Mory
)f Northm
iiliaifeiiri
THE LIBRARY
OF
THE UNIVERSITY
0¥ CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES
■^■^■
//,>/■ .1
%%/«
'ly.
^'n?£
HISTORY
OF
NORTHUMBERLAND
ISSUED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF
THE NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY HLSTORY
COMMITTEE
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY ANDREW REID & COMPANY, LIMITED
LONDON
SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, & COMPANY, LIMITED
1922
< -c
J 09
so
c
Z =
in
<
U
c
^|liftv|
History of Northumberland
VOLUME XL
THE PARISHES OF CARHAM,
BRANXTON, KIRKNEWTON,
WOOLER, AND FORD
By KENNETH H. VICKERS, M.A.
PROFESSOR OF MODERN HISTORY
IN THE UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY ANDREW REID & COMPANY, LIMITED
LONDON
SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, & COMPANY, LIMITED
1922
V, 11
PREFACE.
The present volume deals with a larger area than has been before
attempted by the Committee, but it was felt to be desirable to cover
as much ground as possible in view of the large part of Northumber-
land not yet touched. Originally it was intended to include the
parishes of Chatton and Lowick — indeed, the portions dealing with
Lowick are almost completely ready in manuscript — but, with the
most severe compression, it was possible to include in this volume no
more than the parishes of Carham, Branxton, Kirknewton, Wooler and
Ford. The Committee has followed the ancient ecclesiastical boun-
daries as the guide to its work, and thus Wooler is taken to comprise
the townships of Wooler and Fenton and not the more compact area
covered by the modern parish.
The Committee regrets the delay which has arisen in publishing
the volume. The work was undertaken in war time, when everyone had
more to do than he could accomplish; it was clearly recognised from
the first that the editor could devote only a small portion of his
time to the work, while there have been considerable delays due to
other causes.
The editor had hoped to include in this volume a detailed biblio-
graphy which would have been a useful basis for the study of
Northumbrian History. Considerations of space have forbidden this,
but an explanation of the method followed in the notes and of some
of the short titles used is necessary. Where a document is to be
773576
Vi PREFACE.
found printed or transcribed in some book or collection a line (thus — )
has been placed between the two references. Thus "Inq. p.m. 30
Hen. III. No. 15 — Bain. Cal. of Documents," implies that the docu-
ment is the return of an inquisition post mortem preserved in the
Public Record Office, and printed or abstracted in Bain's Calendar of
Documents Relating to Scotland. As to short titles "Feet of Fines,
i6th Cent." refers to a volume of i6th Cent. Feet of Fines in the
possession of the Committee, "Duke's Transcripts" to the transcripts
of documents relating to Northumberland preserved at the Public
Record Office, made at the expense of the late Dukes of Northumber-
land and very kindly put at the service of the Committee by His
Grace, " Raine, Testamenta, " to abstracts of wills, made by the late Rev.
James Raine, now in the possession of the Committee, "Lambert MS."
to notes made from documents, many of them now lost or inaccessible,
also in the possession of the Committee, and "Belvoir Deeds" to
the deeds relating to the properties of the family of Manners now
preserved in the Duke of Rutland's Muniment Room at Belvoir Castle.
The cartulary of the priory of Kirkham — cited as " Kirkham Cartu-
lary"— is preserved in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, under the press
mark Fairfax MS.7. In the later portion of the volume frequent refer-
ences will be found to "Lord Joicey's Deeds" and " Waterford
Documents." These were originally one collection of documents, but
when Lord Joicey bought Ford, all the deeds relating to this property
were separated from the rest and handed to him. The remainder of
those relating to Northumberland, described in the text as "Waterford
Documents," are now deposited in the Newcastle Public Library.
The volume and page references given in the notes refer to a most
useful calendar of the original undivided collection in the possession
of the Committee, made by Dr. Craster of the Bodleian Library and
editor of the last three volumes of this History.
PREFACE. Vlt
The Committee owes a debt of gratitude to the landowners of the
district, all of whom, with one exception, gave everv facility to the
editor for examining the deeds of their properties, and in particular
thanks are due to the following in whose custody various deeds were
placed: — Messrs. J. D. & N. D. Walker, Newcastle-upon-Tyne;
Messrs. Tiffen & Henderson, Berwick-upon-Tweed; Messrs. W. & B.
D. Gibson, Hexham; The British Linen Bank, Berwick-upon-Tweed;
The Charity Commissioners, London; Messrs. Dees & Thompson,
Newcastle-upon-T\'ne ; Messrs. Harrison & Sons, Welshpool; Messrs.
C. D. Forster & Lester, Newcastle-upon-T\Tie ; Messrs. Charles Percy
& Son, Alnwick; Messrs. Leadbitter & Harvey, Newcastle-upon-Tviie ;
Messrs. Herbert Smith & Co., London; Lloyds Bank, Newcastle -upon -
T\Tie. Mr. A. D. Minton-Senhouse has kindly placed the diocesan
records at the disposal of the editor, while Mr. James Cleghom has
given untiring assistance, which his intimate knowledge of the district
has rendered invaluable. Professor Mawer, formerly of Armstrong
College and now of Liverpool University, very kindly provided the
notes on the place names before his valuable work on the Place
Names of Northumberland and Durham was published. Dr. F. W.
Dendy has taken great interest and has given frequent help in the
work, and together with Mr. A. Hamilton Thompson, Mr. R. Blair
and Mr. C. H. Hunter Blair has read the proofs. To Mr. Hamilton
Thompson in particular the editor owes very special thanks for the
elucidation of many points of ecclesiastical history, help readily given
even before he became a member of the Committee. Above all the
editor owes much to Dr. H. H. E. Craster, not only for generous
help and advice at the inception of his task, but for the way in
which so many of the deeds relating to this district have been
calendared by him.
vni PREFACE.
Nearl\- all the modern pedigrees have been prepared by Mr. J.
Crawford Hodgson with the assistance of Mr. H. M. Wood, whose
unrivalled knowledge of parish registers has been placed at tlic service
of the Committee. Mr. C. H. Hunter Blair has prepared the plates
of seals and has provided the armorial descriptions in the pedigrees.
The section on the geology of the district has been written by Pro-
fessor E. J. Garwood, to whom the thanks of the Committee are due.
The grateful thanks of the Committee are also offered to Lord Joicey
for a generous contribution towards the cost of the illustrations.
These have been prepared by a sub-committee presided over by Mr.
W. H. Knowles, who has once more contributed the architectural
descriptions and plans of ancient buildings. The frontispiece in colour
is a new departure, and the extra cost thereof has been in part
provided by Sir George Renwick, Bart., and Mr. Walter S. Corder, the
latter of whom has given great assistance in selecting the illustrations.
Drawings have been specially made for this volume, as for some of its
predecessors, by Mr. R. J. S. Bertram. The index has been made by
Mrs. Tyrrell.
CONTENTS.
Preface
Corrigenda et Addenda
Introduction ...
Geology of the District
XII
1
PARISH OF CARHAM.
PARISH OF BRANXTON.
Ecclesiastical History
Carham Township
Wark Township
Wark Castle
Learmouth Township
MiNDRUM Township
DowNHAM Township
Moneylaws Township
Presson Township
Ecclesiastical History
Branxton Township
PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
Ecclesiastical History
Lanton Township
Kirknewton Township...
West Newton Township
KiLHAM Township
Paston Township
Coldsmouth and Thompson's Walls Township
HowTEL Township
Crookhouse Township ...
CouPLAND Township
Akeld Township
Yeavering Township ...
Milfield Township
Hethpool Township
Cheviot Township (Grey's Forest and Selby's Forest)
PARISH OF WOOLER.
Ecclesiastical History
WooLER Township
Fenton Township
3°
44
74
77
Si
86
91
96
104
117
128
143
152
158
170
187
192
210
214
229
^41
Hi
249
268
286
298
330
CONTENTS.
PARISH OF FORD.
History...
Ecclesiastical History
Ford Township ...
Hetherslaw and Flodden Township ...
Crookham Township
KiMMERSTON AND BrOOMRIDGE ToWNSHIP
Etal Township ...
PEDIGREES
Compton of Carham
Roos of Wark
Davison of Branxton
Corbet of Lanton
Strother of Kirknewton
Baxter of Lanton
James of Kirkne^vton
Kilham of Kilham
Archer of Kilham
Selby of Paston (First Line)
Selby of Paston (Second Line)
Howtel of Howtcl
Burrell of Howtel
Pinkerton of Reedsford ...
Coupland of Coupland
CuUey of Coupland Castle
Grey of MilficW
Reed, of Hcthpool
Coheirs of Sarah, wife of Robert Roddam
Selby of Goldscleugh
Walker of Goldscleugh and Broad Strother
Muschamp of Wooler
Isaacson, of Newcastle and Fenton
Heron of Ford ... ...•
Carr of Ford
Blake of Ford Castle
Babington
Winkles and Ogle
Askew of Pallinsbum
Manners of Etal ...
Carr of Etal
PAGE.
341
349
368
427
436
440
442
29
37
116
130
132
139
149
158
162
173
174
192
199
203
217
224
247
258
261
276
277
308
337
378
391
402
404
406
438
444
459
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
PLATES.
Etal Castle ... ...
Map
I Wark and the Tweed
II Seals of Branxton, Heron and Muschamp ...
III Seals of Coupland, Strother, Manners and Grey
IV Coupland Castle
V Ford Castle ...
VI Etal Castle
PAGE.
frontispiece
to face page i .
48
112
152
216
368
460
FIGURES.
1 Wark, Thatched Cottage
2 Wark Castle, Time of Elizabeth
3 Wark Castle from the East, 1920
4 Branxton, Chancel Arch
5 Cottages at Branxton
6 Kirknewton Church, The Chancel
7 The Adoration of the Magi ...
8 Howtcl Tower from the North-East
9 Plan of Howtel Tower
10 Coupland Castle cireo 1 8 10 ...
11 Interior of Basement, Akeld Tower ...
12 Ford Church, 1836 ...
13 Plan of Ford Church before Restoration
14 Parson's Tower, Ford
15 Ford Forge...
16 Plan and Elevation of Ford Castle in 1716
1 7 View of Ford Castle
iS Plan of Ford Castle, Ground Plan
19 Plan of N.W. Tower, Ford Castle, Below Basement
20 Plan of N.W. Tower, Ford Castle, Upper Floor
21 Plan of Ford Castle, First Floor
22 Ford Castle from the North-West
23 Etal Castle, Ground Floor Plan
24 Etal Castle, Upper Floor of Gate House
25 Etal Castle, Gate House, Upper Floor S.E.
26 Etal Castle, Gate House from North-West
27 Etal Castle, Plan of Keep
28 Etal Castle, West End of Keep
31
55
73
100
104
122
123
208
209
228
239
360
361
363
400
415
418
420
421
421
422
424
463
465
466
467
468
470
CORRIGENDA ET ADDENDA.
CORRIGENDA.
Page 182, last line, after ' Stones' insert an inverted comma.
Page 190, line 20, for ' 1259 ' read ' 1359-'
Page 232, line 22, for ' M.iy 1300 ' read ' May 1330.'
Page 244, line 23, for ' 1658 ' read ' 1568.'
Page 253, last line, for ' 1390 ' read ' 1490.'
Page 271, line 18, for ' association ' read ' associations.'
Page 278, note 3, line 2, for ' Robert Roos ' read ' Robert Ross.'
ADDENDA.
Page 122, Carram Incumbents.
1561, 1577. John Blaket, Curator of the parish church of Carham (Ministers
Accounts, Compotus Thome Graye, militis, Michaelmas 3 Ehz. to
Michaelmas 4 Eliz. and Michaelmas 19 Eliz. to Michaelmas 20 Eliz.)
1596, 1605. Richard Lee. Curate of Carham, 20th Feb. 1596. Curate but ' senex
et absens ' 15th March, 1605, (Consistory Court Visitation Books).
1663. Adam Felbridge. Curate of Carham. Ordained Deacon, 20th Sept.
1663 and priest 6th March, 1664. Licensed to Carham loth Oct.
1663 (Consistory Court Visitation Books).
Page 76. Tithehill was sold in May, 1921, to Mr. WiUiam Davidson, of East
Learmouth.
History of Northumberland
THE PARISHES OF CARHAM, BRANXTON,
KIRKNEWTON, WOOLER, AND FORD.
INTRODUCTION.
nPHE district covered in this volume consists of the major part of
Glendale. It is a country of varying nature, stretching from the
smiling valley of the Till on the east to the frowning heights of Cheviot
on the west, the low-lying portions being a fertile agricultural area, the
hills a heather and marsh covered waste, interspersed with the homesteads
of the shepherds who are its only inhabitants. Round the edge of the
Cheviots flows the Bowmont water, which, in its lower reaches, becomes
the river Glen, and at last empties itself into the Till. This last river
waters the eastern side of the district on the way to its confluence with
the Tweed. It is a country varying in its nature from romantic highlands
to placid plain, and in its history from the almost unrelieved dullness of
its inaccessible moors to the clash of arms in the low-lying districts, where
many a battle was fought, and fierce struggles centred round such points
of vantage as the castles of Wark and Ford. In the past it was a border
district in every sense of the word, where life was uncertain, save in the
retired heights of the hills, and where many a struggle, of which no record
has survived, disturbed the lives of the inhabitants. To-day it is the
home of the shepherd and the farmer, who congregate from time to time
in the little town of Wooler, its market centre, when they do not fare
further afield on the single railway line, built in 1887 between Alnwick
and Coldstream, their principal link with the outer world.
Vol. XI. I
PARISH OF CARHAM.
GEOLOGY OF THE DISTRICT.
The physical structure of the district presents many features of interest
to the geologist and geographer. The formations represented include rocks
of greater antiquity than any so far described in the previous volumes of
this history.
Table of Formations.
{River Terraces and alluvium _, . ,
ThicVness m
Peat and Lake Deposits Feet
Glacial ... Boulder clay, sand and gravel
{Calcareous Division from the Oxford Limestone to
the base of the Dun Limestone ... ... ... 600
Carbonaceous Division or Scremerston Coal series 550
Fell Sandstone Group 800
Tuedian or Cementstone series ... ... ... 2,000
Kelso Traps.
Old Red Sandstone ... Cheviot Andesite and Ash.
r Basalt dykes.
Intrusive Rocks. ... -j El van and Porphyrite dykes.
'■ Granite.
To the west of the Till lie the lavas and granite of Old Red Sandstone
age which form the Cheviot Hills. These rocks occupy the parishes of Kirk-
newton, West Wooler and the southern portions of Carham and Branxton.
To the north of these come the rocks of Tate's 'Tuedian' formation, which
stretch east as far as the valley of the Till. Very few exposures, however,
occur, as the country is deeply buried in drift. To the east of the Till follow
higher beds of the Lower Carboniferous series, the dip being north-east, so
that, after passing over the Fell Sandstone at Berry-Hill Crag, Rhodes and
Ford, we reach the Carbonaceous division and finally the base of the Cal-
careous division on Ford Common. A good deal of the county is covered
with boulder clay, sand, and gravel laid down at the close of the Glacial
period. These deposits are specially characteristic of the district between
Wark and Etal, but also occur scattered over the district to the east of the
Till. To the south of Wooler also the Wooler water has cut down into a
deposit of drift which reaches a thickness of over 170 feet.
Rocks of Old Red Sandstone Age. These consist of granite, lava and
dykes which, together, form a compact ' Petrographical Province.' The
lavas show the general characters of typical modem andesite and include
the three varieties mica, augite and hypersthene andesite. Formerly,
GEOLOGY OF THE DISTRICT. 3
the terms 'porphyrite' and 'pitchstone porphyrite' were applied to these
I'ocks on account of the altered character of their felspar crystals. The
normal andesites are purple or red in colour while the pitchstone por-
phyrites are distinguished chiefly by their more compact and glassy character,
and the fact that they are frequently black and contain bright red bands and
veins. They are less altered than the andesites and show beautiful flow-
structure under the microscope. They weather out into massive rounded
blocks. Amygdaloidal bands frequently occur, as near Caster Tor.
Haematite often occurs, giving rise after weathering to a red soil. Ashy layers
are frequently found but cannot be mapped as definite horizons. A few
patches of true sedimentary sandstone occur locally, while fragments of
similar rocks are occasionally found included in the lava. It has been found
impossible to determine the order of succession of the lava flows, but the
strike of the beds in the northern portion of the district is in a general
N.N.E.-S.S.W. direction.
The Granite occupies about 25 square miles of the central portion of
the Cheviot Hills and forms most of the higher summits of the range, in-
cluding the Cheviot (2,676 feet) and Cairn Hill (2,545 feet), together with
the summits forming the water parting along Comb Hill (2,132 feet), Hedge-
hope (2,348 feet), and Middleton Crags (1,324 feet).
The granite is of special geological interest as it is unique among British
rocks of this class, and is only met with at a few places abroad, as for example
at Laveline and Oberbriick in the Vosges.
It was originally described by George Tate in 1867 as a syenite, under
the impression that the dark mineral was hornblende, but in 1885 Sir Jethro
Teall showed that the rock contained augite.
More recently, Mr. Kynaston has recorded the presence of the mineral
enstatite in several exposures of the granite, thus emphasising its close
connection with the surrounding andesites. The rock is fine grained and
somewhat purple in colour owing to the presence of red felspar crystals.
Occasionally veins are found near the margin of the granite containing
the mineral tourmaline. The dykes include two series — one, consisting
of porphyrite, closely resembles the lavas, while the other, forming a group
of elvan dykes, is more closely allied to the granite. Good examples of the
former can be seen at the summit of Yeavering Bell, on the west side of Hare
Law, on the north side of the road between Lanton and Lanton Mill, and
4 PARISH OF CARHAM.
-J mile south-cast of Kippie farm. Good examples of the acid dykes
occur near Southern Knowe, Great Hetha and in the College burn, one-third
mile S.S.E. of Whitehall, and again about half a mile east of Torleehouse.
These dykes have a general radial arrangement with regard to the granite.
A considerable interval must have elapsed between the outpouring of the
lavas and the intrusion of the granite, for Mr. Kynaston has found that con-
siderable alteration has been produced by the granite close to its contact with
the andesite up to a distance of half a mile from the margin of the granite.^
From the facts given above, it is possible to reconstruct the story of
this old Cheviot volcano in Old Red Sandstone times. It would appear
tluit at the close of the Silurian period the sea floor emerged as dry land
in the neighbourhood of the Scottish border. This movement was succeeded
in early Devonian times by an outburst of volcanic activity which resulted
in the piling up of lavas and ashes to the height of several thousand feet.
The eruption appears to have begun by the emission of dense showers of
andesite ash, mixed with fragments of Silurian slate. These ashes accumu-
lated to a thickness of at least 150 feet and can be seen at the present
day near Makendon. This initial explosion was followed by the quiet
outwelling of extensive lava flows, now exposed near Phillip. Flow after
flow succeeded with occasional showers of ash, until a volcanic pile of
considerable height must have been built up. The extent of ground originally
covered by these eruptions is unknown, but even now they occupy an area
of 230 square miles and the materials may have proceeded from more than
one vent. What the original thickness of these lavas and ashes may have
been it is impossible to say, owing to the extensive denudation which has
since taken place, but it must have reached several thousand feet ; all we
know is that the volcanic forces finally died away and were succeeded by a
period of repose during which water circulated through the lavas, dissolv-
ing some of the mineral constituents and depositing silica, calcite and iron
in the steam-holes and cracks, giving rise to the well known agates of the
Coquet, examples of which may also be seen in an exposure in a field to the
south of Branxton Moor.
The next episode in the volcanic history of the district was the intrusion
of the granite, which, as shown by Mr. Kynaston, altered the andesites
near its margin and converted the agates which filled the steam-holes, into
' Trans. Edin. Geol. Soc. vol. viii. 1905, p. i8.
GEOLOGY OF THE DISTRICT. 5
clear quartz, and the calcite veins into a granular pyroxene. The granite
in turn cooled and solidified, and a number of fissures were produced in
the shrinking mass which radiated in all directions from the margin of the
granite and extended into the surrounding andesites. Finally, portions of
the still molten rock, lying deep down below the volcano, rose into these
cracks to form the series of igneous dykes which are now found radiating
in all directions from the margin of the granite. The volcanic district of the
Cheviots thus forms what is termed ' a petrographical province ' where the
source of supply of the lavas, the granite and dykes was the same, these
three classes of rock being linked together by their general chemical and
mineral composition. The variation in chemical composition between the
andesites and the granite and between the granite and the two classes of
dykes is attributed by petrologists to the process known as ' differentiation '
which took place during the intervals between the successive eruptions ;
that is to say, to a process of separation of the first formed minerals by sinking,
leaving the surface of the unconsolidated rock more acid, or richer in silica.
On this view the two classes of dykes would be derived from different layers
in the molten rock after its differentiation and before its final consolidation.
The Tiiedian Group of Lower Carboniferous rocks occupies the northern
portion of Kirknewton and Branxton parishes and appears to be separated
from the Cheviot lavas by a boundary fault which runs in a general E.N.E.
direction from the Scottish border, about three-eighths of a mile south of
Preston Hill, to Hetherslaw, passing to the south of Branxton Stead and
Mardon. The beds are well exposed to the north of Etal, in the Till and
in the Tweed district between Carham and Coldstream. They reappear
near Milfield Hill and form a narrow strip about 2| miles long running due
south to Kirknewton and Old Yeavering, whence they continue as a narrow-
fringe to the north of the andesites to Wooler, the junction being again a
faulted one. On the east of the Till they crop out in Broomridge Dean
and are exposed to the south of Kimmerston and continue from here to
Fenton Mill below the Fell Sandstone. The same beds also occur as a
faulted outlier in the Howtel valley. The oldest rock of the group is the much
decomposed olivine basalt known as Kelso Trap, which is well exposed
in the Tweed opposite Carham Hall, and in the railway cutting near Shidlaw
Tile Works, and at Boulla Crag. The rock is a grey lava with numerous
amygdaloidal cavities.
6 PARISH OF CARHAM.
The rocks which overlie the Kelso Traps consist of thin bedded shales,
sandstones and cementstones and, near Carham, include a bed of magnesian
limestone full of chert nodules and containing 44 per cent, of magnesium
carbonate. They were at one time correlated with the New Red Sandstone
and tlic Permian and are so colouicd in Greenough's map published in
1820, but Sedgwick in 1831 showed that their true position was at the base
of the Carboniferous formation. In 1856 George Tate suggested the
name of 'Tuedian' for this group, and the name has been adopted by
the geological survey. The beds were laid down in brackish water on the
flanks of the Cheviot volcano, which probably stood out as an island. The
fossils include fish, entomostraca, lamellibranchs and gastropods, together
with the annelid Spirorhis and plants. The numerous brachiopods of the
truly marine beds elsewhere, are almost entirely absent. Owing to the
fresh-water character of these beds, it is not easy to correlate them with
their marine equivalents elsewhere. Tate states that they "form a marked
transitional series intercalated between the Mountain Limestone and the
Old Red Sandstone." In commenting on this passage Gunn remarks :
"with the exception of the statement that these beds are below the Mountain
Limestone the above is a good account." As a matter of fact, the beds
are older than any rocks known as 'Mountain Limestone' elsewhere,^ for the
beds which occur in a similar position beneath the Fell Sandstone in S.W.
Northumberland, North Cumberland and Westmorland belong to the
Tournaisian division of the Lower Carboniferous, and represent Zo and C
of the Avon sequence, whereas the Mountain Limestone of Durham, York-
shire and Derbyshire belongs to the upper or Visean division. The Tuedian
rocks must consequently also belong to the Tournaisian division and do
therefore, as Tate rightly stated, lie below the beds to which the term
Mountain Limestone was originally given.
The Carham dolomite probably extends under the drift over a fairly
wide area as numerous blocks of this rock are found scattered through the
glacial deposits as far east as Moneylaws. The ' King's Stone ' which stands
to the north of the road, near Crookham Westfield, consists of a block of
this cherty dolomite.
The Fell Sandstone is well exposed near Tindal House and its outcrop
runs thence in a general south-easterly direction. The rock is a reddish
' F.N. Sec E. J. Garwood, Geology in the Field, part iv., p. 683, 1910.
GEOLOGY OF THE DISTRICT.
thin coals and at least one
friable sandstone, often breaking down into sands ; in places it forms bold
features as at Berryhill Crag. The beds can be traced past Rhodes, dipping
i5°-30° to the east, and on to Ford, which is built on the outcrop of these
beds.
The beds here are much disturbed by faulting and are sometimes tilted
into a vertical position. To the south of Ford, the Fell sandstone occupies
a much wider outcrop at the surface," owing to the effect of the Ford-Moss
fault. It forms conspicuous crags to the south of the Moss and to the east
of Fenton Hill, near the border of the parish. The greatest thickness of
these beds along their outcrop appears to be about 800 feet near Tindal
House. The Fell Sandstone is succeeded to the east of Rhodes and Ford
by the Rocks of the Carbonaceous division or Scremerston coal group, which
contain several workable seams of coal.
The following table of these beds is given by Mr. Gunn : —
Dun limestone
Coal (Dun seam) . . .
Sandstone and shale
Fawcet Coal
Sandstone and shale with
thin limestone
Blackhill Seam
Measures ...
Kiln Coal ...
Measures
Main Coal
Measures ...
Three-tjuarter Coal
Measures ...
Lady Coal or Copper Eye Coal
Measures
Wester a 11 Coal
The beds are much disturbed by faults. Thus the Longheugh fault,
which runs north-east past Etal colliery, throws the beds down about 700
feet on the south, shifting the outcrop of the Scremerston coals a mile to the
south-west. The Stainsfield fault, which runs due east from Etal to
Watchlaw, again throws down 600 feet to the south and shifts the coals
still further to the west. This is compensated further south b}' a group
of faults throwing down on the north the most important being the fault
which passes to the south of Ford Moss and brings up the Fell Sandstone
on the south. Most of the coals are moderately good bituminous coals and
have been worked for land sale, chiefly for lime burning.
Ft. Ins
(^7
0
I — I
6
75
0
2 — 2
6
225
0
3
0
20
0
4
0
20
0
4
6
80
0
20
0
4
0
50
0
3
0
8 PARISH OF CARHAM.
The Calcareous division occurs only in the north-east corner of Ford
parish. The Dun and Woodend limestones have both been quarried, but
chiefly the Woodend. The Oxford Limestone just enters the parish near
Ford common, where it has been much quarried. This limestone represents
the base of the Lonsdalia beds of Westmorland and it is interesting to note
that it here also contains the calcareous alga Girvanella which invariably
characterizes this horizon in Westmorland and Yorkshire.
One whin dyke occurs traversing the Scremerston coal group and the
Lower Limestone near Hazley Hill, it forms the western termination of the
long dyke which further east is known as the Bowsden Dyke.
The Superficial Deposits consist of glacial drift, river gravel and lake
deposits. The glacial deposits consist of boulder clay, sands and gravels,
which, in places, occur as long ridges known as Drumlins and Kaims.
The direction of the glacial striae and the character of the transported
boulders show that the ice on the northern margin of the Cheviots, flowed
eastwards from the Tweed Valley at Coldstream pressing against the northern
slopes of the Cheviot range and curving round its north-eastern margin
near Wooler so as to flow southwards along the eastern flank of the Cheviots.
On the high ground covering the andesite, the drift is usually stoney
and somewhat angular and contains rocks derived from beyond the border
on the west, consisting of Silurian grit and basalt. These foreign boulders
are usually well rounded, but the local andesite erratics are much less worn.
The boulder clay is widely distributed and sometimes fills hollows to
a depth of loo feet. It is usually red, though blue clay is also found.
The drumlins consist of ridges of boulder clay having their longer axis directed
between N.E. and E.N.E. At Blake Lane a drumlin rises to a height of
over 100 feet above the general surface of the country. These drumlins
appear to be parallel with the direction of movement of the glacier.
Among the gravel ridges the most notable is the Kaim at Wark. This
was described in 1866 by the Rev. P. Mearns, and more recently by
Mr. Gunn. It forms an elongated mound running nearly E.-W. ; it is 1,400
yards long and from 70 to 250 feet wide, having its greatest width where
the Castle stands, while its height is over 30 feet. It is composed of coarse
well-rounded gravel enclosing patches of sand and clay and contains boulders
of local rocks, including Carham limestone, basalt and andesite, several of
the boulders are over 2 feet in diameter.
GEOLOGY OF THE DISTRICT. g
Immediately to the west of Carham there occurs a bed of clay resting
on gravel. This has yielded numerous bones of water rats and frogs and was
considered by Professor James Geikie to be of interglacial age.
The actual thickness of the ice is unknown, but ' foreign ' drift occurs
up to a height of 1,000 feet on Brand's Hill; above this the Cheviot range
must have been covered by its own ice cap.
Messrs. Clough, Kendal and Muff have described certain 'dry' valleys
in the neighbourhood of Yeavering Bell, Black Law and Harehope Hill,
which appear to be relics of overflow channels from a chain of small glacial
lakes, the waters of which were held up by the edge of the Tweed glacier,
to the north. These overflow channels cut across the spurs which radiate
from the Cheviots and are well seen behind Yeavering Bell near the 900 feet
contour, on Akeld Hill at about the same level, and the spur of Black Law
and Harehope Hill. Humbleton Hill again is cut off by a gigantic rock gully,
now quite dry.
The tract of nearly level ground known as Milfield Plain forms one of
the most striking features in the scenery of the district. It covers about
12 square miles, and its surface is entirely composed of superficial accumu-
lations of clay, sand and gravel. It appears to occupy the site of a large lake
which came into existence towards the close of the glacial period.
These lake deposits consist of a thick layer of clay, overlain by gravel
and alluvium. The clay was evidently washed out of the surrounding boulder
clay by streams flowing from the margin of the ice as it melted back at the
close of the glacial period. This clay at Flodden Tile Works was penetrated
to a depth of 40 feet, while near Humbleton Buildings a boring passed through
100 feet of clay without reaching the bottom. The overlying sands and
gravel are 50 feet thick, so that the floor of the lake must lie in places below
sea level.
This ancient sheet of water, called 'Lake Ewart ' by Mr. E. G. Butler,
evidently owed its origin to an obstruction near Crookham. Before the
glacial period the Till probably flowed westwards from Crookham, passing
between Branxton Building and Pallinsburn Dairy Farm, and joined the
Tweed near Cornhill. This post-glacial diversion of the Till is indicated by
(i) The nearly level surface of Milfield Plain, (2) the lacustine character of
the deposits, (3) the sudden change in the character of the Till valley at
Etal, (4) the significant loops which occur both in the Till and the Tweed,
Vol. XI. 2
10 PARISH OF CARHAM.
at Crookliam and Cornhill respectively, at either end of tlie line along which
the prc-glacial valley of the Till is assumed to lie.
The average height of Milfield Plain is about 150 feet, but old beaches
occur at a height of 185 feet near Lanton and Sandyhouse, and Mr. Butler
assumes a height of at least 200 feet for the surface of the water of the lake.
This would indicate an extension of the lake southwards to New Berwick
and northwards from Fowberry Tower to Hetton Hall.
The character and position of the obstruction which blocked the Till
drainage near Crookham and brought Lake Ewart into existence is not
altogether clear at the present day. The old valley between Crookham and
Cornhill is now, presumably, filled with glacial deposits, but during its
retreat, the Tweed glacier may, for a time, have still covered the district
to the north and west of Etal, and the overflow would then have been to
the N.E. past Greenlaw Walls (217 feet) into Haiden Dean, which, accord-
ing to Mr. Butler, was excavated at this period. Anyhow, as the ice melted
back into the Tweed valley, the overflow from the lake eventually found
a lower exit along its present course. The meanders of the Till between
Tindal House and the Tweed show that it must at first have trickled over
glacial drift into which it gradually cut down its valley to the Carboniferous
rocks, on the surface of which it now flows, for there is now no relation
between the ri\-er windings and the strike of the Carboniferous rocks. The
sudden bend to the west between Ford and Etal, would seem to support the
view that the Till is re-excavating its old valley at this point, while the
presence of a similar loop in the Tweed, near Cornhill, facing to the east,
suggests that the Tweed is also re-excavating the old valley at its western
end. Another lake occupied the Glen valley, at one period, at a higher
level as shown by deposits in the Bowmont Water occurring up to a height of
300 feet. The water from this lake must have found its way at one time
past Coupland Castle through the depression to the west of Galewood and
have entered Lake Ewart somewhere to the north of Thirlings. Other
alterations in the drainage of the district have probably taken place since
pre-glacial times. This is suggested by the presence of overflow channels
between Yeavering Bell and Humbleton, already mentioned, while it is
possible that the Bowmont Water may have at one time flowed due north
from Downham to Cornhill, approximately along the line of the present
railway. This would appear to be indicated by the general direction of
GEOLOGY OF THE DISTRICT. II
the Bowmont Water in its upper reaches to the south of Shotton and Knill
Yetholm, the sudden bend to the east between Downham and Paston
being strongly suggestive of a recent, possibly post-glacial, diversion.
The recent deposits include alluvium, river gravels and old lake deposits.
Several gravel terraces occur along the banks of the Tweed ; one of these,
at Carham, stands 40 feet above the river. The old lakes are usually filled
with peat, which frequently rests on a deposit of shell marl. Examples
are seen at Strother Bog, Moneylaws, the Hag and Ford ]\Ioss. The shell
marl has been dug for manure since the beginning of the 19th century at
Wark, Sunnyglass, East Learmouth, Mindrum and elsewhere, in addition
to fresh water shells and nuts, the remains of ox and stag have occasionally
been met with.
12 PARISH OF CARHAM.
PARISH OF CARHAM.
Ecclesiastical History. Though many authorities have considered
that after the Reformation Carham was no more than a chapelry of the
parish of Kirknewton, there is no doubt that originally these were two quite
distinct parishes. ^ Further there is reason to believe that Mindrum and Down-
ham were originally in Kirknewton, and though severed from that parish,
were never formally attached to Carham till after the Reformation.^ The
early history of the church of Carham is somewhat confused, since there
seem to have been two rival claimants for its possession. In the first of
his two charters granting lands and possession to the priory of Kirkham,
Walter Espec included the 'church of Carham on the river Tweed with all
pertaining thereto',^ and this charter by its allusion to the already existing
abbey of Rievaulx,* betrays that it was not drawn before 1131, the earliest
date given for the foundation of that monastery.^ On the other hand,
Matilda, wife of King Henry I., who died in 1118, had given 'the church of
Carham and whatever pertains thereto,' to the monks of St. Cuthbert.^ By
wliat right Queen Matilda claimed to dispose of the church we cannot tell,
but the Durham monks would naturally make the most of their very question-
able title, and the statement that the whole vill of Carham had been granted
to them in the seventh century, which appears in the life of St. Cuthbert,
written by one of their number in the first quarter of the twelfth century, '^
is no doubt an attempt to substantiate it. The authenticity of the charter
which they held cannot very well be doubted in view of the dedication of the
church of Carham to St. Cuthbert,^ but the title of the grantee was so far
as we know impossible to substantiate. At any rate, Henry L did not
attempt to do so since he confirmed the grant to Kirkham,^ and matters were
made still more definite in a second charter of Walter Espec, wherein his original
' Carham is constantly referred to as 'matrix ccclcsia' in the Kirkham Cartulary. - See page 15.
' Rievaulx Chartulary, p. 161. * Ibid. p. 160. ' Ibid. Introduction, pp. xl.-xli.
' Durham Treasury Document — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 150; Kaine, North Durham, .Xpp. No. dcclxxxv.
p. 141. The fact that Ranulph, bishop of Durham, is mentioned proves that the document must be ascribed
to tliis Matilda, and not to her daughter.
' Life of St. Cuthbert in Symeonis Monachi Opera Omnia (Rolls Series, No. 75), vol. i. p. 200. For further
discussion of this see pp. 25-26.
' On this point see p. 20, n. 5.
• Cal. of Charter Rolls, vol. iv. pp. 360-361. It is to be noted that only the church and not the vill is
specifically mentioned in the confirmation, which suggests that that was a matter of importance, possibly a
matter of dispute, at the time.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 13
gift was reaffirmed.^ Henry II. again confirmed the title of Kirkham,^ but the
claims of Durham do not seem to have been formally renounced till 1253.^
At some time, probably soon after the original gift, a ceU of Kirkham
was established at Carham, the first indication of which is an allusion of 1279
to the master of Carham,* but the inmates can never have been numerous,
indeed just before the dissolution of the monasteries Leland reports that it
was a cell of two canons only.^ It was doubtless only established as a sort
of agency for the Kirkham property in the diocese of Durham,^ and there can
have been few attractions for those who lived there. Indeed in 1308 a de-
faulting canon of Kirkham, who had concealed the fact that he possessed
fourteen marks, was condemned by the archbishop of York at his visitation
of the monastery to exile at Carham till such time as his fault had been
expiated.'^ It is natural therefore that we should know little of the inmates
of this cell, indeed only on three occasions are we told the name of the master.
In 1293 one Robert Chambard held this office,^ while in 1359 one of his suc-
cessors, William of Thoraldby by name, having taken an appeal to Rome
on some matter concerned with the cell, agreed to resign his position on being
provided to the vicarage of Newark.^ In 1432 Richard Colyn, master of
Carham, on being brought before the bishop of Durham, confessed that he
had misconducted himself with a Scotswoman, and submitted to penance.^"
A few criminals must have found their way to the little monastery, for it seems
to have had the right of sanctuary, as on two separate occasions in an
assize roll of 1256 is there mention of the flight of a malefactor 'to the peace
of Carham. '^1 Occasionally the house appears as the recipient of some gift
or as the assertor of some right. Thus Robert Roos — which of the various
1 Rievaulx Chartiilary, p. 244. The date of this document must be before 1140.
' Cal. of Charter Rolls, vol. iv. pp. 361-362.
' The prior of Durham then confirmed a confirmation of the church of Carham to the priory of Kirkham
made by the bishop of Durham. Durham Treasury, Miscellaneous Charters, No. 6,659. Of. Hunter, MS. 3,
p. 245 ; Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. pp. 150-151.
* Northumberland Assize Rolls (Surtees Soc), p. 330. ' Leland's Itinerary, vol. v. p. 67.
» This supposition is strengthened by the inclusion in the Kirkham Cartulary under the heading 'Car-
ham' of a memorandum of an assessment of all the lands belonging to the Priory in the Diocese of Durham
for the purposes of a tenth granted to the Pope for a crusade. The full value was given at /219 4s. 6Jd.
Kirkham Cartulary, fols. 75-76.
' Reg. Greenfield, pt. i. fol. logdo — Memorials of Hexham, vol. i. pp. xl.-xli.
' Assize Rolls, 21 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xvii. p. 112.
^ Cal. of Papal Petitions, vol. i. p. 337; Cal. of Papal Letters, vol. iii. p. 604. Randal, p. 21, gives
the name of Robert of Aberford, 1367, among the 'curates of Carham.'
"• Reg. Langley, p. 192, copied in Hunter MS. 3, p. 245.
" Northumberland Assize Rolls (Surtees Soc), pp. 115, 117.
14 PARISH OF CARHAM.
owners of that name is not certain — gave to Our Lady, St. Cuthbert, and the
church at Carham one pound of wax to be used in the form of two candles
to be burnt at the Feast of St. Cuthbert in September and two at the Depo-
sition of St. Cuthbert in March. ^ On another occasion, Patrick, earl of
Dunbar — but again which of these earls is not certain — gave the canons
permission to make a pool between Netherford and Langeford on the Tweed,
on the condition that half the fish taken therefrom should be given to him,
a gift which later led to litigation when the canons complained that the earl
had destroyed one of their pools, and had diverted the river so as to make
a new one for himself, thereby altering the centre of the stream, which was
the boundary between his property and that of his neighbours. ^ At an
earlier date controversy had arisen between Robert, son of Orm, a Presson
landowner, and the canons over the wheaten flour used in the bread for the
Blessed Sacrament due from Learmouth and Moneylaws, but this was
amicably settled.^ It may be that Sir John Coupland was a benefactor of
the cell, at least he lay buried in the church for a time, though in 1366, about
five years after his death, his widow received licence to exhume his body
and have it transferred to Kirkham priory.^ He cannot have held the
patronage of the cell even under any lease of the barony which he may have
possessed, for when in 1317 William Roos surrendered the barony to the
crown, he expressly reserved to himself the advowson of the cells per-
taining to the priory of Kirkham and the hospital of Bolton.^
The establishment of a cell at Carham resulted in the omission of any
ordination of the vicarage, but a portion was set aside for the master. In
Pope Nicholas's taxation of 1291, the value of the church was returned at
£63,^ while the master's property was assessed at £13. '^ This same valuation
for the church recurs in 1306 and in 1340 — in the first case ' the rectory of
Carham' being the term used^— and for the master in 1308 and 1313.^ In-
cluded in this value was an annual contribution of 105s. 4d., which the first
' Kirkham Chartulary, fol. 76. - Ibid. fol. 75.
' Ibid. i. 82. The words are 'Idem remisit dictis canonicis querelam quam moverat adversus eos de
pane dominico et benedicto dc leverraue et monilaue portando ad matricem ecclesiam.' It is possible
that this may mean bread of the best quality for use as pain beni, or pain b6ni from the demesne, but the
eucharistic bread is probably meant.
* Reg. Hatfield, fol. 109. s Cal. of Close Rolls, 1313-1318, pp. 569-570.
' Taxatio Eccles. Angliae, 1291 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 351. ' Ibid. p. 354.
' Reg. Palat. Duneltn. vol. iii. p. 97 ; Noiiarum Inqtiisiliones — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. xxxviii.
" Compotus of the 15th, 1308 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. iii. p. ii ; Reg. Palat. Dunelm. vol. i. p. 499,
vol. ii. pp. 960, 963.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 15
Robert Roos had bound himself and his heirs to pay by way of commutation
for the tenth penny of the income of all the lands and mills which he had
inherited from Walter Espec/ a sum which the king expressly preserved to
the canons when the barony of Roos was forfeited in 1296. ^
Besides the parish church of Carham there were during the middle ages
at least two other chapels in the parish not counting the possibly temporary
private oratory allowed to Orm at Presson.^ So far as the one at Mindrum
is concerned there is reason to believe that originally Mindrum and Down-
ham were in the parish of Kirknewton. At any rate in the second half of
the twelfth century, after long dispute, agreement was come to between
the parson of Kirknewton and the priory of Kirkham, whereby the former
resigned all his right and the right of his church in the chapel of Mindrum,
and Hugh Puiset, bishop of Durham, confirmed to the latter the chapel
with all the tithes and parish dues of the vills of Mindrum and Downham.
At the same time the prior resigned all claim to the church of Newton, and
was allowed to decide where the dead of the two vills should be buried, since
hitherto they had been taken to Kirknewton.* It is obvious from this
document that Mindrum chapel was no private oratory but a chapel of ease,
indeed it had its own little endowment of four acres of land in Edred furlong
in Downham granted to it by Adam son of Gillimichael,^ besides the tithes
of the two townships thus confirmed to it. Now by the association of Kirk-
ham priory with the chapel a connection with Carham was established.
Mindrum chapel was doubtless for the rest of the middle ages extra-parochial,
and it seems to have enjoyed the right of sanctuary associated with Carham,
since in 1293 William, son of Eustace of Middleton Hall, having committed
burglary at Coldmarton, took sanctuary in ' the church of Mindrum,' and was
allowed to abjure the realm.® The solution of the cemetery problem seems
to have been to establish a new one at Mindrum. To-day on the northern
side of the road which runs from Mindrum homestead to Mindrum mill,
there lies a disused cemetery, which certainly has no relics of the medieval
period, indeed but for one or two half-covered gravestones to denote its former
purpose it might be merely an enclosed field, but it may mark the site of a
graveyard of ancient days. Doubtless at the Reformation the chapel was
' Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 84. 2 (^^Z. of Close Rolls, 1288-1296, p. 518.
' Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 82. Cf. page 92. ' Dodsworth MS. 7, fol. 210.
* Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 84.
* The place is spelt 'Middrom.' Assize Rolls, 21 Edw. I — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xvii. p. 67.
l6 PARISH OF CARHAM.
allowed to fall into decay, and the district would naturally be associated
with the church at Carham since both had belonged to the dissolved monas-
tery of Kirkham. Only the graveyard would remain, last relic of Mindrum's
ecclesiastical independence.^
At Wark too there was a chapel from quite early days, where, by agree-
ment between the priory of Kirkham and Robert Roos, permission was given
for the holding of daily services including Matins, Vespers, all the Hours
and Mass, save on the feasts of the Purification, and the Deposition of St.
Cuthbert in March and on Easter Day, when the inhabitants of Wark were
to attend the parish church. In return for this Robert Roos provided an
endowment of two bovates of land in Wark on the banks of the Tweed, while
the men of the township promised an annual payment of 6s. 8d. and undertook
to provide the necessary furniture including a chalice, books, vestments
and lights.- The site of this chapel is probabl}^ to-day marked by the little
disused graveyard, lying at the western extremity of the kaim on the eastern
end of which Wark Castle was built, and in 1828 described by Archdeacon
Singleton as ' the burial ground at Gilly's Nick, I suppose St. Giles. '^ Accord-
ing to the ministers' accounts dealing with the property of Kirkham priory
just after the Dissolution, the glebe lands, meadows and pastures within the
township of Carham 'and also the half moiety of Learmouth' in monastic
days 'had been reserved for the stipends of three curates within three
chapels at Carham, Wark and Mindrum'.^
The cell at Carham naturally shared the fate of Kirkham priory at the
Dissolution. In May 1439, we find the last reference to a master of Carham,^
and its property was undoubtedly in the king's hands before the close of that
year.^ The buildings were probably pulled down at once to provide materials
for the repair of Wark Castle, at least that seems to be the only deduction from
a reference in 1542 to workmen carting stone from Carham church to the
castle.' Not a stone of them survives to-day, but there are sufficient signs
' The oldest gravestone readable in 1889 was to the memory of George Tait, who died 4th October, 1675.
Arch. Aeliana, N.S. vol, xiii. p. 67. For a full description of the graveyard as it was recently, with tran-
scriptions of the inscriptions then legible, see paper by the Rev. M. CuUey in Berwickshire Naturalists' Club,
vol. xxii. pp. 191-196.
- Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 84.
' Archdeacon Singleton's Visitation — Arch. Aeliana, N.S. vol. xvii. p. 255.
* Ministers' Accounts, 31 Hen. VIII. in Caley MS.
' Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII. vol. i. p. 462.
' Ministers' Accounts, 31 Hen. VIII. — Monasticon, vol. vi. pt. i. p. 210.
' Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII. vol. xvii. p. 555.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. I7
to shew that they lay west of the church. ^ The endowments were kept
in royal hands for some years and leased to various persons- much in
the same way as the tithes had been leased before the Dissolution. Thus
in March, 1540, the tithes of Carham and Wark, parcel of Carham rectory,
were leased for 21 years to Thomas Blackett,^ and other lessees of tithes
in various parts of the parish from time to time were J. Denton, Cuthbert
Rowland, Thomas Clark, and Sir Henry Percy.* In 1565 Carham parsonage,
as it is described, was in the occupation of Luke Ogle, John Carr of Ford,
and the latter's neighbour, Collingwood the Constable of Etal. A certain
Thomas Clark of Wark had secured a lease thereof in reversion, whereat
great protests were raised by the three existing lessees, and both the earl
of Bedford and Sir John Forster were induced to send protests to London
on the ground that these men of approved honesty and 'service' would
thereby 'be put from a great part of their living.'^ These protests seem to
have been unavailing, for in the very next year Thomas Clark is found in
possession of a lease of the rectory for twenty-one years dated 1564, and
not content with this the crown granted the reversion at the end of this period
to Rowland Forster,^ the incompetent captain of Wark, brother of Sir John
Forster, who had protested the year before. At last in 1579 the crown
divested itself of the property by granting it to the queen's favourite. Sir
Christopher Hatton, describing it as 'the rectory and church of Carham,'
and the tithes of grain and hay of Carham and Wark, the glebe land and all
the tithes called altarage tithes in Carham, the tithes of grain of Mindrum
and Presson and a moiety of the tithes of wool and lamb in Learmouth
which had been lately reserved for three chaplains in the chapels of Carham,
Mindrum and Wark, together with the tithes of wool and lamb in Presson,
Mindrum, Moneylaws, Downham, and the moiety of the town of Learmouth
which was parcel of the rectory of Ilderton. The charges thereon were a fee
farm rent of £11 los. od. and £7 towards the support of the said three
1 Wallis, Norlhiimberland, vul. ii. p. 468, describes the monastery as situated to the east of the church.
He is followed as usual by Mackenzie, but more strangely also by Mr. TomUnson in his Guide to North-
umberland.
' In 1533 the tithes of Mindrum, Moneylavves and Presson were leased to Odney Selby, and in 1536
the tithes of Jloneylawes and Presson to Henry Collingwood. Augmentation Office, Conventual Leases, York,
Bundle 426.
' Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII, vol. .xv. p. 565.
» P.R.O. Augmentation Office, Particulars of Leases, Northumberland, File 2, No. 36, File 3, Nos. i, 3,
File 4, No. I, File 7, No. 10.
* Cal. of State Papers, Domestic, 1547-1565, pp. 562-563.
' Augmentation Office, Particulars for Leases — Caley MS.
Vol. XI. 3
1 8 PARISH OF CARHAM.
chaplains. All this was at once reconveyed to Thomas Forster of Adder-
stone,^ and the later descent of the rectory lands is traced below.-
Practically the whole of the parish endowment had been secularized,
even including the glebe, a consequence of a vicarage never having been
ordained. Certain sums had been set apart for the payment of chaplains,
and the terms of Thomas Forster's will of 1589 show that some such charges
continued after the Dissolution,^ but they doubtless did not exceed the £7
noticed in the Ministers' Accounts of 1540 and in the grant to Sir Christopher
Hatton. Thus Carliam figures in the reign of Elizabeth as 'lacking an
incumbent and as being served b}- a stipendiary priest,''* who in 1578 was one
Richard Lee, so sick and infirm that he was excused the task of giving an
account of St. Matthew's Gospel at the chancellor's visitation that year.^
There is some reason to believe that the incumbent of Carham received more
than the £7, which undoubtedly was his salary in the seventeenth century,^
as the ecclesiastical survey of 1650 described the parish as a rectory, wliereof
Mr. Forster of Adderstone was the patron and Mr. Marke Murrow the
incumbent, ' who hath for his salary yearly paid him by the patron twentye
pounds, the Rectory it selfe being of the yearely value of two hundred and
fortj'e pounds.'^ The chapels of Mindrum and Wark had evidently dis-
appeared, so the £7 was entirely devoted to Carham, though a new chapel
had sprung up since the Reformation at Learmouth, served doubtless by the
incumbent of Carham, and according to the ecclesiastical Inquest of 1650
' being situate in the midle of the said parish is litt to be made the Pariccheiall
church.'* Learmouth was as much to the extreme east of the parish as Car-
ham was to the extreme west, and the recommendation was not acted on.
After the Restoration the rectory was returned as of the value of £300,
Mr. Forster being the impropriator just as before, but the incumbent's stipend
had dropped to £6 13s. 4d. a year,^ which may mean that £"] was the normal
salary but that Colonel Forster, as a royalist, had been compelled to add
to the puritan incumbent's emoluments during the Commonwealth, even
' Carham Deeds. - See pp. 26-27. ' ll'ills and Inventories, vol. ii. pp. 165-166.
' Barnes, Injunctions, &-c., p. 10. ' Ibid. pp. 40, Tz-'jS.
' 'Salarie of the curete of Charham by the yeare ly.' June 2nd, 1652. Augmentation Office, Salaries
of Curates and Schoolmasters — Caley, MS.
' Ecclesiastical Survey, 1650 — Arcli>. Aeliana, O.S. vol. iii. p. 5. » Ibid.
'Survey of the churches of Northumberland .\rchdeaconry, 1663 — Arch. Aeliana, N.S. vol. xvii.
P- 255. •
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY IQ
as his neighbour at Ford had been obhged to do.^ Colonel Forster's son,
Thomas, came into conflict with the incumbent, 'the Rev. Mr. Ogle,' in the
early eighteenth century, when the living was described as 'a curacy or a
donative in the gift of Mr. Forster of Adderstone.' After his first year's
incumbency. Ogle ' could get nothing of his patron for supplying the cure,'
and after long litigation his resources proved insufficient to carry on the
struggle, 'which hard and unjust usage together with the concern for a
starving and numerous family for some time disordered his head.' ^ The fact
that the patron had conveyed the tithes to his son Thomas, ^ in order to non-
suit the parson as the latter's friends said,^ caused them to be forfeited to
the crown, and they were rented with the rest of the rebel general's estate to
William Stoddart,* 'a dissenting teacher at South Shields.' Ogle seems to
have been given licence to take possession of the small tithes, but the new
owner withheld ' two or three parcels of the glebe and the small tyths of one
or two townships from the curate, who has been so long in the Law and so
great a sufferer by it, that he is not able to recover his right.' The result
to the stipend of the benefice was that whereas Thomas Forster had only
allowed the curate ^^30 a \'ear, now with the addition of the tithes it had
risen to /70 a vear.-^
During most of the second half of the eighteenth century the incumbent
of Carham was Richard Wallis, presented in 1748, and still living
as an old man of 75 in 1791, having shown an interest outside his parish
by ministering to a congregation of the Episcopalian Church of Scotland at
Kelso over the border, in whose interests he raised a fund of ;^i86 from his
friends for the building of a chapel.^ z\rchdeacon Singleton in his visitation
of 1828 found the patronage ' in the Compton family, the impropriation
belonging to the elder brother, whilst a junior has the church, being at the
same time rector of St. Olave's, Exeter.' The annual value of the benefice
> See page 355.
' They were granted to Thomas Forster. the younger, for Ufe by indenture dated 24th September. 171 1.
P.R.O. Forfeited Estate Papers, F. 24.
' Account of ye Deanery of Balmbrough by Mr. Drake. Vicar of Xorhain — Proceedings oj Newcastle
Antiquaries, 2nd series, vol. iv. p. 274.
* P.R.O. Forfeited Estates Papers. F. 25. Though Ogle put in a claim to the tithes there is no official
record of the answer thereto. Ibid. F. 29.
= Account ol ye Deanery of Barabrough by Mr. Drake, Vicar of Norham, 1725 — Proceedings of Newcastle
Antiquaries, 2nd series, vol. iv. p. 274.
" Carham Register, sub. anno 1791 — Proceedings of Newcastle Antiquaries, 2nd series, vol. iv. p. 274.
It is clear from a document of 1763 that this chapel belonged to the Church of England. The congregation
had till then been served by non-jurors.
20 PARISH OF CARHAM.
was then 'in the extreme depression of wool' about £150, and once more
there had been htigation over the tithes 'principally between laymen,
Lords Tankerville and Grey on one part and Mr. Compton on the other,' the
former having obtained a verdict. ' As this was only a quarrel for the spoils
of the church— the archdeacon reported— I did not make an inquiry into
the particulars.' ^ In this dispute, Mr. Caley was called in to advise, and
he was at a loss to understand what right the incumbent had to the lesser
tithes, since a vicarage had never been ordained. He was inclined to
believe that the only possible justification was prescription, and that was a
matter of legal argument,- but the trutli was probably that when the rectory,
forfeited in 1715, was restored to the Forsters, they had to acquiesce in the
grant of the lesser tithes to the incumbent, made since the forfeiture.^^
The indefinite state of the cure, which though not a rectory or vicarage,
was undoubtedly not a chapelry of Kirknewton as some have said, was
regularized in i860 wlu'n it was declared a vicarage under the District
Church Tithes Act of 1865,^ and to-day it therefore ranks as a vicarage valued
at £210 gross and £193 nett, with a house, the patron being Mrs. Beatrice
Cayley, to whom the advowson was conveyed when she purchased the
estate of Carham in Februar}', 1919.
The Church and Parsonage HousE.^The church of St. Cuthbert has
only its dedication to vouch its antiquity,^ for the building is of no architec-
tural interest, and is by no means the immediate successor of the medieval
structure, portions of which were doubtless used for the repair of Wark Castle.^
The first direct allusion to it occurs in 1725, when the vicar of Norham
reported that as the whole parish, with the exception of one or two families,
was composed of dissenters, ' the People have built a conventicle not only
upon the consecrated ground, but have joined it to the church. The former
Archdeacon sent his orders to have it disunited, and the Present has done all
he can to distinguish ye Church from ye Conventicle. But as it is a
' Archdeacon Singleton's Visitation, 1828 — Arch. Aeliaita, N.S. vol. xvii. p. 255. - Caley MS.
' In 1776 the value of the living was estimated at ;£i2o per annum. Randal, p. 21.
• London Gazelle, May ist, 1866, p. 2,705.
' The earliest evidence as to the dedication is found in the license to build a chapel at Presson
in the second half of the twelfth century. The parishioners who attended the chapel were com-
pelled to attend the mother church on the feast of St. Cuthbert. Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 82. See
page 92.
« See page 02.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 21
Tenant's house and the Faction is so strong, 'tis to be feared the nusance
will continue. 'Tis only an occasional meeting house.' The church itself
was ill cared for, and the archdeacon had ordered the provision of many
things such as a surplice, a cover to the font and new flooring, but ' the People
disregarded his Injunctions.' The parsonage was new, for the lord of the
manor in his contention with the incumbent Ogle, had carried his persecution
so far as to pull down the existing one, and had thus compelled the un-
fortunate man to rebuild it at his own cost.^ This structure cannot have
been very imposing, as when Richard Wallis succeeded Ogle in 1748, ' there
was no Parsonage House fit for a clergyman to live in.' The new incumbent
was therefore compelled ' to build one at his own expense or want it. He
built one and considers himself as a benefactor to the living.' Later he
turned his attention to the church, which 'was begun to be rebuilt in 1790
and was finished in 1791 in an elegant manner.' - In 1828 this church was
said to seat 200, which Archdeacon Singleton declared was quite sufficient
for the population of 1,300, 'as a very large proportion of the inhabitants
are members of the Kirk of Scotland.' xA.s a building it was in good condition,
'but it has not the aspect of a regular English Parochial Place of w'orship,
but the very modern sashwindowed aspect of a Scottish Kirk without any
division between church and chancel.'^ There are now in addition to the
parish church two chapels of ease at Howburn and Mindrum respectively,
and the vicarage house dates from 1800 when the Rev. William Compton
built on the site of the one erected by Richard Wallis.
The Registers date from 1684 and the following church plate belongs
to the parish.
Patten with inscription " Revd. W. Compton, M.A., Rector of St. Clave, Exeter, and Perpetual
Curate of Carham, Northumberland."
Alms Dish with inscription " The Gift of the Revd. Richard Wallis, M.A., to Carham Church,
1793"
' .\ccount of ye Deanerj^ of Balmbrough by Mr. Drake. Vicar of Norhara, 1725 — Proceedings of Newcastle
Antiquaries, 2nd series, vol. iv. p. 274.
^ Carham Register, sub. anno 1791 — Proceedings of Newcastle Antiquaries, 2nd series, vol. iv. p. 274.
' Archdeacon Singleton's Visitation, 1828 — Arch. Aeliana, X.S. vol. xvii. p. 255. The Archdeacon
made the strange error of saying ' Carham has retained the memory of its dedication to St. Nicholas, the
tutelary saint of mariners and fishermen.' It seems a httle far inland for mariners. The original dedication
to St. Cuthbert was never altered and it is mentioned in Carham Register sub anno 1791. Proceedings
of Newcastle Antiquaries. 2nd series, vol. iv. p. 274.
22
PARISH OK CARHAM.
Vicar of Branxton, 1O64-1681. Vicar of
as incumbent of Carham, January, 1748,
In Feb., 1717, lie deposed that he had been
INCUMBENTS.
1578. Richard Lee, curate of Carham in 1578.'
1639 — John Clarke, instituted 1639,= sequestrated during the Commonwealth and included in a list
of 'orthodox clergy plundered and deprived in the late rebellion. '^
1650. Marke Murrow. incumbent in 1630.''
1671 — 1679. John Felbridge, instituted 1671."
1679 — 1701. Adam Felbridge, instituted 13 Sep., 1679.^
Chatton, 1681-1700.
1701 — 1748. Thomas Ogle, instituted 28 Oct.. 1701.' Died
having enjoyed the living about 50 years.'
vicar of Carham for the last 16 years.'
1748—1796. Richard Wallis, M.A., of Queen's College, Oxford, succeeded Ogle and still incumbent at the
age of 75 in 1791.' He died as vicar in 1796.' Buried at Carham 15 March, 1796.
1796 — 1843. William Compton, inducted 1798.'
1843 — 1844. William Compton Lundie, admitted 15th December, 1843.'-
1844 — 1865. Francis Thompson, admitted 9th November, 1844.'-
1865 — 1867. John Richard King, admitted 5th October, 1865."
1867 — 1890. Arthur Blenkinsop Coulson, admitted 13th November, 1867.'-
1890 — 1894. Oliver Warner Darling, admitted 19th October, 1890.'^
1894 — 1904. John Farnworth Anderson, admitted 8th August, 1894.'^
1904 — 1909. John Arthur Constantine Lysaght, admitted 21st October, 1904.''
1909 — 1917. Algernon Prest Bird Barker, admitted 14th January, 1909.'-
1917 — Horace George McKenzie Chester Hutchins, admitted 9th June, 1917.'-
CARHAM TOWNSHIP.
The village of Carham^" lies in the north-eastern angle of Glendale, the
Scottish border passing hard by it on the east with the Tweed lapping its
northern boundary. ^^ It consists of a single street flanked by well built cot-
tages and farms, while due south lies the farm of Shidlaw, which forms part of
' Barnes, Injunctions, iS-c. p. 40. Randal, Slate oj the Churches, p. 21, gives Rob. de Aberford, 1367.
This may have been one of the masters of the cell.
* Randal, State 0] the Churches, p. 21.
' Hunter MS. 80, No. 3. Randal, State of the Churches, p. 21, gives Mark Murray, M.A., in 1627, but
this seems to be a confusion with Mark Murrow, 1650.
* Ecclesiastical Incjuests, 1650 — Arch. Aeliana, O.S., vol. iii. p. 5. ' Durham Subscription Boohs.
' Carham Register, sub. anno 1791 — Proceedings of Newcastle Antiquaries, 2nd series, vol. iv. p. 274.
' P.R.O. Forfeited Estates Papers, F. 23.
' Carham Register, sub. anno 1791 — Proceedings oJ Newcastle Antiquaries, 2nd series, vol. iv. p. 274.
* Statement made circa 1834 — Hodgson, MS. Carham Parish, p. 3.
"• Earlier Carrum, Karh'm, Karram, Karrum, Carham. O.K. {t^t thcem) carrum " at the rocks, carr being an
O.E. word ultimately of Celtic origin. When Richard of Hexham speaks of Carrum, quod ab A nglis Werch dicitur,
he seems to suggest that the new name Wark was ousting a non-Anglian one.
" For the purposes of census the whole parish of Carham, including Downham, Learmouth, Mindrum,
Moneylaws, Presson and Wark is treated as one township. The census returns are ; 1801, 1,192 ; 181 1,
1,316; 1821, 1.370; 1831, 1,174; 1841, 1,282; 1851, 1,362; 1861, 1,274; 1871, 1,210; 1881, 1,125;
l8gi. 1,043; 1901, 906; 1911, 910. In the year 1811, however, the townships were separately treated
with the following results : Carham and .Shidlaw, 163 ; Downham, 80 ; Hagg, 32 ; New Learmouth, 86 ;
West Learmouth, 120; Mindrum, 170; Moneylaws, 98; Presson, 143; Tythehill, 31; Wark, and Wark
Common, 393. The parish of Carham comprises 10, 711-736 acres.
'- Diocesan Registry Records.
CARHAM TOWNSHIP. 23
the township. The only importance that Carham has ever possessed in
national history has been due to its position on the very edge of the English
borderland. Very early was this manifest when the inhabitants witnessed
the utter defeat of the men of Northumbria in 1018 at the hands of Malcolm,
king of Alban, supported by Eugenius the Bold, king of the Strathclyde
Brythons. So grievous was the slaughter that good Bishop Aldhun is said
tp have died of sorrow at the deaths of so many of the children of St. Cuth-
bert.i Though the building of Wark Castle must have done something
towards protecting Carham on the one hand and diminishing its importance
on the frontier on the other, in neither case was this complete. Nothing
could prevent the occasional incursion of Scottish malefactors, such as those
who in 1256 came to the cook's house in Carham and beheaded a fellow
countryman of their own whom they found there, escaping scathless after
the exploit,^ nor the loss of goods and crops universal throughout the whole
district as the result of a Scottish inroad in 1340 and a fruitless English
campaign by way of reprisal.^ In 1380 the whole parish was so wasted that
it could contribute nothing to a clerical subsidy voted that year.* By the
sixteenth century indeed it had been found necessary to build ' a little tower
of defence agayne the Scotts,' as Leland describes it,^ a place of no real
strength as it was 'wythout barmekyn or iron gate,' and was intended only
as a place of refuge ' in a sodenly occurrente skyrmyshe,' since in time of war
all retired to the fortress of Wark.^ It was frequently described as the
'House of Carham,' as for instance when repairs were needed in 1542'' after it
had been captured and burnt by the Scots, ^ and it ligured for the last time
on record in the chain of border defences described in 1584.^ It may have
fallen into decay shortly after this, for on July i6th, 1596, fifty horse of
' Symeonis Monachi Opera Omnia (Rolls Series, No. 75), vol. i. p. 84 ; vol. ii. p. 156; Chron. de Mailros.
p. 44. Cf. G. W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland (Edinburgh, 1876), vol. i. p. 393.
^Assize Roll, 40 Hen. III. — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. i. p. 397; Northumberland Assize Rolls
(Surtees Soc.) p. 107.
' Ca/. o/Pateni if oWs, 1 343- 1 345, p. 409 ; C«/. o/C/ose /foHs, 1349-1354, p. 613 ; 1354-1360, pp.71, 120,
185, 410.
' .\ccounts of Collector of Subsidy. 4 Ric. II. — Ford Tithe Case, pp. 214-215.
' Leland's Itinerary, vol. v. p. 67.
" Survey of the Border, 1541 — Border Holds, p. 30.
' Letters and Papers of Hen, VIII, vol. xvii. p. 230.
' Ibid. p. 361 ; Hamilton Papers, vol. i. pp. 149-150.
' Christopher Dacre's Piatt of Castles, &-c. 1584 — Border Holds, pp. 78-79.
24 PARISH OF CARHAM.
Teviotdale carried off the 'liaridage' of Carham in broad day williout let
or hindrance.^
At the same time, the existence of a castle at Wark did not take from
Carham its traditional position as a meeting place between Scots and
English for the settling of differences by conference. As early as John's
reign it was appointed as the place where David, earl of Huntingdon, should
appear to give evidence with regard to the English lands claimed from
him by the earl of Hereford.- Again, in February, a suit brought by John
Massun of Gascony against the executors of the late king of Scotland, was
tried before the royal judges at Carham,^ where also further mutual com-
plaints brought by both parties were heard in the following year.* It was
to Carham also that by the terms of the Treaty of Salisbury of 1289 English
envoys were to repair to arrange details with Scottish delegates as to the
marriage between the future Edward II. and the queen of Scotland, better
known as the Maid of Norway.^ In the middle sixteenth century it was
a very usual place for conferences between the Scottish and English wardens
of the Marches. Thus in 1521, the laird of Cessford agreed to meet Lord
Dacre at Carham church to discuss the responsibility for certain recent
disturbances,^ in 1533 a meeting of similar nature was held,^ and again in
October, 1543,^ March, 1555," and March, 1571.^" But sometimes Carham
was associated with deeds other than those of reparation. Thus, in May,
1539, the mayor of Berwick was sent to Carham evidently with the idea
of arresting certain malefactors. He there found the master of Carham
and Sir John Blackhead, with whom he made merry. The last named left
early, but the mayor remained with the master ' and showed him he had an
attachment for him,' and thereby extracted from him a confession that 'he
• Cal. of Border Papers, vol. ii. pp. 154, 157. The meaning of Harriage or .\verage is obscure. It is
generally found in descriptions of service, 'arriage and carriage,' and was retained in Scottish leases well into
the eighteenth century, having, however, then no definitely ascertained meaning. It is usually defined as
'service done by the tenant with his beasts of burden,' and may here mean the beasts of burden of Carham
township.
* Coram Rege Roll, No. 66, mm. ido-4 — Bain, Cal. of Docuinents, vol. i. pp. 115-116.
» Chancery Miscellaneous Rolls, No. 474 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. ii. p. 93 ; Stevenson, Scot
Documents, vol. i. p. 73.
* Stevenson, Scottish Documents, vol. i. p. 158.
' Stevenson, Scottish Documents, vol. i. p. no.
• Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII. vol. iii. pt. ii. p. 794.
' Ibid. vol. vi. pp. 512, 519, 540. 8 Ibid. vol. xviii. pt. ii. p. 166.
» Cal. of State Papers, Domestic, 1547-1565, p. 438.
'" Cal. of State Papers, Foreign. 1569-1571, pp. 421-422.
CARHAM TOWNSHIP. 25
had lodged one John Prestman, a rebel, but requested and obtained eight
days respite. ' On his way home the mayor met Sir John Twizel and
arrested him forthwith, but the master took advantage of his respite to
transfer himself and his goods into Scotland so speedily, that when next
day the mayor came to arrest him, the bird had flown. ^
Descent of the Property. — The first recorded owner of Carham is
Walter Espec, who early in the twelfth century gave the whole vill together
with the church to the priory of Kirkham.^ Thus as recorded in the Testa
de Nevill the township was held by the prior of Kirkham in alms of the
barony of Roos and owed no service.^ With this authenticated gift we must
compare the statement made by a Durham monk, who was a contemporary
of Walter Espec, to the effect that Egfrid of Northumbria, having defeated
Wulfhere of Mercia by the aid of St. Cuthbert, gave 'Carrum' and all that
pertained to it to the Saint.* This must allude to the year 674-675, and
coming from the pen of a Durham writer can mean only that the gift was
made to the monastery of Durham, though as a matter of fact the cell of
Kirkham at Carham was dedicated to the same saint. ^ This last fact
tempts one to treat with some seriousness the statement of a monastic
chronicler, who might be trying to establish a claim for his house, and if it were
not for the tenacity with which ecclesiastical corporations clung to their
property, we might surmise that Carham, once the property of Durham,
ultimately came into the hands of Kirkham.^ Even so, it is not beyond the
bounds of possibility that the monks of Durham had exchanged it for some
other property, and that the only survival of their period of ownership was
• Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII. vol. xiii. pt. i. p. 462.
2 Rievaulx Chartnlary, pp. 161, 244. The second and confirming of these two documents can be dated
between 11 33 and 1139. There is no evidence that these were foundation charters, but rather they allude
to Kirkham Priory as already existing cf. pp. xx.-xxiii. The second of these charters was confirmed by
Henry II. and again by Edward II. in 1336. Cat. of Charter Rolls, vol. iv. pp. 361-36J.
' Testa de Nevill — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 220.
♦ life of St. Cuthbert in Symeonis Monachi Opera Omnia (Rolls Series, No. 75), vol. i. p. 200.
^ Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 75.
" The dedication may be accounted for by the fact that one of St. Cuthbert's miraculous cures may be
tentatively localized at Carham. According to Bede (Complete Works, ed. Giles, vol. iv. pp. 290-292), the
saint was on his way home from Melrose when it occurred and the anonymous Lindisfarne monk (Ken.
Bedae Opera Historica, Eng. Historical Society, vol. ii. App. pp. 278-279), who puts the story in the mouth
of a friend, says that Cuthbert 'a domino meo, nomine Sibba, Eegfridi regis comite, juxta fiuvium etiam
quod diciturOpide (sic) habitante, invitatum (sic), ad vicum ejus cum psalamis (sic) et hymnis (sic) cantantibus
religiose pervenit." Hearing that one of his hosts servants was ill he sent some water which he had blessed
to the sick man who was thus cured. The place has been identified with Wark (Arch. Aeliana, N.S. vol. xvi.
p. 89), but probably Wark and Carham were at that time one township.
Vol. XI. 4
26 PARISH OF CARHAM.
the dedication of the church, and perhaps the fragment of a pre-conquest
cross shaft found in the township in recent years and now in the Black Gate
Museum at Newcastle.^
Though the whole vill of Carham was given to the priory of Kirkham
by Walter Espec, Robert Roos of Wark seems to have claimed some property
therein, as in 1251 he was given free warren in his demesne lands there,- but
the fact that a similar grant was made to the priory of Kirkham in the fol-
lowing year,=^ seems to suggest a protest on the part of the canons. As a
matter of fact, when the inquiry into liberties was made by Edward I., the
prior based his claim on an earlier charter of 1222,* so that this grant of 1252
may well be regarded as a counterblast to that of the year before to Robert
Roos. Still some property he may have had, since ' Kariethelawe, ' which
lay on the western side of the road leading from Carham to Presson, was given
by one Robert Roos to the canons, who were to be free to use it as either a
cultivated field or as a meadow, so long as they allowed rights of common
after the gathering of crops to the donor and his men of Wark.^ Even after
this gift at least one holding in Carham was claimed by a private owner, as
in-1301 Richard Fermory and Eda, his wife, brought an action under a suit
of novel disseisin against the prior in respect of certain tenements there,
though they failed to put in an appearance at the trial.^ The village must
have been quite small, as only five householders were assessed for the lay
subsidy of 1296, three at £1 8s. each, and two at iid. each,' evidently
a formal valuation.
At the Dissolution the property, consisting of eight husbandlands, was
for a time kept in the king's hands,^ but by 1569 a portion thereof at any
rate, described as g messuages, 6 cottages, 9 gardens, 9 orchards and land
and moor in Carham, was the subject of a fine between John Carnaby and
Reginald Carnaby, plaintiffs, and William Strother, defendant.^ On April
nth, 1579, Queen Elizabeth granted the 'rectory and church' of Carham
with its tithes to Sir Christopher Hatton who transferred them the follow-
^ Proceedings of the Newcastle Anliqs. 2nd Series, vol. x. p. 153. 'The intedaced work on the Carham
cross shaft is good and de\'ised from an eight cord plait by making breaks along the edges. In its general
style it resembles some of the stones at Whithorn, Wigtonshire.' Mr. C. F. Romilly- Allen, Ibid. p. 316.
' Col. of Charter Rolls, vol. i. p. 374. ' Ibid. vol. i. p. 405 ; Ancient Deeds, vol. v. p. 162.
• Quo Warranto — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 119. He also was allowed the regulation of the assize of beer.
= Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 75. ' Assize Rolls, 28-31 Edw. I — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xix. p. 132.
' Lay Subsidy Roll, 1296, fol. in. ' Survey of 1541 — Border Holds, p. 30.
' Feet of Fines, i6th century, p. 22.
CARHAM TOWNSHIP.
27
ing day to Thomas Forster of Adderstone.^ The latter by will, dated April
4th, 1589, bequeathed to Matthew Forster, the illegitimate son of his own
son, Thomas Forster, ' Carhame toun, with the mains thairof , ' in tail male.
He further left to Peter Forster, the illegitimate son of his brother Roland
Forster, 'two half landis, lying in the feildis of Carham, for 21 years ....
together with all my ryght of the bealieship of Carham to him and his heads
for evir,' save that with regard to this last a life interest was given to his
son-in-law, Ralph Ewart, and the latter's two sons, Matthew and Sanders. ^
In 1604, Matthew Forster of Adderstone owned the manor of Carham,^ though
the Selbys of Branxton held some land there at the close of the sixteenth
century.* Matthew Forster's grandson. Colonel Thomas Forster, was the
only landowner there entered in the rate book of 1663,^ and in 1667, when
Thomas Forster settled his estates in tail male, they included the rectory of
Carham,^ which passed on his death to his son Thomas," who in 171 1 leased
'the messuage, farm and lands called Chidlaw in Carham,' and all his tithes
in the various townships of Carham together with the glebe lands of Wark,
Learmouth and Carham, his cottages in Carham and a yearly rent of
£1 6s. 8d. issuing out of lands in Wark to his son Thomas at the yearly rent of
one peppercorn.^ This Thomas was the rebel general of 1715, and his estates
were forfeited to the crown, Shidlaw being then valued at £80 a year and
consisting of the Anterdams pasture of 40 acres, the Picked Stone arable
of 20 acres, the Rackold and Deanbuts arable of 30 acres, the Foreloanings
and Banck arable of 74 acres and the Houghlands of 8 acres,^ but these were
not part of the rectory of which Thomas Forster the younger had never been
seised.^ The remainder of the lease, which would not expire till the death
of the exiled rebel, was granted to William Stoddart for £1,225,^° but the right
of Thomas Forster the elder to the reversion was recognised. In 1717 the
latter settled the rectory and tithes on himself for life with remainder to
the male issue of his rebel son successively in tail male, with remainder over
in tail male successively to his two surviving younger sons, John and Ralph,
' Carham Deeds,
- Wills and Inventories, vol. ii. pp. 164-16O. Thomas Forster, deceased son of the present testator, by his
will, proved November 17th, 1587, had bequeathed 'my Sonne Matthew unto my father, to use according
to his good discretions.' Ibid. vol. ii. pp. 302-303.
' Survey of the Border, 1604, p. 44. * Feet oj Fines, ibth century, p. 60.
* Rate Book, 1663 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 277. ' P.R.O. Forfeited Estate Papers, F. 25.
' For genealogy see N.C.H. vol. i. pp. 228-229. * P.R.O. Forfeited Estates Papers, F. 24.
9 Ibid. F. 23, 30. '» Ibid. !■. 25.
28 PARISH OF CARHAM.
retaining the right to alter these provisions should he wish to do so.^ The
rest of the Carham property, comprising the capital messuage and demesne
lands and four farmholds, he conveyed in 1725 by deed of gift to his third
son, Ralph, born of his second marriage. This division of the property came to
an end in 1738 when Margaret Baker, wife of Francis Baker of Tanfield Leigh,
county Durham, and daughter of John Forster of Crookletch, having suc-
ceeded to the capital messuage and demesne as heir of Ralph Forster, sold
it to John Forster of Adderstone, who had already inherited the rectory and
tithes.- On the day following the completion of this purchase, John Forster
made his will, whereby he settled his property on his own issue, secondly on
the issue of his brother, Thomas, the general, and then to the six sons of his
sister Margaret, wife of William Bacon of Newton Cap, with a proviso that
his lands in Carham should be sold for the payment of certain legacies and
debts. ^ This last proviso was not at once carried out as the estate passed
ultimately to Ferdinando Bacon Forster, the only surviving son of Margaret
Bacon,^ who instituted chancery proceedings in 1747 whereby a decree was
made for the sale of the property, which in 1754 was purchased by Anthony
Compton of Learmouth.^ This purchaser was succeeded by his son Anthony,
from whom the estate passed to his brother Ralph, and then to Ralph's son,
Anthony, who by his will dated 7 June, 1830, gave Carham for life to his wife
Catherine and settled half the estate on each of his two daughters, Isabella
and Catherine Monypenny. The former died without issue and under the
terms of her father's will her share devolved on her sister, whose grandson,
Sir Anthony John Compton Thornhill, sold the estate, including such part
of West Wark Common Farm as had been conveyed by Earl Grey in 1847,^
to Mrs. Beatrice Cayley of Riversleigh, Lytham, Lancashire, in February,
1919.'
I P.R.O. Forfeited Estates Papers, F. 24.
' Carham Deeds.
' Hodgson MSS. Adderstone. John Forster died in 1745. N.C.H. vol. i. pp. 227, 229.
' The details of the descent are to be found in N.C.H. vol. i. p. 227. A pedigree of the Bacon family
is to be found Ibid. vol. vi. p. 235.
' Carham Deeds. The Compton family had cast longing eyes on the estate as far back as 1717, when
Anthony Compton of Berwick had offered to rent it from the Commissioners of Forfeited Estates. P.R.O.
Forfeited Estates Papers, F. 23, F. 28.
' See p. 76. West Wark Common Farm was that part of Wark Common allotted to Earl Grey under
the Wark Common Enclosure Act of 1799. It ranks as part of the township of Learmouth.
' Carham Deeds ; Burke's Landed Gentry sub. Compton ; Burke's Baronetage sub. Thornhill.
CARHAM TOWNSHIP.
29
COMPTON OF CARHAM.
Anthony Compton (I.) of Spital in the chapelry = Constance, daughter of rThomas] Watson ;
of Tweedmouth. | married i6th June, 1631 (a).
Anthony Compton (II.) of Berwick, bound apprentice l6th July,
1659, to Thomas Watson of Berwick ; alderman of Berwick,
1667 ; [mayor, 1670] ; buried 8th June, 1712 («).
Margery, daughter of Elias Pratt, alderman of Berwick ;
bapt. 14th February, 1636/7 (a) ; mar. 14th January,
1659/60 (a) ; bur. 2 1st iVIarch, 1708/9 (a).
Anthony Compton (III.) of:
Berwick ; bapt. 13th June,
1666 (a) ; admitted to the
freedom of Berwick, 13th
June, 16SS, by patrimony ;
mayor 1699, 1700, 1706,
1718 ; bur. 25th Sept., 1728
(a); will dated iSth Sept.,
1728 ; proved 1729,
Hannah, daughter of Jona-
than Hutchinson, alder-
man of Newcastle, and of
Charlton, parish of EU-
ingham ; sometime M.P.
for Berwick ; mar. 15th
Sept., 1690, at .\l\ Saints,
Newcastle ; buried 25th
August, 17 1 5 (a).
Anne, bapt. 30lh April, 1661 (a); bur. 21st March,
1670/ 1 (a).
Sarah, bapt. gth December, 1662 ; mar. 6th October,
1687, Joseph Watson of Berwick (a).
