset. On October 
20, 1473, John, Abbot of Haghmon, demises the Grange of Hopley- 
juxta-Hodnet, except a piece of Hopley Heath, to Thomas Chorle- 
ton. Gentleman, for 98 years, at 20s. rent. 

In the Valor Eccksiasticus and in the Ministers' Accounts of 
Henry VIII.'s time, the Abbey rents of Hopton, &e., are mixed up 
with those of Cheswardine, or some other place. 



}^t]^ i^attom 



" The same Rainald (Yicecomes) holds Hetune of the Earl, and 
Richard holds it of Rainald. ^Iric, Ulfac, Uluiet, and Leuric, 
held it for mi Manors in King Edward's time. Here are ii hides, 

' Supn, page 286. 



288 



HIGH HATTON. 



geldable. In demesne are one ox-team and mi Serfs; and ii 
YiUainB and ii Cottars^ with ii teams : and yet there might be y 
additional teams (employed). Those who held these lands (in Saxon 
times^ I presume) were free. In King Edward^s time the Manor 
was worth 60s, {per annum) : afterwards it was waste : now it is 
worth lOs/'^ 

I have spoken more than once of Richard, the Domesday Tenant 
of Bainald, and the presumed Ancestor of the Stantons.^ Now 
the Stantons did not succeed to High Hatton, but we shall see that 
at one time they claimed it ; so that here, as oftentimes, the excep- 
tion rather fortifies than invalidates the rule. 

I cannot divest mvself of the idea that Hamo Peverel estab- 
lished himself in Bichard^s position, as Lord of High Hatton. This 
would be in the generation after Domesday, and in tlie time of 
Henry I. My reasons for this suggestion are, first, because I find 
symptoms of a Seigneury having been asserted over High Hatton 
by one at least of Hamo PeverePs heirs,^ and, secondly, because the 
fee-simple of High Hatton eventually went to Alan de Hadley, 
eldest son of Seburga, Hamo PeverePs natural daughter. Now I 
have suggested that the Muntator^s-fee which Alan de Hadley held 
under Fitz Alan in 1165, was not inclusive of High Hatton, but 
was relative to Hadley only> The inquiry therefore arises as to 
who held High Hatton at that period : and I presume that Richard 
de Hidesland, also a tenant of a Muntator^s-fee under Fitz- Alan, 
was the person in question.^ It is all but certain that a place, 
called Hidesland, oonstituted a part of the Manor of High Hatton, 
and that the person, called Richard de Hidesland in the Liber Niger, 
was the person elsewhere called Richard de Linley. 

I refer to previous notices of a Richard de Linley, living in the 
time of Henry I. and Stephen, and attesting Charters of Hamo Pe- 
verel,^ also to previous notices of a Richard de Linley, living in the 
time of Henry II., and attesting Charters of Hamo Peverd's Coheirs, 
and having estates at Linley and Brockton.^ The last Richard, if 
there were two in succession, was living in 1180, and was succeeded 



1 Domegday^ fo. 254, a, 2. 

« Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 268, 861. 

* Vide supra, page 78, where Gilbert 
Peohe oonveys to Robert Bumel "the 
homage and senrioe of Thomas Corbet of 
Hadley.** I camiot suppose that the 
thing oonyejed was of a substantive na- 
ture^ but still it was perhaps an alleged 



due, and had respect to Corbet*s tenure at 
High Hatton. 

< Supra, VoL VII. p. 364. 

» lAber Niger, I. 143. 

« Supra, Vol. II. pp. 39, 40 ; VoL III. 
p. 286 J Vol. VIII. p. 128> hit, 

7 Supra, Vol. I. p. 360 ; Vol. II. pp. 40, 
97 ; Vol. IV. p. 112 ; Vol. IX. pp. 67, 76. 



HIGH HATTON. 289 

at Linley and Brockton by Philip de Linley. It remains that I 
should give proof that this Richard de Linley was the Richard de 
Hidesland of the Liber Niger. The following Charter, which must 
needs have passed about the year 1179, is such a proof. — 

Ricardus de Linley a omnibus Sancta Dei Ecclesia filiis, tarn pre- 
sentibus quam futuria^ salutem, Notum sit vobis omnibus, me con- 
cessisse et dedisse in perpetuam elemosynam Deo et Ecclesits Scti 
Johannis Evangeliste de Haghmon et Canonicis in predictd Ecclesid 
Deo servientibus, pro salute anime mee omniumque parentum et ami- 
coram meorum, terram de Hydesland, scilicet unam virgatam cum 
omnibus pertinenciis suis et libertatibus et liberis consuetudinibus, 
liberam et quietam ah omni servido et exactione sectUari. Valete. 
Hugus donacionis testes sunt Wydo Extraneus ; Marscotus ; Petrus 
de Morton, et Philippus jUius efus ; Walterus de Huggeford ; Wydo 
films Roberti de Saesburid} 

The question which next occurs is the only difficult one in the 
case before us. If Richard de Linley^s heir at Linley and Brockton 
was Philip de Linley, how is it that he was succeeded at High 
Hatton and Hidesland by Alan de Hadley ? There are several ways 
in which this might have supposably happened,* but, having no evi- 
dence as to the mode, I will proceed to show the fact. — 

Alan de Hadley was certainly in his time Lord of High Hatton, 
He married Alice Pantulf, who (being mother of his daughter and 
sole heir Cecilia) survived him, and had her dower in High Hatton. 
This proves Alan de Hadley^s sometime seizin. 

When Alice Pantulf died, her daughter Cecilia succeeded to High 
Hatton. It was in Cecilia's right that her second husband, Bald- 
win de Hodnet, was seized of High Hatton, when he suffered his 
second forfeiture for rebellion against King John. This forfeiture 
commenced in 1215 and lasted till November 1217.' During the 
interval, William de Stanton had possessed himself of High Hatton, 
but was ejected by Baldwin de Hodnet, as soon as the latter ob- 
tained his pardon. At the Assizes of 1221, William de Staundon 
sued Baldwin de Hodnet and Cecilia his wife, for novel disseizin, 
''they having ejected him from his tenement in Hatton,'^ Baldwin 
appeared and produced the King's Writ ordering his restoration to 



1 HarL MS. 446, Qaatem. xii. fo. 11. 

* Suppose, for instance, that Bichard 
de LinXey (I.) was Becond husband of 
Sebarga Pererel, and father by her of an 
only son, Bichard de Linley (II.). Then 
suppose that Bichard de Linley (II.) died 



without issue. In that case, any estate 
derived firom his mother would pass to his 
mother^B heir, while his paternal inhe- 
ritance would go to his own ooUateral 
heir. 
» Supra, Vol. VII. p. 55. 



IX. 37 a 



290 HIGH HATTON. 

all his lands, and in particular, '' to the dower, late Alice Pantolfs, 
whose daughter and heir, Cecily, was Baldwin^s wife/' Under this 
Writ he had seizin of Hatton. 

William de Staundon denied nothing of this statement, but said 
that Baldwin's reseizin was unjust, for he (the Plaintiff) was in 
seizin during the time of war. The sentence given was full against 
the Plaintiff. His Surety was Richard de Lecton.^ 

On the death of Baldwin de Hodnet, in January 1225, his step- 
son, Thomas Corbet, already Lord of Tasley, succeeded to his late 
Mother's estates at Hadley, High Hatton, and Bromley B«gis. Of 
Thomas Corbet and his descendants I have said much under Tasley 
and Hadley.^ In 1230, Thomas Corbet sued Bishop Stavensby at 
Westminster for impleading him in Court-Christian about some 
question of common in Bromley Begis, and for excommunicating 
him. The Justices could give him no redress, but told him to get 
absolution ; for the Bishop came forward and proved that the alleged 
prosecution in Court-Christian was a figment of Corbef s, and that 
the real ground of his excommunication was a violent assault com- 
mitted by him on a Clerk. 

A Writ-Close of September 25, 1238, when the King was at 
Shrewsbury, orders the election of a Coroner, in room of Thomas 
Corbet of Hethleg (Hadley), who had apparently resigned. 

In 1240, the tenures of Thomas Corbet of Tasley are put at one 
knighf s-fee in Hatton and Hadley, and half a fee in Tasley,* but I 
doubt whether his collective tenure was more than a whole knighf s- 
fee> 

On November 18, 1240, that Fine was levied, at Salop, which 
proves that the claim of the Stantons to Hatton was recurrent 
and not wholly groundless. It cost " Thomas Corbet of Tasseley" 
35 merks to compound the Suit of Grand Assize, under which 
Stephen de Stanton impleaded him for the Manor of Hatton. 

The Hundred-roll of 1255 gives Hatton as a Manor of one hide, 
and subject to the proportionable payment of 4rf. for motfee, and 
4d. for stretward, Roger Corbet, Lord of the Yill, held it of the 
Fief of John fitz Alan, and provided a horseman, with horse, hauberk, 
lance, and chapel-de-fer, to serve at Fitz Alan's Castle of Oswestry, 
for 40 days, and at Corbef s cost. 

The Manor did suit to the Hundred, twice yearly, at the She- 
rift's Toums, but not to the lesser Hundred-Courts.* 

1 JsiUeif 6 Hon. m., m. 2. 

« Supns Vol. I. pp. 90-100 ; VoL VII. 

pp. 856-seo. 



> Tetia de NernU, pp. 44, 47, 40. 
< Supra, VoL VII. p. S57. 
• Sot. Eundrmi, II. 55. 



HIGH HATTON. 



291 



In 1368^ Hatton super Hineheath (printed Hatton ei ChuMnhethe) 
was the one place for which Thomas Corbet (II.) obtained a Charter 
of Free Warren.^ 

The Feodarie$ of 1284-6, call this place Heye Hatton and He 
Hatton. Thomas Corbet held it of Fitz Alan's Barony. 

One of the Inquests, taken in June 1300, on Thomas Corbet's 
death, sat at Hatton super Hyneheth. For some reason or other 
Hadley was not valued, but the extent of Hatton was £4. 9s. Sd. 
per annum, viz. a capital messuage and garden Is, ; 80 acres of 
arable land ISs. 4ed. ; half an acre of meadow dd, ; 10 acres of bosc 
le. Sd, ; one Mill 6s,&d.; 4 irirgates held, by 8 bonds, at will, £S. 4f . ; 
two cottars'-rents 2s. ; and Pleas of Court 6d.* 

It is probable from this that the actual contents of the Manor, 
notwithstanding the separation of Hidesland, were much nearer the 
two hides of Domesday than the Hundred-KoU of 1266 would lead 
us to suppose. 

HiDBSLAND. We have traced one virgate here to Haughmond 
Abbey, by gift of Richard de Linley about 1179. This was but a 
moiety of the Till. In the next century the other moiety was held 
by Elyas, son of Richard Cadugan of Audley, whom I have men- 
tioned, under Moreton Say and Audley, as occurring in 1266.^ 
Elyas probably held under Corbet of Hadley, but sold his tenancy 
to Sir Odo de Hodnet. Between the years 1260 and 1270, '' Odo, 
Lord of Hodenet,'^ gave to Haghmon Abbey, in frank almoign, 
'' that whole moiety of Hideslont, which he had bought from Elyas 
fitz Kadogan of Alddeg,'' to hold to the Abbey under the Grantor, 
free of all services to him pertaining. Witnesses, Sir John fitz Aer ; 
Robert Corbet of Moreton Thoret ; John, Lord of Great Ercall ; 
and Robert de Espeleg.^ 

About the same time Symon, son of David Chaplain of Weston, 
quitclaimed to the Abbey all his right in the land of Hydeslont 
juxta Hatton. Witnesses, John, Lord of Great ErcaU ; Robert de 
Espeleg ; John de Hauekystan ; Reyner de Acton ; William Banas- 
tre ; Thomas Dod ; and William fits David.' 

Also William, son of Walter de Hideslonde, gave a similar quU^ 
claim to the Abbey, attested by Adam, Vicar of Shawbury, Henry 
de Pechesey, and John de Bogelton*'^ 

The Taxation of 1291, gives the Abbot of Haghmon 6s. Sd. as- 
sized rents in Parva Ydeslonde.* 



s In^umiumi, 28 Sdw. I., No. 17. 
* Supra, pp. 261, 269. 



«Hari.MS.44a. Qmi^m^ xii. fi>. 11. 
' Haughmond Chartolaiy, lb. 111-b. 
* Pop0 NmA. TaxatUm^ p. 260. 



292 



STANTON UPON H1NEHEATH. 



We now come to a document, which will nearly deternune the 
sitnation of Hidesland ; viz. that it mnst have stood somewhat South- 
west of High Hatton, on that rivnlet which, after leaving Hides- 
land, passed South of High Hatton, and the Express Wood, and 
flowing on to Polford is there called the Polford Brook, — On April 
5, 1338, Sir Boger Corbet of Hadlejr, and Nicholas, Abbot of 
Haghmond, by the mediation of mutual Mends adjusted the follow- 
ing grievance. Sir Boger had so raised the stank of his Vivary near 
Espris (the Express- wood marks the spot) in the vill oi Heghehaiton^ 
suT'-Hyneheth, as that the water of the said vivary inundated a good 
part of the Abbot's land at Hideslond Orange.^ 

In September 1456, Abbot Richard of Haghmon gives a 60 years' 
lease of his land at Htdesland-jtupta-Chldehattony to John Mille of 
Hatton, Joan his wife, William Felton of Hatton, and Alice his wife, 
at a rent of 25^.^ — This description of Hidesland, as near Cold 
Hatton, is at first sight puzzling, but a glance at the Map will 
show that the spot in which our former argument would place the 
vill, would be not very far from Cold Hatton. 

The Valor of 1534-5, gives £2. 9s. 4rf. as the Abbot of Hagh- 
mond's receipts from Hiddislande juxta Colde Hatton.' 

High Hatton Chapel. Tradition, unseconded by other evidence, 
speaks of such a structure. It will have been a dependency of the 
Church of Stanton Hineheath. 



Stanton upon |^ine{)eat|)« 



^' The same Bainald (Vicecomes) holds Stantune of the Earl, and 
Bicardus (holds it) of Bainald. Sauuard held it (in Saxon times) 
and was free together with this land. In demesne is one ox-team 
and four Ser&. The Church, a Priest, six Boors, and a Smith, have, 
among them all, ii ox-teams ; and there might be a third team. 
Here is a Mill of 10s. Sd. (annual value). In King Edward's time 
the Manor was worth 35a. {per annum). Afterwards it was waste. 
Now it is worth 22s.'' * 



> Le awB del dU vyver iirounda^amn 
partie de la tern Uz ditt Ahbe et Oovent 
a lor groMmgt de Midetlond. 



* Haughmond Chartulary, fo. 111-b. 

" Valor JSeolesiaeHcue, 111. 192, 

* Domeedojfy fo. 264^ a, 2. 



STANTON UPON HINEHEATH. .298 

I refer to former pages for an estimate of tbe probability that the 
Ricardus of Domesday was Ancestor of the Stantons.^ If so, I 
think that Ricardns's real name was Richard fitz HaluiH, for cer- 
tainly there was an ancestor of the Stantons whose name is vari- 
ously written as HalufeVy Halwred, HeUunric, Chaleuric, and Alured. 
Then there is a probability that one Hunald was father of the three 
brothers of Henry II/s time, two of whom, Robert and Richard, 
were called by the generic name, Pitz Halufri, while the third, Roger, 
was called by the patronymic, Fitz Hunald. 

Of Richard fitz Halufiri, the presumed second brother, I have a 
word more to say here. As Richard fitz Haluri, we have seen him 
with apparently a mesne interest in Hopton, about 1155-60.* Per- 
haps it was he who was living in 1191, and who as Richard fitz 
Aluric was debited with one merk as Surety for one Richard Sad- 
doch junior and his brothers. Perhaps too it was he who as Richard 
de Stanton, was remembered in the next century to have given some 
land in Stanton to the Knights Templars, domiciled at Keel (in Staf- 
fordshire). 

Of Robert fitz Halufiri, the elder brother of Richard, I have given 
particulars elsewhere, and abo of his presumed son and heir, Ste- 
phen, as occurring in 1177, 1192, and 1199.* The following notes 
further relate to the latter person, whom we may call — 

Stephen db Stanton (I.). At the Assizes of 1203, Stephen 
de Stanton appears as Security for a Litigant and as himself amerced 
20^. for some trespass. In 1212, he seems to have been in the fol- 
lowing of John le Strange, for a Writ-Close of May 81, 1218, ac- 
knowledges that John le Strange, junior, and Stephen de Stanton, 
had on June 10, 1212, paid £60 to the King, then at Kingshaugh, 
for John le Strange, Senior.^ 

But the most extraordinary feature in the history of this Stephen 
and his family, is that he contested a right to the Honour of Mont- 
gomery with Thomas de Erdinton. This opens up a great genealo- 
gical problem of which I shall have more to say elsewhere. Suffice 
it here to state that Stephen de Stanton, with Robert his son and 
heir, allowed the superiority of Erdinton^s claim, and that King 
John, in January 1215, ratified the said agreement, and bestowed 
the said Honour on Erdinton, saving the right of any third claim- 
ant.^ 



» Supra, VoL VII. pp. 268, 351. 

' Supra, page 283. 

' Supra, VoL VII. pp. 269, 272 ; and 



VoL Vin. pp. 285-6. 

*'^ Mot. Claw. VoL I. pp. 134, 184; 
and Mot. Chart, p. 203. 



IX. 37 b 



294 



n 



m 



eo 



Ih 



Ih 



a 



^ 



4S 



i 



s 



I 

I 

I 



I 



I 

Ph 

I 

1 



» 



(So 



Ih 



o 



I • 



kO 



li 

(38 

OQtg 
so 



a 



. N 



t3 



<§<§ 



fr) 



■a I 



Ih 



I 



I 



o 

1 

I 

I 

OQ 

§2 



64 



l_« 



11 
I® 



d $ 



o 






II— 



CO 
00 

I 




5 



Ih 



g 
I 

QQ 



04 

1-1 

09 



O 

o 

■ 

i 

o 



d 






Ih 



I 
I 



t 

II- 



Ml 






"Ills' all 



i 

-li 

ii 



il 









-i! 



ill 

3P3S 



liii 



Ii 

i 






-■SI'f 



-11- 
hi 

-•S"j 

id 



Ii 






-ll 



i^si- 



I 






83 






•Si 

•1- 



It? 



296 STANTON UPON HINEHEATH. 

I think that both Stephen de Stanton and his eldest son, Robert, 
were deceased before the Assizes of November 1221. Robert died 
without issne, so that his next brother, — 

William de Stanton, succeeded to his inheritance. I have 
noticed under Haughton the circumstances which probably ac- 
companied Robert de Stanton's decease.^ I have further shown 
under High Hatton, that William de Stanton was a Royalist, and 
a man of note, in the lifetime of his elder brother, if not of their 
father. 

At the Assizes of 1221, William de Stanton, though defeated in 
respect of his claim on High Hatton, sat as one of those knightly 
Jurors who tried causes of Grand Assize. He was doubtless at this 
time Lord of Stanton. In 1223, 1 find him attesting Henry de 
Audley's foundation-charter of Hilton Abbey,' and, in other Charters 
of that and subsequent years, his name as a witness is conspicuous. 
In 1231, he stood Surety for an amercement set upon Peter de 
Eyton. His grants to Haughmond Abbey relative to Stanton 
Church will appear elsewhere, but it is clear that one, if not both, of 
them passed between the years 1232 and 1235. The latest proved 
period of William de Stanton's life, is April 1236. 

Stephen de Stanton (II.), his heir, and probably his son, ap- 
pears in the Feodaries of 1240-1, as Lord of the Fee of Stanton, 
that is, as holding two knights^ -fees under Fitz Alan in Stanton, 
Roden, Preston Boats,' and I may add Rodenhurst and Acton Rey- 
nald. 

Before the year 1255 Stephen de Stanton (II.) was dead. His 
son and heir, — 

Stephen de Stanton (III.) was then a Minor, and his ward- 
ship had been given or sold by Fitz Alan to that Thomas de Lee of 
whom I have spoken so often. Hence the Hundred-Roll of 1255, 
putting Stanton as a Manor of half a hide, says that it was held of 
the Fee of John Fitz Alan, that Stephen fitz Stephen, a minor, was 
Lord of the Vill, and that the wardship of the said minor had been 
given to Thomas de Le. The Manor paid 2d. stretward and 2d. 
motfee yearly, and did suit every three weeks to the Hundred. Ri- 
chard de Stanton gave half a virgate to the Templars of Kil, but 
the Jurors knew not the manner of the gift. The Lord of Stanton 
did the ward of one knight for 40 days at Fitz Alan's Castle of 
Oswestry, at his own cost.* 

> Sapn» VoL Vni. p. 286. I > Tuta ds NeviU, pp. 44, 47, 49. 

s Mamuticon, Yol. Y. p. 716. I * Sot. Hundred. 11. 56. 



STANTON UPON HINEHEATH. 297 

At this point the succession of the Stantons becomes rather ob- 
scure. I have only one indication that Stephen de Stanton^ the 
minor of 1255^ attained to the enjoyment of his estates. He made 
a grant of a messuage and carucate in Stanton to one Eva de Sou- 
batch (now Sowbatch)^ a grant which^ in 1318^ was contested by 
Petronilla^ daughter and heir of the Grantor. The next Lord of 
Stanton^ after Stephen de Stanton (III.)> was — 

John de Erkalewe, of whom the Feodaries of 1284-5 speak as 
follows. — " John de Erkalewe holds the vills of Preston, Stanton, 
Roden, and Bodenhurst, of Richard fitz Alan for two knights' -fees, 
and he (Fitz Alan) holds of the King incapite." 

It is difficult to say who this John de Erkalowe was. He cer- 
tainly was not Lord of Child's Ercall, and John, Lord of High 
Ercall, was recently deceased. I take him to have been a younger 
son of the said John, and to have obtained Stanton, &c., by marry- 
ing Petronilla, the daughter and heiress of Stephen de Stanton 
(III.). The probability of this is increased by observing that thus 
John de Erkalowe's marriage would be nearly cotemporary with 
that of his elder brother.^ Again, if Petronilla de Stanton's father 
was a Minor in 1255, it is probable that she herself was little more 
than an infant in 1284. We are not therefore surprised to find 
that her supposed marriage with John de Erkalowe was unpro- 
ductive of issue. It is certain that in 1288 Petronilla was the wife 
of— 

Thomas de Lee, and that her eventual heirs .were her children by 
the said Thomas. I have alluded to this marriage before ; and sup- 
posed Thomas de Lee to have been a younger son of Thomas de 
Lee above mentioned.^ From this time the genealogy of the Lees 
of Stanton, Roden, kc., becomes very clear, as will be seen by the 
foregoing pedigree. The following illustrative particulars are noi 
capable of such compression. — 

By a Deed, without date, Thomas du Lee, Lord of Staunton, gives, 
to Richard de Boley, land in Staunton. By another undated Deed, 
Thomas du Lee, Lord of Stanton, and his wife Petronilla, give to 
Thomas du Lee, their son, a messuage in the vill of Stanton, with 
remainder, on Thomas's death without heirs, to Stephen his brother, 
with remainder, on Stephen's death without heirs, to Philip du Lee 
and his heirs.^ 

This provision for a younger son was followed in 1310-11 by a 
settlement of the Manors of Stanton and Preston, on John, the 

> Vide rapra, p. 87. ' Sup^l^ Vol. VII. p. 270. • Hwrl. MS. 1396, fo. 253. 
IX. 38 



298 



STANTON UPON HINEHEATH. 



eldest son of the same Thomas and Petronilla : but this^ as I have 
stated under Preston/ did not hold good. 

"In 5 Edw. II. (1311-12) Thomas de Lee and Petronilla his 
wife give to John de Lee and to Matilda^ daughter of Henry de 
ErdintoD^ all their land, whether sown or unsown^ in Boden/' A 
Fine of April 16, 1312, further explains this Deed.— Thomas de Lee 
and Petronilla his wife, Deforciants of the Manor of Bodene, the 
right of Petronilla, settle the same on John de Lee, and his wife, 
Matilda, daughter of Henry de Erdinton, &c. (as in the entail stated 
under Roden).^ I take it that John de Lee, thus married, came o( 
age about this period. 

We have Thomas de Lee attesting a Rodington Deed on March 
25, 1313. In August of the same year I find Thomas de Lee and 
his sons, John and Stephen, concerned in a suit which I will give 
under Shavington. In the Nomina Villarum of March 1316, Tho- 
mas de Leye is duly returned as Lord of Staunton.^ I do not find 
him in any instance named as a Knight. He died iu 1316 or 1317; 
for in January 1318, " Petronilla, widow of Thomas de la Lee, and 
daughter and heir of Stephen de Stanton, was found to have dis- 
seized John, son of Reyner de Lee, of a messuage and carucate in 
Stanton."* By a Fine, levied April 22, 1319, it would almost seem 
that Petronilla's son, John, having obtained Stanton under the 
Deed of 1310-11, had alienated it to John Corbet of Preston, and 
that Petronilla was now obliged to repurchase it for 100 merks. 
The Pine is between Robert de Acton, Attorney of Petronilla, widow 
of Thomas de Lee (Plaintifi*), and the said John Corbet, Deforciant, 
of the Manor of Staunton super Hyneheth, whereof was Suit-at- 
law. John Corbet surrendered it to Petronilla, to hold for life of 
the Lords of the fee^ with remainder to her son John and his bodily 



» Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 270, 387. 

2 Parliamentary Writs, IV. 397. 

» Astize-Roll, 11 Edw. II.— This was 
the very messuage and carucate in Sow- 
batch, which Stephen de Stanton, Petro- 
nilla's father, had given to Eva de Sow- 
batch, about 1260-80. (Supra, p. 297.) 
Petronilla now maintained the grant to 
have been for Eva's life only. The way 
the estate had come to John son of Beyner 
de Lee appears to have been this. — 

About 1270-90, Eva widow of Stephen 
le Engleys (evidently Eva de Sowbatch) 
gives to Beyner de Lee all her right in 



Soudbache. Witnesses, Sir Thomas Bot- 
terell and Sir John de Lee, knights (HarL 
MS. ut supra). — 

From Beyner de Lee, whom I believe 
to have been a younger brother of Sir 
John (of Berrington) and of Thomas (of 
Stanton) the estate descended to John 
son of Beyner. But Sir John, his Uncle, 
seems to have had some claim thereto, for 
in 4 Edw. II. (1310-11) "John du Lee, 
Knight, releases to John son of Beyner 
de Lee all right in Southbache. Wit- 
nesses, John Huse of Albrighton and 
others." (Harl. MS. at supra.) 



STANTON UPON HINEHBATH. 299 

heirs, with remainder to the right heirs of the same John. For this 
Petronilla paid John Corbet 100 merks. 

Petronilla de Lee was still living in 6 Edw. III. (1332) ; for, in 
a Subaidy-RoU of that year, she is one of those assessed under 
Staunton. Her quota was 3^. ; that of Robert Fraunce, 3^. 4d. 

John de Lee, son and heir of Thomas and Petronilla, was mar- 
ried, as we have seen, in 1312, and thereupon had Roden. 
. In December 1311 he had attested an Ercall Deed as John, son 
of Thomas du Lee. In January 1312 he attests after his Father.^ 
In March 1316 and October 1318 he attests other Deeds as John 
de la Lee of Roden. Other attestations of his in December 1318 
and March 1320 show that he was not as yet a knight. In 15 
Edw. II. (1321-2) we have him still styling himself John, son of 
Thomas de Lee. Two Writs of March and May 1322 address him 
as John de la Lee, and as a Commissioner of Array for Shropshire. 
He was returned as a Knight of the Shire, for the same County, to 
the Parliament which met at York in November 1322 ;^ and in May 
1324 he was summoned to attend a Great Council at Westminster.' 

In 19 Edw. II. (1325-6) John de Lee, knight, son and heir of 
Thomas de Lee, gives to Stephen his brother, and to Thomas de 
Lee, brother of the said Stephen, for their lives, a parcel of arable 
land in the field of Southbache. 

In 1 Edw. III. (1327-8) I still find this Sir John styled " Lord 
of Roden.^' His grant in the same year to his daughter Maud has 
been already given under Berrington.^ 

A Subsidy, levied in Roden during the same year, charges I6d. 
on John de Lee, 16d. on Alan de Roden, and I4>d. on Thomas fitz 
John. 

The descendants of John de Lee continued to be styled rather 
*' of Roden'* than " of Stanton,*' till the marriage of his Great- 
grandson, Robert, with the heiress of Lee of Langley. After that, 
they were rather styled " of Langley.*' Further particulars of this, 
the greatest, though not the eldest, branch of the Lees, have been 
given under Berrington.^ 

I have something to say now about those other members of this 
family who acquired tenements in Stanton or in Sowbatch. And 
first I will speak of — 



^ Supra, page 93. 

' It IB noticeable that this retam to 
Parliament exactly marks the period at 
which John de Lee first assumed the 
style of a £uight. In a Fine of Norem- 



ber 1323 (supra, VoL VII. p. 40) he is 
styled Chivaler, 
» ParUamentartf Writs, IV. 1086. 

* Supra, Vol. VI. p. 40. 

* Supra, Vol. VI. pp. 41 et seqq. 



300 



STANTON UPON HINEHBATH. 



Rbyner de Lee, younger son of that Sir Thomas de Lee who 
had custody of the Fee of Stanton, in 1255. 

