Skip to main content

Full text of "Antiquities of Shropshire"

See other formats


This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library 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 tliis 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 in forming 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/I 



- yjri//fy.i. /M/yi^fi'/irm/.ii'ii 

l^ai&arli College i-ibrars 



(CUaa of isar) 









Non omnia grandior &etas 

Qu» fugiamuB habet. 

VOL. I. 




MAR 29 1918' 








Counts 0^ SbBiop, 


<Si)ro|idi)ire anti its f^idtors, 







VOL. I. 

'^ 1. Between pp. 16 and VJ. Map op Pabt op Shbopshibe, Stappobbbhibe, 

Ain> Wabwiceshibe. 

I 2. To face page 42. Chavcel DooB, South Side, Morville. Ber. J. L. Petit, ^I^Z. 

/3. — — FiLLAB and Capital, Morville. Ber. J. L. Petit, cid^. 

^4. — — ChancbIi Abch, Morville. Eev. J. L. Petit, del, 

»^ 5. — — Font, Morville. Kev. J. L. Petit, deh 

^6, To face page 66. Bilunoslbt Ghttbch. F. S. A. del. 

^ 7. To face page 116. Chancel, Quatford. Bev. J. L. Petit, deL 

^8. — — Font, Quatford. Rev. J. Brooke, del. 

^9. — — Incised Slabs, Quatford. Rev. J. L. Petit, «fei. 

«/10. To face page 146. Upton Cbbssett Chuech. Rev. J. L. Petit, <ie/. 

vll. — — Font, Fpton Cressett. Rev. J. L. Petit, del. 

V12. — — DooE-WAY, Upton Cressett. F. S. A. del. 

^ 13. To face page 208. Head op Doob-wat, Aston Eyre. F. S. A. del. 

9inti(imtm of S^firop^iitre* 



Sector of Biftony ScUop. 

VOL. I. 

Non omnia grandior setas 

Quse fugiamus habet. 



±N deciding on a plan for the present work, the author has 

felt his greatest difficulty to exist in producing that combina- 
tion^ which, while it need not offend the mere antiquary, may 
also be attractive and useful to those local readers, who feel 
a pride or an interest in the County to which they belong. 

Large in extent,^ important in position, rich in fertility and 
productions, beautiful and varied in scenery, Shropshire has 
ever been inhabited by a race of men characteristic for uni- 
formity of principle and energy of action. 

Great in its antecedents, and not unfortunate in its present, 
it may be no bad omen of its future, that those who have 
chief concern in its welfare be the slowest of all men to adopt 
any theory which identifies patriotism with a contempt of the 
past. Much does the antiquary congratulate himself in having 
chosen a field of research which promises such unusual ad- 
vantages of encouragement and sympathy. 

The present series of volumes on Shropshire Antiquities 
will relate mainly to the interval which elapsed between the 
Norman Conquest and the death of Henry III. 

^ The documents which furnish nearly 
all the knowledge we possess of the earUer 
Anglo-Norman period are written in base 
Latin : the use of contracted forms is also 
general, though the forms themselves are 
various, no two scribes employing exactly 
the same. Translations more or less Ute- 
ral have therefore been given in the text, 
whilst the original has been added in a 
note, wherever its meaning was doubtful 

or unexpressible in another language. In 
the latter case all contractions have been 

3 Shropshire, with the exception of 
Wiltshire, is the largest of the inland 
counties of Great Britain. Its limits wiU 
have sometime been greatly in excess of 
that county. Its ancient position, on a 
hostile frontier, is that more particularly 
alluded to in the text. 


That period involved two centuries of years, a succession of 
eight Kings, and the lives of six generations of Princes of the 
Norman dynasty. 

The contemporary Chronicles are not numerous, but where- 
ever their aid has been available for the present work, they 
have been consulted. Their testimony is however seldom of 
local interest, as none of them, except Ordericus, had any 
connexion with Shropshire, and his was chiefly that of birth. 

As regards national records, a short account of those which 
have reference to the period must be given, if only in expla- 
nation of the more summary mode of citing them which will 
be adopted in the sequel. 

Domesday Booky or at least its general character, is known 
to all. This great territorial record was compiled by itinerant 
commissioners, in the years 1085-6, and the result of their 
labours returned into the King's Court at Winchester, in the 
Easter of the latter year. Its evidence in regard to Shropshire 
is most satisfactory, whether we apply such external tests as 
remain to us, or look to the better guarantee of internal con- 
sistency. The printed edition is a very creditable facsimile 
of the original, at least as far as this county is concerned. 

The national record, which" comes next, both in point of 
date and importance, is the series of Pipe Bolls. The earliest 
of these Rolls is of the 31st year of Henry I (a.d. 1130), 
but unfortunately any portion thereof relating to Shropshire 
is either lost or never existed. The next Roll belonged to the 
1st year of Henry II, but it is lost, and its former existence is 
only known by its having been epitomized by a later officer^ of 
the Exchequer. The Pipe Rolls, from the 2d year of Henry II, 
to the end of the period with which we are concerned, still 
contain all that was ever entered* on them relative to Shrop- 

3 Alexander de Swereford — ^who, at the 
time he made this abstract, viz. A.D. 1230, 
was Archdeacon of Salop (Lichfield dio- 

^ It is a very usnal subject of regret 
amongst antiquaries, that the Pipe Boll of 

1 Henry III is lost from the series ; such 
regret might be extended to the Boll of 18 
John as well as to the Boll of the latter 
half of King John's 17th regoal year ; 
though the absence of these seems not to 
have been observed. It is probable how- 


shire. They are the accounts of the sheriffs of counties, of 
that revenue for which each was annually responsible at the 
King's Exchequer, and they include statements of the ex- 
penses of those officers in the Royal service. 

The Record, commonly called the Liber Niger ^ or Black 
Book of the Exchequer, is mainly the result of an order made 
in the year 1165, or beginning of 1166, on every tenant in 
capite of the Crown, to return a list before the first Sunday of 
'Lent (March 17th, 1166), of all who held under him by 
knight's^service, stating whether such tenure was of old or of 
new feoffment, that is, whether it had existed from the days 
of Henry I, or had arisen since. Subject to this order, there 
was a return made and enrolled of the following Shropshire 
baronies, viz.: that of Fitz-Alan, Castle Holgate, Clun, and 
Lacy, and of some tenures of less .extent ; but we miss from 
the record any statement of the Domesday Baronies of Corbet, 
Mortimer, Say of Richard's Castle,^ and several other lesser, 
but then existent fiefs. Heame's printed transcript of this 
document is unusually faithful as regards Shropshire, but 
several entries are distinguished in the original, by being 
written in a different hand and paler ink than the general 
matter. They were in fact supplementary, but Heame's 
transcript takes no notice of this important distinction. 

The Botuli Liter arum Patentium, or Patent Rolls, are copies 

erer, that, owing to the disturbed state of 
the kingdom at the time, the business of 
the Exchequer was totally suspended, and 
consequently that these Bolls never eidisted. 
The Shropshire Pipe Bolls of the pre- 
ceding and subsequent years supply some 
evidence of this fact which will be stated 
hereafter. Here it is sufficient to point 
out the general value of these records as 
tests of historical accuracy, for the national 
vanity of our Chroniclers has led them to 
understate the disorganization which pre- 
vailed at the period. 

^ Osbom Fitz-Hugh, the then Baron of 
Bichard's Castle, made a return ; but it 
was informal, and so was sent back to be 

amended. William de Beauchamp, who 
had charge to see to its correction, was 
Sheriff of Herefordshire and Worcester- 
shire I yet the note of this transaction is 
erroneously given in the * Liber Niger,* 
under Northamptonshire. Osbom Fitz- 
HugVs amended return nowhere appears. 
The statement as to this barony, which is 
inserted under Herefordshire, is of the 
supplementary character noticed in the 
text. Heame's reading thereof is, how- 
ever, so incorrect as to leave it unintelli- 
gible. {See Heame*s Liber Niger, voL i, 
pp. 169, 217.) The true reading is re* 
served for its proper place. 


of such writs of the Crowii as were engrossed on open sheets 
of parchment, and had the seal of the Sovereign pendent at 
the bottom. These writs have usually a public address or 
direction as to their execution, though they may treat of the 
concerns of an individual. They comprise documents on 
every variety of subject, — ^prerogative, revenue, judicature, 
treaties, safe-conduct, liberties, offices, wardships, ecclesiastical 
dignities, pardons, liveries, licences, creations of nobiUty, &c. 
They exist no earlier than for the third regnal year of King 
John (commencing May 3d, 1201), and from that time down- 
wards, but not in quite an uninterrupted succession. 

The Rotuli Literarum Clatisaruniy or Close Rolls, were writs 
of the Crown, which were folded up, sealed on the outside, 
and usually addressed to individuals. Their subject was as 
diversified as that of the Patent Rolls. They exist from the 
sixth year of John (June 1204), but not continuously. 

The Botuli Chartarum are the contemporaneous registers 
of Royal Grants of lands, dignities, liberties, and privileges. 
They commence with the first year of King John (a. d. 1199), 
and, with the exception of a few years, are preserved for the 
whole period with which we are concerned. 

The Oblata and Fine Rolk constitute one series, commencing 
at the same period as the last. They are records of sums of 
money offered to and accepted by the Crown, when a subject 
had to negociate any favour or feudal right. 

The Placita and Assize Bolls are records of proceedings in 
the Courts of Law, No arrangement of these Rolls, founded 
on a distinct principle, has yet been made, and it is not easy 
to devise a plan for such arrangement. In general they are 
badly and inaccurately written, and ill preserved. More than 
half also are lost. Those which remain are, nevertheless, of 
the greatest importance, as containing information which no 
other source can supply. They contain minutes of trials both 
civil and criminal; at Westminster, and in the provinces; 
before the King himself, his council, and his justiciars. The 
present Deputy Keeper of the Rolls, edited for the Record 


Commission all that was supposed to remain of them, for the 
reign of Richard I, and the first year of King John, but a 
few undated Rolls escaped observation, owing probably to 
the faulty arrangement which is not yet rectified. Two of 
these undated, and therefore unprinted, Rolls contain however 
internal proof of date, and of being earlier than any oth^s. 
Nothing whatever remains of this kind which can be attributed 
to an older date than the reign of Richard I. 

The Pedes Finium, or Final Concords , are records of the terms 
on which ^any real or fictitious suit at law was compounded 
between the litigants. These documents are supposed to have 
been originally in triplicate. A copy was allotted to each of 
the according parties, whilst the third was retained as * a 
record by the Crown. Their preservation is extremely acci- 
dental, but a few remain of the time of Henry II, Copies of 
many are preserved in Monastic chartularies, and other depo- 
sitories, the originals of which are no longer existent in the 
proper custody. 

TYlq Escheat Rolls, otherwise called Inquisitiones post mortem, 
are chiefly records of the writs addressed by the Crown to 
the proper officer, to summon a jury when the death of any 
tenant in capite involved a right of wardship, or marriage, or 
a fine by such tenant's successor for livery. The returns of 
these juries also form part of the Record, and usually contain 
statements as to the extent and value of the deceased's pro- 
perty, its tenure, and the name and age of his heir. In some 
cases the writ is lost,^ whilst the return is extant, and vice versa. 
But these Rolls only commence in the reign of Henry III, and 
even then are not well preserved. The Inquisitions of this 
and the succeeding reign frequently involve matters which are 
not comprehended in the above description, such as perambu- 
lations of forests and inquests of the class afterwards entitled 
ad quod damnum. 

* The printed Calendar of these docu- 
ments notices the absence of some which 
an earlier index had registered as in the 
proper custody. One such I have myself 

found in the British Museum. It is the 
Inquisition of 31 H. 3, No. 42, and is to 
be found in Harl. Chart. 45. a. 33. 



By Charta Jniiqua are generally understood, those copies 
of certain ancient charters which are enrolled at the Tower. 
These are not all royal charters. Similar documents existent 
at the British Museum and elsewhere, and to which the same 
title would be equally applicable, shall be described when quoted 
hereafter, by the place of their custody. 

The Bed Book of the Exchequer {Liber Ruber Scaccarit), a 
volume of great interest and most varied contents, was com- 
piled previous to the year 1246. When quoted in this work, 
it will be so as a collection of scutage-rolls, of lists of knights' 
fees and serjeantries, and of abstracts of Pipe Rolls. 

The Testa de NevUl is also a compilation of similar matters. 
As regards Shropshire it contains lists of tenures by serjeantry, 
of other tenures in capite, of the knights' fees constituting 
particular baronies, also notices^ of churches, wardships or 
marriages of the King's gift, and scutages. These documents 
are of the reigns of John and Henry III. 

The Hundred Bolls for Shropshire are of two kinds, and 
relate to two periods, viz., the years 1255 and 1274. The 
former is chiefly a territorial record, specifying the tenure and 
extent of each manor in a given Hundred,® its privileges and 
liabilities as ascertained by Jury. The latter is an inquisition 
by similar Juries of Hundreds as to frauds on the Crown 
Revenue, or oppressions of the people by public officers. 

The Placita de quo warranto were legal proceedings insti- 
tuted by the Crown with reference to frauds thus or otherwise 
ascertained or suspected. A series of such trials was held in 
Shropshire in time of Edward I. 

The Forest Bolls, preserved at the Chapter-House, West- 
minster, contain pleas and proceedings before the Justices of 
the King's Forests in their respective circuits. Mixed with 

7 A part of these transcripts is clearly 
taken from Assize Bolls. Thus we have a 
fragment of a Shropshire AssizeBoll of date 
A.D. 1227, and the original of which is lost. 

® Boroughs and liberties, where extra- 

hundredal, are also reported of. The Shrop- 
shire hundred of Brimstree is unnoticed 
in each of these Surveys, but the rolls of 
many other counties are far more inoom- 
plete than that of Shropshire. 


them are perambulations of forests, where a boundary was in 
question, and documents relating to other questions of Royal 
demesne. A very early forest roll for Shropshire is preserved. 
It is undated, but belongs to the year 1180^ or 26 Hen. II, 
and is in perfect condition. 

The originalia Molh seem to be a series of memoranda of 
matters connected with the constant or casual revenue of 
the Crown. They were preserved in the Lord Treasurer's Re- 
membrancer's Office, as belonging to that department of the 
Exchequer called the Exchequer of Account. They commence 
with the 11th year of Henry III (a.d. 1226). 

A book commonly called Kirhys Quest y^^ and of which 
the original and constituent documents are supposed to be 
lost, seems to contain a series of extracts from the Escheat 
Rolls ; but its more valuable and distinctive feature is a state- 
ment of tenures in different Counties and Hundreds, as they 
existed in time of Edward I. The survey of Shropshire is very 
full, and stands a most valuable continuation of the series 
formed by Domesday, the Liber Niger, the Testa de Nevill, 
and the Hundred Rolls. 

In further continuation of this series there was a record 
of the time of Edward II, commonly called the Nomina vil- 
larum. The contents of this are similarly' to be gathered only 
from transcripts, and those very inaccurate. 

A few minor records remain to be noticed. The Eotuli de 

^ This date is proved in a curious but 
most satisfactory way. At the foot of the 
Roll, the sum of amercements levied on 
tills occasion is stated as £58 4«. Qd., and 
an additional sum of £55 is entered as 
accruing from the sale of lead, the pro- 
duce of the King's mines at Shelve. In 
his account for the fiscal year ending 
Michaelmas, 1180, Hugh Pantulf; then 
Sheriff of Shropshire, acknowledges each 
of these sums as due to the Crown, and 
he discharges the debt in subsequent 
years. The Sheriff's account further sup- 
plies the name of the justice of the forest 
who held these pleas, and which is not 

given on the Roll itself. It was Thomas 
Fitz-Bemard. (Mag. Rot. Pip. 26 Hen. II, 

10 John de Kirkby, whose name is asso- 
ciated with these inquests, was treasurer 
to King Edward I at the time they were 
taken. He presided himself over the in- 
quests in Devonshire, but the justiciars 
who visited Shropshire and Staffordshire 
were Richard de Stanford, Clerk, and his 
fellows. I have two original parchment 
rolls of tenures nearly contemporary but 
not identical with Kirhy's Quest. They 
extend only to the Hundreds of Bradford 
and Pimhill. 



dominabus etpueris et puellis are a record of marriages and 
wardships of the King's gift as ascertained in certain counties 
by Itinerant Justices in the year 1185 (31 Hen. II). Shrop- 
shire was not thus visited, but we obtain information as to 
certain persons connected with the County, and which, as 
relating to so remote a period, it would be vain to expect 

The Liberate Bolls are entries of the different precepts 
which were in fact the warrants of the fiscal Officers of the 
Crown in their payment of pensions, stipends, and other state 
expenses, constant or occasional. They remain of the 2d, 3d, 
and 5th years of John, when their matter becomes involved 
in the Close BoUsy and they are discontinued. They recom- 
mence in the tenth year of Henry III, and continue till the 
reign of Henry VI. 

The Misa Bolls are accounts of the daily expenses of the 
King's Court. Only two exist, those of the 11th and 14th 
years of John. 

The PrasUta Bolls were records of advances out of the 
Royal Treasury for* a specific purpose, or on loan. They 
exist only for five years of John, viz.: the 7th, 12th, 14tli, 
15th, and 16th years of his reign. 

With regard to ecclesiastical matters and possessions, there 
are no national records of the early date contemplated in this 
work, at least none of an exclusively ecclesiastical character. 
But whereas documents of a later period have, where places 
rather than persons are concerned, a wide retrospective signi- 
ficance, I shall fi'equently quote certain national records, which 
treat of the temporal and spiritual possessions of the Church. 
The principal of these will be three : — 

1st, Pope Nicholas' Taxation ^ a survey and valuation taken 
between a.d. 1288 and 1292, on occasion of Pope Nicholas IV 
having granted in the former year, to King Edward I, the 
tenths of all ecclesiastical income in England for six years to 
come. These annual tenths were usually payable to the See 
of Rome, though in a previous instance they had been granted, 


for three years, to King Henry III. The object for which 
Edward I was to employ them was a Crusade. His tem- 
porary interest in the matter occasioned a Royal Commission, 
which surveyed the Church's possessions throughout the 
realm; and this valuation governed all ecclesiastical taxes, 
whether payable to King or Pope, tiU the reign of Henry VHI. 
It was in fact the Domesday of the Church, and from it we not 
unfrequently get the earUest notice of our parochial existence 
and relations, — 

2dly. The Record printed under the title Inquisitiones 
Nonarum, or Inquests of the Ninths, purporting to be a valua- 
tion taken a.d. 1341, through every parish in the kingdom, of 
the ninth of certain stock in such parish. This tax was the 
country contingent of a general subsidy granted by parlia- 
ment in support of the wars of King Edward III. The ninth 
of wheat, wool, and lamb, in a parish, was expected to equal 
the ecclesiastical valuation of glebe, and tithes in general ; so 
that Pope Nicholas' taxation was in eflFect the basis of the cal- 
culation : but this assessment was made in each case by a 
jury of parishioners, and where their retttm diflFered from the 
taxation, they stated the local or temporary causes which pro- 
duced the discrepancy. Hence the Record embodies a variety 
of local and statistical information, quite accidental to a fiscal 
document. — 

3dly. The Valor Ecclesiasticus, or great Ecclesiastical Valua- 
tion of Henry VIII, which had its origin in this way. When 
the King had succeeded in depriving the Papal See of all 
revenue derivable from his realm of England, his next care 
was to secure to himself, in some form or other, the income 
thus disengaged. 

The Parliament which met on 3d Nov., 26 Henry VIII 
(a.d. 1534), granted to the Crown the annual tenth of all 
ecclesiastical income whatsoever. The institution thereupon 
of a Royal Commission, or Commissions, resulted in the 
general valuation before us. This Record is printed in six 
folio volumes, and Mr. Hunter's Introduction, embodied in the 
sixth volume, is ah able account of many further particulars. 



The whole or parts of other Records, above described, have 
been printed, chiefly by order of the late Record Commission, 
whose powers seem to have been withdrawn precisely at the 
time when they were in most efficient exercise. When a docu- 
ment is quoted in the following pages, which has been thus 
well edited, reference will often be made to the page of the 
printed book, rather than to the original folio or membrane. 

I cannot dismiss this notice of the public Records of the 
kingdom, which, according to the libenJ system adopted by 
the present Master of the Rolls, I have had the privilege of 
consulting or transcribing free of expense, without expressing 
my sense of the ready and accommodating spirit with which 
the Officers of each department have facilitated my researches. 
Something of this is, I understand, the result of general 
directions ; but I speak of a uniform civility and readiness to 
assist, which is not required, and could not be enforced by 
any system of rules. 

Passing now from national Records to those of a more local 
character, the first which have to be mentioned are the JDio- 
ceaan Begistera. These, unfortunately, do not much affect 
the period with which we are chiefly concerned. The Lichfield 
Beffistera commence with that of Bishop Walter de Langton, 
who was consecrated 22d Dec, 1296 : the Hereford Begis- 
tersy with that of Bishop Thomas de Cantilupe, consecrated 
8th Sept., 1275. 

The former I have had every facility for consulting, through 
the united kindness of the Bishop, the Registrar, and Deputy- 
Registrar of the Diocese. I had already extracted the Shrop- 
shire entries of the three earlier^^ Registers when my progress 

" The Harleian MSS. 3868 and 4799, 
now in the British Museum, and some time 
in possession of Peter le Neve, were un- 
doubtedly, at a still earlier period, part of 
the Diocesan Registers of Lichfield. They 
contain documents of extreme antiquity 
and interest. They are not, like the later 
Begisters, continuous records of the Dio- 
cesan transactions, but appear rather to 
be eiA'olments of certain documents exhi- 

bited at Episcopal yisitations, in proof 
of various rights and titles to Church pro- 
perty. Duplicates of many entries are to 
be found in Monastic Chartularies, but 
where the latter are lost or inaccessible, 
the information supplied by these Registers 
is invaluable. 

Further, on fly-leaves or other (origi- 
nally) vacant spaces of the first Lichfield 
Registers have been transcribed a few 



was stopped, not immediately, because the Registers refer to 
a period later than that in hand, but from finding that the 
work had been already done by another. All extracts neces- 
sary to a County History, and which the Be^isters either of 
Lichfield or Hereford could supply, were taken by the late 
Rev. J. B. Blakeway, and may be found among his MSS. in 
the Bodleian Library. 

Of Monastic Ckartularies, there are four only known to be 
in existence, which relate to the greater religious houses of 
Shropshire. They are of Shrewsbury, Haughmond, and LiUes- 
hall Abbeys, and of Wombridge Priory. The Shrewsbury and 
Wombridge Chartularies are in the collection of Sir Thomas 
Phillipps, Bart., of Middle Hill, Worcestershire, whose liberality 
in allowing access to his valuable collections is too well known 
to need mention here. For my knowledge of the contents of 
these two Chartularies I am however indebted to Mr. George 
Morris, of Shrewsbury, whose extracts from them, while in 
the hands of a former owner, have been obUgingly lent me, 
and are amply suflBcient for my present purpose. 

The Haughmond Chartvlaryy in possession of Andrew 
William Corbet, of Sundom, Esq., is open to my inspection, 
through permission of its owner ; but Mr. Morrises extracts 
have similarly been available to me, and contain all that 
1 can at present wish to derive from this som'ce. There is a 
fragment of a different Chartolary of Haughmond in the 
British Museum, which, with many other documents there, 
1 have either copied or carefully consulted. 

To the lAUeshall Chartulary and other documents in pos- 
session of his Grace the Duke of Sutherland, I have also leave 
of access ; but the references, which I am at present enabled 
to make to the former, are by means of extracts taken long 
since, and to be found in the British Museum, the Bodleian 
Library, and the Diocesan Registers. 

charters of much earlier date than the 
general contents of the series. This pro- 
bably was by procurement of parties in- 
terested in the pi'eserration of these older 

documents, or possibly by the spontaneous 
diligence of some clerk anxious to rescue 
the remains of an earlier and perishing 


The Chartulariea of Wenlock Priory^ and of BuUdtoas 
Ahhey, are lost, or, at least, have not been heard of in this 
country since the dissolution. Of the former, a few items 
may be gathered from the Monasticon and other quarters. 
The loss of the latter may be much more satisfactorily supplied 
from various sources. It is not impossible that a connected 
Chartulary of either house may yet be found in some foreign 
depository. Some inquiries in that direction have however 
been hitherto unsuccessful. 

For assistance in the loan of private deeds and documents, 
I must leave all detailed acknowledgment to the sequel, and 
I have reason to anticipate considerable aid of this kind from 
several sources. Already I have received valuable contribu- 
tions from the Rev. J. Brooke, of Haughton; R. H. Cheney, 
Esq., of Badger; R. Gardner, Esq., of Leighton ; and W. W. 
How, Esq., of Shrewsbury. ^^ 

I omit to particularize several promises of most efficient aid 
in the illustrative department of this work, simply lest some 
unforeseen hindrance may occur to one or other of my expect- 
ations. I must be similarly guarded as to some architectural 
notices which I have hope of obtaining from a well-known 
authority ^^ in such matters. My business here is merely to 
disclaim all personal credit for either kind of contribution. 

Maps will be given which will follow the territorial arrange- 
ment of Domesday y as far as that can now be ascertained. 

^ I have further to add to this list of 
benefactors, the names of the Kt. Hon. 
Lord Forester, Sir Baldwin Leighton, 
Bart., T. C. Whitmore, Esq., W, 
Wobyche Whitmore, Esq., and Ckorge 
Fritchard, Esq., who have given me ererj 
facility for consulting and transcribing 
documents in their possession. At WiUey 
is a register of Wenlock Prioiy, chiefly in 
the handwriting of the two Priors, who 
preceded John Baylis, the last who enjoyed 
that dignity. The volume is extremely 
valuable, not only as furnishing in its 
various rent-rolls much of topographical 
information, but as containing several 

earlier dociunents transcribed, I presume, 
with reference to some current question of 
title or prescriptive right. 

w The Eev. J. L. Petit,— who abeady 
favours me in a way which I must acknow- 
ledge both gratefully and openly. His 
notices of the earher ecclesiastical remains 
at Morrille, Quatford, and Upton Cresset, 
which will appear forthwith, are the result 
of a recent visit to those places, under- 
taken expressly for my assistance. The 
illustrations also, which bear his name, are 
presented by him to the work in their 
finished state. 


and, where doubt exists, the whole question will be stated in 
the text. The tables of Domesday Hundreds which will 
accompany these maps, are intended further to illustrate the 
state of things at the time of that survey. 

With regard to former works on the same or cognate sub- 
jects, I shall have most frequent occasion to refer to— - 

The History of Shrewsbury^ in 2 vols. (1825), by the late 
Ven. Archdeacon Owen, and the late Rev. J. B. Blakeway. 

The Sheriffs of Shropshire (1831), a posthumous work of 
the Rev. J. B. Blakeway. And to the 

Antiquities of Shropshire (1844), by T. F. Dukes, Esq. 

I shall not hesitate to borrow from these works whatever 
I may find in them necessary to the completeness or illustra- 
tion of the subject in hand ; but it is more with reference to 
objections which I shall have to make to some of their con- 
tents that I wish here to speak and to apologize. The self- 
reliance which such objections may be construed to imply 
will only be apparent, for of all names associated with our 
local history and antiquities that of Mr. Blakeway has ever 
seemed to me entitled to an increasing reverence. 

The History of Shrewsbury, the joint work of himself and 
Archdeacon Owen, is, I imagine, of the very highest order 
of excellence ; and that not merely topographically, but as 
furnishing those very elements towards a general History of 
England which ought to be ready and available to the 
national historian, whenever one competent to the greater 
undertaking shall arise. 

The objections which I speak of are then only to matters 
of detail, on which it is impossible for one person at any 
one time to attain perfect accuracy. Herein Dugdale himself, 
though ignorantly criticised in his day, was no exception to 
the general rule, that antiquarian truth must be progressive, 
and so never complete. The smallest change of premises will 
often largely aflfect a conclusion, and a dozen established facts 
assume a totally new complexion, by the addition of one 
hitherto uncertified. I close this digression with a simple 


acknowledgment which I trust will excuse reiterated apologies 
in the sequel. It is only where some further fact, apparently 
unknown to Mr. Blakeway, may happen to occur to me, or 
where my greater leisure, and more limited sphere of inquiry 
may enable me to devote much attention to points, which in 
his varied researches he was obliged to treat summarily, that 
I would venture to express a diflference of opinion. 

I have one more profession to make. It is as to the limits 
which I propose between an indulgence in conjecture, and an 
avoidance of difficulties. The former is the stigma of the old 
school of heralds and antiquaries ; the latter is more likely to 
be the error of modem inquirers. And the reason of both is 
apparent. The former expected and gained everything by 
flattery and invention ; the latter write under surveillance of 
a searching, if not over-active, spirit of criticism. Conjecture 
is to be avoided till all available resources of knowledge have 
been exhausted, but any attempt to solve a still remaining 
difficulty is excusable ; and an acknowledgment of a difficulty, 
wherever one occurs, is a duty, even though it may provoke 
a suspicion of ignorance unfavourable to the author. A diffi- 
culty evaded is only a difficulty postponed ; but a difficulty 
confessed is a mark for future inquiry, more skilful, more 
active, or more fortunate, than the one in hand. 

I cannot conclude without some acknowledgment of what 
I owe to a Society of living Antiquaries, whose writings I shall 
frequently have recourse to, and the very mention of whose 
names is a condemnation of that wretched economy which 
suspended the operations of the Record Commission, and so 
deprived the public of services which may never again be at 
command. Some personal obligations, and a wish to avoid 
all appearance of flattery, prevent my saying more in con- 
nexion with the names of Sir Francis Palgrave, Thomas 
Duffiis Hardy, Esq., and the Rev. Joseph Hunter. I am not 
so withheld in speaking of the works of the late Thomas 
Stapleton, Esq., my extreme admiration of which, as it is 
associated with no personal feeling, so can it no longer wear 


even an appearance of flattery. His commentary on the 
Motuli Normannia is a model of antiquarian criticism; and 
mention of that particular work is less out of place here, 
because it contains the. only correct accounts of two great 
families early connected with Shropshire, those of its Norman 
Earls and of the Mortimers. 

And now, having taken full advantage of that license to 
speak in the first person which is usually allowed to a Preface, 
I commit my work to the indulgence of its readers, little 
doubting that a liberality, kindred to that which has already 
welcomed an unknown author with a subscription list of more 
than a hundred names, will double that number, and be 
yet fiu1;her extended to a judgment of his labours when 


Rtton Rectobt, 
Sept. 2^th^ 1853. 





a- vf la^r eh^ San, fie ahary { 

TBE, ,.'" 

i-HHTmiliuAto* Jht- 



The foregoing Map is chiefly intended to show the Domesday divisions of 
that part of the County with which our survey begins. It contains two 
entire Shropshire Hundreds, .viz., Alnodeitreu and PatiiUon ; and the 
Bometdcof Manors, forming, or probably forming, each of these Hundreds, 
are printed in two different colours {j'ed and green). 

There was also a Shropshire Hundred of Bascherch at the time of Domesday ^ 
the bulk of which lay north and north-west of Shrewsbury, and so, very 
distant from the quarter of our present inquiries. But this Hundred had 
two detachments, curiously involved in different parts oi Alnodeitreu Hundred. 
The Manors forming each of these detachments are printed in a third colour 

The County of Salop now contains several Manors which at the time of 
the Norman Survey were members of other Counties. Some of these must 
come under early consideration. Such of them as contributed, in 1086, to 
form the Staffordshire Hundred of Saisdcme, are printed in a fourth colour 
(yelloio) ; such as were members of the more distant Warwickshire Hundred 
of Stanleiy in a fifth colour (brown). Lest, at this early stage, the allegation 
of such eccentric divisions should provoke a suspicion of inaccuracy, it is 
better to state that they can all be accounted for, and exactly on the same 
principle as that which Dugdale laid down long ago, when he met with 
similar phanomena in his Survey of Warwickshire. An explanation in each 
instance will be offered in its proper place. 

Lastly, names marked on the Map in black ink are of five different 
classes, viz. : — 

1st. Adjunctive terms employed at a later period than Domesday to 
distinguish Manors of the same name. Such are the terms Much and 
Little prefixed to the two Wenlocks — George and Bumell affixed to the two 
Eudons ; and so forth. 

2dly. Names of Manors existent at the time of BoTnesday, but belonging 
to other Hundreds than those above-named, and which will be properly 
distinguished in future Maps. Such are Stottesden, Buildwas, &c. 

3dly. Townships or Hamlets involved in various Domesday Manors, but 
which have no specific notice so early, e.g.y Astley Abbots, Tasley, &c. 

4thly. Places of later origin than Bomeiday^ as Bridgnorth. 

5thly. Names of rivers, streams, hills, forests, or woods, few of which are 
mentioned in BonMdayy though of course all existed under some name or 
other. These land-marks, "more or less enduring, are necessary to any Map, 
and their names, wherever printed, are only meant to render the whole 
intelligible. In these cases, and for the same purpose, the modem name is 
employed. For instance, the Brown Clee Hill is so printed, though I 
suppose one part of that name to be extremely recent. Not so the 
Wrekin, whose modem name is but a revival, after some disuse, of its 
oldest appellation. Yet, if our Map had described the Wrekin as Mount 
Gilbert^ that term, though perhaps the most proper when speaking with 
reference to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, did not, that we know of, 
exist in the eleventh ; and its use, even if chronologically accurate, would 
have interfered with that perspicuity which is so essential to this kind of 




Estone . . . 
Estone . . . 
Bispetone . 
Broctone . 
Bosle .... 

Saxon Owner, 

Eldone • . 



Oleslei . . 
Etone. . . 
Etone. . . 
Madolea . 

Middeltone .... 
Membrefeld. . . . 


Pichetome .... J 
Soitone < 

Stochetone . . . . | 




Algar & Godhit 



Bruniht ..... 


Bruniht ..... 


Eoclesia Sanctse 

Milburgie . . . 

^luuard .... 

Ulchetel .... 






Ehnnnd ..... 




Austin ...... 

Tenant in Capite. 


Bex Edwardus . 

Elnuard ..... 

Ecclesia Sanct» 
Milburgffi . . 


Bricstual .... 



Comes Morcar 



Bogerius Comes 
. . . Idem .... 
. . . Idem .... 
,. . . Idem .... 
. . . Idem .... 
. . . Idem .... 
. . . Idem .... 

> . . Idem . . < 

. . . Idem. . . . 

Mesne, (mt next. Tenant. 

y. . Idem . . . . 

Idem .... 
Idem .... 
Idem .... 
Idem .... 
Idem .... 

. . . Idem .... 
. . . Idem 


. . . Idem .... 

> . . Idem • • • s 

I > . . Idem .... 

? . . Idem .... 

. . . Idem .... 
. . . Idem .... 
. . . Idem . • • . 


Bainaldus Vicecomes . 






Ecclesia Sanets Mil- 


Bainaldus Yioeoomes . 


Bainaldus Yicecomes . 





Bainaldus Yicecomes . 

Ecclesia Sancti Petri . 
Capellani Comitis . . . 
Bicardus Pinoema . . 

Bainaldus Yicecomes . 

Ecclesia Sanct-sD Mil- 




Bainaldus Yicecomes 



Alcher . . . 
Bobertus . 


Badulfus .... 

Willielmus . . . 
Bicardus .... 
( . . Alcher . '> 
I . . Albert . ( 


Badulfus .... 




• * . . 

Bolebeo . 


Tuange. . , 




Qt>deYa Comi- 
tissa .... 


Eduinus Comes 

Ecclesia Sanctse 
Milburgee . . 

Manobs pbobab]^ IN Alnodestb£u, but who( 

Bogerius Comes 



. . . Idem 



Morcar Comes .... Idem 

Manob fbobably in Alnodestbeu, but wHoa 


Idem .... 



Domesday Features. 

Silya in manu Begis 

Molendinum .... 




Fresbiter. Molend : 

^ Eodeeia .... 
< 18 berewichiB 
( Molendinum 

( Molendinum . . 
I Silva. . . . 

Molendinum .... 




1 \ hides . . 

1 hide . . . 

2 hides . . 
\ hide . . . 

1 hide . . . 
1 virg. 8 acr. . . 

1 hide . . . 

\ hide . . . 

2 hides . . 

2 hides . . . 

\ hide .... 
2 hides . . . 
\ hide .... 
\ hide .... 
\ hide .... 

2 hides . . . 
12 hides . . . 

1 hide 3 virg. 

\ hide .... 

6 hides . . . 

1 hide .... 

4 hides . . . 

3 hides . . . 
i hide .... 


fo. 259, a. 2 
255, a. 2 

fo. 257, b. 2 
259, a. 2 

257, b.2 

258, b. 1 

252, b. 2 
255, a. 2 

257, b. 1 

255, a. 2 
fo. 259, a. 1 

258, b. 1 

255, a. 2 
253, a. 2 

255, a. 2 
252, b. 2 

257, b. 2 

259, a. 1 

fo. 255, a. 2 

258, a. 1 

45 \ hides 8 acr. 


i hide . . . . I fo. 254, a. 1 

/'Presbiter .... 
NPrsepositus . . 
) Molendinum . . 

( Silva 

C Molendinum . .*) 

JsUva [ 

(. 5 Salinffl in Wich ) 

Bnrgum de 
Quatford . . , 

Nova domus . . 

Molendinum . . 

1 hide .... 

3 hides . . . 

5 hides . . . 

3 hides . . . 


i hide . . . , 

58 i hides 8 acr. 


fo.253, b.2 

254, a. 1 
253, b. 2 

fo. 258, b. 1 

Modem Hundred. 

Brimstree . 
Ibidem. . 
Ibidem . . 
Ibidem. . 





Ibidem ...... 

Brimstree .... 


Stottesden . . . 




Brimstree .... 



Stottesden . . . 
Wenlock .... 

Stottesden . . . 

Brimstree .... 

Stottesden . . . 
Brimstree . . . . 

Stottesden . . . 

Modem Name. 


Aston Botterel. 

Aston Eyre. 






Eudon Bumell. 


Hatton ? 

Middleton Scriven. 





Sutton Maddock. 
Upton Cresset. 







Whereas, in the foregoing Map, the modem orthography has 
been substituted for thai of Domesday^ the 1st column of the 
annexed Table supplies the latter, as fiajr as this Hundred is con- 

The 2d column gives the Saxon owner of each Manor in time 
of King Edward the Confessor — ^T. B. E. (as Domesday abbreviates 
*' Tempore Regis Edwardi.") 

The 3d column gives the tenant in capite of 1086, who, in 
Alnodestreu Himdred, was uniformly the Norman Earl (Roger de 

The 4th column gives the tenant or tenants holding, in 1086, 
immediately imder the Earl, and whether individual or corporate. 
If the Earl held the whole or part of the Manor in demesne, and 
had therefore no tenant, such fact is marked in this column by a 
horizontal line. 

The 5th column gives the under-tenant (holding under the EarPs 
tenant), where any such is named in Domesday. 

The 6th column enumerates certain features or adjuncts of some 
Domesday Manors, often useM as evidence of identity, such as 
Churches, Priests, Provosts, Berewicks,* Mills, and Woods. 

The 7th column gives the Domesday hidage of each Manor, that 
is, such capacity as each Manor was rated at for the assessment 
called Danegeld. Sometimes a portion of this hidage is stated in 
Domesday to be free from that impost {non ffildabilis), but this 
exemption does not occur in Alnodestreu Himdred. The Domesday 
hidage of Manors is very important, as it formed the basis of later 
taxes than the Danegeld, and so is often a guide in questions of 
identity. The Domesday hide of this Hundred is computed ^ at 240 
acres of the period; the virgate (or yard-land) of the same Becord 
at 60 acres. These acres however will have been somewhat larger 

* Com-fitrms. 

^ This is adyanced as an average rather 
than an invariable estimate, and subject 
to a special question whether the hide, 
even if originally an actual measure, was 
BO practically. For instance, — suppose 

two Manors of equal areal extent, but 
extremely different agricultural value — I 
cannot think that the Domesday hidage 
(a basis of taxation then and afterwards) 
would in such cases be equal. 


than our modem statute acres^ though not so much larger than an 
older and ruder mode of mensuration might reconcile and accoimt 

The 8th column gives reference to the folio^ page> and column of 
the printed Domesday, which faithfiilly represents the original in 
this particular* 

The 9th column gives the modem Hundred of each Manor^ 
except where such Manor's identity is uncertain^ in which case the 
space is fiUed up with a note of interrogation. 

The 10th and last column gives the modem name of each Manor, 
as in the Map ; but where doubt exists as to identity, such doubt is 
marked by a note of interrogation after the surmised name. If the 
identity cannot even be surmised, the same note occupies the space 

The whole contents of the Domesday Hundred are added together 
at the foot of the table; but this is in prospect of a fiiture question, 
to the solution of which such calculations will contribute their 

aittonestreu J^untireti* 

This Hundred, variously written by the Norman * Scribes of 
Domesday as that of Elnoestrul, EInoelstruil, Elnoelstrui, Elnoel- 
stui, or Ahiodestreu^ owed the latter part of its name, perhaps, 
to a vill or tre of British origin, whereat in succeeding times 
some Saxon ^Inoth may have presided as Ealdorman, over the 
folkmote or hundred-court of the district. The locality of such a 
British viU cannot now be surmised, as probably its existence, and 
certainly its conjectured importance, had ceased before the days of 
King Edward the Confessor. 

In his reign (a.d. 1042-1065), the Hundred of Alnodestreu had 
its centre or capvi at Membrefeld (Morville), where consequently 
that local jurisdiction will have been exercised which, together with 
the Manor, realized an annual revenue of <£10. The proportion 
between the Curial and Manorial income is not stated in Domesday; 
but two-thirds of the former, whatever it was, belonged to the 
Crown, and the other third to the Earl of Mercia. 

When in the year 1086, the Domesday Survey was taken, the 
collective value of Morville Manor and its attached Hundred 
of Alnodestreu was a little in excess of the Saxon valuation, viz. 
£10. 8*. 6rf. The Norman Earl (Roger de Montgomery) was now 
entitled to the whole profits ^ of the hundred-court, which are 

^ The Domesday CommiBsioners for 
Worcestershire and other, probably ad- 
joining, Ck)anties, were Bemigius, Bishop 
of Lincohi, Earl Walter Gif&rd, Henry 
de Ferrers, and Adam, brother of Eudo 
the King's Sewer.— ((7o«(w M88.^ Tib, 
A, xiij.) They were all Normans. 

^ In the age immediately succeeding 
that of which we are treating, the distinc- 
tive badge of Earldom was a right to a 
third part of the revenue arising from such 
pleas of the Crown as were held in the 

County or City whereof the Earl took title. 
But I suppose that Earl Roger's tenure 
in Shropshire was like that of the Earl 
of Chester in his County, and will best 
be described. by the tesrm palatine. The 
chief features of such tenure were, that 
the judicial revenue of County, Hundred, 
and Borough Courts was not, as in Saxon, 
or as in subsequent times, divided between 
the Crown and the Earl in proportion of 
two to one, but belonged wholly to the 
Earl. Pleas of the Crown, therefore, did 



estimated at £Sy but that sum probably included the income of such 
portion of the Manor as was retained by the Earl in demesne. 

As regards the boundaries of the Domesday Hundred of Alnode- 
streu, they will best be understood by a perusal of the accompany- 
ing Map. It lay in a scattered form, being broken up by isolated 
portions of the Hundreds of Bascherch and Patinton ; nor was this 
a solitary instance of those eccentric territorial divisions which at 
the period in question must have been productive of great incon- 
venience. A thorough change in this respect was eflFected in 
Shropshire before the accession of Henry II (1154), but by which of 
his four predecessors cannot be determined on positive evidence. 
There are however some negative considerations, which it may be 
worth while to offer on the matter. The reigns of William Bufus 
and Stephen were not likely to have been productive of any great 
internal reforms of this kind. The last two years of William the 
Conqueror (or such part of two years as elapsed between the 
completion of the Domesday record and his death), left him little 
leisure for English affairs, to say nothing of the County of Salop 
being at that time exempt from all subsidiary exercise of royal 
prerogative. On other grounds such a reform might have been 
expected, almost as a corollary of the Domesday Survey ; but then 
it would hardly have escaped the notice of those contemporary 
Chroniclers, who have dwelt so much on the adjuncts of that great 
territorial record. 

King Henry I inherited much of the administrative ability of 
his Father. Thirty years of his reign were years of uninterrupted 
tranquillity as regarded this County. His powers of interference in 
all its internal affairs were unlimited, and his ministers were men of 
great capacity and energy. To his reign then may be ascribed the 
change, which rearranged the divisional system of the County, as 
weU as its external boundaries. 

The feature of this change, which we have at present to do with, 
is, that the Hundred of Alnodestreu was swept away, and came to 

not exist in Earl Boger*8 principality. 
Similarly, no writ of the King would be 
cognizable, or, as the term went, "current" 
in any lands of Earl Eoger's tenure, except 
the "writ close," i.e., addressed to the 
Earl himself. Against a subject thus 
powerful, in case he were refractory or 
rebellious, the King had no legal and 

smnmary remedy, till he had been tried 
by his peers, or refused to undergo such 
trial after due summons. 

Thus the fealty which the Earl of 
Shrewsbury owed to the King of England 
was much what was claimed from the 
latter, as Duke of Normandy, by the 
King of France. 



be represented by portions of the Hundred of Stottesden, Brimstree^ 
and Mnnslow, none of which had any existence at Domesday. 

A second but more partial change in the reign of Richard I 
assigned that part of Alnodestreu Hundred^ which meanwhile had 
been in Munslow Hundred^ and one Manor (Badger), which had 
similarly been in Brimstree Himdred, to the then newly-created 
liberty of Wenlock. In the latter case (the assignment of Badger 
to Wenlock liberty), the anomaly produced was exactly of the kind 
which the first reform was clearly intended to remove. 

With regard to the Manors which appear on the face of the 
Domesday Record, as members of Alnodestreu Hundred, they are 
enumerated in the Table already given. 

Only one of them is of doubtful identity, viz. Etone. 

The Domesday Survey does not specify the Hundreds of many 
Manors, which were of the Norman EarPs demesne. A probability 
that four of these unclassified Manors were in the Hundred of 
Alnodestreu will be stated under their respective notices. A fifth 
Manor, similarly of the Earl's demesne, and written '^ Bolebec ^' in 
Domesday, is not identified, and therefore its position in this 
hundred is matter of the merest conjecture. 

A seventh Manor, '^ Cerlecote," is assigned in the printed 
Domesday to the Hundred of " Reoordin;" nor is the original 
record in this instance misrepresented. It is nevertheless quite 
clear that such assignment was in the first case, a mere scribal in- 
accuracy, which will be noticed in its proper place, and would not 
have been mentioned here, but to explain the appearance of the 
Manor of Charlcott in the annexed Map and Table of the Hundred 
of Alnodestreu. 


When the Domesday Survey was taken^ the Manor of Membre^ 
felde remained^ as in Saxon times^ the caput or centre of the 
Hundred of Alnodestreu. Its relations in that respect have been 
already spoken of^ and it remains further to describe its state as a 

Manorially then, at the time of Domesday, Morville was in a 
condition of uncompleted, but then meditated change. Beyond the 
transfers then contemplated, a lapse of twenty years brought about 
other changes of tenure and condition not then to be expected. 

No wonder then that a comparison of its Domesday state and 
limits with those of a subsequent date should inyolve much 
research in the first instance, some conjecture in the next, and 
perhaps little of positive conclusion in the last. Even the starting 
point — the evidence of Domesday as to this Manor, is in one 
respect obscure, in another false, and in a third silent. Much of 
this was doubtless a result of the condition of the Manor at the 
time ; but after thus deciding on the inadequacy of this paramount 
authority in the case in question, we have little other evidence to 
guide us except that which proves, though it does not correct, the 
errors of the greater record. 

That which Domesday^ tells us consistently is as follows: — 
The whole Manor of Membrefelde contained twelve hides of land 

^ The Domesdaif notice of Morville, with 
the contractions resolved, is as follows : — 

Ipse Comes tenet Memhrefelde cum xviii 
berewichis. Bex Edwardus tenuit. Ibi 
xii hidffi. Una ex his berewichis. Calve- 
stone, de i hidA, est in Wirecestrescire. 
De hde terrd iiii hidee sunt in domiuio, et 
ibi ii carrucse, et vi alise carmcsB possent 
esse. Ibi ix villani et vi bordarii cum iii 
carrucis, et adhuc du£e aliffi possent esse. 
Ibi mi bovaru. 

Huic Manerio pertinet totum Alnodes- 

treu Hundredum. Duo denarii erant Begis 
Edwardi, et tercius Comitis. Inter totum 
reddebat x libros. Modo, quod Comes 
habet valet iii libros. 

Ecclesia hujus Manerii est in honore 
Sancti Gregorii, qusB tempore Begis Ed- 
wardi habebat de h&c terr& viii hidas, et 
ibi serviebant viii canonici. Hanc eccle- 
siam cum v hidis terree tenet ecclesia 
Sancti Petri de Comite. In dominio sunt 
ibi ii carrucffi et iiii alise possunt esse. 
Ibi ix villani et unus bordarius et iii pres- 


to that Abbey. The collective eight hides may however be esti- 
mated as thus involved : — 

One hide at Galveston (Coldweston). 

Five hides in Astley^ that is^ in Astley Abbots and its adjuncts, 
viz. Little Astley, Nordley, Crofte, Haughton, Kingslow, 
Bode, Stanley, Dunvall, Colemore, Severn, Bucroft, 
Cantem, &c. 

One and a-half hides at Billingsley. 

Half a hide in Morville itself (including, perhaps, Harpswood). 

Such then were the eight ecclesiastical hides, supposed to be 
implied by the five and three hides of the Domesday Survey. 

There are yet four hides to be allocated. These are stated in the 
first instance to be held by the Earl in demesne; but two of them, 
in a notice which appears to be supplementary, are said to be the 
tenure of Bichard Pincema. 

To deal with the latter first, it must be submitted, that no two 
hides within any supposable area of Morville Manor ever descended 
as a tenure, immediately under the Earl (or his ultimate repre- 
sentative, the Crown) to any imaginable heir of Bichard Pincema. 
But we know that Tasley was in the area of the Domesday Manor 
of Morville, that it has no distinctive notice in that record, and that 
it constituted a Manor of two hides at a later period. We also know 
that in its adjunct, Henley, Warin the Sheriff had a seignoral 
interest before Domesday, and that in the usual course of Warin^s 
succession a correspondent interest to that which he had exercised 
appears, after Domesday, vested in Fitz-Alan, ' and this both in 
Henley and Tasley. At the intermediate period, viz. 1086, this 
interest was almost uniformly represented by Bainald, the Sheriff, 
Warin's successor and Fitz-Alan^s antecessor : ^ yet Domesday says 
nothing of Bainald being a tenant under the Earl anywhere in 
Morville Manor. It may therefore be presumed, that the two hides, 
said to be held by Bichard Pincema immediately under the Earl, 
were in Tasley and Henley, but that they were held by the said 
Bichard, of Bainald the Sheriff, and by Bainald of the Earl. ® 

7 1 use the word "antecessor*' rather than 
" ancestor" advisedly, because we usually 
associate a descent by blood with the 
latter term, an idea which, in the present 
instance, would be erroneous. 

* Similar as to Cold Weston. — The 
Knight who held one hide of the Monks 

might have been under-tenant there. The 
same Jiuy however which said that Cold 
Weston was in Worcestershire was pro- 
bably not in a condition to give very 
accurate information to the Domesday 
Commissioners as to how it was held. 



To conclude with the two hides which, in 1086, were still of Earl 
Roger's demesne, they must be allocated as follows, that is to say, 
partly in Astley (if Hugh, son and successor to Earl Roger, be truly 
stated to have granted tithes of his demesne of Astley, to Salop 
Abbey) ; partly in Aldenham, Underdon, Bridgewalton, and Lye, 
and even in Morville itself, as will appear hereafter. 

Earl Roger^s demesne in this Manor will also have extended in 
a direction which then had no specific name or occupancy. North- 
ward of Morville, and surrounded by localities which either were 
members of Morville, or else had a distinctive notice in Domesday, 
there was a wide, barren rock, somewhat elevated above the sur- 
rounding country in general, and naturally fortified on three sides 
by ravines and valleys of greater or less depth. On the fourth or 
eastern side, it overhung the channel of the river Severn, at a still 
more commanding height. This rock or platform, then so in- 
significant, had once perhaps been the site of a Saxon fortress, but 
if so, its importance was only traditionary, and the fortress itself a 
ruin. Yet was this unnamed locality destined, within twenty years 
after Domesday , to become the scene of great local and national 
events. First, it was to be the site of a Castle of uncommon 
strength, the work of the last Norman Earl of Shrewsbury, whose 
engineering skill was as famous as his cruelty and ambition. Such 
a combination it was, which served to fortify Bridgnorth in a 
space of time otherwise incredibly short. The result proves how 
judiciously the site was selected, and how eiBSciently occupied, for 
there, within the same period of twenty years, the chief power 9 of 
the kingdom, though marshalled under the eye of an able and war- 
like Monarch, was to receive a sturdy though temporary ^^ check, 
from the foresight of the rebel Earl, and the valour of his depen- 
dants. This spot, naturally unnoticed in Domesday, as part of the 
Earl's demesne in MorvUle Manor, will, in regard of its subsequent 
importance, demand a separate and more prominent notice in the 

Having now sketched the presumed area of the Dovfiesday Manor 
of Morville, it is necessary to speak further of its details. — ^The chief 
feature here was The Church. 

' "Totius AnglieB legiones" are the 
words used by Ordericus. — {Vide Nor- 
, ma/nnorvm Scriptores, page 807 A.) 

*® The siege of Bridgnorth lasted three 
weeks. — {OrdericiM, ibm,) 



A Collegiate Cfhiircli of the usual Saxon cliaracter,ii had existed at 
Morville in the days of King Edward the Confessor. It was in 
honour of St. Gregory. Its endowment was eight hides of land^ 
and it was served by eight Canons. The forfeiture of the Saxon 
Eaxls, Morcar and Edwin, a. d. 1071, was probably in the first 
instance subversive of this foundation, but before a. d. 1086, the 
Norman Earl had devoted the whole of these possessions to an 
ecclesiastical purpose. He had bestowed the Church and five hides 
on Shrewsbury Abbey, and three hides on his domestic Chaplains ; 
but with a proviso as regarded the latter, '^that as fast as the 
Clerks (or life-tenants) died off, the Abbey should appropriate their 
Prebends.^' Thus undoubtedly did Shrewsbury Abbey become at 
some time possessed of the Church and eight hides which had 
formed the Saxon establishment. We are fortimate in having a 
record of the lapse of one of these Prebends, and of some diflSculty 
which the Abbey experienced in establishing its reversionary claim. 
Between the years 1108 and 1113, Richard de Meilnil Hermer, a 
Chaplain, died, having been first shorn a Monk of Salop. His son, 
Hubert, claimed his father's Prebend as his inheritance, but King 
Henry I enjoined Richard, Bishop of London, then Viceroy or 
Steward of this County, to hold trial thereupon. The consequence 
was the defeat of the claimant, the King himself apparently sitting 
in Court, and attended by the chief Barons of the Coimty. We 
learn from this, that Earl Roger's Chaplain was, as might be ex- 
pected, a Norman, Mesnil Hermer being a Norman town and giving 
name to a Norman family. It also would appear that celibacy was 
at this period either not incumbent on the Norman Canons, or that 
these Morville Chaplains of Earl Roger were not esteemed regular 
Canons or amenable to the rules which governed such collegiate 

Besides the lapse of these Prebends, the Church of Morville had 
at this period been otherwise endowed ; or, at least, grants which 
had been made to Salop Abbey, were considered appanages of its 
subject Church of Morville. Such were the grants of a great part 

" Vide Eist. Shrewsbwry, vol. ii, page 2; and Archatoloffia Cambrensis, New Series, 
No. xiv, page 100. 



of Tugford (perhaps including Fertecote^ a vill not at present traced) 
by Warin the Sheriff, and his successor Rainald, previous to 1086. 
Such also was the grant ^* of tithes of his demesne in Astley, by 
Earl Hugh de Montgomery, if indeed this were the origin of that 
undoubted right of the Abbey. Moreover, Warin's grant of the 
tithes of the whole vill of Weston, and of two-thirds of the tithes of 
his demesne of Henley, and Earl Hughes grant of two-thirds of the 
tithes of his demesne of Neuton, and perhaps of Lye, will belong 
to the same category. 

Consistently with the above, a suit which, between 1108 and 
1113, arose between William, son of Bainer de Tangelanda (Thong- 
lands), and the Abbey, about the continuance of a lease of Fertecote, 
will have primarily been a question as to the Abbotts rights in a 
part of his Morville fief. So also the suit which, between 1113 
and 1121, arose between the Abbey and Bainald, son of Turstin 
Buich, as to the right of the latter to hold, in fee and inheritance, 
land near Bridgnorth and the Severn, of which his father had had 
a life-lease. The latter suit ended in the sickness and retractation 
of Rainald, his being shorn a Monk df Salop Abbey, and dying not 
long after his father. 

^ The Charter here quoted stands No. 5 
in the Salop Chartulary, and is printed in 
the New Monasticon, voL iii, p. 520. I 
haye quoted it, though believing it to be 
one of the most unfortunate pieces of eyi- 
dence which remains on the folios of a 
most valuable record. That it Was framed 
to establish an unfounded right to any one 
of the various gifts which it recites is not, 
I believe, the case, and so fax the term 
'^ forgery,** though applicable to it on 
some grounds, should be explained. There 
can be little question, from other evidence, 
that Earl Hugh granted or confirmed, or 
sanctioned, all that the Charter conveys. 
Hor is the alleged attestation of Warin 
the Sheriff who was dead long before Earl 
Hugh's succession, a material objection, 
seeing that attestation of these early 
Charters does not imply the then presence 
of the witness, so much as an assertion on 
the part of the writer of the Charter that 
that witness had been a witness, or a party 
to the transfer, all of it or part of it, at 
one time or other. But the main objec- 
tion to this Charter is that Earl Hugh is 

made to speak in the first person through- 
out, and ends by professing to seal it with 
his own seal, while it is quite certam that 
no such Charter was written in his day, or 
sealed with his seal, while living. This 
point is settled by internal evidence. The 
Earl talks of his demesne of *' Astley, near 
Bruge," whereas Bruge was a nameless 
and barren rock in his day, and probably 
involved in the very demesne of Astley, 
which he is speaking of. He also grants 
other tithes as of his own demesne, where 
demesne he never had, though the Abbey 
certainly had other title to these veiy 
tithes, and Earl Hugh may have con- 
firmed such title, and I believe did. The 
formula too of "Hiis testibus," which 
introduces the witnesses' names, is of a 
later age than Earl Hugh's. The best and 
the worst to be concluded of this Charter is 
that it is a clumsy attempt of some Monk 
to improve a title which needed no such 
fortifying ; and if any seal of Earl Hugh 
was ever attached to the document (which 
I doubt), such afllz was only not a great 
fraud because it was a greater folly. 



At this period, or more precisely a.d. 1118, the Monks of Salop 
had built a new*^ Church at Morville; and Geoflfty (de Clive), Bishop 
of Hereford, attended to its consecration. We should neither 
have known this fact nor its date, but for an awAil accident which 
followed, and which drew the attention of contemporary Chroniclers*^ 
to the circumstances. The day had been unusually fine, and those 
who had flocked to the ceremony of consecration were on their way 
home. A tremendous thunder-storm came on. Seven of the 
travellers, two of them females, were sheltering in one spot. The 
women were struck by the lightning and killed ; the men had a 
narrow escape with life, and five horses belonging to the party 

After the rebuilding of the Church for a period of twenty years, 
we can trace nothing directly of the Church of St. Gregory, its 
possessions, or its interests ; indeed the whole history of the County 
is involved in a similar obscurity. In the year 1121-2, or else in 
1126-7, King Henry I, being then at Norton (near Cimdover), 
issued a general precept ^^ to Richard (de Capella), Bishop of 
Hereford, commanding him that he cause the Abbot of Salop to 
enjoy all such Churches, lands, &c., in his Diocese, as the Abbot's 
predecessors had enjoyed. This precept may have been connected 
with the following circumstances. 

It would seem that ever since the foundation of Salop Abbey, 
the Norman Abbey of Seez had laid claim, if not to the house 
itself as an affiliation, yet to certain of those possessions, whereto 
the latter exhibited an independent title. This probably arose from 
Shrewsbury Abbey, having been built and first occupied by Sagian 
Monks, imported from Earl Koger^s Norman fief. The two first 
Abbots of Shrewsbury came also from Seez, and no one can read Earl 
Roger's foundation Charter, a document of indubitable authority,^^ 
without seeing that it was framed in antagonism to some such claim 

^ The architectural notice of the present 
Church of Morville, with which I am 
favoured by the Rev. J. L. Petit, and 
which is given below, renders it probable 
that nothing whatever of this structure 
of 1118, beyond the materials is now 

1* Tide Flor. Contin. ii, 72. 

16 Salop Chartulary, No. 47. 

16 This Charter stands No. 2 in the 
Chartulary, and is printed in the New 

Monatticon, vol. iii, page 619. In the 
History of Shrewsbwy, voL ii, pp. 11-15, 
an opinion generally favourable as to its 
genuineness is expressed, but some objec- 
tions are also stated. I can only say, with 
regard to the latter, that, after a careful 
comparison of the document with Domes- 
day ^ and other evidence in the Chartulary, 
I cannot find grounds for one of them. 
It will be time to answer these objections 
when the specific subjects on which they 



as that of Seez^ actual or prospective. As regards the possessions 
of Morville Church a claim had thus been made on its Manor of 
BiUingsley ; and successfully too, for the foreign Abbey appears to 
have been seized thereof, when about a.d. 1147 the claims of both 
houses were adjudicated upon by Robert de Betun, Bishop of Here- 
ford. The composition ^^ which ensued left BiUingsley in possession 
of the Abbey of Seez. Thus Salop Abbey will have lost a Manor 
of about one and a half hides in extent, and so, nearly a fifth of the 
eight hides to which it had been entitled by force of Earl Roger's 
original grant of Morville Church, and its appurtenances. 

The manorial possessions of the latter, or at least what remained 
uncontested of them, will about this time, or rather sooner, have 
become more immediately subject to Salop Abbey, in consequence 
of arrangements which must now be mentioned; and we may here 
dismiss any detailed account of separate Manors or townships, 
leaving to such as demand it a future and distinct notice. 

The more comprehensive subject which now arises is a jurisdic- 
tion, rather parochial than manorial, and which Morville Church 
had doubtless exercised in Saxon times, and contrived to retain or 
regain after the Conquest. In all Alnodestreu Hundred, Domesday 
tell us but of one Church then existent, viz. that of St. Gregory. 
Whatever qualification*® we may put upon this feature of the record, 
it is certain that the parish of St. Gregory extended far beyond its 
manorial interests, and involved a very important spiritual jurisdic- 
tion. It was about the year 1138, that Robert de Betun, the 
Diocesan, sympathizing, as he said, with the necessities of Salop 
Abbey, granted ^9 to that house an appropriation of its Church of 
Momerfeuldy enjoining however that it should be colonized with 
Monks from Shrewsbury, changeable at the Abbot's discretion. 

are raised come under review. The objec- 
tion which is made as regards MoryOle 
is, that the Earl grants the Church of 
Momerfeld, with all the land which the 
Clerks held. He means by the Clerks his 
own Chaplains, not the Saxon Canons, as 
the historians of Shrewsbury have pre^ 
sumed. On this ground they attack the 
Charter as contradictory to Domesdoif, 
which speaks only of fiye-eighths of such 
land having been granted to the Abbey. 
This is however merely saying that Domes- 
day is silent as to the directions of the 

Earl with respect to the other three rever- 
sionary eighths, to which I reply that 
Domesday had nothing to do with such 
matters. It treats of possessions, not 

»7 Salop Chartulary, No. 337. 

" The mention of a priest at GHaaeley 
and Chetton may perhaps be taken to 
imply the existence of Churches, and if 
there were not Churches at Tong and 
Donington in 1086 (as Domesday implies), 
there were within ten years of that date. 

w Salop Chartulary, No. 334. 



The object of the latter proviso was ostensibly, " a full dischai^ 
of the duties of hospitality there, in proportion to the local means/' 
Morville thus became a Priory, and subject most directly to 
Salop Abbey. Its ecclesiastical rights, with which alone the Bishop 
had to do, were no longer matters of local concern or exercise. 
They were transferred to the Chapter-House at Shrewsbury. The 
Bishop^s Charter proceeds to specify what they were, and they must 
be enumerated here. 

1. A pension of Qs. Sd. from the Chapel of Billingsley, and half 
the corn-tithes of the same viU. Thus, though the Manor belonged 
to Seez, the parochial jurisdiction remained with Morville Church, 
and was now to be transferred to Salop Abbey. In other words, a 
Chapel had been some time built and endowed at Billingsley, in the 
parish of St. Oregory. St. Oregory had probably given up half the 
corn-tithe as an endowment, retaining however the other half, and 
exacting a pension of half a merk as a token of subjection to the 
Mother Church. 

2. A pension of 5^. from the Chapel of Oldbury ; an acknowledg- 
ment of parochial subjection quite independent of any territorial 

8. A pension of Gs. Sd, from Tasley Chapel, a case like the last. 

The Charter then mentions certain pensions accruing to Salop 
Abbey, from other sources {alias debitas), i, e., such as did notarise 
from the appropriation of the rights of St. Gr^ory. But it 
further confirms the tithes of Astley, both of the Abbot's own 
demesne there, as well as those granted by others (seemingly an 
allusion to Earl Hugh's grant), also two-thirds of the tithes of the 
Lords of Henley, Neuton,^*^ and Upton,*® all which were probably 
appurtenant primarily to the Church of Morville, though the Charter 
does not say so. 

So then, at this date (1138), in the parish of St. Gregory, three 
subject Chapels had been founded since Domesday, viz, at Billings- 
ley, Oldbury, and Taaley. Within a year or two Robert Fitz-Aer 
founded*^ another at Aston Aer, endowing it himself with sixty 
acres of land, a house, and all tithes of his demesne. Within ten 
years two other such Chapels had been built, viz. at Aldenham and 

* These places I take to be Neenton 
and Upton-super-Edge (afterwards Upton 
Cresset), but I cannot trace the original 
grant of tithes in either. At Neenton 
however Salop Abbey possessed a subse- 

quent ecclesiastical interest of a kind 
which was not unusually a result of a 
primary possession of tithes. 
3> Salop Cbartulory, No. 346. 



Uhderdon, with different endowments; and the same Bishop 
again confirming^* to Salop Abbey, and addressing his Dean and 
Chapter of Hereford, tells them that he has consecrated so many 
Chapels as a '^ protection for the poor, and having respect to the 
warlike troubles of the time,^' and he enjoins that all these Chapels 
" be still subject to the Mother Churcli of Morville, so that, on 
great festivals, the people shall attend the latter, and the Priest of 
the latter shall, if he so wills, have the bodies of the dead 
carried thither for burial/' The Bishop further stipulates that the 
endowments of these Chapels (the lands and tithes given to them) 
shall alway be at the disposal of the Mother Church. He also 
charges his own successors not to require more than he had ap- 
pointed in the way of Episcopal dues, "lest,*' says he, and the 
expression is significant, " what I have done in defence of the poor 
prove an injury to the Monks/' 

Agam, the same Bishop consecrated on October 14th^^ (the year 
unmentioned), a new Chapel at Astley Abbots, for there seems to 
have been one before, but probably disused ; and this Chapel was 
endowed, by the Abbot of Salop himself, with half a virgate of 
land (30 acres), a house and assart-land, worth 49. per annum. No 
tithes were given up for this endowment. 

Here then were seven Chapels in one great parish, nearly all of 
them consecrated by a single Bishop, and their endowments and 
relations to the Mother-Church defiinitely settled. And this was 
in the stormy reign of Stephen, a time little likely, one would 
imagine, to have excelled in works of peace and charity. Without 
forgetting the great influence which is ever assuaging human evil 
with some correlative of good, we may classify the subordinate 
agents in this local change, and judge of each by his conduct. The 
Bishop was the prime mover of the work, and he was one who has 
been chronicled in other and independent records ^^ as a friend of 
the poor and oppressed, the opponent of power whenever associated 
with wrong, and a great personal sufferer for such his integrity. 
Then there are the Abbot and Monks of the great Benedictine 
House, at Shrewsbury, yielding a not very ready sympathy to the 
movement, and carefully protecting their own interests throughout. 
Lastly there are the Barons and Knights of the County, endowing 

« Salop Chartulary, No. 333. 
» " The day of St. Calixtus." 
^ See his hfe printed in the Anglia 

Sacra; also the History of Lanthony 
Abbey (in the MonaHicon) and the Oesta 
Begia Stephani, 



Chapels out of their own means^^ when the spiritual superintendence 
of the district was directly acknowledged to be the charge of an 
establishment already endowed. 

Morville, simply as a Cell or Priory, and shorn of all its original 
influence, remained subject to Shrewsbury Abbey till the Reforma- 
tion. Its ancient dependencies, as the Church of St. Gregory, 
rendered whatever allegiance was due, substantially and probably 
immediately to the Abbot, who held his privileged Court at Astley, 
without interference of the Prior of Morville, other than as a 

The names of no Priors*^ of Morville occur, where they might be 
most expected, in the Salop Chartulary. In Michaelmas Term, 
1220, John Prior of Momerfeld appeared in the Courts at West- 
minster as the Abbot's Attorney in a law-suit. 

In 1255 the jurors, empanelled to answer certain questions as to 
tenures and privileges in the Hundred of Stottesden, reported as 
follows: — ^that the Abbot of Salop was Lord of part of Momerefeld; 
that his share was one carrucate, which he held in demesne; that he 
owed no suit for the same (to County or Hundred Court) ; that he 
had thereof the King's charter, and that Y^ feoffor was Earl 
Roger. ^^And,'' say the jurors, " the said vUl was never hidaged,'' 
by which they must have meant, never assessed according to any 
separate hidage, which was likely enough, as it was subject to no 
assessment of those which were chargeable on the hidage of 
manors. We may however estimate the carrucate which Salop 
Abbey had in Morville itself, as something like half a hide, and 
this both with reference to the previous survey of Domesday and a 
subsequent statement ^^ as to acreage. 

» The Chapels of Bfllingsley, Oldbury, 
Aston Aer, and Aldenham, were founded 
or endowed by laics, and probably Taaley. 
The great injustice which resulted in such 
cases was that in process of time the Abbey 
engrossed the greater share of these en- 
dowments, leaving but a slender pittance 
to the Incumbents, whereas of course a 
local benefit was the primary object of 
the Founders. 

» May28th,1263, JohnWallensis, Prior 
of Momerefeudj conniyed at the introduc- 
tion into his Priory of part of a hind 
which Walter Baldwin, of l^orley, and 
Boger Dunfowe liad unlawfully taken. I 

Before the case came before the Justices 
of the Forest, yiz., Feb. 3d, 1262, this 
Prior was dead. Flacita foreste a^pvd 
Salop, 46 Hen. Ill, memb. 4. 

John Perle occurs as Prior, June 16th, 
1353 (Vide infra). 

^ The carrucate itself is never once men- 
tioned in the Shropshire Domesday, The 

word abbreviated thus, car , car, is always 
carruca, an ox-team. Elsewhere in Domes- 
day (as fol. 269 b.) the word, similarly 
abbreviated, stands oftenest for carrucata^ 
and in one entry is so written in full. 
But car, as an abbreviation of carruca, is 
used on the very same page. As regards 


In 1280, the Abbot of Salop was receiving a pension jGrom the 
Church of M orville, as distinct from the Priory, under the usual 
system of exaction. It was two merks {£l, 6s, Sd.) per annum, 
and John Archbishop of Canterbury sanctioned it, by deed^ of 
August 23d in that year. 

In 1291, the Church of MorviUe, with three of its Chapels, Astley, 
Aston Aer, and Billingsley, was valued as realizing to the Incumbent 
£17. 6s. Sd. per annum ; but how this valuation was made up, and 
what were the services thus remunerated, does not appear. 

The pensions deriveable, at the same date, from the Chapels of 
Oldbury and Tasley, were estimated as part of the income of the 

In 1341, the parish of Morville was assessed as follows: its 
taxation or ecclesiastical value, including Chapels, was 26 merks 
(£17. 6s. Sd.) ; but the assessors of the ninth of wheat, wool, and 
lamb, in the same parish, rendered account only of £10. 3^. 4rf. ; 
" so much less than the Church valuation, because there had been a 
common murrain in this year ; and because small tithes, offerings, 
and other profits go to make up the higher taxation and are not 
comprised in this j and because many tenants have thrown up their 
holdings through poverty ; and because there are two carrucates^ 
and one mike of land (within the parish), which belong to the 
Chapel of St. Mary Magdalene, of Brugg, and pay nothing towards 
said ninth. But in the said ninth are included the temporalities 
of Salop Abbey, which are taxed like other (tenures) within the 


Of the early incumbents of this Church I can say but little. I 
have only found two of the 13th century, and both of them have 
merely the title of Chaplain. Roger, the earliest of these Chaplains, 
was Father of that Richard, whom I shall mention hereafter as 

Shropshire, I do not suppose that any 
inyariable or ascertained ratio can be 
established between ^q- "Domesday mea- 
surement by the hide, and the later com- 
putation by the oarrucate. The computa- 
tion, giyen Sistory of Shrewahwy, vol. ii, 
pp. 8-9, proceeds on the erroneous sup- 

position that the carrucate occurs as a 
land-measure in the Shropshire Domes- 

28 Salop Chartulary, No. 62,— but the 
sum was probably made up by the pen- 
sions from subject Chapels. 




marrying Sibil, the widow of Robert de Teneray, and confirming 
her grants to this Church. 

Later in the centmy, Richard, Chaplain of Morville, attests a 
grant by Hugh, Lord of Upton (Cresset), to Morville Church, 
which I shall have occasion to notice hereafter. 

The earlier Registers of Hereford exhibit no instance of a pre- 
sentation to this office, neither is it mentioned in the Valor of 

In 1545, as will presently appear, the officiating Minister here is 
styled merely Curate, and his stipend, chargeable on the Priory, 
was £5. 168. Oid. per annum. 

Finally, to show the ever varying combination which, under the 
monastic rule, confused both territory, tithes. Church, Chapels, and 
Priory, we may add an account of the state of things, such as the 
Reformation found and left them, here. 

Previous to July 30th, 1529, Richard Marshall, alias Baker, 
twenty-eighth Abbot of Shrewsbury (if the list ^ be correct) had 
resigned, for on that day the election of his successor Thomas 
Boteler, twenty-ninth and last Abbot, received the Royal 

The resigning Abbot had a pension of £40 per annum assigned 
him by his Convent. To make up that sum a deed^ under the 
Convent seal, passed 22d October, 1529, granting to him, inter alia, 
for term of life, the Cell or Grange*^ of Morfield, with all its lands, 
meadows, pastures, and other hereditaments, both temporal and 
spiritual. We learn from a valuation of subsequent date (June 16th, 
1545), and made by Royal Commission, both the gross and net value 
of the premises thus conveyed, and further, in what they consisted. 
This last record or " extent " of Morville Priory must be briefly 
given. It was on this wise : — 

^ Sisi, Shrewshuryy ii, 130, 

* Vide Collectanea Topogra/phica est 
Qenealogica^ vol. ii, pp. 289-291, where 
these particulars are printed from records 
in the Augmentation Office. 

81 Morville was still sometimes called a 
Priory, and the retired Ahbot its Prior. 
Leland, who travelled this way from Wen- 

lock at the time, says, "I sawe a litle 
Priory or Cell called Morfeilde on the 
right hand as I entred this village." 
{Heaa^a Itinerary, vol. ii, p. 102.) For 
the title of Prior, as applied to Marshal], 
and other particulars about him — (See 
SUt. Shrewsbufy, voL ii, p. 134, note 3.) 



£, s. d. 

Bent of the site of the Cell or Orange with all its 
houses^ kitchen^ pasture^ bams^ stables^ buildings^ 
&c.^ in a state of utter ruin^ with one small garden^ 
one orchard^ four stews^ and the land and soil 
within the site and precinct of said Grange, per 
annum . . . . . . . . 

Bent of 92| acres of arable, meadow, grass and 
pasture land, in diverse fields and enclosures 

B/Cnt of two tenements (in one of which Bichard 
Marshall seems to have resided) ^^ 

Bent, or farm, of the tithes of grain and hay in^ 
Moreflfeld, Walton, Lye, Kyndesley, Aldenham, 
Harpsford, Haughton, Croflbe, and Underdon, and 

Bent of the tithe of wool and other produce of the 
whole parish of Morfeld 


7 17 

The outgoings ^ were : 

Salary of the Curate of Morefelde 
Salary of the Curate of Wheaton Aston . 
Bishop of Hereford's visitation fees 
Sinage and proxes (synodals and procu- 
rations) ...... 

Comissary of the Diocese 

£. 8. d. 

5 16 Oi 

5 16 Oi 

17 9t 

13 4 

6 8 



£30 9 

13 9 lOi 

So that the net annual value, as stated in the document 

referred to, was 

£16 10 lOf 

On December 4th, 1545, the reversion of these premises was 
granted by the Crown to John Dudley, Viscount Lisle, and Lord 
Admiral of England, but such reversion would not, in the ordinary 
course, have taken effect till May 1558, on the 7th day of which 
month Bichard Marshall was buried at St. Leonard's, Bridgnorth. 
The Lord Lisle had however sold the reversion long before, and 

" Bichard Marshall howerer lived at 
Bridgnorth for a time before his death, 
if I rightly interpret the somewhat ambi- 
guous notice of him last referred to, but 
which is explained differentlj by the his- 
torians of Shrewsbury. 

^ Tet in a return of the income of his 
Abbey, for the year ending Michaelmas 
1534, the Abbot of Salop includes an 

annual pension of £8 reoeived from the 
Prior of Morville {Valor JSccles, iii, 190), 
which, if correct, will have been a further 
charge on Marshall's income. And indeed, 
when Salop Abbey was surrendered (Jan. 
1540), a pension of £10 was allotted to 
him by the Crown, as if his pension of 
£40 were not yet made up elsewhere. — 
(Vide Hist. Shrewsh. ibm.) 



perhaps Marshall^ his life interest^ for there is an entry on the 
originalia^ returns of 37 Hen. VIII (1545-6), as to ''Roger 
Smyth, of Brydgnorth, doing homage for the premises/' 


The earliest architectural features appear to belong to the latter 
part of the 12th century. The tower has very thick walls, and 
the Norman flat buttress or pilaster at the angles. Its upper 
part is of a much later date. The arches which separate the 
nave from the aisles are semicircular : their mouldings indicate a 
transitional period, when the pure Norman style was beginning 
to make way for the Gk)thic which succeeded it. We have many 
buildings which may be referred to this interesting epoch in 
architecture; they sometimes exhibit the tendency to change in 
the form of the arch, as at Build was ; and sometimes in the mould- 
ings, while the arch continues to be semicircular. Sometimes it is 
shown both by the arch and its mouldings, but then some mark or 
other rarely fails to occur by which the date may be detected. 

Here we find a convex moulding, the section of which represents 
the form of a pointed arch ; this I think does not occur in earlier 

The piers are of a somewhat uncommon plan, namely, a square, 
in the sides of which are engaged shafts, or semi-shafts whose 
section is an ogee-pointed arch ; the form of the abacus is octagonal. 
The Chancel-arch is semicircular; its western face exhibits a shaft 
with an enriched capital, and two double rows of billets, those of the 
inner row being smaller than we usually find in Norman work. 
On the north side of the chancel is a door or porch, with a semi- 
circular arch under a plain gabled canopy. Above the arch is a 
stone, bearing the date 1683; but as there can be no doubt that the 
string-courses, fi-om which the arch springs, and the sculpture in 
its head, are as early as the 12th century, this date probably refers 

^ Originalia, 37 Hen. VIII, rot 23, 
quoted Monast. iii, 517, note {e). — The 
Becord itself has since been examined. It 
is On>. 37 H. VIII, p. 3, J2o<. 23. The 
King, for a fine of £4. 17*., grants to John 
Viscount Lisle, that he may, by fine to 
be levied at Westminster, grant the pre- 

mises before recited, and the reversion of 
Marshall's life interest therein, to Soger 
Smyth, of Bridgnorth, to hold to said 
Boger and his heirs, of the King and his 
heirs, by accustomed services. Given at 
Westminster, 18th February, anno 37 




to some general repair of the Church, or to the re-arrangement of 
the door itself, the opening of which, beneath the old arch, is 
evidently modem. 

The Font, which is circxdar and without any shaft, is covered with 
rude sculpture, to which I do not see any reason to assign an earlier 
date than to the oldest parts of the Church, though it is just of that 
character that might induce an antiquary to class it among very old 
specimens, without any fear of being met by a decided proof to the 
contrary. It is a curious and interesting relic, worthy of careful 

J. L. Petit. 

"We have now treated of Morville as the caput of a Saxon and 
Domesday Hundred, as centre of a great Manor, and Mother- 
Church of a still greater Parish. "We have seen it lose all these 
dignities and become ecclesiastically a very mean Priory or Cell of 
Shrewsbury Abbey, manorially a small tenement of less than a 
hundred acres, and as a seat of provincial government, nothing. 

"We may now dismiss the subject and revert to its manorial 
adjuncts, if our identification of them at the time of Domesday 
may, for the present, be accepted as probable. 

First on the list will stand Astley, sometimes calloi Astley Brug, 
but with a better note of distinction. — 


This township engrossed to itself at a very early period the 
manorial dignity of Morville, as far as the interests of Salop Abbey 
were concerned. • 

When spoken of as a Manor of five hides, as in 1255, it must be 
taken to involve a great proportion of the seventeen unnamed 
berewicks of Domesday. Little Astley, Norley, Croft, Haughton, 
Kingslow, Boad, Stanley, Dunvall, Colemore, Severn Hall, Can- 
treyn, Rucroft, and Bunewall, ^ are hamlets, messuages, or tene- 
ments found at diverse period as members of this Manor, and some 
nine or ten of them will have been of the Domesday bereivicks. Of 
them more in detail hereafter. 

If Earl Hugh granted to Salop Abbey tithes of his demesne of 

35 The Haye, Dcepdale, Haseldene) also occur, and others of still less note. 



Astley^ as alledged^ that demesne will probably have lain in the 
direction which was afterwards occupied by the town of Bridgnorth. 

At the northern extremity of its Manor of Astley^ the Abbey seems 
to have early made an acquisition of some importance in those days. 

Between the years 1135 and 1141 (because subsequently to the 
death of Henry I^ and previously to the Empress' comfirmation ^ 
thereof), Hamon Peverel granted the ''fishery and passage'' of 
Sutton. This wiU have been a right of weir and ferry in the river 
Severn, 'probably at the point where the Manors of Apley and 
Sutton Maddock now converge on the eastern bank of that river. 
About the same time ^ Robert, Bishop of Hereford, appropriating 
Morville Church to Salop Abbey, includes a pension of eight 
shillings arising from its subject Chapel of Estley. He also con- 
firms all the tithes as well of the Abbot's demesne of Estley, as 
those '' anciently given by others in the same parish." 

About the year 1160,*^ Robert, Abbot of Salop, with consent of 
his Chapter, granted to Philip Fitz-Stephen and his heirs, the fishery 
of Sutton (piscariam de Sutuna) and the land, of which Richard 
and Hugh were tenants, near the fishery. The annual rent reserved 
was 1^. 4id., payable at Michaelmas. The witnesses of this feoffment^ 
have reference to the locality. They were Richard the Priest of 
Hestlee (Astley), Hugh Piscator (Fisher) of Brugg, Alexander 
the Forester, Ralph son of Ordric, Alduin de Harpesfort (Harps- 
wood), and Bermer de Norlee (Nordley). 

In 1180, among those amerced*^ by the Justices of the Forest, 
then visiting this County, were several of the Abbot of Salop's 
tenants at Astley and Norley. The subject of these amercements 
was certain purprestures and tillages within the limits of the King's 
forest of Shirlet. Among the names are Albinus, Robert de 
Bonewell, Reginald de Halcton, •WUliam de la Rode, Andrew, 
Richard the Provost, and Robert Weudac, each of whom was more 
or less connected with the local history of the Manor. The Provost 
named was probably the Bailiff of the Abbot of Salop. 

About the year 1225 a grant ^ to Morville Church is fortified by 
oath of the grantors, taken " before Brother John de Egeton, then 

8* Salop Chartulary, Ko. 40. There was 
at this period no bridge over the Severn 
between Shrewsbury and Bridgnorth. 
One at Atcham was made early in the 
next century. 

37 Salop Chartulary, No. 334. 

^ New Mofutsticon, vol. iii, p. 522, No. 

^ PlcusUa Foresta (Chapter-House, 
Westminster, No. i.) 

^ Salop Chartulary, No. 104. 



Seneschall, and Brother William de Penkridge, Monks, and before 
the fiill Court of the Lord Abbot of Salop, at Astley." 

In 1255 the Jurors who took inquisition *i of the tenures in 
Stottesden Hundred, before the King's Commissioners, say that the 
''Abbot of Salop is Lord of Astlegh by gift of Earl Eoger. 
Therein are five hides of land which the said Abbot holds, nor does 
he any suit ; and he has the King's warrant/' . Hugo de Kynsedd 
(Kinslow), one of the Abbots feoffees, was himself of the Jury on 
this occasion. 

2l8t May, 1256. The Abbot had the King's charter ^ of jfree- 
warren in all his demesne lands. '' Astley^' is mentioned among 

November 30th, 1274. Another tenant of the Abbot here, viz. 
Simon de Sabrina, was of the jury*^ which attended at Salop to 
make report to a Royal Commission on several matters relating to 
Stottesden Hundred. 

There is a record ** written apparently about the end of the 
thirteenth century, and which takes note of certain villages, woods, 
&c., pertaining to the custody of the King's forest (hayae), of 
Schirlet, and which had been disafforested by perambulation made 
thereof." Among them are Colemore, Stanleye, Rucroft, Medewe- 
grene, Contreyne, the messuage of Simon de Sabrina (now Severn 
Hall), Northleye, Astley Abbots, La Dunfowe (now Dunvall), La 
Rode (now Road or Rhodes), Kinsedeleye (now Kingslow), Tasley, 
Crofte, Haley gton (now Haughton), Momerfeld, Lee (Lye), Un- 
derdone, "Walton (now Bridgewarton), and Harpesford. 

About the year 1267,*^ Philip, Lord of Baggesovere (Badger), for 
the sum of four merks, sold to William Abbot, and the Convent, of 
Salop, all the land which he had in their Manor of Astlee, with all 
his rights in rents, homages, reliefs, escheats, &;c., which land he 
held (of them) at 5*. rent. The object of this sale or siurender, 
though itself of some interest, is not to our present purpose. 
SufSce it here to say that this Philip, Lord of Badger, was also 
Forester of the fee in the King^s forest of Shirlet, and lineal de- 
scendant of that Philip Fitz-Stephen, whom we have seen becoming 
the Abbof s tenant here a century before. Whether the premises 

*^ Hundred MolU^ vol. ii, p. 81. 

^ Salop Chartulary, No. 53. This docu- 
ment, which ought to appear on Mot. Car- 
tarunhf 40 Hen. Ill, is thus preserved, the 
Charter Bolls of that year being lost. 

^ Hundred jRoUs^ vol. ii, p. 107. 
^ Forest Soils, Westminster, Satop, 
No. iii. 
^ Salop Cliartulary, No. 146. 



granted to Pliilip Fitz-Stephen were identical with those surrendered^ 
or, what is more probable, part of them, we cannot decide ; but a 
glance at the Map wUl show how relevant to his official duties must 
have been the ferry of Sutton to that Forester of Shirlet, whose 
residence and lands were at Badger and Ackleton. 

In 1284 there was an inquisition^ of the kind afterwards 
classified as '^ad quod damnum/' relating to the Abbot of Salop, as 
Lord of Astley juxta Brug, making assarts in Shirlet forest. 

In 1291 we have a valuation of the Abbotts temporal interests 
here : — 

He had four carrucates of land (in demesne), £ 8. d. 
estimated as annually worth (at ISs. 4ef. per 

carrucate) 2 13 4 

He had a parcel of meadow-land worth . , 3 4 

A mill 13 4 

In rents • 11 2 Of 

In pleas and perquisites (of the Manor Court) 8 6 

His revenue here will therefore have been . £15 61 

We have other valuations of this Manor, which, though made more 
than two centuries afterwards, may be given here if only for com- 
parison. In the year^''^ ending Michaelmas 1535, this Manor 
appears to have realized to the then Abbot a net revenue of about 
£27. lis,, but 14^. of tithes are among the receipts, whilst a 
chief-rent to the Crown of 2s. 4^ J., and a baihff^s salary of £1 
constitute the. abatements. The profits of Court are not estimated.^ 

Six years later tiie Ministers^ accounts give the annual value of 
this possession of the dissolved Abbey of Salop as £32. 9s, 4^., but 
that sum includes both the profits of Court (£2. 10^. 4>d.) and 
tithes {£2. 14*.)- 

Before we leave this Manor a statement must be added which, 
while it concerns a considerable tenure therein, also embodies some 

** Escheats sive Inquisitiones post mor* 
tern, 12 Ed. I, No. 60. 

^ Valor Scclesiasticus, vol. iii, pp. 189, 

^ A. rental of the possessions of Salop 
Abbey between the years 1487 and 1491, 
is quoted Hist. ShretDshury, yol. ii, pp. 
508, 509. The income deriyable from 
Astley is stated at £25. 2s. Sd., " but," say 

the Editors, "under tliis head are included 
items quite unconnected with Astley, as 
Albyns, Kakeweche, Nordley, Depedale, 
Tasseley, &c." I presume that the state- 
ments in the text exhibit a rery close con- 
nexion between Astley and most of these 
places. The same Boll estimates the tithes 
of Astley at 45 shillings per annum. 


particulars of law proceedings extracted from the very earliest of 
our Judicial Records. 

A person, whose name is written Robert "Wendac, has been 
already mentioned as concerned here in 1180.' In June, 1194, 
Cecilia and SibUla, apparently daughters and co-heirs of this 
Robert, who seems also to have been son of another Robert (whose 
name is written '^ Wandard^'), were sued*^ for the inheritance of 
the latter by William Savage, alleging himself to be son of another 
William Savage, eldest son of said Robert Wandard. The Record 
is not very clear on all poiuts, but the progress of the cause was 
nearly as follows : — 

On June 6th, 1194, the defendants Cecily and Sibil, with their 
husbands William Turald and Geoffiry de Molendino, had essoign 
in the Court at Westminster till July 1st following. The ground 
of essoign appears to have been the sickness of Cecily, for on the 
day appointed (July Ist),^ four visws who ought to have been in 
Court to testify their view of the infirmity of Cecilia de Cantinunt 
(a corruption of Cantreyn or Cantem) came not. They were 
summoned again for (me month of Michaelmas, and at the same 
time ** GeoflEry and Sibil appointed William fitz Turald (Cecilia^s 
husband) their attorney, to win or lose (ad lucrandum vel per- 

On October 27th, the cause*^ came on for hearing. The lands in 
dispute were two carrucates iu Estlee, with three messuages and ten 
acres iu Bruge (Bridgnorth). Each party seems to have pleaded a 
right founded on the primogeniture of either of the two sons of 
Robert Wandard, the defendants adding, iu confirmation, their 
possession of other lands iu Bruge, similarly derived. The defen- 
dants required "view" thereof, which the Court granted, and 
adjourned the case till the quinzaine of St. Martin, and such view 
was to be taken iu the interim. On November 24th, 1194, three 
of the four knights appointed to take this view certified*^ to the 
Court their discharge of such duty ; but the case did not end here. 

^ Flacita wpvd Westm, Trin. Term, 
6 B. I, memb. 3 recto. The date of the 
Boll is assigned from its internal evidence. 
It is that described in the Ahbrem<Uio 
PlacUorum, pp. 96, 97, as " incerti tem- 
poris Begis Bicardi." In consequence of 
its date not being inscribed, this Boll has 
escaped the notice of the Editor of "the 

UotuU OuricB Begis^ the first volume of 
which purports to be a transcript of all 
existent judicial records of that reign. 
See Preface, p. 5. 

^ Ibidem, memb. 5 dorso. 

*^ Ibidem, memb. 3 recto. 

^ SotiUi CuricB Eegis^ vol. i, p. 14. 

» Ibidem, p. 73. 




for on the following «♦ day William fitz Tturald again had essoig% 
and the cause was adjourned till the octaves of Hilary (January 
20th, 1195). The minutes of that term and many subsequent 
terms are lost, and we can only conclude firom the record of a suit 
many years afterwards, that the defendants did not lose all if any 
of the premises. 

In Michaelmas Term, 1221, ^ Geoffiry (de Molendino) and Sibil 
fitz Robert (so written in this case) being dead, and Bichard de 
Kinsedel (Kinslow), second husband of Sibil, surviving, William, 
the son of Geofiry and Sibil, being then a minor, sued said 
Richard for a mill and eighteen acres here, the right of his mother. 
Richard pleaded his marriage of Sibil, and that, having had chil- 
dren by her, he was entitled by custom of England to her inherit- 
ance for his life. The plaintiff William rejoined with two pleas : 
one that Richard's children were not by his mother Sibil, but 
by a later wife; the other that Richard was a viUain.^ The truth 
of one or both of these last assertions is apparent from the sequel, 
for Richard, though in possession, resigned his claim for half a merk 
(6«. 8rf.) 


There will have been a Church or Chapel here within half a 
century after Domesday, for Robert de Betun*'^ appropriating 
Morville Church to Salop Abbey about a.d. 1138, included a 
pension of 8*. arising from its subject '^ Chapel of Estleya.'^ 

The same^ Bishop, when he consecrated a new Chapel and 
Cemetery here shortly after, speaks of the previous dependence of 
the Chapel on Morville Church, and directs that it continue. The 
Abbot of Salop^s endowment of the new foundation has already 
been stated, and it would seem that for a time such endowment will 
have been unrevoked. However about 1217,*® Hugh (de Mapenore), 
Bishop of Hereford, granted to Morville Priory an appropriation 
hereof, saving the life interest of Gerard de Egymendune (Edg- 
mond), the then Incumbent. This grant, though preserving the 
name of an early Rector, probably placed again at the discretion of 
the Abbot his predecessor's endowment ; and indeed there is no 

" Botuli Curia Megis^ vol. i, p. 126. 

w Placita apud Salopf 6 Hen. Ill, 
inemb.4, dorso. 

*^ One whose tenure was in villanctgey 
and who, so far from being able to possess 

land, was transferable himself as part and 
parcel of the appurtenances. 

*7 Salop Chartulary, No. 334. 

M Ibidem, No. 348. 

» Ibidem, No. 347. 


subsequent mention of this Chapel from this time till the dissolu- 
tion^ except as in most dependent connection with Morville Church. 
The valuation of 1535 does not even mention it. 


After Gerard de Egymendune's Incumbency, the officiating 
minister here like him at Morville seems to have been entitled 
" Chaplain." 

Henry Chaplain of *' Esteleg '^ was father of that Joseph who will 
appear elsewhere as grantee of Henry de BunewaU and Robert de 
Teneray in the Manor. About September, 1258, Richard Chaplain 
of ^'Estleg'^ attests a Salop charter, relating to land in Astley. 

The earliest notice on the Diocesan Register is of date June 
16th, 1353, when John Perle, Prior of Morville and Proctor of 
Salop Abbey, admitted before the Bishop, at his Visitation of 
Morville, that the Abbot was bound to find and mabitaui a Chaplain 
in the Chapel of Astley, dependent on Morville Church. The 
admission argues the previous neglect of such duty, or at least an 
attempt to evade it; — another hint as to the way in which the 
Monastic Houses of that period attended to the spiritual interests 
of their dependents. 


Called also ''alia Estleia" and ''parva Estleham," was one of 
those adjuncts of Morville which Earl Roger's grant, as interpreted 
by the confirmation of King William, conveyed to Salop Abbej. 

About A.D. 1220, the Abbot seems to have added to his demesne 
by purchase from and exchange with two of his tenants here. He 
paid^ Geofliy, the Irishman (le Hyreis), of Brug three and a half 
merks for a culture under Little Estleham (Astley Home), and 
gave ^* Henry le Map half a virgate in Nordley, and a meadow 
between Henley and Kingslow-bridge, to hold for a rent of 28. Sd. 
in exchange for his tenancy in Little Estleg. 


This vill was similarly involved in Earl Roger's grant. A family, 
taking its name from the place, seems to have held the principal 

«> Salop Chartulary, No. 147. « Ibidem, No. 158. 



tenancy here nnder Salop Abbey. Benner de Norlec has already ^ 
occurred about 1160, and Andrew de Norley^ or a succession® of 
Andrews^ occurs from 1180 for more than seventy years. 

In November, 1221,^ the Abbot of Salop was sued by William 
Fitz- Walter for disseising him of his fi-ee tenement here ; but in 
vain, for the cousins of William proved him to be a villain,^ 

By inquest ^ held at Astley, on " qtiasi modo geniti " Sunday, 
1 Edw. I (April 16th, 1273), after death of Henry le Forcer, Lord of 
Linley, and a tenant in capite at Brockton, it was found that he 
held in socage here of Salop Abbey, paying an annual rent of Ss., 
and doing suit thrice a year at the Abbotts Court of Astley. Con- 
sistently with this there are deeds ^ in the Salop Chartulary, which 
evidently passed in Astley Abbots Manor-Court, and which are 
attested by members of this family. 


This place, also involved in Earl Soger's grant, gave name to 
certain tenants thereof under Salop Abbey. 

September 26th,68 1199, Nicholas de la Rode having impleaded 
William de Crofte, the tenant, for a virgate of land here, relin- 
quished his claim hj final concord at Salop Assizes, receiving lOs. 
In October, 1203,^ this virgate became again a subject of litigation. 
William de Crofte having enfeoflFed Richard de Crofte therein, the 
latter, as tenant, was sued at Salop Assizes by writ of mort d' 
ancestre for the same. The plaintiff, R^inald de Crofte, alleged 
tha! his father (another Reginald) had died seized thereof, and that he 
was his heir. Richard de Crofl«, the defendant, called to warrantry 
William de Crofte, who duly appeared and established his title by 
producing in Court the fine, or " chirograph,^' of 1199. Reginald 
was then asked by the Court why, on the occasion of that fine 
being levied, he did not put in his claim. His answer was, that he 
was then in Cheshire; and so he was nonsuited. 

•* Vide page 44. 

« Forest Soil at Westminster. Salop, 
No. 1. Salop Chartulary, passim^ and 
Charters at Apley Park. 

" Salop Assize JRoll, 6 Hen. Ill, memb. 
8 recto. 

^ Vide page 48, note 50. 

^ InqniflitioneB post mortem, 1 Ed. I. 
No. 47. 

•'Salop Chartnlary, Nos. 145-151- 
274 5. 

^ Pedes finimn, 1 John. 

^ Salop Assizes, 6 John, memb. 4 



This William de Crofte appears a few years later to in attendance 
on the Abbot's Court at Astley^ and one of both his names attests 
a deed ^i there at the end of the century, viz. 25th May, 1298. 

But about the middle of the 13th century the Abbot had a 
clerical tenant here, of great wealth and still greater notoriety. 

The earliest occurrence of Master Walter le Palmer, of Brug, is 
his being enfeoffed 72 by Sibil de Halchtun (Haughton), widow, in 
an acre of land in Haughton, which was already bounded on two 
sides by lands of his tenure, and on a third by a meadow which 
separated Kinslow and Croft. 

In the year 1255 73 the possessions of this Master Walter le 
Palmer, at Church Stretton and Bridgnorth, had been seized into 
the King's hands under the following circumstances. He stood 
indicted for entertaining one Roger de Kinver, an outlaw, and also 
for the murders of Matilda, aunt of John de Gatacre, and of 
William Kilmayn. His Father, Hamon le Palmer, seems to have 
been implicated. Walter however contrived to free both himself 
and his Father from all liability to the civil power, by large pecu- 
niary offerings (oblata), in which the Abbot of Buildwas was his 
surety. His gmlt however is more clearly proved, than by the sus- 
picion which his large j/f we alone would warrant. He was put upon 
his trial 7* in the Crown Court, at Salop Assizes, in January, 1256. 
The Official of the Bishop of Coventry demanded that he be sur- 
rendered to the spiritual power, being a Clerk. The King's Justices 
acquiesced, but directed the Jury first to give their verdict, on the 
Crown prosecution, " to the end,'' says the record, ''that it may be 
known what kind of character is thus surrendered." The jury 
pronounced him guilty of the murder of Matilda, but not guilty of 
the other offences. It being also found that he had lay possessions, 
all that the Justiciars could do was to order the Sheriff to seize the 
same on behalf of the Crown. His fate in the Ecclesiastical Court 
does not appear, but there i& a full record of his ultimate com- 
position with the civil power.. What with* replevying his lands and 
chattels, compounding for the non-appearance of Hamon, his Father, 
at the Assizes, and* his fine for his. said Father's lands and chattels; 
he appears on the Pipe Boll,^^ of Michaelmas, 1256, as having been 

70 Salop Chartulary, No. 137— if I 
rightly date the deed, c. 1215. 

71 Ibidem, No. 274 b. 

^ Charter in the possession of the Bey. 
J. Brooke, of Haughton. 

73 Salop Assize Boll, 40 Henry m, 
(Placita Coron» Bot. 4 dorso, & 10 reoto.) 

7* Salop Assize Boll, 40 Henry III, 
memb. 10 recto. 

7« Moff, Bot Pip. 40 Hen. Ill, Salop. 



amenable to the Crown in Timoiis soma, amonnting in the whole 
to £51. JSs. 4d. Of this debt he had already paid £43. 6«. M. 
into the Song's Treasury, £5. to Bemigius de Arundel, the Sheriff's 
Clerk, and owed only £3. 6«. 8J. His payment of this balance is 
the last item on the Sheriff's accounts of the year. 

We have one more local reminiscence of this individual. In 
November, 1260, as tenant of a messuage and one carrucate of land 
in Crofte, he compounded by payment of 26 merks (£17. 6«. %d,)^ 
a claim which one Alan Strannelone had made on the same. This 
fine 76 was levied at Westminster, and appears to be the termination 
of a real suit. 


Another member of Astley, gave name to the fieunily of that 
Reginald de Halctun, who has already been mentioned as subject in 
1180 to the amercement of the Justices of the Forest. But the 
principal tenant here, in the beginning of the next- century, was 
Robert de Teneray, in right of his wife Sibil, daughter and heir of 
"Floria de Halectun." This Robert de Teneray having a temporary 
lease of some tenement in Kinslow, and exercising a presumed right 
of pasture in that vUl, was disseized of the latter by Geoffiry de 
"Kynesle," the principal owner there. His action tt of novel disseisin 
against said Geoffiy was tried at Salop Assizes, in November, 
1221, and failed, inasmuch as his interest in Kinslow was a terminal 
one, and did not amount to dijree tenure. This Robert de Teneray 
and Sibil his wife occur about the same time, as granting a life- 
leasers to one Joseph fitz Henry, of a house and land in ^^Halechtone." 
Sibil also, now a widow, enfeoffed ^^ the Priory of Morville in the 
same and other lands here, by two separate deeds, the last of which 
reserves a rent of 15 pence to herself. This reserved rent she, by a 
further deed,*^ quitted to the Priory, whose obligation in lieu thereof 
was to pay 2 pence annually towards lighting the Church. 

Again, the same Sibil, now remarried to Richard, son of R(^er 

w Pedes fimmn, 45 Hen. IH. I shaU 
have again to e^eskk. of this Master Walter 
le Palmer in another connexion. He was 
member of a fimiily, which, at this period, 
was by £Etr the wealthiest and most im- 
portant within the Borough of Bridg- 
north, and whose purchases and interests 

are the prominent feature of a large col- 
lection of documents at Aplej Park. 

^ Salop Assize £oll^ 6 Hen. Ill, memb. 
4 recto. 

^ Salop Chartulary, No. 99, b. 

'^ Ibidem, Nos. 100, 102. 

» Ibidem, No. 99. 



formerly Chaplain of Morville, joins her said husband in confirming'* 
and increasing former grants, and the Monks are to pay 2 pence 
annually towards specified lights in the Church, and 2 pence more 
to Richard and Sibil, or their heirs. This was the grant before 
alluded to, as confirmed by oath of the grantors in the Abbot's 
Court at Astley, and in presence of his Seneschal. 

It is further possible, that this Sibil may be she who enfeoffed ^ 
Master Walter le Palmer here, as mentioned under Croft ; but, if 
so, that grant will have be^i in her second widowhood. 


A family of some wealth and importance, in the 13th century, 
held here under the Abbey. 

Geoflfry de Kynsedel stands high in a list ^3 of the Abbot's Court 
at Astley, which dates about 1215. 

November, 1221. — He was gainer of the suit®* of novel disseisin, 
by which Robert de Teneray (before mentioned), and Albinus de la 
Rode, sought to establish a right of pasturage here. 

About the same period, either singly, or with Hugh his son, he 
is witness to a number of charters affecting the Manor of Astley. 

About the year 1226,®^ Hugh de Kynsedeleg attests a charter to 
Salop Abbey singly. In Michaelmas Term, 1230, he was under 
prosecution,®^^ as a partizan of "Walter de Clifford, in an assault on 
the men of the Priory of Wenlock. He is a very firequent witness 
of deeds in the Salop Chartulary at this period, and one ^ of which 
is dated 1252, In 1255, he was one of the jury who made inquest «• 
as to the state of the Hundred of Stottesden, before the King's 
Commissioners. In January, 1256, at Salop Assizes, he fined®* half 
a merk for some replevin, Bertram de Burgo being his surety. 

On January 20, 1257, a writ ^ of the Crown directed inquest to 

» Ibidem, Nos. 102, 104. One of the 
lights mentioned is the ** rota," or great 
chandelier, and henoe Mr.Blakeway argues 
the existence of some ecdJesiastioal splen- 
dour in the Priory Church of the period. 
{Parochial NoUceSy vol. ii, p. 48, in Sibl, 
£odl, Oxon.) 

^ Charter in the possession of the Bey. 
J. Brooke, of Haughton. 

^ Salop Chartulary, Vo, 187, quoted 
abore, page 51, note 70. 

^ Salop Assize BoU, 6 Hen. Ill, rnemb. 

4 recto. 

^ Salop Chartulary, No. 280. 
^ Flacita apud Westm, Mich. Tenn, 
14 & 15 Hen. Ill, memb. 10 recto. 
87 Salop Chartidary, Noe. 141, 149, ftc 
* Mot, Hund, vol. ii, p. 81. 
^ Salop Jssigssy 40 Hen. Ill, .memb. 

5 recto. 

^ InqumHomt post mortem, 41 Hen. 
in, No. 37. 



be made as to his property^ whether it was sufficient to oblige 
him to take Eoiighthood. The Jurors reported his land as worth 
100 shillings yearly, less 14«. Irf., his quit-rent to Salop Abbey, 
but they understood that he had lands in Norfolk, worth £10. per 
annum, but they knew not for certain. 

In February, 1262, having been amerced •* by the Justices 
Itinerant, for having hounds within precincts of the Royal forest 
without warrant, he is pardoned. 

September, 1272.* — He is reported by the Stottesden Jurors, as 
not duly attending ^ the Assize-summons. 

On June 6th, 1300, a second Geoffiy de Kynsedeleye occurs,^* 
as a Verderer of the King's forests, and on March 29th, 1303, the 
same GeoflFry attests a Charter^ of Salop Abbey, which concerned 
Astley Manor. 


Was another member of Astley, and gave name to a family who 
held therein under Salop Abbey. Of this family, Albinus 9* and 
WiUiamW occur in 1180, Nicholas^^ 1199, and again 9^ in 1202, 
when he had been amerced for disseisin by Geoffiy fitz Piers, 
Chief Justice of England. Albinus occurs ^ in 1221, and towards 
the middle ^ of the century. He attests one ^^ deed as Dominus 
Albinus, which probably shows him to have been a Knight. 
Richard, William, and Simon, also attest deeds *°* relating to Astley, 
or are mentioned therein. Some Albinus of this family will have 
given name to the tenement called The Albynes, which in the 
thirteenth century had in turn given a surname " de^ Albynes " to 
a resident there,^^ 

^ Forest Fleas (U Salop, No. ir, xnemb. 
6 recto. 

^ ScUop Assizes, 56 Hen. m, memb. 
49 dowo. " Non yenit primo die." 

» Salop Chartulary, No. 279. 

M Ibidem, No. 274. 

•* Flacita ForesttB, No. i, memb. .1. 

^ Final Concord, 1 John. 

^ Mag, Mot. Fip. 4i John, Salop. 

^ Salop Assizes, 6 Hen. Ill, memb. 4. 

^ Charter in the possession of the Bev. 
J. Brooke, of Haughton. 

100 Salop Chartulary, No. 143. 

Joi Ibidem, Nos. 140, Uld, 103, 274.— 
And Charters at Apley Park. 

M2 11 Apl. 1268. There was a suit of 
morf cPancestre in progress between Adam 
de Albyns and Walter deBruges about land 
in Astley {Sot Pat, 42 H. 3. dorao). It 
was to be tried by Giles de Erdinton, &c., 
specially appointed for the cause. See 
also Salop Chartulary, No. 274, dated 
Mch. 29, 1803, the grantor being John de 




Now Stanley Hall, was once a hamlet appurtenant to the Abbot's 
Manor of Astley. The holder hereof, Stephen de Stanley, sur- 
rendered *®* his tenancy to Salop Abbey in the end of 1252, he and 
his wife Juliana becoming, in consideration thereof, " guests ^^* of 
that house/' Stephen's surrender is in terms importing a consider- 
able transfer. He conveys^ '' lands held by him at that present as 
well as those which he had set to ferm to others, also his men and 
rents, and his wood, in the hamlet of Stanley, within Astley 
Manor." On his death some time after, his widow Juliana quitted 
all claim ^^ of dower in the premises, as she was indeed bound to do 
by the terms of the former covenant. Thus then Stanley will have 
become demesne of the Abbey. 


This member of Astley must be treated of under its ancient 
appellation, as its identity with Dunvall is not quite a matter of 
certainty. A few members of a family taking name from hence 
shall be mentioned in the way that they are variously written. 

October 1st, 1203, the King's Justices being in Eyre^^ at Salop, 
Richard Dunfow essoigned himself by Alexander Dunfow, for non- 
attendance at the common summons (to serve on juries, &c.) 

About 1215, Henry, son of Edric de Rewin, with his wife Sibil, 
daughter of Richard le Dunfou, became Ufe-tenants of a part of 
the Abbof s demesne at Astley.^^^ 

Simon Dunfothe attests an Astley deed,** which passed soon after; 
and in September, 1231, Simon de Dunfawe had been amerced 
half a merk for verL^^ 

^ Salop Chartulary, No. 149 6. 

^*** For an explanation of thiB term I 
refer to Sigt. Shrews, ii, 100, 101, 102, 
where also will be found a transcript of the 
deed (No. 141 a, of the Salop Ohartulary) 
which fixes the terms of the Abbot's grant 
for maintaiance of Stephen and Juliana, 
and ayeiy sufficient commentary on the 
whole transaction. Stephen's surrender 
stands No. 149 b of the Chartulary, and his 
widow's quit-claimj No. 141e, though I 
incline to date the latter somewhat later 
than the Historians of Shrewsbury, and 

think that Stephen and Juliana enjoyed 
the hospitality of the Abbey jointly for 
near twenty years. 

i« Salop Ohartulary, No. 141 c. 

'** Salop AssizeSy 5 John, memb.l,dorso. 

^ Salop Chartulaiy, No. 137. 

»« Ibidem, No. 146. 

«» Pipe Koll, 15 Hen. Ill, Salop. 

Tiride or vert was any trespass on the 
material of a forest, such as cutting trees, 
boughs, or turf. 

So venacio (venison) was a trespass on 
the game. 




November 12tli^ 1240. Simon le Ihmnowe^ as tenant of a 
messuage and five acres in Astley^ had been impleaded ^^o under 
writ of mort d'ancestre by Milisent^ daughter of Alexander de 
Dunnowe^ who now remits her claim for two merks. 

May 25th, 1298. Richard de Donfowe attests a deed ^^^ at Astley 
which speaks of Richard de Deonewall (Dunvall) being a tenant 
there, and it is by no means impossible that the same person should 
have been thus variously written in one deed. In sl final concord "^ 
of November, 1258, the place is written Dunfowe, and, in the 
deaiForestation '^^ described under Astley, La Dunfowe is named 
between Astley and Rode. If Dunvall .were a different place the 
only indication thereof has been abready submitted. 

There were in the thirteenth century several tenants of the Abbey at 
Shrewsbury, who were of this family and whose name is written 
with similar variations. 


Of this adjunct of Astley Abbots, little more can be said than 
that at one time it was held by a family of some importance, and 
which will have to be noticed elsewhere. 

About A.D. 1215,"^ Thomas de Bardeley appears as attendant on 
the Abbotts Manorial Court at Astley, and some years later Thomas 
de Berdelei sold "* to the Abbey for eight merks, " all the fee which 
he had in the Manor of Estleg, viz. in Colemer.'^ 

May 25th, 1298. John, son of Simon de Colesmere, appears ^^^ as 
a purchaser in Astley from Simon del Hay. 


Now Severn Hall."7 The earliest tenant of this member of Astley, 
who has occurred, was Stephen. — Stephen de Sabrina was in attend- 
ance at the Manorial Court of the Abbot above mentioned."^ After 
this the tenancy seems to have descended through three or four genera- 
tions,^i9 all bearing the Christian name of Simon. At Salop Assizes,*«> 

"0 Pedes finium, 25 Hen. Ill, Salop. 
>" Salop Chartulajy, No. 274 i. 
"2 Pedes finium, 43 Hen. Ill, Salop. 
"3 Forest Bolls at Westminster, Salop, 
No. 3. 

»" Salop Chartulary, No. 137. 

»^ Ibidem, No. 144. 

»« Ibidem, No. 274. 

"" Called in the Forest Perambulation 

before quoted, *' the messuage of Simon de 
Sabrina." Forest Bolls at Westminster^ 
Salop, No. 3. 

"8 Salop Chartulary, No. 137. 

^^ Ibidem, Nos. 153, 141 b & d, 148» 
149, 138, 140, 143, 1526. 

i» Salop Assize-HoU, 56 Henry III, 
memb. 13 recto. 



in September^ 1272^ tbe Abbot of Salop sued Nicholas^ son of one 
of these Simons^ for a messuage and four acres of land in Astley. 
The question was^ whether Simon de Seveme the father had 
been enfeoffed twenty years before by Adam^ Abbot of Salop^ 
without consent of his Convent^ or^ as the defendant pleaded^ by 
Nicholas^ son of Richard de Astley? The result, which was to 
be settled by jury, does not appear. On November 29th, 1274, 
Simon de Sabrina *** was one of the jurors who had to report on 
the state of the Hundred of Stottesden. Among their present- 
ments was one alleging the venality of William Le Enfant, the 
King's bailiff of the Hundred, who had accepted from Simon him- 
self i«« a bribe of 4*. Simon, it seems, had been put on the list 
of those liable to serve as regardera of the King's forest, but was 
released for the bribe in question. 

Simon de Sabrina occurs a frequent witness in manorial deeds of 
this period and that immediately following, when such documents 
began to be dated. I find him thus attesting in the years ^^ 1288, 
1293, 1297, 1298, and 1302. 

On February 15th, 1303, he would appear ^^* to have deceased, 
for on that day Symon, son of Symon de Sevame, sells to Nicholas 
Bondulf of Brug, and Alice his wife, and their heirs, all his lands 
and tenements of Sevame in the Manor of Astley Abbots, with 
all his woods, &c., and the land which Richard de Donfowe and 
Agnes, his wife (probably widow of the last Simon), hold, of the 
dower of Agnes, — to have and to hold of the chief Lords of the fee 
(the Abbot and Convent of Salop) to Nicholas and Alice, and the 
Jtieirs of Nicholas. This deed is dated at "Sevame.'' The purchaser 
was a man of some wealth and influence in the Borough of Bridg- 
north. He served as bailiff of the same in the years *^* 1309, 
1310, and 1311, and again in 1317 and 1322. 

In October, 1305, 1 find the Vendor of the last deed repurchasing^^e 
a small tenancy of an acre of land in the " fields of Sevame ;" 
otherwise the interest of the family here would appear to have 

^ Hundred EoUs, vol. ii, pp. 107, 109. 

^ The Jurors employed on these oc- 
casions were not, as now, selected with 
reference to any presumed impartiality, 
but rather the contrary, llieir previous 
knowledge of &cts made them the more 
eligible. The Sheriff or other Officer who 
had to summon them was generally ordered 

to select those '* qui melius sciant rei veri- 
tatem." They were in fiact Witnesses rather 
than Jurors. 

^ Salop Chartulary,No. 274, and Char- 
ters at Apley Park. 

134 Charter at Apley Park. 

^ Charters, Ibidem. 

J» Charter, Ibidem. 




The judicial proceedings detailed under Astley Abbots probably 
relate to the fiEmiily which^ as tenants of Salop Abbey^ had the 
chief interest in this locality. Consistently with that account 
persons bearing the name of Cantreyn^ and who are firequently 
recurring in the manorial charters of Astley, appear also in contem- 
porary deeds which concern property within the walls of Bridgnorth. 
The name of Wendac also will have passed through some genera- 
tions within the Borough. In default of evidence sufficient to 
establish a connected pedigree^ a few notices of persons bearing 
either name^ and doubtless deriving fix>m a common ancestor^ shall 
be given. 

William de Cantereya appears in the Abbot's Court ^'^ at Astley, 
about A.D. 1215. William and John occur in a deed^^ a little 
later; and then Richard and WiUiam, either singly or in conjunc- 
tion, in a number of deeds, which appear to belong to the earlier 
half of the thirteenth century. William de Cantreyn further 
occurs in 1258 and 1265, as a witness in the Manor and in many 
undated deeds of the Borough which belong to that period. At 
Salop Assizes, 1272, he was defendant in a suit ^^ about some annual 
rent, wherein the prosecutor, Henry le Carpenter, failed to appear. 

November, 1274, he was a Juror on the Borough inquest, which 
reported on the conduct of the local Officers of the Crown, and he, 
or one of his name, occurs in deeds of the years 1288, 1293, 1302, 
1305, 1311, and 1326, and which variously relate to the Manor 
of Astley or the Borough of Bridgnorth. • 

Again William Fitz-Geoffi7, who has alreadyj^occurred as a minor 
in 1221, occurs later in the century as William Fitz-Geoflfrey de 
Cantreyne, and as a different person from William de Cantreyne 
who attests the same deed.*** The two I take to be the repre- 
sentatives of the two co-heiresses before mentioned, daughters of 
Robert Wendac. About the same time John, son of William de 

^ Salop Chartulary, No. 137. 

138 Ibidem, No. 99, h. 

^^ Salop Assizes, 56 Hen. Ill, memb* 
12, recto. 

'** The deed is as follows: — Stephen, 
son of Godith de Nortleg (Norlej), sells 
to Rog. Fitz-Simon, of Brag, for 43«. fiye 
acres in Norley Fields, bounded by lands 
of the Lord Abbot of Salop, Master Walter 

Palmer, Henry de Hayerbache, &c. Bent 
i(2. Witnesses, Sym de Sabrina^ Wm. de 
Cantrene, Hen. de Colemor, Wm. f. Ghilf 
de Cantrene^ Bioh. de Nortle, Beg^. do 
la Bode, &o. The seal, of green wax, re- 
presents a hind. The legend gives the 
name of the grantor's Father. It is " SigiU* 
Stephani fil Henrid." {Charter at ApUy 



Cantreyn,"! is mentioned, and in 1273 PhiKp, son of Alexander de 
Cantreyn/3« was a proprietor within the Borongh,and in 1297 Robert, 
son of John de Cantreyn,!^ within the Manor. 
With regard to the perpetuation of the name of Wendac, — ^WilKam, 
Rc^er, and Nicholas *'* occur successively within and without the 
Borough, and the last before a.d. 1251, when Reginald le Gaugy, 
his fellow-witness, had been murdered ; of which more elsewhere. 
Also William, son of William Wendac, occurs ^^ about the middle 
of the century. These, or some of them, I suppose to have repre- 
sented William Savage, the litigant of 1194. 


The land called Rewin, or Runin, was the subject of a dedsion,^^ 
about A. D. 1215, by the oft-mentioned Abbot's Court at Astley. 
The land was thereby assigned to the Abbot, as of his demesne> 
whilst Henry Fitz Edric,^^ the claimant, was to enjoy it for life, 
with remainder to his wife, for her life. For this he paid a fine 
of 168. 4(1. for entry, and was to pay a rent of 49. 4d. during the 
term of tenancy. 

Whether this place were identical with that afterwards called 
Rucroft, or not, little remains to be said of either. William, son of 
Daniel,^^^ of Brug, was chief owner in the latter (spelt Ruiecroft), 
about 1275. He grants a croft therein, but with a special warrantry, 
which shows both an insecurity of title, and that he had other 
land *^ within the fee of Brug^' (the Borough liberties), by which he 
could amend any defect thereof. The witnesses are persons having 
interest either in Astley Manor or the Borough, or both, e. g.^ 
William de Kantrey, Nicholas Palmer (nephew of Hamon before 
mentioned), Symon de Sabrina, Nicholas del Hay, Nicholas de 
Stanley, &X5. 

All I can say ftirther of this tenement is, that Rucroft and Medow- 
green ^^ follow Stanley, and precede Cantreyne in the enumeration 
of vUls, &c., which pertained to the custody of Shirlet forest, and 
which were exempted by Hhe perambulation before alluded to. 

'^ Charter at Apley Park. 

132 Charters at Apley Park. 

^ Salop. Chartulary, No. 137. 

^ In 1180, one Edric had fined with 
the Justices of the forest for an imblade- 
menif apparently in this district. (Forest 

Bolls at Westminster. Salop, No. 1.) He 
may have heen Father of this Henry. 

^ Charter at Apley Park. 

i>6 Forest EoUs at Westminster. Sedop, 
No. 3. 



The early history of this vill involves the quotation of a series of 
charters, highly illustrative of each other^ and throwing some light 
both on the conveyancing practice of the period, as well as on the 
system of nomenclature which described the same person by sundiy 
names in different, and even in the same, documents. 

Bobert de Hastings, alias Hedding or Hedinges, was some time 
Rector of Oldbury . As Robert de Halecton, Allechtone, or Aluhton 
(a name probably derived from some Haughton in Shropshire, where 
he may have resided), he occurs almost as frequently as under his 
first designation. Like other Ecclesiastics of wealth and position, 
he seems to have been involved in secular affairs, and like other 
Priests, bound to celibacy, to have observed his vow at the expense 
of his morality. 

The first local notice which we have of him is in a deed^^ 
whereby John Smith (Faber) seUs to Robert de Eddinges all the 
land which he held by inheritance in the Manor of Estleg, for 16 
shillings. The witnesses of this deed are Hugh de Lacy, Abbot of 
Salop, and Roger de Begesour (Badger), whose attestations, com- 
bined with evidence now to be offered, will mark the document as 
having passed probably in the last five years of the 12th century. 

Becoming thus a tenant of Salop Abbey, this Robert appears 
interested in the concerns of that house as follows : — 

About A.D. 1197, as Robert de Hastinges, he attests a certificate^^® 
of Bishop William de Yere, as to the admission of a Chaplain, at pre- ^ 
sentation of the same Abbot Hugh, to theChapel of Eston (AstonAer). 

At the same time, or, more precisely, between the years 1193 and 
1204, as Robert de Hedinges, he attests a composition ^'^ between 
the same Abbot and John de Kilpec touching the Advowson of 
Norbury (Staffordshire). 

Again, between the years 1197 and 1213, as Robert de Heding, 
he attests a grant ^^ of Robert, Bishop of Bangor, to Salop Abbey. 

Further, when Thomas de Costentin confirmed, about the same 
period, his ancestors^ endowments of Oldbury Chapel, he (Thomas) 
adds the grant ^^^ of a croft, whereon Robert de Hedeng, Rector of 

W Salop Chartulapy, No. 150 e, 
^ Salop Chartulary, No. 842 ; and the 
original document in the possession of 
Mr. George Morris, of Shrewsbury. 

J» Salop Ohartulary, No. 81. 
»« Ibidem, No. 185. 
"» Ibidem, No. 299 b. 


the said Chapel^ had built a house; and the first witness of this 
confirmation is the Rector himself^ under the designation of Eobert^ 
Clerk of Halecton (i. e. Robert de Halecton^ Clerk) .^^ 

But to return to his local interests in Astley Manor : Having 
purchased the inheritance of John Faber therein, as above, he 
enfeoffed ^^ one Hugh Knight (Miles) in the same, for an entrance- 
fine of 8«.> and an annual rent of Ss. 6d. The witnesses of this 
deed of "Robert de Hasting '' were GeoflBry de Kinsedeleg(Kinslow), 
Nicholas de la Rode, &c. 

