Full text of "History of the family of Wrottesley of Wrottesley, co. Stafford"

See other formats

IRE

7
6
2

\RYI

\CIL

—\

THE LIBRARY

THE UNIVERSITY

OF CALIFORNIA

LOS ANGELES

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY.

HISTORY OF THE FAMILY

.VROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY,

CO. STAFFORD.

Major-Gen. the Honblb. GEORGE WROTTESLEY.

Supplement to " The Genealogist."

EXETER :
WILLI A.M POLLARD & Co. Ltd., PRINTERS, NORTH STREET.

X903.

An archaeolog^ist who sits down to write a history of the
Wrottesley family starts with unusual advantages — a distinctive
name borne by no other family, and which has been taken from a
manor possessed by them for more than 700 years — complete
series of family deeds and other muniments extending over the
same period, and last, but not least, a tenure under a religious
house, of which the early charters enable him to bridge over that
obscure period for local history which intervenes between the
Norman Conquest and the middle of the twelfth century.

From sucii materials as these any writer who has the necessary
archaeological training could compose a very full and complete
family history, but there its usefulness would stop. Genealogy
by itself is a barren study, if divorced from its moral and
historical uses, and it is only by researches amongst the Public
Records that an author can lift a family history above a dry
genealogical chronicle, or throw any light upon the laws and
customs of the past. Even the dry details of ancient lawsuits
have their uses, for the judicial records contain the germ of our
modern laws, and it is only through the public employments and
public services of former days that we can rescue worthy actions
from oblivion, or call back to the fancy the pomp and chivalry of
days gone by,

Wrottesley is an ancient manor and township of the Parish
of Tettenhall, in the County of Stafford, and contains about
1600 acres of land. Its etymology is purely Saxon, the name
signifying the territory of Wrote, the original Saxon proprietor.
The same name occurs in the nomenclature of many other places
such as Wrotham and Wroxeter, formerly written Wrotcestre,
and is identical with the modern surnames, Wrote, Wrothe,
Grote, and the low German or Dutch Groot and Wroot. The
termination, ley, lea, or leag, latinized as lega, signifies a territory
or domain, and is nearly equivalent to the Norman manor.^

The earliest mention of Wrottesley occurs in the Harleian
Charter, 83, A. 2. This is an original Saxon document, the
will of Wulfgate, by which he makes bequests to his wife and
daughters and to St. Mary of Worcester. The testator, is, perhaps,
the Wulfgate, son of Ufa, who gave Wicksford to the monks of
Evesham in 973. The Chronicle of Evesham describes Ufa as
" potens homo et vicecomes super Warwykescira." From the
bequests made to St. Mary of Worcester, it is probable that this

* Ex in/or. Sir Frederick Madden, late Keeper of the MSS. at the British Museum.

G97i2ii8

4 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

curious docnrncnt came originally from that monastery, for the
Harleian Charters contain other deeds which evidently emanated
from the same source. In this will, Wrottesley is written
Wrotteslea.

After the Norman Conquest, Wrottesley formed one of the
numerovis lordships bestowed by the Conqueror on Robert de
Stafford, the founder of the great house of Stafford, Dukes of
Buckingham.

The Domesday Survey of A.D. 1085-86 gives the following
account of it under the heading of " Terra Roberti de Stadford."
In Saisdone Hundred. Ipse R. tenet in Wrotolei ij hidas et
Glodoen de eo. Hunta tenuit et liber homo fuit. Terra est ij
carucate, in dominico est una, et j villanus et j bordarius. Silva
dimidia leuva longa et ij quarentena lata Valet iiijs.

This value, 4s., for a manor of two hides is abnormally low,
being equal in fact, only to the assessment for the Danegelt
which was at the rate of 2s. a hide ; but Staffordshire, at this
date, had not recovered from the devastation wrought in it by
the Conqueror after the insurrection of 1069. Many of the
manors in Staffordshire are returned by the Commissicmers of
1085 as entirely waste.

Fourteen years, however, before the Domesday Survey,
Wrottesley had passed into the possession of the monks of
Evesham by a grant of Robert de Stafford, of which the
following is an old translation, which exists in the College of
Arms and is supposed to have been made by Cooke, Clarence
King of Arms, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. The Latin
original has been lost.^

" + In the yeare from the incarnation of our lord MLXXii in
the seventh yeare of the raigne of William King of the
Englishmen, I Rodbert de Stadfort having a care over my soule
and also for the soule of my foresaid lord King William and also
for my wife and my parents, have given certen land Wroteslea
by name to the holy monastery of Eoveshain by the lycens and
consent of the same my lord William into the hand of the lord
Agelwius Abbot, my faithful frend, also I have given the
foresaid land with woods and medowes and pastures which to it
of right belonge so that the church for ever shall it possess and
that none my adversary shall presume to detract from it or take
awaie anything, and if it so be that anie my enemy shall
presume to violate these my almes which I have geven to God
for the remission of my sins, and the health of my soule, be he
alienated from the inheritance of God, and damned amongst the
infernal ghosts. Amen.

" This land Worteslea hath 2 hydes bounded with these meeres
&c. in Saxon.

' MS. L. 17, College of Arm?.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 5

" These things done as is aforesaid, that is to wit, in MLXXII
yeare of the incarnation of our lord These -I- witnesses in word
agreing whose names appear underwritten + I Robert delivered
this my charter of gift under the seale of the holy Crosse and
in geving of it I there layd it upon the holy aultar + I, Urse a
Viscount was there a witness -\- I, Osborne the son of Richard
likewise + I, Agelwinus Viscount + I, Turkil the sonne of
Agelwinus -f T, Ketelbearne his brother + T, Aluricus the Kings
Knight + I Walterius + I, Kynewardus de lauro + I, Harle-
baldus + I, Robert Knight + I, Grosbertus + I, GilelDcrtus -}- I,
Hugh, + I Ludicail presbyter + I, Richard + I, Edwyne
Alfrede + I Agelricus -f I, Alfurnius Grithman + I, Osgodus
+ I, Sweine + I Leofricus + I, Godricus + I, Thureburnus +
I, Agelwius + I, Collingus + I, Agelricus + I Edwyne his
brother."

This deed is printed in vol. ii of Staffordshire Collections,
p. 178, with notes added to it by Eyton. He calls it " a priceless
document, which in turn fortifies history and helps chronology,
for it passed within two years of the fall of Earl Elwin and
the final settlement of Mercia."

The first witness is Urso d'Abetot, the Sheriff of Worcester-
shire. He was still Sheriff at the date of Domesday.

The next witness is Osbern, son of Richard Scrupe, a Worcester-
shire Baron, and Lord of Richard's Castle.

Agelwinus Vicecomes was Alwin, the Sheriff of Warwick-
shire, who had been Sheriff of the same county in the time
of Edward the Confessor. This deed shews him still holding
office under the Conqueror.

Turchil filius Agelwini, was the son of the last witness.
In Domesday he appears as Turquil de Warwic, and the owner
of large estates in Warwickshire.

Ketelbearne, his brother, the next witness, was no doubt
identical with Chetelbert, who had held the Warwickshire
Manor of Redeford in the fief of Turchil de Warwic. He had
sold it with the King's license to one Ermenfred before the date
of Domesday, and the latter held it in 1 086 in capite of the king.

Aluric, the King's Thane, was lord of Bickford and Stramshall
and other estates in Staffordshire, some of which he held under
Robert de Stafford.

Walter was probably Walter de Somerville, who held several
manors under Robert de Stafford.

Kyneward de Lauro, held half a hide in Laure under the
Bishop of Worcester at the date of Domesday, and the Survey
names him as an extensive landowner in Worcestershire in the
time of Edward the Confessor, during which he had been Sheriff
of the County. We shall meet with him again at the date of
the process between Wulstan, the Bishop of Worcester, and
Walter, the Abbot of Evesham, in 1085.

f) HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Tlio names of the other witnesses can mostly be found
amonf;-st the tenants of Worcestershire and Staffordshire in the
Domesday Survey — but they call for no remark.

Sixteen years subsequent to this date, Robert de Stafford,
bein<f then on his death-bed and having assumed the hahit of a
monk of Evesham, repeated his grant of VVrottesley, adding to
it the manor of Levington or Loynton in Staffordshire. An
ancient copy of this deed existed at Wrottesley,^ and it will be
seen that the terms of it are so nearly identical with those of
the grant of 1072, that it would be possible, by means of it, to
restore the original Latin text of the earlier deed. The copy
of the deed of A.D. 1088, at Wrottesley, likewise contained the
boundaries of the manor written in Latin, which were omitted
by the transcriber of the deed of 1072.

" Anno ab incarnatione M° Lxxxvilj" ego Robertus de Stafford
providens anime mee, necnon et pro anima domini mei
Willielmi magni Regis Anglorum, necminus et pro conjuge mea
ct filio meo Nicholao, quandam terram que vocatur Wroteslea
et Levuntona dedi in Sancto monasterio Eveshamensi in manu
dompni Walteri fidelis amici mei, Dedi etiam prefatam terram
cum silvis et pratis et pascuis que ad earn jure pertinent, ita ut
ecclesia semper possideat earn libere in elemosinam ut victum
fratrum et ut nullus adver.sarius ab ea auferre presumat. Quod
si aliquis inimicus banc meam elemosinam quam pro remissione
peccatorum meorum et pro salute anime mee deo contuli,
molare presumpserit, ab hereditate dei alienatus, et interne damp-
natus sit. Anno supradicto dedi etiam corpus meum post
mortem eidem Sancto monasterio, et conjux mea scilicet suum
dedit, et Nicholaus filius mens concessit suum et omnes mei
barones scilicet se dederunt et sacramento confirmaverunt quod
hoc firmiter tenerent : has donationes et conventiones feci
consilio et assensu et testimonio Petri Cestrei Episcopi qui mihi
hoc pro penitencia injunxit, et omnes destructores harum dona-
tionum perpetuo anathemati dampnavit, Ego Robertus, mona-
chus factus in infirmitate mea in eodem monasterio banc
donationem propria manu signo crucis confirmavi, + Ego
Nicholaus filius eorum confirmavi signo + Ego Warinus Male-
corne concessi + Ego Brien concessi -f Ego Carnegode concessi.

" Hec terra Wroteslea habet duas hidas hiis terminis circum-
cincta est Sprynewall in Smeleheth, of Smelehetli in Dersprynge,
of Dersprynth in Caldewell, of Caldewell in Michelmore, of
Michelmore in Hyndewell, of Hyndewell in Cranemore, of
Cranmore in redewythi, of redewythi in le More, of le More in

' Tliis deed formed one of the transcripts of five deeds, written on a small n^ll of
parchment in a hand of the fifteenth century, formerly preserved at Wrottesley.
They a])j)eiir to have been obtained at the date of the dispute relative to the tenure
under which the manor was held, which will be described later on. They emanated
without doubt from the muniment room of Evesham Abbey.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 7

Litleleie, of Litley in Wulvey, of Wolsey (sic) in Stanewell, of
Stanywall in Edulfeswey, of Edulfeswey in Hawkewell, of
Hawkewell in Cumbiwell, of Cumbewell in Whytesyche, of
Whytesyche in Michelee, of Mychelee este into Spryntwall et
nota ubi ista prepositio of dicitur nichill aliud signiticatur nisi
fro, as fro Sprynewall to Smeleheth, fro Derslenthe to Calde-
welle et sic de aliis."

This deed has been likewise printed in the Staffordshire
Collections. Eyton in his notes upon it suggests that Robert de
Stafford, having neglected to fulfil his grant of A.D. 1072, and
having been reproved in due course by Peter, the Bishop of
Chester for his impiety, repents on his death-bed, and now adds
Levinton (Loynton) to his previous grant of Wrottesley. Walter,
the existing Abbot of Evesham, had succeeded to Agelwine in
1077, and occurs in office in 108G and 1102. According: to
Florence of Worcester, he died on the 20th January, 1104.
These dates are of importance, as it will be shewn later on that
his brother Ralph was the original ancestor of the Wrottesley
family.

Warine, the first witness, was the Domesda,y tenant of
Robert de Stafford at Compton in Warwickshire, and at Blymhill
and other places in Staffordshire. Brien, the second witness,
was the ancestor of the family of de Standon, the most
important of the tenants of the Barony of Stafford, holding
seven knights' fees of Robert de Stafford in Staffordshire,
Lincolnshire, and Warwickshire.

The addendum to this deed, which gives the boundaries of
Wrottesley in old English, is well worthy the attention of
those antiquaries who are interested in the question of the
Domesday hyde. Here we ffnd a manor of two hydes defined
by bounds and metes which enclose an area of 1,600 acres, for
many of these local names still exist. It seems clear that at
this date the hyde had become simply a term of assessment
and valuation, and had no reference to any definite area or
number of acres.

As may be anticipated from the date of this deed, Domesday
shews both Wrottesley and Loynton unaffected by any grant
in frankalmoign. The Domesday account of Wrottesley has
been given already — that of Loynton is as follows : —

" Ipse Robertus [de Stadford] tenet in Levintone dimidiam
hidam et Gislebertus de eo. Ailric et Ormar tenuerunt et liberi
fuerunt. Terra est 1 caruca. Vasta est, Valet 2 solidos."

Gilbert, the Domesday tenant of Robert de Stafford, held
under him Tean and other manors in Staffordshire and
Oxfordshire, but neither he nor any of his descendants had
afterwards any interest in Loynton. It was always an
object with a monastic body to divest their lands from a
tenure by knight's service, for they derived little or no

8 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

benefit from lands in which military tenants were enfeoffed.
In 1316, when the question of the tenure of Loynton came
under consideration, Sir William de Wrottesley obtained
froui John, then Abbot of Evesham, a certified copy or
Inspeximus of the deed which follows : —

"Universis presentes literas inspecturis, Johannes permissione
divina Abbas Eveshamie, salutem in domino sempiternam.
Noverit univ^ersitas vestra quod nos literam subscriptam
in thesauraria nostra Eveshamense penes nos habemus
cirographam.

" Hec est conventio facta inter Reginaldum Abbatem de
Evesham et Conventum ejusdem ecclesie, et inter Robertura
Dunekan, quod ipse dominus Reginaldus Abbas et conventus
concedunt huic Roberto quendam terram Livintunam nomine,
reddendo inde unam marcam argeuti per singulos annos ad
festivitatem Sancti Egwini quamdiu Robertus vixerit et non
hereditarie. His testibus Willelmo de Sevecurdia, Pagano filio
Ranulfi, Willelmo dapifero, Constantino.

" Sine dubio de verbo ad verbum talis est litera que
manet penes nos. In cujus rei testimonium sigillum nostrum
presentibus fecimus apponi. Datum apud Evesham sexto
decimo Kalend : mail anno regni Regis Edwardi filii Regis
Edwardi nono."^

This deed shows clearly there was no mesne tenure at
Loynton when the Abbot Reginald granted it to Robert
Dunkan for his life. Reginald was elected Abbot in 1130
and died in 1149. A deed which follows will shew that
Clodoan's mesne tenure at Wrottesley had likewise been
extinguished before the year 1164, which is the probable
date of the feoffment of the present family at Wrottesley.
By an original deed which was preserved at Wrottesley
until the late fire, Adam, the Abbot of Evesham, granted
Wrottesley and Loynton in fee and inheritance to Simon,
son of William de Coctune, and his heirs, the said Simon
rendering tW'O marks annually in lieu of all services, except-
ing the service of the King, and saving the tenure of
William de Livington, so that the said William should
perform to Simon the service which he formerly owed to the
Abbot and Convent; for which concession the said Simon
released to the Abbot and Convent all claim to Morton and
lands in Norton and Hampton, and a messuage in Evesham.
The original deed is as follows : —

"Sciant presentes 7 futuri, quod ego, A Abbas 7 Conventus
Evcsliamensis ecclesie, concessinms in feodum et hereditatem
Simoni filio Willelmi de Coctuna 7 heredibus suis Wrotteslegiam
et Livintunam pro duabis marcis ut eas teneat reddendo inde pro

' Original deed formerly at Wrottesley

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 9

omnibus servitiis singulis annis unam marcham in Annunciatione
beate Marie 7 aliam in Nativitate beate Marie liberas 7 quietas
ab omni servitio salvo servitio Regis et salva ipsi Willehiio
de Livintuna tenuria sua, ita quiclera ut Simoni faciat servitium
quod consuevit f'acere Abbati 7 Ecclesie. Pro hac concessione
quam fecimus ei, ipse Simon clamavit quietam omnem querelam
7 calupniam de se 7 de omnibus heredibus suis in perpetuum
de Mortuna 7 de terra de Nortuna 7 de terra de Hantum
7 de illo maisiagio de Evesham 7 quod defendet easdem terras
contra omnes calupniatores. Qui si ab hac defensione quo-
cumque raodo defecerit, recipiat Abbas 7 ecclesia terras pre-
dictas liberas 7 teneat eas semper absque omni reclamatione
Simonis 7 omnium suorum. Si post obitum ipsius Simonis
mota fuerit querela de supradictis terris adversus ecclesiam,
heredes ipsius Simonis stabunt in defensione ista pro ecclesia
in loco patris sui et si defecerint recipiat ecclesia terras suas
liberas 7 quietas ab omni calupnia ipsorum. His testibus Philippo
dapifero, Pagano clerico, Willelmo de Tiwe, Hingeran de
Humet, Jordano fratre suo, Barthramo de Verdun, Alexandre
de Claverlega, Rodberto Pincerna, Waltero Bret, Gvviot de Verdun,
Radulpho de Meilnel, Roelend de Verdum."

The date of this deed can be determined within very narrow
limits, for Adam became Abbot of Evesham in 1160, and Simon
is shewn to be lord of Wrottesley seven years afterwards by an
entry in the Staffordshire Pipe Roll of 13 Hen. II. Eyton
fixes the date even more precisely, for, arguing from the fact
that most of the witnesses were members of the household
of Richard de Humet, the Hereditary Constable of Normandy,
he names the years 1168-64, as the probable date of it. The
Constable was in England with the King from January 1163 to
March 1 164, when he was despatched on urgent business to France.

Eyton's notes will be found in vol. ii, p. 188 of the Stafford-
shire Collections, but since he wrote them in 1881, much
additional matter has been discovered concerning the family
of Wrottesley, the most important fact being, that they were
originally named " de Verdun." This accounts for the presence
of all the witnesses of that name, as well as of the household
of the Constable — for Bertram de Verdun, the head of the
house of Verdun, held his lands in Normandy under the
Constable, and had been brought up in his household. In
his foundation deed of Croxden Abbey, he calls Richard de
Humet " dominum meum, qui me nutriviV^ It will be

^ For an account of the family of de Humet, or de Hommet, see the notes in
Stapleton's Norman Rolls. They derived their name from Le Hommet, a castle
in the Diocese of Coutance. Richard de Humet, the Constable, married the
daughter and heir of Jordan de Sai (near Argentein). Jordan de Sai and Lucy
his wife founded the Monastery of Aunay about 1130, and Bertram de Verdun wheu
he founded the monastery of Croxden in Staffordshire made it subject to Aunay.

1 0 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

shewn later on, that Simon the grantee in this deed
was probably in the household of Bertram de Verdun, his
kinsman.

As this Simon is the undoubted progenitor of the present
family of Wrottesley, it is now advisable to go back in order to
five some account of the origin of the family of de Cocton
(Coughton) and of their history up to the date of the Abbot's
deed of gift.

By a deed in the Evesham Chartulary, which is attested
by the same witnesses as the feoffment of Simon at
Wrottesley, and doubtless executed at the same time, Ralph
the son of William de Coctone, released to the Abbot Adam
and Convent of Evesham all his claim to Morton, and lands
in Norton and Hampton, and a messuage in Evesham, for
which release the Abbot gave him the mill of Samburne.

It will be seen that the lands and tenements here specified
were the same which Simon quit-claimed to the Abbot in the
previous deed ; the two brothers having apparently an equal
claim upon them. Samburne was a large manor adjoining
Coughton which belonged to the Abbey of Evesham ; the
manorial mill was a valuable acquisition, as it had the
monopoly of the grinding of all corn produced by the tenants
of the manor.

This Ralph de Coctone was an elder brother of Simon, and
must have been the head of his house in A.D. 1166, when
he was returned in the Liber Niger of the Exchequer as
holding a knight's fee of the Abbot of Evesham. It will
now be shewn that this Ralph was the lineal descendant of
a former Ralph, the Domesday tenant of the Abbot at Kine-
warton and Morton, and the brother of Walter the first
Norman Abbot of the house.

Agelwine, the last of the Saxon Abbots of Evesham, died
in 1077, and was succeeded by Walter, a monk of Cerisy in
Normandy and Chaplain of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canter-
bury. The Evesham Chronicle informs us that, being a young
man, at the date of his accession, and less prudent in worldly
matters than was necessary (quam oportuit), he refused to
accept the homage of many worthy tenants of the monastery,
and conferred their lands upon his own relations, and it adds
that he enfeoffed nearly all the military tenants of the Abbey,
This is the account of Thomas of Marlborough, the writer of
the Chronicle, who was Prior of the house in the reign of
King John. His history, whilst it ascribes with reason the
loss of large revenues to the nepotism of the early Norman
Abbots, overlooks the political causes which affected at this
period the tenures of monastic bodies. Under the government
of the Saxon Kings the monasteries had amassed extensive
possessions which were held to be free from all secular

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 11

obligations. With the view of increasing the military strength
of the kingdom, the Conqueror subjected a portion of the
ecclesiastical revenues to the Feudal Law, and the Bishops
and Abbots were now compelled to furnish the King, during
war, with the service of a certain number of knights, pro-
portioned to the extent of property possessed by each See or
Abbey. It is not surprising, therefore, that we should find
the kinsmen of the first Norman Abbot holding considerable
possessions under the monastery. The Evesham Chartulary
contains the following list of the feoffments made by the
Abbot Walter to his brother Ralph : —

" Radulphus frater Abbatis Walteri habet in Withelega iii
hidas de dominico. In Kinewarton iij hidas de doininico. In
Stoke ij hidas de dominico. In Litelton ij hidas et dimidiam
de dominico. In Bretferton iij hidas et i virgatam dono
Walteri Abbatis contradicente capitulo.^

These places are Weethly and Kinwarton in Warwickshire,
Stoke in Gloucestershire, and Littleton and Bretforton in
Worcestershire.

The list of tenures from which the above is taken contains
the grants made by the Abbots Walter,- Robert, and Maurice,
but none of later date, and it appears to have been compiled
for the Abbot Reginald who was elected in 1130. In the
same list the names occur of Simon le Despencer, Fulk
Paganel and William Silvanus, all of whom appear on the Pipe
Roll of 30 Hen. I.

Another tenure Roll in the same Chartulary of later date
contains the following : —

" Simon filius Ranulfi de Cocton tenet in Litelton ii hidas
et dimidiam, et in Witheleia i hidam et dimidiam et in
Bretferton iij hidas et j virgatam et debet i militem.

Ranulfus tenet in Kinewarton iij hidas et in Witheleia
i hidam et dimidiam et in Stoke ii hidas et dimidiam et
debet i militem.^

On comparing these two tenures with that of Ralph, the

» Harleian MS., 3763, fol. 59.

- The Abbot Walter died on the 20th January, 1104, according to the historian
Florence of Worcester.

The Evesham Chronicle is not to be relied on for the dates of the early Norman
Abbots. It fixes the j'ear 1087 as the date of Walter's death, and the latter is a
witness of the grant of Henry I. to the Monastery of Bath dated 1102. It names the
year 1096 as the date of the Abbot Robert's death, the latter being a party to a deed
in the Evesham Chartulary dated 1121, It fixes the death of Maurice and the
accession of Reginald as taking place in the year 1122 whereas a deed in the
Chartulary is dated " 1130, in the tirst year of Reginald AbV)ot." The probable dates
of the succession of the first four Norman Abbots are as follows —
The Abbot Walter, elected 1077, died 1104.
The Abbot Robert, elected 1104. died 1122.
The Abbot Maurice, elected 1122, died 1130.
The Abbot Ileginald, elected IT 30, died 1149.
2 Harl. : M.S. 3,763, fol. 66.

12 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OP

Abbot's brother, it will be seen that they are exactly
identical. The Liber Niger of the Exchequer, the well-known
Feodary of A.D. IIGG, returns these tenures as follows, under
the heading of: —

" Servitium militum de Abbaiia de Evesham."

" Ranulfus de Coctona facit plenum servitium unius militis
in equis et armis, et Abbas invenit ei expensas quamdiu
fuerit in servitio Regis.

" Ranulfus de Kinewarton, similiter."

Here follows three other tenures, after which the Record
states : —

" Isti predicti sunt de veteri fefamento."

The fees of old feoffment were those which were in
existence before the death of Henry I.

Having thus shev/n that the fee of Ralph, the Abbot's
brother, had been divided in equal proportions between the
two families of Cocton and Kinewarton before the year 1166,
I now propose to shew that the tenure of the Coctons in
Littleton was derived from a gift of the Abbot Walter, and
that Ralph the Abbot's brother was known as Ralph de
Cocton.

The Evesham Chartulary at fol. 72 states : —

" In Litelton Randulf us tenet ij hidas et dimidiam et facit
servitium Regis pro dimidia hida et geldat pro dimidia et
hoc fecit Walterus Abbas injuste.

" Tota decima Randulfi de Coctona tam de dominico quam
de hominibus suis in blado, in lino, in agnis et in omnibus
domini est."

The date of this tenure Roll is temp. Hen, II, and the
Ralph named in it is the same as the Ralph de Cocton of
the Liber Niger. The latter is shewn by the Pipe Rolls to
be alive as late as 1184. The Ralph de Cocton therefore of
the following deed must have been of earlier date, and it
will be shewn that he must be identical with Ralph the
Abbot's brother.

" Hec est conventio inter dominum Abbatem Robertum et
Conventum Sancte Marie de Evesham, et Radulphum Pincerna
de terra de Wicklakesford quod ipse Radulphus Pincerna
tenebit illam terram in feudi tirma pro Ix solidis per singulis
annis, pro hac dimisione primum reddit vadimonia que habuit
ecclesie pro xx libris, etc. Ista conventio facta est anno ab in-
carnatione domini lS\f\ C° xxi°. Hiis testibus Geroldo vicecomite,
Ranulfo clerico, Willelmo capellano Willelmo de Sevecurda,
Ranulfo de Coctona, Rogero de Lenz, Aluredo dapifero, Hugone

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 13

de Northona, Roberto et Willelmo filiis Willelmi, Constantino,
Alano, Roberto de Ceraso, Rogero Aquillun, Luca filio ejus,
Willelmo de Havilt, Waltero de Valle, Radulfo de Ludinton,
Ranulfo de Warlo, Waltero Levelancea, Ricardo dispensatore."^

Domesday gives the following description of the manors
granted to Ralph, the Abbot's brother, under the heading of : —

" Terra ecclesie de Evesham" (in Warwickshire).

" Ipsa ecclesia tenet in Chenevertone iij hidas et Rannulfus
tenet de Abbate. Terra est v carrucate, In dorainico est una,
et iij servi et iij villani, et ij bordarii, cum una carucata.
Ibi molendinum de iii solidis, pratum i quarentena longa, et
xii pertica lata. Valuit xl solidos, et post v solidos, modo xx
solidos."

Under Worcestershire, we find the following: —

" Ipsa Ecclesia tenet Mortune. Ibi fuerunt v hide tempore
Regis Edwardi, sed ex eis magna pars prestita fuit foris. In
dominico est una carucata et vii villani et ii bovarii cum iiii
carucatis. Ibi xv acre parce, Silva iii quarentena longa et una
quarentena lata. Valuit et valet xxx solidos. Rannulfus
tenet de Abbate.''

At Littleton, Weethly and Brctforton, no tenants are named.
The Gloucestershire Domesday states that the Abbot had granted
Stoke and Hedecote to two of his knights, but does not give
their names.

Besides the grants made to Ralph, the Evesham Chartulary
specifies many other manors which were given awaj'- by the
Abbot Walter to his relations ; but the writer omits to mention
that in the case of Kinewarton and many other manors, the
tenants dispossessed to make room for the Abbot's feoffees,
had been originally tenants of the Monastery of St. Mary
of Worcester, and that the manors had been recovered from
that Monastery after a prolonged lawsuit, carried on against
a rival house by the Abbot Walter.

Heming, the monk of Worcester, gives the following account
■ of the " magna contentio," as he styles it, between the Bishop
Wulstan, the patron of St. Mary of Worcester, and the monks
of Evesham.

Agelwius the last of the Saxon Abbots of Evesham, rose
into considerable note during the early part of the Conqueror's

1 Harl. M.S. 3,763, fol. 91. The Ralph Phicenia, or Boteler, of this deed
was the founder of the Priory of Alcester. The family derived their name
from their office of Hereditary Butlers to the Earls of Mellent. Their
principal seat was at Oversley, which adjoins Coughton in Warwickshire.
Wilham de Sevecurde was of Seacourt, county Berks, and had been enfeoffed
at Weston, in Gloucestershire, by the Abbot Robert. He also held two
knights' fees under the Abbot of Abingdon.

14 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

reign. As Justiciary he governed all the Midland Counties,
and his influence, learning and eloquence were such that even
the Normans feared him (ab ipfiis Francigenis timebatur).
Wulstan, the Bishop, on the other hand, a religious man,
intent on the service of the Lord, and who never meddled
in secular matters, was no match for the Abbot in worldly-
wisdom, and thus many of the tenants of the Bishop, under
various pretences, placed themselves and their lands under the
Abbot of Evesham, seeking his protection against the violence
and rapacity of the Normans. From this cause arose many
altercations between him and the Bishop, but, as the historian
remarks, " the children of this world being wiser in their
generation than the children of light," the holy Bishop was
seduced by the astuteness of the Abbot, who at one time
proffering service for the lands, at another time threatening
the Bishop with the loss of more lands, protracted the con-
troversy during the remainder of his life, and died at length
of an attack of gout, unreconciled with his Bishop, and
without absolution from him. And the venerable Bishop, out
of compassion for him, having ordered prayers to be said for
the gooJ of his soul, was forthwith seized with the same
disorder, and to such an extent that the doctors not being
able to afford him any relief, had ceased to attempt the cure
out of despair. Whereupon it was revealed to the Bishop
one night whilst engaged in prayer, that he had incurred
this infirmity because he had ordered special prayers to be
made for the soul of the Abbot, and that if he wished to be
cured he must countermand the prayers ; after which the
prayers for the Abbot having been discontinued, the Bishop
became again restored to health within a few days ; whence
we may gather, the historian remarks, " how great is the dam-
nation incurred by those who deprive the church of their
lands, when even the prayers to exorcise the wrongdoers are
distasteful to heaven."'

Hemingus adds that after Agelwius had been succeeded by
the Abbot Walter, Odo, the Bishop of Bayeux, entreated his
brother, the King, to give him the lands in dispute between
the two houses, and his recjuest having been granted, the
Bishop afterwards obtained but little service from them, and
those who had originally deprived his monastery- of them,
obtained nothing at all, except the sin and iniquity of the
transaction. Here, however, Hemingus makes a mistake, for
the Evesham Chartulary contains a writ of Odo, the Bishop
of Bayeux, addressed t3 the Bishop Wulstan, and to Urso,
Durand, and Walter, the Sheriffs of Worcester, Gloucester, and

* Chartulary of St. Mary of Worcester, printed by Hearne.

* The Monastery of iSt, Mary of Worcester.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 15

Warwickshire, commanrling them to restore to Walter, the
Abbot of Evesham, those lands for which the said Walter
had sued at Gildenebursfh before seven shires, viz. : Weston,
Swella, Beningwurth, Bivinton, Wicklakesford, Oleburgh, Kine-
warton, Hildeburwick, and Ragley. This writ must have been
anterior to the year 1081, for at that date Odo had fallen
into disgrace and was thrown into prison from which he was
not released till the following reign. Ralph, the Abbot's
brother, was therefore enfeoffed at Kinewarton between the
years 1078 and 1085.

Shortly after this date, a new element of discord arose
between the Monastery and the Bishop upon the question of
the suit and service owing to the Bishop's Hundred of Os-
woldslawe, and the proceedings upon this occasion give us
another glimpse of Ralph, the Abbot's brother. After some
preliminary pleadings before (Godfrey, Bishop of Coutances,
who had succeeded Odo as Justiciary of England, the cause
was finally decided before the Domesday Commissioners,
Remigius, Bishop of Lincoln, Walter Giffard, Henry de Ferrers,
and Adam, brother of Eudo, the King's Dapifer. " Qui ad
inquirendas et describendas possessiones et consuetudines, tarn
Reyis qua'ni Principum suorum, in hac provincia, et in
plurihus aliis, ah ipso Rege destinati sunt, eo tempore, quo
totam Angliam idem Rex describi fecit." This date would
be between the years 1081 and 1086.

Hemingus gives an interesting account of the process upon
this occasion. No means were spared to excite the feelings
on either side, and his narrative leaves a vivid impression of
the turbulent proceedings of a Court of Law at this period.
The Abbot Walter brought with him the sacred relics of his
monastery, including the body of St. Egwin, the founder of
the house. The monks of Worcester on the other hand were
supported by a large body of their tenants and partisans
who are all described as ready to offer wager of battle in
defence of their rights against Ralph, the brother of the Abbot
Walter. The account of the monk of Worcester, however, is
best given in his own words, which are "a model of force and
terseness : —

"Venit dies statuta, venit Episcopus Wulstanus et Abbas
Walterus, et ex precepto Gosfridi Episcopi afFuerunt barones,
qui interfuerunt priori placito et judicio. Attulit Abbas re-
liquias, scilicet corpus Sancti Ecgwini. Ibi affuerunt ex parte
Episcopi probabiles persone, parate facere predictum sacramen-
tum.^ Quarum unus fuit Edricus qui fuit tempore Regis
Edwardi, stermannus navis Episcopi, et ductor exercitus
ejusdem Episcopi ad servitium Regis ; et hie erat homo Rod-

^ That the Abbot owed suit and service to the Bishop's Hundred.

16 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

berti Herefordensis Episcopi ea die qua sacramentum optulit,
ut niehil de Episcopo W. tenebat. Affait etiam Kinewardus^-
qui fuit vicecomes Wircestrescire, qui hec vidit et hoc testa-
batur. Affuit etiam Siwardus, dives homo de Scropscyre et
O.sbernus filius Ricardi, et Turehil de Warewicscyre, et multi
alii seniores et nobiles, quorum major pars jam dormiunt.
Multi autera adhuc superstites sunt, qui illos audierunt et
adhuc multi de tempore Regis Willelmi idem testificantes."
Abljas autem videns, sacramentum et probationem totam para-
tam esse, et nullo modo remanere si vellet recipere, accepto
ab amicis consilio, episcopo demisit sacramentum et totam
querelam recognovit et omnem rem sicut Episcopus reclama-
verat et inde concordiam se facturam cum Episcopo conven-
tionem fecit. Et inde sunt legitimi testes apud nos, milites
et homines Sancte Marie et Episcopi qui hoc viderunt et
audierunt, parati hoc probare per sacramentum, et bellum
contra Ranulfum i'ratrem ejusdem Walteri Abbatis, quem ibi
viderunt, qui cum fratre suo tenebat illud placitum contra'
Episcopum, si banc conventionem negare voluerit, factara inter
Episcopum et Abbatem."

On the death of the Abbot Walter in 1104, an attempt
was made by the monks to recover some of the lands given
away by him without the consent of the Chapter, and the
suits which arose on this occasion resulted in the transfer of
the fee of Ralph to Urso d'Abetot, the hereditary Sheriff of
Worcestershire. The writer of the Chartulary,i after describing
how Urso d'Abetot with the assistance of Odo, the Bishop of
Bayeux, had deprived the Abbey of the manor of Bernards
Lench, goes on to say : —

" Aliam villam que Chyrchlench vocatur de dominico,
Abbas Walterus sibi {i.e. to Urso) eo tenore concessit, ut eo
vivente, prefatam terram pro servitio teneret, et post mortem
ejus ad ecclesiam rediret. Post mortem Abbatis Walteri,
nondum hie Abbate existente, Henricus Rex servitium Ran-
dulfi fratris Abbatis sibi concessit, quod tamen ante mortem
suam quia injuste illud invaserat coram multis testibus ecclesie
reddidit."

To this date, therefore, may be ascribed the loss of Morton
and the lands in Norton and Hampton which are mentioned
in the deed of feoffment of Wrottesley. Ralph had in fact
been obliged to relinquish some of his manors in order to
preserve the remainder. The following account of the two
fees of Cocton and Kinewarton in the reign of Edward I.,
which is taken from the Evesham Chartulary,^ shews also that

* Cottonian Vespasian B. xxiv., fol. 8.
2 Harleian MS. 3763, fol. 168.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEYI 17

he had been forced to transfer Weethly to Urso d'Abetot.^

"Feodum. Due hide et dimidia in Luttelton quas Hugo de
Norfolk'' ot Adam de la Lee tenent ; una hida et dimidia
que Alexandrus de Apetot tenet in Wytheleye, tres hide et
una virgata terre in Bretforton, quod vocatur feodum Avenel^
debent unum milifcem, et Abbas inveniet huic feodo xls. ad
sumptus, et non plus, iit patet per eartam que inde factam
est, sed Abbas introdueet eo!5 in constabilia siim.ptibus suis.*

Feodum.' 'Tres hide in Kynewarton quas R. de Hengham
et elemosinarii de Evesham tenent ; una hida et dimidia in
Wythele quam Alexandrus d'Apetot tenet, due hide et dimidia
in Stoke- quas J. de Bissopeston tenet.

Istud feodum debet accipere ab Abbate expensas suas in
victualibOs' tam pro equis quam pro hominibus, a die recessus
ab Evesham, usque ponantur in constabilia, et postea pro
quadraginta dies sicut Rex dat militibus suis."

This division of Weethly between the two fees when held by
the same sub-tenant is noteworthy, and affords additional proof
of the descent of the two families of Cocton and Kinewarton
from Ralph, the Abbot's brother, for the ancestor of Alexander
de Abetot - must have been clearly enfeoffed by the owner of
the undivided fee.

Nothing has hitherto been said respecting the manor of
Cocton, or Coughton, which gave its name to one branch of
the descendants of Ralph. . Coughton, in Warwickshire, anciently
written Goctune, was one of the manors held in capite under
the king by Turchil de Warwic, and is thus described in the
Survey of A.D. 1086:—

" De Turchillo tenet Willelmus in Coctune iiii hidas. Terra
est vi carrucate : ibi sunt ii liberi homines et vii bordarii et
iiij servi cuni iii carrucatis : ibi moiendinum de xxxii denariis ;
et in Warewic i domus reddit ' viii denaria, ibi x acre parci :
silva vi quarentena loriga, ' etMiii quarentena lata, pascit L
porcos : Valuit xl solidos et postea xx solidos, modo L
solidos. Untonius (tenuit)."

Turchill's tenant, William, may be either William Buen-
vasleth (Bonvalet), the tensint in capite of Spernall and other

^ The lands of Urse descended to Walter de Beauchamp, who had married
Eramelina his daughter. His son, Rog6r, was banishfefl the -kingdom by Henry I.,
having incurred the king's displeasure by killing one of the king's household. (New
Peerage, quoting William of Malmesbury.) , •

2 Hugh de Norfolk was tenant by courtesy, having married Joan the heiress of
Coughton. He was her second husband.

^ Probably a mistake for, " de Verdon.". The Avenels held nothing under the
monastery of Evesham. ■ ■

* The meaning of this seems to be that the Abbot paid all expenses till his knight
was taken over by the king's officers. The mounted meu-at-arms were divided into
constabilia.

18 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

neighbouring manors, or William Fitz Corbuson of Stodley^
In the reign of Henry I. it was undoubtedly in the possession
of the latter family, for Peter de Stodley, the son of William
Fitz Corbuson, gave the church of Cocton to the Priory of
Stodley on his foundation of that house.

This manor, so far as regarded its subsequent ownership,
followed the same rule which governed the other possessions
of Ralph, the Abbot's brother, for in the reign of King John
we find it equally divided between the two families of Cocton
and Kinewarton. By a fine levied in the first year of King
John, Ralph de Kinewarton acknowledged that he had endowed
Joan, the wife of his son Robert (then deceased), with two
hides of land in Cocton.^ Coughton, according to Domesday,
was a manor of four hides, and it may therefore be assumed
that this manor descended like the others from Ralph, the
conmion progenitor of these two houses.

There is every reason to believe that this Ralph survived
the Abbot Maurice, for the Tenure Roll already quoted from
the Evesham Chartulary, includes his name, and mentions
grants of land made by the Abbots Walter, Robert and
Maurice, and as it states amongst other matters that William
Silvanus withheld a portion of his service, "per vim defectu
abbatum," it must either have been written during the interval
that elapsed between the death of Maurice and the accession
of Reginald, or very shortly after the election of the latter
Abbot in 1130.^ We may therefore conclude that the Ralph
de Cocton who witnesses the grant of Wicklakcsford in fee
farm to Ralph Pincerna in 1121, which has been already
given, can be no other than Ralph, the Abbot's brother, who
having been enfeoffed at Coughton by the family of Corbuson,
had taken up his abode there, and had assumed the local
name. At the date of the death of the Abbot Maurice, Ralph
had been for more than forty years one of the principal
tenants of the monastery, and so lengthened a tenure must
necessarily bring us near the date of his death. Reginald
was elected Abbot in 1130, and the first act recorded of him
in the Chronicle of Evesham is his removal of the houses of
the knights of Kinewarton and Cocton, " guibus quasi
obsessd fait abbatia.'" At this period, therefore, Ralph must

^ The reason for supposing that William Bonvalet held Coughton, A.D. 1086, is
that Domesday states that a house in Warwick was apfiurtenatit to Coughton, and
the same Record shews that William Buenvasleth held a house in Warwick, which is
not named anywhere else, and it is expressly stated that the houses in Warwick
appurtenant to manors are enumerated under the manors to which they belong. The
fee of William Buenvasleth was afterwards merged in the Earldom of Warwick, and
the name disappears in later Records.

^ Pedes Fiuium — Warwickshire, 1 John.

^ See note at page 11, respecting the dates of the accession of the first four Abbots
after the Conquest.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 19

have been dead, and his fief divided between those two
families.

The Evesham Chartularies throw no light upon the pi-ecise
mode of descent of the Ralph de Cocton and Ralph de
Kinewarton of 1166 from Ralph, the Abbot's brother. It is
possil)le that the latter left two daughters between whom his
lands were divided, but the partition of an inheritance between
two brothers was very frequent for the first century after the
Conquest.'^ This was done under a Norman custom known as
" Paragiura," so called because the second son was placed in
pdvl casu with the elder. On the Pipe Roll of 31 Henry I
(A.D. 1129-30) under Warwickshire,- a William and Robert pay
heavy fines to have the lands of their father Ralph. It is
difficult not to associate this entry with the succession to the
fief of Ralph the Abbot's brother. At this date the monastery
was in the King's hands, and the custody of it had been granted
to Geofi'rey de Clinton, who accounts for its revenues on the
Pipe Roil of 81 Hen. I. It will be seen also that this year
coincides with the period which has been already set down on
independent testimony as the probable date of Ralph's death,
and of the interregnum between the death of the Abbot
Maurice and the accession of the Abbot Reginald.
. The Record on the Warwickshire Pipe Roll of 31 Hen. I is
as follows : —

" Willelmus filius Rannulfi reddit compotum de cxiii s. et i
dextram, ut habeat terram patris sui. In thesauro xxx s., et
debet iiij libras et iii s. et iiij d. et i dextram. Robertus filius
Rannulfi reddit compotum de iiij libras pro parte terre patris
sui. In thesauro xx s. et debet Ixs."

About twenty years after this date a Robert de Cocton and
William, his brother, witness a grant made to Bordesley
Abbey by Peter de Stodley, the son of William fitz Corbuson.
This deed is printed in the Formulare Anglicanum, and the
original is still preserved in the Public Record Office. It is
addressed to John, Bishop of Worcester, who was consecrated
in 1151 and died at Rome in 1158. The witnesses to the deed
are Geofi'rey de Limesi, Robert de Coctuna and William, his

^ Several instances of this custom can be adduced. Thus, the lands of Siward
de Aiderne were divided between two sons, Hugh and Henry, who are each
returned as holding four knights' fees in the Liber Niger of 1166. Orderic Vitalis
also mentions that the fee of Beauquenci was divided by the Conqueror between
two brothers, Baudric and Wiger. Whenever the same person held lands both in
Normandy. and England, it was almost invariably the rule that one son took the
Norman fief, and another son the English fief. In tliis way, the fief of William
fitz Osbern was divided between two sons, William and Roger ; the fief of Marmion
was divided between two brothers, both named Robert ; the fief of William Pantolf
was divided between two sons, Philip and Robert ; and the fief of William de
Warenne, Earl of Surrey, between his two sons, William and Reginald. (See Orderic
Vitalis and Planche's Conqueror and his Companions.)

'■^ Both Coughton and Kinwarton are in Warwickshire.

20 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

brother, Geoffrey Corbesun, Roger de Stokes, Osbert the
Forester, Benjamin de Beleia, Richard Pincerna, Roberto Franco,
Ralph de Boseville, Ediva sponsa niea.

It will be noted that the entry in the Pipe Roll of 1129-30
shews William to be the eldest of the two sons, and I conclude,
therefore, that the above deed gives us the names of another
generation, and that the pedigree is as follows : — *

llalph, the Abbot's brother,
Hvmg 1086 and 1121.
I

I 1

"William, succeeded Robert, succeeded circa 1129,

circa 1129. ancestor of the family of

I Kinewarton.

I 1

Robert de Cocton, William de Cocton, brother of

occurs circa 1149 ; Robert, occurs circa 1149.

ob. s.p. I

Ralph de Cocton, living Symon, occurs 1167 and 1174,

1166 and 1184. ancestor of the family of

si/ Wrottesley,

Coctcns of Coughton,
CO. Warwick.

From the William de Cocton of the above pedigree, all
obscurity of descent vanishes, for he w^as clearly the father of
the Ralph de Cocton living in 1166, and of Symon the pro-
genitor of the family of Wrottesley.

The history of the Coctons of Coughton has now been
brought down to the period when the Abbot Adam enfeoffed
Symon, a younger son of the house, in the manors of Wrottesley
and Loynton. The Evesham Chronicle notices the grants made
on this occasion by the statement that the Abbot Adam gave
away Wrottesley and Loynton, and the mill of Samburne in
" fee farm " (in feudi firmd), but names no grantees.

In 1167 Alan de Neville was holding Pleas of the Forest in
the Midland Counties, and the ordinary result of an Iter of the
Forest is shewn by the large number of amercements entered on
the Pipe Rolls. On the Staffordshire Roll of this year Simon is
returned as having paid a fine of half a mark, on account of his
manor of Wrottesley. The exact words of the record are : —
" Wrotteslega Simonis reddit compotuni de dionidid marcd. In
thesauro liheravit et quieta est."^ Wrottesley at this date
bordered on the Royal Forest of Brewood, and was therefore
within the purlieu. Few manors in this situation escaped a fine
for some technical infringement of the Laws of the Forest,
Unfortunately, however, for this history, Brewood was dis-
afforested early in the reign of King John.

^ There appears, however, hardly room for another generation, and it is, of course,
possible that the younger brother is named first on the Pijje Roll or in the deed.
- I'ipe Roll, Staffordshire, 13 Hen. II.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 2l

The next appearance of Simon occurs in a deed in the
Kenilworth Chartulary, by which Henry de Clinton mortgages
his mill of Kibbeclive to Kalph de Cocton for a sum of £10, to
be repaid within a year from the first Feast of St. Michael after
the surrender of the Castle of Leicester, and in the event of
Ralph dying within that term, the mill was to be held by
Simon, his son, and if the said Simon should die before the
money was repaid, then the mill was to be held by Simon, his
brother. As this deed is probably the earliest mortgage of real
property on record, I am tempted to give it in its original
form. It will be seen that the grammatical construction is very
peculiar, the nominative being changed twice in the deed.

" Sciant omnes tam presences quam posteri, quod ego Henricus
de Clinton posui molendinum meum de Kibbeclive cum ipso
molendinario et cum omnibus eidem molendino pertinentibus
Randulfo de Coctona pro x libris argenti de primo festo Sancti
Michaelis postquam castellum Legrecestrie redditum fuit in uno
anno, et sic, quod ipse Henricus non imponet manum eidem
molendino usque dum reddat mihi meum debitum, et si ego
eidem Rannulfo vel Simoni filio suo si ipse moreretur non
reddidissem x libras ad eundem terminum, ipse Rannulfus
tenebit predictum molendinum de anno in annum usque dum
redderem ei x libras, et si ipse moreretur Simoni filio suo, et
si Simon filius suus moreretur Simoni fratri suo, et quod ipse
warantizabit mihi predictam conventionem contra omnes calun-
gatores, et si non potest mihi warantizare, tunc dabit mihi in
escambio de sua hereditate ad valitudinem predicte conventionis
aut reddet mihi predictum debitum. His testibus Bertramo de
Verdun, Roberto de Curli, Osberto de Clinton, Rogero filio
Willelmi, Ruelan de Verdun, Simone de Verdun, Willielmo de
Clinton, Rogero filio Henrici."^

This deed recalls that troubled period of the reign of Henry II,
when all the Midland Counties of England had been raised by
Robert, Earl of Leicester, Gervase Paganel, Robert de Stafford,
Henry de Clinton, and other Barons, in support of the rebellion
of the King's sons. The Castle of Leicester was surrendered by
Anketil de Mallory and William de Diva, the Constables of the
Earl, in August 1174.

Before proceeding further with this history, it may be
advisable to advert to one of those difficulties of tenure which
frequently occur to perplex the antiquary. For the whole of
the period, during which it has just been shewn that Simon, the
feoffee of the Abbot at Wrottesley was alive, the manor was
held by a tenant named Adam, who under the name of Adam
de Wrottesley, appears as the Abbot's tenant in the Liber Niger

' Harl. MS. 3,650, fol. 139.

22 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

of 1166. occurs again on the Staffordshire Pipe Roll of 1170,
attests a deed dated A.D. 1176 in Eyton's Antiquities of Shrop-
shire, and numerous other Staffordshire Charters of the reign of
Henry 11.

His tenure under the Abbot is thus described in the Liber
Niger, under the Barony of Robert de Stafford.

" Abhas de Evesham tenet feod avi 1 Tnilitis, quod Adam de
Wroteleg tenet de ipso!'

It will be seen from the above that Adam was clearly co-
temporary with Simon, and is returned by Robert de Stafft)rd
as occupying the identical position where we should expect to
find Simon, son of William de Coctune.

The best explanation of the difficulty which I am able to
afford is that Adam, the tenant at Wrottesley, during the
reign of Henry II., was holding the manor as tenant for life,
or for a term of years under Simon. The practice of putting
manors out to farm for lives was a very common practice in
old days, and at this early date, before English surnames had
become hereditary, a life tenant at Wrottesley, named Adam,
would be known as Adam de Wrottesley.^ To the objection
which may be raised that the Liber Niger describes him, as
holding the manor under the Abbot of Evesham, the answer
is, that if the terms of his tenure made him answerable for
the military service due from the fee, he would be named in
a feodary like the Liber Niger, as the tenant in possession.
Much misapprehension is often caused from this circumstance.
A Feodary, per se, does not concern itself with the ownership
of land. In most cases, of course, the owner of the land, and
the tenant of the fee, are identical, but not invariably so. A
tenant by the courtesy of England, who holds a fee in right
of a deceased wife, is always named in a feodary as the tenant ;
and numerous instances can be adduced of individuals holding
manors for life or for a term of years who are returned in a
feodary as owners of the fee.-

Simon, the Abbots feoffee at Wrottesley, appears never to
have taken up his abode there, and as it will be shewn that
his son William was known as William de Verdun, I take him
to be identical with the Simon de Verdun who is a frequent

1 His contemporaries, Osbert de Kinfar, Alexander de Claverley, and Alfred de
Cannock, were all named after manors of which they were only fermors for life, or
for a term, and to show how little consideration was paid to surnames at this period,
I may mention that Robert de Stafford, in his return of his knight's fees, in the
Liber Niger, describes one of his tenants as Hervey de Wilbrighton in one place, and
as Hervey de Dunchworth in another.

* As instances of this, I may mention the case of Robert de Bures, who is
returned in the " Nomina Villarum " as Lord of Chartley, when he was only
tenant for life ; likewise, John de Grey, who is returned in the same Feodary as
lord of Erlide (Yarlet), though he held it only as fermor for a term under the Abbot
of Combcrmere.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 23

witness to the deeds of Henry de Clinton in the Kenilworth
Chartulary. It is also probable that he was in the household
of Bertram de Verdun, the head of the house of Verdun, for
in the same Chartulary there is a deed by which Henry de
Clinton grants to the Priory the land which Turgist holds of
him, and the testing clause of this deed runs as follows : —
Testibus, Willelmo de Clinton fratre meo, Ernaldo de Coleshulle,
Herberto de Insula, Willelmo de Herburburi, Waltero filio Anke-
tilli, Symo7ie et Henrico de Curia Bertranii de Verdun, Magistro
Willelmo de Verdun, Roberto filio Bertrami, Magistro Gilberto
de Rochiii, L. fratre Ade de Aldithel, Willelmo Muchun et aliis.

If this was the case, it accounts not only for the presence
of Bertram de Verdun as a witness to the grant of Wrottesley
and Loynton to Symon, but also gives a reason for putting
the manor to farm, and for the absence of Symon's name on
any Staffordshire record after his single appearance on the
Staffordshire Pipe Roll of 1166-67.

Assuming, therefore, that this Symon was the ancestor of ■
the present family of Wrottesley, 1 purpose to state now all
that is known of him, beyond what has been already mentioned.

The earliest deed in which he appears and to which a definite
date can be given, is the mortgage of the mill of Kibbeclive
by Henry de Clinton, in 1174 ; but here a difficulty presents
itself. If he was the brother of Ralph de Cocton, as this
history presumes, he could hardly be a witness to a grant in
which he had a personal interest. Eyton, however, to whom
I showed this deed, was of opinion that the words " Simoni
fratri suo" in the deed would refer to a brother of Simon.
He argued it would be somewhat incongruous to name an
uncle in remainder to a nephew, when there were other
brothers, and it is quite certain that this Simon de Cocton
had younger biothers, and that in the next generation there
were two Simons, who were brothers. This curious usage of
giving the same baptismal name to two brothers appears an
absurdity at the present day, but there is no doubt it was
very frequently done in former days.

To return to Simon de Verdun ; in concert with Bertram de
Verdun, the head of his family, he occurs as a witness to all
the deeds of Henry de Clinton in the Kenilworth Chartulary,
but none of these, with the exception of the mortgage named
above, can be dated with any certainty. In 1181, however,
we obtain another definite date regarding him, for, on the
Warwickshire Pipe Roll of 27 Henry II, he is named as
defendant in a suit respecting Willey, or Weethly,! jq that
County. The entry in the Roll is as follows : —

1 There is a Willey in Warwickshire, but as Weethly is written Wilelei in
Domesday, Wila and Wilega may refer to either. It is not unlikely that Simon
was attempting to recover WccLlily from a member of the family of Apetot.

24 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OP

Rubertus de Wilega reddit compotuni de ii nfiarcis "pro recto
de terra de Wila, and in another part of the same Roll —
Rohcrtus de Wile debet xls. pro habenda loquela sua in Curia
Ref/is versus Siinonein de Verdun que erat in Comitatu.

The meaning of tliese two entries is, that Robert de Wilega
first olFered a fine of two marks for a writ of right respecting
land in Willey, or Weethly, and afterwards 40s. to transfer
the suit from the County into the King's Court.

The iirst writ of right would have merely transferred the
suit from the Lord's Court to the County Court, in wdiich the
Sheritf presided. Robert, fearing local influence against his
claim, subsequently determined to move the case into the King's
Court. I have found no further mention of Simon de Verdun,
but judging from his epoch, he probably survived till the reign
of Richard I. He was certainly dead before 1199, when he had
been succeeded by William de Wrottesley, his son.

To our modern ideas the fact of the head of a family being
named de Cocton and his younger brother calling himself Simon
de Verdun, may appear strange at first sight, but the practice is
still common in Scotland of the eldest son being known by the
name of the principal estate, whilst all the younger sons retain
the family surname, and the deeds at Coughton shew that
nearly all the lesser freeholders within the manor, whom it may
be presumed were the younger members of the family, retained
the name of de Verdun. From the deeds now at Coughton I
have selected the following names at random : —

s. d. Richard de Verdun de Coctun, and in the same deed
Richard de Verdun de la Wyke. (The Wyke is a member of
Coughton.)

s. d. Simon, son of Robert de Verdun de la Wyke.

s. d. Alice, formerly wife of Robert de Verdun.

s. d. Richard, son of Robert de Verdun.

s. d. John, son of Richard de Verdun de la Wyke, and
Simon, his brother.

s. d. Robert de Verdun de la Wyke.

26 E. I. Robert de Verdun de la Wyke.

1 E. 3. John de Verdun, son of Robert de Verdun de la
Wyke.

All the above are found dealing with lands and tenements in
Coughton, and the Forest Rolls of Warwickshire temp. Henry III
name most of them as living in the latter part of that reign. By
an original deed formerly preserved at Wrottesley, which is
undated, but is shewn by the witnesses to belong to the early
part of the reign of Edward I, Richard de Verdun de la Wyke
granted to William de Wrottesley " consancjuineo meo" all the
land in La Wyke which fell to him by the death of Simon de
Verdun, his ancestor (anteoessoris mei).

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 25

William de Wrottesley, A.D. 1199— A.D. 1242.

Simon was succeeded before the year 1199 by William de
Wrottesley, who is shewn to be his son by some legal proceedings
of the year 1221, which will be detailed further on. He figures
at various epochs of his life under the names of William de
Wrottesley, William de Verdon, and William fitz Simon, and it
seems to have been a mere matter of chance whether the family
surname would have assumed at this date the form of Wrottesley,
Verdon, or Simmons.^

The earliest mention of this William is on a Staffordshire
Assize Roll of the first year of King John, where he occurs as
defendant in a suit brought against him by the Abbot of
Croxden. The Abbot was lord of the adjoining manor of
Oaken, and essoined his attendance in a suit against William de
Wrotteslee in a plea of land. The date of this essoin roll is
September 1199, but no further reference to the suit remains.^
An essoin was a legal excuse for non-attendance in Court. He
next occurs as a surety for his sister-in-law, Hawyso de Water-
fall, in a suit of Trinity Term 3 John (May 1201), and this
requires some explanation, to make it intelligible to the reader.

Robert fitz Adam, of Waterfall and Butterton-on-the-Moors,
had died, leaving five daughters, who were his coheirs. These
were : —

1. Eda, who had married Robert de Casterne, a sub-tenant of
Sir Hugh de Okeover, at Casterne, in Ham. Eda was dead at
this date, and had left a son William, who was a minor.

2. Mary, the wife of Turgist de Hum, the sub-tenant of Sir
Hugh de Okeover, at Ham.

S. Marjory, who had married for a first husband Richard, the
eldest son of Ralph de Okeover, and half-brother to Sir Hugh de
Okeover. Richard had died, leaving no issue, and Marjory had
remarried Sir Roger Putrel, a Derbyshire Knight.

4. Hawyse, who had married first, William de Butterton, by
whom she had a son William, and secondly, Nicholas de Winster.

5. Ingryda, who married William de Wrottesley,

Upon the death of Robert, an attempt was made to deprive
the coheiresses of their rights by one of their neighbours — Sir

1 As an illustration of the uncertainty attending the final form which a surname
may assume, I may mention that when Bertram de Verdun gave Ipstones to a
younger brother Herbert, the descendants of this Herbert took the name of
Ipstones, but when another brother Henry married Hawyse, the daughter and
coheir of Robert fitz Orme, of Darlaston, and became possessed of that manor, his
descendants retained tlie name of Verdun. Again, amongst the freeholders of
Coughton, in the reign of Henry III, there was a Philip de Cocton or de Verdon,
whose son was called William fitz Philip ; the next generation took the more
simple form of Philip, and this family of Philips can be traced on the deeds and
manor rolls of Coughton down to the reign of Henry VIII, beyond which I have not
carried my researches.

^ Staffordshire Collections, vol. iii, p. 36, Curia Regis Roll, Xo. 67 (old numbers).

26 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Henry de Deneston, the owner of Denstone, co. Stafford, a manor
lield partly under the Verdons of Alton, and partly under the
Le Despenccr.s.^

The records of the suit on the Curia Regis Roll of Michaelmas,
1200, are as follows : —

Staf. — " A day was given to Henry de Duneston, (sic)
j)laintifF, and to Hawyse, wife of Nicholas do Winester, to hear
judgement respecting 4 bovates of land in Boterdon, on the
morrow of St. Edmund (21 Nov. 1200), before the King, and
she was tlien to produce proof of what she had stated, that her
husband had left her and would not defend the suit, having
been bribed by the gifts of Henry, and Henry had denied this
to be true."

The King had been at Bridgenorth on the previous 11th, 12th,
and loth November, and Hawyse must have appeared in Court
on one of those days.

The next entry respecting the suit is dated on the morrow of
St. Edmund, at Lincoln. It states : — ^

Staff. — " Hawise de Waterfale in a suit against Henry de
Daneston (sic) to hear judgement (appeared) by Robert, son of
Walter, She entered into sureties to prosecute on the Octaves
of St. Hillary, before the King in England, and in the meantime
' the King was to be consulted respecting the judgement \_et
interim loquendum est cum domino Rege de judicioy "^

The next entry respecting it occurs on the same Roll, under
date of the Morrow of Penticost (14 May 1201) :—

" Henry de Donestan (sic) offered the King 40s. for judgement
on 4 bovates of land in Buterdon, which h& claimed against
Nicholas de Winestre and Hawise, his wife, and Hawise
appeared and stated that the land was her inheritance, and that
Nicholas, her husband, bribed by the gifts of Henry, had
absented himself so that he would never appear after the plea
had been moved, and she offered the King 40s. that she might
have a (ireat Assize, viz., as to which of them had the greater
right to the land, and the Lord the King, moved with pity (motus
misericordia) and having taken council (et per consilium),
accepted the gift of Hawise. She was, therefore, to have a
Great Assis^e, and a day was given them on the Morrow of the
Close of Easter (2 April 1202), on which day four knights were
to appear to elect twelve. The surety of Hawyse for the 40s.
was William de Wrottesle, and Hawise put in her place William,
her son.""^

^ Sir Henry de Deneston held his portion of Denstone under the Le Despencers.
An Inquisition taken in 3 E. Ill, to return the value of the lands held by Hugh le
Despencer, late Karl of Winchester, states, inter alia, that Nicholas de Denstone
held of the said Hugh a carucate of laud in Deustone by the service of 15s. yearly.

- Curia Regis Roll, No. 41, m. 1 (old numbers).

3 Curia Regis Roll, No. 41, m. 8 (old numbers).

■* The trial by the Great Assize was now in full operation. It had been introduced

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 27

There probably never was a monarch less likely to be moved
by the suogestions of pity than King John, or at the same time
more licentious in his amours. The Chronicles inform us that
no woman who sued in his courts and who took his fancy
escaped without dishonour, and this ])ropensity of the King has
been reckoned amongst the principal causes of the detestation
with which he was held by his people.^ Whatever the King's
motives may have been, his decision in this case produced an
important rule of law, for a legal commentator has written in
the margin of the roll, "f&mina nupta habat assisam de heredi-
tafe sua, uhi vir suus non vult comparere."

The same Roll gives us the names of the knights selected to
try the cause. It states that Harao de Weston, Mansel de Pate-
shull, Nicholas de Burceston, Pagan de Paries, the four Knights
summoned to elect twelve to form the Great Assize between
Henry de Duneston, plaintiff, and Hawise de Waterfall, tenant
of four bovates of land in Buterdon, appeared and elected these :
William de Chetelton Nicholas de Meer (Maer)

Adam de Aldithelega (Audley) Thomas fitzRoger (of Haughton)
Ralph de Blore William de Ipstanis (Ipstones)

John de Sautcheverel Hugh de Okovere

William Mauveisin Robert de Fereros (of Loxley)

Robert deThomeharn(Tandiorn) Nicholas de Mutton (Myttun)
Walter de Witefeld William de Hundesacre

Peter Giffard (of Chillington) William fitzGuy (of Womburne)-

A day was given to the parties at the next advent of the
Justices, wdien the jury w^ere to appear.

The Pipe Rolls of the second and third years of King John
return Hawyse as owing 40s. for a Great Assize against Henry
de Deneston. On the Pipe Roll of 4 John she is returned as
having paid two marks, and owing one mark ; on the Pipe Roll
of 5 John she is returned as quit, the remaining mark having
been paid.

The trial had, in fact, come off at the Iter of the Justices in

by the famous Justiciary of Henry II, Ralph de Glanville, to supersede the barbarous
wager of battle, which up to his time had beeu the only method of determining
the right to a freehold. It is interesting from its containing the germ of our
modei-n trial by jury, for the tradition that Alfred established this method of trial
has no foundation in fact. The Knights of Great Assize were called recognitors,
because they were selected for their knowledge of tlie matter in dispute, and it
would appear from the form of the writ, that affinity or relationship to the parties
formed no bar to their selection. They were in fact witnesses, as well as judges.

^ Monarchs seldom sue in vain, but I am afraid Hawyse fell an easy victim, for in
a suit of 7 Hen. Ill (1223), when one of her sons, Luke de Buttertou, claimed land
in Turleston from the Prior of Tuttebury, by a writ of mort d'ancestor, the Prior
pleaded that Luke was a bastard. The cause was leferred to the Bishop, who
returned that he was legitimate, but this took place before the change was made in
the mode of reference to the ecclesiastical courts, and the latter always returned a
man as legitimate if the parents were subsequently married.

^ The words in brackets are added by the writer.

28 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Staffordshire of that year, the suit having been amalgamated
with another brought against Ingrith, the sister of Hawise, by
the same phiintiff. The entry on the Koll is as follows : —

William de Yppestane (Ipstones), John de Sautchcverel, Henry
de Wotton, Nicholas de Mutton, the four knights summoned to
elect twelve to form the Great Assize between Henry de Deneston,
plaintiff, and Ingrid de Butterton, tenant, of four bovates of land
in Buterdon, respecting which Ingrid had put herself on the
Great Assize of the King, and prayed for a verdict as to which of
them had the greater right to the land in question. And because
the land is partible between her and her sisters, and she could
not answer to the plea without them, they all appeared, and put
themselves on the Assize together with Ingrid, and the said
knights elected these, viz : —

Adam de Alditheley Jordan de Kniteley (Knightley)

Hamon de Weston William Bagot of Holedale

Thomas fitzRoger of Hocton Robert de Ferrars

(Haughton) William de Handesacre

William, de Greseley Ralph de Hintes

William Mauveisin Ralph de Knotton (Cnutton)

Yvo de Walton Philip FitzBishop (de Burgo)

Nicholas de Burgeston (Burston) Henry de Roele (Rowley).
Ralph de Blore

On the same Roll occurs another suit which gives some'
additional information respecting the coheirs of Robert de
Waterfall. It states that William de Ippestanes, John de Saut-
cheverel, Nicholas de Mutton, and Henry de Wotton, the four
knights summoned to elect twelve to return a verdict between
Thomas fitzRalph and Yngrith de Buterdon, respecting two
bovates of land in An^cot (Onecote), appeared, and Ralph
fitzJordan came into Court, and stated that be had in his custody
the son of Eda, the sister of Ingred (sic), who w^as the eldest
daughter of Robert fitzAdara, and ought to have his portion of
the land, wdiich, similar to that in question (sicut de ilia), was
partible between them — that is to say, that Yngrid had three
sisters, viz., Mary, the wife of Turgist, and Hawiz, and Marjory,
the wife of Roger Putrel, and another named Eda, who was
dead, but whose heir was living, viz., William son of Robert ;
and because one sister could not lose nor win without the others,
inasmuch as the inheritance was partible, and in the same way
those would lose who might recover against one sister, it was
considered that all should appear and put themselves on the
Great iiVssize together with the said Yngrid. A concord was
made {Concordia facta), and Thomas gave to the King half a
mark, for which Thomas de Kersewell was his surety. ^

1 AasLze Koll Stafford, 5 John, m. 4.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY, 29

The words " Concordia facta " signify that a fine was levied,
but none of the fines levied at this Iter are extant. Fortunately
for this history, however, the fine levied on this occasion is
quoted on a Stafl:brdshire Assize Roll of 27 Edw. I, in a suit
relating to Butterton brought by a later William de Wrottesley
and the other representatives of Robert de Waterfall against
Henry de Bray, who held the status at that date of Henry de
Deneston. It states that in the fifth year of King John a fine
had been levied at Lichfield between one Henry de Deneston,
plaintiflf, and William son of Eda, Yngrith, sister of Eda, Roger
Poutrel and Margery his wife, and Hawys de Waterfal, tenants
of fourteen bovates of land with appurtenances in Boterdon of
the freehold formerly belonging to Robert de Waterfall, the
father of the said Eda, Ingrith, Marjory, and Hawys, the ancestor
of the said William, Benedict and William, in which fine it was
contained that the said William, son of Eda, Yngrith and the
others named held, and ought to hold, the tenements in question
of the said Henry de Deneston.

This fine gives us the conclusion of the amalgamated suits.
Hugh, the son of William de Wrottesley, speaks of his mother
Ingrith in a deed which will be given further on, and it therefore
appears that William must have been married to the coheiress of
that name either before or very shortly after the termination of
this suit.

The following extracts from the Assize Roll of 5 John refer to
the same suits : —

"Samson of Roucester, Robert le Osteler, Richard de Peitivill
and GeofiVey de Seifurlong, who had been sent to hear whom
Roger Putrel and Marjory his wife, who are ill {langiiidi) as
alleged, wished to put in their place, came into Court and stated
they put in their place Robert Putrel their son in a plea of land
against Thomas de Stanton and Henry de Deneston ; and Turgist
de Hilum (Ham) and Mary his wife put in their place Henry
their son against the same."

[The Thomas de Stanton here named is evidently the same
person as the Thomas son of Ralph of the suit against Ingrith de
Butterton.]

" From Henry de Deneston, for an Assize at Lichfield, one
mark, for which Hugh de Acovere (Okeover) and Robert de Bee
are sureties."

" From Hawise, Yngrid, Margaret and William, for license of
concord, half a mark, for which Hugh de Acovere was surety."

Hugh de Okeover was therefore surety for both parties, and
had probably some hand in the final settlement of the dispute.
The Curia Regis Roll of Easter, 7-8 John, contains a plea which
shews that his elder brother Richard, who had died s.p. in the
lifetime of their father Ralph, had been the first husband of
Marjory the wife of Roger Putrel one of the parties of the suit.

30 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

I am unable to sugorcst any reason for the absence of Turgist
de Ham and Mary his wife from the final proceedings. Mary's
share of the estate lay in Wetton, and a portion of it subse-
quently passed to her nephew William de Casterne. By a deed
in the Tuttebury Chartuhxry William de Casterne, son of Robert
de Casterne, released to that house all his claim in three bovates
of land in Wetindon, which formerly belonged to the Domina
Maria de Ylum.^

It now remains to enquire into the identity of Robert fitzAdam
of Waterfall, the father of the coheiresses. If it had not been
for the presence of Hugh de Okeover as a juror in one of the
suits,- I should have supposed that Robert was a member of
that family and the son of an Adam son of Orm of Okeover
mentioned by Erdeswick. The fact of the marriage of the two
elder coheiresses to the tenants of Ralph de Okeover at Casterne
and Ham, and the marriage of the third daughter to the eldest
son of the same Ralph, could hardly have been an accidental
coincidence, and points to some close connection with the family
of Okeover or to a tenure under them. Waterfall was held of
the fee of Chester by the Despencers, who, as coheirs of the
Cheshire Barony of de Maubank, held a third of Alstonfield and
its members. In an Inquisition taken in 3 Ed. Ill, to return the
value of the lands in Staffordshire, which had been held by
Hugh le Dcspencer, late Earl of Winchester, the jury found
that the said Hugh had held {inter alia) a third part of the
manor of Alstanefeld, of which Richard de Okeover held a
portion, and Nicholas de Denstone held of the same Hugh a
carucate of land in Denstone by the service of los. yearly, and
that John de Stauntone, John de Tettebury, Reginald de Hales,
and William Poutrel held of the same Hugh the vill of Water-
fall, excepting one bovate of land,^ by the service of 16s. Gd.
yearly.

The Richard de Okeover and Nicholas de Denstone here
named were the successors of Henry de Deneston. John de
Tettebury, one of the tenants at Waterfall, was the second
husband of Joan, the widow of Sir William de Wrottesley, who
had died in lo20, and the other tenants were the representatives
of the remaining coheiresses of Waterfall.

The manor of Butterton-on-the-Moors was held of the Prior
of Tuttebury, and from the terms of a Fine levied in 12 Hen. Ill,

* Tuttebury Chartulary, College of Arms.

^ It is a question, however, whether affinity to the parties was any bar to the
election of a Knight of Great Assize, as iu the case of a common jury. I have
certainly met with cases where the knights in these Assizes were connected by blood
or affinity to tlie parties. See a previous note at p. 27.

' The Burton Chartulary states that the monks held two bovates of land in
Waterfala, by the gift of Aschetillus Dispensator and his son Geoffrey. It will be
seen, therefore, that this history gives us the names of two ancestors of this great
historic house of Despencer, which have not hitherto been discovered by antiquaries.

WROTTESLEY OF VVROTTESLEY. 31

which will be given further on, must have formed a part
originally of the Barony of Ferrers of Tuttebury. The Priory
of Tuttebury was founded by Henry de Ferrers in 1080.

Whoever he may have been, it would seetn that Robert fitz
Adam, of Waterfall, was the possessor of a considerable estate
on the moorlands of Staffordsliire, for liis descendants are found
in possession of lands in Onecote, Butterton, Waterfall, Wetton,
and Elkstone, which are all places from four to five miles apart,
but beyond the foregoing I am unable to say anything definite
about him.

To return to William de Wrottesley. With the exception of
his appearance as a witness to a few deeds of the reign of
King John, no further mention of him occurs until the fifth
year of Henry III. During this interval he attests the deed
between Isabella, Lady of Patingham, and the nuns of Brewood,
which is preserved at Chillington, and has teen printed in vol. iii,
of Staffordshire Collections, and he is probably identical with
the William Fitz Simon, who witnesses the grant of Hugh de
Picheford to Haughmond Abbey, quoted by Eyton in vol. i, p. 359,
of the Antiquities of Shropshire. Hugh de Picheford was Lord
of Albrighton, and in that capacity was one of the immediate
neighbours of William de Wrottesley. In this year, viz., in
5 Hen. Ill (A.D. 1221), an entry on the Memoranda Roll of the
Exchequer orders the Sheriff of Staffordshire to distrain the
following tenants of the Barony of Stafford for a scutage of
three marks, which had been assessed on each knight's fee : —

John le Mareschall for one knight's fee in Couton (Colton).

Henry de Alditheley for three and a quarter knights' fees
from the heir of Roger de Somerville (then in his custody).

The heir of Thomas de Erdington for one knight's fee in Ocle
(Oakley).

William de Wrotele for one knight's fee in Wrotesle.

The Abbot of Crokesden for one knight's fee in Oken (Oaken).

This record is of interest from its bearing upon the nature of
the tenure by which Wrottesley was held.

Robert de Stafford had granted Wrottesley and Loynton to
the Monks of Evesham in free alms, but this grant had never
been ratified by the King, and the alienation of land held in
capite was illegal. The second Robert de Stafford had therefore
included this fee in the return known as the Liber Niger of A.D.
1166, but these manors having been granted in frankalmoign to
the Abbot of Evesham, the latter would not be liable for scutage
to the Barons of Stafford, nor could the latter recover it by
distraint from the Abbot's tenant. In the year 1200, however,
Hervey Bagot, who had niarried Milisent, the daughter and sole
heiress of the last Robert de Stafford, faking advantage of the
illegality of the original grant had attempted to recover the two
manors, and the Abbot called Milisent to warranty. The suit

32 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

itself is not on record, but a Fine levied in the first year of King
John (jives us the conclusion of it.

This was levied at Westminster on the Tuesday after the Feast
of St. Leonard, 1 John, between Roi,fer, Abbot of Evesham, the
plaintiff, and Hervey Bacjot and Millicent his wife, in a plea of
warranty of the charter of Robert de Stafford, the father of the
said Millicent, respecting the land of Wrottesle and Levington
and respecting which there had been a plea between them in the
Curia Regis. Hervey and Millicent acknowledged the said
charter of Robert de Stafford, and the gift of the said Robert to
the said Abbot and his successcA's for ever, and for this quit
claim and final concord the Abbot gave to Hervey and Millicent
40s.

The Charter here spoken of was a confirmation of the grant
of Wrottesley and Livington by the second Robert de Stafford,
which is printed in the Monasticon.

This Fine would definitely dispose of any claim for scutage
by the Barons of Stafford, but the rights of the Crown would
not be affected by it. Scutage, however, was collected in gross
from the tenants in capite, and it is only in the case of a
minority or a foi'feiture when the Barony would be in the hands
of the King, that a claim of this nature would be made on the
arriere tenants. How this came to pass in the year 1221 I am
unable to explain, but the ultimate result was the final release of
the fee of Wrottesley and Loynton from any liability for
scutage ; for although the Barony of Stafford remained subject
to the full assessment of GO knights' fees, for which Robert de
Stafford had acknowledged his liability in 1166,^ and of which
number Wrottesley and Loynton counted for one fee, yet the
detailed list of the knights' fees of the same Barony given in the
Testa de Nevill omits all mention of Wrottesley and Loynton,
the requisite number of knights' fees having been made up by
subsequent feoffments out of the demesne of the Barony.

These transactions, however, could not affect the nature of the
service bj' which Wrottesley was held of the Abbot by his sub-
tenant. This would depend on the terms of the charter of feoff-
ment, and it will be seen that it eventually became a source of
endless controversy and dispute on the occasion of every minority
of an heir.

In this same year, viz., in 1221, William de Wrottesley com-
menced a suit-at-law against Luke, son of William de Boterdon
for the service due for half a bovate of land in Butterton. The
records which exist of this suit enable us to identify him as son
of Simon, and, therefore, presumably as son of Simon, son of
William de Cocton.

^ The Liber Niger Scaccarii, printed by Hearne, and Liber Rubeus, edited by Mr.
Hubert Hall, 189G.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 33

Under the heading of " Nova Oblata," the Staffordshire Pipe
Roll of 5 Henry III states that

" William fitz Simon owes half a mark for a writ of ' Pone '
against Luke de Boterdon respecting land in Boterdon."

The Fine Roll of the same year has the same entry more at
length, it saj^s : — -

" William fitz Simon gives to the Lord the King half a mark
for a writ of ' Pone ' before the Justices Itinerant against Luke
de Buterdon respecting the service which the said William
claimed from him for a freehold in Buterdon."

The suit was heard at Warwick before the Justices Itinerant
in January 1222. The Record states that William de Wurtlega
(sic) sued Luke, son of William, for the service owing to him
for a bovate of land in Buterdon. A concord was made by
which Luke acknowledged he owed a servdce of 26" annually,
when he had at first acknowledged to owe 6" only, and William
declared himself to be satisfied " tenuit se pacatimny^

Apparently, however, William was not satisfied with the
result, for at Hillary term of the following year [7 Henry III]
Luke de Buterdon appeared against William de Wrotelega in
a plea that he should complete the chirograph of a Fine made
between them before the Justices Itinerant at Warwick
respecting half a bovate of land in Buterdon ; William did not
appear, and the Sheriff was ordered to attach him for a month
from Easter.

On the Staffordshire Pipe Roll of 7 Henry III the Sheriff
renders an account, amongst the " Oblata," for half a mark
paid by William Jitz Simon for a writ of " Pone."^

The Fine which concludes this suit has been preserved, and
the William fitz Simon of the Pipe and Fine Rolls becomes
again William de Wrottesley. It was levied at Westminster on
the Morrow of St. Martin, 8 Henry III [12 Nov. 1223] between
William de Wrotesley, plaintiff, and Luke de Buterdon, deforciant,
of the service of thirty pence and one halfpenny, which the
said William claimed of Luke for half a bovate of land with
appurtenances which Luke held of him in Buterdon, and
respecting which a plea had been held between them in the said
Court, and Luke acknowledged he owed twenty-six pence for the
land, so that he and his heirs should render annually a service
of twenty-six pence for it. And Luke further conceded that
he and his heirs should find every year a man for the chases of
William de Ferrars, Earl of Derby, and his heirs, in the forest
of Crudcot, and for this recognition William, remitted to the
said Luke and his heirs all arrears of the above service of thirty
pence halfpenny.

^ Coram Rege Roll, No. 10 (old numbers).

'^ A writ of " Pone " transfers a suit from the local Court to be heard at ^Ye3t-
minster or before Justices Itinerant.

34 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

To somewhere about the same date may be ascribed three
deeds ill thB Tutbury Chartulary, by which William do
Wrottesley, Robert Putrel, and William, son of William do
Ikitcrdon <;rant the park and wood of Ekcdon (Elkstono) to the
monks of tluit house in free alms.^ The grantors were the repre-
sentatives of the coheiresses of Robert titz Adam of W^^iterfall,
hokling in coparcenaiy, and it may therefore be assumed that at
this date tlie issue of the other sisters had failed.

The next definite notice respecting William de Wrottesley is
contained on the Staffordshire Pipe Roll of 11 Henry III (A.D.
1227) which returns him as owing half a mark for license of
concord, at the Iter of Stephen de Segrave in Warwickshire.

The records of this Iter have been lost, but the Fine for which
the above fee was paid has been preserved. It was levied at
Coventry on the Morrow of the Octaves of St. Martin
11 Henry III [19 Nov. 1226] between William de Wrottele,
plaintiff, and Simon de Cocton and Constance, his wife, tenants
of a fourth part of a hj^de of land in La W^yke, respecting
which an assize of mort d'ancestor had been summoned between
them. William remitted and quit-claimed to the said Simon
and to Constance and to the heirs of Constance, all his right
and claim to the said land, for which Simon and Constance
gave him a mark of silver.

These proceedings are of interest from their bearing on the
descent of William from Simon de Verdun. The Wyke was a
member of Coughton, but a separate manor, having been sub-
infeuded before the Statute of " Quia Emptores," and the site
of the ancient manor house is still apparent from the remains
of the moat which formerly surrounded it. Four years before
this, date a Fine had been levied at Warwick between Robert
de Verdun, plaintiff, and Simon de Cocton and Constance, his
wife (by Simon, brother of the said Simon, put in the place of
the said Constance), of half a hide of land in La Wyke,
respecting which an assize of mort d'ancestor had been
summoned between them. By this Fine Simon and Constance
conceded to Robert a virgate of land for the service of half a
pound of pepper, and Robert released all claim to the remainder
of the land.

Constance was half-sister to Robert de Verdun, her father
having married Iveta, the mother of Robert.^

The Staffordshire Assize Roll of 12 Henry III (A.D. 1227)
shews William de Wrottesley again involved in a law suit
respecting a part of his wife's inheritance in Waterfall. The
record states that, "Margaret, the wife of Robert de Stanton,

' Tutbury Chartulary in the College of Arms,
^ Warwick Assize Roll, 5 Henry III.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 35

puts in her place Robert, her husband, or Henry cle Aneston
(?Deneston) against Hawise de Waterfathe and William de
Wrotesle, in a plea of mort ancestor." Another entry on the
same Roll states that, " Hawise de Waterfale gave halt" a mark
for license of concord with Robert de Stanton and Margaret,
his wife, respecting one-third of a bovate of land in Waterfale,
and the concord is such that Hawise acknowledged the land to
be the right of Margaret, to be held by Robert and Margaret of
the said Hawise and her heirs for a pound of cumin yearly, and
performing to the capital lord the services due for the land.
William de Wrotesley was surety for the half mark."

Margaret, the plaintiff in this suit, is doubtless the sister of
Hawise, married to a third husband. Robert de Stanton was
the head of a knightly family holding under the Earls of
Ferrers.

No further mention of William de Wrottesley has been found
in the Public Records, but we have now reached a period when
private charters become numerous. In most of the deeds of
this date of the families of Bushbury, Pendeford, Perton and
Mansel of Patshull, his name appears as a witness. In those
of later date his name in the attesting clause is usually
succeeded by that of his son Hugh.

He was alive as late as A.D. 1241, for he occurs as a witness
to deeds of John de Perton, who had succeeded his father Ralph
in that year.^ He also attests a Patshull deed, which, although
undated, can be shewn to belong to this year, for it is witnessed
by Nicholas de Willey, Sheriff of Salop. This Nicholas acted
as Sub-Sheriff for John le Strange, A.D. 1241.^ William was
certainly dead before the 12 February 1248, for on that date
Hugh de Wrottesley witnesses an agreement made before the
Justices Itinerant at Lichfield, between Ralph Basset and John
de Perton, respecting common of pasture in Pattingham and
Perton.^

He had five sons ; Hugh, who succeeded him at Wrottesley,
and William, Richard, Henry, and Bertram. He also left a
daughter Alice, married to Henry le Freman of Wrottesley.
He appears likewise to have had two brothers, Richard and
Henry, for by a deed formerly preserved at Wrottesley, Thomas
de Marisco granted land in Tettenhall to Richard fitz Simon.
This deed was witnessed by Sir Robert de Esenington (Essing-
ton), Sir John de Pertun, William de Wrottesle, Hugh de
Wrottesle, Nicholas de Oca (Oaken), and Henry fitz Simon.

Besides this deed there were formerly at Wrottesley two

^ Fine Roll, 25 Henry III. By writ of 26 Sept. the King accepted the homage of
John, son of Ralph de Perton, for a fine of five marks. Perton, which adjf)in3
Wrottesley, was held hi capite.

' Salop Chartulary and Eyton's Shropshire.

^ Original deed at Wrottesley, copied 1860.

36 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

other ancient charters, -wliich belong to this epoch, and as deeds
of tliis early date are interesting to anti(iuaries, I give them at
length, omitting only the formal portions.

" Sciant tarn presentes qiiam fiituii, quod ego Hawis filia Roberti de
AVnterfall dedi et conccssi, et hac carta mca coufinnavi et concessii
Willohiii filii mei et heredis, Jacobo Ladsivi pro sibi et hercdibus suis,
in feodo et lieroditatc miuni placium in villa de Boterdone, scilicet
illud ])lacium quod [jacct] inter placium Rogeri Pidtrcl et placium
"Willelmi de Castcrne libere ct quictc ab omnibus servitiis quos ad me
pertinent, tribus denariis annuatim reddcndis, scilicet ad Nativitatem
Sancte Marie. Hiis testibus, Roberto filio Radulphi de Preston, Ada
filio Roberti de Derlee, Willelmo de Wrottcsleye, Doniina Yngridal
uxore [ejus], Roberto, AVillelmo filio Samson et multis aliis."^

" Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Willelmus de Wrotesle dedi et
concessi et hac carta confirmavi Ricardo fabro de AVrotesle pro homagio
ct servitio suo iinxmi essartum quod jacct in Blakelegh inter rivulum
de Cumbwcll ct regiam stratam que ducit versus lirug. Habendum ct
tenendum de me et heredibus meis libere, quiete, pacifice, jure hereditario
in perpctuum cum omnibus suis pertinentiis et omnibus aiseamentis,
comunis, libertatibus, et liberis consuetudinibus, cum husbote et heibote
in bosco meo de Wrotesle quantum sufficit ad tantum tenementum.
Reddendo inde annuatim ipse et heredes sui mibi et heredibus meis
novem denarios ad duos anni terminos videlicet ad Purificationem beate
virginis quatuor denarios et obolum, et ad festum beati Petri ad Vincula
quatuor deuarios ct obolum pro omni servitio, consuetudine et demanda.
Ego vero etc. (clause of warranty). Hiis testibus, l\higistro Thoma de
Chabbeham Rectore ecclesie de Codeshall, domino Elia de Tetenhale,
Roberto domino de Bissopesbury, Roberto domino de Pendeford,
Ricardo domino de Oxele, Willelmo de Waur, Radulpho Painel, AVillelmo
de Mollcsle, Nicholao de Aken, Ricardo de Aldinton."^

Seal of dark green wax, with the effigy of a fleur-de-lys, and
legend, Sigillum Willelmi — the rest broken off.

^ From copies of Butterton deeds at Wrottesley. These were contained on twenty
pages of ancient foolscap, stitched together and written in a hand of tlie time of
Charles I, with this certificate on the fly leaf, '■ Memfl"™ that I received this booke
from Sir Wauter Millward for the use of my master Walter Wrottesley, Esquire, the
l.^)"" day of March anno domiiii 1637, being true coppies of such deedes as my master
had to give for the use of the purchasers of Butterton, per nie Marc Antonio Coesar
Galliardello." For iin account of Mark Galliardello, see Grazebrook's notes on
Dugdale's Visitation of Staffordshire, vol. v. of Staffordshire Collections.

- Original deed at Wrottesley 1860. With respect to the witnesses, Magister Thomas
de Chabbeham liad been emjjloyed in the service of King John, for the Rotulus Misa3
of 14 John has, " Magistro Thoma de C/iahbenJiam evnti in servitinm domini Eeqis in
pnrtihm tranxinariuis a-y'i." Bobert occuis as lord of Bnshbury in 25 Hen. Ill [A.D.
1241]. (Coram BegeBoH). The Forest Pleas siiow that he was alive in 46 Hen. Ill
and dead before :>h Hen. Ill (A.D. 1271). Elvas, the Canon of Tetteuhall, was
living .32 Hen. HI (Patent Holl, 32 Hen. III).' Bobert, was lord of Pendeford in
39 Hen. Ill (Hundied J{oll of Sei-sdon of that date). William de Waur was one of
the Jurors of Offlow Hundred in 39 Hen. Ill (Hundred Uolb. Nicholas de Akeu
was tenant at Oaken under the Crown in 39 Hen. Ill (Hundred Boll;.

Wrottesley of wrottesley.

Sir Hugh de Wrottesley, A.D. 1248 to A.D. 1276.

William de Wrotteslej^was succeeded
1)3" his son Hugh, who occurs as a
witness in his father's lifetime to
several Staffordshire deeds of the reign
of Henry III, his name immediately
following that of his father in the
testing clause, as '' Willelmo de Wrot-
tele et Hugone filio suo."^ He is also
shewn to be son of William by a suit
in Banco of the reign of Edward II,
which will be given later on.

As already mentioned, he witnesses
a convention made at the assizes at
Lichfield on the 12 February, 1248,
between John de Perton and Ralph Basset of Drayton. This
deed has been printed in full by Mr. Jones in his History of
Tettenhall.

In the following year he formed one of the jurors who
returned by Inquisition the value of the King's manor of Tetten-
hall. It will help to date charters of this period if I give the
names of these jurors in full. They were : —

Robert de Pendeford

William, the Sergeant (Serviens)

of Pencriz
Hugh de Molleslega
John, son of Stephen de Edmo-

deston, and
Henry de Hulle of Bissopburi

Robert Maunsell [of Patshull]
Hugh de Wrotteslega
Walter de Overton
Gervase of Wolverhampton
John le Suur of Evenefeld

(Enville)
Adam de la Lowe
Robert de Bissopburi (Bushbury)

To about this date likewise may be set down an entry
respecting Hugh de Wrottesley in the Testa de Neville. Under
the heading of " De Serjantiis arentatis per Rohertum Fasse-
lewe " he is returned as holding a virgate of land in Perton which
had been alienated from the Sergeanty of John de Perton.-

In the year 1248 the King with a view of replenishing his
treasury which had been greatly reduced by improvident grants,
had appointed Robert Passelewe, the Archdeacon of Lewes and
Treasurer of the Kingdom, to make enquiry into the alienations
made without license by the holders of Sergeanties,^ to fix fines

' Huntbach MSS. and Aslimole's CoUectious for Staffordshire.

^ Testa de Nevill, printed, pp. 58 and 59.

^ A Sergeanty was an hereditary tenure under the Crown for some honoi-able
consideration other than knight's service. When it involved military duties, such as
Castle Guard or service as a lightly armed horseman, it was styled a Gi-aiid Sergeanty.
John de Perton's service was that of a lightly armed horseman in Wales for eight
days at his own cost, and if retained. longer, at the cost of the King. The King's
tenants who held by Castle Guard were styled Vavassors in Normandy.

38 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

for the same, and to exact in addition an annual rent in money
as a composition. This was one of the many impohtic acts
which subsequently caused the rebellion of the Barons under
Simon de Moutfort. One of the victims of it was John de
Pertou, the nearest neighbour of Hugh de Wrotteslcy and his
brother-in-law. The Treasurer returned a portion of the Perton
Sergeanty as alienated by grants made to Roger de Perton,
]\Iichnel de Trescote and Hugh de Wrottesley. The Staffordshire
Pipe Roll of 32 Henry III returns John de Perton as owing
eight marks "pro transgressione " which is, without doubt, his
fine for the above alienation. On the Roll of 34 Henry III the
Sheriff accounts for 5s. 9d. received from John de Perton in
payment for two virgates of land alienated in Perton. A deed
and a suit-at-law of later date shew that Hugh de Wrottesley
had held a virgate of land in Perton in frankmarriage with
Idonia, the daughter of Ralph de Perton, the father of John.

With the exception of Hugh de Wrottesley s appearance as a
witness to several Staffordshire deeds, there is nothing to record
respecting him for the next seven years. In 1255, the thirty-
ninth year of the King's reign, a special commission was issued
to enquire into the rights of the Crown, which had been
abstracted or diminished, and into the service due to the
Hundred and County Courts l^y every manor within each
Hundred. The returns to this commission are called the Hundred
Rolls, and most of them have been printed by the Record
Connnission of the early part of this century. At the date
however, when these Rolls were published, the returns for the
Hundred of Seisdon- were missing, and the present writer having
found them amongst the miscellaneous Rolls of the Old Chapter
House, printed tliem in vol. V. of the Staffordshire Collections.

The twelve jurors of the Hundred of Seisdon were : —

Thomas de Tresel Philip de Lutteleye

Henry de Morf Walter de Overton

Walter de Bradele Hugh de Wrottesleye

Clement of Wolverhampton Richard de Fonte

Walter le Daneys WilHam de Whitinton

Hamund de Bradwall and William fitz Warine

Under Wrottesley, tliey returned that Hugh de Wrottcsle held
a hide of land in Wrottesle of the Abbot of Evesham, rendering
to the Abbot two marks, and for frankpledge he gave 12d., for
the Sheriffs aid 12d., and for the Hundred aid 4d., and did
suit to the County and Hundred (Courts), and the land was
geldable {i.e., liable to taxation).

The 12d. paid for frankpledge was for the view of frank-
pledge in the Manorial Court in place of the Hundred Court.

The hidage named in the Hundred Rolls corresponds in nearly
every instance with that named in Domesday, and wherever it

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY 39

differs, the cause can usually be found in the partial afForestation
of a manor, or the elemosination of it to a religious house. It
will be noted that the hidage of Wrottesley had been reduced
from two hides to one, and this arose probably from the grant
of it to Evesham Abbey. Those portions of a manor which were
devoted to religious uses were not geldable, and this part would
be represented in the case of Wrottesley by the chief rent of
two marks payable to the Abbey. ^

Under Perton, the jury returned that John de Perton held
three hides of land b}'' the service of Sergeanty, etc., and added
that Ralph de Perton had alienated two and a half virgates of
land, for which the King received annually 5s. 9d. as a fine
imposed by Robert Passelewe.

Passing over three more years, I find that at the sittings of the
King's Court at Westminster of Michaelmas term 42 Henry III
(A.D. 1258) John de Frene and Wylde Scheil appeared against
Hugh de Wrottesle and William Shirelok in a plea that they had
insulted, beaten, and illtreated them against the King's peace, etc.
The defendants did not appear, and Hugh had been attached by
Stephen de Wrottesle, the Forester,, and Nicholas, son of
Richard de Wrottesle. He was, therefore, to be attached by
better sureties, to appear at fifteen days from St. Hillary, and
the former sureties were in misericordid. As regarded William
Shirelok, the Sherift' returned that he could not be found, and
he was ordered to attach him to appear at the same date.^ No
further notice of this suit occurs on the Rolls.

In the following year Hugh de Wrottesley heads the list of jurors
of an Inquisition on the death of his neighbour, Ralph de Perton.

John de Perton, the brother-in-law of Hugh, had died in 1258,
and had been succeeded by his son Ralph, at that time only
twenty-four years of age ; within little more than a twelvemonth
from this date, Ralph was likev/ise dead, having fallen, I think,
in an ambuscade in Wales, which is described in the Chronicles,
and in which many other knights and men-at-arms were killed.
My reason for this supposition is the unusual form of the King's
writ to the Eschaetor. In place of the usual formula, '' diem
clausit extrevium,^^ the words " infata discessit " have been
substituted in the preamble of the writ.

The Inquisition took place on the Thursday after the Feast of
the Nativity of the Virgin Mary, 43 Henry III (11 Sept. 1259),
on the oath of Hugh de Wrottesley, Walter de Overton (lord of
Wombourne and Orton), Roger Bofluri (lord of Lower Penn),

^ The return was a very favourable one for Hugh de Wrottesley, which is the more
remarkable, as the Burton Clirouicle states that the Justiciary, Philip Lovel, who
conducted the enquiry in Staffordshire — ^' durius et asperius se habenlc," had imposed
new burdens on the tenants of land in the county.

" Plea Eoll, No. 16, Old Tower Records, printed iu Vol. iv., Staffortlsliire
Collections, p. 137.

40 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

William fitz Warine (of Trescott), and eight otliers. After the
usual particulars respecting the tenure of Perton, the jurors
stated that Ralph paid 5s. annually to the King for land
alienated from the fee, and that William, his brother, was his
nearest heir, and twenty-two j'ears of age. Amongst other
particulars they mentioned that Ealph had left a widow,
Margaret, who was suing for her dower. This Margaret
subse(|uently married John le Botiller, the son of Amice,
daughter of Hugh de Wrottesley, and will figure in a subsequent
page of this history.

Two years after this date we find Hugh de Wrottesley engaged
in a dispute with his nephew, William de Perton, respecting the
bounds of their respective manors. A writ on the Close Roll of
45 Henry III (A.D. 1361), directs the Sheriff of co. Staftbrd to
proceed in person to the land of Hugh de Wrottele at Wrottele,
and the land of William de Perton at Perton, and to take with
him twelve discreet and lawful knights of his county, and upon
tlieir oath, to make a perambulation by metes and bounds,
between the land of the said Hugh at Wrottele, and the land of
the said William de Perton.^

This peraml)ulation appears never to have taken place for the
boundaries between Wrottesley and Perton remained in abeyance
until 1298, the date of an indented deed which will be given
further on.

In addition to this dispute William de Perton was attempting
at this date to recover the virgate of land in Perton which had
been alienated by his grandfather, Ralph de Perton, on the
marriage of Idonia, the daughter of Ralph, with Hugh de
Wrottesley. On the Patent Roll of 46 Henry III (A.D. 1262),
Martin de Littelburi was appointed to take the assize of novel
disseisin which William de Pereton (sic) had arraigned against
Hugh de Wrokesley (sic) and others respecting a tenement in
Pereton. The Assize Roll of this date has been lost, but a deed
abstracted by Vincent and Ashmole without doubt gives us the
result of the suit. By this deed, William, son of John de Perton,
remits to Hugh, son of William de Wrottesley, and his heirs, all
his right in the lands and tenements which the said Hugh held
in frank marriage by the gift of Ralph de Perton, his grand-
father. This deed is witnessed by Robert de Bissobury and
Roger Bufi'ary, both of whom were dead before 1269.^

In the same year, viz. 1262, Pleas of the Forest were held at
Lichfield before Alan la Zuche, the Justiciary of the Forests
citra Trent. Hugh de Wrottesley was one of the Eeguardors of
Kinver Forest, who were fined on this occasion for an insufiicient
return. It was the duty of the Reguardors to keep a roll on

' Close Roll, 45 Henry III, m. 10, dorso.

= A-shiiiole's MSS., No. 833, and Shaw's Staffordshire, Yol. ii, p. 288.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 41

which was entered every matter prejudicial to the Forests,
excepting trespasses against the deer, which were dealt
with by presentments at the Swanimotes. Of the twelve
reguardors fined on this occasion, Robert de Bissebury, Hugh de
Wrottesley, Richard de Evenefeld and Adam de Camera were
fined one mark each, and the others half a mark. The
misericordia or fine of a knight was always doul^le that of other
delinquents.

For the next three years there is nothing to record respecting
himj but on the Patent Roll of 49 Henry III (A.D. 1265) we find
notices of cross suits between him and the Abbot of Croxden
respecting common of pasture in their respective manors of
Wrottesley and Oaken. For two or three centuries after the
Conquest, the boundaries of manors appear to have been
undefined, and the tenants of contiguous manors had reciprocal
rights of common over the waste of both manors. The Statute
'of Merton of 20 Henry III [A.D. 1236] which empowered
the lords of manors to enclose waste lands so long as they
left sufficient pasturage for their tenants and free ingress
and egress to the pasturage, gave a great stimulus to the
enclosure of open lauds, but necessarily led to disputes between
the lords and tenants of contiguous manors, as every enclosure
of waste land in one manor diminished by so much, the
pasturage available for the tenants of neighbouring manors.

In the first of the above suits Giles de Erdington was
appointed to take an assize of novel disseisin, which the Al^bot
of Crokesdene had arraigned against Hugh de Wrotesleye and
Roger le Suur (the Sewer) respecting a tenement in Ake
(Oaken), and to take an assize of novel disseisin, which the
same Abbot had arraigned against Hugh de Wrokesley (sic),
concerning common of pasture in Wrokesley.^

Another entry on the back of the same Roll states that Giles
de Erdington was assigned to take an assize of novel disseisin,
which Hugh de Wrottesleye had arraigned against the Abbot of
Crokesdene respecting common of pasture in Aken."'^

Before any of these suits could come into Court the Battle of
Evesham had been fought, and Hugh de Wrottesley, who had
adhered to the side of Simon de Montford, was a fugitive,
disinherited of all his possessions.

The contemporary Dunstable Chronicle informs us that : —

" Dominus Rex, pout heiluni, dedit licencian communam, xit vic'ores,
terras et res victorum, eject ibus uxoribus et liberis, invader ent et occuparent,

J Rot. Pat. 49 Henry III, m. 16, dorso, Stafford.

* Rot. Pat. 49 Henry III, m. 17, dorso, Stafford. An assize of "nova dissaisiua "'
was the most common form of trial by which a claim to a freehold was determined,
and was emijloyed where anj'one disseised another of his freehold unjustly, and
within the leyal limit of time, hence the ejjithet "nova." This was varied at
different times by Statute. At the date in question, the limit was the " primam
trau.sfretatiunem domiui lletris in Vase uiam or A.D. 1221."

42 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

qiU)d etfactuvi est, quas terras per commune consilnim, ovmes in rnanus
clomini Regis resignaverunt, ut ipse singidos secundum -ma merita de
eisdem terris feofaret"

A Parliament shortly afterwards confirmed all the acts, which
disinherited the King's enemies.

The " exhereditati,'' as they are termed in the Chronicles,
under the leadership of Robert de Ferrers, Earl of Derby,
Simon de Montfort, the j'-ounger, Baldwin Wake, and others,
retired into the Fens of Lincolnslijre, from whence they sallied
out and plundered the neighbouring counties. They likewise
held de Montfort's castle of Kenilworth, which contained
a numerous garrison, under the command of Henry de
Hastings.

In June of the following year, viz., 12CG, the King laid siege
to Kenilworth. In September it was surrendered by Hastings,
under composition, his provisions being exhausted.

It had become manifest by this time that the country would
never be pacified, while so many were disinherited of their
lands, and it was decided that the King should nominate six of
his Council, who should elect six others, to deliberate upon the
best means for restoring peace. Amongst the twelve chosen for
this purpose was John de Somery, the Baron of Dudley, who
was the only Staffordshire baron who had remained faithful to
the King.

The " Dictum of Kenilworth," as it was called, was proclaimed
at Coventry on the Vigil of All Saints, 51 Henry III
(31 October, 12G6). It provided that all those who had been at
Northampton in arms against the King, or at Evesham, or at
the battle of Chesterfield, or in the Castle of Kenilworth, should
give the value of five years to those who held their estates, and
others, according to their delinquency, should give two years
value, and others one year, for the redemption of their lands,
and that the money should be paid within three years.

The deeds by which Hugh de Wrottesley compounded for his
estates were preserved at Wrottesley until the late fire, and I
give them here in extenso, having been informed by Eyton that
he had never met with any others, and that he believed them to
be unique.

Uuiversis Chrispi fidelibus, prescntas literas visuris vel audituris,
Rogerus Sprenghose, doniinus dc Lougeuolro salutem in domino, Noverit
universitas vcstra me pro me et hevedibiis et assignatis meis, quietclam-
asse in perpetvium Hugoni de Wrotteslega et heredibus suis, totam
terram suam et totum jus, quod liabui in ea, ex douo doniini Regis
Hcnrici filii Regis Johannis occasione turbationis regni Anglie in ipso
regno tunc exorte, et pro hac quieta clamatioiie dedit mihi predictus
Hugo sexaginta marcas sterliugoruui pro redemptione terre sue predictc,
de quibus mc voco pleuc et legaliter pacatum. In cujus rei testimonium

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. '43

has literas raeas ei feci patontes sigillo meo signatas, Hiis testibus
Johanne filio Philippi milite, Kicardo de Heveufeud, Radulfo de Bisso-
buri, Johanne de Pendeford, Willelmo de Overton et aliis.^

Seal destroyed.

Apparently this deed was not considered sufficiently explicit.
It contained no clause of warranty and the lands of Huf^li had
been granted to Sir Roger Sprengehose by Hamon Lestraunge,
the Sheriff of Salop and Stafford. The first deed was therefore
supplemented by a second in these words : —

Noverint universi, presentes et futuri, quod ego Rogerus Sprengehose
dominns de Longenoh-e, dimisi et quietclamavi pro me et heredibus meis
Hugoni de Wrotesle et heredibus suis totum jus et clamium meum quod
habui vel quod habere potui in terris et tenementis ipsius Hugonis michi
a domino Rege datis. Ita quod ipse Hugo et heredes sui dictas terras et
tenementa habeant et teneant in perpetuum, adeo integre, libcre, et
pacifice sicut ipse et antecessores sui ea liberius et mehus tenuerunt
non obstante aliquo impedimento vel reclamatione mei vel heredum
meorum. Et versus quoscumque qui jus vendicant in eisdcm terris
occasione alicujus doni inde facti vel a domino Rege vel a domino
Hamone Extraneo warantizabo et defendam. I'ro hac autein dimisione
et quieta clamantia dedit mihi prenominatus Hugo sexaginta niarcas
sterlingorum et ut hec mea dimissio et quieta clamantia perpotuam
firmitatera optineant presentem cartam sigilli mei impressione roboravi.
Hiis testibus Johanne de Picheford, Magistro Thoma de Chabbcham,
Johanne Capellano de Albrithton, Willelmo Chaumpeneis, Willelmo
Olif, et Willelmo de Unfreiston et aliis.^

Hugh de Wrottesley must have redeemed his lands before the
9th July, 1268, for on that date he was foreman of a jury on an
Inquisition " ad quod damnum," a writ having been issued to
enquire on the oath of the Verderers and other free and legal
men of the Forest of Kynfar whether it would be to the King's
detriment if Leo de Eomesley enclosed his wood of Horewode
within the forest. The Inquisition was taken before Eoger de
Chfford, the Justiciary of the Forests-citra-Trent, on the oath of

' Original deed at Wrottesley, 1860. Roger Sprenghose, or de Spreugehaux,
was lord of Longnor. co. Salop. The first witness, John fitz Philip, was lord of
Bobbingtou and Barlaston, co. Stafford, and Hereditary Forester of Kinver. By
writ dated from Keuilworth 19 November, 51 Henry III (1266), the King, at the
intercession of his Queen, remits all his indignation and rancour against John fitz
Philip, and restores his lands to him. Richard de Hevenfeud, or Kvenefeld, as it is
usually written, was the contemporary lord of Enville, co. Stafford. Ralph de
Bissoburi was lord of Bushbury ; John de Pendeford was lord of Fendeford, and
William de Overton was lord of Wombourne and Oi'ton. All these witnesses were
near neighbours of Hugh de Wrottesley.

2 Original deed at Wrottesley, 1860. Sir Hamon Lestraunge was Sheiiff for the
counties of Stafford and S:dop for the five years between 47 Henry III and 51
Henry III. John de Picheford, the fiist witness, was lord of Picheford and
Albrighton, co. Salop. His father, Ralph, died in 1252, leaving his son, a niinor.
John came of age in V25S, and died in 1285. Inq. p.m. Magister Thomas de
Chabbeham was rector of Codsall, near Wrottesley, ai d must have been over eighty
years of age at this date, for he is named on the llisa Roll of 14 John (1212^.

44 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Huf]jli (le Wrotteslega, Henry de Morf, Eichard de Evenefeld,
William do Overton, John de Trcsel, Thomas de Lutteleg, and
six others.

The landowner of the present day, who lives under well
<lctincd laws and with rights which have been confirmed by the
use and custom of centuries, has little idea of the constant
state of legal strife in which tlie landed proprietors of former days
were involved. Besides the law suits wdiich have been already
named, I find that on the Patent Roll of 43 Henry III (1259)
Giles de Erdington was assigned to take an assize of novel
disseisin which Richard de Wrotteslega had arraigned against
Hugh de Wrottcsle respecting tenements in Faterfal (Waterfall).
A few years afterwards, viz., on the Pipe Rolls of 51 to 53
Henry HI (1267-69) Richard de Wrottesley is again returned as
owing half a mark for an assize, and on the Pipe Roll of 52
Henr}' HI (1268) Hugh de Wrottesley is returned as owing half
a mark for a writ.

On the Patent Roll of 54 Henry IH (1270) Ralph de Hengham
w^as assigned to take an assize of novel disseisin which Alice, the
daughter of William de Wrottesley, had arraigned against Hugh
de Wrottesley and others respecting a tenement in Wrottesleye.
On the Pipe Roll of 56 Henry III (1272) Hugh de Wrottesley
is returned as owing half a mai'k for a writ, and the Rolls of
the following reign, up to 1276, mention three other law suits
in which he was either plaintiff or defendant. No record of
any of these suits has been discovered, but the Stafford Assize
Roll of 56 Henry III has an entry to the effect that Alice, the
daughter of William de Wrottesle, who had appealed to a jury
of twenty-four to convict a jury of twelve (of a false judgement)
in a plea of novel disseisin against Hugh de Wrottesle and others
respecting land in Wrottesle, came into Court and withdrew her
plea. She and her sureties, viz. Robert de Haggeley and
Thomas de la Pole of Lutteley, were in misericordia. Alice
had evidently been unsuccessful in her plea of 1270 and had
appealed. This Alice was sister to Hugh de W^rottesley, and
had been married in her father's lifetime to Henry le Freman of
Wrottesley,^ who appears to have been at that time the only
free tenant in the manor, and who may possibly have been the
descendant of the " liber homo " mentioned in Domesday.
William de Wrottesley had given to her on her marriage a
messuage and tw^enty selions of land in Wrottesley.^ Three
deeds formerly at Wrottesley had probably some connection
with the termination of this suit. By these deeds Hugh de
Wrottesley, Alice, and William, son of Hugh de Wrottesley,
severally grant land in Wrottesley to Hugh le Freeman, the son

^ Original deeds at Wrottesley, IS 60.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 45

of Alice. The latter survived her brother Hugh, and by a later
deed released to William de Wrottesley, the next lord, all her
right to the land in Wri^ttesley given to her in frank marriage,
accepting in lieu of it a rent in food and corn.'

At the Pleas of the Forest held at Lichfield at Michaelmas,
1271, the Reguardors of Kinver Forest appeared by Hugh de
Wrottesley, John de Tresel, William de Overton, William de
Mollesley, Reginald de Bradeley and six others named, and made
various presentments respecting breaches of the Forest Law
v/hich had been committed by tenants of Tettenhall and other
places. These have been printed in volume V. of the Wm. Salt
Series of Staffordshire Collections.

The Swanimote of Cannock presented at the same Iter, that
William de Perton, William, son of Alan de Overton, Ralph de
Bysobburi, Roger, his brother, William, son of Hugh de W^rotes-
legh, William de Penne, and three others named, were customary
malefactors of venison in the Bailiwicks of Bentlegh and Oggele,
and that on the Friday before Pentecost 54 Henry III [1270] they
had taken three does without warrant in the Bailiwick of Bent-
legh, and carried them to the house of Ralph de Bysobburi and
had there divided them. William de Wrotteslegh appeared, and,
being convicted, was detained in prison, and William de Perton,
William, son of Alan, Ralph de Bysobburi, and Roger, his
brother, were already in prison on other charges, and the Sheriff
was commanded to arrest William de Penne ; the three other
defendants who had not appeared, were to be outlawed.
AVilliam de Penne afterwards appeared and was sent to prison,
and subsequently released for a fine of 20s., and William de
Wrottesley was released for a fine of 20s., for which his father
Hugh was surety. The process of the Court seems to have
been that those who were convicted were detained in prison till
the last day of the sittings of the Court, when their fines were
inflicted, and on finding security for the payment of these, they
were released. The usual fine 20s. for taking venison would be
equivalent to about £20 at the present day.

At the County Assizes of the following year [1272] Hugh de
Wrottesley appeared as one of the Jury of the Hundred of
Seisdon. At this early date the Hundred Jury consisted for the
most part of the lords of manors within the Hundred. The other
jurors were : Richard de Evenefeld (the Lord of Enville),
Henry de Prestwode (of Kinver), William de Overton (Lord of
Wombourne and Orton), John de Tresel (Lord of Tr^'sull),
William de Perton (Lord of Perton), and six others. Their
presentments will be found in volume IV of Staffordshire
Collections, p. 209.

^ See deeds infra further on

46 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

The Patent Roll of 2 Edward I [1274] states that Ealph de
Hengham and W. do Hopton had been assigned to take an
Assize of novel disseisin which Hugh de Wrotesleye had
arraigned against Kalph Basset of Drayton, and others,
respecting tenements in Wrottesleye, and in the same Roll
Ralph de Hengham and Walter de Helion were appointed to
take an Assize of novel disseisin which Hugli de Wrotele had
arraigned against the Abbot of Crokesdene and others,
respecting tenements in Wrotele. Both these actions must
have referred to disputed points of boundary, for Ralph
Basset's manor of Pattingham adjoined Wrottesley on the
south and west, and the Abbot's manor of Oaken adjoined
Wrottesley on the north. The Fine Roll of this year shews
that Hugh de Wrottesley paid half a mark for the latter Assize,
and it was doubtless concluded at the Iter of the Justices
named. The result was very unfavourable to Hugh, for the
boundaries of Oaken have been extended to within a bowshot
of the site of the manor house at Wrottesley. The suit
between Ralph Basset and Hugh came to no conclusion, for the
disputes concerning common of pasture between the manors of
Wrottesley and Pattingham were not terminated before the
convention made between Ralph, Lord Basset, and Sir William
de Wrottesley in 1313.

The suit was probably stopped by the death of Hugh, which
took place in 1275 or early in 1276. The Staffordsdiire Pipe
Roll of 4 Edward I [A.D. 1276] states that Hugh de Wrottesley
owed half a mark for an Assize, and as no further entry occurs
respecting this Fine on any subsequent Roll, it may be assumed
it was never paid. A deed at Wrottesley shews that he had
been succeeded by his son William before the year 1277.

He left at his death two sons, William and Hugh, and a
daughter Amiscia, married to Richard le Boteler of Sandon, a
cadet of the house of Boteler of Warrington, co. Lancaster,
the hereditary butlers of the Earls of Chester.^

I conclude this Hugh de Wrottesley was a Knight, for in the
latter part of his career he has always the prefix of Dominus to
his name.^

Of his younger brothers who were living at this period,
Richard de Wrottesley has been already named as a plaintiff in
a suit at law against him in 1259 and 1260. On the Pipe Rolls
of 51 and 53 Henry HI [1267 and 1269] he is again entered as
owing half a mark for an Assize. Plis father had given him
land both in Wrottesley and in Waterfall, which he subsequently

^ Deeds at Wrottesley and at Pendcford.

* Such as "Domino Hugone de Wrottesley," the other form, Hugone Domhio de
Wrottesley, would not signify he was a Knight, but I have never met with the
Prefix Dominus given to any but Knights or Rectors of Parishes.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 47

sold/ and took up his abode in Bridgenorth. On the Coram
Rege Rolls of Easter 54 Henry III and Trinity 55 Henry III,
Edelina, the widow of Roger Corbet of Had ley, sued him and
mau}^ others of the town of Bridgenorth for breaking vi et
armis into her house and doing damage to the extent of £10.

Henry, another brother, is named in deeds at Wrottesley, and
left a son Hugh and two daughters, Margaret and Alice. His
father had given to him tlie mill at Hawkswell, near Patshull,
which Henry subsequently sold to Sir William Bagot, the lord
of the fee. The son Hugh appears to have taken orders and to
be the Hugh de Wrottesley, clericus, named in deeds of this
date at Wrottesley".

The daughters came into possession of the lands of their two
uncles Richard and Bertram, wdiich they afterwards conveyed to
their cousin William de Wrottesley.''

Of Bertram nothing is known except his appearance in a
single deed at Wrottesley, which will be given later on. William,
the remaining brother, is named in a short abstract of a deed
in the Dugdale Collection, which runs as follows : —

Sciant, etc., quod ego Willehiius filius Willehiii de Wrotesley dedi,
etc., Radulpho Purcel, etc. Hiis testibus Domino Roberto de
Essindon, Roberto filio suo. Domino Radulpho de Coven, Johanne
domino de Bishebury,^ Roberto domino de Pendeford.

The grantee Ralph Purcel [a sub-tenant at Bushbury] and the
witnesses all belong to the latter part of the reign of Henry III,
and Sir Ralph de Coven was dead before 1262. The following
deeds, formerly at Wrottesley, likewise belong to this epoch : —

Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Hugo de Wortteslewe dedi, etc.
Hugoni filio Henrici le Freman de Wortteslewe, unam placeam terre in
territorio de Wortteslewe, quod Willehnus filius Odi habuit et tenuit in
vita sua que placea jacet inter altam viam jacentem apud Hamton et
viam apud Tetinhale. Habendum et tenendum de me et heredibus
meis sibi et heredibus suis vel cuicumque fratrum vel sororum suorum
dare vel assignare voluerit, libere, quiete et in pace, cum libertate
eundi ad dictara terram et redeundi, pro viginti solidos quos mihi
dedit per manibus. Reddendo inde annuatim mihi et heredibus meis,
ipse et heredes sui, quatuor denarios ad assensionem domini pro omni
servitio seculari et demanda preter duas sectas curie in anno, una
scilicet post festum Sancti Michaheli et altera post Pascam per
rationabile sumonitione. Ego vero, etc. (clause of warranty). Si vero
dictus Hugo vel heredes sui dictam terram alicui vendere vel invadiare
voluerint contra voluntatem domini sui, dictus Hugo capitalis dominus
vel heredes mei pro omnibus aliis, illam terram prenominatam pro
viginti solidos habebimus. Et ut hec mea donatio, etc. Hiis testibus

^ Deeds at Wrottesley.
2 Ibid.

^ Probably a mistake for Bradley, for no Lord of Bushbury of that name is
known to have existed.

48 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Willelmo domino de Perton, Jolianne dumino de Trescl, Willelmo
domino de Overton, Willelmo de Caldewelle, Willelmo le frcmon de
Wortteslewe, Tlioma del Wyregis^ et plnnbns aliis.'-

Seal, a fleur-de-lys, with the legem!, S. Hugonis de Wrotele.

Omnibus Clivispi fidelibus presens scriptum visuvis vol audituris,
Alicia rclicta Henrici le IMiremon de AVrottcsleg salutem in domino.
Novcritis universitas vestra me omnino relaxasse ct pro me ct heredibus
meis in perpctuuni quietclamasse Hngoni de Wrottcsleg domino meo et
heredibus suis et suis assignatis quibuscumque pro una marca argenti
quam milii dedit per manibus totam illam terram cum pertinentiis
n)ihi vel lieredibus meis aliquo modo contingentem in Knchstonesfelde
una cum jure et clamio quod habui vel aliquo modo in processu
temporis habere potui sine aliquo retenemento Ita quod, etc. iliis
testibus Willelmo de Perton, Radulpho de Bissoburi, Johanne de Tresel,
Roberto Buffari, Willelmo Warino, Johanne de Bileston et aliis.^

Seal, an effigy of a man on foot with a sword, and the legend,
Siixillum seeretum.

Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Hugo de Wrotteslegh filius
Willelmi de Wrotteslegh dedi, etc. Willelmo de Waterfall pahiiario,
totam partem meam terre quam habeo in campo quod vocatur Bothum
juxta Crablow quam Yngrith mater mea in liberum maritagiuin
aliquando tenuit, etc. Hiis testibus Willelmo de Chetilton milite,
Thoma Meverel de Thruleg, Roberto Shirard de Forda, Willelmo
Powtrel et aliis.*

Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Ricairlus filius Willelmi domini
quondam de Wrotusleye dedi, etc., Hugoni fratri meo, domino de
Wrotusleye totum jus quod habui vel habere potiii in quadam placea
terre que vocatur Bettebruge, que se extendit in longitudine ab assarto
Willelmi filii Odi usque ad ripam que meta est inter Wrotusleye et
Tctenhale, in latitudine a regali via inter W^i'otusleye et AVulwene-
hampton usque ad viam ecclesiasticam inter Wrotusleye et Tetenhale,
Habendum, etc., sibi et heredibus suis, etc. Hiis testibus Rogero
Rectore ecclcsie de Bissoburi, Thoma de Creye, AVillelmo filio domini
de Wrottusleye, Hugonc fratre suo et multis aliis.^

Seal destroyed.

^ The Wergs in Tettculiall.

" Original deed at Wn.ttesley, 1860.

^ Original deed at Wrottes]ey, 18G0. The first four witnesses were tlie lords
respectively of Perton, I'u.shbury, Trysull, and Netlier Penn. Tlie deed, however,
refers to land on the moorlands, near Elkstone, part of tiie fee of Waterfall, and
must have been overlooked whuu the other deeds were handed over to the pui'chasers
of Uutterton and Waterfall.

■• Vincent MSS., College of Arms. If Ingrith de Butterton held land in frank
marriage, she must have been married in her fathers lifetime, and therefore at the
date of the suit of 1203 must have been either a wife or a widow. The fii'st witness
was the Lord of Cheddleton, and the second, Thomas Meverel, was Lord of Throwley.
Both these places are in the neighbourhood of Waterfall.

'' Original deed at Wrottesley, 1860.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 49

Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Henricus filius Willelmi de
Wrotesley dedi, etc., domino Willelmo Bagot domino de Patushul et
heredibus suis vel assignatis, molendinum meum quod habui de done
Willelmi quondam domini de Wrotesley patris mei situm super rivum
de Hauekeswel in bosco de Brewode. Tenendum et habendum, etc.
Reddendo inde annuatim ipse et heredes sui unum obolum in festo
Nativitatis beate Marie ad luminem beate Marie apud Pattushul. Et
ego, etc. (clause of warranty). Hiis testibus Domino Radulpho Basset,
Hugone de Bolinghalo, Philippo de Pres, Philippo de Beckebury, Rabo
(sic) de Bispeston, Henrico de eadem et multis aliis.^

Seal destroyed.

Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Margeria filia Henrici de
Wrottesle, in pura virginitate mea relaxavi et quietclamavi pro me et
heredibus meis in perpetuum Willelmo filio Hugonis domini de
Wrottesle totum jus ct clamum (sic) quod habui vel habere potui ad quod-
dam assartum in villa de Wrottesle, quod pater mens quondam tenuit,
et ad totam terram et redditum cum bosco et vasto et parte cujusdam
molendini in villa de Waterfal quam Rieardus de Wrottesle aliquando
tenuit. Ita videlicet quod nee ego nee heredes mei aliquid jus vel
clamum de cetero infra feudum de Waterfal exigere vel vendicare
poterimus ; ut hec mea relaxatio et quieta clamatio I'ata et stabilis
in perpetuum permaneat huic presenti carte sigillum meum apposui,
Hiis testibus Radulpho domino de Bissoburi, Roberto de Levinton,
Rogero de Baganholt, Benedicto de Boterdon, Philippo clerico de
Hildesdale et multis aliis.^

Seal, a fleur-de-lys, with the legend, S. Margerie fil : Henrici.

Sciant presentes et futuri, quod Agnes filia Henrici de Wrottesleye,
in pura virginitate mea relaxavi, et quietclamavi pro me et heredibus
meis in perpetuum Willelmo filio Hugonis de Wrottesleye et heredibus
suis vel assignatis totum jus et clameum quod habui vel habere potui
in quatuor bovatis terre cum messuagiis dicte terre pertinentibus in
villa de Waterfall et in tribus cotagiis et in quadam placia terre que
vocatur Leyis et in sexta parte molendini de Waterfall quas quatuor
bovatas terre cum messuagiis predictis, Rieardus et Bertremius filii
Willelmi quondam domini de Wrottesleye de dono ejusdem Willelmi
patris eorum habuerunt, et totum jus et clameum quod habui vel
habere potui in quodam assarto in Wrottesleye quod Henricus pater
mens quondam tenuit. Ita videlicet, etc. Hiis testibus Henrico de
(Jodeshale, Rogero fratre de Henrico, Adamo filio Nicholai de Halken
(Oaken) Willelmo Gilberd de Codeshale, Paulino de Bilrobra (Billbrook)
et multis aliis.^

1 ? Original deed at Wrottesley, 1860. The first witness, Ralph Basset of Drayton,
was killed at the battle of Evesham in 1265. He was Lord of Pattingham, near
Patshul, and the other witnesses were all near neighbours of Sir William Bagot, in
Shroyishire. The deed shows that Hawkwell formed part of the old Forest of
Brewood, which had been disafforested by King John, aud was originally no part of
the fee of Patshull.

- Original deed at Wrottesley, 1860.

* From copies of Butterdon deeds at Wrottesley — the witnesses are all freeholders
in Codshall, Oaken or Billbrook.

50 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Sciant preseutes et futuri quod ego Alicia filia Willelmi quondam
domini de Wrotcslega in ligia potestate et viduitate mea dedi, concessi,
et hac presente carta mea confirmavi Hugoni filio meo unam placeam
terre de curtilagio meo in villa de Wrotcslega de super edificandam
prout includitur et per metas et divisas continctur et unam placeam
more que vocatur le oldehoc. Tenendum et habendum de me et
heredibus meis sibi et heredibus suis de corpore suo procreatis libei'e et
quiete bene et in pace cum omnibus suis pertinentiis, libertatibus,
comunis et eysiamentis ad dictum tenementuni pertinentibus in villa et
extra, volo insuper et concedo quod dictus Hugo et heredes sui habeant
liberum egressum et regressum ad fontem in parroco meo, reddendo
inde annuatim mihi et heredibus meis ipse et heredes sui imum
denarium ad annunciationem beate Marie pro omni servitio seculari
exactione et demanda mihi et heredibus meis pertinente. Et si ita
contingat quod dictus Hugo sine herede de corpore suo obierit, volo et
concedo quod Johannes frater dicti Hugonis et heredes sui dictum
tenementum habeant et teneant sine contradictione mei vel heredum
meorum inperpetuum. Ego vero Alicia, etc. {clause of warranty). In
cujus rei testimonium huic presenti scripto sigillum meum apposui.
Hiis testibus Hugone domino de Wrotcslega, Willelmo domino de
Pertun, Adar {sic) de Northwode, Rogeio de Wodewelle, Ada de
Gosewrlong, Thoma de Witheg, Willelmo filio Elye et multis aliis.^

Vaginal seal, a crescent between two stars, with the legend,
S. Alicie le Fremon.

The following deeds are taken from the originals in the
possession of the late Mr. Fowler Butler, of Pendeford : —

Sciant preseutes et futuri quod ego Amiscia filia Hugonis de
Wrotteslega in pura et ligia viduitate mea, dedi, concessi, et hac carta
mea confirmavi Hugoni fratri meo pro servitio suo totum illud tene-
mentum in villa de Pendefox'd quod Hugo pater mens cum me dedit
Ricardo le Boteler in liberum maritagium una cum Hugone nativo meo
qui dictum tenementum tenet et cum tota sequela sua. Habendum et
tenendum de me, etc., sibi et heredibus suis, etc. Reddendo inde
annuatim mihi et heredibus meis unam rosam die beati Johannis
Baptiste pro omni servitio seculari exactione, etc. Ego vero {clause of
way^'anty). Hiis testibus Radulpho domino de Bissobury, Johanne
domino de Pendeford, Johanne de Englinton, Roberto de Somerford,
Johanne de Mollesley, Roberto de Northwode, Ada de la lowe et aliis.

Seal, a female figure sitting on a throne crowned, with a
sceptre in her hand.

By a deed of later date, Hugh, son of Hugh de Wrottesley,-
gave his native Hugh de Rowley and the half virgate of land
held by liini in Pendeford, to Nicholas, the Prior, and to the
House of St. Thomas the Martyr, near Stafford, in pure and
perpetual alms. This deed was confirmed by William, Lord of
Wrottesley. (Original deeds at Pendeford, copied by me in 1861).

' Original deed at Wrottesley, 1860. The last three witnesses were Jurors of the
Liberty of Tetteiihall at the Assizes of 1272. William, son of Elias, was son of
Elias, the Canon of Tettenhall, and was Bailiff of the King's manor of Tettenhall
in 1272. (StafEonlshire Assiiie Roll, 56 Henry IIL)

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY.

Arms of Sir Hugh de Wrottesley.
On the dexter side. For Wrottesley : —

A fret, tinctures unknown, taken from seals at Wrottesley.
On the sinister side. For Perton of Perton, co. Stafford : —

Argent on a chevron, gules, three pears pendant, or.
Taken from seals and the coat of Perton, formerly in Trysull
Church, copied by Huntbach.

Sir William de Wrottesley, A.D. 1276 to A.D. 1313.

It is a testimony to the revival of
letters during the reign of Henry III,
that at the period of the accession of
this William to his patrimony, both
he and his neighbour, John Giffard
of Chillington, heads of knightly
families, bore the prefix of " Magis-
ter," a title which is supposed to have
designated, at this period, the graduate
of an University.

He must have been in possession
before February, 1278, for at that
time he granted a lease of land in
Boterton to Henr}^, son of Alan de Boterton, for a term of twenty-
one years, the term to commence at the Feast of the Purification,
1277 [2 February, 1278].i In 1809, when he gave evidence at
the proof of age of Elizabeth, the daughter and heir of Richard
de Loges of Rodbaston, he described himself as sixty years of
age, but he would probably have underrated his age at this
period of life.

He is shewn to be son of Hugh de Wrottesley by the deeds at
Wrottesley, the Forest Pleas of 1271, the proceedings at the
proof of age of Edmund, the Baron of Stafford, in 22 Edward I,
and by suits on the "de Banco" Rolls of Easter, 12 Edward I,
and of Trinity, 9 Edward II. This array of authorities from
the Public Records will give the reader an idea of the value of
these records in the elucidation of family history.

In 11 Edward I [A.D. 1283] he was the foreman of the jury
empannelled to enquire into the value of the lands of his cousin,
William de Perton, who had lately died and held Perton in
eapite from the Crown. ^ In the following year, a suit on the

^ Copies of Butterton deeds at Wrottesley. As the year commenced on the
25 March at this period, the date named in the deed would be 2 February 1278,
according to our present method of computation.

' Inq. p.m. 11 Edward I, No. 101.

52 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

" de Banco " Roll of Easter term^ gives us the name of his
mother, Avhich is not mentioned in the deed quoted from the
Ashraole Collection at page 40.

The Roll states that Idonia, formerly wife of Hugh de Wrot-
tesley, sued John le Botiler for a messuage and half a virgate of
land in Perton, and she sued William del Hulle of Lappeley for
the moiety of a messuage and one-fourth of a virgate of land,
and Robert Laweles for the moietj'' of a messuage and one-fourth
of a Nargate of land in the same vill, which she claimed as her
right and " maritagium," and in which the defendants had no
entry except through Amice, daughter of Hugh de Wrottesley,
to whom the said Hugh had demised the tenements, and to
which she could not object during his lifetime. The defendants
appeared, and John called to warranty William, son of Hugh de
Wrottesle}^, and William del Hulle stated that he held the tenement
claimed against him, for his life, b}' a demise of the said John
le Botiler, son and heir of Amice, and he called him to warranty ;
and Robert as regarded the tenements claimed against him,
called to warranty the said John, son and heir of Amice, and
stated that the tenements were the right and " maritagium " of
Amice, and that the said Amice, together with her husband, had
demised them to him, and therefore he called to warranty John,
the son and heir of Amice. The Sheriff was therefore com-
manded to summon the said John for a month from Michaelmas.
The Roll for Michaelmas term is so much decayed that very
little of it can be deciphered, and no further notice of the
suit has been discovered. It shews, however, that Hugh de
Wrottesley had given to his daughter Amice, on her marriage
with Richard le Botiler, her mother's marriage portion in Perton,
in addition to the half virgate of land in Pendeford mentioned
in the deeds alread}' printed.

Kirby's Quest, the well known Feodary of this reign, and
the date of which is approximately 1284, has this notice of his
tenure at Wrottesley. Wrotkesley. Willelmus de Wrotkesley
tenet per socagium de Abhate de Evesham, et idem Abbas de
Nicholao Barone de Stafford et idem Baro de Rege." The
question of the nature of the tenure of Wrottesley will be
discussed in a future page. A tenure hy socage was so
advantageous to the tenant, the latter would be certain to claim
it, if he had any pretext for doing so, and the pretext in the
case of Wrottesley, would be the chief rent of two marks
payable to the Abbey. ^

^ De Banco Roll, Easter term, 12 Edward I, m. 73, dorso.

2 As a matter of fact, however, this formed no criterion ; for many military fiefs
paid a chief rent to the superior lord, notably the two cases of King's Bromley and
Wednesbury, both of which though paying chief rents of £i to the King,' were
always treated as military fees. The tenant of Wednesbury, like William de
Wrottesley, claimed a socage tenure, when the Feodary was compiled, and it was
allowed to him. Later records, however, shew that this claim was disallowed by the
Exchequer authorities.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 53

Two years later, viz., in January, 1286, Pleas of the Forest
were held at Stafford before Roger Lestraunge and other
Justiciaries. Amongst other presentments, the Swanimote of
Kinfar returned that William de Wrottesleye had come into
the Forest on the day of St. Alphege, 56 Henry III [19 April
1272], and had driven game out of the Forest with grey-
hounds, and had taken the venison to his house at Wrottesleye.
WilKam appeared, and asked that a verdict might be given by
the Reguardors of the Forest as well as by the Verderers and
Foresters, and he gave 20s. for the said Inquisition, for which
Thomas de Creye of Cumptun, and Robert Buffary of Penne
were his sureties. The Foresters, Verderers and Reguardors
found that the said William was guilty. He was therefore
committed to prison, and was afterwards released for a fine of
20s., for which Walter de Bisshebury and Thomas de Engelton
were his sureties.

The function of the Justices in Eyre of the Forest was not
to try offenders against the Forest laws, but to fix the fines
and punishments of those who had been previously convicted
at the Swanimote, which was the Court of the Forest, presided
over by the Chief Warden. William de Wrottesley obtained
another trial on the payment of a fine of 20s., but this is the
only instance of the rehearing of a case before the Justices in
Eyre which I have met with. The pleas of the Forest of this
date were not conducted in a harsh or \-indictive spirit ; the
fine of 20s. inflicted in this case would be about equivalent to
one of £20 at the present time.

Another presentment at the same Iter, states that William
de Wrottesley, Hugh his brother, Nicholas of the Lude,
Thomas, his brother, and one William, son of Alice of Penne,
came into Kinver forest, viz., into the Putlesleye wood, on
the Friday before the Feast of St. James, 56 Henry III
[22 July, 1272], with bows and arrows, and shot at a stag and
killed it, and they carried the venison to the house of Alditha
de la Lude, who is now dead, and they there divided the
venison between them ; and William de Wrottesleye, Nicholas
and Thomas appeared, and were committed to prison, and
William de Wrottesleye became surety to produce his brother
Hugh before the Justices on the Sunday after the Feast of
St. Gregory ; William, son of Alice, did not appear and could
not be found. He was therefore to be " exiyatiir.''^

Hugh afterwards appeared and was committed to prison,
and William, son of Alice, afterwards surrendered, and was
pardoned because of his poverty. Nicholas was fined 20s. for
which William de Penne of Lutteleye and Richard de Seysdon

^ To be "exigatur " is to be called at five consecutive County Courts, and if
the defendant did not appear he was outlawed.

54 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

were sureties, and Thomas was fined 10s., for which Nicholas
de la Lude and William de la Pcnne were sureties. Hugh was
fined half a mark, for which Ralph de Bisheburi and William
de Wrottesleye were sureties. The fine of the latter is not
mentioned.^

Besides his troubles on account of the Forest, William de
Wrottesley was involved in two suits of law at this period.
In the first of them, Magister Thomas de Sodington and three
other Justices were appointed to take an assize of novel
ihsseisin which William de Wrotteslegh and Petronilla, his
wife, arraigned against Ralph Folshouk and others respecting
tenements in Blore near Okore (Okeover) and Grendon, near
Watervale (Grindon near Waterfall).^

In the other suit, Benedict de Boterdon, William de
Wrotteslegh, and William Poutrel give half a mark to have an
assize taken before the same Justices.^

The small fragment that is left of the Assize Roll of this year
contains no notice of these suits. In the first of them William
de Wrottesley was evidently suing respecting land he had
obtained in marriage with his wife Petronilla, and we obtain
from it some clue to her identity. Blore and Grindon on the
Moors was held at this date by a younger branch of the house
of Audley, and I conclude, therefore, that William was married
to a daughter of John de Audley of Blore, who had died circa
1280.

At the Iter of the Justices in Stafibrdshire of 21 Edward I
(1293), most of the proceedings of which have been printed in
vol. vii of the Stafibrclshire Collections, or in the Quo Warranto
Pleas, William de Wrottesley's name occurs frequently as a
witness both in civil and criminal causes. An endorsement on
the Rolls shews that he was one of the Coroners of the County.

In the following year, he was one of the witnesses and a juror
(for at this date they were synonymous) upon the Inquisition to
prove the age of Edmund, son and heir of Nicholas, Baron of
Stafford. The proceedings are curious, but too long to produce
in full. William de Wrottesley, being called, and examinee], stated
that he agreed with what Sir Hugh de Weston (the previous
witness) had said with respect to the day and place of the birth
of Edmund, and with his reasons for recollecting it, and he
further stated that some of the servants of the Baron of Staffbrd
were journeying on the morrow of the birth of the said Edmund,
from Madeley to Weston, and had come to the house of Hugh
de Wrottesley, his father, and had there announced the birth of
the Baron's" son and heir.

' Pleas of the Forest, 14 Edward I, printed in vol. v, of Staffordshire Collections,
part 1.

" Patent Roll, 14 Edward I, m. 5, dorse.
■^ Fine Roll, 14 Edward I, m. 9.

WROTTESLEV OP WROTTESLEY. 55

Sir Hugh de Weston's deposition was to the effect that
Edmund was born on the Feast of St. Edith (IG Sept.) next
after the Iter of Ralph de Hengham in Salop, and that shortly
after the birth of the said Edmund, Nicholas, the Baron of
Stafford, had come to his house at Weston, and informed him
that he had a son.^

In 1297, Wilham Wither, Ralph de Shirley, and William de
Wrottesley, acting jointly as King's Eschaetors under a special
commission, returned into the Chancery particulars of the lands
which had been held by Edmund, the King's brother, in the
Midland Counties. Prince Ednmnd had died seised under the
gift of his father Henry III of the immense estates of Robert de
Ferrers Earl of Derby, of the ancient Earls of Leicester, of the
Honor of Lancaster, and a large part of the Earldom of Chester.
Like Frankenstein, Henry III had raised a monster, v.'ho proved
fatal to his posterity, for Edmund was the founder of the house
of Lancaster, which subsequently usurped the throne. The
Inquisition made by these three knights is one of the fullest and
most detailed of any now extant in the Record Office.

In 1298, William de Wrottesley and John de Perton, by an
indented deed, brought to a close dissensions of long standing
respecting the boundary between their respective manors.

The preamble to the deed recites, that whereas various con-
tentions had arisen between them on account of divers unknown
boundaries and meres between the lands of the said William and
John, the strife had been finally appeased in this form, namely,
that the aforesaid W^illiam and John, by unanimous consent, had
conceded and established the bounds and meres underwritten,
viz., from the oak tree, called Le Tjmdede Mere Oke, which is
the boundary between Ralph Basset, and the said William and
John, descending as far as Le Mere Way, and descending Le
Mere Way as far as the nearest corner of the assart of Geoffrey
Le Crouthour towards the village of Wrottesle, and from the
said corner, descending by the ditch as far as a certain oak tree,
and from the said oak tree, descending by the new ditch (novum
fossatum) as had been perambulated, as far as the corner of
Wodewalle meadow, and from the said corner by the same ditch,
as far as the opposite corner of the assart of Hugh de Wrottesle,
which is called Cronemor, and from the said corner ascending
by the ditch of the same assart, as far as the assart of William
de Wrottesle, and from the said assart, ascending by the ditch
of the same, as far as the corner of the assart of William de la
Hale, which is called Grenhul.-

^ Inquisition, 22 Edward I, No. 152. As Wrottesley does not lie on the road
between Madeley and Weston, it would appear that some of the Baron's servants had
missed the turn to the left out of the high road, and, following the latter, had found
themselves after dark at Wrottesley, seven miles beyond their destination,

- Original deed at Wrottesley, 1860.

56 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

This deed is in Latin, but the universal use of the French
preposition, as a prefix to the names of places and persons,
shews that French was still the language of the upper classes at
this period. Of the boundaries named, Cronemore, the Mere
Oak, and the Greenhills still exist as local names. This deed is
the earliest of those formerly at Wrottcsley, which had an
armorial seal appended to it. The seal of William de Wrottesley
bears the fret, the well-known insignia of the Verdons, but at
the date it was engraved he was not a Knight, and the fret fills
up the whole circle of the seal, with the legend, S. Willi de
Wrotele, round it. At a later date he bore the same device on a
shield. 1

In the same year, viz., A.D. 1298, the suit respecting the
Manor of Butterton was again revived. An entry on the Patent
Roll of 26 Edward I, states that Adam de Crokedayk and
William Inge were assigned to take an Assize of Novel Disseisin,
which William de Wrottesleye, Benedict de Boterdon, and
William Poutrel had arraigned against Henry de Bray and
others respecting tenements in Boterdon, co. Stafford. The
trial took place before the above Justices in the following year,
and the record of it has fortunately been preserved. It states
that "An Assize came to return a verdict, whether Henry de
Bray, William le Rider, and three others named, had unjustly
disseised William de Wrottesleye, Benedict de Boterdon, and
William Poutrel of their freehold in Boterdon, viz., of twenty
acres of heath.'