Anne, bapt. 29th .August, 1671 (a) ; married 2nd
January. 16956, William Cooper. .M.D., of
Berwick (a) ; bur. I2th February, 1698,'g (a). ^
Margerie, bapt. 4th October, 1674 (a) ; bur. 31st
March, 1699 (a).
Anthony, born
31st Oct. ; bpt.
6th Nov., 1692
(<r); died 8th
Febry., 1696,7
(c) ; bur. loth
Febry., 1696/7
Anthony,
born 23rd,
bapt. 27th
Feb., 1697/8
(a)(0; bur-
ied I o t h
May, 1699
(«)■■
Jane, daugh.
of George
F'orster ; bap.
loth July,
1730, at Aln-
wick ; mar.
there 15th
July, 1730.
I
William Compton of Gainslaw ; born :
in the year of his father's mayoralty ;
bap. nth Feb., 1699/1700 (a) ; entered
at Lincoln's Inn, 24th Jan., 1718/9 ;
Recorder of Berwick, 1732-1773 ; died
25th Sept., 1773 ; buried in a maus-
oleum in his own garden at Gainslaw ;
will dated gth Oct., 1770.
Hannah Comptjn, daughter and sole heir; mar. at Berwick, 23rd Nov., 1780, Robert
Ogle of Eglingham, and died July, 1S21. ^
Mary ,
named in her
h u s b a n d's
will ; died at
Eglington,
20ih F'ebry.,
1 809, aged
86 ; buried
with her
husband at
Gainslaw.
Ralph Comp-
ton, born at
Chillingham
Castle, loth
Nov. 1704(1:);
admitted to
the freedom
of, Berwick,
1727, by pat-
rimony ; died
circa 1748.
Anthony Compton (IV.) of Car- :
ham ; bapt. at Chillingham,
28th May, 1706; purchased
Carham in 1754 ; died at Lear-
mouth ; buried 3rd Nov., 1755
[c) ; will dated 3rd Oct., 1755 ;
proved 1756.
Elizabeth, daughter of
John Wood of Presson ;
bond of marriage, 1 6th
F'eb., 1730/1 ; died at
West Chevington ;
buried 9th Dec. 1766
I I I I I
Ruth, born and died 27th June, 1693 (c).
Ruth, born 13th, bapt. 17th Nov., 1695 (a) (c) ; married Henry
Selwyn of Berwick ; bond of marriage, 29th July, 1717. ^
Margery, died 1698, aged 14 days (c).
.Miriam, bapt. 20th .March, 1698 9 (a).
Hannah, born Sept., 1701 (c) ; mar. 20th Jan., 1726 7 [6]
William Jones, Comptroller H.M. Customs, Berwick. ^
Anthony Compton =
(V.) of Carham ;
born atLearmouth;
bapt. 5th Oct., 1732
(c) ; died at Gains-
law, 28th April ;
buried 2nd May,
1770(c) ; will dated
7th Jan., 1770, for
same year.
; Jennet Home,
parish of Eccles
[of the family
of the Earl of
Home] ; mar.
1st June, 1769
(c) ; mar. sec-
ondly, James
Smith of Edin-
burgh.
Ralph Compton ;
of Hethers-
law ; succeed-
ed to Carham
on the death
of his brother,
and died
there ; buried
7th April,
1782 (c).
Bridget, daugh-
ter of
[Robson];
died at Red-
den, N.B.,
31st July,
1803, aged 73
{c) ; will dated
7 th May.
1803.
William Compton,
of Wester Melk-
ington, born at
Learmouth;
bapt. 29th Jan.,
1739/40 M; cap-
tain 65th foot ;
will dated 22nd
July. 17S3 ;
proved 1807.
Elizabeth, dau. = Thomas Compton, born at Lear- = Frances, dau.
of William mouth; bapt. 7th Nov., 1741 (c) ; of Robert
farmed successively at West Smart ; mar.
Chevington, Hartlaw and of l8th Dec,
Eshot, where he died 12th June, 1776 (c) ;
17981 aged 57 (c) i./. ; will died at Aln-
dated 25th April, 1797 ; proved wick, aged
1799. 81.
of William
Wood of
Presson;
married at
Warkworth,
l6th July,
176S.
John Comp- Mary, born at Learmouth ;
ton, died bapt. 1st .March, 1737/8 {c) ;
at Lear- mar. 30th Jan., 1759, Thomas
mouth ; Shafto of Dunston, co. Dur-
bur. nth ham (c) ; died at .Melking-
Jan., 1748 ton, :nd Aug., iSll, aged
{c). 74 (c) ; will dated 18th April,
1 8 10.
30
PARISH OF CARHAM.
I
Anthony Compton •■
(VI.) of Carham ;
born at Hethers-
law; bpt. 3rd Nov.,
1765 ('') ; mayor
of Berwick, 1820 ;
died at Ilfracombe,
1 6th July, 1 8 30(0.
Catherine, daugh-
ter of Thomas
Wood of Ham-
burgh ; bapt.
there 30ih Oct.,
1787 ; died
187=.
I
Ralph Compton
of Learmouth,
afterwards of
Melkington ;
born at Ileth-
erslaw ; bapt.
26th Aug., 1767
{i) ; died 22nd
Aug., 1837 (</).
I
Isabella, daughter and co-
heir ; born 7th April, 1813 ;
mar. at Carham, 31st Jan.,
1833, John Hodgson Hinde
of Elswick, and died s.p.
at Torquay, 26th Nov.,
1901.
Catherine -Moneypenny, dau.
and co-heir ; mar. Richard
Hodgson of Newcastle and
of Fryerside, co. Durham,
who assumed the additional
name of Huntley : she died
in Edinburgh. ^
Isabella, dau. of
John (a), sister
of James Darl-
ing of Hethers-
law, Cornhill ;
married nth
January, 1803 ;
died at Lear-
mouth, 25th
.April, 1817,
aged 37 (</).
I
William Compton, clerk in
orders, born at Hethers-
law; bpt. 4th June. 1769
[i) ; of Lincoln Coll., Ox-
ford ; matric. 12th Nov.,
1787, aged 18; B.A.,
1791; .\I.A., 1796; admit-
ted to the freedom of Ber-
wick, 1791, by patrimony;
successively vicar of St.
Olave, Exeter, and in-
cumbent of Carham.
Mary, dau.
of Hlake
Stow Lun-
d i e of
S p i t a I,
parish of
H u tt on,
Berwic k-
shire; mar.
gth Nov.,
1 801 (c).
I I
William Compton, bpt. 13th Feb., 1803 (c) ; of Trin. Coll.,
Oxford ; matric. 27th June, i82i,aged 18 ; B.A., 1825 ;
M.A., 1828; assumed the additional name of Lundie ;
died at Wark, 7th December, 1886, aged 85 (</). 4,
Daughters.
I
Thomas Compton
of London, born
at Carham ; bapt.
4th Feb., 1 77 1
(f) ; admitted to
the freedom of
Berwick in May,
1797-
Fenwick Compton = Mar}', daughter
of New Lear-
mouth ; admitted
to the freedom
of Berwick by
patrimony, 1799 !
died circa 1830.
of Thomas
Younghus-
band of El-
wick ; mar.
at Belford,
29th Nov.,
1804.
Mary, bapt. nth Oct., 1761 {i)\ wife of Thomas Nesbit
of Redden, Berwickshire. 4,
Hannah, bapt. I3lh March, 1 763 {6).
Hannah, bapt. 23rd June, 1764 (/i).
Elizabeth, wife of William Bugg, postmaster of Belford ;
bond of marriage 13th August, 1788. ^
Bridget, bapt. 30th April, 1772 (c) ; named in her
mother's will ; died unmarried May, 1829.
Ralph Compton of
London, solicitor,
and of Melkington;
born at Learmouth ;
bapt. 8ih Feb., 1807
(c) ; died at Consett,
CO. Durham ; buried
Lanchester.
Hannah Jemima,
dau. of Grieve
Smith ; died at
Brooms, parish
of Lanchester,
6th May, 1895 ;
buried at Lan-
chester.
John Comp-
ton, Lieut.
R.N. ; born
at Lear-
mouth ; bpt.
1st June,
1809 (c).
Anthony Compton (VII.) ^Elizabeth,
of H.M. Customs,
London ; admitted to
Grays Inn, nth June,
1S35, being then 25
years of age , died
9ih February, 18S1
dau. of
Gardiner,
died 3rd
D ec em-
ber, 1882
Anthony Compton (VIII. ),= Elizabeth Hughes, widow.
Ralph Compton of
Brooms Cottage,
parish of Lan-
chester ; died un-
married.
Caroline, wife
of C. D. W.
Balleny, of
Consett.
born at Feckham, S.E.,
30th Oct., 1839 ; died at
Epsom, 20th May, 1882.
dau. of Joseph Ward,
surgeon ; mar. at H ackney
West, 1st May, 1879.
Anthony Compton (IX.), born at Pont Aven, Brittany,
9th March, :S8o.
I I I I
Elizabeth Sophia, born
at Learmouili ; bapt.
14th Dec, 1803 (e);
wife of Philip Legge
of Hetton-le-Hole, co.
Durham.
Margaret ; bapt. gth
June, 1805 (c) ; wife
of Rev. John Ayton
Wood, incumbent of
Beadnel.
Isabella ; married first
Rowe, M.D., and
second Brown,
M.D., of Coldstream.
Eliza, died unmarried.
(a) Berwick Register.
(i) Ford Register.
(c) Carham Register.
(rf) M. 1. Carham.
(e) Raine, Ttst. Dmulm.
(_f) Ex. Inf. Mr. Edmund Compton.
WARK TOWNSHIP.
Wark^ is to-day a straggling village picturesquely nestling under the
shadow of the mound on which stands all that remains of the keep of Wark
Castle. Its irregularly built cottages with their gardens form a pleasant
foreground to the splendid view of the Tw-eed which is to be obtained from
the ruined fortress.
' Earlier Werch. O.E.(^«)tf«o>-c= fortification.
WARK TOWNSHIP.
31
Originally an insignificant member of the honour of Carham, it very
soon usurped the position which should belong to the vill giving its name
to the parish, and soon after the beginning of the thirteenth century became
the head of the famous barony of Roos. This was primarily due to its geo- -^
graphical position, which marked it out as the site of an important border
castle. It is even possible that what was later a separate manor and town-
ship was originally merely part of the vill of Carham, since Richard of Hex-
FiG. I. — Wark. Thatched Cottages.
ham, writing about 1133, alludes to 'Carham which by the English is called
Wark.' ^ It is quite obvious that the name of the township is derived from
the name of the castle or 'work' in its midst, which strengthens the sup-
position that its separate existence as well as its name dates from the building
of the fortress.
Descent op the Barony and Manor. — The honour or barony was
originally granted by Henry I.^ to Walter Espec, lord of Helmsley, county
' Richard of Hexham, pp. 145-146.
• Red Book of the Exchequer, vol. ii. p. 563.
32 PARISH OF CARHAM.
York, who died in 1153, leaving as his heirs his three sisters, Hawise wife of
Wilham Bussey, Albreda wife of Nicholas Traille, and Adeline wife of Peter
Roos.^ There seems reason to believe that, for a time at least, Henry II.
kept the inheritance in his own hands,^ but by 1191 Robert Roos, great
grandson of Peter and Adeline, was in possession at Wark, and had taken over
the responsibility of a debt due to the crown from that place, for which in the
previous year the sheriff had been charged.^ Robert's position was finally
regularized in 1200, when King John confirmed him in all that honour which
had belonged to Walter Espec, to be held on the same terms as Walter had held
it of Henry I., provided that the grantee gave 30 librates of land from the
honour of Carham in Northumberland both to William Bussey and Gilbert
Traille, and 50 librates to Jordan Bussey, the last being only a life grant with
reversion to Robert Roos and his heirs. The whole of the said honour in
Northumberland and elsewhere, except the 30 librates with 5 knight's fees each
held by William Bussey and Gilbert Traille, were to be held in chief.* Thus
Robert Roos was confirmed in the possession of the honour of Carham, or as it
was hereafter called the barony of Roos, which consisted of the townships of
Wark, Learmouth, Mindrum, Carham, Presson, Moneylaws, Downham,
Paston, Shotton, Kirknewton, West Newton, Lanton, Lilburn, Wooperton,
Tithngton, Ilderton, Rosedon, Shawdon, Bolton, Abberwick, Buston, Sturton
Grange and a moiety of Glanton, and was held for 2 knight's fees.^ In addition
to this, the barony owned 25s. cornage,^ and by 1333 at any rate was responsible
for keeping in repair a house within the castle of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.'^
This Robert Roos. was returned as holding the barony in capite in
August, 1212,^ but it seems that shortly before this he had entered religion,
and the custody of his lands and chattels had been entrusted by the king
to Philip Ulecotes.^ Before his death in 1226^" he provided for his younger
^ Kirkham Foundation Charter — Monasticon, vol. vi. p. 209; Sixteenth Century Pedigree of Roos — Ibid.
vol. V. p. 280.
2 Pipe Rolls, 4 Hen. 11. and 11 Hen. H. — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. pp. 3, 8.
' Pipe Rolls, 34 Hen. H., 1 Ric. I., 2 Ric. I. — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. pp. 46, 48, 51.
* Cal. Rot. Cart. p. 32b.
' Testa de Nevill — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 211 (which gives 2j knight's fees), p. 231 ; Red Book of
the Exchequer, vol. ii. p. 563. In 1279 a jury declared that the barony was held for one knight's fee. North-
umberland Assise Rolls, (Surtees Soc), p. 327.
* Red Book of the Exchequer, vol. ii. p. 713. ' Cal. of Inquisitions, Miscellaneous, vol. ii. p. 338.
' Red Book of the Exchequer, vol. ii. p. 563; Testa de Nevill — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 231. The date
of the original return on which the Testa entry was based is August 5th, 1212. Arch. Aeliana, N.S. vol. xxv.
PP- 153-159.
' May, 1212. Rot. Pal. 14 John m. 6, Rot. Claus. 14 John m. 9 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. i. p. 90.
He had become a Templar. " Excerpta e Rot. Fin. vol. i. pp. 152, 169.
WARK TOWNSHIP. 33
son Robert, with the consent of his elder son WilHam, by enfeoffing him
with the barony, which was to be held by the younger Robert and the
legitimate heirs of his body, paying therefor to the elder Robert and his
heirs at the Fair of Roxburgh annually a sore gerfalcon in lieu of all service,
saving the king's foreign service.^ The king not only sanctioned this
arrangement, but granted the new owner and his heirs the right to hold a
weekly market on Tuesday and a yearly fair there on the vigil, the feast and
the morrow of St. Giles. ^ As time went on there were several changes as
to the details of this grant. In 1241 the weekly market, which since 1227
had been changed to Saturday, was moved to Friday,^ and in 1252 it was
again placed on Tuesday and the fair moved to Whitsuntide.^ Further,
in 1 25 1 Robert Roos secured the right of free warren in his demesne lands
in Wark and elsewhere in the parish of Carham,^ but he did not have a very
peaceful possession of his property. He had been one of those to whom
Henry's youthful daughter, Margaret, had been given in charge after her
marriage to the equally youthful Alexander HI. of Scotland,^ but he does not
seem to have been sufficiently active in supporting English interests in
Scotland, and in 1255 a certain Reginald of Bath, a physician sent to pre-
scribe for the little queen, reported him for unfaithfulness in his charge.'^
Margaret herself complained that he kept her a virtual prisoner, denied her
the attendants she desired, and would not allow her husband to be left
alone with her,^ whereupon he was summoned to England in disgrace, and the
seizure of his lands was ordered, despite the championship of the Earl
Marshall.^ Some attributed his disgrace to Henry's desire for his wealth,
others to the jealousy of the northern baronage,^" but probably a wish to
control his castle was the English king's main motive, as he was constantl}-
borrowing it, even during the time when he claimed it as forfeit, ^^ an interesting
example of his extraordinary weakness. Ultimately, however, in 1259 ^^^
charges were withdrawn, and Robert's right to the castle and manor were
specifically asserted, ^^ not however before both he and his servants had
' Inspeximus and confirmation of Robert Roos's charter, .\ugust 15th. 1227 — Bain. Cal. of Documents.
vol. i. p. 177 ; Cal. of Charter Rolls, vol. i. p. 56. .\ccording to the witnesses the original charter cannot
have been earlier than 1221.
' Cal. of Charter Rolls, vol. i. p. 66 ; Cal. of Close Rolls, 1227-1231, p. il.
^ Ca!. of Charter Rolls, vol. i. p. 259. " Ibid. vol. i. p. 381.
= Ibid. vol. i. p. 374 ; Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. i. p. 346.
» Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora (Rolls Series), vol. v. p. 272. ' Ibid. pp. 501-502.
» Ibid. p. 505. » Ibid. pp. 505-530. '» Ibid. pp. 528, 569. " See pages 48-40.
" Curia Regis Roll, No. 161— Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxi. p. 354 ; Cal. of Charter Rolls, vol. ii. p. 25.
Vol. XI. 5
34 PARISH OF CARHAM.
suffered considerable loss in the matter of crops and stock at the hands of the
king's bailiffs. 1
This Robert died in 1274,2 and his son of the same name was given
seisin of the castle and manor in May of that year,^ but himself died within a
few months.'* The heir was a minor, and the guardianship fell to Robert
Roos of Helmsley, who had some difficulty in securing his person as the
grandmother refused to surrender him till she had been assured of her dower. ^
For a time at any rate the estate was in the hands of the crown, since in 1293
a jury reported that certain royal officials had been guilty of peculation
there while the lands of the late Robert Roos were in the king's hands.
The subescheator was accused of having taken 60s. from the vill of Wark
and similar sums from the vills of Learmouth and Presson, and from the
master of Carham and Philip Ridale, not to mention 3 quarters of oats valued
at 6s. from the personalty of the deceased and 53s. 4d. from his executors.
He tried to throw the responsibility on his predecessor in office, now
deceased, but he was found to have taken his share.® This enquiry doubt-
less marks the coming of age of the heir, who, as Robert Roos, claimed the
right to many liberties in answer to a writ of Quo Warranto this same year.
To his market and fair privileges, based on the charter of 1251, the king's
attorney offered a successful, but totally unjust, opposition by mistaking his
grandfather for his great-grandfather, and asserting that he was not the heir
of the Robert Roos who died in 1226 and gave Wark to his younger son.
Perhaps he may be pardoned for the confusion by those who have tried to
work out the genealogy of this remarkable family, which in all its branches
displayed such devotion to the name ' Robert,' and when compelled to choose
''^ Close Roll, .)3 Hen. III. m. isdo ; Rot. Fin. 44 Hen. III. ra. 11 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol.
i. pp. 418, 425.
' Rot. Hund — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. pp loi, 102, 114 ; Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. i. p. 49.
' Cal. of Close Rolls, 1272-1279, pp. 83-84.
* Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. i. p. 93 ; Cal. of Fine Rolls, vol. i. p. 32. There is no record of Northumbrian
estates in the inquisition of either father or son. The returns must have been lost as both are described as 'of
Wark.'
^ De Banco Rolls, No. ^, m. J, No. 7, mm. 4 do. 11, No. 11, m. 3, No. 13, m. 35do, No. 26, m. 99 — Duke's
Transcripts, vol. xxvi. pp. 141-143, 173, 175, 221, 247, 253, 383. The name of the heir and his exact relation-
ship is not given in any of the records, but it is stated that part of his lands were in custody of Sapiencia,
widow of William of Carlisle, who in October 1279, received the manor of Gargou as overlord of Robert, son
of Robert Roos of Wark. deceased, saving the rights of dower belonging to Robert's \vidow, Christine. Cal.
of Fine Rolls, vol. i. p. 32. The elder Robert's widow was Margaret, so evidently the heir in question was her
grandson. His relationship is finally made certain by the fact that in 1 293 he based his right to hold a market
and fair on the charter granted in 1251 to Robert Roos, whom he describes as his grandfather. Quo H'ar-
ranlo — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 135; Assize Roll, 21 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xviii. p. 390.
° Assize Roll, 21 F.dw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xvii. p. 112
WARK TOWNSHIP. 35
another was almost always content with that of 'William,' Much harm
was not done by this miscarriage of justice as the claimant secured the
restoration of his market privileges by the payment of a fine of 20s. He
also was allowed his other liberties without protest, including the regula-
tion of the assizes of bread and beer, infangenthef, gallows, pillory, tumbril,
and free warren, not only in Wark, but in all its dependent vills.^
This Robert Roos was the last of his branch of the family to hold Wark,
for in 1296, when war between Scotland and England was brewing, he was
induced to throw in his lot with the former, seduced from his English
allegiance by the charms of a fair Scottish lady.^ He tried to induce his
uncle, ^ William Roos, to join him, but the latter not only refused, but at once
informed the English king of his kinsman's intention. As a result a de-
tachment, some thousand strong, was sent to prevent the surrender of Wark
Castle to the enemy, but having camped at Presson for the night, it was
surrounded and surprised by a Scottish force led by Robert Roos himself
and very few escaped to tell the tale.* Robert was, of course, proclaimed a
traitor, though morally speaking he was, like many of these borderers, as
much a Scot as an Englishman,^ and his lands were forfeited,^ but the crown
surrendered them at once without any formalities to William Roos of
Helmsley as his escheat. '^ In 1301 William desired a more definite title,
probably in view of expected claims by the heirs of Robert Roos, and so
the king ordered an inquiry as to whom the property had lawfully escheated.
Whatever the result, William was to be given a legal title ; if it had escheated
to the overlord, this was to be confirmed by letters patent, if it had escheated
to the king then a formal grant by charter was to be issued.^ It was decided
that the property had escheated to the crown, and a grant by charter was
made to William Roos on the ground of his loyal service in Gascon}^ but
^ Quo Warranto — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. pp. 134-136; Assize Roll, 21 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts,
vol. xvii. p. 196, vol. xviii. pp. 390-391, 756.
^ According to Scalacronica , pp.121-122, this was Christine Mowbray. Hemingburgh, vol. ii. p. 92, says
he wished to marry her, but he was already married to his wife Laura. See pedigree p. 37.
' The chroniclers call him " brother" but see p. 94 n. 4. for an identification of this William Roos.
Cf. page 34. H. 5 for discussion as to whether Robert Roos, the traitor, was son or grandson of Robert Roos
who was enfeoffed by Robert Roos (Fursan.).
* Hemingburgh, vol. ii. pp. 92-94; Trevet, p. 432. Rishanger, pp. 156-157, copies Trevet.
' Wark is placed among lands held by Scots in England in a document of 1296. Stevenson, Scottish
Documents, vol. ii. pp. 47, 49.
« Cal. of Close Rolls, 1288-1296, p. 518 ; Rot. Scot. vol. i. p. 28.
' Rot. Scot. vol. i. p. 31 ; Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1292-1301, p. 231.
' Privy Seals, 30 Edw. I. file 9 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. ii. p. 343. The editor has taken December
2nd, 30 Edw. I. to be 1302, where it should be 1301.
36 PARISH OF CARHAM.
it is significant that at the same time he received a grant of free warren/
which suggests that the other extensive Hberties possessed by Robert Roos
were not allowed to his cousin.
Robert Roos gained nothing by his treason, his lady love spurned him,
the Scots failed to appreciate him, and a fugitive from Scotland as well as
England, he died in exile, ^ leaving two daughters as his coheirs,^ the elder
of whom, Margaret, married John Salve>ai. In 1305 Margaret and her sister
Isabel began a long struggle to secure inclusion in the pardon granted to
those Scots who had made their submission, as thereby they might secure
the restoration of their father's estates. The matter was tried by the king
in parliament that year, and the result was unfavourable to the petitioners,'*
but John Salveyn and Margaret returned to the attack in 1310, only to have
the case adjourned, since the defendant, William Roos, son of the grantee
of 1301, was in Scotland on the king's service.^ Isabel, who had married
John Knox, also made an attempt to secure her share in 1311.® Next year
the efforts of the co-heirs were successful in so far that they received a pardon,
and the escheator was ordered to divide the estate between them, Isabel's
portion to be retained in the king's hands doubtless because she was under age.''
But royal orders and their execution were by no means synonymous in the
reign of Edward II., and everywhere the escheators met with resistance.
At Wark the subescheator was not allowed to deliver his award of partition,
but was seized as he rode towards the castle and put across the Tweed after
the king's writs, the extent, the partition and other warrants had been taken
from him and his clerk. ^ Fresh orders to partition were issued in 1314,"
but in view of the state of the border from then onwards, it is hardly sur-
prising that no attempt to carry them out was made.
' Cal. of Charter Rolls, vol. iii., pp. 21, 23.
* Scalacronica, p. 122 ; Hemingburgh, vol. ii. p 94.
' Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. iv. pp. 284, 285.
' Rot. Pari. vol. i. pp. 183-184.
5 Ibid. ; Coram Rege Roll, No. 203, m. 54 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxv. pp. 216-219. Despite his
services in Scotland William Roos was still a minor (Corayn Rege Roll, No. 202, m. i — Duke's Transcripts,
vol. xxv. pp. 209-210), but he cannot have been the same William as the one who had served in Gascony
before 1301. In a legal case of 1355, the elder William is said to have died in 1316 (Cal. of Close Rolls, 1354-
1360 p. 174), but this must be a mistake, for the defendant in 13 10 is called Wilham, son of William Roos,
whereas the elder William's father was Robert Roos.
' Privy Seals, 4 Edw. II. File 5 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. iii. p. 40.
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1364-1367, p. 411 ; Cal. of Close Rolls, 1307-1313, p. 470.
' Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. v. p. 218.
» Cal. of Close Rolls, 1313-1318, p. 40.
WARK TOWNSHIP.
37
ROOS OF WARK.
Arms: Gold three bougets sable. So blasoned for " Kobt. de Rocs de
Werke" in Glover's Roll of Henry III date. The charges arc those
of the elder line of Helmsley differenced by change of colour. The
arms are canting in origin deriving from the three bougets borne
by "Robert Trussebut" (Charles' Roll of the time of Henry 111.)
whose heiress married Roos
!
Adeline =Walter
(w) . Espec
I M-
I
Walter Espec,
predeceased
his father
Walter
L_
Espec.
I !
Hawise — William Albreda =
(w). Bussey [w).
I {w).
I I I
William Bussey (;>•) fa^) .
Jordan Bussey (.v) (ap).
Roger Bussey [x).
: Nicholas
Traille
(w).
Adel-
ine
{w).
=Peter
Roos
I I I I
Wilfrid Traille (.x).
William Traille {x):
Nicholas Traille (x).
Gilbert Traille W (ap).
Everard Roos (*). Robert Roos (w) , paid lOO marks for lands of Walter Espec, 1 1 58 {ad} . ^ Sybil Valoines {w).
I
William Roos of Helmesley(a) ; held lands :
in Northumberland in capite in 1256 (c).
: Lucy (w).
I
Isabel daughter and heir = Robert Roos (iv ) overlord
of William Daubeney ; I of Wark, 127.) (e); died
aged 50 in 1285 (v). 1285 {7;).
Rose (w), daugh. and heir
of Robert Trussebut
(aq).
I
Everard
Roos (w)
living 1176
Isabel (A), daughter = Robert Roos (aA), called
of William, king
of Scots (w).
Fursan ; became a Tem-
plar (w) ; died 1226(a).
I
William Roos, aged 30 in 1285 = Matilda
(v) ; granted Wark 1297
(aa) ; died before 131c (ak).
CO- Robert
heiress of Roos
John Vaux (aa).
{w).
Robert Roos, enfeoffed = Margaret, sister
with Wark
father (b)
1274 [e).
by his
died
and co-heiress of
Peter Brus (/) ; died
1306 (i).
Robert Roos, called
Robert Fitz Robert
of Wark, in 1267
and 1269 (.9) ; given
seisin of Wark
1274 (e) ; died 1274
(g)-
Christine {g),
daughter of
Roger Bert-
ram (d).
I
A daughter =
a son of
Roger Bert-
ram (d).
A daughter =
a son of
Roger Mer-
lay (d).
Christine— William Roos (A) of
(ac).
Mindrum (ah) ;
died before 1269
Robert Roos o.s.p.
before 1293 (ae).
William Roos (ae) of Downham living at Downham
1296 (ag) ; destrained for knighthood 1278 (an).
Robert Roos a minor in 1274 (»-);= Laura wife of Robert
suffers forfeiture for treason 1296 Roos of Wark in
(aa). 1294 («»»)•
Margaret, aged
15 in 1307 (i).
JohnSal- Isabel, aged 12 in = John
veyn(«). 1307 o.s.p. (i); Knox
before 1355 («)■ {'«)■
William Roos of Presson later:
of Kendal (t) ; describes him-
self in 1307 as brother of the
traitor Robert Roos (ao) but
probably his uncle ; died
1310 (al).
Gerrard Salveyn, claims Wark in 1355 («).
Thomas Roos, aged i\
and heir (al). 4,
m 1310, son
38
PARISH OF CAKHAM.
Margery (m) Badles- = William Roos a minor and holding Wark in 1310(0*); surrended Wark to the
mere (a/). I crown in 1317 {p) ; died 3rd February, 1343 (/.)
William Roos aged 15 in 1343 (/).
Thomas Roos (w).
Margaret (to).
Matilda (if).
(a) Excerpta c Rot. Fin. vol. i. pp. 152, 169.
(6) Cal. of Charter Rolls, vol. i. p. 56.
(c) Northumberland Assize Rolls (Surtees Soc),
p. 127.
(ci) Curia Regis Roll, No. 121 — Duke's Transcripts,
vol. xxi. pp. 214-215, 217.
(e) Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. ii. p. 49 ; Cal. of Close
Rolls, 1272-1279, pp. 83-84.
(/) Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. i. p. 265 ; Cal. of Close
Rolls, 1272-1279, p. 183.
(g) Ca/. o/'/ni?. /'.)». vol. ii. p. 93 ; Cal. of Fine Rolls,
vol. i. p. 32.
(A) De Banco Roll, No. 5, m. 7 — Duke's Transcripts,
vol. x-wi. pp. 141-143.
()■) Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. iv. pp. 284, 285 ; Bain,
Cal. of Documents, vol. iv. p. 38 1.
(A) Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. i. p. 333.
(/) Cal. of Charter Rolls, vol. iv. p. 362.
(»») Cal. of Close Rolls, 1313-1318, p. 40.
(n) Cal. of Close Rolls, 1354- 1360, p. 169.
(0) Assize Roll, 21 Kdw. I. — Duke's Transcripts,
vol. xix. p. 28 ; De Banco Roll, No. 102,
m. i64do — Ibid. vol. xxviii. p. 66.
(/)) Cal. of Close Rolls, 1354-1360, p. 174.
(r) De Banco Roll, No. 5, m. 4, No. 7, m. 11 —
Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxvi. pp. 141-143,
175-
(s) Pipe Rolls, 51 Hen. III. and 53 Hen. HI.—
Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. pp. 273, 2S2.
(t) Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. viii. pp. 330, 331.
(m) Cal. of Close Rolls, 1349-1354, p. 173.
{v) Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. ii. pp. 343-344-
{w) Early .sixteenth century document giving Koos
descent — Monasticon, vol. v. pp. 280-281.
Rievaulx Chartulary, (Surtees Soc. No. 83),
pp. 3.59-361.
(x) Foundation Charter of Kirkham — Monasticon,
vol. vi. pt. i. p. 209 ; Kirkham Cartulary,
p. 21.
(z) Pipe Roll, 22 Hen. 11.— Pipe Roll Soc, vol. 28,
p. 100.
{ad) Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1292-1301, p. 231.
(ab) Assize Roll, Divers Counties, 7-0 Edw.I. —
Duke's Transcripts, vol. xx. p. 123.
{ac) Assize Roll, 21 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts,
vol. xviii. pp. 3-4.
{ad) Pipe Roll, 4 Hen. II. (Record Commissioners
Publications, No. 31), p. 146.
{ae) Assize Roll, 21 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts,
vol. xix. p. 28 ; De Banco Roll, No. :o2,
m. i64do — Ibid. vol. xxviii. p. 06.
(a/) Cal. of Inq. Misc. vol. i. p. 129.
{ag) Lay Subsidy Roll, 1296, f. 105.
{ah) Kirkham Cartulary, p. 25.
{ai) Ibid. p. 23.
{ak) See page 36. «. 5.
(a/) Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. v. p. 118.
{am) Coram Rege Roll, No. 141, m. 20 — Duke's
Transcripts, vol. xxiii. p. 559.
{an) Pari. Writs, vol. i. p. 214.
{ad) Chancery Miscellaneous Portfolios, No. 41/195 —
Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. iv. p. 381.
{ap) Cal. Rot. Cart., p. 326.
{aq) Dugdale, Baronage, vol. I., p. 545 ; Nicholas,
Historic Peerage (ed. Courthope), p. 404.
Under the circumstances, it is perhaps not surprising that in 1317 Wilham
Roos was induced to exchange Wark, described as tlie castle with its knight's
fees, serjeanties, homages, services of free tenants, villeins and their vil-
leinages and all other appurtenances excepting the advowsons of cells
pertaining to the priory of Kirkham and the hospital of Bolton, for three
hundred marks of land elsewhere. Security for this money was given by a
charge in equal parts on the farms of the cities of York and Lincoln. ^ For
a time the custody of the estate was kept in the king's hands and administered
' Cat. of Close Rolls, 1313-1318, pp. 569-570; Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1317-1321, pp. 29, 32; 1321-1324,
pp. 212-213. The original agreement provided for 400 marks of land and rent, but 100 marks of this was
a yearly fee for serving the King personally. The land valued at 300 marks yearly had not been provided
when WiUiam died in 1343, and the rent of 300 marks secured on the farms of the cities of York and Lincoln
formed part of his estate. Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. viii. pp. 335, 336. The payment continued to be made
to his heirs down to 1377. Cal. of Close Rolls, 1349-1354. PP- 248, 332, 426; 1354-1360, pp. 458, 480, 483,
53S; 1377-1381. PP- i7-"8.
WARK TOWNSHIP.
39
by bailiffs. Thus the 'custody of the castle and barony' was confided
in 1320 to David Baxter, who was to answer for the issues thereof to the
exchequer/ but he died in 1322, ^ and was succeeded by Michael Presfen,-
appointed to keep 'the manor' at the same remuneration as his predecessor.^
In 1327 the latter was succeeded by Roger Mauduit,'* who relinquished his
post in 1329 when the manor, together with knight's fees and all other
appurtenances valued at £60 15s. 5d., was granted for life to William Mon-
tague in lieu of an annual 200 marks, which the king was bound to pay him
for his contract of service for life with twenty men-at-arms. ° William
Montague was confirmed in this life possession in 1331, when he was relieved
of all service therefor save the rent of a red rose at Midsummer,^ and two
years later, in consideration of his heavy expenses in restoring the castle,
the property was granted in tail on William's death to his younger
son John, to be held of the king by the service of one knight's fee.'
It is obvious that William Montague was very anxious as to the
legality of his tenure. In 1334 he had the grant in tail reaffirmed with the
assent of parliament, and in the following year he secured fresh letters
patent reciting it,^ not to mention a special grant of the market privileges
formerly enjoyed by Robert Roos.^ But the claims of the Roos heiresses
were not put again to the test during his life time, and he died on January
30th, 1344, seised of the castle, manor and borough, including a park, a fishery
in the Tweed and the hamlet of Learmouth, all of which were duly handed
on to his son John.^"
' Cal. of Fine Rolls, vol. iii. p. 15. For identification of David of Lanton as David Baxter, see page 226.
- Exchequer Q. R. Memoranda — Bain, Cal. 0/ Documents, vol. iii. p. 141 ; Originalia, 17 Edw. 11. —
Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 298. In the Originalia he is erroneously said to have held Wark in capite.
' Cal. of Fine Rolls, vol. iii. p. 219. This appointment was made again in 1327 [Ibid. vol. iv. p. 20) a few
days before Michael Presfen was finally superseded. He seems to have put William Presfen in his place
and there was some trouble over the accounts at the end of his term of office. Cal. of Close Rolls, 1327-1330,
p. 342. Michael Presfen's accounts during his tenure of office are to be found in P.K.O. Ministers' Accounts,
Bundle 952, Nos. 12, 13 and in P.R.O. Enrolled Accounts, P. i, Edw. III. 57.
* Cal. of Fine Rolls, vol. iv. p. 24.
* Cal. of Close Rolls, 1330-1333, p. 375 ; 1339-1341, p. 75 ; Cal. of Fine Rolls, vol. iv. p. 129 ; Cal. of
Patent Rolls, 1327-1330, pp. 286, 392 ; Cal. of Inq. Miscellaneous, vol. ii. p. 253. The original grant \vas
dated January nth, 1328 (Cal, of Fine Rolls, vol. iv. p. 116), but for some reason did not become effective.
« Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1330-1334, p. 114.
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1330-1334, pp. 462, 463. The records of the feudal aid of 1346 register the fact
that the service had been reduced from 2i Knight's fees to one Knight's fee. It is al.so evident from this
that the term ' manor and Knight's fees' is equivalent to the whole barony. Feudal Aids, vol. iv. p. 66.
» Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1330-1334, p. 520 ; 1334-1338, p. 162.
' Cal. of Charter Rolls, vol. iv. 320.
"> Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. viii. pp. 386. 388; Cal. of Close Rolls, 1343-1346, p. 319.
40 PARISH OF CARHAM.
Ten years later there came the long expected revival of the Roos claims
to Wark. In November, 1354, Jolm Montague secured an exemplification
of the record of the proceedings in parliament in 1305,^ as he had already been
served with notice to show cause why the castle and manor should not be
handed over to Gerrard Salveyn, son and heir of Margaret, daughter of Robert
Roos, and heir also of Margaret's younger sister Isabel, who had died without
issue. Salveyn's claim was based on the pardoxi granted by Edward I. to all
Scots who made their surrender, which, he averred, automatically included
children under age and thus unable to take advantage of the offer, and on the
fact that Edward II. had recognized the Roos claims and had ordered the
surrender of the property to Margaret and Isabel. The defence relied on
the assertion that Robert Roos had not been a Scot, as the claimant asserted,
but an Englishman born at Wark of the king's allegiance, and argued that there-
fore neither he himself nor his heirs were included in the pardon. Further the
judgment in parliament in 1305 was put in, though the plaintiff asserted
that the pardon was issued after these proceedings, and that therefore the
right on which he relied dated from a time later than this judgment. On
the whole the claimant had a strong case, fortified by the order to partition
the estate between the two co-heirs in 1312, but it was sadly weakened by
the fact that Robert Roos was not a Scot and that there was no evidence
to prove that his two daughters really came under the provisions of the
general pardon. In any case, Gerrard Salveyn did not appear to hear
judgment pronounced, perhaps because he had reason to fear reprisals. He
was already in possession of Bellister and Plenmeller, a part of the
inheritance secured doubtless under the award of 1312, and no sooner was
judgment given against him with regard to Wark, than the crown insti-
tuted proceedings against him and secured the confiscation of the two
townships as forfeit by the treason of Robert Roos.^ Thus the Montague
title was maintained, but the irrepressible Gerrard did not give up all hope,
for in 1367 he obtained an exemplification of the pardon granted to his
mother in 1312.^
John Montague did not live at Wark, but seems to have divided his
time between his home in the parish of St. Clement Danes, without Temple
Bar, and his country seat at Stokenham, county Devon. In 1365 he leased
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1354-1358 p. 133. ' Cal. of Close Kolls, 1354-1360, pp. 168, 178.
3 Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1364-1367, p. 411.
WARK TOWNSHIP. 4I
the castle and barony to Joan, widow of John Coupland, for a term of seven
years, at an annual rent of 200 marks. ^ Probably Joan was hereby con-
firmed in a lease originally held by her husband, who certainly lived at Wark
and made his will there on October nth, 1359.^ She was a large landowner
in Glendale, and in addition to the above lease she seems to have owned
some small holding in the township confirmed to her by fine in 1365.^ In
1374 another tenant was found in the person of William Swinburne, to whom
the castle and barony was then transferred,* but when John Montague died
in 1370, the property was worth nothing as it had been destroyed by war.
His son John, aged 39 or more, succeeded his father,^ and when his mother
Margaret's dower fell in five years later, things had improved so far as to allow
the annual value of the whole estate to be estimated at 200s.,® though this still
fell far short of the 200 marks for which it had been let in 1365. This John
Montague was no more interested than his father in his Northumbrian
property, and in 1397 he exchanged it for other lands not specified. The
new owner was Ralph Neville,^ created earl of Westmorland later that same
year, and he in turn effected an exchange in 1398 with Sir Thomas Grey of
Heton who thus acquired a property which was to continue in his line for
many generations.^ The new owner died in November, 1400, the castle
and manor having previously been settled on himself and Joan his wife
and the heirs of their bodies, with successive remainders to the heirs of his
body and his right heirs. Joan survived him, and at her death the pro-
perty went to their son Thomas,^ who was under age and a ward of the crown
and only secured his inheritance in 1407 after special inquiry had revealed
that he was twenty-two.^" This Thomas Grey of Heton, baron of the barony
of Wark as he is termed in an indult to have a portable altar,^^ was brought
into close relations with the royal house of York, and in 141 2 was given
by Edward, duke of York, the lordship of Wark in Tynedale, which in
> Cal. of Close Rolls, 1364-1368, p. 183. ' Wills and Inventories, vol. i. p. 31.
' Pedes Finiitm, 39 Edw. III. No. 137 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxix. pp. 274-276. Cf. Cal. of Patent
Rolls, 1367-1370, p. 39.
* Dodsworth MS. 45, fol. 49.
' Inq. p.m. 13 Ric. II. No. 34 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxviii. pp. 205-207.
^ Inq. p.m. 18 Ric. II. No. 31 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxviii. pp. 297-298.
' Cal. of Patent Rolls. 1396-1399, p. 410. ' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1396-1399. P- 4io-
^ Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1401-1405, p. 182; Inq. p.m. 2 Hen. IV. No. 50 — Scalacronica. Proofs and
Illustrations, pp. lix.-lx.
" Inq. p.m. 8 Hen. IV. No. 87 — Scalacrouica, Proofs and Illustrations, pp. Ixi.-lxiii.
'1 Cal. of Papal Letters, vol. vi. p. 145.
Vol. XI. 6
42 PARISH OF CARHAM.
default of children born to the duke, of which there were no signs, would
have gone to his brother Richard of Conisburgh. As the gift pro-
vided that on Thomas Grey's death his property should remain to his
eldest son Thomas and Isabel, the daughter of the said Richard, and the
heirs of their bodies, and in default to the duke and the heirs male of his
body,^ it may well be taken to have been Isabel's marriage portion, granted
by her uncle in view of the fact that he would in all probability die childless.
Thus Thomas, the elder, was lord of both Warks by virtue of his connection
with Richard of Conisburgh, who in 1414 was created earl of Cambridge,
and this explains why he abandoned the Lancastrian traditions of his father,
who had helped Henry IV. to gain his crown, ^ and in 1415 took part in the
conspiracy against Henry V. which cost him his life. According to his
own account he was led into it by others, particularly by one Lucy, a retainer
of the earl of March. ^ On the other hand his fellow conspirator. Lord Scrope
of Masham, declared that it was Grey who had drawn him into it.* A
special commission appointed to try the accused remanded Cambridge and
Scrope for trial by their peers, but found Grey guilty and sentenced him to
be drawn, hung and executed. The drawing and hanging were remitted,
and he walked publicly aftd on foot from the Watergate of Southampton
through the midst of the town to the Northgate, and was there decapitated,
his head being sent for exposition at Newcastle-upon-Tyne.^
By the time that the Feudal Aid of 1428 came to be collected, Sir Ralph
Grey, eldest surviving son and heir of the executed Thomas, then about 25,®
had been restored to his patrimony, and was said to hold Wark, Learmouth
and Presson for a moiety of a knight's fee." He died in March, 1443, when he
held the castle, manor and township of Wark in fee tail by the fourth part
of one knight's fee, his son Ralph, said to be aged about 14 or 16, being his
heir.^ The latter was swept into the struggles of the Wars of the Roses,
and true to his traditions first appeared on the Yorkist side. When his party
for the time seemed dissolved in 1460 after the defeat at Ludlow, he secured
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1408-1413, p. 399. - Cat. of Patent Rolls, 1399-1401, p. 287
' See his letters begging for mercy addressed to Henry V. They are so badly faded and mutilated
that their meaning is hard to decipher. They are printed in Dep. Keeper's Rep. No. xliii. App. i. pp. 582-588.
* Rot. Pari. vol. iv. p. 66. ' Rot. Pari. vol. iv. pp. 65-66.
* Durham Cursitor Records— De/). Keeper's Rep. vol. xlv. App. i. pp. 207-209.
' Feudal Aids, vol. iv. p. 86.
' P.R.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. Hen. VI. File iii. ; Durham Cursitor Records — Dep. Keeper's Rep. No. xliv.
App. p. 398.
WARK TOWNSHIP. 43
a free pardon from the triumphant Lancastrians, ^ but in 1462 he assisted
at the reduction of Alnwick by the Yorkists under lord Hastings, and as a
reward was made constable of that fortress.^ None the less, in the following
year he deserted Edward IV., partly perhaps because he found himself
only second in command at Alnwick. He seized Sir John Ashley, his
superior ofticer, and betrayed the castle to the Lancastrians.^ It seemed
as though the tide was turning against the Yorkists in Northumberland,
but their victories at Hedgeley Moor and at the Linnels near Hexham in the
spring of 1464 changed the whole aspect of the struggle. Sir Ralph Grey
had escaped from the Linnels before the battle,* for Edward IV. had refused
to forgive his treachery, and in an offer of pardon to aU who made their sub-
mission, had definitely excepted him together with Humphrey Neville.^ In
Bamburgh he made his last stand against the Yorkists, who were under the
command of Warwick. The artillery of the besiegers was too much for
the old castle, and when Sir Ralph had been wounded, the garrison agreed to
surrender. ' That fals traytur, ' as the strongly Yorkist chronicler called him,
was taken to the king at Pontefract, and thence to Doncaster, where he was
executed.^
According to the inquest taken after the death of Sir Ralph Grey, the
castle, lordship and manor were together worth £20 a year and no more,
because of the sterility of the country and the destruction of the Scots,
though in this there was not included certain lands in the " esthowght" of
Wark, which had been his mother's dowry and which at her death he had
let off for a term of years. His heir was his son Thomas, aged 8,^ and there
is no indication of forfeiture. The widow was allowed to enter on such
estates as she had held jointly with her husband, though this did not
include Wark,^ and Thomas Grey was certainly in possession of the barony
in 1480.^ The latter must have died before 1499, for on October 14th of
that year his son and heir, Ralph, was given licence to enter on all his other
possessions without proof of age.^°
From this time forward the property remained in the hands of the
Greys.^^ Sir William Grey, when created a peer in 1624, took the title of Lord
» Cal. of Patent Rolls. 1452-1461, p. 575. ' W. of Worcester, p. 779.
» Ibid. pp. 781-782 ; Gregory, p. 220. ♦ W. of Worcester, p. 782. ' Foedtra, vol. xi. p. 527.
« CoUege of Arms MS. L. 9 — Warkworth, pp. 36-39; W. of Worcester, pp. 782-783 ; Gregor)-, p. 227.
' P.R.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. Edw. IV. File 17. * Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1461-1467, p. 388.
• P.R.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. Edw. IV. File 75. " Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1494-1509, p. 191.
" See Grey Pedigree in Raine, North Durham, pp. 326-327.
44 PARISH OF CARHAM.
Grey of Wark, but none the less was found on the parhamentary side during
the Civil War. He suffered no confiscation at the Restoration, and his grand-
son, Ford, Lord Grey, was created viscount Glendale and earl of Tankerville
in 1695.^ The latter's only child, Mary, succeeded to a portion of her father's
inheritance, including Wark,^ and her husband, Charles Bennet, baron
Ossulston, was in 1714 created earl of Tankerville. The property continued
with their descendants, though in 1913 the site of the castle with
the manorial rights, Wark Farm and Wark Common Farm, were offered
for sale by auction but withdrawn.^ Wark Common Farm was that portion
of the common allotted to the earl of Tankerville under the enclosure act
of 1799, and is separated from Wark by Sunnilaws, though it ranks as part
of Wark township. This was sold in May, 192 1, to Mrs. Cayley, the
proprietor of Carham, and Wark itself, with the exception of such parts of
it as are owned by small freeholders, was sold in 1920 to Captain Samman
of Willoughby Manor, near Hull.
WARK CASTLE.
" Auld Wark upon the Tweed
Has been many a man's dead." *
may not be poetry of a high order, judged even by the standards of
other folk doggrel, but it is none the less a true description of the
history of Wark for at least five centuries. Now a grass covered mound,
crowned by the massive masonry which formed the base of the
shell keep, is all that remains of a once redoubtable castle, which
in its day frowned at the Scottish army across the Tweed, withstood
many an onslaught, and more than once fell victim to the invading forces
of the enemy. It was doubtless the fact that at this point the river was
fordable, that led to the erection of the castle, and the first we hear of such a
fortification is during the anarchic days of King Stephen, when David,
king of Scotland, took a delight in invading Northumberland, nominally as
» Privy Seal Docket — Arch. Aeliana, N.S. vol. xxiv. p. 222; Cal. of State Papers, Domestic, 1684-1695,
P- 331-
^ In 1730 Horsley (Inedited Contributions to the History of Northumberland, p. 56). wrote 'the estate of
Wark now belongs to Henry Grey Neville esquire, having been left him and a great deal more by the last
Lord Grey.' This would mean Ralph, Lord Grey, brother of Ford, earl of Tankerville, who divided the
inheritance with his niece, Marj'. No trace of Wark being owned by Ralph. Lord Grey, can be found
among the deeds, but it is possible in view of the fact that the title was Grey of Wark. If so, the Tanker-
villes must have bought from the Greys of Howick, to whom the inheritance passed from Henry Neville.
' Berwickshire Naturalists' Club, vol. xxii. pp. 305-306. ' Denham Tracts, vol. i. p. 343.
WARK CASTLE. 45
the supporter of his niece Matilda's claim to the English throne. His first
incursion was in 1126, when he seized ' Carham which by the English is called
Wark,' and only surrendered it when Stephen came north and offered the
earldom of Huntingdon together with Carlisle and Doncaster to the Scottish
king's son Henry. The chronicler, in narrating these events, speaks of Wark
both as a town and as a castle,^ and his description of the place as 'Carham
called Wark' provokes the surmise that the fortification was of recent
date. Whether new or old, the fortress was sufficiently strong to prove a
serious stumbling block to King David's ambitions, when in 1138 he strove
to win the earldom of Northumberland from the English king. Three
times that year did he lay formal siege to the place, and in the
end he only captured it by means of starvation. On January
loth his nephew, William Fitz-Duncan, attacked at dawn in a vain
attempt to take it by storm, and a three weeks siege laid by the
king in person, and supported by a variety of siege engines, failed to
reduce the garrison, gallantly led by Jordan Bussey, nephew of
the owner, Walter Espec. The Scottish king, despairing of success,
and wrathful at the number of his casualties which included his
standard bearer, abandoned the enterprise, and went off to ravage North-
umberland.- Stephen, as yet unhampered by rebellion at home, advanced
in February against the enemy, driving him back across the border and
using Wark as a base from which to lead a not too successful foray into
Scotland by way of retaliation.^ But when complications nearer home
had called the English king southwards, the Scots re-entered England after
Easter, bent on serious conquest. At the very beginning of their campaign
they found Wark a thorn in their side, for the garrison seized one of their
supply trains, and even cut up the personal escort of David's son, Henry.
For the time the only thing to be done was to mask the fortress, care being
taken to ravage the whole country side so that no provisions could be
secured by its defenders,* but the siege was renewed in earnest after the
Scottish king had been defeated, though not routed, at the Battle of the
Standard. Once more a siege train failed to reduce the fortress, and the
' 'Opidum' and 'castellum,' Richard of He-xham, pp. 145-146.
^ Richard of Hexham, p. 151 ; John of Hexham, p. 289.
» Richard of Hexham, p. 155; John of He-xham, p. 290.
* Richard of Hexham, pp. 157-158. The account of John of Hexham, pp. 291, 292, is very confused ai
to chronology.
46 PARISH OF CARHAM.
besiegers suffered considerably at the hands of sallying parties without
reducing the number of the garrison, only one of which was captured
through delaying too long in the endeavour to destroy one of the siege engines
during an otherwise successful sortie. But relief from England was out of
the question, and David determined to starve the place out. By the end
of September provisions were running very short, for though a truce had
been arranged, the siege of Wark was specifically excepted from its opera-
tions. All the horses in the castle had been killed and salted, and most
of them had been consumed, but the spirit of the besieged was such that
they were contemplating an attempt to cut their way through the investing
force, when the abbot of Rievaulx arrived with instructions from Walter
Espec to negotiate a surrender. David allowed the brave defenders to
march out with the honours of war, assisting them in their departure by the
gift of 24 horses. The castle he razed to the ground.^
Walter Espec probably never saw his castle or its site again, for he
died in 1153 while the Scots still held northern England. After Henry II.
had forced Malcolm IV. to surrender his grandfather's gains, it would seem that
this important border place was kept in the king's hands, at any rate the
royal accounts show that £377 14s. iid. was spent on building operations
there between 1158 and 1161,- and the Melrose chronicler records that in
1 158 the castle of Wark was fortified once again. ^ Doubtless it still
remained in the king's hands, for when we next hear of it, the sheriff of the
county, one Roger Stuteville, was in command. This was in 1173, when
Henry II. was faced with feudal rebellion in England working in conjunction
with his enemies of France and Scotland. William the Lion, having deter-
mined on an invasion, advanced on Wark, once more the guardian of the
border : ' let us go take the castle of Wark in England ' was the universal
Scottish cry. The castellan went out to meet the Scottish king as he
approached, and conscious of the weakness of his force, begged for forty
days truce, so that he might communicate with King Henry overseas and show
him that 'it was no time for song or laughter,' but that he must provide
reinforcements if the castle and the north were to be saved. Sure of his
strength, says the chronicler, William agreed to this proposal,^ but he had
• Richard of Hexham, pp. 165-166, 170, 171-172; John of Hexham, pp. 291-292.
» Pipe Rolls, 4, 5, 6. 7 Hen. II. — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. 2-5. C/. Bain, Cal. 0/ Documents, vol. i.
pp. 9-10.
' Chron. de Mailros, p. 76. 'Jordan Fantosme (Rolls Series), pp. 242-248.
WARK CASTLE. 47
really no option, as he was compelled to fall back before the royal forces
under the justiciar, Richard Lucy, who managed to carry the war some
way into Scotland. That Wark was promptly put into a position to with-
stand a siege is obvious from Roger Stuteville's accounts as sheriff for the
year 1174, wherein there is mention of 48 chaldrons of oatmeal, costing
£19 4s. od., and 53 chaldrons of malt, costing £10 12s. od., provided
for Wark, not to mention £41 paid in wages to ten knights and forty squires
garrisoning the castle. A further £5 was accounted for as spent on the
king's knights there. ^ Thus when in 1174 the Scottish king invaded
Northumberland once more, he found Wark well defended, and so passed on,
and only took up the siege seriously after he had been compelled to retreat
before the local forces of Yorkshire and Lancashire advancing to meet
him. 2 On this occasion the attack was sharp and short. The intrepid
castellan had his men well in hand, and bade them spare their arrows and
economize their food as their enemy had splendid supplies, good roads of com-
munication and plenty of war material. The attacking forces were largely
Flemish mercenaries, and they hurled themselves en masse against the
main entrance, seeking, it seems, to overpower the defence by sheer
numbers. Their bravery was astounding and carried them across
the moat, but their losses were such that they had to retire. William
then brought up his siege engines, a course which a more prudent com-
mander would have followed earlier, but here again failure dogged his
every endeavour, and the first stone hurled from the sling fell short
and only resulted in putting out of action a Scottish knight, who was
in the line of fire and would have been killed had he not been
wearing very heavy armour — 'a costly performance indeed' as the
Scottish king declared. Other engines were no more successful, and an
attempt to burn the castle was frustrated by the wind. Since speed was
necessary for success, as the Scottish position in Northumberland was by
no means secure, these failures compelled the abandonment of the siege. ^
The castle seems to have continued in the king's hands throughout the
reigns of Henry IL and Richard L, for in 1199 12 marks were expended from
1 Pipe Roll, 20 Hen. II. — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. 21. Cf. Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. i. p. 18.
The chronicler states that in the subsequent siege the captain had 20 knights under his command. (Jordan
Fantosme, p. 304), which agrees roughly with these accounts.
" This seems to explain the obvious suspension of the siege in Jordan Fantosme, pp. 300-302.
3 Jordan Fantosme, pp. 302-313. Chron. de Mailros, p. 86, says merely that King William laid siege
to Wark and lingered there for some time without making any progress.
48 PARISH OF CARHAM.
national sources in strengthening it,^ though Robert Roos was probably
in possession of the barony. ^ The latter was finally confirmed as owner both
of the barony and castle in 1200,* though he lost them for a brief period in
1216, when King John marched against his recalcitrant barons. The
owner of Wark had been one of the executors of Magna Carta,'* and he
must have joined the other northern lords in agreeing to surrender North-
umberland to the Scottish king, when it became evident that only force of
arms would make King John keep his word. Doubtless, too, he was among
those who fled before the avenging arm of the English king as he advanced
to the north, ravaging as he went, for we know that on January nth,
1216, Wark was burnt to the ground.^ Evidently the castle was rebuilt
soon after, though the owner did not reside there, and placed one Robert
Cargho in command as castellan.^
The strategic importance of Wark is illustrated as much by the con-
sistent desire of the English kings to have it under their direct control, as
by the frequent attempts of the Scots to capture it. Probably it had been
John's well known carelessness in these matters that had confirmed it to the
Roos family, and his successor tried to get it back into royal hands. He
was already trying to achieve this end when in 1255 he obtained the loan
of the castle from Robert Roos,' as he wished to use it as a base from which
he could take a hand in the obscure political wrangling then going on in
Scotland. He had already sent the earl of Gloucester to assist the party of
Alan Durward, which had managed by a coup d'etat to seize the boy king
Alexander and his wife Margaret, the English king's daughter, and assume
the control of the government. He now came in person to Wark,^ where
he arranged a conference with Alexander, giving an elaborate safe conduct
to those of the Scottish side, and promising that they should not be detained
in England against their will.^ None the less, after the conference had been
held, the queen of Scots remained behind with her mother who had fallen
ill, much to the disgust of the Scottish nobles, who extracted from Henry
' Pipe Roll, I John — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii, pp. 65-66. Cf. Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. i. p. 45.
2 See page 32. « Cal. Rot. Cart. p. 326. * Matthew Paris, vol. ii. p. 605.
' Chron. de Mailros, p. 122. ' Northumberland Assize Rolls, (Surtees Soc), p. 115.
' Cal. oj Patent Rolls, 1247-1258, p. 423, cf. p. 473.
* Chron. de Mailros, p. 181. He had arrived by September ist. (Letter dated at Wark, September ist.
Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1247-1258, p. 430). A charter was dated there on September 7th {Cal. of Charter Rolls,
vol. i. p. 449). as he was on a visit to Chilhngham on September 5th {Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1247-1258,
p. 424), he probably returned to Wark oi; the 6tli.
• Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1247-1258, p. 424.
h
to
<
O
CO
<
u
w
X
H
O
Ui
<
X
o
a;
<
WARK CASTLE. 49
a promise to send his daughter back so soon as his wife was sufficiently
recovered to return South. ^ The castle was restored to Robert Roos in
May 1256,2 though eight of the king's foot-sergeants' were paid for dwell-
ing at Wark till June nth.'* Two years later Henry again borrowed the
castle,^ to be used as a refuge for the English party at the Scottish
court, which had been overthrown by its opponents, and wanted
a border stronghold from which to plan its restoration to power.
Alan Durward was to be received in Norham and Walter Moray in
Wark, careful provision being made that they should not be admitted
to either the keep or the inner bailey, which in the latter case was to
be left in the hands of Robert Roos.^
Prominently though Wark had figured hitherto in the relations of
England and Scotland, it was to play an even more important part during
the reign of Edward I., whose aggressive policy towards his northern neigh-
bours made the border fortresses places of great military interest. Before
trouble arose Edward had paid his first visit to Wark in 1292, after he had
presided at Berwick-upon-Tweed over the solemn adjudication of the throne
of Scotland to John Balliol. He arrived there on Thursday, November 20th,
and on the following day his household accounts show a disbursement of
£21 4s. 5d. He seems to have remained there till the 26th,' when he went
on to Roxburgh,^ but on his way south he lay once more at the castle on
December 12th, when his expenses amounted to £24 2S ijd.^ Within four
years he was back again, but on this occasion he had abandoned the role of
judge for that of military commander. The war with the Scots had begun.
The owner of Wark had opened negotiations with the enemy, and only the
exertions of his uncle, William Roos, saved the castle from falling into
Scottish hands. 1° It was to Wark that Edward proceeded at the opening
of the campaign, spending Easter there before advancing into Scotland,"
• Chron. de Mailros, p. i8i ; Cal. o) Patent Rolls, 1247-1258, p. 425.
" Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1247-1258, p. 473. ' Servientes pedites.
« They were paid at the rates of 2d. a day. Pipe Roll, 40 Hen. Ill — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. 232 .
' Cal. 0} Patent Rolls, 1247-1258, p. 621.
' Close Roll, 42 Hen. HI. ra. lodo — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. i. p. 413.
' Stevenson, Scottish Documents, vol. i. p. 369. ' Cal. of Close Rolls, 1288-1296, pp. 276, 308.
' Stevenson, Scottish Documents, vol. i. p. 370.
" Chancery Miscellanea, Portfolio. No. tVs — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. iv. p. 381 For the details of
Robert Roos's treachery, see page 35.
" Lanercost, p. 176; Hemingburgh, vol. ii. p. 94. He was at Wark from March 17th to March 28th. Cal.
of Close Rolls, 1288-1296, pp. 476, 510; P.R.O. Ancient Correspondence, vol. 45, No. 74. Easter day fell on
March 25th in 1296.
Vol. XI. 7
50 PARISH OF CARHAM.
and for the time being Osbert Spaldington was put in command as repre-
sentative of the new owner, WiUiam Roos.^ Still, it was obviously provided
with munitions by the king, who in 1297 ordered all his ballistae, quarrels
and other things that were 'in the munition of the castle of Wark and in
Osbert's custody' to be taken to Berwick,^ and it was frequently under the
direct control of the government during the Scottish wars. On his way
back from the Falkirk campaign Edward lay there for one night, ^ and in
1300 he borrowed it together with its munitions for a year 'for the safety
of the March,' provision being made for the owner's sergeant to remain there
to protect his master's armour and other property.* The castle itself
was placed under the control of Robert FitzRoger, who was in command
of the king's forces in Northumberland.^
Wark figured fairly frequently in the disastrous border history of the
reign of Edward II. When in 1309 this ineffective monarch sought to dis-
tract attention from the hated Gaveston by a campaign against the ever
increasing power of Robert Bruce, he could not make up his mind as to the
meeting place for his army, and having altered the venue from Berwick to
Wark, he later determined on two attacks, one from Berwick and the other
from Carlisle.^ In the end, the campaign never took place, but in September,
1310, Edward did manage to reach Wark ' on an expedition against Bruce,
which achieved nothing, save that he was enabled to winter in Berwick, far
from baronial opposition, with Earl Warenne guarding the border at Wark.^
In 1314 the castle witnessed the passing of at least a portion of that motley
array which Edward led to defeat at Bannockburn,^ and after that disaster
Sir Edward Darel was made constable of the fortress. i" In 1315 the king's
favourite, Henry Beaumont, brother of the unlearned Lewis Beaumont
appointed three years later to the see of Durham, contemplated the use of
the castle as a base for attacking the advancing Scots," and in the following
year Sir William Roos, having recently succeeded to the castle and manor,
• Rot. Scot. vol. t. p. 31. - Cal. of Close Rolls, 1298- 1302, p. 11.
' October 19th, 1298. Cal. of Fine Rolls, vol. i. p. 408 ; Cal. of Close Rolls, 1296-1302, pp. 161, 182, 183.
' Exchequer Q. R. Memoranda, 29 Edw. I. m. 60 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. ii. p. 295; Cal. of Patent
Rolls, 1292-1301, p. 538.
' Stevenson, Scottish Documents, vol. ii. p. 411.
' Cal. of Close Rolls, 1307-1313, p. 231; Rot. Scot. vol. i. pp. 73-77.
' He was at Wark on September 15th, 1310. Rot. Scot. vol. i. p. 103.
' Chancery Miscellanea, Portfolio, No. 1 1 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. iii. p. 33.
' Reg. Palat. Dunelm, vol. ii. pp.1003-1004. '° Issues of the Exchequer, Hen. IH. — Hen. VI. p. 127.
" Rot. Scot. vol. i. p. 150.
WARK CASTLE. 5I
undertook to keep the castle and the country round with 30 men-at-arms
and 40 hobelers from the ist December to Midsummer following, or a whole
year if need be, twelve of the former at his own cost, and the remainder at
the king's, the rate of payment for a man-at-arms being lad. and for a
hobeler 4d. daily. Sir William also agreed to another contract, whereby
he undertook to serve for the same period on the Scottish march with 50 men-
at-arms of his own retinue for a fee of £1,000. As was usual the king bore
the expense of all the horses lost in his service, and in the following May
ten marks were awarded to Sir William as compensation for the loss of his
'white laird horse,' killed in a foray near Jedburgh in company of the lord
warden. The contract was thus duly performed, though sometimes more
and sometimes fewer men were mustered, and indeed Sir William served
for a month longer than the stipulated period.^ But the experiment of
retaining a man to defend his own castle evidently did not prove a success.
Wark was indeed in time of war practically a royal castle, and in November
1317 it became so in theory as well as fact, when its owner surrendered
both castle and barony into the king's hands in return for the promise of
other lands.-
From 13 17 to 1329 Wark castle was in the charge of a series of bailiffs
appointed to keep the barony as a whole, ^ but though steps were taken to
provide it with supplies,* it was compelled by famine to surrender to the Scots
in 1318, as no relief arrived to raise the siege. ^ Apparently it did not remain
long in enemy hands, but little care was taken of it after recovery, and
one constable at least was allowed to die without payment of his dues, which
his widow only secured at the beginning of the following reign ;^ another
had to be forgiven a debt to the crown, since all the dues he had collected
had been carried off in a successful raid on the castle.' So unsuccessful was
this administration by bailiffs, that soon the king took to appointing a con-
stable quite independent of the civil official. Thus in 1326 John Clavering,
who held that ofhce, was ordered to see to the munitioning of his charge
and to report the number of his garrison, since certain unruly Scots were
' Exchequer K. R. Miscellanea (Army) No. ?| — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. iii. p. iii. Cf. Rot. Scot.
vol. i. p. 167.
» Cal. of Close Rolls, 1313-1318, pp. 569-570. Cf page 38. ' See page 39.
* Cal. of Close Rolls, 1313-1318, p. 506. ' Lanercost, p. 235.
« Cal. of Close Rolls, 1327-1330, pp. 55, 60 ; 1333-1337, p. 49«
' Cal. of Close Rolls, 1327-1330. p. 342; Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. iii. p. 174.
52 PARISH OF CARHAM.
threatening the border fortresses in defiance of the truce. He was further
ordered 'to go in person to the said castle, there to remain for the defence of
those parts, so conducting himself in this behalf that it may not behove
the king to take the castle into his own hands and to provide for its custody. '^
It is evident that the constable was careless and non-resident, and he certainly
did not continue to hold office very long, for soon the castle was again in
the custody of the bailiff, though in 1328 the late owner, William Roos, was
put in charge for a time^. In the following year this disastrous experiment
in royal administration was brought to an end by the grant of both castle
and manor for life to William Montague,^ soon to become earl of Salisbury,
who thus acquired a property so ravaged as to be quite worthless for the
time being.'* The crown recognised this in 1333 by converting the life
grant into a grant in fee tail ' because of the very large sums which he will
have to lay out in fortifying the castle of the manor,' which was 'ruined and
broken.' ^
The Montagues showed little personal interest in the castle.® During
the time that it remained in their family it was generally sub-let, at one
time the tenant being Joan Coupland, who undertook in 1365 as the terms
of her lease 'to guard, maintain and defend the premises against all men
save the king and his eldest son.' The structural upkeep of the castle was
to fall on the lessor, and he undertook to spend 40 marks that very year in
repairing the 'dongon' and walls, but the lessee was responsible for all
restoration if the castle were taken or burnt by enemies.' During the almost
constant border warfare of the later fourteenth century, which continued
whether truces had been agreed to or not, Wark suffered with other places.
William Swinburne, the lessee who succeeded Joan Coupland, not only had the
castle captured from him but was himself taken prisoner,^ and it is probably
to this event that reference was made in the negotiations between England
and Scotland conducted by John of Gaunt in 1383, when it was agreed that
the damage done by the Scots to the buildings and walls should be assessed
' Cal. of Close Rolls, 1323-1327, p. 476. ' Cal. of Fine Rolls, vol. iv. p. 97. » See pages 40-41.
« Cal. of Close Rolls, 1330-1333, p. 375.
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1330-1334, p. 462 ; Cal. of Close Rolls, 1354-1360, p. 174.
' According to Froissart, the countess of Salisbury was resident there in 1341 and entertained Edward
III. who conceived a violent passion for her. Le Bel adds a second visit. The whole matter is discussed at
length in Bates, Border Holds, pp. 359-369.
' Cal. of Close Rolls, 1364-1368, p. 183.
' This is alluded to in a document of 1386. Dodsworth MS. 45. f. 49. Swinburne took up the lease in
1374. See page 41.
WARK CASTLE. 53
by a body of twelve esquires, half Scots and half English, assisted
by masons and carpenters, and that the sum thus ascertained should be
paid over to the chamberlain of England in Roxburgh Castle. ^ At
this time Robert Ogle was John Montague's captain in Wark,^ but
none the less a royal garrison was placed there in 1384,^ in view
of a threatened invasion. The castle must have suffered consider-
ably during these years, and in 1390 the whole property was worth
nothing and the castle lay in ruins.** Sir Thomas Grey, who acquired the
property in 1398,^ was soon to learn the dangers of his position, for in 1399,
while he was assisting Henry IV. to secure the crown, the Scots ' took his
castle, robbed his goods to the value of £2,000, put his infants and people
to ransom for £1,000, burned his houses and beat down the castle walls.' ^
It is hardly surprising therefore that the manor and castle were returned as
worth nothing when the owner died the following year.' Only once more
was the castle attacked before the close of the middle ages, when James II.
of Scotland in 1460 designed to attack it in the Lancastrian interest. The
king was killed before the army reached the walls, but the place was taken
without resistance and the fortifications were dismantled.^
It was during the sixteenth century that Wark reached the zenith of
its importance. Its castle was then, the earl of Northumberland wrote,
'the stay and key of all this country,'^ or as this man's nephew and ultimate
successor put it, 'situate for annoyance and defence in the best place of all
the frontiers. '1° During all this time it belonged to the Greys, but it was
on and off in royal hands owing to the minority of heirs, and it was as a rule
1 Exchequer, Treasury of Receipt Misc. (Placire, &-c.), No. Y — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. iv. p. 70.
' Dodsworth MS. 49, fol. Ggdo, yodo. ' Rot. Scot. vol. ii. p. 62.
• Inq. p.m. 13 Ric. II. No. 34 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxviii. pp. 205-207. ' See page 41.
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1399-1401, p. 287. Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. iv. p. 114, in his summary of this
document gives 2,000 marks for ;^2,ooo and renders infants by children. Annates Henrici IV. (RoUs Series,
No. 28 vol. iii.) pp. 320-321, say that the Scots took Wark in the absence of Sir Thomas Grey, and having
held it for a time, despoiled it and threw it dow-n.
' Inq. p.m. 2 Hen. IV. No. 50 — Scalacronica, Proofs and Illustrations, p. Ix.
' Buchanan, vol. ii. book xii. p. 53 ; Pitscottie, vol. i. p. 153. Cf. Exchequer Rolls of Scotland, vol. vii.
p. 33. A correspondent writing to John Pastou on April 1 8th, 1461, says, ' I herd .... that Henry the sext
is in a place in Yorkschire is calle Coroumbr, such a name it hath or much lyke." The writer goes on to say
that it was being besieged and that Henry tried to escape by a little postern on the ' bak syde ' but in vain.
Paston Letters, ed. James Gairdner (London, 1904), vol. iii. p. 269. This may have meant Wark under the
name of Carham, since the Lancastrians could not after Towton have been so far south as Yorkshire. There
was at Wark such a postern as is mentioned, but then most Castles had the Uke, and if the fortifications had
been destroyed in 1460, they could hardly have withstood a siege in April. 1461.
» 2nd November, 152S. Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII., vol. iv. pt. ii. p.225.
" May 26th, 1559. Cal. of State Papers, Foreign, 1558-1559. p. 284.
54 PARISH OF CARHAM.
garrisoned and repaired largely at the king's expense. Quite early in the
century it fell into Henry VII. 's hands on the death in 1507 of Sir Ralph Grey,
whose son and heir, Thomas, was a minor, and one John Andeslowe was
appointed constable of the castle with command of all men inhabiting the
barony.^ Henry VIII. was not satisfied with this arrangement, and
in 1509 made Thomas, newly created Lord Darcy, steward of all
the lands of Sir Ralph Grey and constable of his castles of Wark
and Chillingham." In 1513 Wark fell an easy prey to James IV. ,^
and in view of this, commissioners were sent in 1517 to view the
fortifications. At Lord Dacre's suggestion a sum of £480 was spent
on its restoration, 'which is one of the greatest comforts that has
happened to this country, and no less a displeasure to the Scots,' as
Wolsey was informed.* A year later Dacre was asking for munitions and
ten serpentines, two slings 'with a greater piece of ordnance for scouring
of fords of Tweed and twenty hagbushes,' and he further suggested that three
gunners might be spared from the sixty at Berwick.^ Much had been
achieved with the £480. The keep was finished, being four storeys high,
in each of which there were ' five great murder holes, shot with great vaults
of stone, except one stage which is of timber, so that great bombards can
be shot from each of them.' The uppermost storey was used for keeping
ordnance, and above it was a watchhouse from which Norham Castle and
the outskirts of Berwick could be seen. Lower down was the accommoda-
tion for the constable and forty foot-men, while a series of trapdoors in each
floor allowed for a hoist to bring up ordnance. Further plans, estimated
to cost another £220, included the adding of a gate giving direct access to the
outside, to be used only in time of peace, and the strengthening of the inner
and outer wards. The inner curtain, dividing the outer from the inner
ward, was to be provided with an iron gate, set in the vaulted passage,
sufficiently high to allow an armed man to ride in underneath, and built on
to this passage there was to be a two storey building with accommodation
for a garrison of 140 men on the upper floor, six men in each chamber, with
their horses beneath, twelve horses in each stable. In addition to this,
there was to be a hall with kitchen, bakehouse and other offices in this
' Cal. 0/ Patent Rolls, 1494-1509, p. 595. ' Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII., vol. i, p. 28.
' Buchanan, vol. ii. book xiii. p. 133. * Letters and Papers oj Hen. VIII ., vol. ii. pt. ii. pp. 1075, 1080.
' Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII., vol. iii. pt. i. p. 140.
WARK CASTLE.
55
ji-Skercf) ojf Wayrk Cns/lcJ'rom
ward, a well for providing the garrison with water, and accommodation for
a flock of sheep and eight score beasts at night time and in times of raid.
Under such circumstances Wark would indeed have princely accommodation
for its garrison. The outer ward was already on the high road to completion.
The gatehouse, three storeys high,
was nearly finished. The ground
floor consisted of two vaults, the
one providing an entrance passage
sufficiently high to admit a load
of hay, the other room for a
porter's lodge and a chamber
within it. The corner of the
curtain wall where it touched the
Tweed was strengthened by a
little tower three storeys high,
and Dacre wished to build yet
another such tower to protect a
postern on the western side, pre-
sumably opening out of the inner
ward, as it was used by the garrison for getting out into the country from
the keep and for bringing relief into the keep in days of siege. The outer
ward was intended as a place of refuge for the inhabitants of the district
in time of war, and to accommodate 1,000 head of horses and cattle in days
of foray.
Dacre believed that once the castle was thus furnished, it could be
kept up from the profits of the property, which at the moment lay waste,
and he pointed out that in time of peace four gunners could keep the castle,
and that in any case it would never require more than a third part of the
garrison of Berwick and yet prove 'a Jewell of Noysaunce' to the Scots,
whom he pictured as riding along the frontier near by and hearing 'a noise
which should be displeasant to them and to the comfort of the king's subjects
hearing the same.' This, however, would only be possible if Wolsey would
see that some of the Newcastle coal ships in the Thames were loaded up with
ordnance on their homeward trip.^ Though Dacre's plan was not carried
' P.R.O. State Papers, Scotland, vol. i. No. 58. The document is printed in extenso in Border Holds, pp.
342-344, and abstracted in Letters and Papers 0/ Hen. VIII., vol. ii. pt. ii. pp. 1307-1308. The date in
this last is wrongly given as 15 18.
Fig. 2. — Wark Castle. Time of Elizabeth.
56 PARISH OF CARHAM.
to completion, at least he received the ;f 220 for which he asked, ^ and his work
doubtless impressed the French ambassadors who were lodged in the castle
on their way to Scotland in 1520. ^ But even then Scottish borderers were so
bold as to carry raids right up to the walls, though in one case Dacre's men
issued forth and recouped the bailiff, who had had his horse killed, by seizing
six 'kye' from over the water.^
Though the boy owner of Wark had died in 1509 and his great uncle,
Edward Grey, had succeeded to his Durham property,* Wark seems to have
continued in the hands of the crown. The relations between England
and Scotland allowed of no relaxation of effort on the border. Early
in 1522 reinforcements were being sent north in view of the threatening
attitude of the duke of Albany, whose herald told Wolsey that Wark and
Norham would not take long to win,^ and 200 of them were posted in Wark.^
The truth was that the gentry of the East March were by no means anxious
to serve against the Scots, and when Albany approached the border, William
Ellerker deserted his post at Wark, where he was seemingly constable,
and Dacre, as he rather strangely puts it, 'was obliged to allow the Greys
of Northumberland to enter and keep it.' ' The new captain was none other
than the rightful owner, Sir Edward Grey, who early in the following year
received £55 12s. od. for keeping his own castle, and was continued in office
even after the most pressing danger was over and Dacre had bluffed Alban}^
into signing a truce.^ The Scottish danger was not averted, but only post-
poned, and one of the king's gunners was inspecting the fortress early in
1523.® Indeed, it was to be a centre of interest throughout that year's
campaigning. In the earlier months the English acted on the offensive,
and on July ist part of the earl of Surrey's army under Dacre was operating
from Carham and Wark,i" just after a daring raid had been carried out by
Seton, who was now captain of the castle. Having secured reinforcements
under Lord Leonard Grey, he had left the latter in charge of the fortress, while
he led a foray across the river, slaying 25 and capturing 61 of the enemy
' Letters and' Papers of Hen. VIII., vol. iii. pt. i. p. 279. = Ibid. p. 401. ' Ibid. p. 794.
• Durham Cursitor Records — Dep. Keep. Rep. XLIV., App. p. 400.
^ Letters and Papers of Henry VIII., vol. iii. pt. ii. p. 882.
« Letters and Papers of Henry VIII., vol. iii. pt. ii. pp. 852, 886.
' Letters and Papers of Henry VIII., vol. iii. pt. ii. pp. 1076-1077. Ellerker seems to have thrown
up his command on August 31st. Lord Dacre's Accounts — Border Holds, p. 356.
« Letters and Papers of Henry VIII., vol. iii. pt. ii. pp. 1198, 1327. ' Ibid. p. 1176. '" Ibid. p. 1317.
WARK CASTLE. 57
with loss of only two of his own men, one killed and one captured. ^ So
consistent was the harrying carried on by the Wark garrison, that the prioress
of Coldstream complained that 'they do play pluck at the crow with her.' ^
They might well be confident, for no less a judge than the earl of Surrey,
having had two new bulwarks added, believed that the castle could stand
a ten days siege, and that though the outer ward might be reduced in two
days, the keep would be as safe as before, since it was ' the strongest thing I
have ever seen,' as he put it.^ Still there was one weakness in the shallowness
of the foundations, which, being not two feet below the surface, made mining
a serious danger. * An attack from Albany, who had returned from France,
was threatened early in October, when Lord Ogle held the office of captain,^
though he had been replaced before the 24th of that month^ by Sir William
Lisle, who was in command when Albany appeared on the northern bank
of the river on Saturday, October 31st. All Sunday and Monday he bom-
barded the fortress across the Tweed, which was too full to ford. On
Monday afternoon at 3 p.m. he sent 2,000 Frenchmen across in boats to
make an assault, and some fierce hand to hand fighting took place. The
keep was evidently too strong to be attacked, but both the outer and inner
wards were carried, though Lisle and his hundred men were ultimately able
to drive them out again with only ten casualties. Still, the position was
precarious, and Lisle sent a hasty message to Surrey to say that he could
not hold out without help. To this the English commander responded at
once, and when Albany saw the relieving force approach, he broke up his
camp and fled," to the disgust of his own men and the scorn of the enemy.
Like cowards stark
At the castle of Wark
By the water o{ Tweed
Ye had evil speed.
Like cancered curs
Ye lost your spurs
For in that fray
Ye ran away
With, hey. dog, hey ! '
' Letters and Papers of Henry VIII. vol. iii. pt. ii. p. 1310. This doubtless is the same raid as the one
Surrey reported to Wolsey, when he described Lord Leonard Grey as the leader, since the number of
prisoners is almost identical. Ibid. p. 1321.
•^ Ibid. p. 1385. » Ibid. p. 1400. * Ibid. p. 1445. ' Ibid. p. 1424.
« He was at Bolton, awaiting instructions on that day. Ibid. p. 1444.