By Deed, without date, Thomas de Lee, knight, gave to his son 
Reyner the whole vill of La Lee subtus Pebenhul} The Lee, near 
Pimhill, probably the oldest estate of the Lees, thus passed to a 
younger son. Sir Thomas de Lee, knight, is also said to have given 
to his son Reiner and his heirs, 6 messuages, one carucate, and 
three virgates in Hadnall. This gift was erroneously attributed to. 
the sera of Edward I., instead of Henry III., in whose reign alone 
can such a grant have been made. The premises passed by some 
means or other to Haughmond Abbey, but in 1408 Petronilla, 
Great-great- great- granddaughter of Reyner, joined with her hus- 
band, Robert de Lee of Roden, in an attempt to recover them. 
They failed, on the ground that Sir Thomas de Lee's grant to Rey- 
ner was not such an entail as they wished to make out.* 

The mode in which Reyner de Lee acquired (about 1270-90) an 
estate in Sowbatch has been already pointed out in a note.^ I shall 
show, under Lea-near-Pimhill, that Reyner de Lee was living in 
1292 and 1294. At his death he left an infant son, John, and n 
widow Johanna. The son's Guardian assigned for the widow's 
dower, a messuage, a carucate, and 4 acres of meadow, and other 
land, in Stanton (i. e. in Sowbatch) . 

John, son of Reyner de Lee, appears to have been of age be- 
fore June 1307, when he had a suit with Haughmond Abbey and 
William Banastre concerning property in Hadnall. In 1310-11 he 
obtained a quitclaim from Sir John (his Uncle) as to his estate in 
Sowbatch. On Sept. 24, 1317, he attests a Charter of the same 
Sir John, dated at Berrington, and relating to lands claimed by 
Haughmond Abbey in Hadnall. In January 1318, he regained his 
estate in Stanton (i. e. in Sowbatch) against Petronilla, Lady of 
Stanton, who had disseized him thereof. A Charter of his, bearing 
date 11 Edw. II. (1317-8) and attested by John,* son of Stephen de 
Lee, is quoted among the Lee Muniments. 

In 9 Edward III. (1335) he as " John, son of Reyner de Lee," 
adjusted some disputes with Sir John le Strange of Middle. 

Some time before this, viz. in 11 Edward II. (1317-8), he seems 
to have taken the usual method of SLfeoffment-in-trust to settle Sow- 



> Harl. MS. 1396, fo. 253. 
' Abstract of pleadings ; — preserred in 
the Haughmond Chartulary, fo. 72. 
' Supra, page 298, not« 3. 



* Stephen de Lee, father of this witness, 
has occurred abore (p. 253). I cannot cer- 
tify his relationship to John son of Bejner. 
Perhaps he was John's Uncle. 



STANTON UPON HINBHEATH. 301 

batch on his son John. The Deed of the presumed Trustee is alone 
preserved. Thereby " Philip de Wistanestowe gives to John^ son of 
John^ son of Reyner de la Lee^ and to the heirs of his body, all 
his lands in Stanton, which were caUed SoiUhbache, Witnesses, 
Richard Husse, Richard Hord, John de la Lee, John de Warene.''^ 
But John de Lee, the father, afterwards repented of this settlement ; 
for on March 12, 1331, John, the son, was found to have been un- 
justly disseized of a messuage, carucate, and 28 acres of meadow 
and pasture, in Stanton, by William de Titteleye, Petronilla his 
daughter, and John, son of Reyner de Lee.^ 

John, son of John de Lee, was succeeded by a son and heir, 
a third John, whose son and heir, Roger, married Joan, daughter 
and coheir of Edward Bumell of Langley. Petronilla, daughter 
and sole heir of the said Roger and Joanna, married her distant 
Cousin Robert Lee of Roden, and thus reunited two branches of 
this family, as before alluded to. 

Stephen de Lee, a younger son of Thomas and Petronilla, has 
already been mentioned under dates of 1310-11, 1313, and 1325-6. 
His interests in Stanton and Sowbatch were contingent, or only for 
life. His name will recur under Astley in 1337 and 1357. 

Of his daughter, Catherine, I have spoken under Preston Boats.' 

Thomas de Lee, another of the younger sons of Thomas and 
Petronilla, has also occurred above, in 1310-11 and in 1325-6. 

In 1340 John de Clynton and Alice his wife failed to prosecute 
their suit against Thomas de Lee of Roden, Kenewricap David, Ro- 
bert de Byriton, and Oliver de Lee, for disseizing them of a tenement 
in Burton juxta Pychford. The suit was renewed in 1342 against 
the same parties, together with Walter, son of Walter de Burton. 

In March 1345, Thomas, son of Thomas de Lee of Stanton-super* 
Hyneheih, having been enfeoffed by Richard, son of Thomas Dod of 
Hygke-Haiton^super-Hyneheth, in a messuage and carucate in Hat« 
ton, the two were sued by John, Parson of Walters Upton, for dis- 
seizing him of the premises. In the next year (1346), the Plaintiff 
did not appear in this suit, and was pronounced in misericordid. 

In 23 Edw. III. (1349) John, son of William de Tittenleye, re- 
leases his right in all lands, &c. to Thomas, son of Thomas de Lee.^ 

From a Fine of the year 1353, recorded in 1359, it appears that 
Agnes, then wife of " Thomas, son of Thomas de Lee of Stanton,'' 
was heiress in reversion of the Manor of Hadnall. At present it 



> HarL MS. 6848, fo. 20, b. 
* Sot. Astize, 6 Edw. UI. 



» Supra, Vol. VII. p. 271. 
* HarL MS. (ut Bupra). 



802 STANTON UPON HINEHSATH. 

was held by Jolin Corbet and bis wife Matilda, and three others^ for 
life of the said Matilda. Thomas de Lee and Agnes now settle the 
whole of Agnes' reversionary interest on William Banastre of Yor- 
ton, Alianore his wife, and their bodily heirs, with remainder to the 
right heirs of the said William Banastre. 

Thomas de Lee is party, as trustee, to two Moreton-Corbet 
Fines in 1363 and 1371. In the last instance he is styled '^of 
Sonbatch." 

Thomas de Lee mnst have Hved to a great age, but died without 
issue, before the year 1384, as we have seen under Preston.^ From 
his ubiquitous appearances I think it possible that he may have been 
that '^ Thomas, son of Thomas de la Lee/' whom I have noticed 
nnder Berrington and Eaton Mascott, as occurring in 1333 and 
1335.» 

Oliveb de Lee, another son of Thomas and Petronilla, had Pres- 
ton-Boats by gift of his mother. He occurs in 1318, and if what 
I have surmised under Berrington as to his elder brother John, be 
correct, he had Okehurst, a member of Stanton, and was deceased 
in 1322-3.^ We know that he died without issue. 

Of other Undertenants, I must name onc' Robert de Stanton, 
whose first appearance is in 1255. In 1260 he fined half a merk ut 
amittatur per ballivam ; — that he might be released from prison on 
finding Sureties for his reappearance. His crime was probably that 
of taking a deer in company with Alan de Parva Buildwas. He 
duly appeared to take his trial at the Forest Assizes of 1262. From 
1270 to 1281 this Robert de Stanton occurs constantly as a Witness of 
Deeds. At the Assizes of 1272 he was one of the Jurors for Brad- 
ford Hundred, and he appears on other Juries of 1277, 1278, and 
1281. John de Stanton, is so called in 1298, but occurs as John, 
son of Robert de Staunton, when attesting a Rodington Deed in 
1313.^ He was perhaps son of the above Robert. 

CHURCH OF ST. ANDREW AT STAinrON. 

The mention of a Church and a Priest in the Domesday Manor 
of Stanton, indicates the pre-existence of one of those Saxon Foun- 
dations whose Parishes appear so vast to modem ideas. 

Of the extent of Stanton Parish I can only say that it included 
High Hatton and Lee Brockhurst, at each of which places Churches 
or Chapels have since been founded. 

> Supra, Vol. VII. p. 271. I » Supra, Vol. VI. p. 40. 

» Supra, Vol. VI. pp. 41, 105, 106. I < Supra, Vol. VII. p. 379. 



THE CHURCH. 



803 



The history of the Mother Churchy with which I now proceed^ is 
very full and curious^ explaining many points of ancient usage^ by 
supplying the ratio^ as well as the mere faets^ of procedure, in the 
conveyance and appropriation of a great Rectory. 

The Advowson was in the Stantons, the Lords of the Fee, till the 
aera of William de Stanton, who held the Manor from 1221 to 1236. 
During his tenure " the See of Chester was vacant/^ and we know 
that the only vacancy, which can be thus alluded to, was that which 
commenced August 20, 1223, on the death of Bishop Comhull, and 
lasted till April 14, 1224, when Bishop Stavensby was consecrated. 
— During the said vacancy Richard de Chirbiri (Chirbury), Parson 
of Stanton, attended an Archidiaconal Synod or assembly ; and 
tendered the resignation of his benefice to " Master Alexander ^' (the 
famous Alexander de Swereford), " then Archdeacon of Salop.'' On 
the nomination of William de Stanton, the Archdeacon forthwith 
'^ admitted and instituted " one Hugh de Stanton to the Living, 
such being the Archdeacon's duty under the circumstances of the 
vacancy of the See. 

It would seem that Richard de Chirbury afterwards repented of 
his resignation, and, taking advantage of its having been only made 
to an Archdeacon, held the Church, or assumed to hold it, tiU his 
death, which took place in Midlent 1236.^ 

Meanwhile (that is, certainly between the years 1224 and 1235, 
and probably about the year 1230 *) " WilUam de Staunton gave to 
Haughmond Abbey the Advowson {jus pratronatHs) of the Church 
of Staunton, adding to the gift a messuage and three acres of land 
in his lay-fee,, which were held by Hugh Dod." Bartholomew 
Thoret (who was deceased in 1235), and Hugh Forester, attested 
this grant.^ 

In Midlent 1236, Richard de Chirbury died, and the Abbot of 
Haughmond assuming himself to be Patron of the Living, was re- 
sisted by William de Stanton. The Abbot sued the ELnight in the 
Courts of Westminster, in April following, to compel him to permit 
the Abbot to present ^^ a fit Parson." William de Staunton (appa- 
rently repentant of his grant of the Advowson, and mindful only of 



1 Placita, Pasch. Tm. 20 Hen. ni.,m. 6. » 
' G-ilbert, Abbot of Haughmond, stated 
in return to a Writ of Edward I. that 
John de Morton was Abbot of his House 
when William de Stanton '* enfeoffed the 
Abbey in this Adrowson." — 

This eridenoe is not qmte ocoidiunTe, 



but, coupled with other fisu^, it would 
suggest an improrement in the List of 
Abbots (Vol. YII. p. 800), and i^aoe 
John de Morton's Abbacy, as well as 
William de Stanton's grant, between 
1227 and 1236. 
> Haughmond Chart. TU. Staunton. 



304 STANTON UPON HINEHEATH. 

his having presented Hugh de Stanton in 1223-4) pleaded that " the 
Church was not vacant/^ and that '^ Hugh was Parson thereof/' 
Master Alexander^ still Archdeacon of Salop, appeared in Court/ 
and corroborated William de Staunton's evidence by relating what 
had taken place at the Synod of 1223-4. The Abbot rejoined by 
stating that '^ Richard, the latest Parson, had died at Midlent 1236, 
and that the Living was as yet a Sequestration in the hand of the 
Bishop (Stavensby)/' The Court made a reference to the said 
Bishop, and adjourned the Cause till July 1, when his evidence was 
to be forthcoming. Nicholas de London, a Canon of Haughmond, 
was named as the Abbot's Attorney, but the RoUs which are wanted 
to complete the secular treatment of the Cause, are lost. 

I have good reason to think that Bishop Stavensby compromised 
this dispute by allowing Hugh de Stanton to remain Rector of Stan- 
ton, but at the same time by obliging him and his Patron, Sir 
William, to give a formal security to the Abbey for the future exer- 
cise of its right of Patronage. At all events we have a Deed, whereby 
" Alexander, Bishop of Coventry, at the donation and concession of 
Sir William de Stanton, gives and concedes to Haghmon Abbey 4 
shillings out of the Church of Stanton, in the name of a perpetual 
benefice. Witnesses, Master Reginald de Cleidon, then Official (of 
the Bishop), Master Symon Perduz ; Thomas de L'Ewe; A., Vicar 
of Ercalwe; R., Vicar of Lilleshull; Heco de Atyngham, and 
others."^ 

This Deed probably passed in 1236, but certainly between 1236 
and 1238, when Bishop Alexander died. 

I next find a triplicate copy of a Deed dated at Stanton on the 
day of St. Bricius, Bishop and Confessor (t. e. November 13), and 
in the year 1247, according to one Copy, but in the year 1267, ac- 
cording to two Copies.* The earlier date is probably correct, but 
the discrepancy does not affect the current of our narrative. The 
Deed, whatever its date, proves that " Hugh " was still " Rector of 
Staunton," that he disputed the Abbot of Haghmon's right to a 
pension of 4«. out of Stanton Church, that the question was settled 
before the " Dean of Christianity (the Rural Dean) of Salop," and 
that the Abbofs right thereto was established in ^^ full Chapter" 
and acknowledged by the said Hugh. 



' This correote the list of the Arch- 
deacons of Salop, which should make 
Swereford coutinaously Archdeacon from 
1222 to 1286 (Sardys Le Neve, Vol I. 

673). 



< Harl. MS. 8868, fo. 9.— Cleidon be- 
came Stavenby's Official after Julj 1282. 
He occurs as such in July 1284. 

> Harl. MS. 8868, fo. 9 ; and Hau^- 
mond Cfaartulary (ut supra). 



THE CHURCH. 305 

It next appears that " a Rector of Stanton died while Alan was 
Abbot of Haghmon^ and that the said Alan presented his successor/' 
This death and presentation must have occurred between 1258 and 
1277, taking the widest intervals for Abbot Alan's tenure of office. 
Probably the Rector who died was Hugh de Stanton. Abbot Alan's 
Presentee, whatever his name, was deceased in 1288, for then 
Thomas de Lee and his wife Petronilla, on the one hand, and the 
Abbot of Haghmon on the other, were again contesting the right of 
presentation to the vacancy. 

A Writ of King Edward I., dated October 18, 1288, orders the 
Sheriff of Shropshire to take security from the Abbot for the prose- 
. cution of his claim, and then to empanel twelve /rec and lawful men, 
of the Vicinage of Stanton-in-Hyneheth, to appear before the 
Justices at Westminster, on November 18 following, and try the 
question in the usual form, viz. Quis advocattis, tempore pacis, pre- 
sentavit ultimam personam, &c. 

The result of this Trial, threatened or held, may be inferred from 
two memoranda, the first of which shows that Thomas and Petro- 
nilla de Lee, in the presence of John de Drayton, Abbot of Shrews- 
bury, recognized the Abbot of Haghmon's right to the Advowson, 
and agreed to levy a Fine in the King's Court before May 19, 1289, 
securing the said Advowson to the Abbot, who paid £20 for the 
concession. 

The second memorandum is Thomas de Lee's own letter to R., 
Bishop of Coventry, dated January 1 6, 1289, and withdrawing a pre- 
sentation which he had already made to the vacant benefice. Lee 
seals his letter with the Abbot of Shrewsbury's seal, as well as his 
own, "which was perhaps unknown to the Bishop [forte vobis in- 
cognito) ." 

Now follows another Writ-Royal, dated January 28, 1289, and 
which orders the Sheriff to enjoin Thomas and Petronilla de Lee 
to give warranty to the Abbot, of a messuage, 3 acres of land, and 
the Advowson of Stanton Church, which the Abbot held under them, 
as he averred, and whereof he had their Charter. If the said Thomas 
and Petronilla refused to obey, the Sheriff was to cite them to West- 
minster. Next we have a piece of ofScial routine. — The King's 
Justices at Westminster would not allow the covenanted Pine to be 
levied " because of the statute which forbade Advowsons of Churches 
to be placed in mortmain." Gilbert, Abbot of Haughmond, here- 
upon memorialized the King as to the Justices' refusal, and obtained 
a Writ ordering them to allow the Fine to be levied, and setting forth 
IX. 39 



806 8T ANTON UPON HINEHKATH. 

how *' William de Stanton had enfeoffed John de Morton^ a former 
Abbots in the Advowson/' and how '' the Parson, last deceased, had 
been presented by Abbot Alan." These considerations, I presume, 
were given, to show that the case did not fall under the Statute of 
Mortmain, which was not retrospective. — • 

The Justices complied at once, and we have the consequent Fine, 
levied at Westminster on June 12, 1289. Thomas de Lee and 
Petronilla his wife (Irapedients) acknowledge the perpetual right of 
Gilbert, Abbot of Haghmon (Plaintiff) to a messuage, 3 acres of 
land, and the Advowson of the Church of Staunton-super-Hyneheth, 
whereof was Plea of Charter- warranty. The Abbot in return re- 
ceived the Recognizors to the benefit of the prayers, &c. of his 
House, for ever. " And," adds the Record, " this Concord was 
made by precept of the King." 

An entry in the Haughmond Chartulary announces that on the 
13th of July, Mcclxixix {sic), William de Hopton, Subdeacon, was 
instituted Rector of Stanton by Roger Bishop of Coventry, at the 
presentation of the Abbot and Convent of Haghmon. The 32nd 
year of the Bishop's Consecration (also assigned as the date of this 
act) would place it in 1288, while the dominical year intended to be 
given was probably !Mcclxxxix. Neither date is consistent with a 
Writ of King Edward I., dated January 24, 1290, and addressed to 
the same Bishop, which orders him to admit the Abbot of Hagh- 
mon^s Presentee. We may however safely conclude that William 
de Hopton was admitted as Rector within a year of the Fine of 
1289. 

The Tajration of 1291, values the Church of Staunton (in the 
Deanery of Salop) at £12 per annum; besides a pension of 4$. 
which the Abbot of Haumon derived therefrom.^ 

The next step for the Canons of Haughmond was to get an appro- 
priation of this Rectory. By a Patent of March 6, 1827, King 
Edward III., as far as in him lay, allowed this Appropriation, as 
well as that of a third part of the Church of Wroxeter, notwithstand- 
ing the Statute of Mortmain.^ A Bull of Pope John (XXII.) dated 
at Avignon, September 16, 1329, allows the Appropriation of "the 
Church of St. Andrew of Stanton-super-Hynehet (whose fruits, ac- 
cording to the Taxation, did not exceed £12), on the death of the 
existing Rector." On March 30, 1330, the Archdeacon of Salop, 
as Commissary for the Bishop, settled other preliminaries of the 
proposed annexation at a meeting held in the Collegiate Church of 

^ Popt Niek. Taxaiitm, p. 247. ' Faiewt. 1 £dw. III., p. 1, m. 21. 



THE CHURCH. 307 

St. Chad^ Shrewsbury. William^ Rector of Stanton^ was still In- 
cumbent. 

But the consent of the Dean and Chapter of Lichfield had yet to 
be obtained. — On July 16, 1330, the Abbot binds himself in a bond 
of £20, payable to the Dean and Chapter in 1333, or else to secure 
to the Dean and Chapter an annual pension of one merk from 
Stanton Church, payable from and after the death of Rector William. 
On the next day (July 17, 1330) the Dean and Chapter demand 
and agree to receive the said pension. Their manifesto describes the 
nature of their right to such compensation. It arose by their in- 
sisting on what may be called the fraction of a contingency. If 
Stanton remained a Rectory, and if, on any vacancy thereof, the 
Patron neglected to present, two-thirds of the fruits of the Living 
would devolve to the Bishop during the period of vacancy. This 
was an ancient right of the See of Lichfield, both with respect to 
Stanton and other Churches in that district. Further, any con- 
tinued neglect of the Patron to present, would entitle the Bishop to 
collate. Again, if the Bishop neglected so to collate within the 
statutory period, the presentation would devolve on the Dean and 
Chapter of Lichfield. " All these possibilities,'* continues the mani- 
festo, " woidd be extinguished by appropriation ;" but the Chapter 
agreed thereto, for the stipulated pension. 

On April 1, 1331, Bishop Northburgh recites and confirms his 
Commissary's proceedings at the meeting held March 30, 1330, in 
St. Chad's Church. On April 3, 1331, it was agreed at Haugh- 
mond Abbey, that the Abbot should pay the Bishop a pension of 2 
merks yearly, for his consent to the appropriation of the Churches 
of Riiyton and Stanton. This was the estimated value of the 
Bishop's contingent rights in cases of vacancy, as already set forth 
in the manifesto of the Dean and Chapter. On October 16, 1331, 
Bishop Northburgh recites the previous acts of appropriation, and 
announces the resignation of Sir William de Hopton, late Rector of 
Stanton. The Bishop also approves of a plan propounded by the 
Abbot, on October 1st previous, for the future Vicarage. The chief 
provisions vere that the Abbot should retain the New-Hall with its 
granges and other buildings, and a messuage and bam, and all corn- 
tithes, except of gardens, and one grange at Lee Brockhurst, and all 
wool-tithes, except those of Lee Brockhurst, and the hay-tithes of 
Stanton. The Vicar was to have the old Rectorial manse with 
its garden and dove-cot, a meadow, a virgate in Stanton, a messuage 
and half-virgate in Lee Brockhurst, the tithes of Mills, gardens. 



308 STANTON UPON HINEHEATH. 

milk, ducks, calves, lambs, flax, hemp, and honey {baria apium), all 
mortuaries, and all hay-tithes, except of Stanton. The Yicar was to 
pay a pension of 6^. Sd. to the Archdeacon of Salop, and 2s. for syno- 
dals ; and to serve Stanton Church and Lee-Brockhurst Chapel. 

On November 3, 1331, Bishop Northburgh instituted the first 
Vicar of Stanton, at presentation of the " Abbot and Convent of 
Haghmon, Impropriators of the said Church by Papal authority, and 
Patrons thereof.^' It was not till February 6, 1357, that William 
the Dean (read Prior) and the Chapter of Coventry, discovering 
that they had similar rights with the Chapter of Lichfield, allowed 
the appropriation of the Churches of Stanton and Ruyton, for a 
pension of one merk, payable to themselves yearly. 

In 1341, the Assessors of the Ninth quoting a Taxation of £12 
on the Church of Staunton, assessed the Parish at £8 only ; because 
a great part of the arable land in the Parish was Glebe ; and, though 
it increased the Church-Taxation, could not be taken to prove any 
such capabilities of the Parish in general, as were now to be taxed : 
indeed the Vicar, in whose hands the Glebe was, paid his tenths for 
the same, to the King, imder another assessment.^ 

The Valor of 1534-5 gives the preferment of William Carbes', 
Vicar of Staunton, as worth £6 per annum, less 9^. 2d,j for Procu- 
rations and Svnodals.^ 

The Abbot of Uaughmond's Rectorial ferm was put at £7. 10«. 2d. 
The Churches of Staunton, Hanmer (Flintshire), and Buy ton, were 
however charged with a collective pension of £1, 16s. Sd. to the 
Bishop of Lichfield ; and the Churches of Stanton and Ruy ton with 
two pensions, of a merk each, to the Dean of Lichfield and the 
Prior of Coventry.^ Also the Abbot paid the Bishop £1. 8*. lOd. 
(or at the rate of 9s. V^d. per annum), at his triennial Visitations for 
the Procurations of Shawbury, Staunton, Wroxeter, Hanmer, &c.* 

VICABS OF STANTON. 

The Rectors of Stanton, all who occur, have been noticed in the 
foregoing narrative. The following Vicars were uniformly presented 
by the Abbot and Convent of Haughmoud. — 

John Fayrchild, Chaplain, was admitted Nov. 3, 1331. 

Sir John de Brxjgh died August 11, 1349 (probably of the 
Pestilence). 

William Goumon, Chaplain, was admitted Jan. 27, 1350, 

Sir John Knitte, Priest, was admitted Aug. 20, 1359. 

^ Inquix. Nonarum^ page 183. ' F«/or ^celnuutitms, ITT. 185, 192, 193. 



GEEAT WITHTFORD. 309 

William Hetq, ocxmrs as Vicar in 2 Henry V. (1814-5). 

Sir Henry Palk, resigned in 1419. 

Sir John Don, Chaplain, was admitted May 4, 1419. 



4lreat WBitbj^toxXt. 



Domesday notices this as a threefold Manor, in which WiHiain 
Pantulf had one share (already spoken of ^) while Rainald Vicecomes 
was Mesne Lord of two shares. — 

'"The same Rainald holds Wieford (of the Earl), and Alcher 
holds it of Rainald. Sten and Wilegrip held it (in Saxon times) 
and were free together with this land. Here are 2i hides, geldable. 
In demesne are ii ox-teams and viii Serfs; and (there are) v Vil- 
lains, and one Radman, and one Frenchman with 3| teams.'' 

" Here is a Mill of Ss. (annual value). In King Edward's time 
the Manor was worth 28^. {per annum). Afterwards it was waste. 
Now it is worth 408." 

" The same Rainald holds, in the same Vill, one hide, geldable, 
and Albert holds it of him. Uluric and Carlo held it (in Saxon 
times) for a Manor.'' 

'' Here are one ox-team, two Serfs, and two Boors, and another 
team there might be. The value of this (in Saxon times) was 7s. 
{per annum). Afterwards it was waste. Now it is worth 7«."* 

This is the second Domesday Manor in which Alcher and Albert 
appear as Co-tenants of Rainald the Sheriff. At Middleton the 
Cotenancy of the Fitz-Aers and the Rossalls, the descendants of 
Alcher .and of Albert, endured for ages. At Withyford the en- 
durance of Rossall's tenure was not so long nor so clear, but still 
we have sufficient evidence of its existence to teach us that the 
smallest sentence of Domesday has a significance. 

FITZ AEE'S MANOR. 

I have nothing to add to what I have said, under Middleton 
Scriven, Aston Eyre, and Harcott, relative to the descent of Alcher's 
representatives, till we come to the year 1165. Then Robert fitz 
Aer held the fees of one knight and 1 ( muntators in the Barony of 

1 Tide sapra, pag« 18 i. ' Domesday y fo. 264) a, 2. 



310 GREAT WITHYFORD. 

Fitz Alan.^ The Knight's-fee was Aston Eyre, the semi-muntator's 
fee was Middleton, the whole muntator's fee was Withyford Magna. 

We next come to the suit about Withyford, which — 

Robert fitz Aer (II.) maintained against John le Strange 
during the earlier years of Richard I/s reign. The preliminaries 
of this suit have already been shown.' I now proceed with the 
details. — 

A Plea-Roll which I know from its internal evidence to belong to 
Trinity Term, 1194,^ has the following entry. The allusions thereof 
having been already explained, I here give the original in extenso. — 
Robertus filius Aeri petit versus Johannem Extraneum terram de 
Widifwd ut jus suum et hereditatem stiam, in quam Johannes intru^ 
sit se dum terra ilia et alia teme sua fuerunt in manu Domini 
Regis, et dum ipse fuit in prisond Domini Regis pro morte cujusdam 
hominiSy unde rettatus fuit ; et /"supply didt quod) sponte sua posuit 
se in prisond quousque liberatus fuit per Justiciarios, et promisit 
Domino Regi x marcas pro recto habendo et seisind tali qualem ha- 
butt die qv4 terra sua saisita fuerunt in manu Regis pro predicto. 
Johannes, summonitus per breve Domini Regis, ostensurus qualiter 
intravit in terram illam, venit et dicii quod terram illam recuperavit 
versus ipsum Robertum ut jt^ suum coram Cancellario et Willielmo 
Briwer et Simons de Patishull et aliis Justiciariis, apod Hereford, 
et inde vocat Curiam fad Warantiam), Vicecomes Salopia, simili- 
ter summonitus ostensurus quo waranto posuit Johannem in seisinam 
Ulius terra, desicut erat in manu Regis, misit litteras Cancellarii, in 
qua ^sic pro quibusj continetur quod eum inde saisire debet. 

Dies datus est in adventu Justiciariorum in partibus illis et tunc 
venial Recordum per iv milites de hdc loqueld; — utrum terra seisita 
foret in manu Regis antequam Robertus deficeret versus Johannem de 
placito, an non. — The question then was one of date, viz. whether 
Fitz Aer^s Fine (which placed him in the same position as that in 
which he stood on the day of his indictment for murder) preceded 
the date of Le Strange's successful suit at Hereford. The point was 
never decided by judgment at Westminster or elsewhere; audit 
would be difficult to decide it now. The result was eventually at- 
tained by Final Concord, which, as we shall see, made Le Strange 
Mesne-Lord of Withyford, and made Fitz Aer, not Fitz Alan's 
tenant there, but Le Strange's. 

On May 12, 1295 (if I rightly date another Plea-Roll), the fol- 

1 - * Supra, Vol. X. pp. 200, 201. aa stated in the Abbreviatio PlacUorum 

' It ifl not a Roll of King John's reign* (page 96). 



GREAT WITHTFORD. 311 

lowing step occurred in this suit. — Archiepiscopus warantizavit Jo^ 
hanni Extraneo diem Lutub post Ascensionem, quod (read quia) fuit 
in servicio Domini Regis loco Radulfi Extranei qui infirmaiur. Et 
dies datus est ei per hominem suum in octabis Sancti Johannis 
versus Robertum filium Raheri (read Aheri). 