Henry de Bray appeared in person, and stated that he was the
capital lord of Boterdon, and the plaintiffs held their tenements
of him, and the tenement in dispute was part of the waste of the
vill, appurtenant to the demesne, and he prayed for judgment
whether an assize would lie, unless the plaintiffs could shew
some special title to the waste. The plaintiffs pleaded that their
ancestors had held the entire Manor of Boterdon, and Avhich
manor they held at the present time, and by reason of which
they were seised of the said heath until the defendants had
unjustly disseised them. Henry de Bray replied that in the
time of King John, viz., in the fifth year of his reign, a Fine had
been levied at Lichfield between one Henry de Denestone,
plaintiff (whose status he held), and a certain William son of
Eda, Ingrith sister of Eda, Roger Poutrel and Margery his wife,
and Hawyse de Waterfale, tenants of fourteen bovates of land in
Boterdon, of the freehold formerly belonging to Robert de
Waterfall, the father of the said Eda, Ingrith, Margery, and

' See .«eal of his widow Katharine attached to deed dated 1313. He appears to
have been knighted in the course of this year, for in a Perton deed of this date he
takes precedence in the testing clause of Ralph de Bissobury and John de Perton,
both of whom occur as knights of Great Assize on the Assize Roll of 21 Edward 1
(1194).

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 57

Hawyse, and ancestor of the said William, Benedict, and William,
in which Fine it was contained that William son of Eda, In<;rith
and the others named held the said tenements of Henry de
Denestone, and he produced the Fine, in which there was no
mention of a manor, but of bovates of land only. As the
plaintiffs could shew no special title to the waste, a verdict was
given in favour of William de Bray, and the plaintiffs were in
misericordia fur a false claim. William de Wrottesley s Fine
was 40d., and the others paid 20d. each.^

Henry de Bray was a formidable opponent in a Court of Law,
for he was the King's Eschaetor for all England citra Trent, and
held in addition the important and lucrative office of Justiciary
of the Pleas of the Jews. Ten years before the date of this
action, he had been accused of malversation of office, but had
made his peace by the payment of a heavy fine. The Dunstable
Chronicle, speaking of the popular clamour against the Judges,
says of him, " De Mayistro Henrico de Bray EscJuwtore et
Justiciario Judeoruon, dicehantur enormia, sed per redemp-
tionein pacein fecity^

It will be seen that the suit, although nominally for twenty
acres of heath only, really involved the title to the manor. Henry
de Bray derived his right by purchase from Robert de Okovere
and Margaret his wife,^ the latter being probably the representa-
tive of Henry de Denestone.

The Patent Roll of 29 Edward I shews that William de
Wrottesley and his two coparceners raised the question again
by another writ, at assizes held at Penkridge in the following
year, and obtained a verdict in their favour ; it states that
William Inge and R. de Suthcotes were assigned to take the
verdict of twenty-four knights in a suit which Magister Henry
de Bray had arraigned against Benedict de Boterdon, William de
Wrottesley and William Poutrel, to convict (of a false judgment)
the jury who took the assize of novel disseisin which had been
summoned between the same Benedict, William, and William,
and the aforesaid Henry and Roger de Bagenholt, which had
been taken before Thomas de Sodington, Walter de Hopton,
Reginald de Legh, and Hugh de Cave, at Pencrich respecting
tenements at Boterdon.'* The proceedings of these assizes are
not extant, but it may be presumed that the final result was
favourable to the representatives of Robert de Waterfall, for
William de Wrottesley subsequently purchased the shares of the

' Staffordshire Assize Roll, 27 Echvard I, ni. 1. See note at p. 41.

' He commenced life as Bailiff to the Barons of Verdon, at Alton, and had been
imprisoned by John de Verdon for alleged malpractices in this office. See a curious
trial in Banco, 5 Edward I, at p. 81, vol. vi, of Staffordshire Collections, where he
accuses the Baron of extorting a deed from him by imprisonment.

'■" Pedes Finium, Staffordshire, 11 Edward I.

* Rot. Pat, 29 Edward I, m. 12, dorso.

58 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

other coparceners, and his grandson Hugh de Wrottesley dealt
with the property under the designation of the manor of
Boterdon.^

In order to complete the story of the manor of Butterton-
on-the-raoors, it has been necessary to outstrip some of the
events of William de Wrottesley's life. In 28 Edward I, i.e.
in the year 1300, he was appointed by Letters Patent one of
three Justices of County Stafford for the due observance of
Magna Charta and the Charter of the Forests. In this way
his name becomes associated with one of the great constitu-
tional landmarks of English history.

The general discontent produced by the arbitrary conduct
of the King, and the heavy burdens thrown upon all classes
for the support of the King's warlike policy, culminated at
length into open resistance to the Royal authority, at the
period of the proposed expedition to Flanders in 1297. A
large body of the Barons refused to accompany the King, on
the ground that they were not bound to serve him beyond
the seas, and tlicy shortly afterwards delivered to him a formal
rem(mstrance complaining of the violation of Magna Charta
and of the Charter of the Forests, and demanding a con-
firmation of the two Charters, and a renunciation of the
King's claim to impose aids and tallages without the consent
of Parliament. The dissensions between the King and his
subjects continued for nearly three years, but the firm attitude
assumed by the Barons, and the necessities of the King's
position at length prevailed, and in the twenty-eighth year of
his reign, he affixed the Great Seal of England to an absolute
confirmation of the Gieat and Lesser Charters without any
reservation of the Royal prerogative.^

The historian Hume goes very fully into these transactions,
following closely the text of Walter Hemingford's chronicle,
but the first writer who showed a full appreciation of their
importance was Hallam, who in his Constitutional History styles
the Confirmation of the Charters by Edward I, one of the
pillars of the English Constitution.

The first Statute, being issued in the form of a charter, was sealed
with the Great Seal at Ghent in Flanders on 25 November
in the twenty-fifth year of his reign. Complaints, however,
having been made that the Charter was not observed, an
additional Act known as the " Articuli super chartas" was
passed in 28 Edward I. In these additional articles the King
remits all his anger against Humphrey de Bohun, the Constable,
Roger Bigod, the Marshal, and all the other Earls, Barons,
Knights, and tenants of land to the yearly value of £20, who

> Rot. Pat., 29 Edward I, m. 1-2, dorso.

- See ou this subject Lingard, Hume, Hallam and Stubbs.

WROTTESLEV OE WROTTESLEY. 59

had not obeyed his summons to pass over into Flanders, and
further renounced for himself and his heirs for ever, all claim to
take aids and tallages witliout the assent of the whole realm
(par commun assent de tut le royeume), saving the ancient aids,
and prises due and accustomed. These would be the aids
such as Scutage, etc., due by the Feudal Law and the prises for
the King's Household and Royal Fortresses. The Statute
further ordained that the three Knights chosen in each County,
for the obser\"ance of the Charters, should likewise be charged
with the maintenance of the additional articles, or, to use the
words of the Statute, ^^ et a cet estatut garder e mentenir,
soient chargez les trois cJdvalers qui sont asslynez parmi les
contez, pur adrester les choses fetes contre les Graimtz Chatres,
et de ceo eient gar ant."

In pursuance of these Statutes, a close writ was directed to
the Sheriff of Staffordshire dated 27 March 1300, commanding
him to cause three Knights of the County to be elected, who
were to appear before the King and Council at York, on the
Morrow of the Ascension (20 May) to perform whatsoever should
be enjoined of them for the better performance of the two Charters.^

By Letters Patent dated from St. Edmunds on 10 May
following, William de Stafford, Robert de Pype and William
de Wrottesley were appointed Justiciaries for the due observance
of the articles contained in the Great Charter and the Charter
of Winchester within the County of Stafford, and to hear and
determine all pleas and plaints arising thereon.-

The Statute of Winchester had been enacted in 1285 for
the better security of the subject, and for the more prompt
pursuit and capture of felons. Under this Statute the
Hundred first became answerable for damages sustained by
robberies and breaches of the peace. The two fellow Justices
of Sir William de Wrottesley were both men of importance
in the County. William de Stafford was lord of Sandon and
Bramshall, and one of the coparceners of the Cheshire Barony
of de Maubanc. Robert de Pype was the lord of Pype
Rydeware, Wall, and other places in Staffordshire, and his
name appears on most of the writs of military summons of
this reign. He was the grandfather of Sir James Pype, a
famous warrior mentioned in the pages of Froissart.

Shortly after this date, William de Wrottesley formed an
alliance of some importance by marrying, for a second wife,
Katherine, the daughter of John Lestraunge, the Baron of
Knockin. She had previously been married to Sir Alan de
Glazeley, a Shropshire Knight, and was left a widow in 1302.^

^ Rot. Glaus., 28 Edward I, m. 11.
2 Rob. Pat., 28 Edward I, m. 14.

* Eyton's Shropshire, Deeds at Wrottesley, and De Banco Roll, Mich.,
2 Edward III, ra. 342 dorso.

60 tttSTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

At Whitsuntide 1306 (22 May) his eldest son William was
knici^hted with (jjreat solemnity before the High Altar of West-
minster, with Edward Prince of Wales, and 2G7 otliers. Ashmole
in his introduction to tlie History of the Garter, says that " King
Edward I to adorn the splendour of his Court and augment the
glory of his intended expedition into Scotland, at Whitsuntide, in
the thirty-fourth year of his reign, begirt Edward of Carnarvon,
liis eldest son, witli the military belt, and this young prince,
immediately afterwards at the High Altar in Westminster
Abbey, conferred the same honour upon near 800 gentlemen,
the sons of Earls, Barons, and Knights. The habits, equipage
and ceremonies of which grand solemnity being already
transcribed at large out of Matthew of Westminster, both by
Mr. Selden and Mr. Cambden, we shall thereunto refer our
reader." He then proceeds, " out of memory of these noble
persons, with such as are descended from them," to give a
catalogue of their names taken from the Wardrobe Accounts of
that 3'ear. From this list, it appears that the following members
of Staffordshire families were knighted upon this occasion : —
William de Birmingham Thomas de Brompton

John de Weston Ralph Basset

Ralph Bagot John de Somery

Peter de Gresley William de Wrottesley

Roger de Somerville John de Harcourt, and

William Trussell William de Handsacre.^

A writ on the Close Roll of 34 Edw^ard I, dated 6 April,
commands the Sheriffs of Counties to proclaim throughout their
Bailiwicks that all who wish to be made Knights were to repair
to London before Whitsuntide to receive the vestments required
in such case, which will be delivered to them of the King's gift
in order that they may take the degree of knighthood on that
day. 2

It may, perhaps, interest the lady readers who may glance at
these pages if I give a description of the dress of William de
Wrottesley on this occasion. The wardrobe account says : —
" Willelmo de Wrotesle, facto viilite, ad coyntesium suum
a pannos de arista, eidern ad calcitram siiain, Hi pannos
purpresy^

' Many others who afterwards played an important part iu the traii«actions of the
following reign were knighted on the same occasion, amongst these were Piers de
Gavastou, Roger de Mortimer, Hugh le Despencer the younger, William de Montagu,
Peter de Mauley, and John de Warenne.

- Rot. Claus, 34 Edward I, m. 16, dorso.

3 Exchequer Accounts, Wardrobe 'W- Ralph Bagot and Peter de Gresley are the
ancestors of the present Lord Bagot and of Sir Robert Gresley of Drakelowe. As
the ceremonial included the Bath, as well as the Vigil, and a distinctive Badge was
given to each Knight, many antiquaries, including Camden, Dugdale and others,
designate the Kuights made on this occasion as the original Knights of the Bath.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 61

The cointise, according to Ducange, was a robe worn by the
upper classes. The culcitra was a short dress, probably a tunic,
and is described by Ducange as a courtpoint. All the Knights
were supplied with the cointise and the courtpoint, but the
colours varied.

By the Feudal law, the King was entitled to an "Aid " upon
the occasion of the Knighthood of his eldest son, and Parliament
granted to him in this year the thirtieth of all moveables in
Counties and the twentieth of the same in Cities and Boroughs.
On 5 April, 34 Edward I (1306), a close writ addressed to the
Sheriffs of Counties states that the King having determined
that his eldest son Edward shall be made a Knight at Whitsun-
tide, on which occasion an aid was due to the Crown, the Sheriff
was ordered to cause two Knights to be elected in his Count}',
and tAvo citizens and two burgesses from each City and Borough,
who were to come l^efore the King and Council at Westminster
on the Morrow of the Hol}^ Trinit}-, to treat concerning the said
aid. By Letters Patent dated from Beverley on the following
22 July, William de Stafford and William de Wrottesley were
appointed to assess and collect this aid in co. Stafford. The
collectors were ordered to pay the money into the Treasury in
three equal instalments, the latest instalment to be paid on the
Morrow of All Souls (3 Nov. 1307), but the accounts were not
finally closed till six years had elapsed. On the Pipe Roll of
7 Edward II (1313), WiUiam de Stafford and William de
Wrottesley render account of a sum of £11 Os. l-4-d., the residue
of the tax which remained due at that date.

In 1309 William de Wrottesle}^ was the first witness called
to prove the age of Elizabeth, the davigliter and heir of Sir
Richard de Loges of Rodbaston, the hereditary Forester of
Cannock. He gave his age at sixty, and stated that Elizabeth
was born at Newenton (Newton in Blithfield), on the Sunday
the Feast of Pentecost, 21 Edward I (17 May 1293), and was
baptized the same daj^ in the church of the Blessed Peter
of . . . (name illegible), and he remembered the circumstance,
because he was a Coroner of the King in the County of
Stafford, and had been summoned to Blithfield in consequence
of a certain accident {pro quodam infurtiinio), and he was
present at Blithfield performing the office of Coroner at that
time. Amongst the other witnesses called were Sir John de
Herouville, Kt., who gave his age at seventy ; and Robert Buftry
of Penn. Robert stated he remembered tlio date of Elizabeth's

birth, because his brother William was kille«l

perhaps the infortunium above-mentioned, but the rest of
the sentence is illegible, owing to the decay of the parchment.^
A feudal heiress became of age at fifteen, as she was then
marriageable.

^ Miscellanea Roll, Tower Records, No. 175.

62 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

In 1313 William do Wrottesley and Henry de Cresswall,
acting as Sub-sheriffs for Hugh de Audlej', returned into
Chancery the names of the landowners in Staffordshire who
possessed a clear £40 a year in lands or rents ; and who were
not yet Knights. The original document is still in the Kecord
Office, but the seals have unfortunately been destroyed. After
the termination of the dispute between the King and his
Barons in 1300, the hmit of £40 a year had been fixed at
which Knighthood was compulsory, and this remained in
force until the abolition of Feudal burdens and customs at
the restoration of King Charles II.

In the same year his eldest son William was married to
Joan, the daughter of Sir Roger Basset, and cousin to Ralph
Basset, the Baron of Drayton.

By deed dated from Wrottesle}', on Palm Sunday, G Edward II.
(8 April 1313), William de Wrottesley conveyed to his son
and heir William, and Joan his wife, the daughter of Roger
Basset, and to the heirs of their bodies, all his lands and
tenements upon the moors at Boterdon, Waterfall, Grindon
and Hidlesdale, reserving to himself a rent of eight marks
annually. This deed is witnessed by tTohn de Somery, the Baron
of Dudley, and by Ralph Basset of Drayton, Sir Henry de
Cresswall, Kt., John de Ipstones and William Shirard. The
first two witnesses were kinsmen of the bride.^

There is a flavour of romance in the marriage of William to
Joan Basset, for the grandfather of the bride, Ralph Basset, the
Baron of Drayton, had been killed at Evesham, fighting on the
side of Simon de Montfort ; Hugh, the grandfather of William
de Wrottesle}^, had fought on the same side, and the lands of
both had been confiscated. Ralph Basset, however, liad married
Margaret the daughter of Roger de Someri, the Baron of
Dudley, who had been a firm supporter of the King, and at his
intercession the King had assigned Pattingham to the widow
of Ralph for her support. This manor immediately adjoins
Wrottesley, and the community of misfortune and interest would
be likel}'- to lead to an intimacy between the two families.

1 From copies of Butterdon deeds at Wrottesley. The relationshiii of Joan to these
witnesses will be best shown in the form of a pedigree.

Roger de Someri, occurs 1229,
died 1272, Lord of Dudley.

Roger, born 1254, Margaret=j=Ralph Basset, killed

died 1291. at Evesham, 1265.

John de Someri, the Margaret Joan Ralph Basset, died 1298. Roger Basset
witness, died s.p. 1.322, | |

Ralph Basset (the witness). Joan.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY 63

As Roger Basset was a distinguished knight of the reign of
Edward I, and left no male issue, and his arms were subsequently-
assumed by his grandson Sir Hugh de Wrottesley, I propose to
make a short digression here in order to note down a few facts
respecting him.

In 1276 he was residing at Pattingliam, for in that year he
sued in Banco Richard Teveray and fourteen others for an attack
upon him at that place, and taking by force a sword, ten marks
in money, silver spoons, and other articles. Although he is not
to be found on any existing Basset pedigree, there can be doubt,
from the fact of his being styled Roger Basset of Drayton, that
he was a member of that branch of the Bassets, and a younger
son of Ralph Basset of Drayton, and of Margaret daughter of
Roger de Someri, from whom he derived the name of Roger.

He must have been a distinguished man-at-arms, for there are
few names which occur more frequently on the Rolls of Protections
and lists of Military Summons of the reign of Edward I. In
10 Edward I. and again in 13 Edward I, he had letters of
protection whilst serving in Wales. In 22 Edward I he had the
same whilst serving in Gascony in the retinue of William Lord
Latimer. In 25 Edward I he was summoned to serve the Kino-
in Flanders, and took out letters of protection the same year.
In the following year, under the name of Roger Basset of
Drayton, he renewed his letters of protection, being still in
Flanders in the King's service, and a writ respiting his debts to
the Crown was issued to the Sheriffs of the Counties of Somerset
and Dorset. This identifies him with the Roger Basset who
was returned in 28 Edward I as holding lands and rents in these
two counties of the yearly value of £40 and upwards. In the
same year, he was summoned to serve the King in Scotland
with horses and arms, and took out letters of protection while
engaged in that service. In the following year he was again
summoned for the same service, and took out letters of pro-
tection under the name of Roger Basset of Drayton. His name
also occurs on the famous Roll of Arms of this reign taken from
the Cottonian MS. Caligula, A. 18, which has been printed
amongst the Writs of Military Summons by the Record
Commissioners. This Roll is headed " Ce sont les noms et les
arms a banerez de Engleterre," and there is some reason to
believe that the original list contained only the names of
Bannerets, and that other names have been subsequently added.
The arms of Roger Basset are thus described on the original
Roll, " de or, a iii peuz de sable, a un quarter dermjaie."

According to Hutchins' History of Dorsetshire, Ralph Basset of
Drayton held a Knight's Fee in Upper Melcombe, of the Earl of
Warwick, and Richard de Amundeville held a Knight's Fee in
Upper Melcombe in 134G, of Ralph Basset, which had been
formerly held by Roger Basset. It seems clear from this that

64 HISTORY OF THK FAMILY OF

the male line of Roger had faield.^ and between the j^ears
1333 and 1349, Sir Hugh Wrottesley assumed his arms in place
of the Verdon fret, which had been previously borne by the
family.

William do Wrottesley took advantage of the presence of
Ralph Basset at the marriage festivities of his son to bring
to a close a long-standing dispute concerning the common of
pasture between the two manors of Wrottesley and Pattingham.
This (juestion which had remained in abeyance since the death
of Hugh de Wrottesley in 1276 appears to have produced much
ill-feeling and even bloodshed between the tenants of the two
manors, for at the Staffordshire assizes of A.D. 1306, the jury
of Seisdon presented tliat William Orhhydge of W^rottesley had
killed Roger atte More of Patyngham, and had fled from
justice.

The agreement between Ralph. Lord Basset, and William
de Wrottesley is dated from Drayton on the Frida}^ after the
Feast of the Invention of the Holy Cross, 6 Edward II
(6 April, 1313), and is witnessed by Sir John de Somery, Sir
Wilham Bagot, Sir William de Stafford, Sir William de Mere,
and John de Perton.^

As this agreement was made only two days before the date
of Sir William's settlement on his son, the marriage must
have taken place at Drayton Basset.

William (le Wrottesley survived the marriage of his son
by a few months only, for on the 4 October following, the
Ladj'' Katharine, who stjdes herself formerly wife of Sir
William de W^rottesley, Knight, covenants with William, his
son, respecting her dower. He must have lived to a con-
siderable age, for he had been nearly forty years in possession
of his inheritance.

He left a son William, who succeeded him, and a daughter,
Rosea, married to William de Elmedon of Pilatonhale. These
are the only two children specifically named in deeds at
Wrottesley, but it is probable that a Richard, a John, and an
Adam mentioned in some legal proceedings of 1320, which will
appear later on, were sons of this William de Wrottesley.^

He seems to have been a man of more than average capacity.
At the period of his succession in 1275, the fortunes of his house

' The grants of manors in fee to younger sons were almost invariably limited to
their male issue.

- Original deed at Wrottesley 1860.

" At the Pleas of the Crown held at Chester in 11 Edward 111, a "John de
Thiknes filius Willelmi de Wrotteslegh " was outlawed with many other persons for
non-appearance in Court to answer for divers misdemeanors. In this Record the
word "Johannes" has been apparently omitted, and it .should run "Johannes de
Thiknes, Johannes filius Willelmi de Wrotteslegh," Chester Pleas, 11 Edward III.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 65

were at a very low ebb. The waste and destruction caused by
the Civil War, added to the heavy redemption paid under the
provisions of the Dictum of Kenilworth, had greatly impaired the
estate inherited from his father. In the course of his career
he not only recovered all the alienations made to younger
branches of the family, but further augmented his property by
purchases of land in Butterton, Waterfall, and other places.

Of the civil offices under the Crown usually filled by Knights
of the Shire, there were few which were not held at various
times by him. He acted as Sheriff, Coroner, Escheator,
assessor and collector of a subsidy voted by Parliament,
and was finally elected by the County to the difficult and
invidious office of a Justiciary, under an Act of Parliament
passed to check the Royal Prerogative. Twice married himself
into Baronial houses, he lived to see his eldest son a Knight,
and married to a member of a third Baronial house, and his
family raised considerably in the scale of local importance and
prosperity.

Of younger members of the family whose names occur during
the lifetime of this William, his brother Hugh has been already
mentioned on more than one occasion. His name also occurs in
some curious proceedings which took place during the hearing of
the Quo Warranto Pleas at Bridgenorth in 1291. Richard Daumas,
a Shropshire Knight, was attached for contempt of Court in
throwing down the King's writ in the church of St. Leonard at
Bridgenorth, and stamping on it in the presence of Magister
Andrew of Tettenhale, Hugh de Wrottesley, and William
Godwejm. The proceedings will be found detailed at length in
the printed Pleas of Quo Warranto, and in Eyton's History of
Shropshire. His latest appearance is in 1307, when he occurs
as a Commissioner with his brother William and others to
enquire into certain trespasses, and injuries done to the lands of
John de Herou\"ille at Wednesbury, which was an ancient
demesne of the Crown. He left a widow Juliana,^ and a son
William, who will figure in future pages of this history.

Tiie deeds formerly at Wrottesley, to which reference has
been made in the foregoing account of this William de Wrottesley,
were as follows : —

Hec est conventio facta inter Willelmum de Wrottesleye ex una
parte et Henricum filium Alani de Koterdone ex altera, videlicet quod
predictus Willelinus de Wrottesleye dimittit, etc., Henrico filio Alani de
Boterdone unum toftura et unain dimidiam bovatam terre quam
Nicholaus Clericus de Boterdone quondam tenuit in villa de Boterdone
etc. Habendum et tenendum de me et heredibus meis sibi et heredibias

1 De Banco Roll, HUl., 9 Edward II, m. 214.
F

66 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

sxiis termino incipiente ad festum Purificationis Beate Marie anno
domiiii M^CC^LXX septimo usque ad finem viginti unius annorum
plenarie conipletoruni, libere, quietc, etc , reddendo inde annuatim
niihi et heredibus nieis, ipse et heredes sui, quatuor solidos et sex denarios
argenti, etc. Hiis testibus, Hugone de Boterdone, llogero de Baginalt,
Willelmo de Hudlesdale, Ricardo filio Ade de Boterdone, Willelmo filio
Willelmi de eadem, Willelmo Clerico et aliis.^

Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Willelmus AVither miles, dedi,
concessi, relaxavi, et quietclamavi pro me et heredibus meis Willelmo
filio Hugonis domini de Wrottesleye totam terram et redditum cum
bosco et wasto in villa de Waterfall quam emi de Ricardo de Wrottes-
leye, una cum tota parte mea cujusdam molendini in eadem villa.
Tenendum de me et heredibus meis, etc. Pi'O hac autem donatione,
etc., dedit mihi predictus Willelmus viginti marcas argenti per
manibus. Hiis testibus Benedicto de Boterdone, Willelmo Powtrell,
Rogero de Baganholt, Thoma Powtrell, Willelmo de Troweley et aliis.^

Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Alicia filia quondam Willelmi
domini de Wrottesleye in ligia potestate et pura viduitate mea dedi
concessi, et hac presenti carta mea confirmavi pro me et heredibus meis
AVillelmo domino de Wrottesle et heredibus suis vel suis assignatis
totam illam terram quam pater mens mihi dedit in liberum maritagium
in villa de Wrotteslee. Tenendum et habendum de me vel assignatis
meis sibi vel suis assignatis, totam predictam terram cum omnibus
pertinentiis ad dictam terram pertinentibus jui*e hereditario in per-
petuum. Reddendo inde annuatim mihi vel meis assignatis ipse et
heredes sui vel sui assignati ad terminum vite mee decem bussellos
duri bladi et unum bussal (sic) faborum et pisarum et tres quarterias
avene, London, ad tres anni terminos, videlicet ad festum Sancti
Martini quinque estric : fn;menti et quinque siligini et unam quarteriam
avene, ad Pascam quinque estrac : (sic) frumenti et quinque siligini et
unum quartum (sic) avene, et ad assencionem domini unum bussal
faborum et pisarum et unum quartum avene pro omni exactione vel
demanda ad me vel ad assignatos meos pertinente. Et si contingat
quod dictus AVillelmus in solutione predicta ad aliquem terminum
sessavit (sic) quod absit, dabit ad opus ecclesie de Tetenhal dimidiam
marcham, et ad majorem securitatem observandam huic scripto sigilla
sua alternatim apposuerunt. Hiis testibus Willelmo domino de
Witindon, Willelmo domino de Evenefeld, Roberto Buflfari, Roberto
de Haggeleye, Henrico filio Rogeri Clerico et aliis.

Seal, a circular seal with a fret on it similar to seal on deed of
1298, inscription illegible.^

^ From copies of Butterton deeds formerly at Wrottesley, copied 1860.

* From copies of Butterdon deed.s at Wrottesley, 1860. The grantor, Sir William
Wyther, was a Derbyshire knight of some distinction, who had married Orabella, the
widow of Sir Robert de Bee, the Lord of Hoptou, Tean and Checkley, co. Stafford.
In 11 Edward I he was one of the Commissioners of Array for the Welsh war in
cos. Derby and Notts, and in 26 Edward I he had letters of protection whilst
serving with the King in Flanders, on which occasion letters of respite from all
debts were issued in his favour for the cos. of Derby, York, Hereford, and Stafford.

' Original deed at Wrottesley, 1860. The deed is an indenture, and the seal is
probably that of William de Wrottesley. The nominative in the last clause was
omitted in the original deed.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 67

Universis hoc presentem scriptum visuris vel audituris Ricardus de
Werdou filins Robert! de Werdon de la Wyke salutem in domino.
Noverit universitas vcstra me dedisse concessisse et omnino quietum
clamasse pro me et heredibus meis in perpetuum Willelmo domino de
Wrottesleye consanguineo meo pro servitio suo, et heredibus suis et
assignatis quibuscuuque totum dominium et totum jus et clamium quod
habui vel aliquo modo habere potui in omnibus terris et tenementis,
wardis, releviis, redditibus, eskaetis, herietis, curie sectis, servitiia et
cuntis rebus que de hbero tenemento aliquo casu exire poterunt que
michi vel alicui de meis aliqua ratione accidere poterunt per mortem
Symonis de Werdon antecessoris mei in aliquo casu accidere poterunt (sic).
Ita videlicet quod nee ego nee aliquis nomine meo, aliquod jus vel
clamium de cetero in predicto dominio et ceteris supradictis exigere vel
vendicare aliqua ratione poterimus, et omnia supradicta plenarie ut
supradictum est predicto Willelmo et heredibus suis et assignatis
integliter (sic) remaneant. Et ut hec mea donatio, concessio et quieta
clamatio perpetue firmitatis robur optineant banc presentem cartam
sigilli mei impressione roboravi. Hiis testibus Galfrido de Bylston,
Henrico de Prestwode, Johanne de Pembrugge, Willelmo Sacristano de
Wolvernehampton, Nicholao de Trescote in Wolvernehampton et aliis.^

A vaginal seal, a deer running, with the inscription, S. Ricardi
le Verdon.

Pateat universis quod ego Stephanus de Elmedon recepi de Willelmo
de Wrottesleye octo marcas et decern solidos et ij solidos et decern
denarios in parte solucionis triginti marcarum in quibus mihi tenebatur
per quandam conventionem inter ipsum et Walterum de Elmedon et
me factam de maritagio inter Willelmum filium meum et heredem et
Roseam filiam predicti Willelmi contrahendo, de quibus octo marchis et
X solidis et ij solidis et decern denariis concedo me bene esse pacatum
et prcdictum Willelmum inde esse quietum. In cujus rei testimonium
has literas meas fieri feci patentes Datum apud Pylatenhale die Sabati
in crastino Exaltationis Sancte Crucis anno regni regis Edwardi XXIIII.^

A vaginal seal, consisting of a geometrical figure and the
legend, S. Stephani de Elmedon.

Anno regni Regis Edwardi filii Regis Henrici vicessimo septimo die
marcis in festo Sancte Catarine virginis inter Willelmum de Wrottesleye
et Johannem de Perton super variis contentionibus ortis inter eosdem
propter diversas et ignotas bundas et metas inter terras et tenementa
eorundem conquievit lis finaliter in hac forma, videlicet quod predicti
AVillelmus et Johannes communi voluntate et unanime assensu con-

^ Copied from the original deed at Wrottesley, 1860. From the terms of the
deed, it is clearly anterior to the Statute of " Quia emptores " of 18 Edward I.

- Original deed at Wrottesley, 1860. The Elmedons were Hereditary Foresters of
the Bailiwick of Teddesley in" Cannock Forest. The liead of the family at this
date was Magister Walter de Elmedon, but he was a cleric, and the duties of the
office were performed by his brother Stephen; William, the son of Stephen, after-
wards assumed the name of Pilatonhale, from the place of their residence. The
Fine Roll of 30 Edward I, m. 11, states under date of 8 May, that the King had
accepted the homage of William, son of Stephen de Elmedon, deceased.

HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

cesserunt et statuerunt bundas et metas subscriptas, tenendas et
observandas pro se et heredibus suis in perpetuum sine aliqua
reclamatione in futurum, videlicet a quadani qiiercu que vocatur le
Tyndede Mere Ok que est bunda inter Radulphuni Basset et predictos
AVillehnnm et Johannem, descendendo usque le Mere Wey et sic
descendendo le Mere Wey usque ad proximam corneram assarti Galfridi
le Crouthour versus villatam de Wrottesle et de dicta cornera des-
cendendo per quoddam fossatum iisque ad quandam qucrcum, et de dicta
quercu descendendo per quoddam novum fossatum sicut perambulatum
usque ad cornei'am de Wodewalle Medue, et de dicta cornera per idem
fossatum usque ex opposito (sic) cornere assarti Hugonis de Wrottesleye
quod vocatur Cronemor, et de dicta cornera ascendendo per fossatum
dicti assarti usque ad assartum AVillelmi de Wrottesle, et de dicto
assarto ascend endo per fossatum ejusdem usque ad corneram assarti
Willelmi en le Hale quod vocatur Grenehul. Et est sciendum, etc.
In quorum omnium testimonium et memoriam sempiternam utraque
pars alterius scripto ad modum cirograffi confecto et partito suum
apposuit sigillum. Hiis testibus, Radulpho de Byssebury, Johanne de
Tresel, Philippo de Lutteleye, Willelmo del Horewode, Thoma de
Lutteleye, Roberto BufFary, Warino de Penna, Galfrido de Bilston
Hugone de Wrottesle, Johanne de Lappele, Clerico et aliis ^

Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Willelmus de Wrottesleye miles
dedi, concessi, et hac presenti carta mea confirmavi Willelmo filio meo
et heredi meo et Johanne filie Rogeri Basset uxori sue omnes terras
meas et tenementa super moras, videlicet in Boterdone, Waterfall,

^ Original deed at Wrottesley, copied 1860. Of the witnesses, the first three
were lords respectively of Bushbury, TrysuU and Lutley. Ralph de Byssebury and
John de Tresel occur as Knights of Great Assize on the Quo Warranto Pleas of
21 Edward I (printed). Robert Buffary was lord of Nether Penn, and Warine de
Penne was tenant undei- him at the same place.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 69

Grindon, et Hidlesdale cum omnibus suis pertinentiis et in pratis,
boscis, moris, curiis, wai'dis, maritagiis, placitis, perquisitis stabilibus,
releviis sine aliquo mihi retenento. Habendum et tenendum omnes
predictas terras et tenementa cum omnibus suis pertinentiis ut
predictum est de capitalibus dominis feodorum illorum predictis
Willelmo et Johanne uxore sue ad totam vitani eorum et heredibus de
corpore predictorum Willelmi et Johanne legitime procreatis. Reddendo
et faciendo capitalibus dominis feodorum illorum servitium inde
debitum et consuetum. Et si contingat, quod absit, quod prefati
Willelmus et Johanna sine heredibus de corporibus eorum legitime
procreatis descedant quod omnes predicte terre et tenementa sine aliquo
impedimento mihi et heredibus meis plenarie revertentur, et reddendo
inde annuatim mihi predicto Willelmo ad totam vitam meam quinque
marcas argenti ad duos anni terminos, videlicet ad festum Sancti
Andre Apostolici unam medietatem et ad festum Sancti Jacobi aliam
medietatem pro omnibus servitiis secularis exactionibus et demandis.
Ego vero. {Clause of ivarranty.) Ut igitur hec mea donatio, concessio
et hec presentis carte mee confirmatio rata et stabilis permaneat in
perpetuum presentem cartam sigilli mei impressione roboravi. Hiis
testibus Domino Johanne de Somery, Domino Radulpho Basset de
Draynton, Domino Henrico de Caresswall militibus, Johanne Ipstones,
Willelmo Shirard et aliis. Datum apud Wrottesleye dominica Ramis-
palamporum (sic) anno regni regis Edwardi filii Edwardi sexto.^

Hec est conventio facta die Veneris proximo post festum Inventionis
Sancte Crucis anno regni Regis Edwardi filii Regis Edwardi sexto inter
dominum Radulphum Basset de Drayton ex parte una et dominum
Willelmum de Wrottesleye ex altera videlicet quod predictus dominus
Radulphus concessit, relaxavit et omnino pro se et heredibus suis et
nativis suis de Patyngham quietclamavit in perpetuum domino
Willelmo de Wrottesleye totum jus et clamium quod habent vel habere
potuerunt in communa pasture quam dictus dominus Willelmus tenuit
in defenso die confectionis presentum in Wrottesleye, vult etiam et
concedit predictus Radulphus pro se et heredibus suis et nativis suis
predictis quod dictus dominus Willelmus possit se appi'owiare de
quodam bosco quod vocatur Sockesmore jacente inter le leye ruddyng
et le Farinshurstesweye in latitudine et extendit se a bosco quod
vocatur Kyngeswode usque Nethermulne Weye et boscum ilium
includere et in defenso tenere omni tempore anni et voluntatem suam
inde facere sine aliqua contradiction e predicti domini Radulphi,
heredum vel nativorum suorum predictorum ita quod dictus dominus
Radulphus nee heredes vel nativi sui aliquid jus vel clamium neque
communam pasture in tenementis predictis de cetero exigere seu
vendicare potuerit vel potuerunt quoquemodo. Pro qua quidem con-
cessione et relaxatione et quieta clamantia predictus antedictus dominus
Willelmus concessit, relaxavit et omnino pro se et heredibus suis
quietclamavit in perpetuum dicto domino Radulpho Basset, heredibus

^ From ancient copies of Butterdon deeds at Wrottesley, 1860. The first witness,
John de Somery, was the Baron of Dudley. John de Ipstones was the lord of
Ipstones, and William Shirard was owner of a part of Cheddleton, co, Stafford.

70 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

ct assignatis suis comunam pasture totius terre quam dictus dominus
Radulphus tenuit in defense die confectionis prescntum in Patyngham,
et quod predictus Ivadulphus Basset pro se et heredibus suis et
assignatis possint se approwiare in vasto suo de Patyngham in bosco
vel extra absque contradictione vel impediniento dicti doniini Willelmi
vel heredum suorum in tantum longitudine et latitudine quantum
extendit se tota terra quam tenuit dictus dominus Willelmus in defenso
die confectionis presentum in Wrottesleye. Ita quod decetero neutra
partium in comuna pasture in locis predictis nihil vendicare possint ut
in forma predicta continetur. In cujus rei testimonium partes predicte
presenti scripto indentato sigilla sua alternatim apposuerunt. Hiis
testibus Dominis Johanne Somery, AVillchno Bagot, Willelmo de
Stafford, Willehno de Mere militibus Johanne de Perton et aliis.
Datum apud Drayton die et anno supradictis.^

Seal, three piles in point, and a (|uarter on which the charge
is obliterated. Legend, S. Radulphi Basset.

Besides the above deeds there was formerly at Wrottesley an
original account of the Wrottesley Bailiff for half of the year
22 Edward I (A.D. 1294), contained on a small narrow parch-
ment roll, about two feet long and five inches wide. As this
account contains the prices actually received or paid for the
commodities mentioned in it, it may be advisable to print it. It
also throws light on the administration of an estate in the
thirteenth century. It is headed : —

Mem^ de compoto Thome Propositi domini de Wrottesle apud
Wrottesle a festo {blank) anno regni Regis E. xxij usque ad
{blank) anno dicto incluso.^

Rents of Mills.

12s. M. from the mill of Wythwj^k, of St. John's term, and
10s. from the mill of Trille for the same term, and 12s. Q>d. from
the mill of Wythwyk for Michaelmas* term, and 10s. for the mill
of Trille for the same term.

Issues from the Manors.

4fZ. rent from Richard le Baxtere, 4s. Sd. from the herbage of
the orchard and the cemetery (cymiterii), 9s. from the herbage
of meadows and fields sold for " rewenage " by the view of
Thomas, and Qd. for firewood, and 2s. Zd. for 108 pigeons

^ Original deed at Wrottesley, 1860. The first witness, John de Somery, was the
Baron of Dudley ; William Bagot was Lord of Patshull and of the Hyde, near
Stafford ; William de Stafford was Lord of Sandon ; and William de Mere was Lord
of Maer, co. Stafford.

* The accounts are in Latin, but the Provost is often at a loss for a Latin word,
and then takes refuge in his native English. These words are distinguished by
inverted commas.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY, 71

(columbellis) sold, viz., Id. for 4 pigeons, and 2d. for the
" escaet " of one dead ox, and 19d. for the skin of one dead
ox, and 78s. dd. for hay sold by the view of Thomas Cok.

Sale of Stock (venditio instauri).
30s. for four oxen sold, viz., for each 7s. 6d.

Pleas and Perquisites of the Court.

16s. 2d. for issues of the Court held on the Saturday after
the Feast of the Assumption, and 8s. lid. for issues of the
Court held on the Tuesday the Feast of St. Martin.

Summa £12 15s. 7d.

Cost of Carts (carucarum).

In iron bought for carts 2s. Sd., and for three carts newly
made of the lord's own timber 2s. 6d., and for two ox yokes
made Id., and for two "pedalibus " bought 4d., and for the pay
of the smith 8d,, and for two carts newly made of the lord's own
timber 20d., and for one " thille " for corn newly made 4cZ., and
for the mending of one tumbrel Id., and for " stroc nails " bought
for old wheels 2d., and for " cart loutes " bought 6ld., and for
100 "clout nails" bought Id., and in grease and " vutto "
bought for carts 5d., and for a cord for tying the carts 2|<i., and
for one " colore " sic (collar) bought 4<d., and for headstalls
(capistris) made Id., and for one " cartsadul " bought 2d., and
for two pounds of " floukus " l^d., and for one " [. . .] corde "
bought Id., and in " wippecorde " Id.

Shoeing of Horses.

For the shoes of cart horses 17 d., and for the shoes of one
colt coming from the moors, 2d.

Cost of Houses.

For the making of two cottages de novo 40c?., and for the
roofing of them " copertorium " 10c?., and for a " thatcher " for
the above for two days and for the thatching, " copertorium " of
the beerhouse, and the house of Alice de Gatecote 3d., and for
a carpenter repairing the house of Alice de Gatecote for two
days 3s. Id., and for 1,100 " lathe nayles " bought S^d., and
for a man making lathes out of the lord's own timber, Id.

Purchase of Corn.

13s. for 4 quarters of wheat (frumenti) bought at Stafford,
price of each quarter 3s. 4c?., and 21c?. for seven strikes of oats
(avene), price of a strike 3c?., and for two strikes of peas bought
for the pigs 7c?., and for one strike of barley (ordei) bought 5d.

72 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OP

Purchase of Stock (Emptio instauri).

15s. for two oxen bought at Hampton (Wolverhampton), and
16s. 6d. for two oxen boucrht and for 26 chickens (pulHs)
bought 13d., price of each a halfpenny.

For Reaping and Mowing.

For reaping (sarculatione) all the corn 2s. 8d., and for the
mowing of Brodemedue 3s. 6c^., Brocforlong 18(/., Polas 9d.,
Lettulmcdue 8d., Smalheth 4^tZ., Calverheye Sd., Marefordmore
7d., Latimedue 5d., Smalemore 18d., Hadyngs 2d., Lyerudyng
4:d., Cowellemor 7d., and in one " todder " ^d. Total 13s. 4(i.

Benripe.

For bread bought 7d., and in beer bought for the Benripe
18d., and for "allec" 9d., and for cheese 2d., and in meat
bought S^d., and in beer bought for the carriage of the peas
2^d. Total 3s. 6d.

Steward's Expenses (Expensa Seneschalli).

4|c?. for the expence in coming and holding the Court on the
Tuesday the Feast of St. Martin.

Issues from the Wrottesley Grange.

9 quarters and 4 strikes received from the issues of the
" thir: ad cast:," by tail and 4 quarters received from purchase
as appears below.

Expended,

For sowing the Lyerudying 3 quarters, and the Bettebruche
3 quarters 7 strikes, and le feldbruche 1 quarter, and the Dors-
fallyng 2 quarters, and Soutersbruche 4 strikes, and on the
Inland 3 quarters, and 5 quarters received " de rem:," by tail
against Roger Stevens, and 8 quarters 7 strikes of the issues
" ad cast:," by tail against Thomas.

From which was expended in sowing the Lyerudyng 2 quarters
6 strikes, Fethemore 1 quarter 5 strikes, Dorsfallyng 4 quarters
and 4 strikes, and in " mixtur: " and in bread made for Benripe
3 strikes.

Arms of Sir William de Wrottesley.

On the dexter side. For Wrottesley : —
A fret, tinctures unknown. Taken from seals.
On the sinister side. For Audley of Blore : —
Argentj a fret Sable, at the intersections of the fret a cross fitchee Or.
Taken from painted glass in the old manor house of the
Bassetts of Blore, at Fole in Leigh parish, co. Stafford.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY.

Sir William de Wrottesley III, A.D. 1313 to A.D. 1320.

Sir William de Wrottesley was
succeeded by a son of the same
name between the 4 August 1313
and the 4 October following. He is
shewn to be son of the last William
by the deeds at Wrottesley, by a Fine
levied in 3 Edward II and by suits in
Banco of Trinity term 33 Edward I,
Mich. 9 Edward II, Trinity 9 Edward II,
and by a suit on the Staffordshire
Assize Roll of 13 Edward IIU

Upon the 4 October 1313 a deed
of covenant was executed between
William, son of Sir William, Lord of
Wrottesley, and the Lady Katharine,
relict of the said Sir William, by which the former conceded to
Katharine, as dower, the messuage and curtilages formerly held
by Hugh de Wrottesleye, togetlier with the service of five of
the Wrottesley natives, or villein tenants, viz., Stephen atte
tounesend, Thomas Colates, Roger in Oldefore, William Broun,
and John Robines, together with an annual rent of half a mark
from the land of Hugh, the Smith, a place called Fetheone, the
miarleria of Wodecroft, and reasonable housebote, haybote and
fotalin (forage) for her Bailiff, and a third part of WilHam's
mill at Haukewell.

This deed was drawn up to remove that fertile source of
discord in former days, the dower of a step-mother. It takes,
however, no notice of the lands at Butterton and Waterfall, out
of which Katherine would have been equally entitled to dower,
but on the 16 December following, Katherine executed a deed
by which she remitted altogether her claim to dower out of the
manor of Wrottesle}^ as well as the tenements upon the moors
at Boterdon, Waterfall, Hydlesdale and Grindon. A suit-at-law
of later date shews that she had commuted her claim for dower
for an annual payment of £10. This sum, therefore, may be
assumed to represent fairly the value of the third part of her
late husband's property. Hallam in his "Middle Ages " estimates
that the knight's fee of £20 of the reign of Edward I should be
multiplied by eighty to give its equivalent value in modern
money. The Wrottesley estate therefore, temp. Edward I,
would represent about £2,400 a year at the present date.^

' As these suits will all be described in their turn, it is not necessary to give the
references to them in full on this page.

- It may be interesting to test Hallam's figures by actual facts. The Manor Rolls
of Wrottesley shew that the rental in the reign of Edward III was between £22
and £23 a year ; but at that date nearly a third of the manor consisted of a park

74 HISTORY OP THE FAMILY OP

The first mention of this William de Wrottesley occurs
durinf]^ his father's lifetime in a suit in Banco of Trinity term
33 Edward I [1305]. It will be remembered that his sister
Rosea had married in 129G William, son of Stephen de Elmedon,
one of the Hereditary Foresters of Cannock. William de
Elmedon succeeded his father Stephen in 30 Edward I,^ and
had likewise become possessed of his uncle Walter de Elmedon's
manor of Pillatonhall. In the latter manor he had enfeoflfed
his brother-in-law William de Wrottesley, apparently for the
purpose of levying a Fine, with a view of giving a life interest
in it to his wife.^ The Fine, however, was not levied till
3 Edward II, and in the meantime William de Wrottesley,
being the legal owner of the estate, was sued by Juliana, the
widow of Stephen, for dower out of the manor.

The Record of the suit states that Reginald de Charnes and
Juliana, his wife, sued William, son of William de Wrottesley,
for the third of a messuage and a carucate of land, twenty acres
of wood, and 30s. of rent in Pylatenhale, as the dower of
Juliana, of the dotation of Stephen de Elmedon, her first
husband. William called to warranty William, son of Stephen
de Elmedon, who appeared, and warranted the tenements to
him, and stated that Juliana had no claim to dower in the
tenements, because Stephen, her husband, was not seised of
them as of fee, on the day he married her, nor ever afterwards,
and he appealed to a jury which was to be summoned for
the Quindene of Michaelmas. A postscript shews successive
adjournments of the suit up to 35 Edward I, when it was
probably stopped by the death of the King, and was never
resumed.^ If William de Elmedon succeeded his uncle Walter
in Pillatonhall, wdiich seems likely, it is clear that Juliana had
no claim for dower at all out of that manor.

The Fine was levied at Easter term 8 Edward II between
William, son of Stephen de Elmedon and Rose, his wife,
plaintiffs, and William, son of William de Wrottesleye, defor-
ciant, of a messuage, a mill, a carucate of land, ten acres of

stocked with wild animals, which yielded no revenue. The modei-n manor contains
about 1,600 acres ; deducting from this 500 acres, the approximate area of the old
Wrottesley Park, leaves 1.100 acres, which at the present day would be worth 30s.
au acre — £l,6r)0 a year. This gives a ratio of about 73 to 1, but making allowance
for a rise in value between the reigus of Edward I and Edward III, the ratio of
80 to 1 appears fairly accurate.

1 Fine Roll, 30 Edward I.

^ Original deed at Wrottesley and the Cannock Forest Roll of 28 Edward I. The
perambulation of the forest shews that Walter de Elmedon held at that date the
vill of Pillatonhall of the Abbot of Burton, and that Stephen de Elmedon held the
vill of Huntingdon of the King. The latter vill carried with it the Hereditary
Bailiwick of Teddesley.

^ De Banco Roll, Trinity, 33 Edward I, m. 175. The first writ was issued at
Hillary, 32 Edward I. The death of the reigning King annulled all writs, ai)d a
suitat law would have to be begun dc novo.

WROTTESLEY OP WROTTESLEY. 75

meadow, and 40s. of rent in Pilatenhale. William, son of
Stephen, acknowledged the tenements and rent to be the right
of William, son of William, for which the latter granted them
to William, son of Stephen, and to Rose, and to the heirs of
Wilham, son of Stephen, for ever.

An account of the knighting of William de Wrottesley at the
High Altar of Westminster with Edward, Prince of Wales, and
267 others, and the ceremonies which attended it, has been
already given in the history of his father. The young Knights
Batchelor, made on this occasion were to accompany Prince
Edward into Scotland, and perform their first feats of arms in
his presence. The Scots had broken out in revolt in the spring
of the year at the instigation of Robert Bruce, and the King
was about to lead into Scotland the largest and best appointed
army he had yet placed on foot, but Aylmer de Valence, the
King's Lieutenant in Scotland, assisted by the friends of
Comyn, who had been murdered by Bruce, had completely
defeated the Scots at Perth before the arrival of the King, and
Robert Bruce took refuge in the Western Islands till the
following year. According to Fabian and Polydore Virgil, the
Prince and his suite of newly made Knights were present at the
battle before Perth, but the Scotch Chronicles state that the
battle was fought before the arrival of the Prince.

William de Wrottesley's name occurs again on the Rolls
during his father's lifetime, as one of the men-at-arms performing
Knight's service for the Abbot of Pershore in Scotland in 1310.^
This was the year of the siege of Caerlaverock, of which a
contemporary metrical account has been printed. The King
met with little opposition and penetrated as far as Renfrew in
the Highlands.

The force of infantry at the King's disposal being found
insufficient to carry on the war in a country inaccessible to
mounted men, at the Parliament held at Lincoln in 1316, it was
ordered that one armed man on foot (unum hominem peditem
armatum) should be raised in every city, town or vill in the
Kingdom, to serve the King in his wars in Scotland. A writ
was accordingly sent to all the Sheriff's throughout England,
dated the 5 March, requiring them to certify the cities,
boroughs and vills in every Hundred and the names of the
lords thereof. The returns to this writ are known as the
" Nomina villarum," and have been printed by the Record
Commissioners. William de Wrottesley was returned in it as
lord of the township of Wrottesley, co. Stafford ; the con-
temporary lords, who were his immediate neighbours, were : —
John de Tresel, lord of Trysull, Ralph Basset, lord of Pating-

' Writs of Military Summonses, priuted, vol. ii, p. 1,659.

76 HISTORY OP THE FAMILY OF

liam, William Bagot of Patshul, Henry de Bishebury, Lord of
Buslibury and Upper Penn, Kobert Bufiary, Lord of Lower
Penn, and Thomas de Overton, Lord of Orton and Wombourne.
All these occur as frequent witnesses to the Wrottesley deeds.
From this date up to the year of his death in 1820, Sir William
de Wrottesley was engaged in a continuous series of law suits,
which were never terminated, and in military expeditions into
Scotland, which resulted in nothing but disgrace and disaster to
the English arms.

On the Patent Roll of 9 Edward II (A.D. 1316) H. Spigurnel
and J. de Trillowe, Justices, were assigned to take an assize of
novel disseisin, which Oliver atte Mulne, of Wj^ghtwyke, had
arraigned against William, son of Henry atte Mulne, of Wyth-
wyke, and William de Wrottesleye, concerning tenements in
Tetenale. No record of this suit remains, but about the same
date William, son of Henry atte Mulne, of Wyghtwyk, sold to
Sir William de Wrottesley all the tenements in Withwike and a
moiety of the mill which had fallen to him by the death of his
father, and likewise the moiety of the mill and all the tenements
in the same place which had fallen to him after the death of
Roger, his uncle, to be held according to the custom of the
manor of Tettenhale.^ Oliver, the plaintiff in the above suit,
had clearly some claim upon the mill, and had been aggrieved
by the sale of it to Sir William de Wrottesley. It will be
seen hereafter that a mill at Wightwyke, which had formerly
belonged to Oliver de Wightwyke, was one of the causes of the
feud which arose in the following reign between the families of
Wrottesley and Perton.

At Michaelmas of this year (October 1316) William de
Wrottesley appeared by an essoin in Banco, and sued John de
Coueley for a debt of 60s., owing to the estate of his father
William, and a day was given to the parties at the following
Hillary term. William's appearance by an essoin, in place of
an attorney, seems to show that he was engaged in the military
operations in Scotland of this year. It will be seen that he took out
letters of protection in the three following years, to last from Sep-
tember to Christmas. The record at Hillary term 1317 states that
William, son of William de Wrottesley, the executor of the will
of William de Wrottesley, appeared against John de Coueleye
in a plea that he should render to him and to Henry Basset, his
co-executor, 60s., which he unjustly detained. John did not
appear, and the Sheriff was ordered to distrain and produce
him on the Quindene of Trinity. Henry had been summoned,
but put in no appearance, and as the summons was testified, it
was considered that William might sue without him.^ This suit

^ Original deed at Wrotteslej', 1860.

- De Banco Roll, Hillary, 9 Edward II, m. 170.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 77

occurs on the Rolls for the next three years, and was not
concluded at the date of the death of William in 1320.

The latter appears to have inherited the fondness for litigation
of his grandfather Hugh, for in addition to the above suit, he
was involved this year in two others of his own initiation, and
in which he could have had but little chance of success.

In the first of these he attempted to recover land in
Coughton, which had been originally in the possession of one
of his ancestors, but the particulars of his claim are not set
out. The Banco Roll of Trinity term 9 Edward II, states
that William de Wrottesley sued Ralph de Wytheleye for a
messuage and forty acres of land, live acres of meadow, and
20s. of rent in Cokton as his right and inheritance. Ralph
appeared to his summons and prayed a view, and the suit was
adjourned to the following Michaelmas term.* At Easter term
1317 the suit comes on again, and Ralph stated that he held the
tenements for his life only by a demise made by John de
Wytheleye and Christine, his wife, and he called tliem to
warranty. The Sheriff was therefore ordered to summon John
and Christine for the Quindene of Michaelmas.^ The next
entry respecting the suit occurs on the Roll of Easter
12 Edward II. Ralph did not appear on the day given to
him, but came into Court on a later day of the term, and as before,
called to warranty John de Wytheleye and Christine his wife.
The Sheriff was ordered to take the tenements into the King's
hands, and to summon the parties to hear judgment at the
Quindene of Michaelmas.^ No further notice of the suit occurs,
and it was doubtless brought to an end by the death of William.
The tenements in dispute may have been those given to the
father of William by Richard de Verdon of the Wyke.

In the same year, viz., in 9 Edward II, William de Wrottesley
had another suit on hand, by which he attempted to recover
possession of the manor of Loynton. This suit is of great
interest from a genealogical point of view, for William deduces his
descent in it from an ancestor, William de Verdon, living temp.
Henry III.

The Record of the suit on the de Banco Roll of Trinity term,
9 Edward II, is as follows : —

William, son of William de Wrottesley, by his attorney
Clement de Hampton, sued Roger de Lemynton (sic) for the
manor of Lemynton as his right and inheritance, and in which
the said Roger had no entry except by a demise wliicli William
de Verdon, the great grandfather (proavus) of William, and
whose heir he was, had made to Roger Dunkan for a term

' De Banco, Trinity, 9 Edward II, m. 103, dorso.

^ De Banco, Easter, 10 Edward II, m. 34.

^ De Banco, Easter, 12 Edward II, m. 174, dorso.

78 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

which had expired, and which, after the said terra, should revert
to the said William, son of William, and he stated that the said
William de Verdon was seised of the manor in liis demesne as
of fee and of right in the reign of King Henry, the King's
grandfather, and from the said William de Verdon the right
descended to one Hugh as son and heir, and from the said
Hugh to one William as son and heir, and from the said W^illiam
to the plaintiff as son and heir, and he produced his proofs.
Roger appeared by attorney and defended his right, and denied
that William, the great grandfather of the plaintiff, was seised
of the manor in such a way that he could demise it to anybody,
and on this issue he appealed to a jury, and William likewise.
The Sheriff was therefore ordered to summon a jury for the
morrow of St. Martin. ^

No notice of the suit occurs on tlie Roll for Michaelmas term,
and it was evidently adjourned througli defect of a jury, for the
Roll of Easter term, 10 Edward II, states that the Sheriff had
been ordered to produce at that term William de Mere and the
rest of the jury which had been summoned between William, son
of William de Wrottesle, plaintiff, and Roger de Levinton, tenant
of the manor of Levyngton, and he had returned into Court
certain sums, the issues of distraints levied upon those who had
not appeared.^ Subsequent entries on the Rolls shew that the
suit was adjourned from term to term, through defect of juries,
up to Easter term, 12 Edward II, when a writ of nisi prius
was issued, respiting the suit till the Quindene of St. Michael,
unless William de Bereford (the Justice) should first come to
Lichfield on the Saturday next after the Feast of the Exaltation
of the Holy Cross (15 September, 1319).^ This is the latest
notice of the suit we have. It was probably stopped by the
death of William, which took place before the Easter term of
13 Edward II.

It was doubtless in connection with this suit that we have
the curious exemplication of John, Abbot of Evesham, dated
16 April 1316, which is printed at page 8. In this deed the
Abbot certifies to the correctness of a transcript of a deed,
which existed at that time amongst their archives, by which his
predecessor Reginald had granted the vill of Livintune to
Robert Dunekan for his life, for an annual rent of one mark.
The deeds now at Loynton shew that the family called de
Livington, or Levington, had been originally named Dunkan,
and the object of the exemplication was to prove that they held
no hereditary tenure. The facts of the case seem to be that the
Wrottesleys had in former d&,ys accepted a fine on the death of

^ De Banco Trinity, 9 Edward II, m. 88 dorso.

- De Banco Roll, Easter, 10 Edward II, m. 85 dorso.

' De Banco Koil, Easter, 12 Edward H, m. 160 dorso.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 79

a tenant at Loynton for the admittance of the son to the
tenancy, and this process having been repeated several times,
had resulted in the family of Dunkan or de Livington acquiring
a customary hereditary tenure. Reginald was Abbot of Evesham
between the years 1130 and 1149.^

Having completed the storj^ of Sir William's numerous law-
suits, I now propose to resume the account of his military
employments.

In the autumn of 1316 he was serving in Scotland in the
retinue of John de Warrenne, the Earl of Surrey, letters of
protection having been granted to him by a writ dated from
Beverley on the 8 September, 1316, to last till the following
Christmas.^ Ealph, Lord Basset of Drayton, was serving in the
same retinue as a Banneret ; and Sir William was probably
serving under the banner of his kinsman.

Holinshed's Scottish Chronicle gives the following account of
the operations of tins year : '' Edward King of England, hearing
that King Robert was passed over into Ireland, thought the
time to serve well for his purpose, eftsoones, to invade Scotland,
and thereupon coming wi-tlf a great power to the borders, he
purposed to have done some great feat. But Sir James Dowglas,
the Governor, having likew^ise gathered an army, gave him
battell, and put him and his people to flight. In this battell
was slain three notable Captains on the English side, as Sir
Edmund Lilaw, a Gascoigne, Captain of Berwick, with Sir
James Neville — and the third Sir James Dowglasse slue with his
own hand."

The so-called battle could have been nothing more than a

^ The ancient deeds now at Loynton shew clearly that that manor was the
Livingtuna or Levintona which formed part of the Wrottesley fee. I am indebted
to Miss Burne of Loynton for the following abstracts of deeds now in her possession.

Rogerus Donekan dominus de Levintona, dedi etc. Roberto filio Rnherli cognate meo
de Levintona et heredibus suis quandam partem terre mee in Levintona etc. IJiis lestibus
Domino Willefmo officiale de Norburia. Domino Johanne domino de Westona etc.

Seiant etc. Robertua Donekan de Leyntor.e dedi etc. Roberto fdio Roberti le Fremon
de Leyntone duas seyliones terre quas prins Rogero patre meo emit in campo quod vocatur
Sidenhale etc. U. T. Roberto de Westona, Magistro Willelmo de Kemesey Roberto de
Prato de Offilega, Radulpko ad Vivarium de eadem etc.

Omnibus etc. Rogerus dominus de Levyngton, Noveritis me concessisse Rogero de la
Wildemor et Edithe uxori sue et heredibus suis tutumjus guod habeo, in una messuagio
etc. in villa de Levynton. H. T. Willelmo domino de Westone. Rogero le Fremon de
Levyntone etc. Datum 7 Edivard //. Seal a lion rampant.

Omnibus etc. Willelmus de Wrottcsleyh miles, salutcm, Noveritis me co7icessisse,
relaxasse etc., Rogero de la Wildemor et heredibus suis totumjiis et clamium quod habui
vel aliquo modo habere potui in omnibus terris et tenementis que tenuit in Levyntone dte
confectionis istius scripti salvis mihi et heredibus meis servitiis inde dcbitis et consuetis.
H. T. Radulpho de Grendon Roberto de Tylinton Willelmo de Stalbrok, Willelmo
Gryffyn de Coltone. Roberto by the Water de Salt. Datum apud Stafford 11 Edward II.

After the litigation had commenced respecting the manor, Roger de la Wildemor
evidently considered it advisable to obtain a confirmation of his title from William
de Wrottesley.

3 Scotch Roll, 10 Edward II, m. 5.

80 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

skirmish, for the EngHsh King's plans were frustrated by the
refusal of the Earl of Lancaster and many of the great Barons
to join the army. The Staffordshire Barons obeyed the King's
summons — and the Scotch Ivolls give the following names of
Staffordshire tenants who accompanie<l the King upon this
expedition.

John de Somery, the Baron of Thomas le Rous, of Walsall,

Dudley, Thomas de Haughton,

James, Lord Audle}^, Robert Hastang,

Ralph le Botiller, Roger Trumwyne,

Roger Corbet, Henry Basset,

Ralph Basset, of Drayton, John Hastang,

William de Birmingham, William Bagot,

John Gifiard, of Chillington, Heniy de Bissebury,

John de Swynnerton, Ralph de Grendon, and

William de Ferrers, William de Wrottesley.

John de Sutton,

Li the spring of 1318 the Scotch, under Randal, Earl of
Murray, obtained possession of Berwick by treachery, and in
the autumn of the same year advanced into England, burning
and destroying everything as far south as Northallerton, in
Yorkshire.

The King summoned his forces to assemble at York in
September, and he was joined there by John de Somery, the
Baron of Dudley and his retinue. In the latter were : — William
de Birmingham, Henry de Bissebury, Hugh de Heppeham, of
Bobbington, John de Sutton, John de Swynnerton, John Giffard
of Chillington, and William de Wrottesley. Their letters of
protection are dated from York on the 24 September.^ Most of
the great lords appear to have disobeyed the King's summons
upon this occasion.

In the following year the King made an attempt to recover
Berwick, and issued summonses to all the military tenants of
the Crown to meet him at Newcastle-upon-Tyne on the 20 June,
prepared with horses and arms to proceed against the Scots.
John de Somery had letters of protection to last till Christmas
Day, dated from York on the 20 July, and the following who
were of his retinue, had the same : —
William de Burmingham, Thomas de Pipe,

John de Sutton, John GifFard, of Chillington,

William de Wrottesley, Henry de Bissebury,

William Deverous (of West John de Swjamerton, and

Bromwich), others.^

Thomas de la Hyde,

1 Scotch RoU, 12 Edward II, m. 12.
= Scotch Roll, 13 Edward II, m. 3.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 81

The Scottish Chronicle gives the following account of the
events on the Marches in this year : —

" In the 3'eere following, King Edward came and laid siege to
Berwick, but the towne was so well defended, he was con-
streined with small honor to return home and leave it as he
found it. For in the meantime Thomas Randall Earl of Murrey
and the Lord James Douglasse assembled their forces togither,
but perceiving themselves too weake to remove the siege by
force, they passed by, and entering into England, wasted and
destroyed all before them, keeping on their way to Burrow-
bridge. When King Edward lieng as yet at the siege of Ber-
wick, understood what mischiefe the Scots did within his realme,
he raised his siege in purpose to have incountered with his
enimies, but the Scots advertised of his purpose, returned with all
their prisoners and spoile by Stanemore, and so through Gilsland
and the West Marches, withdrew home into their countrie."

King Edward finding himself unable to intercept the Scotch
army, advanced against Edinburgh, but the Earl of Lancaster
and many of the Barons withdrew from the army, and the
unfortunate King, perceiving that it was hopeless to carry on
the war, owing to the dissensions amongst his own subjects,
concluded a truce of two years with Robert Bruce.

The letters of protection granted to Sir William Wrottesley
upon this occasion, are the latest notice we have of him. At
the following Easter term, the Abbot of Evesham appeared by
his attorney in Banco, and sued Joan, formerly wife of William
de Wrottesleye, to give up to him Hugh, the son and heir of
William de Wrottesleye, the wardship of whom belonged to
him, inasmuch as the said William held his lands of the Abbot
by Knight's service. Joan did not appear to her summons,
and the Sheriff was ordered to attach her for the following
Michaelmas term.^

William de Wrottesley left two sons, Hugh and Roger, and
two daughters, Idonia and Elionora, the eldest child being only
six years of age. He died within seven years of his marriage
with Joan Basset, in the prime of life, and making allowance
for the interval which must have elapsed before the tidings of
his death could have reached the Abbot, and an action in Banco
have been commenced against his widow, it seems probable
that he died during the military operations in Scotland in the
autumn and winter of 1319 — 1320.

The deeds formerly at Wrottesley, which have been quoted in
the foregoing account of Sir William de Wrottesley, were as
follows : —

S. T>. 8ciant presentes et futuri, quod ego Willelmus filius Stephani
de Elmedone dominus de Pylatunhale dedi, concessi et hac presenti

' De Banco, Easter, 13 Edward II, m. 68.
G

82 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

carta mea confirmavi Willelmo filio Willelini domini de Wrottesleye
totum maneriuni nieum de Pylatunliale cum omnibus pertinentiis suis.
Habendum ct tenendum de capitaneis dominis feodi, sibi et heredibus
suis vel assif^natis cum lioma^^iis etc. ad predictum manerium con-
tingentibus, ita libere et quiete sicut ego vel aliquis antecessorum
nieorum predictum manerium liberius prius tenuimus integre et in
pace cum omnibus pertinentiis et libortatibus suis, faciendo inde
debita servicia et consueta capitaneis dominis feodi pr'o omni servitio
seculari milii vel heredibus meis pertinente : ego vero (clause 0/
warranty). Et ut hec mea donatio etc. sigillum meum apposui. Hiis
testibus Domino Willelmo de la Pole, domino Willelmo Trumwine
militibus, domino Willelmo de Nortone canonico ecclesie de Pencris,
Magistro Galfrido de Bilstone, Henrico de Prestewode, Johanne de
Say de Dunstone, Hugone de Wrottesleye clerico et multis aliis.^

7. E. 2. Hec est conventio facta inter Willelmum filium domini
Willelmi domini de Wrottesleye ex parte una, et dominara Katerinam
relictam predicti domini Willelmi ex parte altera, videlicet concessit
tradidit et dimisit predicte Katerine totum illud messuagium cum
curtilagiis sicud includitur quod Hugo de Wrottesleye quondam
tenuit cum Steffano attetounesend, Thoma Colates, Rogero in
Oldefore, Willelmo broun, Johanne robines cum servitiis eoi-um quas
facere solebant, cum una dimidia marca annuatim reddita de terra
Hugonis fabri exeunte sine altero servitio ab eodem petendo, una cum
terris et tenementis, pratis, pasturis in diversis locis jacentibus cum
una placea quod vocatur Fetheone et cum merlera de Wodecroft
exceptis catallis in eisdem tenementis die confectionis presentum
existentibus. Habenda et predicte Katerine tenenda omnia predicta
tenementa ad totam vitam suam nomine dotis sicut bundantur et
dividantur, et etiam concedit dictus Willelmus predicte domine
Katerine rationabile housbote et haybote et fotalin pro habitatione
ballivi sui, et si contingat quod predictus Willelmus egistiat pratum
suum, quod predicta Katerina habeat tria denaria inde pi-ovenienta
cum tertia parte molendini sui de Haukewell cum omnibus eysia-
mentis et communis predicte dote pertinentibus et cum liberis
introitibus et exitibus. Et ego vero predicta domina Katerina
concedo per presenti me bene et plenarie esse dotata de toto manerio
de Wrottesleye cum suis pertinentiis. In cujus rei testimonium
uterque predictus altero scripto per visum Guydonis de Glaseleye,
Henrici Basset, Galfridi Gataker, Johannis de Mollesleye, Ricardi de
Picheford sigillum suum apposuit. Datum apud Wrottesleye die
Jovis proximo post festum Sancti Michalis anno regni regis Edwardi
filii Edwardi septimo. (4 Octo. ISIS.)'^

^ Origiual deed at Wrottesley, copied 1860. The date is subsequent to 18 Edward I,
the date of the Statute of " Quia Emptores," and anterior to 32 Edward I, the
date of the suit in Banco at p. 74.

- Original deed at Wrottesley, copied 1860. The first witness is Guy, Lord of
Glaseley, co. Salop, and son of Katherine, by her first husband, Alan de Glaseley.
See Eyton's Shropshire, vol. i, pages 115 and 214. ' Henry Basset was probably a near
relative of Joan, the wife of Sir William, for he occurs in 9 Edward II as the
executor of the will of Sir William de Wrottesley, the father, who died in 1313.
See vol. ix, Staffordshire Collections, p. 56.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY.

A vaginal seal about 1| inch in length, of white wax, the
same as shewn in next deed : a woman standing and holding in
. each hand a shield, inscription illegible.

7. E. 2. Omnibus Chrispi fidelibus ad quos litere presentes visuris
vel audituris pervenerint Katerina quondam uxor domini Willelmi
de Wrottesle sakitem in domino Noveritis me in propria viduetate
mea et plena potestate relaxasse, et omnino pro me quietclamasse in
perpetuum Willelmo domino de Wrotesle totum jus meum seu clamum
quod habeo seu aliquo modo habere possum de toto manerio de
Wrottesle et de omnibus terris et tenementis super moras cum
omnibus eorum pertinentiis occasione dotis. Ita videlicet quod nee
ego predicta Katerina nee aliquis ex nomine meo aliquam exigentiara
nomine dotis exigere poterimus seu de cetero calupniare in supradictis
tenementis videlicet de Wrottesle et de omnibus tenementis super
moras videlicet Boterdon, Waterfal, Hyddlesdale et Grendon. In
cujus rei testimonium presenti litere sigillum meum apposui. Hiis
testibus Johanne " de Mollesle, Roberto de Ovioteshay, Edmundo de
Penne, Ricardo de Picheford et multis aliis. Datum apud Wrottesle
die dominica proxima post festum Sancte Lucie virginis anno regni
regis Edwardi filii Edwardi septimo. (16 Dec. 1313.)^

Interregnum, 1320— 1333.

When the Abbot of Evesham claimed the wardship of the
heir, and the custody of the manor of Wrottesley, Joan, the
widow of Sir William, appears to have resisted by force
the entry of the Abbot's Bailiff at Wrottesley, for we find the

^ Original deed at Wrottesley, copied 1860-62,

84 HISTORY OF THK FAMILY OF

Abbot suinrj hor for a trespass Coram Ref/e at the following
Trinity term. The Roll states that the Abbot of Evesham
appeared against Joan formerly wife of William de Wrottesleye,
Eichard de Oveyhotshaye,^ and William de Engelton in a plea
of trespass, de transgressione, and they did not appear, and
a day had been given to them at this term. Afterwards the
said Joan had been attached by Richard de Wrotteslej^e and
John de Wrottesle3'e, and the said Richard (de Oveyoteshaye)
l\y William de Engelton and Roger le Carter, and the said
William (de Engelton) by Richard de Wrottesleye and Adam
de Wrottesleye. They {i.e. the sureties) were therefore in
misericordia, and the Sheriff was ordered to distrain and
produce them at three weeks from Michaelmas.

Tliere is no further mention of this suit on the Rolls. Joan
conceded the point by a deed of which the original is now
in the Public Record Office, and of which an ancient copy
on parchment was preserved at Wrottesley until the late fire.
This deed is of sufficient importance to be given in extenso.

Omnibus Chrispi fidelibus ad quos presentes litere pervenerint Jo-
lianna que fuit uxor domini Willelmi de Wrottesleie salutem in
domino. Noveritis me reddidisse domino AVillehno Abbati de Evesham
manerium de W^rottesleie cum suis pertinentiis et Hugonem filium et
heredem dicti domini Willelmi de Wrottesleie quod in juste tenui a
morte dicti domini Willelmi de Wrottesleie usque ad confectionem
presentis, ita quod dictus dominus Abbas et successores sui habeant
et teneant dictos manerium cum suis pertinentiis et Hugonem nomine
custodie usque ad legitimam etatem heredis dicti domini Willelmi
de Wrottesleie absque ali(|ua contradictione mei seu aliorum nomine
meo. Salva mihi rationabile dote mea de dicto manerio. In cujus rei
testimonium presenti sigillum meum apposui Datum apud Wrottesleie
die Merourii proximo ante festum Sancti Bartolomei apostolici anno
regni regis Eclwardi filii regis Edwardi quarto decimo. [20 August
1320.]2

Seal destroyed.

The question in dispute was whether the manor was held
of the Abbots of Evesham by military service or b}'' a socage
tenure. Under the first of these tenures, the Abbot would
be entitled to the custody of the manor and the wardship and
marriage of the heir. In the case of a socage tenure, the
custody of the heir and of the manor would devolve on the
nearest of kin, who was not in the line of succession, and in

* This Richard de Oveyhoteshaye is the same person as the Richard de Piclieford of
the deeds of Katherine, widow of Sir WiUiam de Wrottesley, who died in 131;^.
Oveyoteshaye is now Ivetsay-in-Albrighton, of which the Pichefords of co. Salop had
been formerly lords. (Ey ton's Shropshire.)

* Ancient deed, Augmentation Office. At the date of the suppression of the
Monasteiies, their deeds were deposited in the newly foimed Augmentation Office.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 85

this case the custodian would have been Joan, the mother of
the heir.

According to Coke's Institutes, "Tenure by socage is where
the tenant holds of his lord the tenancy by certain {i.e. fixed)
service, in lieu of all manner of services, so that the service
be not Knights service," and he goes on to say, " also if a
man holdeth of his lord by escuage certain viz. in this manner :
when tlie^ escuage runneth and is assessed by Parliament, to
a greater or a lesser sum, so that the tenant shall pay to
his lord, but half a mark for escuage and no more nor less,
to how great a sum, or how little the escuage runneth, such
tenure is tenure in socage, and not Knights service ; but where
the sum which the tenant shall pay for escuage is uncertain,
viz. where it may be that the sum that the tenant shall pay
for escuage to his lord may be at one time more, and at another
time less, according as it is assessed, such tenure is tenure
by Knights service."

The Abbots deed of feoffment to Simon, the ancestor of
William, granted Wrottesley and Livington to Simon and his
heirs, " the said Simon and his heirs to render two marks
annually for all services saving the service of tlce King.^'^ These
words " salvo servitio Regis," according to Madox, include
scutage, and following the Dictum of Coke above quoted,
the sum payable, being left uncertain, would create a tenure
by Knights service.

On the other hand, it is clear that the Abbots of Evesham
were not liable for scutage, nor was it paid by their tenants,
for after the date of the Fine levied in 1200 between the
Abbot and Hervey Bagot and Milicent de Stafford, the fee of
Wrottesley and Livington is no longer included amongst the
fees on the Scutage Rolls, for which the Baron of Stafford was
liable, and which are given in detail in the Testa de Nevill.
It likewise appears that at the date of the Inquest upon the
Feudal Tenures, which is known as Kirby's Quest, William
de Wrottesley claimed to hold by a socage tenure, and his
claim was allowed in these words.

" Willelmus de Wrotkesley tenet per socagium de Abbate de
Evesham, et idem Abbas de Nicholao Barone Staffordie, et idem
Baro de Rege in capite."^'

It will be seen from the alcove facts, that the question whether
the manor was held by Knights service, or in socage, was
involved in some obscurity, but a socage tenure was so
advantageous to the tenant, that Joan, the widow of Sir
Wilham, who was the guardian in socage, should have fought
the question in a Court of Law. Whether she was intimidated

' See ante page 52.

■■^ Kirby's Quest, Public Record Office,

86 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

by tlie simultaneous actions brought against her in the superior
Courts, or whether she was bribed or cajoled to sacrifice her
own interests as well as those of her son, it is difficult to sa}^
but it is a somewhat suspicious circumstance that we find her
married very shortly afterwards to John de Tettebury, who
appears to have been a near relative of her adversary the
Abbot.i

Joan Basset, as widow of Sir William de Wrottesley, would
be entitled to a third of the manor of Wrottesley, as dower ;
she also held the rents from the Butterton lands, which had
been settled on her and her first husband on their marriage
in 1313. At the date of the death of her husband, in 1320,
Katrine Lestrange, the second wife of the first Sir William,
was alive, and as her claim to dower had been commuted at
£10 a year, she held a first charge on the Wrottesley estates.
In bad years, when the rents were in arrear, or difficult to
collect, this must have left little or nothing for Joan, and at
Hillary term 2-3 Edward III, viz., in January 1328, John de
Tettebury and Joan attempted, by a suit in banco, to obtain
a third of the rent of £10 from Katrine, as dower of Joan.
Katrine, who is styled Katrine de Glaseley in the record of
the suit, had failed to appear at two previous sittings of the
Court, and the dower claimed had been taken into the King's
hand in the usual way. John and Joan now appeared, and
claimed the third part through the default of Katrine. The
latter appeared by attorney, and denied that she had received
a legal summons at the previous term, and oflfered to wage
her law. She was therefore directed to appear in person, with
her compurgators, at the following Easter term.^ No further
notice of this suit occurs, but it is of interest, as it enables
us to identify Katrine, the second wife of Sir W^illiam de
Wrottesley, with Katrine, the widow of Sir Alan de Glaseley.
She was a daughter of John Lord Lestraunge of Knockin,
and holding the manor of Glaseley, co. Salop, in dower, would
be probably known as Katrine de Glaseley. Her first husband
died in 1302.

A guardian in chivalry was bound to maintain his ward,
and for the five years following the death of his father, Hugh

^ Tlie Abbot was son of John Herwarde of Tettebury, and I conclude Jolin de
Tettebury was his brother or nephew. The marriage of the widow would likewise
belong to the Abbot, if the manor was held by military service.

■■' De Banco, Mich., 2 Edward III, m. 342 dorso, and' Hill., 2-3 Edward III, m. 204.
The ancient Saxon law of compurgation was still in force in the case of the denial of
a debt, or of a summons. The plaintiff would bring forward a witness to prove the
summons, the defendant would then produce two witnesses to disprove it. If the
plaintiff produced a second witness, the defendant would produce two more in
opposition, and so on up to twelve. If the defendant could produce twelve witnesses,
the decision was given in his favour.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 87

de Wrottesley would have been brought up by the Abbot of
Evesham. On the 15 January 1325, the young hek- bemg
then eleven years of age, the Abbot sold the custody of the
manor of Wrottesley and the marriage of the heir to John
de Hampton, the Hereditary Seneschal or Steward of the
Monastery. The deeds which passed upon this occasion were
as follows : —

Hec est conventio facta inter Willehiium dei gratia Abbatem de
Evesham ex parte una et Johannem de Hampton ex parte alia
videhcet quod predictus domiuus Abbas tradidit et concessit predicto
Johanni custodiam omnium terrarum et teuementorum cum suis
pertinentiis in Wrottesleie que quidem dictus dominus habuit ratione
minoris etatis Hugonis fiKi et heredis Willelmi de Wrottesleie militis
(defuncti) eo quod predictus Willelmus predictas (terras et) tenementa
sua de predicto domino Abbate tenuit per servitium militare per
quater viginti tribus Kbris sex soHdis et octo denariis in quibus
predictus Johannes recognovit se teneii dicto domino Abbati in
Scaccario domini Regis solvendis predicto domino Abbati per decern
annos proximos sequentes, sicut in dicta recognitione continetur.
Habendam et tenendam predictam custodiam predictarum terrarum
et tenementorum cum suis pertinentiis predicto Johanni usque ad
legitimam etatem predicti Hugonis sine vasto seu destitutione ahqua
inde faciendo in domibus, boscis seu gardinis, et si contingat dictum
Johannem heredes vel executores suos vel ahquem alium nomine
eorum facere vastum seu destitutionem in domibus, boscis seu gardinis
supradictis, hceat domino abbati seu successoribus suis in dictas terras
et tenementa ingredi et ea retinere sine conti'adictione alicujus. kSi
contingat quod absit, predictum Hugonem infra decem annos proximos
sequentes post datum presentium infata decedere, quod dictus
Johannes vel executores sui habeant et teneant custodiam predictarum
terrarum et tenementorum usque ad finem predictorum decem
annorum, si heredes predicti Hugonis infra etatem existant. In
cujus rei testimonium tarn predictus dominus Abbas quam predictus
Johannes huic indenture sigilla sua alternatim apposuerunt Datum
apud Evesham die Martis proximo post festum Sancti Hillarii anno
regni regis Edwardi decimo octavo. ^

Hec Indentura testatur, quod ita convenitur inter dominum
Willelmum dei gratia Abbatem de Evesham ex parte una et
Johannem de Hampton ex parte alia videlicet quod dictus dominus
Abbas dedit et concessit dicto Johanni pro quadam summa pecunie
quam dictus Johannes dicto domino Abbati dedit per maiiibus
maritagium Hugonis filii et lieredis Willelmi de Wrottesleie militis,
quod quidem mai'itagium predicto domino Abbati accidebat I'atione
minoris etatis dicti Hugonis, eo quod predictus Willelmus pater
predicti Hugonis, cujus heres ipse est, tenuit manerium suimi de
Wrottesleie de dicto domino Abbate per servitium militare. Ita
quod predictus Johannes maritabit predictum Hugonem ad Elizabeth

^ Old copy on parchment formerly at Wrottesley in handwriting of fifteenth
century.

88 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

filiam suam primogenitam, nee liceat' predicto Johanni prefatum
Hugonem alilji niaritare. In cujus rei testimonium tarn predictus
dominus Ablias quam predictus Johannes liuic indenture alternatim
sigilla sua apposuerunt. Datum apud Evesliam die martis proximo
post festum Sancti Hilarii anno regni regis Edwardi decimo octavo.^

On the execution of these deeds John de Hampton appears to
have taken up his abode at Wrottesley, for the Subsidy Roll of
1 Edward III (1327) names him as the principal owner of land
in the manor, his assessment being nearly double that of any
other tenant. As the question has often been mooted whether
the villein tenants of a manor were taxed on these occasions, I
propose to give here the names of all the tenants who were
assessed on this occasion and five years later in 6 Edward III,
and compare their names with those of known villein tenants
of the manor. In 1 Edward III the tenants assessed
were : —

John de Hampton, Adam le Bonde,

Roger atte touneseude, Henry Benynes,

Stephen the Provost, Roger in Oldestrete,

John de Tettebury, Roger, son of Stephen,

Thomas Cholettes, William Stevenes,

Simon Aylewyne, Thomas in le Huyrne.

In 6 Edward III the tenants named on the Subsidy Roll
were : —

John de Tutteburi (sic), Thomas in le Huyrne,

Roger Roberds, Simon Aylewyn,

Roger Richards, Henry Benyn,

Stephen atte tounesend, John othegrene,

Roger Aylewyn, Richard Benyn.

^ Old copy of deed at Wrottesley on parchment in handwriting of fifteenth
century.

The Abbot William, who was the party to this deed, was William of Cliiriton,
who governed the Abbey from 1316 to 1344. The Evesham Chartulary Cott. MS.
Nero. D. 3, states he was son of John Herwarde, of Tettebury, whose brother was
Abbot of Cirencester. John de Hampton, the other party to the deed, is more
difficult to identify, for there were more than one of this name living at this period.
It may be taken for granted, however, that he was identical with John de Hampton
named in the Evesham Chartularies as the Steward or Seneschal of the Abbey, and
a later deed, formerly at Wrottesley, shews he was of Elderstoke or Oldstoke, co.
Southampton. Tiiis seems to identify him with a Jolm de Hamj)ton who was
Commissioner of Array for co. Southampton, and custodian of the Harbours and
Coasts of the same County in 20 Edward III. (French Roll of that year.)

In 20 Edward II John de Hampton was King's Eschaetor for the Counties of
Gloucester. Hereford, Worcester, Salop and Stafford. In the same year he was
appointed by Letters Patent to take Assizes in co. Worcester, and in 8 Edward III
he was commissioned to take Assizes in co. Stafford. An Inquisition on the death of
Joan, late wife of John de Wynecote, mentions the death of a John de Hampton in
23 Edward III.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 89

The deed of 1313 printed'above, and a Wrottesley Manor Roll
of 1382 give the following names of villein tenants who were
natives of the manor : —

Hugh Robardes, Isolda othegrene,

Richard othegrene, William Richardes,

Thomas Rogerson, Stephen atte Tounesend,

William Carte, Thomas Colates,

John Hugynes, Roger in Oldefore,

John othegrene, William Broun, and

Thomas ofthelye, John Robines.

The inference seems to be that the villein tenants were
assessed equally with the free tenants.

The second Subsidy Roll of 6 Edward III shews that at
that date John de Hampton had given up his residence at
Wrottesley, and as John de Tettebury's assessment had been
doubled in the meantime, I conclude that Sir John Hampton
had relinquished his share of the manor to John de Tettebury,
who already held one-third of it as dower of his wife. It is
not unlikely that at the same time Hugh de Wrottesley had
been handed over to the care of his mother and John de
Tettebury, for judging by what we know of the character and
subsequent proceedings of Hugh de Wrottesley, his guardian
must have been glad to be relieved of his charge. Whatever
the arrangement may have been, the result was unfortunate and
produced a violent feud between Hugh and his stepfather. At
Michaelmas term 5 Edward III, when the former would be
between seventeen and eighteen years of age, he had already
two suits pending in Banco against John de Tettebury and his
mother.

In the first of these, Hugh appeared by his custos Henry
de Lench, and sued John de Tettebury and Joan his wife
for waste and destruction in the lands, houses, woods and
gardens which they held in dower, of his inheritance in
Wrottesley.^

Henry de Lench, who occurs in this suit as the custos of
Hugh, was one of the Prothonotaries of the Court of Common
Pleas, and had been made a party to the action, in order to
enable Hugh to sue as a minor.

The second suit was an action against the same defendants,
to render an account for the time they had held the custody of
his lands and tenements in Wrottesley, which he pleaded were
held in socage.'- The defendants put in no appearance in either
action, and the Sheriflf was ordered to attach them for the

^ De Banco, Mich., 5 Edward III, m. 54.
- Ibid, m, 223.

00 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

following Hillary term. A guardian in socage was supposed
to hold the tenements for the benefit of the heir, and was
bound to account to him for the profits. It appears from this
last suit that John de Tettebury and Joan held the status of
John de Hampton in the manor.

Besides the suits above-mentioned, he was likewise suing
his stepfather in the Court of King's Bench, or Coram Rege
as it was then called, for a trespass committed at Wrottesley,
in taking fish from his fishponds to the value of £20,^ and he
had a fourth action against the same defendant and Joan his
wife to render an account for lands and tenements in Pateshull,
which were held in socage, and of which they had held the
custody during his minority. This last action clearly refers
to the mill of Hawkwell, and here he stood on better ground,
for this mill was held in socage of the lords of Patshull.

The record of Michaelmas term, 7 Edward III., states that
Hugh de Wrottesleye sued John de Tettebury and Joan his
wife in a plea, that wdiereas it had been provided by Statute
that the guardians of lands and tenements, which were held
in socage, should render a reasonable account of the issues of
the said lands, etc., to the heirs of the same, when they came
of age, the said John and Joan refused to give any account
for lands and. tenements in Pateshull, which were held in
socage and of which they had held the custody during his
minority. The defendants did not appear, and the Sheriff
i-t'turned into Court a sum of 20d, as the proceeds of a distress
levied upon their goods. He was therefore ordered to distrain
again and produce them on the Octaves of Hillary.^

It will be seen that Hugh could not maintain this action,
unless he was of age, and at this date he had not completed
his twentieth year. The clue to this enigma is that he had
been knighted and his knighthood gave him possession of his
estates. By the common law, if a minor was knighted, he
was forthwith entitled to the livery of his lands. This was,
in fact, " a legitimate consequence of the old Teutonic custom,
for being invested with the arms of manhood, he was deemed
to be of full atre."3

1 Coram Rege Roll, Hill., 7 Edward III., ni. 134 dorse. Hugh complained that
John had taken from his fish ponds "lupos aquaticos (i.e. pyke) perch et roch, et
breme (nic) ad valenciam viginti librarum." All these suits brought by Hugh
against his stepfather continue on the Rolls until Michaelmas 10 Edward III, when
they appear to have been dropt simultaneously.

- De Banco, Mich., 7 Edward III, m. 240 dorse.

^ Palgrave's English Commonwealth.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY.

Sir Hugh de Wrottesley, K.G., A.D. 1333 to A.D. 1381.

Sir Hugh de Wrot-
tesley, who now suc-
ceeded to his inheri-
tance, is shewn to be
son of the last Sir
William by the deeds
above printed, a suit
in Banco of Easter
term 13 Ed. II, and
another suit on the
Staffordshire Assize
Roll of 13 Ed. III. He
was born in the early
part of the year 1314,
but is found to be a
Knight and in full
possession of his
estates in January
1334. As he was
under age at the date
of his knighthood, he
must have been made
a knight on the field
of battle, and he was doubtless one of those created by Edward III
on the 19 July 1333, the eve of the battle of Halidown Hill.^

Early in the year 1334, Sir Hugh having previousl}^ enfeoffed
John de Fulford in the manor of Wrottesley and the Patshull
Mill, the above feoffee reconveyed them to him, under the title
of Hugh de Wrottesley, Knight, to be held by liim and
Ehzabeth, his wife, and the heirs of the body of Hugh, with
remainder to Roger, brother of Hugh, the son of William de
Wrottesleye, and heirs male of his body with remainder to
Idonia, his sister and heirs male of her body, with remainder to
Elianora, the sister of Idonia and heirs male of her body, with
final remainder over to the right heirs of Sir Hugh. This
deed is dated on the Sunday after the Feast of St. Hillary,
7 Edward III, which would be the 16 January 1334.^

Roger is styled here son of William de Wrottesleye, to
distinguish him from the half brothers of Sir Hugh, the sons
of John de Tettebury, of whom several were living at this date.
John de Tettebury and Joan apparently did not acquiesce in
their expulsion from tlie Wrottesley estates, for on the Patent
Roll of 8 Edward III William de Shareshulle, Roger Hillary, and
John de Peyto, the elder, were appointed to take an assize of

^ Holinshed's Chronicle.

2 Original deed at Wrottesley, copied 1S60.

92 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

novel disseisin, which John de Tettebury and Joan, his wife,
had arraigned against Hugh de Wrottesleye and EHzabeth, his
wife, and others, touching tenements in Boterdon, Waterfal,
Grendon, Stafford and Wrottesley.' The other defendants were
John de Fulford and Ricliard de Wohuere.'

Whilst all these suits were pending, Sir Hugh was making
preparations to join the crusade, under Philip de Valois. The
Patent Roll of 8 Edward III states that Hugh de Wrottesleye,
who was about to set out on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land,
had King's letters of attorney in the names of Peter de Hoo and
Thomas de Cheyne, available for three years, with power to sue
in all Courts of England, dated 23 March." The two attornies
named were Prothonotaries of the Court of Common Pleas.

Jhe Pope, at the request of Philip de Valois, the King of
France, had preached a crusade by bull dated 3 Dec. 1331, and
the spring of 1334 had been fixed for the departure of the
crusaders. Edward, the King of England, had promised to join
the crusade, and Philip had taken an oath in 1333 to stay three
years in Syria, at the head of a French army. The crusade was
afterwards postponed, and the ships ordered to be ready in
1336, but the hostilities between France and England put a stop
to the expedition.'*

It would be tedious to give in detail all the law suits
brought by Sir Hugh against his step-father. Those in the
Westminster Courts continued for two years longer, the
latest entry respecting them being one on the Roll of Easter
term, 10 Edward III, wdiich states that the Sheriff of co.
Stafford had been ordered to proceed in person to the woods of
Wrottesleye, which John de Tettebury and Joan, his wife, held
as dower of Joan of the inheritance of Hugh de Wrottesleye,
Chivaler, and on the oath of twelve men, who had no affinity to
the parties, made diligent enquiry into the extent of the waste
and destruction caused by the said John and Joan, by cutting
down and selhng one hundred oak trees, each worth half a mark,
and to return the Inquisition at this term, and the Sheriff now
returned that the said John and Jof^n had committed waste and
destruction to the extent of £10 in the Wrottesleye woods by
cutting down eighty oak trees, and as the Sheriff did not return
a certain value for each oak he (viz. Simon de Ruggeleye) was
fined 20s., and was ordered to make another Inquisition and
return it on the Octaves of St. John de Baptist.^ Besides all

^ Rot. Pat., part ii, m. 7 dorso.

- Essoin Roll, Stafford Assizes, 8 Edward III. Richard de Wolmere was Sir
Hugh's attorney.

3 Rot. Pat. 8 Edward III, part i, m. 22.

* Sismondi's Histoire des Francjais.

' De Banco, Easter, 10 Edward III, m. 283 dorso. No further notice of this suit
occurs ou the Rolls.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 93

these law suits, Sir Hugh revived during the course of this year,
the claim upon the manor of Loynton, which had been dropt by
his father's death in 1320, but the only notice I have found
respecting it, is an entry on the De Banco Roll of 10 Edward III
which states that Hugh de Wrottesley, Chivaler, not appearing
to prosecute his claim against Roger de Levington for the
manor of Levynton, the suit was dismissed.^

In the following year, viz., in 1337, we meet with the first
notice of the feud between the families of Wrottesley and
Perton, on which depended some of the principal events in the
life of Sir Hugh. The Coram Rege Roll of Easter term,
11 Edward III (April 1337), states that Hervey le Freman of
Okene and Thomas, his son, Ralph le Freman of Okene, Henry
de Codeshall, Thomas de Wolmere, Thomas en le Hurne
of Wrottesleye, William atte Yate of Wrottesleye, Simon
Aylwyne and Roger, his son, Stephen atte Tounesende and
William, his son, Henry Benyng, Richard Benyng, Roger Benyng,
John, son of William Crej^ of Tettenhale, and many others named,
to the number altogether of twenty-nine, were attached at the
suit of Leon de Perton for breaking vi et arinis into his close
at Wyghtwyk, on the Tuesday before the Feast of the
Assumption, 10 Edward III [August 1336], and cutting and
carrying away his wheat and barle}^, rye, oats, beans and peas
to the value of £20. The defendants appeared by attorney and
denied the injury, and appealed to a jury which was to be
summoned for the following Trinity term.^ The plaintiff in this
suit \vas a younger brother of William, the lord of Perton, and
held an appointment in the King's household as " Pannetarius
Regis," or Chief Baker of the King. Nine of the defendants
were tenants of Sir Hugh de Wrottesley. This suit occurs on
the Rolls for the next three j^ears, but no jury w^as ever
empanelled to try it, and this is not to be w^ondered at, for
Wightwyke was a member of the King's manor of Tettenhall,
and on the 18th March 1337 the King had committed the
custody of this manor to Sir Hugh de Wrottesley. ■''

Shortly before this date, Roger, son of Roger atte Blakelej^e
of Wrottesley (one of Sir Hugh's tenants), had been suing in
the lords' Court of Tettenhall, Walter, son of John de Perton,
for a messuage, 16 acres of land, and an acre of meadow in
Tetenhale Regis. Walter, fearing local influence, transferred
the cause to be heard at Westminster, and a writ of right was
issued directing the suit to be recorded, and returned into the
Court of Common Pleas at Trinity term 12 Edward III. At
the latter term the Sheriff returned that he had taken witli him

1 De Banco, Mich., 10 Edward III. m. 446; dorso.

2 Coram Rege, Easter, 11 Edward III, m. 119,

3 Origiualia, 11 Edward III, m. 3,

94 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

four discreet and legal Knights of his Bailiwick, and the suitors
(sectatores), i.e., the homage of the Court had refused to make
the record, but he had, nevertheless, summoned the parties to
appear at Westminster at this term. Walter appeared by
attorney, but Roger, the plaintiff, put in no appearance, and the
suit was dismissed. The Court, however, made an order that
the Bailiff of the manor of Tettenhall Regis, in the event of
any attempt being made to injure the said Walter, should,
without delay, cause him to be restored to his lands and
compensated for the injury.^

The person whose intimidation was feared on this occasion
was, without doubt. Sir Hugh de Wrottesley ; the latter had
obtained the custody of the King's manor on the 18 March
1337, for which he was to pay 100s. annually into the
Exchequer. At Michaelmas term, 12 Edward III, he paid
53s. lOd., and was debited on the Pipe Roll for the balance.^ In
the same year the King granted the manor in fee to Sir Henry
de Ferrers, the Baron of Groby.^

Another member of the Perton family having been nearly
beaten to death during these proceedings, the King issued the
following special commission on the 7 October 1337. By
letters patent of that date, William de Shareshulle, Roger de
Swynnerton, and Roger Hillary were appointed to hear and
determine the complaint of John de Perton, that Hugh de
Wrottesleye, Chivaler, and Roger, his brother, Richard de
Ove3^oteshay, and Thomas, his son, John de Foulford, and
Ralph, his brother, Adam de Hocleye, William, son of Geoffrey
atte Gatacre, Thomas Crey of Cumpton, John Leg, Richard
Kempe, John Russell, Thomas, son of Thomas Crey, William,
brother of Thomas, son of Thomas, Roger Stevens of Wrot-
tesleye, and Stephen atte Tounesende of Wrottesleye, and
certain other malefactors and disturbers of the King's peace,
had assaulted tlie said John de Perton at Totenhalehome, and
beaten, and wounded him, so that his life was despaired of, and
had assaulted his men and servants at the same place, and
committed other enormities to the grievous damage of the same
John, and against the King's peace.* This John de Perton was
brother of Leon, the plaintiff in the suit of Easter term,
11 Edward III, and on his death, which resulted from these
injuries shortly afterwards, another special commission was
issued, dated the 20th February following, addressed to Roger
de Swynnerton, William de Shareshull, WiUiam Trussell, Roger
Hillary, Tliomas de Halghton, and Richard de Peshale,
appointing five or four, three or two of them, of whom either

^ De Banco Trinity, 12 Edward III, m. .59 dorso.

- Pipe Rol), Staffordshire, 12 Edward III.

2 Originalia, 12 Edward III.

* liot. Pat., 11 Edward III, part 3, m. 30 dorso.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 95

William de Shareshull or Roger Hillary should be one^ to
enquire on the oath of honest and legal men of county Stafford,
what malefactors and disturbers of the peace had feloniously
killed John de Perton at Tetenhalehome, and by whose
procurement the same had been done, and what persons had
knowingly received the said malefactors afterwards, and to hear
and determine the said felony according to the law and custom
of the Kingdom. "-

It must have been in connection with these events that Sir
Hugh executed two deeds which were formerly at Wrottesley.
By the first of them, which was dated on the Thursday after the
Feast of St. Ambrose, 11 Edward HI [3 April 1337], he
enfeoffed his cousin, William de Wrottesley, and another in the
manor of Wrottesley ; and, tv/o days afterwards, by another
deed, he mortgaged all his lands at Butterton and elsewhere on
the moors for a sum of £20 to his father-in-law. Sir John de
Hampton, the said sum to be repaid at Elderstoke [Oldstoke in
Hampshire] on the following Octaves of St. John the Baptist
(1 July 1337).

Being thus furnished with the sinews of war, he set out to join
the English forces in Scotland, taking with him all those
implicated in the attack upon John de Perton.

By a writ dated from Thame on the 12th November 1337,
letters of protection were granted to the following, who were
about to set out on the King's service to Scotland in the retinue of
William de Montagu, Earl of Salisbury, viz., John Russell, Roger
Stevens of Wrottesleye, William, son of Geoffrey atte Gatacre,
Richard Kemp, John de Foulford, Thomas Grey of Cumpton,
Hugh de Wrottesleye, John Leg, Ralph de Foulford, Thomas,
son of Thomas Grey, Richard de Ovyhetteshaye, William, son of
Thomas Grey the elder, Adam de Hocleye, lliomas, son of
Richard de Ovyhetteshaye, and Stephen atte Touneshende of
Wrottesleye.

The close coincidence of these names with those mentioned in
the commission of 7 October 1337, proves that Sir Hugh had
obtained private intimation from some person in authority, of
the issue of the commission, and of the names of those against
whom the plaint of John de Perton had been lodged, and this
person, I suspect, could have been no other than Sir William de
Shareshulle, the Ghief Justice, who was Sir Hugh's nearest
neighbour, and with whom, at this time, he was on excellent
terms. ^

^ These were the professional judges.

2 Rot. Pat., 12 Edward III, part i, m. 33 dorso.

3 By deed dated from Patshull on the Thursday after the Feast of St. Cedde.
10 Edward III, Sir Hugh exchanged tlie Patshull mill for a mill called Trillemulne
in Orton with Sir William de Shareshull ; the former mill being much the more
valuable of the two. [Original deed at Wrottesley].

96 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Holinshed's Scottish Chronicle gives the following account of
the operations of the English forces in Scotland during this
year; under the date of 1837 it states that "about the same
time Sir William IMontacute, Earl of Salisburie, togither with
the Earl of Arundell, came into Scotland with a great power of
men, and besieged the Castell of Dunbar, lieng at the same for
the space of 22 weeks [at which battell also was King Edward,
the Earl of Gloucester, the Lords Percie and Nevill] being in
the yeare 1387 as saith Scala Chronicle. Within the said
Castell was the Countesse hirselfe, surnamed Blacke Agnes of
Dunbar, who shewed such manlie defence, that no gain was to
be got anie waies forth at hir hand, so that in the end they were
constrained to raise their siege and to depart without speed of
their purpose. It is said that this Countesse used manie
pleasant words in jesting and tawnting at the enimies doings,
thereb}' the more to incourage hir souldiers.

" One day it chanced that the Englishmen had devised an
engine call a sow" under the pentise or covert whereof they
might approach safelie to the walls. She beholding this engine
merilie said, that unless the Englishmen kept their sow the
better, she would make her cast hir pigs, and so she soon after
destroied it."

The English Chronicle of Holinshed, describing the same
events says : —

" This siege began even in the beginning of the 12th yeare
of King Edward's reigne and continued for the space of
nineteene weeks with small gaine and lesse honour to the
Englishmen, in so much that the same brake up under a colour
of a truce, when there was no hope of winning the place, and
the noblemen that laie there at siege, hasted to make an end of
it, that they might attend the King in his iournie over into
Brabant." ^ J

On the 7th June 1338 the two Earls raised the siege, and
retired to Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Edward III had now decided to assert his claim to the throne
of France by force of arms, and, having made alliances with the
German Emperor, the Duke of Brabant, and other Powers, had
levied considerable forces for operations in the Low Countries
and north-east provinces of France. All the counties of England
as far north as Warwickshire were summoned to arms by writs
dated 26 February and 1 March 1338, and the rendezvous of the
expedition had been fixed at Great Yarmouth, Ipswich, and
Orwell in Suffolk.

On the 10 July 1338 the following letters of protection were
granted to William de Montagu, who was about to proceed
abroad in the King's service, and to the following who were of
his retinue. Dated by the King from Walton.

WROTTKRT.KY OF WROTTKSLRY. 97

Robert de Burton, William Waloys,

John Mnrdak, Thomas Pecche,

Robert de Barton, John de VVhj^tchurch,

William de Molyns, Thomas Crey le fitz,

John de Coupeland, Robert de Neville,

Hanry Peverel, Robert de Litthibury,

Roger de Wrottesle, John Avenel,

Hugh de Wrottesle, Thomas Wale,

Nicholas de Halughton, Peter Malorri,

John de Stapleton Philip de Budif'ort,

Thomas West.^

Many of these names became eminent in future years.
Thomas West and Robert de Neville served as Bannerets at
Crecy,- and John de Copeland was the Es([uire who took
David, King of Scots, prisoner at the battle of Neville's Cross,
and was afterwards promoted to the rank of Banneret. Most
of the others named were at Crecy, and Sir Hugh de Wrottesley
and Sir Thomas Wale were numliered amongst the original
Knights of the Garter.

John de Wlwtchurch and Thomas Crey occur frequently in
connection with Sir Hugh, and probably served as his archers in
this expedition. Every man-at-arms brought into the field a
mounted archer, and Roger de Wrottesley would be serving as
an esquire or man-at-arms in Sir Hugh's suite. By the usual
indentures of service each knight had to provide six horses, an
esquire tlu'ee or four, and an archer one. The archers, who
formed part of a knight's retinue, were invariably mounted,
and must not be confounded with the archers supplied by the
counties or towns, who served on foot. The former are styled
on the Rolls, " Sagittarii equites," and were often men of good
birth, the younger sons of knightly families.^

Another entry on the Aleman Roll of 12 Edward III, under
date of 21 July, states that Roger de W^rottesley and Hugh de
Wrottesley, who were in the King's service abroad, had letters
of general attorney under the names of Richard de Ovyoteshay
and William in the Lane of Hampton.

The King set sail on the 16 July and landed at Antwerp a
few days afterwards. His allies, however, were not ready to
take the field, and the English forces were distributed in the
towns of Antwerp, Brussels, Malines and other places. Some
desultory operations took place on the frontier, and Sir Walter
de Mauny, who had made a vow that he would be the first to
enter the French territory, collected about forty lances ("de bons

' Alernan Hull, 12 Edward III, part i, m. 6.
- " C'leey and Calais," by the present writer.

" Military service )ierf(jrined by Staffordshire tenants in the thirteenth and
fourteenth centuries, vols viii ind xiv, William Salt Series,

08 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

compafjjnoiis et hardis," as Froissart styles them) and surprised
the Castles of Tliun I'Evesque. This took phice in the autumn
of 1338.

It is not unlikely that Sir Hu<j;h was one of the " bons
compa;j;nons et hardis " of Sir Walter on this occasion, for
on the 23 November followino-, the King, in consideration
of the good service performed by Sir Hugh de Wrottesley
in parts beyond the seas, granted him a full pardon for the
death of John de Perton. ])ated as abo\'e from Antwerp and
signed " per ipswm Regeon.''^^

The English army remained inactive in the neighbourhood of
Rfalines and Brussels till the summer of 1339, when the King
cri^sscd the frontier with his allies and laid waste the French
territory as far as Peronne and St. Quintin. The French and
English armies met in the neighbourhood of Vironfosse, but the
French King refused battle, and the English had eventuall}^ to
retire tln-ough want of provisions. In Februar^^ 1340, the King
returned to England, leaving behind him the Queen and his
cousin, Henry of Lancaster, as sureties for his return, and for
the payment of an immense debt in which his military operations
had involved him.

The Earl of Salisbury, who was Marshal of the Army,
remained abroad in command of the troops, but having
incautiously attempted to join Van Artevelde by cross roads,
with a small body of men, was taken prisoner with most of his
retiime by a detachment from the garris(m of Lille. This took
place, according to Froissart, in the summer of 1340.

In the meantime, the King, having collected fresh forces in
England, set sail from Orwell on the 16 June, and defeated the
Fr(_'nch Navy, which had been sent to intercept him ofi* Sluys on
the 24 June. He afterwards landed his troops and laid siege to
Tournay, but a truce was concluded with the French on the
25 September. By a writ dated 30 September 1340, the King
authorized Sir John Pulteney to export IGO sacks of wool to be
sent to Bruges for the ransom of William, Earl of Salisbury.-'

On obtaining his ])ardon for the death of John de Perton in
the autumn of 1338, Sir Hugh de Wrottesley appears to have
ri'turn(;d to England, and to have attempted to collect the rents
of Wrottesley', which had been mortgaged to his father-in-law
Sir John de Hampton. At the Assizes held at Lichfield, at
Easter, 13 Edward III (April 1339), John de Hampton sued
Hugh de Wrottesle3'e and William de Wrottesleye for unjustly

' Antwerp Patent Roll, 12 Edward III, m. 3. The Great Seal had not accom-
panied the King abroad, and, in 13.'.2, when Sir Hugh wished to produce this pardon
in the Courts at Westminster, it was renewed under the Great Seal, with thi.s note
n the margin of the lioll, " Innovata qiiia alia fuit consiipiata per imtini Jieqem."

' Close Roll, 14 Edward III.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 99

disseising him of the manor of Wrottesloye, and obtained m.
verdict in his favour witli 100/s. damages.^

Upon liis faihn-e to collect the rents of Wrottesley and with
all his other estates fully mortgaged,'^ Sir Hugh must have been
at this time in dire straights for want of money to enable him
to rejoin the King in Flanders, and the method he took to
extricate himself from his difficulty does credit to his ingenuity,
if not to his honesty. Parliament had granted to the King for
the expenses of the expedition 20,000 sacks of wool, and these
were to be collected by the King's officers taking one sack out
of every two produced in the country, until the whole amount
had been raised. Such a system of collection would naturally
lead to the concealment of the wool in the possession of
individuals, and in the previous year the King had issued a
writ to the Sheriffs, Mayors and Bailiffs of Oxfordshire and
Staffordshire, stating that he had been informed that many men
of those counties had concealed their wool, half of which had
been granted to him by Parliament, and he had therefore
appointed John de Mynors, Sergeant-at-Arms, to make enquiry
into the matter, and' to seize all the wool which had been
so concealed.'^

Sir Hugh appears to have taken advantage of this state
of affairs to confiscate to his own use 27 1 sacks of wool
which had been kept back by the Wrottesley tenants. These
he carried off* to Ipswich and from tlience to the Low Countries,
smuggling them out of the countrj^ in such a way that he
neither paid the customs due on the export of wool, nor the
subsidy owing to the Crown.

The Staffordshire Pipe Roll of 15 Edward III has the
following entry respecting this transaction : — " Hugh de
Wrotteslej^e owes £55 for the customs and subsidy on twenty-
seven and a half sacks of wool exported (eductis) from Gippewic
in 13 Edward III, as was shewn on the ' compotus ' of John
de Preston and Richard de Leyham, the Collectors of the
Customs and Subsidy at that port." This debt is charged against
Sir Hugh on the Pipe Rolls for several years, but was sub-
sequently remitted by the King. The Staffordshire Pipe Roll of
22 Edward III, after mentioning a debt owing by Sir Hugh for
the manor of Tettenhall, says : —

Idem Hugo (de Wrottesleye) reddit conipotum de Iv li. de custuina
et sub.sidio xxvii saccoruin lane ipsius Hugonis, eductis de portu
Gippewic anno xiii ibidem et in Rcitulo xiiij" in 8ult)piii et Rotulo

' StafforcLshire Assize Roll, 13 Edward III.

" On the 22nd January 1339 he liad raised a sum of £123 6s. Sd. on the .security
of his lands by a Statute Merchant at Shrewsbury. De Banco HoU, 14 Edward 111,
m. 284.

■' Almain Roll, 12 Edward III, under date of 24 June.

100 HISTORY OF THK FAMILY OF

xv° In tliesumo iiichil. Et i?i pi^rdonatione eideiii Plu^oni de gratia
Regis sp(viali Ivli. per breve llegis d(> privato sigillo irrotulatum in
inemoraiida de anno xxv in tennino INIicliaelis. Et (|uietu.s est.

On his return to Enoland at the end of HVM) Sir Hugh
proceeded to expel his stei)rather and mother from tlie lands at
Butterton, which they held under the marriage settlement of
1313. This he effected by a writ of novel disseisin, which was
heard at Wolverhampton before William de ShareshuU and his
fellow Justices of Assize on the Friday, the Morrow of St.
Katherine the Virgin, 13 Edward III [26 Nov. i:]39].

The Record states that an Assize was summoned to return a
verdict whether John de Tettebury and Joan, his wife, and
William, son of William Barre, of Albryghton, luid unjustly
disseised Hugh de Wrottesleye, Chivaler, of a messuage, six
acres of meadow, ten acres of wood, forty acres of pasture and
13s. of rent in Boterdon, Grendon and Waterfall.

William Barre stated he held nothing in the tenements, and
John de Tettebury pleaded that he found his wife, Joan, seised
of the tenements, and John and Joan jointly pleaded that the
tenements were formerly in the seisin of one William de
Wrottesley, the grandfather of the said Hugh, and whose heir
he was, and William had given them by his deed to William, his
son, the father of Hugh, and to the said Joan, then wife of
William, son of William, and which Joan was now wife of John
de Tettebury, and to the heirs of their bodies, and failing such,
to his own right heirs, and they produced the deed of William
de Wrottesley to that effect. Hugh replied that William, his
grandfather, had never delivered seisin of the tenements to
William, his father, and to Joan, but had retained his status in
them all his life, and had died seised of them in demesne as of
fee, and after his death the said William, son of William, had
entered as son and heir, and had died seised of them, and after
the death of William, son of William, he had entered as son
and heir. The jury found in favour of Hugh de Wrottesle}'',
and assessed his damages at six marks. ^

It is difficult to understand the reason of this verdict : for
under the provisions of the deed of 1313, Joan was clearly
entitled to hold the tenements for her life. It is possible there
may have been some technical informality in not delivering
seisin of the tenements to William and Joan in 1313, but from
what we know of the character of Sir William de ShareshuU, it
is quite as probable that the verdict was due to the partiality of
the judge.

Between this date and the renewal of the war with France in
1342, there is little of interest to record respecting Sir Hugh. On

' Assize Roll, Stnffnnishire, 8-13 Kdwanl IIT, m. M rlorso.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 101

the 10 October 1341, a special commission was issued by the King,
addressed to Sir Jolm de Sutton (the Baron of Dudley), Sir
Hugh de Wrotteslej^ and Sir Adam de Chetwynde, commanding
them to arrest divers persons named and commit them to prison
for an attempt to subvert the King's privileges connected with
the collation of Louis de Cherleton to the Prebend of Codsall, of
the King's Free Chapel of Tettenhall. The principal persons
ordered to be arrested under this writ were the Prior of
Sand well, Edmund, the Prior's Priest, William, the Mercer of
Birmingham, three of his sons, and Robert, the Parson of the
Church of Birmingham.^

Early in the year 1342, Sir Hugh revived again his claim upon
the manor of Loynton. His father had proceeded by writ of
entry, a hopeless measure, for the tenant at Loynton could easily
prove that his ancestors were in seisin of the manor anterior to
5 Henry III, which was the limit of time for this description of
action. The writ now issued by Sir Hugh assumed that the
tenant at Loynton was liis Bailili', and liable to render an
account of the issues of it. On the Roll of Hillary Term, 15-16
Edward III, in Banco, the essoin (i.e. the representative) of
Hugh de Wrottesieye appeared against Roger de Levinton in a
plea that he should render a reasonable account for the time he
was the receiver of the money of the said Hugh. Roger did not
appear, and the Sheriff was ordered to attach him for the Quin-
dene of Holy Trinity. No further entry respecting this suit has
been found on the Rolls, and it was probably suspended by the
outbreak of hostilities between the French and English, and the
departure of Sir Hugh for Brittany in April of this year.

The cause of the renewal of the war between the French and
English was the dispute respecting the succession to the Duchy
of Brittany. The truce between the two countries would not
expire till June 1342, but Charles de Blois, one of the claimants
to the Duchy, having obtained possession of Nantes by surprise,
and taken prisoner his rival, John de Montford, an English force
under the command of Sir Walter de Mauny sailed in April to the
relief of Hennebon, to which Joan de Montfort, the wife of John,
had retired with her infant son, and which was closely invested
by the forces under Charles de Blois. The story of the defence
of Hennebon by Joan de Montfort, and its relief by Sir Walter
de Mauny will be found in all the histories of the period ; but
Froissart's account of the reception by Joan of her English allies
is worth transcribing.

The terms of the capitulation had been already arranged when
the English fleet was descried upon the horizon. All thoughts
of ^ surrender were at once abandoned, and the forces under de

' Patent Roll, 15 Edward III, part 2, m. 21, dorso.

102 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Mauiiy liaviu<,f landed and dispersed the French besiegers, were
able to connnunicate with the <^arrison. ' " Adonc," says
Froissart, " vit hi Conitesse descendre du chatel a grand chere et
baiser niessire Gautier de Manny et ses conipagnons les uns
apres les antres deux ou trois i'ois, bien put dire ((ue c'etoit una
vailiante dame."

One of Sir Walter's companions on this occasion was Kalph,
the Baron of Statiord, and he liad in his retiinie the following
Statibrdsliire knights : Philip de Chetwynde, Henry de Cress-
well, John Hastang, John de Weston, John de Sutton, James de
Pyj)e. John de Stafford, Walter de Stafford, Jolni de Mokeleston,
and Hugh de Wrottesleye.'

By close writ dated 25 January, 16 Edward III, fifty-seven
sacks of wool, of the value of £8 each, were granted to Ralph,
Lord Stafford, for the maintenance of fifty men-at-arms in the
King's service, of which two were Bannerets, sixteen were
Knights, and thirty-one Esquires ; a Banneret to receive 4/s per
diem, a Knight 2/s and an Escjuier 1 's. The two Bannerets
would be John de Sutton, of Dudley, and John Hastang, of
Chebbesey.

On the 5 October 1842, the King sailed from Sandwicli with
an army of about 12,000 men, and having joined his forces with
those under de Mauny, besieged the three towns of Rennes,
Vannes and Nantes. Walter de Manny's force formed a part of
the army which invested Vannes, and it was during this siege
that Lord Stafford and a portion of his retinue were taken
prisont-rs, under circumstances very characteristic of the style of
warfare then in vogue.

The Earls of Warwick and Arundel, the Baron of Stafford,
and Walter de Mauny, with a view of defj'ing the French
garrison, advanced up to the barriers of the town, planted their
standards in the ground, and then withdrew out of the range of
the enemies' missiles. Li answer to this defiance, the French
opened wide the gates of the town, and then advanced to take
the standards. Then, says Froissart, " La eut fait tant de belles
appertises d'armes que merveille serait a raconter, car les Anglais
qui veoient la porte ouverte, le tenoient a grand depit." During
the skirmish which ensued, the Baron of Stafford forced his way
beyond the outer barriers, and being enclosed between tliem and
tlic town gates, was taken prisoner with a portion of his retinue.

The French and English armies remained in presence of one
another for the greater part of the winter of 1342-43, when
Clement VI, who had been recently elected Pope, sent two
Cardinals to negotiate a peace between them.

On the 19 January 1343 a truce was concluded to last till
Michaelmas, during which negotiations for a permanent peace

' Freuch Holl, 16 Edward III, m. ai.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 103

were to be carried on Ijefore the Pope at Avignon. The King
returned to England in the following March, leaving William de
Bohun, Earl of Northampton, in command of the troops left
behind in Brittany.

The truce was badly kept by Ijotli sides ; one of the
conditions of it stipulated for the release of John de Montfort,
but the French King retained him a prisoner against the
expostulations both of the Pope and of King Edward. The
English retaliated by a raid upon the French, in which the
principal actor appears to have been Sir Hugh de Wrottesley.

The Pope writes to the King from Avignon in October 1343,
stating that it had been notified to him that whereas the
Bishops of Penestre and Tusculum, the nuncios of the Holy
See, had taken mutual pledges from both parties, and the truce
was pending and in force ; a nobleman, named Ralph de
Montfort, and others who were with him in the army of the
King of France, had been seized in their beds by one named
Hugh de Wrotelesse, with other armed men of the retinue of
the Earl of Narantune (Northampton) and had been taken
captive to the said Earl, who still detained them as prisoners,
and had subjected them to various losses and injuries to their
persons and effects, even to the extent of depriving them of a
considerable sum of money in gold.^

The King answered under date of the 29 November, from
Westminster, that he had always observed the truce in good
faith, even when the other party had not done so, and he had
even complained in the presence of the Royal Legates that the
French had violated the truce, and he therefore prayed the
Pope to interpose with the other side for the more efficient
maintenance of it.

The real history of the transaction seems to be that the
English, upon hearing of the presence of a de Montfort with
the French army, had assumed that it was John de Montfort,
the competitor to the Duchy of Brittany, who had been detained
a prisoner by the French against the stipulations of the truce,
and Sir Hugh Wrottesley had been sent by the Earl of
Northampton to effect his release by force or stratagem.

On the conclusion of the truce between the two nations on
the 19 January 1343, mutual exchanges of prisoners had taken
place. Ralph, Lord Stafibrd, was one of those who were
liberated on this occasion, and with him were released all those
of his retinue who could obtain an exchange or purchase their
liberty by a ransom. Sir Hugh de Wrottesley was apparently
in England in September of this year, for on the 22nd of that

' Papal Letters (printed), Record Series. The letter also appears in Rymer, who
has printed the name Wrocelesse, the " c " and " t " being indistinguishable in ancient
handwriting.

104 HI.STOKY OK THK FAMILY OK

iiioiitli l^co (le IV-rton roniittcd to liiiii all liis claim to the mill of
Wi^litwyke' and otlu'V lands and tL-ncinc'iits lield by Sir Hu<j;li in
'IVtrnliale and Wi<j;litwykc. On the 15 Dccendjer followin'j,
NN'illiam de Htrctton likewise released to Sir Huj^h for his life
all claim to a mill and lands in Wi<^ditwyke.' These deeds
bronnrht to a close the first staj^e of the dispute between Sir Huii,h
and the Perton family respectinfj the above lands and mill, l)ut
it will be seen later on that Sir Hu^h in 1855 obtained a
pardon under the Great Seal for the death of Thomas de
Strettou, who was a son of the abovenanied William. '

It has been shewn that on Sir Hugh's departure to join the
Kin*^ in Flanders in 1888, he had borrowed a very larj^e sum of
mone\' under a Statute Merchant at Shrewsbury,-' wliich was to
be re))aid within the followirifr six months. The deljt had not
been repaid at Michaelmas 1842, for at the Michaelmas sittint^s
in Banco of that year, a writ of " scire facias '' was issued to
levy the debt on Sir Huj^h's property.^ It will give the reader
an idea of the heavy indebtedness of Sir Huoh at this date,
when it is stated that this sum represented six times the annual
value of Wrottesle}^, but notwithstanding this, we find the
whole debt to have been liquidated very shortly after the return
of Sir Hugh to England at the end of 1848. The deeds at
Wrottesley shew that on the 5 October 1842, John, the son of
Walter Geffrey, of Salop (a rich burgess of Salop, who had
advanced the money), had mortgaged all the lands and
tenements in Roterdon, Grendon and Waterfall, which he held
by feoffhient of Sir Hugh Wrottesley to Adam de Peshale, for a
sum of eighty marks, and Adam, on the 12 January 1344,
conveyed to Sir Hugh all the lands and tenements in Boturdon,
Grendon and Waterfall, which he held by feoffment of John,
son of Walter Geffrey, of Salop, and on the same day Sir Hugh
gave a power of attorney to Eichard de Wollemere to take
possession of them.^

The manor of Wrottesley at this date was in the hands of
Sir John de Hampton, held as security for another advance
of money, and other lands belonging to Sir Hugh were in
possession of John de Sutton, the Baron of Dudley ; but in
October 1344, the latter released to Sir Hugh, by deed, all the
lands and tenements which he hel«l by grant of Sir Hugh in
Tetenliale and Bysschebury (Bushbury),'^ and as Hugh, about

' Original deeds at Wrottesley, coj.ied 18(50-62.

2 Patent Roll, 29 Kdward III, part i, m. 20.

^ A Statute Merchant was a debt acknowledged in the presence of ])ublic
authoi-ities, specially deputed to receive acknowledgments of debts under the
Statute of Acton Burnel, passed in the reign of Edward I.

•* De Banco, Mich., 16 Edward III, m. 134, dorso.

' Copies of Butterton deeds, formerly at Wrottesley, 1860.

^ Original deed at Wrottesley, copied 1860-62.

WRUTTK8LKY OF WRUTTE8I.KY. 105

the same date, rc-obtained possession of Wrottesley, all these
debts had been repaid before the end of October 1844, and
there seems no doubt that Sir Hiioh had redeemed his bond and
his lands by money which he obtained thr(»ui;h tlie ransom of
his French prisoners.

At Easter term of 1345, Sir Huo;h appears as ])laintit1 in three
suits in Banco,* but the only one of any interest is a suit by
which he attempted to recover possession of two of his female
villeins, who had absconded. These were A^nes, daughter of
William in le Stones, and Joan, her sister. The defendants did
not appear, and the Sheriff was ordered to attach them for a
day in Michaelmas term. This suit remains on the tiles of the
Court for the following three years, the Sheriff at every
adjournment returning; that the defendants could not be found
and held no goods or chattels within his Bailiwick by which
the}'' could be attached ; but testimony was at length given on
behalf of Sir Hugh, at Michaelmas term 22 Edward III, that
they held sufficient property for the purpose.- The Sheriff was
therefore ordered again to distrain and produce them on the
Quindene of St. Hillary. The probability is that one of the
sisters had married a freeman and had taken refuge within a
chartered town, where Sir Hugh could not arrest them, except
under process of law. If this was the case, the real object of
the suit would be to recover the tine due to the lord, on the
marriage of a female villein. The suit does not occur again,
and it was probably terminated by the outbreak of the Great
Pestilence of 1349. The surname of the sisters is of some
interest when taken in connection with Dr. Plot's description of
the large roughly-hewn blocks of stones formerly in the old
Park of Wrottesley, which he considered to be the remains of
an ancient Roman or British city.

Hostilities between the French and English broke out again
in 1345. The Earl of Lancaster was sent to Guienne in
command of a large body of men-at-arms and archers ; and by
a writ dated the 24 April, the King appointed William de
Bohun, the Earl of Northampton, his ca/pitaneus in France and
the Duchy of Brittany, with instructions formally to def}^ the
French King, who was unjustly occupying the throne of France,
and who had violated the truce and refused all redress.

In July 1346 the King set sail from Portsmouth, with a view
of joining the Earl of Lancaster in Guienne. On the third day,
however, the wind changed to the south-west, and threw his
fleet back on the coast of Cornv/all, where they laid at anchor
for six days, waiting for a favourable change. As no cliange of

' Staffordshire Collections, vol xii, p- 39

^ De Bauco, Mich. 22 Edward III, iii. 4'20, dorso, and Staff. Coll., vol. xii, p. 89,

lOG HISTUHV OF THK FAMILY OF

winil occurred, the Kiiit^- was jjersuadod by (Jodl'n^yde Harcourt,
a Fivncli reiu^cu iii his sei'vice, to land his troops in Normandy,
and he sailed for La Hogue in the Cotentin, which hereaclied on the
12 July. The province was defenceless, the French forces having
been concentrated in the South to oppose the Earl of Lancaster.
An attem])t to stop his progress was made by the Constable of
France and the Earl of Tankerville at Caen, but the town was
taken by assault, and the Constable and the Earl, with sixty
knights and 800 of the most opulent citizens were taken
prisoners and conveyed to England by the Fleet. Up to this
point the King had followed the coast line and been accompanied
by his Fleet. From Caen he struck into the interior, and took
the road to Paris, his light troops penetrating as far as the
suburbs, and burning the towns of St. Germain, St. Cloud, and
Hourg la Keine. He passed the Seine at Poissy, near Versailles,
by a stratageui, his workmen repairing the bridge, during the
absence of the main body of the enemy, and under cover of the
fire of his archers. From this point he moved in the direction of
Calais, passing the Somme at a ford near its mouth at low
tide. On the 28 August he halted at Crecy, in a strong position,
liaving the forest of Crecy on his left flank and rear. Here he
rested for twenty-four hours, for the purpose of resting his
troops and collecting all his stragglers. On the 26 August the
French King attacked him with a greatly superior force, but
was completely defeated, losing the greater part of his army.
On the 1 September the King resumed his march and invested
Calais on the 8rd

Throughout all these operations. Sir Hugh served in the
retinue of Edward the Black Prince, ^ who having completed
his si.\teenth year, had been knighted by the King on the
disembarkation of the army at La Hogue, and to wdiom had
been assigned the nominal command of the First Division or
van of the army. To this Division were appointed a number
of Bannerets and Knights of approved value and experience in
war, as well as all the young bachelor Knights who received
Knighthood at the same time as the Prince. Froissart, in
describing the Prince's Division, states he had in his retinue
" tou.te l(L jiewr de chevalerie (V Angleterre.-

The story of Crecy is in fact the story of the Prince's
division, for the whole brunt of the battle fell upon this
portion of the army. The French men-at-arms dispersed the

' Memoranda lioll, Queeu'.s Itemcmbrancer, 25 Edward III. Writs uf Michaelmas
Term, m. 2.

- Fr()i.s.s:irt's Chronicle ; Writs on the Memoranda Rolls of the Queen's Remem-
brancer, and " Crecy and Calais " by the present writer. Sir Hugh Wrottesley at
tiiis date was thirty-two years of age ; as he was not in the retinue of any of the
Earls or Barons of the Prince's Division, he must have been attached to the person
of the Prince himself.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 107

English archers, who were in front ol" the Prince's column, and
tlirew themselves with great gallantry and ini])etuosity on the
English knights and men-at-arms in rear. These had been
dismounted and fought on foot. Froissart says of this part
of the battle : " Si y eut aucuns chevaliers et ecityers francois
et de leur cote, tant allemands coinmie Savoisiens qui par
force darmes rompirent la hataille des archers du Prince
et vinrent jusque aux gens darmes comhatre aux epees main
a main moult vaillamment, et Id eut fait plusieurs grands
appertises d'armes, et y furent, du coi4 des anglois tres hons
chevaliers, messire Regnault de Gohehcn (CohJium) et messire ¥
Jean Chandos, et aussi furent plusiewrs autres lesquels je
ne puis mie tows nommer, car la delez le Prince, etoit toute
Jleur de chevalcrie d'angleterre.^^

The danger appeared so great at this moment that De Bohun,
the Earl of Northampton, who co]nmande«l the Second Division,
sent a portion of it to support the Prince, and Sir Thomas de
Norwich, a Knight of the Prince's retinue, was sent to the King
to ask for aid.

Froissart's account of this episode leaves so vivid an impres-
sion of the scene that it is worth transcribing in full : " The
Knight when he reached the King said, Monseigneur, the Earls
of Warwick and Kenfort (Oxford) and the Lord Keginald de
Cobham, who are with the Prince your son, are very hard
pressed by the French, and pray that you will come to their
assistance, for if the efforts now made by the enemy increase
in force, they doubt whether they can withstand them." The
King then spoke and asked the Knight, who was called
Sir Thomas de Norwich, " Sir Thomas, is my son dead or
thrown down (aterre) or wounded ? " " No, Monseigneur," he
answered, " if it please God, but he is very hard pressed
(en dure parte d'armes) and would be very glad of your assist-
ance." " Monsieur Thomas," said the King, '' go back to him
and to those who have sent you and tell them, from me, that
they must not send to me for help so long as my son is alive,
and tell them, that they must permit the boy to Vv^in his spurs
(quils laissent a I'enfant gagner ses eperons) for I wish, if the
day is won, that the honour should belong to him, and to those
in whose charge I have placed him."

The writ which proves that Sir Hugh Wrottesley was in the
Prince's retinue at Crecy was issued in 26 Edward III in
order to exonerate him from a sum assessed upon his lands for
hobelars and archers in Staffordshire. It runs as follows : —

Rex etc Thesaurario et Baronibus suis de Scaccario salutem. Quia
Hugo de Wrottesle Chivaler cum carissimo filio nostro Edwardo
Principe Walhe in obsequium nostrum apud Hogges in Normannia
applicuit et in eodem obsequio nostro tarn in obsidione ville nostra

108 HISTORY OK THE FAMILY OF

Calcsif (luam alibi in luutihus Francie iistjuc regi-essum iiostruiu in
Annlii' c'ontiniit' niorabatur, sicut nobis bene constat, Vobis niandanius
(juod (K'niando i|U(' t'idcni Hiii^dnr dc dcccin iiiaicis ad (juas pro
I'xjti'iisis (|u<»i-iuidrni Hobcluriorinn et Sagittarioruin pro dicto obsequio
nostro iiivcniondoiuni rutione terrarum et tenemcntoi'uni suorum in
C(»niitatu Stafl'ordie asscssus fuit, per sumraonitionem Scaccurii pre-
dicti, fieri faciatis supersederi, et ipsuni inde ad idem Scaccariuni
proiit justuin fuerit exonerari et <|iuetuni esse facere, et districtionem
si (|iia.ni ea occasione fieri feccritis sine dilatione relaxari faciatis
eifleni. Teste me ipso apud Westmonasterium secundo die Octobris
anno regni nostri Anglie vicesimo sexto, regni vero nostri Francie
tertio decimo.

Hoc breve allocatur in Magno Ilotido de ainio \xv in Staft'ord-
scira.'

The Ma<^nus Rotulus, i.e. the Pipe Roll, states under Stafford-
shire : —

Hugo de Wrottesleye miles debet x marcas super ipsum assessas pro
uno lioniine ad arma in llotulo de assessis facto super domini(;is anno
XX sed non debet inde summoneri, per breve Regis irrotulatum in
memoranda de anno xxvii Regis hujus termino Michaelis.

An order in Council of 1344 or 1345 had enacted that all who
held 100s. or 10 marks' worth of land were to provide an archer,
those who had £10 or 20 marks of land, to provide a hobelar,
those who had £20 of land to provide two hobelars, those who
had £25 of land to provide a man-at-arms, those of £30 of land
a man-at-arms, and an archer, those of £40 a man-at-arms, a
hobelar, and an archer, those of £50 two men-at-arms, and
others in the same proportion. -

Calais surrendered on the 4 Au(;-ust 1347, and the King
returned to Ent^land on the 14 October. The following year
Avas signalized by the institution of the famous Order of the
Garter. After the account which has been given of the part
played at Crecy by the division of the Prince of Wales, it will
not surprise the reader to find more than one half of the
original Knights were chosen from the retinue of the Black
Prince upon this occasion. These were :—
Thomas, Earl of Warwick, Sir John Chandos,

Sir William de Montagu, Sir Bartholomew de Burghcrsh,

Sir Roger de Mortimer, Sir Richard fitz Simon,

John, Lord Mohun, Sir Walter Pavcley,

John, Lord Grey of Rotherfield, Sir Thomas Wale,
Sir James Audley, Sir Thomas Holland, and

Sir Hugh de Wrottesley, Sir Otho Holland.

' Memoranda Roll Queen'.s Renienibrancer, 27 Edward III. Writs of Michaelmas
term. It was not enrolled until a twelvemonth had elapsed from the date of it.

2 French Koll, 20 Edward III, part i, m. 35. The Coinrai.ssioner.s for this array
were appointed in 18 Edward III, Vide Patent Roll, J 8 Edward III.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 109

The other Kiiiolits, in addition to the Kin^i; and the Prince; of
Wales, wore : —

Henry, Earl of Lancaster, Sir Hugh de Courtenay,

Piers de Grailly, Captal de Sir Miles de Stapleton,

Biich, Sir Sanchio Dabrigecourt,

John, Lord de Lisle, " Sir Niel Loryng, and

John, Lord Beauchamp, Sir Henry Eani of Brabant.^

Ralph, Lord Stafford,

In the following year, viz., about May 1349, a pestilence,
known as the Black Death, and which was more deadly in its
effects than any other recorded in history, broke out in England
and lasted till the f(illowing September. There is reason to
believe, from an inspection of the Clergy Rolls, that it must
have carried off more than half the population of the king<lom.
Thus of the incumbencs of parishes in the West Riding of
Yorkshire, 96 died out of 141. In the East Riding, 60 died out
of P5. In Nottinghamshire, 65 died out of 126. In the
Norwich Diocese, 527 died out of 799. Three Archbishops of
Canterbury died one after the other within the above period,
and at the Abbey of Croxton, in Lincolnshire, the whole
communit}^ died except the Alibot and Prior.

1 As many conflicting views are lield respecting the date of the institution of the
Order, it may be as well if I state my reasons for selecting the year ] 348. The
jireamble to the Statutes of the Garter gives the date as 2-3 Edward III, or A.I).
1349, but these Statutes are not cotemporary with the foundation of the Orderi
they name, for instance, the Duke of Lancaster and the Earl of Staft'ord amongst
the original Knights, and these dignities were not confeired till ISol. Froissart
names the year 1344 as the date of the foundation of the Order, but he describes
the number of the original Knights as forty, and is supposed to liave confounded
the creation of the Order with the institution of King Arthur's liound Table, which
liad been revived by Edward III about that date. Froissart could only speak from
hearsay, for he was not born till 1337.

A strong argument against this early date is the fact that the Prince of Wales was
only fourteen years of age, and was not knighted till the landing at La HogUe,
when he conferred the same honour on Sir Roger Mortimer and Sir William de
Montague, both of whom were original Companions of the Order.

The Chronicle of Thomas de la More, a cotemporary writer, fixes the date of the
First Chapter in 13.50, and this date has been accepted by Selden, Lily, Speed and
Segar.

On the other hand, Anstis and Beltz have written in favour of the older date,
1344. Ashmole admits the date given in the Statutes, which is 1349.

In the face of this divergency of dates ajid of opinions based on them, it is liest
to refer to the Public Records, and it will be found that the first mention of the
Garter and motto occurs on a Roll containing the Wardrobe Accounts from Mich.
21 Edward III to 31 Jan. 23 Edward III, where the follDwing entry is to be found,
about half waj* down the Roll : —

" Ad faciendum XII garteria de blue brondata de auro el serico, quolibel habente
dictamen Ilonii soyt (f mal y pense, el ad faciendum alios apparatus pro hastiludiis
Reqis apud EUham anno Regis predictn."

The previous date mentioned in these accounts is, without doubt, 21 Edward III,
or 1347, and this has misled both Anstis and Beltz, who have overlooked the fact
that Edward was at Calais nearly the whole of this year, and did not arrive in
England till the middle of October. The great bulk of tiie army did not return
before November, and it is inconceivable that any tournaments could have taken
place in that year. The entries on the Roll are not in chronological order, and many

110 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Whilst till' ])ostilenco was at its height, viz., on the 16 Aujjjust
1.S49, Sir Hnyh oxecuteil a dcod conveying- to trustees his manor
of Wrottcsley and the mills oF Wi^litwyke and Tryllemuhie,
and 1)y another oi* the sjime date he conveyed to the same
trustees all his ojoods and chattels, moveable and immoveable in
the same places. On the 2-Srd of the same month, these
trustees reeonveyed the same manor and mills to " Sir Hugh,
and to Iter ivhom lie had first tnarried,^ and to the heirs of the
I)ody of the said Hugh," and failing such to John, son of John
de Tettelnuy (his half l)rother), and to his male issue, and
failing such to Walter, Thomas and Leo, his other half brothers,
in succession in tail male, and failing such to his own right
heirs. It would appear by this deed that his first wife Elizabeth
had died, but had left issue by him. The seal attached to the
first deed shews that he had relinquished at this date the Verdon
fret, and had assumed in ])lace of it the arms of his mother, Joan
Basset. The shield bears the three piles and a (piarter Ermine,
but the crest is the same as on the deed of 1887, viz., a boar's
head issuing from a ducal coronet.-

Amongst other victims, the pestilence had carried ofif the
whole family of Sir Hugh's cousin, William de Pillatonhale.
This William had left two nephews and a niece, who were

previous entries relate to the year '22 Eflwai-d III. For instance, the first entry
relate.s to the Feast of All Saints, 21 Edwai-d HI, and the ninth entry rel.ite.s to the
Fea.st of EastKr, '2'2 K,d\vard III, then follow more entries relating to the year
•21 Edward III, and the entry above given follows aftei' a long interval lower down
the Record. Amongst the entries ostensibly for the year 21 Kdward III are issues
for the King's tournaments at Reading and Bury, then follow more issues pro corpore
liei/is at Windsor ann» predict", and then issues for the tournament at Lichfield,
atino prediclo, viz., 21 Edward III, and then from another part of the Moll we find
that the tournament at Lichfield Look place on the 9 April 22 Edward III. It is
(juite clear, therefore, that the year xxi has been written on the Roll by mistake for
xxii.

The first mention of the Society of St. George is to be found on the Wardrobe
Accounts of the Prince of Wales. These show that the Prince presented twenty-
four Garters to the Knights of the Society in 22 Edward III, viz. in 1348.

The College of St. G(!orge at Windsor was founded by Letters Patent, dated
6 August in the same year, viz, 22 Edward III, and the only other cotemporary
evidence which we possess is the account of Thomas de la More, which gives the
year ISftO as the date of the first Chapter of the Order. The Feast of the Round
Table was held at Whitsinitide, and putting all the evidence together, it seems all
but certain that the Order of the Carter was ci-eated at the Whitsuntide Festival of

1348. The first Festival of St. George after this date would not occur till April

1349, and this accounts, perha])s, for the latter date having been named in the
Statutes (jf the Onler. It should be noted, however, that the latter year is the
year of the Great Pestilence, and it is quite possih)le that a further adjournment
took ]ilace, and that Thomas de la More is right when he names 1350 as the date of
the first Chapter of the Order. It is a minor circumstance, but still of some
significance, that this latter date coincides with the year in which Sir Hugh
Wrottesley was placed in the King's household with a pension of £40 a year.

' iiti que prills duxit in uxorcm. It is difficult to understand this clause of the
deed.