^ Ibid. pp. 1440, 1450, 1454, 1459. 1461. 1467; Harl. MS. 297, ff. 127-135; Hall, p. 666, gives an
account in accord with the official documents, Buchanan, vol. ii. Book xiv. 166-167, makes the siege much
longer, but though he was with the Scottish army his testimony is biassed by his evident desire to shield
Albany's reputation. ' Poetical Works of John Skelton, ed. A. Uycc, vol. ii. p. 69.
Vol. XL *
58 PARISH OF CARHAM.
Surrey could hardly believe his good fortune, and boasted to Wolsey
that there had been over i,ooo Frenchmen and 500 Scots attacking the
little garrison of 100 in the outer ward.^ Wark he now thought could not
have held out very long, and on November 3rd, while still unconvinced that
the Scottish army had been disbanded, he wished the fortress, of which he
had been so proud, at the bottom of the sea, for he could hardly get men to
stay there, but next day he thought the danger over. It is obvious that
Albany's bombardment had not been without effect, but the real trouble
was that no money was forthcoming to pay the troops, and Surrey urged
the government to do something quickly for men who had fought so splen-
didly.^ Still the damage was considerable ; the walls had been ' sore beat
with the duke's siege,' and the roof of the keep had been taken off to make
an emplacement for guns, so that the timbers had been much injured and the
place was uninhabitable, but it was not till June, 1524, that Dacre got
permission to start restoration and to get lead for the roof from Dunstan-
burgh.^ It was doubtless this delay which caused Sir William Lisle to
neglect his charge, for after Surrey's departure he never went near the castle,
and ultimately resigned the post. Sir Ralph Fenwick was anxious to
succeed him, but Dacre advised Surrey to tell him that his neglect as keeper
of Tindale was no qualification for fresh office but rather for his dismissal
from what he already held. Meanwhile Charles Thrilkeld was put in charge
of Wark, pending more definite arrangements.* All through this time Sir
William Ellerker seems to have continued as constable, despite his neglect
of duty in 1522, though £10 2s. was deducted from his wages for this,^ and
he continued as such down to 1528 when he lay dying and the earl of North-
umberland was trying to get the reversion of his office.^ The garrison had
probably been reduced as suggested in 1534,'' but some were left,^ and doubt-
less over these the captain, as deputy to the constable, held command.
Something, too, was done to keep the fabric in repair,^ so that despite the
comparative peace on the border and the preoccupation of the Scots in
' Letters and Papers of Henry VIII., vol. iii. pt. ii. p. 1461.
* Letters and Papers oj Henry VIII., vol. iii. pt. ii. pp. 1459. 1460.
' Ibid. vol. iv. pt. i. pp. 112, 142, 174. A report dated 1523 [Ibid. vol. iii. pt. ii. p. 1369) probably relates
to this period.
* Ibid. pt. iv., vol. i. pp. 13, 63. ' Ibid. pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 1520. « Ibid. vol. iv. pt. ii. p. 2126.
' Ibid. vol. iv. pt. i. p. 305. ' Ibid. p. 1345.
* Payments made 17 Hen. VIII. for repairs of Wark Castle, P.R.O. Accounts, Exchequer K. R. Bundle 490,
No. 13.
WARK CASTLE. 59
faction fights at home, Wark still remained a royal castle, and Edward
Grey never seems to have held the barony, which legally fell into the king's
hands at his death in 1531, since his son and heir Ralph was a minor.^ Even
before this, however, in March, 1530, one Robert CoUingwood had been
appointed by the crown to the office of keeper of the castle and manor with
the rents called 'Castlewards,' - so that it is evident that the succession of
the minor made no real difference. Wark was treated, and even described,
as a royal castle,^ and in 1541 the township was returned officially as 'of the
King's Majesties inherytaunce.' * It was natural that a place on which the
crown was always spending so much money should be under its control,
for the castle was an ever constant drain on the royal purse, even in times
of comparative peace. In 1533 commissioners reported that it 'has been
ill seen to and is far out of frame,' ^ and its speedy repair and additions to
its artillery were insisted on from another quarter ;^ in 1537, though in not
much worse repair than when Albany besieged it, it needed the expenditure
of at least ^^40 ;'^ in 1538, again it needed repair, and the earthworks thrown
up by Surrey had fallen into decay. ^ Such was the position when CoUing-
wood resigned his post of keeper of the castle and manor in December, 1538,
and was succeeded by John Carr of Hetton,^ the most famous of the captains
of Wark, known universally on the border as Carr of Wark, reputed 'a good
housekeeper and true sharp borderer,'^" and, with many ups and downs
and temporary dispossessions, the commander of the castle down to his death
in 1551."
Thanks to the survey of 1541, and perhaps to the report of an inspector
sent by the king,!^ we have a very fair idea of the state of the castle when
John Carr took over the command. It had never been thoroughly repaired
since the siege of 1523, the roof of the keep was still half off, and the walls
' Col. of State Papers, Domestic, 1601-1603, p. 434. This document, dated May 6th, 1554. seems to imply
that Sir Edward Grey held Wark at his death and gives the date of his death as December 6th, 1531. Raine,
North Durham, pp. 326-327, giving no authority, states it to have been ' Dec. 6th. 3 Tunstall, 1533,' though this
would be 1532. Sir Edward executed a deed August loth, 1531. Durham Cursitor Records — Dep. Keeper's
Rep. xliv. App. p. 401.
' Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII., vol. iv. pt. iii. p. 2830. ' Ibid. vol. xiii. pt. i. p. 19.
* Survey of Border, 1541 — Border Holds, p. 347. ' Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII., vol. vi. p. 67.
' Ibid. pp. 54, 120. ' Ibid. vol. xii. pt. i. pp. 356, 423 ; vol. xii. pt. ii. p. 141.
* Ibid. vol. xiii. pt. i. pp. 19, 337, 347. • Ibid. vol. xiii. pt. ii. p. 491.
'" Brit. Museum Cotton MS. CaUgula, B.vi. fol. 503do.
1' He is mentioned as captain of Wark in Survey of the Border, 1551 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 207,
and his will is dated in August of that year. Wills and Inventories, vol. i. p. 138.
'^ The king's servant, Roger, was sent to view the castle, and the date given in the calendar is 1542,
but this is only an inference. Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII., vol. xvii. p. 230.
6o PARISH OF CARHAM.
were exposed to the wet, so that two big cracks had appeared in them,
necessitating the building of two strong buttresses, while the wall of the
outer ward still lay in practical ruins and the roofs of the gatehouse and
the corner tower by the river were off. Surrey's bulwarks, which seem to
have been one in the outer and the other in the inner ward, had been all very
well for an emergency, but they were only made of soil and turf and needed
to be built with stone and lime. Further it appears that all Dacre's plans
had not been carried out, and particularly nothing but the walls of the
building in the inner ward, designed for the housing of the garrison, had
been built. This the commissioners recommended should be finished, and
another 'long house,' which had stables beneath and garners above, should
be repaired. Taking it as a whole, the commissioners had no very high
opinion of the castle's strength for the reason discovered by Surrey after
his first enthusiastic description. It could not withstand a 'siege royal,' as
its situation offered such opportunities for mining, but ' consyderynge the
Scottes and especyally the borderers to be men of no great experyence or
engyne in the assaillinge of fortresses,' at a cost of little more than £200
the place might be made quite strong enough to hold up an invading army
till succour came. Moreover, the castle was ' the only chefe succour relefe
and defence of all the quarter of the border of England lying on the west
syde of the ryver Tyll,' and if not repaired, would lead to the desolation of
the whole district, while on the other hand a garrison of 200 men in time
of war could ' do more annoyance and dyspleasures to the Scottes and more
relefe to the Englyshe Inhabytants of that border than yf they were in any
other place of all the said marches.' ^
No elaborate repairs could be undertaken for the moment, as all English
attention was concentrated from quite early in 1542 on the threatening
attitude of the Scots. In August preparations for munitioning Wark were
in full swing, an inspection of the existing ordnance was ordered, 'and
oon good pece we wold also youe caused to be sent thither of the store of our
ordenance at Berwike, with four or five other convenient peices of iron if
nede require, and powder shott convenient, and a gunner or two to use the
same.' ^ It was reported to the lord warden that the castle could not be
held,^ and the position was complicated by the fact that John Carr had
• Survey of the Border, 1541 — Border Holds, pp. 347-349.
' Hamillon Papers, vol. i. pp. 153-154. ' Hamilton Papers, vol. i. p. 164.
WARK CASTLE. 6l
been captured in a foray, but to every one's surprise he was set free by his
captor on his own recognizances and those of some Scottish friends, and
he came back fully prepared to play his part in the defence of the border.
He had learnt in Scotland that an attack on Wark took a prominent place
in Scottish plans, and he wrote urgently to Rutland, the lord warden,
begging for money to pay the wages of fifty men chosen by himself, since
of a hundred men who had taken part in the foray, only fifty, and they
wounded and unequipped, had managed to get back.^ Rutland at once
complied with his request, and reported to the privy council ' of what good
courage he is to kepe the said house of Wark.' ^ but by return he received
instructions to deprive Carr of his command, and to put in his place a certain
Robert Raymond, hastily sent up from London for this purpose. In a
lengthy despatch Rutland was told to act secreth', and having summoned
Carr to him, to explain to him that, as a prisoner on parole, it was not suitable
for him to command the fortress, but that he would be sent elsewhere with
his fifty men, who were to be at once fetched from Wark. Where this new
post should be was left to Rutland's discretion, though he was to be careful
to appoint some one else to command there before Carr should be sent
thither. Having thus cozened Carr,^ he was to send Raymond to Wark
with a force of picked men and plenty of food and ammunitions. If the
castle were already besieged by the time these instructions arrived, Raymond
was to be got into it by craft, if possible, but this must not be attempted if
attended with any danger, 'rather then he shold be put in extreme perill,
his majestie wold reserve him for a better tyme.' If things looked threaten-
ing, Rutland was to call out the men of the Bishopric, Westmorland and
Cumberland and the garrison of Berwick, and even to send for Sir Thomas
Wharton from Carlisle, and he was given elaborate instructions of how to
try and bluff the Scots if he was not in sufficient force, and how to manoeuvre
if he was more confident of his strength. If Raymond was able to enter
Wark, he was to have every support and to be provided with everything
that he asked for.* A better case of favouritism, or something worse, hamper-
ing the man on the spot could hardly be found, though there are signs that
what the government feared was that Carr was in collusion with the
Scots, for a fortnight later the king wrote that he heard that not only
• Hamilton Papers, vol. i. p. 166. ' Ibid. vol. i. pp. 164-165.
' * Enterteyning him in gentle sort.' * Hamilton Papers, vol. i. pp. 175-177.
62 PARISH OF CARHAM.
was the castle 'farre out of order,' but that 'there be yet Scottes borne
suffred to remayn in the house.' ^ Rutland promised to obey instructions,
though at the moment the war cloud seemed to be clearing, and in any case
it seemed likely that Carr would have to return to Scotland till peace was
signed.- But Carr was not removed, much to the indignation of the govern-
ment when it learnt that on September 26th the Scots had surprised some
workmen carting stone from Carham church to the castle, and had carried
off three of the king's carts without any rescue being attempted by Carr
and his fifty men.^ The stone was undoubtedly intended for the repairs of
the castle, the keep of which was reported as still largely roofless and the well
choked up and useless.^ However by October 28th matters had been
improved, and the council was then assured by Norfolk and other commis-
sioners that they feared ' nothing but the mine for Wark, which is otherwise
not pregnable.' ^ After all these alarms and excursions, it was not at Wark
that the blow fell. On November 23rd Hertford wrote to the council that
he heard from Raymond and Carr at Wark, where the two rivals seem to
have settled down together despite the order from London, that the Scots
were going to throw their strength onto the West March, ^ and indeed it was
on that very day that they rode to disaster at Solway Moss.
John Carr remained captain of Wark, and in that capacity the following
July he repelled a Scottish foray, which however got away with 100 head
of cattle, though the English followed and helped themselves to 80 head
and 20 nags, not to mention 24 prisoners.' In October he took part in a
more official raid.^ More than this, he had the satisfaction of seeing the
restoration of the fortress undertaken in earnest. In February, 1543,
the work was set in hand, and about 100 workmen were continuously
employed, the sum which had been expended by November loth being no
less than £1,846 i6s. yd.^ The work was still going on in February, 1544,
though the government were then getting a little anxious about the cost.^"
Even then the expense did not cease, for in December, 1544, John Carr reported
that the wall of the outer ward lying towards the river had fallen down.^^
' Hamilton Papers, vol. i. p. 222. ' Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII., vol. xvii. p. 414.
' Hamilton Papers, vol. i. pp. 242, 245. • Ibid. p. 222.
' Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII., vol. xvii. p. 555. " Ibid. vol. .xvii. p. 615.
' Ibid. vol. xviii. pt. i. p. 493. " Hamilton Papers, vol. ii. pp. 119-120.
' Hamilton Papers, vol. ii. pp. 129-130; Letters and Papers oj Hen. VIII., vol. xviii. pt. ii. p. 200. The
full accounts are in Harleian MS. 1724, fol. 166, and this is fully abstracted in Border Holds, pp. 349-350.
"> Hamilton Papers, vol. ii. p. 272. " Ibid. vol. ii. p 537.
WARK CASTLE. 63
Petit, a Frenchman and the surveyor of Calais, ^ was sent from London to
examine the damage, ^ but Thomas Gower, who had had the repairs in hand
since July, 1543,^ complained of delay in the matter.* Archane Archana,
an Italian in the king's employ, whose name the Enghsh officials had much
trouble to spell, ^ forwarded to the earl of Shrewsbury a 'plott' of the castle
with the information that it was 'in marvelouse greate ruyne, in so moche
that it raynethe almost into everie parte of the same.' The captain was
without accommodation, the carts had to stand outside without cover and
would rot, but plenty of lead lay in Kelso cloister unused and would be
valuable at Wark. Finally would the king kindly give him some other
employment, as at Wark he had done all that was possible^ — a somewhat
disjointed communication, but eloquent of the way public money had been
wasted during recent repairs. Perhaps professional jealousy may have
accounted for some of the strictures, but at any rate the Italian did not stay
to carry out his work, and in the following month Gower fell into the hands
of the Scots.' By August, however, the breach in the wall had been
repaired.*
These three years, during which the masons had been constantly at
work on the fortifications, had been also times of considerable activity on
the border. Henry VIII. was trying to reap advantage from the faction
fights which from the first surrounded the throne of the infant Mary queen
of Scots, and he was convinced that harrying and burning would subdue
the Scots to his will. In September, 1543, the duke of Suffolk was sent
up to prepare to invade from Wark, the objective being Edinburgh, but
beyond a little harrying, in which the castle garrison took its part, nothing
was achieved that year,^ though the sacking of Edinburgh was accom-
plished in the following May. For the moment a certain Clifford seems to
have been captain of Wark,i° but John Carr was back in command by April,
1544, when he received the special thanks of the king and privy council
for his 'good service and manly forwardness.' ^^ Despite this the govern-
ment does not seem to have trusted him. In March, 1545, instructions
' Cal. of State Papers, Foreign, 1561-1562. p. 347.
= Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII.. vol. xx. pt. i. pp. 24-25, 37. > Ibid. vol. xviii. pp. 516, 538.
♦ Ibid, vol XX. pt. i. pp. 78-79. ' Hamilton Papers, vol. ii. p. 546. * Ibid. vol. ii. p. 549
' Ibid. vol. ii. p. 567. ' Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII., vol. xx. pt. u. p. 41.
» Hamilton Papers, vol. ii. pp. 44. 52, 117. 118. " Ibid. p. 118.
" Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII., vol. xix. pt. i. p. 223.
64 PARISH OF CARHAM.
were sent north that some one should be sent to Wark and Berwick on some
excuse to see ' howe and with what nombres ' they were held. The spy, for
he was little else, was ordered up to London to report in person, but part
of the information secured was put on paper. The regular garrison con-
sisted of 25 horsemen and 9 gunners, John Boyd, porter of the gates, being
included in the latter total. Every night the watch was kept by eight of
these, and two others patrolled to see that the watchmen did their duty.
The ordnance was of a somewhat miscellaneous description, including a
falcon, a 'halff slenk,' 'quarter slenks,' and eight hackbuts. On the
northern wall there were three 'port pesses' and a demi-falcon, on the west
there were a saker, two falcons and two 'hoU slenkes.' On the top of the
keep there were a saker and a broken falcon. As to munitions, there were
100 sheaves of arrows, 40 bows, six half-hakes, 40 bills, 4 barrels of gun-
powder and a good supply of all kinds of shot.^ Whether this report was
considered as revealing a satisfactory state of affairs we do not know, but
it is significant that, when Hertford came north in 1545 to repeat his exploit
of two years earlier, he sent George Lawson to command Wark,^ where he
was given 100 'hagbutiers' and was told to turn the 200 pioneers who were
working on the defences into soldiers if need be.^ By the beginning of August
the English commander thought that the castle was adequately munitioned
and in a proper state of defence,* and he prepared to use it as the base for
his forthcoming attack on Scotland.^ John Carr was still at Wark, and in
October was taking an important part in the harrying of Scottish territory,
though Hertford was by no means pleased with him for not having sent the
whole of his force on a certain enterprise.^ His relations with Lawson can
hardly have been cordial, since the latter was one of those who had reported
adversely to the council concerning his neglect to protect the workmen
bringing stone from Carham in 1542,'' but they seem to have been indepen-
dent of one another, Lawson being the constable and Carr the 'captain of
the horsemen at Wark,' at least so he is described in May, 1546, when he
went up to London to seek medical advice for the stiffness in his limbs
caused by past wounds, and to put in a claim for increased pay. Nothing
' Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII., vol. xx. pt. i. p. 157 ; Hamilton Papers, vol. ii. pp. 587-589.
' Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII., vol. xx. pt. i. p. 436. ' Ibid. p. 516.
♦ Ibid. p. 619; Cal. of State Papers, Scotland, vol. i. p. 54.
^ Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII., vol. xx. pt. ii. pp. 140-141.
" Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII., vol. xx. pt. ii. p. 310. ' Hamilton Papers, vol. i. p. 242.
WARK CASTLE. 65
could be more cordial than the terms in which Sir Robert Bowes recom-
mended his suit to the notice of the council. 'Ever since he came to man's
age, and especially in these last wars, Carre has been forward in every
dangerous enterprise, and has spared neither friends nor substance in the
king's service. Since the beginning of this war he has twice been sore hurt
(once left in the field for dead), has once been taken prisoner, and has had
two brethren slain and the rest of his brethren and his two sons taken
prisoners. All on these borders agree that no borderer of any sort has
achieved so many great adventures to the king's honor.' ^
Probably Lawson was removed from his charge soon after this, par-
ticularly as he was convicted of lack of discipline, when in April, 1546,
certain of his retinue slaughtered a batch of 30 Scottish prisoners returning
home to raise their ransoms, an incident which caused the grave displeasure
of the privy council in view of the bad impression it would make in Scot-
land.^ Carr is not again mentioned till 1549, when he commanded 100 horse-
men at Wark,^ though one must believe that he returned north when
Somerset invaded Scotland in 1547. The castle figured prominently in the
preparations for this campaign; no less than £1,000 was spent on victualling
it* ; work was begun again on the fortifications under the direction of William
Ridgeway, specially appointed to superintend it,^ and the garrison was raised
to its usual complement of 200 men.^ But when the campaign was over,
the castle suffered when the Scots began to retaliate with the assistance of
French troops, and it was captured, though doubtless not held, by them
in 1548 or 1549.^
John Carr was in command in 1549, ^^i*^ was still keeping up his reputa-
tion, for Sir Francis Leek, asking the government for some definite house in
which to reside, wrote that for the time he was living in ' the newe made
store howsse' at Wark, which he found inconvenient and costly, but that
he did not want to be put in command there, ' thereby to deface John Kar
whos servyce ys suche as all thother garysons yncomparable.' ^ But the
veteran borderer was nearing the end of his career, and his last experience
1 Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII., vol. xxi. pt. i. p. 401. ' Ibid. vol. xxi. pt. i. pp. 360, 684.
» Belvoir Papers, vol. i. pp. 37, 46. ♦ Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII., vol. xxi. pt. ii. p. 449.
* Ads of Privy Council, vol. ii. p. 449. " CaL of State Papers, Domestic, 1601-1603, p. 329.
' Historie de la guerre d'Escosse (Bordeaux, 1862), p. 216. It is called 'le chasteau de Cornwaille," i.e.
Cornhill, by the French Chronicler.
' Hamilton Papers, vol. ii. pp. 631-632.
Vol. XI. 9
66 PARISH OF CARHAM.
in his charge was similar to his earher ones, for in 1550 more work was having
to be done on the fortifications, seemingly under the guidance of Thomas
Gower, now freed from captivity, and orders were issued for a survey and
report.^ The result of this last we have in Sir Robert Bowes's ' Book of
the State of the Marches,' where the outer ward is said to be in great decay,
the wall over against the river being still in need of repair. Bowes, however,
was more interested in a scheme for drawing the village within the fortifi-
cations, than in a restoration on the existing plan. He urged that thereby
not only would the townsmen be better protected, but so would all the
inhabitants of the country round, as they could flee there in time of stress,
while the extension of the fortifications would be some protection against
the mining of the keep, which, now as ever, was the weak spot of the fortress.
For the rest, Bowes was very interested in a plan for using som.e of the
spoils of Roxburgh to build a brewhouse and bakehouse to supply with
food both the castle and, in time of war, an army operating on the border. ^
John Carr was succeeded in the captaincy by his son, Thomas, the
husband of the heiress of Ford, who in 1554 was called on to resign his
charge to its rightful owner. Ralph Grey had come of age in 1550; but
his petition for the restoration of his lands and castle had been postponed.
In 1554 Queen Mary ordered that livery should be granted to him 'consider-
ing that his inheritance cannot justly be withdrawn without his free assent,'
a point of view which was perhaps not quite characteristic of the Tudors.
In return Ralph undertook under an obligation of £500 to keep the castle
in as good repair as he received it, providing a house porter, two gunners
and eight soldiers in constant residence, to visit it in person or by
deputy twice a year in times of peace, and 'to repair thither and continue
in war, and serve according to the customs of the borders.' The royal
ordnance and munitions in the castle were to be left there under his care.^
The plan of getting the owner to assume responsibility for the castle
worked no better in the sixteenth century than it had done previously.
By May, 1557, the council was ordering Ralph Grey to see personally to its
safety, and in July fear of an invasion led it to allow Lord Wharton to send
troops thither, and to 'cause the captain, whose absence we marvel at, to
' Acts of the Privy Council, vol. iii. pp. 44, 91, 222.
• Survey of the Border, 1551 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. pp. 201-203.
' Col. 0/ State Papers, Domestic. 1601-1603, pp. 434-435 ; Acts of Privy Council, vol. v. p. 201.
WARK CASTLE. 67
be resident.' ^ Reluctantly the government had to confess that its resources
did not allow of any strengthening of the fortifications, nor of provision
of further troops. Wark must rely for its defence on the borderers and such
men as the lord warden could command, ^ and meanwhile pressure was
brought to bear on Grey to induce him either to assume his reponsibilities
in person, or at least to appoint an efficient captain. At Lord Wharton's
urgent request Captain Read and 100 men were sent to garrison the place,^
but the main trouble seems to have been that when Grey did appoint a
captain in the person of Rowland Forster, brother of the owner of Carham,'*
he chose a man who seems to have taken absurd risks on the frontier, and
to have neglected his charge when he should have been fortifying it, so
much so that the earl of Northumberland, protesting that he had no personal
grudge against him, had him removed under arrest.^ The earl's disinter-
estedness was, perhaps, in some doubt, as he appointed his brother-in-law,
Francis Slingsby, to the vacant post, a proceeding which the government
somewhat grudgingly confirmed.^ The truth was, as the earl had plainly
put it, that the attempt to use private property and private persons to do
work which properly belonged to a royal castle and public officials was to
court disaster. The Scottish invasion which had threatened in 1557, and
indeed had been very near to an attack on Wark, had only been averted by
dissensions in the Scottish camp,^ and though George Lawson was captain
in 1558,^ and had some 500 men under his command, the place was not
considered 'tenable against any army, any time,' though it must not be
evacuated. As one official wrote, 'it is doubtful whether Wark or Norham,
belonging to subjects, are worth the expense they occasion the Prince in time
of war.' ^ Very early in the reign of Elizabeth the whole question was
raised in view of the tension between England and the Guise influence in
Scotland, which made the safety of the border a matter of prime importance.
In May, 1559, the earl of Northumberland asked the council whether Sir
Ralph Grey was to be restored to his property, which had been taken out of
' Cal. oj State Papers, Domestic, 1601-1603, pp. 450, 455. ^ Ibid. p. 465.
^ Acts of Privy Council, vol. vi. pp. 157-158, 159-160, 209 ; Cal. oj State Papers, Domestic, 1601-1603, p. 462.
* N.C.H., vol. i. p. 228. * Cal. of State Papers, Domestic, 1601-1603, pp. 463-464.
' Acts of Privy Council, vol. vi. pp. 221-222. ' Cal. of State Papers, Foreign, 1558-1559, pp. 97-98.
* He made his will as Captain of Wark, November 12th, 1558, and it was proved the same year. Edward
Wood was second in command under him. Wills and Inventories, vol. i. pp. 176-177.
' Cal. of State Papers, Domestic, 1601-1603, p. 476; Cal. of State Papers, Foreign, 1558-1559, pp. 57, 58.
68 PARISH OF CARHAM.
his hands owing to his former incompetence^ ; meanwhile Captain Read
with 100 men lay there. Orders were issued to hnd out the conditions of
Grey's former undertaking and to restore the property on those terms,
but the men on the spot were very loath to have a recurrence of past troubles.
'There is no subject,' runs one report, 'being owner of the said castle that
can be able whether to fortilie or kepe yt, but that in peace it wil be in
daunger to be stolen and in warre in perill to be wonne, and yet being either
stolen or taken the dishonour wer so great to the Prince and the Realme
as yf it pertayned to the Crowne.' It was bad policy for the government
to spend large sums in fortifying and munitioning a castle in war time, and
then allow all this to fall into decay as soon as peace came, so the only wise
thing to be done was to get complete control of it.^ Sir Ralph Sadler also
thought the contract between Sir Ralph Grey and the crown of little value,
for ' if it is not better guarded than by his covenants he is ordered to keep it,
it were an easy thing to surprise it suddenly.' Wark he considered was ' surely
the meetest place for a man of service to lie in,' and he wished that 'the
queen could be at some charge for fortifying it.' Another had a clear cut
plan. 'Take Wark and make a great barbican with flankes to it with
stabling under the walls for 200 horses, put there the Lord Grey,^ a lieutenant,
100 horsemen and two porters, and assign for his aid Richmondshire.' * Such
plans suggested the expenditure of too much money to meet with Elizabeth's
approval. Sir Ralph Grey was restored,^ and when in 1561 Lord Wharton
made suggestions 'for redressing Wark Castle to her possession,' the queen
thought it necessary ' to have regard that for so chargeable and uncertain
revenue she be not overcharged.' ® Accordingly a report on the fortress
was secured from a certain Rowland Johnson, who declared that it was 'in
most places fallen down, and having no flankers and the rest that yet stands
more like to fall than to continue,' it might be captured 'without shot of
great ordnance, and digged down with pickaxes,' and even the site he
condemned, as commanded by neighbouring eminences.'' He went on to
justify his opinion with elaborate details. The walls were as a rule from
20 feet to 24 feet high, but most of them in decay, and the part overlooking
1 Col. of State Papers, Foreign, 1558-1559, pp. 283-284. - P.R.O. State Papers, Domestic, Borders, 17.
' Lord Grey de Wilton, in command of the army against Scotland.
« Cal. of State Papers, Foreign, 1558-1559, pp. 58, 248, 485-486, 453-454. 491. 50i.5M. 516-517, 573,
589-590.
' Cal. of State Papers, Foreign, 1561-1562, p. 271. « Ibid. p. 266. ' Ibid. p. 347.
WARK CASTLE. 6g
the river, ever the weak spot, was ' for the most part made of earth and is
in marvellous decay.' Even the new walls, made in 1545, were crumbling,
and the keep was only 34 feet high with a fiat roof of lead much damaged.
Between the curtain wall and the keep was a platform, about the same height
and about 24 feet broad, on which all the ordnance stood. The chief
criticism as to design was that no wall was 'flanked,' or in other words it was
impossible to enfilade an attacking party,^ a weakness which had struck
Sir Robert Bowes in 1551.- Despite this adverse report, negotiations for
taking over the castle were begun. A royal survey estimated the value of
Sir Ralph Grey's lands in the baronies of Wark and Wooler at £100 15s. 2|d.
clear, but Wark itself was only estimated at £3 6s. 6Jd. when the fee of the
constable, no other than Rowland Forster who had formerly proved such a
failure, had been paid. The gross value was reduced by £33 6s. 8d. for
lands lying waste and rents suspended in time of war, which brought the nett
total to £67 8s. 6Jd. Sir Ralph Grey was evidently not anxious to part
with his property at this valuation, for he impressed on the surveyor that
he had six sons, the eldest 13, and that the land was needed for their being
taught to ride and become good borderers,^ though all the evidence points
to the fact that the family lived at Chillingham and never came to Wark.
Still negotiations were continued, and the Government offered to take over
all the lands in the two baronies at an agreed rent, but when Sir Ralph
demanded land for land, it refused to negotiate for anything but the castle
itself.*
The proposed exchange was never effected, and the evils arising from
the divided authority continued. They were illustrated the very next year,
for Rowland Forster was just as ineffective as ever. He roused the wrath
of Lord Grey de Wilton, commanding the queen's forces in the north, by
the carelessness with which he controlled his men, instanced by the way
some revellers from Cornhill and Wark on May Day managed to get into
the castle, while the watch was not being kept. As the place was not in the
queen's charge. Lord Grey could do nothing but complain that it was ' very
evilly kept' and was 'used more like a farm than a place of strength.' Yet
much of the queen's ordnance and some of the royal gunners were there,
' Ibid. p. 347-348. The document is printed in the Rev. P. Meams, iVark Castle, p. 50.
' Survey of the Border, 155 1 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 203.
' P.R.O. State Papers, Borders, Elizabeth, 5. fol. 103; Cai. of State Papers, Foreign, 1561-1562, p. 409.
' Col. oj State Papers, Foreign, 1561-1562, p. 409.
70 PARISH OF CARHAM.
and nothing could be done to protect them. Indeed one of these gunners
had been dismissed by Forster, and when sent back by Lord Grey with
instructions that he was to be replaced, he was assaulted by the captain.
This was too much, and Forster was placed under arrest.^ The situation
was almost hopeless. The standing charges to the crown for the garrison
averaged £57 15s. lod. yearly, and there were many other outgoings,^ yet,
as the marquis of Winchester reported, 'Sir Ralph Grey does nothing at
Wark but suffer it to decay.' ^ The irrepressible Rowland Forster was back
again in charge by August, 1565,* but beyond trying to procure a man to
coin ' hardheads ' in his house ^ and sending in an occasional requisition for
munitions,^ he did nothing. In 1567 his brother. Sir John Forster, found
the castle still 'in great decay,'' but three years later, when Elizabeth was
intervening in Scottish politics on the side of Lennox, he was galvanized
into activity by fear of a Scottish attack. He believed that the Scots were
making a special kind of ladder to scale the castle, and he demanded rein-
forcements, as he could not defend it with his existing forces. A hundred
foot and 100 horse were sent to his assistance,^ but though no attack came,
this unwonted energy was too much for him, and he died of the ague in
August. The lord warden took upon himself to appoint a certain Captain
Pikeman to take charge, but he wrote to London for instructions, 'as Mr.
Grey is not able to keep either the house or the town from spoiling.' ^
Still the system of divided responsibility went on. But the days of
greatest danger were over, and border warfare was dying down. Wark felt
the reverberations of that last notable border encounter in 1575 at the
Reidswire, for a Scottish attack in the East March was expected to follow.
Sir Thomas Grey, who now owned the castle, was bidden to stand on his
guard nightly, and was reinforced by 50 footmen sent by the lord warden,^"
but the only part that Wark was destined to play in the affairs of Scotland
' Cal. of Slate Papers, Foreign, 1562, pp. 128-129, I43"i44; Belvoir Papers, vol. i. pp. 80, 81.
* Cal. of Slate Papers, Foreign, 1563, p. 424 ; 1564-1565, pp. 30, 51, 58, 391.
» Ibid. 1564-1565. p. 135.
■■ Ibid. p. 422. He seems to have managed to secure a messuage and a cottage with land and meadow
in Wark as a gift from his employer. At least his daughter, Ehzabeth Orde, sold such a holding in 1601
to Ralph Grey, and gave a warrant against the heirs of her father. Feet of Fines, i6th century, p. 62.
' Cal. of Slate Papers, Domeslic, 1566-1579, p. 182.
" Cal. of Stale Papers, Foreign, 1566-1568, pp. 245, 264. ' Ibid. pp. 192, 243.
^ Cal. of Slate Papers, Domestic, 1566-1579, pp. 249-250; Cal. of State Papers, Foreign, 1569-1571,
PP- 173. I97-
' Cal. of State Papers, Foreign, 1569-1571, p, 330. '" Cal. of State Papers, Foreign, 1575-1577, p. 85.
WARK CASTLE. 7 1
for the rest of the reign was to afford a refuge in 1584 for the earls of Mar and
Angus and other protestant leaders, who, with the English queen's approval,
had cojispired against James VI. ^ A small royal garrison was still kept
there,2 ^^d the crown was responsible for munitions.^ In 1594 royal
ordnance to the extent of i culverin, 3 demi-culverins, 3 sakars, i sakrett
and base, all of iron, and 4 falconets of brass, two of them without wheels,
one dismounted and one 'with a pintle of iron,' lay there.* In the later part
of the reign it became the custom for the crown to take over all responsi-
bility, and to relieve the Greys of all their obligations in return for the
provision of a lieutenant and fifty men. Under these conditions the cost
to the crown of keeping the garrison was estimated at £1,703 6s. 8d. a year,^
but we may well believe that this sum was never expended. For instance
provision was made for a chaplain and surgeon at i6d. a day each,^ though
there is no evidence or likelihood that anyone acted in either capacity in the
fortress, which was only fully manned in emergencies. The normal royal
garrison was four gunners,'' whereas this estimate provides for 18.®
The fabric of the castle, which always had been difficult to maintain,
was allowed during these latter days to deteriorate even more than formerly.
In 1571 the government was told ' Wark Castle decays very much daily ' ^ ;
the brewhouse and bakehouse roofs leaked alarmingly in 1577.^ A report
on Norham and Wark in 1580 showed them both to be so ruined that 'no
man dare dwell in them, and if speedy remedy be not had, they will falle
flatte to the grounde,' i" and the commissioners of 1584 declared that it would
cost £800 to restore Wark to its original state, but it might be made fit to house
100 horsemen for half that sum.^^ Something in this direction was begun
in 1591, the original estimate being £500, 'but as Mr. Grey and his tenants
are to help with carriage' it was reduced to ;^300.i- Apparently the work
was carried on by Sir Henry Widdrington and Ralph Grey ,1^ the latter of whom
' Cat. of Border Papers, vol. i. p. 134.
- Cal. of State Papers, Foreign, 1575-1577, p. 146; Cal. of Border Papers, vol. i. p. 8.
' Acts of Privy Council, vol. xii. p. 318; Cal. of Border Papers, vol. ii. p. 233.
■* Cal. of Border Papers, vol. i. p. 537.
' Cotton MS. Titus F. xiii. fol. 257; Raine, North Durham, p. xxxv. * Ibid.
' Duke of Northumberland's MSS. — Border Holds, p. 354.
* Cal. of State Papers, Foreign, 1569-1571, p. 418. ' Ibid. 1575-1577, P- 602.
'" Cal. of Border Papers, vol. i. p. 30. " Report of Commissioners, 1584 — Border Holds, p. 72.
'2 Cal. of Border Papers, vol. i. p. 372; Cal. of State Papers, Domestic, 1580-1625, p. 326.
" Cal. of Border Papers, vol. i. pp. 379, 388.
72 PARISH OF CARHAM.
had earlier come into the property and in 1592 wrote to Lord Burghley that
he ' had finished the water wall, save a little in the basement, and had enough
stone, timber and other materials for the rest of the work.' He pointed out
that he had only received £200 of the ;^500 which was the valuation for the
work agreed to when he was in London, and asked for the balance, since
what had already been done was very nearly worth the whole sum.^ Des-
pite this cheerful report, the crown surveyor two years later found that by
no means all the work was done,^ and in 1587 another ^^300 had to be dis-
bursed for 'the repairing of Warke Castell.' ^
During early Stuart days Wark passed out of the pages of national
history. In 1633 what remained of the royal ordnance there was removed
to Berwick and London,* the castle was once more allowed to decay, and when
English troops were sent north against the Covenanters in 1639, though
some were stationed there, ^ Captain Charles Lloyd, sent to view it, reported
that it was so 'ruinated' and its circuit was so large, that it would take
more men to man than it was worth. Strategically, though it commanded
a ford, this was of no value, as there were others both up and down stream,
Nothing therefore was done in the way of repairs,^ though it was confidently
believed that the Scots would cross the Tweed at that point, as the ford
there was by far the most convenient. Still, the castle was slightly more
use than that at Norham for instance,'^ and the passage ultimately chosen
was a little further down stream. The men of Wark did not have long to
wait to see an invading Scottish army pass that way, for a portion of the
force which came to help the parliamentarians in 1644 quartered itself there
and in the neighbouring townships on the night of January 19th. ^
Thus does Wark pass from the national history. The castle, so often
destroyed by men's hands, was allowed to fall slowly into decay, but as late
as 1863 the tower at the south-west corner still stood, and the north wall
was still visible to the height of several feet for a hundred yards of its
length. But the whole of the escarpement on which this wall stood was then
gradually crumbling, and a few years earlier this had compelled the removal
of some of the masonry, as it had become dangerous to people crossing the
ferry. It was then also possible to trace the eastern and western walls,
' Cal. of Slate Papers, Domestic, 1580-1625, p. 341. ' Cat. of Border Papers, vol. i. p. 529.
' Ibid. vol. ii. p. 307. * Cal. of Stale Papers, Domestic, 1633-1634, pp. 134, 145, 394.
^ Ibid. 1639, pp. 200-201. » Ibid. 1639-1640, pp. 292, 355. ' Ibid. 1640, pp. 577, 585.
' Letters of Colonel Francis Anderson — Arch. Aeliana, N.S. vol. xxi. p. 151.
WARK CASTLE.
73
and there were two parallel walls on the west side thirty-four yards apart,
half the inner one being traceable only by its foundations. In digging the
foundation of a boat house that same year a ditch nine feet wide running
south-west from the north-west corner of the wall close by the Tweed, and
a road made of broken stones 8 feet wide passing from the village eastwards
on the north side of the keep were found. A few years earlier excavations
conducted by Mr. Richard Hodgson-Huntley revealed a long flight of stone
steps leading from the eastern side of the keep to the outer court, with a
portcullis about half way, and a square pit about g feet wide lined with
Fig. 3. — W.\rk Castle from the East, 1920.
masonry, descending nearly to the base of the mound. Further a sewer
running from the castle to the river, wide enough to be used for the
passage of men and material, was disclosed. ^ To-day the area of the site
can be easily traced. The position of the wall dividing the outer and
inner baileys is clearly marked, whilst the masonry of the lower portion
of the shell keep or donjon still exists. ^ The outer bailey occupied the
low ground to the east of the site, wherein was the gatehouse now entirely
destroyed. At the north-east angle there is still evidence of the comer
tower, which enclosed the angle of the east curtain wall, and that on the
north side by the edge of the river. The stone wall shewn on the sketch
' Paper by the Rev. P. Mearns in Berwickshire Xaturalists' Club, vol. v. pp. 65-66.
Vol. XI.
* See fig. 3.
74 PARISH OF CARHAM.
indicates the position of the wall dividing the outer from the inner bailey.
The ascent from the inner ward to the donjon was by a stone stair
eight feet in width, placed within the south curtain. The masonry of the
two lower storeys of the great donjon, in which were many buildings, is
a prominent and crowning feature. It occupies the extreme south-west
angle of the site, and dominates the whole. Its multangular sides
approximate an oval in general outline, and measure about 85 by 55
yards across the axis.
LEARMOUTH TOWNSHIP.
Situate just south of Wark, Learmouth^ has shared the same vicissi-
tudes as its more important neighbour. When the castle was attacked,
the neighbouring villages would naturally suffer, though at the same time
the fortress would afford protection to the inhabitants if not to their lands.
Thus in 1521 the Scots burnt the whole town and 30 ploughlands of corn,
driving away 400 head of cattle, 2,000 sheep, 4,000 'gate,' 30 geldings and
20 prisoners, 'and burnt one honest woman.' The garrison dared not leave
the castle 'for fear of betreasing behind them,' and the only method open
to them was to organize a retaliatory raid.^ Again in 1523 and 1533 raids
destroyed much property in the township.^ Still, in 1541 it contained
'twenty husbande landes well plenyshed,' a larger area being under culti-
vation than in Wark, and the inhabitants retired 'all waies to the castell
of Warke for their relefe in tyme of warre and necessytie.' * In prosperous
times the township was valued at £35 6s. 4d.,^ but in days of adversity its
value can have been nothing. Thus in 1597 'the Skots came to Lear-
mowth to the number of fouer and feftey hores men all jacke and gred, and
leyted in the medst of the touen gatte, bracke open and foressebley tocke
and refte away all the town noett to the nomber of 120 hed of cattell, and
2 or 3 and twenty nages and mears to the otter ondoeng of the pore touen,
if they gett no redress.' ^ With the close of the sixteenth century these
1 Earlier, Leuremue, Livermue, Leuermue, Levermuth, Levermouth, Leremouihe. O.E.lefr-muthAevers-
raouth, i.e. mouth of the river overgrown with levers or livers, a species of yellow flag. Cf. Livermere, Suflf.
Or possibly the first element is the O.E. Lfo/^eye, a personal name, hence 'Leofhere's mouth." For another
name of this type we may compare Uanflccde miipe in Birch's Cartularium (No. 880), i.e. Eanfled's (river-)
mouth, -ttme is a common Anglo-Norman spelling.
- Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII., vol. iii. pt. ii. p. 794.
' Ibid. vol. iii. pt. ii. p. 1450 ; vol. vi. p. 20. ' Survey of the Border, 1541 — Border Holds, p. 30.
' P.R.O. Slate Papers, Borders, 5, fol. 108.
" Cal. of Border Papers, vol. ii. pp. 433-434. It had suffered severely in the earl of Westmorland's raid
in 1570. Ibid. vol. i. p. 14.
LEARMOUTH TOWNSHIP. 75
excursions and alarms passed away, and Learmouth settled down to the
happy lot of a place without a history, save that in 1678 it witnessed an
affray, in which a certain 'Mr. Morley' was slain, caused by Scottish
hostility to those who were preparing on the border to destroy the power
of the Covenanters. 1
Descent of the Manor. — Learmouth was in early days a member
of the manor of Wark,^ but probably far larger in population. In 1296
thirteen householders were assessed for the lay subsidy in Learmouth as
against five in Wark, and the total value of their goods was £31 6s. 8d., as
against £14 i8s.^ At some date unknown the township was divided into
moieties, one being given to the rectory of Ilderton, and the other remaining
in the hands of the owners of Wark.
Descent of the one moiety. — The second of these two moieties went with
the Wark property till the beginning of the eighteenth century, though on
one or two occasions younger sons were provided with a portion therein.
Thus in the latter part of the twelfth century, Jordan Bussey, the second son
of Walter Espec's sister and co-heiress, Hawise,* owned a toft and two
bovates of land there, which he gave to Kirkham priory,^ and which after
the Dissolution found its way into the hands of the crown. ^ In 1275
Wilham Roos, younger son of Robert Roos of Wark, and a minor, seems to
have held the vill on the ground that his father had enfeoffed him just
before his death. The guardian of Robert Roos of Wark intervened, and
got a judgment in favour of his ward, though William's friends thought it
worth their while to prosecute the jury for having sworn a false oath." At
a much later date Edward Grey, doubtless a cadet of the house of Wark and
Chillingham which then owned Learmouth, had the mill there for life, and
being a papist delinquent, had it sequestrated by the commonwealth govern-
ment.^
After the death of Ford, Lord Grey and earl of Tankerville, the property
went to his brother, Ralph, Lord Grey, who bequeathed it with the rest of his
' Newcastle Public Library, Laing MSS. vol. i. p. 414.
* Assize Roll, 21 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xviii. p. 390; P.R.O. State Papers, Borders, 5, fol. 103.
3 Lay Subsidy Roll, 1296, f. 108. * Monasticon, vol. vi. pt. i. p. 209. ' Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 82.
* Ministers Accounts, 7-8 Elizabeth — Waterford Documents, vol. i. p. 63.
' De Banco Roll, No. 5, m. 7 ; No. 7, m. ii ; No. 26, m. 99 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxvi. pp. 141-142,
175, 383 ; Northttmberland Assize Rolls (Surtees Soc), p. 239.
'Royalist Compositions, pp. 217-218.
76 PARISH OF CARHAM.
property in 1705 to his nephew, Henry Neville, for life and after his decease
to his first and tenth son successively in tail male, upon condition of their
taking the name of Grey, and in default of such issue to his cousin, John
Grey of Howick. Henry Neville, alias Grey, died without issue, and the
estates to which he succeeded then passed to Sir Henry Grey, bart., eldest
son of the said John Grey of Howick, and ancestor of the present Earl Grey.^
The last named has recently sold East Learmouth to Mr. William Davidson
and West Eearmouth to Mr. Thomas Brown.
Descent of the other moiety. — When the other moiety of Learmouth
became part of the endowment of the rectory of Ilderton is not known.
The first mention thereof is to be found in the grant of Carham to Sir Chris-
topher Hatton, which included a moiety of the town of Learmouth, parcel
of the rectory of Ilderton. This, like Carham, was at once regranted to Sir
Thomas Forster,- in whose family it still remained in 1667.^ There is
reason to believe that it is to be identified with Sunnylaws, which in 1623,
being the property of Thomas Carr of Ford, was sold by him to his brother,
\Mlliam Carr, to whom his son William and his grandson Thomas succeeded
in turn.'* We next hear of Sunnylaws as the property of Earl Grey and
together with part of West Wark Common Farm, exchanged by him
for Tithehill with the daughters of Anthony Compton of Carham in 1847.
Tithehill had originally belonged to Earl Grey's ancestors, but in 1778 it
had been granted by Sir Henry Grey to Ralph Compton in exchange for
the glebe lands in Learmouth, the tithe of grain of the remainder of the
Learmouth estate and the hay tithes of Sunnylaws. Since 1847 Tithe-
hill has remained in the Grey family and Sunnylaws has continued part of
the Carham estate.^
Other landowners. — There are a few incidental references to others pos-
sessing property in Learmouth. The vill, and doubtless Wark also, being
in the hands of the Scots in the days of King Stephen and early in Henry
n.'s reign, William, earl of Northumberland, later King William of Scotland,
made a grant of land in the township to one Walter Butler. ** A messuage
and two bovates of land were in the later thirteenth century in the hands
of the family of Eyre of Presson, and Robert Eyre had in 1291 to defend
his right to them against the daughters and co-heirs of one Ida Eyre, who
' Howick Muniments. • Carham Deeds. ' Forfeited Estates Papers, F. 25.
* Carr Family, vol. ii. pp. 116-117. * Carham Deeds. Cf. p. 28 n. 6. above.
' Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 8ido. William succeeded his father Henry as earl of Northumberland in 1 152.
MINDRUM TOWNSHIP. 77
had granted them to him.^ Three hundred years later another name,
foreign to that of the owners of the township, appears in connection there-
with, for in 1581 and again in 1597 there is mention of John Selby of Lear-
mouth, ^ though he may have only been a tenant.
MINDRUM TOWNSHIP.
Descent of the Manor. — Mindrum^ was a member of the barony of Roos,
and after the gift of the latter to Robert Roos, younger son of Robert Roos,
early in the thirteenth centur\-, '*it was held by him of his brother, William.^
In 1251 he was granted free warren in his demesne lands there,^ but it is evident
that shortly after this the township ceased to be kept in the hands of the lord
of Wark. One Robert Gargou was possibly the most important man in the
township and a holder of lands there about this time, since a certain Matilda,
widow of Nicholas Middleton, sued him in 1266 for the possession of a
messuage, four bovates of land and five acres of meadow, and her son having
inherited her claims, made a similar attempt in 1270.'' It would seem that
he alienated at least part of his property to one William Roos, against whom
in 1276 his widow Joan successfully sought dower in four messuages and four
bovates of land in Mindrum.^ This William Roos was known as William Roos
of Downham, since in 1293 he was so described in a suit for dower in one toft
and 58 acres of land in Mindrum brought against him by Margery, widow of
Robert, son of Nicholas of Mindium. As to two parts of the above holding he
made no defence, but with regard to the third part he asked for the ruling of
the court, since it was already held in dower by Joan Gargou, whose husband
had been seised of the holding before Robert, son of Nicholas.^ It would
' Coram Rege Roll, No. 127, m. 60 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxiii. pp. 359-361.
* Feet of Fines, sixteenth century, p. 45 ; Cal. of Border Papers, vol. ii. p. 346.
' Earlier Minethrtim, JMindruni, Alimdrum. A Celtic name of which the first part corresponds to Welsh
inynydd, a mountain {cf. Long Jlynd, Salop), while the second corresponds to Gael. (ffHJ»«— back, ridge ;
Welsh, truim. Hence, 'hill-ridge,' cf. Mintridge, Hereford.
* See page 'j under Wark. Symeon states that 'Minethrum' in the valley of the Bowmont was given
by King Osv 'u to St. Cuthbert on the latter having seen a vision of St. Aidan being received up into heaven
Symeon' Monachi Opera Omnia. Rolls Series, No. 75, vol. i. pp. 106-7.) This obviously refers to Mindrum,
but I'i! statement is probably not true in fact and certainly not in detail, as St. Aidan outhved Oswin by
12 '.layv.
* Testa de Xevill — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 211. ' Cal. of Charter Rolls, vol. i. p. 374.
' Curia Regis Roll and De Banco Rolls — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxi., p. 405 ; vol. xxvi. pp. 69, 137.
' De Banco Rolls, No. 15, m. 62do ; No. 17, m. 48 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxvi. pp. 282, 295-296. In
1291 she accused Robert Penbury and Christine his wife of disseising her of tenements in Mindrum. Coram
Rege Roll, No. 127, m. 56 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxiii. p. 325.
" Assize Roll, 21 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xviii. pp. 195-196.
78 PARISH OF CARHAM.
seem therefore that part of Robert Gargou's lands had gone to Robert, son
of Nicholas, but had now passed to William Roos.
This William Roos had seemingly inherited lands in the township from
his father, William Roos, for in 1269 an order had been issued to inquire
whether William, father of William Roos, had been seised of three messuages,
six bovates and six acres of land and a penny of rent in Mindrum, which
Robert, son of Robert Roos, was then holding,^ and in 1271 William Roos
had arraigned an assize of mort d' ancestor against Robert Roos concerning
four tofts, six bovates and 11 acres of land and 12 acres of pasture,^ probably
part of the same inheritance. The supposition is, that the elder William
Roos here mentioned, William Roos of Mindrum as he is elsewhere called,^
was a younger son of the Robert Roos who was given Wark by his father
and died in 1274,* and therefore to be identified with the Wilham Roos who
claimed Learmouth in 1275.^ He held the manor of Mindrum,^ and his son
William Roos of Downham, increased the family holding. To this he added
another messuage and five bovates of land, which Robert of Downham had
originally leased for eight years to Christine, mother of William Roos.
Christine transferred this lease to her son, and Robert quitclaimed all his
right therein to him,'' his holding being yet further augmented in 1294 when
Christine, who seems to have held lands in her own right, conveyed to her
son a messuage, two carucates of land and £17 rent in the township.* At
1 Cal. of Inq. Miscellaneous vol. i. p. 129.
- Patent Roll, 56 Hen. III. m. i3do. — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. i. pp. 543-544. This document is
not traceable in the Calendar of the Patent Rolls.
' In 1279 there is a reference to Wilham, son of William Roos of Mindrum. Assize Roll, Divers Counties,
7-9 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xx. p. 123.
* This supposition is based on the fact that in 1293 William Roos of Downham stated his parentage in
a suit which he brought against Margaret, widow of Robert Roos of Wark, for the manor of Plenmeller in
Haltwhistle. He there claimed to be grandson and heir of Robert Roos of Wark by the following descent
Robert Roos of Wark =
= William, son and heir.
Robert, son and heir, d.s.p. William Roos of Downham.
{Assize Rolls, 21 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xix. p. 28; De Banco Roll, No. 102, m. i64do. — Ibid. vol.
xxviii. p. 66). If we allow that he was mistaken in naming his father as 'son and heir' to Robert Roos, and
this is supported by Margaret's answer that she held the manor in dower as of the inheritance of her son
Robert, this estabUshes the relationship of Wilham Roos of Downham beyond question.
' See page 75.
• De Banco Roll, No. no, m. i83do. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxviii. p. 181.
' De Banco Roll, No. 91, m. 253do ; No. 97, m. 291 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. .xxvii. p. 6ii ; vol. xxviii.
pp. 45-46; Assize Roll, 21 Edw. I. — Ibid. vol. xviii. pp. 3-4.
* Pedes Finium, 22 Edw. I. No. 37 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. vi. pp. 112-1:3.
MINDRUM TOWNSHIP. 79
the same time, under the title of Christine Roos of Mindrum, she prosecuted
Robert Roos of Wark and Laura, his wife, together with many others for
trespass. 1 Her son, who held the manor, was also in controversy with his
cousin of Wark.^ The latter had recently secured confirmation of his claim
to infangenthef in Mindrum on the ground that it was a member of his
manor of Wark,^ but when, on the strength of this, he had summoned the
free tenants and the reeve and men of the vill to attend his manor court
to judge robbers captured within his liberty, they had refused to attend.
On three specific occasions in 1293 these summons went forth, and the vill
was fined for disobedience thereto. As passive resistance still continued
and the fines were not paid, the lord of Wark sent his servants to distrain,
and they seized three oxen on the first occasion and two oxen on each of the
two subsequent occasions, the cattle being taken from Horse Rigg, a name
which still survives on the ordnance survey. William Roos promptly sued
his cousin for damages, asserting that his father had held the manor free
of all suit at the manorial court of Wark, and that only when Robert had
seized the vill on the elder William's death and had wrongfully dispossessed
the present plaintiff till compelled to restore it by the courts, was this service
exacted, and that then it was based on unlawful possession of the manor
of Mindrum.* The case was never decided, as it was still suh judice when
Robert Roos became a traitor in the following year,^ and when Wark was
granted by the crown to William Roos of Helmsley, most of the liberties
formerly pertaining to the lordship of Wark were not included in the gift,®
but it had served the purpose of putting on record the title of William Roos
of Downham to the manor of Mindrum."
1 Coram Rege Roll, No. 141, m. 20 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxiii. p. 559.
^ De Banco Roll, No. 106, m. 128 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxviii, pp. iio-iii.
' Assize Roll, 21 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xviii. pp. 390-391.
* De Banco Roll, No. no, m. i83do. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxviii. pp. 179-1S2.
* De Banco Roll, No. 112, m. i28do. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxviii. p. 225. ^ See pages 35-36.
' Three separate holdings in Mindrum were held by religious corporations. The Knights Templars
must have owned land there, probably the gift of the Robert Roos who entered the order, for during the
Quo Warranto inquiries the master claimed infangenthef and utfangenthef, goods of felons, gallows, the
control of the assize of beer and freedom for himself and for his men in the vHU from all suit of court and
tolls. Counsel for the crown tried to prove that the charter of 1252, under which the claim was made, was
granted before these lands were acquired, but the jury found for the master except in the cases of infangenthef
utfangenthef and goods of felons (Quo Warranto — Hodgson, pt. iu. vol. i. pp. 167-168 ; Assize Roll, 21 Edw. I.
— Duke's Transcripts, vol. xviii. pp. 424-425). Some small holding was probably owned by the priorj' of
Kirkham, as in 1565 certain property, once parcel of that monastery, was in the hands of the cro-nm (Ministers
Accounts, 7-8 Elizabeth — Waterford Documents, vol. i. p. 63), though this may possibly only have reference
to the tithes. The mill of Mindrum was undoubtedly the property of the hospital of St. Thomas, Bolton,
having been given thereto by Robert Roos when he founded that house about 1225 {Monasticoti, pt. vi. vol. ii.
p. 692; Cal. of Charter Rolls, vol. i. p. 56), with the right to enforce suit thereat from certain lands in
Downham. (See page 84).
8o PARISH OF CARHAM.
What became of the property after 1296 is not known, though we may
guess that ^\'i^iam left two daughters and co-heiresses, since tlie township
became divided into moieties. One of these appears in 1331 in the
hands of Richard Emeldon,^ who burdened it, together with his lands in
Wooler and Newcastle, with a rent of 40s. in favour of Thomas Bamburgh,
clerk, 2 the master of Bolton hospital and in that capacity owner of Mindrum
mill. 2 Emcldon was killed in the king's service at the battle of
Halidon Hill,* and his estate in Mindrum, described as 'within the
manor of Wark on Tweed,' consisted of a capital messuage 100 acres of
land, part of which was lying waste, 3 acres i rood of meadow, and 13I
bondages, each of which contained a toft and 24 acres. This was held
of Sir William Montague as of the castle of Wark-on-Tweed by
service of a moiety of a sparrowhawk yearly or 6d. at midsummer.^
It would seem therefore that the claim to infangenthef in and suit
from the tenants of Mindrum formerly made by the lord of Wark
had been justified, and that originally William Roos of Mindrum had been
enfeoffed with the vill for a nominal rent, which, when the property had
been split up, had been converted into a small money contribution. Richard
Emeldon's heirs were three daughters, Agnes, wife of Adam Graper, aged
27, Maud, wife of Richard Acton, aged 23, and Jane, unmarried and, as she
was only nine, in the wardship of the crown, since her father had held some
of his lands in chief. Thus the ' moiety of the town of Mindrum ' was divided
up between the widow, Christine, who got her third in dower, and the three
daughters, who each got a third part of two parts, with reversion of a third
of the dower.® Jane probably married in 1340, as an inquest to discover
her age was then held,' and in 1342 her inheritance was delivered to her and
Alan Clavering her husband.^ The fate of these three shares cannot be
traced with any certainty. In 1335 that of the second daughter, Maud,
was settled on her and her husband for their lives with reversion to their
only daughter, Elizabeth, and her husband, Gerard Widerington, and the
' P.R.O. Inq. A.Q.T). File ccxviii. No. 8.
• Assize Rolls, Divers Counties, g Edw. III. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xx. pp. 345-346.
' Coram Rege Roll, No. 287, m. 164 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxiii. pp. 202-207.
* Cat. of Close Rolls, 1333-1337, p. 200. ' Cal. 0/ Inq. p.m. vol. vii. p. 396.
' Ibid. vol. vii. pp. 370-371 ; Cal. 0/ Close Rolls, 1333-1337, pp. 238-239, 325.
' Chancery Inquisitions, Edw. III. File 63 — Arch. Aeliana, 3rd series, vol. iii. p. 305.
' Cal. oj Close Rolls, 1341-1343, p. 484.
. MINDRUM TOWNSHIP. 8l
heirs of their bodies, save that the portion which formed Christine Emeldon's
dower was at her death to go to John of Stannington, chaplain, the plaintiff
in both the fines whereby these arrangements were made.^ The share of
the third daughter, Jane, was not included in the settlement of her estates
made in 1361 after she had married her second husband, Sir John Stry-
velyn,2 but already had been sold to John Coupland,^ a great buyer of Glendale
property, who had already in 1348 bought from one Thomas Archer the
reversion of a moiety of the manor, held by Thomas Heton and Christine his
wife, in dower.* This last probably represents the moiety of the manor which
Richard Emeldon had not owned, since there is no trace of a Christine among
the widows of his immediate descendants,^ and we know that in the neigh-
bouring township of Downham certain land once held by William Roos was
held in 1309 by a certain John Archer, whose son Robert had succeeded to
it by 1332.^ We may well suppose that Coupland bought up all the other
parcels of the manor, including the reversion of the dower of Christine
Emeldon, who, having married William Plumpton, died in 1364.'' At any
rate his widow, Joan Coupland, owned the whole manor in 1365,^ and in 1372
conveyed it to trustees to the use of Sir Richard Arundel.^ Sir John Arundel
at the time of his death in 1380 held the manors of Mindrum and Presson
together of the lord of Wark by knight and other services, property then
valueless and deserted because Scottish ravagers had driven all the inhabi-
tants away, but in the past worth £27 13s. lod.^" Mindrum was probably
sold to the Greys with Wooler in 1408, for Sir Ralph Grey, who died in 1443,
held it, waste and desolate still, 'in socage as of the lordship of Wark.'^^
Meanwhile a portion of the township had belonged to the Ogle family, for
in 1435 Sir Robert Ogle gave to his son John two tenements and two husband-
' Pedes Fimum, g Edw. III. Nos. 37, 38 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxi.x. pp. 83-88.
' See Mr. Dendy's Jesmond {Arch. Aeliana, 3rd series, vol. i. p. 99) for the terms of this deed. The
omission of Mindrum is not there mentioned.
' In 1362 John Coupland was involved in a plea of agreement with Sir John Stryvelyn and Jane his wife
concerning a sixth part of the manor of Mindrum. De Banco Roll, No. 409, m. lyido.
* Pedes Finium, 22 Edw. III. No. 87— Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxix. pp. 186-188. Cf. De Banco Roll,
No. 355, m. i86do.
' See Mr. Dendy's Jesmond passim. * See page 84.
' Inq. p.m. 38 Edw. III. No. 36 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 82.
' Pedes Finium, 39 Edw. III. No. 137— Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxix. pp. 274-276.
» Cal. of Close Rolls, 1369-1374, p. 448. Pedes Finium, 39 Edw. III. No. 137. Duke's Transcripts,
vol. xxxix. pp. 312-315.
"> Inq. p.m. 13 Ric. II. No. I — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxviii. pp. 43-45.
" P.R.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. Hen. VI. file iii.
Vol. XI. "•
82 PARISH OF CARHAM.
lands, ^ and himself died a year later seized of 48 acres of land there. ^ As
this land is not traceable among John Ogle's possessions when they were
conveyed to trustees in 1460,^ it had evidently by then passed from the
family, probably to the Greys. At any rate, in 1541 the whole township
containing 16 husbandlands was ' of thinherytaunce of Graye of Chillingham,'
and just as open to Scottish attack as in 1443, for owing to the absence
of tower or barmekin ' in every apparence of a troublous worlde or warre yt
ys abandoned and left waste as an easye praye for enemy es to overrone.' *
At the moment it was in a flourishing condition,^ but its defenceless state
was exemplified later in that same year, when a Scottish raid of some 60 or
80 light horsemen spoiled and burnt the place. ^ The commissioners of 1550
were still more struck by the defencelessness of this border township
on the banks of Bowmont with its very fertile soil, lying as it did
' in the high strete and waye, whereby the Scottes passe and repasse
into those merches of Englande.' They recommended the building
there of a strong tower with stables beneath and a dwelling place
above after the fashion of Lord Dacre's tower at Rockliff in Cumber-
land, with a large barmkin round it for the protection of cattle. This,
with two watch towers on either side of it on Haddon Law and Tevers-
heughe to give notice of an attack, would go far towards protecting this
vulnerable part of the border between Cheviot and Wark, 'and wolde cause
that sondry vyllages wasted by warres and lieng long tyme uninhabited
to be repeopled and plenyshed, which were a great strengthe to those
borders.' "^ It was necessary too for protecting the boundaries of the town-
ship, for the Scots even in time of peace claimed a strip of land in Chapman
Dean and a considerable stretch of pasture just where Mindrum joined
Shotton.^ It may be that something was done in 1584, for in Christopher
Dacre's 'Plat,' drawn in 1584, a tower is marked as standing there. ^
Probably Mindrum was repopulated after these reports, as we hear no
more of raids there after this time. Early in 1570, after the failure of the
northern rebellion of 1569 and before the aftermath thereof led by Dacre, the
' Ogle and Bothal, App. No. 164. = Inq. p.m. 15 Hen. VI. No. 56 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. li. p. 273.
' Ogle and Bothal, App. No. 167. * Survey of the Border, 154I1 — Border Holds, p. 31.
' Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII., vol. xvi. p. 478.
' Hamilton Papers, vol. i. p. 107 ; Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII., vol. xvi. p. 589.
' Survey of the Border, 1550 — Border Holds, pp. 51-52.
' Survey of the Border, 1541 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 218.
• Plat of Castles, 1584 — Border Holds, pp. 78-79.
DOWNHAM TOWNSHIP. 83
earl of Northumberland, who had escaped to Scotland, brought a party of Scots
over and carried off 5,000 sheep and 140 head of cattle after burning the com
and hay which belonged to Rowland Forster.^ The latter, doubtless as
captain of Wark, had been given a lease of these lands by Sir Thomas Grey,
who in his will dated December 20th, 1589, bequeathed a life interest in the
township to his brother Edward.- Before this bequest became operative
two hundred thieves of Liddesdale descended upon the place with its barns
and corn, slew the cattle and carried off goods valued at £300 or £400, and
negotiations for an indemnity for this outrage dragged on for more than a
year.^ A similar predatory expedition secured 30 head of cattle in 1594,'*
and two years later another, consisting of 50 horse from Teviotdale, carried
off 20 horses and 60 head of cattle in broad daylight.^ Nothing but reprisals
of a similar kind would keep these thieves from continuing their depredations,
declared the lord warden,^ and so thoroughly was the district terrorized,
that the men of Mindrum gladly paid the laird of Cessford blackmail to be
freed from these constant visitations.'' Mindrum remained in the hands
of the Greys and of their heirs, the earls of Tankerville, till 1913, when Min-
drum Farm was sold to Mr. Bell of Shidlaw, Mindrum Mill to Mr. Alexander
Borthwick, and the farm of Hagg to Mr. C. Rand.^
DOWNHAM TOWNSHIP.
Descent of the Manor. — From the earliest times of which we know
down to the close of the middle ages, Downham^ was closely associated with its
neighbour, Mindrum. A member of the barony of Roos, it passed therewith
about 1226 to Robert Roos of Wark,^" who, thirt}' years later, was threatened
by Nicholas Middleton with an action under a writ of mort d' ancestor for a third
' Cal. oj State Papers, Foreign, 1569-1571, pp. 178, 185-186. ' Wills and Inventories, vol. ii. p. 172.
' Cal. of Border Papers, vol. i. pp. 342, 344, 355, 388 ; Cal. of State Papers, Scotland, vol. ii. p. 578. This
raid must have taken place before llarch, 1589, when it was tiie subject of complaint at a Warden Court
held hard by at Stawford. The record of the proceedings at this court is printed in Berwickshire Naturalists'
Club, vol. xxi. pp. 272-275.
* Hist. AISS. Rep. Cecil, vol. iv. p. 553 ; Cal. of Border Papers, vol. i. p. 535.
= Cal. of Border Papers, vol. ii. p. 154. « Ibid. vol. ii. p. 157. ' Ibid. vol. ii. p. 214.
' Berwickshire Naturalists' Club, vol. xxii. p. 306.
'Earlier Dunum, Dunhum, Downeham. O.E. dun-ham = iown or hill-homestead or, less probably
(al thasm)dunum — [a.\. the) hills.
'" Testa de Nevill — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 211. Robert Roos was given free warren in his demesne
lands there in 1251 (Cal. of Charter Rolls, vol. i. p. 374), and his grandson successfully claimed infangenthef
in the vill as a member of his manor of Wark. {Quo Warranto — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 134 ; Assize Roll,
21 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xviii. pp. 390-391.)
84 PARISH OF CARHAM.
of the manor, though it never came to trial. ^ He seems to have enfeoffed his
younger son, WilUam of Mindrum, with it, for this WilUam's son, Wilham of
Downham, claimed a messuage, three carucates of land and 12 acres of meadow,
as his father's inheritance.- The last named came into conflict with his overlord
of Wark on the question of service due from Downham in 1294,^ just as he
did over his lands in Mindrum, and was living at Downham in 1296, indeed
he was the onl}^ inhabitant assessed for the subsidy of that year, his goods
being then valued at ^^19 8s. 4d.* It is obvious that then, as now, Downham
was no more than a homestead, but that the owner of Mindrum lived there
on the sheltered ridge protected from the northern winds, and looking down
on Bowmont water flowing past beneath.
We have no definite evidence of what became of the propert}' after the
death of William Roos of Downham, but the supposition that he left two
co-heiresses, which the records of Mindrum suggest, is strengthened by
what we know of the devolution of two carucates of land in the township,
from which suit was due to Mindrum mill. In 1290 the master of the hospital
of St. Thomas, Bolton, as owner of the mill, called on William Roos of
Downham to do suit of all corn growing on this land, on the ground that it
had been given to one of his predecessors by Robert Roos, whose grandson
and heir William Roos was, and after four years litigation a jury found in
his favour.^ In 1309 the master again found himself compelled to assert
his rights and on this occasion the two carucates were held by John Archer
and Master Walter Wetewange and Joan his wife,^ the supposition being that
Archer had married one co-heiress, who was now dead, and that Joan was
the other co-heiress. When once again the master had to assert the claims
of his house in 1320, the defendants were Robert, son of John Archer, and
John of Denum, knight, the last of whom had died by 1332, when his pro-
1 Northumberland Assize Rolls (Surtees Society), p. 33.
' Cal. of Inq. Miscellaneous, vol. i. p. 129; Patent Roll, 56 Hen. III. m. i3do. — Bain, Cal. of Docu-
ments, vol. i. pp. 543-544. For the relationship of these two Williams see page 78 n. 4.
' De Banco Roll, No. 105, m. 56do. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xviii. p. 98.
* Subsidy Roll, 1296, fol. 105.
' De Banco Rolls, No. 80, m. 131 ; No. 81, m. 4odo ; No. 86, m. 190 ; No. 91, ni. 91 ; No. 96, m. 87.
— Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxvii. pp. 384, 400, 492-493, 587 ; vol. xxviii. p. 23 ; Assize Roll, 21 Edw. I. — Ibid.
vol. xviii. pp. 3-4. If the statement of the master is to be taken as accurate, the gift was made by Robert
Roos of Wark to the institution founded by his father. WiUiam was, of course, not his grandfather's heir
as he descended from a younger son, but it is strange that he himself on another occasion described his
father as son and heir of Robert Roos. See page 78 n. 4.
' Coram Rege Roll, No. 195, m. 74do. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxv. pp. 81-83; Placitorum Abbreviatio
— Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 354.
DOWNHAM TOWNSHIP. 85
perty belonged to Robert Musgrave of Newcastle. ^ Thus, if our suggestion
is true, one moiety of Downham passed directly in the family of Archer, the
other from Wetewang to Denum and thence to Musgrave. So far as this
second moiety is concerned, some confirmation is found in the fact that in
1324 the manor of Downham was settled on John, son of Adam of Denum
and Joan his wife, for their lives, with successive remainders in tail to
Thomas, Richard and Constance, children of John and Joan,- though the
entail must have been cut by 1332 to enable Musgrave to purchase, unless
by any chance Thomas and Richard were both dead and Musgrave had
married Constance.
From the beginning of the fourteenth century to well on into the
sixteenth century even supposition as to the ownership of Down-
ham fails us. Possibly it lay waste, at any rate it was in this state
when bought by that militant priest. Sir Cuthbert Ogle, who proceeded
to build a new tower, which in 1541 had been completed up to the
second floor, but was to have in addition another storey with embattle-
ments and a barmkin around it. Sir Cuthbert seems to have lived
there, and finding that two of the original eight husbandlands were
sufficient for his needs, he did not bring the rest back to cultivation,
but kept them laid down in grass for his cattle.^ From this owner the
township passed to Luke Ogle of Eglingham, who is said to have held it
in capite in 1568,* and who in 1590 prosecuted Katharine Hewine, alias
Foster, widow, for forcibl}' entering his close there and depasturing cattle
thereon,^ and further sued her for the lands late belonging to Cuthbert
Ogle in Downham. "^ This same Luke Ogle had reason in 1596 to bless his
predecessor's work in building the tower, when about 9 o'clock on the night
of October 20th the Scots swooped down on the isolated homestead. They
hewed up the gate of the barmkin with axes, ' which helde them tyll cock-
crowe in the morninge,' and the defence offered was such that they went
1 Coram Rege Roll, No. 287, m. 164 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxiii. pp. 202-207.
2 Pedes Finium, 18 Edw. II. No. 69. Duke's Transcripts, vol. xii. pp. 105-106. In 1320 Robert
Coventn- and Emma his wife conveyed the manor of ' Denum,' saving 5s. rent to William, son of William
of Denum, and his heirs and the excepted rent to John of Denum {Pedes Finium, 13 Edw. II. Nos. 42, 43.
Duke's Transcripts, vol. xii. pp. 66, 67). It is probable that in spite of the coincidence of name, 'Denum'
stands for Deanham in Hartburn.
' Survey of the Border, 1541 — Border Holds, p. 31.
* Liber Feodarii, 1586 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. Lxx.
' P.R.O. Exchequer Plea Rolls, 32-33 EUz. Michaelmas m. 28do, 33 Eliz. Hilary, m. 7do.
' P.R.O. Court oj Requests, Temp. Eliz. Bundle, xcii. No. 28.
86 PARISH OF CARHAM.
off empty handed to wreak their anger on Branxton.^ This man's grandson,
also called Luke, wliu died in October, 1604, was by the first inquest held
after his death said to liave died seised of Downham, held of the king in free
socage as of his manor of Tynemouth, his son and heir being Harry Ogle,
aged 4i years.- If the statement on the tenure here be true, the transference
of a township from being a member of the manor of Wark to being one of the
manor of Tynemouth is quite inexplicable, but a second inquest, ordered
owing to the inefficiency of the last one, makes things still more complicated
by finding that in 1600 Luke Ogle had sold Downham to Ralph Carr.^ This
last statement cannot be accepted, for in the rate book of 1663 Henry Ogle
is recorded as holding Downham, but from another version of the same
record it seems that, though in occupation, he had made over the property
to his son John,* possibly for fear of being dispossessed as a parliamentarian
by the triumphant royalists.^ By 1673 Henry Ogle was dead, and John
Ogle joined with his son Henry in selling the property to William, Lord Grey
of Wark.® It passed ultimately to Ralph, Lord Grey, after whose death in
1706 it was sold for £2,550.'' It seems to have been repurchased by Henry
Neville, to whom the last Lord Grey had left his property, and from him
it passed under the terms of the latter's will to Sir Henry Grey, bart.,
the ancestor of the present owner. Earl Grey.^
MONEYLAWS TOWNSHIP.
Moneylaws^ was a member of the barony of Roos, held in chief originally
by Walter Espec, from whom it passed to the Roos family.^" Though Robert
Roos was given free warren in his demesne lands in Moneylaws in 1251,^^
and his grandson successfully claimed infangenthef there on the ground that it
was a member of his manor of Wark,^^ it is quite evident that the whole town-
ship was subinfeudated.
' Cal. of Border Papers, vol. ii. pp. 187, 213. ' Inq. p.m. — Ogle and Bothal, App. No. 212.
' Ibid. No. 214. * Rate Book, 1663 — Hodgson, pt.i ii. vol. i. pp. 277, 342. ' Ogle and Bothal, p. 376.
' Lease and Release — Ogle and Bothal, App. No. 775. ' Ewart Park MSS. ' Hawick Muniments.
' Earlier Menilawe, Manilawe, Manylawe, Menilaw, Manlaw, Monilawe, Monylaw{e)s, Moneylawes,
Mannylawes. ' Many-hills ' cf. O.E. manig, monig, menig = many. For such a name cj. O.E. the manige hyllan
(Birch, No. 808) =((/»») many hills, Monyash, Derbyshire, earlier Manyashe, Monej'hall, Staffordshire (earlier
Monhuile, Monihills), and lez Mony-laws in Heugh (Black Book oj Hexham).
'» Testa de Nevill — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 211. i' Cal. of Charter Rolls, vol. i. p. 374.
"Quo Warranto — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. pp. 134-136; Assize Roll. 21 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts,
vol xviii. pp. 390-391.
MONEYLAWS TOWNSHIP. 87
Descent of the Manor. — The earliest tenant of the barony of whom we
hear was Wilham Batayle, who seems to have held one toft and 12 acres of
land in Moneylaws, and to have alienated them to John Prendlate or Pren-
drelath as the name occurs most often. In 1256 Robert Batayle, William's
nephew and heir,i claimed the property, but agreed to quitclaim his right to
Prendrelath.- The last named held other property in the township, for in
1271 a certain John le Rus sued him for six marks and also sought an order
of the court to compel him to keep an agreement made between them
concerning a mill in Moneylaws.^ By 1291 John Prendrelath was dead,
and so also was his successor, probably a son, Nicholas Prendrelath. The
latter's heir was his daughter, Joan, about whose wardship there was some
difficulty, as Robert Roos had sold it to John Vescy, whose executors wished
for an inquiry as to the lady's position. An inquest, held in August, 1292,
established the fact that Joan held a tenement in Moneylaws by knight's
service and was her father's next heir, legitimate and of full age.* She had
married John Wischard,^ a Scot by nationality, hailing from the Carse,^ who
in 1296 had an establishment in Moneylaws, being assessed on £6
for the subsidy of that year. He can hardly have made this his chief
residence as two other inhabitants, Hugh of Moneylaws and Adam Harding,
had possessions of nearly equal value, being assessed on £4 lis. 8d. and
£5 8s. 6d. respectively.'
John Wischard followed in the footsteps of his overlord, Robert Roos of
Wark, and took the Scottish side when war broke out in 1296. In May of
that year he was numbered among Scots who held land in Northumberland,
his property in Moneylaws being valued at £7 los. od.,^ and by inquisition
taken in 1299 it was established that before his treason he had held the
manor of the lord of Wark 'by reason of the manor of Joan his wife,' and
paying a yearly rent of lod. for castle ward and suit of court. There were
' He was seemingly son and heir of Constance Flauvell. Excerpta e Rol. Fin. vol. ii. p. 363
' Northumberland Assize Rolls (Surtees Soc), p. 17.
' Coram Rege Roll, No. 164, m. 20 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. i. p. 530 ; Curia Regis Rolls, Nos. 202,
206, 2o8a. De Banco Roll, No. 23 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxi. pp. 470, 483, 564 ; vol. xx\-i. p. 71.
* In a case of 1 294 one William Meirin of ' Menelowe ' is reported as holding lands in ' Menelowe et
Glendale." De Banco Roll, No. 103, m. 47do.— Duke's Transcripts, vol. xrai. p. 76. He however, does not
appear as a resident in Moneylaws in the Subsidy Roll of 1296.
» Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. iii. p. 40.
• Inq. p.m. 32 Edw. I. No. 121 ; 10 Edw. II. No. 11— Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. ii. p. 416; vol.
iii. p. 99-
' Lay Subsidy Roll, 1296, fol. 105. » Stevenson, Scottish Documents, vol. ii. p. 48.
88 PARISH OF CARHAM.
24 bovates of land in the manor, which used to render £b yearly, but now
brought in nothing, except 18 acres let out to farm for i8s. to Thomas Leger.
The full brunt of war had fallen on the township, and an official, realizing
the position, has endorsed the return to the effect that nothing would be
done 'till certain order be taken touching the state of Scotland.' The manor,
by reason of forfeiture, was in the king's hands, ^ but there were various
claims on it. The tithe of sheaves thereof, for instance, had been bought
from the prior of Kirkham for sixteen marks, and for the payment of that
sum the whole township had been pledged, 'which town and all the tenants
therein, because they were his bondsmen,' were now in the king's hands.
The position was complicated by the fact that Wischard had sold a moiety
of this tithe to William of Kilham and Robert, chaplain, also of Kilham,
for eight marks, which they had not yet paid ; of the other moiety he had
'expended a quarter and a bushel of wheat of the price of 5s.' and the rest
had been taken to the castle of Wark by William Roos, the new lord thereof,
under the king's order to provision it. Thus the prior had not received
any of his 16 marks, and had at least a moral claim on the king.^ It might
seem strange, that a man, having agreed to compound for his tithe, should sell
half thereof to some one else, but this is explained by the fact that he had
given a lease of his manor for 7I years, dating from Martinmas, 1295, to one
Ellen Prendrelath, who must have been his wife's relative. She had been
lady in waiting to the queen of Norway, mother of the little maid whose
premature death had been one of the prime causes of the war between Scots
and English. The king of Scotland had left her a legacy of £100 as a
reward for her eight years of faithful service to his daughter, but for some
reason the money had been paid to John Wischard, who liquidated the
debt by giving her this lease for 7I years, it being computed that the manor
was worth 20 marks yearly. When she had only drawn one half year's
revenue, the whole property had been taken into the king's hands, and so
it remained till she managed to interest the English queen in her case.
At last after many delays the king answered her petition favourably, ^
and in April, 1305, the manor was handed over to her, as a matter of grace
and not as a matter of right, till such time as she should have cleared the
140 marks still due.*
' Cat. of Inq. Miscellaneous, vol. i. pp. 495-496. ' Ibid., vol. i. p. 486.
» Chancery Inq. Misc. file 63, No. 13 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. ii. pp. 416-417. Cf. Col. of Inq.
Miscellaneous, vol. i. pp. 525-526. * Cal. of Close Rolls, 1302-1307, p. 257.