Again, as Robert de Allechton, he is described as having con- 
ferred, i** on his son Richard, land which he held in the Manor of 
Estleg, of John Faber, at a penny rent > the meaning of which is 
probably, that John Faber's original sale involved a covenant for 
the payment of a penny rent, and also that Robert's conveyance to 
his son Richard was not of the fee-simple, but of the rent and other 
rights accruing from the previous grant to Hugh Knight. 

Such rent and seignoral rights, the said Richard, describing him- 
self as son of Robert de Allechton, sold ^^ to Salop Abbey, for 24 
shillings, reserving the penny rent due to John Faber and his heirs ; 
and this grant, purporting to be simply a transfer of the land, 
rather than the grantor's claims thereon, was attested by Geoffiry de 
Kinslow, Hugh his son, and Richard and William de Cantreyn. 

And Robert de Alechtone, the Father, confirmed ^^ this sale by 
Richard his son, in a further deed, tested by Geofiry de Kinslow, 
Richard and William de Cantreyn, and Simon Bungi. 

The sum of 24 shillings thus expended by Salop Abbey was part 
# of a bequest left by Henry de Norton, a Monk, for the special 
service of the Altar of St. Mary in the conventual Church of 
Shrewsbury. We have seen that the annual product will have 
been a rent of 3^. 6d. payable by Hugh le Knight, the tenant. 
Whatever the revenue, it became, between the years 1223 and 1228, 
the subject of a peculiar bargain,^*'^ the parties to which were, 
ostensibly, Henry, the then Abbot of Salop, and the previously 
endowed Altar : in other words, the Abbot, by formal deed, assigned 
a rent of 3 shillings elsewhere, to fiimish altar-lights, and took in 
exchange (and I suppose for more general purposes) " the land 
purchased from Richard, son of Robert de Aluhton, parson of 

I'iSFor this usiial transposition, see 
p. 29, note 6. 

'« Salop Chartularjr, No. 151 b, 
M« Ibidem, No. 142. 

i« Salop Chartnlaiy, No. 142. 
i« Salop Chartulary, No. 154. 
"7 Ibidem, No. 209. 



Aldebury^ in our manor of Estleg^ with the money bequeathed by 
Henry de Norton to same Altar /^ 

The Abbot's object in this ostensible exchange was evidently to 
increase his demesne in the Manor of Astley, This appears firom 
a further deed/^ whereby Hugh le Knight (the tenant) granted to 
the Abbey all lusfee in Bunewell^ which he bought from Robert de 
Hastings^ to hold for ever. The witnesses of this deed are as of 
the last, except that Simon Bungi is exchanged for^ or called^ 
Simon Dunfothe. 

The whole of these transactions will have passed between the 
years 1195 and 1228; and we thus obtain the names of several 
persons contemporarily interested in the Manor of Astley, and 
further^ a well-authenticated instance of the method by which a 
seignoral Lord might contrive to reassume a tenement^ though 
alienated by a double subinfeudation. 

But there was also a family resident here which took name from 
the place. At the forest^pleas ^^ of 1180^ Robert de Bonewell was 
fined 12d. for a pwrpresture ^^ in Norley. In 1209 Richard de 
Bemewell is named as paying for imblademeni,^^^ within regard ^^ 
of Shirlet forest. Again^ early in the same century^ Henry de 
Bunewell granted^** to Joseph^ son of Henry Chaplain of Astley 
(already mentioned luider Haughton)^ half a vivary in said Henry 
de Bunewell's garden^ and Z^d. rent receiveable from Richard de 
Wichard and Andrew de Northleg. These premises the grantee trans- 
ferred^** to Salop Abbey, calling the former Vendor '^ Henry Pitz- 
Bichard de Bamewell;'' a transfer which was followed by a further 
grant ^'^ to the game house by Henry Fitz-Richard himself, vie. of < 
land on each side the said vivary, ^^ '^with the fountain which was 
below his house, reserving to himself liberty to drink thereat.'* 

In February, 1262, Simon de Bonewell ^*^ was convicted of 

i« Salop Chartulaiy, No. 146. 

*** PlacUaforestiB^ Salop, No. 1. 

1*0 pitapregtwe was any encroachment 
on royal demesne, whether forests, waters, 
or roads. The forest purpresture occurs 
most frequently. 

^^ Imbladement was the sowing, with 
any kind of grain, lands within bound of 
a royal forest. It might be with license, 
and for a stipulated rent per acre. 

"* Mefford— was the view or jurisdiction 
of those officers of the forest who were 
called Begarders, 

^ Salop Chartulary, No. 149 a. 

»* Ibidem, No. 138. 

^ Ibidem, No. 148. 

"• ** Vivarium," — a plaoe where any 
animals were kept aliye for occasional use. 
Hence the word may sometimes be trans- 
lated a paddock, but most frequently it 
signijBes a fishpond or stew. The syno- 
nyme, Serrarium (a preserve), is used in 
the case before us. 

w ForeH Pleas, Salop, 46 Hen. HI, 
memb. 4, recto. 



forest trespass perpetrated nearly nine years before, viz. in May, 

Later in the century an exchange between William Fitz-Henry de 
Bunewall and Walter Fitz-Richard de Bunewall mentions the 
adjoining land of Nicholas Fitz-Bichard de Bunewall and is tested 
(inter alios) by Richard de Bunewall. Also Margery of the Fount 
of Bunewalle, widow, sells to the same Walter Fitz-Richard a house 
and croft in the vill of Bunewall, and this deed is likewise tested by 
Richard de Bunewall. 

On October 25th, 1293, the above-named Nicholas Fitz-Richard 
grants to Walter, his brother, two acres in the fields of Bunewall, 
towards Harebache, rendering a pepper-corn to the grantor, yearly, 
at Easter, and ^d, rent to Richard de BaUe de Bunewalle, whom I 
take to be the person elsewhere called Richard de Bunewalle and 
holding over the grantor. Attestations by the same Richard dated 
May 25th, 1298, »*» and May 27th, 1302,^^^ and another grant from 
Nicholas to his brother Walter, dated November 14th, 1311,^*^ are 
all that I have further to mention with reference to this name and 


This member of Astley gave name to a resident family, of whom 
Alan de Haya occurs in 1226 ; Nicholas de la Hay frequently in 
the middle of the century; Robert de la Hay, in 1297; and 
Simon del Hay, in 1298. Nicholas appears to have held under the 
descendants of one Gilbert Sadoc, a man largely interested in the 
concerns of Salop Abbey early in the century, and of whom I shall 
have to speak elsewhere. The interest of his representatives in the 
Haye seems to have been bought up by the Abbey about a.d. 1270, 
when Nicholas de Hay will have become the immediate tenant of 
the chief Lords, the Abbot and Convent of Salop. 


A few deeds in the Salop Chartidary show the reassumption by 
the Abbey of a small tenement thus named, the first tenant of which 
was one Roger Dod, whose son Richard ^^ occurs as exchanging his 
inheritance in Astley Manor for the inheritance of Thomas Dod. 
Again Thomas Dod exchanges *^^ eighteen and a half acres in Astley 

»« Salop Chartulary, No. 274 b. 
^ Charters at Apley Park. 

i«> Salop Chartulary, No. 160 b, 
161 Ibidem, No. 152. 




Manor with Salop Abbey^ receiving eighteen and a half acres in 
Northley. A grant "^^ from Emma^ daughter of William Faber, to 
Richard her brother, is followed by one ^^^ from the same Richard 
to Richard de la Rode, son of Alan de Erdinton, wherein the 
locality (viz. Deepdale) and Roger Dod, the former owner, are 
mentioned. The last grantee sold^^ the premises, or rather his 
interest therein, to Salop Abbey, before the year 1258. 

About the same period one Nicholas de Deepdale ^^ appears 
attesting manorial deeds. 

There were other and probably still smaller tenements appertain- 
ing to this Manor of Astley, such as Haseldene, Kakeweche, 
Haverbache, alias Harebache, and Medowgrene, but of which I 
have neither ascertained the locality nor know of any point of 
interest connected with them. 


The signification of the last syllable of this name depends on 
its origin, whether British or Saxon. The British lie is identical 
with the French lieu and Latin locus, a place ; the Saxon ley signifies 
untilled ground. The termination is found associated with words 
of either language, as Ar-ley which is British, and Billings-ley which 
is Saxon. The Dukes of Saxony, from the tenth to the twelfth 
century, were descended from Billing, a noble of Lunenburg. 

Here in 1055,*^ or at least at a place written Biligesleage, Byltges^ 
leage or Bylgeslege, Harold, as general of King Edward, came to 
conference and peace with Griffin, Prince of Wales, and Algar, the 
rebel Earl of Mercia. 

The Manor has already been spoken of as a member of Morville, 
and involving one and a half of the eight ecclesiastical hides 
mentioned in Domesday. Its transfer to the Norman Abbey of 

1® Salop Chartulary, No. 141 h. 

i«8 Ibidem, No. 141 d, 

iw Ibidem, No. 140. 

1^ Ibidem, No. 149, and Charters at 
Apley Park. 

iM Yide 'Flor. Wygom, Sim Dunelm, 
and the Saxon Chronicle, sub anno. The 
learned editor of the latter identifies the 
place withBilslcy, G^loucestershire. Harold 
came to the conference from fortifymg 

Hereford ; Griffin apparently from South 
Wales. Earl Algar had in pay a fleet 
of Irish pirates, which afW the con- 
ference sailed down (devecta est) to Lege- 
ceastra, which (being Chester) will make 
it probable that the said fleet was in the 
Dee. Billingsley in Shropshire will there- 
fore have been more central with reference 
to all these localities than any other place 
of similar name. 



See2, with other alleged possessions of Shrewsbury Abbey about 
A.D. 1147, has also been noticed. With respect to the justice of 
these claims of Seez, the Salop Chartulary of course supplies partial 
information, but that they were not quite unfounded may be inferred 
from the fact that Earl Hugh de Montgomery, as well as his 
brothers Earls Robert and Roger, did at some time make English 
grants to the Norman Abbey, and that such grants were confirmed ^^^ 
by Pope Innocent II, on May 3d, 1139. It is further noticeable 
how the Bishop of Hereford's adjudication^^ on the subject followed 
the Papal Bidl within eight or nine years. 

The immediate tenants of this manor under the Norman Abbey 
were a family named de Beysin or le Beysin,*^ of knightly degree, 
and possessed of considerable property elsewhere in the County. 
We need here therefore only mention such points as connect them 
with the place. 

In 1255, the jurors *7<* of Stottesden Hundred made the following 
return as regarded Byllingelegh ; that Robert de Beyssin was Lord ; 
that he was a minor in ward to Sir William Freville, by grant of 
Sibyl GiflFard, to whom, after death of her husband, Adam, the 
King had given the wardship; that the Manor contained one 
and a half hides, owed suit to the Hundred Court twice in the 
year, but not to the County Court, nor was it liable to stretward or 
motfee. ^'And the said Robert de Beyssin holds it in capite of the 
Abbot of Sesse for six merks (^4.) annually .'' 

This wardship had fallen to the Crown eleven years before, viz. 
on the death ^71 of Adam de Beyssin, December 13th, 1243. The 
right of the Crown thereto arose from a tenure in capite by the 
deceased at Wrickton and Walkerslow. 

10th July, 1260. Robert de Beysin had a suit of novel disseisin 

w HarL MSS. No. 3764, fo. 16. Char- 
tulary of Lancaster Priory. 

W8 Salop Chartulary, No. 337. 

i» A letter of Mr. Langley, the Anti- 
quary, among the muniments at Willey, 
insistB on the propriety of writing the 
name **Lo Beysin," signifying "The 
"Blind." Erdeswick's etymology is quoted, 
and yery properly discarded in a notice by 
Mr. Blakeway (Sheriffs of Shropshire, 
p. 48). I have found the name written 
as Mr. Langley suggests in coeval docu- 
ments, — ^but only twice. 

^ Hundred Soils, vol. ii, p. 82, where. 

however, the printed book has the Abbot 
of *' Messe" as chief lord. This arose from 
the initial S and M, in use at the period, 
being very similar. 

171 Inquisitiones post inortem,4i&'S.enJIl, 
No. 47 J and 47 Hen. Ill, No. 26. Hence 
it will be seen that the printed Calendar 
of Inqmsitiones post mortem is by no 
means a safe guide as to the date of death. 
In the present instance, it would lead to 
errors of 17 and 19 J years respectively, 
besides leaving it supposable that two 
deaths were the subjects of inquiry. 


against William de Ebroicis (Devereux) and Matilda his wife, con- 
cerning this Manor. Egidius de Erdinton and other Justices were 
deputed by letters patent, of that date, to try it. 

By inquisition ordered May 4th, 1261, the jurors reported the age 
of Robert de Beysin, the heir, to have been 19 years on February 2d 
preceding; and a second inquisition, which sat March 3d, 1263, 
reports him as of full age, gives the date of his Father's death (as 
above) and the same statement as to wardship, and mentions the 
tenure of BiDingsley under the Abbot of '^ Ses,'' by rent of six 

In 12 Edw. I (1284), MatUda de Ebroicis i7« (Devereux) had an 
assize of novel disseisin against Walter de Beysyn which concerned 
a tenement here. 

In 3 Edw. II (1309-10), Walter de Beysin had died i7» seized of an 
interest here. 

In March, 1816, the feodary ^7* of 9 Edw. II gives Alice Beisyn 
as Lady of Billingsley. 


Was originally a Chapel, subject to Morville, as being, though at 
least six miles distant, within the boundaries of that extenisive 
parish. The lay founder of this Chapel was Herbert de Castello, 
Lord of Castle Holgate, who endowed ^7* it in the beginning of 
Stephen^s reign with twelve acres of land and a mansion. What 
interest the Lords of Castle Holgate could have here, I cannot 
determine. None descended to their successors either in this or 
any adjoining Manor. Possibly Herbert might have been tenant 
here under Salop Abbey before the Manor was lost by that ^house; 
possibly being of the dominant political party, as there is other 
reason to believe he was, he may have had a temporary jurisdiction 
in a case of disputed territory. 

When, about a. d. 1138, Robert, Bishop of Hereford, appro- 
priated Morville Church to Salop Abbey, he mentions i^e a pension 
of half a merk, and half the corn-tithe of this villj as due to the 
mother-Church from this Chapel. In another deed,i77 he mentions 

172 SlaJkewa^ MSS. in Bibl. Bodl. 
1^ InquU. post mortem^ 3 Ed. II. 
174 rjf^Q document usually called Nomina 
VUlarum (vide page 7). ParliametUoTif 

WrUst vol. 4, p. 398. 

176 Salop Chartulary, No. 333. 
17« Ibidem, No. 334. 

177 Ibidem, No. 333. 


its subjection again^ and that it was one of those Chapels which he 
had consecrated to meet the existing troubles. His arbitration,'^® 
which subsequently awarded the Manor to Seez, did not affect the 
Church or its endowments. 

But a document/79 which must date within the earlier half of the 
13th century, exhibits this Church or Chapel as portionary. 

Within that period, there was a dispute between Adam de Beysin 
and Salop Abbey, relative to the right of presentation to this Chapel. 
The result was, that Adam was to present to the portion of Robert 
de Beysin whenever vacant, saving to the mother-church of Mo- 
merfield half a merk annual pension, and half the tithe of wheat 
and other ecclesiastical dues, and twenty pence of the pence of 
St. Peter. 

Pope Nicholas' Tascation,*®^ about a. d, 1291, values Morville and 
its subject Chapels, in gross, at £17. 6s. 8rf. The Vicarage of 
Billingsley was not assessed, as not being of £4. annual value. No 
distinctive mention of the Church occurs in the taxation ^®^ of 1340, 
it being probably assessed under Morville. The first admission *®* 
of an Incumbent which occurs on the Hereford Eegisters, is of date 
February 27th, 1322, when Bialph Sagon, Priest, had been pre- 
sented by the Abbot and Convent of Salop. 


This place probably derived its name as lying west of the Great 
Clee Hill, as did Aston Boterell, formerly Eston, from lying to the 
east thereof. The onaission ^®', or use of the first part of the name 
seems to have been arbitrary. Its meaning and reference to the 
locality are obvious. 

The evidence regarding this Manor and Parish is so extremely 
inconclusive, that I venture only to give such notices as I am con- 
vinced belong to it, without distinguishing them from those which 
may possibly refer to another locality. The study of a later epoch 

178 Salop Chartulary, No. 337. 
i7» Salop Ahh^. Leiger Book, fo. 239. 
** TcuD.P.Nich. p. 166, where one entry 
spells the place Bylyteleye. 
^1 InquisitUmes Nonarum. 
^ BlakewcM/ MSS.ijiBih\.BodlOLon. 
^ So the vill deacrihed Hatton in 1211 

(Teiia de NeviU, p. 56) is identical with 
the vill called Ck)lde Hatton in 1255 {Sot, 
Hund. ii, 55) . Also the mil usually written 
Norton, in Oxfordshire, is in 1218 written 
Calde Norton, and is now Cold Norton. So 
too the viU now called Coalbrook dale was 
Caldebrokin 1301 (Salop Chartulary, 279). 



may resolve all doubt. At present I can only advance a series of 
quotations^ leaving all inferences to those who may choose to draw 
them withont such further evidence. *** 

In 1086, Calvestone, a berewick im of one hide, appurtenant to 
Morville, is said to be in Worcestershire. At the same time a 
certain Knight held a Morville hide under the Monks of Salop, 
paying them a rent of 4^. 

King William^s charter i^a mentions Westona, after Tugford and 
Ferteoote, as one of the possessions of Morville Church involved in 
Earl Roger's grant to Salop Abbey. 

There was some time a charter,*®^ by Osbert de Tugford, to Salop 
Abbey, relative to five noke9 of land in Coldeweston. 

January, 1256. Richard Tyrel had disseized i88 Richard de 
Possethom of a water-mill in Cold-weston, but having improved the 
said mill, damages are not given. 

20th May, 1259. Giles de Erdinton, &c., are Justices assigned 
to try a cause of movel disseisin, prosecuted by Thomas de Thong- 
lands against Will le Enfant and others. A tenement in Cold- 
weston was the subject of litigation. 

August, 1267. Roger Tyrel had disseized ^^ William de Forde 
of two merks annual rent in Coldeweston. 

November 12th, 1272. A fine^so was levied between the Abbot of 
Salop, plaintiff, and Roger Tyrel, of four years' arrears of one merk 
annual rent, whereof was suit at law. The Abbot remits the 
arrears, Roger covenanting to pay for the future. 

26th October, 1291. The inquest ^9i on the death of Philip de 
Bagesover (Badger) returns, inter alia, that he held half a carrucate 
in Coldeweston under Laurence de Ludlow, at a penny rent, and it 
was worth 10^. per annum : also that he held in the same a place 
of land of the honour of Castle Holgate at a rent of 1*. 6d., which 
was its full value. 

»* Warm the Sheriff gare hefore 1086 
tithes of the whole vill of Weston to Salop 
Abbey (Salop Chartulaiy, No.B), and these 
tithes are confirmed by subsequent deeds 
of two Bishops of Hereford. I cannot 
think that Cold Weston was the locality 
of these grants, neither can I suggest an 
alternative. I merely mention the fact here 
lest I should lose an opportunity of stating 
it at all, or appear to haye overlooked it. 

>^ Dometday^ fo. 263, a 2. 

^ New MonasHcon^ iii, 521, z. 

^ Salop Ghartulary. Index. 

^ Salop Assizes^ 40 Hen. Ill, memb. 
7, reoto. 

^ Flaoita coram Bege, apud Salop, 51 
Hen. Ill, memb. 4, recto. 

^ Pedes fininm, 57 Hen. III. Salop. 

^^ Inq. poH mortem, 19 Ed. I. 



In 6 Bic. II (1382-3)^ among the items assigned ^99 as dower to 
Joan^ widow of Sir John de Lndlow, a rent of 6s, 8d. in Cold- 
weston, receiveable from Richard de " Weston/^ was included. 


There was some time a quit-claim ^^^ by Roger Tyrel to Salop 
Abbey, relative to the Church of Coldewestone. In 1291, the 
Church of Coldewestone,^^ in the Deanery of Ludlow, was unassessed, 
as being of less than £4. aonual value ; but the Abbot of Salop 
received therefrom a pension of 3^. per annum, which was decimable 
(assessable to the tax). 

In 1340, the Church of Coldeweston stood taxed at £4. 3^., but 
the assessors of the ninth ^9* (of com, wool, and lamb) render 
account of only 48.; so little in proportion to the taxation, 
'^ because the said Chapel is in a waste place. There was once abun- 
dance of cattle there> but they had long been decreasing by reason 
of the murrain which prevailed in the district. Moreover there 
are only two tenants there, living by great labour and in want, and 
others have absconded to avoid the tax, as many throughout the 
coimtry have done; and the said Chapel has been presented, within 
this very year, to four Parsons, but none of them would stay.'' 

The first Incumbent mentioned in the Hereford Registers ^^ is 
Walter de Ireon, Acolyte, admitted January 24th, 1310, at pre- 
sentation of the Abbey and Convent of Salop* 

MORVILLE {continued). 

Having now completed a notice of all that was involved in those 
eight hides of Morville, in which Salop Abbey is presumed to have 
been interested, either in possession or remainder, at the time of 
Domesday, we proceed to the two hides which are concluded to have 
been, at the same period, of the Norman Earl's demesne. 

These are supposed to have been involved in part of Astley, in 

W8 Ibidem, 6 Bic. 11. Calendar, voL iii, 
p. 49. The original is nearly illegible, but 
Mr. Sharpe, who, at the time I made this 
extract, was "locum tenens" of Mr. Hardy, 
at the Tower, took much painB to decypher 
the passage for me. The point is of 
course that Cold Weston was written 

occasionally, "Weston," at a compara- 
tiyely late period. 

^^ Salop Chartulary. Index. 

i»* Pope Nic. Taxation, p. 166. 

^ Jnquintiones Nonarum, p. 188. 

^ Blakeway M8S. inBibl.Bodl.Oxon. 



the site of Bridgnorth and in Underdon^ Walton, Lye, and Morville 
itself; perhaps also in Harpsford, and in Aldenham. 

What was thus held in Astley has been already treated of. What 
was held in Morville enabled the Earl himself, when a.d. 1086 he 
founded the Collegiate Church of Quatford, to grant two-thirds of 
the tithes of Membrefelde to that establishment. 

What remained in Lye perhaps enabled Earl Hugh to grant ^^ 
two-thirds of the tithes of his demesne of Lia to Salop Abbey, and 
it is possible that some such grant conveyed a similar proportion of 
the tithes of Underdon and Walton, perhaps also of Harpsford. 

No further diminution of their demesne of Morville, than by 
these grants of tithes, was made by the Norman Earls. On their 
forfeiture, a.d. 1102, whatever they had held in demesne became 
thenceforth demesne of the Crown.^^^ Such parts of this land as 
stood in Morville, Underdon, Walton, Lye, and perhaps Harpsford, 
were at some early and unrecorded period granted, by the Crown, 
to the Collegiate Church of St. Mary Magdalene,^^ in the Castle of 
Bridgnorth, and continued to form the three prebends of Morville, 
Walton, and Underdon in that establishment. Of these we wiU now 
speak, first collectively and then separately. 

In 1255, the tenure^^ of these Canons of St. Mary Magdalene in 
Morville Manor was estimated at 3^ virgates, and they were free 
of all suits of Court. 

In 1341, their tenure ^^ in Morville parish was stated as 2 cami- 
cates and 1 noke^ and it was free from the tax of the ninth then to 
be levied. 

^^ Salop Chartukry, No. 3; bat another 
locality is, with equal probability, in- 

^ Sometimes called ** yetus domini com 
Coronie," sometimes ** Escacta Boberti de 
Belesme.*' The presumed palatine power 
of the Norman Earls will probably make 
the former expression most accurate as fiur 
as affected the practical exercise of the 
Crown's jurisdiction; nerertheless, it is 

not verbally correct, for ancient demesne 
of the Crown was really what in other 
counties was classified as *' Terra Begis^in 
Domesday, but of which there was none 
in Shropshire. 

^^ To which the Collegiate Church of 
Quatford was transfiarred. 

»> Sot Htmd. ii, 82. 

*» Vide supra, p. 39. 




23d January, 1204. King John, at Westminster,*^o8 informs the 
Dean and Chapter of Brug, that he has conferred on his Clerk, 
Master John de Leicester, that Prebend in the Church of Brug 
which had belonged to the Prior of Mount- Walter in Champagne, 
and they are to receive him as their fellow-Canon. 

30th November, 1205. King John presents ^o* H., Archdeacon 
of Stafford, to the Prebend which was Master John de Leicester's. 

23d March, 1208. H., Archdeacon of Stafford, having resigned, 
Walter de Castello is presented ^^ to his vacant Prebend ; and the 
Dean and Chapter are to assign him a stall in the Choir, and a seat 
in thp Chapter. 

11th Jidy, 1233. Bernard de Grimesby is presented ^^^ to the 
Prebend in the Church of Brug which Roger de Lacoc had held, 
and the Constable of Brug is to induct him. 

20th April, 1246. Henry de Langele is to have^oT Osbert de 
Maidenestan's Prebend in the King's Chapel of Brug. The Con- 
stable is to induct him. 

In 1255, Henry de Langele is Prebendary ^os of Momerfeud, and 
his preferment valued at £6. per annum (7^ merks) ; but another 

*® Though the Prebendaries named in 
this and the subsequent lists were un- 
doubtedly Dignitaries of the Collegiate 
Church of St. Mary Magdalene, I cannot 
affirm, in each case, that they have been 
rightly classed under their respective Pre- 
bends. Where precise evidence was unat- 
tainable I have been guided by probabiUty, 
but a confusion of the Prebendaries of 
MorviUe with those of Walton may very 
possibly remain, as well as other errors of 
this kind. 

^'^ Bot, Pat, 5 John, memb. 3. 

2W Sot Fat. 6 John, memb. 6. This 
was Henry de London, who from his arch- 
deaconry was promoted in 1213 to the 
Archiepiscopal See of Dublin. He was 
presented to Worfield Church by King 
John on the same day as that on which he 
was collated to the Prebend of Brug. He 
had been earlier (13 Aug. 1203) made 
Dean of St. Mary's, Salop, a dignity which 

he held with his Archbishoprick till 1226, 
contrary to the axiom laid down, Sist, 
Skrewsb, ii, 325. (Vide Bot. CUms, ii, 
161.) He occurs repeatedly as a Justiciar, 
sitting in the Curia Regis, during the first 
ten years of Xing John. 

205 Bot. Pat. 9 John, memb. 2, and 
Bot. Cart. 9 John, memb. 1. This Wal- 
ter de Castello had been Clerk to Bobt. de 
Vipont, Sheriff of Notts, in the previous 
year. (Bot. Clous, i, 91.) 

206 Bot. Fat. 17 Hen. III. Master 
Boger de Lacoc was a physician, and occurs 
as receiving favours &om the Crown in 
1223 and 1224. (Bot, Claus. sub annis.) 

207 Bot. Fat. 30 Hen. Ill, sub die. Os- 
bert de M. was probably a relation of 
Kalph de Maidstone, who, from being 
Dean of Hereford and Archdeacon of 
Chester, became Bishop of the former in 

208 Bot Hund. ii, 59, 83. 




valuation at the same time^ by different jurors^ rates it at 14 merks 
(£9. 6*. 8d.) 

22d August^ 1263. William de Fiscamp^ the King's Physician^ is 
to have that Prebend of Brag which Henry de Langley^ deceased^ 
lately held.«« 

In October, 1272, "William de Feckham'* is returned «^o as 
holding the Prebend of Momerfelde, in the King's free Chapel, in 
the Castle of Brug. The value of the said Prebend is stated to be 
ten merks (£6. 13«. ^d.) 

17 Edw. I (1288-9). Nicholas Brun is presented to a Prebend 

In the valuation ^^^ of 1291 (when Nicholas Bruyn was holding 
this Prebend) its income was ostensibly as follows : — 

s. d. 
At Momerfelde, thirty acres of land, worth 

4rf. per acre per annum . . . . 10 
Meadow-land, averaging in six years the annual 

value of 4 5i 

Bents and " operaciones " . 13 10 

Total £1 8 3i 

But this valuation includes only the temporalities of the Prebend. 

At the Salop Assizes,*^^ Michaelmas, 1292, " Nicholas le Breyn^' 
was returned again as holding this Prebend, and its value estimated 
dt ten merks (£6. 13*. 4rf.) 

35 Edw. I (1306-7). The Prebend of MorviUe is given to W. 

11 Edw. II (1317-8). The Prebend of Morville was granted ^is 
by the Crown to H. de Luthgarshal. 

In 1535, one named Fisher was possessed of this Prebend.^^^^ Its 
value in glebe-lands and other things is put at £6. 

300 Eoi. Pat 47 Hen. IH, tub die. 
3^ Salop Asmes, 56 Hen. Ill, memb. 
49 dono. 
211 Sot, Pat 17 Ed. I, memb. 11. 
^ Pope Nicholas Taxation, p. 162. 

SK Placita de JuroHe et Auim, 20 
Ed. I, memb. 37 dono. 
214 Sot Pat, 35 Ed. I, memb. 43. 
»« Sot Pat. 11 B. II, pt. 1, inemb. 8. 
«» Valor JEcclenattieut, Tolm,^.%10. 




The earliest notice of this Prebend occurs in a very ancient 
document ^^7 preserved in the Chartulary of Salop Abbey, wherein 
G. (probably G-eoflfry) Dean, and the Chapter of Hereford inform 
Roger Canon of Brug, that they have received a mandate of the 
Apostolick See, in form following, &c. The Papal Instrument 
alluded to and quoted is probably of Pope Alexander III (1159- 
1181), who has heard that the Abbot of Salop has been despoiled of 
the tithes of Walton without sentence (judicio) or reasonable cause, 
and that Roger Canon of Brug unjustly detains the same. The 
Dean and Chapter are appointed Commissioners to investigate the 
case, and they order the said Canon to appear in the Chapter- 
House at Hereford, on "idus Febr, (the year unmentioned) . 

About A.D. 1173, William de Petraponte ^^s (Pierrepoint) was 
presented by King Henry II to one of the Prebends of the 
Church of Bruges. His subsequent dispute (circa 1180) with the 
Lord of Tasley as to a question of boundary, will be detailed here- 
after, but must be mentioned here, merely to show that the Prebend 
of William de Pierrepoint must have been either Bridge- Walton, 
or Morville, as none other abutted on Tasley Manor. 

In October, 1203, William de Pierrepoint still holding «i9 this 
Prebend, the dispute was renewed, when amongst the defendant's 

^ No. 349, which I date between 1159 
and 1173. Mr. Blakeway has, however, 
referred the transaction to the papacy of 
Alexander IV, who sat from 21 Dec. 1254 
to 25 May, 1261, during the whole of 
which period Anceline, or Ansehn, was 
Dean of Hereford, and Peter de Aubucun 
Prebendary of Walton. (Vide Blakeway 
MS8. in Bibl. Bodl.) 

318 This William de Perepunt is last 
witness (about 1175) to a yery curious 
deed or certifidftte, in possession of Mr. 
Cteorge Morris, whereby John le Strange 
(the first) notifies his remembrance of 
(the first) William Fitz- Alan's grant of 
Wroieter Church to Haghmon Abbey, in 
1155. This deed is also transcribed in 
the Haghmon Chartulary, and will hare 
to be noticed -hereafter, not only from its 

interest in other relations, but because 
the date I assign to it is very different 
from that hitherto received. (Vide Hist 
of Shrewsburif, i, 79.) 

About 1176 the same Wm. de Petra- 
ponte attests a charter of Orvj le Strange, 
then Lord of Badger. This docimient, in 
possession of R. H. Cheney, Esq., will 
also be often alluded to hereafter. Suffice 
it here to point out that these attestations 
of the deeds of the Stranges probably 
arose from a relationship to Simon de 
Pierrepoint, who was John le Strange* s 
contemporary feoffee at Glazeley. In 1180 
this Wm. de Pierrepoint was amerced 10 
merks by the justice of the forest. {Plae, 
Forest€Bt No. 1, Salop.) 

*** Salop Assizes^ 6 John,memb, 4dorsO} 
but vide infra under Tasley. 



statements is one to the effect that he was presented to his Prebend 
thirty years before, by King Henry II. (Hence the date of his 
induction given above.) 

This cause was adjourned sifie die and we hear no more of it, but 
the Prebendary in question will have survived eleven years longer, 
for it was not till January 7th, 1215, that King John presented ^^ 
John, son of Peter Saracen, a Roman Citizen, to the vacant stall of 
William de Perpunt. Letters ordering his admission were, in this 
instance, addressed to the Chapter and Proctor. 

On 15th August, 1238, John de St. Amand was presented ^^ by 
King Henry III to the vacant Prebend ^of John Sarracen, and the 
Constable of Bruges is to induct him. 

In 1255, the jurors for the Manor (Liberty) of Bridgnorth, and 
those for the Hundred of Stottesden, made different presentments^^ 
as to the value of this Prebend, the former returning it at ten 
merks annual value, the latter at fourteen. The Incumbent at this 
period was Peter de Albescun (though one return gives his name as 
Avelun) . 

Aug, 13th, 1256. Peter de Aubucun, at Mamerfeld, renounces '^ 
all claim to the great and small tithes of Walton, in the parish of 
Mamerfeld, which were in dispute between him and Salop Abbey, 
the latter claiming them in right of Morville Church. 

In February, 1262, Peter de Abisun, Canon, was amerced «^ 
by the Justice of the Forest, then visiting the Coimty, in the sum 
of 40^., for default. 

At the Assizes ^^ of October, 1272, the same Peter de Abezun 

^ Bot. Pat. 16 John, memb. 8. Peter 
Saracen occurs in King John's pay, inl214 
(Bot. Pat. 16 John, memb. 15), and on 
August 17 in that year the King had 
ordered Peter, Bp. of Winchester, to as- 
sign to John, his son, the first vacancy of 
25 merks ormual value, which should fall 
to the Klng^s gift. 

On the 27th July, 1215, the same John 
was presented to the Church of Skenefirith, 
Heref. Dioc. (Bot. Pat. 17 John, memb. 
18) ; and on 16th Aug. 1216, had letters 
of protection from his Boyal Patron, dated 
at Brug (Ibm. memb. 5) . The Father con- 
tinued in the &your and pay of Hen. Ill, 
and the son become Dean of Wells, (in 

1242, says Le Neve, but) before January, 
1238 (Bot. Pat. 22 Hen. HI). 

^ Bot. Pat. 22 Hen. Ill, wh die, John 
de St. Amand was probably related to 
Almaric de St. Amand, a person of some 
note in this reign, and for some years Sheriff 
of Herefordshire, (Dug. Bar. Tit. St. 

^ Bot. Hund. ii, 59, and 83. 

3» Salop Chartulary, No. 98. 

22* PlaciiaforesUB^ Salop, No. 4, memb. 

^^ Salop AstiaeSy 56 Henry III, memb. 
49 dorso. He is reported on the same 
roll as non-attendant at the Assizes. 



is returned as holding this Prebend^ which in this instance the 
jurors valued at fifteen merks per annum. 

In 1284^ John de Henedon is returned on a Roll *^ of tenures 
in Stottesden Hundred^ as holding Walton of the King in capite. 
He was, I presume/*^ the Prebendary. 

In 1291, Robert de Turbervile had*^ this preferment. The 
value of its temporalities in land, meadows, rents, &c., is stated at 
£1. 48. 7d. 

At Salop Assizes ^^^ (Michaelmas, 1292), the same Prebendary was 
returned as in office, but his Prebend valued at eighteen merks (£12.) 

I Edw. n (1307-8). The Prebend of Walton is granted 230 to 
the Dean of Brug. 

In March, 1316, John de Ker occurs *** as Lord of Walton, in 
the Hundred of Stottesden. I suppose him to have been the Pre- 
bendary thereof. 

II Edw. II (1317-8). This Prebend is granted ^^ to William de 

1st January, 40 Edw. Ill (1367). Richard de Beverle was pre- 
sented ^^ by the Crown to this Prebend. 

In 1535, one named Mubber *'* was holding it. Its value in 
glebe-land and other things is stated at £6. 


About A.D. 1138, Robert, Bishop of Hereford, had consecrated a 
Chapel 23* here, which one Gilbert (probably the Prebendary of the 
time) had endowed with half a virgate of land and a mansion. 

About the same time that Roger, Prebendary of Walton, was at 
issue with Salop Abbey, as to the tithes of that vill {i.e. between 
1152 and 1173), one Reginald will have held this Prebend 23« and 

3S> Kirby*a Quests sub hundredo de 

^ I now find his presentation, dated 
3 Sep. 1275, as John de Hoyeden, Clerk 
of the King (Edw. I), who gives him the 
Prebend late Peter de Abbezoun*B. Vide 
Bot. Pat. 3 £d. I, memb. 10. 

^ Pope Nicholas Taxation^ p. 162. 
One Robert de Turbervill was lately dead 
in 9 Ed. 11 (1316-6), and the King's Es- 
cheator beyond Trent ordered to seize 
his lands. Tide Originalia^ sub anno. 

^ Plao. apud Salop, 20 Ed. I, memb. 
37 dorso. 

330 Rot. Pat. 1 Ed. II, memb. 18. 

351 Parliamentary Writs, rol. iv, p. 398. 

2B Rot, Pat. 2 Ed. II, pt. 1, memb. 19, 

3» Rot. Pat. 40 Ed. Ill, p. 2, memb. 6. 

33< Valor JSoclesiagtieus, yol. iii, p. 210. 
Heref. Dioo. Stottesden Deanery. 

235 Salop Ohartulary, No. 333. 

236 Ibidem, No. 360. 



been involved in a similar dispute ; for Thomas^ ^ Prior of Here- 
ford^ certifies that he was present in the Chapter of Hereford when 
Reginald^ Canon of Brug^ acknowledged the right of the Monks of 
Salop to tithes of the demesne of Hundredon^ and gave them up to 
O. the Dean/^ who^ with his Chapter, acting as delegates of the 
Apostolick See, invested ^^ therewith William, Prior of Salop, in 
name of said Monks. 

24th June, 1200. John de Gray, Archdeacon of Gloucester, 
having resigned his Prebend in the Church of Brug, King John, 
then at Chinon, to make up an annual rent of fifty merks, assigns'^ 
it for life to Master Thomas de Argentol, Clerk to the King himself, 
and to "the King's most illustrious Lord, the King of Prance.^' 

This Thomas was also presented, by King John, to the Church 
of Salkeld (Cumberland), but probably lost both preferments on 
the rupture with Philip Augustus. His successor, at Salkeld, was 
Master Matthew, the King's physician, presented ^ by King John 
on 6th March, 1205. The same Matthew will probably have suc- 
ceeded, with a better title, to this Prebend, for on 13th February, 
1209, the King presents ^^ William de Sancto Maxentio, his Clerk, 
to the Prebend held by Master Matthew. 

On 12th December, 1222, Henry III presents «*« Robert de 
Alrecumb to the Prebend of Underdun, in the Chapel of Brug, 
which Joceas, Chaplain of Banulf Earl of Chester, had held. The 
Constable will induct. 

27th February, 1288. The King presents «♦* William de Burgo 

^ Thomas Carbonel, Prior of St. Guth- 
lac'&— chosen Abbot of Gloucester, Oct. 

2» Ghoflfry,DeanofHereford, I suppose. 
He occurs 1173. 

*» Perhaps this was during the yacancy 
caused by the death of Bobert Abbot of 
Salop, in 1167, at which time also the See 
of Hereford was entering on a seven years* 

^ Eot. Oartarum, 2 John, memb. 29. 
John de Gray was consecrated Bishop of 
Norwich in September following. He was 
an eminent Justiciar, and being elected 
Abp. of Canterbury in 1205, was set aside 
by the Pope. 

^ Eot. Pat. 6 Joh. memb. 3 & 2. The 
first instrument says that the Church is 
vacant, the second only bestows its reve- 

nues on Master Matthew ; and long after 
(viz. 12 Sep. 1214) King John restored 
it to Thos. de Argentol, "whoever be in pos- 
session." the King being exonerated of dl 
obligation to account for the receipts ad 
interim, (Vide Bot. Pat. 16 Joh. memb. 

^ Bot. Pat. 10 Joh. memb. 2. Wm. 
de Saint Maixent was probably a Poitevin. 
He occurs in 1213 as in employ of Peter 
Bishop of Winchester, Chief Justice of 
England (Pat. 15 Joh. memb. 9), and fre- 
quently on the Close Bolls from 1205 to 
1214 (Bot. Claus. voL i, passim). 

^ Bot. Pat. 7 Hen. Ill, sub die. Joceas 
had probably been presented by the Earl, 
during his Shrievalty, and in succession 
to Wm. de St. Maizent. 

"* Bot. Pat. 22 Hen. Ill, sub die. 



to the Prebend which R. de St. Alban had had ; and the Constable 
of Brag is to induct him. 

In 1255, Master Guy de Palude is Prebendary 2*5 here, and its value 
rated by the two juries, before mentioned, at 12 or 21 merks. Part 
of the income belonging to this Prebend was tithe of a merk value, 
arising from Walter de Cliflford^s demesne of Corfham, ^^ which 
tithe, with 16 pence more, William de Bos, Hector of Diddlebury, 
had withdrawn for 7 years past. 

21st May, 1256. Beymund Massan is presented ^^^ to the Prebend 
which Guy de la Palude had held. 

In October, 1272, Adam de Fyleby is Prebendary**® of Underdon, 
and his preferment valued at 15 merks. 

In 1291, John Bruyn has this Prebend,^' and its temporalities 
are valued as follows : — 

£. 8. d. 
15 Acres of land at Underton, value, at 6d. 

per acre 7 6 

Meadow-land, worth £2, in 6 years, and so 

averaging, per annum . . . .068 
Bents assized, and Mill .... 1 11 2 

Total value £2 5 4 

At Salop Assizes «^ (Michaelmas, 1292), " John le Breyn *' (the 
same Prebendary) is returned as in office, but his preferment valued 
at 18 merks (£12.) 

In 8 Edw. II (1314-5), Theobald de Tretis, Prebendary »" of 
Underdon, in the Chapel of St. Leonards, ^^^has a suit of novel dis- 
seisin against Thomas Diinstan, about a tenement in Underton. 

In March, 1316, William, Parson of '' Quatorp,'' aw is Lord of the 
vill of Underdon, in Stottesden Hundred. 

^ Bot. Hund. ii, 59, 83. 

^ Earl Boger^B foundation of Quatford 
Church included some tathes at Corfham 
and Culmington. (TranBcript in posses- 
sion of the Eev. G. L. Wasey.) 

w Rot. Pat. 40 Henry III (sub die). 

^^ Salop Assizes, 56 Hen. Ill, memb. 
49 dors. He is also absent from the said 
Assizes. He had been presented in 1257 
to the Church of Chelemodeston (Norwich 
Dioc.) (Rot. Pat. 41 Hen. III.) 

«« Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 162. 

^ PlacitadeJuratisetA8sisis,20Ed.I, 
memb. 37 dorso. 

»i Blaheway'B\\iLBodl,0:LOii, 

^' Sic, — ^but read St. Mary Magdalene. 

2® Farliamenta/ry Writs, vol. iv, p. 398. 
The word printed " Quatorp" is probably 
so written in the very inaccurate document 
which is there edited. It may be doubted 
whether Quat or Quatford is the place 
intended. I should have said the latter, 
had not Quatford Church been generally 
connected with another Prebend. 



1 Edw. Ill (1827.8). This Prebend is granted «" by the King 

to Ralph Blunt. 

5 Edw. Ill (1331-2). 

6 Edw. Ill (1332-3). 
9 Edw. Ill (1335-6). 
11 Edw. Ill (1337-8). 


17 Edw. 111(1343-4). 
23 Edw. Ill (1349-50). 

It is granted *•• to Walter de London. 
It is granted ^ to Nicholas de London. 
It is granted ^^^ to G. Chilchehethe. 
It is granted *® apparently to Walt de 

It is granted ^*^' to John de London. 
It is granted^*© to William Lambhethe. 
In the year 1535 the name of the Prebendary here was ♦ * * 
Barley. Its value is returned 2«i at £6. per annum. 


No mention of the Chapel of Underdon, other than that above 
quoted, has occurred. Its foundation on Prebendal lands, held 
immediately of the Crown, will probably have been nugatory, unless 
confirmed by the King. We have no evidence of such confirmation, 
and even if it were obtained from King Stephen, his act, of this 
kind, will hardly have bound his successors. 


This vill is mentioned in King William^s charter ^^ to Salop 
Abbey, as one of the adjuncts involved in Earl Roger's grant of 
Morville Church to that house. The attestation of Alduin de 
Harpesfort to a very early deed of Salop Abbey (c. 1160), already 
quoted,^^ SQems to fevour this assumption. If thus involved, we miss 
iany subsequent notice of the place, probably as being comprised in 
that part of Morville itself which remained in conneidon with the 
Church, and was not transferred to Astley Manor. But it must be 
noticed that the situation of Harpsford associates it much more 
with that district, which having been demesne of the Norman Earls 
became the endowment of the Church of St. Mary Magdalene. 
Its tithes appear,264 in time of Henry VIII, as belonging to Salop 
Abbey, but are mentioned in such connexion as to leave it un- 
certain whether they were tithes of the Abbotts own territory or not. 

254 Rot.P8t. lEd. in, pt. 1, memb. 24. 

»6 iiot. Pat. 5 Ed.III, pt. 2, memb. 18. 
and 25. 

25« Eot. Pat. 6 Ed. Ill, pt. 2, memb. 13. 

287 Bot. Pat. 9 Ed. Ill, pt. 1, memb. 14. 

268 Index of presentations apud Turrim 
Lond. — but Quare. 

259 Bot.Pat. l7Ed.III, pt. 1, memb. 30. 

260 Bot.Pat.23Ed. Ill, pt.l, memb. 32. 

2^ Valor JEcclesia8ticu8f vol. iii, p. 210. 
Heref. Dioc. Stottesden Deanery. 

2® New Monastioon, iii, 521, x. 

2® Vide supra, page 44. 

2M CoU.Top.andOen. voLii, 289,290. 
Vide supra, page 41. 



The tithes of the vill of Moreffeld, of Walton and Leye, of 
Kyndesley, Aldenam, Harpisford, Haughton and Crofte, Underton, 
and of Morfeld parish, are enumerated in the order quoted ; and 
Walton, Leye, Aldenam, and Underton, were not of the Abbotts fee, 
whilst Morville (part), Kinslow, Haughton, and Croft, were. No 
inference can therefore be drawn from this source as to the owner- 
ship of Harpsford. 

LTE, alias LEYE, now LYE FARM. 

Though this was doubtless of the Prebendal lands of St. Mary 
Magdalene of Bridgnorth, it is not quite clear that it belonged 
wholly to one particular Prebend, or, if it did, which that Prebend 

The vill is usually mentioned next to Walton, a circumstance 
which, as well as its situation, would associate it with that Prebend. 
However, in 1291, part of the-temporalities of the Prebend of Under- 
don consisted of a mill ; 266 and this I think must have been Lye 
Mill. AU that has further occurred relative to the place has been 
mentioned above. 


As Aldenham was undoubtedly in the Domesday Parish of Mor- 
ville, so also was it in aU. probability a member of the Domesday 
Manor, and part of those two hides which the Norman Earl retained 
in demesne. Its isolation in respect of other lands so retained is 
remarkable, and may be accounted for by its proximity to Shirlot ^^ 
Forest, which I suppose was as great an object of interest to the 
Earls in their day, as to the Kings who came after. 

The family of Baskerville were, from the earliest times, the 
immediate tenants of the Crown in this Manor, but as they had 
other lands ^^ in Shropshire with which they were more personally 
connected, we will here treat of their feoffees at Aldenham, a 

266 Vide sttpra, p. 77» 

2^ Neither this nor any other of the 
(afterward Royal) forests of Shropshire is 
mentioned in Domesday; yet I conclude 
that they all existed and were of the 
demesne of the Earl. Domesday was 
chiefly an estimate of the productive capa- 
bilities of land, its population, and the 
live stock which it did or might maintain. 

Therefore forests, in their very nature, 
were alien to the chief objects of the Sur- 
vey. Hence the omission. The woods 
mentioned in the Shropshire Domesday 
are appurtenances of particular Manors 
with wliich they descended, and whose 
value they increased. 

'^''^ Vide infra under Pickthome, North- 
wood, &c. 



family which took its name from the locality. The older name of 
the place was " Aldreham," from two Saxon words, the first of which 
signifies an alder-tree, the last a home or sheltered habitation. 

About A. D. 1138, Fulcoins, whom I take to have held here 
under Baskerville, endowed "^ a chapel at Aldreham with sixty acres 
of land and a mansion. It was in '' the parish of the Church of 
Mamerfeld,^^ and was consecrated by Bishop Robert de Betun, like 
other Chapels, because of the troubled state of the country. 

About the same time and on occasion of a similar foundation 
by Robert Fitz- Aher in the neighbouring Tillage of Aston, Fulcaius 
de Aldreham appears among the witnesses of the Charter ^^ of 
endowment. In 1180 amongst those in this quarter who were 
fined ^^ for imbladements by the Justice of the King's Forest the 
name Folqui appears. 

Early in the 18th century William de Aldeham attests one of 
Sibil de Teneray's Charters ^^ to Morville Priory. 

September 29th, 1231. William de Aldenham had fined «72 with 
the Crown in a sum of 100«. It was for purchase of five acres of 
the wood of Chirlet (Shirlot) which he had assarted by license of the 
Verderers of the Forest. He will also pay 5 shillings annual rent 
for the same, and already renders account of two years' arrears of 
such rent. This annual rent would seem to have varied, for at 
Michaelmas, 1252, I find the Sheriff^* accoimting (on behalf of 
William de Aldingham) 78, 6d. for rent of five acres of the " King's 
demesne in, Aldingham,^' and, it is added, that the said William is 
*' to be quit of waste and regard.*' 

In 1255, the Jurors of Stottesden Hundred reported ^* of this 
vill as follows : — ^William de Aldenham is Lord, and there is here 
one virgate of land which the same William holds in chief o{ Walter 
de Baskerville, rendering one merk yearly to the same Walter, who 
is in custody of Sibil Giffard by grant of the King. And the said 
William owes suit ^75 of Court to the Hundred twice in a year, viz. 
at the toum of the Sheriff. 

» Salop Chartulary, No. 333. 

^^ Charteir in the possession of Mr. G. 

^ Forest Soil at Westminster, Salop, 
No. 1, memb. 2. 

271 Salop Chartulary, No. 103. Vide 
supra, p. 62. 

272 Pipe Roll, 15 Hen. Ill, Salop. 

*' Waste" was the fine for deetrojing un- 

274 JZo^. ^WM^. YoL ii, p. 82. Stottesden. 

27B Attendance at the Sheriff's towm 
was obligatory on the freeholders of a 
Hundred in general. Exemption was 
matter of special grant or prescription. 
The Toums were the Court-Leet of the 

278 Pipe Roll, 36 Hen. Ill, Salop. I County as the County Court was the Court- 



Further, he holds one assart under the hcpye ^^ of Schyrlet ren- 
dering to the Exchequer 7 shillings yearly. 

In January, 1256, William de Aldenham was one of the Jurors 
of the Hundred ^^ who sat at Salop Assizes, and again in January, 
1257, he was on the inquest*'^ as to the property of Hugh de Kinslow. 

At the Forest-pleas of February, 1262, he appears ^^ as one of the 
Begarders of the forests of Morf and Shirlet, and was, like many 
others, fined half a merk by the Justices for making a bad return?^ 
At the same time William le Wauwar of Aldenham, who ought to 
have been at the Assizes, was essoignedy because dead.^^ 

On March 13th, 1262, William de Aldenham sat with the Ver- 
derers and Foresters of the County on an Inquisition ^^ held at 
Bridgnorth, and which was to decide some forest question relating to 
Middleton Priors. 

At Salop Assizes, August, 1267, Adam Fitz-David, the tenant, 
having been impleaded, ^®^ under writ of mort d'ancestrey for a 
noke of land in Stevinton, loses the cause; but he having called 
to warrantry William de Aldenham (his feoffor, I suppose), and said 
William, being of full age and having come forward with such 
warrantry y the Court decided that the latter was to make good the 
loss of the former. This William I take ^^ to have been son of 
the William before named. 

Baron. The SherijOf presided, and made 
drcuit or iwm through the Hundreds, 
holding this Court in each. The juris- 
diction of County and Hundred Courts 
was the same as to causes and offences, 
but different as to territory. The Sheriff 
in early times might hold his Toums 
when and where he chose. He was in- 
terested in the amount of fines which were 
levied on non-attendants. Therefore 
Magna Charta Hmited the Sheriffs' Toums 
to two in a year, one after Easter, the other 
after Michaelmas. 

^^ Hay a (hterally an inclosureor hedge) 
18 the term usually applied to some smaller 
forests, such as Shirlet was. 

277 PlacUa CorotMBy 40 Hen. Ill, Salop, 
memb. 12 recto. 

*78 Inquisitions^ 41 Hen. Ill, No. 37. 
Vide subpra^ page 53. 

27» Placita ForesftcB, 46 Hen. Ill, Salop, 
memb. 12 recto. 

2* Ibidem, 5 recto. " Pro scripto suo 

male fiEkcto.*' I suppose the duty of the 
Eegarders was to draw up a report of 
imbladements, purprestures, &c. in their 
district, and present it to the Justices of the 
Forest when the latter visited the County. 

281 Ibidem, 1 recto. The Roll contains 
a long list under the title " Essonia Mor- 
tis.*' Among the names is Roger Corbet 
of Hadley, and one or two others whom 
we know to have died shortly before this 
circuit, otherwise I should not have 
guessed the nature of this peculiar list. 

382 Esch. 46 Hen. Ill, No. 31. 

2^ Salop Assizes^ 61 Hen. Ill, memb. 
5 recto. 

28^ At the same Assizes there was a trial, 
whether William de Aldenham and Wil- 
Ham his son had disseised Michael, son of 
Henry Geune, of a messuage and 9 acres 
in Aldenham. The verdict was in the 
affirmative. Salop Assizes^ 51 Hen. Ill, 
memb. 8 recto. 



At the Assizes of September, 1272, he was of the Stottesden Jury^*^ 
and under the name of William Fitz- William de Aldenham was 
impleaded**^* by Robert Jude, William Wyehard, and Michael 
Geune, for three parts of a messuage and three carrucates (save one 
and a half virgates) in Aldenham. William Pitz- William failed to 
appear, and so the land was to be seized into the King's hand, and 
the cause adjourned till the morrow of St. Martin (November 12th). 
Afterwards, however, he appeared, but not being able to excuse his 
former default was adjudged to be m misericordia,^ At the same 
Assizes the above-named William Wychard was sued ^^ by Richard 
Wychard for a tenement in Aldenham. This prosecution was 
however withdrawn. 

On November 12th, 1272 (the day of adjournment of the former 
case), a fine ^9 was levied at Sal(^ between Malcolumb de Harley, 
complainant, and Robert Jude, William Wychard, and Michael Geune, 
deforciants, by Richard de Acton (their attorney, I suppose). The 
premises were those before recited in Aldenham, and the suit, thus 
terminated, was one of warrantry. The deforciants acknowledged 
the right of Malcolumb, as arising by their own gift, and he was to 
hold the premises, to himself and heirs, rendering to Robert Jude 
and his heirs one rose yearly, and one rose to William and Michael, 
and doing accustomed service to the Lords of the fee. For this 
fine, Malcolumb gave one sore sparrow-hawk.^ 

On November 27th, 1274. William de Aldenham sat as a 

^ Salop Assize- BoU^ 56 Hen. Ill, 
Pladta Corona, memb. 21 recto. 

^ Salop AMtize-SoU, 56 Hen. Ill, 
memb. 4 dorso. 

^ Misericordia, amereemerUy and fine 
are terms nearly allied and often con- 
founded, but haying, I believe, a tech- 
nical distinction. An offender was said to 
be " in misericordia" (at the mercy of the 
Court) when convicted of an offence, the 
penalty of which was yet to be settled. 
The term amercement (originating in the 
same idea of merct) indicates a further 
process, viz. the penalty, as assessed by the 
Court or other competent authority. The 
term^n^, when appHed to a pecuniary 
penalty, and as distinct from amercement, 
indicates a penalty, not arbitrary, but 
already fixed by statute. 

The " misericordia " above by no means 

implies sentence in the suit, but only 
a liability to penalty for non-appearance. 

3» 8dU>p Assite-Moll, 56 Hen. Ill, 
memb. 5 recto. 

» Mnal Concorde, 56 Hen. Ill, Salop. 
I imagine that the deforciants having 
found it difficult to prosecute their claim 
against William de Aldenham, disposed 
of their interest to Malcolumb de Harley, 
who, I think, was a lawyer. 

^^ An acknowledgement very usual in 
cases, like the above, where the fine 
levied was the termination of a fictitious 
suit. I suppose the payment of the hawk 
was as imaginary as the suit. A eore 
hawk was however one in its first plumage 
(firom the French sor or san/r, English, 
sorrel, i.e. reddish-brown). A stag in its 
fourth year was also called sore — a similar 
allusion to its colour. 


Juror 291 on the Inquisition into the state of Stottesden Hundred, 
A.D. 1278, the SheriflF of Shropshire is to seize ^92 into the King's 
hand all lands whereof William de '^ Audeham^' died possessed, he 
having held of the King in capite. 

John de Aldenham, successor of William, occurs very soon 
afterwards as attesting a Quatford Charter.^^^ 

About 1284, the same John is returned 2»* as holding Aldenham 
under '^ Walter de Baskerville, of the fee of Pickthorn/' 

At the Assizes of October, 1292, he sat as a Juror ^ for Stot- 
tesden Hundred. 

Aldenham was one of the vills entered 296 as disforested in 
the latter part of the 13th century ; and in the great perambu- 
lation ^^ of A.D. 1300, some parts of the boundaries of the King's 
Haye of Shirlet, have reference to what has been said above. — ^The 
forest was limited in one direction by the '' assarts which John de 
Haldenham holds at a rent of the Lord the King,'' in another 
by " Wichardesok," that is, Wichard's Oak. 


I have already mentioned the only notice which we have of this 
early foundation. It existed in all probability for a very short 
time, even if it was completed ; nor can I make out that Shrewsbury 
Abbey ever appropriated any part of the endowment of, or received 
any pension from, this Chapel. The Abbey's possession, in 1529, 
of the tithes of grain, hay, and other produce in Aldenham, was 
probably the result of Earl Hugh's long antecedent grant of the 
tithes of his demesnes. We have had former hints -^ that such 
grant must not be limited by the express words of Earl Hugh's 
Charter as preserved in the Monasticon. 


Of the two Domesday hides which constituted the demesne of the 
Norman Earls in Morville Manor, it only remains to notice that 
tract of land which afterwards was occupied by the Castle and 

»i Rot, Hund. vol. ii, p. 107. 
292 OriffinaUa, 6Edw. I, Mot. 21. 
283 Charter at Dudmaston. 
2M jgj/r^fs Quest, Stottesden Hun- 
dred. Vide infra under Pickthom. 
2*5 Placita de Jwtxtis et AssiziSf 20 

Edw. I, memb. 51 recto. 1 Hugh or others. 

29^ Forest Rolla at Westminster, Salop, 
No. 3. 

^ Salop Chartulary, No. 279. 

298 Vide pp. 44, 70. The Charter was a 
forgeiy, but I have said before that the 
gifts it alleges were really made by Earl 


fioroiigli of Bridgnorth^ and which indeed was all that ultimately 
continued in demesne of the Crown. 

As^ however^ the foundation of Bridgnorth was subsequent to 
Domesday, it may be consistent to postpone this subject for the 
present^ not by any means that its importance is to be underrated^ 
but rather because it affords matter for most diligent and exclusive 

Somethings however, may here be said as to a Saxon foundation 
of the 10th century, variously described as a borough or a fortress, 
and assigned by very equally divided opinions to two localities, viz., 
Bridgnorth and Quatford. 

The claim of Bridgnorth has been already alluded to,^ but only 
in such a way as to leave the question open. This, however, is the 
proper place to give some account of the said Saxon foundation, if 
Bridgnorth were indeed its site ; but I must again postpone the 
subject, thinking, indeed, that Bridgnorth has a better claim than 
Quatford, but convinced that a third locality, Oldbmry, was after all 
the real one. 


Lost among the Domesday contingents of Morville Manor come 
the two hides alleged to have been held by Richard Pincema imme- 
diatdy of the Norman Earl. 

A probability, that, at the time of that Survey, Rainald the 
Sheriff was mesne tenant between the Earl and Richard Pincema, 
has been fiilly stated before,^^ as also that the said two hides were 
in Tasley and Henley. 

Rainald^s presumed interest here, like all his seignemies, whether 
in Shropshire, Staffordshire, or elsewhere, descended to Fitz-Alan. 
In what course this happened is nowhere positively and authen- 
tically stated, and any conjecture on the subject must remain till we 
come to speak at large of a house whose vicissitudes are an integral 
portion of the History of England, and whose power and influence in 

^^ Vide suprOf page 31. 

^^ The termiDation of thiB name has 
alreadj been explained. The word tas 
signifies a heap or bundle. It is still used 
in Kent for a mow of oom. It has its 
equiyalent both in Saxon and French. 
Chaucer uses the word t€M8 for a heap (of 
dead bodies). 

Another word, tasel, 1 take to be the 

original of tassel, teazley and probably 
thistle. From the old way of spelling 
** Tassele " I should judge this to be the 
word thus compounded with le or ley. 
Some plant of the teazle, or thistle tribe 
will, in that case, have given name to the 

^^ Vide #t^a^ page 30. 



Shropshire have never been equalled by any other sinee the forfeiture 
of its Norman Earls. 

Of Richard Pincema^ assumed to have been Rainald's under- 
tenant in 1086^ nothing further occurs. The next^ in his rela- 
tive position^ and as tenant of Fitz-Alan here, should be one of 
those who are named in the Liber Niger (1165) as holding by 
service of one muntator ^^ (equal to half a Knight^s fee) of the said 
barony of Pitz-Alan. Which of those, thus holding, was Lord of 
Tasley, is not apparent ^*^ either from the list itself or any other 
forthcoming evidence. We have it however upon record that the 
tenant, thus holding Tasley, died during the minority of young 
Pitz-Alan, that is, before a.d. 1175, and that the heir, Roger 
Corbet, was then under age. The wardship of this heir, and custody 

will be in case of many a tenure under 
Fitz-Alan, the caput of whose barony was 

^® There are three names on the list of 
Fitz- Alan's tenants, whose lands, held in 

*» Vide lAber Niger, vol. i, p. 142— 
where Heame has a long note, attempting 
to define, but more suecessfully obscuring 
the peculiar nature of this tenure under 
the Barony of Fitz-Alan. His affectation 
of expounding, in classical and idiomatic 
Latin, a matter difficult in itself and every 
way undassical in its associations, is but a 
pedantic substitute for the explanation 
which he was unable to supply, and, as 
transcriber of a record, was not called 
upon to offer. The question is of course 
the etymology of the word " muntator," 
which Heame will have to be equivalent 
to " mundator," and to mean primarily, 
a moundnkxn, nUner, or pioneer, and he 
even suggests a tenure of about 200 acres 
as the muntator*B fief. He then talks 
about the term as referable to naval mat- 
ters, and finally proposes it as synonymous 
with " vir montanus" a mountaineer, — "a 
signification," says he, " most aptly squar- 
ing with that part of Shropshire which is 
recovered from the Welsh and abounds 
in mountains." Passing the question 
whether any of Fitz-Alan*s tenants in the 
Welsh Marches are registered in the JAber 
Niger, I shall not, at least after quoting 
Heame, seem superlatively absurd if I 
hazard another etymology. I suppose the 
word to be equivalent to munitator and 
coued from munitio — a fortress. If so, its 
meaning will be — one whose service was 
to do ward at his Lord's CSastle. We shall 
see how apposite such an interpretation 

1165 by service of 1 muntator each, I have 
nothing which enables me to identify. 
They are Eoger Walensis, Nicholas Mau- 
covenant, and John de Hanewode. The 
first of these I should conjecture to have 
been Lord of Tasley, had not the Histo- 
rians of Shrewsbury (vol. i, p. 80, note 3) 
suggested that he (Roger Walensis) was 
identical with Eoger de Fowis. The latter 
was certainly never Lord of Tasley ; nor 
yet can I find that he or his descendants 
ever held anything imder Fitz-Alan. On 
the other hypotliesis (that Boger Walen- 
sis was a different person from Boger d.e 
Fowis, and, if so, possible Lord of Tasley 
in 1165) it will still remain unsettled 
whether he were the father of Boger 
Corbet and himself a Cadet of the Baronial 
House of Caus, or whether, dying without 
issue, his estate passed to Boger Corbet as 
his nearest of kin. Certain it is that Boger 
Corbet had Tasley by inheritance, but 
whether through his Father or Mother 
we cannot say, nor can we point out his 
degree of connexion with the House of 
Caus. Contemporary with him was ano- 
ther Boger Corbet, I say another because 
the latter was a younger brother of Bichard 
Corbet (of Wattlesborough, I suppose), 
and could not in the ordinary course 



of his lands^ fell to the Crown in virtue of its temporary seizure of 
Fitz-Alan's barony. King Henry II granted it to Thomas Pitz- 
Odo, otherwise called Thomas de Chabbenour, and, in one'^ 
instance (as having this wardship), Thomas de Tasley. Of this 
Thomas much more will be said elsewhere, but here only that which 
he had to do with Tasley. 

During his custody thereof, a suit about thirty acres of land 
arose between him and one who was officiating as Rriest of the Pre- 
bend, then held by William de Kerpoint in the Collegiate Church 
of St. Mary Magdalene, in Bridgnorth Castle. King Henry II 
issued a precept ordering perambtdation to be made between the 
lands of the Prebend and the lay-fee of Tasley. Thomas Pitz- 
Bemard, then Chief Justice of the King's Forests, had it in charge 
to eflFect this perambulation, which, with other evidence, will decide 
the date of the transaction as having been in 1180 or 1183. The 
result was in favour of the Church, as might be expected, seeing 
that the Crown had a permanent interest in the integrity of its own 
Prebend, but only a temporary one in Roger Corbet^s Manor. 

Twenty years afterwards, when Hoger Corbet, then of age, 
attempted by process of law to oust the same WDliam de Pierpoint, 
the latter, inter alia, alleged this earlier settlement of the question. 
Corbet's rejoinder was to the effect that Thomas Pitz-Odo (called 
Thomas de Tasley) had not rightly represented him (or had wronged 
him) in the former cause. The case was dismissed sine die. This 
trial took place at the Salop Assizes in October, 1203 ; but Corbet 
had attained his majority some time previously, and had increased 
his importance by marriage with an heiress, who brought the Lord- 
ships of Hadley and High Hatton, in Shropshire, of King's Bromley, 
in StaflFordshire, and the patronage of Wombridge Priory, to him 
and his descendants. 

His career was short, but it will not be inconsistent with the 
importance of his successors if their descent, and a few notices ^^ 
both of him and them, be here inserted. 

His marriage with Cecily, daughter and sole heir of Alan de 

inherit such a fee as Tasley. Yet these 
two brothers, Richard and Boger, may 
have been sons of different mothers, and 
the mother of Roger, the youngest, may 
have been heiress of Tasley. 

** Vide infra, 

^^ Mr. Blakeway's conjectores on the 
early history of this £unily {see Sheriffs^ 

p. 42) are put forward with confessed doubt 
and under a deficiency of documents. 
They are not fortunate. One page of 
Shaw's Mistory of Staffordshire^ on the 
same subject, contains at least nine co^ro- 
yertible errors. Erdeswick says little, but 
that little involves its own contradiction. 



Hadley, was the advancement above alluded to, and will have taken 
place about a.d. 1190. This Lady was as notable in her ancestry 
as in her inheritance. Paternally she was descended ^ from the 
Peverels, and her mother was a Pantulf. 

Her husband, Roger Corbet, occurs first (and probably in his 
capacity as Patron of Wombridge Priory) in a deed/o7 which must 
have passed about a.d. 1194, whereby Walter de Dunstanville, Lord 
of Ideshal, makes a considerable grant to that House. 

Again, about a.d. 1195, Roger Corbeth attests an agreement ^*^ 
between the Abbot of Shrewsbury and John le Strange, and which 
evidently passed in the County Court at Salop. Soon after, and in 
a most prominent position, Roger Corbet attests a grant ^^ to 
Wombridge by John de Cumbrey ; and another ^*® by Griffin, son 
of Gervase Goch, Lord of Sutton, to the same house. 

At the Salop Assizes of October, 1203, Roger Corbet sat as a 
Juror '^^ with others of his rank, and on several important trials. 
But his chief concern on this occasion will have been in the cause ^^^ 
mentioned above, and which, as far as a translation will allow, shall 
be given as it is recorded : — 

'^ There is venue of assize to take cognizance (assisa venit recog- 
nitionis) whether thirty acres in Tasseleg, which Roger Corbet 
elaimeth against William de Petraponte, be the lay fee of said 
Roger, or frank almoign appertaining to the aforesaid William^s 
Church of Bruges. And William appeareth and saith — that the 
said land is appertaining to his Prebend which he has in the Church 
of Bruges, and which he holds by gift of King Henry, Father of 
the Lord the King, and has held for thirty years past ; and that, 
before he was presented to said Prebend, the said Prebend was 
seized of the premises, so that, in his opinion, this assize neither 
can be nor ought to be taken without the Lord the King {being a 

306 Placita apud Westm. Michaelmas 
Term, 37 Hen. Ill, memb. 6 dorso. 

*7 This deed stands No. 46, under the 
title * Prior's Lee,* of the Wombridge 
Chartulary. The witness's name is writ- 
ten in the Chartulary, " Mohert Corbet de 



mere scribal error, and of 

a kind in which, unfortunately, the whole 
of that Record abounds. 
«3« Salop Chartulary, No. 16, but this 
Boger Corbeth may have been the younger 
brother of Richard Corbet, of Wattles- 

309 Wombridge Chartulary. Tit. Lega 
Prioris, No. 43. John de Cumbrey was 
Lord of the neighbouring vill of Lee, 
which took its distinctive name of Lee- 
Cumbrey (now Lee-gomery) from his 

310 Wombridge Chartulary. Tit. Broc- 
ton, No. 87. Sutton Haddock was so 
called afterwards, &om Madoc, son of this 

3" Placita aj^d Salop, 5 John, memb. 
4 recto, &c. 

'^2 Ibidem, memb. 4 dorso. 



party) . Moreover, the same William saith that he has no Church 
ill Bruges, but only a certain Prebend in the Church of Bruges. 
Further he saith, that, by precept of the Lord King Henry, there 
was sometime perambulation made, between one Thomas de Tassele 
and the Priest of the said William, in presence of Thomas Fitz- 
Bernard, thereunto assigned, and in presence of many others, and 
that in virtue of such perambulation the aforesaid land remained 
with his Prebend ; and if, after this (statement), the trial ought to 
proceed, he (William) will not decline it {non refutaint earn)/' — 

''And Roger (Corbet) saith nothing to contradict the statement 
of said William, nor saith he anything but that the forementioned 
Thomas, between whom and William the said perambulation took 
place, was his wronger*^ {fuii ablator suus)" 

The decision of the Court on this cause was "remanet sine die." 

We hear no more of the suit, and little more of the plaintiff, who 
died within a few months, leaving Cecily his widow and an infant 
son, Thomas, surviving. 

Before May 9th, 1204, Cecilia de Hadley had offered «*♦ to King 
John sixty merks and a palfrey, by way of fine, for having seizin of 
the Manor of Bramley (Bromley Regis, Staff.), whereof she had been 
disseized by Geoffry Fitz-Piers, the Justiciar (Chief Justice of Eng- 
land) . And she covenants to render for the same £4 per annum, 
and the service of a tenth part of a Knight (as the King's Charter, 
which she has, specifies ^^^) . Her fine also was, that she might marry 
at her own pleasure, and ''have custody of her son and his mar- 
riage, so that he be not disparaged.^' 

The King's charter ^^^ alluded to bears date at Southwick (Hants) 
and is as follows : — " John D. G,, &c. Know ye that we have 
restored and conceded, and by this present charter confirmed to 
Cecily de Hedley, the whole Manor of Bromley, with its appur- 
tenances as her right and inheritance, to hold to her and her heirs, 
of us and our heirs, for ever, rendering thereof, to us, four 
pounds yearly and performing thereof, to us, service of the tenth 

3^ It does not seem quite clear what 
this expression implies — whether that 
Thomas de Tasley was at the time {i,e. 
circa 1180) unjustly occupying the whole 
Manor to the exclusion of the heir, or 
that he sacrificed the rights of his ward 
in this particular matter. 

3" Pipe Soil, 6 John, Salop. Inter. 
Nova oblata. This fine is thus only pre- 
served, for the Ohlata or Fine Balls of 

the 5th year of John, in which the trans- 
action took place, are lost. 

'^ These words were no part of the 
original fine, which, of course, preceded 
the Charter, hut only a part of the sub- 
sequent record of debt. Therefore they 
are put in parentheses, « 

3^^ Rot, Cartarum, 6 John, memb. 4. 
Page 129 of the printed yolume. 



part of one knight^s fee, for all service, custom, and demand, per- 
taining to that Manor. Wherefore we will, &c. Dated 9th of May, 
in the fifth year of our reign/' (May 9th, 1204.) 

Within four months after the granting of this charter, a fine ^^^ 
appears on the Rolls whereby ^' Baldwin de Hodnet gives (to the 
King) sixty merks for having to wife Cecily who had been wife of 
Roger Corbet, with her land. And the Sheriff (of Staff.) has mandate 
to take security from him (Baldwin) as to the payment of the said 
sixty merks.^' Here the record is abruptly broken off, and there is a 
mark of cancellation added, for which a reason or reasons are sub-^ 
joined in two contemporary notes. The first of these notes says 
briefly : " Because above by the Wife herself/' the second more 
fully : ^^ It is cancelled here because the same fine is elsewhere 
(entered), viz., in the Roll of Fines of the fifth year.'' These fines 
of the fifth year, we have already said, are lost ; nor do we in this 
instance need them. The truth is, that Cecily had married to Baldwin 
de Hodnet, and the latter had assumed her liabilities to the Crown. 

On the 8th of September, 1204, King John granted a further 
Charter ^^^ to Cecily de Hedley, owing to some misunderstanding or 
informality about the first. This second Charter is dated at Oseney, 
and is generally as the first, but omits all correspondent mention of 
knight's service, and substitutes the following : — " And let it not 
be to the injury of William Fitz-Alan, of whom said Cecily holds 
a knight's fee, that we have given her to Baldwin de Hodnet, and 
that our former Charter (granted to her about Bromley) hath 
expressed the aforesaid service (i£4 rent) and also a service of one 
tenth of a knight's fee. 

On September 29th, 1204, Cecilia de Hadley is entered on the 
Sheriff's account *^^ as owing £4 of the rent of the Manor of 
Bromley (her first year's rent). 

On September 29th, 1205, Baldwin de Hodnet is pardoned ^^o ten 
merks of his wife's debt to the Crown, and she is charged £8 for two 

^ Rot, Mn, 6 John,inemb. 14. Printed 
Toluine, page 214. 

^ Bot, CaHarwn, 6 John, memb. 11. 
Page 137 of the printed Tolume. I have 
done the best I can to give a translation 
of this Charter, which is not grammatical 
in its construction. Its meaning is more 
obyious. The tennie of Bromley under 
the Grown was by a fee-&rm rent, not by 
knight's service, whereas Cecily's tenure 
at Hadley, under Fitz-Alan, was of the 

latter class. Her remarriage therefore and 
the wardship of her heir belonged to Fitz- 
Alan, and the acceptance of her Fine by 
£ing John, as well as his consequent 
Charter, was an injury to her suzerain. 
Fitz-Alan' s remonstrance probably pro- 
duced the second Charter, which is merely 
a memorandum lest the first should con- 
stitute a precedent. 

819 Pipe Boll, 6 John, Salop. 

«» Pipe Roll, 7 John, Salop. 


years^ rent of Bromley ; but a memorandum is added to the latter 
entry^ stating that she is answerable to the Sheriff, and that he 
accounts (in his general receipts) '^ in corpore comitatiUJ* 

Bromley Regis thus continued to be held of the Crown by Cecilia 
and many generations of her heirs ; — but we must revert to the more 
immediate history of Tasley. 

At Salop Assizes, November, 1221, Margery de Chabbenour 
names ^^^ an attorney in her suit about dower against Baldwin de 
Hodnet and his wife. At the same time Baldwin de Hodnet 
and Cecilia hia wife name^^^ their attorney against Margery de 
Chabbenour. The cause between them is ako stated, as follows : ^^ 
Margery, widow of Thomas Fitz-Odo, sues Thomas Corbet for a 
third of two parts of the Manor of Tasseleg, and sues Baldwin de 
Hodnet and Cecily his wife for a third of the third part of the same 
Manor. Her suit is for dower. It proves that Thomas Corbet 
was of age, and had succeeded to Tasley, his paternal inheritance; 
while his mother Cecily was still living and holding her dower 
therein, as derived from Roger Corbet, her former husband. For a 
third of their respective interests they are impleaded by Margery 
de Chabbenour, and the progress of the cause will show on what 
grounds. Baldwin and Cecilia, on their parts, called Thomas Corbet 
to warrantry. He appeared, vouched the warrantry, and, on the part 
of himself and them, further called to warrantry John Fitz-Alan 
(his suzerain) . A day was given to the parties at Warwick, on the 
morrow of St. Hilary (January 14th, 1222) . 

On the said day, at Warwick,^^* John Fitz-Alan esaoigned himself 
in the plea of dower against Margery de Chabenour, in which 
Thomas Corbet called him to warrantry. The cause was adjourned 
to fifteen days of Easter, then to be heard at Westminster. Some 
further and unrecorded adjournments will have taken place, but we 
have fortunately a record of the final hearing as it took place at 
Westminster in Hilary Term, 1223. The process was as follows : *36 
" A Jury comes here to say, if Thomas Fitz-Odo, formerly husband 
of Margery de Chalbenour, held, on the day he espoused her, the 
Manor of Taslegh in fee, so that he could dower her in one-third 
thereof or not ; or if the said Thomas held it of the bailiwick of the 

^^ Salop Assize- Molli 6 Hen. Ill, memb. 
2 dorso. Something is added to this entry, 
which, except that it contains the name 

^^ Ibidem, memb. 7 recto. 
^ Esson apd. Warto. in crast. Sti HiL 
6 Hen. Ill, memb. 1 recto. 

of Corbet, is unintelligible. 226 pi^cita apd. Westm. de t-ennino Sti 

^ Ibidem, memb. 3 recto. 

Hillarii, 7 Hen. Ill, memb. 12 dorso. 



Lord King Henry, the King^s grandfather, whilst William Pitz- 
Alan, father of John Pitz-Alan, was under age, and in custody of 
the King, together with that land. Because both John Fitz-Alan, 
against whom the aforesaid Margery claims the said third in dower, 
and she herself have put themselves on this Jury/' 

'^The Jurors do not understand that Thomas could dower Margery, 
because he did not so hold as that he could dower her, for he had 
no ingress except through the Bailiffs of King Henry when William 
Pitz-Alan was under age." It was decided (by the Court) that John 
be herein quiet and Margery in misericordia. 

We must again revert to the Salop Assizes of November, 1221, 
when Thomas Corbet was party to another suit.^^^ The Abbot of 
Shrewsbury sued him for a quarter of a virgate in Kinslow and a 
similar quantity of land in Midwele (Meadowley) in right of his 
Church. Thomas pleaded that he ought nor to answer, because, in 
Kinslow, he neither held nor claimed anything; and this the Abbot 
could not deny. So Thomas was declared quit. 

It is probable that very soon after this time Thomas Corbet's 
mother died. Her inheritance did not, however, immediately 
devolve to him, for having been also a mother by Baldwin de Hodnet, 
her second husband, the latter will have held it for life. 

He, however, was dead also before January 2lst, 1225.^27 At this 
juncture the question naturally arose as to who was Cecilia de 
Hadley's heir. The Sheriff of Staffordshire had the King's precept 
to hold inquest thereon, which being done and returned to Court, 
the King issued a mandate ^'^ to the same Sheriff ordering him to 
give Thomas Corbet seizin of Bromley, taking security from him for 
his relief, which was £4. This mandate bears date 19th February, 
1225. There is abundant evidence not only of Thomas Corbet 
having held Bromley,^-* but also of his succession to Hadley, High 
Hatton, and the patronage of Wombridge Priory. 

He stands first witness of a grant ^^ to the latter house which 
bears date about 1228-9. 

There are three lists of John Fitz- Alan's Barony in the Testa de 
Nevilly^^^ nearly contemporary with each other and of date about 
1240-1. In one of these Thomas Corbet is entered as holding Tasley 
by service of half a knight; in the other two, Thomas Corbet of 

^ Salop AsHzeSf 6 Hen. Ill, memb. 7 
327 IU>t M». vol. i, pp. 124, 126. 
3» Ibidem, p. 125. 

3» Tegta de Nevill, p. 52. 

330 Wombridge Chartulaiy. Tit. Upin- 
ton. No. 182. 

331 Testa de NevUl, pp. 44, 47, 49. 


Tasley is returned as holding Hatton and Hadley by a whole 
knight's fee. 

It would seem to be he who in 1242^ having been fermor of 
Hintlesham (Suffolk)^ and being put in charge at the Exchequer for 
£50. on that account, gave the King 2k palfrey to have judgment 

He died in 1247j holding the Manor of Bromley, in capiie of the 
Crown, at a fee-farm rent of £4. The said Manor was worth £11 . 10^. 
per annum. His next heir was his son Boger, then twenty-five 
years of age. ^^ 

On the 28th of August, 1247, the King, at Windsor, received the 
homage of the said heir, and it was enjoined to Henry de Wingeham 
and his co-escheater in Staffordshire to give him seizin of Bromley, 
taking security for a relief of ten merks (£3. 68. Sd.), to be paid at 
Easter and Michaelmas, 1248.*^ 

Roger Corbet, immediately on his succession, seems to have been 
involved in a dispute ^^ with the Prior of Wombridge as to the right 
of patronage of that house. The details belong to another locality; 
but it may be here stated that the right under certain limitations 
was conceded to Corbet. 

In 1255, the status of the Manor of " Tassele'^ is thus set forth by 
the Jurors of Stottesden Hundred.*^ " Boger Corbet is Lord, and 
there are here eight virgates (equal to two hides) of land. They do 
no suit either to County or Hundred nor pay stretward or motfee 
the Jurors know not by what warrant. And he holds in chief of 
John Fitz-Alan for half a knight's fee.'^ These immunities are 
paralleled in no other of Fitz- Alan's neighbouring Manors. Doubt- 
less they arose from the original tenancy of Bichard Pincema 
having been in the privileged demesne-lands of Morville Manor. 
At the Salop Assizes of January, 1256, the Jurors for Bradford 
Hundred returned Boger Corbet among those who, being of full age 
and holding a whole knight's fee, were not yet knighted.'^ 

^^ Originaliay 26 Hen. HE, Bot, ii, tub, 
tit. Salop and Stafford. 

^^ Inquisitiones post mortem^ 81 Hen. 
Ill, No. 31. 

»* Bot, Mn. vol. ii, p. 18. 

^ Pedes Jimum, 33 Henry m, 

39B Eot, Sundredf ii, 82. Stretward and 
Motfee were both taxes, due to the Grown, 
and assessed on the hidage of Manors. 
The former was probably a rate for main- 

tenance of the King's highways ; the lat- 
ter a contribution to the foUe^motey or 
Hundred Court. The non-liability of a 
Manor, as regarded suit, or actual atten- 
dance at (bounty or Hundred Court, did 
not neoessaiily involye freedom from either 

^ Salop Assizes, 40 Hen. m. Plaeita 
CorofuSf memb. 7 dorso. His name is 
omitted in the similar list given in Mr. 
Dukes' Introduction, page vii; but in 



On the 15th of May, 1259, hewas deceased, and the inquest^^ which 
sat on that day reported his tenure in capite at Bromley as well as 
that his son and next heir, Thomas, would be eleren years of age on the 
vigil of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross (Septemberl3), next coming. 

On October 10th, 1259, the King's Mandate ^ to the Sheriff of 
Salop affirms, that, because of Roger Corbet's tenure in capite and 
death, first seizin of all his lands, of whomsoever held, pertains to 
the Crown: and therefore the Sheriff is to seize them into the 
King's hand and commit them to custody of the King's Escheator 
in the said County till the King command otherwise. 

At the Forest Assizes of February, 1262,^^ and therefore during 
the minority of young Thomas Corbet, there was an Inquisition 
by the Vederers, Regarders, and Foresters of the County, as to 
*^ whether the wood of Tasley, which is called The Hoc, and is 
within the bounds of the King's Forest, be within regard or not." 
The decision was that it was out of regard, and always had been, 
and that the Lord of Tasley sold the vesture ^^ of the said wood in 
portions, whenever he willed, and that the said wood is now being 
sold [modo revenit). At the same Assizes, and apparently in conse- 
quence of this verdict, several persons who stood on the list of 
amercements^^ for vert, instead of having the usual fine of a shilling 
placed opposite their names have the words " extra regard " written 
instead, signifying their acquittal. Of these are William de Fraxino, 
of Tasley, Henry de Tassewood, William Granger de Tasley, Philip 
de Tassewood, and three others who seem to have been their pledges. 

At the same Assizes,^*^ Roger Corbet, of Hadley (having died 
nearly three years before), appears on the list, entitled '^Essonia 
Mortis,^' as before alluded to. Also Duce Corbet, of Hadley, and 
Hugh Corbet, of Tasley, appear on the list of common essoigns. 
Lastly,*** Edelina, widow of Roger Corbet, of Hadley, is put in 

Shaw's List {HiM. Staff. ^ rol. i, Appendix 
to Qen, Hist., page xy) he is returned as 
holding £60 of lands bj Knight's service. 

3^ InquisUiones post mortem, 43 Hen. 
Ill, No. 17. 

8» Mot. Fin. vol. ii, page 312. 

8*> Phunta Forested, 46 Hen. Ill, Salop, 
No. lY, memb. 6 dorso. Tasley is one of 
the mils disforested in the perambulation of 
this period (vide supra, p. 45), but is not 
named in the greater perambulation of 
1300 (Salop Chartulary, No. 279). 

^^ Vestures were the proceeds of the soil 
whether cuttings, crops, or fruits. The 
original idea seems to have considered 
woods, com, and grass as the clothing of the 
earth. The secondary idea is before us. 
The third coined the term investiture, 
that is, endowment with profits. 

**2 Placita Forest€B (ut supra), memb. 
6 recto. 

3^ Ibidem, 1 recto. Vide supra, page. 
81, note 281. 

3^ Ibidem, memb. 6 dorso. 



charge for imbladement within regard of the Forest of Mount 
Gilbert (the Wrekin). 

In 52 Hen. Ill (1267-8), Thomas Corbet, of Tasley, had the 
King's Charter ^^ of free-warren in the Manors of " Hatton '^ and 
" Chuhinethe," Salop, if we consult the printed Calendar; but pro- 
bably the original charter only specifies the single Manor of Hatton 
super Hineheth (as High Hatton was sometimes called). 

At the Forest Assizes ^^ of November, 1271, Thomas Corbet, of 
Hadley, was conyicted of taking one stag, near Clotlegh (under the 

At the County Assizes '^'^ of October, 1272, Thomas Corbet, of 
Tasley, acknowledges a debt of £5 as due to Adam de Chetwynd. 
At the same time he is returned ^^ by the Stottesden Jurors as 
one of those who, being of full age and holding a knight's fee, was 
still not knighted ; and he was also a defaulter in due attendance at 
the said Assizes. 

About 1284, Thomas Corbet is returned**^ as holding Tasley of 
Richard Fitz-Alan of the honour of White Minster (Oswestry), by 
half a knight's fee, and said Richard holds of the King in capite. 

Shortly afterwards, Domintis Thomas Corbet is witness to a 
Wombridge Charter,**^ which prefix to his name is usually taken to 
be equivalent to a title of Knighthood. At the Salop Assizes of 
October, 1292, he stood as pledge ^^ for John Fitz-PhiUp, Lord of 
Bobington, then imder prosecution of the Crown in a cause of Qiw 
Warranto, and was himself made the subject of a presentment, 
which placed him in the same predicament.**^ 

The Stottesden Jurors reported him as claiming to hold his free 

^ Calendar Rot Chart,, page 96, 
memb. 6. 

^ Placita Foresta, 56 Hen. HI, Salop, 
No. 5, memb. 1. 

^7 Placita de JnraOs et Atsisfis^ 56 
Hen. m, memb. 1 dorso. 

3« Ibidem, Placita CaroniB, memb. 49 

^ Kvrhy^8 Quest, Stottesden Hundred. 

350 Wombridge Chartnlary, TitBrocton, 
No. 61. 

^^ Placita de JuratU et AtsisiSy 20 
Edw. I, memb. 37 dorso. 

^* Ibidem, memb. 20 recto. Boger 
Corbet's right of holding his Manorial 
Court twice a year, and judging offences 
within that Manor, was the correlative 

of his freedom from suit of the Hundred 
Court. The privilege of assizing bread 
and beer (emendso' assizse panis et cer- 
visis) was a right of prescribing a scale of 
weights and measures to those who sold 
such commodities within a Manor ; or, 
perhaps, it was only a right of assessing 
and appropriating the penalties of those 
who transgressed the general statute of 
51 Hen. Ill on the subject. 

The hideous privilege, which follows in 
the text, requires no explanation, but will 
hardly have implied much at this period 
of history. 

Wayf was a Lord's right to stolen goods 
abandoned, or toaved, by any felon, within 
his Manor. 


court twice a year, to have privilege of assizing bread and beer, to 
keep ff allows and hsLYe way/ in his Manor of Tasley. The trial of 
this right was postponed; but he had another prosecution^^' against 
him, which is, perhaps, worth giving at length :— 

'^ Richard de Prestone complainetb of Thomas Corbet, of Tassele, 
for that on the day of the Invention of the Holy Cross, in the 
eighteenth year of the King, he seized, or caused to be seized, by 
Peter de Tassele his servant, in Morfeld, sixteen ewe-sheep of 32^. 
value, and eleven wethers of 22s. value, and still unjustly detains 
the same, whereby said Richard says that he is damaged to the 
extent of 100«., and thereof he produceth witnesses (sectam), &c. 
The same Richard de Prestone complaineth of William Crasset that 
on Wednesday, in the feast of the Decollation of St. John Baptist, 
in the King^s nineteenth year, he took two of said Richard's cows, 
of 20*. value, and one heifer of half a merk value, and caused them 
to be driven to the Manor of Thomas Corbet de Tasley, at Adlee 
(Hadley), and there detains them; whereby he (Richard) hath 
damage of 40*. ; and thereof he produceth witnesses.^^ 

" And Thomas Corbet and William Crasset appear, and deny the 
violence and injury, &c. And Thomas Corbet saith that the sheep 
belonged to Richard Fitz-Thomas, his villain ; and that he seized 
them as his own proper chattels, and in his own demesne, as he was 
well entitled to do. And hereof he puts himself upon the Country 
(a Jury) ; and Richard de Preston likewise (puts himself) /' 

'' And William Crasset saith that Richard de Preston impleaded 
the aforesaid Thomas Corbet in the County (Court) for unjust seizure 
of said cows and heifer, and the result was that they were adjudged 
to Thomas Corbet as chattels of Richard Fitz-Thomas, his villain ; 
and that under that decision he (William), as the King^s Bailifl^ 
and by order of the Sheriff, seized them and delivered them to 
Thomas Corbet."' 

(The sentence.) "Because William Crasset acknowledges the 
seizure, and now shows no warrant whereby he could have any 
authority to seize the said beasts or deliver them to Thomas Corbet, 
it is decreed that Richard de Preston do recover the cows and heifer, 
Bs against William Crasset, and his damages, which are taxed at 
two merks. And let William Crasset be kept in custody."' 

" And as to the sheep (the Jurors find that) they were Richard 
Pitz-Thomas's, and given by him into charge of Richard de Preston, 
and Thomas Corbet took them, the said Thomas not bping seized 

^ Placita de Jwatis et AsHziSj 20 Edw. I, memb. 52, recto. 




of Richard Fitz-Thomas as of a villain by whom he could claim to 
appropriate sheep as his own proper chattels. And because it is 
found by the Jury that Thomas Corbet seized them^ &c., out of his 
demesne, &c., although they were Richard Fitz-Thomas^s, of whom he 
was not possessed, as of a villain — it is decreed that Richard recover 
the sheep and his damages, which are taxed by the Jury at 30^.^ 
against said Thomas Corbet. And Thomas Corbet is in misericordia,'^ 

At Lichfield, on January 7th, 1293, Thomas Corbet was sum- 
moned by the Crown to show by what warrant '^ he claimed to 
hold pleas of the Crown, and have free-warren, wayf, &c., in his 
Manor of Tasley. " And Thomas appears and says that as regarded 
pleas of the Crown, he claims two free courts in the year and to 
hold all pleas therein, which the Sheriff holds in his toums, and to 
have wayf in the said Manor, because he says that he and his 
ancestors from time immemorial have held the said two Courts, and 
had the said wayf. And by that warrant he claims the said liberties.^^ 
And Hugh de Louther, who prosecutes for the Crown, says that 
Thomas cannot claim such liberties from so long a time, because 
that in time of King Richard, ancestor of the King, that is, the 
men of the aforesaid Manor used to come to the toum of the Sheriff, 
and there be amerced for hue and cry and for bloodshed, and used 
there to present wayf and brewers in the said Manor, until Thomases 
ancestors occupiei said liberties over the King^s ancestors.^' 

'^ Thomas rejoins with the assertion that both he and his ancestors, 
both before and ever since the time of King Richard, have had said 
liberties. And he asks that this may be inquired of (by Jury) .^^ 

'' The Jury say upon their oath that Thomas and his ancestors 
from time immemorial have enjoyed the said liberties.'' 

" Therefore Thomas, sine die, &c. as regards this matter, saving 
the King's right, &c. And as regards free-warren Thomas claims 
nothing. So let it remain to the King.'' 

3M Placito de Quo Warranto, p. 707. 
The privileges enumerated diflTer some- 
thing from those mentioned before. Free- 
warren was a privilege, arising either by 
prescription or royal license, and which 
conveyed a right to certain animals, fercB 
nal/wrePf within a specified district. It did 
not extend to deer. 

The amercement for "hue and cry'* 
means the fine assessible on a Village or 
Manor for neglecting, when summoned, to 

take part in pursuit of felons. Any ma- 
norial privilege connected with the sub- 
ject was not the liberty of neglecting it, 
but of being amerced at home for such 
neglect, the Lord receiving the proceeds. 
Similarly as regards bloodshedy any quarrel 
or assault which ended in the drawing of 
blood was punishable by a proportionate 
fine, which, in this instance, the Lord of* 
the Manor claimed to assess and appro- 



A similar prosecution^^* of Thomas Corbet was gone into at 
Lichfield for exercise of certain liberties in his Manor of King^s 
Bromley. Here he pleaded King John^s Charter of the Manor to 
Cecily de Hadley and her heirs, and that such liberties were always 
annexed to the said Manor both before and since King John^s 
grant. Hugh de Louther denied that such liberties could attach 
to any Manor, or that any one could claim them without special 
warrant from the Crown, and whereas Corbet's Charter made no 
mention of such liberties, he asked judgment for the King. This 
cause was adjourned, to be heard before the King himself on the 
morrow of Ascension Day. 

About this time Thomas Corbet had a suit ^^ against Robert de 
Turbeville, Canon of St. Mary Magdalene, of Bridgnorth, about 
lands in Tasley, which said Robert claimed in right of his Prebend. 

In 26 Edward I, 1298, a fine ^^'^ was levied between Walter de 
Langton, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, and Thomas Corbet, 
of Tasley, defendant, of the advowson of the Church and Manor 
of Tasley. The right remained to the Bishop and his heirs. 

This fine implies, I presume, the sale of all Corbet's interest here, 
though the distinctive name of Corbet of Tasley *^^ was retained 
by his family for some time after. We will follow the last, who 
properly bore that name, to the close of his career, which was near 
at hand. He accounts ^^^ as Sheriff of Salop and Staffordshire for 
half the fiscal year ending Michaelmas, 1298, and again, for the 
fiill year ending Michaelmas, 1299 ; but dying in office, his son and 
heir Sir Roger accounts for the half year ending Easter, 1300 ; the 
King's precept ordering the usual inquisition ^^ on the death of a 
tenant in capite, issued May 10th, 1300. Two such were held, one 
at Hatton super Hyneheth, on June 13th following; the other 

*»* Placita de Quo Warranto, p. 712. 

^^ AfUiquiHes of Shropshire by T. F. 
Dukes, Esq., page 262. Knowing that 
this Robert de Turbevill had the Prebend 
of Walton, and that an ancestor of Thomas 
Corbet's had a suit about land in Taslej 
with a former Prebendary of Bridgnorth, 
it becomes probable that the same pre- 
mises were in dispute in each case, and that 
thePrebend concerned was in each case that 
of Walton. I shall therefore have rightly 
placed Wm. de Pierpoint in that dignity, 
a matter which, till now, was doubtful. 
Vide tupra, p. 73. 

*7 Antiquities of Shropshire. Ibm. 
Surely there is a mistake in the precept of 
King Edward I there quoted, wheifeby in 
his 29th year he respites '' the demand 
made by summons of the Exchequer 
on Sohert Corbet for the debts of Sir 
Thos. Corbet, of Tasley, his father, the 
said Robert ** (it ought to be Roger) 
"having been in the King's service in 

3^ Vide Parliamentary Writs, vol. iv, 
p. 717. 

359 Sheriffs of Shropshire, p. 9. 

^ mortem, 28 Ed. I, No. 17. 


at King's Bromley on June 9th. These inquests detail the whole 
property of the deceased, whether in Shropshire or Staffordshire, 
but of course Tasley is not on the list. His son and nearest heir 
was Roger Corbet, aged 27, at Michaelmas preceding (1299), — ^Both 
he and his descendants belong to a later epoch and another locality 
than those at present under notice. 


About A.D. 1138, when Robert de Betun, Bishop of Hereford, 
granted to Salop Abbey an appropriation of the Church of Mor- 
ville, he included certain pensions due from the Chapels subject to 
the said Church. Among the said pensions was one of half a merk 
due from the '' Chapel of Tasseley." ^* 

There is a certificate ^^ in the Salop Chartulary as to an agree- 
ment, which must have been arrived at about a.d. 1190, and to 
which Hugh Abbot of Shrewsbury and the Lord William Fitz- 
Alan were chief parties. It concerned the land of Hinele (Henley) 
and the right of presentation to the Chapel of Tasley. It was 
agreed that William Fitz-Alan and his heirs should hold the land 
of Hinele with its appurtenances, paying a rent of 2«. per annum 
to the Abbot. It was also agreed that William Fitz-Alan was to 
have the right of presentation to Tasley Chapel, but that the Clerk 
then holding said Chapel, as well as his successors, was to pay 
an annual pension of half a merk to the Abbot and Convent of 
Shrewsbury, " that is to their Church of Momerfeld,'' and to do 
fealty to said Abbot, as regarded said payment, before institution. 
The Abbot granted to the said Parson of Tasley the tithes of 
Henley, the Parson paying Is. annually for the same to the Abbot, 
and undertaking for himself and successors to swear fealty (in this 
matter) to the Church of Salop. The witnesses to this agreement 
were W. (Wm. de Vere) d. g. Bishop of Hereford, Master Robert 
of Salop (consecrated Bishop of Bangor in 1196-7), and Warin de 

In 1293, the Church of Tasseleye in Stottesden Deanery was not 
of £A value to the Incumbent.^ The portion (or pension) of the 
Prior of Momerfeld in the same is stated at Is, 8rf. (a remarkable 
verification of the document quoted above, which reserved two sums 
of 6«. 8rf. and 1^. to the Abbot) . 

»> Salop Chartulary, No. 334. «■ Tax. Pap. Nich. page 166. 

»» Ibidem, No. 106. 



In 1841, the Chapel of Tasseleye ^* is taxed (valued) at 6 merks 
78. Sd. {£4, 7s. Sd.) according to the old taxation (of Pope Nicholas), 
" but the Assessors and Vendors render account of 20^. for the ninth 
of grain, wool, and lamb in the same parish, so little in proportion 
to the taxation, because the grain is destroyed by great storms and 
a very bad season, and because there are no sheep (consequently), 
no wool or lambs in the said parish, and because the small tithes, the 
mill,^^ the offerings, the heriots, and the glebe of the said Church 
and other spiritualities go to make up the great (taxation or) sum, 
and which have no relation (to the present ninth) as by inquisition 
(is determined)/^ 


6 id. Dec. (Dec. 8) 1277. Sir Robert de Staunford, Chaplain, 
was admitted, on presentation of Sir Thomas Corbet of Tasley. 

2 id. Feb. (Feb. 12) 1805. Malcolm de Kynsedelegh (Kinslow), 
Acolyte, was admitted, on presentation of Nicholas de Ebroicis 

8 id. Oct. (Oct. 18), 1810. Geoflfry de Kynsedel (Kinslow), Clerk, 
was admitted, on presentation of the same Patron.^^ 

It is not always that the generations of a family, of mere 
knightly degree, can be traced with certainty up to the begmning 
of the thirteenth century. 

The latter half of the twelfth century is, in similar investigations, 
a limit not often surpassed with probable truth, whilst its earlier 
half is only a field for the wildest conjecture. 

The following genealogy of the Corbets of Tasley, not trespassing 
either upon time or truth, will have the usual interest which 
attaches to the latter, and an important use beside. The alternate 
occurrence of two Christian names, and an unquestionable accuracy 
of date, render it peculiarly available for an ulterior purpose. — 

Many an undated charter, attested by some representative of this 

'^ InqumUanes Nanarumy page 190. 
** A mill is mentioned in Dometdoffaa 
included in the tenureof Richard Pinoema. 

^ BlaJeewa^ M88. in Bibl. .Bodl. 



house^ will be quoted hereafter, and its date proximately ascertained 
by aid of the subjoined pedigree. — 

CoBBET of Tasley, Hadley, High Hatton, and King's Bbomlet. 

Soger Corbet of Tasley, and jwre =f= Cecilia»<2ar.and«.A. =7= SdhusbaadyBald^nn 

uxoria of Hadley, High Hatton, and 
King*B Bromley. Infr. atat. 1180. 
Defs. May, 1204. 

of Alan de Hadley 
and Alice Pantal£ 


Thomas Corbet of Tasley, Hadley, 
High Hatton, and King's Bromley. 
Jnfr. (Btai, 1204. Flena atae, 1221. 
Defs. Aug. 1247. 

of Tf 

Boger Corbet of Tasley, &c. Bom 
circa 1222. Nondum mileSf Jan. 
1256. Defs. May, 1259. 

Edelina, dor. of 
• • • • • 

and 1271. 

Thomas Corbet of Tasley, &c. Bom 
Sept. 13, 1248. Has free-warren at 
Hatton, 1268. Sheriff of Salop and 
Staff. 1298, 1299, and 1300. Defs. 
May, 1300. 

• • • 

Eoger Corbet of Hadley,High Hatton, 
and King's Bromley. Bom Sept. 29, 
1272. Accounts as Sheriff 1^ jpo^m 
defuncH 1300. Living 1349. 

• « 

de Hodnet, Lord of 
Hodnet, and Senes- 
chal of Montgomoy. 
Married to Cecily, . 
circa Aug. 1204. 
J>ef3. Jan. 1225. 

Odo de Hodnet. 


oh, circa, 1284. 


The Arms prominently borne by this branch of the Corbets (either 
singly or as a first quarter) were charged with two bars, a canton, 
and sometimes a label. These are understood to have been the 
arms of Hadley, but, if so, were probably borne only by Cecily, the 



last of that house. The two bars (the chief constituent of the shield) 
were the bearing of Pantulf of Wem, of which family was Cecil/s 
mother. Moreover, in Cecily de Hadley, we reach the earliest 
probable period at which armorial bearings were adopted by families 
of only knightly degree. 

But the Corbets of Bromley bore occasionally, and as a quar- 
tering, what they must have held to be their paternal coat. It 
was charged with three ravens ; a circumstance which should have 
its weight in any future conjecture as to their cadency from the 
parent house, or their relations to any other branch thereof. ^^ 


Of this vi//, as has before been hinted, Warin, the Sheriff, was 
Lord before the time of Domesday. He gave,*^ towards the con- 
struction of Shrewsbury Abbey, two-thirds of the tithes of his 
demesnes of Hennele, &c. ; and this grant was recited and con- 
firmed by Earl Hugh, if we may so far trust a less suspicious Charter 
than that before ^ alluded to. 

About 1138, Robert (de Betun), Bishop of Hereford, confirming37o 
to Shrewsbury Abbey, classifies under the head of tithes, which had 
been anciently given by great men in his diocese to the '^sustenta- 
tion ^' of said Abbey, two parts of the tithes of the Lord ^^i (or 
demesne ^^) of Heneleg. 

Between a.d. 1148 and 1164, G. (Gilbert), Bishop of Hereford, 
confirming ^^8 to the same Abbey " tithes granted in his diocese to 
the construction of the Church by good men,*' includes tithes of the 
demesne of Heneleg. 

Ralph, the Dean, and the Canons of the Chapter of the Church 
of Hereford, inspected, recited, and confirmed ^78 the last deed. 

These tithes of Henley have already been mentioned as having 
been given up to the Incumbent of Tasley about a.d. 1190. The 

^ Vide Shaw*B Staffordshire^ vol. i, pp. 
143, 144 ; and ParUamentcMry Writs, vol. 
iv, p. 716. 

3M Salop Chartulary, No. 8. 

*9 Vide supra, page 38, note 12. 

^ Salop Chartulary, No. 334. 

871 The contracted form of the original 
does not apparently malie the choice be- 
tween these two readings quite clear. 

^ Salop Chartulary, No. 381. The 
Index of the Chartulary Assigns, this 

deed to Bishop Geoffry (111&-1119), but 
against strong internal eyidence. The in- 
consistency seems to have been recognized 
by Mr. Blakeway, — but in attributing 
the deed to Bishop Giles (de Braose) he 
seems to have forgotten that, in that 
case, the initial letter B would have been 
employed in a Latin deed, Egidius being 
the Latin of Giles (Vide Hist, Shrews, 
378 Ibidem, No. 332. 



Abbey was to receive in lieu thereof 1*. yearly ; — and we must not 
forget that William Fitz-Alan^ the then representative of the original 
grantor (Warin)^ was a party to this transaction. 

There is a further document*'^* on the Salop Chartulary^ and one 
which probably alludes to a renewal of the dispute^ between the 
Abbey and William Fitz-Alan^ above mentioned. It is a certificate 
by Egidius (Oiles de Braose)^ Bishop of Hereford^ that disputed 
tithes of Weston and of the demesne of Henel belong to Salop 
Abbey. It must have passed in the beginning of the 13th century^ 
and, as far as regards Henley, will constitute a further proof of 
the reality of certain early grants, which have (unfortunately for 
monastic reputation) been embodied in suspicious charters.S75 

V* Ibidem* No. 852. 

'^ The Chiurter (No. 3), which is here 
alluded to, is in manj respects an im- 
provement on No. 6, (described page 33), 
but is by no means dear from suspicion. 
The Earl pr9fesse8 to seal it with his seal 
and speaks \n. the first person ; jet it is 
attested bj Warin the Sheriff^ who was 
dead at lef^st eight jears before Earl 
Hugh's suooesa&on, and by Richard, Bishop 
of London, who was not consecrated till 
ten years after Earl Hugh's death. "Mr, 
Stapleton's remarks (Boi. Norm, I, Ixxiv) 
which excuse oertam inconsistencies in 

the testing clauses of early charters will 
iiardly extend to a case like this. 

There is a third charter of Earl Hugh 
(No. 4 in the Salop Chartulftry) which is 
rery different from the two others in 
many respects, and especially in having a 
consistent testing dause. It is remarkable 
that this third charter was confirmed in 
its own terms, both by Henry I. and 
Stephen, and was afterwards cited in the 
Law-Gourts ; circumstances whichlcannot 
find to have befallen the documents, 
which, from their internal evidence only, 
I have treated as suspicious. 


€attitn(9:ton anti <auatforti. 

The first name used generally to be written Ardinton, a word 
compounded of the Saxon cun, a town or inclosure, and Harding, 
its founder or early possessor. 

A place in Warwickshire, which has settled into a similar modem 
form, stands in Domesday , with still greater etymological correct- 
ness, as Hardintone} 

The period and circumstance of Harding's interest here have no 
other record than is implied by his Saxon name. 

In King Edward the Confessor's time this Manor belonged to 
Saint Milburg, that is, to the Monastic House at Wenlock, which 
was dedicated to her memory. On the forfeiture of the Earls of 
Mercia in 1071, and the consequent revolution in this County, the 
rights of St. Milburg at Eardington seem to have been disregarded, 
and the Manor appropriated by the Norman Earl himself. In 1086, 
like other Manors of the said Earl's demesne, its Hundred is not 
recorded, but situation and tenure are alone sufficient to place it in 

It is noticed in Domesday thus:^ — "The Earl himself holds 
Ardintone. Saint Milburg held it in time of Eng Edward. Here 
are 5 hides. In demesne there is 1 ox-team ; and 4 serfs and 9 
villains and 2 boors, with 3 ox-teams ; and there may yet be 8 ox- 
teams (more employed). Here is a Mill worth 5*.^ (annually), 

^ Do4»«tf(fay,fo.24)3,a.l. But Hardinges- 
tone (Northants), bo written in Domes- 
day (fo. 228, b. 1) and still so called, pre- 
serres the original name completelj. 

^ Domesday, fo. 254. a. 1. Ipse Comes 
tenet Ardintone. Sancta Milburga tenuit 
tempore Begis Edwardi. Ibi v hide. 
In dominio est i carruca et iiii serri et 
ix yillani et ii bordarii cum iii carrucis 
et adliuo yiii carrucse possent esse. Ibi 

molendinum de iii oris et nova domus et 
burgum Quatford dictum nil reddens. 
Tempore Begis Edwardi valebat xl solidos. 
Modo XXX solidos. 

3 Literally " a Mill of 3 ounces," that 
is, a Mill worth 3 ounces in money per 
annum. The ora, or nummulary ounce, 
was the twelfth part of a pound, and so 
of 20 pence value. 




and a Borough called Quatford paying nothing. In time of King 
Edward the (annual) value (of the Manor) was 40*., now it is SOs.'^ 
The Borough or Town of Quatford, and the Earl's Castle there 
(which, in its early stage, might very possibly be set down as merely 
a house), were therefore, in 1085, part of the Manor of Eardington, 
and destined in a short period to much greater importance, ^ere 
is a legendary tale about Quatford, which is so perfectly consistent 
with Domesday, that, while adding to that Record an unusual 
interest, itself becomes stamped with a grand mark of probability. 
To arrive at this coincidence in due chronological order, we must 
first speak separately of Quatford, a place whose history will, for 
the present, take us back to a period much earlier than Domesday, 

The name of this place is referable to the vast forest (coed) 
which thirteen centuries ago covered the whole adjacent district, 
and which has since been represented by the great, but never equal. 
Forest of Morf. 

The British Coed is remembered in the name of another village, 
viz., Quat, — where, however, the uncompounded form has been 
curiously reassumed. 

The Saxon era had accurately distinguished these two localities 
according to then existing circumstances. That part of the forest 
which was occupied as a village became Cpatcun (Cwattim, i.e, 
Quat-town), and Quatone was accordingly the name of Quat when 
Domesday was written. Another part, not yet colonized, the Saxons 
called Cpatpopb (Cwatford), in allusion to an adjacent and passable 
part of the river Severn. 

In the autumn of 896, King Alfred and the men of London 
blocked up, or stranded, a Danish fleet which had ascended the 
Thames and the Lea. The Danes, despairing of their ships, forsook 
them, sought an asylum for their wives in East Anglia, and marched 
overland to a place (afterwards*) called Quat-bridge, on the Severn. 

* See the Saxon Chronicle, which says 
(sub anno 896) that the Danes came «C 

Cpatbricxe be Ssejrefin (to Cwatbricge by 
Serem). See also Florence of Worcesterj 



Here they intrenched themselves and passed the winter. In the 
following summer (897) they separated; part of them returning into 
East Anglia, the others going into Northumberland. 

No remains of this Danish fortification at Quatford are now 
traceable^ and it may be doubted whether the exact spot occupied 
by their army was identical with the site of the present village. 
An adjacent ford of the Severn still retains the name of Danesford^ 
and corroborates the story of their visit to the neighbourhood. 

In the year 913, ^gelfleda. Queen of the Mercians, built a fortress 
in a place which, in Florence of Worcester's time, was called Brycge.^ 

who says, *' locum qui Quatbrjcge dicitur 
pedestres celeri fuga petunt.'* 

I refer to both these authorities, be- 
cause it is quite clear to me that though 
Florence of Worcester derived his infor- 
mation from a Saxon Chronicle^ it was 
from a different MS. to any now extant ; 
and, I almost dare add, a more authentic 
one. I cannot subscribe to all which the 
Editors of the Saxon Chronicle haye 
claimed for it. If indeed it was originally 
the work of successive annalists, each giv- 
ing the history of his own time, such 
original texts must in many instances have 
been interpolated by more modem tran- 
scribers. I believe we have a case before 
ns. I cannot suppose for an instant that 
in the year, 896 there was a bridge over 
the Severn at or near Quatford, nor that, 
if there were, would a contemporary Saxon 
have described it as '* Owatbricge by 
Severn," words which are only referable 
to a period when there was both a bridge 
and a village in the locality. 

The word " bridge" is therefore an in- 
terpolation by some one transcribing the 
older document at a time when there 
was a bridge at Quatford, and which was 
probably not till the end of the eleventh 

!Florence of Worcester, on the other 
hand, using the same original authority 
and writing, as we know, in the very be- 
ginning of the twelfth century, inter- 
polates the same passage much more truly 
and intelligibly. He describes the Danes 
as flying to the place (not town) which is 
called Quat -bridge — that is, called so at 

the time when he was writing. This is 
not the only instance which I have met 
with, where the ipsiasimaverba of Florence 
convey a truth not deduoible from any 
extant copy of the Saxon Chronicle, 

Again, if Quatford were only QvusAford 
in 1085, and if the next ford of the Severn 
still witnesses the circumstance of the 
Danish visit in its name of Danes/brc^, 
how is it supposable that such local ad- 
vantages would have been memorialized, 
even in a name, at a period when (if we 
read the Saxon Chronicle literally) there 
was the adjacent and greater commodity 
of a bridge ? 

All we can safely conclude on this sub- 
ject is then, that the Danes in 896, having 
lost their fleet, came and wintered in the 
forest by the Severn ; and Florence of 
Worcester, two centuries after, understood 
the place then called Quatbridge, to have 
been the site of their encampment. Their 
object in coming to ** the forest by the 
river " when they had lost their ships is 

^ Yide Sax. Chron. sub anno 912, and 
Flor, Wigom, tub anno 913. Where 
again Florence is the most accurate. In 
rejecting Quatford as the Brug of Ethel- 
fleda, we need not rely only upon a balance 
of conflicting testimony. Probability is 
also strongly in our favour ; for we have 
every reason to believe that Quatford, or 
rather its site, as involved in Eardington, 
was part of the original endowment of St. 
Milburg. If so, there is little likelihood 
that a Saxon Queen should have intruded 
her Castle upon the domain of a Saxon 



This foundation has often been identified with Qaatford^ so often^ 
that, however erroneous the tradition be, it requires this passing 
mention. The best authority places ^Sgelfleda's foundation on the 
Western Bank of the Severn, and we must seek it there. 

The next notice which we have of Quatford introduces the Legend 
ah*eady alluded to, and which, while it professes to tell how this 
spot was selected for the foundation of a great CoUegiate Church, 
may inferentially be taken to account for the origin of both a Castle 
and a Borough. 

This story is contained in a Chronicle, either written or procured 
to be written by John Bromton, Abbot of Jorval, in the reign of 
King John. As the whole passage is to our purpose it shall be 
given at length, and, as nearly as a translation will permit, in the 
writer's words. The death of Earl Roger de Montgomery having 
been described, the narrative proceeds as follows :* — 

'^ This Roger in his lifetime and the said Adelissa his wife did 
build a church in honour of the blessed Mary Magdalene, in Quad- 
ford, in the county of Salop, one mile from Bruggenorth. Of which 
building the cause, as is said, was this : — When forsooth the said 
Lady Adelissa, at mandate of the said Earl her husband, was first 
coming to him from beyond sea into England, and was on her voyage, 
lo ! such a storm of wave and wind shook the vessel that she and 
her suite, when now the mariners were in despair, looked for nothing 
but shipwreck. And when a certain priest of the said Countess, 
wearied by over- watching, had fallen, as God willed, into shimber, 
he saw in his sleep a certain matron standing nigh to him and 
speaking thus — ^ If thy lady would wish to save herself and her 
attendants from the present dreadful danger of sea, let her make a 
vow to God and faithfully promise to build a church in honour of the 
blessed Mary Magdalene on the spot where she may first happen to 
meet her husband, the Earl, in England ; and specially where there 
groweth a hoDow oak and the wild swine have shelter.' ^ 

" And when the priest awoke he told each particular of the vision 

Saint, though the forest-loving Norman 
and the heathen Dane liad less or no sach 

• CJiron. Joh, Bromton inter x Scrip- 
tores, page 988. 

' I take a liberty in the translation of 
this passage. The original is " Et prse- 
cipue ubi concava quercus cum tigurio 
porcorum crescit." The visionary shed 

may have been an artificial one. Some 
occasional receptacle will have been neces- 
sary for the vast herds of swine which 
were driven into the greater forests during 
the season of pannage. I do not remem- 
ber that Ghi/rth had such accommodation, 
but the house of Cedric was near enough- 
to afibrd nightly shelter to him and his 


to his lady. Who, when she had heard and vowed to fulfil all 
things, the tempest being presently calmed, soon arrived with her 
attendants at the desired shore. And she, toiling through many 
days travel from the sea towards her lord, met him first at Quatford, 
which was then desert, in the spot where the very oak was growing 
and he hunting. And him she forthwith besought that he would 
aid her to fulfil the vow which she vowed in her danger as to building 
a Church in honour of the blessed Mary Magdalene. And he 
acquiescing in the vows of his wife built, with her, the aforesaid 
Church, which, though then he endowed it with great possessions, 
yet now with all its rights and appurtenances seemeth to be subject 
to the free Royal Collegiate Chapel situate in the Castle of Brug- 
genorth and endowed with one Deanery and five Prebends out of the 
aforesaid possessions. The which Deanery and Prebends the King 
indeed conferreth of his own right and custom ; although, in nearly 
all other Collegiate Chapels, the Deans, being installed by the 
Sheriff at the King^s collation, and inducted into corporal possession 
of the Deaneries, confer all Prebends in the same Chapels and 
install, induct, and visit the Prebendaries. But, in the aforesaid 
Chapel of Saint Mary Magdalene, the Dean confers no Prebend, 
nor visits Prebend or Prebendary; but each, in the corps of his own 
Prebend, hath and exerciseth plenary jurisdiction as well in things 
spiritual as in things temporal.^' 

The whole of this narrative is credible in itself and minutely 
consistent with other ascertained facts ; nor need we take exception 
even to the Priest^s dream, for who knows not that the feverish 
sleep of over-fatigue will invest our previous hopes and anxieties 
with some garb of life-like reality. Moreover this Priest lived at a 
time when Priests were taught to believe in and to expect such 
special revelations of the divine will. 

Parts of this story, nevertheless, require explanation; and the 
whole of it must be tested by other facts and dates before we admit 
it to that credence which the details of a legend most seldom 

Mabil, first Countess of Earl Roger de Montgomery, was mur- 
dered at Buris, a town on the river Dive in Normandy, and buried 
on Dec. 5, 1082, at Troam.® The Earl's second marriage to Adelais 
daughter of Ebrard de Pusey, one of the chief nobles of France, 
must have fcdlowed immediately; for their only son, Ebrard de 
Montgomery, was old enough to frequent the Court of William 

* Ordericua Vitalis, page 678. 


Rufus (who died in 1100) and to attest (as Ebrard Fitz Count) a 
charter* of Henry I, which must have passed in June 1107. More- 
over Earl Roger mentions his Countess Adelais in a charter^^ which 
dates in or before 1085. The arrival of this lady in England will 
therefore have been in 1083-4. At that time Quatford was desert, 
and the Earl was hunting on the spot where afterwards stood the 
Church. This is in every way consistent with other facts, for we 
know that Quatford in after times, constituted a limit of the great 
Forest of Morf. That the Earl should found a Church at solici- 
tation of his second wife is only an instance of what Ordericus says 
generally of this lady in contrast to the Coimtess Mabil, — " for she 
excelled in understanding and in piety, and ofl persuaded her Lord 
to befidend Monks and to relieve the poor/' That the Earl, having 
resolved on such foundation, and in such a spot, should combine with 
it other plans, is most reasonable, for an isolated place of worship 
in Morf Forest would have been an idea little in keeping with a 
Collegiate Church, though well suited for a Hermitage or even a 

Hence we have the Borough and incipient Castle of 1085, re- 
corded in Domesday ; hence also the bridge which, in Florence of 
Worcester's time, had caused, the locality to be called Quat-bridge 
rather than Quat-ford. Domesday says nothing of the Church, 
but such an omission is perfectly reconcileable with the progress of 
a building not yet consecrated or endowed. 

We next come to the ceremony of consecration and the contem- 
porary charter of foundation. The very day of the former is fixed 
by an unvouched authority,^^ which is in itself of weight, and is 
supported by other evidence. The day thus given is July 22, 1086, 
and two independent facts corroborate it. Robert, Bishop of Chester, 
who (a3 we shall see) was present, was not nominated to his See till 
Dec. 25, 1085. It was also "in time of King WiUiam^' (as the 
contemporary Charter declares), and this undistinctive appellation 
should mean the Conqueror rather than his son Rufiis. These two 
considerations would reduce the date to 1086 or 1087. Moreover, 
July 22 (the day alleged) was St. Mary Magdelene's Day. When 
an unvouched date will thus bear testing, it would be absurd not to 
adopt it. 

^ New MonaHicon, vol. vi, p. 144, II. 
*o Ord, Vit, page 679. 
^^ A MS. notice of Albrighton, lent to 
me by tlie Rev. G. W. Woodhouse, and 

understood to have been drawn up by 
the late Mr. Hardwicke of Bridgnorth — 
too good an antiquary to assign a date 
I thus positively without sufficient grounds. 



The foundation-charter^ which is of the recitatory kind^^ in use 
at the time, must now be given as far as I can collect it from the 
only copy ^^ which has reached me, and in absence of the invaluable 

" In time of King William, Roger the Earl and Adelaysa the 
Countess, built a Church in Quatford in honour of our Lord Jesus 
Christ and Saint Mary Magdalene, and all the Saints of God. 
They gave Ardintone,^* except the land of Walter the smith and 
that land which lies between the water and the Mount nigh to the 
bridge, and except that land where the borough is built, and all its 
hays ajiA proper chaces quit of all service and thing.^^ 

(" Be it 1^ known to all, that Roger the Earl gave Milinchope in 
exchange to St. Milburg for the claim which she had in Ardinton. 
There are witnesses — Godebald the priest, Richard de Belmcis, 
Herbert Grammaticus, Raynald Bailial, Roger son of Corbet.") 
" And further, they gave the Church of Claverley and the land 
which pertains to it, with all the tithes, and the Church of 
Alvethleia (Alveley), * * * Strata via, ***** Norley 
(Nordley), and Bobinton, and of Laitonia the whole tithes, and 
the third part of the tithes of Membrefelde (Morville), Ceatintonia 
(Chetton), and Stotesden and Corfham and Culminton and 
Ciratonia (Siefton) : And tithes of the toll of this viU and the 
holding of market quit (of charge) : And to serve the Church they 
established there six ^^ canons. And all these things did the Earl 
by concession of his sons, viz. Hugh and Philip, who were there 
present on the day of dedication, and on that day did give 
Burechote,^^ as a foundation-gift,^® quit of everything (charge). 
There are witnesses," &c. — 

^ Tide tupray page 28, note 3. 

'^ Lent by the Rev. Q-. L. Waeey, and 
understood to have been taken from a 
MS. of the late Mr. Hardwicke of Bridg- 
north. I haye altered a few letters in the 
Latin copy, of no importance to the 
general sense, but only where the original 
had been manifestly mistaken. 

^^ One great fiict in fftvour of this 
Charter is its extraordinary agreement 
with Domesday and with probability. It 
speaks of Quatford only as a part of Ear- 
dington. The spot between the water 
(the Severn) and the Mount, which secured 
to the Castle the command of the bridge, 
and is still to be identified, the site of 

the borough and probably the hays and 
chaces were aU on the Quatford side of 
the river. 

i& This is evidently parenthetical, but 
yet in the nature of (k title-deed to Ear- 
dington, and so very reasonably inserted. 

>• This again is perfectly consistent 
with Bromton*s account, which has shown 
us that the Deanery (or sixth Canonry) 
involved nothing more than a titular su- 
periority over the others. 

^7 It is Burcot in Worfield Manor, and 
the latter was the only possession of Hugh 
de Montgomery in Domesday. Domesd, 
248, b. 1. 