- Original deeds at Wrottesley, copied 1860, 1862. These deeds will be given in
full .It the end of this chapter

WROTTRSLEY OF WROTTESI.EY. Ill

coheirs to the lands and BaiHwick of Teddesley, and were wards
of the Crown. On the 7 September 1849 tlie Kin<i; {^ranted to
Sir Hno'li, for his ^ood service, the BaiHwick and the lands, and
the wardship and marriages of the heirs of William de Pilatone-
hale, deceased, which were in his hands by reason of the
minorit}^ of John, son of John de Kenilworth, and of Mar^^aret,
sister of John, son of John, and of William, son of Richard de
Encrleton, the nearest of kin of the said William de Pilatonehale.
The heirs were the issue of two sisters of W^illiMm, all the male
heirs and intermediate f^eneration having been swept away by
the plague.^ The coheirs could have been only a few weeks
old, for William de Engleton proved his age in 44 Edward III,
and John's relief for his moiety of the Bailiwick is entered on
the Pipe Roll of 45 Edward III. A writ of 28 Edward III
shew^s that the third child Margaret had died before that date.^

William de Pilatonhale was one of the Hereditary Foresters
of Cannock, holding the Bailiwick of the Hay of Teddesley
and Huntingdon, and on obtaining livery of the Bailiwick, Sir
Hugh appears to hav^e taken up his abode entirely at Pilaton-
hale, for his name occurs as a witness to several deeds of
this date referring to that neighbourhood, and the house at
Wrottesley was allowed to fall out of repair. He likewise
appointed one of his tenants at Huntingdon to act as his
Bailiff at Wrottesley, for four years after this date he was suing
William, son of Alice atte Wode of Huntingdon, to render to
him an account for the time he had acted as his Bailiff at
Wrottesley.-"'

In the following 3'ear, 1850, we have the earliest cotemporary
account of a Chapter of the Order of the Garter. The author
of the Chronicle, Thomas de la More, writes apparently under
the impression that the ceremony he describes Avas the first of
its kind, and this is not unlikely to have been the case, for the
plague had become general in England before St. George's Day
1849.

' Patent Roll, 2.3 Edward III. i)art iii, iii. .33. The following pedigree will sliew
the mortality caused by the ))lague in this family' : —

William de Pylatonehale.=f=Rosea, d. of Sii' William de Wrottesley,
I living 1-296.

William de Pilatonhale,
living 21 Edward III,
dead 23 Edward III,
ob. s.p.

1
James, living 21
Edward III,
dead 23 h^dward
III, ob. H.p.

r
Margaret.=
John de
Kenilworth.
dead 23
Edward III.
1

1
Joan.—
Ric'han
Englet
23 Edw

I de
jn, dead
ard III.

John. Margaret. William.

- Patent Roll, 28 Edward III, part i, m. 12.
^ De Banco, Trinity. 27 Edward IK, m. 174 dorso.

11'2 HISTORY OF THE FAMTF.Y OF

Ue writes, " In tliis year the Kin^^ celebrated a o;reat Feast at
Windsor Castle, wliere there were present, besides the Kino; and
liis eldest son, the Earls of Northampton, Warwick, Suffolk and
Salisbury, and other Barons as well as simple Kni<,dits, ' sirtiidi-
crsqtw 'milites,' viz., Roi^er de Mortimer, iiow^ Earl of March,
Sir Walter de Ma<,niy (Manny). Sir William fitz Warin, Sir John
de Lisle, Sir John de Mohnn, Sir John de Beauchamp, Sir
Walter de Paveley, Sir Thomas Wale and Sir Hugh de
Wrottesley, all of wdiom, totjf(>ther witli the King, were clothed in
tunics of russet, powdered with Clarters of a green (sic) color, and
wearing likewise Carters on the right leg, and mantles of blue
with shields of the arms of St. George. In this dress, with
their heads bare, they devoutly heard mass sung by the Bishops
of Canterbury, Winchester and Exeter, and afterwards sat at
table to celebrate a festival in honor of the Holy Martyr and
the noble Brotherhood, which had been specially instituted for
this purpose and was called the Society of St. George of the
Garter " Comitiva Sancti Georgii de la Gartiere (sic).'"^

The Black ])eath of the previous year had left many
vacancies in the Royal Household, and Sir Hugh was appointed
to till one of them in October of this year. By Letters Patent,
(late<l 18 October 24 Edward III, the King granted to him for
his good service, and for his fee, and for his attendance upon
his person (et pro feodo sua, et pro mora sud nohiscum) a
yearly' sum of £40, to be received at the Exche(iuer by equal
])ortions at Easter and Michaelmas, until such time, as rents or
lands to the same value could be assigned for the payment of it
to him for his life. ' On the renewal of these Letters Patent in
the following May. the words ^^ pro feodo suo^'' were omitted,
and the Household accounts shew that he received pay as a
Knight in the Royal Household in addition to his annuit}'' of
£40;

At Easter 25 Edward III, Sir Hugh appeared in person at the
ExeluMjuer, and received X20 for the previous term of St.
Michael.'' On the following 20 May, however, he obtained fresh

' Chronicle of Thomas de la Mi)ro, I.aiisdowne MS., No. 229, fol. 1.56, dorso. The
Earl.s of Northam])toii and SulTolk and Sir Walter do Mauny, are not included
anioni^st the original Knights in tlio official li.st, but that list is nob cotemporary, and
de la More is more likely to be correct. The three Knight.s above named were
among the mo.st distinguished men of the ))eriod, and the King could h:irdly have
left them out of the fraternity. It is noteworthy, too, that the first authentic list
of the Knights in the year 1361 includes both Suffolk and de Miiuny. The Earl of
Norlhatni)toii had died in 13()0. There is reason to l>elieve that there are many omissions
in the early lisl.s of the Knights of the Gai'ter, thus Roger de Cotesfoid, a Knight of
the Household of the I'.lack Prince, and who was selected by the Prince to bring
hijine the news of the battle of Poictiers, does not occur among them, although his
seal in the Hodleian Librarj^ has the Garter and motto round his shield of arms.

2 Patent Roll, 24 Edward III, y)art iii, m. 17.

•■' Pell Issues, Easter, 2."i lOdward III. This grant apparently took effect from the
previous 25 March, and it is curious to note that this is the rule at the ])resent time
in the case of the CMvil List Pensions.

s.
5

cl.
6

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 113

Letters Patent, which assigned the following ferms in Statibrd-
shire to him for the payment of the annuity : —

£
From the vills of Mere and Clent - - - 16

From Kings Swinford - - - - 11

From Kynfare and Tettenhale - - - 11

From the Foresters Fee at Teddesley - - 1

Making a total of £40 Is. 8d., and Sir Hugh was to account
to the Exchequer for the difference of 20d. annually.

Mandates were likewise issued to John de Botetourt, the
tenant of the vills of Mere and Clent, and to John de Sutton
of Dudley, the tenant of the vill of Swinford, and to the
Gustos of Kynfare, and to the men of Tetenhale to ,pay the
above sums to Sir Hugh in person.

For many years up to this date. Sir Hugh had been charged
on the Pipe Rolls with various outstanding debts due to the
Exchequer. The earliest of these was a sum of 100s. for a
year's ferm of the King's manor of Tettenhall, the custody of
which had been granted to him in 11 Edward III, and a further
sum of £27 13s. 2d., arrears of the ferm of the same manor,
charged against him, apparently owing to an error of the
Exchequer authorities.

The next in date was a sum of £55 charged against him for
the subsidy of wool in 13 Edward III, in which year he
had exported from Ipswich several sacks of wool without
license.

A fourth charge entered against him was one of 10 marks for
a man-at-arms assessed upon his lands for the expedition of
1346.

The aggregate of these sums would amount to a very heavy
debt owing to the Crown, representing certainly not less than
£2,000 at the present date, and the Sheriff of the County, if
pressed to collect arrears by the Exchequer, would distrain. upon
his lands and chattels for it.

Sir Hugh took advantage of the favour with which he was
regarded at this time by the King, to obtain an exoneration
from all these charges.

A writ was issued to the Treasurer and Barons of the
Exchequer on the 17 February 1350, in these terms : —

Edward par la grace de dieu Roi dengleterre et de Fraimce et
Seigneur d Irlaunde, as Tresorer et Barouns de notre Eschequier salutz,
Come de notre grace especiale eions perdonnez a notre chei" et feial
Hugh de Wrottesle cinquant et cink livres qe courent sur lui en
demande per sumouns du dit Eschequier pur la custume de vint et
sept sacs de leine et demy cariez outre meere, vos mandons q. de la
dite summe lui faciez estre quites et deschargez devers nous, et si
nuUe (die) destiesse lui seit fait pur la dite cause loi facez outrement
I

114 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

rt'lesse, doiine souz notrc privc seal ul Wcstniouastcro le xvii jour de
Fevrier Ian de iiotre rcgiie deugleterre viiitisme quart et de Fraunce
vicisme.^

A later writ of the same year, dated 20 October 24 Edward III,
and addressed to the Treasurer and Barons of the Exchequer,
states that whereas the King had granted on the 18 March
11 Edward III, to his faithful and beloved Hugh de Wrottesle,
the custody of the manor of Tattenhale, in co. Stafford, to be
held at his pleasure, and rendering for it 100s. annually, and
afterwards on the 8 July 12 Edward III, the King had granted
the same manor to Henry de Ferers, and the heirs male of his
body, and it had been shewn by the said Hugh, that although
he had .delivered the manor to Henry de Ferers, and had
derived no profit from it after the said 8th July, that nevertheless
he had been summoned to appear at the Exchequer every year
to repder 100s. from the 18 March 11 Edward III, and had been
put to great expense and trouble in consequence, for which he
prayed a remedy. The King therefore commanded them to
make enquiry by Inquisition or other legal methods, so that if
Sir Hugh's complaint was well founded, he might be exonerated
from the said yearly payment of 100s.

The Inquisition was apparently in favour of Sir Hugh, for
eighteen months after this date the King sent the following
writ to the Barons of the Exchequer : —

Edward par la grace de dieu, etc., as Tresorer et Barons de notre
Eschequier, salutz. Come de notre grace especiale, eions perdonez a
notre cher et feial Hugh de Wrottesle vint et sept livres, douze soulz
et deux deniers qui sont demandez de lui per sumouns du dit
Eschequier des arrerages de la ferme du manoir de Tatenhale, les quex
arrerages sont de partie del an de notre regne d'engleterre douzisme
et desans tresisme, quatorsisme, quinsisme, seszismes et partie del an
dis et septisme por queux temps Heniy de Ferrers avoit le dit manoir
et eut pris les issues de notre don, vos mandons que de meisme la
.somme de vynt et sept livres, douze soulz et deux deniers faeez
descharger le dit Hugh, et de tut estre quites a notre dit Eschequier
issint qil ne seit mes empeschez ne grevez par reson de la somme
avantdite. Don souz notre prive seal, a Westmonastere le 27 jour
davril Ian de notre regne dengleten-e vint et sisme, et de France
tresisme. 2

Another writ, nearly in the same terms, dated 22 June
26 Edward III [1352] exonerated him from the charge of 100s.
for a year's ferm of the same manor. ^

A third writ, dated 2 October 26 Edward III, relieved him
from the assessment on his lands for Hobelars and Archers in

* Memoranda Roll, Queen's Uemeinbraacer, 25 Edward III, Michaelma.s Writs.
^ Memoranda Roll, Queen'.s Remembrancer, 26 Kdward HI, Writs of Michaelmas.
» Ibid.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 115

1346. This has already been given in full. Through some
error of the Exchequer authorities, it was not enrolled till the
following year, when it appears amongst the Michaelmas writs
of 27 Edward III.i

Sir Hugh was now at the height of his prosperity. All his
debts to the Crown had been remitted, his income had been
more than doubled by the Royal grants made to him. He had
been created a Knight of the Garter, had been placed in the
King's household, and would have probably risen to higher and
more responsible positions, if he could have restrained a certain
vindictiveness of temper and spirit of lawlessness which appears
to have been inherent in his nature. Up to this time he had
risen steadily in the King's favour, but within little more than
a year from the date of the King's last grant to him he was
a fugitive from justice and deprived of all his possessions. At
this distance of time it is impossible to state in positive
terms the causes of this catastrophe, but we have certain
facts and indications from which a very fair inference can be
drawn.

The Sheriffs of Staffordshire at this date were appointed by
the Duke of Lancaster, to whom the King had granted the
Shrievalty of the Midland Counties for his life, and in 1352 the
Duke had appointed to this office Philip de Lutteley, of Lutley,
in CO. Stafford, a near neighbour of Sir Hugh, and who had
married Katherine, the sister of the same John de Perton who
had been killed in the affray with Sir Hugh in 1338.

It appears to have been the custom of the Exchequer to
saddle a new Sheriff with the Crown debts owing during the
tenure of office of his predecessor. Thus a writ on the
Memoranda Roll of 26 Edward III (1352) states that whereas
John le Blount, late Sheriff of co. Stafford, had been charged
with a sum of 100s. said to be owing by Sir Hugh de
Wrottesleye for the arrears of the ferm of Tettenhale, he was
to be allowed in lieu of it, 100s. from the lands and tenements
of Walter de Rydeware, late a Collector of the Aid in co.
Stafford, and which were in the King's hands. ^

Philip de Lutteley would thus find himself personally liable
for the debts of Sir Hugh to the Crown. It is true these had
all, with one exception, been remitted before Michaelmas 1352,
when Philip was invested with the Shrievalty, but it is very
doubtful whether, owing to the dilatory action of the Exchequer,
notifications of these remissions would have reached the Sheriff

' Ibid., 27 Edward III, Writs of Michaelmas term.

^ They had been taken into the King's bands as security for the balance of the
Subsidy which liEid not been paid into the Exchequer by the Collectors. There is
evidence on the Rolls of great pressure exercised by the Exchequer at this period
on the Sheriffs of Counties and Collectors of the Subsidies in order to relieve the
Crown of its heavy indebtedness on account of the French war.

116 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

before he assumed office, and in the case of the charge for
supplying hobelars and archers in 1346, the notification of
its remittance could not possibly hav^e arrived, because it was
not granted till the 2nd October 1352, and was not enrolled
till the following year.

New brooms proverbially sweep clean, and if Philip signalised
his accession to office by an energetic attempt to collect
outstanding Crown debts, not aware that they had been
remitted, whilst Sir Hugh, knowing his relationship to the
Fertons, suspected that his action arose from personal motives,
we have all the elements of a tragedy in the fourteenth
century.

Sir Hugh appears to have received some intimation of a
descent upon him by the Sheriff, for he had collected a
considerable body of men to resist it. Like the Irish
distraints of 1880 — 18S1, it was effected by stealth during
the night, and the Sheriff attended in person. At daybreak
on the 29 November the two parties met on Dunstone
Heath, between Stafford and Pillatonhale, and in a conflict
which ensued, the Sheriff and his clerk were both killed,
whilst a third man of the Sheriffs party, Thomas de Stretton,
died of his wounds a short time afterwards.

At the present day. Sir Hugh and his accomplices would
have been arrested within a few days under the Coroner's
warrant, but in the reign of Edward III it was not easy
to enforce the ordinary criminal process against a man of
property, a knight of repute, and a member of the King's
household. No proceedings appear to have been taken
against him in the county, but at the Easter sittings of the
Court of King's Bench, Agnes, late wife of Philip de
Whitemere, appeared in person and appealed Hugh de
Wrotteslegh, Chivaler, John de Tettebury, the younger,
William, brother of John, and Walter, brother of William,
John de Derinton, and Thomas de Gatacre, and Alice, his
wife, for the death of her husband. None of the defendants
appeared, and the Slieriff returned that they could not be found,
and held nothing within his Bailiwick by which they could
be attached. He was, therefore, ordered to put them into
exigend, and if they did not appear, to outlaw them, and
if they appeared, to arrest and produce them on the following
Quindene of Michaelmas.^ Katrine, the late wife of Philip
de Lutteley, likewise appeared in person and appealed the
same defendants for the death of her husband. The process
was the same as in the previous case.

^ Coram Rege Roll, Easter, 27 Edward III, m. 10. To be put into exigend
was to be summoned at five .successive County Courts, and if they did not
surrender, they were proclaimed outlaws. The County Courts were held at
intervals of three weeks, and were presided over by the Sheriffs.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 117

These proceedings were probably taken on the advice of
the Chief Justice, Sir William de Shareshull. As the owner
of Patshull, he was a near neighbour of Philip de Lutteley,
and was connected with him by the marriage of his daughter
Elizabeth with Sir John de Perton. The latter was the
nephew of Katrine, the widow of Philip.

The addition of the names of Thomas de Gatacre, and
Alice his wife to the indictment, exemplifies the iniquity of
the Criminal Courts at this date, for there is no reason to
suppose they were implicated in the attack upon the Sheriflf
and his suite. About four years before this date Philip de
Whitemere had laid claim to a large portion of the Gatacre
demesne lands, and had obtained a verdict in his favour
before a local jury at Shrewsbury in 1350. It would have
been easy for him in his capacity of clerk to the Sheriff
to have packed a jury in this case, and Thomas de Gatacre
and Alice had appealed against the verdict, and this appeal
was pending at this date in the Court of King's Bench. ^
On such slight grounds as these apparently, the names of
Thomas and Alice had been added to the indictment as
instigators of the attack upon the Sheriff, but the Chief
Justices of this era were notoriously corrupt, and made large
fortunes at the expense of men of property against whom
indictments were laid in their Courts. Both Wrottesley and
Gatacre adjoined the lands of the Chief Justice at Patshull,
and the temptation of adding two or three thousand additional
acres to the large estates he was accumulating in Staffordshire
and Shropshire would have been irresistible to a Judge
of the fourteenth century.^

Sir Hugh must have received some warning of the issue
of these writs, for the subsequent proceedings shew that he had
divested himself of all his moveable property, but he delayed
too long his departure from the country, and before the date
named for the return of the writs into Court, all the
defendants were in custody, with the exception of John de
Tettebury, Walter de Tettebury^ and John de Derington.

The entries on the Roll of the following Michaelmas term
are as follows : —

^ For these proceedings, see Staffordshire Collections, vol. xiv, p. 78.

'•^ Sir John Thorpe, the predecessor of William de Shareshull, had been deprived
of his office and heavily fined for malpractices of this nature, and Sir William
de Shareshull was eventually dismissed for malversation of office, and retired
into a monastery. The story of the acquisition of Littlecote, by Chief Justice
Popham, after a murder committed by the owner, Wild Dayrell, is well known.

^ Walter de Tettebury was in the Household of Queen Philippa, and was
pardoned by the King, and his outlawry annulled in 34 Edward III (1360).
John de Derington was an outlaw from County Chester, and was probably in
Sir Hugh's service, for it was alleged against the latter on a later occasion that
he kept a number of outlaws from Lancashire and Chester in his service.
None of the defendants named after the word " together," were in custody.

118 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Staff. Hu,£,^h de Wrotteslegh, Chivaler, William, brother
of John de Tettebury, the younger, Thomas de Gataere and
Alice, his wife, Avere attached at the suit of Agnes, formerly
wife of Philip de Whitemere, together with John de Tettebury,
the younger, and Walter, brother of the said William, and
John de Derynton, for the death of Philip, her husband, and
the sureties for the prosecution were Robert Knote and
Richard de Sutton.

And Agnes appeared in person and appealed the said
William, brother of John de Tettebury, for the death of her
husband, and stated that whereas the said Philip was in the
peace of God and of the King on the Thursday before the
Feast of St. Andrew the Apostle, 26 Edward III, in the
first hour of the day in the vill of Dunston, on the high
road which runs from the vill of Dunston to the vill of
Pencrych, and going towards the vill of Stafford, the said
William lying in wait, with malice aforethought, had feloniously
struck the said Philip with a sword of Cologne through
the middle of the body to the heart, and so that he died
forthwith within the arms of the said Agnes.' And as soon
as the said William had committed the felonj?^ he fled, and
she had followed immediately with hue and cry from vill to
vill up to the four nearest vills, and eventually to the
Coroners until the said William had been attached at her
suit.^

The said Agnes appealed Hugh de Wrotteslegh for the
same death, and stated that at sunrise on the said day he
had sent the said William and John de Tettebury and
Walter, brothers of William, and John de Derynton, who
had been named in the original writ and had been outlawed,
to commit the said felony, and likewise for aiding and
abetting it, inasmuch as the said Hugh was present with
a drawn sword in his right hand, and gave aid to the
said William and the others named, in committing the felony,
and likewise for knowingly receiving the said William and
John de Tettebury, and Walter and John de Derynton, at
Wrotteslegh after the perpetration of the felony.

The same Agnes likewise appealed Thomas Gataere and
Alice, his wife, for sending the said William and others to
commit the felony, and for knowingly receiving them after-
wards in divers places of the said county.

And William and the other defendants denied the felony,
and put themselves on the country, and the Sheriff was
ordered to summon a jury for the Octaves of St. Hillary,

* These words, "inter brachia ipsius Agnetis," and the following paragraph
are formal only, being the necessary part of an Indictment in an appeal of
murder.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 119

and the said Hugh and the others were committed in the
meantime to the King's prison of the Marshalsea in the
custody of Robert Bolour.^

Similar proceedings were taken against the same defendants
on the suit of Katharine, late wife of PhiHp de Lutteley.
The record of these is the same verhatlun as the above,
but with the addition that PhiHp was in the service of the
King as Sub-Sheriff and Coroner of co. Stafford — in servitio
domini Regis ad Coniitatum Staffordie tanquam Sub-
vieecomes et Coronator ejv^sdem Gomitatus}

As the Sheriff's party were on the high road at daybreak,
it is probable that a distraint had been levied during the
night, and they were driving the cattle in the direction of
Stafford. In that case, the conflict must have arisen from
an attempt on the part of Sir Hugh to rescue his cattle.

Some entries on the same Roll of a few days later date
give us the continuation of the proceedings.

Staff. The King sent a close writ to the Sheriff of co.
Stafford, that whereas he had lately commanded him to
make enquiry on the oath of lawful and honest men con-
cerning the goods and chattels, and lands and tenements,
which Hugh de Wrottesleye, Chivaler, held in his county
on the 10 April last, and subsequently, inasmuch as the
said Hugh had not appeared, coram Rege, to answer the
appeal of Katrine, formerly wife of Philip de Lutteleye, for
the death of her husband, and for which he had been put
into exigend and outlawed ; and to return the value of the
same on the Quindene of the Holy Trinity, and the Sheriff
had returned at that date that the said Hugh before the
arrival of the King's writ had dispossessed himself of iall
lands and tenements which he held within his bailiwick,
except a rent of £40 which he held of the King, and which
the King had taken into his hands, and the King, believing
the said return to be false and fabricated, because it had
been testified to him by men worthy of credit that the
said Hugh had in no wise demised himself of his lands and
tenements, except by deceit and collusion to defraud the
King of the issues of the lands which belonged to him
owing to the flight of the said Hugh, and that the said
Hugh had received the profits of the lands and tenements
up to the present time through carelessness (neviencia), he
was therefore commanded to take into the King's hands all
the goods and chattels, lands and tenements of the said
Hugh into whosesoever hand they may have come, and to be
answerable for them until further orders, and to appear in
person, coram Rege, at this date, to answer for the false

' Coram Rege Roll, Michaelmas, 27 Edward III, m. 8 dorso and m. 20 dorso.

120 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

return. Tested by William de Shareshulle at Westminster
15 Sept., 27 Edward III, by writ of privy seal (per hreve
de scf/reto [sic] sigillo domini Regis).

The Sheriff answered in these words : — " By virtue of the
above writ I have taken into the King's hand, of goods
and chattels found in the manor of Wrottesleye, eighteen
oxen for the plough, each worth 9s. 6d., two cart horses,
each worth 6s. 8d., twenty quarters of wheat in the granges,
each quarter estimated to he worth 4s., fourteen quarters
of juxtilion, each quarter estimated at 3s., fifteen quarters
of barley, each quarter estimated at 3s., seven quarters of
beans, each quarter estimated at 3s., eighteen quarters of
peas, estimated value of each quarter, 2s., and twenty-four
quarters of oats, each quarter estimated at 22f^.

I have taken also of the lands and tenements of Hugh
de Wrottesleye at Wrottesleye, a messuage with gardens,
worth annually beyond reprisals 5s. and no more, because
the houses are in ruins, a pigeon-house worth half a mark
annually, three carucates of land, each worth 40s. per
annum and no more, because the third part of the three
carucates lies fallow every year (ad warectmn), eighteen
acres of meadow, of which each acre is worth 2s., three
enclosed parks, of which the herbage is worth 30s. annually
and no more, because they are stocked with wild beasts, a
watermill which is worth nothing annually, because it is
in a ruinous state, and 40s. rent from the natives, which is
received annually at Michaelmas and Lady Day. I have
taken also into my hands eight marks of annual rent
received by the said Hugh from the tenants of Boturdon
(Butterton-on-the-Moors) at the Feasts of St. Michael and
the Annunciation of the Blessed Mary every year.''^

Sir Hugh and his half-brother had been committed to
the Marshalsea shortly after the Quindene of Michaelmas,
which would be the 12th of September. Within little
more than six weeks from this date, both prisoners were
at large, with the connivance, no doubt, of Sir Walter
Mauny, the Marshal of the Court, under whom Sir Hugh
had served in Brittany in 1342. Sir Walter, in fact, who
held the office of Marshal for his life, under Letters Patent,
was in the habit of releasing his prisoners on condition
of their serving the King in France, and in 1342 he had
allowed as many as ninety-eight prisoners to be at large
upon these conditions.^

The story of their escape is given as follows on the Roll : —

' Ibid., m. 41 Rex.

- Sir Walter de Mauny had been appointed Sergeant Marshal by Thomas
Plantagenet, the Earl Marshal and Earl of Norfolk, in 1331. He afterwards
married the widow of Lord Segrave who was daughter and heir of the Earl,

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 121

Staff., Surrey, London. On the Thursday after the
Morrow of St. Martin, 27 Edward III, Simon dc Kegworth,
the Clerk and Coroner of the King^ by command of the
Justices holding Pleas before the King, proceeded to the
prison of the King's Marshal at Kyngeston upon Thames,
where the said Justices were holding Pleas, and made a
scrutiny of the prisoners in the custody of Robert Bolour,
the Marshal, when the said Simon found that Hugh de
Wrottesleye, Chivaler, and William, brother of John de
Tettebury, the younger, who had been severally appealed for
the death of Philip de Whitemere, at the suit of Agnes,
formerly wife of Philip, and likewise for the death of
Philip de Lutteleye at the suit of Katrine, formerly wife of
the said Philip, hj divers writs of the King, and had been
committed to the custody of the said Marshal, were not in
prison there (ibidem in prisond non exstiterunt) and after-
wards on the Friday following, the said Marshal being
questioned whether the said Hugh and William were in the
King's prison in his custody or not, stated that they had
broken out of prison on the Sunday, the Morrow of All
Souls in this term, in London, viz., in the parish of St.
Andrew in Holburne, in the ward of Farindon without,
where they were detained in prison with other prisoners.
The said Marshal was therefore fined £10. And Simon de
Kegworthe, on the part of the King, stated that the Marshal
had permitted the said Hugh and William to escape and
had consented to the escape, which he was prepared to
prove by a jury of the above ward and parish. A jury
was therefore to be summoned, coram Rege, on the Octaves
of St. Hillary, unless William de Shareshulle should first
come to St. Martin the Grand of London on the Tuesday
after the Feast of St. Andrew. A postscript states that at
Hillary Term the said Robert appeared in person, coram
Rege, and William de Shareshulle brought up the verdict of
a jury taken before him on the above Tuesday (John Morton
having been associated with him according to the Statute),
who stated upon oath that the said Hugh and William had
feloniously escaped from the King's prison of the Marshalsea
without the license of the said Robert and against his will,
viz., on the Morrow of All Souls, 27 Edward III, in the
suburb of London and in the said parish and ward. The
said Robert was therefore quit of the felonj^, and the Sheriffs
of London were ordered to arrest the said Hugh and William

and cousin to the King. In 1344 an attempt had been made to deprive
him of the Marshalship of the King's Bench, and he had procured Letters
Patent granting it to him for his life. Coram Rege Roll, Michaelmas
16 Edward III, m. 54, Rex, and Staffordshire Collections, vol. xiv, pp. 27 — 58,
and 59.

122 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

and produce them coram Rege on the Quindene of St. John
the Baptist. 1

At Hillary term following, the process against Sir Hugh
and his half-brother was continued as follows : —

Staf. The Sheriff had been ordered to summon a jury
for this date to return a verdict whether William de Tette-
bury, brother of John de Tettebury, the younger, on the
Thursday before the Feast of St. Andrew, 26 Edward III,
had feloniously killed Philip, formerly husband of Katrine
de Luttelegh, who was on his way to the vill of Stafford
in the service of the King as Sub-Sheriff and Coroner of
the County, and if Hugh de Wrotteslegh, Chivaler, at sun-
rise on the same day had sent the said William, brother of
John de Tettebur}^, the younger, Walter, brother of the said
William and John de Derynton (who had been named in
the original writ and had been outlawed for the said death)
to commit the said felony, and if the said Hugh was present
with his sword drawn, and aided and abetted the said
William and the others named, and if the said Hugh after
the felony had knowingly received the said William and the
others in divers places, and also to return a verdict whether
Thomas Gatacre and Alice, his wife, had sent the said
William and the others named to commit the said felony
and had knowingly received them . afterwards. And the
Sheriff returned that the writ reached him too late, and Katrine
appeared in person, and Thomas Gatacre and Alice appeared,
brought up by the Marshal. And the said Hugh and William
who had been committed to the custody of the Marshal did
not appear, and the Marshal being questioned stated that
they had feloniously broken out of the prison of the
Marsh alsea, as appeared by an Inquisition which had been
taken elsewhere. The Sheriff was therefore ordered to put
the said Hugh and William into exigend, and if they did
not appear to outlaw them, and if they appeared, to produce
them. Coram Rege, on the Quindene of St. John the Baptist,
and to summon a jury for the same date, and Thomas de
Gatacre and Alice were committed to the custody of the
Marshal.

The same process was followed in the appeal of Agnes,
late wife of Philip de Whitmere.-

At the same Hillary Sittings, Agnes, late wife of Philip
de Whitemere, appeared in person and appealed John de
Stevynton, Roger, son of Geoffrey Leveson, Richard Leveson,
John Russel, John de Whiston, and John Broke, for the
death of her husband, and the Sheriff returned that with

1 Coram Rege Roll, Michaelmas, 27 Edward III, m. 37 dorso, Rex.
^ Coram Rege, Hill., 28 Edward III, m. 9, dorso.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 123

the exception of John de Whiston, they could not be found
within his baiHwick. He was therefore ordered to put them
into exir/end, and if they did not appear, to outlaw them,
and if they appeared, to produce them before the Court on
the Quindene of St. John the Baptist, and as the Sheriff
(Sir John Musard) had failed to make any return respecting
John de Whiston, he was fined half a mark, and was
ordered to arrest and produce him on the same date.^

There appears to have been no justification for this prose-
cution eighteen months after the date of the alleged felony.
Nor was" it followed up. Most of the defendants were men
of substance, John de Stevynton was a Shropshire Esquire
and Forester of Kinver, John de Whiston was Lord of the
Manor of Whiston, and the Levesons, even at this early date,
held considerable property in Wolverhampton and Willenhall.
The prosecution, in fact, is one of numberless other instances,
which mark the abuse of the administration of justice at this
period, when the Judges enriched themselves with impunity
at the expense of any men of property who were indicted
of offences in their Courts.

The Record of Trinity term, 28 Edward III, contains the
process of outlawry which had been promulgated in co.
Stafford against Sir Hugh de Wrottesley and William de
Tettebury, upon which Katrine de Lutteley and Agnes de
Whitmere both appeared in person. Coram Rege, and prayed
for execution of the outlawry against both defendants.

The latter were now in great peril, if they could have
been caught, for by a recent enactment, they had lost their
right to a jury, and could be sentenced to death without
further formality. The above proceedings contrast so strongly
with the usual dilatory process of the Court, that I suspect
there was some animus on the part of the Chief Justice,
Sir William de Shareshull, who, as will be seen by the
following pedigree, was connected by marriage with Philip
de Lutteley and the family of Perton : —

John
5 Ed

de Perton, died
ward III.

1 ,

William, Lor.l of
Perton and Tre-
sel, died 34 Ed-
ward III.

John de Perton,
stated to have
been killed by Sir
Hugh Wrottes-
ley in 1 2 Kdward
III.

Leo de Perton, Katherine.

Pannetarius

Regis.

=Philip de Lutte-
ley, stated to
have been killed
by Sir Hugh
Wrottesley in
26 Edward III.

Sir John de Perton.^=Elizabeth, daughter of Sir William de
Shareshull, the Chief Justice.

' Coram ilege, Hillary, 28 Edward III, m, 9.

124 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Sir Hugh tie Wrottesley, however, had ensured his safety
by flio;ht into Brittany, where a desultory warfare was still
carried on between the adherents of John de Montfort and
those of Charles de Blois. Here, however, his usual good
fortune deserted him, and before June 1354 he had been
taken prisoner by the French. His situation at this time
in the hands of enemies, without means of raising money
for his ransom or even for his maintenance, must have been
dei^lorable, but, fortunately for him, war had broken out
again between France and England; and Sir Thomas de
Holland had been sent to Brittany as the King's Lieutenant.
Sir Thomas, like himself, was a member of the King's
Household and a Knight of the Garter. Through his instru-
mentalit}^, without doubt, the King became aware of his
situation, for it will be seen that at the date of the King's
writ Sir Hugh was still a prisoner.

A postscript to the last proceedings against him. Coram
Refje, states that on the Quindene of St. Michael,
29' Edward III (18 October 1855) Hugh de Wrotteslegh
appeared in Court, and was committed to the Marshalsea,
and being brought before the Court, in custody of the
Marshal, he was asked why judgment of death should not
be pronounced against him on account of the outlawries
promulgated against him on the appeals of Agnes, late wife
of Philip de Whitemere, and Katrine, late wife of Philip de
Luttelegh, and he stated that on the Thursday when he
was outlawed, and both before and after that date he was
in Brittany in the service of the King, and had been taken
prisoner by the French, so that he could not appear on the
said Thursday at Stafford, and he produced the King's writ
addressed to the Justices, which was in these words. Here
follows the King's writ, dated from Westminster, 6 July,
28 Edward III (1854) stating that it had been shown to
the King ex parte Hugh de Wrotteslegh, Chivaler, that
whereas on account of the process and outlawry against
him of Katrine, late wife of Philip de Lutteleye, for the
death of her husband, and likewise on account of the process
of appeal against him by Agnes, late wife of Philip de
Whitemere, he had been put into exigend in the County of
Stafford, and had been outlawed, and he had petitioned the
King to the effect that at the date of the outlawry he was
in the King's service at Brittany, and he had been taken
prisoner in the war there. And it had been made fully
evident to the King that the said Hugh was in his service
and had been taken prisoner by the King's enemies, and
was a prisoner on the Thursday after the Feast of St.
Barnabas (15 June 1354) on which day it was stated he
had been outlawed, and that he was still a prisoner there

WROTTESLEY OF VVROTTESLEY. 125

up to this time, " et ihidem adhuc prisonarius existet,'^
the King therefore commanded the Justices to take steps
to annul the outlawry according to law and the custom of
the kingdom. And the above writ having been inspected
and read, and inasmuch as the King had put on record
that of his certain knowledge the said Hugh had been in
his service in Brittany on the Thursday in question, and
both before and after, and had been taken prisoner by
the King's enemies in France, so that he could not have
been at Stafford on the said Thursday, it was considered
that the outlawries promulgated against him should be
revoked and entirely annulled as void and erroneous (tan-
quam irrite et erronee), and that the said Hugli should
be restored to the common law and to the King's peace,
and likewise to all actions real and personal, and that he
should repossess all the lands and tenements he held before
the outlawries had been promulgated.^

These proceedings simply annulled Sir Hugh's outlawry,
but left him still subject to the appeals of Agnes and
Katrine for the deaths of their husbands. A postscript,
however, to the Proceedings, Coram Rege, against him of
Michaelmas term 27 Edward III, states that on the Quin-
dene of St. Michael, 29 Edward III (13 Octo. 1355) Hugh
de Wrottesley -appeared in Court and stated that the King
had pardoned him, and he produced Letters Patent, dated
from Westminster on the 5 March 29 Edward III fl355),
by which the King of his special grace pardoned Sir Hugh
de Wrottesley e, Chivaler, for the deaths of Philip de Lutte-
leye and Philip de Whitemere, and for breaking out of his
prison of the Marshalsea, and likewise for the reception of
John de Tettebury, William de Tettebury, and Walter de
Tettebury, who had been indicted for the same deaths, and
likewise for the death of Thomas de Stretton, and for any
transgressions of vert and venison in the King's forests.^

This pardon is entered on the Patent Rolls of this year,
with a note in the margin, stating that a previous pardon
had been granted under a writ of Privy Seal, dated the
13 February.^ Sir Hugli tlierefore had been set free from
his captivity before the 13 February 1355. Walter de
Tettebury, his half brother, was pardoned by the King in
34 Edward III, on account of his good service in France.
William de Tettebury and the other brother John disappear
from the scene altogether after these events. Sir Hugh's

1 Coram Rege, Trinity, 28 Edward III, m. 90.
* Coram Rege RoH, Michaelmas, 27 Edward III, m. -37 dorso.
■^ Thi.s pardon is recorded on the Patent Roll of 29 Edward III, part i, m. 20.
The first pardon does not mention the death of Thomas de Stretton.

126 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

pension was restored to liim by a writ dated the same day
as the above pardon, and a close writ of the same date
(5 March 1355) ad(h'essed to Sir John Buttetourt, the tenant
of Mere and Clent, dii-ects him to restore to Sir Hugh de
Wrottesley the rents of the said ferms. Other writs of the
same date, addressed to Sir John Sutton, of Dudley, and to
the Bailiff of Kinfare, order them to pay to Sir Hugh the
ferms of Mere, Clent, Swynford and Kynfare, to be held
by the said Hugh according to the tenor of the Letters
Patent of 20 May 25 Edward III.

Three days after these writs had been issued, viz., on the
8 March 1355, Sir Hugh appeared in person in the King's
Chancery and entered into a recognizance, under a penalty of
£2,000, not to molest in future Katrine de Lutteley, Philip
de Lutteley, William de Perton, John de Perton, or Leon de
Perton.^ All his lands and chattels were restored to him
by a writ dated the 24 November 1355, and writs of later
date restored to him the rents of his ferms for the period
they had been in the King's hands. Sir Hugh was at
Wrottesley on the 8 April 1356, for on that date he executed
a deed placing all his property into the hands of three
Chaplains, who were to pay him each year at Michaelmas
an annual rent of 400 " livres cV argent.'''''- As his whole
property did not exceed £30 in annual value, this sum
must have been payable in the " livre touriiois,^^ which
was worth about the twentieth part of the pound sterling,
and formed the current coin of the south of France. From
the terms of the deed Sir Hugh was evidently contemplating
a prolonged absence from England, and there is every
reason to believe that he joined the Black Prince in Gascony
at this date, for some household accounts of that Prince,
printed by Beltz, in his Memorials of the Garter, and which
extend over the years 1355 to 1359, shew that during this
interval an issue was made from the Prince's wardrobe to
'^ Monsieur Hugh de Wrotteslee 1 2')eir 'plates coverts de noir
velvet." If this was the case, he was probably at Poictiers,
for that battle was fought on the 19 September 1356.^

' Origiual recognizance in French under the Great Seal at Wrottesley, copied
1860. It was drawn up in the form of an Indenture, and ends : — " En
testmoignace de quele chose, notre Seigneur le Roi a la partie de ceste Eudente
demoraunt dens le'dit Monsr. Hugh ad mys son seal, e a la partie de
ceste Endente demoraunt denz le dit Seigneur le Roi, le dit Hugh ad mys son
seal," etc.

2 Original deed at Wrotteslej-, copied 1860—1.862.

' A pair of plates would be the breast plate and back plate, and this entry
seems to shew that the Prince's name was derived from his black armour and
not from his comi)lexion. Tlie same account contains gifts made to Sir Niel
Loryng for his good service at Poictiers, and Sir Niel, like Sir Hugh, was in
the King's household.

The Prince entered into indentures with his father to serve the King in
1355 with 433 men-at-arms and 700 archers, of which 400 were to be mounted,

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 127

Before his departure from England he obtained from the
King a remittance of the Fine imposed upon tlie Deputy
Marshal, Robert Bolour, for connivance at his escape from
the Marshalsea. A writ was sent by the King to the
Treasurer and Barons of the Exchequer, stating that
he had pardoned Sir Hugh de Wrottesley all forfeitures of
goods and chattels, and issues of his lands and tenements,
which were in the King's hands, by reason of the outlawry
of Sir Hugh for the deaths of Philip de Lutteleye,
and of Philip de Whitmere, and for breaking out of the
Marshalsea, in which he had been detained ; and at the
request of the same Hugh, the King pardoned Robert
Bolour, late Gustos of the said Prison, whatever was owing
to him for the escape of the said Hugh and of William,
his brother. Dated Westminster, 11 July, 30 Edward III
(1356).!

A truce was concluded with France on the 23 March
1357, and the Black Prince returned to England with his
prisoner, the King of France, and made a triumphal entry
into London on tlie twenty-fifth of the same month. There
is no sign of the presence of Sir Hugh in England till the
15 November of the same year, on which date a writ from
the King to the Barons of the Exchequer, directs them to
exonerate him from his bond for £2,000, in which sum he
was bound ''pro securit(de hoiti gestus predicti Hw/ovis, et
nun pro alia de cauna.^^'^ This writ brings to a close the
story of the deaths of Philip de Lutteley and his companions,
so far as Hugh de Wrottesley was concerned. Lord Campbell,
in his " Lives of the Chancellors," observes that " the
appeal of murder was always considered an odious proceed-
ing, being a species of priv^ate revenge, as the Crown had
no power of pardon. It was abolished in the reign of
George IV. "=^ The King, in fact, could only pardon the
trespass against the Crown, and such a pardon would leave
the appeal of a widow still in force. These appeals, however,
were usually withdrawn after a time, the offenders giving
compensation to the murdered men's relations and paying for
several masses for their souls. At Michaelmas term 29 Edward III

and these were to be in addition to the nieu-at-arms and archers of the following
Earls and Bannerets, viz. : — The Earls of Warwick, Suffolk, Oxford and Salisbury,
John de Lisle and Reginald de Cobham.

These indentures are dated the 10 July 29 Edward III. According to Stow's
Chronicle the Prince sailed from Plymouth in October 1355.

^ Memoranda Roll, Queen's Remembrancer, 30 Edward III, m. 8 of Michaelmas
writs.

'^ Memoranda Rolls, Queen's Remembrancer, 32 Edward III,

3 "Lives of the Chancellors," vol. iv, p. 281. If, therefore, my surmise is
correct, and there was animus on the part of the Chief Justice, this will
ac<;ount for the course of procedure adopted. Sir William ShareshuU must
have foreseen that the King would pardon Sir Hugh if he had the power.

128 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

the Sheriff of co. Stafford, was ordered to arrest Alice,
formerly wife of Philip de Whitemere, and produce her
(Juvini liege to make fine with the King for not prosecuting
her appeal against Hugh dc VVrottesleye and others for the
death of her husband. ^ And another writ of Easter term,
82 Edward III, directs the Sheriff to do the same with
Katrine, formerly wife of Philip de Lutteley.'^

Thomas de Gatacre and his wife Alice, did not escape so
easily. The proceedings against them in the Court of
King's Bench continued for many years longer, and fresh
charges were brought up against them.^ The unfortunate
Thomas appears to have died in prison, and there is a
piteous appeal from his widow, dated from the fleet Prison
fifteen years after this date, in which she complains that
through want of money she is unable to obtain a jury, and
the King directs John Knyvet, the new Chief Justice, to
move her trial to be heard before the Justices of Assize in
CO. Stafford. The King's writ states that it was issued on the
supplication of Alice, because the " Juratores in hac parte
cordin iiobis ad ipsius deiiherationcm faciendwiii, propter
inopiavi et miseria'ni suam venire non curant, et ipsa ea
occasione in dicta prisotia extunc detinehatur et detineatur
hucusque in ijysius Alicie dispendum non r)iodicum et vite
sue periciduni manifestuni."^

The Fleet Prison was notoriously unhealthy, being bounded
on one side by the Fleet ditch, which received all the refuse
and sewage of the city.

On the expiration of the truce with France in 1859,
Edward sailed from Sandwich to Calais with 1,100 ships,
convc3nng what was probably the best equipped army which
had hitherto left the English shores, for the King on this
occasion was accompanied by a complete transport train of
wagons.

From Calais he marched to Rheims, but was unable to
take that place, and after seven weeks' investment he raised
the siege and moved into Burgundy, where he spent the
winter. In the following spring he advanced to the walls
of Paris, and burnt the suburbs. The J)auphin, however,
refused all his proposals for peace, and he broke up his
camp and marched towards Britanny. In the neighbourhood
of Chartres his army was overtaken by one of the most

^ Coram Rege Roll, Michaelma.s, 29 Edward III, m 4, Rex.

2 Coram Rege Roll, Easter, 32 Edward III, m. 11, Rex.

* See vol. xiv, Staffordshire Collections, p. 111.

■• Coram Rege, Easter, 45 Edward HI. Thomas and Alice had been released
on bail in 32 Edward III, but when fresh charges were preferred against them
they were again arrested.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 129

fearful tempests recorded in history, and, according to
Knir^liton, 6,000 horses wore killc<l by cohl, exposure, and
hail and lightuino-. Froissart says of this tempest, '' un
orage si (jrand et si h.orrible descendit du del en Vost du
Roi d' Angleten-e^ que il senibla bien proprement, que le siecle
dut finir, car il cheoit de lair pierres si grosses que elles
tueient liomines et chevaux, et en furent les plus hardis tout
ebahis" The King in a fit of remorse vowed he would
refuse no terms of peace which were compatible with his
honor, and on the 8th May peace was signed at Bretigny.
The accounts of William de Farley, the Keeper of the King's
Wardrobe, during this expedition have been preserved, and
they shew that" Sir Hugh accompanied the King during
the whole of it, in the double capacity of a member of the
Household and of a Knight in the King's retinue. In the
former capacity he received a commuted payment in lieu of
robes and fees, and in the latter capacity he was paid
wages of war, or " vadia guerre " for himself at 2s. a day,
two Esquires, each at Is. a day, and for four mounted Archers,
each at 6d. a day.

The King's Household consisted of ten Bannerets, who are
called Banneretti Regis, each of whom received an allowance
of £10 13s. 3d. for winter robes in 33 Edward III and for
summer robes in 34 Edward III. The fee for each Banneret
for the Easter and Michaelmas term was £13 6s. 8d.

The Knights of the Household, who are styled " Milites
camere Regis" were thirty-six in number, and each of these
received an allowance of 106s. 8d. for their robes, and the
fee of each Knight for the Easter and Michaelmas quarters
was £8 13s. 4d. Under the heading of " Vadia guerre''
their military pay is set down, and amongst these entries is
the following : —

To Hugh de Wrotesle, Kt., for his wages of war at 2s., for
two Esquires each at 12d., and four Archers each at 6d. a
day from the 1 October up to the 13 May — each day included,
viz., for 227 days, £68 2s. Od.

And for a reward for himself and his men-at-arms for the
same time, £16 7s. 8d., and for the passage back of his nine
horses from Calais to Sandwich, 30s.

Another entry under the heading of " Debita per
billas,'' states that £85 12s. 3d. was owing to Sir Hugh
Wrottesley.

As the Keeper of the Wardrobe acted as Paj^master to the
King's troops, these accounts likewise give us the composition
of the force, and as it is the only document of the kind
extant at the Record Office of the time of Edward III, I
propose to give an abstract of its contents. The King was
accompanied by : —
K

130 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

The Prince of Wales, wlio had in liis suite 7 Bannerets, 136
Kni^lits, 443 Esquires, and 900 Archers on liorseback.

The Duke of Lancaster, whose retinue consisted of G
Bannerets, 90 Knights, 486 Esquires, and 423 mounted
Archers.

The Earl of Ulster (the King's son), who had a retinue
of 1 Banneret, 6 Knights, 82 Esquires, and 40 mounted
Archers.

The Earl of Richmond (the King's son), who had in his
suite 2 Bannerets, 35 Knights, 162 Escjuires, and 200 mounted
Archers.

Edmund de Langeley (the King's son), who had a retinue
of 6 Knights, 15 Es(i[uires, and 46 Archers on horseback.

The Earl of Northampton, who had in his train 2 Bannerets,
29 Knights, 126 Esquires, and 200 mounted Archers.

The Earl of March, who had 6 Bannerets, 61 Knights, 232
Esquires, and 300 Archers on horseback.

The Earl of Suffolk, with 19 Knights, 40 Esquires, and 60
Archers on horseback.

The Earl of Warwick, with 1 Banneret, 36 Knights, 82
Esquires, and 120 Archers on horseback.

The Earl of Stafford, with 3 Bannerets, 30 Knights, 86
Esquires, and 120 Archers on horseback.

The Earl of Salisbury, with 15 Knights, 34 Esquires, and
50 Archers on horseback.

The Earl D'Achely, with 1 Knight, 8 Esquires, and 10
Archers, and the Earl of Arundel, whose retinue is not given.

The Prince of Wales was paid ... ... 20s. a day.

The Duke of Lancaster was paid... ... 13s. 4d. a day.

An Earl was paid ... ... ... 6s. 8d. a day.

A Banneret ... ... ... ... 4s. Od. a day.

A Knight ... ... ... ... 2s. Od. a day.

An Esquire ... ... ... ... Is. Od. a day.

A mounted Archer ... ... ... 6d. a day.

The Bannerets named in the accounts and their retinues
were as follows : —

Henry de Percy, with 12 Knights, 56 Esquires, and 70
mounted Archers.

Edward le Despencer, with 12 Knights, 47 Esquires, and
60 mounted Archers.

Walter de Mauny, with 6 Knights, 20 Esquires, and 60
mounted Archers.

Guy de Brienne, with 6 Knights, 38 Esquires, and 56
mounted Archers.

Reginald de Cobham, with 8 Knights, 31 Esquires, and 40
mounted Archers.

Ralph Basset (of Drayton), with 11 Knights, 21 Esquires,
and 40 mounted Archers.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 131

Michael de Ponynges, with 4 Knights, 15 Esquires, and

20 mounted Archers.

Nicholas Burnell, with 2 Knights, 11 Esquires, and 20
mounted Archers.

John de Cobham, with 2 Knights, 22 Esquires, and 28
mounted Archers.

John de Beauchamp, with 9 Knights, 20 Esquires, and 30
mounted Archers.

William la Zouche, with 11 Knights, 35 Esquires, and 40
mounted Archers.

John de Cherleton, with 9 Knights, 30 Esquires, and 40
mounted Archers.

Reginald de Grey, with 7 Knights, 19 Esquires, and 24
mounted Archers.

William Latymer, with 4 Knights, 25 Esquires, and 60
mounted Archers.

Robert de Morle (Morley), with 7 Knights, 22 Esquires, and
30 mounted Archers.

Aylmer de St. Amand, with 3 Knights, 17 Esquires, and

21 mounted Archers.

John Kiriel, with 4 Knights, 11 Esquires, and 15 mounted
Archers.

Thomas de Ughtred and John de Ferrars. The retinues
of these two are not given.

William de Farley, the Keeper of the Wardrobe, had a
retinue of 14 Esquires and 37 mounted Archers.

John de Wyntwike, the Keeper of the Privy Seal, had
14 Esquires and 15 mounted Archers.

Henry de Walton, formerly Keeper of the Wardrobe, who
held some place in the Household, had 16 Esquires and 61
mounted Archers.

Francon van Hale, had 18 Knights and 218 Esquires.

William de Groucy, had 1 Knight and 12 Esquires.

William Graunson, had 6 Knights and 14 Esquires.

Henry de Flaunders, had 1 Banneret, 18 Kiights and 73
Esquires, and

The Lord de Guiminy or de Gomeny, who had 50 Esquires
in his suite.

The last five were foreigners, and it will be noted that they
had no mounted archers in their train. The mounted archer
was essentially an English force, and one on which depended
in a great measure the efficiency of the armies of Edward III.
It consisted of the younger sons and tenants of the landed
proprietors, and the ancient freeholders in the counties, who
had been accustomed to ride and to the use of the bow from
their childhood. These men were able to scour the country
for miles in front and on the flanks of the English army,
and sweeping in all the produce of the country, enabled the

132 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

armies of Edward III to move rapidly without the incumbrance
of a transport train. This important force has been hitherto
overlooked by writers on mediaeval warfare.

The Bannerets of the King's Houseliold were : —

Edward Ic Despencer, Guy de Brienne,

William la Zouchc, William Latymer,

John de Cherleton, Reginald de Grey,

Nicholas Burnel, Aylmer de St. Amand, and

John de Beauchamp, Thomas de Ughtred.

The Knights of the Household consisted of the following : —

Sir Richard la Vache, Thomas St. Leger,
Peter de Breux or de Breosa, Thomas de Swynnerton,

Richard de Pembrugge, Denis de Morbek,

Miles de Stapleton, John Brocas,

Nicholas de Loveigne, Thomas Moigne,

Thomas de Kyngestone, William de Overton,

Edward de Kendale, Thomas de Hoggeshawe,

John de Potenhale, Thomas de Berkele,

John de Cherleton le fitz, Hugh de Wrottesley,

Gilbert le Despencer, John de Chaundos,
Thomas de Murreaux (Murray), Guy de Warwick,

Thomas de Veer, John de Burley,

Thomas de Beauchamp, Andrew Luterell,

Simon Basset, Robert de Lisle,

John Pecche, Edward St. John,

John, son of Giles de Henry de Beaumont,

Beauchamp, John Marmion, and

William de Say, Richard Zouche.
Henry de Grey,

Besides these Knights, the King had in his retinue 26 other
English Kjiights and 78 foreign Knights. The retinues of the
English Knights varied from 6 Knights, 54 Esquires, and 36
Archers brought into the field by Sir John Chandos, down to
a single Archer which formed the retinue of Sir John de
Thorpe.

The Knights of most note after Sir John Chandos, were : —

Sir Richard la Vache, the King's Standard Bearer, after-
wards a Knight of the Garter and Constable of the Tower of
London, who had a suite of 9 Esquires and 10 mounted
Archers.

Sir Guy de Warwick, the eldest son of the Earl of Warwick,
had a suite of I Knight, 6 Esquires, and 10 Archers.

Sir Thomas de Beauchamp, the younger son of the Earl of
Warwick, had a suite of 2 Esquires and 3 Archers. This
Thomas succeeded his father in the Earldom, and played an
important part in the history of the following reign.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 133

Sir Richard de Pembrugge, K.G., with 2 Esquires and 6
mounted Archers.

Sir John de Burley, afterwards K.G., with 3 Esquires and

3 mounted Archers.

Sir John Brocas, afterwards K.G., with 3 Esquires and

4 Archers.

Sir Denis de Morbek, who took King John of France prisoner
at Poictiers.

Sir Thomas de Hoggeshawe, afterwards a Banneret, who had
in his train 2 Esquires and 3 mounted Archers.

Sir Miles de Stapleton, K.G., who had 1 Knight, 7 Esquires
and 10 Archers.

Sir Thomas de Berkeley, with 3 Esquires and 4 mounted
Archers.

Sir Thomas de Swynnerton, with 5 Esquires and 6 Archers,
and Sir Hugh de Wrottesley, K.G., who brought into the field
2 Esquires and 4 Archers.

Amongst the Knights of the King's retinue were some cadets
of good families who had commenced with the pay of 4^d.
a day and an Archer at 6d. a day, thus : —

Sir John Tichebourne's pay started at 4|d. a day, and he
had with him a mounted Archer at 6d. a day. After he was
knighted he received 2s. a day, and retained his Archer
at 6d.

Sir Oliver Brocas started with pay at 4|d. a day and with
6 mounted Archers, each at 6d. a day. After he was knighted
his retinue consisted of 2 Esquires and 6 mounted Archers.

Sir Thomas de Murreaux (Murray) le fitz started with pay
at 4id., and he had with him a mounted Archer, paid at 6d.
a day. He was afterwards raised to the pay of an Esquire at
12d., with a mounted Archer at 6d., and later on received the
pay of a Knight at 2s., an Esquire at 12d., and two mounted
Archers at 6d.

In the King's retinue there were also several Esquires, each
of whom had a mounted Archer. Amongst the former there
were the following members of Staffordshire families, viz. : —
Hugh de Swynerton, Roger Jolif, John de Draycote, Hugh
Harpur, Adam Trumwyne, Leo de Perton, and John Seymour.
There were also several " valetti," who had no Archers, but
were paid at the same rate as the mounted Archers, viz., at 6d.
a day. Amongst these was a John Legge.

The King's Body Guard consisted of 40 mounted Archers,
under the command of Walter Whitehorse, with a standard.
These are called Archers of the '' Hosjritium Regis^

There was also a body of 100 mounted Archers under the
command of Thomas de Stafford, with a standard.

Roger de Hampton commanded another body of 100 mounted
Archers of divers counties.

134 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

William Ryder commanded 39 mounted Archers from Oxford-
shire.

And there were also : —
35 mounted Archers under \\ illium Bridport.

110 mounted Archers under James de Eton.

101 mounted Archers under Ralph Baggele.

100 mounted Archers under Thomas Kelby.

100 mounted Archers under John Eland.

100 mounted Archers under John de Kyngeston.

Owyne de Charleton commanded a body of 1,000 Welshmen
of the King's retinue. These consisted of 10 Constables, 10
Standards, 10 Cryours, 50 Vintenaries, and 920 Welshmen from
North Wales. The Crier or " proclamator " was an important
personage before writing had come into vogue, for all orders
had to be transmitted l^y word of mouth.

Finally, the King's Confessor had a suite of 3 mounted
Archers.

No English infantry are named on the Roll, as they were
not paid by the Keeper of the Wardrobe, but the King's
retinue included Walter Vaghan, a matter miner, "magister
Tninatoriim,'' and 44 miners, and a master carpenter, John de
Massingham, who had under his orders 52 carpenters.^

On his return to England in 1360, Sir Hugh found himself
involved in a law- suit with his neighbour, John Swynnerton,
of Hilton. It will be remembered that when the King granted
to him in 1352 a pension of £40 a year, certain fee farm rents
in Staffordshire had been allocated for the payment of it.
Amongst these was an annual rent of two marks from the
Bailiwick of Teddesley, and it now appeared that this rent
was not payable to the Crown, but was a fee paid annually
to the Chief Forester of Cannock, who was John de Swynner-
ton. At the Assizes held at Lichfield in July 1360, John de
Swynnerton, of Hulton, sued Hugh de Wrottesleye, Kt., John,
son of John de Kcnilworth, of Pilatenhale, and William, son
of Richard de Engleton, for unjustly disseising him of a
rent of 26s. 8d. in Huntingdon and Teddesley. Sir Hugh
appeared by attorney and answered as receiver of the rent,
and quoted the Letters Patent of 25 Edward III, granting
him a pension of £40 a year for his life, to be taken from
the fee farm rents of Mere and Clent, Swinford, Kinfare and
Tettenhall, and the Forestership of Teddesley, and he stated
that the rent now claimed M'as the fee farm rent of the
Forestership of Tyddesley, and he could not answer to the

' Wardrobe Accounts, Vi'-

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 135

writ without tlie King " Rege inconsidto.'" The suit was
therefore adjourned to the following Easter term, when a
writ was produced from the King, stating that whereas John
de Swynnerton, of Hulton, had petitioned Parliament to the
effect that having arraigned an Assize of novel disseisin
against Hugh de Wrottesley, Kt., and others, respecting a
rent of 20s. in Huntyngdon and Teddesleye, of which he and
his ancestors had been in peaceful seisin from time out of
memory, until dispossessed by the said Hugh, and the said
Hugh had alleged that he lield the rent by the King's Letters
Patent, and the Justices had in consequence refused to proceed
with the Assize. The King, wishing to do what was just,
commanded the Justices to proceed with the Assize according
to law and custom. Dated from Westminster 18 February
35 Edward III.^

Kings in their official writs always wish to do what was
just, but the sequel often tells a different tale. At the
same Assizes Sir Hugh produced another writ of the King
addressed to the Justices at Lichfield, which stated that
whereas he had granted by his Letters Patent to his beloved
and faithful Hugh de Wrottesle, for his life, amongst other
sums, two marks to be received yearly from the Bailiwick
of the Haye of Teddesle, and it had been shewn to the
King, on the part of the said Hugh, that John de Swynner-
ton, of Hulton, had alleged that he was seised of the two
marks, and by an Assize arraigned against the said Hugh,
it was proposed both to disinherit the King and his heirs and
the said Hugh, to the contempt of the King, and to the great
damage of the said Hugh, the King commanded them that, if
they should find the two marks were the same as those named
in the Letters Patent, they were to desist from the Assize ;
dated from Westminster 27 March 35 Edward III : and the
writs having been read, the Justices found that the two
marks in dispute were the same as those named in the
Letters Patent, and the suit was dismissed.'^ Whilst this
suit was pending, Sir Hugh had issued two writs in Banco
against John de Swynnerton. By the first of these he
attempted to recover a sum of £22, which he alleged to be
unjustly withheld by John, and by the second he sued him
in' a plea that he should render an account of money which
John had received as his Bailiff and receiver. It would appear
by these suits that John de Swynnerton had received the fee
farm rent of two marks up to the return of Sir Hugh from
France in the autumn of 1360. The causes were adjourned

' Stafltord Assize Roll, 35 Edward III, m. 25 dorso. The petition of John

de Swynnerton to Piirliameut is extant. He evidently considered he had no

chance of obtaining justice from the ordinary courts of law,

* Ibidem.

136 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

to Hillary term 35 Edward III. No further notice of them
occurs on the Kolls, and tliey were either compromised or
brounjht to an end by the second Great Pestilence which
broke out in the summer of 1361.^

In 1360 a Statute had been passed regulating the office of
Justice of the Peace. The first Justices of co. Stattbrd
appointed under this Statute were : —

Ralph, Earl of Stafford, Sir Hugh de Wrottcslcy,

Sir William de Shareshulle Sir John de Brumpton,

(the Chief Justice of the John, Lord Ferrers of Chart-
Bench ), ley,

Sir Richard de Stafford, Sir Nicholas de Beek,

Sir Roger Hillary (one of the Sir John de Pcrton, and

Justices of the Common Sir Robert de Shareshulle. -'
Pleas),

In 1361 Sir Hugh was present at the Chapter of the Order
of the Garter, held on St. George's Day, 35 Edward III
(23 April 1361), on which occasion material for robes was
issued to him and eighteen other Knights. As this is the
first occasion on which any of the Knights are named on
the Records, it may be as well to give their names in full.
The entry on the Wardrobe Accounts is as follows : —

Domino Principe [1], Comitibus Ulton[2], RicheiBund [3], Sarum[4],
DominLs Edmuudo de Langele [5], Ricardo la Vache, Hugoni de
Wrotte.sle, lleginaldo de Cobham, Bartbolomeo Burghersh, Domino de
Moliun, Waltero Mauny, Nigello Loryng, Waltero Pavely, Willelmo
filio Waryn et Milone de Stapelton, cuilibet eorum v ulnas panni
nigri coloris longi et unam furraturam de cc ventibus miniveri puri,
Comitibus Staflbrd, Warwick, et Suffolk, et Thome Ughtred
militibus de Garterio, cuilibet eorum, vi ulnas panni nigri coloris
longi et unam furraturam de cc ventibus miniveri puri ad robas
sibi pro festo Sancti Georgii faciendas, et caputias dictarum rolmrum
liniandas, viz., cuilibet eorum iij partes uiiius ubie panni scarletti.
Per literas de private sigillo 12 March, anno xxxv.-^

Amongst tlie same accounts for this year there is a charge
for making 230 garters and 1,308 badges (Jir^naculurum) for

1 De Banco, Mich. 34 Edward III, m. 100. The Court did not sit at Trinity
term, 35 Edward III, owing to the Pestilence, which was then raging.

- Kot. Pat., 35 Edward III, m. 31, dor.so.

* Wardrobe Accounts, \"^, No. 1 is the Prince of Wales ; No. 2 is Lionel,
Earl of Ulster, the King's son ; No. 3 is John of Gaunt, then l<]arl of Richmond ;
No. 4 is the Earl of iSalisljury ; No. 5 is Edmund, the King's son, afterwards
Earl of Cambridge, at this time he was only twenty years of age. Beltz has
misread the date of this Chapter, and fixes it at 1300, when the King was abroad.
It will be observed that even at this early period the Knights were nearly all
either Princes of the Blood, Earls or Barons.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 137

the robes of the Knights of the Garter, viz. of gokl and
silk, and for two hoods, newly lined, delivered to the King
in his chamber, to give away at his will.^

The Knights therefore wore on this occasion black robes,
with hoods lined with scarlet silk, and the robes powdered
with garters and badges. The curious part of the proceeding
is the selection of four of the Knights to receive six j^ards
of long cloth for their robes, in place of five. These must
have been men of exceptional height of stature. The Ward-
robe Accounts shew that the robes given by the King to the
Knights of the Garter differed in colour on eacli occasion.
The mantles appear always to have been blue, and these were
probably retained at Windsor.

The Pipe Roll of the year 1363 presents us with another
instance of the liberality of the King in favour of Sir Hugh.
In 1360 the Treasurer of the Household had advanced to Sir
Hugh a sum of £13 6s. 8d. for wages for himself and his
retinue on the occasion of the expedition to France of that
year. Sir Hugh had afterwards been paid full wages for this
service, as well as an extra sum or reward by the Treasurer
of the Household, and was consequently bound to refund this
sum to the Treasury. The debt had been transferred to the
Sheriff's accounts, and is entered on the Pipe Rolls of 34 — 36
Edward III, under the heading of Prestita."^ In 1361 Sir
Hugh paid back half the amount, viz. ten marks, but he had
paid no further instalment of the debt for the next two years.
At length an entry on the Staffordshire Pipe Roll of 37
Edward III states that the King of his special grace had
remitted to Sir Hugh de Wrottesley the residue, viz. ten
marks owing to him for the above imprest.^ This was the
fourth occasion on which the King had remitted to him sums
of money owing to the Exchequer.

^ There is an earlier writ on the Pell Records summoning all the Knights of
the Garter to Windsor in 1353, but it contains no names. The Record is as
follows, under date of 16 Nov. 27 Edward III: — "To divers messengei's sent to
various parts of England with writs under the seal of St. George directed to all
Knights of the Order of St. George to come to Windsor, £1 - 6 • 8." This
summons must have been for the King's (Jhristmas festivities.

- A prestitum is a sum advanced by the Treasury foi- the public service, to be
subsequently accounted for. The term is still in use in the public service. When
the writer was in charge of a division of the Ordnance Survey, he made what
were called "imprests" on the Treasur}^ for the pay of his men.

» Staffordshire Pipe Rolls, 34 to 37 Kdward III. " The entry on the latter Roll
is as follows: — Hugo de Wrottesle miles reddit compotum de x marcis per
vicecomitem sicut supra contiuetur, viz. de remensione de xiij li et viij d. de
prestito in deuariis j)er ipsum receptis in Garderoba Regis super vadiis suis
guerre et honiinum suonim in partibus Francie unde nondum computantur
sicut continetur in Rotulo precedenti et in Rotulo xxxv et in Rotulo xxxvi
In thesauro nihil, et in perdonatione eidem Hugoni de gratia Regis speciali
X marcas, per breve Regis de privato sigillo, videlicet in memorandis de anno
xxxviii terraino Michaelis. Et quietus est.

138 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

At Micluiclinas term of this year, viz. 1868, Sir Hujrh
was suiiij;- in Ijanco, Adam Thomkynes, of Oldosfallyn^, William
do Tyford and John, his son, William le Miileward, of Perton
Mill, Simon le Frere, and Ada, his wife, and four others
named, for breaking vi et armis into his mill at Wyt^htwik,
taking his timber from it, and other goods and chattels
belonging to him at Wrottesley, to the value of £12. None
of the defendants appeared in Court, and the Sheriff was
ordered to distrain Adam, who had found bail, and to arrest
the others and produce them on the following Octaves of
St. Martin.'

It will be remembered that this is the same mill which
was the original cause of ' the feud between Sir Hugh and
the Perton family in ]883. On the Octaves of St. Martin
the Sheriff returned that Adam Tliomkyns and William de
Tyford, and John, his son, were dead, and as the attorney
of Sir Hugh did not deny this, the case was dismissed as
against them, and the Sheriff" was ordered to arrest the other
defendants and produce them on the Octaves of St. Hillary.-

No further proceedings appear on the Roll of Hillary term,
and the suit was without doubt dropt on the death of the
three principal defendants. From what we know, however, of
the temper and methods of Sir Hugh, he would probably have
met an attack of this kind with the same weapons, and the
sudden death of the chief actors in the raid is somewhat dis-
quieting when taken in connection with the previous history of
this mill. A knight of established reputation, who was high
in the favour of the King and a member of his household,
had little lo fear from an indictment in a local court at this
period, but early in the following year, when the Chief
Justice was sent into Staffordshire under a special Com-
mission, owing to the disturbed state of the country, Sir
Hugh transferred all his goods and chattels, moveable and
immoveable into the hands of two trustees, and this was
the usual plan adopted by men of property if they expected
writs of attachment to be issued against them.^

Sir Hugh was present at the Chapter of the Garter held
on St. George's Day of 1364, on which occasion robes were
issued to the King's three sons, the Dukes of Lancaster and
Clarence, and the Earl of Cambridge, to the Earls of Stafford,
Salisbur}^, and Suffolk, to the Lords Despencer, Burghersh,
de Mohun, and to Sir Walter Mauny, Sir Walter Pavely, Sir
Hugh Wrottesle, Sir Thomas Ughtred, Sir Francon van Hale,
the Captal de Besche (sic), and Sir Nigel Loryng, Knights

J De Banco. Mich. 37 Edward III, m. 202.

- Ibid , in. '6i)'i.

' Original deed at Wrottesley, copied 1860-62.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 139

of the Society of the Garter, for robes for the Feast of St.
George, with furs and hoods, viz. to each of them five yards
of cloth sanguine in grain, and one yard of black cloth in
grain, and a fur of 200 bellies of pure miniver.'

At the date of the outlawry of Sir Hugh, in May 1354, the
custody of the manors of Wrottesley and Butterton had been
granted by the King to the Earl of Stafford and to his brother.
Sir Richard de Stafford. All Sir Hugh's lands had been
restored to him by Letters Patent of 24 Nov. 1355, but at
the period now in question it appears to have been thought
advisable to obtain a formal release of these manors from
the Earl and his brother. Accordingly on the 28 Dec. 1364
the Earl released his claim unconditionally. Sir Richard was
absent from England and made no release till the 13 October
1376, when a clause was inserted in the deed, reserving to
him and to his heirs a remainder in the manors, in the event
of Sir Hugh leaving no heirs of his body.-

The release by the Earl was probably made on the eve
of Sir Hugh's second marriage, for about this period the latter
took for a second Avife Mabel, the daughter and coheir of Sir
Philip ap Rees of Talgarth, co. Hereford, and of Ideshale or
Allbrighton, co. Salop. Sir Philip was son of Res ap Howel,
one of the descendants of the former Welsh Princes and a
man of very extensive possessions in Wales and Monmouthshire.-^

During the years 1364 and 1365 Sir Hugh had four law suits
on hand in the Court of Common Pleas at Westminster, but
they contain few features of interest. In the first of them
he was suing John, son of Simon de Herouville of Wednesbury,
for abducting from Wrottesley one of his female villein tenants,
Alice Hichecokes. John did not appear to his summons, and
the Sheriff returned he could not be found and held no property
within his Bailiwick by which he could be attached. He was,
therefore, ordered to arrest and produce him at the next sittings
of the Court. ^ Sir Hugh's female villeins appear to have been
unusually prepossessing, for he lost no less than three of
them by elopements of this kind.

In 1366 the Black Prince espoused the cause of Don Pedro,
who had been driven from the throne of Castile by his ille-
gitimate brother, Henry of Transtamare. This step was taken
with the approval of the King, who gave permission to the

1 Wardrobe Accounts, »|^ The writ is dated 1 March 38 Edward III.

^ Originalia Roll of 43 Edward III, and original deeds at Wrotteslej', li^SO.

•* Inquisitions p.m., No. 4, 43 Edward III, Sir Philip ap Rees. For an account
of the family of ap l{ees see the History of Weston-under-Lizard, p. 80, vol. ii,
New Series of Staffordshiie Collections.

* Staffordshire Collections, vol. xiii, pp. 48, 54 and 56.

140 HISTORY OF THP] FAMILY OF

Kni;^hts of his Householil to joiu in the entcrprize, and nearly
all the former compiinions in arms of the Prince ranjjjed them-
selves under his standard. At Easter in this year Sir Hut^h
made a new settlement of his property, and the unusual pre-
cautions taken for its ratification seem to denote that he was
engaged on a distant expedition. On the Monday after the close
of Easter -AO Edwai'd III (1M66) by an indented deed made between
him and John de Titteley, chaplain, all the lands, tenements,
rents, etc., which he held in Boturdon, Waterfall, and Grendon
were settled on Sir Hugh for his life with remainder to John,
son of Cecilia de Pynington, for his life, with remainder to
the heirs male of the body of Sir Hugh, and failing such, to
the heirs male of the body of John, son of Cecilia, and other
remainders over. This deed for additional security was enrolled
in Banco at Easter term of this year.'

At the same sittings of the Court Sir Hugh levied a fine
respecting the manor of Wrottesley and the Patshull Mill,
by which they were settled on him and his wife Mabel, and
their male issue, and failing such, on John, son of Cecily de
Pynyngton, and his male issue, and with remainders over as
in the last deed.- I have no clue to the identity of John, son
of Cecily de Pynyngton, but suspect he was an illegitimate
son of Sir Hugh. It will be noted that the mills of Wightwyk
and the Wergs are not mentioned in these deeds, and must
have been the subject of other settlements which have not
been preserved.

The English levies joined the Prince in Aquitaine during
the autumn of 1366. The army crossed the Pyrenees in the
middle of the winter, and on the 8 April 1367 was fought
the battle of Najara, which re-established Don Pedro on the
throne.

The English troops were detained in Spain for many months
after this date, owing to the inability of Don Pedro to find-
the requisite money for their pay and dismissal, and there
is no sign of the presence of Sir Hugh in England before the
Friday in Easter week 1368, when he granted a lease of the
Wightwick mill to John le Fleming, one of the principal
tenants of the King's manor of Tettenhall."

Sir Plulip ap Rees, the father-in-law of Sir Hugh, died in
the following year (1369), and this event must have made a
considerable addition to Sir Hugh's resources, for he obtained
by it a third part of the valuable manor of Talgarth in Wales,
and of any other possessions of Sir Philip which had not
been settled on the wife of the latter for her life.

^ Original deed at Wrottesley, 1860, and De Banco Roll, Easter 40 Edward III,
m. 1 of Protections an<l Charters. -

* Pedes Finiiim StaflFoidshire, 40 I'Mward III.
' Original deed at Wrottealey, copied 1860-62.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 141

The Inquisition on the death of Philip, which was taken at
Hereford on the 9 Sept. 43 Edward III (1869), states that he
held at the date of liis deatli the manor of Tal<fartli En^leys,
of the King in capite, that he had died on the previous 4 August,
and that his heirs were his daughters, EHzabeth, wife of Sir
Henry de Mortimer, and Mabel, wife of Sir Hugh de Wrot-
tesleye, and that Hugh and Mabel had a son thirteen weeks old.

Another Inquisition taken at Shifnal, co. Salop, stated he
held the manor at Ideshale jointly with Joan his wife, who
survived him, and makes the same statement respecting his
heirs, with the addition that Elizabeth was thirty years of
age and Mabel twenty-four.^

Within ten months of this date both Mabel and her child
were dead, for on tlie 9 November the Kmg issued the following
writ to the Eschaetor, co. Hereford, " Whereas Philip ap Rees
deceased held the vill of Talgarth in capite by Knights service,
and Elizabeth, wife of Adam Peshale, one of the daughters of
Philip, is his sole heir, and is of full age, and Hugh de
Wrotesleye, Knight, had married Mabel the other daughter of
Philip, and Mabel was now deceased, but had survived her
father and Hugh had had a child by Mabel who was now dead :
We have accepted the homage and fealty of the said Hugh for
his purparty of the vill and demesne, by reason of the offspring
' prolis ' procreated between him and the said Mabel, to be
held by him according to the law of England, and also the
fealty of the said Adam for the purparty of Elizabeth, his wife.
The Escheator was therefore to make a partition of the vill
and demesne of Talgarth Engleys between the said Hugh de
Wrottesleye, Kt., and the said Adam Peshale.'"'^

Joan, the widow of Sir Philip ap Rees, died on the following
22 August 1370, and thus ot the seven persons named in the
above writs and Inquisitions, five had died between August
■1369 and August 1870.^ The third great pestilence of this
era broke out in July 1369, and lasted for several months.

Sir Hugh was present at the Feast of St. George held at
Windsor in 1371, on which occasion robes were issued from
the King's wardrobe to the Prince of Wales, the Earls of
Hereford, Salisbury', Pembroke and Stafford, and to the Lords
de Percy, Latj^mer, Neville, Basset and Mohun, Sir Walter de
Mauny, Sir Richard Penbrugge, Sir Guy de Brian, Sir Niel
Loryng, Sir Walter Pavele, Sir John Sully, and to Sir Hugh
Wrottesle, Knights of the Garter (militibus de Garterio). Each

^ Inquisitions p.m. 43 Edward III, Nob. 3 and 4.

- Originalia Roll (printed), 43 Edward III, m. 11. As Sir Henry Mortimer was
alive at the date of tlie two Inquisitions previously named, Elizabeth must have
married Adam within three months of her first husband's deatli.

•^ Inquisition p.m. 44 Kdward III, No. 3.

142 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Knight had five yards of lono; bhie cloth for robes, and one yard
of scarlet cloth for hoods, with linings of fur, viz., for each
Knight 200 l)ellies of pure miniver, by writ dated 12 March
44 Edward IIP (1370 1.

War had broken out again between the French and English
in the year 1369, and on the 3 June Edward III resumed
the title of King of France which he had renounced by the
treaty of Bretigni.

In 1370 an English arm}' was sent to France under the
command of Sir Robert Knollys, who had distinguished himself
in command of one of the Free Companies. This force issued
from Calais and plundered or burned every place between that
town and Paris which was not fortified or ransomed by its
inhabitants. Walter Wrottesley, the cousin of Sir Hugh, served
in this expedition,- in the retinue of Sir Robert Knollys. A
cotemporary French writer describes the latter as " le vrai
demon de la guerre."

In 1372 the King determined to take the field in person,
but he was now in his sixtieth year, and his good fortune had
deserted him. On the 31 August he set sail with a large force
for Guienne, but was driven back by a succession of storms and
forced to relinquish the enterprise. The troops were never
landed, and it is probable that most of the horses were lost,
for the King gave large compensations to his barons. The
retinue rolls which remain of this expedition are headed,
" Sitpra mare in presentia domini Regis," or "pur la innage
sur la riieTey The dates on them vary from the 8 August
to the 6 October, when most of the army disembarked at
Winchelsea. Sir Hugh, as a Knight of the King's household,
must have formed part of this unfortunate expedition, but
the Household accounts of it have been lost. In anticipation
of it, however, he had executed a deed on the Sunday after
the Feast of St. Margaret 46 Edward III (25 July 1372), by
which he conveyed all his lands and tenements in Boturdon,
Grendon and Waterfall to Richard de Grendon and William
de York, Chaplains, and the two feoffees by a subsequent deed,
dated on the following 16 August, conveyed the same lands
to Sir Hugh and Isabella, his wife, and the heirs of their
bodies, with remainder to the right heirs of Sir Hugh." This
deed contains the first mention of Sir Hugh's third wife.

Shortly after the death of Mabel ap Rees, Sir Hugh had
married for a third time. His choice on this occasion was
Isabella, the daughter of Sir John Arderne of Aldford, co.
Chester. Sir John Avas lord of Elford in Staffordshire, but

^ Wardrobe Accounts, 44 and 45 F.tlward III Ytt*-

- French Roll, 44 Edward III. His letters of protection are dated the '26 June.

* Copies of Butterton deed.s at Wrottesley, 1860.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 143

his principal estates \-Ay in Chesliire, where he represented Bigod
one of" the great Chester feudatories of A.D. 1086, and held
his lands by Barony.^ The fatlier and mother of Isabella had
both died in 1349, the j^ear of the Great Pestilence, leaving
two sons, Thomas and Walcheline, under age, and three
daughters, Matilda, Katherine and Isabella. Sir John also
left a son, Peter, by a former wife, but under a special settle-
ment made with the license of the King as Prince of Wales,
the whole of the Aldford fee passed to Thomas, the son of
his third wife, Ellen de Bulkeley. This Thomas was born
during the lifetime of the second wife, and was clearly
illegitimate. He lirst appears on the Cheshire Plea Kolls under
the name of Thomas Ellensone, but he subsequently assumed
the name of Arderne, and will appear in these pages as Sir
Thomas de Arderne at a later date. The daughters of Sir
John Arderne were born in wedlock, and the Arderne estates
had been settled by a Fine on the two sons in succession
and their issue in tail male, and failing such with remainder
to the daughters and their issue.- Walcheline, the younger
brother of Thomas, died leaving no issue, and the male line
of Sir Thomas failed after two generations. The attempts of
the descendants of the daughters to make good their claim to
the Arderne inheritance under this entail will be described
later on.

The Memorials of the Garter, by Beltz, shew that Sir Hugh
was present at the Chapter of St. George held in 1372, robes
having been issued to him and sixteen others for the festival
of that year. In the following year robes were issued to
several of the Knights of the Garter for the Feast of St. George,
but the name of Sir Hugh does not appear amongst them.
It is difficult to account for his absence on this occasion,
for on the previous 1 April he was at Wrottesley, and had
executed deeds re-settling his estates. It is clear that his
presence was not expected, for the writs of privy seal which
authorize the issue of the material for the robes are dated
some time before the day of the Festival, in order to enable
the robes to be made up. The probability is that Sir Hugh
was employed on some mission by the King, or had been
appointed Captain of one of the numerous garrisons in France.

^ For an account of the fee of Aldford see Ormerod's " Cheshire " and his
"Genealogical Essays." It comprised Aldford, Gawsworth, Lea, Thornton. Mobberley,
Norbury, Siddington, Rode now Noithwod. Congleton, Sandbach, Sutton, Wim-
baldsley, Wever, and a moiety of Nether Alderley and Faindon, for which the
lord of Aldford owed the service of seven Knights' fees to the Earl of Chester.

- Cheshire Fines, 20 Rdward III and 23 Edward III ; and Inquisitions taken
on death of Sir John Aj-derne in 23 Edward III. Peter, the legitimate son of
Sir John, inherited Alvanley, which had been settled on Sir John Arderne and
his mother.

144 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Those were usually commanded by Kni(j;]its who had grown
too old i'or active service in the iicld, and Sir Hugh was now
close upon sixty years of age. Owing to the war, many
otiier Knights were absent on this occasion, for robes were
issued only to fourteen of the Society.

Three deeds were executed on the occasi(m of the resettle-
ment of Sir Hugh's estates in 1873. By the first of them,
which was dated on the Thursday after the Feast of the
Annunciation, 47 Edward III (31 March 1373), Walter de
VVrottesley, who had been named in the remainder of a previous
settlement, released all his claim on the manor of Wrottesley^ ;
and by an Indenture in French, dated on the following day,
Sir Hugh bound himself to enfeoff Henry de Tynmore, the
Parson of Elford, and Henry de Oldefallyng, Chaplain, in the
manor of Wrottesley, on condition tliat the said Henr^^ and
Henry would enfeoil" Sir Hugh and Isabella, his wife, in the
same manor, with remainder to the heirs of the body of Sir
Hugh, and failing such to Walter de Wrottesley and the
heirs male of his body with remainder to John de Pilatenhale,
and the heirs male of his body, and failing such to the right
heirs of Sir Hugh."

In pursuance of this Indenture, Sir Hugh on the same
date enfeoffed the above named trustees in the manor, but
owing probably to the absence of one of the parties the
settlement was not completed till the following September,
when the same trustees conveyed the manor to Sir Hugh
and Isabella and to the heirs of their bodies, with remainders
according to the Indenture of 1 April. ^

When Sir Hugh had no longer an opportunity for fighting
the enemies of his country, he found a new and congenial
field for his energies in contests with his neighbours and
relations. He had already received pardons under the Great
Seal for his complicity in the deaths of four of his neighbours,
and at the present date he was engaged in a violent feud
with his near neighbour and relative, Adam de Peshall.

Sir Philip ap Rees, the father of Mabel, the second wife of
Sir Hugh, had died in August 1369, and when this event
occurred, Sir Hugh would be entitled to hold a third of
Talgarth by the courtesy of England, Mabel having had
issue by him.

On the death of Joan, the widow of Sir Philip, which took
place on the 22 August in the following year,^ Sir Hugh
appears to have claimed one half of the land she had held in

1 Original deed at Wrottesley, copied 1860-62.

^ Ibidem.

* Ibidem.

■• See ante p. 141.

WROTTESLKY OF WROTTESLEY. 145

dower, and this claim was resisted by Adam de Peshall. At
length, on the 18 October 1370, by the interposition of friends
of both parties, an accord was made by which Sir Hugh was
to permit Adam de Peshall and Elizabeth, his wife, to have
livery from the King's hands of the third part of the demesne
and manor of Talgarth Engleys which Joan, late wife of
Sir Philip ap Rees, had held in dower, and which was of the
inheritance of the said Elizabeth, together with some other
lands and tenements specified, and when this had been
effected, Adam and Elizabeth were to levy a Fine by
which Sir Hugh should acquire, by license of the King,
the said third part for his life, together with the other
third part which Adam and Elizabeth had held during the
lifetime of Joan, to- be held also for his life, and for which
he was to pay to Adam and Elizabeth £40 annually. As
Sir Hugh already held one third of the manor, the effect of
this agreement would be to hand over to him the whole of
Talgarth Engleys, subject to an annual payment to Adam
and Elizabeth of £40. Both parties took a solemn oath before
witnesses that they would faithfully caxry out their pledges,
but it is a noteworthy fact, when taken in connection with
the subsequent history of these transactions, that the half
of the Indenture formerly at Wrottesley, in place of bearing
the seal of Adam de Peshall according to the purport of the
last clause of the deed, has the seal of Thomas Gech, the
brother-in-law of Adam, attached to it.^ It would not, there-
fore, in the absence of witnesses, have bound Adam at all,
for the latter could have pleaded in a court of law that
it Vv'as not his act and deed, and it is abundantly clear
from subsequent proceedings that Adam never had any
intention of carrying out the agreement.

Sir Hugh, however, on the completion of this covenant,
seems to have taken possession of the whole manor, for in
a deed formerly at Wrottesley he styles himself " doininus
de Talgarth,'''' and granted a lease of the manorial mill. The
Welsh portion of Talgarth, including the towns of Langorse
and Bronlys, formed a separate manor, which was held under
the De Bohuns, Earls of Hereford. This had been settled
on Philip ap Rees and Joan, his wife, and their issue, and
having passed into the hands of Adam and Elizabeth, formed
a convenient base of operations for inroads upon the possessions
of Sir Hugh at Talgarth Engleys.

Accordingly at Easter term, 48 Edward III (1374), we find
the latter suing in Banco, Adam de Peshall and six others,

' Original deed at Wrottesley, copied 1860-G2. For an account of this trans-
action, see also Bridgeman's History of Weston under Lizard, pp. 83-89, Vol. ii,
New Series of Staffordshire CoUectious. No witnesses are named in the deed.

146 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

mostly Welshmen, for breaking vi et armis into his close at
Talf^arth Englej's, and taking his goods and chattels to the
value of £10. None of the defendants appeared, and the
Sheritf was ordered to arrest and produce them at the follow-
ing Trinitj'^ term.^ Sir Hugh must likewise have laid an
information against the Peshalls in the Court of King's Bench,
for an entry on the Coram Rege Roll of the same date, viz.,
Easter, 48 Edward III, states that the Sheriff had been
ordered to summon for that date Adam de Peshale, John le
Parker of Talgarth, Richard de Peshale, Kt., Richard Mutton,
John Qualmpolle, and fourteen others named, for divers
trespasses, extorsions and oppressions for which they had been
indicted. None of the defendants appeared, and the Sheriff
had made no return to the writ. He was therefore ordered
to distrain and produce them on the following term. The
process was continued up to Hillary term, 49 Edward III,
when Adam was fined ten marks, Richard de Peshall 40s.,
and the others smaller sums.- John Qualmpolle, here named,
had been formerly Sir Hugh's bailiff at Wrottesley, and having
been sued by the latter for an account of his stewardship
had absconded.^

Apparentlj^ after this inroad upon him Sir Hugh considered
it advisable to call upon Adam de Peshall to carry out the
agreement of 1370, for at the Easter Sittings of the Court
of Common Pleas, 48 Edward III. (1374), he sued Adam de
Peshall and Elizabeth, his wife, to carry out a covenant made
between them and himself respecting land in Talgarth Engleys,
and two parts of the same manor, according to the form of
certain Indentures made between them. The defendants did
not appear, and the Sherifi' was ordered to summon them for
the following term. The process was continued till Easter term,
49 Edward III, when the Sheriff returned that the defendants
had been distrained up to 40d. He was therefore ordered to
distrain again and produce them at the following term. The
process went on in this wa}^, adjourned from term to term,^
till Easter, 51 Edward III, when the Sheriff returned that he
had distrained them again up to 40d. The defendants,
however, made no appearance in Court, and he was ordered
to distrain again and produce them at the following Michael-
mas term.^ Before the last date the Eang had died, and as

' De Banco, Easter, 48 Edward III. m. 351, dor-so.

' Coram Rege, Ea.ster, 48 Edward III, m. 12, Rex.

3 De Banco, Mich., 42 Edward III, m. 340, dorso.

■* During a part of this time Sir Richard de Peshall, the brotlier of Adam, was
Sheriff of Staffordshire.

» De Banco, Trinity, 48 Edward III, m. 482, dor.so. Ditto, Easter, 49 Edward III,
m. 448. Ditto, Hillary, 50 Edward III, m 164. Ditto, Trinity, 50 Edward HI,
m. 276, dorso. Ditto, Easter, 51 Edward III, m. 212.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 147

this event annulled all the writs, Sir Hugh was forced to
begin his suit de novo.

It will be seen from the above narrative that seven years
had elapsed since the agreement had been made, and it was
not until four years had passed that Sir Hugh had commenced
an action in Banco for specific performance of it. During
the last three j'^ears Adam had successfully evaded service to
the writ, and Sir Hugh after having been put to considerable
expense in law costs had now to begin his suit again. It is
not surprising therefore to find him taking the law into his
own hands. In the first year of Richard II Sir Adam de
Peshall petitioned the King and Council, that having been up
in London for the Coronation of the King, on repairing
home to his own country. Monsieur Hugh de Wrottesley,
designing his death, had made various ambushes of men
armed and harnessed on the high roads between London and
the country, and he had himself laid in wait with many
armed men at a place called Foxhunte Ledegate, in the
county of Worcester, with a view of killing and murdering
the said Adam and his people, as was well known throughout
all the country, and he had afterwards so threatened him and
his servants and tradespeople of the town of Shuflfenhale
(Shifnal), that his servants and tradespeople did not dare to
attend the market or fair for the purpose of their business,
and he had taken from one William Barker, one of his
tenants, twenty-four oxen on the high road at Wrottesley,
and kept them until he had made a fine of 24s. for their
release, and the said Sir Hugh had formed a retinue of out-
laws and malefactors from the counties of Chester and
Lancaster, in consequence of which things the said Adam
prayed a remedy for himself and his tenants.

The petition is endorsed " Let a writ be issued under the
Great Seal commanding Monsieur Hugh de Wrottesle to appear
before the Council on the morrow of St. Martin next ensuing
under a penalty of £300, to answer to this bill." After which
follows a copy of the writ to Sir Hugh in Latin, which is
dated 30 October, 1 Eichard II. i

The King, although only ten years of age, had been crowned
at Westminster on the 16 July, and Parliament met on the
following 13 October. All petitions addressed in this way to
the King and Council were laid before Parliament, and the
above writ of the 30 October is endorsed " Istud breve
retornatum fuit in Parliamentum die Jovis in Crastino
Sancti Martini et idem Hugo ibidem compertus eodem die
Jovis."

^ Petitions to King and Council, Public Record Office. The petition is in
French, and bears no date.

148 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

There are two answers of Sir Hugh to the comphxint. In
the first of them, which is addressed to the King- of Castile
and Leon, the Duke of Lancaster, and other lords of Parlia-
ment, he merely says that " as Adam de Peshale had laid his
petition before Parliament, he prayed that the said Adam
might sustain his bill, or if he would not do so, that they
would give judgement upon it as reason demands." This was
evidently no answer to Sir Adam's petition, and the tone of it
justifies the suspicion that Sir Hugh trusted to the ascendency
of the old Court party in his favour. If this was the case
he must soon have been disabused, for the new Parliament
evinced an unaccustomed spirit of independence, impeached the
King's late mistress, Alice Perers, and excluded all the King's
uncles from the administi'ation. It also presented a petition
requesting the King to check the prevailing custom of the
Barons, as well as men of inferior rank, of forming illegal
confederacies and supporting one another in violations of the
law.

Sir Hugh had therefore to frame another answer. His
counter petition to the Council, like Sir Adam's, is in French,
and is addressed, " A tres sage et noble conseil notre seigneur
le Roi." It states that an accord had formerly been made
between Adam de Peshale and him respecting the Manor of
Talgarth, by which the said Adam and Elizabeth, his wife,
ought long ago to have levied a Fine, and this the said
Adam had sworn to perform in the presence of Sir Ralph
Ferrers, Sir Peter de Caverswalle, Sir Nicholas de Stafford,
Sir Thomas de Harcourt, and others, and this oath he had
violated, as well as his deed under his seal, and by this
violation the said Hugh had been put to great expense and
loss, as the manor being held of the King in capite, he
had been forced to obtain the King's license, for which he
had paid a large sum, and since that time, by reason of the
enmity between them, the men of the said Adam had beaten
his men and tenants at the Fair of Albrighton on the last
day of St. Thomas (21 December). Notwithstanding which,
they had sent to the said Adam at Ideshale complaining of
the men of Sir Hugh, whom they had beaten, in consequence
of which Hamenet, the brother of Adam, armed and arrayed
as for war, with others of his household and tenants to the
number of sixty, arrayed and armed, went to Albrighton and
drove the men of Sir Hugh out of the county of Salop as far
as Wrottesley, in the county of Stafford, and had beaten, maimed,
and ill-treated them so badly that they were in fear of their
lives, and they had plundered them, shouting out "Tuez les
larons de Wrottesleye," and calling out and praying to God
that the said Hugh had been with them, so that they might
have killed him, to the dread of the whole county, and

wrotte:sley of wrottesley. 149

against the King's peace. And besides this, the said Adam,
Hamenet, and Sir Richard, his brothers, had laid a slanderous
complaint against him in the King's Court, and sued out
writs to attach his person without any reason, since which
time the said Sir Richard, Adam, and Hamenet, and others
of his affinit}^, had assembled together 300 men arrayed in
manner of war, so that he neither dared to remain at home
or go out of his house without a great company by reason
of their malice ; and Thomas Gech, the brother-in-law of
Adam, had sent word to one William de Godyngton to go
with him against the said Hugh, and because he had refused
to do so, the sons of Sir Richard had gone to the house of
William for the purpose of killing him, and out of spite had
taken his daughter and " la raviserent felenousement," against
the King's peace and dignity, and in order to spite the
said Hugh as before stated.^

The ultimate result of these proceedings is not shewn, but
without doubt both parties were bound over under heavy
penalties to keep the peace according to the provisions of
the Act of Edward III.

In order to give a continuous narrative of this dispute, it
has been necessary?' to outstrip some of the events of Sir
Hugh's life. The Wardrobe Accounts shew that he was present
at the Chapters of the Garter held on St. George's Day
(21 April), in each of the years 1374, 1375, 1376, and 1377.

On the first of these Festivals, owing probably to the war
in France, twelve only of the Knights were present, in addition
to the King and the Prince of Wales These were the Earls
of Cambridge and Salisbury, the Lords Latymer, Neville and
Basset, Sir Alan Buxhulle, Sir Guy de Brian, Sir Richard
Pembrugge, Sir W^alter Pavely, Sir Niel Loryng, Sir John
Sully, and Sir Hugh Wrottesle.'''

The Festival of the year 1376, was the last attended by
the Black Prince, for he died on the following 8 June. A
truce had been made with France, and every Knight was
present except the Captal de Buch. Robes were issued to: —

The Prince of Wales, The Duke of Lancaster,

The Duke of Brittany, The Earl of Salisbury,

The Earl of Cambridge, The Earl of Bedford,

The Earl of Warwick, The Earl of Stafford,

The Earl of Suffolk, Lord Latymer,

Lord Neville, Lord Percy,

' Petitions to King and Council. Public Record Office.

- Enrolled Wardrobe Accounts, No. 4. The colors of the Robes are not given
in these Accounts. The enrolled AVardrobe Accounts, as distinguished from the
ordinary Wardrobe Accounts, appear to have been overlooked both by Austis
and Beltz.

150 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Lord Basset of Drayton, Sir Thomas de Holland,

Sir Alan de Buxhull, Sir Guy de Brian,

Sir Nigel Lor3^ng, Sir John Sully,

Sir Hugh de Wrottesle, Sir WilHara de Beauchamp,

Sir Thomas Percy, Sir Thomas Banastre, and

Sir Guychard d'Angle, Sir Robert de Namur.

The Robes at this Festival were sanguine in grain,' and the
hoods lined with blue ; the fur supplied was white miniver
for the lords and grey for the knights.

The Festival of the following year was the last attended
by the King, who died in June 1377. On this occasion
Richard, the young Prince of Wales, was introduced into the
Chapter, although only eleven years of age, and out of
compliment to his youth the Knights were attired in robes
of white cloth and hoods lined with blue.- To quote the
late Poet Laureate, they were " white robed in honor of the
stainless child."

An Inquisition of this year (1377), taken on the death of
Thomas de Venables of Alvandelegh, gives some information
respecting the parentage of Isabella, the wife of Sir Hugh.
It states that Thomas had died seised of certain lands and
tenements in Budworth, co. Chester, in right of his wife
Aline, the daughter and heir of Robert Daa, which were held
of the King in capite as Earl of Chester, by military service,
and that the heirs of Aline were Robert, son of Robert de
Legh, the son of Matilda, daughter of John de Arderne, Kt.
Katherine, the wife of John Boidele, Kt., daughter of John
de Arderne, and Isabella, the wife of Hugh de Wrottesleye, Kt.,
the other daughter of John de Arderne, and that Katherine
and Isabella were twenty-four years of age and upwards.

^ i.e., Sauguiue in grain is crimson. Spanish grana — whence the word pome-
granate.

- Wardrobe Accounts, 49-51 Edward III, ''^-J. There is a cotemporary drawing
of Sir Neel Loryng, in the.se robes, in Cottonian MS., Nero. D. vii, where he is
depicted in white robes powdered with garters.

The Black I'lince died on the 8 June 1376. The enrolled Accounts of John de
Sleford, the Keeper of the Wardrobe, between the 2i November, 48 Edward III,
and 21 June, 51 Edward III, when the King died, have the following entry: —

" Et Edwardo Principi Wallie ac Ricardo filio suo Principi Wallie post mortem
dicti patris sui, Duci Lancastrie, Comitibus Pembroke, Warwick et Saiuni, Dominis
de Percy, Latymer, Neville, Mohun et Basset, Alano de Buxhulle, Ricardo de
Peinbrugcre, Guidoue Brian, Thome Graunson, Guychard de Angle, Nigello Loryng,
Johanni Sully, Hugoni de Wrotteslee et Waltero Pavele, militibus de Garterio,
et Kpiscopo Wyutouensi jiro robiis suis contra festum Sancti Georgii faciendis,
necnon prefato Ricardo Principi Wallie, Thome de Wodestoke, Henrico filio Regis
Castell, Comiti Oxou : dominis de Bellomoute, et Moubray, duobis filiis Comitum
Stafford et Sarum, tribus filiis domini de Percj', et Jobanni de Sotheray pro
apparatubus suis ad ordinem militarem de dicto avo suscipiendum," etc.

This is probably the first occasion on which Knights were made of such tendw
age. Richard, the Prince of Wales, and his cousin Heury, the son of John of
Gaunt, were born in the same year, viz., in 1366.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 151

The relationship of the sisters to Aline is not specified,
but judging from chronology, and facts gleaned from the
Chester Plea Rolls, they were, without doubt, her grand-
children.^

Edward III died on the 21 June 1377, and his grandson,
Richard, was crowned in the following month. On the
formation of the young King's household. Sir Hugh was
placed in his former position as a " miles Rejjis,''''^ and his
fee of £40 a year was confirmed to him by Letters Patent
dated 27 January 1378.

At the first festival of St. George of the new reign all the
Knights of the Garter were present. The young King at
this date was only eleven years of age, and he was accom-
panied by his mother, Joan, the Princess of Wales, and
several other ladies, who were all attired in the same
dress as the Knights. Alan de Stokes, the Keeper of the
Wardrobe, charges his accounts this year with a robe of
scarlet cloth for the King's mother, of the uniform of the
Society of the Garter " de secta Tnilitum de Societate
Garterii, de dono domini Regis contra Festum Sancti
Georgii,'' and the same for the Queen of Spain (the Duchess
of Lancaster), the Duchess of Brittanj^, and the Lady
Courtenay, sister of the King,^ and for two daughters of
the Duke of Lancaster, and for the Countess of Oxford.

' Robert Daa was a son (probably illegitimate) of Warine le Grosvenor of Bud-
worth, the chief Forester of Delamere, temp. Edward 1. The name is apparently
Welsh, for a Jevan ap Daa was Collector of the Subsidy in co. Chester in 1434,
and Res Wynne ap Daa held the same office in 1454. A suit on the Chester
Plea Rolls shews that Warine le Grosvenor, temp. Edward I, had made grants
of land in Budworth to his son Robert Daa, and this Robert was also executor
of his will.

Thomas de Venables was not the father of Ellen, the mother of the three
coheiresses of Aline, for in 42 Edward III they were sueing him for waste
and destruction in lands of their inheritance at Teverton, near Tarporley.
He must, therefore, have held their inheritance by courtesy only. The
father of Ellen may have been a Bulkeley, as she is called Ellena de Bulkeley
on the Chester Plea Rolls ; but I suspect she was a widow, and had been
born a Radclifle. The Radcliffes of Ordsall, co. Lancaster, held Moberley
and Sandbach, under the Ardernes of Aldford, and Sir Hugh Wrottesley, after
his marriage with Isabella, appears to have assumed the Arms of Radcliffe
with a change of tincture, for these Arms, viz , " Or, a bend engrailed Gules,"
have been ascribed to him by Ashmole, in his " History of the Garter," on
the authority of an Armorial in the College of Arms. Ormerod, in his
" History of Cheshire," describes Ellen as a Wasteneys, but I have never
been able to discover any authority for this statement.

^ A writ on the Patent Roll of 1 Richard II (printed), dated 25 November
1377, contains a pardon for John Trubbeschawe for killing Stephen de
Bruggewode, granted on the supplication of Hugh de Wrotteslej- " Begis
militis." John was one of the outlaws of co. Chester, whom Sir Hugh had
taken into his service.

^ This was Matilda, widow of Sir Hugh Courtenay, and half-sister to the
King. The Duchess of Brittany was Mary, a daughter of Edward III, and
the Countess of Oxford was Philippa, granddaughter of Edward III, and a
daughter of Isabella, the Countess of Bedford.

152 HISTORY OP THE FAMILY OP

Also for robes of scarlet cloth embroidered with Garters
of blue taffata, with the motto " hony soit qi mal y pense,"
each robe of two trimmings, "c^e duahus garniamentis,^'
and for hoods of the same, lined with white cloth, made
long and furred, for twenty-four Knights of the Society of
the Garter, for the Festival of St. George, viz., for the Duke
of Lancaster, five yards of scarlet cloth and one yard of
white cloth, and a fur lining, '\furratuT(i"' of 200 bellies of
pure miniver; for the Earl of Derby,' three yards of scarlet
cloth and half a yard of white cloth, and a fur of 200 bellies
of pure miniver ; and for the Duke of Brittany, the Earls of
Cambridge, Warwick, Salisbmy, Stafford, Suffolk, Northumber-
land, and Huntyngdon, and the Lords Latimer, Nevill,
Basset, and Sir Thomas Holand, to each, five yards of
scarlet cloth and half a yard of white cloth, and a fur of
200 bellies of pure miniver ; and to Sir Wilham de Beauchamp,
Sir Gu}^ de Brian, Sir Alan de Buxhull, Sir Thomas Percy,
Sir Thomas Banastre, Sir Nigel Loryng, Sir John Sully, Sir
Hugh de Wrottesle, Sir Louis de Cliftord, and Sir John de
Burle, to each for robes, five yards of scarlet cloth, half a yard
of white cloth, and a fur lining of 120 bellies of miniver
" grossi^^ ;^ and to Isabella, Countess of Bedford,^ for a robe
of the uniform of the said Knights, " de secta dictorum
rrdlitiim," for the same Festival, five yards of scarlet cloth,
half a yard of white cloth", and a fur of 200 bellies of
pure miniver.''

Sir Hugh was present again at the Festival of the Order
in 1379, but apparently the presence of the King's mother
and the other ladies in 1378 had not been a success, for the
household accounts of 1379 state that 2,030 Garters'* were
made of blue taffata, embroidered in gold, with the motto
of the Order, for twenty-six trimmings, " garnicunentis," for
the King and other Knights of the Societj^ of the Garters,
(sic) " de Societate Garteriorum,'' and likewise for the King's
mother and for two others, which were not received, " et
aliis duabus de non receptisy From another part of the
same document we find that the two ladies who had not
accepted their robes were the Countess of Bedford and her
daughter, the Countess of Oxford, and as no other ladies
received robes, the King's mother must have been the only
lady present upon this occasion. It is a trifling circumstance

^ Henry, Earl of Derby, %vas the eldest son of the Duke of Lancaster,
and was afterwards Henry IV. At this date he was only eleven years of age.

- Miniver grossus would be prohablj' the back or coarser fur of the animal,
grey in colour.

^ The Countess of Bedford was Isabella, daughter of Edward III, and the
widow of Ingelram de Coucy.

■* The robes were powdered with Garters, as shewn on a contemporary
drawing of Sir Kiel Loryug.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 153

in itself, but the refusal of the two Countesses to accept
robes of the King's gift is a forecast of the rivahy and
jealousies which distracted the Court of Richard II, and
ultimately produced the deposition and death of that un-
fortunate King.

The robes on this occasion were of tawny cloth, embroidered
with Garters of blue tafFata, with the motto of the Order,
with hoods of blue cloth, and lined with miniv^er as on former
occasions. Twenty -two robes were issued from the wardrobe,
and all the Knights were present except Lord Neville and
Sir John Burley. Of the original Knights of the Garter
four only survived at this period, viz., the Earl of Salisbury,
Sir Guy de Brian, Sir Nigel Loryng, ^ and Sir Hugh
Wrottesley.

On the 6 December 1380, license was granted to John
Burdele (Boydell), Kt., and to Katherine, his wife, to alienate
to Hugh de Wrottesleye, Kt., and to Isabella, his wife, and
to their issue, a messuage and thirty acres of land in
Budworth, in Le Frith, and on the following 14 December
a writ to the Eschaetor of co. Chester directs him to deliver
to Hugh de Wrottesleye that part of the land of Alina,
formerl}^ the wife of Thomas de Alvandelegh, which belonged
to Isabella, wife of the said Hugh, and likewise the other part
which belonged to Katherine, wife of John Burdele, Kt., and
which had been sold b}^ her and the said John, to Hugh and
Isabella, and which lands had fallen to the said Isabella
and Katherine, as kinswomen and heirs of the said Alina. ^
This is the latest appearance of Sir Hugh on any public
document.

On the following 14 January he was on his death bed and
made provision for two sons, apparently illegitimate. By a
deed, dated from Wrottesley, on the Monda}- after the Feast
of St. Hillary, 4 Richard II, he granted to his son William,
all his lands, tenements, rents, and services in the vills of
Tetenhall and Codsall for the term of his life, together with
a mill adjoining called Bordensmulne, and by another deed
of the same date he granted to his son Richard, for the
term of his life, all his lands and tenements in Beckebury
and Wybaston.-

He died, according to the Inquisition taken on his death,

' Calendar of Welsh and Cheshire Recoi'ds, printed. (Holls series). Kalheriue
had been previously married to Thomas de Mascy, and seems to have been
the eldest sister, for in 136S Thomas de Mascy and Katherine, his wife, Uobert
de Legh, the younger, and Matilda, his wife, and Isabella, sister of Matilda,
sued Thomas de Veuables, of Alvandelegh, for waste in Tevertou, near
Tarporley, which was of their inheritance.

^ Oiiginal deeds formerly at Wrottesley, copied 1860- 6 J. Wybaston is a
township of Bushbury.

154 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

on the Monday after the Feast of St. Vincent, 4 Richard II,
wliicli would be the 28 January 1381, but to shew the
diificulty of obtaining accurate dates at this era, the Court
Roll of Wrottesle}^ held on the following 9 January 1382,
states, on the authority of all the tenants at Wrottesley,
that he died on the Tuesday before the Feast of the
Purification of the Blessed Mary, 4 Richard II, which
would be the 29 January 1381 ; whilst the Pipe Roll of the
same year fixes the date as the 21 January 1381, from which
day his pension of £40 ceased to be payable.

The writ of '' diem clausit extremum " was issued to the
Eschaetor, of co. Hereford, on the 4 February 1381, and the
In((uisition took place at Hereford on the 10 February. It
states that Hugh de Wrottesley Chivaler held no lands or
tenements in fee in co. Hereford, on the day he died ; but
he held at that date the third part of the manor of Talgarth
for the term of his life by the courtesy of England, in right
of Mabel, formerly his wife, the reversion of which belonged
to Elizabeth, the wife of Adam de Peshale, Chivaler, the sister
and heir of Mabel, and which Elizabeth was thirty years of
age and upwards, and that the said third part w^as held of
the King in capite by the service of one-third of a Knight's
fee, and was worth annually £12, and that Hugh de Wrottesley
died on the Monday after the Feast of St. Vincent last, and
that Hugh, the son of the said Hugh, was his nearest heir
by blood, and was ten years of age.

At the date of his death Sir Hugh had just completed his
sixty-seventh year.

The following younger members of the family are named
in deeds or on the Plea Rolls during the lifetime of Sir
Hugh, in addition to those already mentioned in the fore-
going account of him.

John de WVottesley occurs on a Staffordshire Assize Roll of
5 Edward III, and was outlawed in 9 Edward III for a
trespass committed with many others against the Dean and
Chapter of Lichfield. He is doubtless identical with the John
de Wrottesley mentioned in the proceedings of 20 Edward II,
against Joan the widow of Sir William de Wrottesley, and
was probably uncle to Sir Hugh and son of Sir William,
who was living between 1276 and 1313.

A William de Wrottesleye occurs as a tenant in Drayton
Basset on the Subsidy Roll of 6 Edward III. This is
probably William, son of Hugh de Wrottesley, named in the
suit against Walter de Perton on the Assize Roll of
12 Edward III, and the consanguineus of Sir Hugh named
in the deed of 11 Edward III.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 155

A Thomas de Wrotteslegh was one of those appealed in

11 Edward III by Lettice, formerly wife of Henry de
Longford, for the death of her husband. He did not
appear, and was outlawed." The principal defendant in these
proceedings was John de Chetwynde, Knight. Peter, son of
Thomas de Wrottesley, is shewn by a deed formerly at
Wrottesley to have held land in Chillington in 23 Edward III.

Richard de Wrottesley occurs as a defendant in a suit for
trespass in Warwickshire in 11 Edward III,- and is doubt-
less identical with the Richard named in the proceedings of
20 Edward II, above named, and was uncle to Sir Hugh.

A Hugh de Wrottesley, Bailifi' of Sir Henr}^ de Brailles-
ford at Befcote, was sued by the latter to render an account
of his Stewardship in 26 Edward III. Thirteen years after-
wards, viz., in 39 Edward III, he was sued by Sir Henry
for a trespass committed against him at Befcote in company
with many other tenants, and not appearing to his summons
was outlawed.^ This Hugh was probably brother to the
William de Wrottesley abovenamed, the consanguineus of
Sir Hugh, for the father of William was named Hugh. In

12 Edward III (1338) Stephen de Seggesbarwe was sueing
Hugh de Wrottesleye and Robert de Codeshalle for taking
by force, in August 1336, his goods and chattels, viz., hay
and corn, worth 100s., from Oxhulle, in Warwickshire, and
for beating and wounding his servants. The defendant,
however, in this case, ma}^ have been Sir Hugh, for the
affix of " miles " or " chivaler '' is occasionally omitted in
the Plea Rolls.*

Arms of Sir Hugh de Wrottesley.

Wrottesley impaling Arderne of Aldford, co. Chester.

Or, three piles Sable, a quarter Ermine for Wrottesley.
Gules, a chief and three cross crosslets Or, for Arderne. According
to Ormerod, the chief was sometimes borne Argent.

The deeds, formerly at Wrottesley, of the epoch of Sir
Hugh de Wrottesley, K.G., were very numerous, for in addition
to frequent mortgages of his lands in order to raise money,
and royal grants made to him, he made a fresh disposition
of his property whenever he married a new wife, or was

' Coram Kege Roll, Michaelmas, 11 Edward III, m. 16, Res.
^ Coram Rege, Trinity, 11 Edward III.

2 De Banco Rolls, Easter, 26 Edward III, m. 40 dorso, and Coram Rege Roll
of Hillary, 39 Edward III.

* Coram Rege Roll, Easter, 12 Edward III, m. 71.

156 HISTORY OF THP] FAMILY OF

about to set forth on an expedition with the King. The
most important of these deeds are given below : —

Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Johannes de Fulford dedi,
concessi, et hac present! carta confirmavi domino Hugoni de
Wrottesleye miUti et Elizabeth uxori sue manerium de Wrottesleye
cum edificiis, terris, parcis, pastui-is, boscis, redditibus, sectis curie,
serviciis nativorum et eorum sequelis cum wardis, releviis, eschaetis,
maritagiis, una cum molendino aquatico in feodo de Patleshulle
existente quod vocatur Auec Wallemulle que habui ex dono et feoifa-
mento predicti domini Hugonis. Habenda et tenenda omnia supra-
dicta cum suis pertinentiis predictis domino Hugoni et Elizabeth
uxori sue et heredibus de corpore ipsius domini Hugonis legitime
procreatis, libere, (piiete, bene et in pace in perpetuum de capitalibus
dominis feodi illius per servitia inde debita et consueta. Ita quod
si predictus Hugo sine herede de se legitime procreato decedat, tunc
post decessum predictorum Hugonis et Elizabeth predictum manerium
cum omnibus supradictis cum suis pertinentiis Rogero fratri dicti
domini Hugonis et filio Willelmi de Wrottesleye et heredibus
masculis de corpore suo legitime procreatis integre remanebunt : et
si predictus Rogerus sine herede masculo de se legitime procreato
decedat, tunc predictum manerium cum omnibus supradictis cum
suis pertinentiis Idonie sorori sue et filie Willelmi de Wrottesleye
et heredibus masculis de corpore suo legitime procreatis remanebunt,
et si dicta Idonia sine herede masculo de corpore suo legitime pro-
creato decedat, tunc predictum manerium cum omnibus supradictis
cum suis pertinentiis Elienore sorori sue et filie Willelmi de Wrottes-
leye et heredibus masculis de corpore suo legitime procreatis remane-
bunt, et si dicta Elienora sine herede masculo de corpore suo
legitime procreato decedat, tunc dictum manerium cum omnibus
supradictis cum suis pertinentiis propinquioribus heredibus dicti
d(miini Hugonis integre remanebunt in perpetuum. Et ego predictus
Johannes, etc. (clause of warranty). In cujus rei testimonium huic
presenti carte sigillum meum apposui. Hiis testibus, Dominis
Johanne Giffard, Johanne de Swynfortun, Henrico de P)isshebury
militibus, Johanne de Prestwode, Willelmo de Rugge, Ricardo de
Ovyotteshay, Ada de Beckebury et aliis. Data ajDud Wrottesleye,
die dominico proximo post festum Sancte Hillarii anno regni regis
Edwardi tertii post conquestum, septimo. [16 January 1334].'

Seal, a man's head within a geometrical figure, but much
defaced.

^ Original deed at Wrottesley. copied 1360. Sir John Giffard, the first witnes.s,
was Lord of Chillington, co. iStaffurd, and was a relic of a former age, for he
succeeded his father in 1313. He served as one of the Knights of the Shire
in the Parliaments of 16 and 18 Kdward IL Sir John de Swj'nnerton was
Lord of Hilton, co. Staiford, and hereditary Chief Forester of Cannock. Sir
Henry de Bis.«hebnry was Lord of Biishhury and Upper Peun, co. Stafford.
He and Sir John de Swynnerton were Knights for the county in the Parlia-
ment of lo Kdward II. The other witnesses wore Shropshire Ksquircs. living
at Uudge and l^eckbury, in the neighbourhood of Wrottesley ; Ovyotteshay is
Ivetsey in Albrightou.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 157

Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Hugo de Wrottesleye miles
dominus de Wrottesleye dedi, concessi et hac present! carta con-
firmavi Willelnio de Wrottesleye consanguineo meo et Willielmo de
Holbarwe manerium meum de Wrottesleye cum omnibus suis per-
tinentiis Habendum et tenendum pi'edictura manerium cum omnibus
suis pertinentiis predictis Willelmo et Willelmo heredibus et assig-
natis suis de capital] bus dominis feodi illius per servitia inde
debita et consueta. Ego vero Hugo et heredes mei predictum
manerium cum omnibus suis pertinentiis predictis Willelmo et
Willelmo heredibus et assignatis suis contra omnes mortales waran-
tizabimus et defendemus in perpetuum. In cujus rei testimonium
huic carte sigillum meum est appensum. Hiis testibus Dominis
Henrico de Bysshebury, Johanne Gifiard militibus, Ricardo de
Hampton, Johanne de Mollesleye, Ricardo de Ovyoteshay, Johanne
de Barnehurst et aliis. Datum apud Wrottesleye die Jovi proximo
ante festum Sanctii Ambrosii confessoris anno regno regis Edwardi
tertii a conquestu undecimo. [3 April 1337].^

Ceste endenture testmoigne que come Monsz Hugh de Wrottesleye
Chivaler a done e graunte a Monsz Johan de Hampton Chivaler
e a ses heyres totes les terres et tenementz rentes e services anzi
bien de franke tenaunts come de feifts ove toutz les appurtenauntz
que il aveyt en Boterdone, Waterfall et Grendon aver e tener a le
avaundit Monsz Johan e a ses heyres anzi come en une chart re
de fefement al dit Monsz Johan par le dit Monsz Hugh de lui
fatte plus pleynment est contenuz, que le dit Monsz Johan graunt
pur luy et pur ses heyres que si le dit Monsz Hugh paie al dit
Monsz Johan a Elderstoke en Hampteshire a les octaves de Seynt

1 Original deed at Wrottesley, copied 1860. On the 18 June following, the
abovenamed feoffees reconveyed the manor of Wrottesley to Sir Hugh and his
wife, Elizabeth, with remainder to his brother Roger, and .sisters, Idonia and
Elienora, as in the deed of 1-iM. The seal of William de Wrottesley was much
defaced, but the remains of a fret could be clearly distinguished on it. The
witnes.ses to this deed were John de Barnehurst, Richard de Ovyoteshay, John
de Hampton, and William le Newemau de Hampton.

158 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Johan le Baptist posthem avener apres la confecture de cestes,
vynt livres desterlings, que bien lise al dit Monsz Hugh e a ses
heyres en les avauntditz terres e tenementz, rentes e services ausci
bien frank tenantz come done de feifts (sic) ove toutz les appui*-
tenauntz reentrer et retener a toutz jours e que fa chartre de feffe-
ment de luy al dit Monsz Johan per le dit Monsz Hugh fatte
soyte tenue pur nul, et le dit Monsz Hugh grante pur ly et pur
ses heyres que si il ne paie les avantditz vynt livres al dit Monsz
.lohan al jour e lieu avantditz que adonques bien lise al dit Monsz
Johan e a ses heyres les avauntditz terres e tenementz rentes e
services auxi bien de franks tenauntz come de feafts ove toutz
les appurtenauntz retener a toutz jours et que la chartre de fefFement
de lui al dit Monsz Johan per le dit Monsz falte estoise en sa
force. Ceux testimoignes, Sire Richard Hillari, William de Lodelowe,
Johan de Prestwode, Johan de Barnehulst, Johan de Mollesleye
I'egne, Johan de Mollesleye le juysne, et autres, Escrite a Wade-
nesfale le Samedy posthem apres la fest de Synt Ambrose le
Confesseur Ian du reigne Rey Edward tierce apres le conquest
unzime. [5 April 1337.]i

Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Johannes de Hampton miles
dedi concessi et hac presenti carta mea confirmavi domino Hugoni
de Wrottesleye militi, omnes terras et tenementa, redditus et
servitia cum suis pertinentiis que habui in Boterdon, Waterfall et
Grindon, de dono et feoffamento dicti domini Hugonis. Habenda
et tenenda omnia predicta terre et tenementa redditus et servicia
cum omnibus suis pertinentiis predicto domino Hugoni heredibus
et assignatis suis de capitalibus dominis feodi illius per servicia
inde debita et consueta in perpetuum. In cujus testimonium huic
carte mee sigillum meum est appensum. Hiis testibus Ricai'do de
Hampton, Johanne de Prestewode, Johanne de Barnehurst, Johanne
de Mollesleye seniore, Johanne de Mollesleye juniore et aliis.
Datum apud Beietatis (sic) die dominica proxima post festum
Sancti Michalis anno regni regis Edwardi tertii a conquestu un-
decimo. [5 October 1337.]-

^ From copies of Buttertoii Deeds at Wrottesley, transcribed by me 1860. Sir
John de Hampton was of Oldstoke, co. Southampton. His surname was derived,
I think, from Hampton, in co. Worcester, a manor held under the Abbots of
Eves-ham ; but this family also held land in Wolverhampton, for in 8 Edward IV
Thomas Hampton, of Oldestoke, co. Southampton, Armiger levied a Fine respect-
ing nine messuages and eighty acres of land and pasture in Wolverhampton.
A John de Hampton, who was a Knight, was in the King's retinue at Crecy
and Calais, but whether he was identical with Sir John de Hampton, of
Oldstoke, I am unable to say.

A HoU of Arms, in Glover's collection, which is headed " Arma nobilium
de Comitatu Stafford," contains this coat for Sir John de Hampton : — Argent
between three cinquefoils Blue, a chevron Gules — on the chevron, three roundels,
Or. These, however, are the arms of the Hamptons, of Stourton, and are borne
also by the Lanes, formerly of Hampton, and now of Kings Bromley.

- From copies of Butterton deeds at Wrottesley, the name of the place from
which the deed is dated has been apparently mis-copied.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 159

Pateat universis per presentes me Leonem de Perton remississe,
relaxasse, et omnino pro me et heredibus meis in perpetuum quietum
clamasse Hugoni de Wrottesleye Chyvaler, totum jus meum et
clameum quod habeo, habui, seu aliquo modo de cetero habere
potero, in toto molendino de Wythwyk, et in cursu aque eidem
molendino adjacente, et in omnibus terris et tenementis quas et que
idem Hugo habet et tenet in Tetenhale et in Wythwyk, ita vero
quod nee ego predictus Leo nee heredes mei nee aliquis alius pro
nobis seu nomine nostro aliquod jus vel clameum in predicto molen-
dino cum cursu aque adjacente et in omnibus terris et tenementis
predictis de cetero exigere seu vendicare poterimus set in perpetuum
suimus exclusi per presentes. Preterea ego vero predictus Leo et
heredes mei predictum molendinum cum cursu aque eidem molendino
adjacente et omnia terras et tenementa que et quas idem Hugo
habet et tenet in Tetenale et in Wythwyk que quondam fuerunt
Oliveri de Wytwyk predicto Hugoni et heredibus suis et suis
assignatis quibuscumque et eorum heredibus contra omnes mortales
warantizabimus in perpetuum. In cujus rei testimonium huic
present! scrip to quietclamationis sigillum meum apposui. Hiis
testibus Johanne de Prestewode seniore, Ricardo de Ovj^oteshay,
Thoma de Wollemere, Edmundo de Lutteleye, Willelmo de Hampton
clerico et aliis. Datum apud Wrottesleye die Lune proximo post
festum Sancti Mathei apostolici anno regni regis Edward i tertii
a conquestu decimo septimo. [22 September 1343.]^

Seal, a shield with three pears on a bend, and the legend
Sigillvm Leonis de Perton.

A tous ceux que cestes presentes endentoures verront ou orront,
Thomas de Hampton Chivaler saluz en dieu. Come Monsz Hugh
de Wrottesleye Chivaler moy soit tenuz en xxiii livres desterling
par sa esci'ipt obligatoire a paier a leglise de Seint Poul de Londres
a la Pascheslore posthem suant apres la date de cestes, jeo le
avantdit Thomas voile et grant pur moy, mes heires e mes executours

^ Original deed at Wrottesley, copied 1860-62. On the following 15 December
1343, William de Stretton released to Sir Hugh all his claim to the same mill
and lands in Wythwj'ke. This deed was witnessed by Sir Richard Hillary, Roger
de Oken, and Hervey de Oken.

Leo, or Leon de Perton, who makes the above release, was brother of William
the existing Lord of Perton, and also brother to John de Perton, who had been
killed in 1'2 Edward III in an affray respecting the mill in question. Leo was
an Esquire of the King's Household, being styled a " scutifer hosjiitii Regis"
in 12 Edward III, in which year he received compensation for a horse lost in
the King's service in Scotland. In 18 Edward III, he was appointed Warden
of the Castle of Bridgenorth with a fee of 6d. a day. In the following year
he accompanied the King to France, and was at the battle of Crecy and siege
of Calais. In 23 Edward III he was Eschaetor of co. Worcester, and was com-
mitted to the Fleet prison for contempt in not appearing at the Exchequer
with his accounts. He was Eschaetor again in 36 Edward III and 40 Edward III,
and in 48 Edward III he received compensation for the loss of the ofBce, and
also an annual pension of 100s. for his good service. He also held an office in
the King's Household as " Pannetarius Regis," and at the peace of Bretigui was
one of the members of the King's Household ordered to meet King John of
France at Calais and escort him to his own capital. (Wardrobe Accounts, temp.
Edward III W.)

IGO HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

que si le avantdit Monsz Hugli ou ascun autre depart lui paient
ou facent paier a moy ou a mon attourne portant ovesque lui le
dit escript obligatoire a jour et lieu avantditz xxiii livres desterling
de bon e leal moneye, adonqe lavantditz escript obligatoii'e soit
pour nul en . . . (three words here illegible), de nyent. Et si le
avantdit Monsz Hugh del paiment avantdit fail que dieu defeatt
adonqe voet et grant le dit Monsz Hugh pur lui, ses heires e
ses executours que lavantdit escript obligatoire de xxiii livres estoise
en sa valeur e force, de lever touz les deniers susditz cestes presentes
endentoures nyent contre esteant. En testmoignance de quele
chose noz avanditz Monsz Hugh e Thomas a cestes presentes enden-
toures entrechaiigeablement avons mys noz seals. Done a Loudres
le quart jour de Decembre Ian du regne notre seigneur le roi
Edward trez apres le conquest dengleterre disseptisme et de France
quart.' [-i December 1343.]

Seal destroyed.

Omnibus Christi fidelibus hoc presens scriptum visuris vel audituris
Joliannes de Sutton dominus de Duddeley salutem in domino.
Noveritis me I'eddidisse et presenti scripto meo confirmasse domino
Hugoni de Wrottesley militi omnes terras et tenementa mea que
et quas habui de dono et feofFamento dicti domini Hugonis in
Tetenhale et Byssebury prout admesurantur, Habenda et tenenda
predicto domino Hugoni et heredibus suis vel suis assignatis libere,
quiete, bene et in pace in perpetuum de capitalibus dominis feodorum
illorum per servitia inde debita et de jure consueta. In cujus
rei testimonium huic presenti scripto sigillum meum apposui. Hiis
testibus Willelrao de Perton, Henrico de Holbarwe, Ricardo in la
Lone, Willelmo filio Hugonis, Johanne de Barnehurst et aliis.
Datum apud Himeley die Sabati proximo post festum Sancti Mathei
Apostolici anno regni regis Edwardi tertii post conqueatum decimo
octavo.'- [1 October 1344.]

Seal destroyed.

' Original deed at Wrottesley, copied 1860-62. The name of Sir Thomas
de Hampton occurs frequentlj' on the Rolls of Edward III. In 18 Edward III
he wns sent to Gascony on a special mission, and the vessel " St. Pierre,"
of London, was ordered to be prepared for the passage of him and his Esquires
and suite. {Rot. Vascon, 18 Edward III.) On the Vascon Roll of 22 Edward III
he is styled Steward of the Landes of Gascony, " Seneschallus Landarum. "
In 35 Edward III he was SherifE of co. Southampton, and in 41 Edward III
he had a pension of fifty marks a year granted to him for his good service.
(Issues of the Pell. Easter, 41 Edward III.)

- Original deed at Wrottesley, copied 1860-62. The grantor was John de
Sutton, the Baron of Dudley.

William de Perton, the first witness, was Lord of Perton from 5 to 34 Edward III.
He seems to have been brought up to the law, for he was never knighted, and
was appointed to hear Pleas of iSssize on many occasions during this reign.
In 18 Edward III he was appointed Commissioner, with John Giffard of
Chillington, to return the value of the lands of every person in Staffordshire
from 100s. upwards. [Rot. Pat., 18 Edward 111, f. 2, m. 17 dorso).

Kichard in la Lone was of Wolverhampton and father of Andrew in la Lone,
of Hampton, the ancestor of the Lanes of Kings Bromley. In 19 Edward III

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 161

Edwardus dei gratia Rex Anglie, Francie et Dominus Hibernie,
Omnibus ad quos presentes litere pervenerint, salutem. Sciatis
quod de gratia nostra speciali concessimus et licenciam dedimus
pro nobis et heredibus nostris quantum in nobis est, dilecto et
fideli nostro Eiugoni de Wrottesleye in Comitatu Staflford, includere
et parcum inde facere et boscum ilhim sic inclusum ac parcum inde
factum tenere posse sibi et heredibus suis in perpetuum sine
occasione vel impedimento nostri vel heredum nostrorum, Justici-
ariorum, Forestariorum, Vyrdariorum, aut aliorum ballivorum seu
ministeriorum nostrorum quorumcunque, dum tamen boscus ille
infra metas foreste nostre non existit. In cujus rei testimonium
has literas nostras fieri fecimus patentes. Teste me ipso apud
Calesium vicessimo tertio die Septembris, anno regni nostri Anglie
vicesimo primo, regni vero nostri Francie octavo.^ [23 September
1347.]

Fragment of the Great Seal shewing the King's helmet and
shield.

Ex rotulo Calesii anno vicesimo primo Edwardi tertii m. 21.

Rex, etc., Archiepiscopis, etc. Sciatis nos de gratia nostra
speciali concessisse et hac carta nostra confirmasse dilecto et fideli
nostro Hugoni de Wrottesleye militi quod ipse et heredes sui in
perpetuum habeant liberam warennam in omnibus dominicis terris
suis de Wrotesleye in Comitatu Salop (sic) dum tamen terre ille
non sint infra metas foreste nostre. Ita quod nullus intret terras
illas ad fugandum in eis vel ad aliquid capiendum quod ad waren-
nam pertineat, sine lieencia et voluntate ipsius Hugonis vel heredum
suorum super forisfacturam nostram decem librarum. Quare volumus
et firmiter precipimus pro nobis et heredibus nostris quod idem
Hugo et heredes sui predicti inpei'petuum habeant liberam waren-
nam in omnibus dominicis terris suis predictis dum tamen terre
ille non sint infra metas foreste nostre. Ita quod nullus intret
terras illas ad fugandum in eis vel ad aliquid capiendum quod ad
warennam pertineat sine lieencia et voluntate ipsius Hugonis vel
heredum suorum super forisfacturam nostram decem librarum sicut
predictum est. Hiis testibus Edwardo Principe Wallie, Duce
Cornubie et Comite Cestrie filio nostro carissimo, Henrico Comite
Lancastrie, Willelmo de Bohun Comite Northampton, Laurencio de

Andrew en la Lone was Seneschal or Steward of the King's manor of Tettenhall
Regis, and his seal, attached to copies of Court Rolls at VVrottesley, bears a
chevron between three cinquefoils, with the legend S. Andree en la Lone. Now
it is worthy of remark that this shield displays the same arms as those borne
subsequently by the family of Hampton, of Stourton Castle, and it is probable
that the Lanes and the Ham])tous of Stourton were of the same stock. For
instance, Richard in la Lone, of this deed, is, without doubt, identical with
the Richard de Hampton of the previous dee(i of 5 October 1337.

' Original grant at Wrottesley, copied 1860-62. This grant is enrolled on the
Calais Patent Roll, 21 Edward III, m. 5. Calais had fallen on the previous
4 August, but the King did not return to England till the 14 October.
M

162 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Hastings Comite Pembroke, consanguineis nostris, Thoma de Bello-
campo Comite Warwick et aliis. Data per manum nostrum apud
Calesium xxiii Septembris. Per ipsum Regem.

Convenit cum Recordo. Willelmus Colet Deputatus Johannis
Borough militis.i

Pateat universis per presentes, quod ego Johannes de Hampton
remisi et omnino de me et lieredibus meis in perpetuum quiet-
clamavi Hugoni de AVrottesleye militi et heredibus suis totum jus
et clamium quod habeo vel aliquo modo habere potero in manerio
de Wrottesleye et in omnibus terris et tenementis suis in Boturdone,
Waterfal et Grendon cum suis pertinentiis. Ita quod nee ego
Johannes nee heredes mei nee aliquis nomine nostro alicjuid juris
seu clamei in predicto manerio seu in predictis terris seu tene-
mentis cum suis pertinentiis exigere seu vendicare poterimus in
futurum. In cujus rei testimonium sigillum meum presentibus est
appositum. Datum apud Elderstoke die lune proximo post festum
Annunciationis beate Marie anno regni regis Edwardi filii Regis
Edwardi tertii a conquestu vicesimo tertio.- [20 March 1349.]

Seal destroyed.

Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Hugo de Wrottesleye Chyvaler
dedi, concessi, et hac presenti carta mea confirmavi Ricardo
Levesone de Wolvernehampton, Roberto de Barnthui-st, capellano, et
AVillelmo de la Lone de Hampton totum manerium meum de
Wi'ottesleye. Dedi etiam et concessi eisdem Ricardo, Roberto et
Willelmo, molendinum meum de Wythwyke et totam terram meam
in eadem villa, quod quidem molendinum et terram Oliverus de
Wytwyke quondam tenuit. Dedi etiam et concessi eisdem Ricardo,
Roberto et Willelmo molendinum meum quod vocatur Tryllemulne.
Habenda et tenenda predicta manerium, molendina et terram cum
suis pertinentiis una cum gardinis, curtilagiis, columbariis, parcis,
vivariis, haiis, fossatis, marleriis, redditibus, warrennis, pascuis,
pasturis, stangnis, cursu aque eisdem molendinis adjacentibus, et cum
communi pasture et omnibus aliis pertinentiis suis predictis Ricardo,
Roberto et Willehno et eorura heredibus et assignatis, libere, quiete,
bene et in pace de capitalibus dominis feodorum illorum per servitia
inde debita et de jure consueta. Et ego vero predictus Hugo et
heredes mei predicta manerium, etc. (Clause of warranty). In
cujus rei testimonium huic presenti carte sigillum meum apposui.
Hiis testibus Henrico de Bysshebury Chyvaler, Willelmo de Perton,
Johanne de Perton Chyvaler, Johanne de Hampton, Johanne filio
Johannis de Barnthurst et aliis. Data apud Wrottesleye die
dominica proxima post festum assumptionis beate Marie anno regni

' Ancient copy at Wrottesley, in seventeenth century bandwriting. The grant
is likewi.se enrolled on the Calais Roll of 21 Edward" III. This Roll, however,
is now known at the Record Office as Patent Roll, 21 Edward III, part 2.

- Original deed at Wrottesley, copied 1860-62. Although the John de Hampton
of this deed is not styled a Knight, he is apparently identical with the Sir
John de Hampton of the deed of 5 April 1337, see ante, pp. 157, 158.

WROTTESLEt OF WROTTESLEY. 163

regis Edwarcli tertii a conquestu vicesimo tertio.^ [16 August
1349.]

Sciant presentes et futuri quod nos Ricardus Levesone de Wol-
vernehampton, Robertus de Barnthurst capellanus, et Willelmus de
la Lone de Hampton dedimus, concessimus, et hac carta nostra
confii-mavimus Hugoni de Wrottesleye Chyvaler manerium de
Wrottesleye cum pertinentiis. Dedimus etiam et concessimus
eidem Hugoni molendinum quod vocatur Tryllemulne cum per-
tinentiis. Dedimus etiam et concessimus eidem Hugoni molendinum
de Wythwyk et totam terram quam habuimus in eadem villa ex
dono et feoffamento predicti Hugonis Habenda et tenenda pre-
dictum manerium cum pertinentiis et predicta molendina et terram
cum pertinentiis una cum gardinis, curtilagiis, columbariis, vivariis,
stangnis, marleriis, pasturis, parcis, haiis, fossatis, warennis et cum
cursu aque eisdem molendinis adjacente cum omnibus aliis per-
tinentiis suis, et cum communi pasture, predicto Hugoni et illi
quam predictus Hugo primo duxit in uxorem et heredibus de
corpore predicti Hugonis legitime procreatis, libere, quiete, bene
et in pace, de capitalibus dominis feodorum illorum per servicia
inde debita et de jure consueta. Et si predictus Hugo decedat
sine heredibus de corpore suo legitime procreatis. tunc volumus

' Original deed at Wrottesley copied 1860 -62. Sir John de Perton, the third
witness, was the son of William de Perton, of Perton, and was a somewhat
distinguished Knight of this era. In 10 Kdward III he served in Scotland
in the retinue of Ralph, Lord Stafford, and again in the following year. In
19 and 20 Edward III, he was serving in France in the retinue of William
de Clinton, Earl of Huntingdon, and was at Crecy and Calais. (French Rolls,
19, 20 and 21 Edward III.) In 29 Edward III, he was in France in the
retinue of Henry, Duke of Lancaster. (Rot. Franc, 40 Edward III). He died
in 12 Richard II. (Inq., p.m.)

John de Barnthurst was the tenant at the Barnhurst in Tettenhall. John, the
younger, married Joan the sister of Sir John de Perton. (Inq., p. m. 12 Richard I.)

By a deed of the same date as the above, Sir Hugh de Wrottesley conveyed
all his goods and chattels moveable and immoveable to the same trustees. This
deed was witnessed by Sir Henry de Bysshebury, Sir John de Perton, John de
Hampton, John de Barnthurst, and John de Tettebury.

164 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

et concedimus quod predicta manerium cum pertinentiis, molendina
et terra cum omnibus eorum pertinentiis ut predictum est, remaneant
Johanni filio Johannis de Tettebury fratri predicti Hugonis, et
heredibus masculis de corpore suo legitime j^rocreatis, tenenda de
capitalibus dominis feodorum illorum per servitia que ad dicta
tenementa pertinent. Et si predictus Jotiannes decedat sine herede
masculo de corpore suo legitime procreato, tunc volumus et con-
cedimus quod predicta manerium cum pertinentiis, molendina et
terra cum omnibus eorum pertinentiis ut predictum est, remaneant
Willelmo fratri ejusdem Johannis et heredibus masculis de corpore
suo legitime procreatis. Tenenda, etc. (as be/ore) et si predictus
Willelmus decedat sine herede masculo de corpore suo, etc., tunc
volumus etc. (as before) remaneant Waltero fratri ejusdem Willelmi
et heredibus masculis de corpore suo legitime procreatis. Tenenda
etc. (as before) et si predictus Walterus decedat sine herede
masculo de corpore suo etc. tunc volumus etc. (as before) remaneant
Thome fratri ejusdem Walteri et heredibus masculis de corpore suo
legitime procreatis Tenenda etc. (as be/ore). Et si predictus
Thomas decedat sine herede masculo de corpore suo etc. tunc
volumus etc. Leoni fratri ejusdem Thome et heredibus masculis
de corpore suo legitime procreatis Tenenda etc. (as be/ore). Et
si predictus Leo decedat sine herede masculo de corpore suo etc.
tunc volumus et concedimus quod predicta manerium cum per-
tinentiis, molendina et terra cum omnibus eorum pertinentiis
remaneant rectis heredibus predicti Hugonis in perpetuum. Hiis
testibus, Henrico de Bysshebury Chyvaler, Willelmo de Perton,
Johanne de Perton Chyvaler, Ricardo de Holbarwe persona ecclesie
de Elderstoke, Johanne de Hampton et aliis Data apud Wrottes-
ley die dominica in vigilia Sancti Bartolomei Apostolici anno regni
regis Edwai'di tertii a conquestu vicesimo tertio.^ [23 August
1349.]

The seal of William de la Lone was perfect and consisted
of a shield, in the centre of which was a lion's head forming
a boss surrounded by three cinqfoils, two and one. Legend,
S. Willi de Wolvernehampton.

Johannes Musard Vicecomes Staffordie, Ballivo de Cuteleston
salutem. Ex parte domini Regis tibi mando quod liberes Hugoni
de Wrottesleye custodiam terrarum et tenementorum que fuerunt
Willelmi de Pilatenhale defuncti, qui de domino Rege tenuit in
capite et que ratione minoris etatis Johannis filii Johannis de
Kenil worth et Margarete sororis ipsius Johannis filii Johannis, et
Willelmi filii Ricardi de Engelton consanguineorum et heredum
predicti Willelmi de Pilatenhale in manu nostra existunt. Haben-

' Original deed at Wrottesley. copied 1860-62.