MONEYLAWS TOWNSHIP. 89
John Wischard must have returned to his allegiance, for in 1314 he was
back in possession, but on August 12th of that year he created something
of a record by joining the Scots and forfeiting his property for the second
time, induced thereto doubtless by the overwhelming defeat of the English
at Bannockburn. Once more the king held the manor, now said to be worth
£10 in time of peace but at the time of no value at all.^ Two years later it
was granted for life to David Baxter of Lanton,^ later bailiff of Wark. At
his death in 1332, he was said to have held the manor of the king, as of the
castle of Wark by service of 4od. for castle guard, a considerable reduction
on the former 40s., and by service of a knight's fee, Thomas, his son and heir,
being aged 14.^ The property was taken into the king's hands by reason
of the minority of the heir,* but the mistake made in the inquisition was
soon found out, and as Money laws had been only held for life, the property
escheated to the king.^ In 1368 Edward III. gave it in fee simple to Alice
Ferrers, his famous, or rather infamous, mistress,^ who in the following year
conveyed it to Henry Strother 'le piere.' As there was then a claim for
dower thereon in favour of Margaret, wife of Thomas Blensansop, it is obvious
that the land had not been in the king's hands ever since 1323. The manor
was at the same time settled in tail male, with reservation of Henry Strother's
life interest, on his sons, John, Henry and Thomas successively. '^
For two hundred years Moneylaws remained in the family of Strother.
In 1375 Henry Strother gave his manor of Moneylaws to his brother Alan,^
but as the original charter has not survived and we have only the bare abstract
of it, we cannot tell the nature of the gift, which may have been only for life.
When the feudal aid of 1428 was collected, Thomas Strother of Newton
held Moneylaws in fee as of the lordship of Wark,^ but no other mention of
the family there occurs till 1535, when William Strother of Newton settled
it with other properties on his son William. ^^^ In 1541 according to the
border survey ' the towneshippe of Monylawes conteyneth in yt LX husband-
lands and ys now plenyshed. In yt ys nether tower, barmekyn nor fortresse,
and therefore yt suffereth greatt hurte in tyme of warre. Wyll'm Strouther
' Inq. p.m. lo Edw. II. No. ii — Bain, Cal. oj Documents, vol. iii. p. 99. Cf. Cal. of Inq. Misc. vol. ii. p.77.
° Cat of Patent Rolls, 1313-1317, p. 570. He is here called David of Lanton For his identification
with David Baxter, see page 226.
' Cal. of Inq p.m. vol. vi. p. 289. * Cal. of Fine Rolls, 1319-1327, p. 241.
' Originalia — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 298. ' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1367-1370, p. 146.
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1367-1370, p. 292. ' Dodsworth MS. 45, fol. 53 ; Lansdowne MS. 326, fol. 140.
• Feudal Aids vol. iv. p. 86. '" Laing Charters, pp. 104-105.
Vol. XI. 12
go PARISH OF CARHAM.
of East Newton, gentleman, ys the Inheryture and owener of this towne.'^ In
1568 Roger Strother of Newton was the owner,- but he is the last of the
family to be mentioned as such, since in 1579 John Selby was complaining
'of a late spoyle committed by the Scottes upon her Majesties subjects of
the towne of Moneylawes.'^ This was John Selby of Branxton, who in 1581
settled his lands in Moneylaws with an elaborate series of remainders by
fine, in which William Strother and Lancelot Strother were the plaintiffs,*
doubtless the lord of Newton and his heir. Though John Selby held the
responsible post of gentleman porter of Berwick, he was not very careful to
administer his newly acquired property in the national interest, and in 1586,
in view of the way that border landlords were introducing tenants of Scottish
origin to the exclusion of Englishmen, there were serious complaints made that
'the owner of Monylaws hath not an Engleshe man that dwellethe in hyt.'^
But this did not give him exemption from the depredations of Scottish
thieves, a hundred of whom descended on the township in 1588, and carried
off cattle to the value of £200.® His son, William Selby, who had succeeded
to the estate in 1597, had a similar experience on a much smaller scale.'
In 1612, after the death of his uncle, to whose southern estates he succeeded,
William Selby did homage to the king for ' the manor, chief messuage or tene-
ment called Money lawes,' as his father's heir,^ and in 1672 George Selby of
Twizell left his ' capital messuage of Moneylaws in tail male to his sons Ralph
and George successively.^ After the death of these two in succession the
property was divided between their two sisters, Dorothy and Frances.^" The
former left her share of what was described as ' three-fourth parts of the village
and hamlet of Moneylaws' to her second husband, Sir Wilham Van
Colster, bart., who in 1709 sold it to Carnaby Haggerston, eldest son of
William Haggerston, and grandson of Sir Thomas Haggerston of Haggerston,
bart. Later this purchaser acquired the other portion of the Selby in-
heritance.^^ Thus New Moneylaws or East Moneylaws became the inheritance
of the Haggerston family, with whom it remains at the present day.^^
' Survey of the Border, 1541 — Border Holds, p. 31.
' Liber Feodarii, 1568 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. hi. p. Ixix. ' Acts of Privy Council, vol. ii. p. 301.
♦ Feet of Fines, sixteenth century, p. 45. For details see page 113.
' Cal. of Border Papers, vol. i. p. 228.
" Ibid. vol. i. p. 355. It suffered severely too at the hands of the earl of Westmorland's raiders in 1570.
Ihid. vol. i. p. 14.
' Ibid. vol. ii. p. 442. * P.R.O. L.T.R. Memoranda Roll, 545, Easter 10 Jas. I. m. 319.
• Raine, Testamenta, vol. v. p. 269. " For details of the descent see page 1 14.
" Moneylaws Deeds. " For pedigree of Haggerston see Raine, North Durham, pp. 223-224.
PRESSON TOWNSHIP. 9I
In 1684 the succession of Dorothy and Frances had been disputed by
Rowland Selby, husband of the last named, ^ and he seems to have secured
a quarter of the property. At any rate he had ah-eady anticipated the
success of his claim by selling a quarter of the manor to Sir Francis Blake
of Ford in 1677, and his widow confirmed this grant in 1691. Henceforth
this portion, known as Old Moneylaws or West Moneylaws, formed part of
the Ford estate, and is now the property of Lord Joicey.-
PRESSON TOWNSHIP.
Presson^ a long narrow township reaching from Learmouth on the east
to the Scottish border on the west, has never been a place of much importance.
The only outstanding event recorded throughout its history is that in Piper-
dean, on the banks of the Presson burn and hard by Presson farm house,
a border fight of some fame took place on September loth, 1436. According
to the Scottish chroniclers a foray, led, as one account says, by the earl of
Northumberland, was caught on its homeward way at this spot so close to
the border by William Douglas, earl of Angus, with whom were Adam
Hepburn of Hailes and Alexander Ramsay of Dalhousie. A fierce fight
between the forces, each said to have consisted of 4,000 men, ended in a Scottish
victory, the losses on both sides being about 400 men, of whom the Scots lost
Guy Elphinstone and the English Sir Henry Clennell, Sir Richard Percy and
Sir John Ogle, while Sir Robert Ogle, junior, and 1,500 rank and file were
taken prisoners.* The fame of Piperdean lies mainly in the fact that it has
obviously inspired the setting for the ballad of Chevy Chase, though many
of the later episodes recounted therein evidently refer to the battle of
Otterburn.
Descent of the Property. — To-day Presson possesses no hamlet of
any size, and as early as 1296 only three inhabitants were assessed for the
subsidy of that year, though their goods reached the quite respectable sum of
£27 17s. 4d.^ It formed part of the barony of Roos,^ but only a portion, if
an}' part, of it was kept in the hands of the tenant in chief in early days. The
' See pages 114-115. 2 Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. i. pp. 23, 44.
° Earlier PcffiZ/i?)) , Presseii, Pressejeit, Presjen. O.E. preosta — or preostes-/en = priest{s) fen, so called
from its some time owner(s).
• Bower's Continuation in Johannis de Fordun Scotichronicon cum Conlinuaiione Walteri Boweri (Edin-
burgh, 1759), vol. ii. p. 501 ; The Buik of the Chroniclis oj Scotland (Rolls Series, No. 0) vol. iii.pp. 553-554.
Bovver alone gives the name of the battle.
' Lay Subsidy Roll, 1296, fol. in. " Testa de Nevill — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 211.
92 PARISH OF CARHAM.
chief landowner in the second half of the twelfth century was probably a certain
Orm of Presson, who had a dispute with the priory of Kirkham with regard to
the boundary of Carham and Presson, which he claimed ran northwards of the
Howburn.^ Ultimately he surrendered his claim, and in addition bestowed
on the canons two bovates of land with a toft and pasture for 200 sheep,
15 cows^ and one bull in return for the privilege for himself and his heirs of
having a chapel in Presson in which services might be held on Sundays
and Fridays, provided that attendance at the parish church was not omitted
on Christmas Day, the Purification, Good Friday, Easter Day, Whitsunday
and on the feasts of St. Cuthbert and All Saints.^ Orm must have been a
man of some local importance, and probably held the larger part of the
township of the barony, and his son Robert succeeded him, as the latter
confirmed his father's charter, adding to the gift a couple of acres for building
a sheep pen and a cattle pen, and in return being allowed services in the
chapel on Wednesdays as well as on Sundays and Fridays.* This Robert's
son, Robert Malonflatt, added to the previous gifts to Kirkham priory
5 roods of arable land in Westhodacres towards Lamplatelaw, and confirmed
and defined the pasture rights of the monks, allowing them to pasture the
oxen pertaining to land given them by one Birilot as well as those already
allowed for. This last mentioned gift, which must have been made a short
time previously, consisted of two bovates of land and a toft consisting of one
acre and a half lying beside the chapel at the east end of the donor's property.
Birilot was at the time of her gift, or shortly afterwards, the wife of Helyas,
and possibly held the land of Robert, son of Orm, whose confirmation of her
gift was deemed necessary. She had two children, a son, Gregory, who also
confirmed the gift, and a daughter, Sibrida, to whom and to her husband,
Robert Herpam, she had given a moiety of her lands in Presson in free
marriage.^ Her position with regard to her property is somewhat obscure,
since in no case was her husband associated with her gifts or even mentioned
in the charters confirming them.
The descendants of Orm and Birilot probably held most of the town-
ship between them, but some portion of it was directly in the hands of the
overlord, as in 125 1 Robert Roos received a grant of free warren in his
demesne lands there.® His attempts to increase his holding were frustrated
1 ' Ultra Holcburnam versus Carram.' ^ The charter gives xvi. cows, but later confirmations all have xv.
' Kirkham Cartulary, fol. iz. Hugh Puiset, bishop of Durham 1153-1195, confirmed this grant.
* Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 8i. ^ jug e Ca;. oj Charter Rolls, vol. i. p. 374.
PRESSON TOWNSHIP. 93
in 1256, when Simon, son of Roger Horseley, got damages of 40s. against
him for having been disseised of two bovates of land in the township.^ The
actual situation is revealed in 1274, when this Robert Roos's widow, Margaret,
sued her late husband's nephew, Robert Roos of Helmsley, for a third part
of the manor as dower. The latter had seized the land as the heir's guardian
and refused to yield dower till the custody of the heir's person was sur-
rendered by Margaret. 2 It is thus obvious that at this time the manor was
in the hands of the lords of Wark, but some lands in the township had
recently been subinfeudated, as Margaret at the same time sued Ralph
Pally for a third part of two messuages and two bovates of land. Ralph called
the infant heir to warrant, but on second thoughts decided not to fight the
case.^ The position was made still more clear, when in 1293 Robert Roos
successfully claimed infangenthef in Presson on the ground that it was a
member of his manor of Wark.*
This, however, is the last occasion on which Presson is described as
dependent on the manor of Wark. At the end of the thirteenth century
it was held by William Roos, and the most important tenant was one Robert
Eyre, described as of Presson in 1291,^ and similarly so in 1296, when he
was associated with one John Sampson in seizing 966 head of cattle and
two chargers, belonging to Hugh Despenser, which were being sent under
the king's safe conduct from Scotland to England. John and Robert
seized the drove as it passed Presson and placed it in Wark Castle, on the
ground that the hue and cry had been raised against Despenser's men, who
however maintained that they showed their safe conduct. As a result one
charger valued at £50 was lost and only 800 head of cattle was returned to
the owner, who claimed damages.^ When the subsidy of this same year
came to be levied, Robert Eyre was assessed on £25 14s. 8d., a very large sum
and far in excess of the other two inhabitants of the township, who between
them had goods of £12 2s. 8d.'^ These were John, son of Simon, assessed
on £3 IIS. and Wilham Roos assessed on £8 lis. Sd.** The first of these was
' Norlhiimberland Assize Rolls, (Surtees .Society), p. 51.
' De Banco Roll, No. 5, m. 7 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxvi. pp. 141-143.
' De Banco Rolls, No. 5, m. 7 ; No. 7, m. 11 ; No. 11, m. 3 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. .x.\vi. pp. 141-143,
175, 221. For a time after the death of Robert Roos in 1274 the king's esche'ator held seisin of his lands
in Presson. Northumberland Assize Rolls (Surtees Society), p. 330.
' Assize Roll, 21 Edward I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xviii. pp. 390-391.
' Coram Rege Roll, No. 127, m. 60 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxiii. p. 359.
« Pleasof the Army — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. ii. pp. 192-193. ' Lay Subsidy Roll, 1296, fol. iii
* Ibid.
94
PARISH OF CARHAM.
the other free tenant, the second the lord of the manor, who is to be identified
with Wilham Roos of Presson who appears in a case of 1295,^ and again later
in 1304.2 After his mother's gift of Kendal,^ he became William Roos of
Kendal and died in 13 10 seised of Presson, held of William Roos, lord of
Wark and Helmsley, by homage and service of id. yearly. His heir was his
son Thomas, aged 3^ years old.* The property then consisted of a waste
place, where a capital messuage had been, the herbage whereof was worth
I2d. yearly, in addition to 200 acres of demesne land valued at 6d. an acre
yearly, and a water mill worth 40s. yearly. There were two free tenants,
William Eyre, son doubtless of Robert before mentioned, and John del
Gren, who may be the same as John, son of Simon, assessed in 1296. The
former held one ploughland by the service of a pound of pepper yearly,
valued at I2d., and seven acres and a rod of land by service of one penny
and a rose yearly, the latter held 24 acres of land by service of i8d. yearly.
There were in addition 9 tenants at will, described as farmers, of whom six
held a messuage and 24 acres of land each and paid therefore 8s. annually,
two held similar holdings at the higher rent of los. id., and the ninth
another at the lower rent of 6s. 8d. Four bondmen each held similar
holdings at the yearly rent of 8s., and four cottars each held
a cottage and paid therefore i8d. each. Added to these, to make
up the full yearly rent of £13 los. 3|d., there was a cottage valued
at 6d. and another at 4|d. yearly, a brewhouse valued at 8s. yearly,
and the office of reaper,^ worth 5s. yearly.^ Probably the property
passed from Thomas Roos, though it was still subinfeudated and
not in the hands of the tenant-in-chief when the feudal aid of 1346 was
collected.'^ By 1365 it belonged to Joan, widow of John Coupland,^ and she
conveyed it in 1372 to trustees for the use of Richard Arundel and his heirs.*
The Arundels held it of the lord of Wark^" down to 1404, ^^ after which it passed
' Coram Rege Roll, No. 146, m. 56 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxiii. p. 614.
2 De Banco Roll, No. 149, m. 328do. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxix. p. 297.
' Cal. of Ing., pm. vol. iv. pp. 284, 285.
* Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. v. p.i 18. In 1306-7 William Roos, describing himself as brother of the traitor,
asked for a grant of the manor of Belhster in the king's hands by reason of the death of his mother. (Chancery
Misc. Portfolios, No. ^Vjs^Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. iv. p. 381.) Nicholas Synopsis of the Peerage (London,
1825), vol. ii. p. 551 makes William Roos of Kendal the son and heir of Robert Roos of Wark and Margaret
Brus, but he also identifies this Robert Roos with the Robert Roos who forfeited his lands in 1296, whereas
the latter was the former's grandson. J. W. Clay, Extinct Peera£;es of Northern Counties (London, 1913), p.
185, seems to make William brother of the traitor, but also describes him as 'brother of the last William.'
' Officium messoris. « P.R.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. Edw. IL file 17 (.5). ' feudal Aids, vol. iv. p. 67.
" Pedes Finium, 39 Edw. lU. No. 137 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. .xx.xix. pp. 274-276.
' Ibid. 47 Edw. in. No. 158 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxix. pp. 312-315; Cal. of Close Rolls, 12^7-
1300, p. 448. '" Inq. p.m. 3 Ric. II. No. i — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxviii. pp. 43-45.
" Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1401-1405, pp. 309-310^
PRESSON TOWNSHIP. 95
to the Greys, who already held a small holding there. Thomas Grey died
in 1440 seized of lands in Presson held of Richard Arundel by knight's
service, ' as of his manor of Muschamp. '^ This description cannot be accurate,
for Presson was never parcel of the barony of Muschamp, but it seems Ukely
that the Greys, having acquired some small holding in the township held of
the mesne lord, later bought out that lord and became owners of the whole
place. At any rate, when the feudal aid of 1428 was collected. Sir Ralph
Grey held the vill in fee tail,^ and when he died in 1443 he held ' in his demesne
of fee tail' the township of Presson worth yearly 40s., held of the king in
socage as of the lordship of Wark.'^ In some of the later inquisitions of the
Grey family the property is not mentioned, but in 1561 an extent of Sir
Ralph Grey's lands mentions it as worth £5 6s. 8d. with the note
that it was not parcel of the barony of Wark,* which must mean that,
having been acquired at a different time and under different conditions, it
no longer ranked with the lands held of the king by knight's service,
but was, as described in 1443, held by socage tenure.
In the sixteenth century the township contained eight husband lands,
which in 1541 were 'plenyshed,' though as there was no fortress^ the
inhabitants in time of war had to leave their lands to be devastated while
they sought refuge in some fortress further removed from the borders. At
that time the township was in the hand of Lionel Grey, porter of Berwick,®
one of the Greys of Horton, into whose family the then owner, Sir Ralph
Grey, had married. He was troubled by Scottish claims to a strip of land
about half a mile long by two miles in depth on the frontier, the line of
demarcation running as far westwards as the Westford of Presson according
to these assertions. The English took a line along Caldron Burn and thence
on to the summit of Horse Rigg as the proper boundary, but nothing was
settled, even after the English commissioners of 1541 had burnt the corn
planted by the Scots in the disputed area by way of asserting their rights.'
After the death of Ford, Lord Grey, in 1701, Presson went to his brother
Ralph, Lord Grey, and by the terms of the latter's will, passed to the
ancestors of the present Earl Grey, who now owns the township,* with the
exception of Howburn farm, sold in 1921 to Mr. Henry Hall Turnbull of
Hetherslaw.
' Inq. p.m. 2 Hen. IV. No. 50 — Scalacronica, Proofs and Illustrations, p. Ixi.
* Feudal Aids, vol. iv. p. 86. ' P.R.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. Hen. VI. file iii.
« P.R.O. State Papers, Borders, 5. fol. 103.
' Christopher Dacre in his Plat of Castles, &c., in I58.( marks 'preswen' as the site of a tower (Photo-
graph in Border Holds, pp. 78-79). This may be a mistake, or refer to a tower to be built in the future.
' Survey of the Border, 1541 — Border Holds, pp. 30-31.
' Survey of the Border, 1541 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. pp. 174-175. ' Howick Muniments.
g6 PARISH OF BRANXTON.
PARISH OF BRANXTON.
Ecclesiastical History. — The parish and township of Branxton are
identical in area and have been so continuously since the beginning of the
thirteenth century, if not before, a unique instance in this district, though
Wooler, before the incorporation of Fenton in 1313, enjoyed the same
position. Towards the close of the twelfth century Ralph, son of Gilbert of
Branxton, gave the church of Branxton in perpetual and free alms to the
monks of Durham to the use of their infirmary,^ a grant confirmed by the
king in 1195.- The canons of Kirkham, protesting that their rights had
thereby been infringed, appealed to the pope, who in 1200 issued a mandate
to the priors of Merton and Malton to inquire into the matter. For the
appellants it was argued that the church of Branxton pertained to the church
of Kirknewton, which was already appropriated to them, but that certain
malefactors during recent disturbances due to war in these parts — possibly
an allusion to the invasion of William the Lion some 25 years earlier — had
possessed themselves of the church and had presented to it a clerk named
Merlin, who refused to resign. The two priors summoned the prior and
convent of Durham, who appear as the 'malefactors,' Merlin and the prior
of the convent of Kirkham to appear before them, and after great debate
and the bringing of much evidence, they procured an amicable settlement
of the dispute. The canons of Kirkham surrendered whatever claims
they had, and undertook no longer to molest the monks of Durham
or their vicar. In return for this and an acknowledgment that Branxton
was an independent church,^ and that it was appropriated to them,
the prior and convent of Durham granted for the sake of peace and the
keeping of the agreement, that an annual rent of four shillings should be
paid to the canons of Kirkham at Whitsuntide by being placed on the altar
of the church of Kirknewton.* The terms of this agreement, as recorded in
' Undated Charter — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. pp. 147-150; Raine, North Durham, .-^pp. No. Dcclxxix.
P- 139-
' 4th February, 6 Ric. I. confirmed again in 1335. Cal. of Charier Rolls, vol. iv. p. 324.
' Ecclesiam, tamquam matricem.
* Kirkham Cartularv, fol. 8g. A less full and explicit document describing this transaction is printed
from the Durham Treasury in Ilodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. pp. 147-150, and in Raine, North Durham, App. No.
Dcclxx.wii p. 140.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 97
the Kirkham Cartulary and therefore not Ukely to err to the advantage
of Durham, can be construed into meaning only that the claim of Kirkham
was quite unfounded, and that Branxton had been all along an independent
parish.
The monks of Durham were careful to make their title thus established
doubly sure. They secured confirmation of the appropriation both from the
bishop of Durham, 1 and the pope.^ Further they procured a confirmation
of his father's gift from Alexander, son of Ralph of Branxton,^ but this
was not enough, as in 1208 Alexander effected an exchange of lands with
Theobald of Shotton, whereby the majority of Branxton passed to the latter.*
A series of confirmations was therefore secured from the three co-heiresses
of Theobald of Branxton, who must have been identical with Theobald of
Shotton, the eldest of whom repeated her undertaking in 1241.^ This last
confirmation doubtless synchronized with the appropriation of the church
for the support of two monks at the chapel of St. Mary Magdalene, Wark-
worth, a cell of Durham monastery, by decree of Nicholas of Farnham,
who was appointed to the see of Durham that very year.^
Hitherto the bishop had not provided for the ordination of a vicarage
at Branxton, and when one Gilbert Aristotil had been appointed to the
rectory, the monastery, to prevent the severance of the appropriation, had
bound him in a pledge that it should not lose anything thereby ;'^ moreover,
the incumbent is styled rector in an official document of 1251.^ In 1258
a vicar is for the first time mentioned, when Richard of Bechefeld was
instituted,^ and in 1273 it was ordered by the bishop's official that the
vicarage of Branxton should consist of the tithes of wool, lambs, hay and
mills and other lesser tithes and oblations belonging to the church, besides
40s. annually from the tithes of corn to be paid by the keeper of the cell
of Warkworth, together with the parsonage and its land in the village,
' Durham Treasury, 3. i. Pontif. No. 16. Later another confirmation was secured from another bishop
of Durham, probably Robert de Insula, 1274-1284. Durham Treasury, 4. 2. Pontif. No. 12.
'^ Cal. of Papal Letters, vol. i. p. 47. The name is spelt 'Brargkistun.'
= Undated document — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 148 ; Raine, North Durham, App. No. Dccl.\x.xv. p. 140.
This must have been procured about the same time as the dispute as one of the witnesses is ' Mcrlino clerico
de Brankestun.'
* See page no.
' Documents from Durham Treasury — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. pp. 147-148 ; Raine, Xorlh Durham,
App. Nos. Dcclxxx.-Dcclx.x.xv. pp. 139-140.
« Document from Durham Treasury — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 149- Cf. Scripiores Tres. p. 42.
' Durham Treasury Doctimetit— Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 149; Raine, App. No. Dcclxxxviii. p. 140.
8 Ibid. ' Durham Treasury, Mis. Charters, 5,034*.
Vol XI. 13
gS PARISH OF BRANXTON.
saving to the keeper of the cell the granary attached to the parsonage with
free access thereto. The vicar was to bear all the ordinary charges of the
cure, but was responsible only for a third of any extraordinary ones.^ The
value of the vicarage was estimated at six marks a few years later,- and at a
similar sum in 1314.^ This, doubtless, included the allowance of 40s. from
the greater tithes, which was paid to the vicar by the proctor of Norham,*
but it seems that by the fifteenth century it had become customary to assign
the whole of the tithes of the parish to the vicar on account of the smallness
of his vicarage.^ In 1539 the Durham bursar accounted for 13s. 4d. from
the vicar of Branxton for his pension,^ which may mean that the tables had
been reversed, and that instead of receiving an allowance of 40s. a year out
of the greater tithes, the vicar took all tithes and paid the monastery a rent
of 13s. 4d. for the privilege. This would explain the fact that search has
been made in vain among the records of the augmentation office for any
evidence of the profits received by the crown from the rectory of Branxton,
save as to a pension of 13s. 4d. payable thereout to the monastery." Offi-
cially the rectory was valued at jTio 13s. 4d. exclusive of the 4s. payable to
Kirkham.^
After the Dissolution the advowson was granted to the dean and chapter
of Durham,^ with whom it still remains. Just before this, in 1538, the vicarage
had been valued at £3 6s. Sd.^" a drop of 13s. 4d. on its earlier value, and in
1557 it stood at practically the same sum.^^ During the Commonwealth it
was reported as of the yearly value of £16 paid by Sir William Selby, and
the commissioners of 1650 recommended that the parish should be absorbed
in Ford. ^2 The tithes had fallen some hundred years earlier into the hands of
the Selby family, which owned the manor, for in 1565 John Selby bequeathed
' Durham Treasury Document — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. pp. 130-136.
' Taxatio Ecclesiastica Ar.glie, 1291 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 352.
' Reg. Palal. Diinttm, vol i pp. 596-598.
' Receipts for pension of 40s. 1342-1358 and 1371. Durham Treasury Mis. Charters, 3,627, 3,993, 4,007.
* Compotus Roll of Norham, Annis 1451-2, 1437-8 — Raine, North Durham, p. 280.
^Bursar's Rental, 1539 — Feodarium Prioratus Dunehn, p. 303.
' Newcastle Public Library, Caley MS. p. 114.
' Taxatio Ecclesiastica Anglie {1291) — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 352; Old Taxation, 1306 — Reg. Palat.
Dunehn, vol. iii. p. 97; Nonarum Inquisitiones, 1340 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. xxxix. A series of 28
receipts given by Kirkham priory between 1336 and 1440 is in Treasury oj Durham Mis. Charters, 3,517-5,092.
' Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII., vol. xvi. p. 422.
" Valor. F.ccles. 26 Hen. VHI. — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. xlv.
" Values and Patrons circa 1577 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. xlvii.
" Ecclesiastical Inquest. 1650 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. liii. and Arch. Aeliana, O.S. vol. iii. p. 5.
In the rate book of 1663 the vicarage is valued at £20. Rate Book, 1663 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 277.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 99
to his son John certain tithes and the advowson of the church.^ From the
wording of the will it is possible that by' advowson rectorial tithes were
meant, at any rate this is the only extant suggestion that the presentation
ever left the hands of the dean and chapter of Durham, who were certainly
the patrons a few years later. ^ The tithes probably passed with the manor,
since Mr. Caley after prolonged research could find no evidence as to whom
they were granted at the Dissolution, and in his day they were held by the
family of Collingwood, which derived its title from the Haggerstons, but
could not trace it back further than 1714.^ In 1725 and again in 1736 Mr.
Haggerston of Ellingham was the impropriator and paid ;^20 to the vicar,
whose living was worth £30 in all.*
Branxton serves as an excellent example of the decay of the church as a
spiritual force in the eighteenth century, particularly in Northumberland,
where the large majority of the people were nonconformists. In 1725 the
vicar of Norham reported that 'the church is in a sad condition, very unbe-
coming the worship of Almighty God. Not only the Decencies but the very
Necessaries are awanting in it. The whole parish are Dissenters, and as
such will not be ready to have a regard for the Church or to comply with the
authority of her officers.'^ Some responsibility for this state of affairs was
due to the character of the incumbent, for in 1736 Bishop Chandler found
that ' by reason of stupidity and immorality of Mr. Stockdale's predecessor,
and enthusiastic^ principles in those parts, only four or five went to church
and none to sacrament but his own family. The inhabitants were three
farmers, the rest poor. There was neither meeting house nor school.' In
all there were only 36 parishioners and they were all presbyterians, a disheart-
ening cure for any man, and it says something for his perseverance that he
was resident, though no house was provided, and that he persevered with
his morning service on Sunday, though he held none in the evening." After
' Wills and Inventories, vol. i. pp. 235-236.
' Values and Patrons circa 1577 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. xlvii ; Barnes, Visitations, &-c., p. 10.
3 Newcastle Public Library, Caley MS. p. 213. Under the Commutation of Tithes Act, 1835, the
Commissioners appointed for the purpose gave to the vicar, /108 p. a. ; Dame Mary Stanley, ;£io5 15s. p. a. ;
Sir Henry .\skew, £7 os. 6d. p. a. ; who merged the same in his property of 262 a. 2i r. 17 p. ; Christopher
Fenw-ick, £104 is. od. p. a. ; John Collingwood, £4 15s. 6d. p. a.
* Account of ye Deanery of Balmburgh in 1725, by Mr. Drake — Proceedings of Newcastle Antiqs. 2nd
series, vol. i. p. 144; Bishop Chandler's Visitation circa 1736. Ibid. vol. v. p. 61.
^ An account of ye Deanery of Balmbrough in 1725, by Mr. Drake, vicar of Norham — Proceedings of
Newcastle Antiqs. 2nd series, vol. i. p. 144.
' i.e. puritan.
' Bishop Chandler's Visitation circa 1736 — Proceedings of Newcastle Antiqs. 2nd series, vol. v. p. 61.
100
PARISH OF BRANXTON.
Mr. Stockdale's days things deteriorated even more. His successor in
1758 was non-resident, having been specially dispensed at his institution.
In reply to his bishop's queries he reported that there was 'neither glebe
nor vicarage house in the parish and it had been looked on as a sine cure
before I came to it, at
least there had been no
duty done in it for several
years.' A service with a
sermon was held on the
afternoon of the last
Sunday in the month,
when there was a
congregation, an event
seemingly of uncommon
occurrence. In Lent the
children were 'called upon
to be catechised, but never
any appear,' which was
not surprising as the in-
habitants were ' all of the
Presbyterian Persuasion,
one family only ex-
cepted,' and the glory of
that one family was
somewhat dimmed from
the parson's point of view,
as half of its members
were roman catholics.
Of other ministrations
there were none. ' The
Fig. 4.— branxton. Chancel .\rcii. Holy Sacrament has uever
been administered here since I knew it, because there is not a congregation.'^
The Church. — Of the fabric of the church, dedicated to St. Paul,
little is known. At a visitation of 25th August, 1369, it was reported
that the roofs both of the chancel and the nave were in decay, that
' Reply to Bishop's Queries, 17.58 — Proceedings 0] Newcastle Anliqs. 2nd series, vol. v. p. 61.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. lOI
the glazing of the chancel windows needed attention, and that the
font needed repair. The parishioners were accordingly ordered to
undertake that portion of the restoration which legally fell to
their share, namely the roof of the nave and the font.^ Excepting
the chancel arch, the church was rebuilt in 1849. It comprises a nave,
37 feet 6 inches in length by 17 feet in width, a chancel, about 12 feet square,
and a small square tower at the north west angle of the nave. In the lower
courses of the masonry of both nave and chancel there are indications of
old work, which show that the present building was erected on the founda-
tions of the original church.
The details of the ancient chancel arch are of late Norman or early
transitional character of the second half of the twelfth century.^ The
jambs to the arch are formed of a semi-round respond, between three-quarter
shafts which enclose the angles ; all have moulded bases on square plinths.
Each shaft is surmounted by a square simple scalloped capital, the abacus
of which has a quirked hollow chamfer on its lower edge. The arch is slightly
pointed, of two chamfered orders towards both nave and chancel. Between
the responds the width is 5 feet 2 inches, and the height from the floor to
the top of the capitals 7 feet ; to the apex of the arch it is 10 feet 6 inches.
The registers date from 1746.
Rectors.
1200. Merlin. Mentioned as incumbent in the agreement between Durham and Kirkham with
regard to the church in 1200,' and witnessed the confirmation uf the grant of Ralph of
Branxton of the church to Durham monastery made by Ralph's son, Alexander.'
Gilbert Aristotil. Gave an undated guarantee to the prior and convent of Durham that
they should lose nothing of the church of Branxton which of charity they had given him.*
1234 — Alan of Wakerfeld. The archdeacon of Northumberland certified that master Alan of
Wakerfeld, who lately was the head of the school of Durham, had been admitted to the
church of Branxton in the year 1234.*
1251. Richard of Bernil. Mentioned as rector of Branxton in Bishop Kirkham's confirmation
of the allocation of Branxton church to the cell of Durham at Warkworth.'
Vicars.
1258 — Richard of Bechefeld. Presented to the vicarage of Branxton in 1258.'
1273 Richard of Bran.xton. Mentioned as vicar at the ordination of the vicarage in 1273.'
' Durham Treasury, i. i. Arch. Northumberland, No. 11. ' See tig. 4.
^ Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 89 ; Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. pp. 148-149.
* Raine, North Durham, App. No. Dcclxx-xvi. p. 40.
' Raine, North Durham, App. No. Dcclxxxviii. p. 140.
^ Raine, North Durham, App. No. Dcclx.xxix. p. 140.
' Raine, North Durham, App. No. Dcc.xc. p. 140. ' Durham Treasury Mis. Charters, 5.034*-
» Durham Document — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. pp. 132-133. He may possibly be identical with Richard
of Bechefeld.
102 PARISH OF BRANXTON.
1293, 1302. Roger. The grange of Roger, vicar of Branxton, was burgled in 1293.' Sued for debt and
distraint ordered on his goods in 1294,^ a surety for Simon Coupland in 1302.' and again
prosecuted for debt in 1300- 1302.* There is no record of his institution nor of his resig-
nation or death, and he may well have been identical with Roger Milburn below.
— I3H- Roger MiLBTRN. Probably identical with Roger above. In June, 1314, the bishop of Dur-
ham ordered an inquiry as to whether the vicar of Branxton was too infirm to do his
duty, the result of which was a declaration that he was permanently too ill to administer
his cure.' William Espeley was appointed on June 19th to administer the cure during
the infirmity of the perpetual vicar, Roger Milburn, who was a permanent invalid.'
On June 27th Roger Milburn resigned.' In conflict with these records is the statement
made in 1335 by Robert Milneburne in a Proof of Age, that Roger Milneburnc was his
uncle and vicar of Branxton and that he died on 31st October at Branxton.' From
internal evidence it would seem that Robert meant 1314, as his calculations of the age
of John of Cramlington would otherwise be wrong.
1314 — William Espeley. Given charge of Branxton June 19, 1314, as above, and presented to
the living the same month.' Instituted August ist, 1314.""
1344 — 1357-8. William Welkedon. Instituted December nth, 1344.'' He may have been in charge of
the cure at an earUer date as receipts for his allowance of 40s. given by him as William
Weltden, vicar of Branxton, are extant from 1342 to 1357.'^
•357-8 — Robert Vesey. A receipt was given in 1358 by Robert, vicar of Branxton, for his allow-
ance of 40s.'* Randal gives Robert Vesey, 1353, post resignatioiiciu, John de Hart,'
whom he places as the successor of Welkenden, whose death is given wrongly as 1351."
1358 — 1364. John Schout, post resignationem Vesey."
1364 — 1367- Henry Dalton, post resignationem Schout."
1367 — 1369. John CarlEton, post resignationem Dalton."
1369 — 1379. William Kirkby. Present at visitation of 1369."" Receipt given in 1371 for his allowance
of 40S." Died as vicar, 1379."
1379 — 1380. William Mytton. Presented to the vicarage 30th October, 1379, on death of William
Kirkby."
1380 — 1395. Thomas Kellovv, post resignationem Mytton.'*
1395 — 1408. William Bywell, post mortem Kellow.'*
1408 — 1416. John Durham, post mortem Bywell."
1416 — 1426. Robert Cell. Instituted July, 1416." Randal gives the name Bell."
1426 — 1438. Robert Dalleston, post mortem Cell."
1438 — 1443. Thomas RadcliffE Thomas Ra, instituted i6th July. 1438.^° Randal gives the name
Radcliffe, post mortem Dillston.'*
' Assize Roll, 21 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xvii. p. 86 ; vol. xviii. p. 643.
' De Banco Roll, No. 99, m. 47 ; No. 108, m. 56do. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxviii. pp. 76, 141.
' Assize Roll, 30 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xix. p. 113.
* De Banco Roll, No. 135, m. 258do ; No. 139, m. i4odo ; No. 144, m. 237do. — Duke's Transcripts,
vol. x.Kviii. pp. 640, 724 ; vol. xxix. pp. 98-99.
567-568. ' Reg. Palat. Dunelm. vol. i. p. 572.
596-598. ' Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. vii. p. 485.
596-598. " Reg. Palat. Dunelm. vol. i. pp. 584-585.
474-
" Durham Treasury, Mis. Charters, 3,646, 3,985, 4,004, 4,007, 4,0461, 4,052h. Randal, State of the
Churches, gives an additional name, John Hart, 1351, post mortem Welkeden.
" Durham Treasury, Mis. Charters, 3,627. " Randal, State of the Churches, p. 21.
" Durham Treasury, i. i. Arch. Northumb. No. II. " Durham Treasury Mis. Charters, 3,993.
" Durham Treasury, i. 2. Arch. Northumb. No. 34.
" Durham Treasury, i. 2. Arch. Northumb. Nos. 34, 35.
" Durham Treasury, i. 2. Arch. Northumb. No. 38; Langley Register, fol. 263.
=" Durham Treasury, i. 2. Arch. Northumb. Nos. 36, 37.
x.Kviii
. pp. 640, 724 ;
vol.
xxix.
'Reg.
Palat. Dunelm.
vol.
i. pp.
'Reg.
Palat. Dunelm.
vol.
i. pp.
' Reg.
Palat. Dunelm.
vol.
i. pp.
'I Reg.
Palat. Dunelm.
vol.
iii. p.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. IO3
«
1443 — 1449. William Hunter, post resignationem Radcliflfe.'
1449 — 1487. James Stephenson, post mortem Hunter.'
1487 — 1493. Gilbert Johnson, post resignationem Stephenson.'
1493 — 1499. Robert Collingwood, post mortem Johnson.'
1499 — 1528. Thomas Goder(;yl. Inducted, 1449.' Post morteni Collingwood.'
1528 — Ralph Tovvlbery. Post mortem Godergyl.'
1553 — 1574. Oliver Selby. Died vicar of Branxton, 1574.'
1574 — 1575. Bartram CoGERHAM. Order to induct Nov. 29th, 1574, On death of Oliver Selby. Presented
by John Selby of Bervrick, kt., the assign of Robert Benet, declared the patron pro hac
vice.'
1575 — Roger Coo.keson. Post resignationem Co^er\\a.m.* He appeared at a chancellor's visitation
in January, 1578, and at another such visitation on July 30th following was admonished
to be prepared at the Michaelmas Synod to perform his task of giving an account of the
Gospel of St. Matthew, which he had imperfectly performed.'
1580 — 1627. Stephen Hudspeth. Presented Oct. 4th, 1580, on death of Cookson.' Instituted 5th
August, 1580.' Mentioned as vicar 15th March, 1605.'^
1627 — 1662. John Hume, A.M. Presented 19th December, 1627, post mortem Hudspeth.'
1662 — 1664. Peter HousTOUN, A.M. Presented 12th March, 1662, post mortem HuTae.*
1664 — 1681. Adam Felbridge, post mortem Houstoun.^ Incumbent 18th September, 1675.'
1681 — John Crawford, ^05/ resiijMa^ionem Felbridge.* Instituted 6th March, 1681.' Incumbent
I725.«
1730 — 1755. Thomas Stockdale. Instituted 12th September, 1730.' Incumbent 1736.'°
1755 — 1799. William WhinfiEld, post mortem Stockdale.' Instituted 4th October, 1755.'
1799—1834. Darcy Hoggitt, postmortem Whinfield, of Peterhouse, Cambridge. B.A. 1796. M.A. i8o6.
Inducted to Branxton and licensed to the perpetual curacy of Cornhill 19th Novem-
ber, 1799. Sequestrated 1833. Deprived 1834."
1834 — 1870. Robert Jones. Inducted 9th November, 1834." Contributed notes on the Battle of
Flodden to Arch. Aeliana, 2nd series, vol. iii. pp. 231-235, and an account of the battle
to Berwickshire Naturalists' Club, vol. iv. pp. 365-389.
1870 — 1888. John Dixon Hepple, of University College, Durham. B.A. 1859. M.A. 1862. Inducted
i6th September, 1870. Resigned 1888."
1888 — 1889. John James Sidlev. Instituted oth February, 1889.'-
1890 — 1905. Arthur Blenkinsop Coulson, of Exeter College, Oxford. B.A. 1865. Instituted 19th
October, 1890.'^
1906 — Charles Ernest Hoyle, of Queen's College, Cambridge. B.A. 1888. M.A. 1902. Instit-
uted loth March, 1906.'-
' Randal, Slate of the Churches, p. 2 1 .
^ Durham Treasury, 1, 2. Arch. Northumb. No. 39. ' Sharp MS. 49, p. 26.
' Randal, State of the Churches, p. 21. ' Barnes Injunctions, &-c., pp. 40, 77.
^ Sharp MS. 49, p. 24. ' P.R.O. Liber Institutionum.
* List of Incumbents in Rawlinson MS. B 250, fol. 22 — Proceedings of Newcastle Antiqs. 3rd series, vol. ii.
p. Ii8.
•Account of ye Deanery of Balmbrough by Mr. Drake — Proceedings 0/ Newcastle Antiqs. 2nd series,
vol. i. p. 144.
'" Bishop Chandler's Visitation — Proceedings of Newcastle Antiquaries, 2nd series, vol. v. p. 61.
" Branxton Register. " Diocesan Registry.
" Consistory Court Visitation Books.
104
PARISH OF BRANXTON.
BRANXTON TOWNSHIP.
The township of Branxton^ has hved its hfe far from the world's activi-
ties. To this day it stands on no high road, a httle hamlet outside the ken
of business men,^ and only known in later days to the tourist because hard
by was fought one of the bloodiest battles between Scots and English.
Like so many of these villages of Glendale, its only share in the annals of
> A'zrV
Fig. 5 — Cottages at Branxton
national history is to be found within the limits of the sixteenth century.
In the middle ages it knew no lord of the manor save the hospital of St.
Thomas, Bolton, no band of feudal retainers visited it to consume
the product of its fields, no change of master called for an inquest
on the dead owner's lands. Great must have been the excitement
over such an incident as the burglary of the vicar's grange in 1293,^
' Earlier Brankeston, Branxston, Branxton, contains a personal name as its first element. It was probably
Brannoc a dimin. of Brand, a name found also in Branscombe, Dev., and Branxholm, Roxburgh.
- The Census Returns are : 1801,209; 1811,261; 1821, 253 ; 1831, 249; 1841,261; 1851,284; 1861.
255 ; 1871, 234; 1881, 221; 1891, 222 ; igoi, 165 ; 1911, 175. The township comprises 1507-229 acres.
' Assize Roll, 21 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xvii. pp. 68, 86.
BRANXTON TOWNSHIP. I05
or the accidental burning down in 1256 of a female weaver's house,
while she was absent, with a hapless boy of two years old inside.^
The population can never have been large, and in 1296 there were
only nine persons assessed for the subsidy, their united chattels reach-
ing only to the total value of £23 14s. 3d.2 The only incidents which
have ever disturbed the sleepy serenity of the place have been the periodical
Scottish raids. Lying on the edge of a plain stretching to the banks of the
Tweed, with no shelter designed by nature from the Scots save the river,
Branxton could not expect to escape paying the penalty of its proximity
to the border. The losses of the township during the middle ages are largely
unrecorded, but an echo of the Scottish incursion of 1340^ is heard four years
later, when the men of the township sought a remission of taxation on the
ground that their crops and goods had been wholly destroyed on that occa-
sion.* Towards the end of the same century there is further evidence that
the township had suffered from the Scots, for in 1381 the church of Branxton
was included among the benefices so wasted and impoverished that they
could not contribute anything to a clerical subsidy of that year,^ nor was
anything procured from the parish in 1409 towards the tenth exacted from
ecclesiastical benefices for the expenses of representatives sent to the council
of Pisa.^ During the great era of border warfare we hear more of the losses
incurred by the township, despite the fact that a tower had been built there
as early as 1522, when Lord Dacre proposed to place ten men with William
Selby therein for the defence of the border." In October, 1523, the laird of
Wedderburn crossed the Tweed with 1,000 men near Bingham in a lightning
raid, which achieved no more than the burning of some waste houses in
Branxton, Cornhill and. Learmouth,^ doubtless being only a reconnaissance
in force, preparatory to the duke of Albany's abortive invasion in the French
interest. The Scots were across the border in the following February, when
Lennox led a foray which burnt Branxton, Cornhill and Ford, and returned
with impunity, as the men of Glendale refused to march against the invader
* Northumberland Assize Rolls (Surtees Society), p. 107 ; Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. i. p. 397.
^ Lay Subsidy Roll, 1296. fol. 104. ' Knighton, vol. ii. pp. 16, 17.
' Ca/. o/P«(eK( /?oHs, 1343-1345, p. 409 ; 1345-1348, p. 103-104 ; 1349-1354, p. 613 ; 1354-1360, pp. 71,
120, 185, 410 ; Bain, Cal. 0/ Documents, vol. iii. p. 262.
' Account of Collector of clerical subsidy, 4 Ric. II. — Ford Tithe Case. pp. 214-215.
' Account of Collector of Ecclesiastical Tenth, June, 1409 — Ford Tithe Case, p. 217.
' Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII. vol. iii. pt. iii. p. 852.
' Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII. vol. iii. pt. ii. p. 1450.
Vol. XI. 14
I06 PARISH OF BRANXTON.
unless they were paid the same wages as they had received in the time oi
open war the previous year,^ an eloquent commentary on the lack of corporate
feeling among the borderers. Within nine years Branxton was suffering
once more from its proximity to the Tweed, for one of the raids which syn-
chronized with the expiration of the five years peace signed in 1528, brought
Dan Carr of Ferniehirst with the sheriff of Ayr and three or four hundred
of Murray's army lying at Melrose to the township, with the consequent
loss of houses and stacks by fire, though the raiders were too hurried to
destroy everything. ^ It was probably at or about this time that the ' lytle
tower,' which gave shelter to the inhabitants on these occasions, was des-
troyed by the Scots, but by 1541 it had been repaired by its owner, John
Selby, and the lands of the township were once more in full cultivation.^
Of destructive raids we hear no more, but occasionally the Selbys had their
live stock stolen by Scottish thieves. In 1553 no less than 400 sheep were
driven off on one occasion,* and in 1596 William Selby was informed by his
uncle that one of his tenants at Branxton had been despoiled of sixteen
cattle and four score sheep by marauders making their way home from an
unsuccessful effort at Downham.^
The township is famous in national history as the scene of the battle
which, quite erroneously, has taken its name from Flodden, the site of the
original position taken up by the Scots. It was indeed on Flodden Hill, that
on 9th September, 1513, King James IV. realised that his enemies had
placed themselves between his armies and Scotland by marching from
Wooler Haugh by Barmoor and crossing the Till. The van of the English
army under the Lord High Admiral, Thomas, Lord Howard, crossed at
Twizel Bridge and marched to a spot which must have been hard by the
gathering stone on Crookham moor, there to be joined by the rear under
the earl of Surrey, which had forded the river probably at the Mill ford,
near Heton castle. Between the English and the foot of the rising ground,
on which the village of Branxton rested, there lay a moss, and while the van
negotiated this obstacle by traversing a track across it, known as the Branx
Bridge, the rear skirted round its eastern end. So soon as the Scottish
king realized that his lines of communication were threatened, he moved
' Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII. vol. iv. pt. i. pp. 48, 49, 60, 89, 113.
• Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII. vol. vi. p. 20. ' Survey of the Border, 1541 — Border Holds, p. 34.
• Ralph Grey to the Queen — Raine's North Durham, p. xxviii. ' Cat. of Border Papers, vol. ii. p. 213.
BRANXTON TOWNSHIP. IO7
his army from Flodden Edge on to Branxton Hill, which he rightly judged
to be the key to the strategical situation and the objective of the English
forces, a manoeuvre which he accomplished under cover of a dense smoke
screen caused by the burning of the camp litter on Flodden. It thus came
about that the vanguards of the two opposing armies, both making for the
same objective, were within a quarter of a mile of each other before the
English were aware of the proximity of the Scots. The latter were arranged
in five divisions, ' in grete plumpes, part of them quadrant, '^ the van consisting
of the earl of Home's border horse and the earl of Huntley's Gordon high-
landers, the second of troops led by the earls of Crawford and Errol, the third
of the men under the immediate command of the king, the fourth seemingly
of miscellaneous levies under the earl of Bothwell and the seigneur d'Aussi,
while the rearguard consisted of the Highland battalions of the earls of Lennox
and Argyle, probably in all some 60,000 men. As these various divisions
reached the battlefield, they fell into array in one line, the van becoming
the left and the rearguard the right wing of the army, while the division
under Bothwell and Aussi, finding itself in a little valley somew^hat behind
the rest of the line, naturally became a reserve. Meanwhile on the other
side the English army was falling into battle array. The first division of
the van, consisting of some 3,000 men under Sir Edmund Howard, found
itself on the extreme right opposite to the earls of Home and Huntley. Next
came the main body of the vanguard numbering some 9,000 under the
command of the Admiral, Thomas, Lord Howard, and on his left was the third
division of the van under Sir Marmaduke Constable. The first division of
the rearguard under Lord Dacre, instead of falling into the line, was used as
a reserve and came early into action in support of the right wing, but the ■
second division, under the English commander-in-chief in person, came into
line opposite the royal division on the Scottish side, and the last xmder Sir
Edward Stanley formed the left wing of the English army. In all the
English are said to have had 26,000, or according to another estimate, nearly
40,000, men in the field.
Battle was naturally first joined by the vanguards of the two armies,
as they came into position first, and steadily the struggle extended till the
whole front was involved. The left wing of the Scots, discarding its horses,
threw itself on to the little body commanded by Sir Edmund Howard on the
• Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII vol. i. p. 667.
108 PARISH OF BRANXTON.
extreme right oi the Enghsh hne, and at first bore all before it. Sir Edmund
put up a plucky resistance, and was supported among others by the stout
hearted Bastard of Heron, but his command was only rescued from annihi-
lation by the timely arrival of the reserve under Lord Dacre, who, despite
the desertion of the men of Tynemouth and Roxburghshire without striking
a blow, managed to prevent the discomfiture of the right developing into a
rout. The Admiral, in command of the main body of the right wing, was
now hotly engaged, and before succour came, had sent a despairing cry
for help to his father, the earl of Surrey. Amidst the wildest and fiercest
hand-to-hand fighting the advance of the Scots was stayed, and ultimately
turned into retreat. First the Scottish second division was driven back,
the earl of Crawford slain and the earl of Errol forced to abandon his standard,
then Lord Home with the first division, left unsupported on his right, was
compelled to follow suit.
Meanwhile the two centres had joined issue. Carried away by the
initial success of his left wing, King James led his division to the attack:
he and his nobles dismounted and even shed their boots so as to avoid slipping
on the treacherous slope. Regardless of his duties as a general, the Scottish
king pressed into the fray, and the battle here swayed backwards and
forwards with no marked success on either side. The tide was turned by the
English left wing under Sir Edward Stanley, which, following the example
of the Scots, went barefooted to the attack. This body stormed the slope
without meeting with much resistance, being doubtless as superior in numbers
to its opponents as was the Scottish left wing to the English right. Once
on the high ground, the English left put the earls of Lennox and Argyle
to flight, and then threw itself onto the flank of the Scottish centre just at
the time that Dacre charged down on it from the right. The Scottish
reserves under Bothwell had already been thrown into the fray in a vain
attempt to check Stanley's advance, and no succour was possible save from
the left wing where Lord Home, though driven back, had not been pursued
by the wise Admiral. Whether for reasons of selfishness, since for him
escape across the border was possible, or for reasons of ignorance. Lord Home
never moved, and overborne on all sides, James fell fighting to the last, while
the remnant of his division broke and fled. At nightfaU, when the battle had
been raging for hardly three hours, the earl of Surrey called a halt. The
English army encamped on the field of battle as did also the force of Lord
BRANXTON TOWNSHIP.
109
Home close by, but when morning broke the still unbeaten Scottish left wing
melted away so soon as it realized the extent to which disaster had visited
the rest of the arm}'. Thus ended the field of Branxton, as it was correctly
called for some years after the event, and to-day only a cross erected to the
memory of the brave of both nations recalls the most famous battle fought
within the borders of Northumberland.^
Descent of the Property. — The township of Branxton was
parcel of the barony of Muschamp,^ to which in 1254 it rendered 'yearly of
farm at Michaelmas i6s. for everything.'^ On the division of the inheritance
this rent was allotted to Muriel, countess of Mar,* from whom it passed to
Nicholas Graham and his wife Mary,^ and ultimately to the Darcy family.^
By 1399 to this had been added another rent of 6s. from the township." At
the splitting up of this inheritance in 1419 this rent passed into the family
of Conyers.^ What became of it later we do not know, but in 15 10 it was
presumably in the hands of the crown, for in that year a royal grant during
pleasure of the towns of Branxton and Bowsden of the annual value of 40s,
was made to Sir Edmund Radcliffe, knight of the body, and Roger Fenwick,
squire of the same, lieutenants of the Middle Marches, in consideration of
their expenses in the king's affairs on the Marches,^ and this corresponds
exactly to the estate in Branxton and Bowsden owned by Sir John Conyers
at his death in 1490.1°
The rent of i6s. seems to have been paid in the fourteenth century by
the hospital of St. Thomas, Bolton, ^^ but no traces of property in Branxton
are to be found in its charters. ^^ -pj^e grantee was probably the tenant in
socage, and we have presumptive evidence of the descent of these lands
towards the close of the thirteenth century from charters conferring and
confirming the gift of the church to the monastery of Durham. A certain
1 The best accounts of the battle are to be found in two articles by Dr. Thomas Hodgkin and Mr. Cad-
wallader F. Bates in Arch. Aeliana, N.S. vol. xvi. For an analysis of the original authorities on which these
accounts are based see ibid. pp. 253-254. Cf. Ibid. vol. iii. p. 197 et seq. ; vol. v. p. 175 et seq. ; vol. vi.
p. 69. Berwickshire Naturalists' Club, vol. iv. pp. 365-3S9 ; vol. xx. pp. 290-306.
^ Testa de Nevill — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 210.
' Inq. p.m. 39 Hen. HI. No. 40 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. i. p. 371.
* Inq. p.m. 25 Edw. I. No. 26 — Stevenson, Scottish Documents, vol. i. p. 258.
' Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. iv. p. 237.
' Feudal Aids, vol. iv. pp. 64, 65. For details of this descent see pages 311-315.
''Inq. p.m. 22 Ric. II. No. 17 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xx-xviii. p. 338.
' Cal. of Inq. p.m. (second series), vol. i. p. 260. ' Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII. vol. i. p. 155.
'° Cal. of Inq. p.m. (second series), vol. i. p. 260. " Feudal Aids, vol. iv. p. 65.
'- Monasticon, vol. vi. pt. ii. p. 692.
no PARISH OF BRANXTON.
Gilbert of Branxton was the father of Ralph of Branxton, who made the
gift. Ralph had a son Alexander,^ who in 1208 carried through an exchange
of lands with Theobald of Shotton by receiving nine carucates of land in
Branxton and Howtel together with a moiety of the capital messuage (in
Branxton seemingly) and a moiety of the service of Stephen of Howtel for the
whole vill of Howtel, in return for a moiety of the vill of Branxton and of
the demesne and garden there. In this moiety were contained the holdings
of Roger son of Ernold, Martin son of Henry, Gospatric son of Orm, Stephen
son of Eldulf, Malcolm son of Ulfkil, Jacob son of Gospatric, and Alexander
Faber, as also one toft which belonged to Tunnolf son of Eugred, a bovate
of land held by Adam Carpenter, a messuage which belonged to Gilbert
Despenser and a moiety of the service of Adam son of Gillimichael, for one
quarter of the vill.^ Doubtless Theobald of Shotton is identical with the
Theobald of Branxton whose three daughters and co-heiresses confirmed
the gift to the church, since they seem to have been called upon to do so
as holders of the land once belonging to Ralph of Branxton. They were
Christine, married to John Marshal of Branxton, Matilda, wife of Dolfin,
and Anabel, wife of Roger, the first named being alive in 1241, though her
husband was dead.^ Thus it would seem that one moiety of Branxton was
held by Theobald, to whom his daughters succeeded, while the other was
held by Alexander. The latter also inherited lands in Bowsden, and both
he and his father were indifferently described as of Branxton and of Bowsden.
His son William succeeded him in his property,* which explains the statement
in the Testa de Nevill that the heirs of William of Bowsden held Bowsden
and Branxton in socage of the barony of Muschamp for 755.^ H is not
clear which of these two families gave their property to the hospital, indeed
they may both have done so, as the major part of the vill evidently was held
by it in free alms in the middle of the fourteenth century.^ In 1335 Thomas
of Bamburgh, its warden, was granted free warren for himself and his
successors in their demesne lands in Branxton,' which is the first definite
• Undated documents — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. pp. 147, 148 ; Raine, North Durham, App. Nos. Dcclx.xix.,
Dcclxxxvi. pp. 139, 140.
' Pedes Finiuin, 10 John No. 14 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. i. pp. 50-51.
' Documents from Durham Treasurj' — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. pp. 147, 148 ; Raine, North Durham,
App. Nos. Dcclxxx.-Dcclxxxv. pp. 139-140.
* Documents from Durham Treasury — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 147 ; Raine, North Durham, .'\pp.
Nos. Dcclxxiv., Dcclxxv., Dccl-xxx., pp. 138-139.
' Testa de Nevill — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 219. ° Feudal Aids, vol. iv. p. 65.
' Cal. oj Charter Rolls, vol. iv. p. 328.
BRANXTON TOWNSHIP. Ill
intimation that the hospital held lands there, but there is strong presump-
tive evidence that its title dated back to 1285, when Hugh of Norham
sought the king's intervention in a complaint against Gilbert of Shireburn,
master of the hospital of St. Thomas, Bolton. It seems that the master
with certain brothers of his house and several others had malignantly burnt
the complainant's house in Branxton and had carried off goods thence to the
value of £40.^ This master seemingly had a passion for breaking into
houses, that is if another case heard in 1293 is not another variation of the
story told in 1285. A jury then presented him with two others, both of
whom had figured in the former case, of coming to the vill of Branxton one
fine day to the house of the master there, where they found one Hugh of
Branxton who refused to leave it. Thereupon fire was set to the house.
Not much damage was caused, as the master had the fire put out at once,
but his associates were fined for causing a breach of the peace, though they
were acquitted of stealing a coat of mail and a basin, with the theft of which
they had been charged. ^
Some small holding of land in Branxton was also held by the Hospitallers,
since, during the Quo Warranto proceedings, the prior of the hospital of St.
John of Jerusalem in England put in a claim to waif, the fines of his men
wherever condemned, the regulation of the assize of beer, the goods of his
men if they fled from justice, the right to pass judgment on felons and to
enjoy the royal right of annum et vast urn in the township, basing it on a
charter of Henry HI., save the right of regulating the assize of beer, which
he had of ancient usage. ^ Even this did not end the tale of land held by
ecclesiastical foundations, for in 1345 Sir Robert Manners endowed his newly
founded chapel of St. Mary at Etal with five messuages and 107 acres of
land situated partly in Hetherslaw and partly in Branxton, though this did
not comprise the whole of his property in these townships.*
We have no knowledge what became of this extensive ecclesiastical
property at the Dissolution. Two families appear as chief landowners in the
' Cal. oj Patent Rolls, 1281-1292, p. 199 ; Assize Rolls, Divers Counties, 13 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts,
vol. XX. pp. 207-208.
- Assize Roll, 21 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xvii. p. 96. On yet another occasion Gilbert of
Shireburn was in the courts, when in 1 2S7 he failed to put in a defence against John of Branxton who accused
him of disseizing him of his common pasture in the vill. Assise Roll, No. loSo (York), 15 Edw. i. — Duke's
Transcripts, vol. xxiv. p. 11 16.
» Assize Roll, 21 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xviii. pp. 3S3-385 ; Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. pp. 130-131.
» Inq. A.Q.D. cclxxv. No. 12. Licence to alienate in mortmain. Cal. of Patent Rolls, I343-I345. P- 529 ;
Rot. Fin. 19 Edw. III. Grossi Fines, m. 2 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxi. pp. 289-290.
112 PARISH OF BRANXTON.
sixteenth century, and of these that of the Manners had close connection with
the collegiate church of Bolton, for Thomas, earl of Rutland, was its patron
in 1515.^ This same earl, together with Thomas Manners, owned part of the
town of Branxton in 1541,- the latter being Thomas Manners of Cheswick,
who by his will dated 6th November, 1551, left to his brother, Henry Manners,
20s. worth of land in Branxton for life.^ A member of the same family, whose
surname alone is given, held certain lands there in capite in 1568.* Tliis may
have been the Thomas Manners of Cheswick in Islandshire who in his will
dated 12th January, 1393, bequeathed all his lands and hereditaments in
Branxton and Paston to his eldest son George and the legitimate heirs of
his body, and failing them to his son Henry and his heirs. ^ It may be that
these lands were part of the spoils of St. Thomas, Bolton, and perhaps, too,
the lands originally given by the family to the chapel of Etal, but what became
of them in the seventeenth century we do not know, save that none of
them passed with the other Rutland estates to the crown.
The other family owned the larger part of the township, and appeared
in connection therewith for the first time in 1480 when an inquisition post
mortem found that William Selby of Branxton had died seised of no lands. ^
About 1522 the name reappears in the person of John Selby of Branxton,
who is described as a 'sharpe borderer',' and who was the son and heir of
William Selby of Branxton.^ There are allusions in 1537, 1538 and 1540
to the same man,^ but it is not till 1541 that we find him described as the
chief landowner in the township. i" Apparently he was resident here when
not engaged in his duties as porter of Berwick,!^ an office which he was within
an ace of losing owing to reports of his misbehaviour in 1557.^^ In his will
dated 27th February, 1565, he described himself as 'Gentyleman Porter of
Berwycke,' and left to his wife Elizabeth a life interest in 'the toure of
Brankstone with the two plewegait of land' and all commodities thereto
' Ashmole, MS. 848, cited in Doyle, Baronage, vol. iii. p. 190.
a Survey of the Border. 1541— Border Holds, p. 34. 3 Rainc, Teslamenta, vol. vi. p. 7.
* Liher Feodarii, 1568 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. Ixix. = Wills and Inventories, vol. ii. pp. 218-219.
' Inq. p.m. 20 Edw. IV. No. i. — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 278.
' Cotton MS. Caligula B. vi. fol. 504. The date of this is given as 1522 with a query. A transcript
in the Hodgson-Hindi' Transcripts, p. 51, gives the date as circa 1536.
» Deed dated February ist, 1520— Dods worth MS. 49, fol. 8 ; Lansdowne MS. 326. fol. 52.
' Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII. vol. .xii. pt. ii. p. 104 ; vol. xiii. pt. i. p. 179 ; vol. xv. p. 193.
" Survey of the Border, 1541 — Border Holds, p. 34.
" Despatch of Kalf Grey to the Queen, Aug. 6, 1553— Rainc, North Durham, p. xxviii.
'^ Acts of the Privy Council, vol. vi. p. 79.
KEY TO PLATE OF SEALS.
1. Seal of Ralph of Branxton. A pair of " bninks."
►1^ SIGILLVM RAUVL KII.I CILBERTI •
— Ouilt. Trcas., 3"° i™"° Specialia 50.
2. Seal of Ralph of Rranxton. Two pairs of " braiiks."
►f" SIGILLVM RA\'L FILII GILBERT!
— Diirli. Trcas., 3'='" i"'^" Specialia 49.
3. Seal of William of Branxton. A pair of "hranks" between a crescent and a star.
>^ SIGILL : WILELMI : DE : BRANCKIST
— Durh. Treas., 3"" 1°""' Specialia 46.
4. Seal of Robert of Muscanip. Armorial, two bars and a chief.
>i' SIG SCAMP
— Durh. Treas., 2""^ 1""= Specialia 36.
5. Seal of Jordan Heron. A beast passant.
y{< SIGILLVM : lORDANI : HERVN :
— Durii. Treas., 2''* 12™!"= .Specialia 13.
6. Seal of William Heron (a.d. 1359). Armorial, three herons.
sigillu . toiUclmi . bcrouit
—Durh. Treas., Loc. XXVIII. 9.
7. Seal of Jordan Heron. A heron.
►f( SIGILLVM IVRDANI HAIRVN
— Durh. Treas., 1^ i^™*" Specialia 21.
8. Seal of Ralph Heron. A heron.
•^ SIGILLVM • RADVLFI • HAIRVN
— Durh. Treas., 2^^ i2""« Specialia 10.
9. Seal of Thomas of Muscamp. Seven flies (muscarum campus).
■^ SIGILLVM • TOME ■ DE MVSCHANS
— Durh. Treas., 3"^'^ 1"""= Specialia 56.
Plate 11
SEALS OF BRANXTON, HERON AND MUSCAMP
BRANXTON TOWNSHIP. 1 13
belonging, then in the occupation of his son John, together with 'half the
cotlands and cottages belonging to him there.' The son was to inherit the
whole of his property in the township, subject to the above hfe interest,
and in addition the advowson of the church and the tithes.^ He also suc-
ceeded his father as gentleman porter of Berwick,^ and in 1581 he made
elaborate provision for the descent of his lands, consisting of the manor of
Branxton, three messuages, 30 cottages, 30 tofts, 10 dovecotes, 40 gardens,
40 orchards and land, wood and turbary with 20s. rent and common of
pasture for all beasts in Branxton, Moneylaws, Paston, Shotton and Wooler.
All this was entailed on his son and heir, William, and the heirs male of his
body, and in default in tail male to his other sons, Ralph and John, and his
brothers, William and Ralph, successively. In case of the failure of all
these the property was to pass to Lancelot Selby of 'Emontilles,' and in
default successively in tail male to Lancelot's brother William, Roland Selby
of Cornhill, and his brothers, Gilbert and George, John Selby of Learmouth,
and his brothers, Roger, Thomas and Peter, George Selby of 'Eryndon,' and
his brothers, William, John, Thomas and Henry, Roger Selby of 'Erynden
Rygge,' and his brothers, William, Francis, George and Ralph, William
Selby, merchant of Newcastle, and finally in default of all these to his own
right heirs. ^ In 1592 the manor of Branxton and Moneylaws and 30 mes-
suages, six tofts, one dovecote, 30 gardens and land, furze and heath in
Branxton and Carham were the subject of a fine between William Selby,
senior, and John Shafto of the one part, and John Selby, knight, and Margaret
his wife, William Selby, junior, Ralph Selby and John Selby, junior, of the
other part.* Sir John Selby was doubtless the same man as the author of
the entail quoted above, and those associated with him would be his three
sons, William, Ralph and John, while William Selby, senior, would be his
brother of that name. William Selby, junior, later Sir Wilham, succeeded
to the property before 1506,^ and seemingly was appointed to assist his uncle
of the same name as gentleman porter.^ In 1630 he succumbed to the family
passion for elaborate entails. By this time the Selby property had been
much increased, for it comprised besides the manors of Branxton and Money-
1 Wills and Inventories, vol. i. pp. 235-236. - Acts of the Privy Council, vol. vii. ji. 2.|<) ; vol. viii. p. 400.
' Feet of Fines, sixteenth century, p. 45. * Ibid., p. 5o.
' Note in Burghley's hand on letter from William Selby — Cal. of Border Papers, vol. ii. p. 213.
' Acts of the Privv Council, vol. xxx. p. 241. The uncle, Sir William, by his will dated 19 May, 1610,
left money to the poor of Branxton. Raine, Teslamenta, vol. vi. p. 29. Printed in Miscellanea Genealogica
et Heraldica, vol. i. pp. 15-19.
Vol. XI. 15
114 PARISH OF BRANXTON.
laws and the capital messuage of Moneylaws, the manor of Lowick, lands
in Cheviot and di\-ers lands and tenements in Lowick, Branxton, Moneylaws
and elsewhere, including extensive property in Norham, all valued at £2,000
a year and upwards. All the above property was settled on himself and
his wife and the heirs male of his body, with remainder in tail male succes-
sively to William, John and Lancelot, sons of his brother, Sir Ralph Selby,
and to his brother, Sir John Selby. In default of these, Robert Selby of
Berwick was to inherit for life with remainder in tail male to his eldest son
William, and successive remainders in tail male to John Selby, son of one
William Selby, prebendary of Durham, George Selby of Cornhill, Thomas
Selby of Bamburgh, and Richard Selby, the last three being brothers.^
According to a bill presented to the court of exchequer in 1684, Sir
William Selby died without male issue, and so also did his nephews,
and his brother John, Robert Selby of Berwick, the latter's son
\^'illiam, and John and William,- sons of William Selby the pre-
bendary. The estates therefore descended to George Selby of Corn-
hill,^ who was succeeded by his son Rowland, and he in turn by
his son George.* The last named died in 1673,^ and his son Ralph followed
him to the grave a few years later, the estate devolving on his younger son
George, a minor, who in 1683 complained through his father-in-law. Sir
Francis Blake of Ford, to the court of chancery that his sisters, Doroth}-
and Frances, had conspired with Mark Milbank, who held a mortgage on
the property, to defraud him of his inheritance.^ This George Selby died
very soon afterwards, and his widow had to sue various members of the family
in 1685 to secure the annuity of £200 allotted to her out of her husband's
estate.'' She was also involved in other litigation with regard to the descent-
of the main property. This was claimed by Rowland Selby, as the son
1 By his will dated 14 April, 1637, Sir William Selby left all his northern estates to his brother Ralph.
Raine, Testamenta, vol. vi. p. 33.
* It was probably this William Selby who held the larger half of Branxton in 1663 with a rent roll of £70.
Rate Book, 1663 — Hodgson, pt. iii vol. i. p. 277.
' He probably only owned the property for a short time as an inventory of the goods of George Selby
of Branxton was taken 22nd Feb., 1664. Raine, Testamenta, vol. iv. p. 21.
* Bill in Court of Exchequer, Easter, 36 Charles II. — Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. pp. 11 2-1 13.
' By his will dated 2nd Feb., 1673, George Selby of Twizell left his capital messuage of Moneylaws to his
son Ralph and his heirs male, remainder to liis second son, George, remainder to his daughters. He alludes
to his father, Rowland, and his mother still living. Proved 1673. (Raine, Testamenta, vol. v. p. 269;
Chancery Proceedings, Bridges, Bundle 552, No. 78). This will supports the statement that the entail had been
cut. See below.
' Chancery Proceedings, Bridges, Bundle 552, No. 78.
' Chancery Proceedings, Bridges, Bundle 183, No. 70.
BRANXTON TOWNSHIP. II5
of Thomas Selby of Bamburgh, younger brother of George Selby of Cornhill,
by virtue of the entail, but he was met with a statement that it had been cut
by WilHam the prebendary, with the consent of Rowland Selby and his son
George.^ The plaintiff was husband of Frances, one of the sisters and co-
heiresses of the last owner of the estate, ^ and the defendant was her sister
Dorothy, widow of Thomas Collingwood, whom he accused of conspiring
to conceal the deed of entail with her mother, Elizabeth, now wife of Thomas
Ord, and Eleanor, widow of her brother, George Selby. ^ Thus it would
appear that Rowland Selby sought to secure the whole property in his own
right instead of a moiety thereof in right of his wife. As a matter of fact
the sisters shared the inheritance,* and from this time forward the name
of Selby disappears from the township.
As far back as 1584 there is mention of three property owners
in Branxton,^ and the Rate Book of 1663 gives two names, Wilham
Selb}', with a rent roll of £70, and James Carr, with one of £60.^ By the
early eighteenth century the three landowners were Edward Haggerston
with seven farmholds, Henry Collingwood with eight and a quarter farm-
holds, and Ralph Davison with three and a quarter farmholds. These, in
1712, agreed to enclose their lands which were still intermixed and to divide
up the common amongst them.' From this time forward the three properties
can be distinguished. Ralph Davison had held his property known as
' Bill in the Court of Exchequer, Easter, 36 Charles II. — Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. pp. 11 2-1 13.
' Raine, North Durham, p. 315, where a pedigree of this family will be found.
' Bill in Court of Exchequer. Easter, 36 Charles II. — Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. pp. 112-113.
* The following descent of the property is given in manuscript in the handwriting of Sir Henry Selby,
'now a sergeant-at-law,' who died in 1715.
Sir William Selby of the Mote, in the parish of Ightham, in the county of Kent, knt., entayled his estate
in the Countyes of Northumberland and Durham upon William Selby, second son of S. Ralph Selby (brother
of the said S. William Selby of Kent) in tayl male, which said William Selby after the death of S. William Selby,
which was in 1629, enter'd into all the estate and enjoyed it till the 20 Feb. 165.1, o" which day he dyed.
Then Ralph Selby, eldest son of S. Ralph Selby, entered and enjoyed the estate of Twizell in the County
of Durham and all the lands in Northumberland from the 20 Feb., 1654, to 28 Sept. 1660, on which day
he dyed.
Next to Ralph Selby, William Selby a Clerk and a Son of the said William Selby, a prebendary of Durham,
entered and enjoyed the said estate of Twizell and the estate in Northumberland from the 28 Sept., 1660,
till he and Roland Selby, son of George Selby of Cornhill, conveyed the said estate of Twizell by lease and
release, 11 & 12 Nov., 1672, unto George Selby, son of the said Roland, who enjoyed it to the day of his
death which was 2 Feb., 1672.
After his death Ralph his son entered and enjoyed the estate till the day of his death, which was in Nov.
1677. After Roland's death. George, his son, who marryed Blake's daughter, enjoyed the estate to the day
of hjs death, which was 10 Feb. 1683.
After his death, Dorothy and ffrances the sisters of the last mentioned George Selby. enjoyed the estate
together with Captain Roland Selby. (Miscellanea Genealogica et Heraldica, vol. i. p. 15.).
For pedigree of the family see Raine, North Durham, p. 315.
' Cat. of Border Papers, vol. i. p. 14. * Rate Book, 1663 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 277.
' Pallinsburn Deeds.
ii6
PARISH OF BRANXTON,
East side at least since 1704/ and it continued with liis descendants till
William Davison of Chatton Park sold it in 1805 to Thomas Howey who, in
1813, resold it to George Adam Askew, and, henceforth it became part of the
Pallinsbnrn estate.- The Haggerston portion, which was the property of
Sir Carnaby Haggerston in 1720,^ can be identified W'ith the Selby inherit-
ance on the analogy of Moneylaws.* It was probably sold ultimately to
the Collingwoods, and together with the already existing Collingwood
lands in the township formed the property of which Mr. John
Collingwood of Cornhill is the present owner.^
DAVISON OF BRANXTON.
James Davison of Chatton, who, loth September, 1695, obtained a lease of lands in
Chatton Parle on the surrender of a lease granted to Gilbert Swinhoe (</) ; dead before
l6th November, 1704 (c) ; [buried 13th September, 1698 (_/>)].
Ralph Davison of Branxton and of Chatton, a son and heir,
mortgaged a tenement in Wooler, l6th November,
1704 (c) ; party to division of Branxton, April, 1712 («) ;
voted at the election of knights of the shire in 171$,
described as the elder, 1719 ; buried 6th August, 1729 {6).
Anne , buried
14th November,
I7io(/0.
I
John Davison of Chatton, who with
his father took a Iea?c of lands 1st
December, 1697, and renewed the
same 15th January, 1718, and
again 2nd .^pril, 1730 (</). 4^
Ralph Davison of Branxton and of Chatton Park, of full age, 1716 (c) ; party to division of = Christian Atkinson, mar
Branxton, April, 1712 (c) ; took a lease of lands in Chatton, I2th December, 1716, and re-
newed the same 25th October, 1737 Qd) ; mortgaged his lands in Branxton, 30th October,
1719 (<:)• Voted at the election of knights of the shire in 1722 and 1748 ; buried 23rd
October, 1753 (i) ; administration of personal estate, l6th June, 1754 (c)-
riage settlement, Decem-
ber, 1714 {*:) ; perhaps
second wife ; buried 29th
April, 1727 (6).
James Davison of Branxton and of Chatton,
baptised 1st .May, 1716 {a) ; voted at the
election of knights of the shire in 1748 ;
took a lease of lands in Chatton, igth
September, 1749 (</) ; buried 2nd October,
1765 («) ; will dated 31st May, 1765.
Elizabeth,
dau. of Sarah
Reavely ; mar.
13 Aug., 1748,
at St.Nichulas,
Newcastle.
I
John
Davison,
baptised
13th Aug.,
171 7 («')•
I
William
D.ivison,
baptised
28th April,
1724 00-
John
Davison,
baptised
6th June,
1726 c«).
I I
Tsabell, bapt. 3rd May,
1 7 19 (rt).
Anne, baptised 3rd Feb.,
I720;'l (a) ; mar. lOth
July, 1743, Thomas
Bell of Easington
Grange (a).
John Davi- William Davison of Branxton and of=:Jane
son, bapt. Chatton, 'bapt. 27th Dec, 1753 (a); Stewart
4th Aug., residuary legatee of his father's will ;
1750 (a) ; renewed his lease of lands in Chatton
buried 8th Sept., 1778 ; voted at election of
24 March, knights of the shire in 1774 ; a lieut.
■751 (")• '" '77^ ; ■' captain in 1779 ; a major,
1799, of Northumberland Militia.
(a) Chatton Register. (fi) Wooler Register.
dau. of
living
1805
(0-
I
James Davison,
baptised 30th
January, 1755
(a) ; buried
17th May,
1755 W-
I I
(<r) Abstract <f Title, Rev.
(</) Duke of Northumberland' s MS S. («) Pallimburn Deeds.
Sarah, bapt. 19th June, 1749 («) ; mar.
John Close of Chatton, a pilot, before
1781 (a) ; and died at Chatton, 13th
Nov., 1 8 10 (a). In the deeds of
1805 called Catherine (c).
Christian, baptised 25th January,
1752 (a) ; buried 2nd February,
1772 (ri).
John Hodgson's Collections.
1 Hodgson MSS. Branxton Parish, pp. 8-9.
= Pallinshurn Deeds. For the later history of this property see pages 439-440.
' Register of lioman Catholics' Estates, p. 76. * See page 89.
' The deeds of Mr. Collingwood's property have not been produced so that this later descent must remain
a mere conjecture. In 1838 (Christopher Fenwick possessed an estate in the chapelry of Bran.xton which he
had bought from Henry Collingwood of Lilburn Tower (Deposition of M. T. Johnston, Dec, 1838 — Ford
Tithe Case, p. 30), which suggests that the present CoUingwood title to at least a portion of the Branxton
property is of no ancient date.
PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON. II7
PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
The parish of Kirknewton is one of the largest in the county and
contains no less than fifteen townships with a total population in 191 1 of
1,050 persons.^ To the west lie the highlands which culminate in Cheviot,
while the eastern townships bask in the plain of Milfield.
Ecclesiastical History. — The church of Newton in Glendale was
among those possessions given by Walter Espec to the priory of Kirkham,^
though in the reign of Henry II. Walter Corbett tried to exercise the right
of presentation,^ and later the abbot of Kelso seems to have put in a claim,
as there was litigation over it between the two monasteries.* Durham
monastery seems also to have been involved, as the prior of that
house in 1253 confirmed a confirmation of the church to Kirkham
by Walter Kirkham, bishop of Durham.'^ Some time after the appropriation
a vicarage was ordained in Newton,^ and the revenues allotted to it were
the tithes of sheaves and hay of Kirknewton and Hethpool, the tithes of hay
in the vills of West Newton, Akeld, Yeavering, Coupland and Lanton,
tithes of wool and lambs in Kirknewton, and the tofts, crofts and cottages
with their rents belonging to the church in that vill, all oblations of the said
church and its chapels on all principal and other feast days and Sundays
whether in the form of pain hcni or otherwise, mortuary fees in whatsoever
form received, dues of wax for the church candles, tithes of cheese, butter,
cow's milk, eggs, calves, chickens, small pigs, geese, hens, pannage and
herbage, goats, honey, gardens, flax, hemp, and grist, all lesser tithes includ-
ing wax, whether obligatory or free-will offerings, and all other contributions
either to the parish church or to its chapels. The vicar was to bear the
' Census of 191 1.
- Rievaiilx Chartularv, pp. 161, 244-245 ; MonasHcon, vol. vi. pp. 20S-209. The gift was confirmed by
Henry I. and again by Edward IIL in 1336. Cal. of Charter Rolls, vol. iv. pp. 360-361.
' Kirkham Carlularv, fol. 83. The date is fi.xed by the mention of 'curia domini regis H." and the
fact that a witness at the trial was Hugh Murdoch who witnessed a deed of Henry II. (Rievaiilx Chartularv.
p. 151) and was rector of Bamburgh circa 1171-1185. {N.C.H. vol. i. pp. 75, 94).
* 1199-1208. Curia Regis Rolls, Nos. 16 and 20 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxi. p. 16, li; Rot. Curia
Regis, vol. ii. p. 256; Coram Reg^ Roll, 10 John, No. 39, mm. 9, lodo. — IJain, Cal. of Documents, vol. i. p. 75.