^ *' In doario.*' Doarium is explained 



The list of these witnesses shall be given in full, together with 
those dates and &cts which must stamp the whole account with a 
final seal of unquestionable consistency and truth. They were, — 

WuLSTAN, Bishop op Worcester. — The only English prelate 
who, having sat before the Conquest, survived the Conqueror. 
Hence his precedency on the list. He was now (1086) eighty 
years of age, but lived till 1095. 

Robert, Bishop of Hereford. — Consecrated Dec. 29th, 1079 ; 
died June 26th, 1095. Much of the above-recited endowment lay 
in his diocese. 

Robert, Bishop of Chester. — Robert de Limesey, nominated to 
his see on Dec. 25th, 1085 ; died Aug. 30th, 1117. Quatford was 
then in his diocese. 

(The above " were there present to dedicate the Church.'^) 

Hamefrid, Archdeacon. — Probably Heinfirid, who occurs^* aa 
Archdeacon of Hereford in 1109. 

William, Archdeacon. — Probably of Salop (Hereford diocese). 
Such an one was in office between 1108 and 1115."^ 

Herbert Grammaticus. — Archdeacon of Salop (Chester diocese). 
As Herbert Archdeacon he attested a charter ^^ of Earl Roger to 
Salop Abbey, which must have passed between 1083 and 1086. 
He is also mentioned by Ordericus^^ as one of the wise and 
moderate men, or rather as one of three learned clerks whose 
society Earl Roger much affected, and by whose counsels he was 
advantageously guided. 

OsBERT, Archdeacon — Whose Archdeaconry I am unable to 
assign, except that either he or the next witness was most probably 
Archdeacon of Stafford, seeing that Quatford was in that jurisdic- 
tion. No list of these dignitaries ascends early enough to solve 
this conjecture. 

Frederic — Evidently an Archdeacon, from his position on the 
list, but I cannot assign his province. 

by Du Cange, " Donatio a fundatore f&cta. 
ecclesiffi recens edificatee." 

w Additions to Le Neve's Fasti, by T. 
Duffus Hardy, Esq. 

2» £oi, Fat, 22 Ed. Ill, part3,niemb. 
34. I think Le Neve has made a mistake 
in putting him on the list of Archdeacons 
of Hereford in A.D. 1111. 

21 M(m. Ill, page 618, No. II, and 
page 522, No. X, where his fellow^-wit- 

. nesses are Wariir the Sheriff Godebald 
the Priest, Soger Corbet, and others. 

» Ord., page 522, B. Mr. Blakeway, 
quoting this passage {Hist, Shrews, I, 37) 
has added a note (No. 4) wherein he has 
identified Herbert " the wise Clerk " with 
Herbert son of Helgot, — a mistake which 
it does not need the aid of the above 
Charter to correct. 



Elirich^ Archdeacon. — Perhaps Agelric, Archdeacon of Wor- 
cester/s in office 1089 and 1092. 

GoDEBALD^ Priest. — Another of the " three wise clerks/^ named 
by Ordericus ^ as Earl Roger's companions and advisers. In 1085 
he held LilleshuU^ Uckington, Atcham^ and Preston, of the Church 
of St, AUtmond, Shrewsbmy.^^ To Preston he bequeathed its 
distinctive name of Preston Gubbalds. His possessions descended 
to '' de Belmeis.^' 

Richard, Monk of Wenlock.— A house which Earl Roger had 
refounded in 1080. 

Raynold, of St. Peter's, Salop. — Originally a Monk of Seez, 
but whom Ordericus ^ mentions as having been sent, in 1083, to 
superintend the building of Salop Abbey. 

Restold, of St. Peter's, Gloucester. — Probably a Monk of 
that great Monastic House, then in Worcester Diocese. 

OsBERT FiTz Richard. — Baron of Burford and Richard's Castle; 
a tenant in capite in many counties, and holding, in 1085, Badger, 
Ryton, and Brocton under Earl Roger.^*^ 

Roger de Laci — Baron of Ewyas. A tenant both in capite and 
under Earl Roger in Shropshire. His nearest Manor to Quatford 
held, in 1085, of the Earl, was Higford. 

Roger Corbet. — Roger, son of Corbet, Baron of Cans ; a frequent 
witness of Earl Roger's charters. He is mentioned by Ordericus ^^ 
as one of the men, faithful and very valiant, whom the Earl 
employed in government of his Province. 

Ursus, Sheriff — Urso d'Abitot, Sheriff of Worcester- 
shire and ancestor of Beauchamp. Besides a tenure in capite 
in several counties, he held Sdwarp^® in 1085 under Earl 

Helgot de Stanton. — One of the Earl Roger's Barons, and 
holding Stanton, Broseley, Meadowley, and many other Manors of 
the Earl in 1085. He was founder of Castle Holgate, and a great 
benefactor to Shrewsbury Abbey. 

Herbert his Son — who succeeded him not only in estate but in 
liberal grants to Shrewsbury Abbey .^° He appears as an under- 
tenant in several Domesday Manors, 

23 Le Neve*8 Fasti, page 
3* Ord. page 522, B. 
25 Domesd, 253 a, 1. 
^ 0<i. page 581. 


27 See Table, page 18. 

28 Ord. page 522, B. 

29 Domesday y 176 a, 1. 

^ Salop Chartulary, Nos. 1, 35, &c. 



Norman Venator. — Held^ amongst other Manors, Albrighton^^ of 
the Earl. He was a benefactor to Salop Abbey. 

Roger his Brother. — Called in Domesday Roger Venator. His 
fief under the Earl in 1085 included Beckbury.*^ 

Arthur, Sheriff. 

Adric db Wenlock. — Edric, son of Aluric, held Burton under 
Wenlock Priory in 1085.»» 

SiwARD. — Probably Siward sumamed Grossus, a great assistant 
of Earl Roger in the foundation of Salop Abbey. He is mentioned 
more than once in Domesday, 

Aldred his Brother. — Siward had a son named Aldred,^ whose 
disposition was other than friendly to religious endowments. I 
mention him merely to show the name in the family, not from any 
idea that Siward's son and brother have been confounded. 

Augustine. — Earl Roger had a tenant in Sussex of this name.*^ 
Several Saxons, called Austin in Domesday, had held lands in 
Shropshire before the Conquest. 

Tochi. — Held, in 1085, Aston (BottereD) under Rainald the 
sheriff,^^ and Woodcote under Robert Fitz Tetbald,^^ ^^q both held 
under the Earl. 


Warlance Fitz Aloar. 

The Charter, after invoking a blessing on all promoters of this 
pious undertaking, concludes with an appalling malediction on any 
who should interfere with its endowments. At that period it was 
not deemed inconsistent thus to guard a foundation which had for 
its object the teaching of Christianity. Neither Papal Bull nor 
Norman Charter is to be accounted one whit less genuine for 
embodying such a supplement. 

To Earl Roger, on his death in July 1094, succeeded his second 
son Hugh. The latter was slain in Anglesey in July 1098, when 
Earl Robert, his elder brother, who already had the Norman pos- 
sessions of their father, purchased, from William Rufiis, a succession 
to those in England. He it was who selected the spot afterwards 
called Bridgnorth as better fitted than Quatford for certain ulterior 
designs, which, though not of an ecclesiastical character, must 
have largely a£Fected his father's foundation. To Bridgnorth he 

31 See Table, page 18. 
38 Domesd. fo. 259 a. 
« Domesd. fo. 252 b. 
^ Salop Chartulofy, No. 1. 

35 Domesd. fo. 25 b, 2. 
» See Table, page 18. 
37 Domesd. fo. 256 b, 2. 


transferred both Castle and Borough. The richly endowed Church 
naturally followed ; but whether in his time, or by subsequent 
direction of King Henry I, we are not informed. It was already 
at Bridgnorth on the accession of Henry II. What we have further 
to say of Quatford will be chiefly as an appanage rather than the 
site of this great Collegiate establishment. 

In the thirteenth century we have several notices of small occu- 
pations, both in Quatford and Eardington, and so on either or both 
sides of the river Severn. The persons thus interested were 
probably tenants of the Church. A few shall be mentioned here, 
and others reserved for Eardington, to which we shall shortly recur. 
At Salop Assizes, Nov. 1221, Simon de Quatford sued Andrew 
de More for twenty acres here, alleging that Andrew obtained entry 
through William de More his father, which William was only 
tenant for a term by demise of Reginald de Quatford, Simon's 
father. Andrew pleaded that he was only tenant of half the 
premises, for that Alan de Pierpoint held ten acres thereof by gift 
of the same Beginald. Alan, being in Court, proved the truth of 
this by production of the deed of feoffment, whereupon Simon was 

About the same time William Fitz Henry, of Brug (Bridgnorth), 
granted to William his son twenty-four acres in Quatford. There 
were witnesses to this grant, William Goldsmith (Aurifaber) and 
Adam hogsan, Provosts of Brug, and Hamo le Pabner.*' 

About 1260, John Fitz William Fitz Henry, of the Castle of 
Brug, warranted to John de Exton, Clerk, twenty-four acres in 
Quatford, which said John de Exton had purchased of William 
brother of the warrantor. There were witnesses of this, William 
Bonami and Bichard Ardnichun, Provosts of Brug. Walter 
Palmer and William Palmer.^ 

About 1280.'*i John de Exton, Clerk, sumamed Citator (the 
Summoner), sold to Bichard Dammas, of Brug, Chaplain, land in 
the field opposite Quatford. There were witnesses of this, Symon, 
then Prior of the Holy Trinity of Brug, William Bonami and Roger 
Feyrchild, Provosts. 

» Salop Assizes, 6 Hen. HI, memb. 4 Beginald le Gaugy who was murdered at 

recto. Worfield circa 1250. I flbaU have to 

» BlaJceway MS8, in Bibl. Bodl. This speak of them aU again when I come to 

William Fitz Henry, otherwise called Bridgnorth. 

William of the Castle, was father also of ^ Bldkewo^ M88, ibidem. 

John of the Cwtle, of Alan Fitz William ** Bldkeway MS8» ibidem, 
(a murderer) and of Alice, wife of that 



Oct. 6, 1271. A fine*^ was levied at Westminster between 
Richard Dammas^ of Bruges, Complainant, and Robert de Welbe 
and Agnes his wife, of twenty-four acres in Bruges, whereof was a 
plea of warranty. Robert and Agnes acknowledged the premises 
to be Richard^s as of their own gift ; — ^to have and to hold of Robert 
and Agnes and the heirs of Agnes ; rendering to them one rose 
yearly, and to the chief lords of the fee accustomed services, for 
Robert and Agnes. For this Richard gave ten merks. 

Later in the century. Sir Richard Dammas, Chaplain, attests^ a 
Bridgnorth deed with Ralph Bolding and Robert Dyer (Tinctor), 
Provosts of Brug, and others. 

Oct. 1292. At Salop Assizes** '^ Richard Dammas was bound 
down to answer to the Lord the King, for that when Nicholas Brun 
and Alice his wife, on Oct. 4, 1291, in the town of Brugges, in the 
Church of St. Leonard, in presence of Master Andrew de Totten- 
hale, Hugh de Wrottesley, and William Godewyn, had served the 
said Richard with a writ of the King forbidding him to prosecute 
further in Court Christian a suit concerning chattels and debts, 
which were neither of testament nor marriage, the aforesaid Richard, 
in contempt of the said precept, spat upon the writ and cast it under 
him and trampled it with his feet in contempt of the Lord King, of 
JIOOO, &c. 

"Richard denies the whole charge, and puts himself on the coimtry, 
&c. And Hugh (Hugh de Louther, the King's Attorney) does 
likewise. The Jurors say npon their oath that said Richard never 
spat upon the writ, nor trampled it, nor in any way treated it with 
contempt.'^ So Richard was acquitted. 

22 Ed. I (1293-4), Richard Dammas founded*^ a Chantry in the 
King's Free Chapel of Brugge, and endowed it with two messuages : 
one in the town of Bruges, the other in Netherton*® by Quatford ; 
also with sixty-five acres of land and half an acre of meadow. 

Towards the end of the thirteenth century,' Katherine,*'' relict of 

^ Mnal Concords, Salop, 55 Hen. III. 
I have quoted the fine at some length, as 
it is an undoubted specimen of that kind 
of fine which terminat;ed a fictitious suit, 
and which was, in fact, nothing more than 
a safe and legal conveyance of premises 
sold. It is a common idea that all fines 
were of this nature, but up to this period 
it may safely be said that nine out of ten 
were terminations of real suits. 

^ Charter at Apley Park. 

** Placita de quo warranto, page 679. 

« Fai. 22 Edw. I, memb. 1. 

^ Netherton Lane (now disused) was 
part of the road which crossed the river 
Severn at Quatford. — Sev. Q. L, Wasey. 

^ Charter in possession of W. W. 
Whitmore, of Budmaston, Esq. This 
deed has an oval seal of green wax in good 
preservation. A female figure st«nds fiill- 



Sir Alan de Glaseley, quit-claims for herself and heirs to Guy Lord 
of Glaseley and his heirs^ all right in her land at the Nethereton in 
Quatford^ which Alan her husband and herself had conjointly^ by 
purchase from Henry de Glaseley, brother of said Alan. There 
were witnesses of this. Sir Henry de Mortimer, Sir Mph d' Arras, 
Robert de Dodemaston^ Fremonde de Erditon^ John de Aldenham^ 
Richard de la More, Roger Bonamy of Brug, and many others. 

In 30 Ed. I (1301-2), Katherine,*® widow of Alau and mother of 
Guy de Glaseley, held dower in the field of Brugy opposite Qaatford, 

Early, as I think, in the thirteenth century, Richard Botar of 
Quatford granted^® to Maud his daughter, by Susanna his wife, two 
acres in the fields towards Quatford, of the fee of Linley, which he 
bought of William Pitz Tedbald. The rent was to be eightpence, 
payable to the grantor for hfe, and then to the lights of the blessed 
Virgin Mary of Quatford. Witness, Sir William de Chetinton, 
then Chaplain of Quatford. 


Though Quatford Church ceased to be Collegiate within a few 
years of its foundation, it nevertheless remained, having for its 
parish a district identical with the Domesday Manor of Eardington. 
The contrast which it thus presented to its former self is most 
remarkable. As a Collegiate Church its foundation rests on the 
clearest evidence : the earliest feature of its parochial state is two 
centuries of all but oblivion. 

Sir William de Chetinton, its Chaplain, just mentioned, was 
probably the earliest Incumbent of whom we are likely to hear, and 
his Incumbency, if such it can be called, very much like that of 
the Chaplains of Morville and Astley Abbots, of whom we have 
heard already. 

In 1255, Quatford is said^° to be' '^ a member of the Church of 

faced with a scutcheon of arms on each 
side of the head. The dexter shield seems 
to have been charged with a lion rampant, 
the sinister with two lions passant (the 
bearing of Le Strange, who was mesne 
Lord of Glazeley). 

« Blakeway MSS, in Bibl. Bodl. 

^ Ibidem. Parochial Notices 11, 340. 
The fomilj of linlej had an interest in the 
Borough of Bridgnorth by special grant 
of King Henry II ; and Sir William le 

Forcer, a coheir of Linley, was concerned 
at Dudmaston in time of Edw. II. (Char- 
ter at Dudmaston). The grantor above (6r 
his memorialist) has mistaken the Patron 
Saint of Quatford Church, unless indeed 
there were an Altar of the Virgin therein, 
to which he dedicated his endowment. 

w Eof, Hund, n, 59. — ^A document of 
1412-3, speaks of Quatford Chapel as an- 
nexed to the Deanery. (Pat, 14 Hen. 
IV. memb. 29). 



Claverley/' and the Church of Claverley was always attached to the 
Deanery or chief Prebend of St. Mary Magdalene^ of Brag. 
Whether this summary notice of Quatford alludes to the Churchy 
or to some lands in the parish^ does not appear from the context of 
the passage quoted. 

In 1291^^ we just know that there was a Church here, from being 
told that it was not worth £^ per annum, and so not taxable. 

Possible mention of another Incumbent here, in 1316, may have 
been already made.^^ If so, he was called Parson, — ^but that may 
have been the result of his more valuable preferment elsewhere. 

In 1341, the village of Quatford ^ is mentioned as having been 
taxed to the ninths according to the value of the Parish Church, and 
so excepted from the general taxation of Bridgnorth, though within 
the liberties of that Borough. 

This separate taxaticm of Quatford does not however occur any- 
where on the Roll. It was probably never levied, as we know from 
other authority ^^ that the lands of St. Mary Magdalene paid 
nothing to this tax. 

The ^ Valor Ecclesiasticus' of 1535 makes no mention of Quat- 
ford Church in any relation whatever. 


The outside of this Church exhibits no architectural details earliei* 
than about the fourteenth century, with the exception of a smcdl 
window on the north side of the Chancel. The Chancel-arch is 
also of late Norman or transitional character; but there seems 
reason to believe that the present Church preserves the ground- 
plan of the original structure, I mean that which existed in the 
twelfth century, the western tower having been added at a later 
period ; for the Chancel-arch is built of a sort of tufa,^^ and the 
same is found in the walls of both the Nave and Chancel, the 
masonry of which, near the ground, is such as we might look for 
in that period. 

The tower, and some of the upper parts of the walls, including 
the windows, are of sandstone. 

^^ Pope Nicholas* Taxatiou, page 166. 
^ Vide su^a, page 77, note 253. 
^ Iitq. Nonctrum, page 191. 
^ Ibidem, pp. 190 and 194, suh Mo- 
merfeld and Clayerley. 

^ Mr. Hartflhome sajs that this tu& 
** must have been brought hither up the 
Serem out of Gloucestershire, as the 
nearest deposit of that formation lies at 
Stroud.'* {Salopia AtUiqua, p. 232). 





The Font is a circular basin^ on a cluster of four short massive 
shafts. The ornament with which it is enriched gives so completely 
the tracery and panelling of the fourteenth century^ that I cannot 
refer it to any other period^ and the material is sandstone^ not the 
tufa of the Chancel- arch and walls. It is, however, not impossible 
that the ornament may have been sculptured upon an old and plain 

Near the door are some incised and sculptured slabs of stone, 
representing a sort of cross : they seem to have belonged to altar- 

J. L. Petit. 


We now recross to the western bank of the Severn, where lay the 
bulk of the Domesday Manor of Eardington. This we have already 
seen appropriated by the Norman Earl, and granted to his Church 
of Quatford, but not without a compensation to the Saxon house 
of St. Milburg, then represented by Wenlock Priory. 

Eardington hereupon became divided into two portions, allotted 
to two stalls of the EarFs Prebeudal Church. With one of these 
was associated the Church of Alveley, — and, consequently, that 
Prebend was usually called the Prebend of Alveley, while the other 
was always known as the — 


XJlger, the first whom I find with this preferment, lived in the 
time of King Henry II. As early as 1169, Hulger, the Clerk, was 
one of the Visors appointed ^^ by writ of Richard de Luci to super- 
intend works at the Tower of Brug. Ulger, variously called Clerk 
and Canon, discharged a similar trust in 1170 and four following 
years, under writs ^^ both of Richard de Luci and the King. 

^ Fi^ MoUf 15 Hen. II, Salop. 

•7 Pipe SollSy 16 to 20 Hen. II, Salop. 
Visors or viewers were appointed by the 
Crown for various purposes. In the 

present and similar instances their duty 
was not only to see that the works were 
properly performed, but to check the 
Sheriff's expenditure thereon. 


Ulger's successor was R.^ son of Hugh Pautulf. As Hugh Pan- 
tulf was not married before 1170^ the succession of his younger son 
(and he had several) to a Church dignity will probably have been 
at least thirty y^ars later. B. Pantulf's tenure of this Prebend 
will also have been very brief; for, as we shall see presently, his 
predecessor's ^ name was used to describe the Prebend when his 
successor was appointed. 

On Nov. 1, 1203, King John, then at Vemeuil,*'' certifies 
Geofl&^y, Bishop of Coventry, that '^ we have conceded, and, so far as 
the patron is concerned, given to Alexander, Chaplain of our be- 
loved William de Breose, that Prebend in our Chapel of Bruges 
which is vacant and is of our donation, which Ulger, and after him 
R., son of Hugh Pantulf, held. So that,'' says the King, " Ralph 
de Cirencester, our Clerk, may hold that Prebend, paying thereof 
annually to said Alexander, as to the Parson, 100s. in name of 
pension. Wherefore we command you that you admit the said 
Alexander to the Parsonage, and the said R. to the perpetual 
Vicarage of that Prebend, and institute them on our presentation 

2 Feb. 1206, King John, at Nottingham,^^ addressing the Dean 
of Brug, informs him that he has granted to Master John Wtheng 
that Prebend in his (the King's) Church of Brug, which is vacant 
and was Wlger the Canon's. The Dean is to admit him and do 
therein whatever pertains to him to do. 

6 June, 1226. Henry de Comhull, Chancellor of London, is 
presented^^ to that Prebend in the King's Chapel of Brug, which had 
been Master Wyteng's. The Constable of Brug is to induct him. 

" Ulger, a Canon, was living in Oct. 
1203, and possessed of a free tenement in 
Brokton, whereof Willi2un de Brokton had 
disseized him. ( Vid» Salop Assiz, 5 John, 
memb. 4 recto). 

*9 Hot. Fat, 5 John, memb. 6 recto. 
There are two points noticeable in this 
presentation : — 1st, that the Peculiar Ju- 
risdiction, afterwards so jealously guarded 
by the Crown, seems either forgotten or 
not fully established, otherwise a Bishop 
would not haye been addressed : 2dly, 
that the Bishop addressed is of Coventry, 
showing that the ancient diocese of Chester 
crossed the Severn at tliis one point to 
include Eardington, a boundary which, 
though sometimes ignored, was again 

recognized in the Valor of Henry Vlll. 
The rights of the Peculiar Jurisdiction 
will have made the question practically 
unimportant; and hence perhaps the 

^ Eot. Pat. 7 Joh. memb. 3. On the 
26th of May following. Master John 
Witeing was appointed Justiciar to assess 
an aid in Warwickshire {Eot. Pat. 8 John, 
memb. 1). He was a Prebendary also of 
St. Paul's. 

« Eot. Pat. 10 Hen. IH. Henry de 
Comhull, Chancellor of St. Paul's, held 
that office from 1217 for some years. He 
became Dean of that Church in 1244), and 
died April 9, 1254. {Bugd. St. PauFs, 
pp. 224, 232). 



In 1255, Peter de Darham held this Pfebetid/* which the Juroris 
of Brug valued at ten merks (£6. 13^. 4rf.) and the Jurors of Stot- 
tesden at seventeen merks (j611. 6*. 8rf.) per annum. 

In Oct. 1272, the same Peter was in possession, and the Prebend 
valued at 15 merks (£10). He is reported as a defaulter in 
attendance at the Assizes.*^ 

In 1284, John de Lukes is returned** as holding half the vill of 
Herdington of the King in capite. 

In 1291, '^ the portion of the Prebend^^ of Sir John de Luk in the 
parish of Quatford, the Deanery of Stottesden, and the Diocese of 
Hereford, is taxed (valued) at £1/^ but another part of the same 
record says that " John de Luke^s Prebendary of Bruges has at 
Erdinton half a carrucate of land which, with its meadows, 
pastures, mill, perquisites, and all other profits, is worth £6, 6s. Srf. 
per annum.'' The former was the income of the Spiritualities, the 
latter of the Temporalities of his Prebend. 

In Oct. 1292, the Jurors for Brug valued^^ John de Luke's Prebend 
of Erdyton at 14 merks (^£9. 6s. Sd.) . 

In March, 1316, John de Luk is again retumed*^ as Lord of 

In 10 Ed. Ill (1336), Nicholas de Roton was presented^^ by the 
King to this Prebend, and — 

In 13 Ed. Ill (1339), Philip Wascon.^^ 

2 Nov. 1395, Nicholas Rape having resigned, Guy More was 
presented''^ by King Richard II. 

In 1535, William Hoorde is returned^^ as holding the prebend of 
Erdinton in the Archdeaconry of Stafford and Diocese of Coventry 

« Bot Emd, II, 69 and 83. This 
Peter da Durham had been in the employ 
of Henry de Oomhull as early as 1225 
{Mot. Clam». II, 146). In Auguat 1226, 
one Peter, a Chaplain, was Chutoi of Mor- 
yiUe Bridge, and had the King's precept 
to the Forester of Shropshire to allow him 
timber for its repair out of Shirlet Forest 
(Claw, n, 135). 

^ Salop AjuU. 56 Hen« III, memb. 49 
dorto* He had previously, viz., at the 
Forest Assizes, 1262, been amerced 20 
shillingt for de&ult {Fladta Fore^ta, 
Salop. 46 Hen. Ill, memb. 5 dorso). 

^ KWhy't Quest, Stottesden Hund. 

« Pope Nie. Tax. 166, b., and 162, 
b., note Jc» 

" Plac. Corona. Salop. 20 Ed. I, 
memb. 87 dorso. 

V Nomina ViUartm, 9 Ed. H. (ParUa- 
mentary Writs, IV, 398). 

^ Bot. Pat. 10 Ed. Ill, pars 2, mmb. 

•9 Itot. Pat. 13 Ed. in, pars 1, memb. 


70 JBlakewa^ MSS. in Bibl. Bodl. 

71 Valor JEcclenaatietUf III, 199, where 
the recognition of the original Diocese ia 
to be observed. 




and Lichfield. Its value in glebe lands is stated at £6. ISs. 44., in 
other tithes and oblations at £3. 6s. Sd., — giving a total of £10 
per annum. 


In giving a list of the early Prebendaries of this other portion of 
Eardington we necessarily include some account of the Church of 
Alveley, whose Incumbents held this dignity. 

The first whom I find thus beneficed was William le Strange, 
probably a near relation of Guy le Strange, who became Lord of 
Alveley by grant^^ of Henry II in 1155. 

In Oct. 1203, Christiana, widow of Richard de Constantin, had 
disseized William le Strange of his free tenement in Erdinton since 
Michaelmas 1199. William recovered seizin and 3 shillings 

In Nov. 1221, William le Strange was returned^* as holding the 
Church of Alveley, having been presented thereto by King Henry II. 
It was worth 30 merks (£20). He will therefore have held this 
Prebend thirty-three years at least, but on Jan. 7, 1223, he had 
resigned, for on that day King Henry III conferred the Church on 
William de Harcourt, who will also have been related to one of the 
then co-heirs of Alveley Manor. On this occasion the Bishop of 
Coventry was ordered to institute. 

Notwithstanding this resignation of William le Strange he was 
presented 76 at Salop Assizes in Oct. 1227 as holding the Church of 
Alveley. . The mistake arose probably from the identity of Christian 

^ Cart. Cotton, xi. 14, in Brit. Mus. 

^ Salop Assizes, 5 John, memb. 4 recto. 
Christiana was probably at this period 
holding dower in the adjacent Manor of 

^* Salop Assizes, 6 Hen. in, memb. 9 
dorso. This Prebendary was probably the 
same person with William le Strange, Dean 
of St. Mary's, Satop (JEKst. Shr. yoL ii. 
p. 325) ; but I cannot think, as there sur- 
mised, that he was brother of Ghiy Hamo 
and John le Strange, nor that they had 
any brother William. The Charter to 
which Mr. Blakeway apparently refers for 
this relationship^ is an abbreviated one in 
^arl. MS. 2188, fo. 123, and gives John 
|e Strange and William his brother as 

witnesses; but the Chartulary at Sundom, 
quoting, I think, the same original deed, 
has John le Strange and Wido (Guy) his 
brother as witnesses. A William le 
Strange is indeed a witness of two other 
deeds in the Haghmon Chartulary, and 
him I take to have been our Frebemdary, 
and perhaps afterwards Dean of St. 
Mary's ; but both these deeds passed 
after the deaths of GKiy and John le 
Strange the elder. I think that there is 
a further mistake, in the Hist, of Shrews- 
bury, in giving this William a daughter ; 
and that itwas his sisterwho married Alan le 
Poer. (VideHaghmon Chartidary,fo.l81). 
7^ Assize Soil, incorporated in Testa 
de Nevill, p. 64. 



name and the consanguinity of himself and his successor. More- 
over these Prebendaries of Bridgnorth will not usually have been 
resident^ but rather represented by their several Vicars. If so, the 
Jurors, who made these presentments at County Assizes, may very 
possibly have remained ignorant of the resignation of any Preben- 
dary for some time after such event. We have already seen that 
their knowledge of the value of each Prebend was extremely in- 

On 8 April, 1241, William de Haverhull was presented by King 
Henry III to the Prebend of Alvithel. The Constable of Brug had 
the King's precept to induct him. ^c 

8 June, 1250. A precept issued to Bobert de Brus, empowering 
him to try a cause of novel disseisin between this Prebendary and 
Madoc de Sutton about a tenement in Alvithleg.'^ 

26 Aug. 1252. Alexander Fisicus (Physician) is presented to 
William de HaverhuU's vacant Prebend in the Chapel of Bru^. 
The Constable is to induct.*^® 

9 Sept. 1253. Henry de Wengham was presented to the Prebend 
which Alexander Fisicus had held. Precept accordingly issued to 
the Constable.'^® 

In the Inquisitions of 1255, there were several presentments as to 
this Church and Prebend. The Alveley jurors said ^ that Henry 
de Wingham held the Church by the King's gift ; that it belonged 
to a Prebend of the King's free Chapel, and was worth forty merks 
(£26. ISs. 4rf. per annum) . The Stottesden jurors said si the same 
in substance, but separately reported Sir Herii-y de Wyngeham's 
share of Erdinton as worth sixteen merks (£10. ISs. 4rf.) They 
also said that "Sir Henry de Wengham and Peter de Durelm 
(Durham), Canons of Magdalene, are Lords of Erdinton, of the 
King's gift ; wherein are six virgates of land ; and they do no suit, 
nor pay stretward nor motfe, the jurors know not by what warrant." 
The jurors of Bruges said,®^ on the same occasion, that " Henry de 
Wingham holds one Prebend, viz. the Church of Alvitheley, with 
its member Remesleg (Romesley), and it is worth forty merks 
per annum." 

7« Eot Fat., 25 Hen. III. 

77 Ibidem, 34 Hen. HI. 

78 Ibidem, 36 Hen. III. 

7» Ibidem, 37 Hen. III. Exactly ten 
years before (viz. Sept. 1243), this Henry 
de Wengeham was serving the Eing in 

Qascony, and reoeiyed a vrritten promise, 
dated at Bourdeaux, as to his future 
advanoement. (Bot Fat. 27 Hen. HE). 

w Bot. JHund. vol. ii. p. 73. 

« Ibidem, pp. 82, 83. 

83 Ibidem, p. 59. 



Henry de Wengliam bad silao l)een presented in tluA year to the 
Charcli of Woorfidd^ and> when theae inquisitiona were taken> waa 
nothing less than Lord Chancellor of England. After serving the 
Crown for some years in several minor capacities^ and receiving a 
correspondent share of patronage^ he waa appointed ^ to the Chan- 
cellorship by patent of January 5th^ 1255. He held this office till 
October 18th^ 1360^ a Custos being nominated during his occasional 
absence from Court, and once during his illness. On February 15tb, 
1260, he was consecrated Bishop of London, and died in October, 

His successor in the Prebend of Alveley waa Hugh de la Penne, 
appointed,®* by letters patent to the constable of Bmgea^ on 28th 
December, 1260. 

At Salop Assizes, October, 1272, Hugo de la Penne's Prebend of 
Alvitheleg was returned as worth sixty merka (£40 per annum). 
The Prebendary was also reported aa a defaulter in due attend- 
ance 8* at the assizes. In 1284, Hugo de la Penne ia returned aa 
Lord of half the vill of Erdington.s^ . 

In 1291, amongst the spiritualities of the Deanery of Stottesden 
and diocese of Hereford, ^' the portion of the Preboad of Hugh dQ 
Penne in the Parish of Quatford'' is valued ^t at £1, and his 
temporalities at Erdintone, consisting of land^ meadows, rente, with 
^^ (^l^eraciombu9'' and perquiaitesj, at £1. 18^« 6 J, 

At Salop Assizes, October, 1292, Hugo de la Fennels Prebend of 
Alvitheleye was returned^ aa worth eighty merka (£53, 6^, 8d. per 
annum) . 

23d February, 1328, Thomaa Talbot, clerk, waa presented ^^ to 
this Prebend, and 19th September, 1334, he was promoted to the 
chief Prebend or Deanery. 

In 5 Edw. Ill (1331), Richard Oweine's presentation^ to thia 
Prebend seems to have been revoked. 

In 11 Edw. m (1337), G. Chilchethe, previou&ly Prebendary of 
Underdon, waa presented to this.^^ 

® Hardy^s ChancellorSj p. 9. 

84 Sot. Fat, 45 Hen. III. This Hugh 
de la Penne was also Bector of Worfield, 
by th^ King's gilt. {Atsiat. of^ ScUop. 
&6 Hen. III. memb. 2% dorso). 

^ Salop Asskes, 56 Hen. Ill, memb. 
49 dorso. 

* Kirhy'a Qf<e«^. 

^ Pope Nich. TaxaHon, 160, b. and 

162, b. Operaciones were the works per- 
formed by inferior tenants in lieuof remt^ 

® Placita CoroikSy 20 Edw. I, memb. 
37 dorso. 

» Sot Fat. % Ed, m, part i^ memb. 
29 ; and 8 Ed. m, part ii, memb. 35. 

^ Ibidem, 5 Ed. Ill, part i, memb. 83. 

»i JSo#. Pat X\, Ed. IXK^ part 9, memk 


In the Inquisition of the Ninths a. d. 1341 > the assessora rated ^ 
"the two portions of the Church which were in Erdjmton at 31 
shillings for the ninth of wheats wool, and lamb in the same Parish." 
This assessment is informal, as Eardington was not a parish^ neither 
were the portionists or their tenants amenahle^^ to the tax. If it 
means anything it relates to some tenure in Eardington Manor not 
held of the Church. 

In 23 Edw, III (1349), Thomas Brember was presented to this 

28 Oct. 1361, John de Buckingham was presented.^ 

40 Edw. Ill (1366), it was granted^® to William of Wickham, 
who, in the following year, was consecrated Bishop of Winchester, 
and appointed ChanceUor of England. He survived the period of 
his greatest advanoement thirty-seven years. Who would know 
further of his genius, his honours, and his great munificence, may 
learn much at Windsoar, Winchester, cxr Oxfinrd, more still in the 
archives of a Nation, but most of all in the imperishable record of a 
venerated name. 

Passing &om the mention of princely sacrifice to a memorial^ of 
another kind, we see (in 1535) the Ibrebend of Aheley, now ripe 
for confiscation, valued for King Henry VIII as follows : — 

^^ John Belletour, Prebendary of the Collegiate Church of St. 
Mary Magdalene, has the Prebend of Alvdey in the County of 
Sal<^^ Archdeaconry of Stafford, and Dkxxae of Coventry and 
Lichfield j and it is worth annually> in the value of glebe land 
thereunto pertaining, £5. Qs^ 8<f*; and in other tithes, oblations^ and 
emoluments, beyond expenses, £8/' Total value, £13. 6^* 8tf« 

Of tenants and their lands, in Eardington^^ held probably under 
one or other of the last-named Prebends, we have a few notices* 
The principal tenement eonoemed will be — 


Aug. 122& Alan de Haya was pledge of Henry Pit% Thomas in 
a suit whidi the latter had against the Abbot of Salop, about land 
in MorviHe.** 

** ^. If^nar^m, page 194k 
« Vide supiHK pp, 39 & 70. 
»♦ Sot Pat 2& Bdw. IH, part 3, 
mernb. 1. 

" Blakewatf M88. in Bibl. Bodl. | memb. 4 dorso. 

» J^.PM.40Edw.III,part2^m«Biik. 
as. apnd Tanmei^y MHi. Monatt 
V rklorJScoUncmHctu^TJIyia9^> 



This Alan de Haya was probably the same with Alan de Erdinton^ 
whose son Richard de la Rode has already^ occurred as purchasing 
and selling land in Deepdale (Astley Abbots). 

About the same time^^^ Thomas^ son of Alan de la Hay^ sold to 
Master Fremund de Erdinton all his land of the Hay^ — the pur- 
chaser to pay 10«. rent to Thomas de Chabbenour^ the Chief Lord.^^^ 
Witness^ Sir Thomas de Constantine. 

The Stottesden Jurors of 1256^ in answer to the inquiry as to 
^^ What spiritual persons (viri religiosi) or others prosecute laymen 
before the Judges Delegate or the Ordinaries^^' stated as follows ; 
that^ ^' Fremund de Erdinton summoned Richard de Waskebache^ 
and Walter^ his brother^ because Bichard^s dog barked at him^ and 
that for this cause he got 48. from Richard and 2s, from Walter : ^^ 
also^ that the same ^' Fremund summoned Juliana de Glaseley be- 
fore the Judges Delegate in a plea of Covenant which was between 
them about half a merk^ and got from her a whole merk/'^^ 

After this some notices occur of a family taken to be collaterally 
related to Fremimd de Erdinton^ if not his heirs. 

In August^ 1267^ Stephen Spereman^ and Emma his wife^ had 
sued out a writ of mort d'ancestre against Reginald Reed^ about a 
messuage in Brug^ and had license to sue out a better writ.^^ 

By deed^ sans date, John del Hay demises to Fromund^ son of 
Reginald de Erditon, all his land in the Hay.^^ 

About 1283, Thomas, son of Herbert de la Hay, grants^^*^ to 
Fromund, son of Reginald Red, of Erdinton, land at the Hay, with 
a capital messuage. Witnesses, Ralph de Arraz, Hugo de Dode- 
moneston, Nicholas le Palmer, of Brug. 

^ Yide supra, page 64, and also page 
63, where, if the above be correct, I shall 
haye named Alan de Haya under a wrong 

^ Otley DeedSy quoted in Blakeway 
M88. in Bibl. BodL 

101 Q^his Thomas de Chabbenour was, I 
suppose, son of that Thomas Fitz Odo 
whom we haye aL*eady had as Gustos of 
the neighbouring Manor of Tasley in 
Henry 11*8 time (Vide supra, page 86). 
His being called Chief Lord only implies 
that he held oyer the Yendor,.and is quite 
consistent with his being himself a tenant 
of the Church. 

^ Rot. EwHd, II, 88. The Judges of 
Ecclesiastical Causes are here distinguish- 
ed into Ordinaries and Delegates. The 
former were Judges ex qffido, as a Bishop 
in his diocese, or an Archdeacon in his 
Archdeaconry. The latter were appointed 
on special occasions. An appeal to the 
See of Bome generally resulted in the ap- 
pointment of Judges Delegate to deter- 
mine it. 

'^ PlacUa coram Bege, apud Salop, 
51 Hen. IH, memb. 6 dorso. 

'^ Otley Deeds, nt supra. 

^^ Otl^ Deeds, ut supra. 



11 Edw. I (1283), Fremund de Erdinton binds himself by deed to 
supply Thomas, son of Herbert, with all the necessaries of life. 

About the same time Fremund de Erdinton attests an agreement ^^ 
between the Abbots of Dieulacres and Salop about lands in Lan- 

Oct. 18, .1288. He attests, at Brug, a deed relating to land at 
Astley Abbots.i^^ 

17 Edw. I (1289), Richard, son of Reginald Rud, having reco- 
vered in the King^s Court at Westminter, seizin of a messuage and 
carrucate in the More, near Erdington, against Fromund Rud, and 
the latter having, as alleged, redisseized him, mandate issues to the 
Sheriff to inquire if this be so, and to arrest the oflfender.^^ 

Oct. 1292, Fremund de Erdinton was on the Jury for the Bo- 
rough of Brug, which attended the Assizes.^^ 

I have been thus particular to state all I could meet with relative 
to this Fremund, because he was one of the first recorded^^® Bur- 
gesses who was summoned to Parliament for Bridgnorth. With 
Andrew Bolding he was returned to the Parliament, which was to 
meet at Westminster on 13th November, 1295, but which was pro- 
rogued to November 27. 

24 Edw. I (1296), Alice, daughter of Nicholas Cinevet, of Quat- 
ford, grants to Fromund, son of Reginald Rud, of Erdinton, eight 
ridges (seyliones) of land in the field towards the Hay, between the 
land of said Fromund and the road which leads to the ford of 
Severn, near the weir (gurgitem) of Quatford, and extending from 
Fromund^s land to Hamstodeshal."^ 

Fromund is witness to a number of deeds ^^^ of this period which 
relate variously to lands in Bridgnorth and Astley Abbots, and 
passed at those places or at ^^Sevame.^' Those dated are of 
Jan. 3, 1296; Sept. 26 and Oct. 4, 1297; Nov. 25, 1298; Dec. 
24, 1302; Feb. 15, 1303; and Oct. 19, 1305. 

In 28 Ed. I (1300), he was grantee ^^^ of Roger, son of Roger 
Chete, senior, of Brug, a culture in -the fields of Brug, bounded 
by Morf Forest and the land of the Hospital of Saint John 
Baptist. This will have lain east of the Severn. 

>» Salop Chartulary, No. 270. 
W7 Charter at Apley Park. 
i« Ori^nalia, 17 Edward I. Eot. 25. 
i« PlacUa Corona, Salop, 20 Ed. I, 
memb. 51 reoto. 

"0 Farliamewtaiy WriU, 1,41. 
"1 Otletf MSS.Mt sxi^Ttk, 
113 Charters at Apley Park. 
i» CWfey Jlf5'5'. ut supra. 

126 THE MORE. 

Sept. 19^ 1304. He was foreman of the Jtutnrs/^^ who sat at 
Bridgnorth^ on an inquest of ad quod damnum, which concerned a 
purchase made by the Prior of Malvern in Qnat. 

In 2 Edw. II (1308), he was dead, having been seized of diverse 
lands and tenements in " Brugges juxta le Hay/^ and of 20 acres of 
land and 1 acre of meadow in Oldbury.^^^ A part of this, viz., 
4 acres in "Bruges juxta le Hay," was held in capite, and in 
Michaelmas Term of the same year, Reginald, his son and heir, 
paid 2s, relief thereof.^^* 

In 1 Edw. Ill (1327), Hugh Mortimer, of Chelmarsh, granted 
to Reginald de la Hay, son of Fromimd de Erdinton, all right in 
158. 6d. of that rent of I6s. 6d. which was due from said Reginald 
annually for land which he held of said Hugh in the Hay.^^^ 

In 3 Edw. Ill (1329), the same Reginald had a grant from Alan 
de Olazeley of a meadow, called the Ree, in the field of Brug.^^^ 

CJe ^oxt. 


This was a small tenement, which, though now combined paro- 
chially and manorially with Eardington, seems never to have passed, 
under any grant, to the Canons of St. Mary Magdalene, but to have 
constituted a separate tenure in capite of the Crown from the 
earliest recorded period. 

The King's tenant here was a layman, who held hy petit serjeantry. 

Curious as some of these tenures were, the one under notice was 
distinguished by that extreme eccentricity which marks the very 
oldest. Its origin and meaning are alike lost in remote antiquity. 

"< InqmHUotu, 32 Ed. I, No. 112. j the Hay Estate, in Mr. Dukes' AnHquities 

iJ* Ibidem, 2 Ed. II, No. 32. 
^^ Dukes' AntiquUies, page 61. 
^^ Otley MSS, ut supra. 
^^ Ibidem. I refer the reader to some 
later and interesting particulars relative to 

of ShropaJwrBf Appendix, page xlii. 0am- 
den's identification of the estate with 
" Little Brugge" (there quoted) is^ how- 
erer, quite a mistake. 

THE MORE. 127 

The moat reasonable account of its nature seems to be this : — ^ 

The King's tenant at the More held his land (a virgate) by ser- 
vice of appearing yearfy in the Exchequer, on the morrow of Michael- 
mas Day, with a hazel rod, of a year's growth and a cubit's length, 
and two knives. The Treasurer and Barons being present, the 
tenant was to attempt to sever the rod with one of the knives, 
which (apparently to prove the soundness of the rod) was to bend 
or break. The other knife was to do the same work at one stroke, 
and then be given up to the King's Chamberlain for royal use. 

The only intelligible object of this service was, of course, that the 
King should be annually supplied with a knife of uncommon temper. 
We may conjecture endlessly and vainly as to how he came to look 
to his tenant of the secluded More for such an implement. Imagi- 
nation presents some incident of a Boyal Chase in the Forest of 
Morf or of Shirlet — some moment of kingly peril and opportune 
aid — a lost or broken couteaux de chasse replaced by the trusty 
blade of some watchful and well-rewarded follower. 

The earliest recorded notice^ of this tenure occurs on a Eoll of 
Shropshire serjeantries, which is of date 13 John (1211). It 
merely says, that — 

''Kichard de (read le) Medler holds one virgate of land, and 
renders for the same annually, at the feast of Saint Nicholas (read 
Michael), two knives (knipulos).'^ 

A second contemporary EolP supplies the place of payment, viz., 
the Exchequer ; a third^ writes the name Richard le Mener. 

In 1245 Nicholas de More is said^ to pay at the Exchequer two 
knives (cultellos), one good, the other very bad, for certain land 
which he holds of the King in capite in More. 

In 1255, the Stottesden Jurors report,^ that ^' Nicholas le Medler 
holds one virgate in More in capite of the Lord King, rendering at 
the Exchequer two knives, one of which ouj^ht to cut a hazel rod 
(et alium splicantem in caseo jBrisco^), and he does no other service 
for the said land." 

In Nov. 1274, Jurors of the same Hundred say''' at length, that 
''Nicholas de la More holds one virgate in that vill of the Lord 

^ Testa de Nevillj p. 56. 

2 Ibidem, p. 417. 

3 Bed Book of JExcheguer, fo. cxxxvii. 

* Mich, Commun. 29 Hen. Ill, apud 
Madox Excheq. 611, r. I need hardly 
point out that the names le Medler and 
de More describe the same persons. 

« Bot. Eund. n, 108. 

* Probably "plicantem'* is the proper 
word, and refers to the other knife which 
ought to bend. The words "in caseo 
frisco,** if they mean in a new case^ must 
belong to the first knife. 

7 Bot. Rund, II, 108. 




King in capite by aeijeantry^ of taking two knives to the King's 
Exchequer at the feast of St. Michael in each year; so that he 
ought to cat a hazel rod with one knife^ as that the knife should 
bend (plicare) with the stroke ; and again^ he ought to cut a rod 
with the other knife." 

The record of 1284 describes^ Nicholas de la More as holding 
three parts of a virgate and two moors^ by serjeantry^ &c. The 
Jurors of October^ 1292, say, that William de la More of Erdyn- 
ton holds one virgate in the More by serjeantry of taking two 
knives to the King's Exchequer on the morrow of St. Michael, and 
to cut with the same knives two rods of hazel.^^ 

The best account of all^^ seems to be given under 3 Rich. II 
(1379), when Walter de Aldenham was holding the serjeantry. It 
is mainly the authority for what was stated at first about the tenure, 
except that it says that both knives were to be given up to the 


'' The Earl himself holds Bolebec. Stenulf held it in time of 
King Edward. Here is half a hide, geldable. There is arable land 
sufficient) for 1 ox-team. It was and is waste." ^ 

Such is the Domesday notice of a Manor which follows Earding- 
ton and precedes Ovre in that survey. Several localities have at 
various times suggested themselves or been proposed as identicle 
with Bolebec. These, as 1 remember, were Boscobel, Boningale, 
Bold, Colebatch, and Bolas, none of which have any more apparent 

the same Record of 3 Rich. II. The 
latter is the year g^ven by Mr. Dukes on 
page xxvi of the same Appendix, to 
which I refer for a yery able and interest- 
ing notice of this Serjeantry. The cus- 
toms connected with it are traced down 
to a very recent period. A few dates and 
names, and the locality, are all that I have 
added to the previous account. 

* Kirhff's Quett, 

^ The word is written moreU — for mo- 
rcUy I presume. 

^ Flaeita Corona, Salop, 20 Ed. I, 
memb. 20. 

" Vide Dukes' Appendix to AntiqmUes 
of Shropshire, page xxiv, where, I pre- 
sume, the note refening to " Mich. Com. 
3 Ed. I, Rot. 1, Salop," is a mistake for 

^ Ipse come stenet Bolebec. Stenulf te - 
nuit tempore Regis Edwardi Ibi dimidia 

hida geldabilis. Terra est 1 carrucse. Wasta 
fuit et est. (Domesday, fo. 254, a^ 1.) 


Domesday notice. However^ the name of BoBcobel belongs^ I ima- 
gine^ to a much more recent nomenclature^ and the subsequent status 
of both BoBcobel^ Boningale^ Bold^ and Colebatch^ excepts each of 
them from all probability of having been, like Bolebec, a demesne 
Manor of Earl Roger. This is not the case with Bolasj whose 
condition in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries was exactly that 
which we should have expected to result from such a Domesday 
stattts as that of Bolebec. But the last syllables of the two names 
have no etymological affinity^ and Solas is in the area of the Ddmes^ 
day Hundred of Recordine, through which the survey* of Earl 
Roger's demesnes had already passed before it arrived at Earding- 
ton. Lastly, Bolas was a much larger Manor than would consist 
with the type of Bolebec. 

We have therefore to look elsewhere than to mere surmises for a 
probable solution of this difficulty. 

As regards position in Domesday Book, Bolebec follows Earding- 
ton (a manor of Alnodestreu Hundred), and precedes Ovre (a 
manor of Conedovre Hundred) ; but the mention of Ovre in this 
place is both redundant and imperfect, for it is noticed more fully 
elsewhere,^ and shown not to have been of the Earl's demesne. Its 
insertion here is therefore a mistake, and Bolebec becomes the last 
Manor of demesne ; also, Eardington (which precedes it) remains 
the only guide to its proximate situation. 

As reg^ds etymology,-^a Domesday manor, written Bolebec, 
would ordinarily become Bolebatch, — as the Domesday Huelbec and 
Polrebec have become Pulverbatch and Welbatch ; but though many 
places in Shropshire have the final syllable required,^ we look in 
vain for any Bol^atch. 

It is now time to state that Bolebec is in every letter a purely 
Norman name. The pays de Caux had a town, a river, and a family 
so called. It is reasonable therefore to suppose that the name was 
affixed to some Shropshire locality by the Normans, which locality 
afterwards recovered its previous appellation,^ 

3 The Domesday demesnes of the Earl 
were of two classes ; first, those which 
King Edward had held, which are enu- 
merated consecutively J secondly, those 
which the Mercian Earls or others had 
held, and which seem to be enumerated 
with some reference to position : at all 
events, no two consecutive Manors were 
so distant from each other as Bolas and 

Eardington. It is farther believed that 
the silence of Domesday as to Bolas is to 
be accounted for rather than questioned i 
but of that hereafter. 

> Domesday^ fo. 259 b. 

< There was a Wallsbatch near Eard- 
ington, but it never was a separate Manor; 
also a Ficklebatch, similarly insignificant. 

^ Though Celt, Eoman, Dane and Saxon 



Further, we must look for the representative of Bolebec in some 
Manor afterwards retained in demesne by, or held in capite of the 
Crown. Such is the analogy observable in the Norman EarVs 

The name of the Saxon holder, Stenulf, will not give any addi- 
tional clue, for it occurs nowhere else in the Shropshire Domesday. 

Finally, the extent and condition of the MancH* in 1086 was— 
half a hide of unvalued waste land. 

Summarily, then, we must look for Bolebec in some half-hide of 
waste land, not far from Eardington, not retaining the name of 
Bolebec, yet not mentioned under any other name in Domesday — 
and after the Norman EarFs forfeiture held by, or immediately of, 
the Crown. 

All these conditions, except that of extent, will be fulfilled in the 
Moor, as above described. 

It is however always estimated at 1 virgate (i.e. i hide), an ob- 
jection certainly to its comparison with Bolebec, but one which has 
a parallel in many undoubted cases of identity. 

Again, the Moor was never involved in Eardington ; for, if it had 
been, it would have passed under Earl Roger's grant to Quatford 
Church. Not being involved, it must be presumed to have had some 
distinct DoTuesday type ? If Bolebec were not that type, what was ? 

Finally, when we see the waste state of the Domesday Manor 
perpetuated in the very name of Moor, and when we hear that the 
latest performers of that serjeantry (by which Moor was once held) 
were summoned by the Exchequer Crier, as ^'Tenants of a piece of 
waste ground called the Moors,'' to come forward to do their 
annual service in Court ; ^ — if, after aU this, we cannot accept the 
identity as proved, we need not at all events reject it till some more 
probable theory be advanced. 

have left reminiscenoes of themselves in 
the local nomenclatiire of most districts 
of England, so much can hardly be said 
of the Normans. In old Shropshire they 
gave a name to Montgomery before Domes- 
day, and to Caus after Domesday; both 
which names remain. Similarly (as I sup- 
pose) they gave a name (Bolebec) to the 
Moor, and a name (Dinan) to Ludlow. 
One of these also was earlier, the other 
later than Domesday; and both have 
vanished. I do not at present remember 
any other instance of a Norman name 

having attached to a Shropshire locality. 
Dinan, I ought to add, belongs rather to 
Britanny than Normandy ; but the diffi- 
culty of permanently fixing a foreign name 
on an Anglo-Saxon locality is established 

^ See Dukes' Antiquities, Appendix, p. 
xxvi. I must add an excuse for dwelling 
at such length on a trivial though per- 
haps curious question. Domesday is the 
text-book with which I set out, and the 
principles of investigation advanced under 
Bolebec must often recur in the sequel. 



We have already ascertained that Ethelfleda^ Queen of the Mer- 
cians^ built in the year 913 a fortress on the western side of the 
Severn, in a place which Florence of Worcester marks as being 
in his time called firycge. The passage of the Saxon Chronicle 
which relates to the same event will, so far as the use of the word 
Bpicje goes, have been interpolated two centuries later than ttie 
event described. Its authority must therefore, as in a former 
instance, give way to that of Florence, who lived when the name 
of Bridge, or Brug, was first applicable to the locality of which he 
spoke, lived too on the same river, and within a distance of thirty 
miles from the spot. 

Was then the site of Ethelfleda's fortress precisely that which 
was afterwards occupied by Earl Robert de Belesme ? Florence, 
whom we have thus far upheld as the best authority, says so in the 
most distinct terms.^ Perhaps, however, it will be no great incon- 
sistency if we venture to vary from Florence's statement to the 
extent of about 200 yards in the direction of Oldbury. 

It is to be observed, that the name Oldbury is nothing else than 
old boroughy and that, in Ethelfleda's other foundations, a Borough 
was usually associated with a castle. Such were Bramsbury, 
Tamworth, Stafford, Eddesbury, Warwick, Chirbury, and Weard- 
biuy, whose names alone, where their locality is doubtftd, are 
sufficient to prove the theory. 

The bank which fronts the Castle Hill of Bridgnorth to the south, 
is in Oldbury Manor, and is distinguished by a large mound of 
earth, whose regular shape proves it to be artificial. The soil in 

^ Flor. Wigom, vol. ii. page 49. Areem 
quam in occidentali Sabrinse fluminis 
plag&, in loco qui Brycge dicitur linguA 
SaxomdL, ^gelfleda Mercionun domina 
construxeraty Botbertus de Beleasmo Bo- 

geii Oomitis filius, contra Begem Hen- 
ricum at exitus rei probayit muro lato 
et alto, smnmoque restaurare coepit. See 
also Simeon Dunelm, (Florence's OopylBt), 
page 217. 



several directions about this mound also bears traces of disturbance. 
Tradition has ascribed the whole creation to the parliamentary 
forces^ who, after burning the town in Easter week, a.d. 1646, were 
occupied about another month in reducing the Castle. But the 
creation and use of this earthwork are two things which, however 
distinct in themselves, may easily have been confused by tradition. 
The spot still retains the name of 'the Old Castle,^ and doubtless 
assumed its conical form ages before cannon were invented or 
Parliaments heard of.^ 

A deed^ dated at Brug, in the year 1299, describes an acre of 
land in the fields of Oldbury, as bounded on one side by the lands 
of John de Oldbury; on another by the road which leads to Oldbury 
'' under the Old Castle,^' and on a third by " the King's highway,* 
opposite the meadow of William Selymon, of Bnig.'^ The locality 
is unmistakeable, as well as the fact, that in time of Edward 1, the 
road from Bridgnorth to Oldbury went under what was then called 
the Old Castle. Now Bridgnorth Castle was the existent and gar- 
risoned castle of that period; therefore, ''the Old Castle'' must 
have been a term describing something more aadent than Bridg- 
north Castle. 

Having now established in direction of Oldbury a Castle and 
a Borough, each respectively older than the Castle and Borough of 
Bridgnorth, we need not ask who founded them^ or discuss the 
matter further. 

Oldbury and its conical hill are reminiscences, verbal and ma- 
terial^ of the Borough and Castle projected by Ethelfieda, Queen 
of Mercia, in a.d. 913. 

This foundation will, however, have proved abortive, for in time 
of King Edward the Confessor (1043-1066), JBlward, a Saxon, to 
whom perhaps it had been granted in the intervening century, was 
seized of Oldbury, as well as of the neighbouring manors of Eudon 
(now Eudon Bumell) and Glazeley. 

It was probably the failure of Ethelfleda's design, rather than 

^ There is little doubt tibat the Gfustle 
was cannonaded, and fiom this spot, than 
which none could be more eligible for such 
a purpose, even if the artificial eleTation 
had been absent. The great engineering 
work of the Puritans, and which is re- 
corded otherwise than by tradition, was 
not the raising of this mound, but sapping 

the Castle Hill on its northern side. The 
Matter, in fact, it was which compelled the 
ultimate surrender of the fortress. 

3 In possession of H. C. Taylor, Esq., 
of ChicknelL 

^ Not the present highway, iidiich is 
quite modem, but t^e road called Oldbury 



a comparison with any more recent foundation, such as auatford, 
which gave to this locality the distinctive name of " Old/' 

The manor is noticed in Domesday as follows : — ^ 

The same Rainald (the Sheriff) holds (of the Earl) Aldeberie 
and Badulf of him. Eluuard held it and was free. Here are 1 
hide and 3 virgates, geldable. In demesne there is 1 ox-team; 
and 7 serfs, 3 Frenchmen, 2 cottars, and 1 boor, with 2 ox-teams ; 
and yet there may be two more such (teams). There is a mill of 
28, (annual value), and a wood which will fatten 100 swine. In 
time of King Edward it was worth 30*.; now it is worth 13*. 
He (Eainald) found it waste. 

- Of Radulf, the under-tenant, little more can be said, than that 
he also held Fulwardine, in this Hundred, of the same Bainald 
Vicecomes and Petton, in Baschurch Hundred, of Robert Pincema. 
Finding each of these manors afterwards possessed by a family 
which took its name and origin &om the Norman Cdtentin,® we 
may conclude that Badulf was their ancestor. They subsequently 
acquired the Manor of Eaton, in Becordine Hundred, and left with 
it a memorial of their tenure, in the yet existing name of Eaton 

Nor was the change of Badulf^s Domesday fief solely in the way 
of acquisition. His successor, perhaps his son, Hugh de Constan- 
tine, made a grant in Petton to Shrewsbury Abbey before 1121, 
but no further trace remains of their ancient interest in that 
manor. Reserving all general account of this family till we reach 
Eaton Constantine, we will here notice only their connexion with 

In 1165, Helyas de Costetin held of Fitz Alan's Barony, by 
service of one knight's fee, and two muntatores.'^ Half a fee, equal 
to one muntator, will have been the contingent of Oldbury and 
Fulwardine towards their service. 

^ Isdem Bamaldufl tenet Aldeberie et 
Badulfus de eo. Elunard tenuit et liber 
fuit. Ibi i hida et- iii virgatsB geldabiles. 
In dominio est unft oarraca et tu servi 
et iii francigeni et ii ootarii et unus bor- 
darius cum ii camicis, et aliee ii possent 
esse. Ibi Molendinum de ii solidis et 
Silya c porcis incrassandis. Tempore 
Begis Edwardi yalebat zzx solidos. Modo 
xiii solidos. Wastcun invenit. (Ihmesd. 
fo. 265 a, 2.) 

Domesday seems to speak of the waste 
state of a Manor, with reference to three 
periods ; yiz. the time of King Edward, 
the time of transfer from Saxon to Nor- 
man Lord, and the time when the Survey 
was taken. Oldbury seems to hare been 
waste (utterly valueless) at the period of 
transfer; Bolebec, both then and when 
the Survey was taken. 

^ Yide Sist» ShrevMib.y vol. i. p. 26. 

7 Liber Niger, vol. L p. 143. 



At the Assizes of October, 1203, Christiana, widow of Richard de 
Constantine (probably having dower here), had disseized William 
le Strange of a tenement in Eardington. Her pledge for Ss. 
damages, and an amercement of one merk was Thomas de Con- 
stantine (her son probably).® 

About 1240, Thomas de Costentin is returned as holding one 
SLnighf s fee in Eton and Aldebur under Fitz Alan.' 

In 1255, the return of the Stottesden Jurors relative to this 
Manor was as follows : — " Thomas de Costentyn is Lord of Aldebyr', 
and holds immediately of John Fitz Alan ; in which is one hide and 
half of land, and he does suit to the Hundred Courts, and pays the 
Sheriff 6rf. for stretward and 1*. for motfee^^^ 

At Salop Assizes, September, 1272. Thomas de Constentin was 
reported by the Stottesden Jurors as making default in due attend- 

In 1284, Adam de Montgomery (who had married the daughter 
and sole heir of the last-named Thomas) is said to hold Hadebur, 
under Richard Fitz Alan, of the honm of White Minster (Oswestry), 
by one-third of a knight's fee.^^ 

The Inquisition (rf 18 Edw. I (1290), on death of Adam de 
Montgomery, gives Oldebury as part of his tenure.^^ 

In 82 Edw. I (1304), Owen (Andoenus) de Montgomery had 
the King's Charter of free- warren in Oldbury juxta Bruges.^* 

In March, 1316, the Bishop of Chester is returned as Lord of 
Oldbury ;^^ but of this change elsewhere. 

Some notices of inferior tenancies here are as follows : — 

April 15, 1263. A fine was levied at Westminster between 
Johanna, widow of Hugh de Beckbury, complainant, and Master 
Walter le Palmer, tenant, of IJ virgates in Oldebur, with which 
Hugh, Johanna's husband, had dowered her at the Church-porch 
when he espoused her, and whereof was suit-at-law between Johanna 

^ SaUyp Ataizeif 6 John, 4 recto. 

> Tetta de Nevill, pp.44, 48, 49. 

^ Sot Bund,, vol. ii. p. 82. The change 
from the JDomeaday hidage is noticeable. 
The decrease of i yirgate may partly be 
accounted for by the endowment of the 
Church, presently to be noticed. 

" Salop Assizes, 66 Hen. Ill, memb. 
49 dorso. 

" Kirhj/^s Quest. The service due on 
Oldbury and Fulwardine, according to 
this return, was more than half a Knight's 
fee, ». e. -^tha of a fee. An Inquest of 
21 Bich. II rates the two however at half 
a fee. (Sscheats, vol. ilL p. 223.) 

*3 EseheaU, vol. i. p. 101. 

" Calendar Bot, Chart., p. 134. 

^ Pari. Writs, vol. iv. p. 398. 


and Walter. Johanna remits her right to Walter and his heirs for 
8 merks.^* 

June 23, 1297. John de Aldebur attests a deed at Holycote,^^ 
and is the person already mentioned as holding land here in 1299. 
The deed^® thus quoted should be given more at length, especially 
as the descendants of this John de Oldbury came afterwards to 
hold the Manor immediately imder Fitz Alan. '^ Know all men, &c., 
that I, Alan de Eudone, have granted to Richard de StaflFord and 
Milisand my daughter, and their heirs, one acre of the lower part 
of a certain culture in the fields of Oldebur, between the land of John 
de Oldebur, on one side, and the road leading under the Old Castle, 
towards Oldebur, on the other. And it extends itself from certain 
parcels, which lie between it and my land, to the King's highway, 
opposite the meadow of William Selymon of Brug; — To hold of 
the Chief Lord of that fee, rendering to the said Chief Lord lOrf. 
at Michaelmas and St. Mary in March, for all services, suits of 
Court, &c. — Witnesses : William de Mora, John Glydde, William 
Hobaud (of Harpesford), John de Oldebur, Richard Petyfit. Giv^n 
at Brug, on Sunday, in the close of Easter, in the year of King 
Edward the twenty-seventh.^' 

The tenure of Fromund de Erdinton here has already been 


Oldbury was originally in the Parish of the Church of Morville, 
and will have continued without any separate place of worship till, 
in the beginning of Stephen's reign (c. 1138), Helyas de Con- 
stantine founded a Chapel, with a Cemetery, here/endowing it with 
half a virgate (about 30 acres) of land and a mansion.^ This 
Chapel seems to have been consecrated by Bishop Robert de Betun 
with reference to the troubled state of the country. A pension, in 
token of subjection to the Mother Church, was secured by a further 
deed^^ of that Prelate, and remained for at least two centuries a 
receipt of Shrewsbury Abbey. Its amount was 5*. annually. 

About A. D. 1200-1210, Thomas de Costentin grants to God and 
to St. Nicholas, and to the Chapel of Aldebury, half a virgate in 

^8 Pedes finitmy 47 Hen. Ill, Salop. 
This fine I take to be the end of a 
fictitious suit. The. purchaser has oc- 
curred before. (Vide supra, page 51.) 

^7 Charter at Apley Park. 

M Charter at Chicknell. 


*• Vide supra, page 126. 

» Salop Chartulary, No. 333. 

21 Ibidem, No. 334. 



the same vill, which his father and his ancestors had given. He 
also concedes the croft on which Robert de Heding, Rector of the 
said Chapel, had built a house. — Witnesses: Robert, Clerk of 
Halecton (the Rector himself under another name) ; Master Y, Dean 
of Stottesden; Walter, Chaplain of Eton (probably Eaton Con- 
stantine) ; Ansketill, Clerk of Brug (who will occur again) ^ and 

In 1291, the Church of Holdebury, in the Deanery of Stottesden^ 
is valued at £4. ISs. 4d., and the portion of the Prior of Momerfeld 
therein at 5^.^^ 

In 1341,2* the Church of Oldebur is taxed (valued) at 7 merks 
and 5*. (exactly the previous valuation of £4. ISs. 4rf.). — 

But those who assessed and sold the ninth of wheat, wool, and 
lamb, in Oldbury Parish, rendered account only of £l, 5*. ; and the 
difference between the presumed tenth (or Church taxation) and 
the then assessable ninth arose in this way : — The estate (fundus) of 
the said Church, with the rents and lands annexed, was worth 40«. ; 
the hay-tithe was worth 148. 4^^. ; the small tithes and offerings were 
worth, with all other profits, 14s.^^ 

In 1534,2^ William Brody, alias Weston, was Rector of this 
Church. Its value in glebe and all kinds of tithe is put at £5, 
from which no deduction, except 6rf. for Archdeacon^s Synodals, is 
claimed. The pension of 5s. appears no longer among the assets of 
Shrewsbury Abbey. 


Robert de Hastings, alias Haughton, seems to have been Rector 
here in the end of the twdfth and beginning of the thirteenth 
centuries. All that is known of him has been already mentioned.^^ 

In 1277, John, Rector of Oldbury, occurs.^® 

June 4, 1300. Master Luke de St. Leonard, Clerk, was ordained, 
and instituted to this Rectory, on presentation of the Abbot and 
Convent of Shrewsbury .^^ 

22 Ibidem, No. 299 b. 

23 Pope Nick. Tax., page 166. 
** Inquit^ Nonarum, page 190. 

2^ The sum of these three items is 
£3. Ss. 4d.f which, being deducted £rom 
the gross valuation, leaves a balance of 
£1. 10s. whereof 5*. was payable to the 
Mother Church. The ultimate balance of 

the value of the great tithes in Pope 
Nicholas* Taxation; and of the ninth of 
wheat, wool, and lamb, in the present. 

26 Valor. Uccles.y vol. iii. p. 210. 

27 Vide supra, pp. 60, 61.. 

2^ Blakeway MSS., but with a doubt 
expressed whether Onibury be not the 
Church intended. 

£1. 5*. was therefore taken to represent | 29 Blakeway MS 8. 



Fulwardine, otherwise Fouswardine, is thus noticed in Domesday} 
" The same Rainald (Vicecomes) holds (of the Earl) Fuloordie, and 
Badulf of him. Edmund held it and was a free-man. Here is 
half a hide geldable. In demesne is 1 ox-team; and 4 serfs^ 1 
villain^ and 1 boor, with 1 ox-team ; and there might be 1 ox-team 
more here. In time of King Edward it was worth 16*., and 
afterwards 6*.; now (it is worth) 10*.^^ 

We are told to accept the Saxon peoji^i, a field or farm, as the 
constituent of all such names as are compounded of werth, worth, 
worthy, worthing, or wardine? What the prefix pulle may mean, 
in connexion with a field or a homestead, is matter for any latitude 
of conjecture. If taken to indicate size or importance, these are 
attributes which no memory or record^ can connect with Ful- 
wardine. The Saxon pul (i. e. foul) is, however, a term which may 
have been applied to any locality where the soil was of a tenacious 
quality, and is probably the other constituent of this name. 

Edmund, the Saxon Lord of Fulwardine, also held Ulton (now 
Upton Cressett) in this Hundred. In 1086, Fulwardine was, like 
Oldbury, held by Radulf, under Rainald the sherifi*; and, like 
Oldbury, it descended as a tenure of de Constantino, under Fitz 


In 1165, it will have combined with Oldbury, to constitute half 
a fee of the service due from Helyas de Constantine to the latter 

1 DometdiOnfy fo. 255 a, 2. 

2 peop^i is also translated " home- 
stead,'* "village;" and, by one authority, 
it means "a village at the head of a 
stream.*' No such peculiarity is observ- 
able in places the names of which are 
thus compounded. The sea-coast town 
of Worthing is perhaps the best instance 
of the contrary. 

3 Fulwardine, or, as the inhabitants 
call it, Fowswardine, is now a small tene- 

ment, indistinguishably involved, both 
parochially and manorially, in Sidbury. 
The land attached to " Fowswardine form" 
is about 80 acres; but the Bev. B. P. 
Thursfield, who favours me with this in- 
formation, thinks that more land was 
formerly attached to the farm, and that 
he can trace in the farm-house remains 
which indicate the sometime existence of 
a mansion here. 



In 1255^ a Cadet of the Constantines appears to have been 
enfeoffed here; for the Jurors of Stottesden Hundred returned 
" Roger de Costentin as Lord of Fulesworth, in the which is half 
a hide of land^ which the said Roger holds of Thomas de Costentin; 
and he does suit twice a year at the iourn of the Sheriff^ and not to 
other Hundred Courts, nor to the County Court, the jurors know 
not by what warrant: and he pays towards atretward 2d. and 
towards motfe 4rf/'* 

In 1284, '^ Ralph de Araz and Matilda de Pulesworedin hold 
this manor of Adam de Mongomery, of the fee of Holdebur', by 
one-fourth of a knight^s fee, and said Adam holds it of Richard 
Fitz Alan, and he of the King/^^ 

Ralph de Arraz, thus mentioned, was contemporary Lord of 
Sidbury, and the latter manor is not mentioned on this record. 
Its tenure was also now, and long afterwards, quite distinct from 
Fulwardine. The Record quoted has therefore confused* the two 
manors, and it is probable that Fulwardine was held by Matilda de 
Fulwardine alone, under Adam de Montgomery, and by less than 
one-fourth of a knight^s fee. It is, however, singular that a mere 
error should in some sort anticipate the modem combination. 

^tott €xt%%ttx. 


The identity of Upton Cressett with the Domesday Ultone is 
not so obvious as to be assumed without explanation. The first 
question is, whether the printed Domesday is, in every letter, 
a faithful copy of the original ? This being answered afltanatively. 

^ Bot, Bund,, vol. ii. p. 82. This Roger 
de Gonstantine was reported as a de&ulter 
at the Assizes of January, 1256. (Salop 
Asfize BoUy FlacUa CorofkB, memb. 2 

« Kirby*s Quest. Stottesden Hundred. 

« In the time of Richard II (1397), 
Oldbury and Fulwardyn remained one 
tenure. John de Oldbury held both by 
half a fee, under the Earl of Arundel. 
{CaUnd, Mchet,, vol. iii, p. 223.) 



the next question is, whether Upton be a corruption of the original 
name Ultone, or whether the Domesday scribe mistook the ortho- 
graphy in the first instance, and wrote Ultone when- Uptone 
was pronounced ? The first of these is most probable, if it be quite 
clear that the situation of Upton Cressett, when compared with 
other Uptons and with the surrounding district, is not sufficiently- 
elevated to account for the name.^ 

In Domesday, Ultone is put down as containing 3 hides ; but in 
1255 Upton is rated at 3^ hides. Now this variation is in general 
an argument against any assumed identity; but, in the present in- 
stance, it will rather tell the other way; for most of the neigh- 
bouring manors changed their Domesday hidage {e. g. Meadowley, 
Chetton, Faintree, Glazeley, Oldbury, and Eudon Bumell), and 
Criddon (the next manor to Upton) had no Domesday type at all. 
Nor can we altogether balance these discrepancies, by supposing 
that what was lost to one manor was gained by another, for the 
figures will bear out no such assumption. It is clear then that the 
boimdaries and contents of the manors in this quarter were not 
finally established at Domesday ; or, if they were, that the Jurors 
or the Commissioners made or recorded statements with the same 
inaccuracy as that which has been noticed under Morville. 

As regards the identity of Ultone and Upton, the negative proof 
must, therefore, suffice after all. If Rainald^s Domesday Manor of 
Ultone, in Alnodestreu Hundred, does not correspond with Fitz 
Alan's Manor of Upton, in Stottesden Hundred, what nearer coun- 
terpart can be foimd for either? 

In 1086, the status of the Manor is thus describeS.^ ^^ The same 
Rainald (the Sheriff) holds Ultone. Edmund held it, and was 
a free-man. Here are 3 hides geldable. In demesne are 2 ox- 
teams ; and (there are) 3 serfs, 1 tree neat-herd, 6 villains, 4 boors, 
and 1 radman, with 4 ox-teams, and yet there might be 4 other 
(such teams) . 

Here is a wood which will fatten 30 swine. 

In time of King Edward it was worth 40*., and afterwards worth 
10s. Now it is worth 26s/' 

Bishop Robert de Betun, amongst tithes in his diocese which 
had been granted to Salop Abbey (apparently before 1138), con- 

^ I have no recollection of Mr. Blake- 
way's notice of Upton (Cressett) as re- 
gards its Domesdaif state; but he cer- 

tainly remarks on the incongruity between 
the name and situation. 
3 Bomesdayy fo. 256 a. 2. 



firms two-thirds of the tithes of the Lord (or Lordship) of Upton.^ 
I know of no other Upton in Hereford Diocese in which such 
a grant can have been made^ neither can I trace any subsequent 
evidence of it here. 

Yet Alan de Opton^ the contemporary Lord of this place^ appears 
to have been interested in religious grants which concerned Salop 
Abbey^ and he attests Robert Fitz Aer's endowment of the Chapel 
of Aston Aer at this very period.* 

In 1165^ the same or another Alan de Upton is recorded as 
holding under the Barony of Fitz Alan^ by service of one muntator} 
Undoubtedly the tenure was here. 

In 1180, William Groiun (whom I take to be a succeeding Lord 
of Upton, called by his family name) was fined 3 merks by the 
Justices of the Forest for waste in Upeton;* and the same William 
Groon stands second witness to a very ancient and nearly coeval 
charter which relates to land in Corve (near Monk Hopton), and 
of which Robert Fitz Aer is first witness.^ 

His successor seems to have been that Hugh de Hupton who 
first appears in November, 1194, as Recognizor in an assize which 
concerned land in this quarter.^ 

At Salop Assizes, October 1203, he sat as a Juror in several 
causes, and was himself subject to an amercement of half a merk.^ 

10th May, 1220, he is named visor of timber, to be taken from 
the King^s forests, for repairs of Bridgnorth Castle.^^ 

In 1226, he occurs as having been Affistator of the King's 
forests.^^ In August, 1226, he sat on a great Inquest about 
Stiperstones Forest ;^^ ^^in^ ii^ 1229, he appears as Agistator of 
the Royal Forests,^^ and in October, ,1237, as a Juror in a great 
trial about Shawbury, taken before the King at Worcester.^* 

In or about 1240, he is returned as holding half a fee in Opton, 
or Hupton, of Fitz Alan's Barony .^^ 

8 Salop Chartulary, No. 334. 
^ Ibidem, No. 346. Tbe original deed 
in poBseseion of Mr. George Morris. 

* Lib. Niff. vol. i, p. 144. 

* Flac. Foresta^ No. I, Salop. 

7 Charter in possession of Mr. Cf«orge 

8 Bot Owria Regis, vol. i, p. 123. 

' Salop Assizes, 5 John, memb. 4 recto, 
and 6 dorso. 

1® Claus, vol. i, p. 418. 

" Mot Pip, 9 Hen. Ill, Salop. 


Mege, 10 Hen. HI, 

Flac. coram 
memb. 4 dorso. 

13 Mot Fip, 13 Hen. Ill, Salop. 

** Flac, coram Uege, 21 Hen. HI, 
memb. 1 dorso. 

^ Testa de NevilL pp. 44, 49. A third 
and nearly contemporary Ust (p. 48) gives 
William de Upton as holding this half fee. 
This is a mere mistake ; for in the same 
third list, Hugh de Upton is properly 
entered as Lord of Meadowley. 



The next whom I find in this succession was Thomas de Upton> 
who, on 2d January, 1246, was a Juror in a great Inquest as to 
the Forest-rights of Thomas Corbet, of Cans.^^ 

In 1255, the Stottesden Jurors returned Thomas de Upton (who 
was himself one of them) as Lord of Upton, in which were 3i hides 
of land, which said Thomas held in cqpite of John Fitz Alan, for 
half a knight^s fee ; and he did suit to the Hundred Courts, and 
paid the Sheriff 14fl?. for stretward, and 2Sd, for motfeej but he did 
no suit to County Court.^'' And shortly after this he will have 
died, not only as being on the list of February 3, 1262 (wherein 
persons then dead are entered on an essoign-roll, before described^®), 
but because, in July, 1256, Hugh de Upton, and William de Upton, 
successor of Thomas, appear as concerned in an assize of novel 
disseisin in Upton.^® This WiUiam de Upton was a Verderer of 
the Royal Forests. He occurs in that office 22 October, 1259,^^ 
and March, 1262,^^ and as a Juror in several^^ Inquisitions of 
January, 1259; September, 1263; and February 1, 1283; -soon 
after which he must have died. This William, Lord of Upton, 
granted to Robert Niger, of Criddon, half a virgate in Stepleye. 
— Witnesses, Geoffry de Criddon, Hugh de Holicote (his son), Alan 
le Harpur.^^ His successor was John de Upton, who is returned 
about 1284 as holding Hopton of Richard Fitz Alan, by service of 
half a knight's fee.^^ 

In Oct. 1292, this John served as a Stottesden Juror, and also 
on the Jury which tried pk(zs of warranty at Salop.^^ At the 
Assizes he was reported as of full age, and not yet knighted.^^ He 
occurs twice as a Coroner in 1297.^^ He was a Juror on the great 
Forest perambulation of June, 1300,^® and in the following year 
was deceased (as will appear under Meadowley), leaving John, his 
son and heir, under age ; but who had livery of Meadowley, Oct. 3> 

In March, 1316, this John is duly returned as Lord of Upton, 

1* Inquisitions, 30 Hen. Ill, No. 24. 

17 Sot. Sund, vol. ii, p. 82. 

18 Yide supra, p. 81, note 281. 

19 Sot. Fat, 40 Hen. Ill, dorso. 

20 Usch. 43 Hen. Ill, No. 43. 

21 I>lac, Forestce, 46 Hen. III. 

22 Fscheats, passim. 

23 Cressett Evidences, quoted in Blake- 
way MS8, 

24 Kirly's Quest. 
28 Flac. de quo warr, page 674. 
28 Flacita CoroncB, memb. 20 recto, 51 

27 Bldkeway MS8.^ as above, and Char- 
ter at Apley Park. 

28 Salop CJhartulary, No. 279. 

29 Sot. Forinsec, penes Rememera- 
torem Beginae. 


in Stottesden Hundred.^^ He was living in 1244^ and had by 
Jane^ his wife^ three sons^ John^ Ouy, and Nicholas^ and a danghter, 
Constance^ who^ marrying Thomas Cressett^ left descendants ; which 
descendants, after failure of the male line of '^ Upton/^ succeeded 
to this inheritance, and conferred on the Manor that distinctive 
name by which it is still known. The evidence regarding this 
family is sufficiently clear to warrant the insertion of a genealogical 
table of their descent ; but previous to doing so it may be proper 
to give abstracts of certain charters quoted from the Cressett evi- 
dences, by Mr. Blakeway, in his MSS. in the Bodleian Library, 

A deed of John, Lord of Upton (1283-1300), mentions Isabella, 
his wife, and John, his son, and is attested by Ralph de Arraz, 
Walter de Beysin, Richard Rector of Nenton, and Wydo de 

A deed, dated 18 Edw. Ill (1344-5), shows John, Lord of Upton, 
enfeoffing Guy, his son, and Margaret, wife of Guy, in lands lately 
held by John, son of the grantor. 

In 36 Edw. Ill (1362-3), Guy, Lord of Upton and Stapeley, 
grants to Nicholas, his brother, Stapeley ; which he, Guy, had by 
gift of John, their father. 

In 40 Edw. Ill (1366-7), the same Guy grants to Sir John, 
Rector of Upton (in trust, I presume), the Manor and Advowson 
of Upton, and lands which Johanna, his mother, and Nicholas, his 
brother, held for their lives in Upton and Stapeleye. 

In 46 Edw. Ill (1372-3), John atte Broke, Parson of Upton, 
releases the same to Hugh de Upton. 

In 6 Ric. II (1382-3) Hugh de Upton enfeoffed^^ John de 
Westwode, Chaplain, in Upton, Stapley, Medeuleye, Lye, Criddon, 
and the Advowson of Upton. This was in trust ; for the same year 
the said Feoffee granted the premises to Hugh de Upton, and 
Margaret, his wife, for their lives, with remainders over, viz. 1st, 
to Peter de Salford ; 2dly, to Thomas Cresset, of Garmeston, and 
the heirs of his body; with remainder to Hugh de Dudmaston, 

» Parh Writs, voL iv, p. 398. 

** FarocMal Sigtoiy, vol. iii, " TJpton 

^ This feoffment of 6 Bich. II was, 
in the following jear (7 Bich. II), secured 
by fine between John de Westwode, Chap- 
lain, and Hugh de Upton and Margaret 
his wife, defendants, of the Manor of 

TJpton juxta la Clee, to the use of Hugh 
and Margaret for lives, with remainder to 
Thomas Crescet, of Garmeston, and his 
heirs. (Vide Dukes* Antiquities^ p. 259.) 
I should add, that Margaret was surviving 
in 21 Bich, II (1397-8), and holding 
TJpton of Fitz Alan, by hidf a knight's fee. 
{Cat. Esch. vol. ui, p. 223.) 


junior, and John de Sydenhale, and the heirs of Hugh ; with re- 
mainder to the heirs of John de Sydenhale. The last remainder 
was to the right heirs of Hugh de Upton. 

Another series of extracts^^ from Cressett evidences commences 
rather earlier, and is as follows : — 

William Cytharista (Harper), of Upton, with consent of Matilda 
his wife, and Alan his son, grants to Ralph Pistor (Baker), of Upton, 
1 virgate in Upton, which Alhrea, his (the grantor^s) grandmother, 
held. — Witnesses : William Fitz Aer, Anketill Clerk of Bruge. 

Richard and Hugh, sons of Alan de Stapeleye, grant to John, 
Lord of Upton, a tenement, in Criddon, by concession of Henry 
the Chaplain, their uncle, to hold to John, and Joanna his wife, and 
Guy their son, rendering two pounds of wax yearly to the lighting 
of the Chapel of the Holy Virgin at Chetton. — ^Witnesses : Gwydo 
de Glaseley, Robert de Roshale, and John de Ludlow. This deed 
was probably of date between 1300 and 1310. 

In 5 Edw. II (1311-12), Adam, son of William, Lord of Upton, 
grants to John, Lord of Upton, his nephew, a tenement in Criddon, 
which he (Adam) bought of Richard, son of Reginald Elyes, of 
Criddon. The grant is for the lives of Johanna the wife, and Guy 
the son, of the grantee. 

The following genealogy of the first Lords of Upton, till the 
extinction of their male line, is inserted not with any idea of its 
completeness, but as containing only such particulars as have been 
collected from first-rate authorities. The Pedigrees given in He- 
ralds^ Visitations are usually much more diflFuse. My object, in 
these cases, is to supply a statement independent of the Visitations, 
and in agreement with them or not, as the case may be. If found 
at variance with them, I leave such points to antiquaries who make 
genealogy a more exclusive study than would suit either the limits 
or the nature of a work like the present. 

I must further confess that, supposing our subject were exclu- 
sively genealogical, few of the Heraldic Pedigrees, which refer to 
this early period, could be cited even as respectable traditions. 

® Blaketoay MSS., Parochial NoUees^ vol. i, p. 146. 




Adam de Upton 
Occurs 1311-2. 


de Upton 





Alan de Opton 
Occors c. 1138. 
Liying 1166. 


William Uomn, or 
Ghxm, of Upton 
Occurs 1180. 

de Mupton n= 

Hugo de Hupton 
Occurs Not. 1194. 

ThcMBas de Upt<m 
Occurs Jan. 1246. 
Liying, 1255. 
Befa. July, 1256. 

William de Upton =j= 

Occurs July, 1256. 

Occurs Feb. 1283. 

John de Upton 
Occurs c. 1284. 
Befs. 1301. 

^ Isabel, dor, of • • • 


John de Upton 
Iftf, atat. Sep. 1305. 
Livery Oct. 3, 1306. 
Married before 1310. 
Occurs 1344. 
Befs, 1362. 

sss Johanna ditr. of ** * * 

~^ — 

John de 




Guy Lord of Upton ^ Margaret, dor. of * * * Constance =F Thomas 
Haius ante 1312. Occurs 1344. de Upton Cressett. 

Occurs 1344. 
Oh, ciw. 1366-7. 

Hugh de Upton 
Of full age, 1372-3. 
Entails his estates, 

circ. 1383. 

Ob» 8, p. 8. 

— = Margaret dttr, of * * * * 




The notices of minor tenancies in tliis Manor relate principally to 
one family, holding apparently under the Lords of Upton, but itself 
of some consideration. 

In November, 1221, Edith, widow of Herbert Kstor, sued 
William le Harpur (her step-son) for one-third of a hide in Upton, 
as her dower. William proved that Herbert, his father, obtained the 
land with a former wife, Dionisia, William^s mother, so that a 
second wife could have no claim of dower therein." 

At the same time, Adam le*Breton had a suit against William le 
Harpur, which he failed to prosecute. So he and his pledges 
(Hugh de Upton and Robert de Faintre) were amerced.^^ 

The deed by which William Citharista {i.e. le Harper) enfeoffed 
Ralph Kstor here has been already set forth.^* It must have 
passed about this time, for William Fitz Aer, the first witness-, suc- 
ceeded after 1221, and AnketiU, Clerk of Brug, the second witness, 
has been already mentioned as attesting earlier in the century .^^ 

Moreover, in August, 1226, William le Harpur was found to 
have disseized Ralph Pistor of 1^ acres in Upton (doubtless part of 
his previous grant), and had to pay 2$. damages.^^ 

In December, 1250, Herbert Fitz Robert (le Bretun) had sued 
Alan le Harpur for novel disseisin in Upton,^^ and the cause being 
decided, a new writ was granted in 1252, whereby 24 knights 
were to retry it,^ and convict the former Jurors (if their verdict 
proved false). Master Simon de Wanton was Justiciar in each 

At Salop Assizes, January, 1256, it was decided, that Alan le 
Harpur had not disseized said Herbert of half a virgate in Upton, 
for that Herbert was a villain, as had previously been proved 
before Master Simon de Wanton. Alan was quit, and Herbert not 
amerced because of poverty.*^ 

8 Nov. 1356, Giles de Erdinton was ordered to try this cause, — 
but the order i^ cancelled on the Roll,*^ obviously because the 
officials in London had entered it without adverting to its previous 
settlement in the coimtry. 

May, 1269, Alan le Harpur had a suit against WiUiam de Hupton 

^ Salop Aatizes, 6 Hen. Ill, memb. 4> 
^ Ibidem, memb. 7 recto. 
* Vide supra, page 143. 
^ Vide supra, page 136. 
^ Ahhrevuttio PUtcitarum, p. 104. 

» Sot JPca. 34 Hen. HI. 
« Ibidem, 36 Hen. HI. 
*^ Salop Assizes, 40 "Eea.!!!, memh, 

^ Mot. Fat. 41 Hen. Ill, dorso. 



(his Lord) for recovery of some right which he had been used to 
have in William's woods.*^ 

In October, 1272, this Alan was one of the Jurors for Stottesden 
Hundred who served at Salop Assizes.** His attestation of a deed 
of William, Lord of Upton, about this time has already been 


It is most probable that Upton was part of the great Saxon Parish 
of Morville. No Church was built here at Domesday, and the founder 
of one at any subsequent period must have entered into some com- 
position with Shrewsbury Abbey on the subject. 

We have pointed out*** a right of tithes, in some Upton, of 
Hereford Diocese, as belonging to Salop Abbey early in Stephen's 
reign; and, though the right does not subsequently appear, nothing 
is more possible than that it was in this Upton, and that it was 
surrendered on the foundation of the Parish Church, of coiurse for 
some ample consideration. 

Passing the period when we have analogy only for a guide, we 
know that in January, 1259, an Assize of darrein presentment to 
Upton Church had then to be tried between William de Upton 
(then Lord of this Upton) and Richard Foliot,*^ whom I identify 
with a contemporary Rector of Chetton. 

In 1291, the Church of Upton, in the Deanery of Stottesden, 
was taxed (valued) at £3. 6«. Sd, It was in the first instance 
assessed to the tenth (6*. 8rf.), though under £4. annual value.*^ 
A note however states, that it was not elsewhere endowed, and in 
the end it appears to have been exempted.** 

In 1341, the Church of Upton-super-Egge (Edge), in Stottesden 
Deanery, is entered as one whose taxation was 5 merks (£3. 6«. 8rf.) . 
The assessors of the ninth of wheat, wool, and lamb, in the Parish, 
accounted only for 17*. The diflference arose because there were 
only two fleeces of wool in the Parish, and no lambs ; and " be- 
cause the vill of Meduleye used to be taxed with Upton, and is 

^ Flac. apud Gloucest, 53 Hen. Ill, 
mexnb. 12 dorso. 

** Salop Assizes^ 56 Hen. Ill, memb. 
21 recto. 

*» Vide supra, p. 141. 

^ Vide supra, page 86, Note 20. 

*7 Sot. Fat. 43 Henry III. 

« Fope Nich. Tax.^ p. 166. 

^ Ibidem, p. 176, where two Churches, 
collectively assessed at £6. 13«., are excused 
in addition to the ten Churches previously 
excused. The two were Burwarton and 




now taxed with the Church of Morville; and because 4 yirgates lie 
untilled^ and the tenants of the same have withdrawn, by reason of 
penury. Ako the glebe, oflferings, and other small tithes, go to 
make up the great sum (£3. 6s. 8rf.), and are not calculated in the 
said ninth/' '^ 

In 1534, John ap Howel being Rector of Hopton Cressett, his 
preferment was valued, in glebe, com, and other tithes and offerings, 
at £4i. 158, Sd. ; which sum was liable to a charge of 6d, for Arch- 
deacon's annual synodals.^^ 


Eichard Nowe occurs as Parson of Upton Waryn in 28 Edw. Ill 
(1854-5) .53 

John, Eector of Upton, occurs in 29 Edw. Ill, and may have 
been the same as — 

John atte Broke, the Hector of 46 Edw. Ill (1872-8) . 


The Church of Upton Cressett, as originally built, might belong 
to any part of the twelfth century. It consists of a nave and 
chancel, separated by a rich round-headed arch of four orders, 
ornamented on the western face, principaUy with the Chevron. 

The font is shaped like a jar, and ornamented with round- 
headed arches. 

The east-windo^vr of the chancel is pointed. If this was its 
original shape, the date of the building will be thrown into a late 
part of the twelfth century. 

The side-windows are round-headed. 

A south aisle, of a late period, has been attached to the chancel. 

J. L. Petit. 

■<^ Inqwis, Nonarum, 191. Thougli the 
tithes of Meadowley belonged in 1291 to 
Upton Churcli, and so contributed to its 
taxation or yalue, Meadowlej itself was 
not detached from the Parish of Morville. 
So I interpret this passage. There must 
have been more than one transaction be- 
tween the lay Lord of Upton and Mea- 
dowley and Salop Abbey, but I have met 
with no record of any, except one which 
will be giyen under Meadowley, and which 
is not pertinent to the present question. 

n Valor. JSccles,, in, 211. 

^ Slakewasf ]l£S8.,mBihl.BodL This 
is the only instance in which the place 
has occurred to me as Upton Warin. If 
Mr. Blakeway be right in assigning the 
first entry above to this Upton, it can 
only have acquired the name of Warin 
from Warin the Sheriff,its possessor before 
Domesday^ or else from some feoffee, 
probably as early as Heniy the First's 



D^gdale's and the usual dictum, as to the termination ley, viz. 
that it must either be referred to the British lie {loctis, a place) ^ or 
to the Saxon ley (untilled ground)^ has been already recognised in 
two instances.^ This theory is however found to be much too 
indefinite to remain content with. 

The prevalence of the termination^ its greater frequency in East 
Shropshire than in the West of the County, or even in Wales and 
Cornwall, and its being oftener associated with Saxon than British 
words, are reasons which make the Saxon termination most pro- 
bable in cases which will at present occur to us. The only exception 
must be where the syllable is combined with another word obviously 

But there is a great doubt whether the Saxon compound itsdf be 
always one and the same. If ley means '' untilled ground/^ its aitry 
into such names as Meadowley, Comley, Oatley, Cloverley, and 
Ploughley, involves a simple contradiction. If it means '' a plain/' 
we yet find it in various names where it is anything bat apposite. 
The truth seems to be, that there are two Saxofi words which both 
enter into composition, and, being derived from a common root, 
have been confused. 

The first, lea;, is far the most conmion. It is Latinized lega, 
enters into Leighton, and is the termination of a host of names 
which our ancestors wrote with the final leff, rather than ley, 
Meadowley being one of the number. It is a doubt whether this 
Saxon word involved any idea as to tillage, or the nature of the 
surface in localities to which it attached. The word in its primary 
sense signified law, its secondary meaning was a district marked 
out by law or custom. Thus in Saxon usage it was nearly equiva- 
lent to our word " Manor/' 

Another Saxon word laej'e, hefU or Isefpe (a pasture or common), 
originated such a local name as Layston, in contrast to Leighton, 
and probably had the same root as our terms lea, ley, leys, and 

* Vide supra, under Billinggley and Tasley. 



leazow; and this root (the germ both of lea;^ law^ and Isej^e^ pasture) 
conveyed a common idea (viz. something fixed or laid down) to 
each derivative. 

The meaning then of Msebepe-leaj is '^ the district of meadows/^ 
a much more intelligible idea than that of ^^untiUed meadow 
ground/' with which the old rules of investigation would have sup- 
plied us. 

In Domesday the plape is thus noticed.^ — 

Helgot holds (of Earl Roger) Madolea. Austin held it. Here 
is half a hide geldable. He (Austin) was a free man. Richard 
holds it of Helgot. There is (arable) land (enough) for vi ox-teams. 
In demesne is i team^ and (there are) iii serfs and i radman^ with 
half a team^ and (there are) ii boors. In time of King Edward it 
was worth 80*. Now it is worth 11*. When (Helgot) received it 
it was worth 2*. 

The name of Augustine or Austin naturally became common 
among the Christianized Anglo-Saxons. It was borne by more 
than one Shropshire landowner in the Confessor's time. 

Of Helgot^ the Norman Lord of Meadowley as of other Manors^ 
we shall have often to speak. He was one of Earl Roger's Barons^ 
and founder of the Castle which still bears his name. 

Of Richard^ his Domesday tenant at Meadowley^ nothing positive 
can be stated^ but there are circumstances in the subsequent his- 
tory of the place which make it not improbable that he was no 
other than Richard de Belmeis. This person was certainly in 
Shropshire about the time of Domesday y and attested the Earl 
Roger's charter to Shrewsbury Abbey, which must have followed 
that Record very shortly, and which bespeaks some importance of 
position for each witness.^ 

He afterwards became Viceroy of the Coun^, and Bishop of 
London. His temporal and ecclesiastical possessions in Shropshire 
were at his death considerable. 

Meadowley may have been the germ of the former, and it cer- 
tainly went in a succession analogous to the lay fiefs of Richard de 
Selmeis. Of him and his representatives we shall have much to 
say elsewhere. 

The next notice after Domesday which we can associate with 
Meadowley belongs to the year 1165, when Ranulf de Belmeis 

^ Domesdayy fo. 268, b, 1. 

3 He also attests a deed of the EarPs 

already recited (Vide supra, p. Ill) and 
proved to haye passed in or about 1086. 



appears as holdiiig one fee of old feoffment under Herbert de 
Castello.* These two we know to have been the then repre- 
sentatives of Richard de Behneis and Helgot^ before mentioned. 

In 1180, among fines imposed, by Justices of the Forest, on resi- 
dents in this neighbourhood, Richard de Beaumes, a cadet of the 
family, and probably interested in Meadowley, was amerced %», for 

But a subinfeudation of this Manor must have taken place at an 
early period, whereby the Lords of the neighbouring Upton will 
have acquired the substantive interest here. The mesne tenure of 
de Belmeis consequently receives little notice. 

Hence we find that Hugh, Lord of Upton, early in the thirteenth 
century, granted to Morville Church a parcel of land in his vill of 
Medeweleg, to hold for ever, at a rent of 12rf. — ^Witnesses : Hugh 
de Kinsedeleg, Richard then Chaplain of Mamerfeld, Andrew de 

Hence also, in 1240, when Thomas Manduit held the Barony of 
Castle Holgate, Hugh de Opton or Upton is said to hold one fee 
thereof in ^^Medewelee or Medeweleg,^ the mesne tenure of Belmeis 
• being ignored. 

In 1255, however, Thomas de Upton is returned, by the Stottesden 
jurors, as holding vi. virgates of land under Roger de Beumes in 
Medwele. '^ And he did suit twice a year to the Court of William 
Manduit, at the Castle of Holegod, and he owed ward at that Castle 
in time of war for forty days, for the fee of one knight.''^ 

In 1284, when the Barony of Castle Holgate was in the family 
of Bumel, John de Hopton («. e. Upton) is entered as holding 
Medeueleye of Robert Bumel by one knight^s fee.' Philip Bumel 
died in 1294, and amongst his Lordships which then passed to the 
Crown, during a minority of the heir, was Medewelley .^^ By reason 
of this temporary seizin of the Crown, and the corresponding death 
of the sub-tenant in 1801, the Escheator was ordered to take into 

* lAb. Nig. i, 147. 

* P^.JFbftf*/., Chapter House, Westm. 
Ko. 1, Salop, memb. 2. The places, if 
I rightly assign them to their owners, 
follow in this order : — ^Upton (Cressett), 
Abdon (Priors), Ditton, Wheathill, Mea- 
dowley, Barrow, Willey, &c. 

* Salop Chartulary, No. 105. 

7 Tetia de NevUl, pp. 46, 48, 50. 

* Boi. Sund.^ ii, 82. Soon after this 

period, the suit of Medueleg and Leye 
(Lye) was withdrawn from the Hundred 
of Stottesden. The King of Almain and 
the Templars who sucoessiyely held the 
Barony of Castle Holgate thus interfered 
with the rights of the Crown {Mot. BJtmd. 
ii. 108. Vide infra, p. 157, under Bold). 

10 Calend. Inqms.y vol. i, 120. 



the Kiag's hand all the lands of which " John de Upton, who held 
of the heir of Philip Bnmel/' died seized." In 30 Edw. I 
(1801-2) an Inquest was held as to the tenures of the late John de 
Upton. Meduleye and Upton are the two Manors enumerated ; 
and mention is also made of the suit of Court which the deceased 
had owed to Castle Holgate.^^ 

This John de Upton (as has been stated under Upton Cressett) 
also, left a son under age, so that the Manor of Meadowley was in 
the King's hands for several years, except a third thereof, which 
the widow of the deceased Tenant had in dower. An escbeator's 
account, which has occurred in a fragmentary BoU in custody of 
the Queen's Remembrancer, acknowledges 208. to have been re- 
ceived ''from two parts of the land which was John de Upton/s in 
Maddeleye, and which was in manu Regis by reason of the minority 
of John, son and heir of John, who holds of the heir of Philip 
Bumel,'' &c. The receipt is for the period commencing Michaelmas, 
1305, and ending October 3, 1306, when the heir had livery.^^ 

CJarltott antr asoiu* 

Ceopl and coc, two Saxon words signifying an husbandman and 
his abode, constitute one of these names. The other, more simple 
still, is the Saxon Bolb, a house or haU. 

The two places formed one Domesday Manor, represented under 
Cerlecote, which, however, the Record would appear to classify in 
another Hundred than Alnodestreu.^ 

This must be explained.— The Domesday notice of Meadowley 
occupies four lines of the MS. Opposite the third of these lines is 
the marginal aflBx, " In Recordin Hund.'' (clearly out of place, and 
to be removed to a lower position.) By assigning it to the second 

11 OriginaUa, 29 Edw. I, Mot, 10. 
^ Calend, Inquis,, toI. i, 173. Where 
Meduleye has been printed Seduleye, ac- 

cording to a common mistake before 
noticed (supra, p. 65, note 170). 

^ Rot Forinsec, penes Bemem. Beg. 

1 Vide supra, page 24. 




line below that against which it stands, we have it opposite Cerlecote. 
It must, however, be still out of place, for no vill corresponding to 
Cerlecote can be traced in the area of the old Hundred of Recordin. 
By removing the affix two lines lower still, we have it in con- 
nexion with the Manor of Ofitone (Uffington), where its applica- 
bility can admit of no doubt. 

After thus restoring an erroneous affix to its proper place in the 
margin, the Domesday notice of Cerlecote, as following Meadowley, 
will remain under Alnodestreu Hundred, Th^e we find a place 
too (Charlcott) exactly reflecting the older name. 

Bold is not mentioned singly in Domesday. It was in fiwjt in- 
volved in Cerlecote ; but, at a later period. Bold became the ccqmt 
of the combined Manor, and Charlcott the member. 
Domesday notices the whole thus : — ^ 

The same Helgot holds Cerlecote (of the Earl), Elsi held it (in 
time of King Edward) and was free. Here is half a hide, geldable. 
There is (arable) land (sufficient) for 2 ox-teams. It is and was 
waste. It used to be worth 10*. (in time of King Edward.) 

A Saxon Alsi (with the name written Elsi or Mlai) was Lord of 
Corfton and Middlehope, in the adjoining Domesday Hundred of 
Culvestan j and whereas no such name appears in the Hundred of 
Recordin, we have herein a circumstance which increases the pro- 
bability of our having rightly placed Cerlecote in Alnodestreu Hun- 

We will not yet speak of Helgot or his descendants otherwise 
than when they may occur as the seignoral Lords of Bold and 

They seem to have granted a feoffinent of this Manor at least as 
early as the time of Henry I, and their tenants thenceforth to have 
taken the local name. 

The earliest tenant occurring in this position was probably that 
Odo de la Boude who stands the third of four witnesses to the deed 
whereby Herebert, son of Holegod, Lord of the Castle, enfeoflTed 
Herlewyn de Butailles in Dudmaston and Posthome.^ 

3 Ihmesday, fo. 258, b. 1. The three 
periods of JDomesday yaluation are yery 
observable in this entry, the time when 
the Manor w<m waste, being that at which 
it came to Helgot's hands. 

3 This charter is in possession of W. 
W. Whitmore, Esq., of Dudmaston. 

There are many reasons for assigning it to 
a date anterior to the death of Henry I 
(1135). There are also objections to so 
early a date. Both shall be stated and 
the charter given in its proper place. 
It certainly passed in the twelfth cen- 



The feodary of 1165 gives R. de Holda as holding, by service of 
one knight, under Herebert de Castello. This fee was of old feoff- 
ment, and the name of the feoffee should be written R. de Bolda.* 

About the year 1190 died one Robert de Girrhos, a person appa- 
rently of much consideration in Shropshire during the reigns of 
Stephen and Henry II. He was not only a tenant in capite of the 
Crown, but held under the two Baronies of Clun and Castle Holgate. 
His successor, another Robert de Girrhos, had not livery till some 
years after his death. In the interval the King^s Escheator, or the 
Sheriff, accounts to the Exchequer for the profits of his lands. 
Most of them were held under Castle Holgate, which also was at 
the time in the King^s hand. An Escheator's roll for the year 
1195 is preserved, and contains that officer's receipt {inter alia) of 
8*. of the ferm of Cherlecote, which was Robert de Girros', for a 
whole year, viz., from March 1194 to March 1195.^ 

In the octaves of St. Michael, 1200, in the King's Court at 
Westminster, a suit, wherein Herbert de la Bude was plaintiff 
against Alan de Mars^ his brother, and Robert de Giros, was post- 
poned till the octaves of St. Martin (Nov. 18), by writ of Geoffry 
Pitz-Piers* (then Chief Justice of England). 

On the day of adjournment (Nov. 18), the Justices of the King^s 
Bench have the King's mandate to adjourn the hearing of this 
cause, which concerned four carrucates of land in Boude, till the 
octaves of St. Andrew (Dec. 7) ; then to come before the King 
himself ^erever he may be in England. And the Justices are to 
send this writ and the former writ (that of Greoflfry Pitz-Piers) and 
a record of the plea.*^ On the day given (Dec. 7, 1200) King John 
was at Clarendon. Then and there, or shortly after, and elsewhere, 
he doubtless heard the pleadings which follow. ^'Herbert de 
Bouda sues for three hides in Bouda against Robert de Girros and 
Alan de Mara as his seizin and inheritance, which he (Herbert) 
entrusted to the custody of Alan ; and the said Alan, for the sake 
of staving off and taking away the right of Herbert, committed 
theiA to Robert de Girros ; and that such is the case, and that he 
(Herbert) was seized thereof as of fee, by taking esplees thereof, &c., 
he offers to prove by Adam de Kerleton, or by Henry de Witeleg. 
And Alan comes into Court and defends his right, and says that he 

^ lAh. Nig. i, 147. apud Heame. The 
error is not one of the Editor. It is in 
the original also. 

^ JRot Escaetartfmy inter Rot. Pip. 7 B. I. 

^ Plac. apud Westm, Mich. Term, 
2 John (Office No. 13). 
7 Ibidem (Office No. 14). 



has * ^ ^ ^ ^^^ and he calls them to warranty. And afterwards 
he said that he had a warrantor^ but he named no one. And 
Herbert petitions that it may be reckoned in his favour how the 
other had entered upon his reply without those charters (cartillis) . 
And Robert de Girros was present and contradicted Herbert in no 
particular. A day was given to the parties in the octaves of Hilary 
(Jan. 20, 1201) to hear sentence before the Lord King, wherever he 
may be in England.'' • 

On Jan. 20, 1201, the King was at Louth (Lincolnshire), and it 
was probably about that time that '^ Herbert de Bouda offered 
himself on the fourth day (after the day given) against Alan de la 
Mara and Robert de Giros, in a plea about three hides in Bouda.^® 
The defendants came not nor essoigned themselves, and yet the day 
was given them in banco. The sentence was, that the land (in 
dispute) be taken into the King's hand, and the parties summoned 
to hear judgment at Midlent ; and Herbert names as his attorney 
Henry de Witeleg." 

At the time appointed (probably Midlent or March 4, 1201, when 
the King was at Brotherton, Yorkshire, or soon after), Herbert de 
Boud again appeared by his attorney coram Rege, The preli- 
minaries were rehearsed, and the defendants not appearing it was 
ordered by the Court that Herbert should have seizin of the land 
for default of the defendants.^^ 

At Shrewsbury Assizes, Oct. 1203, Herbert le Boude presented 
himself in due course against Richard Bretone in a suit concerning 
one virgate in la Boude. The defendant not appearing, the land 
was seized into the King's hand, and he (the defendant) summoned 
to appear at Worcester before the same Justices on a future day.^^ 

Early apparently in the thirteenth century Robert de Bolda gave 
and confirmed to Alan de la Mare his father's brother (patruo sm) 
for his homage and service and for 6rf. rent, one virgate in Bold, 
half of which was held by Haer and half by Geoflfry Ribel, with a 
messuage, croft, &c. — ^Witnesses : Thomas Mauduit (then Lord of 
Castle Helgot) and Robert his brother.^^ 

8 A word \a defaced here, probably 
equiyalent to " cartillas " below. 

* Placita coram Se^e (Office No. 49), 
memb. 6 dorso. This Boll is falsely dated 
of the 10th and 11th years of John. The 
int-emal evidence proves the date assigned 
above, but the Boll also contains Pleas 
lieard by the King in Hilary and 

Easter Terms 1201, and at various 

^^ Ibidem, memb. 8 recto. 

1^ Ibidem, memb. 10 dorso. 

^ Salop Assizes i 5 John, memb. 5 dorso. 

^ Sa/nghmond Chartulary, fo. 87. TU, 
Bolda^ which is also the authority for the 
five following deeds. 



Thomas Mauduit confirmed to Alan de la Mare the grant of 
Robert de Bolda his kinsman {cognati sui), — ^Witnesses: Bobert 
Mauduit^ Bobert Gyros. 

Alan de la Mare gave^ to the sustenance of the sick brethren in 
the Infirmary of Haghmon Abbey, one virgate of land in Bolda 
which Haer and Geoflfrey Bibel held, together with a messuage and 
croft which Edric held, a rent of 6rf. at Michaelmas being reserved 
to the Lord of the said vill. — Witnesses : Thomas Mauduit, Bobert 
his brother. 

Adam, Lord of Bold, confirms the grant of Alan de la Mare to 
Haghmon Abbey, of a virgate in support of the Infirmary, and 
releases and quit-claims to the Abbey a rent of Qd. payable to the 
Lord of the vilL He also confirms the half virgate which William 
the miller held, and also four acres. — Witnesses : Sir Thomas de 
Costentin, John Fitz-Heri. 

Bobert de Bold releases the said four acres and all his claim in 
the said vill to Haghmon Abbey whereof there had been pleas before 
Thomas de Muleton, Maurice de Gant, &c.. Justices Itinerant at 
Salop, in the eleventii year of King Henry son of King John.^* 
— Witnesses : Boger the Dean, Hugh the Parson, Pain Carbonel. 

The Abbot of Haghmon leases to William, son of Bobert the 
miller of Bold, half a virgate and four acres, which his father Bobert 
held of the Abbey. The lease is for life, at a rent of 8«. 6rf. 
— Witnesses : Thomas Botterell, &c. 

In 1240, Bobert de la Beude, Boinde, or Baude, is represented as 
holding one fee of Thomas Mauduit's Barony in this locality.^^ 

In 1255, the Stottesden Jurors returned as follows — 

Bobert de Bolde is Lord of Bolde, and holds in capite of William 
Mauduyt for one knight's fee : wherein is half a hide of land, and 
he does suit to the Hundred Courts, and pays the Sheriff 2rf. stret- 
wardy and for motfe 4d}^ 

Bobert de Bolde was himself of the Jury on this occasion. In 
the following year he was reported as one of those who, holding 
£15. of lands, was not knighted.^^ 

Feb. 1262. This Bobert having been a Regarder of the Forests 
of Morf and Shirlet, was fined for making a bad return.^® 

His successor seems to have been Adam de la Bold, who, on 

^^ These justioes were m eyre at Salop, 
in Oct. 1227 {JE^m Rolls), The Assize 
Boll is lost. 

1* Testa de NeviU. 46, 48. 

" Rot. Sund, ii, 82, 81. 

^7 Bukes' Antiq.y Intr., p. vii. 

^ Flao, Forestry 46 Henry III, memb. 6. 



Jan. 26j 1270^ sat as a Juror on the Inquest after the death of 
Robert Corbett of Chetton.^* 

Hugh Mortimer^ of Chebnarsh, was sheriff of Shropshire from 
March^ 1271, to January^ 1273. His Under-Sheriff seems to have 
been John Baril^ amongst whose extortions it is related that he 
took from Adam de Bold 20s., because Adam refused to present 
him to the Church of Bold.20 

At the Assizes of Oct. 1272, this Adam was a defaulter in proper 
attendance. He was also reported as of full age, the holder of 
a knight^s fee, and yet not a knight.21 

Nov. 27, 1274, he sat as a Juror on the Inquest for Stottesden 
Himdred, and made complaint of the conduct of the Constable of 
Corfham, who took 10s. from him for postponement of a suit which 
he had against him about the enclosing of a wood, which Adam's 
ancestors had held enclosed just as it was now. The same Constable 
had also fined the vill of Bold 40s. because it disregarded a sum- 
mons of his, which by right and custom it was not bound to 

In 1284^ Adam de Bolda is returned as holding Bold, by one 
knight's fee, of Robert Bumell, of the fee of Castle Holegod.^* 

At the Assizes of Sept. 1292, Adam de Bolde is returned as 
holding a knight's fee, being of age, and yet not a knight.^^ He 
occurs as a Juror 15 March, 1301 ;^^ and in 1306 Adam del Bolde 
was Manucaptor for Richard de Harley, Knight of the Shire ;^^ and 
in March, 1316, Malcolumb, son of the said Richard, is returned 
as Lord of Bolde.^*^ 

Some Airther notices of events and persons connected with this 
Manor shall be given in order of time. — ^About 1210, a Charter of 
Thomas Mauduit to Salop Abbey is attested by Robert Mauduit, 
Robert de Girros, and Walter de Mara.^® 

In August, 1226, a trial came before the King at Salop, as to 
whether Warin junior (juvenis) de la Bolde had disseized Eva, 
widow of Richard de Den, of her free tenement in Den. Warin 
appears, and Eva then acknowledged that her husband, whilst 

» JEscheats, 64 Hen. lU, No. 53. 

^ Rot. Htmd. ii, 109. Mr. Blakeway's 
list of Sheriff at this period is both in- 
complete and inaccurate. 

^ Assize £oU, 66 Hen. Ill, memb. 49 

22 Sot. Hund. ii, 107, 109. 

« Kirby's Quest. 

^ Assizes, 20 Edw. I, Flac. Coron., 
memb. 20 recto. 
25 JSsch. 29 Ed. I, No. 7. 
» FarL Writs, i, 480. 

27 Ibidem, vol. iv, 398. 

28 Salop Chart., No. 13, also No. 295. 



livings had delivered the tenement to Warin^ adding that it was her 
marriage portion. She is judged to be in misericordia for false 

At Salop Assizes^ January^ 1256^ Katherine^ widow of Roger de 
Cherlescote, sued William de Cherlescote and several others for 
thirds of small tenements in Cherlescote and Bolde.*^ They how- 
ever accorded their differences; and a fine passed Feb. 3^ 1256^ 
whereby William de Cherlcote, Roger de la Bolde^ Henry de 
Sutbury (Sidbury), William le Chapelayn, John le Petit, Hugh de 
Hereford, Brice de Cleybury, and John de Dreyton, tenants, con- 
ceded thirds to said Katherine, in divers small parcels in Bold and 
Cherlecote for life.^^ 

At the same Assizes, Roger, son of Roger de Weston, appeared 
against Roger le Mouner, of Clebyri, in a suit to oblige him to 
keep to his agreement about a moiety of Cherlecot Mill. The 
defendant appeared not, and having made previous defaults, the 
Sheriff was ordered to distrain, &c. till he appear .^^ 

It appears that the King of Almain, during his seizin of the 
Barony of Castle Holgate, withdrew from the Hundred of Stot- 
tesden the suit of the vill of Bolde, and the suit of William Fitz 
Alan de Cherlecote, and of his under-tenants in Cherlecote, and 
appropriated the said suits to his own liberty of Castle Helgot.^ 
The said King of Almain demised, about a,d. 1263, his interest in 
this Barony to the Templars, who, in November 1274, stiU with- 
held the same suits from Stottesden Hundred. 

It also appears that Roger de Mortimer, of Wigmore, after the 
siege of Kenilworth (1266), amongst other encroachments on the 
rights of the Crown, withdrew from Stottesden Hundred the suit 
of William de Pilardinton and his under-tenants iu the vill of 

William de Cherlecote occurs as a Juror, 2 Dec. 1259,^ as 
Regarder of the King^s Forests, Feb. 1262,^^ and as Juror^* on 
a Forest Inquest, March 13, 1262. 

About this time one Henry de Bolda occurs as witness to a Mid- 
dleton-Priors deed.*^ 

29 PlacUa coram Mege^ 10 Hen. Ill, 
memb. 4 dorso. 

30 Jjmze MoU, 40 Hen. m, memb. 9 
dorso. This Katherine de Cherlecote 
seems also to haye had an interest in 
Alyeiej (Bot. Fat. 41 Hen. Ill, dorso). 

31 Pedes finium, 40 Hen. Ill, Salop. 

^ Assizesy 40 Hen. Ill, m. 16 dorso. 

33 sot^ j«^. ii^ 108. 

34 Inq., 43 Hen. Ill, No. 32. 
3» Plac. ForesttB, 46 Hen. III. 

36 Inq,, 46 Hen. HI, No. 31. 

37 Charter in possession of Robert 
Gardner, Esq., of Leighton. 



On July 15, 1269, a fine was levied, at Northampton, "between 
Philip Fitz-WiUiam de Cherlecote, plaintiff, and William Fitz-Alan 
de Cherlecote, deforciant, of 1 messuage, i a carrucate, and 12d. 
rent, in Cherlecote and La Neuton (Newton, near Bold), whereof 
was a plea of covenant. William acknowledged the right of Philip, 
who granted a life-lease thereof to William, reserving an annual 
rent of 6rf. and the services due to the Lord of the Fee. Afirer death 
of WiUiam the premises shall revert to Philip and his heirs.^^*® 

At Salop Assizes, Oct. 1292, Philip de Cherlecote served on the 
Stottesden Jury, which reported William de Pylardinton and others 
as defaulters in due attendance.^* 

On 15 March, 1301, the Inquest on the death of Roger de 
Bagesore reported, that he had held {inter alia) half a virgate of 
John de Drayton, at Cherlecote, by service of 3*. O^rf. per 




The earliest notice of a Church or Chapel here belongs to the 
year 1271-72, when Adam de la Bold refused to present an extor- 
tionate Under-Sheriff, John Baril, to the same.*^ 

Li 1291 the Church of Bolde, in Stottesden Deanery, was valued 
at £4. 6^. Sd, The Co-rectors of Castle Holgate^seem also to have 
had three portions or pensions in this Church. The names of the 
then Portionists were Richard de Eyton, Matthew, and Robert, and 
their pensions, 3*. 6rf., Ss. Sd,^ and 3«. 3rf., respectively.*^ 

The total valuation, thus made up, is repeated in the Inquisitions 
of 1341, where the taxation of Bolde Chapel is put at i64. Ids. Sd. 
But the assessors and vendors of the ninth of wheat, wool, and lamb, 
in the Parish, valued such produce only at £2. 6s. Sd. ; so much less 
than the taxation, because 2 virgates lie untilled in the parish, and 
the tenants have quitted through poverty; and because there are no 
sheep there ; and because the small tithes, offerings, and glebe, and 
other profits of the Church, go to make up the taxation ^ (and are 
not to be reckoned in the ninth). 

■^ Fede^Jinium^ 53 Hen. HI, Salop. 
» Asnze BoU, 20 Ed. I, Plac. Ooron. 
xnemb. 51 recto. 

*> JEscheais, 29 Ed. I, No. 7. 
** Vide Bupra, p. 156. 

^ Fope Mch. Tax., p. 166. See also 
tbe Taxaeion,o{ihe Church of Castle Hol- 
gate, in Wenlock Deanery (page 167 of 
the same Beoord). 

^ Inguis. Nonarwn p. 190. 


The Valor of 1534 mentions neither Church nor Chapel here ; but 
among the Spiritualities of the White Nuns of Brewood was a 
pension of 6*. Sd. arising from Bolld " juxta Bottrell Aston/'** Both 
Bould and Charlcott are now in the Parish of Aston Bottrell. 
Parts of the north, south, and west walls of the Chapel remain and 
are used as a wain-house.*^ 


The name of this place will entitle it to a British origin. The 
last syllable, tre, so common in Wales and Cornwall, signifies a 
village or hamlet. As to Fain, Faven, or Favon, I suppose it to be 
the British Ffa'en (a bean), or Ffaon (beans). 

The etymological association between this place and Daventrey 
(Northants) is observable. The Daventrei and Faventrei of Domes- 
day have become respectively Daintree and Paintree; the former 
being, however, only changed in pronunciation, while the latter is 
also written in the contracted form. 

With regard to the Domesday state of Paintree, it is not easily 
deducible from the printed edition of that Record, inasmuch as 
notices of two other Manors are mixed up with this, and thus the 
whole passage is left unintelligible. A glance at the original shows, 
however, that a later scribe, using dififerent ink, has added a sup- 
plement to the previous matter, and carelessly inserted the said 
supplement between two members of the same sentence. Thus, 
what is only marked as parenthetical in the original, by being 
written in a dififerent hand, loses all distinctiveness whatever when 
printed in an uniform type and without annotation. 

Reuniting the clauses which treat of Paintree in Domesday we 
learn as follows ; — 

The same^ Walcheline holds Paventrei (of the Earl) . Ulchetel, 
Archetel, Uluiet, iElwi, Ordwi, and Ordric, held it, and those 

^ Valor JEccles.y iii, 194. ^ Dukes' Anfiq. Shropshire, Appendix, page xi. 

* This Walcheline also held Grinshill under the Earl (Domesd. fo. 257, h. 1). 




Thanes were free. Here are two hides^ geldable. The (arable) 
land is sufficient for five ox-teams. In demesne there is one ox-team 
and a half; and (there are) one serf, two villains, and five boors, 
with two ox-teams. In time of King Edward it was worth 27*., 
now (it is worth) 20«. He (Walcheline) found it waste.^ 

Walcheline's tenure here was either by seijeantry (a matter 
which Domesday omits), or became so in the time of Henry I, when 
tenants of the Earl became tenants in capite. 

At all events, a Stottesden Jury,^ two centuries after Domesday y 
calling a former, and probably this, tenant, ^^ Walcheline de Fayn- 
tre,^^ recorded his tenure to have been by the seijeantry which will 
presently be described. 

The successor of Walcheline, one century after Domesday, was 
Robert de Fayntre, who occurs in November, 1194, as recognizor ^ 
in a trial which concerned land at Holicott, or in the neighbour- 

When, at Michaelmas, 1203, the Sheriflf accounted for the fourth 
scutage of King John^s reign, Robert de Fentre paid half a merk for 
his serjeantry, the said scutage being assessed at 2 merks on each 
knight^s fee.^ 

At Michaelmas, 1204, and for King John's fifth scutage (which 
was 2i merks on each knight's fee) Robert de Fenitree had paid 20*.^ 

In 1211, the serjeantry of Robert de Fayent' is returned as con- 
sisting in the service of one foot-soldier, with a bow and arrows, in 
the King's army in Wales.'^ 

In November, 1221, Robert de Faintre was pledge of Adam le 
Breton, in a suit against William le Harper.® The latter was of 
Upton, in this neighbourhood. 

In 1255, the tenure of this Manor was returned by the Stottes- 
den Jurors as follows : — " Adam de Faintre is Lord of Faintre, and 
holds in capite of the Lord the King, for service of one Serjeant ^ 
with bow and arrows, when the King shall be in North Wales. 
Wherein is one hide and a half of land : and he (Adam) does suit 
to the Hundred (of Stottesden), and pays to the Sheriff, for stret- 
ward, 6d,y and for motfee, 12rf." ^ 

The diminution of half a hide from the Domesday measurement 

* Domesday^ fo. 257, b. 1. 

3 iPlacita CoroncB, 20 Ed. I, Salop, 
emmb. 20 recto. 

* Sot CuricB IteffiSy vol. 1, p. 123. 

* Sot, IHp. 5 John, Salop. 

^ Boi. Pip. 6 John, Salop. 
7 Testa de Nevill, p. 55. 
" Salop Assizes, 6 Hen. Ill, memb. 7 

» Rot, Eund. ii, 82. 


is noticeable^ but may perhaps be accounted for by a corres- 
pondent increase in the hidage of the neighbouring Manor of 

At the Assizes of January, 1256, Adam de Feyntre sat as a 
Juror for the Hundred of Stottesden.^® 

In February, 1262, he appears as one of the Regarders of the 
King's forest in Shropshire.^i 

About 1267 he attests a grant of the Advowson of Chetton, to be 
hereafter noticed.^^ 

On January 26, 1270, he sat as a Juror in the Inquisition as to 
the estate of Robert Corbet, of Chetton, then deceased.^* 

In 2 Edw. I (1274), Adam de Fayntre was himself dead, having 
been seized of this Manor.^^ His estate became divided amongst his 
five daughters and coheirs. 