The Archbishop^ here mentioned^ was the Viceroy, Hubert Walter. 
I understand him, in his double capacity of Viceroy and Justiciar, 
to have respited John le Strange's appearance in the above suit till 
July 1, 1195, because the said John now occupied the military po- 
sition of his dying cousin, Ralph le Strange of Alveley, who had 
been engaged in the Welsh wars.^ 

It is further clear that Robert Fitz Aer (II.) died while this Suit 
was pending. I have elsewhere given the Fine, proffered by Emma 
de Sai his widow in 1198.^ This was merely to have custody of his 
land and heir, and freedom in respect of her own marriage. Having 
attained this object, the suit with John le Strange naturally de- 
volved on the said Emma. Between Michaelmas 1198 and January 
1199, Emma de Say proffered and paid to King Richard 30 merks, 
" to have such seizin of the land of Wiford as Robert fitz Aier, her 
former husband, had on the day when that land was seized into the 
King's hand for the death of a certain man, whereof he (the said 
Robert) was accused."* 

A Flea- Roll (which I think belongs to Hilary Term 1199) shows 
John le Strange resisting Emma de Say^s claim. — " By precept of 
Geoffrey fitz Piers (then Chief Justice) a day, in five weeks of 
Easter, is given to John le Strange and Emma de Sai, in a Plea of 
land.''* 

The Final Concord which closed this Suit, on Sept. 25, 1199, 
has been given in substance under Aston Eyre. Here is the ori- 
ginal. — Hec est finalis concordia facta apud Salopebir' die Sabbati 
proxima antefestum Sti Michaelis^ anno regni Regis Johannis primo, 
coram Alano Abbate Teokesbirie, Henrico Archidiacono Stafford', 
Simone de Pateshill, ^c. ; inter Emmam que fuit uxor Roberti filii 
Aer et Robertum filium ejus, petentes, et Johannem Extraneum 
et Willielmum de Hedleg tenentes de feudo dimidii militis cum 
periinenciis in Wiford, unde placitum fuit inter eos inprefatd Curid; 
— scilicet quod Johannes et TViUielmus recognoverunt predictum 

I Vide supra, VoL III. p. 130. 

« Supra, Vol. I. p. 202. 

s Hot, Fipe, 1 John, Salop. This Fine 
was renewed on the Fipe-BoU of 1201> 
bat was found to haye been liquidated al- 



ready. The mistake arose from confusing 
it with another Fine then proffered. 

* The EoU is indorsed as of '' 10 John." 
I have made it of 10 Bichard I„ firom 
its internal evidenoe. 



812 GREAT WITHYFORD. 

feodum dimidP militis esse jus Roberti; tenendum de eodem Johanne 
et heredUms, sibi et heredilms inperpetuum, per servicium dimidU 
militis pro omni servicio. Et pro hac fine et concessione et recog^ 
fdcione predictus Robertus dedit predicto Johanni xx mar cos argenti. 

Thas did Robert fitz Aer (III.) repurchase a part of his inheri- 
tance^ viz. the actual possession of Withyford ; and thus did John 
le Strange (II.) obtain the mesne-lordship. William de Hadley^s 
concern in the matter was probably by some Feoffment of Le 
Strange^ during the period when the latter was in possession. 

About November 1200 I find another oblatum by Emma de Say, 
relative to a portion of Withyford, which she conceived to have 
been wrongfully occupied during the period of her late husband^s 
and her own difficulties. — " Emma de Say gives the King 40^. to 
have an Inquest as to whether Robert fitz Aer was seized of 40 acres 
in Wiford (now held by Vivian de Roshal and Hugh de Upton), on 
the day when he was disseized of his other lands by reason of his 
indictment for manslaughter, and as to whether the said Vivian and 
Hugh occupied the said land while the lands of Robert fitz Aer 
were in custody of John le Strange. The Sheriff was to report the 
result of this Inquest through two of the Jurors before January 20" 
(1201).^ The Pipe Rolls show this fine liquidated in 1202 and 
1203, but I hear no more of the Inquest. Vivian de RoshalPs ap- 
pearance in Fitz Aer's estate at Withyford is pertinent to a future 
subject. 

I have indicated, under Aston Eyre, that Robert fitz Aer (III.) 
died between 1221 and 1231. William, his successor, who occurs 
in 1231 and died in 1245, was Robert's brother. The follo?ring 
details are derived from an Inquest of 1248.^ — Robert fitz Aer be- 
queathed {legavit) the Mill of Withyford to Haughmond Abbey : 
but, after Robert's death, his brother and heir, William, made entr^ 
on all his lands, and disallowing his bequest to Haughmond, assigned 
both the town and mill of Withyford as the dower of Amice, Ro- 
bert's widow. The Abbot hereupon sued William for the Mill, but 
agreed to accept an annuity of 20«. in lieu thereof. 

(It should here be observed that when Philip le Bret fined in 
1245 for custody of the infant heir of William fitz Aer he accepted 
the Abbot of Haughmond's annuity as a recognized charge thereon,' 
though William fitz Aer died seized of nothing in Withyford.) 

To continue with the Inquest, — Amice, widow of Robert ficz Aer, 
seems to have died in 1247, seized of Withyford and its Mill. The 

1 ObUUa, p. 80. s jnguitUiont, 32 H«n. III., No. 9. > Supra, Vol. I. p. 204. 



GREAT WITHTFORD. 313 

Abbot of Haughmond apparently thought this a good opportunity 
of entering on the Mill, but the SheriflF ousted him at once, and 
seized the Mill into the King's hand. The Abbot complained to 
the King. Hence a Writ of January 13, 1248, inquires of the 
Sheriff why he had made this seizure of the Mill, " held by the Ab- 
bot,'' and orders him to ascertain by Inquest what right the Abbot 
had thereto, and whether he was enfeoffed therein, and if enfeoffed, 
then by whom and how long ago ? The return to this Writ has ap- 
peared above. The Jurors added that the Abbot had never been 
enfeoffed. The Sheriff, for his part, explained, that he had seized 
the Mill in manu Regis , because William Honald the Escheator was 
dead, and there was no other Escheator, and because other lands of 
the heir of Withyford were in the King's hand. 

The Hundred-Roll of 1255, confuses Pantulf's and Fitz Alan's 
shares of Great W^ithyford, because Fitz Aer happened to be Tenant 
of both shares. Restoring a distinction, which is necessary to per- 
spicuity, I here quote only that part of the entry which relates to 
the subject now in hand. — " John 6tz Cleri (read Aeri) is Lord of the 
Vill of Wythyford, and holds of the Fee of Knokyn ; and it is ii 
hides, and pays 8^. stretward and 8^. motfee yearly ; and does due 
suit to County and Hundred, and is geldable. And he (John fitz 
Aer) does the service of one Muntor at his own cost, for 15 days at 
Knokyn."! 

The two hides, thus supposed to constitute the whole hidage of 
Great Withyford, was short of the complement of the three Domes- 
day Manors, by 2 hides. Part of this diminution is attributable to 
the alienation of the Rossall Manor (1 hide) to Haughmond Abbey. 
The rest of the decrease can only be attributed to the usual causes ; — 
the favour of the Crown or the neglect of its fiscal Officers to insist on 
a perpetual maintenance of the Domesday measurements. Again, 
John Fitz Aer was a Minor in 1255 ; — a fact omitted in the above 
Record. And lastly, though he is well said to hold of the Fee of 
Knokyn, that is of Le Strange of Knokyn, it should also have been 
stated that Le Strange held under Fitz Alan. 

In July 1260, John de Erkelaw (of High Ereall) sues John fitz 
Aer for disseizing him of common-pasture in Witheford. 

In July 1268 and July 1269, John fitz Aer was one of four Jus- 
tices deputed to the delivery of Bridgnorth Gaol. In September 
1272, being placed on a similar commission for the Gaols of Shrews- 
bury and Bridgnorth, he is styled a knight, a dignity which I think 

1 i^. Hundred, II. 57. 

IX. 40 a 



814 GREAT WITHYFOBD. 

he must have really attained some years before. la February 1283^ 
he was appointed Assessor and Collector, in Shropshire, of the Tax 
of the thirtieth recently granted to the Crown. 

The Feodaries of 1284-5 agree that " John fitz Aer holds the vill 
of Magna Wythiford with its members^ viz. Mokelinton (Muckle- 
ton) and half the vill of Edgebalden (Edgboulton) under John le 
Strange/' but when one Record adds that it was so held as a 
member of John le Strangers Manor of Ruton (Ruy ton, near Bas- 
church), and when both Records say that John le Strange held it 
in capite of the King, the expression whether it be rrferred to Ruy- 
ton or Withyford is inaccurate. He held both Manors under Fitz 
Alan. 

In 1287, John fitz Aer was appointed one of the Conservators of 
the Peace in the County of Salop; and in 1290 was returned as a 
Knight of the Shire. At the Assizes of October 1292, John fitz 
Aer is named as one of the existing four Coroners of Shropshire and 
ready to give account for his period of office. The Writ of Diem 
clausit announcing his death, bears date on January 16, 1293. The 
Inquest, held at Shrewsbury on February 12 following, found {inter 
alia) that he had held Aston Eyres of the Earl of Arundel by ser- 
vice of a Knight' s-fee, returnable at Oswestry : and that he had held 
Wythyford of Sir John le Strange for half a fee. Hugh, son and 
heir of the deceased, was now 30 years of age.^ 

In July 1297, Hugh fitz Aer was returned as a holder of 20 
librates of lands and rents, and was summoned as such to serve 
in foreign parts. 

A Fine levied January 20, 1306, I take to be a settlement on the 
marriage of the then eldest son of Hugh Fitz Aer. — ^' Hugh le fitz 
Aer, Flaintifi^, acknowledges a grant of a messuage and carucate, and 
100«. rent in Criddon (Salop), and of £10 rent in Farnbarewe (War- 
wickshire), to Henry le Haleys, Deforciant (and Trustee probably), 
whereof had been Plea of convention. The said Henry settles the 
premises on Hugh for life, with remainder to William, Hugh's son, 
and to Cristina, daughter of John de Redmarleye, and the heirs of 
the said William by Cristina; and with further remainder to the 
right heirs of William, quit of the heirs of Hugh."^ 

An Inquest held in April 1311, found it to be non-injurious to the 
Crown if Hugh fitz Aer were to enfeoff one William Canne in a 
messuage and carucate at Harcott, and the said William were, in 
turn, to settle the same on Hugh fitz Aer and Alina his wife, and 

1 InquitiUont, 21 Edw. I., No. 44. ^ Finet Divert. Com., 34 £dw. I. 



GREAT WITHTFORD. 315 

their heirs. On this occasion Harcott was valued at 40^. per an^ 
num, while Hugh fitz Aer's other estate at Aston Eyre, and which 
still would be his in fee*simple, was estimated to yield lOOs. per 
annum.^ 

We know that Hugh fitz Aer eventually settled the tenancy of 
Aston on a younger son, Hugh. I also find him securing portions 
to two other younger sons in Withyford. — As "Hugh fitz Aer, 
Lord of Magna Witeford,'' he gives to John his son, a parcel of 
land and bosc, called Engeivare, in his aforesaid fee of Witeford. 
If the Grantee die without heirs of his body, the gift is entailed 
' on Margery, the Grantor's eldest daughter, sister of the Grantee.^ 
Hugh fitz Aer, by another Deed, grants a parcel of land, &c., to his 
son Henry.^ 

The King's Writ of Diem clausit on the death of Hugh fitz Aer 
bears date December 3, 1313. An Inquest, held at Shrewsbury on 
the 24th instant, speaks of the share of Withyford, now under notice, 
as half the Manor. The Seigneuries of both Fitz Alan and Le 
Strange are to be recognized in the statement that the deceased had 
held half Withyford of the Earl of Arundel, by service of half a 
knight's-fee, returnable at Ruyton Castle (which was Le Strange' s). 
The value of the whole Manor, whether held under Pitz Alan, or 
Botyler of Wem, was £14. 28. 4d.per annum. Harcott was extended 
at 40^.; Whetenaston (t. e. Aston Eyre) at £9. 17s. per annum. 
Thomas fitz Aer, son and heir of the deceased, was aged 17 years 
on February 2, 1313.^ I conclude therefore that William fitz Aer, 
presumed to have been eldest son of Hugh in 1306, had died 
without issue. 

We may now estimate the truth and significance of the return 
called the Nomina Villarum, which is of date March 1316. It gives 
Harcott and Criddon to Alina fitz Aer; — ^thus showing the pro- 
posed settlement of 1311 in operation, but the Fine of 1306 as 
abortive. It gives Aston Eyre to Hugh, son of Hugh fitz Aer, 
doubtless according to some settlement, which however I cannot 
find to be in existence. Lastly, it gives Wythiford to Thomas fits 
Aer ; — ^in accordance with the Inquest of 1313.* 

Thomas fitz Aer's tenure of his estate. must have been very brief. 
Margery, his only child and heir, was bom and baptized at Wis- 
tanstow on April 4, 1314; — ^that is, when her father was little more 
than eighteen years of age. She had a long minority, but (not 

1 Ad qwd Danmum, 4 Edw. H. No. 49. I > InquuUiotu, 7 Edw. II,, No. 46. 
« HarL MS. 1396, to. 67. i * FarUamentary Writs, IV. p. 851. 



316 



GRKAT WITHTFORD. 



kaowing the date of her father's death) I am unable to state its 
precise duration. 

From a Writ of July 9, 1328, I find that Margery, daughter and 
heir of Thomas fitz Aer had petitioned the Crown for livery of her in- 
heritance, which was then in custody of the King, and Roger de Mor- 
timer,^ and William le Botiller of Wem. She asserted herself to be 
of full age, but an Inquest held at Wenlock on August 2, 1328, 
proved her, by concurrent, and very curious, evidence, to have been 
only fourteen on April 4 previous.* 

I have shown, under Apley-Castle, that in the year previous to 
this Inquest, Alan de Cherlton of Apley had license to crenelate his ' 
mansion of Withyforde.' — 

The difficulty of accounting for this seeming anachronism is not 
so great as I have hitherto thought. Alan de Cherlton (I.) had 
doubtless obtained custody of Withyford, from Roger de Mortimer, 
and had already affianced its infant heiress to his own younger son, 
Alan. I refer back to Apley, for a full account and proof of this 
marriage and the probable date of its consummation.'^ 

On May 10, 1338, two Fines were levied, whereby Alan, son of 
Sir Alan de Cherleton, Knight, and Margery his wife. Plaintiffs, 
convey the Manors of Wheton Aston, Magna Withyford, and Haker- 
cote (Harcott) to John de Wyke, Parson of Magna Gatesden, and 
to James de Morton, Parson of La Rode (evidently two trustees). 
The said Feoffees in return, settle the three estates on Alan (Junior) 
and Margery, and their bodily heirs ; — remainder to John,^ son of 
Sir Alan de Cherlton, knight, and the heirs of his body ; — remainder 
(in respect of Aston and Withyford only) to Thomas de Cherleton,* 
brother of the said John, and the heirs of his body; — remainder of 
all three estates to the right heirs of Mai^ery.^ — 



^ Roger de Mortimer here represents 
his unfortunate yictim, Edmund, Earl of 
Arundel. On the Earl's attainder, Mor- 
timer had obtained a grant of his Shrop- 
shire estates {Dugd. Baronage, I. 145). 

The Earl we know from other authority 
had had custody of Aston £jre and Wi- 
thyford (supra, p. 57), during part of 
Margery fitz Aer's minority. 

The King's custody arose in respect of 
Harcott ; William le Botiller's in respect 
of a part of Great Withyford. 

< InquitUiong, 2 Edw. III., No. 63. 

^ ' * Supra, pages 55, 56. 



* It should be observed that Alan de 
Cherlton (I.) and Alan de Cherlton (II.) 
had each a brother John, and a brother 
Thomas. We must not therefore iden- 
tify the John and Thomas of the above 
Fine with John de Cherlton of Powys 
and Thomas de Cherlton Bishop of Here- 
ford. The two latter were Uncles of the 
two former. — This coincidence of names, 
added to another circumstance (noticed 
above, p. 55), has caused great confusion 
in the genealogical accounts of this family. 

< Pedes FiiUum, 12 Edw. III., Non. 
102, 103. 



GREAT WITHYFORD. 317 

This entail seems grossly unjust^ though its injustice never became 
effectual. The making John and Thomas de Cherleton, contingent 
reversioners in the estates of their Sister-in-Law, would, had she 
died childless, have disinherited her right heirs. 

Subsequent to this Fine, Alan de Cherlton (II.) demised all the 
above estates to his own Father, for life. The sequel has been 
given already,^ except some of the curious statements which were 
adduced at, and corroborated by, the Inquest of 1356. These related 
partly to the descent of the Fitz Aers, partly to the relative signeural 
rights of the Crown and the Earl of Arundel over the Fitz Aers. 
I give some extracts, with comments thereon. — 

'^ Earl Roger (de MontgomeiyJ died at Quatford ; the Jurors did 
not know on what day,'' (Here is a tradition 260 years old, and as 
remarkable for its probable truth as for its topographical interest. 
The place of Earl Roger's death has, I believe, nowhere else been 
stated ; the year is to this day imcertain ; but the day (July 27) has 
been fixed by Ordericus) . 

'^Earl Roger died seized of the services set on Harcott.^' (This 
proves Fitz Aer's Serjeantry to have existed at Domesday, and that 
the silence of that Record is no proof of the non-existence of such 
tenures ; for Alcher was already seized of Harcott.) 

" Earl Roger was succeeded by Hugh, his son and heir ; Hugh, by 
Robert his brother, who died without heir. Hence the King had the 
Seigneury of Harcott per viam EscaetaJ' (Here we note correctively, 
that Hugh was not really Earl Roger's heir, but was made his suc- 
cessor in England ; also that Robert de Belesme's escheat vfBa not 
by failure of heirs, but by attainder.) 

" // was found by reference to the Red Book (of the Exchequer), in 
the Chapter entitled ' De combustione monetcB,' that the whole County 
(i. e. Earldom) of Salop, of which the services (i. e. the Seigneury) of 
Harcott were part and parcel, was in manu Regis, as an Escheat, 
and not de jure Corona. It was therefore discordant with Justice 
that a title of tenure should accrue to the Crown, distinct from its 
original title." And again, " Earl Roger never had any wardship 
of Harcott, nor had any Earl or King since, except when Edward //. 
had custody thereof by reason of the minority of Margery, infant heir 
of Thomas fitz Aer, and, even then, Edmund Earl of Arundel had 
custody of Aston Eyre and of half Withyford,'^ (The point was, that 
the infant heir of a Tenant-in-capite-de-Corond, became a ward of 
the Crown, both as to such heir's person, and also as to all estates 

' Supra, ptges 56, 67. 

IX. 40 b 



31 



H 

O 

o 



g 



I 

•c 



s 
I 



IH 






.a 



00 
00 



1 



I 



O 



d. 

^ 



OS 

o 

04 



J 



6- 

.a 

;3 






09 



O 



if 



S 





si 

00 

M 
01 



IF 



09 



r 
I 



S; 



.a 

I 



09 



a CO 



to 



00 



I 

Ha 



II— 

^ QOO 

I of 



8 m 

* W IB 



cd 



b 

P C 

wl 



■Si 










r 



319 






00 



00 



Hi 

ll~ 



09 



Ih-- 

S 09 



If-- 



I 






to 

01 



Od 



Pfe-Tj CO 



Bpqo 



"'S •§ od p 



I 

is 

6 

'■9 



cq — 



K — 




• 



^ CO 



C3 



eo 



eq 



II— r 

IS"! 
■523 

6 CO mK 
• ^ 



I 

O 09 
O o 

§6 



Ih 






09 



R CO 

r^ CO 







d %C^ 

II 



CO 



s 



«M 00 



M 




b CO 



d 



» CO 



^>i 



Sfeio 



S 00 

M CO 



O pH 00 



•—a 



3 

09 

g 3S9 

6 j±» 

na ^1-9 



Il- 
ls 

1 



Q4 



i^ 



04 



d 



eq 

■ M 

H9P40 



•s 



3^3 

Hi 

d S 6 



Ih 



<M 



ll--f 

o 

9 



I 




1^ 



320 GREAT WITHTFORD. 

of the heir, of whomsoever holden. But where the Kiog's Seigneury 
was only De escheatd, it conferred no such conclusive rights, but 
only affected the particular estate held in-capite,) Lastly, the Ju- 
rors most accurately deduced the pedigree of the later Fitz Aers 
as' follows, though they omitted to state the minority of Thomas 
fitz Aer at his father's death. — " John fitz Aer died seized, S^c, 
Hugh, his son and heir, enfeoffed William Canne, who settled Harcott 
on tfie said Hugh, his wife Alina, and their heirs. The heir of Hugh 
and Alina was their son Thomas , whose daughter and heir, Margery, 
married Alan, son of Alan de Cherlton. The latter died seized of 
20 librates of rent payable by his Father for the Fitz Aer estates, at 
Aston and Withford, and John son of Alan, now a Minor, was son 
and heir of Alan de Cherlton Junior J'^ 

I commit to a tabular form some further particulars in the Genea- 
Ic^es of Fitz Aer and Cherlton. None of the knightly families of 
Shropshire are traceable with greater certainty to a Domesday ori- 
ginal than that of Fitz Aer. 

Of Undertenants, taking a name from Withyford, some belong 
to Little Withyford, and have been mentioned already. Others 
have been named under Shawbury. There was also a Banulph de 
Wydiford who acted in 1275, as Deputy-Collector under the Ab- 
bot of Shrewsbury, of the tax of the fifteenth. John de Withyford, 
who occurs from 1296 to 1340, seems to have been, son of Robert 
de Stanton. In the •14th century there was a family of Cressets 
seated at Withyford. In a testing-clause of 1839, Thomas Cresset 
of Withyford precedes Thomas Cresset of Haughton. 

MXJCKL^TON. 

We have seen that Muckleton was a member of Fitz Aer's part of 
Withyford. — " Between the years 1255 and 1260,'^ John, son of 
William fitz Aer, and Lord of Withiforde, gave and confirmed to 
Haghmon Abbey two half-virgates in the vill of Moclyton, which 
Thomas fitz Roger and Richard Kane sometime held, with a mes- 
suage, crofts, and appurtenances, and also 4 nokes of land with mes- 
suages, &c., in Moclyton. The grant was to sustain the Alms given 
at the Abbey Gate, and was in exchange for the Mill of Withyforde, 
which Robert, tbe present Grantor's Uncle {avunculus), bequeathed, 
with his body, to the Abbey; and which William, the present 
Grantor's father gave thereto.^ Witnesses, Sir Thomas de Roshall, 

1 InquititiofUy 80 Edw. III., No. 46. | tort«d by the GanoxiB of Haughmond, and 
'This admission was probably ex- I was at rarianoe with truth (supra, p. 312)' 



MDCKLETON. 321 

Sir Odo de Hodenet^ and Sir Vivian de Rofihall.^— We gather from 
this Deed the probability that Robert fitz Aer (III.) was buried at 
Haughmond ; and we learn how the Canons abandoned their legacy 
of Withyford Mill. 

On June 5, 1268, Alan Cbampynn has a Writ of mort d'ancestre 
against John fitz Aer, for two-thirds of a messuage and quarter- vir- 
gate in Muclinton. A new Writ of 1270 speaks of two-thirds of 
half a messuage and a quarter-virgate, as the subject of claim. It 
must have been at this very juncture that " John fitz Aer, Lord of 
Widiford, gave and quitclaimed, to Haughmond Abbey, Adam, son 
of Alan de MoeUton, with his wife Margery." This was in considera- 
tion of one merk, paid to the Grantor by the said Adam. The 
Grantor retains all the issue of the said Adam, whether sons or 
daughters (as his Villeins). The Deed was attested by Reginald de 
Wideford and Roger de Preston ; — two names which have already 
appeared in conjunction in 1269.* 

In Trinity Term 1269, John fitz Aer was under summons to an- 
swer William de Egebaldenham (now Edgbolton), Chaplain, as to 
the observance of an agreement which Fitz Aer had made with 
Richard de la Hull of Egebaldenham, the Plaintififs father, con- 
cerning 6i acres of land and meadow in MoUington. Fitz Aer now 
conceded to the Plaintiff, and his Mother, Isabella, 3^ acres for a 
term of 12 years, and 3 acres for a term of 15 years.* 

A mutilated Fine of February 1271 names another son of Richard 
de la Huil.-T-^' Roger Friday and Matilda his wife, tenants of half a 
messuage and (some) part of a virgate at Modyton, quitclaim the 
same, for themselves and the heirs of Matilda, to Alan le Kam ***,♦ 
Plaintiff. Alan, then, at their request, concedes the premises in fee 
to Roger, son of Richard de la HuUe of Eggebaldenham, — ^to hold, 
at a rent of Icf., payable to Alan and his heirs, and by performance 
of all services due to the Lords of the Fee. For this Roger de la 
Hulle paid to Roger Friday and his wife 40 shillings.^' 

I think that William de Egebaldenham, Chaplain, may have been 
the same with William de Mokelinton, who, in an Inquest of 1302, 
appears as Tenant of half a vii^te in Great Solas. 

In 1313 we have a reappearance of Roger, son of Richard de la 
Hulle, after an interval of 42 years. To him did the Abbot of 
Haughmond then demise that nokate and half-nokate in Mocliton 
which Adam, son of Alan, sometime held. A rent of Ts, 6d. is 

» Haughmond Ghartnlarf, fo. 145. I " PlaeUa, 63 Hen. III., m. 12. 

' Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 74. I ** Perhaps Alan le Kampion. 

II. 41 



322 GEEAT WITHTFORD. 

reserved in this Deed, which cost the Grantee £4, paid down. An- 
other Demise, of the same date, concedes a noke, balf-noke, and 
messuage, to the same Roger, at the same rent ; but whether the 
Deeds represent more than one transaction seems doubtful. 

I refer back to High Ercall for the mention, about this period, of 
Philip de Moclyton, of William, son of Richard del Hul of Moch- 
ton, of Richard, his brother, and of Richard and John Werooks of 
Edgebold.1 

EDaEBOLTON, OE EDGEBOLD. 

We have seen that half Edgbold was a member of Fitz Aer's 
Manor of Withyford. We have also seen that Hugh de Upton was 
in the year 1200 a Tenant, whether rightfully or not, in Withyford. 
It is also dear that Hugh de Upton's tenancy descended to his heirB, 
and was a tenancy under Fitz Aer. 

Of Hugh de Upton, as Lord of Upton near Morville, I have al- 
ready given some account.^ At the Assizes of October 1203, Richard 
Werecoc, being impleaded under Writ of mort d'ancestre for a vir- 
gate in Egboldenham by Robert Ooch, declared that he was the 
Villein of Hugh de Upton. Robert Goch had therefore leave to ex- 
change his Writ for one against Hugh de Upton, if he chose so to do. 

I next find good evidence that John de Upton (Great-Orandson 
of Hugh de Upton, above mentioned, and who succeeded to Upton 
in 1283-4) was Fitz Aer's Tenant in two virgates, — part of Fitz 
Aer's share of Edgebolton. These two virgates were conveyed by 
John de Upton to Robert Corbet of Morton and his wife Matilda. 
Consequently in the Inquest taken January 1301, concerning the 
specific settlement of certain estates of Robert Corbet, deceased, we 
find that " he and his wife Matilda had been jointly enfeoffed in 
two virgates in Egebaldenham by John de Upton, which two vir- 
gates the deceased had held in capUe under Hugh le fitz Aer, at a 
rent of one pair of white gloves/^* 

It was, I suppose, some small part of Robert Corbefs purchase 
in Edgebolton, that William, son of John de Buleton, liad been dis- 
seized of in 1292. The Defendants were " Robert, son of Richard 
Corbet, and William Hord,'^ but the Plaintiff failed to prosecute the 
Suit. 

About 1294-8, Margery, widow of John le Preyers of DothuU, 
grants to William Ooge of Eggebaldenham, and Eadith his wife, her 

Sapra, pages 92, 9S. > In^isUiont, 29 Edir. I.,Ko. 45. 

' Supra, Vol. I. p. 140. * Assizes, 20 Edw. I., m. 17. 



aOSSALL FEE IN WITHTFORD AND EDGBOLTON. 828 

estate in E^ebaldenham. Witnesses^ Hagh fitz Eyr^ William 
Hord^ Richard Fremon of Schaubury^ William Crasset^ and John 
de Wythyford.* 

On Nov. 16, 1298, Margery, widow of John le Preyers, Lord of 
Dothull, quitclaims to William, called Gegth, of Eggebaldenham 
and Eadith, his wife, all her right in a messuage, curtilage and vir- 
gate in Bradmedwe within the yill of Eggebaldenham. Witnesses, 
William Hord, John de Stanton, and Richard de la Hull of Mokly- 
ton, — Dated at Welynton.^ 

The lands which passed in the above two Deeds I take to have 
been in Fitz Aer^s part of Edgbold. 

It will presently be seen that, independently of his (probably pur- 
chased) interest in Edgebolton, Robert Corbet of Moreton had an 
hereditary claim there also. — Now therefore I must speak of an- 
other part of Edgebolton, constituting, as I suppose, the hide held 
by Albert at Domesday, and which, with reference to Albert's known 
descendants, I will call — 

THE BOSSALL FEB IN WITHTFOBD AND EDGBOLTON. 