Richard Leveson vras member of a family which had been settled at Wednesbury
since the reign of Henry III. He man-ied Margaret, daughter and heir of Hervey,
son of Clement of Wolverhampton, and obtained with her a considerable estate
in that town. (Erdes wick's Staffordshire).

William de la Lone was son of Richard de la Lone of Hampton, and brother
of Andrew ; the latter appears to have been the head of the family.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 165

dam una cum balliva de Teddesleye ac omnibus aliis ad custodiam
illam spectantibus usque ad legitimam etatem heredum predictorum
simul cum maritagiis heredum eorundem absque disparagatione et
absque aliquo domino Regi reddendo. Et hoc non omittas.^

Edwardus de gratia Rex Anglie, Erancie, et Dominus Hibernie,
omnibus ad quos presentes litere pervenerint, salutem, Sciatis
quod de gratia nostra speciali et pro bono servitio quod Hugo de
Wrottesle miles impendit in partibus transmarinis perdonavimus
ei sectam pacis nostre que ad nos pertinet pro morte Johannis
de Perton ante vicesimum octavum diem Novembris anno regni
nostro duodecimo- ut dicitur interfecti, unde indictatus, rettatus,
seu appellatus existit, ac etiam utlagariam si qua in ipsum ea
occasione fuerit promulgatam et firmam pacem ei inde concedimus,
ita tamen quod stet l-ecto in curia nostra si quis versus eum loqui
voluerit de morte predicta. Teste meipso, datum apud Westmonas-
terium anno regni nostri vicesimo septimo, regni vero nostri Francis
quarto decimo.-^

Great Seal of Edward III, complete.

Ceste endente fatte parentre notre Seigneur le Roi dune part e
Monsz Hugh de Wrottesley Chivaler dautre part testmoigne que
come le dit Monsz Hugh soit tenuz a notre dit Seigneur le Roi
par une reconissance fatte en sa chauncellerie en deux mille livres
dargent apparer a la Quineme de Seint Johan le Baptiste posthem
avenir come en la dite reconissance plus pleynement est contenuz,
le dit notre Seigneur le Roi volt e grant por lui e ses heirs
que si lavant dit Monsz Hugh ne null autre par son procurement
ne assent desormes ne trespasse a Katei^ine de Lutteley, Phelip de
Lutteley, William de Perton, Johan de Perton e Leon de Perton
ne a null de eux en corps ne en biens que adonqes la dite reconis-
sance perde sa force, e le dit Monsz Hugh volt e grant par lui e
ses heirs e ses executours que sil ou ascun autre par son assent
ou procurement desormes trespasse a les avantditz Katherine, Phelip,
William, Johan e Leon ou a ascun de eux en corps ne en biens
que adonqes la dite reconissance de deux mille livres estoise en sa
force. En testmoignance de quele chose notre Seigneur le Roi
a la partie de ceste endente demourant deuz le dit Monsz Hugh ad
mys son seal, e a la partie de ceste endente demourant denz le dit
notre Seigneur le Roi le dit Monsz Hugh ad mys son seal. Don
a Westmonastere le oytisme jour de martz Ian du regne notre
dit Seigneur le Roi dengleterre vynt noesisme e de France sessime.*
[8 March 1355.]

Great Seal of Edward III.

' Original writ at Wrottesley, copied 1860-62.

- Thi.s was the date of the original pardon granted to Sir Hugh at Antwerp
in 12 Edward III. The above pardon is recorded on the Patent Roll,
27 Edward III, pwrt 1, m. 1, with this note appended to it in the margin :
" lunovata quia alia fuit coiisiguata per ipsum Regem."

The Great Seal was not at Antwerp, and the original pardon was issued
by a writ of privy seal.

■' Original Letters Patent at Wrottesley, copied lSGO-62.

■• Original Indenture at Wrottesley, copied 1860.

166 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Sachent touz nos Robert de Barnthurst, Nichol de Oken e
William de Evenefeld Chapeleyns estre tenuz et par ceste lettre
estre obligiez a Monsz Hugh de Wrottesleye Chivaler en quatrecentz
livres dargent de anual rente a rescognere de an en an a tons
jours al terme de Seynt Michel de les manoirs de Wrottesleye
e Boterdone e de totes les terres e tenementz, molyns, rentes e
services queux nos avoions del donn e feoffeinent le dit Monsz
Hugh denz le Counte Destafibrd. Et si ency soit que la dite
annuelte de quatrecentz livres ne soit rosonablement paie a
terme susdit que bien lice a dit Monsz Hugh en les avantditz
manoirs, terres e tenementz, molyns, rentes e services, e en totes
les bienz e chateaux queux nos avoions del donn le dit Monsz
Hugh entrer, e mesmes les manoirs, terres, e tenementz, molyns
rentes e services, bienz e chateaux avauntditz bien e pesiblement
tenir e user per noz e noz heyrs ou executours a tous jours. En
testmoignance de quele chose as cestes presentes lettres avons mys
noz seaux. Donnez a Wrottesleye le Samedy posthem apres le
feste de Seynt Ambrose evesque Ian de regne Roy Edward tiercz
apres le conqueste trestysme.^ [8 April 1356.]

Seals destroyed.

Edwardus dei gratia Rex Anglie, Francie et dominus Hibernie,
omnibus ad quos presentes litere pervenerint, salutem. iSciatis quod
cum nuper concessimus dilecto et fideli nostro Hugoni de Wi'ottesleye
omnia bona et catalla sua nobis occasione cujusdem utlagarie in
ipsum promulgate, forisfacta, habenda de dono nostro, ac dilectus
vallettus noster Johannes atte Wode, nuper firmarius manerii de
Kynefare tempore quo manerium illud in manu nostra ut parcella
terrarum que fuerunt predicti Hugonis occasione utlagarie predicte
existentis novem libras de firma manerii piedicti nobis ad Scaccarium
nostrum ut dicitur solvit, nos pretextu concessionis nostre predicte
volumus quod dicte novem libre, nobis ad dictum scaccarium per
prefatum Johannem sic solute, eidem Hugoni resolventur. In cujus
rei testimonium has literas nostras fieri fecimus patentes. Teste me
ipso. Data apud Westmonasterium, xii die Novembris, anno regni
nostri Anglie tricesimo primo, regni vero nostri Francie decimo
octavo. Per breve de privato sigillo. Newench. [12 November
1357].-'

Fragment of Great Seal.

Noverint universi me Hugonem de Wrottesley militem donasse
Johanni de Titteley, capellano, et Johanni de W^hitechurche capellano,
omnia bona et catalla mea, mobilia et immobilia sine ullo reten^
mento, ita quod possint voluntatem suam inde facere sine aliqua
contradictione mea vel alicujus nomine meo. In cujus rei testi-

^ Original deed at Wrottes]e\', copied 1860-62.

- Original Letters Patent at Wrottesley, copied 1860-62. John atte Wode, the
King's " valettus," had married Lucy, one of the ladies of the Queen's Household,
for on the Patent Roll of 40 Edward III, Lucy, formerly wife of John atte
Wode, late " domicella camere " of the Queen, receives a grant of 20 marks
annually, to be paid from the fee farm rents of Staffordshire.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 167

monium huic scripto sigillum meum apposui. Datum apud Wrottesley
die Martis pi'oximo post festum Epiphauie domini, anno regni regis
Edwardi tertii post conquestum tricesimo octavo.^ [7 January 1365].

Seal destroyed.

Pateat universis per presentes nos Radulphum Comitem StaflFordie
remississe, relaxasse, et omnino pro nobis et heredibus nostris in
perpetuum quietum clamasse Hugoni de Wrottesley Chivaler totum
jus, actionem et clamium quod habemus, habuimus seu quovismodo
habere poterimus in maneriis de Wrottesley et Boturdon cum perti-
nentiis, ita quod nee nos predictus Comes nee aliquis alius nomine
nostro aliquid juris seu clamei in predictis maneriis cum pertinentiis
exigere vel vendicare poterimus, set per pi^esentes de cetero sumus
exclusi inperpetuum. In cujus rei testimonium huic present! scripto
sigillum nostrum apposuimus. Hiis testibus, Jacobo de Pipe
Chyvaler, Nicholao de Beck Chyvaler, et Johanne de Verdon
Chyvaler. Datum apud Chebbeseye die Sabati proximo post festum
Natalis domini anno regni regis Edwardi tertii post conquestum
tricesimo octavo. [28 Dec. 136-1].-

Seal destroyed.

Hec indentura facta inter Hugonem de Wrottesleye militem ex
parte una, et Johannem de Titteley capellanum ex parte altera
testatur quod predictus Johannes concessit et hac presenti carta
sua indentata confirmavit predicto Hugoni omnia terras et tene-
menta sua redditus et servitia cum reversionibus et omnibus aliis
pertinentiis suis que habuit ex dono et feoffamento predicti Hugonis
in Boterdone, Waterfall, et Grindon, Habenda et tenenda eidem
Hugoni ad terminum vite sue de capitalibus dominis feodorum
illorum per servitia que ad predicta tenementa pertinent tota vita
ipsius Hugonis ita quod post decessum predicti Hugonis omnia
predicta terre et tenementa etc. remaneant Johanni filio Cecilie
de Pynyngton, Habenda et tenenda omnia predicta terre etc.
predicto Johanni filio Cecilie ad terminum vite ipsius Johannis filii
Cecilie, de capitalibus dominis etc. ita quod post decessum predicti
Johannis filii Cecilie omnia predicta terre etc. remaneant heredibus
masculis de corpore predicti Hugonis exeuntibus, tenenda de capi-
talibus dominis etc. Et si contingat quod predictus Hugo obierit
sine herede masculo de corpore suo exeunte, omnia predicta terre
et tenementa etc. remaneant heredibus masculis de corpore predicti
Johannis filii Cecilie exeuntibus, Tenenda de capitalibus dominis
etc. Et si contingat quod predictus Johannes filius Cecilie obierit
sine herede masculo de corpore suo exeunte, omnia predicta terre
et tenementa etc. remaneant Willelmo filio Hammell atte Walle et
heredibus masculis de corpore suo exeuntibus, Tenenda de capi-

^ Original deed at Wrottesley, copied 1860-62.

2 Original deed at Wrolteslej-, copied 1860-62. Sir James de Pipe was half-
brother to Ralph, Earl of Stafford, and held several important offices in France
at various times. He is mentioned in Froissart's Chronicles. Sir Nicholas de
Beck was lord of Hopton and Tean, co. Stafford, and Sir John de Verdon was
lord of Darlastou, near Stone.

168 HISTOKY OF THE FAMILY OF

talibus dominis etc. Et si contingat quod predictus Willelmus
obierit sine herede masculo de corpore suo exeunte, omnia predicta
terre et tenementa etc. remaneant Waltero de Tettebuiy et here-
dibus masculis de corpore suo exeuntibus, Tenenda de capitalibus
dominis etc. Et si contingat quod predictus Walterus obierit sine
herede masculo de corpore suo exeunte, omnia predicta terre et
tenementa etc. remaneant Johanni de Kenyl^^'orth et heredibus
masculis de corpore suo exeuntibus, Tenenda de capitalibus dominis
etc. Et si contingat quod predictus Johannes de Kenilworth
obierit sine herede masculo de corpore suo exeunte, omnia predicta
terre et tenementa etc. remaneant rectis heredibus predicti Hugonis,
Tenenda de capitalibus dominis etc. Et predictus Johannes de
Titteley et heredes sui etc. {clause of warranty). In cujus rei
testimonium huic presenti carte indentate sigillura predicti Johannis
de Titteley est appensum. Hiis testibus, VVillelmo Carles, Fulcone
de Pembrugge militibus, Henrico de Bishebury, Johanne Buffry,
Rogero Leveson et aliis. Data apud Wrottesleye die Lune proximo
post clausum Pasche anni regni regis Edwardi tertii post con-
questum quadragesimo.^

Seal destroyed.

Acorde est per mediation de bones amys entre Monsz Hugh
de Wrottesleye Chivaler dun part e Adam de Peeshale e Elizabet
sa femme daltre part que le avantdit JNIonsz Hugh suffra les
ditz Adam et Elizabet avoir la livre hors de la mayn le Roy
de la tierce partie du seignurie e manere de Talgarth Engleys en
la marche de Galys que Johanne que fuist la femme Phelip Aprees
Chivaler en sa vye tynt en nom de dowere de heritage la dite
Elizabet et dun mees appelle Jonesfeld et deux columbers trent acres
de terre et un croft appelle Gylotsclos et un parcelle de terre appelle
Home e deux parcelles de pasture appelle Mulle Orchard e More, e du
Park de Talgarth, et apres la livre a eux faite les ditz Adam et
Elizabet ou les heirs Elizabet auxi toust come ils powent, bonement
graunterunt et lesserunt per fyn leve en la court notre seigneur le
Roi avoir et tener a dite Monsz Hugh a terme de sa vie en la
forme desouthescript et ceo a lour comune costage owelement, et
per license de Roy que le dit Monsz Hugh a ces custages pro-
pres purchase la dite tierce partie e tous les tenemens avauntnomes
et altresi lautre tierce de mesme le manere quele lavantditz Adam
et Elizabet avoyent en la vie la dite Johanne ensemblement ou
garaunt quex afiert dens le dit manere et seignurie ou tous maneres
de regantes franchises et aportenaunces entierement value, que bien
lise a les ditz Adam et Elizabet et les heyrs Elizabet le boys
cressaunt en le dit park couper et ameuver a lour volante ou
frank entre et issue por cariage faire issint tust temps, que le

' Original deed at Wrottesley. copied 1860-62. The first witness, Sir William
Carles, was Lord of Ryton and Albrighton, co. Salop. (Eyton's Shropshire).
Sir Fulk de Pembrugge was Lord of Tong, co. Salop. This deed is endorsed
" IrrtAulata in Banco Rutulo prima de cartis et protectionibus de termino Pasche
anno regni Regis Edwardi lertii a conqutslu quadragesitno," and is enrolled as
stated.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 169

profit derbage housbote e heybote, pawnage, agisteraens et tous
altres profits de susditz park soyent a dit Monsz Hugh aver e
tener a luy et a ses assingnes por terme de sa vye rendant a
ditz Adam et Elizabet et a les heirs Elizabet quarante livres
par an a deux termes cest asavoir lannunciation uotre dame et
Seynt Michel par owels portions ou garauntye accorde [ • • • ]
[ . . . ] e si la rente seyt arere a ascuns de termes surditz bien
lise a eux et a les heirs Elizabet destreindre en tous les avauntditz
[ . . . ] [ . . • ] en lautre tiers partye de mesme le manere que
le avauntdit Monsz Hugh tient par la ley dengleterre deurant
le lees susdite e si la dite rente [ • • • ] tust ou en parcel
demerge issint aderere tanqe sys simeynes apres ascunes de termes
susditz soyent passes adunqe bien lise a eux et les heirs Elizabet
en tous les tenemens avantnomes et par eux a dit Monsz Hugh
lesses reentrer et en lour premer estat tener quites de dit Monsz
Hugh a tous jours et lavauntdit Monsz Hugh veut e graunte que
le dite garantye fait par le dit Adam cesse e soyt voyde
devers luy si la dite Elizabet devye sauns issue entre le dit
Adam e luy et outre qil ne vochera ne priera en eyde sul soyt
emplede nuUe sermoun^ Adam et Elizabet, ou si Adam devye,
Elizabet ou ses heyres, e si par vocher ou par brief de garauntye
de chartre il entre ou entrount en la garauntye et fait ou fount
garant quex resonablement afiert a mentineyns les susditz tenements
avaunt lesses sauns collusion ou mal engyn de les ditz Adam et
Elizabet ou les heyres Elizabet soyent [ ... j qil naura mye a la
value per cause de cele perde e le ditz Adam et Elizabet et les
heyres Elizabet garauntrunt de mettre la moyte de costages et le
Monsz Hugh laltre moyte pour defendre le dit manere ou ascun
parcel de icele sul seyt demaunde en la Court le Roy ou ayllors.
Et les ditz parties sunt accordes que les aflfeurtes qe remeynount a
faire a un part ou daltre tochauns les ditz covenauns serunt faites
quant temps vendra qil besogne destre faites. Et a ces covenauns
bien e lelment tener et performer les ditz Monsz Hugh et Adam
sount par lour foyes entre aff'yes. Et en tesmoniaunce de quelles
choses a cestes endentures les parties susditz entrechaungablement
ount m3^s lours scales. Done a Westmonstier le Vendredi en la
Feste Seint Luk le Wangelist Ian de reigne le Roy Edward tierce
puys le conqueste qarauntune quarte.-. [18 October 1370].

Seal, a chevron betv^een three heads of an animal regardant.
Legend, Sigillum Thome Gech.

Pateat universis per presentes me Walterum de Wrottesleye
remississe, relaxasse, et in perpetuum pro me et heredibus meis
quietum clamasse Hugoni de Wrottesleye militi, totum jus meum
et clamium quod habui, habeo, seu quovismodo habere potero in
manerio de Wrottesley cum pertinentiis. Ita quod nee ego pre-
dictus Walterus nee heredes mei nee aliquis alius nomine nostro
in predicto manerio cum pertinentiis aliquod jus vel clameura de

^ This word is rioubtful.

- Original deed at Wrottesley, copied 1860-62.

170 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

cetero exigere vel vendicare poterimus, set per presentes ab omni
actione f . . . ] [ • • • ] juris vel clamei in eodera manerio in
perpetuum sumus exclusi. In cujus rei testimonium huic presenti
scripto sigillum meum apposui. Hiis testibus Johanne de Perton
milite, Ricardo de Hampton, Ilicardo Levesone, Henrico de Bisshe-
bury, Adam Waryng et aliis. Datum apud Wrottesley die Jovis
proximo post festum Annunciationis beate Marie anno regni Regis
Edwardi tertii post conquestum Anglie quadragesimo septimo.^
[31 March 1373].

Cest endentoure fait perentre Monsz Hugh de Wrottesley Chivaler
dun part et Wautier de Wrottesley e Johan de Pilatonhale daltre
part tesmoigne que le dit Monsz Hugh enfeffera Henri de Tyn-
raore persone de Eglise de Elleford e Henri de Oldefalyng Chaplein
en le manere de Wrottesley ove tous ses appotonauntz sous tel
condiscion que les ditz Henri e Henri enfefl'eront le ditz Monsz
Hugh e Isabell sa femme e les heirs de dit Monsz Hugh engendres,
a tous jours, e si le dit Monsz Hugh devye sauntz heirs de son
corps engendres, adonques le manere susdit remeigne au dit Wauter
e ses heirs males de son corps engendres a tous jours, e si le dit
Walter (sic) devye sauntz lieirs males de son corps engendres,
adonques le manere susdit remeigne a Johan de Pilattenhale e a
ses heirs males de son corps engendres a tous jours, e si le dit
Johan devye sauns heir de son corps engendre adonques le manere
susdit remeigne a droit heirs a dit Monsz Hugh a tous jours. En
testmoignauntz de (jueles choses a cestes endentures les parties
avaunditz ount mys leurs seals. Done a Wrottesley le vendredi
posthem apres le feste de annunciation de notre dame Ian de
regne notre seigneur le roi Edward tierce puis le conqueste
quarante seun.- [1 April 1373.]

Seals destroyed.

' Original deed at Wrottesley, copied 1860-62. Respecting the witue-sses, Sir
John de Perton has been already named : Richard Levesou was of Wolver-
hampton, and an Esquire of some note. He was subsequently in the Household
of Henry IV, and after the battle of Shrewsbury he petitioned the King
for a jiension of £10 from the issues of co Stafford. In his petition he
asks for a pension on the ground of his sei-vices in Scotland, at Calais,
and at the battle of Salop, when he was so wounded and maimed that his
life was despaired of. (Petition.s to King and Council). Henry de Bisshebury
was Lord of Bushbury and Upper Peun.

- Original deed at Wrottesley, copied 1860-62.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 17 1

Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Hugo de Wrottesley miles
dedi, concessi, et hac present! carta mea confirniavi Henrico de
Tynmore persone ecclesie de Elleford, et Henrico de Oldefalynch
capellano manerium meum de Wrottesley cum omnibus suis perti-
nentiis. Habendum et tenendum predictum manerium cum omnibus
pertinentiis suis predictis Henrico et Henrico, hei^edibus et assignatis
suis libere, quiete, bene et in pace in perpetuum de capitali domino
feodi illius per servitia inde debita et de jure consueta. Et ego
vero predictus Hugo (clause of ivarranly). In cujus rei testimonium
liuic presenti carte mee sigillum apposui. Hiis testibus Ricardo de
Duddeley Chivaler, Jobanne de Perton, Chivaler, Rogero Hillary,
Chivaler, Ricardo Levesone, Johanne de Prestwode, Henrico de
Bisshebury et aliis. Data apud Wrottesley die veneris proximo
ante festum Sancte Crucis anno regni regis Edwardi tertii post
conquestum quadragesimo septimo.^ [1 April 1373].

On the Wednesday before the Feast of St. Dunstan -the
Bishop, 47 Edward III [September 1873], the above named
trustees conveyed the manor of Wrottesley to Sir Hugh de
Wrottesley and Isabella, his wife, and the heirs of their
bodies, with remainders according to the Indenture in French,
between Sir Hugh and Walter de Wrottesley, and John de
Pilatonhale, dated the 1 April preceding. This deed is wit-
nessed by Sir Richard Duddeley, Sir John de Perton, Sir
Roger Hillary, Richard Levesone, Adam Waryng, and John
de Prestwode. Dated from Wrottesley, as above.

Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Ricardus de Stafford, miles,
dedi, concessi et hac presenti carta mea confirniavi Hugoni de

' Original deed at Wrottesley, copied 1860-62. Sir llicliard de Duddeley,
the first witness, was the second husband of Isabella, the widow of John de
Sutton, the Baron of Dudley, who died in 1360. His parentage is unknown.
(See Grazelirook's Barons of Dudley, vol. is. of Staffordshire Collections, pp. 56-58).

Sir Roger Hillary was son of the Judge of the Common Pleas of the same
name. The latter had made large purchases of lands and reversions at Walsall,
Wednesbury, Handsworth, Great Barre, Nether Penn, and other places in
Staffordshire.

172 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Wrotteslev Chivaler et Isabelle uxori ejus maneria mea de Wrottesley
et Boterdon cum pertinentiis in Comitatu Staffordie. Habenda
ot tenenda maneria predicta cum pertinentiis predictis Hugoni et
Isabelle et hei'edibus de corpore ipsius Hugonis legitime procreatis
de capitalibus dorainis feodi illius per servicia inde debita et
consueta in perpetuum, et si contingat quod predictus Hugo sine
heredibus de corpore suo procreatis obierit, tunc maneria predieta
cum pertinentiis suis post decessum ipsorum Hugonis et Isabelle
mihi et heredibus meis revertant in perpetuum. In cujus rei
testimonium huic presenti carte sigillum meum apposui. Hiis
testibus Thoma de Ardene, Chivaler, Johanne de Verdon, Chivaler,
Willelmo Colesone, Ricardo Levesone, Willelmo de Huton et aliis.
Data apud Clifton Camvylle die dominica proxima post festum
exaltationis Sancte Crucis, anno regni regis Edwardi tertii post
conquestum quinquagesimo. ' [13 October 1376].

Seal, a chevron vaire between three martlets. Legend,
S. Ricardi de Stafford.

Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Hugo de Wrotteslegh miles
dedi concessi, et hac presenti carta mea confirmavi Willelmo filio
meo omnia terras et tenementa mea ac redditus et servicia omnium
tenementorum meorum in villa de Tetenhale et in villa de Codsale
una cum molendino et stangno quod vocatur bordunsmulne.
Habenda et tenenda omnia predieta terras et tenementa redditus,
et servicia predieta simul cum molendino predicto cum omnibus
suis pertinentiis prefato Willelmo filio meo de capitali domino feodi
illius per servicia que ad predieta tenementa pertinent. Et ego
vero predictus Hugo et heredes mei omnia predieta terras et
tenementa redditus et servicia, cum molendino predicto cum omni-
bus suis pertinentiis prefato Willelmo ad terminum vite sue,
et post mortem ipsius Willelmi volo quod omnia prenominata
remaneant rectis heredibus meis, contra omnes gentes warantizabimus
et in forma predieta defendemus (sic). In cujus rei testimonium
sigillum apposui. Hiis testibus Waltero le Hozre, Johanne de
Prestewode, Johanne de Waterfal, "Willelmo de Engulton, et aliis.
Data apud Wrotteslegh die lune proximo post festum Sancti
Hillarii anno regni regis Ricardi secundi post conquestum Anglie
quarto. [14 January 1381].-

Seal the same as on deed of 1 April 1373.

On the same date, and in the same terms, Sir Hugh
granted all his lands and tenements in Beekebury and in
Wybaston, together with a water mill in Wybaston, to his
son Richard, to be held for term of his life. The witnesses

' Sir Richard de Stafford wa.s a Knight P.auueret and brother of Kaljjh,
the Earl of Stafford. He w;is a di.'stingni.shed Knight of the period, and is
frequently mentioned by Froissart. The fir.-it witness, Sir Thomas Arderne,
was brother to Isabella, the wife of Sir Hugh, and wa.s married to a daughter
of Sir Kichard de Stafford.

^ Original deed at Wrottesley, copied 1860-62.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 173

are the same as in the last deed, with the addition of William
VVyse and Adam Thomkynsone, of Oldwulynsj.- Wybaston
is a hamlet in Bushbury parish.

Besides the above deeds, there was formerly at Wrottesley
the record of a Manor Court, held on the Monday before
Christmas Day, 1 Richard II (21 December 1377). The jury
consisted of : —

Thomas Sybei-ne, William Bolton,

William Suker, John Taillour,

Henry Leeo;h, Richard Seys, and

William Relyvaunt, William Taillour.

No lord is named, the Court being held "per essoniam.'^
A few fines were inflicted, but the proceedings contain no
feature of any interest, and the Court is only mentioned here
because it is the earliest Manor Court of which the proceedings
were preserved at Wrottesley. The accounts of the Wrottesley
Bailifit' printed at p. 71, mention two Courts held in the
months of August and November in the year 1294, and there
is no doubt they were held periodically from the earliest
times, but none of the proceedings of any Court anterior to
1377 had been discovered at Wrottesley up to the date of
the destruction of the deeds in 1897.

Interregnum, 1381 to 1400.

On the death of Sir Hugh, the controversy respecting the
tenure of the manor was again revived, and the Abbot of
Evesham claimed the custody and marriage of the infant
heir. Isabella, the widow of Sir Hugh, survived him for a
few months only, during which time she would hold possession
of the manor under the deed of 1373. Up to the date of
her death, she appears also to have retained the custody of
all her children, and when that event occurred, on the
30 September 1381, her brother, Sir Thomas de Arderne,
carried away the heir, in order to forestall the Abbot, when
the latter took possession of the manor. If the tenure of
Wrottesley was one by socage, the nearest relative not in
the line of succession would be entitled to the custody of
the lands and person of the heir.

It appears to have been overlooked at the date of her
death that Isabella was a tenant in capite in Cheshire, and
the writ of " diem clausit extremum " was not issued till
the 16 March 1401. At this date Hugh, the young heir, had
died, and had been succeeded by a brother John. The writ,

^ Original deed at Wrottesley, copied 1860-62.

174 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

which is tested by Henry de Percy, the famous Hotspur, who
was Justiciary of -Cheshire, directs the Escheator to return
what hinds and tenements Isabella, late wife of Hugh de
Wrotteslegh, Kt., deceased, held in his Bailiwick on the day
she died, what they were worth per annum, on what day
the said Isabella had died, who was her nearest heir, and
his age, and if the heir was married or not. And if he
was married, to return by whom, and when, and how, and
by what means, "per quern, quo tempore, qualiter, et quo
rnodo"

The Inquisition was taken at Wich Malbanc (Nantwich) by
Richard de Manley the Eschaetor, on the 22 March 1401,
on the oath of Richard de Vernon, Kt., Arthur de Davenport,
Richard, son of Robert de Cholmundelegh, Thomas de
Twemlowe, William le Bailly of Buddeworth, Robert de
Bulkeley of Ridalheth, and six others, who stated that
Isabella had been jointly enfeoffed with Hugh, formerly her
husband, in the third part of a messuage and thirty
acres of land in Buddeworth, in Le Fryth, by the gift and
feofTment of John Burdele, Kt., and Katrine, his wife, the
license of the late King having been acquired for a Fine of
10s., and that the said third part was held of the Earl of
Chester by military service, and was worth 8s. annually, and
she had died likewise seised in demesne as of fee of another
parcel of the same messuage and land which was held in
the same way of the Earl, and was worth 8s. annually.
After naming some other small tenures in Tyresford and
Kelsall they added that Isabella had died on the Monday
after Michaelmas Day, 5 Richard II (30 September 1381),
and that John, the son of the said Hugh and Isabella, was
the nearest heir of Isabella, and w'as twenty-one years of
age on Wednesday the Feast of St. Michael last past, and
that Robert de Legh, Kt., had occupied the lands and
tenements of the said Isabella from the date of her death,
by a demise of the Eschaetors, who had held that office up
to the present time, and had received the issues and profits
of the land ; and that the said John had been married hy
the Abbot of Evesham to one Elizabeth, the daughter of
Robert de Standysshe, Kt., on the Monday after the close
of Easter, 8 Richard II (10 April 1385) because the said
Hugh, the father of John, had held the manor of Wrottes-
legh of the said Abbot and his predecessors by militar}^ service.^

It will be noted that the Abbot in his hurry to forestall
other claimants had married the young heir to Elizabeth
Standish, when he was between five and six years of age.

Shortly after the death of Isabella, a Manor Coui't was

^ Cheshire Inquisitions, Public Record Office.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 175

held at Wrottesley in the name of the youni^ heir, the
proceedings being headed, " Curia de Wrottesley "., tempore
Hugonis filii Hugonis de Wrotesleye Chivaler, infra etatem
existentis." This was done apparently by way of substan-
tiating his claim, but no homage is named, and there is but
one entry on it of a purely formal nature.^ Shortly after-
wards the Abbot took possession, appointed a Steward and
held a Manor Court on the 9 January 1382. The proceedings
of this Court are interesting, as they contain the customs of
the manor and the names of all the tenants, but as it has
been printed in extenso by Mr. Jones in his history of the
Parish of Tettenhall, I propose here to give a short synopsis
only of it.

The proceedings are written in Latin on parchment, and
are headed : —

"Wrottesleye.— Curia Rogeri Abbatis de Evesham Custodis manerii
de Wrottesleye cum pertinentiis et Hugonis filii Hugonis de Wrottes-
leye Chivaler et Isabelle uxoris ejus, et in custodia ejusdem Abbatis
existentis quorum custodia ad predictum Abbatem ratione minoris
etatis ejusdem Hugonis filii Hugonis de jure pei-tinet, eo quod
dictum manerium cum pertinentiis de predict© Abbate et succes-
soribus suis per servitium militare tenetur ; tenta apud Wrottesleye
die Jovis proximo post festum Epiphanie sancti anno regni
Ricardi secundi post conquestum quinto, tempore Thome Neubolt
Seneschalli.

The Homage consisted of the following tenants : — ■

■^Willianf Carte, "^William Richardes,

Thomas Rogerson, Richard Cook,

■^John of the Grene, ^Richard of the Grene,

*John Hugynes, Robert de Berneye,

John Fraunceys, ""Thomas of the Leye,

Geoffrey Glasebury, Adam Smyth,

^Thomas Rogerson,- John Milleward, and

Hugh Wyse, Walter Seys.

John Hardehbury,

Ten of these tenants held each a virgate of land, and the
others were crofters or cottagers. Of the tenants who held
virgates of land, six were natives of the manor holding in
bondage, the other four were free tenants, holding by a
servile tenure. Those who held in bondage describe them-
selves as nativi domini, and state that they held their
land in hondagio. The other tenants simply state that they
held their lands native, viz., as a native. Besides these,

' Original Court Roll at Wrotte.sley, copied 1860-62.

- There were two Thomas Rogersons, one a freeman and the other a native
of the manor holding a cottage.

176 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

there were two women tenants holdinf^ cottages and gardens,
one of whom, Isolda of the Grene, was a lord's native ; the
other, Juliana Suel or Snel, was a free woman. Another native
of the manor, Hugh Roberdes, had lately died, leaving an
onl}' daughter, Julid, who had been married with the permission
of the lord to Robert de Berneye, and the latter had paid
a fine to be admitted tenant in place of Hugh. The natives
of the manor are marked in the above list with an asterisk.

All the tenants paid an annual rent in money, which
varied for each virgate of land from 14s. up to 28s. The
cottagers paid from Is. to 2s., and one tenant, Geoffrey
Glasebury, held six crofts at the will of the lord, which had
fallen into the lord's hands by the default of the tenants,
and for which he paid 12s. lOd. annually. The sum total
of the rents came to £9 16s. lid. Every holder of a virgate
of land, besides the mone}^ rent, owed suit of Court every
three weeks, and a heriot when it fell due, and the work of
one man for two days in the autumn, and for each day
that he worked the lord found him a competent repast
(unum repastv.on competens), and after the death of each
of these tenants the lord would have all his horses and male
colts, half, of his pigs and hogs, and his boar if there should
be one, or 40d. in lieu of it, if none could be found, accord-
ing to the custom of the manor. Each tenant of a virgate
performed fealty as established by custom {et fecit fideli-
tatem quod idem instituitur, de corpore et catallis).

The cottagers and crofters held, some at the will of the
lord, and some for life, and the male tenants amongst them
owed besides their monej^ rent, suit of Court, and a heriot
when it fell due.

The Homage assessed the annual value of four carucates
of the demesne lands, woods, pastures, etc., and the three
mills, at £12 13s. 2d. The mills w^ere the TrillemuU, the
Wj^ghtwyke Mull, and le Newe Mull ; the two last were
held of Henry de Fereres, Lord of Groby, as of his manor
of Tettenhall, by the service of a small quit-rent. The
TrillemuU was a mill in Orton.

The Homage at the close of the proceedings made a pre-
sentment, which was evidently dictated by the Abbot or
his Steward. It states that Hugh de Wrottesley, Chivaler,
and Isabella, his wife, jointlj' enfeoffed, held in capite and
hy Knight's service, the manor of Wrottesleye of the Abbot
of Evesham, and that Hugh had died on the Tuesday
before the Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Mary in
4 Richard II (20 January 1381) and that the Abbot "'had
had no heriot after his death, and that Isabella had survived
her husband, and died on the Sunday after the Feast of
St. Michael, 5 Richard II (5 October 1381), and after her

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 177

death there fell to the Abbot, a brown ox, worth 13s. 4d.,
as a heriot, and that Hugh, the son of the said Hugh and
Isabella, was their nearest heir, and was six years old
and upwards at the date of the death of the said Isabella,
and that his wardship and marriage, and the custody of the
aforesaid manor, rightl}^ belonged to the Abbot, and that
Thomas de Arderne, Chivaler, had unjustly taken and
abducted from Wrottesleye, the said Hugh, son of Hugh.'

A memorandum at the end of the proceedings states that
the heriot of the said Isabella, viz., the 60s hrov,n, had been
sent to Ombersley. This was the native place of the Abbot,
Roger Zatton, and it appears, therefore, that the worthy
Abbot appropriated the heriots to himself instead of handing
them over to the monastery.

Upon the death of Isabella, the Abbot, by a deed in
French, dated from Evesham, on the Monday after the
Feast of All Saints', 5 Richard II (4 November 1381),
granted the custody of all the lands, tenements, services, and
rents, together "with the bodies of the villeins" (ove corps
des viUins), which Monsieur Hugh de Wrottesleye and
Isabella, his wife, held of him at Wrottesleye, to Sir
Nicholas de Stafford, and his executors and assigns, to be
held by them till the full age of Hugh, son and heir of the
said Hugh and Isabella, and if the said Hugh, the son,
should die within age, to hold the same till the full age of
any other heir, being under age, rendering annually to the
Abbot 13s. 4d. It will be observed that the rent reserved
was only the chief rent of one mark payable to the Mon-
astery, and as Sir Nicholas de Stafford was brother to
Katharine, the wife of Sir Thomas Arderne, who had carried
off the heir, it would appear as if some compromise had
been effected, and in consideration of Sir Nicholas paying
no rent for the manor, the claim of the Abbot to the ward-
ship and custody of the heir had been admitted.

Sir Nicholas de Stafford, to whom the custody of the manor
had been now entrusted, was a younger son of Sir Richard
de Stafford, the brother of Ralph, Earl of Stafford. He was
a Knight of some repute at this period, for he had served
in Gascony in 1356 with the Black Prince and was probably
at Poictiers, for his letters of protection are dated the
15th March of that year and the battle was fought in the
following September. In 1361-62 he was in Ireland in the
retinue of Ralph, Earl of Stafford, who had been sent to
suppress the insurrection of that year. In 1369 he was serving
again with the Black Prince in Gascony, and was afterwards

^ Original Manor Roll, at Wrottesley, copied 1860-62.

178 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Sheriff of CO. Stafford for the years 1378 to 1380. He married
Elizai)eth, the daughter and heiress of Thomas Meverell, of
Throwley, co. Stafford, and died in 1394.'

Before his death, Sir Hugh had entailed his copyhold
property in Tettenhall Regis on his relative Walter Wrottes-
ley, who has been alread}'' named in the account of the
life of Sir Hugh. This Walter I take to have been his
nephew, for he seals with a shield of the Basset arms, and
would not be entitled to use those arms except by descent
from Roger Basset. He was, therefore, probably son of
Roger, the younger brother of Sir Hugh. In 1370 he was
serving in the retinue of Sir Robert Knolles in the famous
expedition which traversed France from Calais to Gascony,^
and three years later he served in the retinue of Thomas,
Earl of Warwick, in the army commanded by John of
Gaunt, the Duke of Lancaster.^ A copy of the Court Roll
of Tettenhall Regis of 6 Richard II, formerly at Wrottesley,
states that at the Court held at Tettenhale, on the Thursday
after the Feast of the Apostles Simon and Jude, 6 Richard II
(30 October 1382), the jury presented that Hugh de Wrot-
tesley, Chivaler, who held of the lord according to the
custom of the manor, certain lands and tenements in fee
tail, had died, and the land had been taken into the lord's
hand. And they stated that Walter de Wrottesleye was the
nearest heir of the said Hugh to the said lands and
tenements by the said tail {per talli<i.m predictam), and
Walter appeared and claimed them by virtue of the said
tail, and he had seisin of them according to the custom of
the manor ; and with respect to his relief and fine, if they
were owing, a day was given to him. In testimony of which
Thomas Stones, the Steward, appended his seal to the copy.

The parchment is endorsed — " At the above Court W^alter
Wrottesleye appeared and received from the lord a piece of
land called le Mersshe, near the Newe Mulne in the Wergs,
which had been previously in the lord's hand."

The history of this piece of land is a curious instance of
the terrorism exercised over his neighbours by a successful
soldier of this reign.

It first appears in the possession of Walter Wrottesley in
1361, for at Michaelmas term, 38 Edward III, Walter de
Wrottesley sued Henry de Northale and Agnes, his wife, for
breaking, vi et arTnis, into his close and houses at the Wergs
on the Monday after the Feast of St. John the Baptist,

' Staffordshire Collections printed, vols, viii, xiv and xv.

■•' Rot. Fiancie, 44 Edward III, m. 8.

^ lletinue Roll, Army Miscellanea, Record Office.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 179

35 Edward III, and carrying away his corn and timber and
stones called Asshel^rs, and doing other damage to the extent
altogether of £20. The defendants appeared by attorney and
denied the trespass and injury, and appealed to a jury, and
the Sheriff was ordered to summon a jury of the vicinage
for the Octaves of St. Martin. No jury was empanelled in
this case. A jury of the vicinage of Tettenhall was a jury
of the vicinage of Sir Hugh de Wrottesley, and the latter
had taken up the cause of his kinsman Walter. At the
Michaelmas term in Banco of 35 Edward III, Hugh de
Wrottesleye, Chivaler, sued Henry de Northale and Agnes, his
wife, for taking, vi et armis, two fillies, ten oxen, four cows,
and forty sheep belonging to him from the Wergs, and other
goods and chattels belonging to him to the value of £20.
The defendants did not appear, and the Sheriff was ordered
to arrest and produce them on the Octaves of St. Hillary. A
postscript shews that the Sheriff had made no return to this
writ up to the Michaelmas term of the following year. At
Easter term, 40 Edward III, ie., nearly five years after the
suit had been first commenced, the Sheriff returned into Court
a sum of 20d., the proceeds of a distraint upon the goods
and chattels of Henry and Agnes, but the defendants put in
no appearance and the Sherift" was ordered to distrain again.
At this date Henry and Agnes had left the Wergs and had
taken up their abode at Chillington, for Henry is styled
Henry de Northale, of Chillington, on the Roll. The story
of their expulsion from the Wergs is told in a suit brought
against Walter after the death of Sir Hugh, viz., at Hillary
term, 5 Eichard II (January 1382), when Walter de Wrottesley,
William Wyse, of Bylbrok, John le Wyse, of Bylbrok, and
Walter le Dey were attached at the suit of Henry Northale,
who stated that on Monday, the Feast of St. James the
Apostle, 36 Edward III (25 July 1362), the defendants had
broken into his close at Wytheges, vi et arriiis, armed with
swords and bows and arrows, and had taken his infant from
its cradle and thrown it upon a dungheap (super sterculinum
projecerunt), and had carried off a horse, a cow and a calf
and twelve pigs belonging to him to the value of ten marks,
and had cut his growing corn and beans and peas, and
taken timber from his house to the value altogether of £30,
and had taken goods and chattels belonging to him, viz.,
two furs (pelves), a basin (lavatorum), two brass dishes
(patellas), three cups^ three " mashfates," three pewter pots,
and cloth and linen and woollen goods to the value of
£40, and he produced his evidence. Walter and the other
defendants appeared by attorney, and denied the trespass,
and appealed to a jury. After several adjournments, through
defects of juries, the case was eventually heard and determined

180 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

at Stafford on the Friday before the Feast of St. Matthew,
6 Richard II (September 1382), when a jury returned that
Walter was guilty of the trespass complained of, with the
exception of the taking of the cow and calf, and they
assessed the plaintiff's damages at twenty marks, and they
stated that the other defendants were not guilty. Henry
was, therefore, to recover his damages from the said Walter,
and the Sheriff was ordered to arrest him.^

The latest appearance of this Walter is in a deed formerly
at Wrottesley, by which he conveyed a piece of land within
the fee of Tettenhall, called le Smythesbruthe, to John
Chaloner of the Wergs, and Joan, daughter of Walter, and to
the heirs of their bodies, and failing such, to John, the son of
Walter, and the heirs of his body, and failing such, to his
own right heirs. This deed is dated on the Monday before
the Feast of St. Mark, 10 Henry IV.^

Besides this John, Walter had two other sons, named
William and Thomas. The first occurs as witness to a deed
dated 4 Henry IV, with his father Walter,^ and in 10 Henry V
(1423), Thomas, son of Walter Wrottesley, conveyed copyhold
property in Tettenhall Eegis to Walter Wj^se."*

In 8 Henry V, John had fled the country, owing to an
Indictment made against him for a felony. The Escheator's
accounts for co. Stafford of that date shew that William Lee,
the Escheator, had sold of the goods of John Wrottesley,
who had fled (se retraxit), for divers felonies, eighteen bushels
of barley, for which he had been paid 6s. 8d. b}' John
Baker.

The deeds formerly at Wrottesley, which belong to the
period abovenamed, 1381 to 1400, were as follows : —

Ceste endenture faite perentre labbe de Evesham dune part et
Monsire Nichol de Stafford dautre part testmoigne que le dit Abbe
ad graunte a dit Monsire Nichol la garde de touz les terres tenementz
rentes et services, ensemblement ove corps des vileines et lors suites
ove les aportinauntz quex Monsire Hugh de Wrottesleye e Isabelle
sa femme tindrount de dit Abbe en Wrottesleye a aver e tener a
dit Monsire Nichol ses executors et assignes tanqz a plein age Hugh
fitz e heir de ditz Monsire Hugh et Isabelle e si le dit Hugh lefitz
demi denz age que le dit (some words illegible here) le plein age
des heii's (some words illegible) esteant les ditz Monsire Nichol ses

1 De Banco, Hill, 5 Richard If, m. 174.

- Original deed at Wrottesley, copied 1860-62. The witnesses weie John Wyse
Henry Wyghtwyke and others.

^ Original deed at Wrottesley, copied 1860^62.

* Original copy of Court Roll at Wrottesley, copied 1860-62.

WROTTESLEY OF VVROTTESLEY. 181

executours et assignes eiount la garde de touz terres, tenementz,
I'entes, services ove corj)s de vileins e lours suites avauntditz ove
les aportinauntz tanqz a plein age de mesme le heir issint denz
age esteant, e issint de heir en heir tanqz ascuu des heirs avauntditz
eit accompli son plein age, rendaunt ent annuelment a dit abbe et
ses successours tresse southz e quatre deners as deux termes del an
cest assavoir as termes del annunciation notre dame et Seint Michel
par one les portions duraunt le temps susdit e fesaunt e supportaunt
a chefs seigneurs e as touz altres totes maneres rentes et autres
charges quenqes ent duwes duraunt mesme le temps. Et si la dite
rente de tresse southz et quatre deners soit a derere en partie ou
en tut as ascun des termes susditz, adonqz bien lise a dit Abbe et
ses successoui^s en touz les avauntditz terres, tenementz ove les
apportinauntz distreindre e distresse detener tanqz gre soit fait de
dite rente et des arrirages dycelles. En testmoignace de quele chose
le dit Abbe a une partie de ceste Endentour as mys son seall,
et le dit Monsire Nichol al autre partie de ceste endentour ad mis
son seall. Done a Evesham le lundy posthem apres la feste de touz
Seints Ian du reigne le roi Richard secound puis le conquest quint.
[4 November 1381.]i

Memorandum quod ad Curiam de Tetenhale tentam ibidem die
Jovis proximo post festum Apostolorum Simonis et Jude anno regni
Regis Ricardi secundi sexto xii Juratores presentaverunt quod
Hugo de Wrottesleye Chivaler qui tenuit de domino secundum
consuetudinem manerii certas terras et tenementa cum pertinentiis
in feodo talliato obiit et terra scisita fuit in manus domini per
defectum tenentis. Et dicunt etiam quod Walterus de Wrottesleye
est propinquior heres dicti Hugonis terrarum et tenementorum pre-
dictorum per talliam predictam, qui quidem Walterus venit et clamat
habere terras et tenementa predicta per feoffamentum tallie predicte
tenenda de domino secundum consuetudinem manerii per servicia
inde debita et consueta, et habet inde seisinam per consuetudinem
Curie, et de relevio seu de fine si de jure debeatur habet diem.
In cujus rei testimonium huic copie Thomas Stones Seneschallus
sigillum suum apposuit. Datum die, loco et anno supradictis.

Seal with a letter S on it.

Endorsed : — Memo : quod ad curiam infrascriptam Walterus Wrot-
tesleye venit et cepit de domino unam placeam terre vocatam le
Mersshe apud le Newemulne cum pertinentiis in Wythegis prius
seisitam in manus domini . . (remainder illegible). -

Besides these deeds, there were formerly at Wrottesley the
proceedings of several Manor Courts held during the same
interregnum.

^ Ancient co])y ou parchment at Wrottesley in handwriting of the fifteenth
century.

'^ Original copy of Court Roll at Wrottesley, copied 18o0-62.

182 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

At a "Magna Curia" of Wrottesley,^ held on the Friday
before the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude, 21 Richard II
October 1397), the Jury consisted of —

William Carte Richard Grenc

William Richardesson John Hugyns

Thomas Addesson John Fraunceys and

John Hoggeson Thomas Jackesson.
John Grene

Thomas, son of Adam Smyth, came into Court and re-
ceived from the lord a cottage which Richard Hernys had
held, to be held by him for a term of four years, and
rendering for it 12d. and one day's reaping (metendum) in
autumn, and he performed fealty (fecit fidelitatem) for it.

The following tenants were fined for permitting their cattle
and pigs to stray on the lord's land.

Hugh Wyse Adam Smyth

William Addesson John Aungell

John Patyngham John Grene

William Parker John Fraunceys

Walter Wrottesley Richard Brokhole and

WiUiam Tayllour Adam de Northwode.

The jury presented that William Hykkeson had concealed
8s. of the rent of Tettenhall after the death of Isabella, the
lady of Wrottesley, and that Edith, the daughter of
William, had in her possession a brass pot, the heriot of
William Reve.

William Parkere came into Court and received from the
lord a cottage called Traunts place, with the land and
pasture adjoining, which John Turner formerly held, as
appeared by a deed of the lord in writing, to be held for
five years, and he performed fealty for it.

Another Court was held on the Wednesday after the Feast
of Holy Trinity, 21 Richard II (June 1398). The jury wa?
the same as before, but with the addition of William
Hykkeson, and the following tenants were fined for allow-
ing their cattle and pigs to stray on the lord's land : —

John Walkere of Oken Thomas Collettes

William of Oken William Carte

William Parkere William Holygrene

Thomas Addeson Adam Deykyn

John Wyghtwyk William del Wythegis (of the

John Fletcher Wergs)

^ No lord is uaraed. They would be the executors or assigns of Elizabeth
de Stafford.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 183

John Perkys Richard Cannee

Adam Northwode Hugh Scheldon

WiHiam Yoman John Scheldon

Richard Brokhill Richard son of Robert Han-
Roger Robbes cokes and

Henry Scheldon Richard in the Hale.
Robert Thomen

Another Court was held on the Thursday before the
Feast of St. Andrew, 22 Richard II (November 1398).
The jury was the same as before, with the exception that
John del Leygh was substituted for John Fraunceys.

John Oxman came into Court and received from the
lord a tenement which William Parker had held near the
Lydeyate, rendering for it 13s. a year and performing
the same services as the other tenants in Wrottesley.

Fines varying from Id. to 8d. were imposed on tenants
for allowing their cattle and pigs to stray on the lord's land ;
amongst these were William Gunston, monachus de Oken,^
who is called elsewhere capellanus de Oken, Roger Russell,
William son of Richard Cannee, and Roger Robards. Of these
Thomas Jackesson, Richard Grene and Thomas Addesson
were fined for allowing their cattle to stray in the " Cusyll,"
a local name which still exists.

The jury presented that William Parker owed suit, and had
not appeared ; that Thomas Lye, the lord's native, was dead,
and after his death the lord had a pig worth 2s. and a brass
pot according to the custom of the manor, and an ox as a
heriot ; and that John, his brother, because Richard, his son,
was under age, had taken the tenement and land, to hold
it according to the custom of the manor until the full age
of the lord, and he performed fealty ; and that John
Fletcher, who had held a cottage of the lord, was dead, and
after his death the lord had his mare as a heriot (here
follows a sentence difUcult to decipher, hy which it appeared
that it was a question whether this was a proper heriot,
but it was justified upon the practice prevalent during
the time of Hugh de Wrottesley, Chivaler).

Thomas Fletcher came into Court and received from the
lord a cottage called Faucon's place, to be held until the
full age of the lord, and he performed fealty for it.

A ■' Magna Curia " of Wrottesley was held on the Friday
after the Feast of the Conception of the Blessed Mary,
2 Henry IV (December 1400). The roll of this Court names
no lord. John de Wrottesley had in effect come of age in

^ Oaken belonged to Crokesden Abbey, and one of the monks was probably
acting as bailiff of the Abbot.

184

HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

the previous September, but apparently had not proved his
ao;e and obtained seisin of the manor. The jury were : —

John Hugyns John Oxman

John Frauneeys John de Grene

John de Lyghe Thomas Jackeson

William Carte Thomas Ad son and

William Parker Adam Smyth,

who presented that John de Grene, the younger, the lord's
native, had left his home without the lords permission ; that
Thomas Jackesson had wrongfully sold a pasture to a
stranger against the custom of the manor ; that William
Parker had wrongfully appropriated a pasture which was
connnon to the tenants ; that Thomas Jackesson had wrong-
fully tished a marl pit {onarlera) of the lord and taken
fish to the value of Id., and that the house of the said
Thomas was in a ruinous state. William Parker was fined
12d. and Thomas was fined 6d., and was ordered to repair
his house before the feast of Pentecost, under a penalty of
6d.

On the complaint of the Bailiff of the manor, several
tenants were fined for permitting their cattle to stray on
the lord's land.

Thomas Addeson and Thomas Jackesson were elected
Provosts and sworn in. John Lyghe was elected Constable,
and John Hugyns and John Grene were elected tasters of
beer {tastatores) and sworn in.

John de Wrottesley, A.D. 1400 to A.D. 1402.

According to the Inquisition on
his mother's death, John de Wrot--
tesley came of age on the 29th Sep-
tember 1400. He is shown to be
son of Sir Hugh by this Inquisi-
tion, by another Inquisition on
his own death, by two writs on
the Chester Recognizance RolU of
3-4 Henry IV, and by a suit on the
Chester Plea Roll of 10 Henry IV.
He had been married to his wife,
Elizabeth Standish, when six years
of age, and his eldest son Hugh
was born just a fortnight before
John attained- his majority.
His first Manor Court was held on the Feast of the Con-

^ Chester Recognizance Roll, 3-4 Henry IV, m. 4 dorso.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 185

ception, 3 Henry IV (8 December 1401), and is headed Curia
magna Recognitionis JoJtannis Wrottesley tenia ibidem die
Jovis in festo Gonceptionis Beate Marie anno regni regis
Henrici quarti post conqwestum tertio.^

The jury consisted of : —

John Huggyns John Grene

William Carte Thomas Jackesson

Thomas Addesson John othe Lye and

John Fraunceys William Grene

all of whom performed fealty and acknowledged their tenancies.
In addition to these there vvas one female tenant, Joan
Huggyns.

The term virgate of land no longer occurs on the Roll,
nor does it specify in direct terms whether the tenures were
free or servile. The acknowledgments of the tenants were
simply to the effect that they held a messuage and a parcel
of land of the lord for a money rent specified. These rents
varied from 16s. to 2Gs.

The jury presented that John Grene and Rich .rd Grene,
the sons of Richard Grene, the lord's native, had left the
manor without the lord's leave, and that Agnes Wyse, the
lord's native, had also left in the same way, that Edith the
daughter of William Hykesson, the lord's native (nativa
domini), had married one Thomas More at Wolverhampton
without the lord's permission, and that Agnes, another
daughter of the said William, the lord's native, had married
William Patyngham without the lord's leave, and had left
the manor, and that Agnes, the daughter of John Grene,
the lord's native, had married Adam Smyth in the time of
Elizabeth de Stafford, without the lord's permission.

The Bailiff of the manor then made upwards of ninety
presentments against the tenants and others for trespasses
upon the lord's demesne, and fines were inflicted in each
case, varying from 2d. to 4d. The trespasses in most cases
were for allowing cattle and pigs to stray on the lord's
wheat, barley, peas, and grass. After these presentments
had been dealt with, Thomas Jackesson complained that
Adam Smyth had destroyed his oats at the Wallesende
with his cattle, and committed damage to the extent of 40d.
Adam was present in Court and confessed to the fact, but
demurred to the extent of the damage, and asked that it
might be taxed by the Court.

The same Thomas further complained that Adam had
set his dog upon his sow, and had caused her to cast her

' Original Court Roll at Wrottesley, copied 1860-62. All these Manor Rolls
were written in Latin and on parchment.

186 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

pigs, for which he claimed 40d. as damages. Adam admitted
this also, but demurred to the amount of damage, and
asked that it miglit be taxed by the Court, and the damage
was taxed at 20d.

Thomas Addesson and John Lye were elected Provosts
of the manor, and the said Thomas was sworn in.

John del Lye was elected Constable and sworn in.

John Grene and John Huggyns were elected tasters of
beer, and were sworn in.

These proceedings show that Sir Nicholas de Stafford
had died during the minority of John, and that his wife,
Elizabeth, had succeeded him as lady of the manor.^

On the 28rd December 1401, John de Wrottesley enfeoffed
John Wyghtwyk, chaplain, and John Wyse in the manor of
Wrottesley, and three days afterwards the same feoffees
conveyed the manor to John and his wife, Elizabeth, and
to the heirs of the body of John, and failing such to the
right heirs of John.- In the following February he was at
Butterton on the Moors, and by a deed dated from that
place on the Monday before the Purification, 8 Henry IV,
he enfeoffed Walter Wyse of Bilderbrok and William Rugge
in the manor of Boterdone, and the same trustees on the
following Saturday conveyed the manor to John and his
wife Elizabeth, with remainders as in the deed of the
26th December.

It has been shewn that Elizabeth de Stafford had
held the custody of the manor as assignee of Sir Nicholas
after the death of the latter, which took place in 1394.
Elizabeth was heiress of the Meverells of Throwley, and
would naturally take more interest in her own inheritance
than in a manor she held only for a term, and there is
reason to believe from the Bailiffs account of the estate
on the Manor Roll of 1401 that John must have found his
property in a very dilapidated state when he came of age
in the previous year. He would be prone to associate this
state of things with the appropriation of the manor by the
Abbot as a military fee, and the grant of it to Sir Nicholas
de Stafford, and by way of indemnifying himself, he now
revived the claim of a socage tenure. At Easter term,
3 Henry IV, he was suing the Abbot to render a reasonable
account of the issues of lands and tenements in Wrottesley
which were held in socage, and of which the Abbot had
held the custody when he was under age and in ward to

' Sir Nicholas de Stafford died in 1394. See vol. xv, Staff. Collections, p. 64
" Original deed at Wrottesley, copied 1860-62.

WROTTESr.EY OF WROTTESLEY. 187

him. The Abbot did not appear, and the Sheriff was ordered
to attach liiin for the Quindene of Holy Trinity. A post-
script states that on that date the Sheriff made no return
to the writ, and he was ordered to attach the Abbot for
the Quindene of St. Michael (13 October 1405). ^ Before
this latter date John had died, and we thus lose the record
of what probably would have been a very interesting suit.
The latest act of John of which there is any record is
a deed of manumission of a female villein or native of his
manor. How this deed came to be preserved amongst the
Wrottesley muniments is dithcult to explain, but it may be
assumed perhaps that Dionisia or Denise, as she would be
called, was the nurse of John, and had died in the service
of the family. As deeds of manumission are very rare, I
give it here in full.

Noverint omnes Christiani fideles quod ego Johannes domiiius
de Wrot(;sley, manumisi et liberam feci Diouisiam filiam Johannis
Hugynes de Wrotesley cum tota sequela sua procreata seu pro-
creanda et cum omnibus bonis et catallis suis. Ita vero quod uec
ego dictus Johannes nee eredes (sic) mei aliquam proprietatem seu
calumniam in corpore ipsius Dionisie nee in tota sequela sua
procreata seu procreanda, nee in omnibus bonis et catallis suis
decetero exigere poterimus in futuro vel vendicare set ipsam
Diouisiam cum supradictis sequela et bonis ab omni ordine
servitutis et wayvituris penitus acquieto et relaxo in perpetuum
per presentes. In cujus rei testimonium presentibus sigillum meum
apposui. Datum apud Wrottesley die lune proximo ante festum
Sancti Laurencii anno I'egiii regis Henrici quarti post conquestum
tertio. [7 August 1402.]^

In this year, viz., 1402, Owen Glendower ravaged the
marches with a large force of Welshmen, and defeated and
took prisoner Sir Edmund Mortimer on the 22nd June. The
Scots also invaded England on the north, but were defeated
by Sir Henry Percy at Homildon Hill, on the 14th September.

In the autumn of the year the King, with the view of
crushing the rebellion of Owen Glendower, raised a large
force from the Midland Counties and invaded Wales from
three different points. On the 31st July writs were issued
to the Sheriffs of the Midland Counties to summon all
men-at-arms and archers within their Bailiwicks to meet the
King at Shrewsbury, all the Knights and Esquires, archers,
and other hommes defemsabiles to furnish themselves with
horses and arms according to their status, and to be at
Shrewsbury on the 27th August to proceed with the King

^ De Banco Easter, 3 Henry IV, m. 142, dorso.
^ Original deed at Wrottesley, copied 1860-62.

188 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

into Wales. By other writs the array of counties Notting-
ham, Leicester, Northampton, Bucks, Lincoln, Cambridge,
Hunts, and the Palatinate of Lancaster were to assemble at
Shrewsbury. The array of counties Gloucester, Hereford,
Worcester, Warwick, Stafford, Somerset and Bristol was to
be mustered at Hereford under the Earls of Stafford and
Arundel and the Lords Grey, Audley, Bergavenny and Berke-
ley on the 29th August. The array of counties Derby and
Salop to be mustered at Chester under Henry, Prince of
Wales, on the same date.

The King's project was defeated by the inclemency of the
weather ; torrents of rain fell, the Welsh valle3^s were flooded,
the streams became impassable, and even the King's tent
was carried away in a storm of rain and wind. It was the
year when, in the words of Shakespear, Merlin " called
spirits from the vasty deep," and made the elements sub-
servient to the cause of his countrymen.

Assuming that John de Wrottesley could not have avoided
the general summons, the hardships of the campaign appear
to have proved fatal to him, for he died on the 7th of
September. At this date he was little over twenty-two
years of age.^

The writ of " diem clausit extremum " was issued by
Henry, Prince of Wales, on the 13th October 4 Henry IV
(1402), and the Inquisition took place at Kelsale on the 26th
October. The jury stated that John, son of Hugh de Wrot-
tesley, Kt., who was named in the writ, died seised in demesne
as of fee of two parts of a messuage and tliirty acres of land
in Buddeworth in le Fryth, which were held of the lord of
Chester by military service, and were worth annually 17s. lOd.
He was also seised in the same way when he died of a toft
and five acres of land in Tyresford, which were held of
St. John of Jerusalem by a service of 12d. and were worth
6s. annually, and of two parts of a messuage and ten acres
of land in Kelsale, which were held of John de Kyngesley
by a service of 7d. and worth 5s. 4d.

And that the said John died on the Sunday the Vigil of
the Nativity of the Blessed Mary last past '^7th September
1402), and that Hugh, his son, was his nearest heir, and
was two years of age on the Friday the Feast of the
Exaltation of the Holy Cross in the same year (14th Sep-
tember 1402).2

' I have assumed that he was in the expedition, for there was a general levy
of nien-at-aru)S from 8taffordshire, and he could hardly have been absent on
such an occasion, when the King took the field in iJerson.

- inquisitions p.m., Cheshire. There is some error in these dates, for tlie Vigil
of the Nativity of the Virgin would have fallen on a Friday in 1402. The
second date is the day on wliich the battle of Homildon was fought, and it

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 189

The following deeds, formerly at Wrottesley, belong to
the above epoch 1400—1402.

Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Johannes de Wrottesley
dedi, concessi, et hac present! moa carta confirmavi Johanni
Wygthwyk capellano et Johanni Wyse manerium de Wrot-
tesley cum pertinentiis, habendum et tenendum predictum man-
erium cum pertinentiis predictis Johanni Wythwyk capellano
et Johanni Wyse heredibus et assignatis suis in perpetuum de
capitalibus dominis feodorum illorum per servitia" inde debita et
de jure consueta. Et ego vero etc. (clause of tcarranfy). In
cujus rei testimonium huic presenti carte si^llum meum apposui.
Hiis testibus Hugone Mortimer milite, Egidio del huyde, Johanne
de Swynnorton, Johanne Hampton, Edmundo del lowe, Rogero
Waryng, Johanne Codeshale et aliis. Data apud Wrottesley die
veneris proximo post festum Sancti Thome Apostolici anno regni
regis Henrici quarti post Conquestum Anglie tertio.^ (23 December
1401.) • »'^

Seal destroyed.

Sciant presentes et futuri quod nos Johannes Wyghtwyk
capellanus et Johannes Wys dedimus, concessimus et hac presenti
carta nostra confirmavimus Johanni de Wrottesley et Elizabeth
uxori ejus et heredibus predict! Johannis de Wi'ottesley de corpore
suo legitime procreatis, manerium de Wrottesley cum pertinentiis
suis, habendum et tenendum predictum manezium cum pertinentiis
suis predictis Johanni de Wrottesley et Elizabeth uxori ejus et
heredibus de corpore predicti Johannis de Wrottesley legitime
procreatis de capitalibus dominis feodorum illoruni per servitia
inde debita et de jure consueta. Et si contingat quod j)redictus
Johannes de Wrottesley obierit sine heredibus de corpore suo
legitime procreatis, tunc volumus et concedimus quod predictum
manerium cum pertinentiis remaneat i*ectis heredibus predicti
Johannis de Wrottesley inperpetuum. In cujus rei testimonium
huic presenti carte sigilla nostra apposuimus. Hiis testibus
Hugone Mortymer milite, Egidio del huyde, Johanne Swyn-
norton, Johanne Hampton, Edmundo de lowe. Rogero Warying,
Johanne Codeshale et aliis. Data apud Wrottesley die Lune
proximo post festum natale domini anno regni regis Henrici
quarti post conquestum Anglie tertio. [26 December 1401.]i

Seals destroyed.

has sometimes struck the writer whether the jury may not have confused the two
dates, and that John may have fallen at Homildon. Hotspur, who was Justice
of Chester, was considered the mirror of chivalry ; and many of the young
nobility of Chester were serving under his banner, amongst these were Robert
de Legh of Adlington, and Sir John Aiderue, the cousins of John de Wrottesley.
1 Original deeds at Wrottesley, copied 1860-62. Sir Hugh Mortimer, the first
witness of the.se deeds, was son of Sir Henry Mortimer, of Chelmarsh, the first
husband of I'^lizabeth ap Rys, the sister of Mabel, formerly wife of Sir Hugh de
Wrottesley. He was killed' at the battle of Shrewsbury in 1403, fighting on the
side of the King.

190 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Sciaiit presentes et futuii (juod ego Johannes de Wrottesley
dedi, foncessi, et hac present! carta mea confirmavi Waltero Wyse
de Bilderbrok et Willelmo Rugge manerium de Boterdone cum omni-
bus pertinentiis suis. Habendum et tenendum predictum manerium
cum omnibus pertinentiis suis predictis Waltero et Willebno, heredi-
bus et assignatis suis Hbere, quiete, bene, et in pace in perpetuum
de capitabbus dominis feodorum illorum per servicia inde debita et
de jure consueta. Et ego vero, etc. {clause of ivarranty). In cujus
rei testimonium huic presenti carte sigillum meum apposui. Hiis
testibus, Jolianne Cogan miHte, Thoma Marcliinton, Thoma Okore,
Johanne Pole, Thoma Schene, et aliis. Datum apud Boterdone die
Lune proximo ante festuni Puriiicationis beate Marie virginis anno
regni Regis Henrici quarti post coiiquestum tertio.^ [30 January
1402.]

Sciant presentes et futuri quod nos Walterus Wysse de Bilderbrok
et Willelmus Rugge concessimus et hac presenti carta nostra con-
firmavimus Johanni de Wrottesleye et Elizabeth uxori ejus et
heredibus de corpore predicti Johannis legitime procreatis manerium
de Boterdone cum omnibus pertinentiis suis quod nuper tenuimus
ex dono et feoffamento predicti Johannis. Habendum et tenendum
predictum manerium cum omnibus pertinentiis suis predicto Johanni
et Elizabeth uxori ejus et heredibus de corpore predicti Johannis
legitime procreatis de capitalibus dominis feodi illius per servdcia
inde debita et de jure consueta. Et si contingat quod predictus
Johannes obierit sine heredibus de corpoi'e suo legitime procreatis,
tunc v'olumus et concedimus quod predictum manerium cum omnibus
pertinentiis suis remaneat rectis heredibus predicti Johannis in per-
petuum. Tenendum de predictis capitalibus dominis per servicia
predicta. In cujus rei testimonium huic presenti carte sigilla nostra
apposuimus. Hiis testibus Johanne Cogan milite, Thoma Marchynton,
Thoma Okore, Johanne Pole, Thoma Schene et aliis. Datum apud
Boterdone die Sabati proximo post festum Purificationis Beate Mai'ie
anno regni regis Henrici quarti post conquestum Anglie tertio.
[4 February 1402.]-^

Arms of John de Wrottesley.

On the dexter side — Or, three piles Sable, a quarter Ermine, for
Wrottesley.

On the sinister side— Sable, three standishes Argent, for Standish.

Giles del Huyde was a relict of the reign of Edward HI, who had served as
an Esquire in the wars in France. He was tenant of the Hyde, near Chilling-
ton. \n 43 Edward III he was serving in Gaacony in the suite of John de
Cherleton, the lord of Powis. In 4 Richard II he was serving in France in the
retinue of the Earl of Stafford (Staffordshire Collections, vols, viii and xiv).

John de Swynuerton was lord of Hilton, co. Stafford, and Chief Forester of
Cannock.

John Hampton was lord of Stourton Castle and Chief Forester of Kinver.

Edmund del Lowe was lord of Whittington.

' From transcripts of Buttei ton deeds formerly at Wrottesley, copied 1860-62.

- From copies of Butterton deeds at Wrottesley, 1860-62. The last two deeds,

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 191

Interregnum, 1402 to 1421.

Under the feudal ]aw, all estates of tenants in capite
became subject to the liabilities of a tenure in capite under
whatever lord they might have been held ; but the manors
of Wrottesley and Butterton had providentially been settled,
by the deeds of 1401 and 1402. on Elizabeth, the widow of
John de Wrottesley, and she was entitled to hold them for
her life. The custody and marriage of the heir, however,
fell to Henry, Prince of Wales, as Earl of Chester, by
reason of the small estate held in capite in Cheshire, and on
the 26th of April 4 Henry IV (1403) the Prince, with the
assent of his council, granted to Robert de Stan dish, Kt.,
the custody of all the lands, tenements, rents and services
which formerly belonged to John, son of Hugh de Wrotteslegh,
Kt. (onilitis), in co. Chester, and which, by reason of the
death of John and the minority of Hugh, son and heir of
the said John, had come into his hands, together with the
marriage of the said Hugh without disparagement, to be
held by him till the lawful age of the said Hugh, son of
John, and if the said Hugh should die within age, leaving
an heir within age, he conceded that the said Robert should
have the custody of all the said lands, etc., until any heir
of the said Hugh, son of John, should arrive at full age.
For which concession the said Robert was to pay £20 within
four years and to find competent maintenance for the said
heirs and undertake all charges and services incumbent on
the lands, and saving to Elizabeth, formerly wife of John,
her reasonable dower out of the same lands. ^

A few days before the date of this grant, viz., on the
20th April, the Prince had issued a mandate to Richard de
Manley, the Escheator of co. Chester, to assign dower to
Elizabeth, formerly wife of John, son of Hugh de Wrotteslej?-,
Kt., out of the lands which the said John had held of the
Earl in capite in co. Chester, the said Elizabeth giving
security that she would not remarry without the Earl's assent.-

Within little more than three months from this date,
Elizabeth had married Sir William le Boteler, of Warrington,
CO. Lancaster, for the Manor Rolls at Wrottesley describe
Sir WilHam as lord of Wrottesley, at a Court held on the
Wednesday after the Nativity of St. John the Baptist. This

being dated from Butterton, are witne.ssed by Knights and Esquires of North
Staffordshire or Derbyshire. Sir John Cogan, the first witness, is without doubt
Sir John Cokeyne, the contemporary lord of Ashbourne, co. Derby, who held
land also on the moors of Staiiordshire. Thomas Marchington was lord of
Caverswall. Thomas Okore was lord of Okeover. John Pole was lord of
Hartington, co. Derby, and of Newburgh, co. Stafford.

' Chester Recognizance Roll, 3-4 Henry IV, m. 5.

2 Recognizance Roll, co. Chester, 3-4 Henry IV, m. 5.

192 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

would be the 27th June 1403.' Elizabeth had, therefore,
married a second husband as soon as nine months had
elapsed after her first husband's death. Sir William le Boteler
had succeeded his father John in 1400,- and at the date of
his marriage with Elizabeth, was a widower with an infant
son, a few weeks old.^ That a widower should re-marry
three months after his wife's death, and a widow do the
same nine months after her late husband's death is quite in
accordance with the manners and customs of the day.

Five years after this date, and when Hugh Wrottesley
was nine years of age, an event occurred which materiall}^
affected his interests. Sir John Arderne, of Aldford, died in
0 Henrj'- IV, leaving an only daughter, and under the settle-
ment made of the Arderne estates in 21 Edward III, these
sliould now have devolved on the issue of Robert de Legh
and Hugh de Wrottesley as right heirs of Sir John Arderne
and Elena, who had died in 1849.

The Inquisition on the death of Sir John Arderne was
taken at Chester on the 18 June, 9 Henry IV (1408), on
the oath of three Knights and nine Esquires of co. Chester,
who stated that a certain Robert de Hampton, late Parson
of the church of Alderley, and John, son of Roger de Motlowe,
were formerly seised in demesne as of fee of the mailors of
Aldeford, Alderley, and Echeles, and of the advowsons of
the churches of Aldeford and Alderley, and of an annual
rent of £10 from the manor of Upton in Wyrehale, and had
granted the same to John de Ardene and Elena, his wife,
for their lives, with remainder to one Thomas, the son of
Elena, and the heirs male of his body, and failing such,
to Walkeline, the brother of Thomas and the heirs male of
his body, and failing such, to the right heirs of John
de Ardene and Elena, and failing such, to the right
heirs of Jolm de Ardene for ever. And John de
Ardene and Elena had issue lawfully begotten Matilda and
Isabella, and John and Elena had died without leaving any
male issue lawfully begotten, and after the death of John
de Ardene and Elena, the abovenamed Thomas had entered
into the said manors, advowsons and rent in virtue of the
remainder, and he had issue John de Ardene, Knight ; and
Thomas died, seised in demesne as of fee tail of the said
manors, advowsons and rent, and after his death, they
descended to the said John, son of Thomas, who had
entered, and had died seised of them, as of fee tail, and
had left no male heir ; and they stated that Robert de Legh,

' Court Rolls at Wrottesley.

'^ Ducliy of Lancaster Records printed, Rolls Series, 1872.

^ Ibid. His son John proved his age in March 1424.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 193

the son of Robert de Legh, married the said Matilda, and
they had issue Robert de Legh, Kt., whicli Robert de Legh,
Kt., had issue Robert de Legh, who was now surviving ; and
Matilda had died, and Robert de Legh, son of the said
Robert and Matilda, had died i7ide seisitus} And they stated
also that one Hugh de Wrotteslegh, Knight, had married the
above named Isabella, and they had issue one John de
Wrotteslegh, and John had issue Hugh de Wrotteslegh, who
was now surviving. And Hugh the elder and his wife,
Isabella, had died, and John, their son, had likewise died,
and therefore the right to the said manors, advowsons and
rent, after the death of the said John, son of Thomas (de
Ardene) should remain to the said Robert, son of Robert
de Legh, Kt., as son and heir of the said Robert de Legh,
Kt., son and heir of the said Matilda, daughter and one of
the heirs of John de Ardene and Elena, and to the said
Hugh, son and heir of the said John, son and heir of Hugh,
the son and heir of the said Isabella, the other daughter
and heir of John de Ardene and Elena.

And they stated that the manor of Echells was held of
the Lord Lestraunge, as of his manor of Dunham Massy, by
military service, and was worth £50 a year, and that the
manor of Aldeford was held of the Prince, as Earl of Chester,
in capite by military service, and was worth £40 a year,
and the manor of Aldelegh was held of the Prince, as Earl
of Chester, in capite by military service, and was worth £10
a year, and that the manor of Upton, from which the rent
proceeded, was held of the Prince, as Earl of Chester, in
capite by military service ; and that the said John de Ardene,
Kt., had died on the Monday before the Feast of the
Apostles Peter and Paul last past, and that the said Robert
de Legh was forty years of age and upwards, and the said
Hugh was eight years of age.^

On the return of this Inquisition into the Chancery at
Chester, the usual course would have been to issue a writ
to the Escheator, to make a partition of the lands, and to
give seisin of a moiety of them to Robert de Legh, whilst
the other moiety would have been taken into the hands of
the Prince, as Earl of Chester and superior lord, saving in
both cases the dower of the widow of Sir John ; but
Margaret, the widow of Sir John Arderne, now came forward

' Sir Robert de Legh survived Sir John de Arderue, and had taken possession
of the manors. The Inquisition taken on his death in 9 Henry IV states he died
seised of the manors of Alderley, Upton and Adlington held in capite of the
Earl, and <jf the manor of Echels held of Lord Strange as of his manor of
Dunham Mascy.

^ Chester Inquisitions. A portion of the Inquisition has been destroyed by
damp, and has been supplied from the Plea of 10 Henry IV which follows.

194 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

and claimed to hold the whole estate for her life, under a
settlement made by her husband, and the matter was brought
before the Palatine Court by the Chamberlain of Chester.

The Chester Pleas of 10 Henry IV, state that Thomas
Barneby, the Chamberlain of Chester, produced in Court an
Inquisition which had been taken before Richard de Manley,
the Escheator, and which was in these words (here follows
the Inquisition as given above).

And Margaret, late wife of the said John, son of Thomas
de Ardene, Kt., appeared by attornej', and denied that the said
Robert de Hampton and John, son of Roger, had been seised
of the manors, advowsons and rent, and had conveyed them
as shewn in the Inquisition ; and she stated that the said John,
son of Thomas (de Arderne), had been seised of the manors
and advowsons of Aldeford and Alderlegh, and had granted
them to John Pygot, Peter de Bulkelegh of Cliedle, William
del Holt the elder, Hugh de Bostok, Roger de Pylkyngton,
Knight, John de Pylkyngton, Knight, John de Dalton,
Knight, Thomas Gerard, Knight, Laurence de Standysshe,
of CO. Lancaster, Thomas de Gresley, of co. Derby, Knight,
Thomas de Aston, Knight, and ten others named, and to
their heirs (the license of the Prince, as Earl of Chester,
having been first obtained), and the said John, Peter, William
and the others named, by their deed, which she produced in
Court, and which was dated from Aldeford on the Monday
after the Assumption of the Blessed Mary, 7 Henry IV., had
granted them to the said John, son of Thomas (de Arderne),
and to Margaret, his wife, and to the heirs of their bodies ;
by virtue of which grant the said John, son of Thomas, and
Margaret were seised of the said manors and advowsons,
during the lifetime of John, son of Thomas. And John, son
of Thomas, afterwards died, and she had continued her status
in the manors by virtue of the above grant, and therefore
John, son of Thomas, had not died sole seised of them, as
stated in the Inquisition, and she asked that the Prince,
as Earl of Chester, might remove his hand, and that she
might have restitution of them.

And as regarded the manor of Echeles, she denied that
the said Robert (de Hampton), and John, son of Roger, had
been seised of it and had granted it to John de Arderne,
and Elena his wife, as shewn in the Inquisition, and she
stated that a Fine had been levied in full county of Chester,
on the Tuesday before the Feast of Pentecost, 22 Richard II,
between the said John, son of Thomas (de Arderne), and
Margaret, his wife, complainants, and Nicholas de Prestwich,
chaplain, deforciant, of the manor of Echeles, by which it
had been settled on John and Margaret, and the heirs of
their bodies, and by virtue of which Fine, they had been

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY, 195

seised of the manor, during the lifetime of John, and after
John had died she had continued her status in the said
manor, until removed by the above Inquisition, and she
asked therefore, that the Prince should remove his hand,
and that she might have restitution of it.

The Prince's attorney denied the allegations of Margaret,
and appealed to a jury, which was to be summoned for the
Tuesday after the close of Easter, on which day a jury
found in favour of Margaret on all the issues, and stated
that the rent of £10 proceeding from the manor of Upton
had always been part of the manor of Aldford. It was
therefore considered that the Prince should remove his hand
and that Margaret should have restitution of the said manors
and advowsons and rent, with all issues and profits from
them from the date of her removal.

This judgment left the Arderne estates in the illegitimate
descendants of Sir John de Arderne, who died in 23
Edward III. John de Arderne, the husband of Margaret,
the plaintiff in the above suit, left an only daughter and
heiress, Matilda, who married Thomas de Stanley. There
appears, however, to have been an appeal from this judgment
and a compromise, for the Inquisition on Robert de Legh, who
died in 3 Henry V, states he was seised of an annual rent
of £10, granted to him and his heirs by Thomas de Stanley,
to be received from the manor of Alderle}^ Later generations
of the Leghs, however, did not acquiesce in this compromise,
and the endeavours of the Leghs and Wrottesleys to recover
the Arderne estates are recorded at intervals on the Cheshire
Plea Rolls for more than a hundred years after this date.

On the re-marriage of Elizabeth, widow of John de Wrot-
tesley, she appears to have put in a tenant at Wrottesley.
A presentment, returned into the Court of King's Bench in
2 Henry V, states that Thomas Lynhales and three others
named had feloniously killed Roger Kyng, of Wolverhampton,
in 13 Henry IV, and that Ralph Chernok had knowingly
received them afterwards at Wrottesley.^ Ralph Chynok,
armiger, of Wrottesley, is named in a Wrottesley deed of
9 Henry V.

Henry V succeeded to the throne in March 1413, and in
the following year he demanded the throne of France as
heir of Isabella, the daughter of Philip IV. In August
1415 he sailed from Southampton with a force of about
6000 men-at-arms and 24000 archers, and invested Harfleur,
at the mouth of the Seine. Harfleur surrendered on the 26th of
September, but its reduction had been purchased by the

* Staffordshire Collections, Vol. xvii, p. 23-24.

196 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

sacrifice of nearly half the Enorlish army, which perished
from the ravages of dysentery as well as the casualties of
the sief^e. Amongst the victims was Sir William le Boteller,
who died before Harfleur whilst in command of the Lancashire
levies.^

Elizabeth was left a well endowed widow, for in addition
to the Wrottesley estates, which she held for life, she
would now obtain a considerable dower from the Warrington
property. Under such circumstances she would not remain
long a widow in the fifteenth century ; and by a writ of the
26th October, 4 Henry V (1416), the Escheator of co. Lancaster
was ordered to assign to Sir William de Ferrers, of Groby,
who had married Elizabeth, late wife of Sir William Botiller,
Kt., reasonable dower for the said Elizabeth out of her late
husband's lands, the said William de Ferrers having given a
bond for payment of the Fine to be imposed upon her for
marrying without the King's license.^

Sir William de Ferrers, the Baron of Groby, the third
husband of Elizabeth, had succeeded his father, Henry, in
1388, at which date he was fifteen years of age ; he would
be, therefore, forty-three when he married Elizabeth. Assuming
that the latter was nearly of the same age as her first
husband, John de Wrottesley, she would be about thirty-five
at the same date. William was lord of Tettenhall Regis and
the Wergs, a manor adjoining Wrottesley, and a portion of
the Wrottesley property was held of him as overlord.^

Amongst the Army Miscellanea of the Exchequer is an
account of the wages due to Sir William le Botiller for
his service in France in 1415. It is. headed " Gom'potus
Willehni Boteller Chivaler defuncti, Willelmii Ferrers de
Groby Chivaler, et Elizabeth uxoris ejus tenentium terra-
rum et tenementorum que fuerunt predicti Willelmi Boteller
defuncti, dated the Morrow of All Souls, 6 Henry V. The
accounts commence by quoting an Indenture, dated 29 April
3 Henry V, by which Sir William Boteller engaged to serve

' Nicholas' " Agincourt " and Army Accounts infra. A writ, dated 16 June
3 Henf"y V, directed .'JOO archers of Lancashire to be mustered at VVai'rington
on the Wednesday after the Feast of St. John the Baptist, to accompany
the King on his expedition to foreign parts. And on the 1 March following,
Elizabeth, late wife of Sir William le Botiller, and William Couper, executors
of the will of Sir William, gave half a mark for a writ " de debito." (Duchy
of Lancaster Records, printed.)

- Duchy of Lancaster Records, printed, Rolls Series.

•^ Elizabeth had two sons by her third husband, for by a Fine, levied in
10 Henry V, the manor and advowson of Lutterworth were settled on William
de Ferrers and Elizabeth, his wife, and the heirs male of the body of William,
and failing such on Thomas de Ferrers, son of William and Elizabeth, and the heirs
male of his body, and failing such on John de Ferrers, the brother of Thomas,
and the heirs male of his body, and failing such on the right heirs of William.
(Leicester Fines.)

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 197

the King for a year in person in the Duchy of Guienne or
other parts of France, with ten men-at-arms and thirty
mounted archers, for which he was to be paid 2s. a day
for himself and 12d. for each man-at-arms, with certain pro-
visions respecting the profits to be obtained from prisoners,
by which it appeared that all prisoners above a certain rank
were to be handed over to the King.

His pay commenced from the 8th July, 3 Henry V, when
his retinue was reviewed at Southampton and taken over by
the King, and ceased on the following 6th October, which
must be the date of his death. An advance had been made
to him on the 6th June of £84 lis. 3d., and another on the
6th July of £55 19s. 2d., as specified on the Memoranda Roll
of the Pell of those terms. The names of the men-at-arms
and archers are given in the accounts, but they are all
names of Lancashire men. The first name on the list of
Esquires was that of William de Assheton, who is mentioned
in the next paragraph.

On the marriage of his mother with William de Ferrers,
Hugh Wrottesley must have taken up his abode at Groby,
for in 7 Henry V he was prosecuted by the Crown for a
trespass committed in the royal forests in Leicestershire,
in company with William de Ferrers, and William de Asshe-
ton. The De Banco Roll of Trinity term, 7 Henry V, states
that William de Ferrars, of Groby, Chivaler, was attached
at the suit of the King, for breaking into the King's park
at Deflford, on the Monday after the Feast of St. Thomas
the Martyr, 6 Henry V (December 14i8), together with
William Assheton, of Crofton, co. Lancaster, Hugh Wrottes-
ley, of Wrottesley, co. Stafford, and many other malefactors,
armed with swords and bows and arrows, and chasing his
wild animals, and killing a buck and a " hymmlun." The
Baron appeared by attorney and denied the trespass, and
appealed to a jury, which was to be summoned for the
Octave of St. Michael. ^

By another writ, the King's attorney sued William Assheton
and Hugh Wrottesley for the same trespass. The defendants
did not appear, and the Sheriff was ordered to arrest and
produce them on the above date.'''

By a third writ, William de Ferrers was attached, at the
suit of the King, for breaking into the King's close, and
houses and park at Leicester, on the Sunday before the
Feast of St. Margaret, 6 Henry V, together with the said
William Assheton and Hugh Wrottesley, and taking the

1 De Banco, Trinity, 7 Henry 5, m. 293.

2 Ibid.

198 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Kincr's goods and chattels, viz., doors and windows and locks,
and bows and arrows to the value of £20, and a buck and
a doe from the park, and for beating, wounding and ill-
treating the King's servant, John Base, so that his life was
despaired of, and the King lost his services for a fourth
part of a year, William de Ferrers appeared l)y attorney,
the other defendants put in no appearance, and the Sheriff
was ordered as in the other suits.^

No further notice of these suits occurs on the Rolls. Hugh
Wrottesley had been summoned to serve the King for the
defence of the realm, and was probably in Normandy when
the case again came before the Court.

In 7 Henry V (1419-20), Humfrey, Duke of Gloucester,
who was Gustos of the Kingdom during the King's absence
in France, issued precepts to the Sheriffs of English Counties,
commanding them to elect a certain number in each Shire
of Knights and Esquires bearing arms from their ancestors
of such as were most able and sufficient to serve the King
in their own persons with lances, etc., for the defence of
the realm, all of whom were to be at Westminster on the
Tuesday in the first week of Lent.

The return for co. Stafford was made by Humphrey
Halghton, the Sheriff" Sir Richard Vernon, Sir John Bagot,
Richard Lane and William Lee, Justices of the Peace, and
they returned the following names : — ^

Thomas GriflBths Nicholas Ruggeley

Thomas Stanley Thomas Okeore

Hugh Erdeswick Roger Wyrley

Richard Harecourt William Boydell

Hugh Wrottesley William Egerton

Thomas Astley John iSalewey

Thomas Gitfard Nicholas Waring

Edmund Basset John Draicote, and

John Meverel Robert Kynardesley.
James Thyknes

The form, '' to serve the King for the defence of the realm"
was used in all writs of military summons, and involved
service abroad, or wherever the King might be. The King,
at this date, was engaged in the reduction of Normandy.
Rouen had fallen in 1419, and the operations of the
campaign of 1420 included the reduction of Sens, Montereau,
and Melun. At the approach of winter, the King, who had
married in the meanwhile Catherine of France, made a

I Ibid., m. 293 dorso.
^ Dugdale's Collections.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 199

triumphant entry into Paris. In the following year Hugh
Wrottesley completed his twenty-tirst year.

No deeds were preserved at Wrotteslej' of the period
of this interregnum, excepting one mentioned at p. 195.
Amongst the Court Rolls, however, there is the record of
a " Magna Curia '' of Wrottesley, which was held on the
Friday before the Feast of Pentecost, 4< Henry IV (November
1402). The jury consisted of : —
William Carte John Lye

John Oxemon Thomas Addeson

Thomas Jackesson (1) Thomas Jackesson (2), and

John Hugyns William (jrene.

As was usual on the occasion of a minority, the tenants
had allowed their cattle to roam over all the lord's land, and
on the complaint of the Bailiff, the following were fined
for permitting their cattle and pigs to stray : —
Henry Fleemyng John Hamond

Adam Smyth Richard in le Hale

Alice Grene Heniy Scheldon

John Scheldon Adam Northwode

John Grene William Northwode

John Lye John Brochole

John Fraunceys Richard Maggesson

John Moye John Angels

Richard Whyte Thomas Addeson

Henry atte Yate William Grene

Richard Hendesson Idonea de Wrottesleye

John Hugyns Joan Hugyns

William Carte Williani Grene, and

Richard Croucwall John Clerk.

The fines varied from Id. to 4d. John Hugyns was elected
Provost, John Oxemon was elected Constable, and John
Grene and John Huggyns tastatores, and they were all
sworn in.

The entry respecting Idonea is interesting, as she must
have been the Idonia, sister of Sir Hugh de Wrottesley, K.G.,
who is named in the deed of 1334. At this date she would
be about eighty-four years of age. She had passed unscathed
through the three great Pestilences of the fourteenth century,
and it is curious to reflect what vicissitudes of England's
fortune she must have witnessed between the date of the
Battle of Halidon Hill of 1333 and that of Shrewsbury'',
fought in 1403. The original entry is as follows: — Idonea
de Wrottesley attachiata fuit cum averiis in le Fourlong
in fruraento domini. The name of the Furlong still exists,
but the land is now a pasture.

200 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

On the marriage of Elizabeth with Sir William le Boteler,
a Court Baron was held in the name of the new lord. The
parchment roll is headed —

Wrottesley Curia Willelmi le Boteler militi.s tenta ibidem
die mercurii proximo post festum Nativitatis Saneti Johannis
Baptiste anno regni regis Henrici quarti post conquestum
quarto. (27 June 1403.)

The jury consisted of : —

John Huggyns John Oxemon

Thomas Jackesson John Fraunceys

Thomas Addesson William Grene

Adam Smyth William Carte, and

John Grene John Hamond,
John Lyegh

who made the following presentments : —

Richard Fletcher, of Norton, had broken into the lord's
park and carried away a cartload of " tremul." His fine was
40d.

John Moy had carried off" five cartloads of timber from
the park. Fined lOd.

Hugh Clerason had done the same. Fined lOd.

William Whyte had carried away timber called " Birches "
and "Post de Gates" (sic). Fined 12d.

Richard Whyte had carried away timber as above. Fined
12d.

Richard Clemson had done the same, and was fined 12d.

They also presented that Walter de Wrottesley had enclosed
two pieces of land near Kingeswode, called le Blakelyefeides,
which should be common every third year. Also William
Gunston, a monk, had enclosed two pieces of land which
should be common every third year, to the grievous injury of
the tenants. The penalty imposed upon them, (" ex assensv,
omnium tenentiivm,^^ ) was "quod includeiit sepes suos circa
comunes campos yemales (sic) citra festum Saneti Martini
Episcopi et circa campos estimales citra festum Annuncia-
tionis Beate Marie sub pena cujuslibet Gap (sic) vitZ."

Roger Waryn was fined 2d. for allowing six cattle to
stray in le Wodecroft in herbagio domini.

William Cartwright was lined 4d. for six oxen in le
Stockyng on the lord's pasture.

William Okene was fined 2d. for a mare in le Wodecroft
in the lord's wheat,

Richard Whyte 2d. for four oxen in le Stockyng on the
lord's pasture.

John Moy was fined 2d. for the same.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY.

201

John Fraunceys was fined 2d. for two oxen in le Rudynges
in the lord's wheat.

William Rugge 2d. for five cows in le Rudynges in the
lord's oats.

Adam Smyth Id. for his pigs in the lord's oats.

John Huggyns Id. for two oxen in le Brodemedowe on
the lord's pasture.

William Berney 2d. for. two oxen in the same place.

William Grene 2d. for four cows in the same place.

John Hamond 2d. for three oxen in the same place.

John Grene Id. for two cows in the same place.

John Lyegh Id. for two oxen in the same place.

John Oxemon 2d. for three oxen in the same place.

Thomas Addeson 2d. for two oxen in the same place.

William Carte 2d. for two oxen in the same place, and

John Gunstone 2d. for four oxen in the lord's wheat.

These presentments give an idea of the waste and destruction
in the demesne of a manor during the minority of a lord.
The roll makes no mention of villein tenants, and the distinction
between them and the free tenants was evidently fast dis-
appearing.

Hugh Wrottesley, A.D. 1421 — 1464.

With the advent of this Hugh
to his estate, the French prefix
" de " was omitted from the family
name, and was never afterwards
resumed. He is shewn to be son
of John de Wrottesley by the
In([uisition on his father's death,
by the writ on the Chester Recog-
nizance Roll of 4 Henry IV, by
the Inquisition on the death of Sir
John Arderne, in 1) Henry IV, and
by the proceedings on the Chester
Plea Roll of 10 Henry IV, which
have been already recounted.

In the same year that he com-
pleted his majority we find him
married to his wife, Thomasine, for an abstract of the will
of Katherine, widow of Sir Thomas Walshe, Kt., of Wanlip,
CO. Leicester, dated 8 Henry V, contains a bequest to Thomasine

202 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Wrottesley. According to the Heralds' Visitations, Thomasine
was daughter of Sir Jolin Gresley, of Drakelowe.^ At this
date she couM not have been more than eleven years of
age, for Sir John Gresley married his iirst wife, Elizabeth
Clarell, in 1409.2

When Hugh married Thomasine, it was probably made
a condition of the contract that on the consummation of the
marriage he should be invested with the Wrottesley estates,
but he appears to have held them in the first instance as
tenant only under his mother, for he is not found dealing
with the property as legal owner before 1441. By a deed
dated from Wrottesley on the Tuesday before the Feast of
SS. Simon and Jude, 20 Henry VI (24 Oct. 1441), Hugh
Wrottesley conveyed Wrottesley and Butterton and the three
water mills to trustees, who reconveyed them two days
afterwards to Hugh and his wife, Thomasine, and to the
heirs of their bodies, with remainder to the right heirs
of Hugh for ever. The year 1441 may be therefore assumed
as the date of his mother's death ; her husband, Lord Ferrers
of Groby, died in 144o.

There is evidence, however, that Huffh was resident at
Wrottesley for some years before the date of these deeds.
In 143o he was returned as one of the gentry of Stafford-
shire who were sworn to keep the peace by the Commissioners
of 12 Henrj' VI, ^ at the time that the pretentions of the
House of York were first brought forward, and he occurs
^as witness to a Patshull deed of 17 Henry VI, in Huntbach's
Collection. "^

In 11 Henry VI, in conjunction with Robert de Legh of
Adlington, he attempted to recover the Arderne estates in
Cheshire. Taking advantage, apparently, of the absence of
Thomas de Stanley the tenant by courtesy, Robert de Legh,
in the name of himself and of Hugh, had taken possession
of the manors of Aldeford, Nether Alderley and Echels,
and of eighty acres of land in the last named manor.

Thomas de Stanley immediately took steps to assert his
rights, and brought an action of novel disseisin against
him and Hugh de Wrottesley in the Chester Courts. The
suit was heard on the Tuesday before the Feast of

^ Harl. MS. 2044 ; also an ancient parchment pedigree formerly at Wrottesley,
and painted gla.ss in the Wrottciiley Chancel of the Tudor period, both name her
as daughter of Sir John Gresley.

^ Deed No. 387, of Jeayes' Gresley Charters. .Margaret, the daughter of Sir
Thomas Walshe ami Katharine, had married Sir Thomas Gresley, the father of
Sir John. Katharine would therefore be great grandmother of Thomasine.
(History of the Gresley Family by F. Madan).

'■^ Fuller's Worthies.

* Huntbach's Collections Vol. ii, formerly at Wrottesley.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 203

St. Matthew, 11 Henry VI (September 1432) before Hurafrey,
Dnke of Gloucester, then Justice of Chester.

The Record states that an Assize was formed to return a
verdict whether Robert, son of Robert de Legh, and Hugh
de Wrottesley had unjustly disseised Thomas de Stanley of
his manors of Echels, Aldeford, and Nether Alderley, and of
eighty acres of land. Robert appeared in person, but Hugh
de Wrottesley made no appearance, and the assize was taken
in his absence. Robert denied the disseisin, and put himself
on the assize.

The jury stated that one Robert de Hampton, the Parson
of Alderley, and John, son of Roger de Motlowe, were
formerly seised of the manor of Alderley, and whilst so
seised had granted it to John de Arderne and Elena his
wife, to be held by them for their liv^es, and with remainder
to Thomas de Arderne, the son of Elena, and the heirs male
of his body, and failing such, to Walkeline, brother of Thomas,
and the heii^s male of his body, and failing .such, to the male
heirs of the bodies of John and Elena, and failing such,
to the right heirs of John de Arderne. By virtue of which
deed John and Elena were sei.sed of the manors, and had
issue Matilda and Isabella, and Matilda married one Robert
de Legh, and had issue Robert de Legh, Kt., and Robert,
son of Robert, had issue Robert, and Robert, son of Robert
son of Robert, had issue Robert the defendant. And Isabella
married Hugh de Wrottesley, Knight, and had issue John,
who had issue Hugh, the other defendant ; and John de
Arderne and Elena had died leaving no male issue, and
Walkeline (son of Elena) had also died leaving no male
issue. And Thomas, son of Elena, had entered, and had issue
John, who married Margaret, and had issue Matilda ; and
John, son of Thomas had entered, and had enfeoffed John
Pygot, Peter de Bulkelegh, of Chedle, Roger de Pilkyngton,
John Pilkington, Edward de Bensted; Kt., Thomas de
Gresley, Kt., and several others named,^ and these had re-
enfeoffed John, son of Thomas, and Margaret, his wife, for
their lives, with remainder to the heirs of their bodies. And
John, son of Thomas, had died, leaving no male issue, and
Margaret remained in possession of the manor, and Robert de
Legh, Kt., claiming the manor, in his own right and in that
of Hugh, his coparcener, by reason of the remainder, had
entered and removed Margaret, and Margaret afterwards re-
entered and expelled the said Robert and Hugh. And Robert
afterwards died, and Margaret had also died in possession.
And Matilda, daughter of John, son of Thomas (de Arderne;,
then entered and married Thomas de Stanley, the plaintiff,

' See previous proceedings of 10 Heury IV, at p. 194.

204 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

and they had issue John, now living. And Matilda died, and
Thomas remained in possession hj the courtesy of England.
And Robert, son of Robert de Legh, the defendant, supposing
that Robert de Legh, Kt., his grandfather, had died seised of
the manor, when he had not died seised of it, nor of any
parcel of it, had entered, as in his own right and in the
right of the said Hugh, and had expelled the said Thomas,
but whether such a removal was a disseisin in law the jury
were ignorant.

And as regarded the manor of Aldeford, they said that
John, son of Thomas de Ardene was seised of it in demesne
as of fee, and had enfeoffed in it the said John Pygot and
the others abovenamed, and the said feoffees had granted it
to the said John, son of Thomas, and Margaret, his wife,
and the heirs of their bodies, and John, son of Thomas, and
Margaret had issue the said Matilda, -late wife of Thomas
de Stanley. And John, son of Thomas, died, and Margaret
remained in possession. And Robert de Legh, Chivaier, claim-
ing the manor as in his own right and in right of the said
Hugh, and supposing that the said Robert de Hampton and
John FitzRoger had granted the manor to John de Ardene
and Elena, with the remainders above stated, whereas they
had never done so, had entered and removed the said Margaret,
and Margaret had afterwards re-entered and expelled the said
Robert and Hugh, and Robert de Legh, Chivaier, afterwards
died, and Margaret died seised of the manor. {From this
point the story is the same verbatim as in the case of the
manor of Alderley).

And as regarded the manor of Echells and the eighty
acres of land in question, the said Robert de Hampton and
Robert de Mancestre, chaplain, were formerly seised of it,
and had granted it to John de Arderne, Kt., and Elena, his
wife, and to the said Thomas, the son of John and Elena,
for their lives, with remainder to the heirs male of the body
of Thomas, and failing such, to the heirs of the body of
the said Thomas, and failing such to the heirs of the body
of John and Elena, and failing such to one Elizabeth, the
sister of Thomas, son of John, and the heirs of her body, and
failing such, to one Alina, sister of Elizabeth, and the heirs of
her body, and failing such, to one Cecilia, sister of Alina,
and the heirs of her body, and failing such, to remain to one
Robert de Eton and his heirs for ever.

And John [de Arderne] and Elena, and Thomas, their son,
were so seised of the manor and land. And John and Elena
died, leaving no male heir of their bodies, and Thomas, son of
John and Elena, had issue John, who died seised of the manor
and land. And in 20 Richard II, a fine was levied between
John, son of Thomas de Arderne, and Margaret his wife, com-

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 205

plainants, and Nicholas de Prestewich, deforciant, of the said
manor and eighty acres of land, by which the manor, etc.,
was settled on the said John de.Arderne and Margaret, his
wife, and the heirs of their bodies. And John and Mai'garet
had issue Matilda. And John died, and Margaret remained
in possession. And Robert de Legh, Kt., had ejected Margaret,
but Margaret had re-entered, and had died seised of the
manor and land. And Matilda then entered as heir of
John and Margaret, and had married Thomas de Stanley, the
plaintiff, and they had issue John, now living. And Matilda
died, and Thomas de Stanley remained in possession by the
courtesy of England, until Robert de Legh, one of the
defendants, under the supposition that his grandfather,
Robert, had died seised of the property, had entered into
possession, as in his own right and in the right of Hugh
Wrottesley, but whether such a removal was a disseisin in
law, the jury were ignorant. And the jury being asked,
what damage Thomas de Stanley had sustained by his
ejection from the manors and land, assessed his damage at
£200. Judgment was then given that Thomas de Stanley
should recover seisin of the manors and land and £200 as
damages. And Thomas de Stanley afterwards remitted his
claim for damages.

A Postscript states that Robert de Legh afterwards
appealed to a jury of twenty-four, and the appeal was heard
on Tuesday before the Feast of St. Cedde, 11 Henry VI,
when a verdict was again given in favour of Thomas de
Stanley.^

Hugh Wrottesley must have aided and abetted in some
way the abortive attempt of the Duke of York to wrest
power from the Somerset faction in 1452, for he was one
of upwards of 2000 persons who received pardons in that
year after the general amnesty proclaimed by the King on
Good Friday 1452. Richard, Duke of York, had raised the
tenants of the house of Mortimer on the marches of Wales
in January of that year, and on the 3rd February issued
a manifesto at Shrewsbury asking for support against the
Duke of Somerset. From Shrewsbury he passed through
Staffordshire on his way to London. On the 6th February
the Court left London to encounter the Duke, and sum-
monses were issued to join the King at Coventry.

York and his friends took no notice of this summons, but,
avoiding the line of the Royal march, pressed on towards

• Chester Pleas, 11 Henry VI, tn. 27. According to Ormerod, the heiress,
Matilda de Arderne, married Thomas de Stanley, the third son of Sir John
Stanley, K.G., of Lathom and Kuowsley.

20G HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

London. Findinoj, however, tliat they would not be allowed
to enter the City, they crossed the Thames at Kingston, and
so made their way into Kent, hoping, doubtless, to find
elements of disaffection there.

Henry promptly retraced his steps, and reached London
the 27th February. On the 1st March he went down to
Welling, near Crayford, the Duke of York and his host being
establislied at Dartford, on the other side of the Darenth,
where he was too strong to be attacked.

Negotiations were opened from the King's side, to induce
York to make friends with Somerset, a free pardon being
offered to him and his men if they would retire. But
Richard insisted that Somerset should be committed to the
Tower to answer the charges he was prepared to bring
against him.

Eventually York's terms were conceded, whereupon he
gave the order for disbanding his men, and repaired to the
Royal tent. There to his great disgust he found Somerset
in his accustomed place, and York was taken to London
virtually a prisoner. He ultimately purchased his liberty
by swearing a solemn oath at St. Paul's, in the presence
of a vast concourse of people, never again to take the law
into his own hands.^

The pacification with the Duke of York was followed by
the proclamation of a General Pardon, issued by the King
in honour of Good Friday (7th April). Some two or three
thousand persons, with the Duke of York at their head,
came in to claim the indulgence, and had Patents made
out to them. Hugh Wrottesley's pardon was preserved at
Wrottesley until the late fire, and was dated the Kith June,
80 Henry VI.

The next appearance of Hugh Wrottesley on any public
document is on the de Banco Roll of Hillary term, 34
Henry VI (l-ioG), where he is found, in conjunction with
Sir John Gresley and John Moy, suing one John Knyght,
of Byllerbrok (Billbrook), for breaking into their close at
Billerbrok and depasturing cattle on their grass. The
defendant did not appear, and the Sheriff was ordered to
arrest and produce him at the following term.^ John Moy
was Hugh's tenant at Billbrook, and Sir John Gresley was
Hugh's brother-in-law, but I liave no clue to the reason of
his interest in the Billbrook estate.

Between this date and the date of his death, Hugh was
plaintiff in three other suits which will be found in Vol. iv,
New Series of Staffordshire Collections, but they contain
nothing of interest.

* " Lancaster and York," by Sir James Ranasay, of Banflf, 1892.
^ De Banco Roll, Hillary, 34 Henry VI, m. 171 dorso.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 207

In 3 Edward IV (1463) he made a new disposition ol" his
estates, for having enfeoffed in the manor of Wrottesley,
Thomas Asteley, Henry Wrottesley, and Thomas Everdon,
the above trustees reconve3'ed it to Hugh and Thomasine, his
wife, for their lives with remainder to Walter Wrottesley,
Kt., and Jane, his wife, and the heirs of their bodies, and
failing such to remain to the right heirs of Hugh. This
is the latest appearance of Hugh Wrottesley. On the Court
Roll of 5th October 1464, Walter Wrottesley, Kt., is described
as " dominus de Wrottesley." Hugh, therefore, died in tlie
interval between the 14th June 1463 aud 5th October 1464.
At this date he would be sixty-four years of age.

He left two sons, Walter, who has been already named,
and who had been knighted in his father's lifetime, and
Heniy, who, though a younger son, is always styled armiger,
and had been probably brought up to the profession of arms.
In addition to these, a John Wrottesley, who is named in a
Salop Fine of 36 Henr}^ VI, and a Hugh Wrottesley, who
occurs in 8 Edward IV, were probably sons of this Hugh. By
the above Fine John Wrottesley and Joan, his wife, conveyed
the manor of Stevynton, co. Salop, to certain trustees named
in it, and on the De Banco Roll of Trinity 8 Edward IV,
Hugh Wrottesley sued John Flemyng, late of Tettenhale, for
breaking into his close at Tettenhale, depasturing cattle on
his corn and grass, and so threatening his servants that for
fear of their lives, they were afraid to leave the enclosure
of his house.^

Besides these children, an old paichment pedigree, formerly
at Wrottesley, in the handwriting of the Tudor period,
named a daughter Elizabeth, married to Sir William Stafford,
and some county histories and Heralds Visitations name
another daughter Isabella, married to Sir William Airmyn,
of Osgodby, co. Lincgln.

The deeds formerly at Wrottesley of the epoch of this
Hugh were as follows : —

Sciant presentes et futuri, quod ego Hugo Wrottesley Armiger,
dedi concessi et hac present! carta confirmavi Thome Astley
Armigero, Galfrido Gresley Armigero, et Willelmo Arderne clerico,
maneria mea de Wrottesley et Butterton ac omnia alia terras et
tenementa mea, redditus et servicia omnium tenentum meorum tarn
liberorum quam nativorum infra dicta maneria existentum, cum
omnibus suis pertinentiis necnon molendina mea aquatica de Trille
mylne, Wyghwyke mylne et Burdon mylne cum omnibus eorum
pertinentiis ac omnia alia tei-ras et tenementa mea, redditus et
servicia cum omnibus suis pertinentiis in Grendon, et Waterfall et

1 De Banco, Trinity, 8 Edward IV, m. 292 dorso.

208

HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

alibi infra Comitatum Staffordie. Habenda et tenenda omnia pre-
dicta maneria, terras et tenementa, redditus et servicia, molendina
a(juatica, ac omnia alia terras et tenementa, redditus et servicia
in Grendon et Waterfall ac alibi infra Comitatum Staffordie cum
omnibus et singulis eorum pertinentiis prefatis Thome, Galfrido,
et Willelmo, heredibus suis et eorum assignatis, libere, bene et in
pace in perpetuum de capitalibus dominis feodorum illorum per
servicia inde prius debita et de jure consueta. Et ego vero, etc.
[clause of warraniy). In cujus rei testimonium huic presenti carte
sigillum raeum opposui. Hiis testibus Willelmo Leveson de Hampton,
Jacobo Leveson de Wylnehale, Nicholao VVaryng de Lee, Johanna
Ijone de Hyde, Simone Hadyngton de Byssheton et aliis Data
apud Wrottesley die Martis proximo ante festum Apostolicorum
Simonis et Jude anno regni regis Henrici sexti post contjuestum
Anglie vicesimo.* (24 October, 1441.)

Sciant presentes et futuri quod nos Thomas Astley, Armiger,
Galfridus Gresley, Armiger, et Willelmus Arderne Clericus, dedimus,
concessimus et hac presenti carta nostra confirmavimus Hugoni
Wrottesley Armigero, et Thomasine uxori sue, maneria nostra de
Wrottesley et Butterton ac omnia alia terras et tenementa nostra,
redditus, et servicia omnium tenentum nostrorum tam liberorum
quam nativorum infra dicta maneria existentum cum omnibus suis
pertinentiis necnon molendina nostra aquatica de Trille mylne
Wythewyk mylne et Burdon mylne cum omnibus eorum pertinentiis
ac etiam omnia alia terras et tenementa nostra, redditus et servicia
cum omnibus suis pertinentiis in Grendon et Waterfall ac alibi
infra comitatum Staffordie que quidem maneria redditus et servicia
predicta in Grendon et Waterfall ac alibi infra dictum Comitatum
Staffordie cum omnibus et singulis eorum pertinentiis prius habuimus
ex dono et feoffamento predicti Hugonis. Habenda et tenenda

^ Original deed at Wrottealey, copied 1860-62.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 209

predicta maneria terras et tenementa, redditus, et servicia cum
omnibus suis pertinentiis in Grendon et Waterfall ac alibi in
Comitatu Staflfbrdie prefatis Hugoni et Thomasine et heredibus
suis inter eos legitime procreatis libere, quiete, bene, et in pace
in perpetuum de capitalibus dominis feodorum illorum per servicia
inde prius debita et de jure consueta. Et si contingat prefatos
Hugonem et Thomasinam sine heredibus inter se legitime procreatis
obire, quod absit, tunc volumus et concedimus per presentes quod
predicta maneria, terra et tenementa redditus et servicia cum
omnibus et singulis eoi'um pertinentiis in Grendon et Waterfall et
alibi in Comitatu Staffordie ut supradictum est, rectis heredibus
predicti Hugonis integre remaneant in perpetuum, Et nos vero
(here folloivs clause of warranty). In cujus rei testimonium huic
presenti carte nostre sigilla nostra apposuimus. Hiis testibus
Johanne Hampton de Storeton, Roberto Gyftarde de Chilyngton,
Willelmo Leveson de Hampton, Jacobo Leveson de Wilenhale,
Simone Hadyngton de Byssheton, Ricardo Waryn de Lee, Johanne
Lone de Hyde et aliis. Data apud Wrottesley die Jovis proximo
ante festum Apostolicorum Simonis et Jude anno regni regis
Henrici sexti post conquestum Anglie vicesimo.^ (26th October
1441.) (Seals destroyed.)

Sciant presentes et futuri, quod nos Thomas Astley, Armiger,
Henricus Wrottesley, Armiger, et Thomas Everdon, tradidimus et
hac carta ' nostra indentata confirmavimus Hugoni Wi'ottesley
Armigero, et Thomasie uxori ejus, manerium nostrum de Wrottesley
cum pertinentiis in Comitatu Staffordie. Habendum et tenendum
predictum manerium cum pertinentiis prefati;^ Hugoni et Thomasie
ad terminum vite eorum et alterius eorum diuturne viventis absque
impetitione vasti. Ita quod post decessum dictorum Hugonis et
Thomasie predictum manerium cum pertinentiis integre remaneat
Waltero Wrottesley militi et Johanne uxori ejus et heredibus de
corpore eorum inter eos legitime procreatis. Et si contingat dictos
Walterum et Johannam sine herede de corporibus eorum inter eos
legitime procreatis obire, tunc predictum manerium cum pertinentiis
integre remaneat rectis heredibus dicti Hugonis Wrottesley.
Habendum sibi, heredibus et assignatis suis in perpetuum
Tenendum de capitalibus dominis feodi illius per servicia inde
debita et de jure consueta. In cujus rei testimonium cuilibet
parti hujus presentis carte nostre indentate sigilla nostra apposui-
mus. Hiis testibus Johanne Ferrour clerico, Johanne Barndhurst,
Johanne Wrottesley, Ricardo Croukwall, Ricardo Croft et aliis.
Data apud Wrottesley predictum quarto decimo die Junii anno
regni regis Edwardi quarti post conquestum tertio.^ (14th June
1463).

Three seals appendant, not armorial, and without any
inscription on them. The centre seal, which is apparently
that of Henry Wrottesley, had the effigies of two men on
foot, fighting with swords.

' Original deed at Wrottesley, copied 1860-62.
P

210 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

In addition to these deeds, there were formerly at Wrottesley
the proceedings of several Manor Courts held by Hugh and
Thoniasine. I propose to give abstracts of some of these
which will best illustrate the status of the villein tenant in
the fifteenth century and his gradual disappt;arance from the
scene.

Hugh Wrottesley and Thomasine, his wife, who are styled
" domini de Wrottesley," held a Court on Tuesday, the
8th May, 20 Henry VI (1442).

The jury consisted of : —
Gregorj^ Taylour Richard Elyot

John Oxeraan John Burnell

Ralph Wryght John Huxlowe, and

William Parker Roger atte Lye,

William atte Zate

who being sworn in, stated that Alexander Perpount owed
appearance at Court, and had not come because he had not
been summoned.

That John de Grene, the lord's native by blood (nativus
de sanguine), resided out of the manor at Bewdeley or
near that place, and they knew nothing of his issue, and
that William de Grene, the lord's native, likewise lived out
of the manor, and that John de Grene, the elder, the lord's
native, lived out of the manor at London, and had a son
John, and further enquiry is to be made respecting them
(de quihits melius inquirendum est).

It was presented that William atte Zate's house and
close was in a ruinous condition, and he was ordered to
repair them before the next Court, under a penalty of 10s.

William afterwards surrendered his tenement to the lord,
for which, according to the custom of the manor, there
fell to the lord a heriot, viz., his best beast {o'ptimum
averium), and the Bailiff was ordered to take it to the use
of the lord.

The Roll concludes with the words : — Rogerus de Lye
nativus domini electus est et honoratus ad ojficiioyn pre-
positi dom^ini per mandatum suum., et juratus.

It would appear, therefore, that this Roger, after the
surrender of their tenancies by the Greens and Yates,
was the only villein tenant left in the manor, and was
held in such high esteem that he was made Provost of it
by mandate of the lord.

A Court called a " Curia recognitionum tenentium " was
held at Wrottesley by Hugh Wrottesley, Armiger, and
Thomasine, his wife, on 2 June, 22 Henry VI (1444),

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 211

Geoffrey Gresley, Armiger, officiating as Seneschallus. The
following tenants appeared and acknowledged their holdings : —

Roger Leigh, nativus domini, held the land formerly
Carte's, and some other tenements specified, for which he
rendered 21s. 8d. annually.

Alexander Perpount held a tenement, for which he rendered
12s. ; and the following held tenements for which they paid
the rents placed against their names : —

John Taillour, 15s.

John Burnell, 13s. 4d.

John Haukeslowe, 3s. 8d.

John Oxeman, 15s. lOd.

Ralph Wryght, 16s.

William Parker, 13s. 4d. and 20d.

Thomas atte Lowe, a cottage, rent 20d.

Sawnder Pyrpounde, a cottage, rent 20d., and another
cottage, for which he paid 16d.

It will be noted that the single villein tenant held the
largest holding. Ralph Wright held the land which had
been formerly held by William atte Yate and John Grene.
These are the names of former villein tenants who had
died or surrendered their holdings. The following tenants
within the fee of Tettenhale appeared and acknowledged
their holdings : —

Simon de Croftes, rent 12s. 4d.

William Falles, 4s.

John Wylkes, of Allerley, 10s.

A jury was then formed and sworn in, consisting of the
following tenants : —

John Taillour Ralph Wryght

Alexander Perpount William Parker

John Oxeman Roger Leigh

John Burnell Simon de Croftes

Thomas atte Lowe William Falles, and

Roger Fleeming John Wylkes.

The jury stated upon oath that William Parkes, John de
Wylges (Wergs), Richard Wylkes of Wilnehale, John Baker
of Tetenhale, William de Sydenhale of Compton, John Sm3^tli
of Oken, Philip Smyth of Cotteshale, and John Jones of
Pattushull, owed appearance and had not come, and were
therefore in inisericordia domini. They were fined 4d. each.
The jury further presented that John Cartwright of Oken,
John Throwley, Richard Sede, John Port, William Port,
Gregory Taillour, John Smyth, William de Chaumbre and
William de Hylton, all of Oken, had occupied common of
pasture, with all kinds of cattle, by which it had been

212 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

deteriorated to the injur}?- of the other tenants of the

vill ; and that Thomas Seyse of Perton, William Pakyn-

ton of Oken, John Hochins and William Ryley, both of

Oken, had done the same. All those named had a fine

of 40d. placed above their names. This presentment shews

that the tenants of Wrottesley, Oaken and Perton had

still reciprocal rights of common over the waste of each
manor.

A " Magna Curia " was held by Hugh Wrottesley and
Thomasine on the Feast of St. Bartholomew, 24 Henry VI
(1446). The jury consisted of : —

Roger Lyegh William Paver

Alexander Perepount Thomas Lowe

John Taillour John Hawkyslowe

John Oxeman John Burnehull, and

Ralph Wright William Parker.

John Glover, of Codeshall, came into Court and acknow-
ledged that he held of the lord a house called the Forge,
newlj'-built, near the Cross in Codeshale, with a garden
adjoining, for a term of twenty-one years, at a yearly rent
of 3s. 4d. and the usual customs. Several Fines were
imposed upon tenants for permitting their cattle to stray
on the lord's demesne, the fines varying from 4d. to 6d.
each.

There were also proceedings of Courts held in 26 and
28 Henry VI by Hugh and Thomasine, but they present
nothing of interest.

The " Magna Curia " of 11 December, 32 Henry VI
(1453) names no lord. The steward was John Prynce.
The jury consisted of : —

Alexander Perepoynt John Burnehull

John Taillour John Stubbs

Roger hyee Robert Fernyhall

John Oxeman William Oxeman, the younger,

Ralph Wright and John Haburley.

On the complaint of the Bailiff", the following tenants
were fined for allowing their cattle to stray on the lord's
demesne : —

John Legh, 6d. Agnes Lowe, 4d.

John Magot, 4d. John Fletcher, 6d., and

Roger Legh, 4d. John Grene, 6d.
Walfrun (sic) Banastre, 4d.

It would appear from this Court that one member of

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESl.EY. 2 I 3

the absconding family of the Grenes had returned to the
manor.

The Court Kolls of the years 33, 35, 36, 37, 38,
Henry VI and 2 Edward IV were also preserved at
Wrottesley, but they contain nothing of interest, and specify
no villein tenants. In all these Courts Hugh Wrottesley and
Thomasine were named as joint lord and lady of the manor.
On the 5th October, 4 Edward IV (1464), as already
mentioned, a Court was held in the name of Sir Walter
Wrottesley, and this brings us down to the date of the
death of Hugh.

Before proceeding with the history of Sir Walter Wrot-
tesley, it may be more convenient to detail at this point
the story of the Wrottesley manor down to the disappear-
ance of the last native or villein tenant.

A Court was held at Wrottesley {per essoniarti), which
names no lord, on the Thursday, the Feast of the Trans-
lation of St. Edward the King, 4 Edward IV (20th June
1465). The jury consisted of —

Roger Legh John Legh

John Fletcher William Suker

John Taillour David ap Idam

Alexander Perpount William Caldewall, and
John Grene.

William Hancokes and Richard Hancokes came into Court
and received from the lord a messuage with its appurten-
ances, formerly John BurnelFs.

The following tenants were fined the sum placed against
their names for allowing their cattle to stray on the lord's
demesne : —

John Northwode, of Hille, 12d. WilHam Medley, 12d.

William Sheldon, of Perton, 4d. Thom. Suker, of Perton, 8d.

John Porter, of Oken, 12d. William Hode, of Oken, 4d.

Robert Seede, of Oken, 6d. John Burnell, 12d., and

John Taillour, 4d. Thomas Cresswall, 8d.

The proceedings make no distinction between the free and
servile tenants, but we know from other sources that the
Leghs and Grenes were natives of the manor.

As already mentioned, Sir Walter Wrottesley, Knight,
held a Court at Wrottesley (by his essoin) on the 5th
October, 4 Edward IV (1464), but his name must have
been introduced into the proceedings by mistake, for by
the settlement of 1463 Thomasine, the widow of Hugh
Wrottesley, would hold the manor for her life.

214 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY ()F

The next Court, of which the proceedings were extant,
was held by " Domina Thomasina Wrattesseley " on the
20th February, 49 Henry VI (1471,. The jury consisted of —

John Taylour WilHani Sewker

John Grene Alexander Perpount

John Fletcher Hugh Lee

Gregory Taylour Richard Serfe, and

John Lee Richard Taylour,

who made presentments against the following tenants for the
usual misdemeanours, such as allowing their cattle to stray
on the lord's demesne or cutting timber, viz. : —

Joan Grene Henry Preste

William Hude, of Okun, John Hill

John Porter Thomas Hill

Richard Throwley Thomas Cartwright, and

John Wryght, and Richard Trentam.

Richard Wryght, his son

At the Court of Thomasine Wrottesley, held at Wrottesley,
on the Tuesday before the Feast of St. Andrew the Apostle,
13 Edward IV (November 1473), the jury consisted of —

John Taillour Richard Seys

William Suker Roger Legh

John Fletcher Gregory Taillour

William Bolton John Legh, and

Alexander Perepount Richard Fletcher.

Richard Seys came into Court and received from the lady
of the manor a tenement with its appurtenances, formerly
Alexander Perepoynts, rendering the same rent as the said
Alexander, and he was admitted.^ The only other tenants
named on this Roll besides the jury were John Oxeman and
John Alden.

At the Court held by Thomasine on the Thursday after
the Feast of St. Luke the Evangelist, 14 Edward IV (October
1473), the jury were —

John Taillour William Bolton

John Fletcher Richard Seys

Roger Leegh Gregory Taillour and

John Leegh Richard Fletcher,
William Suker

all of whom, with the exception of John Leegh, Gregory
Taillour, and Richard Fletcher were fined 3s. 4d. each for
absence at the previous Court, et pro malo gestu suo versus

^ There were two tenants named Alexander or fSaunder Perepoynt.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 215

curiavi domine ibideTn. As it is not likely that a majority
of the jury imposed fines upon themselves for such an
offence, this must have been done by the Steward, and it
would be curious to know if these fines were enforced by
distraint.

The usual presentments were made against tenants for
cattle strajdng or defective enclosures. The other tenants
named in these presentments, who Avere not on the jury, were
Alexander Perpoynt, William Hode, Richard Fildeshurst,
William Preste, and John Cresswall.

Thomasine likewise held Courts at the following dates, viz.: —
On the Monday after the Feast of St. Luke, 15 Edward IV ;
the Saturday after the same Feast, 16 Edward IV ; the
Tuesday after the same Feast, 17 Edward IV ; and the
Thursday after the same Feast, 18 Edward IV.

At the Court held on the Tuesday after the Feast of
St. Luke, 17 Edward IV (October 1477), the jury con-
sisted of —

John Fletcher William Suker

John Alden Thomas Legh, and

Richard Fletcher William Bolton,
Richard Seys

who presented that Roger Legh, the lord's native, had died
since the last Court, upon which a cow had fallen to the lord
as a heriot, and that John, his son, was heir to the said
Roger, and was of the same stock (sequela).

A postscript, in another hand, is added in these terms —

Postea venit predictus Johannes Leegh in Curia tenia
ibidem die Sabbati in Septimanis Pasche anno regni regis
Henrici septind quarto, et dominus perdonavit predictum
Johannem cum tota sequela sua prout patet per scriptum
manumissionis.

This John Legh was the last of the Wrottesley natives
or villein tenants, and, as shewn by the above memorandum,
was manumitted by Richard Wrottesley at the Easter Court
of 1489.

Arms of Hugh Wrottesley.

On the dexter side — Or, three piles Sable, a quarter Ermine,
for Wrottesley.

On the sinister side — Vaire, Ermine and Gules, for Gresley.

216

HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Sir Walter Wrottesley, 1464 — 1473.

Although Sir Walter Wrottesley is
named as lord of Wrottesley on the
Manor Roll of 1464, it must have
been done under some misapprehen-
sion by the Steward of the Manor,
for his mother Thoraasine had been
jointly enfeoffed in the manor with
her husband Hugh, and therefore
would hold the manor for her life.
As a mattei' of fact, Walter never was
lord of Wrottesley, for he died in the
lifetime of his mother.

He is shewn to be son of Hugh,
by the Inquisition on Thomasine
Wrottesley, which was taken at her death in 1481, and by
the suits respecting the Arderne inheritance on the Cheshire
Plea Rolls of 22 Edward IV and 16 Henry VII.

Leland, the antiquary, who wrote his diary about sixty
years after this date, says in it, " Sumetime the Wrotesleys
were men of more land than they bee nowe, and greate
with the Earle of Warwick." And it will be seen that the
career of Sir Walter Wrottesley for the next ten years
follows very closely the story of the King Maker's life.

The first public employment of Sir Walter was as Sheriff
of Worcestershire in 37 Henry VI (1459). The Earl had
married Emma, the daughter and heiress of the Beauchamps,
Earls of Warwick, who were hereditary Sheriffs of Worcester-
shire, by reason of their descent from Urso d'Abetot, the
Feudal Sheriff of the County in the reigns of the first
three Norman Kings. The Hereditary Sheriff, or " Vice-
comes de feodo," as he is styled on the Rolls, appointed
a Deputy or Sub-Sheriff annually to perform the duties of
the office, and Walter Wrottesley was, without doubt, the
nominee of the Earl at this critical period of English
history. It was in this year that the dispute between the
two houses of York and Lancaster was first brought to
the issue of arms. The battle of Blore Heath was fought
on the 23rd September, and resulted in the defeat of the
Lancastrians. Henry VI, who was at Worcester with a
large force, advanced to meet the victorious Yorkists, but
before they came to blows. Sir Andrew Trollope, who com-
manded a body of veteran troops on the side of the
Yorkists, passed over to the Lancastrians, and the Yorkists,
seised with a panic, dispersed in various directions. Warwick
retreated into Devonshire and from thence passed over to
Calais, of which he was the Governor. Walter Wrottesley,

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 217

apparently, accompanied him in his flight, for the Memoranda
Roll of the Exchequer states that Walter Wrotteslej', late
Sub-Sheriff" of co. Worcester, had not appeared at Michaelmas,
1459, to render his accounts, and he was amerced in eon-
sequence.

In the following year Warwick passed over into England
and defeated the King at Northampton on the 10th July, an<l
Henry was taken prisoner in the battle : on the 24th October
a compromise was effected, by which Henry was to hold the
crown for his life, and the Duke of York and his heirs were
to succeed to it after his death. Walter Wrottesley was
appointed Sheriff of Staffordshire at Michaelmas this year,
and his brother Henry succeeded him as Sub-Sheriff of
CO. Worcester.

The appointment of Walter to the Shrievaldom of Stafford-
shire at this date is a proof of the trust reposed in him by
the Yorkists, for Staffordshire was probably the most Lan-
castrian county in England. The Duchy of Lancaster had
been merged into the Crown on the accession of Henry IV,
and Henry VI had granted it to his wife, Margaret of
Anjou, as part of her dower. The caput of the Duchy
was Tutbury, in Staffordshire, and most of the manors in
the eastern and northern parts of the County were held
under it. The largest proprietor in the County, how-
ever, and the most influential from the extent of his posses-
sions and his near relationship to the Crown, was Humphrey
Stafford, the Duke of Buckingham, whose mother was sister
and sole heir of Humphrey Plantagenet, the Duke of Glou-
cester. Humphrey Stafford had been killed at Northampton
fighting on the side of the Lancastrians, and his heir
was a grandson, who was a minor. All the gentry of
Staffordshire, who held of the Duke, were Lancastrian in
feeling, and committed to the cause of Henry VI. Of the
other Staffordshire families of baronial rank, James Touchet
Lord Audley had been killed at Blore Heath in 1458, fighting
on the Lancastrian side. John Sutton Lord Dudley had also
fought on the same side at Blore Heath, and had been
taken prisoner ; but his life had been spared, and he sub-
sequently passed over to the side of the Yorkists. The
political state of Staffordshire is well exemplified in the first
Commission of the Peace issued by Edward IV on the 8th July
1461, for the only names of Staffordshire gentry on it
are John Sutton of Dudley, Kt., Walter Blount, Kt., John
de Audeley, John Harpur, Thomas Everdon, Thomas Asteley,
Walter Wrottesley, Nicholas Waryng, and Thomas Wolseley.^

1 It is curious to note that even at the present day there are traces of
the Lancastrian influence in Staffordshire, in the number of old taverns with

218 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

The Shrievalty of Walter commenced at Michaelmas 1460
and ended at Michaelmas 1461 ; it therefore comprised six
months of 39 Henry VI and six months of 1 Edward IV.
The Staffordshire Pipe Roll of 1 Edward IV is headed
thus —

Walterus Wrottesley vicecomes hujus comitatus a festo Sancti
Micha,elis Anno 39 Henry VI nuper de facto et non de jure
Regis Anglie, usque festum Sancti Michaelis anno primo Regis
Edwardi IIII.

The military events durin<T^ his Shrievalty were as follows : —
In December 1460, the Duke of York, encountering Queen
Margaret with a ver^' inferior force at Wakefield, was defeated
and killed, and the Queen advanced on the road to London
with her victorious army : Warwick, attempting to stop her
at St. Albans, was defeated, but forming a junction subse-
quently with the troops which Edward, the son of the Duke
of York, had levied in the West of England, the combined
force entered London, and Edward was proclaimed King on
the 4th March 1461. At this date the young King was only
eighteen years of age, and the government of the country
was entirely in the hands of his near kinsman, the Earl of
Warwick.^

Walter Wrottesley must have been made a Knight at the
Coronation of Edward IV, for he is styled a Knight in a
deed in the Huntbach Collection, which is dated on the
Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Mary, 1 Edward IV,
which would be the 25th March 1461-.

The cause of Henrj'- VI, however, was still upheld in the
North by Margaret the Queen and the adherents of the
House of Lancaster, and Edward and the Earl of Warwick,
having gathered together a large force, marched from
London and encountered the Lancastrians at Towton on the
29th March. After an obstinate battle, the latter was com-
pletely defeated, and Edward was firmly established on the
throne.

Sir Walter as well as his brother Henry appear to have

the signs of the White Swan and the White Hart, which were the badges
of the Lancastrian party. The story which ha.s crept into Knghsh history
that the Lancastrian badge was a red rose has been shewn to be a fiction
by Sir James Ramsay in his History of Lancaster and York. The red rose
was assumed as a neutral badge by Henry VII after his marriage with
Elizabeth of York.

' Edward's mother was Cecily Neville, who was aunt to Warwick. They
were, therefore, first cousins.

^ Huntbach MS., formerly at Wrottesley. The deed is a grant to St. Leonard
by Sir Thomas Erdington, the Founder of the Chantry of St. Leonard of
Bilston, of a messuage and five shops in Wolverhampton, adjacent to the
messuage of John Lane. The deed is witnessed by Hugh Wrottesley and
Sir Walter Wrottesley, Kt., and others.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESI.EY. 219

been at Towton, for they were both fined for non-appear-
ance at the Exchequer at Easter 1461, with their accounts,
ad iiroffrvbin siium faciendum, as it was called.

Sir Walter was now liberally rewarded for his services to
the Yorkist cause. At this period his father was alive, and
his means must have been scanty, but notwithstanding
this he had been made a Knight and placed in the King's
Household, and early in the following year, 1462, the
King conferred upon him and his male issue two-thirds of
the manors of Clent, Mere and Handsworth, co. Stafford,
together with the advowsons of the churches of Forton^
and Handsworth, and the reversion of the other third of
the same manors after the death of Margaret, the widow
of Fulk Stafford. This grant is dated 26th January 1462.

These manors and advowsons had been forfeited to the
Crown by the attainder of James Butler, the Earl of Wilts,
and had been granted by the King to Fulk Stafford and the
heirs of his body, and Fulk had died leaving no issue.
The preamble to the Letters Patent which conferred them
states that nos lattdabilia servicia et obsequia nobis per
diiectum militerri nostrum Walterum Wrottesley diversmodi
impensa intime conteTuplantes, etc.-

On the same date, the King granted to Sir Walter the
manors of Ramisham and Penpole, co. Dorset, together
with the advowson of the church of Ramisham, which had
fallen into his hands by the death of his cousin, William
Neville, Earl of Kent. The preamble to this grant con-
tains the same reference -to the services of Sir Walter, and
the same expression, diiectum militem nostrum,^ is employed
in it. These manors, like the others in Staffordshire,
had been forfeited by the attainder of James Butler, Earl
of Wilts, and had been granted to William Neville, a
younger son of the Earl of Westmoreland.

By Letters Patent of the same date as the above, the
King granted to Henry Wrottesley, Armiger, and the heirs
male of his body, all the hereditaments in the City of
London, which had lately belonged to Thomas Litley,
attainted. This Thomas Litley was an eminent citizen of
London, who had headed an insurrection in the City, and
had attacked the Tower of London in 38 Henry VL'*

Sir Walter's Shrievalty of 1460-61 had involved him in

^ Forton is the church of Mere, which derives its name from the Aqualate
Meer.

- t'atent Roll, 2 Edward IV, part '2, m. 16.

^ Ihid., m. 17. The ordinary description of a Knight in official documents
at this date would be dilectuvi et fidelem nostrum A-B. militem. The term
diiectum militem nostrum is onlj' used for Knights in the King's Household.

* Ooravi Rege Roll, 12 Edward IV.

220 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

a considerable debt to the Crown. Tlie ordinary local
rev'enue must have been difficult to collect in a county
hostile to the Government in troublous times, and he had
likewise upon his shoulders the cost of the levies made
before the battle of Towton. From these combined causes,
the debt owing to the Exchequer when he handed over
the County to John Harcourt, the new Sheriff, at Michael-
mas 1461, was £220 6s. lid., but the King, by Letters
Patent dated 28 January, 2 Edward IV (1463), remitted to
him all the debts due to the Crown up to that date.
Previous Letters Patent, dated 22 October, 2 Edward IV
(1462), had pardoned him for all treasons, felonies, con-
spiracies, or any other offences, as well as all debts due
to the Crown up to the last date. In these Letters he
is described as Walterus Wrottesley, of London, armiger,
alias dictus Walterus Wrottesle}^, of Wrottesley, armiger,
alias dictus Walterus Wrottesley, of Wrottesley, co. Stafford,
miles. The object of the various aliases in the pardons
of this epoch seems to be to describe the recipient of the
pardon according to the status which he held at any
period over which the pardon extended.

Between this date and November 1464, Sir Walter
must have resigned his position in the King's House-
hold and accepted another of more responsibility in
the Household of the Earl of Warwick, for at Coughton
Court there is a warrant of Richard, Earl of Warwick and
Salisbury, directing Thomas Throckmorton, his receiver of
the Lordship of Glamorgan and Morgannok, to pay to Harry
Vernon, Esqr., £30, and to John Blunte, John Owen, and
others of the town of Kaerdeff, £15 7s. 8d., for bread,
ale, and other things, part of the expenses of Walter
Wrottesley, Edward Grey, and Walter Skall,^ Knights of
the Lord's Council, late there being. This warrant is dated
from Warwick Castle, 22nd November 4 Edward IV (1464).

In 1466, on the death of the widow of Fulk Stafford,
Sir Walter came into possession of the reversion of the
third part of the manors of Clent, Mere and Handsworth,
and he obtained fresh Letters Patent confirming these
manors to him as well as the manors of Ramisham and
Penpole. In these Letters he is no longer styled militern
nostrum by the King, the ordinary designation of a Knight
as dilectum et fidelem nostrunn being used in place of it.
The new Letters Patent stated that the King, for the good
and gratuitous service which his beloved and faithful Walter
Wrottesley, Kt., had performed in former times, {ante hec
tempora), granted to him the manors of Mere, Clent, Hands-

'■ Sir Walter Skell, Kt., of Holt, co. Worcester.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 221

worth, and Fortoii, toc^ether with the advowsons of the
churches of Hands worth and Forton, in co. Stafford, and
Hkewise the manor.s of Ramisham and Poundeknolle alias
Penpole, and the advowson of the church of Ramisham,
in CO. Dorset, with all Knight's fees, warrens, and otlier
franchises appertaining to them, which had formerly
belonged to James, late Earl of Wilts, the King's rebel,
who had been attainted of high treason at the Parliament
held on the 4th November, 1 Edward IV, to be held by
the said Walter and the heirs male of his body by the
same service by which they had been held before the
1st March, 1 Edward IV, and with all profits and issues
from the said manors from the 6th January, 2 Edward IV.
Dated 8th February, 5 Edward IV. ^

Besides the six manors above named, Sir Walter possessed
at this date the manor of Perton, co. Stafford, which
adjoins Wrottesley, and the great manor or commote of
Aven, CO. Glamorgan.- These must have been conferred
upon him by the King Maker, for they had formed no part
of the possessions of the Earl of Wilts.

The revenues of the Crown had been so much diminished
by the lavish grants made to the Queen's relations and to
the adherents of the house of York, that an Act of Resump-
tion was passed in 7-8 Edward IV, by which all lands and
tenements which had been formerly held by the Crown
and had been alienated, were taken back. The exceptions,
however, were numerous, and amongst them were two clauses
in favour of Sir Walter Wrottesley and his brother. These
were as follows : —

" Provided alwey, that this acte of resumption, nor any
other acte made or to be made in this present Parlement,
extend not nor be prejudicial in any wyse to Sir Walter
Wratesseley Knyght in, to, of, or for, any graunt by us
to him made of the two parties of the maners of Clent,
Mere and Hondesworth and of the reversion of the thirde
partie of the seid maners, within oure Countie of Stafford,
and of the maners of Ramersham and Pountknoll within

1 Original Letters Patent at Wrottesley, copied 1860-62. The Earl of
Wilts, named in these Letters, was James Butler, son of James, 4th Earl
of Ormond, in Ireland. He had been created Earl of Wiltshire in 1449,
and succeeded his father as Earl of Ormond in 1452. He is styled in the
Paston Letters as " the best favored Knight in the laud and the most
feared of losing his beauty." He was supposed to be the lover of the
Queen and the father of the heir apparent. He was certainly very high
in favour at the Court of Henry VI, aud had been appointed Lord Treasurer
and Knight of the Garter. It was, in fact, the birth of this supposititious
Prince that caused all the bloodshed of the following years. The Karl was
taken prisoner at Towtoa and beheaded on the following day.

^ Deeds at Wrottesley and Coughton — copied 1860-62 — and History of the
Parish of Tettenhall, by Mr J. P. Jones.

222 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

oure countie of Dorset, with the appui'tenaunces, advowsons
of the same and of the advowsons of the chh'ches of Forton
and Hondesworth within oure seid Countie of Stafford.
But that oure said (,a-aunte be to hyni and to his heires
male of his body commyng, good and effectuell in the lawe,
an}' acte made or to be made in this present Parlement
notwilkstondyng."'

" Provided alwey that nej^ther this acte, ne any other
acte in this present Parlement made, be prejudiciall or
hurtj-ng to Henry Wrottesley Squier in, to, of, or for, eny
graunte or grauntes by us to hym made by oure Letters
Patents of a place situat at Cambrygge Key within oure
Cite of London some tyme belonging to one Thomas
Litley to the yerely value of x mares, by what name,
the seid Henry in the said Letters patentes be named or
called."'

The jealousies and dissensions which alienated the Earl from
his allegiance to the King are matters of history. The estrange-
ment between them became first apparent after the embassy
of Warwick to the King of France in the spring of 1467.
Warwick had been commissioned to propose a marriage
between Margaret, the King's sister, and one of the French
Princes ; but whilst he was on this mission the King had
committed himself to a marriage between his sister and the
son of the Duke of Burgundy, the French King's adversary.
Sir Walter Wrottesley acting, apparently in the capacity
of the Earl's Steward and Paymaster, received a sum of
£216 18s. 4d. for the expenses of this embassy, for the
Pell Issues of Easter 7 Edward IV (1467) have the follow-
ing entry : —

" Comiti Warwick misso in Ambassiata Regis versus Regem
Francie, in denariis sibi liberatis per manus VValteri Wrotsley
militis et aliis servientibus dicti Comitis, pro custubus et expensis
suis, eundo et redeundo ex causis predictis, per breve de private
siyillo inde mandatum, de termino Michaelis proximo sequente
£-2lG - 13 - 4d."