On November 27, 1274, in answer to a question as to the class of 
persons whose lands had been seized by the Officers of the Crown 
into the living's hands, the Stottesden Jurors stated, that the lands 
of Adam de Faintre, when he died, were so seized by Sir John de 
Erkalewe, then Escheator,^^ and who was still in office. But the 
Jurors did not know for certain how long the said Escheator held 
them in the King's hand, but they thought for six weeks. 

The same jurors, in reply to a question as to the King's fees and 
tenants in this Hundred, answered that Richard de Holicote, Hugh 
le Massun, Peter Chaniberlain (Camerarius), Henry le Taylur, and 
Margery, daughter of Adam de Faintru, hold the Manor of Fain- 
tru, of the Lord King in capite by seijeantry of finding one foot- 
man, with a bow and arrows, to go with the Lord King into Wales 
when he will levy war, and to stay there till he (the footman) hath 
shot away his arrows. 

A further account of this Manor must involve some notice of 
each of the five coheiresses among whom it was divided on the 
death of their father, Adam de Faintru. 

1. The eldest of these, Clemence, had married Richard de Holi- 
cote, and he, in 1274, had fined for relief of his share. Of this fine 
he rendered account in 1275 .^* 

April 2, 1278. Richard de Holicote sat as a Juror at Brug in an 

^ Salop Assizes, 40 Hen. III. 

^^ Placita Forestry 46 Hen. Ill, Salop. 

^ Vide infra, under Chetton. 

^ Inqms, 64 Hen. Ill, No. 53. 

^^ Calendar ofBscheats, i, 51. 
1* Mot, HtMd, ii, 110. 
^* Eot Pvp, 3 Ed. I, Salop, quoting 
ma, Orig, 2 Ed. I. 



inquest as to the wastes committed in the Forests of young Richard 
Fitz Alan.i7 

About 1284 Richard de Holicote is returned as a coparcner in 
Faintre, but the equipment of the soldier^ who was to attend the 
King in his Welsh wars^ is stated to be a bow^ three arrows^ and a 
galtrap (terpolus) .^® 

At the Assizes of October^ 1292^ the Stottesden Jiu*ors gave a 
confused and inaccurate account of the serjeantries in their Hun- 
dred. The seijeantry at Faintre is however valued at 1 10*., and 
Richard de Holicote and Clemence his wife still retain their share, 
though there was some informality, which caused their land to be 
seized into the King's hand, and them to replevy it, by payment of 
a merk, till the next Parliament.^* 

In 25 Edw. I (1297), the Originalia Rolls contain a precept to the 
Escheator to seize into the King's hand the lands and tenements 
which were Clemence's, late the wife of Richard de Holicote.^ In 
that year too there was an Inquest as to the same Clemence and 
her license to alienate one messuage and half a carrucate of land 
in Faintre.2i 

In March, 1316, John de Knokyn is returned as sole Lord of 
Faintre,22 and an Inquest on his death in 14 Edw. II (1320-1) 
would seem to imply his possession of most of the Manor ; ^ but 
these particulars belong to a later era. 

2. Henry le Taylor (alias Cissor) who married Alice, the second 
daughter and coheir of Adam de Faintre, fined for his relief in 1274, 
and appears like Richard de Holicote on the Pipe Roll of 1275. 
He was living in October, 1292, and holding his share of Faintre, 

*7 Inquintiotw, 6 Ed. I, No. 90. 

^ Kirhifs Quest. The word ierpohu 
OP tribulvs, which I translate galtrap, or 
caltrap, seems to hare had more than one 
meaning. Its primary form was probably 
the Greek rpi/3oXoc, an aquatic plant, 
which produced a prickly nut of a tri- 
angular shape. In its secondary sense it 
was the name of an implement, used in 
war, to impede the moyements of cayalry, 
and which consisted of four iron spikes, 
so attached to a centre as that, any three 
resting on the ground, the fourth pointed 
upwards. A missile, of the same shape 

and name, seems also to hare been used 
in sieges, and was impelled by a machine 
called trihuchulus. I also think that the 
ferpohu abore was a missile, but not of 
so large a kind. 

19 FlcuAta CorontB, 20 Ed. I, Salop, 
memb. 20 recto. Bichard de Holicote 
was himself on the jury which made these 
presentments (Ibm. memb. 51 recto). 

» Originalia, 25 Ed. I. 

31 InquisiHons, 25 Ed. I, No. 85. 

^ Nomina TiUarum. 

23 InquinHont, 14 Ed. II, No. 31 


but his wife was dead. He too, on this occasion, had to pay a fine 
till some question as to his tenure was settled by Parliament.^ 

3. Peter le Chamberlain, who had married Isabel, the third 
daughter and coheir, appears in 1274 and 1275 as oflfering and 
paying a fine for his relief. However, the Records of Trinity Term, 
16 Edw. I (1287), are quoted, as showing this same Peter then 
coming to the Exchequer, and fining half a merk for relief of his 
share of Faintre, which he holds by serjeantry of Ushery (hostiarise) 
to the King in his army.26 

In 1292, Peter le Chamberlyn was dead, but Isabella his wife 
held 1 carrucate (except i a virgate and 3 acres), and the tenure 
was worth 46*. per annum. She was obliged to join in a fine to 
prevent the seizure thereof into the King's hand.^^ 

4. Margery, the fourth daughter of Adam de Faintre, has been 
already mentioned, as if immarried, in November, 1274. In 1275, 
however, her husband, Henry de la Porte, accounted for her relief. 

On March 22, 1278, William de Stapele having represented to the 
King, that, when he had purchased half a virgate in Fayntre of 
Margery, fifth daughter of Adam de Feyntre, the Sheriff of Salop 
(being also Escheator of the County) had ejected him, the King 
desires a Jury to be summoned to report the particulars. The said 
Jury sat on April 29th following, and returned the service due on the 
said land as one-fifth of a soldier in Wales, stated its annual value 
to be 9*. 9rf., and that Margery had enfeoffed said William therein; 
uor did the Jurors think the said land to be an escheat of the 
King's, nor that his allowance of said sale would be to the King's 

In 1292 two tenures are recorded in Fayntre, but it is doubtfiil 
which of them represents the share under notice. Warin de Mid- 
dleton holds half a virgate of the annual value of 5*.': William de 
Wrocwardyn and Emma his wife, hold half a virgate and 3 acres, 
of 6s. annual value. Both tenures had something informal in them, 
probably as involving a transfer unsanctioned by the Crown. Their 
temporary seizure was the consequence.^® 

5. The fifth (or fourth) daughter of Adam de Faintre was wife of 
Hugh de Massun (or le Mazun) in November, 1274. 

2* Placita Corona, 20 Ed, I, ut supra. 
25 Madox Exchequer, 220, q., quoting 
Tnn, Comm.y 15 Ed. I. 

^ Placita CoroiuB^ 20 Ed. I, ut supra. 

37 Inquisitions, 6 Ed. I., No. 75. 

^ Placita Corona, 20 Ed. I, ut supra. 



In 1284^ Hugh le Maznn's coparcnery in the serjeantiy is rettimed^ 
though three of the five shares are not set forth.^^ 

In October^ 1292^ Hugo le Mason and Mabil his wife held 1 
carrucate (less i virgate). It was worth 50*. per annum. They 
also joined in a fine to escape temporary disseisin.^^ 

Of under-tenancies here, one or two notices occur. — 

At Salop Assizes, August, 1226, Philip, son and heir of Philip, 
recovered against Sibil de Broc (the tenant) 1^ virgates, 6 acres, 
and a messuage here.*^ 

In October, 1272, William Fitz John de Fentre being dead, his 
daughter and next heir, Petronilla, recovers one-third of a mes- 
suage and a quarter virgate in Westwal, against the tenants 
(Richard, son of John le Smyht and Jane his wife), of which 
William, her father, died seized.*^ 


Cete, a hut (plural Ceten) and tun, an enclosure, are the two 
Saxon words presumed to have contributed to the name variously 
written Ceatinton, Catinton, or Chetton.i An enclosure of huts 
probably furnishes a very accurate idea of a Saxon village; but 
Chetton, before the Conquest, had acquired a comparative dignity 
which its earliest name by no means implies. The Domesday 
account is as follows : — ^ 

^^ The Earl himself holds Catinton. Godeva, the Countess, held 
it in time of King Edward. 

Here is 1 hide geldable. In demesne are 3 ox-teams; and 6 
serfs, 2 female serfs,^ 4 villains, and 1 boor, with a Priest and 

M Kirhy^s Quest, 

»> Flacita Corona^ 20 Ed. I, ut supra. 

^ The letters Gh are found frequently 
substituted for the Saxon G, — e, g. Gild 
(child); Geopl (churl) ; Gef (chaff.) 

* Domesdcti/f fo. 254, a. 1. 

^ Ahbrev. Plac. p. 103. 

^ Salop AstizeSj 56 Hen. Ill, 9 dorso. 

^ For the oncUkB of Dofnesdcufy see 
Introduction to printed Dometday^ rol. 
ii, p. xxviii. 



a Provost, have 3 ox-teams ; and yet there is room for 2 ox-teams. 
Here is a new mill and 1 league* of wood. In time of King Edward, 
the Manor was worth 100*.; now it is worth 45*." 

The Priest, mentioned in the Domesday Survey of Chetton, im- 
plies the pre-existence of a Church. The latter too is a most pro- 
bable consequence of the sometime seigneury of the Countess 
Godiva. Chetton must have been part of her dower, and it was 
not the only Shropshire Manor where she had a similar interest. 
She was the widow of Leofric, Earl of Mercia, who died August 81, 
1057, and the mother of Earl Algar, who died in 1059. How long 
she survived her husband, and whether she survived her son we are 
not informed.^ 

Gratitude for some fiscal benefit has, after the manner of Anglo- 
Saxon idolatry, preserved the memory of this lady ia a civic puppet- 
show, the particulars of which, not altogether decent, may be sought 
elsewhere. Her personal beauty is also remembered; but her noble 
lineage is buried in antiquity and doubt,^ whilst her intercessory 
cares in the] cause of religion are wholly forgotten. All praise be 
theirs who, living in a barbarous age, have left a name which com- 
mands respect, even when associated with a vulgar and tasteless 
tradition 1 Tenfold honour be to one who, thus distinguished, was 
only a woman I 

The Domesday Hundred of Catinton is not given, but the order 

^ The Annotators giro no other expla- 
nation of the lewua or leuga of Domesday^ 
except that which implies a measure of 
length. It is obvious that, in such 
passages as the above, an areal measure is 
intended by the word which, in default of 
any EngUsh equivalent, I have translated 
league. As the question is one which can 
only be solved by the contextual circum- 
stances under which the word appears in 
Domesdagy I may, for the present, post- 
pone it. 

^ A Godeva is mentioned as holding 
Madeley, in Staffordahire, after the Con- 
quest {Domesday y fo. 249, a. 2), but her 
identity with the Countess seems too 
much to assume at once. 

' The Countess G-odeva is said to have 
been sister of Thorold, Saxon Sheriff of 
Linoolnshire. This statement is rather 
corroborated than contradicted by one or 

two hints of Dotnesdagy and it is clear 
that some such consanguinity conveyed 
to her reputed descendants, the Earls of 
Chester and Lincoln, a considerable inte- 
rest in the latter country. A recent 
publication (The Topogn^her and Gene- 
alogist) commenced with a most able 
article on the old Earldom of Lincoln. 
The writer mentions the Countess Gt)deva 
without directly questioning the tradi- 
tions regarding her ; but, according to 
him, any statement derived from Ingulphus 
and the Croyland Charters, is to be re- 
ceived with suspicion ; moreover, he evi- 
dently intends to exclude Gt>deva from 
the Ancestry of the forementioned Earls. 
For the particulars which Dugdaleadopted 
concerning her, I must refer to his 
Baronage (Vol. i, pp. 9, 10) and History 
of Warwickshire (Vol. i, p. 135 in Thomas* 



of its mention^ the circumstances of its tenure, and its geographical 
position, all combine to fix it in Alnodestreu. 

The Earl holding it in demesne, in 1085, was, as we have seen, 
enabled to grant, about 1086, a third of the tithes of Ceatinton to 
his Collegiate Church of Quatford.^ No subsequent mention has, 
however, occurred of tithe possessed here by the Canons of Bridg- 
north; and, this usual correspondence wanted, we majr be mistaken 
as to the locality of the EarPs grant. 

It was probably after the forfeiture of the Norman Earls, and by 
King Henry I, that Chetton was granted to a subject. 

Who was the original Feoffee we know not, but it was one who 
also had a grant of Great Berwick (near Shrewsbury), from the 
Crown, and of Eudon (afterwards Eudon Bumell), from the ante- 
cessors of Fitz Alan. It is likely that the three grants .were nearly 
contemporary, and it is certain that before King Henry II had 
reigned twelve years the whole^ fief had lapsed to a sole heiress, 
whose Christian name was Damietta. She was ere that time (1166) 
married to Banulf de Broc, a Royal favourite, whose notoriety, 
though great, is little associated with Shropshire. His interest in 
three several Manors demands, however, that some particulars of 
him should be here given. 

He first occurs in Hampshire, where, in the fiscal year, ending 
Michaelmas, 1156, he had been excused 8^. Sd., his qiwta of the 
Danegeld assessable on that County, and also 20s. of the scutage 
levied on the Knights of the confiscated See of Winchester.® In 
each case this acquittance was directed by writ of the King, as also 
was 2s. 9d., his share of a donum contributed by the said County, in 
1158. In the latter year he accoxmts to the Crown 20^. for cen- 
sorship of the B/Oyal Forest of WUingelega, Hampshire. 

It was about this time that Henry II, calling this Ranulf de 
Broc, his Usher and Mareschall (Hostiarium et Marescallum suum) 
and son of Oyn Porcell, granted him a charter^^ which indicates 

7 The probability arises thus : — ^If the 
Norman Earls had granted the Manor, it 
would hardly hare been called ancient 
demesne of the Crown as it afterwards 
was. Stephen's grants of Grown demesne 
were cancelled by Henry II. If the latter 
had first granted the manor, it would 
have stood on the annual accounts of the 
Sheriff, under the title, In terris datia, 

8 JPipe Roll, 2 Hen. II, Hants. 

9 Ibidem, 4. Hen. H. 

^ Hot, Cart. 7 John, memb. 6 recto. 
It is a singular coincidence that Henry II, 
evidently on his succession, expedited a 
Charter to one Badulf FurceU, his Usher, 
of the ministry and land of Bobert 
Bumell, his uncle (avunculi) in England 
and Normandy, of whomsoever held, as 
the said Bobert Bumell enjoyed the same 
in time of King Henry I. (Bymer's 



botli wealth and Royal favour. It confirms to him ^'the whole 
land and office of his father, of whomsoever held, all the land of 
Guldeford which was Reginald de Resting^s, his kinsman, and all 
the land which was Robert Testard's; — also the Magisterial and 
capital Marshalship of the King^s House and Court; — and the 
whole land of Angemar, as Wido his uncle (avunculus) gave and 
conceded it to him, by concession of Nigel de Broc^^ and his 
brethren ; and the land of Piperhergh, as he bought it from Osbert 
de Piperhegh and his heirs, as the Charter of William de Windle- 
sores testifies ; and his land of Tomcumb, as William and Roger 
de Pacey rendered it to him, and as the Charter of Ralph de Faye 
testifies for him; and all other his lands and tenures, be they of 
what fee soever, which he has reasonably purchased.^^ 

The Feodary of 1165 exhibits Ranuff de Broc as holding 1 fee 
at Piperherge under William de Windsor,^* i a fee of the Earl of 
Arundel,^^ and 1 muntator of the Barony of Fitz Alan.^* His 
tenure in capite at Chetton and Berwick is not entered, and a 
Knight's fee held under the Bishop of Winchester, which in time 
of King Henry I. had been William PevereFs, was then said to be 
held by Roland del Broc.^^ 

But Ranulf de Broc acquired his greatest notoriety by the part 
which he took in his Master's contest with Archbishop Thomas 
k Becket. When, about January, 1165, King Henry II had con- 
fiscated the See of Canterbury, and pronounced sentence of banish- 
ment on the Archbishop's ^ndred,-^* he committed the execution 
of his orders to this Ranulf de Broc, who having a previous and 
personal grudge against Becket, took care to discharge the trust 
with every circumstance of cruelty. Nor did his share in the 

FcBdera, toI. i, p. 42). I should have 
concluded Banulf de Broc, son of Oyn 
Porcell, to have been the same with 
Badulf Purcell, but that each is stated to 
have inherited his Court appointment 
from a different source. But the question, 
however interesting, does not appear to 
belong to Shropshire. 

" This Nigel de Broc occurs under 
circumstances of royal favoiur similar to 
Banulf s. In 1158 he was assessed and 
pardoned five shillings, his quota of the 
donum of Salop (Pipe Soil, 4 Hen. II) ; 
but I have no other notice of his interest 

in the County, nor can I surmise where 
it lay. 

w Liber Niger, i, 193, Bucks. 

M Ibidem, p. 65, Sussex. 

" Ibidem, p. 143, Salop. 

" Ibidem, p. 71, Hants. 

" CfMTon, Oervas. p. 1398. Imag, 
Qero. 1314. This expulsion of Becket' s 
kindred was not decided upon from any 
suspicion of their being in correspondence 
with him. The object was to crowd his 
retreat at Pontigny with the woes of 
four hundred exiles. For its success, see 
Lingard's Hist, of Engl., vol. ii, p. 229. 




great contest between Priest and Despot end here. In June^ 1166^ 
when Becket, from the pulpit of Vezelay, launched the thunders of 
the Church against some of Henry's chief ministers^ Ranulf de 
Broc was not forgotten.^^ In a subsequent letter to his Suffiragans^ 
the Archbishop gives the reasons for each sentence of excom-* 
mupication individually.^^ ^'Banulf de Broc had seized and de- 
tained endowments of the Church of Canterbury, which were of 
right the provision of the poor; he had arrested, and was still 
keeping imprisoned, like laymen, the Archbishop's dependants.'' 
The struggle, which lasted for more than four years longer, is 
a subject of too great interest to be epitomized here. — Ranulf de 
Broc still farmed the vacant See of Canterbury, and Becket re« 
mained in exile.^' 

In November 1170 the Atchbishop having been apparently recon- 
ciled to his Sovereign at Amboise, his return to England was accom- 
panied by a significant hint of Henry's insincerity if not of his own 
impending fate. He found the shore at Sandwich occupied by the 
Sheriffs of Kent and Ranulf de Broc, with armed attendants.^^ 
Whatever their designs, a special conference with John of Oxford, 
who escorted Becket on the King's behalf, seemed to change or to 
postpone them. Becket landed on Dec. 1, 1170, without farther 
interruption. Among other things, he brought with him a letter 
of the King to Prince Henry, ordering the adjustment of his claims 
on the hon&ur of Saltwood. Saltwood Castle was then in custody 
of Ranulf de Broc, and remained so for a month longer at least. 
On Dec. 25 (Christmas Day) Becket again excommunicated Ranulf 
de Broc from the pulpit of Canterbury. On the night of December 
the 28th, Saltwood Castle sheltered within its walls four men of 
dark design, who had arrived in haste — from beyond sea — ^from the 
Court of Henry .21 On the morrow these men did a deed before the 
chapel of St. Benedict, in the Cathedral Church of Canterbury, 
whi'ch astonished all Christendom, which annihilated the peace, 
palsied the energies and shook the throne of him for whom it was 
undertaken ; which divested his name of each early and romantic 
association, and left his character for magnanimity a monument of 
the meanest treachery or the weakest passion. 
^This deed, which affected the relations of Church and State in 

17 Biceto, 541. Chron, Oerv. 1402. 
IS Eoveden, 286, a. 

*^ In the fiscal year ending Mich. 1168, 
Eanulf de Broc accounted to the Exche- 

quer for the revenues of the two previous 
years (Madox Exchequer^ 406, q.) 

» Biceto^ 654. Chron, Gerv. 1413. 

21 Gerv, 1414. 



this country^ for centariesj has been called by various names^ and 
among others '^ The Martyrdom of Saint Thomas '' — words which 
imply something of truth and more of opinion. By it were esta- 
blished those principles to which eight years of the victim's life had 
been vainly devoted. Becket murdered was to the Church and 
Priesthood a bulwark of strength, in comparison of which the lordly 
presence, the blameless reputation, the lofty courage, the austere 
devotion, the fiery zeal, the aspiring genius of Becket yet alive, had 
been all as nothing. 

But the greatness of the subject must no longer lead us away 
from our concern with the subordinate actors. Of one of the four 
faithful servants of King Henry we shall have to speak again, and 
in connexion with our local history. We shall show specifically 
in his case that extinction of a line which has been alleged in regard 
both of him and his companions, and which tradition or opinion 
usually inserts among the consequences of foul and murderous 

Banulf de Broc, whatever may have been his complicity in the 
murder of Becket, was not one of the prominent actors. Henry 
could therefore retain him in a position to which the more open 
executors of the royal will are said never to have been recalled. 
At Michaelmas 1171 he had formed under the crown the escheated 
honour of Henry de Essex, some time Constable of England. His 
account of this trust was not, as usual, rendered in detail at the 
Exchequer, but his veredictum thereon was accepted.^ 

In October^ 1173, when the rebel Earl of Leicester landed at 
Walton, in SuflFolk, he first laid siege to Hagenet Castle, which 
Rantdf de Broc then held for the King. The Castellan^s success in 
this service was not so unequivocal as on former occasions. The 
preliminaries, which we may presume to have been settled in mid- 
night council at Saltwood, were probably better suited to his capa- 

^ This passage has not been sent' to the 
press without reperusal. An article 
appeared in the Q^art€rli/ Medew of 
September, 1853, oh the ".Murder of 
Thomas k Becket,'* which has, I beliere, 
attracted, and, I am sure, deserves much 
attention. The main subject will never 
be more fiurlj or ably treated. The 
writer however, probably from want of 
interest in the details of the matter, has 
accepted some second-rate authorities as 

to the subsequent history of Becket's four 
murderers. His notice of William de 
Tracy applies, I believe, to two individuals 
of the same name. The posterity of 
Reginald Fitz Urse continued in England, 
and became demonstrably and utterly ex- 
tinct. His relations with Shropshire and 
Montgomeryshire will bring him appro- 
priately under notice hereafter. 
28 Rot Pip. 17 Hen. II. 



city than matters of open warfare. The Castle of Hagenet was 
taken^ — after however a si^e of four days.^ This mischance does 
not seem to have compromised him with the King; for^ about three 
years later^ when Henry^ then at Bridgnorth^ expedited a Royal 
Charter to Wenlock Priory, Randal Broc was, with other courtiers, 
a witness/*** The time of his death is uncertain, — ^but we have an 
approximate statement on the subject. It has been seen above, 
that in 1165 he held half a knight's fee under the Earl of Arundel. 
This tenure appears as one of sixty solidatea of land in subse- 
quent accounts, rendered whilst the honour of Arundel was in the 
King's hands. Walter, Archbishop of Rouen, who farmed the same 
from September 1180 to Easter 1187, left his account charged 
with 6i years' rent (viz. £J9. \0s.) due to the Crown, and which 
had accrued on the tenement of '* Ranulf de Broc." ^ William 
Rufus accounting, September 1188, for the same /erm, chaises 
\\ year's rent (£4. 10«.) onthelandof JSrumfe^a, against ''Stephen 
de Tumham."^ The latter will presently appear in the succession 
of Ranulf de Broc, — and we may infer that the lapse was coincident 
with the change of fermors of the honour of Arundel,- in other 
words, that Ranulf de Broc died about 1187. 

His issue was five daughters and coheirs; but, as his wife Damietta 
survived him, her inheritance in Shropshire will have suffered no 
partition till her own death in 1204. On August 8 of that year, 
Stephen de Tumham, who had married Edeline, the eldest daughter 
and coheir,, obtained King John's writ to the Sheriff of Southants, 
ordering the said Sheriff to give seizin to '' our faithful Stephen de 
Thornham and Odeline his wife, of the Manor of Prellebi, which 
was Dametta's (mother of the said Odeline), who is dead, whose 
heir she (Odeline) is." A similar precept to the Sheriff t>f Salop 
orders seizin to be given to the same Stephen and Edelina, of the 
Manors of Chedinton, Euden, and Berewic.^® 

The sole heirship of Edelina implied by these writs of King John 
was a fiction, as we shall presently see ; but the work of appropri- 

3* Bromton, 1089. 

^ Moncuticon^ yol. y, p. 73, No 3. 

» Rot Pip, 33 Hen. II. 

27 Mot, Pvp, 34 Hen. II. 

^ Claus. 6 John, 19 recto. The Manor 
of Frelleberi had not however been 
■trictlj Dametta's. It must have been 
her dower out of the lands of Banulf de 

Broc. Its tenure was attached to the 
serjeantry of bemg Usher to the King. 
This service is entered several times in 
the Testa de Nevill, in connexion with 
Frelleberi. In one instance, Stephen de 
Tumham holds the Manor, in another his 
widow, under the name of Edelina de 
Froleberi (Testa de Nevill, 235, 236). 



ation by Stephen de Tumliam was not yet complete. About Dec. 
1205, he offered^^ to King John three palfreys to have the royal 
confirmation of 15 librates of land in Ertendim (Surrey), with the 
Hundred, &c., which he had and held by gift of King Henry II, 
at a fee-farm rent of £15, and by gift of King Richard, at half a 
knight's fee : also, to have the King's confirmation, to him and to 
Edeline his wife, daughter of Ranulf de Broc, of the reasonable 
concession and confirmation which King Henry II made to the 
same Ranulf de Broc, his Usher and Marshall, of all the land and 
ministry of his father, &c. (reciting Henry IPs charter above 

This fine of Stephen de Tumham secured King John's two 
charters dated at Dorchester, Dec. 18, 1205; the first of which 
confirms Ertendun to Stephen de Turnham, the King's Marshall, 
and his heirs, while the second recites Henry II's charter to Ranulf 
de Broc, and confirms it to Stephen de Tumham and Edeline his 
wife, daughter of said Ranulf, and their heirs. 

King John moreover takes into his hand, custody, and protection, 
both the grantees, their lands, tenures, and effects.^^ 

It will be observed that the last charter does not call Edelina the 
heir of Ranulf de Broc, though it substantially ignores the claims 
of any coheirs. 

At this period then (Dec. 1205) Stephen de Tumham, of whom 
singly I must speak elsewhere, had engrossed in right of his wife, 
the whole inheritance both of her father and mother. 

.This appropriation did not remain long unquestioned, for, within 
two years, Sibil de Broc was a suitor against Stephen de Tumham 
and Edeline his wiTe (Sibil's sister) for her share of the inheritances 
of Ranulf de Broc and of Dametta, father and mother of Sibil and 
Edeline. The parties came to a final concord in the King's Court 
at Winchester, in the ninth year of John (1207-8), and thereby 
Stephen and Edeline conceded to Sibil the Manor of Chedinton, 
of the inheritance of Dametta.*^ It must here be stated that no 

® Rot. Fin. 7 John, memb. 7 recto. 

* Rot Cart. 7 John, memb. 6 recto. 

^ See these proceedings recited in the 
Plea Rolls of Mich. Term, 3 Hen. Ill, 
(memb. 14 dorso) and Hilary Term, 
7 Hen. Ill (memb. 12 dorso). The 
error of calling Banulf de Broc's wife (in 
one instance) Dametta de Tumham is too 
obvious to be inserted iu the text. I may 

further state that in arranging these 
records so as to furnish an intelligible 
narrative, many such errors have been 
corrected. The intricacy of the cases, 
and the number of names involyed, 
naturally perplexed the Clerk who took 
the minutes of each trial during its pro- 
gress. (See Sir F. Falgrave's Introduction 
to the " Cturia Regis " Rolls^ page v.) 


chirograph of this fine is preserved^ and that Sibil de Broc aftet'^ 
wards denied it. Such denial^ however^ I think^ was rather in the 
way of exception taken to its details than an absolute ayermentthat 
no fine whatever had been levied. At aU events Sibil de Broc 
became about this time seized of Chetton^ unless indeed a circum^ 
stance which I have now to notice arose from some continued liti- 
gation and uncertainty. The Testa de Nevill and the Red Book of 
ihe Exchequer supply us with several documents purporting to 
contain full particulars of every tenancy in capite in this County. 
These Bolls vary little firom each other^ are nearly cotemporary^ and 
may collectively be dated of the year 1211. Not one of them 
contains any entry which I can associate with Chetton^ except that 
Stephen de Tumham is said to hold lands of 100^. annual value by 
unknown service.^^ This may or may not have included Chettouy 
but I incline to refer it to Berwick only^ which he held at the timo 
and transmitted to his posterity. 

Before March^ 1214^ Stephen de Tumham was dead^^ leaving 
his widow Edeline surviving^ and five daughters and co-heirs. 

Edelina^ after her husband^s deaths appears still in litigation with 
her sister Sibil^ as also in the exercise of a power which she could 
only claim in virtue of some asserted interest at Chetton. 

The Advowson of Chetton she included in her grant** to Lille- 
shuU Abbey^ and though the act was nugatory^ it well illustrates the 
hints we have of protracted litigation between the sisters. 

In Michaelmas Term, 1219, Edelina de Broc (thus called by her 
maiden name in her widowhood) sued Sibil de Broc for not keeping 
the fine above alluded to as having been made in King John's 
reign. Sibil did not appear, and she, with her sureties (viz., Andrew 
de Mora and William de Criddon), were summoned for the quinzaine 
of St. Hilary, 1220.»6 

In that term, the hearing was adjourned to three weeks of 
Easter,** of which term we have no record. 

In Trinity Term, however, the cause was still unheard, and owing 
to Sibil's non-appearance, she and her first sureties were declared 
in misericordia ; and she was attached by better sureties, viz., 
Thomas de Chetinton and Hugh de Hollicot.*^ 

^ Testa de Nemll^ p. 55. 

w Clam, i, 141. 

s* EcmtL MS8. 2060— corrected by 
Dodsworth, vol. 110. 

» JPlacita a^ Westm, 3 Hen. Ill, 
\4t dorso. 

* Fladta apud Westm, HilL Term, 
4 Hen. Ill, memb. 5 dorso. 

^ I*lacita apud Westm, Trin. Term, 
4 Hen. Ill, memb. 15 dorso. 



We hear no more of this suit, and it was in all probability put an 
end to by the death of Edelina, the Plaintiff, which must have takw 
place about this period. Of the five daughters and heirs of herself 
and Stephen de Tumham, the one most necessary to be mentioned 
here is Eleanor, who, having been wife of Roger de Leyboum, was 
also dead befi)re November, 1221, leaving the said Roger generally 
interested in her share of her father and mother's inheritance, and 
specially in the Manor of Berwick. Now again we shall hear of 
continued litigation, and of other daughters and co-heirs of BanuLf 
de Broc, besides Sibil and Edeline. — 

At Salop Assizes, Nov. 1221/^ William de Tatelinton and Clemence 
his wife, with Sibil (de Broc) Clemence's sister, sued Roger de 
Leybum for the Manor of Berewic " as their right and inheritance, 
whereof Damota their mother was seized, as of fee and right, in 
demesne, in time of King Richard ^' (1189-1199). 

Roger de Leybum appeared and pleaded that they (Clemence and 
Sibil) " had another sister Lucy, of whom was no mention made in 
their writ, and therefore he was not wiUing to answer them unless 
the Court decided that he should/' The plaintiffs hereupon ac- 
knowledged that they had a third sister Lucy, but pleaded that she 
had no concern in the present matter inasmuch as a final concord 
had been made in the King's Court between themselves and her. 

Upon this the defendant pleaded that they had yet another sister 
Felicia who was wife of Michael de Wancy,^^ which Felicia had had 
two daughters, nieces of Clemence and Sibil, and that these 
two daughters had just as much right in the premises as their 
aunts, and that, they not being mentioned in the writ, he 
declines answering except under direction of the Court* Here 
again the plaintiffs acknowledged that they had had ^ sister 
Felicia, and she had had daughters, but stated that she (Felicia) 
had received her share, and that her daughters considered them- 
selves paid their portion of their mother's inheritance, to wit, of 
the land which was given in marriage with Felicia; and further 
they said that this Manor (Berwick) was assigned to themselves 
(Clemence and Sibil) towards, their portion. The Court reserved 

^ Salop AssizeSy 6 H^. Ill, memb. 1 
cLorso. At these same Assizes the Stottes* 
den Jurors returned Sibil del Broc as 
being in the King's gift and her land in 
that Hundred worth 12 shillings per 
annum (memb. 9 recto). 

® This plea of Boger de Ley bum's was 

incorrect in certain particulars, which did 
not however affect its spirit. Felicia had 
not been wife of Michael de Wancy, but 
of William Hareng. One of her daughters 
it was who married Nicholas (not Michael) 
de Wancy. 



its judgment till the octaves of Hilary (Jan. 20) at Westminster, 
when and where were to be in attendance Nicholas de Wauncy 
and Felicia his wife, the niece of the plalntifis, also William 
M aubanc and Lucy his wife, sister of the plaintiffs, to show any 
claim which they might have in the premises sought by the 
plaintiffs. And William Maubanc and Lucy were to be summoned 
in the County of Surrey, the others in Sussex. The reason why 
Emma, Felicia^s sister (the other niece) was not summoned appears 
in a notice stating that she was dead. 

The whole concludes with a nomination of their attorneys by the 
two plaintifib. Sibil named Gervase de Wauton, Clemence named 
her husband, WiQiam de Tatlington. 

The records of Hilary Term 1222 are lost, but the cause was not 
then settled. In February 1223 it had another hearing, or rather 
was tried at Westminster with additional plaintiffs.*® 

In this case William de Themton (Tatlington) and Elena 
(Clemencia) his wife, Sibilla del Hoc (Broc) Peter de Hatot 
(Hotoft) and Felicia Harang (thus called by her maiden name) 
seek against Roger de Lebum the Manor of Berwic as the right 
of Elena (Clemencia) Sibil, Peter and Felicia, whereof Damietta, 
mother of SibU and Felicia (Clemencia), and grandmother*^ of 
Elena (Felicia) and Peter, was seized in demesne, &c. 

Eoger de Leybum now appeared and pleaded the fine of the 9th 
of John as a settlement of the question, so far as Sibil de Broc was 
concerned, she having by that fine obtained the Manor of Chedinton 
as her share of Dametta^s inheritance. Against the others he said 
that the heirs of Stephen de Tumham ought to be his warranty 
and to warranty he called them, viz. Thomas de Bavelingham and 

Matilda his wife, Adam de Bending and Alice his wife 

de Faye and Katherine (Beatrice) his wife, Ralph Fitz Bernard and 
Eleanor his wife. The trial was adjourned to the (^uinzaine of 
Michaelmas and " Sibil de Broc renounces (dedicit) lAie^cyrog^raph " 
(the fine of 9 John) . 

In some Michaelmas Term subsequent to this, but probably that 
of 1223, an essoign-roU gives Felicia Harang essoigning herself 
versus Roger de Leybum, in a plea of land, by WiUiam Hareng. 
The cause was adjourned to the morrow of the Purification (pro- 
bably Feb. 3, 1224). The same day was given to Clemence ^and 

*> Plae. apud Weatm, Hil. Term, 7 
Hen. III. 

^ Damietta was great grandmother of 



William * * * *^ and to Thomas de Buckingham (Bavelingham) 
and Mabil (Matilda) his wife, and to Beatrice de Say (Fay) ; to 
Adam de Bending and Alice his wife, and to Richard Fitz B "**" * * 
(Ralph Fitz Bernard) as custos of his daughter; and lastly to 
Peter de Hotot (Hotoft) .*» 

In Hilary Term, 1225, Beatrice de Fay occurs as naming an 
attorney in her suit against Roger de Leybum about a plea of 
warranty.*^ This would make it appear that the parties called to 
warranty by Roger de Leyburn were not all ready to vouch such 
warranty; but the cross suits between the heirs of Broc and the 
heirs of Tumham, and between the latter, as among themselves, 
become so indistinguishable at this period, and the records so 
broken and imperfect, that I must needs continue the subject 
with much uncertainty. 

In Trinity Term, 1233, Roger de Lebum essoigns himself v^r^t^^ 
Hugh de HoviU, and Beatrice his wife (heretofore Beatrice de Faye) 
and versus John, son of Ralph Fitz Bernard, and others, in 2iplea 
of land. The adjournment is to the morrow of St. Martin (Nov. 12, 

But previous to the latter day, viz., on the guinzmne of St. Michael 
(Oct. 13), 1233, a farther day was given to Hugh de Neovill and 
Beatrice his wife, to William Branche and Johanna his wife, plain- 
tiffs, and to Roger de Lebum in a plea of land. The day given 
was in one month of Hilary (1234) ,^ 

On Feb. 3, 1237, the attorney of Sibil de Brok versus Roger de 
Lebum has essoign till the quinzaine of the Holy Trinity.*^ Here 
Sibil was probably defendant. 

Most of this, though it has to do with the Lady of Chetton, 
relates to her interests elsewhere. We will now revert to our more 
immediate subject. 

^ The Boll from which I quote is dated 
of Trinity Term 5 John, and the first 
membranes may belong to that term. The 
abore, which is on the dorse of the six- 
teenth membrane, as well as some other 
portions of the Eoll, haye been attached 
to it without any care or reason. They 
belong to other Bolls and terms, and 
must, now that they are misplaced, be 
dated by their internal eyidence. 

« Plac, apud JFest,, HiL Term, 9 Hen. 
ni, memb. 6 recto. 

^ This Boll is dated as of the seven- 
teenth year of John. It is fragmentary, 
but the earlier membranes belong appa- 
rently to the serenteenth of Hen. in, 
and the later ones to the eighteenth of 
Henry III* The aboye is on membrane 
1 recto. 

^ Floe, ttpvd WeHm., Mich. Term, 
17 and 18 Hen. m, memb. 12 dorso. 

^ Eaaon, apud Westm,y Hil. Term, 
21 Hen. Ill, memb. 8 dorso 




On Nov. 8^ 1224^ a fine was levied at Westminster between 
Sibil de Broc^ complainant (petentem)^ and Alan^ Abbot of Lilles- 
huU^ deforciant^ of the advowson of Chetton^ whereof was assize of 
darrein presentment. The Abbot acknowledged the right of Sibil, 
and quit-claimed for ever to her and her heirs.*^ The Abbotts 
claim of course arose from the grant of Edelina de Tumham, 
Sibil's sister^ which has been mentioned above^ and was apparently 
quite beyond the grantor's powers. 

About 1225, Sibil de Broc granted Chetton Mill, worth two 
merks yearly, to the Nuns of Brewood.*® 

She must have lived to a great age, her father and mother 
having been married previous to 1166,^' the former also dying 
about 1187, and yet Sibil surviving in 1253. She (Sibil), was some 
time married, viz., to William de Arundel ; but she left no issue, 
neither does her name occur during the period of her coverture. 
She seems to have died about Nov. 10, 1253, having in that year 
made certain grants to the Church of Chetton, which shall be 
noticed presently. On her death the same confusion arose as to her 
succession as had encuml)ered her heritage whilst living. 

On July 7, 1254, a Jury, empanelled to give account of her 
possessions and heirs, reported, that she had two sisters older than 
herself, Edelina the eldest and Clemence the youngest, — that Ede- 
lina had three daughters, married in Sussex, — that John de Wauncye 
was kin to one of these daughters, John de Bending to another, 
and Peter de Hautot to the third (where the confusion between the 
issue of one of Edelina's sisters and her daughters is obvious). Of 
Clemence, they said, that "she had four sons, viz. Auger, of whom she 
was pregnant when William de Maleseveres, formerly her husband, 
espoused her, and three others begotten in lawful wedlock, viz. 
Hamon the eldest, who, before his decease, begat William, Simon, 
and Alexander.'^ ^^ 

In 1255, the Stottesden Jurors said of Chetyton that it was in 
the King's hands, Stephen de Buterleg holding it in the King's 
name till it be determined who was next heir; and he (Stephen) 
answered at the Exchequer for the income, viz. £12. 2^. 6d. per 

*7 Pedes flnmm, 9 Hen. Ill, Salop. 

« £ot. Sund, ii, 83. The Taxation of 
1291, shows that this grant was to the 
Black Nuns of Brewood, and gires its 
Talue as 16«. per annum {Nio, Tax, page 

^ It is probable that this marriage 
took place during the extreme youth of 
the mother, a usual circumstance in the 
case of an heiress. 

^ InquuUions, 38 Hen. Ill, No. 45. 



annum ; and it fell into the Song's hand in the feast of St. Martin^ 
in his thirty-eighth year. It contained a hide and half, and should 
be held of the King in capite. It owed suit to the Sheriflf 's toum 
twice a year^ but did no suit to the lesser Hundred or County 
Courts, nor gave stretward, nor motfee, the Jurors knew not by 
what warrant. The san^e Jurors reported the various elemosynary 
grants which Sibil de Broc had made out of this Manor, and the 
loss which resulted to the Crown in consequence.^^ 

The report of this Jury is an appropriate comment on the inaccu- 
racies of the post mortem inquisition above quoted. Apother such 
Inquisition was ordered by the Crown, and made its report on 
7 Feb. 1256. Calling the deceased " Isabella'' de Broc, the 
Jurors said that "the service due to the Crown from Chetton was 
that of one man in North Wales, — ^that Sibilla left no heir, but 
three sisters. Of these the Jury knew not whether Odelina had any 
heir; Alicia had two daughters, Emma and Felicia; Emma had 
one son, Peter de Hamtoft; Felicia had one son, Nicholas de 
Wancy. Clemence (the third sister of Sibil) had one son, viz. 
Auger de Tatlinton. These three (viz. Peter de Hamtoft, Nicholas 

de Wancy, and Auger de Tatlinton) were heirs of Sibil, and were 
of full age.'' 52 

Neither does this return seem to have been satisfactory,— for, on 
16 June following, a third Jury made its report, viz., that Sibil's 
three sisters were Edelina, formerly wife of Stephen de Tumham ; 
Alice, of WiUiam Harang ; Clemence, of William Malesoveres. 
Alice had two daughters : Emmia, the eldest, of whom was bom 
Peter de Hotoft; Felicia, the youngest, who was mother of Nicholas 
de Wancy. Clemence's first-bom son was Auger de Tatlinton. 
The said Peter, Nicholas, and Auger were of full age. Of the age 
of Edelina the Jurors knew nothing;^ nor indeed were they 
likely, seeing that she had been dead thirty years. Except that the 
name of Sibil's sister Felicia is written Alicia in these returns, I 
see no reason to question their correctness. Lucy, Sibil's fourth 
sister, once wife of William de Maubanc is not mentioned, probably 
as having deceased without issue. 

It appears that the doubts about the heirship of Sibil de Broc 
were settled very shortly after this. The King allowed livery of 

" Sat. Smd, ii, 82, 83. 
'3 Ing[iU9, pott mortemy 40 Hen. Ill, 
No. 40. 

^ Inquis, post mortem^ 40 Hen. Ill, 
No. 40 (memb. 2.) 



one-third of Chetton to Auger de Tatlinton, as son and' heir of 
Clemence de Broc: another third went between Nicholas de 
Wancy and Robert de Hotoft^ as heirs of Alice (alias Felicia) de 
Broc. The heirs of Edelina de Broc not coming forward to claim 
the other third the King retained it himself^ and with it the capital' 
messuage and advowson of the Church.^ . 

On the death of the then Incumbent^ the King proposing to 
nominate his successor, was resisted by Auger de Tatlinton. Upon 
this the latter was sued by the Crown, in a ^'plea that he should 
allow the King to present/' The cause was heard at Westmin- 
ster in Easter Term, 1260, and ended in Auger conceding, as 
far as he was concerned, the right to the King, bu tonly hdc vice. 
The King had thereupon a writ of the Justices to the Bishop of 

Following the history of the third of Chetton thus retained by 
the King, we find it six yearsafterwardsgrantedtoBobert Corbet, of* 
Chaddesley, in fee, with a third only of the Advowson. The King's 
charter is dated at Kemlworth, on 25 August, 1266, and is exprei»ed 
to be in reward of faithful services.^ The time and place make the 
nature of these services sufficiently obvious. 

Within four years of this time Bobert Corbet was dead, having 
however obtained possession (according to one account) of the other 
two-thirds of Chetton, and certainly having disposed of all interest 
derived under the Kii^g's grant in muW folbwing :-Ab Bobert 
Corbet, Lord of Chetynton, he grants to Sir Bobert Bumel 1 acre 
in his demesne in Chetynton, and the advowson of the Church, as 
far as it belonged to him, and the homage of Hugh de Holycote. 
For this Bobert Bumel was to pay 1^. yearly in the Church of 
Chetynton. — The witnesses were : Sirs Hugh de Mortim^, Balph 
de Arraz, Thomas Boterel, and Adam de Montgomery, Knights ; 
also Adam de St. George, Alan de Glazeley, Hugh de Chinezeleye 
(Kinslow), Adam de Fayntre, and Balph Sprenchose.^^ 

^ Plac. apud Wegtm.^ Easter Tenn, 44 
Hen. m, memb. 19 recto. This record 
is again full of scribal errors, such as call- 
ing Chetton ** Tatlington/' Clementia 
** Juliana,*' both which errors it corrects 
for itself. Whether Alice de Broc and 
Bobert de Hotoft be rightly named is a 

" Ibidem. 

«« Eot. Pai, 60 Hen. Ill, sub die. Bjit 

Bobert Corbet had had a prerious interest 
here, probably by purchase from one of 
the other tenants. In Febmary, 1262, he 
fined 8«. with the Justices of the Forest 
for one and a half acres taken into the 
the King's hand, which he had recently 
assarted in Chetinton without warrant. 
{Plac, Forest. 46 Hen. m, memb. 6 
^7 Bat. CaH,^ 54 Hen. Ill, memb. 6. 


As Robert Corbet of Cbeddesle, he farther granted to William^ 
son of William Corbet^ his nephew, his land with the capital mes- 
suage in Chetynton (except half an acre and one-third the Advowson 
of the Church which he had granted to Sir Robert Bumel), to wit, 
one-third the said Manor which King Henry, son of John, had given 
him. To have and to hold of the King, &c, — ^The witnesses were : 
Sirs Henry and Hugh de Mortimer, Ralph de Arraz, Adam de 
Elmbrugg, Knights ; also Alan de Olazeley, William de Herwinton, 
and Richard de Muntvyron.^® 

On the death of this Robert Corbet previous to Jan. 7, 1270, 
William, his said nephew, represented to the King that, whereas his 
uncle had enfeoffed him, one month before his decease, not only in 
the third which he had from the King, but also in the other two- 
thirds, which said Robert possessed, and all which William and his 
heirs were to hold of the King in capite, and had held for a month 
before Robert Corbet's death, now the King's sub-escheator for 
Salop had ejected said William and still retained the premises.^^ 

Hereupon the King's writ, of the last date, issued to the escheator 
dtra Trent to inquire the particulars by Jury, and further whether 
Robert Corbet were illegitimate and died without heir, and whether 
the Advowson belonged to the King. 

The Jury met at Chetton on 26th January next and reported that 
Robert Corbet enfeoffed his nephew in one- third of the Manor, and 
did not die seized thereof, that he (Robert) was illegitimate, died 
without heir, and could well give feoffinent ; that the Advowson was 
Robert Bumell's, to whom Robert Corbet had sold it. 

Again on the 22d of February 1270, the King's certificate issued . 
to the escheator, to say that, in consequence of this inquest, he had 
taken the homage of William Corbet for one-third of Chetton, 
saving the right of any claimant (which indeed was a reservation 
in the original grant to Robert Corbet), and saving the service due 
to the Crown. The escheator is to take security for the said" service 
and for his relief if any be due, and then give hiTn seizin of the 
said third.^ 

On the 12th of May and 28th of June following, the King 
inspected and confirmed by Royal Charter the two grants which 
Robert Corbet had made to William Corbet and to Robert Bumel 


Sot, Cart,^ 64i Hen. Ill, memb. 9. 
^ Inq. post mortem, 54 Hen. Ill, 
No. 53. 

^ FimSf 64 Hen. Ill, memb. 14. 
61 Mot, Core., 54 Hen. Ill, meaph, 9 
and 6. 


At Salop Ajssizes, September^ 1272^ the Stottesden Jurors reported 
that one-third of Chetiton had been on escheat of the King, that 
the King gave it to Robert Corbet and he to William Corbet.** 

On Nov. 27, 1274, a similar jnry said that William Corbet held 
the Manor of Chetiton of the King in capUe, by service of finding 
one footman with a bow and arrows to go with the King, whenever 
he shall decree to make war, into Wales, and to stay there till he 
has shot away his arrows.*' 

Preparatory to the muster at Worcester, against Lewelin, 6 July, 
1277^ William Corbet acknowledged his service due, viz., to find one 
man who was to take with him a gammon of bacon and to stay (in 
Wales) till he had eaten it up. John de Hull was to perform the 

In 1283, the King's escheator citra Trent is ordered to seize into 

the King's hand &c., the lands &c., of which William Corbet had 
died seized.**^ 

Aug. 22, 1283, an inquest held at Chettington on the death of 
William Corbet, reported that ^^he held in capUe of the King a 
messuage, garden, &;c. in Chetington ; and also two-thirds of two 
carrucates of land in demesne ; that Sir Soger Corbet was his next 
heir and of fuU age: also that the said tenure was by seijeantry of 
"doing service of^one footmau in the King's amy, wS itlall 
have happened that there be war between the King and the 
Prince of Wales, at the cost of the said William, till the same 
footman shall have consumed half a swine (baconem) in the same 
expedition.'' ** 

In 1284, Roger Corbet holding the Manor in capite, the outfit of 
his deputy is more fiilly described.*^ — 

The man was to take 1 bow, 3 arrows, and a caltrop,^ and also 
a cured hog, and, when he reached the Kong's army, he was to deliver 
to the King's Marshal half thereof and the Marshal was to give 
him daily of the said half bacon for his dinner, as long as he staid 
in the army, and he was to stay with the army as long as the hog 

In 1829 or 1290 the escheator is ordered to seize the lands of 

^ Assize Roily 66 Hen. Ill, memb. 49 

« Eot mmd., ii, 108. 
•* ParUamentaiy WriU, vol. i> p. 208. 
« Ori^finalia, 11 Edw, I, Sot, IB. 
^ mortem^ 11 Edw. I, No. 103. 
^ Kvrh^s Quest, 

^ The word here used is terpolua; bui 
tribuUu again under the entry of 1292. 
The mode in which a competent service 
was exacted from the King's tenant at 
Chetton, however extraordinary, becomes 
intelligible by this entry. 



Robert Corbet deceased ;^^ and in 1290 the inquest on his death 
reported his interest in Chetidone J^ He left a son, William, who, 
in October 1292, was still a minor and in ward to Fulco de Lucy. 
The service due on Chetton is described nearly as before J^ At the 
same time Nesta Lady of Chetton (Roger Corbet^s widow) held 
land there to the value of 48*. lOrf., of the inheritance of William 
Corbet, and she was in the King^s gift, but married to Thomas de 
Roshal, the jury knew not by what warrant. The Sherifif being 
ordered to summon the said Thomas and Nesta, the former appears 
and (apparently) states that the King at request of Robert de Val 
had allowed Nesta (her right of remarriage, I presume) P 

In March 1316, the said William Corbet appears as Lord of 


A tenure here, probably under the Lords of Chetton, occurs from 
an early period. 

In November 1194 an assize of mort d^ancestre stood for hearing 
in the Courts at Westminster, wherein Hugh de Holocote was 
plaintiff against Adam de Hereford. The latter, being beyond sea, 
in Ireland, had essoign by Yvo Walensis. The Recognizers of this 
Assize, who also essoigned themselves, and their Essoigners were as 
follows : — 

Stephen de Middelton by Adam de Middleton. 

Warin de Middelton by Roger Fitz Edwin. 

Hugo de Hupton by Richard Fitz Rc^er. 

Robert de Fagnotre by William Fitz Richard. 

Robert Walensis by Walter Chordiwan. 

Philip de Pharlawe (Farlow) by Rog. Fitz Siward, and — 

Walter Hachet (of WheathiU) V Richard de Gorewelle.^* 

In 1220, we have already had Hugh de Hollicot as a surety of 
Sibil de Broc, Lady of Chetton.75 

In 1255,7« and again in January 1256, Hugh de Holocote sat as 
a juror of the Hundred of Stottesden.77 

^ Oriffinalia, vol. i, p. 64. 
7^ Calendar JSschaetarum, i, 101. 
71 Placita CorofUBy Salop, 20 Edw. I, 
memb. 20 recto. 

^ The record is torn and defeced. 

73 Pwrl. Writs, iv, 398. 

74 Sot CuruB Segis, i, 123. 

75 Vide supra, page 172. 

76 Uot mmd, ii, 81. 

77 Salop AmzeSy 40 Hen. III. 



About 1268, Robert Corbet's grant in Chetton to Robert Bumell 
included tbe homage of Hugb de Holyeote. 

Jan. 26, 1270, Hugh de Holicottwas a Juror in the inquest as to 
the estate of Robert Corbet of ChettonJ® 

In Sept. 1272, he was reported as making default in due 
attendance at Salop Assizes.^^ 

An extract from a deed of about this period gives as witnesses 
GteoflBry de Criddon and Hugh de Holicote his son. If this be 
correct, Hugh de Holicote must have been husband of Sibil, 
daughter and sole heir of OteoSry de Criddon ; and further he will 
have been dead in 1274 when the said Sibil had remarried.^ 

June 23, 1297, William Hobald, of the Mill, grants to William 
his son and Mabil his (son's) wife, and heirs of their bodies, all the 
land of Alan at Holyeote, with a messuage in the same, of which 
Sir Roger de Holyeote had eitfeoffedthe grantor. To hold of Hugh 
de Holyeote the chief Lord of the fee. In default of such heirs the 
premises are to revert to the grantor. — ^Witnesses : John Lord of 
Upton, Coroner, Wydo de Glaseleg, William de Mora, William son 
of Hawys de Westode (Westwood), John de Aldebur (Oldbury). 
Dated at Holyeote on Sunday in the Vigil of St. John the Baptist, 
25 of King Edward.^^ An extract from a deed similarly dated and 
attested and by the same grantor, gives Matilda as the name of the 
son's wife, and conveys a mill and messuage in Holyeote to be held 
of Boger Lord of Holyeote.®^ 

On the whole I conclude that Hugh, Lord of HoUicott in 1270, 
was succeeded by Roger, and he by another Hugh previous to 


In the same interval one Richard de Holyeote appears as husband 
of Clemence, daughter and coheiress of Adam de Faintree.^ 

The family of Hubold or Hobald had more than one branch and 
interest in this neighbourhood. The adjunct ^^de Molendino^' 
used by the above grantor was to distinguish himself from a con- 
temporary William Hobaud, of Harpesford (Harpswood) . 

7B InquisUumSy 54 Henry m. No. 53. 

^ Assizes, 56 Hen. Ill, Stottesden 

» BlakewayMSS. 

31 Charter at Aplej Park. WiUiam 
Hubaud de Holyno had served on the 
Stotteeden Jury at Salop A^Bizes, October 
1292 (FUc, Corona, memb. 51 recto). 

« Blakeway M88, in BlbL BodL Pa- 
rochial Hist. vol. L Tit. Eudon Bumell. 
The manifest inaccuracy of this extract 
may be an excuse for the diffidence with 
which I haye aboye quoted a similarly 
authorized deed. 

» Vide supra, p. 162. 



The existeuce of a Church here in 1086 and some early notices of 
the Advowson thereof, have already been set forth. About 1253, 
Sibil de Broc gave a virgate of land, worth 16«. per annum, to the 
Parson of the Church of Chetyton in pure and perpetual alms, to 
find a Chaplain to sing the mass of Saint Mary.®* She also gave 
about the same time to the same Church an acre of land and a fish- 
pond (servarium), which were of 6 pence annual value. 

In 1291, the Church of Chetynton with the Chapel of Lustone 
(Loughton) is returned as annuaUy worth £16. The Rector of 
Conede (Cound) had a portion therein worth 4*. per annum. The 
Abbot of Wigmore is also said to have had a portion of 10s. therein.®^ 
However, in 1341, the taxation of the Church is stated at £16. 4^., 
the Abbot of Wigmore's portion being excluded. 

At this time the Assessors rendered account of £7. 4^. 4^. as the 
value of the ninth of wheat, wool, and lamb in the parish. The 
difference between this sum and the Church taxation arose thus : — 
Three carrucates and three virgates of land lay untilled from the 
poverty of the tenants : the estate (fundus) of the Church with its 
rents and lands annexed were worth 29«. ; the tithe of hay was 
13*. 4rf. ; the small tithes, offerings, and other profits were worth 
13*. 4rf., afi by inquisition had been determined &c.8« 

In 1534, the Rectory of Chetton, then held by Humphrey Bumell, 
was worth, in glebe and great and small tithes, £13. in gross. The 
charges on this sum were Procurations 7*, Sd, ; Bishop's triennial 
visitation 17s. 9d.; the Abbot of Wigmcwe's pension 10*. ; and the 
Rector of Counde's pension (here stated at) 5*. So that the net 
value was £10. 19*. 7d.^ 

The Rector of Cound had also pensions in the Churches of 
Easthope and Acton-Round. I can only account for this in one 
way, viz. that when the Church of Cound was founded, the founder 
(probably a Fitz Alan or some predecessor of that house) endowed 
it with tithes in several quarters, viz. in Easthope, Acton Round, 
Eudon (Bumell), and perhaps Criddon. The tithes of the last two 
may afterwards have been made over to the Rector of Chetton in 

^ Sot Smd. ii, 88. 

» Pope Nich. Tax, p. 166, (Deanery of 
Stottesden). The Chapelry of Loughton 
is still subject to Chetton Church. 

* Inq. Nonarum, p. 190. 
87 Fafor. JSfccfo». iii, 211. 



lieu of an annual pension payable by him to the Rector of Cound. 
Similarly the Abbot of Wigmore's pension may have been a com- 
position in lieu of tithes ; those of Eudon George perhaps. The 
early subjection of Loughton Chapelry to Chetton is a matter on 
which I will not attempt a conjecture. 


The first Rector of Chetton, of whom we have record, was that 
Richard Folyott, who, having been presented by Sibil de Broc before 
1255, was dead in 1260, when the King, after a law-suit with Auger 
de Tatlinton, had the next presentation.®® 

A vacancy again occurred in the year 1278, previous to which, as 
we have already seen, Robert Bumell had become the Patron.®® 
His career is well known, and that he became Bishop of Bath and 
Wells in 1274. 

On occasion of the vacancy of this Church in 1278,^ Master 
Ralph de Witham, Archdeacon of Bath, writes to the Bishop of 
Hereford (Thomas de Cantilupe) in behalf of Philip Bumell. The 
Bishop suspends the matter, on account of the absence of the 
presentee, and grants that no time shall run against him, if only the 
Church be properly served. On July 22, 1278, the same Bishop 
commits custody of the Church to Sir Richard, Parish Priest of 
Chetton, till the feast of AU Saints (Nov. 1), in the name of Philip 
Bumell, Clerk. 

On October 29, 1278, the same Bishop grants letters dimissory, 
pro hac vice only, to the Bishop of Bath and WeUs, to take order 
about Philip BumelVs admission to this Rectory. The Patron 
named is Sir Hugh Bumell. 

May 27, 1279, Sir Malcolm, Canon of Wells, is instituted, on 
presentation of Sir Hugh Bm*nell. 

Aug. 19, 1284, Sir Nicholas de Hereford, Canon of Hereford, is 
instituted, on the same presentation. 

Dec. 21, 1285, Roger de Lectone is instituted, on the same 

30 Ed. I (1301-2), Maurice de Pissatowas presented by the Crown, 
in right of the guardianship of Philip Bumel.*^ 

» Supra, p. 178. 
» Supra, p. 179. 

^ Hereford RegitUr (Blakeway MSS. 
in BibL BodL). 
» Rot Pat, 30 Bdw. I, memb. 27. 




The Saxon bun (a hill or down) is undoubtedly the last syllable 
of Eudon. Looking consequently for a Saxon original of the first 
syllable we hesitate according ta the different ways in which the 
word has been spelt. If the Domesday orthography (Eldone) were 
the most authentic^ we should at once adopt the Saxon M\b or Ealb 
(old, ancient) as the said first syllable. But the Domesday form is 
a solecism, and uniform custom, as well as local pronunciation, point 
out Eudon as the truer name. If so its more probable component 
will have been the Saxon word 6opu (genitive, 6ope an ewe), or else 
Gop (the wild ash). 

Domesday''p.o^CG& the Manor thus :^ — 

The same Rainald (Vicecomes) holds (of the Earl) Eldone. 
udBluuard held it and was a &ee man. Here are ii hides geldable. 
In demesne are iii ox-teams ; and there are vi serfs, i villain, v boors, 
and I Frenchman,rwith ii ox-teams: There is wood for (fattening) 
LX swine. It was worth xxx shillings. Now it is worth xl shillings. 

uiElward the Saxon Lord of Oldbuiry and Glazeley in this Hundred 
has occurred before. 

Under Chetton we have surmised the early feoffinent, by Rainald 
or his successors, of that feudatory whose eventual representative 
was Damietta, wife of Ranulf de Broc. 

Accordingly in 1165, Ranulf de Broc appears as holding under 
Pitz Alan, by service of 1 muntator, of old feoflinent, which shows 
that the grant to his wife's ancestors was previous to the death of 
Henry I.^ 

We have recounted the deaths of Ranulf de Broc about 1187, and 
of Damietta, his widow, about 1204. On August 8 of the latter 
year, we have seen King John ordering the Sheriff of Shropshire to 
give seizin of Euden to Edelina, wife of Stephen de Tumham, as if 
daughter and sole heir of the said Damietta. We have fiirther 

' Domesday^ fo. 255 a. 2. ^ Liber Niger, i, 148. 


detailed the perennial litigation which followed this unjust distri- 
bution of an estate to which there were five co-heiresses. 

How or when Clemenoe^ one of the said coheirs^ recovered Eudon 
as her share^ and conveyed it to her husband William de Malesoures^ 
we are not informed. 

At Salop Assizes^ November^ 1221^ William Malesoures appears 
as a juror on a Great Assize,^ a circumstance which indicates such 
position in the County as can alone be ascribed to his previous seizin 
of his wife's inheritance. Also at the same Assizes/ though under 
his other name (William de Tatelinton)^ he appears with Clemence 
his wife^ and Sibil her sister^ in a suit against their nephew, Roger 
de Leybum, wherein Berwick was claimed by the plaintiffs. William 
de Tatlinton appears again in this suit in February, 1228, and 
perhaps in Michaelmas Term following.^ 

And further of him I can say nothing, except that he left by Ids 
wife Clemence four sons, viz. Auger, of whom Clemence was preg- 
nant at her marriage; Hamon; and twQ others, unnamed. Hamon 
was again father, before 1254, of William, Simon, and Alexander.^ 

But following a more regular order of events, we find, from the 
collective evidence of three Bolls of Fitz- Alan's Barony, that about 
the year 1240 Simon de Frankleg was holding half a fee in Eudon 
Maleseverez.*^ This I can reconcile with nothing but a conjecture 
that the said Simon was seconid husband of Clemence de Broc, and 
that he thus became possessed of Eudon for her or his life, as the 
case may have been, but probably for hers only. 

I find nothing of the issue of Clemence till the year 1250, when 
Auger de Tatlinton (her eldest son) had fined 5 merks with the 
Crown for some writ,^ the subject of which may have been con- 
nected with the following suit. 

In Michaelmas Term, 1253, it appeared, before the Queen and 
Council at Westminster, that William de Tatlynton, who was 
essoigned in a plea of land against Auger de Tatlynton, had not yet 
been viewed. " And Master Symon de Wanton (a Justiciar) comes 
on his behalf and says, that he is well of the infirmity for which he 

> AMize RoUy 6 Hen. Ill, memb. 2 

^ Ibidem, memb. 1 dono. 

* Vide supra, p. 174. 

• Supra, p. 176. 

7 Testa de NevUl, pages 44, 48, 49. 
It will be seen in the subjoined pedigree 
how Auger de Tatlinton, son and heir of 

Clemence, mamed the gnad-danghter 
and eventual heir of Simon de Frankley. 
Nash {Hist, Worces., i, 458) is respon- 
sible for this statement, but how it is 
connected with Simon de Frankley's 
tenure of Eudon circa 1240, I cannot 
pretend to say. 

» Sot Pip, 34 Hen. lU, Salop. 



had essoign^ and that he asks leave to rise because his adversary 
maliciously keeps him in bed and ivill not cause him to be viewed^ 
though license had been given him thereof/' * 

The Court decides that he may rise and come without delay. 
Afterwards he comes^ and has a day given him. This suit con- 
cerned land in Worcestershire. 

In 1255^ a Stottesden Jury, of which Auger de Eudon was one, 
returned him as Lord of Eudon Maleseveres. It contained half a 
hide, and was held of John Fitz- Alan by service of one Montar, for 
half a knight's fee. He owed suit to the Sheriff's tourn twice a 
year, but not to County or lesser Hundred Courts, because hisi 
ancestors rendered no such suit, nor did he pay stretward, nor 

In January, 1256, William, son of Thomas de Tatlinton, was 
suitor against Auger Fitz-Clemence, for two carrucates in Eudon, 
by writ of entry. William appeared in due course, but Auger came 
not. The premises were seized into the King's hand, and the parties 
summoned for Saturday after the octaves of the Purification, ». e. 
Saturday, Feb. 12th.ii 

In September, 1257, William de Tatlinton had an cLssize of novel 
disseizin against Adam de Faintre and his wife.^^ 

In 1259, William de Tatlinton accounts half a merk for having 
an assize^^ (probably the same matter). 

At the same time Auger de Tatlinton accounts two merits for 
license to accord}^ 

In 1260, Auger de Tatlinton accounts half a merk for a writ of 
appone}^ This was perhaps in connexion with his suit against the 
Crown as to Chetton Advowson. 

On April 23, 1262, a fine was levied at Westminster between 
Aunger de Tallington, plaintiff, and Richard de Eslewode, deforciant,, 
as to the customs and services which Auger required from the free 
tenement which Richard held of him (Auger) in Eudon, viz., one 
virgate of land, &c., whereof Auger required that Richard should 
pay 7«. annually, and do suit every three weeks at Auger's Court at 
Eudon ; and that Richard and his heirs should render homages and 
relie& to Auger and his heirs. AU these services Richard had 

9 Plac, apud Westm.^ 37 Hen. in, 
menib. 11 dorso. 

«> Eot, Sund,, ii, p. 81. 

11 Salop AssizeSf 40 Hen. III. 

w Eot, Fat., 41 Hen. IH. 

^ Sot Pip,y 43 Hen. IH. Salop. 
** Ibidem. 

^ Rot, Pip., 4A Hen. IH, Salop, vide 
supra^ Pi I78i 



heretofore denied ; but now^ after a law-suit^ acknowledged. iF'or 
this acknowledgment Auger undertook to warrant the premises to 
Richard and his heirs.^^ 

But the litigations of Auger de Tatlinton were endless. — 

In Trinity Term, 1263, he appeared in a suit against John Fitz- 
Alan, his Suzerain.^^ "Whereas the King had caused it to be 
enacted, that no one, by reason of his tenement, should be distrained 
to do suit to the Court of his Lord, except he was bound to do 
such suit by the terms of his feoffment, or he and his ancestors 
had done such suit prior to the King's first trans&etation (1230), 
Auger now sued John Fitz-Alan in a cause as to why the said 
Jolm distrained him (Auger) to do suit to John's Court at Acton " 
(Acton Hound). 

John Fitz-Alan appeared not. The Sheriff had not summoned 
him, but sends word into Court that the said John had the King's 
letters of protection as long as there was war in Wales. The Sheriff 
was declared in misericordia, and the cause adjourned to Michael- 
mas Term. We, however, hear no more of this case, probably 
owing to the troubled state of the kingdom. 

On the Pipe Roll of 51 Hen. Ill (1267), Auger de Tatlingeton 
appears as having been amerced 40«. for non-prosecution of some 
suit; but a note is added to the entry, to the effect that he had 
accounted for such fine in the Roll of last year, under Worcester- 

And further of him in connexion with Eudon I can say nothing. 
His interest here was very likely sold much about the time when he 
seems to have conveyed his share of Chetton to Robert Corbet, and 
the next whom I find possessed of Eudon was Hugh Bumell, who 
had a charter of free- warren here in 9 Edw. I (1281),^* and whose 
tenure hereof under Fitz-Alan remained to his descendants, and is 
still memorialized in the name of the place. 

In 1284, Hugh Bumell holds Eudon of Richard Fitz-Alan, of 
the Tumour of White Minster, by half a knight's fee.^^ The account 
of him and his successors is postponed to a future occasion. We 
may quote, however, from the Pleas of the Crown of October, 1292, 
the record of an affray which happened here some years previously. 

i< Fede9 flniumy 46 Hen. III. Esel- 
wode is the same name as Hazelwood. 

17 Plae. tvpud Westm., Trin. Term, 47 
Hen. m, memb. 17 dorso. 

w Sot. Fip,y 51 Hen. lU, Salop. 
» Calend, Sot. Chart., p. 111. 
» Kirhi/'s Quegt. 


and lYhich shows how soon the place took name from its new 
possessors: — 

'^ William de Bedleswrthin (Belswardine) and Thomas de Ken- 
leye were together in the kitchen of Hugh Bumell in the village of 
Endon Bumell, and a quarrel arising between them, William struck 
Thomas on the head with a sword, whereof, on the fourth day 
after, Thomas died. William is* a fugitive, and is suspected. He 
has been sunmioned (at five County Courts by the Sheriff — the 
usual process), and is outlawed. He had no chattels. The vills of 
Eudon Bumell and Chetynton did not make pursuit (of the fugi- 
tive) so they are in misericordid. Afterwards it was proved that 
said William had chattels, viz. (of value), 4*. 6rf., for which the 
Sheriff is answerable.^'^^ 

Eudon Bumell was at this time the dower of Sibil Bumell, who 
was reported at the same Assizes as a defaulter in due attendance, 
and as claiming free warren here. 

The subjoined scheme of the descent of Ranulf de Broc, some 
time Lord of Chetton and Eudon, is intended to illustrate the 
otherwise complex narrative which is now concluded. Its accuracy 
in each particular is not maintained. It is only a selection of pro- 
babilities from a mass of contradictory evidence. If compared with 
the foregoing narrative, it will, however, serve one purpose better 
than a more lengthened commentary, — the purpose, namely, of ex- 
hibiting those inconsistencies which sometimes occur in the minutes 
of the Law Courts, as well as in the returns of local juries. — 

It will be seen how the' want of previous acquaintance or fa- 
miliarity with the places and persons concerned, affected the verbal 
accuracy of the Law Scribes, both of those who worked in the cen- 
tral Courts of Westminster, and those who went with tlie Justices 
on their various circuits ; and yet how these functionaries seldom 
failed to catch the spirit of a plea or to record it intelligibly. — 

It will also be seen how Country Juries, with greater accuracy 
as to names, local and personal, were often mistaken as to the facts 
of a remote time or place, and were still more ignorant as to the 
legal bearings and importance of such facts. 

» Plac, Coron.y Salop, 20 Edw. I, | » Ibidem, 
memb. 20 recto. I 

-MatilcU aliai ICabilia, mar'. Ist, Bad de 
Qatto]i,2dlY, Thomas de Bayelmgham. 

-Alke^ maH. Adam de Bending. 

-Alienore, mar**. Balph Fitz Bernard. 

Beatrix eUioi Katenna, nun'. Ist, Bad de 
Fa7«2dty»Hii^ do HoiiU (or KeoriU) . 





Hebe^ as in Eudon^ we have the undoubted Saxon termination bun 
(a hill or down)^ and only a question as to the first syllable. Crida 
(Cjuba) was the founder of the Saxon Kingdom of Mercia, about 
A,D. 586. Though we need not presume him to have had to do with 
this humble locality^ it is very possible that^ after his era^ his name 
became common in Mercia^ and that one so called was some time 
possessor of the place. 

It is not mentioned in Domesday, but at all subsequent periods it 
appears as a sole Manor held under Fitz Alan, Like Eudon^ it was 
and is in the parish of Chetton. 

The falling off from the Domesday Hidage, of Eudon and Glazeley 
(both Fitz Alan's Manors) is observable. It may be accounted for 
by some early dismemberment of each^ and the same cause may 
have led to the establishment of a third and independent Manor, 
like Criddon ; but, as I have said more than once, the general 
accuracy of the Domesday survey, as regards this quarter, is sus- 
pected. An attempt, therefore, so to combine several consequents 
as to tally with a doubtful antecedent, need not be ventured. 

In 1165, Eobert de Critendon is registered as holding, by service 
of 1 muntatoTj of Fitz Alan's Barony.^ 

Oct. 1219, WiUiam de Criddon was a surety for Sibil de Broc.^ 
Among pleas at Salop in August, 1226, was an assize of novel 
disseizin as to whether Adam de Dodinton, Alexander de Cans, 
Alan de Thedestiel and Alan his son, had disseized William de 
Crigdon and Bicholda, his wife, of a free tenement in Thedistiel 
(Tedstill) . — ^Verdict for the defendants.* 

In 1240, William de Cradelton, Gridelton or Cridelton, is variously 
entered as holding, by service of half a knight's fee, in the place 
from which he is named, and under John Fitz Alan.* 

On November 12, 1240, we have a fine^ which shows clearly what 

* Liber Niger, i, 144. 

' Supra, p. 172. 

' FUui, coram Mege^ 10 Hen. III. 

* TeHa de NeviU, pp. 44, 48, 49. 
' Pedes Jinium, ofud Salop, 25 
Hen. III. 




this tcnant^s name really was^ also that his tenure was in Criddon^ 
and that the confusion arose from a similarity between his name 
and the place of his tenure. The said fine was between Geoffry de 
Griddon^ plaintiff^ and William de Middelton^ tenant^ of half a 
knight's fee and 1 vii^ate of land in Griddon (Criddon) and Godestil 
(Tedstill)^ whereof was an assize of mort d'ancestre. The former 
tenant (William de Middleton) renounced his right on receipt of 
five merks. 

The Inquest of 1255 (as printed) again exhibits this place and its 
owner in a false orthography. " Greoffrey de Breddon is Lord of 
Breddon^ and holds in capite of John Fitz Alan. Therein is one- 
fourth of a hide (the virgate of the fine). He does suit to the 
Hundred Courts ; pays stretward 1 penny^ and motfee 2 pence. He 
does no suit to the County Court.'' • 

The same Geoffrey (again written '' de Breddon'^) also held half 
Middelton under Fitz Aer, and Fitz Acr under Fitz Alan.^ Perhaps 
William de Middelton had been his predecessor in each Manor. 

In Feb. 1262^ Geoffiy de Cridon, as a Begarder of the Forests^ 
was amerced.® In March^ 1262^ and Sept. 1263, he appears on 
Juries ? again on Jan. 26, 1270, and with Hugh de Holicote ; and 
on two Juries in April^ 1278, which are the latest notices I have seen 
of him. 

. Sibil, his daughter and sole heir, succeeded him. This lady was, 
if I am not mistaken, the wife of four successive husbands ; the first 
of whom, Hugh de Crediton, was dead before January, 1256, when 
Sibil, his widow, sued William Okeman and Sibil, his wife, for a 
messuage in Crediton, as her dower, and recovered the same.^^ 

At the same Assizes this Sibil (called daughter of Geoffrey de 
Criddon) was sued under writ of mort d'ancesire for a virgate in 
Deuxhill. The plaintiff in this case was non-suited, Sibil proving 
that she was not tenant of the premises.^^ As her father was living 
it is probable that her interest in Deuxhill, whatever it was, accrued 
with her first husband, and that he adopted the name of Criddon 
firom his residence here. 

Her second husband, Hugh de Holicote, has already been noticed 
in 1268, 1270, and 1272,^^ Also the deed attested by Geoffrey 

^ Mot. SfMd. ii, 82. 
7 Ibidem, p. 81 { vide infra, p. 196. 
" Flac, Foreit, Salop, 
> In^UUious, 46 Hen. m, No. 31, 
and 47 Hen. Ill, No. 26. 

*^ Salop Mnzeif 40 Hen. Ill, memb. 
14 recto. 

11 Ibidem, memb. 2 dorso. 
» Supra, p. 182. 


de Criddon and Hugh de Holioote^ his $(m^ has been set forth.^' 
He appears to have died between 1272 and 1274, for in the latter 
year — 

Balph^ son of Balph Fayn, of Salop, grants all he had in. Criddon 
to Thomas de Marham, mentioning Sibil, daughter of GeofiPrey de 
Criddon, his wife.^* 

In 1284, Sibil appears with her fourth husband and her inheritance, 
for " John de Volascote (WoUascott) who married Sibil, daughter 
and heir of Geoffrey de Cridon, holds a Manor, in Stottesden Hun- 
dred, of Kichard Fitz Alan, of the honour of Oswestry, by service 
of half a knight^s fee, and he is to do guard at the Castle of White 

In 1293, a fine was levied between John de Wolascote with Sibil 
his wife, and Edmund de Mortimer, defendant, of a rent of 20 
quarters of com in Deuxhill. The right was the defendant's.^* 
This calls to mind SibiFs interest in Deuxhill in 1256. 

How Henry le Waleys, the next whom I find possessed of Criddon, 
succeeded thereto I cannot say. He, however, entailed the estate 
on Fitz Aer, by fine levied in 1306, and which purports to be between 
Hugh le Fitz Aer, plaintiff, and Henry le Waleys, defendant, of 
1 messuage, 1 carrucate of land, and 100 shillings rent, in Criddon 
(Salop) , and of £10 rent, in Franbarew (Warwickshire) . The right is 
acknowledged to be Henry's, who concedes all the premises to Hugh 
for life, with remainder to William, son of said Hugh Fitz Aer, 
and Christiana, daughter of John de Bedmarleye (wife of William 
I suppose) }'^ 

In March, 1316, Alina Fitz Aer is returned as Lady of Criddon ;^® 
and, in 1397-8, Criddon was held by Margaret Criddon by half a 
knight's fee, under Fitz Alan.^* 

A few inferior tenancies must have notice : — 

In January, 1256, Agnes de TedstiU accused Thomas and Philip 
Horde and Ealph de Buton, for breaking open her house at night. 
They prove that the thmg was done not feloniously, but to make 
a certain seizure ^^ (probably as public officers) . 

^ Vide supra, p. 141. 

" JBlakeway M8S. 

^ Kirbj/'s QueH. Here then is one 
proof of the association between the 
seryice of Castle-guard and the fee of the 
Muntf^tor or Muntor (vide supra, p. 86). 

" JDukes* Antiquities, p. ,255. 

17 Mnes diversorum Comitat, 34 Ed. I, 
(Salop and Warw). Henry le Waleys may 
have been only a feoffee in trust. 

^ Fori. Writs, vol. iv, 898. 

19 Esch. Calend, iii, 228. 

» Placita Corona 40 Hen* III, 
memb. 1. 



In Feb. 1263^ Robert^ sonof Elias de Criditon^ was amerced half 
a merk for imbladement, within the jurisdiction of Shirlet Forest.^^ 

In Jvlj, 1272, Ralphs son of Robert the Carpenter^ of Kriddon^ 
fined ^alf a meri^ to have an assize.^ 

In September^ 1272^ there was a suit of mort d^ancestre, as to 
whether Elyas^ father of William de Criddedon^ had died seized of 
half a virgate here^ and if so^ whether said William was his heir. 
William de Morehall^ who was sued as tenant, would not answer 
without Sibil, his wife.^ 

Richard, son of Reginald Elyes, of Criddon (of the same family 
as the last plaintifi^, I suppose), is mentioned in a deed of 1311-2 as 
having sold a tenement in Criddon to Adam, son of William Lord 
of Upton, which said Adam then grants to John Lord of Upton, 
his nephew, &c> 


This Saxon town (tun), like all other Middletons, will have 
originally been so called with reference to certain other localities 
between which it stood. 

But it is vain to conjecture such relations, seeing that 450 years 
may have elapsed between the time when a Mercian town received 
its Saxon name, and the time when such name first became matter 
of written record. In other words, we d<9 not know, within 450 
years, when any ordinary village of Mercia was established, and 
still less do we know what at the time of such establishment were 
the adjacent villages, or what two of them were of sufficient 
importance to suggest the denomination of a third. The neigh- 
bourhood of some great perennial objects, such as mountains or 

» Flac, Foresta, 46 Hen. IH. 
« JK ii, 672. 

^ Salop AtHzes, 56 Hen. HI, memb. 
5 dorso. 
'* Vide Bupra, p. 143. 


rivers^ will^ it is true^ often account for allusive names, but in the 
case before us, these circumstances are wanting. 

In 1085, Rainald (the Sheriff) held Middeltone (of the Earl), and 
Alcher and Albert (held it) of him. Edric a free man held it (in 
time of King Edward) for two Manors. Here are ii hides geldable. 
In demesne are ii ox -teams ; and (there are) v serfs, vi villains, and 
V boors, with iii ox-teams ; and there might be iii other (ox-teams) 
more. In time of King Edward (the Manors) were worth 13*. 
(per annum) . Now (they are worth) 28«. They were waste (that 
is, worth nothing when they came to the present holders).^ 

The two Manors held here by Alcher and Albert, at Domesday ^ 
under the Sheriff Bainald, remained two Manors held by the 
descendants of Alcher and Albert under Fitz Alan. 

Thus Middleton wiU have contributed its share to the service of 
1 knight and 1^ muntators due, in 1165, by Robert Fitz Aer to 
Fitz Alan^s Barony ; and also to the service of 1 knight and 3^ 
muntators due, at the same period, by Hugh Fitz Albert, to the same 

Also in 1240, when William Fitz Aer is said to hold 1 fee, and 
Thomas de Boshale 1^ fees of the Barony of Fitz- Alan,' the fief of 
each must be taken to have involved whatever service was due from 
his share of Middleton. 

But of Fitz Aer and Fitz- Albert we shall hear more elsewhere. 
Here we will only mention the undertenants of each at Middleton, 
distinguishing them or not as best we can. 


Warin de Middelton, who> in November, 1194, was a recognizor 
in the assize mentioned under HoUicott, was, I suppose, Fitz Aer's 
tenant here. In the cause in question it is observable that his 
essoigner was Roger Fitz Edwin.* 

On Sept. 26, 1199, »fine was levied at Salop between Warin de 
Middelton, plaintiff, and Richard de Overton, tenant, of one virgate 
in Overton (an adjoining Manor) whereof had been a trial of mort 
ffancestre. Warin made over his claim to Richard and his heirs, 
receiving 15^.^ 

At Salop Assizes (October 1203), the Stottesden Jurors reported 


Domesday, fo. 255 a. 2. 
3 lAber NigeTy. i, 143. 
TeHa de NevUl, pp. 4A^ 47, 48, 49. 

< Supra, p. 181. 

^ Pedes finmnn^ 1 John, Salop. 



that ^' Roger Fitz Edwin^ who was with Waiin de Middelton^ who 
died iu a fit of intoxication^ was a fugitive, but that he was not 
suspected as r^arded the death of said Warin/^ * 

It is possible that William de Middleton, who has before occurred 
as conceding his interest in Criddon to Greoffry de Criddon^ in 1240^ 
took his name from this Manor, and had an interest here. 

Be that as it may, in 1255, the same Greoffrey de Criddon (written 
" Breddon^^) was Lord of a part of Middelton, viz. 1 hide, which 
he held in capite of John Fitz Aeri (written " Cleri ") . He did suit 
to County and Hundred Courts. The whole Manor paid stretward 
— 8 pence, and motfe — 16 pence^ (the sums proportionable to 
2 hides). 

How or when Geoffirey de Criddon or his daughter alienated this 
tenancy I cannot say. She was still living in 1284, and at a subse- 
quent period has been noticed in a transfer of rents at Deuxhill to 
Edmund de Mortimer. This may be taken in conjunction with the 
fact that, in 1284, Thomas de la Hide held half the viU of Middleton 
of Edmund de Mortimer, Edmund of John Fitz Aer, John of Richard 
Fitz Alan, by service of one-fourth part of a knight's fee, and of the 
honor of White-Minster.® 

In March, 1316, Thomas de la Hyde was returned * as one of the 
Lords of Middleton in Stottesden Hundred. 


About 1170-80, Stephen de Midelton is a witness to a charter of 

Osbem Fitz Hugh, Lord of Bichard^s Castle which related to 

In Nov. 1194, Stephen de Middelton was a Recognizor in the 
assize mentioned under Hollicott. His essoigner was Adam de 

At Salop Assizes, Oct. 1203, Stephen, nephew of one Robert, 
sued Vivian de Roshall, under writ of mort cPancestre, for a bovate in 
Middleton, which he claimed as Robert's heir. Vivian appeared 
and said that he claimed nothing in the premises except as guardian 
of a certain infant whom he brought into Court. Stephen would 

* Salop AiHxe$, 5 John, menib* 2 

7 JU)t. Hwnd, ii, 81. 

8 Kirby'9 Qmm^. In 1292, Warin de 
Middleton, whom I take to be of this 

place, has been mentioned already aa 
having an interest in Faintree. 

» Pari. WrUtt vol. ir, p. 398. 

10 Charter at Badger. 

" Supra, p. 181. 



not allow t^remanet on this ground^ because the father of the said 
infant had never been seized of the land^ but held it of his (Ste- 
phen's) service (I suppose in villenage). Vivian acknowledges 
' thus far^ but says that^ in fact^ Robert^ son of the daughter of the 
first-named Robert^ after the death of said first-named Robert^ was 
seized of said land^ and is yet living ; and whereas he is living and 
not in Court, Vivian avers that there should be no assize. Stephen 
rejoins without contradicting Robert's seizin, but believes him to be 
dead. However, as Stephen produces no witnesses (sectam) of such 
death he takes nothing, and the Assize remains sine dieP 

In 1255, Hamo de Middelton was returned as joint Lord of 
Middelton, holding i hide there of Thomas de Rossale, and doing 
suit to the Hundred Courts.^^ 

From 1259 to 1262, he was one of the Agistators of several Royal 
Forests, and rendered account of his receipts in 1267.^* 

In Sept. 1263, Hamo de Middleton and Richard Clericus de 
Middleton sat as Jurors on an Inquest concerning the age of Robert 
de Beyssin (of Wrichton &c.) .^^ 

In Sept. 1272, Hamo was one of the Jurors who sat for Stottes* 
den Hundred at the Assizes.^* 

In 1284, the daughters and heirs of Richard de Middleton appa- 
rently hold half the Manor of Thomas de Roshall, and Thomas of 
Richard Fitz-Alan &c.i7 

At the Assizes of Oct. 1292, Alan, son of Hamon de Middleton, 
and William Snell, of Middleton, are reported, as making default 
of attendance, by the Stottesden Jury.^® 

In March, 1316, John de Roshale is returned as one of the 
Lords of Middleton, the former sub-tenancy having apparently 
expired.^^ At this period Thomas de Roshale was head of his 
house, and presun^ to have been seigneur over John. 


The first notice of a Church here is in 1291, when the same is 
returned as not being of £4 annual value, and so not taxable.^^ 

" Salop Atsizey 5 John, memb. 6 recto. 
13 Mot, Bund, ii, 81. 
1^ PlacUaforestcB, 46 Hen. Ill, memb. 
6 recto. Pipe EoU, 61 Hen. III. 
^ JE8ch. 4!J Hen. HE, No. 26. 
^ Sdhp JLuizes^ 56 Hen. m. 

^ Kirhy'B QuesL 

^ Placita CoroncBy 20 Edw. I, memb, 
20 recto. 

» Pari, Writs, iv, 398. 

» Pope Nick. Tax^ p. 166. The printed 
t«xt gives "Chidleton*' as the name of 



In 1341^ the taxation (valuation) of the Church of Midilton iis 
put at 6 merks (iE4.) The Assessors and Vendors of the ninth of 
wheat, wool, and lamb in the Parish, rendered account only of 
£1. 3«. 4rf. ; so much less than the taxation of the Church, because 
the wheat had been destroyed by storms, and there had been a 
common murrain among the sheep in the present year, and because 
the small tithes, offerings, glebe, and other profits of the same 
Church, go to make up the higher taxation, and have nothing to do 
with the ninth ; and because 3 carrucates of land in the same 
Parish lie untilled by reason of the poverty of the tenants, as by 
Inquisition has been ascertained.^^ 

In 1534, Christopher Shorde being Rector of Mydulton, in 
Stottesden Deanery, the Church is valued (in glebe, com, and 
other tithes and offerings) at £4. The only charge was 6d. per 
annum, for Archdeacon's Synodals.'^ 


On May 1, 1303, the Church is committed to Sir William de la 
Lowe, Priest, saving the right of Walter de Mortimer, the previous 

On March 21, 1340-1, John Martin was instituted on presenta- 
tion of the Crown. The Bishop's precept thereon is addressed to 
the Dean of Stottesden.^ 

On May 16, 1354, Sir Nicholas de Brentemersch, Chaplain, is in- 
stituted to this Church on presentation of Sir Roger de Mortimer, 
Lord of Wigmore. 

On June 15, 1363, William Squier, Priest, is instituted. 

this place, which the note explains as 
** Gheillers." This is a double confusion, 
viz, with Chetton and Ghelmarsh, both in 
the same Deanery of Stottesden, and 
valued distinctly on the same page of the 
record. Perhaps, however, the name 
of Middleton became Chidleton in this 
instance by confusion with Criddon. We 
have before had the same concision 
resulting in such compounds as Cradelton, 
Gridelton, and Cridelton. (Tide supra, 
p. 191.) 

3^ Iftquis, ilToffarum, 190. 

^ Valor JEcclesicuticw, voL iii, p. 211. 

^ Blakeway*s Extracts from Sereford 
Seffisters, in Bibl. Bodl. 

'^ Mr. Blakeway seems to have con* 
sidered that a precept to the Dean of 
Stottesden was conclusive evidence that 
this Middleton was the one intended. 
But there was a contemporary Chapel at 
Middleton Priors, also in Stottesden 
Deanery, and to which, at this period, the 
Grown will have had the right of pre- 
sentation. However, the latter chapelry 
was usually associated with Deuxhill, and 
that distinction between the two Mid- 
dletons may have guided Mr. Blakeway. 
In 1340-1 the minority of Boger de Mor- 
timer, of Wigmore, will have entitled the 
Crown to present to any vacant Church of 
hu patronage. 


a«ton €pre. 


Aston or Eston, wherever it occurs, implies a town situated to 
the East of something else. 

If this Aston and the hamlet of Weston, about four miles distant, 
were each so called with reference to some common centre, we can 
fix such centre nowhere but at Monk Hopton. Howbeit no early 
mention of the latter will warrant a presumption of such by-gone 
importance as might have reflected a name on its neighbouring 

We infer from Domesday how Aston acquired its distinctive 
addition of Eyre. Aer and Eyre are softened or corrupted forms 
of Alcher,^ whose name appears thus in that Survey — 

''The same Raiiiald (Viceoomes) holds (under the Earl) Estone, 
and Alcher (holds it) of him. Sessi held it in time of King 
Edward and was a free man. Here are ii hides geldable. In 
demesne are three ox-teams ; and six serfs^ one villain, five boors 
and one Frenchman with two ox-teams. There is wood for 60 
swine. Its former value was SOs., its present is 40*.'^ ^ 

Alcher either before or in 1086 had an interest in several other 
Manors, viz., Albrighton (near Shrewsbury), Middleton (now 
Middleton Scriven), Withiford, and Harcott. In the first three he 
held, as at Aston, of the fief of the Sheriff; in Harcott his tenure 
was immediately of the Earl. Thus it was that his descendants 
became tenants in capite of the Crown, a circumstance which 
affords many helps in clearing up their succession and history. But 
the name of Fitz Aer is also associated with those records of faith 
and devotion, which, while they facilitate all genealogical inquiries, 
invest them with their chief interest and perhaps their only use. 
Before Domesday was written, and while Warin the first Sheriff of 

* JUist. Shrewshwy, vol. ii, p. 14. ' Domesday, fo. 265 a. 2. 




Shropshire was yet alive, it is probable * that Alcher had formed the 
design of conferring his lordship of Albrighton on the then founded 
Abbey of Shrewsbury. Certain it is that the grant was completed 
before the death of Earl Roger. 

His descendant, very possibly his son, was that Robert Fitz Aer, 
whom we have already mentioned and must presently recur to, as 
founder of the Church of Aston, about a.d. 1138. * 

In 1165, the whole tenure of Robert Fitz Aer under the Barony 
of Fitz Alan involves the full service of 1 knight and 1 muntator, 
and half the latter service in addition.^ The Knight^s service was 
that which was due on Aston, 

Within ten years of this period, Robert Fitz Aer will have died, 
leaving a son and heir of the same name. 

The first notice of the latter is in a deed of the Salop Chartulary, 
which mentions him under the name of Robert Fitz Robert, as 
having been at issue with that Abbey about the burial of his men of 
Eston. This dispute took place whilst Adam was Abbot of Salop, 
that is, between the years of 1167 and 1175, and was settled by 
Roger, Bishop of Worcester. This Prelate probably officiated in 
consequence of a concurrent vacancy of the See of Hereford. He 
decided ia favour of the Abbey, his assessors being apparently 
Ralph, Prior of Worcester, and Humbald, Prior of Wenlock.* 

Between January and September, 1176, when the Justices ap- 
pointed under the famous statutes of Northampton first visited 
Shropshire, they amerced this Robert Fitz Aer in a sum of 4 merks 
for some default."^ Half of this fine was then paid, and the re- 
mainder subsequently. In the fiscal year ending Michaelmas 1180, 
Shropshire had been taken in the circuit of the great Justiciar, 
Ranulph de Glanvill. A still heavier fine had on this occasion been 
inflicted on Robert Fitz Aer. He had been convicted of b. false 
presentment, had neglected to do homage (as a tenant in capite), and 
owed his relief for a certain Seqeantry (Harcott of course). His 
total liabilities amounted to £5, of which he paid 50*. in 1180, 
16*. in 1181, and the balance in 1182.® 

' Domesday^ 255 b. Where the notice 
of Alcher*8 Manor of Etbritone in 
Bascherche Hundred is sufficient to 
indicate the lapse of his interest therein, 
though the Reversioner is not named. 

* Supra, p. 140. 

* Liher Niger^ i, 143. This Bobert may 

have been son of the last. His being 
called Bobert Fitz Aer rather than Bobert 
Fitz Bobert Fitz Aer is no proof of the 

6 Salop Chartulary, No. 343. 

7 Pipe Roll, 22 Hen. II. Salop. 

8 Rot. Fip. 26, 27, 28 Hen. II. Salop. 



Having come into possession of his estates about the same time 
as his Suzerain (the second William Pitz Alan), this Robert Fitz 
Aer appears as a prominent witness in certain charters of that 
Baron. He attests the two deeds which secured to the Canons of 
Haughmond the site of their house and the endowments of their 
founder.^ He also stands first witness to a charter whereby Wm. 
Fitz Alan recognizes the right of Shrewsbury Abbey to some land 
in Oswestry ,^^ The year 1190 maybe assigned as the proximate 
date of all these deeds, and also of a further dispute which the same 
Robert Fitz Aer had with Shrewsbury Abbey as to the right of 
Advowson of the Chapel of Estun.^^ We have now to speak of him 
in another relation. — 

About the year 1191, as far as we can judge from subsequent 
records,^^ this Robert Fitz Aer, with several others, was challenged 
(appellatus) in the Courts at Westminster for the murder of Richard 
de Brigida^ a dependant of Matthew de Gamages of Stottesden. 
The appellant was Adam de Brigida, brother of the murdered man. 
The challenge was ultimately withdrawn against all parties, but not 
till Robert Fitz Aer had suffered a voluntary imprisonment of some 
duration, and his whole estate been seized into the hands of the 
King. It was either just before or during this temporary forfeiture 
that John le Strange obtained possession of Withyford, by writ of 
the Chancellor (Longchamp, Bishop of Ely), directed to the 
Sheriff of Shropshire. As another locality was principally con- 
cerned in this matter, we shall here give only such particulars as 
are necessary to a chronological account of the family under notice. 
Longchamp^s writ to the Sheriff was an act of Sovereignty, and 
must have issued while he was Viceroy of King Richard, that is, 
between June, 1190, and October, 1191 ; limits which must also be 
assigned to his judicial visit to Hereford, at which, as John le 
Strange afterwards alleged, the Chancellor and his fellow-Justices 
awarded Withyford to the said John as his right, and not merely for 
custody. After Longchamp^s expulsion, the Viceregal Office was 
discharged by Walter, Archbishop of Rouen, and his assessors. To 
them, before Michaelmas 1193, Robert Fitz Aer offered a fine of ten 

' One of these deeds is printed {Mon. 
vi, 108, ii), where this witness's name is 
given as Robert Fitz Saber. In the 
other deed {Sari. MSS., 446, quire xii, 
fo. 4) the name is given correctly. The 

two charters are contemporary and 
attested by the same witnesses. 

10 Salop Chartulary, 302 b. 

" Ibidem, 340, 841. 

12 Salop Assizes^h John,memb.2 dorso. 



merks -" to have such seizin of his lands as he had when he was put 
into the King's Gaol/'^^ No instalment of this fine was ever paid^ 
probably because he who offered it never obtained the seizin for 
which he fined. It remamed an entry on the Rolls of four following 
years^ and on being renewed in the seventh year (a. d. 1200)^ the 
Barons of the Exchequer cancelled it as having been comprehended 
in a more recent fine/^ presently to be mentioned. Meanwhile 
(that is^ in the years 1194 and 1195)^ a suit had been progressing in 
the Law-Courts between Bobert Fitz Aer and John le Strange, 
about Withyford. The latest mention of Fitz Aer the Plaintiff, is 
probably of date May 12, 1195, when John le Strange essoigned 
himself as being in the King's service in Wales.^^ A day of ad- 
journment (probably July 1, 1195) was given, but the records of 
that and many subsequent terms are lost. However, we know 
that Bobert Fitz Aer lived neither to conclude his suit nor liquidate 
his fine. During the fiscal year, which ended Michaelmas 1198, 
the widow of Bobert Fitz Aer, viz. Emma de Say, accounted 20 
merks into the Treasury, being her fine for having custody of the 
land and heir of said Bobert, '* which land he (Bobert) held in 
capite of the King, viz. nine librates of land, and for having marriage 
of the heir and of herself.'^^* 

The heir in question was another Bobert ; but before we enter on 
his history, we should mention, that his father having an interest 
in Newton (near Ellesmere), had granted the whole thereof to the 
Canons of Haughmond, and concurred with Emma, his wife, in 
bestowal of their bodies, when dead, to receive rites of sepulture in 
that Abbey. To this deed were witnesses : William Fitz Alan, Alan 
de Hadley, Beginald de Hesding, and Henry Mauveysin,^"^ — a com- 
bination which suggests a date at least five years previous to the 
death of the Grantor. 

This is hardly the place to follow the suit about Withyford, which 
Emma de Say still prosecuted against John le Strange. Sufiice it to 
mention its settlement by final concord at Salop, on Sept. 25, 1199, 
and that it was agreed that Bobert, the infant son of Emma, 

^ Mag. Bot Pip., 6 E, I. Salop, Nova 

" Sot. IHp.^ 2 John. Salop. 

^* "Placita ineerti temporis Megis. 
Joharmis^"* (No. 60) ; but, as I believe, of 
Easter Term, 6 Eic. I (1195). 

I* JLot. Pip,, 9 Eic. I. Salop, 

'7 Haughmond CharttUary, fo. 152. It 
is worth noticing that this Eobert Fitz 
Aer and his Suzerain Fitz Alan were both 
involved in disputes with Salop Abbey; 
were both benefactors of Haughmond, 
and were both buried there. 



should hold it in future^ under John le Strange and his heirs^ by 
service of half a Knight's fee.^® 

In October^ 1203^ Emma and her son Robert^ stiQ under age^ 
appear again in the Law-Courts^ as Defendants in a suit about land 
in Harcott.^^ — 

The infant alleged his nonage. The decision was " Habeat etatem 
suam ','^ equivalent^ I presume, to an adjournment. Soon after this 
Robert Fitz Aer iii, will have been of full age, for his consent is 
certified to a grant which Lewellyn Prince of Wales, then Lord 
of Ellesmere, made to Haughmond Abbey .^ 

He ftirther attests as Robert, son of Robert Fitz Aer, a deed of 
Ranulf de Rodinton, which must have passed before 1211 ;^^ and in 
the latter year is similarly designated, as holding his serjeantry (of 
Harcott) in capite of the Crown.^^ 

On July 3, 1221, King Henry III, being then at Bridgnorth, 
issued his precept^^ to the chief Forester of Salop, commanding him 
** to permit Robert Fitz Alier (Aher) to assart and cultivate his 
riffiet pertaining to his wood of Estun, where the road goes down 
towards Salop, between the brook and the boundary (horam) of 
the aforesaid wood of Estun.^' The object of this permission was, 
that ^^ the said road might be safe and secure for passengers in those 
parts, and that they should neither meet with harm to their goods 
nor persons, from the malefactors of that neighbourhood^ by reason 
of the said rifflets.'' ^ 

At Salop Assizes (Nov. 1221), Robert Fitz Aer was of the Jury 
which had to try " a great Assize.'^ ^^ 

The next who occurs in this succession was William Fitz Aer, 
who before Michaelmas, 1231, stood pledge for Walter de 

^ Pedes finium, 1 John. Salop. This 
settlement with John le Strange was only 
final as regarded him. Another suit 
remained, wherein the tenants of a part 
of Withyford were Defendants, but the 
details must be reserved for their proper 

^^ , Salop Assizes, 5 John, memb. 5 

* Haughmond Chartulaty apud Sun- 
doruy fo. 152. 

^^ Charter in possession of Mr. George 

« Testa de Nevill, p. 55. 

28 Sot. Clous,, 6 Hen. Ill, memb. 6. 
None of the Lexicographers explain the 
word r^ffletum. It is used conjunctively 
with boscus (a wood) and with messuagium 
(a messuage). The context of the above 
perhaps throws as much light on the 
word as any attempt to explain it. 

^ Two " rifflets" had been named in the 
deed, but the second was in Shirlet Forest, 
and BO is not particularized above. 

2» Salop Assizes, 6 Hen. Ill, memb. 1. 
Of the trial " by grand Assize," see 
Lingard, Hist. England vol. ii, p. 293. 



Upton^ as to an amercement of the latter by the Justices of the 

In 1235^ he was one of four Knights who visited all the King's 
forests in Shropshire, and made return as to their condition, in 
obedience to a Boyal Writ, dated Oct. 19, of that year.*'' 

In October, 12.37, he is the seccmd Juror named of those who 
met the King at Worcester, to try a great and protracted suit be- 
tween Giles de Erdinton and Henry de Audley.^® 

In or about 1240, his tenure of 1 Knight's fee in Eston, is 
entered on the list of Pitz Alan's Barony.^® 

He resigned all right of patronage in the Chapel of Eston, by 
formal deed, to Salop Abbey ; and this, his act, was certiiGied by H. 
Bishop of Hereford, calling him " The Knight William Fitz Aer, 
Lord of Eston/^ This transaction will have been previous to 

On Aug. 18, 1245, this William Fitz Aer was dead ; for then 
did " Philip le Bret give 20 merks to the King to have custody of 
two parts of his land in Eston and Hauerkecot (Harcott), till the 
lawful age of said William's heir. And he (Philip) was to pay 
yearly for the said two parts, that which they were valued at, viz. 
£10. 9*. S\d., whereof £1. was to be paid to the Abbey of Haghe- 
man, as the said William annually paid it in his time, and the 
balance to the King's Exchequer."^^ This fine for two-thirds of 
William Fitz Aer's estate, indicates the survivorship of his widow, 
and her continued tenure of the remaining third in dower. 

» Bot. Pip. 15 Henry III, Salop. A 
William Fitz Aer had occurred in the very 
beginning of the century, and 'vt'hile Bobert 
Fitz Aer was under age, unless I mistake 
the date of the deed to which I refer, and 
in which the said William is a prominent 
witness. (It is a Charter quoted in the 
Kewport Evidences in the Bodleian Li- 
brary.) I cfuiKot suppose him to have 
been the same Wm. Fitz Aer noticed 
above, but still the doubt which remains 
about the matter induces me to defer a 
tabular pedigree of this fanuly to a future 
occasion, when I hope to give it with little 
hesitation as to its correctness. 

27 Charters entitled " de forestis audi' 
quis" at the Tower. No. 13. 

^ Placifa coram Eege ctpud Wygom^ 
21 Hen. Ill, memb. 1 dorso. 

» Testa de Nevill, page 49. 

» Salop Chartulary, 344, 345. The 
certificate quoted appears under the name 
of Menty Bishop of Hereford. As no 
such prelate sat before the eighteenth 
century, it is evident that the Chartulary 
involves an error. A number of cases 
have occurred to me where a similar inco- 
herence has arisen from some transcriber 
having taken upon himself to determine a 
Christian name, which was represented in 
the original only by an initial letter. 
Presuming this to have been the case 
here, we must refer the certificate qdoted 
to Hugh Foliot, Bishop of Hereford, 
elected in 1219, and who died 26 July 

31 Mot Fin. i, 4Ail. 



In 1256^ though John Fitz Aer^ the next in succession^ was still 
in minority, his tenure of this manor is stated without reference to 
that fact.^^ The Stottesden Jury said, as regarded Whetene Aston, 
that John Pitz Aer was Lord, and held immediately of John Fitz 
Alan by one Knight's fee, and that there were therein two hides of 
land (the Domesday hidage), and that he did suit to the Hundred 
Court by Richard Mukel (his Attorney to do suit to the lesser 
Hundred Courts for the said vill), and that he paid the Sheriff 
8 pence for stretward, and 16 pence for motfee. 

In 1256, John Fitz Aery was returned amongst those who hold- 
ing fifteen librates of land were not yet knighted.*^ 

In 1271, he was both a Knight and Sub-escheator of the King 
in this County. His conduct in the latter office was variously re- 
ported of three years afterwards. The Jurors of the Manor of Ford 
complained of some extortion of his, after the death of James de 
Audley,^ while the Jurors of Wenlock said that " after the death 
of Prior Aymo, he entered the Priory, and there discharged his 
duties well and faithftdly,''^^ an almost singular exception to the 
statements which were given as to the conduct of the fiscal officers 
of the Crown at that period. 

At the Shrewsbury Assizes, of October, 1272, he appears both as 
a Knight and Juror of the ^' King's Grand Assize.'' ^^ 

He was also unsuccessful in a suit against a tenant who pleaded 
that his tenure was not under the said John, but under Margery, 
John's mother, and so evaded the main question.^^ This Margery 
will therefore have been the widow of William Fitz Aer, above 
alluded to, and identical with that Margery de Harcott who, at these 
same Assizes, was returned as failing in due attendance. 

In 2 Edw. I (1273-4), this Sir John Fitz Aer was associated with 
Sir Ralph d'Arraz, as Justice for delivery of Shrewsbury Gaol.^® 

On Jan. 28, 1281, he was one of four Knights who were ap- 
pointed, under precept of the Crown, to make report as to the state 
of Bridgnorth Castle.^* His attestation of deeds at this period is 
very frequent. 

^ Sot, Smd, 11, 82, where the printed 
edition has converted John Fitz Aeri into 
" Johannes Alius Cleri.'* 

33 Dukes* AwHquUies, Introduction, 
page vii. 

^ Rot Emd. 11, p. 88. 

» Ibidem, p. 112. 

^ Salop Atiizes^ 56 Hen. m, memb. 1 

^ Salop Assizes, 56 Hen. Ill, memb. 
12 recto. The premises in litigation are 
described as situated in Schyre. 

® Hot, Fat.y sub anno. 

» Inquisition, 9 Edw. I, No. 81. This 



In 1284^ his tenure of Aston by 1 Knighf s fee of the honour of 
White^Mimter, is again recorded.^ His death in 21 Edw I (1222-8), 
is first marked by the usual writ to the Escheator, to seize his lands, 
and then by the Inquest which makes mention of his Manor of 
Aston Eyres.*^ 

To him succeeded Hugh his son and heir, who, on Feb. 25, 1294, 
quits all claim in a messuage in High Street, Bridgnorth, to William 
Ktz Robert de Petra, senior.*^ 

This Hugh sat as a juror on the Great Forest Perambulation of 
1800,« and died in 7 Edw. II (1318-4).** In 1816, Hugh, son 
of Hugh, is returned as Lord of Aston Aer,*^ and with him we 
may, for the present, dismiss the subject, especially as the further 
history of the family is rather connected with other localities than 
Aston Aer. 

Of under tenants in this Manor, Richard Mukley has occurred 
above, in 1255. In Feb. 1262, the same Richard appeared before 
the Justices of the Forest as essoigrwr of Simon Carbonel of 
Wetenaston, who was dead.** 


Stephen^s seizure of the Crown of England was so ably planned 
and so daringly executed, that nearly two years elapsed before men's 
minds were awakened to a sense of its iniquity. 

Shropshire, ever foremost in a cause of faith and legitimacy, was 
stirred in the spring of 1138, by two young Barons, who, owing 
their position to the favour of King Henry I, were bound to the 
cause of his daughter by gratitude no less than fealty. The greater 
of these was William Fitz Alan. He sacrificed everything in the 
ensuing struggle — ^his honours, his offices, his estates, fifteen of the 
best years of his life, all but a name for matchless truth and 

We may suppose his conduct to have been generally followed by 
his feudatory tenants ; and one of them was Fitz Aer. But about 

Inquisition is a document of the greatest 
interest, and will be given at length here- 
after. Its description in the printed 
Calendar (volume i, page 73), must 
be the result of a mere guess at 
its nature, and, of course, is very erro- 

« Kirhy's QueH. 

41 IngmiiHons, (Calendar, i, 114). The 
particulars will be given elsewhere. 

*2 Charter at Apley Park. 

« Salop ChartuLiry, No. 279. 

** Inquisitions (Calendar, vol. i, p. 265). 

« Pari Writs, voL iv, p. 398. 

^ Placita Foresta, 46 Hen. IH, Salop, 
memb. 1 recto. 


that time when the Chief was vainly fortifying Shrewsbury against 
Stephen, the vassal was winning for himself a humbler but not less 
lasting remembrance in this secluded Manor of Aston. So intense 
and so complicated became the great national struggle that we 
know little, save of its beginning and its end, and that not from any 
one contemporary chronicle. But a rudely sculptured stone and a 
scroll of parchment still exist, ample records of an act of private 
benevolence and devotion in that age of hatred and ungodliness. 
A Church was built, endowed and consecrated at Aston Aer,'and 
we may learn both the time, the agents, and the objects of its 

" Know all men,^' says the record, " both now and hereafter, that 
on the day of the dedication of the cemetery *7 of Eston, I, Robert, 
son of Aher, gave to God and to the Chapel of the same vill of 
Eston one virgate of land containing sixty acres, and all tithe of my 
demesne of the same vill, and one mansion, for the health of my 
soul, and of all my predecessors, and successors. And that my gift 
may be free and quit of all reclaim by me or by my heirs, and may 
ever remain firm and stable, I have fortified it with this present 
writing and with the impression of my seal. — These being witnesses : 
Robert, by divine grace. Bishop of Hereford, Reinald, Prior of 
Wenlock ; Peter, the Archdeacon ; Richard and Eluric, Deans ; Alan 
de Opton ; Fulcaius de Aldreham, and many others.^^ *® 

At a period very shortly subsequent to this consecration, Robert 
de Betun, Bishop of Hereford, addressing Ralph the Dean and the 
whole Convent (Chapter) of the Diocesan Church, deems it neces- 
sary, for the security of the Monks of Shrewsbury, to specify the 
Chapels or Cemeteries which the warlike troubles of the time had 
induced him to consecrate. In the Parish of the Church of Morville 
were several, and among them " one at Eston, to which Robert 
Fitz Aher gave sixty acres, and all tithe of his demesne, and one 
mansion.^^ This deed also mentions " the defence of the poor '' 
as one of the objects which the Bishop had had in view. It also 
contains several regulations as to the subjection of these Chapels to 
their Mother Church, and so to Shrewsbury Abbey.*' 

*7 The meaning of the word Cemetery places, a Cemetery became only another 

must not be restricted by modem ideas, 
but will rather be obtained from the 
earliest ages of Christianity, when the 
members of a persecuted faith being 
driven to worship in vaults and burial- 

name for a Church. (See Bingham's 
Ant^piiHeSf ii, 351, and vii, 362.) 

^ The original deed in possession of 
Mr. George Morris of Shrewsbury. 

49 Salop Chartulary, No. 333. 




There can be little doubt as to these deeds being nearly contem- 
porary, and that they passed about 1138-9. 

With that date for the foundation of the Church some archi- 
tectural remains of the original structure are in exact accordance. 
The door-way and tympanum, of which a drawing is herewith 
given, I understand to be the chief features illustratiye of the 
question of date. 

The dispute between Salop Abbey and Robert Fitz Aer, as to the 
burial of his tenants at Aston has been already noticed.^^ Its settle- 
ment by Roger, Bishop of Worcester, about a.d. 1170, seems to 
have been in accordance with the rules laid down by Robert, 
Bishop of Hereford, at the time of consecrating the Church. 

About 1190,^^ William Chaplain, of Aston, having resigned his 
Chapel into the hands of William (de Vere), Bishop of Hereford, 
that Prelate committed cure and custody thereof to Peter Chaplain, 
of Hopton. At the same time he writes to the Abbot of Shrews- 
bury, acknowledging the Advowson to belong to that house, and 
stating that he had granted such custody of his own authority, and 
not on presentation of Robert Fitz Aer, or any one else, but with 
fiill observance of the Abbot's right. His reason for writing, he 
says, is that no act of his may be construed by the said Robert into 
an acknowledgment of his (Robert's) claims on the Advowson. He 
concludes with exhorting the Abbot to listen to his (the Bishop's) 
request in behalf of the fore-mentioned Peter, whom he entitles a 
*' discreet person." 

The nature of this request will appear forthwith. The same 
William *' by divine grace, the humble servant of the Church of 
Hereford," addresses " all sons of Holy Mother Church to whom 
these present letters shall come." He signifies to them all, that 
" Robert Fitz Aer in his presence, and when many both of the 
Clergy and Laity were present, orally and voluntarily confessed 
that he had no right of presenting any one to the Chapel of Estuin, 
but that the Advowson thereof did belong, and still belonged to the 
Abbot and Convent of Salop." And that no doubt should arise 
about this matter in future, the said Bishop put to the said letters 
the testimony of his seal.^^ 

As a sequel to this very intelligible piece of diplomacy, the same 

^ Vide supra, p. 87. 

" Salop GhaitiiLurj, No. 340. 

*' The original deed in poasesaion of 

Mr. Ckorge Morris. — A transcript oon< 
tributed by him to the Collectanea Topo- 
graphica et Oenealoffiea, yol. y, p. 177. 


Bishop issued another letter ^^ to the sons of Holy Mother Church, 
informing them, that, at the presentation of his most beloved 
brother H. by divine gracp, Abbot of Salop, and of the Convent of 
the same, he has admitted Peter Chaplain of Hoptun, to the said 
Abbot and Convent's Chapel of Eston, and has canonically 
instituted him perpetual Vicar in the same Chapel — in such sort 
however, as that the same Peter shall hold the said Chapel with its 
appurtenances as his ancestors (predecessors) held it, to wit, with 
one virgate of land in the vill of Eston, and a third of the custom- 
ary corn-tithe of the whole arable land. But the tithes of the whole 
demesne which belong to the parish Church (Morville), and the 
bodies of the dead (their fdnerals), with the principal bequests 
(legatis), shall remain to the Mother Church, viz. of Mamerfeld, 
to which the aforesaid Chapel belongs. The said Peter shall also 
each year pay at Michaelmas 8^., as an annual pension to the 
Mother Church of Mamerfeld, and shall, be answerable to the 
Bishop and his officials for all customary payments, which belong to 
that Chapel. And that this Charter may be undisturbed, the Bishop 
confirms it with his seal. — The witnesses were : Master Robert Folet 
(Foliot), William Chaplain, Reginald Foliot, Martin de Castello, 
Robert de Hastinges. 

I have been particular to give at some length the contents of 
these successive charters, lest the injustice which they imply should 
escape identification.^^ — 

A benevolent Layman founds and endows a Church ; a pious 
Bishop consecrates it. It happens to be in a district where a great 
Abbey claims a prescriptive parochial jurisdiction, but by no means 
taxes itself with such a cure of souls as would necessitate the found- 
ation of more Churches. In process of time, the said Abbey not 
only appropriates part of the endowment of the district Church, but 
claims a right of presentment to the residue. The founder^s heir 
remonstrates or contests the matter. The Diocesan Bishop is the 
Judge. He awards the right of Advowson to the Abbey, his ex- 
pectation being that he himself shall nominate to the existing 

Wicked as was the fiscal element of Henry the Eighth's Reform- 
ation, truly it was, in its very wickedness, but a measure of retri- 
bution ! The Church which had robbed and cheated was in turn 

^ The original in Mr. George Morris's 1 " Vide supra, p. 38, note 25. 
possession, and a transcript ibidem. I 


Between the years 1222 and 1234^ William Fitz Aer^ then Lord 
of Aston^ quitted all claim in the Chapel thereof to Salop Abbey. — 
The witnesses to this deed were : William Fitz Osbert, and William, 
Brother of Reginald de Tugford, Chaplains.**^ 

And this renunciation is certified by a contemporary deed of 

Henry/' Bishop of Hereford, who calls the person renouncing, 

The Knight William Fitz Aer, Lord of Eston."" 

In 1291,^^ the Chapel of Astone Aer is first mentioned as an ad- 
junct of the Church of Morville, and no separate valuation is given, 
but the Vicarage thereof is also stated to be under £4. annual 

In 1341, the Parochial value of Aston Aer must be similarly 
gathered from the general statement as to Morville and its Chapels, 
which has already been given.^® 

In the valuation of 1535, the Chapelry is not mentioned ; but in 
1545 we have seen that the Curate of Wheaton Aston had a salary 
of £5. 16*. 0\d., chargeable on the Cell or Grange of Morville.^* 

Of the early incumbents of Aston Aer, I can say no more than 
has been implied above. The first Hereford Registers appear to 
take no notice of such a Chapelry. 


Glas-lle in British, signifies " green place,*' an etymology which 
we can hardly hesitate to accept for Glazeley. If this be right, it is 
ftirther observable how Anglo-Saxon usage changed the British 
term lie (a place), into its own term leaj (a district); for after 
Domesday we generally find this vill written Glas-fe^, or in some 
form associated with the Saxon rather than the British termination. 
Such change was natural between words so nearly allied in sound 
and sense, but we need not reject an obvious British etymology 
because it became adapted to a prevalent Saxon usage. 

« Salop Chartulary, No. 845. 
** Salop ChartulMy, No. 844, vide 
supra, p. 204, note 30. 

«7 Pope Nich, Tax. 166, 176. 
" Vide Bupra, p. 39. 
•• Vide supra, p. 41. 



Domesday speaks of this place as follows — ^ 

The same Rainald (the SheriflF), holds Gleslei (of the Earl) and 
Azo of him. Elunard held it (in King Edward's time), and was 
free with his land. Here are ii hides geldable. In demesne is i ox- 
team ; and (there are) vii serfs, iiii villains, v boors, one radman, 
and a Priest with iii ox-teams, and yet there might be ii ox-teams 
more. Here is a mill of 5*. (annual value) . It (the Manor) was worth 
(in King Edward's time) 25*. (annually). Now (it is worth) 20*. 

Of ^Iward the Saxon, we merely observe that his three Alno- 
destreu Manors, Oldbury, Eudon, and Glazeley, all devolved to the 
fief of the Norman Sheriff. 

Of Glazeley, it 'further appears, that, like other Manors held by 
Azo under Bainald at Domesday, Azo's interest came to be repre- 
sented by the elder house of Le Strange, under Fitz Alan. The 
Manors to which this remark applies are Glazeley, Abdon, Berring- 
ton and Lega (now Longnor); but Streford is perhaps an exception. 

We know not when Azo's representatives became extinct, or gave 
way to Le Strange; but there is every probability that Azo's 
Domesday fief helped to constitute those 2 fees of new feoffment 
which in 1165 were held by John le Strange, of the Barony of Fitz 
Alan. Glazeley, undoubtedly, was thus circumstanced. 

I shall have that to offer under Abdon and Longnor, which will 
be much more pertinent to the question of Azo^s succession than 
anything which I have found in connexion with Glazeley. Here 
we had better speak of those whom I take to have held Glazeley 
under John le Strange, from the first period of his own feofiinent 
by Fitz Alan. These were a family of Norman extraction, whose 
original name was Kerre-point (de Petri-ponte);^ but whose mem- 
bers, seated here, came to be called " de Glazeley,^' at first, inci- 
dentally, but afterwards uniformly. 

About 1175, Simon de Perepunt and William de Perepunt, stand 
sixth and tenth witnesses to the certificate of John le Strange 
which I have already mentioned in connexion with one of these 

^ Domesdatfy fo. 255 a, 2. 

2 Pont St. Pierre is a vill in the diocese 
of Bouen, situate at the confluence of the 
Bivers Andelle and Seine. Bobert and 
Godfrey de Pierpont were among the 
Suffolk tenants of WilHam de Warren 
at Domesdaify (fo. 399, 399 b), and the 
descendant of one of them in time of 

Henry III was a Simon de Pierpoint. 
The name (spelt Perepoxmd) was on the 
Boll of Battle Abbey. Its later ennoble- 
ment is well known. 

' Vide supra, p. 73, note 218, — but the 
deed is not in Mr. (3, Morris* possession, 
as there stated. 



A grant by Guy le Strange (brother of John)^ to Hangbmond 
Abbey^ and which probably passed in 11 79, and shortly before the 
grantor's death, is attested in the third and fourth places by Simon 
de Petri-ponte and William Clericus, whom I take to be the same 
two witnesses.^ 

In November, 1194, Simon de Perepont was one of the Visors in 
a law-suit already mentioned under Astley Abbots. His Essoigner 
was '* Alan de Gleseleia/' * 

In Easter Term, 1200, he, Simon, was one of four knights who 
were to choose a jury to try an assize about land in Northleg 
(Norley Regis) .• 

At Salop Assizes, 1203, Simon de Pierrepoint appears in rarious 
relations: 1st, as a Knight and Juror of great Assize; 2dly, as 
amerced for some transgression ; and 3dly, as defendant in a suit, 
wherein Roger de Wadeleg accused him of disseizing him (Roger) 
of a tenement in Wadeleg J In this suit, Simon was succes^ul, 
and retained the premises. 

At the same Assizes,^ the Stottesden Jurors presented that 
Matthew de Gamages (Lord of Stottesden) had challenged Richard 
le Veil, and Alan de Petraponte, and others, for the murder of his 
man. The County Court however testified that the said Matthew 
appeared some time in said Court, and complained of the murder of 
Richard, his man, and that some of MattheVs servants also 
appeared and challenged said Richard le Veil and Alan de Petra- 
ponte, and others ; but that Matthew did not make the challenge, but 
attorned Philip his Seneschal to prosecute the matter with the other 
challengers (appellantibus). The Jurors of Stottesden were here« 
upon declared to be m muericordid for a false presentment (pro 
fiE&so dicto) . 

This murder had been committed ten years before, at least. It 
was the same, of which Robert Fitz Aer being suspected, had 
suffered imprisonment. He had been acquitted, and was now dead ; 
but at these Assizes, the charge was renewed against several persons, 
and failed in each case, on the ground of previous acquittal. Thus 
Geoffry Dilum challenged Alan de Petraponte for the aforesaid 
murder. Alan is absent, and the Jury (of Stottesden) being asked 

^ Haughmond Chart., fo. 145. 

• Vide supra, p. 47. 

• Bot Our, Regis., ii, 169. 

7 Ajmze Boll, 5 John. Salop. Memb. 4 

recto, 6 dorso, 4 recto. Wadley was near 
01azelej and a member of the Manor. 
^ Ibidem, memb. 2 dorso. 


to whom the said Alan went, or by whom he had been entertained 
(reeeptatus), since such challenge was first made, said, that he had 
been entertained by William de Petra-ponte his Brother, who 
acknowledges the fact. Although Alan was declared innocent, and 
had leave from the Court to return home, and although the chal- 
lenge was declared null, and the appellant fined Jialf a merk for its 
falsity, it appears that the reception of Alan, while under challenge, 
was a misdemeanour on the part of his Brother William. The 
latter had anticipated the consequences by fining half a merk with 
Geofirey Fitz Hers (Chief Justice), in composition of his fault. 
John le Strange was his Surety for this fine, which however appears 
to have been increased to 10*. by the Justices in Eyre, for which 
also John le Strange was pledge. 

I cannot help thinking that Alan and William de Pierrepoint 
were sons of Simon, and that the former succeeded to Glazeley. 

In 1214, Alan de Petriponte had been amerced,^ apparently by 
Peter, Bishop of Winchester, for some disseizin. He had paid the 
fine in two instalments. 

The same Alan has already appeared under Quatford, in Novem- 
ber, 1221.i<> 

The next who occurs in this succession was Guy de Pierrepoint, 
otherwise called Guy de Glazeley. Him I take to have been son 
of Alan, and father of a second Alan, his heir. 