'> Hunter MS. 3, p. 245 ; Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 83; Durham Treasury Document — Hodgson, pt. iii.
vol. ii. pp. 150-151.
" This cannot have been before 1153 when the incumbent was rector. See page 124.
Il8 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
expense of synodal dues and the archdeacon's procurations and all the
other ordinary expenses of the church, though the monastery undertook
to contribute half a mark annually towards these by way of composition
for all tithes due from its property in the parish. When repairs to the church
and chancel were necessary, the vicar and the monks were each to pay their
share. ^ The value of the vicarage thus defined was estimated at 55 marks, -
but later valuations did not come up to this. Pope Nicholas's Taxation of
1291 gives the value of the rectory as £90 and that of the vicarage as £20.^
Towards the close of the fourteenth century the benefice became even less
valuable, thanks to Scottish ravages, and was quite beyond paying its quota
to a clerical subsidy of 1380 and also to the expenses of the English repre-
sentatives at the council of Pisa in 1409, though in each case a small con-
tribution was made.* So bad was the situation in 1436 that the bishop
gave the vicar licence to say Mass and the other offices outside the church
in any place in the parish which was safe and suitable so long as the hostilities
of the Scots continued, provided that provision was made for giving baptism
to children, extreme unction to the dying and sepulture to the dead, and
that the sacraments were celebrated in the church whenever that
were possible.^ Possibly the situation had improved and the church was
again a safe place when in 1452 John Langton, citizen and sadler of London,
bequeathed a banner with a copper cross, gilt, valued at 20s. to the church
where he had probably been baptized.^ In 1522 the prior and convent of
Kirkham granted the next presentation to John Wallas of Wooler, William
Wallas, Henry Wallas of the same and their assigns. '^
The greater tithes were mostly leased to private persons, those of Akeld,
Lanton, and Shotton being thus held by Odinel Selby at the time of the
dissolution of the monasteries,^ and for a time thereafter the crown followed
the same policy, receiving in all £13 for the farm of 'all tithes of the rectory
1 The archdeacon of Northumberland at a later date ordered that the vicar should be responsible for
the maintenance of the books and ornaments of the church. Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 8j,
' Kirkham Cartulary, fol. i6. Cf. Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 152.
' Taxatio Eccles. Angl. — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 351. This again occurs in 1306 (Reg. Palat. Dunclin,
vol. iii. p. 97) and in 1340 (Nonarum Inqiiisitiones — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. pp. xxxviu.-xxxix.
* Accounts of Taxation — Ford Tithe Case, pp. 214-215, 217.
' Durham Ecclesiastical Proceedings, p. 25.
° North Country Wills, vol. i. p. 255. He was probably a native of Lanton by his name and he mentions
Akeld in his will.
' May 17th, 1522. Hunter MS. 6, p. 93; Randal MS. 4, p. 195.
' Augmentation Office, Conventual Leases, York. Bundle 426.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. II9
with all glebe lands, meadows and pastures to the same rectory belonging. '^
Odinel Selby still held the tithes of Akeld, Lanton and Shotton at a rent of
60s., 20s., and los. respectively, while other lessees were Gerard Selby, Sir
Cuthbert Ogle, Robert Collingwood, Thomas Spencer, Katherine Colling-
wood, John Cook and Sir Robert EUerker. William Strother held a lease
of West Newton tithes, but no mention is made of those of Kirknewton
township. 2 After having been in the hands of the crown for some years,
the rectory and advowson with all appurtenances including tithes in Newton,
Shotton, Paston, Kilham, Crookhouse, West Newton, Coupland, Lanton,
Yeavering, Milfield, Akeld and Howtel were given to William Strother in
1553. This, together with certain lands in Kilham, was valued at £ig
annually and was to be held in free socage.^ The tithes of Cheviot, Colds-
mouth and Hethpool are not included in this gift, and so far as Hethpool is
concerned we know that they had been claimed by Melrose abbey, which in
1223 had agreed to pay 50s. and 2od. annually for them to the priory of
Kirkham.*
The rectory remained with the Strother family down to the extinction
of the line. It was part of the estate of William Strother in 1579,^ ^^^ ^^
1631 John Strother died seised of the rectory of East Newton with the glebe
lands in East and West Newton and the tithes of East and West Newton,
Lanton, Howtel, Akeld and Milfield, held of the king as of his manor of East
Greenwich by fealty only and not in chief nor by military service. Included
also in the rectory was Canno Mill, held for life by John's brother Lancelot.^
From this it is obvious that the lands once held by Kirkham priory in East
and West Newton had been included in the gift of the rectory, the full
value of which at this time is not given, but the vicarage had considerably
depreciated in value during the sixteenth century, being valued at £4 6s. 8d.
in the time of Elizabeth.'^ By 1637 however it had again appreciated,
consisting then of a close or croft of arable land containing three acres on the
* Ministers' Accounts, 34 Hen. VIIL — Caley MS. Cf. Ministers' Accounts, 31 Hen. VIH. — Monasticon,
vol. vi. pt. i. p. 210.
^ Ministers' Accounts, 31 Hen. VIH. — Caley MS.
' Augmentation Office, Particulars for Grants, No. 1985 ; Originalia, 7 Edw. VI. pt. 5, No. 18 ; Caley MS.
* Liber de Metros, vol. i. pp. 270-271 ; Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 87.
* Feet of Fines, sixteenth century, P- 41.
^ Inq. p.m. — Laing Charters, pp. 499-500. In 1657 William Strother had a case against Walter Rutherford,
Thomas Revelcy and Thomas Burrell concerning the rectory and tithes of Kirknewton. Special Coni-
mi'isions of the Exchequer — Dep. Keeper's Rep. No. 40, App. i. p. 51.
' Values and Patrons — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. xlvii. The figure was £3 6s. 8d. according to Barnes
Visitations, 6yc., p. 10.
120 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
east side of the churcli lane ' with one old dwelling house and a new parlour,
barne, stable, byre and baking house, lately built by the present incum-
bent, being situate on the south forepart of the said croft.' With this went
the right of pasture in all herbage ground belonging to the demesne of East
Newton for six cows and their calves, one bull, three score ewes and their
lambs and three horses or mares, which were to run summer and winter with
the lord's animals and to be tended by the herds of the lord's tenants. To
this was added the right to tithes of hemp, pigs, hens and other poultry in East
Newton, of hay in Kilham, Thornton, Thompson's Walls, Heddon and
Coldsmouth, and of the lands of the demesne of Crookhouse, which was said
by some strange error to be in the parish of Eord, all such tithes being valued
at 13s 4d. yearly. Also included were tithes of little pigs, hens and other
poultry ' in Pauston of the handes of the Lairdes or Farmers of the Demesne
Lands in Pauston yearly at Easter the sum of 6s. 8d.,' of hay and other
produce 'in the two shottens,' valued at 2S., of hay in Yeavering and in the
demesne of Milfield worth 6s. 8d. and 4s. respectively and of hay in Lanton.
All these tithes were commuted, others, of which no details are given, were
paid in kind, but over and above them there were various minor tolls, such
as id. for every 5 ewes, fees for marriage and burial, the last costing gd.,
and if in the chancel 6s. 8d. save in the case of one of the lord's family.
The sum total of vicarial tithes was estimated to be £30 a year,^ and, as this
did not include the lands of the vicarage, probably the estimate of £40 made
in the seventeenth century^ may be taken as the value of the vicarage at
that time. By 1650 it had still more appreciated, for according to the
ecclesiastical inquests of that year it was ' of the yearly value of three score
pounds, exclusive of tithes to the value of £16 and a yearly £s due from, but
not always paid by, Lord Grey of Wark and William Burrell of Howtel.^
The cure was evidently considered an advantageous one, if we are to
judge by the competition for it when a vacancy was imminent in 1685.*
Over a century later Archdeacon Singleton in his visitation of 1828 found
a similar competition for it, the details of which reveal the attitude towards
ecclesiastical patronage prevalent at that period. The vicarage was then
in the gift of John Davidson of Otterburn, ' I should have said disposal
• Terrier in Durham Registry — Caley MS.
' Barnes Visitalions, &■€., p. lo, a note appended in a seventeenth century hand.
' Ecclesiastical Inquests, 1650 — Arch. Ael. O.S. vol. iii. pp. 5-6.
* Letter of Alexander Davidson — Raine, North Durham, pp. 334-335.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 121
rather than gift,' he wrote, 'for I beheve the family of Mr. Robinson, the
present incumbent, made a purchase of it from the trustees of Mr. Davidson,
when that gentleman was a minor. The last incumbent was Dr. Thomas,
vicar of Chillingham, and whatever his merits may have been, he was
indebted for his preferment to his age. The excellent Mr. Bouchier, the
former vicar, died so unexpectedly that the trustees had made no arrange-
ments for appointing a successor, and were obliged to supply the vacancy
with one whose numbered years would give the greatest reason to calculate
on an early presentation However it is right in his case to say that
during Mr. Thomas's incumbency, the curacy was respectably filled by
Mr. Wood. I have heard that the original intention of the trustees was to
nominate Mr. Witton of Rennington, a man at that time in extreme old age,
but it was found utterly impossible to convey him to the bishop for insti-
tution, and impossible that he could ever read himself in.'^
The advowson had been sold in 1762 by John Strother Kerr at the same
time as he was disposing of the other Strother property in Kirknewton. It
was bought by William Lawes of Newcastle, and later of Ridley Hall. In
1795 it was leased for 99 years to John Davidson of Newcastle, who ultimately
bought it and whose executors sold it to the Marquis of Bute in 1848. It was
almost immediately resold to Alexander Thompson, and thus became once
more connected with a landowner in the township. In 1878, however, he
sold the advowson to Morris Piddocke of Stanton Manor, near Burton-on-
Trent,2 and the vicarage is now in the gift of his son, the present incumbent,
its annual value being £480 gross and £357 net and a house.
The Church. — The church of St. Gregory^ consists of chancel, nave
with north aisle of four bays and with a small chapel upon the south side,
south porch, and west tower. The chancel, south chapel, and the lower
portions of the pillars of the nave arcade are all that remains of the
medieval building. The plan suggests an aisleless cruciform church, to
which a north aisle was added late in the twelfth or early in the thirteenth
century. In the course of excavations made by Mr. F. R. Wilson of
Alnwick in i860, it was discovered that the chancel, which now measures
1 Archdeacon Singleton's Visitation — Arch. Aeliana, N.S. vol. xvii. p. 255. According to the register
Mr. Anthony Thomas officiated once in i8ig. His curates were William Barker, 1818-1820, and John
Ayton Wood, 1820-1828. Kirknewton Register.
- Deeds of the Rev. M. M. Piddocke, Kirknewton.
' The earliest notice of the dedication is in a document of 1223. Liber de Metros, vol. i. p. 270.
Vol. X[. 16
122
PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
about 25 feet by 15 feet, had originally extended a bay further to the east;
and was therefore unusually long in proportion to the rest of the church.
The addition of the aisle probably absorbed a northern transeptal chapel,
corresponding to that on the south. The early arrangement of the church
has been much obscured by alterations, the actual date of which is uncertain.
It is not unlikely that, owing to the incursions of the Scots, the building
was occasionally disused and may have become ruinous. In 1436, at any
rate, the vicar was given
i licence to say mass in any
safe and decent place with-
in the parish, but outside
the church, so long as the
hostility of the Scots then
existing should continue.^
It was probably during
this period or during the
succeeding century, that
the old chancel was
destroyed and the present
shorter chancel made in
its stead. The north and
south walls are upon the
old foundations, but are
extremely low ; and the
chancel is covered with a
pointed barrel-vault, like
that of the ground-floor of
a pele-tower, evidently for
security against fire. It is
entered from the nave by a
low and narrow segmental arch. These details have given rise to the theory
that the chancel, thus altered, was intended to be used as a storehouse.
The south chapel, or Burrell vault as it is now called, ^ also has a barrel-
' See p. n8.
^ Thomas Burrell of Milfield by his will dated 20th May, 1620, directs that he be buried in Kirknewton
church. (Raine, Tcstanienla, vol. ii. p. 265.) Ralph Burrell of Milfield by his will i8th March, 165(5, directs
that he be buried 'in the accustomed place in Kirknewton church {Ibid. vol. iv. p. 47). William Burrell of
Howtell by will dated nth April, 1719, directs that he be buried in the 'South Porch of Kirknewton Church '
{Ibid. vol. V. p. 5). The 'porch' seems to have belonged to the Howtel property, as in 1828 Archdeacon
Singleton's Visitation records that it belonged ' to Mr. Davison of Swarland for Howtel,' and he had bought it
from the Burrells. Archdeacon Thomas Sharpe caused it to be repaired by ' Mr. Burrell of Howtel ' in 1727.
Fig. 6. — Kirknewton Church. The Chancel.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
123
vault, which, as was discovered in i860, was composed in part of arch-
stones taken from the nave arcade, which therefore must have been destroyed
for this purpose, together with the north aisle. The chapel, however, which
formed the east part of this aisle, and was known as the Coup land chapel,
was left standing and may have been similarly vaulted; it was still
standing in 1796, and its foundations were discovered in i860. The church
thus recovered its early cruciform plan, with a changed elevation, at any
rate as regarded the chancel and chapels. In 1669 the nave stood in need
of rebuilding ; but there is no reason to suppose that a total reconstruction
followed, and that the fabric was not in such a state that it had fallen into
disuse is shown by
the fact that the font
bears the date 1663.
The Coupland chapel
shortly before 1796,
was presented to the
churchwardens by Dr.
Ogle, the then owner
of Coupland Castle, to
be used as a vestry;
but these worthies
considered it more
economical to pay los.
to have it removed and
the north wall built up.
Fig. 7. — The Adoration of the Magi.
In 1856, when the Rev. P. G. McDouall became
vicar, the whole church was in a very dilapidated state. Plans were drawn
up by Mr. John Dobson for a complete restoration, and an appeal for £1,600
was issued. The restoration scheme was not carried out in its entirety
but the whole nave was pulled down and rebuilt, and at a later date a tower
was added at the west end.^ It will be seen from the foregoing account
that the nave thus destroyed was substantially a medieval building, the
north wall of which had been reconstructed in the later part of the middle
ages, and to which some repairs may have been made in the seventeenth
century.
• The foregoing account is based on the matter in Wilson, Churches of Lindisfarne, pp. 72-73, and on a
MS. account of the restoration of the Kev. P. G. McDouall, the vicar, together with the appeal, with plans
of the existing church and the proposed restorations, formerly in the possession of the late \ er>^ Kev.
Monsignor Matthew CuUey of Coupland Castle, who kindly put them at my disposal.
124 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
One of the most interesting details of this church is a piece of rough
sculpture built into the wall behind the pulpit, said to have been found
encased in some other wall when the nave was rebuilt. It represents
the Adoration of the Magi and is executed in a rude but vigorous style.
Our Lady and the child Christ are shown seated in a sort of trough which
on its right side has a T-shaped branch rising from it as though meant to be
used for tying up cattle. Both have their arms raised, the hand of our Lady
seeming to hold something which is not distinguishable. The Magi are
depicted as almost running towards them, each holding his gift aloft in his
left hand and supporting his left elbow with his right hand. They seem
to be attired in kilts and have nothing on their feet. In addition to this
ancient relic a small sepulchral cross and the lower part of another are built
into the tower. In the centre of the chancel floor there is a sixteenth century
slab with an inscription unreadable save for the word 'mercie.' This may
well mark the grave of a Strother, for the family seem to have had the
privilege of burial in the chancel. ^
The registers originally dated from 1670, but they were seriously dam-
aged by fire in 1789 in the clerk's house, where they were then kept. These
early registers are now practically undecipherable, and thus the usable series
now begins in 1790. The following church plate belongs to the parish.
Chalice, silver spun and lecten, 7 in. high and 4 in. in diameter at the top and 3 in. at the base.
On the underside of the base is the inscription " The gift of Amor 0.\ley."
Patten, plain silver, 5 J in. in diameter and i/, in. high.
Flagon, silver, presented by the late Mr. George Grey, of Milfield.
Rectors.
Circa 1153 — -1197. Stephen. Alluded to as parson of the church of Newton in Glendale in a document
which alludes to Hugh, bishop of Durham (Hugh Puiset, 1153-1197), and has reference
to a dispute between Stephen and the priory of Kirkham with regard to the rights
of the former's church of Newton.-
VlCARS.
1285, 1290. Hugh of St. Oswald. Vicar of the church of Newton in Glendale, sues for robbery in
1285.' Hugh, vicar of the church of Newton in Glendale, mentioned as suing for
trespass in 1290.''
' Will of John Strother, 1592, 'to be buried in the chancel of Newton ' (Raine, Testamenta, vol. i. p. 125).
Will of Thomas Strother of Chatton, 1603, has a similar instruction (Ibid. vol. ii. p. 105). Will of William
Strother of I'owberry, 1697, 'to be buried in my burial place of Kirknewton ' [Ibid. vol. iv. p. 199).
' Dodsworth MS. vol. vii. fol. 210.
' De Banco Roll, No. 60, m. 2odo — -Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxvii. pp. 73-74.
' Coram Rege Roll, No. 123, m. 7 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxiii. p. 277.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 125
1293, 1 30 1. Peter Wetewang. Vicar of the church of Newton in Glendale sues David Coupland
1293,1 acknowledges a debt 1301.^
1316. Philip. Vicar of Newton in Glendale, appointed on an inquiry into the vicarage of
Edlingham, 1316.'
1338, 1340 — 13.^4. John Grey. Receives John of Norham as curator, and letters diraissory for the latter
for minor and all Holy Orders, 1338.' John of Shirbourn, chaplain, appointed curator
of John, vicar of Newton in Glendale, owing to the latter's age and infirmities.'
1344 — William Wartre. Instituted 7th September, 1344, to the vicarage of the parochial
church of Newton in Glendale, vacant by the death of John Grey, by presentation
of the prior and convent of Kirkham." Philip of Kilnese in possession of the
vicarage wrongfully and to be ejected, 2nd and nth May, 1344-'
— 1350. Robert of Yarm. Vicarage of Newton in Glendale void by his death in Rome in
the jubilee year, i.e. 1350.'
1358. John of Wyrksall. Mentioned as vicar of the church of Newton in Glendale, November
loth, 1358.'
1359. Robert Heppe. Priest of the diocese of Carlisle, by the good offices of Raynald,
cardinal of St. Adrian, provided to the vicarage of Newton in Glendale, void by
the death of Robert Jarnin (sic) at Rome." Was probably never instituted.
1363- John of Barnard Castle." In 1363 petitioned the pope that whereas he and John
Winkeshale had resigned respectively the canonry and prebend of Bires in Auckland
and the vicarage of Newton in Glendale in order to exchange them, and whereas he
had been presented by the patron of the said vicarage and had been instituted to it
by the ordinary, and whereas he doubted whether the said vicarage on its voidance
by the death of Robert Jaris (sic) at Rome in the jubilee year, was reserved to the
pope, he may be confirmed in the vicarage.'- Papal confirmation secured that same
year.'^
— 1364. WiLLiA.M OF Cressop. Resigned 1364."
1364 — 1366. William of Hayton. Resigned 1366."
— 1370. Richard of Whittons. Resigned 1370."
1370, 1380 — Thomas Ingelby. Succeeded Whittons." Mentioned in a deed 1375.'^ Vicar of
Newton in 1 380-1 381.'*
1387. Sir Robert Bugthrop. 'Chaplain of the parish church of Newton in Glengell' occurs
September 29th, 1387."
1425 — 1427. John Gray. Vicar of Newton, mentioned 13th August, 1425." Commission to carry-
out exchange of livings between John Gray, vicar of Newton in Glendale, and
Thomas Whittingham, vicar of Stannington."
1427 — 1436. Thomas Wihttingham. Perpetual vicar of the parish church of Newton in Glendale,
given licence to say Mass outside the parish church in 1436.^°
' Assize Roll, 21 Edw. I — Duke's r)-a«scn^<s, vol. xviii. p. 515. - Cal. of Close Rolls, 1296-1302, p. 495.
^ Reg. Palat. Dunelni. vol. ii. p. 820. ^ Reg. Palat. Dtinelm., vol. iii. p. 216.
' Reg. Palat. Dunelm. vol. iii. pp. 292-293. * Reg. Palat. Dunelnt. vol. iii. p. 473.
' Richard of Bury's Register, pp. 59-60, 61-62. " Cal. of Papal Petitions, vol. i. p. 414.
• Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1358-1361, pp. 117-118. '° Cal. of Papal Petitions, vol. i. pp. 313, 347.
" Randal places this incumbent after William of Hayton, on whose resignation in 1366 he is said to
have been appointed.
" Cal. of Papal Petitions, vol. i. p. 414. " Cal. of Papal Letters, vol. iv. p. 33.
" Randal, State of the Churches, p. 26.
" Evidences of Strother Pedigrees — Hodgson, pt. ii. vol. i. p. 266.
" Account Roll of Archdeacon of Northumberland — Ford Tithe Case, p. 215.
" Laing Charters, p. 21. »« Laing Charters, p. 27. " Langley Register, fol. 294.
*» Durham Ecclesiastical Proceedings, p. 25.
126 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
1^88 — , 1492. John Grey. Appointed 1488.' John Grey, chaplain, vicar of Newton, witnesses
a Fowbery Charter 26th June, 1492.'
1545 — 1554. Robert Bullock. Collated 9th March, 1545. Died 1554. •
1554 — 1578. John Hall. Collated 22nd May, 1554. Resigned 1578.'
1578. The benctice vacant. In January, 1578, the curate, James Austwicke, did not appear
at the chancellor's visitation at Alnwick and was therefore excommunicated.' In
the following July the benefice being still vacant Randall Dodd was the curate and
failed to perform his task at the chancellor's visitation, and was respited till the
Michaelmas synod.*
1578 — 1580. Thomas Clarke. The vicarage collated to him 17th May, 1578. Resigned 1580.^
1580 — Charles Presbv. The vicarage collated to him 6th January, 1580. Presented by the
bishop of Durham owing to lapse.^
1604 — 1O05. Christopher Pearson. Vicar in 1604/5."
1614 — Emmanuel Trotter. B.A., of Trinity College, Cambridge. Instituted 29th May,
1614.6
— 1669. Amor Oxley. M.A. of Christ's College, Cambridge. Minister of Kirknewton, 1650.'
In 1663 it was reported 'the curate thereof {i.e. Kirknewton) is schismaticall.'*
This was probably not Oxley as he was a royalist and was reappointed to
Kirknewton in 1665. He died still vicar August, i66g. His will with biographical
notes by Mr. J. C. Hodgson is in Berwickshire Naturalists' Club, vol. xxii. pp. 279-278.
1669 — , 1675. George Ogle. M.A. of Christ's College, Cambridge. Instituted gth September, i669.«
In a list of Northumberland incumbents in 1671.' Vicar of Kirknewton, 1675.'"
1681 — 1732. JohnWerge. Corpus Christi College, Oxford. B. A. of Trinity College, Oxford. Pre-
sented 1681." Instituted 3rd August, 1681.'^ Alluded to as vicar of Kirknewton and a
candidate for the vicarage of Wooler, then vacant, in January, 1685.12 Vicar for 52
years. Died February 4th, 1732, in his eightieth year. His wife, Elizabeth, died
November 12th, 1729, in her sixty-eighth year. Both together with three of their
children, Mary, Catherine and George, are buried in Kirknewton church. '^
1732 — 1770. Thomas Orde, M.A. Lincoln College, Oxford. Instituted 20th March, 1732.^ Vicar
of Kirknew^ton for nearly forty years. Died April 27th, 1770, aged 66 years. His
wife, Sarah, died May 13th, 1778, aged 70 years. Both buried in Kirknewton
church."
1770 — 1778. William Lamb. Merton College, Oxford. M.A., 1770." Presented 27th September,
1770.^ Voted for Kirknewton tithes in 1774." Died 1778."
1778 — 1802. John Hogarth. Instituted 12th August, i778.« Died at Kirknewton 31st January.
1802."
1802— 1818. John Boucher, M.A. Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. Rector of Shaftesbury
and vicar of Kirknewton. Died November 12th, i8i8, aged 41. His daughter
Wilhelmina, his youngest child, died April 5th, 1817, aged nine months, buried beside
her father."^
1 Randal, Stale of the Churches, p. 26. ' Laing Charters, p. 53. ' Barnes, Visitations, pp. 39, 41-
* Ibid. pp. 77, 78. 5 Randal, State of the Churches, p. 26. « P.R.O. Liber Inslitutionum.
' Ecclesiastical Inquests, 1650 — Arch. Aeliana O.S. vol. iii. pp. 5-6.
' Survey of the Churches of Northumberland, 1663 — Arch. Aeliana, N.S. vol. xvii. p. 255.
' Hunter MS. 12, No. 193.
" RawUnson MS. B. 250, fol. 22 — Proceedings of Newcastle Antiquaries, 3rd series, vol. ii. p. 118.
1' Foster, Alumni Oxon.
" Letter of Alexander Davidson, January 27th, 1685 — Raine, North Durham, p. 334-335-
" Lambert, MS. " Northumberland Poll Book. " Gentleman's Magazine, 1802.
'* Mural Tablet, Kirknewton Church. " Consistory Court Visitation Books.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. I27
1818 — 1827. Anthony Thomas, D.D. Vicar of Chillingham, presented to Kirknewton as a stopgap
on death of Boucher. One Mr. Wood acted as his curate.' Voted for Kirknewton
tithes at both elections in 1826.-
1827 — 1855. Christopher Robinson. Appointed vicar of Kirknewton on death of Thomas.'
Vicar for twenty-eight years. Died February ist, 1855, aged 66. Buried in the
churchyard. His widow Ehzabeth died 25th June, 1870, aged 82.*
1855 — 1856. Moses Mitchell, MA. Died 2ist April, 1856, aged 50. Buried in Kirknewton
churchyard.
1857 — 1878. P. G. McDouall.
1878 — 1882. Morris PiDDOCKh, M..^. Pembroke College, Cambridge.
1882 — 1886. Richard S.mith, MA. Died 12th January, 1886, aged 52. Monument to his memory
erected in the churchyard by the parishioners.
1886 — 1910. Morris Piddocke, for the second time.
1910 — Maurice Morris PiDDOCKE, L.Th. University College, Durham. Son of the last vicar.
BowMONT Union Meeting.
The Bowmont Union Meeting was founded in 1850, and the church
was built in 1852, by a Union of United Presbyterians and EngHsli
Presbyterians.^
Succession of Ministers.
1852 — 1872. David Taylor. Ordained 25th May, 1852. Resigned in 1872, and went to the
colonies.'
1872 — 1882. Bat.lantyne Brodie, M.A. of the University of Glasgow. Son of a missionary in
Trinidad. Ordained 19th November, 1872." Resigned in 1882, and retired to
Wooler. Died 191 6.
1882 — 1895. John Davidson, of the University of Glasgow.' Ordained 1882. Translated in 1895
to Douglas, Isle of Man.^
1895 — igio. Robert F. McGarritv, of the University of Edinburgh. Ordained to Beaumont
gth July, 1895.^ Translated in 1910 to Hull, and thence in 1913 to Wark-on-Tyne.^,'
1910 — 1915. John H. King, B.A. of Westminster College, Cambridge. Ordained to Beaumont 17th
November, 1910. Resigned in 1915.'
1915 — John McKee, B..'^. of Belfast College, and the University of Cambridge. Ordained in
Liverpool in 1913.°
' Archdeacon Singleton's Visitation, 1828 — Arch. Aeliana, N.S. vol. xvii. p. 255.
- Northumberland Poll Book.
' Archdeacon Singleton's Visitation, 1828 — Arch. Aeliana, N.S. vol. xvii. p. 255.
' Window to his memory in Kirknewton church. Monument in Churchyard.
' Ex inf. Mr. D. B. Shaw, editor of Fasti of the Presbyterian Church of England.
' Ex inf. Mr. R. S. Robson, Presbyterian Historical Society of England.
128 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
L ANTON TOWNSHIP.
Descent of the Manor. — Lanton,^ nestling on the sunny side of the
river Glen and sheltered by rising ground from the north — a far more desirable
place of residence than the bleaker Kirknewton, which is sheltered by
the Cheviots more from the sun than from the cold blasts — was in the
middle ages of greater importance and more populated than the township
which contained the parish church. ^ The family of Strother, too, so long
associated with Kirknewton, seems to have held the manor of Lanton at a
time when it possessed only one small holding across the river. The township
was a member of the barony of Roos,^ and the first recorded owner of
property therein is one Walter Corbet, who gave certain lands to the
Hospitallers. They in turn sold them some time during the reign of
King John to Patrick, the clerk of Newton in Glendale, for thirteen
pence and the right to the third part of each owner's chattels on his
death.* This Walter Corbet must have been the man whose daughter
and heir was married to William, son of Patrick, earl of Dunbar,^
for some time before 1280 Nicholas Corbet conveyed 'the lordship of
Langetoun in Glendale with all its right in the vill of Langetoun' to
his brother Sir Walter Corbet, for the payment of one penny yearly at the
feast of the Assumption.^ It is thus obvious that the manor or lordship of
Lanton was the property of Walter Corbet, and passed through his daughter
Christine to her eldest son Nicholas, who adopted his mother's surname,
and that Nicholas handed it on to his brother Walter, though a considerable
portion of the township lay outside the manor and in other hands. '^ The
later descent of this property is traceable through the fortunes of Lanton
mill, standing at the western extremity of the township, now a picturesque
ruin. Litigation in 1293 revealed that both Nicholas and Walter were dead,
' The earlier form of the name is Lang{e)ton=Long-farm.
2 The modem census returns are : 1801, 8i ; i8n, 60 ; 1821,69; 1831,78; 1841,83; 1851,84; 1861,
74; 1871,71; 1881,68; 1891,77; 1901,60; 1911,65. The township contains 971897 acres.
'Quo Warranto, Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. pp. 134-136; Assize Roll, 21 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts,
vol. xviii. pp. 390-391.
■■ Belvoir Papers, vol. iv. p. 83. s gee pedigree of Gospatric, N.C.H. vol. vii. p. 104.
* Laing Charters, p. 3, The document is printed among the proofs of the Strother pedigree in Foster,
Visitations, p. 115. Nicholas Corbet was son and heir of WiUiam son of Patrick, earl of Dunbar, and both
he and his brother Walter are mentioned in a gift of land in Colwell made to the latter by their father between
1248 and 1253. Document in Foster, Visitations, p. 115.
' Vide infra p. 139.
LANTON TOWNSHIP. I29
the former's wife having dower on the whole estate, and the latter's on the
remaining two parts. Walter's son William had also died, and his wife too
enjoyed dower, so that very little was for the time being left to the existing
owner, Walter Corbet, a minor in the guardianship of his overlord, Robert
Roos of Wark. On Lanton mill itself there was a charge of 20 marks rent
held by one Robert Mitford.^ The Corbets were non-resident owners ; in
1296 no one of that name was assessed for the subsidy, and as so often hap-
pened in such cases, the vill was well populated by fairly substantial tenants.
Fifteen inhabitants were assessed, ranging from Robert of Jacum at £6 5s. 4d.
to Walter Wyal at 12s., the sum total of assessable goods being £35 9s. 3d.2
It was Walter Corbett who introduced the Strother family to the township,
as in 1315 or 1317 he granted to William Strother and Joan his wife for their
lives his manor of 'Langtoun in Glendale,' with all his demesne lands thereto
belonging, except the lands held of him by husbandmen and cottars,^ and
the rents of free tenants, the mill and the wood there. Included in the
gift was the work due by custom from the servile tenants to the lords of the
vill, but not the rents they owed, and in addition there were granted estovers
and herbage in Lanton wood, freedom for the grantees and their tenants
in the manor to have their corn ground at Lanton mill free of multure and
rumfree, and for the grantees to have the right to hold a manorial court
for the 'punishment of all offences against them and their tenants caused
by the grantees tenants, together with all amercements, fines and other
privileges attached to such a court.''* On June 2nd, 1318, Walter Corbet
released to William Strother and Joan all right and claim which he had to
the lands, tenements and rights above demised for life,^ and this conve}'ance
was in the following year formally secured by fine, in which the property
was described as ' the manor of Langeton in Glendale with appurtenances
saving a mill and 40s. rent in the said manor. '^ Meanwhile the mill had
passed into William Strother's hands by a grant of 23rd November, 13 18,
whereby both it and the suit due thereto, together with Lanton wood, were
conveyed to him with provision, that if Walter, his heirs or assigns, were to
dispute this writing, he should pay £10 sterling at the next feast of the Puri-
fication, and ' then this charter with seisin of the said mill and wood, with a
' Assize Roll, 21 Edvv. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xviii. pp. 330-332.
' Lay Subsidy Roll, 1296, fol. loi. ' Exceptis terris meis husbandorum, cotariorum.
* Laing Charters, p. 7. * Ibid. p. 8. Also printed in Foster, Visitations, p. 115.
• Pedes Finium, 13 Edw. II. No. 46 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xii. p. 72.
Vol. XI. 17
130
PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
CORBET OF LANTON.
Arms : Gules a lion rampant silver {Glover's Ordinary). This shield,
deriveti from that of the earls of Dunbar, is borne by Nicholas Corbet
on his equestrian seal (Laing Charters No. 9),' and on the armorial
seal of Walter Corbet {Ibid. No. 21). The latter's son Roger uses
the canting device of a 'corbie' in a border 0) bezants (Ibid. No. 43).
(') It is described as a 'talbot salient collared,' but this is an impossible
charge for the date. The editor has mistaken for it the thin lithe
lion of the thirteenth century. It is correctly called a hon in
Hodgson, pt. ii. vol. ii. pp. 117-118, notes 5 and 6.
Asa («) = Walter Corbet («).
Robert Corbet, mentioned before
his brother Walter as witness
to Colpinhope Charter (n).
Probably predeceased his
brother, without heir.
Walter Corbet of Makerston —
in Roxburghshire {g
Christine, daughter
and heir («) ; died
124 1 (0).
William, younger
son of Patrick,
fifth son of earl
of Dunbar (a).
(') Ralph, son = Margery,
of William, li\'ing 1293
and husband
in 1293 (c).
(c); daughter
and co-heir
of Hugh
Bolbeck (/).
(1) Nicholas Corbet (a),
heldLantonin 1256
(m); hvingi263 (/) ;
gave Lanton to his
brother Walter be-
fore 1280 (6).
Patrick Corbet,
brother and
heir of Sir
Nicholas Cor-
bet, c. 1280
(/)•
Walter Corbet = J o a n ,
(a) , died before ' widow
1293 (c).
1293
{c).
p) Thomas Hepple, second husband in 1293 (c). = Lorette =y{^) William Corbet, died before 1290 (h).
Isolde, died = Walter Corbet a minor in wardship of Robert Roos of Wark in 1293 (c) ; died before
1330 {d). I 1325-6 (d).
= Roger Corbet of Lanton, leases lands there 1330 (e).
Eleanor, daughter of Henry Strother (A). == John Corbet, son and heir, died before 1379 (e).
I
(') John Ceretoun of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, = Ehzabeth, daughter =(') Robert Rea (t) , died before
EUzabeth's second husband in 1387 {p). and heir (i). 1387 (p).
(a) Document circa 1248- 1253 in Foster, Visita-
tions, p. 1 15.
(6) Laing Charters, p. 3.
(e) Assize Roll, 21 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts,
vol. xviii. pp. 230-231.
(d) Originalia — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. pp. 299-300.
{e) Laing Charters, p. 10.
if) Ibid, pp.3-4.
(?) Raine, North Durham, app. No. dccxiv, p. 125.
(A) De Banco Roll, No. 81, m3 — Duke's Tran-
scripts, vol. xvvii. p. 395.
(i) Laing Charters, p. 18.
(A) Laing Charters, p. 17.
(/) Exccrptae Rot. Fin. vol. ii. p. 393.
(m) Northumberland Assize Rolls (Surtees Soc),
pp. 1-2.
(n) Liber de Calchon, vol. ii. Nos. 359, 360, 361.
These charters are undated, and Robert
and Walter might have been brothers of
Christine, but the death of both without
heirs before their father is unlikely.
(0) Chron. de Mailros, p. 153.
(p) Laing Charters, p. 21.
LANTON TOWNSHIP. I3I
certain recognition in the king's exchequer of £60, made to the said Walter
by the said William, shall be quashed and of none effect, and it shall be
lawful to Walter to enter to the mill and wood without contradiction.'^
Thus Lanton manor became the absolute property of the Strothers,
while the mill was mortgaged to them. Further to this was added, by a
separate gift, the services of the free tenants in all respects, save as to the
mill, the chief of whom was David Baxter, ^ who died in 1323, holding a
messuage and five bovates of land of William Strother by service of half a
mark yearly.^ William Strother had some trouble in connection \\ith this
property in the very next year, when he had to sue certain malefactors for
breaking two of his houses in Lanton and carrying ofiE the trees and the
building wood thereto belonging,* and in 1325 he was compelled to yield a
third of the manor to Isolde Corbet, as dower after the death of her husband
Walter. 5 The Corbets still held land in the township, and Roger Corbet,
son of Walter, seems to have lived there, as he is described as of Lanton
when he demised all his tenements, both those held in demesne and those
held of him in villeinage, in Lanton, Westnewton and Kirknewton to William
Strother and Joan for their lives as from Whitsuntide, 1330, the rent for the
first two years being one mark yearly, for the following six years two marks
each year, and 46s. 8d. yearly for the rest of the period. To this he added
a similar grant of the dower lands, which his mother Isolde had held in the
three vills, at a rent of 13s. 4d. yearly for eight years from Martinmas, 1330,
and 20s. yearly thereafter. On William Strother's death this last grant
was renewed in favour of his widow Joan,^ who soon found herself called on
to substantiate her rights. In 1334 she sued Elizabeth, widow of David
Baxter, for what was probabl}' a refusal of rent,^ and in the following year
she prosecuted William, son of Sampson of Westnewton, on some count
which was not revealed.^ Her son, Henry Strother, had come into the
property by 1351, when he agreed to give lands in 'Lanton, Newton and
' Laing Charters, p. 8. - Ibid. pp. 8-9.
' Cal. oj Inq. p.m. vol. vi. p. 289. Called David of Lanton. For identification ^vith David Baxter, see
page 226.
* Coram Rege Roll, No. 256, m. i09do — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxv. pp. 60S-609.
' Originalia, 19 Edw. II — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. pp. 299-300.
' Laing Charters, p. 10. These deeds are all dated at Lanton, which confirms the supposition that
Roger Corbet lived there. About this time he also released all his right to the lands given to William Strother
and Joan by his father Ibid.
' Assize Roll, Cumberland, 6-S Hdw. III. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxiv. pp. 1229-1230.
' Assize Roll, Divers Counties, 9 Edw. III. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xx. p. 355.
I3i
PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
Kirkncwton,' to the value of ;^io to his son John on his betrothal to Mary,
daughter of Alan Heton.^ It was this Henry who secured the remaining
Corbet property in Lanton, doubtless those portions which had been leased
to his father and mother, by grant from Roger Corbet of 'seven husband-
lands and all other lands and holdings which the grantor had in the town
and territory of Langtoun in Glendale.' The deed was executed at Lanton,
but Roger was described as lord of Learchild, which suggests that he had now
gone to live on this portion of his property.^
p. 182.
• Dodsworth MS. 45, fol. 54do.
■ Laing Charters, p. 12. Seisin was not given till 1359.
Ibid. p. 14. For Learchild see N.C.H. vol. vii.
STROTHER OF KIRKNEWTON.
Arms : Gules on a bend silver three splayed eagles vert. (Jenyn's Roll
and Roll of Richard II. ed. Willement). See also Arch. Ael.
3rd ser. vol. i. p. 117, Seal of Henry Strother as sheriff of
Northumberland, Arch. Ael. 3rd ser. vol. xi. p. 223, and seal of
IVilliavi Strother, A.D. 1359, pi. facing p. 152, No. 7.
William Strother, third son of Alan Strother, lord of Lyham ; = Joan
acquired manor of Lanton and lands in Newton, circa (a).
1318 {a) ; died 1330 (6).
Henrj' Strother, ■
son and heir
(c) ; ' le piere ' ;
i)uys Money-
laws, 1369 (h) ;
lord of Lanton,
1370 (e) ; lord
of Newton,
1379.
Marj', dau . of
Sir Alan Heton
{d); living 1372
(»!) ; married
as her second
husband be-
fore 13S8, Sir
William Swin-
burne {at).
(') William Strother, lands bought by =
his father in Shotton entailed on him
1329(A); mayor of Newcastle, 1355-
1360; M.P. for Newcastle, 1358 and
1360 {bb) ; died probably in 1364.
= (') Maud, dau. of
Adam Graper and
of Agnes, dau. of
Richard Emeldon,
aged 24 in 1349
(ba).
I
Joan, daughter and heiress = John Scott Uving 1369
in 1369 (as). {as}.
I
Alan Strother, bro-
ther of William
Strother, mayor
of Newcastle and
sheriff of North-
umberland in
'357 {bg) ; bailiff
of Tyndale 1369
{as).
John Strother, first son, in Moneylaw's entail,
1369 (h) ; betrothed, 1351 (d) ; living 1379 (i).
John Graydon {g) -
I I
Henry Strother, second son, in Money-
laws entail, 1369 (k) ; living 1372 (m).
Thomas Strother, third son, in Money-
laws entail, 1369 (n) ; Uving 1372 (m).
John Newton, glover, of York, 1421 [g).
I I
Joan, living Eleanor, widow =
1372 {m). circa 1372 (/).
: John Corbet of
Learchild (/).
I
Matilda, daughter of John = Thomas= Henry Strother,
Hicchorne or Heethhorne,
kt., wife of Thomas Strother,
who received land in West
Newton in 1387 (e), and in
Kirknewton in 1388 (A).
Strother,
kt. {g).
brother and
heir of Thomas
in 1420 {g).
..= Alan Strother, given Money laws
by brother Henry, 1375 (d).
William Strother, living 1409 (0).
LANTON TOWNSHIP.
133
(•) daughter of = William Strother of Wallington, son of Thomas Strother, kt.,
Widdrington(^). I and of the daughter of Swinburne of Capheaton (/>).
(*) daughter and heiress
of Humphrey Wal-
Ungton [p).
daughter of Thomas Horton of =
Horton {/>).
- Thomas Strother,
kt. (/>).
Mary {p).
(') daughter!
of Henry
Haggers ton
(P)
: Thomas Strother,
settled Kirknew-
ton, etc., 1516 {(j).
{=)
daughter =
of Robert
Ogle, kt. ip)
I
WilHam Stro-
ther, abiding at
St. Alban, first
in the entail of
I5i6(.7).
Richard Strother of Duddoe,=Margaret, daughter of
second in the entail of
1 5 16 (q); living 1520 [t]
died before 1535 (r).
William Mare of
Newcastle (p) ; living
at Duddoe, 1540 (s).
Thomas, in the entail of 15 16 {q),
Roger, in the entail of 15 16 {q).
Edmund, in the entail of 15 16 {q).
(1) dau.
of Edmund
Horsley of
Milbou me
(V).
I
William Stro- :
ther, settled
Kirkne wton,
1535 (O ; living
1540 (s).
(') Barbara, dau.
of Sir Richard
Grey of Horton
[bh), {bij.
Agnes, daughter = William Strother, son and heir in
of Thomas
Grey of Adder-
stone, betroth-
ed ISSSW-
1535 W ; living 1549 («)•
I
Clement Strother
(bi).
Isabel (61).
I
Roger Strother of Alnwick,
third in the entail of
1516 iq).
Henry Strother of Bothal,
fourth in the entail of
1516 (q).
Oswin Strother, fifth
in the entail of 15 16
(») Jane, dau- = William Strother (aa) = {') Elizabeth John Strother died= Clement Strother of Duddoe,
ghter of
John Selby
of Twisell
{w) ; living
1589 {x).
of Newton (r) ; living
1565 {w)\ settled
Kirknewton 1579 {z)\
had a mortgage on
Fowberry estate 159 1
(bk) ; will dated 8th
May, 1612 {y). J
(
iy)-
before 1579 (z).
Robert Strother, in the entail of
1579 (z) : described as of West
Newton, 1612 (y); living 1617
in the entail of 1579 (2) ;
died before 16 17 (a/").
Thomas Strother of Canno
Mill, in the entail of 1579
{:) ; buried 25th June, 1620,
St. Nicholas, Bath {be).
Thomas Strother of Chatton {z), will dated 3rd January, —
1603 ; proved 1603 {av).
Ralph Strother, minor in 1603 {av).
I
Eleanor {av).
Clement Strother (::).
Two daughters, mentioned in their
grandfather's will (y).
(«) Ephrahim Wid- ■■
drington, k t .
{ay), married at
Gateshead 7th
Aug., 1615-
Eleanor, daughter of John
Conyers of Sockburn ;
marriage settlement loth
November, 1589 {aw);
jointure 15th April, 1591
(a/)-
(') Launcelot Strother (aa),
heir apparent in 1589
(aw) ; purchased Fow-
berry tower 1589 (a/) ;
will dated 30th July,
161 1 (au) ; died gth
August, 161 1 (a/).
I I
William Strother, second
son in entail of 1579 {z) ;
not in father's will (y).
Thomas Strother, fourth
son in the entail of
1579 ( -')•
I
Clement Strother, "the younger, " =....
third son in the entail of 1579 (') ;
of Lanton in 1611 {an); living |
1613 {aa); died 1637 {an). William Strother of Durham {;')
Lionel Strother, fifth son in the entail of 1579
{z), of Berwick in 161 1 (aw); living in 163 1 (aa).
daughter =
Wilham
Hope
{av).
134
PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
(') G e o r g e = Elizabeth {ab), dau. •
Heron, of and heir of Roger
Berwick Selby of Grindon
{afj ; mar. (a/) ; mar. settle-
at Berwick, ment ist August,
19th. Jan., 1617 (ap); living
1636/7. 1653 (a?) ; and 2 1st
Mar., 1660/1 (a/).
(') John Strother (aa), eldest son
and heir, aged 16 jears and 6
months in 161 1 (a/), of Lanton
and Newton ; admitted to Gray's
Inn, 1614; Uvingi6i5 {v) ; livery
of father's estate loth February,
1620 {am, ax) ; died 2nd Feb-
ruary, 1631 (aa).
William Strother (f); living
1631 (aa) ; had /40 payable
out of tithes of Akeld for
Ufe in 1649 (W) ; of Canno
Mill in 1653 (al) ; will dated
1667 {ar).
Launcelot Strother, living
1631. (v).
Jane, daughter
of Mark Shaftoe
of Newcastle
{aq) ; marriage
settlement loth
Januarj-, 1652/3
(al) ; married at
St. John's, New-
castle, loth
Jan., 1652/3;
living 19th Nov.
1705 (a/).
William Strother,
aged 5 years 6
months Feb. 2nd,
1631 {aa) ' colonel
Wilham Strother
of Kirknewton,
1652 {ad) ; will
dated 8th October,
1697 ; proved 1701
{ah) ; buried 5th
July, 1699 («/)•
John Strother {ab),
given Fowberry for
life by his brother,
1654 {af); party to
a.deed of 21st March,
1660 {aj).
Anne {ab).
Margery {ab).
Mary (ad), wife of Ralph
Maers of London,
D.M.; living i66o(a/).
I I I
Anne {v), in father's
will "Agnes" (au) ;
hving 1625 (v).
EUzabeth {v), second
wife of WilUam
Orde of West New-
biggin ; married
at Berwick, 22nd
June, 1626.
Jane, living 1615 [v).
I I I
Eleanor {v), married to
James Burrell at Ber-
wick - upon - Tweed,
4th Feb., 1620/1.
Catherine, living 1615
('■)■
Mary (f), called Mary
Selby in will of Sir
Wm. Selby of the
Moat, county Kent,
14th April, 1637 (az).
I
Margaret, daughter = William Strother, of Grindon
of Sir Ralph
Delaval ; mar-
riage settlement
31st December,
1675 {ap) ; living
1 710 {aq).
Ridge, bapt. at St. John's,
Newcastle, ist November,
1653; admitted to St. John's
College, Cambridge, i8th
May, 1671, and to Gray's
Inn, 13th May, 1672; will
dated 2nd Februarj', 1708;
proved J 709 {ai).
{ak).
I
Mark Strother, baptised St. = Martha
John's, Newcastle, loth
August, 1660, second son
in entail of 1684 {af);
high sheriff of North-
umberland, 1714 ; will
dated 4th October, 1723 ;
proved 1 726 {ac); died s.p.
loth January 1726 {af).
William Strother,
baptised 25th
May, 1679 {bd).
Mary {ac), born at Seaton Delaval = Walter Ker
I I
Charles Strother,
third son in en-
tail of 1684 {afj:
died s.p. 1700
{af).
John Strother,
fourth son in
entail of 1684
{af); died s.p.
1701(0/).
2 1 St October, 1683 {ag) ; bond of
marriage, loth Oct., 1702 ; died
15th March, 1721/2 {af).
of Littleton
in Scotland
{aq).
John Strother Kerr, of Fowberry, baptised 28th =Rt. Hon. Lady
September, 1704 (bd) ; entered on estates Jean Ramsey
1726 {af); sold Kirknewton, 1762 {ap). {ap).
Anne, born 14th October ; bapt-
ised 15th October; buried i6th
October, 1676 {ag).
Margaret, born at Grindon Ridge ;
baptised i6th January, 1681/2
{bd).
Jane, born at Grindon Ridge;
baptised 25th June, 1690 {bd).
(») Jane Hutch-
inson, mar.
at St. Nich-
olas's, New-
castle, 23rd
April, 1705.
I
= Robert Strother = (') Mary
of Fowberry, (a/),
fifth son in en-
tail of 1684 {aj);
will dated 29th
May, 1723(0;);
proved 1723;
died s.p. {ap).
I III
Thomas Strother, Mary, wife of Thomas Orde of Felkmgton ; bap.
sixth son in 25th September, 1656, at St. John's, New-
entail of 1684 castle; buried 4th January, 1737 (bd).
{af); died s.p. Elizabeth, wife of William Ogle of Causey Park
1703(0/). (6/); baptised loth May, 1658, at St.
John's, Newcastle.
Jane, wife of WiUiara Carr of Eshot {be) ; bom
at Grindon Ridge; baptised 25th June,
1664 {bd) ; bond of marriage, 6th May, 1682.
(a) Laing, Charters, p. 7.
(6) Ibid. p. 10.
(c) Cal. Close Rolls, 1360-1364, p. 332.
{d) Dodsworth MS. 45, ff. 53, 54 do.
(e) Laing, Charters, p. 21.
(/) Ibid. p. 17.
{g) York Memoranda Book, vol. ii. pp. 113-114.
(A) Laing, Charters, pp. 21-22.
(i) Ibid. p. 18.
{k) Pedes Finium, 3 Edw. III. No. 7 — Duke's Tran-
scripts, vol. xxxix. pp. 11-13.
(/) Document in Foster, Visitations, p. 64.
(m) Laing, Charters, pp. 17-18.
(«) Cal. Patent Rolls, 1367-1370, p. 292.
(0) Laing, Charters, p. 24.
LANTON TOWNSHIP.
135
(p) ' Pedigree belonging ye Strothers.' A very muti-
lated document dating from late xvi. century,
transcribed in Lambert MS. It cannot be
relied on and is manifestly totally incorrect
for the earlier generations, though it helps to
connect, very probably incorrectly, the
Strothers of the early fifteenth with those of
the early sixteenth century.
Laing, Charters, p. 79.
Ibid. pp. 104-105.
(?)
(r)
(s)
(1)
Ibid. p. 119.
Ibid. p. 82.
P- 39-
115-
(m) Belvoir Papers, vol. i.
(t)) Foster, Visitations, p.
[w] Wills and Inventories, vol. i. p. 235.
{x) Laing, Charters, p. 295.
iy) Raine, Tesiamenta, vol. i. p. 27.
(z) Laing, Charters, pp. 244, 300.
(aa) Ibid. pp. 499-500.
(ab) Ibid. p. 519.
(ac) Waterford Documents, vol. ii. p. 79.
(ad) Laing, Charters, pp. 570-571.
iae) Ibid. p. 676.
Fowberry Deeds — Proceedings of Newcastle
{"S)
[ah]
[ai]
Antiquaries, 3rd series, vol. x. pp.
Earsdon Register. Cf. N.C.H. vol. ix.
Raine, Testamenta, vol. iv. p. 199.
Ibid. vol. iv. p. 231.
Ibid. vol. v. p. 15.
-25-
171.
(ak) Ibid. vol. v. p. 29.
(at) Laing, Charters, p. 571.
(am) Ibid. p. 440.
(an) Ibid. p. 525.
(ao) Ibid. p. 647.
(ap) Kirknewton Deeds.
(aq) Chancery Proceedings, Bridges, Bundle 292, No.
49 ; Bundle 372, No. 55.
(ar) Raine, Testamenta, vol. vii. p. 71.
(as) Laing, Charters, p. 16.
(at) Inq. p.m. 11 Ric. IL No. 31 — Duke's Trans-
cripts, vol. xxxviii., p. 165.
(a«) Raine, Testamenta, vol. i. p. 45.
(av) Ibid. vol. ii. p. 165.
(aw) Laing, Charters, p. 295.
(ax) Ibid. p. 440.
(ay) Ibid. p. 300.
(az) Raine, Testamenta, vol. vi. p. 33.
(ba) Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. ix. p. 87.
(bb) Brand's Newcastle, vol. ii. pp. 414-415 ; Laing,
Charters, p. 14.
(be) Genealogist, N.S. vol. x. p. 105.
(bd) Norham Register.
(be) N.C.H. vol. vii. p. 347.
(bf) Ogle and Bothal, p. 96.
(bg) Dodsworth MS. 32, fol. 106.
(bh) Dalton's Fjsiia/j'oK (Surtees' Soc. No. 121) p. 134.
(bi) Hegge MSS. Brit. Museum Add. MSB."
27, 423, £f. 159 do. -160 do.
(bk) P.R.O. Court of Requests, Elizabeth, 159 1,
No. 620.
(bl) Royalist Compositions, p. 347.
The Strothers had no sooner managed to secure the whole of the Corbet
property in the township, than it was reft from them by the king's escheator
on the ground that Walter Corbet had been implicated in the rebellion of
Gilbert Middleton in 1317, and that his property was therefore forfeit to the
crown/ the manor being valued at £() iis. 4d.2 The exact date of the seizure
is not certain, but it was returned to Henry in February, 1360, in con-
sideration of many losses sustained by his father and himself by the wars
of Scotland and of £20 paid into the exchequer.^ Still all troubles on
account of this somewhat belated seizure were not over, for the tenants
of the manor tried to escape their obligations, and in 1362 an order
explaining the situation had to be secured from the king.'* The
chief recalcitrant was David Baxter, grandson of the David Baxter of 1323,
who held lands and tenements in Lanton, Howtel, Newton, Shotton and Crook-
house of the manor, his holding in Lanton itself being one messuage and
24 acres of land held by knight's service and suit at the court of Lanton
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1358-1361, p. 340.
' Chancery Files, Bundle No. 265 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. iv. p. 11.
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1358-1361, p. 340; Originalia, 34 Edw, III. — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 327.
* Cal. of Close Rolls, 1360-1364, p. 332.
136 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
every three weeks, and being bound by the terms of his tenure to grind
his corn at Lanton mill ' and to take his share in the work of repairing the
mill and carting mill stones to it. Besides this he owed an annual rent of
6s. 8d., together with 4|-d. for castle ward and 2d. for cornage. He also
held another messuage and 24 acres by knight's service and suit at the
court and mill of Lanton and one messuage and eight acres of land by fealty,
suit of court every three weeks and service of carrying his lord's letters
between Tyne and Tweed at his own expense whenever called upon. For
this holding he also owed suit to Lanton mill, including the duty of helping
to repair it, 2d. for castle ward and id. for cornage. Twice was David
served with writs ordering him to show cause why he should not attend,
on one occasion at Lanton itself, but for long he refused to appear, and when
he did put in a defence to the effect that he held no lands of the manor, he
used all the technicalities of the law to postpone trial. At length judgment
was given against him.^ Even then the last had not been heard of the trouble,
as in November, 1364, orders had to be issued to the Strother tenants to
answer to Henry Strother in respect of the rents and services pertaining to
the manor. Among these were the prior of Kirkham, Adam Brome of
Howtel, Walter son of Adam of Howtel, Alan son of John of Howtel, Adam
son of Constance of Howtel, and Hugh Sampson.^ Other tenants under
the Strothers at this time were Joan Coupland, who held lands in Lanton
in 1365,* and Robert Lisle of Woodburn, who in 1365 settled many scattered
possessions in Northumberland, including lands in Lanton in Glendale, on
his grandson and heir at the latter 's marriage.^
Henry Strother is described as lord of Lanton in Glendale in 1370,^
and in 1372 his daughter Eleanor, widow of John Corbet of Learchild,
quitclaimed to him all right which she had in the manor, '^ but though still
alive in 1376, he had by then given his Lanton property to his eldest son
John,^ who in that year charged his property there and elsewhere with an
• Ad tercium decimum vas.
' Coram Jiege Roll, No. 407, m. 52 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. x-xxv. pp. 95-97. 135-1-12.
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1364-1367, p. 39.
' Pedes Finium, 39 Edw. III. No. 137 — Duke's Transcripts vol. xxxix. pp. 274-276.
' Laing Charters, pp. 15-16. ^ Document printed in Foster, Visitations, p. 115.
' Laing Charters, p. 17.
' ist February, 1372, 'the whole manor of Langtoun in Glendale' was settled on John Strother, knight,
son of Henry Strother, and the heirs of his body by his wife Mary, daughter of Sir Alan Heton — Laing
Charters, p. 17.
LANTON TOWNSHIP. I37
annual rent of £10 in favour of John Grey of Lowlyn.^ In 1415 the tower
of Lanton was held by one Henry Strother,- who was doubtless the Henry
Strother mentioned as brother and heir of Thomas Strother in 1420,^ and son
of John Strother. This Henry Strother in 1427 prosecuted Thomas Burrell,
Robert Fysshewyk and Robert Keth, all of Lanton, for trespass,* but in the
accounts of the Feudal Aid of 1428 it is one Thomas Strother who is recorded
as holding what is for the first time called a moiety of the vill of Lanton.^
From this time forward the family is lost sight of both in Lanton and else-
where for nearly a hundred years and reappears in the person of John Strother
of Lanton in Glendale, who in 1507 was pardoned his outlawry for not having
appeared in court to defend a suit brought against him by Thomas Lovell,
knight, touching a debt of 100 marks. ^ By this time the Strothers of Lanton
had definitely become the Strothers of Kirknewton, to which place they
had moved their residence,^ and their later fortunes are to be found
described under that township.^
In 1541 Lanton contained '12 husbandlands plenyshed,'^ and towards
the close of the sixteenth century it seems to have been used for providing
for the younger sons of the family. In 1592 John Strother of Lanton made
his will, which reveals that he was a near relative of the owner of Kirk-
newton, though his exact connection doesnot transpire,^" and Clement Strother,
the legitimate and younger of the two sons of William Strother of Newton,
who bore that name, obtained a life interest in a portion of this property."
He appears as Clement of Lanton in 1593,-^^ and was identical with the man
of the same name who in 1586 was involved in a fray between the Selbys
and the CoUingwoods, when Sir Cuthbert Collingvvood 'caused Clement
Strother to be assailed by eight of his servants and friends, who shot at and
' Document in Foster, Visitations, p. 64. - List of Castles, 1415 — Border Holds, p. 17.
' York Memorandum Book, vol. ii. pp. 113-114. * Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1422-1429, p. 374.
' Feudal Aids, vol. iv. p. 86. » Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1494-1509, p. 548.
' The only mention of Lanton as a residence of the Strothers from this time onwards is to be found
in the Visitation of 1615 (Foster's Visitation, p. 115), save in one case when a younger son. who did not hold
Kirknewton, held it for a time. It is probable that their transference of residence from Lanton to Kirk-
newton is marked by their lease of Lanton tower and certain lands pertaining thereto to John Hall of Otter-
burn in the reign of Henry VIII. See page 142.
' See pages 145-148. ^ Survey of the Border, 1541 — Border Holds, p. 34.
•» He alludes to his wite .^gnes, Lancelot Strother of Kirknewton, his brothers Thomas. Ralph and
Matthew, and his nephew James. Raine, Testamenta, vol. i. p. 125.
" Laing Charters, pp. 499-500. '- Wills and Inventories, vol. ii. p. 225.
Vol. XI. iS
138 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
struck him and left him for dead, and he will now be lame as long as he
lives. '^ Under the title 'Clement Strother of Langton, yeoman,' he is
described in 1628 as a freeholder in Northumberland,^ and he was still alive
in 1631, when his nephew John Strother died seised of the bastlehouse in the
manor, the grain water mill, and three husbandlands, the last being Clement
Strother's life holding. The whole was held of Lord Grey of Wark for an eighth
of a knight's fee and was valued at twenty shillings yearly.^ In addition to
this John Strother held a mortgage on a piece of ground called ' The Walker's
Close,' which was bounded by 'the commons of Langton' on the east, the
river Glen on the south and Crookhouse on the west and north, the property
of Emmanuel Trotter of Newton, clerk.'* The description of this plot
corresponds so exactly to the site of Lanton mill as to make its identification
somewhat puzzling. The Strother property in Lanton was used to provide
portions for John Strother's younger children,^ and when in 1649 William
Strother, John's son, having been involved in the troubles of the Civil War,
had to redeem his property after confiscation, his land and tithe in Lanton
were valued at £85 i6s. 8d.^ In 1663 he was rated in Lanton on a rent roll
of £55, with an additional £40 for tithe and the mill.' The property passed
with Kirknewton ultimately to John Strother Kerr, who in 1762 sold to
Alexander Davison, whose grandfather had farmed it and whose father had
in 1748 voted for lands there. ^ He was succeeded by his son John, to whose
memory his brother Alexander erected a column on the summit of Lanton
hill, and at whose death in 1827 the property went to Sir William Davison
of Swarland. On the latter's death in 1873 it passed under his will to his
daughter, the Baroness von Riederer, who immediately sold it together
with Sandy House to George Frederick D'Arcy, second earl of Durham.
On the death of Lord Durham in 1879 it passed to the present owner, the Hon.
F. W. Lambton.^
' Cal. of State Papers, 1580-1625, p. 195.
- Freeholders of Northumberland, i6j8 — Arch. Aeliana, O.S. vol. ii. p. 321.
' Inq. p.m. — Laing Charters, pp. 499-500.
' 31st October, 1626. Laing Charters, p. 474.
' Ibid. p. 519.
° Royalist Compositions, p. 347.
' Kate Book, 1663 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 278.
' N.C.H. vol. vii. pp. 401-402, where a pedigree of the Davison family will be found.
' Lanton Deeds.
LANTON TOWNSHIP. 139
BAXTER OF LANTON.
Thomas Baxter, of Lanton, acquired lands in Coupland 1285 (a) ; = Agnes, living
kinsman of David Coupland (b) ; living 1301 (c). 1290 (k).
David Baxter = Margaret. David Baxter, had succeeded his father by 1312 (d) ; = Elizabeth (e) ;
known as David of Lanton (d) ; died 1323 (e). living 1334 (A).
I
Thomas Baxter ^ Isabel, daughter of Sir Thomas Thomas Baxter {'), = Joan, Uving ^ (') Robert Claver-
Heton, widow of Thomas aged 14 in 1323 (e).
Baxter in 1388 (i).
1371 (g). ing, knight,
te)-
(') David Baxter, died before 1369 (/). = Margaret, living 1371 {g). = (*) Thomas Blenkinsop, married by 1369(7).
(a) De Banco Roll, Xo. 59, m. 84 — Duke's (A) Assize Roll, Cumberland, 8 Edw. III. — Duke's
Transcripts, vol. xxvii. p. 68. Transcripts, vol. xxiv. pp. 1229-1230.
(6) Belvoir Deeds, Drawer 14. (i) Inq. p.m. 11 Ric. II., No. 31 — Duke's Tran-
(c) Assise Roll, 28-31 Edw. I. Duke's Transcripts, scripts, vol. xxxviii. pp. 161-162. Isobel is
vol. xix. p. 126. in the entail of Lowick and other lands on
(d) Belvoir Deeds, Drawer 14. Sir Alan Heton and her relationship to
(e) Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. vi. p. 289. him is obvious though not stated.
(/) Belvoir Deeds, Drawer 21. (A) De Banco Roll, No. 84, m. 68 — Duke's Tran-
Q) De Banco Roll, No. 441, m. i23do. scripts, vol. xxviii. p. 457.
Descent of the Baxter portion of Lanton. Sandyhouse. — As
early as 1225 there is found an allusion to the moiety of Lanton held by
Thomas Baskervill, though the county in which this place was situated is
not given. 1 It may be that this refers to that portion of Lanton which by
the close of the century was held by Thomas Baxter, who owned stock there
in 1295,^ and was given licence by the prior of Kirkham to build and maintain
for his life an oratory in 'his manor of Lanton.'^ There are numerous
references to the Baxter family as 'of Lanton' during the later thirteenth
and early fourteenth centuries,* though the inquisition taken after the
death of David Baxter, son of Thomas, in 1323, ignores the fact that he held
any lands there other than of the Strothers.^ It is probable that the trouble
which arose in 1362 when David Baxter, grandson of the last named David,
refused to attorn to Henry Strother for the lands he held of him in Lanton,®
was due to the confusion arising from the two-fold nature of the Baxter's
tenure in the township. Still David ma}' have been trying to annex to his
portion of the township those lands which he held of the lord, and that he
* Rot. Lit. Clans, vol. ii. p. 154. - Belvoir Deeds, drawer 14. Cf. Belvoir Papers, vol. iv. p. 73.
' Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 84.
* The usual form of the name is 'le pesteur de Langeton' or 'pistor de Langeton.'
' Cai. of Inq. p.m. vol. vi. p. 289. Called David of Lanton. For identification with David Baxter, see
page 226.
* See pages 135-13O.
140 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
was not above taking the law into his own hands, is evidenced by the accusa-
tion brought against him in 1364 of breaking the close and house of John Day
of Lanton, assaulting and maiming him and carrying off his goods. ^ His
ownership of a definite portion of the vill with its own demesne and manor
house is finally established by the deed whereby in 1369 his widow Margaret,
then wife of Thomas Blenkinsop, was assigned dower by Henry Lilburn,
who with David of Lucker, seems to have been heir to the Baxter property.
This included in Lanton the site of the manor within which stood a tower
which remained in Lilburn's hands, together with a right of approach to its
northern entrance. To Margaret fell the bakehouse, another building in
which the grange and the brewhouse were situated, and the eastern part of
the garden running up to the eastern mud-wall which bounded the lord's
grounds, together with an enclosed orchard lying opposite to the tower.
As a set off against this a house with 23 acres of land called Dynchonsland,
three waste cottages at the western end of the village and a toft and croft
to the north of the vill fell by lot to Henry Lilburn and David of Lucker.
Included in the property there were also two tofts and 100 acres of arable
and pasture land, though dower was assigned only in eight acres of this,^
a plot known as 'Lilesland,' which may have got its name from having once
formed part of the Lisle holding in the township. Lastly a plot of four acres
of arable land completed the tale of the estate.^
Ultimately this property probably passed, like other Baxter holdings
in Glendale, to the Manners of Etal, for in 1402 Robert Manners gave his
' fortellet ' of Lanton with all his demesne lands, tenantry and franchises
there to his son John on the latter's marriage.* Matters are complicated
however by the reappearance of the Lilburns in the person of Thomas Lil-
burn as holding the vill, of which the Strothers were said to hold a moiety,
in the records of the feudal aid of 1428,^ but in 1522 Thomas Manners, Lord
Roos held Lanton Tower,^ and under his new title of earl of Rutland, was
returned in 1541 as joint owner thereof with William Strother.'^ This
implies the ownership of the whole Baxter inheritance in the township, which
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1364-1307, p. 71 ; Rot. Fin., 38 Edw. III. Grossi Fines, m. 1. — Duke's Transcripts,
vol. xxxii. p. 52.
^ The document is obscure and it may imply that only eight acres belonged to David Baxter.
' Belvoir Deeds, drawer 21. * Belvoir Deeds, drawer 21. '■ Feudal Aids, vol. iv. p. 86.
« Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII, vol. iii. pt. ii. p. 852.
' Survey of the Border, 1541 — Border Holds, p. 34.
LANTON TOWNSHIP.
141
probably passed from the Manners to the Collingwoods. John Co^ing^vood
was part owner of the vill in 1580,1 and in 1584 he held the tower.^ In 1630
the estate called Sandyhouse in the north east comer of the township
belonged to Henry Collingwood of Etal. In that year the latter conveyed
two farmholds of the yearly rent of £3 iis. and other lands of the yearly
value of gs., all in Lanton, to Luke Colling^vood of Lanton,^ who appears
among Northumberland freeholders in 1638/ and in 1663 was returned as
part owner of the township with a rent roll of ;f40, which was not very
much smaller than that of the Strothers.^ He died in 1708 and his grand-
son and heir, also named Luke,^ conveyed the property to William Moore
of Berwick, who in turn conveyed it three years later to William Forster,
whose grand-daughter married Fenwick Stow, when the estate was settled
and afterwards vested in their son, William Stow. The latter's heirs sold it
in 1787 for £2,600 to George Grey of West Ord, who in 1791 was allotted
84 acres in respect of Sandyhouse, when Lanton common was enclosed, and
further acquired from Alexander Davison 57 acres of his Lanton estate
and the tithes of com, wool and lamb of Sandyhouse, in exchange for part
of his property.' He died that same year leaving his 'capital messuage in
Langton' and his 'lands in Sandyhouse' to his second son George,^ who
died intestate in 1824, when his property passed to his elder brother John,
from whom in 1825 Sir William Davison bought Sandyhouse, containing
285 acres, for £13,500.'' Henceforth Sandy house was an integral part of
the estate of Lanton and passed with it to the Lambtons.
The Towers. — There seems to be little doubt that there were two towers
in Lanton, one held by the lord of the manor, the other, and probably the
earlier one, belonging to the Baxter portion of the township. The first we
hear of any fortified place is in 1369, when Henry Lilburn assigned dower to
the widow of David Baxter. The deceased had held the ' site of the manor'
in which a 'fortellet' was built, ^ and this reappears in 1402 when Robert
Manners settled it in 1402, on his son John.^*^ In 1415 Henry Strother held 'the
' Cal. oj Border Papers, vol. ii. p. 15. * Report of Commissioners, 1584 — Border Holds, p. 73.
^ Lambert MS. ♦ Freeholders in Northumberland, 1638-9 — Arch. Aeliana, O.S. vol. ii. p. 325.
* Rate Book, 1663— Hodgson, pt iii. vol. i. p. 278. In 1674 and again in 1677 Margaret Collingwood of
Lanton was registered as a recusant. Depositions from York Castle, pp. 207, 277.
' Raine, Testamenta, vol. iv. p. 227. ' Lambert MS ; Lanton Deeds. « Raine, Testamenta, vol. v. p. 207.
•'In Langton est quidam scitus manerii quod fuit cjusdem David, in quo constructum est fortellettum '
— Belvoir Deeds, drawer 21.
'" Belvoir Deeds, drawer 21.
142 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
tower of Lanton,'^ and about 100 years later Richard Strother by indenture
dated '20th June in the reign of Henry VIII.', leased to John Hall of Otter-
burn, the 'Castel of Langton with two nobles ther, Ewoolandis, now in the
tenure of the said John, and Ivescrake, Milawnaye, withe waye to the mille
and watter gaytte as it now rownith in the olde course,' for 190 years at a
yearly rent of 4d.- By his will dated July 31st, 1595, John Hall left his
' title in Langton bastle ' to his son Thomas for life for a yearly payment of
1 2d., with remainder to his son William,^ and in 1631 among the late John
Strother's property in Lanton there is enumerated ' a carucate of land called
Bastile in holding of John Hall, gentleman.'* The lease was surrendered
by William Hall of Otterburn in 1656.^ The other tower is mentioned
in a letter of 1522 from Lord Dacre to Wolsey, in which the intention
is expressed of placing ten men in wages under Ralph Reveley in Lanton
tower which belonged to Thomas Manners, Lord Roos.^ The two towers
seem to be merged into one in 1541, when the earl of Rutland appears
as joint owner with William Strother.'' It had been among those
defences cast down by James IV. before the battle of Flodden,^
and had been described by Leland as 'a mine of a towre,'^ but the
greater part of the walls was still standing and the commissioners of 1541
estimated that it could be restored for 100 marks. i" In 1584, however, it
was still ' decaied partly by warres and by want of reparacion of a long con-
tynuance,' and its repair would now cost £100. As to ownership it had passed
into the hands of John Collingwood,^^ probably the owner of the Manners
portion of the township. i-
The Chapel. — Though so near to Kirknewton, the inhabitants of Lanton
had a separate place of worship in the middle ages, as we gather from allusion
to a suit brought by them in the courts christian against the prior and
convent of Kirkham with regard to the rebuilding of the chapel there. ^^
This seems to have been a properly constituted chapel of ease, and the
dispute had reference doubtless to the obligation as to repairs, or possibly
as to its complete rebuilding. It may have taken the place of the oratory
' 'Turris de Tuns de Langton in Glendall.' List of Castles, 1415 — Border Holds, p. 17.
' Laing Charters, p. 82. ^ Wills and Inventories, vol. ii. p. 254. ' Laing Charters, pp. 499-500.
» Ibid. p. 583. « Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII. vol. iii. pt. ii. p. 852.
' Survey of the Border, 1541 — Border Holds, p. 34. » Ibid.
» Leland's Itinerary, vol. v. p. 66. " Survey of the Border, 154 1 — Border Holds, p. 34.
" Report of Commissioners, 1584 — Border Holds, p. 73. '- See page 141. i^ Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 84.
KIRKNEWTON TOWNSHIP. I43
which Thomas Baxter of Lanton got hcence to build and maintain for his
Ufe on 'his manor of Lanton, '^ and this may explain the dispute as to
maintenance.
KIRKNEWTON TOWNSHIP.
Kirknewton is a little village of some 76 inhabitants.^ clustered round
the church of a very extensive parish.
Descent of the Manor.— It was a member of the barony of Roos,
held in chief by the successive owners of Wark, and as in Lanton, the first
owners of the vill of whom we hear belonged to the Corbet family. In
1235 the prior of Kirkham, when called upon to justify his right to certain
lands there, called to warrant William, son of the earl of Dunbar, and
Christine his wife, daughter and heiress of Walter Corbet,^ who himself had
given a rent of I2d. a year from his mill in Newton in Glendale to the monks
of Fame.* A certain Thomas Corbet sued the prior of Kirkham in 1286
with regard to rights of common pasture in Newton in Glendale, ^ but his
exact place in the family cannot be ascertained, since the propert}'
descended in the way described under Lanton, and in 1290 Walter, son and
heir of William Corbet, held the manor of Newton in Glendale of Robert Roos
by homage and service of one knight, and was a minor whose custody was
in dispute between the overlord and his mother Lorette.^ Thus the manor
was held by the Corbets, and a considerable holding by Kirkham priory,'
and under them in 1296 there were eleven tenants of more or less substance,
the value of their goods in that year ranging from the £5 2s. 46.. of Gilbert
Little, the wealthiest, to 19s. 4d. of Adam, son of Hugh, the poorest of them.^
Walter Corbet in 13 15 or 1317 included in his lease of Lanton to William
Strother and Joan his wife all his demesne lands in Newton in Glendale
together with herbage rights,^ and in 1315 released all his rights therein to
' 'Licencia aedificandi oratorium in Langton, in qua continetur quod prior et conventus de K. con-
cesserunt Thomae pistori de Langton, quod ipse possit unum oratorium infra manerium suum in Langton
crigere pro tota vita ipsius Thomae.' Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 84.
^ The Census returns are : 1801, 55 ; 181 1, 74 ; 1821, 83 ; 1831, 76 ; 1841, 83 ; 1851, 88 ; 1861, 79 ;
1871,67; 1881,82; i8yi,68; 1901,67; 1911,76. The township contains 2028-359 acres.
' Pedes Finium, 19 Hen. IH. No. 65 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. i. p. 157.
* Raine, North Durham, App. No. Dccxiv. p. 125.
' Assize Roll, Divers Counties, 14 Edw. L — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xx. pp. 215, 236.
" De Banco Rolls, No. 81, m. 3. No. 86. m. 171, No. 92, m. 209 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxvii. pp.
395. 485-486, 650.
' See page 144. ' Lay Subsidy Roll, 1296, fol. 99. ' Laing Charters, p. 7.
144 • PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
them.i Next year he followed this up by conveying to them the whole
lordship and service of Sampson of Newton and of all other free tenants
holding of him in Newton in Glendale, saving the service due to Lanton mill
and 40s. rent owed by Sampson from his holding in Newton.^ These grants
were registered in 1320 by fine, wherein the property conveyed was described
as 200 acres of wood and ij carucates of land.^ Other lands were leased
by Roger Corbet, son of Walter Corbet, to the same parties in 1329 and 1330,
and it is noticeable that it is here for the first time that we find the name
Kirknewton used instead of Newton. Later, in 1330, the lease was
renewed to Joan Strother after her husband's death.'*
From this time forward the name of Corbet disappears from Kirknewton,
save that in 1372 Eleanor, widow of John Corbet, quitclaimed all her right
in the holdings and rents which she claimed in Kirknewton,^ but though
the Strothers were the chief landowners, they do not seem to have held the
manor, which in the late thirteenth century was described as belonging
to the canons of Kirkham,^ and in 1353 the prior of Kirkham leased the site
of the manor of Kirknewton to Henry Strother for ten years.'' Further, when
the king laid claim to the Corbet-Strother property in 1360,^ the portion
in Kirknewton was described as 'a messuage and 24 acres of land as well
as other tenements,' the messuage and land having been acquired from one
Alan Bourne and being valued at 3s. 4d. yearly, while the other tenements
had formerly belonged to the Corbets and were valued at 33s. 4d. yearly.^
It is probable that these Corbet tenements were held of the manor of Lanton:
at least this is true of the croft and two acres of land held by David Baxter
of the Strothers by homage, fealty and scutage and suit at the court of
Lanton every three weeks, and by service of 2od. annually and i|d. for
castle ward, with the added obligations of grinding all his demesne corn at
Lanton mill and of taking his share in carrying mill stones to the said
' Laing Charters, p. 8 ; Document in Foster, Visitations, p. 115.
^ Laing Charters, pp. 8-9. The reserved rent of 40s. probably refers to West Newton. See page 153.
' Pedes Finium, 13 Edw. II. No. 41 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xii. p. 65. An enquiry as to the services
due from the tenants of the manor was ordered in 1328. De Banco Roll, No. 275, m. i93do.
* Laing Charters, p. 10. * Ibid. p. 17.
" Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 84. The document is printed on page 157 n. 4.
' Dodsworth MS. 45, fol. 57. ' See page 135.
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1358-1361, p. 340 ; 1364-1367, p. 39 ; Chancery Files, bundle No. 265 — Bain,
Cal. of Documents, vo\.iv. -p. 11; Rot. Fin. 34 Edw. III. Grossi Fines, m 19 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxi.
pp. 460-461.
KIRKNEWTON TOWNSHIP. 14=
mill.i The extent of this holding was probably larger than these proceedings
suggest, for when in 1369 Henry Lilburn, who succeeded to it, allotted dower
therein to Baxter's widow, it is described as one waste toft called 'le spitell,'
twenty acres of arable land, four acres of meadow in two places called ' le
spittelland,' which in size corresponds exactly with the property acquired by
the Strothers from Alan Bourne. ^
Some time during the latter half of the fourteenth century, the Strothers
seem to have taken up their abode at Kirknewton, for in 1365 letters of
attorney, relating to lands in another part of the county, are dated by Henry
Strother there,^ and the same is true of a charter of 1388, whereby Robert
Manners granted to Thomas Strother and Matilda his wife 'his carucate of
land in Kirknewtoun meadows, arable land, pasture and woods, except the
wood of Ruttok.4 Further, in 1420, Henry Strother, brother of the last
named Thomas, gave evidence that his father had begotten an illegitimate
son in Newton, ^ which presupposes residence there. In 1428 another Thomas
Strother held ' the vill of Newton ' of the barony of Wark,« and he appears
again as lord of Newton in 1448,' but from that time till 1516 no record of
the family survives. In that latter year one Thomas Strother settled the
manors of Kirknewton, West Newton and Lanton on himself and his heirs
male, and in default successively on William Strother, 'abiding at St. Albans,'
Richard Strother of Duddoe in Northumberland, Roger Strother of Alnwick,
Henry Strother of Bothal, county Northumberland, Oswin Strother, Thomas,'
Roger, and Edmund Strother his illegitimate sons, John Strother one of the
sons of John Strother, late of Milfield, and then successively on Cuthbert,
Edward and Christopher, the other sons of John Strother of Milfield, with
' Coram Rege Roll, 413, m. 73 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. x.xxv. pp. 135-142.
» Belvoir Deeds, drawer 21. Since in Lanton Baxter held land which had formerly been in the tenure
of the Lis e family, it may be that this Kirknewton holding was that held in 1358 by Robert Lisle son and
heir of John Lisle of Woodburn, Cal. of Palertf Rolls, 1358-1361. PP. 135-136. Or,^,«a/,a-Hodgson, pt. iii.
vol 11. p 324 ; liot Fm^ 32 Edw. III. m. 8— Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxi. p. 437. The Lisles held Newton
Hall and this was often described as East Newton {N.C.H. vol. vi. p. 122), a title here ascribed to the propertv
but there can be no doubt that the Lisles held land in Lanton so that it is quite possible that Kirknewtcin
IS here indicated.
' Laing Charters, p. 16.