Warwick returned from France in July, bringing with
him ambassadors on the part of the French King, whose
object was to prevent, if possible, the alliance between
Burgundy and England. Edward, however, received them
coldly, and Warwick retired in high dudgeon to his castle

' Rolls of Parliament (printed) 7 and 8 Edward IV. Exceptions were also
m;ide in favour of Sir Geoffrey Gate, for grants in Essex ; John Lord
Dudley, Ralph Wolseley, Sir Thomas Erdington, and Richard Whetehill,
Epq. The grant to the latter was an annuity of £11 from the Calais
customs. Some of these names will appear in a future page of this history.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 223

at Middleham, in Yorkshire. At this juncture, however, a
temporary reconciliation was made between the King and
the Earl by the intervention of Warwick's brother, George
Neville, the Archbishop of York, and the Earl of Rivers,
the father of the Queen, who met together at Nottingham
and settled the terms of the agreement.

One of the grievances of Warwick was that whereas he
was both High Admiral of England and Governor of Calais,
he was unable to obtain the necessary funds for the support
of the fleet or garrison, whilst large sums were drawn from the
Exchequer for the benefit of the Queen's relations, and one
of the conditions of the reconciliation was, that the Earl
of Eivers, the Queen's father, should relinquish the office
of Lord Treasurer ; and, as a further check upon this expen-
diture, Warwick now brought forward a claim to be an
Hereditary Chamberlain of the Exchequer, in right of his
wife, and appointed Sir Walter Wrottesley to act jointly
with him, and with power to name a deputy. The appoint-
ment appears to have puzzled the Barons of the Exchequer,
and is entered as follows on the Memorandum Roll : — '

Pro Waltero Wrottesley milite, admisso ad ofticium unius
camarariorum de Recepta Scaccarii .sive de Scaccario occupando,
exercitendum pretextu Literarum Patentium Ricardi Comitis
Warwick.

Memorandum, quod Ricardus Neville Comes Warwick et
unus camarariorum hujus Scaccarii ut in jure Anne uxorissue,
mandavit hie per Milonem Metcalf generalem attornatum suum
literas suas patentes sub sigillo armorum suorum sigillatas, petens
eas irrotulari, et quas Barones preceperunt irrotulari in hec verba.

Ricardus Comes Warrewici et Sarum, unus camarariorum de
Recepta Scaccarii domini nostri Regis sive unus camarariorum de
Scaccario predicto, Omnibus ad quos presentes litere pervenerint,
salutem, Sciatis nos de fidelitate et circumspectione dilecti nobis
Walteri Wrottesley militis plenarie plurimum confidentes, concessisse
eidem W^altero officium unius camarariorum de Recepta Scaccarii
domini Regis predicti sive officium unius camarariorum de Scaccario
predicto una cum constitutione et ordinatione unius liostiariorum
de Recepta predicta sive de Scaccario predicto ac constitutionibus
et ordinationibus omnium officiarum et ministrorum eidem officio
■unius camarariorum qualitercumque pei'tinentum sive spectantum.
Habendum et tenendum ac predictum officium, etc., prefato Waltero
per se vel per deputatum suum seu deputatos suos sufficientes pro
termino vite ejusdem Walteri cum omnibus et omnimodis vadiis,
feodis, proficuis, vesturis, juribus, emolumentis, comoditatibus et
ceteris pertinentiis quibuscumque eidem officio quoquomodo debitis
et consuetis. Datum London quarto decimo die mensis Junii
anno regni Regis Edwardi quarti octavo (14th June 1468).

' Theie appears no doubt, however, tliat the right existed ; see the Intro-
duction to the Red Book of the Exchequer by Mr. Hubert Hall.

224 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Et super hoc predictus Walterus Wrottesley presens hie in curia
xxx"*" die Junii hoc termino in propria persona sua petit se
admitti ad officium predictuni hie in Seaccario, etc. Et quia per
dictum Milonem Metcalf testatum est in curia quod voluntas
ipsius Coraitis sic extitit ad pi-emissa, idem Walterus Wrottesley
admissus est per curiam ad officium predictuni. Habendum et
tenendum et exercitendum secundum formam et eifectum literarum
predictarum. Et super hoc idem Walterus Wrottesley saeramentum
prestitit corporale ad secreta domini Regis celanda et ad omnia
altera facienda que ad officium camararii pertinente faeienda.^

The Pell Issues of Easter, 8 Edward IV, notice the
appointment in this way : —

Duobus camerariis, videlicet Ricardo Comiti Warwick et Waltero
Wrottesley militi, conjunctim in officio unius camerarii de Scaccario
prcdieto inter se j£20, ac Johanni Leynton alteri camarariorum
cuilibet eorum capiendo per diem viii*^. pro vadiis suis per idem
tempus £7-4-0.

Another entry follows further down the Roll for the
payment of a sum of 40s. to the Chamberlains, who are
described in the same way.

A third entry on the same Roll is as follows : —

In denariis solutis, videlicet Ricardo Comite Warwick et W^altero
Wrottesley militi conjunctim in officio unius camararii de Scaccario
predicto inter se £20, ae Johanni Leynton alteri camarariorum
£20.

The Pell Issues of Michaelmas 8 Edward IV omit the
name of Warwick altogether, and the entry runs as follows : —

Liberationes camarariorum et aliorum officiariorum de magno
Scaccario.

Waltero W^rottesley militi camarario ac Johanni Ley ton reliquo
camarariorum utriusque eorum capiendi per diem viii^'. 100/s.

It appears probable from these extracts that Walter
Wrottesley had refused to undertake such an invidious
otBce except in conjunction with the Earl — but this pre-
caution served him little, for it will be seen he was soon
left to bear by himself all the obloquy and danger of the
post. The effect, however, of the appointment becomes
apparent on the Rolls, for in the following year the Pell
Issues of Easter, 9 Edward IV, shew a grant to the Earl
of \Varwick of £933 6s. 8d. for arraying ships and men
for the safe custody of the seas. The same Roll contains,
however, grants to Sir John W^odevylle and to the Earl
of Rivers, late Treasurer and now Constable of England.
At the date of the reconciliation between Warwick and the
King, Lord Rivers had been forced to resign his oflSce of

' Memoranda l{oll, Lord Treasurer, 8 Edward IV, Triuity, m. 4.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 225

Lord Treasurer, but had been immediately promoted by
the King into the higher and more important oiBce of
Constable.

In this year, viz., 8 Edward IV, under date of 22nd
July, Sir Walter Wrottesley obtained another pardon for all
offences, and a remittance of all claims due to the Crown.
His brother Henry obtained the same on the 22nd October,
and his father-in-law William Baron, one of the Tellers of
the Exchequer, had the same dated 23rd Jul}'.

The Pell Issues of Easter, 9 Edward IV, contain a pay-
ment of 150s. to Henry Cheveley, Clerk to Walter Wrot-
tesley, one of the Chamberlains, and another payment of
40s. to Ralph Ingolesby, another Clerk to Walter Wrot-
tesley, in recepta. scaccarii.

The Pell Issues of the following year are unfortunately
missing, and in 1 1 Edward IV Sir Walter was a fugitive
in France with a price set upon his head.

Warwick, whose daughter Isabella had been married to
the King's brother George, Duke of Clarence, had now
determined to dethrone the King and substitute the Duke
in his place. In February 1470 the men of Lincolnshire
rose in rebellion, under the command of Sir Robert Welles.
There can be no doubt whatever, from subsequent events,
that this insurrection took place at the instigation of
Warwick. The King, however, at this date, was ignorant
of the plot, and on the 7th March issued commissions to
the Duke and to the Earl to levy troops for his service
in the counties of Worcester and Warwick. On the
12th March the King defeated the insurgents at Erpingham,
in Rutlandshire, and took prisoners the two leaders Sir
Robert Welles and Sir Thomas de la Launde. From the
confessions of these two the King was first apprised of
the plot against him.

Clarence and Warwick were on their way to join Sir
Robert Welles, when they heard of his defeat. The King
advanced to meet them, and when they were within a
day's march of him, sent Garter King of Arms to summon
them to his presence, to clear themselves of the offences
charged against them by the confessions of Welles and
de la Launde. Clarence and W^arwick had issued procla-
mations calling out all the able-bodied men of the Midland
counties, but the unpopularity of Clarence outweighed the
popularity of the Earl, and very few joined their Standard.
Finding themselves too weak to cope with the King, they
fell back into the West of England, and were proclaimed
traitors at York on the 24th March. In this writ the
King ordered proclamation to be made in eveiy county
of England, offering a reward for the capture of the Duke

22 G HISTORY OF THP] FAMILY OF

or Earl or of any of their followers, viz. : — for the Duke
or Earl, £100 of yearly value in land or £1.000 in ready
money ; for a Knight, £20 yearly of his land or 100 marks
in money ; and for an Esquire, £1 0 of his land or £40
in read}' monej'.^

Up to this date no names of the proscribed appear on
the Rolls except those of the Duke and Earl, but as the
King pursued the fugitives he obtained more definite in-
formation respecting them, and on his arrival at Salisburj^,
he issued a writ dated 25th April, addressed to John
Rogger, one of the Tellers of the Exchequer, and five
others,- to take into the King's hands all the castles,
demesnes and manors, lands, tenements, and other posses-
sions of the following, the King's rebels and traitors
likewise all their goods and chattels, and to cut down all
their woods, and sell the timber and goods and chattels in
the way most advantageous to the King.

The names of those thus proclaimed were : —
George, Duke of Clarence Sir Robert Strelley
Richard, Earl of Warwick Sir Henry Lowys (Lewis)
Richard, Lord Welles Sir Thomas Seymour

Sir Robert Welles Sir Roger Towcotes

Sir Thomas Dymmok Sir William Courtenay

Sir Thomas de la Launde Peter Courtenay, Chaplain

Sir Walter Wrottesley William Courtenay

Sir Edward Grey Henry Grey of Groby

Sir GeofFrej' Gate Richard Roos

Sir Reginald Stourton Roger Draycote

' Close Roll, 10 Edward IV, m. 7 dorse. The proclamation in its original
English ends thus : — " that noon of his subgettes from that tyme forth
(viz. 28 March) receyve them ne eyther of they me ne theym ne either of
theym ayde, favour, or assiste, with mete, dr^^nk ne money or otherwise ne
noon other persone which after the seid Due and Erie have refused to come
to oure seid soveraign lord as is aforesaid, abydyth with theyme or theyme
aydeth or assisteth in any wise, but that every of the Kynges subgettes
putte hem in effectuel devir to take the seid Due and Erie and all other
soo abydyng with theym or aidyng or assistyng thej'm as is aboveseid and
theym suerly bryng to his Highnes uppon peyne of dethe, and he that
takyth and bryngethe the seid Due or Erie sliall have for his rewarde to
hym and his heyres a c li worth of his lond or yerly value or m li in redy
money atte his election, and for a Knyghte xx li worth of his lond, or
C marks in money, and for a Squyer X li worth of his lond or XL li in
money, and over that cause oure seid soveraign lord to have hym and
theym soo doyng in the more tendre favour of his good grace at alle tymes
hereafter."

- Tliese were John Acton, armiger, of co. Stafford ; Humfrey Blount, of
CO. Salop ; Thomas Throgmorton, of co. Worcester ; John Beaufeys, of co.
Warwick ; and John Colgylle, of go's. Southampton and Dorset. It will be
noted that the persons named were residents of the counties in which the
proscribed held lands, with the exception of the first-named, who was an
officer of the Exchequer, and was, doubtless, put into the writ in order to
take possession of the lands, etc., of the Duke and Earl, which were situated
in many counties.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 227

Sir Hugh Courtenay George Longvile

Sir Nicholas Latymer Thomas Stafford

Philip Courtenay John Le^mthorp

Humfrey Courtenay John Peke

Thomas Grey of Groby George Broun

William Knyv^et Richard Scroope

Henry Wrottesley (All the above from Philip

John Pury Courtenay downwards are

John Rugge styled Esquires).

John Brokeman John Penne

Richard Clapham James Norrys

John Herthill Robert Strangeways, son of

John Say, son of John Say, James Strangeways, Kt.

Kt. William Molyneux, the Duke's

John Seintlowe Secretary

John Conyers, son of John Henry Talbot

Conyers, Kt. ■ Robert Otter, yoman

William Hudleston and Thomas Richard Wareyn, yoman

Hudleston, sons of John Thomas Otter, yoman

Hudleston, Kt. John Otter, yoman

Gervase Home of co. Kent, the John Ruske, yoman

younger William Yerburgh, gentilman

Lawrence Ferelowe Thomas Clemens, gentilman,

and five Chaplains named. -^

With the exception of the Duke and Earl, all those
named before Sir Walter Wrottesley' had been already taken
and beheaded. Want of provisions had retarded the King's
pursuit of the fugitives, and passing by Warwick Castle,
where they were joined by the Countess and her two
daughters, they fled to the south coast, collected ships, and
sailed for Calais. As they passed Southampton, thej' found
the Trinity one of Warwick's ships, in the harbour, and
the more daring spirits amongst the Esquires volunteered
to cut her out. The attempt failed, and three boats full
of Warwick's men fell into the enemy's hands. The King
handed them over to Tiptoft, Earl of Worcester, the Marshal
of the Army, by whose orders Clapham and nineteen other
Esquires were hanged and afterwards impaled.-

' Rot. Pat. 10 Eihoard IV, in. 10 dorso. I have given the aborfe names
in full, for by some oversight, this important historical document does not
appear in Rymer. It is curious to find three Greys of Groby in tliis list,
for EUzabeth the Queen was widow of Sir John Grey of Groby. The three
Greys named were brothers of Sir John. Sir Edward fought at Barnet
against the King, but was subsequently pardoned (Coram Rege Mich. 12
Edward IV).

- Oman's "Warwick," p. 200, and Lingard's "History of England." The
story of the disgusting brutaUties perpetrated on the dead bodies of Warwick's
Squires will be found in Stow's Annals. The bodies were exposed on the
gallows till the 13th May. Tiptoft obtained the sobriquet of "The Butcher"
from his conduct on this occasion.

228 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

There is eveiy reason to believe that Henry Wrottesley
was one of the unfortunate Squires of Warwick who were
taken and executed in this barbarous manner, for he dis-
appears from the scene at this time, and a few days after
the date of the execution the King issued a close writ,
dated from Southampton, on the 1st May, pardoning
Thomas Litley, alias Lytteley, merchant and grocer of
London, for all offences, treasons, etc., perpetrated before
the last day of April, and all forfeitures consequent on the
same.'* This is the same Thomas Litley whose tenements
within the city of London had been granted to Henrj'
Wrottesley. As the latter had not been attainted, Thomas
Litley could not have recovered his property if Henry had
been alive.

To return to Warwick and his suite. On the refusal of
Lord Wenlock to admit them into Calais, they set sail for
Honfleur, and sought shelter from the King of France.
Louis invited the Duke and Earl to his Court at Amboise,
whilst the rest of the fugitives were quartered in the
neighbouring towns. Through the instrumentality of Louis,
a reconciliation was affected between Margaret of Anjou
and Warwick, who met at the Church of St. Mary at
Angers on the 4th August. There Warwick swore, on a
fragment of the true Cross, that he would be faithful to
King Henry, and it was further arranged that Edward, the
King's son, should marry Anne, the second daughter of
Warwick, and on failure of issue by the Prince, that the
Crown should devolve, at his death, on the Duke of
Clarence. In pursuance of these arrangements Warwick and
the Duke sailed for England, and landed at Dartmouth on
the 25th September, where they proclaimed King Henry.
Edward, being deserted by his own army, fled to Lj'nn
and embarked for Holland. Shortly afterwards, Clarence
and Warwick made a triumphal entr}^ into London,
and restored Henrv to the throne on the 9th October
1470.

As was usual with a new reign, a fresh Commission of
the Peace was issued for all the counties in England.
After the reconciliation between Margaret and Warwick, it
might have been expected that all the names of the prin-
cipal landed gentry of the county would have been included
in the Commission, whatever their political leaning might
originally have been ; but the only names of the heads of
count}' families upon the Commission for Staffordshire are
those of John, the Earl of Shrewsbury, Sir Walter Wrottes-
ley, Sir John Greslej'. Sir John Stanley, and William

' Close Roll, 10 Edward lY.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 229

Mj'tton, all of whom appear to have been devoted adherents
of the House of" York.

A document at Coughton Court shews that 8h* Walter
Wrottesley was now appointed by Warwick, his Sheriff
or Deputy in Glamorganshire and Morgannok. This great
lordship had descended to Richard Beauchamp, a former Earl
of Warwick, through his marriage with the heiress of the
Despencers, who had inherited it from the De Clares. The
Earl had a jurisdiction there little short of Palatine, and
the Sheriff represented his authority over a very large
district. In this document, which is dated 13th January
1471, Sir Walter Wrottesley, styling himself Sheritf of
Glamorgan and Morgan, appoints John Throkmorton his
Lieutenant in the Lordship of Aven, with full power to
hold the Court there, and to do all other things according
to the law and custom of the said Lordship. Aven was
one of the Commotes or Hundreds of the C6unty.^

About the same date, information having been received
of Edward's equipment of ships in Holland, Warwick, who
had resumed his captaincy of Calais, sent Sir Walter
there as his Deputy. Wenlock had proved untrustworthy
upon a former occasion, and what made the custody of the
fortress a question of more than ordinary importance at
this date was a clause in the secret treaty between Queen
Margaret and the King of France, by which it had been
stipulated that the cession of the fortress to the French
should form the price for the re-establishment of Henry VI
upon the throne.

In the month of March, Edward landed at the mouth of
the Humber and advanced to Nottingham, where he assumed
the title of King. From Nottingham he moved to Coventry,
where he was joined by the Duke of Clarence with a
large body of men who now deserted the cause of Henry VI.
Warwick being too weak to oppose him -after the defection
of Clarence, Edward was enabled to reach London without
opposition. Warwick followed in his wake, and in a battle
which was fought at Barnet on the 14th April, was
defeated and killed.

From a military point of view, it is difficult to under-
stand why Warwick had not moved to the west,
with a view of joining his forces to those of Queen
Margiaret, who had sailed from France with a body of
French troops. His reasons were probably political, for if
he had defeated Edw^ard with the assistance of Queen

^ Original warnuit at Coughton Court, aud " Muniments of Glamorgan and
Morgan" by Mr. George Clark. .John Throckmorton was taken prisoner at the
Battle of Tewkesburj', but his life was spared, and he subsequently received
a full pardon on the 3rd June, 11 Edward IV.

230 HLSTURV OF 'I'HE FAMILY' OF

Margaret and her French aUies, he must have carried out
the Queen's treaty with Louis XI, and this involved the
cession of Calais to the French.

The Queen landed with a body of French auxiliaries at
Plymouth on the same day that the Battle of Barnet was
fought, and was joined there hy the Lancastrian lords of
the west of England. On hearing of the defeat and death
of Warwick, she attempted to join the Earl of Pembroke
in Wales, but the passage of the Severn was barred by
Edward and his army at Tewkesbury. A battle was fought
there on the 4th Ma}', which resulted in the complete rout
of the Lancastrians. Edward, the only son of Henry VI,
was either killed in the pursuit, or, being taken prisoner,
was put to' death by Edward IV. By this victory, the
Lancastrian cause was annihilated.

The position of Sir Walter at Calais, after the death of
Warwick, must have been a very difficult one, but up to the
date of the battle of Tewkesbury, the garrison appears to
have remained faithful to the cause of the Lancastrians.
The Warkworth Chronicle states : —

" And in the same tyme tliat the batelle of Teukesbury
was. Sere Watere Wrottysle and Geffrei Gate, Knyghts of
the Erie of Warwyke (who) were governors of tlie towne
of Caleys^ dide seude Sere George Broke Knyghte oute of
Caleys with CCC of soudjours unto Bastarde Fakynebrygge,
that was on the see with the Earl of W'arwyke's navy,
that he shulde the navy save, and goo into Kent, and to
reyse alle Kent to that entente to take Kynge Herry oute
of the toure and distroye Kyng Edwarde, yi he m3'ghte,
which Bastarde came into Kent to Caunterbury and he
withe helpe of other gentylmenne, thei reysed up alle Kent
and came to Londone the v day of May the yere afore-
seide. But there the Lorde Scales that Kynge Edwarde
had lefte to kepe the cyte, with the meyre and aldermen,
wulde not sufFre the seid Bastarde to come into the cite
for thei had understondynge that Prince Edwarde was dede,
and alle his hoste discomfytede, wherefor the Bastarde

^ As a security against treasou, all iiiiportaut foitresses had two Goveruora
ai)pointed to them. These ■were placed in a quasi-independent position, one to
the other, the usual ]>lan being to give one general churge over the place, and
the other the guardianship of the Keep. Sir Geoffrey Gate was probably
Custodian of the Castle of Calais, which was considered the Citadel of
the place. Some remnant of this custom exists in modern appointments, thus,
the Tower of London has both a Constable and Lieutenant, independent of
one another, both being appointed by Letters Patent ; and the office of
Governor of the Keep at Windsor Castle is still maintained, although the
office of Constable of the Castle, formerly hereditary in the family of
'■ de Wyndesore," has been long abolislied. In a similar way, the Lord Warden
of the Cinque Ports is ex officio Constable of Dover Castle, although there was
always a resident Governor within the Castle in former days.

WROTTESLEY OK VVROTLESLEV. 231

loosede his tonnes into the Citie and brent at Algate and
at Londone brygge, for the whiche brynnynge, the comons
of Londone where sore wrothe and gretely movyd ayens
them, for had thei not brent, the comons of the cyte
wulde have leett them in, magre of the Lordes Scales hede,
the mayre and alle his brethyr. Wherefor the Bastarde
and alle his hoste went overe at Kyngestone Brygge x myle
westwarde and had purposed to have distruyt Kynge
Edwarde, or to dryve him oute of the londe, and if the
Bastarde had holde forthe his wa}^ l^ynge Edwarde be
possibilyte could not be powere haf resisted the Bastarde,
for the Bastarde had mor then xx mil goode men welle
harnessede, and evere as he went, the people felle to him."

Stow"s Chronicle gives a somewhat different account of
these proceedings. It says : —

''About this time (i.e., Easter B-Ay, 14th April, 1471),
Sir Walter Wroitile and Sir Getfery Gate Knights, Governors
of Caleis sent Sir George Broke Kt. from Caleis with
three hundred souldiers, to Thomas the Bastard Faucon-
bridge, Captaine of the Earle of Warwicke's navie, willing
him to raise the County of Kent and to goe to London,
there to take King Henry out of the Tower, and then to
goe against King Edward.

The fourteenth day of May, Thomas the Bastard with a
riotous company of shipmen and others of Essex and Kent,
came to London, where being denied passage through the
Citty, he set upon Bishops Gate, Aldgate, London Bridge
and along the Thamis side shooting arrowes and guns into
the Citt}'', fired the suburbs and brent more than 60 houses,
Avan the Bulwarkes at Aldgate, and entered the Citt\^, but the
porte'cluse being let downe, such as had entred were slaine,
and then the citizens pursued the rest so far as Stratford
and Blackwall slaying many and tooke many prisoners.
Thomas the Bastard went from London westward as far as
Kingstone uppon Thames, to prosecute King Edward, but
the Lord Scales with Nicholas Faunt maior of London b}-
faire words caused Fauconbridge to return to Black heath in
Kent from whence in the night he stole from the hoste
with 600 horsemen to Rochester, and so to Sandwich,
where he abode the King coming."

The King arrived in London on the 21st May, and the
following extracts from the Bolls of the Pell shew the
negotiations which took place between him and the Bastard,
the object of the King being to obtain possession of the
Fleet.

Richemundo Heraldo et Thome Gi-ey armigero missis per Regem
vex'sus Tliomam Bastardum Fauconberge 40/s.

232 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Thomas Grej' was the Kino's stepson, but at this date
he was only nineteen years of age ; later on we find : —

Roberto Baxster misso per Comitera Ryrers in certis negotiis
Regis versus Bastardum Fauconberge in coraitatu existentem 10/s.

The Bastard, however, still held out, and we find lower
down on the Roll : —

Magistro Henrico Cokke raisso per avisamentum consilii Regis
cum quadam litera domini Cardinalis Ai'chiepiscopi Cantuariensis,
Thome Bastardo Fauconberge 6^. 8'^.

The fact was, the Bastard distrusted the King, who had
proved false on previous occasions, and he would accept
no assurances from agents who could be subsequently
disavowed. On the receipt, however, of the letter from the
Cardinal, containing a promise of pardon for himself and his
men, Fauconbridge disbanded his army and delivered up the
Fleet. His pardon is dated 10th June, 11 Edward IV
(1471).!

It now only remained to Sir Walter to obtain the best
terms he could for himself and the garrison of Calais,
but his situation was extremely critical. Hastings was lying
outside the harbour with the King's fleet and 1,500 soldiers,
with orders to occupy the town ; under such circumstances,
there must have been many men under his command who
would be ready to throw their leaders over and make the
best terms they could for themselves.'^ Fortunately for Sir
Walter at this juncture, there was a very general distrust of
the King's good faith, for on previous occasions he had
beheaded Lord Welles and others after granting them letters
of safe conduct. Sir Walter was able therefore to preserve a
semblance of unanimity amongst the garrison, but his difficul-
ties were increased by the action of Louis XI, who was
bidding high for the surrender of the place to the French.
Philip de Comines, the minister of Louis, speaking of Calais
at this date, says in his memoirs : — '' Cette place est la plus
grand tresor d'Angleterre, et la plus belle capitainere du
monde, a mon avis, au moins de la Chrestiente, ce que je
scay parceque jy fus plusieurs fois durand ces differends
et pour certain me fut dit par le temps dont jay parle par
le maire de I'Estape de toiles, que de la capitainerie de Calais

1 Rot, Pat., 11 Edward IV, Part 1.

■■^ I suspect there was some double dealing on the part of one member at
least of the garrison of Calais, for among.st the Privy Seal Writs there is
one dated 19th July, 11 Edward IV (1471), appointing Richard Whctehull,
Armiger, Lieutenant of the Castle of Guj-sne, in Picardy, but to take his
orders from William, Lord Hastings, Lieutenant of the Marches. At tiiis date
Lord Hastings was not in possession of Calais. Richard Whetehill was after-
wards in high favour with the King, and on the 14th April, 1§ Edward IV,
obtained a license to embattle his manor house of Boughton, co. Northampton.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 233

feroit donner au Roi dAngleterre quinze mille escus de ferme,
car ce capitaine prenoit tous le profit de ce qu'ils ont de ca
la mer, et des saufs conduits, et met la pluspart de la garnison
a sa poste."

A hint of the delicate nature of the negotiations is con-
veyed by the following entry on the Pell Issues of this
year :—

Cuidam Fratri nuper venieuti ab villa Calesie cum secretis
negotiis, 20/s.

After a parley extending over a period of six weeks,
the final result was a full pardon for the garrison issued
under the Great Seal on the 6th August. The Letters
Patent of this date state that the King pardoned and
remitted by his special grace, and by the advice of
his Council, to Walter Wrattesle}?', Geoffrey Gate, John
Benstede, John Bromley, George Bissipate, Knights, to
John Lord Clynton, George Neville, Thomas Gray,^ Richard
VVhetehyile, John Curtenay, Roland Worsley, Thomas
Radclytf, Robert Warmyngton, John Partruit and William
Boyville, Esquires, to Richard Ronchede, John Parker,
Antony de la Toure, and to all burgesses, merchants,
soldiers and mariners within the town and Cp«stle of Calais,
the Tower of Ruysbanke, the Castle and demesne of
Guynes, and the marches, to each of them, and to their
servants, agents, and attorneys, all manner of trans-
gressions, offences, and impeachments, treasons, felonies,
murders, robberies, insurrections, rebellions, conspiracies, etc.,
howsoever done or perpetrated by them before the date of
the present letters, whether they or any of them had been
indicted, impeached, convicted, arraigned, or attainted of. any
of the said offences, likewise all fines, debts, forfeitures, or
any judgment of penalty of death or other penalty adjudi-
cated against them, likewise all wrecks of the sea,
forfeitures of lands, rents, tenements, or goods and chattels
incurred by any of them before the above date ; and the
King further conceded that everyone of the aforesaid
persons shall hold and enjoy all lands, tenements, offices,
fee farm rents, etc., held by the King's gift, or by Letters
Patent, and of which he was seised or in possession in fee,
or for term of life, or for term of j^ears, on the
3rd March, in the eighth year of his reign, and shall enter
into the same without impeachment by him or b}^ his heirs,
ministers or eschaetors, excepting and reserving all offices
within the town and castles of Calais and Guysnes, and
Tower of Ruysbanke, and the marches, conferred by the

^ This must be tbe Thomas Giiiv of Groby meiuioued iu the {irociatnatiou
of 1470.

234 H18T0RV OF THE FAMILY OF

King, or by auy of the Governors oi' Calais, before the
date of these letters, and excepting all lands, offices,
tenements, rents and fees which any ^ of the aforesaid
persons may hold by the King's gift, or by Letters Patent,
which have been cancelled, etc. ; after which follows a
proviso that before the Christmas Day following, the
Treasurer of the vill of Calais and the marches should
cause to be drawn up and enrolled separate Letters of
Pardon, under the Great Seal, for each of the said burgesses,
merchants, soldiers and mariners in their own names, and
deliver them to each without taking any fee for the same.'

In accordance with this proviso, separate pardons for all
those abovenamed appear on the second part of the Patent
Koll of 11 Edward IV, m. 29. Sir Walter Wrottesley is
described in his pardon, which is dated 9th August, as : —

Walter Wrattyslay of the vill of Calais, Kt., alias Walter
Wrattislay, merchant of the Staple, Kt., alias Walter Wrat-
tislay, late of Wrattislay, co. Stafford, Knight, alias Walter
Wratislaj'', late of London, Kt., alias Walter Wrottisley, late
of London, Kt.

Sir Geoffrey Gate is described as : —

Geoffre}^ Gate, Kt., of the vill of Calais, alias Geoffrey
Gate, Kt., Marshal of the vill of Calais, alias Geoffrey
Gate, Kt., merchant of the Staple,- alias Geoffre}'' Gate, Kt.,
late of Garnettes, co. Essex, and late of Highester, co. Essex,
late of Halton, co. Oxon, late Lieutenant of Carisbroke
Castle, Isle of Wight, late of Beauchamp Redying, co. Essex,

Lord Clynton is described in his pardon as :

John Clynton of the vill of Calais, Lord Clynton and
Say, alias John Clynton, lord of Clynton, alias John
Cl3aiton of Folkestone, co. Kent.

Sir John Bromley is described as : —

John Bromlay of the vill of Calais, Kt., late of Badyngton,
CO. Chester.

George Neville is called : —

George Neville, late of Calais, souldeour, alias George
Neville armiger, alias George Neville of Carlylle, co. Cum-
berland.

Koland Worsley is described as late of Calais, alias Roland
Worsle}', Lieutenant of the Tower of Ruysbanque, gentilman.

Sir George Bisipate is described as soldariiis of Calais,
alias George Bisipate, late of the City of Constantinople,
alias George Bisipate, a Greke.

1 Rot. Pat., n Edward IV, Part L m. 14.

- Sir Walter Wrottesley and Sir Geoffrey Gate were probably merchants of
the Staple, ex officio, for the cost of the garrison was a first charge on the
Customs of Calais.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 235

William Boyvyle is called armiger, late of co. Rutland.

William Worsley is described as Alderman and Burgess of
Calais, and late Ma3^or of Calais.

Richard Whetehull is described as armiger, Lieutenant of
the Castle of Guysnes, aZms Mayor of the vill of Calais,
alias " Soldarius " of the vill of Calais, alais Controller
(contrarotulator) of the vill of Calais and the Marches,
alias Richard Whetehull, late of Barton Pyncanye, co.
Northampton.

Adrian Whetehull is described as of the vill of Calais,
armiger, alias Controller of the vill of Calais and the
Marches, alias soldarius of the Castle of Guysnes, alias
Adrian, son of Richard Whetehull, armiger.

John Courtenay is called armiger, alias John Courtenay,
Captain of the Ports (Magister Portitorum) of the vill of
Calais, alias soldarius, alias merchant of the Staple, alias
of Powdram, co. Devon, son of Philip Courtena}^, Kt.,
late of Powdram.

Robert Ottur is described as of Alspath,^ alias Robert
Ottur, gentilman, alias Robert Otour of Calais, souldeour,
alias Robert Ottur of Ulleskyll, co. York, gentilman.

All the others are described in similar precise terms with
numerous aliases.

On the receipt of these pardons Calais was surrendered
into the hands of Lord Hastings, who had been sent with
a force of 1,500 men to summon it. The issues of the
Pell of Easter, 11 Edward IV, have the following entries
respecting this transaction.

Willelmo domino Hastyng tideli et predilecto consiliario ac Cam-
arario Regis <|uem idem dominus Rex nuper appuuctuavit ad
transfretandum ultra mare cum xvc hominibus in comitiva sua
versus villam Calesie ad recipiendum dictam villam et castrum
ac Turrim de Ruysbaiik ad usum ipsius domini Regis in denariis
sibi liberatis xxii'' xvi^

The Tellers' Roll of Michaelmas, 11 Edward IV, has a
payment of £6Q 10s. Od. to John Cole for w^ages for 373
mariners for the passage of Lord Hastings from Sandwich
to Calais, with 13 defensible ships, and victuals for 1,500
soldiers, by a writ of privy seal of last Easter term.-

Lord Hastyngs must have left Sandwich very shorth'
after the fleet had been handed over by Fauconbridge in
June, but Calais does not appear to have been surrendered
before the following September, for one of the Paston letters

^ Alspath in co. Warwick, now called Meriden. The unfortunate Richard
Clapham, the Squire of the Earl of Warwick, hanged at Southampton, was
Lord of Alspath.

- The Easter term on the Pell Rolls would comprise the period between
Easter and Michaelmas.

236 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

under date of loth September 1471, states " the lords
Hastjmj^es and Howard be in Caleys and have it pesebely
and Sir Walter Wrottesle and Sir Geoffrey Gate be comjm
thence, and will be in London thys daye, as it is seydc,
wretyn at Waltham besyde Winchester the daye nex Holj'
Roode daye."'

The cause of the delay in surrendering Calais no doubt
arose from doubts of the sincerity of the King's promise of
pardon, and the consequent necessity of waiting till the
pardons had been actually received. It must, however, have
been a source of irritation to the King, who required Lord
Hastinges in England, and by a writ of Privy Seal, dated
from Windsor 19th July 11 Edward IV, he ordered John
Lord. Howard to take over the Governorship of Calais on the
death of, or surrender of it by William Lord Hastynges,
who had been appointed to that office for a term of ten
years. ^

I suspect Fauconbridge had some hand in the delay of
the surrender, and that his correspondence with the garrison
of Calais had been intercepted, for on the 11th September an
order was issued to arrest him wherever he might be
found.'- He was shortl}^ afterwards taken and beheaded,
notwithstanding his charter of pardon of the previous June,
his treason being considered of later date.

On Sir Walter's arrival in England he found himself a
defendant in an action brought against him and other
members of the household of the Earl of Warwick for an
onslaught made on Edmund Grey, Earl of Kent during
the late troubles. The proceedings in Banco of Michaelmas
term 11 Edward IV, state that Edmund, Earl of Kent, sued
Walter Wrottesley, late of Wrottesley, co. Stafford, Kt.,
Edward Grej^, late of Asteley, co. Warwick, Kt., Geoffrey
Gate, late of Casebrok (Carisbroke), Isle of Wight, Kt.,
Robert Skerne, late of Kyngstone-upon-Thames, Geutilman,
and John Typper, late of Astele}^, yeoman, for taking vi
et arinis, armed with swords, daggers, etc., his goods and
chattels in London to the value of £1,000. None of the
defendants appeared, and the Sheriff was ordered to distrain
the said Walter, who had found bail, and to arrest the
others, and produce them on the Quindene of St. Martin.
At the latter date, the defendants failed again to appear,
and the Sheriff returned 2s. into Court as the proceeds of
a distraint upon Sir Walter. He was therefore ordered to
distrain again upon Sir Walter and to arrest the others and

1 Privy Seal Writs, 19th July, 11 Edward IV
- Rot. Pat. 11 Edward IV.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 237

produce them in Court on the Octaves of St. Hillary.^
There is no further notice of this suit. The pardons
granted to Sir Walter Wrottesley and to Sir Geoffre}' Gate
on their deliverino; up Calais in the previous August would
have covered their delinquencies in this case.

There is reason to believe that Sir Walter must have
been arrested very shortly after he had set foot in England,
for on the 3rd October he executed a general povrcr of
attorney constituting his wife Jane and two others to act
for him in all matters and with power to receive rents, etc.,
and to sue for debts.- It is unusual to include a wife's
name in a power of attorney unless the person who executes
it expects to be separated from his wife for a length of
time, and I conclude, therefore, that at this date Sir Wlalter
was in prison or had fled the country. Nothing more has
been found respecting his movements between this period
and the date of his death, which occurred on the lOtli April
1473.^ In the Commission of the Peace for Staftbrdshire of
the 2nd July, 12 Edward IV, his name no longer appears,
nor was he named in a Commission of Array for the county
dated 12th March in the same regnal year.* He was buried
in the church of the Grey Friars in London, and this church
was the usual place of sepulture for the inmates of the
Fleet and Newgate Prisons.

The Register of the Sepulchral Inscriptions existing temp.
Henry VIII in the Church of the Grey Friars, London,
has the following : —

In capella Sancti Francisci sub magno lapide jacet.

©ominiis SEaltrrus Mrottcslru miles, strcnuus in annis
cum Comitc SEarbairi, qui obtit 10 tiic mnisis ^prilis

Five months afterwards, viz., on the 24th August, 13
Edward IV, the King being then at Lichfield, issued a writ
of "diem clausit extremum'' addressed to Humfrey Blount,
Kt., Nicholas Leveson and the Sherifl^" of co. Worcester,
commanding them to make a return of the lands and tene-
ments, etc., Avhich had been held by Sir Walter Wrottesley,
when he died, together with the usual particulars respecting

1 De Banco Roll, Mich. 11 Edward IV, m. 2S9 aud 465 dorso.

" Original deed at Wrotte,-;ley. copied 1860-62.

^ Inq. p.m. 13 Edward IV, 'Xo. "JS.

' Rot. Pat., 13 Edward IV, Part 1.

5 Cottonian MS., Vitellius F. xii. These sepulchral inscriptions are printed in
the Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica, vol. v, but with some inaccuiacie.s.
For the words '" cum Comitc Wamoici " has been substituted " in Comitatu
Waricici," which is nonsense. The monuments in the Grey Friars were pulleil
down, and the materials sold by Sir ]\Iartin Bowes, Lord Mayor of London,
in 1545 (Stow's London).

238 HISTORY OF THE FATvITLY OF

the lieir, etc. No return to this writ is extant, and another
writ was issued on the 2nd September to John Elr3mgton,
arniiger (the Treasurer of the King's Household and Clerk of
the Hanaper), and to Thomas Stidolf and the Sheriff of co.
Stafford to return the same particulars respecting the lands,
etc., of Sir Walter, in co. Stafford. The return to this writ
is in existence and states that an Inquisition was taken at
Burton-upon-Trent, in co. Stafford, on the 6th September,
13 Edward IV, before John Elryngton, armiger, Thomas
Stidolf, and the Sheriff, Commissioners appointed by virtue
of a Commission directed to them, and on the oath of
Jolm Paunton, Thomas Blounte, John Mjdes, William Walker,
Ralph Bold, William Jerves, Henry Cowper, William Stephens,
William Leche, Jolm Heage, William Gilbert, and Thomas
Toke, who stated that Walter Wrottesley, Kt., named in
the said Commission was seized in his demesne as of fee
tail on the day he died of the manor or demesne of
Hundesworth in the said County, and that the said manor
was held of the King in capite by Knights' service, and
that it was worth, beyond reprises, £28 per annum. They
also said that the same Walter was seized in demesne as
of fee tail on the day he died, of the manors or demesnes
of Clent and Mere in the same County, which were held
of the King in capite, and that the said manors were
worth £20 per annum bej'ond reprises, and that the said
Walter died on the 10th daj'- of April last, and that
Richard the son of the said Walter was his nearest heir
and was sixteen years of age.

No Inquisition for the manors held by him in co. Dorset
is extant.

Sir Walter married sometime about 1456, Jane, the daughter
of William Baron, Esq., of Reading, one of the Tellers of
the Exchequer, whose acquaintance he had probably made
when in attendance at the Exchequer, with his " 'proffrum,^^
as Sheriff of co. Worcester. William Baron was the head
of an ancient family which had been settled for many
years in Berkshire, and as Jane was eventually sole heiress
of this family, and their arms have been quartered with
those of Wrottesley ever since the fifteenth century, it is
proposed to give a short account of them.

The first of the family I have met with is a William
Baroun, of Maidenhethe (Maidenhead), who occurs as defen-
dant in some proceedings of Easter 13 Edward II, on the
Coram Rege Roll, in which he was indicted with four others
for a trespass committed vi et arinis against the servants
of Hugh le Despencer, the younger, in Berkshire.

A later William Baron, of Reading, died in 1416, and was

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 239

buried in St. Mary's Church in that town,^ where his tomb
existed in Ashmole's time. In 9 Henry VI another WilKam
Baron was member of Parhament for the borough of Reading,
and is doubtless identical with the William Baron, armiger,
Avho is returned amongst the gentry of co. Berks bearing
arms from their ancestors, by the Commissioners to ad-
minister the oaths of allegiance in 12 Henry VI (1434).- In
2 Edward IV, William Baron, armiger, of London, one of
the Receivers of ^ the Exchequer, and late fermor of Whit-
church, CO. Oxon, obtained a general pardon, with an
exoneration from all claims of the Crown up to the previous
4th November.'^

In the same yeiiv he was paid a reward for receiving and
sending off to the north a sum of £2,000 which had been
found by the Maj-or and citizens of London for the
expenses of the war,-^ and in the following year he received
a special gift of £20'^ from the King for the labour and
expenses of his office. At Easter, 6 Edward IV, he
received another g-ift from the Kino; of £13.''

These gifts were given in augmentation of his salary,
which was at the rate of 8d. a day or £32 a year, a sum
which would be probably equivalent to about £1,000 a year
at the present day.

The latest notice of William Baron I have met with is on
the Roll of the Issues of the Pell, of Easter, 9 Edward IV,
A.D. 1469, at which date the four Tellers of the Exchequer
were William Baron, Thomas Pounde, Robert Martyn, and
John Rogger.

B}^ Jane, the daughter and heiress of William Baron, Sir
W^alter left four sons — Richard, William, Walter, and Henry
— -and five daughters — Jane, Thomasine, Anne, Margaret, and
Parnell or Petronell. Richard succeeded Sir W^alter as his
heir. William succeeded to the greater part of his mother's
property in Berkshire, and was placed in the Household of
Henry VII on the accession of that monarch, as one of
the Esquires of the King's Body. His will was proved
4th February 1512. Henry was a Fellow of New College,
Oxford, and appears to have died young in 1486. Walter
is only known h}^ his will, which is preserved in the Pre-
rogative Court. He died in 1502.

Jane married Richard Cresset of Upnor Cresset, co. Salop,''

^ Aishmole's Antiquities of Berhshire, vol. ii, p. 349.

- FuUei-'.s Worthies.

^ Pardon Koll, 1 to 6 Edward IV.

* Pell Issues, Easter 2 Edward IV.

" Ibid., Easter 3 Edward IV.

^ Ibid., Easter 6 Edward IV.

' Deed at Wrotteslev.

240 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Thomasiue married William, Lord .Stourton, but left no issue.^
Anne married Sir Anthony St. Amand, Avho claimed to be
Lord St. Amand, but there are doubts about his legitimacy.^
Marp^aret married Sir John Scrope of Castle Combe,^ who
was one of the Knights of the Bath made on the marriage
of Prince Ai'thur in 17 Hcnr}^ VIL By INIargaret, Sir John
left a numerous family. Parnell or Petronilla, the fifth
daughter, became a nun at Dartford.* The Bodleian Library
contains the following contemporary notice pf her in a book
which formcrljT' belonged to the nunnery : —

" Thes booke in whom is contente dyvers devowte tretis
and specyally the tretis that is called 'Ars moriendi,' j^s of
the gifte of Wylliam Baron Esquyer, to rema3aae for evyr
to the place and nonrye of Dertforde, and specjmlly to the
use of dame Pernelle Wrattisley sister of the same place by
license of her Abbas, the whiche Pernelle is nece to the
forseyde gentylman William Baron."''

At the beginning of the MS. are the arms of Knollys
quartering Baron, viz. — gules, a chevron embowed azure
between three garbs or, — and a pedigree showing that William
Baron married Joan the daughter of Thomas Knollys of
North Mimms. This Thomas Knollj^s was grandson of another
Thomas Knollys, who was twice Lord Mayor of London,
and died in 1445.

Besides these daughters the old parchment pedigree at
Wrottesley mentioned a daughter Alice, married to Lord
Scrope of Upsall. There is no other authority for this
marriage, but it derives some confirmation from a clause in
Walter Wrottesley 's will, in which he left a legacy to " my
lord Zowche " (de la Zouche), the latter being a near relation
of the Scropes of L^psall.

I think it probable that Sir Walter was a Knight of the
Garter, for amongst the muniments formerly preserved at
Wrottesley was an original vellum cop}' of the Statutes of
the Garter of this period, and Anstis shews that the
succession to many of the Stalls during the reign of
Edward IV has never been ascertained. In fact between
the years 7 to 12 Edward IV there is a complete chasm.^

' History of the Family of Stourton, Heralds' Visitations, and wills of William
Wrottesley and Walter Wrottesley.

- Deed ;it Wrottesley, and wills of William Wrottesley and Walter Wrottesley.

^ Will of William Wrottesley, jind '• History of Castle Combe," f)rivately printed,

■• Old parchment pedigree at Wi-ottesley, and Douce MS., Bodleian Library.

'' Bodleian MS., Douce MS, 322, ex. inf., Falconer Madan, Esq., Sub-librarian.
Niece is here used for granddaughter, which was frequently the case in old
days.

" These Statutes were contained on an ancient Roll of Parchment about
one foot wide, and being undated, were always supposed by the familj^ to
be the original Statutes supplied to Sir Hugh de Wrottesley, K.G., in 1348.
Somewhere about the year 1861, I happened to mention to Sir Charles Young,

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 241

The following deeds formerly at Wrottesley belong to
the epoch of Sir Walter Wrottesley.

Edwardus dei gratia l\ex Anglie et Fi-ancie et Dominus Hibemie,
omnibus ad quos presenter litere pervenerint, saluteni. Sciatis quod
nos de gratia nostra speciali ex mero motu et certa sciencia nostris
ac consideratione boni et gratuiti servitii quod dilectus et fidelis noster
Walterus de Wrottesley miles nobis ante hec tempora impendit,
Dedimus et concessimus ac per presentes damus et concedimus eidem
Waltero maneria sive dominica de Mere, Clynt alias dictum Clent
et Honclesworth cum pertinentiis, necnon advocaciones ecclesiarum
de Hondeswortli predicti et Forton in comitatu 8tafiFordie ; ac etiam
maneria de Ramisliam alias dictum Rammeshani et Poundeknolle alias
dictum Penpole cum pertinentiis ao advocaciomem ecclesie de Rami-
sliam alias dictum Rammeshani predicti in Comitatu Dorset, cum
feodis militum, parcis, warennis, franchesiis, libertatibus, curiis,
visibus franciplegii, piscariis, et omnibus aliis libertatibus, proficuis
et emolumentis predictis maneriis ac eorum cuilibet seu eorum alicui
quovismodo spectantibus sive pertinentibus que nuper fuerunt Jacobi
nuper Comitis Wiltes Rebellis nostri de altis proditionibus attincti
virtute cujusdam actus parliamenti in parliamento nostro apud West-
monasterium quarto die Novembris anno regni nostri prirao tento,
edito, et ad manus nostras ea occasione devenerunt seu devenire
dobuerunt. Habenda et tenenda predicta maneria, advocaciones, et
cetera premissa, cum pertinentiis eidem Waltero et heredibus suis
masculis de corpore suo legitime procreatis imperpetuum de nobis

then Garter King of Arms, the existence of these Statutes at Wrottesley.
This information caused muoli excitement at the College of Arms, for no
cojiy of the Statutes earlier than the reign of Henry V was known to exist,
and it was thought possible that we might be in possession of a copy of the
original Statutes of Edward III. It was therefore arranged that my father
should bring the Statutes to London, and that they should be examined by
Sir Thomas Duffus Hardy, who was then Deputy Keeper of the Records, and
the most experienced pakcographist of his day. The meeting took place at the
Kolls Office in Chancery Lane, and Sir Thomas, after examining the Roll,
stated, without hesitation, that the handwriting was not earlier than Henry VI
or Edward IV, and he asked whether another member of the family had not
been a Knight of the Garter during one of these reigns. Sir Charles Young
on examining the Roll agreed with Sir Thomas Hardy and shewed that the
Statutes were the same verbatim as those of Henry V, a cojjy of whicli he
had brought with him for comparison. The Statutes were in French and the
names of the original Knights of the Garter on the Wrottesley Roll were
entered as below.

Le Prince de Galles. Monsire Johan de Grey.

Le Due de Lancastre. ,, Richard Fitz Simon.

Le Comte de Warwick. ,, Miles de Stapelton.

Le Captal de Buch. „ Thomas Wale.

Le Cointe de Stailord. „ Hugh de Wrottesley.

Le Comte de Salesburi. „ Neal Loryng.

Le Sire de Mortimer. ,, Johan Chandos.

Le Sire Jehan Lisle. „ James Daudley.

Monsire Barthelemi Burghersh. ,, Otho Holland.

Monsire Johan de Beauchamp. „ Henry Eam.

Le Sire de Mohun. „ Sanchet Daprichecourt.

Monsire Hugh de Courtenay. ,, Walter Pavele-

Thomas Holland.

242 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

et liefodibus nostris j^i'o serviciu, tot fcuda militinn, ac tot et tanta
alia retlditus et servicia pro (jue ante primuin diem Martii anno re<:fni
nostri prinio de ])rogenitoribus seu predecessorihus nostris aut eoruni
aliquo aut alia persona seu aliis personis ([uibuscunque separatim
tenebantur : Et ulterius per presentes concediraus eidem WalterO',
exitus, proficua, et emolumenta omnium dictoi-um maneriorum et
ceterorum premissorum habenda et percipienda eidem Waltero a sexto
die Januarii anno regni nostri sccundo per manus firmariorum,
receptoi'um, sive aliorum occupatorum eorundem Absque aliquo com-
poto sive aliquo inde nobis vol lieredibus nostris solvendo, faciendo
sive reddendo-. Et ulterius perdonavimus remisimus et relaxavimus
eidem "Waltero omnimoda debita, compota, prestita, arreragia, actiones
et demanda que nos vel heredes no'Stri ratioine premissorum aliquo
modo versus oundem Walterum ante tertium dccimum diem martii
ultimo pi'eteritum habere poterimus seu debuissimus ac omnimodas
intrusiones, transgressiones, sive impetitiones per ipsum Walterum
factas in premissis seu aliquo premissorum eo quod expressa mentio
de vero valore annuo aut de aliquo alio valore premissorum facta in
presentibus non existit, aut aliquo statuto, actu, ordinatione seu
provisione incontrarium facto, edito seu proviso aut aliqua alia re,
causa vel materia quacunque non obstante. In cujus rei testimonium
has literas nostras fieri fecimus patentes. Teste me ipso apud
Westmonastorium vicesimo octavo die Februarii anno regni nostri
quinto (28 Februar}', U66).^

Great Seal of England in dark green wax and in line
preservation.

Sciant presentes et futuri, quod ego Walterus Wrottesley, miles,
dominus de Perton dedi concessi, et hac carta mea confirmavi,
Willelmo Cockys de Patyngham tres srostos (sic) terre cum perti-
nentiis suis jacentes infra dominium de Perton, etc. Hiis testibus
Ricardo Clemson, etc. Data apud Perton predictum die Martis
proximo ante festum Sancte Petronille Virginis anno regni regis
Edwardi quarti post conquestum Anglie nono (May, 1469).^

Seal destroyed.

Universis et singulis presentem documentum visuris lecturis vel
audituris Walterus Wrottisley miles, Salutem in domino sempiternam,
Noverit universitas vestra me prefatum Walterum fecisse, ordinasse,
posuisse et loco meo et pro me constituisse dilectos mihi in Xpo
Johannam uxorem meam carissimam, Johannem Yonge et Johannem
Hopton generosos, meos veros legitimes et indubitatos attornatos

^ Original Letters Patent at Wrottesley, copied lSGO-62.
* Original deed at Wrottesley, copied 1S60-G2.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY

243

(Here folloiv full po?.vers to receive all rents, to sue for debts, to carry on
all suits, etc., and a clause ecconeyritin;/ them, from all persoiud liability for
the same). Ratiim ot gratuiu lialnturum quidijuid prodieti attoi-nati
et eorum quilibot nomine nostro (sic) fecerint vel fecerit in premissis.
In quorum omnium singulorum fidem et testimonium sigillum meum
armorum presentibus apposui. Datum tertio die mensis Octoljris
anno regni Regis Edwardi quarti post conquestum undecimo (3 Octob.,
U71).i

\ Seal of red wax, in very tine preservation.

Arms of Sir Walter Wrottesley.

Quarterly — Or three piles Sable, a quarter Ermine — for "Wrottesley ;
and Gules, a chevron Azure, between three garbs Or — for Baron of
Readincc.-

^ Original deed at Wrotteslej', copied 1860-62.

* See a note on the Baron Arms by the late Mr. Sidney Grazebrook, amongst
his notes upon Glover's Visitation of Staffordshire of 1583, printed in vol. iii
of Staffordshire Collections, p. 152. The arms of Baron are emblazoned as above in
both the Staffordsliire Visitations of 1583 and 1614, and there is no doubt tliat this
was the original blazon. The Heralds of a later era, however, when they attempted
to make an exact science of Heraldry, laid down a rule that colour should not be
borne on colour, and they changed tlie Baron chevron into one " compone Or and
Azure " ; but the seal of Sir Walter W^rottesley shews a plain chevron, and as
the garbs must be gold, it is clear that the original coat must liave disjjlayed
colour upon colour, as stated in the Douce MS. and the Heralds' Yisitations
of 1583 and 1614.

244

HTS^TORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Richard Wrotteslev, A.D. 1478—1521.

According to the Inquisition taken
on the death of Sir Walter Wrottes-
ley, his eklest son Richard was aged
sixteen in 1473. He would, there-
fore, come of age in 1478. As his
father was a tenant in capite, the
wardship and marriage of the heir
would fall to the Crown ; but as
regards the latter, it was usual at
this period to forestall the rights of
the Crown or other superior lord, by
marrying the heir during the life-
time of the owner of the fee, and
Richard appears to have been man-ied
whilst under age to Doroth}', the daughter of Sir Edmund
Sutton. Sir Edmund was the eldest son of John, Lord
Dudley, who had been one of the staunchest supporters of the
Yorkist cause, and it is not unlikely that this alliance had some
influence in saving the life of Sir Walter Wrottesley in 1471.
He was a man of some note in his day, and in 1470
was acting as Lieutenant of Ireland for George, Duke
of Clarence. On the Close Roll of 10 Edward IV there is
a writ, dated 23 March, addressed to him stating that John,
Earl of Worcester, had been substituted for George, Duke of
Clarence, as Lieutenant of Ireland, the said Duke having
been deprived of the office owing to his " grete and haynous
offences lately committed."' Sir Edmund predeceased his
father, but was alive as late as 1483, for he was present
at the coronation of Richard III, which took place in July
of that year.^

Richard is shewn to be the son of Sir Walter Wrottesley,
by the deeds formerly at Wrottesley, by the Inquisition on
his fathers death, by another Inquisition on the death of his
grandmother Thomasine, and the suits of 1 Richard III and
16 Henry VII respecting the Arderne estates.'' He doubtless
derived his baptismal name from Richard, Earl of Warwick,
the King Maker.

He seems to have been brought up in the Priory of St.
Mary of Mount Carmel, in Coventry, for there was formerly
at Wrottesley a parchment certificate by Thomas, the Prior,
granting to Richard Wrattysle "propter devotionem sinceram
quaiii ad nostrani Juihetis ordinem,'^ the blessing of the
Fraternity, and that the same prayers shall be said after his

' Grazebrook'8 " History of the Dudley Family," vol. ix of Staffordshire
Collections, p. 78.

- Chester Pleas, 22 Edward IV, in. 36 ; 16 Henry VII, m. 19.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY, 245

death as after the death oi" any of the Brethren of the
Convent. This grant was dated in 1477, when Richard was
twenty years of age, and was apparently handed to him on
leaving the monastery.

As his grandmother Thomasine had been jointly enfeoffed
with her husband Hugh Wrottesley in the manors of
Wrottesley and Butterton, Bichard could not enter into
possession of his Staffordshire estates till after the death
of Thomasine, which occurred on Christmas Day 1480 ; and
on this event taking place his mother Jane, who had in
the meantime remarried Sir Richard Darrell, of Littlecote,
claimed possession of the manors under the deed of 1463.

Richard Wrottesley 's claim would be probably based upon
the first settlement of 1441, and the dispute would have led
to a long and disastrous law suit, if it had not been terminated
by arbitration. At this date Richard had amongst his near
neighbours Sir Thomas Littleton, one of the Justices of the
King's Bench, and the famous author of the " Tenures,"' who
had mari'ied the widow of Sir Philip Chetwynd, of Ingestre,
and both parties consented to abide by the decision of Sir
Thomas, and one of his colleagues, Sir Richard Chokke.^ The
award of the arbitrators is dated the 31st May, 21 Edward IV
(1481), and was the earliest English deed amongst those formerly
at Wrottesley. By the terms of it Sir Richard Darell and
Jane were to release by deed to Richard Wrottesley all their
right in the manors of Wrottesley and Butterton, and all
other lands and tenements in Wrottesley, Butterton, Tettenhall
and Codsall, which were sometime in the possession of Walter
Wrottesley or Hugh Wrottesley', father of the said Walter, for
which the said Richard Wrottesley should grant to Sir Richard
Darell and Dame Jane, his wife, an annual rent of £5 to
be paid at two terms of the year, '• that is to say the
one half on St. Martyn's day after all halowmesse at
the Rode of the North dore in Paules in London
bitwene one of the Clok at afternones and four of the
clok of the same day than next ensuying, and the other
half in the same place the Saturday next after the
Assencion day bitwene one of tlie clok at afternone and
five of the clok of the same day than next following,"
such payment to endure pending the life of the said Dame
Jane, and with power to levy a distress for the same, if it
should be in arrear. For further surety Richard Wrottesley
was to enfeofi' in the manor of Wrottesley the said Thomas
Lyttelton, Richard Lj^ttelton, John Brown, William Wrottesle\',

^ Richard Cliokke, Kt., one of the Justicea of the Beuch, and Maigaret. his
wife, late wife of William Giffard, Armigcr, executrix of the will of William
Giffard, obtained a pardon for all offences and claim.-) on the part of the Crowu,
LaLcd 20th January, 9 Edward IV (I'ardon lloll).

246 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

and William Wylkj's, " to the intent that they shall be and
stonde feoftes of the said manour with the appurtenants
duiyng the lyf of the same dame Jane for the contcntacion
of the said annuytie.*'^

In pursuance of this award Richard Darell, Kt., and Jane,
his wife, late wife of Walter Wrottcsley, Kt., conveyed to
Richard Wrottesle}^, Armiger, son and heir of the said Walter,
the manors of Wrottesley and Butterton, ajid all the other
lands named in the award, by a deed dated 22nd May

21 Edward IV (1481),- and on the following 20th June
Richard, by his deed, enfeoffed Thomas Littelton, Kt., Richard
Littelton, John Broun, William Wrottesley, and William
Wylkes, in the manor of Wrottesley.

The five manors which had been granted by Edward IV
to Sir Walter Wrottesley were resumed by the Crown
after Sir Walters death under the provisions of an Act of
Parliament passed on the 6th October 13 Edward IV (1473).
By this Statute the King was empowered to resume all
grants made later than the 4th March 1 Edward IV, and
it likewise vested in the King all the property of persons
subset J uently attainted. Under this Act of Parliament the
claims of Sir Walter's widow and children were ignored,
for on the 10th October in the following year the King
granted to Humfrey Stafford, Armiger, of Grafton, and to
his heirs, the manors of Clent, Honnesworth and Meerc,
which had lately belonged to James Ormond (sic), formerly
Earl of Wilts, and Avhich had come into his hands by the
attainder of the said James.'^

The two Dorsetshire manors, Rampisham and Penpole, with
upwards of one hundred others, had been granted b}^ the
King to his brother, the " false fleeting perjured Clarence,"
as a reward for his treachery in 1471.

Having established his claim to the manors of Wrottesley
and Butterton, Richard next endeavoured, in conjunction
with Robert Legh, of Adlington, to obtain possession of the
Arderne estates in Cheshire. Their first writ was issued in

22 Edward IV, but before the case could be argued in
Court, the death of the King obliged them to renew their
suit by a second writ. The cause came on for hearing at
the Pleas of Trinity term 1 Richard III, before Thomas,
Lord Stanley, Kt., Justice of Cheshire, and is recorded as
follows : —

Cestria. — Robert Legh and Richard Wrottesle\' sued John Stanley
for the manor of Aldeford, ■with the exception of 110 aci'es of land

1 Original deed at Wrottesley, copied 1S60-62.
^ Ibid.

^ Uot. Pat.. 14 Edward IV, part 2. James, Earl of Wilts, wan James Eutler,
Earl of Oniiuiid and Wills.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 247

and pasture and 13 acres of meadow; and tliey sued the same
Jolin for the manor of Eclieles, whicli Robert Hampton, Parson
of the Church of Alderley, and John, son of llo<i;er de INIuntlowe,
gave to John de Ardene and Elena, his wife, for the term of
their lives, with remainder to Thomas de Arderne, son of the
said Elena, and the heirs male of his hody, and failing such to
W^alkeline, brother of Thomas, and the heirs male of his body, and
failing such, to John de Ardene and Elena and the heirs male
of their bodies, and failing such, to the heirs of the bodies of
John de Ardene and Elena, and they gave this descent : —

John de Ar(lene,=pElena.
seised temp.
Edward III.

I 1 r ■ — ■ 1

Thomas. Walkeline, Matilda. Isabella.

I ob. s.p.m. I I

John, ob. Robert de Legh, Kt. John,

s.p.m. I I

Robert. Hugh.

I . , I

Robert. Sir Walter Wrotteslev, Kt.

I . I "

Robert Lcgh, Richard \\ rottesley,

the ijlaiutili". plaintiff.

John Stanley asked for a view, and the suit was adjourned
to the Tuesday before the Feast of the Translation of St.
Thomas the Martyr (July 1484j, a view to be made in the
interim.

On the day named the plaintiffs appeared by attorney,
and John Stanley put in au essoin " de mcdo veniendi,'^
and another day was given to the parties on the Tuesday
before the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Mary
(September 1484)\

The battle of Bosworth was fought on the 22nd August
1485, and the death of the King necessitated a new writ.

The suit came on again at the Pleas of Trinity term,
1 Henry VII (May 1486), when John Stanle}^ appeared and
asked for a view. Tlie suit was again adjourned, pending
a view, and does not reappear for some years. At this date
the influence of the Stanleys was predominant in Cheshire,
and with the many opportunities which the procedure of the
period afforded for delay, it would have been hopeless to
have carried on a suit in the Cheshire Courts against
such an ascendancy as the famil}- of Stanley possessed.
The plea of 1 Henry VII was taken before Thomas
Stanley, Earl of Derb}^, \\ho was the King's stepfather, and
had been the principal agent in placing the King on the
throne, and associated with him was George Stanley, Lord

J Chester Plea Rolls, No. 187 (1 to a Richard III), m. 9.

248 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Lcstrauntrc, the son of the Earl. These two were joint
Justices of Cheshire. At the same Jate Sir William Stanley
was Chamberlain of Cheshire, and the Sheritl" of the county
was either a Stanley or the nominee of the Stanleys. In
5/G Henry VII the Sheriff' w^as William Stanley, the son of
the Chamberlain.

In 5 Henry VII John Stanley, anticipating a renewal of
the suit, took steps by means of a collusive action to obtain
a judicial title to the property ; the proceedings to effect
this were as follow's : — In the Chester Court, Peter Warburton,
Richard Norris, Edmund Bulkeley and William Tatton sued
John Stanlej^ of Echeles, for the manors of Aldford, Alder-
legh and Echeles, of which they had been seised, as of
fee^ in the present reign. John Stanley appeared and called
to warranty Geoffrey Matthew^s, kinsman and heir of John
Ardene, Kt., wdio appeared in Court and Avarranted the manors
to him.

The plaintiffs then sued Geoffrey Matthews for the same
manors, as tenant under the warranty, and Geoffrey made
default, and a verdict Avas delivered in their favour.-

It will be noted that in the action of Robert Legh and
Richard Wrottesley against John Stanley, no mention was
made of the manor of Alderley, and it would seem as if
some compromise had been made respecting this manor, for
the In(|uisition on Robert de Legh, the plaintifT in the suit
of 10 Henry IV. who died in 3 Henry V, shews that he was
in possession, when he died, of a perpetual rent of £10
proceeding from the manor of Alderley, by gift of Thomas
de Stanley. The Inquisition, after naming Adlington and
other lands held in capite of the Earl of Chester, states
that Robert obiit seisitiis in dominico suo, ut de feodo,
de decern libratis redditus sibi et heredibus suis per
Thomain de Stanley concessis, percipiendis de manerio
suo de Alderley.

At this date the Wrottesley claimant was a minor, and
there is no trace of any grant b}^ the Stanle3's to any
member of that family.

Richard Wrottesley was included in the Commissions of the
Peace for Staffordshire issued by Richard III in the first and
second years of his reign. Most of the names on these Com-
missions are those of well known Yorkists, and the inclusion
of Richard's name in them seems to shew that the temporary
alienation of his father from the cause had been condoned.

' Tliis would be V)y some previous feofltment made to them by John Stanley.
- Clie.-ster Pleas, 5 Henry VII, ni. 14 dorso. Geoffrey Matthews was, of course,
fl mere bogus warrantor, set up by the defeudant, John Stanley.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 249

Tlic names of most of the principal gentry of the county
are conspicuous by their absence from these lists, the only
names of Staffordshire landowners on them being : —
John Sutton, Lord Dudley, Humphrey Persall,
John Blount, of Mountjoy, Nicholas Mountgomery,
Jolni Gresley, Ralph Wolselej', and

Richard Wrottesley, John Cawardyne.^

The first Commission of the Peace for Staffordshire issued
by Henry Vll, as might be expected, included a larger
proportion of the gentry of the county. It is dated the
27th September, 1 Henry VII, and contains the following
names : — •
J. Bishop, of Cov^entr}'' and William Basset,

Lichfield, Hugh Egerton,

Thomas Stanley, of Stanley, Richard Wrottesley,

Kt., George Stanley,

John Sutton, of Duddeley, Kt., Hugh Erdeswyke,
John Gresley, Kt., William Harper,*

Humphrej^ Stanley, Kt., Robert Hill,*

Hugh Peshall, Kt., John Blount,* and

Humphrey Starky, Kt.,* Thomas Tremajde.*

William Wilkes,*

Those on the list marked with an asterisk were the
professional Justices, whose names occur in all the Commis-
sions issued. The two Staffordshire lords, Audlcy and Devennix
of Chartley, had attended the coronation of Richard III.
The former was therefore left out, and the latter had been
killed at Bosworth.-

The Commission of the next year contains the same names,
excepting Robert Hill, and with the addition of George,
Earl of Shrewsbury, and Ralph Wolseley. By another Com-
mission of 2 Henry VII, Ralph Wolseley, Richard Wrattesley,
WiUiam Harpur and John Blount, or any two or three of
those named (of which the said William and John were to
be one), were appointed to deliver the Gaol of Stafford.

In 1490 the fee farm rent of a mark payable to the
Abbey of E\'esham, had been many years in arrear, and
by a deed dated 12th March, 5 Henry VII, John, the Abbot,
remitted to Richard Wrottesley, of Wrottesley, Armiger, all
the arrears of the rent, 13s. 4d., payable yearly to. the
Convent, for w^hich the said Richard assigned to the Con-

1 Patent Rolls, 1 and 2 Richard III. Edward Grey (Viscount Li.sle) and
Henry Grey, of Codnor, were added to the Ust, but they were neither of
them' resident in Staffordshire, and had no interest in the county except as
overlords of some of the fees. These two lords had attended the coronation
of Richard III.

- John Audley, of Audley, alias John Tychet, Kt., obtained a pardon dated
ISth Noveuiber, 1 Heniy VII. John Cawardine had been killed at Busworth.

250 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

vent the bailiwick ol" Aiiil)iilc()tc, " now being or other
bailiwick there for the time being where the said Richard
hath an annual fee of 40s. for term of his life, to
pay yerely to the said Abbot and his successors 13s. 4d."
The recital to the deed, which is in English, states that
the manor of Wrottesley was hekl of the Abbot as in the
right of his Monastery by Knight's service and by the yearly
rent of 13s. 4d.i

In 7 Henry VII, A.D. 1491-92, Richard served as High
Sheriti' of the County, and in 12 Henry VII he was appointed
one of the Commissioners for collecting the Subsidy granted
by Parliament in that year. The other Commissioners
were Humphrey Persall, Humfrey Swynnerton and Thomas
Welles.- A contemporary copy of this Subsidy for the
Seisdon Hundred of Staftbrdshire was amongst the muni-
ments unfortunately destroyed by the fire at Wrottesley,
and the original is not to be found in the Public Record
Office.

In 16 Henry VII (1501) his eldest son Walter was married
to Isabella, the daughter of John Harcourt, of Ranton. The
marriage of an elder son in these days was simply a com-
mercial transaction between two families ; the parents of
the bride giving a lump sum for the marriage, and the
father of the bridegroom binding himself to make an allow-
ance to the young couple and arrangements for a jointure
in case the heir predeceased his father. By an indenture,
dated the 12th March, 16 Henry VII (1501), and made
between Richard Wrottesley, Es(|uire, on the one part, and
Dame Margaret Harcourt and Thomas Harcourt, Esquire,
on the other part, it was covenanted and agreed that "Walter
Wrottesley sonne and heir apparaunt unto the said Richard
shall by the grace of God, wedde and take to wyfF Isabel
Harcourt, doghter of John Harcourt, Estjr., on this half
the Feste of Seynt Michel the Archangell next ensuying
the date of this indenture, and att the reasonable retjuest
of the said Dame Marget and Thomas, and if hit so be,
that the said Walter discesse by fore marriage had bitween
hym and the said Isabell, as God forbidde, that then the
next heir apparaunt to the said Richard schall take to
wyft' the said Isabell withyn a halfe yere after the discesse
of the said Walter." After wdiich follow arrangements for
the jointure of Isabell, to take effect after the death of
Dame Jane Darrell, and also for the jointure of Doroth}^

^ Original deed at Wrotteslej-, copied 1860-62. If it had not been for the
Abbofri claim for military service he might now have recovered pos.-jession under
the Statute of '■ Quare cessavit per biennium," the rent not having been paid
for two years.

'^ Rolls of PurliamenL printed.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 251

or any other wife which Richard Wrottoslcy might have.
The young lady's portion was 200 marks.

By one of the covenants of this Indentiire, Richard was
to make, within six months, ''a sure and sufficyent astate
yn the law to the yerly value of 10 marks to the use and
behove of the seid Water and Isabell, and the heires of tlie
bodie of Water by the seid Isabell bigoten." This was to be
ertected by vesting certain lands and tenements in the names
of trustees, who were to be John Beymound (Beaumont),
Thomas Harcourt, John Swynnerton and William Wilkes.
In pursuance of this agreement Richard enfeofied the
above trustees in 17 Henry VII in all his lands in Bude-
worth, Torpurley and Kelsall, in co. Chester, and a water
mill in Orton, co. Stafford, called Trylmyll, and two
pastures in Tettenhale,^ and he also appeared in person
in the Court of Sir John Ferrers, of Tettenhall Regis, and
surrendered a messuage which had been formerly held by
Walter Wyse, and all his other tenements in the Wyrges,
except a water mill called Burdun's mill, to the use of
John Beaumont, Thomas Harcourt, John Swynnerton, Armi-
gers, and William Wylkes, of Wyllenhale, and tlieir heirs
and assigns. -

In the same year the Leglis and Wrottesleys revived
again their claim upon the Arderne estates in Cheshire.

The case came on for hearing in April 1501. The Roll
states that at the Pleas of the County of (Jhester, held
before Thomas, Earl of Derby, and George Stanley, Kt.,
Loi'd Le Straunge, son of the said Earl, in the fifth week
of Lent, 10 Henry VII, Thomas Legli and Richard Wrottesley
sued John Stanley for the manor of Echeles (Etcholls) and
for the manor of Aldeford, excepting a messuage and twent}^
acres of pasture, which Robert de Hampton, Parson of tlie
Church of Alderley, and John, son of Roger de Muntlowe,
had given to John de Ardene and Elena, his wife, for
the term of their lives, with remainder, etc. (as in the
previous suit), and they gave the same descent from John
and Elena, as in the previous suit, but the descent of the
Leghs is carried down another generation from the fourth
Robert Legh to Thomas Legh, the present plaintiff, who
was his son. J#hn Stanley, the defendant, pleaded that he
could not answer "without the King {Berjc inconsidto), because
it had been shewn by an Inquisition taken at Chester,
in the Hall of Pleas (in aula placitorum), before
William, the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, President

' Original deed at Wrottesley, copied 1860-62.

- Copies of Court llolls, formerly at Wrottesley. The.se shewed that \Vall.er
Wy.se had surrendeied his land in Tettenhall Regis to Walter Wrottesley, the
father of Richard, in ;J1 Henry VI.

252 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

of the J^rince's Council, Jolm Arundell, the Chancellor of the
Prince, Ixichard Croft, Kt., Rol)ert Frost, Clerk, and Thomas
IngletieUl, on the Thursday after the Feast of St. Valentine,
10 Henry MI, b}' virtue of a Commission addressed to them
by the Prince, that William Stanley, Kt., who had been
attainted of liigh treason, was seised on the day he was
attainted, in demesne as of fee, of the third part of the
Barony of Wichmalbanc and other estates, and that Peter
Werburton, Armiger, Eichard Nories, William Tatton and
Edmund Bulkeley, on the same date were seised in demesne,
as of fee, of the manors of Aldeford, Echeles and Alderley,
together with the advowsons of the churches of Aldeford
and Alderley, to the use and profit of John Stanley, Armiger,
for the term of the life of the said John, with remainder,
after his death, to the use of the heirs male of the body
of the said John, and failing such, to the use and profit
of the said William Stanley, Kt., his heirs and assigns for
ever, and as he, the said John Stanley, had no male heir
of his body, the action could not proceed, unless the King
was made a party to it.^ Upon this the suit was adjourned
sine die. John Stanley died in 1509, leaving no male
issue, and as Sir William Stanley, of Holt, had been
attainted, the King took possession of the manors as an
eschaet of the Crown. •^

Tn the autuuui of this year, viz., on tlie 17th November
1501, Ivichard Wrottesley officiated as an Es(|uire to Sir John
Hastings, who was made a Knight of the Bath, on the
occasion of the marriage of Prince Arthur, the heir a])parent,
to Katherine of Arragon. The functions of the Esquires
attending on a newly made Knight were far more important
and onerous than would be supposed from their designa-
tion, for they acted, in fact, as his sponsors. "The maner
of making Knights after the custom of England," a nearly
contemporary document, gives the following account of them : —

'• Whoii an Esquire cometh into Court, to receive the order
of Knighthood, there shall be ordained two worshipful Squires,
wise and well nourished in courtesy, and expert in the deeds
of Knighthood, and they shall be Governors to him, to serve
and ordain what shall long (sic) to him for the time." One
of their functions was to put their Esquire into the Bath,
and afterwards to lead him into the King's presence, " the
said Squires being at all times before him."

^ Cheshire Plca.s, 16 Henry VII, m. 19.

- Welsh and Cheshire Inciui.sitions p.m., 1 Henry VIII. Alderley was .sold
by the King to Sir William Brereton, and ou his attainder it was sold to Sir
Edward Fitton, who sold it, temp. Elizabeth, to Sir Thomas Stanley, wlioss
descendants, the Stanleys of Alderley, ttill possess it (Urnicrod'ti Cheshire).

WROTTESLFvY OF WROTTESLEY. 253

After the conclusion ot" the ceremony, the same doeuinent
informs ns that, " The Governors shall go and take charity
leave of their master, saying thus, ' Worshipful Sir, by the
Kings commaundment, we have served j^ou, and that com-
mandment fulfilled and performed to our power, and what
we have done in our service against your reverence, we
pray j^ou of your grace to pardon us our negligence, and
furthermore of the customs of the King's Court, we ask
and require you of robes and fees to the term of your life,
convenable to the King's Squires.' "

If such were the liabilities of a Knight at this period, it
will fully account for the paucity of the names of the old
count}'' families to be found amongst the Knights of the
Tudor era. Knighthood had, in fact, become the shadow
of a name with many onerous and expensive conditions
attached to it. The account of the marriage of Prince
Arthur in the College of Arms, concludes with the statement
that after "the Knights had been dubbed and girded with
swords, they should have rode also that time in their royalt}',
but of that they were pardoned, because the weather was
not clear, nor convenient, because of much wet."^

" Happy the bride, the sun shines on," and if tlie old
adage carries with it its converse, it received ample con-
firmation from the results of this ill-omened marriage.

In the following year, viz., in 17 Henry VII (1502),
Richard Wrottesley served the office of High Sheriff of the
Count}^ for the second time, and from this date, up to the
end of the reign of Henry VII, there is nothing to record
respecting him.

The first Commission of the Peace of the new reign
(1509) included his name, and was addressed to the following
lords, knights and gentr}^ of the county : —
Edward, Duke of Buckingham, Richard Wrottesley,
George, Earl of Shrewsbury, John Welles,
Edward Sutton, Lord Dudley, Ralph Agard,
Sir Thomas Lovell, Robert Brudenell,

Sir Henry Vernon, Richard Litilton,

Sir Lewis Bagot, Roland Stafibrd,

Sir Gilbert Talbot, Thomas Partriche,

Sir- John Ferrers, John Blount,

William Greville, Richard Selman, and

John GiflTard, Thomas Blount.

By another Commission of 3 Henry VIII, the above were
re-appointed, with the addition of Thomas, Marquis of Dorset,

^ Nicholas' " Orders of British Knighthood," taken from a MS. in tlie College of
Arms.

254 HT.^TORY OF THE FA^FTLY OF

Sir Walter GrifTith, Sir John Aston, John P^gerton, Anthonj?'
FitzHerbert, Edward (Jrov and John Mitton.

In H Henry \'III (lofij) he served the office of- SlierifT of
Stattbrdshire for the third time. He was now in his sixtieth
year, and the state of his health obliged him to obtain
the curious license under the King's Sign Manual, which
follows. In his capacity of Sheriff, he might have been
called upon at an}^ moment to appear in the presence of
the King. As three names were submitted in each year, his
name would have first come before the King in 6 Henrj^ \ III,
which is the date of the writ.^

HEXRY R {the Klwfs Sign Manual)

Henr\' by the grace of god King of England and of
ffrance and Lord of Ireland. To almaner our officers justices
and subgetts as well of spirituell preeminence and dignitie,
as of temporall auctoritie, these our lettres hering or seing
greting. tforasmochc as we bee credibly enformed that our
trusty and welbiloved Richard Wrottesley Squier for certain
diseases and infirmities which he hath in his hed cannot
conveniently without his grete daunger bee discovered of
the same. Wherupon we in consideration therof have by
these presents licenced hym to use and were his bonet on
his hed from hensforth in al place and at al seasons as
well in our presence as elliswhere at his libertie. Wherfor
we wol and commaunde you and every of you to permitte
and suffie hym so to do w^ithout any your lette, chalengc
or interuption to the contrary as ye tender our pleasure.
Gevcn under our signet at our manour of Grenewiche the
iiij*^'' daye of Marche the VI ycre of our reigne.'

Stamped below with a wafer seal, about an inch in diameter,
quartering France and England in black lines.

Richard must have died in 1521, for his name occurs on
a Manor Roll of the 12tli March 1521, and on the 6th
December of the same year his son Walter paid the quit
rent due to the Abbey of Evesham for the half rent ending
at the previous Michaelmas. His wife Dorothy had pre-
deceased him, having died in 1517.

His will is dated 1518. He bequeathed by it twenty

^ The names in 8 Henry VIII were lUchard Wrotteslej-, Thomas Swyunerton,
and Sir lialph Kgerton, and the King jjricked the name of L'ichard (Sheriff's
UoU, 10 November ir.16).

- The late Mr. Stephen Tucker, Somerset Herald, who liad collected some
of these licences with a view of writing a papei- upon them, informed me
that there were others in existence of the same period and in nearly
the same words. He considered that these licences were the origin of the
popular behef that certain famihes like the de Courcys and the Foresters,
had an hereditaiy right of wearing ,i liat in the presence of the Sovereign ; a,
privilege which he believed to have no foundation in fact.

fo-,

^ Vs^-agvfcK/viS '

t*a/»?f C ^fc:%;»-w^.

/ c.'

^Tt'WvO -oS^^S^-

■/ /

y-^^Etj

-fja <<^~>-"-: ■

ntfiiaii

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 255

marks for his burial within Saint Thomas chancel within
the Parish Church of Saint Michael the Archangel, of
Tettenhale, and eight marks " to have a pryst to synge a
whole rere for my solle, and my wyffys soil, and for our
fadurs solh^s and our modur's sollys and for all Clnystun
sollys."

To his son George, whose name is spelt Jorge in the
will, he bequeathed £20, and " my best gylte gobbelett and
my gowne that ys lynyd with sawsenett, and my coyt of
tawny chamlett and dubbelett of tawny satten, and vi sylvur
sponys, ij of the best and iiii of the seconde sword e, and
xl sch3"pe and iiii oxsun and iiii kyyn and my bedde thatt
I ly j'U with the hangj^ng ovur, and the lyttull coveryng
that ys lynyd with canvas and ii pere of schetes and
a bolster and a pelo, and my blacke nagge and also
my cheyst that stands att my beddys seyd in my
chambur."

To his daughter Margaret he bequeathed £20 and " hur
modurs best fruntelette and hur best cappe, and my grette
cuppe of S3dvur with the covur and vi sylvur sponj's and
a fetur bed and the seconde covurryng and a bolster and
ii pere of small schetes, and ii pere of gretur schetes and
a borde cloyth of dyapur and anodur of playne and ii
brasun potts a more and a las and ii pan3's a more and a
las and vi chargars and vi potyngars and a ryng of golde
with a ruby and my black cofer in the newe chambur, and
all these goodys for to be presyd by indyfFerent men and for
to be sett upon hur mareg money."

Similar bequests in the same unique orthography were made
to his son Jamys Lewsun (James Leveson), and to his sons
Thomas, Harry, Walter and John, and to his " do\'rthtur "'
Anne, his daughter Elsabeth, his daughter Jane, his daughter
Ysabell, lyttull John Wrottyslej^ (his grandson), to whom he
bequeathed " an ambelyng foyll,'' Dorethe his son Walter's
"doythtur," his daughter Alys, his daughter Marget, his
daughter Elnar, his son Thomas Lewsun ; and to St. Thomas
awter he bequeathed *' a cowe and a pere of vestments "' and
a sum of 26s. 8d. " for to ley the stone upon me and my
wyyffe."!

This stone still exists in the Wrottesley Chapel at
Tettenhall, and is shewn in the plate annexed. It consists
of a slab of alabaster, with the portraitures of a man
in armour, and his wife, drawn in black lines. The armour
is of the reign of Edward IV. At their feet are shewn
effigies of sixteen children, and on either side, near the

^ Contemporarj- copy of will formerly at Wrottesley. The original will iloes
not exist.

256 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

upper part of the stone, are shields bearing the arms of
Wrottesley and ])udle3^ Round tlie riui of the stone is
engraved the foHowing rhyming epitapli in Gothic characters.

^)crc Ire closcli in rUy, the bobij of lUelmrli StUotteslcu,
^nb also J'ovothi), his tuif, kuhich liueb togcblicr all yir lif.
IThe year 4H.(!:aH!:(!:CJ"9£E of our ^loili, glorothii bepavtcb

out of vt luorl^,
^nb after tuithin short space, *[Iichari) tuas kv^ in this plarc.
^ere uolu our bodies i5o leu, on our soules Jesu hafc incrrjj.
521c iesirc cliery ,ftiau uum, to prey for our soules Ihat bin

gon.

These verses are doubtless the composition of Richard him-
self, for in his will he speaks of the stone as alread}' in
existence but not laid down.

He left at his death five sons and seven daughters. Of
these Walter, the eldest son, succeeded him at \Vrottesle3^
Of the second son, George, nothing is known, and he
probably died shortly after his father.

Thomas married and had a son, George, who is styled
(ieorge Wrottesley, of Chelmarsh, co. Salop, in a deed
amongst the Ashmolean MSS. dated 1597. An account of
this George, who was subsequently knighted, will be given
in a future page.

John, the fourth son, is mentioned in the will of Dr.
Richard Dudley, Chancellor of Salisbury, his uncle, which
Avas proved in 1530, and is printed at length in Mr. Sydnej^
( Jrazebrook's '• History of the Dudleys " in vol. ix of Stafford-
shire Collections.

Harry, the next son, occurs also in the same will as Henry
Wrottesley, and as one of the executors of it. The will also
names the wife of Henry and his son Richard, who was
the testators godson.

Of the seven daughters of Richard Wrottesley, Elinor,
the eldest, married, for a first husband, Edmund Leversedge,
of Frome Selwood, co. Somerset, and for a second husband
Sir Henry Long, of Wraxall and Draj'^cot, co. Wilts. Sir
Henry was a distinguished soldier of the reign of Henry VHI,
and one of the Knights of the King's Household ; by
him she had a numerous family, two of whom, Richard
and Thomasine, are mentioned in the w^ill of Richard Dudley,
as his godchildren. Elinor, Lady Long, died in 1543.i

Anne married Thomas Leveson, of Wolverhampton and

' "Visitation of Wilts, 1623," and Pedigree of Long, in Howard's "Miscellanea
Genealogica," Sir Henry was Sheriff of co. Wilts in the years ir)12, 1526, 1537
and 1542. He died in 1556.

■:m

^ ^ h"

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 257

Willenliall, and another dauf^hter, Marjory or Marj^faret,
married James Lev^eson, of Perton, a rich merchant oi' the
Staple, and ancestor of the Dukes of Sutherland.

Accordino; to the pedigree of Onslow in the Visitation
of Shropshire of 1628, as printed by the Harleian Society,
Margaret, the daughter of Richard Wrottesley, married
Humphre}?' Onslow, of Onslow, co. Salop, but whether
this is the same Margaret who married James Leveson,
or there were two daughters named respectivel}^ Margaret
and Marjory, I am unable to say.

Richard Wrottesley had two younger brothers who have
been mentioned in the account of his father, Sir Walter
Wrottesley. The elder of these, William, inherited a large
portion of the Baron estates, and was the founder of a
younger branch of the family which lasted for some
generations. He appears to have been placed into the
household of the new King, Henry VU, at the accession
of that monarch, for the Wardrobe Accounts of 4 Henry VII,
shew that he was one of the Esquires of the Body, receiving
gifts of clothing from the King ; and in the first year of
the same reign, he obtained by grant from the King the
Keepership of the Park of Raskyll, co. York.^ At the latter
date he could not have been more than twenty-five years
of age. His will, in which he is styled William Wrottesley,
of Redynge, in the co. of Berks, is dated 26th December
1512, and was proved in the Prerogative Court of Canter-
bury, on the 4th February 1513. In this will he desires
to be buried within the Parish Church of Saint Olaf in
Silverstrete, London, "before the image of our Blessed Lady
stondynge at the High Awter of the said Church." He
names his daughter Elizabeth, his daughter Custance (Con-
stance), his son Robert, his son-in-law Escue, " my ladj"
Sturton (his sister), my lorde her husband, my lorde
Sowche (de la Zouche), John Wraxley (probably his
nephew John Wrottesley), my lady Scrope (his sister), and
Dame Parnell beynge within the nonry of Dertforde, in co.
of Kent (another sister), my eldest brother, and his sons
Walter and Thomas, and my sonne Edward." To his son
Robert he left all his lands and tenements lying within
the town of Reading to him and his heirs for ever, ten
shillings out of them to be paid yearly to the Churchwardens
of the Parish Church of Our Lady of Redynge. Robert,
his son, and Constance, his daughter, to be his executors.
In the proof of the will both Robert and Constance
were stated to be under age.

' " Materials for the History of King Henry VII " (printed in Rolls Series). On
the Patent Roll of ] Heniy VII, part ii, there is a pardon for George Neville
late of Raskell, co. York.

258 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

His son-in-law Escue, was Sir William Ayscough or Askew,
of" South Kelse}^, co. Lincoln, who married his daughter
Elizabeth, and by her was father of the unfortunate Anne
Askew, who was burnt as a heretic in 1546.^

A Robert Wrastley, who was probably identical with
Robert, the son of this William, was Member of Parliament
for the town of Chippenham in 1558, the first year of
Queen Mary.

Walter, the other brother, died in 1502. By his will,
which is dated 7th December 1502, and proved on the
17th of the same month, he desired to be buried in the
Church of St. Mark, in Bristowe (Bristol), beside Jane, his
wife, and he bequeathed to the House of St. Mark two
tenements in Wryngton, co. Somerset, given to him and
to his wife by John Key, Esq., of co. Somerset. He also
bequeathed to the same House a rent of 20s. from Kyngeston,
CO. Somerset, and all his property in Cosham, co. Wilts, for
a term of fifty years. He also made bequests to my lord
St. Amand, my lord Stourton (his brothers-in-law), to Maister
Croope (Scrope), and "my lady his wife," " to my lady
my moder," and to his eldest brother Richard Wrottesley, and
to his brother William Wrotteslej^, to his niece Bess, and his
nephew John Wrottesley, and the residue of his goods to
Lady Saint Amand, " my good suster."-

It would seem by this will that Walter left no issue. It
shews also that his mother Jane, Lady Darell, the widow of
Sir Walter Wrottesley, was still alive ; at this period she had
survived her first husband for nearly thirty j^ears.

The following deeds, formerly at Wrottesley, belong to the
period of Richard Wrottesle}^ : —

To all true Xpen people to whom this present writyng endented
shall come. Richard Chokke and Thomas Lyttelton Knights
Justices of our soverayn lord the Kyng of his Comen Bench
sende gretyng in our lord everlastyng. Whereas dyvers variances
and debates have been hadde and moeved bitwene Sir Richard
Darell Knyght and Dame Jane his wife sumtyme the wyf of
8ir Walter Wrottesley Knyght on that one partie, and Richard
Wrottesley Esquier son and heire of the said Sir Walter on that
other partie, of and upon the right, title and possession of the
manour of Wrottesley in the Countie of Stafford, and also of
other lands and tenements in Wrottesley and Tettenall in the
said Countie of Stafford, which sumtyme were Hugh Wrottesleys,
and as it is surmy tted by the said Sir Richard Darell and Jane

^ " History of the Reformation," printed by the Camden Society, where tlie
father of Elizabeth is written 2'/tomas Wrottesly, by mistake for William.

■'' Will proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury and now at Somerset
House.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 259

{some ivords omitfed here in the origincd deed) the said Walter
Wrottesley and also of and upon the possession and purporties
of such goods as were lefte by the said Jane in the said manour
of Wrottesley. Wherefore the said Sir Richard Darell Knyght
and Richard Wrottesley Esquier by their escripts obligatorye
beryng date the xv*'' day of May the yere of the reigne of our
soverayn lord Kyng Edward the Fourth the xx'^'' have com-
promytted themselfs to stonde, hold, and obey the arbiterenient,
ordinaunce, and juggement of us the said Richard Chokke and
Thomas Lyttelton arbitrators bitwene the said parties indifferently
chosen of and upon the right, title and possession of all
the manours, londs and tenements which suratyme were Hugh
Wrottesley s or of the said Walter Wrottesley or any other
to their use, or to the use of eny of them, and also of
and upon accions as well reall as personall, sutes, quarrells,
variaunces, and demands bitwene the said parties or bitwene
the forsaid Ricliard Wrottesley and Sir Richai'd Darrell in eny
wise hadde, moeved, or hangyng before the date of the said
obligations. Whereupon we the forsaid Richard Chokke and
Thomas Lyttelton takyng upon us to arbiti'e of and upon the
premisses, the titles, claymes, answers and replications of the
parties aforsaid, herde, and understonden, by the assent of the
said parties and also by the desire and agreement of William
Baron Esquier, ffader of the said Dame Jane Darell, arbitre,
awarde ordeyn and deme of and upon the same in fourme
folowyng, that is to say that the said Sir Richard Darell in the
name of hym and the seid Dame Jane on this side the feest of
Pentecost next nowe comyng, shall make and delyver unto the
said Richard Wrottesley at the cost of the same Richai'd Wrottes-
ley a dede of feoffament, with a letter of attorney in the same
ded6 unto William ffalls Chapeleyn and Roger Bold, and to
everyche of them, to delyver seasyn of the manours of Wrotte.sley
and Butterton and of all the londs and tenements in Wrottesley,
Tettnale, Butterton, and Codsall in the said Countie of Stafford
or elsewhere in the same Countie which were the said Walter
Wrottesleys, or Hugh Wrottesleys unto the said Richard Wrottes-
ley, to have and holde to hym, his heires, and assignes for ever-
more, and also that the said Sir Richard Darell shall delyver
unto the said Richard Wrottesley a relesse in the name of
the said Sir Richard Darell and dame Jane of all their right in
the said manours of Wrottesley and Butterton, and all other londs
and tenements in Wrottesley and Butterton, Tettnale and Codsall
in the Countie of Stafford or ellswhere in the same Countie which
sumtyme were the said Walter Wrottesley or Hugh Wrottesley
Squier ffader of the same Walter or of eny other to their use
or to the use of either of them and that so soon that than
^ within the space of a moneth next after, the said Richard Wrottes-
ley beyng seasyd of the manour of Wrottesley and of all the
said other lands and tenements in Tettnale and Wrottesley of a
rightful and lawfull estate of enherytaunce by his dede sufficiaunte
in lawe shall graunte unto the said Sir Richard Darrell and Dame

2G0 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Jane at tlie cost of the same Sir Richard Darell and Jane an
annuell rent of v li. sterlyng yerely to be paied at ii ternies of
the yei-e, tliat is to say, the one half on Saint Martyns day after
All Halowmesse at the Rode of the North dore in Paules in
London bitwene one of the clok at afternone* and iiii of the
clok of the same day than next ensuying, and the other half in
the same place the Saturday next after the Assencion day bitwene
one of the clok at afternone and v of the clok of the same day
than next followyng, which graunte shalbe with a penaltie of
XX s. in the said dede conteyned to be forfeite as often as hit
shall liappen the said Rent at the day and place lyinyted to be
uncontcnt, and also as often as it shall happen the said Sir Richard
Darell and dame Jane, their Deputie, servant, or assigne to be
interrupte, lette or distoui'bed to distreyn for the said Rent or
the arrerage thereof beyng behynde, by the said Richard Wrottes-
ley, his fermours, servant or Deputie, by his comaundement, and
also as often as hit shall happen, the said Richard Wrottesley his
fermour or servant by his comaundement to sue I'eplevin of eny
distresse taken for the said Rent or eny parcell thereof due uncon-
tent, and for the suretie of the said Rent to be content at the
daies lymyted during the lyf of the said dame Jane, we awarde
that the said Richard Wrottesley within a moneth after the
said graunte of annuytee made, shall enfeoffe of the saide manour
of Wrottesley the said Thomas Lyttelton, Richard Lyttelton, John
Brown, William Wrottesley and William Wylkys to have and to
hold unto them, their heires and assignes for evermore to the
intent that they shalbe and stonde feoffes of the said manour with
the appurtenaunts duryng the lyf of the said dame Jane, for the
contentacion of the said annuytie, and after her deth they shal
be and stonde feoffes of the said manour, lends and tenements
till tj^me that the said Sir Richard Darell yf it fortune hym to
overlyve the said Jane or the executors of the said Jane yf she
overlyve the said Sir Richard Darell be satisfied and contented of
the arrerage of the said annuytie ronnen in the lyf of the said
Jane. Also we awarde that either of the said Sir Richai-d
Darell and Richard Wrottesley on this side the feast of Pentecost
next comyng by their dede relesse and quyteclayme unto other
all actions personell and demaunds which they or eny of them
myght have hadde before the first day of May last past. In
witnesse whereof to that one part of this our present awarde
endented toward the said Richard Wrottesley remaynyng as well
we the said arbitraters as the said Sir Richard Darell have sette
our sealls, and to that other part thereof toward the said Sir
Richard Darell abydyng as well we the said arbitrators as the
said Richard Wrottesley have sette our sealls. Wreten and goven
the xxi"'' day of May the xxi*^'' yere of the reigne of Kyng
Edward the Fourth.^ (A.D. 1481.)

Three seals of conventional design, not armorial.

' Original deed at Wrottesley, copied 1860-62. This is the earliest deed in
English of those formerly preserved at Wrottesley.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 261

Sciant presentes et futuri quod nos Ricardus Darrell miles et
Johanna uxor ejus que fuit uxor Walter! Wrottesley militis defuncti
tradidimus, concessiinus et hac present! carta nostra confirmavimus
Ricardo Wrottesley armigero filio et heredi predict! Walteri Wrottes-
ley maneria de Wrottesley et Butter ton ac omnia alia terras et
tenementa cum pertinentiis in Wrottesley, Tettnale, Butterton et
Codsall in Comitatu Stafford ac alibi in eodem comitatu. Habendum
et tenendum omnia predicta maneria, terras et tenementa, reddi-
tus et servicia cum omnibus suis pertinentiis prefato Ricardo
Wrottesley, heredibus et assignatis suis in perpetuum de capitalibus
dominis feodi illius per servicia inde debita et de jure consueta.
Sciatis nos insuper prefatos Ricardum Darell et Johannam attor-
nasse et in loco nostro posuisse dilectos nobis in Xpo Willelmum
ifales capellanum et Rogerum Bold nostros veros et legitimos
attornatos conjunctim et divisim ad intrandum vice et nomine
nostris in omnia predicta maneria terras et tenementa cum per-
tinentiis, et possessionem inde sic captam, plenariam possessionem
et seisinam inde prefato Ricardo Wrottesley deliberandam. Haben-
dum sibi heredibus et assignatis suis secundum formam et effectum
hujus carte nostre. Ratum habentem et gratum quiccjuid predict!
attornati nostri seu eorum alter fecerint seu fecerit in premissis
adeo precise prout nosmet ipsi personaliter interessemus. In cujus
rei testimonium huic present! carte nostre sigilla nostra apposuimus.
Hiis testibus Ricardo Chokke, Thoma Lyttelton militibus, Justiciariis
domin! Regis de Banco, Johanne Broun, Thoma Wood, Willelmo
Wilkes et multis aliis. Data apud Wrottesley predictum vicesimo
secundo die raensis Maii anno I'egni regis Edwardi quarti post
conquestum vicesimo primo.^ (A.D. 1481.)

Two seals of conventional pattern.

Noverint universi per presentes me Ricardum Darell militem,
virum Johanne nuper uxoris Walteri Wrottesley militis defuncti,
remississe relaxasse et omnino de et pro me et executoribus meis
in perpetuum quietclamasse Ricardo Wrottesley filio nuper et heredi
dictorum Walteri et Johanne omnimodas actiones personales, sectas,
querelas, calumpnias et demandas quas versus Ricardum Wrottesley
unquam habui, habeo, seu quovismodo habere potero ratione seu
causa quacunque de principio mundi usque primum diem mensis
Maii ultimi preterit! ante datum presentium. In cujus rei testi-
monium presentibus sigillum meum apposui. Datum vicesimo sexto
die mensis Maii anno regni regis Edwardi quarti post contjuestum
vicesimo primo.^ (26 May 1481.)

Seal, an antique head.

Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Ricardus Wrottesley Armiger
dedi concess! et hac present! carta mea confirniavi Thome Littelton
militi uno Justiciariorum domin! Regis de Banco, Ricardo Littelton,

^ Original deed at Wrottesley, cojiied 1860-62.

262 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Johanni Broun, Willelmo Wrottesley et Willelmo Wylkes maneriiira
de Wrottesley cum pertinentiis in Comitatu Stafford. Habendum
et tenendum manerium predictum cum pertinentiis prefatis Thome,
Ricardo Littelton, Johanni, Willelmo et Willelmo heredibus et
assignatis suis in perpetuum de capitalibus dominis feodi illius
per servicia inde debita et de jure consueta. Et ego vero, etc.
(Clause of warranty.) In cujus rei testimonium liuic presenti
carte mee sigillum meum apposui. Hiis testibus Ricardo Chokke
milite uno Justiciariorum domini Regis de Banco, Thoma Astley,
Willelmo Astley Armigeris, et raultis aliis. Data apud Wrottesley
predictum vicesimo die mensis Junii anno regni regis Edwardi
quarti post conquestum vicesimo primo.^ (20 June 1481.)
Seal, a boar's head issuing from a ducal coronet.

Omnibus Christi fidelibus ad quos hoc presens scrii^tum per-
venerit, Ricardus Lyttelton Willelmus Wrottesley et Willelmus
Wylkes salutem in domino sem[)iternam. Sciatis nos prefatos
Ricardum Willelmum et Willelmum dimississe, concessisse, liberasse
et hoc presenti scripto nostro confirmasse Ricardo Wi"ottysley
armigei'o et Dorothee uxori ejus manerium de Wrottysley cum
pertinentiis in Comitatu Stafford quod quidem manerium cum
pertinentiis nuper habuimus scilicet cum Thoma Lyttelton milite
nuper uno Justiciariorum domini Regis de Banco et Johanne
Brone jam defunctis ex dono et feofFamento predicti Ricardi
Wrottysley. Habendum et tenendum predictum manerium cum
pertinentiis prefatis Ricardo Wrottysley et Dorothee et heredibus
et assignatis ipsius Ricardi in perpetuum de capitale domino
per servicia inde debita et de jure consueta. Sciatis nos insuper
prefatos Ricardum Lyttelton, Willelmum et Willelmum attornasse
et in loco nostro posuisse dilectos nobis in Christo Willelnnim
Wodhows et Thomam Atkys nostros veros et legitimos attornatos
conjunctim et divisim ad intrandum vice et nominibus nostris in
manerium predictum cum pertinentiis, et post hujusmodi ingressum
ad deliberandum vice et nominibus nostris prefato Ricardo Wrottys-
ley et Dorothee plenariam et pacificam seisinam de eodem manerio
cum pertinentiis. Tenendum sibi secundum formam et effectum
presentis scripti nostri. Ratum et gratum habentem et habiturum
quicf[uid dicti attornati nostri fecerint seu dictorum alter fecerit
in deliberatione seisine predicte adeo precise prout nosmet ipsi
ibidem personaliter interessemus. In cujus rei testimonium huic
presenti scripto nostro sigilla nostra apposuimus. Hiis testibus
Ricardo Asteley armigero, Ricardo Sutwyke, Willelmo Wolaston
et multis aliis. Datum apud Wrottysley vicesimo octavo die Junii
anno regni regis Henrici VII post conquestum Anglie vicesimo.
(28 June 1505.)2

Two seals destroyed, the middle seal a lion rampant, but
with no legend.

' Original at Wrottesley, copied 1860-62.

- Original deed at Wrottesley, copied 1860-62.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 263

This Indentur made the xii'''* day of Marche yn the xvi*''> yere
of the reign of Kyng Harry the vii''^ bitwen Richard Wrotesley
Esquier uppon the one partie, and Dame Marget Harcourt and
Thomas Harcourt Esquier uppon the odur partie, wittenesith that
hit ys covenaunted and agreed bitwen the seid parties yn maner
and forme folowyng, that ys to sey that the seid Richard
covenauntith and grauntith unto the seid dame Marget and
Thomas that Water Wrotesley sonne and heir apparaunt unto
the seid Richard, shall be the grace of God wedde and take to
wyff Isabel Harcourt doghtur of John Harcourt Esquier on this
half the feste of Seynt Michael the Archangell next ensuyng
the date of this Indentur, and att the resonable request of the
seid dame Marget and Thomas, and if hit so be that the seid
Water discesse byfore man'iage had bitwen hym and the seid
Isabel as god forbidde, that then the next heir apparaunt to the
seid Richard shall take to wyff the seid Isabell withyn a halfe
yere after the discesse of the seid Water, att the resonable
request of the seid dame Margett and Thomas tippon the same
covenaunt of marriage comprised yn this indentur : fforthermore
the seid' Richard covenantith and grauntith unto the seid dame
Marget and Thomas that he shall make or cause to be made a
sure and sufficyent estate yn the lawe to John Beymount, Thomas
Harcourt, John Swynnerton and William Wilkes- to them and to
their heires, of and yn lands and tenements to the yerly value
of X marks over all charges and reprises on this halfe the day
of the marriage to this entent that they shall stand and be
feffees unto the use and behove of the seid Water and Isabell
and the heires of hys bodie by the seid Isabell bigoten ; and after
the discesse of dame Jane Wrotesley, the seid Richard shall make
or cause to be made unto the seid feffees like astate as ys byfore
seid, of and yn lands and tenements of the yerly value of v
marks over all charges and reprises withyn vi weks after the
discesse of the seid dame Jane, to the same use and entent as
is bifore written, the remeynder of all the seid lands to the seid
Richard and his heires, also the seid Richard covenauntith and
grauntith unto the seid dame Marget and Thomas that all odur
maners, lands, tenements and all odur hereditaments of the wiche
he is now seysed, or eny odur person or j)ersons to hys use in
fee sympull, tayle, reymender, or in revertion, schall immediatly
after hys discesse, discend, reymayne and revert to the seid Water
and hys heires, dower and jointux'e of Dorathe wyfe to the seid
Richard of all suche lands that ys appoynted therunto beying
yn feffees hands except, provided allwey that it schall be lawfull
to the seid Richard to make his will sufficient yn law for terme
of X yers after his discesse of lands and tenements to the yerly
value of X marks over all charges, and also that if so be hit
happen the seid Dorathe to disesse and the seid Richard to take
anodur wyfe, that then it shall be lawfull to the .seid Richard
to make or cause to be made to his wyf or wyffes as it shall
forten hym to be married unto, astate for terme of lyf of lands
and tenements to the yerely value of x marks over all charges

264 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

and reprises, also the seid Richard covenauntith and grauntith
to the seid dame Marget and Thomas that the reversion of all
syche lands and tenements of the wiche the seid Richard shall
herafter declare his wyll as ys before rehersyd, and the revertion
of the lands and tenements deli\eryd for the jointure of the said
Water and Isabell and the revertion of dower and jointure of
all lands and tenements that it shall hapen the seid Dorathe to
have, or odur wyfe or wyffes that it shall forten the seid Richard
to marie, shall immcdiatly after the x yers expired and after the
disesse of the seid Dorathe or odur wyf or wyffs that shall for ten
to be maried to the seid Richard, revert and remayn to the seid
Water and his heirs, also that the seid Richard covenauntith and
grauntith to the seid dame Marget and Thomas that he for hisselfe
or feffees schall make noon alienation or sulfur ony wylfull x'ecovcry
agaynst them of ony parcell of his seid lands and tenements,
nor in any wyse charge his seid lands and tenements, but such
as schall exj^ier in his lyf except syche lands and tenements as
is bifore excepted ; all the wiche covenaunts well and truly to
be pei'formed and kept the seid Richard covenauntith and grauntith
to the seid dame Marget and Thomas to bynd hym selfe John
Beymound and Water Lewson ther heyrs and executors in an
obligation of ccc marks jointly and severally to be peyd to the
seid dame Marget and Thomas, if so be all or singuler covenaunts
comprised in this indentur upon the partie of the seid Richard
in ony wyse be broken, for the wiche mariage and livery to be
had, the seid dame Margett and Thomas shall pay to the seid
Richard the day of the seylyng of thes indentur c marks and
the day of the mariage of the seid Water and Isabell or odur
heii> apparaunt of the seid Richard c marks, and if it so be
that the seid Isabell disesse before the day of hur mariage that
then the seid Richard schall repay unto the seid dame Marget
and Thomas withyn a yere after the disesse of the seid Isabell
the seid c marks. In witness whereof the forseid parties to this
Indentur enterchangeably have sett to (sic) ther seyles. Geven
the day and yere above writton.^ (12 March 1501.)
Seal, a shield, charge indistinguishable.

Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Antonius de Sancto Amando
dedi, concessi, et hac pi'esenti carta mea indentata confirmavi
Thome West militi, domino la Warr, Thome West militi et heredi
apparent! dicti domini la Warr, Johanni Roo servient! ad legem,
Rogero Copley armigero, Roberto Norwich, Thome Polstede et
Christofero Metcalff, manerium meum de Iplepen cum pertinentiis,
necnon ducenta messuagia, quatuor milia acras terre, ducentas
acras parci, tria milia acras pasture, ducentas acras bosci, dua
milia acras . . . . et bruere et triginta solidos redditus cum per-
tinentiis in Iplepen, Torbryan, Kyngescarswell et Wychcom in Comi-
tatu Devonie. Habendum et tenendum dictum manerium et cetera
premissa cum suis pertinentiis prefatis Thome West militi domino

^ Original deed at Wrottesley, copied 1860-62.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 265

la Warr, Thome West filio, Johanni Roo, Rogero Copley, Roberto
Norwich, Thome , Polstede, et Christofero Metcalff, heredibus et
assignatis suis, ad opus et usum Anne de Sancto Amando uxoris
mei prefati Antonii durante vita ipsius Anne absque impetitione
alicujus vasti secundum intentionem specificatum in (juadam inden-
tura .... inter me prefatum Antonium et prefatum dominum
la Warr super maritagium inter me prefatum Antonium et pre-
fatam Annam habendum et solemnizandum, factum et habitum. Et
post mortem prefate Anne ad opus et usum mei prefati Antonii
et heredum de corpore meo legitime procreatorum. Et per defectum
talis exitus ad usum Ricardi Wrattesley et Willelmi Wrattesley
fratris sui et heredibus de corporibus suis legitime procreatis, et
per defectum talis exitus, ad usum rectorum heredum eorundem
Ricardi Wrattesley et Willelmi Wrattesley in perpetuum. Et
insuper noveritis me prefatum Antonium fecisse, attornasse et loco
meo posuisse dilectos mihi in Xpo Thomam Heal et Johannem
Chaundeler meos veros et legitimos attornatos conjunctim et divisim
ad intrandum pro me et nomine meo in predictum manerium et
altera premissa cum omnibus suis pertinentiis et possessionem et
seisinam sic inde nomine meo captam et habitum, plenam et
pacificam possessionem ac seisinam nomine meo deliberandam
prefatis Thome, Thome, Johanni, Rogero, Roberto et Christofero
MetcalfF, heredibus et assignatis suis in perpetuum, secundum vim,
formam, tenorem, et essenciam hujus presentis carte mee inde eis
censate, ratum et gratum habentem et habiturum, totum et quicquid
dicti attornati mei nomine meo fecerint seu alter eorum fecerit
in premissis. In cujus rei testimonium huic present! carte mee
tripartite indentate sigillum meum apposui. Data quarto die
Augusti anno regni Regis Henrici octavi nono.^ (4 August 1517.)
Per me Antony Sayntmond [sic, his signature, with a long
flourish at the end).

HENRY R.2 By the King.

Trusty and well beloved wee greet you well, and forasmuch as
we be credibly informed that the Scotts be the instegation of our
ancient enemy the French King be determined to invade this our
Realme in the beginning of the month of September next comyng.
We therefor taking special regard to the defense of our said Reamle
against their malignite have appoynted our right trusty and right
well beloved cousin and counsaillour the Erie of Shi'ewsbury, Stuard

^ Original deed at Wrottesley, copied 1860-62. According to Dugdale, Antony
de St. Amand was illegitimate. He would, therefore, have no right lieirs,
and it will be noted that the ultimate remainder, failing his issue, is vested
by the deed in the right heirs of Richard Wrottesley and his brother William.
As Iplepen was held in capite, tlie license of the Crown was required for its
alienation. This fact was apparently overlooked at the time, for the license
of alienation appears on the Patent Ivoll of 18 Henry YIII. (State Papers,
printed, Rolls' Series).

- This is the King's sign manual. Tlie writ has no date, but the Earl of
Shrewsbury was commanded to raise a force against the Scots in 1522, and
he entered Scotland in the same year. (Tytler's " Histoiy of Scotland,"
vol, V.)

266

HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

of our houstholde, to be our lieutenant general, and have authorised
him to have the leding of all and singular our subyetts in those
contries for resisting of the said invasion. Willinge therefor and
desiring, and nevertheless comaunding you forthwith upon the sight
of these our letters not only to prepaur yourself with suche a
nombre of liable men horsed and harnessed as many as ye can
prepaur making certificat unto our said lieutenant of your said
nombre with all diligence possible, but also kepe yourself in further
redyness that upon a houres warnyng after requisition to be made
unte you by our said lieutenants letters ye may set furthe and
joyne with him without delay for resisting of the said invasion.
Faile ye not this to do, as ye tendour hourself and the defense
of this our Realnie. Goven under our signet at our manour of
Newhall the xiii day of August.

Endorsed. To our trusty and well beloved servaunte Richarde
Wrottesley.^

Arms of Richard Wrottesley.

On the dexter side — Or, three piles Sable, a quarter Ermine, for
Wrottesley.

On the sinister side — Or, t\vo lions passant Azure, for Sutton of
Dudley.

Walter Wrottesley, 1521—1563.

to be relied

upon

for

Walter Wrottesley must have
succeeded Richard before the 6th
December 1521, for on that day he
paid a mark to the Abbot of Eve-
sham for half a year's quit rent
due at the previous Michaelmas.'^

He is shewn to be son of Richard
by the deeds at Wrottesley, the
will of his uncle William, which
was proved in the Prerogative
Court of Canterbury, and by the
Heralds' Visitations which are trust-
worthy evidence for the Tudor
period, although they are not always

earlier descents."

' Original wiit of military f^urnmoiis at Wiottesley, copied 1860-62. The
abbreviations have been extended, but the ni-iginal orthograjihy has been
retained, and it will be seen that it diffeis little from our modern spellinR.

- Original Reccijjt at Wrottesley.

^ They are trustworthy for thi.s period, because it may be assumed that
every man wouhl know the niunes of his grandfather, father, and of his children,
also of grandchildren if any existed. They are, ther-efore, excellent evidence
for five generations of a family, and are certified in many cases by the head
of the familv.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 267

Apparently the death of Richard Wrottesley had not been
notified to the Exchequer, for a writ of military summons,
addressed to him by name, directs him to be prepared to
join the Earl of Shrewsbury, who had been appointed to
lead an arm}^ against the Scots. This took place in July
1522. The writ is under the King's sign manual, and is
one of the writs sent by the King himself to the Barons
and principal tenants in chief of the Crown. ^ It shews that
notwithstanding the loss of the manors granted by Edward IV
to Sir Walter Wrottesley, Richard was still considered by
the Exchequer authorities as liable to military service as a
tenant in capite, for ordinary tenants would be summoned
by the Sheriffs of counties.

One of the first acts performed by Walter in his capacity
as head of his family, was a conveyance in trust for the
Reading Almshouses. In this he is described as " cosyn and
heire of William Baron late of Redyng, son of Johanna,
doughter and heire to the said William Baron." This con-
veyance is dated the 3rd June 16 Henry VIII (1524).-

On the Saturday before the Feast of St. Valentine,
16 Henry VIII (llt'h February 1525) the Kinver Manor Roll
states that he appeared in person in full Court and claimed
to hold of the lord all the lands and tenements in Kyngeley
which descended to him by hereditary right, after the death
of Richard Wrottesley, Armiger, his father." Kingeley was
an outlying portion of Kinver manor, lying within the parish
of Tettenhall.

Walter Wrottesley was appointed King's Eschaetor for the
county of Stafford by letters patent of 19 Henry VIII
and 24 Henry VIII. His accounts for these two j^ears
remain in the Public Record Office. He also served the
office of Sheriff of the county in 23 Henry VIII.

There is an entry amongst the State papers of 18 Henry
VIII (A.D. 1526) which, unless explained, is likely to lead
to some misapprehension. This is a licence for Thomas,
Lord de la Warr, Sir John Copley and others to alienate
lands in Iplepen, Torbryan and other places named in co.
Devon to Sir Anthony de St. Amand and Anne, his wife,
to the use of Anne for her life and with remainders over
(as in the deed of 9 Henry VIII, p. 264), and with remainder
in default of any issue of Anthony and Anne to Richard
Wrattesley and William, his brother.^ It would be sup-
posed from the tenor of these letters patent that Richard
Wrottesle}^ and William were still alive, whereas we know

' See p. 26.5 ante.

* Original deed at Wrottesley, copied 1860-62.

' State Papers, temp. Henry VIII (domestic), printed in Rolls Series.

268 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

from other sources that they had been dead for some j'^ears.
The exphiiiation seems to be, that at the date of the deed
of 9 Henry VITI it liail been overlooked that the lands
dealt with, bein^j; held of the King in capitc, it was necessary
to obtain a license from the Crown for their alienation,
and the above letters patent, issued nine years afterwards,
were obtained to rectify this omission.

Walter Wrottesley's name occurs in the Commission of
the Peace issued in 1531 and for many years afterwards,
in fact it may be said that no commission affecting Stafford-
shire was issued during his epoch which does not contain
his name. In 2(j Henry VIII (1535) he was one of the
Commissioners for levying the tenth of Spiritualities in
Staffordshire. The returns of these Commissioners are known
as the " Valor ecclesiasticus,"' and have been printed. The
Commissioners for Staffordshire were
Roland Lee, the Bishop of Sir John Gifforde,

Coventry and Lichfield, John Vernon,

Sir John Talbot, George Grey si ey,

George Audeley, Edward Lyttelton,

Walter Wrottysley, Thomas Holte,

William Basset, John Grosvenour, and

Thomas Gifforde, Thomas Moreton.

Walter Blount,

In 1535 the King had assumed the title of Supreme Head
of the Church, and in the following year Walter Wrottesley
was a party to one of the odious prosecutions set on foot
by Cromwell, the King's minister, for words spoken against
the King. The unfortunate defendant in this case was one
George Robinson, who had been reported for using words
against the King's Majesty. It was a very common pro-
ceeding in such cases to rake up a charge of felony against
the prisoner, and Cromwell ordered a copy of the Indictment
to be sent up to the Council : the latter was signed by
three magistrates of the Count}^, Sir William Bassett, Sir
Philip l^raycot and Walter 'Wrottesley, and stated that
Henry Bakster alias Starky, of Chester, had been indicted
for stealing a horse, and that George Robinson, late of
London, mercer, Fermor of the manor of Drayton-Basset
had been indicted for receiving the horse, and allowing the
thief to go at large, and for using words against the King's
Majesty, the latter, of course, being the gravamen of the
charge. On the 11th February, 1536, Sir John Dudley writes
to Cromwell: — "This day at Lichfield, George Robinson was
indicted for felony, the Justices of the Peace were Sir
William Bassett, Sir Philip Draycot and Walter Wrotesley,
who have done well in the King's service, most of the jury

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 269

were gentlemen of sulwtance."^ It. is very much to be feared,
from the terms of Dudle^^'s letter, that the unfortunate
prisoner had been found guilty.

Walter Wrottesle}^ signs his name at tlie bottom of this
Indictment as " Walter Wrotyssley," and this is the earliest
signature of anj'' member of the family I have met with.

In 31 Henry VIII (1539-40) he was included in a Special
Commission of " 03'er and terminer" for treasons and other
offences in cos. Oxon, Berks, Worcester, Hereford, Salop
and Stafford.

In the same year he was one of the Commissioners for
the General Muster in Staffordshire, which is printed in
vol. iv. New Series, of the Staffordshire Collections. In 1538
the Pope. Paul IV, had published a Bull excommunicating
Henry VIII and deposing him from his throne for his
heretical opinions, and had called upon the Emperor and
the King of France to put it into execution. The King and
his Council were seriously alarmed, and ordered a muster
to be ma.de of the entire armed forces of the kingdom ;
but the King's diplomacy eventually disconcerted the measures
of the Pope, and the levies were never called out. Walter
Wrottesley was also one of the Commissioners for taking
the surrenders of the monasteries into the King's hands in
the same year.

In 32 Henry VIII (1540), he purchased from Sir Giles
Strangeways and Joan his wife, the manor of Lutley, in
CO. Stafford, and 900 acres of land, etc., in Lutley, Morfe
and Enville.- The object of this purchase is not very
apparent, as Lutley does not adjoin Wrottesley, and it was
afterwards resold.

The following letter from Sir John Dudley (afterwards
Duke of Northumberland), belongs to the 3'ear 1542. At
this date, Dudley was a Knight in the royal household,
and rapidly rising in the King's favor. In the following year
he was created Viscount Lisle.

To my Cosen Walter Wrotisley Esquier this be geven.

CozEx Wrotisley,

I hartilly recomende me unto you, and whereas I do perceyve
by my servant Henerye Cresset that you can be content to take
some paynes for me in ^ the surveying of my landes, I wyll
deserve the same your paynes that ye shall therein take if it lye
in me

Mr. Willoughby that ys of my consaill ys appoynted to
mete with you at Dudeley the fyrst Sondaye of Lente where

' State Papers, printed in Record Series.

- Fine levied at Mich. 32 Henry VIII. Vol. xi of Staffordshire Collections,
p. 282.

270 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

I praye you not to faile to mete hym, and ye shall nowe receyve
a patent of iiii li a yere growyng out of my lordship of Seggisley
in reconipence of your olde patent of v marks a yere, and thus
I eommytt you to God. Att the Courte this xviii''' daye of
Februarye.

Y'' loving kinsman assuredly
John Duddeley.

This letter is written by a Secretary, but the words " Y'"
lovinf^ kinsman assuredly," and the signature are in Dudley's
OAvn liantl.^ It must have been written in 1542, for in a
volume of old MSS. belonging to Brooke Robinson, Esq.,
is a surs^ey of the manor of Sedgley taken the 13th April,
33 Henry VIII (1542), before Walter Wrottesley and George
Willoughby Esquires, and Thomas Rotesey Gent.'-^

At this date Sir John Dudley had contrived to strip his
cousin John, Lord Dudley, of the Castle of Dudley, and
the greater part of the possessions of the Dudley Baron}'.
How this was effected has never been clearly ascertained,
but Dugdale gives the following account of it : — •

"It is reported by credible tradition of this John Lord
Dudley, that being a weak man of understanding, whereby
he had exposed himself to some wants, and so became
entangled in the usurers bonds, John Dudley, then Viscount
Lisle and Earl of Warwick (afterwards Duke of Northumber-
land), thirsting after Dudley Castle, the chief seat of the
famil}', made those money merchants his instruments to
work him out of it, which by some mortgage being at
length effected, this poor lord became exposed to the charity
of his friends for a subsistence, and spending the remainder
of his life in visits amongst them, was commonly called the
Lord Quondam."^

The following undated letter from " Lord Quondam," was
formerly at Wrottesley, and bears out to some extent the

' Original letter at Wrottesley copied by uie for Orazebrook's " Barons of
Dudley," 18^8. Sir John Dudley's relationship to Walter Wrottesley was no
nearer than that of a second cousin, as will be seen by the following pedigree : —

John, Lord Dudley, ob. 14S7.

I 1

Sir Edmund Sutton, John Dudley,

ob. v.p.
I

I 1

Edward, Dorothy. =j=Richard Edmund Dudley,

Lord Dudley, died 1533. Wrottesley. beheaded 1510.

I I I

John, Lord Dudley, Walter Wrottesley. John Dudley,

died 1553. Duke of Northumberland
- Grazebrook's "Barons of Dudley," p. 151, vol. ix of Staff. Collections.
^ Ibid, (quoting Dugdale).

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 271

account given of him by Dugdale, as a man of weak under-
standing. It was endorsed in a contemporary hand, "my
lord Duddeley's h'e, to thank you for Mr. Robert Duddeley."

My Honorable Cosyn,

I thank you for yr great kyndnes to my sunn and daughter.
My father was a Rotesley man and I must ever rememher to
do you and yors any servis I can and yo"" wyfe I must lionour
as much as any Lady in the Kingdom and will rest at

Yr commande

J. Duddeley.

To my Honorable Cosyn Mr. Water Wroteley.

His father was the brother of Dorothy, the mother of Walter,
but I am unable to explain the allusion to his being " a
Rotesley man," unless he was brought up in the household
of Sir Walter Wrottesley at the time Sir Edmund Sutton,
his father, was employed in Ireland. At the latter date he
would have been twelve or thirteen years of age.

In 1545, by an indenture dated 28th July 37 Henry VIII,
Walter Wrottesley covenanted with Thomas Asteley of Pattis-
hull, Armiger, that " John Wrottisley, sonne and heire
apparaunt of the said Walter, shall, by the grace of God,
on this side the Feast of the Natyvytie of our Lord next
ensuing after the date hereof, marrye and take to wyff'e
Elizabeth Asteley, daughter to the said Thomas Asteley, if
the laws of the Holy Trynytie hit suffer and the said
Elizabeth thereto consent and agree, etc." By this indenture
the manor of Butterton, two pastures in Wyllnale (Willenhall),
the Hawkwell • mill, and another pasture named, or lands of
equal value were to be settled by Walter on John Wrot-
tesley and Elizabeth, his wife, and the heirs of their bodies,
and failing such, to revert to the right heirs of Walter.
Butterton was stated to be of the annual value of £8 8s. 4d.^

In the following year, viz. in 38 Henry VIII (1546), Walter
Wrottesley served the office of Sheriff for the county for
a second time, and the King dying during his Shrievaldom,
Letters Patent were issued under the Great Seal, appointing
him Sheriff of the county " quamdiu nobis placuerit."-

In these Letters Patent, his name is written " Walter
Wriothesley."

In 2 Edward VI (1548) Parliament, wath a view of
augmenting the royal revenues, granted to the King the
ancient ecclesiastical Colleges with their lands and revenues.
Amongst these was the Collegiate Church of Tettenhall, with
its five Prebends of Pendeford, Bobenhill or Barnhurst,

' Original deed formerly at Wrottesley.

' Original Letters Patent, formerly at Wrottesley.

272 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Pei'ton, Wrottesley and CoJsall. As the Crown proposed to
sell the Collefjes to the highest bidder, it became necessary
for Walter VVrottesley to purchase the College and its
Prebends in order to preclude the interposition of other
parties, who would have levied the tj'thes from the whole
of. his estates. The Crown exacted the full value of the
property, for Walter paid about twenty-two years' purchase
for it, and this was much above the value of freehold
property at this date. The Letters Patent granting the
College to him are dated (Sth May 3 Edward VI, and
the property conveyed by them is stated to be the late
College of Totnall, or Totenhall, and its site and capital
house, with its gardens, houses, barns, stables, dovecotes,
orchards, and the Deanery of the said College and the
five Prebends of Penford, Bobenhill, Perton, Wrottesley
and Codsall, and all houses, barns, stables, etc. (as before),
and woods, rents, reversions and services, and the tythes of
grain and hay, and all other tythes, oblations, pensions, and
all profits late proceeding from the several tenancies or
occupations of Richard Cresswall, Thomas Solman, and the
said Walter Wrottesley, situated or existing in Totenhalle,
Alderley, Penford, Wirgis, Compton, Perton, Trescott, Bil-
broke, Wrottysley, Wighwike, Okyn and Codsall, or else-
where appurtaining to the said College or Prebends, and all
tythes, glebes, services. Court Leets, view of frankpledge,
chattels waived, free warrens, and all other rights, juris-
dictions, privileges, etc., both spiritual as well as temporal,
of whatever kind, existing, situated, or appurtenant to the
said College or Prebends as fully and truly as any Dean,
Master, Warden or Prebendar}'" had ever held them. To be
held by the said Walter, his heirs and assigns of us and
our Successoi's by the service of one-fortieth part of a
Knight's Fee for ever.^

Tettenhall was one of the King's Free Collegiate Churches,
which are supposed to have been founded by King Edgar.
They were exempt from all episcopal supervision, and as
the spiritual jurisdiction as well as the temporal had passed
to Walter Wrottesley and his heirs by the King's grant,
the Wrottesleys became secular Deans of Tettenhall, and
the wills of the parishioners both of Tettenhall and Codsall
were proved in their Manor Courts until the abolition of
the Peculiars in the early part of the last century. These
wills were preserved at Wrottesley until the fire of December
1897, when they were destroyed with the rest of the
Wrottesley muniments.

^ Original Letters Patent under the Great Seal, at Wrottesley, copied
1860-62.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 273

Contemporaneously with the purchase of the College, Walter
obtained a license from the Crown to alienate the Penford
and Bobenhill Prebends to Henry Suthwike and Kichard
Cresswell respectiv^ely, and these two Prebends never formed
a part of the Wrottesley property.^

The attempt of John Dudle}^, the Duke of Northumberland,
to place his daughter-in-law, Lady Jane Grey, on the throne
in 1553 is well known. It was fortunate for Walter Wrot-
tesley, who appears to have been entangled to a great extent
in the toils of the Duke, that the latter marched with all
the troops he could levy into the Eastern Counties, in order
to intercept the forces which the Princess Mary was raising
in those parts, and that the attempt collapsed before the
Duke's adherents from the Midland Counties could be got
together.- The Duke left London on the 14th July, but
dismissed his forces on the 20th and proclaimed Queen Mary.
He was arrested on the 21st and reached the Tower of
London on the 25th. On the 18th August he was tried
and found guilty of high treason, and was beheaded on the
22nd August.

At this date Matthew Wrottesley, who appears to have
been a son of Walter, was in the Duke's household, and was
arrested with the rest of the Duke's servants. A letter from
the Privy Council, dated 31st July 1553, directs the Bailiffs
of Lichfield to release Walter Gravenor and Mathew Rottesley,
servants of the Duke of Northumberland, now detained by
them in prison, taking sufficient security from them to
appear before the Council to answer for such matters as
they may be charged with.^

Walter Wrottesley died at the close of 1562 or early in
the year 1563. His will, in which he is styled " Walter
Rottysley of Rottysley Ysquire," is dated the 13th December
1562, and consists of a few lines only. After the usual
pious preamble, he goes on to " bequeyth all my goods and
cattells movabull and unmovabull to John my sonne and I
countytute the seyd John my sone, my true and lawfull

^ This licence is entered on the Memoranda Roll of the Remembrancer,
3 Edward VI, Trinity term, roll 3.

- The subsequent rebellion of Sir Thomas Wyatt shews that the Protestant
party was very strong, and if the Duke had fallen back upon London, the
attempt might have had a different issue.

^ Acts of the Privy Council (printed in the Rolls Series). Anongst the State
Papers of 33 Henry VIII (printed) there is a license for Charles, Duke of
Suffolk (the father of Lady Jane Grey), to alienate a water mill in Ashoo
(Ashow), a grange called Burycote Grange in Ashoo, and land in Stamerton,
CO. Warwick, to Matthew Wrottesley, of Wrottesley, co. Stafford. I conclude
from his being styled " of Wrottesley," he must have been a son of Walter,
and the title deeds of this property were at Wrottesley until the late fire.
Matthew must, therefore, have died s.p., and the owner of Wrottesley was his
heir at law.

274 HI.STORY OF THE FAMILY OF

executor, and my cosyn Edward Levyson Ysquire oversear
to see this my wyll parfurmed.''^

This will was not proved till January 1565, but Walter
must have died before the 1st July 1563, for on that day
a copy of the Court Roll of Tettenhall Regis states that
" John Rotsley Armiger son and heir of Walter Rotsley
Arraiger appeared in Court in his own person, and received
from the lord (cepit de domino) all those messuages, etc., of
which the said Walter Wrotsley (sic) had died seised," etc.^

So long as writing had been confined to a professional
class, it is remarkable how little the orthography of names
and places varies in ancient documents, but with the revival
of letters, when all the educated classes could write more
or less, the spelling of names and places was fast becoming
purely phonetic. This Walter was the first member of
his family who signs his name. His usual signature was
*' Walter Wrottysley," written in a large bold hand, but he
was not at all particular about the spelling of his name.
As shewn in the life of his father Richard, he married in
1501 Isabella, the daughter of John Harcourt, of Ronton.
Assuming that he was only eighteen years of age at the
date of his marriage, he must have been over eighty years
of age at the date of his death, in 1563. Besides his
son John, who succeeded him, he left a son Richard, who
died in 1566, in which year letters of administration of
his eflfects were granted to his brother John. Receipts at
Wrottesley in connection with this administration shewed that
Elinor, a daughter of Walter Wrottesley, was married to
Richard Lee, Esq.,^ and that Margaret, another daughter,
was married to Nicholas Thornes, Esq.^ Besides these, Walter
had three other daughters, Elizabeth, who married Sir John
Talbot, of Albrighton, the ancestor of the present Earl of
Shrewsbury f Dorothy, married to William Lawrance, Esq.,
of Hartingfordbury f and a fifth daughter, also named Eliza-
beth, who married John Gower, of Woodhall, co. Worcester.'^

The deeds and family settlements were preserved complete
at Wrottesley up to the date of the fire in 1897, but as they

^ Copy of will formerly at Wrottesley.
^ Copy of Court Koll formerly at Wrottesley.

^ The Shropshire Visitation of 1623 says that Eleanor, daughter of Walter
Wrottesley, of Wrottesley, married Richard Lee, of Langley, Esq.

* The same Visitation mentions that Nicholas Thornes, of Shelvoke, co. Salop,
married Margaret, daughter of Walter Wrottesley, and had issue Richard
Thornes, who was Sheriff of the County of Salop in 1610.

* The same Visitation states that Sir John Talbot, of Albrighton, married
Elizabeth, the daughter of Walter Wrottesley, of Wrottesley, Kt., and that
she died 10th May, 1 Elizabeth (1559).

•• See also Visitation of Hertfordshire, 1634, under Pedigree of Lawrance.

' See also Visitation of co. Worcester, of 1569, under Pedigree of Gower.
This Elizabeth cannot be identical with Elizabeth Talbot, for the latter in
her will, as will be seen from the following extracts taken from a contemporary

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 275

were no longer required as evidences of descent after the
reign of Henry VIII, no copies were made of them. in
most cases, however, notes were taken of their contents, and
these will be used in the narrative as it proceeds.

The following are the Letters Patent which appointed
Walter Wrottesley Eschaetor of co. Stafford in 1527 : —

Henricus Octavus del gratia Anglie et Francie Rex, Fidel
defensor, et Dominus Hibernie, omnibus ad suos presentes litere
pervenerint salutem. Sciatis quod commisimus dilecto nobis
Waltero Wrotesley, Armigero, officium Escaetrie nostre in Comi-
tatu Staffordie. Habendum quamdiu nobis placuerit : ita quod
de exitibus inde provenientibus nobis respondeat ad Scaccarium
nostrum. In cujus rei testimonium has literas nostras fieri fecimus
patentes. Teste me ipso apud Westmonasterium xviii die Novembris
anno regni nostri decimo nono. (18th November 1527.)^

Great Seal of Henry VIII.

Henricus Octavus dei gratia Anglie et Francie Rex, fidei defensor
et dominus Hibernie, Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, Abbatibus, Prioribus,
Ducibus, Comitibus, Baronibus, militibus, liberis hominibus et omni-
bus aliis in Coraitatu Staffordie. Cum comiserimus dilecto nobis
Waltero Wrotesley, Armigero, officium Escaetrie nostre in Comitatu
predicto ; habendum quamdiu nobis placuerit, prout in Uteris
nostris patentibus ei inde confectis plenius continetur ; vobis man-
damus quod eidem Waltero tanquam Escaetori in Comitatu predicto
in omnibus que ad officium illud pertinent intendentes sitis et
respondentes. In cujus rei testimonium has literas nostras fieri
fecimus patentes. Teste me ipso apud Westmonasterium xviii die
Novembris anno regni nostri decimo nono. (18th November 1527. )2

Great Seal of Henry VIII.

Arms of Walter Wrottesley.

On the dexter side — Or, three piles Sable, a quarter Ermine, for
Wrottesley.

On the sinister side — Gules, two bars Or, for Harcourt, of Ronton,
CO. Stafford. On the upper bar a crescent Sable, as a mark of cadency.

copy formerly at Wrottesley, speaks of her brother " John Goer," and " my
syster his wyfe." It was not uncommon in former days to give the same
Christian name to two sisters.'

The will of " Dame Elizabeth Talbot, wydow, lady of Salwarpe in the County
of Worcester," was dated 1559. She makes the following bequests in it : To my
father Water Wrottysley my gold rynge with a seal engraved with a boye
(boar). Item I bequeth to my brother John Wrottysley iij angells and to my
systur his wyfe one angell of gold and my best velvet gown. Item I bequeth to
my brother Rychard Wrottysley iij angells of gold. Item I forgive to my brother
John Goer x li of the xx li which he owyth to me and I bequeth to my syster
his wyfe an angell of gold. Item I bequeth to my systur Elynor Lee and
to my systur Margaret Wrottysley to eyther of them iij angells of gold.
Item I bequeth to my systur Dorothy Lawrence xl s.

^ Original Letters Patent at Wrottesley, copied 1860-62.

* Ibid.

276 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Before proceeding further with this history, I propose to
say a few words respecting the family of Writhe or Wrothe,
who assumed the name of Wrottesley or Wriothesley in the
early part of the reign of Henry VIII.

King Henry VII, in the first year of his reign, confirmed
the appointment made by Edward IV, of John Wrythe as
Principal Herald and Garter King of Arms, " Principalis
Heraldus et offi^cium incliti Ordinis Oarterii Arinorum
Regis Anglicanorum " (Patent Roll, 1 Henry VII), and on the
26th January 1503, Thomas Writhe alias Wallingford, was
appointed Garter King of Arms in the place of John Wrythe,
his father, deceased (Rymer's Fcedera). Anstis, in his " History
of the Garter," says of this Thomas, " but though this officer
was advanced to this employment by the monosyllabic surname
that his father used, yet he disliked the shortness of it, and
therefore augmented it with the high sound of three syllables,
which added nothing to the smoothness in pronunciation, and
after some variations in the spelling of it, he at last settled
upon Wriothesley. And what is somewhat particular, in order
to countenance this affectation he attributed this new coined
appellation to all his paternal ancestors in the draughts he
made of his own pedigree."

The above account by Anstis is literally true. On the De
Banco Roll of Easter 11 Henry VIII, Thomas Wrotesley and
Anne, his wife, were suing Henry Clifford, Kt., for Anne's
dower in Goldenburgh, co. York.

At Trinity term, 13 Henry VIII, Ralph Wicliff" Armiger,
sued Thomas Wrotesley, nuper de London, Armiger, alias
dictus Thomas Garter, and Anne, his wife, for a debt of
£300. In this year, however, Thomas changed his name to
Wrothesley, and at Michaelmas term 13 Henry VIII, Thomas
Wrothesley, Armiger, Rex Armorum Anglicanorum, sued Ralph
Wicliflf for an illegal distress.

In another suit of 13 Henry VIII, under the name of
Thomas Wriothesley alias Thomas Garter, he sued Ralph
Wicliff for a debt of £300. Amongst the Harleian MSS. in
the British Museum there is an elaborate pedigree which
deduces the descent of this Thomas from a John de Wrotesley,
of Grekeland, co. Gloucester, living temp. Edward I. This
pedigree, which was concocted for Sir Thomas Wriothesley,
is a most ingenious compilation, for there really was a John
de Wrottesley living temp. Edward I, a younger son of Sir
William de Wrottesley, of Wrottesley, and there was also a
John de Wrotessley, Abbot of Ford, living temp. Edward III,
the existence of whom, perhaps, suggested to Thomas Writhe
his change of name.

For the forgery and the falsification of documents this

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY

277

Thomas stands pre-eminent ev'en amongst the Tudor Heralds.
His character has been exposed by Eyton in his "Antiquities
of Shropshire,'' and more recently by Mr. J Horace Round
in his " Studies in Peerage and Family History." He had a
brother William, who was York Herald, and this William
had a son Thomas, the famous Minister and Chancellor of
Henry VIH. The last named Thomas was created Baron
Wriothesley on the 1st January 1544 ; Knight of the
Garter in 1545 ; Earl of Southampton in 1547 ; and died
in 1550.1

Any family might be proud to claim kinship with Henry
Wriothesley, the third Earl, the friend and patron of
Shakespear, or with Thomas, the fourth and last Earl, of
whom Clarendon gives so high a character, but the facts
are irresistible, and it is clear that there was no connection
between the two families.

John Wrottesley, 1563 — 1578.

This John is shewn to be son
of the last named Walter by the
deeds formerly at Wrottesley, by
the Heralds' Visitations, and by his
petition in Chancery to Sir Nicholas
Bacon, ^' which is given below.

After his marriage with Elizabeth
Astley he appears to have resided
principally at Patshull, for he styles
himself John Wrottesley, " of Pat-
sell," in the above petition. The
old Haukwall mill, on the boundary
between the two properties, had
been settled on him and his wife
at the date of his marriage, and in 4 Edward VI (1551),
during the lifetime of his father, and in spite of his holding
the property in tail only, he levied a Fine in conjunction
with his wife Elizabeth, by which this mill was conveyed
to his father-in-law, Thomas Astley, for a sum of fifty
marks.^

The petition to the Lord Keeper was as follows : —
To the right Honorable Ser Nycholas Bacon Knyght and Lord
Keeper of the Greate Seale of England.
In most humble wyse complaynyng 8hewyth unto your honorable
Lordshipp your orator and dayly Beadman'' John Wrottesley of

* The " Complete Peerage," by G. E. C, under Southampton.

* Chancery Proceedings, Series II, Bundle 192, No. 31.
' Staff. Collections, vol. xii, p. 205.

* To bade is to pray, in Old English.