Sir John le Strange and Wido de Gleseg, are witnesses of Peter 
de Eyton's charter to Salop Abbey, and which must have passed 
between 1224 and 1227.1^ 

Also, Wydo de Gleseleg is witness of a grant in Walkerslow to 
the same house, by Adam de Beyssin, and which passed within ten 
years of the same period.^^ 

In September, 1235, the scutage of John le Strange had been 
paid by hand of Guy de Gleseleg.^^ 

Wydo de Perpund is a witness to a feofiinent of John le Strange,^^ 
(probably the third of his name), and which must have passed about 
1238, if the grantor be rightly identified. 

This Guy had three sons, Alan, Henry, and. William, by his wife 
Juliana, who survived him. 

In Michaelmas term 1251, Ralph de Arraz and Jane his wife, sued 

9 P*pe Moll, 16 John, Salop. 

10 Vide supra, p. 113. 

" Salop Chartiilary, No. 280. 
»2 Ibidem, No. 10. 

^ Testa de Nevill, p. 61. 
" Wombridge ChaHula/nfy Tit, Lopin< 
ton, No. ix. 



Alan^ son of Wydo, for 6 virgates of land in Wadeleg, and Juliana^ 
mother of said Alan^ for 2 virgates there^ as the right of Jane. — 

Alan and Jnliana ask for view thereof, which the Court grants, 
and adjourns the case to the quinzaine of Hilary (Jan. 27, 1252) . 
Juliana names Adam de Perepunt her Attorney .^^ The Rolls of 
that term are lost, hut we shall hear presently the result of this 

In 1255, the Stottesden Jurors reported Alan de Perepunt as 
Lord of Glasele. Therein was i hide of land which the said Alan 
held of John le Strange for half a Knight^s fee. But he did no 
suit, except twice a year at the SherifiPs tourn, nor did he pay sti'et- 
ward nor motfee : the Jury knew not the ground of either ex- 

At the Salop Assizes, of January, 1256, Ralph de Arraz and 
Alan Fitz Wydo, are each found offering a merk for license to accord 
their suit. They have such license and a cyrography^ 

Accordingly a fine remains on the Rolls to this effect.^® — 

" This is the final concord between Ralph de Arraz and Jane his 
wife. Plaintiffs ; and John le Straunge, whom Alan Fitz Wydo calls 
to warranty, and who comes forward with such warranty, &c., con- 
cerning 8 virgates in Waddeg (except 6*. rent), whereof was suit 
at law. Ralph and Jane acknowledged the right of the others, quit 
as regarded themselves and their heirs. For this John le Strange 
gave the plaintiffs 40 merks.^' 

In Feb, 1262, Alan de Glasleye appears as one of the regarders 
of the Forests of Morf and Shirlet.^* 

Between the years 1266 and 1269, this Alan de Glaseleye attests 
both the charters which Robert Corbet of Chetton granted in re- 
lation to that manor .2^ 

At Salop Assizes, October 1272, John de Glaseleye and Alan de 
Glasleg were Jurors for Stottesden Hundred.^^ 

Nov. 30, 1274, John de Gleseleg was one of the. Jurors who re- 
ported on the misconduct of public officers &c. in the Hundred of 
Stottesden. Among their presentments was one that Hugh Donvil 

" Plac, apud Westm., 35 Hen. Ill, 
memb. 3 recto. Juliana de Glazeley has 
occurred above in 1255 (vide page 124). 

** JRot, Hund. ii, 81. The mesne tenure 
of John le Strange under Fitz Alan, is 
-not recognised. 

^^ Assize Moll, 40 Hen. Ill, memb. 6 

" Fines at Salop, 40 Hen. HI. 

w Plac. ForestcB, 4/6 Hen. Ill, memb. 
6 recj-o. 

20 Vide supra, pp. 178, 179. 

2^ S<ilop Assizes, 56 Hen. Ill, memb. 
21 rectd. 



{fermor of Stottesden Hundred^ under the Sheriff) had taken a 
bribe of Is. from John de Gleseleg. for removing him (John) from 
some Assize ^^ (excusing his service on a Jury). 

January 28, 1281, Sir Alan de Glaseleg was one of the four 
Knights commissioned to make view and report of the state of the 
King's Castle of Brug.«3 

In 1284, Alan de Glasseleye is registered as holding Glasseleye 
of John le Strange for half a Knight's fee ; and said John held it 
of Richard Pitz Alan, of the honour of White-Minster, and 
Richard of the King in capite.^ 

Next to this, in point of time, is perhaps the deed already quoted, 
whereby Katherine, relict of Sir Alan de Glaseleye, concedes to 
Guy, Lord of Glaseleye, land in Quatford, which she and her husband 
had purchased from Hen^y, her said husband's brother .^^ 

At Salop Assizes, October, 1292, John de Glaseleye and Wytho 
de Glaseleye were both Jurors of Stottesden Hundred.^ 

June 23, 1297, Wydo de Glaseleg attests a Holycott deed already 
cited f^ and in June, 1300, he was one of the Jurors on the great 
Forest Perambulation of the County.^ 

15 March, 1301, John de Glaseley satin an Inquest held at Cleo- 
bury North.^ 

In 5 Edw. II (1311-12), Wydo, Lord of Glaseley, attests a 
deed at the Woodhouse near Stottesden, hereafter to be cited, but 
he is not placed among the witnesses who were Knights.^^ 

In March, 1316, he is returned as Lord of Glasseley,*^ and in 

10 Edw. II (1316-7) ; granted land in Bruges to Catherine his 
daughter.^^ He must have died soon after. The Escheat Rolls of 

11 Edw. II (1317-8),^ seem to have reported him Lord of the 
Manors of Glaseleye and Ruyton6, of which hereafter. 

Sept. 29, 1324, John de Glaseleye is found attesting a deed at 

In 3 Edw. Ill, 1329* Alan de Glazeley (son and heir of Guy) 

22 Sot Sund. ii, 107, 109, where in 
the first instanoe the name is printed 

23 Inquis. 9 Edw. I, No. 81. 
2* Kirby'3 Quest. 

2» Vide supra, p. 114, under Quatford. 
The seal of the deed is to be especially 

^ Placita CorotUB, 20 Edw. I, memb. 
51. recto 

27 Vide supra, p. 182. 

28 Salop Chartulary, No. 279. 

29 Inquis, 29 Edw. I, No. 7. 

* Slakew€M/*s. M88.f citing an Ottley 
Deed. Vide in&a, under Aston Botterell, 
as to its date. 

31 Parliament€My WritSy It, 398. 

32 Blakeway MS8. 

33 Calend. Each., vol. i, p. 288. 
3* Charter at Apley Park. 




granted to Reginald^ son of Fremund de Eardinton^ a meadow in 
the field of Brug^ called the Bee. 

This Alan^ and William his son, occur in a deed of 27 Edw. Ill 
(1353-4) .»5 

With them we will dose this portion of onr subject. 

One or two documents, however, remain, which may be added as 
an Appendix to this account of Glazeley. — 

At the Assizes of 1272/ Laurence de Glaseleye and Agnes his 
wife, sued Philip de Heselwode for one-third of a virgate in HeseU 
wode, and sued John, son of Richard de Holicote, for three acres in 
the same, as the right of Agnes.^ (The record is here broken off 
with the words '^ Jurata patrise,'' intended to begin another sentence) . 
Another entry on the same Roll is as follows : — 

Philip de Haselwod sues Laurence de Glaseleye and Agnes, 
daughter of Walter de Haselwod, for two-thirds of a messuage and 
virgate in Haselwod, in which the defendants had no entry, save 
by Richard de Haselwod, Philip's brother, who demised the pre- 
mises to them for a term of 16 years, now expired. Laurence and 
Agnes plead that Richard enfeoffed them, and they produce his 
charter thereof. Philip is declared in misericordid?'^ 

By deed sans date, but probably of the year 1273, William, son 
of Wydo de Glaseleye, grants to Cristiana, daughter of William 
Dagenel, for her service, five seylions in the fee of Tasseley, be- 
tween the lands of the Lady of Tasseley, of Richard de Petra, &c. 
To hold to her for life, and to Agnes her daughter and the heirs of 
said Agnes' body, for Id. payable at Michaelmas, as long as they 
shall both live. — Witnesses : William Bolding, Roger de la More 
junior, Provosts of Brug &c.®® 

Also Christiana, daughter of William Dagonel, of Bruges, delivers 
to William, called Godwyn, Clerk of Brug, for a sum of money, the 
same 5 seylions, which William de Glaseley gave her.— To hold 
for a term of five years, commencing Michaelmas 1273, so that he 
may have, according to the custom of the country, five crops together 
with the charter, and its effect (virtute) and feoffment, which said 
William de Glaseley made and gave of that land to the said 
Christiana. — Witnesses: the same Provosts and others (six in 
number), dated a.d. 1273, and 1 Edw. I.^^ 

^ Blakeway M88, 

^ Salop Assizes, 66 Hen. Ill, memb. 
12 dorso. 
^ Ibidem, memb. 14 recto. 

88 Charter at Apley Park. 

^ Charter ibidem. These two deeda 
are not given thus at length for their local 
interest or importance, but because of 




I have before said that mention of a Priest in connexion with 
any Domesday Manor perhaps indicates the coexistence of a 
Church.^ We have, in case of Glazeley, a confirmation of that 
surmise^ more apposite than could ordinarily have been expected. 

We learn in fact, that about thirty years affcer Domesday, the 
Church of Glazeley was of such standing, as that Ingelbert, the 
Priest thereof, claimed in an Archidiaconal Chapter, then held at 
Castle Holgate, a parochial jurisdiction over the neighbouring 
Manor of Deuxhill.*^ The latter belonged to Wenlock Priory, and 
the dispute very probably arose in consequence of the Monks 
having founded a Chapel there. All that need be said of this 
matter here is, that Richard, Bishop of London, then Viceroy of 
Shropshire, and presiding judicially in the said Chapter, rejected 
the claim of the Rector of Glazeley^ on the ground that all St. 
MiU)urg*s lands constituted but one Parish. 

In 1291> the Church of Glasleye was valued at £4; but the 
Priory of Wenlock had a portion of 6*. 8rf. therein, which belonged 
to the pittance of the Monks.^ 

In 1341, the Church of Glaseley, in Stottesden Deanery, is 
entered as valued at ^4. 6«. 8d. But the Assessors and Vendors 
of the ninth of wheat, wool, and lamb in the Parish, render account 
only of 19*. — 

The reasons of the difierence were, a want of sheep and lambs, 
the non-cultivation of 1 virgate of land through poverty of its 
tenants, and because the glebe, hay-tithe, offerings, and other small 
tithes went to make up the greater sum (the-taxation), and were 
not included in the ninth.*^ 

In 1535, Deuxhill and Glazeley were united Parishes. Peter 
Griffith was Rector. Their collective value in glebe and great and 
small tithes was £4. 13*. 4£?. ; but a pension of 8*. payable to 
Wenlock Priory was chargeable on that value.** The Prior of Wen- 
lock^s return gives this pension as receivable £rom the Rector of 

their peculiar instructivenesB as to points 
of conveyancing at that early period, when 
we seldom meet with a dated charter. 

^ Vide supra, p. 35, note 18. 

41 Eot. Pat. 22 Edw. Ill, p. 3, memb. 
34. Inspeximus. 

^ Pope Nic. Tax. 166. For an expla- 
nation of the Monastic pittance and 

an instance of endowment, specially de- 
voted thereto, see Hist, Skrewsbwyy ii, 97. 

In 1391, 1 find this pension or portion 
taxed at its twentieth by the Crown, viz. 
at 4d. {Register at WUley, fo. 36, b.) 

^ Inqwis. Nonarum^ p. 190, 

** Valor JEccles. iii, 210. 

** Ibidem, p. 216. 



Of the Early Incumbents of Olazeley I can say notliing more 
specific than that which is implied above^ viz., that there was an 
Incumbent of Glazeley, independent of Wenlock Priory, or of any 
other Church, early in the twelfth century. The first Hereford 
Registers (according to Mr. Blakeway's transcripts in the Bodleian 
Library) appear to take no notice of a distinct Incumbency h^e. 
How or when the combination with Deuxhill, which existed in 
1534, first commenced is a question, — possibly to be solved by 
some retrospective document of a later period than that of which 
we treat, perhaps by some yet undiscovered Chartulary of Wenlock 


Simon de Pierpoint ^ 
Occurs circ. 1175. . 
MiUfs 1200. 
Occurs 1203. 

Alan de Pierpoint ' 
Occurs circ. 1193. 
An Essoigner 1194. 
Occurs N</t. 1221. 

William de Pierpoint. 
Appointed Prebendary 
of Brug c. 1173. 
Occurs c. 1175. 
Vefs. Jan. 7, 1215. 

Guy de Glazeley 
Occurs c. 1224-7. 
Also e. 1238. 

= Juliana, dar. of 

• • • • 

SupertUs 1255. 

Henrr de Glazeley. Alan de Glazeley 

Sold land in Quatford Occurs 1251. 

to Alan, his brother, Miles Jan. 1281. 

and Katherine, Alan's wife. Occurs 1284. 

•Katherine dar. of William Fitz Wydonis. 
• • • • Grants in Tasley, c. 1273. 

Swperstes \Wi\-2. 

Wydo de Glazeley 
Occurs Oct. 1292. 
Nondum miles 

Occurs 1316. 
Befs. 1317-8. 

Alan de Glazeley 
Occurs 1329. 
Also 1353-4. 


Grantee of her &ther 


William do Glazeley 
Occurs 1353-4. 




It is often doubtful whether places with this termination owe it 
to the Saxon heall (a hall), or hul (a hill). The Domesday ortho- 
graphy (Dehocsele) would favour the former derivation, while the 
situation of the place would correspond well with the latter. 

As regards the first syllable or syllables, involved in the letters 
Dehocs or Deuks, I can ofier little even in the way of conjecture. 
The word is perhaps the possessive case of some personal noun, 
disguised by change, or wholly obsolete. The nearest Saxon 
name which I have met with is Dudoc or Duduc, 

Domesday notices the Manor thus^ — 

The salme Church (St. Milburg) held (in time of King Edward) 
and still holds Dehocsele. Here is half a hide geldable. In 
demesne is i ox-team : and (there are) ii boors and i cottar with 
I ox-team ; and i serf is here. It (the Manor) was worth 10*. (in 
time of King Edward). Now it is worth 20*. 

Wenlock, a Monastery which, of all in Shropshire, boasted the 
most exclusive privileges, both spiritual and temporal, retained this 
Manor from the Conquest to the Reformation. The Chartularies of 
Wenlock being either hidden, scattered, or destroyed, we can know 
but little of its dependencies. 

On the change of the Hundredal divisions of Shropshire, supposed 
to have taken place in the time of Henry I, Deuxhill was probably 
attached to Stottesden Hundred. But when, in time of Richard I, 
a new Liberty or Hundred was assigned to Wenlock Priory, its 
distant and isolated Manor of Deuxhill was undoubtedly included. 
Therefore, from the Inquisition as to the " Liberty of Wanlok,^' made 
in 1255, we learn that the Prior of Wenlock is Lord of Dewkeshul, 
and that it contains half a hide.^ 

An extent of the possessions of Wenlock Priory, taken Sept. 
1379, gives the rents of the free tenants in the hamlet of Deukeshull, 
as 20*. per annum, payable at Lady Day and Michaelmas.^ 

* Domesdayy 252, b. 2. 
2 Sot, Sund. ii, 85. 

3 New Monasticon, vol. v, page 77, 
No. yiii. 



In 1585^ their rents^ lands, and tenements in Deoxhnll were 
returned by the Priory as realizing JE2. 12s» 44. per annum > 

The Minister's Accounts of 1541-2 value the rents of free- 
tenants at £1, 3s. 4d.; of tenants-ai-will, at £4. ISs. 44.; of 
Copyhold tenants, at £2. 99. Od.; and the ferm of the tithes at 
£1. 28. Sd. ; making a total of £9. Ss. 4d.^ 

Of the Prior's tenants here hardly a notice occurs. — 

In January, 1256, there was an assize of mart d'ancestre, whether 
Robert de Teukeshull, uncle (avunculus) of Juliana Fitz Warin, 
had died seized of 1 virgate here, which Sibil, daughter of Geoffry 
de Creddon, held &c. Sibil's defence was, that William de Deukes- 
hull and Margery his wife held the land, and so said the Jury. 
Therefore, Juliana was non-suited.^ 

But she renewed her suit against the real tenants, and at the 
same Assizes. The question now was, whether Robert Fitz Owen 
(Audoeny), her uncle, died seized of a messuage and virgate in 
Deukeshul, which William Fitz PrStre (le fiz le Prestre) and 
Margery his wife held. These tenants proved Juliana not to be heir 
of Robert, because she was bom before her mother was married. 
So she was again non-suited.*^ 

The fine of 1293 which entitled Edmund de Mortimer to a rent 
of 20 quarters of com in Deuxlull, has already been given under 


The foundation of a Church or Chapel here by Wenlock Priory, 
possibly as early as a.d. 1115, has been noticed under Glazeley. 

At the Assizes of October, 1203, Robert Chaplain of DeukeshuU, 
occurs as surety for another Chaplain, Adam de Hereford, who had 

In 1291, the Church of DeukeshuU with the Chapel of Mitletone 
(Miccletone or Suttleton) is entered as not of £4. annual value.^^ 

The Inquisition of 1341, which enumerates the parishes of 

^ Vahr ScclesiatUcuSy iii, 215. 

* Moiicuticony vol. v, p. 81, No. xii. 

• Salop Assizes^ 40 Hen. Ill, memb. 2 

7 Ibidem, memb. 14 recto. The descrip- 
tion of the same persons mider different 
names, is very clear and instructive. 

' Vide supra, p. 193, 

* Assizes^ 5 John, memb. 1 recto. It 
must be remembered, however, that the 
individual mentioned may only have been 
a Chaplain whose name was Bobert de 

10 Nic, Tax, 166, 175. Stottesden 




Stottesden Deanery very nearly in the order of Pope Nicholas^ 
Taxation^ contains no correspondent entry to the last^ and indeed 
omits all notice whatever of DeuxhilL^^ 

That which relates to Deuxhill Church in the Valor of 1535 has 
been given under'Glazeley with which it was then combined.^^ 


In 1277, the Bishop of Hereford commands the Dean of 
Stottesden to cite the Rector of the Churches of Myttelton 
(Priors) and Deuxhill, and the Chaplain of the same, because they 
do not cause the same to be served as they ought, 

Oct. 10, 1278, Sir Robert de Mudle, Chaplain, presented by the 
Prior and Convent of Wenlock, to the Chapels of Middleton Priors 
and DeukeshuU. 

March 24 (1289-90), Sir Gilbert de Reygat instituted on the 
same presentation. 

July 22, 1304, John de la Felde, Acolite, instituted on the same 

Nov. 30, 1316, Adam de Wilyneten, Priest, instituted on the 
same presentation. 

Feb. 18, 1341, Sir Richard dela More, instituted on presentation 
of the King, exercising this right, " because Wenlock Priory is in 
his hands by reason of the war^' (with France) . 

June 1, 1344, William de Lodelowe presented by the Crown in 
the same right,^* but his institution does not appear on the Diocesan 

Sept. 3, 1349, William de Burstalle, Priest, presented by the 
Crown in the same right. He resigned in 1858, when, — 

On Aug. 11, Alexander de Chelleseye, Clerk, was instituted, the 
Crown still presenting. He resigned in 1388.^^ 

** The other omissions (only two) of 
the Inquisition of 1341 are suppUed in a 
supplementary form. It also gives a 
Parish of Sheryn, as in Stottesden Dea- 
nery (p. 194, in a supplement). Of this 
parish^ the ninth is valued at ISs. 4d.f a 
sum very prohahly corresponding to a 
taxation of less than £4. But I neither 
know what place is meant by Shevyn, nor 
dare I suggest Deuxhill. All I can say 
is, that an identification of the two places 

would bring the two Eecords into oorre- 

12 Supra, p. 217. 

^ FromBlakeway's transcripts of Sere- 
ford Megisters^ in Bibl. Bodl. 

14 Eot. Pat, 18 Edw. m, part i, memb. 
26, and part ii, memb. 38. The presenta- 
tion is to the two Chapels of Middelton 
and DeukeshuU. 

'* On Chelleseye's resignation (1388), 
he is called Custos of these Chapels. 



Jan. 19, 1373, Sir Henry Warde, Chaplain, institnted to thd 
Chapel of Mittelton, on the same presentation. Deuxhill is not 

July 19, 1888, Sir John Bedewynde, Chaplain, instituted to the 
Chapels of Middleton and Deuxhill^ on the resignation of Alexander 
de Chellesley, and on presentation of the Crown. He resigned in 
1389, when,— 

On Feb. 15, John Godewyn (or Godene), late Vicar of Aston 
Biehant in Dioc. Line, (which he resigned for these), is in- 

May 22, 1399, Sir Richard Arderu instituted on presentation of 
the Prior and Convent of Wenlock.^^ 

astott BottirelL 

Aston, anciently Eston, took its name probably from lying 
to the East of the Great Clee Hill.^ It is noticed in Domesday 
thus :^ — 

The same Bainald (the SheriflF) holds Estone (under the Earl), 
and Tochil under him. Elric held it (in time of King Edward), 
and was free together with this land. Here is i hide geldable. In 
demesne is i ox-team ; and (there are) 6 serfs, 2 villains, 3 boors, 
and 3 radmans^ with two ox-teams amongst them all; and yet 
there might*be a third ox-team here. The Manor used to be worth 
14^., now it is worth 16«. 

IS This presentation seems inconsistent 
with the terms of the next. 

17 Wenlock Priory had been declared 
denizen in 18 Bic. II (1395). This serer- 

ance of its foreign relations involved the 
reooyery of its escheated Churoh-patron- 
age in England.- 

^ Vide supra, pp. 67, 194. 

^ DomesdcM/, fo. 255, a. 2. 

^ The Eadmans and Kachenistres of 
Domesday seem to have been identical. 
They were of a higher grade than serfs, 
villains, or boors, but their degree of 
freedom was not the same in every case. 

The tenure of some obliged them to pay 
a rent in the shape of agricultural labour 
to their Lords. Others are mentioned as 
inseparable from the land. Others again 
are expressly stated to have been free. 
(See more in Introduction to Domesday^ 
vol. ii, pp. xxii, xxiii.) 


The name Elric, otherwise Alrie, jSllric, or Aluric, appears in 
nearly every Hundred of Shropshire in the time of the Confessor, 
and Edric, son of a Saxon Aluric, retained Burton (near Much 
Wenloek) after the Conquest. Though more than one person must 
be represented by the name, it seems likely that the Elric, who 
held Estone in King Edward^s time and Aluric, who, at the same 
period, held Udecote (Woodcote) in Beeordin Himdred, were iden- 
tical. The successor to each Manor, in 1085, was one, whose name 
Tochi, or, as above, Tochil, was surely Saxon ; nor is there any ex- 
travagance in the conjecture that this Tochil was one of a favoured 
few, and was permitted to hold, under Norman Lords, two distant 
Manors which were his by descent. This early association between 
Aston and Woodcote becomes still more striking when we find a 
record of law proceedings, wherein the Lord of Woodcote was, 
after lapse of more than a century, suing the Lord of Aston for the 
latter Manor. 

Of Tochil, the Domesday owner of Aston, we know nothing fiirther 
than that early in the twelfth century he granted to Shrewsbury 
Abbey a hide of land in the viU which was called Cota ; and it is 
observable, how, in the two confirmations of Henry I and Stephen, 
which record this gift, the donor^s name is spelt with exactly the 
same variety as in Domesday,'^ 

The next date at which we may expect to find a successor to any 
Domesday tenant of Kainald is the year 1165 and amongst, the 
tenants of Fitz Alan. Of these there is one whose fief I cannot 
assign elsewhere, whose tenure was one Knight^s fee, such as after- 
wards was Aston Botterell, and whose origin was, if I rightly judge 
by his name, Saxon. This was Robert, son of Luun, to whose 
ancestry, whether he were Lord of Aston or not, we may now revert, 
for at least two generations. 

About the year 1115, there was a great Chapter held at Castle 
Holgate, by William, Archdeacon of Hereford. Richard, Bishop of 
London, then Viceroy of the County, and other great persons, both 
Clerks and Laymen> were in attendance. — 

Lunun is named amongst those who are most associated with 
this neighbourhood.^ 

To him succeeded Robert -Fitz Luun, who being dead before 

* Salop Chartulary, No. 35, and Monas- 
ticon, iii, 517, ii. 

« Patent 22 Edw. Ill, p. 3, memb 34, 
an inyaluablfi record, and one which must 

be given at length hereafter. The subject 
which engaged the Chapter's attention 
was the parochial jurisdiction of St. Mil- 




Michaelmas^ 1160, Robert, son of Robert Fitz Luun, is then entered 
on the Sheriflf^s account, as owing £20. for fine of his land.^ This 
I suppose to have been a fine on succession, and to have been pay- 
able to the Crown, by reason of Fitz Alan's Barony having, half a 
year before, come into the King's hand. 

In September, 1161, Robert Fitz Louun renders account of his 
fine of £20. It had gone to pay for works at the Castle of Blanc- 
muster (Oswestry, then in the King's hand as caput of Fitz Alan's 
Barony), and he was quit J 

In 1165, Robert Fitz Luun is registered as holding i Knighfs 
fee of Fitz Alan's Barony.* 

When this family became extinct in the male Hne, or how the 
family of BottereU succeeded to Aston, I cannot say. An interval 
of forty-five years elapsed between the latest notice of Fitz Luun, 
and the earliest of Botterell. 

In Easter Term, 1200, William Boterell appears as the third of 
four Knights who were to choose a Jury of the King's Great Assize.' 
The cause concerned lands in Norley Regis, and the other three 
Knights were of Stottesden Hundred. Hugh de Sidbury precedes 
William Boterell, otherwise we might have hesitated as to whether 
the latter was of Aston, or whether the contemporary coheir of 
Robert Corbet's Barony, whose position in Shropshire was very high, 
had officiated on this occasion. Whether, or how nearly, they were 
related is still a question. 

Among the fines which had been recently offered to the Crown at 
Michaelmas, 1202, was one by Robert de Wudecot of 10 merks, 
that he might have trial (pro habendo recto), concerning one 
Knight's fee in Eston, against William Botterell.^^ 

A similar entry prior to Michaelmas, 1203, gives the same 
Robert, as fining and paying 20^., that the suit which was in the 
County Court between him and William Boterell, concerning one 
Knight's fee in Eston, be transferred to the Courts at Westminster.^^ 

In Easter Term, 1203, at Westminster, a day was given to 
Robert de Wodecot, plaintiff, and William Boterell, in a suit about 
one Knight's fee, viz. in 3 weeks of Easter,^^ {i, e. April 27) ; but I 
find no further mention of the suit. 

« Moff, Sot. Pip. 6 Hen. II., Salop ; 
which abo contains the Sheriff's account 
of half a year's /<5rw of the lands of Wil- 
liam Fitz Alan. 

7 Maff, Sot. Ftp. 7 Hen. II. 

8 Heame*8 Liher Niger^ i, 143. 

• ' Plcui, apud Wettm, Easter Term, 
1 John, memb. 3 recto. 

^0 Pipe Moll, 4 John. Nova oblata. 

^^ Pipe Roll, 6 John. Noya oblata. 

^ PlacUa de eodem termino, memb. 11 



At Salop Assizes, October, 1203, William Botterell was amerced 
half a merk, for some transgression.^^ 

At Salop Assize^, November, 1221, William Boterell was a 
Juror in a cause of " Great Assize/^ ^* 

He had also a suit against Thomas de Baskervill for disseizing 
him of his tenement in Norwinde (Northwood), which he failed to 
prosecute, and so he and his sureties were amerced.^^ 

About 1240, Philip Boterel is returned as holding 1 fee in Aston, 
of the Barony of John Pitz Alan.^* 

The same Philip also attests a Pickthorne deed which must have 
passed in that or the following year.^*^ 

In Michaelmas Term, 1242, the Essoigners of Robert Wygod and 
Adam de Dodington, presented themselves in due course against 
Avelina, widow of Philip Boterel, who had a suit of dower against 
them. She appeared not, and was in misericordid}^ 

The successor of Philip was probably Thomas, who sat as a Juror 
in the Stottesden Inquisition of 1255, and was himself returned as 
Lord of Astone Boterell, which he held in capite of John Fitz Alan, 
for 1 Knight^s fee. Therein were 3 hides of land, in half a virgate 
whereof Henry de Eston was enfeoffed in consideration of his doing 
suit to the lesser Hundred-Courts, and to the County-Court, for the 
vill of Aston. The Manor paid to the Sheriff 12 pence for 8tret* 
ward, and 2s, for motfee.^^ 

At the Assizes of January, 1256, Thomas Boterel again sat as a 
Juror for this Hundred.^^ It was about this time that Hugh de 
Acour, the Sheriff, accepted 10 merks jfrom him to the end that he 
might have respite of Knighthood ;^^ and in this year he was 
returned as one of those who held £16. of lands, and yet was not a 

In 1258, he fined again with the Crown for respite of Knight- 

In 1262, he withdrew the suit of Aston from Stottesden Hun- 

^ Salop Assizes J 5 John,meinb. 6 dorso. 
" ScUop Assizes, 6 Hen. IIT, memb. 1 
** Ibidem, memb. 2 recto. 

16 I'estadeNevilly^.U. 

17 BlaJceway M8S, 

18 Plac. apud Westm. 26 Hen. Ill, 
memb. 32 dorso. 

»» Rot, Sv/nd, ii, 81, 82. The great 
increase on the Domesday hidage will 
again come under notice. 

» Ajssize Boll, 40 Hen. III. 

21 Rot. Hund, ii, 109. 

22 Dukes' Introduction, p. vii. 

23 Rot. Pip. 43 Hen. Ill, quoting 
OriginaUa of 42 Hen. III. 


dred.^ He was also a Regarder of Morf and Shirlet Forests in 
this year.*^ 

In 48 Hen. Ill (1263-4), he had the King's Charter to have a 
Market and Fair at Estone Boterell.^ 

In August, 1267, the King presiding in his Court at Salop, this 
Thomas appeared in a suit of novel disseisin against Matilda de 
Longespee and others, who had deprived him of common pas- 
turage in Cleyes, pertaining to his free tenement in Aston BotereU. 
Matilda pleaded that she had only resisted the right during hay- 
harvest (tempore fenacionis), and she had the same liberty at that 
season as the King had in his Forests, because that Forest (the Clee) 
was once Royal. Thomas rejoined that his ancestors had purchased 
from the ancestors of Matilda a right of pasturage throughout the 
year, for 2s. and 12 hens (rent, I presume). Presently Thomas 
declines to prosecute. His consequent amercement was excused at 
instance of Sir R. de Clifford.^ 

As a supplement to this concord with Maud de Longespee (the 
heiress of the Cliffords and Lady of Corfham), we may instance 
Thomas Boterel's attestation of her Charter to Shrewsbury Abbey, 
which must have passed within a year or two of the last date.^^ 

Also about this time Thomas Botterel, Knight, stands third 
witness of Robert Corbett's grant in Chetton.^* ' , 

At the County Assizes, October, 1272, Thomas Botterel appears 
both as a Knight and Juror.^ 

It would appear that he was sometime Constable of his Suzerain's 
Castle of Clun, and that for some alleged excess in that office, 
Geoflfrey le Venour, Seneschall of Sir Roger de Mortimer, about 
October, 1273, maliciously caused the cattle of the said Thomas to 
be seized on his own land of Eston Boterel, and to be driven to 
Cleybury, and there detained till said Thomas had paid ISs,^^ 

On Nov. 27, 1274, Sir Thomas Boterel sat as foreman of the 
Jury which then made report as to oppressions and excesses by the 
King's Officers and others in Stottesden Hundred.*^ To their 
retiun we owe the above particulars as to Thomas' own withdrawal 
of the suit of his Manor of Aston ; also as to his transaction with 

^ Sot. Hund. u, 108. 

^ :Plae. ForeHcB, 46 Hen. Ill, memb. 
6 recto. 

^ Calend. Rot. Cart. p. 92. 

^ Placita coram Rege, 51 Hen. Ill, 
memb. 3 dorso. | 

* Salop Ghartulary, No. 6. 
» Vide supra, p. 178. 
» Ajstize Eolly 66 Hen. HE. 
" Mot. Hund. u,im, 
« Ibidem, p. 107. 


Hugh de Acour and his persecution by the Seneschal of Cleobury 

About this time/^ or at least between the years 1271 and 1278, 
Sir Thomas Boterel had a feoffment from Luke Abbot of Shrews- 
bury, of a messuage iu the vill of Lucton (Loughton), and of 9 
acres lying in the fields, in Wetemore, between Burwarton and 
Loughton, to hold for ever at a rent of 3^. 4d, — ^Witnesses : Sir 
Ralph de Arras, Sir John de la Lee, Sir John Fitz Aer, and others. 

Jan. 28, 1281, Sir Thomas Boterel occurs as one of the four 
Knights then commissioned to make view and report of the state 
of Bridgnorth Castle.^* 

About 1284, the Feodary gives Thomas de Boterbel as holding 
Haston, of Richard Fitz Alan, of the honour of White-Minster, with 
its members, viz. Necton (Norton), Forde, Heywode (Haywood), 
and Toteneye, by performing the service of 1 Knighfs fee, and 
doing ward at White- Minster Castle in time of war.^^ 

He will have survived this date but for a short time. He seems 
to have married Petronilla, widow of Wido de Hadnall, and after 
he became a Knight to have had, with her, a grant of lands in " 
Hadnall, from Sir Thomas de le Lee,^* which grant was afterwards 
(1296-7) confirmed by John de le Lee, son of Sir Thomas, to 
Richard, son of Thomas Boterell. • 

This Richard had succeeded his father at Aston Botterell before 
Octobdf, 1292, when he was summoned to answer at Salop as to his 
warrant for claiming a right of fair, market, and free-warren, and 
the privilege of assizing bread and beer in his Manor of Eston 
Boterel. In reply was produced the Charter of King Henry III, 
granting to Thomas Boterel, ancestor of said Richard, and whose 
heir Richard was, that said Thomas and his heirs should have for 
ever a weekly market on Tuesdays, in his Manor of Eston, and an 
annual fair of three days, viz. the vigil, the day, and the morrow of 
St. Michael. And Richard said that he claimed such market and 
fair by the aforesaid charter, and the privilege of assizing bread and 
beer, as appurtenant to the said fair and market. So he was, on 
this count, dismissed sine die ; and as to free warren he does not 
appear to have claimed any.^7 

33 Salop Chartulary, No. 407. 
^ Inquisitions, 9 Edw. I, No. 81. 
3' Kirhy's Quest. 

3« Sheriffs of ShropsUre, p. 204. It 
would also seem from the Haghmon Char- 

ttdary (fo. 69), that John, Lord of the 
Lee, made a grant, independently of his 
father's, to Sir Thos. Boterell, Knight, and 
Petronilla his wife, in Hadnall. 
37 Placita de quo WarrantOf p. 676, 



In 5 Edw. II (1311-2), I find him attesting as Richard Lord of 
Aston Botterel, but not as a Knight, a charter which concerned 
lands at Northwood, and which passed at The Woodhonse, near 

In March, 1316, Richard Boterel is returned as Lord of Asseton 

But in 10 Edw. II (1316-7), John Botterel, Lord of Aston 
Botterel, grants to Richard, his father, the tenement held by 
William Idel.'"^ 

At Diddlebury on the feast of St. Ethelbert, 11 Edw. II (May 20, 
1318), Richard Botterel granted to Hugh, son of Roger de Cheyney, 
for a sum of money a tenement, &c. in Hadnall, near Astley.^^ 

By letters patent tested at Westminster, 24 Sept. 1321, John 
Boterel and other Shropshire names, appear among the followers of 
Roger Mortimer of Wigmore, who were included in a general 
pardon for all offences committed in pursuit of the Despensers.^ 

" I have met with very few notices of minor tenancies in this 
Manor, and I greatly doubt whether its members in the 13th 
century were belonging to it at Domesday. A future occasion will 
suffice for what remains to be said on the subject. 


The first mention of a Church here which has occurred is in the 
Taxation of 1291, when the Church of Asheaton BoteV in the 
Deanery of Stottesden, is expressed to be of £10. annual value.*^ 

In 1341 the taxation of Astonbotrel Church being quoted at £10, 
the ninth of wheat, wool, and lamb, in the Parish, is only rated at 

^ Blakeway MS8, quoting Oitifiy 
Deeds. This deed seems to be dated " in 
the fifth year of King Sdward" a form 
not unusual in deeds of the first years of 
Edward II's reign, when as yet his dis- 
tinctive title of Edward, son of King 
JEdward, was not established in the pro- 
vinces. The circumstance seems to liave 
escaped Mr. Blakeway, whose remarks 
(p. 204 of the Sherifis) seem to have been 
infiuenced by this charter. I can recon- 
cile them at least with nothing which has 
occurred to me, and this uncertainty 

induces me to postpone for the present, 
any attempt to set forth a genealogy of 
the Boterells. 

^ ParliametUarff Writs, iv, 398. 

^ BlakevDatf M8S, quoting Lacon 
Evidences. Hr. Blakeway remarks that 
the seal of this deed is (barged with a 
swan, while a lion rampant was the usual 
bearing of the family. 

^ Haughmond Chartularif, fo. 70* 

*^ Parliamentarg Writs, iv, 573. 

« Fope Nic. Tax. p. 166. 



£2. 5s, The difference arose from the usual causes : there were no 
sheep or lambs in the Parish, 2 virgates were untiUed ; certain poor 
tenants had withdrawn; the small tithes, oflFerings, and glebe, con- 
tributed to the taxation, but had nothing to do with the ninth.^ 

In 1534, Walter Myllinchop being Rector of Aston Botrell, his 
preferment, in glebe and great and small tithes, is valued at £7. Is. Id. 
This income was charged with 7s. 8rf. for procurations and synodals, 
with a pension of 6*. Sd. payable to the Lady of Brewood, and a 
portion of 4«. payable to the Rector of Castle Holgate.*^ The net 
value was therefore £6. 2*. 9d. 


Sept. 27, 1278, Thomas Boterel has the Episcopal license to 
study for a year. 

5 June, 1284, Thomas Boterel, Priest, instituted on presentation 
of Sir Thomas Boterel, Knight. 

Oct. 18, 1288, the Bishop commends Philip Clerk, to Master 
John de Cherleton, Priest, " according to the Council of Lyons," 
and before Philip^s institution. Philip is ordained Acolyte at the 
same time. 

July 16, 1313, Roger, son of Sir Roger de Baskervyl, Knight, 
presented by Richard Boterel. 

Sept. 19, 1314, the Bishop, understanding from credible persons 
that this presentee has a lawful impediment not to take orders 
within a year from the time when the Regimen was committed to 
him, Ucenses him to study for seven years. 

1321, Richard de Forde, Subdeacon, then instituted, has dis- 
pensation to study for a year. The same dispensation is renewed in 

Master Richard de Aston Boterel occurs as Rector in 1354. 

Dec. 1, 1393, Sir Richard Dobyn, Chaplain, is instituted, on pre- 
sentation of John Botrell, Lord of Aston Botrell. 

** Nonarum Inquisitiones, p. 190. 

« Valor JSccles. iii, 211. The « Lady 
of Brewood " was Margaret, Frioress of 
the White Nuns, there domiciled. Her 
own return (p. 194 of the volume) gives 
this pension as accruing from Bolld, near 
Botrell Aston. The Chapel of Bold 
being suppressed, or merged in Aston 

Bottrell Church, before the Beformation, 
the Nuns* pension once chargeable on the 
former, became a charge on the latter. 
The same account may be given of the 
Kector of Holgate's portion ; but having 
been 10«. when charged on Bold Chapel, 
it was now only As. 

^ BlaJceway M8S. in Bibl. Bodl. 




The Mosaic account of the fall of man has informed ns of the 
origin of noxious weeds, and it would seem that the etymological 
traditions of various nations have associated these products of the 
earth with the influence of evil spirits. 

The shrub ononis, which we call rest-harrow firom its arresting 
the use of that implement, is by the Swedes called Puktome, t. e. 
Devil's-thom. So the pyrakantha is called by the Crimean Tartars 
Shaitan-teken, words which have precisely the same meaning.^ The 
rhamnus cathartictis, a plant similarly obstructive to agriculture is 
well known among ourselves as Buck-thorn,^ a name which involves 
the same ideas ; for bug (Brit, bwg) is literally a fiend, and Puck, 
whom we pleasantly remember as the servant of King Oberon, was 
in his primitive capacity, nothing more or better. Another pro- 
vincial name of a weed occurs which associates the same ideas still 
more emphatically, though less presentably. Enough has been said 
to back a conjecture that the prevalence of some such plant gave 
name to the locality before us. 

Domesday mentions the Manor thus : — * 

The same Church (St. Milburg) held and still holds Pichetome. 
Here is half a hide geldable. In demesne is i ox-team, and (there 
are) i villain, and ii boors, with ii ox-teams, and (there are) ii ser6. 
Its former and present value is vii shillings. 

At what subsequent period the Norman family which possessed 
this Manor, became enfeofied therein by Wenlock Priory, I cannot 
undertake to say. BaskervAle stands on the Roll of Battle 
Abbey, a circumstance which merely implies that the fabricators of 
that Register, judged the name to be of Norman origin, and suffi- 
ciently important for insertion. Nor were they mistaken in one 
respect. — 

^ BldkewcMf M88, quoting Pallas* 
TraveUf ii, 145. 
^ Buckthorn is said by Withering to be 

common in Shropshire (Plymley's SArop- 
shirey p. 191). 

5 Domesdat/, fo. 252, b. 2. 


The Continuator of William de Jumieges/ enumerating the 
nieces of Gunnora, Countess of Richard I, of Normandy, mentions 
one who married Nicholas deBascherityilla {vulgo Bacqueville), and 
was mother of William Martel and Walter de St. Martin. 

The locality whence this Nicholas had name is situate in the Pays 
de Caux, and is often written Bascevilla and Basqueville, forms more 
nearly corresponding to the English surname. This place continued 
as the fief of Martel for at least two centuries. 

Also, south-west of B/Ouen, and in the Forest of Boumare, was a 
place variously written Balkierville or Boscherville, and which gave 
name to the great Abbey of St. George there founded. 

From one or each of these places there came to England a family 
whose branches were sdready in several Counties at the period when 
we first have' authentic record of such matters. At the beginning 
of the thirteenth century there were Baskervilles in Herefordshire, 
Northamptonshire, and Shropshire, in Warwickshire, Norfolk, 
Buckinghamshire, Wiltshire, and 'possibly in other Counties. No 
reasonable ground has yet occurred to my notice for further asso- 
ciating any two of these branches, except that the Shropshire and 
Northamptonshire branch was identical, and also had lands in 
Herefordshire. Yet these are not to be confounded with the Bas- 
kervilles of Eardisley in Herefordshire, however diflScult it may be 
always to preserve the distinction. I have indeed a printed pedigree 
before me which professes to derive these houses from a common 
origin ; but the details on each side are so purely imaginative that 
I cannot regard the result as a truth, at least not on this evidence. 
Their respective tenures in Herefordshire were at Bradwardine 
and Eardisley, places not four miles asunder : not only was their 
surname identical, but the Christian nstmes adopted by either house 
were generally similar : perhaps also each of them held^ somewhere 
and at some time, under the same feudal superior. Lacy of Ewyas. 
Their consanguinity is therefore most probable, but any attempt to 
exhibit such genealogical relation circumstantially, as it must arise in 
fiction so must it end in incredulity. The two families were in fact 
distinct, from the earliest period at which we find records bearing on 
such matters. 

In 1165, when Robert de Baskevill (whom I take to have been 
of Erdisley), was holding 5 Knights^ fees of Hugh de Lacy, in 
Herefordshire ^^ Radulf de Baskerevill is entered as holding 1 fee / 

* Norm. ScriptoreSy-p. 313. * Liher Niger ^ i,,153. 



under Adam de Port in the same County.* Each tenure was of old 
feoffinent^ that is^ each of the parties had held or inherited his 
lands from a period antecedent to the death of Henry I (1135). 

Ralph wa^, I believe, progenitor of the Shropshire family, and to 
him and his succession I must here confine myself. His tenure 
under De Port in Herefordshire was probably at Bradwardine, and 
was represented by a tenure of his descendants under Braose (who 
subsequently enjoyed De Port^s Barony). 

I will first notice Balph^s occurrence in Shropshire, without his 
Christian name. The Pipe Roll for the year ending Michaelmas, 
1177, records that Roger Fitz Henry and Baschervill, had fined 
with the Crown for according a duel.^ Their fine was 408. and a 
dapple horse. The money had been then paid, but the horse re- 
mained a debt tiU the year 1182, when Ralph de Baskerville appears 
on the Pipe Roll for Herefordshire, as still owing the said horse^ 
and a further and recent amercement for trespass in the King's 
Forests.^ The money was again paid, but the horse remained a 
charge against his name in 1183.* 

In explanation of the quarrel between Ralph de Baskerville and 
Roger Fitz Henry, I can only suggest that they were neighbours 
in so far as that the former had an interest at Pickthom and 
Aldenham, and the latter at Cleobury North, though the greater 
possessions of each lay elsewhere. 

There is a deed in the Chartulary of Shrewsbury Abbey ^® to the 
following effect : Ralph de Baskervill grants to the said Abbey the 
Church of Northburia (Norbury, Staffordshire), at request of his 
mother Juliana. — ^Witnesses : Roger de Ewias, Eitropius, Herbert 
and Robert de Hereford, Roger de Baskervill and Ralph his brother, 
Robert Christian, Henry de Girois, Adam de Baskervill, Richard 
Sadoch, 8cc. — 

All I can venture to state about this deed is an opinion that it 
passed between the years 1165 and 1190, and that the grantor was 
Ralph Baskervill of Pickthom. If so, the said Ralph will have be^n 
also a tenant of Lacy, in whose fief Norbury was contained. The 
point chiefly to be noticed in this deed is, however, that it combines 
places or names connected with the three Counties of Salop, Staf- 
fordshire, and Herefordshire. 

We must now revert to the year 1167, and state that about that 

• Ibidem, p. 151. 

7 Sot IHp, 23 Hen. II, Salop. 

8 Mot. Pip, 28 Hen. II, Hereford. 

» Ibidem, 29 Hen. II. 
w No. 299, a. 



period^ Ralph de Baskerville^ Lord of Pickthom^ haying made some 
encroachment on the King^s demesne (probably of Stottesden)^ ap- 
pears to have compounded for the same by covenanting payment of 
an annual rent of I6d.^^ This rent remained an item of the Sheriff's 
receipts^ and the land for which it was paid being a tenure in capite 
of the Crown^ we hear much more of the family of Baskerville as 
connected with these few acres than as tenants of Wenlock Priory. 
The entry on the Pipe Roll of 1167 is as follows : ^^The same 
Sheriff (Geoffrey de Vere) renders account of 16rf, of the land 
which Ralph de Bascervill held in the same viU (Stottesden). It is 

The next year 1168, under the title of Proprestures, the Sheriff 
accounts for 16 denariates of land which Ralph de Bascheryill held 
(tenuit) in Stottesden, and he is quitP 

Similarly under the title ^' of Proprestures and Escheats/' this 
rent of \^d, (being obviously for a Propresture), is substantively 
entered on every Roll/^ till that of the year 1190 (2 Rich. I), when 
this and some similar rents being collected by an Escheator rather 
than the Sheriff, the former renders account of \&d. of the land of 
Ralph de BascherviU, and is quit}^ 

In 1191, 1192, and 1193, and for half the year 1194, the Sheriff 
answers summarily for the ^^ Escheats of Shropshire '^ in each year, 
but the total in each case must have involved the rent of Basker- 
viUe's purpresture.^^ In this interval, viz. between September, 1190, 
and March, 1194, Ralph Baskervill was murdered in Northampton- 
shire, as will presently appear. 

For the half-year ending Michaelmas, 1194, an Escheator, and 
not the Sheriff, collected the rents of escheats and purprestures. 
Among his receipts was 8rf. for the firm of " Piketom Tomae,"^^ i. e. 
Thomas de Baskervill's land of Pickthom ; and the name of Ralph's 
son and heir was, as we shall see, Thomas. 

^ Bot Pip. 13 Hen. 11. Idem Yioe- 
oomes r. c. de terra quam Bad. de Bas- 
oenrill tenuit in e&dem yiM, &c. The use 
of the preterite tense '* tenuit " did not, 
I think, imply the death of any Balph de 
Baskervill. If it did, another Balph con- 
tinued in possession, but in several sub- 
sequent instances, the form "tenuit" is 
repeated. This use of the same word 
and tense, in deeds, is similarly equivocal, 
and implies only that so and so was tenant 

of certain land lately, not that his tenancy 
had ceased. The imperfect tense would 
in these cases have been the proper one. 
The words "terra qu» fuit Badulphi'* 
is technically a different expression, and 
would imply, I think, a previous termina- 
tion of tenancy, by death, forfeiture, or 
other cause. 
13 13 14 u j^f^ pip^ de eisdem annis, 

i« not. Pip, 6 Bic. I, Salop. 



No material alteration of tliis annual entry occurred during 
Thomas de Baskerville's life. 

Presuming that Ralph de Baflkerville^ of Hckthom^ died (as above) 
between 1190 and 1194^ it is difScult to say whether the following 
refers to him or to a Contemporary of the same name. On the 
Staffordshire Pipe-BoU for the year ending Michaelmas, 1192,^^ 
one Ralph de BaskerviU is entered as owing half a merk for not 
producing one for whom he was pledge, but, it is added, that he had 
summons in Shropshire (sed summonitus est in Salopescr.). We 
should expect a correspondent entry on the Pipe-Roll for Shrop- 
shire, but none such occurs. 

The following year, however, among the fines inflicted at a recent 
assize in Shropshire, Ralph de BaskerviU appears as amerced half 
a merk far false clamour, which he still owed.^® 

Nov. 3, 1194, Thomas de BaskerviU (son and heir of Ralph 
Baskervill, of Pickthom) appears to be of age, which, be it observed, 
he was not at his father's death. . 

At that date (1194), he had impleaded Ralph de Baskervill in a 
suit about land, but Ralph essoigned himself, his essoigner beii^ 
Ralph de Breworthin (Bradwardine) . The case was left to be con- 
tinued in eyre}* 

Dec. 5, 1 194, Thomas again appeared at Westminster against 
Ralph, who neither appeared nor essoigned himself. — 

A day was given by the Court, viz. Jan. 20, at Westminster. 
'^ And another day was given to Ralph in banco, viz. at Hereford, 
before the Justices.''^ (The latter clause I understand to be the 
excuse for Ralph^s non-appearance). 

No Rolls remain to throw farther light on this case, which. I pre- 
sume, referred to some mortgage which Ralph de Baskervill had on 
lands of Thomas, in Herefordshire — probably on Bradwardine. 

In the year ending Michaelmas, 1196, Thomas de Baschervill had 
proffered a fine of 1 merk, " to have recognition about a Knight's fee 
against Miles Pichard.'' He had then paid half a merk ; and he dis- 

V Sot Pip. 4 Eic. I, Staff. Shortly 
before this period there were at least three 
contemporary Balph de Baskerville's, viz. 
the two in the text, and Balph BaskerriUe 
of Erdisley and Cmnb. The latter, how- 
ever, died about June 1186, (Mot Pip. 34 
Hen. II, Heref,), There was also a Ralph 
de BaskerviUe holding of the Earl Ferrers, 
in Warwickshire, in 1166, and a Ralph de 

Baskerville, whose daughter and sole 
heir, Agnes, was, in 1202-3, wife of Hugh 
de Fichford, of Shropshire. The last 
Ralph may not improbably be the 
second Ralph mentioned in the text. 

w Rot, Ftp, 5 Bie. I, Salop. 

» Rot Cur, MegU, i, 110. 

» Mot Cur, Regis, i, 86. 


charged the balance in the following year.^^ Herefordshire is men- 
tioned in connexion with this suit, but with what meaning I cannot say. 

Taking events as nearly in the order of time as the various sub- 
jects will allow, I find, under date of July 8, 1199, the following 
memorandum entered on a Roll of the King's Court at West- 
minster:^^ — 

'' Hereford. Imparlance (is) to be had (Loquendum) about Nesta 
de Baskervill, who brings suit for the Castle of Bredewrthin (Brad- 
wardine), and its appurtenances, which Robert de Wastre detains 
from her, and which the same Nesta avers to be her right and in- 
heritance. And the King had ordered the Sheriff to seize the said 
Castle into the King's hand. And the Sheriff reports that said 
Castle is beyond his bailiwick, and that he dared not to set his hand 
upon that Castle, not being in hi^ jurisdiction. And William de 
Braose says, that neither King, nor Justiciar, nor Sheriff ought to 
set to his hand in his (William^s) liberty.^' — 

The imparlance remains sine die, till the King's pleasure thereon 
be ascertained. 

All I need say of this Nesta here, is, that she was daughter of 
Ralph Baskervill of Pickthom, and that her father, before his 
death, enfeoffed her in Lawton (Salop) ; but the nature of her 
claim on Bradwardine, or how any other than Thomas de Baskervill 
occupied that fee in 1199, 1 cannot say. 

I now return to this Thomas, and a cause which he had in the 
King's Courts at Westminster, in Easter Terip, 1200.^* I give the 
Record as it stands under title of Northamptonshire. 

'^ Thomas de Baskervill challenges (appellat) Roger Fitz William, 
for that, wickedly, and in the King's peace, and in felony, ^and in 
murder, he slew Ralph de Baskervill, his (Thomas') father, who was 
Lord over said Roger, in his house ; and this the said Thomas saw, 
as he says, being a boy under age; and this he offers to prove 
against Roger by his body. Roger appears, and will defend himself 
against the charge of felony and murder, as the Court may decide ; 
as, however, against his Lord whose liegeman he is.'^ 

Thomas hereupon denies that " he ever received Roger's homage. 

» Bot IHp. 8 and 9 Bio. I, Salop. 
Tomas de Baschyill r. c. de 1 marc, pro 
habenda recognicione de feodo 1 mil. 
versus Milonem Fichard qui ly (requiri- 
tur) in Hereford. 

^ Bot. Our. Meffis, i, 426. This is an 

early and autlientic instance of the Pala- 
tine powers, claimed by the Lords 
Marchers in their districts. We shall 
have similar cases in.Shropshire. 
» Bot. Cur, Bes/is, ii, 257. 



but he well acknowledges him to have been the (liege) man of his 
father^ whom he wickedly murdered/' — 

Further, Roger says that " it is well enough known where he lay 
the night of the murder, and that he was not in that vill, and there- 
upon he puts himself on a Jury of the country, saving, however, his 
own defence (his right of defending himself by duel if the Jury gave 
verdict against him). He also b^ that this may be reckoned in 
his favour^ viz. that the deed purported to have been done nearly 
ten years back,^ that Justices Itinerant had since been in eyre (in 
Northants) and that before them he (the appellant) had made no 
mention thereof." — 

And the Appellant also desires that this may be reckoned in his 
favour, viz. that '' after the death of his father^ the said Roger 
married his father's widow." 

A day was given to both parties to hear sentence, viz. the 
Octaves of St. John (July 1, 1200). Meanwhile Roger was to be 
kept in prison. 

The matter did not end, however, on the day appointed; for 
sometime, apparently in March, 1201,^ '' a day was given to Thomas 
de Baskerville (Appellant) and Roger Fitz William for their plea of 
challenge, viz. that they should be at Westminster on the Quin- 
zaine of Easter " (April 8, 1201) . The adjournment seems to have 
been at the King's direction, and Geoflfry Mtz Kers (then Chief 
Justice) undertook to acquaint Thomas with the arrangement. 

Presumptively on the day appointed, and before the King, the 
pleadings were rehearsed, generally as above, but with some addi- 
tions;^ e.g. — 

The Appellant states that the murder was at night, that he (the 
Appellant) commenced his appeals against Roger as soon as he was 
of age.— Roger again mei^tions his having done homage to the 
Appellant,^ who denies having received any such homage since he 
came of age, but says that, whilst under age, he was in custody of 
his mother, and he knows not what she may have obliged him to 
do. To this Roger answers nothing. — The Court decided that the 

3* It was now the 7th of May, 1200. 
From this and other records, I infer the 
murder to have been committed on May 
26th, 1190 or 1191. 

^ Placita coram H^ge, No. 49, memb. 
11 dorso. This is the Boll mentioned 
above, as falsely indorsed of the 11th of 

John. (Vide supra, under Charlcott and 
Bold, p. 154, note 9). 

^ Ibidem, memb. 15 recto. On April 
8, 1201, yJTig John was at Marlborough. 

V A vassal's oath of fealty specially 
bound him to shield his Lord from per- 
sonal injury. 



parties should fight a duel. They give pledges thereof^ Boger de 
Mortimer being the pledge of Boger Fitz William. The day of 
combat was to be the morrow of the Octaves of the Holy Trinity 
{i.e. May 29/ 1201), and then they were to come armed. 

On that day the King was at Portsmouth, No record remains 
of the duel. The Appellant, however, survived it. 

In 1211, Thomas de Baskerville is returned as holding half a 
virgate of land in capite, by payment of 16tf. annually, through 
the Sheriff, in equal half-yearly payments.^® At the same time, 
Nesta de Baskervill (his sister) held Lawton by seijeantry, and 
in capUeP 

The brother and sister had afterwards some litigation about 
Lawton, which will be detailed when we come to that place. It is 
sufficient here to say that that serjeantry reverted to Thomas or his 

21 Dec. 1214. The King being at Hereford mentions Thomas 
de Baskervill as one of the sureties of Bobert Weldebof, then to be 
liberated firom imprisonment at Gloucester.^^ This Thomas also 
appears as witness of two grants by Walter de Clifford to Salop 

And, before Aug. 10, 1241, he was dead, leaving Boger his son 
and heir, whose homage the King received on that day, and issued 
precept to the Sheriff of Salop to take security for 40*., the relief of 
said Boger, and then to give him seizin of all lands of which his 
father had died possessed.^^ This was at Shrewsbury, where the 
King then was. 

But Boger's enjoyment of his estates continued not long. On 
the 13th of July, 1244, the King issued letters patent to the 
Sheriffs of Salop and Herefordshire, informing them that he had 
granted to Hugh Gifford custody of the land and heirs of Boger 
de Baskervill.^ 

And this heir, Walter, had a long minority. Several notices of 

2S Testa de NevUly p. 56. Lib. Bub. 
Scaccarii, fo. cxxxvii. 

^ Ibidem, p. 66, and Lib. Bub. ibm. 

» Mot. Pat. 16 John, memb. 9. The 
priBoner was one of those whom King 
John had taken in 1210, at the siege of 

31 Salop Chartulaiy, Nos. 6 and 8. 

28 Bot. Mn. i, 350. 

» Bot. Pat. 28 Hen. Ill, sub die. Of 

this Boger de Baskervill, we also find 
mention which shows the continued con- 
nexion of his family with Northamp- 
tonshire. A Boll preserved in the Testa 
de NeviU, and of date c. 1242, gives Boger 
de Baskerevil as holding half a knight's 
fee in Helidon (Northants), of the honour 
of Clare then in the King's hand. 
{Testa de NeviU, p. 24. Vide Baker's 
Nbrthamptonekire, p. 396). 




his nonage occur in the Inquisitions of 1255^ and must be both 
cited and explained. 

The Jurors of Stottesden say nothing about the ri//of Pickthom, 
which was in fact not in their Hundred^ but in the Liberty of 
Wenlock j but under the heading '^ De valettis et puellis " {i,e. of 
male and female wards), they say^ that '' Walter de BaskerviUe is 
in custody of Sibil Giffard (widow of Hugh, before-named) by 
gift of the King^ and that he holds 8 acres in Fykethom of the 
King, rendering yearly 16 pence at the Exchequer^ and that he 
holds no (nuUam) land of the King in this Hundred/^ For the 
word '' nullam/^ it is obvious that " aliam " (other land) should be 
written in this passage, for this Walter held Aldenham, Northwood, 
and Newton, — all of the King, and all in Stottesden Hundred. 

The contemporary Jurors for Wenlock Liberty said of Pyke- 
thom,*^ that " Eoger de BaskerviUe (formerly) held certain land 
therein of the Prior of Wenlock. He rendered to the Prior 2 
merks yearly, and used to do suit to the Court of the Prior by 
afforciament. And his ancestors used to do suit to the Hundred 
of WybtWty till the period aforesaid (the reign of Richard I) : and 
Walter his son is in custody of Sibil Giffard, and it (the Manor) 
is half a hide^' (the Domesday hidage). 

As to the Hundred of WybtWt here mentioned^ I can associate 
the name with nothing in Shropshire. I believe the original 
statement of the Jurors to have been erroneous, and I can only 
venture a guess at what they meant. They supposed that Pick- 
thorn had some time been attached to the Hundred of Welbetre 
(now Webtree) in Herefordshire, in which Hundred was Bradwar- 
dine, a fee in which these Baskervilles had an interest as tenants 
of de Braose, and afterwards of de Bohun. 

And soon after this date (1255)^ Walter will have attained his 
fuU age, for his son and heir, Roger, was bom Aug. 1, 1261. 

Nov. 27, 1274. The Stottesden Jurors returned Walter de 
BaskerviUe as holding 1 messuage, 10 acres of arable land^ and 
10 acres of wood in Pikethom, of the King in capite, by payment 
of 16 pence per annum for the same.^ 

M Mot. Bund, ii, 88. 

^ Eot. Hund. ii, 86. "Affordaxnentum" 
is the word usually employed to denote 
that augmentation of Wenlock Liberty, 
which took place in the reign of Bichard I. 
It means literally " the act of increasing 

or rendering stronger," and the addition 
of several Manors to a Hundred of course 
increased its importance. A discordant 
jury was similarly said to be affordated 
when other jurors were added. 
» Bot Hund. ii, 108. 

PI€KTHORN. .239 

* . 

In 1284, a similar return was made, viz. that Walter de Bas- 
kerviU holds his hall (aulam), croft, and wood at Pikethome, of the 
King in capite, at the said rent.^^ 

On Feb. 21, 1286, the King^s writ of diem clausit ewtremum, on 
the death of Walter de BaskerviU, issued to the Escheator citra 

On March 1, 1286, a Jury sat at Pykethom, and reported him 
to have held a messuage and 2 acres of wood at Tikethom, by 
service of 16 pence to be paid to the King through the Sheriff 
of Salop. Its annual value was only 2«. 6d., and he held nothing 
else m capite. Roger de Baskerville was his son and next heir, 
and was twenty-four years of age at the Gules of August, in the 
King's thirteenth year {«. e. Aug. 1, 1285). 

A Jury which met at Bradewardin (Herefordshire), on March 3 
following, gave the same account of his heir, as to name and age. 
The deceased, they said, had held uilder Roger de Radenore at 
West Bradwardin. His tenure was a messuage, 143 acres of 
arable land in demesne, 3 acres of meadow, and £1, 14«. Sd, rents. 
The total value was £4. 10«. 4rf.88 

The returns of March, 1316, give Roger de Baskervill as Lord 
of Pikethom in Shropshire,^^ and Roger de Baskervill and John 
Giflfard as joint Lords of HeUidon (Northants).*^ 

In 5 Edw. Ill (1331). Roger de Baskervill had the King's 
Charter of free- warren in Lauton and Pikethom.*^ 

The Escheat on his death is of the thirteenth year of Edward III 
(1339),^ when he must have been seventy-eight years of age; but 
I will postpone much that I have further to say, both of him and 
his descendants, till I come to Lawton, where I also propose to set 
forth their genealogy, till their male line became extinct. 

I would here, however, observe that in 1380, John de Basker- 
ville, a descendant of this Roger, being dead, he is stated to have 
held Pykthom of the Prior of Wenlock at a rent of £1. 6s. Sd.^ 
t. e. exactly the two merks mentioned in 1255. 

37 Ktrhy's Quest. 

38 JEscheata, 14 Edw. I, No. 2. 

39 Parliamewta/ry Writs^ iv, 398. 

^ Ibidem, p. 892, and Baker's North- 
amptonshire^ p. 396. 
*i Ccdend, Rot. Cart. p. 165. 

^ Calend. Escheats, vol. ii, p. 89. I 
have not examined the original of that 
and some subsequent Inquisitions which 
relate to the family. This is my reason for 
thus breaking off the subject. 

^ Moncuticon, v, p. 78, No. niii. 




Some nnder-tenancies in Pikethom must receive a passing 
notice^ especially such as relate to Cadets of the family of Ba»- 

We have already seen Richard Sadoch attesting an early grant 
to Salop Abbey^ which is presumed to have been made by a Bas- 
kervill of Pickthom. 

About the year 1240, Gilbert Saddoc sold to Salop Abbey, for 
40 pence, all the right which he had in 8 acres in Picketom, 
between the land of Aveline Fitz Hubert &)c. — Witnesses : Nicholas, 
then Provost of the Poryate, Hugh, his brother &c,** 

In 26 Hen. Ill (1241-2), Evarard de Picathprn resigns 3 
acres to the Lord of Bascarvile, which he held of Ralph Bossard 
for a term of seventeen years. — ^Witnesses : Sir Adam de Beissin, 
Sir (Jeoflfrey de Huvaratun (Overton) .** 

About the same time, but in a deed aam date, Ralph Bolland 
(probably Bossard) grants to Roger de Bascrevill all the land he 
had in Pikethom and 98. rent in Newton, for a rent of a pair of 
gloves, or of 1 penny (in lieu thereof). — ^Witnesses: Sir * * le 
Strange, Sir Aldulf de Bracy, Geoffrey de Overton, Hugh de Bas- 
kervill, Henry de Stottesden, Ralph de la Lowe, Philip Boterel, 
Guido de Pemlawe (Parlow), and others.** 

In 37 Hen. Ill, (1853), Hugh de BaskerviUe had a suit against 
Ralph de Arraz about a stank which Ralph had made- in Subbiri 

Hugh de Baskervill sat as a Juror for Stottesden Hundred at 
the Assizes of January, 1256;^ also as a Juror in January, 1257, 
as to the property of Hugh de Kinslow.*® 

In February, 1259, he was one of several who were sued for a 
trespass in Broseley and Willey,^^ hereafter to be particularized. 

At the Forest Assizes, February, 1262, John de Bascherevil 
was amerced for vert.^^ 

In Easter Term, 1271, John de Baskervile was under prosecu- 
tion of Lucy, widow of Ralph de Gravenhunger, for a trespass, and 
the suit was still unsettled in January, 1272.^^ 

*< Salop Chartulary, No. 256. 

« BlaJceway M88. 

^ Ibidem. 

*7 Mot. Pat, 37 Hen. HI. 

« Assizes, 40 Hen. III. 

^ Vide supra, pp. 63, 54. 

^ Plac, apud Westm, Hilary Term, 43 
Hen. m, memb. 26 recto. 

** P/a0.Jbre^.46H.III,memb.3recto. 

^ Plac. apud Westm. Easter Term, 55 
Hen. Ill, memb. 41 dorso, and Hilary 
Term 56 Hen. Ill, memb. 36 recto* 



< In July^ 1272, Thomas de Bafikerville had a suit against Roger 
Fitz Thomas of Northwood, John, his brother, and Nicholas de 
Mydelton, for insulting and wounding him in Pickthome. — ^Ad- 
journed to Nov. 3.^^ 

Nov. 27, 1274, Hugh de Baskerville complains before the Stot- 
tesden Jurors, that John de la Fenne, some*time Seneschal of 
Roger de Mortimer, had arrested him unjustly at Cleobury Mor- 
timer, till he paid 40s. for his liberty." 

In October, 1292, Hugh de BaskerviUe had not given due attend- 
ance at the Assizes; and Richard le Bret of Pikethorn, similarly 
reported as in default, is said to have no free tenement in the 

Several similar entries occur which may refer to tenants at 
Pickthom, but just as probably to tenancies under BaskervUle 
elsewhere. The various interests of the family in Aldenham, 
Lawton, Newton, Northwood, and Little Sutton, are not always 
distinguishable. Of Aldenham we have spoken already, and under 
the other places named, we shall have future opportunities of 
lesuming the subject. 


The career of Robert de Belesme, third and last Norman Earl of 
Shrewsbury, was, in that capacity, most transient. His idea of 
Bridgnorth as a great military position, and his mode of working 
out that idea, are the chief and almost the sole features of his 
temporary ascendancy in Shropshire. 

This subject has been so ably and amply discussed by others,^ 

^ JPlao, apud Westm, Tim Term, 56 
Hen. m, memb. 13 recto. 

" Mot. Rimd. ii, 110. 

«* Assizes, 20 Edw. I, memb. 20 recto. 

* I refer to the Bltiory of Shrevoshury, 
vol. V PP- 58-57, and to the Sutoty of 
Ludlow, by Thomas Wright, Esq., pp. 
40, 43, as to the best accounts of this 

period of Coimty History. Mr. Wright 
supplies a correction to Mr. Blakeway's 
note about "Tickhill and Bly the Castles," 
which was not unneeded. At page 73 



that^ after alluding to well-known &cts, I shall venture merely to 
add one or two circumstances not Iiitherto noticed. 

On the death of Hugh de Montgomery^ E&rl of Shrewsbury^ in 
July, 1098, his elder brother, Robert de Belesme, obtained that 
Earldom from William Bufiis. This honour he retained till the 
summer of 1102, building in the interval the two Castles of Bridg- 
north and Carrechova. 

Bridgnorth was in every irespect a mere transfer of his father's 
foundations at Quatford. The Castle, the Borough, the CoUegiate 
Church, even the Bridge, followed one another from Quatford to 
the site selected by the ambitious and restless Norman. 

The skill and rapidity of Robert de Belesme's proceedings have 
already been sketched in these pages, and probably rated below 
their just estimate. At his outlawry, in the summer of 1102, his 
Castle of Brug stood a royal siege of three weeks duration, and was 
at last surrendered, rather than taken by storm. 

Something however yet remains to be said as to the period of 
his power in Shropshire, and his exercise thereof, — something 
which has hitherto been misrepresented, or not represented at all. 

The expression of Ordericus is, that '' he held the Earldom for 
four years, and exercised the greatest cruelties upon the Welsh.'' 

of the SRttory of Shrewsbury ^r^'Bh^O' 
way gives a passage of Ordericus relative 
to the confiscations which ensued on 
the banishment of Earl Robert. His 
theory, founded on this passage, was that 
great Shropshire Estates then changed 
hands, and this theory is more than once 
advanced in his writings. I never could 
understand what Mr. Blakeway thus 
alluded to. Of course Belesme*s Earldom 
escheated to the Crown ; but there is no 
'ptoofoi any other forfeiture whatever, as 
taking place in Shropshire at the period 
(1102). We may suspect indeed from 
Ordericus' words, and we know from other 
evidence, that one, two, or perhaps three 
Shropshire fiefs changed hands at, or about, 
this time; but they were Seigneuries only 
that were thus affected, and so, merely a 
correspondent nimiber of greater tenants. 
As to the revolution extending to knightly 
classes, I never saw a word of evidence in 
favour of such a conclusion, nor do I adopt 

it. In &ct all we know of the matter 
leads to an opposite concUision, viz. that 
the main supporters of the Crown against 
the Earl were the Knights of the County. 

Again, permanent disinheritance at this 
period of history was most seldom re- 
sorted to. It was most impolitic in all 
instances, except those where the antago- 
nistic power was (as in the case of Earl 
Robert) almost on a par with Boyalty. 

Ordericus indeed says, that *' the King 
took possession of the whole honour of 
Bobert (de Belesme), and of his vassals 
(hominum ejus), who had persisted with 
him in rebellion ;" but Ordericus does not 
say whether these vassals were those of 
Sussex, Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, or 
Shropshire ; nay, the only two Shropshire 
Chiefs who arequoted as having adhered to 
the Earl to the last,were Boger Eitz Corbet 
and TJlger Venator, and th^ happen 
to be two whom we shall see transmitting 
Shropshire Estates to their posterity. 

BEIB6N0ETH. 243 

One wotdd imagine that he was resident in his Shropshire Earldom 
for the whole period, and that this period was employed in con^ 
tinuous warfarrou Ms Cambrian ne^Ws. Indeed, the words 
of Ordericus have been thus interpreted ; but with how little truth 
remains to be shown. 

In July, 1098, when Earl Hugh was slain in Anglesea, Robert 
de Belesme was besieged in the Castle of Balaon by Fulk, Earl of 
Anjou, and was relieved by King William Rufiis in the third week 
of the same month.^ 

There is nothing to show the precise period when Belesme ob- 
tained the said King's grant of the Earldom of Shrewsbury. Per- 
haps it was immediately after Earl Hugh's death, but it does not 
follow that he came over immediately from Normandy to take 

It is uncertain whether King William himself returned to Eng- 
land in the autumn of 1098, or at Easter 1099. Whichever the date 
of his return, it is not probable that Belesme came with him, — or, 
coming, remained here: for in June, 1099, the messenger who 
reported to Rufiis, when hunting in the New Forest, that an attack 
had been made upon Maine, was sent from over sea, by Robert de 

The dashing energy which the King exhibited on that occasion 
was perhaps the greatest feature of his life and character, but it 
must not detain us now any frirther than to say, that his instant 
visit to Normandy kept him there till September. 

As yet, therefore, there is little evidence of Belesme's presence 
in England or Wales during the first year of his supposed Earldom. 
It is well known how, within another year, his friend and patron, 
the KiQg, was again hunting in the New Forest, and there received 
that second and sudden message which summoned him to a journey 
more distant than the former and final. 

The succession of King Henry I, though it was displeasing to, was 
not, that we know of, openly opposed by Earl Robert. Consequently, 
we are ignorant how it affected the English tenure of the latter. 
However, about August 1, 1101, Robert Duke of Normandy landed 
at Portsmouth, reckoning on the support, amongst others, of Be- 
lesme and his two brothers, Roger and Amulph.* The agreement 
between the King and Duke which resulted is well known, and how 
the latter left England about September 29, 1201. 

2 Ordericw, p. 772. ^ ibidem, p. 774. * Ordericus, p. 785. 


But now for a drcuiostance which took place in the interval^ and 
which has not hitherto been made matter of history. — 

On Sept. 3, 1101, King Henry I was holding his great Court at 
Windsor. The Duke, his brother, was there, and others professedly 
or suspectedly of the Duke^s party. What diplomatic matters 
engaged the great assembly we are not likely to learn, but in the 
ordinary routine of Court business three notable Charters were 
expedited, one to the Bishop of Bath, the other two to the Bishop 
of Norwich.^ It is one of the latter which deserves the special 
attention of the Shropshire Antiquary. The witnesses attested^ 
each of them making the sign of the cross with his own hand. 
Among them were Queen Matilda, Robert Duke of Normandy, 
Robert Bishop of Chester, Robert Earl of Ponthieu (Comes de 
Pontivio), Roger Earl of Poitou (Comes Pictavensis), Alan Fitz 
Harald (so written for Fitz Flaald), Everard the Chaplain, Herbert 
the King's Chamberlain, &c. 

Here then were two, if not three, of the sons of Earl Roger de 
Montgomery, — for Everard the Chaplain was most probably his 
youngest son, before noticed, and who became Bishop of Norwich 
in 1121. 

The point, however, here to be observed, is the attestation of 
Robert de Belesme as Earl of Ponthieu, a foreign title, and which 
he acquired in right of his wife. His partizanship with Duke 
Robert, or his non-recognition by Henry I, must, I think, have 
had something to do with the suppression of his English titles of 
Arundel and Shrewsbury, on the above occasion. ^ 

The Duke returned to Normandy at Michaelmas, taking his 
most strenuous supporter, the Earl Warren, with him. And here it 
becomes for the first time clear that Belesme remained in England, 
nay, further, that he remained for the express purpose of fostering 
the Duke's interests and opposing the King's. Indeed, also, the 
account of Florence of Worcester would induce a belief that it was 
now that Bridgnorth was first selected by Belesme as the site best 
suited for future operations.^ If so the labour of workmen by day 
and by night, which Florence speaks of, will actually have com- 
pleted the work in less than a year. 

^ New Jfona«^i0(m,Tol.ii,p.267, No. xi, domina quondam conBtmxerat, £ratre sac 

and vol. iy, pp. 15, 16, Nos. iii, and v. Eadwardo Seniore regnante, Scrobbes- 

^ Flor, Wigom^ sub anno 1101. byriensis Comes Eotbertus de Beleasmo, 

''Arcem quam in occidentali Sabrinse BogeriComitisfiliuSjContra Begem Heinri- 

fluminis plagd^ in loco qui Brycge dicitur ciun, ut exitus rei probavit, muro lato et 

lingu& Saxonicft, iElgelfleda Merciorum alto, summoque restaurare coepit." 


We have seenKing Henry the centre of a divided Court at Windsor, 
on September 3, 1102. On September 29, 1102, he presided over 
an assemblage at Westminster,^ equal in point of numbers and 
undivided in allegiance. Robert de Belesme had fallen in the 
interval, and was now an exile. 

The Palatine Earldom of Shropshire thus became an Escheat of 
the Crown. It is well known that kingly power, as exercised over a 
Palatine Earl, was essentially different from kingly power in ordi- 
nary. Henry I now combined in his own person both the Palatine 
and Bofyal dignities ; and Shropshire might, if he had so willed, 
have been annexed to the ordinary and general government of the 
kingdom. Such a fusion however was not effected in his reign, and 
his policy was clearly to keep the two distinct. He governed the 
Province by means of a Viceroy (called Dapifer, Seneschall, and 
sometimes Sheriff), an office which posterity has, not without some 
ground, assimilated to, or identified with, the Wardenry of the 
Western Marches. 

A dispute about names is superfluous where the nature of the 
office is well understood ; and there can be little mistake about the 
functions of Richard de Belmeis, first Viceroy of Shropshire under 
Henry I. When called Sheriff or Vicecomes, he is so called cor- 
rectly, because he stood in loco Comitis ; but it must be remembered 
that the ordinary Sheriff or Sheriffs of his Province stiU remained. 
When called Viceroy, the expression is warranted, both by the nature 
of his power and by the fact that his representation of the Earl was 
incidentally a representation of the King. 

His jurisdiction was not confined to Shropshire, or even to the 
Marches of Wales. It extended at least into Staffordshire, and 
possibly into Herefordshire. He presided over all causes ecclesias- 
tical and temporal, and his decisions were afterwards recognized by 
the Crown as quasi-royal and irreversible. He was, in short, to 
Shropshire what, in the absence of the Sovereign, the Justiciar or 
Chief Justice of a later period was to England. 

As to Bridgnorth during the reign of Henry I, little more is 
known of it than that it was occasionally visited by the King, that 
it was a seat of provincial government, and that Belesme^s fortress 
was maintained as a Royal Castle. 

King Henry I visited Shropshire between March, 1121, and 
June, 1123, probably about the time of the Welsh expedition in the 

7 Saxon Chromcle, sub anno, — Sim, Dunelm, — ^and Hadmer, 



former year. A Charter of his to Salop Abbey^ which passed^ at 
that period^ is dated at Brug. It is addressed to Robert^ Bishop of 
Coventry^ and Richard^ Bishop of London. — ^The vdtnesses were : 
Bernard^ Bishop of St. David's^ Gnmbald the Physician^ and 
Hamo Peverel.® 

Another Charter of Henry I^ and which must have passed about 
the same time^ is dated ^' apud Brugias.^^ It is a confirmation of a 
previous grant of lands in Huntingdonshire^ by William Peverel of 
Dover^ brother of Hamon above-mentioned^ and who had a large 
interest in Shropshire.* — 

The King's Charter is addressed to Robert^ Bishop of Lincoln 
(who died Jan. 1123)^ Robert^ Bishop of Coventry (consecrated 
13 March^ 1121)^.and Richard, Bishop of London. It is attested 
by William Pitz Odo, and Geofl&y Fitz Pagan, witnesses whose 
names preclude all idea of an earlier date than that suggested 

The later years of Richard de Belmeis' life were troubled with a 
paralytic affection, which at times incapacitated him for public 
business. There is, however, evidence of his having been, by dis- 
position, tenacious of office and power ;^^ and we have independent 
hints that he retained his jurisdiction in Shropshire till nearly the 
last. He at length retired to the Priory of St. Osyth in Essex (a 
house of his own foundation), and died there on Jan. 16, 1127. 

On resigning his provincial power to Pagan Fitz John, he 
attended at Bridgnorth the first Court held by his Successor, and 
there gave evidence as to the liability of Shrewsbury Abbey to 
contribute to the military aids assessable on the County .^^ Walter 
Constable of Gloucester, was also present, and appears to have been 
officially interested in the question. The Bishop reiterated his tes- 
timony, and the particulars of what passed on this occasion, in a 
letter, written subsequently, and addressed to all the Baronb of 

In September, 1126, Bridgijxorth became the temporary prison 
of Walleran,* Earl of MeUent, whom the King had brought over 
from Normandy .^^ 

8 Salop Chartulary, No. 42. 

•- Plac, apud Westm, Mich. Tenn, 9 
Hen. m, memb. 12 recto, where the 
Charter is recited with reference to some 
suit at law. 

w Will. Mabnsb. 184, b. 

" Salop Chartulary, No. 363. 

^ Saxon Chronicle, Bubaimoll2S, Sim, 
Dunelm, sub anno 1127. Ann, Waverl, 
p. 149. The chronology of Henry Ts 
reign becomes yery confused at this period. 
I have adhered to those statements, which^ 



After Christmas following, the King, in fliU Court at London, 
gave the County of Salop to his Queen Adeliza.^^ This gift rests 
on good authirity in the first instance, but I have never met with 
anything in illustration of it. The County of Sussex became the 
dower or indeed the fief of Queen Adeliza, and she conveyed it 
to her second husband, William de Albini, and to her heirs by him. 
No such result followed her alleged interest in Shropshire. 

In 1128, Bridgnorth Castle being in keeping of the new Viceroy, 
Pain Fitz John, it became the prison of Meredyth ap Lhywarch, 
who had been given up by Lhewelyn ap Owen.^* 

In the Pipe Roll for the fiscal year ending Sept. 29, 1130, we 
have one notice of Bridgnorth. Miio de Gloucester (son of Walter, 
the Constable above mentioned), being then SherifiF of that County, 
had sent a quantity of wine, by the King's order, to Worcester and 
to Brug,^^ This sending of wine was a usual item of SherifiFs^ 
accounts. The wine was for royal use, and anticipatory of a royal 
visit. In exact accordance with such hints of the King having 
been in Shropshire about this time are the facts of his having kept 
Christmas, 1129, at Worcester,^® and of his having issued a precept 
jfrom Cundover, which must date within a few months of the same 

The reign of Stephen, generally barren of proviivcial records, 
does not, I believe, supply a single fact in immediate relation to 
Bridgnorth. In remote connexion with the subject, we must 
mention the name of Hugh de Mortimer, of Wigmore, whose 
power in Herefordshire and the Marches seems to have been un- 

after much research, have seemed most 
consistent ; but this is not the place for 
any general argument on the subject. 

^ William of Mahnsbuty, p. 99. Mr. 
Blakeway, quoting this passage (Hist, 
Skrewshurt/f i, 77), says farther, that the 
Queen on receiving the County appointed 
William Fitz Alan as her Sheriff. Malms- 
bury mentions no such appointment, nor 
can I find it in any other Chronicler. I 
question it on other grounds than can be 
stated here, but of course Mr. Blakeway 
had some authority for his opinion. 
What follows above will at least prove 
that if William Fitz Alan became Sheriff 
in January, 1127, he held that office in 
subjection to Fain Fitz John, rather than 
to the Queen. 

" Powell, 137. 

« Sot. Pip. 31 Hen. I, p. 77. 

*® Henry Huntingdon, 220. 

17 Salop Chartulary, No. 47, b. Th« 
principal witness is Milo de Gloucester, 
after whose first appearance at Court, 
the K ing was in England only for three 
periods, viz. from Sept. 1126 to Aug. 
1127, from July, 1129, to August, 1130, 
and from August, 1131, to August, 1133. 
In Sept. 1130, the Fermor of Boseham 
(Sussex), had sent 476 siccas (a kind of 
small fish) for the King's use to Cundover 
and Woodstock. The King was at Wood- 
stock in March, 1130, and at Worcester 
in Dec. 1129. The precept quoted is also 
addressed to the Bishop of Chester, Pain 
Fitz John, and the Sheriff of Salop. 




affected by the great struggles of the time. In one instance* we 
find Stephen expressly stipulating for the independence of Mor- 
timer's fief.^® He was in all probability of the Usurper's party, and 
the close of Stephen's reign found him not only undisturbed in his 
proper possessions, but seized of the Castle of Bridgnorth. 

The accession of Duke Henry further found him caballing against 
the new monarch, refusing to do him homage, and fortifying his 
Castles for resistance. His opposition might have been formidable 
had the Earl of Hereford, his confederate^ remained so. The 
latter was detached from Mortimer by the persuasions of Gilbert 
Foliot, his relation, and then Bishop of Hereford. Mortimer's 
obstinacy resulted in a second siege of Bridgnorth Castle, con- 
ducted, as before, by tl^e King in person. 

King Henry II's campaign against Mortimer is not very fully 
detailed by the Chroniclers,^^ but their accounts are amplified and 
illustrated by much that may be gathered from contemporary Charters 
and by something which remains of the lost Pipe BoU of 1155 
(1 Hen. II). 

Of the Chroniclers, by far the most accurate as to date and 
circumstance is the Norman writer edited by Duchesne.^^ He 
informs us that on Sunday after the Octaves of Easter {viz. Sunday, 
April 10th, 1155,) the King, at Wallingfbrd, caused the English 
nobles to swear fealty to William, his eldest son, and, in case of the 
early death of that Prince, to Henry, his second sou, then two 
months old. He then amicably settled some differences with 
Roger, Earl of Hereford, who was in occupation of the " Tower of 
Gloucester." Forthwith he laid siege to the three Castles of the 
arrogant and self-confident Hugh de Mortimer, who resisted his 
supremacy. These Castles were Brug (printed Burgam), Wigemore, 
and Cleobury (printed Deobens). The last, after some little time, 
the King took, and destroyed. On the nones of July (July 7), 1155, 
Hugh de Mortimer made peace with the King, surrendering the 
two Castles of Brug and Wigmore. 

^ Viz. when he granted the Earldom 
of Hereford to the Earl of Leicester 
(Duncumb's Hierefordshirey vol. i, p. 232). 

*^ The most interesting fact noticed in 
connexion with the siege of Bridgnorth 
is the devotion of Hugh (or Hubert) de 
St. Clair, Constable of Colchester, who, 
observing an arrow directed against the 
King by one of the garrison, saved the 
Monarch's life by the sacrifice of his own. 

(Grose's Antiquities vol. v, p. 3). This 
story rests on insufficient authority, and, 
like many other legends, must be wr6ngly 
localized and dated. If Hugh de St. Clair 
were the hero's name and he ever behaved 
in the way recounted, it must have been 
after the siege of Bridgnorth, which he 
survived at least a year. 

* Normannorvm Sorvptores^ p. 991. 



The account of Gervase of Dovef ®^ differs somewhat from this. 
He describes the King as taking all the three Castles above named, 
and he dates the whole affair as preceding the " Council of Walling- 
ford ^* (a manifest error) ; but he supplies us with the names of 
Cleoberi and Bruges, intelligibly spelt. 

Ralph de Diceto, a not to be despised authority, who became 
Dean of St. Paulas twenty-six years after the event he is describing, 
seems to intimate that Mortimer fortified Bridgnorth, Wigmore, 
and Gloucester against King Henry.^^ 

This latter statement is, however, hardly worth reciting, except 
to show bow half a century is sufficient to establish a tradition and 
misrepresent a fact. 

Such altogether is the evidence of those Chroniclers, who are 
most to be relied upon with regard to this period of English 
History. — 

The Norman writer is in short the best authoritv of the three, 
and will so appear if we make reference to other documents. — 

There are no means of ascertaining the immediate movements 
of King Henry after the Council of Wallingford (April 10, 1155). 
It was however, to all appearance, during his subsequent march 
against Mortimer that he halted at Alrewas in Staffordshire, and 
there granted to the Shropshire Abbey of Lilleshall, IJwo distinct 
Charters.^ Each of them is dated ." apud Alrewas in exercitu,^' aud 
one of them is attested by persons of whom we shall hear presently 
during the siege of Bridgnorth, viz* by Thomas, the Chancellor 
(Thomas k Becket) ; Manasser Biset, Sewer (dapifero) ; Warin Ktz 
Gerold, Chamberlain \ Bobert de DunstanviUe ; and Joceline de 


A grant to Stoneley Abbey (Warwickshire) by King Henry II, 
is dated more* significantly " apud Brugiam in obsidione/^ ^ It is 
attested by Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury; Roger, Arch- 
bishop of York ; John, Bishop of Worcester j Walter, Bishop of 

21 Chron, Gervas, p. 1378. 

22 Diceto. Ymag. BM. p. 531. 

23 Lilleshall Chartula/ry quoted Hwrl. 
MSS. 3868 and 2060, and Dodsworth, 
vol. 110, fo. 43, b. If King Henry 
marched directly from Wallingford to 
South Shropshire, Alrewas would haTe 
been considerably out of his line. His 
halt at the latter place, whenever it occur- 
red, must have been while traversing the 
old Boman Eoad (Ikenild Street),between 

Burton and Lichfield. His expedition, 
earlier in the year 1155, which took him 
into Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire, td 
deal with the Earl of Albemarle and 
William Peverel, may possibly have 
occasioned his presence at Alrewas ; but 
I find no account of military preparation 
for that journey, such as to tally with the 
ominous " in exercitu " of the Lillesihall 
2* MoiMi8ticon, vol. v, p. 447, No. vii. 


Chester j Thomas^ the Chancellor; Reginald, Earl of Cornwall; 
Bobert, Earl of Leicester; Richard de Humez (Constable of Nor- 
mandy) ; Warin Fitz Gerold ; William de Beauchamp (Sheriff of 
Worcestershire) ; and Maurice de Ambreslega (Ombersley, Wor- 

This Charter was said by the Monks of Stoneley to hare been 
granted by the King at solicitation of his mother, the Empress.^^ 
If so she also will have been at the siege of Bridgnorth, The 
removal which the Charter enabled those Monks to make from 
Radmore to Stoneley was effected on June 19th, which furnishes us 
with a still more accurate estimate as to the date of the siege. 

Another Charter of Henry II, which passed at the same time is 
dated simply '' apud Brugiam.^* It was to Mereval Abbey (War- 
wickshire) . It was tested by the first, fourth,fifth, and sixth witnesses 
of the last ; also by Roger, Earl of Hereford (thus proving the 
accuracy of the Norman Chronicle, which dates his adhesion to the 
King before the siege of Bridgnorth); Josceline de BaiUol; and 
Manasser Biset. 

On the same occasion, and with a similar date, at Brug, the King 
expedited a great Charter of confirmation to Shrewsbury Abbey .^ 
Its witnesses were the Archbishop of Canterbury; Gilbert, Bishop 
of Hereford (who had effected the adhesion of Earl Roger) ; Walter, 
Bishop of Chester; John, Bishop of Worcester; Thomas, the 
Chancellor ; Reinald, Earl of Cornwall (the King's uncle) ; William, 
Earl of Bristol (e. e. Gloucester the King's cousin, son of Robert 
the Consul) ; Roger, Earl of Hereford; Hugh, Earl of Chester; 
William Fitz Alan; Robert de Dunstanvill; Walcheline Maminoht 
(all three staunch supporters of the Empress against Stephen) ; and 
Roger Corbet, 

Other and less important Charters to Shrewsbury Abbey passed 
contemporaneously. One, wherein William Fitz Alan is addressed, 
and Thomas the Chancellor, the witness, is so far worth mention.^^ 
Still better worth notice is the King's Charter to Robert Pinzun, of 

variety of theory and caprice. In the 
same documents we often find a regnal, 
papal, and dominical year given, which 
are mutually inconsistent. In such cases 
the dominical year is, as far as I can learn 
the least to he trusted. 
^ Moncisticon, v, 483, ii. 

^ Ibidem. No. vL The year given in this 
document is 1154 ; of course by mistake, 
— as on June 19, 1154, Henry II had not 
succeeded. The day and month of dates 
thus stated is always more probably 
accurate than the year, and for one simple 
reason. — The system of peeping anniver- 
saries was uniformly recognized and ob- 
served in a Monastery, but the estimate 
of years and epochs was matter for every I 

27 Salop Chartulary, No. 36. 
M Ibidem, No. 45. 



land in Eston (Aston near Newport), which is dated at Brag, ad- 
dressed to William Fitz Alan, and attested by the Earl of Cornwall, 
Richard de Humez, and the now subdued rebel, Hugh de 

And these addresses to William Fitz Alan, then restored to his 
lands and honours, will cause a further citation of Monastic 
Charters illustrative of the era. His grant to his own foundation 
of Haghmon, on the very day of his restoration, is not only a 
chapter of history but a memorandum of loyal faith and pious 

^^ Know all men present and fixture, that I, William, son of Alan, 
on the day of St. James the Apostle, at Bruge, for the health of my 
soul and of (the souls of) all my ancestors and heirs, have given and 
conceded, and by this, my present Charter, have confirmed to God 
and to the Church of St. John the Apostle and Evangelist of 
Haghmon, and to the Canons, who are there serving God, the right 
of patronage of the Church of Wroxcestre in Salopescire, with aU 
its endowment and with all its appurtenances and liberties, in fi^e, 
pure, and perpetual almoigne &c. — These being witnesses : Roger 
de Powys, John le Strange, Hugh de Lacy of Colemere.'^ 

And this grant thus made at Bridgnorth, on July 25, 1155, was 
afterwards remembered and certified, with additional circumstances 
of interest, by the first two witnesses. — 

Roger Powys, about twenty years later than the grant, and about 
fifteen years after the death of the grantor, certified " all sons of the 
Church of that which he had seen and heard, viz. that William Fitz 
Alan, after he had received his lands fi'om the King, and on the day 
on which he took the homage of his vassals (hominum) at Brige, in 
presence of an assembled multitude of Barons and Knights, for the 
health of the Lord King and of his own soul,^^ gave the said 
Church to Haghmon Abbey, &c.^^ 

And John le Strangers contemporary certificate was mainly to the 
same effect, except that he uses the important word "restored^' 
(reddiderat) as describing the King^s investiture of the exiled Sheriff 
of Shropshire.^^ 

» Salop Chartulary, No. 162. 

30 Sari, MSS, 446, fo. ix, compared 
with the Chartulary at Sundom, fo. 236. 

31 Charter in possession of Mr. George 

32 Mitt. SkretDsbury fi^ldtnoie d, I have 

iQadyertently stated this Certificate to he 
in possession of Mr. G^eorge Morris (supra^ 
p. 73, note 218). The ITcmffhmond 
Chartulary at Sundom, is the sole autho- 
rity for it. The Sarleian MS, 446, has 
the first lines only. 



For the sake of a more general illustration of our subject^ we 
will now recur to the beginning of this month of July^ 1155^ and to 
the case of another Monastic House, whose Abbot sought the King 
at Bridgnorth on the subject of a Charter. This was Walter de 
Lucy, Abbot of Battle, in Sussex. His attendance at Court was 
nearly coincident with a great Council, which, after Mortimer's sur- 
render, was summoned to Bridgnorth. Thither on July 7, came 
Archbishops, Bishops, many Abbots, Earls, and Barons, to settle 
the terms of the King's peace with his rebellious vassal.^ The 
Abbot of Battle reached the Court on the 10th, and on the follow- 
ing day had audience of the King on his own affairs. Reginald, 
Earl of Cornwall, Richard de Humez, and Richard de Lucy (the 
great Justiciar, and who was in fact the Abbot's brother), are men- 
tioned as having been present. What transpired is foreign to our local 
subject, which may well conclude with the fragments of the lost 
Roll of 1155, so far as they allude to Shropshire.^ 

" William Fitz Alan, the Sheriff, renders account of the ferm of 
Salopesire for a fourth part of the year, t. e, from Midsummer to 
Michaelmas, 1155. He had paid i£61. into the Treasury; his ex- 
penses had been £W. 13*. 4rf. The King's Manors had been wasted, 
and a charge of £3. 5*. 5(f. had arisen on that account during the 

At the same fiscal period (Michaelmas, 1155), Robert de Stafford, 
Sheriff of Staffordshire, charges his account with one merk (13*. 4^.) 
which in obedience to a writ of the King had been spent on the 
'' works of the Castle of Bruges." 

From this year till the end of the period of which we profess to 
give account, the history of Bridgnorth involves such a variety of 
details that we can no longer deal with the subject as a whole, but 
must bestow a distinct notice on each of its parts. We must give 

® Falgraye'B SrUish Commonwealth^ 
Appendix, p. zzxy. The document there 
printed is a muniment of Battle Abbey. 
Nothing, howeyer, could be better selected 
for the guidance of those, who, seeking for 
hints of EngUsh History at a period when 
Chronicles were scanty, do not despise 
such hints though found amongst Monastic 
Charters. The reader may there learn 
how tfiese Charters were sought and 

obtained from the Crown ; what were the 
conditions and forms of procedure ; wliat, 
in short, the Court of Chancery really 
was when Henry Fitz Empress first 
reigned and Becket first held the seals. 
Most of the information which I hare 
endeavoured to supply in a previous note 
on the same subject (supra, p. 27, note 3), 
was derived from this admirable Appendix. 
M Med Booh of the Exchequer^ fo. 185. 



Bome account of the Castle ; the Borough aad its Liberties, the Col- 
legiate Church within the Castle ; the Church of St. Leonard's, and 
other religious or eleemosynary foundations. — Also of such tenures, 
within the Town or Liberties, as will not recur to our notice else- 
where — and lastly of the principal men and families, whose names 
are associated with the early Borough. 


Served both as a fortress, a prison, and a royal residence. Of its 
extent at this early period we have no direct evidence or description. 
The remaining ruin, part of the older structure, is a fragment, mas- 
sive indeed, and suggestive of a grand contemporary whole, but still 
a fragment only. Perhaps the constant outlay of the Crown in 
repairs and additions is the best illustration which can be offered as 
to the extent of the fortress in the time of Henry II and his three 
successors. If we take into consideration the different values of 
money at that time and the present, we may estimate what Bridge 
north Castle was, by that which it cost. The outlay on repairs and 
additions during the reign of Henry II was as follows : — 

At Michaelmas, 1166, the Sheriff's annual account contains a 
charge of 6s. Sd. for repair of the "well of Brug," and 11*. 7d. for 
one stack of timber (pro uno rogo) at Brug.^^ 

At Michaelmas, 1167, the Sheriff had expended, in obedience to 
the King's writ, various sums, amounting in all to £30. 13*. 4rf. on 
the works of this Castle. Of this sum he had received £20. 13*. 4rf. 
from amercements inflicted by Alan de Nevill (Justice of the Forest), 
and £10. from other amercements. 

In 1168, the Sheriff had expended £14. 5*. 6rf. on the same 
works. The fands thus employed arose from amercements, from 
rents of purprestures payable to the Crown, and from that part of 
the aid for marriage of the King's daughter which had been 
assessed on the escheated fief of Grerard de Tornai. 

In 1169, the Sheriff, accounting for an arrear of £26. 6*. 4rf. due 
for the ferm of the previous year, alleges the whole to have been 
expended on the works of the tower of Brug, in obedience to writ 
of Richard de Luci (the Justiciar), and under view of Philip Fitz 
Stephen, Richard Ireis, and Hulger the Clerk. He had also spent 

» JRot Pip. 12 Hen. II, Salop. The 
Pipe Kolls of the reepectiye years men- 
tioned are also the authority for the other 

items of expenditure, whioh follow in the 
text, except where reference is made to a 
different Record. 


jK15. 8*. 6rf. of the new/erm of the County on the same object, and 
under similar direction and view. 

At Michaeknas, 1170, William the Clerk accounting on behalf of 
Qeoflfrey de Vere, the then deceased SheriflF of Shropshire, charges 
£2, 6s. 9d, as having been expended on the same Tower, under 
royal warrant, and by m^u;of the same Philip Fitz Stephen, Richard 
the Irishman (Ybemici), and Ulger the Canon. Out of the reve- 
nues arising from the Honour of the Constable which had also been 
farmed by Geoffrey de Yere, 18;?. had been similarly appropriated, 
and is charged in another account of the said William Clericus. 

At Michaelmas, 1171, William Clericus, rendering account of 
arrears from the former year, charges £5. Is, 7d. as having been 
expended on the Tower of Brug, under the same view, and by royal 
warrant: and Guy le Strange, the Sheriff of the current year 
charges yet £15. 14«. 9^. more. 

In 1172, Guy le Strange charges £25. 2s. 2d. for the same pur- 
pose, and £26. in 1173, — Richard de Luci again authorizing the 
outlay, and the same Visors inspecting it. 

In 1174, Guy le Strange charges <£18. 5*. Sd. as expended by 
royal warrant on the Castle of Brug, Richard the Irishman, and 
Ulger the Clerk being still Visors. 

At Michaelmas, 1182, Hugh Pantulf, then Sheriff, had spent 
£3. 6s. Sd. in repair of the Tower of Brug, by royal warrant, and 
under view of William Fitz Simeon, Walter Palmer, and Richard 
de Porta. He had further spent £3. 12s. in repair of the King's 
House at Brug. 

In 1183, the same Sheriff had expended £10. 7s, 8d. in repairs 
of the Castle, under view of Robert Bacun and William de Fabrica. 
In 1184, he had similarly expended £7. Is. 2d. under view of 
Osbert the Tanner (Pelliparii) . In 1185, £3. Us. llrf. was bcr 
stowed on the same work, under view of Ralph Fitz Lambert and 
Osbert Fredesent. 

In 1186, £3. Is. was spent on the Castle and the King^s House, 
under view of Simon Ordrich and Stephen de Ypra. In 1187, 
£1. 12s. Sd, on the House alone, under view of Vivian Fitz WiUiam 
and Abraham Fitz Redwi. 

In 1188, the repair of the King's houses at Salop and Brug had 
cost collectively 11*. 4rf., and at Michaelmas, 1189, the Sheriff had 
spent 5*. 3d. on the House at Brug, under view of Nicholas the 

The reign of Henry II was nearly thirty-five years in length, and 



for thirty-four years thereof the King was in seizin of Bridgnorth 
Castle. The expenditure in repairs and additions, recorded for that 
period, and above detailed, will be found to amount to ^213, a sum 
equal to about <£lO,5tX). of modem currency. 

At Michaelmas, 1191, the Castles of Bruges and Salop had been 
repaired at a cost of £12. 9s. lid., by warrants of the King (now 
gone on the Crusade) and the Chancellor (Longchamp). The 
< Visors for Bruges had been Robert Bacon, and Andrew, son of the 

At Michaelmas, 1193, the Sheriff charges £32. Ss. 5d. in repairs 
of the Tower of JBrug by writ of the King (now in captivity), and 
under view of Richard de Overton, Henry Dyer (Tinctoris), and 
Henry Fitz Turold. 

In 1195, £5. is charged for repairs of the well and the King^s 
house, under warrant of the Archbishop (Hubert of Canterbury).. 

In 1196, £S. 6s. is charged for repair of the basement (pedis) of 
the Castle, by royal warrant, and under view of Hugh de Norton 
and Walter Meverel. 

In 1197, 7s. are charged for repairs of the house and Castle. 

In' 1198, a charge of 75*. includes some outlay at Salop. 

In 1199, ISs. 6d. had been spent on this Castle alone. 

On the whole, the average expenditure on this account during the 
ten years of Richard's reign was nearly in proportion to that which 
occurred in the time of his Father. 

Repairs or additions to the Castle, or the King's house therein, 
are charged, in the Sheriff's accounts, for the following years, viz. 
1200, 1201, 1202, 1203 (when Geoffiy Fitz Kers ordered the outlay, 
he being both Chief Justice and Sheriff), 1204 (when the Castle 
well was repaired), 1205 (when Nicholas the Irishman and William 
Fitz William were Vis(yrs)y 1206, 1207 (when the Tower of Brug, 
and four County gaols were repaired), 1209 (when four royal Castles 
were repaired), 1212 (when the work is specified to have been at 
"the Barbican and drawbridge ^'),^^ and 1214 (when the charge is 
for the two preceding years) . 

Similar charges also occur on the Pipe Rolls of the years 1218, 
1219, 1220 (in each of which the outlay is stated at £6. as if by 
special arrangement), and 1221. 

On July 4 of the latter year, the King's Precept issued to the Earl 
of Chester (then Sheriff), ordering him to let Alan Fitz Robert have 

^ In operatione Barbekan© et pontis tornalis in Castro de Brug. 




an equivalent in the King's demesne for the land which said Alan 
had lost by reason of the construction of a Barbican before the gate 
of the Castle of Brug.^'^ 

26 Jan. 1223^ Brian de Lisle has a royal order to let Henry de 
Audley have^ out of the wind-falls in Kinver Forest, timber suffi- 
cient to repair the King's house in Brug Castle^ and to cause taUy 
to be made of the same.^^ 

At Michaelmas, 1223, the Earl of Chester had expended in two 
years, £20. in repairs of the Castles of Salop and Brug ; and in 1224 
he charges £10. more on the same account. This expenditure will 
hare been previous to Dec. 80, 1228, when the EarFs custody of the 
said Castles ceased. Another Becord informs us that during his 
Shrievalty great waste was made in that part of Morf Forest 
called ''the wood of Worefidd,'' one item whereof was the timber 
taken to Brug Castle.'^ 

At Michaelmas, 1225, John Bonet (then Custoe of the County) 
had paid £14. 6s. Sd. in the work of the Tower of Brug. It had 
been roofed with lead &c., under view of Hamo Palmer and William 

March 21, 1226, the following writ issued to the Sheriff. '' The 
King to the Sheriff of Salop, greeting. We enjoin you that 
you cause to be repaired that turret of the outer wall of our 
Castle of Bruges which lately fell, and likewise the old chimney 
of our great chamber in the same Castle, which is much damaged. 
And the cost thereof, under view of kgal men, shall be reckoned 
to your credit &c. — ^At Westminster.'^*^ 

Sept. 29, 1226, John Bonet, then Custos, charges on his annual 
account £13. 6^. 9d, for repau: of the said Tower, and outer wall 
(muri forinseci), and old chimney, ^^by writ of the King, and 
under view of Henry (Hamo probably) Palmer and Bichard 
A**uard. He farther chaises £10. for unspecified repairs at 
the Castles of Bruges and Salop. 

Aug. 9, 1227, John Fitz Philip (of Bolbington) is to allow 

37 Sot. Clau8. i, p. 464. 

» Ibidem, p. 530. 

^ De Foredia AwtiqmSy No. 13 (apud 
Turrim, London). 

*^ " In operatione turns de Brug ges- 
tatffi et plmnbo ooopertffi*' {Mot. Pip, 
9 Hen. Ill), where thd meaning of the 
word '* gestatsB," escapes me. The King's 

precept to the Barons of the Exchequer, 
authorizing the credit thus taken by the 
Custos, is of date May 9, 1225. It speaks 
of the Sheriff's outlay " in turri de Brug 
gestand^ et plumbo cooperiendd per pre- 
ceptum nostrum." {Clous, ii, 37.) 
^1 Ckms, 10 Hen. Ill, memb. 21. 


Henry de Audley 60 oak-trees out of Chacepel Haye for repair 
of the King^s house at Brug.^ 

For the years ending Miehaehnas, 1228, 1229, 1230, and 1231, 
a regular charge of £10. per annum is made by the Sheriff for 
repairs of the King^s houses in the Castles of Brug and Salop. 

At Michaelmas, 1232, a similar charge occurs; and in 1233, 
the Visors of some repairs at Brug had be^i Hamo le Palmer and 
Richard Pitz William, 

Michaelmas, 1240, the King's houses in Salop and Brug Castles 
had been repaired at a cost of 55^. 

In 1242, there is a charge for repairing the Castle walls ; another 
for the Castles of Brug and Salop in 1246; and in 1250 the 
Visors of repairs at the former were John de Castro and Nicholas 

At Michaelmas, 1252, the large sum of £100. had been spent 
by the Sheriff, Robert de Grendon, in repairing the King's houses 
in the Castles of Salop and Brug, and in the erection of a new 
turret in the latter, under view and testimony of Nicholas Fitz 
Walter, William Bolding, and Richard Bocghan. 

At Michaelmas, 1254, Robert de Grendon's account states an 
outlay of £22. 10*. as having been incurred since March, 1250, in 
repairs of the King's house in Brug Castle. 

In 1257, Hugo de Acour, Sheriff, charges £116. 9s. 4irf. for 
repairs of the three Castles of Salop, Brug, and Ellesmere. The 
Visors for the first two were John de Castello and Robert Cemen- 

In 1260, £5. is charged for repairs of the King's house in this 
Castle during the previous year (ending Michaelmas, 1259), and 
£30. 7s. during the quarter (ending Christmas, 1259). The Visors 
in the latter case had been Almaiic de Brug and William Bonami. 
For the three quarters following, William Caverswell, Sheriff, 
charges £6. 15*. 4rf, for works in the Castle, begun by William 
Bagod (the former accountant) ; and the Visors of this completion 
were William and Hamo le Palmer. 

In 1261, the Sheriff is commanded to have the houses in the 
Castle roofed and repaired where needful, and again to expend 20 
merks on this Castle and that of Salop.^ 

^ Clous, 11 Hen. Ill, memb*5: I ^ Sot Liberat. 45 Hen. Ill, memb. 

I 11 and 4. 


In 1266^ the Sheriff is ordered to cause defects in the same two 
Castles and in the houses within them to be repaired.'^ 

In 1267^ the Sheriff is to cause all houses of the King and Queen 
in the Castle and town of Brug to be repaired^ as they are coming 
to stay there.*^ 

In the same year^ more specific orders were directed to the 
Sheriff^^ viz. that he cause two new glass windows to be made in the 
north part of the Castle Hall, and also a pantry and butlery of 
stone, and an oriel at the door of the dueen's chamber. Further, 
that necessary repairs should be done to the windows of the Chapel 
in the Castle. These repairs wa*e completed at a cost of £4s. 18«. 
under view of Hamo le Palmer and Koger Dyer (le Teynturer)y^and 
during the Shrievalty of Walter de Hopton {i.e. between Michaelmas, 
1267, 1268). He charges for them specifically in the Pipe Boll of 
Michaelmas, !^269, which contains the accounts of two preceding 

Nov. 29, 1274. The Jurors who at this time made report to 
the King's Commissioners as to yarious matters relating to the 
" Liberty of Brug," stated, inter alia, that there had been " certain 
works of the King within the Castle, and certain Visors appointed 
over the same, by the King, in the time of Sir Walter de Opton's 
Shrievalty ; that under view of said Visors, a certain outlay had 
been made on the said works, but that Eobert de Trillek (a suc- 
ceeding Under-Sheriff) had removed those Visors, and caused the 
works to be done without Visors all his time."*^ 

On January 28, 1281, the Castle of Brug was viewed and its 
condition reported by four Knights appointed to this duty, viz. 
Sir Alan de Glazdey, Sir John de Pichford, Sir Thomas Boterel, 
and Sir John Fitz Aer. The dilapidations were as follows : — " In 
the great Tower all the thick timber is rotted by the rain, which 
has long time fallen upon it, through defect of the leaden roofing, 
which has been carried away ; so that without great vigilance it 
will not be possible to keep prisoners in safe custody. The hall 
and chamber, with the King's kitchen and the Queen's chamber, 
want roofing and other repairs. The house where the Constable 
used tp live, in the Barbican, below the Castle, and all the 
chambers in the Barbican, threaten to fall down for want of 
repair ; no one may safely reside in them. The King's stable and 

** Sot. Idherat^O'Sen. Ill, memb. XI. | ** Ibidem, memb. 4. 
« Ibidem, 51 Hen. Ill, memb.4, | *" Sot Emd. ii, 89. 



A'e other stables are thrown down^ and the timber pillaged, so that 
the present Sheriff found nothing thereof. In the bridge and in 
the portals there are maiiy deficiencies : the bridge is broken; a 
person can scarce pass over it on foot,— on horseback not at all. 
The chamber beneath the Barbican, which used to be 2l free prisony 
between the great Tower and the chamber of the Constable, is com- 
pletely down, and the timber thereof pillaged and carried off." Of 
the general repairs, the aforesaid Knights declare that ^^ very 
many are necessary in the said Castle.'^*® . 

This state of dilapidation had probably existed for many years 
previous to the Inquest of 1281. Its causes wiQ better appear 
under another section of the History of Bridgnorth Castle. 

More than 250 years after the last-mentioned date, Bridgnorth 
was visited by John Leland, the Antiquary. Though not in chro- 
nological sequence, his account*® of the Castle should be given 
here, as containing proximate hints as to the original site, dispo- 
, sition, and extent of this famous fortress. " The Castle," he says, 
^' standeth on the south part of the towne, and is fortified by east 
with the profound Valley (of the Severn) instead of a ditch. The 
walles of it be of a great height. There were 2 or 3 stronge 
wardes in the Castle, that nowe goe totally to mine. I count the 
Castle to be more in compasse then the third part of the towne " 
(which he had before estimated as "sciant a mile in compasse"). 

"There is one mighty gate^^ by north in it (the Castle), now 
stopped up, and. a litle posteme madie of force thereby through the 
wall to enter into the Castle. The Castle ground, and especially 
the base court, hath now many dwellinge houses of tymbre in it 
newly erected." 

« J»g'«m<MWw,9Edw.I,No. 81. This 
Inquisition has been before alluded tp 
(p. 205, note 39). It is described in the 
printed Calendar as " concerning suits of 
Court to Brugg Castle ! " In Mr. Dukes' 
Antiquities, 81 Commissioners are stated 
to have been employed on this occasion, 
by an error of punctuation, which con- 
verts the office number of the Inquisition, 
into the number of Inquisitors. 

^ Leland's Itinerary^ vol. iv, part, ii, 
fo. 182, a. 

w The « Mighty North Gate " of Bridg- 
north Castle, alluded to by Leland, was, 
I imagine, the same, which having been 
previously buried in other buildings was 
again exposed to view, during some street 
alterations in 1821. The fine Norman 
Arch and its unnecessary destruction are 
memorialized by the Historians of Shretos' 
Jmry (vol. i, p. 54, note 3), in terms which 
both justify a reference to their note and 
plead against the future perpetration of 
such improvements, there or elsewhere. 


Having now given whatever evidence offered itself aa to the 
fabric and extent of thia Gaatlef^ during' the early period of its ex-- 
iBtence^ something remains to be said of its uses and occiqpancy as 
a Garrison, a Prison^ and a Kotal Residence. 

The Sheriff of the County was usually an ex-officio keeper of 
the two Castles of Bridgnorth and Shrewsbury. The Constable, or 
chief resident officer in each, will ordinarily have been a deputy of 
the Sheriff. But we shall hear occasionally of the custody of the 
Castles and the County being intrusted to persons independent of 
eiach other; iR which case the Constable of Bridgnorth was of 
(Course the immediate nominee of the CrowUr 

The only other permanent officer who is mentioned was the 
Porter. Tbe castellans, or regular garrison, in time of peace, were 
probably not more than five or six in number; but in time of 
War, service of Castte-guard was due from some neighbouring 
tenants of the Crown. 

The earliest notice of the King's garrison here relates to the 
Porter.^ In and for the fiscal year ending Michaelmas, 1156,^^ an 
annual charge arose upon the Crown revenue in Shropshire of 
80*. 5rf. (or 1 penny per day) for Livery of the Porter of Brug* 
The Sheriff, William Fitz-Alan, charged it that year as a set-off 
io the ferm of the County, and the charge was continued by him 
and his successors in office, till the fourth year of King John (1202). 
In the sequel of John^s reign this item of the Sheriffs' expenditure 
is less regularly entered. The Porter and Warder (vigil) of Shrews- 
bury Castle each received a similar salary from the Crown, and 
through the Sheriff. In the fifth year of John (1203), only half 
of these appointed liveries seems to have been paid, and the pay- 
ment to the Porter and Warder of Shrewsbury is apparently con- 
frised with the payment to the Porter of Brug. From this period 
till Michaelmas, 1224 (8 Hen. Ill) inclusive, the latter salary (of 
SOs. 6d.) whenever charged by the Sheriff, is entered as having 
been paid to the Porter and Warder of Brug ; but I attribute this 
to a perpetuation of the error observable in the account of 1203, 
and do not suppose that two officers were employed at Bridgnorth, 
but only at Salop. If, however, a Porter and Warder were employed 
at each Castle, the salary of the two at Bridgnorth was only 
half the salary of the two at Shrewsbury, which was uniformly 
£3. Os. lOrf, 

^> Eoe. Pip. 2 Hen. II, Salop. 



' In the year ending Michaelnuis^ 1225^ the Sheriff ( John Bonet) 
again charged 305. 5d. for "livery of the Porter and Warder of the 
Castle of Brug/^ but this item of charge was virtually cancelled, 
because the then Constable of Bridgnorth was independent of the 
Sheriff and held his office at a fixed salary, out of which he was 
bound to pay his subalterns. The way in which this cancellation 
was effected is curious. The improper item is not underlined, as 
was usual in such cases,,but the sum. (30^. 5d.) is charged back upon 
the Sheriff in the sequel of the account, in these terms. — " The 
same Sheriff owes 80«. 6d. for livery of the Porter and Warder of 
Bruges Castle, which he has taken credit for above, in the Corpus 
Comitatus,^^ which credit ought not to have been taken, because the 
Constable has a fixed stipend.^^ In the following year the same 
Sheriff again charged 30^. 6d, on this item, in that part of his 
account technically called the Corpus ComitatHs; but in this 
instance the entry is cancelled at once (i. e, underlined) and a note 
added to this effect : — " It i& cancelled before the Barons (of Ex- 
chequer) because the Constables of the Castles have fixed stipends 
for custody of said Castles,^' 

This chLge for the livery of the Porter wa« never again i^newed 
on the annual Rolls, not even when custody of the Castle was held 
by the contemporary Sheriff. 

A matter of Exchequer routine has led us to digress from our 
proposed chronological account of Brug Castle. — 

We return to the year ending Michaelmas, 1163, when four hos- 
tages had been maintained at Brug, and three at Salop. The 
Sheriff charges the Crown 61«. for the two items jointly. 

^ That part of the Sheriff's annual 
account which went by this name may be 
described as follows. He first debits 
himself with the " Firma Comitates," op 
that revenue which he was presumed to 
receive as Fermor of the King's demesne, 
or other rights within the County. This 
revenue, in Shropshire, was £266. 16^. 
per annum. 

The Sheriff then charges against this, 
his debt, whatever items of such/erm the 
King had bestowed elsewhere, as well as 
all such occasional outlay as he himself 
had had warrant to make in the ^King's 

The balance, one way or other, is stated 

at the foot of this section of account. If 
the Sheriff's receipts had been exceeded 
by his authorized outlay, he credits him- 
self with what he terms his "surplus," 
and for which he is subsequently reim- 
bursed. If, on the contrary, his receipts 
have exceeded his outlay and his payments 
into the Exchequer combined, he acknow- 
ledges himself indebted pro tatdo, and 
accounts for such debt, either in another 
section of the same year's Pipe EoU, or 
ebe at the head of the Boll of the year 
following, and under the title of " the 
old ferm " of the County for which he is 



These hostages cannot but be associated with the events of the 
summer of 1163. In June^ King Henry invaded South Wales, and 
having ravaged Caermarthenshire, Rees, Prince of South Wales, 
came to him at ^^ Pencadayr beside Brecknock, and did him homage 
and gave him pledges/' Also on July 1, at Woodstock, the same 
Rees, with Owen Prince of North Wales, and Malcolm King of 
Scotland, did homage to the King and his son Henry.^* 

At Michaelmas, 1165, Guy le Strange, accounting, as Sheriff, for 
the quarter ending Christmas, 1164, charges £4. Is, 3rf. for main- 
tenance of twenty.five hostages at Brug :^* and Geoffrey de Vere, 
his successor in office, charges £4. 12^. for maintenance of the same 
number. These charges were clearly for one set of hostages, but 
at different periods. Taking the sums charged as our only means 
of calculation, it would appear that Geoffry de Vere's trust lasted 
rather more than a quarter of a year, i,e, tiU about April, 1165. 
In 1164, the Princes of Wales had forsaken their fealty to King 
Henry, and in the summer of 1165, the King was again provoked 
to invade North Wales. A first expedition brought him to Ruth- 
Ian; a second, in greater force, to the Berwyn. In both he seems 
to have been unsuccessful. 

The cruel and violent temper of Henry II, his various contempo- 
rary mortifications, and certain historical parallels may lead us to 
attribute the disappearance of these hostages from the Sheriff^s 
accounts to other causes than restoration to their country, a favour 
which indeed was at this very juncture most improbable. King 
John^s cruelty to Welsh hostages is well and circumstantially 
established.^^ No less established is my conviction that King John's 
cruelty and meanness were part of his paternal inheritance. 

The years 1173-4 are well known as thos& of Prince Henry's 
rebellion against his Father. The Earls of Ferrers and Leicester 
taking an active part against the King, the Midland Counties may 
be presumed to have been much disturbed. Under these circum- 
stances, Guy le Strange, then Sheriff of Shropshire, and Fermor of 

^ Powell, p. 161 5 Oirald IHn. ii, x ; 
Die, 635. What the Welsh Chronicler 
may mean by saying that, after the inter- 
view with ^se at Pencadayr, the King 
went ^ againe to Ireland," I cannot guess. 
Henry II was never more than once in 
Ireland, viz. from Oct. 1171, till April, 

" Guy le Strange's previous account 

(for the year ending Michaelmas, 1164), 
charges, in gross, a large sum (£90. 9«. lOd,) 
for '* works and services of the £ing in 
Salopscr', and livery of serving-men." 
An item for the continuous maintenance 
of hostages is thus not improbably in* 

« Infra, p. 271. 



Fitz Alan's Barony, had to vicjtual the Castle of Brug. He charges 
on this account, at Michaeknas, 1174, for 92 horse-loads of com, 
^69. 08. 6d. ; for 120 hogs, £10. 4s. ; for 120 cheeses, £2. 6s. Sd. ; 
and for 20 horse-loads of salt lOs.^^ The total outlay (£22. 5*. 2d.) 
the Sheriff charges on an arrear which he had in hand of the pre- 
vious year's receipts from Fitz Alan's Barony.^^ 

The same Sheriff had likewise the King's warrant to the extent 
of £42. for livery of 10 Knights, who were to be with him in the 
Castles of Salop and Brugis. At Michaelmas, 1175, he charges 
£1S. Qs. Id. of this on an arrear due from the previous jeeLi'sferm 
of the County: the balance of £28. I3s. lid. he charges on his 
receipts ssfeiinor of the honor of William Fitz Alan- for the year 
ending Sept. 1174. 

His account of Michaelmas, 1175, in the latter capacity left him 
still owing a sum of £26. ISs. 4d. to the Crown. This also he had 
had the King's warrant for applying to the maintenance of the same 
10 Knights, but his acquittance from the debt is not recorded till 
Michaelmas, 1176. 

In one of these years 1175-6, Bridgnorth will have been person- 
ally visited by King Henry II. It was at the time when he made 
a progress throughout the kingdom, the ostensible object of which 
was the punishment of all those who, during the late troubles, had 
trespassed on the Royal Forests. Vast sums of money flowed into 
the Royal Treasury from the amercements which were thus imposed. 
Henry has been much blamed for this exercise of his restored 
power, but it should be remembered that in punishing trespassers 
of the Forest, he probably punished individuals whose general spirit 
of disloyalty had manifested itself in thus taking advantage of the 
disorganization of the period. 

His visit to Bridgnorth, at the time supposed, is proved by a 
Charter which was dated there, and by which the Priory of Wenlock 
came into possession of the Manor of Ditton. This Charter need 

" A charge of 49. " pro ii manumolis *' 
seems also to belong to this list of stores. 
Manumola is interpreted by cirotheca (a 
glove) in the glossaries. A charge ''pro 
II mangonellis" (catapults) would hare 
been more intelligible. 

^7 Guy le Strange had in 1178 raised 
on behalf of the Crown a considerable 
contingent for what he describes, on his ac- 
count of that year, as the "army of 

Leioestjsr." Leicester, the stronghold of 
its rebellious but then absent Earl, was 
invested by Beginald Earl of Cornwall 
and Bichard de Luci, in the summer of 
1173. It fell before the besiegers on July 
22, and the Sheriff of Shropshire served 
in person on that occasion. He charges 
for liveries of serving-men throughout 
the County of Salopscr*, while he himself 
" was in the army of Leicester." 



not be here set forth, farther than to say that it took effect firotd 
and after Christmas, 1175.^ It was attested by Richard dc Lud, 
William Ktz Adeline (the Sewer), Reginald de Conrtenay, William 
de Lanval, Robert Marmion, Saher de Quinci, Thomas Basset, Ghiy 
le Strange, William Fitz Ralph, and Randal Broc,^' who all may be 
presumed to have been of the Royal retinue " at Bruges '' on this 


These witnesses^ names afford ample corroboration of the date 
which the Exchequer accounts alone would fix for the grant, e.g. 
Richard de Luci (the great Justiciar) retired from court early in 
1179. In 1176, William Fitz Adeline went as Viceroy to Ireland. 
William de Lanvall and Thomas Basset were associated Justidara, 
who, in 1175, visited Worcestershire, Staffordshire, and Shropshire. 
Further, on July 1, 1175, King Henry was at Woodstock; on 
August 1 at Nottingham. In the interval he had visited Lichfield, 
perhaps Bridgnorth also. 