Withyford, doubtless, contributed its share to the service of one 
knight and 8^ muniators, due in 1165 by Hugh fitz Albert (the 
known descendant of Albert, and the known ancestor of the Ros- 
salls) to the Barony of Fitz Alan.^ Again we have seen Vivian de 
Rossall accused in 1200 of having occupied a part of Fitz Act's 
estate in Withyford.* 

The two following Deeds probably passed between the years 1190 
and 1195. — ^The first is by a Tenant of Vivian de Roshall, the next 
by Vivian himself. — '' Roger de Egebaldesham, son of Roger, gives 
to Haghmon Abbey, a virgate of land in Egebaldesham in the Parish 
of Shaubury. Witnesses, William de Ethlega (Hadley), Reginald 
de Time, Baldwin de Wischar (le Wichart), Stephen de Staunton, 
Wido de Shaubury, Robert fitz Aer, and Reiner de Acton." 

*^ Vivian de Roshalle confirmed the above grant, as the Charter 
of Roger fitz Roger doth testify. Witnesses, Ralph Hose, and 
William his brother; Hamo fitz Marescoth; Wido de Shaubury; 
Reginald de Time ; and Robert le Poer."^ 

1 The Seal of this Deed had the Le- 



gend — S. JoHis Aug' db Wbltvton. 

' Newport JEvidetujea, I suspect that 
Robert Goch of 1203 and William Goge 
or Gfegth of 1298, were ancestors of the 
Gechet and so of the Newports. If so 



the original name of the fiunily seems to 
have been €k>ch, which would prore a 
Welsh extraction. 
3 lAber Niger, I. 143. 

* Supra, page 312. 

* Haughmond Chartolary, fo. 57-b. 



324 GREAT WITHTFOKP. 

It appears that Vman de BoshaD had stOl three TUgates in £dg- 
bold lett. These he gave to Boger^ son of Simon de Jagedon^in ex- 
change for land at Jagedon (a pUuse now lost). One of the said 
three viipites was assigned by Roger fiti Simon to his Mother in 
dower^ bnt about the year 1230 he sold to Vivian de Boshall, all 
his interest in Edgebolton. His deed, which is in the form of a 
Quitclaim or surrender, indicates that Vivian de BmwhaH had re- 
tained at least a nominal seigneory in Edgebolton. It runs as fol- 
lows. — ^'I, Roger, son of Simon de Jagedon, have surrendered 
(reddidi) and quitclaimed to Sir Vivian de Boshalle, for 10 merks, 
all the land which I held of him in Egebalden, viz. three vii^tes 
which the said Vivian heretofore gave to me in exchange for the 
land of Jagedon. And one of the said three virgates, which my 
Mother had in dower, is to revert (at her death) to the said Vivian. 
Witnesses, Robert Girros, William de Staunton, Walter Hose, Ro- 
bert de Actun, Reiner de Franketon, Alan de Bm^hton, and Wido 
de Hadnal.^'i 

Within the next 10 years '' Vivian de Roshall gave to Haghmon 
Abbey, for the souls of himself, his ancestors, and successors, and 
t(^ether with his body (in burial), all the land he had in Egebalden, 
which he bought from Roger, son of Simon de Jagedon. Witnesses, 
Sir John le Strange, Richard Corbet, and Thomas de Rossall.''^ 

It was the Widow, I suppose, of Simon de Jagedon who as 
''Emma Banastre, Widow,^' gave to the same Abbey, about the 
same time, that virgate in Egebold which she had in dower '' in 
lieu of her part of Jagedon.'' Witnesses, Walter, Parson of Ru- 
ton ; Nicholas his brother ; Wido de Hadenhalle, Reiner de Acton, 
John de Thonga ; and John de Preston.^ 

I must now retrace my steps to state that two out of the three . 
virgates which Vivian de Roshall gave to, and got back from, Roger 
de Jagedon, had been in the first instance obtained by the said Vi- 
vian from Richard Corbet of Morton. Richard Corbet held these 
two virgates, I presume, under Vivian de Roshall, so that his alleged 
grant was in the nature of a siirrender. His right so to grant or 
surrender, was afterwards brought in question. — His Widow, Pe- 
tronilla, was surviving in 1272, and then claimed the said two vir- 
gates as her marriage-portion {maritagium), saying that her late 
husband, though she could not gainsay him in his lifetime, had 
wrongfully alienated them to Vivian de Rossall. Petronilla Corbet's 
suit lay of course against the Tenants in possession. These were [ 

Isabel dc la Hulle and Thomas Hanuage, each holding a virgate for 



] 



ROSSALL FEE IN WITHYPOED AND EDGBOLTON. 325 

life, under Haughmoud Abbey. They appeared not to the prosecu- 
tion, but the Abbot of Haughmond appeared in their stead, ac- 
cepted the defence, and called Yiviau de Boshall (grandson, I think, 
of the former Vivian) to warranty. Vivian appeared and stated 
that neither Richard Corbet nor his wife Petronilla had been seized 
of the premises for 10 years after their espousals. This Petronilla 
denied ;^ — and here the Record breaks off. 

The above Suit and its chronological significances bear strongly 
on the descent of the Corbets of Morton, a descent which I have 
treated too hastily under Wattlesborough. It now appears that 
there must have been three Richard Corbets in succession ; that it 
was the second who married the daughter of Bartholomew Toret, 
and the third who married Petronilla, " Lady of Edgbold,'' as she 
is called in the Heraldic Pedigrees. Of this however we will say 
more under Moreton Corbet. Robert Corbet, son and successor of 
Richard and Petronilla, does not appear to have recovered the estate 
claimed by his mother in 1272, though, as we have seen, he pur- 
chased an equal estate^ in Fitz Aer's part of Edgbold. 

The evidence that Haughmond Abbey retained its acquisitions 
here, is as follows.- -In 1274, the Abbot demises a virgate in Edge- 
bolton to Richard Bumell and Elianor his wife, for 30 years, retain- 
ing a rent of 12*., suit of Court, and a heriot. — In 9 Edw. II. 
(1315-6) the Abbot demises a messuage and virgate here to William, 
son of Philip Cok, for life ; also a messuage and vii^ate to Johanna, 
wife of Roger de Smethcote and her three sons, for the longest life. 
— In 15 Edw. II. (1321-2), the Abbot demises a messuage and vir- 
gate here to Walter Cresset and his wife, Alice, for their lives. — On 
January 31, 1339, Thomas, son of Thomas de Lee of Staunton, 
agrees with the Abbey to make a new ditch in the Abbey lands at 
Edgbold, as a boundary between Edgbold and Sowbatch. The ditch 
was to extend from the King's highway to the River Roden. Thomas 
was to pay a rent of 4rf. to the Abbey, for which, if unpaid, the 
Canons might distrain on Sowbatch. Witnesses, Sir William de 
Ercalue, Sir Robert Corbet of Morton, Knights; and John de 
Withiforde. Between the years 1377 and 1399, the Abbot demises 
a messuage and virgate here, to John and Rawlin, sons of Roger 
Cok, for ther lives, at lOs. rent. 

In the Valor of 1535-6, the Abbot of Haghmond's receipts from 
Haughton, Astley, Edgebaldham, Isombridge, Sugden, and Roding- 
ton were returned collectively, as £2. Ss. 8rf. per annutn.^ 

^ As»ize9y 56 Hen. III., m. 2 dor»o. ' Valw Eccl^riasiicui, III. 192. 



326 HODNET. 

WiTHTFORD Chapel. The evidence for the sometime exiatenoe 
of this Chapel^ and its subjection to Shawbury Churchy has been 
already given. It appears to have been founded in the time of 
Bishop Clinton(l 1^9-1148)^ and endowed by the Lord of the Fee^ 
probably that Robert fitz Aer who founded a similar Chapel at 
Aston Eyre.^ 

The Canons of Haughmond^ as Rectors of Shawbury^ of course 
took small care of its Subject-Chapels. This was remedied in some 
degree by the second Robert fitz Aer, who about 1190-6 gave the 
Canons certain land at Newton near Ellesmere on condition that 
they would have divine service performed in his Chapel of Withy- 
ford, three days a week, when he or his wife or their heirs were re- 
sident in the Manor. But the Parishioners of Withyford were ex- 
cluded from this agreement, and were not to attend the said chapd- 
servioes, to the injury of the Mother-Church. All Festivals were 
excepted from the agreement, except the feasts of St. Thomas (Dec. 
21), Pentecost, and All Saints (Nov. 1). To strengthen this agree- 
ment Robert fitz Aer and his wife Emma gftve their bodies to the 
Church of Haghmon, that they might receive good offices, when 
dead, from those whose Church they had benefited while living.^ — 



i^otinet. 



In speaking of this important locality it is necessary to follow in 
strict chronological order those early notices which allude to it either 
as a Manor, or a Parish, or the Caput of a Hundred. — During the 
Saxon sera it was, as a Manor, small in extent, but great in propor- 
tionate value. This discrepancy probably arose from its being a 
Royal Manor, and the Caput of the Hundred to which it gave a 
name. More than doubled in value, the Manor and Himdred were 
of course annexed to the Palatine demesnes of Earl Roger de Mont- 
gomery. Though Earl Roger's Charter to Shrewsbury Abbey was 
written and expedited after Domesday, it recapitulates his grants of 
an earlier date. Among other things the Earl gave to the Abbey 

1 Supra, Vol. I. p. 207. ' Ilaughmond Chariulaiy, fo. 152. 



HODNET. 827 

'^ the Church of Hodenet with all its appurtenances/^^ And DomeS' 
day chronicles the transfer in the following survey of the Manor. — 

'' The Earl himself holds Odenet. King Edward held it. Here 
is a hide and half. In demesne are iii ox-teams ; and (there are) 
XII Villains^ ii Boors, a Priest, and a Provost with vii teams ; and 
yet there might be ix additional teams (employed) here. Here is a 
little wood, yielding no income. The church of St. Peter holds the 
Church of this Manor. In King Edward's time this manor yielded 
an income of £8. 6s. Sd, Now, with the Hundred which pertains 
thereto, it yields £8.''^ 

After Domesday the next allusion which we have to Hodnet, is 
the mention of Earl Roger's bestowal of the Church, in William IL's 
confirmation to Shrewsbury Abbey .^ Then we come to the spurious 
Charter of Earl Hugh, conveying perhaps some proportion of truth in 
its averment, that the Earl granted to the Abbey ^' the tithes of his 
demesnes of Hodeneth, and of Peopelawa (Peplow), and of Losces- 
ford (Losford)."^ Earl Hugh's more authentic Charter to the Abbey 
confirms two-thirds of the demesne-tithes of Loskesfort and of Pres- 
tone as the gift of one Hunald, and speaks only of the demesne-tithes 
of Hodenet and Peppelawe as his own personal gift.*^ Some other 
Charter of Earl Hugh, obsolete in the original, but inspected by 
Bishop Clinton within 50 years of the Earl's death, '^gave and con- 
firmed " to the Abbey '^ two-thirds of the demesne of Hodeneth and 
of the demesne of Pepelawe, and of the demesne of Loschesford." 
I will not here pursue a topic which relates to Hodnet, in respect of 
its parish or its parochial members, rather than its Manor. Enough 
has been said to show that whatever feofiments Earl Hugh may 
have granted in Hodnet or its Post-Domesday members, he retained 
the central Manor in demesne. And it is clear, I think, that Hodnet 
came to the hands of King Henry I. as a manor of Palatine demesne, 
but not so to the hands of King Henry II. In the latter case it 
would have formed part of that territory so often alluded to in these 
pages as forming the Corpus ComitatHs. Such was not the result 
with Hodnet or any of its members. 

King Henry I. undoubtedly founded the Honour of Montgomery^ 
a Lordship, on the peculiar constitution and endowment of which I 
shall have much to say hereafter. King Henry I. also, as I think, 
founded the Seneschalcy of Montgomery, and endowed that hereditary 
office not only with the Domesday Manor of Hodnet, but with oer- 

> Monoitieon, III. 620, Num. III. I * Salop Chartaliuy, No. 34 

3 Vomeida^, fo. 253, a, 2. I «• • Ibidem, Nos. 6, 3. 



328 



HODNET. 



tain Manors, or Vills (such as Peplow, Little Bolas, Preston-on-the- 
Wealdmoors, Horton, and, part of Lawley), which had fallen to the 
Suzerain's disposal since Domesday^ and were henceforth reputed to 
be mere members of Hodnet. 

A statement of the 13th century, viz. that the Seneschalcy of 
Montgomery had existed since the Conquest,^ was but the halluci- 
nation of a provincial Jury. Montgomery, whether as a town or 
castle, was non-existent for years after the Norman invasion. 

But we may well admit that the first Seneschal of Montgomery 
was the nominee of King Henry I., and was the Ancestor of that 
powerful family, which adopted the name of De Hodnet from its 
principal possession. The name of this first Seneschal is, I believe, 
unrecorded, but I have little doubt as to the race from which he 
sprang. I will give four reasons for thinking that he was of the 
same stock as the Fitz Warins, and perhaps a younger son of Warin 
de Metz himself. — 

(1.) The Fitz Warin Chronicle calls Baldwin de Hodnet, of 
King John's time, cousin of the Fitz Warins of that period, and 
describes him, with ascertained truth, as a sharer in their rebellion. 
— (2.) The Hodnets were Vassals of the elder house of Fitz Warins 
in two instances, viz. Welbatch and Moston. — (3.) Both the Hod- 
nets and the elder Fitz Warins obtained great and contiguous, and 
probably cotemporary, feofiments in the Barony of Cans, viz. at 
Westbury and Alberbury. — (4.) The arms borne by De Hodnet, 
were Fitz Warin Arms, viz. Quarterly per fease indented azwre and 
or ; — ^the difierence of tincture being an early Heraldic mode of 
marking cadency.^ 

I now proceed to give such particulars of the family of Hodnet 
as have not already transpired under Westbury. 

Odo de Hodnet (I.) has been seen attesting two Marchamley 
Deeds, the latest of which probably passed in or before 1194. In 
this instance he is accompanied by Baldwin his son, and by Alan his 
brother. 



1 Mot, Mundred. II. 58. 

' It was another and later &mily of 
Hodneta which bore for itBarms, — GhUet^ 
a hend ermine between two mullete arffewt, 

A MS. in the British Museum (No. 
21,018, p. 334) notices a John de Hodnet 
as admitted to Sutton Church on Feb. 
24^ 1225-6, at presentation of the Prior 
and Convent of Wenlock. This is a mis- 



take as to date (ride supra, YoL YI. p. 
366); but John de Hodnet bore for 
arms, — Quarterly perfeste indented Arg, 
and Cht.^ with a label of 5 points azure. 
Here the fundamental Coat of Hodnet 
would seem to be the actual arms of Fits 
Warin ; for the Label I take to be allu- 
sive to John de Hodnet's indiTidual ca- 
dency from the Hodnets. 



HODNET. 329 

Besides attesting grants to Plaughniond Abbey, Odo de Hodnet 
was himself a Benefactor of that House. The following Deed passed 
about 1196-1200. — Noverint tarn presented quam futuri quod ego, 
Odo de Hodenety concessi et dedi Deo et Eccksie Sanoii Johannis 
Evanffeliste de Haghmon ei Canonicis ibidem Deo servieniibtis, in 
liberam et perpetuam elemosynam, pro salute anime mee et ancesso- 
inim meorum totum superius pratum meum de Olhmulneshurste qtwd 
est propinquius le Cote ^ cum omnibv^s pertinenciis et libertatibus suis, 
tenendum de me et heredibus meis, integre, honorifice, quiete, et liber e 
ab omni seculari servicio, et in perpetuum possidendum. Et ut hec 
donacio mea perpetue firmitatis robur obtineat, eam presenti cartd et 
sigUli m>ei patrocinio roboravi. Hiis testibus, Rogero Corbet, Ste- 
phano de Stantona, Widone de Sckauburi, Balwyno Vischart, Wil- 
lielmo SiUoch, Waltero de Hortona,^ Henrico de Longeford et mullis 
aliis? 

Baldwin de Hodnet, between the years 1204 and 1211, eon- 
firmed the above grant of his father, describing the meadow as 
Aldemulneniste and as near Chote, Witnesses, Stephen de Stanton, 
Bartholomew de Mortun, Richer de Shauburi, Robert de Hespeley, 
Radulf fitz Odo,* Walter Hose, WiUiam Silioch.* 

On November 6, 1224, custody of the " Seneschalcy of the 
Honour of Montgomery " was committed, by Patent, to Godescall 
de Maghelines. ' This was in consequence of the recent death of 
Baldwin de Hodnet, who but a month before had received that high 
mark of the King's confidence, already set forth under Westbury. 

Odo de Hodnet (II.), son and heir of Baldwin, by Cecily de 
Hadley, came of age in 1228. At a Forest- Assize, held in 1230, 
Odo de Hodenet covenanted to pay an annual ferm of 8rf. for 2 
acres of Forest-land, to be taken out of Regard. The charge is 
made against him more or less regularly on the Pipe-Rolls of 40 
years following, and in 1278 he owed 9^. 8rf. on this account, or the 
arrears of 14^ years. 

The following Pine, entered on the Pipe- Roll of 1239, I give as 
it stands. — Odo^de Hodenet et Thomas Corbet (debent) 100 sol, tU 
deleatur consuetudo capiendi singlis annis 5 summas siliginis de 
Manerio de Hodnet et 1 summam siliginis de Manerio de Maston et 
1 summam siliginis de Manerio de Hatton, et pro relacione cujusdam 

' Cotton on Tern. ! Ghartulary it stands under the title " "De 

' Probably iToptona (vide supra, p. 273). pratU ptriinenUbuM Orangie de Hoppe- 

' HarL MS. 446, Quatem. xii. fo. 11. le^:* 

The Deed is rubricated as " Carta de * Probably a brother of Baldwin. 

prato de Hodeneth." In the Sundom ^ Haughmond Cliartulary, fo. 114-b. 

IX. 42 



330 HODNET. 

caHagii sicut coniineiur in oriffinali" Odo de Hodnet, Lord of 
Hodnet, and Thomas Corbet, Lord of High Hatton, were nterine 
brothers. Maston, here alluded to, was probably Moston, but I 
cannot define the nature of those Boyal dues which Hodnet and 
Corbet thus combined to buy off. 

At the Assizes of November 1240, four Placita Nativitatis, as 
they were called, resulted in Final Concords whereby Odo de Hod- 
net granted manumission to certain Tenants-in-Yilleinage. He 
thus released the Villeinage {nativitatem) and servitude of two bro- 
thers, Richard and William de Wulfnnton, for 2 merks, of William 
Sylyon for 6 merks, of Henry Sylton for 6 merks, and of William 
fitz Levenath for 20«. 

In July 1241 I find Odo de Hodnet commissioned as a Justice to 
try a local cause. In 1250 Geoflrey de Langley, Justice of the 
Forest, amerced Odo de Hodenet 30 merks for venison-trespass. In 
the Pipe-Roll of 1252 Odo de Hodenet owes 23^ merks'^of this 
amercement, and 25 merks more for some Charter which he had 
obtained, but of which I find no enrolment in the usual Record. 

The Hundred-Roll of 1255 speaks of Hodnet as follows. — " Sir 
Odo de Hodenet holds the Manor of Hodenet, from the Conquest 
of England, in capite, of Mongomeri (i. e, as of the Honour of 
Montgomery), and by service of Seneschal (acting as Seneschal) at 
the mandate of the Lords of Mongomeri ; — to wit, he shall abide 
in the Bailiwick of Montgomeri Castle, at the charges and at the 
discretion of the said Lords, and shall have a house there sufficient 
for himself and his followers {familue) to reside in. He does suit 
to the County, and, every three weeks, to the Hundred."^ 

At the Assizes of January 1256, Sir Odo de Hodnet acted as a 
Juror in causes of Grand Assize. An Inquest, held pursuant to a 
Writ of Sept. 18, 1257, found that it would be no injury to the 
Crown or the Country, if Odo de Hodnet were to enclose two foot- 
paths which ran through the middle of Hodnet Park; — provided 
that he gave a different course to the said footpaths outside his 
Park, one towards the East, the other towards the ^orth.^ In Au- 
gust 1256, July 1258, and February 1259, Odo de Hodnet was 
commissioned as a Justice for the gaol-delivery of Shrewsbury and 
Bridgnorth. In Easter Term 1261, Ranulf Payn was suing Odo 
de Hodnet for a debt of 9 merks, but the Knight, now, as oftea 
previously, failed to appear at Westminster. 

In the period which now ensued, Odo de Hodnef s known cha- 

1 Hot ffundred. II. 58. > InquUitumt, 41 Hen. III., No. 85. 



HODNET. 



831 



racter as a Royalist must be taken in explanation of the following 
8uit> which commenced soon after the Restoration. In Michaelmas 
Term 1265 and January 1266, Odo de Hodnet, or his Attorney, 
Alan de Hodnet, appeared twice coram Rege, complaining how 
William Trumwyn, Stephen de Ocle, and others, had, during the 
late troubles, devastated with fire and rapine his Manor of Hodnet. 
The Defendants in this cause never occur as appearing to the charge, 
but always as Defaulters. So too Odo de Hodnet was prosecuted 
by John de Bottelegh (his own Tenant, I think), for seizing his 
lands at Langeford during the recent troubles and still detaining 
his goods. The suit was called on in January 1266, and Hodnet's 
Manucaptors were amerced for his non-appearance. The result I 
do not find. 

In November 1268, July 1269, and January 1272, Odo de Hod- 
net was again commissioned as a Justice to deliver Bridgnorth Gaol. 
A Patent of June 27, 1270, shows that Sir Odo de Hodnet had, 
during the civil wars, been in the following of that distinguished 
Royalist, Hamo le Strange, who had written to the King certifying 
that fact. The King therefore, for his part, pardons the said Odo 
for all trespasses committed in defiance of the Provisions of Oocford} 
up to the 10th of March, 1268. 

The Inquest, taken in 1273, on the death of George de Cantilupe, 
Lord of Montgomery, seems to have included Hodnet among the 
Knights'-fees held of that Honour.^ 

The Inquest held Feb. 15, 1284, on Odo de Hodnet^s death, is 
rather more full than the Hundred- Roll as to the Serjeantry of the 
Seneschals of Montgomery. When on duty, the Seneschal was to, 
or might, have 5 horses, 4 greyhounds, and 6 Brachets in his train. 
His house in the Castle was to be sufficient for his wife, and one 
damsel, and the rest of his following. If he tarried there for his 
own pleasure he was to pay his own charges and then depart {jred- 
dai compotum suum et recedat). His Manor of Hodnet, held by 
such service, was valued at £19. 10«. per annum, arising from a 
messuage, garden, and 4 carucates of land, from assized rents, a 
Park, and the profits of the Manor Court, fix)m a weekly market, 
and two Mills.* 

In Easter Term 1284, Milisent de Montalt (Sister and Coheiress 
of George de Cantilupe) was impleading — 

William de Hodnet for the service of a knight's fee in Hod- 



^ The edicts of the Mad ParUament, 
held at Oxford, in June 1258. 



^ CaU»d. Inquit. Vol. I. p. 49. 
3 Inquintiotu, 12 Edw. I., No. 24. 



382 HODNET. 

net.i The Feodaries of 1284-5 say that '' William de Hodnet holds 
the Manor of Hodnet with its members, viz. Longford, Peplow, 
Parva Bowlas, Preston (on the Wealdmoors), Horton, and half the 
Till of Lawley of the Ring in capite, the Jurors knew not by what 
service. The said William had at Hodnet rights of Market, Fair, 
and Free Warren, under a Charter of King Henry III., and he used 
those franchises.^' Here I should observe that when the Hodnets 
are said to be Tenants-in-capite, the expression is not inconsistent 
with their holding mediately under the Lords of Montgomery. The 
Jurisdiction and tenure of these Lords was much qualified by a 
direct control, exercised by the Crown over the Castle and Honour 
of Montgomery. 

In January 1287, William de Hodnet was appointed one of the 
Conservators of the Peace in Shropshire. On a Jury-list of 1290, 
though he takes precedence of Sir Ralph de Sandford, knight, he is 
not styled a knight himself. At the Assizes of October 1292 he 
appears as a Knight, and as a Juror in causes of Grand Assize. His 
exercise of Free Warren in Hodnet was made matter of present- 
ment on this occasion. His tenure of Hodnet, by service of Sene- 
schalcy, was also set forth, and the Manor valued at £40 per annum. 
Peplow and Preston were treated as members of Hodnet, and the 
alienations therein specified, as I have elsewhere stated them. The 
Tenants in one instance affirmed that " their Ancestors had held 
under the Ancestors of William de Hodnet from a time to which 
memory did not reach, viz. from the time when Roger de Beleme 
(m'c). Earl of Salop, enfeoffed William de Hodnet's ancestors in the 
aforesaid Serjeantry.'^ This bold assertion was corroborated by a 
Jury, but circumstantially it cannot have been true. 

William de Hodnet was, immediately after this, questioned under 
Quo Waranto for holding a Market, exercising Free Warren, and 
assizing bread and beer in Hodnet. The two former privileges he 
justified by a Charter of Henry III.^ The third privilege, he 
pleaded, was involved in the first. So he was dismissed sine die? 
In 1294, he was appointed Assessor and Collector of the tax of 
the Tenth in Shropshire. In 1297, as holding lands or rents of 
£20 annual value, and upwards, he was summoned to perform mi- 
litary service with horses, arms, &c., in pai*ts beyond the Seas. The 
Muster was to be at London on July 7, but on Oct. 23 W^illiam de 
Hodnet was appointed a Commissioner of Array for Salop and Staf- 

' Ahhrev. Placitorum, p. 206. I Odo de Hodnet fined in 1252. 

2 Probably the lost Charter for which I ' Quo JVarantOf p. 678. 



HODNET. 333 

fordshire. In May 1298, he was returued to the Parliament of York 
as a Knight of the Shire, his Mauucaptors being Roger Caber and 
Stephen Parker, both of Hodnet. In the same month, and for the * 
same day (May 25), he had military summons to be at York, for 
service against the Scots. 

On Nov. 12, 1300, a Fine was levied between William de Hodnet 
(Plaintiff) and William, son of Laurence de Ludlow and his wife 
Matilda (Deforciants) of the Manor of Hodnet. William de Hod- 
net first acknowledged the Manor to be the right of Matilda, by 
gift of himself to her and her husband. They in turn granted it to 
William de Hodnet for his life, to hold under themselves and the 
heirs of Matilda at a rose-rent, and by performance of all capital 
services. Remainder to William de Ludlow and Matilda his wife, 
and the heirs of Matilda, A similar settlement of William de Hod- 
net's other estates followed in July 1301. I have already set it 
forth,^ and need only to explain here that the places called Wylhe- 
leye Corbet and fVolureion were Weobley and Woolerton near Hod- 
net, but that they were not members of Hodnet, and that, whatever 
William de Hodnet held in either, must have been held as a Feoffee. 
In the case of Woolerton he doubtless held under Shrewsbury 
Abbey. 

In 1301 William de Hodnet had again a military summons to 
serve against the Scots ; but in this and the following year his ac- 
tual employment seems rather to have been as an Assessor and Col- 
lector of Taxes in his native County.^ The time of his death is un- 
certain, but he was succeeded in all his estates by his son-in-law, — 

William de Ludlow, of the origin and rise of whose family I 
have spoken under Stokesay and Ludlow.^ This William had suc- 
ceeded his Father, Laurence, at Stokesay, before the year 1296. In 
1297 he had been returned from the Counties of Hereford, Salop, 
and Stafford, as a Tenant of 20 librates of lands and rents, and so, 
liable to personal service in foreign parts. In 1301, as a Hereford- 
shire Landowner he had summons for military service against the 
Scots. In 1301-2 he appears as Assessor and Collector of the tax 
of the fifteenth in Herefordshire.^ In 1307 he was returned as a 
Knight of the Shire for Salop. As a Collector or Assessor of taxes 
in Shropshire, he appears in 1307, 1309, 1315, and 1316; as a Con- 
servator of the Peace or a Justice for special occasions, he occurs in 
1307, 1308, 1309, 1310, and 1314; as a Commissioner of Array, 

» Supra, Vol. VTT. p. 58. I ' Supra, Vol. V. pp. 36, 290. 

' Parliamentary WriU, I. 670. I * ParL Writs, 1. 718 ; IV. 1126. 



334 



to 






eq 



_W -* 



o 

Hi 

Q 

-<1 

H 
P^ 
!zi 
P 
O 
» 

O 

o 

O 
At 



IF 



i 



I 



J 

o 



QQ 



09 



IS 

Wo M 
iH 

oqO 



m 



► f-l 



o 
O 

eg Q 00 



H 

o S 

pcio 



Ih 



1 






e 



-s 



9 

I 

I 

o 

04 



M 



B. ^ 



s 

0) 



15 

a 

n 

o 









4 



is 

s ■ 

Is 



* 3 



Ih- 



C 

h) 



I 



-6 

i 

so 
II 

o 

c 



o 

I. 



s 

00 

•H 

r-l 
I 




o 



o 

00 



M 



S 



s^ 



I 

a 

I 



Oil 

s 

f-l 






00 



I 



!| 



II— 





I 



04 



\Y 



04 

I 



8 

1^ 



I 



O 
na 

O 



a 



^ 




II— 

00 

-r 



O 

fH 

I 



Q 
.Hi 

o 



s 

00 

rH 

04 

1-4 

I 



CO 

00 



I 






I 



t 



HODNET. 



835 



in 1311 and 1315. In 1313 he obtained a pardon^ as an adherent 
of the Earl of Lancaster in the matter of Piers Gavaston. In 1314 
and 1316 he had military summons to serve in person against the 
Scots.^ In the Nomina Villarum of March 1316 he appears as 
Joint Lord of Stokesay, and Lord of Westbury. Doubtless also 
he was Lord of Hodnet^ though William de Hodnet's name is en- 
tered in that position. 