278 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Patsell in the Countie of Stafford Gentleman, that wheareas one
John Romsall late of Lutteley in the sayd Countie was seased in
his demeasne as of fee of and in a mease wyth appurtenances and
one lesowe or pasture in Lutteley aforesayd and the same held
of Walter Worseley (sic) Esquyer feather to your sayd orator,
and lord of the manor of Lutteley by ij shyllings yerely, fealtie
and sute to his Courte of Lutteley aforesayd, in chyff, and the
sayd John Romsall so beying seased about three yeres last past
at Gatacre in the Countie of Salop comytted a felonyous acts and
thereupon was apprehended, indyted, arreyed, found gyltie, and putt
to execucyon, by reason whereof the same mese with the appur-
tenaunces, lesowe, and pasture came into the handes and possessyon
of the late Kynge Philipp and Quene Mary for one year and a
day next after, and after that to the said "Walter Wrottesley (sic)
beying lord of the said maner of Lutteley, by the way of Eschete
wiche Water Wrottesley by vertue thereof dyd entre into the
seyd lesowe or pasture so of hym holden as lawfull was for hym
to do, by force whereof he was seased in his demeane as of fee
by the way of Eschete, and so beying seased by his dede suffycyent
in the law and redye to be shewed, as well for a certeyne somme
of money to hym in hand payd, as for other good causes and
consyder3tions him specyally movynge, dyd infeffe your orator,
Sonne and heyre apparaunt of the sayd Walter of and in the
said mese wyth appurtenaunces and other the premysses, to have
and to holde the sayd mese, lesowe, and pasture and other the
premysses with the appurtenaunces unto your orator and his
heyres for ever, by force wherof he was seased accordyngly and
so (some words omitted here) good and gracyous lord that one
Rychard Sywode of Hylpole in the Countie of Worcester, John
Marten, Thomas (sic) and Thomas Marten beynge evylle dysposed
persons and indendyng to dysinheryte your orator of the premysses
came unto the sayd mese and other the premysses and then and
there poled up fyve or syx ... of sawed pales fast sett abowt
the sayd mese and xiiii other lyke posts and the same wythe
dyvers hordes and . . . from the sayd mese dyd roon and take
away, some into the Countie of Worsester, and some into the
Countie of Salop, and into other places to your orator unknowen
to the greate hurt and losse of your orator, and also then and
there toke from the sayd mese dyvers and sundry evydences,
muniments and charters concernynge the sayd mese wythe appur-
tenaunces, and other the premysses to the intente to dysinheryte
your orator of the premysses and for the cause the nombre
and pleyntie of the sayd evidences, myniments and charters to
your orator are unknowen and whether they be in Bagge or Boxe,
sealed your orator knoweth not, wherefore he is thereby wythout
remedy by the due order of the commen lawes. In consideration
whereof may yt please your good lordshipp to graunt unto your
orator the Quenes highness wryt of subpena to be directed unto
the sayd Richard, John, Thomas and Thomas comaundyng them
thereby personally to appeare before your Lordshipp at a certeyne
day and under a certeyne payne by your Lordshippe to be lymytted

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 279

there to aunswere to the premysses accordyng to right and con-
scyence and at there apparaunce not onely to injoyne them to
make delyverye of the sayd evidens so taken away unto your
orator, but also to make to (him) recompense for the sayd pales
posts, hordes and gyestes so lykewyse taken away, and your
orator shall dayly prey unto Almyghty God for your Lordshipp
in honor longe to endure.

The above petition is undated, but must have been drawn
up between the years 1558 and 1563, for Sir Nicholas Bacon
was appointed Lord Keeper in the former year and John
had succeeded his father Walter before the latter year.

John Wrottesley served the office of High Sheriff for
Staffordshire in 1564, the year after he had succeeded his
father.

In 1568 Walter, his eldest son, was married to Mary, the
daughter and sole heir of Hugh Lee, of Woodford, co.
Stafford, and by this marriage the family obtained eventually
a considerable accession of property. By an indenture
made on the 15th May 10 Elizabeth (1568) on the
marriage of Walter Kotesley (sic), Gentilman, sonne and
heir appaurant of John Wrotesley, of Wrotesley, co.
Stafford, Esquire, with Mary Lee, daughter and sole heyre
of Hugh Lee, of Woodforde, co. Stafford, Gentilman, the latter
settled on Walter and Mary, and the heirs of the body of
Mary, lands in the city of Lichfield, Longdon, Fulfen, Cur-
burgh, Elmhurst, Wolverhampton and Bilston, together with
the reversion after the death of Elizabeth, the wife of Hugh
Lee, of the manor of Woodford and the tythes of Womburne
and Orton. John Wrottesley, on his side, covenanted to
convey an estate to Gilbert Astley, Esq., and John Talbot,
Gentilman, in order to make a settlement upon Walter and
Mary, with remainder after the death of Mary, upon the
heirs of their bodies. It was, doubtless, in pursuance of
this covenant that John Wrottesley levied a Fine in
14 Elizabeth (1572), by which, in conjunction with Walter,
he enfeoffed Gilbert Astley and John Talbot in the manor
of Wrottesley. In this Fine the manor is said to have
consisted of eight messuages, a cottage, two tofts, twenty
gardens, twenty orchards, five hundred acres of arable land,
two hundred acres of meadow, five hundred acres of pasture,
four hundred acres of wood, and 5s. of rent. This corresponds
very closely with the acreage of the present day, but the
small amount of rent named shews that the manor had been
already depopulated and was held almost entirely in demesne.

Woodford and the tythes of Womburne and Orton had
formerly belonged to the Priory of Dudley, a cell of Wenlock
Abbey, and on the dissolution of that house had been granted

280 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

in 32 Henry VIII to Sir John Dudley (afterwards Duke of
Northumberland). In the following year Sir John Dudley
gave a lease of them to Hugh Lee for ninety-nine years.
On the attainder of the Duke in 1553, they fell to the
Crown, and Queen Mary granted them to Thomas Rees and
George Colton. On the 7th July, 2 Mary (1554) the last-
named feoffees conveyed to Edward Leveson and Humfrey
Dickens, the Grange of Woodford and all tythes belonging
to the same, which they held by the grant of Queen Mary,
dated 21st June, 1 Mary (1554), and Edward and Humphrey
granted them to Hugh Lee by deed dated 10th July, 2 Mary
(1554).!

In 13 Elizabeth (1571) with a view of providing for one
of his numerous daughters, John Wrottesley purchased from
Gilbert Astley, of Patshull, his brother-in-law, the wardship
and marriage of Richard Whettell, a minor, and the son and
heir of Richard Whettell, of Great Sheepy, co. Leicester,
deceased. By an Indenture made between the two parties,
Gilbert covenanted further : —

"That yf yt shall happen the seyd Ry chard Whetell to deceasse
att any tyme within the space of one year and a half next
after he shall accomplysshe and be of the ifull age of fowretyne
yeares, and before he shall be marryed by the consent and
appoyntment of the seyd John Wrottesley, his executors and
assigns, & hys heyre or heyres then being wythin age, that then
he the seyd John Wrottesley, his executors, &c., were to have
the custodye wardshypp and marryage of the bodye or bodyes
of the same next heyre or heyres for and during the mynorytye
of the same, and untyll such tyme as the same heyi"e or heyres
shall accomplysshe and come to theyre full age or ages of consent
and agreement to maryage, and by the space of one year and a
halfe then next after, and so from heyre to heyre until such tyme
as the seyd John Wrottesley his executors or assigns shall or
maye have the full comodyte, benefyte and advantage of the
marryage of the seyd Richard Whetell or any one his heyre or
heyres."

After which follows a clause giving power to John to sell
the custody and marriage of the said Richard. The deed,
however, ends as follows : —

*' but as well that he the seyd John Wrottesley his executors
&c. shall and will by the sufferance of God bestowe the marryage
of the seyd Rychard Whetell wyth or upon one of the doughters
of the seyd John Wrottesley and nother (no other) wyth nor

' Original deeds at Wrotteslej^, abstracted 1860-62. The tythes are described
in the Priory deeds as those of Womborne, Orton, Trysull, Seisdon and
Wulmore. They were usually put out to farm by the Priors.

WRorrKsr.KY of wrottesley. 281

upon (my otlior as also llial lie tlio scyd .Toliii Wrottesley his
cxecutoi's itc. shall att all tynu^ ov (vmcs after the sealyn^ of
these presents att hys or theyre owue pioper coste and charge
fynde and maynteyne as well the s(\yd Ilychard AVhetell and
such wyffe as he the seyd Rychard shall fortune to marrye by
the appoyntement and consent of the seyd John Wi'ottesley,
meate, drynke, lodgyni;- and appayrell meete and convenyent for
them for and untyll such tynie as he the seyd Rychard Whettell
shall accomplysshe and be of the full age of xxi years.'

This Tmlentnve was witnossoil bv Jnlin Talbot and Hnmffcy
( ;\'fior(l.

The price paid hy Jolni Wrottesley for the jiromotion of
his daughter was £60 6s. 8d.^

The age of consent for marriage was fourteen years, and
it appears by the terms of this Indenture that in the case
of tliese infant marriages it was usual to consummate the
marriage as soon as the parties readied the age of puberty,
the ol)ject being to entitle the bride to her dower, in
the event of her husband dying under age, and before he
could make a settlement upon her. On the 30th July 1577
Richard Whettell covenanted with .John Wrottesley on his
marriage with Doroth^^ the daughter of John,- but he does
not appear to have come of age until shortly before the
10th February 24 Eli;^al)eth (1582). At this date John was
dead, and the parties to the marriage settlement were Richard
Whetell, of Great Shepey, co. Leicester. Gentilman, on the
one part, and Elizabeth Wrottesley, wadow of John Wrotteslej',
of Wrottesley. Esq.. and Walter, son and heir of the said
John, on the other part."- The over lordship of Great Sheep}'
had passed to the Astlej's of Patshull, as heirs of the elder
line of the Harcourts.^

In 157G the Queen having decided to take the part of
the Xetherlanders against the King of Spain, a muster was
made of the armed force of the Kingdom. In this muster,
which is printed in the Staffordshire Collections, John Wrottes-
ley Avas returned as liable for a lance and a light horseman.*
A lance at this date signifies a. mounted man-at-arms clothed
in armour. In musters of later date the}' are styled cuirassiers.

In November 1578 John was on his death-bed, and the
following document was produced and proved in Februar\-
1578-9 as his last will :—

' Orij^-innl deod nr Wrottesley. copiod ]Sf)0-()2.

- Ibid.

■' Sii- Tlioinas Astley, living; tcm]j. IJicliard JI, liad niarriod lOlizabetli,
i ho daiifflitor and heiress uf Sir Kieliard Harcourt, of Stanton Ilareourt, co.
U.\on, but most of the lauded property passed by settlement to the male
line, a vounper bi-anch of tlie house (see the pedigree in The Genealogist,
N.S., vol', xvii, p. 175).

* Vol. iii, Staff. Collections, part ii, page 18.

282 HISTORY OK IMF. I'AMILV OF

"Certain wordes spoken hv i1h' ri;rlit worsliijifull .fdlm Wifittoslov
Esq. the 28"' day of NovonilToi' a littlr l)cf<.i'o liis dratli (21 Klizahotli)
1578. The said John Wrnttcslcv I'lsiiiiiif Ikmiil;" asked of Mr.
Walter Wrottesley his son and heir what \\r woidd liestow niton
liis two sisters towards their- profernienl, and lie said ."JOO marks
apiece. Then the said Walter Wrottesley demanded where the
6U0 marks was or whether lie would eliarije his e.xeeiitors with
the payment thereof. And lie said I eannot tell. Also the said
Walter asked what he would j^iAe his brother that was in London.
And he said, he hath 100 marks already, and I will i,dve him
20 pounds more. Being asked where that was to he paid, and
he said out of my landes at Butterton, tli(!n answer being made
that it could not be jiaid out tif those landes for that it was
Mistres Wrotteslies her jointure, then the said John Wrottesley
said, T will devise some other way. Also being asked what lie
woidd give his two voungest l)rethren and he said 10 pounds
a piece of annuity. John >Smitli, Koger Onyons (his mark), W.
Dunn, Richard Chilleiton (liis mark)."

Proved lOtli Feliruaiy 157S, by Elizabeth Wrottesley. the
relict. 1

John Wrottesley was buried in the Wrottesle}- Chancel at
Tettenhall, where a very fine altar tomb, erected by his
widow, still exists to his memory (see plate annexed). The
tomb has cffifyies of John, in plate-armonr of the time of
Elizabeth, with a coat of mail protrndino- from under the
cuisses. A heavy gold chain is wound twice round his neck,
and he is shewn with beard and moustache, and with rufis on the
neck and wrists. Elizabeth Wrottesley is dressed in the closely-
fitted velvet robe, with slashed sleeves and pomander, which
is familiar to us from the portraits of Mary, Queen of Scots.
She also wears ruffs round the neck and wrists. The bodice
is not pointed as shewn in the pictures of Queen Elizabeth.

The inscription, which is in Gothic letters (except tlie
number of the years) is as follows : —

%)m lucth the bobics of John fiOrottln) (Esquire nub
(Ebr.ibcthc his tunfe, tuhich ^o\\n bicli the x.vbiii baijc of
llobcmbcr nnno b'ui 1578, Inhich (Elysabcthc beiua Uiiibotue,
rauscb this toinbc to be nuibc aiuio bomini 1580.

On the north side of the tomb are the effigies of eleven
children, of which two being dead, are represented in shrouds.

In Ashmole's time the names of all these children were
printed above their effigies, but they are now illegible.
Ashmole has preserved their names as under : — Walter Wrottes-
ley, son and heir, Thomas, Edward, John. Isabell. Mar3^

' Wills proved in the I'l'ci'oj^ative Court of Gauterbury. The orthntrraphy
has been niuilernised by the i'opyi.«t. The ]egn] year did not end till the
25th March at this pei-iod.

g
o

WnoTTRSLKY OK Wi;OI TlvSIJ-.V. 2!^o

I'^rancfs, ])(ii-()th_y. M;iri;;u'ft ;iii(l l">li/,;ili(lli. He li;is ;)])|);ir(;n1 ly
omitte<l th(' iminc ol' one ol' llii' cliililrf-ii.

On the west fiid ol' (lie toiiil) ,irc ilivcc sliu'lds. carved
in relief, and IxviriuL;' coats of anus. Tlic centre sliield has
Wrottesley, iiii))aliiii^- Asllcy and llarc-onrt, witli a motto
round it, ■• jx Dii'.v iiisr'iii." MliicJi is repeated in Ennlisli,
" In Cod is my hope." This was tlie old motto of W'arwick.
the King-maker. The other shields are Astle}*. impaling
Harcourt. and Wrottesley singly. It is curious to note that
the Harcourt coat is impaled with the Astley coat in place
of being (juartered with it, in the usual way.

The Visitation of Sir Ricliard St. George in 1G14 names
all the above sons, and the following daughters and their
husbands: — ]. Frances, married to Brooke, of Blackland. in
the parish of I3obbington. 2, Dorothy, the wife of Richard
Whittle, of Sheppey, co. Leicester. 3, Margaret, the Avife of
Kichard Eld. 4. Elizabeth, the wife of Samuel Pj'pe.

Thomas, the second son of John, died in IGIO. apparently
unmarried and childless, for his will has bequests only to his
kinsman the Lord Dudley, his kinsman William Gatacre,
Esqr., his brother-in-law ]\lr. Samuel Pype, and his kinsman
Mr. Thomas Tomkys. In this Avill he is styled Thomas
Wrottesleye, Esqr., of Wolverhampton, and the executor of
it was his kinsman Hugh Wrottesley, of Woodford.

Edward, the third son, was the friend of Wirle}^, the
antiquary, who speaks of him as " immahtra morte sublatus,
ct dum spirahat, miJii valde dilactus.'"^

Of the fourth son John, nothing is known, and the two
elder daughters appear to have died unmarried.

Frances, the third daughter, married first, John Brooke, of
Blackland, and secondly, Ralph Drake, of Bobbington.

Dorothy married Richard Whethill, of Great Sheepy, co.
Leicester, and died 10th October ]()40 (NicholTs "Leicester-
shire.")

Margaret, married Richard Eld, of Seighford, co. Stafford.
This Richard had served in Ireland during the reign of
Elizabeth, and had a coat of arms granted to him b}^ Ulster
King of Arms in 1574 (St. George's Visitation of Staffordshire.
1614). The male line of Eld became extinct in the present
generation.

Elizabeth married Samuel Pype, of Bilston.

Arms of Johx Wrottesley.

On the dexter side - Oi", three piles Sable, a quarter Ermine,
for Wrottesley.

On the .sinister side — Azure, a cinquefoil Ermine, for Astley.

' Erdeswick's " Sm-vey of Staff or dsliire," with notes by Harwood.

284

HISTORY OK THK IWMILV OF

Walter Wrotiesf.kv, 1")78 - 1680.

Wnlfcn' Wrottosley. wlio now suc-
('('(■(lc(l t(^ tli(> property, is shewn to
he son of the last .John by the
ilecds formerly at Wrottesley. by
the Ib'ralds" Visitations, and by
a (■liancory snit temp. Eliza))eth.
which names his father John.^ He
must have been born before 1551,
for in 1572 h(> was a party to a
Fine respecting tlie manor of Wrot-
tesley, and it has been sliewn in
the account of liis fatlier that lie
was married to his first wife Mary
Lee, as early as 15()8.
His father-in-law, Huoh Lee. died about 1576,- lea^'ino■ a
widoAv Elizabeth, wlio held most of the Lee property for her
life ; and as Elizabeth, the mother of Walter, had been
enfeoffed in a large portion of the Wrottesley property, his
means for the first part of his career must have been ver\^
limited. At the muster of the County made on the 8th
November 1587, on the outbreak of the war wath Spain, he
was returned as liable for a single light horseman only, wdiilst
the assessment of his father John in 1572 had been a lance,
i.e., a heavy horseman, and a light liorse. As these military
charges were based on the Subsidy Eolls, the assessment of
John Wrottesley must have been quite treble that of his
son. The review of the county was made by Sir Walter
Aston and Richard Bagot, acting as Deputy-Lieutenants of
the Earl of Shrewsbury, and they returned the names of sixty
landowners who were to find between them sixteen lances
and fifty-four light horse. It is remarkable as shewing how
completel}'' the degree of Knighthood had fallen into desuetude,
that out of all this number of landowners, two only, Sir Walter
Aston and Sir John Bowes, are named as Knights.

At the date of the purchase of the Tettenhall College in 1549,
Walter Wrottesle}^, the grandfather of Walter, with licence of
the Crown, had alienated from it the two Prebends of Pende-
ford and Bobenhill or Barnhurst. The lands of these Prebends
were situated at some distance from Wrottesley, and this
circumstance, no doubt, as well as pecuniar^^ reasons, had
been the motive for their alienation, but it was the cause of
some inconvenience at a later date, for the owners of these

• Calendar of Chancery Proceedings, temp. Elizabeth, printed, vol. ii. Record
Commission (Walter Parker versus Walter Wrottesley).

- Hugh Lee d will was dated in that year, hnt I have no note of the date
when it was proved.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 285

Prebends, being sheltered by the subjection of them to the
capital manor of the Dean at Tettenhall, and having in
consequence no fear of the Sheriff before their eyes, claimed
to hold Courts Leet, and to have the view of frank-pledge.^
The effect of this would have been to deprive the lord of
tlie capital manor of waifs and straj'S and various amercements
and Fines, and Walter Wrottesley determined to resist the
claim.

" At the Court Baron of Walter Wrottesley, Armiger, of
Tetenhall Clericorum, held on the 27th September, 33 EHzabeth
'1591) before George Littelton, Armiger, Steward of the Court,
the following Homage.

William Alport. Thomas Cooke,

Thomas Wylkes. John Perry,

Walter Phypton. William Southwj'ke,

Francis Fleming, John Grasley,

William Phesic. Eichard Sabadye, and

Richard Southwykc. Walter W^-lkes,

were sworn and charged to deliver their verdict upon three
articles laid before them as follows : —

1. Whether there be, or ought to be, or have been or
used to be, any more leet in Tettenhall Clericorum than one,
and to whom the same belongeth.

2. Whether the lybertye of wayfe and Estra}' be unto
the lorde of the maner of Tetnall Clericorum and whether
the saj^'d hath wayf and estraye within the whole maner of
Tetnall Clericorum

3. Whether certayne groundes called Cranckeall were here-
tofore geven to the intente that the profytte thereof or any
rent out of j^t shoulde be employed for the fyndynge of a
massinge preest to singe for the soles of some deceased, and
when the same, or any rent or profit out of yt was last
employed to any superstytyous (sic) uses.

To the first the jurye saye that no other should or ought
to have any leete in this maner or the towneshyppes or in
anj^ parte of any waste ground, land or the pedycamente or
resydent in the lordshyp and towneshypp of Tettnall Cleri-
corum or any of them, but only the lord of the maner of
Tettnall Clericorum. and that so yt liatli bene and ought
to be used, and that the Deane only had before his leete
there, and no |)rebend had an}' leete nor ought to have
an}', but all within the Prebends owe suyte to this Leete,
as well within the prebend of Bobenhyll. Penford and Perton
as those wliieh dwell in ihe Prebends in the loi'ds liande.

' If not puljjoct !() niiotlier Court Leel. the teuauts of tliese smaller uiaiiors
inu.*t have atteudeil the Sheriff's view of frank-pledpfe. which took })lace
twice a j-ear at the Sheriff's 'tourn."

266 iFIISTORY OF TH1=: FAMILY OF

To the second they say that tlic wayf and straj's in this
article mentioned, belong oncly to the lord of the maner of
Tettnall Clericorum, and that so yt luith been used alewaycs,
and that the Deane only before hed wayf and estrer and
stra3^cs within any land of any of the ]'re])ends as well
those in the lordes handc as also in ]jobenliyll. Prnford and
I'erton belon;,'' to the lorde of the maner of Tetnall Clericorum.

To the third they say also that foure ])Ound thirteene
shjdlynj^c and fourepence was the twentyth yearc of Kynrj
Henry the eifj^lit i;(>,ven or lyvyed out of certein j^round or
the profFyth thereof called Cranckall toward the fyndynf]^
and mayntenance of a massyn<^ Freest to sjmjjje for soles
for over, and that the same contynued untyll the fyrst yeare
of Kynjre Edward the syxth, and that after that in tynie
of Queene ^Mary a ])reest was mayntayned accordingly."

Here follow the signatures of the Homage, William Al))ort,
V^-ancis Flenn^ng, Richard Southwick and Walter Wylkys
sign their names, the others affix a mark.

When one considers the origin of the institution of fi-ank-
ple<lge, by which the mendjers of the tything or deceiniary
were collectively liable for the crimes and delinr|uencies of
any of the members composing it,^ it is not likely that
such small communities as these Prebends could ha\e had
tlieir own view of frank-pledge, and the claim appears to
have been dropped after the ai)Ove presentment. The Court
Rolls of Penford and Bobenhill, noAV in the possession of
TMr. John Neve, of Oaken, shew, however, it was revived
at a Court held in 1705, but at this date the franchise was
of little or no \alue, and the claim appears to have passed
uncontested.

Walter's mother, P^lizabeth, died in lod'2.'- Her will describes
her as '" Elizabeth Wrottesleye, of Wrottesleye. wydowe, late
wj^ffe of .John Wrotteslej'e, Esquire, deceased," and she makes
Ijequests in it '' to my sonne and heir Walter Wrottesleye ; to
Hugh Wrottesleye. his sonne : nn- daughter. 31argaret Elde ;
ni}' daughter Elizabeth Pype ; ni}' sonne Thomas WrottesleA-e ;
m}'- daughter Frances Drake ; my daughter Dorothy Whettyll :
my sonne in law Rafe Drake ; my sonne (sit:) Richard Whettyll."
Her executors were Walter Wrottesley, her sou, and Humfrey
Giti'ard, of Blackladies.

' 'J'lic 'J'ytliiiig or Doccunary is sn]ii)0.serl to liiivc consisted ori«^nally of
ten liouseholders oi- lu-iKls of families, aud these Mcrc liable for auy person
(>mployed hy tlieiii or forniinjr ]>art of their houseliolds. and they were bound
to (ii-oiluce him if nc'cusrd f)f any crime. If tiic accused fled from justice
the Dcceiiiiai'v \\as lined. In most cases ihc .Manor and the Decennary wen^
identical.

- llei- ■will i.s dated I.")')!', and the inventory (jf her ell'eels was taken in
the same vear (\^'roOesIc\ M unimeiits).

WROTTESLEY OF WEOTTESLEV. 287

In 1598 Hno;]i, the eldest son of Walter, was married to
Marr^aret. the daucrhter (jf Edward Devereux. ol" Castle Broni-
wich, a younrjer son of Walter Devereux, Viscount Hereford,
and the settlements made on this occasion ;^ive consideraljle
information respecting his family. The Court Roll of the manor
of Wolverhampton of 7th October 40 Elizabeth (1598) states
that Walter Wrottesley, Armiger, appeared in Court and sur-
rendered to the lord of the manor, certain messuages, lands and
tenements to the use of himself for life, with remainder to liis
son Hugh Wrottesley, Armiger, son and heir apparent of the
said Walter, and to Margaret, the wife of Hugh, during the
term of their lives, with remainder to the heirs male of the body
of Hugh, and failing such to Walter Wrottesley, second son
of the said Walter, for his life, with remainder to William,
the third son of the said Walter, for his life, with remainder
to the heirs male of the body of Walter, the father, with
remainder to Thomas Wrottesley, brother to Walter, the father,
and to the heirs male of his body, and failing such to George
Wrottesley, Armiger, kinsman of the said Walter, the father,
and to the heirs male of his body, and failing such, Avith
remainder to the right heirs of Walter, the father, for
ever.^

By an indenture dated lUth May 41 Elizabeth (1599) made
between Hughe Wrottesley, of Woodford Grange, in co.
Stafford. Esquier, and Walter Devereux, sonne and heir
apparent of Edward Devereux, of Castle Bromwich, in co.
Warwick, Es((uier, the said Hugh for and in consideration
of a competent and suthcient jointure to be had for and in
the behalfe of Margarett, now wife of the said Hughe and
daughter of the said Edward Devereux, and for and in
consideration of grest somes of money to him, the said
Hughe Wrottesley by the said Edward Devereux before
thens ... in marriage with the said Margarett well and
truly satisfied and payde, the said Hughe shall and will
l)efore the Feast of All Saints next ensuing, acknowledge
one or more fyne or iynes in due form of lawe to be
levied and recorded unto the said Walter Devereux of all
and sinjj^ular the manors, lands, tenements, etc., beinp; nowe
the inheritance of the said Hughe Wrottesley and which
were sometime the inheritance of Hugh Lea, Esquier, deceased,
situated in Woodford Grange, Woodford, Tresle, Womborne
Orton alias Overton, Typton, Bylston, Wolverhampton, Cod-
sail, the Citie of Lichfeld, the Parish of Stowe near Lichfeld,
Longdon and (^n'burgh, and it is further agreed between
the said parties, that the sai<l Fyne or l^'nes shall be i"e})uted
to be lo the uses hereafter expressed, and t(» none other

' Co]iy of Cdiirt Knll. rorincily at Wnitte-sler.

288 HTSTORY OF THE FAAriLV OF

use, intent or purposi^, that is to sayc to the use of the
said Hurrh Wrottosley and Marrjarett, his AVj'fe, and the
licirs of the s;iid Huoli. and to none other use or purpose.

SiL,'nt'd "WaI.TKH l^EVKREUX.^

This Fine a|)paruntly was luner le\ied. it bein;^" fouiHl more
convenient to inchidt; all tlic Wi"ottesle\^ estate as Avell as the
Lee property in a sin<;"le Fine, Mhieh was levied two years
later. The delay was caused by the necessity of obtaining;
the royal licence for the alienation of that portion of the
property Avhich was held in capite.

The licence to alienate is dated 1st April. 42 I'^lizalxtii
flGOO) and j^ives })erniission to Walter Wrottesley. AvniiL;'er.
and to Huj^h Wrottesley, Gentleman, to alienate to Fdwfird
Littelton, Knioht. and to Thomas Leighton, Armioei-. all the
late College of Totnall, co. Statibrd, alias Totenhall, with
its Prebends and land in Totenhall. Alderley, Wrottesley,
Wightwyke. Codsall. Billebroke and Okyn, toj^ether with
the rectory of Womburne and Orton. and tythes in Woni-
burne ami Orton. and with licence to reconvex' the same
(excepting' the tythes of Billebroke and the rectory of Wom-
borne and Orton, and the tythes in Womborne and Orton)
to Walter Wrotteslej^ for his life, with remainder after his
death to Hugh Wrottesley and to the heirs male of his
bod}', and failing such to Walter Wrottesley, son of Walter,
and the heirs male of his bod}', and failing such, to the heirs
male of the body of Walter, the father. And as regarded
the tythes of Billebroke, to Walter, the father, for his life.
with remainder to Hugh Wrottesle}' and Margaret, his wife,
and to the heirs male of the body of Hugh, and failing
such, to Walter, the son. and to the heirs of his body, and
failing such with remainder as before. And as regarded the
Bectory of Wondjorne and Orton. and the tythes of Wom-
borne and Orton, to the said Hugh and Margaret, his wife,
and to the heirs male of the b(^dy of Hugh, and failing-
such with remainder as before.-

On obtaining the licence to alienate, all the above ))ro})erty
and the other Wrottesley estates were vested in the Trustees
named above, by a F'ine levied at Easter term 42 Elizabeth
1600;. The Fine describes the property as consisting of the
manors of Wrottesle}-, Tetnall Clericorum and Butterton, and
thirty messuages, ten cottages, six tofts, two dovt'cotes. fort}'

' Wruiieslfy MuiiiiiK'iit>. AfnT ilic dcMtli oi' .\l:u-y Lee. ^Villr^•r W'l-ottesley
li;iil iii!in-ic(l a sf(;oiiil wilV. liy wiioiii lir had issno, iiiul llie olijoct cif thi.'i
liidoiluri' w!i.'< apiini'ciiily to |ii-f\riit lliiirli \\'r()ttosloy fi'um alicnaliiitr any
p;irt. of llie Lee pi'Opi'rty in his hall'-lirol hcis. lo the del liini'iit dl' liis cliildrt'ii
hy Margaret Devercux.

- Licences lu Alieiiale. \'2 Llizulicih. \(»i. \ ii ( l'\ililii- IJci'ord Otlit-o).

WROTTKSLEY 01* WROTTESLEY. 289

.gardens, thirty orchards, eight luuidred acres of )aiid, one-
hundred and fitt.y acres of meadow, onv lumdred acres of
pasture, one liunch'ed acres of wood. ti\f linmh'cd aci'es of
furze an<l heath, one humh'eil acres of moor, twenty acres
of land covered with water, and 50s. of rent in W'rottesley,
1'etnall Clericoruni, Butterton. Woodford. Tresle, Wondxjrne.
Wolverliampton, 1\pton, Grindon, Waterfall. Codsall, Hill-
hroke. Orton and NVij^htwick. and of all tithes of shea\'es.
grain and hay. etc.. in Codsall. \^'rottesley. Bilbroke. Tetnall
Clericorum. Wightwick. W<^nd)ornc and (Jrton. co. Statt'ord,
and of the manor of Lychfield, and nine messuages, nine
gardens, four orchards, one hundred acres of land, forty acres
of meadow, one hundred acres of jxisture and ten acres of
wood in the City of Lichfield, the Parish of 8towe, near
Lichfield, and in Longdon and Curburgh, in the Co. of the
City of Lichtield.^

Thomas Leighton. who occurs as a fcofiee in tliese settle-
ments, was brother to Joyce, the second wife of Walter.
She was the widow of Francis Bromley, of Halhni or Haundc,
CO. 8alo]i, and < laughter of Sir Edward Leighton. of Wattles-
borough. CO. Salop.- Francis Bromley had died 3'oung, leaving
an only daughter and heir Jane, who was under age. and
this marriage nmst have been a ver^- advantageous one for
Walter, and added considerabh" to his resources. It ap})ears
to have taken })lace about 1595."

In 1598 Walter Wrottesley Avas prosecuting in the Star
Clu'unber one of his neighbours. James Barnesley, of Trysull,
and seven others, for throwing down and burning his fences.
and a sheepcote at Chaspell. near KiuNer. The reconls of
these Star Chamber proceedings hardly justify the unfa\our-
able opinion of them given by historians. The action Avas
begun by a petition to the Queen, by Walter Wrottesley and
Elizal>eth Barker, widow (the tenant), complaining of the
trespass and injury. On the loth February. 40 Elizabeth
(1598) a writ was issuer! from the Queen's Chancery appointing
Gamel P,ype and l^^rancis Wyghtewick, gentlemen, to take
the answers on oath of the defendants, the parties to be
assembled at Woherhampton within fourtee]i days.

The next stage consisted of the drawing up of the inter-
rogatories to be adndnistered to the principal defendants.
These were fi\ e in numl)i'r. In tlirir answers all the defendants
denied an}' participation in the l)urning of the fences and
sheepcote. James B)arnesley. howcAer. admitted in his answer

' Fines 111' Mivi'il ('imiilics. 111 l-lli/.M 1 jcI li. Il is iiiL'iiHJL'd ainoiiLrst ibese
l''iiu.'s as l.-iciilirlil was a sc|)arali' Cinnily,

- ITeralils' \'isiiaii(ni nl' \i\V)'.'>. ami iiisc'ri|ition on tomb sit C'(j(lsall.

■' Utulor liic iiainc of .luyci' \\ rut i cslcy, slie accounts as executrix o( Fraucis
Bi'oiiilcv in l.j'.IC).

290 HTSTORV OF PHI': FAMTLV OK

tliat the complainants and the lorinor liusbanrl of Elizabeth
ha<l been in the possession of the tenements for more than
seven years.'

There is no conehision to thi^ suit. l;ut it will be seen
from this account of it, 'that the proceedings were prompt
and probably inexpensive, bcini;' carried on at the very doors
111 the parties concerned. The (Jourts, however, were an
iinio\ation, arul not hax'ino' been established by Statute, were
denounce"! as unconstitutional and abolisluMl by the Lonj^^
I'arliauKMit. The}', howexer, must ha\'e met a want, and
they probably took cofjni/.ance of causes which could not
lia\c been decided in the rei^ular Courts. In this case
\^'alter Wrottesleys interest was merely a re\-ersion de-
])endent upon two li\'es. and it is doubtful whethei" this
Avould have j^iven him a locus standi in an ordinarx'
Court, and the unfortunate widow, whose sheepcote had
been burnt, would have had small chance without his assistance
of assertin^j; her right, or obtaining any compensation for
the injury.

Francis Brondcy, of Jlallon. the lirst husljand of doyce,
the Avif'e of" Walter Wrottesley, ha<l left an only daughter
and heiress -Jane. In former da3's the marriage (.)f an heiress
was a valuable possession, antl usually sold for a \ery large
sum of money.- .Jane, Injwever, had views of her own, and
whilst negotiations for her marriage were in })rogress, ran
away with William Davenport, the eldest son of Henry
Davenport, of Chorle}', co. C'hester.

Amongst the Chancery Proceedings of Februai'y l()();]-4-.
there is a suit of William Davenport, son and heir apparent
of Hemy Davenport of Chorley, and Jane his wife rrrsiis
Walter Wrottesley of Wrottesley. co. Statibrd. Escp*., and
Joyce his wife, respecting the estate of Francis Bromley of
Hawnde, Esq., deceased, the father of the said Jane.

Walter and Joyce stated '" that about iSeptember last past
twehnonth, the said complainant Jane being then young was
by some ])]'actices or persuasions of the complainant William
Davenporte (a. man in worth anil estate far unworthy of such
a match, as these defendants \'erily think) priviley enticed
and stolen away from the defentlants' house at Wrottesley
and married to him, the com[)lainant William.'

William Da\('n])ort rejdied that '"he was in e\'ery way

^ Star ChiirriLicr I'rnrccdiTipp. tcirifi. P'liz!iln'r}i.

- In l(i(HI. C.cnvn- W'nit Ic.-lcy . the cousin n[' Wallci', sold llic mil rriii.Lic of
Ill's \\;inl 'I'lioiiKis .liTvois. of lli'i'tloid. CO. Wills, lo Sir Kirliard r.-uileft, I'or a
smii oT L'l.lOO. and 1 he Coiirt of Wai-ils and l,i\crics adjud^od tliat the sum
was insiitlicicnt . (Court of W'aiils and l,i\ciics, Decrees, \dl. iv, |iair I, I'ol.
22(5). (icoru'O Wrottoslev liad married tlie mother of t lie ward, and liad
purcliased tlie w aidslii|i.

WROTTESLEV OF \\•I;0TTE8LE^^ 291

worthy to match with the said Jane, aiul that the iiiarria;,'e
was no disparas^cinent at all to her, neither did he entieo
or steal her away. ^

It would a|)])ear 1)y the Inst sentence that J.inc had
asserted her rights as an heiress, and had made the Hrst
advances. It will l)e seen that her ste)i I'atlicr and inDthcr
at this date ha<l retained her })ro|)erty for about sixteen
months ai'ter the elopement. An heiress, if married, would
be entitled to enter into her jiroperty at Hl'tccn years
of aj^e ; but it" married Avithout the consent of lier i'eud;d
lord, or his assi^-nee. wouhl be liable to be mulct in \i'ry
heavy damajj^es.

Walter served the ofhce of Sheritt' of the County in the
year lol)7-(S. and Exchecjuer receipts l^etween the years KIOO
and IGO-i, formerly at Wrottesley, shew he was one of tin-
Conniiissioners for collecting the Aid of the Fifteenth and
Tenth granted by Parliament for the Spanish war. He Mas
also included in the Commissions for the Peace for co. Stafibrd.
issued by James I.- These are the only ])ublic functions
with which I have found his name connected, and the
paucit\' of these is, I think, due to his adherence to
the Roman Catholic religion. The Astleys. his mothers
family, were certainly of that faith, and his l)rother-in-law.
Cilbert Astley, was married to a sister of .John Giiiar«l. of
Chillington. one of the irreconcilable section, a non-jur(>r and
a Recusant.

In 1585, when there was a (piestion of remo\ing the Queen
of Scots from Tutbury to Chillingtoii. Sir Amias Poulett, in
whose charge she had been placed, was ordered to report
upon the accommodation of the house and its suitability for
the safe custody of the Queen. On the ord Octolx-r he
writes to Walsingham : —

"Touching tlie state of the eouuti'ey, and the iiei^iibouis adjoyn-
inge T have taken cure to iiifounne myself li}' tin: means of some
men of credit in these jiarts and do fvnd that tiie gentlemen of
calling and covmtenance and best affected in I'eligion such as Sir-
Walter Aston, yb: P>ag()t and Mr. Greisley have their dwellings
distant from !Mr. (b'Hoi-d's liousc some K) miles, some ll', and tlie
nearest !) : onlv Mr. Littleton a \ery honest religinus gentleman,
dwelling within '■) ov -[ miles or thereabouts, so the sayd liowsp
seemeth to l)e l)ai'ren of good neighbours. '"

Walter lived to a great age. bjr he sur\i\ed till the
(jth December KiMO. at which date lie nuist have been

' ■■ lli.-lniy .,r Wol-licM." Iiy llic U>-\. Sninilfl 1!, .hiliic-, p, L' I .

- Slulr J'M[irj>.. iiriiilcd.

■• Suih' J^a|)ors. Wrolt'^slcy Wdiilil \>r llic iumi'oI Imnsi' nl' :niy iiiiporraiiof
to Cliillin<rtnii, hciiiii- only fouf luili's fi-om ii. rillntoii Hall (at this date
t lie rt(."at of till' hitrlftdii faiiiih) is about si,'veii miles olT.

292 HTST0T5V OF IHK FAMILY OF

over ci.ijhty years of a,i;o. He ha<l oiitliverl his second
wifi'. all his sons except the eldest, Sir Fluoh Wrottcsley,
and lir liad ('Nell sur\i\ed two wives of the latter. He
was huried at Codsall on the lltli December lOoO,' under
an altar tonih which is shewn in the drawing annexerl.
His will was |n'oved in the Prerogative Court of Cantor-
l)ury on the olst January iGoO-ol. a codicil beino- added
lo it on tile .')th December IGoO. "in the time of his
last sickness of which he died." He makes bequests in it
of money or ])late to his eldest son, Sir Hugh Wrottcsley,
Kt.. his grandsons Walter and William Wrottcsley. his
grand-(laughters ^lary. Penelo])e. Elizabeth, Howard and
Margaret, daughters of Sir Hugh Wrottcsley : his dauglitor
Dame Elizabeth Hewitt, wife to Sir Thomas Hewitt. Kt.. and
Walter Hewitt, eldest son of Sir Thomas ; Walter Prince,
eldest son of Richard Prince, Esqr. : Mar}-, his daughter, wife
of Richard Prince, Es(|. : and his nephew Walter Pipe. The
berpiest to Sir Hugli is in these words: — ""To my sonne
Sii- Hugh Wrottcsley. Kt.. all ni}- corne, cattell and household
stufi'e excejjt one great chest, standing in the brushing
cluimber and m^' deske in my owuc chamber, which with
;dl the stufte and things in them I have heretofore given
to my two daughters, and to my said sonne all my plate
except two of the best silver booles which his sonne William
Wi'ottesley shall make choice of. To my grandchild Walter
Wrottcsley £100. and to Penelope my said son's daughter
£•>(). ' He also makes bequests to the poor of Codsall. Wolver-
hampton. Patingiiam. Brewood. Tettenhall, Albrighton and
Bridgenorth. some of which survive to the present day and
are administered under the directions of the Charity Com-
missioners. For his monument at Co<lsal] church he
left £140. The residue of his personal estate was left to
the three youngest ilaughters of Sir Hugh Wrottesle}', viz.,
Elizabeth. Howanl and ]\fargaret.

The luijuisition on his death was taken at Cannock on
the 23rd August 7 Charles I (1.631) before Salomon Grosvenour,
Centleman. the King's Eschaetor. The jury stated that Walter
Wrottl'sley. Armiger, who was named in the writ, was seised
long before his death of the manor of Wrotteslc}' with its
members and riglits and a))purtenances. and of the manor
of Butterton. witii tlie same in IJutterton, Grindon and
Waterfall, and of the manor and College of Totenall alias
Tetenall Clerieocuni. with its rights and iiieiid)ers ami ))er-
tinencies. and the site an<l Deanery of the said College, and
the Prebends of Wrottesley and Codsall, of the foun<lation
I'f I lie said College, witli nil lands, lythes. oblations, etc.. in

^^'l;m•^l■:sl,!■;^• oi' w l;(»lTlv^Ll■;^■. iMJ-'J

Wr.)tfos]e\\ Tpttniill. Okeii, ALlrHcy. (Vm1s;i11, Wi-liiwikr :ui.|
Dilhroke, mikI in 1-2 Kli/alK'Hi ;i I'^iiio \v;is lovicil in tlic
(^ourt ol' l'>liz;ili<'tli. hiti- (^)ii('on. nt West lllill^t(•|•. ■aUcv proclama-
tion Diailf nccovdiiii;- tn rlic IVirm df tlir Slatud'. hctwfoii
Edward Littleton. I\i.. ami 'rimmas Lci^iliton, Ariin'Lii-r. coni-
plainants, and the said Walter Wi'ottesley, AiMnio-cr, and
liuj^'h Wrottosle}', (Jentleman, son and heir apparent of the
said Walter, now a Knight, det'orciants. of all and singular
of the .said manors and otlwr ]iremises (mh-r dim) mcntiontMl
in the said i'lne, and wlneh Fine was l(>\it'd fo the followin<^
uses, viz., as ref;"ar<l('d the manors of Widttcslcy. Dntterton
and Tettnall Clerieorum. to tin- use of the said Walter
Wrottesley and Ins assigns, for the term of his lire, withont
impeachment of waste, and after his deatli. llir manor of
Wrottesley to the use of John Litth-ton. Armio-er. and Walter
SkelKno'ton, Armiirer. and their assigns, for thf^ life of Joyce,
then wife of the said Walter, and after her decease, to the
use of the said Hugh Wrottesle}' and the heirs of his bo<ly.
and in default of such, to the use of Walter W^rottesley.
the younger, son of the said Walter Wi-ottesley who was
named in the writ, and to the heirs male of tlie hody of
Walter Wrottesley the son, and in default of such, to the
heirs male of the b<idy of Walter Wrottesley named in the
writ, and failing such, to the use of the right heirs of the
Sciid Walter for ever : and as regarded the manors of Butterton
and Tettnall Clerieorum, and all the other premises (excepting
the tythes of Bilbrooke) after the death of the said Walter,
to the use of the said Hugh Wrottesley and the heirs male
of his bod}-, and failing such, to the use of Walter Wrottesley,
the son, and the heirs male of his body, and failing such,
to the heirs male of the said Walter named in the writ, and
failing such, to the use of the right heirs of Walter foi-
e\'er. And as regarded the tythes of Bilbrooke, after the
(leatli of Walter, to the use of Hugli Wrottesley and .Margaret,
his Avife, and the heirs male of the bod}' of Hugh, and failing
sucii, to the use of Walter Wrotteslej^, the son, and the
heirs male of his body, and failing such, to the use of the
said Walter Wrottesley named in the writ, and tlie heirs male
of his body, and failing such, to the use of the right heirs
of the said Walter for e\'er. as was shewn Iw the chirograph
of the said Fine.

And by a quadripartite Indenture bearing date 10th March
42 Elizabeth, between a certain Edward Devereux, then
Armiger, on the first part, and the said Walter Wrottesle}'
on the second ])art, the said Hugh Wrottesley on the
third part, and the said Edward Littleton, Kt., and Thomas
Leighton, Armiger, on the fourth part, which was produced
in evidence under their seals, by virtue of the Statute of

•jr)4 ITTSTOKY OF lirK l■'.\MT[,^■ or

4lli l*'i'l»vii;iry 27 Henry VIII, on tli'^ Irnnslcr til" uses, tlic
sai<l Walter Wi-ottesltiy )iaiiu'<l in I lie writ was seised in his
tleniesne as of fee, for the term of liis life, and with the
remainders and reversions thereof, of the said manors an<l
other promises : and the said Walter died at Wrottesley on
the Gth December last, and the said llu^h \Vrottesle\'. now
a Knioht, is his son and nearest heir and fift\'-tive years of
a^e and upwards, and tlie said manor of Wrottesley with its
rights and members was held of the lord the Kinjr, as of
the Abbey of Evesham in socat^e by a rent of 13s. 4d.,
and was worth beyond reprises^ £10. And the said manor
of Butterton, with its rights and members in Bvitterton,
Orindon and Waterfall was held of the lord the King as
of the Honour of Tutburie, by fealty and in socage, and
was worth £'i <)s. 8d., and the said manor of Totnall alias
Tetnall Clericorum, and the site and Deanery of the College
and the Prebends of Wrottesley and Codsall, and the tj'thes
in Wrottesley, Tetnall, Oken, Codsall, Wightewike and Bil-
brooke were held of the lord the King by military service
and hy the eightieth part of a Knight's fee and were worth
£6 18s. 4d.-

Bv his first wife ilary Lee. Walter had issue an only son
Hugh, l)orn in 1570. By his second wife Jo^'ce Leighton,
he had two sons William and Walter, and two daughters
Elizabeth and Mary.

The two sons by his second wife both died young. William
was l)uried at Codsall on the 2-lth April 1509, and Walter
was buried at the same place on the 80th July 1602. His second
wife Joyce was buried at Codsall on the 26th December 1614.'-

The Codsall Register also records that "Mr. Bichard Prynce
and ^Irs. Mary Wrottesley were marryed in Wrottesleye
Chapell on the 16th June 1618, by me Thomas Pytt." Tlie
settlement made on the marriage of Mary is dated the
11th May 16 James I (1618), and describes lier husband as
" Rychard Prynce, Esqr., the j'ounger, brother and heyre of ^ir
Francis Pr\mce, Kt., deceased, eldest son and heir of Richard
Prynce, the elder, deceased, late of Eastefiorgate alias Monck
Forgate, .Salop, Escp'."" Her husband was afterwards knighted.

Elizabeth, the eldest daughter, married into a very wealthy
family. Her husband was Sir Thomas Hewitt, of Shireoaks.
CO. Notts, a place which derived its name from a group of
oak trees at the junction of the three counties of Derby,
Nottingham and York. The Hewitts acquired great wealth

' Chancery lufi. P.M., Buntile 50, No. 216. The values f^iveu for lands in
these Inquisitions are quite fictitious and appear to be conventional, for they
usually ajri'ee with those given in the ancient Inquisitions of the fourteenth
and fifteenth centm-ies.

- Codsall Registers.

' Original deed formerly at Wrottesley.

I'omb of out alter (lutiottcslcir Arintgcr.
CotisrtU (JTburrb, 1B50.

^vll(T^'^;s|J•;^• ok w koi-ikslii^-

20.5

as clotli-workcrs, and ^iir William IFcwitt w;i,s Lord .Mnv'or
of London in 1550-f)0. His only dun^ditcr and heir Anne
married Sir Edward (^shorne, the ancestor of the Dukes of
Leeds. Sir Thomas Hewitt, wlio inarriecl Elizabeth Wrottesle}-,
was son of Henry Hewitt, also a rich mercliant of London.
Sir Thomas was Sherifi' of co. Notts, in 8 Charles I. and
left issue. ^

Walter Wrottesley lies buried in the chancel of Codsall
church, under a handsome altar toml). of wliich a photograph
is ap])ended. He is shewn in the armour of the ]>eriod, with
his five children in relief — kneelini^ in the panels of the altar
front — under an arch and above the monument are two shields
to represent his two wives, tirst Wrottesley. impalintr Lee
of Langlej', and secondly Wrotteslej'', impaling Leighton.
Between the two shields, on a mural tablet, is the
following inscription : —

" HERE LIETU WALTER WROTTESLEY OF \VROT:'"'>
ESQUIER WHO MARRIED MAHIE DAUGHTER AND
HEIRE TO HUGH LEE OF WOODFORD ESQR. RV
WHOM HE HAD ISSUE SIR HUGH WROTTESLEY KT.
SECONDLY HE MARRIED JOYCE DAUGH'" T(» s'
EDWARD LEIGHTON OF WATTLESB0R0U(;H KT.
BY WHO'" HE HAD ISSUE 2 SONS AND 2 DAUGH'''".
WHICH WALTER DYED THE Vl'"' DAY OF DECEMBER 1030."

Arms of Walter Wrottesley.
Quarterly — Or, three piles Sable, a quarter Ermine, for Wrottesley ;
and Gules, a fess chequey, Or and Azure, between ei.yht billets
Arifent, for Leiijh, of Lanfflev.

Sill Hugh

CO. Stafford, matriculated

' •• History of Worksop," 1890

Wrottesley, 1630— 1(533.

Walter Wrottesley was succeeded
by his eldest son Hugh, who was in
possession of his patrimonial estates
for so short a period, that the prin-
cipal events of his life must be looked
for in the lifetime of his father.
The Inquisition on his father's
death states that he was tifty-fi\e
3^ears of age and upwanls in
1630, but he must have been nearer
sixty, for his matriculation papers
at Oxford state that " Hugh Wrot-
tesley, of St. John's College, son of
Walter Wrottesle}-, of Wrottesley,
15th April 1586, aged sixteen."

iI'.m; iiisrom- ok rm; iamilv or

TTis |i;n"oiits wi'vo iii;in"i(i| in l.'jliS, nnd lie \v;is (limhtlcss
liririi. ;is shewn l)y flic iii.il riciil.if ion |)a)i<'rs. in loTO. [\)V he
could lijirdly lia\c i-ntrrcil llir rnixfrsit y bcCort- lie was
sixteen \'i'ars of ajxe.

After the death i)f l-'di/alx'tli Lee, Ids fjrandmother. Hnf;h
came into possession of Woodford (Jran^e. in Woinbourne
parisli. and this was his jilaec of abode durinij the f^reater
part of his life. Hir married his first wife. Margaret Deverciix.
about the year loDS. and the first part of his married life
seems to liave been spent in tlu; house of his father-in-law
at Castle Bronnvich. The Parish Keoisters of Aston, near
Birmiuf^ham. record the lia])tism in 1()02 of " Elizabeth,
dauehter of Mr. Rochley, sojornini;- at Castell Bromwieb, " and
her burial in ](i08. And in the same registers there is this
entr\' under IfHX), May (ith, "Walter, the sonne of Mr. Hughe
Wrocldey. of Wrochley, and his heire apparant was l)aptized
at (^astle Bronnvich."

Margaret Devereux, the first wife of Hugh. <lied in 1G15.'
leaving two sons, Walter and William, and several daughters.
Shortly after her death. Hugh married for a second wife
Clara, the Avidow of William Sneyd, of Keele, co. Stafiord.
and a daughter of Sir Anthony Colclough. of Tintern Abbey.
CO. Wexford.- He does not appear to liave liad an}- children
by her. for her will names only blaster Wrottesley f Walter,
her stepson), who would be then fourteen years of age, and
Penelope, Mary. Dorothy and Susannah Wrotteslej'. Amongst
her be(juests Avas one of £10 to the Lady Devereux to bu}'
Dorothy Wrottesle\" a diamond ring. She died in January"
1 0*20-2 1. and was buried at Tetteuhall. Her will was proved
in the same year in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury

Sir Hugh was knighted on the 26th August 1017 at
Nantwich in Cheshire, during one of the progresses made
by James I in the Midland Counties,-' and in the following-
year he served the office of Sheriff' of the County. In 1025,
in the first year of Charles J. he obtained a general
pardon under the Great Seal, date<l 10th February, for all
treasons and felonies, etc., perpetrate<l before the previous
27th ^Farch. Most men of property who had served any
office under the Crown in former daj's, obtained these pardons,
for the}^ contained a clause exonerating them from all demands
or claims of the Exchequer.

' Tetteuhall J{egi.sti;r.-<. Slio wa.': l)urif(l on the 18th Scptcnibor KiJo.

- Tlie Colcloiiirhs lield also eonsiflorahle ])ropcrty in tho north of Staffordshire.

■■ -■ Nantwich. 26tli ^\nunst HJIT. Tlio sanio day the Kinj^ knighted Sir
Ihiti'h Wroftoslcy and Sir WilliaJii Owen, of I'ondovor, and in the aftornoon
[jrocoedcd on liis way tu Gcrards Bromley, in Staffordshire, with liis own
retinue and a train of the principal gentry of Cheshire " (Nicholl's " Progresses
of Elizabeth and .James 1").

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 297

In 1627 Sir Hugh was appointed by tlie Earl of Monmouth,
the King's Lieutenant of the County, to be one of his
Deputies. It is curious to contrast the number of Deputy-
Lieutenants in the reign of Charles I with those of the
present day. The total number of Lieutenants in 1627
was six only, consisting of : — ■
Sir Walter Aston, Knight of Sir Walter Chetwynd, Kt.

the Bath and Baronet. Sir Hugh Wrottesley, Kt.

Sir Thomas Leigh, Knight and Sir William Bowyer, Kt., and

Baronet. Ralph Sneyd, Esquire.

On the 4th August 1630 a Commission was issued to
Robert, Earl of Essex, Walter, Lord Aston, Sir Hugh Wrottes-
ley, Kt., Sir William Bowyer, Kt., and Richard Weston, Esq.,
" to treat and compound with all those in the Co. of Stafford,
who by law are to make fine unto us for not appearing
at the time and place by our writs to that purpose appoynted
for receiving the Order of Knighthood." The proceedings
of this Commission have been printed in volume ii of the
Staffordshire Collections.'^ The first Conninssion being found
unwieldy was followed by another, dated 12th February
1630-31, addressed to Sir Hugh Wrottesley, Sir William
Bowyer, Thomas Crompton, and Richard Weston, and these
four made the compositions and signed the proceedings.

After the disputes between Edward I and his Barons,
respecting the liability to military service in 1297, it had
been finally decided that all those holding as much as £40
in lands or rents were bound to accept Knighthood, or pay
a Fine to the King in lieu of it ; and this liability had
been expressly recognised in Parliament by the Statute de
viilitihus, in the reign of Henry VI. In the seventeenth
century the change in the value of money had rendered
many of the middle classes liable to compulsory Knighthood
under this Statute, and the proceedings of the Committee
of 1631 shew that 203 gentlemen and yeomen of the county
paid fines var^'ing from £50 to £10 for having failed to
appear in pursuance of the King's proclamation, which had
been issued at the date of his Coronation.

It may be asked, why, if this was the case, all these
"persons had not taken upon themselves the degree of
Knighthood. But the answer to this is, that obligatory
Knighthood was no honor, and the fees exacted from those
who appeared in answer to the summons were very largely
in excess of the Fines inflicted for their non-appearance.-

' Volume ii, Staffordsliire Collections, part ii, page 1. The account contains
an admirable preface by the late H. Sydney Grazebrook.

- The Earl Marshal had a right to a paKrey and saddle, from every one
made a Knight at a Coronation, and this was only one of the many fees
exacted on these occasions. See Red Book of the Exchequer, by Hubert Hall,
p. 759.
V

298 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Huirh's eldest son, Walter, married in 1625, Mary the
daughter of Ambrose Grey, of Enville, co. Stafford. Her
father was the second son of Lord Grey of Groby, who was
tlie nephew and representative in the nvale line of Henry Grey,
Duke of Suffolk, the father of Lady Jane Grey. On the point
of blood and connection, therefore, no fault could be found with
the inarriao-e, but it was contracted clandestinely, against the
consent of his father, when Walter was under age, and Sir Hugh
lost by it a large sum which would have been obtained
by the marriage of an eldest son in those days, and which
would have enabled him to provide portions for his younger
children. In his letters formerly at Wrottesley, Sir Hugh
lays great stress on the pecuniary embarrassments of Ambrose,
and hints that he had connived at the clandestine marriage
in order to save the marriage portion of his daughter.
Eventually the quarrel was made up, and Sir Hugh took
advantage of his relationship to purchase the mortgages on
a large portion of the estate of Ambrose. On the 11th May,
9 (^haxdes I (1683) Henry Little, the principal mortgagee,
covenants with Sir Hugh that such persons that hold the
leases, Statute Merchants, and Escheats of the Manors of
Tiesle (Trysull), Seisdon, Orton, and Womborne, to his use
and appointment, shall liold them for the use and benefit
of Sir Hugh,^ but the )>urchase was not completed for some
years afterwards, for Sir Hugh died on the 28th May
following, less than three weeks after the date of the above
deed.

The necessity for finding the money for this purchase
forced him to renounce his intention of acquiring a
Baronetcy. His brother-in-law. Sir Walter Devereux, writes
to him from London near Essex Gate 1632, that he under-
stands that "somebody had possessed him that Sir Thomas
Blother, of the Privy Chamber, offered him to be a Baronet
for £300. and that the King would make many for £200
or £300 : that the King was reserved : one offered £800 and
could not get it, and he thought he had performed the office
of brother in getting it for him for £500 ; if he had not
been his brother-in-law and a descendant of a founder of
the Garter, he had not got it so low."

The Inquisition on Sir Hugh's death was taken at Wolver-
hampton on the 20th August 9 Charles I CI 633 j, before
Zachary Babington and John Birch, Gentlemen deputed for
the purpose.2 The jury stated that long before the death
of the Hugh Wrottesley named in the writ, Walter Wrottesley,
armiger, the father of Hugh, was seised of the manors of

* Original Deed formerly at Wrottesley.

- John Birch was the family lawyer of the Wrottesleys.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY, 209

Wrottesley, Butterton and Tetnall Clericorum, and of the
Deanery "and College of Tetnall, together with the Prebends
of Wrottesley and Codsall founded in the said College, and
of the lands, tithes, oblations, etc., in Wrottesley, Tetnall,
Oken, Alderley, Codsall, Wightwick and Bilbroke, and a
Fine was levied in 42 Elizabeth. {Here the jury quote
the Fine of IfSi Elizabeth and the quadripartite Indenture
named in the Inquisition on Walter Wrottesley the father
of Sir Hugh.) And the said Hugh Wrottesley, long before
his death, was seised in demesne as of fee of a messuage
and divers tenements and hereditaments called the manor
of Woodford, or Woodford Grange, and the Rectory of
Womborne, and the manor of Lychefeld, and nine messuages,
nine gardens, four orchards, one hundred acres of land, forty
acres of meadow, one hundred acres of pasture and ten acres of
wood in Lychefeld, and in the parishes of Stowe, Longdon, and
Curburgh (formerly Lees) and the said Hugh by a Fine and
indenture had conveyed the said Grange, Rectory and manor
of Lychefeld to the use of the said Hugh Wrottesley, and
Margaret his wife, daughter of Edward Devereux, Kt. and
Baronet, now deceased, and the heirs male of his body, and failing
such to the use of the said Walter Wrottesley, the father,
and the heirs male of his body, and failing such to the use of
the right heirs of the said Walter for ever.

And the said Hugh, before his death, was seized in demesne
as of fee of a messuage, a chapel, a cemetery, and a pasture
called Preistfield in Bilston, and of a messuage, four shops,
thirty acres of land and ten acres of meadow in Wolver-
hampton and Codsall (formerly Lees), and of two messuages,
forty acres of land, ten acres of meadow, and twenty acres
of pasture in Frodley (Frodesley), co. Salop (late Scrivens), and
of seventy acres of land, ten acres of meadow, and ten acres
of pasture in Bridgenorth, co. Salop (formerly Thornes), and
the moiety of a lead mine, and salt works in Draytvvich,
CO. Worcester, and a house and chapel and six acres of land
in Trimpley, co. Worcester (formerly Lees), and that Hugh
died on the 28th May last (1633), and Walter Wrottesley,
Armiger, his son, is his nearest heir, and is twenty-live
years of age and upwards. The manor of Wrottesley was
held of the King in socage, as of his Abbey of Evesham
for 18s. 4d. annually, and was worth £10.

Butterton and its members were held of the King as of
the Honor of Tutbury in socage, and not in capite, nor by
Knight's service, and was worth £o 6s. 8d.

The manor and College of Tettnale Clericorum, and the
Prebends of Wrottesley and Codsall, and the tythes of Tetnale,
Wrottesley, Oken, Alderley, Codsall, Wightwike, and Bilbrooke,
were held of the King by Knight's service and one-eightieth
_part of a Knight's Fee, and were worth £8.

300 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

The manor o£ Woodford or Woodford Grange was held of
the King, as of his manor of East Grenewich, by fealty in
free socage, and was worth £3 12s.

The Rectory of Womborne was held in capite by one-
tenth of a Knight's Fee, and was worth £3 1 t^s.

The manor of Lychefeld and the premises in the county
of Lychefeld were worth £12, tenure not known.

Preistfeild was held of the lord of the manor of Shen-
stone in socage, and all the premises named in Bilston,
Wolverhampton, and Codsall were worth £10 lis., and were
held of the King as of his manor of East Grenewich. The
lands in Bridgenorth were worth 10s., tenure unknown, and
the land in Frodley was worth 10s., tenure not known, and
the lands, etc., in Worcestershire were worth 40s., and the
tenure was not known. ^

How conventional these values were will be understood
when it is stated that the Committee for compounding the
sequestered estates of Royalists only thirteen years after this
date, estimated the value of the Wrottesley property at
£703 a year, or more than twelve times the estimate given
in the Inquisition.

Sir Hugh's will was dated 1633, and was proved in the
same year. He makes bequests in it to his son William,
his son and heir Walter, and his daughters Mary, Penelope.
Elizabeth, Howard, Margaret, and his daughter Bressy. The
latter was his youngest daughter Dorothy, who married in
1681 Henry Bressy, or Bracy, of Escott, co. Warwick. ^
Besides these daugliters, he had another named Susanna,
who was married in 1623 to Reginald Corbett, of Pon-
tesbury,'^ and who appears to have died before her father.
William, the second son, was very wild, and a cause of
great trouble to his father. In June 1630, he was at
school at Coventry, and the schoolmaster, Samuel Foster,
writes to Sir Hugh, to complain that a week before
breaking-up at Christmas, Sir Hugh's son shut up the
schoolroom and kept the place half a day and a night,
shot a pistol at him, wounding him in the thigh and legs
and damaged his dress, for which he asked £10 for
remuneration. His father left him the property at Frodesley,
CO. Salop, and he afterwards married one Anne Chamberlain.
In 1640 he was living in Herefordshire. Anne, daughter
of Mr. Rottesley, Gentleman, and Anne his wife, was
baptized at Almeley, co. Hereford, 9th July 1640, and Walter
Wrottesley, Gentleman, was buried there 10th April 1664.^

1 Court of Wards, Bundle 53, No. 211.

^ Marriage settlement, formerly at Wrottesley, and Heralds' Visitation of 1663.

3 Codsall Registers and Harl. MS. 1173, fo. 51.

* Grazebrook's Notes to Dugdale's Visitation of Staffordshire of 1663, vol. v
of Staffordshire Collections. William Wrottesley's will was dated 31st January
1642-3, and was proved on the 5th March 1645-6. He is described in it as

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 301

Of the other daughters of Sir Hugh, Mary married, for a
first hushand, John Louglier, of Ferton, and for a second
hushand, Edward Williams, of Dudley.^

Penelope had also two hushanrls, for she occurs first as
Penelope Collett, and in 1636 as Penelope Mill.^ Nothing
is kno'vrn of either husband.

Elizabeth married Walter Hopton, of Stretton Grantham,
CO. Hereford.^

Howard married fi^rst, William Blunden, of Bishops Castle,
CO. Salop, and secondly, John Wingfield, of Shrewsbury.-

Margaret married Jonathan Langley, of Shrewsbury.^

After the death of Sir Hugh, an Inventory was made of
his effects in the house and stables, and it is proposed here
to give a few extracts from it, as it illustrates the mode of
life and accommodation in a gentleman's country house in
the reign of Charles I. It shews also the offensive and
defensive arms maintained at the same period in a time of
peace. A drawing of the house is appended, taken from
an old parchment estate map of the same date, which gives
a bird's-eye view of it, shewing the moat and palisading
which surrounded it. This palisading, or " palitia," is the
hnmble origin of the words Palace and Palatine, all important
buildings having been surrounded with one in primitive
days. When the palisading was made of whole trunks of
trees squared, it proved a very effective defence, as we know
from our experience against the New Zealanders' " Pjdi," and
if surrounded by a wet moat, it was very difficult to assault.
At the time when Sir Walter Wrottesley compounded for
his estates in 1645, the house, from a defensive point of
view, was stated to be very strong.

Old Invextoky at Wrottesley, dated 3rd August 1635.

In ye halle.

Compleate annur for the Ijodies of twelve men, whereof two are

for horsemen.
One case of pistolls.

liis wife, Anne, who ou tlie Stli March 164^5-6. Ho is described in it as late
of the Parish of Emyley was left executrix, and his sons, Walter and Thomas,
his dauji-hters Margaret and Anne, his sisters, Howard, Dorothy and Elizabeth,
and his mother-in-law, Margaret Chamberlain. His eldest son, Walter, was
under age. By his will he devises the property in Frodesley, co. Salop,
to Leicester Devereux, Es ;., Thomas Chamberlain, of Broadway, co. Worcester.
Gentleman, and others named, as trustees for the benefit of his children. Court
of Prol)at^, London (32 Twisse).

' Dugdale's Yisitatioii of Staffordshire, 1663, printed in vol. v of Staffordshire
Collections.

- Ibid., and marriage settlement at Wrottesley dated 1650. Howard, used
as a christian name, was derived from the Dovereux connection. Sir Edward
Devereux had a daughter, Howard, who married Thomas Dilke, of Maxstoke,
CO. Warwick. Howard Dilke would be thereore aunt to Howard Wrottesley.

•^ Visitation of Staffordshire, 1663.

302 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Fower Gavvnletts.
Three coates of raaile.^
one buffe coate.
one quilted coate.
A case of horsemen's pistoUs.
Nyne and twentye head peeces.
Forty swordes with belts.
Twelve pikes armed,
eleven Holbeards.
Three battle axes.^
Twelve musketts and their restes.
Fower calyvers.
Sixteen llandeliers.

A knotte of match, one other muskett.
Two staves for horsemen.
A drum and case.
A boxe of bullets

Two brazen candlesticks hanging on the walles.
Twelve leather buckets.
Twenty and seven pikes unarmed.
Eighteen staves whereof one hath a pike.''

Fower tables, seaven formes, whereof one a short one, one cup-
board, one olde Bible, and a lanthorne.

In ye Great Parlour.

Three tables and carpetts (some words here are illegible).

One cupboord and cupboord cloth.

One dozen of chairs with upper covers of red leather, as many stooles

coveied in like maner.
One couch chair.

One other chair of Turkic worke.
A child's chair, one dozen plaine joynd stooles and an olde one

behind the parlour dore.
Fower window curtains
Eleven Turkic work cushions.
A nedle work cushion.

One skryne (screen), two trunckes, a leading stafFe, an anglerodd.
Three pair of playing tables, snuffers, fyer pan and tonges suteable,

one pair of bellowes, and fower handskrynes.
A paire of organs, one comon prayer book, two bibles, a pair of

virginals.
Seaven twiggen garlands.

' A later Inventory, dated 1642, mentions five coats of mail and one mail
cappe. Mail caps had not been worn under the helmet since the reign of
Henry III. The coats of mail, too, must have been very ancient.

- These must have been verj' old, probablj- dating from the Crusades.

■* In 163-i there is an agreement by John Hodges, Cutler of Wolverhampton,
to keep in repair the armour and arms in the Hall at Wrottesley for £3
per annum. The arms are specified to bo '' com])lete munition for forty
men."

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 303

Fowerteene pictures.

A paire of brasse andirons.

A clocke, and one mappe.

[ii ]ji' DynyiKje Roome.

Two drawinge tables.

One cupboard. Three carpetts.

One couche chair, one dozen of other chaires, and one dozen of

stooles with false covers of red leather to them all.
One half dozen needle work cushions, another half dozen of cushions

of another sorte, a great pair of brasse andirons, a flfyre pan

and tonges suteable, a pair of bellows.

In myne oiviie lochjiiuje chamber.

One standing bedsteade with curtaines, valense, counterpoint, redde

rugge, and one white blankett.
A double bed with two boulsters and one pillow, and bed matt

thereto.
A trundle bed with canopie and curtaines, one yeallowe rugge, one

white blankett, a feather bedd, one boulster, a pair of pillowes,

and a bed matt.
A trundle bed, with feather bed and boulster, two blanketts, and

one rugge, and a bed matt.
Three chaires, a cupboard and one table with carpett, five window

curtaines, a warmeing pan, fire pan and tonges of iron, a pair of

bellowes, one arasse cushion, and two brushes.

In ye yealloxu Chamber.

One Bedsteade with curtains, valanse, feather bed, one boulster, two
pillows, one counterpointe, one yellow rugge, three blancketts
and one bed matt.

One cupbord and cloth, one windowe curtaine, one couche chair,
one other chaire and two lowe stooles, covered ut supra i red
leather), one brasse paire of andirons, with fyre pan and tonges
suteable, a paire of bellows.

Then follow the contents of: — My wyves closet. Ye white
chamber. Mistress Elizabeth's chamber. Mr. William his
chamber. Ye parlour chamber, ye middle chamber, and five
other chambers which are furnished in a similar manner,
except that most of them have a trundle bed in addition
to the standing bedstead. The latter appears to be the old
four-poster.

Three servants, William Bostocke, John Betinson and John
Smythe, have each a chamber to themselves, and there are, in
addition, "ye three bed chamber," "ye maide's chamber," "ye
children's chamber," " ye cockloft chamber," and " ye nursery,"
which had no bedsteads. There were no wash-hand stands in
any of the rooms, nor any means of ablution whatever, but
in the pantry were kept some pewter basins and " fewer bende-

304 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

ware cans whereof the chambermaids keepe one to fetch water."
The pantry also contained sixe beere glasses and eight wyne
glasses, hut the usual drinking cup was the horn cup and ihe
"noggen," of which a laige ([uantity were kept in the kitchen.

In the kitchen also were kept seven and fortie great
woodden bowles and dishes, threescore dishes of sundry sorts,
and a number (illegible) of trenchers.

The Jnventoiy also contains the articles kept in the " Wet
Larder," the pastrie, the brewhouse, the Dayrie and the Store
howse.

'J'he list of linen seems respectable. It consisted of —
Holland sheetes, ten pair.
Flaxen sheetes, eleven pair.
Hempen sheetes, fifteen pair.

Hurden sheetes, eleven pair and one odd .sheete.
Pillow beeres, eleven paire.
Fj-ne pillow beeres, three pair.
Fla.xen table clothes, eight.
Fine flaxen to wells, three.
Hempen and hurden tpwells, seventeeue.
Cupboai'd clothes, nyne.

Hempen napkins, two dozen and three odd ones.
Hurden napkins, tlnee and twentie.
New table clothes, five.
Cupboard clothes, three.
Napkyns, sixe dozen.
Old dyaper napkyns, fower dozen.
New longe table clothes of dyaper, three.
New dyaper napkyns, Two dozen and a half.
Of another sort, two dozen.
Short table clothes, eleven.
Dyaper towells, nyne.
Damask napkyns, five.
Drinking napkyns, three.

One longe table clothe of fiyne dyaper, two short ones, and two
dozen of napkyns.

The silver plate consisted of —
Three basins and Kwers (. . .), toi'n off.
Six bowles. Two great (...) torn off.
Two candlesticks one (...) with cover.
A Communion cup with cover.
A chafinge dish.
Two great salts.
Eight trencher salts.
Eight vinegar boates.
Twentie and fower slipt spoones.
Twelve apostle spoones.
Fifteene spoones daylie in use.
One dozen of plates.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 305

Five pottingers.

A Colledge cup, gilt, with cover.

One other pottinger.

Fower Cawdle cups, whereof two with covers.

A sugar bose and a sugar dish.

Fower gilt spoones.

Two large preserving spoones.

Five other spoones.

A carving fork.

A little bole for hot water

Two dishes.

A pair of snuffers.

N.B. — The sugar dish was exchanged for another pottinger the
last day of December 1G35, and then was bought a silver scummer
and an extinguisher.

The old house compri.sed, therefore, the hall, the dining
room, the great parlour, thirteen best bedrooms, and five
servants' rooms, containing altogether twenty-five beds ; a
nursery, and usual offices. None of the bedrooms had
carpets, but every bedroom had a bed mat.

There were no table knives or forks. The latter did not
come into general use before the reign of Charles II, and
for cutting up meat everyone must have used his own
sheath knife or dagger.

There was a considerable stock of linen, and tablecloths
and napkins were in use, and even the servants appear to
have had sheets to their beds. A few glasses are named,
but no hardware or crockery, and trenchers of wood and horn
cups were apparently used on all ordinary occasions, and
silver at other times. Coal does not appear to have been
burnt, except perhaps in the kitchen and offices, for the
other rooms had each a fire pan and tongs and a pair of
bellows, but no pokers. The latter would not be required
with wood fires.

In the stables there were fifteen eflfective horses and three
young ones, and it is probable that there were more out at
grass, as the date of the Inventory was the 8rd of August.
Four of these horses are called stud horses, and there were
four mares, of which three had " sucking " colts or fillies.
All the horses were branded.

At this date the old Wrottesley Park was stocked with
red deer, and there were eighteen hounds kept in the kennels.
Their names were written on a slip of paper attached to the
Inventor}' and they are given here to shew how ancient and
conventional the names of our foxhounds are. Nearly all the
names written below are to be found in packs of hounds
at the present day. They were —
X

306

HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Woodman Courtier

Trouncer

Thunder Bonny
Mankin Ranger

Jumper
Blewman

Dolphin Kilbuck
Beauty Ringwood

Gipsy
Rockwode

Bouncer Duchess

Maybe.

r Hugh was buried at Tettenhall

on the

Ist June 1(

Arms of Sir Hugh Wrottesley.

On the dexter side — Or, three piles Sable, a quarter Ermine, for
Wrottesley.

On the sinister side — Argent, a fess Gules, and in chief three
roundels of the last, for Devereux.

Sir Walter Wrottesley, Bart., 1633-59.

Walter, the eldest son of Sir
Hugh Wrottesley, was born in May
1606, at Castle Bromwich, near
Birmingham,'- the residence of his
maternal grandfather. Sir Edward
Devereux. At the date of his
accession to the property, his
father's livery had not been dis-
charged by the Court of Wards
and Liveries, nor were all the
formalities completed before the
following 10th of July, when the
Court issued the discharge in the
following terms : —
Court of Wards and Liveries, 12th July, 9 Charles (1633).
Whereas yt appeareth unto this Court by the affidavit of John
Birche, gentleman, recorded in Court this xii**^ day of this instant
Julie, that Sir Hugh Wrottesley, Knight, sonne and heire of
Walter Wrottesley, Esquire, deceased, dyed the xxviii*^^ day of
May last past, and for that yt appeares by 0. constat under Mr.
Raymond's hande that xxiiij li for primer seisen, and xiiij li for
the fine hath been paid unto the receipt of this Courte, and noe
rates overdue as by the endorsement upon the Schedule of the
said Liverie under Mr. Auditors hande more at large appeares. It
is therefore ordered that the said Liverie of the said Hugh, and
all charges, seizures, extents, scripts, attachments and process for
wante thereof shall be discharged by decree of this Courte. And
a decree to be drawne up accordingly. ^

^ Tettenhall Registers.

'' Registers of Aston, near Birmingham, edited by Mr. William F. Carter.

* Wrottesley Muniments. John Bii'ch was the family lawyer.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 307

The above sum of £38 represents the succession duty of
the period, and it amounted to about a twentieth of the
annual value of the property, a very small proportion, as
compared with tlie sums levied at the present day under
the exigencies of modern democratic finance.

Before dealing with Sir Walter's public career, I propose
to describe his domestic troubles and difficulties, for they
lasted without intermission during the whole of his life, and
are best told as a continuous story. He had married his
wife, Mary Grey, when only 19, against the consent of his
father, and in spite of threats that he would be disinherited
if he carried out his intention.^ Walter had now to reap
the consequences of his disobedience, for although his father
had not carried out his intention of disinheriting him, he
had left considerable legacies to all his other children, and
these, owing to the loss of Mary's marriage portion, were
necessarily charged upon the landed property.

Sir Hugh had left seven daughters, of these Penelope,
Dorothy, and Susanna had been married in their father's
lifetime. Elizabeth appears to have lived at Wrottesley with
her brother's family after the death of her father, and took
no part in the family squabbles ; the others presented them-
selves in a body before their brother in the Midsummer of
1633, and formally demanded their legacies.

On the 5th of January 1633-4, his sister Howard writes
to Sir Walter, " I doe heare that yoo doe take it ill that I
shold say that I would have my money out of your hearts
blood, which words I never spoke to my knowledge, but if
I did it was in some passion when I was urged to it."

Sir Walter, in his answer to Howard, who in 1637 filed

' The j'oungr couple were nearly connected, for Ambrose Grey had married
Margaret, the daughter of Richard Prince, and the son of the latter had married
Mary, the sister of Sir Hugh Wrottesley, Mary Grej^ was therefore niece
by marriage, and probably god-daughter of Mary Prince, nee Wrottesley.
On the 6th August 4-4 Elizabeth (1602), Sir Henry Graye, of Pei-goe, co.
Essex, had settled upon his son Ambrose Graye, on his marriage with
Margaret Prynce, the daughter of Richard Prynce, Esquire, late of Shrews-
bury, deceased, the manors of Enville, alias Enfield, Morffe, Trysell, Seisdon,
Overton, Womburne, Whittington, and Amblecote, co. Stafford, the manor of
Beckbury, co. Salop, and lands in Bobbington and Kinfar, co. Stafford, and
in Roddington, co. Salop. The deed provided for a jointure for Margaret, and
sums of £500 each for every daughter of the marriage not otherwise pro-
vided for, the said manors and lands to be held by Ambrose for his life,
with remainder to the heirs male of the body of Ambrose, failing such, to
the heirs male of the body of George Graye, brother of Ambrose, and
failing such, to the right heirs of Sir Henry for ever. (Wrottesley Muni-
ments.) The male issue of Ambrose Grey and of George Grey came to
an end, and the manor of Enville and the other lands which had not
been sold, came eventually to the right heirs of Sir Henry Grey, now
represented by the Earl of Stamford. The Wrottesleys might therefore
quarter the arms of the younger branch of this family, but they have never
done so.

308% HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

a bill in Chancery against him, says " she hath not any
just cause as yet in such bitter, hot, and passionate manner
to implead and question me" — that his father's intention was
if his personalty were insufficient, his debts in the first place,
and afterwards his legacies, should be paid out of the surplus
of rents which remained after providing for the proper main-
tenance of the owner of the estate ; and, moreover, that
the whole rental only amounted to £700 a year. Sir Walter
in addition denies that his father had any right to charge
these legacies on the land at all.

The story of the sisters, as appears by the pleadings,
was that Sir Hugh was greatly incensed against his son,
and had threatened to cut off the entail and disinherit him,
but that Walter deprecated his wrath on his knees, and had
prevailed on his father to allow the estates to descend to
him, upon his promising faithfully to pay his debts and
legacies. Sir Walter states that he only promised to pay so
far as the personalty would suffice, but he had offered to
pay the legacies at the end of three years, and allow six
per cent, interest in the meantime, if his sisters would release
their claims. They refused to accept this offer, by the
advice of Sir Richard Prince, their uncle-in-law.

Mary and Penelope married men beneath them in station,
and unable to maintain them in any comfort. The first married
John Lougher, a j^ounger brother of a family residing at
Perton, and she and her husband were often in great distress.
Dorothy, who had married Henry Bressey, had received her
sister Mary at Escot, near Meriden, in Warwickshire, shortly
before her confinement, and applies to her brother to be
repaid the cost of her hospitality. She writes that she would
not have had to borrow money "if n^y brother Lougher
had never come and layen upon us with his wife, his man,
and horse," and adds of Lougher "he has no money to
provide for his wife's necessities, and if he had he would
spend it. He doth think to fetch gossips out of his country,
which will be very chargeable." B}^ " gossips " I conclude
is meant godfathers and godmothers.

Sir Walter was evidently disinclined to pay Mary's legacy,
unless the Loughers would settle an annuity of £40 on his
sister and her issue. The legacy was never paid during
Lougher's lifetime, and was the occasion of much litigation
for many years.

On the death of Lougher, Mary married, as Sir Walter
states, " contrary to his mind and many advertisements to
the contrary, Williams, a man of small or noe means at all ;
therefore he saw no reason to pay him the four hundred
pounds, unless he should be careful and respective (sic) to his
sister." On this ensued another suit, which lasted for the

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 309

remainder of Sir Walter's lifetime, and was not finally
settled until 1663, four years after his death, when the
WilHams' received £280 from the second Baronet in dis-
charge of all claims. This WilKams is described as " the
chaplain of Lord Ward, and having formerly preached at
Dudley in the cavaleering times, when Colonel Leveson
kept garrison for the King there." He married Mary in
1645.

Respecting Penelope, Lougher writes to his wife, the
11th of May 1639, "Your sister Pen lyes very ill, and all
for the unkindness of her brother, and have done ever sithins
Christmas, and noe hope of recovery." She died soon after,
but other letters and documents furnish no ground for this
charge against Sir Walter. She was at times reduced to
great distress, until her brother finally paid her legacy of
£250 on the 2nd May 1638 ; but it is probable from evidence
that he allowed her eight per cent, for the money till paid.
Penelope appears to have married before the 27th October
1631, a person of the name of Collett. She had two
children by him — Thomas, who was bound apprentice to
William Hey, a clothier of Bradford in Yorkshire, in August
1637; and a daughter Margaret. Collett was dead before
January 1634, and Penelope married again. Her second
husband was one Mill or Miles, who, she afterwards found
out, had another wife living. She took legal proceedings
against Miles, and states that she " had hired my Lord's
chief poursuivant, but thought Miles was gone beyond
sea, for there was a scitation hung on Dr. Chamberlayne's
doore, by the same gentlewoman that lays claim to him ;
and I am assured by the best councell I can learne from
the civilians, that if the contract be proved lawfull, he will
fall to her share." She first occurs as Penelope Mill in
1636.1

She appears to have gone on spending money on this
business 'until her death in 1639. Her children added much
to her troubles. Thomas left his master. In letters to Sir
Walter he is called "a troublesome boy, likely to put his
uncle to more charge than his body is worth " ; and Birch,
the family lawyer, writes, " Your sister. Mistress Pen's
Sonne have beene placed in several places. I know not what
should be done with him. Mistress Lougher put him into
clothes, and procured severall places, but none will fit
him. She will dispose of him any way you like ; if you
think fit, she will put him to a captayne or seemann."

Of Margaret, the daughter of Penelope, the first notice
is found in a letter, dated 1st June 1637, showing that Sir
Walter was exceeding wrath with a carrier for bringing

^ Wrottesley Muniments and Correspondence.

310 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

her from London, asking him whether he had heard that
she came from an infected phice. Penelope had been so ill-
advised as to send her daughter uninvited to Wrottesley by
the common carrier, and Walter probably invented the idea
of an infected house as an excuse not to take her in.
Richard Hanson, a tenant of Sir Walter's, gave her house-
room for three weeks, and was afterwards paid by him
at the rate of 2s. 6d. a week for her board. Merry, the
carrier, was paid in 1638, 5s. for bringing her down, and
13s. for taking her back again on the 15th July 1637.
Her mother writes to Sir Walter, " I understand you are
much discontented with me about my daughter's comynge
downe into the country. I am heartily sorry to heare of
it, that she should be soe wretched and vile to displease
j'ou and to disgrace me in comynge soe basely into the
country." She adds she " is disgraced by a graceless
baggage, and hopes she • will be sent up in the same
manner as she came downe." The last notice of the poor
girl is in a letter dated 1G39, wdiich states that she was
then in Virginia.

Sir Walter had other troubles, arising from trespasses in
pursuit of game. In October 1635, a suit in the Star
Chamber was instituted by him, for the purpose of punish-
ing some neighbours who had broken the head of John
Frauster, his gamekeeper. In June 1638, Sir Walter writes
to Birch, then residing at Cannock, that he had lost a
hind stolen out of his park, " upon receipte of which
discurtesy, I could doe noe lesse then take course for the
finding of those which were delinquent therein," and then
he informs Birch that he is going to proceed against the
otienders in the Star Chamber. Though much distressed
for money, he tells his lawyer not to hesitate to spend
money, and writes, " I value not the expense in soe just
a cause," but within a month of that time, he wrote to
Thomas, another lawyer, a letter in which he professes his
total want of money, and his inabilit}'' to repay the
Bressey's what they had spent for his unfortunate sister
Mary, whose husband he also accused of being implicated
in the abduction of the hind.

From these and other causes. Sir Walter was compelled
to sell considerable propert}^, including Priestfields, near
Wolverhampton, afterwards the site of valuable coal mines,
and other lands for which he received £3,248. He also
sold the manor of Butterton, in the north of the county,
for £3,130. The other lands sold were situated in Lichfield,
Bilston, Wolverhampton, Pendeford, Bushbury, Tettenhall,
Codsall, Droitwich, Coven, and elsewhere. In a paper in
his own handwriting, Walter makes his own and his father's

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 311

debts top:ether to amount to £8,400, and his sales to
£7,642. These were large sums in the seventeenth century,
but it is probable that the debt of £8,400 included the
purchase money of the manors of Trysull, Womborne, Orton,
and Seisdon, which had been acquired by his father on
very advantageous terms from the creditors and mortgagees
of Ambrose Grej^, of Enville, the father of Walter's wife.

I now come to the public career of Sir Walter.

In 1634, as one of the Deputy Lieutenants of the County,
he made a return of the '' trayned horse for the County."
This has been printed from a MS. at Wrottesley, in vol. xv
of the Staffordshire Collections. The muster consisted of
sixty-nine Cuirassiers and thirty-one Light Horse, and as it
was based on the assessment of the land, it gives us the
names of all the landed gentry of the county.

In 1639 he was appointed by the Earl Marshal to
terminate a quarrel between Henry Grey, of Enville, and
Nicholas Moseley, which had been carried by Henry Grey
into "the Court of Honor the Earl Marshall's Court sitting
in the Painted Chamber beneath the Palace of Westminster."

Henry Grey's complaint was that Nicholas Moseley had
given him the lie at least twenty times, had called him a
base, scurvey [....], and boasted that he durst not fight,
and challenged him to fight if he durst.

The Court of Honor issued a decree, dated 9th July 1639,
authorizing Walter W^rottesley to end the controversy, he
being chosen with the assent of both parties. Walter
awarded that Nicholas Moseley should pay the complain-
ant's just expenses incurred in prosecuting the suit in the
Court of Honor, and make an apology to Henry Grey in
the presence of four gentlemen of quality.

At this date the Marshal's Court took cognizance of
abusive language for which a culprit could not be punished
in the regular Courts, and like the Star Chamber it tilled
up a gap in the ordinary judicature of the country. Unlike
the latter Court, however, it was never formally abolished, but
it fell gradually into desuetude. Blackstone speaking of it in
his Commentaries, published in 1764, says, ''As it cannot
imprison, and as by the resolutions of the Superior Courts it
is now confined to so narrow and restricted a jurisdiction it
has fallen into contempt and disuse."^

By warrant, dated 28th April 1640, Robert Devereux, Earl
of Essex, who had succeeded the Earl of Monmouth as
Lord Lieutenant of Staffordshire, appoints : —

" My right well beloved and trustie friend and kinsman'-^ Walter
Wriottsley of Wriottsley in the County of Stafford, Esquire, my

' " The Earl Marshal's Court," by George Grazebrook, F.S.A., privately
printed, 1895.

^ Essex always speaks of Walter Wrottesley as his kinsman, but the blood

312

HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

deputy in the office of Lieutenant in the County of Stafford during
his absence in attendance upon his Majesty in his high Court of
Parliament at Westminster, to joyne with the other deputies in
the execution of the said office of Lieutenantcy, and also solely
by himself, if cause require it, to do and perform all other things
requisite for His Majesty's service, and for my said Deputy
Walter Wriottsley his better performance thereof I have delivered
him a true copie of His Majesty's said Letters Patent to me
therein made." This warrant is signed " Ro. Essex."

In the same year, in conjunction with Sir Hervej' Bagot
and Thomas Crompton, two other Deputy Lieutenants, he
made the muster for the Scotch war, which is printed in
vol. XV of the Staffordshire Collections. The men mustered
on this occasion were the trained bands who had been
previously employed in 1639, and an additional body of 300
men who were impressed for the occasion ; the service was
very unpopular, and in some counties the men mutinied and
murdered their officers. The insubordination did not reach
this pitch in Staffordshire, but riots and disorders occurred
in many parts of the country during the march of the men
to the rendezvous. Amongst the State Papers there is a
letter to the Lords of the Council, signed by Sir Hervey
Bagot, Walter Wrottesley, and Thomas Crompton, dated from
Uttoxeter, 1 5th July 1640, giving an account of the riots at
tliat place between the 1st and the 3rd July of this year.
The Deputy Lieutenants write : —

" That receiving notice of the riot from one of the Constables
whilst we were at supper between 8 and 9 of the clock at

relationships of tliis era are often no nearer than those of Baillie Jar'V'ie and
Rob Roy, when the former claimed the famous freebooter, as his " near
kinsman, four times removed." It will be seen by the pedigree below that
Essex was second cousin once removed of Walter, but by the half blood
only.

Mary, d. of Thom.=r Walter Devereux, Lord Fer-=rMargaret, d. of Robert Gar-

Grey, Marquis of
Dorset, 1st wife.

rersofChartley, 1st Viscount nish, of Kenton, co. Suffolk,
Hereford, ob. 1558. 2nd wife.

Sir Robert Devereux, ob.
v.p. 1547.

Sir Edward Devereux,=rCatharine, d. of Edward

Bart., of Castle Brom-
wich, ob. 1622.

Walter Devereux, created
Earl of Essex, ob. 1576.

Robert, Earl of Essex,
the favourite of Queen
Elizabeth, beheaded 1601 .

I
Robert, Earl of Essex, the
Parliamentary General,
ob. s.p. 1646.

Arden, of Park Hall, co.
Warwick.

Sir Walter Devereux, Bart., Mai'garet.^pSir Hugh

succeeded as Viscount
Devereux 1646, ob. 1659.

Wrottesley,
ob. 1633.

Sir Walter Wrottesley, Bart.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 31 3

night, we gave order to the Constable speedily to raise what
forces he could in the Towne, and to bringe them downc to the
Inne where we lodged which the Constable did performe, as we
conceive, very honestly, and when we had gotten to the number
of 40 or 50 townsmen well armed with Halberds and other
weapons, we did rise from supper and with that number and our
owne servants we made after them, and were soe neere them at
the first settinge forth, as that we were within hearing of them,
but being on foot, and not soe well able to travell as those
miscreants who made haste to do mischeife, before we could
approach to the said place where they beganne their worke the
said unruly multitude had pulled down about some tenne roodes
of Rayles and had made two fiers thereof. When we came neere
unto them we made a stand and caused proclamation to be made
accordinge to the Statute in that case provided.

This beinge done we came close up to them, and by all faire
perswations sought to pacify them, letting them know the danger
they were in if they should now persist and continew in this
riotous and unlawful course. They gave little care to our per-
swations, imd then we fell to action, and conceiving ourselves able
to deale with the number as then assembled, we in our owne
persons with the helpe of some High Constables and our owne
servants laid houlde of the ryotors and delivered them upp into
the hands of the said Townsmen whoe stood by us armed with
weapons charginge them to hould the said Riotors fast, but more
souldiers comyng in they were rescued and taken from them,
whereby vv-e were disinabled to record the said Ryott or to inflict
condigne ponishment on the said Riotors beinge menne unknowne
to us," etc., etc.

Tiie riots continued all the following day, the soldiers
being masters of the town, and the High Constable of the
Hundred reporting that he " could not stay their hands
without effusion of much blood." The report then goes on
to state that : —

" On the 3rd J uly finding them to grow insolent and fearing
some greater mysheife likely to ensue, if they were not mastered,
we caused several High Constables to raise strength out of the
townes 4 or 5 miles of Uttoxitor and to bring them armed, and
sent for the assistance of some of the neighbouringe Justices soe
that night we ourselves and the said Justices howsed the said
souldiers and sett strong gardes in severall places of the towne
whome we comaunded to watch all that night, by which meanes
we kept them in reasonable good order untill such time as they
were delivered over to the ofiicers authorised by the Lord Generall
of his Majestys Army to receave them,'"' etc.

On the 28th July an urgent message from Humphrey
Wyrley to Walter Wrottesley states that the same soldiers
had broken out again into a riofc at Mr. Lane's at Bentley,
and asks him to meet him without delay at Walsall, for

314 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

"you and myself are the two nest Justices dwelling to the
place where the riots are committed," etc.

The sequel was on a par with the above proceedings ;
when the train bands and the impressed men came into the
presence of the enemy on the Tyne, they all turned their
backs and ran away without stopping till they reached
Newcastle.

The Long Parliament met in the following year. The
private letters at Wrottesley shewed clearly that Walter
Wrottesley's sympathies at this time were all in favour of
the Parliament, and this in fact, owing to the mismanage-
ment of the King's affairs, was the general bent of men's
minds. On the 9th February 1641, Thomas Pudsey, one
of his neighbours, writes to him from Essex House,
London' : —

"Strafford's tryal will be to-morrow senet. It is thought he will
not come off well, for the axe or the rope may sarve his turne.
The Bishop of Oxford is dead, and our Bishop is not well, and I
think all have quesie stomachs, for they stand upon their good
behaviour ; in the house some are for Bishops and some for none,
and if there be any, they are to be alowed a partickelar stipand
so that their pride will be abated."

The correspondence formerly at Wrottesley tends to confirm
the opinion of Lord Clarendon, that the opposition to the
King's measures proceeded more from dislike to the
Bishops and their pretentions, than from any ill will to the
monarchy. Laud and the Bishops had, however, persuaded
the King that the outcry against them was only a
pretence, and that the agitation was really aimed at the
monarchy, and Charles therefore made the cause of the
Bishops' his own, and lost both his crown and his head.
Another letter from Pudsey of later date, states that the
writer had been into the City to see the axe sharpened
which was to be used at the execution of Lord Strafford.
This appears to have been made a public spectacle, and will
give an idea of the brutality and violence of the political
feeling of the day.

All this time, notwithstanding his pecuniary embarrassments
and the public troubles, Walter Wrottesley was in treaty for
the purchase of a Baronetcy. The King's need for money
was great, and the following letter shows the method by
which these dignities were acquired at this date. On the
6th March 1641, Sir John Skefiington writes to him, asking
for two large trees, and offers a Baronetcy, the King having
given him a warrant, '' with liberty to nominate a gentleman
whom he and I think fit,'' and he gives him the first offer
for £300.

' 'J'he house of the Earl of Essex. Pudsey was in the service of the Earl.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 315

On the 10th of the same month, Thomas Pudsey advises
Walter Wrottesley not to think of the Baronetc3^ "It is
thought those which have been made shall be called in
question, and nothing shall be done but by Parliament."

In a later letter the Baronetcy was declined " as the times
are dangerous."

At the first meeting of the Long Parliament, an order
had been issued to seize the arms of the Roman Catholic
Recusants, and this order involved Walter Wrottesley in a
quarrel with his neighbour Thomas Leveson, of Wolver-
hampton, who was a Roman Catholic, and subsequently
famous as the Governor of Dudley Castle for the King
during the Civil War.

On the 20th April 1642 Walter writes to Sir Sampson
Evers, enclosing particulars of the conduct of Mr. Thomas
Leveson, and stating : —

" That on the 9th April last Mr. Thomas Leveson had sent to
John Tanner, an armourer, in Wolverhampton, to demand his horse-
man's arms, who gave his messenger answer, that he was not to
deliver them without command from the Deputy-Lieutenants. Mr.
Leveson then came himself to the said John Tanner's shop and
spoke these words, ' Sirrah, why did you not send me my arms V
John Tanner submissively repHed, with his hat in his hand, that he
was not to deliver them without orders from the Deputy-Lieutenants
and therefore wished him not to take it ill. Whereupon Mr. Leveson
asked who were the Deputy-Lieutenants, to which John Tanner
told him Mr. Crompton and Mr. Wrottesley and others. Thereupon
Mr. Leveson, in a violent passion, said that Mr. Wrottesley was a
fool and a knave and he (meaning John Tanner) was a stinking
rogue, and with these words, with a cane which he had in his
hand, stroke him two or three blows, one whereof liit him on the
head, and made a great knob in the skin thereof."^

Walter Wrottesley also wrote an account of this affair to
Essex, in which he states : —

" That he and Mr. Crompton had given instructions to Tanner
not to restore the arms to Mr. Leveson, as he was an active and
dangerous recusant, and that the latter had told Tanner that
Mr. Wrottesley was a fool and a knave, and with his cane did
beat Tanner in his own house, which is much taken notice of in
the county, and that he (the wi-iter) was deeply wounded in his
reputation by the matter."

And he added that " Leveson is going to France to
breed up his son in Popery," and suggests that a writ of
" ne exeat regno " should be issued against him. There
had been previous bickerings between Walter and Leveson,

' Welbeck MSS., printed by the Historical Commission, and Commons
Journals, ii, 554.

316 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

the latter having distrained upon the Wrottesley Constable
for not attending his Court Leets in 1640. Walter took
the part of" his Constable, declaring that he owed no service
to Leveson's Courts, and this turned out to be the case.

Parliament now was master of the situation, owing to the
King's weakness in parting with the power of dissolution.
They took possession of the Fleet, and on the 15th April
passed an ordinance that the King's Commissions of
Lieutenancy were illegal and void. Essex was re-appointed
Lord Lieutenant of Staffordshire by tfie Parliament, and on
the 29th of June he appointed Walter Wrottesley his Vice-
Lieutenant for the County. The preamble of the warrant
issued for this purpose ran as follows : — -

" Whereas the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled
have for the safety of his Majesty's person, the Parliament and
Kingdom in this tyme of imminent danger, by an ordinaunce of
the said Lox*ds and Commons ordeyned me Robert Earl of Essex
to be Lieutenant of the County of Stafford," etc.^

It would appear by this Commission that Essex calculated
on the support of Walter, but in this he reckoned without
his host. The violent proceedings of the Parliament had
caused a re-action in the King's favour ; Falkland and Hyde
and all the moderate members of the Parliament withdrew
and repaired to the King. Walter Wrottesley appears to have
belonged to this party and was appointed one of the Com-
missioners of Array by the King. On the 26th of July
Essex writes to warn him against having anything to do
with the Array, as it was illegal. -

On the 9th of August the Parliament voted the King's
Commissioners of Array to be traitors. On the 22nd of
the same month the King set up his standard at Nottingham

' Origiiial Commission formerly at Wrottesley. It was siprned " Essex."
' Wrottesley Muniments. According to Clarendon, Parliament had obtained
an opinion from Selden that the King's Commissions of Array were invalid.
If Selden really gave this opinion without any qualification, it only shows
how political prejudices tend to distort the judgment, for as an historian
and archajologist, he must have known that the English sovereigns had
issued these Commissions from time immemorial. It is possible, however,
that in some of the Tudor Commissions there had been a departui-e from
the original form of words. Thus in the original Commissions the words,
" for the defense of the Kingdom " or to accompany the King, " ad profiscenduin
cum nobis " always occur. If Selden argued that Commissions of Array
could be issued only for defence of the kingdom against external enemies,
the answer would be that they had been issued both by Henry VI and
Edwai-d IV during the Civil AVars of Lancaster and York. It may be
said, however, that in all these cases the writs were for the protection of
the King's person, but even admitting this to be true, in the case of the
writs of Charles I this technical objection would not apply, for the King
took the field in person.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 317

and invited his subjects to supply him with money, horses
and arms, for which he pledged the woods and forests and
royal demesnes for their repayment. It was at this date
that Walter Wrottesley purchased his Baronetcy ; he must
have foreseen that he would have to advance money for the
King, and probably considered that he had better get some-
thing for it in return.

The Letters Patent conferring the Baronetcy upon him
are dated from Nottingham 30th August 1642. After a
preamble describing the institution of the Dignity by his
father, James I, the Letters state that : — ^

"we of our special grace, etc., have raised, preferred and
created our beloved Walter Wrotesley the elder, of Wrotesley
in the County of Stafford Esquire, a man approved in family,
property, wealth and probity of manners, who with a
generous and liberal mind gave and afforded to us sufficient
ample aid and help for maintaining and supplying thirty men
of our infantry in our said Kingdom of Ireland for three
whole years for the defence of our said Kingdom and chiefly for
the secui-ity of the plantation of our said Province of Ulster to
and unto the dignity, estate and degree of a Baronett to hold to
him and the heirs male of his body, etc. (Here follows the
precedency of a Baronet, viz., next immediately after the younger
sons of Viscounts and Barons, the frecedency of his rvi/e and the
precedency of his sons and daughters).

We also grant that the said Walter Wi'otesley may be named,
called, pleaded and impleaded by the name of Walter Wrotesley,
Bart., and that the style and additions of Bart, may be appended
to the end of the name of the said Walter Wrotesley and his
heirs male in all Letters Patent, etc., and in all other writings
as the true legitimate and necessary addition of the dignity,
also that to the name of the said Walter Wrotesley and his
heirs male, in English and in all English writings, this addition
may be prefixed, viz., " Sir," and in like manner that the wives
of the said Walter Wrotesley and of his heirs male may have, use
and enjoy this appellation, viz.. Lady, Madame or Dame according
to the custom of speaking, and moreover that the said Walter
Wrotesley and his heirs male and their descendants may bear
in a canton in their coat of arms, or on an escutcheon the arms
of Ulster, viz., a hand gules or a bloody hand in a field argent,
and that the said Walter Wrotesley and his heirs male may
have a place in our armies in the ranks near to the royal standard
in defence of the same, which is a mean place between a Baron
and a Knight.

^ The original Letters Patent were in Latin. I made a translation of
them in 1862, as it was doubtful whether the Letters Patent issued by
Charles after his departure from London had ever been enrolled, but on
enquiry at the Record Office, I find that the Grants of Baronetcies were
enrolled at the Restoration. A list of them will be found in the 48tli Report
of the Deputy Record Keeper.

318 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

We will moreover and grant that the said Walter Wrotesley
sliall be created a Knight immediately after the making of these
presents, and that we our heirs and successors in like manner
will knight the first born son or heir male apparent of the body
of the said Walter Wrotesley and of the body of the heir male
of the said Walter Wrotesley begotten, on their attaining the
age of twenty-one in the lifetime of their father or grandfather,
on notice thereof being given to our Chamberlain or Yice-Chamberlain
of our Household (hospiiii nostri) or in their absence to any other
officer or minister of us our heirs, etc., in attendance on our
person.^ (Here follows the precedenc;/ of Baronets ajnonr/st theynselvcs,
to be settled according to date of their Patents, and afterwards a
proviso that no dignity shall be created hereafter under the dignity
of a Baron of Parliament tohich shall be sujterior or equal to the
dig7iity of a Baronet).

Teste me ipso apud Nottingham, 30 August, anno regni nostri
decimo octavo.

It is doubtful whether Walter ever acted as a Commissioner
of Array for the King, for it was not brought up against
him at the date of the sequestration of his estates, but
when an information was laid against Mark Antony Galliar-
dello, a former clerk and factotum of Walter Wrottesle}^
the informer stated the said Mark, who was late clerk to
Sir Walter Wrotslej', had frequently exercised his skill in
the King's cause, and had published a Commission at Wom-
borne, to the effect, that the said Sir Walter was empowered
by the King to nominate officers and to raise men, money
and arms in the Seisdon Hundred and to exercise them for
the King, and that Sir Walter had nominated Henry Gra}-,
Esq., for that purpose. -

The King left Nottingham in September and marched at
the head of an oxiwy to Shrewsburj'. At Nottingham he
could muster no more than 6,000 men, but so many joined

' The object of this clause was to save the Fine on not taking the degree
of Knighthood, when summoned, see p. 297. For a single payment or a
lump sum the Baronets compounded for all future Fines on this account.

- Proceeding of Committee for the Advance of Money, vol. A, p. 40.
Mark Antonio Caesar Galliardello was the grandson of an Italian musician
in the service of Queen Elizabeth. According to Mr. Sydney Grazebrook,
he was Town Clerk of Walsall, but he was certainly in the service of Sir
Walter Wrottesley for the greater part of his life, for all the public
documents, such as the muster of 1640, and many of the copies of
private deeds, abstracts of title, etc., formerly at Wrottesley of this
period, were in his handwriting. At the date of Dngdale's Visitation of
Sti^ordshire in 1663, he had the address to persuade that great Herald
and Antiquary to include his pedigree in it, and to allow him a coat of
arms which he stated had been put up in memory of his grandfather in
the church of the Minories without Aldgate. This pedigree will be found
in vol. v of the Staffordshire Collections, p. 143, with notes by Mr. Sydney
Grazebrook, giving an account of the Galliardello family.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 319

him from the Midland Counties that before he had been
lon^ at Shrewsbury his army amounted to close upon
20,000 men. Sir Walter met him at Uttoxeter on the
15th September,^ and appears to have accompanied him to
Shrewsbury, for he was knighted by the King at the latter
town on the 22nd September.- At this crisis in the King's
fortunes he was doubtless very graciously received ; his
sympathies v/ere certainly very strongly enlisted on the
side of the King, for very shortly afterwards, viz., on the
5th of January 1643, he sent the greater part of his plate
to Shrewsbury to be melted down and coined for the
King's use.'^ At the same time he armed his servants and
tenants' sons to form a garrison for his house. The com-
position papers describe the house as strong and moated,
and that he had taken into it several of his tenants' sons
and neighbours ; as he expressed it, '"' he stood upon his
guard, there was so much plundering, but would never
make it a garrison for the King, although often solicited."

Notwithstanding his asseverations to the contrary, which
were made to save his estates, his house appears to have
been considered a Royalist post, for Sir Louis Kirke wrote
from Bridgenorth to Prince Rupert on the 9th April 1644,
asking " for Sir Walter Wrottesley's convoy for some plate
laid up in this garrison, with which I intend to pay a
Privy Seal for £50 sent from Oxford."* The meaning of
this, is, that the King had sent a writ, under his Privy
Seal, to Sir Louis, for the payment of £50 for his troops,
and Sir Louis had not money to meet it except by the
sale of plate in his possession, and he required an escort
from Wrottesley to convey the plate to some place not
specified (probably Shrewsbury), where it could be melted
and sold.

The only other evidence I have been able to collect
respecting the attitude of Sir Walter at this period is
contained in a statement of Colonel Purefoy respecting the
conduct of the Earl of Denbigh during the Civil War.
This was made to the Council or Committee of Parlia-
ment which was sitting in London in 1649. He stated
that when the Earl came down and was staying at Welling-
borough, in Shropshire, Sir Edward Littleton Avent into
Staffordshire, and there declared he had come to raise forces
for the Earl, and that Sir Walter Wriothesley (sic), himself
and Mr. Skrimshaw would join in that service. Mr. Swinfen

' Wrottesley Muniments.

2 Book of Knights, by Mr. Walter C. Metcalfe.

■* Wrottesley Muniments. He sent altogether 622 oz. of silver, which was
valued at £249 4s. lid.

■* " Memoirs of Prince Rupert," by Elliott Warburton, vol. i, p. 520.

320 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

and others of the Committee (for the Parliament) having
notice that Sir Edward Littleton had made his peace with
the Kinor, and that tliese gentlemen intended to settle that
count}' for the King, gave intelligence to the Committee
for Safety, and Sir Edward finding his design was known,
fled to Oxford. The Earl of Denbigh, hearing thereof,
feared he might be suspected, and got him {i.e., Colonel
Purefoy) to go down and raise forces for the Parliament.
Colonel Purefoy added " that the most charitable construc-
tion to put upon the Earl's proceedings, would be that he
had attempted with Sir Edward Littleton, Sir Walter Wriothes-
ley and others to form a third party in the County." '

The three Staffordshire men named in the above statement
were, apparently, the King's Commissioners of Arra}', and
it refers, probably, to the end of 1642 or the early part
of 1643. The King reached Oxford with his army on the
29th of November 1642.

Anyone reading the printed histories of the next three or
four years, which recount nothing but a succession of battles
and skirmishes, will be left under the impression that every-
body was fighting either for or against the King, but if he
carries his investigations further and examines the memoirs
and private letters of the period, he will find a very different
state of things. The great bulk of the people took no
part whatever in the struggle, and the actual fighting was
confined for the most part to the professional soldiers and
the fanatics on either side, who were the Roman Catholic
gentry and the Calvinistic party. The large landed pro-
prietors were principally intent upon saving their estates,
and maintained for the most part a neutral attitude. In
some counties the principal landowners met together and
agreed to oppose the entry of any armed force without
the joint consent of the King and Parliament. These
associations, however, were of very short duration, for
Parliament denounced them as derogatory to their authority
and absolved their partisans from their engagements,^ nor
was it possible to prevent the more active and violent
men of each faction from levying forced contributions from
the lands of their adversaries. The attempt therefore to
form a neutral party in the county, which would have the
power of preserving the peace and of coercing the violent
partisans of each side, proved a failure, but it will be
observed on examining the Proceedings for Compounding
that there were not many instances in Staffordshire of the
Protestant landowners having taken up arms for the Royal

' state Papers (Domestic Series) A.D. 1649, Letters. Nos. 103 and 104,
■ Lingard, quoting the Commons Journals,

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 321

cause. ^ The Eoman Catholics all fought for the King, but
in their case it may be said that they were lighting in
self-defence, for not only their interests, but even their
very safety, depended on the success of the King's arms.

The feeling, in fact, of the landed gentry may be best
expressed in the language of Mercutio, " A plague o' both the
houses."' Many believed the war to be undertaken for the
sake of Episcopacy, an institution for which few men would
care to hazard their lives and properties. Even Sir Edmund
Verney, the King's standard bearer, told Clarendon that
" he only followed the King because honour obliged him,
that the object of the war was against his conscience, for
he had no reverence for the Bishops, whose quarrel it was."^
In the same tone Lord Spencer \vrites to his wife from the
King's quarters, " If there could be an expedient found to salve
the punctilio of honour, I would not continue here an hour."^
Again, most people must have read the story of the King's
pathetic speech and his allusion to happier days, when passing
with his army through Warwickshire, he suddenly encountered
the squire of Shuckburgh at the head of his pack of hounds.*
Bearing all these facts in mind, the reader will be better
able to appreciate the position taken up by the landed
proprietors during the war. Their attitude towards the
King may be best expressed in the language of diplomacy,
as one of "benevolent neutrality," and this was perfectly
well understood by the opposite party. After the success
of Parliament, the ordinances for the sequestration of the
estates of the Loyalists swept into the net every man of
property who could not shew that he had been actively
engaged on the side of the Parliament.

In the spring of 1644, however, Sir Walter appears to
have had some intention of taking the field, for the
following armorers account was formerly at Wrottesley : —

31 March 1614. Received by me Peter Johnson, Armorer, of
Sir Walter Wrottesley, Knight and Daronet, the sum of £5 5s. Od.,
viz., for one cap 10s., for a head piece 15s., for back and
breast plates £3 10s. Od., and for altering and coloring and loyning
(lining) the old arms, 10s.

1 The sons of the Protestant landed proprietors in many cases were
serving for the King whilst their fathers remained neutral, the most con-
spicuous instances being those of Colonel Bagot, Colonel Lane, and Lord
Ward.

=* Clarendon's History. Sir Edmund was a member of the King's House-
hold at the outbreak of the war. After his death at Edgehill, Ralph
Verney, his son, lived in retirement at Claydon, and took no part whatever
in the war. (Verney Papers).

' Lingard's History, quoting the Sydney Papers.

* Dugdale's Warwickshire, and Evelyn Shirley's " Noble and Gentle Men of
England."

322 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

On the 22ud May of this year Colonel Frazer, who
was in command of Lord Denbigh's Regiment of Horse,
reports from Penkridge that he had taken Lady Wrottesley
prisoner. The cause of this arrest does not transpire, but
as Lord Denbigh was in the service of the Parliament, it
must have been considered that she had come from the
quarters of the enem^'.'

In 1G45, after the battle of Naseby, the cause of the
King was hopeless, and Sir Walter handed over the custody
of Wrottesley to the Parliamentarians. His object, no
doubt, in taking this step, was to save his estate from
sequestration, but in this he failed, and his old enemy
Colonel Leveson, who commanded for the King at Dudley
Castle, on hearing of it, sent a detachment of his garrison,
which burnt all the stables, barns, and granaries which
were outside the defences of the house.- The fact that he
had been left undisturbed up to this date by Leveson
and the other Eoyalist garrisons which surrounded him,
is strong evidence that he was looked upon as a
Royalist."

A letter in the Welbeck MSS. from Colonel Leigh to
Lenthall the Speaker, dated 10th November 1645, mentions
a garrison at Wrottesley House "which we have lately
erected," and describes a skirmish near Bridgenorth, in
which two troops under Captain Stones and Captain
Blackburne from Wrottesley had defeated a body of
Royalist troops under Sir Thomas Aston, and taken the
latter prisoner.^

Walter Wrottesley's estates were now sequestered, and
the rents assigned to the Parliamentary Committee at
Stafford for the payment of their troops. In the latter
part of this year, the Committee write to Walter that for
neglect of payment, they had fetched two persons named
(two of his tenants) into Stafford and detained them for
£41 19s. 9d. of arrears, and asking him to pay that sum
for the enlargement of his tenants.

Walter, however, had gone to London, and had petitioned
to compound for his estates.

^ Denbigh Pajiers, Historical MSS. Commission. It is clear she had no
pass from the Parliaiaentai-ians, or she would not have been detained.

' See Galliardello's affidavit at p. 325.

^ In an affidavit made in favour of Sir Walter Wrottesley by Thomas
Southall, minister of Shorne, near Gravesend, at the time when the former
compounded for his estates, Southall stated that the Royalists had
garrisons at Chillington, Brewood Church, Lapley Hall, Lichfield, Rushall
Hall, at Wolverhampton, sometimes at the Church and Crosse, and some-
times at Leaveson's Hall, Dudley Castle, Patesley (PatshuU) Hall, Linsill ('r')
Manor and Tong Castle.

* Welbeck MSS., vol. i, p. 306; Historical MSS. Commission. Sir Arthur
Aston was killed in this skirmish.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 323

His petition was dated 28th November 1645, and was as
follows : —

To the Honb''' the Committee for compositions of deHnquents
estates sittinge at Goldsmith's Hall.

The humble petition of Sir Walter Wrottesley sheweth.

That the petitioner's estate lyinge under the power of the
enymy yett he freely tendred his house, being of a considerable
strength to the Committee of Stafford to be garrisoned for the
service of the State, ^ which they accepted of, and promysed to
secure your petitioner's goods for his use.

That the petitioner hath disbursed for the Parliament service
above £800,- all which the enymy taking notice of hath taken
away the petitioner's cattle and burned all his stables, barnes,
granaries and come to the value of £2,000.

That the said Committee of Stafford, conceivinge the petitioner
to bee within the letter of the Ordinaunce for delinquency,
which he could nott avoide seeing that his estate of land is
under the power of the enemy, and his house is since garrisoned
for the State, soe that hee makes noe benefitt thereby, nor hath
hee any livelyhoode to menteyne himselfe and his Lady and
eight small children. Nevertheless the petitioner humbly desires
to submitt to the mercy of the Pai'liament, and prayes a favor-
able composition, and that in the mean time this Honorable
Committee will be pleased to write their letters to the said
Committee of Stafford to certifie the value of his estate of which
he hath annexed a schedule as perfect as hee is able for the
present. And hee etc.,

Signed, Wal. Wrottesley.

Endorsed " Heceived 16 Dec. 1645."

The schedule of his estate which accompanies the
petition gives a total income of £703, and this is probably
a correct estimate, for the penalties for concealment were
very heavy.^"

Attached to his petition are certificates in his favour
from Colonel Graves, a Parliamentary officer, and Mr.
Thomas Southall, a minister of religion, and two affidavits

^ Sir "Walter, however, does not mention that this took place after the
battle of Naseby, when the royal cause was considered hopeless by
everybody.

^ He includes in this the forced contributions levied upon him, which
everybody had to undergo.

^ The composition for concealed lands or rents was doubled, and all
personal property concealed was forfeited entirely. Informers of concealed
property (of which there were several in every county) received one-fifth
of all properties discovered by them. In order to represent the value of
property of this date in terms of the present day, it is calculated that
it should be multipled by 4^. Sir Walter's income would be therefore
represented by £3,163 lUs. at the present time.

324 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

from his agent Galliardello. These affidavits were as
foHows : —

Marke Anthony Galliardello of Codsall in the county of
StaflFord gent, maketh oath ; That Sir Walter "Wrottesley did
voluntarily advance for the service of the State upon the pro-
posicions of both houses of Parliam^ as is hereafter mencioned,
and delivered to severall of the Committee of Stafford, and other
theire Capteynes and officers, viz*^ — In sommer 1643, Foure-
teene horses at Threescore and six poundes. Twenty six beastes ;
at Threescore and Five poundes. Forty and Five sheepe at
Thirteene poundes, and the Lay money of the parke at Fifteene
poundes, for supply of the Garrison of Chillington ; all W^'*
horses and Cattle were soe valued by S"" Walter Wrottesleyes
servants at the tyme of the delivery of them : And at that
tyme to Colonell Leighe one of the said Comittee and now a
member of the hono*^'*^ house of Commons, thirty poundes ; And
about the Moneth of June, 1644, to the Earle oi Denbiglie one
liundred poundes ; And about the Monethes of January and
March, 1644, to Capteyne Stone, another of the Committee
afforesaid, and now Governo'" of Stafford, Foure score poundes ;
and at that tyme to the said Gouerno'" Five horses valued at
Twenty poundes. And hee did likewise voluntarily offer and
deliver up his house, to bee made a Garrison, and meynteyned
at his owne Costes and Charges one troope of Dragoones under
Generall Poyntz three weekes, and a troope of horse and a
Company of foote belonging to the Comittee of Stafford two
weekes, for the service of the State, they haveing noe provicion
therein ; to the value of one hundred and Fifty poundes ; all
w'^'^ ariseth to the somme of Five hundred Thirty and nine
poundes; and all paid, delivered, and done freely w^'^ his Consent;
and the somme imposed upon the said Sir Walter upon the
proposicions, by the Comittee of Stafford, who well knew his
estate, as this deponent conceveth, was Foure hundred poundes.
Moreover about Michaelmas last, 1645, Generall Poyntz upon
his March to Chester after the King's forces had of Sir Walter
Wrottesley in money. Two hundred poundes, and seauen horses
valued at one hundred poundes ; The totall of all w^'' fore-
mencioned somes amountes to the some of Eight hundred Thirty
and nine poundes, besides the paym' of the Contribucion to the
said Garrison of Stafford.

Mark Anthony Galliardello,

Jur. 20 die Januarii 1045.

[Indorsed]; "S'' Walter Wrottesley N" 112. Febr. 1045, of
Wrottesley Stafford. Int."

"Report past 28" Maii, 1040. Fyne 1332' 10^ & to settle 15'
per annum for ever."^

^ State Papers, Domestic, Interregnum, Committee for Compounding, G
176, fol. 199.

^VR()TTESL^:Y OF WROTTESLEY. 325

Mark Anthony Galliardello, of Codsall, in the County of
Stafford, gent. Maketh Oath ; that Sir Walter Wrottesley being
Justice of the Peace and Quorum, and Deputy Lieutenante for
the County of Stafford, in affection to Religion, prosecuted an
Indictera* against Colonell Leveson now governo'' of Dudley Castle
(and in Armes against the Parliam*) for being a Recusant : and
in obedience to the ordinances and Comaundes of the Parliam*
hee searched the said Leveson's house for armes. For W^'* and
other his apparant expressions for the State, the Enemy have
endeavoured to have his house to bee made a Garrison, which
hee w*'' much difficulty and Charge for a long tyme did keepe
against them. And by his direccions his Lady and likewise this
Deponent often went and solicited the Committee at Stafford to
take care for the garrisoning of it for the State or to sleight
it, for that hee could not be able of himselfe to meyneteyne it
against the Enemy, and for that hee lived invironed w'^'^ the
Enemye's garrisons hee feared hee should bee compelled (unlesse
the Parliam*^ assisted him) to act something against the State.
That his said house is now and a long wliile hath bine
garrisoned for the State, and hee did meyneteyne : First a troope
of Dragoones, and after a troope of horse, and a Company of
Foote live weekes (which was untill his barnes, Corne, and all
was burned) at his owne Costs and Charges : All which par-
ticulares the Enemy takeing notice of, have manifested theire
malice towardes him as followeth, to witt : The Lord Capell
upon his March to Wolverhampton, by Capteyne Hatton a
Commaunder under him, drove his parke and tooke Thirty and
seaven horses or thei"eabouts for the King's use worth about
Three hundred poundes ; And the Enemy did burne Sir Walter's
Stables, outhouses, and barnes being about Fifty seaven bayes
of building w*^*" Corne, graine, hay, timber, Coache, waynes.
Cartes, and other things for husbandry to the value of about
Two Thousand, one hundred and Fourescore poundes.

And Sir Walter hath advanced for the service of the Parliam*
according to this Deponent's former affida\it of the xxvj'^^ of
January 1645 to the some of Eight hundred Thirty and nine
poundes : And is indebted to the somme of Two thousand and
nine hundred poundes and upwards ; All which his sufferings,
debts and advance money (here valued) amountes to Six thousand
two hundred & nineteene poundes or thereabouts, beside Con-
tribucion paid to the Garrison of Stafford. And his said house
being Garrisoned for the State, his demesnes and Tennants' houses
there sleyghted, all his pales burned for the Garrison's use, his
Timber trees to a greate number lately felled by the Garrison (to
avoide Sheltring of the Enemy) is a greate damage to him in
his Estate ; and the Residue of his Estate lyes under the power
of the Enemy, and the Rents thereof by them sequestred ; All
w*=*' barres him of his present livelihood whereby to meyneteyne
himself, his Lady and Eighte Children : And w'^'' is more, these
Rents following are charged upon and issueing out of his
Estate ; viz*. A Fee Farme Rent for Wrottesley per annum

326 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

thirteene shillings and Foure pence ; To the Curate of Codsall
per annum Fifteone poundes ; For Respight of hojnage per annum
Eigliteene shillings ; For a water coui'se to a Hammer mill per
annum Elev*en poundes and Fifteene shillings ; and for a Fee Far-me
Rent for Orton and VV^omborne per annum one shilling &. six
pence. Which is in all per annum Twenty and Eiglit poundes,
seaven shillings, and tenne pence ; besides his continuall sufferings
before remembered and not valued.

Mark Anthony Galliardello,

Juf. 9°. die Februarii 1645.'

On the 24th Februaiy 1646, the Committee for compound-
ing made the following report on his case : —

His delinquency is, that when Prince Rupert and Prince
Maurice were in that parte of the kingdom, they sent to him
for a horse which he sent to Prince Maurice, and durst do
no other, a potent army then being quartered round about him,
for which as an assistant to those forces, and contributing to
them, he is sequestered. That he hath always lived in his owne
house untill it was made a garrison for Pai^iament, which he
willingly gave unto. That Sir Walter did disburse for the Parlia-
ment £839, and he heth lost by the enemy when they plundered
him £2,000, and that he is indebted £3,000. That his cheafe
seat is made a garrison for the Parliament, which garrison he
maintained for five weeks at his own charge, viz. a troop of horse
and a company of foote. All his estate lyes surrounded by the
enemy's garrisons, and he was enforced to doe that he did, to
preserve himself, his lady and eight children alive, and yet would
never yield to make it a garrison for the King, although often
solicited. That himself, his lady and children have nothing to
live on out of all his estate at present, and that the enemy had
taken all his cattle, and burnt his stables, barnes, granaries and
corn to the value of £2,000.

He petitioned heere the 28'** November last and took the National
Covenant before John Sacheverell Minister of Shoreditch the same
28'''' Nov. 1645, and he took the negative oath heere the 16*''' Dec.
1645. He compounds upon a particular delivered in under his
hand by which it doth appear : —

That he is seised in fee to him and his heirs, in possession, of
the manor of Wrottesley and of Wrottesley Parke, and of nine
other messuages and farmes, lands and tenements in Wrottesley,
and of a manor within Womborne, and divers other lands and
tenements in Whitwike, Bilbroke, Tettenhall, Tresle, Sesdon, Wom-
borne and Orton of the yearly value before the troubles of £566
for which his fine is £1,132. And seised of old rents, granted
out upon estates for lives of certain lands and tenements of the
clere annual value before the troubles of £40, for which his fine

' State Papers, Domestic, Interregniim, Committee for Compoundincr, G
176, fol. 197.

WROTTESLEY OF WR(JTTESLEY. 327

is £240. And seised in fee in possession to him aiid to his
heirs of the Rectory of Woniborne, of the cleere yerely value,
before the troubles of £62, for which his fine is £124. That
there is a Vicar endowed upon the Rectory, which is worth to
the Vicar £30 per annum. And seised of a life estate in fee
to him and to his heirs, of certain tithes iu Codshall and Oken,
parcel of the Rectory of Tetenhall Clericorum, of the cleere
annual value before the troubles of £35 per annum, for which
his fine is £70. That the King always finds the Curate of
Codshall, only Sir Walter pa3^es £15 per annum encrease of
means to the said Curate for ever. The whole fine is £1,566.
That he craveth to be allowed this £15 per annum which he
payes to the Curate for ever, for which he is to be allowed
£30 more; £1 lis. 4d. for the farme rent paid to the Crown
and for i-espite of homage, for which he is to be allowed
£3 2s 8d. more; £11 15s. Od. which he payes yeerely for a
watercourse to his mill, which mill is valued in his estate at
£40 per annum, and cannot worke without the watercourse, for
which he is to be allowed £23 lOs. Od. more. His deductions
are therefore £56 12s. 8d.

His composition was finally fixed on the 28th May 1646,
at £1,572, to be reduced to £1,332 10s. if lie settled £15
per annum for ever, out of his tithes, on the Vicar of
Tettenhall.

Simultaneously with the Committee for Compounding at
Goldsmiths' Hall, another Committee was sitting in London,
which was cal ed the Committee for " the Advance of
]\lone3'."" This Committee had been appointed by Parliament
in 1642, under an ordinance wliich appropriated one-hfth
and one-twentieth of all estates for the payment of the
forces of Parliament.^

An abstract of the Proceedings of this Committee has been
printed amongst the State Papers, Domestic Series. It
states under the heading of : —

Sir Walter Wriothesley, Wrottesley or llochley of Wriothesley Hall,
and Warwick Lane, London.

28 JSTov. 1645. His fine was assessed at £500, and on the
10th Dec. 1645 at £1,500.

15 Dec. 1645. Allowed fourteen days to obtain a certificate

of what he had paid in the County. -

26 Jan. 1646. His fine was assessed at £600.

29 June 1646. Respited till the sequesti*ation of his estate was
taken oS".

^ Iu 1647, Pai-liaiuent ordered that these assessments should be made on
delinquents onl3\

- The first certificate of Galliardello may have been made in pursuance
of this order ; for the two Committees wex'e amalgamated in IQb-i, and
their papers may have become intermixed.

328 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

12 February 1647. His estate to be secjuestered towards pay-
ment of his assessment.^

1-t July 1647. It was ordered that on payment of £50, his
assessment of £500 be discharged, as he was much in debt, and
had been a great sufferer in the late wars.-

To return to the Committee for Compounding : —

On the 3rd Sept. 1646, an order was made that the County
Committee were to return the names of fit persons to be trustees
of 8ir Walter's estate.

On the 27th May 1647, it was ordered that Sir John Wollaston
and others named, were to be trustees and to receive all arrears
since the composition.

On the 3rd February 1649, an order was issued to re-sequestrate
Sir Walter's estate as he had not settled i:i5 a year out of the
Rectory for the maintenance of a preaching minister.

On the 24th February this order was revoked on his compliance
with it.

Parliament admitted of no neutrality ; all estates were
sequestered unless the owner was known to be favourable
to the popular cause and had materially assisted it. In a
declaration of 30th January 1643-44, Parliament denounced
as " adversaries and malic^nants all who on pretext of
indifference, refuse to take the Covenant and joyne with
all their power in the defence of their cause : all Papists
and Popish Recusants who have been in arms under the
false pretext of defending the King's person and authority,
are to look for no favour but are to be punished as
tra3^tors."

The rules for compounding laid down in August 1(345
stated that all estates were to be compounded at their
estimated value before the war ; the proportion varied
according to the date of surrender and extent of
delinquency, and was two-thirds, one-third, one-sixth and
one-tenth. Concealed lands were to be compounded for at four
years' purchase in place of two, and all personal property
concealed was to be confiscated. Informers of concealed
property wei'e to receive one-fifth of the value of it.

Those fined at one-tenth paid on twenty years' purchase
or two years' value of their estate. Those fined at one-
sixth paid on eighteen years' purchase. Those fined at one-
third or one-half paid on fifteen years' purchase, and those at
two-thirds on twelve years' purchase.

^ It appears by this that Sir Walter had paid his composition, and his
estate had been returned to him. I think it likely that he had com-
pounded on his own petition with a view of escaping from the clutches of
this Comniittee.

- State Papers, Domestic. Proceedings of the Committee for the Advance
of Money.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 329

In the case of forfeited estates one-fifth was reserved for
the support of the families of the owners. All who had
been in the personal service of the King and were bound
to attend him, were fined at the lowest rate, viz., one-tenth.

An act of pardon was passed on the 24th February 1652,
which freed from sequestration all estates not sequestered
before the 1st December 1651.

An act of 21st October 1653 empowered all Recusants to
contract for two-thirds of their estates, which had been
forfeited for religious opinions. B3' this act the}^ were to
pay four years' value of their estates and one-third of their
personalty.^

There appears, however, to have been a considerable amount
of favouritism, and those who had friends on the two Com-
mittees fared very much better than others.

On the 28th July 1644, the Committee for the Advance
of Money assessed Sir Hervey Bagot, of Field and Blithfield,
at £2,000, but on the 9th 'June 1648, on proof that his
estate was only worth £1,745 and his debts were £3,120, his
assessment was discharged and he paid nothing.^

An informer gave the following particulars respecting Mr.
William Ward, of Himley, co. Stafford, the rich goldsmith,
who had purchased the wardship of the Dudley heiress from
James I. He stated that William W^ard was the reputed
owner of Hindey, Dudley and other manors in co. Stafford,
which had cost him £30,000 He had lent the King £400 or
£500, had given £500 to have his son made a Baronet and
£1,500 to have him made a Peer and Justice of the Peace.
This last item was probably correct, for the date of the
Barony of Ward is 1643. The son Humble, Lord Ward,
was married to the Dudley heiress, and an information was
laid against him that he had been taken prisoner in
Dudley Castle when it was surrendered, and his estate
had been sequestered.

No further proceedings were taken in these cases and it
is difficult to resist the conviction that there was favouritism
or bribery which affected the decisions of both Committees.

One of the most remarkable cases w^as that of Walter
Astley, of Patshull. An information was laid against him
and his son Richard on the 2nd December 1651, which
stated that Walter^ was a disaffected Papist who had made
his house a garrison for the King in 1644 and 1645, and
had sent two of his sons with horses, arms and money to

' State Papers — Committee for Compounding, Record Series, printed.

- He had, however, to compound for his estates in 1646 at three years'
purchase, having sat in the Assembly at Oxford. In 1649 his fine was fixed
at £1,004 17s. Ud.

^ Erroneously called William Astley in the information.

330 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

the Kinoj's army, and that Richard Astley was a Captain
in tlie Kinoj"s {garrison at Dudley in 1643-44-45. On the
10th April 1655, the County Committee reported that an
information had been laid in 1651, but no proceedings had
been taken under it, and as the cause was not depending
on the 10th February 1654, it was pardoned by the Act of
Oblivion. Mr. Astley was therefore to be restored to the
full possession of his estates.

Henry Grey, the brother-in-law of Sir Walter Wrottesley,
likewise escaped sequestration. An information was laid
against him in July 1650 that he had maintained a garrison
against Parliament at his house at Enville, and in 1643-44
was in arms for the King and was at the fight at Stourton
Castle. Henry Grey's cousin. Lord Grey of Groby, the
regicide, was one of the Committee for compounding, and
apparently had stopped all proceedings against his relative.

There were many other cases where the men who actually
bore arms against Parliament were treated with more lenienc}''
than those who maintained a neutral attitude, thus : — In
1650 an information was laid against Colonel John Lane, of
Wolverhampton, who had served three years as a Colonel
for the King and had commanded the King's garrison at
Stafford, but no proceedings were taken in his case. On
the other hand his father, Thomas Lane, of Bentley, who
never bore arms, had to compound for his estates.

In the same way Hervey Bagot, of Park Hall, co. Warwick,
a son of Sir Hervey Bagot, who had been in arms for the
King, escaped sequestration, whilst his father, who never
bore arms, had to pay a fine of one-third. It is possible,
however, that in these cases, both Lane and Bagot had
been serving in garrisons, which had surrendered upon terms.
Richard, another son of Sir Hervey Bagot, who commanded
the garrison at Lichfield, had been killed at Naseby in 1645.
Another remarkable case was that of Sir Richard Prince,
Sir Walter's relative, who had married Mary Wrottesley in
1618, see p. 294. In his petition to compound he stated
that he had been imprisoned at Shrewsbury when it was a
garrison for the King, owing to his affection for Parliament,
that his son and heir was a Colonel in the service of the
Parliament and had been slain in battle, and that he had
paid his one-fifth and one-twentieth. Notwithstanding these
circumstances, he was forced to compound. His composi-
tion was fixed at one-tenth and amounted to £1,400, but
on the 16th September 1647 his Fine was reduced to
£750 on his undertaking to discharge his son's debts.
On the 18th December 1650, Rochley (Wrottesley) Prince
and Susan Prince, two of his children, were allowed one-
half of some property in Bettisfield, co. Flint, which they

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 331

had purchased in 1644, and which had been sequestered
with the rest of their father's estate.

Other interesting eases were those of Dugdale and Ashmole.
WilHam Dugdale, who is styled Chester Herald, of Shustoke,
CO. Warwick, had his estate sequestered because he went to
Oxford and was there at the date of the surrender. He paid
£168 in 1646, on a composition of one-tenth. In 1650, an
information was laid against Elias Ashmole, Gentleman. It
states that he was a Gentleman of the Ordnance for the King
in 1647, and was a very dangerous person, speaking against
the Parliament. He had married the widow of Sir Thomas
Mainwaring, by whom he had £600 a year or more. No
proceedings appear to have been taken in this instance.

Summarising the contents of the Composition Papers, it
appears that the Protestant landowners who actually fought
for the King were twelve in number, these were : —
Sir Edward Littleton Lord Ward of Dudley

Henry Grey of Enville John Lane of Hide^

Thomas Broughton Sir Thomas Wolrich, Bart.

Walter Noel of Hilcot Sir Henry Griffiths of Wichnor

William Brereton Randolph Egerton, and

Thomas Pershouse Richard Cresswell, of Perton.-

The Roman Catholic landowners who took up arms for
the King were : —

Walter Astley of Patshull and Sir William Peshall of Can-
two sons well and two sons
Francis Biddulph^ Oliver Fitz William of rpstones
Thomas Coyney of Weston Thomas Leveson of Wolver-

Coyney hampton

Philip Drayoote of Painsley Thomas Whitgreave of Moseley

Walter Fowler of St. Thomas Lord Aston of Tixall and two
Ralph Sneyd of Keele brothers

Peter GifFard of Chillington, his Sir Richard Fleetwood of

eldest son Walter GifFard of Calwich

Marston, and three younger William FitzHerbert of Swjai-

sons nerton, and

Sir Richard Weston* and his son Francis Harcourt of I anton.

The landowners who attempted to maintain a neutral attitude
and whose estates were sequestrated upon various pretences, were: —

' This is the Colonel Lane who assisted so materially in the escape of
Charles II. The part his sister Jane Lane took in the Kind's escape is well
known. Their father, Thomas Lane of Bentley, was still alive.

- In addition to these, Mr. Sleigh in his " History of Leek," mentions William
Trafford of Swithamley as one of those who took up arms for the Kins'.

^ His father, John Biddulph of Biddulph, died in November 1642, after
the commencement of the war.

■• Sir Richard Weston was one of the Barons of the Exchequer, and was
sixty-five years of age in 1642,

332 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Sir Hervey Bagot of Field and Sir Walter Wrottesley

Blithfield Lord Paget of Beaudesert

Sir Richard Leveson of Trent- Sir Thomas Leigh of Hamstall

ham Ridware

WilHam Ward of Himley John Whorwood of Stourton

Matthew Okeover of Okeover Sir Edward Vernon of Hilton

Walter Chetwynd of Ligestre Richard Brereton

Tiiom;is Kinnersley of Loxley Sir Edward Moseley of Rolston

Thomas Lane of Bentley Henry Vyse of Standon

Sir John Skeffington of Fisher- Richard Pershouse of Reynolds

wick Hall

Sir Robert Wolscley Simon Montfort of Bescot and

Sir Richard Dyot of Freeford Walter Grosvenor of Bush-
William Comberford bury.

There were also some Roman Catholic landowners, who
from age and other causes, were not in arms for the King,
and whose estates were sequestrated. These were : —

Sir Walter Heveninghara, of Walter Brook of Lapley

Aston Viscount Stafford

John Biddulph of Biddulph Peter Macclesfield of Maer, and

Thomas Coyney of Weston John Giftard, of Whiteladies.

Coyney

The above lists account for fifty-eight out of the ninety-eight
landowners, who had to find cuirassiers or liglit horse in
1634,^ and who may be said to be fairly representative of
the landed interest in the county. The remaining forty
must have been active adherents of Parliament. Deducting,
therefore, the Roman Catholics, who were twenty-three in
number, we find that of the Protestant landowners, twelve
served the King actively, twenty were neutral, and forty
served against him, proportions which will probably astonish
those readers who derive their impressions of the political
feeling of the day from current histories.-

There is little else to record respecting Sir Walter
Wrottesley. In 1642, at the commencement of the troubles,
he placed all his property into trust, with power to the
trustees to pay his debts and raise portions for his children.
His trustees were : — Sir Richard Lee, of the Lee, co.
Salop, Baronet, Edward Littleton, Kt., Humfrey Mackworth,
Leicester Devereux, John Dyckins, John Byrch and Alexander
Wightwyke. The property conveyed consisted of the manors
of Wrottesley, Tettnall Clericorum, Butterton, Woodford,

' Vol. XV, Staffordshire Collections, p. 228.

^ Lingard, for instance, a most accurate historian in general, states that
three fourths of the nobility and superior gentry ranged themselves under
the royal banner ; whereas it has l)een shewn above that in Staffordshire,
considered a very Royalist county, more fought against the King than for him.

Wrottesley of wrottesley. 333

Tresley (Tiysull), Womborne and Lichfield, and lands in
Wolverhampton, Tipton, Swindon, Waterfall, Codsall, Bilbrook
Orton, Wightwike, Longdon and Curlnu'gh, and the tythes
of Codsall, Wrottesley, Bilbrook, Tetnall Clericorum, Wight-
wike, Womborne and Orton.

In 1654 his eldest son Walter was married to Margaret,
the eldest daughter of Sir Thomas Wolrich, of Dudmaston,
CO. Salop. The marriage settlement was dated 20th September.^

It does not appear to have been a very advantageous
marriage from a pecuniary point of view, and was probably
a love match. Sir Thomas Wolrich had fought for the
King, but had afterwards been allowed to compound, having
laid down his arms before the 1st March 1645. His com-
position at two years' value of his estate amounted to £730.

Sir Walter died in 1659. He made three wills, of which
copies were formerly at Wrottesley. His first will, which
was made in 1634, the year after he succeeded to his
property, names his daughters Elizabeth and Mary, his
sons Hugh and Edward, and his brother William.

The second will was dated 1647, and mentions : —

My oldest sonne Walter, my daughter Elizabeth, my daughter
Mary now wife of Edward Littleton, Esq.,'^ my daughter Dorothy
Wrottesley, my daughter Anne Wrottesley, my daughter Jane
Wrottesley, and my three younger sons Edward, Richard and
John, and Dame Mary my wife, who is to dwell after my
decease att Woodford Grange if she shall desire it, or to have
for her dwellinge the Gate How^se of my howse att Wrottesley,
with the longe new buildinge thereunto adjoyninge (excepting)
my chamber and study over the Gate howse which extendeth
to the garden before the Parlour windowes which my will and
mind is that my said sonne Walter and his heires shall have
and use at his wyll and pleasure, with free ingresse egresse and
regresse to and from the same. And that my said wife shall
alsoe have the Gallery and the roomes over the Kitchen entrye,
pantrye and Buttrye where shee, her children and maides of late
have used to lye, and one other roome within her chamber and
the joint use of the bleaching Plott end of the Kitchen and
some convenient place for a Buttrye garden, and stable roome,
and to have the use of all such goods and furniture as shall bee
in the said Gatehowse and new buildinges and other the rooms
aforesaid att my decease soe long as shee shall live sole and
unmarryed.^

His last will was dated 16th June 1659 and was proved
in London on the 14th of January 1660-61, by Mary

' Wrottesley Munimeiits. The bride's name is spelt Woolrid^c in the deed.

- In a codicil dated 1650 he is styled Sir Edward Littleton.

* Wrottesley Muniments. See the picture of the old house at p. 301.