In the months of December, 1197, and January, 1198, Hubert, 
Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England, Legate of the 
Apostolick See, and Chief Justice of the iCealm, visited the Western 
Counties.^ His presence at Shrewsbury in January will be matter 
of future mention. It was on Christmas Day, 1197, that beiag at 
Hereford, he ^^ took in hand the Castle thereof, as well as the Castles 
of Briges and Ludelaw, and expelling thence the Constables (Cus- 
todes), who had long had custody of them, he delivered them to 
other Constables, to keep for the advantage of (or in behalf of) the 

King." «^ 

William Fitz Alan was at this time Sheriff of Shropshire. His 
account for the year ending Michaelmas, 1198, does not exhibit the 
slightest evidence of this interference of the Viceroy at Bridgnorth. 
He had obeyed writs of the Archbishop as well as of the King. He 
had repaired the Castle of Brug under the latter authority. He had 
paid the Porter of Brug his accustomed salary. Moreover he had 
paid '^ 6«. 8d. in hire of the barge which carried the wife of Griffin, 
son of Rese (who was hostage for her husband), from Bruges to 

SB Boi. iVp. 22 Hen. 11, Salop. Tbis I » MbntuHoot^ r, p. 73, notes Ko. 8. 

flccount, made up at Micbaelmas, 1176, ^ Hoyeden, 440, b. 

awards, under Boyal Warrant, to Wen- *^ " Outodiewda ad opu8 JB«yit." 

look Friory, such revenue of the Manor ® This entry on the Sheriff *s accounts 

of Ditton, as represented a tenure thereof requires some illustcation. In the sum- 

during the prenous three quarters. mer of 1198, Gwenwynwyn^ Frinoe of 


' In NoTembeor, 1200^ Bridgnorth was visited by King John. He 
was at Feckenham (Worcestershire) on the 9th ; at Brag on the 1 1th 
and 13th; and at Haywood (Staffordshire) on the 15th. With him 
were the Bishops of Coventry and Bangor^ Geofiry Fitz Kers (Chief 
Justice of all England)^ and Simon Archdeacon of WeUs (then one 
of the joint Keepers of the Great Seal) .^ 

In March^ 1204> Eong John was again at Bridgnorth. Having 
been at Lichfield on the llth^ he was here on the ISth^ 14th^ and 
15th, and ai Worcester on the 16th. With him was a noble retinue^ 
such as none but a great fortress could have sufficed to accommo- 
date. These were the Bishops of Lincoln and Hereford^ the Earis 
of Essex (Geoffrey Fitz Hers^ then Sheriff of the County)^ of Pem- 
broke, Chester, Salisbury, Warren, Leicester, Warwick, and Here- 
ford ; also William de Braose, the Provost of Beverley, Hugh de 
Nevill, and William Briwere.^ 

On this occasion G«offi*ey Fitz Piers '^ had paid £40. to John de 
Torrue, the King's Clerk, who was to discharge therewith the King's 
expenses at Bruges.'^ This item stands on Fitz Piers' Shropshire 
account, at the following Michaelmas, as a set-off against what was 
due from him on the ferm of the County.^ However the King's 
writ is extant, dated at Winchester, 7 May, 1204, whereby he orders 
his ^^ Treasurer and Chamberlains to deliver (liberate) to Geoffi'ey 
Fitz Piers £40. which said Geoffi*ey had paid in the King's 
chamber, to discharge the Sling's expenses at Brug.'^'^ We must 
presume that, instead of receiving the money ordered by the latter 
writ, Fitz Piers took a correspondent credit at the Exchequer, 
otherwise the Lord Chief Justice wiQ have been repaid for his 
advance twice over. 

22d March, 1205. King John's precept issues to the Sheriff of 
Staflforddiire (which with Shropshire was then in the joint custody 

Powis, invested Castle Pain in Elvel, in- 
tending,in caseof suocesstocarryhis opera- 
tions to the Severn. In July or August, 
Gwenwynwyn was engaged and defeated 
with great loss by G«ofirey Pitz Piers, who 
had succeeded Hubert as Chief Justioe 
of England, in the former month. In 
aid of the new Viceroy on this occasion, 
stood Ghriffith ap Bees, Prince of South 
Wales, who had, in 1197, been deposed 
and imprisoned by his brother Maelgon, 
in concert with Gwenwynwyn. The latter 
had delivered Griffith to the English 

during a temporary pacification; but 
when Ghwenwynwyn again troubled the 
Border, theEnglish enlarged their prisoner 
and were aided by him as above stated. 
Griffith's wife was probably surrendered 
as a pledge of his fidelity, when he himself 
was released. 

® Mot, CciHarwn, p. 80. 

«* Sot Fat. p. 39. Sot Cart, p. 122. 
Idberat, p. 83. 

« Sot, Pip. 6 John, Salop. 

^ Rot, Claus, 6 John, memb. 21. 



of Thomas de Erdinton and William de Hauteriye)^ coimnandiiig 
him that he lodge Bernard de Urri^ the King's Balister, whom the 
King sends^ with the nine other Battsters who are at Brag ; and 
the Sheriff is to give said Bernard his Hvery from the 22d of 
March^ as long as he remains at Brug in the King's service and by 
the King's order ; and the amount shall be placed to the Sheriff's 
credit at the Exchequer. The said Urery is to be that which other 
two-horse Balisters have.*^^ 

On May 11, 1205, the Sheriff of Salop is ordered by the King 
to send without delay to Northampton all the King's Balisters who 
are at Salop and Brug. They are to be at Northampton on Sunday 
before Pentecost, '^ with their horses and accoutrements."^ This 
order was probably in anticipation of John's then contemplated 
expedition into Poitou, which, however, was afterwards (June 13) 
abandoned, though an embarkation at Portsmouth actually took 

On Aug. 5, 1205, the King, being at Lambeth, sends to the 
Sheriff of Salop, Peter, a three-horse Balister y and nine two-horse 
BalisterSy who are to receive 10«. 4rf. per day (less than 14rf. each). 
They are to stay at Brug with their accoutrements till the .King 
give further orders. Their prescribed pay is to conmience on the 
11th of August. «» 

6 Aug. 1205. King John, being at Havering (Essex) orders the 
Keepers of his wines at Bristol to send 6 tuns of wine, by water, 
to Brug. Three are for the King's use, and three for distribution 
(to his household). The wine is to travel night and day.^^ This 
writ has a mark of cancellation affixed, and— 

On 20 Aug. following, the King gives an order to the same 
officers to send wine to Feckenham, Kinver, Worcester, and Brag, 
there to wait the King's convenience.^ 

At Michaelmas, 1206, the Sheriff had sent wine of the King's 
from Brug to Nottingham.^^ 

^ Clous. 6 John, memb. 66. "Et 
facias ei habere liberaciones suae sicut aliis 
qui sunt ad duos equos." The Balistarii 
who were in King John's pay, were 
chiefly of three classes, those who used 
two horses, those who used one horse, and 
those who are called foot'halisters. Their 
usual pay was respectively 156?., 7i<?., and 
8fi. per day. Their employment was the 
management of different kinds of engines 
for propelling missiles, from the bulky 

machine which battered a fortress with 
huge stones, down to the cross-bow, which 
carried bolts or quarrels. Their names 
indicate many of them to have been 

^ Mot. Clam, 6 John, memb. 1. 

* Clau9^ 7 John, memb. 18. 

70 Ibidem, memb. 15. 

^ Ibidem, memb. 17. 

5^ MoUPvp, 8 John, Salop. 



' At Michaelmas^ 1207, the Sheriff, Thomas de Erdinton, chaises 
the Crown £4. for '^ repair of four gaols in several places, together 
with the free prisons/' ^^ One of the four places will have been 
Bridgnorth Castle. 

At the Forest Assizes, held at Salop, on Saturday after Mid-Lent, 
in the 10th year of King John (Sat. Mch. 14, 1209), the following 
carious case came before H. de Nevill and Peter de Leonibus, the 
presiding Justices.^* 

" A certain stag entered into the baUey'^^ of the Castle of Bruges, 
through a postern, and the Castellans captured him and carried him 
to the Castle. And (the King's) Verderers, hearing thereof, came 
thither, and questioned Thomas de Erdinton, the then Sheriff^ as 
to what he had done with the said stag : and he acknowledged that 
the matter was as alleged, and became bound that his men should 
appear before the Justices.^^ He did not, however, keep his word, 
and some unexplained adjournment was the consequence. These 
Castellans are enumerated. They were " Matthew the Constable, 
Roger de Fougeres, Richard de Bromwic, Robert the Porter, and 
Walleran, brother of Matthew.^' 

We thus learn the official connexion of the Sheriff with this 
Castle, his employment of a Deputy called Constable, and the 
insignificant force of the permanent garrison. We also may esti- 
mate the stringency of those Forest Laws, whose inferior ministers 
could thus interrogate the Sheriff of two Counties, and a Royal 
favourite, about a stray stag.^^ 

King John's third visit to Bridgnorth was in August, 1212. It 
was an eventful period of his reign, and one which has hitherto 
escaped any accurate historical notice. The rapidity of the King's 
movements would indeed be almost incredible were not the circum- 
stances, which are now to be detailed, supported by the most unques- 
tionable testimony. 

Earlier in the year Lewellyn had succeeded in reconciling that 

73 Ibidem, 9 John. 

7* Flacita Foresta^ Salop, No. 2, 
memb. 1. 

7^ The haUiva or haUium of a Castle, 
was primarily the whole area over which 
the Constable had jurisdiction. The word 
was secondarily used to describe parti- 
cular spaces, as the " inner*' and " outer 
bailey." The Seneschal of Montgomery 
was to have a dwelling-house within the 

halUwn of the Castle. (Hist, of Shrewi* 
hury^ i, 41, note 2.) 

7<^ Erdinton was Sheriff of Shropshire 
and Staffordshire both in 1209, and lor 
the greater part of King John's reign. 
For Ins actiye services and the confidence 
which the King reposed in him, it will, at 
present, be sufficient to refer to Dugdale's 
Baronage (toI. ii, p. Ill), and Blak»- 
way's Sheriffs (p. 35). 



disnnioiL (tf the Welah frinces which placed their co mitry ao nmdbt 
under the inflnenoe of the English King. The Spring saw Lewellyn 
asBoeiated with Qwenwynwyn Prince of Powis^ Maelgon ap Bees of 
South Wales^ and Meredith ap Robert of CjdeweaJ' The Castka 
built or garrifloned by the EngHah fell one by one before their arma. 

The first notice which ELing John seems to have taken of this 
alliance, bears date. May 26th, at Wolmere (Hants), when he 
issued letters patent, confiscating all the lands of Mealgon ap Bese 
in the honor of Cardigan, and conferring them, with all sendees of 
the tenants, on Bese ap Oriffin.^^ 

Two months later, viz. on July 26th, the King was at BristoL 
The only Castles of North Wales which now remained in his power 
were Buthlan, Dyganwy, and Mathraval. The latter had been 
built by Bobert de Vipont, one of John^s most active Lieutenants^ 
on the banks of the Yymwy, about two miles above Meifod, and 
probably on the site of an older but long-forsaken Castle of the 
Princes of Powys. De Yipont was now besieged in this Castle by 
the Welsh confederates. 

Notwithstanding the digression, we will watch the daily move- 
ments of King John at this crisis of his career. We shall observe 
him in his household, note him at the council-board, trace him 
through the toilsome march of the summer day, admire his 
momentary energy though contrasted with irresolution and fear, 
wonder at the weak superstition which alternated with the most 
revolting crime. 

On Thursday, July 26th, the King passed firom Bristol to Mel- 
kesham (Wilts), and sent thence £300. to the Sheriff of Hereford- 
shire, wherewith '^ to succour Bobert de Yipont who was besieged 
in Wales.'' ^ On Friday, July 27th, he was at Devizes and Lud- 
garshall (both in Wiltshire), and on the 29th at Winchester. That 
day (it was Sunday) he passed back to Marlborough (Wilts); reached 
Tewkesbury on the 30th and was at Worcester on the 31st. Hence 
he despatched a messenger with money to pay the mercenaries who 
were serving in South Wales under the notorious Pulk de Breant.^ 
He occurs, as still at Worcester on the 1st of August, but must 
have travelled to Bridgnorth the same day. On this journey the 

77 To these Br. Powell (p. 192) adds 
Madoc ap Ghru%th Haylor, Lord of 
Bromfield, who, if he erer joined the 
alUanoe, did not adhere to it. 

^ Mot, Pest, 14 John, memb. 5. 

^ MUcB MoUs^ 14 John, memb. 2. 

^ Cla/us. 14 John, memb. 6. Br. 
Powell's account would imply that Folk 
de Bresnt, quitted his lieutenancy in 
South Wales the year before. 



iumpter*horto^ nduch carried tlie King's bed^ failed and -was left at 
Bridgnortli. Also two of the King's vakts with their horses and 
attendants^ the King's Falconer^ with his Hawks^ the two Carters 
and four Sumpterers who carried the King's wardrobe^ with their 
nine h<»rses^ accompanied the King's march no further. At Bridg- 
north also remained certain coffers^ which contained relics^ and 
which seem to have travelled with the Court on all ordinary jour- 
neys. Over these during the ^' three nights which they remained 
at Brug" were burnt wax candles at die King's expense.^ 

On the morning of Thursday^ the 2d of August^ the King ordered 
6Q9. to be given to Buchard de Gratelon^ a Knight^ whose horse 
was in pawn at Brug and was thuB redeemed. 

XJrg^it was the need of both horse and I^night^ for on diat same 
day King John ndsed the siege of Mathraral, in the heart of Powis- 
land^ and levdU.ed its Castle with the ground. 

If we estimate this exploit according toihe distaaice of the jour- 
ney, the nature of the road, the season of the year, and the hazard 
of the work (for it is certain that the expedition was but slenderly 
attended),^ we shaU recognise, even in King John, some of those 
capabilities which marked the Hantagenet, and which in him were 
kept in abeyance, probably by an almost unceasing consciousness of 

The next day the King returned to Bridgnorth, transacting some 
matters of business as he passed through Shrewsbury, and, inter alia, 
writing to the Earl of Chester to support and protect Madoc ap 
GrifBn and his men, to whom the King, now tiiat Lewellyn had 
seceded from him, wished '* to recur as to his own son." ^ 

On reaching Bridgnorth the King ate twice, though it was Fri- 
day, an offence which he atoned fi»* the following day, by feeding 
a hundred paupers with bread, fish, and beer.^ 

He proceeded (on the 4th) to Boissock (Worcestershire) . He 
was at Woolward in the same County on the 5tii, and reached 

» Mot MUcBy 14 John, memb. 2. For 
an aooount of the office of a King's 
VaUit^ see EUt Skrmnlwry i, 266. 

s The distance from Bridgnorth to 
Kathraval cannot be much less than fifty 
miles by the nearest modem road. Pr. 
Powell's expression that the King " levied 
an army" iax this exploit, is simply an 
exaggeration. The Bolls exhibit no 

symptom of such preparation, and the 
King, a week before, had evidently no in- 
tention of rendering personal aid to his 
lientenant. Moreover the*' King's Army" 
was at Hiis moment under smmnons to 

» i2o^. J\i& and Sot. OmuB, 

^ Mot, Muoy ut Mipra. 


Woodstock the same day.^ There he rested till the 9thj whesoL 
he proceeded to Silrerstone (Northants). 

Here he wrote to his late rescued officer, De Vipont, apparently 
as having custody of Oswestry Castle.^ 

On the 10th he passed through Northampton to Lamport, and 
from the latter place, on t^e 11th, issued letters patent of safe 
conduct, for LeweUyn, and all his abettors and kindred, to meet, 
him at Chester on the Sunday after the Assumption of St. Mary 
(Sunday the 19th), and give full security for thier future fealty. He 
also wrote to certain Lords and Knights of Flanders and Hainault, 
who had come to England at his mandate, beseeching them in the 
most affectionate terms to follow him, '^for that he could not come 
back to them, by reason of his army, which he had caused to be 
summoned.'^ ^ 

This summons had been issued firom Woodstock on the 20th and 
21st of July. It was to various English Barons and Sheriffs, to 
meet him at Chester, coinddently with the time appointed to 

At Salvata on the 12th, and Gunthorpe (Notts) on the 13th, the 
King reached Nottingham on the 14th, and remained there till the 
22nd. Here a sudden change took place in his plans. On the 
16th, he writes to all Sheriffs who had obeyed his summons to 
Chester, commanding them to return to their provinces, and 
''attend to their (provincial) business, for that at present he cannot 
come to Chester as he had proposed.'' — 

To his Earls and Barons there assembled he returns thanks for 
their attendance in such strength, and similarly dismisses them 
with their knights and retainers. Other matters, he says, have 
called him elsewhere.®® Certain mUitary stores, heretofore ordered 
to Chester, are also countermanded to Nottingham or to Bristol.®^ 

Nothing occurs on the EoUs to explain this abandonment of the* 
King's intended invasion of Wales (for such evidently was the 
object of the muster at Chester) ; but the Chroniclers partly clear 
up the mystery.*^ At Nottingham, the King received two letters. 

* " Itinerary of King John," embodied 
by T. DuffuB Hardy, Esq., in his Pre&oe 
to the Patent Bolls of that King's reign. 
This invaluable digest is my chief autho- 
rity for the moyementff of the King, 
as stated in the above narratiye. 

^ Claui, 14 John, memb. .6. The 
document with some others is dated on 

the 6th of August, but the Misa 2oll 
already quoted proyes the inaccuracy of 
such date. 

^ Sot. Fat, 14 John, memb. 5. 

® Ibidem. 

^ Clous. 14 John, memb. 6. 

^ M. Paris, pp. 231, 282, whose state- 
ment, however, is fax from accurate in its 


one from the King of Scots^ the other from his own natural daughter^ 
the wife of Lewellyn. Each conveyed the same nnconcerted intelli- 
gence^ viz.^ that the King was threatened by the treason of his own 
nobles in the approaching expedition. About the same time^ and to 
confirm John's wakeful suspicions^ three Barons fled the kingdom. 

Disappointed in all plans of summary vengeance on his son-in- 
law^ the King resorted to such petty retribution as remained within 
his reach. On the 17th^ he commissions certain galleys to infest 
the Welsh coasts^ and do '^ all possible injury '^ to Ins enemies. He 
also orders Fulk de Breant to destroy the Abbey of Stratfleur (which 
had been reported as maintaining the King's opponents)^ and all the 
weaker Castles within his Bgiliwick.^^ Now^ too^ the King enacted 
that merciless tragedy^ which has been before alluded to^ — ^the mur- 
der of all the Welsh hostages (about thirty) who were in his power^ 
as well as of Bees'^ap Maelgwn^ the young Prince of South Wales. 

But the length to which this digression has already extended 
obliges me to refer elsewhere for the particulars of this transaction.'^ 
We return to Bridgnorth Castle^ wherein on 15 May, 1215, the 
Sheriff of Salop is ordered to receive the King's '^faithful and 
beloved" Engeram de Freux and the suit he may bring with him, they 
having the King's orders to remain there.'* 

At this period Thomas de Erdinton, Sheriff of Shropshire, was 
probably in King John's service elsewhere. The person addressed 
in the above writ as Sheriff, must be taken therefore to have been 
his deputy. Furthermore Henry de Erdinton, a Clerk, and son of 
the Sheriff, being in the employment and patronage of the King, 
had written to request his Boyal Master to send one of his Mag^ 
nates to take custody of the Castle of Bruges. On the same 15th 
of May, the King writes to Henry de Erdinton, informing him that 
he has sent Philip de Albini, who will give his orders to Henry as 

(p. 193) says that he hung Bees ap 
Maelgwn there. After the relief of 
Mathrayal, De Yiponfc undertook custody 
of the four Castles of Oswestry, Chirk, 
Carrechova, and Eggelawe {Claus, 14 
John, memb. 6 dorso), and we haye 
already seen him employed at the first. 
John de Yipont, mentioned by the Histo- 
rians of Shrewsbury (page 91, note 4), 
is introduced into these transactions alto- 
gether by mistake. 
® Mot. Clam, i, 116, 200. 

details e.g., he represents the £ing as 
going to Chester, dismissing his army in 
person,and then going to liondon, whereas, 
on leaving Nottingham, he went north- 
wards to York and Durham. 

^^ JEtot, Clous, sub die. 

^ Sist, ShretDshwy, i, 91, where, how- 
ever, one or two trifling inaccuracies may 
be noticed, e,£f. — the summons of the 
King's army was not to Nottingham, 
where he w:as, but to Chester, whither he 
was going ; Robert de Yipont, was not 
CasteUan of Salop, though Dr. Powell 




to wliat is to be done about that Cilstle. A similar letter from the 
King to the Constable of Bruges^ enjoins his obedience to the 
orders of the same Philip.** 

On the next day^ the 16th, this plan was changed. The King 
addressing the Sheriff of Salop informs him that he sends into 
those quarters his faithful and beloved Bobert de Courtenay and 
Walter de Yerdun for the security and defence of those parts, and 
to take custody of Bruges Castle. The Sheriff (i . e. the deputy) is 
without delay to cause the said Castle with all its victuals and stores 
to be delivered to the same Bobert and Walter, and he is to wait 
upon and aid their counsels, for the King^s advantage and honoyr.^^ 

A similar precept to the good men of Shrewsbury informs them of 
the new commission, and commands them so to join the Commis- 
sioners in manM defence of their town and neighbourhood, as that 
the King may thank them. The same appointment is^farther certi- 
fied to all Knights and free tenants in ^e Counties of Salop and 

On the 23d of May, King John, addressing the Constable of 
Bruges, names Bobert de Curtenay only, as his appointed Custos of 
the Castle, and orders delivery thereof to the said Bobert ; ^ but on 
July 5th following, Bobert de Curtenay and Walter de Verdun are 
enjoined to give up to the King^s ^^ faithful and beloved '' Thomas de 
Erdinton the Castle of Bruges with its appurtenances and victuals, 
which they had received from the men of the said Thomas.^ 

On July 23, 1215, three hundred pounds of wax were to be sent 
from Northampton to '' Bruges in Wales," for the King's use.»8 

At the close of this month. King John made his fourth visit to 

** Jtot. Pat 16 John, memb. 2. These 
documents haye senred to place Philip de 
Albini on all lists of the Constables of 
Bridgnorth Castle, which I have met 
with ; and quite unwarrantably. Philip 
was actiyely employed elsewhere at the 
time, and his commission to Bridgnorth 
yirtually cancelled the next day. Eyen 
had he discharged it, it was by no means 
equiyaleiiit to an appointment as Con- 

^ Sot Pat, ibidem. These Patents 
haye also been construed into an appoint- 
ment of Bobert de Courtenay, as Con- 
stable of Bridgnorth Castle. They rather 
were tantamount to placing the Shrieyalty 
of the two Counties in Commission, during 

Eardinton's absence, and at a critical 
period. It was, in fact, in this yery year, 
and while King John had his hands full 
elsewhere, that Lewellyn marched upon 
Shrewsbury and actually took the town. 
This circumstance, carefully concealed by 
the English Chroniclers, is giyen by Dr. 
Powell, and accepted by Mr. Blakeway 
{Hist Shrewsbury, i, 92). The King's 
unusual address to '*the good men of 
Shrewsbury,'* aboye quoted, acquires some 
significance when placed by the side of the 
historical fiict. 

^ Bot Pat 16 John, memb. 1. 

^ Sot Pat. 17 John, memb. 20. 

» aaw. i, 222. 



Bridgnorth. Having gone from Feckenham to Stonrton on the 
28th^ he was here on the 30th and 31st^ and also on the 1st of 
August. On the 2d he had passed to Worcester. With the King 
on this occasion were the Archbishop of Dublin, the Bishop of 
Coventry, the Earl Ferrars, Gilbert Fitz Reinfrid, William de 
Cantilupe, Brian de L'Isle, Hugh de Bemevall, and Bicliard de 
Mariscis, the Chancellor. 

An order about transfer of a- Welsh hostage, and Charters to the 
Earl of Chester and the Borot^h of Droitwich, passed during the 
King^s stay at Bridgnorth.^^ 

On Nov. 21, 1215. The Sheriff (Thomas de Erdinton) is ordered 
to pay their liveries to the King^s servants at Brug, and the King will 
cause the Sheriff to be reimbursed according to view of the same 
servants.^^ — 

King John was at this time besieging Rochester, which was held 
by William IVAlbini on the part of the Barons ; the whole king- 
dom was in a ferment, and the business of the Exchequer totally 
suspended. — Hence this irregular order on the Sheriff of Shrop- 
shire, and the absence of the usual form for entitling him to reim- 

On the 2d of December, 1215, the King, still before Rochester, 
orders Thomas de Erdinton to give possession of certain lands (late 
held by Wrenie (Wrenoc) Wallensis, and seized into the King^s 
hands), to " Robert Teneray, our Constable of Bruges,^^ to be held 
by him during pleasure.^^^ We have heard of Robert de Teneray 
before.^^ We now see who he was, and that his office was distinct 
from that of the Sheriff, though perhaps subjective to it. Erdinton 
still had custody in chief, both of the Counties of Salop and Staf- 
ford and of the Castle of Brug. 

On April 13^ 1216, he is ordered to give up the two Counties and 
this Castle to the Earl of Chester, who is to be obeyed in the said 
Counties '^ as an Earl, as a Sheriff, and as the Kjing^s Bailiff.^^ ^^ 

» Mot Pat and £ot Cart. 

^^ Clous, 15 John, memb. 16. 

^®i The usual form, when the King thus 
drew on his revenue, was a promise of 
repayment at the Exchequer, addressed 
to the officer who was commissioned to 
make the outlay. The officer kept the 
King's writ till the period of his account, 
when it operated at the Treasury just as 

a cheque. The words used in the King's 
writ were generally "Et oomputabitur 
tibi ad Scaccariimi." The suspension of 
the business of the Exchequer for two 
and a half years at this period has already 
been alluded to (supra, p. 2, note 4). 

^^ Clems, 17 John, memb. 15. 

i« Supra, p. 52. 

10* Pat 17 John, memb. 4. 


In Augast^ 1216, King John made his fifth and final visit to 
Bridgnorth. Leaving Shrewsbury on the 14th, he occurs here the 
same day and the next. On the 16th he proceeded to Worcester, 
where he renewed his commission to the Earl of Chester, promising 
however to release the Earl, on the 8th of September following, 
firom his shrievalty and its ac^uncts.^^ The writs, both Close and 
Patent, which issued during this visit to Bridgnorth, were numerouB, 
but none of them were of immediate local interest, except his letters 
of protection to John, son of Peter Sarracen, whom we have men- 
tioned before as then holding the Prebend of Walton, in the 
Collegiate Church of St. Mary Magdalene.^^ 

John was at this moment hardly to be called King of England. 
London and the South-Eastem Counties had declared Prince Louis 
to be King. So had Yorkshire and Lincohishire. The King of 
Scots, John^s vassal, had a week before marched through the 
kingdom of his Suzerain, done homage to Louis' in London, and 
returned northwards without molestation.^^ The Barons, includ- 
ing the Earl of Salisbury, John^s half-brother, were with the French 
Prince, who, in a contemporary document, sets forth his title to the 
Crown of England, which he claims to be his, both by inheritance 
and election.^^ 

The sequel of John's career is weU known. — He survived his last 
visit to Shropshire little more than two months, when, exhausted 
by fatigue and anxiety, perhaps poisoned, he died at Newark. 

' Those ties of loyalty which bound the Western Counties even to 
such a King as John Plantagenet were remembered by him to the 
last. By his own -desire his remains were carried to Worcester, 
which he had quitted but two months before. There they still 
lie buried, and there the moralist may contrast the cold repose of a 
marble effigy with aU other memories of him, whose life, whether 
from circumstance or disposition, was one continuous state of fever 
and unrest. 

In the fifth year of his reign, viz. in July, 1221, Bridgnorth was 
visited by young King Henry. On the 2d he passed hither firom 
Shrewsbury, and on the 4th had proceeded to Kidderminster.^^ 
Several writs of local interest issued during this visit, but which 
will be more properly cited elsewhere. 

^ Fat. 18 John, memb. 4. 
i«» Supra, p. 74. 
i«7 Lingard, iii, 68. 

M8 Bymer^s Foedera, i, 140. 
i« Fot. Fat. 6 Hen. Ill, sub die. 
Clans, i, 468. 



On July 15, 1228, Ranidf, Earl of Chester (still Sheriff), is 
ordered to see that the Constable of Brug do send the sons of 
Gwenwynwyn to Gloucester. On the 19th, the King being at 
Gloucester, certifies their arrival.^^® 

In the same year, in October, the King was at Shrewsbury on 
the 12th, at Bridgnorth on the 13th, and at Kidderminster on 
the 14th. 

Dec. 80, 1228, the Earl of Chester is commanded to deliver the 
Castles of Salop and Bruges to Hugh Despencer,^^^ who apparently 
was appointed Sheriff of the Counties of Salop and Stafford at the 
same time.^^* His tenure of either trust was very brief; for — 

On Feb. 2, 1224, he is ordered to deliver custody of the Castles 
to the Bishop of Worcester ; and the Earl of Salisbury accounted as 
Sheriff, for the nine months ending Michaelmas, 1224.^^^ When 
the Bishop of Worcester resigned the CasUes to the Earl does not 
appear; but on Nov. 8, 1224, the King issues an order on the 
Treasury to pay the latter iE106. 13s. 4id. in part of the annual 
salary of £200. which the King had assigned him for custody of 
the said Castles.^^^ The Earl, therefore, wiQ have then held them at 
least half a year. 

About Mid-Lent (March 9), 1226, Thomas Mauduit was 
appointed Constable of Bridgnorth Castle. He held this office as 
nominee of the Crown, independently of the Sheriff, and at a fixed 
anntial salary of 40 merks (£26. 18^. M,), payable half-yearly, 
by Boyal order on the Sheriff, or on the Exchequer.^^^ The usual 
allowance by the Crown of Id, per day to the Porter of Brug was 
now discontinued, as being part of the Constable's liabilities. 

In 1225, the tax of " the fifteenth " then levied was dispatched by 

^^ Bot. JPat, and Clau9, sub diebns. 

"1 Bot Fat. 8 Hen. Ill, sub die, 

^^ Pugdale's Baronage^ i, 389. 

iM Bot, Pip. 8 Hen. III. Mr. Blake- 
way {Sheriff's, page 5) has rejected the 
Earl of Salisbury from the list of Sheriflfs 
of Shropshire, against the authority of 
Mr. Wm. Mytton, who had endently^con- 
sulted the Pipe Boll on the point. 
Though Hugh le Pespenoer was Sheriff 
for a month, it is not correct to put hirn 
down for three-fourths of the year, or to 
exclude the Earl of Salisbury. Bespencer 
rendered no aooount w^erer at the 

^^^ CZ(Mcir. 9 Hen. Ill, memb. 19. 

^^ Thomas Mauduit receiyed half a 
year's salary (£18. 6^. Sd.) in advance, on 
entering office. On Jan. 21, 1226, Wor^ 
field mill (of 8 merks annual yalue), 
haying been awarded to him in part of his 
salary, the Sheriff is ordered to pay him 
so much of the previous salaiy of 40 
merks, as remained due on Jan. 18, 1226 
(CZattf. ii, 94). Hereupon the Sheriff seems 
to have paid him £11. 4«. 8<f. {Bot, JPip, 
10 Hen. Ill), which was rather more 
than five months' salary, and apparently in 
excess of the Boyal warrant. The pay* 
ment was however allowed. 



John Bonet^ the Sheriff^ from Brag to Winchester; The Barons of 
Exchequer are ordered on Dec. 12 to allow £St. 80. %d. in his 
account^ for the ^' sacks and barrels^' which he had provided on the 
occasion^^^^ and he accordingly takes credit for that snm in his next 
annnal account.^^^ 

Dec. 30^ 1225^ the Sheriff is ordered to have the King^s mills of 
Brug yalued^ and to deliver them^ so valued^ to Thomas Mauduit^ 
Constable of Bruges^ in part payment of his annual salary of 40 
merks for custody of Bridgnorth Castle.^^® 

Jan. 13^ 1226^ Seizin of the said Mills is ordered for Thomas 

May 12^ 1226, The Treasurer of the Exchequer is ordered to pay 
Thomas Mauduit 16 merks, his half-year's salary for Easter Term, 
1226 ; but a counter-writ, dated the same day, orders the Sheriff to 
pay the same.^^ 

July 30, 1226, Exemption from all suits in the County of Wilt- 
shire is granted to Thomas. Mauduit and Robert his brother, 
because they are in the King's service in the Castle of Brug.^^^ 

On August 29, 1226, King Henry was at Shrewsbury, on the 
30th and 31st at Bridgnorth, and on Sept. 2 at Worcester.^^^ 

Sept. 3, 1226, the Sheriff is ordered to pay Thomas Mauduit his 
half-yearly salary for the (second) half of the King's 10th year^ 
viz. 16 merks ;^^ and at Michaelmas, the said Sheriff chaises 
£33. Ws. 4rf. as having been paid by him, under three several writs 
of the King, to the same Thomas. Also Thomas Mauduit had 
received 8 merks from the Mill of Wereffeld in part payment of his 
annual salary of 4S) merks, and this 8 merks the Sheriff iakes 
credit for, it having heretofore been a part of his own receipts in the 
ferm of the County, which was pro tanto diminished.^^ 

Dec. 6, 1226, The Sheriff is ordered to pay Thomas Mauduit 10 
merks, his quarter's salary from Michaelmas to Christmas, 1226.^^^ 

Thomas Mauduit continued in this office six months longer. 

"• Clous, ii, 89. * 

117 Bot Pip, 10 Hen. HI, Salop. 
iM Clatu. ii, 91. 
M» Ibidem, 94. 
» Ibidem, 110. 

m Ibidem, 181. Walter Fitz Bernard 
is similarly exempted. 
>» Bot, Pat, 10 Hen. III. 
133 (72aiM. ii, 186. 

13* Sot Pip. 10 Hen. Ill, Salop. Wor- 
field Mill, alluded to here and above, was 
in reality Pendeston Mill, which we shall 
soon see disposed of in another way. 

^ C^iw.ii, 160, but the order is there 
cancelled, not as haying been revoked but 
as properly belonging to the Liberate Bolls, 
which had now been resumed (yide 8upr% 
pre&oe, page 8). 



receiving a full year's value of Worfield Mill, besides the last men- 
tioned instalment of his salary .^^^ 

On 8 Jnne, 1227, Henry de Andley was appdinted Sheriff of 
Salop and Staffordshire. John Bonet (the previous Sheriff) and 
Thomas Mauduit are respectively enjoined to deliver up to him the 
Castles of Salop and Brug.^^^ 

1 Aug. 1227, Henry Pitz Aucher, in charge of the King's balista, 
is ordered to give up six wooden balistm to Henry de Audley, to be 
placed in the Castles of Bruges and Salop.^^ 

On Aug. 15, the Sheriff of Herefordshire is ordered to deliver to 
the same, 1000 quarrels for war-stores of the said Castles.^^® 

On Aug. 28, 1228, the King was at Bridgnorth, and went on to 
Shrewsbury and into Wales.^^^ 

Sept. 29, 1228. The Sheriff charges 55 shillings for carriage of 
wine which had gone from Bruges to Montgomery .^^^ 

At Michaelmas, 1229, it appears that the King had granted the 
profits of the two Counties, for the year then ending, to the Sheriff, 
in remuneration of his custody of the said Counties, and of the 
Castles of Salop and Bruges.^^^ 

Nov. 7, 1229. Custody of the Counties and Castles is renewed 
by letters patent to Henry de Audley .^^* 

Michaelmas, 1231. Twenty-eight casks of the King^s wine had 
been sent ifrom Brug to Castle Matilda (in Elvein), for carriage of 
which.the Sheriff had paid £6}^ 

Henry de Audley accounted as Sheriff till June, 1282,^^^ Who 
succeeded him in custody of Bridgnorth Castle, does not appear; 
but the precept (dated March 4, 1283) which gives the said custody 
to Peter de Rivallis (then Sheriff) is addressed to Joan, widow of 
William Briwere.^^^ 

128 not. Pip. 11 Hen. Ill, where also 
the 10 merkB paid him in December, are 
charged by the Sheriff. Hence it would 
appear that he received only 18 merks for 
eight months' service, an irregularity 
which might have been intended to 
balance the over payment which we 
noticed on his entering office. 

»27 Bot. Pat, 11 Hen. III. 
"8 CUu8. ii, 195. 

129 Ibidem, 197. 

^ Mot. Tat. 12 Hen. IH. 

131 J2o*. Vi'p. 12 Hen. Ill, Salop. 

132 ^t. Pip. 13 Hen. HI, Salop. 

13 Mot. Pat. 14 Hen. III. On the 

4th of October previous, custody of the 
two Counties had been granted to John 
de Munemue {Mot, Pat. Hen. Ill), but 
D'Audley accounted continuously at the 
Exchequer, and the Sheriff of a month 
aj^iears nowhere on the Pipe Rolls. 

134 Mot Pip. 15 Hen. Ill, Salop. 

135 Mot Pip. 16 Hen. HI, Salop. 

136 Pat. 17 Hen. III. WiUiam Briwere 
died in Feb. 1233, on the 22d of which 
month custody of his lands in Notts, was 
ordered to be given to the same Peter de 
Bivallis, who seems to have succeeded 
him as Gustos of Brug Castle. 



80 May^ 1284. Custody of tlie Counties having on the 15th 
instant been committed to Robert de Haya^^^^ the Manor of Brug^ 
with the Castle^ is now independently entrusted to Bichard de 
Wrotham, and " the men of the Town of Brug ^* are certified 
thereof by letters patent.^^ 

10 July^ 1235. An order issued to the Sheriff^ that the Justices 
for gaol delivery should meet at Brug as soon as the King^s Justices 
Itinerant had left Worcester. The former are named ; they were 
William de Plsle^ Robert de Stepleton, Richard de Middlehope, 
and Roger Sprengehose.^^* 

Michaelmas^ 1236. The Sheriff had sent wine of the King's 
from Brug, to Salop and to Wenlock.^^ 

14 Nov. 1236. Robert de la Haye is ordered to give custody of 
the Castles of Salop and Bruges to John le Strange. This was a 
transfer from a retiring to a succeeding Sheriff.^^ 

Michaelmas, 1237. John le Strange had dispatched wine of the 
King's from Brug* to Salop and Wenlock.^** 

18 Oct. 1237. Hugh Fitz*Robert and others are appointed to 
deliver the gaols of Salop and Brug.^** 

Michaelmas, 1240. Some wine of the Eing's had been delivered 
to the Bailiffs of the town for sale.^** 

Feb. 12, 1241. John le Strange undertook that, if the King 
should die [while said John was in possession of the Castles of 
Brug, Salop, and Montgomery, and of the County of Chester, 
then he would surrender them to the Queen, for behoof of Prince 

27 Jan. 1242. Gaol delivery, by Robert de Wodeton &c. 
appointed at Bn^ and Salop.^^ 

24 June, 1243. The same, by Ralph Basset of Drayton &c.^*^ 

22 June, 1248, Thomas Corbet is to receive custody of the Castles 
of Salop, Bruges, and Ellesmere, from John le Strange.^*® 

In 1249, the gaol of Brug ordered to be delivered, by Ralph de 
Covene &c.i*» 

In 1250, Robert de Grendon was appointed Sheriff of the 

"7 Mot. Pat, 18 Hen. IIL 

^ Ibidem. 

M9 Ibidem, 19 Hen. m, dowo. 

i*> Uot, Pip, 20 Hen. Ill, Salop. 

i« Pat. 21 Hen. HI. 

i« Mot, Pip. 21 Hen. m, Salop. 

^« Pat. 21 Hen. HI, dorso. 

1^ Mot, Pip, 24 Hen. m, dowo. 
'« Pat, 25 Hen. m, sub die. 
i« Pat. 26 Hen. HI, dorso. 
w Ibidem, 27 Hen. Ill, dorso. 
i« Ibidem, 32 Hen. III. 
i« Ibidem, 33 Hen. HI, dorso. 



Counties^ and to have castody of the Castles of Salop^ Brages^ and 

EUesmere.^^ He accounts firom and after Easter^ 1250^ for these 

In 1251^ Thomas de Boshal and others are appointed to deliver 
the gaols of Salop and Brug.^^^ 

In 1252^ Hamo le Palmer and his fellow-bailiffs of Brug had 
purchased wine of the King's to the value of £13. ISs, 4id., which 
the SheriflF accounts for.^^* 

In 1254^ William Trussel and others are appointed Justices to 
deliver the gaol of Brug.^^ 

The inquiries of the King's Commissioners, in autumn, 1255, 
led to several statements relating to the Castle of Bridgnorth.^^^ 
The Borough Jury reported — ^That, when the King was at Brug, the 
Lord of Albrighton (then John de Pychford, a minor) was bound 
to find fuel (carbcoies) for the Castle, that being the service due on 
his fee of Little Brug. 

That John Fitz Philip (Lord of Bobbington and Quat) owed wardl 
to the Castle in time of war, but to what extent the Jurors knew 

That, as long as the King had held in hand the Manor of 
Worfield, the produce of hay, and of the mills there, used to come 
to the Castle^ — also that the tenants of that Manor used to do 
Hirson in time of war, and take up their quarters in the Castle, 
for ward thereof, if it were necessary. " Now," say the Jurors, 
'^ Henry de Hastings holds that Manor, and the King gave it to 
him in exchange of his lands in Cheshire, whereby the King hath 
now no service from that Manor to the said Castle.'' 

In answer to a question as to the cost of keeping the Castle, as 
well in time of peace as in time of war, these Jurors replied that 
they had had no means of judging since the period when Thomas 
Mauduit kept it for 40 merks per annum, in time of peace. Since 
then the Sheriff, they said, had always had custody thereof, together 
with the County. In time of peace they thought the Castle might 
be kept at a cost of 30 merks per annum. As to the proper cost, 
in time of war, they could form no estimate. 

80 October, 1255. Robert de Grendon is ordered to give up 
custody of the Counties and Castles to Hugh de Acour. The latter 

»» Pat. a4 Hen. HI, memb. 11. 
1" Eot Pip. 84 Hen. Ill, Salop. 
"3 Pat, 36 Hen. ni, dorso., 

iH Mot, Pip, 36 Hen. Ill, Salop. 
^ Pat. 38 Hen. m, dorse. 
«» :Rot. ffund. ii, 59. 




is to pay £126. ISs. 4id. per aamtun for the prcfiis of the Cotmties^ 
and to keep the Castles at his own chaiges.^^' 

On 32 Sept. 125 7^ the King was at Bmg, and on the 261ih^ being 
then at Worcester, he issued letters patent to Hugh de Aconr^ 
appointing Peter de Montfort to the custody of the Marches towards 
Montgomery, and for the better performance of that service giving 
him, at instance of Prince Edward, custody of the Counties of Salop 
and Stafford, as also of the Castles of Salop and Bruges, to dispose 
of the profits therein arising as he should think best, during the 
continuance of the wars with Wales; so that, for the first year of 
his holding the said Counties, he should not answer at the Exche- 
quer, but in the King's Wardrobe.^'*^ 

12 June, 1258. Hugh de Weston &c. appointed Justices to deUver 
the gaol of Brug.^^^ 

28 June, 1258. The King, at Oxford, granted custody of the 
Castle of Brug to Peter de Montfort, ''by council of the Mag- 

On Sept. 16 and 17, 1258, the King was at Brug. 

28 Dec. 1258. Bobert de Grendon is appointed to deliver the gaol 
of Brug.^^ On Feb. 14, 1259, Odo de Hodnet and others have a 
like commission, but extending also to the *gaol of Salop ;^^ and, 
about a month later, a third commission, naming both gaols, is 
addressed to the Sheriff of - Salop and Ccmstable of Brug, and 
appoints Simon de Bibefbrd Justiciar for the same purpose.^^ 

On May 18, 1260, Peter de Montfort is ordered to give custody 
of the Castles of Brug and Salop to James de Audley, whom the 
tenants of the Crown are enjoined to aid ''in resisting rebels and 
disturbers of the peace in those parts." ^^^ 

9 July, 1261, the same James is appointed Sheriff of the Coun- 

«• Pat 40 Hen. IIL 

W Ibidem, 41 Hen. in. 

^ Ibidem, 42 Hen. HE, dorso. 

^ Ibidem, memb. 6. The Gounoil 
of « Magnates " was the Committee of 
Beform appointed by the **'mad Parlia- 
ment,'* whioh assembled at Oxford in 
this yerj month. Peter de Montfort was 
on this Committee himself and one of its 
fiye most zealous members. One of their 
first acts was to change the keepers of the 
Bojal Castles, bnt Montfort*s previous 
occupancy of Bridgnorth wa» of course 

undisturbed, though a new patent thereof 
became neoessaiy. In the list of new 
Castellans given in the Annals of Burton 
(page 416), Brugewalter (Bridgwater) is 
assigned to Montfort, by mistake for 

>" Fai. 48 Hen. HI, dorso. 

i« Ibidem,,memb.lO. There 
is no appearance of James de Audley 
being also Sheriff at this time. He was 
brother>in-Iaw to Peter de Montfort, but a 
staunch Boyalist. 



ties^ as well as Costoa of the Castles^ in a Patent addsessed to 
William de Caverswell^^^ (late Sheriff)^ who continued to act as his 
deputy .^^ D'Audley forthwith laid out 100 merks in com, where- 
with he victualled the Castle of Brug, and the cost was repaid him 
in the year following.^^ 

20 Oct. 1261. Custody of the Castles of Salop and Brug is 
renewed by Patent to James de Audley/^ and, — 

On Feb. 5, 1262, a Pateirt for custody, both of the Castles and 
the Counties, is again made out to the same Sheriff.^^ 

28 Oct. 1262. Sobert de Lacy and others are appointed Justices 
for delivery of the gaol of Brug.^*^ 

It is very doubtful, who at this moment had custody cf Bridg- 
north Castle, or indeed of the Counties of Salop and Stafford. 
No Sheriff had accounted at Michaehnas, nor do the series of 
Shropshire Pipe Bolls recommence till the year 1267. 

D^Audley's reappointment of Feb. 5, 1262, though it named both 
Couuties and Castles, was operative only in part or but for a short 
time. On May 6, 1262, Balph Basset was Constable of Shrewsbury 
Castle, and a writ issued £rom Gloucester, purporting to be '^ in 
behalf of the King,'' and ordering him to put it in a state of 
defence, and to use all diligence in re-establishing harmony in that 
district.^^ Basset was a known Anti-Boyalist, and, whereas the 
King was not at Gloucester when this writ issued, we may presume 
the source from which it came and the authority by which Basset 
held Salop Castle. 

»« Pai. 46 Hen. UL 

Mot, Pi^, 45 Hen. Ill, Salop. This 
appointment of d*Audley was one of the 
King's first acts on resuming the royal 
authority, of which he had now been de- 
prived three years. The writ is dated at 
the Towpr. 

i«* i2o^.2^era^, 46 Hen. III,memb.6. 

«» Rot. Pat, 46 Hot. HI. 

i» Pa^. 46Hen. ni,memb. 16. These 
repeated appointments seem to be little 
more than so many re-assertions of the 
Kingly prerogative, every exercise of 
which was contested by the £ictioiis 
Barons. The subject of the nomination 
of Sheriff, in certain Counties, from and 
after Michaelmas, 1261, had been referred 
by the King and the Barons to six Com- 
missioners, of whom each party chose 

three. In case of the non-agreement of 
these Commissioners, the King of the 
Bomans was to arbitrate. It was not till 
January 29, 1262, that the six, finding it 
impossible to decide on a proper prin- 
dple of appointment, made refiarenoe to 
the said arbitrator. He gave his award 
in fetvour of the Crown, and that the 
King's prerogative of appointing Sheriffs 
should remain intact; but Michaehnas, 
1262, was the period fixed by him for 
this award to take effect. (Bymer's 
IMera, i, 415.) We have, however, 
seen that the King instantly (Feb. 6) 
re-appointed d'Audley for Shropshire 
and Staffordshire. 

w Pai, 46 Hen. Ill, dorso ( « Justio. 
de anno 47V'). 

^^ Ibidem, 46 Hen. m, dorso. 



On July 14^ 1262^ Eisg Henry went to France^ and did not' 
retnm till Dec. 20. The Earl of Leicester had^ on the other hand, 
quitted France and was again busy in reoiganiziug the Barons' party 
in England. 

On April 15^ 1263, Prince Edward was at Shrewsbury for the 
purpose of repelling the aggrestions of the Welsh and, restorbig 
order in the Marches. Rewrites thence to his Father. I cannot 
suppose that Shrewsbury Castle was at this time in the hands of 
any but a bond fide nominee of the Crown.^^ 

On June 16, 1263, the King being then in London, undertakes 
to repay James d'Audley his outlay for Tictualling the Castles of 
Salop and Brug,^^^ from which it would appear that that Baron had 
sometime recovered the former from Ralph Basset. 

Immediately after this, the King was again obliged to submit to 
the Barons. A Patent dated at Westminster, 10 August, 1263, 
enjoins Boger de Somery to give up the custody of the Counties 
of Salop and Stafford to Hamo le Strange.^^ It is probable that 
this appointment was in the nature of a compromise. De Somery 
was father-in-law of Ralph Basset, and though he and Hamo le 
Strange subsequently adhered to the Crown, they may both, at this 
period, be reckoned as favouring the Barons' party. 

A contemporary Chronicler dates Hamo le Strangers desertion of 
the Barons in 1263, and attributes it to corrupt motives.^^^ His 
adhesion to Prince Edward, in which he was joined by Ralph 
Basset and other Barons, was reduced to writing and confirmed by 
oath of the Declarants. The document bears date at Lambeth, 
August 18, 1263, and implies no corrupt sacrifice of principle 

On Oct. 8, 1263, the King, then at Dover, grants to Hamo le 
Strange and others pardon for all transgressions which they had 
committed in relation to the " statutes of Oxford" ^^* (the enact- 
ments of 1258), and — 

On Nov. 22, 1263, the King, at Windsor, appoints the same 

Hamo to the custody of the Castles of Salop, Brug, and Mont- 

In December, 1263, reference of the disputes which had so long 

, ^ Bymer's JEMera^ i, 425. 

170 Pat, 47 Hen. HI, sub die. 

^ Ibidem, memb. 6. This Ib the only 
notice which has occurred to me of De 
Somerf haying been SherifiT. 

^ Cowtin. M. Paris, sub anno. 
173 Bjmer's Faedera, i, 430. See also 
Matthew of Wettmvngtery fo. 153. 
17* Pat, 47 Hen. HI. 
i7« Ibidem, 48 Hen. Ill, memb. 20* 



disturbed tlie realm was agreed^ by both King and Barons^ to be 
made to the arbitration of King Louis of France. Among the 
friends of Henry^ and who undertook that he should abide by 
Louis^ decision^ were John Fitz-Alan, Roger de Mortimer^ James 
d^Audley, Alan la Zuche^ Roger de ClifPord^ Hamo le Strange^ 
Roger de Somery^ and Roger de Leybume. 

Peter de Montfort's name appears among those who similarly 
obliged themselves on the part of the Barons. Louis^ awards 
wholly in favour of King Hehry, bears date January 23, 1264.^7* 
On hearing this intelligence, Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, 
and his party, flew into open rebellion. Two of the Chroniclers give 
us a somewhat inconsistent account of their proceedings. — 

One of these (probably a Monk of Worcester) records, under the 
year 1263, that several Barons, among whom were Peter de 
Montfort (our former Sheriff) and Robert de Montfort, son of Earl 
Simon, attacked and stormed Worcester.^77 Tj^g ^^y given for this 
capture of the '^ Loyal City ^^ is the 2nd of the kalends of March, 
which (after lookiog to the context of the passage quoted^, and the 
writer's mode of dating) will be equivalent to Feb. 29, 1264. 

The Continuator of Matthew Paris states, under the year 1264J 
that Earl Simon himself and the army of the Barons, after taking 
Gloucester Castle, marched to Worcester, Brug (Burgiam), or else 
Salop (sive Salopiam), and, easily taking and occupying them all, 
went southwards and subdued the Isle of Ely.^^a 

The result of the battle of Lewes (May 14, 1264) is well known, 
and how the King became Montfort's prisoner for more than a year, 
and yet the ostensible authority for all the Usurper's acts of govern- 
ment. The trickery of issuing writs and patents in the King's 
name was too apparent to impose upon any genuine royalist, and 

»7» Bymer's Fcedera, i, 484. The 
written date of Louis* award is 1263, but 
this merely arises from the Dominical year 
being computed to end at Lady Day, 
instoid of Christmas or on Dec. 31. 

^ AwnaU of Worcester (Anglia Sacra, 
i, 495). 

V9 Co«^. Jf. Pom (ed. Watts, i, 992). 
The Historians of Shreioahury (yoL i, 
'p. 126, note 1) suppose it. probable that 
Montfort made himself master both of 
Shrewsbury and Bridgnorth on this 
occasion. They refer only to the words 

of the Continuator of M. Paris, riz. 
''Deinde processit exercitus ad Wigomiam 
et Burgiam sive Salopiam, et eas leri 
negotio redditas intrayerunt." Looking 
to subsequent evidence of a better kind 
than that of this non-positiye Chronicler, 
I venture to question whether Montfort 
obtained possession of the Castles either 
of Brug or Shrewsbury, and, if of one of 
the Boroughs, that one was not Bridg* 
north. Dr. Lingard (vol. iii, p. 131) 
has dated the affair in April, 1263. 



our subject will give us some, opportunity of observing how sucH 
documents were regarded in Shropshire. 

First comes a Patent bearing date June 4^ 1264^ which appoints^ 
in 29 Counties, certain officers entitled " Keepers of the Peace/' *^* 
The one appointed for Salop and Stafford was Ralph Basset of 
Drayton. In no case is the Sheriff of the County addressed as to 
any of these appointments, but the Nominee himself, who was 
probably expected to supply the place and usurp the functions of 
the lawful Sheriff. The Custos of each County was to return four 
Members (knights) to the Parliament which was to meet at London 
(m June 22 following. These Knights were to be elected '^by 
assent of each County .'' Shropshire made known its sentiments 
on this occasion by returning four members, who were pronounced 
'' to be unfit, by Peter de Montfort.*' The Parliament, in feet, 
never met, probably because a majority of its members were simi- 
larly disqualified. 

A Patent dated at Canterbury, 24 August, enjoins Hamo le 
Strange to give up the Castles of Salop and Bruges, and the town 
of Bruges, to whomsoever the King shall appoint by his Letters 
Patent. The same Hamo, with James de Audley, Roger de Mor- 
timer, Roger de Clifford, and Roger de Leybume, are also required 
to deliver up their prisoners, taken at Northampton (those rebels 

whom the King before his captivity had surprised in Northampton 
Castle) .180 

On Dec. 20, Hamo le Strange is again required to give custody 
of the Castles of Salop and Bruges to Ralph Basset of Drayton.^^ 

On Jan. 2, 1265, Hamo le Strange and his fellow royalists are 
invited to retire to L*eland, and stay there for a season. Safe con- 
duct for themselves and families is graciously vouchsafed, as also 
protection for their lands, men, and goods.^®^ — ^Whether any of them 
actually went, is a question. Roger de Mortimer^s term for setting 
out was extended by Patents dated February 5, March 2, and 
April 8, foUowing.^®^ 

Meanwhile, on February 3, custody of the Counties of Salop 
and Stafford had been committed to Robert de Grendon, who on 

^ Bot Pea. 48 Hen. Ill, memb. 12 

i» jpat 48 Hen. Ill, dorso. 

itt Fat, 49 Hen. III. The King was 
at Worcester, where certain measures were 
decided upon by Montfort for securing 

his own powerand the continued subjection 
of the King. These measures were pa- 
raded in the King's name and called ** The 
Provisions of Worcester." 

*® Pat, de eodem anno. 

^^ Pat, de eodem anno. 



March 7 is ordered to deliver that trust to Ralph Basset of 

On March 17^ Hamo le Strange and other Barons are again 
assured of safe conduct to Ireland^ '^ though they did not cross the 
seas at the time before fixed/* ^^^ 

On the 20th of May^ a Patent is addressed from Hereford to 
Balph Basset^ Keeper of the Peace^ and to the Sheriffs of Salop and 
Stafford. They are to publish the accord which had been concluded 
between the Earls of Leicester and Gloucester; ''and whereas 
Boger de Clifford^ Roger de Leybum, Hamo le Strange^ and others^ 
their feUow marchers, who ought, according to the Provisions of 
Worcester, to have left the kingdom, have delayed to do so, in con- 
tempt of the King, it is ordered that the said Gustos and Sheriffs do 
arrest them and their abettors, if they busy themselves in averting 
the minds of faithful subjects from the King, so as to disturb the 
peace.'* Letters on the same matters were directed to the Bailiffs 
and to the " good men ** of the King, and to the community, both of 
Shrewsbury and Brug.^®^ 

I have not the least doubt that Hamo le Strange had kept posses* 
sion of Bridgnorth Gastle through the whole period, — ^from his^first 
appointment to that custody in November, 1263, until now ; and 
this Patent is not the only evidence that the men of the Borough 
shared in the same saga;cious loyalty. 

The Bm^esses of Shrewsbury too were hearty Royalists, and 
early assumed the offensive against Montfort's nominee. A 
Patent dated at Monmouth, June 25, 1265, commands the Abbot 
of Shrewsbury to enjoin the Bailiffs of that town, on the King's 
behalf, that they give up to Ralph Basset, '^ Keeper of the Peace, 
certain men of the said Ralph's, whom the said Bailiffs detain.^^^ 


^ Po/. ibidem. Grendon*8 adherence to 
the BaroiiB was of very ahort duration 
(Vide Dugd, Warw. tit. Gfrendon). His 
tenure of office was probably coincident 
with his disaffection to the Crown. In 
the Sheriff's accounts of 1267, his shrie- 
yalty seems to haye been recognized as 
legal, — a result rather of his subsequent 
conduct than of his original appointment. 

M6 Pat. 49 Hen. HI. 

^ Fat, 49 Hen. HI. memb. 15. 
The whole document is printed in the 
Foddera (vol. i, 455). It alludes to the 

recent landing of the Earls of Warren and 
Pembroke, in Wales. Montfort's fears 
and the hopes of the Bojalists were both 
excited. The former had patched up a 
reconciliation with the powerful Earl of 
Gloucester, which he hastened to publish. 
It was pretended on both sides. Glouces- 
ter was at this moment arranging the 
escape of Prince Edward, and it was 
accomplished on Thursday the 28th of 
this same month. 
187 Pat ibidem. 



Montfort's position was now getting critical. Afnrtlier Patent^ 
dated at Monmouth^ three days later^ distinguishing Prince 
Edward^ the Earl of 'Gloucester^ John de Warren^ William de 
Valence^ Boger de Mortimer^ and James d^Audley^ as rebels^ 
says^ that they are making hostile occupation of Castles and Towns 
throughout the kingdom^ and desires Simon de Montfort^ junior^ 
and other Keepers of the Peace to oppose and injure them in every 
possible way.^®® 

The prospects and position of these '' rebels " continued never- 
theless to improve during the whole succeeding month of Jnly. On 
the 1st of August, young Simon de Montfort suffered a surprise 
and some loss at their hands, and remained shut up in his Father's 
Castle of Kenilworth. The sequel'of the 4th is well known ; how 
the morning twilight greeted the waiting crest of Prince Edward on 
the upland field of Evesham, whilst the adjacent roads were occu- 
pied by the contingents of Mortimer and De Clare; how the 
evening of that day saw the corpse of Montfort slain and dis- 
honoured. — A life of consummate selfishness and hypocrisy was 
not to be atoned for, even by the noble heroism displayed at its 

On the restoration, and till Michaelmas, 1267> when the Pipe 
Bolls recommence, Hamo le Strange appears to have been the recog- 
nized Sheriff of the Counties and Keeper of the Castles. He also 
received other and more substantial marks of Boyal favour.^^^ 

In September, 1267^ the County was favoured by a Boyal visit. 
The preparations at Bridgnorth Castle for the reception of both 
King and Queen have already been noticed. About this time also 
Walter de Hopton succeeded to the shrievalty, and was allowed in 
the following year (53 Hen. Ill) a sum of i^O. Ss. 44., which he 
had paid for com, oats, oxen, and sheep, supplied on the occasion 
of the King's late visit.^®^ His custody of the Castile of Brug at the 
same time has already bedn shown. The office of Keeper of this 

» Sot. Pat. 49 Hen. HE, memb. 45. 

^ It is well to state that the Annalists 
of the period are yerj equally diyided in 
their estimates of Montfort. On the one 
hand, he appears as a traitor and insatiably 
greedy; on the other, as a saint and 
martyr. The more authentic national 
records, from which I have quoted, con- 
firm the former theory, but of course 
leaye the latter untouched. Montfort's 

greatest panegyrist among the Chroniclers 
is the Monk of Melrose, who proves his 
sanctity by several parallels between Simon 
the Earl and Simon Peter the "Apostle, 
and by a number of miracles which re- 
sulted upon the death of the former. 
(See Lingard, vol. iii, pp. 144, 149.) 

»« Bot Pip. 51 Hen. Ill, and Bot. Fat. 
sub annis 50 et 51. 

>«i Liberat. 53 Hen. Ill, memb. 8. 



Castle seems indeed to have been involved in the Shrievalty for the 
rest of the period which concerns us. On the death of Hugh de 
Mortimer, in January, 1273, his successor, Ralph de Mortimer, was 
appointed to his offices, both as Constable and SheriflF.^*^ 

We may conclude this account of Bridgnorth Castle with a few 
statements, which were made on Nov. 29, 1274, before the King's 
Commission of inquiry and by the Jurors of the Borough .^^^ 

In answer to a question, as to '^ how many and what demesne 
Manors the King held in hand,'* they said that he so held, in hand, 
and in demesne, the Castle of Brug. — 

In reply to an inquiry as to the excesses of public Officers, 
they stated that " Robert Trillec,^^ Receiver (for the Sheriff) caused 
the Burgesses and Bailiffs of Brug to come before him in the 
Castle ; the Bailiffs he detained, and, without the King's mandate, 
imprisoned (against justice and the King's peace, and the liberties 
of Brug), till a certain woman who was then confined in the gaol of 
the Borough Liberty was transferred to his custody in the gaol of 
the Castle, — and all this against the franchise granted to the said 
town by Kings of England." 

They also stated, that " the same Robert had maintained and was 
still maintaining certain guards (Satellites), who wrongfully extorted 
money from messengers and other travellers on the King's highway: 
but the amount of their demands the Jurors knew not." ^' The 
same Robert had caused these guards to seize Richard de Dode- 
monston at midnight, and carry him about from one wDod to 
another, threateniifg his life; which Richard offered a fine of 
3 merks payable to Trillec, if he might be taken to the Castle-Prison 
of Brug with his head on his shoulders (sine decolacone,^*^ i. e. 
decollatione), which fine he also paid." 

>" Blakeway M88, in Bibl. Bodl., ap- 
parently quoting a Patent. The succes- 
sion of the Sheriff themselyes at this 
period is rery uncertain. As the matter 
receives no light in connexion with Bridg- 
north Castle, I willingly postpone its con- 
sideration. I may, howeyer, state that 
all existing lists of our Sheriffs in the 
' thirteenth century are so inaccurate, that 
the subject must necessarily recur to our 

»« Rot Sund, ii, 88. 

'** There is complex confusion about 
this Robert Trillec and his Office. In this 
passage he is printed as "Eobertus 

Trillec, deceptor,'* instead of " Beceptor " 
(Eeceiverof the County), and Mr. Blake- 
way makes him Sheriif ^ in the latter end 
of Henry III or beginning of Edward I" 
(Sheriffs^ p. 7). His office is, however, 
very ascertainable, and its period. He was 
Under-Sheriff to. Clerk or Attorney of, or 
Receiver for, Ralph de Mortimer, who 
entered upon office as Sheriff Jan. 23, 
1273. In that capacity Trillec will have 
had authority over the Constables and 
Castles of Salop and Bridgnorth. 

195 This word is read " desolatione " 
(Sheriffs, p. 8, note 1), and of course un- 




" The same Robert Trillec, Under-Sheriflf of Salop, concealed the 
felony of Robert Coly (or Soly), a felon^ attached for theft, and 
imprisoned in the Castle gaol, and released him without the King's 
mandate and without trial, and has him yet with him/' 

*^ Also, when said Trillec caused Richard de ]>odemonston and 
Philip his brother to be arrested and imprisoned in Brug Castle, 
their friends obtained a mandate of the King for delivery of the 
gaol of Brug,^^ which mandate Trillec would not obey, till the 
prisoners made fine of 20 merks, receivable by him, for enlarging 
them under bail/' 

Also the Jurors said that ^' when Reginald de CnoUe had arrested 
a woman for theft, and taken her to be imprisoned in the Castle, 
and presented her to Hugh de Donvile, the Constable, for that 
purpose, the said Hugh would not receive her for imprisonment, till 
Reginald had fined 2 merks, receivable by Hugh, and which he paid 

The last extract gives us the name of a Constable of Brug^ distinct 
from any SheriflFor Under-Sheriflf of the County, though probably 
subject to both. A few other such Constables have occurred above, 
such as Matthew in 1209, and Robert de Teneray in 1215. Before 
we dismiss the subject we will refer back a little for the names of 
one or two more such OflBcers, mention of whom in chronological 
sequence would have interrupted the connexion of more important 

In 1259 and 1262, Walter de Winterton was Constable of 
Brug. On Nov. 29, 1259, he joined with others in taking one 
of the King's deer. Not appearing to answer for this oflfence 
at the Forest Assizes of February, 1262, the SheriflT had orders 

The next Constable who occurs was William de Wystaneston, who 
joined William le Enfant, then BailiflF of Stottesden Hundred, in 
imprisoning and extorting money from William de Hempton.^^® 

William le Enfant himself, having been Bailiflf both of the Hun- 
dreds of Munslow and Stottesden, was also sometime Constable of 
Brug. He held the latter oflBce during the shrievalty of Walter de 
Hopton (1267-8). His injurious and extortionate conduct was 
reported, six years afterwards, both by the Jurors of Norley Regis 
and Stottesden.^^ The latter also accused him of keeping a certain 

^ Not for the " release of the prison- 
ers" (as Sheriffs, p. 8). 

*^ Plac. Forest, Salop, No. iy, memb. 5. 

iw Rot, Hund. ii, 109, a, 

iw Ibidem, 102, b, and 109, b. 



Approver^^ in the prison of Brug, who challenged Roger de Erdiwik, 
an honest and innocent man. This was at instigation of John de 
Bersempton, then Bailiff of Stottesden, who coveted some land of 
Roger's, which the latter was thus forced to sell. 

The succeeding Constable, Hugh de Donvile, was also Bailiff of 
Stottesden. He held one or both offices in 1272 and 1273, and 
the two in conjunction in 1274*. The power which he thus obtained 
made him the subject of numerous complaints at the Inquests of 
November, 1274. His excesses were not only reported by the 
Jurors of Bridgnorth, as before particularized, but by those of 
Ludlow, Munslow, Nordley Regis, Overs, and Stottesden.^^ His 
assistants or servants are also named, viz. Hugh Bron, Thos. de 
Midlehope, and GeoflBrey his brother. Donvile also kept an Approver 
in the Castle Prison, '^ who impeached many faithful subjects and 
harmless men for the sake of lucre.'* Nor did he only oppress the 
innocent; for he allowed the guilty to escape. By his connivance 
an outlaw named Henry le Pleidour, whom Donvile had arrested in 
Shropshire, got off by giving a false name when arraigned before 
the Justices for delivery of the gaol of Brug. Calling himself 
John de Womburne, the criminal appealed to a Staffordshire Jury, 
which, knowing nothing of him, acquitted him. The Stottesden 
Jurors, who reported this, could not say what money Donvile got for 
his connivance in the jqb. 

About the year 1280, Hugh de Dodemonston was Constable of 
Bridgnorth, Roger Sprenghose being also Sheriff of the County, 
Thomas de Marham, Bailiff of Stottesden Hundred, and Nicholas 
le Porter, Gatekeeper of the Castle.^^ — 

At the Assizes of 1292, it appeared that the three subordinates, 
viz. the Constable, the Bailiff, and the Porter, had been suspected 
of letting a prisoner escape from the Castle. The j&rst (Hugh de 
Dudmaston) was now tried and acquitted ; Thomas de Marham, of 
whom we have heard before,^^^ had died in prison; the Porter, 
Nicholas, had absconded (non est inventus) . 

^^ The Approver (or Probator) was a 
most formidable instrument of feudal 
oppression. He was a self-confessed 
felon, an informer, and a bravo. The 
Jurists tell us that a person accused by 
an Approver might, if he chose, be tried 
by Jury; but the practical alternative 

seems to have been that the defendant 
had either to fight a duel with his accuser 
or else bribe the said accuser's employers. 

»i Ibidem, 99, b ; 101, b j 102, b ; 
103, b ; and 109, b. 

»2 Placita CorofUB, 20 Ed. I, memb. 18. 

*» Supra, p. 193. 




The Borough of Bridgnorth is presumed to have been a founda- 
tion immediately consequent on the transfer of the Castle from 
Quatford, in 1101. Ordericus indeed, describing Earl Robertas 
proceedings, says expressly that he transferred the Town.*®* We 
shall presently see that King Henry I recognized the new Borough, 
and allowed it certain priyileges; but whether these were defined 
by Charter or left to be established by prescription, we have no 
means of judging.*^ 

The confirmation of these privileges by King Henry II is extant, 
and, as being the earliest written Charter implying Royal recognition 
of any Shropshire Borough, deserves special attention.*^ Its pur- 
port is as follows : — 

'^ Henry, King of England, and Duke of Normandy and Aqui- 
taine and Earl of Anjou, to his Justiciars and Sherifis and Barons 
and Ministers and all his faithful of England, greeting. Know ye 
that I have conceded to my Burgesses of Brugia all their franchises 
and customs and rights, which they or their ancestors had in the 
time of King Henry my grandfather. Wherefore I will and 
strictly command that they have them, well, and in peace, and 
honourably, and fully; within the Borough and without; in wood 
and in field, in meadows and pastures and in all things, with such 
comparative fulness and honour as they held them in time of King 
Henry my grandfather. And I forbid any one to do them injury 
or insult, in regard to their tenements. — ^Witnesses : T. Chancellor 
and Henry de Essex, Constable, and William Fitz Alan : at Radde- 
more.^' 207 

»* Or<fcri«»,Ub.x,p.768. "Oppidum 
Quatford transtulit." 

^^ Mr. Hallam thinks that there are no 
examples of ciyil incorporations in Eng- 
land (except London), till the reign of 
Heniy II (Middle Aget, i, 211), and this 
say the historians of Shrewsbury is per* 
haps correct. (Sittaiy of Shrewahwry, 
i, 76, note 1). 

** Shrewsbury was a much older 
Borough than Bridgnorth, bat it has 

no Charter earlier than that of 
Bichard I. 

^ This document is unquestionably 
genuine. The original is not known to 
exist, but its substance is embodied in an 
ample Inspeximus of Bridgnorth Charters 
by James I. A duly vouched copy of this 
In^eximus is among the Muniments of 
the Corporation, and is my authority for 
all the Charters I shall quote, except that 
of King John. 




King Henry II did not date his Charterd^ but the period of his 
reign^ if not the very year (1157) in which this one passed^ can be 
ascertained by a redundancy of evidence. 

E, G. No deed of Henry II, passing in England, can have been 
attested by " T. Cane" (Thomas the Chancellor) except in the year 
1155, or else between April, 1157, and August, 1158. — 

Precisely the same limits may be assigned to aU English deeds 
attested for Henry II by the two other witnesses ; for the King 
was absent from England during all other periods at which Henry 
de Essex was in favour or William Eitz Alan alive. The King, in 
fact, was in Normandy from Christmas, 1155, till April, 1157, and 
again firom August, 1158, till December, 1162. At the latter 
period, and on Henry^s return to England, Becket was no longer 
Chancellor, Fitz Alan was dead, and the disgrace of Henry de 
Essex inmiinent. — 

Of the three years (1155, 1157, and 1158) which remain at our 
choice, the second (1157) is the most probable for the date of this 
Charter. The unsettled state of Bridgnorth during, and consequent 
upon, Mortimer's rebellion, puts the early part of the year 1155 
out of question, and renders the latter part in^)robable. — 

It was in autumn of 1157 that Henry de Essex is said to have 
disgraced his office of Constable at Counsylth. His actual forfeiture 
did not take place for several years, but his immediate loss of Court 
favour is evident from the Pipe Rolls. When we add to these con- 
siderations the fact that the SheriflF of Staflfordshire charges, in 1158, 
for fencing the King's house and garden at Radmore,^^ and when 
we find another Charter of Henry II expedited there, and which, on 
independent grounds, we should date in 1 157-8,^^ enough will have 
been said to warrant the conclusion that his Confirmation to the 
Borough of Brug passed about 1157. 

When, in the fiscal year ending Michaelmas, 1159, the Barons, 
Knights, Abbots, and Burgesses of the kingdom had contributed a 
royal aid in form of a donum, the only Boroughs' in Shropshire 

2M Sot. Fip, 4, Hen. Ill, Staffordsliire. »» Monatticon, iv, 111, iii. 



which were assessed are found to be Shrewsbury and Brug. They 
had respectively raised the sums of 60 and 10 meiks, and paid the 
same, through the Sheriflf, at the Exchequer.^^ 

Again^ at Michaeknas^ 1160, the Boroughs of Shrewsbury, 
Brug, and Newport had been assessed to a dbntfui, in sums of 
40 12, and, 1^ merks respectively. Each had then paid half its 
quotd, and the balances were discharged by each in the year 

At this period, the /erm of the County, for which the Sheriflf waa 
annually responsible at the Exchequer, stood at £265. 15s. Of this 
sum, the said Sheriff was accounted to receive £20. from the Borough 
of Shrewsbury, and £5. from the Borough of Bridgnorth. These 
amounts he paid over to the Crown, and whatever he could get 
more on each item was his own. 

^^ The yearly Ferme of towns,'' says Madox,^* " arose out of 
certain locata or demised things that yielded issues or profit. 
Insomuch that when a town was committed to a Sherif, Fermer, 
or Ciistos, such Fermer or Gustos well knew how to raise ihe ferme 
out of the ordinary issues of the town, with an overplus of profit to 

(A source of yearly revenue which, in the year 1167, arose to 
the Crown out of the Borough of Brug, independently of the 
annual ferm, will be noticed hereafter. At present, we pursue 
the history of that revenue which is technically called the *' firma 

We have arrived nearly at the period when this town obtained 
the great end and aim of all municipal bodies, the privilege of 
paying its own ferm or chief-rent to the Crown, and so escaping 
the arbitrary extortions of any Sheriff or other intermediate 

At Michaelmas, 1170, the Burgesses of Brug and of Salop had 
fined with the Crown in sums of 20 and 18 merks respectively, 
'^ for having the ferms of their vills. Each had paid the said fine, 
and was quit. The terms on which the Burgesses of Brug obtained 
this privilege were, that they should pay 2\ merks per annum, in 

»» Eot. JPip, 5 Hen. 11, Salop. 

»i Ibidem, 6 and 7 Hen. II. 

2H Mrma Bursfi,^, 261. Under "tJie 
issue of Towns/' he mentions '* Assised 
Bents, Pleas, Perquisites, Custome of 
goods, Fairs, Markets, Stallage, Alder- 

manries, Tolls, Whar£fige," &c. The rea- 
der will judge which of these pro- 
bably contributed to the **ferm of £5. 
per annum," chargeable on the King's 
Borough of Brug. 



addition to sucli ferm of their Town (viz. £5.) as was preyiously its 
qnota in the general ferm of the County .^^* 

The increment of 2^ merks^ due Michaelmas^ 1170^ is entered on 
the Pipe RoU of that^year as being owed " through Hugh de Beau- 
champ 'y^ and as no other notice of its liquidation occurs^ we may 
presume that it was paid through that officer/^^ rather than through 
the Sheriff of the County, 

At Michaelmas^ 1171, however, the Burgesses of Brug account 
themselves for £1. 13*. 4rf., the ^^ increment of their riZZ/' They 
had paid it into the treasury, and were quit?^^ 

At the same time it is quite clear that the Sheriff continued to 
receive the old/erw» of £5. per annum, and perhaps no more. — ^At 
all events he accounted so much to the Exchequer in his general 
ferm of the County. 

This complex mode of accounting for the/cn» of the Borough 
continued for four years longer, viz. 1172, 1173, 1174, and 1175; 
the Burgesses paying their annual increment, and that part of 
the Sheriff's account, which was termed the Corpus ComitatHs^ 
exhibiting no reference to the new arrangement.^^* But during 
the last of these fiscal years, the Burgesses had again fined in 
a sum of 30 merks and two coursers ''to have their town at 
ferm.^^ — 

And the full effect of this second fine becomes both apparent and 
intelligible on the Pipe Roll of the following year (ending Michael- 
mas, 1176) .2^7 

Then, the Sheriff, being no longer in receipt of *£&. per annum 
(the quota of this Borough towards the ferm of the County), 
discharges himself of the responsibility, taking credit for the 
said £5. (which ceased to pass through his hands) in form fol- 
lowing : — 

" And in the mil of Brug 100«. whereof account should be ren- 
dered separately." 

He was, in short, now responsible for £265. 15«. per annum, less 
such sums as he was no longer authorized to receive, and among 
those sums was the £5. in question. 

Now too, and on the same Roll, the Burgesses render their first 
annual account of the full ferm of their vUL It was 10 merks. 

M' Mot, Pip, 16 Hen. 11, Salop. 

^* For Hugh de Beauchamp's appazent 
oonnexion with Exchequer, see Madox's 
Statory of the Exchequer^ 145, note a. 

^ Sot, IHp, 17 Hen. H. 
^^^ Sotf Pip, de eisdem annls. 
M7 Sot, Pip, 22 Hen. II, Salop. 



i.e. 7i merks (£5.) which they used to pay through the Sheriff^ 
and 2| merks which they had already paid for .five years them- 

The King also begins^ at this juncture^ to issue writs to 
the Burgesses^ which are in the nature of drafts on their annual 

In this very year he directed them to make a payment ''in 
corrody of his sister^ the wife of David ap Owen.''*^® And this 
draft the Burgesses duly respected : they made the said paymient^ 
and took credit, to the value, in their own account with the Ex- 

Another and permanent payment which the King ordered 
them to make was lOs. per annum, the tithe due from the Crown, 
to the Canons of St. Mary Magdalene. This, hitherto an 
item in the Sheriff's disbursements, was henceforth settled by the 

At Michaelmas, 1177, the Sheriff again acquits himself of all 
concern in the £6. above mentioned,^^* and this exemption is either 
directly entered or substantively reckoned in every Sheriff's account 
for the next century .^^^ 

With regard to the '' fine of 30 merks and 2 coursers,*' by which 
the Burgesses obtained their fiill privilege, they discharged it as 
follows : — Before Michaelmas, 1176, they had paid £3, ISs. Ad. in 
forther " corrody of the King's, sister:" before Michaelmas, 1177, 
they had accoimted £16. 1«. 8rf. into the Treasury; and within 
another year they had delivered two Coursers to the King himself, 
and wer^ quit.^^^ 

Their annual /erm of 10 merks {£6. ISs. 4id.), less 10s, paid to the 
Canons, continues on the Pipe-Bolls of the next century, and with 
no variation, except when the King or Chief Justice gave a casual 
order or cheque on this revenue, — of which more in its proper 

»8 DaTid ap Owen, Prince of North 
Wales, had married Enuna, sister of 
Zing Henry H, in 1174. {Diceto, 586.) 
The Sheriffs of London charge in that 
year £28. 17«. for her apparel and outfit, 
as directed by the King. (JBof. Pip, 
20 Hen. II, London and Middlesex). She 
was a natural daughter of Geoffrey Planta- 

genet. Iif this year (1176) the Burgesses 
of Shrewsbury charge the Crown with a 
Corrody (Entertainment) for the King's 
sister, and in 1177, Henry gave Ellesmere 
to his brother-in-law (^oo0c{9», p. 323, b). 

»» Rot Fip, 23 Hen. IL 

*" i2o^. Ptp. passim. 

'^ Roi, Pip. de eisdem annis, Salop. 



Besides this annual contribution to the royal revenue, the Borough 
of Bridgnorth, like all other demesnes ^^^ of the Crown, was assessed 
to occasional contributions of a different kind. We have already 
seen such impost levied under the name of a donum. At Michael- 
mas, 1174, it is entered as an " Assize made throughout the King^s 
demesnes in Salopescire by the Sheriff, under writ of Richard de 
Luci/^ On this occasion Shrewsbury was assessed at j640, Brug 
at £10, and Newport, Worfield, Claverley, Ford &c. in less sums.^^^ 

At Michaelmas, 1177, the tax goes under the name of ^^the aid 
(auxilium) of the Boroughs and Vills of Salopescr* (assessed) by 
Ralph Fitz Stephen" and other justiciars. To this Shrewsbury 
and Brug contributed 20 merks each.^^* 

At Michaelmas, 1187, the impost recurs under the title of ^^ A 
Tallage of the King's demesnes and of lands which were then in his 
hand;" but each item is said to be " de dono.'^^^^ Thus the Bur- 
gesses of Salop render account of £43. 13^. 4rf. *^de dono'^ on this 
occasion; those of Brug are assessed at 15 merks, the men of 
Ludlow at 20 merks. Half of their quota had been paid by the 
Burgesses of Brugj the other half, for some cause or other, remained 
a debt tiU the year 1190-1, when it appears that the King (Richard I) 
had excused it. 

In 6 Rich. I (1194-5), the Tallage of Salop was £26. 13*. M., of 
Brug J5.226 

In 1199, two Tallages are entered as due. The first is expressed 
to be for ^^ maintenance of 500 serving men.^' To it Shrewsbury 
contributed SO^merks, and Brug 10 merks. The second, assessed 

^^ The King had, strictly Bpeaking, no 
demesne in Shropshire. Those Manors 
and Boroughs which were called " ancient 
demesne of the Crown" were really " an- 
cient escheat." The distinction is fully 
set forth hy Madox {Firma Burgi, p. 6), 
but it was of no importance in cases like 
the above. 

2» Rot JPip. 20 Hen. II, Salop. 

22* Ibidem, 23 Hen. II. 

225 Ibidem, 83 Hen. II. Tallage was 
that contribution or donum to the King's 
revenue which was assessed upon his 
demesnes or escheats ; the aid of those 

who held lands by miUtary tenure was 
called " Scutage j '* that of those who 
held lands by other tenure was known as 
" Hidage " (Madox's Uxchequer, p. 480). 
The word " Tallage," is simply equivalent 
to " Taxation," but it seems to have been 
set or assessed on Boroughs and Manors 
by Justiciars, who were to form their own 
estimate as to the capabiHty of each con- 
tributing body, whilst, in the case of 
Scutage, one rule obtained throughout the 
226 Eot Ftp. 8 Bic. I, Salop. 




by H. Archdeacon of Stafford, rated the same Boroughs at £40, and 

10 merks respectively .^^^ 

In 1203, Brugis assessed to a Tallage, at 10 merks.^^s 

It is again assessed to this tax in 7 John (1205), and to two 

further and distinct Tallages in the following year.^^^ 

In (16 John) 1214, Shrewsbury was assessed to a Tallage at 200 

merks, Brug at 50 merks, and other demesnes at the same high 


We hear of no further Tallage till 7 Hen. Ill (1223), when 
Shrewsbury had been ^assessed a^t 100 merks, Brug only at 10 

In 1227, the King^s demesnes in Shropshire were again assessed 
to a Tallage, in what sums we know not ; but on April 5th, the 
King^s writ issued to Henry de Audley and John Bonet, informing 
them that he had excused the assessment made on the town of 
Brug, except 50 merks.^^ Accordingly a memorandum to that 
effect is entered on the Originalia Rolls of that year,^^ and the She- 
riff, John Bonet, accounting for Henry de Audley at Michaelmas 
following, enters 50 merks as the Tallage of Brug.^^ 

Thirty merks of this debt was unpaid in 1229; and in 1230, the 
Town of Brug was again assessed, by Henry de Audley and William 
Basset, to a new Tallage of 25 merks, Shrewsbury being rated at 70 

The Tallage of 1235 exhibits Shrewsbury assessed at 100 merks, 
Brug at 25 : that of 1242 shows the same Boroughs paying 40 and 
20 merks respectively. Again, in 1246, they pay 60 and 50 merks 
to a Tallage. 

In 1249, they were again talliated; and in 1252 Shrewsbury paid 
120 merks to a Tallage assessed by William de AxmoUth, while 
Brug was only rated at 50. 

In 1255, these Boroughs were assessed by Gilbert de Preston and 
Robert de Grendon, in the proportion of 160 merks to 68. 

In 1261, a Tallage, assessed by Ralph leBotiller and Robert de 
Meisy, left Shrewsbury owing £\\7, 3«, 7rf., and Brug £51. 15«. 8rf., 
but these do not appear to be the amounts of the original assess- 

In 1269, a Tallage, which had been assessed by the King's 

827 228 229 Eot. Pip. de eisdem aniUB. 

230 EoL Pip. 16 John, Salop. 

231 Sot Pip. 7 Hen. Ill, Salop. 

232 Clans, vol. ii, p. 180. 

233 OHffinalia, 11 Hen. III. 

234 Rot Pip. 11 Hen. Ill, Salop. 
23* Mot. Pip. de eisdem annis« 


Escheator (the Prior of Wymundham), left Shrewsbury owing 
£120, and Brug £4D.^^ 

Having now followed this subject of Tallages through a whole 
century, in order that it might be presented to the Reader under a 
distinct head, we revert to other matters aflfecting the interests or 
indicating the social progress of the Borough during the same period. 
At Michaelmas, 1180, the great Justiciar, Banulf de Glanvill, 
having visited this County, left the Burgesses of Brug subject to the 
heavy amercement of 20 merks. Their oflFence was " quia quandam 
loquelam dixerint concordatam quae non erat^^ (because they had 
reported a suit as compounded which was not compounded) .^^^ Of 
this fine they had already paid half, and they discharged the balance 
in 1181 and 1182, when the debt is entered on the Pipe Rolls as 
being " pro falso dicto'^ (for a false averment) P'^ 

These particulars, apparently insignificant in themselves, have 
yet their further meaning. — The Burgesses are amerced corporately ; 
their Town was therefore already corporate. — They were amerced for 
a dictum or return which could only have been made in their 
Borough Court : they therefore had such a Court. — And this Coiirt 
took primary cognizance of certain legal matters which were above 
and beyond the usual routine of self-government : they therefore 
had special privileges. 

At Michaelmas, 1183, the Sheriff accounts 5 merks which the 
Burgesses had fined with the Justices recently in eyre, in exchange, 
or recompence, of certain assarts of the said Burgesses^ making.^^® 
They had, in fact, put into cultivation, or use, some waste land^ 
which was so far deemed to be of the King^s demesne as that it 
could not be occupied without license. 

At Michaelmas, 1190, the Borough account of its ferm is cre- 
dited with 2 merks. They had paid so much " under order of the 
Chancellor (Longchanap) to Osbert Luvell, the Huntsman, to buy 
him a horse.^'^^^ 

The earliest County Assizes of which we have detailed record were 
those of October, 1203. On these occasions every Himdred or 
Borough having an exclusive jurisdiction was summoned to send its 
Jury. In this instance the Borough of Brug was so represented. 
It is entered on the Assize Roll as the Hundred of Brug, which merely 
implies that, at the time, it was independent of any other Hundred, 

236 Ibidem. 

237 Sot. Ftp. 26 Hen. II, Salop. 

233 Ibidem, sub annis. 

239 Sot Fip. 2 Ric. I, Salop. 


and was practically a Hundred in itself. The only matter of local 
concern, which the Jury of 1203 reported, was that the "Assize 
of Cloth was not held in the Borough/'^ The Assize of Cloth was 
an ancient statute regulating the measure and price of such manu- 
factures. Its non-observance in any Borough subjected the com- 
munity to a fine; and 4 merks were exacted in this instance. From 
the number of Towns both in Shropshire and Staffordshire which 
were fined for the same offence on this circuit, we may conclude 
that the matter was made one of general inquiry by the Justiciars, 
not that the Juries volunteered these statements to the discredit of 
their own communities. 

The Stottesden Jury at these same Assizes reported that John 
the Vintner of Brug had sold wine " against the Assize.^' His 
offence and that of Roger Rotarius, another vintner of Brug, 
resulted in fines of 6^. Sd, charged on each individual, not on the 

15 June, 1212. The Prqvosts and men of Brug are ordered to 
provide 10 of their fittest citizex^s with horses and arms, to be ready 
to accompany the King in his transfretation on receipt of further 
orders.^*^ These orders never came, for the King gave up his 
foreign expedition. 

In this reign a second Royal Charter was obtained for the 
Borough.2^ It bears date at the New Temple, London, January 
10, 1215, and is as follows: "John by the Grace of God, &c. 
Know ye that we have conceded and by this our Charter confirmed 
to our Burgesses of Bruges, in Salopesire, that they may go and 
come through our whole land of England and transact all manner 
of merchandise ; buying and selling and negotiating; freely, qnietly, 
well, and in peace ; in fairs and markets, in Cities and Boroughs 
and all places ; and that they be free and quit of toll and passage, 
for all their merchandise, wherever they may pass throughout our 
land of England, saving to our City of London its franchises. 
Wherefore we will and strictly enjoin that the said Burgesses and 
their heirs may have and hold of us and our heirs all the said 
liberties and free customs, &c. And we forbid any one under pain 
of our penalties to hinder, or attempt to hinder, the same our 
Burgesses in the premises. — ^Witnesses : P. Bishop of Wiachester, 
R. Earl of Chester, W. Earl Warren, W. Earl of Arundel, William 


2^ Salop Assizes, 6 John, memb. 3 
recto, and 6 dorso. , 

^^ Ibidem, memb. 2 dorso, and 6 dorso. 

2*8 a<ms. i, p. 130 

2« Eot Cart. 16 John, memb. 3. 



Briwere, William de Cantilupe, Thomas de Erdinton (then SheriflF), 
and John Mareschall. — Given by hand of Master Bichard de 
Mariscis, our Chancellor, at the New Temple, London, on the 10th 
day of January in the 16th year of our reign." 

It appears that the Burgesses of Shrewsbury contested the 
benefits which this Charter was intended ta confer on the sister 
community. They were forthwith sued by the latter, and an order^ 
of King John dated 26 April, 1215, appoints the men of Salop "to 
appear before the King in one month of the close of Easter to 
answer the Burgesses of Bruges " as to the hindrances which had 
been offered to the latter in opposition of their chartered franchises. 

On the day appointed (May 24) King John was at Beading, but 
I can trace nothing of the issue of the suit on this occasion. About 
the same time the Burgesses of Brug began to fortify their town 
with a wooden rampart, a precaution doubtless suggested by the 
troubles of the period. A report on the state of the Boyal Forests 
drawn up in the year 1235 records that while Banulf Earl of 
Chester was Sheriff (that is between the years 12J6 and 1223), and 
before the town was encompassed with a waU, large allowances of 
timber were made out of Morf Forest towards its enclosur^.^^ 

Among some old debts due to the Crown, and entered on the 
Pipe-Boll of the second year of Henry III, one of 30 merks is 
charged on the men of Brug "for having the King's Charter about 
their franchises.^'^^ The Charter alluded to was clearly that of 
King John above recited, and the debt was now discharged by instal- 
ments. At Michaelmas, 1220, one-half, viz. £10, was still due.^*^ 

On May 10, 1220, King Henry III, being at Worcester, orders 
the Sheriff of Salop to aid the Burgesses of Bruges in the enclo- 
sure of their town, allowing them out of the 'Boyal Forest near 
Bruges as much of old stumps and dead timber as would suffice to 
make two stacks (rogos) . This was to be done with as little injury 
as possible to the Forest, and Hugh de Upton and Boger de Bechesor 
(Badger) were to be Visors on the occasion.^^ 

The King at the same time granted a frirther license to enable 
the Burgesses to complete their defences. From June 24, 1220, to 

3« Clous, i, p. 203. 

2** De forestis awtiqvis. No. 13(-4p«<i 
Turrimy Lond.) 

^ BoU Pip, 2 Hen. Ill, Salop. Here 
is another proof of what I hare before as- 
serted, yiz. that the Exchequer business 

from March, 1216, until September, 1217, 
was wholly suspended (Vide supra, p. 2, 
note 4). 

2*7 Ibidem, 4 Hen. III. 

a« Sot. Clcma. i, p. 418. 


the end of fotu? years following^ they were empowered to charge {d 
on every cart bringing things into the Town for sale^ and^ if such 
cart came from another County, Id, Other tolls were also specified, 
on pack-horses, cattle, and barges ; and the whole license may be 
taken as an early instance of those Royal Grants to take " customs'^ 
or '^ murage ^^ which we shall notice more summarily in the 

On June 26, 1220, the King made another grant of timber to the 
Borough. The quantity allowed was to be the same as before, but 
old oaks are substituted for dead wood. It was to be taken from 
Morf Forest and under view of the King's " faithful" Hugh de 
Bcckbury and Richard de Ruton (Ry ton) whom he had commanded^ 
by letters, to attend to the matter. They were to make taUy of the 
number of oaks so taken.^^^ 

At the Shrewsbury Assizes, November, 1221, a Jury attended to 
represent '^ the ViUate of Bruges together with the Hundred," by 
which is simply meant the Borough and its Liberties. Among 
" Pleas of the Crown " with which they had concern, they reported 
one, wherein Andrew Fitz William, having challenged William de 
Ingwardine for robbery, was dead. The Jurors moreover said, that 
by judgment of the County Court, the parties had been bound over 
to fight a duel in the case. The Justices hereupon caused reference 
to be made to the County Court, which recorded that such a chal- 
lenge had been made as the Jurors alleged, and that, whereas the 
challenge involved mention of the King's Peace, they (the County 
Court) had attached the parties to come before the Justices in eyre, 
but that they had bound them over to no wager of battle. On 
receiving this memorial the Justices found the Brug Jurors to be 
in misericordid?^^ ' 

The above extract shows the inferiority of the Hundredal or 
Borough Jurisdictions to that of the Great Court of the County and 
the reference which each was obliged to make, in certain cases, to 
the King's Justices. 

At these same Assizes, the Jurors of Brug reported a murder in 
their district, and a case of accidental drowning ; also that Henry 
Bacun and John the Vintner had ^^ sold wine against the Assize.''^ 

^ The Borough of Shrewebuiy had a 
contemporary and similar grant. The 
particulars are giyen. Mistory of Shrews- 
bury, vol. i, p. 96, note 1. 

«> Clous, i, 421, 422. 

^^ Salop Assizes, 6 Hen. Ill, memb. 9 

26* I have not been able to discover 
what was the '* Assize of Wine" (the 
price at which it might be sold) in 1221 



They further gave information of two cases of purpresture on the 
King^s demense in Brug, for which fines were inflicted. One of 
these, by Henry Dod, was the erection of a lodge close to the Castle 
Gate. This, though punishable as ^. purpresture, the Jury did not 
consider injurious; nay, they recommended that the lodge be 
allowed to stand as a defence of the Castle Gate, — ^which the Court 
sanctioned. But a fence which Geoflrey Aunketill had made was 
both punishable by fine and, being injurious to the viW, was ordered 
to be taken down. The Sheriff had instructions accordingly. Both 
the fines were excused on account of the poverty of the parties, 

.Under the head of " New Customs^' the Jurors reported that the 
SheriflF^s Bailiffs called upon the Burgesses to make trace (pursuit, 
hue and cry) through their town, and that this they could not do, 
and that Robert de Shineford had lately fined them 40 shillings for 
an omission of this kind. On this matter the Court reserved its 

The Jurors lastly made complaint, on behalf of their Burgesses, 
against those of Shrewsbury, who would not allow them to purchase 
raw hides or undressed cloth in the latter town, as they had been 
used to do.^^^ 


In November, 1222, the Borough of Brug was among those 
whose Bailiffs were addressed qn the subject of the aid granted, by' 
the King in Council, for the King of Jerusalem.^^* The clause of 
the enactment which affected Cities and Boroughs was that every 
person possessed of chattels to the value of half a merk should con- 
tribute 1 penny. 

This is the first positive recognition which has occurred of the 
Bailiffs, or Provosts, of the Town; and we learn hence that its 

or earlier. A year later (Feb. 1223) it 
was generally limited by the King in 
Coundl to sixpence the Sexta/ry (or 
Quart), but this rule was relaxed for many 
towns, and a price of 8(2. or XOd. allowed. 
{CloMS. i, 568.) 

M3 This matter ended in a law-suit be- 
tween the Boroughs, if indeed such a suit 
had not been commenced already and in 
the previous reign. Pn the Quinzame of 
St. Martin (Nov. 25), 1223, at Westmin- 
ster, a Jury having been empanelled to try 
" whether the Burgesses of Brug, from 
the 9th year of King John to the 5th of 
Henry,had enjoyed a liberty of purchasing 

untanned hides &c. in the town of Salop," 
found that the said Burgesses had never 
enjoyed such Hberty without paying toll. 
So the said Burgesses took nothing (Flac, 
apd, Westm. Mich, Tm, 7 and 8 Hen. Ill, 
memb. 24 recto). The local importance 
of this branch of trade is ftirther shown 
by the Salopisuas having a few years later 
(March, 1227), procured a Royal Charter 
which empowered them to refuse traffic in 
these commodities, to any who were not 
in lott and scott at Shrewsbury (Historif 
of Shrewsbury, vol. i, p. 102). 
25* aaus. i, 668. 



municipal constitution was fixed at an earlier period than that at 
which existent Charters would per se give us information as to the 
personnel of the governing body. 

On March 26, 1223, the King's writ to the Bailiffs of Bristol 
informs them, that he learns from his Father's Charter the immnnity 
from all toll and custom pertaining to the Crown, which the Bur- 
gesses of Bruges ought to enjoy, throughout all the land and at the 
sea-ports. The Bailiffs of Bristol are accordingly to allow this 
immimity and not again offer the said Burgesses hindrance or annoy- 
ance in the premises.^^^ 

Oct, 13, 1223, the King, being here, grants the Burgesses license 
to take *^ customs" for three years for the purpose of walling their 
town. This license will have commenced on the expiration of the 
former one, t. e. on June 24, 1224.^^^ 

On Sept. 1, 1226, the King having just left Bridgnorth, and being 
at Kidderminster, grants, that, till he come of age, the men of 
Bruges may have an annual fair, to last for three days, viz., the 
vigil, the day and the morrow of St. Luke the Evangelist, unless 
some neighbouring fair be thus interfered with.^^^ 

On the 5th of April, 1227, the King renewed to the Burgesses 
his Father's Charter, exempting them in precisely the same terms 
from all toll throughout the kingdom, and alluding to the document 
already in their possession.^^® 

The following^ day he granted them power to take customs for 
two years more, in aid of walling their town.^^® 
• On June 20, 1227, another and totally new Charter passed the 
great seal, which, as recognizing or conferring many privileges, wijl 
require lengthened recital.^^^ It is as follows : — 

Henry by the Grace of God, King of England, Lord of Ireland, 

*» C7aiw.i,538. 

356 Pat, 7 Hen. HI. 

257 Clous, ii, 135. 

*58 Certified Copy of James I*s intpexi' 
mus of Bridgnorth Charters, in possession 
of the Mayor and Corporation. 

King Henry III declaredhimself of age 
at the Council of Oxford (February, 1227) , 
and then announced to all priyiliged 
bodies the necessity of having their 
Charters renewed. A sum of not less 
than £100,000 thus accrued to the Trea- 
sury, and Mr. Hardy {Preface to Rot, 
Cart, p. vi) considers this the occasion on 

which the Charters, called technically 
" Inspeximus Charters," may be properly 
said to have originated. The document 
under notice is however not strictly in 
the form of an Inspeximus though sub- 
stantively it is nothing else. 

259 Fai. 11 Hen. III. 

280 "Inspeximus" of Charters by James 
I (ut supra). A Charter granted to 
Shrewsbury, on the 20t.h of March pre- 
vious, conveyed nearly the same privileges. 
Many notes and explanations, applicable 
to both, may be seen History of Shrews- 
bury, vol. i, pp. 100-102. 


&c. to the Archbishops^ Bishops^ Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, 
Foresters, Sheriflfs, Provosts, Officers, and all his Bailiffs and faithful 
subjects, greeting ; Know ye that we have granted, and by this our 
Charter confirmed, to our Burgesses of Bruges in Salopesyr, that 
none of our Sheriffs shall in any manner intermeddle with them, 
neither concerning any plea, or plaint, or prosecution, or any other 
, thing to the said Borough pertaining, saving to us and to our heirs 
for ever the Pleas of our Crown, which ought to be attached, by our 
Coroners and by our Provosts of the same Borough, until the arrival 
of our Justices. 

We have granted also to the same our Burgesses and their heirs, 
that they may have a mercantile Gild, with a Hanse, and otlier 
customs and liberties to such Gild belonging, so that no person, who 
is not of that Gild, shall transact any merchandise in the said 
Borough, within or without the walls, unless by consent of the 

We have granted also to them and their heirs that if any one, 
bom the Villain of another, shaU remain in the aforesaid Borough, 
and hold land therein, and be of the aforesaid Gild and Hanse, and 
lott and scott with the same our Burgesses a year and a day, with- 
out being claimed, he shall not afterwards be recovered by his Lord, 
but in the same Borough shall remain free. 

Moreover Ve grant to our aforesaid Burgesses of Bruges that they 
shall have Soc and Sac, Toll, and Team, and Infangthef, and that 
they shall be quit, through our whole land, of Toll, Ls^tage, Passage, 
Pontage, and Stallage, and ofLeve (Levy) and Danegeld and Gowyt 
and all other customs and exactions throughout our whole land and 
dominion, as weU in England as in all other our territories. 

Moreover we have granted to our aforesaid Burgesses that they 
and their heirs may hold in fee-farm for ever our Mill of Pendaston 
without the town of Bruges upon the River Wurgh, with suit of the 
town of Bruges and all other its appurtenances, rendering therefore 
to us and our heirs yearly, by their own hand, at our Exchequer 
£10. viz. at the feast of St. Michael 100 shillings, and at Easter 
100 shillings. 

Wherefore we will and strictly command that our aforesaid 
Burgesses of Bruges and their heirs shall have the aforesaid Fran- 
chises (which are rehearsed in part) and Quietances, for ever, well 
and in peace, freely and quietly, honourably, fully, and entirely as 
aforesaid, saving the Liberty of our City of London, and that they 
may have and hold in fee-farm for ever our aforesaid Mills, &c. — 



These being Witnesses : E. London, P. Winton, J. Bathon, R. 
Sarum, Bishops; H. de Burg, Earl of Kent, our Justiciary ; Hugh 
Despenser, John Fitz Philip &c. — Given by hand of the Venerable 
Father, Ralph, Bishop of Chichester, our Chancellor, at Westminster, 
the twentieth day of June in the eleventh year of our reign/' 

The principal feature in this Charter is the fee-farm grant of 
Pendeston Mill. Many of the other privileges, even if now chartered 
for the first time, for the benefit of the Royal Exchequer, must have 
long existed, by prescription, in the Borough. Some of them too 
were so antiquated then, that it may be doubted if the Burgesses 
knew what was thus conveyed to them, and one of them {gowyt or 
gayvnte) has not, as yet, found any plausible interpretation. 

Denegeld too was a tax never levied at all after the reign of 
Henry II, and of which there had been no general assessment for 
70 years next preceding the date of this Charter. In short Madox's 
observation on Danegeld and Geld involves the best comment on 
several other expressions similarly introduced in these documents. 
" These words '^ he suggests " were inserted pro formay amongst 
several other words referring to Anglo-Saxon Customs which were 
gone or going into disuse.^'^* 

On June 28, 1227, the King's Precept issued to the Sheriff of 
Salop, informing him of the liberties and quietancies which he had 
granted to the Burgesses of Brug, and commanding him to have 
the said Charter read in full County Court and to allow the Bur- 
gesses to use their said liberties, and further to give them fuU seizin 
of the Mill of Pendestan.2«2 

Our former account of the Constables of Bridgnorth Castle has 

shown how in the beginning of this very month of June, 1227, 

Pendestan Mill, having constituted part of the salary of Thomas 

Manduit, reverted to the Crown on the expiration of that Officer's 

At Michaelmas, 1227, the Borough begins to be chargeable with 
a fee-farm rent of £10. per annum for this Mill, whilst, at the same 
time, the Sherifi^, having no receipts from the said Mill, continues, 
as when Thomas Manduit received the profits thereof, to take credit 
for 8 merks (its reputed fiscal value) in his annual accounts. 

At Michaelmas, 1229, the Sheriff so acquits himself of 16merks, and 
the Burgesses, in addition to the ferm of their town {10 merks per 
annum), render account of £20. or two years ferm of their Mill.^^ 

261 Exchequer, p. 479. 
26J aaus. ii, 190. 

2® Supra, p. 277. 

26* Sot Pip. 13 Hen. Ill, Salop. 




And this rule obtained thraughout the reign of Henry III. But to 
return — Stephen de Segrave and his fellow Justices sitting at Glou- 
cester early in 1227 amerced the vill of Brag in 1 merk "for the 
flight of Osbert le Puleter*'^^^ (a felon probably, whose escape they 
had not prevented). This debt was still unpaid in 1231/^^ nor do 
I find notice of its subsequent liqiiidation. A non-liability, to join 
in pursuit (of felons) through the town, has already been mentioned 
as claimed by the Borough. Perhaps the amercement now demurred 
to, was a similar encroachment on their liberties. 
, At Michaelmas, 1228, the Borough account is charged with an 
accidental item, viz. £3, Is, Sd. which the Burgesses had paid into 
the King's Wardrobe at Keri.^^^ 

In 1229 the Borough obtained a further grant of " murage.'^^^® 

At Michaelmas, 1231, the m,en of Brug, in rendering accoimt of 
the ferm of their town and mill, charge for carriage of 40 casks of 
wine from hence to Castle Matilda and to Elvein, and for unloading 
the rest of the King's wine and storing it at ^rug.^^* 

June 15, 1233. — The Burgesses have license to take "Customs" 
(towards walling their town) for three years.^^^ 

At Michaelmas, 1240, the Bailiffs of Brug render account of the 
proceeds of certain wines of the King which the Sheriff had delivered 
to them for purpose of sale, under a Boyal Order of the King's 19th 
year (1234-5) .^Ti 

Aug. 8, 1241. — ^The King, being at Salop, grants this Borough 
license to take " Customs '^ or murage for 2 years.^'^^ 

In Jan. 1252. — A similar Patent occurs extending to 8 years.^^* 

At Michaelmas, 1253, the Borough appears as owing 20 merks of 
the Auxilium which had been levied " against the King's transfre- 
tation into Gascony.'^^*^* This tax does not appear to have been in 
the nature of a Tallage. It was assessed on Religious as well as 
Municipal Communities, and also on individual Tenants in capite. 

* »3 £ot Pip. 11 Hen. IH, Salop. 

26« £ot Pip, 15 Hen. in, Salop, 

287 Mot Pip. 12 Hen. IH, Salop. 
-After raising the siege of Montgomery in 
September, 1228, the King of England 
encamped at Kerry, proposing further 
vengeance on the Welsh. The scutage 
levied for this expedition was called the 
" scutage of Keri." 

«» Rot Pat. 13 Hen. III. 

^ Rot Pip. 15 Hen. Ill, Salop. King 

Henry was at Elvein Aug. 2, and at 
Castle Matilda (which he then rebuilt) 
on Aug. 3 and till Sept. 11, 1231 (Com- 
pare Sistory of Shrewsbuty, vol. i, p. 108). 

«7o Sot Pat 17 Hen. III. 

VI Mot Pip. 24 Hen. Ill, Salop. 

272 J>at 25 Hen. III. 

273 Pat. 36 Hen. III. 

274 Mot Pip. 37 Hen- III. Salop. The 
King embarked from Portsmouth Aug. ^ 
1253 (M. Paris). 


In Autumn^ 1255^ the twelve Jurors who had to make inquest of 
several matters which affected this Manor^ Borough^ Liberty^ or 
Hundred (for each of these terms is used to describe the Franchise) 
were these^ viz. William Bonamy^ Philip de Petra, Henry Coynterel, 
John de Castro^ Henry Ktz Robert^ Nicholas the Porter, William 
le Palmer, Robert Dyer (Tinctor), Robert le Venour, Nicholas de 
Sallowe, William Bolding and Hamo le Palmer .^^ 

Amongst their presentments were several which require mention 
here: — 

1 . ^'The vills of Quat,Mose, and Romesley were within the Liberty, 
or did suit to the Hundred, of Brug. 

2. The Mill of Pendestan once pertained to the Castle of Brag, 
but the Burgesges now held it at fee-farm of the King, by Charter, 
and at an annual rent of 15 merks (£10) . 

3. The following Religious Houses had interests within the 
Borough : — ^The Abbeys of Buildwas, Lilleshall, Haghmon, Wig- 
more, and Crokesden, and the Priory of Wenlock, but the King 
suffered thereby no loss either in wardships, reliefs, or tallages. 

4. The respective tenures of the Knights Hospitallars, Knights 
Templars and the Nuns of Brewood, within the Borough, were 
exempt from tallage to the King. 

5. The Tenants of the Hospitallers and Templars (three in num- 
ber) were tenants for life. They did not allow themselves to be 
tallagedy nor would they scott with the men of Brug for the trade 
which they exercised in the houses thus held. Their exemption was 
groimded on their vassalage to those privileged orders. 

6. The Bailiffs of Brug having apparently distrained, for a debt 
due to the Crown, in Mose, Ralph de Mose and John his son had 
rescued the distress.^' 

At the same time the Jurors for Stottesden Hundred reported 
that there was no Royal Demesne in their district but Bruges, that 
that town did not " answer with them " nor was the Castle thereof 
reputed to be in their Hundred. ^^ 

At the Assizes of January, 1256, the Borough of Bruges attended 
by its xii Jurors. The list, however, only enumerates eleven. They 
were Philip de Petra and Almaric le Teynturer (then Bailiffs), 
Walter le Palmer, Henry le Cointerel, William le Palmer, William 
Bolding, Henry Fitz Avice, William Bonami, Robert Dyer, Robert 
le Venur, and Robert Smith (Faber).*^? 

27» Eot, Hund. ii, 59, 60. 
376 Ibidem, pp. 82, 83. 

^ Salop Assizes, 40 Hen. Ill, Placiia 
CorotKB, m. 12 dorso. 



It is singular that four of these Jurors had been pledges for the 
appearance/ before the Justices, of Alan Fitz William, a man who 
having been accused of robbery and murder had absconded and died 
in Ireland. They now however concurred in finding him to have 
been guilty of the murder, they themselves being declared in miseri* 
cordid for his non-appearance. 

Further, two of the number actually stood indicted for being 
accessory to the said robbery and for receiving the robbers. A 
Jury of the Country, however, pronounced them '^ not guilty .^^^^s 

At liiese same Assizes a cause was heard wherein the Plaintiff 
sued for a messuage in Bruges under a writ which was in substance, 
though not in form, a writ of " mort d'ancestre.'^ The Defendant, 
taking no notice of the non-identity of form, pleaded at once that 
the writ of '^ mort de ancestre " was not current in Bruges^ and this 
plea was allowed, for the Plaintiff " toot nothing.'^^79 

In August, 1256, the Burgesses obtained a license to take 
'* Customs ^^ for 5 years towards walling their town; and in 
September, 1257, this license was renewed for 3 years after expir- 
ation of the five already granted. 

But on August 16, 1256, the Borough, obtained its fourth and 

fifth Charters from the Crown, and their contents must be fiilly 

The first^^ grants to the Burgesses and their heirs this Franchise, 
viz. that neither they nor their goods, in any place of the King^s 
dominion, shall be arrested for any debt, for which the parties (thus 
threatened with arrest) are not bondsmen or principal debtors. 
This, however, was not to operate in cases where, the actual debtors 

^ Ibidem, memb. 10 recto {PlacUa 

^ Ibidem, memb. 10 recto (Placita de 
Jurat, et Assms), The Burgesses of 
Shrewsbury were exempted by a special 
clause in one of their Charters (Stst, 
Shrewsbury, i, 86) from pleftding to a writ 
of *'mort d'ancestre" concerning any 
tenement within their franchise. The 
Bridgnorth Charters, hitherto rehearsed, 
oontain no such exemption for that Bo- 
rough; but I belieye it was a privilege 
which attached to all Manors or Boroughs 
of " ancient demesne." The altematlTe 
seems to have been the '* brere dausum 
de recto," by which I understand a writ 

addressed to the Bailiffs of the town en- 
joining them to try any cause, according 
to simple right and their own customs. 

^^ Inspexvnms of Charters by James I 
(ut supra). 

^^ For an explanation of this Charter 
reference is made to Lord Coke. 2d Inst, 
p. 204. (Notes on Bridgnorth Charters, 
by Thomas Mytton, Esq. Dated Shipton, 
14 March, 1782). 

SimUar Charters granted to Shrewsbury 
on August 10, 1256, are commented upon 
Sistory qfSArewshwy, yol. i, pp. 120-122, 
and the various terms employed therein 
are explained. 


being of the oommimity (of Brug) and hftving wherewitlial to satisfy 
their debts^ in whole or in part^ the said Burgesses should refuse 
justice to the creditors, and reasonable proof of such refusal could 
be given. The Charter imposes a penalty of £10. on all who should 
interfere with its provisions. It is dated at Woodstock and tested 
inter alios, by Thomas Corbet. 

The other Charter, similarly dated and attested, provides that the 
Burgesses and their heirs for ever shall have return of all the King's 
writs touching the town of Bruges and the liberties thereof; that 
the Bailiffs of the said town may answer by their own hands at the 
Exchequer concerning all their debts and summonses of the said 
Exchequer, respecting the aforesaid town of Bruges; so that no 
Sheriff or other, the King's Bailiff or officer, shall in Aiture enter 
the said town, either to summon, or to distrain, or to do any other 
things, unless by default of the Burgesses themselves ; and that no 
Sheriff, Constable, Castellan, or other officer shall take any Prises 
within the Borough-Liberties, besides those due and hitherto accus- 
tomed, unless by consent of the owners thereof. It further grants, 
that the Burgesses shall not be convicted by any strangers (forinse- 
cos) concerning any rights, injuries, trespasses, crimes, claims or 
demands upon them imposed, but only by their fellow-Burgesses, 
unless in any matter affecting the (whole) community, and then in 
that case they were to be sued in conformity with their approved 
and accustomed liberties. 

It also allows that the Burgesses may profit themselves of the 
land and water within their liberties, without hindrance or claim of 
the Crown or its Bailiffs, saving the purprestures, if any ought of 
right to belong to the Crown; also that the Burgesses shall not be 
distrained to buy the King's wines unless by their own will and con- 
sent, provided however that while the King's wines are selling there, 
all other sales of wine shall entirely cease within the Borough, 

Lastly, it provides, that throughout the King's dominions the 
Burgesses may hold all their liberties and free customs hitherto 
used and approved, as they used them in the time of the King's 
predecessors and himself. A forfeiture of £10. is imposed on any 
infraction of the above privileges. 

We have already^^^ had several hints of the loyal conduct of the 
two great Boroughs of Shropshire while the King was at issue with 
his Barons or in subjection to De Montfort. The interests of 

^ Supra, p. 285. 


Bridgnorth snJBTered considerably, but its adherence to the cause of 
monarchy remained unshaken. The particular conduct of the Bur- 
gesses is unrecorded, so too is the precise extent of their losses, but 
each received a genuine and comprehensive acknowledgment which 
implies the broad fact of loyal devotion as surely as the minutest 
details could do. In the close of the year 1265, their long expired 
license to take customs or murage was renewed.^^ Now too the 
King excused them four years^ ferm of their vill towards " the 
repairs thereof, and in recompense of their losses.^^^^ This acquit- 
tance was further increased when, in September, 1267, the King 
was at Salop : but the extent of the royal gratitude will appear best 
&om the Pipe Bolls. I have already aUuded to the fact, that after 
Michaelmas, 1261, the SherifGs' accounts for Shropshire came to be 
suspended for five years. An account was made in 1267, but omitted 
again in 1268, and, as regards the Borough of Brug, no general 
balance was struck till Michaelmas, 1269. At that time the Burgesses 
accounted substantively for 80 merks, being eight years' arrears 
ot the ferm of their vilL Out of this sum (viz. £63. 6s, 8rf.) they' 
had paid 80^., or 8 years^ tithes, to the Canons of Bruges. Therefore 
£4i9. 6s, 8d. remained to be accoimted for. They alleged royal 
acquittances to. a greater amount, viz. £10. as excused by the King's 
vnrit, for the losses which they had sustained in the time when the 
kingdom was disturbed, and because they faithfully adhered to the 
King J and to Edward his son, in the time aforesaid; also £64. of 
the annual ferm of their town and mill, as excused by a similar 

Therefore, under this item of account, the King appeared indebted 
to the Borough in a sum of £24. 13^. 4id,; but the debt was 
balanced in a subsequent section as to the eight jedo^^ferm of Pen- 
deston Mill, which had similarly accrued against the Borough.^®^ 

At the County Assizes of September, 1272, the town appeared by 
one of its Bailiffs, William Bolding, and by xii Jurors.^®^ The 
names of the latter were, William Palmer, Roger de Mora, Hamo 
Palmer, Henry de Arley, William Lambert, Roger Dyer, Roger 
Chete, John Baker (Pystor), William Lantrey, William Bonamy, 
Richard de Petra, and Henry de Porta. 

Among their presentments were two cases of murder, one of 
justifiable homicide, and some other matters, which will be detailed 

« Bot Pat. 50, Hen. HI. 286 piadta Coroner, 56 Hen. Ill, memb. 

2^ Blakeway MSS. 21 recto. The name written ** Lantrey" 

2^ Eot, Pip, 58 Hen. Ill, Salop. is probably Cantreyn. 



elsewhere. They reported Walter le Palmer, Henry Cointerel, John 
de Castro, and Nicholas le Palmer, for '^ having sold wine agauist 
the A8siae/'287 

At Michaelmas, 1273 (1 Edward 1), the Burgesses accounted for 
four years ferm both of their town and null, viz., £66. 13*. 4rf. — ^They 
had paid the Canons of Brug 4 years tithe, viz., £2. They had paid 
for a cask of wine for Hugh de Beaumes, valet of the late King; 
5 merks (£3. 6«. 8c/.) Also, they had paid to Nicholas de Denton^ 
Hermit of Mount Gilbert (The Wrekin), 13*. 4rf. for his support, 
by order of the late King. They had paid into the Treasury and 
Wardrobe at different times sums of £25. £16. and £19. 10*. 
And they still owed 8*. 4rf.*^ 

Nov. 29, 1274, the Jurors of the Liberty, who made inquest 
before the King^s Commissioners, were William de Cantreyn, 
William le Palmer, William Bonamy, Henry de Amley, Emeric 
(Almaric) Dyer, Nicholas le Palmer, John Geffrey, Thomas Tailor 
(Cissor), Roger Chete, Robert de Bromleye, John Baker (Pistor), 
and William Madoc.^® — 

They returned their fee-farm rents of both town and miU as 
stated above. — 

They laid daim to suit of court fix>m the mil of Dodemonston as 
belonging to their ri//, as well as all penalties, for blood-shedy or 
under the Assize of Beer, incurred in that township ; but they said 
that " Richard King of Almain withdrew said i^uit &c. £rom the 
King, and from their Liberty, and that the Templars still withhold 
them and appropriate them to Castle Holegod.^^ — 

Also, Sir Roger de Mortimer, and his Seneschals had, ever since 
the battle of Evesham (1265), withheld tdll (thounet^) of his men, 
from the King, in the to?ni of Brug. — The Jurors knew not by what 
warrant. — 

They said that the vill of Brug, according to franchise, granted 
to it by Kings of England, had return and ewtracts of turitSy and 
other liberties, to wit, ff allows, and assize of bread and beer. — 

^ Ibidem, memb. 50 dorso. 

» Bot. Pip, 1 Edw, I, Salop. 

2» Mot, Hund, ii, 88, where howcTer 
the annual payment to the Canons is 
printed as ZOs instead of 10«. 

The privilege of having retwm and ex- 
tracts of the King's writs prevented the 
interference of the Sheriff in the concerns 
of the Borough. Thus, if a writ directed 

to the Sheriff affected the Borough only, 
it must be handed over to the Borough 
authorities to execute, and to make retwm 
thereto. If it were a writ of more general 
character, then the Borough was entitled 
to an extract of so much as concerned 
itself, and to which it would similarly 


They reported that Robert de Trillec (TJnder-SheriflF) had hindered 
execution of a King^s mandate directed to him in behalf of a certain 
woman, concerning a writ of dower, and had scorned to perform said 
mandate, by which contempt the woman lost her costs and trouble. — 
That John Baril, late Under- SheriflF, in virtue of his office, 
unjustly distrained the men of Brug by their working cattle, for a 
certain debt to the Crown, which the King's Bailiffs had previously 
paid into the Exchequer and had had credit for ; and before he would 
give up the cattle he levied 2d. a head on them. — 

That the same John also upheld Ake and Myler, Jews of Brug, 
in their false exactions against Henry Budde and Henry, Clerk of 
Astley, and distrained the two latter, without precept of the King, 
day by day, till he extorted from them £9 ; whereof said John had 
£7. and the Jews £2.— 

That the same John wrongfully sued Bichard Hendemon of 
Brug, and distrained him till he got 4 merks from him ; as alsoibd 
he get by false prosecution 80s. from Thomas Cysinham (Isenham). 
That Robert Trillec in distraining for some levy^^ (in a case where 
by the Borough Liberties, the Bailiffs of the town ought to have 
extracts, and to pay and account for the levy at the Exchequer) 
wrongfully took in distress the working cattle of the townsmen, 
extorting 2d, a head before he would give them up. — 

That Robert Trillec'^ Beadles for Stottesden Hundred extort 
money from the merchants of Brug in the middle of the King's 
highway, and detain them from proceeding freely on their road till 
such money be given ; but how much had thus been given, the 
Jurors knew not. 

We will close this account of the Borough of Bridgnorth with a 
few extracts from the Assize Roll of October 1292, when the Bur- 
gesses were represented by their Bailiffs, Andrew Bolding and 
Robert le Teynturer, and by xii Jurors, whose names were — Nicholas 
Rondulf, William de Cantreyn, Walter Bolding, John de Kenefare, 
Reginald de Leye, John son of Thomas the Tailor, Roger de Mora, 
Simon Dod, Stephen le Tomour, John Crouk, Fremund de 
Erdrnton, and Robert Crouk.^^^ 

They reported certain purprestures, viz., — That Nicholas Pule 
had appropriated a part of the King^s highway, measuring 40 feet 
in length and 1 foot in breadth.^^^ — 

*o "In districtione Tiridis cer»" — a 
matter of which I cannot find any ex- 

»' PUtcUa CoroncB^ 20 Bdw. I, memb. 
51 recto. 
^ Ibidem, memb. 37 dorso. 




That Nicholas Brun had made purpresture on the King^s high- 
way in the Castl^^ to the extent of 20 feet by 4 feet. 

WilKam Pykemalot, Heniy Fitz Philip, William Fitz Alice, and 
John Brun were reported as having sold cloth contrary to the 

So also " Nicolas Rondulf (a Juror) had sold 2 casks and Andrew 
Bolding (a Bailiff) 6 casks of wine, contrary to the Assize/^ 

The Jurors also presented that Nicholas Brun, Goldsmith of 

Brug, " bought old money for new," and likewise was a common 

entertainer of robbers, who broke open Churches and stole the 

vessels (calices) . " Nicholas had also stolen a sheep from Roger 

Chete." To all this Nicholas replied, that he was a Clerk ; and 

the Dean of Salop, as representing the Bishop, came into Court 

and demanded him as such. Before he was surrendered to the 

spiritual power, the Court, as usual, directed that a jury should 

give verdict on 'the matters alleged against him. The jurors for 

Stottesden officiated, and found him '^ not guilty^' on each charge. 

" So he was given up to the Bishop " as acquitted by the temporal 

The Borough Jurors further presented that Nicholas Brun ^^ and 
John de Cantreyn would not allow the King^s Bailiffs to make 
distraint for a debt of the King or of any one else. Nicholas was 
found guilty and ordered to prison, but afterwards compounded the 
offence by fine of half a merk, Fremund de Erdinton and Roger 
de la More (both Jurors) being his Sureties. 

A statement of their fee-farm tenure by Charters of Henry III, 
and a complaint as to Philip de Leinthale, Bailiff of Edmund de 
Mortimer, having attached certain traders of their town, are the 
only further presentments of the Borough Jurors which need be here 
alluded to. 

*" Though NicholasBrun would appear 
to have been innocent of the principal 
charges against him, his occupations seem 
to have been anything but clerical. Yet 
this man was the contemporary Incum- 
bent of the Prebend of Morville, in the 
King's OoU^iate Church of St. Maiy 
Magdalene {supra p. 72). 