The Inquest on William de Ludlow's death (taken November 1 1, 
1316) has been in part quoted under Westbury.* It values Hodnet 
with its members of (Little) Solas, Peplow, and Longford, at £23. 
78. 4rf. {per annum). It recites the Pine levied thereof (in 1300) 
as having been levied by Royal license. Hodnet was held of the 
King, and of the Honour of Montgomery, by Serjeantry, &c. (as be- 
fore). The Seneschal's suit while resident in the Castle was to be 
maintained at the cost of the Lords of Montgomery. It included 
the Seneschal's wife, a Valet, a Chambermaid, 4 horses, 2 grey- 
hounds, and 4 brachets.^ The conjoint feoffment of Matilda de 
Hodnet of course left the Manor in her hands for life. The King 
too, ordered the Escheator to respect her rights, and not to intromit 
with any lands of William de Ludlow, deceased. Matilda de Lud- 
low remarried with William Wyn. The Escheator at length dis- 
covered that the late William de Ludlow had held in capite de co^ 
rond, 100 acres of bosc and 10 librates of rent at Markeleye in 
Herefordshire, the custody whereof ought at this juncture to have 
fallen to the Crown as a matter of Prerogative. So the Escheator 
reseized the said land, but the Ring ordered Matilda's dower therein 
to be assigned to her and her second husband. A Writ-Close of 
November 20, 1318, recites these particulars, but confesses that the 
Ring is still uncertain as to his rights. He therefore nullifies the 
reassumptive act of his Escheator, and orders the receipts from 
Markeley to be made over to whomsoever they belong, saving the 
King's right and saving the aforesaid dower.'* 

Laurence de Ludlow, son and heir of William, is variously 
stated to have been born in 1301 and in 1304.^ We must accept 
the earlier date, for in May 1324 he appears as a Knight, and as 
summoned to attend the Great Council then Impending at West- 
minster.^ 

I have already given some further facts in the descent of the 



1 Pari, Wriis, I. 718 ; IV. 1126. 
» Supra, Vol. VII. p. 59. 
s InquiB, 10 Sdw. II.» No. 69. 



* Claw. 12 Edw. II., m. 23. 

* Supra, Vol. VII. p. 59. 

* Farliamentoiy WriU^ IV. 1126. 



336 HODNET. 

Ludlows of Hodnet. To enter in detail on their ulterior history 
would carry me far beyound my usual limits. I have consigned 
a few principal names and ascertained dates to the form of a 
tabular Genealogy. 

The Undertenants in Hodnet proper can hardly be distin- 
guished from Tenants of the Lords of Hodnet in circumjacent lo- 
calities. There was always a risk in granting feoffments in a Ser- 
jeantry, so that, I suppose, the Tenants in Hodnet itself were very 
few. Nevertheless, a few names may be mentioned as conveniently 
here as elsewhere. — 

Paulinus de Hodnet had apparently, in October 1203, some 
claim or interest in the neighbouring Manor of Weston. At the 
Assizes then held, the following allusions to a pending suit were 
made. — 

*' Augnes, wife of Paulinus, makes the said Paulinus her attorney 
against Thomas iitz Noel and Griffin fitz Gerward in a Plea of 
Assize" 

Thomas Noel and Margery his wife essoign themselves in a Plea 
of land against Paulinus de Hodnet, by Richard de Alvitheleg and 
Richard fitz Roger. 

'^ Griffin fitz Garforth essoigns himself by William Monk in a 
Plea of mart d'ancestre, against Paulinus de Hodnet and his wife 
Agnes. — Adjourned to Worcester.'* 

" Matilda, wife of Griffin fitz Garforth, had named Griffin fitz 
Enuch (elsewhere called Griffin fitz Eniow) her Attorney in the same 
suit.'* The Attorney named by Griffin fitz Garforth is apparently 
*' William fitz Seman.*' Of him we have heard before.^ 

At Gloucester, but during the same Iter, " Paulinus de Hodnet 
fines one merk for license to accord. His Sureties were Griffin fitz 
Eniow and William fitz Seman.^' This Fine is made a Crown debt 
on the Pipe-Sott of 1204. 

Soon after this, Paulinus, son of Gilbert Chaplain of Hodnet, 
concedes and gives in pure almoign to Haghmon Abbey, half of all 
his meadow and moor, according to these boundaries, viz. from 
Webeleia (Weobley) along the stream to Eitanesla'che, and in width 
along the way which leads to EUaneslache from Etoine's-seilian ; — 
which moor the Canons had already assarted at their own expense. 
Witnesses, Baldwin de Hodnet, Reginald de Hestinges, and Stephen 
de Stanton.^ 

^' Baldwin de Hodnet confirmed the grant of a meadow made by 

» Supra, Vol. II. p. 119, note 42. ' Haughmond Chartulary, TU, Hoplej. 



HODNET. 337 

Paulinus, son of Gilbert^ Chaplain of Hodnet. Witnesses^ Reginald 
de Hestinges, Stephen de Stanton/'^ 

Alan de Hodnet^ whom I have akeady named^ as probably a 
younger brother of Odo de Hodnet (I.)> oecurs on the Assize-Boll 
of 120S. He was dismissed sine die from some Suit^ because two 
of the Plaintiffs therein were dead.^ 

Of Badulf de Hodnet^ occurring from 1231 to 1244^ I have 
spoken under Alberbury^ Corselle^ Peplow^ and Edgmond> He 
was a younger son of Odo de Hodnet (I.). 

Also Richard de Hodnet, a younger son of Odo de Hodnet (II.) > 
and occurring in 1280 and 1292, has been noticed underWestbury/ 
and under Peplow.^ I further find him acting on local Juries in 
1300 and 1301. 

Thomas Cabot, who occurs on local Juries in 1300, 1301, and 
1306, was, I think, a Tenant in Hodnet, or one of its Dependencies. 

LoNGFOBD, if indeed it was a member of the Domesday Manor of 
Hodnet, appears to have been the only one. Peplow, Little Solas, 
Preston, Horton, and Lawley, stood in quite another ratio at Domes- 
day , and must clearly be taken as subsequent aimexations. The 
great distance which separated Longford from Hodnet, and the fact 
that it was in another Parish (Moreton Say), suggest that it too had 
belonged to some other Domesday Manor than Hodnet, but had 
been severed jGrom its Parent, and annexed to that Fee of the Sene- 
schals of Montgomery which we know to have been so industriously 
and so anomalously enlarged in other cases. Still, as I cannot 
point out the Domesday Manor from which Longford was thus 
severed, I must treat of it as an original member of Hodnet. 

We have seen a Styche Deed, about the year 1200, attested by 
Robert de Longeford and Turstan his son, and by Peter de La 
Forde and Hugh his sonJ We have also seen Robert de Hong- 
forde (probably Longford) attesting a Deed of about the same pe- 
riod,® which concerned Hopton and Hopley, — places very near to 
Hodnet. Here then we have the local and the feudal connection of 
Robert de Longford in just that contrast which illustrates our sub- 
ject. 

This Robert de Longford gave half a virgate in Langeford, to- 
gether with his body, to Combermere Abbey. The Abbey, about 
the year 1235, conveyed the same to Yvo Meverel in exchange for 



' Haoghmond Chaitulary, 2!^. Hopley. 

' Supra, pages 278, 828. 

' Auke'SoUf 5 John, m. 1. 

* Supra, Vol. Vn. pp. 77, 94 ; Yol. VIII. 



pp. 25, 265 ; VoL IX. pp. 124) 829 n. 
« Supra, VoL VII. p. 58. 
• Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 266. 
7 • " Supra, pp. 266, 283. 



IX. 43 



838 HODNET. 

ail the land wliich the aaid Yto had between ike land of Owe (CUff 
grange) and the land of Sutton. Yto Meverel was not only to be 
responsible for the services heretofore due firom the Abbey to the 
Seigneoral Lord of Longford^ but was to pay the Abbey 6d. rent 
for the said half yirgate,^ and was also to continne responsible^ he 
and his heirs^ for the services due on the land which he gave up. 
This Ciroffraph, as it is called, was attested by Peter de Eyton, Hugh 
de Say (of Moreton), William de Stuches (Stych), Robert de Dray- 
ton, Thomas Babath, and Richard de Tunstall.' 

Another tenement in Longford, viz. half a hide, appears to have 
been held by Thomas de Donton under Odo de Hodnet (U.). In 
Michaelmas Term 1242, Isabella, widow of the said Thomas, was 
suing the said Odo for a third of the same. After repeated defaults, 
made by the Defendant, Isabella recovered her claim.' 

A deed, of about 1260, re-introduces the family of Forde as in- 
terested in Longford. — " Robert de Forde gives to Richard Pan- 
tulf, the Hunter, in frank marriage with Alice, the Grantor's 
daughter, half a virgate in Longeford. Witnesses, Sir Ralph le 
Boteler, and Matildis Pauntolf his wife ; Sir Yvo Pantolf of Rude- 
lawe; Ralph de Saunford; Robert de Say of Moreton; and Roger 
de Coleshasel.''^ 

I have noticed the Pleas of trespass and violence which John de 
Bottelegh was maintaining in 1266-7, against Odo de Hodnet, his 
Suzerain.^ Such Suits were necessarily heard coram Rege. It was 
another matter, viz. actual '^ disseizin of his free tenement in Lange- 
ford,^' for which John Bottel' obtained a Writ againt Odo de Hod- 
net in September 1266. Giles de Erdintou was deputed to try the 
latter suit. 

Except the mention of Longford, in 1284-5, and in later Inquests, 
as a member of Hodnet, I find little more of the place or its 
Tenants. Ralph de Longford, Juror in a High-Hatton Inquest in 
1300, may have been of Longford near Newport. 

I may here resume a matter of some topographical interest. — 
The great road which still runs in a straight line firom Bletchley to 
Hinstock, and crosses the Tern at Tern Hill, is undoubtedly of 



> This vent-oharge of Qd, on Longford 
nouuned with Combermere Abbej till 
the Dissolution {Valor Soeletiatticw, Y. 
216). 

* Ohftrter at Adderley. — A Deed of 
about the same date (supra, p. 202) has 
Biohard de Tunstall as Grantor, and 



Robert de Drayton, Thomas Eabas, and 
Robert de Forde, as witnesses. 

' PlacUOf Mieh. Tm. 27 Hen. III., nun. 
4 dor»o^ 17 dorso, — For a later mention, 
of Isabella de Dunton, vide supra, p. 215. 

* DugdMs M88. VoL 39, fo. 82. 

^ Supra, page 831. 



THE CHURCH. 339 

Roman origin. — There are two evidences of this. One is the arrow- 
like coarse of the road itself; the other is, that the precise point at 
which it crossed the River Tern, was called Stratford in the time of 
Henry III.^ This Road was at the same period, and for a century 
afterwards, called " The Longford.'* The Vill of Longford which 
lay more than a mile to the North-East of this Road must not mis- 
lead us as to the course of the latter, though the VUl undoubtedly 
took its name from a certain proximity to this most ancient and 
most famous thoroughfare. — 

A Writ of King Edward II., dated May 20, 1319, orders the 
Sheriff of Shropshire to ascertain whether the Royal Road called 
Longefordy between Bleccheleye and Neweport, and the bridges and 
footpaths {calceta) thereof, were so dilapidated by the overflowing 
of the circumjacent marshes, as that no one could pass thereby with- 
out peril of life ; — also whether many passengers had actually thus 
perished ; — also whether any parties were bound to repair the road ; 
— and if not, whether it would injure the Crown to allow a levy of 
the due called Pontage towards such repairs. In the next month the 
Sheriff (Robert de Orendon) held Inquest on this matter at Drayton 
in Hales. The bad state of the road, and the damage caused by 
floods were substantiated ; also the peril of passengers ; but it did 
not appear that any loss of life had hitherto happened. The repairs 
lay specifically on no one. The Levy of Pontage for a fixed term,, 
would injure neither the Crown nor any other.* 

CHUECH OF ST. LUKE OF HODNBT. 

Resuming my account of this Church and Parish at the point 
where its history ceases to illustrate the history of the Manor, I 
come to another of Bishop Clinton^s Confirmations to Shrewsbury 
Abbey. The former Charter of the same Prelate treated of tithes. 
This confirms "the Church of Hodnet with its Chapels and the 
annual pension of 2 merks receivable therefrom by the Abbey."* 
Again, Bishop Dordent^s Charter confirms "the Church of St. 
Luke of Hodeneht, with the tithe of the same Vill, and the tithe of 
Papelawe, and Locheforde (Peplow and Losford), and with the 
Chapels pertaining to the aforesaid Church.''* Subsequent Charters, 
whether Royal, Archiepiscopal, or Episcopal, are but repetitions of 
the above. 

» Supra, Vol. VHI. p. 202, note 6. I Edw. II., No. 128. 

' InquiiUianei ad quod Damrntm, 12 1 *'* Salop Ghartulary, Nos. 328» 327. 



340 HODNET. 

In 1291^ the Church of Hodnet, with its Chapels^ was valued 
at the high sum of £40 per annum, over and above the Abbot of 
Shrewsbury's pension of £1. 68. 8d.^ 

In 1341^ the Assessors of the Ninth inadequately took the Tcuea- 
tion of Hodnet Church to be £40. They rated the Parish at 40 
merks to the Ninth, remarking that the difference of 20 merks con- 
sisted of Glebe land and other profits of the Churchy not computable 
in the present instance. The Temporalities of Shrewsbury Abbey 
contributed a rateable part of the current assessment.' The allusion 
is to the Abbot's estate at Woolerton. 

The Valor of 1534-5, gives the Rectory of Hodnet, then held 
by William Marshall, as worth only £30 per annum; and that sum 
was chargeable with ISs. 4(2. for synodals, 6s, for procurations, and 
with a pension of £3 to Marchamley Chapel.^ In the Abbot of 
Shrewsbury's return to the Valor we find that his pension of 
£1. 68. Sd. was still receivable firom Hodnet Church.^ 

BEGTOBS OF HODNET. 

The mention of Ralph, Yicar of Hodnet, about 1253-63,^ must 
not suggest that the Rectory was ever impropriated by Shrewsbury 
Abbey I. Probably the original Saxon Foundation was so far Colle- 
giate as to include a Yicar, and the o£Sce was revived whenever any 
Rector chose to name an acting substitute. 

The following Rectors (except where the contrary is expressed) 
were aU presented by the Abbot and Convent of Shrewsbury. — 

Mastee G. db Weston, " Parson of Hodeneth,*' occurs in April 
1241. 

Roger le Strange was presented by a Patent of August 7, 
1244. This was during a vacancy of Shrewsbury Abbey; but, on 
the same day, the King assented to the election of Abbot Adam. 

Philip de Sat occurs as Rector in 1321-2. 

Master Ralph de Salop, admitted December 8, 1328, was 
consecrated Bishop of Bath and Wells, September 3, 1329. 

Roger de Mortimer, Clerk, admitted October 23, 1329. He 
had a year's license of non-residence in October 1331, and died 
February 28, 1332. 

Ralph de la Rode, Clerk, was admitted May 3, 1332. 

John Macclesfeld, Clerk, was presented by a Patent of March 

> Pope ^i(*. rflwrfwm, p. 247. I ** Valor SoeUsituHetu, TO. 1B4^1S9. 

» Inqui9. Nonarum, p. 183. • Supm, Vol. VI. p. 160, note 7. 



WESTON AND RED CASTLE. 



841 



12, 1334, which alleged a recent vacancy of Shrewsbury Abbey.^ 
However the King afterwards waived his right and restored — 

Ralph de la Rode, by a Patent of November 4th, 1334.' 
Ralph de la Rode, on October 11, 1341, completed an exchange of 
Livings with — 

Master Richard de Praers, late Rector of Pukelchirche 
(Wygom. Dioc). On October 29 following, this Rector has license 
for two years' non-residence studendi gratid. He occurs also in 
1342. 

Richard de Derby, Clerk, was presented by the King, on Oct. 
20, 1345, because of a recent vacancy of Shrewsbury Abbey.* A 
second Patent of May 4, 1346, reiterates this presentation, the 
King having recovered the right against Adam, Abbot of Salop, 
who had disputed it in the Court of King^s Bench.^ 

William de Manton occurs as Rector 12 December, 1361. 

Nicholas de Heth resigned in 1388, being ejected by process 
of Q^are impedit brought by the King, who ought to have pre- 
sented during that vacancy of Salop Abbey which was concurrent 
with the last vacancy of Hodnet Rectory. 

RooER Westwode, Priest, was presented May 20, and admitted 
July 1, 1388, the King presenting, " because the temporalities of 
Salop Abbey were in his hand.*'* Westwode died in 1433. 



Wit%ton anti i^eti Casitle. 



With Weston I introduce a series of three Manors which Ranulf 
Peverel held in the Domesday Hundred of Odenet. — 

"The same Ranulf holds Westune (under Earl Roger). Edric 
Salvage held it (in Saxon times). Here are iii hides, geldable. In 
demesne are it ox-teams ; and (there are) viii Serfs, iii Villains, i 
Radman, and ix Boors with one team ; and yet v teams more might 
be (employed) here. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 



> • * PaietU^ 8 Edw. HI., p. 1, m. 29 j 
p. 2. m. 11. 

* Patent, 19 Edw. III., p. 2, m. 10. 

* Patent, 20 Edw. III., p. 1, m. 11. 

* Patent, 11 Ric. II., p. 2, m. 7.— 



It is difficult, to understand this pre- 
sentation. Aeoording to the Historians of 
Shrewsbuiy (Vol. II. p. 121), Nicholas 
Sterenes sat as Ahbot from November 
1361 till August 11, 1899. 



342 WS8TOK AKO KED CA8TLS. 

609. {per ammm) ; afterwards it was worth St.; now it is worth 
408."^ Of Edric Syliraticas^ and Baiiiilf Pe? erd' I hare disoooraed 
already. Weston, whether by escheat of William Peyerd of Lon- 
don in Henry I.'s time, or by forfeiture of William Peverel of 
Nottingham in 1154-5, or by lapse of some tenure, intermediate 
or subsequent, was an escheat in the hands of Henry II. in 1169. 
The King held it till the year 1175 and then, as I have fully stated 
under AItcI^, granted it to Ouy le Strange.^ 

On the death of Ralph le Strange in the summer of 1195, 
WestOQ became temporarily an Escheat. A sum of 12t. Id. was 
the ferm thereof, realized by the Escheator in the quarter ending 
Michaelmas 1195 ; and at Easter 1196, half a year's ferm, amilarly 
accounted of, was £1, 148. 5d., besides the winter pannage of the 
Till which had produced 78. The fine proffered by the Sisters and 
Coheirs of Balph le Strange in 1196, made them of course Co- 
parceners in Weston. Their tenure was not undisturbed. Within 
four years, Robert fitz Iwein, alia8 Robert Bagg^rd, claimed the 
Manor, and (if a procedure by writ of mart (Pancestre may be taken 
to imply as much) claimed it as heir of a former owner, viz. Iwein. 
This produced a Fine from the Coheiresses and their husbands. 
They offered King John 15 marks to prevent any trial being held 
between them and the Plaintiff.^ Hence the following Writ, issued 
by King John to his Chief Justice, Geofirey fitz Piers, and certified 
by the latter to the Courts of Westminster in April 1200. — " The 
King injoins Geoffirey fitz Piers not to hold, or suffer to be held, 
the trial subsisting between Robert fitz Iwein (of the one part) and 
Thomas Noel and Margaret his wife, Richard de Wapenbiry and 
Juliana his wife, and Griffin Walensis and Matilda his wife (of the 
other part), concerning the land of Weston, which the said Robert 
claims against them, and whereof they have a Charter of Eang 
Henry, the King's father, as they affirm, granting the same to 
William (read Wido) le Strange, father of the said Ladies; — be- 
cause the King wishes to be informed what ingress Iwein (father of 
the present Plaintiff) had in the said land, and how he lost it.''* 

In the same Term as that in which this Writ was exhibited at 
Westminster, Griffin, son of Gervase Goch (the Griffin Walensis 
of the above Fine), is noticed as not appearing at Westminster in a 



^ J>omuda»fy fo. 256, b, 2. 

* Sapm, YoL III. pp. 49, 50. 

• VoLIL pp. 104-6 i VoLVLpp. 810-1. 



< Supra, VoL HI. p. 127. 

* 0&2aia, p. 64. 

> lUa. Cwim Resit, H. 185. 



WESTON AND RKD CA8TLS. 



343 



Salt against Robert Bainard. The reaaon of GrifEn's noD-appear- 
ance was warranted by a Writ of King John^ as I have elsewhere 
stated.^ Robert Baiuard was identical with Robert fitz Iwein. 
Before the close of the year 1200, Robert Baggard^ as he is here 
called^ endeavoTired to counteract the move of his opponents by a 
Counter-fine of greater magnitude. — ^' He gave 40 merks, that the 
King would once again {alid vice) order the recognition (trial) to 
proceed^ which had been arraigned under writ of mort tPancestre, 
before the Justices at the Exchequer^ between the Plaintiff, and 
Thomas Noel, fee., concerning one Knight's-fee ; — which recognition 
had been made a remanei by Writ of the King; — and (the Fine 
stipulated) that the trial should come on at Westminster on the 
octaves of Hilary (January 20, 1201) /'« 

I do not find any instalment paid on the proffers of either party 
in the above suit. However in January 1201, Geoffirey fitz Piers 
orders the trial " concerning a knight's-fee in Weston " to proceed, 
in consequence of the later Fine. The Justices in banco issued 
summonses accordingly to all parties concerned, to appear at West- 
minster in three weeks of Easter (1201).' Then the cause was 
adjourned nne die, because of the transfretation of Thomas Noel, 
one of the defendants.^ Three Fines, levied at Westminster on 
June 4, 1201, show that Robert Bagard's pretensions were no 
mean ones. — Fof a Quitclaim of one->third of Weston to Thomas 
and Margaret Noel, he got iS14. Ss, 5d. ; for a similar Quitclaim to 
Griffin Cof (t. e. Coch) and his wife Matilda, he got a like sum ; 
and a third Quitclaim to Richard de Wapenbiri and Juliana his 
wife was purchased by the same consideration. In short, the Manor 
of Weston cost its reputed Coheiresses £4S. 6s. Sd., a sum which 
I cannot suppose to have been less than the value of the fee-simple 
at that period. 

I have explained under Alveley how in 1211 the Coparceners in 
Weston were reduced to two, viz. Thomas de Albo Monasterio and 
Griffin de Sutton.^ Their estates, whether in Alveley or Weston, 
were only valued at 6 merks (£3. 6s, Sd.) per annum. A Record 
of 1227 alludes incidentally to one Coparcener in Weston. Matilda 
le Strange (as Widow of Griffin Goch) is said to be at the King's 
disposal (as regarded her remarriage). Her land in Bradford Hun- 
dred was valued at £3. Ss. per annum,^ but this may have included 
her dower in Rowton and Ellardine. 



^ Supra, Vol. II, p. 113. 

3 Ohlaia, p. 80. 

* • * Plaeita, SUary Term and Soiter 



Term, & John. 

* Supra* Vol. III. pp. 184, 139. 

• Tuta de NevOl, p. 68. 



844 



WESTON AND RED CASTLE. 



It will be remembered that only two Coheiresses of Ralph le 
Strange were at this time represented in Shropshire.^ These were 
Matilda (herself living) and Margaret, whose inheritance was now 
divided between her two daughters ; — Alice Noel, widow of William 
de Harcoiirt, and Joan Noel, widow of Thomas fitz Eustace. Al- 
ready had Alice and Joan parted with their shares of Weston, and 
even their Aunt Matilda, who had that portion of the Manor, on 
which was the Rock called Red-Cliff, had sold the said Rock and 
2 acres of land. 

King Henry III.'s Charter, confirming the various acquisitions 
of his great Servant, Henry de Audley, bears date May 2, 1227. 
It includes the following items. — Ew dono Alicie de Harecurty fitte 
Thome Noel, totam terrain suam de Weston cum omnibus pertmencUt 
suis. Ex dono Johanne fiUe Thome Nohel totam terram suam in 
Weston cum omnibus pertinenciis suis. Ex dono Matilde Extranet 
totam Rupem de Radeclif, quantum ad earn p^tinet, et duos acras 
terre de domimco suo in Weston.^ 

We see instantly what was Henry de Audley^s obje6t in obtaining 
Red-Cliff. A Patent of August 17, 1227, empowers him to build^ 
the Castle of Radeclif. Henceforth we hear of Red-Castle as the 
Shropshire Stronghold of the Audleys, and the Manor of Weston 
is to this day called Weston-under^Red-Castle, Soon afterwards 
Matilda le Strangers moiety of Weston was acquired wholly by 
Audley. He obtained it from her son, Madoc de Sutton, to whom 
he gave in exchange Stanway and Stoneacton.^ 

The Bradford Hundred-Roll of 1255 gives the following account 
of Weston. — *' James de Alditheley holds the Manor of Weston, 
viz. one moiety under Sir Richard de Harcourt, to whom he pays 
a yearly rent of 13^. 5iif., and the other moiety under Madoc de 
Sutton, in exchange for Stanway. And Weston is 4^ hides, and 
pays neither stretward nor motfee, nor does it any suit to County 
or Hundred."* 

I cannot help remarking how these immunities were common to 
another of Ranulf PeverePs Domesday Manors, viz. Cressage.^ As 
the intermediate histories of Cressage and Weston had been quite 
distinct, perhaps the said immunities arose with Ranulf Peverel 
himself. Another point to observe is that the mesne-interest of 



> Supra, Vol. III., pp. 139, 142. 

» Hot Chart. 11 Hen. III., p. 1, No, 51. 

> The word is firmare. It may mean 
to fortify a pre-exiBtent mansion. 



* Vide supra, Vol. HI. p. 91. 

' Conoeming whom, see Vol. TIL p. 135 

« Rot, Hundred, 11. 57. 

7 Supra, Vol. VI. p. 312. 



WBSTON AND RED CASTLE. 



845 



Joan Noers heirs seems now to be annexed to the interest of her 
Sister, represented by that Sister's son, Richard de Harcourt. 
Lastly we most inquire how it was that instead of being 3 hides, 
as at Domesday f Weston now involved 4^ hides ? I can give no 
satisfactory answer to this question. Half a hide, originally in 
Whixall (near Frees), had perhaps been annexed to Weston, leaving 
Whixall so much short of its Domesday area. Still a hide ad- 
ditional in Weston remains unaccounted for. I can only suggest 
that there was some mistake in the matter. When a Manor was 
exempt from all assessment on its hidage, that hidage was not likely 
to be very accurately remembered. It was, in short, a matter of 
no import. 

At the above Inquest of 1255, other franchises were stated to be 
exercised by James de Audley. He assized beer in his Liberty ; 
he imprisoned persons taken within his Warren ; and he accepted 
fees for his Advowry} 

After this we have many allusions to Weston which are common 
to Audley's neighbouring estate of Marchamley. Without repeat- 
ing these, I may state, that on the death of James de Audley (II.) > 
in 1273, Weston, Marchamley, Edgmond, and Ford, realized an 
annual income of £107. 149. Q\d. At Weston the deceased had 
held 2 carucates in demesne. The heirs of Madoc de Sutton were 
reputed to be Mesne-Lords of the Manor.^ 

Again, on the death of Henry de Audley (II.) in 1276, his tenure 
of Red Castle and two-thirds of Weston is said to be '^ under Mar- 
gery and Matilda de Harcourt,' in exchange for Stanwey,'' and by 
a rent of \d. payable to them. 

The value of the estate was £4. 5«. 9^. The remaining third of 
Weston was being held in dower, I suppose, by Ela, widow of James 
de Audley (I.). 

On William de Audle/s death in December 1288, the Estate of 
Red-Castle with its members and with Marchamley, excepting 
the dower of his Mother Ela, was valued at iS26. 16«. 2\d, per 
annum. The Castle was good, but no separate value was assigned 



1 The meaning of the word Adyowry 
{Advocacio), and the kind of protection 
it implied, are best ascertained by in- 
stances (vide supra, YoL I. p. 868 ; Vol. 
Y. pp. 123, 283, 300). 

> InquintUmi^ 1 £dw. I., No. 30. 

> Ing^tUntiont, 4 Edw. I., No. 50.— The 
allusion to Margery and Matilda de Har- 

IX. 



court, is a misnomer as regards both, and 
an anachronism of 50 years. The Jurors 
alluded to two Sisters of Balph le Strange, 
long since dead ; but one of whom (Mar- 
garet) was only ancestress of the Har- 
courts, while the other (Matilda) was wife 
of Q-riffin de Sutton and mother of the per- 
son who exchanged Stanwcy. 

44 



346 WESTON AND RED CASTLE. 

thereto because it was insufficiently garrisoned {miUtum indiget 
ad sustentacionem). There were two Parks in Weston. It was 
now said to be held of Richard de Harcourt's heir, by a rent of 
Id.: while Marchamley was held under Fitz Alan for part of a 
Knight's-fee.^ 

The Tenure-Roll of 1285 makes an astonishing statement about 
Marchamley and Weston. — Under the title, Marchymky, it says, — 
" Nicholas de Audley holds the Manor of Weston with its members, 
viz. Wexhill and Chirbere, of Robert de Mortirner as members of his 
Barony of Burford, and he (Mortimer) holds them of the King in 
capitey f(yr half a knighVs-fee. And he (Audley) holds here his free 
court twice yearly, and has gallows and warren under Charter of 
Henry III., and has used those franchises for 30 years. The state 
of this Liberty has not been altered (by encroachment)." Now, as 
regards Marchamley, we know that that was held, then as after- 
wards, under Fitz Alan. Therefore the above extract must be taken 
to refer only to Weston, Wixhill, and Chirbury (places near W^es- 
ton). That Weston, with or without these adjuncts, was ever a 
part of the Barony of Burford is not to be supposed for an instant. 
The Jury which made this return was probably mystified by some 
confusion with Badger, where indeed Le Strangers Coheirs had at 
one time been Tenants of the Barons of Burford. 