,Tu-j* ^^''^' Pp- ^';-^- ^^^ '^'°°'^ °^ Ruttok at the end of the thirteenth centurj- belonged to the Corbets
(Ibid. pp. 3-4); and was granted in 1348 by Wilham, son of Sampson of West Newton, to John Coupland and
Joan his wife {Ibid. p. 1 2), who must have aUenated it to the Manners. It was probably still in the possession
of the Manners family in 1542, when the first earl of Rutland mentioned the possession of lands in East
Newton. Northumberland, in his will. North Country IfiHs, vol. i. p. 187. This does not seem to have been
surrendered to the crown with the rest of the Northumberland property of the Manners.
' York Memorandum Book, vol. ii. pp. 1 13-1 14. « Feudal Aids, vol. iv. p. 86. ' Laing Charters p 33
Vol. XI. ,^
146 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
remainder over to Thomas Strother's direct heirs. ^ The estate passed to
Richard Strother of Duddoe,^ and the latter's son, Wilham Strother, in 1535,
having provided for his own hfe interest, settled his manor of East Newton
and all other lands, tenements, &c., which he had in the towns, territories
and fields of East Newton, West Newton, Lanton, and Moneylaws on his son
William in view of his forthcoming marriage to Agnes, daughter of Thomas
Grey of Adderstone.^ Thus in 1535 the manor of Kirknewton belonged to
the Strothers, and so, if it ever belonged to Kirkham priory, it had become
Strother property before the dissolution of the house. William Strother, the
elder, probably lived for some years after this, and was the William Strother
of Newton who was summoned with five men for a raid in Tyndale in 1538,^
and the man similarly described who benefitted under the will of Sir Roger
Grey of Horton in 1540.^ In 1541 the town of East Newton was 'of the
inheritance of William Strouther, and he hath there two husband lands which
he occupyeth as his demayne with his owne plowes,'^ and this man appears
as 'William Strother the elder of Newton' in 1549.' O^ ^^e other hand it
was doubtless his son, William Strother of Newton, who is mentioned as
son-in-law of John Selby, gentleman porter of Berwick, in the latter's will
dated February 27th, 1565,^ and the man of the same name whose cattle
were stolen in 1567.^ The very next year Roger Strother was recorded as
holding lands in Lanton, Howtel, East and West Newton and Moneylaws,^"
but this must be a mistake, as in 1570 there is reference to ' William Strother,
the lord of Newton in Glendale,'^^ and in 1579 this William settled all his
properties of Kirknewton, West Newton, Lanton, Kilham, Howtel, Paston,
Shotton and other places in tail male successively on his sons, Lancelot,
William, Thomas, Clement and Lionel, on Robert, son of the late John
Strother, and finally on the elder William's brothers, Clement Strother of
' Laing Charleys, p. 79. Richard Strother is described as of Dudden in Northumberland. T)iis must
be Duddoe in Stannington, as Duddo is in North Durham.
* See undated lease of Lanton Tower, page 142. ' Laing Charters, pp. 104-105.
■' Letters and Papers 0/ Hen. VIII., vol. xiii. pt. ii. p. 140. ' Wills and Inventories, vol. i. p. 115.
" Survey of the Border, 1541 — Border Holds, p. 33. ' Belvoir Papers, vol. i. p. 39.
' Wills and Inventories, vol. i. p. 235. The visitation of 1615 gives his wife as Jane, daughter of John
Selby of Twisell (Foster, Visitations, p. 115), and this John was porter of Berwick (Raine, North Durham,
P- 315).
" Cat. of State Papers, Foreign, 1566-1568, p. 279.
" Liber Feodarii, 1568 — Hodgson, pt. ill. vol. iii. p. Ixix. He is said to hold in capile which is certainly
a mistake.
" Wills and Inventories, vol. i. p. 334.
KIRKNEWTON TOWNSHIP. I47
Duddoe and Thomas Strother of Canno Mill.^ In view of this entail it is the
more surprising to find one Harry Strother in his will, dated 1582, releasing
a debt owed to him by ' the yonge lord of Newton, Mr. John Strowther/^ and
a 'John Strowther of Newton' indicted in 1586 for the murder of William
Clavering. The last named had been slain in an affray between William
Selby and Sir Cuthbert Collingwood, the former's company having included
among others, 'one Strowther and his son,' one of whom according to another
account of the incident was Clement Strother, probably the man of that
name who appears in the entail of 1579.^ At any rate John Strother, whether
father or son as mentioned above, was acquitted, though his enemies said
that this was due to the partiality of the jury.* Possibly the father
'Strowther' was Lancelot Strother of the entail of 1579, since a Lancelot
Strother of Kirknewton is mentioned in 1589 as holding a mortgage on the
town, tower and demesne of Fowbery, then the property of Roger Fowbery,^
and it was this same Lancelot who in 1591 is described as son and heir of
William Strother in a case brought against him by Clement and Henry
Strother with regard to the rents of the manor of Fowbery.^ The matter
is made more definite by an inquisition taken on the death of John Strother
in 1631. He was the son of Lancelot Strother and the grandson of William
Strother, and held, among other things, the rectory of Kirknewton and a capital
messuage and two carucates of land there, to which his son William, aged 5,
was heir.'^ As the deceased had held certain lands in chief, the wardship
of the heir fell to the king, who gave the custody of all the lands to the
widow, Elizabeth, during her son's minority.^ An allusion to \\'illiam
' Laing Charters, pp. 244, 245, 246. Cf. Feet of Fines, sixteenth century, p. 41.
- Wills and Inventories, vol. ii. p. 73. ^ gee also page 137.
•• Cal. of State Papers, Domestic, 1580-1625, pp. 193, 195, 196.
' Laing Charters, p. 292. He appears again in 1592. (Raine, Testamenta, vol. i. p. 723.)
* Laing Charters, p. 300.
' Inq. p.m. — Laing Charters, pp. 499-500. .A, William Strother of Xewton in Glendale is mentioned in
1608 {Laing Charters, p, 371), and William Strother of Kirknewton had a grey horse and a mare stolen from him
in 1595- {Cal. of Border Papers, vol. ii. p. 165.) This was the William Strother of the entail of 1579 doubtless
as he did not make his will till 1612. (Raine, Testamenta, vol. i. p. 27.) His son Lancelot, who made his will
in 161 1 (Ibid. vol. i. p. 45), was probably resident at Kirknewton and in charge of the property during the latter
part of his father's life. It was Lancelot who having taken a mortgage on Fowber>' in 15S9, had become
owner thereof by 1600. (Laing Charters, pp. 292, 342.) By his will he left his household stuff both at Xewton
and at Fowbery to his wife. (Raine, Tsetamenta, vol. i. p. 45) so he evidently had establishments at both places.
' Laing Charters, p. 501. These lands are described as ' i messuage and divers parcels of land containing
6 acres of pasture and 100 acres of moor called the Tarleazes, the back or the north side of Bentlie Shanke
and Ray Strother to the head of Wakerich within the forest of Cheviot and formerly parcel of that forest.'
(Ibid. p. 499.) This evidently refers to Torleehouse and the land running up to Wackerage Cairn, which all
hes in the township of Kirknewton.
148 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
Strother, the elder, of Newton in 1644^ probably refers to the uncle of the lord
of Newton,- but it must have been the son of John Strother who, as William
Strother of Kirknewton, compounded for delinquency in 1649. His demesne
and tithe in the township were valued at £90, and the fine of a sixth on his
whole estate, after making certain deductions, amounted to £1,095 los.^ At
the same time one James Swinhoe of Chatton compounded for a tenement
and lands in the township of the yearly value before the war of £2.* In 1653
William Strother suffered a recovery of the manors of Kirknewton, West
Newton and Lanton for the purpose of settling his estates on his marriage
with Jane Shaftoe,^ and ten years later his rent roll in Kirknewton was £120.^
In 1675 he once more settled his estates on the marriage of his eldest
son, William, to Margaret Delaval, on them in tail male with successive
remainders to his heirs male and his heirs general. As the only son of
William and Margaret died young, the property was re-entailed in 1684
on the former's brothers successively in tail male. The father died
in 1701, and so by 1705 had all his sons, with the exception of
William, Mark and Robert. At that date the two latter agreed to
join^the former in mortgaging the property for £1,900, borrowed to provide
a portion for William's daughter Mary on her marriage to Walter Ker of
Littleton. Under this agreement the estate passed to Mark Strother on the
death of his elder brother, with reversion to his brother Robert, who was
also without issue," and then to Mary and her husband Walter Ker. Mark
died in 1726, Robert having predeceased him, and the whole estate thus went
to John Strother Ker, son and heir of Mary and Walter Ker.^ In 1761 the
farm of Kirknewton, comprising 1,871 acres and rented at £170 a year, was
advertised for sale,^ and in the following year found a purchaser in Thomas
James of Stamford, who in 1768 bequeathed it to his sons, William James
and CoUingwood Forster James.
' Walerjord Documents, voi. i. p. i8. - See note 7 on page 147.
' Royalist Compositions, p. 347. ^ Ibid. p. 353.
' Laing Charters, pp. 571, 572 ; Chancery Proceedings, Bridges, bundle 292, No. 49.
' Rate Book, 1663 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 278.
' Chancery Proceedings, Bridges, bundle 372, No. 55.
' Mr. Thompson's Kirknewton Deeds. By his will dated 4th October, 1723, Mark Strother of Fovvbery,
left all his estate, real and personal, to his widow, Martha, to dispose of as she would. (Kaine, Teslamenla,
vol. V. p. 29.)
9 Newcastle Journal, 26th December, 1761 — Newcastle Society of .\ntiquaries Proceedings, 3rd series,
vol. vi. p. 274.
KIRKNEWTON TOWNSHIP.
149
JAMES OF KIRKNEWTON.
Thom.^s James of Stamford, parish of Embleton, purchased Kirknewton 25th December, = Anne, buried
1762. from John Strother Ker (a)
1768 (a).
buried 24th May, 1769 (6) ; will dated 24th March,
24th March,
1760 (6).
Thomas James of Kirk-
newton was residing at
Stamford in 1774 when
he voted at the election
of knights of the shire ;
buried i6th August,
1796(6, c): aged67(/);
will dated 22nd Decem-
ber, 1789 (a).
Elizabeth, sister of William
Robert Thompson of James,
Barmoor ; married at party to
Holy Island 7th April, release
1768; a most agree- 29th June,
able young lady with 1769 (o).
a handsome fortune
{g} ; buried 13th May,
1812, aged 66 (6).
Anne, party to release 20th June,
1769 (o) ; died at Alnwick, un-
married, aged 78 ; buried loth
October, 181 2 (6).
Isabella, party to release, 29th
June, 1769 (a)
Mary, party to release, 3rd Janu-
ary, 1771 (a).
Thomas
1
Richard
1
William James of Kirknew-
1
CoUingwood Forster James =
James,
James,
ton, and of Holbom
of Kirknewton, baptised 8th
baptised
baptised
Grange, bapt. 19th May,
September, 1775 (6) ; to
24th
26th
1773 (*) ; to whom his
whom his father gave a
Feb.,
Feb.,
father gave a moiety of
moiety of Kirknewton ;
1769(6};
1772 (i);
Kirknewton ; died un-
voted at the election of
buried
buried
married 6th December,
knights ot the shire, in
1 8th
15th
T826, aged 53 (d) ; ^viU
1826 and 1841 ; buried
July.
Sept.,
dated i6th Nov., 182.... ;
7th December, 1852, aged
1778(6).
1772(6).
proved 1827 (a).
77(d)-
M a r y,
daughter
of Thomas
Thompson,
married at
Edinburgh,
I I t h
Marc h,
1814 (A).
Thomas James, son
and heir, bap-
tised 14th August,
1814 {d) ; died
when at school at
Belford ; buried
25th December,
1822 {d).
Ehzabeth, daughter and sole
heir, born 13th October,
18 1 5 {d) ; married her
cousin, Alexander Thompson,
jure uxoris, of Kirknewton,
son of Thomas Thompson of
Norham ; died 7th August,
1892 (e).^
(a) Kirknewton Deeds.
(6) Embleton Register.
(c) Monumental Inscriptions, Embleton.
(d) Kirknewton Register.
(e) Monumental Inscriptions, Kirknewton.
Elizabeth, baptised i6th November, 1770 (6) ;
married nth June, 1796 (6), to Robert
Thompson of Fenham Hill in Islandshire ;
she and her children took a portion of Kirk-
newton under the will of her brother
Wilham (a).
Anne, baptised 26th November, 1777 (I) ; buried
17th July, 1781 (6).
(/) Six North Country Diaries, Surtees Soc.
No. 124 p. 321.
(g) Newcastle Courant, 23rd April, 1768.
(A) Newcastle Courant, 26th March, 1814.
The William James moiety passed under his will in 1822 to his nephews,
Thomas James Thompson and Robert Thompson, and by reason of the
death intestate of Thomas James Thompson and the subsequent death of his
only son, a minor, the Thomas James Thompson share of that moiety also
devolved upon Robert Thompson. In 1852, the property was partitioned
between CoUingwood Forster James and Robert Thompson, the former
getting what may be called the western side and the latter the eastern side.
The CoUingwood Forster James's part passed under his will in 1845 to his
daughter Elizabeth, who married her cousin Alexander Thompson, and
from her to her son, CoUingwood Forster James Thompson. In 1859, the
Robert Thompson part, known as Newton Tors, was sold by him to Henr}-
150 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
Thomas Morton, who, in 1875, sold it to the earl of Durham.^ The latter
bequeathed it to his second son, the Hon. F. W. Lambton, with the exception
of a portion of the property containing 223 acres and extending to the river
Glen, which was not included in the sale of 1875, and is now the property
of Captain Claud Lambton, second son of the Hon. F. W. Lambton. Newton
Tors was sold back again to Mr. Morton in 1884, and on the latter's death
in i8g8 passed under his will with Yeavering to Mr. Thomas Knight Culley.^
The Tower and Border Raids. — Kirknewton appears as the site of
a tower as early as 1415,^ but it is not again mentioned till the sixteenth
century, when the normal troubled state of the border became accentuated.
In 1516 we have the first instance of a raid, when ' eight score horsemen robbed
the town of Newton of seven score kye and the insight.'* The tower was of
sufficient importance to be noted by Leland a few years later,^ but by 1541
the commissioners on border defences reported ' there ys a lytle towre and
a stone house joyned to the same, the walls of which stone house ys so lowe
that in the last warres the Scotts wanne the said stone house and sett fyer
on yt and had thereby allmost brunte the tower and all.' They therefore
recommended that the walls of the stone house should be raised, and that
it should be fortified for defence against 'common skrymyshes.'^ In 1547
seven or eight Scots of Teviotdale stole seven horses from the township,
and though pursued into Scotland, managed to get away with their booty ;'
in 1567 a body of 200 men took 400 head of cattle and 300 sheep besides
making certain prisoners.^ More serious still was the damage done in 1570
by the Scots, aided by the earl of Westmorland and other English rebels
who had fled to Scotland after the failure of their rising in the previous
year. To the number of 2,000 horse they fell upon Mindrum, and thence
passed to Kirknewton, where they seized 400 head of cattle, besides horses,
mares and household stuff, and more than 200 prisoners, ' besides the hurting
of divers women and the throwing of sucking children out of their clouts.'^
Kirknewton indeed was particularly exposed to these raids, since it lay in
the valley by which the Scots secured their easiest entry into Glendale by
way of Mindrum and Paston. This perhaps also explained its choice for a
' Mr. Thompson's Kirknewton Deeds. - Newton Tors Deeds.
' List of Castles, 1415 — Border Holds, p. ig. ■• Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII., vol. ii. pt. i. p. 469.
' Leland, Itinerary, vol. v. p. 66. " Survey of the Border, 1541 — Border Holds, pp. 32-33-
' Cal. of State Papers, Domestic, 1547-1565, p. 32J.
^ Cal. of Slate Papers, Foreign, 1566-1568, p. 279. ' Ibid. 1569-1571, pp. 185-186.
KIRKNEWTON TOWNSHIP. I5I
meeting of the English and Scottish Wardens for the settlement of mutual
grievances in 1586, a meeting, however, which never took place, being post-
poned from time to time by the laird of Cessford.who having at last exhausted
his inventive powers, fell back on the weather as a good excuse for not
keeping his appointment.^ However, in January, 1594, a day of truce was
actually held at Kirknewton, with mutually satisfactory results. ^
The tower still stood in 1584,^ but the last we hear of raids in the township
is in 1602, and then it was a false alarm. The laird of Newton on that
occasion broke up a meeting, which was promising to settle many difficulties
between Scots and English, by coming ' with an outcry that 100 Scots were
running a foray on his town and had toke 9 or 10 score cattle,' but when
both Scots and English had abandoned the conference to repress these
freebooters, they found that 'there was no such matter,' and that the
Strothers 'had lost nothing, nor seen anybody.''*
The Hospital. — There are some early and indefinite allusions to an
almshouse for old men at Kirknewton. Some time about the fifties or sixties
of the thirteenth century Nicholas Corbet confirmed a gift, made by his father
to Simon of Howtel and his wife for their lives, of ' the hospital in Newton
in Glendalle, with a half carucate of land belonging to the said hospital,
to be held to the said Simon and his wife as freely as Walter Corbet, the
original grantor of that alms, first gave and granted it.'^ Evidently Walter
Corbet, grandfather of Nicholas, was the original founder, and it would
seem that the care of the institution was thus confided to Simon of Howtel.
Patrick Corbet some time later, having succeeded to the property of his
brother Nicholas, granted to Thomas Baxter of Lanton in Glendale ' a half
carucate of lands in tofts and meadows as well as arable lands, belonging to
the hospital of Great Newton in Glendale for the purpose of sustaining three
poor men of Christ in that hospital in reasonable food and clothing at the
sight of faithful men, and if the three poor men will not labour, or do to the
best of their power or degree of infirmity what is commanded them, they
shall at the will of the grantor be expelled from the hospital and other three
men substituted.' This half carucate was to be held freely to the grantee,
1 Cal of Border Papers, vol. i. pp. 240, 241. 246. = Cal. of State Papers, Domestic, 1580-1625, p. 344.
' Dacre's Plat of Castles, 6-c.— Border Holds, pp. 78-79. * Cal. of Border Papers, vol. ii. p. 797.
' Laing Charters, p. 3.
152 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
reserving to the grantor and his heirs the wood Ruttok, which Thomas
Baxter and his heirs were not to cut and use without leave, but they were to
be rumfree and quit of all multure for the grain of the hospital at Lanton
mill.^ It was these lands doubtless in which in 1369 David Baxter's widow
was given dower under the description of one waste toft called ' le spitall '
and 20 acres of arable land and four acres of meadow in two places called
' le spitalland ' both in Kirknewton formerly the property of her late husband. -
From this it would seem that the land was held by the Baxters in fee simple,
but that it was burdened with the obligation of keeping the three old men,
who in turn were bound to work to the best of their ability for the owner.
WEST NEWTON TOWNSHIP.
Descent of the Manor. — West Newton,^ as a member of the barony
of Roos, was held in capite by the successive holders of that barony, who
claimed infangenthef therein.* It was probably at one time part of Kirk-
newton township, and in early charters the term Newton is used indis-
criminately for both. The first sub-tenant of whom we hear is William
Corbet, who in 1288 sued Robert Roos of Wark for entering by force his
wood at West Newton in Glendale and there cutting down and carrying
off his trees to the value of £20.^ Not Robert Roos, but one Adam Collwell
seems to have been his immediate lord, and when Walter Corbet, son of
William, conveyed to William Strother and Joan his wife the annual rent
of 40S. owed to Sampson of Newton for the moiety of the town of West
Newton in Glendale, the Strothers became sub-tenants first of Adam Collwell
and later of his son John." In 1322 Adam Collwell's widow, Ellen, quit-
claimed all right she had in this rent to William and Joan,'' and in 1334 her
son John did likewise in favour of Joan, who was then a widow. ^ William,
' Laing Charters, pp. 3-4. 2 Belvoir Deeds, drawer 21.
' The Census returns are : 1801, 60 ; 1811, 68 ; 1821, 95 ; 1831, 86 ; 1841, 83 ; 1851, 91 ; 1861, 95 ;
1871,72; 1881,56; 1891,48; 1901,74; 1911,64. The township comprises 1118-475 acres.
* Assize Roll, 21 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xviii. pp. 390-391.
^ De Banco Roll, No. 73, m. 74do — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxvii. pp. 326-327.
' Laing Charters, p. 11.
' Ibid. pp. 9-10. Colewell seems to have been the name of a portion of WestNcwton, as it is mentioned
separately in a document of 1328. De Banco Roll, No. 275, m. i93do.
* Laing Charters, p. 11.
KEY TO PLATE OF SEALS.
1. Seal of Joan, widow of John Coupland, 6 Jan., 37 Edw. III. (1363/4). Armorial, a
cross charged with a molet, impaling on a bend sinister three spread eagles.
s' iobannc • be • ton[glait]&
—Pub. Rei. Off., LS. 130.
2. Seal of Joan, widow of John Coupland, 20 Oct., 40 Edw. III. (1366). Armorial, a cross
charged with a motet impaling on 11 bend three spread eagles.
ffl SigUbm ffi jobiimu ffl be © (ffonphinb
—Pub. Rcc. Off., RS. 89.
3. Seal of Joan, widow of John Coupland, 6 Feb., 44 Edw. III. (1369/70)- Armorial, a
ffeur de lys reversed issuing out oj a leopard's head reversed.
* S'lOHANNE VR. . . . RE DE COVPLAND
—Pub. Rec. Off., BS. 379.
4. Seal of John Coupland, 20 Oct., 21 Edw. III. (1347). Armorial, a cross charged with
a molet, crest a rum's head.
S : lOHANNIS : DE : COVPLAND
—Pub. Rec. Off., RS. 67.
5. Seal of John Coupland, 20 March, 10 Edw. III. (1335/6). Armorial, on a cross a voided
lozenge charged with a lion rampant in a border engrailed.
." . S D . . . .
—Pub. Rec. Off., WS. 228.
6. Seal of John Coupland, a.D. 1357. Armorial, a cross charged with a molet, crest a ram's
head.
s : m . . . . : b' : tonplanb :
— Pub. Rec. Off., Exchequer K.R. Accounts 73/2 No. I.
7. Seal of William Strother, a.D. 1359. Armorial, on a bend three spread eagles, a
border engrailed, crest a bird's (? turkey's) head.
S • WILLELMI : D . . . ; . STROTHIE :
—Pub. Rec. Off., Ancient Deeds A6148.
8. Seal of Robert Maners (a.D. 1347), styled sheriff of Norham. Armorial, two bars and
a chief.
>i< S • ROBERTI ■ DE • MANERS
— Durh. Treas., 3''" i"''"' Specialia 41.
9. Seal of Thomas Grey (a.D. 1346). Equestrian, the shield and horse trappings
charged with a lion rampant in an engrailed border, crest a ram's head.
►^ LE : « : SEEL THOMAS : GRAY • CHEVALIER
— Durh. Treas., 3"^'" i4"'^« Specialia 17.
10. Seal of Thomas Grey (A.D. 1407), styled Thomas Grey of Heton, knight, lord of Werlc.
Armorial, m a border engrailed a lion rampant, crest a ram's head.
sigiilum tijomr grag
— Durh. Treas., Misc. Chart., 3785.
8
10
SEALS OF COUI'LAND, STROTHF.R, MANNERS AND GREY
VV^ST NEWTON TOWNSHIP. 1 53
son of Sampson, seems to have tried to evade his obHgations, for in that
very year Joan had to sue him for 40s. rent for the tenements which he held
of her.i In 1348 Wilham conveyed to John Coupland and Joan his wife the
lands, &c., which he held in the town and territory of West Newton, with
his wood of Ruttok, and with the half of the lordship of the whole town above
named.- When in 1365 a fine was levied on Joan Coupland's property,
this holding was described as ' the third part of the manor of Westemewton
in Glendale.'^ What became of the property after this we cannot tell, but
it probably reverted to the immediate lord, and thus the Strothers would
hold half the manor.
Meanwhile the Strother family had acquired other lands in the township.
In 1329 Roger Corbet, son of Walter Corbet, leased all his lands, both those
in demesne and those held of him by service, in West Newton, saving six
husband lands there, to William and Joan Strother, and in the following
year he converted this into a grant of all his rights therein. Further he
gave a lease to them of all the lands in the township falling to him on the
death of his mother, and on William Strother's death that year confirmed
this lease to Joan.* It was these lands doubtless that were conveyed by
Roger Corbet to Henry Strother, son and heir of William and Joan Strother,
in return for an annual rent of lOOs., an arrangement confirmed in 1379,
when Henry attorned to Robert Rea and Elizabeth his wife, daughter and heir
of John, son and heir of Roger Corbet.^ In 1387 the property thus acquired
from Roger Corbet was conveyed to trustees by Sir Thomas Strother, grand-
son of Henry Strother, for the purpose of settling it on himself and his
wife Matilda and the lawful heirs of their bodies, whom failing it was to pass
to the heirs of Thomas.^ The property is here described as 'the moiety of
the town of Westernewton, formerly belonging to Roger Corbet,' so it is
evident that now the Strothers owned both moieties, and the same Sir
Thomas Strother bought out the Corbet right to the annual rent of loos.,
which was quitclaimed to him in September, 1387, by John Caretoun of
Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Elizabeth his wife."
' Assize Roll, Cumberland, 8 Edw. III. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxiv. p. 1231. - Laing Charters, p. 12.
' Pedes Finium, 39 Edw. III. No. 137 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xx.xix. pp. 274-276.
* Laing Charters, p. 10. ' Ibid. p. 18. ' Ibid. p. 21.
' Laing Charters, p. 21. This must have been EUzabeth Corbet, and John Caretoun must have been
her second husband.
Vol. XI. 20
154 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
Thus the whole manor or township of West Newton was Strother
property by the close of the fourteenth century, ^ and we do not hear of it
again till the sixteenth century. Throughout that century it belonged to the
Strothers of Kirknewton.^ In 1541 it was said to consist of twelve husband-
lands 'replenished' since Flodden Field and now quite flourishing, though
it liad no tower of defence and in time of stress the inhabitants had to flee
to Kirknewton.^ The very next year the Scots destroyed the whole harvest,*
and in 1584 a tower either had been built, or was proposed, for the protection
of the township.^ Still at Christmas 1588 six score Liddesdale thieves
burnt the village with 'two chrysten soules,' a man and a boy there, and
carried off horses and cattle to the value of £300.^ The occupier at the
time was doubtless Thomas Strother of West Newton, who is mentioned
in a will of 1592,' but whose identity is not ascertainable. When John
Strother of Kirknewton died in 1631, his property in West Newton consisted
of nine carucates of land, half of which was held for life by Margery Selby,
widow, by grant of the deceased owner, this last being valued at 40s. yearly.^
Margery, or Margaret, Selby of Grindon Rigg was still alive in 1652, when
she surrendered her life interest in what she describes as one half of the
manor of West Newton to Colonel Wifliam Strother of Kirknewton.^ Before
this William Strother had forfeited his property as a royalist, and when he
had compounded for it in 1649, the demesne and tithe of West Newton were
valued at £100.^" He was still in possession in 1663, ^^ but his property was
heavily mortgaged, and in 1712 his second son, Mark Strother of Fowbery,
' In 1 3 1 7 Henry Rikeraan of Carlton purchased a messuage, forty acres of land and five acres of meadow
in 'Neuton West' from John Croyde and Anabel his wife. {Pedes Finiitm, lo Edw. II. No. 38. — Duke's
Transcripts, vol. .xii. p. 61.) In 1334 Roland Grendon received royal pardon for acquiring from John of
Lancaster 2 messuages, 47 acres of land and one acre of meadow in ' Xeutonwest,' county Northumberland,
said to be held in chief and for entering therein without licence. (Cal of Patent Rolls, 1330-1334, p. 555.)
In 1335 a similar pardon was granted to Richard of Carlton for entering without licence on 2 messuages, 40
acres of land and 2 acres of meadow in the same place, held in chief, which he inherited from Henry Taylor
who had bought them from John of Lancaster. {Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1334-1338, p. 100.) In 1343 William,
son of Ralph Taylor, received a like pardon for acquiring from Richard Taylor 2 messuages, 56 acres of land
and 2 acres of meadow and an eighth part of a mill in the same place, Richard Taylor having acquired
them from John of Lancaster, who held them in chief. (Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1343-1345, p. 108 ; Originalia
— Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 317; Rot. Fin. 17 Edw. III. m. 6 — T>\iV.e'sTranscripts, vol. xxxi. pp. 248-249).
There is little doubt that these last references are to Newton in Bywell, and probably the first one also
refers to that township.
^ See pages 145-147.
' Survey of the Border, 1541 — Border Holds, p. 32; Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII. vol. xvi. p. 478.
* Ministers Accounts, 34 Hen. VIII., note that the whole of farm of the corn tithe has been remitted as
all the corn had been destroyed by the Scots. Caley MS.
' Christopher Dacre's Plat of Castles, (syc. — Border Holds, pp. 78-79.
' Cal. of Border Papers, vol. i. p. 355. ' Raine, Testamenta, vol. i. p. 125.
' Inq. p.m. — Laing Charters, pp. 499-500. ' Laing Charters, pp. 570-571.
'" Royalist Compositions, p. 347. " Rate Book, 1663 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 278.
WEST NEWTON TOWNSHIP. 155
who succeeded to it, agreed with his brother Robert and Walter Ker, who
had married his elder brother's heiress, to apply for an act of parlia-
ment to allow the sale of the township and lands of West Newton with the
tithe and of Canno Mill with the miller's house and farmstead, the proceeds
of which were to be used to pay off the mortgage, and the surplus, if any,
was to be divided between the parties to the agreement. ^ A purchaser
was found in Luke Clennell of Clennell, Northumberland, who by will dated
I2th September, 1743, bequeathed all his estate to his son, Percival Clennell,
who in turn bequeathed it to Thomas, son of his nephew, Thomas Fenwick
of Earsdon. Soon after the death of Percival Clennell in March, 1796, the
heir to his property assumed the arms and name of Clennell,^ and in 1833 he
joined with his eldest son, Percival Fenwick Clennell, in barring the entail and
executing a resettlement. This son and his trustees in 1874 sold the estate
to Henry Thomas Morton of Biddick Hall, Fence Houses, county Durham,
on whose death on 23rd June, i8g8, it passed under his will to the present
owner, the Hon. F. W. Lambton.^
Canno Mill. — Canno Mill, in the township of West Newton, was part
of the property owned by the priory of Kirkham in the middle ages, and was
conveyed to the Strothers as part of the rectory of Kirknewton.* It was
handed down with the rest of their estates till in 1716 it became the property
of Robert Strother, youngest surviving son of William Strother of Kirk-
newton. Under his will, dated 29th May, 1723, the property was devised
in settlement to his elder brother, Mark Strother, for life and then to Jane
Drake, wife of Thomas Drake of Norham, and failing her heirs to John Orde
of Morpeth. 5 The last named sold it in 1776 to George Morton of West
Newton, who by his will, proved in 1799, devised, it in settlement to his
grandson, George Morton, and his issue male, and on failure of this issue to
his grandson, Henry Morton, and his issue male. Ultimately the property
passed into the possession of Henry Morton, who in 1855 released his life
interest in favour of his son, Henry Thomas Morton. At the death of the
last named in 1898 Canno Mill passed with West Newton to the present
owner, the Hon. F. W. Lambton.®
' Waierford Documents, vol. ii. p. 79.
* For pedigree of Fenwick of Earsdon see N.C.H. vol. ix. p. 12. ' West Newton Deeds.
* See page 119. ' Raine, Testamenia, vol. v. p. 15. * Canno Mill Deeds.
156 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
KiRKHAM Priory Lands in Kirknewton and West Newton. — It
would seem according to the claims put forward in 1293 that Kirkham priory
held no lands in West Newton, since in that year the prior only claimed free
warren in Kirknewton,^ and moreover West Newton is never mentioned
either in the Kirkham Cartulary or in any other document connected with
the priory. None the less the description of some of the lands held by
the canons is such as to show that they lay within the confines of the latter
township. They were all given to the church of Newton and the priory of
Kirkham by Walter Corbet early in the thirteenth century, and consisted
of a plot of land lying between Berkenstrother on the south and the boundary
of Kilham and West Newton on the north, being bounded seemingly by the
road between Kilham and Newton on the one side and Bowmont water on
the other, the gift being expressly stated as not including Berkenstrother,
its bog meadow or the meadow of Newton. Included in the gift however
was Stevensheugh 'belonging to the church of Newton,' Whiteside and
common pasture such as was enjoyed by the donor and his tenants. ^ The
whole of this was seemingly given as an additional endowment to the rectory,
and apart from Whiteside, of which no further mention occurs, it consisted
of two plots of land. Of these Stevensheugh was seemingly shortly after-
wards in dispute, for the canons took care to enrol affidavits made by Sampson
of Coupland, Henry Manners of Stevensheugh and Merlin, parson of the
church of Branxton, to the effect that Walter Corbet had given Stevensheugh
up to the burn which divided it from HoUinghow to the church of Newton,^
and Robert of Newton also quitclaimed whatever right he had therein.* In
1241 the prior of Kirkham conceded common pasture in Stevensheugh to
Sampson of Newton for all his animals and flocks in Newton save for goats,
in return for which Sampson renounced all claim to common pasture in New-
ton as against the prior. ^ Adam, son of Sampson, however, quitclaimed
' Quo Warranto, Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 119; Assize Roll, 21 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xviii.
pp. 369-370. The charter of 1252 granting this only mentions 'Newton.' Cal. of Charter Rolls, vol. i. p. 405.
= 'Carta Walteri Corbet super libertatibus de Newton in Glendale. In qua continetur quod dictus
Willelmus dedet(sii:) Ecclesie de Newton et Canonicis de K. totam terram a fine Birkyngestrede versus
aquilonem vsque ad vltimas diuisas inter Kyllum et Newton sicut via extendit se a Newton vsque ad
Killum, scihcet sub via versus Bolebek sine aliquo retinemento exceptis Birkestrede maresco suo prato suo et
prato de Newton. Dedit eciam eis steuencshew quod pertinet ad ecclesiam de New-ton. Et Whyteside
iaccbit in coramuni et in cultura. Idem vult vt ecclesia de Newton habeat communam pasture cum eo
et homines ecclesie cum hominibus suis.' Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 84. This gift was confirmed bv Nicholas
Corbet. Ibid.
' Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 83. Merlin was rector of Branxton circa 1200, see page 10 1.
' Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 84.
' Pedes l-'itiium, 25 Hen. III. No. 96 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. i. p. 209; Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 90.
KIRKNEWTON AND WEST NEWTON TOWNSHIPS 157
this right of common pasture in Stevensheugh to the canons of Kirkham,^
and Alan, son of Adam Sampson, ratified this renunciation. ^ Adam, son
of Samuel, seemingly had a right of way through the ' pasture called Stevens-
heugh,' for he quitclaimed this to the canons towards the close of the
thirteenth century.^ If it is this same plot of ground which is described in
another charter of a similar kind,^ Stevensheugh was probably in Kirk-
newton. It is equally probably that the other holding described in Walter
Corbet's grant was in West Newton. With regard to this last also Robert
of Newton, who possibly held the manor under the Corbets, renounced all
claims he might have therein,^ and further granted to the canons his moiety
of Berkenstrother,^ the other moiety of which together with the bog, was also
given to them by Nicholas Corbet.'' The situation of this strip of land strongly
suggests that it was what is now known as Canno Mill and Canno Bog, a
supposition strengthened by the fact that the former at any rate passed
ultimately into Strother hands, as parcel of the rectory of Kirknewton.^
' Kirhham Cartulary, fol, 83. - Ibid. fol. 84.
^ Kirkhain Cartulary, fol. 84. The date is fixed by the fact that an Adam son of Samuel appears in
Lay Subsidy Roll, 1296, fol. 99.
' Quieta clamancia Adae, fiUii Samuelis, de quadam placea in Newton, in qua continetur quod dictus A.
quietum clamavit Can. de K. totum jus quod habuit racione communicandi in una placea inter manerium
dictorum can. in Newton et semitam illam subtus Steveneshow quae ducit apud Yvern, ascendendo per semitam
illam ab angulo occidentali clausurae dicti manerii versus orientem usque ad croftum, quod Willelmus de Barton
tenuit ad firmam, et sic descendendo ju.xta dictum croftum usque ad angulum orientalem clausurae praedictae.
ita quod dicti can. dictam placeam possint includere et in suo separali singulis anni temporibus bene et
pacifice possidere.' Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 84.
' ' Carta Roberti de Newton de quieta clamancia de bosco et de pastura, in qua continetur quod dictus
R. concessit et confirmavit et quietum clamavit can. de K. totum jus et clamium quod habuit in bosco,
terris, pastura inter Merburne et Newton sub via quae tendit de Kyllum apud Newton, scilicet quantum
terrae est inter dictam viam et aquam de Bolbent cum omnibus pertincntibus, salvo sibi et haerechbus suis
prato suo de Newton. Item concessit dictis can. ut habeant communam averiis suis et hominum suorum
de Kyrknewton in pastura villae de Newton ubique cum libero introitu et exitu undique circa eandera villam,
excepto illo loco qui vocatur Schalestokes." Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 83.
' ' Birkenstroder.' Kirkham Cartulary, fols. 84-85.
' ' Carta Nicolai Corbet feoffamenti de Byrkenstreth una in qua continetur quod dictus N. dedit Can. de K.
totam partem suam de Byrkenstreth in territorio de Newton. Item concessit dictus can. quod possint totum
mariscum de Byrkenstreth fossato includere, et fossatum facere per medium pratum suum de Newton usque
Bolbent, cujus latitudo \T. pedes continebit.' Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 84.
' See page i 19.
158
PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
KILHAM TOWNSHIP.
Descent of the Manor. — The township of Kilham^ has a sUghtly
larger population than Kirknewton,^ but there is practically no village, the
inhabitants being scattered over a wide area. It was a member of the barony
of Roos. The overlordship passed with the barony, and in the early days
of the fifteenth century became united with the ownership of the manor in
the hands of the Greys.
KILHAM OF KILHAM.
Robert of Shotton (h) = Amabel (A).
Walter of Shotton (a), alias of Kilham (h) ; gave his body to be =
buried at Kelso Abbey (A).
(2) Roger Grey (6) = Beatrice, daughter = (i) Thomas of Kilham, grants land to
of Michael of Kirkham priory, 1227(a); died
Rihill (a). before 1242 (b).
Walter of = Matilda (6).
Paston (6)
Michael of Kilham, died before 1290 = Idonea, died before 1303.
1
John of Kil-
Nicholas
1
Robert of ^
_ William of Kil-
Aline, sister = (i) Thomas Clennell,
ham {d).
of Kil-
Kilham {d)
ham, held
and heir of aged 30 or more at
ham (d).
lands in
Nicholas of death of Nicholas
brother
Paston (d).
Kilham, of Kilham (/).
and heir
aged 40 or (2) Sweethope. He
of John
Patrick
3f Kilham (/).
more at his is nowhere mentioned.
of Kil-
death (/). but in 1334 Aline is
ham ig] ;
called 'Aline Sweet-
died
hope ■(/)■
before
1327 (/)•
William Boulton (t)=Avis, daughter and heir of
(a) Pedes Finium, 11 Hen. III. No. 18. — Duke's
Transcripts, vol. i. p. 88.
(6) Curia Regis Roll, Nos. 124, 130. — Duke's Tran-
scripts, vol. xxi. pp. 227-228, 239-240.
(c) Northumberland Assize Rolls, (Surtees Soc),
p. 176.
[d] De Banco Roll, No. 81, m. 72. — Duke's Tran-
scripts, vol. xxvii. pp. 408-409.
Aline (i).
(e) De Banco Roll, No. 145, m. 233. — Duke's Tran-
scripts, vol. x.xix. pp. 138-139.
(/) Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. vii. p. 386.
ig) De Banco Roll, No. 144, m. 324.— Duke's Tran-
scripts, vol. x.xi.K. pp. 103-104.
(h) Liber de Metros, vol. i. pp. 265-267.
(t) De Banco Roll, No. 337, m. 346.
(A) Liber de Calchou, vol. ii. No. 363.
(/) Cal. of Close Rolls, 1332-1337, p. 167.
Quite early in the thirteenth century we hear of two owners of property
in the township, though whether they held the manor or not is a matter
' Earlier Killum, Kylliim, Kylnom, Kilholme, Kylham. Probably O.E. (cet tha-m) (■v'"w>«=(at the)
kilns. Kill is the common Northumbrian pronunciation of kiln.
2 Census returns are : 1801,206; 1811,252; 1821,246; 1831,217; 1841,279; 1851,258; 1861,209;
1871,2:0; 1881,156; 1891,143; 1901.113; igii, 116. "The township comprises 2871316 acres.
KILHAM TOWNSHIP. I59
of conjecture. A certain William of Paston sold two bovates there to the
first Robert Roos, who included them in his gift of lands to the hospital of
St. Thomas the Martyr, Bolton,^ and a gift of twelve bovates of land there to
Kirkham priory, confirmed by the same Robert Roos, and therefore pre-
sumably dating from the same period, was made by Henry Manners and his
wife Isabel. 2 This property was doubtless of the latter's inheritance, as in
the case of another gift by her and her husband the careful canons secured
a confirmation from her mother Isabel of Kilham.^ A httle later we find
another landowner in the person of Walter of Kilham, son of Robert of
Shotton, confirming his father's gift of eight acres of arable land situated
above ' Whitelawestede ' in Kilham to the monks of Melrose, who were to
be allowed to keep twelve head of cattle, 80 sheep and two horses there.*
Walter of Kilham's son, Thomas of Kilham, made an exchange of these
lands for others in Shotton,^ and this last we may identify with Thomas of
Kilham, son of Walter of Shotton, who in 1227 gave lands to the canons of
Kirkham,^ as Walter of Shotton and Walter of Kilham were doubtless the
same person. These three men, Robert, Walter and Thomas were probably
successively lords of the manor, since the canons in 1234 secured from the
last named a confirmation of all their possessions, whether in land or other-
wise, within the territory of Kilham.^ That they inherited the Manners
property seems also likely in view of the fact that Thomas of Kilham con-
firmed a gift made by Henry Manners and Isabel to the Kirkham canons.^
Thomas of Kilham died before 1242, as in that year his widow, then the
wife of Roger Grey, sued her brother-in-law, Walter of Paston, and his
wife Matilda, for dower in half a carucate and two bovates of land in Kilham.
Walter maintained that his brother had given him this land long before he
died, and he called to warrant his nephew Michael, as son and heir of Thomas
of Kilham. Eventually Michael was ordered to satisfy the claim for dower
' Monasticon, vol. vi. pt. ii. p. 692. The date of the charter is about 1225 and it was confirmed by the
King in 1227. Col. of Charier Rolls, vol. i. p. 30. The date of the sale must have been earlier still.
* Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 85. ' Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 85.
♦ Liber de Metros, vol. i. pp. 265-266. The charter falls in the reign of Alexander II. 1214-1249. As
the confirmation was made for the repose of the soul of Walter Espec and Walter of Kilham's lord, Robert
Roos, we may imagine that it dates from the days of the second Robert Roos, and that the original gift was
made in the second half of the twelfth centurj'. From one of the charters of Isabel, mother-in-law of Henry
Manners, it is evident that Robert of Shotton was a landowner in Kilham contemporaneously with her.
Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 85.
' Liber de Metros, vol. i. pp. 266-267.
' Pedes Finium, 11 Hen. III. Xo. 18. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. i. p. 87.
' Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 85. Thomas is called lord of Kilham in a Kirkham charter. • Ibid.
l6o PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
out of his inheritance.^ This Michael of Kilham was a person of some
importance. He is described as a knight when witnessing a document in
1281,2 and in 1284 he received a royal grant of free warren in all his demesne
lands in Kilham, with the special provision of a fine of £10 to be imposed
on any one hunting there without his licence.^ He is also mentioned as having
a private chapel in Kilham with an endowment of its own.^ During his life-
time he dispersed a good deal of his property, though we know only of one
actual alienation of land, which was to his son Nicholas and consisted of a mill
and lands called 'Newhalow, Elfordhalow, the Floros, &c.,' in Kilham. ^
After his death, however, when in 1290 his widow Idonea sought her dower,
she had to sue no less than eleven defendants, eight of whom held property
in Kilham. Four of these were Michael's sons, John, Nicholas, William and
Robert. John's holdings were given as 37 messuages, 3 carucates and 48
bovates of land, 30 acres of meadow and 100 acres of wood, all in Kilham.
Nicholas held i messuage, i toft, 57 acres of land, 4 acres of pasture and
9 marks and 2od. rent in Kilham and Shotton, William had 4 messuages,
6 bovates and 8 acres of land, 3 acres of pasture and 2s. 6d. rent in Kilham
and Paston, while Robert had only 6 marks rent in Kilham. Other persons
holding property in Kilham, presumably alienated to them by Michael of
Kilham, were the prior of Kirkham with gl acres of land, 4 acres of pasture,
and 20s. rent, Thomas Baxter with one messuage, 2 bovates of land, and a
moiety of i acre of meadow, and Thomas Archer with i messuage, i toft and
3 acres of land. Robert Roos of Wark also held 3 messuages, 66 acres of
land and the third part of a mill in Kilham and Shotton. So far as the
younger sons were concerned, they called their brother John to warrant,
and he was ordered to find the dower on their holdings out of his owti.
Idonea also secured dower against him and against the prior of Kirkham for
the lands they held, but no result of the case as against the other defendants
has transpired.^ During the course of the trial one Robert Archer put
forward claims to the property of John of Kilham, and though on the
evidence of the sheriff the court gave judgment against him," by 1293 he had
• Curia Regis Rolls, Nos. 124, 125, 130 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxi. pp. 225, 227-228, 233, 239-240.
' Belvoir Deeds, drawer 21. ' Cal. oj Patent Rolls, 1281-1293, p. 123. ' Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 86.
' British Museum, Harleian Charters, 112, I. 37.
« De Banco Rolls, No. 81, m. 72 ; No. 82, m. 48 ; No. 83, 65do ; No. 86, m. 74do ; No. 87, m. 3odo ;
No. 89, m. 71. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxvii. pp. 408-409, 414, 415, 436-437, 475-476, 506-507, 533-535.
In 1293 Idonea sued William son of Michael of Kilham for dower in a tenement in Kilham, but withdrew her
case. Assize Roll, 21 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xviii. p. 42.
' De Banco Rolls, No. 87, m. 3odo ; No. 89, m. 71. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxvii. pp. 506-507, 533-535.
KILHAM TOWNSHIP. l6l
doubtless substantiated them, as he then held lands in the township. ^ The
situation is made clear by litigation begun in 1300 between John, son and
heir of Robert Archer, and Nicholas, son of Michael of Kilham. Michael
of Kilham's son, John, had succeeded to his father's main property, which is
for the first time described as the manor of Kilham, but almost immediately
had alienated it to Robert Archer, who had entered on the property which
at his death, shortly afterwards, had passed to his son, John Archer. Michael's
widow Idonea, however, was still alive, but dying in 1300 her dower was
seized by Nicholas of Kilham as heir to his brother John, now dead. John
Archer sued him for this property, consisting of 10 messuages, 238 acres of land,
5 acres of pasture and a moiety of a messuage, all in Kilham, alleging that
the reversion of the dower had been sold to his father together with
the manor. Nicholas retorted by claiming the whole manor on the ground
that his brother was out of his mind when the conveyance took place. -
That John Archer won the case, as far as the manor is concerned, is proved
by the fact that he appears as lord of Kilham when witnessing deeds in
1315 and 1318,^ and his son Robert* had succeeded him as such in 1323,^
but Nicholas of Kilham still owTied land there, doubtless that property
given to him by his father in the latter's lifetime. Of this he sold a messuage
and 24 acres to Patrick, son of William of Kilham,^ and the rest passed
to Aline his sister and heir, and her husband, Thomas Clennell.' After the
latter's death Aline seems to have married a member of the family of Sweet-
hope, and in her new name she sold 60 acres of land, 12 acres of wood, the
moiety of a messuage and the fourth part of a mill in Kilham and Paston to the
same Patrick. She also alienated two messuages, 80 acres of land, i-J acres of
wood and a fourth part of a mill in Kilham and Paston to Adam, son of
Thomas of Kilham, who also had bought the moiety of a messuage in Kilham
from Thomas Clennell.^ Further she sold to Patrick, son of William of Kilham,
20 acres of land in Kilham,^ thus probabh' having alienated all her inheritance,
' Assize Roll, 21 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xviii. pp. 266, 267.
^ De Banco Rolls, No. 135, m. 252do ; No. 139, m. 4ido, 53do ; No. 144, m. 324 ; No. 145, m. 233 ; No.
152, m. 204 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxviii. pp. 639-640, 714, 715 ; vol. xxix, pp. 103-104, 136-137, 138-
139, 424-425. Nicholas son of Michael is called son of Nicholas in two Rolls, but the context shows it to be
a clerical error.
' Belvoir Deeds, Drawers 14, 21. * Cal. of Close Rolls, 1354-1360, p. 425.
' Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. vi p. 289.
• Cal. of Close Rolls, 1332-1337, p. 167 ; Originalia, S Edw. III. — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 310.
' Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. vii. p. 386.
' Inq. A.Q.D. file ccxxiv. No. 4 ; Cal. of Close Rolls, 1333-1337, p. 167.
" Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. vii. p. 386; Cal. of Close Rolls, 1333-1337, p. 210.
Vol. XI. 21
l62 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
which now was owned partly by Patrick of Kilham and partly by Adam of
Kilham.i Part of this at any rate found its way into the hands of the prior
of Kirkham.2
ARCHER OF KILHAM.
Robert Archer, bought manor of Kilham from = Plcsaunce (a)=John of Grcystones, second
John of Kilham ; died before 1300 (a). 1 husband (f).
(a) John Archer, lord of Kilham, 1315, 1318 (6) =
Robert Archer (d). lord of Kilham. 1323 (c) =5= John Archer, confirmed all
lands given by his brother
and nephew to John Coup-
John Archer (d). sells manor of Kilham to John = Isabel {e). land and his wife Joan,
Coupland and his wife Joan, 1353 (e). '357 (<*)•
(a) De Banco Rolls. No. 135, m. 252do ; No. 139. (<fl Cat. of Close Rolls, 1354-1360, p. 425.
mm. 4ido, 53do ; No. 44, m. 324.— Duke's (e) Pedes Fmium, i-j Edw. III. No. 95 — Duke's
Transcripts, vol. xxviii. pp. 639-640, 714, Transcripts, vol. xxxix. pp. 202-203.
715, vol. xxix. pp. 103-104. (/) De Banco Roll. No. 153. m. 183-Duke's
(6) Belvoir Deeds, Drawers 14, 21. Transcripts, vol. xxix. p. 454.
(c) Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. vi. p. 280.
So far as the manor is concerned it only remained in the Archer family
for four generations, for John, son of Robert Archer, sold it in 1353 to Sir
John Coupland,^ from whom it passed with the rest of his property to his
widow Joan, who in turn sold it with the rest of her property to Sir Richard
Arundel in 1372.* The manor of Kilham formed part of the estate of Sir
John Arundel who died in 1380, being then valued at £14 6s. 8d. in normal
times, but at the moment utterly wasted by the Scots. ^ It was owned by
Richard Arundel in 1400,*' and was mortgaged to Harry Hotspur at the
time of the latter's death,'' doubtless being sold to the Greys with the rest
of the Arundel's Northumbrian property in 1408,^ since in 1443 Sir Ralph
Grey died seised of ' the township of Kyllum, worth yearly 30s. but no more
' From a suit brought in 1344 it would seem that not Adam of Kilham but his wife Matilda acquired
the property from .Mine. After Adam's death it was held by Matilda and her second husband, .■\lexander
Newbiggin, who were sued for it by .\vis, daughter and heir of .-Vline. and William Boulton on the ground
that Aline was insane at the time of the alienation. De Banco Roll, No. 337, m. 346. The exact situation with
regard to the various landowners is summed up in an extent of the barony of Koos in 1328. ' Robert .\rcher
holds four parts of the manor of Kilham and owes suit at the court, also Patrick Fitz-William holds the moiety
of one-fifth part of the manor of Kilham and renders yearly 3s., also Fitz Thomas holds a moiety of one-fifth
part of the manor and renders yearly 2s. 4d.' Lambert ^IS.
* See pages 165-166.
' De Banco Roll. No. 375, m. sSdo; Pedes Finium. 27 Edw. III. No. 95 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxix.
pp. 202-203. The sale was confirmed by John Archer's uncle John in 1357. Cal. of Close Rolls, 1354-1360,
p. 425-
* Pedes Finium, 39 Edw. 111. No. 137 ; 47 Edw. III. No. 158 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxix. pp. 274-
276, 314-315 : Cal. of Close Rolls, 1369-1376, p. 448.
' Inq. p.m. 3 Ric. II. No. i — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxviii. pp. 43-45.
' Inq. p.m. 2 Hen. IV. No. 50 — Scalacronica, Proofs and Illustrations, p. bd.
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1401-1405, pp. 309-310. * See page 324.
KILHAM TOWNSHIP. 163
in these days,' held of the king in socage as of the lordship of Wark.^
Even before 1408 the Greys had been sub-tenants of the manor, as in 1400
this man's grandfather. Sir Thomas Grey, had died seised of one husband-
land and two cottages held of Richard Arundel as of the manor of Kilham,
the rents being valued at 3s. but at the moment worth nothing. ^ The posses-
sion of the manor by no means included all the lands of the township, and in
1541 the Commissioners surveying the border, who as a rule took no notice
of small freeholds, contented themselves with the statement that ' the most
parte thereof ys the inherytaunce of . . . Mr. Greye of Chyllyngham.'^
The rent roll of this portion was returned in 1561 as £10 6s. 8d.* By his will,
made in 1589, Sir Thomas Grey of Chillingham left to his brother Edward for
21 years or for his life, at his option, ' the towne .... of Kyllam, and also the
east fields of Killam,' and to his servant Thomas Grey 'one tenement or
farmholde' there for 21 years or for life 'for rent and service accustomed.'^
In 1593 the manor of Kilham was included in the property of Ralph Grey
of Chillingham,^ and the rate book of 1663 gives the whole township to Lord
Grey with a rental of £396.'' In 1682 the property was described as Kilham,
worth yearh^ £joj, Kilham glebe £10, Kilham tenements £13, Kilham
mill £20, lands and tenements called Kilham Hill £22, and tithes of com
in Kilham £2^.^ All this passed to the earls of Tankerville and remained
with them till 1913, when the farm of Kilham, containing 2,009 acres, was sold
to Sir Alfred L. Goodson of Manchester, Kilham Bungalow with 13 acres
being offered at the same time but withdrawn. As to Thomington — which
seems to have been the property, once belonging to the Kirkham canons and
bought from the Strothers about 1626 — the mansion was in 1913 sold to
Mr. Leonard Briggs of Sunderland, but the farm of 819 acres, though offered,
was withdrawn.^
Kirkham Priory Lands. — The canons of Kirkham managed to acquire
a considerable tract of land in Kilham. Henry Manners, his wife, and his
mother-in-law, were all concerned in a gift to them of 12 bovates and 2 tofts
' P.R.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. Hen. VI. file ill.
' Inq. p.m. 2 Hen. IV. No. 50 — Scalacronica, Proofs and Illustrations, p. Ixi.
» Survey of the Border, 1541 — Border Holds, p. 31. * P.R.O. State Papers, Borders, 5. fol. 103.
* Wills and Inventories, vol. ii. pp. 172, 174. ' Feet of Fines, sixteenth centurj', p. 62.
' Rate Book, 1663 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 278.
» P.R.O. Exchequer Special Commissions, Northumberland, 36 Chas. II. No. 6,218. It is not quite clear
whether the first figure is meant to be the sum total of the other amounts or not.
' Berwickshire Naturalists' Club, vol. xxii. p. 307.
164 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
— one of the latter lying at the western end of the vill on the southern bank
of Bowmont water, the other lying hard by the road from Kirkncwton to
Carham — together with sufficient pasturage for 1,000 sheep and their lambs
from their birth till midsummer, 16 oxen, 4 draught beasts and 8 cows. To
this his mother-in-law added an acre of meadow in her charter confirming the
original gift.^ By other grants Henry Manners and his wife gave four bovates
of land on one occasion and two bovates on another, together with common
pasture for 16 beasts of burden.- The grants and concessions of the manorial
family, which took its origin from Robert of Shotton, were very considerable.
Robert himself only gave an acre and a confirmation of all the land held by
the canons in the township, and his son, Walter of Shotton, only added the
concession that all the cattle of the prior's men should have equal rights of
pasture with his own tenants.^ Thomas of Kilham was more generous. He
began by confirming the right of the canons to the two carucates and the
pasturage which they held in the days of Henry Manners, and made the
position the more clear by levying a fine to this effect, by which the prior
undertook for himself and his successors to pay a mark annually to Thomas
and his heirs b}- his wife Beatrice.'* He also confirmed a holding of two
bovates and a plot of ^-k acres which lay in front of the canons' house in the
vill, originally given by the Manners to Harold, porter of Carham, and by
the latter to the canons, the rent of a pair of stockings or 4d. annually having
been since remitted.^ On his own account he gave ten acres of land in the
place called Coteside with permission to build a sheepfold there, and pasture
for 300 sheep,® but he evidently had some difficulty with them over the
pasturage rights north of the Bowmont water, partly as to cattle which had
strayed thither, and he ultimately undertook in return for an annual
rent of 6s. to close the pasture to all people who were not actually resident
in the township.' His widow Beatrice also had litigation with them concern-
ing their sheepfold and a wall, and claimed dower in the ten acres at Coteside,
but she ultimately withdrew her demands.^ Probably to this period belongs
a gift, made by John Hare, of a field called Scoteflate, which was bordered by
Coteside on the north and by the road from Kilham to Heddon on the south,
the canons' sheepfold abutting on one side and a little tributary of the
' Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 85. = Ibid. » Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 86.
' Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 85; Pedes Finium, 11 Hen. III. Xo. 18— Duke's Transcripts, vol. i. p. 88.
' Kirkham Cartulary, fols. 85, 86. " Ibid. fol. 85. ' Ibid. fol. 80. « Ibid.
KILHAM TOWNSHIP. 165
Blackburn on the other. Another rood of land near the sheepfold was
included in the grant, which was confirmed by Thomas of Kilham as lord
of the manor.i Michael of Kilham added to the already extensive posses-
sions of the canons eight acres of land in le Halwe on either side of the Black-
burn with the pasture in Crenehalwe and all the land in le Hesthalwe, and
four acres of meadow at Schappelawe. Also he gave permission for a wall
to be built round this holding, and for a ditch and pond to be made therein.
Later he also gave permission for the making of a ditch to mark the boundary
of his property and that of the canons in his wood, and on his mother's death
he gave them what had been her dower in le Holme, lying on the south side
of the Blackburn. 2 He extended their pasture rights by allowing them to
turn their animals out on his arable land, and on that of his tenants, after the
crops had been gathered in till the feast of the Purification, and all the
year round on such lands as were lying fallow and in a plot called Under-
nodwyside near his sheepfold of Schappelawe. He gave them rights of
access to the pasture known as le Ward, of pasturage for fifteen sheep and two
cows with their offspring in the common pasture, and of digging soil and
stone in his lands for the repair of their buildings.^ Still all this did not
prevent a disagreement with regard to pasturage rights, which came before
the courts in 1269, when the prior of Kirkham complained that these had
been infringed, and that 300 of the 1,000 sheep feeding on the 'great moor'
of Kilham had been driven off. It was found that his complaints were
groundless,* though perhaps he thus gained the concession whereby
Michael renounced the annual rent of one mark, secured to him by the
fine of 1227, and another of half a mark.^ Apart from these grants from
the lords of the manor, there was a little property given by lesser persons.
Matilda, widow of Thomas Colman, a resident in Paston, gave the canons
an acre of land.^ Henry, son of Adam of Branxton, gave them a plot called
Addanescrok, lying between their wood and Bowmont water, and William,
son of Walter of Kilham, sold them half an acre of meadow for which he
secured licence from the master of Chibburn,'^ though M'hat interest the
latter had therein is not known. Finally Adam, son of Thomas of Kilham,
first leased, and then sold, an acre of land and meadow, and later the plot caUed
Andrewslaw, to the prior and convent,* a conveyance which must have been
' Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 85. - Ibid. ^ Ibid. io\. 86. " Northumberland Assize Rolls (Surtecs Soc), p. 176.
5 Kirkham Cartulary, fol. « Ibid. fol. 88. ' Ibid. (ol. 86. ' Ibid. fol. 87.
l66 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
effected by licence under the statute of mortmain, as Adam lived in the
second quarter of the fourteenth century,^ and was contemporary with Robert
Archer, who is mentioned in one of the charters.
With a property so large as this, it is perhaps not surprising that the prior
of Kirkham had often to maintain his rights. The free warren granted to
him in 1252,^ had to be justified in 1293,^ and in 1256 Robert Roos was
mulcted in damages of £20 for having carried off two oxen and two horses
of the prior's from Kilham to the castle of Wark.* For twelve long years,
beginning in 1280, did the prior and one Thomas of Paston litigate about
the taking of some of the former's sheep by way of distress, and even then
judgment was not given. ^ It was again a matter of pasture rights which
caused litigation between the prior and Robert Archer in 1292 and 1293,
the latter winning his case,^ but such was the penalty of scattered possessions
and undefined rights. At the dissolution of the religious houses all this
property passed into the hands of the crown, and for a time was leased to
Rowland Brandford, but in 1553 it was sold together with the corn mill,
which had also belonged to the priory, to William Strother of Kirknewton, to
be held in socage of the king as of his manor of East Greenwich.'^ These lands
in Kilham were included in the settlement of his property made by William
Strother in 1579,^ and a certain John Strother of Kilham is mentioned in
1596.^ The same lands were sold by John Strother of Newton to Sir Ralph
Grey, and were included among the properties of his son. Lord Grey, in 1626. i"*
Lands of St. Thomas, Bolton. — Robert Roos included in his foundation
charter of the hospital of St. Thomas the Martyr of Bolton two bovates of land
in the vill of Kilham, which William of Paston had sold to him and which were
then in the tenure of Robert Niger.^^ So far as we know, this was all the land
ever held by the hospital in the township, though it seems hardly a large
' Cal. of Close Rolls, 1333-1337, p. 167. = Ancient Deeds, vol. v. p. 162.
' Quo Warranto — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 119.
' Northumberland Assize Rolls, (Surtees Soc.) pp. 43-44.
* De Banco Rolls, No. 36, ra. 75 ; No. 96, m. 296 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxvi. pp. 438-439 ; vol.
xxviii. pp. 46-47.
^ Coram Rege Roll, i<lo. 21, m. 6; Assize Roll, 21 Edw. 1. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxiv. pp. 1141, 1148,
1 157, 1 163 ; vol. xviii. pp. 182, 266, 267.
' P.R.O. Augmentation Office, Particulars for Grants, No. 1985 ; Originalia. 5 pars., 7 Edw. VI. Rot. 18.
Cf. Caley MS. The inclusion of a corn mill in this property suggests that the lands once belonging to Nicholas
of Kilham had come into the hands of Kirkham priory.
" I.aing Charters, p. 244. » Cal. oj Border Papers, vol. ii. p. 165. '" Lambert MS.
" Monaslicon, vol. vi. pt. ii. p. 692. Confirmed by the king 6th April, 1227. Cal. of Charter Rolls,
vol. i. p. 30. Cf. Cal. of Charter Rolls, vol. i. p. 36.
KILHAM TOWNSHIP. 167
enough holding to justify the grant of free warren, which the master was
granted in all his demesne lands in Kilham in 1335.^
Sub-tenants of the Manor. — For a township of its size we have a good
many incidental references to small holdings of land in Kilham. In 1306
John of Greystead and his wife Pleasaunce sued David, son of Thomas
Baxter of Lanton, for dower in one messuage, 30 acres of land and 2 acres of
meadow in the township, to which David pleaded that he only held one
toft, two bovates and four acres of land there, and so far as this holding was
concerned, he called John, son and heir of William Heslerigg, to warrant,
with what result we know not.^ David Baxter died in 1323 seised of three
bondages and a cottage in the township by right of his wife, held of the lord
of the manor,^ and in 1369 the widow of his grandson, David, was allotted
dower in six husbandlands and one cottar's holding in Kilham, this being held
of the manor by service of i8d. yearly.^ In 1589 another of this name
appears in the township in the person of John Baxter, who with his wife
Margaret was defendant in a fine with regard to the sixth part of certain
lands there,^ but long before this we may suppose that the original Baxter
property had passed to the Manners family. The first earl of Rutland
alluded to his lands there in his will dated August i6th, 1542,^ but the second
earl conveyed them together with the manor of Etal to the crown in 1547,"
and in Elizabeth's time they were leased to Henry Haggerston.^ In 1604
they consisted of 126 acres held by two customary tenants.^ When Hugh
Sampson settled a messuage and land in Bamburgh on himself and Christine
his wife, he retained in fee simple a messuage and land in Kilham,^** and Sir
Alan Heton held of the manor in Kilham two husbandlands, worth 13s. 4d.
each in usual times, but at the moment worth nothing, and this went to his
daughter Elizabeth and her husband, Sir John Fenwick.^^ In 1587 Thomas
Forster, the younger, of Adderstone, bequeathed to his son Matthew 'ids.
purchas land in Kylham.'^^
^ Cat. of Charter Rolls, vol. iv. p. 328.
^ De Banco Rolls, No. 158, m. 125; No. 161, in. ijido ; No. 163, m. 115 — Duke's Transcripts, vol.
xxxvii. pp. 131, 292, 441. The form in which the defendant's name occurs is David son of Thomas le Pestur.
' Cal. oj Inq. p.m. vol. vi. p. 289. * Belvoir Deeds, drawer 21.
' Feet of Fines, sixteenth century, p. 56. ' North Country Wills, vol. i. p. 187.
' P.R.O. Augmentation Office. Deeds of Purchase and Exchange, Box F, No. 23.
' P.R.O. Augmentation Office. Particulars for Leases, Northumberland, File 4, No. 26.
• Survey of the Border, 1604, p. 129. "> Inq. A.Q.D. File ccclxxv. No. 3.
" Inq. p.m. 11 Ric. II. No. 31 ; 12 Ric. II. No. 28 ; 15 Ric. II. part i. No. 87 — Duke's Transcripts,
vol. xxxviii. pp. 163, 176, 237-238, 240.
•- Wills and Inventories, vol. ii. p. 302.
l68 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
An independent Freeholding.— Apart from the property of
Nicholas, son of Michael of Kilham, of which mention has been made,*
there is evidence of another holding in the township held of the chief lord
of the fee. In 1342 Thomas Atterell and his wife Isabel sold to Richard
of Kilham, 6 messuages, 100 acres of land, 15 acres of wood, los. rent and a
quarter of a mill in Kilham and Paston, a property evidently part of the
inheritance of Isabel.^ Two years later the above purchaser sold the reversion
of 5 messuages, 100 acres of land, 10 acres of meadows, 10 acres of wood
and a quarter of a mill in Kilham and Paston, in the occupation of William
Heron, for a term of four years, to William of Bewick,^ a property which
corresponds sufficiently with that sold by Thomas Atterell and his wife as
to suggest that it is identical therewith. William of Bewick had some
trouble with his tenant, as in 1350 he was suing him for disseisin in these
lands.*
The Tower and Border Raids. — 'The townshippe of Kylham
conteyneth xxvi husband lands now'e well plenyshed an hathe in
yt nether tower barmekyn nor other fortresse whiche ys greatt
petye for yt woulde susteyne many able men for defence of those
borders yf yt had a tower and barmekyn buylded in yt where
nowe yt lyeth waste in every warre and then yt is a greatt tyme
after or yt can be replenyshed againe.'^ Thus wrote the border commis-
sioners of 1541, and so impressed were they with the necessity for some kind
of fortification, that later in their report they returned to the subject and
recommended that 'a new tower and barmekyne be made at Kilham.'^
Undoubtedly the township had suffered much from the Scots, and practically
no valuation of its lands in the fifteenth century failed to reveal a state
of waste and destruction.' It was open to attack by way of the gap in the
hills through which Bowmont water flows, and a typical incident is described
in 1521 when the Potts, Rutherfords, Douglasses and Robsons, 'with their
sleuth hounds ' raided the town, took away 500 sheep ' and spoilzit the poir
men and women following ther gud.'^ It suffered, too, in the invasion of
1513 but for a time had peace,^ though it was never safe from such forays
' See page i6i. - Pedes Finium, i6 Edw. III. No. bo — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxLx. pp. 136-137.
' Pedes Finium 18 Edw. III. No. 69— Duke's Transcripts, vol. x.xxix. pp. 150-151.
' Assize Roll, Divers Counties — 21-27 Edw. III. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xx. p. 469.
' Survey of the Border, 1541— Border Holds, p. 31. " Ibid. p. 36. ' Vide supra.
« Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII, vol. iii. pt. i. p. 439. ' Ibid. vol. xvi. p. 478.
KILHAM TOWNSHIP. 169
as that in 1568, which cost it 700 sheep, though later reprisals made up some
of this loss.^ Similarly the place was open to Scots who had made things
too hot for them across the border, and it seems that the Storeys, so well
known in Glendale in the latter half of the century, first settled for this
reason in Kilham, 'where,' so runs a report of 1583, 'they yet dwell and are
a great surname. '^ It is possible that a tower was built before 1584 in Kil-
ham, at least the site of one is marked in a plan of that year,^ but if so, it
did not prevent serious robberies of cattle in 1596,* nor a regular pitched
battle in April, 1597. 'On the 14th instant,' wrote Sir Robert Carey to the
privy council, ' at night four Scotsmen broke up a poor man's door at Kilham
on this March, taking his cattle. The town followed, rescued the goods, sore
hurt three of the Scots, and brought them back prisoners. The fourth Scot
raised his country meanwhile, and at daybreak 40 horse and foot attacked
Kilham, but being resisted by the town, who behaved themselves very hon-
estly, they were driven off and two more were taken prisoners. Whereon the
Scots raised Tyvidale, being near hand, and to the number of 160 horse and
foot came back by seven in the morning, and not only rescued all the
prisoners, but slew a man, left seven for dead and hurt ver}^ sore a great
many others.'^ Later in the same year a band of fifteen Scots 'came to
Kilham fields and cruelly slew Renian Routledge going at his wayne, bring-
ing home his hay, giving him twenty wounds and not leaving him till dead.'^
There is little suggestion of a strong house or tower in these accounts, but
such there must have been, as part of it at least was standing some thirty
years ago, and is said to have resembled closely the bastel house at
Doddington, though it was built on a far smaller scale.''
' Cal. oj Stale Papers, Foreign, 1566-1568, p. 504. - Cal. of Border Papers, vol. i. p. 125.
'Christopher Dacre's Plat of Caslles, 1584 — Border Holds, pp. 78-79. This 'plat' was probably a
sketch of the defences of the border as they should be rather than as they were.
* Cal. oj Border Papers, vol. ii. p. 165. ' Cal. oJ Border Papers, vol. ii. p. 296.
• Ibid. vol. ii. p. 441. ' Bates, Border Holds, pp. 53-54.
Vol. XI. 22
170 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
PASTON TOWNSHIP.
Nestling amidst trees at the foot of the hills and looking across the
Bowmont water at Downham on the opposite shore, Paston^ enjoys a
pleasant situation, despite its northern aspect.^ It was a member of the
barony of Roos,^ and doubtless was held by Walter Espec in the reign of
Henry I. During the anarchy of king Stephen, however, it seems to have
been for a time in the hands of Henry, son of David I., king of Scots, who
some time between 1139 and 1152 gave it to Eustace Fitzjohn.* It was
given along with W^ark by Robert Rocs II. to his son Robert before 1226,^
and thenceforth evidently passed with the rest of the baron}'. Throughout
this time it was held by sub-tenants, save that in 1344 William Montague,
then lord of Wark, held tenements in the vill leased for a term of two years. ^
Descent of the Manor. — It is probable that the lords of the township
under the barony were the same throughout as those of Kilham, since an inquisi-
tion of 1300 found that Antechester and Paston were members of the manor of
Kilham. '^ Practically all the lords of Kilham of the thirteenth century are men-
tioned either as confirming grants to Kirkham priory, or as being called to
warrant in some case before the courts,^ and in 1304 John, son of Robert Archer,
was called to warrant,^ which shows that the sale of the manor of Kilham
to the Archer family included the township of Paston. Likewise we may
surmise, that when the Archers sold in their turn to Sir John Coupland in
1453, the same inclusion took place. This is the more probable as we find,
that in that same year Sir John Coupland and Joan his wife bought a small
holding in Paston, consisting of a messuage, 40 acres of land and 6 acres of
' Earlier Pachcstenam, Paleslitn, Paloxton, Palleslon, Parleston, Palxston, Palwiston, Palston, Paxton,
Palkeslon, Palxton, Pawston. O.E. PcEllocesttin=Pa.elloc's form, PcbIIoc being a diminutive of the name
Paelli found in Liber Vitae Diinclmensis. Pawston is first found in 1542 and indicates the local
pronunciation.
* The Census returns, which include Shotton and Bowmont Hill, are : i8oi, 135 ; 181 1, 180 ; 1821, 209 ;
1831, 207 ; 1841, 199 ; 1851,- 208 ; 1861, 189 ; 1871, 181 ; 1881, 172 ; 1891, 170 ; 1901, 125 ; 1911, 143.
The township comprises 2354-526 acres.
' Testa de Nevill — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 211.
' Percy Chartulary. No. Dcclviii. pp. 290-291. The name appears as 'Pachestenam,' which the editor
of the chartulary identifies with Paston in Kirknewton.
' Cal. of Charter Rolls, vol. i. p. 56. " Cat. of Inq. p.m. vol. viii. p. 388.
' Inq. p.m. 3 Ric. U. No. I — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxviii. pp. 43-45.
' Kirkham Cartulary, fols. 86, 87, 88, 89 ; De Banco Roll, No. 82, m. 48— Duke's Transcripts, vol.
xxvii. pp. 414-415.
* De Banco Roll, No. 153, m. 183 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. x.xi.x. p. 454.
PASTON TOWNSHIP. I7I
meadow from Peter Crabbe and Agnes his wife, it being seemingly of the
last named's inheritance.^ Further in 1359 they were granted 3 messuages
and 40 acres of land forfeited by John Trollop for partaking in Gilbert
Middleton's rebellion, and since then apparently in the hands of the crown.^
When Joan inherited her husband's property, she consistently described
her holding in" Paston as the manor, ^ and sold it as such to Sir Richard
Arundel in 1372.* It was still in the hands of the Arundels in 1404, ^ but in
1443 Sir Ralph Grey held 'the township of Palxston, worth nothing yearly -
in these days,' of the king in socage as of the lordship of Wark.^ Thus
the overlordship and the township itself had come to be in the same hands.
The Greys did not own Paston for more than a century, as in 1541 the
border commissioners reported that ' the towneshipe of Pawston conteyneth
xxvi. husband lands now plenyshed, one Garrade Selbye gent, of late pur-
chased this towne an in yt hath buylded a lytle tower without a barmekyn
not fully fynyshed.'" The exact date of this purchase, presumably from
the Greys, is not known, but it had been accomplished before 1535, when an
official reported that ' Yerard Selbye, of Pawston, two miles from Scotland,
may dispend ;^io a year. He may serve the king with eight horsemen.
He hath builded a stone house now lately on the borders and plenished the
ground, which hath laid waste sith the Scottish field, and is a sharp borderer.'^
His son William was not so well thought of by the authorities, since among
the misdemeanours attributed to Rowland Forster in 1562 was. that 'he
concealed the laird of Pastion in his house, who having grievously offended
the laws, fled from authority.'* This William Selby did not hold the whole
township, for one Robert Selby and John M3lne were also returned as land-
owners there in 1568,^" a year in which the inhabitants saw a fight of some
' Pedes Finium, 27 Edw. III. No. 97 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxix. pp. 204-206.
= Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1358-1361, pp. 223-224.
' Ca/. of Patent Rolls, 1367-1370, p. 39; Pedes Finium, 39 Edw. III. No. 137— Duke's Transcripts,
vol. xxxLx. pp. 312-315.
* Cal. of Close Rolls, 1369-1374, p. 448; Pedes Finium, 47 Edw. III. No. 158— Duke's Transcripts,
vol. xxxix. pp. 312-315.
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1401-1405, pp. 309-310. « P.R.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. Hen. IV. file iii.
' Survey of the Border, 1541 — Border Holds, p. 31. The only other evidence of there being a tower
here is that the site of one is marked in Christopher Dacre's Plat of Castles, i~c., 1584 — Border Holds, pp. 78-79.
' Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII . vol. ix. p. 372. It was doubtless this Gerard Selby of Paston
who married Elizabeth, daughter of William Swinhoe ofCarhiU. Foster, Visitations, p. Il8, or according to
another visitation sister of William and daughter of Gilbert Swinhoe. Northern Visitations, p. 112.
' Cal. of State Papers, Foreign, 1562, p. 148.
'" Liber Feodarii, 1568 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. pp. Ixviii., bcix. Robert Selby occurs in two different
places in the record. Paston is only represented by a ' P' in the case of the other two owners.
172 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
fierceness between a band of Scottish marauders, who were being driven off
from a raid on Hethpool, and some regular soldiers, the last charge of the
English forces in a long running fight being at ' Paston town end.'^ At least
a portion of the vill belonged to the Selbys of Branxton, for in 1581 John
Selby of Branxton included lands in Paston when making provision for the
descent of his estates.^ This was the John Selby, who with William Strother
and William Selby owned the vill in 1580,^ the last named being the repre-
sentative of the Paston line, who is again mentioned in 1590.* It was
doubtless this William Selby who was the laird of Paston in 1595, and
scandalized the authorities by chatting with the laird of Cessford while he
had a drink on his way back from a fruitless attempt to slay some of the
Storeys,^ but we cannot place the John Selby, 'a gentleman dwelling at
Pawston,' who was slain there in the following year while defending his
home against Scottish marauders.® In 1625 a Gerard Selby and his wife
Dorothy bought the Strother lands in the township,^ and he is the Gerard
Selby of Harelaw, who by his will dated 31st January, 1632, left all his
lands and tithes and his corn mill to William Selby, the younger son of his
brother Wilham Selby of Paston. He further instructed the daughters of
his deceased nephew John Selby to convey the lands, late in the occupation
of their father, to the same William Selby the younger.^ It seems likely
that by this will most of the divided portions of Paston were united to the
manor, and that the Selbys of Paston henceforth owned the whole vill.
Gerard and William, the elder, were doubtless the sons of William Selby and
grandsons of the purchaser of the estate, and as Gerard in 1632 described
his brother as of Paston, he himself, it seems, was the younger, his brother,
having probably died in 1599.^
William Selby brother of John Selby, was thus the head of the house
and claimed to be heir to all the property, but his nieces, daughters of John
Selby, led by Arthur Grey, the husband of one of them, claimed the estate
' Cal. 0/ Slate Papers, Foreign, 156O-1568, p. 515. ' Feet of Fines, sixteenth century, p. 45.
' Cal. of Border Papers, vol. i. p. 14. * Ibid. p. 362.
' Report of Sir John Carey— Raine, North Durham, p. xlvi ; Cal. of Border Papers, vol. ii. p. 36.
' Cal. of Border Papers, vol. ii. pp. 137, 147. In a deed of 1629 there are mentioned John Selby of
Pawston, WilUam Selby of Pawston and Gerard Selby of Harelaw. Raine, North Durham, p. 206.
' Paston Deeds. « Raine, Testamenta, vol. ii. pp. 114-116.
' In 1599 administration granted of the will of William Selby of Pawston to Jane his wife, his
children being John, William and Jane, all under age. {Raine, Lib. Adm. vol. i. p. 165.) John Selby appears
as a freeholder in Paston in 1628. (Freeholders in Northumberland — Arch. Aeliana, 6.S. vol. ii. p. 321.) His
wiU is dated 7th February, 1O29, and inventory is dated lyth April, 1G30. (Raine, Testamenta, vol. ii. p. 155.)
PASTON TOWNSHIP.
173
SELBY OF PASTON.
(First Line.)
[?Wii,liam] Selby, of the parish of Norham =
Gerard Selby, purchased Paston = Elizabeth,
before 154 1, and built the daughter
tower there, which was as yet of Gilbert
unfinished in that year (e) ; Swinhoe
will dated 30th June, 1549 ; of Cornhill
to be buried in Norham : and Gos-
church (d). j wick (g).
i
Robert Selby, vicar of
Norham, 1536-65 ;
vicar of Berwick,
1541-65 ; named in
brother's will (d) ;
died before 8th
June, 1565.
William Selby, named
in brother's will
(d) ; probably eldest
brother and of
Branxton ; ancestor
of Selby of Twizell
Castle (i).
I
George Selby,
mentioned
in brother's
wiU {d}.
William Selby of Paston, son and heir, and executor of father's =
will [d] ; will dated 26th May, 1603, proved 1606 ; his 'messu-
age of Pastowne towne' leased to his daughter-in-law, Jane (I).
Margery, mentioned
in her husband's
will (I).
Fortune, mentioned
in her father's
will (d).
William Selby (d) = Jane {k) Toby Selby,
of Paston; mentioned underage
administration in father- 1603 (l).
granted 31st ! in - law's
August, 1599(A). will (l). •
I
Gerard Selby of Harelaw, party to deeds 19th = Dorothy,
April, 1619 (a), and 12th September, 1625 (a) ; party to
described as uncle of John Selby of Paston (d) deed 12th
(?was this Gerald Selby of Harelaw who made September,
his will 31st January, 1632, proved 1663) (d). 1625 (a).
John Selby of Paston,
under age 1599 (k),
will dated 7th Sep-
tember, 1629 (d) ; in-
ventory 19th April,
1630 (d).
Eleanor, party
to deed i6th
June, 1633,
then of Ber-
wick, widow
(a).