334 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Wrottesley, his widow and executrix. He left all his house-
hold miods and chattels to his wife for the discharo;e of
his lej^acies and the education of his three younfjest dauf^hters
Dorotliy, Anne and Joane, so lonn; as she should remain
his widow. After her death or remarriaoje, the same were
to be held by his youngest son John Wrottesley and his
said three daughters, in augmentation of such small portions
and meanes which testators eldest son is to pay and allowe
to them, and to be equally divided amongst them or the
survivors of them. And whereas he had settled his lands
upon Walter, his eldest son, and made provision for the
future livelihood of Edward Wrottesley his second son and
his two eldest daughters Elizabeth and Mary, he bequeathed
to them 5s. a piece in mone}^ After some further bequests
to his servants and the poor of Wolverhampton and Tetten-
hall, he desires '' my noble kinsman Leicester Lorde Viscount
Hereforde and my dearly beloved unkle Sir George Devereux,
Knight," to be overseers of his will.

Sir Walter was buried at Tettenhall on the 8th November
1659.1

Of the children mentioned in the three wills,
Walter succeeded him at Wrottesley.
Hugh predeceased his father and was buried at Tetten-
hall on the 23rd March 1640-41.1
Edward, the third son, was baptised at Tettenhall on
the 19th January 1633-84.1 He married Martha,
daughter of Sir Thomas Hewett, of Shire Oaks, co.
Notts.- Walter, son of Edward Wrottesley, of Shire
Oaks, gentleman, matriculated at Wadham College
19th March 1674-5," aged twenty, but appears to
have left no issue.
Richard, the fourth son, was baptised in the chapel at
Wrottesley on the 28th February 1637-38,* and the
Tettenhall Registers record his burial at Tettenhall
on the 11th September 1655.
John, the fifth son, was a merchant in Portugal. An
interesting report on the English trade with Portugal
in 1673, is to be found in the Dartmouth MSS.,
printed by the Historical MS. Commission, vol. iii,
p. 27. In this report John Wrottesley is named
amongst the leading English merchants at Port-o-
Porto. The trade is said to have been very lucrative,
and many of the merchants had made large fortunes.

' Tettenhall Registers.
'■^ Visitation of Staffordshire 1663.
^ Foster's Alumni Oxonienses.
■• Codsall Eefcisters.

WrottesLey of wrottesley. 335

Of the dauiyjhters —

Elizabeth married Sir Francis Woh'ich of Dudmaston,
CO. Salop, the second Baronet,^ and son of Sir
Thomas Wolrich, the old Cavalier.
Mary married Sir Edward Littleton of Pillaton Hall,*
the second Baronet, and ancestor of the present
Lord Hatherton.
A note b}^ Grejjjory King,'^ at the end of the Visitation
Book of 166SA, says that —

" The three younger daughters of Sir Walter Wrottesley
were thus married —

3. Dorothy^ to Ambrose Grey of Whittington, co. Stafford,

her half uncle, viz., son of Ambrose Grey of Enville,
by his second wife.

4. Anne to Monsieur Francis de la Rue, a Frenchman.

5. Jane to Mr. John Adams, fifth son of William Adams

of Longdon, co. Salop."
The pedigree of Wrottesley in this Visitation is dated
Wolverhampton, 8th April 1663, and is certified by Sir
Walter Wrottesle}'', the second Baronet, but he does not
mention the last three marriages ; the first, in fact, would not
be a legal marriage, according to the Canonical Laws. A
Visitation of Shropshire in the possession of the Earl
of Bradford at Weston-under-Lyzard, states that Jane
Wrottesley married John, a younger son of William Adams
of Longdon, and left a son who was called Wrottesley
Adams, and that the arms of Adams were — Ermine, three
lions passant. Blue. These arms are of interest as they
appear to be a variant of the arms of Giffard of Brimsfield,
and it is not unlikely that this family of Adams of Longdon
descended from that Adam de Cromba, or Croom, co.
Worcester, who was a Giffard (see " The Giffards," vol. v,
New Series, Staffordshire Collections, p. 74).^

Arms of Sir Walter Wrottesley, Bart.

On the dexter side — Or, three piles. Sable, a quarter Ermine,
for Wrottesley.

On the sinister side — Barry of six, Ai'gent and Azure, with a
crescent, Or, for cadency (Grey of Groby).

^ Visitation of Staffordshire 1663.

- Gregory King was the clerk of Sir William Dugdale, who made the
Visitation of 1663.

' Dorothy was baptized in the Wrottesley Chapel on the 7th December
1637 (Codsall Register). All the marriages and baptisms celebrated in the
Wrottesley Chapel are recorded at Codsall, owing probably to the fact that
the Codsall minister officiated at them.

* If this surmise is correct it is very probable .that George Adams of
Sambrooke, co. Salop, the ancestor of the Earls of Lichfield, was a member of the
same family, and a lineal descendant of the Giffards of Brimsfield. The family of
Sambrooke bore — Ermine, three cats a mountain passant guardant in pale, Sable.

336 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Sir Walter Wrotteslev, Second Baronet, 1659-86.

From this point, is is proposed to deal with the family
liistorj' in a more summary manner.

Sir Walter, the first baronet, was succeeded by a son of
the same name, who, it has been shewn, married, in 1654,
Marp^aret, the eldest daughter of Sir 'I'homas Wolrich, of
Dudmaston, co. Salop. His life appears to have been
entirclj' uneventful, the most important incident of it, so far
as the fortunes of the family were concerned, being the
purchase of the manor of Perton and Trescott. This manor
intervened between Wrottesley and the other possessions of
the family in Womborne, Trysull, and Woodford, but up to
this date it had not been possible to obtain an undisputed
title to it. After nearly 200 years of legal strife between
the families of Stafford of Hoke, Dudley, and Leveson, it
had been finally decided by a deed dated 2nd February 1652,
that " in order to allay all contentions respecting the manor
Sir Kichard Leveson of Lilleshull, Knight of the Bath,
should hold Perton and Trescott for his life, and that it
should revert, after his death, to Lord Dorset and his
heirs.""' Lord Dorset was the heir presumptive of Sir Richard
through his grandmother Mary Leveson. In 1664, after the
death of Sir Richard Leveson, the manor was sold by
Richard Sackville, Earl of Dorset, to Sir Walter Wrottesley.

In 1673, he lost his wife, Margaret Wolrich. At this
date she must have been under forty years of age. She
was buried at Tettenhall on the 9th October. -

In 1675, Sir Walter was appointed, by Letters Patent,
one of the Crown Trustees for the administration of an
annual sum of £451 6s. 7 id. granted by the King for the
benefit of the Pendrell family and of the widow and
descendants of Francis Yates, who had assisted in the con-
cealment of the King at Boscobel in 1651. The other
trustees were Richard Congreve of Stretton and John the
eldest son of Walter Giflard of Chillington. John Giffard
was the last survivor of the three trustees, and the
trust is now administered by his heir and legal repre-
sentative, Walter Courtenay Giffard of Chillington. Shortly
after the issue of the Letters Patent, the trustees

' The hamlet of Trescott was oi-iginally divided between the two fees of
Perton and Buffary of Pcnn. William BufEary, lord of Penn, living temp.
Henry II, granted his part of Trescott to the monks of Combe. (See vol. iii,
Staffordshire Collections, p. 221.) This part was known as Trescott Grange.
On the dissolution of the monasteries, Trescott Grange was acquired by
William Wollaston of Walshall, and his representatives sold it to Sir "Walter
Wi-ottesley, the second Baronet (Wrottesley Muniments). For an account of
the lawsuits respecting Perton, see Air. Jones' " History of Tettenhall."

' Tettenhall Register.

WROTTESLEY OP WROTTESLEY. 337

executed a power of attorney, authorizing Georcre Lea to
receive the rents specified and to pay them to the Pendrells
and descendants of Francis Yates. This deed, which was
formerly at Wrottesley, was signed by all the Pendrell family
mentioned in the Letters Patent. Of these one only, Mary
the widow of Richard Pendrell (trust}^ Dick\ was able to
write her name. William Pendrell signs with his initials,
W.P. ; the three others, John, Humfrey and George Pendrell,
all sign with a cross. In view of the various spellings of
this name it may be as well to mention that Mary signs
her name as Mary Pendrill.

Sir Walter died in 1686. When he certified to the
Wrottesley Pedigree at the Visitation of 1663 he described
himself as thirty-two years of age. He would be therefore
fifty-five years of age at the date of his death. In his
will, which is dated the 30th October 1685, he described
himself as " Sir Walter Wrottesley of Purton in the county
of Stafford," and as the house at Wrotteslej' was rebuilt by
his son and successor, it was probably in such a state of
decay at this time as to be uninhabitable. Most if not all
of the ancient manor houses in Staffordshire were timber
framed, and if the main timbers decayed there was no
resource but to pull them down.

He bequeathed to his eldest son Walter, on whom he
stated that he had already settled a plentiful estate in lands,
his lease of the tithes of Trescott Grange, which he held
of the Vicars Choral of Lichfield, and also the farm of
Trescott Grange which were lately purchased of John Finch,
Esqr., and Sarah his wife, to be held by him and his heirs
male in tail in the same way as his manor of Wrottesley
and his other lands were settled upon him. To his
daughter Anne he left £1,000, to be paid her on the
day of her marriage, or on reaching the age of twenty-
one, which should first happen. To his son Harry 5s.
and no more, because he had received already £1,300.
To his son Gray Wrottesley £1,000. To his daughters
Ursula and Anne, all the furniture in the house at Purton ;
and the rest of his goods, chattels and money to his son
Walter.

The will was proved in London on the 24th June
1686.

Of the sons and daughters of Sir Walter, Henry died
unmarried in 1726.' Gray likewise died unmarried in 1692,
when letters of administration of his' effects were granted to
his brother. Sir Walter Wrottesley, the third baronet.- Ursula,

^ Tettenhall Register.
- Wrottesley Muniments.

338 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

the eldest daughter, married Thomas Crompton, Esq., of
Stone Park, co. Stafford, by whom she had an only
daughter, Elizabeth, who died unmarried.^

Sir Walter Wrottesley, Third Baronet, 1686-1712.

Walter, son of Walter Wrottesley of Wrottesley, co.
Stafford, Baronet, matriculated at Magdalen College, Oxford,
on the 1 8th March 1675-6, aged seventeen. He was there-
fore born in 1659.

In 1678, when only nineteen years of age, he was married
to Eleanora, the daughter of Sir John Archer, Kt., of
Coopersale, co. Essex, one of the Justices of the Common
Pleas. The marriage allegation was dated 28th June 1678,
and was to the irollowing effect : — Walter Wrottesley of
Wrottesley, co. Stafford, Esqr., batchelor, about twenty, with
consent of father. Sir Walter Wrottesley of the same.
Baronet, and IVIrs. Eleanora Archer of Coopersale in the
Parish of Theydon Garnon, co. Essex, about eighteen, with
consent of father. Sir John Archer, Kt., of St. Clement's
Danes, Middlesex.'-

In the • marriage settleuient made on this occasion Sir
Walter Wrottesley, the father, conveyed to trustees for the
benefit of the young couple, saving his own life interest,
his manor of Wrottesley, a moiety of the manor of Oaken,
the manor of Tettenhall Clericorum, the manor of Tresley
and Seisden, the manors of Wombourne and Orton, Wood-
ford Grange and Perton and Trescott, all his lands in
Wrottesley, Oaken, Oaken Park, Codshall, Billbroke and
Wightwike, the tithes of Wrottesley, Oaken, Codshall, Bill-
broke, Wightwike, Wombourne, Swindon, Orton and Chaspell,
CO. Staftbrd, a forge called the Heath forge in Wombourne
and Orton, and the tithes of Perton and Heath forge. Sir
John Archer on his part settled a sum of £6,000 upon
Walter and Elianora and their issue.^

Elianora died in January 1698-4 when only thirty-three
years of age,* and shortly after her death Sir Walter
married Anne, the daughter of Mr. Justice Burton of
Longnor, co. Salop. ° About the same time he pulled down
the old hall at Wrottesley, filled up the moat, and built

' Notes by H. S. Grazebrook to the Staffordshire Visitation of 1663, vol. v,
Staffordshire Collections, p. 332.
- Harleian Society Publications.
^ Wrottesley Muniments.

* Tettenhall Register. She was buried on the 28th of January 1693-4.

* Wotton's Baronetage.

WROTTESLEY OP WROTTESLEY. 339

a new bouse upon the same site ^ None of the accounts or
correspondence respectinc^ the new house were preserved at
Wrottesley, but from intrinsic evidence there can be no
doubt of its having been designed by Sir Christopher
Wren. It was built of red brick with stone dressings, and
the details of the stone work correspond in all respects to
those of Chelsea Hospital, which had just been completed
by the same architect. The double architrave to the
windows, the stone quoins, and the block cornice were the
same as those of the Hospital. In the case of some of
the windows and doors there was a change in the design
of the architrave, a torus moulding having been introduced
into it, and the same A^ariation is to be found at Chelsea
Hospital.

As originally designed the house nuist iiave been a
handsome building. The great bampietting hall or saloon
was 43 feet in length, 28 feet in width, and the same
in height, running through two stories, and with two
tiers of windows. At the west end there was a minstrel
gallery, to which access was obtained from the main
staircase. The latter was a ver\'' fine feature in the house,
occupjang a space of 26 feet by 20 feet, with a massive
oak balustrading and dado. At the back of the house
were open cloisters formed by arches springing from columns.
These extended the whole length of the house between
the wings, and were 88 feet in length and 16 feet 6 inches
in width. Above the cloisters there was a gallery of the
same dimensions, lighted by seven windows, divided by
raullions and transoms, in which were some ancient coats
of arms in colored glass, which had been taken out of the
old house. Dr. Wilkes, the antiquary, writing about the
year 1740, says, "At Wrottesley is a most magnificent house
with stables, outhouses, gardens, etc., begun by this young
gentleman's grandfather- and tis a great pity they are not
finished according to the original design." In a note, added
about fifty years later. Dr. Wilkes says, " The house was
built about 100 j^ears ago in the style of King William,
of brick with white stone cornices in the form of an H,
large and commodious but not handsome." Between these
two dates the aspect of the house had been completely
changed, all the characteristic features of it having been
obliterated by the eighth Baronet. The dormer windows
had been removed from the roof, the cloisters bricked up,

^ There is an old Tudor -window with stone nmllions and transoms covered
by the stone work of the new house, on the east side.

■■' " The young gentleman " was Sir Richard Wrottesley, who was under
age at the time Dr. Wilkes wrote.

340 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

and the ^reat trallery wliich was the glory of the house
had been destroyed to obtain additional bedrooms. It was
at this date also that additional Hues were cut in the walls
of the house, one of which, by comniunicatinir with the
woodwork of the floors, was the cause of the destruction
of the house by fire in 1897.

The tradition in the family is that the house was built
from money which Sir Walter obtained with Elianora
Archer, and this is likely to be true, for the Archer arms
were impaled with those of Wrottcsley in the pediment on
the front of the house, thoup^h his first wife had been dead
several years before the building was completed.'

During the rebuilding of the house Sir Walter lived at
Somerford, which he had bought from the mortgagees of
John Somerford, 2 and he died there in 1712,^ aged fifty-three.

His will was dated the 14th November 1707, and was
proved at London on the 18th March 1712-13 by Dame
Anne Wrottcsley, the relict and cxecutri.K. It states : —

" Imprimis, whereas I did some short time after the death of
my first wife, grant an annuity or yearly rent charge of seven
hundred pounds to be issuing and going out of all and every
my mannors, messuages, lands, tenements and hereditaments tliat
I was then seised of in the County of .Stafford during the time
of my naturall life upon trust for the maintenance and raising
of portions for the younger children of my said deceased wife,
whereby considerable portions and provisions have been, and will
be raised for them for their respective preferments ; and therefore
I do give and devise to my eldest son Mr. John Wrottesley and
to all and every of my younger children by his motlier, that
shall be living at my decease, the summe of twenty .shillings
a piece to buy them respectively mourning rings to wear in remem-
brance of me. Item, 1 give and devise all and every the messuages,
lands, tenements and hereditaments whatsoever I have purchased
or am in any way intituled unto either in law or equity in the
Parish of Brewood in the County of Stafford unto my loving
wife the Lady Anne Wrottesley and her assigns for and during
the term of her naturall life, and from and after her decease
I give and devise the same unto my son Walter W^rotteslej and
his assigns for and during the term of his natural life without
impeachment of or for any manner of waste, and from and after
his decease to the use and behoof of such person and persons
and for such estate and estates as I have caused the mansion
house called Somerford Hall wherein I now live, to be settled
unto, and my will is that tlie said messuages, lands, etc., by me
purchased as aforesaid of William Challoner, Edward Jellicoe*

' The date on one of the leaden hopper heads of the rain water pipes
was 1698.

- Parke's " History of Brewood," pp. 80 and 103.

' He was buried at Brewood on the 4th of April 1712 (Brewood Register).

•• On 22nd January 1704 Edward Jellicoe of Standeford surrendered the

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 341

and John Bill or any other person whatsoever situate in Somerford
or elsewhere in the parish of Brewood from and after the death
of my said loving wife the Lady Anne Wrottesley and the death
of my said son Walter to whom T have devised the same for
their lives, as aforesaid, shall go along with the said Somerford
Hall to such uses as the same is settled unto and upon the same
trusts, etc., in the Indentures or deeds of purchase thereof
mentioned. Item, I give, desire and bequeath unto my dear
and loving wife the Lady Anne Wrottesley all the rest and
residue of my personall estate whatsoever, and I do nominate
constitute and appoint her sole executrix of this my last will and
testament, and desire her to perform the same in all things."

A codicil was afterwards added in these words :—
'/ 1 revoke that pai't of my will wherein I leave my daughter
Henrietta and my son Hugh each of them a small legacy amongst
my first wife's younger children, and leave them but a shilling
a piece each, and I desire to be buried in Brewood church
or churchyard where my now wife intends to lye bilried, and I
desire my Funerall may be as private as possible, only eight
gentlemen bearers to be invited." Dated 24th March A.l). 1711.

His second marriage had been the cause of many dissensions
in the family.

Sir Walter's children b}^ his first wife were —
Walter, who died young in 1686.^
John, who succeeded him as fourth Baronet.
Elianora, who married William Eyre, and who succeeded
to Coopersale on the death of her uncle, John Archer.
Henrietta, or Harriet, who was born in June 1688, and

died unmarried in 1719-20.'-
Mary, born 4th March 1691-2. She died umarried in
1711.'^ By her will, which was dated 1710, she
bequeathed money which had been left to her "by
her grandmother Archer" and her "uncle Archer"
amongst the following relatives, viz., " mj' brother

greater part of his copyholds, which were late the lands of John Somerford,
Esqr., to Walter Wrottesley, son of Walter Wrottesley, Baronet, whose fealty
was respited because he was under age. (Court Rolls of Brewood ([uoted
by Mr. Parke in his " Historv of Brewood.")

' Tettenhall Register.

- She left behind her a devoted admirer, who put up a monument to her
memory in Worcester Cathedral. This consists of a mural tablet in marble
inscribed as follows : —

" To the memory of Henrietta Wrottesley, daughter of Sir Walter Wrot-
tesley in the County of Stafford, Bart., who dyed the 10"' day of March
1719 in the 30''' year of her age.

A lady whose good nature and good sense justly recommended her to
the favour of the world, her exemplaiy piety and charity to that of Heaven.

NON TE SECVNDIA, NON TE RESTITVET PIETAS.

W. Davis grato animo posuit."

A print of this monument is given in Dr. Thomas' " Sur\-ey of the Cathe-
dral Church of Worcester, 173G."
* Codsall Register.

342 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

John Wrotteslej'," "my nephew John Wrottesley,"
"my brother Hugh,"' "my sister Harriott," "my uncle
Wrottesley,"'' and " my father Sir Walter Wrottesley."
Her sister Elizabeth was made residuar}^ legatee.
Hugh, a lawyer of Lincoln's Inn, a Fellow of the
Antiquarian Society, and a diligent collector of works
on Archaeology. These he left by his will, as heir-
looms, to pass with the Wrottesley estates.-
Elizabeth, who married Anthony Collins of Baddow,
CO. Essex. ^
B}' his second wife Sir Walter left a son
Walter, and two daughters,
Margaret, born in June 1696,^ who appears to have

died unmarried, and

Anne, who married Thomas Hutchinson of Woodhall,

CO. Hereford, and of Owthorpe, co. Notts. She was

baptised at Brewood on the 22nd September 1702.

To complete the story of the Somerford property. It

appears that in 1694 the manor of Somerford, with the

capital mansion and lands in Somerford, Horsebrook,

Stretton and Brewood, late the estate of John Somerford,

Esq., Robert Miles, and Roger Ward, were settled b}-

Fine and Recovery on Dame Anne, the wife of Sir Walter

' Her prandmotter Archer was Eleanor, daughter of Sir John Curson of
Kedelston, co. Derby. Her uncle Archer was John Archer, who succeeded
to Coopersale and died s.p. Her uncle Wrottesley was Henry Wrottesley.
John Archer settled the Coopersale property upon his niece Elianora Wrot-
tesley, who married William Eyre and died s.p. By her will she left
Coopersale to her husband, who remarried, and his son John, by his second
wife, succeeded to the pro])erty and assumed the name of Archer (Morant's
Esse.x). Sir John Archer, the Judge, died 8th February 1681-2, aged eighty-
two. He was buried at Theydou Garnon Church, where a monument is set
up to his memory. (Ibid.)

^ After some bequests to his brother, Sir John Wrottesley, and his sister,
Elizabeth Wrottesley, the will proceeds : —

" Item my books which I liave with much care, trouble and expense
collected, and the value of which I judge to be £2,000, I give to my said
brother Sir John Wrottesley in trust only, that the same shall go along
with the inheritance of the Wrottesley estate, and what may be further
necessary to be done in order to settle it in that manner, I do desire my
said brother will take care of."

The library consisted of over 8,000 volumes, and contained manj' rare
editions of the classics and a complete series of the ancient chronicles of
Great Britain, many of which were in black letter and original editions.
The library also contained many volumes of rare tracts, and news letters of
the seventeenth century, a fine copy of De Brie, a folio Shakespeare, the
original edition of Sir Walter Kaleigh's travels, and every antiquarian work
of note which had been printed up to 1725, the date of Hugh Wrottesley's
death.

The will was dated 1722 and proved in 1725. A deposition of two witnesses
at the end of the will states that he died on the 26th June 1725.

^ Wotton's Baronetage.

* Tettenhall Registers.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 343

Wrottesley, Bart.' She, by will dated 27th July 1729,
devised the same to her daughter Anne, the wife of Thomas
Hutchinson, Esq., of Owthorpe, eo. Notts, her brother
Thomas Burton of Longner Hall, eo. Salop, and Peter
Meyrick of the Bank of England, Esq., in trust to sell the
same, and it was sold in 1734 for £5,400 to Robert Barbor,
Esq., of the Inner Temple.^

The son, Walter Wrottesley, appears to have died before his
mother. He married a Miss Craig and left a son Thomas,
who married in 1738 his cousin Elizabeth, the daughter of Sir
John Wrottesley, the fourth Baronet.- Thomas left no issue,
and in his will, which was dated 29th September 1733, he
devised to Magdalen Craig, spinster, and to her heirs, his
manor of Coven in the parish of Brewood, and his lands
and tenements in the said manor and townships of Coven,
Bishbury, Penford, Aspley and Somerford. This estate was
conveyed to Robert Barbor, Esq., of the Inner Temple, for
£3,550.1

Dame Anne Wrottesley was buried at Brewood on the
10th of July 1732, having survived her husband for more
than twenty years. The courtly Vicar of Brewood describes
her in his Register as " The Honorable Lady Anne Wrot-
tesley of Somerford, widow." ^

Sir John Wrottesley, Fourth Baronet, 1712-26.

Owing to the loss of the " Family Bible " by the fire of
1897, I am unable to state the year in which this Sir John
was born, and the only note I have taken respecting him
from the Wrottesley muniments is that he was married in
1703 to Frances Gray (sic), younger daughter of the
Honble. John Gray. Assuming that he was of age at the
date of his marriage he would have been born about 1682.
His parents were married in 1678.

In 1708, during the lifetime of his father, he was elected
member for the county in conjunction with Henrj' Paget,
afterwards Earl of Uxbridge. At this period, the Whig
interest greatly preponderated owing to the victories of
Marlborough, but before the next election, in 1710, the tide
had turned, the Whig Ministry -had been dismissed, the
Tories had a majority, and John Wrottesley lost his seat.

' Lysons' Collections, Additional MS. 9459, British Museum.
- Gentleman's Magazine.

■* Brewood Registers. The Gentleman's Magazine states that she died on
the 1st of July 1732.

344 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Accordinjj to Wotton " Sir John was a jjentleman of strict
honor and justice, and highly valued by the county for
which he was chosen a representative in 1708."^ The same
authority informs us that he married Frances, dauc^hter of
the Honble. John Grey, of Enville, Esquire, the third son
of Henry, Earl of Stamford, by Catherine, his second wife,
the daughter of Edward, Lord Dudle}' and Ward, by whom
he had five sons, John, who died in November 1723;-
Charles, who died in 1724,^ both in their minority; Sir
Hugh, Sir Walter, and Sir Richard, who were successively
Baronets, and five daughters. Of these : —

Hugh, the third son, succeeded as fifth Baronet, but
died in his minority in 1729, when letters of ad-
ministration of his eftects were granted to Dame
Frances Wrottesley, his mother.'* He was succeeded
by his next brother
Walter, the sixth Baronet, who died a minor two
years afterwards. He was buried at Tettenhall on
the 28th of February 1781-2.^
Richard, who succeeded as seventh Baronet.
Frances, the eldest daughter, was born on the IGth
of October 1711,'' and married, first, Heigham
Bendish, Esq., of East Ham. Essex,^ and secondly,
in 1756, Dr. Wilkes of Willenhall, the well known
antifiuary.*"
Elizabeth, the second daugliter, was born on the 5th
of November 1713,' and married her cousin Thomas
Wrottesley,^ the son of Sir Walter, the third
Baronet, by his second wife. After his death she
married Francis Stuart of Wolverhampton, by whom
she left issue.''

' Wotton's Baronetage, 1741, ex inf. Sir Eicliard Wrottesley.

" John was born 21st September 1708, and baptised 1st October (Codsall
Register).

^ There is an error here for Charles Wrottesley was buried at Tettenhall
on the 18th of March 1722-3. The Codsall Register states he was born and
baptized at Wrottesley on the 14th March 1718.

* Wrottesley Muniments.
^ Tettenhall Register.

* Harwood's Erdeswick. Dr. Wilkes was the representative of a very
old family of gentle blood, which had been seated at Willenhall for many
generations. According to the author of " Staffordshire and Warwickshire,
Past and Present," he was born 16th March 1690-91, and educated at St.
John's College, Cambridge, and married Rebecca Manlove, of Lees Hill,
Abbots Bromley. " In 1756, being a widower, he married Mrs. Frances
Bendish, sister of Sir Richard W^rottesley, Bart. He died in 1760, aged
seventy, and his widow died at a very advanced age in 1798. He was
an eminent physician and a diligent and inquisitive lover of antiquities."
His collections are now in the William Salt Library at Stafford.

' Codsall Register. '

^ Wotton's Baronetage, 1741.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEV. 345

Henrietta, the third daughter, was born on the 25th
of November 1715, ^ and married Theodore William
Inge, Esq., of Thorpe Constantine, co. Stafford. ^

Dorothy or Dora, as she is named in the Codsall
Register, was born and baptised at Wrottesley 8th May
1723.=^ The Tettenhall Register records her burial
on the 12th of August 1742. She is described in it
as "Dorothy, the daughter of Lady Wrottesley, of
Purtou." Probate of her will was granted to her
mother in 1743.

Mary was born and baptised the 12th of October 1725.^
She was living in 1762, at the date of her mother's
will, and apparently died unmarried.*

Sir John Wrottesley was buried at Tettenhall on the 1st of
November 1726.^ His will was dated 1725, and probate was
granted of it in February 1726-7. He names in it "my
uncle Harry Wrottesley," "my wife Frances," "Anthony
Collins, Esqr., and my sister Elizabeth, his wife."

After the marriage of Sir Richard Wrottesley, his mother
Frances, Lady Wrottesley, took up her abode at the old
Manor House at Perton, and must have lived to a very
advanced age, for the Parish Register of Tettenhall records her
burial on the 1st April 1769, four months only before the

^ Codsall Register.

^ She has raised a monument to herself by the memorial she put up in
Lichfield Cathedral to Lady Mary Wortley Montagu. Mrs. Jameson, in
her " Romance of Biography," writing of this monument says : —

" In Lichfield Cathedral stands the only memorial ever raised to Lady
Mary. It is a cenotai^h, with Beauty weeping over the loss of her
preserver, and an inscription of which the following words form the
conclusion, ' To perpetuate the memory of such benevolence, and to expi-ess
her gratitude for the benefit she herself received from this alleviating art,
this monument is erected by Henrietta Inge, relict of Tlieodore William
Inge, and daughter of Sir John Wrottesley, Bart., in 1789.' One would
like to have known !;he woman who raised this monument."

Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, who introduced inoculation into England,
as a remedy for smallpox, was the aunt and probably the godmother of
Lady Mary Wrottesley, the wife of Sir Richard Wrottesley, and was therefore
connected with Henrietta Inge. It is not unlikely that the numerous
deaths in the Wrottesley family of this date j^roceeded from smallpox, for
the ravages of the disease at this period were quite terrific.

Mrs. Jameson says, in the work above mentioned, that " when Lord Petre,
who is consecrated to fame in the Rape of the Lock, as the ravisher of
Arabella Fermour's hair, died of the smallpox ^t the age of three and twenty,
just after his marriage with a young and beautiful heiress, his death caused
a general sympathy, and added to the dread and horror insjiired by this
terrible disease, eighteen persons of his family having died of it within
twenty-seven years." This took place in 1711.

^ Codsall Register.

* Wrottesley Muniments.

® Tettenhall Register.

346 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

death of her only surviving son Sir Richard. Her will, which
was dated 16th April 1762, mentions "my son Sir Richard
Wrottesley and his son John," ''my grandaughter Mary
Wrottesley," " my daughter Wilkes," " my daughter Stuart,"
"my daughter Inge," "my daughter Mary," and "my grand-
son William Inge."^

Sir Richard Wrottesley, the Seventh Baronet, 1732-69.

Sir Richard, who now succeeded to the Baronetcy, was
born on the 12th of April 1721,- and was the fifth and only
surviving son of the fourth Baronet. The mortality in the
family had been so great, that at the date of his marriage
in 1739, he was the only male representative of it left alive.

He matriculated at St. John's College, Oxford, on the
31st of August 1739, aged eighteen,^ and in the same year
he married Lady Mary, the second daughter of John, first
Earl Gower, by his first wife. Lady Evelyn Pierrepont, the
daughter of the Duke of Kingston.^ This marriage brought
him into close connection with all the great Whig houses
which had been paramount in England ever since the
accession of the Hanoverian line. The eldest daughter of
Earl Gower was married to John, the fourth Duke of Bedford,
who played a prominent part in the political history of this
period, and was first cousin to William, the fourth Duke of
Devonshire, whose mother was a Russell. Earl Gower himself
was a man of some political eminence. He had been appointed
Lord Privy Seal in 1742, and had twice acted as one of the
members of the Regency, during the absence of George II
on the Continent. He was created an Earl in 1746 and
died on 25th December 1754.

Dr. Wilkes, the antiquary, describing Wrottesley about
1739, writes:—

" Sir Richard, the present owner of the estate is a minor, but a
young gentleman of fine parts who 'tis hoped may live to be an
ornament to his family and countrey (sic). He is the seventh of
the family who has enjoyed the Honour in about 12 years, his
father and two elder brothers all dying in a short space of time."^

In 1742, when Sir Richard came of age, a postnuptial

^ Copy of will formerly at Wrottesley. The Annual Register states she
died on the 22nd of March 1769.

- Codsall Register.

•' Foster's Alumni Oxonienses.

■* Wrottesley Muniments and Trentham Register. The marriage took
place at Trentham on the 6th of October 1739.

^ Dr. Wilkes' MSS., William Salt Library, Stafford.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 347

settlement was made of the Wrottesley estate, and Lord
Gower settled £10,000 upon his daughter. ^ In the reign of
George II this sum would have been considered a large
fortune for a daughter.

In 1747, through the interest of his brother-in-law, the
Duke of Bedford, Sir Richard was elected M.P. for Tavistock,
and was re-elected in June 1749, after his appointment
as one of the Principal Clerks in the Board of Green Cloth. ^
In 1754, for some reason which has never been explained,
Sir Richard threw up his seat in Parliament and his post
in the Royal Household and entered into Holy Orders.

Up to this point this history has been based entirely
upon documentary evidence, but we have now reached^ a
period when oral traditions may be produced in aid of it ;
and I propose to introduce into it some stories of Sir Richard
told to me by his grandson, the late Rev. Charles Wrottesley,
the Rector of Knoyle. According to my informant. Sir
Richard was a hot-headed youth, who from inabilitj' to
control his temper, became involved in quarrels which in an
age of duelling, led to more than one personal encounter.
One of these was a duel a outrance fought with swords in a
sawpit, in which, curious to relate, neither party was injured.
After Sir Richard had entered the Church and been appointed
one of the Royal Chaplains, the story of this duel reached
the ears of his royal master, and the fact of one of his
Chaplains having been engaged in such an attair so tickled
the royal fancy, that it was made a constant subject of
badinage on the part of the King, in reply to which Sir
Richard could only plead that "After all, sir, nobody was
hurt." He became a Royal Chaplain in 1763. Another story
told of him is connected with the rising of "45." When
the Pretender reached Derby the excitement in the Midland
Counties was intense, and Sir Richard as a staunch Whig
and Hanoverian, armed his servants and tenantry, and at the
head of a body of Yeomanry set out to join his father-in-law.
Lord Gower, who was raising forces in the north of the
county. They had not gone far, however, before they were
recalled, news having been received of the retreat of Prince
Charles Edward's army. His Jacobite and Pligh Tory neigh-
bours, the GifFards and Astleys, on hearing of this, invented a
story that Sir Richard and his " army " had never gone further
than the old Bull Inn, which was the first public-house on
the road and less than a mile from Wrottesley, where according
to their account, all Sir Richard's levies had stopped to

^ Wrottesley Muniments.

* Wotton's Baronetage and Gentleman's Magazine. The office is one in the
Royal Household in the Lord Steward's Department. Sir Richard was
appointed vice Sir Thomas Wynne, deceased.

348 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

" liquor up " and could not be prevailed upon to go any-
further.^

Sir Richard appears to have been a favourite at Court,
for at the commencement of the new reign his eldest son
John was appointed one of the King's Pages, and on the
formation of the household of the Queen, at the time of tlie
marriage of the King with the Princess Charlotte of Mecklen-
burgh Strelitz, his eldest daughter Mary was appointed one
of the Maids of Honour. In April 1765 he was promoted
to the Deanery of Worcester, at that date a very valuable
ecclesiastical benefice. On taking Orders he obtained the
degree of M.A. at St. John's, College, Cambridge, and on
his promotion to the Deanery he took the degree of LL.D.-

The letters of George Selwyn and his contemporaries
occasionally mention members of the family at this date.
One from George Williams,^ dated from Crome, 19th of
October 1764, says : —

" I met the Wrottesleys in the middle of the town, and let me
tell you a Maid of Honor's face at Worcester is no very common
spectacle. I have seen you in spirits at a London face, though
it was that of the ordinary at Newgate."

This is in allusion to George Selwyn's well known fondness
for attending public executions.

On the 28th of October 1765, he writes again to George
Selwyn : —

" The dinner at Sir Richard Wrottesley's was not a bad one ;
the jumble between leather and prunella would have entertained
you. The Maid of Honor is at Blenheim, and I suppose e secretis
in this paper controversy and as she is retained for the house of
Trentham she breathes not peace ; you would have pitied Lady
Mary, sick, and as like Taaffe as it is possible, though at the
same time well bred, and in every action discovering a superiority
to the savages she was encompassed with. The Bishop was as
usual all sketch and outline in his discourse, said you had lost a
great opportunity of not appearing with your sword-bearer before
H.R.H.," etc.

The controversy mentioned in this letter is doubtless the
attempt of the King to get rid of the Grenville adminis-

' Lord Gower raised a regiment of 1,000 men on this occasion, and was
made an Earl in the following year. lie had been originally a Jacobite,
but Lad changed his political convictions and had accepted the office of
Lord Privy Seal in 1742. Dr. Johnson, who was a High Tory, looked upon
him as a turncoat, and proposed to define the word " Renegade " in the
first edition of his Dictionary as " Lord Gower," but his printer refused his
consent, and Dr. Johnson said afterwards, " He was wiser than I." (Lord
Ronald Gower's " Reminiscences.")

- Romilly's " Cantabrigienses Graduati."

^ He is better known as " Gilly Williams," and as the friend of Horace
Walpole. He was Receiver-General of Excise, and one of George Selwyn's
most intimate associates.

WROTTESLEY OE WROTTESLEV. 349

tration. He had dismissed them, it is supposed on the advice
of his mother, but not being able to form another adminis-
tration, he had to take them back.

Sir Richard held his Deanery for four years only, for he died
20th July 1769.^ At the date of his death he was only forty-
eight years of age, and if he had lived longer, with his favour
at Court and his political connections, he would probably have
risen to higher ecclesiastical preferment.

His will was dated in 1764 and probate of it was granted
in 1769. It is curious that he makes no mention in it of
his wife. His daughter Mary was made sole executrix, and
the guardianship of his daughter Harriet, who was under
age, was left to the Duke of Bedford and Earl Gower.-

Mary Wrottesley died intestate on the 17th of December
1769, before the estate had been administered. Letters of
administration were therefore granted " to Dame Mary
Wrottesley, widow, the lawful mother of the Hon^'" Mary
Wrottesley, spinster, deceased."^

Sir Richard left an only son John, who succeeded him,
and five daughters. Of these the eldest, Mary, was born
on the 22nd of November 1740,* and was appointed Maid of
Honour to Queen Charlotte in 1761. She is mentioned upon
more than one occasion in the letters of Lady Sarah Lennox.
On the 24th December 1762, Lady Sarah writes to her friend
Lady Susan Fox Strangways : —

" Miss Wriothesley (sic) is so pert upon the Duke and Duchess
of M., Lady Bolingbrokes being favorite to the Queen, and upon
Mr. Calcraft intending to marry her (which is my sister's intelligence)
that her head is turned, and she is a thorough fine lady as ever 1 saw."^

The allusion here must be to the marriage of Mary
Wrottesley's cousin, Lady Caroline Russell, to the Duke
of Marlborough, which took place in August of this year.
Lady Bolingbroke was the sister of the Duke and one of
the Ladies of the Bedchamber.

In May 1765 there was a rupture between the King and
the Grenville and Bedford party. On the 13th June of
that year Lady Sarah writes to Lord Holland : —

' Gentleman's Magazine. He was buried at Tettenhall on the 31st of July
1769 (Tettenhall Register).

- The guardianship was released by deed to Dame Mary Wrottesley, her
mother, in 1770 (Wrottesley Muniments). There is no evidence of any
quarrel between Sir Eichard and Lady Mary. The latter was in bad health
and the will was drawn up apparently under the supposition that the testator
would survive his wife, but as always happens, when a speculation is made
on the future, the unexpected occurred, and Lady Mary survived both her
husband and her daughter.

^ Annual Register and Wrottesley Muniments.

* Codsall Register.

^ Letters of Lady Sarah Lennox, vol. i (1901). Lady Sarah always uses
the word " pert " in the sense of " proud." Thus she speaks of a lady being
pert at the birth of a sou and heir.

350 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

" I came to town yesterday, and find all the Bedfords most
prodigious glumpy, particularly l-ord Gowcr. The King is still
sulky and I find everybody expects a change immediately."
Ten days later she wi'ites again to him : —
"It is impossible to know any news, for ^liss Wriothesley, who
has just been, says that the King's manner to all her friends is
exactly the same that it has been for tliis fortnight past, and as
nobody can know what passed between the King and Mr. Pitt
either Wednesday or to-day, the fidget they are in is not smoke,
you may immagine (sic)."

As Pitt refused to take office, not wishing to supplant
Grenville, who was his brother-in-law, the King was obliged
to take his old Ministers back.

Some witty verses, written by Lord Delawarr on resigning
his office as Vice-Chamberlain to Queen Charlotte on his
promotion in the army in 1766, gives us a glimpse of the
dull and decorous Court of Queen Charlotte. They were
addressed as a farewell to the Maids of Honor : —

Ye maids who Britain's Court bedeck.

Miss Wrottesley, Beauclerk, Tryon, Keck,

Miss Meadows and Boscawen,

A dismal tale I have to tell.

This is to bid you all farewell —

Farewell, for I am going.

No longer shall we laugh and chat

In the outer room, on this and that

Until the Queen shall call.

Our gracious King has called me now.

Nay, holds a Stick^ up too I vow.

And so God bless you all.

No longer shall I now be seen

Handing along our matchless Queen,

So generous, good and kind ;

While one by one each smiling lass

First di'ops a curtsey as we pass,

Then trips along behind.

Farewell, my good Lord Harcourt too.

What can alas, your Lordsliip do,

Alone among the maids.

You must soon assistance ask,

Youll have a very arduous task

Unless you call for aid.

Great is the charge you have in care !

But yet my pretty maidens fair.

His situation's nice.

As Chamberlain we shall expect

That he sole guardian will protect

Six maids without a Vice.
' The silver stick.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 351

It would appear by this that " the six maids without a
vice " had more gracious manners than the maids of Queen
Elizabeth, who were described by Cecil, as " virtuous as
small beer, and as sour."

The Carlisle Correspondence mentions the enn;agement of
Mar}' Wrottesley to Admiral Keppel, the famous Naval Com-
mander, afterwards Lord Keppel. This was in 1768, but her
health gave way, and she died in 1769, aged twenty-nine.^
Lord Keppel died unmarried in 1782.

At Wrottesley there is an excellent portrait of her taken
after she became Maid of Honor, by Sir Joshua Reynolds.'-^
Without being what is called a beauty, she has a countenance
which is decidedly prepossessing.

Frances, the second daughter, was born in 1743^ and
occurs in the letters of Lady Sarah Lennox as " Fanny
Wriotsley."^ She married in 1769, as his second wife.
Captain afterwards Admiral Hugh Pigot, brother of the
unfortunate Lord Pigot, the Governor of Madras, and died
in 1811, leaving two daughters.'*

Elizabeth, the third daughter, was born "2 1st October 1745,'
and was married on the 24th June 1769 to Augustus Henry,
the third Duke of Grafton. The Duke at this date was First
Lord of the Treasury and Prime Minister. He had been
previously married to a daughter of Lord Liavensworth, but
they had been separated in 1765, and the marriage was
dissolved by Act of Parliament in March 1769. In his auto-
biography the Duke writes : —

"On the 24th June 1769 I married Elizabeth, the third daughter
of Sir Richard and Lady Mar} Wrottesley whose merit as a
wife, tenderness and affection as mother of a numerous family
and exemplary conduct thro' life, need not be related to you."^

The Duke resigned the Treasury in January 1770, but took
office again as Lord Privy Seal in the following year in
Lord North's administration. He is, however, best known
to historians through the attacks upon him in the Letters
of Junius. One of these addressed to the Duke and dated
the 30th May 1769, thus apostrophises his forthcoming
marriage : —

" Marriage is the point on which every rake is stationary at last,
and truly my Lord you may well be weary of the circuit you
have taken, for you have now fairly travelled through every

' Tettenhall Register.

^ Sir Joshua's receipt for the money paid for this portrait was formerly
at Wrottesley.

^ Lady Sarah plaj^s havoc with the spelling of her proper names. Tollemache,
for instance, in her hands becomes Tollmuch.

■* Gentleman's jMagazine and Burke's Peerage and Baronetage, under Pigot.

* Autobiography of Augustus Henry, third Duke of Grafton, printed 1898.
It is addressed to his eldest son, Lord Euston.

352 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Sign of the political Zodiac, from the Scorpion in which you
stung Lord Cliatham to the hopes of a Virgin in the House of
Bloorasbury. In a political point of view, this union is not
imprudent, the favor of princes is a perishable commodity. You
have now a strength sufficient to command the closet," etc.

The allusion in the last two sentences, of course, is to
the connection of" Elizabeth with the house of Russell.
Gertrude, the popular Duchess of Bedford, was her aunt,
and her marriage took place from Woburn Abbey. ^

Five months after the marriage, the Dowager Countess
Gower writes to Mrs. Delany : —

" The Duchess of Grafton I'm told is not in the least degree
intoxicated with her preferment, and I believe it, for the Duchess
of Bedford says, ' Slie wants dignity,' which implies she wants
insolence."-

At the date of the marriage the Duke was thirty-four years
of age and Elizabeth was ten }-ears younger. They had
several children, most of whom eventually married, and their
descendants must now be very numerous. For these, however,
I must refer the reader to Burke's Peerage.^

The Duke died in March 181L His wife survived him
for eleven years, dying on the 25th May 1822, in her
seventy-seventh year. In her latter days she formed an

^ To understand how the Duke's marriage with Elizabeth Wrottesley could
be said to improve his political position, the following pedigree of the
descendants of John, the first Earl Gower, is given : —

John, first Earl Gower.=rEvelyn, d. of the
Duke of Kingston.

Granville, first^Louisa, d. of Gertrude.=rDuke of Mai-y.=rS)r Richard

Marquis of
Stafford.

the Duke of
Bridgewater.

Bedford.

Wrottesley.

I 1 — 1 ' . I —

George Caroline.=Earl Anne.=Edward Caroline. = Duke Elizabeth. ^=^Duke
Gi-anville, of Car- Vernon of Marl- of

first Dukeof lisle. Ilarcourt, borough. Graf-

Sutherland. Archbishop ton.

of York.

Granville, the first Marquis of Stafford, by his second wife, the daughter of the
Earl of Gallowaj', had issue :— Granville, the first Earl Granville ; Georgiana,
married to the Earl of St. Germans ; Charlotte, married to the Duke of
Beaufort ; and Susan, married to the Earl of Harrowby ; all of these, as well
as Caroline, the Duchess of Marlborough, would be first cousins of Elizabeth
Wrottesley, the Duchess of Grafton.

* The Life and Correspondence of Mrs. Delany, 1862.

-* The present Duchess of Sutherland, Lord Ilosslyn and Eveljm, the Countess
of Warwick, all descend from the marriage of Elizabeth Wrottesley with the
Duke of Grafton.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 353

interesting link with the past, for my father frequently
visited her in her house in London, and she had opened a
Court Ball in 1771, by dancing a minuet with the Duke of
Gloucester.^

Dorothy, the fourth daughter of Sir Richard Wrottesley,
was born on the 15th of October 1747, and married in
1780 Christian, Baron von Kutzleben, Minister to the Land-
grave of Hesse-Cassel.'- Horace Walpole alludes to this
marriage more than once in his letters to the Countess of
Ossory. On the 14th July 1779 he writes : —

" I met Miss Wrottesley this evening at my neice (sic) Chol-
mondeley's and she told me Mr. Dunning had found a flaw in the
settlements and that they must be drawn again."

On the 23rd September 1 780 he writes again : —

" Miss Wrottesley's £5,000 will purchase a princely Turnippery,
but 1 doubt even that or a Baron will indemnify her for the capital
she quits, and yet £5,000 will soon, I believe, buy a principality
in England,"

Horace Walpole was very desponding at this date over
the political outlook ; England being at war with America
and half of Europe.

The Baron of Kutzleben had issue by Dorothy Wrottesley,
a son William, who entered the military service of the East
India Company, became Lieut.-Colonel of the 44th Regiment
of Madras Infantry, and died of fever in India in 1836. He
was twice married. By his first wife Susan, he had a son,
who died young, and two daughters, the eldest of whom,
Gertrude, married a Mr. Collins, by whom she had several
children. She died in 1844.^ The second daughter, Emma,
married in 1836 Ralph William Leycester, of the 19th
Regiment of the Madras Infantry. Captain Leycester was
assassinated at Vizaragatam in September 1859. He left no
issue and his widow died in England in 1872.

By his second wife Elizabeth, the Baron had three daughters,
Elizabeth, married to Mr. Wallhouse, of the Indian Civil Service ;
Louisa, who died young ; and Matilda Catherine Alicia, who
married in 1855, John Robert Lloyd Curtis, of the 8th Regiment
Madras Army. Lieut.-Colonel Lloyd Curtis was killed by a
fall from his horse at Singapore, on the 4th March 1869.
By his wife Matilda Catherine Alicia, he had two daughters

' Annual Register.

" Gentleman's Magazine.

^ Gertrude Philipine de Kutzleben had a pension of £130 on the Civil List,
granted to her in 1801. Her trustees were Earl Gower and Sir Archibald
McDonald.

354 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

and one son. Of these children the only survivor is
Elizabeth Harriet Kutzleben Curtis, now living in London.^

Harriet, the fifth daughter of Sir Richard Wrottesley, was
born on the 1st January 1754, and, like her sister Mary,
became Maid of Honor to Queen Charlotte. She married
in 1779, Colonel, afterwards General, William Gardiner,
brother of Luke, Viscount Mountjoy- and died on the
8th December 1824.^ Her daughter, Gertrude Florinda, mar-
ried in 1803, the Hon. Charles Tollemache, by whom she
had, with other issue, Maria, Marchioness of Ailesbury,* one
of the best known and most popular of the " grandes dames "
of the Court of Queen Victoria.

At Wrottesley there is an excellent portrait of Sir Richard,
painted by Gainsborough ; in this he is represented in clerical
costume and powder. At Enville there is another portrait
of him, painted when he was a young man, in the velvet
frock coat and peruke of the reign of George II.

Sir John Wrottesley, The Eighth Baronet, A.D. 1769

TO 1787.

John, the eighth Baronet, was born at Wrottesley on the
22nd of December 1744,* and succeeded his father Richard
in 1769. As he was an only son, the representation of the
family in the male line was reduced again to a single
member. As a 3'outh he had served as Page of Honour to
the King, and as usual in such circumstances, on reaching
the age of sixteen years, obtained a commission in the Army.
Shortly after the formation of the household of Edward
Augustus the Duke of York, a younger brother of the
King, he was appointed his Equerry, and in the Edgeworth
Memoirs there is an amusing description of some private
theatricals at Sir Francis Delaval's house, in which the
Duke and his Equerry played the leading parts in Rowe's
tragedy of " The Fair Penitent," the Duke playing Lothario
the Seducer, and John Wrottesley the part of Altamont.
This dreary play, which is in blank verse, would have been
forgotten long ago, if it had not been for the cant phrase
of " the gay Lothario " which is taken from it. The parts of
Calista and Lavinia were played by Lady Stanhope and
Lad}'' Mexborough, and the Stage Manager was the famous

' Ex inf., Mrs. Matilda Catherine Alicia Curtis, 1902, and a brass in Tettenhall
Church.

^ Gentleman's Magazine.
' Annual Register.

* Burke's Peerage, under Dysart.

* Codsall Register.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 355

Macklin.^ In 1767 he accompanied the Duke in his
foreign tour, and was present at his death at the Palace of
Monaco on the 17th of September in the same year.
The London Gazette of the 29th September states : —

" On Sunday last Captain Wrottesley arrived from Monaco with
the melancholy account that H.R.H. Edward Augustus Duke of
York and Albany died at that place on the 17th instant about
11 a.m. of a malignant fever."

A letter in the correspondence of George Selwyn and his
contemporaries gives additional particulars of the Duke's
illness and death, derived no doubt from his Equerry ; it
says : —

" H.R.H. ordered that Captain Wrottesley should bring the
news to England, and in what method it should be disclosed. The
Captain was first to wait on M. Le Grand of Spring Gardens and
with him to go to Leicester House, and then to Gloucester House,
and having communicated the event to the Duke his brother, to
proceed to their Majesties, submitting it to the King and Queen
in what manner and by whom it should be imparted to his
royal parent."^

In the same correspondence it is stated that : —

" The Duke was taken ill immediately on his arrivel at Monaco,
having travelled from Toulon. H.R.H. had danced rather too
much at the Chateau of a person of fashion, and set oflF for
Toulon, three or four leagues distant, in a very strong perspira-
tion. The Gentlemen of the train, Colonels Morrison and St. John
and Captain Wrottesly, earnestly represented to H.R.H. the necessity
of his remaining where he was."

This was on the 29th of August. With our present
knowledge of zymotic diseases, it is not necessary to look
for causes of the Duke's illness. He evidently died of
typhoid fever, which, until recent years, was more or less
endemic in the South of Europe. Horace Walpole states
that " he died with a heroism becoming a great Prince.
Before he died he wrote a penitential letter to the King
(though in truth he had no faults but what his youth made
very pardonable), and tenderly recommended his servants
to him."3

On his death bed, after giving instructions to his Equerry
as to the best method of imparting the news to his mother

' The Memoirs of R. L. Edgeworth. A review of these memoirs, giving
an account of these theatricals, will be found in the Annual Register for
1820.

* " George Selwyn and his Contemporaries," by Jesse, 1843. Vol. 2, p. 197.
It is not easy to understand these instructions, as Leicester House was the
residence of the Princess of Wales, the mother of the Duke.

* Horace Walpole's Memoirs, edited by Sir Denis le Marchant, Bart. (1845).

356 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

and the King, the poor Duke added with a faint smile,
" And then you will go and marry Fanny Courtenay.'"^

The Duke's remains were brought to England, and the
funeral took place in Westminster Abbey on the following
3rd of November.

At the General Election of 1768, John Wrottesley was
returned as Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, no doubt by
the Gower interest, for Lord Gower at this date was a
member of the Government and Lord President of the Council
in the administration of the Duke of Grafton. On the fol-
lowing 5th of July, he took the Chiltern Hundreds, and
was elected member for the county in place of George
Harry Grey his cousin, who had succeeded to the Earldom
of Stamford. The other member was Sir William Bagot,
who had represented the county since the year 1754.
This general election was signalised by the return of Wilkes
for Middlesex, and the tumults and riots which arose
from it.

His father died in the following year, and on the 7th of
June 1770,'^ Sir John married Frances the second daughter of
William Viscount Courtenay, of Powderham Castle, by his
wife Frances, daughter of Heneage Earl of Aylesford. His
eldest son John was born in the following year, and another
son Henry in 1773. At the time of her marriage Frances
was one of the Maids of Honour to Queen Charlotte.

Owing to his post in the Royal Household and subsequent
entry into the Army Sir John had never matriculated at an
University, but on the 8th of July 1773, Oxford conferred
upon him the Honorary Degree of D.C.L.

At the General Election of 1774, he was again returned
as a member for the county, the other member being
Sir William Bagot. It was in this year that the troubles
arose in America, and the tea chests were thrown into the
harbour at Boston. The battle of Bunker's Hill was fought
on the 17th June 1775, and the Guards were ordered to
America in the following year.

At this date Sir John Wrottesley was Captain and Lt.-Colonel
in the first Battalion of the Guards. They sailed from Spithead
on the 12th of May, and arrived off Staten Island on the
12th of August and took part in all the operations under
Sir William Howe in 1776, which led up to the capture of
New York and Rhode Island. Full descriptions of all these
actions were sent home by Sir John to his wife. New York

' Ex. inf., the Rev. Charles Wrottesley. Frances Courtenay was one of
the Maids of Honour, and the Duke had become aware of his Equerry's
attachment to her.

' Annual Register, 1770, and Burke's Peerage.

WROTTESLP]Y OK WROTTESLEY. 357

was captured on the 15th of September and the Battle of
Whiteplains was fought on the 28th of October. During
the winter of 1776-7 the Guards remained at New York.

By the scheme of operations which had been arranged in
London for the following year, Sir William Howe was to
have co-operated with General Burgoyne by an advance to
the North up the Hudson River, but the orders to this effect
never reached him,^ and Sir William embarked his army in
July 1777 and went southwards to the Delaware River in
order to take possession of Philadelphia. The Battle of
Brandy wine was fought on the 11th September, and Howe
occupied Philadelphia on the 26th. The Guards formed part
of the forces engaged in these operations.

In the following year (1778) negotiations were opened with
the Americans with a view to an accommodation, and the Earl
of Carlisle, who had married Lady Caroline Leveson-Gower,
Sir John's first cousin, was one of a Commission sent out
from England to offer terms to Congress. At this date,
however, France had declared war with Great Britain, and
the Americans w^ould listen to no terms which did not
recognize their independence.

Sir William Howe had been successful in all his operations
up to this date, but an outcry had been raised against him
in England that he had not followed up his advantages
against the enemy with sufficient vigour, and the ministry
at home wrote to him in a tone which shewed plainly
that they had lost all confidence in him. Under these
circumstances, he asked to be relieved, and the command
of the forces in America fell to Sir Henry Clinton, who was
in many respects inferior in ability to Howe. In fact,
anyone who has seen the condition of an English army
after a disembarkation from a sea voyage, without any means
of transport for its ammunition, sick, or provisions, will be
surprised at the extent and success of the operations which
had been undertaken by Howe. The troops under his
command, who were aware of his difficulties, were indignant
at the slight placed upon their General, and a triumphal
ovation was accorded to him upon his departure. This was
naturally distasteful to members and supporters of the
Government, and Lord Carlisle gives the following description
of it in a letter to his wife, dated from on board the " Trident/'
River Delaware, 21st June 1778 : —

" I forgot to mention the (I don't know what to call it) that
was given to Sir W. Howe. I fear it was a very foolish business,
though I believe it owed its birth to our relative Sir John

' " Life of General Burgoyne," by Fonblanqae.

358 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Wrotsley. He gave me a long description of it, but I understand
tliere is one sent to England wliicli is to appear in the papers,
which will save me tlie trouble of endeavoring to recollect the
particulars. I only know there were triumphal arches, and that
General Washington was within 21: miles of them, and that Lord
Howe saluted Sir William Howe, and Sir William Howe saluted
Lord Howe, and that it cost £-i,000."i

An account of this Fete was sent home by Major Andre in
a letter from Philadelphia dated 23 May 1778, but it does
not appear to have been published before it was printed in
the Lady's Magazine of August 1792. Major Andre calls it a
" Mischianza " or Variety of Entertainments, and his account
of it seems to justify Lord Carlisle's opinion of it. It took
place on the 18th of May, and Sir William Howe embarked
for England on the 24th. The managers were Sir John
Wrottesley, Colonel O'Hara, Major Gardiner, and Major
Montresor, the Chief Engineer. Part of the entertainment
consisted of a Tournament, in which six Knights of the
" Blended Rose " fought six Knights of the " Burning Moun-
tain." After which there was a grand procession, the whole
concluding with a ball and fireworks. Andre in this letter
speaks of the "universal regret and disappointment which
the Army felt on the approaching departure of Sir William. "2

Lady Mary Wrottesley, the mother of Sir John died on
the 80th of April of this year,^ and the latter obtained leave
to return to England. On the 10th of July Lord Carlisle
writes from New York : —

" Sir John Wrotsley goes home in the packet that sailed yesterday,
his situation is enviable, and except he should be taken by the
Americans and brought back to Boston, he ought to be the happiest
man in the world."

Sir John was one of the most popular men in the county,
and after the elevation of Sir William Bagot to the Peerage
was returned at the head of the poll in every election in
which he took a part. This popularity was in a great measure
owing to the openness and candour of his disposition, but he
had the defects of his qualities, and they were accompanied
by a frankness of speech which often made him enemies, and
which must have been extremely inconvenient at this juncture
to Lord Carlisle. On the 21st of July the latter writes : —

' Carlisle Correspondence, printed by the Historical MSS. Commission.

^ "American Historical and Literary Curiosities," by John Jay Smith and
J. F. Watson. Putnam, New York, 1861.

^ Annual Register. She was buried at Tettenhall on the 9th May 1778
(Tettenhall Register). "Lloyd's Evening Post," 1st to 4th May 1778, has
" 30th April. The Honble. Mrs. Wrottesley in Charles Street, Berkeley Square,
mother to the Duchess of Grafton and also to the present Miss Wrottesley,
one of the Maids of Honour to the Queen."

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 359

" Sir J. Wrotsley sailed in the ' Grantham ' Packet about three
days ago, and by this time is perhaps in the hands of the enemy.
If he was taken by the Turks, instead of the Americans or French,
it would do him no harm, for the vulgar notion is, that they cut
out the tongue of those they make their prisoners, and the opera-
tion in every sense would be lucky for our relation."

It was plain from Sir John's letters home at this date,
that he considered the further prosecution of the war to be
hopeless ; he points out in them that we only held the
country within the line of our outposts, that the actual
provisioning of our troops depended on the fleet, and that if
we lost the command of the sea for even a limited period,
the troops would starve or have to surrender. In fact he
anticipated exactly what befell Lord Cornwallis in 1781, but
it may easily be conceived how inconvenient the utterance of
such sentiments would be to the members of the Commission
who were negotiating at this time with the Americans.

Sir John Wrottesley's commission as Captain and Lieut.-
Colonel of the First Regiment of Foot Guards was dated the
10th November 1770. He became Third-Major on the
23rd April 1779, with the rank of full Colonel in the Army,
Second-Major in 1781, and First-Major on the 18th March
1782, when he came into the command of the First Battalion.
On the 20th November 1782, he was gazetted Major-General
in the Army, but according to the custom of the day he
still remained in command of the First Regiment of Foot
Guards, and so continued till the year 1785 when he was
appointed Colonel of the 45th Foot.

On his return to England, after having served in command
of a battalion of Guards at the seat of war. Sir John was
considered an authority on American matters, and spoke
frequently in the House. In November 1778, in the debate
on the Address, he stated : —

" He could not give his approbation to further war with America,
all that could be done, had been done. If 50,000 Russians were
sent, they could do nothing. He thought that New York, Rode
Island and Halifax should be garrisoned, and the rest of the
Army brought away."

He concluded his speech by reprobating the terms offered
to the Americans by the Commissioners.

On Dunning's motion in 1780 against the influence of the
Crown, which was carried against the Government by a
majority of 18, Sir John voted with the ayes. After this
Parliament was dissolved, and Sir John was returned for
the County, again at the head of the poll.

Nevertheless, in 1781, after news had been received of the
surrender of Cornwallis, he spoke against Sir James Lowther s

360 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

motion for putting an end to the American war. In his
speech he said that he had come to the House with the
intention of supporting it, but after what had fallen from
Lord North he would vote against it. It was thrown out by
a majority of 41.

During the recess, however, fresh disasters occurred.
England had lost the command of the seas, Minorca had
fallen, and all the West Indian Islands had been taken by
the French, with the exception of Jamaica, Barbadoes and
Antigua. Shortly after the meeting of Parliament in 1782
the Government majority had become so much reduced
that Lord North resigned at the end of March.

The division which upset the Government took place on
the 15th of March, on a motion by Sir John Rous, for a
change of Ministry. On the 16th of March Selwyn writes
to Lord Carlisle, " Gilbert voted with us. Sir John
Wrottesley against us. Lord Trentham went away."

During the existence of the Coalition JMinistry he was
in opposition, but this administration was dismissed by the
King on the 18th of December 1783, and a new Government
was formed by William Pitt on the following day, which
was joined by Earl Gower.

At the General Election of 1784 Sir John was returned
for the third time as member for the County at the head
of the poll ; his colleague on this occasion was Lord
Lewisham. He had been returned as a supporter of the
Government, but his allegiance was sorely tried when Pitt
proposed a tax upon coal in his first financial statement.
In a speech which Sir John made on this occasion he
professed himself a friend to ministers, but earnestly exhorted
the Chancellor of the Exchequer (William Pitt) to abandon
the intended tax on coal, which would go near to ruin the
manufacturers of Staffordshire.^ In the following week
Pitt announced his intention of renouncing the tax and
substituting another for it. Sir John then rose —

" And returned his thanks to the Rt. Honble. Gentleman for
what he had just said and acknowledged the very handsome
manner in which he had conducted the business. He added that
he had received several letters from his constituents full of alarm,
as soon as they had heard of the proposed tax and he had not
the slightest doubt but that the alarm would have spread through-
out the Kingdom if the lit. Honble. Gentleman had persisted in
his intention."-

In the same sitting of Parliament Sir John moved that
the fines levied in Staffordshire for non-compliance with the

^ Parliamentary History.
« Ibid.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTF^SLEY. 361

Militia Act should be applied towards building a new County
Gaol. This was vehemently opposed, on the ground that it
would be a reward instead of a punishment to the County,
and after a somewhat acrimonious discussion, Pitt interposed
and moved that in order to remove any doubt about the
proper application of the money, a bill should be brought
in to compel the receivers of the fines to pay them into
the Treasury. This was approved, and Mr. Pitt and Sir
John Wrottesley were ordered to prepare a bill for this
purpose and to bring it up.^

From this point I have nothing further to relate respecting
him. He died on the 23rd April 1787 at the early age of 43,
and was buried at Tettenhall on the 4th of May following.^
There is a picture of him at Wrottesley taken as a young
man in the uniform of the Foot Guards. During his service
in America he had been on terms of intimacy with the
ill-fated Major Andrd, who w^as hanged as a spy by General
Washington in 1780. Andre was Deputy Adjutant-General
of the English Forces under Sir William Howe, and an
accomplished draughtsman and artist. Amongst his sketches
which have been published is a blank profile cutting of
Sir John Wrottesley, taken at Philadelphia in 1778.^

By his wife Frances Courtenay, who survived him, Sir John
had five sons and three daughters. Of these —

John, the eldest, succeeded him as ninth Baronet.
Henry, the second son, was born at Wrottesley on the
25th October 1772,* and was King's Scholar at West-
minster, and elected to Christ Church, Oxford, on
the 22nd of June 1791. He obtained the degree of
B.A. in 1795 and M.A. in 1798. He was appointed
Cursitor in Chancery in 1795, was called to the Bar
in 1798, and made a Commissioner of Bankruptcy in
1799. In 1810, probably through the Gower interest,
he was elected M.P. for Brackley, and represented that
borough continuously until his death on the 17th of
February 1825.^

He was an easy and fluent speaker, and as he con-
fined himself to speaking onl}' on questions with
which he was well acquainted, such as legal matters,

' Parliamentary History.

- Wottons's Baronetage and Tettenhall Registers. The Annual Register states
he died on the 2nd of April, but this must be a misprint. A new writ for
Staffordshire was issued in the same month and the vacant scat was filled
by George, Earl Gower, the eldest son of the Marquis of Stafford.

^ " American Historical and Literary Curiosities," by John Jay Smith and
John P. Watson. New York, 1861. These profiles were cut by Major
Andre for Miss Rebecca Redman at Philadelphia in 1778.

* Tettenhall Register.

' Foster's Alumni Oxonienses.

362 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

charitable trusts and such like, he was listened to
with attention, and his speeches have been reported
in Hansard.

At the commencement of his parliamentary career he
was a decided Liberal. In 1812 he spoke afjjaiust the
bill brought in by the Perceval ministry to inflict the
death penalty on persons convicted of destroying stock-
ing and lace frames ; the minority which voted with
him consisted of 17 onlj?', but it contained the names
of Romilly, the two Barings, Whitbread and Bankes.

He spoke also strongly in favour of the reform of
prisons, and for Sir Robert Peel's motion for a Com-
mittee on the employment of children in manufactories.
He also spoke in favour of Brougham's motion for a
Committee on the education of the lower classes.

After the session of 1816 he appears to have deserted
his party and supported all the measures of Addington's
ministry. In Februar}'- 1817 he spoke in favour of the
suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, which was pro-
posed by the Gov^ernment for the suppression of the
destruction of mills and machinery by an organised
conspiracy, and in 1821 he voted against Lord John
Russell's motion for a reform of Parliament. He was
a very popular member of society, and the friend and
associate of the wits and dandies of the day. He is
mentioned on more than one occasion in the Letters
of George Selwyn. He died unmarried on the 17th of
February 1825, aged 53.^
Hugh, the third son, was a Lieut. -Colonel in the Bengal
Establishment of the East Indian Company. He was
born at Wrottesley on the 23rd July 1782,^ and
married, in 1811, Miss Emma Matthews, by whom
he had a son Hugh, who died unmarried in India,
and a daughter, Maria Catherine Charlotte, who
married Robert Faithfull Fanshawe, the fifth son of
the Rev. Charles Fanshawe of Dengey, Hall, Essex.^
Robert Fanshawe had issue a son, Hugh Arnold
Wrottesley Fanshawe, who entered the East Indian
Telegraph Service, and is now living.
Charles, the fourth son, was born at Wrottesley on the 8th
of July 1783.* He matriculated at Christ Church on the
23rd April 1801, and obtained the degree of B.A. in
1805 and M.A. in 1808. He was elected Fellow of

^ Annual Eegister.
■•' Tettenhall Register.
" Burke's Landed Gentry.
* Tettenhall Register.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 363

All Souls in 1808 and Proctor of the University in
1816, and obtained the degree of B.D. in 1817. In
1820 he became Kector of East Knoyle, co. Wilts,
and remained there till his death on the 17th of
February 1848. He was never married, and as he
spent most of his holidays at Wrottesley, it is from
him that I have derived the anecdotes of his father
and grandfather, which have been introduced into
this history.

Edward, the fifth son, was born at Wrottesley on the
19th of October 1785,^ and entered the Royal Navy.
He rose to the rank of Commander, and died at
Newfoundland 29 July 1814, whilst in command of
H.M.S. " Sabine," to which he had been appointed on
the 3rd of October 1812. He married at Gibraltar,
Anne, the daughter of the Eev. Thomas Tringham,
and had by her an only son, Edward John Wrot-
tesley, who was born at Oaken 9 November 1814,
and matriculated at University College, Oxford, on
the 23rd of May 1833. He passed out with Honours
in 1837, and in the following year was ordained, and
from 1841 to 1861 was Perpetual Curate of Tettenhall.
He was presented to the Vicarage of Brewood by the
Dean of Lichfield in 1863, and became Rural Dean in
1885 and Prebendary in 1895.^ He married in 1847
Mariana Eugenia, daughter of John Jeffreys, Esq., of
Fynone, and died on the 19th of January 1901, aged
87, leaving a son and a daughter. His mother, Anne,
survived her husband for nearly 40 years, dying on
the 15th May 1853. His son Francis John Wrot-
tesley, now Vicar of Denstone, Staffordshire, was born
in 1848, and married in 1876, Agnes Mabel, daughter
of Frederic Freeland, Esq., and has three sons now
living, Francis Robert, Lieut. R.N., born 1877, Edward
Algernon, born 1879, and Frederic John, born 1880.
The daughter, Anna Caroline, married the Rev.
Edward Salt, Rector of Standon, Staffordshire, and
has issue.
Of the daughters of Sir John Wrottesley, the eldest

Fanny was born at Wrottesley 12 Dec. 1773,^ and died
unmarried in 1814.^

Caroline Gertrude was born on the 18th May 1775,-*
and died in her childhood. She was buried at
Tettenhall on the 14th of July 1777.*

^ Tettenhall Register.

^ Foster's Alumni Oxonienses.

^ Burke's Peerage and Baronetage.

* Tettenhall Register.

364 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Charlotte, the third daughter, was born on the 7th of
October 1779.^ She was twice married, her first
husband, the Rev. John Hellyer, died in 1823, and
three years afterwards she married Hear- Admiral Gordon.
She left no issue by either marriage.
Louisa, the fourth daughter, was born on the 24th of
November 1780,^ and was appointed Maid of Honour
to Queen Charlotte, being the third member of the
family who liad held the appointment. She died
unmarried on the 11th of May 1842, at apartments
in St. James Palace, which had been granted to her
on her retirement. -
Mary, the fifth daughter, died in childhood on the 8th
of January 1788.-
Franccs, the mother of Sir John, after the marriage of
her son, lived at the dower house of the family at Oaken,
and died there on the 24th February 1828. The Annual
Register of that year says : —

" At Oaken near Wolverhampton in her 80th year The Hon'''^
Frances, relict of Major-General Sir John Wrottesley, Bart., M.P.
for CO. Stafford, eldest sister to the Dowager Countess Rosslyn,
and aunt to Viscount Courtenay, the late Lady Charles Somerset,
The Countess of Lisbon (Lisburne), Lady George Thynne,
The Countess of Mountnorris, the late Lad}^ Robert Somerset etc.
She was the third daughter of William first Viscount Courtenay
by Lady Frances Finch, daughter of the second Earl of Aylesford.
Her Ladyship was a Maid of Honour to Queen Charlotte and was
married to Sir John Wrottesley on the 7th of June 1770, who
died in 1787, and by whom she had the present Baronet, four
other sons, and four daughters."

Sir John Wrottesley, the Ninth Baronet, and First
Baron Wrottesley, A.D. 1792—1841.

John, the ninth Baronet, was born at Wrottesley on the 25th
of October 1771.^ At the date of his father's death he was aged
fifteen years and four months. As he wished to follow his
fathers profession, an Ensign's Commission was purchased for
him in the 35th Foot, in the same year in which his father
died. Up to this time he had been brought up at West-
minster School, but on obtaining a Commission he was sent
to a well known military tutor of the day, M. de Pignerolles
of Angers. This was the same military school at which the
Duke of Wellington received his early training, and there

' Tettenhall Register.

^ Gentleman's Magazine and Annual Register.

WROTTESLF.Y OF WROTTESLEY. 365

was formerly at Wrottesley a letter from M. de Pignerolles
to Sir John Wrottesley, dated 1788, in which the writer
mentioned that M. Perigaut, the banker, had informed him
from Paris that his (Sir John Wrottesley's) son was to pay
200 louis yearly, as Mr. Wesley did, but this was not enough,
" Mr. Wesley had no serwant and your son has one."^ Arthur
Wesley's first Commission was dated the 7th March 1787.
Sir John Wrottesley's Commission was dated the 24th Septem-
ber in the same year, but there was a difference of nearly
two years in their respective ages, for Arthur Wesley (as
the name was then written) was born on the 1st May 1769.

On the 25th June 1790, Sir John was transferred as a
Lieutenant from the 35th Foot to the 29th — the Worcester-
shire Regiment of Foot, and joined the regiment at Dover
Castle.

War being expected with Spain, and the Admiralty being
short of Marines, the regiment was sent to Portsmouth, and
on the 23rd July of this year, 194 men were put on board
H.M.S. " Egmont,*' 74 guns, for service afloat.

On the 21st September Lieut. Sir John Wrottesley embarked
on board the same ship to relieve Lieut. Saunders, ordered
to head-quarters. On the 15th of November the detachment
was transferred to the "Eoyal W^illiam," and soon afterwards
discharged. The regiment shortly afterwards returned to
Dover Castle.

On the 15th February 1791, the regiment took the Windsor
duty, Lord Cathcart being in command. In July 1791 they
were encamped at Egham Wick, and were inspected by the
King. In the summer of 1792 they were encamped on
Csesar's Camp at Aldershot.^

On the 26th of February 1793, Sir John was promoted to
a Captaincy, and exchanged into the 16th Light Dragoons.-'
In January of this year, the French Convention had declared
war against England and Holland, and a British force,
commanded by the Duke of York, landed at Ostend in April
and joined a body of Dutch troops, which were put under
the command of the Duke. The 16th Light Dragoons formed
a portion of the Duke's army, and Sir John was present
with his regiment at the siege of Valenciennes, and the
other operations which resulted in the expulsion of the
French from Flanders In August the Duke, at the head
of the British and Hanoverian troops, formed the siege of
Dunkirk, but owing to the action of the Austrian army,

^ The writer was evidently not aware that Sir John had died shortly before
this date ; the letter was opened by his widow.

- Regimental History of the 29th or Worcestershire Regiment of Infantry.
^ Army List, 1793.

366 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

which failed to cover the operations, was forced to raise
the siege, leaving all his heavy guns in the possession of
the enemy. On the 28tli of April 1795, Sir John obtained
a majority in the 32nd Foot, but by this time he had taken
a distaste for the military profession, owing to the countless
blunders committed by the Allies in 1793 and 1794, and he
threw up his commission' and commenced the life of a
country gentleman at home. He had come of age on the
25th of October 1792, and had entered into possession at
the same date of considerable property after a minority of
six years. On the 23rd June 1795, he married in London
by special licence Lady Caroline Bennet, the eldest daughter
of Charles, the fourth Earl of Tankervnlle.^ On the 2nd March
1799, he was elected member for the City of Lichfield,
vice Lord Granville Leveson-Gower, who had accepted the
Chiltern Hundreds. At this date, Lichfield returned two
members to Parliament, and the sitting member was Thomas
Anson of Shugborough, who was created Viscount Anson in
1806.

In the autumn of 1800, serious riots occurred owing to
the high price of bread. In many parts of the country,
and especially in Birmingham and Wolverhampton, fierce
attacks were made on the persons and property of bakers
and other tradesmen dealing in corn. Sir John Wrottesley
took the part of the latter, and incurred from this cause
the enmity of the lower classes in Wolverhampton and the
black country, and a large mob of colliers and others
marched to Wrottesley with the intention of breaking his
windows and perhaps of doing further mischief. Sir John
rode out to meet them, and fortunately came across them
before they reached the house, and by his speech so far
pacified them that they desisted from damaging his property.
Adverting to the disturbances which had taken place in
Wolverhampton and Birmingham, he pointed out to the
leaders of the mob that the only effect had been to force
the bakers and dealers in grain to close their establishments
and to increase the scarcity and dearness of bread.^ His

^ It is related in the " Life of the Duke of Wellington," by Gleig, that
the Duke, then Colonel "Wellesley, proposed to do the same after the luckless
campaign of 1794, and applied for a post under the Irish Government. Upon
this being refused he accompanied his regiment to India. There is no doubt
that if Colonel Wellesley had been the eldest son and in possession of large
landed property, he would have acted in the same way as Sir John
Wrottesley, for there appeared little chance of any credit or glory to be
obtained in the army at this period.

- Annual Register.

* There had been several wet seasons and the wheat had not ripened, and
in one of his speeches at this period Sir John had recommended the farmers to
grow potatoes in order to provide sustenance for the people. This ad%'ice was
taken ill by the common people, who resented the idea that they were to

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 367

conduct on this occasion appears to have attracted the
notice of the Prime Minister, for Mr. Pitt wrote to him on
the 28th of October 1800 asking him to move the Address
to the King at the next sitting of Parliament. In his
letter the Minister dwelt at length on the high price of
corn and the importance of taking measures to reduce it.^

Parliament met on the 1st of November. Sir John
Wrottesley's speech on moving the Address occupies three or
four columns of the Parliamentary History. As might be
expected, he lays great stress in it on the importance of
non-interference with the course of trade and of protecting the
dealers in grain from the attacks of a misguided multitude.

On Pitt's resignation in 1801, and the accession of the
Addington Ministry, Sir John went into Opposition, and
spoke frequently in Parliament. On the 7th of March he
moved for a Committee to enquire into the conduct of
Ministers, and the inadequate measures taken at the time
of the insurrection in Dublin of July 1800, and the murder
of the Chief Justice, Lord Kilwardeu. There was a majority
of 96 in favour of Ministers, but all the leaders of the
Whig party voted for the motion, and the minority list
contained the names of Grenville, Leveson-Gower, Whit-
bread, Wilberforce, Windham, Grey, Canning, Morpeth, Sir
Francis Burdett, and Lord Henry Petty, afterwards Marquis
of Lansdowne.

In April 1804, Pitt moved a vote of censure on Ministers
for their insufficient measures of defence, and Sir John spoke
and voted in favour of it. On a division the Ministerial
majority fell to 37. His opposition to Ministers, however,
never took a factious form, for when Sheridan moved the
rejection of the Additional Forces bill, he supported the
Government and voted in favour of it. In the same Session
he spoke in favour of Wilberforce's bill for the Suppression
of the Slave Trade.

be fed upon potatoes like the native Irish. Several scurrilous lampoons were
printed in Staffordshire, in wliich he was christened " Potatoe Jack," and
the mob had filled their pockets with potatoes, intending to break his
windows with them. I have been told, however, on credible authority, that
it was not so much Sir John's eloquence on this occasion as an invitation to
the mob to go to the back of the house for a drink of beer, which saved
the situation.

^ Wrottesley Muniments. Like most of the measures of William Pitt at this
stage, his proposals were absurdly weak and inadequate, for they consisted only
of a bounty on the importation of corn. It is plain that the high price of corn
was a bounty in itself ; the harvest in Russia and other parts of the Con-
tinent had been abundant, and what was really required was proper protection
to ships bringing grain to this country. The convoy of merchant ships
was a very unpopular service in the Koyal Navy, for it carried with it
no prospect of prize money or distincti(jn, and a master mind was required
in the Ministry who would insist on this service being perfomned.

368 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Pitt resumed office in 1805, but died shortly afterwards,
and at the General Election of 1806 Sir John lost his seat
for Lichfield, the successful candidate being Mr. Venables
Vernon, afterwards Vernon-Harcourt. He remained out of
Parliament till the 23rd July 1823, when he was returned
for the Count}'' in place of Sir John Fenton Boughey, who
had died ; the other member was Edward John Littleton,
afterwards created Lord Hatherton.

It was during this interval that he established the bank
at Wolverhampton in conjunction with Mr. Francis Holyoake,
the head of a long established firm of solicitors in that
town. The bank drew on Hanbury's in London, and
appears to have been a very successful undertaking so long
as it was in the hands of the original partners. Its
establishment coincided with the great " boom " in the
iron trade, produced by the invention of the Hot Blast,
and the bank by its advances materially assisted in the
development of the industry and made large profits. From
1822 to the end of 1833 the bank was carried on by
Sir John Wrottesley and Mr. Francis Holyoake. In 1834
Sir John retired from the partnership and the bank was
carried on by Sir Francis Goodricke, Bart., and Mr. George
Holyoake down to the time of the sale of it to the Midland
Banking Company.'

1 The rise and fall of the Holyoakes would afford material for a romance.
A Mr. George Holyoake, a member of an old yeoman family of co. Warwick,
was practising as a solicitor in Wolverhampton in the early part of the
eighteenth century, and died in 1769. He was succeeded by his nephew
Francis Holyoake, who married Elizabeth the sister of Mr. Thomas Pearson
(Pershouse) of Tettenhall, and died leaving his business and a considerable
fortune to his nephew Francis Holyoake, the son of his brother Thomas.
The last-named Francis married Dorothy the daughter of Robert Lyttelton,
and the niece and eventually sole heiress of Philip Lyttelton, of Studley
Castle, Warwickshire, who represented a younger branch of Lord Lyttleton's
family. By her he had several children ; the eldest of these, Francis, was born
in 1797, and by his skill as a sportsman so ingi'atiated himself with Sir Harry
Goodricke, a well-known sporting Baronet, that the latter left him the whole
of his fortune. The author of " Silk and Scarlet " describes Francis Holyoake
as the finest rider across country of his day. Quoting Dick Christian, who
had been Huntsman of the Quorn, and was describing his former master,
Sir Hai'ry Goodricke, he says " Mr. Holyoake and him first met on the moors,
then Sir Harry came to Kctton, and after that they two took stables at
Melton together. He was a strong, resolute man on a horse, but couldn't
ride like Mr. Holyoake. He was first man at one time, was Mr. Holyoake,
for a 20 minutes thing, to see him ride Brilliant, my word ! "

Sir Harry Goodricke died in the prime of life, and was the last of an
ancient family. This took place in 1833, and by his will Francis Holyoake
came into possession of Ribstone, in Yorkshire, and assumed the name of
Goodricke. His rise was now rapid. In February 1835, during the short-
lived administration of Sir Robert Peel, he was made a Baronet, and in the
same year entered Parliament as member for Staffordshire in the place of
Mr. Littleton, who had been raised to the Peerage. The fortune so lightly
won was as lightly lost ; all the landed property was sold before his death.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 369

On his return to Parliament in 1823, at the age of 52,
he occupied a somewhat unique position. As an old soldier
who had seen service in the tield and commanded a regiment
of Militia, he spoke with effect on most military questions ;
as a man of large landed property (1,500 acres of which he
farmed himself), he was a recognized authority on all
agricultural matters ; whilst as head of a successful
banking business in the Midlands, he was brought into
close connection with the commercial classes. It may be
easily conceived, therefore, that he occupied a position of
some eminence in the House, and I have been informed by
the late Lord Hatherton, who was his colleague for many
years, that owing to the independence of his character and
the soundness of his judgment, no private member was
held in higher esteem in the House, but, he added, that
although he spoke frequently in the House and was always
listened to with attention and respect, he never became a
really fluent or easy speaker. At the date of his re-entry
into Parhament, Lord Liverpool's Ministry was still in
power.

In the Session of 1824 he advocated the introduction of a
decimal coinage. His plan was to coin a double shilling
and to make it the equivalent of a hundred farthings. He
shewed that the effect would be merely to add 4 per cent,
to the value of the penny and farthing. The motion was
opposed by Mr. Wallace, the Master of the Mint, on the
ground that the inconvenience to the general public would
far outweigh the benefit of the measure to the commercial
classes. The proposal obtained very little support, and Sir
John withdrew his motion. ^

In the following Session he voted in favour of Sir Francis
Burdett's Bill for the relief of the Roman Catholics ; the
majority for it in a very full House, on the third reading,
was 21, but it was thrown out by the Lords.

and lie eventually died a poor man. He married in 1827 Elizabeth, the
sister of Mr. George Payne, of Sulby, a well-known man on the turf, and who
occupied for many years a leading position in sporting circles. By her he
had a large family, including three sons, but these all died without leaving
any issue, and the title is now extinct. The only memento of the family
now left is, appropriately enough, the well-known covert in the Melton Hunt
called Goodricke's Gorse.

The younger brothers of Sir Francis likewise rose to positions of some
local importance. Thomas served in the Army, and was for many years
Master of the Albrighton Hunt ; he married Charlotte, daughter of the Eev.
Charles Whitmore, and left a son, Thomas, now in Australia. George, the
partner in the Bank, married a daughter of Sir George Pigot, of PatshuU,
and was J. P. and Deputy-Lieutenant of co. Salop, but before his death he
had dissipated a considerable fortune, and left his family in impoverished
circumstances.

^ Hansard's Debates.

370 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

In 1826, on the motion for the renewal of the Bank
Charter, he moved the rejection of the bill, and his speech
on this occasion occupies nine columns of Hansard. He
was supported by the heads of all the great banking houses,
such as Baring, Kobarts, Abel Smith and Farquhar, but
Government obtained a majority for the bill.^

In the same year he supported Lord John Russell's motion
for the Reform of Parliament, but the majority against it
at this time was 124.

It would be tedious to name all his votes, and it is only
necessary to mention that he supported all the Liberal
measures of the day, such as the repeal of the Test and
Corporation Acts, Reform of Parliament, the removal of the
Disabilities of Roman Catholics and Jews, and spoke in
favour of many of them.

In 1828 he spoke against the Government proposal to
abolish the Militia, and in favour of increasing its efficiency.
It is worthy of note that the Duke of Wellington was Prime
Minister at this date, and it was during his administration
that the Militia was abolished and the Transport train of
the Army done away with. It has often been remarked by
military men who know these facts that the Duke was the
remote cause of all our disasters in the Crimea. He
appeared, at this date, to consider that the country would
never be at war again.

In 1829 Sir John presented a petition from Wolverhampton
in favour of the Roman Catholic claims, and spoke in support
of it. In the course of his speech he mentioned that the
population of Wolverhampton at that date was 22,000, of
which 2,760 had signed the petition.

In 1830 he brought forward a motion against the Truck
System, which consisted in the payment of labourers' wages
in goods instead of money. This proposal was eventually
carried by other hands, but he was the first member of
Parliament to draw attention to the evils of the system.^

In the same year he moved for a Select Committee to
enquire into the duties of the Commissioners of Hackney
Coaches and the existing state of the public carriages of
the Metropolis. The motion was agreed to, . and the
eventual result pf it was the extinction of the " Jarvey '"
and the old hackney coach, and the introduction of the
present cabs.^

On the 15th of November of this year he voted in favour
of Sir Henry Parnell's motion for an enquiry into the details
of the Civil List, which threw out the Duke of Wellington's
Ministry. The majority was 29.^

* Hansard's Debates.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 371

The next three ^'■ears were taken up with the struggle over
the Reform Bill, the story of which is too well known to
bear repetition. Sir John voted steadily for it throughout
all its stages, and spoke frequently upon the various clauses
in Committee.

The first Reform Parliament met on the 29th of
January 1833. The Act had divided Staffordshire into two
constituencies, North and South. Sir Oswald Mosley and
Edward Manningham Buller were returned for the Northern
Division, and Edward John Littleton and Sir John
Wrottesley for the Southern Division. The new con-
stituencies all elected men of note in their various
localities. Stoke-on-Trent returned Josiah Wedgwood and
John Davenport, both great names in the Pottery trade ;
Walsall returned Charles Smith Foster, an eminent iron-
master, and Wolverhampton returned William Wolrych
Whitmore and Richard Fryer, a well-known banker.

In this year Sir John spoke a second time against the
renewal and extension of the Bank Charter, in which it was
proposed to make all their notes a legal tender. He was
supported by Sir Robert Peel, Sir George Philips, Mark
Philips, the member for Manchester, Sir John Hanmer,
Herries, Sydney Herbert, and W. E. Gladstone, but the
Government carried their bill by a large majority.^

In 1834 he gave up his connection with the Wolver-
hampton Bank, owing to the retirement of his original
partner, Francis Holyoake, who died in the following year.
Mr. Holyoake was succeeded by his two sons, Francis
Goodricke and George Holyoake. The latter was a solicitor
in the town without any experience in banking business.
Francis Goodricke had come into possession of large
property, but was only known as a leading man in sporting
circles, of extravagant habits, and a gambler on the turf.
He was likewise a Tor}'' with political views, and at this
date was subscribing largely to party funds. The money
he was spending in this way was obtained, in the first
instance, by advances from the bank, and would have
placed Sir John in a very anomalous position.- It was in
this year the King dismissed his Ministers and called in
the Duke of Wellington, who took all the Seals, pending
the return of Sir Robert Peel, who was travelling abroad.
Sir Robert Peel formed a Ministry in December, after his
return to England, and immediately dissolved Parliament.

' Hansard's Debates.

^ Up to this time the bank had been very prosperous, their profitg having
exceeded £40,000, of which a moiety fell to tho share of Sir John Wrottesley.
Ex Inf. George Holyoake, Esq.

372 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

The General Election which followed was a momentous one
for the Tories, who spared no pains or money to obtain a
majority in Parliament. In this they were unsuccessful, but
in February 1835 Sir Francis Goodricke was created a
Baronet, and there is no doubt he subscribed very largely
to the Tory funds upon this occasion.

On a vacancy occurring in South Staffordshire, by
the promotion of Mr. Littleton to the Peerage in May
1835, Sir Francis obtained the vacant seat after a severe
contest. Up to this time it had been considered a safe
seat for the Liberals, and the election of a Tory due
in a great measure to a very large expenditure upon
the constituency, was the cause of a very serious riot in
Wolverhampton, the mob assailing the Old Swan Tavern,
where the Committee of Sir Francis sat, and breaking all
the windows. The magistrates, fearing further mischief,
sent for the assistance of the military, and a troop of the
First Dragoon Guards, under the command of Captain
Manning, arrived from Birmingham. They were drawn up
in the Old Market Place (now Queen Square), and on being
ordered to clear the streets, a man in the crowd stabbed
one of the troop horses in the ribs. The Dragoons, on
perceiving the horse fall dead in a pool of blood, became
exasperated, broke loose from their officers and attacked
the mob with the flat sides of their sabres, inflicting
a very severe beating upon them, during which some of
their swords were broken. The troops even followed the
retreating crowds into the adjoining streets, and a few shots
were fired from their carbines. Fortunately nobody was
killed, but there was a large number of wounded, and a
loud outcry was raised against the military, which, under the
influence of party feeling, was no doubt greatly exaggerated.^

With a view of calming the excitement, Sir John
Wrottesley pressed upon Lord John Russell, who was then
Home Secretary, the advisability of a public enquiry on the
spot, by a Commission sent down for the purpose. This
was refused by the Government in the first instance, but
after a debate in Parliament, and a strong speech delivered
in favour of it by Sir John, they gave way and conceded
the enquiry. During the speech which he made on this
occasion, he made one of those slips of the tongue which are
the delight of the House of Commons. He stated " he
had been a magistrate for the County of Stafford for forty
years, and had been concerned in the greater part of the

^ Hansard's Debates. The Liberal party for instance declared the horse
had been killed by the sword of one of the Dragoons, but this is not at all
probable,

wrottp:sley of wrottesley. 373

riots which had taken place in that district."^ When the
laughter had subsided he corrected himself by saying, " he
should have said he was engaged in suppressing those
riots ; " but the idea of the respectable and sedate member
for South Staffordshire (he was then sixty-four years of
age) having been concerned in all the riots of that district,
must have been a source of unbounded delight to the House.

At the opening of Parliament in February 1836, Sir John
was asked by Lord Melbourne to move the Address. His
speech will be found in Hansard, but it was a quiet time,
and it contains nothing of interest. In his preamble he
said, " he could not plead the inexperience usually urged
as a claim on the indulgence of the House." It is curious
to reflect that he had moved the Address thirty-six years
before, on the request of Mr. Pitt, when the latter was in
the plenitude of his power, and at the date he was then
addressing the House the memory of the great Minister
had become but the shadow of a name.

It will be seen from the above sketch that his career in
Parliament was not an undistinguished one. At the General
Election of 1837 he lost his seat for South Staffordshire,^
and shortly before the Coronation of the Queen in the
following year, Lord Melbourne wrote and offered him a
Peerage. His patent is dated 11th July 1838.

He took his seat in the House of Lords, and in the
Session of 1839 spoke against Lord Brougham's Bill for the
regulation of Beer Houses, and voted amongst the non-
Contents with Lord Melbourne and the Lord Chancellor
Cottenham, but the Liberal Ministry had not a majority in
the House of Lords, and the bill was passed. He likewise
spoke on the. Tythe Commutation Act of the same Session. ^

From this point there is nothing further to record
respecting him. He died on the 16th of March 1841, and
was buried at Tettenhall, on the 23rd March, a great
concourse of people following his remains to the grave.
After his burial, the ancient family vault was finally closed.
At the time it was sealed up it held twenty generations
of the family.^

His first wife. Lady Caroline Wrottesley, died in London,

^ Hansard's Debates.

^ Sir Francis Gooclricke also lost his seat. The two new members were
Viscouut Ingestre and the Hon. George Anson. Sir John Wrottesley had no
intention of standing, and had issued no address, but stood at the last
moment to obviate some advantage which the Tories would have obtained
by the absence of a second Whig candidate.

^ It may be worth relating, as showing the morbid curiosity of the multitude,
that the incumbent of the parish was besieged with applications fi-ora persona
in the neighbourhood to inspect the vault before its final closing.

374 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

aged forty-five, on the 7tli March 1818, and was buried
at Tettenhall.^ Sir John married secondly, on the 19th
May 1819, Julia, the daughter of John Conyers, Esq., of
Copt Hall, Essex, a well-known sporting character. She
was the widow of Sir John's brother-in-law, Captain the
Hon. John Astley Bennet, of the Royal Navy,'^ and one of
the most agreeable women of her day. As Julia Conyers
she is mentioned in Lord Palmerston's letters. She died
29th September 1860, and was buried at Tettenhall.

By his first wife he had six sons and eight daughters : —

1. John, who was born at Wrottesley on the 5th of

August 1798,^ and succeeded as second Baron.

2. Charles Alexander, the second son, was born at

Wrottesley 20 October 1799,^ and obtained a
commission as Cornet in the 16th Lancers (his
father's old regiment) on the 21st of December

1815. The regiment moved to Ireland in March

1816, and in the following year took up the
Dublin duty. In this year Earl Talbot became
Lord Lieutenant, and Charles Wrottesley was
appointed one of the Viceregal aides-de-camp, and
appears to have held the appointment till Lord
Talbot's resignation in 1821. In the following year
he embarked with the regiment for India, and
after five months' voyage in a troopship arrived
at Calcutta in December 1822. In December 1825
the regiment took the field as part of an ex-
peditionary force, which had been collected under
Lord Combermere for the siege of Bhurtpoor.
The fortress was captured 18th January 1826,
and the prize money amounted to £250 for each
Subaltern. The Lieut. -Colonels, of which there
were two, obtained £1,500 each. Out of this
prize-money the ofiicers of the Regiment sub-
scribed £5,000 for the relief of the widows of
officers and soldiers who had been killed in the
siege.^

He obtained his Lieutenantcy 5th July 1821,
and was promoted to an unattached Captaincy,
10th June 1825, but the notification of this did
not arrive before the regiment had taken the
field. He was appointed Captain 43rd Regiment
on the 19th of September 1826, and was pro-

^ Tettenhall Register.

^ Burke's Peerage and Baronetage, under Tankerville. Captain John Astley
Bennet died at Wrottesley and was buried at Tettenhall 20th September 1812.
'' Eegimental Historv of the 16th Lancers.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 375

moted to an unattached Majority, 5th April 1831 ;
exchanged to the 95th Regiment, 25th July, 1834,
and served in it as Major till 7th September 1838,
when he exchanged to the 29th Regiment. He
obtained a regimental Lieut.-Colonelcy on the
3rd July 1889, and served in command of the
29th Regiment till the 8th of April 1842, when
he exchanged to half-pay on the regiment being
ordered to India. This was done on medical
advice, as it was considered that his health would
not stand another turn of service in the tropics,
but he lost by it the Sutlej campaign, and
the probability of employment as a Brigadier-
General in all the actions of the Punjaub under
Lord Gough. He retired from the Army,
16th April 1847, and died unmarried at Clifton,
24th February 1861.

3. Robert, the third son, was born at Wrottesley^ 2nd

June 1801, and matriculated at Christ Church,
Oxford, 22nd October 1818, obtaining the degree
of B.A. in 1822 and M.A. in 1825. In the latter
year he was appointed Perpetual Curate of Tetten-
hall and Principal Official of the Peculiar. ^ He
married, in 1828, Georgiana, daughter of Sir
George Pigot of Patshull, and was presented by
Lord Ward to the Rectory of Himley, co. Stafford
in 1830. He died, 20th January 1838, leaving no
issue. He was buried at Tettenhall on the 27th
of January.^

4. George Thomas, the fourth son, died 8th April 1818,

aged ten.^

5. Walter, the fifth son, was born 8th April 1810,^ and

matriculated at Christ Church, Oxford, 28th June
1827. He obtained the degree of B.A. in 1831,
and in the same year was elected a Fellow of
All Souls'. He afterwards became a Barrister at
Law, Lincoln's Inn, and married, 22nd June 1843,
Marianne Lucy, the only daughter of Colonel
Archer, formerly of the 16th Lancers. He died,
2nd May 1872, leaving issue, Walter Francis, who
entered into holy orders, and a daughter, Lucy
Edith, who married, 9th September 1869, Charles
Gilbert, the second son of John Moyer Heathcote
of Connington Castle, and has issue, two daughters
and a son. Mrs. Walter Wrottesley died, 29th

^ Tettenhall Reprister.

- See p. 272. His uncle, the Eev. Charles Wrottesley, had held the same office.

376 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

March 1848, and her son died unmarried, 16th
February 1873.
6. Edward Bennet, the sixth son, was born 26th July
1811,1 and matriculated at New Inn Hall, Oxford,
7th February 1833. He married, 8th January 1846,
Ellen Charlotte, daughter of George Rush, Esq.,
of Elsenham Hall, Essex, and died 20 Jan. 1892,
leaving issue by her (who died 29th October 1878),
Alfred Edward, who was born 29th December 1855,
and entered the Corps of Royal Engineers in 1874,
becoming Major in 1894. In 1899, on the outbreak
of the Boer War, he was appointed Director of
Telegraphs with the Field Force, and was given
the local rank of Lieut.-Colonel, but was unfor-
tunately drowned whilst on passage to South Africa
on the 26th of October. He was an officer of much
promise and of considerable professional ability. He
married, 20th April 1881, at Halifax, Nova Scotia,
Ellen Mary Isabel, daughter of Major-General
Drayson, R.A., and left a son, Hugh Edward,
born at Halifax, N.S., 12th February 1882, now
a Lieutenant in the Rifle Brigade, and a daughter,
Maud Ellen.

Edward Bennet Wrottesley had also two daugh-
ters, Clara Bennet, who died unmarried, 25th Sept.
1882, aged 32, and Ellen Maria, who married,
10th July 1884, the Rev. Canon Charles Rowland
Haydock Hill, Rector of Holy Trinity, Dorchester,
and has issue, a son.
The daughters of John, first Baron Wrottesley, were : —

1. Caroline, born at Wrottesley 31st December 1797,

died an infant, 1798.i

2. Emma died an infant, 8th March 1804.1

3 Henrietta, born in 1805; married, 10th Jan. 1832,
Henry van Straubenzee of Spennithorne, co. York,
formerly of the 14th Light Dragoons, and after-
wards Colonel of the West York Militia, who died
31 May 1892. She died, 13th May 1893, aged
eight3^-eight, leaving, with other issue, Major-
General Turner van Straubenzee, C.B., born 1838,
and Mary, who married in 1866 Sir William
Chaytor, Bart., of Crofts Hall, Darlington.

4. Louisa, died 16th February 1821, aged fourteen. ^

5. Maria, died unmarried, at Bournemouth, 2nd May

1881.

6. Mary, died unmarried, at Bournemouth, 4th May 1883

' Tettenhall Register.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 377

7. Julia, born 22nd September 1814, and died the same

day.

8. Fanny Isabella, buried at Tettenhall 18 April 1829,

asred eleven.^

John, the Second Baron Wrottesley, and Tenth
Baronet, 1841—1867.

John, the second Baron, was born at Wrottesley on the 5th of
August 1798^ and like his father and grandfather before him,
was educated at Westminster School, where he remained from
January 1810 to 29th July 1814. He matriculated at
Christ Church, Oxford, in May 1816, and applying himself
principally to mathematics and astronomy, he passed out
with the distinction of a First Class in 1819. lie obtained
the Degree of M.A. in 1823, and was made Honorary Student
of Christ Church in I860.- On leaving the University he took
up the study of the Law as a profession, was called to the
BaT in February 1823, and for the next nine years practised
as i conveyancer and Equity draughtsman.

In 1820 he joined the Astronomical Society at the time of
its first formation, and afterwards acted as its Secretary, and
later on, as President.

He married at Brewood Church, 28th July 1821, Sophia
jUlizabeth, the third daughter of Thomas Giffard, Esq., of
C'hillington,^ by his wife, Lady Charlotte Courtenay. After
his marriage he took a house at 5, Powis Place, Bloomsbury,
and erected a small transit and a transit circle on the sill of
hip dressing-room. At this time he appears to have been a
very hard worker, for he was reading and practising law during
the day-time and observing and computing at night often till
three o'clock in the morning, but the fascination which his
astronomical pursuits exercised over his mind at this period,
produced a weakness of the eyes which never deserted him,
and must have been a cause of great trouble to him in after
life. He was one of the original founders of the Society
for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, and was placed on
the Committee in 1827. He wrote for it the article on
" Navigation," which was published in the " Library of Useful
Knowledge," and he also took charge of the astronomical
articles in the " British Almanac," which was published by
the same Society.

' Tettenhall Registers.

■^ Foster's Alumni Oxonienses.

' Brewood Register.

378 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

In 1829 he removed from London to Blackheath, the con-
fined air of Powis Phice beiner considered detrimental to the
health of his children. Here he built an observatory m his
garden, and set up the instruments which are described in
the "Memoirs" of the Royal Astronomical Society. At this time
he was still working at the Law, and had to leave Blackheath
early every morning in a curious old-fashioned public coach,
occupying a place in the " Basket " behind, which held four
persons. For his new observatory he required the services of
an assistant, and he instructed in astronomy and mathematics
a very intelligent legal clerk, Mr. John Hartnup, who had
entered his service in 1829. To the ability, zeal, and energy of
Mr. Hartnup^ he attributed, in a great measure, the success
of his "Catalogue of the Right Ascensions of 1318 Stars,"
which gained him the Gold Medal of the Astronomical Society
in 1839, and established his reputation with foreign astrono-
mers.

In 1831, after the passing of the Reform Bill, he was
appointed one of the Boundary Commission for the delimitation
of the new County and Borough Boundaries. The President
of the Commission was the Right Honble. J. Abercromby, the
Chief Baron of Scotland, and amongst the Commissioners were
many who rose into eminence in after life. Of these
may be named Mr. E. J. Littleton, afterwards Lord Hatherton,
Lieutenant Thomas Drummond, R.E., afterwards Under Secre-
tary for Ireland, Lieutenant Dawson, R.E., afterwards Director
of the Ordnance Survey, Captain F. Beaufort, R.N., afterwards
Ilydrographer of the Admiralty, the Rev. R. Sheepshanks, a
well-known astronomer, Mr. Bellenden Kerr, the Conveyancer
and Equity Surveyor, and John Wrottesley, afterwards Presi-
dent of the Royal Society.

Nearly all these names are to be found on the Committee
of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, of which
Lord Brougham was the Chairman, and these as well as the
lawyers on the Commission were doubtless nominated by him ;
the Engineer officers had been lent to the Commission by the
Ordnance Office, but as soon as the names were announced by
Lord Althorp in the House of Commons, the Opposition raised
a loud outcry', complaining that many of the Commissioners
were political partisans of the Government or closely connected
with their supporters, objecting specially on these grounds to
Mr. Littleton and Mr. Wrottesley.

Lord Althorp and Lord John Russell defended the choice of
the Commissioners, and protested against any idea of political
partisanship in their selection, their nomination being due in

' Mr. Hartnup, from a lawyer's clerk subsequently rose to the position of
Astronomer of the Liverpool Observatory, and had a considerable reputation in
the scientific world as a practical astronomer and observer.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 379

nearly every case to their legal or scientific acquirements, and
after a somewhat heated wrangle the storm blew over. The
Commissioners were unpaid, but they were allowed liberal
travelling expenses by the Treasury.

The selection of John Wrottesley was, without doubt, due
to Lord Brougham, and it was probably owing to the same
influence that he was appointed shortly afterwards one of the
Poor Law Commissioners. The report of this Commission
effected a revolution in our Poor Law system, and is the basis
on which the administration of the Law has been carried out
ever since, but at the date of its promulgation it was fiercely
assailed in many quarters.

In 1841 he succeeded to the title and estates, and soon after
taking up his residence at Wrottesley he erected the Observa-
tory, which forms a conspicuous object from the high road
between Wolverhampton and Shrewsbury. The Observatory
and its instruments have been fully described in the
" Memoirs " of the Iloyal Astronomical Society ; it became well
known to astronomers on account of the continuous work
carried on within it. The work of observation was committed
to the care of well trained assistants, one of whom, Mr. Joseph
Hough, still resides in the neighbourhood, and exercises a
general supervision over its contents, although no observa-
tions have been carried on for many years.

Shortly after the completion of the building, one of his
neighbours sent him the following lines : —

" A stedfast Whig, in Melbourne's Liberal reign.
Sir John at length obtained a Baron's glory,
His son now reigns o'er Wrottesley 's fair domain,
And passers-by cry out ' Observ-a-tory.' "

In 1841 he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society, and
was shortly afterwards appointed a member of the Committee,
on which he served till his death in 1867.

Shortly before the meeting of Parliament in 1850, he was
asked by Lord Lansdowne to move the Address in the House
of Lords. It was the Session which followed the so-called
Papal aggression, and the Durham letter of Lord John Eussell.
The popular outcry had been so violent that the Government
bent before the storm, and Lord Lansdowne stated in his
letter that it would be necessary to legislate upon the subject.
Lord Wrottesley objected very strongly to any bill of pains
and penalties against the Catholics, and declined under these
circumstances to move the Address in the House. His reply
apparently was not to the liking of Lord Lansdowne, for he
informed the writer that his relations with the Government
afterwards were not on so cordial a footing as they had been
previous to this episode. In 1855, however, on his writing

380 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

to Lord Lansdowne that the recall of Sir John Burgoyne
from the Crimea and the way it had been announced by Lord
Panmure in the House would cast a slur upon the reputation
of a very gallant oiBcer, and that his relationship to Sir
John would justify him in asking a question in the House
on the subject, Lord Lansdowne got up in the House and
delivered a very eloquent eulogium upon Sir John, declaring
that there was no intention whatever of casting any reflection
upon him by his recall from the seat of war.^

His rank as a Peer, combined with his scientific attain-
ments, led to his employment as President of several Roj'^al
Commissions of a quasi-scientific nature. The most important
of these was one to investigate and report upon the
strains to which iron railway bridges were exposed by the
passage over them of heavy trains. Accidents had occurred
by the failure of some of these bridges, after they had been
passed by the Government Surveyors, and in other cases
the Government Engineers had refused to certify bridges as
safe on grounds which the Civil Engineers considered to be
unsound and vexatious. Up to this date the test of such
bridges had been one of a statical nature only, by noting the
deflection caused by heavy weights at rest upon them ; but
Engineers had begun to suspect that a dynamic force was
exercised by the passage over bridges of heavy weights at
a very high velocity, and the Commission was called upon
to investigate this subject. Lord Wrottesley had always
retained his fondness for pure mathematics, and at one of
the early meetings of the Commission proposed that an
attempt should be made to procure, if possible, a mathe-
matical formula for such strains, and the solution of the
problem was given to Mr. (now Sir George) Stokes, who
was the Senior Wrangler of his day and Professor of
Mathematics at Cambridge. It was a very diflScult analytical
problem, but by making certain assumptions, Mr. Stokes
was able to produce a mathematical expression for these
forces, which was found of some practical utility, and
established his reputation abroad, as well as in England,
as one of the leading mathematicians of his day.

In 1853, by a speech in the House of Lords, Lord Wrottesley
drew the attention of the Government to the writings of
Lieutenant Maury, of the United States Navy, on improve-
ments in navigation and on the Law of Storms. His object

' The cause of Sir John Burgoyne's recall was that his views were at
variance with those of the French engineers. He objected to an assault
upon the place until the defences of the Malakoff Tower had been subdued,
as he considered the Malakoff Tower to be the key of the Bussian position,
and the result of the siege shewed he was right.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 381

in this was to interest the pubhc as well as the Government
in a scheme for systematic observ^ations with a view of
determining the course and periods of the destructive hurricanes
and cyclones of tropical climates. In this scheme he obtained
the co-operation of Colonel James, R.E., the Director of the
Ordnance Survey, and of Sir John Burgoyne, the Inspector
General of Fortifications. The latter recommended to the Secre-
tary of State for War that uniform meteorological observations
should be taken at all the Royal Engineer stations which
were scattered about in various parts of the globe. On the War
Office concurring in this, the Treasur}^ granted money for
the requisite instruments, and a syllabus and instructions
were drawn up by Colonel James and issued to all Royal
Engineer stations. These observations were carried on for
some years, but the cost of tabulating and printing them
was found to be so heavy that the Treasury objected to the
expense, and the scheme not being supported by the learned
societies, it was eventually discontinued. The scheme appears
to have been started on too ambitious a scale, and it would
have been better to have confined the observations to
those parts of the globe which were the scene of these
great atmospheric disturbances. Lord Wrottesley's speech was
afterwards published as a pamphlet, and attracted a good deal
of attention abroad as well as in England.

On 30th November 1854 he succeeded Lord Rosse as
President of the Royal Society, and held the office
until 1858, when he resigned, ,and was succeeded by
Sir Benjamin Brodie. In 1860 he was President of the
British Association for the Advancement of Science, and
delivered the usual inaugural address. The meeting took
place at Oxford, and was signalised by the famous contest
between Wilberforce, the Bishop of Oxford, and Professor
Huxley on Darwin's theory of the Origin of Man. On
the 2nd July 1860 the University conferred on him the
degree of D.C.L. In September 1865, at the opening of the
Birmingham and Midland Institute, he delivered an address
on " The Recent Applications of the Spectrum Analysis to
Astronomical Phenomena," which was afterwards published,
and in the following year he spoke in the House of Lords
on the " Public School Bills," advocating strongly the cause
of science as a branch of education. In addition to these
pamphlets and addresses and his contributions to the Royal
Astronomical Society, he published in 1859 "Thoughts on
Government and Legislation," which was translated into
German in 1869.

He died at Wrottesley on the 27th October 1867, aged 69,
and was buried at Tettenhall. Up to the time of his death in
1867 he was the only person who had held the office of Presi-

382 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

dent in each of the three great scientific societies, viz. — the
Royal, the Astronomical, and the British Association.

The following characteristic sketch of him occurs in an
obituary article in the " Athenaeum " newspaper of November
1867, written by one who must have known him well : —

"Lord Wrottesley was a strong man in all good work, but he
did not make much show even in science, and hardly ever came
forward in political life. He was, we believe, one of the Boundary
Commissioners under the first Reform Bill. His characteristics
were plain manners, kind feelings, sound judgment and useful
intellect. A stranger at the Royal Society would look with some
surprise when he saw a quiet gentleman, utterly devoid of all
mark of pretension, step into the chair of Newton, and his surprise
would be augmented if he chanced to be told that the unassuming
President was a man of such splendid descent, that many held his
father to have derogated when he accepted a Peerage."

With this flourish of trumpets I may fitly close my account
of him.

He had five sons and two daughters. Of these —

Arthur, the eldest son, succeeded his father.

Charles, the second son, was born at 5, Powis Place, Blooms-
bury, 23rd February 1826, and matriculated at University
College, Oxford, 30th May 1844. He obtained the
Degree of B.A. in 1847, and M.A. in 1851. He was
elected Fellow of All Souls' in 3 847. He was a Student
of Lincoln's Inn in 1850, but was never called to the
Bar. On the revival of the Militia in 1852, he became
Captain of the 1st Regiment of the King's Own
Staffordshire Militia, and served with it at the Ionian
Islands after its embodiment during the Crimean War.
Whilst there he obtained leave to proceed to the Crimea,
and was a witness of the unsuccessful assault upon
Sebastopol of the 18th June 1855. He served again
with the regiment after its embodiment during the
Indian Mutiny, and rose to the rank of Major. Upon
the establishment of the Volunteer force in 1860 he was
appointed to the command of the Tettenhall Company,
and was subsequently Major and Commandant of the
Walsall Administrative Battalion Upon his retirement
from the Mihtia in 1867, the officers of the Regiment
presented him with a piece of plate as a testimonial
" of their esteem and regard." He is still living.

George, the third son, was born at 5, Powis Place, 15th June
1827. He entered the Royal Military Academy in 1842,
and obtained a commission in the Royal Engineers in
1845. On the outbreak of the Russian war he was
ordered to the East, and was employed on the survey

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 383

and a scheme of defence for the Dardanelles. He
accompanied General Sir John Burgoyne on his mission
to Omar Pasha at Shumla, and was afterwards
appointed A.D.C. to Brigadier-General Tylden, the
Commanding Royal Engineer of the Forces in Turkey.
After the Russians had crossed the Danube and had
invested Silistria, he was ordered to accompany Lord
Raglan to Varna, where a meeting was to be held
with Omar Pasha, to deliberate upon the movements
of the Allied Forces. At this meeting it was decided
to move the English forces up to Varna at once,
and as no member of the Quartermaster-General's
Department was present, Lieut. Wrottesley was ordered
by Lord Raglan to reconnoitre the road for thirty
miles in advance of Varna, and select positions for the
encampment of two Divisions of the Army. Omar
Pasha had made urgent representations that one Division
should be posted as far in advance as Devna, twenty-
five miles from Varna, in order to maintain the com-
munication with Shumla, and w^hen Lord Raglan gave
verbal instructions to Lieut. Wrottesley, he informed
him that the retreat of this Division upon Varna might
be cut off by a rapid advance of the Russians, and he
was to report upon the practicability of another line
of retreat to the south of the Devna Lakes. At this
time it was considered that Russia would advance upon
Turkey with overwhelming forces, and these instructions
are worth recording as shewing how different the out-
come of the war was, from the original conception
of it. In October 1854 Lieut. Wrottesley was invalided
home from Turkey owing to dysentery and fever con-
tracted at Varna. In December following he obtained
the rank of Captain, and in April 1855 was nominated
by Lord Panmure, then Secretary for War, to act as
military adviser to the Admiral in command of the
Baltic Fleet, but was forced to forego this duty owing
to the state of his health.^ In 1855 he became
A.D.C. to General Sir John Burgoyne, the Inspector-
General of Fortifications. In 1859 he was appointed
Secretary to the Defence Committee of the War Ofiice,

^ At the risk of being considered egotistical, I append a letter, written to me
on this occasion by Sir Charles Wood, the First Lord of the Admiralty, dated
2nd April, 1855 :—

" Dear Sir, — I ought, perhaps, to have addressed myself to your father, who
is an old college acquaintance of mine, as was your grandfather in Parliament,
but having these hereditary claims to j^our acquaintance, I shall save time by
writing to yourself.

" I wish to send an Engineer officer to the Baltic with Admiral Dundas, and
I am inclined to think that no one would do what is to be done better than

384 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

and in the same year acted as Secretary to the Com-
mittee on the Influence of Rifled Artillery on works
of Defence. In this year, also, he accompanied Sir
John Burgoyne on a special mission to the French
Emperor, in order to present to him the Funeral Car
which had been used at the interment of the first
Emperor at St. Helena.^ In 1863 he was President
of a War Office Committee on Army Signalling, which
introduced into the service the Morse system of sig-
nalling by dots and dtTshes." He became Lieut.-Colonel
in 1868 ; was Commanding Royal Engineer at Shorn -
cliff"e, 1868-72; at Gravesend, 1872-75; and at Woolwich,
1875-81. He retired on full pay as Colonel, with the
honorary rank of Major-General in 1881.

He married, in 1854, Margaret Anne, the eldest
daughter of the late Field-Marshal Sir John Fox
Burgoyne, Bart. She died in 1883, and he married
secondly in 1889, Nina Margaret, the daughter of John
William Philips, Esq., of Heybridge, Staffordshire.
Major-General Wrottesley is still alive and is the author
of the present work.
Henr}', the fourth son, was born at 5, Powis Place 4th March
1829. After passing through the Royal Military College,
Sandhurst, he obtained a commission without purchase,
as Ensign of the 43rd Regiment, 9th June 1846, and
became Lieutenant, 11th December 1849. In 1851, whilst
quartered at Clonmel, the regiment received orders to
embark for the Cape of Good Hope in order to reinforce
the forces employed under General Sir Harry Smith
for the subjugation of the Hottentots and Kaffirs, who

yourself. There may not be a great deal to do, but I wish to have au officer
on whose judgment, in case of need, Admiral Duudas could rely.

" You will be in the flagship permanently, but moveable for temporary purpose
to any other vessel, which might be convenient. Your obedient stei-vant,

"Charles Wood.

" You must be ready to start very soon."

The military operations in the Baltic in 1855 consisted of the bombardment
of Sweaborg, for which my substitute obtained a Brevet majority and the C.B.

^ The Emperor was at Compiegne, and the Mission was received by Prince
Napoleon on his behalf at the Invalides. Sir John Burgoyne and his staff,
which consisted of Major Stanton, R.E., and Captain Wrottesley, were after-
wards invited to stay at Compiegne, and took part in one of the famous
stag-hunts in the forest.

- The other members of the Committee were the late Sir Francis (then
Captain) Bolton, a verj- able officer of Infantry, and Lieut. Colomb, R.N.,
aftei'wards Rear-Admiral Colomb. These two officers were employed to bring
the sj'stem into operation in their respective services. It was eventually
considered so valuable that Captain Bolton was knighted, and Lieut. Colomb
received a sum of money (£5,000 it is believed) in lieu of Knighthood. The
original suggestion proceeded from myself, but I claim no credit for it, as
the inventor was Mr. Morse, an American. At the date in question Professor
Wheatstoue's Code was still in use in England.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 385

were in revolt. The regiment embarked at Cork in
September in H.M.8. " Vulcan " ; Henry Wrottesley
being then the senior Lieutenant of his regiment and
in command of a company. The troops were dis-
embarked at East London, and arrived at King William's
Town on the 21st of December. Towards the close of
February' 1852 the regiment was sent to clear Fuller's
Hoek, which had been occupied by the Chief Macomo
and his followers. On the 9th of March they reached
Blinkwater, and whilst scouring Fuller's Hoek, on the
11th of March Henry Wrottesley was shot in the thigh
by a musket ball which divided the femoral artery,
and was the cause of his death very shortly afterwards.

Cameron, the fifth son, was born at Blackheath, 19th
December 1834, and was educated at the Eoyal Military
Academy, Woolwich, from which he passed out with
Honours and at the head of his batch in 1853. He
was appointed 2nd Lieutenant of the Royal Engineers
21st December 1853 and Lieutenant on the 17th of
February 1854 On the completion of his course of
instruction at Chatham he was specially selected, on
account of his brilliant career at the Royal Military
Academj^ji to accompany the troops to the Baltic
during the Russian War, and was present at the siege
of Bomarsund, where he was unfortunately killed by
a cannon shot on the 15th of August 1854.

Julia, the eldest daughter, was born at Wrottesley
22nd October 1822, and died young of measles, at
Blackheath, on the 26th of March 1835. She was
buried in the Dartmouth vault in Lewisham Church.

Caroline was born at Blackheath, 24th February 1832, and
married on the 28th December 1859, Edward Wallace
Goodlake, of the Inner Temple, second son of Thomas
Mills Goodlake, Esq., of Wadley House, Berks. She
died at Wrottesley, s.p., on the 1st of September 1860
and was buried at Tettenhall.

Aethue, Third Baron Wrottesley, and Eleventh
Baronet.

Arthur, the present Peer, was born at 5, Powis Place,
Bloomsbury, on the 17th of June 1824, and was educated at
Rugby under Dr. Arnold. At Rugby he was noted as a

^ His preat forte was inatbematics, iu wliicli he was so far in advance of
the other Cadets that a special paper on the Integral Calculus had to bo drawn
up for his examination. The Professor of Mathematics at the Koyal Military
Academy told my father he would certainly have been a Wrangler at Cambridge.

386 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Cricketer, and played in the match between the Rugbcians
and the M.C.C., which has been rendered famous by the
account of it in "Tom Brown's School Days.'' Ilu<;hes,
the author of the book, was the Captain of the Eleven, and
Arthur Wrottesley was the successful bowler on the Rugb}'-
side.^ He matriculated at Christ Church, Oxford, 9th June
1843, and obtained his degree of B.A. in 1846. He soon
afterwards joined the Stafiordshire Yeomanry.

In 1854, when the Staffordshire Militia was embodied owing
to the Russian War, he resigned his commission in the
Yeomanry and was appointed Major of the 2nd Regiment. He
served with them at Portsmouth till they were disembodied in
the following year. In 1857, when the regiment was again
embodied owing to the Indian Mutiny, he served with them at
Plymouth and in Ireland.

On the establishment of the Volunteers in 1860 he was
appointed Lieut. -Colonel of the 2nd Staffordshire Battalion,
and held this post for a few years. On his appointment as
Lord-Lieutenant of the County in 1871 he resigned his
Commission in the Militia.

In 1869, soon after the formation of the first Administration
of Mr. Gladstone, he was appointed one of the Lords-in-
Waiting to the Queen, and held this post till 1874. He was
re-appointed to the same office in 1880 on the formation of
Mr. Gladstone's second Administration, and held it till 1885.
He resigned the Lord-Lieutenancy in 1887.

On the establishment of the County Councils he was elected
as representative of the Tettenhall Division, and on his
resignation in 1898, was made an Alderman. He was Master
of the Albrighton Foxhounds from 1849 to the end of the
season of 1852.

He married, on the 18th July 1861, at St. Martin's-in-the-
Fields, Charing Cross, Augusta Elizabeth, the fourth daughter
of Albert, first Lord Londesborough, and by her (who died
20th January 1887) has had issue : —

1. William, late Captain 4th Dragoon Guards, who was
bom 17th May 1863. He was educated at Eton,
and in 1880 was appointed Lieutenant of the
2nd Staffordshire Militia. In 1885 he obtained a
commission in the 4th Dragoon Guards, and was
promoted to Captain in 1891. He accompanied the
regiment to India in 1894, and served with it in the
North-West Frontier War of 1897, for which he
obtained a medal and two clasps. On his passage
home on sick leave, in 1899, he died suddenly, on

^ An account of tliis match, with the names of the players, was published in
Bayly's Magazine of May 1898.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 387

board the P. and O. steamer, " Peninsular," on the
Tth of October, shortly before the arrival of the
vessel at Marseilles, llis remains were brought to
England and interred in the family vault at Tetteu-
hall, on the 16th of October 1899.

2. Bertram Francis, the second son, was born 20th July

1864, and died whilst at school at Cheam,
26th October 1875.

3. Victor Alexander, for whom Queen Victoria stood

sponsor, was born 18th September 1873.

4. Walter Bennet, the fourth son, was born 28th Sep-

tember 1877.

5. Henrietta Evelyn, the only daughter, was born

10th October 1866.

Lord Wrottesley succeeded to the Wrottesley estates at his
father's death in 1867, and has recently purchased additional
land in Sussex. The great number of local offices which he
has held at various times is worthy of note. He has served
as an officer of Yeomanry, of Militia, and of Volunteers, as
Justice of the Peace and Deputy-Lieutenant, Master of
Foxhounds, County Councillor, County Alderman, and Lord-
Lieutenant.

The present Peer is the twenty-second in direct male descent
from Simon, who was enfeoffed in the manor of Wrottesley
circa 1164, and it is a remarkable circumstance and probably
unique, that from that period the manor has descended in a
direct line from father to son in every generation.

Shortly before midnight of the 16th of December 1897,
Lord Wrottesley on entering his dressing-room, which was
on the first floor of the house, found it full of smoke. The
house was well provided with all the means recommended
by the London Fire Brigade for the extinction of fires. On
every floor were hung buckets filled with water, and a small
manual engine was kept on the premises. It was found
impossible, however, to discover the source of the fire, or
even to approach the scene of it, owing to the intense smoke,
and like all fires which had been smouldering for some time,
as soon as a ladder had been placed against the window
and an opening made into the room from the outside, the
current of air produced a fierce flame, before which everj?--
body had to retreat, and it was evident that the house was
doomed. The dressing-room, where the fire originated, was
situated on the west side of the house, a strong westerly
wind was blowing at the time, and the spread of the fire
was so rapid that none of the inmates were able to save
their clothes. The floors and woodwork of the house being two
hundred years old, were extremely dry and burnt Like match

388 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

wood. Besides the servants, the only persons staying in the
house were Lord Wrotteslej'', his daughter, the Hon. Evelyn
Wrotteslej'", and a cousin. Major Alfred Wrottesley, of the
Ro3^a] Engineers, all of whom, as well as the servants,
escaped without any injury. The family pictures and plate
and some of the furniture on the ground floor were saved,
but the ancient library of books and all the family muniments,
which were on the first floor, were destroyed.^ It was owing
to the loss of the latter that it was determined to print this
history and to introduce into it such of the ancient deeds
which bore on the descent or history of the family, and
which had been fortunately copied in former days by the
present writer.

' Tlie old Chapel bell, which hung on the outside of the house, was saved.
This bell bears the date cast on it of 1601, and the following inscriijtion
in ancient Lombai'dic letters on a label welded on it : —

-[- EYLHSARW : RETLAW . : MVCALVMIS : lED ; SVNOB : EIV

The inscription read backwards, is as follows : —

VIR BONUS JDEl SIMULACUM WALTER WRASHLYE.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 389

YOUNGER BRANCHES OF THE FAMILY.

Younger branches of the family sprang from William
Wrottesley, the brother of Richard Wrottesley, of Wrottesley,
living temp. Henry VII and Henry VIII, see p. 257, and
from Thomas, one of the younger sons of the same Richard.
The will of William Wrottesley was dated 26th December
1512, and was proved on the 4th of February 1512-13 in
the Prerogative Court of Canterbury. He is styled in the
will " William Wrottesley, of Redynge, in the co. of Berks,
Gentilman," and he makes in it the following bequests : —

To my doughter Elizabeth 5 marks, and my best silver pott, half a
dozen of my best silver spones and my best cheyne of golde, and
a crosse of golde.

To my doughter distance, in redy money £10 and two cheynes
of golde of the value of 20 marks & all my stuffe beinge in my
chamber within the Citie of London except a cofer which I geve
and bequeth to my sonne Robert. Also I geve and bequeth to
the said Custance a salt of silver, a pece of silver and half a dozen
of silver spones.

Item I bequeth to my sonne in lawe Escue (Askew) my best
hope (sic) of golde of the price of 4 marks and 3s. 4d. sterling.

To my lady Sturton my signet of golde, price 26s. 8d. and to
my lorde her husband a bowed ryall and to my lorde Sowche (de
la Zouch) a bowed ryall of golde.

Item I bequeth to John VVraxley (Wrottesley) a rose of golde.

To ray lady Scrope a shelde of golde and a pair of bedes of white
amber, and to Dame Parnell beynge within the nonry of Dertforde
in the co. of Kent to pray for my soule 13s. 4d. and my best
furre and my best coral bedes gawded with silver and gilte.

To my eldest brother 10s. and I will and ordeyne by this my
testament that my said eldest brother shall well and truly pay
40s. which that he oweth me, that is to say, unto his wife 6s. 8d.,
to his son Walter 6s. 8d., and to his son Thomas 13s. 4d.

Also I bequeth to my son Edwarde all the dettes which is
owinge to me of the persones hereunder written.

And to my said son Edward a doblet of black satyn and 20s.
sterling, to his wife and to his children, etc. (No names given.)

To Robert my sonne all my londes and tenements lyinge in the
towne of Redynge in the co. of Berks, to him and to his heirs
for evermore, 10s. to be paid out of them yearly to the church-
wardens of the Parish Church of our Lady of Redynge.

Robert my sonne and Custance my doughter to be executors.

390 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

In the proof of the will it is stated that Robert and
Constance were both under age, but that the will was proved
" de expressu consensu et assensu Roberti Wrottestey et
Custancie Wrottesley executorum in hujusTuodo testamento
noTYiinatorum in minore etate fixistentibus, videlicet Roberto
personaliter et Custancie in persona Magistri Willelmi Falk
procuratoris," etc. It would appear by this that Robert
Wrottesley, although under age, must have reached the age
of consent, and was therefore over fourteen years of age.
He would, therefore, have been born about the year 1498,
and I conclude he is identical with the Robert Wrastley
who was member for Chippenham, co. Wilts, in the first
year of Queen Mary, viz., 1553.^

The establishment of a younger branch in Wiltshire seems
to be due to their relationship to Dr. Richard Dudley, the
Chancellor of Salisbury, who was brother to Dorothy, the
wife of Richard Wrottesley, see p. 256. Richard Dudley was
buried at Salisbury in 1536. He made his will on the
21st Ma\' 1536, and it was proved in the Prerogative Court
of Canterbury on the 12th of June following. In this will
(of which Henry Wrottesley, the son of Richard, was one
of the executors), he makes bequests to Henry Wrottesley,
to Richard Wrottesley, the son of Henry, and the testator's
godson, to John Wrottesley, the elder brother of Henry, and
to Anne Wrottesley and her brothers ; the relationship of
Anne to the other members of the Wrottesley family is not
mentioned in the will.^

Amongst the Chancery Suits of the year 1601, there is
one in which Robert Wrottesley, of Chippenham, co. Wilts,
who appears to have been the grandson of the above named
Robert, sues Richard Sydenham, of Clarendon Park, co. Wilts,
for premises in Eastbrent, co. Somerset, called Wingods.
The pleadings in this suit give the following pedigree : —

^Joan Wrottesley,
grandmother of
the plaintiff.

John Wrottesley, father of the complainant, who had
died about nine years before the date of the suit.

I
Robert Wrottesley, the complainant.

Amongst the papers of Mr. F. M. E. Jervoise, of Herriard,
CO. Hants, and of Britford, co. Wilts, there is a deed
dated 1st February 3 Elizabeth (1560-1), by which John

* Members of Parliament, printed as a Blue Book, by order of the House
of Commons.

-J[See Staffordshire Collections, vol. ix, p. 81, which gives the will in
extenso.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 391

Wingood, of Brumham, co. Wilts, gentleman, in consideration
of his marriage with Joan Wrasley alias Wraxley, widow,
late the wife of Robert Wrasley alias Wraxley, deceased,
settles upon her all his messuage and tenements called
Wingoods in the Parish of Eastbrent, co. Somerset, and
all his lands, etc., in the said County or elsewhere in England,
to the use of the said John Wingood and Joan Wrasley
for their lives, and with certain remainders over.^

The will of Joane Wrottesley, widow, of Chippenham, was
dated 24th April 35 Elizabeth (1593) and was proved in the
Archdeaconry Court of Wilts, 11th June 1593-4. By it she
bequeaths £4 to Jane Wrottesley, widow, her daughter-in-
law, and to Grace, the daughter of the said Jane, £20, and
after bequests to the poor of Eoude and Chippenham, she
leaves all the rest of her property to Robert Wrotesley,
'' my nephew (sic), the soune and heyre of John Wrotesley, my
Sonne." '^

Robert Wrottesley died in 1608, and probate of his will
was granted in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury on the
30th of September in the same year. His will describes
him as Robert Wrotesley, gentleman, of Chippenham, and
contains the following bequests : —

To the Parish Church of Chippenham, £10 for a new bell. To
my cousin, Nicholas Smyth, son of Philip Smyth, £5. To Thomas
Long, son of Henry Long, £o. To Robert Long, son of the said
Thomas, £5. To my cousin, Gabriel Gouldney, son of Gabriel
Gouldney, £5. To my cousin, Hugh Wrotesley, £5. To the
Parish Church of Rowde, £4. To the poor of Chippenham, £5.
To Elizabeth W^rottesley, my mother, all my messuage, tenements,
etc., called the Bell, in Chippenham, with remainder to John, son
of Anne Woodland, of Notton, co. Wilts. He mentions in the
will that he had mortgaged divers lands in the parish of Estbrent,
CO. Somerset, called Wingods, to Gabriel Gouldney the elder for
forty years ; and he had also mortgaged his lands in Chippenham
to Gabriel Gouldney and Hugh Barrett^ (my kinsman), and he
directs that the above lands should be sold to pay his debts. His
mother Elizabeth was appointed executrix and residuary legatee,
the overseers of the will to be Henry Long, of Southweeke,
gentleman ; Thomas Atkins, of Chippenham, gent" ; Richard Sherfield,
of Tidworthe, co. Wilts, gentleman, and Henry Sherfield, brother
of the said Richard.

' Ex inf. Mr. F. H. T. Jervoise, of Britforcl and Herriard. An account
of this family will be found in vol. iii of the " Ancestor," October 1902.

- From Mr. Jervoise's deeds. In the will she styles herself " Joane
Wrotesley of the Parish of Chippenham in the countey of Wilts wydowe."

^ The Visitation of co. Wilts of 1623 states that Thomas Barrett, of
Titherton Lucas, co. Wilts, married Jane, the daughter of Edward Wrottesley,
of Rowde, CO. Wilts. On referring back to the will of William Wrottesley,
of Reading, it will be seen that he left a son Edward, and we have, therefore,
a link between this William Wrottesley and the Wrottesleys of Chippenham
and Rowde.

392 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

It is difficult to reconcile the abov^e evidence, except upon
the assumption that Joan Wrottesley who died in 1593 was
identical with the Joan Wingod of the deed of 1561, and
with Joan Wrottesley of the suit of 1601. In this case she
must have dropt her name of Wingod after the death of
her second husband, and re-assumed the name of her first
husband. Instances of this are to be found on the Rolls,
as in the case of Katherine, the widow of Sir William
Wrottesle}'', temp. Edward II. It is evident that the Robert
Wrottesley, who died in 1608 was identical with the plaintitf
in the suit of 1601, as he is found dealing with the estate
called Wingods.

It would appear by the will of Robert Wrottesley, above quoted,
that he left no legitimate issue, but he was succeeded by a John
Wrottesley who must be identical with the John, the son of
Anne Woodland mentioned in his will, who was his illegitimate
son. Amongst the Herriard muniments is a deed of Robert
Wrottesley of Ohippenham, dated 25th March 5 James I (1608),
by which he was bound in a sum of £30 to Henry Sherfield,
of Lincoln's Inn, gentleman, for the payment of 16d. per week
to Anne Woodland, daughter of Richard Woodland, of Notton,
in the parish of Lacocke, co. Wilts, for the maintenance of
John, supposed to be begotten by the said Robert, until he
shall attain the age of thirteen years.

Amongst the same muniments there is a copy of a will of
John Wrottesley, of Chippenham, dated 16th March 22 James I
(1624-25), in which he bequeaths "to Anne, my loving
mother, now the wife of Richard Osgood, the sum of £60,
to my brother Richard £30. To my loving aunt Elizabeth
Gale, the wife of John Gale, £20. To my loving and kind
uncle Henry Sherfield, Esq., to whom I am much bound
for his love and favour, £40. To my loving cousin Matilda,
daughter of the said Henry, £20. To my loving uncle
Robert Woodland, gentleman, £20," and the residue of his
estate "to the said Henry Sherfield."

This will must have been made when the testator was
under age, for by a deed poll dated 6th April 1625, John
Wrottesley covenants that whereas Henry Sherfield, his uncle,
has in his hands by a decree of the Court of Chancery,
certain money on which he pays no interest, according to
the decree, until he (John Wrottesley) attains twenty-one
years, and has hitherto given him an allowance for main-
tenance, schooling, etc., now he John Wrottesley proposes
for his further advancement to go to Oxford, and promises
that whatever charges Henry Sherfield^ pays for his main-
Henry Sheffield was Recorder of Salisbury. His trial for sacrilege will
be foand among the State Trials. Ex inf. Mr. F. H. T. Jervoise, of Britford.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 393

tenance there, shall be deducted from the principal sum of
money payable to him on his full age. Signed " John
Wrottesle3^"

Beyond this point I cannot carry the pedigree. It will
be noted that there is a weak point in it, inasmuch as,
although the epochs correspond, there is nothing to establish
the identity of Robert Wrottesley, of Chippenham, with
Eobert Wrottesley, the son of William Wrottesley, of Reading.

According to Mr. Jervoise's deeds, one Henry Wrottesley was
living at Britford, near Salisbury, in 1546. He occurs as a
juror in the Britford Manor Rolls in the years 1546, 1549,
and 1553, and amongst the same deeds there is a copy of
Court Roll (Britford Manor) which states that on the 30th
of March 1570, Richard Love came into Court and received a
messuage and lands, "habendum prefato Ricardo, Henrico
Wrasley et Thome Wrasley filiis Thome Wrasley senioris pro
termino vite eorum et cujuslibet eorum diuturnus viventis."

I conclude that this Thomas Wrottesley, the elder, was
identical with Thomas, the son of Richard Wrottesley, named
on page 255, and the following suits and deeds shew that
Thomas, the younger, had two sons, George and John.

Decrees of Court of Wards and Liveries, Michaelmas Term,
32-33 Elizabeth (November 1590).

Thomas Gervoys, Esq., of Northfield and Weoley, co.
Worcester, on his marriage with Cecily, now wife of George
Wrottesley, gentleman, had settled on himself and his wife,
by Fine and Indenture dated 7th February 15th Elizabeth,
the manors of Northfield and Weoley, co. Worcester, and the
manor of Walkringham, co. Notts, a virgate of land in
Chelmarshe, co. Salop, and other lands and tenements, with
remainder to the heirs of the body of Thomas. Thomas
died in 30 Elizabeth, leaving a son Thomas, one year old.
The Queen, by Letters Patent of 31 Elizabeth, granted the
custody of the manor of Walkringham and the wardship of
the heir to Rowland Lacon and Francis Neuport, during the
minority of the heir.

George Wrottesley and Cecily asked to be recompensed
for the loss of Walkringham, and a decree was made by
which the manor of Badcote, co. Worcester, and lands and
rents in Sturbridge and Ould Swinford, co. Worcester, land
in Britford, co. Wilts, and a messuage in St. Mary Bowe,
in London, and the manor of Quatt, co. Salop, of which
Thomas Gervoys, the father, had died sole seised, should be
handed over to George and Cecily for that purpose.

394 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

By another decree of the same Court, made at Michaelmas
Term 37-38 Elizabeth (November 1595), it appeared that
Cecily had died in the previous July, and the custody of
the manors of Northfield and Weoley, was granted by the
Court to George Wrottesley, for which he was to render
£106 2s. Od. annually (at which value they had been assessed)
during the minority of the heir, Thomas Gervoys.

Another decree of the same Court was delivered at Easter
Term 43 Elizabeth (1600), which states that George Wrottesley,
gentleman, had the wardship of Thomas Gervis, Esq., son
and heir of Thomas Gervis, Esq., under Patent of Great
Seal (the wardship had been granted to Eowland Lacon,
Esq., and Francis Neuport,^ Esq., and subsequently con-
veyed to George Wrottesley, who was now Committee of
the said ward) ; Sir Richard Pawlett, Kt., with his wife and
others, the defendants, had entered into a combination to
eloigne the said ward. The defendants in their reply stated
that the said ward of his own free will could petition
the Master of the Court of Wards. Afterwards an agree-
ment was brought into Court by which George Wrottesley
for a sum of £1,100, should assign the wardship and marriage
of the said ward to Sir Richard Pawlett, Kt., but the Court
considering that small adv^antage to George Wrottesley, decreed
that the ward at full age should sue out livery of his lands and
become bound to George Wrottesley for the £1,100, with a
condition to make estate of the mansion place of Britford,
CO. Wilts, late in the occupation of Thomas Wrottesley,
gentleman, father of the said George, and Elizabeth Russell,
or their assigns, unto the said George Wrottesley, the said
George to have a lease of twenty-one years under the same
covenants as let to Giles Estcourt, of New Sarum, and Thomas
Wrottesley, father of the said George.^

The following information has been supplied by F. H. T.
Jervoise, Esq. : —

"Thomas Jervoys died in 1588. From his marriage settlement
with Cecily Ridley it appeared that he had inherited Northfield,
Weoley, Chelmarsh and Walkeringham from his father, and these
were settled in 15 Elizabeth on himself and his wife, the trustees
being Sir George Blunt and Thomas Ridley, of Bowlde. Many
papers relating to Sir George Wrottesley and his correspondence
with Henry Sherfield, the Recorder of Salisbury, are now at Herriard.

^ Francis Newport, afterwards Sir Francis, was Sheriff of co. Salop 1586
and 1600. He was knighted on 21st April 1603, and married Beatrice,
daughter of Rowland Lacon, of Willey and Kinlet, and by her had issue
Eichard, afterwards Lord Newport, and other children.