At the Assizes of 1292, Nicholas de Audley's franchises in Mar- 
chamley and Weston were made subject of presentment. The Qmo 
Waranto which followed, I have given under Marchamley. The 
Inquest on Thomas de Audley's death in 1308, shows that, the de- 
ceased being a Minor, Red Castle was in keeping of the King. It 
was valued at half a merk, and a Dove-cot which it contained had 
just the same value. Weston and Wykeshul, including Red-Castle 
Park (worth 10s.) and a Water Mill (worth 13«.), were extended at 
£20. 6s. 9d. per annum.^ 

The Inquest on the death of Nicholas de Audley (II.) in 1316, 
masses the Honour of Red Castle in a new way, making all Aud- 
ley's estates in this quarter to be members of Red Castle. Thus 
not only Quekeshale (i. e. Whixall, near Frees) is disposed of^ but 
Marchamley, Kinstone, Ightfield, Losford, and Gravenhanger, are 
added to the List.^ The arrangement has its historical significance. 
The very remembrance of those nominal or petty mesne-tenures^ 
which manorially distinguished these places, was dying out. The 
Tenant by purchase had the prominent interest. Occupancy was 

» liiquu. 11 Edw. I., No. 34. " Inquu. 1 Edw. II., No. 63. » Inquis. 10 Edw. II., No. 73. 



WESTON AND RED CASTLE. 847 

the bond of assimilation^ and Audley's Castle was the ostensible^ 
though by no means the real. Caput of Audley's various tenements. 

Of Undertenants in Weston I find scanty mention. Thomas 
de Lee^ so often mentioned in these pages^ had something here in 
1224, for then did Baldwin de Hodnet fine 20*. for a Writ of at- 
taint against xii Jurors, who had decided a Suit between himself 
and Thomas de Le, concerning a certain stank in Weston. This 
extract rectifies a former mistake and shows me that the grants 
made by Beyner de Lee and his son, Thomas, to Haughmond Abbey 
were in Weston near Hodnet, not in Weston near Clun. I refer 
back for the particulars.^ 

At the Assizes of 1292 Robert, son of Thomas de Weston, was 
on the Bradford Jury. 

Weston Chapel. As a mere Dependency of Hodnet, we must 
not expect any early notices of this Chapel. Nevertheless it was of 
some Antiquity. The following Coats of Arms were in the Chapel 
Windows, in the 16th or 17th century. 

1. Quarterly, France and England. 

2. Chequy, Or and Az. 

3. 6u, a lion rampant arg., crowned or. 

4. Or, a spread eagle sa. 

In the East Window were two kneeling figures, male and female. 
The dexter or male figure was spurred, the head covered by a cap. 
The knight wore a surcoat of Arms, viz. Az., a spread-eagle, arg., 
with a label of 3 points or fretty Sa. Underneath were the Letters 
Dns Johannes. The Female figure wore a surcoat of arms, viz. 
Quarterly, per fesse indented or, and gu. Underneath were the 
letters Dne {sic) Isabella.^ 

WixHiLL. There is some difficulty in distinguishing matters 
which belong to this member of Weston from those which belong to 
Whixall, near Frees ; for by an extraordinary accident, the superior 
Lords of both places were identical, and consequently much of their 
history was common to both. My impression is that Wixhill (near 
Weston) was almost uniformly held in demesne by the Lords of 
Weston, so that Freehold Tenants who obviously took a name from 
one or other place (Wixhill or Whixall) must usually be assigned to 
Whixall, which was not thus held in demesne by the Lords of Wes- 
ton, except in the earliest times. 

The Tenure-Roll of 1285 seems to me to distinguish these two 
places ; but not very emphaticaUy. The entries are as follows. — 

> Supra, Vol. VII. p. 274. « Harl. MS. 2129, p. 171. 



348 WHIXALL. 

WekeshalV. WiU. Laken tenet vUlam de WekeshaW de Nick'o de 
Audeley ut membrum de Weston, quod alali (read alihi) invenitur, et 
est ffildabUis. 

Marchymley. Nick, de Audeley tenet maner. de Weston cum 
membris, scilicet WexhilP et Chhrbere de RoVto de Mortuomari, ut 
membrum BaronuB stus de Burford, ifC. 

The first entry seems to allude to Whixall, near Frees ; the last 
to Wixhill near Weston. Of the latter I can say nothing further, 
for it seems to have been as much involved in Weston as the ad- 
joining hamlet of Chirbury was. 



mumii 



'^The same Rannulf (Peverel) holds Witehala (under Earl Ro- 
ger). iBldid held it (in Saxon times) and was a freeman. Here 
is one hide^ geldable. In demesne there is one ox-team, and ii 
Neatherds and ii Boors : and one team more might be (employed) 
here. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth Ss. {per an- 
num) ; now it is worth 5*."^ 

It would seem that Whixall went to nearly the same succession 
of owners as Weston ; so much so, that it came to be reputed a 
member of Weston just as much as Wixhill, which was dose to 
Weston itself. I take it that Whixall passed to Ouy le Strange 
under Henry II.'s Charter of Weston, just as much as Wixhill did, 
though neither are named in the Charter. So also did it apparently 
descend to Guy le Strangers daughters. 

In 1203 we have Richard de Wappenbury (husband of one of the 
said daughters) essoigning his attendance at the Assizes by Walter 
de Witekeshill ; but it is impossible to say whether this Walter was 
of Wixhill or Whixall. At the same Assizes Elias de Withekesall 
and his wife, Edith, had a suit of mort d'ancestre against Ralph de 
Estleg and his wife, Edith, for a virgate in Sulton ; but Ralph de 
Estleg being dead, the Court ordered a remanet. Now Soulton J; 

(the place concerned) stands about midway between Wixhill and ! 

WhixaU, so that we cannot say whether the^ Plaintiff, Elias^ was of || 

the former or the latter. 

* DomekUty^ fo. 266, b, 2. 



WH1XALL. 349 

The Pipe-Roll of 1207 gives Adam de Woxhull as amerced one 
merk^ and Richard de Campiun as amerced half a merk^ apparently 
at some Forest-Assize, The former was perhaps the same person 
with " Adam Venator, son of Wulfric de Wikeshalle/' of whom we 
shall hear presently. 

At the Assizes of November 1221 the death of Qriffin fitz Jar- 
forth^ prevented process in a suit which Radulf de Lindiseie had 
against him for a tenement in Wykeshnll. The Plaintiff was or- 
dered to get another Writ.^ It is evident that he did so, for the 
Suit was renewed in January 1222 at Warwick, against Matilda 
(le Strange), widow of GriflSn fitz Jarvord. She then surrendered 
a virgate in WykeshuU to the Plaintiff.' A Fine was levied on the 
occasion, whereby it appears that Ranuff de Lindes^ paid 3 merks 
for Matilda^s concession, and was to hold under her, in fee, at a 
rent of 12rf. 

We next come to "Adam Venator, son of Wulfric de Wickishalle," 
who, it seems, had an estate in Sandford, but who preferred the son 
of his sister Alice to the son of his brother Richard. A series of 
Deeds and Fines, already set forth,^ ended, it appears, between the 
years 1242 and 1249, in Adam fitz Richard fitz Wulfric of Wite- 
keshale ceding a fourth part of the Vill of Witekeshale to Richard 
de Sandford, to hold under Richard de Lache at a rent of 21d, 

We may assume then that at this period Richard de Lacon was 
mesne-lord, at least of a part of Whixall ; and we shall presently see 
that assumption justified by fuller evidence. 

From the Pipe-Roll of 1249 I find that while R. de Thurkdby 
was in eyre in Worcestershire (this was in January 1249^), John 
de Wytekeshall had proffered a Fine of 10 merks for some Inquest 
to be holden. His Sureties were Adam, son of Richard de Wyte- 
keshall, and Madoc fitz Yarforth. 

The Hundred-Roll of 1255 treats Wickeshall as a distinct Manor 
from Weston, but in so doing speaks doubtless of Whixall near 
Prees. '^ It was half a hide (not the whole hide of Domesday) ^ and 
William de Lake held it of James de Audley by service of 15d. per 
annum.^'^ — 

One Adam fitz Wulfric de Wickishall, is named in the same Re- 
cord, as paying 4d.p€r annum to Ralph le Botyler (of Wem) for his 
Advowry. This was not the Adam Venator above mentioned. The 



* Supra, Vol II. p. 114. 

^ AttizeSf 6 Hen. III., m. 3 dorno. 

* PUunta apud Warwick^ 6 Hen. III. 



4 



Supra, pp. 226-228. 
' Anglia SeKrOy p. 4d3. 
^ RoU Hundred, II. 58, 59. 



850 



WHEEALL. 



latter was dead in 1242. The Adam fitz Wulfrie of 1255 was per- 
haps Adam^ son of Richard fitz Wulfrie^ but called by his Grand- 
father's rather than his father's name. At the same Inqnest of 
1255^ Ralph le Botiler of Wem was reported as accepting an ad- 
vowry of 6rf. yearly from Yevan de Wickishall. We next find the 
Baron of Wem obtaining a still more effective footing in Whixall. — 
A Fine of Feb. 9, 1256, shows Robert de Alkminton and Margery 
his wife (Tmpedients) acknowledging their grant of 10 acres in 
Wykeshall, to Ralph le Butiller (of Wem) and his wife Matilda, 
who ostensibly pay a sore-hawk for the grant, and are to pay a 
glove-rent to the Grantors, and to discharge forensic services.^ 

After this the principal tenant of Whixall seems to have been 
Robert de Whixall, holding under William de Lake, who held under 
Audley. We have seen this Robert de WynckeshuU attesting a Hop- 
ton Deed about 1270. We shall also see him with Petronilla his 
wife as obtaining in 1276, an estate at Cotes (Cotton near Hodnet). 

The Feodaries of 1284 concur in stating that William de Laken 
holds the vill of Wychesale or Wekeshall of Nicholas de Audeley ; 
and one of the said Feodaries states it to be a member of Weston. 
It is evident that in both cases Whixall near Frees is the Manor 
thus distinguished. 

To return to Robert de Whixall, William de Laken's presumed 
Undertenant, I find him sitting on a Wem Jury in 1284 and on 
other Juries in 1290, 1292, and 1293. But there were many other 
Undertenants in the Manor at this period. For instance, about 
1284 we have seen Hugh de Steel selling a fourth of Wilkeshall to 
William de Sauford. Then, about 5 years later, we have Yovan 
fitz Adam of Wickeshale selling the tenancy of John, son of John, 
son of Yovan Campion of Wickeshale, to Sir Ralph de Sandford : 
the Deed being attested by Philip de Montague and Madoc de 
Wickeshale.* About 1290 we have a second conveyance fix)m Hugh 
de Steel to William de Sanford, of a fourth of Wilkeshal or 
Quickeshalle. 

About this time Robert, son of Robert de Weme, was suing four 
parties for different tenements in Wycheshall, viz. William fitz 
Matilda de Wycheshall for a messuage and 3 acres, Madoc fitz 



^ The bouudaries of these 10 acres are 
giren in the Fine. Among them are the 
Cro$8 of Richard Scrupe^ Northwood how, 
the field of Edettaneetony Le Oldebuites, 
the field of JBylburgrene, Le Horehalk^ 



Le Charkinffok, Jtakenhuret, Shytenhuret^ 
the boundariee between Wemme and Lake^ 
Le Fermhuttesford, Le Longenhateehwsty 
Foxeleg-hedge, and Okenhulleshwme. 
3 Supra, pages 232-3. 



WHIXALL. 361 

William of the same for a messuage and bovate^ Heylin de Wyches- 
hall for a messuage and 12 acres, and Wyon fitz Madoc of Wykes- 
hall for a messuage and 4 acres. The Defendants were to be 
summoned to Westminster, and the summonses to be served by 
Madoc, son of Thomas de Wycheshall, and Thomas de Styele (Steel) .^ 

About 1305 we have Alice, widow of Madoc fitz William of 
Whixall, quitclaiming property to William de Sanford, whilst 
Philip de Montacute, John fitz Ye van, and John fitz William, at- 
test her Deed. In January 1 803, Philip de Montague and William 
de WynekeshuU sat on a Sandford Jury. About two years later 
John, son of Richard de Wyckeshall, grants lands to the above 
William de Sandford j the Deed naming Hugh fitz Alan and John 
de Montacute as Whixall Freeholders, and being attested by Thomas 
fitz Heylin and John fitz William.^ Cotemporary with these per- 
sons was one Roger de Wekineshall who precedes Richard de Lakyn 
in attesting a Hopton Deed already set forth.* 

The above very scattered details suggest a remark as to the great 
number of persons of Welsh extraction who held small tenements 
in Whixall. Probably they were first introduced to the Manor by 
Griffin Gohc of Sutton or his son Madoc. 

At the close of the 13th or the beginning of the 14th century, 
the Botelers of Wem acquired the mesne-lordship of Whixall, 
holding under Audley and over the Tenants in general. When the 
Inquest of January 1316 states that Nicholas de Audley, deceased, 
had received 6*. rent from b, free-tenant in Quckeshale^ we may be 
sure that the said tenant was William le Boteler (II.) of Wem : for, 
in the Nomina Villarum of March 1316 William le Boteler is ac- 
tually entered as Lord of Wycheshale.* 

In 1369, we have seen that William le Botiler of Wem, died 
seized of Quixhall, which he held under James de Audley by service 
of a pair of spurs.^ Whixall was much nearer to Wem than to 
Weston, and lay indeed in the midst of Le Botiler^s Dependencies. 
Probably Le Botiler^s mesne-interest there had arisen in motives of 
convenience ; but I cannot say whether it was the same mesne in- 
terest as had previously been held by the Lacons. 

Whixall Chapel. Of this foundation, however ancient it may 
have been, we are not likely to have early notices. It was an affiili-r 
ation of the Church of Prees, and retains its state of dependence 
to this day. 

1 The original Writs of Summons in I ' ' * Supra, pages 288, 286. 
possession of T. H. Sandford, Esq. I ^ * ^ Supra, pages 175, 177. 



352 



iLacon« 



This is the last of Rannlf PeveieVs Manoniy which we shall 
have to notice. — ''The same Bannnlf holds Lach (onder Earl 
Roger). EInod held it (in Saxon times)^ and was a free man. 
Here are 2| virgates^ geldable. In demesne there is half an ox- 
team with one boor, and an additional half-team might be (em- 
ployed). The old value of the Manor was 5s. {per annum). Now 
it is worth 3*."* 

Lacon had a very different destination to any other of Bannlf 
Peverel^s Shropshire Manors. It did not^ like Cressage^ go to re- 
pair the shattered Fief of De Lacy^ nor^ like Weston and Whixall^ 
to reward the sendees of Gny le Btrange. The neighbouring 
Manor of Soulton had belonged to the Chapel of St. Michael in 
Shrewsbury Castle at Domesday. Whenever or however Lacon es- 
cheated to the Crown^ the King added it to the endowment of that 
Chapel. Some Incumbent of St. Michael's enfeoffed a Toret or a 
Corbet of Morton^ both in Lacon and Soulton. Corbet again in 
the 13th century bad his Undertenants in both Manors, each such 
Tenant being named after the place of his feoffment. 

A Suit, which commenced in 1271 and ended in 1272, tells the 
status of Lacon and Soulton, as far as Corbet was concerned. — In 
October 1271, " Richard de Sarr*, Parson of the Church of St. 
Michael in Shrewsbury Castle," impleaded Robert Corbet at West- 
minster, for the purpose of obliging him to render right and cus- 
tonlary services for the free tenement which he held under the said 
Parson in Soleton and Lach : to wit, the Parson complained that 
whereas his predecessor, William, had been seized, in the present 
reign (Henry III.'s) of 5*. rent receivable from Robert Corbet, for 
the aforesaid tenement, Corbet now detained 2s. thereof. The suit 
had been adjourned to October 1272, and Corbet had meanwhile 
appealed to a trial oi Grand Assize, whether he held by 3*. or by 5*. 
rent. At the Iter then in progress, Corbet repeatedly offered him- 
self as Defendant in this Cause ; but, as often, Richard de Sarr' 
failed to appear. So judgment went for Corbet, by default, i. e. he 
was henceforth to hold by 3*. rent, not 5«.* 



> Domesday^ fo. 266, b, 2. 

' Ataizes, 66 lien. 111., m. 1 dorso. — 

One of the iatermediate steps in this 



suit is entered on a Westminster Flea- 
Roll of February 1272. — 

Dies datftt est Ricardo de Say persons 



LACON. 353 

The next evidences of Corbef s mesne-tenure at Lacon^ bears 
with some import on the early genealogy of the Lacons^ and shows 
the great advantage which may result from ocular inspection of an 
original document.— 

The Feodary of Bradford Hundred^ drawn up in 1284 and com- 
monly known as Kirby's Quests says accurately enough that 
" William de Laken holds the vill of Laken of Robert Corbet, and 
Robert holds it of the King^s Chapel in Salop Castle/' 

But an original and nearly cotemporary Tenure-Roll, in my 
possession, usually much more accurate than Kirby's Quest, places 
Laken, not in Bradford Hundred, but last of a series of Manors in 
Pimhill Hundred, adding that ^^ John de Laken holds the vill of 
Laken of Robert Corbet, and he of the King's Chapel in Salop 
Castle/' 

On looking closely at this entry I find that it is written in a later 
hand and paler ink than the body of the Roll. It is, in fact, sup- 
plementary, and has been inserted under Pimhill Hundred because 
the vellum did not afford the requisite space under Bradford Hun- 
dred. Moreover we shall see that John de Laken did not succeed 
to Laken till about 30 years after the general date of these Feo- 
dories. 

I here leave the subject of Corbet's mesne-tenure, and revert to 
the earlier history of his Feoffees, the Ancestors of the once wealthy 
family of Lacon. 

Richard de Lake (I.) occurs in the year 1200, when an amerce- 
ment of half a merk had been set upon him for some act of dis- 
seizin.^ I cannot imagine why Bartholomew Toret, Lord of More- 
ton-Toret, should concern himself about Lacon Mill, unless it was 
as Mesne-Lord of Soul ton and Lacon. Be this as it may, the 
Deed, from which the following extract was taken, seems to have 
passed early in the 13th century. — 

" Sciani tarn presentes, §•(?., quod ego BerthoUmueus fiHus Petri de 
Mortun dedi, ^c, Ricardo de Laca stagnvm molendini de Laca, 
undeplacitumjuit inter me et ipsum Bicardum in Curia Domini Re- 
gis. TesiUms, — Hugone Paniulf, Willielmo Pantulf filio epis, Ivone 
Pantulf Jratre efus, Alano fratre ejus, Hugone fratre ejus, Roberto 
de Say, Hugone filio* yus, Radu/fo Me Sonford, Reginaldode Le, 



Soclesia SH Michaelis in Cattro Salop\ 
qnererUij et Boherto Corbit de Morton^ de 
audienda electtone quatuor miUtum depla- 
cito eoiuueludinum etservitiiy a die PcuchcB 
in qydnque 8eptimaHat,pro defeetu quatuor 



milUumy quia nullus venit. Vicecomes 
haheat corpora omnium, 

' Hot. Pipe, 2 John, Salop. 

^ I should have expected to ^nd/rcUre 
here. (Vide eupra, page 260.) 



IX. 45 



354 LACON. 

Roberto de Hesene, Roberto de Wbtenkul, Hugone de Stuhe^ Roberto 
de Longeford et muUi$ atiis"^ 

On October 29^ 1227, Richard de Lak having been impleaded 
under Writ of mort d^ancestre for 7 acres in Lak, acknowledged 
the same to be the right of Alice, wife of Griffin fits Trearin. 
Alice, her hnsband, and her heirs, were henceforth to hold the same 
nnder Richard de Lak at I2d. rent. 

The above Richard de Lake seems to have married Gilian, a 
sister of the first Ralph de Sandford, and to have had with her in 
frank marriage two virgates in Sandford.' That the Laoons adopted 
•he Sandford Anns with reference to this match I have already 
suggested. We have had Richard de Lake acting as Surety for 
Ralph de Sanford in 1203.' We have also seen Richard de Lacke 
attesting a grant in Styche to his presumed Brother-in-law ; and 
we have seen the same Brother-in-law (Ralph de Sandford) enfeoff- 
ing William, son of Richard de la Lake, about the year 1230.^ I 
take this William to have been Nephew of his Feoffor, and younger 
son of Richard de Lake (I.). 

Richard de Lake (II.) ^ in a Deed which proves him to have 
been son of Richard and Oilian, enfeoffed Richard, son of Robert 
de Sanford, in the before-named two virgates in Sandford. This 
was about 1245, and Sir Richard de Sandford (the Feoffor's first 
cousin, I think) attested the Grant.^ 

This second Richard de Lake has further been shown to have 
been Mesne-Jjord of Whixall between 1242 and 1249.* 

William de Lake, who officiated as a Juror at the Inquest of 
Bradford Hundred in 1255, was, I think, son and heir of Richard 
de Lake (II.)* H^ might possibly have been his younger brother, 
above mentioned ; but if so, he must have lived 50 years after his 
feoffment by Ralph de Sandford. On this very Inquest of 1255, 
William de Lake is entered as Mesne- Lord of Whixall, but the 
Manor of Lacon is not mentioned. At the Assizes of 1256 William 
de Lake was one of the Elizors for Bradford Hundred. He was 
also found to have disseized his neighbour, Ivo de Suleton, of cer- 
tain common-pasture in Hawode, which common- right pertained to 
Suleton. 

William de Lake appears on a Hodnet Jury in 1257, and about 
the same time attests a Hopley Deed. 

In March 1276 William de Lake attended Ihe Inquest on the 



1 Newport Evidences, 
3 Supra, page 228. 



» Supra, Vol. IV. page 48. 
^ - * ' ' Supra» pages 225, 228. 



LACON. 



365 



death of John le Strange^ and in May 1276 William de Lakey at- 
tended that on the death of Henry de Audley.^ 

In 1284 we have had full assurance that William de Laken was 
Mesne Lord both of Whixall and Laken^ holding the former under 
Audley^ the latter under Corbet of Moreton. Here then was the 
first step in the transition from the name Lake to that of Lacon. 
Laken was the intermediate form. 

Richard de Lakb (III.) comes into notice soon after this. In 
February 1290 he sat on a Longslow Inquest. At the Assises of 
1292 he was ninth Juror for Bradford Hundred. He was an occa- 
sional witness of undated Deeds from this time till January 1308, 
and November 1316, when we have him again on local Juries. 

Meantime we get a most satisfactory proof that the land at 
Aychley, in Sandford> which had been given about 1230, to William, 
son of Richard de Lake^^ had descended to Richard de Lake (III.), 
and been made over by him, while living, to his son John. About 
Michaelmas 1315 the latter, styling Yiims^i Johannes filius Ricardi 
Domini de Laken, sets all his land of Achesleye (including two 
messuages, and all appurtenances within and without the Fee of 
Sanford) to Robert fitz Wariu of Ercalue ; to hold to the Lessee 
for a term of 16 years commencing Michaelmas 9 Edw. II. A 
Fine of 20«. was paid down for this Lease, and a rent of 5s. and a 
Heriot were reserved to the Grantor. Witnesses, Richard de Sout- 
ford, John de Wilaston, William de Sontford, Alexander de Wy las- 
ton, Richard de Wottenhul, and John de Hethe.^ 

John de Laken succeeded his Father in due course at Lacon. 
In May 1324 he was returned by the Sheriff of Shropshire as a 
Man-at-arms, and as summoned to attend the great Council im- 
pending at Westminster.'^ I find further mention of John de lor 
kene in 1336, and of John, Lord of Lakene, in 1347. 



* Cotemporary with William de Lake 
were William, son of Nicholas de Lake, 
who in 1255 was paying 6d. per annum 
for the AdTOWiy of James de Audley 
{Roi. Mwndred. IL 59);— and William 
son of Bobert de Lak, named as a Surety 
in a Shavington Suit of 1256. 

There was also a William de Lake, of 



whom we have had mention (VoL VI. p. 
16 ; Vol. VII. p. 143) as living from 1274 
to 1292 ; but his interests seem to have 
been in the llundreda of Oondover and 
Ford. 

' Supra, page 225. 

' Charter at Sandford. 

* PcwUammUary Writs, IV. p. 1064. 



356 



iHUfttpn, alias f^OSitOtt, 



I HAVE already stated that Roger Venator's Manor of Mostune^ 
though placed by Domesday in Patinton Hundred, was doubtless in 
the Hundred of Odenet.^ It seems to me that between Wem and 
Shawbury the River Roden formed a continuous boundary between 
the Hundreds of Bascherch and Odenet. A glance at the Map 
will explain this^ but nothing will explain the double, if not treble 
error, which will hereafter appear to be involved in the Domesday 
account of this district. Of Mostyn the Record speaks thus. — 

" The same Roger (Venator) holds Mostune (of the Earl). Dodo 
and U]gar held it (in Saxon times) for two Manors, and were free 
men. Here are ii hides, geldable. There is (arable) land for iiii 
ox-teams. Here one Radman has one team, with ii Villains. In 
King Edward's time the Manor was worth 40s. (per annum) ; now 
it is worth 15«. He (Roger Venator) found it waste.'*^ 

The Saxon Dodo was perhaps the same with him who held 
Ellardine and Shavington in Odenet Himdred, but more certainly 
was he identical with that Dodo who was a Coparcener in Bessford, 
a manor of Bascherch Hundred, but only separated from Mostyn 
by the River Roden. As to Ulgar, his name will reappear under 
Bearstone and Qravenhanger ; — both in Odenet Hundred. 

Any Seigneury which was Roger Venator's at Domesday must, 
according to the usual rule, be afterwards looked for, as pertaining 
to the Barony of Pulverbatch. The rule holds good in, and derives 
a strong corroboration from, the case of Mostyn. One of these 
Barons enfeoffed a Fitz Warin both in Mostyn and Welbatch ; a 
Fitz Warin subenfeoffed some head of the kindred House of Hod- 
net. Hence Baldwin de Hodnet was enabled to granj; a moiety of 
his Vivary at Moston to Henry de Audley :^ hence also (as we have 
already seen ^) on Baldwin de Hodnet's death in 1224, custody of 
Welbatch and Mostyn, rightly pertained to the Fulk fitz Warin of 
that period. After this, the Mesne right of Fitz Warin, though it 
continued apparent in the case of Welbatch, vanished for a time in 
the case of Mostyn, which would thus seem to have been held im- 

» Supra, Vol. HI. pp. 222, 223. I » Sot Cart.ll Hen.nL,paw.l,]Sro. 61- 

2 Domesday, fo. 269, s. 2. I < Supns VoL VI. pp. 120, 196-7- 



MOSTYN. 



357 



mediately by Odo de Hodenet (II.) under the Lords of Pulverbatch. 
The unreality of such appearances will be proved in the sequel. It 
was doubtless this tenure in Mostyn which caused Odo de Hodnet 
to be enrolled (about 1240) as Tenant of some part of a knighf s- 
fee in Pulverbatch ;^ by which is meant^ that he held something in 
the Hmour of Pulverbatch. The Bradford Hundred-Roll of 1255 
reduces this theory to demonstration. It says that " Odo de Hode- 
net holds Moston for two hides (the Domesday measurement), and 
pays Sd. for motfee, and holds of the Fee of Pulrebatch, doing ser- 
vice in proportion to a fourth part of a knight's-fee; and he does 
suit to the Hundred twice yearly at the Sheriffs s-Toum"^ 

The Inquest on Odo de Hodnet's death in 1284, values Moston 
at 40«. per annum. A carucate of land and a Mill were the chief 
items productive of that income. The deceased had held it for 
one-tenth of a fee under Philip Marmion (then Lord of Pulver- 
batch).' The Feodaries of 1284-5 foUow this statement, except 
that William de Hodnet is Tenant of Moston, and the villis rather 
inaccurately said to be a member of Marmion' 8 Barony of Kilpek. 

Among the numerous acquisitions of Robert Corbet of Morton, 
was a messuage and virgate in Moston, purchased apparently from 
Stephen, son of William le Marescal. The Tenement was charged 
with a rent of 2s, Sd. to William de Hodnet. On Corbet^s death, 
in 1300, it was found by Inquest that he and his wife had been 
jointly enfeoffed therein.^ 

The Fine by which William de Hodnet settled Welbatch and 
Moston on his daughter Matilda and her husband, William de 
Ludlow, has been given under Westbury.^ This was in 1301. In 
1316 the Inquest on William de Ludlow^s death states how he and 
his wife had held conjointly the said vills.* Here again the mesne* 
tenure of Fitz Warin appears as still existent. — The deceased had 
held by the service of one-tenth of a fee not immediately of the 
Barony of Pulverbatch, but of Fulk fitz Warin. Moston at this 
time pro(f need 119s. 6d. rent to the Ludlows, exclusive of its Water- 
mill. 



1 Supra, VoL VI. pp. 120, 196-7. 
« Jiot. Hundred. Vol. 11. p. 58. 
* InquisUhnt, 12 Edw. I., No. 24. 



« InquitUions, 29 Edw. I., No. 45. 