^ This Nicholas Brun was undoubtedly 

a different perlon from the Clerk above 
mentioned, and a layman. He has abeady 
occurred (supra, p. 114) with Alice his 
wife in October, 1291. The said wife 
surviving him (but called Avice) granted 
to Edmund son of Nicholas Pahner cer- 
tain rights in the High Street of Brug in 
the years 1296 and 1297, (Charters at 
Apley Park). 



The early history of the Boroiigh of Bridgnorth would be unne- 
cessarily incomplete without some attempt to rescue the names of 
its chief Corporate Officers from those documents which, in the 
absence of all contemporary Municipal B^cords, alone remain for 
our guidance. 

In arranging the succession of these ephemeral Magistrates 
according to such documents (chiefly undated), we must variously 
depend upon proof, probability, and conjecture ; nor will our limits 
allow us to particularize the reasons of those presumptive dates 
which in some cases we shall have to oflfer. The list thus proposed, 
whether complete or incomplete, must necessarily indicate the 
chief contemporary families of the Borough. 

Not having met with any Bridgnorth Charters of the twelfth 
Century, when, as at Shrewsbury, the principal Municipal Office is 
presumed to have been filled by an individual, nominated by the 
Crown, and called Provost (prepositus) or Reeve, we descend to the 
time (certainly not earlier than the reign of John 1199-1216) 
when the Borough elected its own Provosts or chief Magistrates. 

Their number at all such recorded periods seems to have been 
uniformly two. 

These Officers are in the first instance styled Praetors; — then 
Praetors or Provpsts, indiflferently ; — thirdly, Provosts; — ^fourthly. 
Provosts or Bailiflfs, indiflferently ; — and lastly, Bailiflfs only.^^^ 

Richard Fitz Stephen and William Fitz Godewin, Piletors. 

These Officers attest a very early deed of the thirteenth century ^^^ which will 
be more particularly alluded to when we come to speak of the Leper House 
of St. James. 

Alan Fitz Robert and Walter Fitz Robert, Praetors. 

The first of these persons has already occurred, under date of July 1, 1221, 
as being remunerated by the Crown for some injury done to his land near the 

^^ In arranging a List of these Officers 
X haTe generally followed the order sug- 
gested by their gradual change of title. 
It is, ^owever, quite certain that a result^ 
uniformly correct, has not thus been pro- 
duced, e, g.f some of those who are simply 
called Provosts, held office earlier than 
some others who are simply called Praetors. 

2^ Charter in possession of T. C. Whit- 
more, Esq., of Apley. — In the subjoined 
list, by far the greater number of names 
are supphed from the Muniments at Apley. 
I need therefore only to give other refer- 
ences where a diiSbrent authority has been 


Oaaile.*'^ Some fiuther aooount has yet to be giren of his famOj md their 
tenure in capite arising out of the said compensation. 
The second-named PreBtor will presently occur under his professional name 
of Awrifaher (Gk)ldsmith). 

Hamo le Palmer and Roger Fitz William^ Frjbtors. 

The family of Palmer was at this period by far the wealthiest in the Borough. 
A further and fuller aocoimt of them must be given elsewhere. The first 
notice of Hamon le Palmer is his attestation of the early deed above men- 
tioned, in which he is described as Hamund Fitz Walter. 

Hugo de Eudon and Simon de Abbatia^^^ FiLfiTORS. 
Eltas Fitz William and William Aurifaber, Pr^tors. 

It is nearly certain that these were in office after Philip Fitz Robert and 
Terricus Fitz Reginald, mentioned below, but who are in on^ instance styled 

Walter Aurivaber and Adam Logain^ Prjbtors or Provosts. 

Philip Fitz Robert and Terricus Fitz Reginald^ Prjetors or 

As these were probably in office before two who hare been mentioned aboye, 
so they were certainly later than two who will occur below, viz. Walter le 
Palmer and Wm. le Bemer, who, however, are only called Provosts. 

Hamo le Palmer and Reginald le Gaugt^ Prators or 

The second was murdered in 1260 or 1261. His femily and connexions, with 
the proceedings consequent on his death, will form the subject of a detailed 
statement hereafter. The dates obtained therewith are a most useful guide 
for distinguishing Borough Deeds of the first half of the century firom those 
of the last. 

Henry Coynterbl and Robert Tinctor, Piletors or Provosts. 

These were in office after 1261, and so, later than many who are only called 

Walter le Palmer and William lb Berner^ Provosts. 

Walter le Palmer was Brother of Hamon, above mentioned, and founder of a 
distinct family. 

Henry Bacun and Roger Fitz William, Provosts. 
WilliamFitz Stephen Ordrich and Robert Tinctor, Provosts. 

The names of these two Magistrates occur as first witnesses of a deed (in 
Mr. Blakeway's MSS.) wherein the former sells for 12#., and the latter 
purchases firom his Colleague, a rent of ITd. issuing out of a messuage in 
Hungary Street. 

William Aurifaber and Adam Looain, Provosts. 

»7 Supra, pp. 256, 256. 298 Elsewhere called « Simon de Ceno- 

bio"(infiTSp. 367). 


William Fitz Hamon (le Palmer) and Nicholas de Petra, 
Provosts. i 

Hamo le Palmer was living at the time when the deed attested by these 
FroTOsts passed ; ia fact he and his brother Walter are the third and fourth 
witnesses, and Begmald le Gbugy the fifth. 

Philip de Petra and John Fitz Robert^ Provosts. 

The deed {tttested by these Officers is clearly of date 1250 or 1251. It 
grants, to Walter le Palmer, a 10 years' lease commencing Dec. 25, 1250, and 
confirms a 12 years' lease which had taken date from Michaelmas 1250, and 
one of the parties to which was dead. It also mentions lands of Alice de 
Ghiugy ; and she was the widow of Reginald above mentioned. 

Hamo le Palmer and * * ^ Provosts. 

The presumption that Hamo le Palmer was again in office ia 1251 or 1252 
arises thus. — He accounts at Michaelmas of the latter year, at the head of 
the community, for the proceeds of the sale of the Sing's wines.'^ The 
contemporary accountants for similar sales at Shrewsbury are known to have 
been Fellow-Provosts of that town. I have not, however, seen any deed, 
attested by Hamo le Palmer as Provost, which I can associate with this 
precise date. 

William Bonamy and John Tinctor, Provosts. 

These must have been in office between 1251 and 1256. At the Assizes of 
January 1256, John Tinctor was certified to be so infirm as not even to be 

Philip de Petra and Almaric le Teynturer, Bailiffs. 

These are expressly mentioned as in office at the Assizes of January, 1256. 
I have not found them attesting any deed, but if they so occur it will pro- 
bably be under the designation of Provosts. 

Philip de Petra and William Bolding^ Junior, Provosts. 

These occur in one deed as Philip super Petram and William Holding. The 
latter will be another instance of a son's holding office in the lifetime of his 
father. PhiUp de Petra (so often Provost) occurs under various designations 
besides those just mentioned, viz. Philip Fitz Kobert, Philip de la Pere 
(Pierre), and Philip de Stone. 

William Bonamy and Richard Fitz Eve, Provosts, — 

are probably identical with — 

William Bonamy and Richard Arnichun, Provosts. 
William Palmer and William Lambert, Provosts. 

The former is called in some deeds WiUiam Fitz Hamon. His fi&ther, 
Hamon, seems to have been stHl living at this second period of the son's 
office, which probably is of date 1259. A dee^^ attested by these Provosts 
covenants payment of a sum of money on Sept. 8, 43 Hen. Ill, and Nov. 1 
following, ia even portions, t. e, on Sept. 8 and Nov. 1, 1259. At that period 
Henry III was entering his 54ith year of age, and it is presumed that his 
regnal years cannot have formed the basis of any very long anticipatory 

2W :Boi, Pvp, 36 Hen. Ill, Salop. »» Vide infra, p. 357. 



Philip de Petra and Robert Tinctor^ Provosts. 
Henry Coynterel and Walter le Palmer; 

My only authority for mserting them as Provosts at this period is, that in 
1261, they appear on the Pipe Boll as accounting with the rest of their com- 
munity (cum cteteris hurgensibus) for sale of the King's wines at Brug. 

Almaric Tinctor and Richard Hendemon^ Provosts. 
William Palmer and Henry db Arleg^ Provosts. 

They were in office March, 1265, and so wiU have been at the head of their 
community at the time when it earned the acknowledgments of the Crown for 
its steady loyalty. 

Roger de Mora and Henry de Arley^ Provosts. 
Richard de la Pere and Almaric le Teynturer. 

Whom I presume to have been fellow-Provosts at a time previous to August, 
1267, when they were fined for some common offence.^^ 

Roger de Mora and Richard Hendemon^ Provosts. 

They attest a seven years* lease, commencing Feb. 2, 1270,'''^ at which time 
I presume them to have been in office. 

William Bonamy and Henry de Arley^ Provosts. 
William Bolding and * * * Bailipfs. 

Williain Bolding is mentioned as Chief Bailiff (Oapitalis Ballima) at the 
Salop Assizes of October, 1272. His Colleague is not named on that occasion. 
It was probably Roger de la More, Junior, and I take them both to have 
lately entered upon office j for — 

William Bolding and Roger de la More^ Junior, Provosts, — 

attest a deed, already set forth, which must have passed in September, 1273.^ 
Roger de Mora, Junior, and Wm. Bolding, Provosts, or Roger Fitz Roger 
de More and Wm, Bolding, further attest a number of deeds to which I 
assign the same date. 

In November 1274, Roger Juvenis de la More was the subject of a 
complaint by theNordley Jurors, alleging his undue exercise of authority as 
Bailiff of Brug.3M 

It is observable that neither he nor V^iUiam Bolding officiated at the 
contemporary Borough Inquest as Jurors. Some of the matters of enquiiy 
proposed on the occasion, touched the conduct of all such Magistrates, and 
coidd not have been answered by themselves vrith propriety. 

John Geffrey and Henry de Arley^ Provosts. 

Apparently these were in office in 1276. 

»i FlacUa, 51 Hen. Ill, Salop (Bot 
^. 53Hen. lU). 

*8. Blakeway MSS. The deed is illus- 
trativeof local peculiarities still observable. 
— Richard son of William de Pencris 
conveys to William Orped, the Fisher- 
man, for 4f ., his subterranecM house, under 
the mount, towards Severn ; to hold from 

the Purification of the Virgin 54 Hen. HI 
for seven years; rendering 12d. for the 
first three years, the rest of the rent being 
already received {i,e, the four shillings first 

«» Supra, p. 216. 

»* Bot Svnd. ii, 103. 



Roger de More and William Boldino^ Provosts or Bailiffs. 

These were probably the same persons who had been together in office before, 
but one of them seems to have changed his designation, most Ukely by the 
intervening death of his father. Their present period of office may be dated 
by their attestation of a deed which ihust have passed in November 1277. 

William Bonami and Roger Feyrchild, Provosts. 

Their period of office has been already surmised as about 1280, and the 
authority given for placing them on the list.** 

Roger de la More and John Pistor^ Bailiffs. 
John Geffrey and Robert lb Knit, Provosts. 
Richard de Petra and John Geffrey, Provosts. 
Richard de Petra and John Geffrey, Provosts. 
Ralph Bolding and Robert Tinctor, Provosts. 

The deed which mentions them has been cited.*'® 

Andrew Bolding and Robert le Teynturer, Chief Bailiffs, 

were in office under that title October 6, 1292, when they served at Salop 
Assizes, with twelve Jurors of their Borough.^ 

They also attest, as Provosts, several deeds bearing dates of Jan. 19, 1293 ; 
Feb. 17, 1293; Feb. 25, 1294 ; and June 3, 1294. They will, therefore, have 
held joint office for at least two years, and, as I presume, from Michaelmas 
1292 to Michaelmas 1294. 

In the following year Andrew Bolding represented his Borough in another 
way, viz. as one of its first recorded members of Parliament. This Parlia- 
ment was summoned to meet in November 1295. The Manucaptors of 
Andrew Bolding and Fremund de Erdinton (the Members) were Robert 
Tinctor, Robert Crowk, John Glydde, and Roger Bonamy. 

Roger de Mo|la. and John Glidde, Provosts, or Bailiffs. 

They occur, as in office, August 15, 1295, and January 3, 1296 ; and were so 
probably for two years, viz. from Michaelmas 1294 to Michaelmas 1296. 
In the first instance they are styled Bailiffs, and in the last Provosts. * 

William Selymon, alias Tinctor, and Richard Robert/^ 
Provosts, — 

held office, I think, for at least three years, viz. from Michaelmas 1297 to 
Michaelmas 1300. They are principal witnesses of a deed dated October 4, 
1297, but are not styled Provosts therein. They attest, as Provosts, a deed 
of Not. 25, 1298, and another which, being dated in 28 Ed. I, must have 
passed subsequently to Not. 20, 1299.*'' 

805 Supra, p. 113. 

** Supra, p. 114. 

W Placita CoroncB, 20 Ed. I, Salop. 

** During tlinBprepositure the Borough 
returned Roger Bonamy and Thomas de 
Isenham as Burgesses of the Parliament 

which was summoned, for May 25, 1298, 
to York. Their Manucaptors were John 
G-lydde, Simon Dod, Roger de la More, 
and Andrew Bolding. (Parliamentary 
Writs, voL i, p. 74») 
»» Blakeway MSS. 



Roger Bonamt and John Broun^ Provosts^ — 

held office for two yean, and oocnr in deeds of Sept. 80, 1300. March 4 and 
April 16, 1302. Roger Bonamj was with Richard Robert, returned as 
Burgess for the Parliament which was summoned to meet at Lincoln on 
Jan. 20, 1301.*^^ Probably they had been originally returned to the Parlia* 
ment which had summons to London for March 5, 1300. In either case we 
have a Burgess of Parliament identical with an acting ProYOst of the Borough. 
For the Parliament which was summoned to London, for Sept. 29, 1303, 
and adjourned to October 14, these Provosts were both retumed,^^' but at 
the same time seem to haye quitted their municipal office for — 

BooER, D£ LA MoRE and William de la Hull^ Provosts^ — 

occur in deeds of August 10 and October 2, 1303, and Aug. 10, 1304. 
Their term of office will therefore have been from Michaelmas 1302 to 
Michaelmas 1304. 

BooER DE LA MoRE and Nicholas Bandulv^ — • 

occur as principal witnesses of a Borough Deed which passed July 2, 1305 ; 
and — 

Nicholas de Ftchford and Beoinald de Leye^ Provosts^ — 

attest deeds of Oct. 8, 1306, and Aug. 28, 1307. 


Nicholas Bondulf and William de la Hullb^ — 

occur Deo. 20, 1308, March 15, 1309, Sept. 1, 1310. 

BoGER DE Mora and Nicholas Bondulf^- 

occur Sept. 29, 1311. 

Edmund le Palmer and Bichard Bobert^ — 

occurFeb. 26, 1312. 

BoBERT LE Palmer and William Selymon^ — 

occur June 18, 1313. 

BooER DE Mora and Bichard Bobert^ — 

occur July 7, 1314. 

William de Asheborne and Bobert le Palmer^ — 

occur Oct. 18, 1314, and May 21, 1315. 

Bobert le Palmer and John Fitz William Goldsmith (Auri- 
fabri), — 

occur Not. 9, Dec. 23, 1315, and Jan. 26, April 3, June 6, and Sept. 29, 1316. 

Nicholas Bondulf and Bobert le Palmer^ — 

occur Oct. 8, Not. 28, 1316, and April 24, May 2, 1317. 

8W Parliamentary Write I, 98. Their 
Manucaptors were Alan Wade, of Brug, 
Robert de Swancote, John Glydde and 
Robert le Deystere. 

»" lbidem,p. 126. Their Manucaptors 
were Nicholas leRede, Nicholas Selymon, 
Stephen Pennynge and William Keukyn. 


John Glydde and John Crouke, — 

occur Feb. 10, July 11, 1318, and May 27, 1319. 

Nicholas Rondulf and Reginald de la Legh^ — 

occur July 19 and Aug, 2, 1321. 

Nicholas Rondulf and Edmund le Palmer^ — 

occur Oct. 16, 1321, and March 31, 1322. 

Edmund le Palmer^ and John Rondulf, — 

occur April 23 and July 2^ 1323. 

John Crouke and John Glydde, — 

occur April 14 and Sept. 29, 1324. 

Henry Canne and Simon Dod, — 

occur Not. 30, 1324, and Jan. 7, May 4, 1325. 

Robert de Sergham and Simon Aurifaber, — 

seem to have been in office on the accession of Edward m, Jan. 25, 1327. 

I will continue a list of these Magistrates for those few years of 
Edward III^s reign, during which they continued to be called 
Provosts : — 

Robert de Bergham and Simon Aurifaber, — 

occur March 29, May 9, and June 30, 1327. 

Robert le Palmer and William de Bergham^ — 

occur May 19, Sept. 11, 1328, and July 1, 1329. 

John Rondulf and Robert le Palmer, — 

occur Sept. 3, 1330. 

Robert le Palmer and Simon le Gk)LDSMYTH, — 

occur March 26, July 3, and Sept. 22, 1331. 

John Gltddb and John Rondulf, — 

occur Not. 3, Dec. 4, 1331, April 19, 1332, Oct, 30, 1333, and July 31, 
Sept. 15, 1334. 

William Selymon and John de la Leghe^ Bailiffs, — 

were in office Sept. 30, 1334. 

These Officers thus begin to be called Bailiffs in private deeds 
of the 8th year of Edwaird III (1334), but their old style of 
" Provosts " is occasionally recurred to in subsequent years, viz. in 
1339, 1340, and even in 1360. 

The following list of Burgesses op Parliament returned by 
this Borough, during the reign of Edward II, should perhaps 
accompany, that of the Provosts. It is merely an abstract of a 
list already printed.^^^ 

'^ ParliAmentary Writs, vol. ii, Division I, p. clxvi, and Division II p<usim. 




II 1 1 1 1 f I i 1 1 1 II a I 




Earl Robert's removal of the Borough and Castle of Quatford to 
Bridgnorth naturally led to the further transfer of the Collegiate 
Church, so richly endowed by his Father. The Parish Church of 
Quatford indeed remained ; nor does the new Collegiate establish- 
ment appear to have originally combined any parochial cure : in 
fact it was built within the precincts of the Castle, a situation little 
consonant with any such responsibility .^^^ 

Not a vestige of the history of this Church, or Chapel, remains 
for the first half century after its removal from Quatford, nor can 
we expect any further discoveries as regards that period. 

We have already seen that Earl Roger, endowing his Church of 
Quatford, granted to it, inter alia, a third of the tithes of Morville. 
It is also clear that the site of Bridgnorth must have been in the 
Domesday Parish of Morville, and so possibly this, the EarFs 
original grant of tithes, may have been apportioned on the sub- 
sequent Borough. Either in that way, or by some further grant of 
King Henry I, certain it is that, on the accession of Jlenry II, the 
Canons of Brug were entitled to a recognized composition or annual 
payment in lieu of the tithes of the King's demesne, which the 
Borough then was. 

This sum, 10s. per annum, was paid to the Canons by the 
SheriflF, and, in turn, charged by him on the Crown in his ac- 
count for the year ending Michaelmas, 1156.^^* It so continued 
to be paid and charged in each annual account of the Sheriff till 
the year 1176, when, in consequence of an arrangement before 
jarticularized,^^^ the Burgesses were authorized to pay it, and to 

«3 The Chapel of St. Michael, in 
Shrewsbury Castle, was in some respects 
a similar, though less richly endowed 
foundation than that of St. Mary Magda- 
lene. The Historians of Shrewshwry 
(vol. ii, pp. 303, 417) seem to have held 
that a Parish was attached to the former 
from the earliest period. Gl^e eridence 
given hardly confirms such a yiew. I am 
however quite ignorant of the period when 
a district, with cure of souls, was first 
assigned to either Chapel. Certainly a 
petition of the Burgesses of Brug was pre- 
sented to the Parliament of Winchester 

in' 4 Ed. Ill (1330) praying that they 
might hare the use of the King's Chapel 
as a Parish Church. This is a proof that 
no such use had been previously made of 
the Chapel, nor do I think that the petition 
had any effect even then. 

3M Eat. Pip. 2 Hen. II, Salop. 

815 Supra, p. 294. It should be observed 
that as long as the Sheriff paid this 
annuity he entered it under the title of 
"appointed ahns," not " tithes."— -" Et 
in elcmosynis iconstitutis — Canonicia de 
Brug, X.S." 

This was rather with a view to con- 



enter it as a set-off in their own current accounts with the 

No further change in this respect was made during the period of 
our present inquiry. 

The Church, thus recognised by Henry II, fifty years after its 
foundation, continued to enjoy all those privileges and immunities 
which attached to Royal Free Chapels. Some of these privileges 
have already been noticed under the respective lists of Prebendaries; 
others will now have to be detailed. The general constitution of 
the Church, with that one peculiarity which distinguished it from 
all other Royal Chapels, have been set forth in the words of John 
Bromton,^^^ whose account needs neither addition nor correction 
on this head. 

His statement as to the independent relations which existed 
between the Dean and Prebendaries is, however, confirmed by a 
verbal coincidence, too curious to be passed by ; viz. that the Col- 
legiate body is frequently described as consisting of six Pre- 
bendaries, i. e. The superiority of the Dean, a nominal one only, is 
as often forgotten as remembered. 

About the year 1196 this Church, or rather, its Dean, Simon, was 
involved in a contest with Wenlock Priorv, as to the Advowson of 
Dudinton (Priors Ditton). This Advowson was no part of Eari 
Roger^s original endowment of St. Mary Magdalene, and the 
grounds of the Dean's claim, which seems to have been the weaker 
of the two, are not stated. The composition which ensued left 
Ditton Church with the Priory, but the Dean and his successors 
were to receive an annual acknowledgment of two pieces of gold, at 
Michaelmas, from the Priory.^^^ This indefinite sum does not 
enable us to conjecture the strength of the claim which it repre- 

At the Salop Assizes, Nov. 1221, the Jurors of the Borough and 
Hundred of Bruges returned the Church of Saint Mary of Brug 

yenient classification (the Sheriff being 
charged with payment of other BoyaJ 
Alms) than to correctness. When the 
Burgesses begun to pay the annuity, in 
1176, they always entered it under the 
title of " appointed tithes." " In decimis 

316 Supra, p. 107. 

817 MofUMticon, vol. v, p. 74. Note 7. 
The deed of composition is translated, but 

not accurately. The Pope who appointed 
the Arbitrators was Celestine III (elect<ed 
March 29, 1191, died Jan. 8, 1198). This, 
with other limits, impUed by the names 
of the Arbitrators and Witnesses, gives 
within a year the date laid down in the 
text. If the two pieces of gold were two 
merks of gold, then the composition for 
tlie Dean's claim was considerable, viz. 
£13. 6*. Sd. 



as of the King's gift, and that there were six Prebends therein, 
which six Clerks held, by gift of the King and his ancestors.^^^ 

A similar presentment at the Assizes of October, 1227, calls the 
Church, more correctly, that of St. Mary Magdalene of Bruges, 
and mentions six Prebends.^^® 

17 Feb. 1228. 'The King's precept issued to the SheriflF of 
Salop commanding him to allow to this Chapel all tithes of the 
King's demesnes of Brug, in Fairs and MiUs,^^® 

13 Nov. 1234. The King, by Charter dated at Westminster, 
grants to his Canoi^ of Brug, that they and their successors and 
their men, holding under them in their Prebends, shall be* quit of 
all suits to the Courts of either County or Hundred.^^^ 

The general non-residence of the Prebendaries of Brug has been 
already presumed. It has also been suggested that no parochial 
jurisdiction ^^^ attached to the Collegiate Church. It may even be 
doubted whether Divine Service was regularly performed in the 
Chapel of the Castle, either by the Principals in turn, or by their 

This will be inferred from the fact, that, in the fiscal year ending 
Michaelmas, 1239, King Henry III founded a New Chapel in his 
Castle of Bruges, appointing thereto a Chaplain who was to perform 
divine services and receive a salary of 50*. per annum for his main- 
tenance.^2^ Tj^jg salary was paid by the Sheiiff for the year then 
ending, aijd, substantively, remained a charge on the annual 
accounts throughout the reign of Henry III. 

The immunities claimed by the Church of St. Mary Magdalene 
extended to all the Churches and Chapels which belonged to its 
Prebendaries. Nay, these Churches were themselves called Free 

318 Assize Boll, 6 Hen. Ill, memb. 9 

'** Testa de Nevill,j^. 54, being excerpted 
from an Assize MoU, 

320 Bodsworfch, vol. 103. The tithe of 
fairs at this period will rather have been 
a tax on the Borough Bevenues than on 
the King's Exchequer. The same may be 
said of the tithes of Fendeston Mill, which, 
a few months earlier, had been set to ferm 
to the Burgesses (supra, p. 303). 

321 Rot, Cart, 19 Hen. Ill, memb. 19. 

322 That is not in the Borough. Such 
of the Prebends as had Churches for their 

endowment had of course spiritual cures 
in the Parishes, of those Churches. 

323 Rot, Pip, 23 Hen. Ill, Salop. 

This stipend though it appears as regu- 
larly paid upon the Pipe Bolls does not 
seem to have been of that permanent 
character wliich we should term an endow- 
ment, nor, as in the case of " constituted 
alms or tithes,' 'was the Sheriff empowered 
to dbcharge it without special warrant, 
e.£f. there is an order on the Liberate BoU 
of55Hen.III (memb. 2), to the Sheriff to 
pay *' Nicholas, the Chaplain, ministering 
in the Chapel of the Castle his stipend of 
50«. per annum." 



Chapels of the King when their privileges were in question. This 
observation is grounded on the following documents^ which^ though 
they relate specially to the Church of Claverley, which was part of 
the endowment of the Deanery of Brug^ touched matters which 
concerned the whole Collegiate body. 

In Easter Term, 1241, in the Courts at Westminster,*^ Master 
Peter de Radenor, Official of the Bishop of Coventry and Lich- 
field and Bx>bert Chaplain of Pattingham were under summons to 
appear (on April 28th) and show, " wherefore, against prohibition of 
the Lord the King they had suspended the Church of Claverley, 
which is a Free Chapel of the Lord King, and had sequestrated the 
goods of the same Church, and had caused to be threshed the corn 
of Peter de Rivallis, Rector of the said Church (he was Dean of 
St. Mary Magdalene) for the purpose of levying a contribution for 
the Lord the Pope, to the grave prejudice of the Crown and dignity 
of the Lord the King.^' 

The Defendants appeared not, and the Sheriff sent word that they 
had no lay fee by which they might be distrained to appear. So 
mandate issued to the Bishop, that he should have the parties at 
Westminster in one month of St. John Baptist &c. 

Accordingly, on the day appointed (July 22), and in continuance 
of this cause, William de Norbury, Official of the Archdeacon of 
Stafford, and Elyas Dean of Brug, are stated to have appeared in 
Court,'^* to show wherefore they had suspended the Church of 
Claverley against the King^s prohibition &c. William and Elyas 
made answer that they never had received the said prohibition. 
They were bound over to take their trial by Jury, Giles de Erdinton 
and William Wymer being their Sureties. 

I cannot learn the issue of this prosecution, but it is quite 
evident that the King was at length roused by this, and perhaps 
some similar interferences with the rights of his Free Chapels, and 
petitioned the Pope (Innocent IV) on the subject. 

The Pontiff was not inattentive to the remonstrances of *'his 
beloved and devout Son.^' A Bull exists, dated at Lyons on 
July 21, 1245, wherein any " Ordinary, Delegate or Subdelegate is 

®* Flaoita apud Westm, Easter Term, 
25 Hen. Ill, m. 28 dorso. This entry is 
printed in the Abbreviatio Flacitorum, 
(p. 113), but under a wrong date. 

^ Ibidem, memb. 32 recto. The De- 
fendant who is called Dean of Brug in 
this case must not be confused with the 

contemporary Dean of St. Mary Magda- 
lene, whose name was Peter, and who was, 
if a party to the cause. Plaintiff. I take 
Elyas to haTC been that Bural Dean (pro- 
bably of Trysul) within whose district 
Claverley had been assumed to lie. 


prohibited from venturing to pronounce sentence of excommunica- 
tion or interdict against the Royal Chapels, or the Oratories thereof 
(being in immediate subjection to the Roman Church) , or the 
Canons, or their Servants, contrary to the tenor of privileges and 
indulgences of the Apostolick See ; or to lay any burden on them, 
which has not usually been laid upon other exempt Churches, with- 
out such special mandate of the Apostolick See as shall make express 
mention of the measure to be taken.^^^ 

Another Bull, dated at Lyons, on July 27, following, is addressed 
to the Chancellor of Oxford, whom the Pontiff informs of a com- 
plaint which he had received from King Henry, viz. that ^'the 
Archdeacon of Stafford, although he has no jurisdiction, ordinary 
or delegated, over the Chapel of Bruges (which is the King's pecu- 
liar), yet attempts to extort Procurations therefrom, and to interdict 
it, and to suspend and excommunicate its Chaplains, to the 
prejudice and injury of the . said King,'^ who thereupon had 
'^ appealed to the hearing of the Pope/^ The Chancellor is to 
summon the parties, hear the cause, and decide it canonically and 
finally, enforcing his decree by ecclesiastical censure.^^'^ 

The neglect which the Collegiate Church suffered at the hands of 
its Dignitaries, and that independance of their Dean and of each 
other, which probably was the chief cause of such neglect, are well 
illustrated by a Patent of &6 December, 1246. — King Henry, 
addressing the Canons of Bruges, orders them to render obedience 
to Peter de Rivallis (he was Dean) in the matter of remedying 
deficiencies in the decorations of their Chapel.^^^ , 

In March, 1254, the Deans of the King^s Chapels of Brug and 
Salop (St. Mary's) were commissioned by Letters Patent to assist 
Berard de Nimpha to collect certain monies, from those who had 
vowed the Crusade, for the use of the Earl of Comwall.^^* 

At the Inquisitions of 1255 the Borough Jurors made a detailed 
statement as to the value and incumbency of the " six Prebends of 
the King's Free Chapel of St. Mary Magdalene of Brug."^® 

At the Assizes of October, 1272, the Jurors made a statement as 

3» Eymer's Foedera, i, 261. 

327 Ibidem. 

3« Bot Pat. 31 Hen. 3. 

829 Rot. Pat. 38 Hen. III. The Cruce 
si^nati, or those who had yowed the Cru- 
sade, were permitted to compound the 
obligation by money payments, which 
were collected under Papal authority and 

allotted to those who proposed to fulfil 
their vdws personally. 

^^ Sot. Sund., ii, 59. I have classified 
the particulars under the accounts of the 
several Prebends, as also what was stated 
by the Stottesden Jurors on the same 



to the King's Free Chapel in the Castle of Bmg. The number of 
Prebends belonging thereto they said was five^ but they went on to 
enumerate six, the first being ^^ the Prebend of Claverley/^ which 
was in fact the Dean's Prebend.^^ 

In 1281, the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield (Roger de Molend) 
having apparently asserted a right of jurisdiction over the Collegiate 
Churches of Staflford, Wolverhampton, St. Mary's Salop, and 
TetenhaU, was obliged to relinquish such claim in the case of 
St. Mary's. 

The particulars of the treaty between the Bishop and that Col- 
legiate Church may be seen elsewhere.^^ The independence of the 
Church was fully recognized, but the Bishop was, if he pleased, to 
hold ordinations therein. A similar or even more independent 
position was doubtless secured to the Church of St, Mary Magda- 
lene, for I do not find that the Bishops of Lichfield ever held 
ordinations there. 

The taxation of 1291 values the Spiritualities of the Church of 
Bruges, and its members, at £54. 13^. 4bd. This is given under the 
Deanery of Lappeley and Tresel in Coventry Diocese.^^ It pro- 
bably contemplated the emoluments of the Dean chiefly. 

At the Assizes of 1292, the Prebends were duly returned, as 
six in number, that of the Dean being called the Prebend of Lud- 

At the same Assizes the Dean and Chapter stood summoned, to 
show by what warrant they claimed a right of holding pleas of the 
Prown, and having way fin the Manor of Bruges. Not appearing, 
the Sheriff had orders to distrain them through all their lands &c., 
and to have their persons before the Justiciars who were to be i» 
eyre at Lichfield in the Octaves of Hillaiy (Jan. 20, 1293).8S6 

The Record preserves the results of many causes similarly 
adjourned to Lichfield, but the Crown prosecution of its own Free 
Chapel seems to have been abandoned. No notice of further pro- 
ceedings appear on the RoU. 

331 Salop Assizes^ 56 Hen. Ill, memb. 
49 dorso. 
333 History of 8hrew8}mry,Yo\ VL^^.^Xyj , 
833 Pope Nic. TaxaUony 243. Under the 
head of Temporalities in the Archdeaconry 
of Stafford, this E.eeord gives also the Manor 
of Poshale, of £20. annual value, as appro- 
priated to the Fortioners of Bruges. A 
subsequent note of cancellation affects^ the 

importance of this entry which is to me 
wholly unintelligible (Taxation^ p. 253). 

Tanner quotes " The College " revenue 
as 82 merks, equal to £54. 13«. 4(f., as in 
the text. (Notit, Monastica.) 

»* Placita CorontB, 20 Ed. I, memb. 
37 dorso, 

33S Placita de uo Warranto, pp. 686, 




The visit of Master Rigaud de Asserio to England, in 1817, 
aflfeeted the rights of several Royal Free Chapels, viz. St. Martinis 
le Grand (London), St. Peter's (Wolverhampton), and the Chapels 
of Stafford, Bruges, and St. Mary^s (Salop) . 

Being Canon of Orleans, Auditor of the Palace, and Clerk of the 
Papal Chamber, he was deputed by Pope John XXII to enforce the 
neglected collection of the Peter Pence in England.^^^ In so doing, 
he was to ignore all customs, privileges, and indnlgencies whatever, 
the Pope decreeing the same to be of nb avail. 

The King (Edward II) interfered in defence of his Free Chapels 
above mentioned, and by Writ Close addressed to the Nuncio him- 
self, and dated at Shene, 17 Feb. 1318, forbade him to enforce his 
exactions against those establishments .^^^ 

The ^^ Inquisitions of the Ninths,^^ taken in 1341, and with which 
we will conclude this subject, give incidentally one or two hints as 
to the ecclesiastical divisions which then existed within the Peculiar 
of Bridgnorth. 

The Dean and Canons are specially stated to be exempt from the 
tax then assessed ; and this exemption so far diminished the rate- 
able value of each Parish or District wherein the Chapter had lands. 

The effect of this immunity on the assessments of Morville, 
Quatford, and Eardington, has been already shown or presumed.^^ 
Towns, instead of being rated to the value of the ninth of wheat, 
wool, and lamb, were more appropriately taxed at the ninth of the 
goods of their Burgesses. Thus while Shrewsbury was assessed at 
£56, 2s. lOrf., the town of Brugge stood at £16. 10«. Id,, a special 
valuation pro re nata, and not based on the inapplicable taxation of 
Pope Nicholas. The reasons why it was not rated higher were, — 
^^ because the townships of Romsley, Quat, Dudmaston, and Quat- 
ford, stood taxed under other valuation " (viz. that of the Parish 
Churches where they were), — ^^ and because the King had taken out 
in wool, both in England and abroad, the contributions of several* 

The King^s demesne Manor of Claverley was also taxed on this 

^* He eventually came to be Bishop of 
Winchester (Consecrated 16 Nov. 1320. 
Died 12th AprU, 1323). 

337 Hist. SArewshwy,Yo\. ii, p. 309, where 
the King's writ is also given more at length. 
A Close Writ of 2 Ed. Ill (1328), is 
quoted by Tanner as to the exemption of 

this Chapel "from jurisdiction of the 
Ordinary," besides many documents of 
later date. (Vide Notitia Monastica, 

338 Supra, pp. 39, 116, 193. 

339 Inquis, Nonarum, p. 191. 




occasion^ and to the ninth of wheat, wool, and lamb, being an 
agricultural district.^^ 

Its Church had not been separately valued to Pope Nicholas' 
Taxation, but some other previous estimate seems to have been 
used as a guide by the Commissioners. They assessed it at £12., 
and gave reasons why they had rated it so low. They said that " a 
sixth part of the Borough of Bruggenorth belonged by ancient 
extent to the Church of Claverley.^' (By this they must have 
meatit some income which the Dean derived from Quatford, or other 
property within the Borough Liberties, and which, though it in- 
creased the value of the said Dean's Church of Claverley, could not 
be taken to represent any means of the now taxed Parishioners.) 
They also said, that ^^the greater" (but unmentioned) "Church 
Taxation included items which had nothing to do with the ninth 
now levied, viz. Jurisdiction" (the Peculiar jurisdiction of the Dean 
I suppose), "glebe-land, oflferings, tithe of hay, and other small 
tithes." They also said, that " a third of the present assessment, 
viz. 6 merks (£4.) lay on a part of the parish which was in the 
County of StaflPbrd." This, if I understand the clause rightly, 
alluded partly to Bobbington, but surely included lands which must 
since have been annexed to Shropshire.^*^ The circumstance seems to 
have been of no import as regarded the tax, but the Commissioners, 
being appointed to the County of Salop only, probably thought it 
proper to particularize any deviation from the letter of their in- 


A list of these Dignitaries will necessarily involve the succession 
of the B/Cctors of Claverley, which Church was a constant and pro- 
minent feature among the various endowments of the Deanery of 

Alexander, Dean of Brug, attests a Charter of Richard (Peche) 
Bishop of Coventry to Trentham Priory, which must have passed 
between 1161 and 1171.^^ He is probably the same with "Alex- 
ander de Bridgnorth," mentioned under date of 1182.^^ 

8^ Inqms, Nonarum^ p. 194. 

'** A part of Bobbington still remains 
in Staffordshire, but fSeur less than any 
presumable third of the Parishes of Clay- 
erley and Bobbington united. 

^ Harl. MS8. 3868, fo. 35. 

5** Moncuticon, Tiii, 1463, quoting 
Hutton's and Willis* Lists. Of conrse 
the name "Bridgnorth" is an anticipa- 
tory translation of Brug. It can hare 
stood on no original document. 



Simon, Dean op Brug, circa 1196, and his composition with 
Wenlock Priory about the Advowson of Ditton Priors, have already 
been mentioned.^^ 

Hugo de Tannac, or Tauney, a Poitevin, was appointed to this 
Deanery 13 April, 1214.^^^ King John, being then at La Beole 
(in Gascony), writes to the Bishop of Winchester, his Chief Justice 
and Viceroy,, to say that he has granted 100 merks, in Church 
Revenues, to his beloved Clerk Hugh de Tannac, brother of his 
faithful and beloved Geoffrey de Tannac. The Deanery of Brug is 
to be part of the grant, and the balance is to be made up, out of 
rents heretofore enjoyed by the Dean of York and Archdeacon of 
Winchester. The King avows his object in this grant. It is that 
the friends of the Presentee, "who are very necessary to the King in 
the parts of Poitou may be placed under obligation.^' A more formal 
presentation to the Deanery, dated at Partenay (in Poitou) on May 
28 following, is addressed to the Viceroy, and callls the new Dean 
Hugh de Taunay.**^ 

At the Salop Assizes, November, 1221, the Jurors of Claverley 
are represented by the minute-clerk as returning Hugh de '^ Pettem^' 
for the Incumbent of Claverley Church, It was worth 30 merks 
per annum, and the said Hugh held it, they said, by gift of King 
John.^^ The Incumbent in question was doubtless the Dean pre- 
sented by that monarch as abote stated, but the Jurors describing 
him by his country, either mutilated the proper words, or were mis- 
understood by their Registrar. " Hugh le Peitevin^^ was the name 
theiy intended to return. 

Peter de Bivallis was appointed to the Deanery of the Chapel 
of Brug, by Letters Patent of Henry III, dated at Westminster, 
8 May, 1223. The Chapter is addressed as to the presentation, and 
the Constable of Brug as to giving possession.^^ 

On 18 August, 1223, the King's Letters Close direct Brian de 
Lisle to allow Peter de Eivallis 18 beams (fusta) out of Kinver 
Forest, which the King has given him to repair his house at 

These two entries identify the Rectors of Claverley with the 
Deans of Brug most satisfactorily. The then holder of this joint 
preferment came to enjoy an uncommon degree of Court favour. 

34* Supra, p. 322. 

3« Sot. Fat, 15 John, memb. 2. 

345 Ibidem, 16 John, memb. 17. 

3*7 Salop Assizes, 6 Hen. Ill, memb. 9 
3« Rot. Fat. 7 Hen. III. 
3« Claus. i, 661. 


On July 11, 1282, he had a grant of the custody (Shrievalty) of 
the Counties of Salop and Stafford for life, and also of the Counties 
of York, Berks. Gloces. Somerset, Dorset, Devon, Lancaster, 
Northumb. Essex, Herts. Lincoln, Norf. Suff. and Kent.*^^ This 
extraordinary Patent did not operate for two years, even as 
regarded the two Counties granted for life, for on May 15, 1234, 
Robert de Haia, hitherto the Deputy of Peter de Bivallis, was 
appointed Sheriff absolute.^^^ This will he explained by what 
Matthew Paris tells us of this favourite of the Crown, and his 
fortunes.^^^ And here I must not hesitate to give some lengthy 
extracts fron^ that Chronicler. The career of this Dean of St. 
Mary Magdalene, is connected with great events and interests. 
His name is the chiei^ feature of our list, and, not having 'held any 
other distinguished Chiu*ch Preferment, it is not probable that his 
biography has been attempted elsewhere. — 

Peter de Rivallis (or Orivallis) was a Poitevin by descent, osten- 
sibly the Nephew, perhaps really the Son, of Peter de Rupibus, 
Bishop of Winchester, the all-powerful Minister, first of King 
John, and afterwards of Henry III. It was in 1282 that the 
Bishop^s influence (growing greater by the fall of Hubert de Burgh) 
secured for his relative the appointment of '^Treasurer of the 
Chamber'^ in the Kiog's household. This office gave him the 
custody of all the Crown Escheats and Wardships,^^* and his 
success in replenishing the Royal Coffers was most unequivocal. 

In the year 1233 Matthew Paris relates that the Bishop and 
Peter de Rivallis, with their Deputies (Stephen de Segrave and 
Robert Passelewe) possessed the sole confidence of the King, and 
whilst the Bishop disposed all the affairs of the kingdom to his own 
liking, the custody of the Royal Castles was bestcwed on Peter de 
Rivallis. — This must be an allusion to the various Shrievalties which 
had been conferred on him in the previous year. 

It was probably the ascendancy of Peter de Rivallis in Shrop- 
shire, which, in January, 1234, drew upon that County the animosity 
of Richard Marshall, Earl of Pembroke. That nobleman, disgusted 
with the favour shown by Henry to "the Poitovins," as his 
Ministers were called, and by the treatment which he himself had 
experienced from the King, was then in open rebellion. Leaguing 
with Llewelin he laid waste the County to the very gates of Shrews- 

3W Fat. 1(5 Hen. III. 

»i Pat. 18 Hen. III. 

^- Matth. PariSf passim, sub anuis. 

3^ Vide Sot. Fin. passim, sub annis 
1232, 1233. 



bury, and, if we may credit Matthew Paris, burnt part of the town 

The same Chronicler tells us of a forged letter, by which the 
Bishop of Winchester and " his son, or relation, Peter de Bivallis,^' 
soon afterwards contrived to revenge themselves on the Earl Mar- 
shall. This letter, addressed to the Magnates of Ireland, and 
purporting to be sanctioned by the King, announced the forfeiture 
and proscription of the Earl in England, ordered his instant arrest, 
if he appeared in Ireland, and promised partition of his estates 
there, to those who would assist in his capture. Eleven members of 
the Poitovin government constituted themselves sureties for the 
King^s fulfilment of this promise. 

The Magnates of Ireland, not satisfied with the form of these 
instructions, sent messengers requiring the King's sealed-Charter 
on the subject. To meet their demands the Poitovins are actually 
said to have forged the required document, and to have affixed the 
the Great Seal without knowledge or consent of the King or his 
Chancellor, The plot succeeded. The Earl, hearing of the con- 
sequent invasion of his Irish possessions, crossed the Channel in 
February, 1234. Entrapped into a skirmish on the 1st of April, 
he maintained against fearful odds the dignity of his name and 
office, but fell, dangerously wounded, into the hands of his enemies. 
His captivity and sufferings, when at length his recovery seemed 
possible, were aggravated by every species of malice. — 

The forged Charter, ordering his seizure and forfeiture, was 
paraded before his eyes. — His lands and Castles were peremptorily 
required of him. — He was threatened with lawful execution as a 
rebel taken in battle. — A surgical operation, used indeed at the 
period, but barbarous beyond expression, was applied to his wound 
without ostensible necessity. The Chirurgeon employed, wantonly 
and wilfully, increased its severity. The Earl was attacked with 
acute fever and died on the 16th day of his captivity 
(April 16, 1234). Thus, by the machination of the Poitovins, feU 
one who was reputed to be the ^' Flower of Chivalry in his day."^^^ 

Meanwhile, that is on Feb. 2, King Henry, in a conference at 
Westminster, had heard the grave remonstrances of his Bishops. 
His animosity against the Earl Marshal, the favour shown to 

^^ Vide History of Shrewsbuiyy vol. i, p. 
Ill, where it is probably enough suggested 
that only part of the suburbs, yiz. Frank- 
well, was thus devastated. 

355 "MilitiflB flos temporum mddem- 
orum." M. Paris. 



foreigners, and the increasing powers accorded to Peter de Bivallis 
("whose seal was as necessary as that of the King, when any 
weighty bosiness was in hand^^) were the chief matters of com- 

A second conference, on April 9th, again confronted the King 
and his Prelates. The latter, now headed by Edmimd, their 
recently consecrated Metropolitan, recapitulated the grievances 
which afflicted the whole kingdom : they even threatened the King 
with excommunication. In a few days the Bishop of Winchester 
had orders to quit the Court, and Peter de Rivallis to give up his 
Castles. The latter was also required to render account of all his 
treasury business, the King swearing (as the exulting Chronicler 
tells us), that, had it not been for his clerical office, he would have 
ordered his eyes to be put out.^^^ 

When Easter (April 28) was past, the King journeyed towards 
Gloucester. Resting a night at Woodstock,^^^ news reached him 
of the death of the Earl Marshal in Ireland. The King's grief, 
genuine or not, was unbounded in expression. At Gloucester he 
became reconciled with Hubert de Bui^h and others, who had pre- 
viously deserved or provoked the Royal displeasure. There, too, 
his anger against the Poitovins reached its height, on discovery of 
the forgery and fraud which had ended in the death of the Earl 
Marshal.^^® The Poitovins and their accomplices were MurdererSy 
and were immediately served with summonses to appear before the 
King on June 24 following, and then give accoimt both of their 
management of the Royal Treasure and their misuse of the Royal 
Seal. The Bishop and Peter de Rivallis at once took asylum in 
Winchester Cathedral, Stephen de Seagrave and Robert Passelewe 

An adjourned day was appointed for their trial, viz. July 14, at 
Westminster. Then and there they appeared, their safe conduct 

*^ M. FariSy sub anno. It is evident 
that the political feeling of this Chronicler 
seriously compromises his accuracy. After 
this Council (of April 9th) he tells us that 
the King despatched the Ardibishop and 
several Suffragans into Wales to treat 
with Lewellyii and the Earl Marshall ; 
while he elsewhere shows us that the Earl 
had left Wales two months earlier, and 
was now dying in Ireland. The known 
date also (May 15) when Peter de Biyallis 

was deprived of the Shrievalty of Shrop- 
shire hardly tallies with such an explosion 
of Koyal anger so long before as April 9th. 

*7 The King was at Woodstock on May 
9th {Rot Pat.). 

*^ This appears to have been on May 
29, when also, at G-louoester, the Patent 
appointing Bobert de Haya, Sheriff of 
Shropshire, was repeated. The first Pa- 
tent (that of the 15th) bore date at 



having meanwhile been guaranteed by the Archbishop and his 

Peter de Rivallis was first put upon his defence. " He appeared 
before the King in a Clerical garb with the tonsure and broad 
crown, but with an anelace ^^^ hanging from his belt. He reverently 
saluted the King, who was sitting on the Bench with his Justiciars. 
The King, regarding him with a fierce glance, exclaimed, ^ O Traitor, 
by thy iniquitous device I unwittingly affixed my seal to letters 
which betrayed the Earl Marshal ; also by thy base counsel did I 
banish him and other bom Englishmen {homines naturales) firom 
the kingdom, and alienated their hearts and affections firom my 
person. It was the false prompting of thee and thy accomplices 
which induced me to levy war upon those men, to my own irre- 
parable loss and the disgrace of the kingdom j by which war I 
grievously threw away my own treasure and honour, and the lives 
of illustrious subjects.^ The King, moreover, required firom him 
account of his treasure and the custodies of noble wards and 
escheats, with many other sources of revenue which belonged to the 

"The accused denied none of the charges which were made 
against him, but falling on the earth before the King implored 
mercy in these words : ' My Lord King,^ said he, ' I have been 
nurtured by you and made rich in temporal goods : ruin not the 
man of thy own creating; but at least grant me time to deliberate, 
so that I may render due account as to the things which you 
demand.* The King decided that the required deliberation should 
take place in the Tower. Peter remonstrated, saying that he was a 
Clerk and might not be imprisoned or given into custody of laymen. 
The King answered that the accused had ever demeaned himself as 
a layman, and as a layman he was now required to give account of 
his ^^Stewardship;** he should, however, be given into custody of 
the Archbishop if the latter would be responsible for the alleged 
exactions of the Minister. The Archbishop kept silence ; so Peter 
was committed to the Tower, the King confiscating all his lay 
possessions, ' because, tmder his clerical habit he wore a breast- 
plate and carried an anelace at his girdle, as became not a Clerk.* ** 

Peter remained two days in the Tower, and was then restored by 
the Archbishop to his asylum in Winchester Cathedral. 

The trial of Stephen de Segrave resulted in his release, his main 

•*' A large knife used indifferently at table, or as a dagger. 


defence being the Inculpation of Peter de Bivallis^ as ids Principal. 
The disgrace of neither lasted for more than two years, and their 
fall restoration to Royal favour in June, 1236, makes the insincerity 
of Henry's conduct, at the time of their trial, only too apparent. 
The King had most probably acted a concerted part to free himself 
from the stigma of the Earl Marshall's death. The descendant of 
him, who, having instigated the murder of Becket, affected to abhor 
the deed, but only for a time repudiated its perpetrators,-^the 
Grandson of Henry II seems to have inherited both the malice 
and the craft of his ancestor. 

In 1249 Peter de Rivallis appears as joint Gustos of the Great 
Seal dining the temporary absence of the Chancellor from Court.^^ 

At the Inquisition of 1255, the Jurors for the Borough of Brug 
returned his Prebend as involving the Church of Claverley, with its 
members of Bobiton, Burchton, and Quatford, and being of the 
annual value of 40 merks.*^^ The more detailed presentments of 
the Jurors of Claverley, on the same subject, shall be given when 
we come to that Mailor. 

From November, 1256, to April, 1258, Peter de Rivallis appears 
in his old office of Treasurer of the King's Wardrobe ; and the last 
which I have to say of him is in a Charter dated May 20, 1258, 
whereby the King grants him a piece of land in Winchester at a 
fee-farm rent of 2d. per annum.^^ 

The time of his death I cannot determine, but on 18 Feb. 1265, 
a Patent is on the RoUs, whereby — 

Stephen de London was presented to the Deanery of Brug. A 
second Patent, dated March 2, 1265, and addressed to the Constable, 
appoints — * 

William de Montport to the same preferment.'^* The latter had 
already (by grant of Feb. 7) a Prebend in the Church. His name, 
and the period of these grants, sufficiently point out his connexion 
with Simon de Montfort, the then disposer of the Royal patronage 
and Keeper of the Royal person. The advantages which accrued to 
the relatives of that ardent patriot will not have been permanent. 
I cannot suppose that William de Montfort held the Deanery, thus 
conferred, after the event of August 4, 1256 ; but I find not the 
appointment of his Successor, who was Dean in September, 1266. 
This was — 

Michael de Fynes. On the 20th of January, 1267, Laurence 

w> Sot Pat, SZ^&D. III. 
»i Bot. Hund. ii, 59. 

*» BoL Mn. 42 Hen. Ill, memb. 6. 
a» Eot. Fat 49 Hen. III. 



de Brok, as Attorney for the Crown, and Michael de Fynes, Dean 
of the Free Chapel of Bnig, were Plaintiffs against Walter de 
Coggesheye, Philip de Mutton, and Thomas de Lutteleg^ whom 
they accused of coming to Michael's house at Bobinton and seizing 
com of lOOs. value, which they found at Burton, and which was 
his property &c. The Defendants appeared not, and had made 
previous dejfaults. Walter being a Clerk, the Bishop of Chester 
was enjoined to cause his appearance on the quinzaine of Easter. 
The other Defendants had lands in Mutton and Lutley, whereby 
the Sheriff was to distrain them to appear at the same term.^^ 

This cause was associated with another which was in progress 
at the time, some details of which shall be given here, though 
they might more properly appear under Bobington. It would 
seem that Walter de Cokesaye, the above Defendant, having been, 
presented to Bobington Church by John Fitz PhiHp, was ejected by 
Michael de Fynes, who claimed the Advowson as a member of his 
Deanery. The com, said to have been carried off, was probably the 
property of the rightful Incumbent, whoever that might be. Thus, 
while the Dean prosecuted Walter for trespass, Walter sued the 
Dean for ejectment. The latter suit came before the King himself 
at Shrewsbury, in August or September, 1267, and was adjourned 
for further hearing to Saturday, September lOth.^®^ 

On that day Walter did not appear, and was pronounced to be in 
contempt?^ He was further summoned to appear before the King 
at Westminster on October 13th, to answer for the said contempt, 
and to hear sentence in the suit. Still he came not, so his 
manucaptors, Hugh de Bolinghale, William leEyr, Robert de Mere, 
William Provost of Bobington, and Henry de Prestwood, were • 
declared to be in misericordid, and the Sheriff was ordered to have 
their bodies in Court on February 3, 1268.^^^ 

Ob the same 13th of October, William de Gundeville, as Attorney 
for the King, and Michael de Fines, by his Attomey, appeared 
against Philip de Mutton, Walter de Cokesaye &c., in the plea of 

** Phicita coram Hege. Westm. Hilary 
Term, 51 Hen. m, memb. 5^ recto. 

*^ JPlacita coram Mege, Salop 51 Hen. 
Ill, memb. 4 reoto. 

*• Though Walter made no appearance 
on the 10th of Sept. it would seem that 
John Fitz Phihp, son of that John Fitz 
Philip who had presented him to Bobing- 
ton, did. Thus arose a third suit between 

the Crown and the Lord of Bobington, the 
whole pleadings in which shall be given 
under Bobington. 

^ Plaeita apud Wesim, Michaelmas 
Term, 51 Hen. Ill, memb. 6 recto. A 
summary is given in the Abbreviatio 
Placitorum, p. 161, but not such as to dis- 
tinguish the suoccssiye moves in the suit. 




trespass^^ which thus appears to have been farther adjourned from 
Easter Term previous. It would now seem that the non-appearance 
of Walter was attributable to the Bishop, whom thereupon the 
Sheriff was ordered to attach personally and have in Court on 
Feb. 8, 1268. 

On February 3, however, Walter himself appeared in Court. The 
trespass with which he was charged was stated to have been com- 
mitted on Friday, Sept. 3, 1266. He now denies the violence and 
injury &c. (in the usual form), and appeals to a Jury of the 
Country. The Sheriff is accordingly instructed to summon such 
Jury to appear before the King, in five weeks of Easter 
(circaMay 13, 1268).««» 

The same day was given to William de Gundeville (the King's 
Attorney) and John Fitz Philip, in their cross-suit.*^® 

On that day (May 13) a further adjournment took place, viz. to 
the quinzaine of the Holy Trinity, L e. June 17, 1268.*^ 

I find no record of what took place then ; but a memorandum or 
Postscript added to the Boll of Michaelmas Term, 1 267 (above cited) 
states what I take to have been the ultimate result of both suits. 

On July 1, 1268, Michael de Fynes (as Prosecutor for the Crown) 
and John Fitz Philip came into Court, and John, by license of the 
said Court, rendered up seizin of the Advowson of Bobington, 
saving to himself his right, whenever he should figain choose to stir 
in the cause. The Sheriff was hereupon ordered to give the King 
full seizin of the aforesaid Advowson. 

At the Salop Assizes, October 1272, a new Dean of Brug had 
been appointed and was then in possession.— 
• Master Bonetas de Saint Quintin was returned by the Jurors 
of the Borough as holding the Prebend of Claverley, which was of 
60 merks annual value.^^s p^p^ Nicholas Taxation (1291) does not 
give the name of the then Dean of Brug, nor does it mention 
specifically his Church of Claverley or its value, but, under the' 
Deanery of Lapley and Tresel, it values the Spiritualities of the 
Church of Brug at £54. 13*. 4rf.873 This, as I have before said, 
probably referred to the endowment of the chief Prebend or 

^^ Ibidem, memb. 8 dorso. The Bolls 
of Easter Term 1267, which should con- 
tain the intermediate step in this caus^, are 

^^ PlacUa coram Mege. Hilary Term, 
52 Hen. Ill, memb. 13 recto. 

^® Ibidem, memb. 12 dorso. 

^ PUunia coram Mege. Easter Term, 
52 Hen. Ill, memb. 17. 

^ Salop Amzesy 56 Hen. Ill, memb. 
49 dorso. 

373 Fop, Nic, Tax. p. 243. 


Deanery. The same Taxation records a portion in the Church of 
Stottesden which belonged to the Dean of Brug, and was of 6s. Sd. 
annual valne.^* This reminds us of that third of the tithes of 
Stottesden which were granted to the Collegiate Church of Quatford 
in Earl Roger's foundation-charter.^^^ 

The non-mention of the Dean's name in Pope Nicholas' Taxa- 
tion was probably owing to the death of Bonetas de Saint Quintin^ 
at the period of that valuation.^^fi Certainly his successor, — 
Walter de Langton had been presented early in 1291, if not in 
December 1290.»77 

At the Salop Assizes of October, 1292, the Jurors of Brug pre- 
sented Walter de Langton as holding one of the six Prebends of 
St. Mary Magdalene, viz. " that called Luddesdon." This was the 
Deanery, Luddesdon, a member of Claverley, being part of the 
endowment thereof. These Jurors valued the Prebend at 100 
merks (.£66. 13*. 4rf.) per annum ,*7^ 

Walter de Langton being a Canon of Lichfield, was elected 
Bishop of that See 20 Feb. 1296, and consecrated 22 Dec. in the 
same year. He obtained a license to hold his Deanery in com- 
mendam, provided he could get a five years' dispensation from the 
Pope.^^^ The latter seems to have been denied him, for on 8 April, 
26 Edw. I (1298), the Sheriff of Shropshire had the King's man- 
date to induct — 

Amand de Sabaudia (Savoy) to this Deanery. 

William de Sabaudia was appointed 20 June, 1300 (28 Edw. I), 
and on his resignation,— 

Peter de Sabaudia had the appointment, dated 2& May, 1301 
(29 Edw. I). 

In I'Edw.II (1307-8), the Prebend of Walton was granted to 
the then Dean, and in 2 Edw. II (1308-9),380_ 

Engelard de Worle was appointed to the Deanery. 

37* Ibidem, p. 166. 

375 Supra, p. 109. 

375 He is the first Dean of Brug men- 
tioned on Willis' List, (Mitred Abbies, vol. 
ii, p. 190), and is said moreover to have 
died *^ about 1293 $" but that date is not 
early enough. 

377 Sot Fat 19 Ed. I, memb. 25. Willis 
dates his presentation 20 Dec. 1293, where 
probably the erro|^ hafl arisen from a false 

calculation between the dominical and 
regnal years of the period. 

373 Placita Corona 20 Edw. I, memb. 
37 dorso. 

379 Willis, ut eupra. His list is also my 
authority for the following appointments, 
except that the dominical year assigned by 
Willis is inconsistent in each case with 
the regnal year, which latter X presume 
him to quote correctly from the BoUs. 

3» Fat 2 Ed. II, p. i, m. 20. 



Thomas dis Ettok seems to ha^e been presented to this Deaneiy 
19 Feb., 11 Ed. II (1318) .s»i It was upon his presumed death in 
1327, and the consequent presentation of — 

Henby de Uablet in the same year, that a contest arose about 
this preferment.*®^ The result was the revocation of Harley's ap- 
pointment and the reinstatement of — 

Thomas be Etton. On Sept. 19, 1334 {8 Ed. Ill)— 

Thomas Talbot, Clerk, was presented to the Deauery.^^ 

The remaining Deans, whose names I take from a oollaticm of 
second authorities,*®* were, — 

Thobcas Ketnes, 1353. 

William db Wenlok, 35 Ed. Ill (1361-2). 

Thomas de Branttnoham, 12 July, 43 Ed. Ill (1369). 

Henrt de Wakevield, 25 April, 44 Ed. Ill (1370) : but lus 
appointment was revoked, and — 

Roger de Oppley ^^ appointed, 30 May, 1370. 

Thomas Spare:pord,.15 S^t. 16 Bic. II (1392). 

John Door occurs 10 Sept. 1395. 

Nicholas Slake, 6 Aug. 2 Hen. IV (1401). 

CoLUMBiNUs, SON OP George de Dunbar, Earl OP Mabcb, 
26 Feb. 4 Hen. IV (1403). 

John Marshall, 9 May, 11 Hen. IV (1410). 

Henry Lever,8«« 1 Edw. IV (1461-2). 

Richard Martin, 16 Oct. 16 Edw. IV (1476). 

In 1535, under the Diocese of Coventry and Lichfield, and the 
Archdeaconry of Stafford, the following return appears.^^-^ 

Thomas Magnus, Dean of the Collegiate Church of St. Mary 
Magdalene, holds the Prebend of Ludston, which is worth in glebe 
land, clear of deductions, £4. per annum. He also holds the Hectoiy 
of Claverley, which is worth in tithes, offerings &c. j636. per annum. 
His Deanery was therefore valued at £40. per annum. 

*^ MonatHcon, vol. Txii, p. 1463, quoting 
Dr. Hutton's CoUections in Bibl. Harl. 

** The particulars are given by Mr. 
Dukes* (AnUquitieSj page 49). In several 
lists Thomas deEyton iswritten as Thomas 
ELUokyn, by mistake of some transcriber. 

»3 Pae. 8 Edw. ni, p. 2, m. 25. He 
had formerly held the Prebend of Alveley 
(vide supra, p. 122). A previous Patent 
(7 Ed. ni, p. 2, m. 14) relates to Talbot's 

appointment to the Deanery, if an '' Index 
of Presentations," at the Tower, be correct. 

^ Monasticon, vol viii, p. 1463. Dukes' 
Appendix, p. xxxvi ; Willis (ut supra) ; 
Tanner's Notitia (Introduction, xlv) ; and 
Blakeway's MSS. 

» Written "Otery." {Mcmast,) 

» " Henry Sever, 1460," (Tanner). 

^ Valor JEccUsioiHeug, voL iii, p. 199. 



I have already noticed a Chantry founded in the Church of Saint 
Mary Magdalene in time of King Edward I.'^^ 

I must refer elsewhere for particulars of the Re^^p^'ps of this 
once great Collegiate establishment^ after its dissolutiv. ^ YI 

(1547) :^^ so also for a statement as to some life^peub^v « stiU 
payable, to certain survivors of the Chapter, in 1558.^^ 

More consistently with the scop^ of the present work, I subjoin 
the names of one or two Prebendaries, whose stalls I have been 
unable to identify with any show of probability. They were, — 

John Mansel, who, at his death in 1264, was seized of a Pre- 
bend here (perhaps MoryUle and Underdon) . It is fitting to say 
who he was. Through a period of twenty-five years he was employed 
in various offices of honour and trust by King Henry III. He was 
his Envoy to the Emperor of Germany in 1238 : in 1242, he 
accompanied the King abroad, and was made prisoner by the French 
at the battle of Xantoigne : he was Chancellor of England from 
Nov. 1246 to Oct. 1249 : and Ambassador to the King of Castile in 
1254. In July, 1262, he accompanied the King abroad, as Keeper 
of the Great Seal, and returned with him to England in December 
following. When, in 1263, the Queen left England, John Mansel, 
fearing the animosity and increasing power of the Barons^ party, 

"^ Supra, p. 114. 

^^ "DvkeB^AniiquiHes (ut supra), where 
the receipts of the whole Collegiate esta- 
bhfihment are stated at £131. 19«. 3^d. 

A MS. in my possession (professing to 
be an extract from papers of the ''Bever^nd 
Mr. Bichard Gomes, Minister of the 
parish of St. Mary Magdalene, Bridg- 
north ") gives a certificate of 20th Nov. 
(2 Edw. VI) 1548, relative to the value 
of this Church. The original, which seems 
to have been in the Court of Augmenta- 
tions and is possibly still preserved, is 
not rendered in any coherent or intelli- 
gible way. It may, however, suffice for 
the following facts : — 
The gross annual value of the 

Church was . . £131 6 2i 

Thomas Magnus, Dean, had 

other preferment, and here . 51 18 2 
John Synger, Prebendary, had 

other preferment, and here . 6 8 4 
John Fisher, Prebendary, had 

other preferment, and here . 6 

John Leveson, Prebendary, had 

other preferment, and here . £10 
Hugh Coroner, Prebendary, had 

other preferment, and here . 20 
Hamelet King, Prebendary, had 

other preferment, and here . 6 6 
Stipends paid to diverse Curates 22 
John Preen, Stipendiary . 4 10 1 

£127 .2.7. 

We have thus a probable statement as 
to the latest Incumbents of the Deanery 
and five Prebends of St. Mary Magdalene. 

This document (the result of at least 
a second transcription) is so manifestly 
incorrect that I will not quote it further. 

®o Willis (ut 8u^ra)i where " a pension 
of £10. is stated to be still payable to Hugh 
Curren, or Curwen, Prebendary ; another 
of £6. 13«. id. to John JLeason, Incum- 
bent, and another of £4. 10«. to John 
Penne, Incumbent." 

Each of these names is traceable in Mr. 
Comes' List of 1548. 



followed her^ and shared her foreign exertions in behalf of the Boyal 
interests^ till his own death in 1264. His chief ecdesiastical pre- 
ferments were the Chancellorship of St. PauFs^ to which he was 
appointed in 1243^ the Deanery of Wimboom (a Boyal CoUegiate 
Church in Dorsetshire)^ the Prepositure of Beverley (Yorkshire), 
and the Treasurership of York. He was reputed to be the '' richest 
Clerk in the world.'' He founded the two Priories of Bilsington 
and Bumney^ in Kent. His death happening during the King^s 
captivity^ the Earl of Leicester presented Almaric de Montfort to 
the Treasurership of York,^^^ A similar use of the Great Seal on 
7 Feb. 1265, appointed — 

William de Montfobt to the Prebend which John Mansel had 
held in the Church of Brug.**^ We have already shown the 
Deanery to have been conferred on this new Prebendary on the 
2d of March following, and that his tenure of either will, under 
the circumstances of the appointments, have expired in a few 
months.3»3 In 1295,— 

William, son of William de Bkuoes, was presented to a Pre- 
bend in this Church ; *^ and in 1334 — 

BoBEBT DE Tanton had a similar appointment.^^^ « 


The Chantry founded in this Church by Bichard Dammas, about 
1294, has twice been spoken of.*** It remained till the Dissolu- 
tion, and in 1553, John Sanger, late the Incumbent thereof, was 
receiving a pension of £6, from the Crown.^^ 


As late as the time of Henry VIII, when John Leland visited 
Bridgnorth, St. Leonardos remained the only Parish Church in the 

^1 This appointment was expressly re- 
voked by the King three days after the 
battle of Eyesham, as one which he had 
made (among many) under coercion of 
his gaolers (Eot Fat 4Q Hen. Ill, dated 
7 Aug.) 

a» Bot. Pat 49 Hen. HI. 

»3 Supra, p. 334. 

3W Fai. 23 Edw. I, memb. 15. 

*» Fai, 8 Edw. Ill, p. 2, memb. 25. 

^ Supra, pp. 114, 339. 

W Willis' Abides, vol. ii, p. 193. 

3^ There may be a doubt as to the 
Patron Saint of this Church. St. Leonard, 
Abbot of Noblac, whose anniversary was 
Nov. 6, is usually understood to be the 
Patron Saint of English . Churches thus 
named. But a tair of four days, the first 
of which was to be "the feast of the 
Translation of St. Leonard," was granted 
to this town by Edward III, and seems 
to be but a slight alteration from the &ir 



Town.^^^ It is hardly supposable that the Borough, even in its 
infancy, was without^ such an establishment. Though the site of 
Brug was comprehended in the great Saxon Parish of Morville, 
and though the Mother Church of Morville was, in the days of 
King Henry I, no mean structure, its proximity can hardly have 
been sufficient for the spiritual wants of a rising Borough. It is, 
moreover, probable in one case, and certain in the other, that 
Tasley and Oldbury, subject Chapels of Morville, and nearer to 
Brug than the Mother Church, were yet unfounded in the begin- 
ning of the reign of Henry I. 

To that early period, as coeval with' the foundation of the Borough, 
we may therefore reasonably assign the foundation of St. Leonardos; 
but, as yet, no architectural or documentary evidence occurs to 
strengthen this assumption. 

The earliest written notice to which I can refer on this subject, 
is an undated deed, which, though it implies the pre-existence of 
the Church of St. Leonardos, cannot itself be positively ascribed 
to an older period than the middle of the thirteenth century. — 

^^Roger, Sonof Eichard Irish (Hybemensis) sells to Walter Palmer, 
for 6*., a rent of 6rf., issuing from certain field-land without the 
Cemetery of St. Leonard, which land William Sholton held of the 
Vendor at said rent. — Witnesses : Elias Fitz William and William 
Aurifaber, Praetors of Brug, Hamo Palmer, Walter Aurifaber, John, 
Son of William de Cantreyn, Hugh de Eudon, John his Brother, 
and many others.''*^ 

At the Inquisitions of 1255, the Borough Jurors returned the 
Church of St. Leonard as being in the King^s gift.^^ 

The Taxation of 1291 does not mention this Church. An inci- 
dental notice of the year 1292 has already occurred.^^ This 

granted by Henry IIT, on the vigil,* the 
day, and the morrow of St. Luke. 

This fair, or its modem counterpart, is 
now held on Oct. 29th, but still called 
"Luke's fair," though St. Luke's day is 
on Oct. 18th. Now St. Luke's day 
brings us much nearer to Oct. 15th, the 
day of St. Leonard of Vandoeuvre, with 
whom also, alone of the two Saints in 
question, has any legend of the translation 
of relics been connected. I hardly need say 
that the Patron Saint of a Parish Church 
is often identical with the Saint on whose 

anniversary the principal fair of the said 
Parish is, or was, held. . 

*9 "There is but one Paroch Church in 
the Towne, a very fayre one and dedicated 
to St. Leonard." (/i^ineror^, vol, iv, 
part ii, fo. 182 a.) - 

** Charter at Apley. Another deed 
attested by these Prsetors is also witnessed 
by Reginald le Gl-augy, who was murdered 
in 1250-1. We thus obtain the limit, as 
to date, assigned above. 

«i Eot. Hund, ii, 59. 

*^ Supra, pa^e 114. 



obscnrity of a large ParishfChurch, during two hundred years, may 
probably be attributed to the poverty of its endowment, a defect 
which was remedied in the fourteenth century, by the foundation of 
one or more Chantries here. The Pounders of these Chantries were 
Burgesses of the Town, and the Revenues granted for their support 
were derived from Borough property. 

I must be contented to give references, in a note,^^ to the prin- 
cipal documents which aifected these foundations. It will be 
sufficient to state here, that, in 1535, the general Valuation of Eccle- 
siastical Property recognised only two Chantries in St. Leonardos 
Church, and took no notice whatever of any endowment as attach- 
ing to the Church itself. — 

These Chantries are described as those of '^ St. Thomas and of 
St. Mary the Virgin.*' — 

'^ William Swanwyke, Chaplain of the former, had lands and tene- 
ments granted in mortmain to his Chantry, Ijdng within the Town 
of Bridgnorth and its Liberties (in the Archdeaconry of Stafford, 
and the Diocese of Coventry and Lichfield), of the annual value 
of £3. 68. Sd.'' 

" Aichard Preste, Chaplain of the Chantry of St. Mary the Virgin, 

^ Inqtiis, ad quod i><»fiff«m»18Bdw.II, 
No. 131. — TV^nald dela Legh, — ^hifl pro- 
posed Chantry. 

PatAS Edw. n, p. 2, memb. 14.— Li- 
cense to Beginald de la Legh to found a 
Chantry in St. Leonard's Church and en- 
dow it with 1 messuage, 4t acres of land, 
and 50«. rent in Bruges. 

Fat. 5 Edw. HI, p. 3, memb. 8.— For 
the Chantry of St. Leonard of Bridg- 

Pat. 11 Edw. III. p. 2. memb. 4.— 
License to William de la Hulle, confirm- 
ing a previous license for endowment of 
three Chaplains here. (The particulars 
are more fully giyen in Mr. Dukes' Ap- 
pendix, p. xxxvii.) 

Pat. 24 Edw. Ill, p. 2, memb. 22.— 
For a Chantry here. 

Pae. 26 Edw. HI, p. 2. memb. 19.— 
License to Peter de Bruges to grant lands 
of 40s. annual value to a Chaplain, to pray 
for his soul in the Chapel of St. Leonard 
and the Hospital of St. James in Bruges. 
(See Pukes* Appendix, p. xl.) 

iii^if . ad quod jDamnum, 43 Edw. m, 
No. 27. — Jurors say that "in diminution 
of divine worship two parochial Chaplains 
are withdrawn, viz. one in the Chapel of 
St. Mary Magdalene and another in the 
Church of St. Leonard." 

Inquis. ad quod Damnum, 44 Edw. IH, 
No. 23. — William Selmon and others gave 
to three Chaplains 6 messuages and 18 
acres of land in Bruggenorth to oelebnto 
divine service daily in the Church of 
St. Leonard, for the souls of the Burgesses 
of tHe said Town &c. 

Pat. 45 Edw. HI. Becites the last 
and previous grants (Dukes' Appendix, 
p. xxxvii). 

Pat. 12 Ric. n, p. 1, memb. 16.— 
Grant of 16 messuages, 6 acres of land, 
and 40«. rent to a Chantry in St. Leo- 

Mr. Dukes, in his AnHquiHeg (page 50) 
and Appendix (pp. xxxvii and xxxviii), 
quotes other and later documents aSxIt- 
ing these Chantries. 



had lands and tenements similarly described^ and of the annual 
value of £2, \4^J^ 

These Chantries were subsequently dissolved^ and in 1553, 
William Swanewiek, and Richard Knolles, Incumbents of a Chan- 
try, or Chantries, in St. Leonard's, were in receipt of pensions of 
£5. each.406 


This House, dedicated also to the Virgin Mary and St. John the 
Baptist, is reputed, on good evidence, to have been founded by 
Ralph le Strange, Lord of Alveley, in the time of Richard I. 

Records, unconnected with this foundation, and which will be 
cited elsewhere, inform us of the illness and early death of Ralph le 
Strange, in 1195, while actively engaged in the King's service in 
Wales. Such circumstances, and the period at which they occurred 
(soon after the Crusade of Richard I), fitly associate themselves 
with the origin of this establishment, as declared by tradition. 

Referring to other authorities for the constitution and objects of 
these houses in general,^® and for many particulars of this, I will 
merely state those circumstances which further illustrate its history, 
and have not hitherto been brought together. ' 

The Hospital, usually called St. John^s, stood in the Low Town of 
Bridgnorth, within the angle formed by Mill Street and St. John's 
Street, east of the former and north of the latter, to which it, of 
course, communicated its name. 

Thus placed, the house commanded every highway by which 
travellers could approach the Town from places lying Eastward of 
the Severn. In other words, the various roads, which, traversing 
or skirting the great Forest of Morf, from Pendleston Mill, from 

*^ Valor JSoolesiastumSy iii, 199. 

«6 WiUis' AhUes, ii, 193. 

** Tanner describes these Hospitab as 
"houses for the relief' of poor and im- 
potent people, incorporated by Royal 
Patents, and made capable of gifts and 
grants in succession.'* 

** Besides the poor and impotent," says 
he, "there generally were in these Hos- 
pitals two or three Religious : one to be 
Master or Prior, and one or two to be 
Chaplains and Confessors ; and these ob- 

served the rule of St. Austin, and probably 
subjected the poor and impotent to some 
rehgious restraints, as well as to the local 
statutes. Hospitals were originally de- 
signed for relief and entertainment of 
travellers upon the road and particularly 
of pilgrims, and thel*efore were generally 
built upon the road's side ; but of later 
years they have always been founded for 
fixed inhabitants." (Preface to Notii. 
Monastica^ p. xviii, Nasmith's edition.) 




Worfield, from Claverley, or from Quatford^ convei^ed towards the 
Eastern end of the Bridge^ will have first passed within sight of 
St. John's. This situation was doubtless relevant to the primary 
object of such a foundation^ viz. the relief of travellers. 

The road by which St. John^s was approached from Quatford^ on 
the South, was further called Spital («. e. Hospital) Street ; hut it 
seems doubtful whether that name was derived from the Hospital 
under notice, or the Hospital of St. James, presently to be men- 

The earliest Royal recognition of the former bears date at Salop^ 
9 March, 1223, — when Henry 111 grants to the Brethren of the 
Hospital of St. John, of Brug, twelve cart loads of dry wood in 
Morf Forest. This precept is addressed to Hugh Fitz Robert 
(Forester of Shropshire) and tested by Hubert de Burgh.^^ 

On Aug. 30, 1226, King Henry III, then at Bruges, commands 
the same Hugh Fitz Robert to allow the Master and Brethren of the 
Hospital of the Holy Trinity of Bruges to have three oak trees in 
Morf Forest for their fire, of the King^s gift.^^ 

At the Inquisition of 1255^ in answer to a question as to the 
alienation of Seijeantries, or of any part thereof, the Jurors of 
Bruges said, that the Prior of the Hospital of Brug held half a 
virgate of Ralph de Eudinas (Ewdness), whose tenure was by Ser- 

The Jurors of Nordley Regis and Alveley, on the same occasion, 
and in answer to an inquiry as to tenants of lands within those 
demesne Manors, said that the Hospital of the Holy Trinity of 
Brug held therein three and a half virgates of land, by Testament of 
Ralph le Strange. The Jurors knew not by what service the Hos- 
pital held this land, but they stated that the Priors had withdraw 
all suit, from the local Manor-Court, to Brug.*^^ 

In 1274, the Jurors of the same two Manors reported, the ancient 
alienation of 3^ virgates in Alveley, by '^ Ralph, son of Guy le 
Strange, who granted the said land in free and perpetual almoign^ 
to the Hospital of St, John, of Brug.^' *^^ 

In Oct. 1292, the Master of the Hospital of St. John was sued 
under tmt of rights by the Crown, for this land, described as 

^ Glaus, 7 Hen. Ill, memb. 16. 

*« Claut. 10 Hen. Ill, memb. 6. 

^ Rot, Hund. ii, 59. The Serjeantry 
and service of Balph de Ewdness will 
belong more properly to the futiure ac- 

count of that township, which was not in 
tlie Borough Liberties. 

«o Ibidem, p. 73. 

«» Ibidem, p. 102. 




" 3 virgates in Alvitheleye." ^^^ The King's Attorney set forth the 
Royal Title, as by descent from Henry II. The Master appeared 
in defence of his right " and in place of the King^s Great Assize, 
put himself on a Jury of the Country, which should make recogni- 
tion as to who had the better claim to the premises, he or the King." 
The Jurors found upon their oath, that " the Master had greater 
right to hold the land as he held it than the King to have it as he 
claimed it." Therefore the Court gave sentence for the Master, 
" saving to the King his right" &c. 

It is thus observable that, during the first century after its founda- 
tion, this House was variously described as the Hospital of the Holy 
Trinity, or of St. John, and its chief oflBcer indiflPerently called Master 
or Prior, facts which will correct several misstatements om the subject. 

I must refer to a note for further and fuller accounts of this 
establishment, or rather for such parts of other accounts as are free 
from error .*^^ 

*^^ Placita de Quo Warrxinto^ p. 674. 

*^ See Dukes* Antiquities of Shropahirey 
pp. 50, 51, where a Seal of one of the 
Masters of this Hospital is engraved, and 
some, not irreleyant, documents quoted; 
but a second Seal and two of the docu^ 
ments, there given, have nothing to do 
with this house, but relate to the Society 
of Friars Minors, presently to be noticed, 
and whose house stood West of the 

See also the Appendix to the same 
work (p. zzxviii) for many extracts re- 
lating to this Hospital as well as a list of 
its Masters. To the latter I can only add 
the name of one Prior of the thirteenth 
Century, viz. Symon, who has abeady 
(p. 113) occurred, as witness to a deed, 
about 1280. 

See also New Monasticon^ voL vii, pp. 
663, 664, where however the document 
(Num. ii) refers to the Hospital of St. 
James, and where all the documents 
quoted from Tanner (in note q) as con- 
cerning St. John's Hospital, belong to the 
Collegiate Church of Saint Mary Magda- 
lene. It is further noticeable that the 
document. Num. i (wherein a Jury of 
Edward lY's time found John Talbot the 
then deceased Earl of Shrewsbury to have 

been lineal descendant and h^ir of Ralph 
le Strange, the Founder of this Hospital) 
however genuine itself, involves a gross 
error, and that the Pedigree by which 
those Jurors supported their finding was 
a false one. 

A list of Becords which are really given 
by Tanner, and by other authorities, in 
reference to this house may be useful. 
They are — 

Inquia. ad quod Damnum^ 10 Edw. II, 
No. 157. "Henr. Can pro Priore de 
Brugge." "Brugge. De terns et tene- 
mentis ibidem." (Calendar, page 253.) 

Fat. 10 Edw. II, p. 2, m. 16. Pro 
terris in Quatford et Worfield. (Tanner). 

Inquis. ad quod Damnum^ 17 Edw. II, 
No. 91. " Joh. Hubaud pro Hosp. Sanctao 
Trinitatis. Brugges et More. Messuag. 
et terrse." (Calendar, p. 273.) 

Fat. 17 Edw. II, p. 2, m. 24. (Dukes' 
Awtiquitiea, p. 50.) 

Fat. 3 Edw. Ill, p. 2, m. 11. (Tanner.) 

Inquis. ad quod JOammtm, 8 Edw. Ill, 
(Dukes' Appendix, p. xxxviii.) 

Fat 9 Edw. Ill, p. 1, m. 26. (Tanner.) 

Fat. 18 Edw. Ill, p. 2, m. 32. (Dukes' 
Appendix, ibidem.) 

Fat. 19 Edw. Ill, p. 1, m. 19. (Dukes' 
Antiquities^ p. 50.) [^Inquis. 



The Great Valuation of 1535 mentions this House in no other 
connexion than as a dependency of the Abbey of Lylleshall^ which 
had long before obtained custody hereof.*^* 

That Abbey therefore enumerates amongst it^ temporal possessions 
an annual income of £23. arising in Brigenorthe and Alveley. This 
large item probably included other revenue than that which had 
accrued with this Hospital/^^ for the Abbey had a distinct property 
in Bridgnorth^ hereafter to be noticed^ and appears to have held 
several leases of lands at Bridgnorth and Alveley under the Monks 
of Shrewsbury, the Nuns of Brewood, the Chantry of St. Thomas 
(in St. Leonardos Church), the Lords of Oldbury and of Netherton 
(near Quatford), and under several Burgesses of Bridgnorth. Some 
of these leases held, or rather quit-rents payable, by the Abbey of 
LiUeshall, in 1535, may however have been originally concerns of 
the Hospital. It is impossible, in short, to distinguish in thild 
Valuation what lands the Abbey held as its own, what it acquired 
with the Hospital, or what, after it obtained the Hospital, it may 
have purchased or leased, in addition. 

Besides these quit-rents, the property of LiUeshall Abbey in this 
quarter was chargeable in other ways, — 

An annual fee of 8«. Sd, was due for regard to the King's 
Forester of Morf : — Richard Horde, Seneschall of Bridgnorth and 
Alveley, had a salary of £l, per annum. — The Chaplain of the 
Chantry of Jesus, in Lichfield Cathedral, was in receipt of an 
annual pension of £6. ISs. 4rf. which had originally been payable 
by the Hospital. — ^A similar pension the Abbey also paid to the 
Chaplain, who still performed divine service in the Hospital 
Church. — 

Inquis, ad quod Damnum, 19 Edw. Ill, 
No. 11. {Calendar, p. 315.) 

Pat. 24 Edw. Ill, p. 2,m.22. (Dukes' 
Antiquities, p. 50.) 

Pat, 43 Edw. Ill, p. 2, in. 9. (Dukes* 
.Appendix, p. xxxviii.) 

Pat, 45 Edw. Ill, p. 1, m. 9 vel 15. 
{Calendar, and Tanner.) 

Pat. 6 Bic. n, p. 2, m. 31. "Pro 
mortuo bosco, prout in Carta 16 Hen. III." 
{Calendar, p. 206.) 

Pat. 11 Edw. IV, p. 2, m. 16. " Cus- 
todia concessa Abbatiee de Lilleshull." 

*^* Valor Ecchnaisticus, iii, 197. 

<J* The only notice by which I can 
identify tlie locality of any original pro- 
perty of the Hospital, within the Town, is 
a deed whereby "Christiana and Isabella, 
daughters of William le Keu, seU to 
Walter Palmer, Burgees of Brug, their 
house in £ougate, saving a rent, of Qd. 
per Snnum, payable to the Hospital of the 
Holy Trinity. — Witnesses : William Pal- 
mer, William Lambert, Provosts, Hamo 
Palmer, Henry Coyntrel, William Wondac, 
Philip de Petra, Bobert Tinctor, Bichard 
Clerk." (Charter at Apley.) 

" Cowgate " was the upper part of the 
present " Cart- way." 




Lastly, on the anniversary of Ralph le Strange, as Founder of this 
Hospital, the Abbot distributed a sum of 168. Sd. to the poor. 

The Grantee of this House, on the dissolution (in 30 Henry VIII), 
was Rowland Edwards, who had it with other possessions of Lilies- 
hall Abbey. 


This Establishment belonged to a class essentially distinct from 
that of the Hospital of St. John above noticed, or of Hospitals in 

The word Hospitaly in its commonest modem acceptation, and the 
Latin word Hospitium convey a contrast of idea very similar. — 

Sickness or disease are the prevailing notions involved in the 
former word, hospitality or shelter in the latter. So it was with 
these neighbouring and almost adjoining houses at Bridgnorth. 
While such societies as St. John^s contemplated the relief of 
travellers, pilgrims, the poor, the aged, and the infirm in general, 
St. James's Leper House was intended only as a refuge for persons 
afflicted with formidable and perhaps contagious disease. In written 
documents, it is usually described as the Domus Leprosorum Sancti 
Jacobi, or as Maladria Sancti Jacobi, the latter term being the 
Latinized form for the French Maladrarie^^^ It stood East of the 
road which led from St. John's Hospital towards Quatford, and on 
the outside of the Town, a situation corresponding aptly with its 
design. Its Founders were probably the Community of the 
Borough of Brug, and such an establishment may well have been a 
part of the internal economy of the Town. 

The origin or multiplication of these Lazarettos may perhaps be 
connected with a decree of the Eleventh General Council, which 
assembled in the Church of St. John Lateran, in March, 1179, 
under the auspices of Pope Alexander III. 

The eleventh Canon, there promulgated, was entitled '^De 
Leprosis,'' and ran as foUows : *^7 — 

<i« Th«re seems to have, been a Mala- 
drerie near Bridgnorth of older date than 
that of St. James, being described in deeds 
as " Vetus Maladria." It lay on the Old- 
bury side of the Town, and abutted on 
two ditches or water-courses called "Rey- 
mund's ditch," and the "ditch towards 

Aldebur" (sichetum Eeymundi et siohe- 
tum versus Aldebur). (Charter at Apley 

417 Chron. Gervas. Inter Decern Scrip- 
tores, p. 1450. The terms of this Canon 
and the language used in certain early 
Charters of these Leper-Houses would 



" Whilst the Apostle enjoins that ' more abundant honour be 
rendered to the weaker members/ yet some men, on the contrary, 
seeking their own rather than Christ's, allow not Lepers (who 
cannot dwell with the healthy, nor attend Churches with other 
men) to possess Churches or Cemeteries, or to be holpen by 
ministry of their own Priest. Which thing being evidently quite 
opposed to Christian piety, we, in Apostolick kindness, ordain that, 
wherever so many be congregated under a common mode of life as 
may suffice to build themselves a Church or Cemetery, and enjoy 
. the ministry of their own Priest, they shall be permitted to have 
such advantages without contradiction. Let them, however, take 
heed that- they injure not the parochial rights of older Churches; 
for that which is granted to them for piety's sake, we will not to 
redound to the harm of another. And we further ordain that they 
be not compelled to give tithes of their gardens, or of the forage 
of their live-stock.'' 

Many of the large Towns of England had establishments, thus 
indicated and encouraged, in the thirteenth century. The Leper 
House of St. James was certainly founded previously to 1224; for 
on 22 September, in that year. King Henry III, being then at 
Bruges, issued the following Certificate to Hugh Fitz Robert, 
Forester of Shropshire : — " Know, that for the reverence of God, 
and for the health of our soul, and the soul of the Lord Eing 
John, our Father, we have granted to the Leprous Brethren of the ' 
Hospital of St. James at Bruges, that they may have one horse, 
daily plying in our Forest of Morf, to collect dry stumps and dead 
wood for their fire, until we come of age." A similar Certificate 
was addressed to Hugh de NeviU, Justice of the Forest.*^® 

seem to indicate that the term "Leprosy" 
was applicable only to contagious disease 
or what was believed to be so. On the 
other hand it is well koown that paralytic 
affections were classified under the same 
term " Leprosy" in the middle ages ; and 
(whereas Paralysis can scarcely have been 
accounted infectious even then) it would 
appear that the term was used to denote 
severe disease in a much more general 
sense than modem notions can at once 

It is not improbable, I think, that, in a 
Monastic age, any chronic or incapacitating 
disorder may have been taken to suggest 

the necessity or propriety of the sufferer's 
abstinence from, social intercourse; that 
those who, under compulsion, or volun- 
tarily, adopted this theozy, formed societiiBS 
of themselves, and that they came to be 
called Lepers, because their separate mode 
of life associated their condition with that 
of those, whom the well-known Scriptural 
plague of Leprosy banished from society 
and united to one another. 

«8 Clous. 8 Hen. Ill, memb. 4. This 
Charter was apparently renewed after the 
King was of age, viz. in 1232 (Calend. 
Rot. Cart. p. 49). At all events it was in 
force in Nov. 1271, when, at the Forest 



On 30 Aug. 1226, the Lepers of St. James obtained an order 
from King Henry HI, for three oak-trees out of Morf Forest. ' The 
order is in similar terms with that granted on the same day to the 
Hospital of the Holy Trinity, as quoted above.*^® 

The next document, which I shall quote in connexion with this 
House, is a very early Charter of the thirteenth Century, whereby 
this Society demises a ctffrtilage of their land at an annual rent 
of 20^.^^ The chief points noticeable in this Charter are, that 
the Society is constituted without any apparent Superior of its own 
body, that it acts under the guidance and with consent of the 
" good men of the Town,^' that its members are of both sexes, and 
that the entrance-fine paid by the Lessee is unusually small in 

comparison with the reserved rent, — showing that the object in view 

Assizes held at Salop, it is entered on the 
Boll, with similar Charters to other indi- 
viduals or Communities. (Forest Rolls, 
Salop, No. vi, memh. 1.) 

*^ Clems, ii, p. 135, where the Grantees 
are printed as " Leprosi Sancti Johwnms 
de Bruges." This is a mere mistake, and 
probably of the original rather than of 
Mr. Hardy's transcript. There was no 
such body at Bridgnorth as the Lepers of 
St. John, and the error possibly arose 
from the contemporary grant to the Hos- 
pital of the Holy Trinity, which was also 
a Hospital of St. John. It is curious, 
however, that an authoritative document 
should embody a confusion often made 

<» In possession of T. 0. Whitmore, 
Esq., of Apley. As the earliest Charter 
which has occurred to me relating to pro- 
perty within the Borough, and as having 
a curious Seal of the House attached, I 
will transcribe it entire : — 

"Universis Christi fideUbus ad quos 
presens Carta pervenerit,Fratres et Sorores 
Domiis Dei et Beati Apostoli Jacobi et 
Leprosorum deBruges, salutem in Domino. 
Noverit XJniversitas vestra nos cum con- 
silio et assensu proborum hominum de 
Bruges dedisse et concessisse et hd,o pre- 
senti cart& nostra confii*masse Eoberto le 
Woler* quoddam curtilagium in e&dem 
vill&, illud videlicet quod jaoet inter terram 
Fhilippi filii Bicardi et terram Bicardi de 

Porta. Tenendum de Deo et beato Jacobo 
et Fratribus et Sororibus in domo nostrd 
commanentibus et succedentibus predicto 
Boberto et heredibus suis, in feudo et 
hereditate, Ubere et quiete, bene et in pace 
et honorifice, pro sex denariis quos dedit 
nobis de introitu. Beddendo inde an- 
nuatim nobis et successoribus nostris 
viginti denarios, medietatem ad festum 
beatse Man^B in Martio et medietatem ad 
festum Sanoti Michaelis, pro omni servitio 
et exactione. Concessimus siquidem pre- 
dicto Boberto et heredibus suis dare vel 
vendere et omne velle suimi de predicto 
curtilagio facere, salvo predicto redditu 
Deo et beato Jacobo et fratribus et soro- 
ribus in domo nostra succedentibus et 
ibidem Deo servientibus. Nos etiam et 
successores nostri predicto Boberto et 
heredibus suis predictum curtilagium pro 
predicto servitio warantizabimus. Hiis 
testibus.Bicardo filio Stephani etWillielmo 
fiho Godewini tunc Pretoribus, WiUielmo 
Tinctore, Waltero Hybemensi, Bogero 
Wendac, Galfrido filio Stephani, Anketillo 
Clerico, Andrea fratre suo, Hamundo 
filio Walteri, WiUiehno filio Thonue, et 
multis aliis." 

The Deed is beautifully written. The 
Seal of green wax, fastened to the deed by 
a cord of red and white hemp curiously 
interwoven, shall be given in an Illustra- 
tion. The Legend (in full) is " Sigillum 
Leprosorum Sancti Jacobi de Brugia." 



was a continuous annual income^ rather than a present advantage. 
On Oct. 14, 1259, King Henry III granted letters patent of pro- 
tection for the Lepers of St. James of Bruges, for five years.*^^ 

The endowment of a Chaplain in 26 Edw. Ill (1352-3), whose 
duties were partly connected with the Church of this Hospital^ has 
been already noticed.*^^ 

In 1535, this Hospital is valued as annually in receipt of £4*. net 
income. It was, however, then governed by a Superior, who- is 
called Prior. His name was William Beyste.*^ 

I refer elsewhere for further particulars.*^ 


This Order, called also the Order of Friars Minors, was intro- 
duced into England early in the thirteenth Century. Its members 
established themselves in many of our principal towns during the 
reign of Henry III. The English Province of the Order came to 
be divided into seven districts, called "Custodies,^' because a 
Custos or Keeper presided over all Convents within each such 

The House at Bridgnorth, founded in the time of Henry III, 
and dedicated to Saint Francis, was one of the nine Monasteries 
which were subject to the Custody or Wardenship of Worcester.^* 

It lay to the West of the Severn, under the Church of St. Leo- 
nard's. Some adjoining vaults are still known as the ''Friars' 

«a Fat, 43 Hen. in. 

<o Supra, p. 342, note 403. 

^® Valor JEeclenasticus, vol. iii, p. 199. 

^^ Dukes' AntiquitieSj Appendix, p. xl, 
where some traditionary matter is given 
which relates to this foundation, as also 
some documents quoted, which show the 
fi^te of its possessions after the Dissolu- 
tion. No reference is given to the autho- 
rities for the former, which seems to be 
curious. I would, however, point out the 
discrepancy which in the first instance 
attributes the foundation to King Henry I, 
then to William de Kenegate and others, 
and thirdly to Justice Freere and Henry 
Bourchier (second Earl of Essex of his 
name), who lived in the reigns of Henry 
Vn and Henry Vlll. 

I am favoured by Hubert Smith, Esq., 
with an extract of a deed whereby, in 
June, 16 Edw. H (1323) William, 
Qxiardian of the House of Lepers of 
St. James of Brugge, grants a Tenement 
in Spittle Street, bounded on one side by 
the tenement of Alice and Helen, daugh- 
ters of Bichard de Boughton, some time 
Forester of Morfe. The Feoffee is to pay 
12d. rent. 

** New Monasticon, vol. viii, p. 1503 
(quoting Stevens). The same authority 
states John, Earl of Shropshire (Shrews- 
bury) kinsman and heir of Balph le 
Strange, the first Founder, to have been 
the reputed Founder (Patron, I suppose) 
of this House. Speed also (as quoted 
Monasticon^ vol. viii, p. 1531), attributed 



Caves/^ and their Great Hall or Refectory is^ or was lately^ in 
tolerable condition.*^^ 

We have few accounts^ and those both erroneous and contra- 
dictory^ as to the origin of this House. If we attempt to associate 
such establishments with the names of specific Founders^ we shall 
usually be in error. The sycophancy or ignorance of a later 
period has invented or believed the falsest tales about the origin of 
the various English Houses of Friars. The probability is, that the 
first members of these fraternities located themselves in our large 
Towns, under no specific or marked patronage, and worked their 
way onwards as best they could. In process of time, the name 
of some influential Founder, or Patron, was seen to be a kind of 
protection, and so adopted by each Society for itself. 

Not knowing their Founders, the Franciscans extemporized them ; 
and their new Patrons, the descendants of such alleged Founders, 
were perhaps not studious to expose the complimentary fraud. In 
the case of this House at Bridgnorth, which claimed John Earl of 
Shrewsbilry for its Patron, as the descendant of Ralph de Strange, 
its alleged Founder, the idea was doubtless borrowed from a similar 
claim of the Brethren of St. John's Hospital, in the Low Town. 

Such pretence of the Franciscans, though it involved a double 
falsehood, conveyed also a double compliment to their adopted 
Patron ; for not only did it flatter John Talbot with a fictitious 
ancestry, but gave to such imtrue Ancestor the merit of a founda- 
tion with which neither he nor his Descendants, real or imaginary, 
had anything to do. 

Passing a statement which I cannot substantiate,^^^ and which 

this House of Ghrey Friars to John Earl 
' of Shrewsbury, m time of Henry VI. 
Balph le Strange however was, as I have 
already said, no ancestor of John Earl of 
Shrewsbury. He, Ralph, died when St. 
Franfcis (the Founder of this £ule) was 
not yet fourteen years of age, also fourteen 
years before St. Francis originated the 
Order, and twenty-four years before it 
was introduced into England. Ealph le 
Strange, therefore, was not the founder ; 
and neither was John Earl of Shrewsbury, 
who flourished in the reign of Henry VI, 
or a century and a half after the time when 
I sliall show this House to have been in 
existence. Similarly false allegations as 
to their foundership by the Dominican, 

Austin, and Franciscan Friars of Shrews- 
bury, are alluded to or exposed by the 
Historians of that town. (Vol. ii, pp. 
445, 452, 460.) 

^ Dukes' AnHquUieSf Appendix, p. xU, 
where also some further documents con- 
nected with this House, and of dates 1833 
and 1337, are given. The Seal of one of 
these is also engraved on page 50 of Mr. 
Dukes' book, whereby I perceive that 
these Franciscans called themselves occa- 
sionally Preachers (Predicatores). That 
title, however, has usually been assigned 
distinctively to the Dominican or Black 

*V Dukes' Antiquities, p. 51, quoting 
the Assize Boll of 40 Hen. Ill ; but I 




alludes to the Friars Mihors^ as established in Bridgnorth earlier 
than 40 Henry III (1256), we find them here nngnestionably within 
a year of that date. 

At the Assizes of October, 1272, the Jurors of the Borough 
made the following presentment as to a purpresture on the King's 
demesne,*^® yiz., that the Friars Minors (Fratres Minores) had, eight 
years back, enclosed the King's highway on the bank of the Severn; 
whereby the King was damaged yearly to the extent of half a merL 
" They also take," said the Jurors, " stones and rubbish from the 
bank of the Severn, and throw them into the River, whereby they 
have realized to themselves a piece of ground, 150 feet long and 50 
feet wide, and this they have enclosed. By which process the 
(artificial) bank causes the water to pound upon (inundare) the 
King's mills, the damage whereunto is five merks per annum, and 
this was done 16 years back/' 

At this time, too (1272), the Friars had built their Church, for 
the same Jurors reported that a Prisoner, who had been imprisoned 
by Hugh de Acovere, the Sheriff (1255-6), '^escaped to the Church 
of the Friars Minors, and abjured the realm/' 

There is no account of the Revenues of this House in the Vakr 
of 1535 ; but it came into lay hands at the dissolution. I refer 
elsewhere for a statement as to its subsequent disposal in the reign 
of James I.*^ 


Another, and still more humble. Establishment is associated with 
the religious history of this Town and its suburbs. The road which 
led hence towards Worfield, through Morf Forest, before it attains 
the summit of the hill which faces Bridgnorth on the East, passes 
under a cave, hewn out of the red sandstone rock of the district. 

Here, if names and legends are to have due authority, — " Here 
sat solitary sanctity,'^ for the spot is still called " The Hermitage;" 
and tradition says that a Brother of King Athelstan ended his days 
here in retirement from the world.*^^ 

cannot find the entry on the Koll itself. 
This and another document quoted by 
Mr. Dukes, under the Hospital of the Holy 
Trinity, belong, wherever derived &om, to 
the House of Ghrey Friars. 

*^ Placita Corona^ 56 Hen. Ill, memb. 
49 dorso. Similar devices, for increasing 
their territory, by the Dominican Friars 

at Shrewsbury, are related (Ststory of 
Shrewshuri/, vol. ii, p. 446). 

^ It was granted to John Beaumont 
in 36 Henry VIII (1544). (Dukes' Ap- 
pendix, p. xli). See also Dukes' J^' 
quitieSf p. 51. 

^^ This tradition has some sembisnoe 
of probability. King Edward the Elder 



Be that as it may, we have it upon better evidence than tradition, 
that at a subsequent period an Eremitical ceU existed in this place, 
that it was under the declared patronage of the Crown (probably as 
being situate in Morf Forest), and that the name by which it was 
known at this later period affords some corroboration to the story 
of its origin. 

In the reign of Edward III, several successive Hermits. occur on 
the Bolls, for they were ushered to their CeU with the same forma* 
lities, of Boyal Seal and Patent, as introduced a Dean or Pre- 
bendary of St. Mary Magdalene to the Constable of Bridgnorth or 
to the Sheriff of the County. 

On 2 Feb. 2 Edw. Ill (1328), John Oxindon was presented by 
the King to the '^ Hermitage of Athewildston, near Bridgnorth.^^ *^^ 

In 7 Edw. Ill (1333), Andrew Corbrigg was similarly presented 
to the ^^ Hermitage of Adlaston, near Bridgnorth.^' ^^ 

In 9 Edw. Ill (1335), Edmund de la Mare was presented to the 
Hermitage of Athelardeston.'^ ^^ 

In 20 Edw, III (1346), Roger Burghton was presented to the 

Hermitage above the high road, near Brugenorth.^' ^* 

I havp made no fiirther extracts in continuation of this list, nor 
is it important to do so. 'Hie Reader must judge whether the 
Legend above cited, when coupled with these traces of the name 
Athelward, or Ethelward,^^ are sufficient grounds for identifying 
the first Hermit with that literate Brother of King Athelstan, who 



had, by his three Wiyes, a numerous 
femily. Mahnsbury (Be Gestis Beffwn^ 
vol. ii, p. 25. b) has been particular to 
record the names and destinies of fourteen 
children, of whom jfive were Sons ; but of 
these fiye neither appears under circum- 
stances which can identify him with our 
Hermit. Athelstan, the eldest, succeeded 
to Edward's throne ; Ethelward, the 
second, known only for his love of Hte- 
rature, died soon after his Father, and was 
buried at Winchester. Edwin, the third, 
was banished the realm and drowned at 
sea under circumstances which affected 
the reputation of Athelstan, whose interest 
in getting rid of him was associated with 
a question as to his own legitimacy. 
Edmund and Edred, the fourth and fifth 
Sons of King Edward, successively came 
to the throne after the death of Athelstan. 

Fear of a fette like Edwin's may possibly 
have influenced some sixth and unnamed 
Brother of Athelstan to embrace an 
eremitical life, or possibly his second 
Brother, Ethelward, may have been an 
Anchorite. Three of his Sisters were 

^ Pat, 2 Edw. m, p. 1, m. 33. 

^ Pat. 7 Edw. in, p. 2, m. 27. 

*s» Pat. 9;Edw. in, p. 1, m. 26. 

«* Pat. 20 Edw. Ill, p. 1, m. 2. 

**^ The etymology I presume to be 
Ajjelajibef-fran (the stone or rock of 
Athelard or Ethelward) rather than 
Ajjelajiber-cun (the dwelling or enclosure 
of the same). In either case we have a 
caution as to accepting the modem ter- 
mination ton, as always significant of a 



has been mentioned in the note. We may at least conclude that 
the Hermitage was of Saxon origin. 

We have now to speak of some of the principal early tenures 
which existed within the Borough. We will commence with that 
which is usually called '' the Fee of Little Brug/' and was held of 
the Crown hj petit serfeantry. 


This suburb^ sometimes also called Southbridge^ consisted of two 
short streets^ tontinuations of Hungary or St. Mary's Street^ and 
of Whitburn or Raven Street. 

These small streets^ which lay outside St. Mary's and Whitburn 
gates^ unite in a road^ which^ passing first to the North-west after- 
wards branches off towards Shrewsbury and Ludlow. Thus the 
angle formed by these streets (one of which is still called Little 
Bridge Street) and subtended by the town wall^ will have been 
nearly identical with the " fee of Little Brug.'' *** 

In the early history of this suburb we have again to deal with a 
Legend^ and one which at first seems beyond the reach of any 
secondary test or investigation. 

The story is, that during the siege of Brug (by Henry I, in 1102) 
" Sir Ralph de Pitchford, one of the King's commanders, behaved 
himself so gallantly, that Henry granted him an estate in the neigh- 
bourhood, called the Little Brugge, to hold by the service of finding 
dry wood for the King's great chamber in the Castle as often as he 
should come there." 

Of all the subjects with which an Antiquary can have to deal, 
that of ignoring a Legend is the most thankless and distasteful. At 
the same time we scarcely ever meet with one which can be accepted 
as true in all its particulars, and it is no unpleasant task, instead of 
rejecting the whole, to extract from these shadowy hints of the past 
that element of reality which must have been the foundation of 

**• I give the Legend in the words of 
Grose {AnHguUies of England and Wales, 
vol. V, p. 3), which are nearly those of 
Camden (Rough's Edition, voL ii, p. 

396*). The points which require further 
corrohoration are that the first Grantee 
was Ralph de Pichford, and that he ob- 
tained it in the way stated. 


every bona fide tradition. Equally gratifying is it to find some ex- 
ternal illustration, which, however inadequate to prove the truth of a 
given Legend, may yet invest it with something of greater credibility 
than the unwritten memorial could independently command. 

Thus it is with the Legend before us.^Ordericus ^'^ has related, 
that the three persons entrusted by Earl Robert de Belesme with 
the defence of Brug Castle were Soger son of Corbet, Robert de 
Novavilla, and Ulger the Hunter; that William Pantulf, who 
negotiated with them as to the surrender of the fortress waa their 
kinsman, and that he promised them 100 librates of land, on behalf 
of the King, as a reward for such surrender. 

Now, another, and totally distinct, transaction, of the next Cen- 
tury, shows a probability that there was a relationship between the 
family of Pichford and the descendants of Ulger the Hunter.^^® 

Is it not then possible that the service rendered by Ralph de 
Pichford at this siege may have been of the same kind as Pantulf s, 
the exertion of some influence, with his presumed kinsman within 
the Castle, to procure its surrender? 

Reserving a detailed account of the family of Pichford to a 
future occasion, I will here offer such extracts only as relate to its 
tenure of Little Brug. 

A fragmentary Roll, in the Testa de Nevillj Which appears to 
have been drawn up about 1212, and when Hugh de Pichford had 
lately been succeeded by a Son Ralph, tells us that the latter then 
held, in the Hundred of Brug, Little Brug with its appurtenances, 
by gift of King Henry, grandfather (avi) of King John, by ser- 
vice of finding dry wood, for the Chamber in the Castle of Brug, 
at the King's coming there.^® The annual value of the tenure is 
stated at 39^. 

At the Inquest on the death of Ralph de Pichford, held 
April 20, 1253, his tenure in capite here, by service of finding fuel 
(carbones), is said to involve a receipt of 33«. 2d, rent.^^ 

^ Idher. xi, p. 107. 

^ The representatives of eacli contested 
certain property in Lee Brockhirst under 
writ of " mort d' ancestre.*' Moreover it 
is nearly certain that this same family of 
Pichford was descended from a great 
Shropshire Eeodary called in Domesday 
"Norman Venator," who also had a Bro- 
ther "Roger Venator;" and if Ulger 
Venator were akin to these ^Brothers, as 

his name would suggest, his relationship 
to Pichford becomes still more probable. 

*^ Testa de NeoUl^ p. 56. It must be 
observed that this record does not rightly 
compute the relationship which King John 
bore to Heniy I, who was his great-grand- 
father (proavus). The statement as to ser- 
vice is repeated in a contemporary Boll in the 
Bed Book of the Exchequer (fo. cxxiii). 

*« Escheat, 37 Hen. Ill, No. 56. 



At the Inquisition of 1255^ the Jnrors of the Borough, in answer 
to a question as to the varioos services due to the Castle, stated 
that '' the Lord of Albrighton had to find fuel for the Castle in 
respect of his fee of Little Brug."**^ The then Lord of Albrighton 
was John de Pichford, Son of the last Ralph, and in minority. 

In November 1274, the Jurors oi the Liberty reported John de 
Hchford as holding a certain fee in capite within the said Liberty 
of Brug, but they knew not in what way, or by what warrant, or 
from what time he so held it.^ 

In the Inquisitions on the death of John de Pychford, held at 
Pychford and Albrighton, on April 13, and May 6, 1285, his tenure 
in capite at Albrighton is mentioned,^^ but that of Little Brug is 
either omitted, or another Inquisition, relating thereto, is lost. 

At the Salop Assizes, October 1292, the Jurors of Brug exposed 
themselves to a penalty for not making a due report as to this 
Serjeantry.*** It however appeared that '^ Ralph de Kchford had 
certain tenants in the viU of Bruges, of whom he received 80«. per 
annum, rendering one cart-load of fiiel (carbonum) for the fire of the 
Castle, and one cart-load of hay for the wardrobe, as often as the King 
should happen to come to the Castle/' The warranty of this tenure 
being non-apparent, the Sheriff was ordered to summon the Tenant: 
and '^ Ralph de Pichford came, and well acknowledged the aforesaid 
service, but said that the King had never passed through the parts 
of Brugge since the said tenements came into his (Ralph's) hands/' 
The Jurors confirmed the statement.***^ 

A few Deeds and other Documents relating to some under tenan- 
cies in this fee, should be quoted. By deed, sans date, but which 
passed before 1252 : — 

1. Henry, son of Adam Doresc, of Little Brug, grants to Agnes, 
Daughter of Walter le Palmer, 18 acres in Little Brug, in the 
fields of Brug, paying for hinn to Sir Ralph de Pichford a chief- 
rent of 1^. 6rf., and to him a pair of gloves of \d. value, annually.— 

^ Mot. Bund, vol. ii, p. 59. 
**2 Ibidem, vol. ii, p. 88. 
*« Eschsat, 13 Edw. I, No. 14. 
*** FlacUa CoroM, 20 Edw. I, memb. 
37 dorso. 
*" A statement given by Mr. Dukes 

(AntiquUieSy p. 51), oonfiues the pecolitf 
service due on Little Brug with other 
service in Wales. The latter I presume 
to have been due from the same family of 
Piohford in virtue of their tenure in eapiie 
at Albrighton. 



Witnesses : Walter Aurifaber and Adam Lngain^ then Provosts 
of Brug &c.*^ 

, 2. Robert le Cuppare grants to Eobert Tinctor, of Bnig, for four 
merks^ the lands in Little Brugia, where the Grange of the pur- 
chaser is erected, and lying between lands which the same purchaser 
bought from Roger de Cenobio (elsewhere called "De Abbacia"), 
and land which was Symon de Cenobio^s. Rent to be 2d, — Wit- 
nesses: William Bonamy, John Tinctor (Provosts), Hamo Palmer, 
Walter Palmer, John de Castello, Henry Coyntrel, Philip de Petra, 
William Fitz Hamon (Palmer), Roger de la More &c.**7 

3. Walter Carpenter grants to Lecya, relict of Alan de Berham, 
for 20^., a messuage in Little Brug, which he bought from William 
Bonamy, bounded by land which Robert le Coliare held of Hamo 
Palmer, and by the King's Street &c. — Witnesses : Philip de Petra, 
William Bolding (Provosts), Robert le Cuppare, William le Becare, 
Robert Faber, Geoflfrey Faber &c.**8 

4. Robert Fitz William Fitz Adam delivers to Walter Palmer, by 
way of pledge for 5 merks (less 8rf.) which he owed him, a 
messuage in Whyteboume, lying between land of Henry Fitz 
Robert and land which Henry Textor held, and extending from the 
King^s highway to the wall of the town. He also delivers the land 
in Little Brug which he had from John, his Brother, and which lay 
between his own (Robertas) land and the land of Robert le Coppare. 
And if he shall not have paid half his debt at the Feast of the 
Nativity of the Virgin, in the 43d year of Henry III (Sept. 8, 1259), 
and the other half at the Feast of All Saints (Nov. 1) next following, 
the said Walter shall have the lands in inheritance for ever, ren- 
dering to Roger Fitz Elote 12rf. annually. And the Mortgagor 
will, in that case, warrant the premises as if sold for the aforesaid 
sum. — Witnesses : William Palmer and William Lambert, then 
Provosts, Hamo Palmer, Philip de Petra, William Bonamy, Hugh 
de Eudon, Roger de la More &c.*** 

5. Robert, son of Geoflfrey Faber, of Little Brug, grants to Roger, 

*•« Blakeway MSS. (apparently from 
Otley Charters). 

**^ Charters at Apley Park. 

*« Ibidem. 

**• Charter at Apley Park. By a pre- 
yiouB deed in the same collection John 
Fitz-William Fitz-Adam sells for 20f. 
(an.d resenring a rent of If.) to Walter 
Palmer, that moiety, which was coming 

to him by partition, of a house in the street 
called Wyteboume (described as to boun- 
dary like the aboye messuage^ except that 
Henry Fitz-Bobert is in this deed called 
Henry Fitz-Ayioe). — ^Witnesses : William 
Bonamy and Bichard Fitz-Eye, Froyosts, 
Hamund Palmer, William Palmer, Philip 
de Petra, Hugh de Eudon, Henry Fitz- 



son of Roger de More, of Brag, for 20#., an acre in the fields of 
Brug, bounded by the Vendor's Cnrtilage in Little Brug &c. 
Bent id. — ^Witnesses: William de Kantreyn, John de Castello, 
Boger Hamiind, Boger Bonamy, Richard de Petra, Andrew 
Bolding &c.^ 

A' trial of "Mort d'ancestre^' was to come before the T^ing at 
Salop in August 1267. Richard Fitz Bobert Fitz Philip sued Sibil, 
Isabel, Margery, and Alice, daughters of Bobert de la Pere (Petra), 
for some small parcels of land in Little Brug. The Plaintiff with- 
drew the suit, but a subsequent composition of the matter ended in 
his remitting all claim.*" 

Between the withdrawal of the suit of '^mort d'ancestre" and 
this final composition, another suit would seem to have been insti- 
tuted under a writ of " novel disseizin.^' This came on at the same 
Assizes. The question was whether Sibil de la Stone (de la Fere), 
Philip and William, her Sons, William de Huggel and John de 
Aldebur (Husbands probably of two of Sibil's Sisters), had disseized 
Bichard Fitz Robert of his tenement in Little Brug. The Defendants 
proved that Philip de la Stone bequeathed the premises to Emma 
his wife, for her life, with remainder to Isabel, Alice, Margery, and 
Sibil, his heirs. The Plaintiff was non-suited.*^^ 


This was also in Little Brug, but to introduce it circumstantially 
I must first notice a very ancient Deed, whereby Bichard de Piche- 
forte (who was deceased in 1176) gave, before the year 11 72, to 
Haghmon Abbey, for the health of his soul and with consent of 
Hugh his heir, the MiQ of Pichefort, and half a virgate of land 
there. — ^Witnesses : Gilbert, Prior of Buildwas ; Adam, a Monk, 
Brother of the Abbot; Nicholas Brother of the Grantor; Engelaid; 
Andrew Priest of Biriton; Bichard Chaplain of Salopesburi; Richard 
Fitz Odo de Ruttune.*^^ 

*«> Charter at Apley Park, 

*^i Placita coram JRe^fe, memb. 4 recto. 

*^2 Ibidem, memb. 7 dorso. This change 
ia the plaintiff's mode of procedure, though 
not explained by anything on the face of 
the record, is illustratiye of one of the 
special priyileges claimed for the Borough 
of Brug, and before alluded to. The writ 
of " mort d' ancestre " was not current in 

Brug, and the plaintifTs original proceed- 
ing under such writ would haye failed on 
that ground. He, therefore, chose the 
altematiye — a writ of " novel disseizin.' 
*^ Haghmon Ghartularj at Sundom 
(fo. 164) compared with Pope Alexander 
m's confirmation to £taghmon, dated 
May 14, 1172, and preserved in HarL 
MSS. 3868, fo. 11. 


Hugh de Pichford, Son and heir of Richard, and who, having had 
livery in 1176, died about 1211 or 1212, wishing I suppose to 
recover Pichford Mill, came to an agreement about the same with 
Richard, Abbot of Haghmon, whose term of office commenced 
after 1172, and ended before 1205. By this agreement Hugh gave 
to the Abbey, in exchange for Pichford Mill, certain lands at Little 
Brugia, held by Robert Palmer, William Fitz Oseline, Gilbert and 
Gerard, shoemakers, and Robert Pumerius. — ^Witnesses : Henry 
Malveisin, William Fitz Simon, Manculin, Gerin Bumel, Alan de 
Buldewas, Uger de Eton, Oliver his Brother, Geoffirey de la Beche, 
XJnfrey de Bois, Nicholas Barbe.^^* 

I presume that it was to this tenure in Little Brug that the 
Jurors of 1255 referred, when 4;hey stated the Abbey of Haghmon 
to he in receipt of 40 pence annual rent within the Borough.*^^ 

Later, as I think, in the century, the Abbey acquired a rent of 
2 shillings in the Low Town, under the will of Roger Fitz Osbert, 
of Ludlow. The Testator held altogether, property yielding 4s. 2d, 
annually, and John, son of William de Castello, was his tenant of 
the whole.*^^ 


I have already alluded to a source of annual revenue which, in 
the year 1167, arose to the Crown out of the Borough of Brug, and 
independently of the annual ferm^^'^ It was probably from some 
purpresture, or occupation of a part of the Royal demesne, which 
had not been taken into account when the ferm of the Borough, or 
rent payable by the Sheriflf, was settled. At Michaelmas, 1167, the 
SheriflF accounted 23*. 6rf. as ^^ the issues of the land of the Bur- 
gage of Brug.^^*^^ In the next year the receipt is similarly described, 
but it was 26*. 6rf., and is entered under the head of Purprestures.^^^ 
In 1169, 24i8, 7d. was thus received, and 26*. Sd. in 1170, and the 
same sum in every successive year till 1176 inclusive.*^^ 

At Michaelmas, 1177, the Sheriff accounted, under the head of 
purprestures and escheats, for " 20s. issues of land of the Borough 
of Brug, before the King gave it to Walter de Linley.^^*^^ After 

^^ Haghmon Ghartulary at Sundom, 
fo. 41, and Blakewaj MSS. 
*" Rot. Sund. vol. ii, p. 69. 
^^ Haghmon Chariulary (ut supra). 

«7 Supra, p. 292. 

*» Mot. Pvp. 13 Hen. H, Salop. 

469 460 461 jg^^. p^-p, ^6 cisdem annis. 




this the Sheriff ceases to account for any such item of Revenue. We 
infer that about July 1, 1177, King Henry II granted to Walter de 
Linley certain Crown-lands in the Borough of Brug which had 
previously yielded an annual revenue of 2 merks. 

Before the end of the century, the whole or a great part*^* of this 
land had passed to a female, variously described as Sibil de Linley and 
Sibil de Brocton. What may have been her relationship to Walter 
de Linley I will not here conjecture, but her interest in Brocton 
arose under feoffment of Richard de Linley, who therefore may have 
succeeded Walter in this land at Brug, and transmitted the same to 
Sibil. She, in whatever way of succession, became doubly a tenant 
in capite of the Crown, and, as such, her marriage was in the 
King's gift. 

Before Michaelmas, 1190, she fined with the King in a sum of 
3 merks, "for license of marrjring herself.**^ Thia license of course 
involved the privilege of remaining single, and such I imagine to haye 
been Sibil^s application thereof, for within nine years following she 
granted the whole of her lands in Brocton and in Brug to Lilleshall 
Abbey. She further bestowed her body for burial in that house. 

This grant was included in King John^s general confirmation to 
Lilleshall, dated 31 Aug. 1199.*** It is also mentioned in the con- 
firmation of Pope Honorius III (1216-1227), to that Abbey.^^ 

Such were the circumstances under which the Canons of Lilles- 
hall obtained their first interest within the Borough of Brug, an 
iuterest which in 1255 was represented by the receipt of 30 shillings 
annual rent.*^ 

Their possessions here were greatly increased by their acquisition 
of the Hospital of St. John in the reign of Edward IV; ^7 but the 

^ I use thb qualification with refer- 
enoe to a previous statement (p. 115, 
note 49), from which it would appear 
that the Linley interests in or near Bridg- 
north did not all centre in Sihil or deyolye 
to Lilleshall. 

^ S.ot. Pip, 2 Bio. I, Salop, where she 
is called Sihil de Brocton. 

^^ It is singular that the Charter of 
31 Aug. 1199, as entered on the Bolls of 
King John's reign (Rot, Cart. p. 17), does 
not contain this item. But there must 
have been two Charters of the same date, 
one rather fuller than the other. The 
fonner is rehearsed and confirmed in an 

inspeximus of Bichard 11 (Sot. Pat. 18 
Bio. II, p. 1, memb. 7), and containB 
Sibil de Linley's grant. King John's 
second Charter to Lilleshall, dated May 
31, 1213, mentions the grant, but this is 
not the Charter inspected by Bichard II 
(Rot, Cart, B. Johannis, p. 192.) 

^ Harl. MSS. 3868, fo. 24. TheBuU 
of Pope Honorius also confirms ** a fisheiy 
which the Canons had in the Biyer of the 
Town of Brug called Severn," but tlw 
Chrantor of this is not mentioned. 

** Bot. Mund. voL ii, p. 59. 

^ Supraj p. 346. 



Valor of 1535, before quoted with reference to the subject, leaves 
the two properties Tmdistinguished.4«8 A quit-rent however of 
13*. 4rf. then .payable by the Abbey to the Lord of Netherton 
(Quatford) seems to have been in probable connexion with their 
Linley tenure. 


This House was favoured with the patronage, and perhaps occa- 
sionally with the presence of King John.**** Among other things 
he granted to the Nuns a weir, called " Withlakeswere,'' in the 
River Severn, near to Brug. 

About the year 1225, Alditha, Prioress of Brewode, and her 
Convent enfeofiFed Henry Pitz Robert of Brug in one half of* this 
weir, reserving an annual rent of 6s,^^ Cecilia, another Prioress, 
granted the other moiety to the same Feoffee, and at a similar 

That the grants were nearly contemporary appears from the same 
witnesses having attested each, viz. Sir Henry d'Aldithley, William 
Pantulf, and Walter de Hugford. 

It .would appear that the Abbey of Shrewsbury later in the 13th 
century acquired some tenant right in this Weir, for two deeds 
remain on the Chartulary, by one of which William de Brug, son of 
Richard the Fisherman, quit-claims to thie Abbey, all right in the 
fishery called Withlakeswere. — Witnesses : Sir Albinus de la Rode, 
Andrew de Northley, Symon de Sabrina.*'^ 

The other deed is a grant to the same Abbey of all his right in 
the said Weir by John, Son of John Fisherman, of Brug. — ^Wit- 
nesses: William de Cantrey, Henry de Amleg, William Bolding.^^a 

The Inquisition of 1255 registers the Nuns^ of Brewood as in 
receipt of 6s, Sd. rent within this Borough, and their income ap- 
pears like that of the Knights Templars and Hospitallers to have 
been unassessable to the King^s TaUages.*'^^ Probably, also, it was 

^® VcUor ScelenctgHouti toL iii, p. 197. 