I
Jane,
under
age
1599
(A).
William Selby, of Harelaw, under age 1599 (A), :
acquired Paston 26th June, 1633, t>y pur-
chase from brother's widow and daughters
(a) ; sole executor of Gerard Selby of Hare-
law, 1632 ; party with wife Mary, and son
William to deed 20th February, 1650 (a).
: Mary
party
to deed
20th
Feb.,
1650(a).
Dorothy, dau. and
co-heir, married
before i 6th
Nov., 1636 (a).
John Reed (a), ?son
of Sir Wm. Reed
of Fenham in
Islandshire.
Anne, dau. and :
co-heir, mar.
before i6th
Nov., 1636(a).
: Arthur Elizabeth, dau. and
Grey co-heir, under age
of and unmarried
Wark (a) i6th Jan., 1633(a).
I
Jane, dau and
co-heir, named
in father's
wiU [d)
William Selby of Paston ; in Michaelmas :
term, 1684, exhibited a bill in Chan-
cery ; died circa 1687 (a).
Dorothy Lauder, bond of marriage 4th September, 1678, as Dorothy
Lauder, alias Selby, widow ; married at Norham, 31st July,
1679 ; died at Harelaw ; buried 3rd May, 1705 (6).
Gerard Selby, aged 3 at father's death ; his mother in 1693 revived = Sarah, daughter of Gabriel Hall of Catcleugh ;
suit in chancery begun by father (a) ; captured by rebels, 1715, bond of marriage 22nd Jan., 1712 (a) ; party
and carried prisoner to Kelso; buried 3rd August, 1720, aged to deed 3rd April, 1775 (a) ; died at Hare-
36(?) (b, c) ; will dated 24th July, 1720 (a); proved 1721 (3). 1 law, aged 83 (c) ; buried ist Jan., 1778 (6).
I
Gabriel Selby, of Paston, lieut.-
colonel in Northumberland
militia (h) ; died at Paston,
aged 68 (c) ; buried 12th June,
1785 (h) ■ ob. s.p.
= Anne, daughter of William, lord
Cranstoun, married August
15th, 1759 ; died at Paston,
aged 50 ; buried 23rd August,
1769 (b, c, /).
(a) Paston Deeds
{b]
(c)
id]
Cornhill Registers.
Monumental Inscriptions, Cornhill, printed
with notes in Berwickshire Naturalists' Club,
\"ol. xxii, p. 2.S1 .
Raine, Testamenla.
Survey of the Border, 1541 — Border Holds, p. 31.
Gerard Selby,
named in
father's will ;
died 1 72 1, aged
i\ years (c).
I I
died
died
nth
Margaret, co-heir,
unmarried, Feb.,
aged 74.
Elizabeth, co-heir,
unmarried before
October, 1791.
(/) Newcastle CouranI, 2nd September, 1769.
(g) Northern Visitations, p. 112.
(h) Adamson, Notices of Northumberland Militia,
p. 10.
(i) Rainc, North Durham, pedigree, p. 315.
(A) Raine, Lib. .-Idm. vol. i. p. 105.
(/) Kaine, Testamenta, vol. ii. p. 181.
174
PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
SKLBY. OF PAS I ON.
(Second Line.)
Mary, daughter of = George Seldy of Alnwick, fourth son of George = Dorothy, widow of Christopher Carr
~ ' " ----- __ - _ - ^j Alnwick, and daughter of
Edward Cook of Togston, baptised
at Warkworth 25th .\pril, 1714 :
bond of marriage 30th September,
1752; died 25th January, 1796,
aged 83.
Prideaux Sclby of
15eal, married at
Kyloe 23rd July,
1745; buried i6th
September, 1 750
(6).
Selby of Holy Island, baptised at Holy Island
1 8th January, 1719/20; articled 12th July,
1737 to Richard Grieve of Alnwick, attorney ;
admitted free of the borough of Alnwick 4th
April, 1742, died ist March, 1806, aged 86 (b) ;
will dated gth May, 1804.
George Selby of Foxton,
parish of Lesbury ;
baptised 20th August,
1746 (6) ; married at
J,esbury 15th Dec-
ember, 1778; died at
Alnwick loth June,
1815, aged 69 (c) s.p.
Ellen, widow
of [Thomas]
Nott.livinga
widow 15th
July, 1829.
Prideaux Selby, lieutenant,
5th Foot ; baptised 21st
December, 1 747 (6) ; settled
at York in Upper Canada,
in which province he re-
ceived a grant of land (a) and
died at Toronto 1 2th May,
1813.
Elizabeth Alder of London,
but of Northumbrian
descent, of Great Russell
Street, Bloomsbury, when
she made her will 26th
June, 1S17; afterwards of
Little Chelsea ; will proved
13th February, 1827 (a).
Prideaux Selby of Clifton, :
near Ashbourne, Derby-
shire ; born circa 1 780 ;
died at Maidenhead
22nd June, 1829.
:Mary, daughter of George, son of Mr.
Beaumont ; born 9th Prideaux Selby
September, 1777 (a); of London ; buried
married 1805 ; 19th October,
died 6th August, 1854. 1777 (b).
Elizabeth, wife of William Derenzy,
lieut. -colonel, of Stonyhill, Alnwick.
Mary, wife of John Rickards of Col-
chester, named in her mother's
will.
I
Henry CoUingwood Selby of Swansiield and = Frances, daughter of Prideaux
Paston, baptised 4th June, 1749 (6)
admitted to Grays Inn 8th November,
1770; clerk of the Peace of Middlesex for
60 years; died 9th February, 1839 (c) ; will
dated 15th July, 1829 (a).
Wilkie ; baptised at Dodding-
ton 1 8th September, 1764 ;
married there 21st August,
1789; died in childbirth ist
August, 1790 (c).
Mary, wife of Thomas Donald-
son of Cheswick, captain 31st
Regiment ; married 14th
September, 1791 (6); of Aln-
wick, a widow when she
made her will 2nd March,
1808.
4-
Frances Wilkie Selby, only child, born ist August, 1790; first wife of Charles Thorp, D.D.,
and Archdeacon of Durham ; died 21st April, 181 1 s.p.
rector of Ryton
Prideaux Selby of Swansfield and Paston ; born 3rd September, 1810 {d} ;
entered at Gray's Inn 20th January, 1827; married 3rd November, 1840,
St. George's, Hanover Square ; died 5th April, 1872 [d) ; buried
Brompton cemetery ; will dated 5th April, 1871 ; proved 2nd May,
1872.
Harriet Elizabeth, daughter of
Sir William B. Proctor, Bart,
admiral R.N. ; died 23rd
April, 1893, aged 78; buried
Brompton Cemetery.
I I I i I I I
Henry CoUingwood Selby, born 1812; admitted to Gray's Inn 15th April,
1850 ; Queen's advocate, Ceylon ; died in Paris in 1856. 4^
George Selby, born 18 14; Madras Artillery, General in the army ; died
1884 ; buried Fleet, Hampshire. 4^
William Beaumont Selby, born 1st March, 1816 ; captain R.N. ; died
1876 ; buried Exeter s.p.
James Hall Selby, entered at Gray's Inn 13th November, 1833 ; died
24th May, 1847 at Quebec, unmarried.
John Selby, born 2nd September, 1820 ; died 26th November, 1865, at
Cookham, Berkshire, unmarried ; letters of administration, loth
December, 1867.
Walter Selby, born 1825 ; died unmarried, buried Exeter.
Octavius Seiby, born 5th August, 1S22 ; died aged 18.
I I M I I
Mary, wife of Davison {a).
Elizabeth, wife of Thomas Rudd(fl).
Louisa Wilson, wife of Charles
Beaumont (a).
Hannah, married Beaumont;
and second. Rev. L. Sampson,
Fellow of King's, Cambridge, and
rector of Prescott, Lancashire {a).
Amelia, wife of Fred. Thomas
Ward of Maidenhead (a).
Frances Catherine, wife of B. K.
McDermot, an officer in the
Indian army (a).
PASTON TOWNSHIP.
175
Beauchamp Prideaux Selby of Paston ; = Fanny, daughter of Joseph William Henry Colling- = Alice, daughter of
born 23rd August, 1841; of St.
John's College, Cambridge ; B.A.,
1865, admitted to Inner Temple,
January, 1868 ; died 6th November,
1918: will proved 2nd May, 1919.
Pocklington Senhouse
of Netherhall ; married
gth August, 1 88 1 at
Maryport ; died 23rd
March, 1898.
wood Selby, com-
mander R.N. ; born
2 2nd September, 1842;
died at Scutari, 20th
February, 1882.
Robert Clutter-
buck of Hinx-
well, Herts,
married June,
1872(a).
Beauchamp Henry Selby, born 4th June,
1882; captain Northumberland Fusiliers;
died 2ist September, 1914, of wounds
received in action near Vailly, department
of Aisne, on the preceding day.
Prideaux Joseph Selby,
born 1st June, 1885 ; died
at Gibraltar of wounds
received in action, 3rd
October, 19 15.
I I I
Prideaux Robert Rose Mary,
Selby, bom April, Dorothy.
1873, succeeded
his uncle, 1918.
Prideaux George Selby, born
1844; died 2ist October, 1908;
Cemetery. ^
Oliver Selby, born 13th May, 1850
ember, 1904 ; buried Retford, .j.
I I I I I
16th September, Edith Harriet, wife of Henry A. Campbell,
buried Brompton Maud Emily, living unmarried 1915.
Evelyn, living unmarried 1915.
; died 7th Sept- Gertrude, living unmarried 1915.
Beatrice Mar>', wife of Richard Dumford, C.B.
(a) M. B. P. Selby's Family Papers.
(b) Alnwick Register.
(c) Monumental Inscription, Alnwick.
{d) Monumental Inscription, Kirknewton Church.
and he had to agree to pay them £500. A part of this sum he borrowed on
mortgage from Arthur Grey himself, and when his son Wilham succeeded
in 1666/ the mortgagees secured his ejection. Arthur Grey was now dead,
and his son Edward followed him to the grave in 1667, bequeathing his rights
in Paston to his nephew Thomas. In 1685 William Selby began a suit to
recover his patrimony, basing his claim on the bequest of Gerard Selby, which
he maintained was to himself. He declared that his father had no right
of alienation, and that the mortgagees had recovered both capital and
interest by the enjoyment of the estate for twenty years. He died before
judgment had been given, but the suit continued in the interests of his
infant son, Gerard, who obtained leave to redeem the estate by the payment
of £500, though this had not been accomplished by 171 1 owing to difficulties
arising from the transference of the mortgage into several hands. ^ This
Gerard Selby died in 1721, leaving Paston to his widow, Sarah, for life with
remainder to his eldest son Gabriel.^ Sarah purchased in 1732 from James
Mills, formerly of Presson, a portion of the township which had hitherto
' Inventory of Wilham Selby of Harelaw, 19th October, 1666. (Raine, Testamenta, vol. iv. p. 39.)
Administration granted to Mary his widow. (Raine, Lib. Adm. vol. ii. p. 61.) The estate belonged to William
Selby in 1663 with a rent roll of /loo, but Thomas Watson owned part of Harelaw. (Rate Book, 1663.
— Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 278.)
^ P.R.O. Chancery Proceedings, Bridges, bundle 490, No. 45 ; bundle 161, No. 34 ; bundle 374, Nos
42. 43-
' Raine, Testamenta, vol. v. pp. 11-12.
176 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
not belonged to the family, and she conveyed it to her son Gabriel. The
estate became seriously involved, and in 1780 Sir Richard Hoare, the mort-
gagee, gave notice to foreclose. Matters dragged on till 1787, whon the
only surviving representatives of the family were Margaret and Elizabeth,
unmarried sisters of Gabriel Selby. Finally in 1789 Sir Richard Hoare sold
the estate to Henry Collingwood Selby, who thereby established the second
line of the Selby family in Paston, whose descendants held the property till
May, 1921, when the mansion and Paston farm was sold to Mr. E. E. P.
Taylor of Cornhill.^
The mansion house of to-day is a pleasant modern building built round
the old tower, the vault of which has been converted into a cellar. At
Harelaw there still stands a low two storey house, which, according to an
inscription over the lintel, dates back to Elizabethan times.
Lands held in Mortmain. — No fewer than four distinct religious
foundations held lands at some time or another in Paston. The hospital
of St. Thomas, Bolton, by grant of Robert Roos, was possessed of half a
carucate of land and the service of two bovates of land, which about 1225
had been held in fee and inheritance by Robert Capgrave.- Of this holding
we know nothing further, save that in 1335 the king of special grace granted
the warden free warren in his demesne lands in Paston.^ Both the Templars
and the Hospitallers claimed liberties in the township during the Quo Warranto
inquiries of 1293.* No other reference to the property of the latter is found,
and the former seem to have conveyed what lands they had to Kirkham
priory in return for an annual rent. Thus quite early in the thirteenth
century William Templar gave to the canons of Kirkham and the knights
of the Temple two bovates of land and a toft and croft of three acres, which
he had bought from Waltheof of Paston,^ a gift confirmed by Almeric St. Maur,
master of the Templars in England, on condition that a rent of 2od. was
paid annually to his order. Later, one Patrick and his mother Edith granted
a toft held of the Templars by way of rounding off the former concession,
' Paston Deeds.
" Monasticon, vol. vi. pt. ii. p. 692 ; Cal. of Charier Rolls, vol. i. p. 30 ; vol. iv. p. 67 ; cf. vol. i. p. 56.
' Cal. of Charter Rolls, vol. iv. p. 328. Thomas of Bamburgh, the warden of the time, from his youth up
had served first Edward II. an<l tlien Edward 111., and the latter had used his influence to the utmost to
secure his appointment to the wardenship in 1331. Cal. oj Close Rolls, 1330-1333, pp. 118-119, 281-282.
* Quo Warranto — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. pp. 130-131, 162-163; Assi2e Roll, 20 and 21 Edw. I. — -Duke's
Transcripts, vol. xviii. pp. 383-385, 424-425.
' Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 87.
PASTON TOWNSHIP. 177
a proceeding also confirmed by the master, who stipulated for a rise of 4d
in the rent, making the total annual sum due from Kirkham priory to the
order 2s.i Thus, while nominally landowners, the Templars in reality only
drew a rent of 2s. a year from the township.
Kirkham priory held quite a considerable amount of property in Paston,
thanks to a series of small gifts and purchases. Thus the above named
Waltheof together with one Utred presented two acres of meadow, lying
towards Shotton, to the 'houseofCarham,' and together with a certain Geoffrey
another two acres of meadow in Gildenstreth to the priory. ^ Waltheof's
son, Henry, added yet another two acres of meadow hard by his father's gift
in Schottonhalgh, i| acres of arable in Edmundeschale and half an acre in
Giddehusefunter,^ and Utred's son William confirmed his father's surrender
of any claims he had on William Templar's holding, already the property
of the priory, adding an acre of meadow towards Shotton.* William
Templar's daughter, Matilda, also joined her husband, Thomas Colman,in sur-
rendering their rights in an acre of pasture in Schottonhalgh which they
held of the priory, and after his death surrendered her toft and croft and half
an acre in the aforenamed meadow.^ Another gift, more or less contem-
porary with this since it was confirmed both by Henry Manners and Henry
son of Waltheof, was one made by Patrick, son of Orm, consisting of an acre
and a rood and toft and croft hard by the donor's house, an acre on Emdilau,
another in Edmundeschale, a third towards the Cloh and three roods in
Topst — in all five acres. The same donor later conveyed to the canons
another four acres, of which two lay in Edmundeschale, one on the banks of
the stream which fed Mindrum mill and one lying by the Kerlingburne,
together with a toft and croft of half an acre in the village.^ It may have
been the same Patrick, though here we are given nothing but his Christian
name, who conveyed an acre of meadow in Gildenstreth to the canons ;^ it
was certainly his son who in return for id. in lieu of all service confirmed a
grant of 14 acres in Paston fields and two acres of meadow in Gildenstreth
made by Alan Torn, whose mother, Agatha, wife of Philip of Paston, resigned
her rights of dower in a bovate and half an acre of land to the canons for an
annuity of 3s., and whose widow, Emma, later did likewise, so far as the
lands contained in her husband's gift were concerned, on the same terms.^
This Philip of Paston, stepfather of Alan Torn, may be identical with the
1 Kirkham CartnUuy, fol. 87. » /i,(/. foi. 88. ' Ibid. * Ibid. ' Ibid. « Ibid. ' IbiJ. « Ibid.
Vol. XI 23
178 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
Philip who gave the canons a toft with the buildings standing thereon,^ and
he was doubtless contemporary with Adam of Paston,^ who confirmed his
gifts, and, as became a fairly important landowner, made grants of his own
to the canons, including a toft and croft with five acres pertaining thereto,^
all his meadow in Shottonhalgh lying in three different parts thereof,* a
rood and a quarter in Scamelanside next to the land of Bolton hospital.^
the toft and croft held by Hugh Surd^ and pasture for 400 sheep with a site
near the Scamelhowbourne for a sheep fold.' At least two of these gifts were
confirmed by Michael of Kilham, lord of the manor, who in addition granted
the service of a carucate of land with a toft pertaining thereto, held by
Robert, son of William, son of Humphrey — saving a rent of 6s. for the arable
part of the holding— an acre and three roods of meadow in Kingesmedum and
free access for the canons' sheep from the sheepfold of Mirebelstuel to the
common pasture of Kilham.^ His son, Nicholas of Kilham, added certain
rights of common pasture.^ No other lord of the manor gave anything to
the canons, save that at an earlier date than this Henry Manners conveyed
all that part of his meadow on Harelawe known as Kingsmead.^"
In addition to these donors, who are more or less identifiable, there
was a number whose names are met with in no other connection. Thus
Walter, the clerk, gave half an acre of meadow in Shottonhalgh,^^ another
cleric, Robert the chaplain of Mindrum, three acres of meadow in Alk
towards Shotton with pasture for 160 sheep and their lambs and twelve
beasts — a grant confirmed by Robert of Paston and Henry of Paston 1- — and
William son of Amfred an acre of meadow in Shottonhalgh next to that
of Walter, the clerk,^^ while Robert son of Robert of Liston surrendered
the land which he held of the canons consisting of an acre at Hendelawe,
three roods at Moreflate, two acres in Edmundeschale, two roods at Hare-
cloht, half an acre in Gildenstreth and a toft and croft containing an acre
and one rood. Simon son of Stephen of Shotton did likewise in respect
of four acres of land lying in Edmundeschale between Bowmont water
and the lands of Henry, son of Waltheof.^* Adam, son of Henry of Paston,
and John of St. Oswald's were both concerned in the gift of an acre of land lying
in le Held,^^ William, son of Roger of Paston, and his wife Emma, daughter
» Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 88. - See page i8o. = Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 87. * Ibid. fol. 88.
» Ibid. fols. 88-89. « Ibid. fol. 89. ' Ibid. fol. 87. « Ibid. fol. 89. » Ibid. fol. 86.
"> Ibid. fol. 85. " Ibid. fol. 88. >= Ibid. '^ Ibid. " Ibid. fol. 89. " /j,-^
PASTON TOWNSHIP. 179
of Thomas of Paston, gave the toft which had been the latter's marriage
portion from her mother,^ and a certain John of Paston seems to have
acted for others in conveying a toft and an acre of land on two separate
occasions. 2 The story of these acquisitions by the priory of Kirkham is
brought to a close by a series of grants by William of Paston, who in three
separate charters gave a toft and croft containing an acre of land, seven acres
of land and pasture for 2 horses, 8 beasts, 100 sheep, 5 sows and i boar, a
toft and croft containing three acres of land lying in Edmundeschale,
I acre of meadow in Gildenstreth and common pasture for 100 sheep, 8 oxen,
4 cows and 2 horses, and finally 3 acres of land and 3 acres of meadow in
Alk towards Shotton and pasturage for 100 sheep with their lambs, 12 beasts
and 3 horses. This last grant was confirmed by the donor's son, John,^ and
is so similar to that of Robert, the chaplain of Mindrum, as to be probably
identical.
After the dissolution of the religious houses the Paston estates of Kirk-
ham remained for some time in the hands of the crown. They were sold
to the Strothers after 1565,* and before 1579, when lands in Paston appear
in the entail made by William Strother of Kirknewton.^ In this family
they remained till 1625, when John Strother, Clement Strother and others
granted 'the tenements in Pawston, late in the possession of Clement
Strother, and tithes of com and grain in the town, fields and territories of
Pawston, which tenements and tythes were parcel of the rectory of Kirk-
newton,' to Gerard Selby and Dorothy his wife and Gerard's heirs.^ Thus
the scattered property of Kirkham priory in the township passed to the
owners of the manor.
Sub-tenants of the Manor. — Quite a number of small holders of land
appear in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, which suggests that the
manor was not kept in the hands of the lord, at any rate till it became the
property of Sir John Coupland. Thus in 1242 Beatrice, widow of Thomas of
Kilham, sued her brother-in-law, Walter of Paston, for dower in two bovates
of land in Paston. The defendant called to warrant Henry, son of Jolm of
Paston, who was ordered to satisfy the plaintiff's claim. '^ This suggests that
Thomas had subinfeudated two bovates of his Paston demesne to Henry of
> Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 88. ^ Ibid. fol. 89. ' Ibid.
* Ministers Accounts, 7-8 Eliza.heth—\V aierford Documents, vol. I. p. 63. ' Laing Charters, p. 2^^.
« Newcastle Public Librarj-. Caley MS.
' Curia Regis Rolls, Nos. 124, 125, 130— Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxi. pp. 225, 227-228, 233, 239-2^0.
l80 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
Paston or his father, who in turn had enfeoffed Thomas of Paston. Similarly
Thomas of Kilham's son, Michael, evidently provided for his younger son,
William, by giving him certain rents and lands in Paston, in which his widow
Idonea in lago claimed dower. ^ In 1293 this William increased his holding by
the acquisition of 34 acres of land in the township from Thomas of Caverton
and Christine his wife,^ and in 1297 was involved in litigation with Robert
of Trollop with regard to a messuage and 24 acres of land in Paston, which
the latter claimed as his right. ^ William's brother, Nicholas of Kilham,
also had a messuage, two bovates of land, four acres of meadow and 2od.
rent there, which he acquired from Robert Archer, who had purchased the
manor of Kilham from John, son of Michael of Kilham.^ Ten acres of this
passed to Patrick, son of William of Kilham,^ and the rest of his property
went to his sister, Aline Sweethope, who sold some of it to Adam, son of
Thomas of Kilham,^ the validity of the former of which sales was later
contested by Aline's daughter and heir Avis, wife of William of Bolton.^
Apart from the lords of Kilham and their relations, there was another
family which can be traced as holding lands in Paston through three genera-
tions. The first of these was represented by Adam of Paston, who in 1256
sued Robert Roos and Adam of Gadelef under a suit of novel disseisin
with regard to his free holding in Paston, and further brought an action
against the second of these defendants for withholding the services due from
lands held of the plaintiff.^ In the same year he had trouble with one of
his villeins named Gileminus, whom he ejected from his house and who
retaliated by burning it down on the following night. ^ By 1279 this Adam
had been succeeded by his son Thomas, ^^ who in 1290 was sued by Michael
of Kilham's widow for dower in 20s. rent in Paston. ^^ This Thomas of
Paston was accused in 1291 of assisting to disseise his sister Margaret of 2|
acres in the vill,i^ and two years later was again in the courts in a somewhat
1 De Banco Roll, No. 8i, m. 72 ; No. 82, m. 48 ; No. 98, in. 71 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxvii. pp. 408-
409, 414-415. 533-535-
2 Pedes Finiiim, 21 Edw. I. No. 118 — -Duke's Transcripts, vol. vi. pp. 83-84.
' De Banco Roll, No. 118, m. gido — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxviii. p. 294.
' This is deduced from the fact that Robert Archer's widow, Plesaunce, sued Nicholas for dower in
these lands and the latter called John, son of Robert Archer, to warrant. De Banco Roll, No. 153, m. 183.
— Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxix. p. 454.
' Originalia, 8 Edw. III. Rot. 26 — -Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 310.
* Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. vii. p. 386; Cal. oj Close Rolls, 1333-1337, pp. 167, aio.
' De Banco Roll, No. 337, m. 346.
' Northumberland Assize Rolls (Surtees Soc), pp. 10, 59. • Ibid. p. 107. " Ibid. p. 237.
" De Banco Roll, No. 81, m. 72 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxiii. pp. 408-409.
'- Coram Rege Roll, No. 128, m. 19 — Duke's Transcripts, xxiii. pp. 395-396.
PASTON TOWNSHIP. l8l
curious case. He had surrendered 4 messuages and 80 acres of land in
Paston, to the chief lord, who had enfeoffed Adam, Thomas of Kilham's
son, therewith, and had given the custody thereof during the minority of
Adam to Robert of Trollop. Shortly after this the guardian leased these
lands to the original holder for life, and this was held in 1293 to be an act
of disseising against Adam, who thereby recovered his property with 4od.
damages. Matilda, daughter of Robert of Trollop was accused of a share
in this disseisin, but was dismissed the case,^ and it may be that there had
been some projected marriage between her and Adam, and that it had fallen
through. We hear no more of Adam of Paston, but his guardian,
Robert of Trollop, claimed a messuage and 24 acres of land in Paston in
1297,2 and John of Trollop, who forfeited 3 messuages and 40 acres of land
worth 20S. in Shotton and Paston for complicity in Gilbert Middleton's
rising of 1317,^ was doubtless his heir. In 1276 there is mention of a Hugh
of Paston, who claimed a toft, 3 acres and 3^ roods of land and a moiety of
an acre of pasture in Paston from Roger of Bolton, and an acre and one rood
of land in the same vill from Robert, son of Geoffre}' of Paston,* of none of
whom we know anything further, save that the last defendant's house was
broken into in 1256 by malefactors, who left him and his wife bound, while
they escaped with their booty into Scotland.^ Something under a century
later we hear of a Richard of Kilham, who bought lands in Kilham and
Paston of Thomas Atterell and Isabel his wife in 1342, and two years later
sold a very similar holding to William of Berwick.®
During the sixteenth century there are allusions to two families as land-
owners in Paston, apart from the lord of the manor and the Strothers who
held the Kirkham lands. In 1589 John Baxter and Margaret his wife levied
a fine with regard to lands in Paston,'^ and in 1593 Thomas Manners of
Cheswick left his lands in the township to his eldest son George and the heirs
of his body, and failing such heirs, to his second son Henry and his heirs.^
1 Assize Roll, 21 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xviii. pp. 92-93.
* De Banco Roll, No. 118, m. gido — Duke's Transcripts, vol. x.\viii. p. 294.
' Chancery Files, bundle No. 265 — Bain, Cal. of Docwnenis, vol. iv. pp. 8-9.
* De Banco Roll, No. 17, m. 3ido, No. 18, m. 45, No. 91, m 50, No. 21, m. 6R — Duke's Transcripts,
vol. xxvi. pp. 293, 314-316. 325-326. 341-343.
' Northumberland Assize Rolls (Surtees Soc), p. 107.
' Pedes Finiiim, 16 Edw. III. No. 60 ; 18 Edw. III. No. 69 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxix. pp. 136-137,
150-151.
' Feet of Fines, sixteenth century, pp. 56-57.
' Wills and Inventories, vol. ii. p. 218.
l82 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
Shotton in Paston.^ — A large farm nestling at the bottom of a wooded
dean to-day marks the site of what must have been a considerable hamlet
in medieval times. Originally, doubtless, it was an independent vill, and
before the Scottish wars was a place of greater importance than either Paston
or Kilham. Thus, while the moveables of the last two places were valued
at £i6 los. I id. and £20 7s. lod. respectively in 1296, those of Shotton
reached the considerably larger sum of £30 14s. 8d. It is true that the
number of inhabitants assessed in Kilham was eleven, as against nine in
Shotton, but even here Paston had the lowest record with seven house-
holders.^ The township of Shotton was a member of the barony of Wark,^
and the overlordship went with the barony* till the seventeenth century,
when it was in the hands of the Selbys.^
The township was probably subinfeudated to the Corbets in the thirteenth
century, for William, son of Patrick, earl of Dunbar, whose wife was the Corbet
heiress, gave to the monks of Kelso 'all easements of that vill of Schottun,
and to their men if they should choose to dwell there, as well in pasture and
fuel, as in the mill, to wit that they should grind their corn which they
might cultivate or have in the territory of Colpenhope and of Schottun
at the mill of Schottun without any multure,' directly after the corn being
ground at the time they sent theirs, save if there were any of the lord's com
ready for grinding. To this he added pasture for 400 ewes and 40 cows in the
vill in any place outside the cornlands and meadow.^ Moreover this donor's
father-in-law, Walter Corbet, had confirmed a gift made by Robert of
Shotton^ of 5 acres in the vill lying 'nearest to Colpenhope from the eastern
side, to wit as the rivulet descends near Colpenhope as far as unto that
rivulet which divides England and Scotland, and so by that rivulet as it
descends towards the chapel of St. Edilride, the Virgin, as far as another
rivulet which descends near Homeldun, and afterwards by the same rivulet
to a glen where that rivulet from Homeldun crosses the way which comes
from Yetholm, and so by the foresaid way to two great stones.^ Thus it is
» Earlier Scotadun, Shottone. Probably O.E. Sco/a-di(M=hill of the small huts. Sele-scot is used in O.E.
bibles as a gloss to Latin labernaciilnm. The same element is probably found in Shotley.
^ Lay Subsidy Roll, fols. loo-ioi, 105, 108-iog.
' Testa de Nevill — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 211.
* Feudal Aids, vol. iv. pp. 66-67; Cn/. oj Inq. p.m. second series, vol. ii. pp. 340-341.
5 P.R.O., L.T.R. Memoranda Roll, 545, m. 319. » Liber de Calchou, vol. ii. No. 361, ' Ibid. No. 360.
' Ibid. Nos. 362, 364. At a later date the monks only claimed two acres in Shotton. They kept a
man in the mill there and one pig. i^Ibid. vol. ii. p. 457.)
PASTON TOWNSHIP. 183
obvious that Robert of Shotton held under the Corbets, and his son, Walter of
Shotton, otherwise of Kilham, succeeded him.^ This Walter Kilham's son,
Thomas, in the second quarter of the thirteenth century gave to the monks
of Melrose 8 acres in Shotton in exchange for a similar holding, which his father
had given them in Kilham. This land lay at the south end of the arable
ground of Hamaldunflat between two roads that descended to the moor to
the north, as far as certain stones placed to mark the boundary, and carried
with it pasture rights for 2 horses, 12 beasts and 80 sheep.- That Thomas
of Kilham held other property in Shotton is obvious from the fact, that
his widow in 1242 claimed dower against Henry Stubbs in 12 acres of land
and against Hugh of Cornhill in 4 acres of land there,^ and his overlord,
Robert Roos, also held certain lands, which were rented to others, since
after his death his widow claimed dower in 6 marks rent in Shotton
against Guischard of Charrum and in 5 marks of rent there against
Walter of Camhowe.* These two defendants again appeared in a similar
role when the widow of Michael of Kilham, the son of Thomas of Kilham
mentioned above, sued them for dower in Shotton, Guischard in 2 messuages,
24 acres of land, i acre of pasture and the third part of the mill, and Walter
in 3 messuages, 66 acres of land and the third part of the mill. Besides
these Robert Roos of Wark and Nicholas, son of Michael of Kilham, were
called on to allot dower on lands they held in Kilham and Paston. The
last defendant called his brother John to warrant, but nothing more is heard
of the others.^ It is impossible to unravel the exact interest which these
various persons had in the township, but whatever was the holding of
Nicholas of Kilham, it passed from the family soon after, as he first leased,
and later alienated all his lands there to the priory of Kirkham.^
There seems reason to believe that the manor was at some time divided
into four parts, since in 1323 David Baxter died seised of a fourth part thereof
' One Robert Trockalowe confirmed the gifts of Robert and Walter of Shotton. (Ibid. Nos. 365, 366.)
- Liber de Metros, vol. i. pp. 266-267. Symeon states that 'Scotodun' in the valley of the Bowmont
was given by King Oswin to St. Cuthbert. (Symeon, Hist, de S. Cuthberlo, vol. i. pp. 196-197. It is identified
as Shotton in the Surtees Society edition No. 51, p. 139), but there is no other trace of property there held
by the monastery of Durham or by its ceU of Holy Island.
' Curia Regis Rolls, Nos. 124, 125 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. x.xi. pp. 227-228.
* De Banco Rolls, No. 5, m. 7, No. 13, m. 25do, No. 7, m. 4do — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxvi. pp.
141-142, 173. 247.
' De Banco Rolls, No. 81, m. 72, No. 82, m. 48, No. 89. m. 71 — Duke's Transcripts, pp. 408-409.
414. 533-535-
' Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 86. No further mention is made of these lands. The master of the Temple
claimed liberties in Shotton in 1293 (Quo Warranto — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. pp. 162-163I, but this may have
been in respect of lands mentioned under Paston which were partly in Shotton.
184 PARISH OF KIRKNRWTON.
as of the inheritance of his wife Ehzabeth, paying therefore to the lord of
Wark one pound of pepper annually,^ and at a later date a fourth part
of the mill is mentioned.- One portion appears in 1310 in the hands of
John Widdrington of Denton, held by service of a quarter of a knight's fee,^
but his successor Roger Widdrington of Denton forfeited his lands for
having participated in the rising of Gilbert Middleton in 13 17. These, con-
sisting of 3 messuages and 100 acres of land, were granted by the crown in
1359 to Sir John Coupland and his wife Joan.^ Despite this, the family of
Widdrington reappears in the township. Probably the 5 messuages, 100
acres of land and 20 acres of meadow in Shotton, of which Sir John
Widdrington died seised in 1434, were in Shotton in Glendale,^ and in 1451
Roger Widdrington died seised of 2 husbandlands in Shotton in Glendale.^
The last mention of the WMddringtons is contained in an inquisition taken in
1503 after the death of Sir Ralph Widdrington, whose son and heir, Henry,
inherited 2 husbandlands in the township held of Ralph Grey.'^ Whether
these Widdrington lands were the same as those forfeited in 1317 or not we
cannot tell. At any rate John and Joan Coupland held other land there,
for at the same time as the}' were given the forfeited property of Roger
Widdrington, they received a smaller holding forfeited by John of Trollop for
a similar reason.^ These lands passed to Joan Coupland at her husband's
death, and in 1365 were sold under the title of the manor of Shotton to
Thomas, son of Roger of Howtel,^ though what became of them thereafter
we do not know.
The Strothers were yet another family which acquired property in
Shotton in the early years of the 14th century. In 1329 William
' Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. vi. p. 289. 2 Belvoir Deeds, drawer 21.
' Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. v. p. 120. This is recorded in the inquisition of Robert Fitz Roger, where it is
erroneously stated that Shotton in Glendale was a fee of the barony of Whalton. This is of course a confusion
with Shotton in Stannington where the Widdringtons also held lands.
* Chancery Files, bundle No. 265— Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. iv. pp. 8-9 ; Cal. of Patent Rolls,
1358-1361, pp. 233-234.
' Inq. p.m. 22 Hen. VI. No. 53 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 274. The other Shotton occurs in another
part of the inquisition. It is possible that the two husbandlands in Thornton in Glendale ascribed to him
in this inquisition may be a mistake for Shotton, since there is no other mention of the family's connection
with Thornton, nor is the place mentioned in any connection before the seventeenth century and the holding
corresponds exactly to that held by the family in 1451 and 1503.
« Inq. p.m. 29 Hen. VI. No. 25 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 275.
' Cal. of Inq. p.m. second series, vol. ii. pp. 340-341.
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1358-1361, pp. 233-234. Cf. Chancery Files, bundle No. 265 — Bain. Cal. of
Documents, vol. iv. pp. 8-9. where the editor seems to have mistaken the word 'there' to refer to Trollop
and not to Shotton.
• Pedes Finium, 39 Edw. III. No. 138 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. .xxxix. pp. 2yb-2Tj ; Cal. of Close Rolls,
1364-1368, pp. 194-195. 199.
PASTON TOWNSHIP. 185
Strother of Kirknewton and Joan, his wife, acquired 3 tofts, 7 bovates of land
and 6d. rent in Shotton near Paston from John of Penrith, son of Adam
of Starthorpe, and his wife Matilda, whose inheritance it seems to have been.
This was entailed on William's son, William, with remainder over to his right
heirs,^ and the very next year the same purchasers acquired the property
of Roger, son of Walter Corbet, in the township. ^ This last was at a later
date forfeited owing to Walter Corbet's association with Gilbert Middleton,
and when it was returned to Henry Strother, as son and heir of William and
Joan, the tenant David Baxter refused to attorn to him. It then consisted of
a messuage and 240 acres of land held of the manor of Lanton by military
service, homage, fealty and scutage, suit at the court of Lanton every
three weeks, 4od. for castle ward and 2S. for cornage.^ David also doubtless
owned the quarter of the manor held of the lord of Wark, of which his grand-
father died seised,* and we have a more detailed account of his holding,
when after his death his widow in 1369 was allotted dower, whereby it appears
that he held a toft and 146 acres of demesne land, 4 tofts and 5 husband-
lands elsewhere in the township, and another toft with which went 12 acres
in Paston, this last being taken to be equal in value to one husbandland
in Shotton. In addition he held a quarter of the mill, and a toft and 2| acres
of land called the Milneland.'' Whether or not all this was held of the
Strothers we cannot tell, but they still owned property in the township when
William Strother of Kirknewton provided for the descent of his lands in
1579,^ and in 1663 the laird of Kirknewton owned a small share of Shotton with
a rental value of £8 annually.'' This was described as 'a messuage and
farmhold ' in the late seventeenth century, and passed with the rest of the
Strother property to John Strother Ker.^
The chief landowner in 1541 was the earl of Rutland,^ when the border
commissioners reported that 'the towneshippe of Shotton was some tyme
' Pedes Finium, 3 Edw. III. No. 7 — Duke's Travscripls, vol. x.xxix. pp. 11-13; Laivg Charters, p. 7.
^ Laing Charters, p. 10.
' Coram Rege Roll, No. 413, m. 73 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxv. pp. 135-142.
« See pages 183-184. 5 Belvoir Deeds, drawer 21.
" Laing Charters, p. 244; Feet oj Fines, sixteenth centurj-, p. 41.
' Rate Book, 1663 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 278.
' P.R.O. Chancery Proceedings, Bridges, bundle 372, No, 55.
• The Manners had owned property in Shotton since 1451 at the latest. In that year Kobcrt Manners
ot Etal sued Gerard Manners for 340 acres of land, 40 acres of meadow, 400 acres of pasture, 10 acres of
wood, 300 acres of moor, 20 acres of marsh, 10 aqres of older grove and the moiety of a mill in Shotton by
gift of the crown. (De Banco Roll, No. 763 m. 280 do.)
Vol. XI. 24
l86 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
of vi. husband lands and nowe lyeth waste and unplenyshed, and so hath
contynued this xxxte years and more.'' Indeed the greater part of the
territory was in the hands of the Scots.- In the very next year tiie earl of
Rutland made allusion to this property in his will,^ but no further trace of
the family is to be found there, and Shotton did not pass to the crown with
the rest of the Northumberland property belonging to the Manners. It
is possible that it went to the Selbys, for in 1565 John Selby bequeathed
to his wife 'my ryght of Shotton duryng hyr lyffe, and after to my sone
John Selbe and to his heyrs male.'* This son, John Selby of Branxton,
in 158 1 made elaborate provision for the descent of his property, including
lands in Shotton,^ and his son, Sir William Selby of Branxton, did homage
for the manor in 1612.^ By 1663 the Selbys had ceased to be landowners
there, and possibly their holding was then owned by one Watson, whose
rent roll in the township was £66.'' At the same time the second largest
holding was that of 'Lord Grey and Mr. Gilbert Swinhoe,' rented at £58 a
year.^ Lord Grey's share of this joint property had been bought in 1603
from Nicholas Rutherford of GunduUis in Scotland by Sir Ralph Grey,^
who already had a small holding in the township, since in 1597, in answer to
the charge that his lands in Shotton were 'let to and inhabited by the
Taytes, Scotsmen,' he had rephed, 'In Shotton I have a tenement of 40s.
rent, wherein one George Tayte, a Scotsman born, was placed by my brother.
Sir Thomas Grey, 16 years ago at the late Lord Hudson's request, and is
there ever since. This country knows that Tayte has spent his blood rescuing
Englishmen's goods. Any other Taytes there belong to other gentlemen.
I have no more land in the town.''" At the division of the Grey inheritance
this property went to Ralph, Lord Grey, and from him to the Greys of Howick.
It was sold by Sir Henry Grey in 1765 to David Hastings of Alnwick, being
described as a farmhold in Shotton, now known as West Shotton. This
David Hastings by his will dated 20th July, 1790, left it to trustees, who in
1801 conveyed it to George, marquis of Tweedale, from whom it passed to
the Selbys of Paston. Meanwhile another portion of the township, known
1 Survey of the Border, 1541 — Border Holds, p. 31.
' Survey of the Border, 1541 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. pp. 175-176, 218-219.
' Northern Wills, vol. i. p. 187. ' Wills and Inventories, vol. i. p. 235.
' Feet of Fines, sixteenth centurj', p. 45. " P.R.O. L.T.R. Memoranda Roll, No. 545, m. 319.
' Rate Book, 1663 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 278. Watson was probably the same as Thomas Watson
who in 1663 owned part of Harelaw.
" Ibid. ° Paston Deeds. '" Cal. of Border Papers, vol. ii. p. 401.
COLDSMOUTH AND THOMPSON'S WALLS TOWNSHIP. 187
as Little Shotton, had passed by i66g to James Walker, who in that year
sold to Richard Wallace, son of William Wallace. In i6gi James Wallace
conveyed this property to Robert Tate of Shotton, who was succeeded by
his son John and his grandson Robert. The last named's sister and heir,
Mary, wife of George Davison of Hopeton in Scotland, sold in 1774 to William
Cuthbert of Newcastle, and in 1802 the property was sold to the Selbys of
Paston, who thus became the owners of practically the whole township.^
The exception to this is the farm of Beaumont Hill. This belonged to the
Selbys of Paston, but under the name of Standalone it passed* at the close
of the eighteenth century to William Alder, the house being built about
1818 and given the present name. From the Alders the property passed to
the Forsters, and from them to John Forster Baird, whose executors in 1919
sold it to Andrew Tajdor and Sons.^
COLDSMOUTH AND THOMPSON'S WALLS TOWNSHIP.
The origin of this modern township^ is very obscure. Possibly it was
a conglomeration of various small vills clustered round the north side of
Cheviot of which the traces have been lost in modern times.
Thompson's Walls, formerly Antechester. — In a survey of the
barony of Wark in Oueen Elizabeth's day there is an allusion to
' the parcell of ground commonlie called Thompson's Walls, or Antechester,
a member of Kilham, h'ing between Kilham and Shotton,'* but Mr. Bates
in his Border Holds attributes quite another site to Antechester, placing
it on the high ground to the west of Mindrum between the range of Horse
Ridge and the Camp Hill, being led to do so by various maps of North-
umberland dating from the later eighteenth and earlier nineteenth centuries.^
To place it so far north and across Bowmont water is quite inadmissible
in view of an allusion to ' Chester' in a 1223 boundary delimitation of Trollop,
which on one side touched the College,^ and of its association with Kilham,
' Paston Deeds. * Beaumont Hill Deeds.
' The Census returns are : 1801,32; 1811,49; 1821,44; 1831,44; 1841,38; 1851,20: 1861,30;
1871, 25; 1881, 15 ; 1891, 8 ; 1901, g ; 191 1, 12. The township comprises 1436-828 acres.
* Lambert MS.
' .\rmstrong's map 1769, Greenwood's map 1828, Shadforth and Dinning's map 1847. Border Holds,
p. 32 note.
* Liber de Metros, vol. i. pp. 270-272.
l88 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
which is proved not only by the survey quoted above, but also by the muster
of horse on the East Marches of 1584, which groups the two places together for
this purpose.^ Still earlier in 1380 it was associated with Paston as member of
the manor of Kilham held by Sir John Arundel, ^ so it is obvious that it formed
part of the barony of Wark, but lay on the borders of that barony and close
up to the Muschamp lands in Hethpool and Trollop.
If we can identify 'Derecestre' with Antechester, it was held in 1249
by Robert Ford, who paid 40 marks into the exchequer for its return after
seizure by Earl Patrick,^ but this is a solitary allusion, and nowhere does
it undoubtedly appear till in 1365 it was settled together with other lands
on Joan, widow of Sir John Coupland, and her heirs,^ a proceeding confirmed
in 1367.^ In 1372 it passed by sale from Joan to Sir Richard Arundel,^ and
formed part of the estate of Sir John Arundel who died in December, 1379,
being then wasted and destroyed by the Scots and thus worth nothing^
In 1404 Richard Arundell had some trouble owing to the fact that Antechester,
like his possessions in Wooler, had been mortgaged to Harry Hotspur and
was therefore included in the latter's forfeiture on rebellion, though
eventually he secured its return.^
Antechester does not appear again till it is found in the possession of the
Greys, doubtless acquired with the other possessions brought by that family
from the Arundels.** In 1541 Bowes's Survey records that ' the towneshippe
of Antechester was some tyme by estymacon of viii. husband lands and
hath lyen waste unplenyshed sythence before the remembrance of any man
nowe lyvynge and ys of the inherytaunce of Rauffe Graye of Chyllyng-
ham.'^" In 1568 this Ralph's son, Thomas, succeeded, but as a minor his
lands were in the queen's hands." It is obvious from this that the little
township was not a great source of income, which probably accounts for
' Muster of Horse in East Marches — Cal. of Border Papers, vol. i. pp. 156, 157.
' Inq. p.m. 3. Ric. II. No. i — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxviii. pp. 43-44.
' Pipe Rolls, 33 and 34 Hen. III. — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. pp. 43, 45.
* Pedes Finium, 39 Edw. III. No. 137 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxix. pp. 274-276 ; De Banco Roll,
No. 421, m. 297do. A Thomas Archer of ' Antichester' witnessed a deed dated 1317. Belvoir Deeds,
drawer 14. He was probably a relative of the lord of Kilham who was another witness.
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1367-1370, pp. 38-39.
' Cal. of Close Rolls, 1369-1374, p. 448 ; Pedes Finium, 47 Edw. III. No. 158 — Duke's Transcripts,
vol. xxxix. pp. 312-315.
' Inq. p.m. 3 Ric. II. No. I — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxviii. pp. 43-45.
" Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1401-1 105, pp. 309-310. " See page 324.
'" Border Survey, 154 1 — Border Holds, p. 32.
" Liber Fvodarii, 1568 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. Ixiii.
COLDSMOUTH AND THOMPSON'S WALLS TOWNSHIP. 189
the fact that it is so seldom mentioned, as jurors would tend to forget a
totally unproductive area of wild moorland when estimating a dead man's
possessions. Like Hethpool it was outside, what Lord Dacre called,
the 'plenished ring of the border,' and it played no part in its defences.
Sir Robert Bowes mentions no tower pertaining to it, but in his plan of castles
Christopher Dacre marks ' Antechester ' hard by Hethpool as a fortified
post.^
The identification of Antechester with Thompson's Walls is made
difficult by the statement in the settlement made by William, Lord Grey, in
1626, that the latter place had been recently purchased by his father. Sir
Ralph Grey, of John Strother.^ We know that the last named even after
this owned lands in Cheviot, and it may be that some of these were bought
by Sir Ralph Grey, added to this existing property of Antechester, and created
into a single property, which became the township of Thompson's Walls.
At any rate Lord Grey owned Thompson's Walls in 1663, and was then rated
on a rent roll of £44.^ It passed on the death of Ford, Lord Grey, to his
brother Ralph, and was sold in 1733 for £1,050 to James Scott of Alnwick,
who by his will dated nth March, 1760, bequeathed it to his son George.
By his win, dated 24th February, 1766, George Scott devised the estate to his
nephew, James Grey of Alnwick, who left it in -1772 to his brother John."*
The latter died in 1775, leaving as sole heir an infant daughter, who died
under age, when the property passed to her father's first cousin, James Rich-
ardson. In 1801 the new owner sold to Alexander Davidson of Lanton and
Swarland, whose granddaughters in turn sold to John Forster Baird in 1875.
Finally the property was sold in 1918 to George Frederick Bell of Mindrum.^
CoLPiNHOPE. — Down to the fourteenth century there are occasional refer-
ences to a tenement or grange called Colpinhope, which was either within or
adjoining the territory of Shotton, and which originally formed part of the
Corbet inheritance. It was given by Walter Corbet in the second half of the
twelfth century to the monks of Kelso, being then described as his ' tenement
in Colpinhope in the territory of Shotton,' and conveyed free of all secular
' Photograph of Dacre's Plat oj Castles, etc., 1584 — Border Holds, p. 78. - Lambert MS.
' Rate Book, 1663 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 279. In 1682 it belonged to Ford, Lord Grey, and was
valued at £'^0. P.li.O. Exchequer Special Commissions, Northumberland, 31 Chas. II. No. 621S.
' In 1772 Thompson's Walls was advertised for sale. ' Enquire of John Grey of Alnwick, jun, esq. . . .
to whom all persons indebted to Jas. Grey, esq., deceased, are to pay debts.' (Newcastle CouranI, 22nd
August, 1772.)
^ Thonipson's Walls Deeds.
igO PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
service and exactions and of 'inware and outware.'^ When the property
had passed in the early thirteenth century to Christine, granddaughter of this
Walter Corbet and wife of William, son of Patrick, earl of Dunbar, the 'land
called Colpinhope with the mill and with pasture and all easements adjacent'
was confirmed to the monks,- and it is thus evident that a mill had been built
in the interval. This fact is confirmed by an early rental of the monastery,
which describes ' the grange called Colpinope ' as beyond the border and
taking two ploughs to cultivate it in winter. The rights of pasture were
for 20 oxen, 20 cows and their calves and in addition common pasture for
500 ewes and 200 sheep of the second year. As to their corn, formerly the
monks had ground it at Shotton mill, but they had subsequently secured a
licence for a mill in Colpinhope itself, paying half a mark yearly to the Shotton
mill in lieu of multure.^ This payment was pursuant to an arrangement come
to with Walter, son of Robert of Shotton, who in return for the annual half
mark had declared the monks free ' from all work at the mill and milldam and
the leading of mill stores and multure,' and agreed not only to grind their
corn from Shotton and Colpinhope without fee, but added a guarantee that
the milling should be as carefully carried out as in the case of his own man-
orial corn.* During the Anglo-Scottish wars this property was forfeited to
the English crown, which in 1359 presented it to Sir John Coupland.^ From
him it passed with the rest of his property to his widow Joan,^ who by
1368, having decided to make restitution, applied for licence to convey ' her
pasture called le Colpenhope' to the abbot and convent of Kelso. It was
then found to be held of Henry Strother as of his manor of Lanton and to be
worth 20S. yearly." On July 12th, 1370, the necessary licence was granted,^
and the abbey once more owned the property which thenceforth disappears
into the unknown.
Thus the existence of Colpinhope is established beyond doubt, but its
exact situation is not so easily ascertained. In the charter of confirmation
given by William, son of Patrick, earl of Dunbar, the boundaries are given as
' Liber de Calchou, vol. ii. No. 359. " Ibid. No. 361.
' Rotultts Rcddititum in Liber de Calchou, vol. ii. pp. 457, 458. * Liber de Calchou, vol. ii. No. 363.
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1358-1361, pp. 233-234. Cf. Chancery Files, bundle 265 — Bain, Cal. of Documents,
vol. iv. p. 9.
' Pedes Pinium, 39 Edw. III. No. 137 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxix. pp. 274-276 ; Cal. of Patent
Rolls, I3''7-I370. P- 39-
' November 14th, 1368. Inq. A.Q.D. file ccclxv. No. 19. Cf. Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. iv. pp. 33-34.
" Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1367-1370, p 454.
COLDSMOUTH AND THOMPSON S WALLS TOWNSHIP. IQI
' from Edredsete as far as Greneagre under Edredsete and so to the well which
is the head of the rivulet that separates the kingdoms of England and Scot-
land.' There is further mention in the same charter of the rivulet which
'descends next Colpenhope,' which was distinct from the rivulet marking
the border and also from the one ' which descends near Homeldun.'^ Further
we gather from a charter of Alexander II., kin'g of Scots, that Yetholm
lay opposite near the rivulet which divided the two kingdoms,^ which all seems
to prove that the latter place lay on the eastern bank of the Halterburn
lower down than Halterburn itself, though there is just a chance that it was
identical with that place which does not appear till the name Colpinhope
had passed into oblivion. Colpinhope may well have extended eastwards
as far as the present day Butterstone Shank, and it most probably included
Coldsmouth Hill which with Thompson's Walls has given its name to the
present township. The presence of this hill in this position— in point of
fact exactly ' opposite ' the modern Kirkyetholm— together with the similarity
of the first syllables and the obvious corruption of the termination ' mouth, '
lead to the suggestion that Coldsmouth owes its origin to Colpinhope. It may
be that a portion of the township of Shotton, owing to its connection with
Kelso, became detached from its original allegiance, and in the days when Kelso
fell, became allied with Antechester or Thompson's Walls— always a depen-
dent part of Shotton or Paston— and was incorporated therewith into the
new township of Coldsmouth and Thompson's \\'alls of which no trace in
early days can be found. ^ For many generations Coldsmouth has belonged
to the earls of Tankerville, being joined to Elsdonbum, and has been recently
sold to Mr. Nicholson, the tenant at the time of the sale.
' Liber de Calchou, vol. ii. No. 361. This Humbledon Hill is on the Scottish side of the present border
on the east bank of the Halterburn.
- Liber de Calchou, vol. ii. No. 392.
' The earliest mention of Coldsmouth is found in a terrier of Kirknewton vicarage of 1637, where there
is allusion to the tithes of Heddon and Coldsmouth, which were quite distinct from the tithes of Thompson's
Walls, mentioned elsewhere in the same document. (Terrier in Durham Registry — Caley MS.)
192 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
HOWTEL TOWNSHIP.
Descent of the Property. — The vill of Howtel,^ which mcludes K^-pie,
Tuperee and Reedsford, stretches from the boundary of Flodden on the north-
east to Bowmont water on the south-east. It was a member of the barony
of Roos,- and was subinfeudated, at any rate by 1208, when Theobald of
Shotton and Alexander, son of Ralph of Branxton, effected an exchange
of lands, whereby the latter acquired 9 acres of land in Branxton and Howtel,
together with a moiety of the whole service of Stephen of Howtel, for the whole
vill of Howtel.^ Thus it would seem that Theobald and Alexander held
Howtel of the barony in equal moieties, and that of them Stephen of Howtel
held the whole vill. Stephen's son, Walter, however was not proprietor
of the whole township, for somewhere about the middle of the thirteenth
century we find him joining with one Bernard of Howtel in a gift to Kirkham
HOWTEL OF HOWTEL.
Stephen of Howtel, held = Bernard of Howtel, owned land in Howtel and was =
Howtel in 1208 (a). 1 contemporary with Walter of Howtel (6).
Walter of Howtel (6). = Alexander of Howtel (c).
i \ I
= Roger of Howtel (c). Patrick of Howtel (6). Robert of Howtel {b). =
i ?
I I I
Patrick of Howtel (c) ; living 1286 (d) ; (A) Alan of Howtel, died =j= Alice H) = Alan of Howtel (0
and in 1305 (e). before 1299 (i).
I
11
See p. 217.
(e) Agnes = Walter of Howtel (e). Margaret {g), living 1299 (i). = Walter of Howtel (e), died circa 1280 {g).
Hugh of Howtel, a minor in 1280 (g) ; described as son ot Walter, son of Alan, son of Robert in 1305 (e)
(a) Pedes Finium, 10 John, No. 14 — Duke's Tran- (/) Kirkham Cartulary, fols. j6-jj.
scripts, vol. i. pp. 50-51. (g) De Banco Roll, No. 34, m. 15 — Duke's Tran-
(b) Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 77. (c) Ibid. fol. 76. scripts, vol. xxvi. p. 407.
(rf) De Banco Roll, No. 63, m. 49; Coram Rege {h) For evidence suggesting Alan of Howtel's
Roll, No. 127, m. 56 — Duke's Transcripts, relationship see pages 193-194.
vol. xxvii, pp. 181-182 ; vol. xxiii. p. 320. (i) De Banco Roll, No. 129, m. 26do — Duke's
(e) Assize Roll, 34 Edw. I, — Duke's Transcripts, Transcripts, vol. xxviii. p. 458.
vol. xix. pp. 289, 295-296.
' Earlier Holthale, Holtele, Holtall, Hotell, Howityll. O.K. («/) holt-heale=[a.t) holt-haugh or wooded-
haugh, heale being dat. sg. of healh^hnugh. The Census returns are : 1801, 186 ; 181 1, 130 ; 1821, 190 ;
1831. 195 ; 1841,191; 1851,196; 1861,141; 1871, 114; 1881, 118; 1891,116; 1901,95; 1911,90.
The township comprises 1162412 acres.
- Tesla de Nevill — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 211.
' Pedes Finium, 10 John No. 14 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. i. pp. 50-51.
HOWTEL TOWNSHIP. I93
priory of a site for a pond there. ^ As Nicholas Corbet complained in 1256
that the making of a pond in Howtel by the prior of Kirkham injured his
property in Lanton,^ it ma}' well be that this pond was situated in Crookhouse,
which was then part of Howtel, since Lanton and the present township of
Howtel are nowhere contiguous. This is by no means the only complication
which attends the unravelling of the early history of the township, which
at some date seems to have been split up into several small holdings and
these in turn subinfeudated, the majority of the holders being described
as of Howtel. The descendants of Bernard of Howtel can be traced in the
township down to the third generation by means of their successive gifts to
the priory of Kirkham with the help of a few extraneous documents, but the
relationships of the other owners of land are very uncertain. Bernard had a
son Alexander, who was succeeded by his son Roger, who in turn handed on
his property to his son Patrick.^ The last named was li\-ing in 1286, when a
certain Walter of Howtel sued him for resisting the taking of certain of
his cattle, which the latter claimed by way of damages recovered at law,*
and in 1291, when he successfully resisted an action for disseisin brought by
the same Walter.^ Though this Patrick seems to have been the head of
the family, there were at least two other sons of Alexander of Howtel who
held land in the township. A certain Patrick, son of Alexander of Howtel,
gave to Kirkham priory lands which he held of his brother Roger, a grant
confirmed by the latter,^ and this same Roger alludes in one of his charters
to lands formerly held by his brother Robert.'' This Robert had evidently
predeceased his brothers, and he was probably the father of Alan, son of
Robert of Howtel, who with Roger, son of Alexander, undertook not to plough
up certain common pasture in the vill.^ This Alan was probably the grand-
father of Hugh of Howtel, over whose guardianship there was litigation in
1280. A certain Alan of Howtel claimed the guardianship on the ground that
Hugh's father, Walter, had held of him by knight's service, but the master
of St. Thomas, Bolton, had already assumed possession of the heir,^ and from
' Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 77. - Northumberland Assize Rolls (Surtees Soc), pp. 1-2.
' Roger confirmed gifts of land made by his father Roger and his grandfather .-Mexander son of Bernard
of Howtel. Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 76.
* De Banco Roll, No. 63, m. 49 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxvii. pp. 181-182.
^ Coram Rege Roll, No. 127, m. 56 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. x.xiii. p. 320. A Patrick, son of Roger
of Howtel, is also mentioned in 1305. Assize Roll, 34 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xix. p. 289.
' Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 77. ' Ibid. ' Ibid. fols. 76-77.
' De Banco Roll, No. 34 m. 15 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxvi. p. 407.
Vol. XI. 25
194 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
a case of 1305 it seems that he succeeded in establishing his right. In this
latter year Hugh, son of Walter of Howtel, accused Walter, son of Alan of
Howtel, of disseising him of certain lands in the township of which his father
had died seised, and which had descended to him through his guardian the
master, whereas Walter declared that Alan, son of Robert of Howtel, grand-
father of the plaintiff, had conveyed the property to him. The result of
the action is not known, ^ and there are difficulties in the way of identifying
Robert of Howtel and his son Alan, great grandfather and grandfather of
Hugh respectively, with Robert, son of Alexander of Howtel, and his son Alan,
as if our presumptive date for Alexander of Howtel is correct, there could
not be time for the intervention of so many generations. Moreover, if we
accept the statement of Walter, son of Alan, as quite accurate, it is impossible
to identify his father, Alan, as the same Alan who claimed the overlordship
in 1280, since he declared that Hugh's grandfather alienated the land to
him personally. With regard to this latter point it may well be, that Walter
meant to imply that the land was given to his ancestors, and with regard
to the former difficulty the corroboration of the descent is so strong, that we
may well surmise that Alexander of Howtel flourished at a date earlier than
the thirteenth century.
It is hard to identify the Alan of Howtel, who claimed the guardianship
of Hugh of Howtel, but he probably belonged to the family founded by
Bernard of Howtel, and was the Alan of Howtel who confirmed all the grants
to Kirkham priory made by Alexander and his son Roger. A gift of his own
was confirmed by Patrick of Howtel, ^ so that perhaps we may be allowed to
guess that he was Patrick's brother. He may have been the Alan of Howtel,
who, together with his brother Thomas, was tried in 1278 and 1279 ^or
disseising Richard Campion and his wife Margery of lands in the township,^ and
who in 1285 brought an action against William of Branxton and others for
fishing by night in his pond at Howtel without licence.* He died before 1299,
when his widow, Alice, sought dower in one messuage and one carucate of land
in the vill against Hugh, son of Walter of Howtel, and in three messuages and
one carucate and four bovates of land there against Margaret widow of Walter
' Assise Roll, 34 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xix. pp. 290, 295-296.
' Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 77.
' Assize Roll, Divers Counties, 6 F.dw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. x.x. p. 47 ; Northumberland Assize
Rolls (Surtees Soc), p. 233.
* Coram Rege Roll, No. 88, m. i7do — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxiii. p. 210.
HOWTEL TOWNSHIP. I95
of Howtel.i His son and successor was Walter, who appears as the wealthiest
resident in the township in 1296,^ and who has been mentioned above as
involved in litigation with Hugh of Howtel in 1305.^ As his wife's name
was Agnes, there can be no hesitation in identifying him with the Walter
of Howtel who married Agnes, daughter of David Coupland, and who was
succeeded by his sons, Thomas and Roger, in succession.^ At any rate in
1339 Roger of Howtel had to meet a claim for a messuage he held in Howtel
put forward by Joan Coupland on the ground that her father, Simon Coup-
land, died seised of it,^ but by 1359 he had forfeited his estates by joining
the Scots. On July 6th of that year two carucates of land in Howtel,
formerly belonging to Roger of Howtel, and forfeited to the crown by reason
of the late owner's adherence to the Scots, together with 13 messuages and
300 acres of land there, formerly the property of Ellen of Panbury, forfeited
for a similar reason and because some of these lands held of the king's
progenitors had been alienated without licence, were granted for a payment
of 100 marks to Sir John Coupland.^ Possibly the lands of Ellen of Pan-
bury had been alienated to her by Roger of Howtel to escape forfeiture, and
the statement that they had been held of the crown was doubtless inaccurate,
since there is no other evidence that any portion of Howtel was held in chief.
Strangely enough it was at the request of Sir John, that in the following
September a pardon was granted to Roger of Howtel, of the 'king's suit, '
for good service done by him, thereby relieving him of the penalties of
outlawry incurred by joining the Scots, 'so that he stand his trial if any one
will implead him of felonies and trespasses in the said time.'^ Sir John's share
in securing this pardon suggests that he was merely holding the lands till
he could restore them to their original owner, who was probably his first
cousin.^ The opportunity did not occur during his lifetime, but when his
' De Banco Roll, No. 129, m. 26do — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxviii. p. 458.
' Lay Subsidy Roll, 1296, fol. 107.
' See page 194. This may be the same Walter son of Alan of Howtel who in 1285 accused Alan son of
Robert of Howtel of disseising him of lands in Howtel. Assize Roll, Divers Counties 13 Edw. I. Duke's
Transcripts, vol. xx. p. 203.
' See page 226. There is one dilficulty about this in that David Baxter was said by an inquisition
taken in 1323 to have held a messuage in Howtel of Walter of Howtel iCal. of Inq. p.m. vol. vi. p. 289)
whereas Walter of Howtel who married Agnes daughter of David Coupland died before 1317. (Belvoir Deeds,
drawer 14.) The evidence however is such as to suggest that a mistake has been made in the inquisition.
^ Reg. Palat. Durielrn. vol. iii. p. 274.
" Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1358-1361, pp. 233-234 ; Originalia, 33 Edw. III. — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 326.
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1358-1361, p. 270. ' See under Coupland page 247.
196 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
widow in 1365 levied a fine for the securing of the extensive estates which
she and her husband had inlierited or acquired, she chose Thomas, son
of Roger of Howtel, as defendant, ^ and by a separate fine conveyed to him
what she described as the manors of Shotton and Howtel ■ together with
3 messuages, 62 acres of land and 10 acres of meadow in Howtel, in return for
200 marks of silver. ^ By a series of deeds enrolled on the Close Rolls it
appears, that Thomas of Howtel thus secured the return of all the property
in the township which had belonged to his father, and in addition 3 messuages,
72 acres of land and 10 acres of meadow, which had formerly belonged to
Sir William Heron,^ and probably had been purchased by Sir John Coupland
from him.
Thomas of Howtel is the last of his family of whom we hear, and to
whom his estates or those of his relatives descended we do not know. Mean-
while mention must be made of a few landowners, who, some of them at
any rate, held of this family. In 1256 William of Coupland and his wife
Agnes unsuccessfully sued Hugh prior of Kirkham for disseising them of their
freeholding in the township,* and Emma, daughter of Daniel Bondrick,
claimed a messuage and 4 acres of land in Howtel from Patrick, son of Thomas
of Howtel, on the ground that her father died seised thereof, but she
abandoned her case.^ This defendant may have been the husband of
Matilda, widow of Patrick of Howtel, who in. 1290 claimed dower against
no less than eleven persons, each holding land in the township — Thomas,
son of Patrick, w^th 3 crofts 24 acres of land and i acre of meadow, Thomas
Baxter of Lanton and his wife Agnes, with a croft and 3 acres of land, William
son of Henry of Howtel, with a toft and 6 acres of land, Adam Fitz-Humphrey,
with 6 acres of land, William, son of Richard of Howtel, with a toft and 8 acres
of land, Thomas Brune, with 6 acres of land, Patrick, son of Roger, with an
acre of land, Hugh, son of Roger of Lanton, and Sirilda his wife, with six acres
of land, Michael, son of John Middleton, with 16 acres of land and 40 acres
of wood, Agnes, daughter of Robert Dobun, with 6 acres of land, Adam, son
of Williani of Branxton, with 3 acres of land.** Of these probably Thomas,
' Pedes Fimum, 39 Edw. III. No. 137 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxix. pp. 274-276.
2 Pedes Finium, 39 Edw. III. No. 138 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxix. pp. 276-277.
' Cal. 0/ Close Rolls, 1364-1368, pp. 194, 195, 199.
■* Northumberland Assize Rolls (Surtees Soc), p. i. ' Ibid. p. 23.
' De Banco Roll, No. 84, m. 08 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxvii. pp. 457-458. The case was still undecided
at Michaelmas, 1292. De Banco Roll, No. 97, ra. 32do — Ibid. vol. xxviii. pp. 14-16.
HOWTEL TOWNSHIP. I97
son of Patrick, was the plaintiff's son. The property of Michael, son of John
Middle ton, was most probably in Crookhouse.^ The very next year we find
the names of three of Patrick of Howtel's tenants, this Patrick being doubt-
less the son of Roger of the family already traced above. Gilbert of Sher-
burn, master of Bolton, claimed three shillings rent from Adam Fitz-Jues and
Agnes his wife, Adam their son, and Adam son of William of Paston, and
Sirilda his wife for a messuage occupied by the first and last male defendants,
who successfully asserted that they at one time had paid three shillings a year
to the master for a licence to brew, but that they had surrendered the licence,
and only owed three shillings for service to Patrick of Howtel, of whom they
held the messuage.^ Yet another name is added, when in 1292 Robert Ayr
of Presson brought an action against Robert of Howtel, Adam, son of
William of Branxton— who had figured in the case brought by Matilda, widow
of Patrick of Howtel— and William, brother of Adam, to compel them to keep
an agreement made between them in respect of 17J acres of land in Howtel.^
This Robert Ayr was a man of some substance, and figured in the subsidy
roll of 1296 with goods valued at £5 7s. od.* In 1347 Emma, wife of William
Bacon, claimed 18 acres of land in the township on the ground that her
fatherjohn, son of Alan of Howtel, had died seised of them, but the defendant,
Roger Muschamp, was in the king's service beyond the seas, and so the case
was indefinitely adjourned.^
The most important tenants under the family of Howtel were the
Baxters, who also held land in the vill as of the manor of Lanton. Thomas
Baxter and his wife Agnes were sued for dower in 1290 by Matilda, widow
of Patrick of Howtel, in 3 crofts, 24 acres of land and one acre of meadow
in the township,^ and his son David died in 1323 seised of three bondages
held, of the inheritance of Elizabeth his wife, of the church of Bolton by
service of 3s. yearly, and one messuage, held, jointly with his wife, of Walter of
Howtel by service of i6d. yearly.'^ The holding held by the Baxters of the
Howtel family had been increased by 1361, when Da\'id Baxter, grandson of
' See page 210.
' Coram Rege Roll, No. 128, m. i8do — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxii. pp. 387-388.
' De Banco Roll, No. 102, m. i24do — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxviii. p. 7.
' Lay Subsidy Roll, 1296, fol. 107.
* Assize Rolls, Divers Counties, 18-22 Edw. III. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xx. pp. 393-394-
' De Banco Roll, No. 84, m. 68 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxvii. p. 457.
' Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. vi. p. 289. This property looks very like the three bondages held of Patrick
of Howtel in 1291 and from which the master of Bolton vainly claimed a rent of 3s. vide supra.
KjS PARISH OF KIKKNEWTON.
the last named David, was said to hold 5 messuages and 2 carucates of land of
John Coupland, who had recently been given this on the forfeiture of Roger
of Howtel,^ and in 1364 this same man acquired another 2 messuages and
50 acres of land from Elias Tirwhit and Agnes his wife, of Newcastle-upon-
Tyne.- In this same year David is mentioned as holding 13 messuages and
300 acres of land in Howtel of Henry Strother of Kirknewton, as of his manor
of Lanton, by homage fealty and scutage, 4od. for castle ward and 2s. for
cornage, and with the obligation of grinding his demesne com at the mill of
Lanton,^ the overlordship having belonged to the Corbets and having been
conveyed to William Strother and his wife Joan when they acquired the manor
of Lanton in 1318.* In 1369, when David Baxter's widow, Margaret, was
assigned dower in Howtel, she received three husband lands, one in the
occupation of Elias Tirwhit, another husband land and two cottar holdings, one
lying next to the chief messuage on the west and the other inhabited by Thomas
Lisle, with obligation to bear her third share of annual charges of two marks
to Elias Tirwhit during the life of his wife, of lod. due to Thomas of Howtel
and his heirs, and of los. due to the manor of Lanton ' for the lands which
belonged to the said David in the vill of Howtel.'^ As a consequence of this
allotment of dower Margaret Baxter was brought into conflict with her
mother-in-law, who in 1371 claimed that her own dower rights had been
infringed, but after the settlement of this dispute in 1374,^ the family
disappears from the annals of Howtel, save that in 1589 a fine was levied
between Cuthbert Proctor and John Baxter, with whom was joined his wife
Margaret, with regard to lands in the township.'
From 1374 to 1452 there is an entire absence of any record of property
owners in Howtel, and then an entirely new set of families are found there.
The most prominent of these, and the one which ultimately owned the
' Cal. of Close Rolls, 1360-1364, p. 217.
• Pedes Finium, 38 Edw. III. No. 131 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxix. pp. 264-265.
" Coram liege Roll, No. 413, m. 73 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxv. pp. 135-142.
' It is not then mentioned, presumably because it was taken as included in the term 'manor of Lanton,"
but when he succeeded in 1330 Henry Strother secured a formal release of his rights therein from Roger
Corbet ILaing Charters, p. lo). During the i6th century there arc two allusions to the Strothcrs holding
property in Howtel. In 1568 Roger Strother of Kirknewton held certain lands there in capite {Liber
l-eodarii, 1568 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. Ixix.), and, when William Strother entailed his property in 1579
he included lands in Howtel therein (Laing Charters, p. 244).
' Belvoir Deeds, drawer 21.
° De Banco Roll, No. 441, m. i28do.
' Feet of Fines, I6th century, pp. 56-57.
HOWTEL TOWNSHIP.
199
BURRELL OF HOWTEL.
Arms Silver a saltire gules between four leaves vert, on a chief azure a
lion's head rased between two battle-axes gold. Crest : A
dexter arm charged with three pellets, in the hand a bunch of
burdock. Foster's Visitations of Northumberland, p. 2j.
John Burrell of Newton in Glendale, 29th
September, 1387 ; had a grant of a moiety
of West Newton in trust (6).
John Burrell of Howtel, by charter =
given at Howtel, ist May, 1454, set-
tled lands on his son William in ;
tail male, with remainders over {h). [
Robert Burrell,
fourth in the
entail of istMay,
1454 (h).
I
Thomas Burrell,
fifth in the en-
tail of I St May,
1454 {/.).
Andrew Burrell,
sixth in the en-
tail'of I St May,
145*4 w.
I
William Burrell, who ist May, 1454, received
Howtel by grant from his father (h).
John Burrell, second in the
entail of ist May, 1454 (A).
Roger Burrell, third in the
entail of ist May, 1454 (A).
... Burrell, whose tower at Howtel was cast down by the Scots in 1496 (c).
John Burrell of Howtel {a), who in 1538 headed a contingent of sixteen able horsemen = Elizabeth, daughter
from Howtel at a muster taken on Coldmartin Heath, six of whom bore the surname
of Burrell (/) ; his tower at Howtel ruinous in 1541 (c).
of Reveley
of Ancroft (a).
John Burrell (a) of Howtel whose tower was reported in 1584
to be ruinous (c).
Elizabeth, daughter of Oswald Collingwood
of Etal (a)
I
William Burrell of Howtel, who = Elizabeth,
entered his pedigree at St. George's I daughter
Visitation in 161 5 [a); bur. at Ber- ' of George
wick 4th Jan., 1633/4, as "William I Morton
Burrell of Howtel, gent." 1 of Morton
Thomas Burrell
(fl) of Milfield.
adm. of personal
estate, 30th
June, 1615.
I I I I I I
Lancelot Burrell (a).
John Burrell (a).
Anthony Burrell (a).
Fortune, wife of James Law (a).
Catherine, wife of Gerard Redhead of
Morpeth (a).
Barbara, wife of John Hoy (a).
William Burrell was three years of age in 1615 (a); =
Tappears freeholders list of 1639] ; was rated for lands
in Howtel in 1663. I
William Burrell owned lands in Howtel in 1663, while his father still lived (/).
Thomas Burrell of Howtel voted at the election of knights of the shire in 1698 (e).
William Burrell of Ho%vtel voted at the election of knights of the shire in 1710 and = Elizabeth (a) sole
1715 {e); will dated nth .'\pril, 1719; proved 1720 Id) ; to be buried in the south porch executrix of hes
of Kirknewton. I husband's will (d).
William Burrell of Howtel :
voted at the election of
knights of the shire in
1722 (f); was residing at
Kilham when he made
his will 24th July, I7?i ■
proved 1732 [d] ; buried
at Kirknewton (g).
Dorothy, dau. of Robert
Allan of Kilham ; art.
before marriage 3rd and
4th July, 1722 (ft); mar. at
Chatton 5th July, 1723:
executrix of her hus-
band's will; bur. at Kirk-
newton, 8th Apr., 1794 (»).
John Burrell, second
son, named in his
father's will (d) ; voted
at the election of
knights of the shire,
in 1722, and 1734,
for lands in Howtel
(e).
wife of .^rchbold,
whose son and dau. are
named in her father's will,
1719 (rf). William Arch-
bold of Howtel voted at
the election of knights of
the shire in 1722 and
1734 for lands in Howtel.
200
PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
William Burrell of Howtel in 1747 = Anne Allan of Robert
purchased the cast demesne of I Howtel; mar. Burrell,
Howtel (A) ; voted at the election at Kirknew- second son,
of knights of the shire in i 748 and ton. June 25, named in
'774(''): «i I'eut. in Northumber- 1766(1); bur. his father's
land militia. 1759; major in 1764; there nth will (d) ;
died at Wooler; buried Kirknew- June, 1778. dead before
ton, 26th Jan., 1783; intestate. 1783.
I I
Margaret, named in her father s will ;
married at Berwick, loth December,
1749, Thomas Mills of Woodside,
parish of Lowick, registered at
Lowick; they afterwards resided
at Howtel.
Susanna, died at Kilham ; buried icth
August, 172/9] ig).
I I
Thomas Burrell, Martha, daughter and co-heir, bapt.
son and heir, ist March, 1772; married at
died in his Wooler, 6th July, 1802, as his
father's life- first wife, Robert Grey, successively
time ; buried of Alnwick, Plainfield, Dancing
at Kirknew- Hall and Plessey Newhouses. He
ton, 2nd Feb- died 8th Feb. 1858, aged 76, M.I.
ruary, 1771. Alnwick Cemetery. ^
(a) St. George's Visitation of Northumberland, 1615.
(6) Laing Charters, p. 21.
(c) Bates, Border Holds, pp. 34, 72, 382.
(rf) Raine, Test. Dunelm.
(e) Northumberland Poll Books.
(f) Arch Aeliana, o.s. vol. iv. p. 199.
Dorothy, daughter
and coheir, born
14th August, 1774
(?) ; died at Plain-
field ; buried at
Kirknewton, 14th
July, 1808, aged
33 te)-
Anne Selby. daughter and
co-heir, born 28th
August, 1777 (?); mar.
at Wooler, 6th April,
1805, John Ord of the
parish of Morebattle,
afterwards of Witton ,
near Kelso. 4,
(g) Kirknewton Register.
(h) Waterford Documents, vo\.m. -p^. 117-11J
(i) Newcastle Courant, 5th July, 1766.
(A) Howtel Deeds.
{l\ P.R.O. Chancery Proceedings, Bridges
Division, Bundle 438, No. 93.
larger part of the township, is that of Burrell. In 1454 John Burrell of
Howtel gave in tail male one husbandland, being the whole of his property
in the vill which he had of the gift of John Rogerson of Branxton, to his
son William, with successive remainders in tail male to John and Roger,
sons, and Robert, Thomas and Andrew, brothers of the donor. ^ About a
century later the Burrells were the chief landowners, for in 1541 the vill,
containing ten husbandlands, was 'of one John Burrell's inherytaunce.'^
though in 1568 John Burrell was said not to hold the vill but only certain
lands therein in capite.^ A man of the same name was defendant in a
fine of 1576 levied by Sir John Forster in respect of 20 acres of land, 10 acres
of meadow, 40 acres of pasture and common of pasture in Howtel,* and in
1580 the record of the muster of the East Marches found the queen. Sir John
Forster and John Burrell to be the three principal landowners, whose
property had been mainly turned into pasture.^ In 1591 this Sir John Forster
held Howtel and also other lands there in fee, as of the manor of Wark,^ and
' Waterford Documents, vol. iii. pp. 117-118. An incomplete note of tliis document is in Hist. MSS.
Rep. xi. app. vii. p. 72, No. 140.
^ Survey of the Border, 1541 — Border Holds, p. 34.
' Liber Feodarii, 1568 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. Ixix.
* Feet oj Fines, sixteenth century, p. 36. ' Cal. of Border Papers, vol. i. p. 157.
» Inq. p.m. 33 Elizabeth, Thomas Grey, Kt. — Lambert MS.
HOWTEL TOWNSHIP. 201
in 1584 the tower belonged to 'John Burrell gentleman.'^ Early in the
following century we find allusion in a charter to ' John Burrell and
William Burrell, his son and heir apparent, of Howtel,'^ and William Burrell
of Howtel appears in a list of freeholders of 1638.^ According to the Rate
Book of 1663 the landowners in the township were William Burrell, John
Reed and David Edington, whose joint rent roll was ;^I40, while Henry
Thomson held land the value of which is not estimated and George Grey
was separately assessed for Tuperee at a rental of £20.* The very next
year William Burrell, senior, of Howtel, Thomas Trotter of Eghngham, clerk,
Gilbert Swinhoe of Berrington, and James Swinhoe of Chatton, were joined
together in a grant to John Reed, junior, of Kirknewton, of the freehold
of Reedsford, ' the farmhold called Anthoney's land in Howtel ' and ' the
closes called Thorney dykes, alias Wills Close, Symms Close and John's lands
in Howtel,' the first of these closes being in the occupation of William, son of
Launcelot Burrell.^ James Swinhoe of Chatton had been a landowner in
Howtel during the Civil War, for when in 1649 he compounded for delinquency,
he was found to own ' a tenement and lands called Keppey, parish of Kirk-
newton, yearly value before the war £10,'^ a holding to be identified with
the farm known as Kypie on the extreme eastern side of the township. In
1666 William Burrell owned property in the township, the reversion of
which belonged to his son William, who also held land there in his own
right. This last was mortgaged in that year, and in 1684 the mortgagees
foreclosed and secured a moiety of the premises but in turn they were
ejected by \\'illiam Burrell, the younger, in 1686.' Another branch of the
same family also held lands there, and in 1687 another William Burrell
complained that Gilbert Reed, son of John Reed, claimed his property-
known as Hornidell or the King's Land, and Carmell's Close on the strength
of the conveyance of 1664. Gilbert indeed claimed that these lands were
identical with the 'Will's Close alias Thorny Dykes' of that purchase, and
that William Burrell had never been more than a tenant. The latter how-
ever obtained a verdict in his favour at the assizes of 1686, though the matter
' Report of Commissioners, 1584 — Border Holds, p. 72. - 20th May, 1607, Laing Charters, p. 367.