» Supra, Vol. VII. p. 58. 

• InquMunu, 10 Edw. II., No. 69. 



358 



f^tOyttote. 



Dofne$day, after noticing Roger Venator's Manor of Mostane, 
punes to Lndeoote^ bnt between the two is a marginal mark corre- 
sponding to an entry lower down the page, which entry shows that 
the list of R<^er Veoator's Manors was incomplete, as the Scribe 
first wrote it, and that Hanstone (Haoghton) in Reoordin Hundred 
belonged thereto. We have seen that this coeval emendation was 
really correct, and that a part of Haughton belonged to the Fee of 
Pulverbaieh for ages.' The next question is as to the Hundred in 
which the Scribe meant to include Ludecote. I suppose that it 
should rather follow the Hundred in which Mastune was, than that 
in which Haustone was. Now, the situation of Mostune was in 
Odenet Hundred, though the Record omits to state that fact. We 
must take such omission to extend also to Ludecote, and look for 
Ludecote in Odenet Hundred.^ We shall find this search a difficult 
one, and must therefore make the most of every hint which Domes- 
day gives. — The Record says that — " Radulfus Cocus and Thochi 
hold Ludecote of Earl Roger. Dunning and Sauuiuus held it (in 
Saxon times) and were free. Here are n hides, geldable. The 
arable land is enough for iii ox-teams. In demesne are 1^ teams, 
II Neat-herds, v Serfs, and i Boor. In King Edward's time the 
Manor wiCs worth Ss, {per annum) ; now it is worth I6s. It was 
partly waste (t. e. when the present holders obtained it)/'^ 

We may observe that Tochi was the name of the Lord of Wood- 
cote and Eye in 1086, and that Dunning had been Lord of Spoon- 
ley in the Confessor's reign ; — but such hints serve nothing, that I 
can see, towards establishing the identity of Ludecote. The name, 
Ludecote, and the hidage are all that Domesday else afibrds for our 
guidance. We must look for any place anciently called Lade as 
near a passable part of some Stream or River.^ Places, anciently 
called Cote, are found afterwards to be usually called either Cotes, 
Coten, Coton or Cotton, which is but a change from singular to 
plural, and quite intelligible, when we consider that it probably cor- 
responded with the multiplication of dwellings in any particular 

> Supra, Vol. VIII. pp. 285-6. | * Domeiday, fo. 259, a, 2.. 

2 Vide supra. Vol. III. pp. 222, 223. I * Supra, Vol. V. p. 288. 



LUDECOTE. 359 

spot. Now there is a place called Cotton^ standing on the river 
TerUy and near the spot where the road which passed between Hod- 
net and Stoke (upon Tern) must have crossed that River. This 
place, I think, represents the Ludecote of Domesday, and I will first 
prove that Ludecote was, within 50 years of Domesday, called simply 
Cote.— 

King Henry I/s Confirmation to Shrewsbury Abbey passed in 
1121. It speaks of one hide in the Yill called Cota, which had been 
given to the Abbey by Tochil, Stephen^s Confirmation also in* 
eludes the grant, and calls the Grantor Tochi. Henry II.'s Con- 
firmation, as well as Henry III.^s, confi>rms ThocM's grant as one of 
two hides in Cota. 

Now I suppose that the earliest confirmations are most likely to* 
represent exactly, what portion of Ludecote or Cote the Abbey ac- 
quired under Tochi's grant. We may therefore estimate the acqui- 
sition as half the Manor. That Shrewsbury Abbey does not after- 
wards appear seized of half Cotton, is an argument against the 
identity I am endeavouring to establish^ for I shall show that Cotton 
remained, in part at least, a Manor, after the period of Tochi^s grant, 
and in other hands than those of the Monks of Shrewsbury. But 
my belief is, that what Tochi granted to the Abbey was annexed to 
the Abbey's neighbouring estate of Woolerton, and that the origi- 
nal Manorial distinctions were so far destroyed. A continuous 
territory thus extending from Woolerton to Cotton will have flanked 
the Manor of Hodnet on its Eastern side; and to this I attribute 
the disputes and agreements which were made between the Lords 
of Hodnet and the Monastic Owners of Woolerton.^ 

After thus assuming Ludecote to be identical with Cotton, and 
part of it to have been thus disposed of to Shrewsbury Abbey, and 
absorbed in Woolerton, we have next to trace, if we can, any evi- 
dences of the residuary Manor. — As a mere hypothesis I will assume 
that that part of Ludecote which Badulfus Cocus held at Domesday 
became an escheat, and that it was annexed to the Fee of Pulver- 
batch. It may have been such a transfer that suggested the mistake, 
or false analogy, which I have already pointed out, when speaking of 
the neighbouring vill of Hopton. There De Lacy's escheated inter- 
est was, on one occasion, erroneously deemed to have passed to the 
same Pee of Pulverbatch.* 

It will appear probable that, as in Moston, so in Cotton, the 
Hodnets became Feoffees of the Barons of Pulverbatch. The grant 

* Supra, page 207. ^ Supra, pp. 271-2. 



360 LUDECOTE. 

of a meadow to Haoghmond Abbey (as already set forth ^)^ by Odo 
de Hodnet (I.) and his son Baldwin, describe the said meadow as 
near Le Cote or Chote. This does not indeed prove the Hodnets to 
have been seized of Cote itself, or any part thereof; but it will assist 
my future ailment. 

The Bradford Hundred-Roll of 1255 describes Ck)tin as a " Vill 
consisting of half a hide. One moiety thereof was held by John de 
Cotin, the other by Walter Bras. Both held of the Fee of Pulver- 
batch. They paid 2d, for stretward and 2d, for motfee, and did 
suit every three weeks to the Hundred. Robert Dios of Cotin-sub- 
Tune and his two sons^ paid a shilling each to Odo de Hodnet for 
his Advowry,''* Here the mesne interest of Odo de Hodnet (II.) 
is all but suppressed. It ftdly appears however, in the Feodaries 
of 1284-5, that the Hodnets were Mesne Lords of Coten or Coten ; 
for " Robert de Wynkeshull held the said vill under William de 
Hodnet, who held under Philip Marmyon, who held of the King, in 
capite, by service of one-twentieth of a knight's-fee.** After this, 
the residuary part of the Manor seems to me to have been as com- 
pletely absorbed in Hodnet as the primary part had been absorbed 
in Woolerton. 

I have only to notice in conclusion those of Hodnet's Tenants in 
this Vill, whose names I can trace. Elyas de Cotes was Juror in a 
Forest Inquest of 1220. John de Cotin and Walter Bras occur, as 
above, in 1255. About the year 1270, John de Cotes and Robert 
de Winckeshull attest a Hopton Deed.^ John de Koten super Tern 
sat on a local Jury in 1274 and again in February 1284. In the 
latter year Robert de Wynkeshull was De Hodnet^s sole Tenant 
here. This Transfer is well explained by a Fine which had been 
levied on April 19, 1276. Thereby John de Cotes (Impedient) ac- 
knowledged the right of Robert de Wykeshull and his wife, Petro- 
nilla (Plaintiffs), to a messuage and 3 bovates in Cotes, whereof 
had been Plea of Warranty, In return the Grantees conceded the 
premises to John de Cotes to hold for his life, at a penny rent, under 
themselves and the heirs of Petronilla. The premises were then to 
revert to Robert and Petronilla and to the heirs of Petronilla.^^ — 
I suppose that Petronilla was daughter and heir of John de Cotes, 
and that the latter, having thus settled his estate, died in 1284. 
Later notices of Robert de Whixall have been given under Whixall. 

^ Supra, p. 829. ' Mot. Hundred. II. p. 55, 59. * Supra» page 285. 



861 



%,tt JiXOtM^VLX^t 



I HAVE already stated my reasons for thinking that there is an 
omission in Domesday, where it seems to place that Manor of Lege, 
which Normannus held, in Condover Hundred. The place was un- 
doubtedly Lee Brockhurst, and so should have been placed in Odenet 
Hundred.^ 

A tract of woodland which lay hereabouts was called Brockhurst, 
and in afbertimes gave a distinctive name to two vills, viz. Lee and 
Preston. Nor was the distinction needless; for the Shropshire 
Domesday enumerates six different Manors with the name of Pres- 
ton, and five which are called Lega, Lege, or Lai. Domesday de- 
scribes Lee Brockhurst as follows. — " The same Normannus holds 
Lege (of Earl Roger) . Uluiet and Wictric and Elfac held it (in 
Saxon times) for three Manors, and were free. Here is one hide, 
geldable. The (arable) land is enough for ii ox- teams. Those (two) 
teams are in demesne, with mi Neat-herds and i Boor. Here is a 
Mill of &s. (annual value). In King Edward's time the Manor was 
worth 13*. {per annum) ; now it is worth £3. He (Normannus) 
foimd it waste.''* 

Normannus is recorded to have had other dealings with this 
Manor, besides the great improvement which he effected in its value. 
He gave to Shrewsbury Abbey the land of Boleley. Now Booley 
must have been an outlying member of Lee Brockhurst. It is also 
observable that this grant of Booley is described as made by Nor- 
mannus Venator ; a satisfactory proof that the Normannus of Domes^ 
day was as well entitled to the name Venator as his brother Boger, 
though the latter only is called Venator in Domesday, 

Of Manors noticed in these pages, Lee Brockhurst is now the 
fourth, in which the Domesday Seigneury of Normannus can be 
traced to have descended to the Pichfords. This analogy with Al- 
brighten, Bishton^ and Cantlop, extends still further, in the case of 
Cantlop : for, as the descendants of Ulger Venator were Pichford's 
Feoffees in half Gantlope, so did they claim to have a Seigneural in- 
terest in Lee Brockhurst. — 

However, the actual and rightful Tenants of Lee Brockhurst were 

^ Tide Bupra, Yol. YI. page 1. ' Dometday, fo. 259, a^ 1. 

IX. 46 



362 LES BBOCKHURST. 

the De Burghs, descended^ as I have elsewhere shown,^ fix)m Alice^ 
sister and eventual heir of Engelard de Stretton. This Alice had 
married Philip de Burgo, alias Philip filius Episcopi^ whose real 
origin is probably indicated in the latter name, Alice survived her 
husband^ Philip, and her son and heir, Bertram. The latter left a 
widow, Helisant, and an infant son, a second Bertram, whose ward- 
ship was obtained by his Mother. While things stood thus, the In- 
fant Bertram became a Suitor in the Curia Regis against his Grand- 
mother, Alice, and recovered from her plenary seizin of two carucates 
in Legh.^ The time of this recovery is uncertain, but probably it 
took place before the kingdom was disorganized by the Barons' 
league against King John. While the infant Bertram was yet in 
seizin by virtue of the aforesaid recovery, Ralph de Pichford ap- 
peared on the stage, and, probably as seigneural Lord of Legh, took 
possession of the estate. In October 1219, a precept (the latest of 
a Series) was expedited from Westminster, to the Sheriff of Shrop- 
shire, enjoining him " to restore the Infant to his estate, and to attach 
Ralph de Pichford, if Helisant, the Infant's Mother, continued to 
complain of the said Ralph's intrusion at Legh.^'^ An entry on the 
same Roll, shows that on, November 18, 1219, '^ Helisant's Attorney 
(Robert de Claushall) appeared on her behalf, and on behalf of Ber- 
tram fitz Bertram, her son and ward, against Ralph de Pichford, 
concerning land in LechamJ^^ The Sheriff was ordered to attach 
the said Ralph, to appear in Court in three weeks of Hilary (1220). 
— ^I hear no more of this Suit ; but entries on the Plea- Rolls of 
Michaelmas Term 1242, and of Easter Term 1243, show the widow, 
Elysaunty as remarried to Robert de Bromlegh, and as holding her 
dower in Legh under warranty of Bertram de Burgo ; — her son of 
course. The said dower consisted of 20«. rent, the Advowson of 
the Church of Legh, and a third of half a hide, except one virgate. 
Bertram de Burgo was, on his part, seized of two-thirds of half a 
hide in Legh. All these parties were impleaded for their respective 
tenements, by one William, son of Robert de Legh, who alleged 
himself to have been in seizin of the whole in King John's reign. 
This claim was probably that of an assumed Feofiee of the De 
Burghs or Pichfords. It was ordered to be tried by Grand Assize. 
The result, non-apparent on the Plea- Rolls, wiU be seen to have 

* Supra, Vol. YI. p. 270. | it, without due deference to the rights of 

3 Alice was heiress of Legh, but had I his heir, 

probably resigned the estate to her son, I ' PUicitay 3 Hen. III., m. 5 recto. 

Bertram, and then, on his death, reseized [ ^ Placitaf 4 Hen. III., m. 18 dorso. 



LEB BKOCKHURST. 363 

been in ikyoar of the Defendants at large ; for the Bradford Hun- 
dred-BoU of 1255, says that ''Bertram de Bnrgo holds the vill of 
Lega of the Fees of John de Kcheford. And it is half a hide and 
half a knight*s-fee : and it pays 2d. motfee and 2d, stretward per 
annum, and does suit twice yearly to the Great Hundred/^' 

At the Assized of 1256, John fitz Hugh of Bolas appeared as 
claiming that relative seigneury over Bertram de Buigo which was 
actually enjoyed by John de Pichford. In the first instance he em- 
ployed the form of mort iTancestre, viz. he impleaded the Tenant, 
Bertram, for 209. rent in Legh, alleging that some ancestor (pro- 
bably his Father, Hugh fitz Robert) had died in receipt of the said 
rent. This Suit he did not prosecute. His Surety therein was 
Richard fitz Syward of Wythiford.' 

His second Suit was in the form of a Placiiwn ServUH. He 
challenged Bertram de Burgo to answer him as to the said Ber- 
tram's obligation ''to do customs and service for the tenement 
which he held under the Challenger in Lega, as in homages, rents, 
and other things/' He alleged that, since Bertram so held one- 
fourth of a knight^ s-fee^ he ought to do homage to the Plaintiff, and 
pay him an annual rent of 209. ; which services and rent this iden- 
tical Bertram had done to the Plaintiffs Father, Hugh ; but since 
Hugh's death had withheld the same, thereby damaging the Plain- 
tiff to the extent of £10. To all this Bertram replied that he held 
no tenement under John fitz Hugh, but that he held under John de 
Pichford, who was in seizin of his homage and service. The Court 
hereupon dismissed Bertram me die, but gave the Plaintiff leave to 
proceed by a Writ-de-recto against Bertram, if he should so de- 
sire.* 

In 1256, though Bertram de Burgo was Tenant of 15 librates of 
lands, the Sheriff of Staffordshire reported him among those who 
had not taken knighthood. He had a good estate at Wilbrighton 
in that County, held under Le Strange of Ness and Cheswardine. 

At the Forest Assizes of February 1262, it was presented that 
Bertram de Burgo and his brother, Thomas, were habitual tres- 
passers {malefaciores cusiumarii) on the King's Forest. They ap- 
peared not at first, but Bertram, coming forward at last, was com- 

1 Jiot Hundred. II. 57. 

* - > JuiteSy 40 Hen. III., mm. 10 reeto, 
3 dorto. It Beems to me that the primary 
queBtion inYolyed in this puit was that of 
«* Tenant or no Tenant"? The Placiium 



on that point. It assumed the Tenancy, 
and dealt only with the nature and 
amount of serrioe due thereon. 

On the other hand, the Writ de recto 
left the discretion of the Court unfettered 



ServitU was not calculated to get an issue | with any such teohnioal baniers. 



864 LEB BROCKflUEST. • 

mitted to prison. He procured his liberty and that of his brother 
and men^ by a Fine of y merks^ his Sureties being Michael de Mor- 
ton and Ingelard de Acton. I learn from a Writ of September 2, 
1267, that John iStz Hugh had renewed his suit of mort d'ancestre 
against Bertram de Burgo for 20«. rent in Lega. There were several 
hearings of this case, but it would appear that Bertram, having 
called John de Pichford to warranty, was worsted, and appealed. 
In Easter Term 1270, his complaint was in consideration Coram 
Rege, viz. that the Assize of mort d'ancestre had been faulty in pro- 
cess. The said process was now to be reviewed, and John fitz 
Hugh and John de Pichford were summoned to attend in Michael- 
mas Term. After several adjournments, the case was reviewed, 
coram Rege, in Hilary Term 1272. It appeared from the state- 
ment of Martin de Littlebury (the Judge who had determined the 
suit of mort d^ancestre), that on the occasion in question, " John dc 
Pichford, being called to warranty by De Burgh, had appeared in 
Court and desired to. know why he was bound to give such warranty ;" 
— that thereupon " De Burgh had produced a Charter of Ralph de 
Pichford, John's Father, which Charter gave to De Burgh the vill 
of Legh-subtus-Brockhirst {salvo forinseco servido) and all the 
right which the Grantor had by gift of Bichard de Legh, except 
half a virgate, which the Prior of Wombridge held : — to hold to De 
Burgh and his heirs, under Ralph and his heirs ; — ^by render of the 
ancient service. After this,'' continues Littlebury's statement, 
" Bertram departed in contempt of the Court, and did not prose- 
cute his plea (of warranty) against John (de Pichford). So, at an 
adjourned hearing of the suit of mort d^ancestre against John fitz 
Hugh, the Jury had found for the latter, viz. that Hugh, his Father, 
had died seized of the 20*. rent now claimed by the Son." " Thus," 
concludes Littlebury's statement, " did John fitz Hugh recover 20*. 
rent, and damages." 

On hearing the above process, the Court of Appeal (i. e. the 
Coram^Rege Court of Hilary Term 1272) adverted first to the fact 
that though Bertram had moved for this review of a former process, 
he was not now present. So the Court ordered that the former 
decision should stand, and that the Sherifi* should levy £9 damages 
on Bertram's lands. 

In June 1276, Sir Bertram de Burgo appears at length as a 
Knight, and as Foreman of a Jury which sat at H ales-Owen. 

I cannot tell how many Bertrams there were in this succession, 
nor can I say why, after John fitz Hugh's success in 1272, the 



BOOLEY. 



865 



mesne rights established by the Lords of Solas at Lee Brockhurst, ' 
does not reappear. — 

The Feodary of 1284^ says that '^ Bartholomew de Burgh holds 
the yill of Leye subtus Brochnrst^ of John de Pychford^ and the 
said John of the King^ &c/' 

So too the Inquest taken May 24^ 1285, as to the estates of John 
de Pychford, deceased, says that '^ Bertram de Burgo held Leye 
subtus Brochurst under him, for half a knight's-fee/^ 

Why the Tenure- Roll of 1285 should make Nicholas Pech^ord 
to be Bertram de BurgVs Seigneur at Lye svi Brockehurst^ I can- 
not say. Perhaps the Commissioners who drew up the Record, were 
ignorant of the real name of John de Pichford's heir.^ 

Whether it was Pichford's Seigneury or De Burgh's tenancy at 
Lee Brockhurst which passed to the Audleys I cannot say. The 
Inquest taken in 1299, on Nicholas de Audley's death, seems to 
have reckoned the Manor of Lega subtus Brockhurst as one of his 
estates, but the Document is wholly defaced. The Nomina ViUarum 
of 1316, has Nicholas de Audley (II.) as Lord of Leye subtus 
Brochurst.* 

Leb Brockhurst Chapel. The early history of this Chapel is 
involved with that of the Church of Stanton Hyneheath ; — under 
which some allusions have been made to this Dependency. The 
Appropriation of Stanton Church in 1331, left the Vicar of Stanton 
Incumbent also of Lee Brockhurst, but James de Audley, *' Lord 
of Lye subtus Brochurste,^' disputed the right of Advowson with 
Haughmond Abbey, as far as the Chapel was concerned. At length 
on February 7, 1836, the Baron renounced his claim to the said 
Patronage and to half a virgate of land, and was thenceforth, with 
Joan his wife, made a participator in all those spiritual benefits 
which the Abbey promised its Benefactors. The agreement was dated 
at Red Castle, and attested by Sir William le Botiler, knight; Sir 
John, son of James de Audley ; Sir William de Ercalewe; Thomas 
de Hextane, knight ; John de Lakene ; and Philip de Peninton.^ 



BOOLEY. 



I have already said that Norman Venator, gave this member of 
Lee Brockhurst to Shrewsbury Abbey. Nothing better shows the 
falsity of Earl Hugh's spurious Charter to the Abbey, than where it 



^ In 1316 thsre was a Nicholas de Pich- 
ford of Oantlop (supn^ Vol. VI. p. 290) ; 
bat he can hardly be taken as the Bepre- 



sentatiye of his House. 
2 Parliamentary Wriis, IV. 397. 
^ Haughmond Chartulary, fo. 136. 



366 NORTON IN HALES. 

affects to comrey tbe tithes of Boleka, as if they were tithes of the 
EarPs demesne. His less suspicious Charter says nothing about 
Booley or its tithes; nor did that lost Charter of Earl Hugh, 
which is partly preserved in Bishop Clinton's Inspeximus, make 
any such allusion. 

It is possible however that Norman Venator, before he gave the 
viU of Booley to the Abbey, gave part of the tithes thereof; for 
Bishop Peche confirms two-thirds of the demesne tithes of Bok, as 
arising from the demesne, not of the Abbey itself, but of some 
Benefactor (de dominicis aliorum)} 

Henry I.'s Charter to Shrewsbury Abbey passed in 1121. It 
says nothing about the tithes of Boleleia, but speaks of a small estate 
{iemdam) so called, as having been given by Norman Venator. 
King Stephen's Charter repeats the same words, except that instead 
of terrulam, it says vUMam. Henry II.'s and Henry III.'s Charters 
confirm, de dono Normanni Venatoris, Bolelegam. 

The acquisition of Booley itself by no means obliterated the ac- 
quisition of its tithes. Between the years 1236 and 1255, the 
Abbot of Shrewsbury settled the tithes of Booley on Hugh, Parson 
of Stanton, for his life. Witnesses, Sir Stephen de Stantoii then 
Patron {advocato) €$ Stanton Church, Masters Alan Cox and Regi- 
nald Pinzun ; and Henry, Vicar of the Altar of St. Cross in Salop 
Abbey.* 

The estate of Booley came to be held under the Abbey by the 
Corbets of Moreton. Hence the Tenure-Roll of 1285, says that 
" Robert Corbet holds the vill of Boley under the Abbot of Salop, 
and he of the King in capite, and as within the Liberties of Eyton/* 
This last allusion is to the Abbotts distant Manor of Eyton-upon* 
Severn, which was occasionally considered as the Caput of his 
Manors throughout alai^e district. The Inquest on Robert Corbet's 
death in 1300, states his tenure of Boleye under the Abbot of Salop 
to have been by service of 5«. rent. 



Norton in Hale^s 



This was Helgot^s only Manor in Odenet Hundred. — 
'^ Helgot holds Nortune of Earl Roger. Azor held it (in 

1 • ' Salop Chartularj, Nob. 829, 855. 



NORTON IN HALES. 



867 



It 



or. 



etc- 

,tlic 



aystW 
EytoD." 
ttf of* 
.tofSa!^ 



times) and was a free man. Here are iii hides, geldable. There 
is (arable) land (enough) for vi ox-teams. Here is one Badman 
with one team, and iiii Villains with two teams. The Wood will 
fisU^ten 200 swine. In King Edward's time, the Manor was worth 
SOs. {per annum). Now it is worth 208.'^^ 

I have related how this Manor was given to Shrewsbury Abbey 
by Herbert fitz Helgot, in the time of Henry I., and confirmed by 
his sons under the name of Norton juxta Lime? The Manors of 
Norton in Hales and Betton in Hales thenceforth formed one con- 
tinuous estate of Shrewsbury Abbey; so that several particulars 
which relate to Norton and its Tenants have already transpired 
under Betton. Other particulars are as follows. — 

Stephen de Acleth, whom we have seen attesting a Betton Deed 
before 1190,' was identical with Stephen de Ocle, who, in 1203, was 
on a commission to ascertain the validity of an essoign. He took 
his name from Oakley in the Staffordshire Parish of Muckleston, 
but was a Tenant of Shrewsbury Abbey at Norton-in-Hales. 

A Plea-Boll of Michaelmas Term 1225 alludes to a Suit which 
AmiUa, widow of one Thegtia, or. Fegua, and now wife of Gregory 
Pistor, was urging against Stephen de Achel (Oakley) for a third of 
half a virgate in Norton subtus Lime, — her dower in respect of her 
first marriage. Her Essoignor and Attorney was her son, in one place 
called Reginald fitz Thegus, in another Thegus fitz Thegus. In 
Hilary Term 1226 the Suit was renewed. Stephen de Ocle did not 
appear, but Richard de Lache, as actual Tenant of the land, did. 
His land which had been seized in manu Regis was restored to 
him, and Gregory Pistor and his wife were ordered to amend their 
Writ.* 

At Assizes, held coram Rege, at Salop, in August 1226, we have 
Fegh fitz Fegh appearing in a suit of mort dPancestre against 
Stephen de Hocle for a whole carucate in Norton. Stephen ap- 
peared not.^ 

We have seen Stephen de Ocle attesting a Tunstall Deed as late 
as 1232 '^ soon after which he was succeeded by his son, a second or 
third Stephen. Adam de Norton, also a witness of Tunstall Deeds 



it (in 



^ 



1 Domesday, fo. 268, b, 1. 

« • » Supra, VoL^IV. pp., 53, 54 ; Vol. 
XX. p. 199. 

4 A membrane of a Flea-Boll of about 
tbifi date (improperly attached to a Boll 
of 5 John) giree Gr^ory Futor as suing 



Stephen de Ocle and hi9 wife for dower : 
and Smma wife of Stephen as making 
Beginald fttz Fegus her Attorney. The 
mistake is obvioua. 

^ Aesizesy 10 Hen. III., m. 4 dorw. 

^ Supra, page 202. 



368 



NORTON IN HALES. 



till about 1242^ was also soon succeeded by a son William^ who sat 
as a Juror for Bradford Hundred at the Assizes of 1256. At these 
Assizes we iind the representatives of the two families at issue. 
Stephen de Ocle had a Writ de ingressu against William de Norton 
and Milisant, his Sister^ for a virgate in Norton. The Defendants^ 
it seems^ were not joint Tenants^ so Stephen had leave to amend 
his Writ.i 

At the same Assizes^ Stephen de Ocle, as Tenant of half a virgate 
in Norton, was impleaded for the same by Geoffrey Ovyet, a minor, 
as heir of William Ovyet, a Crusader. The question was similar 
to that in a suit of mort d'ancestre, viz. ''whether William Ovyet 
was seized, on the day when he left for Jerusalem.^' The Jury found 
a verdict, proper only to a suit of mort d^ancestrCy viz. that William 
Ovyet had not died, seized of the premises. So GeoflBrey took no- 
thing} In May 1259 Geoflrey, here called son of Walter Ovyet, 
has another Writ of mort d'ancesire against Stephen de Oclee for 
land at Norton in Hales. 

A Hodnet Inquest of 1257 was attended by " William, Lord of 
Norton," and by " William fitz Richard of Norton." The latter 
we have seen attesting Tunstall Deeds of the period. 

In November 1269 Isabella, widow of Richard de Blakenhalle, 
has a Writ of disseizin, concerning a tenement in Norton, against 
Stephen de Acle and others. Robert Fulton (the Justiciar ap- 
pointed to try the cause) not having leisure to do so, a second Writ 
issued in December to Ralph de Hengham. The Assize-Roll of 
1272 exhibits William de Northton as a Juror for Bradford Hun- 
dred, and introduces a third or fourth Stephen de Oakley. — Ranulf 
fitz Fegh abandoned a Writ de ingressu, for two bovates at Norton'- 
in-Hales, against Stephen, son of Stephen de Ocle, and his wife 
Melisant. William de Norton, or his son of the same name, oc- 
curs as a Juror or a Witness in of 1276, 1293, and 1294. 

In Easter Term 1283 a Fine was levied, whereby Thomas de 
Coleshesele* and Milicent his wife (Deforciants) quitclaim, for 
themselves and the heirs of Milicent, a messuage and half-virgate 
at Norton in le Hales, to Stephen, son of Stephen de Ocle (Plain- 
tiff), who pays 7 merks for the surrender. 

In 1289 we have had mention of Richard, son of Stephen de 
Okeleye.* Stephen de Odey, who occurs on Jury-lists of 1290, 



^ Asntes, 40 Hen. III., m. 14. 

' Ibidem, m. 6. 

' Perhaps identical with Thomas, son 



of John de Cnlce, who has occurred in 
1266 (vide supra, VoL VIII. p. 26). 
* Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 26. 



THE CHURCH. 



369 



1292, and 1301, was probably his elder brotber. In 1294 we have 
seen tbat tbe latter was called Stephen, son of Stephen de Odeg.^ 

Norton continued a possession of Shrewsbury Abbey till the 
Dissolution, but in all Valuations, from that of 1291 downwards, 
its revenues must be taken to be included in those of Betton.' 



NORTON CHURCH. 

There is no appearance in Domesday of a Church existing here, 
and I should suppose that in Saxon times the district belonged to 
the Parish of Drayton. However Norton Church must have been 
founded at some such early period as will consist with the fact of 
its having been endowed with the tithes of the whole Manor. This 
power of arbitrary consecration of tithes hardly existed after the 
beginning of the twelfth century. Perhaps Herbert fitz Helgot 
was the Founder of Norton Church, for his Successors at Norton, 
the Monks of Shrewsbury, were not addicted to such works. 