^ These decrees of the Court were considered test cases, and are given in
Moore's Reports, viz., Gervoyse's case, p. 717, and Wrottesley's case, p. 721.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 395

" In a suit in the Court of Wards and Liveries, temp. James I (Sir
Thomas Hesketh, Attorney-General, versus Sir George Wrottesley),
in the matter of Thomas, Jane and Winifred Gervys, it was stated
that Thomas Gervys died in 1588 intestate, and administration of
his effects was granted to Cecily, his widow, who afterwards
remarried Sir George Wrottesley. By Letters Patent of 31 Eliza-
beth (1589), the Queen granted the wai'dship of the heir, Thomas
Gervys, to Rowland Lacon and Francis Newport. The latter
afterwards assigned his interest to Thomas Lawley, Esq. Rowland
Lacon and Thomas Lawley assigned the wardship of the heir and
lands without licence to George Wrottesley.

"Sir Richard Poulett had paid £1,100 for the marriage of the
ward, and the assignment of the wardship and marriage in 43 Eliza-
beth to him was said to have been of great benefit to the ward,
and the latter was subsequently married to Lucy, the daughter of
Sir Richard. In 43 Elizabeth the ward was aged fourteen, and
Lucy was somewhat younger. On the death of Cecily in 1595,
Sir George Wrottesley applied to Lord Burghley for a lease of the
jointure lands during the minority of the heir, for which he paid
£100. This was granted to him, it was supposed, for the education
of the daughters. John Wrottesley, the brother of Sir George,
afterwards married Jane, one of the ward's sisters, and Winifred,
the other sister, followed her brother Thomas to Sir Richard
Poulett's home."^

George Wrottesley was one of the first Knights made by
James I, and in the same year he purchased the manor
of Badminton, co. Gloucester. Amongst the Fines of co.
Gloucester, of Michaelmas 1 James I (1603), there is one by
which the manor of Badminton was settled on Sir George
Wrottesley and his heirs, for which Sir George paid £600.
The vendors were William Weare and Edith, his wife.

In 1607, amongst the State Papers, there is a complaint
lodged against him by the Dean and Chapter of Salisbury,
for wrongs committed by him in the matter of the presenta-
tion to the church of Barford. He appears to have kept a
steady look-out for well endowed widows, for he married shortly
after the death of Cecily Jervoys, Katherine, the daughter
of Sir John White, of Farnham, co. Surrey, a very rich
citizen of London. Sir John had been Sheriff of London in
1556 and Mayor in 1563. He died at Aldershot in 1573.2
Katherine had had two husbands before she married Sir
George. Her first husband was William Harding, of Wyke,
near Worplesdon, co. Surrey, by whom she had a daughter
Mary, married to Sir Robert Gorges, of Worplesdon ; her
second husband was Sir David Woodroffe, Kt.,^ son of Sir

1 Ex inf. Mr. F. H. T. Jervoise, of Britford.

^ " History of Surrey," by Manning and Bray.

' A contemporary paper on the Offley family, temp. James I, printed in

396 HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

Nicholas WoodrofFe, formerly Mayor of London. Sir George
Wrottesley must have been married to her before 1625, for
in that year he was a Commissioner regarding the validity
of a grant of property in Farnham for charitable uses,'
and in the same year an information was laid against him
and Katherine his wife for the ravishment of Thomas White,
the King's ward, who had been married to Elizabeth Woodroffe,
daughter of the said Katherine.

The hearing took place on the 12th of February 22 James I
in the Court of Wards and Liveries on an information laid
by Sir John Hall, Kt., and Dame Dorothy his wife, the
Committees of Thomas White, His Majesty's late ward, when
it was ordered that Sir George Wrottesley should pay the
sum of £1,083 6s. 8d., viz., £541 13s. 4d. on the February
next ensuing and £541 13s. 4d. on the 2nd November, Sir
Thomas Jervoise^ to be his surety for the performance of
the decree, and the money to be applied for the benefit of
the younger brother of the ward.

Apparently there was some difficulty in extracting the
money from Sir George, for a final decree was made at
Trinity Term, 8 Charles I (1632), i.e., nine years after the
date of the first information, that the said Sir George
Wrottesley shall, in performance of the said decree, pay
unto Henry White, on the first day of Michaelmas term
next at the Font Stone in the Temple Church, the sum of
£1,083 6s. 8d. of lawful English money in full performance
of the decree aforesaid.

After his marriage with Katherine Woodroffe Sir George
appears to have been a person of considerable local importance
and is mentioned frequently in the State Papers of the reign of
James I. Administration of his goods was granted to Dame
Katherine, his relict, on the 25th of March 1636.^ In these

The Ocnealogist for July 1902, gives the following description of the Woodroffes :
" Now touching the Daughters of this Alderman (Stephen Kirton) by Margrett,
his wife, one of the Daughters of old Wm. Oltley ; the eldest of them was
married to S"" Nicholas Woodroffe sometime Maior of London, who after
leaving the Citty and giving up his Cloake (as the tearme is) had a goodly
house and estate in Hampshire about thirty miles from London, where hee
and his Lady the Daughter of Mrs. Kerton dyed and left behind them sons
and Daughters. His eldest sone Sir David WoodrofFe, Kt. who married one
of the Daughters of Sir John White, Kt. sister to Mrs. Offley who was wife
to Henry Offley, esq"" and mother to Sir John Offley ; this David Woodroffe,
Kt. dyed, whose widow was married to Sir George Wrotesley, Kt."

^ State Papers, printed, Rolls Series.

^ Sir Thomas Jervoise, the ward of Sir George Wrottesley, was a man of
note during the Civil War. He was M.P. for Whitchurch (Hants) during
the reign of James I and Charles I, and Colonel of a Regiment of Dragoons
on the side of the Parliament. For an account of him see the " Ancestor "
for October, 1902, page 3, which contains also his portrait, and the portrait
of Lucy Poulett.

» Administration Act Book, fol. 65, P.C.C.

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY. 397

letters he is described as Sir George Wrottesley, Knight,
late of Guildford, Surrey.

" The History of Surrey,'' by Manning and Bray, states
he left a son by Katherine White, who died young, and the
deeds at Herriard appear to shew that Elizabeth, wife of
Richard Orchard, was the right heir of Sir George Wrottesley.'

The pedigree of these younger branches would therefore
appear to be as follows : —

Sir Walter Wrottesley,
of Wrottesley, ob. 1473.

Richard Wrottesley, of William Wrottesley, of

Wrottesley, died 1521. Reading, died 1513.

Walter Wrottesley, Thomas. Edward Wrottesley, Robert, under age in=j=Joan.

of Wrottesley.

of full age in 1513. 1513, M.P. for Chip-
I penham 1553.

Jane.

Henry. Thomas. John, dead=pElizabeth. A son.^Jane.

1 in 1593. I

Sir George Wrottesley John. i '

occurs 1590, died 1636. Robert, died 1608, buried Grace.

at Chippenham.

The Visitation of co. Wilts of 1623 states that Thomas
Barrett, of Titherton Lucas, co. Wilts, married Jane, the
daughter of Edward Wrottesley, of Rowde, co. Wilts, but as
usual with Visitations, gives no date.

Mistress Elizabeth Wrottesley was buried at Chippenham
29th May 1614 (Chippenham Register).

1 Em inf. F. H. T. Jervoiae, Esq., Herriard Park, Basingstoke,

398

HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

»j

^ C/2

, w

3 C

O O

»i

_- ^

g 1

-^ -^ d

o<5co

■"^ fli "^

-^ c

fe =« o

9 o «*-<

i2 o

c3 -w-a

^ ir^

a eS

»« OJ QJ

0^r§

rH ^'^

Q) Cd •"

-a ?

+2 ^ p

O o i

tH o =*

-^P-S.

5^1

r-5 h3

^-S o

ca a ^

. — > t^ r^

eS O 5

Srt

^£

S-^s

o -

.2 a

TifM

St)

i-i

1— t

'rt

.^2

H2 g

-c s

^ -2

S rQ

.2 "*!

Robe
1158
1166.

rz «*-!

a <B

o +^

« g

§ s

ea O
^ a

J *

o
-t: a

o :-

-HI

« '^

S-i^

Mrt-

O "*^

^-3 2

"^ a

1--J3

h;l

•-■do

hH O Ph

-2 '"'

tH o d

t- 'C -S

a -J "^
WM2

-->'

a ^
a §

€ a

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY.

399

>-.'n

ai -t;

1?^
^2

=« a - ^ _

Xfl

r-" 'i'

^ 1— I

r-l CO

a 1-1

o ^

_< a>
L be o

a o

HH CO

s o
-. to

fe to .

TO a

r «!

IF- H

v-h

Oj O
o "^

o o

^ rt 5

O CD >.

a o 'T3

S O 03

at c3

400

HISTORY'^ OF THE FAMILY OF

W
tA

V , •(

r-^ II

' 3 ^

o 'O o

O "^ ,

o • o

«2 _§ *

o s- o

.2Q

— „'"» ^

2 =«

fc -H

f^.iS ^

^^S

•x)

i7-( r S

aj o CO

O) P o «

(E o Id

T, f-- ...

1-5

o c
o t;

<" ►^ ■"

: s

! 'P »>

2 ° in

- C

cT >> o

to O o

iH O ^

0; flj _

s S ^

£ «' d ^ J

o JO o

M ^ a

►-5 P- c3 a,

CO ^ fH

=S = d 3

C«3

. be

(^ O

CB ^ p=

= F-

'a b:

<<s

^ US

' Scd-
o «i

35 8:2

l-s

a(^

=:sa

ci -:

C/5 l-p( w
I— ( HI O

fe t; cc

t? 00 tS

1—1 QJ

S;2 . hJZ

fa t/j i-s

=« s

-. t*-!

"S 0

>>«

— 0

'a ^

5^ cS 3

.2 s

C •"

PhM

'^ll

II 1!

01 +j
Si 0

a j3

bL C3

^ N

OS :r

eS c3

1— 1 S

w •*' id CO

I *-*

I- -5

1 r7-i

-^ kI

c ti'd

S W H

2 U^

— I rrt

O 0) "J

M Ph cc

^-i'
H

Sh m

Ph 'C -I

O >>

r.'< J ^i

<2 ce "S

ci C P-l

— I pq H o TJ

t-t O ■ '-I

• ^-^ 2 .2

r2 S ^' '3 r3

v^ hJ .ja o y::

c3 O

CC W S o

S !^

Ih-

[-.2

Hl^

!> 'O .-H

!-_£

-^s

p^.

fij

i-H

0
0

(3 _

'cc

ba osa d

g ^ O o3 'y

-=■ tS 23

t» -S CO

^ -O rH

B »0 00 tn

%!; ^ CO c3

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY.

401

0) »

.9 >>

.„ CO

•:Z £*

^-g

-s «2

d-o^®'

h -O Oi

^ ^ OJ

o«^M

a '^

-c <I)

^J *"*

E-i

OT ,

402

HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OP

^•?

^ 'a

2 '^>

Ih-

O
S-,

- Oj
O O

O ai

U 00

fV^ r^ ^*^

SIS s S o

^ CO

o "ti

2 C :3 X

:S ;=; m fe d

"- O c^ O 0°

cS O

ffi^ g^

1 eS © 00

^7=3

-= -S

K jfcl

,2 T3

-a CO

--J ,-;; s

•S

:4-i

<1)

■

oc © i;
s p. o

^^P

E-i 00

. o

CO ^

g 3 § 2

|_^ CO

(-1

1— 1

5 "S O^rr^

20 " IB "

cd o 5 3
-c -^
.^^ B ^

tC 'rC ll3 CC

>;c

7 w

ii o^ to

o .2

o ^

r 3 o p

■-a ^
_©

O -73 CO

a fi tH sj

S 'S S

10 J S 1—

OK >^

■SP

3 ,« I

<!5'

'2 1> "N

rg 3 it

O CO •
© "^ ^

. 0.2
n ^ Ts

>>=*; -J, to

g .'S 2 3 ^

cs o 5 ©

_; S W ^ ^

IB ^ >■

- o ^

x © —

™ \
p.-^

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY.

403

pd -S 00

V. ''5

ict-l

o t;

'0> =

lilt

i r-; 3

.5 '-'^

o a
. 3

fc K ^

HH i> -^

-< H ^

TO 1-,.

w P5^

aj CO X
OO-S

5 ts
^h

'o ^ CO

Q 2

W^2

O CQ -t3

^ ;-l ^

Pnfe

^-1

--1 p^

^2;

1-5 00

M X

5=4 ^

•a O
r 9 X

fiJ r-

^ 00

> X

404

HISTORY OF THE FAMILY OF

1^:

o g

g W g

1-5 O CO

1*6

'w O

->^ ■-i-i
-^ '^ 2^

Ih-

d 'O
o
«t-l ...

^ C^ -U

cS c^ CO

53 rt

S 00

TO QJ

_ oj

.^
P

O cc .

C 05

cS X

> rH

■IS

•rS P 03

■ o £^ j>

rl .O "^

; O ^ .^
; «4- pq 'S

S 2 « sS

F5 ■^ 5 ^ ao

aj o X -^ 00

e2 ^ -H -3 ^

h^ O *n ^ o M

c o T3 yi
o X -2 X

X GO

oj 51 X X
o o r ^

• C5H.O'3

.1 *

o ^

S X

^.2

O d O S cu ^

^ ^ (M O .«

S ii O tr 05 rH

M S -IT'S

5 2 a) ce

2^ 2 g

^^^'^

'C c - .
J; o ^ X

i, S I §■
J o ® (3 2

•-5 f— .

III!

CO t?

O O c3

Ih-

^ d "=>

H *^ iC

X
<1 S .Q rH

S S ^ ^

oj ,.2 OS a 00

0.2

;-i

a M 03

ti)

• S ti

CIS,

Orde
1873

^S>

WROTTESLEY OF WROTTESLEY.

405

^"'^

^ be

.g (3

O J

ceo

Ih-

Si 00
O 05

P C -M rQ O

* o 00 :S ao

'-' J2 rH f^J i-H

.2 C IM '
1-5 ^ r^ '

s Ph a ^ rrj ■*

(S ^ O 00 .S OCi

O h^ ^ ^ T; r-l

be g

fcc

o S

•s . :s -s 'S •'s

(2; -73 Ph ^ 3 ^

'®^ ■;; ooo

^ .£ "" &^ ■

or. 7: m r1

^ ^- g ^ m -^

o 5 00

O o ®

1-^ ~

i ta

1:2,

-s ^

§^2^

g 4^00 oj

w ^

wt^

1_^ a

r d t-

Hi! g

fe '^

P .

•rH ^3

-to
£2

407

ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA.

p. 32. line 22. An explanation of the circumstance that the Sheriff of the
County was collectiug the scutage from the sub-tenants of the Stafford
Barony in this year, is afforded by an entry in the Pipe Roll of
3 H. 3, which shows that this was done at the request of Harvey Bagot
and Millicent de Stafford, his mother. The entry in the Roll is as
follows : —
Milisent de Stafford and Hervey, her sou, give £15 to be quit of all
arrears of the scutages of King John of the fee of Hervey Baghot,
the husband of Milisent, so that the King may receive all the arrears
by hands of his bailiffs from those who had not paid or made line for
them.

p. 53. line 27, for " £20," read " £80."

p. 216, line 26, for " Emma," read " Anne."

p. 229, Sir Walter Wrottesleij and the King Maker.

Richard, Earl of Warwick, derived his wealth from his great English estates,
consisting of the Honors of Clare, Gloucester, Despencer, and Warwick ;
but his political power arose from his command of the garrison of
Calais, and his possession of the great Honor of Glamorgan and the
land of Morgan in Wales, and it will be noted that at the most critical
period of his fortunes, in 1470 and 1471, when he had determined to
dethrone Edward IV, he placed both these great posts successively
in charge of Sir Walter Wrottesley.

The possession of Glamoi-gan and Morganuok had always enabled
its ancient lords, the Earls of Clare and Gloucester, to take up a
position independent of the Crown, and the King Maker had succeeded
to all the prerogatives of its former Norman lords.

Mr. George Clark, in his account of the " Land of Morgan," says there
could not be a more complete " imperuun in imperio" than the sway of the
lords of Glamorgan. The '' Comitatus " was a Court of Chancery and
Record, composed of the lords, principal tenants, or barones Co^nitatiis,
presided over by the Vice Comes or Sheriff, from the decision of which
there lay no appeal to the Crown.

P 246. At Easter term, 22 E. 4, John Stanley, of Elford, sued Richard
Wrottesley, of Wrotteslej^, armiger, and Robert Legh, of Adlyngton,
CO. Chester, armiger, for fabricating a false deed of feoffment at
Lichfield, relating to the plaintiff's manors of Echeles, Aldeford, and
Xether Alderley, and 80 acres of land in Echeles, Aldeford and Nether
Alderley, in co. Chester, with a view of disturbing and destroying his
title and possession of the said manors and land. For an account of
this suit see pp. 140 and 142 of Staffordshire Collections, vol. vi.
New Series.

p. 256, line 19. George Wrottesley was grandson, not son, of the Thomas
Wrottesley named here. His father was also named Thomas. See p.
392.

pp. 257, 400. The daughter of Richard Wrottesley, who married James Leveson,
was named Alice, and not Margery or Margaret. She was his first wife,
and mother of his three sons. Sir Richard Leveson, Walter Leveson
and Edward Leveson, of Perton. See a note to the Pedigree of Offley,
printed in The Genealogist, New Series, vol. xi.x. (April, 1903.)

p. 273. Matthew Wrottesley was a deponent in a Chancery suit (Harcourt versus
Bekyngham) in 1558, when his age was stated to be forty-two.

408 ADDP^NDA AND CORRIGENDA.

p. 332, line 21, omit "Thomas Coyney of Weston Coynoy," for he took up arms
for the King, as shewn on p. 331.

p. 335. The -will of Dame Mary Wrottesley was proved in 1665 on the oath of
Dorothy Wrottesley, dauf^hter and executrix named in the will, as
follows : —
" The will of Dame Maiy Wrottesley declared to her sonne Walter
Wrottesley and Thomas Greene 29 Doc. 1662. First she gives and
bequeaths to Dorothy Wrottesley one hundred and fifty pounds. To Ann
Wrottesley one hundred and fourty. To James Wrottesley two hundred
pounds. To John Wrottesley fiftie pounds, and did then nominate and
appoynt Dorothy Wrottesley to be her executrix by this her last will.
Signed Walter Wrottesley and Tliomas Greene." Prerogative Court of
Canterbury (21 Hj-de).

p. 338, for " Magdalen College, Oxford," read " Magdalen Hall, now Hertford
College."

p. 340, note. The date on the Hopper Head of the rain water pipes was 1689,
not 1698, as stated in the note.

p. 343- A search amongst the Registers of Theydon Gamon Church shews
that Sir John Wrottesley, the fourth Baronet, was bom in 1683. The
Register states that John, the son of Walter Wrotchlay (»ic), PjScj., and
Elianour his wife, of Theydon Garnon, was born 28th July and baptized
2nd August 1683.

P- 353, line 7 from bottom of page, for " the Baron," read " Baron William de
Kutzleben."

The following additional particulars of the descendants of the Baron von
Kutzleben and Dorothy Wrottesley have been furnished by Mrs. Curtis,
his granddaughter : —

The Baron Christian von Kutzleben and Dorothy had issue —

1. William Baron von Kutzleben born in 1785, Lt. -Colonel of the

44th Regiment of Madras Infantry ; he died in 1836.

2. Gertrude Philipine married Mr. W. King, by whom she had two

children, Gertrude and Charles.

3. Charles von Kutzleben, of the 69th Foot, who died young in

India and left no issue.

William Baron von Kutzleben was twice married. By his first wife,
Susanna, whose maiden name is not known, he had issue —

1. Gertrude, born 1815, died 1845.

2. William Fitz Rov, bom 1816, died 1817 an infant.

3. Emma, born 1820, died 1872.

By his second wife, Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Knipe, Esq., of St.
Helena, and widow of William Lambe, Esq., he had issue—

1. Elizabeth, bom 1830.

2. Louisa, died an infant 1834.

3. Matilda Catherine AUce, born 1835.

The eldest daughter Gertrude, by the first wife, married Mr. Edward
Collins, and had issue by him —

1. Edward, born 1836.

2. Anne, bom 1838.

8. Susan, born 1839 ; and two sons :

Robert and Thomas, both of whom died in India of cholera whilst
under age.

The second daughter, Emma, was bom in 1820 and died in 1872. Her
husband, Captain Ralph Leicester, was killed in India in 1859 and left
no issue.

ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA. 409

Elizabeth vou Kutzleben, the eldest daughtei* by the Baron's second
wife, was born in 1830, and married Mr. Moreton J. Walhouse, of the
Indian Civil Servnce, by whom she had issue —

1. Hervey James, born 1851.

2. Helen Elizabeth, born 1853.

3. Moreton Edward, boi'n 1855.

4. Charles Herbert de Kutzleben, 64th Staffordshire Regiment,

born 1857, died 11 Nov. 1895.

5. Alice, born 1860, died 1872.

Louisa von Kutzleben, the second daughter, was born in 1832 and died
in 1834.

The third daughter, Matilda Catherine Alicia von Kutzleben, was born
in 1835 and married John Robert Lloyd Curtis, of the 8th Regiment
Madras Army, by whom she had issue —

Elizabeth Harriet, born 1859, now living in London in charge of

one of the Queen's Nursing Homes.
Caroline and William Lloyd, both of whom died young.

P- 354. Harriet, the youngest daughter of Sir Richard Wrottesley, likewise
figures in the Walpole correspondence. In a letter to the Countess of
Upper Ossory of 31st April 1773, Horace Walpole describes a festival
and fancy dress ball at Lord Stanley's, at which he had been present.
He says " the Seasons danced by himself (i.e., Lord Stanley), the
younger Storer, the Due de Lauzun and another, the youngest Miss
Stanley, Miss Poole, the youngest Wi'ottesley, and another Miss, who is
likewise anonymous in my memory, were in errant shepherdly dresses
vrithout invention, and Storer and Miss Wrottesley in banians with furs
for winter, cock and hen."

p. 355- In the quotation from George Selwyn's letters, the words " to the Duke
his brother," should read " to the Dukes his brothers." These were the
Dukes of Gloucester and Cumberland, the first of whom lived at
Gloucester House (now Gi'osvenor House) and the latter at Leicester
House. Ex. inf : Colonel W. F. Prideaux, who also informs me in
reference to the footnote on this page, that the Princess of Wales had
left Leicester House in 1766 for Carlton House (which had also belonged
to her late husband), but she resided principally at Kew, where she was
probably living when the news of her son's death would have reached
England.

P- 361) line 21, for " blank," read " black."

p. 362. Lt.-Colonel Hugh Wrottesley died 18th October 1830.

p. 363. Edward Wrottesley was married to Ann Tringham at Gibraltar, by
licence granted by His Excellency Lt. Governor Campbell, at the King's
Chapel, Gibraltar, on the 1st of November 1812, in presence of Percy
Eraser, Commissioner of H.M. Navj' ; J. J. Pechell, Captain H.M.S.
"Cleopatra"; Mai'tha Tringham, and others, the officiating minister being
the Rev. Thomas Tringham, H.M. Chaplain, the father of the bride.

p. 366. At the period of the emigration of the French nobility owing to the
revolution of 1792, Wrottesley, like many of the other large country
houses, sheltered one of the emigres. A Vicomte de Mauny, under
the guise of a French tutor, lived there for several years.

p. 377. The " Rugby School Register " (printed) contains the following entries
under the name of Wrottesley : —

Entrances in 1699.

Wrottesley, John, eldest son of Sir Walter Wrottesley, Bart., Somerford,

Staffordshire.
Wrottesley, Hugh, second son of the above.

410 ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA.

Entrances in 1702.

Wrottesley, Walter, third son of Sir Walter Wrottesley, Bart., Somerford,
Staffordshire.

Entrances in 1722.

Wrottesley, Hugh, second son of Sir John Wrottesley, Bart.,, M.P. for

Staffordshire.
Wrottesley, Walter, third son of Sir John Wrottesley.

Entrances in August, 1S38.

Wrottesley, Arthur, son of the Hon. John Wrottesley (now Lord Wrottesley),
Blackheath, Kent, and Wi'ottesley, Wolverhampton, aged 14, June 17th.

The '' Westminster School Register " shews that

Wrottesley, John, was admitted 31st Jan. 1782.

Wrottesley, Henry, admitted 1782, left 1791 ; King's Scholar and Captain.

\Vrottesley, John," admitted 22nd Jan. 1810, left 1814.

Wrottesley, Charles Alexander, admitted 22nd Jan. 1810, left 1810.

Wrottesley, Robert, admitted 2oth May 1812, left 15th June 1818.

Wrottesley, Walter, admitted 17th Jan". 1821, left Bartholomewtide 1827.

Wrottesley, Edward Rennet, admitted 18th Jan. 1822, King's Scholar 1826,

elected to Trinity College, Cambridge, but went to New Inn Hall ;

matriculated 7th February 1833.
Wrottesley, Edward John, a'dmitted 1825, King's Scholar 1829, left 1833.

p. 379, line 3'S, for "Committee" rend "Council."

p. 382- After the death of John, the second Baron Wrottesley, his widow,
Sophia, Lady Wrottesley, took up her abode at the Dower House
of the family at Oaken, and died there in 1880.

p. 384, line 10 and footnote. The words for visual signals " should be added
to the sentence, for Morse's alphabet was in use on many of the
railway telegraphs at this d^te, and was employed by the Royal
Engineers for their electric field telegraph.
The Committee had been formed for the pui-pose of reporting on Rendl's
system of telegraphy by means of collapsible cones. By the use of
two of these cones and a large circular ball of black canvas, the
inventor was able to produce all the permutations required for the
Naval Code of Signals, and he claimed that they would be more
visible at a distance than the flags in use. I jiointed out that a
single cone made to open and shut would suffice if the Morse
alphabet was used, and there would be this additional advantage,
that the same alphabet could then be used both for visual and
electric signals. The Committee I'ecommended that experiments should
be made with this object in view, but the Navy would not renounce
their signal flags and Naval Code. The result, however, was the
introduction of the Morse alphabet for all visual signals on shore,
and Lieutenant Colomb afterwards invented the flash light for naval
signals at night. The use of the Morse alphabet also led to the intro-
duction of the Heliostad into the service for day signals on shore.

411

INDEX.

Abercromby, Rt. Hon. J.. 378.
Abetot, Urso de. 5, 16, 17, 216.
Act of Resumption (1468), 221.
Adam, brother of Eudo, 15 ; of Water-
fall, 25; Rob. fitz, see Robert.
Adams, Will., of Longdon (Salop),

335 ; John, s. of, 335.
Adams, Jane, w. of John, 335.
Adams, Arms of, 335.
Adlington, co. Chester, 202, 246.
Agard, Ralph, 253.
Agelwinus, Vicecomes (Alwin, Sheriff

of Warwick), 5; Turchil, s. of, 5.
Agelwius, Abbot (d. 1077), 4, 7, 10,

13, 14.
Aid on the Knighthood of the King s

eldest son (1306), 61.
Ailric, 7.
Airmyn, Sir Will., of Osgodby, 207;

Isab., w. of, 207.
Aken, see Oaken.
Albrighton. 100, 139, 274; Fair of,

148 ; Foxhounds, 386.
Alderlev, 192, 193, 194, 195. 248. 252,

272, 288, 293, 299 ; Nether, 202.

203; Rob. de Hampton, parson of,

203.
Aldford, CO. Chester, 142, 143, 192,

193, 194, 202, 203. 204 246, 248,

251, 252.
Aldinton. Ric. de, 36.
Alditheley (Audley), Adam de, 23,

27, 28; Liulph, brother of, 23;

Hen. de, 31.
Almeley, co. Hereford, 300.
Alspath, 235.
Alstonfield, 30.
Althorp, Lord, 378.
Alured, the Dapifer, 12.
Aluric, the King s Thane, 5.
Alvandelegh, 150; Thorn, de, 153.
Alwin, see Agelwinus.
Ambulcote, bailiwick of, 250.
Amnesty (1452), 205. 206.
Amundeville. Rich, de, 63.
Andre, Major, 358, 361.
Anecot, see Onecote.
Angers Military School. 364.
Angle, Sir Guy de, 150.
Anketill, Walt., s. of, 23.
Apetot, Alex, de, 17.
AquiUun, Rog. , 13 ; Luc. , s. of, 13.

Archer, Col., 375; Marianne Lucy,
d. of, 375.

Archer, Sir John, of Coopersale 338,
341; Elean., d. of, 338, 340.

Archers, Assessment for ; see Assess-
ment.

Archers, Mounted (1360). 131.

Arderne, Sir John, of Aldford, 142,
143, 150, 192, 193, 194, 201. 203,
204 ; Inquisition on deatli of (1408),
192: Margt., w. of, 193, 194;
Elena, w. of, 143, 192. 203, 204;
Isab., d. of, 142, 143, 150; Matil.,
d. of, 143, 150, 203; Kath., d. of,
143. 150 ; Walcheline, or Walkeline,
s. of, 143. 192, 203; Pet., s. of,
143; Thom., s. of, 143, 192, 203,
204.

Arderne, John, s. of Thos., 204, 205;
Margt., w. of. 204, 205; Matil., d.
of, 205.

Arderne, Sir Thom. de, 143, 172, 173,
177, 194, 203; Kath., w. of, 177.

Articuli super Chartas, 58.

Arundel. Earl of, 96. 102, 130. 188.

Ashmole, Elias, 331.

Askew, ser Ayscough.

Aspley, 343.

Assessment for Hobelars and Archers,
Exon. for, 107, 114; for Men-at-
arms, Exon. for, 108.

Astlev, CO. Warwick, 236; Thom.,
Arin., 198. 207, 208, 209, 217, 262.
271; WiU., 262; Rich., 262;
Gilbt.. Esq., 279, 280, 291; Sir
Walt., 284; Walt., of PatshuU,
329 331

Astley, Eliz.. d. of Thom., 271. 277.

A,stley, Rich., s. of Walt., 329, 330,
331.

Aston, 332; Thom. de, Kt., 194,
322 ; Sir John. 254 ; Sir Walt.. 291.
297 ; Lord of Tixall, 331.

Assheton, Will. de. of Crofton, 197.

Atkins, Thom., of Chippenham, 391.

Audler. Adam de, 23. 27. 28 ; John
de, 54. 217 ; Hugh de, 62 ; James,
Lord, 80, 108, 188, 217; George,
268.

Aven, CO. Glamorgan, 221 ; Lordship
of. 229.

Avenel, John, 97.

Avlesford. Heneage, Earl of, 356 ;
'Fran., d. of, 364.

412

INDEX.

Aylewyne, Simon, 88, 93; Rag., 88,

93.
Ayscough, Sir Will. , of South Kelsey,

258 ; Eliz , w. of, 258 ; Anne, d. of,

258.

Babington, Zach., 298.

Bacon, Sir Nich., 277.

Badcote, co. Wore, 395.

Baddow, co. Essex, 342.

Badminton, co. Glouc, 395.

Baganliolt, Bog. de, 49, 57, 66.

Baggele, Ralph. 134.

Bagod, Rich., 284.

Bagot. Will., of Holedale, 28; Sir

Win., 47, 49, 64, 70, 76, 80, 356,

358; Hervev. 31, 32. 85; Sir

Hervev, 312, 329, 332 ; Ralph. 60 ;

Sir John. 198; Sir Lewis, 255;

Mr., 291.
Bagot, Mili,s., w. of Hervev. 31, 52,

85.
Bagot, Hervey, of Park Hall, s. of

Sir Hervey, 330.
Bagot, Rich., s. of Sir Hervey, 350.
Bailiwick of Teddeslev, 111.
Banastre, Sir Thorn..' 150, 152.
Bank Charter Act (1826), 370; (1855),

571.
Barbor, Rob., Esq., 545.
Barford, 595.
Barnehurst, John de, 157, 158, 160,

162, 209 ; John, s. of, 162.
Barnehurst. Prebend of, 273, 284.
Barneslev, James, of TrysuU, 289.
Bamet, Battle of, 229.
Baron, Will., 225, 238, 239, 240;

Jane, d. of, 207, 238, 259; Joan,

w. of. 240.
Baron, W^l., of Reading, 258, 259,

267.
Baronetcy, Treaty for (1641), 314.
Barre, Will., of Albrighton, 100;

Will, s. of. 100.
Barrett, Hugh, 591; Thorn., of

Titherton Lucas. 597.
Barrett, Jane, w. of Thom., 597.
Barton, Rob. de, 97.
Basset. Sir Ralph, of Drayton. 57, 46,

49, 55. 60. 62, 65, 68, 69, 79. 80,

150 ; Ralph, Lord of Pattingham,

75 ; Sir Rog., 62. 65, 68, 178 ; Hen.,

80, 82 ; Simon, 152 : Lord, 141, 149,

150, 152; Edm., 198; Will., 249,

268.
Basset, Joan, d. of Sir Rog., 62,

68, 81.
Basset, Sir Rog., Arms of, 63.
Bayeux, Odo. Bishop of, 14, 16.
Beauchamps, Earls of Warwick, 216 ;

Emma, d. and h. of, 216.

Beauchamp, John, Lord, 109, 112,

151, 152; Giles de, 152; Thom. de,

152, 162 ; Sir Will, de, 150, 152.
Beauchamp, John, s. of Giles de, 152.
Beauclerk, Miss, 550.
Beaudesert, 332.

Beaufort, Capt., F., R.N., 378.
Beaumont, Hen. de, 132 ; John, 251.
Bee, Rob. de, 29.
Beck, Sir Nich. de, 136.
Beck, Nich. de, Chev., 167.
Beckbury, 155, 172; Phil, de, 49;

Adam de, 156.
Bedford, Earl of, 149; John, 4th

Duke of, 546, 547, 549 ; Gertrude,

Duchess of, 352.
Befcote, 155.
Beleia, Benj. de, 20.
Bendish, Heigham, Esq., of East

Ham, 344; Fran., w. of, 344.
Bennet, Lady Caroline, 566 ; Capt.

John Astley, R.N., 574; JuUa, w.

of, 574. ^ '

Bensted, Edw. de, Kt., 205; John,

255.
Bentley, 551; Riot at (1640), 515.
Benyng, Rich., 88. 95; Rog., 95.
Benynes, Hen., 88, 95.
Bergavenny, Lord, 188.
Berks, co., 15. 257.
Berkeley, Thom. de, 122, 133 ; Lord.

188.
Bernards Lench, 16.
Bertram, Rob., s. of, 25.
Betinson, John, 505.
Bettisfield, co. Flint, 550.
Beymount, John, 265.
Bickford, 5.
Biddulph, John, of Biddulph, 551,

552; Fran., s. of, 551.
Bigod, Rog., the Marshal, 58.
Billbrook, 179, 186, 190, 206, 272,

288, 289, 295, 299 ; Paul de, 49.
Bilston. 279, 283,, 287, 500, 310;

Geof. de, 67, 68, 82.
Birmingham, Will, de, 60, 80.
Bishton, 208, 209.
Bissipate, Geo., Kt., 235, 254.
Bissopesbury, see Bushbury.
Bi.shop's Castle, in co. Salop, 301.
Bissopeston, J. de, 17.
Black Death, The (1349), 109, 112.
Black Prince. 127, 130, 136, 141,

149, 161 ; Joan, w. of, 151.
Blackbume, Capt., 522.
Blackladies, 286.
Blackland, 285.
Blakeleye, Rog. atte, of Wrottesley,

95; Rog. s. of, 95.
Bhtlifield. 529, 332
Blois, Chas. de, 101, 124.
Blore, near Okeover, 54.
Blore, Ralph de, 27, 28.
Blother, Sir Thom., 298.

INDEX.

413

Blount, John le, Sheriff of co. Staf-
ford, 115 ; John, of Mountjov,
249; John, 253; Walt., Kt., 217,
268; Humph., Kt., 237; Thorn.,
238, 252.

Blunden, Will., of Bishop's Castle,
301; Howard, w. of, 301.

Blunt, Sir George, 394.

Blunte, John, 220.

Bobbington. 80, 283.

Bobenhill, Prebend, 273, 284.

Botfari, Rog. (Lord of Lower Penn),
39 ; and see Buffary.

Bohun, Humph, de, the Constable,
58; Will, de. Earl of Northamp.,
103, 105, 107, 112, 161.

Boidele, John, Kt., 150; Kath., w.
of, 150, and see Boydell.

Bolingbrokes, Lady, 349.

Bolinghole, Hugh de, 49.

Bolour, Rob., Deputy Marshal, 121,
127. ' ^ -^ ' '

Bonde, Adam le, 88.

Bonvalet, Will., 17.

Bordensmulne, 153.

Boseawen, Miss, 350.

Boscobel, 336.

Boseville, Ralph de, 20.

Bostock. Hugh de, 194; Will., 303.

Bosworth, Battle of, 247.

Boterdon, see Butterton.

Boterton, Alan de, 51; Hen., s. of,

51.
Boteeourt, John de, 113, 126.
Bothun, near Crablow, 48.
Botiller, John le, 40, 52 ; Ric le, 50 ;

Ralph le, 80 ; Sir Will. le. of War-
rington, 191, 192. 196.
Botiller, Eliz., w. of Sir Will, le, 191.

192, 196.
Boughey, Sir John Fenton, 368.
Bowes, Sir John, 284.
Bowlde, 394.
Bowyer, Sir Will., 297.
Boydell, John, Kt., 153, 174; Kath.

w. of, 153, 174.
Boydell, Will., 198; and see Boidele.
Boyville, Will., Arm., 233, 235.
Bracy, see Bressy.
Bradley. Walt, de, 38 ; Reg. de, 45.
Bradwall, Hamond de, 38.
Braillesford, Sir Hen. de, 155.
Braillesford, Hugh de Wrotte.sley,

Bailiff of, 155.
Bray, Hen. de, 29, 56, 57 ; Will, de,

57.
Bread Riots (1800), 366.
Breosa, Pet. de, 132.
Brereton, Will., 331; Rich., 332.
Bressy, Hen., of Escott, 300. 308;

Dory, w. of. 500, 308.
Bret, Walt., 9.

Bretforton, co. Wore, 11, 13, 17.
Breux, see Breosa.

Brewood, 342 ; Forest of, 20, 49.
Bridgenorth, 47, 299, 300, 319.
Bridport, Will., 134.
Brian, Guy de, 130, 132, 141, 149,

150, 152, 153.
Brien (de Standon), 6, 7.
Britford, CO. Wilts., 390, 393; Manor

RoUs (1546-53), 393.
Brittany, Duke of, 149, 152 ; Duchess

of, 151.
Brocas, John, 132, 133; Sir Oliv.,

133.
Brodie, Sir Benj., 381.
Broke, John, 122 ; Sir George, 230.
Brooke, John, of Blackland, 283;

Franc, w. of, 283.
Broke, Walt., of Lapley, 332.
Brokeman, John. 227.
Bromley, Sir John, 233, 234 ; Fran-
cis, of Hallon, 289, 290.
Bromley, Joyce, w. of Francis, 289,

290. '
Brompton, Thorn, de, 60 ; Sir John

de, 136.
Bronlys, in Wales, 145.
Brougham, Lord, 378, 379.
Broughton, Thorn., 551.
Brown, Will., 89; Geo., 227; John,

245, 246, 260, 261, 262.
BiudeneU, Rob., 253.
Brumham, co. Wilts.. 391.
Buch, Captal de, 138, 149.
Buckingham, Humph, de, Stafford,

Duke of, 217; Edw., Duke of, 253.
BucUfort, Phil, de, 97.
Biidworth, co. Chester, 150, 251.
Budworth in Le Fryth, 174, 188.
Buenvasleth, see Bonvalet.
Buffaiy, Rob., of Penn, 61. 66. 68.

76; John, 168.
Bulkeley, Ellen de, 145; Rob. de,

of, Ridalheth, 174; Pet. de, of

Chedle, 194, 203; Edm., 252.
Buller, Edw. Manningham, 371.
Burceston, Nich. de, 27.
Burdele, see Boydell.
Burdett's Bill for Relief of R.

Catholics. 569.
Burdon Mill, 207, 208.
Burgeston (Burston), Nich. de, 28.
Burghersh, Sir Barth. de, 108, 136,

158.
Burgo, Phil. Fitz, Bisliop de, 28.
Burgoyne, Gen., in America (1777),

557 ; Sir John, 380-83 ; Field Mar-
shal Sir John Fox, Bait., 584.
Burgoyne, Margt. Anne, d. of Sir

John Fox. 584.
Buriey, Sir John de, 152, 155, 152.
Burnell, Nich.. 151. 152.
Burton, Rob. de, 97 ; Mr. Justice, of

Longnor, 558.
Burton. Anne, d. of Mr. Justice, 558.
1 Burton. Thorn., s. of Mr. Justice, 343.

414

INDEX.

Bushbury, 76, 104, 160, 310, 332,
343; Rob., Lord of, 36, 37, 41;
Ralph de, 43, 45, 49, 50, 68 ; Hen.
de, 76, 80, 156. 157, 162, 164, 168,
170, 171.

Bushbury, Rog., br. of Ralph de, 45.

Butler, James, Earl of Wilts, 219,
221.

Butterton-on-the-Moors, 26, 29-33,
36, 56, 65, 68, 73, 92, 104 140,
142, 157, 162, 167, 172, 186, 190,
202, 207, 208, 245, 246, 259, 261,
271, 289, 292, 294. 299, 310 ; Will,
de, 25, 28, 32, 34, 66; Ingrid de,
28; Bened. de, 49, 54, 56, 66;
Alan de, 65 ; Hugh de, 66 ; Adam
de, 66.

Butterton, Will., s. of Will de, 34,
66; Luke, s. of, 32, 33.

Butterton, Hen., s. of Alan de, 65.

Butterton, Rich., s. of Adam de, 66.

Buttetourt, see Botetourt.

BuxhuUe, Sir Alan. 149, 150, 152.

Byrch, John, 332.

Caerlaverock, Siege of, 75.

Calais, 128. 228; Surrender of, 108,

235; Roll (1347), 161; Sir Walt.

Wrotteslev, Governor of (1472), 230.
Calcroft, Mi-., 349.
Caldewelle, Will, de, 48.
Cambridge, Earl of, 138, 149, 152.
Camera, Adam de, 41.
Canterbury, Lanfranc, Archbp. of, 10.
Capell, Lord, 325.
Careswall, Sir Hen. de, 69.
Carles, WUl., Kt., 168.
Carlisle, Earl of, 357, 358 ; Caroline,

w. of, 357.
Carnegode, 6.
Carte, Will., 89.
Casteme, 25 ; Rob. de, 25, 30 ; Will.,

30, 36.
Castle Bromwich, co. Warwick, 287,
■ 296.

Cathcart, Lord, 365.
Caverswall, Sir Pet. de, 148 ; see

Careswall.
Cawardyne, John, 249.
Ceraso, Rob. de, 13.
Chabbeham, Magister Thom. de, 43.
Chaloner, John, of the Wergs, 180 ;

Will., 340. a

Chamberlain of Cheshire. Sir Will.

Stanley, the, 248 ; Will., s. of, 248.
Chamberlain, Anne, 300.
aiandos, Sir John. 108, 132.
Chapter of the Order of the Garter, see

Garter.
Charnes, Reg. de, 74 ; Julia, w. of,

74.

Charta, Magna, 58 ; Articuli super,

58.
Charter of the Forests, 58.
Chartley, 136.

Chaspeli, near Kinver, 289.
Chaunipeneis, Will., 43.
ChaA-tor, Sir Will., 376; Mary, w. of

376.
Chedle (Cheadle), 194, 203.
Chelmarsh, co. Salop, 256, 394.
Chenevertone, scr. Kinwarton.
Cherleton, John de, 131. 132; Owin

de, 134.
Chester, Pet., Bishop of (1088), 6, 7;

Herald. 331.
('hetwynde, John de, Kt., 155; Sir

Phii. of Ingestre, 245; Walt., of

Ingestre, 332.
Chetwynde, Sir Adam de, 101 ; Phil.

de, 102; Sir Walt., 297.
Chetelton, Will, de, Kt., 27, 48.
Cheveley, Hen., Clerk to Walt.

Wrottesley, 225.
Chillington, 27, 80, 179, 209, 291, 331,

336 ; Garrison of, 324.
Chippenham, co. Wilts, 390-3, 397.
Chokke, Sir Rich., 245, 258, 261, 262.
Cholettes, Thorn., 88.
Cholmundelegh, Rob. de, 174; Rich.,

s. of, 174.
Chorley. co. Chester, 290.
Chronicle of Thom. de la More, 112.
Chynok, Ralph, Arm., of Wrottesley,

195.
Cirencester, Abbot of, 88.
Clapham, Rich.. 227.
Clarell, Eliz., 202.
Clarence, Lionel, Duke of, 136, 138 ;

George, Duke of, 25, 226.
Clarendon Park, co. Wilts, 390.
Claverley, Alex, de, 9.
Clemens, Thom., 227.
Clement, of Wolverhampton, 38.
Clent, 113, 219, 220, 241 ; Grant of,

219 ; Farm rents of, 134.
Clifford, Sir Louis de, 152.
Clinton, Geof. de, 19; Hen. de, 21,

23; Osb. de, 21; WiU. de, 21, 23;

John, Lord, 233, 234.
Cnutton, see Knotton.
Coal, Proposed Tax on, 360.
Cobham, Lord Reg. de, 107, 130, 136 ;

John de, 131.
Cockvs, Will., of Pattingham, 242.
Cocton, 10, 12, 17. 18, 24, 77; La

Wyke (in {sec Wvke) ; Rich, de Ver-
dun 24: Rob.'^de, 19; Will, de

(1149), 10, 20; Will, de, 32; Simon

de, 34; Ralph de (1121), see Ralph,

br. of the Abbot of Evesham ;

Ralph de (1166), 11, 12, 21, 23.
Cocton, Will., brother of Rob. de, 19,

20.
Cocton, Ralph, s. of WiD. de (1149),

10. 20.

INDEX.

415

Cocton, Simon, s. of Will de, 32, 34.
Cocton, Simon, br. of Simon, 34.
Cocton, Const., vv. of Simon de, 34.
Cocton, Simon, s. of Ralph de (1166),

11, 20, 23.
Coctune, Will, de, 8, 22; Simon, s.

of, 8, 22.
Codsall,49, 153, 172, 245, 261, 272,

287, 288, 289, 295, 299, 300, 310,

324; Prebend, of, 294; Monument

to Walt. Wrottesley (1630) at, 292,

294 ; Hen. de, 49, 93 ; John, 189.
Cogan, Sir John, 190.
Cointise, the, 61.
Colates, Thorn., 89.
Colclough, Sir Ant., of Tintern

Abbey, 296; Clara, d. of, 296.
Coleshidl, Emald de, 23.
Colesone, Will., 172.
Collins, Ant., of Baddow, 342.
Colton, 31; George, 280.
Comberford, Will., 332.
Comines, Phil, de, 232.
Commis.sion of the Peace, co. Stafford

(1471), 228; (1 Rich. III.), 249;

(1 Hen. VII.), 249; (2 Hen. VII.),

249; (1 Hen. VIII.), 253; (3 Hen.

Vin.), 253; (1531), 268.
Commission, Special (1539), 269 ; of

Array (1641), 316; (1642), 318.
Committee for Advance of Money

1642-7), 327.
Composition in lieu of Knighthood,

(1630), 297.
Compounding. Rules for (1645), 528.
Compton, CO. Warwick, 7, 272.
Congreve, Rich., of Stretton, 336.
Constantine, 8, 13.
Conyers, John, Kt., 227 ; John, s. of,

227.
Conyers John, of Copt Hall, 374 ;

JuHa, d. of, 374.
Coopersall, co. Essex, 358, 541.
Copley, Rog., Arm., 264; Sir John,

267.
Copt Hall, CO. Essex, 574.
Corbet, Rog., of Hadlev, 47. 80;

Edel., w of, 47.
Corbet, Reg., of Pontesbury, 500;

Sus., \y. of, 500.
Corbuson, Will. Fitz, of Stodley,

18-19; Pet., s. of, 18.
Coi'buson, Geof. , 20.
Cosham, co Wilts, 258.
Cottenham, Lord Chancellor, 373.
Coughton, see Cocton.
Coupeland, John de, 97.
Court, the Earl ^Marshall's (1659), 511.
Courtenav, Sir Hugh de, 109, 227;

Lady, 151; Sir Will., 226; Will.,

Vise., 356, 364; Ladv Charlotte,

377; Pet., 226; Phil.', 227. 255;

Humph., 227.

Courtenay, Franc, d. of Will., Vise,

564; Franc, d. of, 356, 561,^564.
Courtenay, John, s. of Phil., 253, 235.
Courtpoint, the. 61.
Coutances, Godf. , BLshop ot, 15.
Coven, 310, 545 ; Sir Ralph de, 47.
Coyney, Thom., of Weston Coyney,

551, 352.
Craig, Magd., 545.
Crecy, Battle of, 106.
Cresset, Rich., of Upnor Cresset,

259 ; Jane, w. of, 259.
Cresset, Hen., 269.
CresswaU, Hen. de, 62, 102; Thom.,

215; Rich., 272, 273.
Creswell, Rich., of Pert on. 551.
Creye, Thom., 48, 53, 94, 95 : Thom.,

s. of, 94, 95, 97; Will., s. of, 95.
Creye, Will., of Tettenhale, 93 ; John

s. of, 93.
Croft, Rich.. 209.
Crombe (Croom), Adam de, 555.
Crompton, Thom., 312, 315; Thom.,

flsq., of Stone Park, 358; L^rsula,

vv. of, 337: Eliz., d. of, 558.
Croukwall. Rich.. 199, 209.
Crouthour, Geof. le, 55, 68.
Croxden Abbey. 9; Abbot of, 31. 41,

60. '

Crudcot Forest, 33.
Crusade (1554), 92.
Culcitra, the, 61.
Cumpton, in Tettenliall, 94, 95.
Curburgh, 279, 287, 289. 299.
Curli, Rob. de, 21.
Curson, Sir John, of Kedleston, 542 ;

Elean., d. of, 542.
Curtis, John Rob. Lloyd, 353.

Daa, Rob., 150; Aline, d. and h. of,

150.
Dabrigecourt, Sir Sanchio, 109.
D'Achely. Earl, 150.
Dalton, "John, de, Kt.. 194.
Daneys, Walt, le, 58.
Darley, see Derlee.
Darrell, Sir Rich., of Littlecote, 245,

246, 259, 261; Jane, w. of, 245,

246, 250, 258, 259, 261.
Dartford, Petron. Wrottesley, nun at,

240.
Daumas, Rich., 65.
Davenport, Arth., de, 174; Will.,

290; Hen. of Cliorley, 290; John,

371.
Dawson, Lieut., R.E., 578.
Delany, Mrs., 552.
Delaval, Sir Franc, 354.
Delawarr, Lord. Vice-Chamberlain

(1766). verses of. 350.
Denbigh. Earl of, 319. 322, 324.

416

INDEX.

Denstone, 26 ; Sir Hen. de, 25, 26, 28,
29, 30, 56; Nich. de 30; Francis
John Wrottesley, Vicar of, 363.

Derby, Will, de Ferrers, Earl of, 33 ;
Ro'b. do Ferrere, E;u-1 of, 42 ; Hen.,
Earl of, 152; Thorn., Earl of, 251,

Derington, John de, 116, 117, 118,
122.

Derlee, Rob. de, 36 ; Adam, s. of,
36.

Despencer, Simon le, 11 ; Hugh le,
30 ; Hugh le, the younger, 238 ;
Edw. le, 130, 132; Gilbt., le, 132;
Lord, 138.

Devereux, Rob., Earl of f]ssex, 311;
Leicester, 332 ; Edw. , of Castle
Bromwich, 287, 293. 299; Walt.,
Vise. Hereford, 287, 288, 298.

Devereux, Margt., d. of Edw., 287,
296.

Deverous, Will., of West Bromwich,
80.

Devonshire, Will.. 4th Duke of, 346.

Dey, Walt, le, 179.

Dickens, Humf., 280.

Dictum of Kenilworth, 42.

Diva, WiU. de, 21.

Domesday Survey, 4.

Dorset, Thom., Marquis of, 253;
Lord, 336.

Douglas, Lord James, 81.

Drake, Ralph, of Bobbington, 283,
286; Franc, w. of, 283, 286.

Drakelowe, 202.

Draycote, John de, 133, 198 ; Rog. ,
226; Phil., of Painsley, 331.

Drayson, Maj.-Gen., R.A., 376 ; Ellen
Mary Isabel, d. of, 376.

Drayton, 37, 46, 62, 63, 69, 79, 80,
130, 150 ; Basset, 64, 154.

Droitwich, 299, 310.

Drummond, Lieut., R.E., 378.

Dudley, 301, 331 ; Garrison at, 330 ;
Barony, 270: Priory, 279; John
de Somery, Baron of {see Somery) ;
John, Lord, 270; John de Sutton,
Baron of {see Sutton) ; Sir John,
Duke of Northumberland, 269, 270,
273, 280, 283; Rich, de Chev.,
171 ; Dr. Rich., ChanceUor of Salis-
bury, 256, 390; Mr. Rob., 271;
Edw., Lord, 344.

Dudley, Cath., d. of Edw., Lord, 344.

Dudmaston, co. Salop, 333, 335.

Dugdale, Will., of Shustoke, Chester.
Herald, 331.

Dunbar Castle, Siege of (1327), 96;
Black Agnes of, 96.

Dunham Massoy, Manor of, 193.

Dunkan, Rob., 8, 78; Rog., 77.

Dunkirk, Siege of, 365.

Dunstable Chronicle. 41, 57.

Dunston, 82; Heath, 116; Hen. de,
27.

Durand, Sheriff of Glouc, 14.
Durham, Letter of Lord John Russell,

379.
Dyckins, John, 332.
Dymmok, Sir Thorn., 226.
Dyot, Sir Rich., 332.

Earn, Sir Hen., of Brabant, 109.
East Ham, 344.

Eastbrent, co. Somerset, 390, 391.
Echeles, 192, 193, 194, 202, 203, 204,

248. 251, 252.
Eda, Will., s. of, 56 ; Ingrith, sist. of,

56.
Edgworth Memoirs, 354.
Edmodeston, Steph. de, 37 ; John, s.

of, 37.
Edmund, s. of Edw. III., 136.
Edric, the Steersman of the Bishop's

Ship, 15.
Egerton, Will., 198; Hugh, 249;

John, 254 ; Ralph, 331.
Eland, John, 134.
Eld, Rich., of Seighford,283; Margt.,

w. of, 283, 286.
Elder stoke, see Oldstoke.
Elford, CO. Staffs., 142.
Elkstone, 31, 34.
Elmedon, Will, de, of Pilatonhale,

64, 67, 74, 81; Steph. de, 67, 74,

81; Walt, de, 67.
Elmedon, Rosea, w. of Will, de, 64,

67, 74.
Elmhurst, 279.
Elrygton, John, Arm., 238.
Elsenham Hall, co. Essex, 376.
Embassy of Warwick to the King of

France, 222.
Engelton, WiU. de, 84, 111. 172;

Rich, de. 111, 134. 164; Thomas,

53.
Engelton, Will. s. of Rich, de, 134,

164.
Englinton, John de, 50.
Enville, 311, 330. 344 ; Rich, de, 43,

45.
Erdeswick, Hugh, 198, 249.
Erdington, Thom. de, 31 ; Heir of,

31 ; Giles de, 41, 44.
Escapes from the Marshalsea (1353),

121, 125.
Escott, near Meriden, co. Warwick,

300, 308.
Essex, CO., 338, 341, 342, 374. 376;

Rob., Earl of, 297, 311.
Es.sington, Sir Rob. de, 35.
Estcoui-t, Giles, of New Sarum, 394.
Etchells, see Echeles.
Eton, James de, 134.
Eudo, 15 ; Adam, br. of, 15.
Evenefeld, Rich, de, 41; Will, de,

66 , and see Enville.

INDEX.

417

Everdon, Thorn., 207, 209, 217.

Evers, Sir Samp., 315.

Evesham, 8, 10 ; Battle of, 41 ; Char-
tulary, 10, 11 ; Walt., first Norman
Abbot of (1077-1104). 5, 7, 10, 11-
16; Agelwine, Abbot of (d. 1077),
4, 7, 10, 13, 14; John, Abot of
(1316), 8, 78, 81, 83, 84; Reginald,
Abbot of (1130-49), 8, 11 ; Adam,
Abbot of (1160), 8, 9 ; Rog., Abbot
of (1199), 32; WiU., Abbot of
(1325), 87; Rog., Abbot of (1385),
174.

Evesham, Ralph, brother of Walt.,
Abbot of Evesham, 7, 11, 12, 13,
14. 15, 16, 17, 18. 19, 20, 21, 23.

Eyre, W^ill., 541; Elian., w. of, 341.

Fanshawe, Rob. FaithfuU, 362.
Farley, Will, de. Keeper of the Ward-
robe, 131 ; Will, de, Accounts of.

129.
Farnham, co. Surrey, 395.
Faterfal, see Waterfall.
Fauconbridge, Bastard, 231, 232, 235.
Faunt, Nich. . Mayor of London, 231.
Ferelowe, Lawr.. 227.
Fernvhall. Rob.. 212.
Ferrers, Hen. de, 15, 31, 94, 114;

Rob. de, of Loxlev, 27, 28 ; Rob.

de, 42 ; Will, de, 33, 80 ; Sir Will.

de, of Groby, 196, 197. 198 ; John

de, 131 ; John, Lord of Chartley,

136 ; John, of Tetenhall Regis, 251 ;

Sir John, 253; Sir Ralph, 148.
Ferrers, Eliz., w. of Sir Will, de, of

Grobv, 196, 197.
Field, 329, 332.
Finch, John, Esq., 337; Sarah w. of,

337.
Finch, Ladv Franc, 364.
Fitz Bishop (de Burgo), Phil.. 28.
Fitz Corbuson, Will., of Stodley, 18,

19; Pet., s. of, 18.
Fitz Herbert, Ant., 254; Will., of

Swinnerton, 331.
Fitz Simon, Will., 31, 33; Rich., 35,

108; Hen., 35.
Fitz Warine, Will., of Trescott, 40.
Fitz William, Oliv., of Ipstones, 331.
Flanders. Hen. de, 131.
Fleetwood, Sir Rich., 331.
Fleming, John le, 140; John, of

Tetenhall, 207; Hen., 199; Rog.,

211; Franc, 285.
Folshouk, Ralph, 54.
Fonte, Rich, de, 58.
Ford, 48.

Foster, Cbarles Smith, 371.
Fowler, Walt., of St. Thomas, 331.
Foxhunte Ledegate, 147.

Frazer, Col., 322.

Preeland, Fred., Esq., 565; Agnes

Mabel, d. of, 565.
Freman, Hen. le, of Oken, 95 ; Hen.

le, of Wrottesley, 55, 48 ; Will, le,

of Wrotteslev, 48; Ralph le, of

Oken, 95.
Freman, Thorn., s. of Hen. le, of

Oken, 93.
Freman, Alice, w. of Hen. le, of

Wrottesley, 35, 48.
Frene, John de, 59.
Frere, Simon le, 138 ; Ada, w. of, 158.
Frodeslcy, co. Salop, 299, 300.
Frome Selwood, co. Somerset, 256.
Fryer, Rich., 371.
Fu'lfen, 279.
Fulwood, John de, 91, 92, 95, 156 ;

Rich, de, 94.
Fulwood, Ralph, br. of Rich, de, 94,

95.
Fynone, 365. ^

Galliardello, Mark Antony, 318, 524.
Gardiner, Gen. Will., 554, 558; Har-
riett, w. of, 554 ; Gertrude

Florinda, d. of, 554.
Garter, Order of the, 108.
Garter. Chapter of the (1550), 111;

(1561), 136; (1364), 138; (1371),

141; (1372), 143; (1374), 149;

(1376), 149; (1577), 150; (1578),

152; (1379), 152.
Garter King of Arms, 225.
Garter, Statutes of the, at Wrottes-
ley, 240.
Gatacre, Will., Esq., 283.
Gataker, Geof.. 82, 94, 95, 117;

Will., s. of, 94, 95.
Gataker, Thom. de, 116, 117, 118,

122, 128; AUce, w. of, 116, 117,

118, 122, 128.
Gate, Sir Geof., 226, 230, 235, 234,

236, 237.
Gate House at Wrotteslev, 333.
Gaunt, John of, 130, 156".
Gech, Thom., 149, 169.
Geffrey, Walt., of Salop, 104; John,

s. of. 104.
General Muster (1558), 269; (1640),

512.
Gerald, the Sheriff (1121), 12.
Gerard, Thom., Kt., 194.
Gervase, of Wolverhampton, 57.
Gervoys, Thom., Esq., of Northfield,

595, 394, 595, 596; Cecily, w. of,

393, 594, 595.
Gervys, Thom., Jane, and Winifred,

595.
Giffard, Walt., 15; Walt., of Mar-

ston, 551: Walt., of Chillington,

418

INDEX.

336 ; Walt. Coutenay, of Chilling-
ton 336; John, of Chillington, 51,
80, 291 ; John, of \Miitela(lies, 332 ;
Sir John, 156, 167, 253, 268 ; Hob.,
of Chillington, 209; Humph., of
Blackladies, 286; Pet., of Chil-
lington (1201), 27, 331; Thorn.,
198, 268.

Giffard, John, s. of Walt., of Chilling-
ton, 336.

Giffard, Thorn., Esq., of Chillington,
377; Eliz., d. of, 377; Charlotte,
w. of, 377.

Gilberd, Will., of Codsall, 49.

Gislebert (Gilbert, Domesday Tenant
of Rob. de Stafford), 7.

Glad.stone, W. E., 371.

Glamorgan co,, 221, 229; Lordship
of, 220.

Glazeley, Sir Alan de, 59 ; Guy de,
82; Kath. de, 86.

Glendower, Ow^en, 187.

Glodoen, 4.

Gloucester, Durand, Sheriff of, 14 ;
Earl of, 96; Humph., Duke of,
203.

Gomeny, de, 131.

Goodlake, Edw. Wallace, 385; Caro-
line, w. of, 385.

Goodlake, Thom. Mills, Esq., of
Wadley house, 385.

Goodricke, Sir Fran., 368, 371, 372.

Gordon Rear- Admiral 364 ; Charlotte,
w. of, 364.

Gorges, Sir Rob., of Worplesdon,
395 ; Mary, w. of, 395.

Gouldnev, Gabriel, 391.

Govver, 'John, of Woodhall, 274;
Eliz., w. of, 274.

Gower, John, 1st Earl of, 346, 349 ;
Evelyn, w. of, 346 ; Mary, d. of,
346.

Gower, Dowager Countess, 352 ;
Lord, 356.

Grafton, Duke of. Prime Minister
(1769), 351; EUz.. w. of, 351, 352.

Grailly, Piers de, 109.

Graunson, Will., 131.

Gravenor, Walt., 273.

Graves, Col., 323.

Gray, The Hon. John, of Enville,
343, 344; Franc, d. of, 343, 344.

GreenhDls, 55, 56.

Grendon, see. Grindon.

Grasley, John, 285.

Greisley, Mr., 291.

Greysley, George, 268.

Gresley, Will, de, 28; Pet. de, 60;
Thom. de, of co. Derby, Kt., 194,
203 ; Sir John, of Drakelowe, 202,
206, 228, 249; Geof., Arm., 207,
208, 211 ; and see Grasley and
Greisley.

Gresley, Sir John, of Drakelowe,

Thomasine, d. of, 202; Eliz., w.
of, 202.

Greville, Will., 253.

Grey, John, Lord of Rothei-field, 108 ;
Lord, 188; Lord, of Groby, 298,
330; Thom., of Grobv, 227, 232,
233; Reg. de, 131, 132; Hen. de,
132, 226; Hen., Duke of Suffolk,
298; Hen., of Enville, 311, 330,
331; Hen., Esq., 318; Edw., Kt.,
220, 226, 236, 254; Edm., Earl of
Kent, 236; Lady Jane, 273, 298;
George Harry, 356.

Grey, Ambrose, of Enville, s. of Lord,
of Groby, 298, 311, 335; Maiy,
d. of, 298, 307.

Grey, Ambrose, of Whittington, s.
of Ambrose, of Enville. 335 ; Dory,
\v. of, 335.

Grey, see Gray.

Griffith, Thom., 198; Sir Walt., 254;
Sir Hen., 331.

Grindon, 54, 69, 92, 104, 140, 142.
157, 162, 167, 207, 208, 209, 289,
292, 294 ; Ralph de, 80 ; Rich, de,
142.

Groby, Sir Hen. de Ferrers, Baron of,
94 ; see Ferrers.

Grosvenor, John, 268 ; Salomon,
King's Eschaetor, 292; Walt., of
Bushbuiy, 332.

Groucy, Will, de, 131.

Guiminy, see Gomeny.

Hackney Coaches, Abolition of (1830),

370.
Hadington, Simon, of Bishton, 208,

209.
Hadk-y, 47.

Haggeley, Rob. de, 44, 66.
Hale , Franc, van., 131, 138.
Hales, Reg. de, 30.
Halghton. Thom. de, 94; Nich. de,

97; Humph., Sheriff of Staffs.,

198.
Hall, Sir John, 396 ; Dorothy, w. of,

396.
Hallon, CO. Salop, 289, 290.
Hampton, 8, 10, 16, 97, 162, 163, 208,

209 ; Sir John, 87-90, 95, 98, 104,

157, 162, 164, 189 ; John, of Stour-

ton, 209; Rog. de, 133; Rich, de,

157, 158, 170; WiU. de, 159;

Thom. de, Chiv., 159; Rob. de.

Parson of Alderley, 203.
Handesacre, Will, de, 28, 60.
Handsworth, 220, 241 ; Grant of, 219.
Hanmer, Sir John, 371.
Hanson, Rich., 198.
Harecourt, Rich., 198.

INDEX.

419

Harcourt, John de, 60, 220 ; John, of
Kanton, 250, 263; Dame Margt.,

250, 263; Godfrey de, 106; Sir
Thorn, de, 148; Thorn., Esq. 250,

251, 263; Franc, 331; Lord,' 350.
Harcourt, Isab., d. of John, of

Ranton. 250, 263.
Harding, Will., of Wyke, 395 ; Kath.,

w. of, 395; Mary d. of, 395.
Harpur, Hugh. 133; John, 217;

Will, 249.
Hartingfordbury, 274.
Hartnup, Mr. John, 378.
Hastang, Rob., 80; John, 80, 102.
Hastings, Hen. de. 42 ; Laur. de, Earl

of Pembroke. 162 : Lord, 232 235,

236 ; Sir John, 252.
Hatherton, Lord, 378.
Hatton, Capt. , 325.
Haughton, Thom. de, 80 ; Thorn.

fitz Rog. of, 27, 28.
Haunde. co. Salop, 289, 290.
Havilt, Will, de, 13.
Hawkeswell, near Patshull, 47 ; in the

Forest of Brewood, 49 ; Mill at,

73. 90, 271, 277.
Heathcote, John Moyer, of Conning-

ton Castle, 375; Charles Gilbt. s.

of, 375.
Heathcote, Lucy Edith, w. of Charles

Gilbt., 375.
Hedecote, 13.
Hehon, Walt, de, 46.
Hellver, Rev. John, 364; Charlotte,

w. of, 564.
Hengham, R. de, 17 ; Ralph de (1270),

44, 46, 55.
Hennebon, Relief of, 101.
Henry fitz Simon, 35.
Heppeham, Hugh de, 80.
Herbert, Sydney, 371.
Herburburi, Will, de, 23.
Hereford, co., 139, 300 301, 342;

Rob., Bishop of (1086), 15, 16;

Earl of, 141 ; Walt. Devereux,

Vise, 287, 288, 298.
Heronville, Sir John de, Kt. , 61, 65;

Simon, of Wednesbury, 139.
Heronville, John, s. of Simon, 139.
Herriard, co. Hants. , 390. 394. 397.
Herries, 371.
Herthill. John, 227.
Herwarde, 86, 88.
Hesketh, Sir Thorn., 395.
Hevenfeud, see Enville.
Heveningham, Sir Walt., of Aston,

332.
Hewitt, Hen. 295; Sir Thos., of

Shireoaks, s. of, 292. 294. 295.
Hewitt, Eliz., w. of Sir Thom., 292,

294; Walt., s. of, 292.
Hide, 208, 209. 331; Thom. de la,

80 ; and see Huyde.
Hidlesdale, 69, 73.

Hill, Rob., 249.

Hill, Rev. Canon Chas. Rowl. Hay-
dock, 376 ; Ellen Maria, w. of, 376.
Hillaiy, Rog.. 91, 94, 136, 171; Sir

Rich., 158.
Hilton, 134. 332.
Himley, 329.
Hintes, Ralph de, 28.
Hobelars, Assessment for, see Assess-
ment.
Hocleye, Adam de, 94, 95.
Hoggeshawe, Thom. de, 132. 133.
Holbai-we, Hen. de, 160; Rich, de,

164.
Holedale, 28.
Holland, Sir Thom., 108, 124, 150

152; Sir Otho, 108; Lord, 349
Holt, CO. Wore, 220, 252; Pet del

the Elder, 194; Thom., 268.
Holyoake, Mr Franc, 368, 371; Mr

George, 368, 371 ; Family, 368.
Homildon Hill, 189.
Hopton, Walt., of Stretton Grantham,

301; Eliz., w. of, 301.
Horewode, Will, del., 68.
Home, Gerv. 227.
Horsebrook, 342.
Hough, Mr. Joseph,
Household of the King, 129.
Howard, Lord, 236.
Howe, Sir Will., Operations of, in

America (1775-6), 356, 357, 361;

Departure and ovation (1778), 357,

358.
Howel, Res ap., 139 ; Phil., s. of, 139
Howel, Mabel, d. of Phil., 139.
Hudlestone, John, Kt., 227; Will.,

s. of, 227; Thom., s. of, 227
Hudlesdale, Will, de 66.
Hugh, Will., s. of, 160.
Hugvnes, John, 89.
Hulle, Will, del., of Lappeley, 52.
Hulton, 134, 135.
Humet, Enguerrand de, 9 ; Rich, de.

Const, of Normandy, 9.
Humet, Jordan, br. of Enguerrand,

9.
Hundesacre, Will, de, 27.
Hunta, 4.
Huntingdon, 134, 135 ; Hay of. 111 :

Earl of, 152.
Hutchinson, Thom., of Woodhall and

Owthorpe, 342.
Huton, Will, de, 172.
Huxley, Prof., 381.
Huvde, Giles del., 189.
Huyme, Thom., in le, 88, 93.
Hyde, see Hide.

Ideshale^ co. Salop, 139.
Ham, 25.

420

INDEX.

num, Turgist de, 25, 28, 30 ; Domina

Maria de, 30.
Hum, Mary, w. of Turgist de, 25, 28,

30.
Inge, Theod. Will., Esq., of Thorp

Constantine, 345 ; Henrietta, w. of,

345.
Ingestre, 245, 332.
Ingolesby, Ralph, Clerk to Wult.

Wrottesley, 225.
Ingrith, sister of Eda, 56.
Insula, Herb, de, 23.
Ipplepen, co. Devon, 264, 267.
Ipstones, 331 ; Will, de, 27, 28 ; John

de, 62, 69.
Isolda o' the Grene, 89.
Ivetsay, see Ovevhotshave.

James, Col., R.E., 381.

Jeffreys, John, Esq., of Tynone, 363 ;

ilariana Eugenia, d. of, 363.
Jellicoe, Edw., 340.
Jervoise, Mr. F. M. E., of Herriard,

390 ; see Gervoys.
Joan, Prince.ss of Wales, 151.
John fitz Phihp, Kt., 43.
John o' the Grene, 89.
Johnson, Pet., Armorer, 321.
Jolif, Rog., 133.

Keck, Miss, 350.

Keele, 296.

Kegworth, Simon de, 121.

Kelby, Thorn., 134.

Kelsall, 174, 188, 251.

Kemp. Rich., 94, 95.

Kendale, Edw. de, 132.

Kenfort, see Oxford.

Kenilworth, Dictum of, 42.

Kenilworth, John de. Ill, 134, 164 ;

John, s. of. 111, 134, 164; Margt.,

d. of, 111, 164.
Kent, WiU., Neville, Earl of 219;

Edm. Grey, Earl of, 236.
Keppel, Admiral, 351.
Kerr, Mr. Bellenden, 378.
Kersewell, Thom. de, 28.
Kerton, 396.
Key, John, Esq., 258.
Kinfare (Kinver), Farm Rents, 134;

Fermor of, 166.
Kinver, 45, 113; Manor RoU (1525),

267 ; Swanimote of, 53 ; Forest, 45.
Kingley, 267.
Kingscarswell, 264.
King's Svvinford. 113.
Kingston, Thom de, 132 ; John de,

134 ; Duke of, 546.
Kingston, Evelyn, w. of Duke of, 346.

Kinnersley, Thom., 332.
Kinwarton, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17;

Ralph de (1166), 12, 18, 19; Rob.,
_s. of, 18.

Kinwarton, Joan, \v. of Rob., 18.
Kirbys Quest, 52, 85.
Kiriel, John, 131.
Kirke, Sir Louis, 319.
Kirton, see Kerton.
Knightley. Jordan de, 28.
Knockin, 59, 86.
Knollys, Sir Rob., 142, 178; Thom.,

of North Mimnis, 240.
Knollys, Joan, d. of Thom., 240.
Knote, Rob., 118.
Knotton, Ralph de, 28.
Knoyle, Rev. Chas. Wrottesley,

Rector of, 347.
Knyvet, Will., 227.
Kutzleben, Christian, Baron, 353 ;

Dorothy, w. of, 353; Will., s. ot,

353; Eliz., 2nd w. of, 353.
Kutzleben, Susan, w. of Will., 35>5 ;

Emma, d. of, 353.
Kynardesley, Rob., 198.

Lacon, Ro^yl., 393. 394, 395.

La Hogue. 106.

Lane. Will, in the, of Hampton, 97 ;

Rich., 198; Thom., of Bentley,

313, 330, 331, 332; Col. John, of

Wolverhampton and Hide, 530, 551.
Lane, Jane, sist. of Col. John, 551 ;

and see Lone.
Lanfranc, Archbp. of Canterbury, 10.
Langley, Jonathan, of Shrewsbury,

501; Margt., w. of, 301.
Langeley, Edm. de, s. of Edw. III.,

130.
Langorse, in Wales, 145.
Lansdowne, Marquis of, 379, 580.
Lapley, 52, 332.
Latymer, Will., 151, 132, Lord, 141,

149, 152; Sir Nich., '227.
Launde, Sir Thom. de la, 225, 226.
Laure, 5.

Lauro, Kyneward de, 5.
I-aweles, Rob , 52.
Law ley, Thom., Esq., 395.
Lawrance, Will. , of Hartingfordbury,

274 ; Dory, w. of. 274.
Lee, 208, 209; WiU., 198; Rob.,

Bisli. of Coventiy and Lich., 268;

Rich., Esq., 274; Sir Rich., of the

Lee, 332; Hugh, of Woodford, 279,

280, 284, 287; Eliz., 296.
Lee, Elinor, w. of Rich.. Esq., 274.
Lee, MaiT, d. and h. of Hugh, 279,

284, 294.
Leg, John 94. 95.
Ijcgge, John, 133.
Legh, Rob. de, Kt., 150. 174, 192,

INDEX.

42:

193, 195, 203; Rob., of Adlington,

202, 246, 248; John, last villein

tenant of Wrotteslev, 215.
Legh, Rob., s. of Rob. de, Kt., 150,

193, 203.
Legh, Rob., s. of Rob., 203; Rob.,

s. of, 203.
Leigh, Sir Thorn., 297, 332 ; Col., 322,

324.
Leicester, Rob., Eaii of, 21.
Leighton Thorn., Arm., 288, 289.

293; SirEdw., of Wattlcsborough,

289.
Leighton, Joyje, d. of Sir Edw., 289.

294
Leland, the Antiqxiary, 216.
Lench, Hen. de, 89.
Lennox, Lady Sarah, Letters of, 349.
Lenz, Rog. de^ 12.
Lestraunge, Hamon. 43; Rog., 53;

John Baron of Knockin, 59, 86 ;

Lord, 193, 248, 251.
Lestraunge, Kath., d. of John, 59, 86.
Letters of Junius, 351.
Levelancea, Walt. , 13.
Lever.sedge, Edm. , of Frome Selwood,

256 ; Elinor vr. of, 256.
Leveson, Will., of Hampton, 208,

209; James, of Willenhall, 208,

209; James, of Perton, 255, 257;

Geof., 122; Rog., 168; Rich.. 122,

162. 163. 170, 171. 172; Sir Rich.,

of Trentham, 332; Sir Rich., of

Lilleshull 336; Colonel, 309, 322,
*325; Edw., 274. 280; Nich., 237;

Thorn., of Wolverhampton, 255,

256, 315. 331.
Leveson, Margt., w. of James, of

Perton, 257.
Leveson, Rog., s. of Geof., 122.
Leveson, Anne, w. of Thom., 256.
Leveson-Gower, Lady Caroline, 357 ;

Lord Granville, 366.
Levington, Will, de, 8 ; see Loyiiton.
Lewes, Rob. Passelewe, Archd. of,

37.
Lewis, Sir Hen., 226.
Leycester, Ralph Will., 353; Emma,

w. of, 353.
Leynthorp, John, 227.
Leynton, John, 224.
Liber Niger of the Exchequer, 12.
Lichfield, 279, 2&7, 289, 299, 300.

310 ; Roland Lee. Bish. of, 268.
LiUeshall, 336.
Limesi, Geof. de, 19.
Lincoln, Remig., Bish. of, 15.
Lisbon (Lisbume), Countess of, 364.
Lisle, John Dudley, Vise, 270;
John, Lord de, 109, 112 ; Rob. de.
132.
Litley, Thorn., 219, 228.
Littlebury, Rob. de, 97.
Littlecote. 245.

Littleton, co. Wore, 11, 12, 13; Sir

Thorn., 245, 246, 258, 260, 261;

Rich., 245, 246, 253, 260, 261, 262;

Edw., Kt., 268, 288, 293, 293, 319,

320, 331, 332, 333; Sir Edw., of

Pillaton Hall, 333 335; George,

Arm., 285; John, Arm., 293;

Edw. John, 368 371; Mr. E. J.,

378.
Littleton, INIary, w. of Sir Edw., of

Pillaton Hall, 333, 335.
Llovd Curtis, Lieut. -Col., 353.
Lodelowe, Will. de. 158.
Loges, Rich, de, of Rodbaston, 51,

61; Eliz., d. and h. of, 51, 61.
Londesborough, Albt., 1st Lord, 386 ;

Aug. Eliz., d. of, 386.
Lone, Rich, in la, 160 ; Will, de la,

of Hampton, 162, 163 ; John, of

Hyde, 208, 209.
Long, Sir Hen. . of Wraxall, 256 ;

Elinor, w. of, 256; Hen., of South-

weeke, 291.
Longdon, 279, 287, 289, 299, 335.
Longford, Hen. de, 155 ; Lettice, 1st

w. of, 155.
Longnor, co. Salop, 338, 343.
Long Parliament, 314.
Longvile, Geo., 227.
Loryng, Sir Nigel, 109, 136, 138, 138,

141, 149, 150, 152, 153.
Lougher, John, of Perton, 301, 308 ;

Mary, w. of, 301, 308.
Louis XL. 232.
Love, Rich. , 393.
Loveigne, Nich, de. 132.
Lovell, Sir Thom., 253.
Lowe, Adam de la, 37, 50 ; Edm. de,

189; Thom. atte, 211.
Lowys, see Lewis.
Loxley, 27.
Loynton, 6, 7, 8, 20, 31, 32, 77, 78,

79, 101; deeds, 79; Rob. de, 49.

77; Rog. de, 101.
Ludinton, Ralph de, 13.
Liiterell, And., 132
Lutley, 44, 53, 115 269; Phil, de,

38. 68, 115-28. 165 ; Thom. de, 68 ;

Edm. de, 159.
Lutlev, Kath., w. of Phil, de, 115,
116, 119, 121-5, 128, 165.

Macklin (the Actor), 355.

Macclesfield, Pet., of Maer, 332.

Mackworth. Humph., 332.

Madeley, 54.

Maer, see Meer.

Magna Charta, 58.

Maidenhead, 238.

Mainwaring, Sir Thom., widow of.

331.
Malecorne, Warin, 6.

422

INDEX.

Mallory, Anketil de, 21; Pet., 97.
Manley, Rich, de, E.scheator, 194.
Manning, Capt.. 372.
■Manor Court of Wrotte.slev, (1377),

173; (1382), 175; (1397), 182;
(June, 1398), 182; (Nov., 1598),

183; (1400), 183; (1401), 185;

(Nov., 1402), 199; (1403), 200;

(1442), 210; (1444), 211; (1446),

212; (1453), 212; (1465), 213;

(1471), 214; (1473), 214; (1474),

214; (1477), 215: /1591), 285;

Cu.stonis of the (1382). 176.
Manumission Deed (1402), 187.
March, Earl of. 130.
Marchington, Thorn., 190.
Margaret of Anjou, Queen, 217.
Mareschall, John le, 31.
^larshalsea, Escapes from the (1353),

121, 125.
Marisco, Thom. de, 35.
Marlborough, Thorn, of, 10 ; Duke

of, 349.
Marlborough, Caroline, w. of Duke

of, 349.
^larmion, John, 132.
Marston, 331.
Martyn, Rob., 239.
ilatthevr. Miss Emma, 362.
Maunv, Sir Walt, de, 97, 98 101,

102; 112, 120, 130, 136, 138, 141.
Maunsell, Rob., of PatshuU, 27. 37.
Maurice, Prince, 326.
Mauiy, Lieut.. 380.
Mauvesin, Will., 27, 28.
Meadows, Miss, 350.
Meer (Maer), Nich. de, 27.
Meilnel, Ralph de, 9.
Mere, 113. 220. 241. 332: Farm

Rents, 134; Grant of. 219; Oke,

55, 56, 68 ; Way, 55. 68 ; Sir Will.

de, 64, 70, 71."
Melbourne, Lord, 373.
Melcombe, Upper, 63.
Memoranda Roll (1352), 107.
Metcalf, Miles, 223: Chris., 264.
Meverel, Thom., of Throwlev. 48,

178; John, 198.
Meverel, Eliz., d. and h. of Thom.,

178.
Mexborough, Lady, 354.
Meyrick, Pet.. Esq., of the Bank of

England, 343.
Miles, Rob., 342.
Military Summons (vrrit of, 1522),

265.
Ministry, The Coalition (1782), 360.
Mohun, John, Lord, 108, 112, 136,

138, 141.
Moigne, Thom., 132.
Mokleston. John de 102.
Molleslev, WiU. de, 36, 45 ; Hugh de,

37 ; John de, 50, 82, 157, 158 ;

John de, the younger, 158.

Molyneux, Will., 227.
Molyiis, Will, de, 97.
Monmouth, Earl of, 297.
^lontagu. Will, de. Earl of Salisbury,

95. 96, 98, 108, 112; Lady Mary

Wortley, 345.
Montfort, Simon de, 41 ; Simon de,

the vounger, 42 ; Simon, of Bescott,

332- John de, 101, 103, 124;

Ralph de, 103. •
Montfort, Joan, w. of John de, 101.
Montresor, Major, 358.
Monument in Grey Friars Church to

Sir Walt. Wrottesley (1473), 237.
Morbeck, Denis de, 132, 133.
More, Chronicle of Thom. de la, 112.
Morf, Hen. de, 38, 44.
Morgannok, Lordship of, 220, 229 ;

and see Addenda.
Morley, Rob. de, 131.
Morrison, Col., 355.
Mortimer, Sir Rog. de, Earl of March,

108, 112; Sir Hen. de, 141; Sir

Edm., 187; Sir Hugh, 189.
Mortimer, Eliz. w. of Sir Hen. de,

141.
Morton, 8, 10, 13, 16; Thom., 268.
Moseleye, 331 ; Nich., 311 ; Sir Edw.,

of Rolston, 332.
Mosley, Sir Oswald, 371 ; and see

Molleslev.
Motlowe, Rog. de, 192, 203 ; John,

s. of, 192, 203.
Mountgomerv, Nich. , 249.
Mountjoy, 249; Luke, Vise, 354.
Mountnorris, Coimtess of, 364.
Muchun, Will., 23.
Muleward, WiU. le, of Perton, 138.
Mulne, New, in the Wergs 178 ;

Oliv. atte, of Wightwick, 76; Hen.

atte, 76.
Mulne, Will., s. of Hen. atte, 76.
Murdak, John, 97.
Murreaux, see Murray.
Murrav, Thom. Randall, Earl of, 81 ;

Thom. de, 132, 133.
]\Iusard, John, Sheriff of Sta.ff.. 164.
Muster, General (1538), 269; (1640),

312.
Mutton, see Mytton.
Mynors, John de Serjeant at Arms,

99
Mvtton, Nich. de, 27, 28 : Will., 228,
"229 ; John, 254.

Najara, Battle of (1367), 140.

Namur, Sir Rob. de. 150.

Nasebv, Battle of, 322. 330.

Neville, Testa de. 37; Lord, 96, 141.
149, 152; Rob. de, 97; Will., Earl
of Kent, 219; Geo., 223, 233, 234;

INDEX.

423

Rich., Earl of Warwick, Hered.

Chamberlain of the Exchequer, 223,

224.
Newport, Fraucis, 393, 394, 595.
Xoel, Walt., 331.
Nomina Villai-um, 75.
Norfolk, Hugh de, 17.
Norman Cu.stom, " Paragimn," 19.
Normandy, Rich de Humet, Con-
stable of, 9.
Norrys, James, 227 ; Rich. , 252.
Northale, Hen. de, of Chillington,

178, 179 ; Agnes, w. of, 178, 179.
Northampton, Will, de Bohun, Eaid

of, 103, 105, 107, 112, 130, 161.
Northfield, co. Wore, 393, 394.
Northumberland, Earl of, 152; John,

Dudley, Duke of, see Dudley.
North- West Frontier War (1897), 386.
Northwode, Rob. de, 50 ; John, of

Hill, 213.
Norton, 8, 10, 16; Hugh de (1121),

12, 13.
Norton. Rob. and Will., sons of, 13.
Norwich, Sir Thorn, de, 107; Rob.,

264.
Notton. 392.

Oaken (Oca and Aken), 31, 41; and

see Oken ; Nich. de 35, 36, 49 :

Adam, s. of, 49.
Observatory, The, 379.
Odo, Bishop of Bayeux ; see Bayeux
Offley, 396.
O'Hara, Col., 358
Oken, 31, 41, 93 182, 272, 288, 293,

299.
Okeover Sir Hugh de, 25, 27, 29, 30 ;

Ralph de, 25, 29; Onn., of, 30;

Rob. de, 57; Thorn., 190, 198;

Matt., 332.
Okeover, Rich., s. of Ralph de. 25.

29, 30.
Okeover. Adam, s. of Orm., 30.
Okeover, Margt. , w. of Rob. de, 57.
Oldefore, Rog. in, 89.
Oldesfallyng. 138 ; Hen. de, 144.
Oldestrete, Rog. in, 88.
01d.stoke in Hamps. , 95, 157 ; Parson

of, 164.
Omar Pasha, 383. ,

Onecote, 28, 31.
Onslow, Humph., of Onslow, 257;

Margt., w. of, 257.
Orchard, Rich., 397 ; Eliz., w. of, 397.
Order of the Garter, see Garter.
Orm, of Okeover, see Okeover.
Ormar, 7.
Orton, 39, 45, 279, 287 288. 289, 298,

311 ; Mill in, 251.
Osborne, s. of Richard, 5, 16.
Osgodby, CO. Line, 207.

0.sgood, Rich., 392; Anne, w. of, 392.
Ossaiy, Countess of, Letter of Wal-

pole to, 353.
Othegrene, John, 88.
Otter, Rob., 227, 235; Thorn., 227;

John, 227.
Overton, Walt, de, 37, 38, 39 ; Alan

de, 45 ; Will, de, 43, 46, 48, 132 ;

Thorn, de, 76.
Overton, Will., s. of Alan de, 45.
Oveyhotshaye (Ivetsay), Rich, de, 84,

94, 95, 97, 156, 157, 159; Thorn.,

s. of, 94, 95.
Owen, John, 220.
Owthorpe, co. Notts, 542.
Oxford, Earl of (1346), 107; WUber-

force. Bishop of, 581.
Oxley, Rich., Lord of, 36.

Pagan, s. of Ralph, 8 ; the Clerk of

Evesham, 9.
Paganel, Fulk, 11; Gerv., 21.
Paget, Lord of Beaudesert, 552 ;

^Hen., 343.
Painel, Ralph, 56.
Painsley, 551.
Panmure, Lord, 580, 585.
Papal aggression, 579.
" Paragimn," a Norman custom, 19.
Park Hall, co. Wanvick, 330.
Parker, John, 235.
Paries, Pagan de. 27.
Parliament, The Long, 514.
Parnell, Dame, 257, 589.
Partricke, Thom., 253.
Partruit. John, 235.
Passelewe, Rob., Archd. of Lewes,

57.
Paston Letters, 255.
Patshull, 49, 76, 117, 271, 277, 280,

529, 575; Mill, 140; Mansel de,

27, 57.
Pattingham, 46, 62, 65, 75, 76, 242 ;

Isab. , Lady of, 51.
Paunton, John, 258.
Paveley, Sir Walt, de, 108, 112, 156,

158, '141. 149.
Pawlett, Sir Rich., 594.
Peace of Bretignv (1360), 129.
Pecche, Thom., 97; John, 132.
Pedro, Don. 159, 140.
Peel, Sir Rob., 571; Ministry of

(1854), 571.
Peke, John, 227.
Pembroke, Earl of, 141, 162.
Pembrugge, John de, 67 ; Rich, de,

152, 155. 141, 149; Fulk. de, Kt.,

168.
Pendford, 50, 52. 272, 510, 345;

Prebend., 275, 284; Rob., Lord of,

56, 37 ; John de, 43, 50.
Pendrell, Trust (1675), 336; Rich.

424

INDEX.

(Trusty Dick), 337; Will., 337;
John, Humph., and George, 337.
Pendrell, Mary, vr. of Rich., 337.
Penkridge, 322.

Penn, 61 ; Upper, 76 ; Lower, 39 ;
WiU. de, of Lutley, 53 ; John, 227 ;
Warine de, 68 ; Edmund de, 83.
Penpole, co. Dorset. Grant of, 219,

221, 241, 246.
Percy, Lord 96, 141, 149; Hen. de,
130, 174, 187; Sir Thorn., 150, 152.
Perers, Alice, 148.
Perrv, John, 285.
PersaU, Humph., 249, 250.
Pershore, Abbot of, 75.
Pershouse, Thom., 331; Rich., of

Reynolds HaU, 332.
Perton, 39, 40, 45. 52. 138, 213, 221,

257, 272, 308. 337; Purchase of,

336 ; Manor House at, 345 ; John

de, 35. 37, 39, 40, 55, 64. 67, 70,

93, 94, 95. 98, 115, 117, 123, 126,

136. 162, 164 ; Rog. de, 38 ; Ralph

de, 39.
Perton, John de. Pardon for death of,

165; Will., s. of, 40, 45, 48, 51,

125, 126. 160, 162, 164, 165 : Leon..

s. of, 93 104, 126, 133. 159, 165 ;

Walt., s. of, 93, 154; Kath., d. of,

115, 116, 119, 121-6, 128, 165, 170,

171.
Perton, Sir John, s. of Will. 123;

Eliz.. w. of, 123.
Peshall, Adam de, 104. 141. 144, 145,

149, 168 ; Rich, de, 94. 146 ; Hugh,

Kt., 249: Sir Will., 331.
Peshall. Eliz., w. of Adam de, 141,

145, 146, 148, 168; Hamenet, br.
of. 148, 149 ; Thom., br. -in-law of,

149; Rich., br. of, 149.
Peverel, Hen., 9/.
Peyto, John de, 91.
Philip, the Dapifer of Evesham, 9 ;

John fitz, Kt., 43.
Philips, Sir George, 371 ; Mark, 371 ;

John WiU., Esq., 384.
Pliilips, Nina Margt., d. of John

WiU., Esq., 384.
Picheford, Hugh de, 31 ; John de,

43; Rich, de, 82. 84.
Pierrepont, Lady Evelyn, 346.
PigneroUes, M. de, of Angers, 364,

365.
Pigot, Admiral Hugh, 351 ; Lord,

Governor of Madras, 351 ; John,

194, 203.
Pigot, Franc, w. of Admiral Hugh,

351.
Pigot. Sir George, of PatshuU, 375 ;

Georgina. d. of, 375.
PiUaton Hall. 335.
Pilatonhale, 64, 81. 116, 134; WiU.

de. 110, 111, 164; John de, 144,

170 171.

Pilkington, Rog. de, Kt., 194, 203;

John de, Kt., 194, 203.
Pincerna, Rob., 9; Ralph, 12; Rich.,

20.
Pipe, Thom. de, 80 ; James de, Chiv. ,

167 ; scz also Pype.
Pitt, Mr., 361, 367; Resignation of

(1801), 367.
Pleas of the Forest (1271), 45, 63.
Poictiers, Battle of, 126.
Poissv. near Versailles, 106.
Pole,' Thom. de la, of Lutley, 44 ;

WiU. de la, 82 ; John, 190.
Polstede, Thom.. 264.
Pontesbuiy, 300.
Ponynges, !NIich. de. 131.
Poor Law Commissioners, 379.
Potenhale. John de, 132.
Poulett, Sir Amias, 291 ; Sir Rich. ,

395.
Pounde, Thom., 239.
PoundeknoUe, see Penpole.
Poutrel, Will., 30, 48, 54, 56 66;
Thom., 66; Sir Rog., 25, 28, 29,
36, 56.
Poutrel, Margy. , w. of Sir Rog., 28,

29, 56; Rob., s. of, 29, 34.
Povntz, -General, 324.
Pres, Phil, de, 49.
Preston, Ralph de, 36 ; Rob. s. of,

36.
Pre.stwode. Hen. de, of Kinver, 45,
67, 82 ; John de, 156, 158, 159, 171,
172.
Priestfield, 299, 300, 310.
Prince Arthur, Marriage of, 252.
Prince, Rich., Esq.. 292, 294, 308,

330; Sir Francis, Kt., 294.
Prince, Mary, w. of Rich., Esq.. 292,
294, 330; Walt., s. of, 292;
Wrottesley, s. of, 330 ; Susan, d. of,
330.
Provost of Wrottesley. Steph. the, 88.
Public School BiUs,'381.
Pudsey, Thom., J14, 315.
Pultenev, Sir John, 98.
Purcel," Ralph, 47.
Purefoy, Col., 319.
Pury, John, 227.
Pynington. Cecilia de, 140, 167;

John. s. of, 140, 167.
Pvpe, Rob. de, 59; James de, 102;
Sam., of Bilston, 283 ; Gamel, 289 ;
Walt., 292; see also Pipe.
Pype, Eliz., w. of Sam., of Bilston,
283, 286.

QualmpoUe, John, 146.
Quat, CO. Salop, 393.

INDEX.

425

Radcliff, Thorn., 233.

Raglan, Lord, 383.

Ralph, 8 ; Pagan, s. of, 8 ; the Clerk,

12; Will, fitz (1130), 19; Rob. fitz

(1130), 19.
Ramisham, 221, 246; Grant of, 219,

241.
Randall, Thorn., Earl of Murray, 81.
Rantou, 250.
Reading, 238, 239, 267; Will. Wrot-

tesley of (1481—1512), see Wrottes-

ley.
Reading, co. Berks., 389.
Redeford, 5.
Rees, Sir Phil, ap of Talgarth, 139.

140, 141, 144, 145; Mabel, d. and

h. of, 139, 141 ; Eliz., d. and h. of,

141; Joan, w. of, 141, 144. 145.
Rees, Thorn., 280.
Reform of Parliament, Lord John

Russell's Motion for (1826), 370.
Refonned Parliament, The First, 371.
Reynold's Hall, 332.
Richard, Osborne, s. of, 5, 16 ; fitz

Simon, 35,' 108 ; o' the Grene, 89.
■Richards, Rog., 88: Will.. 89.
Richmond, Earl of, 130, 136.
Ridalheth, 174.
Ridley, Cecily, 394; Thorn., of

Bowlde, 394.
Ridware, Hamstall, 332; Walt, de,

115.
Rivers, Earl, 223. 224.
Roberdes, Rog., 88; Hugh. 89.
Robert fitz Ralph (1130), 19; Ber-
tram, 23 ; Adam, of Waterfall, 25,

28. 30, 31.

Robert fitz Eda. d. of Adam. 28, 29 :
Will., s. of, 29; Ingrith, sist. of,

29. ' ' S '

Robines, John, 89.
Rodbaston, 51, 61.
Roger atte Tounsende, 88 ; son of

Stephen, 88.
Rogger, John, 239.
Rogerson, Thorn.. 89.
Rolston, 332.
Roman Catholics, attitude of, during

C^vil War, 321 ; Bill for Relief of

(1825), 369.
Romesley, Leo de, 43.
Ronchede, Rich., 233.
Roo, John, 264.
Roos, Rich., 226.
Rous, Thom. le, of Walsall, 80 ; Sir

John, 360.
Ross, Lord, 381.

Rosslyn, Dowager Countess, 364.
Rotherfield, 108.
Rowde, CO. Wilts., 391, 397.
Rowley. Hen. de, 28.
Royal" Household (1350), 112.

Royal Astronomical Society, 378,

Royal Society, 379-81.

Royal Conmiission on Iron Railway

Bridges, 380.
Rue, Francis de la, 335 ; Anne w. of,

335.
Rugge, Will, de, 156, 186, 190 ; John,

227.
Rugeley, Nich., 198.
Rupert, Prince, 326.
Ru.sh, George, Esq., of Elsenham

Hall, 576; Ellen Charlotte, d. of,

376.
Ruske, John, 227.
Russell, John, 94, 95, 122; Lady

Caroline, 349; Lord John, 378,

379.
Ryder, Will., 154.

Sacheverel, John de, 27, 28.
Sackville, Rich., Earl of Dorset, 336.
Salewey, John, 198.
Salisbury. Will, de Montagu, Earl of,

95. 96. 98, 108, 112, 130, 136, 138,

141, 149, 152, 153; Rich., Earl of,

220 ; Chancellor of, 256.
Samburne, 10, 20.
Sarum, New, 394.
Say, John, Kt., 227; John de, of

Dunstone, 82; Will, de, 132.
Say, John, s. of John, Kt., 227.
Scales, Lord, 231.
Scheil, Wvlde, 39.
Scheldon, 'Hen.. 183, 199; Hugh.

183; John, 183, 199.
Schene, Thorn., 190.
Scroope, Ric, 227.
Scrope, Sir John, of Castle Combe,

240; Lord, of Upsall, 240, 258;

Lady, 389.
Scrope, Margt., w. of Sir John, 240.
Scrope, Alice, w. of Lord 240, 258.
Seacourt, Will, de, 8, 12.
Seighford, 283.
Seintlowe, Joha 227.
Seisdon, 298, 311; Hundred Roll,

38, 45 : Rich. de. 53.
Selman, Rich., 253.
Selwyn, Geo., Letters of, 348, 355.
Sequestration Acts, 329.
Sevecurda, Will, de, 8, 12; sec Sea-
court.
Seymour, John, 133: Sir Thorn., 226.
Shareshulle, Sir Will, ae, 91, 94, 95,

117, 120, 123. 136 : Eliz., d. of, 123.
Shareshulle, Sir Rob. de, 136.
Sheldon, Will., of Perton, 213.

426

INDEX.

Shee^jshanks, Rev. R. , 578.
Slieepy, Great, co. Leic, 281.
Shenstone, 300.
Sherfield, Rich., of Tidworth 391;

Hen., 391, 392, 394.
Shifnal, 147.
Shirard. Rob., of Ford, 48; Will.,

62, 69.
Shireoaks, co. Notts, 294.
Shirelok, Will., 39.
Shirley. Ralph de. 55.
Shrow'sbuiy, 301, 319; John, Earl of,

228; George, Earl of, 249, 253,

265.
Shuckburgh, Squire of, 521.
Shuffenhale. see Shifnal.
Shu.stoke, 331.
Silvanus. Will., 11, 18.
Simon, brother of Simon, 23 {and

see Cocton) ; Hen. fitz, 35.
Siward, 16.
Skeffington. Walt., Arm., 293; Sir

John, 314, 332.
Skell, Sir Walt.. Kt., of Holt, 220.
Skerne, Rob., 236.
Skrimshaw, Mr.. 519.
Smvthe. John, 303.
SneVd, Will., of Keele, 296; Clara,

w. of, 296.
Sneyd, Ralph, 297, 331.
Socage, Tenure by, 85.
Society for Diffusion of U.seful Know-
ledge, 377, 378.
Solman, Thorn.. 272
Somerford Hall. MO. 545: Manor,

Purchase of (1694), 342; .John, 340,

342; Rob. de, 50.
Somerset. Ladv Charles. 364 ; Lady

Rob., 364. ■ ■

Somerville, Walt, de, 5 ; Rog. de, 51,

60 ; Rog. de, heir of. 51.
SomeiT, Sir .John de, Byron of

Dudley. 42, 60, 62, 64, 69, 70, 80 ;

Rog. "de. Baron of Dudlev. 62.
Southall, Thom., jNIinister of Religion,

525.
Southwyke, Rich., 262, 285; Will.,

285; Hen.. 273.
Sowche, sec Zouch.
Spennithorne, co. York, 376.
Spencer, Lord, 321.
Spernall, 17.

Sprenghose. Rog., 42, 45.
St. Albans, Battle of, 218.
St. Amand, Ayhner de, 131. 132;

Sir Ant.. 240, 258, 264, 267.
Anne, w. of. 240, 258 267.
St. Egwin, Body of, 15.
St. George Societv of, 110; College

of. at Windsor, 110.
St. John, l<;d\r., 132.
St. Leger. Thorn., 132.
St. Marv of Worcester, 3.
St. Thomas, of Stafford, 331.

Stafford, 92, 116; Rob. de, 4, 6, 7,
21, 31 ; Nich., Baron of, 54, 55 ; Sir
Nich. de, 148, 177, 178, 180, 186;
Rob. de (the la,st), 31, 32; Sir
Will, de, 59, 61, 64, 70; Sir
Will., 207; Karl of, 130, 158, 141,
149, 152, 188, Rali'h, Earl of, 156,
167, 177; Ralph, Baron of, 102,
109 ; John de, 102 ; John le Blount,
Sheriff of, 115 ; John I^Iusard,
Sheriff of. 164; Walt, de, 102;
Thom., 153, 227 ; Sir Rich, de, 136,
159, 171, 177; Humph., Duke of,
Buckingham, 217; Fulk, 219, 220;
Roland, 255 ; Viscount, 332.

Stafford, Nich. de (1088), s. of Rob.
de, 6.

Stafford, Edm., s. and h. of Nich.,
54, 55.

Stafford, Eliz., w. of Sir Nich. de,
178, 185, 186.

Stafford, Mills., d. and h. of Rob. de,
51, 52, 85.

Stafford, Eliz., w. of Sir WiU., 2G7

Stafford, Margt., w. of Fulk, 219,
220.

Stamford, Hen., Earl of, 544; Cath.,
w. of, 544 : John, s. of, 344.

Standon, 7, 552.

Standysshe, Rob. de, Kt., 174, 191;
Eliz. d. of, 174.

Standysshe, Laur. de, 194.

Stanhope, Lady, 354.

Stanley. Thom'. de, 195, 198, 202,
203,' 205. 247, 249; John, 228, 247,
248, 251, 252: George, 247, 249.
251; Sir Will., Chamberlain of
Cheshire, 248, 252; Humph., Kt.,
249.

Stanley. Matil., w. of Thom. de, 203,
205.

Stanley, Will., s. of Sir WiU.. 248.

Stanton, Thom. de, 29 ; John de, 30 ;
Rob. de, 34, 35.

Stanton, Margt., w. of Rob. de, 34,
35.

Stapleton, John de, 97 ; Sir Miles de,
109, 132, 133, 136.

Star Chamber, Suit in (1635), 310.

Starky, Humph., Kt., 249.

Statute of " Quia Emptores," 34 ;
Winchester, 59.

Stephen atte Townsend, of Wrottes-
ley, 73, 88, 89, 93, 94, 95; WiU.,
s. of, 93.

Stephen, the Provost, 88; Rog., s.
of, 88.

Stevens, Will., 88 ; Rog., of Wrottes-
ley, 94, 95.

Stevynton. co. Salop. 207; John de,
122. 123.

Stidolf, Thom.. 238.

Stodley, 18 ; Pet. de, 18, 19 ; Priory
of. 18.

INDEX.

427

Stoke, CO. Glouc, 11, 13.

Stoke on Trent, 371.

Stokes, Rog. de, 20 ; Alan de, Keeper

of the Wardrobe, 151 ; Sir George,

Prof, of Mathematics at Cambridge,

580.
Stone Park, o38.
Stones, Will, in le, 105 ; Agnes, d. of,

105; Joan, d. of, 105.
Stones, Capt., 322, 324.
Stomis, Law of, 38.
Stourton, 209, 332; Castle, 330; Sir

Reg., 226; Will., Lord, 240, 258.
Stourton, Thorn., s. of Will., 240;

aiicl see Sturton.
Stowe, near Lichfield, 287, 299.
Strafford, Lord, Trial of (1641), 314.
Stramshall, 5.
Strangeways, James, Kt. , 227 ; Sir

Giles, 269 ; Lady Susan Fox, 349.
Strangeways, Rob., s. of James, 227.
vStrangeways, Joan, w. of Sir (iiles,

269.
Straubenzee. Hen. van, of Spenni-

thome, 376 ; Henrietta, w. of, 376 ;

Mary, d. of, 376.
Straubenzee, Maj.-Gen. Turner van,

C.B., 376.
Strelley, Sir Rob., 226.
Stretton, 336, 342 ; Grantham, co.

Hereford, 301; Will, de, 104;

Thorn, de, 104, 116. 125.
Stuart, Franc, of Wolverhampton,

344; Ehz., w. of, 344.
Sturbridge, co. Wore, 393.
Sturton, Lady, 389.
Suffolk, Earl" of. 112. 130, 138, 149.

152; SuUy, Sir John, 141, 149,

150, 152.
Surrey co., 395.
Surrey, John de Warrenne, Earl of

(13i6), 79.
SuthM-ike, Hen., 273; Rich., 262.
Sutton, Sir John de, Baron of

Dudley, 80 101, 102, 104, 113, 118,

126, i60, 217, 249; Edw. Lord

Dudley, 253.
Sutton, Sir Edm. s. of Sir John de,

244, 271.
Sutton, Dorothy, d. of Sir Edm., 244.
Suur, Rog. le, 41.
Swanimotes, 41 ; of Kinfar, 53.
Swinfen, Mr., 319.
Swinford, Farm rents of, 134.
Swinford, Old, co. Wore, 393.
Swinforton, see Swinnerton.
Swinnerton, 351 ; John de, 80, 156,

189, 251. 263 ; John, of Hilton, 154,

135 ; Rog. de. 94 ; Thom. de, 132.

133: Hugh de, 133, 250.
Sydenham, Rich., of Clarendon Park,
"390.

Talbot, Hen., 227; Sir Gilbt., 255;
Sir John, 268, 274; John, Gent.,
279.

Talbot, Eliz., w. of Sir John, 274.

Talgarth, co. Hei'eford, 159; in
Wales, 140, 144, 145, 148 ; Engleys,
141, 145. 146.

Tamhorn, Rob. de, 27.

Tankerville Earl of, 106.

Tankerville Charles, 4th Earl of,
366 ; Caroline, d. of, 366.

Tanner, John, Armourer, 315.

Tatton, Will., 252

Tavistock, 547.

Tean, 7.

Teddesley, 113, 134. 135, 165 ; Baili-
wick of. 111; Hay of, 111, 135;
Forestership of, 154.

Testa de Neville. 57.

Tettebury, John de. 50. 86. 88-92.
100. liO. 116, 117, 164; Joan, w.
of, 89-92. 100; John, s. of, 110,
116. 118. 121, 122, 125. 164; Will.,
s. of, 116. 118. 121, 122, 125, 125,
164. 168; Walt., s. of, 116, 117,
118, 122. 125 164; Thom., s. of,
164; Leo., s. of, 164.

Tettenhall 5. 55. 95, 99. 104, 115,
140, 155, 160 172. 207, 245, 251,
261, 272, 288. 292, 295. 510. 554;
Regis, 94. 178, 180, 196, 251 ; Cus-
tody of Manor of, 114; Manor
Com-t (1591), 285: Ferm of, 115;
Farm rents of, 154; College. 272,
284, 288. 292, 299; Clericorum,
289. 299; Monument to Rich.
Wrottesley (1521) at, 256; Monu-
ment to John Wrottesley (1578) at,
282.

Tettenhalehome, 94, 95.

Tewkesbury Battle of. 250.

Thomas fitz Roger, of Haughton, 27,
28.

Thomeharn, see Tamhorn.

Thomkynes, Adam, of OldesfaHyng,
138.

Thomes, Nich., Esq., 274; Margt.,
w. of, 274.

Thorp, Constantine. 545.

Throckmorton, Thom., 220; John,
229.

Throwley, 4S, 178 ; Will, de, 66.

Thyknes", James. 198.

Thynne, Lady George, 364.

Tichebourne. Sir John. 153.

Tidworth. co. Wilts, 391.

Tintern Abbey, 296.

Tiptoft, Earl of Worcester, 227.

Titherton Lucas, co. Wilts, 597.

Tiwe, Will, de 9.

Tixall, 351.

428

INDEX.

ToUemache, Hon. Charles, 554 ; Ger-
trude Flor. , \v. of. 354.
Tomky.s, Thorn.. 283.
Torbryan, co. Devon, 264, 267.
Toipurley, co. Chester, 251.
Touchet, Jame.s, Lord Audley, ^.i?.
Tounesend, .see Stephen.
Tour, Ant. de hi. 233.
Tovvcotes, Sir Rog. . 226.
Towton, Battle of, 218.
Trafford, 331.
Trained Horse for the "Couiitv (1634),

311.
Trastiunare. Hen. of, 139.
Tremayle, Thorn.. 249.
Trescott, 40, 272 ; Purchase of, 336 ;

Grange, Tithes of, 337 ; Mich, de,

38; Nich. de, 67.
Tresel (TrysuU). 45. 75, 287, 289,

311 : Thorn, de, 38 ; John de, 45,

48, 68. 75.
Trill Mill, 110. 162, 163. 207, 208.
Trimpley, co. Wore, 299.
Tringham, Rev. Thorn., 363; Anne.

d. of, 363.
Trollope, Sir Andrew, 216.
Trowelev, Will, de, 66.
Trumwyne, Rog., 80; Will., 82;

Adam, 133.
Trussell. Will., 60. 94.
Tryon, Miss, 350.
Turquil de Warwick. 5.
Twemlowe, Thorn, de. 174.
Tyford, Will, de, 138- John, s. of.

'138.
Tylden, Brig. -Gen., 383.
Tjmdede Mere Oke. 55, 68.
Tynmore, Hen. de. Parson of Elford,

"144, 171.
Tvpiier, John. 236.
Tvpton, 287. 289.
Tyresford, 174, 188.

Ufa, 3 ; Wulfgate, s. of, 3.
Ughtred, Thorn, de, 131. 132. 158.
Ulster, Lion. Earl of. 130, 136.
Unfreiston, Will. de. 43.
Upnor Cresset, co. Salop, 239.
Upsall, 240.

Upton in Wyrehale, 192. 193.
Urse (Urso d' Abbetot), 5.
Ur.so, Sheriff of Worcester, 14.
Uttoxeter. 312. 319 ; Riot at (1640),
313.

Vache. Sir Rich, de la. 132. 136.
Valence, Aylmer de, 75.
Valenciennes, Siege of, 365.
Valle, Walt, de, 13.
Valois, Phil, de, King of Prance, 92.
Veer, Thorn, de, 132.

Venables, Thorn, de, of Alvandelegh,

150; Aline, w. of, 150.
Verdon, John de, Chiv., 167, 172.
Verdum, Rowl. de, 9.
Verdun. Bert, de, 9, 21, 23; Gwiot

de, 21 ; Ruelan de, 21 ; Simon de,

21, 22 23, 24, 34 ; Will, de, 22, 23,

77, 78; Rich, de, of Cocton, 24;

Rob. de, de la Wyke, 24; Rich.

de, do la Wyke, 24.
Verdun. Simon and Henry, of the

Household of Bert de, 23.
Verdun, Hugh s. and h. of Will de,

78.
Verdun, Will., s. and h. of Hugh, 78.
Verdun, Alice, 1st \v. of Rob. de,

24; John, s. of, 24; Simon, s. of,

24; Rich., s. of, 24, 67.
Verdun, John, s. of Rich. de. 24.
Verdun, Simon, br. of John, 24.
Verney, Sir Edm., 321.
Vemon, Rich. de. Kt., 174, 198;

Harry-, Esq., 220; Sir Hen., 253;

John, 268; Sir Edw., of Hilton,

332.
Vyse, Hen., of Standon, 332.

Wadley House, co. Berks, 385.
Wake, Bald., 42.
W^akefield, Battle of, 218.
Wale, Sir Thorn.. 97, 108, 112.
Wales, Edw., Prince of, see Black

Prince.
Waleys, Will., 97.
Walker, John, of Oken, 182.
Walkringham, 393, 394.
Wallace, Mr., Master of the Mint,

369.
Walle, Hammell atte, 167; Will., s.

of, 167.
Walpole, Horace, 353, 355.
WaUhouse. Mr., 353.
Walsall, 80, 371.
Walshe, Sir Thorn., Kt., of Wanlip,

201; Kath.. w. of, 201.
Walter, Sheriff of Warwick, 14, 15 ;

s. of Ankletill, 23.
Walton, Ivo de, 28 ; Hen. de, for-
merly Keeper of the Wardrobe, 131.
W^anlip. CO. Leic. , 201.
Ward. Lord, .uj, 329, 331 ; John, of

Himler, 332; Will., of Himley,

329; Rog., 542.
Wardrobe Accounts (1361), 157.
Warr, Thom., Lord de la, 264, 267.
Waur, Will. de. 56.
Wareyn, Rich.. 227.
Warine, 7; Will fitz. 38. 112, 156.
Warenne, John de. Earl of Surrey

79.
Warlo, Ralph de, 13.
Warmington, Rob., 233.

INDEX.

429

Warwick, Alwin Sheriff of, 5 ; Tur-

quil de, 6; Turchil de (1086), 16;

Walt., Sheriff of, 14, 15; Earl of,

102, 107, 108, 112, 130, 149, 152,

162, 178, 216, 220, 226, 244, 270;

Guy de, 132.
Wanvick, Turchill, s. of Alwin,

Sheriff of, 5.
Warwick, Ketelbearne, br. of Turquil

de, 5.
Wanvick, Embassy of the Earl of, to

the King of France, 222.
Waryng, Adam, 170. 171 • Rog., 189 ;

Nich., 198, 208, 217; Rich, of Lee,

209.
Waterfall, 28. 30, 31, 34, 35, 44, 46,

49, 68, 73, 92, 104, 140, 142, 157,

162, 167, 207, 208, 209, 289, 292,

294; Hawise. de, 25, 26, 27, 29,

35, 56; Rob. de, 28, 29, 36, 56;

WiU. de, 48 ; John de, 172.
Waterfall, WiU., s. of Rob. de, 28;

Hawis, d. of, 36.
Wattlesborough, co. Salop, 289.
Wednesbury, 65, 139.
Weare, WiU., 395; Edith, w. of, 395.
Wedgwood, Josiah, 371.
Weethlv, 11, 13, 17, 24.
WeUes,* Sir Rob., 225, 226; Rich.,

Lord, 226, 232; Thorn., 250; John,

253.
WeUington, Duke of, 364, 371.
Wenlock, Lord, z28
Werburton, Pet., Ami.. 252.
Wergs, the, 180, 196, 272; New

MiU in the, 178; Thorn, da, 48.
Werdon. see Verdon.
Wesley, co. Wore, 393, 394.
Wesley, Mr., 365.
West,' Thorn.. 97 ; Sir Thorn., Lord la

Warr, 264.
Westbromich, 80.
Weston, 54; Coyney, 331, 332;

Hamon de. 27, 28;' Sir Hugh de,

54; John de, 60, 102; Rich., Esq.,

297; Sir Rich., 331.
Wetton, 31.
WhetehyUe, Rich., 233, 235; Adrian,

235.
WhetteU, Rich., of Great Sheepy,

280, 281. 283, 286 ; Rich., s. and h.

of. 280 : Dorothy, w. of. 283, 286.
Whiston, John de,' 122, 123.
Whitchurch, John de, 97.
White, Sir John, of Farnham, 395 ;

Thorn., 396; Hen., 396.
White, Kath., d. of Sir John, 395,

396 397.
White, Eliz., w. of Thorn.. 396.
Whitehorse, Walt., 133.
Whitemere Phil, de, 116, 117, 118,

121, 122, 124, 125, 128 ; Agnes, w.

of. 116, 118 121-4, 128.
Whitgreave, Thom., of Moseley, 331.

Whitmore, Will. Wolrych, 371.
Whitinton, Will, de 38, 66.
Whorwood, John, of Stouitnn, 332.
Wicksford, 3, 12.
Wightwick, 76, 93, 159, 162, 163,

207, 272, 288, 289, 293, 299;

MiU at, 76, 104, 110, 138, 1^0, 208 ;

Oliver de, 76, 159, 162 ; John, 182 ;

Franc, 289; Alex., 332.
Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford, 381.
Wilkes, Dr., of Willenhall, the Anti-

quaiy, 339, 344, 346; Franc, w.

of, 344 ; see also Wylkes.
WUIenhall, 208, 209, 211, 271, 344.
Willev, see Weethly.
Wilts' CO., 256, 258, 390, 391 393.

397 ; James, Earl of, 219, 221.
Wilega, Rob. de, 24.
Willoughby, Mr., 269, 270.
Williaai Dapifer. 8.
William fitz Ralph (1130), 19.
William fitz Guv, of Womburne, 27.
WiUiam fitz Wanne, 38, 40.
WilUam, s. of Eda, 56 ; s. of Hueh.

160. ^

Williams, Edw., of Dudley, 301;

Mary, w. of, 301.
Windsor, College of St. George at,

Windsor Castle, Feast at (1350), 112.
Wingfield, John, of Shrewsbury, 301 ;

Howard, w. of. 301.
Wingods, 390, 391.
Wingood, John, of Brumham, 390,

391.
Winster, Nich. de. 25, 26: Hawise,

w. of,' 26.
Wirley, the Antiquaiy, 283.
Witefield, Walt, de, 27.
Wither, Will., 55.
Wode, John atte, Fermor of Kinfar,

166.
WodevvUe, Sir John, 224.
Wolast'on, WIU. ,262 ; Sir John, 328.
Wolmere, Rich de 92, 104- Thorn

de, 93, 159.
Wolrich, Sir Thom.. of Dudmaston.

331, 333; ISTargt., d. of, 333, 336.
Wolrich, Sir Franc, of Dudmaston,

335; EUz., w. of. 335.
Wolseley. Thom., 217; Ralph, 249;

Sir Rob., 332.
Wolverhampfon, 37, 38, 162, 163.

256, 279, 283, 287, 289. 299, 300,

310, 315. 330. 331, 344, 371 ; Riots

at (1834), 372,
Wombourae. 39, 45, 279. 287, 288,

289, 298 311; WiU, fitz Guv of,

27.
Wood, Thom.. 261; Sir Charles,

Fir.st Lord of the Admiralty, 383.
Woodford, 279, 283. 287', 289;

Grange, 280, 287, 296, 299, 300,

333.

430

INDEX.

Woodhall, CO. Wore, 274; co.
Hereford, 342.

Woodland, Anne, 392; Rich., of
Notton, 392; Rob., 392.

Woodland, John, s. of Anne, 392.

Woodi-offe, Sir David, Kt., 395;
Sir Nicholas, Mayor of London,
395, 396; Eliz., 396.

Woodroffe, Kath. w. of Sir David,
395, 396.

Worcester, St. Mary of, 3; Wulstan,
Bish. of, 5, 13, 14; John, Bish. of
(1151), 19: Heming, Monk of. 15.
14; Urso. Sheriff of, 14; Kineward,
Sheriff of, 16; Tiptoft, Earl of,
227; Sir Rich. Wrotte,sley, Dean
of (1765), 348.

Worplesden, co. Sun-ey, 395.

Worsley, Rol., 233, 234; Will., 235.

Wotton, Hen. de, 28.

Wratslev (Wrotteslev). Rob. (1553),
258, 390.

Wraxall, co. Wilts., 256.

Wraxley (Wrottesley), John, 389;
Joan,' 391 • Robert, 391.

Wren, Sir Christopher, 339.

Wriothesley Family, 276, 277.

Wrington, co. Somerset, 258.

Wrottesley, Etymology of, 3 ;
Boundaries (1088), 6; Bailiff, Ac-
count of (1294), 70; Old Inventory
at (1635), 301 ; Sketch of Old House
of (1633), 301; Old Hall at, 338;
New House at, 339 ; Gate House of,
333; Arms in Old House of (1633),
301 ; Plate in Old House of (1633),
304; Red Deer in Park of (1633),
305; Names of Hounds at (1633),
306; Chapel, 294; Chancel at Tet-
tenhall, 282 ; Deanery of the College
of, 294; Prebend, of, 294; Manor
Court {see Manor Court) ; Customs
of the Manor (1382), 176; Last
Villein Tenant of (1489), 215;
Observatory, 379 ; Hall destroyed
by fire, 387 : SjTnon, ancestor of
Family of. 20 ;" Adam de (1166),
21, 22; Adam de (1320), 84; Hugh
de (1352), 155; Hugh, of Wood-
ford (1610^ ^"^- Will, de (1327),
95, 98 ; Will, de (1332), 154 ; Walt,
de, 144. 171; John de (1331), 154;
Thom. de (1337), 155; Rev.
Charles, Rector of Knoyle, 347;
Major Alfred, 388.

Wrotteslev, Pet. s. of Thom. de,
(1349). 155.

Wrottesley, William I. (1199—1242),
s. of Simon de Verdun, 24, 25, 26,
31, 32, 33, 34, 35. 36, 40, 47, 48,
49 : Ingryda, w. of. 25, 29, 36. 48 ,
Will., s. of, 35, 47, 48; Rich.,
s. of (1259-72), 35, 44, 46,
48, 49; Hen., g. of, 35, 47, 49;

Bertram, s. of, 35, 47, 49; Alice,
d. of (1270) 35, 44, 50, 66.

Wrottesley, Rich., Nich., s. of (1258).
39.

Wrottesley, Hen., Hugh, s. of, 47 ;
Margy., d. of, 49; Agnes, d. of,
49.

Wrottesley, Sir Hugh, s. of Will. I.
(1248-76), 29, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40,
41, 44, 45, 46, 48, 50; Arms of,
51 ; Hugh, s. of (1372-91), 50, 53,
65; Amiscia, d. of, 40, 46, 50;
Idonia, widow of (1284), 52.

Wrottesley, Hugh, s. of Amiscia, 40.

Wrottesley, Sir William II. (1276—
1313), s. of Sir Hugh, 29, 44, 45, 46
51-68, 73, 76, 77, 78, 82, 83, 100;
Petron., w. of, 54; Kath., widow
of, 64, 73, 82, 83 ; Seal of (1298).
56; (1313), 83; Arms of, 72;
Rosea, d. of, 64, 67, 74.

Wrottesley, Sir William III. (1313—
20), s. of Will. II., 8, 30, 60, 62,
64, 68, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80,81-5,
100; Joan, w. of, 30, 62, 81, 83,
84, 85; Rog., s. of. 81, 91, 94, 97;
Idonia, d. of, 81, 91, 199; Elinora,
d. of, 81, 91.

Wrottesley, Sir Hugh, K.G. (1333—
81), s. of WiU. III., 81, 84,
87-112, 116. 118-28, 129, 132 133,
134, 136-43, 147-81, 193, 203; Eliz.,
w. of, 91, 92, 156; Mabel, w. of,
139, 140. 141, 144; Isab., w. of,
142, 150, 153, 170, 171, 174, 175,
176, 193, 203; Walt., Thom., and
Leo., half-brothers of, 110; Walt.,
cousin of, 142 ; Walt, de, nephew
of (1361—1409), 169. 170, 178-
82, 200; Seal of, 170; Rich.,
de (1337), uncle to, 155; Hugh, s.
of (1382), 175, 177; Arms of, 155;
Seal of (1349), 110, 163; (1337),
157; (1373), 171; a Prisoner in
Brittany (1354), 125; Outlawry
annulled (1355), 125; Recognizance
in £2,000 (1355), 165 ; Pardon for
death of John de Perton, 165 ;
Retinue of (1360), 129; Prestitum
of (1360), 137; Repayment, 137;
Female Villeins of "(1364), 139;
Settlement (1366), 140; (1372), 132;
(1373), 144; Petition to King
and Council (1377), 148 ; License to
make a Park (1347), 161 ; Grant of
Free Wan-en at Wrottesley (1347),
161 ; Bond to pay 400 livres yearly
to, 166.

Wrottesley, Inquisition on death of
Isab., w. of Sir Hugh (1401), 174.

Wrottesley, Joan, d. of Walt, de, 180.

Wrottesley, John (1400—1402), s. of,
174, 184, 186-96, 201, 203; Eliz.,-
w. of, 174, 184, 186. 189-91, 195,

INDEX.

431

196, 197; Arms of, 190; Manu-
mission Deed of (1402), 187; In-
quisition on death of, 188.

Wrottesley, Hugh (1421-64), s. of
above John, 188, 192, 193, 197,
198, 201-12, 216, 245, 259; Arms
of, 215; Seal of (1441), 208;
Military Summons of (1419), 198;
Pardon of (1452), 205, 205';
Thomasine, w. of, 201, 207, 208,
209, 210, 212, 214, 216; Hen.,
Arm. (1460-70), s. of, 207, 209, 217,
219, 227, 228 ; John (1459-63), s. of,
207, 209 ; Hugh, s. of, 207 ; Eliz.
d. of, 207 ; Isab. , d. of, 207.

Wrottesley, Joan, w. of John, 207.

Wrottesley, Sir Walter (1460-73),
s. of Hugh, 207, 213, 216, 217,
220-8, 233-47, 259, 261, 271; Arms
of, 243; Seal of (1471), 243; De-
puty Chamberlain for Earl of War-
wick (1468), 223; Joint Chamber-
lain (1468), 224; Governor of
Calais (1472), 230; Proclaimed a
Traitor, 226; Pardoned, 233, 234;
Death of (1473), 237; Monument
to in Grey Friars' Church, 237 ;
Inquisition p.m., 238; Jane, w. of,
207, 238, 239, 245, 246 250, 258-
61; Hen., s. of (died 1486), 239;
Will (1481—1512), s. of, 245, 246,
257, 258, 260, 261, 265, 267, 389;
Walt. (1481—1502), s. of, 239, 258;
Jane, d. of, 239 ; Thomasine, d. of,
259, 240; Anne, d. of, 239, 240;
Parnell, d. of, 239, 240; Margt..
d. of, 239, 240; Alice, d. of, 240,
258.

Wrottesley, Eliz., d. of Will. (1481—
1512), 257. 258, 389 ; Constance, d.
of, 257, 389; Rob., s. of, 257, 258,

389 ; Will of, 257, 389.
Wrottesley, Walt. (1481—1502), Will

of, 258.
Wrottesley, Richard (1478—1521),
s. of SiV Walter, 239, 244-67, 389,
390; Esq. to Sir John Hastings
(1501), 252 ; License to wear bonnet
in King's presence, 254 ; Death of,
254 ; Monument to, in Tettenhall
Church, 256; Will of, 254; Arms
of, 266; Dorothy, w. of, 244, 262,

390 ; George (1518), s. of, 255, 256 ;
Thorn. (1518), s. of, 255, 256;
Harry (1518), s. of, 255, 256, 390 ;
John (1518). s. of. 255, 258:
Margt. (1518), d. of, 255, 257;
Anne (1518), d. of. 255. 256; Eliz.
(1518), d. of, 255; Jane (1518) d.
of, 255 ; Elinor, d. of, 256.

Wrottesley, Walter (1521-63), s. cf
Richard, 250, 255, 256. 266-75, 284 ;
Escheatorship, 275 ; Arms of, 275 :
WiU of, 273; Signature of (1536),

269 ; Death of, 273 ; Isab. , w. of,
250; Matt. (1553), s. of, 273;
Elinor, d. of, 274; Margt., d. of,
274; Eliz., d. of, 274; Dory, d.
of, 274.

Wrottesley, John (1563-78), s. of
Walter, 271, 273, 274, 277-83;
Petition in Chanceiy by, 277, 278 ;
Anns of, 283; WiU of, 282;
Monument to, at Tettenhall, 282 ;
Eliz. (died 1592), w. of, 271, 277,
281, 282, 286. 296 ; Margt. (1614),
d. of, 283, 286; Eliz., d. of, 283,
286; Franc. (1614), d. of, 283, 286;
Dory (1614), d. of, 283, 286. 308;
Eliz". (1614), d. of, 283; Thom. (died
1610), s. of, 283, 286; Edw. (1614),
s. of, 283; John (1614), s. of, 283.

Wrottesley, Eliz., w. of John Wrot-
tesley, Will of, 286.

Wrottesley, Walter (1578—1630), s.
of John, 279, 281, 284-8, 292-5,
298-9; Arms of, 295; Will of
(1631), 292; Inquisition p.m.
(1631), 292; Monument to, at
Codsall, 292, 294; Mary, w. of,
279 284, 294; Joyce, w. of, 289,
293,' 294; Eliz. (1630), d. of, 292,
294: Mary, d. of. 292; Walt.
(1598), s. of, 237, 288, 293, 294;
Will, (died 1599), s. of. 287, 294;
Thom. (1598), s. of, 287.

Wrottesley, Sir Hugh (1598—1633),
s. of Walter, 283, 286-8, 292-300,
306 ; Arms of, 306 ; Will of, 300 ;
Inquisition p.m., 298; Livery dis-
charged, 306; Margt., w. of, 287,
288 293. 296; Clara, w. of, 296;
Mary, d. of, 292, 296, 300, 301,
308,'330 ; Penelope, d. of, 292, 296,
300, 301, 307, 309; Eliz., d. of,
292, 300 301, 307: Howard, d. of,
292, 300 301, 507; Margt., d. of,
292, 300, 301; Dory, d. of, 296,
300, 307 ; Susannah, d. of, 296,
300, 307.

Wrottesley, Margt., d. of Penelope,
309.

Wrottesley, William (1630-43), s. of
Sir Hugh, 300 ; Anne, w. of, 300 ;
Walter (died 1664), s. of, 300.

Wrottesley, Sir Walter (1625-59),
1st Baronet, s. of Sir Hugh, 298.
299, 306-325, 332. 533, 334 ; Deputy
Lieutenant (1640), 312; Treaty for
Baronetcy (1641), 314; Baronetcy,
(1642). 317; Letters Patent (1642'),
317; Knighted (1642), 519: Quarrel
with Leveson (1641), 315; Ap-
poiixted Vice-Lieut, of the County
1641). 316 ; Plate melted for King's
use (1642), 319: Attempts to form
a neutral party (1642-3). 320;
Sequestration of estates of (1645-6),

432

INDEX,

322, 326; Petition of (1645), 323;
Affidavit of, 324 ; Forced contribu-
tion (1643-4), 324, 325; Schodule
of property of (1645), 326; Com-
position of (1646), 327; Arms of,
335 ; Wills of, 333 ; ]\Iarv. w. of,
298, 307, 333; Eliz., d. 'of, 335;
Mary. d. of, 333, 335 : Doiy, d. of,
553. 335 ; Anne, d. of. 333, 335 ;
Jane, d. of, 333. 335; Edw., s. of,
333, 334; Rich., s. of, 333, 334;
John s. of, 333, 334; Hugh, s. of,
334.

Wrotteslcv, Marv, ^vife of Sir Walter,
a Prisoner (16441. 322.

Wrotteslev, Sir Walter, s. of Walter
(1659-86), 2nd Baronet 533. 354,
337; Will of. 337; Marriage of
(1654). 333; Margt.. w. of, 333,
336 ; Harry, s. of, 337 ; Gray, s.
of, 337 : Ursula, d. of. 337 ; Anne,
d. of. 337.

Wrotteslev, Sir Waiter (1686—1712),
3rd Baronet, s. of Walter, 337-42 ;
Will, of, 340 • Marriage settlement,
(1678), 338; Elean., 1st w. of. 338,
340; Anne, 2nd w. of, 338-42;
Walt, (died 16861 s. of. 341. 343:
Elianora, d. of, 341 ; Henrietta, d.
of, 541 ; Mary d. of, 541 ; Hugh,
s. of, 342; "Eliz., d. of, 342;
Margt.. d. of, 342; Anne, d. of,
342; Thorn., s. of, 344.

Wrottesley, Anne, 2d w. of Sir
Walt.. Will of, 343.

Wrottesley. Thorn., s. of Walt., s. of
Sir Walt.. 343; Eliz., w. of,
343

W^rottesley, Henrietta, d. of Sir
Walt., Monument in Wore.
■Cathedral, 341.

Wrotteslev ^laiy, d. of Sir Walt.,
Will of," 341.

Wrotteslev, Hugh, s. of Sir Walt.,
Library' and Will of. 342.

W^rotte,slev EUz., w. of Thorn., s.
of Sir Walt., 344.

Wrottesley, Sir John (1712-26), 4th
Baronet, s. of Walter, 341-6 ;
Will of (1725). 345; Franc, w. of
(died 1769), 343-6; Eliz., d. of.
343; John, s. of (died 1723), 344;
Charles, s. of (died 1724), 344;
Hugh (died 1729), 5th Baronet, s.
of, 344; Walter (died 1732), 6th
Baronet, s. of, 344: Franc., d. of.

344 ; Eliz., d. of, 344 ; Henrietta, d.
of. 545 : Dorothy (died 1742), d. of,

345 ; 'Mary. d. of, 345.
Wrotte.sley, Franc., w. of Sir John,

Will of (1762), 346.
Wrottesley, Henrietta, d. of Sir John,
Her Monument to Lady Marj'
Wortley Montagu, 345.

Wrottesley, Sir Richard (1732-69).
7th Baronet, s. of John, 344-56;
Will of (1769). 349; Settlement on
his marriage, 347; Elected M.P.
for Tavistock (1747), 347; Ap-
pointed Clerk to Board of Green
Cloth (1749), 347; Appointed Dean
of Worcester (1765), 548 ; His Dtiel,
347; His Action (in 1745), 347;
Marj', w. of, 346, 349, 358 ; Mary,
d. of, 348-51; Franc, d. of, 351;
Eliz., d. of, 351, 352; Dorothy, d.
of, 353; Harriett, d. of, 354.

Wrottesley, Mary, d. of Sir Rich.,
Maid of Honour, 348, 349, 350;
Mentioned in Letters of Lady Saran
Lennox, 349 • Poi'trait of, 351.

Wrottesley, Eliz., d. of Sir Rich.,
married to Duke of Grafton, Prime
Minister (1769), 351.

Wrottesley, Sir John (1769-87), 8th
Baronet, s. of Richard. 348, 354-64 ;
Page of Honour, 348 ; Serves in
America (1775-6), 356; Returns to
England (1778), 359; Speeches in
Pariiament. 359; Death of (1787),
361 ; Prances, w. of, 356, 361, 364 ;
Heni-y, s. of, 361 ; Hugh, s. of.
362 ; Charles, s. of, 362 :Ed\v., s. of,
363 ; Fanny, d. of, 363 ; Caroline
Gertrude, d. of, 363 : Charlotte,
d. of, 364; Louisa, d. of. 364;
Mary, d. of, 364.

Wrote.«ley, Frances, w. of Sir John,
Death "of (1828), 364.

Wrottesley, Henry, s. of Sir John.
M.P. for Brackley, 361.

Wrottesley, Emma. w. of Hugh, s.
of Sir John, 362; Hugh, s. of,
362.

Wrottesley. Anne, w. of Edw. , s.
of Sir John, 363; Edw. John,
(1814—1901). s. of, 363.

Wrottesley, Mariana Eugenia, w. of
FAw. John, s. of Edw., 363;
Franc John, s. of (born 1848), 363.

Wrottesley, Agnes Mabel, w. of
Franc. John, 363.

Wrottesley, Louisa, d. of Sir John,
^laid of Honour to Queen Char-
lotte, 364.

Wrottesley, Sir John (1792—1841),
9th Baronet and 1st Baron, s. of
John, 361-73; At Military School,
(1788) 364: Capt. 16th Light
Dragoons (1793), 365; M.P. for
Lichfield (1779), 366; Loses his
Seat (1806). 368: Moves the Ad-
dress (1800), 367; (1836), 373;
Cloves Vote of No Confidence in
Ministry (1801). 367; M.P. for
CO. Stafford (1823). 368; Bank at
Wolverhampton, 368 : Advocates
Decimal Coinage (1824), 369 ; Votes

INDEX.

433

in favour of R.C. Relief Bill (1825),
369 ; Opposes IJaiik Charter Act,
370, 371 ; Supports Motion for
Reform of Parliament (1826), 370 ;
Created a Peer (1838), 373; Death
of (1841), 373 ; Caroline, 1st w. of,
366, 373; Julia, 2nd w. of, 374;
Chas. Alex. (1799—1861), s. of,
374; Rob. (1801-38), s. of, 375;
George Thorn. (1808-18). s .of, 375;
Walt. (1810-72), s. of, 375; Edw.
Bennet (1811-92), s. of, 376; Caro-
line (1797), d. of, 376; Emma
(1804), d. of, 376 ; Henrietta (1805-
93), d. of 576; Louisa (1821), d.
of 376; Maria (died 1881), d. of,
376; Mary (died 1883), d. of, 376.

Wrottesley, Lady Caroline, 1st w. of
Sir John, Death of (1818), 373.

Wrottesley, Georgina, w. of Rob., s.
of Sir John, 375.

Wrottesley, ^Marianne Lucv, w. of
Walt, s. of Sir John (died 1848),
375 ; Walt. Franc, s. of, 375 ; Lucy
Edith, d. of, 375.

Wrottesley, Ellen Charlotte, w. of
Edw. Bennett, s. of Sir John, 376 ;
Alf. Edw., s. of, 376; Clara, d. of,
376 ; Ellen Maria, d. of. 376.

Wrottesley, Ellen Mary Isabel, w. of
Alf. Edw., s. of Edw. Bennet,
376; Hugh Edw., s. of, 376;
Maud Ellen, d. of, 376.

Wrottesley, John, Lord Wrottesley,
(1841-67), 2nd Baron, son of John,
374, 377-82; Elected Fellow of
Royal Society (1841), 379; Presi-
dent of Royal Commission on Iron
Railway Bridges, 380 ; President of
Royal Societv (185^1 381; Presi-
dent of British Association (1860),
381; Sophia Eliz., w. of, 377;
Charles (b. 1826), s. of, 382;
George (b. 1827). s. of, 382; Hen.
(1829-52), s. of. 384; Cameron
(1834-54), s. of, 385; Julia, d. of,
385 ; Caroline, d. of. 385.

Wrottesley, Margt. Anne, w. of
George, s. of John, Lord, 384 ;
Nina Margt.. w. of, 384.

Wrottesley, Arthur, Lord Wrottes-
ley, (bom 1824), 3rd Baron, s. of
John, 382-8 ; Lord Lieut, of Staffs
(1871-87), 386; Lord in Waiting
(1869-74), (1880-85). 386; Master
of Albrighton Foxhounds (1849-52),
386; Augusta Eliz., w. of, 386;
Will. (1863-99), s. of. Capt.. 4th
Drag. Guards. 386 ; Bert. Franc.
(1864-75), s. of, 387; Victor Alex.,
s. of, 387; Walt. Bennett, s. of,
387 ; Henrietta Evelyn, d. of, 387,
388.

Wrottesley, Younger Branches of the

Family of, 389 ; Pedigree of, 397.
Wrottesley, Will., of Redynge (d.

1513), 257. 389, 393; Eliz., d. of,

257, 389 ; Rob., s. of, 257, 389, 393 ;

Askew, s. in law of, 389; Const.,

d. of, 257, 389.
Wrottesley, Rich., s. of Hen., 390.
Wrottesley, Rob., of Chippenham, co.

Wilts (1601-8), 390-3; Joan, of

Chippenham (1561-94), 390, 391,

392; John, of Chippenham (1625),

390-3; Jane (1594), 391; Hugh,

391 : Eliz. (d. 1614), 391, 397 ; Hen.

(1546), 393.
Wrottesley, Rob., Will of, 391, 392.
Wrottesley. Sir George (1590—1656),

393-7; Cecily, w. of, 393, 395;

Kath., w. of. 395. 396, 597 ; Thom.,

father of, 594 ; John, br. of, 395.
Wrottesley, Edw., of Rowde, co.

Wilts, 397; Jane, d. of, 397.
Wulfgate, 3 ; s. of Ufa, 3.
Wulstan, Bishop of Wore, 5, 13, 14.
Wybaston (Wobaston, in Bushbury),

153. 172 ; Water Mill in, 172.
Wychcom, co. Devon, 264.
Wyke, La, in Coughton, 24, 34, 67;

near Worplesdon. co. Surrey, 395.
Wvlkes, Rich., of Willenhall, 211;

Will., 246, 249, 251. 260, 261, 262.

263; Thom.. 285; Walt., 285; see

also Wilkes.
Wyntwike, John de, Keej^er of the

Privy Seal, 131.
Wyregis, see Wergs.
Wyrley, Rog., 198: Humph., 313.
Wyse, Will., of Bilderbrok, 179;

John le of Bilderbrook. 179, 189 ;

Walt., of Bilderbrok. 186. 190, 251.
Wvtheleye (Weethly), Ralph de, 77;

John de, 77.
Wytheleye, Chris., s. of John de,

77.
Wythwyk, 159, 162, 163.

Yate, Will. atte. of Wrottesley, 93.

Yates, Franc. 356.

Yerburg-h Will.. 227.

York, Will de. Chaplain, 142; Rich.,
Duke of, 205 ; George Neville,
Archbp. of. 225; Edw.. August.,
Duke of, 554 : Duke of. 565.

York, Edw. August., Duke of. Death
of (1767), 355.

Zatton, Rog., Abbot of Evesham,

177.
Zouche, Will, de la, 131, 132; Rich.,

132 ; Lord de la, 257. 389.

^ THE LIBRARY

DIVERSITY OF CALIFORNU

Mdi

^ >^

^•^

€

40^'

'-i

fX-'^

^^»

d^^

, 1

>^^

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "History of the family of Wrottesley of Wrottesley, co. Stafford"

See other formats