^^ King John was at Brewood in April, 
1200, Januaiy, 1206, and AugoBt, 1207. 
A Charter of his to the White Nuns of 
St. Leonard, ^ted Sept. 1, 1212, is extant 
(Sot, Cart, p. 187), but oonoems other 
localities. The specific grant, quoted 
aboTe, is not preserved on the Bolls. 

^ Salop Chartulary, No. 876. 

^ Ibidem, No. 143. William, Son of 
Bichard le Fescur of Brug, oocurt in 

^7^ Ibidem, No. 139. A deed at Aplej 
dated 1265, is attested by the same three 

^ Sot. Swnd, Tol. ii, p. 50. 



in this instance understated, for a few years later in the Centorj 
the Nuns appear in receipt of other income in the Borough quite 
unconnected with the Weir above-mentioned. 

'^ Cecilia, formerly Daughter of Henry Fesun, in her maidenhood, 
grants to Nicolas, son of Walter Palmer, for 20*., a plot of land 
at the Standelf,*^* which she held of the Nuns of Brewode, of the 
tenement of Solton.^^s — j^ jg bounded by the lands which Henry 
de Castro holds of the Lords of Glazeley, and lands of Boger Fitz 
Henry, — She grants it, together with the Grange, and with 2*. 6d. 
annual rent which the Purchaser is to receive from Curtilages of the 
same tenement, and pay over to the Nuns. — To hold of the said 
Cecilia from the Feast of St. Andrew, 6 Edward (Nov, 30, 1277), 
for 20 years, at a rent of 6d. If, at the end of that term, the pur- 
chase-money {20s,) be not repaid, the Mortgagee shall continue 
to hold the premises at the aforesaid rent, till it is so repaid.— 
Witnesses: B/Oger de Mora, William Bolding (Provosts), William 
de Cantreyn William Palmer, Boger Fitz Henry, Stephen Bolding, 
Henry de Castro, William Bonamy, Richard de Petra.^^ *76 

The Valor of 1535, gives a rent of only 5 shillings as receivable 
by the Nuns of Brewood from lands in '' Brigenorthe ;" ^'^ but the 
Minister's Accounts at the Dissolution tell a different tale. They 
enumerate the following receipts in " Brignorth :" — Free Bents 3*., 
Bent of a Croft &c. Zs., Ferm of one tenement 6*.,*'^® making a total 
of 11 shillings. 


An authentic and very curious account of the Templar's posses- 
sions throughout England, drawn up as early as the year 1185, 

*^* A Stcmdelf IB a BtQne-quarry,aplaoe 
in which to delve for sioTie {History of 
Shrewsbury, vol. ii, p. 462) ; where how- 
ever the writers are mistaken as to the 
probability of the word having been 
peculiar to Shrewsbury. 

*'* A family named Sholton, or Scel- 
tone, occurs in other deeds as holding 
land near St. Leonard's Church-yard 
(supra, p. 341) and in Astley Abbots. 

*76 Charter at Apley Park. The situa- 
tion of this land may be gathered from 
another deed in the same collection, 
whereby Jane, daughter of Walter Bussel, 

grants to John Pemel, Chaplain, a ciff- 
tilage outside the Postern gate, near the 
Cemetery of St. Leonard, lying between 
lands of Thomas Hichemon and the way 
towards Cantereyn and extending from 
the ditch under the town wall to the land 
of the White Nuns of Brewode. Eendering 
12rf. to the heirs of Henry Fesun and a 
Rose to the Grantor. — Witnesses : John 
Geffrey and Bobert le Knyt Provosts, 
Stephen Bolding, &c. 

^ Valor Ecclesiasticus, voL iii, p. 198. 

*^ New MonasHcony vol. v, p. 731. 



contains^ under the Bailiwick of Warwick (which included Shrop- 
shire) the following entry : — " At Brugia half a certain mansion 
came to the hands of the brethren, which used to render annu- 
aQy 2s/' ^79 

In 1255 the Templars possessed two houses here, of 5 shillings 
annual value, and they were not subject to the King's Tallagea. Their 
Tenants were life-tenants, and would not scott with the Burgesses 
for the trade carried ,on in the said houses.*®^ This, and, it may be 
added, the former immunity arose from the chartered privileges of 
this once powerful Order. 


The existent Charters of this House do not, that I can find, give 
any information as to the way in which it acquired property in 

In 1255, however, the Abbot is returned as receiving 12«. annual 
rent here.^^ This rent is in 1291 stated at 165.^^ 

About 1296, " Brother William, Abbot of Buldewas, as Executor 
of the will of Master Alan le Palmer of Brug, sells for 6 merks 
to William Selimon, son of Robert Tinctor, a house in High Street, 
which the deceased had left to the Abbot's disposal, to sell it, and 
employ the money in pious uses for the soul of the Testator. — ^To 
hold of the Lord of the fee at \d. rent, — ^Witnesses : Roger de la 
More, John Glidde (Provosts) of Brug, William de Kantreyn, 
Nicholas Rondolf, Fremund de Erdrnton, Robert Crouke, and 
others.^^ "^ 

The Conventual Seal remains attached to this deed. 

In 1535 the rents receivable by the Abbot of Buildwas, in Ruley 
and Brigenorth, are returned at 13^. 6rf.j^®* and the Minister's 
Accounts of the following year estimate the rents in Rowley at 8*., 
and in Brygenorthe at 5«. 6rf.^^ 

479 HSS. Vol. formerly in custody of 
the Queen's Bemembrancer, now at 
Carlton Bide. Extracts are given, New 
MonasUcon, vol. vii, p. 821, numb. 

^ Sot Smd. Yol. ii, pp. 59, 60. 

^ JRot Swnd, vol. ii, p. 59. 

^ Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 260. 

«3 Charter at Apley Park. 

^ Valor JEcclesiasticuSy vol. iii, p. 191. 

■*" Monastioony vol. v, p. 361. 


Other BeligioaB Communities had property within the Borough 
in 1255, viz., the Priory of Wenlock, the Abbeys of "Wigmore and 
Crokesden, and the Knights Hospitallers, their respective annnal 
receipts on the same being 10^., 20*., 10*. and Ss.^^ I can give no 
farther particulars of any of these possessions, except that the Abbot 
of Wigmore's fee (which might have been acquired during the 
ascendancy of the Mortimers in the Borough) is described as 
'^ terra CampeU; " that it lay apparently in the direction of Old- 
bury, and that in the middle of the thirteenth century Walter 
Aurifaber was a tenant therein. 

We will conclude our accoimt of Bridgnorth with notices of one 
or two families distinguished in the history of the early Borough, 
and whose names occur under such circumstances as will best illus- 
trate the state of manners and society at the period. 


The &mily of greatest wealth and importance was undoubtedly 
that of Le Palmer, whose genealogy and branches I give chiefly on 
the authority of a number of deeds which relate to their interests 
in and about the Town. 

One of the earliest members of this house seems to have been — 

(a) Robert le Palmer. T have no other notice of him than 
that which has been mentioned above,^ where his tenancy in Little 
Brug was transferred by Hugh de Kchford to Haghmon Abbey. 
I cannot say that he was brother of Walter. 

{b) Amilia, his Widow, was a tenant in the High Street^ 
when — 

(c) Amilia, their Daughter, granted to John Vintner, a native 
of Warwick, her share of inheritance in the same street, for an 
entrance-fee of 2 merks and a rent of 3*. — ^Witnesses: William Hod 
and Geoffrey, Chaplains ; Henry Bacon and Roger Pitz William, 
Provosts; Alan Fitz Robert, Hamo Palmer, Roger Wondac, Philip 

«• Mot Sund, vol. ii, 69. ^ Supra, p. 369. 







CO CO ir'" 
»-• M* 


— 11 

g.g cr" 

WJ 3 §. 

co w® 


" til 

M ET — 
to B 


^ S S SB 
(w 3 3 ® 

,_, to to L_l 

00 ^^ 


III 2 

»S H- h* Sf ^- 


g i 

a. * srcD 


t« to 

00 co^ 


DD QD ^^ 

• P &* 
to tf 2 



to M 

<o to 

* CO 


* rS O 

2* ^^ ^^ 
. OX 





s s 

5 Q @ 

L-J S^ H-i 


5 o 

§ B- 




3 o- 














to »^ M &* 

• a>cnE< 



to * 






•^ • p3 to es 6^ 

^ nn !_• 


' to t! ,— 

<ito- nd 

g,* B 




<6 ^^ •** 

to ^ 



Fitz Richard, William Tinctor, William Fitz Godewin, Hugh 

(d) Walter le Palmer, the undoubted Founder of two great 
families in the Borough, has occurred only in the year 1182, as 
before mentioned.*®^ 

(e) Hamo le Palmer, alias Hamo Fitz Walter. Has already 
occurred under the various dates of 1225, 1233, 1252, and 1256.^ 

On July 8, 1230, he was called upon to warrant half a mes- 
suage in Brug to Roger Chete, whom Alice, widow of Roger de 
Stircheleg, sued for the same as her dower.*®^ 

His alleged complicity in the crime of his Soi;i Walter, and his 
non-appearance to answer the charge at the Salop Assizes of 
January, 1256, were subjects of two distinct fines. In the first 
instance, he had put in bail for his appearance, Philip de Petra 
being his surety in the sum of 20^. When however he did not 
appear, Walter, his Son, compounded the matter, by fine of 15 
merks, which covered the bail, and released Hamo from aU obliga^ 
tion to appear. The Abbot of Buildwas was surety for the latter 
fine. It was at the same time stated, tha;fc Hamo, who must have 
now been an old man, had fallen from his horse, and that it was not 
possible to carry him to the Assizes.^^ 

How long he survived these events is a question, but it seems to 
be he, rather than his son Hamo, who attests a deed already quoted, 
and which must have passed in or shortly before 1259.^^ 

He has already appeared as having served, at least thrice, as Pro- 
vost of the Borough. 

His house, in the High Street, was separated from that of his 
brother Walter, by an intervening messuage, which was sold by 
•Robert Fitz Walter Frut to Bobert Tinctor for 14 merks, a good 
sum at the time of the transaction, which must have been between 
the years 1251 and 1256. This deed, which is primarily attested 

^* Charten at Apley Park, which are 
alBo my Touchers for all deeds of the 
Borough, and statements groimded on 
such deeds, unless a distinct reference be 

*» Supra> p. 254. 

«o Supra, pp. 51, 256, 267, and 279. 

^ :PlacUa apud WestnUtuter, Trinity 
Term, 14 Hen. m, m. 14 dorso. 

^ Salop AuUea^ 40 Hen. Ill, m. 10 

recto. The Pipe BoU of 40 Hen. m 
confuses these fines with others which 
were on Master Walter le Pahner's pri- 
Tate account; e.ff.,he is said tohaTCowed 
15 merks for his own transgression, and 
40 merks for replcTjing his Father^s 
lands, which was the couTerse of the true 
*• Supra, p. 816. 



by the Purchaser and Henry Coyntrel (as Provosts), has also for 
witnesses Hamo Palmer, Walter, brother of the said Hamo, Walter 
Aurifaber, John de Castello, William Bonami, William Bolding^ 
and John Tinetor. 

Prom this, as well as from his earlier appearance in life and qarlier 
death, we presume Hamo de Palmer to have been the older of the 
two brothers. 

He is a constant attendant in the Borough Court, and his attesta- 
tions of deeds are numberless. Besides his property in High Street, 
his interests in Little Brug, and in the '^ fields towards Cantreyn,^ 
are incidentally mentioned. 


(/) Walter le Palmer, brother of Hamo, is occasionally called 

Walter Palmer, Burgess of Brug,'' and "Walter Fitz Walter;" 
each name, I presume, distinguishing him from his Nephew, the 

Of his innumerable attestations of Borough Deeds, and more 
personal transactions, I find none which I can suppose to be of 
earlier date than about 1235. 

In Michaelmas Term, 1249, he is sued as tenant of a MiU at 
Dudmaston, by Sibil, widow of Peter de Dudemanston, who claimed 
a third of this and several other tenements as her dower ^*^* 

One of his leasehold transactions dates about 1250, and has 
been already referred to.*^^ 

At Michaelmas, 1254, he is charged on the BoUs as Walter le 
Palmer de Bruges, with an amercement of 20 merks, which had 
been inflicted by Justices of the Forest lately in eyre. It was for 
trespass with his hounds, an^ his Nephew, Master Walter le Palmer, 
was amerced in double the sum for a like oflfence.*^ 

At the County Assizes,' January, 1256, he stands first of the 
Borough Jurors, and seems to have been unimplicated in the dis- 
graceful affairs which affected so many chief persons of the Town, 
and, amongst others, his own relations. 

He occurs again as a Mortgagee, in or shortly before 1259, in a^ 
deed already cited.*^ He has also been above noticed under the 
year 1261.^ 

About March, 1265, he occurs as a Lessee of lands in Astley 

^ PlaeUa apud Wieatm. 33 and 34 
Hen. m, memb. 16 recto. 
«* Supra, p. 315. 

«• Sot. Pip, 38 Hen. HI, Salop. 
^ Supra, p. 315. 
*» Supra, 316. 




Abbots. The deed (an Indenture of two parts) is curious, — "I, 
Walter, son of Walter Gilbert, have made over (tradidi) to 
Walter Palmer of Brug 5 acres in the manor of Estley which 
Walter my Father acquired in frank marriage with Emma, my 
Mother ; — for one Cloak of coarse cloth (pro uno pallio de Burello) 
which he gave on entry. — ^To hold from the feast of the Annuncia- 
tion 49 Hen. Ill for 16 years. — Rendering annually 20d. at Brug." 
A clause of re-entry, in case of non-payment of the rent, is followed 
by clauses as to warranty and alternate sealing. — ^Witnesses: William 
Palmer, Henry de Amleg, Provosts of Brug, William de Cantreyn, 
William Bonami, William Bolding, Roger Fitz Henry, Stephen 

The Assize Roll of Sept. 1267, shows Walter, son of Walter le 
Palmer impleaded by Nicholas Fitz Richard Brun for disseizing him 
of two shops in Brug. The action failed.^*' 

At the Assizes of October, 1272, both Walter le Palmer and 
Nicholas le Palmer, whom I suppose his son, were reported by the 
Borough Jurors as having sold wine " against the Assize.^^^^ 

And this is the latest notice I find of him in any dated documents. 

As Purchaser, Lessee, or Mortgagee, of tenements in, or near, the 

Borough^ he occurs in no fewer than 33 separate deeds. His 

property or interests lay in the fields of Brug generally, in the fields 

near St. Leonard's, the fields towards the " Old Maladrerie'' and 

towards Oldbury and " Cantreyn ;" in High Street, *' Witebume" 

Street, " Hungrey^' Street, and " Cougate^' Street, in the ground 

between the Castle and the River, in Little Brug, and in Astley 

{g) Nicholas le Palmer, apparently son and heir of Walter 
lafit mentioned, has already occurred, as Nicholas Fitz Walter, 
in the year 1252, and therefore long before his Father's death.^ 
He occurs also, both as a purchaser of land and a witness, in 
deeds, which, if I mistake not, past during his Father's lifetime. 

*99 rphis deed is indorsed coeyally, 
" Scriptum.Walteri de Stocton." 

*^ Flaoita coram Bege, 51 Hen. Ill, 
memb. 6 recto. I presume Walter, son of 
Walter le Palmer, to be so called to dis- 
tinguish him from his iN^ephew, and not 
that the Defendant in this suit was a 
younger son of the subject of this notice. 

That class of names which maj be called 
"Patronymics" were especially used in 
the law courts. 

»» Placita Coroms, 66 Hen. Ill, memb. 
50 dorso. 

^ A former account (pp. 314, 316) 
shows him twice in office as Provost. 

«B Supns p. 257. 



He has just been mentioned in conjunction with his Father in 
October, 1272. 

In the Inquisitions of November, 1274, he stands sixth on the 
Borough Jury.^^* He is a frequent witness in 1277, and from 
thence till about 1283. In August, 1288, he was deceased, and his 
Son Edmund in possession of his estate. 

He added considerably to his inheritance. He occurs as Pur- 
chaser or Mortgagee in 21 separate deeds, as Vendor, only in one. 
His interests are mentioned in various localities, besides those 
wherein his Father had been concerned, viz. in the fields towards 
Tasley, the fields towards the Hok,^^ and the fields on Severn-bank ; 
in premises on the Castle Hill, and in others adjacent to the North- 
gate; in the Sfandelf (near St. Leonardos), and in Leceline (now 
Listley) Street. 

{h) Of Agnes, daughter of Walter le Palmer, and presumed to 
have been Sister of Nicholas, I have only the notice already quoted, 
where she became a grantee in Little Brug^^ somewhat earlier than 
the time (1252) when Nicholas (her Brother) first appears. 

We now pass to the five sons of Hamo le Palmer, first cousins of 
Nicholas and Agnes. Of these — 

(i) William le Palmer, often called William Fitz Hamon and 
WiUiam Hamund, was the eldest. He has Already been mentioned 
as holding the office of Provost during his Father^s lifetime, and 
indeed prior to the year 1251.^^ In a charter of 1250 or 1251 
(also before alluded to) William Fitz Hamund appears as a land- 
holder in the fields of Brug.^^ He has occurred already as 7th 
Juror on the Borough Inquest of 1255, as 5th Juror at the Assizes 

*>* Mot, Sund. vol. ii, p. 88. 

'^ This and some other localities, men- 
tioned in ancient deeds, may he curiously 
identified hy an old Map of the Borough, 
a copy of which is in possession of Sidney 
Steadman Smith, Esq., of Bridgnorth, and 
has heen my chief topographical guide 
while engaged with that neighbourhood. 
This Map (which appears to hare been 
planned soon after the dissolution of 
Beligious Houses) distinguishes a large 
tract of ground lying to the north of the 

road, which led from Whytbume-gate to 
Tasley, as the « Hooke Feilde." A tree 
standing in the centre of the said field is 
also indicated by the Map. This tree 
(probably an oak, and a well-known land- 
mark) gaye name, I presome, to the field ; 
for Ak^ Ake^ Ock, and Hoc^ are all old 
forms of the word now spelt oak. 

^ Supra, p. 356. 

w Supra, p. 316. 

*** Ibidem. 



of 1256, as ProTost in 1269, as Visor of Tepairs to the King's 
house in 1260 ;^^ and all or most of these were in his Father's life- 
time. He was again Provost in 1265, Ist Juror for the Borough at 
the Assizes of 1272, 2d Juror on the Inquest of 1274,"<^ and a 
frequent witness of Borough deeds in 1277. In or about the last- 
named year he grants to William Lambert a tenement in Mill- 
Street (in vico versus molendinum) bounded by lands of the Grantee 
and of William de Baggesovere, and extending from the King's 
Highway to the Severn. — Witnesses : Roger de la More and William 
Bolding, Provosts, William de Cantreyne, Emeric Tinctor, Henry 
de Arnleg, Bobert le Knyght, William Kanne,*^^^ Roger Chete, 
Stephen Chete. 

No certain mention of him has occurred as living at any subse- 
quent date ; but Alice, his widow, consents to a grant by William 
their son, about six years later, and which will be presently 

The property of William Palmer, in and about Bridgnorth, seems 
to have lain in High Street and Mill Street, in the fields towaids 
the ''Old Maladrerie,'' in the neighbourhood of the Hospitals of 
St. John and St. James, and in Astley Abbots. 

{k) Hamo, another son of Hamo lb Palmer, also occurs during 
his Father's lifetime. He is mentioned as Hamo, son of Hamo 
de Brug, as negotiating some fine in 1251.^^^ It must be 
he, rather than his Father, who officiated as 12th Juror at the 
Borough Inquest of 1255,^^^ also certainly he, whom Roger, son of 
William le Bemer, impleaded for disseizing the latter of a tenement 
in Brug, at the Assizes of January, 1256.^^^ Hamo came into Coort 
to answer the charge, but was non-suited. This Hamo has already 
occurred under dates of 1260, 1267-8, and 1272, when he was 
third of the Borough Jurors.*^^ He also occurs, and generally as 

«» Supra^ pp. 306 (hit), 315, and 257. 

«o Supra, pp. 816, 309, and 310. 

'^* The first member, who has occurred 
to me, of a family afterwards well known 
in the Borough, and from which Cann- 
Hall in the Low Town deriyed its name. 

An oval seal, attached to this deed, 
bears the deyice of a " grey-hound.** 

"2 Sot Pip, 35 Hen. HI, Salop, Nova 

*" Supra, p. 306. 

«" Salop Astizes, 40 Hen, HI, memb. 2 
recto. I mention the Defendant*s attend* 
ance in Court, as it happens to distiiigiu^ 
him accurately from Hamo, senior, whose 
appearance, in any cause at the same 
Assizes, would have been inconsistent if 
not impossible. 

*^ Supra, pp. 257, 268. 



following William^ his Brother^ in deeds of 1276-1277| and as late 
as about 1283. 

I find him possessed of lands in the^fields of Brug^ and a tene« 
ment under the Castle. 

His Son^ simply called Boger Fitz Hamon^ or Roger Hamund^ 
occurs in seyeral deeds later in the Century^ and in one^ dated 
Feb. 25, 1294. 

(Q Master Walter le Palmer, Clerk, was another son of 
Hamo le Palmer, Senior. He, too, appears in life, some time before 
his Father's decease. On April 30, 1250, a King's writ enjoins 
the Sheriff of Salop to recover and produce certain chattels of one 
Bobert de Baudak. who had, " for larceny, abjured the realm.'' A 
silver drinking-cup, of 12 shillings value, is specified as in posses- 
sion of Master Walter, Son of Hamo de Brug.^^* 

In 1254 he had been amerced 40 merks by Justices of the Forest 
for trespass of his hounds.^^^ In January, 1256, he appears, as 
before related, guilty of murder.^^® At the same time he was 
acquitted of disseizing Isabella le Caugi (Oaugi), Jafie, Julia, and 
Florence, her Sisters, of a tenement in Brug, and the latter pro- 
nounced in misericordid ; but they were pardoned any amercement 
as being under age.^^^ Under the Manor of Church Stretton, at 
the same Assizes, Master Walter de Bruges is returned as offering 
100*. fine, to be under plevin, his surety being the Abbot of 
Buildwas.^^ This was probably in connexion with his first-named 
offence. Again, at these Assizes, Edith, widow of William Turner, 
impleaded Master Walter de Briges, for a third part, of 30 acres, 
in Diddlebury, as her dower. Walter called Hugh de Beckbury 
to warranty. The latter came forward with such warranty, and 
proved that the Plaintiff's husband had been hung for felony at 
Coventry. This was fetal to her daim.^^^ 

On the whole, at Michaelmas, 1256,*^^ Walter le Palmer is entered 
on the Pipe Boll as having owed £5. for his fine for plevin, 30 merks 
(balance of his amercement for trespass with hounds), 15 merks 
''for his fine for transgression" (really for compounding as to the 

"• Fines, yol. ii, p. 76. 
"7 Sot Fip. 88 Hen. III. 
•" Supra^ page 51,. 

*i9 Salop Assizes^ 40 Hen. Ill, memb. 
1 dorso. 

*^ Ibidem, ^lacita CoroncB^ memb. 4 
^ Ibidem, memb. 8 dorso. 
8« JEU>t lip. 40 Hen. HI, Salop. 



non-appearance of his Father Hamo at the Assizes)^ and 40 merks 
"for haying the lands and chattels of his Father" (really, for 
recovery of his own lands and chattels). The whole of these debts 
were paid, before the Sheriff closed the year's account at the 
Exchequer, the Abbots of Buildwas and Shrewsbury having been 
the Debtor's Sureties. His occurrence in 1260 has been already 

In Easter Term, 1263, he acknowledges, in the law-courts at 
Westminster, a debt of 8 merks, as due from him to Jane, widow 
of Hugh de Beckbury.^^ The fine, levied on the same day, between 
the parties shows the said debt to have been for some land in Old- 
bury. It has already been set forth.^^^ 

Later in the century he occurs as purchasing various parcels of 
land in the Manor of Astley Abbots, from Adam, son of Matilda 
EngHsh ( Anglicae) . 

In the troubled times of which we are speaking (1264-5), Master 
Walter le Palmer's political sympathies were not those of his family 
or native town. His previous antagonism with the law was of a 
kind which is found not unfrequently to generate sentiments of 
disloyalty. — 

In the year 1266 or 1267, and before the famous ^'dictum de 
Kenilworth" was issued, Roger de Somery and Walter de St. Omer 
were commissioned,' as Justiciars in the County of Salop, to settle 
amercements and fines on those whose lands had been granted 
away, or seized, by the Crown, because of the late disturbances. 
The business of these Justiciars in Shropshire was very trifling; 
indeed, the total disloyalty of the County may be measured by an 
arrear of amercements (viz. ^17. 3*. 4d.) which the Sheriff collected, 
and accounted for at the Exchequer, after the said Justiciars left 
the district. 

Master ^' Walter le Paumer'^ forestalled some prospective -and 
undefined liabilities, in regard to his late conduct, by negotiating a 
composition with these Justiciars. He proffered a fine of 40*. ^' to 
have the good- will of the King/'^*^ and it was a prudent measure. — 

The ^^ dictum de KenUworth," which proposed to classify and 
punish all the late treasonable practices, according to a fixed ratio, 
was meanwhile put into operation. Under its provisions, Nicholas 

«« Supra, p. 52. 

*** Placita apud Wesfm. 47 Hen. Ill, 
5 recto. 
*=» Supra, p. 134. 

^ Mot Pip. 63 Hen. Ill, Salop (con- 
taining an account for two previous 


de St. Martin^ another Justiciar employed for the purpose^ assessed 
Master Walter le Panmer of Bruges to a fine of 100.*., being 
" a redemption of five years/' for a messuage and half virgate in 
Oldbury, and for other small parcels of land. This amercement 
identifies Master Walter le Palmer as a rebel of the second class/^ 
that is, as one who had taken open part with the late Earl of 
Leicester, at some time or other, though he had not, like one or 
two greater men, persisted in insolent defiance of the King after 
the battle of Evesham. 

But the wily Clerk evaded the operation of the " dictum de Eenil- 
worth^^ altogether. He pleaded his previous fine of 40*. as settling 
aU his misdemeanours in question, and paid it. This plea was 
allowed too at the Exchequer, after reference to the '^Roll of 
Amercements before William de St. Omer/^^^ 

Among Pleas summoned before the King, at Salop, in August, 
1267, it appeared that the Prioress of the White Nuns of Brewood 
did not prosecute a suit of novel disseizin, which she had instituted 
against Master Walter le Paumer, of Brug. The Defendant had 
acknowledged that 18 pence annual rent was due from him to the 
said Prioress, which, I presume, involved the question at issue.®^* 

On June 3, 1272, a fine was levied at Warwick, '' between Master 
Walter de Brigge complainant (querentem), and Hugh de Eudon 
and Alice his wife, defendants (impedientes), of 5 acres in Brigge, 
whereof was j^fea of warranty. The Defendants acknowledged the 
right of the Complainant as of their own gift. To hold &c. at a 
rent of 2d. payable to themselves, and rendering services due to 
the Lord of the fee. For this Walter gave 8 merks.^^® 

The lands of Master Walter le Palmer, in different localities in 
Brug, are mentioned in two deeds of the year 1277 ; and a third 
deed, which speaks of him as if deceased, will have passed within 
fifteen years of that date. 

His possessions are mentioned as lying in the fields of Brug 
generally, in the fields towards Taswood and towards the Hok, in 
Diddlebury, Oldbury, and Astley Abbots. 

(m) His Brother, Master Ajjln le Palmer, has only occurred in 

^^ Rebels of this class were amerced in i ^ Pedes Mnium, 56 Hen. Ill, Salop, 

a sum equal to a presumed five years' The fine is of course a composition of a 

income of their land. fictitious suit, in fact nothing more than 

638 j^f^ pip^ ibidem. a legal conveyance of the premises. 

«» Placita coram Be£fe, 51 Hen. Ill, 
memb. 5 dorso. 


two deeds^ already alluded to or quoted.^ In the first (of date aboat 
1283) his Nephewi William^ Son of William le Palmer^ grants him 
for his love and service^ and with consent of Alice^ William^s 
Mother, a messuage in High Street, at a id, rent. The second 
deed (of date about 1296) shows the Abbot of Buildwas, as Master 
Alan's Executor, selling the same messuage, as before stated. 

(») BiCHABD, the last of the five sons of Hamo le Palmer, occurs 
only in the year 1256, and under circumstances which will appear 
in oar account of another family of the Borough. 

(o) Of Edmund le Palmer, Son and Heir of Nicholas, I have little 
more to say than is involved in the pedigree already given, and in 
the respective lists of Provosts and Burgesses of Parliament, who 
officiated for the Borough. His properly seems to have been in the 
same localities as that of his Father and Orand&ther. I find him 
as a purchaser in eight different deeds, as exchanging in one, and 
as a Grantor in two. His house in the High Street is dignified by 
the name of ^^a Hall^^ (Aula Edmundi le Palmer). 

I will not further transgress my general limits as to date, in rela- 
tion to this family. A few particulars of other members thereof 
have already been given in the Pedigree and lasts just referred 

I proceed to speak of another family with which some matters 
of local interest were connected, — ^viz. that of — 


which undoubtedly took name from its residence in, or near to, 
the Castle. 

I have cited under Quatford the two deeds which establish the 
greater part of the annexed pedigree.^* 

(a) Of William de Castello, I can only say further, that under 
the name of William Fitz Henry, he attests several deeds which 
passed in the Borough Court, and, as I think, during the second 
quarter of the 13th Century. 

»» Supni, pp. 370, 363. » Supra, p. 113, notes 39, 40. 





>S*§5 Et 

8 53 ^ 

• eooB a 



• ft 5 

fcO c 

• & • 

fcoF F 
S* I 



to u 





{b) John de Castello^ his eldest Son and Heir^ was a person 
much more prominently concerned in local affairs. His earliest 
occurrence is perhaps his attestation^ as John Fitz William, of a 
Borough deed, which passed during the Prepositure of Hugh de 
Eudon and Simon de Abbatia (called Praetors).^ 

He has already occurred as Visor of works in the Castle under 
the years 1250 and 1257 ;^^ he also sat as 4th Juror on the Borough 
Inquest of 1255.53^ 

His appearance at the Assizes of January, 1256, will presently be 
particularized. His tenure in the Low Town, by transfer of the 
seigneury of which he became a tenant of Haughmond Abbey, has 
already been mentioned.^** 

On 6 March, 1258, Giles de Erdington is deputed to try a suit 
of novel disseizen, which Philip de Eoulle and his wife had against 
John del Chastdl, about a tenement in Bruges.^^^ 

This suit seems to have led to a final Concord, at Westminster, 
whereby, on July 8, 1259,* "Philip de Roweley and Isabella, his 
wife, conceded, as of their own gift, to John de Chastel de Brugg 
and Alice, his wife, 19 acres in Nortleg (Nordley), Dunfowe, Brugg, 
and Aldebyre (Oldbury), whereof had been a plea of warranty, — 
To hold to John and Alice and their heirs, of Philip and Isabella 
and the heirs of Isabella, at id. rent, and services due to the chief 
lords. John gave for this a sore sparrow-hawk.^^^^® 

At the Forest Assizes of February, 1262, John de Castello de 
Brug was pardoned an amercement which was chargeable on him 
for being with greyhounds, in the King's Forest, without war- 

At the Assizes of October, 1272, the Borough Jurors returned 
him as a seller of wine '^ against the Assize."^^ 

He attests Borough deeds in 1273, and apparently in seyerai 
subsequent years, but he was dead in 1294 ; for, by deed dated 
3 June in that year, a reserved rent, chargeable on land in the 
'^ fields of Brug,^' is so reserved to tlie ^^ heirs of John de Castro.'' 

^ He also, as John de Castello, attests 
a deed which conveyed land within the 
baOiwick of the Castle, and while Hamo 
le Palmer and Beginald le Qaugy were 

»* Supra, p. 257. 

*» Supra, p. 306. 

^ Supra, p. 369. 
W Pat. 42 Hen. HI. 
«» Pedes fimum, 43 Hen. HI, Salop. 
«» PlaoitaforestcB^ 46 Hen. IH, memb. 
6 recto. 
*^ PlacUa CoroikB, memb. 50 dorso. 



(c) Of William, Brother of John de Castello, something has 
been already stated.^^ As Brother of Alice le Gaugy, he will, 
however, occur presently under date of 1256. 

(d) Henry de Castro, another Brother, attests, as such, with John 
de Castello a deed which passed before 1273.^*2 He also attests 
deeds of 1277. 

i^-f-ff-) That which I have to say of a fourth Brother, Alan de 
Castello, and of their Sister Alice, first the wife, and then the 
widow, of Reginald lb Gaugy, shall, as aflPording the chief points 
of rcLterest in the story of this family, be told under one head. 

Reginald le Gaugy, who had married Alice, sister of John de 
Castello, was a person of some property in the Borough. He had 
a house in the High Street, lands in the fields towards Oldbury and 
Tasley, and in the fields of Brug generally. Having served the 
office of Provost with Hamo le Palmer, he was murdered at Worfield, 
in the year 1250 or 1251, leaving a widow, a son, apparently of 
full age, and four daughters under age. 

"^ Supra, p. 113, where the deed sup- 
posed to he "ahout 1221*' should perhaps 
he put later. 

"* This deed is the first of three conse- 
cutive charters which ftivolve some points 
of interest connected with former suhjects. 
I therefore give extracts of the three. — 

1. Bohert Tedhald grants to Henry, Son 
of Wydo de Qlaseley, for 10 merks pur- 
chase-money (in gersummam) all the land, 
tenement, and huilding in the vill of 
Brug, which lay hetween the land of Elyas 
le Hunte and the land which was Bichard 
Togesel's, and which extended from the 
£ing's Street to the land which said 
Bichard Togesel held of the Brethren of 
the Lepers of St, James. — Bent Id. — 
Witnesses : William Bonamy, Henry de 
Amleg, Provosts ; John de Castello, 
Henry his Brother, Emeric Tinctor, Wil- 
liam Madok, Bohert le Ejiyht, William 
Canne, &c. 

2. Avelina widow of Bohert Fitz 
Tedhald, for two merks, quits to the same 

Henry de GHaseley all right in the same 
premises, " which were given to her at the 
door of the Church of Tetenhale in frank 
marriage when she was espoused to said 
Bohert."— Witnesses : Boger Fitz Boger 
de More and William Bolding, Provosts 
(which proves the date as about 1273), 
Emeric Tinctor, Henry de Amle^, Wil- 
liam Madok, Boger Chete, Elyas le Hunte. 
A subsequent deed by Henry de Glazeley 
will have transferred his interests to 
Nicholas Palmer, for, by indenture— 

3. Nicholas Palmer leases (tradidi) to 
Bichard, Son of Nicholas de Mose, his 
tenement between the house of Elyas le 
Hunte, and of Bichard, Son of Bichard 
Togesel, and extending from the King's 
Street to the land of said Bichard Togesel. 
Bent 6*.; with a covenant as to waste and 
arrears of rent. — ^Witnesses : John Gbflfrey, 
Bohert le Knit, Provosts; William de 
Kantreyn, John de Castello, William 
Bonamy, William Madok, Nicholas le 
Bus, &c. 



In the coarse of the year 1251^ Robert^ son of the deceased, 
challenged (appellavit) Giles de Norfolk^ a Clerk^ and others with 
this murder. A precept issued from the courts at Westminster, on 
Nov. 2, 1251^ ordering the Sheriff of the County to send this appeal 
before the King's Council, for further hearing.^ 

It would appear that this removal was at the instance of Alice le 
Graugy, widow of the deceased, whom hid Son Robert had induded 
in his challenge as an accessory. From statements made by AUoe 
to the Council, the challenge was declared null, and Bobertl pro- 
nounced in misericordid.^^ His amercement (half a merk) for a 
^^ false challenge^' appears tharged against him on the Pipe Boll of 

But this apparent disposal of the whole question seems to hAve 
been by no means finid. 

On November 2, 1262, " Alice who was wife of Reginald de Gaogi 
gave the King 1 merk of gold (equal to £6. Vds. Ad. of the then 
currency) for having pardon as to the death of her husband, of 
which she was appealed. '^ She had paid the fine to Peter de 
Chaceporc and was quit.'*^** 

, This fine elicited the following Royal Patent, dated at Sandeford, 
7 November, 1252. — 

^' Henry d : g : Sec. We have pardoned Alice, who was wife of 
Reginald le Gaugy, the suit of our peace, which pertaineth to us, for 
the death of the said Reginald, her husband, whereof she was under 
challenge. — So, however, as that she shall make peace with lis 
friends (cum parentibus) and shall take her trial if any one shall 
choose to sue her.^' 

When the Justices in Eyre visited Shrewsbury, in January, 1256, 
Alice le Gaugy was accordingly put again upon her trial, but she 
produced the King's Charter and was apparently acquitted of this 
charge, though (as we shall presently see) she was implicated in 
another. At the same Assizes (1256) the mil of Worfield was 
amerced 1 1 shillings for " not making pursuit,^' after the murder of 
Reginald le Gaugy. Also— 

"» Plaeita cupud Westm., 36 Hen. Ill, 
memb. 82. 

^^ Salop Assizes^ 40 Hen. Ill, memb. 
12 dorso, where the whole of the proceed- 
ings in this case are detailed. I, there- 

fore, give fiirther references only where 
another document confirms or illustrateB 
that recital. 

^ Sot. Pip. 38 Hen. HI, Salop. 

*« Mot Fin. 37 Hen. IH, memb. 24. 



Alicia de Amelicot^ accused as accessory to the same murder^ 
was declared '^ not guilty/' 

Also — ^Egidius (Giles) de Norfolk, parson of Burford, William de 
Bruges and John de Castello, were put upon their trial for the same 
crime. The two former, being Clerks, pleaded their privilege as 
such, and were delivered over to the Spiritual Power; the Jury 
having first pronounced them to have been Accessories (conflenti- 
entes morti). John de Castello (Alice le Gaug/s Brother) came 
and took his trial, and was found " not guilty .'' 

Furthermore, the Jurors of Brug recorded at these Assizes, that 
Alan Fitz William (another of the Brothers of Alice le Gaugy), 
having for some second offence been arrested and imprisoned in the 
Castle of Brug, had obtained a King's writ, whereby he was given 
in charge to twelve Sureties, who were bound to produce him before 
the King's Justices, when in eyre. Now (January, 1256) they 
- produced him not. And so those Sureties (viz. Walter Aurifaber, 
William Bonami, Boger Lamberd, Bx)bert Faber, Robert Tinctor, 
Nicholas le Porter, Nicholas le Sallowe, Almaric Tinctor, Stephen 
Knotte, William Fitz Richard le Pescur, Roger Feyrchild, and 
Richard Bacun) were pronounced in misericordid. Trial was, 
however, held on the absent Defendant. He (Alan Fitz William) 
was found to have been guilty of Reginald le Gaugy's murder, but 
it was also given in evidence that he had crossed the sea to Ireland, 
and was there dead, according to report. 

The second offence for which Alan Fitz William should have 
taken his trial at these Assizes must now be detailed. 
' His Sister Alice le Gaugy, being herein also accused as an accom- 
plice, her trial will better give the facts than any statement as to her 
absent or deceased Brother. 

She was charged with having entertained (pro receptacione) Alan 
de Castello, her Brother, who was a Robber. ^^ Alan," it was said, 
" left her house with the intention of committing the robbery in 
question. He murdered the Lady of Shustock (Warwicksh.) and 
then returned to the house of his Sister ; so she was suspected of 
taking part."^^? 

^^ Alice being hereupon asked in what way she chose to acquit 
herself of this charge, said that she dared not, and would not, put 
herself upon any Inquisition or Jury." — 

So the Court ordered her back to prison. — 

"7 Assizes at Salop, 40 Hen. Ill, memb. 10 recto. 



However^ while the Justices were apparently still at Shrewsbnry, 
Alice came forward and ofifered a fine of 10 merks to haye "a 
good Inquisition whether she were guilty of the entertainment 
of Alan her Brother, who had been attached for robbery at 

'^ And 12 Jurors of the Hundred of Munslow with 12 of the 
Hundred of Overes, said that Alice was ' not guilty/ but that this 
charge was made against her by instigation (per abbettum) of 
Richard, Son of Hamo Palmer, of Bruges, and his friends, by reason 
of certain strifes which had been between said Richard and William 
the Brother of Alice/' 

Further, at the same Assizes, " Roger Fitz Henry, of Brag, 
William de Ghurdino, Amaric Tinctor, and Henry Fitz Amice, 
accused of robbery and the entertainment of robbers, appeared to 
defend thismselves and put themselves upon a Jury of the country, 
which pronounced them ' not guilty/ " 

Also John le Teinturer fined 40«. " to be under plevin, because 
he was infirm and might not be carried/' 

These statements, together with those which have previously been 
made as to the family of Palmer, will show that at these Assizes 
(of January, 1256) every principal name in the Borough of Brug, 
was implicated in, or suspected of, some enormous crime. It is 
singular that Almaric le Teynturer (as Bailiff), William le Palmer, 
Henry Fitz Avice, and William Bonamy (as Jurors) served on the 
same occasion."® 

The disorganization produced in a small town by such a general 
complicity in real or suspected guilt, and by such adversity of 
interests and natural affinities, cannot well be over-imagined. 

But, to return to our immediate subject : — I suppose that at this 
period Robert, Son of Reginald le Gaugy, the accuser of his 
Mother (or Step Mother) Alice, was deceased, leaving Alice and 
her four daughters (now under age) the sole representatives of the 
family of Reginald. 

We have already seen the same four daughters vainly impleading 
Master Walter le Palmer for " disseizing them of a tenement in 
Brug,^^ and this at these very Assizes of January, 1256.^^ 

*^ This jQne is entered on the Sheriffs' 
Boll for the two years ending Michaehnas, 
1259, as one of 10 merks, due, fix)m Alice 
widow of Reginald le Ghiugy, for " haying 
an Inquisition under pledge of William 

Bonamy and John de Castro." {Bot Pip' 
43 Hen. IH.) 

«^ Supra, p. 306. 

"0 Supra, p. 871. 



All that I shall fiirther say on the subject is^ that 5 separate 
Charters still exist, whereby, at or about this period, Isabel, Jane, 
and Floria (Florence), three of the said daughters, sell several parcels 
of their lands to Walter Palmer, Burgess, of Brug ; that Jane, in a 
sixth charter, sells a parcel of laud to Roger Tinctor ; and th9,t 
Alice, their Mother, in four other charters, releases her claim of 
dower in the premises conveyed by her daughters^ deeds, or else 
sells independently and on her own account. In one of the latter 
cases, and in the event of her non-ability to warrtot a certain piece 
of land in the ^^ fields of Brug^' she vouches as a contingent security 
" the house which she had in High Street between the house of 
Hamo Palmer and Bichard Bacun.^^ 

Her seal attached to one of these deeds proves her pedigree. 
The Legend is " S'Alisie fil WilU fil Henrici.^^^^ 


Robert de Brag. =p Avice. 

Alan Fitz Robert, 

Alan Fitz Avice. 
Occurs 1221. 
Liying 1236. 
Befs, 1240. 

Robert Fitz Avice, 

Dqfunctus 1251. 

Henry Fitz Robert, " 

Henry Fitz Avice. 
Occurs 1240. 

I " 
Roger Fitz Henry. 

Occurs 1240. 

Living 1277. 

The above genealogy, and a few facts connected with the same, 
seem to be worth insertion. — 

"^ In the year .ending Miohaehnas, 
1256, Alice de Gkugi had fined 40ff. for 
some writ {Mot. JPvp, 40 Hen. in, Salop) ; 
but it does not appear on what spedfic 

One Alice de Ghiugi, and Walter her 
Son, occur in Staffordshire, in April, 1269 
(Finei^ vol. ii, p. 486). If she be the 

same person as has been mentioned in the 
text, her Son Walter will probably have 
been by a second husband. The retention 
of the name of her first husband by his 
widow, after her second marriage, was no 
singularity, though not quite so compion 
as that of her maiden name by a wife. 



The Barbican which in the close of King John's reign was added 
to Bridgnorth Castle, interfered with the private rights of Alan 
Fitz Robert. 

I have already quoted King Henry IIFs order for compensation 
of the said Alan, which issued, on July 4, 1221, to the Sheriff of 
the County."^ 

It would seem that the King's order was not at once attaided 
to ; for when, in November of the same year, the Justices in eyre 
came to Shrewsbury, they issued a second precept, in similar termsj 
to the same Sheriff (the Earl of Chester) .^^ 

These same Ajssizes also interested Alan Fitz Bobert in another 
way. Henry Harshonail sued him for a messuage in Brag. The 
Defendant requiring view threof, the cause was adjourned to the 
morrow of St. Hilary (Jan. 14, 1222), when the same Ju^tiees 
proposed to be at Warwick. On the said day, at Warwick, Alan 
Fitz Bobert essoigned himself; and a further day was given; viz. 
the quinzaine of Easter, to both parties.®" However, they seem to 
have settled the matter sooner; for by fine, at Warwick, dated the 
same day (Jan. 14) Ralph Horsnad, Plaintiff, remits his claim on a 
messuage in Bruges whereof was suit-at-law, to Alan Fitz Bobert^ 
tenant thereof, the latter paj^g 2 merks.^®^ 

This will show Alan Fitz Bobert to have been possessed of other 
property within the Borough, besides that for which he was entitled 
to compensation. He was, in fact, largely concerned in the affairs 
of the Town, often in attendance at the Borough Court, and once 
he occurs in the oflBce of Prator, as before stated,^^® 

In 1231, Alan Fitz Avice de Brug appears as Surety for the fine 
of William de Aldenham already noticed.^^^ jj^ ^g^ fjr^Q game 
person with Alan Fitz Bobert. 

It does not appear when Alan obtained his promised compensation; 
but, at Michaelmas, 1232, the land which had been ^' Alan Fitz 
Avice^s," before the Castle Gate, had been leased by the Crown to 
another for three years past.^^® Alan^s equivalent was given him 

«' Supra, p. 255. 

^" Salop Assizes^ 6 Bien. Hi, memb. 
7 recto. 

^ JFartpiek Msizes^ 6 HJen. HI, memb. 
1 recto. 

«« Pedes finium, 6 Hen. HI, Salop. 

«« Supra, p. 313. 

^ Supra, p. 80. 

^ Hot Pip, 16 Hen. III. The Crown 

Lessee of this land was Boger Fitz Bobert 
of Hjnestodc, and his annual rrait waS) m 
1232,1 shilling. This Lessee was aaoestoro^ 
another Borough feunilj, that of Fairchild 
(ufluallj written Yeirchilde). Henoe the 
Inquisition of November, 1274, states that 
Boger Yeirehild held a certain messuage 
in Brug, in fee, of the Lord Kingf»c«tpt^ 
rendering 12 pence annually at the Sxcbe* 


in Morf Forest; but in this same year (1232) he obtained a 
Royal Charter, which subjected his new acquisition to an annual 
rent of 1 shilling. Henry IIPs Charter is as follows : — '^ Henry, 
d, ff, &c. Know ye that we have granted to Alan Pitz Robert, of 
Brug, and his heirs, that those eight acres, which we caused to be 
assigned to him in Warlagh-hay, in our Forest of Morf, in exchange , 
of his houses and land, which he lost by reason of the barbican of 
our Castle of Brug, be for ever quit of regard, waste, and view of 
Foresters, Verderers, and of all our Servants. Rendering therefore 
per annum 12rf. at our Exchequer, by hands of our BailiflFs of Brug, 
for all service &c. Given at Worcester, 5 June, in the 16th year of 
our reign.'^^^' 

And this rent appears on the Pipe-Roll of Michaelmas, 1233, for 
the first time, as paid into the Exchequer.^^ So again in 1234 and 
1235 ;^^ but the entry is then discontinued. 

Alan Fitz Robert was succeeded by his Brother Jlenry, — called 
Fitz Robert or Fitz Avice indifferently. 

On Nov. 12, 1240, a fine was levied at Salop^^^ between Robert, 
Clerk, Plaintiff, and Henry Fitz Robert, tenant, of 4 acres of land 
and 8 acres of wood in Bruges and Wurdefeud (Worfield) whereof 
was an assize of " mort d'ancestre." Henry acknowledged the right 
of Robert, whereon Robert, at request of Henry, conceded the 
premises to Roger, Son of Henry, who was to pay an annuity of 
1 merk to Robert for life, and then to hold the same, in fee and 

inheritance, ^^ of the chief Lords." 


In 1249, Henry Fitz Robert is entered on the Pipe Roll as 
having paid the annual/erm of 12rf. on 8 acres of land.^^^ Again, in 
1251, he discharges the same for the preceding and the current 
year, and continues the payment annually till the year 1255 inclu- 
sive, when the entry again ceases. ^^"^ 

As Henry Fitz Robert he appears fifth Juror on the Inquest of 
1255,^^® and as Henry Fitz Avice sat as seventh Juror of the Borough 

This Robert, Clerk, may possibly be the 
same with Eobert Fitz Avice of the 
pedigree, and so Brother of Henry Fitz 
Bobert. If so, he was dead in 1251, 
haying been possessed of some ground in 
High Street, of which, in 1273, Henry 
Fitz Soger was the owner. 

®® Sot. Pip. de eisdem annis, Salop. 

^ Ibidem. 

^'^ Sot. ffund. vol. ii, p. 59. 

quer but the jurors knew not the time 
when the tenure originated. (Sot. Hund. 
vol! ii, p. 88.) The tenure was curious, 
the only one in the Borough whereupon a 
money-rent, payable by an individual, had 
been reserved by the Crown. 

^^ CaHcB AntiqtuB apud Ikirrim Land. 
PP. 29, and Calend.Sot. Cartarum, p. 49. 

«» Sot. Pip, 17 Hen. Ill, Salop. 

*«» Ibidem, 18, 19 Hen. III. 

«2 Pedes finium, 25 Hen. Ill, Salop. 




at the Assizes of 1256^^ when also both he and his Son^ Roger Fitz 
Henry^ were acquitted of the charges of robbery^ and entertainment 
of robbers, before recited.«»7 

In 1259, Henry Fitz Robert is mentioned as a Tenant in Wyte- 
bome Street, and this is the latest notice I have of him while living; 
for though the Pipe Roll of 1267 charges 12 years arrears of I2d. 
annual rent against the name of Henry Fitz Robert/^ and the Roll 
of 1273 charges 18 years to the same person,^^ it is clear that lie 
was dead, being spoken of, as " sometime tenant,'' in deeds of the 
period. The succession of his Son (in the absence of any payment 

on account of this annual ferm) was not recognised on the Fipe- 

The latter, Roger Fitz Henry, occurs as a witness of Borough- 
deeds in 1265, 1273, and 1277, in which last year he waa a holder 
of land near the Standelf, as appears by a deed abready recited.^^ 

With him we dismiss the subject. 

••• Supn, p. 306. 

■'^ Supra, p. 880. — where he is written 
Henry Fits Amioe. 

«■ Mot, Pip. 61 Hen. HI, Salop. 

•• Mot. Fip. 1 Edw. I, Salop. 

^ Even where a recurrent debt, due to 
the Crown, was regularly paid, the later 
Pipe Bolls of Henry nTs tima are not 
always eridenoe that the person entered 
as paying such debt was aliye. Many in- 
stances of the contrary occur. The only 
solution of this inoonsisteney seems to be. 

that the Clerk of the Pipe being nudnlj 
attentive to matters of revenue, and there- 
fore looking chiefly to the due entry of 
each proper item, in some form or othff, 
was contented to copy from former Bolli 
the names of several Accountants. This 
was particularly the case with Scatages, 
many of which are entered as having been 
paid by specific persons, years after thdr 
•^ Supra, p. 862. 



%• Thfl name of each Place, which has formed the subject of a distinct notice, 
is printed in Capital Letters. 

Beference to the page^ or pages, of such distinct notice is made by the larger 


The abbreviation v. stands for " vide," n. for " note." 

Abdon, 150 n, 210. 
Acldeton, 4B, 
Acton Bound, 188. 

— — Church, 183. 
Albrighton, 19, 112, 279, 366. 

(juxta Salop), 199, 200. 

Albynes, The, 46 », 54. 

Aldebyr, v. Oldbury. 

Aldbnham, 31, 36, 41, 70, 79-88, 232, 

, Chiapbl o^ 38 », 83. 


35, 103, 151, 152. 
Ah'ewas (Staff.), 249. 
Alveley, 157 », 344, 345, 346. 

Chtjech, 109, 120-123. 

Pebbbio), 117, 120-128,338 ». 

Amboise, 168. 
Angemar, 167. 
Anglesey, 112, 243. 
Apley, 44. 

Anmdel (Sussex), 170. 
Abtlbt (Abbots), 28, 30, 81,^, 36,37, 
88, 39, 43-49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 
57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 70, 78, 125, 
212, 362 », 367, 368, 370, 372, 373. 

Chttbch, 48-49, 115. 

ASTLBY Pabya, 28, 30, 43, 49. 
Aston (juxta Newport), 251. 
AsTOir (Bottbebl), 19, 67, 112, 215, 

^ Chueoh, 228-229. 

Aston (Eybb), 19, 36, 39, 41, 60, 199- 

Chapbi., 38 », 140, 200, 


Aston Bichant (Line. Dioc), 222. 
Atcham, 111. 
Bridge, 44 «. 

Badger, 19, 24, 45, 46, 111. 

Balaon (Prance), 243. 

Barrow, 150 ». 

Bascherch Hundred, 17, 23. 

Basqueville (Normandy), 231. 

Battle Abbey (Sussex), 252. 

Beckbury, 112. 

Berrington, 211. 

Berwick (Great), 166, 167, 170, 172,178, 

174, 186, 190. 
Berwyn, The (North Wales), 262. 
Beverley Minster (Yorksh.), 340. 
BiiLiNGHSLET, 28, 30, 35,36,39, 64-67, 

Chtjboh, 38 n, 66-67. 

Bilsington Priory (Kent), 340. 

BUsley (Glouoest.), 64 ». 

Binnall v. Bunewall. 

Bishton, 19. 

Blythe Castle (Notts.), 241. 

Bobbington, 109, 279, 328, 334, 335, 336. 

Church, 335, 336. 

Bolas, 128,129. 

Bold, 128, 129, 150 », 161-169. 

Chapbl, 168-159, 229 ». 

BoLEBBC, 18, 24,128-180, 133 n, 
Boningale, 128, 129. 
Boscherville (Normandy), 231. 
BoBcobel, 128, 129. 
Boseham (Sussex),. 247 n. 
Bourdeaux, 121 n. 
Bradford Hundred, 7 n. 
Bradwardine (Heref.), 231, 234, 236, 288^ 

Bramsbury, 131. 

Brewood, Blaek Nunnery of, 176. 
, White Nunnery of; 229, 806, 

346, 361, 362. 
Bridge- Walton, 29, 81, 41, 45, 70, 79. 
, Peebbhd of, 71», 73-75, 

97 », 274, 337. 



Bbibonobth, ^1, 33, 41 », 47, 58, 59, 70, 
83-84^ 112, 113, 114, 115 », 116, 124, 
125, 215, 241-384. 

, BoBouGH of, 280-320. 

-, Bbewood Tenttbe in. 



-, Bridge of, 844. 


, Cann Hall, 370 «. 
Cabtle, 131, 132, 140, 

205, 215, 227, 24^252, 263-289, 
301, 304, 312, 355, 356, 368, 371, 374, 
376, 379, 382, 383. 

Castle, Church in the, v. 

Saint Mary Magdalene. 

Hill, 369. 

, New Chapel in 

the, 323. 

, Cowgate, 346 », 368. 

, Fbancibcan Fbiaby of, 

345 n, 850-352. 

, Friars* Cares, 350, 351. 

-, HAUGHKoin) Tenttbe in, 


-, Hebmitage, 352-354. 

, High Street of; 206, 363, 

364, 366, 367, 368, 370, 374, 377, 381, 
383 1». 

-, Hoc- or Hook-field, near. 

369, 373. 

-, Hungary, or Saint Mary's, 
Street, 314, 368. 

-, Leoeline, or Listley, Street, 




, Little Bridge Street, 854. 

, Little Bbug, near, v. 

Bbug Pabva. 

-, Low Town of, 343, 351, 

359, 370, 376. 
, Maladrerie (The Old) 

there, 347 n, 368, 370 ». 

, MiU Street, 343, 370. 

, North-gate of, 369. 

— , Reymund*B Ditch near, 

347 ». 

, Saint James's Hospital, 

342 », 344, 346 n, 354, 847-350, 370. 
-, Saint John's Hospital, 

125, 343-347, 349, 351, 360, 370. 
■ , Saint John's Street, 343. 

Bbi]>gnobth, St. Lbonabb's Chttbce, 
114, 253, 340-343, 362 », 868. 

, Saint Mabt Magda- 
lene's Chttbch, 39, 70, 71-78, 86,87, 
88, 97, 107, 114, 11^ 117-126, 253, 
294, 321-340,34211, 845 n. 

-, Sevem-Bank there, 33, 

352, 869. 

, Bi^er there, 360, 

861, 368, 370. 

-, South - bridge, o. Bvua 




-, Spital Street, 344, 350 ft. 
-, Standelf, The, 862, 369, 

-, Templabs' Tbnttee id, 

-, Town Walls of, 299, 302, 

854, 857, 862 n. 

-, Whitburn, or EaTen, 

Street, 354, 857, 368, 369 «, 884. 

, Withlakesweir, near, 361, 


Brimstree Hundred, 19, 24. 
Bristol, 266, 268, 270, 802. 
Brockton, 19, 50, 111, 360. 
Brokton, 118 n. 
Bromley Regis (Staff.), 86, 88, 89, 91,93, 

98, 98. 
Broseley, 19, 111, 240. 
Brotherton (Yorkshbe), 164. 
Brug, Brugia, or Bruges, v. Bridgnorth. 
Bbuq Pabta, 126 », 279, 364-358, 

859, 364, 368, 869. 
Brumlega (Sussex), 170. 
Bryege, 105, 131. 
Buildwas Abbey, 42, 306, 363. 
BuNEWAiL, 43, 60-63. 
Burcot, 109. 

Burchton (near Claverley), 334, 335. 
Buris (France), 107. 
Burton (Claverley), ©. Burchton. 
Burton (near Wenlock), 112, 223. 
Burton (Staff.), 249 ». 
Burwarton Church, 146 n. 


Calveston 27, 68 ; v. Cold Weston. 
Canterbury Cathedral, 168. 
Cantebn or Cantbetn, 29, 43, 46, 47, 

58-69, 362 », 367, 368. 
Carrechoya Castle, 242, 271 a. 
Caus Castle, 130 ». 



Caui, Pays de (Normandy), 129, 231. 

Cerlecote, v. Gharloott. 

Chacepel Haye, 257. 

Ohabloott, 19, 24, 151-159. 

Ohelemodeston (Norwich Dioc), 77 n. 

Chdmarsh, 198 ». 

Chester, 64, 269 », 270, 271 «. 

, Diocese of, 118, 338, 342. 

CHETTOif, 19, 35 », 109, 139, 161, 164- 

184, 188, 191, 198 », 214, 226. 
Chubch, 143, 161, 172, 178, 

183-184, 187. 
Chinon (Touraine), 76. 
Ohirbury, 131. 
Chirk, 271 ». 
Church Stretton, 51, 371. 
Ciratonia, v. Sieffcon. 
Clarendon (Wilts), 153. 
Claverley, 295, 327, 344. 
Church, 109, 116, 324, 328, 


-, Peebend or Dbanbby of, 326, 

327, 828-338, 340. 
aee Hill, 17, 67, 222, 226. 
Cleobury (Mortimer), 241, 248, 249. 
Cleobury (North), 215, 232. 
Clotlegh, 94. 
Clun, Barony of, 153. 

. Castle, 226. 

Coalbrookdale, 67 n. 

Cold Norton (Oxfordshire), 67 «. 

Cold Weston, 27, 28, 30, 67-69. 

Chtjbch, 69. 

Colebatch, 128, 129. 

CoLEMOBE, 29, 30, 43, 45, 56. 

Conedovre Hundred, 129. 

Corfham, 77, 109. 

Corfton, 152. 

Corve, 140. 

Cota, 223. 

Cdtentin, The (Normandy), 133. 

Counsylth (N. Wales), 291. 

Coventry, 371. 

Cbiddon, 139, 142, 143, 183, 191-194, 

196, 198 n. 
Cboptb, 28, 30, 41, 43, 45, 50-52, 53, 

Crokesden Abbey, 306, 364. 
Culmington, 77 », 109. 
Culvestan Hundred, 152. 
Cumb (Herefordshire), 234. 
Cundover, 247. 


Danesford, 105. 

Daventrey (Northants), 159. 

Dee, River, 64 ». 

Deepdale, 43 », 46 », 63-64, 124. 

Den, 156. 

Deuxhill, 19, 192, 193, 196, 217, 219- 

Chtjboh, 198 », 217, 218, 

Devizes (Wilts), 268. 
Diddlebury, 77, 228, 371, 373. 
Dinan (Britanny),^ 130. 
Ditton (Priors), 150 «, 263, 264 », 322. 
Dive, River (Prance), 107. 
Donington, 19, 35 ». 
Dover, 282. 
Droitwich, 273. 

Dudmaston, 152, 310, 327, 367. 
Dunfowe, v. Dunvall. 
Dthtvall, 29, 30, 43, 45, 55-56, 376. 
Durham, 271 n, 
Dyganwy, (N. Wales), 268. 


Eaedington, 19, 103-104, 109, 113, 
115, 128, 129, 130, 134, 327. 

, Peebend of, 117-120. 

(Warwickshire), 103. 

Eardisley (Heref.), 231. 

Easthope Church, 183. 

Eaton (Constantine), 133, 136. 

Eddisbury, 131. 

Eggelawe Castle, 271 n. 

Ellesmere, 203, 257, 278, 279, 294 «. 

Elnoestrul Hundred, v. Alnodestrui. 

Elvein, or Elvel (N. Wales), 265 », 306. 

Ely, Isle of, 283. 

Ertendun (Surrey), 171. 

Eston, V. Aston. 

EuDON (Bubneiil), 19, 132, 139, 166, 
170, 183, 185-189. 

Eudon (George), 184. 

Evesham, 286, 310, 340, 373. 

Ewdness, 344. 


Fainteeb, 19, 139, 159-164, 196 n. 
Feckenham (Worces.), 265, 266, 273. 
Fertecote, 28, 33, 68. 
Ford (near Aston Botterel), 227. 
Ford (near Shrewsbury), 205, 295. 



Fouswardine, «. Fulwardine. 

Franbarew (Warw.) 193. 

Frankley (Woroes.), 190. 

Fnmkwell (Shrewebury), 331 «i. 

FreUeberi (Hants), 170. 

FuLWABDiNX, 19, 133, 134 «i, 137-188. 

^Ghifloonj, 305. 
Gilbert, Mount, 17, 94, 310. 
Glazeley, 19, 35fs 73 fi, 132, 139, 185, . 

191, 210-218. 

Chiteoh, 217-218, 220,221. 

Glouoester, 28 ft, 248, 249, 264, 275, 281, 

283, 305, 332. 
Guldeford, 167. 
Gunthorp (Notts), 270. 


Hadley, 86, 91, 92, 95. 

Hadnall, 227, 228. 

Hagenet Castle, 169. 

Haghmon Abbey, 155, 201, 202, 203, 

212, 251, 306, 358-359, 364, 376. 
Hamestodesbal, 125. 
Harcott, 199, 200, 203, 204. 
Harebache, 62, 64. 
Habpbtosd (or Habpswood), 28, 30, 41, 

45, 70, 78-79, 182. 
Haseldene, 43 1», 64. 
Hatton(Cold), 67». 
Hatton (near Shiffiial), 19 &m. 
Hatton Hine-heath, o. High Hatton. 
HAvaHTON (near Morville), 28, 30, 41, 

43, 45, 51, 62-68, 62, 79. 
Hayering (Essex), 266. 
Hayb, La (AstiLey Abbots), 43 ft, 63. 
Hayb, La, (Eardington), 128-126. 
Haywood (Aston Botterel), 227. 
Haywood (Staff.), 265. 
Hazlewood, 216. 
Helidon (Northants), 237, 239. 
HuTLET, 29, 30, 33, 36, 49, 84, 98, 

Hereford, 64 «, 201, 264, 285. 
Higford, 111. 

High Hatton, 86, 91, 92, 94, 97. 
Hintlesham (Suffolk), 92. 
Hoc, The (Tasky), 93. 
Holgate, Castle and Barony of, 66, 68, 

111, 149, 160, 151, 153, 156, 157, 217, 

223, 310. 

Holgate Church, 158, 229. 

HouooTT, 135, 160, 181-182, 195, 196, 

Hapten or Hopton, v. Uptok (CsiSBin). 


Ikenild Street, 249 ft. 
Ireland, 379. 

Eantreyn, «. CAKmor. 
Kenilworth, 157, 178, 286. 
Keri (N. Wales), 305. 
Kidderminster, 274, 275, 302. 
KnrSLOW, 28, 30, 41, 43, 45, 49, 6l» 52, 

63-54, 79, 91. 
Kinyer Forest, 256, 329. 
Manor, 266. 


Laitonia, 109. 

Lambeth, 266, 282. 

Lappeley andTrysul, Deanery o( 326, 336. 

Lawton, 235, 237, 239, 241. 

Lea, Eiyer (Middlesex), 104. 

Lee Brockhirst, 355, ft. 

Lee-Combrey, 87 ft. 

Legeoeastra, v. Chester. 

Leicester, 263 ft. 

Lewes, 283. 

lachfield, 96, 97, 249 », 264, 265, 326. 

Cathedral, 346. 

LiUeehall, 111. 

Abbey, 172, 306, 346, 347, 

Lincoln, 318. 
Linley, 50, 115. 
London, pastim, 

y Tower of, 333. 

Longnor, 211. 
Loughton, 227. 

Chapel, 183, 184. 

LoTith (Line), 154. 

Luddeston, 326, 337, 338, v. Clayerley 

Ludgarshall (WHtshire), 268. 
Ludlow, 130 ft, 264, 289, 295, 354. 

, Deanery of^ 69, et patsim, 

Lutley (Staff.), 335. 

Lye, 29, 31, 41, 45, 70, 79, 142, 150 ». 

Lyons (France), 324, 325. 




Madeley (Staff.)* 165 ». 

Maine (France), 243. 

Marches of Wales, The, 85 », 235 », 245, 

247, 280, 282. 
Marlborough (Wilts), 236 », 268. 
Mathrayal Castle, 268, 269, 271 ». 
Matilda, Castle (in Elvein), 277, 305. 
Meadowlby, 19, 91, 111, 189, 141, 146, 

147 », 148-161. 
Medewegrene, 45, 59, 64. 
Meifod (N. Wales), 268. 
Melkesham (Wilts), 26& 
Mercia, 194. 

Mereval Abbey (Warw.), 250. 
Mesnil Hermer (Normandy), 32. 
Middlehope, 152. 
Middleton Priors, 81, 157. 
Chapel, 198», 220, 221, 

MlDDLBTX>N (SCBITBir), 19, 192, 194- 

188, 199. 
Milinchope, 109. 
Montgomery, 180 «, 267 «, 277, 278, 282, 

805 o. 

, County of, 169. 

Monk Hopton, 140, 199. 
Monmouth, 285. 

MOBB, The, 125, 126-128, 130, 845 ». 
Morf Forest, 81, 104, 125, 127, 214, 226, 

256, 299, 300^ 843, 844, 346, 348, 349, 

352, 353, 383. 
MoBViLLB, 19, 22, 26-102, 109, 123, 


Bridge, 119 fi. 

CmmoH, 82-48, 147, 150, 

209, 210. 
Parish, 136, 146, 209, 210, 

321, 841. 

MOBYILLE PSBBBND, 70, 71-72, 812 fl, 

Priory, 36, 38, 89, 40, 41, 42, 


Munslow Hundred, 24, 289, 880. 
Mutton (Staff.), 885. 

Neenton, 86 ». 

Netherton, 114, 115, 346, 861. 

Newark (Notts.) 274. 

New Forest (Hants), 243. 

Newport, 292, 295. 

Newton (near EUesmere), 202. 

(near Stottesden), 28, 36, 158, 

238, 240, 241. 

Norbury (Staff.), 60, 232. 

NordleyBegis,109, 212, 224,289,316,344. 

Norfolk, 54. 

NoBLBT (Astley Abbots), 28, 30, 43, 44, 

45, 46 9», 49-60, 58 », 62, 64, 376. 

Northampton, 267. 

Northwood, 225, 228, 238, 241. 

Norton (near Aston Botterel), 227. 

(near Cundoyer), 34. 

Nottingham, 264, 266, 270, 271 ». 

Oldbxtby, 19, 36, 39, 60, 84, 120 », 126, 

131-136, 137. 138, 139, 185, 211; 

346, 347 n, 364, 368, 372, 373 376, 377. 
Chuboh, 38 », 134 », 136- 

136, 341. 
Old Castle, The (Oldbury), 132. 
Ombersley (Worces.) 250* 
Onibury Church, 1364. 
Opton, V, Upton. 
Oseney (Oxf.), 89. 

Oswestry, 85 », 134, 201, 224, 270, 271 n, 
Oyers Hundred, 289, 380. 
Oyerton, 195. 
Oyre, 128, 129. 
Oxford, 123, 280, 302 ft. 


Pain Castle (in Elyein), 265 1». 
Partenay (Poitou), 329. 
Patinton Hundred, 17, 23. 
Pencadayr (near Brecknock), 262. 
Pendeston Mill, 275», 276, 277, 303, 304, 

306, 309, 310, 323 », 343. 
Petton, 133. 
Pichford, 356. 

Mill, 358> 359. 


PiCETHOBNE, 19, 83, 225, 230-241. 

Pimhill Hundred, 7 1». 

Piperherge, 167. 

Poitou, 329. 

Pontigny (France), 167 ». 

Pont Saint-Pierre (Normandy), 211 n, 

Portsmouth, 243, 266, 305 «i. 

Poshale (Staff.), 326 ». 

Posthome, 152. 

Preston Ghibbalds, 111. 

Pulyerbatch, 129. 




Quftt, 77 », 104, 126, 279, 306, 327. 
QUATPOBD, 19, 77 », 84, 104-117, 133, 

213, 215, 242, 290, 321, 327, 328, 344, 

345 n, 374. 
Chubch, 70n, 106, 115-117, 

130, 166, 334, 337. 
QuAtorp, 77. 


Badmore (Staff.), 250, 290, 291. 

Beading (Berks), 299. 

Becordine Hundred, 129, 151, 152. 

Bee, Meadow (Bridgnorth), 126, 216. 

B^le, La (Gktsoony), 329. 

Bewin, o. Bucroft. 

Bocheeter, 273. 

BoDB (or Bhodeb), 29, 30, 43, 45, 54, 

Boumare, Forest of (Normandy), 231. 
Bomesley, 306, 327. 
BuoaoFT, 29, 30, 43, 45, 59. 
Buley or Bowley, 363. 
Bumney Priory (Kent), 340. 
BusBOck (Woroes.) 269. 
Buthlan (N.Wales), 262, 268. 
Buyton, 215. 
Byton, 19, 111. 

Sabrina, 29, v. Severn (Hall). 
Saint Ghregory of Morrille, c. Morville. 

John of Lateran, Church o^ 347. 

Martin's le Grand (London), 327. 

Mary's (Shrewsbury), 325, 326, 327. 

Michael's (Shrewsbury), 321 «. 

Milburg, 18, c. Wenlock Priory. 

Osyth's Priory (Essex), 246. 

Paul's (London), 340. 

Peter's (Wolverhampton), 326, 327. 

Saisdone Hundred (Staff.), 17. 

Salkeld (Cumberland), 76. 

Saltwood Castle, 168, 169. 

Salvata, 270. 

Sal warp (Worces.), 111. 

Sandeford, 378. 

Sandwich (Kent), 168. 

Schyre, 205 ft. 

Seez Abbey, 34, 35, 36, 65, 66, 67. 

Sevebk (HaU), 29, 30, 43, 45, 56-67, 

Shawb^ry, 140. 

Shelve, 7 n, 

Shevyn, 221 1». 

Shirlot Forest, 44, 45, 46, 59, 62, 79, 80, 
81, 83, H9»,J27, 194, 203», 214, 226. 

Sidbury, 138, 240. 

Siefton, 109. 

Shrewsbury Abbey, 18, «. MorwiUe passim; 
201, 202 », 207, 210, 213, 226, 232, 
240, 250, 346, 361. 

Borough, 44j», 290-3O2 {pas- 
sim), 307 », 308, 313, 315, 327, 330, 331. 
Castle, 206, 254-286 (pas- 


Biver, 33, 360 ». 

nffi), 335. 
, Friariea at (Austin, Fnmcis- 

can, and Dominican), 351 n, 352 n. 
Shropshire, 2, 241, 242, 244, 24.5, 247, 

252, 284,et|)a«nfli. 
Shustock (Warw.), 379, 380. 
Silverston (Northants), 270. 
Skenefrith (Hereford Dioc.), 74 n. 
Southwick (Hants), 88. 
Stafford, 131. 

, Archdeaconry of, 338, 342. 

, Boyal free Chapel of, 326, 327. 

Stanlei Hundred (Warw.), 17. 

Stanley, 29, 30, 43, 45, 56, 69. 

Stanton (Long), 111. 

Stepeley, 141, 142. 

Stevinton, 81. 

Stiperstones Forest, 140. 

Stockton, 19. 

Stoneley Abbey (Warw.), 249, 250. 

Stottesden, 109, 233. 

Church, 337. 

Hundred, 18, 24, 38, et passim. 

Stourton, 273. 

Strata Yia, 109. 

Stratfleur Abbey, 271. 

Streford, 211. 

Stroud (Glouc), 3J.6». 

Sutton, Little, 241. 

(Maddock), 19, 44, 87 n. 


Tamworth, 131. 

TASLEYi 29, 30, 36, 39, 45, 46», 84-101, 

124, 216, 218, 369, 370. 
Chapel, 38 », 97, 98 - 99, 

Taswood, 373. 
Tedstill, 192. 



Tetenhall Church, 326, 377 «. 
Tewkesbury, 268. 
Thames, River, 104. 
TickhiU Castle, 241. 
Tong, 19, 35«. , 
Tomcumb, 167. 
Toteneye (Aston Boterell), 227. 
Trentham Priory, 328. 
Troam (France), 107. 
Trysul, Deanery of, 324 «i, 326. 
Ti^oid, 28, 33, 68. 


Uckington, 111. 

Uffington, 152. 

ULTOifE, V. Upton (Cbessbtt). 

Underdon, 29, 31, 36, 41, 45, 70, 79. 

, PsEBEio) of, 76-78, 122, 

Upton, 36. 
Upton (Cressett), 19, 36 », 137, 138- 

147, 150, 151, 160. 

Chttech, 146-147. 

Upton supeji Edge, or Upton Wabin, 

V, Upton (Cbbssett). 


Yemeuil (Normandy), 118. 
Vezelay (France), 168. 
Vymwy, Elver, 268. 

Wadley, 212, 214. 

Walkerslow, 65, 213. 

Wallingford, 248, 249. 

Wallfibatch, 129 n. 

Walton, v. BBisaB Walton. 

Walton (Suffolk), 169. 

Warlagh-hay, 383. 

Warwick, 90, 131, 364, 873, 382. 

Weardsbury, 131. 

Welbatoh, 129. 

Welbetre Hundred (Herefordshire), 238. 

Wenlock, Deanery of, 158. 

, Liberty or Hundred of, 19, 

219, 238. 

Wenlock Priory, 18, 53, 103, 105 », 117, 
170, 205, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 
223 », 230, 233, 263, 264 », 278, 306, 
322, 329, 363. 
Weston, 28, 33, 68 », 102, v. Cold Weston. 
Weston (near Monk Hopton), 199. 
Westminster, patsim.^ 
Westwal, 164. 

Wetemore (near Burwarton), 227. 
Wheathm, 150 ». 
Wheaton Aston, o. Aston Eyre. 
Wich, 19. 
Wichardesok, 83. 
Wigmore Castle (Herefordshire), 248, 249. 

Abbey, 306, 363, 864. 

WlUey, 19, 150 », 240. 
^Yhichcumbe, 322 n. 
Winchester, 123, 268, 276, 334. 

Cathedral, 332, 333. 

Withyford (Magna), 199, 201, 202. 
Wimboum Church (Dorsetshire), 342. 
Windsor, 123, 244, 245, 282. 
Witingelega Forest (Hants), 166. 
Wolmere (Hants), 268. 
Wombridge Priory, 86, 87, 91, 92. 
Woodcote, 112, 223. 
Woodhouse (near Stottesden), 215, 228. 
Woodstock, 262, 264, 270, 308, 332. 
Woolward (Worcestershire), 269. 
Worcester, 140, 154, 180, 204, 247, 265, 

266, 268, 273,274,278, 280, 283, 284 », 

299, 350, 383. 
Worf, River, 303. 
Worfield, 279, 295, 344, 345 n, 352, 377, 

378, 383. 

Church, 71 », 122, 122 «. 

MUl, V, Pendeston Mill. 

Worthing (Sussex), 137 n, 
Wrekin, The, 17, v. Mount Gilbert. 
Wrickton, 65, 197. 
Wroxeter Church, 73 ». 
Wurgh, River, «. Worf. 

Xantoigne (Saintonge, France), 339. 


York, 271 », 317 ». 
Cathedral, 340. 




*«* In the following Index, NameB which belong to Official Lists are daadiied 
in order of succession, not alphabetically. 

Where such Lists hare been already gi^en, in the body of the work, the Index 
makes general reference thereto, but does not repeat the indiyidual Names, unless thej 
haye occurred in some other connexion. 


Abbatia, Simon de, 314, 876, v. de Ge- 

Abesun, v. Aubucun. 

Abezun, v. Aubucun. 

Abitot, Frso d*. Sheriff of Worcester- 
shire, 111. 

Acton, Bichard de, 82. 

Adam, Brother of Eudo Dapifer, 22 ». 

, a Monk, Brother of the Abbot (of 

Buildwas), 358. 

^gelfleda. Queen of Mereia, 105, 106, 
131,132,244 ft. 

-ailnoth, 22. 

.^Iric, Alric, or Aluric, v, Elric. 

^Isi, 152, o. Elsi. 

iElward, 18 ter, 132, 133, 185, 211. 

^Iwi, 18, 159. 

Agelric, Archdeacon of Worcester, 111. 

Ake, Jew of Brug, 311. 

Albemarle, Eai4 o^ 249 «. 

Albert, 18, 195. 

Albescun, o. Aubucun. 

Albini, PhiUp de, 271j 

y William de (I), Earl of Arundel 

and Sussex, 247. 
-, William de (III), 273, 298. 

Albinus, 44, v. Bode. 
Albyns, Adam de, 54 n. 

, John de, 54 ». 

Alcher, 18 (bis), 195, 199, 200. 

y Descendants of, v, Fitz Aer, 

Aldenham, Folqui (de), 80. 

, Fulcaius de, 80, 207. 

, John de, 83, 115. . 

, Walter de, 128, 320. 

, William de, 80, 81, 382. 

, William Fitz William de, 81 «, 


Aldred, Brother of Siward, 112. 

, son of Siward, 112. 

Aldreham, v, Aldenham. 
Alexander, Prebendary, Chaplain of Wm. 
de Braose, 118. 

, Prebendary and Physician, 121. 

Aleyn, Bichard, 320. 
Algar, 18. 

Earl of Mercia, 64, 165. 

Allechtone, o. Haughton. 

AlmaiTi, Bichard King of, 150 n, 157, 

281 », 310. 
Alrecumb, Bobert de, Prebendaiy, 76. 
Alsi, 152, V. Elsi. 
Aluhton, V. Haughton. 
Aluric, 223, y. Ehric. 
Alyeley, Prebendaries of, 120-123. 
Ambreslega (Ombersley), Maurice de, 250. 
Amelioot, Alice de, 379. 
Andrew (Astley Abbots), 44, v, Norie^. 
Anjou, Fulk, Earl of; 243. 
, Qeofflpey Plantagenet, Earl o^ 

294 «i. 
Anketill, OeofSeey, 301. 
AnsketiU, Clerk of Brug, 136, 143,145, 

349 «i. 

, Andrew, brother o^ 349 «• 

Arehetel, 18, 159. 
Ardem, Sir Bichard, (Oerk), 222. 
Ardnichun, Bichard, 113, 315, c. Fitz Eve. 
Argentol, Master l^omas de, Clerk and 

Prebendary, 76. 
Arley, Henry de, 309, 310, 316 gwrfw". 

361, 368, 370, 377 ». 
Arras, Jane, Wife of Balph de, 213, 214 
, Balph de, 124, 138, 142, 213,214, 


-, Sir Balph d', 115, 178^ 179, 205, 




Arthur, Sheriff of* * 112. 
Arundel, Earl of, 167, 170, v. d'Albini. 

, Remigius de, Sheriff's Clerk, 52. 

, WilUam de, 176, 190. . 

Ashebome, William de, 318. 

Asserio, Bigaud de, 327, v. Winchester, 

Bishops of. 
Astley (Abbots), Chaplains of, 49, 62, 115, 
, , Henry, Chaplain of, 49, 

52, 62. 

-, Clerk of, 311. 

: , Joseph Fitz Henry, 

Chaplain o^ 49, 52, 62. 

, Eichard de, 57. 

, Nicholas Fitz Richard 

de, 57. 

-^ Richard, Priest of, 44. 
*, Richard, Proyost there, 


JS Xm 

Aston (Botterell), Henry de, 225. 

, Incumbents of, 229. 

^ Lord of, 223. 

Clerk, 229. 

-, Master Richard de. 


of, 208, 209. 

-, Incumbents of, 60,208, 
-, Peter deHoptun, Vicar 
-, William, Chaplain of, 

Atte Yate, Henry, 320. 
A**uard, Richard, 256. 
Audley, Henry d', 204, 266, 257, 361, 

o. Sheriffs. 

, James d', 205. 

Aubucun, Peter de. Prebendary, 73 », 74, 

75 ». 
Augustine, 112, v. Austin* 
Aurifaber, John, son of William, 318. 

, Simon, 319 ter, 

, Walter, son of Robert, 313, 314, 

341, 357, 364, 367, 379* 
, William, 113, 314 6w, 341. 

Austin, 18, 112, 149. 
Avelun, v. Aubucun. 
Axmouth, WiUiam de, 296. 
Azo, 18, 211. 

Bacun, Henry, 300, 314, 364. 

, Hugh, 366. 

, Richard, 379. 

, Robert, 254, 255. 

Badger, Philip Fitz Stephen de, 44, 45, 46. 

, PhiUp d^ (1291), 68. 

, Roger de, 60, 299. 

, Roger de (1301), 158. 

, William de, 370. 

Bagot, Walter, 320. 


Baldwin, Walter (of Norley), 38 n. 

Baliol, Joceline de, 249, 250. 

Balistarii, 266. 

Bangor, Robert Bishop o^ 60, 98, 265. 

Barbe, Nicholas, 369. 

Bardeley, Thomas de, 56. 

Baret, Walter de, 320. 

Baril, John, Under Sheriff, 156, 158. 

Barley, * *, Prebendary, 78. 

Baskerville (FomUies of), 79, 80, 230, 231, 

238, 240, 241. 

, Adam de, 232. 

, Agnes, daughter of Ralph de, 

wife of Hugh de Pichford, 234 ». 

: , Hugh de (1242-1259), 240. 

, Hugh de (1274-1292), 241. 

,Johnde (1262-1271), 240. 

, John de (Lord of Pickthom), 


, JuHana, mother of Ralph de 

(of Pickthom), 232. 

-, Nesta de, daughter of Ralph 

de (of Pickthom), 235, 237. 
, Nicholas de (a Norman), 


, * * wife of Nicholas de, and 

niece of Gunnora Countess of Nor- 
mandy, 231. . 

-, Ralph de (of Pickthom), 


, • * * widow of Ralph de, 

wife of Roger Fitz William, 236. 
, Ralph de (of Eardisley), 

234 ». 


-, Ralph, brother of Roger de, 

— , Ralph de (Staff, and Heref., 

1192-3), 234. 

, Ralph de (Warw., 1165), 

234 ». 

, Ralph de, &ther of Agnes de 

Pichford, 234 ». 

, Robert de (of Erdisley), 231. 

, Roger de, brother of Ralph, 




Baskerrille, Boger (I) de, Lord of Pick- 
thorn, 237, 240. 

.Roger (11) de, Lord of Pick- 
thorn, 229, 238, 239. 

-, Boger, son of Boger (II) de. 

Clerk, 229. 

-, Thomas de, Loid of Pick- 

thorn, 225, 233-237. 

,,Thonias de (1272), 241. 

-, Walter de. Lord of Pick- 

thorn, 80, 83, 237-239. 
Basset, Balph (of Drajton), «. Sheriffs. 

, Thomas, 264. 

, William, 296. 

Bath, Arohdeaoon of. Master Balph de 

Witham, 184. 

, Bishop of, 244. 

, Bishop of, Josoeline, 804. 

and Wells, Bishop of (Bobert Bur- 

neU), 184, v. Bumell. 
Baudak, Bobert de, 371. 
Bavelingham, Matilda, wife of Thomas de^ 

174, V. Tumham. 
, Thomas de, 174, 176, 

Baxtere, Walter le, 320. 
Beauchamp, Hugo de, 293. 

, WilUam de, 3 «, 260. 

Beaumes, Hugh de, 310. 
Becare, William le, 857. 
Beche, Geoffi-ey de h^ 359. 
Beckbury, Hugh de, 300. 

, Hugh de, 134, 371, 372. 

, Johanna, wife of Hugh de, 134, 

135, 372. 
Becket, Thomas ^ v. England, Chancel- 

lors of. 
Bedewine, W., Prebendary, 72. 
Bedewynde, Sir John, Chaplain, 222. 
Belesme, Bobert de, v. Shrewsbury, Earls 

Belmeis, Family of. 111, 149. 

, Hugh de, V. Beaumes. 

, Banulf de, 149. 

, Eichard de, 109, 149, 150, v. 


-, Boger de, 150. 

Bplswardine, William de, 189. 

Bending, Adam de, 174, 175, 190. 

■ — •, Alice, wife of Adam de, v. Tum- 

Bergham, Bobert de, 819 hit. 

— : , William de^ 319. 

Barham, Alan de, and Iiecya his wife, 

Bernard) Thomas Eitz, 7n, 86, 88, v.£^tz 

Bemer, Boger, son of William le, 370. 

, William le, 314. 370. 

Bemerall, Hugh de, 273. 
Bemewell, v, Bunewall. 
Bersempton, John de, 289. 
BeTerle, Bichard de, Prebtodary, 75. 
Bererley, ProTOst o^ 266. 
Beysin, Adam de, 65, 67, 213. 

, Adam (Jl) de, 240. 

^ Alice de, 66. 

, Bobert de, 65, 66, 197. 

, Bobert de, Cierty 67. 

— : , Walter de, 66, 142. 


Biriton, Andrew, Priest of, 358. 
Biset, Manasser, Sewer, 249, 250. 
Blunt, Qeofirey le, 320, Mt, 

, Balph, 78. 

Bobington, John ^itz PhiHp de (I), 256, 

304, 335. 
, John Yitz PhiKp de (II), 94, 

279, 335, 336. 

-, Philip de, 266^ &c. 

, William, Provost of; 335. 

Bocghan, Bichard, 257. 
Bohun, De, 238. 
Bois, Unfrey de, 369. 
Bold, Adam de, 155. 

, Adam (II) de, 155, 156> 158. 

, Alan (de Mara),, brother of Herbeii 

de hi, 153, 154, 155. 

, Henry de, 157. 

, Herbert de la, 153, 154. 

, Hugh, Parson there, 165. 

, Odo de la, 152. 

, B. de, 153. 

, Bobert de, 154, 155 bis. 

, Boger de la, 157. - 

Warin, junior de la, 156, 157. 


-, John de, 176. 

Bolde (of Brug), Adam, 320. 

, Bichard, 320. 

Bolding, Andrew, 125, 311, 312, 317 <«r, 

317», 35& 
, Balph, Provost of Brug, H^ 


-, Stephen, 362, 368. 



Bolding, Waher, 311. 

, William, 216, 257, 306 his, 309, 

357, 361, 362, 367, 368, 370, 877 ». 
-, William (Junior), 315, 316 Us, 


BoUnghale, Hugh de, 335. 
BoUand, Balph, 240, v. Bcwsard. 
Bonami, Boger, 115, 317, 317 », 318 Us, 

320, 358. 
, William, 113 Us, 267, 306, 309, 

310, 315 ter^ 317, 357 quater, 862, 367, 

368, 877 n, 379, 380. 
Bonewell, v. BuBevrall. 
BoBsard, Bialph, 240. 
Botar, Bichard, of Quatford, 115. 

J J Maud, daughter of, 116. 

, , Susanna, irife of, 115. 

Boterell (of Aston), Avelina, wife of Philip, 


, John (Lord of Aston 1316), 228. 

, John (Lord of Aston 1393), 229. 

, Petronilla, wife of Thomas, 227, 

V. HadnalL 

, PhiHp (Lord of Aston), 225, 240. 

> Richard (Lord of Aston), 227- 


, Thomas (Lord of Aston), 155, 

178, 225-227, 229, 258. 

, Thomas, Priest, 229. 

, William (Lord of Aston), 224, 


» William (Lord of Aloester, &c.), 

Botiller, Bal^h le, 296. 
Boude, V, Bold. 
Bracy, Aldulf de, Knight, 240. 
Bradwardine, Balph de, 234. 
Branche, Johanna^ wife of William, 175. 

, William, 17S^ 

Brantyngham, Thomas de, 338. 
Braose, Family of; 232, 238. 

, William de, 118, 235. 

, William de (II), 265. 

Breant, Fulk de, 268, 271. 
Brember, Thomas, Prebendary, 123. 
Brentemersch, Nicholas de, Chaplain, 

Breos, v. Braose. 
Bret, PhiUp le, 204. 

, Richard Is (Pickthom), 241. 

Breton (of Upton Oessett), Adam le, 145, 


Breton (of Upton Oessett), Herbert fits 

Robert le, 146. 
^,Robert le,145. 

(of Bold), Richard, 154. 

Brewood, Black Nuns of, 176. 
, White Nuns o^ 229, 306» 346, 

361, 362. 

oress of the, 361. 

oress of the, 361. 

-, AldHha, Pri- 
-, Cecitia, Pn- 

areas of the, 229 ». 

-, Margaret, Pri- 

-, Prioress of the. 

Breyn, Le, v, Brun & Bruyn. 
Bricstual, 1^ 

Bridge-Walton, Prebendaries o^«. Walton. 

Bridgnorth, Bailifb, or Provosts o^ 278, 

. 279, 287, 298, 301, 306,306, 308^ 313- 

, Burgesses of, 290-812,. 321, 

327, 346, 350. 

.^ J of Parhament for, 

126, 317, 317 11,319-320. 

-, Canons of, 70, 71-79, 117- 

123, 126, 166, 294, 309, 310, 321-^40. 
-^ Chapter, or Colle^, of, 345 n, 

353, V, Canons of. 

, Constable o^ 71-77, 118, 

121, 122, 259-261, 264, 272, 273, 275- 
278, 280, 288, 289, 304, 334, 363. 

-, Beans of, 76, 118^ 322, 325, 

826, 327, 328-33a 

, Dean of, Symon, 322. 

-, Franciscan Fiiars o^ 350- 

362, 345 n, 360-352. 

-, Hospitallers of the Holy Tri- 

nity of, 343-347, 361. 

^ Chaplainof the,846. 

Prior of the, 344- 

345, 345 ». 
113, 345 ». 

-, Symon, 

-, Master of the. 

-, Lepers of Saint James o^ 
313, 345 n, 347-350, 377 «. 

— , Guardian of the, 

William, 360 «. 

liam Beyste, 350. 

-, Prior of the, Wil- 



Brigida^ AdAm dei 201. 

, Richard de, brother of Adam, 

201, 212. 
Brbtol, Bailiffs of, 302. 
Briweie, Joan, widow of William, 277. 

, William, 266, 277, 299. 

Broc, Alice, daughter of Banmlph de, wife 

of William Hareng, 173, 177, 178 n, 

— ^, demence, daoghter of Banulph de^ 

wife of William de MaleaonreB, 173- 

178. 186. 190. 

, Damietta, wife of Banulf de^ 166, 

170-174, 176, 186, 190. 
, Edelina, daughter of Banulf de, wife 

of Stephen de Tumham, 170-178, 186. 
1 Felicia, daughter of' Banulf de, «. 

Alice tu^a, 
, Lucy, daughter of Banulf de, wife 

of Wm. Maubanc, 173, 174, 177, 190. 

, Nigel de, 167. 

, Banulf de, Bon of Oyn Poroell, 166- 

171, 173, 176, 186, 189, 190, 264. 

, Boland de, 167. 

, Sibil, daughter of Banulf de, wife of 

Wm. de Arundel, 164-177, 181, 183, 

184. 186. 191. 

, Wido, Uncle of Banulf de, 167. 

Brocton, Sibil de, 360, v. linley. 
Brody, aHat Weaton, William, Bector of 

Oldbury, 136. 
Brok, Laurence de, 336. 
Brokton, William de, 118 ». 
Bromfield, Madoo ap Ghruf^ Maylor 

of, 268 91, 269. 
Bromleye, Bobert de, 310. 
Bromton, John, Abbot of Jorval, 106, 

109 «, 322 and Addenda. 
Bromwic, Biohard de, 267. 
Bron, or Broun, v. Bran. 
Brooke, John, atte, Bector of Upton (Orea- 

8ett),'l42, 147. 
Brug & Bruges, v, Bridgnorth. 
Brug, Alan, son of Bobert de, 266, 266, 

313, 364, 381, 382, 383. 

, Avice, wife of Bobert de, 381. 

, Henry, son of Bobert de, 306 lis, 

367, 361, 380, 881, 383-384. 
— — , Bobert de, 381. 
-; — , Bobert, son of Bobert de, 381, 383 «i. 
-, Boger, son of Henry de, 362, 368, 

Brugge, Elyaa, Dean o^ 324. 
f John de, 320. 

380, 381, 383-384. 

, Peter de, 342 «. 

, Boger de, 320. 

, William, son of William de, Pre- 
bendary, 340. 

Bran, Alice, or Ayiee, wife of Nicholas le, 

y Hugh, 289. 

, John, 312, 318. 

, Nicholas le, 114, 312. 

, Nicholas le. Prebendary, 72, 312. 

, Nicholas, son of Richard, 36a 

, Bichard, 368. 

Bruniht, 18. 

Bras, Bobert de, Ptobendary, 121 

Brayn, v. Bran. 

f John, Prebendaiy, 77. 

Buckingham, John de. Prebendary, 123. 

Budde, Henry, 311. 

Buich, Bainald Eitz Turstin, 33. 

, Turstin, 33. 

Buildwas, Abbot o^ 61, 363, 366, 871, 

, , William, 363. 

-, Alan de, 369. 

-, Prior o^ Gilbert, 368. 

Bunewall, Henry Fitz Bichard de,49,62. 

, Margery de Fonte de, 63. 

, Nicholas Fitz Bichard de, 63. 

, Bichard de, 62, 63. 

, Bichard de Balle de, 63. 

, Bobert de, 44, 62. 

, Simon de, 62. 

, Walter Fita Bichard de, 63. 

, William Fitz Henry de, 63. 

Bungi, Simon, 61, 62. 
Burford, Barons of. 111. 
Burgeys, John, 320. 
Burghton, Boger, Hermit, 363. 
Buigo, Bertram de, 63. 

, Hubert de, 304, 330, 332, 344. 

, William de, Prebendary, 76. 

Bumell, Family o^ 160. 

f Gerin, 369. 

— , Hugh, 184, 188> 189. 

, Humphrey, Clerk, 183. 

, Philip (I), 160. 

, PhiUp (II), 150, 161, 184. 

, Philip, Caerk, 184. 

, Bobert, 160, 166, 178, l79j 182, 

184, V. Bath and Wells. 




Bomell, Bobert, unole of Ralph Puroell, 
166 ». 

, Sibil, 189. 

BurstaU, William de, Priest, 221. 
Butailles, Herlewyn de, 152. 
Buterley, Stephen de, 176. 


Canne, Henry, 319, 345 «i. 

— , William, 370, 377 ». 

Canterbury, Archbishop of, Theobald, 

249, 250. 
^ ^, Thomas JkBecket, 


265 «i. 

(elect), 76 ». 


-, Hubert, 255,264, 
-, John de Gray 
-, Edmund, 332; 
-, John (Feckham), 


Cantem, v. Cantreyn. 
Cantilupe, William de, 273. 
Gantinunt, Cecilia de, 47, v, Cantreyn* 
Cantreyn, Alexander de, 59. 

, Cecilia de, 47. 

, Geffrey de, 47, 48, 58, 58»., 

V, De Molendino. 

, John de, 58, 59, 312. 

, John Fitz WilUam de, 58, 341. 

, Philip Fitz Alexander de, 59. 

, Richard de, 58, 61. 

: — , Robert Fitz John de, 59. 

-, Sibil, wife of Gbffi?ey de, 47, 48, 

V, Fitz Robert. 

-, William de, 58, 58 », 59, 61, 

309, 310, 311, 358, 361, 362, 363, 368, 
370, 377 ». 

-, William Fitz Geffrey de, 48, 

58, 58 ». 
Carbonel, Pain, 155. 

— , Simon (of Wetenaston), 206. 

Carpenter, Henry le, 58. 

i Ralph, son of Robert le (of 

Criddon), 194. 

, Robert le, of Criddon, 194. 

-, Walter (of Brug), 357. 

Castello, De (of Brug), 374-381. 
Castello (of Brug), Alan Fitz William de, 
113 », 307, 375, 377-380. 

Castello (of Brug), Alice Fitz WUliAm de, 
113», 375, 377-^81. 

' — , Alice, wife of John de, 

375, 376. 

362, 375, 377. 

-, Henry de, 113, 375. 
-, Henry Fitz William de, 

-, John de, alicu John 

Fitz William de, 113, 257, 306, 310, 
357, 358, 359, 367, 875, 376-377, 379, 
380 ». 

•, William de, alicta Wil- 

liam Fitz Henry de, 113, 374, 375. 

-, WiUiam Fitz William 

de, alicM William de Bruges, 113, 375, 

377, 379, 380. 
Castello (of Holgate), Helgot de, 18 ter, 

111, 149, 150. 
, Herbert Fitz Hel- 

got de. 111, 152. 


-, Hearbert de (1137), 
-, Herbert de (1166), 

150, 153. 

, Martin de, 209. 

, Walter de, Prebendary, 71. 

-, Warin de, 98. 

Castile, King o^ 339. 

Caus, Alexander de, 191. 

Cans, Lords of, f. Corbet. 

Cementarius, Robert, 257. 

Cenobio, Roger de, 357, v, de Abbatia. 

, Simon de, 314 », 357. 

Chabbenour, Margery, wife of Thomas de, 

y Thomas de, 86, 87, 90, v. 

Thomas deTasley and Thomas FitzOdo. 
-, Thomas (II) de, 124. 

Chaceporc, Peter de, 378. 

ChamberlaiD, Isabella, wife of Peter le, 

163, o. Faintree. 

, Peter le, 161, 163. 

Chancellors of England, v. England. 
Chaplains of Earl Roger, 26, 27, 29, 32, 

35 «. 
Charlcott, Alan de, 157, 158. 

, Katherine, wife of Roger de, 157. 

, PhiUp Fitz William de, 158. 

, Roger de, 157. 

, William de, 157 bis, 158. 

, WiUiam Fitz Alan de, 157, 158. 

Chelleseye, Alexander de, Clerk, 221, 222. 



Oheney, Hugh, son of Roger de, 228. 

Cherleton, Master John de, Friest, 228. 

Chester, Archdeacon of^ Balph de Maid- 
stone, 71 n. 

^ Bishop of; Robert, 108, v, lich- 


^ Barls of; 22 », 165 «. 

, Earl of, Hugh (Oyvelioc), 250. 

, ,Ranulf (Blundevil),76ii, 

265, V, Sheriffs. 

Ghete (of Brag), Roger (1230), 366. 

, Roger, 125, 309, 310, 

370, 377*. 
(1300), 125. 

-, Roger, son of Roger 

-, Stephen, 870. 

Chetinton, Thomas de, 172. 

, Sir William de, Chaplain of 

Quatford, 115. 

Chetton, Rectors of, 146^ 183, 184. 

Chetwynd, Adam de, 94. 

Chilchehethe, a., Prebendary, 78, 122. 

Chordewain, Walter, 181. 

Christian, Robert, 232. 

Cineret (of Quatford), Alice Fitz Nicho- 
las, 125. 

, Nicholas, 125. 

Cirencester, Ralph de, Clerk, 118. 

Cissor, V. Taylor. 

Citator, John de Rxton, v. Exton. 

Claverley, Rectors of; 328-^338. 

Cleoburj (Mortimer), Seneschal of, 310. 

, , John 

de la Fenne, 241. 

-, Geoff- 

rey le Yenour, 226. 
Cleobuiy (North), Brioe de, 157. 
Clerk, Richard, 346 n, 
Clifford, Matilda de, 226. 

, R- de, Knight, 226. 

, Roger de, 283, 284, 285. 

, Walter de (II), 237. 

J , Walter de (III), 53, 77. " 

Clun, Constable of, 226. 
Cnolle, Reginald de, 288. 
Coggesheye, Walter de, 335, 336. 
Cold Weston, Incumbents of; 69. 
Colemere, Henry de, 58 n. 

, John de, 56. 

, Simon Fitz John de, 66. 

Coliare, Robert le, 357. 
Coly, or Soly, Robert, 288. 

Constantiine, Christiaiia, wife of Sicfaard 
de, 120, 134. 

^ Hdyas de, 133, 136, 137. 

, Hugh de, 133. 

, Richard de, 120, 134. 

1 Roger de, 138. 

, Thomas de, 60, 134,135, 13a 

, Thomas de, Knight, 124i, 155. 

, * * daughter of Thomas de, 

wife of Adam de Montgomery, 134. 
Coram, 112. 
Corbet (of Cans), Roger, 109, 110 «, 111, 


' ' , ■ , Robert, brother 


-, Roger (1155), 250. 
-, Thomas, 141. 

Corbet (of Chetton andChadde8]ey),Ne8ta, 

wife of Roger, 181. 
, Robert, 156, 161, 178-180, 182, 

188, 214, 226. 

, Roger, Knight, 180, 181. 

, William, brother of Robert, 179. 

, William, son of Roger, 181. 

, William,8on of William, 179, 180. 

Corbet (of Tasley, Hadley, Ac.), Cecilia, 
wife of Roger I, 86, 88-91, 100, 101. 

, Duce, 93. 

, Edelina, wife of Roger U, 93, 100. 

, Hugh, 93. 

, Roger I, 85-88, 100. 

, Roger n, 81 n, 92-93, 97, 100. 

, Roger ni, 97-98, 100. 

, Thomas I, 88, 90-92, 100. 

, Thomas U, 93-97, 99, 100. 

Corbet (of Wattlesborough), Richard, 
85», 86, 87«i. 

, , Roger, 

brother of Richard, 85 «, 86, 87 n. 

Corbrigg, Andrew, Hermit, 353. 

Corfham, Constable of, 156. 

Comhull, Henry de, Chancellor of Saint 
Paul's and Prebendary, 118, 119 ». 

Cornwall, Earl of, Reginald, 250, 251, 
252, 263 n. 

, (Richard), 325, v. 


Coroner (Curren, or Curwen), Hugh, Pre- 
bendary, 339 n. 

Cound, Rectors of, 183, 184. 

Courtenay, Reginald de, 264. 

, Robert de, 272. 



Corene^ Balph de, 278. 
Coyentry, Bishops of, v, Lichfield. 
Coynterel, Henry, 306 ftw, 310, 314, 316, 

846n, 357, 367. 
Crasset, William, 95. 
Gressett, Thomas, 142 bis^ 144. 
Crida, 191. 

Griddon, Elias de, 194 bis, 
, OeofSeej de, 141, 182, 192, 193, 

196, 220. 

-, Hugh de, husband of Sibil Fitz 

OeSbey de, 192. 

•, Hugh de Holicote, 2nd husband 

of Sibil de (called son of Ckofirey de), 
182, 192, 193. 

^ Margaret de, 193, 

, Reginald Elyes de, 143, 194. 

-, Biohard, son of Reginald Elyes 

de, 143, 194. 

^ Bicholda^wife of William de,19l. 

y Bobert de, 191. 

f Bobert Niger de, 141. 

, Bobert, son of Elias de, 194. 

-, Sibil, daughter of G-eofi&ey de, 

wife of Hugh de Griddon, Hugh de 
Holicote, Balph Fayn, and John de 
WoUascott, 182, 192, 193, 196, 220. 

, WiUiam de, 172, 191. 

-, William, son of Elias de, 194. 

Crofte, Beginald de, 50. 

^ Beginald Fitz Beginald de, 50. 

, Biohard de, 50. 

, William de, 50, 51. 

Crouk, John, 311, 319 bis, 

, Bobert, 311, 317, 363. 

Cumbray, John de, 87. 
Cuppare, Bobert le, 357 ter. 
Cydewen, Meredyth ap Bobert of, 268. 
Cytharista, v. Harper. 


Dagonel, William, 216. 

J ^ Christiana,daughter of, 


^ ^ ^ Agnes daugh- 
ter of; 216. 

Damietta (Heiress of Chetton), 166, 170, 
171, 173, 174, 190, V. Broc. 

Bammas, Bichard, Chaplain, 113, 114, 340. 

Banes, The, 104, 105. 

Beepdale, Nicholas de, 64. 

Den, Era, wife of Bichard de, 156. 

, Biohard de, 156. 

Denton, Nicholas de, Hermit, 310. 

Despensers, The, 228. 

Devereux, Matilda, wife of William, 66. 

, Nicholas, 99. 

, William, 66. 

Devon, William de, 320. 

DeuxhDl, Juliana Fitz Warin, niece of 

Bobert de, 220. 
, Margery, wife of William de, 

, Bectors of, 217, 218, 220-221, 


, Bobert Fitz Owen de, 220. 

, Bobert, CJhaplain of, 220. 

, William Fitz Pr6tre de, 220. 

Deyere, William le, 320. 

Deystere, Bobert le, 318 ». 

Diddlebury, William de Bos, Bector of, 77. 

Dieulacres, Abbot of, 125. 

Dilum, Geoffi^y, 212. 

Dobyn, Sir Bichard, Chaplain, 229. 

Dod, Henry, 301. 

, Bichard, son of Boger, 63. 

, Boger (1322), 320. 

i Boger, 63, 64. 

, Sunon, 311, 317 «, 319. 

, Thomas, 63. 

Dodinton, Adam de, 191, 225. 

Don, William, 320. 

Donyil, Hugh de, 214, 288, 289. 

Door, John, Dean of Brug, 338. 

Doresc, Henry, son of Adam, 356. 

Dreyton, John de (of Bold), 157, 158. 

Dublin, Archbishop of, Henry de London, 

71 «, 273. 
Dudley, John, Viscount LislS, 41, 42 n. 
Dudmaston, Hugh de, 124, 289. 

, Hugh de. Junior, 142. 

, Peter de, 367. 

, Philip, brother of Bichard 

de, 288. 

, Bichard de, 287, 288. 

— , Bobert de, 115. 

, SibO, wife of Peter de, 367. 

Dun, Boger, 320. 

Dunbar, G^rge de. Earl of March, 338. 

^ , Columbinus, son of, 

Dunfowe, Agnes wife of Bichard (II) de, 




Danfowe, Alexander de, 65, 66. 

, Hilisant, daughter of Alexander 

de, 66. 


-, Richard (I), 65, 66. 

-,Richard(II), 67. 

-, Roger, 88 »• 

-, Sibil, daughter of Richard (I), 

-, Simon, 66, 66, 62. 

-, William de (1319), 820. 

Dunstan, Thomas, 77. 
Dunstanyille, Robert de, 249, 2^. 

, Walter de, 87. 

DunraU, v. Dunfowe. 

Durham, Peter de, Prebendary, 119, 121. 

Durvaall, Robert, 820. 


Eardmgton, Alan de, 64, 124. 

, Fremund, de, Cleric, 124^. 

, Fremund Fitz Reginald de, 

116, 124, 126, 126, 136, 811, 312, 317, 


, Giles de. Justiciar, 64fi^ 66, 

68, 146, 204, 324, 376. 

, Prebendaries of^ 117-119. 

, Reginald Rede de, 124. 

f Reginald Fitz Fremund dp, 

126, 216. 

— , Richard Fitz Alan de, 64, 

124, V. Rode. 

, Richard Fitz Reginald Rud 

de, 126. 

Eaton (Constantine), Walter, Chaplain 

of, 136. 
Edric (Middleton), 18, 196. 

(Astley Abbots), 69. 

(Bold), 166. 

Edwin (Stockton), 18. 

Edwin, Earl, 18. 

Edwards, Rowland, 347. 

Egeton, Brother John de, Seneschal, 44. 

Egymendune, Gerard de, 48. 

Eitropius, 232. 

Elirich, Archdeacon, 111. 

Elmbrugg, Adam de. Knight, 179. 

Elmund (Fulwardine and Upton), 18 bis, 

137, 139. 
Ehic (Aston), 18, 222, 223. 
Elsi (Charlcott), 18, 162. 
Eluric, Dean, 207. 

Elyea (of Criddon), Reginald, 143^ 194. 

-, Richard, son of Segi* 

nald, 148, 194. 

-, Robert, 194. 

Elward, v. JSlward. 

EnfiEmt, Willitm le, 67, 68, 288. 

Engelard, 368. 

England, Chancellors of, 28 n^ 834. 

-, Chancellor of^ Thomas 4!Bedcel, 

249,.260, 262 », 290, 291, 384. 

-g WHliain de liong- 

ohamp (Bishop of Ely), 201, 265, 297. 

-, Hubert Walter, «. 

Canterbury, Archbishops of. 

-, Simon, An^deaoon 

of Wells (Keeper of the Seal), 265. 

-^, Richaid de lia- 

risds, 278, 299. 

^ ^ John ICanBel, 389. 

ham, 122. 

-, Henry de "Wing- 


", John de Kirkby, 
-, William of Wick- 

ham, 123. 

England, Kings, Queens, and Princes o^— 
K. Alfred, 104. 

i MgMddAf daughter o^ v, 

K. Edward the Elder, 244 », 853 n. 
— ' , wires and children of, 363 ft. 

-, Edwin, son of, 353 ». 
-, Ethelward, son o^ 353 *. 

K. Athelstan, 862, 853, 353 ». 

K. Edmund, 863 n. 

K.Edred, 86811. 

K. Edward the Confessor, 18, 20, 22, 
24 », 26, 32, 64, 103, 104, 128, 
129 f»,132,188, 137, 149, 152, 160, 
164, 166, 196, 199, 211, 219, 222, 

K. Harold, 64. 

K. WilHam I, 23, 27, 28 », 49, 68, 78, 
108, 109, 110. 

, Robert, sou o^ v, ITor- 

mandy, Dukes of. 

K. William H, 23, 28 », 73, 107, 108, 

112, 242, 243. 

K. Heniy 1, 23, 31, 32,34, 44,102«, 108, 

113, 166, 167, 206, 219, 243-247, 
290, 321, 341, 350 n, 354, 355. 

, Matilda, wife of, 244. 



England, Kings, Queens, and PrinoeB of, — 

. K. Henry I, Adeliza, wife of^ 247. 

^, Matilda, daughter of, 4A^ 

206, 260. 
K. Stephen, 23, 87, 66, 78, 102 «, 136, 

166 fi, 206, 207, 247, 248, 260. 
K. Henry H, 23, 74, 86, 87, 91, 113, 
116 », 117, 120, 166, 167-170, 
171, 248-266, 262-264, 290-296, 
321, 322, 334, 369, 360, 361. 

, Emma, sister oi, 294. 

"— , William, son of, 248. 

-, Henry, Bon 0^168, 248,262. 

K Bichard I, 24, 96, 171, 219, 266, 

K. John, 71, 74, 76, 88, 89, 97. 118, 

163, 164, 171, 186, 236, 237, 266, 

260, 262, 266-274, 296, 298, 299, 

K Henry III, 9, 76, 120, 121, 178, 203, 

227, 237, 266-268, 260, 274-286, 

299-309, 312, 323, 324, 326, 329- 

336, 339, 340, 344, 348, 349, 360, 

378, 382, 383. 
, Eleanor, wife of, 278, 286, 

, Edward, son of, 278, 280, 

282^ 286, 286, 309, v. Edward I. 
', Biohard, brother of (King 

of the Bomans), 160% 167, 281 ji, 
310, V. Atmoin. . 

E. Edward!, 9, 228, 268, 339. 

E. Edward II, 228, 319, 327. 

K Edward m, 9, 27, 28 », 363. 

E. Bichard H, 119, et aUhi. 

K. Henry VHI, 9, 123, 209, 340, et 
English, Adam, son of Matilda, 372. 
Erdewik, Boger de, 289. 
Erdinton, Thomas de, v, Sheriffis. 
, — , Henry, son o^ Clerk, 

Erkalewe, John de, Ejiight, Esoheator, 

Eslewode, v. Hazlewode. 
Essex, Earl of, v. Fitz Piers. 

f , Henry Boorchier, 360 n. 

Essex, Henry de. Constable of England, 

169, 290, 291. 
Eston V. Aston. 
Eton (Mascott), Uger de, 369. 

Eton (Mascott), Oliver, brother of Uger 

Ethelfleda, v. ^gelfleda. 
Eudinas, Balph de, 844. 
EudoDapifer, 22fi. 

— , Adam, brother o^ 22 ». 

Eudon, Alan de, 186. 

, Alice, wife of Hugh de, 373. 

— -, Auger de^ 187, v, Tatlinton. 

', Hugh de, 814, 841, 867 bii, 373, 

•, John, brother of Hugh de, 341. 
-, Milisand, daughter of Alan de. 



, William de, 320. 

Eyerard, Chaplain, 244. 
Ewyas, Barons of, v. Laoy. 

^, Boger d', 232. 

Ezton, John de. Clerk, called Citator, 

Extraneus, o. Strange. 
Eyr, WiUiam le, 336. 
Eyton, Peter de, 213. 
, Bichard de, Portioner of Holgate 

Church, 16a 

-, Thomas de. Dean of Bridgnorth, 

338 5t9. 
Eyyon, Bichard, 320. 


Paber, Emma, daughter of William, 64. 
, Geofflrey, 367. 

-, John, 60, 61. 
— , Bichard, son of William, 64. 
-, Bobert, 806, 357, 379. 
— , Bobert, son of Geoffirey, 867. 
-, Walter, 109. 

Pabrica, William de, 254. 

Painttee, Adam de, 160-163, 178, 187. 

f Alice, daughter of Adam de, wife 

of Henry le Taylor, 162. 

-, Clemenoe, daughter of Adam de. 

wife of Bichard de Holicote, 161, 162. 
-, Isabel, daughter of Adam de,wi£9 

of Peter le Chamberlain, 163. 

, John de, 164. 

^ John de Enokyn, Lord of, 162. 

, Mabel, daughter of Adam de, 

wife of Hugh le Mazun, 163, 164. 

-, Margery, daughter oiAdam de, 

wife of Henry de^ la Porte, 161. 



Faintroe, Petronillft, daughter of WiUiam 

Fitz John de, 164. 

^ Philip Fite PhiUp (de), 164 

, Bohert de, 146, 160, 181. 

, Walcheline de, 18, 169, 160. 

, William FHz John de, 164. 

Farlow, Guy de, 240. 

, PhiHp de, 181. 

Faje, Beatrix, alias Katherine, wife of 

Balph de^ v. Tumham. 

, Balph de, 167, 174, 190. 

Feokham, William de, 72. 
Felde, John de la, Aoolite, 221. 
Ferrers, Earl, 234, 262, 278. 

^ Henry de, 22 ••. 

Fesun, Gedlia, daughter of Heniy, 862. 
Feyrchild, Boger, 118, 317, 879. 
, Boger, Bonof Bobert (of Hyne* 

stock), 382 ». 
Fiscamp, William de, 72. 
Fisher, John, Prebendary, 72, 839 n. 
Fits Adam, William, 367. 

, ■-, John, son o^ 867 ». 

■■ , , Bobert, son of, 367. 

Fitz- Adeline, William (Sewer to Hen. II), 

Fitz-ASr, (Mtw, Fitz Alcher), 192,196,199. 

^ Alina, 193. 

-, Christiana, wife of WiUiam son 

of Hugh (I), 198, V, Bedmarleye. 

-, Emma de Say, wife of Bobert 

(II), 202, 208. 

, Hugh le (I), 193, 206. 


-, Hugh (II),sonof Hugh(I),206. 
-, John, 166, 196, 206, 206, 227, 

-, Margery, wife of William, 206. 
-, Bobert (I), 36, 80, 140, 196, 


-, Bobert (II), son of Bobert (I), 

200, 201, 202, 208, 212. 

, Bobert (III), 202, 203. 

-, William, 143, 146,196, 203,204, 


-, William (circ, 1200), 204 ». 
-, William, sod of Hugh (I), 193. 

Fitz-Alan, 30, 84, 86, 92, 133, 134, 136, 
137, 139, 140, 142 «, 166, 167, 183, 186, 
186, 191, 192, 195, 204, 211, 214 », 
223, 224, 263. 

, William (I), 73», 206, 247 «, 

250-262, 260, 263, 290, 291. 

FitzAlan, Wilham (11), 85, 89, 91, 98, 

, John (II), 184, 141, 187, 188, 

191, 192, 206, 226 bis, 283. 

., Biohard, 94, 134, 138, 141, 162, 

188, 193, 196, 197, 216. 
Fitz- Albert, 196,196. 
, Hugh, 195. 

Fitz Algar, Warlance, 112. 

AJioe, William, 312. 

Alurie, Edric, 112, 223. 

Auoher, Henry, 277. 

Avioe, Henry, 306, 867 «* v. Kte 


Bernard, Balph, 174, 190. 

^ ^ Eleanor, wife ot, c. 


-, John, son o( 176. 
-,•••, dar. o^ 175. 

-, Thomas, 711,86,88. 
-, Walter, 276 «. 

— Count, Ebrard, 108, o. Earls of 

— Daniel (of Bmg), William, 69. 

— Dayid, Adam, 81. 

— Edwin, Boger, 181, 196, 196. 

— Eye, Bichard, 816, 367 ». 

— Flaald, Alan, 244. 

— Oerold, Warin, 249, 260. 
Godewin, William, 813, 349is 806. 

Henzy, Boger, 232. 

, Boger (of Brag), f>. Brag. 

Heri, v. Fitz-A6ri 

Hubert, Aveline, 240. 

Hugh, Osbem, 8«, 196. 

John, Pagan, v. Sheriib. 

Lambert, Balph, 264. 

Luun, Bobert, 223. 

^ Bobert (II), 224. 

Oilo, Thomas, 86, 90, 124 n^ o. Ghab- 


, WilMtai, 246. 

Ordric, Balph, 44. 

Osbert, Boger (of Ludlow), 359. 

, William, Chaplain, 210. 

Oseline, William, 369. 

Pagan, Oeof&ey, 246. 

Peter, v. Fitz Piers. 

PhiHp, Henry, 312. 

, Philip, 164. 

— Piers, Geoffirey, 88, 153, 218, 286^ 
256, 266. 



"Fitz Prdtre, Andrew, 255. 

, William, 220, v. DeuihiU. 

Ralph, William, 264. 

Redwi, Abraham, 254. 

-*— Reginald, Terricus, 314. 

Rdnfrid, Gilbert, 278. 

Richard, Osbert (of Burford), 111. 

-, PhiHp (of Brag), 349 », 

364, 365. 

-, William, 181. 

— Robert, Alan, v. Brag. 

y Hugh, 278, 344, 348. 

, John, 315. 

, Phihp, 314. 

, Roger, 382 », v. Feyrchild. 

^ Sibil, 48, V, Gantreyn. 

1 Walter, 313, 314, v, Anii- 


— Roger, Richard, 181. 

— Simeon, William, 254. 

— Simon, Roger, 58 ». 
, William, 369. 

— Siward, Roger, 181. 

— Stephen, QeoSrey, 849 ». 
1 Philip (of Badger), 44, 45, 

46, 253, 254. 
9 Ralph, Justiciar, 295. 

1 Richard, 313, 349 ». 

— Tedbald, William, 115. 

— Tetbald, Robert, 112, 377 ». 
i 9 Avelina, wife o^ 

377 ». 

— Thomas, Henry, 123. 

, Richard, 95. 

, William, 349«. 

— Turold, Henry, 255. 
, Willim, 4n, 48. 

— ITrse, Reginald, 169 ». 

— William, Alan, 307, v. de Caetello. 

9 Andrew, 300. 

, Elya«, 314, 341. 

9 Richard, 257. 

— 9 Roger (Northants), 285- 



-, Roger (of Brag), 314 Us, 

-, Vivian, 254. 
-, William, 255. 

Florence of Worcester, 105, 108, 131, 244. 
Poliot, Reginald, 209. 

, Richard, Rector of C^ietton, 146, 


Foliot, Robert (Master), 209. 
Folqui (Aldenham), 80. 
Forcer, Henry le, 50. 

, William le, 11511. 

Forde, Richard de, Subdeaoon, 229. 

f William de, 68. 

Forester, Alexander the, 44. 
Foresters of Shropshire, 203. 
Fougeres, Roger de, 267. 
France, Kings o^ 23 », 76. 

, Zing of, Philip (II) Augustus, 76. 

— , i Louis, son o^ 


-, Saint Louis DC, 283. 

Frankley, Emma, daughter of Simon de, 
V, Luttleton. 

, Simon de, 186, 190. 

Fraxino, William de, 98. 
Frederic, Archdeacon, 110. 
Fredesent, Osbert, 254. 
Freere, Justice, 350 ». 
Freville, William, Knight, 65. 
Frat, Robert, son of Walter, 366. 
Fulcoius (Aldenham), 80. 
Fulwardine, Matilda de, 138. 
Fumerius, Robert, 369. 
Fyleby, Adam de. Prebendary, 77. 
¥jne3, Michael de, 334, 336. 


Gamages, Matthew de (Stottesden), 200, 

Ghmt, Maurice de, Justiciar, 155. 
Gardino, William de, 380. 
Ckitacre, John de, 51. 

f Matilda, aunt of John de, 61. 

Gaugy, Alice, wife of Reginald 1^ 113 », 

375, V. de Gastello. 

-, Alice le, and Walter, her sdn, 381». 

, Reginald le, 59, 113 », 314, 341 «, 

375, 376 f», 377-380. 

-, Florence, Isabel, Jane, 

and Julia, daughters o^ 371, 375, 381. 

, Robert, son of, 376, 

377, 378, 380. 
Geoffi^, Chaplain, 364. 
Geoffirey, Henry, 320 quater, 

-, John, 310, 316, 317 ter,, 362, 

377 ». 

-, Richard, 320. 
-, William, 320. 



Genid Sotor, 869. 
Gerardos (deToroai), 16» 
Gennanj, Emperor ot, 888. 
OerraM of Boyer, 240« 
Qerw9/ie Qoeh, 87. 

^, OriiBii, fon o( 87. 

> ^ ^|Ktdoo^0onol^87fl, 

«. Sutton. 
Gethne, 18. 
Geune, Henry, 81 «. 

-* ^ Michael, Bon of Heniy, 81 % 82. 

Giifiurd, Acbun, hiuband of Sibil, 65. 
'• , Earl Walter, 22 «. 

-, Hugh, 237. 

-, John, 289. 

-, Sibil, 65, 80. 

-, Sibils wife of Hugh, 288. 

Glaxeley, WQliAin, won of Aloa (HI) de^ 

216^ 218. 
Gloucester, Abbot o^ Thomas Cmrbont^ 

GloTioester, Arohdn. ot, John de Otbj, 76. 

^,Barlo^Bobert thaConsii], 250. 

^, ^ William, 260. 

^ -*—-, (GiIbertdeGlai«),886, 

Gilbert, Emma, wife of Walter, 868. 

f Prebendary, 75. 

Sutor, 869, 

^ , Walter, d6& 

, Walter, son of Walter, 868. 

Girrhos, Henry de, 232. 

, Robert de <I), 168. 

, Bobert de (U), 168, 154^ 165, 

Glanyill, Banulf de, Justiciar, 200, 297. 
Glazeley, Agnes, wife of Laurence de^ 

daughter of Walter de Haselwod, 216. 
, Alan (I) de, 212, 213, 218» «. 


-, Alan (II) de, 115, 178» 179, 218, 

214, 215, 218, 258. 

, Alan (m) de, 126, 216, 216, 218. 

, Guy (I) de, 213, 218. 

-, Guy (n) de (Wydo), 116, 142, 

143, 182, 215 quater, 218. 

-, Henry, son of Guy (I) de^ 115, 

.— — f Ingelbert, Priest o^ 217. 
-, John de, 214, 215 guater. 

-, Juliana, wife of Guy (I) de, 124^ 

213, 214, 218. 

-, Katherine, daughter of Guy (Q) 

de, 216, 218. 

-, Kathenne, wife of Alan (II)