A Charter of Bishop Clinton (1129-1148) confirms to Shrews- 
bury Abbey, the Church of Norton with a pension of 2s. ;* that is, 
the Monks had the Advowson, and were entitled to the said pension 
in token that every Rector was their Clerk or Nominee. 

Bishop Durdenf s Confirmation of Churches to the same Abbey, 
names the Church of Mortuna last.* Norton must unquestionably 
be understood. Bishop Peche^s, and Archbishop Peckham's, Con- 
firmations say nothing about any Church of Mortune, but specify 
that of Norton, with its pension of 2«.* The Taxation of 1291 
mentions the Church of Norton-in-Hales, as being in the Deanery 
of Newport, but does not assign its value. It refers merely to the 
pension of is, receivable therefrom by the Abbot of Shrewsbury.* 
In 1341 the Assessors of the Ninth merely rate the Parish of Nor- 
ton-in-le-Halys at 2 merks to the current tax.^ They evidently 
knew of no Taxation of the Church. The Valor of 1534-5 gives 
the preferment of Richard Wordeley, Rector of Norton in Hales 
as £6 per annum, less 6^. Sd. for Procurations, 2^. for Synodals, 
and 2s. for the, still exacted. Pension of the Abbot of Shrews- 
bury.® 

EARLY INCUMBENTS. 

The Abbot and Convent of Shrewsbury must uniformly be taken 
as Patrons of this Church. 



1 * ' Tide sapra, page 200. 

s • * Salop Chartulaiy, No8. 328, 61. 

< Ibidem, Nob. 329, 62. 

IX. 



< Pope Nick. Taxation, pp. 244, 245. 

' InqtM, Nonarum, p. 193. 

» Valor EceUHagtictu, III. 187, 189. 

47 



370 LITTLE DRAYTON. 

Richard, Parson of Norton in Hales^ had letters of protection 
in 1294. On May 28, 1823,— 

Robert, Rector of Norton in Hales, has license of non-residence, 
so long as he should be in the following of Master Philip de Tur- 
yiU, and prosecuting matters connected with the Church of Malpas. 

Sir Robert de Wyndesletb (perhaps the same person) occurs 
as Rector of Norton in 16 Edw. III. (1342-3). He died Aug. 14, 
1349 (probably of the Pestilence). 

Robert de Alstons, Clerk, admitted Sept. 14, 1349, has, on 
May 1, 1356, a license of non-residence, so long as he should be in 
attendance {in comitivd) on the Lord Abbot of Salop. He resigned 
in 1358. 

Sir William de Lonoelete was admitted Nov. 1, 1358. 

Sir William Blakewet died in 1401. 

Sir William Walleford, admitted April 5, 1401, resigned in 
1404. 



iltttle Braxton. 



This was one of two Manors, in Odenet Hundred, which Domes^ 
day assigns to the Fee of Turold. — 

" The same Turold holds Draitune (of the Earl) . The Countess 
Oodeva held it (in Saxon times). Here is one hide, geldable. 
There is (arable) land enough for v ox-teams. In demesne is one 
team, with ii Neatherds and one Villain. In King Edward's time, 
the Manor was worth Ss. {per annum). Now it is worth 68. Sd, 
He (Turold) found it waste.'^i 

I have remarked on the circumstance that Domesday calls the 
Greater Drayton a Berewick, In extent, value, and population, it 
surpassed the adjacent Manor now under notice, and it contained 
the Church of the district. Perhaps a traditional importance still 
hung about the smaller Manor, as having once been held in demesne 
by the Mercian Earls, and as having formed part of the dower of 
Earl Leofric^s iUustrious Countess. 

Under Willey I have told all that is known of Turold de Verley, 
and particularly the date and circumstance of his grant of Drayton 
Minor to Shrewsbury Abbey.* The Monks thenceforward treated 

1 Domeadayt fo. 258, a, 1- . ' Sapra^ Vol. II. p. 47. 



LITTLE DRAYTON. 371 

the estate as a member of their Manor of Betton in Hales, which 
was within the same Parish. From a Pine of October 29, 1227, it 
appears that Henry, Abbot of Salop, had given half a virgate in 
Drayton to Richard fitz Ralph, but being unable to warrant it, was 
obliged to restore it to Walter fitz Ralph, another claimant, who 
was henceforth to hold it of the Abbot at a rent of 2s. The Abbot 
further bought off Richard fitz Ralph's claim to this, or an equiva* 
lent, warranty by payment of 3 merks. It appears from a Deed in 
the Salop Chartulary, undated* and unattested, that Richard fitz 
Ralph held also a virgate in Minor Drayton, by grant of his father 
Ralph, and that this tenement descended to Richard, son of Richard, 
and grandson of Ralph. The younger Richard, so describing his 
title, acknowledges that he and his heirs are to pay 6d. rent to the 
Abbey, annually at Martinmas, for this tenement.^ 

I cannot be sure whether the following Fine relates to Little 
Drayton or to Market Drayton. In Trinity Term 1243, William 
de Drayton, Tenant of one carucate in Drayton, surrenders the 
same to Robert de Drayton (Plaintiff) . The latter then settles it 
on William and the heirs of his body, to hold of the Lords of the 
fee. In default of such heirs there is a remainder to Robert. 

Possibly this was the Robert de Drayton whom we find as a 
fellow-surety with Odo de Willaston in 1236, and who occurs on a 
Hodnet Inquest in 1257. 

An Inquest held on June 13, 1259, found that William de Up- 
pinton, deceased, had held two virgates of land in the vill of Dray- 
ton subtus Lyme, by a rent of 8*. payable to the Abbot of Salop. 
The tenement was worth 16*. 8rf. per anmim^ and, I may add, 
must have been a half of the Abbot's estate in Little Drayton. I 
cannot trace this tenancy to the Burys of Uppington, the said 
William^s descendants. 

The Tenure-Roll of 1285 divides the vill of Parva Drayton. — 
Half was held by the Abbot of Salop, and accounted a member of 
Betton. The other half was accounted a member of the Barony 
of Wem and was held by William de Drayton under the then 
Baroness of Wem. This last statement was a little more and a 
little less than the truth. — No part of Little Drayton was a member 
of the Barony of Wem : but it so happened that the Barons of 
Wem were the Abbot of Shrewsbury's Tenants of half the Manor, 
and William de Drayton was their Undertenant. This is fully 
explained by a later Inquest, where a Baron of Wem was found 

* Salop Chartulary, No. 96. ^ InqyiitUiwnM^ 43 Hen. III., No. 81. 



372 BEARSTONK. 

to have held 8f . rent in Parra Dnytcm of the Abbot of Shfews- 
biiiy/'» 

In October 1292 William de Parra Drayton (the above Under- 
tenant^ donbtlen) was a Jmor in aerefal Pleaa of Quo Waramto. 

In all valnationa of the estates of Shrewsbory Abbey, its receipts 
firom Little Drayton mnst be taken as indnded under those firom 
Betton.' 



Bearstonf. 



" The same Tnrold holds Baidestnne (of the Earl) . Ulgar hdd 
it (in Saxon times) and was a free man. Here is one hide, geldaUe. 
There is (arable) land (enough) for y ox-teams. In demesne is one 
team ; and (there are) ii Neat-herds and iii Boors with one team. 
Here is a Mill of 3#. (annual value) ; and a wood whidi will fiitten 
60 Swine. In King Edward's time the Mancff was worth 20ff. (per 
annum) : now it is worth l(k. He (Turold) found it waste.''^ 

Of the fourteen Manors which Turold held at Domesday, two 
went to Shrewsbury Abbey by grants of himself and his son, and 
I have said that eleven of the remaining twelve can be traced to 
the Chetwynds.^ It is very remarkable that for two centuries after 
Domesday we should meet but twice with any mention of Bardes* 
ton, and that these notices should be in accordance with the Rule 
thus laid down. — 

On John de Chetwynd's death in 1281, the Inquest values his 
estate at Bearston. Six and a half virgates and half a noke of 
land, held in demesne, produced £5. 7s. lOid, yearly. Four Cot- 
tars paid rents of 49. 9^., and Bearston Mill produced £6. 16s. Sd. 

The Feodary of 1284, known as Kirby*s Quest, makes Bardeston 
not only a member of Chetwynd's Fief, but actually a member of 
Chetwynd itself.^ Probably this was because the Chetwynds held 
it so exclusively in demesne. 

Pakochlally, Bearstone is in the Staffordshire Parish of Mnckle- 
stone. The same may be said of three adjacent estates, viz. 
Gravenhunger, Dorrington, and Woore, which to this day retain 
their Manorial position in Shropshire, as Domesday had assigned it. 

'•" Supra, pp. 177, 200. I < Supra, ToL II. p. 48. 

3 Domesday, fo. 25S, a, 1. I * Supra, Vol. Till. p. 88, note. 



373 



idrabentunser* 



With this place we may introduce a series of four Manors^in 
Odenet Hundred, held by William Malbedeng under the, Norman 
Earl of Shrewsbury. — 

" Willelm Malbedeng holds Gravehungre of Earl Roger. iElluric 
and Ulgar held it (in Saxon times) for two Manors, and were free. 
Here is one hide, geldable. The (arable) land is (enough) for iiii 
ox-teams. Here ii Radmans have one Team. Here is a Haye. 
In King Edward's time the Manor was worth ISs. {per annum) . 
Now it is worth 12*. He (William) fouud it waste."^ 

The great Fief which William Malbedeng held under Hugh 
Lupus, Earl of Chester, occupies three Columns of the Cheshire 
Domesday.^ Thereby he and his successors constituted one of the 
greatest Baronial Houses of the Palatinate. His Cheshire Manor 
of Wich Malbank long memorialized his name,^ and it is one of 
the very few instances in which a Domesday Norman can be said 
to have stamped such an impress on an English locality. 

I am far from proposing to give any extended account of a 
Barony, whose history is so little associated with that of Shropshire. 
Suffice it to say, that William Malbanc, the Domesday Baron, was 
succeeded by his son, Hugh, who, in or about the year 1134, 
founded the Abbey of Combermere, one of the oldest Cistercian 
Houses in the Kingdom. Hugh Malbanc was succeeded in turn 
by his son — 

William Malbanc (II.), who greatly increased his father's 
foundation of Combermere. But I notice more particularly here a 
grant of his to Lilleshall Abbey. It was of ten measures of salt 
(the produce doubtless of his salt- pits at Wich Malbanc, now 
Nantwich), to be paid to the Canons yearly before Pentecost for 
the souls' health of his father, mother, himself, his ancestors, his 
wife, and his heirs.^ This William was deceased in 1186. In 
1190 his widow, by the name of Alda Malbanc, fined 50 merks 
pro se maritandd^ and for her dower in Standon^ and for six li- 

' Dometday^ fo. 257, b, 1. I ' It is now called Nantwich. 

3 Dometday, fo. 265, a, and b ; fo. 266 a. I * Lilleshall Chartulaiy, fo. 61. 



374 



6RAVENHDNGER. 



brates of land in Cadeham, and 60 solidaies of rent in the vill of 
Withinham.* 

William Malbanc (II.) left four danghten and coheirs. Abont 
these Ladies and their respective marriages there exists a strange 
confusion.' I have here to speak of Alienore^ alleged by some 
Genealogists to have been the wife of Henry de Andley. Her 
husband however (the only husband of whom I can find authentic 
notice) was Robert Bardolf^ as the two following Deeds will mani- 
fest. — 

" Robert Bardulf^ for the souls' health of his fother, mother^ and 
of William Mauban, gave to Lilleshull Abbey one place of land in 
Wich^ whereon to make one free salt-pit of twelve plumbs ; — upon 
the bank^ near the salt-pit of Ralph Rufus and of Matthew Mono- 
clus. He gave it free of all toll.'' 

Again^ '^ Alienor^ daughter of William Mauban, in her proper 
power^ for the love of God and for the health of Robert Bardulf^ 
her husband {domini met), gave to the same Abbey a free salt-pit^ 
with twelve plumbs in Wich ; — that salt-pit, namely, which Robert 
Bardulf, her husband, had confirmed." 

This Alienor is said by some authorities to have died without 
issue, and I quite concur in such a probability. It was as a Widow, 
I presume, that she gave to Henry de Alditel^h all her lands in 
Cheshire, within the Lyme. This Deed was dated on " Tuesday 
before St. Mark's day, in the seventh year of the Interdict," a date 
equivalent to April 22nd, 1214.* 

Now I have little doubt that Gravenhunger came to the Audleys 
by some grant similar to the above, and vouched by one or other 
of the Coheirs of Malbanc. That it was held under the Audleys 
in the 13th century, will fully appear in the sequel. At present we 
turn to notice the first recorded Feofiee or Tenant of the Manor. — 



1 Boi. Pip., 2 Bio. I., Staffordshire.— 
This AldA was daughter of Hugh de 
Beauchamp, and hrought the Bedford- 
shire Manor of Gokesdune as her marriage 
portion. In 1186 she was set down as a 
Widow of SO years of age. She was pro- 
bably something more, for tiie eldest of 
her four daughters by William Maubanc 
was then 16 years of age, and in custody 
of Hugh de Beauchamp, her Ghimd&ther 
{Rot de Dominabtu^ &c., p. 16). 

Alda Maubanc, under the name of 
Ada de BeUoetxmpo, granted 10 acres in 



Parra Sandon to Stone Priory (MofuuU- 
0091, YI. 23d, No. ix.). It is zemarkabls 
that her Deed is expressed to be for the 
souls* health ** of William Maubanc, her 
husband, herself^ and her heir Hugh." It 
is more probable, I think, that her son, 
Hugh, was the son of William Maubane, 
and died in infancy, than the son of any 
second husband. 

* Erdeswicl^e Staffordshire (Edition 
1844), pp. 45, 46. 

' Ormerod^s Cheshire Domesdajf-RoU 
(1851), page 11. 



QRAVENHUNGE&. 



375 



" David^ Lord of Gravinhunger^ gives to Boger^ son of Adam de 
Chetewind^ all his part of the watercourse {Duit), which separated 
his land from the land of Dorinton^ viz. half of the aforesaid duit ; 
— so that Roger might erect a Mill on the said Duit, and make a 
stank thereto, on the Grantor's land. Moreover the said David 
gives his Moor of Chudeleford, and a right of common, in pastures, 
roads, &c., to all who might frequent the proposed Mill. For this 
Grant one merk was paid down, and a rent of lOJ. reserved to the 
Grantor.^'^ This Deed probably passed early in the 13th century. 
The Bradford Hundred-BoU of 1255 says that '^ Gravinhunker is 
of the Barony of Mauban, and is one hide, geldable. Boger de 
Loskesford, Lord thereof, held it in socage, paying an annual rent 
of 1^. to James de Audley. The Manor paid ^, for motfee^ 4d. 
for strettvard, and did suit every three weeks to the Hundred."* 

At the Assizes of 1256, Agnes fitz Adam, describing herself as 
daughter and heir of Adam le Yenur, sued Balph le Taillur for half 
a virgate in Gravenhungre. James de Audley was called to war- 
ranty by the Defendant, and proved, not only that one Eddina held 
a third of the premises in dower, but that Agnes was not Adam le 
Yenur^s heir, for she had been bom long before the said Adam had 
married her mother. The Jury found accordingly, but allowed that 
Adam le Yenur had died seized of the premises.^ 

Again, at these Assizes, one Augnes, as widow of Thomas fitz 
Bichard recovered her dower against several tenants in Graven- 
hunger, viz. thirds of 60 acres against Boger de Loskesford, of 22 
acres against Bobert de Ocle, and of 1 acre against Balph le 
Taylur.* 

At Westminster, in Michaelmas Term 1266, Juliana, widow of 
Bobert de Aldithelegh, sued Hugh de Frodesham for 20 acres in 
Gravenhunger, by the process de ingressu. She also sued Stephen 
de Asseton for an acre there, as her right. The former suit was 
adjourned, the latter she gained. 

The Pipe-Boll of 1267 exhibits Adam fitz Bichard of Graven- 
hunger^ taking out some Writ, at a cost of 6^. %d. In June 1269, 



I Lilleflhall Chartulary, fo. 72. In the 
Rubric of this Deed, Boger de Chetwind 
is styled ClerJe, 

s Rot Mundred, II. 65. 

' AsnzeSy 40 Hea. III., m..4. I sup- 
pose this Adam le Yenur to have been of 
Whixall and Sandford. We hare seen 
that such a person, deceased in 1242, 



left only collateral heire (supra, pp. 227, 
349). However the widow of tlie said 
Adam is there called Editha, not Edelina. 

* Atnxesy 40 Hen. III., m. 6. 

' This Adam fitz Bichard was perhaps 
identical with a person already mentioned, 
viz. Adam, nephew of Adam fitz Wulfirio 
de Whixall (vide supn, pp. 227-8). 



376 GEAYENHUNOEIL 

Lttcia^ widow of Richard de GhraTenhangery has a writ of disseizin 
against John de Baskerville ; and Stephen de Aston has a similar 
Writ against Adam d^ Gravenhnnger. In December 1269, Edda 
de Derington, and her son Ahin, have a like writ against Adam fits 
Richard of Gravenhunger. In October 1270, Lnda, widow of 
Richard de Gravenhunger, has a like writ against Stephen de Aston 
and others. In October 1271, Adam fitz Richard of Gravenhnngre 
had a Writ, adjuratam capiendam, against Stephen de Aston.^ 

The Plea- Rolls give but slight evidence of the procedure in the 
above cases. In Easter Term 1271, and Hilary Term 1272, the 
widow Lucia's suit against John de Baskervill was adjourned. It 
was for seizure of certain com of the Plaintiff's. 

Meanwhile other Suits than those authorized by the above Writs 
were in progress. In Easter Term 1271, Miliema (Meyler) de 
Waure and his brother John appeared against Adam de Herlaunde, 
concerning a messuage and bovate ; — against Robert le Carpenter 
and Juliana his wife, concerning a messuage and bovate; — ^and 
against Lucia, widow of Richard de Gravenhunger, concerning a 
messuage and bovate, all in Gravenhunger. These Suits were ad- 
journed at Westminster, a third time, in Hilary Term 1272. Then 
also arose a new suit wherein Adam, son of Richard de Graven- 
hunger impleaded Henry, son of Henry de Mers, Alan de Asseleye 
and Juliana his wife, and Stephen de Aston, for his right in five 
small parcels of land in Gravenhunger. 

At the Assizes of 1272 a suit of mart d^ancestre, concerning a 
messuage and virgate in Gravenhunger, terminated in favour of 
Robert de Ocle who had been seized thereof three years before the 
death of Thomas, son of Richard Godrich, the ancestor^ whose 
seizin on the day of his death was in question. Robert de Ocle 
had since enfeoffed the present Tenants, viz. Richard le Theyn and 
his wife Alice. The Plaintiff was Dionisia, wife of John Jeon, and 
sister, and alleged heir, of Thomas, son of Richard Gt)drich. 

It is obvious that a part at least of the above suits coexisted with 
some very ramified Coparcenery among the Tenants of Gravenhau- 
ger. The Tenure-Roll of 1285 corroborates this, when it states 
that ^^ Richard de Loskesford and his Coparceners hold Granhunger 



' I am not dear about the object of the 

Writ eul juratam capiendam. The Writ 

<id JwraioTtB capiendos ordered the Sheriff 

^ to arrest Jurors who had been oonvicted of 

making a falae return to some previous 
Writ. The Writ of venire faciaa jura- 



tam merely ordered the Sheriff to sum- 
mon or resummon a Jury, but was some- 
times involved with a Writ of capias (or 
arrest), against any party to a suit who 
might be recusant in respect of attend- 
ance. 



ONNELET. WOORK. 877 

under Nicholas de Audley/' The latter held it in capiie, by no 
other service than doing suit to County and Hundred. 

The Seigneury of the Audleys at Gravenhunger is apparent in 
most of the Inquests^ taken as to their estates ; — ^for instance^ Wil- 
liam de Audley^ deceased in 1282^ had 6s. Sd. per annum firom this 
Manor; and the rents of Nicholas de Audley (II.)> deceased in 
1316^ were 6s, l^d. In the last instance Gravenhimger was treated 
as a member of Red Castle. 



Onmlt^. 



^' The same William (Malbedeng) holds Anelege. Edric held it 
(in Saxon times). Here is one virgate of land^ geldable. In King 
Edward's time the Manor was worth 5^. {per annum). Now it is 
waste."^ 

Except in the pages of Domesday, I have seen no mention of 
Onneley as manorially distinct from Gravenhunger. We conclude 
therefore that it became involved with that Manor at a very early 
period^ though the small addition^ thus made to the hidage of Gra* 
venhunger^ escaped notice at the Inquest of 1255. 

A farm-house at the extreme east of the township of Grraven- 
hunger^ and Parish of Woore^ is still known as Onneley Hall, and 
some portion of an adjoining road as Onneley Lane. Across the 
-Staffordshire border^ and in the Staffordshire Parish of Madeley^ 
there is a township of Onnely^ but there is no reason to think that 
the latter had anything to do with the Manor of Anelege^ as de- 
scribed in the Shropshire Domesday. 



SfBminre* 



''The same William (Malbedeng) holds Waure. Leuuin and 
Edric held it (in Saxon times) for two Manors^ and were free. Here 
is one hide, geldable. There is (arable) land for iii ox-teams. Here 

1 Dome^dojf, fo. 257, b, 1. 

IX. 48 



378 wooRE. 

II RadmaoB have one team^ with iii Boors. The Wood will fatten 
60 swine. In King Edward^s time the Manor was worth 23». 
Now it is worth 10». {per annum). He (William) found it waste."' 

The Seigneury of Woore seems to have come to the Andleys in 
precisely the same way as that of Gravenhunger; but the Audley 
Inquests do not allude to it as a distinct estate. The names of the 
Tenants seldom occur^ but^ in 1255^ they were four Coparcenere, 
yiz. Richard de War' had one moiety of the Manor, while Robert 
fitz Meiler, Richard Thein, and William fitz Adam had the other 
moiety. The Manor was still reputed to be one hide, and to be of 
the Fee of Mauban. It did suit every three weeks to the Hundred, 
and paid Ad, for motfee and Ad. for itretward} Richard de Wanie^ 
the chief of these Coparceners, was one of the Jurors who made the 
return. He was also a Juror at the Assizes of 1256. 

Meyler and John de Waure, who occur in 1271, were, I think, 
sons of the above Richard, who was living in 1271. Richard le 
Theyn, who occurs, with his wife Alice, in 1272, was probably son 
of Richard Thein above mentioned. John and Robert de Wouere 
sat on a Wem Jury in January 1284, the latter being, I think, 
identical with Robert fitz Meyler. In this case he must have died 
within the year, for in the Feodaries of 1284-5, the four Coparceners 
of 1255 seem to be respectively represented by Meyler de Wauie, 
by Alice, widow of Robert Meyler, by Richard fitz Richard, and 
by Richard fitz William. 

But a new fact transpires in these Rolls, viz. that Katerine de 
Wervelleston stood mediate between these Coparceners and Nicho- 
las de Audley. Who this Lady was, I have not been able to dis- 
cover. 

In the Nomina ViUarum of 1816, William Meyler is alone entered 
as Lord of Wouere. He was probably son of Meyler, last mentioned, 
but I cannot suppose the other Coparceners to have abandoned the 
Manor. 

Parochially, Woore is in Stafibrdshire, and forms a Chapelry 
of the great Parish of Mucklestone. The said Chapelry includes 
five of the Domesday Manors of Shropshire, viz. Woore, Graven- 
hunger, Onneley, Bearstone, and Dorrington. 

The Valor of 1535 does not distinguish this Chapelry from the 
Mother Church. If the Chapel was existent at that, or any earlier 
period, its dependence upon Mucklestone was too implicit for its 
Incumbents to be named in the Diocesan Registers. 

* Domesday, fo. 257, b, 1. > j^^^ Hundred. U. 55. 



379 



©omnflton* 



'' The same William (Malbedeng) holds * Derintune. Leuuin 
and Edric held it (in Saxon times) for two Manors^ and were free. 
Here is one hide^ geldable. There is (arable) land for iix ox-teams. 
Here is one Badman^ with a team and with one Boor. The wood 
will fatten 100 swine. In King Edward^s time the Manor was 
worth 14^. {per annum). Now it is worth Ss. He (William) found 
it waste.^'^ 

It will first be observed that the tenures of Dorrington and Woore 
were identical both before the Conquest and at Domesday. After 
this nothing can be more distinct than the histories of the two 
Manors^ and nothing more strange than the destination of Dorring- 
ton. It went to Wenlock Priory, by whose gift, or at what period, 
it were almost vain to conjecture. The loss of every clue to the 
transfer, perhaps points to a very early date, and perhaps suggests 
one of the Malbancs themselves as the Giver. The Lords of Willey 
were in some sort Tenants of the Monks of Wenlock in respect of 
Willey. They became so, absolutely, at Dorrington. 

I will now arrange a few particulars about the Tenants who held 
Dorrington under De Wililey. One of these Tenants, Roger fitz 
Adam, was a Cadet of the House of Chetwynd. Now the Chet- 
wynds were Seigneural Lords of Bearstone, near Dorrington, and 
were also, in some sort, Seigneural Lords of Willey. It was con- 
sistent with «uch an influence, local and personal, that a Cadet of 
the Chetwynds should obtain ingress at Dorrington. 

We have seen this Boger, son of Adam de Chetwynd, obtaining 
one side of a watercourse or stream which divided Gravenhunger 
from Dorrington, his object being to erect a Mill.' We will now 
show how he obtained a continuous right on the other, or Dorring- 
ton, side of the stream, for the same purpose. — 

'' Boger, son of Bichard de Dorinton, gave to Boger, son of Adam 
de Chetewind, his part of the Duit which divided Dorinton from 
Gravenhunger, and leave to erect a Mill, and, upon the Grantor's 
land, a stank. He also gave his share of Chudelesford-Moor, and 
right of common to those who should do suit to the Mill. Neither 

^ Dotneida^t fo. 267, b, 1. ' Supn, page 376. 



380 



DORRINGTON 



woiQd the Ghrantor nor his heirs make^ or permit others to make, 
any Mill to the injury of the Grantee's Mill. 

" For this the Grantor had half a merk down^ and reserved a rent 
of 5d., and power to grind toll-free at the proposed Mill, as far as 
his own House was concerned/'^ 

By another^ and I suppose, cotemporary Deed, " William, son of 
William de Dorinton, gives to the same Roger, son of Adam, for 
his homage, all his share of the aforesaid Duit, reserving a similar 
right of grinding toll-free for his own house/' 

At this point the Scribe who wrote the Lilleshall Chartulary seems 
to have confused two, if not three, Deeds together. It cannot have 
been William who, according to the Rubric of the last Deed, 
charged the Mill of Chudelesford with 30«. per annum, *^ in support 
of the Pittance of the Lilleshall Canons in their Refectory :" nor 
can it have been he, who according to a clause (ostensibly in the 
same Charter), reserves a power of grinding (next after any corn 
which might be found in the hopper) such com as might be wanted 
for consumption {ejcpensacionem) on the three feasts of the Nativity, 
Easter, and the Assumption. It seems to me as if Roger de Chet- 
wynd must have been the person who charged the Mill with 30^. 
rent ; and as if the last clause must have been some reservation on 
the part of the Canons of Lilleshall. 

About 1220-30, we have a Nicholas de Derinton, probably of 
this place, attesting an Ashley Deed.^ 

An early Rent-RoU of Lilleshall Abbey gives SOs. as annually 
receivable from Cudelesford Mill, and 2s. from William de Dorin- 
ton. Perhaps this was the William de Derinton, whom the Brad- 
ford Hundred- Roll of 1255 enters as Lord of the Yill. It was one 
hide, geldable, and " of the fee of Nicholas de Wileleg."* It paid 
44. motfee and 4d. stretward; and did suit every three weeks to the 
Hundred.* 

In February 1270, Richard Cok of Derynton has a Writ of d«- 
seizin against Richard de Waure for a tenement in Derynton. 

Between the years 1275 and 1284, there was a dispute and a settle- 
ment between Lucas, Abbot of Lilleshull, and Adam Coc of Derin- 
ton, concerning the maUure of Cudelesford Mill.^ 

In Michaelmas Term 1277, William fitz Adam de Derinton, 
Lord of Derington, was impleaded by Henry fitz^ Robert of Derin- 



> Lilleshall ChartulaTy, fo. 73. 

' Supra, Vol. II. p. 15. 

' He was dead, and his heir in minority 



(supra, Yol. II. p. 51). 
^ Rot. Hundred. II. p. 55. 
* Lilleshall Chartukry, fo. 128. 



DORRINGTON. 381 

ton^ for enclosing 26 acres of common^ and for obstructing a foot- 
path there. On the latter charge he was in misericordid, but the 
Statute of Marlborough justified the enclosure^ sufficient common 
being still left.^ 

In the Feodaries of 1284-5, William de Derynton (probably iden- 
tical with the above William fitz Adam) is entered as Lord of 
Derynton. He held it under Richard de Harley (the then repre- 
sentative of De WilUey), who held it under the Rrior of Wenlock. 

In June 1299, one Henry de Derinton fines to have some trial 
at law, but possibly he was of another place. 

In the Nomina VUlarum of 1316, a William de Deorinton again 
stands as Lord of this Yill. 

The later Bent-Rolls of Wenlock and Lilleshall do not allude to 
any receipts {torn Dorrington as accruing to either Monastery. 

* AbbreviaHoPlaeit0rum,^,268,