' List of Northumberland Freeholders, 1638 — Arch. Aeliana, O.S. vol. ii. p. 325.
• Rate Book, 1663 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 278.
^ Deed dated June 3rd, 1664 — Arch. Aeliana, 3rd series, vol. v, p. no.
' Royalist Compositions, p. 353.
' P.R.O. Chancery Proceedings, Bridges Division, bundle 438, No. 93.
Vol. XI. 26
202 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
did not rest there, ^ and the struggle lasted at least till 1694, when the various
disputants were making the place lively by taking the law into their own
hands. In that year William Burrell, Benjamin Burrell, the latter's wife
Isabel, and others were accused of breaking into the barn of Gilbert Swinhoe
of Howtel, who further deposed that Benjamin and Isabel had so beaten
William Burrell, senior, of Howtel with 'chimney spars' that he was not
likely to recover. Others were accused of threatening Gilbert Swinhoe with
all kinds of violence and declaring that 'if they had Sir Francis Blake they
would trample him with their feet, for he was a great rogue,' while
Benjamin Burrell, his wife, and others accused Gilbert Swinhoe, his wife
Isabel, William Burrell, Michael Burrell and others, of forcibly turning them
out of their homes. ^ The Burrells continued to be the chief landowners-
throughout the eighteenth century. Their holding at the beginning of that
century consisted of the low or west demesne, but in 1747 William Burrell
of Howtel and Kilham purchased the east demesne from Peter Hawke of
Longparish, county Southampton, whose family seems to have acquired it
from Tristram Reed of Morpeth,^ and in 1777, when Howtel Common was
enclosed, besides William Burrell, the landowners who were given a share
by reason of their property in the township were Sir John Hussey Delaval,
Sir Francis Blake, Henry Collingwood and the vicar of Holy Island.* The
last-named's holding was Tuperee, which had been bought in 1732 with
a sum of £800 provided for the augmentation of the benefice.^ This
remained as part of the endowment of the benefice till 1921,
when it was sold to Lord Joicey. Reedsford and its appurtenant
closes had by now passed from the Reed family, from which it
doubtless got its name. From 1700 onwards Gilbert Reed had had endless
trouble with mortgagees and for a time had been dispossessed of his property.^
After his death, Robert Ilderton of Newcastle, the mortgagee, foreclosed
in 1719, and his agent had difficulty in entering on the property. When the
latter arrived at " the mansion house" of Reedsford, he found the late owner's
widow, Christian Reed, and her son William, together with her servant
Margaret Guttery in possession. They refused to leave, declaring that
' P.R.O. Chancery Proceedings, Bridges Division, bundle 147, No. 44.
* Quarter Sessions Records, Northumberland, anno 1694. ' Howtel Deeds.
* Act for dividing Howtel Common 17 Geo. HI. — Ford Tithe Case, p. 272.
' Raine, North Durham, p. 154.
' P.R.O. Chancery Proceedings, Bridges, bundle 284, No. 75, bundle 333, No. 37.
HOWTEL TOWNSHIP.
203
the property belonged to the widow, and they had to be forcibly ejected. ^
Robert Ilderton, as mortgagee in possession, seems to have sold the closes to
William BurrelP and Reedsford itself to Edward Shepherd, who farmed at
Rockmoor House in the parish of Embleton. The latter raised a mortgage on
Reedsford in June, 1726, voted for it at the election of knights of the shire
in 1734, and by will, dated 26th January, 1738, gave it in trust to his
daughters, his son Thomas Shepherd being otherwise provided for. As a
result of family dissensions Reedsford was sold under a decree of court in
1760^ to James Pinkerton of Belford, who is described as of Reedsford in
1774, when he voted at the election of knights of the shire. His grandson,
William Pinkerton, voted for Reedsford in 1826, and the property was adver-
tised for sale in July, 1831, when it was stated to comprise 218 acres, let at
£365 per annum It was sold soon afterwards, and is now the property of
Mr. G. G. Rea of Doddington.*
' Session Records of Northumberland, Christmas Session, 1719, No. 97 — Berwickshire Naturalists' Club,
vol. xxiii. pp. 236-237.
^ See page 204.
' Reedsford, ' a freehold estate belonging to Mr. Edward Shepherd ' and let at ;^3o, with rights on Howtel
Common, was advertised for sale in the Newcastle Courant, 13th September, 1746.
* This descent of Reedsford is taken from Mr. J. C. Hodgson's account of Reedsford in Berwickshire
Naturalists' Club vol. xxiii. pp. 236-237.
PINKERTON OF REEDSFORD.
[Thomas] Pinkerton of Detchant, buried = ,
28th April, 1741 (a)]. I
James Pinkerton of ^^ Mary Jeffrey, mar-
Belford. i8th April,
1760, purchased
Reedsford from
Edward Shepherd ;
died there ; buried
14th March, 1774
ried, 4th December,
1725 (a) ; died at
Belford Moor ;
buried loth Jan-
uary, 1761 (a).
I
Thomas Pinkerton of Easington,
parish of Belford ; party to deed,
1 8th April, 1760.
-Ann .... [buried
nth February,
1756(a)]-
I
Thomas, buried
27th June, 1768
(a)
Thomas Pinkerton of Bows- :
den, brother and heir ; born
Catford Law ; baptised 25th
September, 1726 {a); bro-
ther and heir of James
Pinkerton, under whose will
he took Reedsford ; died at
Berwick ist February', 1802 ,
aged 76 (a, b); will dated
6th January, 1797.
Anne, daughter and co-
heir of William Grieve
of Grievestead ; bapt-
ised at Norham 15th
May, 1739; married
there 26th May, 1760 ;
owner of lands in the
parish of Norham ; died
at Berwick 2ist.\ugust,
1802, aged 67 (a, b).
Other
issue.
Margaret, buried
29th May, 1758
(a).
Ann, buried
19th May,
1772(a).
I
James Pinkerton of Bowsden, proprietor of
Reedsford, in 1773 purchased the tithes
of corn, wool and lamb arising from
Reedsford and Tuparee ; voted at the
election of knights of the shire in 1774;
died at Bowsden, buried at Ford, 12th
May. 1794 (a) ; N\'ill dated 9th August,
1786: proved, 1794. (Query son of
James Pinkerton of lielford by an
earlier marriage.)
204
PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
James Pinkerton of Reeds-
ford, circa 1806 pur-
chased the shares of his
brother and sisters in
Reedsford ; and in 18 11
purchased part of How-
tell Common ; died at
Mindrum Mill 13th
August, i8i2, aged 40
(a, b) ; administration of
his personal estate 7th
January, 1813, granted
to his brother.
I
William Pinkerton of ■.
Bowsden and of Reeds-
ford, brother and
heir ; was residing in
Newcastle in 1826,
when he voted at the
election of knights of
the shire ; died there
8th Mav,
62 ; will
February,
Durham,
ember, 1827.
1827, aged
dated i 3th
1826; proved
15th Sept-
I I I I
Rachel Thomp- Mary, first wife of William Landless
son of the of Easington, parish of Belford ;
parish of Ky- lieut. R.N., one of Collingwood's
loe ; married officers ; she died in her father's
at Carham lifetime leaving a son, William, who
nth Deccm- was buried 7th August, 1800, aged
bjer, 1806 ; 6 years (a).
died at An- Anne, died at Coldstream, i ith June,
croft, 3rd 1827, aged 52 ; unmarried (b).
February, Isabella, married at Carham, 8th
1849, aged 81 January, 18:1, her cousin William
(6). Smith of Shedlaw.
Sarah, died at Berwick, 30th Decem-
ber, 1800, aged 34, unmarried (a, b).
Thomas Pinkerton of Ancroft
Steads and of Reedsford ; sold
his interest in Reedsford circa
1832 ; voted at the election
of knights of the shire, in
1841, for Ancroft-
Anne (6) . . . .
[or Rachel (c) ].
I
William Pinkerton
circa 1832 when
of Carlisle
he sold his
interest in Reedsford ; emi-
grated to Adelaide, South
A.ustralia ; thence to New
Mexico, where he became a
" Sheep King." Died Wagon
Mor, New Mexico, in 1892 (c).
Eleanor, daughter of
Grieve Smith of
Budle ; married at
Ford, 23rd January,
1838 (a) ; died in
New Mexico, 1891
{c).
rJT
m 1842,
Thomas Pinkerton, died
infant (b).
James Pinkerton of Hackney, Middlesex, j.
Other issue, died young.
William Pinker-
ton, living 1915,
at Irabella, Aus-
tralia (c).
I
William Pink- :
e r t o n , of
Moulesay, Cali-
fornia (c).
Mary Eleanor Culley, wife of Hugh Ross
Earle Steavenson.
(c). Sarah Spours, wife of W. T. Patterson,
died before 1915 (c).
I I I I I
Rachel Selina, born 19th December, 1838 ;
married 7th October, 1856, William
Hunter Reynolds, living 1915 (c). -.]/
Eleanor Culley, died before 1915 (c).
Sarah Spours, died before 1915 (c).
Ruby Eliza, died before 1915 (c).
Mary, wife of John McKellar, New Zealand'
afterwards of Sweetwater, New Mexico, of
the family of McKellar of Lerigs,
Argyleshire (c). 4,
William Pinkerton (c).
(a) Ford Registers.
Eleanor Mary (c). Elizabeth (c).
(6) Monumental Inscriptions, Ford.
Rachel (c).
(c) Ex. inf. Mrs. Reynolds, 191 5.
Kypie, once the property of James Swinhoe of Chatton, had become
by 1740 the property of Henry ColHngwood, and continued in his family
till 1824 when Henry Collingwood sold it to Captain Christopher Askew. ^
The rest of the township was gathered together into one property ultimately
by Alexander Davison of Swarland. In 1802 the three co-heiresses of the
Burrell family, Martha, Dorothy, and Ann Selby Burrell sold the ' tower
or capital messuage ' with all the property of their late father, William Burrell,
in Howtel, commonly called the 'West Demesne,' also the lands known as
the ' East Demesne,' formerly in the possession of Peter Harker, and the lands
known as 'Anthony's Lands,' ' Thorn ey Dykes,' a/zas 'Will's Close,' 'Symm's
Close,' and 'John's Lands,' formerly in the possession of Robert Ilderton,
' Pallinsburn Deeds.
HOWTEL TOWNSHIP. 205
to Alexander Davison, who in the following }'ear purchased small parcels
of land in the township from James Hall and Ann Wright, widow of William
Wright. In 1808 the same purchaser acquired between two and three acres
from Robert Mills, who in turn had purchased from John Burrell, and in
1810 another small property from Thomas Hook, who had acquired it from
Sir Francis Blake in the previous year, it having passed under the will of
John, Lord Delaval, dated 24th September, 1806.^ The whole estate, thus
acquired, comprised some 540 acres, of which about 20 or 30 on the north
eastern boundary were formerly part of Branxton Common, and about
100 on the south eastern boundary of Howtel Common. It was bounded
on the north by Branxton and Thornington, on the south by Howtel Hill
belonging to lord Tankerville and by Kypie belonging to Sir Henry Askew,
on the east by Kypie and Flodden and on the west by Thornington, Reedsford
and Tuperee.2 On the death of Alexander Davison all this passed to his
son, Hugh Percy Davison, and he sold it in 1847 to John Ord of Nisbet in
Berwickshire, who in turn sold in 1871 to Watson Askew, afterwards Watson
Askew Robertson of Pallinsbum, who already owned Kypie in the township.
The last named died in igo6, leaving his estate to his widow, the Hon. Sarah
Askew Robertson, for her life, and after her death to his son, William Hagger-
ston Askew, for life, with remainder to his issue. In igii the How'tel estate
was sold to Charles Mitchell of Jesmond Towers, who in 1912 conveyed it
to James, Baron Joicey.^ In 1913 Lord Joicey added to this property
19 acres, called Howtel Pasture, by purchase from the earl of Tankerville,
to whose ancestors it had been allotted on the division of Howtel Common.*
KiRKHAM Priory Lands. — By a series of comparatively small gifts the
canons of Kirkham acquired a good deal of property in Howtel. At various
times Alexander of Howtel gave them an acre of meadow lying next to Molbes-
• Howtel Deeds. The property bought from Sir Francis Blake can be traced back to 1533, when Sir
William Heron of Ford conveyed his property to trustees and included therein ' all his lands and tenements
in Howtel.' (Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. i. pp. 53-55.) Under the terms of this deed the property passed
at his death in 1535 to his widow .\gnes for life and then to his granddaughter and heiress Elizabeth
(Iiiq. p.m. 28 Hen. VIII. No. 116 — Ford Tithe Case, p. 239), who married Thomas Carr. (In the
inquisition taken at her death the only trace of Howtel property is 'a mill in Houghton.' P.R.O. Inq.
p.m. Court oj Wards, vol. 8. No. 42.) A portion of this was ahenated, for in 1602 certain lands in the
township were described as 'late of WilUam Carr, esqr., and now John Burrell's.' (P.K.O. Exchequer
Special Commissions, Northumberland, 44 EUz. No. 1761.) Wilham Carr's son Thomas included
'divers lands tenements and hereditaments in Howtel' in the lands he entailed in 1606 (Inq. p.m. 21 Chas. I.—
Carr Family, vol. ii. pp. 120-121), and these passed ultimately with the rest of the Ford estate to Sir Francis
Blake. (Indenture of Fine, Hilar>^ 2g Chas. II. — Ford Tithe Case, p. 141) and from him to the Delavals.
In 1760 John Delaval paid land tax for 'Houtle.' (Receipt in Ford Tithe Case, p. 82.)
= Declaration made at Howtel 20th May, 1S47, before a Commissioner for Oaths by James Brown of
Howtel — apud Messrs. Dickson, .\rcher and Thorp, Alnwick.
' Howtel Deeds. ' Berwickshire Naturalists' Club vol. .xxii. p. 30S.
206 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
knol, a meadow of an acre and one rood lying on the east side of tlie path leading
from Kilham to Howtel, and a toft and croft and 6 acres of land on the
western side of the vill free from multure and all secular service.^ He also
gave them pasturage for 500 sheep, a gift augmented to 600 sheep by his son
Roger, who gave permission for the building of a bridge over the Bowmont
to allow the sheep to pass backwards and forwards between Kilham and
Howtel. 2 Roger of Howtel was very generous to the canons. By successive
gifts he gave them 8 acres of land, 5 acres of land in Molbesknol on the north
side of the road called Kirkgate adjacent to the township of Kilham, two
acres of land near to Lelccelwyrlimes, two acres of meadow, and a toft and
croft with a piece of land and 4s. rent. His largest individual gift consisted
of 32 acres of land, a toft and croft, once the property of the donor's brother
Robert, a meadow of 12 acres called Molbesknol near the Kirkgate,
one of 4 acres, called the Buttes, lying east of the Park, 16 acres of land at
Warmelawe and Waterlawe and permission to make a sheepfold.^ From
a later charter it appears that the sheepfold was erected in Molbesknol,^
and that Alan of Howtel added a plot of land in Warmelawe for another.^
Roger of Howtel's brother, Patrick, followed the traditions of his house in
presenting the canons with two selions of land, a toft and 6 acres of land
with common of pasture on one bovate of land and a piece of land on the
banks of Bowmont called Spechynholme,^ while his son, also named Patrick,
added to the canons' rights of common pasture on all his arable land after
the removal of the crops.'' From Alan of Howtel the canons received the
place called Kilkilorok, lying near Riacres on Bowmont water, and a meadow,
called Westmedum, containing 7 acres, while from his widow, Alice, they
secured the renunciation of her dower rights in Ulkelescroft, the sheepfold in
Warmelawe, and 6 acres and 4 roods of meadow and pasture for 500 sheep,®
which had been given them presumably by her late husband, though the
sheepfold was part of the property given by Roger of Howtel. In addition to
all this the canons possessed a pond at Twisilburn, mentioned in several
charters, but originally given them by W^alter, son of Stephen, and Bernard
of Howtel,^ and at different times they were given three villeins by Alexander
of Howtel, his son Roger, and Alan, son of Robert of Howtel, respectively. 1°
' Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 77. ' Ibid. fol. 76.
' Ihid. fol. 77. In this last gift it is probable that the charter means to imply that the 32 acres of land
were identical with the 32 acres of meadow there described though the words do not bear that construction.
« Ibid. fol. 77. s Ibid. fol. 76. « Ibid. fol. 77. ' Ibid. fol. 76. » Ibid. fol. 77. » Ibid. " Ibid.
HOWTEL TOWNSHIP.
207
All this property passed to the crown at the dissolution of the religious
houses and appears as such in 1568.1 Added to this the crown
acquired other lands in the vill from the Manners, when in 1547 the
Northumberland property of that family was exchanged for other lands. 2
Some of these crown lands were leased to Lancelot Shaftoe and Henry
Bolesdon in 1590,3 and all those belonging to the manor of Etal were granted
for twenty-one years in 1573 to John Selby at an annual rent of £2 5s. 8d.,
a lease regranted to John Ware in 1593 and immediately transferred by the
latter to William Selby of Berwick-upon-Tweed.* By special inquisition
in 1600 it was found, that the queen's lands in Howtel consisted of the
Bailiff's Close lying at the foot of Kypie Hill, 'Glendynnyes Close' intermixed
with the land of other owners, 3 riggs of land called Watson's Crofts lying
to the west of the Bailiff's Close, and 7 dwelling houses, all but one wasted
and decayed by John Burrell, who had ploughed up the site. The whole
was valued at 46s. 8d. yearly, and the Selby lease had been now again sub-let
to Sir John Forster.^ A similar inquisition of two years later described the
property in greater detail, but the record is so damaged as to add little or
nothing to our information, save that Thomas Carr, Matthew Forster and
John Burrell had free common of pasture on or about the several hills of
Kypie, Howtel Castle Hill and Humbleton, amounting to 350 acres. The
rent paid by Matthew Forster for his land was 6s. 8d. and that of John
Burrell ;^io 6s. Sd." In 1604 these lands were returned at iii acres rented
to a single tenant at £2 6s. 8d. a year.' Nearly a hundred years later a lease
of these lands for 99 years was granted by the crown, ^ but to whom they
were ultimately alienated is not known.
The Tower. — Though Howtel Swyre seems to have been a favourite
place of muster for border troops intent on a foray into Scotland,^ we do
* Ministers Accounts, 7-8 Eliz. — Waterford Documents, vol. i. p. 63. Under 'Parcellam nuper prioratus
de Kirkhame' there is included 'Hottell.' P.R.O. Augmentation Office, Receivers' Accounts, 14 James I.
* P.R.O. Augmentation Office, Deeds of Purchase and Exchange, box F, No. 23. There is no other
allusion to the ownership of land in Howtel by the Manners, but in 1452 William Leiay gave a 30 years
lease to Robert Manners, of Etal of all his land in Howtel with the first refusal if Lelay decided to sell.
Belvoir Deeds, drawer 21.
' P.R.O, Augmentation Office, Particulars of Leases, Northumberland, File 3, No. 31, File 7, No. I.
* Waterford Documents, vol. iii. p. 126.
* P.R.O. Exchequer Special Commissions, Northumberland, 42 Eliz. No. 1756.
° P.R.O. Exchequer Special Commissions, Northumberland, 44 Eliz. No. 1761.
' Survey of the Border, 1604, p. 129.
^Exchequer Depositions by Commission, 11 Will. HI., Easter Term, No. 28 — Dep. Keeper's Rep. 41.
app. i. p. 177.
° Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII. vol. iii. pt. ii. pp. 1013, 1299 ; vol. iv. pt. i. p. 112.
208
PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
not hear of Howtel tower till 1541, when 'a greatt parte of the walls' was
standing, though it had been ' rased and casten downe ' by the king of Scots
in the invasion of 1497. It was estimated that it could be restored for £40.^
It was still in ruins nine years later,- and in need of repair in 1580.^ In
1584 it was 'decaied by warres,' but the surveyors did not know whether
Fig. 8. — Howtel Tower from the Xorth-east.
the burden of its repair should fall on John Burrell the owner or on the
queen. Still as it would only cost £50, 'beynge a verye small thinge,' they
recommended its restoration as ' a verye convenient place for such a number,
as the same will serve to defende the countrye and annoye the enemye,' though
• Survey of the Border, 1541 — Border Holds, p. 34.
» Survev of the Border, 1550 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 204.
' Cal. of Border Papers, vol i. p. 32.
HOWTEL TOWNSHIP AND TOWER.
209
/itn large quoins, 01
lidl
the surveyors forgot to specify the number that they had in mind.^ The
remains of the tower still stand, enough to show that it was indeed 'a verj-e
small thinge,' probably about the same size as the neighbouring tower of
Hethpool. It measures on the exterior 33 feet from east to west and 31 feet
3 inches from north to south. The walling is chiefly of irregular courses
of rough ill shapen stones, the angles being enclosed with large quoins, of
which a few are to be seen at the south-east angle.
The walls of the ground floor survive in a mutilated
condition, and the south wall is yet standing to the
height of three storeys. On the interior the basement
measures 20 feet 3 inches by 18 feet and is enclosed
by walls about 6 feet 6 inches in thickness. It was
entered by a door in the south wall, the exterior stone
dressings of which are non-existent, but the flat
pointed rear arch remains. It was lighted on the west
side by a small square-headed window with a pointed
rear arch. It is improbable that the basement was
vaulted, although there are faint suggestions on the
north wall of springing stones, as in the south
wall there are several holes to receive joists. It is
uncertain how the upper floor was reached, as there
is no evidence of a staircase. If the upper floor
had joists, it would be easy to trim them for a staircase, if on the other hand
it had a vaulted roof, then the access to the upper floor must have been by an
external staircase. Of the walls of the first floor only that at the south end
is standing, in it is a small square-headed window with splayed jambs spanned
by a flat arch. The second floor was much larger than that below, the walls
being set in almost a foot. The holes for the joists are apparent in the south
wall, where also is a small window with square dressings to both the interior
and the exterior.
-4-
FlG
SCALE OF FEET
O-H KNOWT.es MENS-ET DEL
. 9.— Plan of Howtel
Tower.
' Report 01 Commissioners, 1584 — Border Holds, p. 72.
Vol. XI.
27
210 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
CROOKHOUSE TOWNSHIP.
Descent of the Property. — Crookhouse^ is a little farm lying
high up above Bowmont water. To-day it ranks as a township, and its
separate existence was recognized from the thirteenth century onwards,
though then included in the vill of Howtel. The first mention of it is in a charter
dating from the close of this century, probably about 1 285-1 290, whereby
Alan of Howtel gave 'the hamlet of Crukes' to John Middleton, clerk, his
heirs and assigns, to be held of the donor and his heirs, paying therefor one
penny annually at Christmas. The situation of the ' hamlet ' is given some-
what vaguely in the document as between the south side of Schelderburne,
the mill of Lanton, and Bowmont Water, and is said to have included
Bolbenthalme, the water meadow as far as Lanton meadow, and the whole
field called Toftes.^ John Middleton had died by 1291, when his son Michael
and his widow Margery were sued for disseising the prior of Kirkham of
common pasture in Howtel.^ Margery Middleton was assessed in Howtel
for the subsidy of 1296 on goods valued at £g 15s. od., the only larger
assessment being that of Walter of Howtel.* She was thus resident
at Crookhouse, and was still living in 1299, when Alan of Howtel's widow,
Alice, sued her and her son for dower in a messuage, 2 carucates of land
and 20 acres of wood in Howtel, ^ which probably alludes to the Crookhouse
estate alienated to the Middletons by Alan of Howtel. As late as 1310 she was
still in enjoyment of her dower, for in that year Michael Middleton leased
two parts 'of all the tenements del Crukys in Holtal together with the
meadows of Holtal, ' for 10 years from the following Martinmas, to Thomas
Baxter of Lanton. The lessee was to pay an annual rent of four marks of
silver, of which he paid four years in advance, and was responsible for the
annual rent due to the lord of the mill of Lanton for multure. "^ He had
^ Earlier le Croukes, i.e. the crooks or windings of the Bowmont Water. The Census returns are :
1801,14; 1811,12; 1821, 18: 1831,20; 1841,18; 1851,29; 1811.24; 1871,19; 1881,21; 1801,29;
1901, 15 ; 191 1, 14. The township comprises 480009 acres.
^ Belvoir Deeds, drawer 14. The charter is undated, but by the witnesses must have been between
1285 and 1293 and John Middleton died before 1291.
^ Coram Rege Roll, No. 128, m. lydo — Duke's Transcripts, vol, xxiii. pp. 382-383. The jurj found that
the lands were in Kilham.
* Lay Subsidy Roll, fol. 107.
^ De Banco Roll, No. 129, m. 26do — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxvih. p. 458.
* Litigation had begun in 1289 over the mill of Lanton which had been mortgaged by the Corbetts
to Robert Mitford, when the jury found that the mill was in Howtel not in Lanton. {Assize Roll. Divers
Counties, 17 Edw. T. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xx. p. 284.) This would imply that the mill was in Crookhouse,
CROOKHOUSE TOWNSHIP. 211
to undertake all repairs to buildings in the first instance, but could recover
half the cost thereof from the lessor. Further he was to guard Michael
Middleton's wood called Charneclyve, during the term of the lease, for los.
yearly, and was to be responsible for all damage done thereto by himself
or his cattle. If the lessee were to be prevented from cultivating his land
by war, he was to have an extension of his lease till he had reaped ten crops
from the land, and whereas he received the land after having lain fallow
since the Whitsuntide preceding his lease, he was to hand it over at the close
thereof in the same state. ^
Michael Middleton evidently got into financial difficulties, for in Feb-
ruary, 1315, he conveyed his two parts of 'the manor of le Crukys together
with the reversion of the third part, being his mother's dower, to Thomas
Baxter. 2 This was evidently only by way of mortgage, for just a year later,
his mother having died in the interval, he once more conveyed ' the manor del
Crukes, that is all the tenements which he has in Howtel without exception,'
to Thomas Baxter, who by deed of equal date undertook to return the property
after having held it for six years, if on or before Midsummer, 1316, Michael
or his heirs paid over to him the sum of £40 in the vill of Wark.^ The £40
was evidently not paid, as when Thomas Baxter's son David died in 1323,
he was seised of 'Le Croukes in Holthale,' described as a messuage held
of Walter of Howtel by service of half a mark for multure only.* Thus
the property was still held of the Howtel family, for Walter was the son
of Alan of Howtel who had originally alienated it to the Middletons,^ and
Walter of Howtel evidently held it from the Corbets, to whose miU at Lanton
the multure was due.*' When about 1330 Roger Corbet released to WiUiam
Strother and his wife Joan aU right he had to holdings, services, &c., in
'Croukes,"' it must have been this multure due of half a mark which was
thus conveyed. This is confirmed by the fact that, when trouble arose over
the forfeiture of the Corbets and the crown had regranted their alienated
as that was the only part of Howtel township that touched Lanton, but the verdict was obviously wrong and
may have meant that some of the service due to the mill was in Crookliouse. The case reappeared in 1291,
when the property in dispute was described as 20 marks of rent issuing from one messuage, one mill and
2 bovatcs of land in Howtel and Lanton {Coram Rege Roll, No. 127, m. 59 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxiii.
PP- 349-354). and was again before the courts in 1293, when for the first time John Middleton and his mother
Margery were included as defendants. These last pleaded that though they held some of the lands from
which the rent came, they were not concerned in the case {Assi:e Roll, 21 Edw. L — Duke's Transcripts,
vol. xviii. pp. 230-232), which confirms the suggestion that some of tlic lands were in Howtel and
they probably comprised the whole of Crookhouse.
' Belvoir Deeds, drawer i^. '- Ibid.
' Ibid. * Cat. of Iiuj. p.m. vol. vi. p. 289.
' See page 192. ^ See page 210 11. o. ' Laiiig Charters, p. 10.
212 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
estates to the Strothers in 1358, ^ David Baxter refused to attorn to Henry
Strother for his holdings, including one messuage and 200 acres of land
called ' le Croukes ' by service of half a mark for licence to grind corn growing
on the land whenever he liked, and by service of 3s. for castle ward and 2od.
for cornage. It was ultimately decided in 1364 that this property was held
of the manor of Lanton, and David was ordered to attorn.- There is no
mention of the mesne lord of Howtel, which may be accounted for by the
supposition that, while the property was in the hands of the crown, it was
found that the alienation of Alan of Howtel to the Middletons, the date
of which we have seen was uncertain, took place after the passing of the
statute of Westminster HI.^
When in 1369 the widow of David Baxter, grandson of the last named
David, received her dower, the place called ' le Croukhouse and le Croukfeld '
was said to contain 412 acres of land and meadow and a wood of 30 acres
called 'Scharncliffe,'* the last named to be identified with 'Charnclyve'
wood excepted from the lease granted by Michael Middleton in 1310. When
three years later there was litigation between this lady and her mother-in-
law over their respective dower rights, the property was described as a
messuage, 4 plough lands, 20 acres of meadow and 40 acres of wood in ' Croke-
houses.'^ It had been Henry Lilburn who had granted the dower to David
Baxter's widow, ^ so he was presumably the heir to, or the recent purchaser
of, the property in 1369. Be this as it may, we hear no more of Crookhouse
till 1542, when Thomas Manners, first earl of Rutland, alluded in his will
to his lands there, ^ and as the deeds of the place are to be found among the
Bel voir muniments, this implies that the property of the Baxters had
passed to the Manners. It was sold by Henry, earl of Rutland, in 1562 to
the occupier for the time being, one Ralph Swinhoe of Cornhill, the rental
value being then given at £4 yearly,^ but this can only refer to a portion of
the estate, though we find the whole as part of the property of James Swinhoe
of Chatton, who as a royalist compounded for delinquency for ' a messuage
and lands called Crookehouses, parish of Kirknewton,' in 1649, the yearly
' See under Lanton.
' Coram Rege Roll, No. 413, m. 73 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxv. pp. 135-142.
= 18 Edw. I. Stat. i. clause i (1290). The clause Qwia Swp^oj-es provided that in the event of a sale of land
the new owner should hold of the seller's lord direct and not of the seller.
' Belvoir Deeds, drawer 21. = p k.O. De Banco Roll, No. 441, m. i23do.
« Belvoir Deeds, drawer 21. ' North Country IVills, vol. i. p. 187.
' Belvoir Deeds, drawer 14.
CROOKHOUSE TOWNSHIP. 213
value before the war being £30.^ By 1663 Gilbert Swinhoe had succeeded
to the property, the rental of which was then estimated at £40.^ From the
Swinhoes it passed to the Strothers, who had some claim there as early as
1649, when among the particulars of the estate of William Strother of Kirk-
newton there was included ' the Crooke-house, now lying lea.' No estimated
value is given, ^ and perhaps this only had reference to the rent due to
Lanton mill, which the Strothers had held in the fourteenth centur}'. In
1694, however, the 'farm of Crookhouses' was the property of William
Strother of Grindon-Rigg, son and heir of the last named William, but was
mortgaged to Isabel Bigg, widow of William Bigg, late of Newcastle-upon-
Tyne, for £500.* On his marriage with Margaret Delaval in 1676, William
Strother had settled the estate with tithes of corn, wool and lamb, and this
passed in due course, as shown under Kirknewton, to his daughter, Mary,^
who in August, 1716, joined with her husband, Walter Ker, in selling it to
Robert Blake of Twizel for £1,050.^ It remained in this family down to the
death in i860 of Sir Francis Blake, third baronet,' when it passed under his
will to his son, Francis Blake, who died the following year, leaving the
property to his son, Francis Douglas Blake. In 1877 the latter sold Crook-
house, together with an adjacent piece of land known as Milfield Ninths,
to the late earl of Durham, who bequeathed it to the present owner, the
Hon. F. W. Lambton."
' Royalist Compositions, p. 353.
= Kate Book, 1663 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 278. According to the pedigree of Swinhoe of Goswick
in Kaine. North Durham, p. 184, Ralph Swinhoe was under age in 1560, and James Swinhoe of Chatton
was the grandson of his younger brother. Gilbert Swinhoe of Crookhousc is given as the elder brother
of James Swinhoe of Chatton, and is taken by Kaine to be the author of the "Tragedy of Irene' printed
in 1658.
» Royalist Compositions, p. 347. * Laing Charters, p. 680.
* P.R.O. Chancery Proceedings, bundle 372, No. 55. * Lambert MS.
' For pedigree of Blake of Twisell see Raine, North Durham, p. 316. • Crookhouse Deeds.
214 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
COUPLAND TOWNSHIP.
Coupland^ is a long narrow township touching the boundary of
Kirknewton on the north and to the south resting on the edge of the Clieviot
hills. It includes the little village of Coupland on the left bank of the
Glen and across the stream the hamlet now known as Yeavering, which
lies outside the township of that name.^
Descent of the Manor. — Coupland formed part of the barony of the
great Robert Muschamp, and was held of him together with Akeld and
Yeavering by William of Akeld for one knight's fee of ancient enfeoffment.^
To William, seemingly, succeeded a certain Sampson of Coupland, who leased
20 acres of arable land in the township, together with another parcel of
land towards the south called Hilles, with a toft and croft and two houses,
occupied by Daniel, the shepherd, and Addec, to the canons of Kirkham for
a period of twelve years. ^ This Sampson was the founder of the Coupland
family of later fame, and was succeeded by his son of the same name, who
confirmed the lease. ^ This last must have died before 1274, as in that
year his son, David, sued one Robert of Coupland for two messuages and
half a carucate of land in the township, on the ground that his father had
been insane when he alienated it to Robert's father, another Sampson of
Coupland. So far as one messuage and six acres were concerned, David
failed to substantiate his case, as it was proved that his father had con-
veyed them to a certain Emma, daughter of Reginald, who in turn had sold
them to Robert's father, but the jury found for him with regard to the
rest of the property.^ Three years later however he was not so successful,
when Robert's son, John, claimed certain lands in Coupland of which his
father had died seised and which David Coupland then held.'' These
were by no means the only occasions when this lord of Coupland found
' Earlier Coupland, Coupaund, Copeland. An interesting word derived from Old West Scandinavian
AaH/)a-/and=purchased land opposed to ol/iah-jbrt/i=a.n allodial estate. O.N. kaup, bargain=O.E. ceap
or cheap. Found also in Copeland in Auckland.
- The Census returns are : 1801,70; 1811,101; 1821,98; 1831,100; 1841,109; 1851,160; 1861,109;
1871,89; 1881,114; 1891,94; 1901,111; 1911,113. The township comprises I542-462 acres.
' Tesla de Nevill — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. pp. 210-211.
* Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 81. ^ Ibid.
' P.R O. Dc Banco lioll, Xo. 5, ra. 51 ; No. 9, m. i6do ; Assize Roll, Divers Counties, 1-6 Edw. I. —
Duke's Transcripts, vol. x.xvi. pp. 155-156, 192 ; vol. xx. pp. 8-9.
' Northumberland Assise Rolls (Surtees Soc.) p. 233.
COUPLAND TOWNSHIP. 215
himself involved in law suits : indeed litigation occupied no small portion
of his time. He had trouble over the mill, a portion of which he had
inherited from his father, and had to defend his rights and those of his
mother Alice therein against Richard Champion and Margery his wife.^
Further he challenged the claims of his neighbours to depasture their cattle
on three acres which he had brought into cultivation and enclosed, on
the ground that his father had had this land under cultivation. He admitted
that his father in his later years, when he was out of his mind, had allowed it
to lie fallow, but he asserted that the depasturing of cattle had only been
allowed during this period. The jury found however that the right of pasture
dated from before this time and that no claims for damages lay against the
defendants for having turned their cattle into the growing corn.^ In 1285 David
Coupland bought some land in the township from Nicholas of Coupland,^ and
later rented another half carucate from him, which was also a subject of
litigation in 1293, when Nicholas had to appeal to the courts to obtain the rent
due to him.* As early as 1285, too, the lord of Coupland was brought into
contact with his relative, Thomas Baxter of Lanton, who held a lease of
the lands bought from Nicholas Coupland, and had to assert his rights when
this property was sold as the purchaser turned him out.^ Despite this
inauspicious beginning, the relations between the two men became very
close. By 1295 Thomas Baxter held part of the demesne of Coupland,
and was then granted free ingress and egress to and from the fields of Coupland
for his stock in Lanton by David Coupland.^ About this same time the
latter, now described as a knight, conveyed to Thomas Baxter of Lanton,
whom he called his kinsman, all his demesne lands without exception both
in meadow and arable in the territory of Coupland, being a property
described as ' le Ploweland ' in the endorsement of the deed. The boundary
of this ran from the parcel of land called ' Westirhollawys ' and through
the midst thereof westwards to the main road from Lanton to Berwick,
then following this road northwards to the brook called 'Toddelaubum,'
and so following the southern side of this brook eastwards to a certain plot
of the demesne called 'Starbrighalwe.' From here the line ran south-
' Norlhumberland Assize Rolls (Surtees Soc), pp. 229, 234. ' Ibid. pp. 235-236.
' De Banco Roll, No. 59, m. 84 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxvii. p. 68.
' Assize Roll. 21 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xviii. p. 611.
^ De Banco Roll, No. 59. m. 84 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. .vxvii. p. 68.
* Belvoir Deeds, drawer 14. C/. Belvoir Papers, vol. iv. p. 73.
2l6 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
wards to the head of 'Merlanflat' in Lanton, and so southwards along the
borders of Lanton to the south part of 'Westirhol' aforesaid. Further,
leave was granted to build a house on the property for the purposes of a sheep
or ox fold, and to enclose it with a sufficient close, rendering therefore
annuallj' id. at Christmas to the chief lord of the fee, of whom the whole
property was held.^ Despite this alienation of the demesne, David Coup-
land never ceased to be lord of the vill. He appears as such in the Subsidy
Roll of 1296, when he was assessed on £8 i6s. 8d., and his son Simon also had
an establishment there, his goods being valued at £1 los. od.^ The latter
had probably succeeded his father when in 1300 he sued his brother John for
killing one of his horses worth £20,^ an incident probably arising out of
quarrels as to lands and the making of a bank in Coupland, which produced
litigation beginning in 1301 and stiU continuing in 1308.'* The new lord was
also sued in 1301 by Thomas Baxter for disseising him of certain lands in
Coupland,^ doubtless another quarrel arising out of the conveyance of the
demesne to the latter. However, in 1312 Thomas Baxter's son David acted
as defendant in a fine, whereby the manor of Coupland ' which he had of
the gift of Simon, son of David Coupland,' excepting 12 tofts, i mill, 4
carucates of land and 20 acres of pasture, was settled on the latter for life,
to be held of David Baxter and his heirs, rendering therefor annually a rose
at Midsummer, and to the chief lord of the fee all the other services due
therefrom on behalf of David. At Simon Coupland's death the property was
to pass to Alice, daughter of Simon, son of Margaret of Lanton, and Joan,
daughter of the said Alice and the heirs of the latters' body, and failing
such heirs, it was to pass to David and his heirs or the other heirs of Joan."
Simon Coupland had an illegitimate daughter, Joan, wife of Walter Mautalent,
who was sued in 1328 by John Lilburn and Constance his wife for a messuage
and two oxgangs in Coupland, which were claimed as the right of Constance.'
Ten years later Mautalent was dead, and his widow had to meet the claims
of her cousin John Coupland, who forcibly ejected her from 2 messuages
1 Belvoir Deeds, drawer 14. The witnesses to this and the last named deed are many of them identical.
- Lay Subsidy Roll, 1296, fol. 102.
' De Banco Roll, No. 131, m. 62do — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxviii. p. 518.
* Assize Rolls, 28-31 Edw. I., 2 Ed. II. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xix. pp. 127, 113, 317.
' Assize Roll, 28-31 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xix. p. 126.
' Pedes Finium, 5 Edw. II. Nos. 18, 21 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xii. pp. 26-27, 30-3' : Belvoir Deeds,
drawer 14.
' P.R.O. De Banco Roll, No. 274, m. 176.
a;
rt
M
i-
z
o
ai
<
w"
<
U
a
z
<
5
o
o
COUPLAND TOWNSHIP.
217
COUPLAND OF COUPLAND.
Arms : Silver on a cross sable a molet silver. ( Jenyn's roll, time
of Edward III., Harl. MS. 6,589 ; roll circa A.D. 1392-97, ed. by
Thomas Willement A.D. 1834). The armorial seal of Sir John
Coupland (plate facing p. 152, No. 5) appended to a deed dated
20th March, 10 Edw. III. (A.D. 1335-6) has the cross charged with
a lion rampant within a border engrailed in a voided lozenge. These
are the arms of Grey' and point to some connection, feudal or
other, with that family. His seals of A.D. 1347 and A.D. 1357 (plate
facing p. 152, Nos. 4, 6) have the cross charged with a molet, as in the
rolls. The crest is a ram's head which again appears to point to a
Grey connection.' His widow Joan, to a deed dated 20 October, 40
Edw. III. (A.D. 1366), uses an armorial seal, a cross charged with a
molet (Coupland) impaling on a bend three spread eagles (Strother)
(plate facing p. 152, No. 2). To an earlier deed dated on the feast of
the Epiphany 37 Edw. III. (6th January, 1363-4) she uses a similar
seal with the bend from the sinister, probably a mistake of the
engraver corrected in the later seal (plate facing p. 152, No. i).
To a deed dated 6th February 44 Edw. III. (A.D. 1369-70) she uses
quite a different armorial seal with a fleur-de-lys reversed issuing
out 0/ a reversed leopard's head (plate facing p. 152, No. 3).
Sampson Coupland (a) =
AUce (c) Sampson Coupland (a).
I.
David Coupland, succeeded ==
father by 1274 (b).
I
Simon ,Coupland {d), probably lord =
of Coupland, in 1301 (e) ; living
1323 {'')■
Walter Maut-
alent, died
before 1338
(0-
r
Joan, seised of lands
in Coupland, 1328
(A) ; declared a
bastard daughter
of Simon Coup-
land, 1340 {i).
I
John Coupland (e) =
Agnes (/) = Walter of Howtel
{/) ; died before
1317 te)-
Joan, daughter of = John Coupland, claimed lands in
AUce, daughter Coupland as Simon Coupland's
of Simon, son of heir in 1338 (i) ; paid feudal aid
Margaret of Lan- for three parts of Coupland circa
ton {p) ; died 135° (>») ; slain 30th December,
1375 (?)■ 1363 («)•
Thomas of Howtel,
1338 (/).
died s.p. before
I
= Roger of Howtel, claimed brother s inheritance,
I 1338 (/).
I
Thomas of Howtel, defendant in a fine of 1365, whereby Joan Coupland secured her property (/).
(a) Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 81.
(b) De Banco Roll, No. 5, m. 51 — Duke's Tran-
scripts, vol. xxvi. pp. 155-156.
(c) Northumberland Assize Rolls (Surtees Soc),
p. 229.
(d) Pedes Finium, 5 Edw. II. No. 18 — Duke's
Transcripts, vol. xii. pp. 26-27.
(e) Assiie Roll, 28-31 Edw. I. — Duke's Tran-
scripts, vol. xix. p. 127.
(f) De Banco Roll, No. 313, m. 302do.
\g) Belvoir Deeds, drawer 14.
(h) Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. \\. p. 289.
(t) Reg. Palat. Dunelm., vol. iii. pp. 274-275 ;
Assize Roll, Divers Counties, 12 Edw. IlL;
' See Arch. Aeliana, 3rd ser. vol. viii. p. 79, and Ibid, plate 13.
Vol. XI.
County Placita, 25 Edw. III. Northumber-
land— Duke's Transcripts, vol. xx.
PP- 374-37.5 ; vol. xxii. pp. 69-70, 73.
(A) De Banco Roll, No. 274, m. 176.
{/) Pedes Finium, 39 Edw. III. No. 137 — Duke's
Transcripts, vol. xxxix. pp. 274-276.
(m) Feudal Aids, vol. iv. p. 65.
(«) Coram Rege Roll, No. 447, m. 25do — Duke's
Transcripts, vol. xxv. pp. 426-430.
(0) Rot. Scot. vol. i. p. 973.
{p) See page 218.
Iq) Rot. Fin. 49 Edw. III. m. 7 — Duke's Tran-
scripts, vol. xxxix. pp. 274-276.
28
2l8 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
and 48 acres of land in the township on the ground that he was heir to his
late uncle, Simon Coupland, since Joan was a bastard. He already had a
small holding of his own consisting of a messuage and 24 acres of land in the
township, which he inherited from his father. Joan denied her illegitimacy,
but the court christian, to which the matter was referred, found that she was
a bastard.^ When in 1339 she failed in a claim to lands in Howtel on the
same grounds of bastardy, she was described as Joan Coupland.- The
other Joan, on whom the manor had been settled, must have married John
Coupland before or soon after 1346, for according to the records of the Feudal
Aid of that year he paid 30s. for three parts of a Knight's fee as in three
parts of the vills of Akeld, Yeavering and Coupland.^ It does not seem
possible for him to have acquired the three parts save through Joan,
daughter of Alice, to whom it was secured, and the fact that his wife was
named Joan strengthens the supposition.'' It is fairly obvious that this
wife was an heiress, for in most of his transactions with regard to pro^oerty
she was associated with him, and she enjoyed that property in her own right
after his death.
Three Parts of the Manor. — John Coupland was a man of considerable
mark in his day. His public services as early as 1339 were such as to secure
him a royal grant of lands in Roxburghshire and an annuity of £20,^ and from
this time down to his death in 1363 he was constantly employed in the Scottish
wars and in border administration. In 1344 he was a king's yeoman,^ and in
1346 he leapt into fame as the fortunate squire who captured David of
Scotland at the battle of Neville's Cross. According to Froissart he refused
to surrender his prisoner to anyone save the king, and having placed him in
' Assize Roll, Divers Counties, 12 Edw. III. ; County Placita, 25 Edw. III., Northumberland — Duke's
Transcripts, vol. xx. pp. 374-375 ; vol. xxii. pp. 69-70, 73. Reg. Palat. Dunelm, vol. iii. pp. 339-340.
• Reg. Palat. Dunelm. vol. iii. pp. 274-275. ' Feudal Aids, vol. iv. p. 65.
• It is universally stated that Joan wife of John Coupland was a Strother, according to Hodgson, pt.
ii. vol. i. p. 254, daughter of Alan Strother, and according to The Strother Family, p. 3, daughter of William
Strother of Kirknewton and 'married ist, William second son of William Sire de Coucy {C/. Genealogist, n.s.
vol. iv. p. 90), 2nd, the famous John de Coupland.' No reference other than the one above is given, nor
can I find any authority whatsoever for the statements. The statement in the Genealogist refers to Inq. p.m.
21 Ric. II. This is now P.R.O. Chancery Miscellaneous Inquisitions, file 261, No. 75, where there is
mention of John and Joan Coupland as grantees of certain lands formerly held by William de Coucy. The
name Strother is not mentioned, nor is William de Coucy 's widow, and he had no heir of his body.
Joan's seal suggests Strother ancestry (see p. 217) and so her mother AUce or her grandfather Simon or
her grandmother Margaret of Lanton may have been a Strother. Joan, widow of John Coupland, was
in an entail after the male heirs of Sir Thomas Grey of Heton. (P.R.O. Durham Cursitor Records,
vol. 3/2, f. Ss*"".) This suggests a Grey relationship, which is strengthened by the crest born by Sir John
Coupland (see p. 217) The arms and crest tend to remove the possibility, which at first sight seems hkely,
that Joan, bastard daughter of Simon Coupland, and Joan, wife of John Coupland were the same person.
' Rot. Scot. vol. i. p. 558. ° Col. of Close Rolls, 1343-1346, p. 354.
COUPLAND TOWNSHIP. 219
safe custody, went over to the English army before Calais to bargain for
an annuity of £500.^ Though the picturesque details given by the French
chronicler cannot be accepted, it is obvious that the king had some diffi-
culty in obtaining possession of the prisoner. Urgent orders were issued
immediately after the battle, commanding John Coupland, among others, to
bring his prisoners to London,- and the ransoming of any of the captives, as
was the custom of the age, was categorically forbidden.^ Further, an English
chronicler substantiates Froissart's statement that David was carried off
to some castle and there securely held, and identifies the fortress as
Bamburgh,* and, whether as the result of bargaining or not, John Coupland
was appointed to the estate of a knight banneret, with an annuity of £500
'for his stout bearing in the glorious victory over the Scots at Durham,
where he took prisoner David Bruce, who had caused himself to be named
king of Scotland.' Further he was granted another annuity of £100 'for
his stay with the king with twenty men-at-arms.'^ Henceforth he was
constantly in the king's service. In June 1347 he was on a mission over-
seas.^ From 1347 to his death, with certain intervals when he was relieved
of his command, he was constable of Roxburgh and sheriff of Roxburgh-
shire,'^ and from 1357 to 1362 he had custody of Berwick, though he was
removed from this a few weeks before his death. ^ On more than one
occasion he served as a conservator of truces and on other border commis-
sions, he was escheator in the county of Northumberland in 1354 and
1356,'^ and sheriff in 1350, 1351, 1353, 1354 and 1356.1" It fell to his lot,
in this last capacity, to take charge once more of King David, who was being
1 Froissart (ed. Kervyn de Lettenhove, Bruxelles, 1868), vol. v. pp. 128, 134 (second version), pp. 137-144
(fourtli version.)
2 Rot. Scot. vol. i. p. 676. ' Ibid. pp. 675-681 ; Foedera, vol. iii. pp. 95, 98.
« Knighton, vol. ii. p. 44. It is also noticeable that Froissart in his account of the capture speaks of
Coupland as in command of 20 men (Froissart, vol. v. p. 128), a number confirmed by an official document.
Col. of Patent Rolls, 1345-1348, p. 226.
' Foedera, vol. iii. p. 102 ; Cal. oj Patent Rolls, 1345-1348, p. 226. Later certain property in the counties
of Westmorland, Cumberland and Lancaster was granted to him in part redemption of this annuity. Ibid.
p. 370. Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1354-1358, p. 223.
« Assize Roll, Divers Counties. 18-22 Edw. II. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. .xx. pp. 393-394-
' Cal. of Fine Rolls, vol. v. p. 494 ; Rot. Scot. vol. i. pp. 692, 693, 714, 718, 740. 748, 756, 761, 777, 781,
858, 861, 880. On one occasion Coupland was said to have been long absent from Roxburgh owing to his
duties as sheriff of Northumberland. Cal. of Close Rolls, 1349-1354. PP- 539-54°-
' Rot. Scot. vol. i. pp. 801, 807, 841, 847, 851, 864. As early as 1345 he had been commissioned to
supervise the repair of two mills at Berwick. Rot. Scot. vol. i. p. 664.
» Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1354-135S. PP- 52. 358-
" P.R.O. Lists and Indexes, vol. Ix. p. 97; Lansdowne MS. 326, fols. i62do, 128, 116, i36do.
220 " PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
allowed to visit Scotland to negotiate a peace, in 1351, 1352 and 1353,^
but in 1356 peremptory orders were issued to the justices in Northumber-
land to remove him from this office and substitute another.^ These sudden
dismissals, which recur at frequent intervals throughout his career, suggest
that he was as much a borderer as an official, but he was never disgraced.
Possibly he was in command of Wark in 1359, when he made a nuncupative
will there, being about to set out to some far distant destination at the
command of the king and not knowing when he would return nor what
should befall him before he did so.^ That he did so return is evident from
the fact that he met a violent death in 1363 in his own county of North-
umberland, and so well known was he that a chronicler in far off Leicester-
shire thought it worth while to record his death, and to write his epitaph —
'a valiant man of the north, an esquire skilful and brave.'* He was slain
seemingly on Bolton Moor on December 20th, 1363,^ together with Nicholas
Bagot of Newcastle and William Kendal,*^ and was probably trying
to suppress some border disturbance in his capacity as one of the wardens
of the march of Scotland, for we are told that he met his death 'on the
king's service.'^ His murderers were not easily caught. One of them
is mentioned in a grant to his widow 'of all the lands late of John Clifford,
the king's enemy, forfeited by him for riding at war within the realm,
slaying the said John Coupland while in the king's service, and adhering
to the Scots.'^ In 1372 one Thomas Brewster was indicted for having slain
John Coupland and his two companions and stolen jewels to the value of
200 marks. Hitherto he had eluded capture, and now he put in a plea that
he was not the Thomas Brewster who had done the deed. While the case
was pending, he escaped from the Marshalsea prison, but was recaptured,
' Rot. Scot. vol. i. pp. 759-760; Foedera (second edition), vol. v. pp. 727, 737, 756, 802, 806.
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1354-1358, p. 326. ^ Wills and Inventories, vol. i. pp. 29-31.
* 'Scutifer elegans et audax.' Knighton, vol. ii. pp. 116-117.
s This date. Wednesday, the vigil of St. Thomas the Apostle, 37 Edw. III. is given in a case of 1372,
Coram Rege Roll, No. 447, m. 25do — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxv. pp. 426-430. In another case of 1380
the date is given as Wednesday the vigil of St. Thomas the Apostle 36 Edw. III., Coram Rege Roll, No. 477,
m. i9do — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxvi. p. 43. This would make it 1362, and though this is the year given
by Knighton, it is less hkely to be accurate, as the vigil of St. Thomas was that year a Tuesday not a
Wednesday. Also the commission to inquire into his murder is dated January, 1364. Cal. oj Patent Rolls,
1361-1364, p. 454.
» Coram. Rege Roll, No. 477, m. 2jdo — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxv. pp. 426-430; Cal. of Patent Rolls,
1361-1364, p. 453.
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1361-1364, p. 454 ; 1364-1367, pp. 200, 217. He had been appointed custodian
of the march pro tempore 12th November, 1359. Rot. Scot. vol. i. p. 843.
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1304-1367, pp. 200, 217.
COUPLAND TOWNSHIP. 221
though his ultimate fate is not disclosed. ^ Yet another of those concerned
in the murder was Henry of Lucker, who was tried and outlawed for his
complicity therein. ^
John Coupland's widow survived him for ten years, ^ and in 1365 she
levied a fine to put beyond question her right not only to her own inheritance,
but to the various lands in Northumberland acquired by her husband and
herself.* In 1372 she sold the manor of Coupland together with her other
Northumbrian property to Sir Richard Arundel,^ from whose family it
passed with Akeld to the Greys. Sir Ralph Grey held three parts of the vill
when the feudal aid of 1428 was collected,^ and when he died in 1443 this
was said to be held of the king as of the manor of Wooler by socage, and
worth yearly 20s.'' The border survey of 1541 found the township contained
ten husbandlands and 'was of th'inherytaunce of . . . Graye of Chyllyng-
ham,'^ in a muster roll of 1580 it was reported as belonging to Sir Thomas
Grey,^ and in 1593 the manor of Coupland was included in the lands
entailed by Ralph Grey.^" In 1663 the Grey rent roll, including the mill,
was £140, not quite double that of the only other landowner of consequence
in the township, ^^ and in 1672 William, Lord Grey, settled ' the reputed
manor or lordship of Coupland, &c., together with the mill or Coupland
mill' on himself for life with remainder to his son Ralph Grey,^'^ who
succeeded to the barony on the death of his elder brother Ford, Lord Grey,
in 1701, dying himself in 1706. In pursuance of his will and by virtue
of a decree of the court of chancery his portion of Coupland was sold in
1733. the purchaser being Robert Paul of the Customs House in London,
who paid ;£2,200 for the estate. ^'^ Paul also tried in vain to buy the other
* Coram Rege Roll, No. 447, m. 25do — Duke's Transcripts, vol. x.xxv. pp. 426-430.
2 Coram Rege Roll, No. 477, m. igdo — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxvi. p. 43. Cf. N.C.H. vol. i. p. 239.
A document, dated 1366, seems to imply that William Heron of Ford and his son Roger were wTongfuIly
suspected of being concerned in the murder. Cal. of Close Rolls, 1364-1368, p. 292.
' On .\pril 24th, 1373, the Sheriff of Northumberland was ordered to take into the King's hand the
lands which had belonged to Joan widow of John Coupland. (Rot. Fin. 49 Edw. III. ra. 7— Duke's Tran-
scripts, vol. xxxii. p. 185.) On the following 12th December, the chancellor and chamberlain of Berwick
was ordered to hold an inquest after her death. Rot. Scot. vol. i. p. 973.
* Pedes Finium, 39 Edw. III. No. 137 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxix. pp. 274-276.
5 Cal. of Close Rolls, 1369-1374, p. 448 ; Pedes Finium, 47 Edw. III. No. 158— Duke's Transcripts, vol.
xxxi.x. pp. 312-315.
« Feudal Aids, vol. iv. p. 87. ' P.R.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. Hen. VI. file iii.
« Survey of the Border, 15^1— Border Holds, p. 34. ' Cal. of Border Papers, vol. i. p. 15.
»» Feet of Fines, sixteenth century, p. 62. " Rate Book, 1663— Hodgson, pt. iu. vol. i. p. 278.
»■- Coupland and .Vkeld Title Vccds— Berwickshire Naturalists' Club Proceedings, \ul. .xi. p. 409.
" Ewart Park MSS. Cf. Berwickshire Naturalists' Club, vol. xi. p. 411.
222 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
portion of the manor from Sir Chaloner Ogle.^ His own portion remained
in his family till 1777, when it was sold to Samuel Phipps of Lincolns Inn
under the title of 'all the town, village, &c., of Coupland . . . and the
mill, called Coupland mill,' including also South Coupland, ^ now known
as Yeavering though it is not within the borders of the township of that
name. This purchaser by his will, dated September i8th, 1789, devised
all his Northumberland property to the use of his kinsman Francis Sitwell,^
who in 1827 conveyed ' all that water corn mill in the township of Coupland
and the lands belonging thereto' to Matthew CuUey, who already owned
Akeld,* and who three years later succeeded to the other portion of
Coupland.
The Fourth Part of the Manor. — There are few allusions to the owners
of the fourth part of Coupland during the middle ages. When and how
this portion was detached from the manor held by William of Akeld
we cannot tell, but by the middle of the fourteenth century Robert
Haggerston held it, and in the fifteenth century it was still held apart
from the manor,^ though by whom we do not know. In 1478 Thomas
Ilderton died seised in tail male, together with Isabel his wife, of one tenement
and 100 acres of land in Coupland worth yearly £6, held of Thomas Grey by
the third part of one knight's fee as of the moiety of the Barony of
Muschamp.^ This probably was the fourth part of the manor, though
the service is out of proportion to the one knight owed for Akeld, Coupland
and Yeavering together. There is little doubt that it is identical with
the property held by the family of Wallis in Coupland during the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries." This family first appears in the township in
1563,^ when Gilbert Wallis of Akeld bought land there from John Forster
of Bamburgh, lord warden of the Middle Marches,^ and four years later
James Wallis of Coupland bought from Thomas Forster of Adderstone,
1 Letter of Samuel Ketilby to Robert Paul, December 13th, 1734 — Ewart Park MSS.
' Coupland Title Deeds — Berwickshire Naturalists' Club, vol. xi. p. 412. 'Copeland Farm' consisting
of 644 acres i rood 11 poles was offered for sale in 1770. From the description it evidently lay on both sides
of the river Glen and it included a newly erected corn mill. It was contiguous to Ewart and Yeavering
which were both held by the same tenant WiUiam Pringle. Advertisement in Hodgson MSS. Kirknewton, p. 1 2.
' Coupland Title Deeds — Berwickshire Naturalists' Club, vol. xi. p. 412. * Ibid. p. 414.
' Feudal Aids, vol. iv. pp. 65, 87. A Thomas Haggerston had been resident in the township in 1279.
Northumberland Assize Rolls, (Surtees Soc.) p. 235.
* P.R.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. Edw. IV. file 75. ' Cf. page 235.
' Mackenzie, Northumberland, vol. i. p. 374, following Wallis, Northumberland, vol. ii. p. 480, who cites
Cliillingham MSS., says that Coupland was 'the seat of lidward Wallace in the reign of Edward II. and of
Wilham Wallace in the beginning of the reign of Ehzabeth."
' Coupland Deeds — Arch. Aeliana, N.S. vol. xxv. p. 17').
COUPLAND TOWNSHIP. 223
elder brother of John Forster, 'all his messuage land, tenements, &c., in
Coupland,' being property purchased the previous year from John Heron
of Bockenfield and Humphrey Heron of Eshot.^ Many of the family
lived in Coupland, for in the muster of 1584 no less than six of the seven
men, mentioned under that township, were named Wallis.^ Some were
tenants under the Greys, and in 1589 Sir Thomas Grey bequeathed for
twenty-one years to the eldest son of John Wallis of Coupland the tenement
then in the occupation of his stepmother.^ In 1600 James Wallis levied a
fine with respect to 6 messuages, 6 cottages, 6 gardens and land, furze and
heath in Coupland.^ Eight years later this same name occurs in connec-
tion with property there,^ and it is also a James Wallis who in 1642 settled
his lands in the township on his own issue in tail male with remainder to
the issue of Richard Wallis of Humbleton, George Wallis of Learmouth
and James Wallis of Wooler.^ This property was valued at ;^8o annually
in 1663, when James Wallis still held it,^ but it did not include 'Coupland
Tower', which he purchased two years later from his kinsman Richard
Wallis, together with certain lands in Humbleton for £850.^ This man
may have been identical with the James Wallis of Coupland who mortgaged
his lands in Akeld and Coupland in 1689 and 1691,^ and whose successor,
James Wallis of Knaresdale, was in 1693 a minor in the guardianship of
Vaughan Phillips, son-in-law of the last owner. i" Now, at any
rate, if not before, the Wallises of Coupland and Knaresdale were identical,
and in 1713 Ralph Wallis of Knaresdale sold Coupland and Akeld to the
Ogles, from whom it ultimately passed to the family of CuUey as described
under Akeld. ^^ Till 1728 the two portions of the manor still lay inter-
mixed with one another, but in that year the respective owners affected an
exchange whereby each held a compact estate. ^^
' Coupland Deeds — Arch. Aeliana, N.S. vol. .\.xv. p. 175. - Cal. of Border Papers, vol. i. p. 157.
* Wills and Inventories, vol. ii. p. 175.
* Feet of Fines, sixteenth century, p. 70. The defendant was John Heron.
' Money levied at Assizes in Northumberland, 6 James I. — Waterford Documents, vol. i. p. 769.
' Coupland Deeds — Arch. Aeliana, N.S. vol. xxv. p. 176.
' Rate Book, 1663 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 278.
' Coupland Deeds — Berwickshire Xaturalists' Club, vol. xi. p. 409. • Ibid. p. 410.
" Ibid. Cf. Arch. Aeliana. N.S. vol. xxv. p. 176. In 1715 Mary Phillips ot York, widow, daughter of
James Wallis late of Coupland, registered among the Roman CathoUc Estates an annuity of /40 out of
Coupland now the inheritance of Ralph Wallis of Knaresdale, granted January 17th 3 James II. through her
father's natural love and affection. {Registers of Roman Catholics' Estates, p. 59.) Her mother seems to
have been Margery WaUis and her husband probably Vaughan Phillips. {The English Catholic Non-jurors
of 1715, by E. E. Estcourt and J. O. Payne (Loudon, 1885), p. 209).
" See page 236.
" Letter of Mr. Samuel Kettilby, August 8th, 1 734— Ewart Park MSS.
224
PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
CULLEY OF COUPLAND CASTLE.
Arms : Per pale indented argent and sable, on a chief engrailed ermine between three talbots heads erased or,
as many roses gules.
John Culley of Beamont Hill, = Elizabeth [widow of George Bellamy, sister and heir
parish of Haughton le Skerne, | of Robert Parkinson of Chester-le-Street] ; buried
buried 20th March, 1690 {g). 1 loth November, 1658 (g).
Matthew Culley of Beamont Hill, son and heir ; buried 24th =p Anne Shaw, buried
January, 1701/2 {g) ; will dated ist January, 1701/2. 14th May, 1686 {g).
Robert Culley, baptised 19th
December, 1643 (g).
John Culley, baptised
2nd November,
1 67 1 (g) ; died in
infancy.
Mary, daughter of = John Culley of Beamont Hill,
son and heir; baptised 2nd
June, 1674 {g) ; will dated
i6th June, 1753; pr. 1755.
Michael Harrison of
Hurworth ; married
1696 {g).
[Anne Gates, widow, married
4th March, 174 1/2, at
is^orton; buried there 25th
June, 1770].
Matthew Culley of Bea-
mont Hill, baptised
28th September, 1697
(g) ; named in his
grandfather's will.
I'M
Michael Culley, baptised 17th September, 1700 (g).
John Culley, baptised nth July, 1703 (g).
Thomas Culley, baptised 17th September, 1704 {g).
Robert Culley, baptised 19th December, 1706 {g) ;
buried 19th March, 1706/7 (g).
Anne, baptised 2nd May, 1699 (g);
[wife of William Harrison].
Mary, baptised 17th February,
1 70 1/2 (g) ; buried 9th June,
1703 te)-
Matthew Culley of Denton; parish
of Gainford ; baptised i6th
November, 1685 {g) ; to whom
his father gave lands in Great
Aycliffe, held by lease from
the Dean and Chapter of
Durham ; purchased lands
in Denton in 1722 ; buried
17th December, 1762, Den-
ton ; will dated 3rd March,
1760.
Eleanor, daughter
of Edward Sur-
tees of Mains-
forth ; married
29th September,
1719 ; buried at
Denton, 17th
June, 1776, aged
80 ; will dated
loth August,
1769.
Mil
Elizabeth, baptised 2nd April, 1674 {g) ; married
June, 1708, Thomas Sawyer of Yarm.
Jane, baptised i6th November, 1676 (g) ; married
1 6th May, 1703, William Wastell of Great
Burdon.
Mary, baptised 23rd February, 1678/9 {g) ;
married 4th May, 1708, John Martindale of
Auckland St. Helen's.
Dorothy, baptised 19th September, 1682 {g) ;
married 5th June, 171 1, Thomas Reed of
Yarm.
I I M
buried
Matthew Culley, baptised 24th May, 1722 {g);
iSth August, 1722 (g).
Edward Culley, baptised 27th June, 1724 {h).
Robert Culley of Denton, son and heir, and of Darling-
ton, solicitor; born 8th November, 1726; baptised ist
December, 1726 (h); died at Denton, 12th August,
1783; unmarried; will dated 5th March, 1772.
Edward Culley, baptised 3rd June, 1730 (h) ; died
17th November, 1749, aged 19; buried Denton.
John Culley, baptised 6th May, 1729 (A); died
22nd February, 1748, aged 20; buried Denton.
Matthew Culley of Akeld, :
baptised 14th Septem-
ber, 1731 ; succeeded to
Denton on the death of
his brother in 1783 ;
died at Wark i6th
December, 1804, aged
74 ; buried Kirknew-
ton ; will dated 7th
July, 1804.
Elizabeth, only daughter
of Thomas Bates of
Halton ; married loth
July, 1783. at Cor-
bridge ; died at Akeld,
loth February, 1814,
aged 66 (b); will dated
13th February, 1805.
(') Jane, daughter of =:
Walter Atkinson,
born 30th October,
1747 ; married 29th
April, 1777 [d); died
at Fenton 17th
January, 1780.
I
George Culley of Fowberry, =
born 23rd February, 1735;
died at Fowberry ;
buried nth May, 1813,
aged 7S(f); will dated
30th October, 1810 ;
proved 1813.
(2) Isabella, daughter of =
Thomas Spours of
Heckley ; married
24th December, 1787,
at Edlingham ; buried
29th June, 1788, at
Alnwick.
(') Hannah, sister of
John Nesbitt of An-
croft ; married at An-
croft 1 2th June,
1794; diedat Easing-
ton Grange, aged 81 ;
buried 2nd October,
1824 (/).
Matthew Culley of Fowberry and of Denton, son and
heir ; born at Fenton, baptised 15th February,
1778; died unmarried, 20th June, 1849, aged 73 (d, e).
Eleanor, born at Fenton, 3rd July, 1779 ; married
9th June, 1803, James Darling of thechapelry of
Cornhill (/) ; she died 14 Apr., 1806, aged 27 (/).
COUPLAND TOWNSHIP.
225
I
Thomas CuUey,
baptised 6th
Feb., 1738/9
(A) ■; died in
infancy.
1
James Ciilley of Grindon, parish ^
of Norham ;
voun
gest son ;
born 1st May,
1740
died 15th
February,
1793;
buried
Norham ; will
proved at York,
nth October,
1794-
1
Margaret, daughter
of John Picker-
ing ; baptised
19th May, 1754
(/) ; married 20th
December, 1781
(/)■
Jane, baptised 21st September,
1720 (^) ; died at Fowberry,
aged 96, buried 23rd January,
1816 (/).
Anne, baptised 3rd October,
1725, buried 30th May, 1752
(A).
Eleanor, only child, born Crookham East Field, baptised 8th April, 1784 (/) ;
19th August, 1805, Grieve Smith of Budle (/). ^
married
I
Matthew Culley of Coupland = Margaret Anne,
Castle and of Akeld, son and
heir ; born at Wark ; baptised
25th September, 1786 {c) ;
of Peterhouse, Cambridge ;
matriculated 20th May. 1805 ;
a Fellow of the Geological
Society, 1825 ; died at Coup-
land, 19th April, 1834, aged
24 (6); will dated 15th April,
1834-
daughter of Ed-
ward Tewart
of Southgate,
Middlesex ; mar-
ried 7th .\ugust,
1831, at Ed-
monton ; died at
Coupland, nth
•■\pril, 1S34.
I Ml
Thomas Culley, Eleanor, born at Fenton ; baptised
born at Wark; T3th January. 1785 ; married 22nd
baptised 25th April. 1816, Henry Morton.
May. 1 791 (c) ; Elizabeth, bom at Wark; baptised
buried at 17th February, 1788 (c) ; wife of
Carham, 19th Rev. Christ. Robinson, vicar of
May, 1792 (c). Kirknewton.
Jane, born at Wark ; baptised 19th
June, 1795 (c) ; married 3rd
December, 1824, Henry Stobart.
I
Harriet Mary Jane, ^ Matthew Tewart Culley of Coupland
daughter of Rev.
Thomas Knight ;
baptised 28th
May, 1830 (/)
married 6th Oct
ober, 1859 (/)
died 19th May
1872.
Castle and of Akeld ; born at
Coupland, 14th October, 1832 ; of
University College, Oxford ; matric-
ulated 27th April, 1852 ; B.A.,
1856 ; M.A., 1858 ; high sheriff of
Northumberland, 1869 ; died 2nd
March, 1889 ; will dated September,
1888.
Eleanor, daughter of
George Darling of Fow-
berry; married 13th June,
1882, at Guston, Kent.
Margaret Eleanor, bom
2nd April, 1834 ; mar-
ried her cousin, John
H. Stobart of Ether -
ley, county Durham.
I
Geoffrey Matthew George Culley, a captain. Royal
West Kent Regiment ; only child of marriage ;
born 19th March, 1883; killed in action 15th
September, 1916. ■^,
Matthew Culley of Coupland Castle
and of Akeld, bom 3rd Sept-
ember, i860 ; of Oscott College,
in holy orders of the Church
of Rome and a Domestic Pre-
late of the Pope ; died igth
August, 1920.
Thomas Knight Culley of Yeavering;
born West Horton, baptised
8th December, 1861 (d).
Maud, daughter of William
Talbot ; married 7th June,
1900, at Houston, Texas.
I
Henry Morton Culley, son and heir
Santa Barbara, California.
born nth January. 1909, at
I
John Henry Culley, of Escondide, New
Mexico ; born West Horton, baptised
1 0th May, 1864 ; of Brasenose College,
Oxford, matriculated 22nd October,
1883; succeeded to Coupland Castle
and Akeld on the death of his
eldest brother in 1920.
Constance Mary,
daughter of John
Mackeller of Sweet
Water, New Mex-
ico ; married loth
.•\pril, 1892, at Las
Vegas, New Mexico.
I
George Christ-
opher Bolton
Culley, born
at West Hor-
ton, baptised
2 1 St Decern -
ber, 1865. ^
I I I
Ethel Harriet, wnfe of
Theodore George Martin.
Margaret Elizabeth, second
wife of Major F'rancis
H. Sitwell.
Sarah Gcorgina Eleanor,
wife of Vivian Messiter.
Matthew James Culley, son and heir, born 3rd October, 1893.
I
Mary Elizabeth.
Margaret Jane.
{p) Kirknewton Register.
(b) Monumental Inscriptions, Kirknewton.
(c) Carham Register.
(d) Chatton Register.
Vol. XI.
(e) Monumental Inscriptions, Chatton.
(/) Ford Register.
(g) Haughton le Skerne Register.
(A) Denton Register.
29
226 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
Freeholders. — The Baxter family, which held land in several
townships of Kirknewton, did so in Coupland also. In 1285 Thomas Baxter
of Lanton appears as a leaseholder there/ and in 1295 he was in possession
of part of the demesne and ultimately of all that portion belonging to his
kinsman, Sir David Coupland.^ In 1301 he sued Simon Coupland for
disseising him of certain lands there, ^ but he had died before 1312, when his
son David was defendant in a fine wherebv the manor was entailed on
Joan Coupland.* This David, son of Thomas Baxter, seems to have gone
by the name of David of Lanton, and it was under that name that, together
with Elizabeth his wife, he purchased in 1317 the corn mill with all its rights
from Agnes, widow of Walter of Howtel, who had been given it by her father
Sir David Coupland.^ None the less when he died in 1323, leaving
a son named Thomas, aged 14, as his heir, he was only credited with a
carucate of land in Coupland, held of Simon Coupland by service of one
pound of cummin yearly,^ but that he was identical with David, son of
Thomas Baxter, is evident from the fact that his son Thomas, who had
resumed the name of Baxter, was sued in 1338 by Roger, son of Agnes and
Walter of Howtel, for the mill, which the plaintiff alleged had been given
to Agnes in frank marriage by her father Simon Coupland, and therefore
should devolve on him as heir to his brother Thomas, who had died without
issue. Thomas Baxter in reply produced the charter whereby Simon
Coupland conveyed the mill to his daughter in fee simple, but this did not
satisfy Roger of Howtel, and the matter was referred to a jury.'^ The
result of the action is not recorded, but it puts beyond doubt the identifica-
tion of David of Lanton as the father of Thomas Baxter. The latter did
not long enjoy his property, for by 1369 his son David had not only
succeeded him, but had died himself, leaving a widow Margaret, who had by
then consoled herself with a second husband in the person of Thomas
Blenkinsopp. The property in Coupland then consisted of a carucate of
land and meadow in demesne together with a toft, to which 5 acres of meadow
were attached, ij husbandlands with tofts, a waste mill and a cottage, the
last being valued at 6s. a year.^ Margaret was awarded dower in this,
' De Banco Roll. No. 59, m. 84 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxvii. p. 68. * See pages 215-216.
' Assize Roll, 38-21 Edw. I. — -Duke's Transcripts, vol. xix. p. 126.
♦ Pedes Finiiim, 5 Edw. II. No. 18 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. .\ii. pp. 26-27.
' Belvoir Deeds, drawer 14. « Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. vi. p. 2S9.
■ P.R.O. De Banco Roll, No. 313, m. 302do. " Belvoir Deeds, drawer 21.
COUPLAND TOWNSHIP. 227
but in 137 1 she was compelled to surrender a third of this property, now
described as three messuages, 160 acres of land, 20 acres of meadow and
a mill, to her mother-in-law, Joan, widow of Thomas Baxter and now wife
of Sir Robert Clavering, as her dower, which for some reason had not been
allotted.^ The Baxter family seems to have come to an end with David
Baxter, as the heirs in 1639 were Henry Lilburn and David Lucker. When
the latter died in 1379, however, he held no land in Coupland, but his uncle
Henry Lucker may be said to have been connected with the township in
having been concerned in the murder of Sir John Coupland. ^
It is quite probable that the Baxter inheritance came shortly after
this into the Manners family. Not only are several of the deeds relating
to this property to be found among the muniments at Belvoir, but when
in 1402 Robert Manners ' le pier ' gave to his son John in frank marriage all
his demesne lands in Coupland, the gift also included the mill,^ which we
have seen formed a part of the Baxter property. No further reference
to these lands is made till 1542, when the first earl of Rutland mentioned
them in his will,* and twenty years later the second earl, just before his
death, sold the whole of his property in the township, which then only
consisted of a tenement worth 13s. 4d. annually, held for life by one Richard
TurnbuU, to Ralph Swinhoe of Cornhill.^ There is no indication whether
this is to be identified with the land owned in the township by John HaU
of Otterburn, who in 1595 bequeathed a life interest therein to his younger
son Thomas with remainder to his eldest son William.^ This property,
described as 'the four nobles' lands of ancient yearly rent,' was mortgaged
by John Hall of Otterburn in 1642, and in 1654 William Hall of Otterburn
was mentioned in connection therewith,^ but apparently he was the last
of his family to own it.
The Castle. — There seems to have been no tower or fortification
in Coupland till a comparatively late date in the history of border
warfare. In early days the owner evidently lived at Akeld, and 'it was
probably not till the advent of the Wallis family that any lord's dwelling
was built. Even then it only belonged to the quarter of the manor, and was
1 P.R.O. De Banco Roll. No. 441, m. 123110. = N.C.H. vol. i. p. 239. Cf. page 221.
3 Belvoir Deeds, drawer 21. ■" North Country Wills, vol. i. p. 187.
5 Belvoir Deeds, drawer 14. * Wills and Inventories, vol. ii. p. 254.
' Coupland Title Deeds — Beruickshire Naturalists' Club. vol. xi. pp. 408-409.
228
PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
never what may be called a manor house. In 1514 there was
'nether fortresses nor barmekyne' there.^ and there is no direct
evidence as to the date of the building earlier than 1619, a date
carved on the chimney-piece of the 'great chamber' or 'haunted
room' with the initials G.W. and M.W. on either side of it. The style
and character of the work implies that it was built in the
later years of the sixteenth or in the early seventeenth century,
In any case it followed after the border commission of 1584,
which recom-
mended the erec-
tion of a chain
of forts to protect
the frontier. 2
The castle com-
prises a tower three
storeys in height,
measuring on the
exterior 47 feet by
29 feet, with a pro-
jection on the south
side, of tower form,
which is carried
above the level of
the tower proper,
and contains the entrance and staircase. The entrance door with its massive
iron hinges is on the west side : it is round-headed, with a roll moulding on
the edge. It opens into a circular newel stone stair 10 feet in diameter.
Immediately within the entrance is the door giving access to the basement
or ground floor chamber, 36 feet 3 inches from east to west and 18 feet
6 inches in width. This is ceiled with a barrel stone vault. The apartment
at a later date has been divided by a thick wall continued to the roof, in
which modern fireplaces are provided at each floor level. The staircase,
10 feet diameter, reaches only to the first floor apartment, which is a little
larger than that below, and formed the 'great' or principal chamber of
' Survey of the Border, 1541 — Border Holds, p. ^4.
' It does not figure in the Plat of Castles by Christopher Dacrc, 1584 — Border Holds, pp. 78-79.
Fig. 10.— Coupland Castle circa 18 10
AKELD TOWNSHIP. 229
the 'castle' being warmed by the fireplace already mentioned. Near to the
fireplace was a window which commanded and afforded protection to the
doorway below, the recess and stone seats on either side alone remaining.
The loops or windows lighting this and other apartments have been blocked
up or enlarged. The access to the second floor is by a smaller stair, 6 feet
3 inches diameter, opening off the first floor apartment, and cleverly
arranged in the angle of the buildings above the entrance doorway. The
masonry forming it is projected or oversailed and continued as a circular
turret. Off this small stair access is obtained to the large second floor
apartment, and to three small rooms 12 feet by 10 feet 6 inches arranged
above each other, over the larger stair which terminates at the first floor
level. Above the second floor apartment is a gabled roof, erected on the
inner edge of the main walls, and round it is a walk, protected by a parapet
and supported by projecting corbels. The staircase tower has a similar
parapet, and both have projecting gargoyles to carry off the water.
AKELD TOWNSHIP.
At the foot of the Cheviot HiUs between Coupland and Humbleton
there nestles the little village of Akeld^ on the picturesque bum of that
name. It was held in chief by the great Robert Muschamp, but subinfeu-
dated to William of Akeld together with Coupland and Yeavering for one
knight's fee of old enfeoffment.^ This fee passed on the division of
Robert Muschamp's estate at his death in 1250 to his granddaughters
Muriel and Margery, the daughters of the earl of Strathearn,^ and ultimately
to the latter — later caUed Mary — and her husband Nicholas Graham.* The
overlordship continued to form part of the Graham moiety of the barony,
and descended as described under Wooler, but by 1443 the three townships
were no longer held in chivalry, being described as held of the manor of
1 Earlier Ahelda, Hakelda. Akekdd, Akild. Akil, Ahhille. Akyed, Akell. Old Norse o=river and kelda=
well or spring. Keld is used locally of a marshy place (Heslop s.v.) and the whole name is descriptive of the
position of Akeld on the edge of the Till valley. .\t one time the final d was lost in the local pronunciation
but ultimately the spelling pronunciation was restored. The Census returns are : 1801,153; 1811,164; 1821,
167; 1831,171; 1841,182; 1851,186; 1861,162; 1871,154; 1881,141; 1891,173; 1901,136; 1911,138.
The township comprises 2207-873 acres.
2 Testa de Nevilt — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. pp. 210-211. ' Ca!. oj Inq. p.m. vol. i. p. 93-
* Inq. A.Q.D. 12 Edw II. No. 82 — Bain, Cal. oJ Documents, vol. iii. p. 120.
230 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
Wooler by socage/ and by 1480 the overlordship as well as the manors
themselves had been acquired by the Greys of Chillingham,^ who continued
to hold it, as far as Akeld and Yeavering are concerned, in 1568.^
Descent of the Manor. — The first lord of the manor of Akeld, of
whom we hear, is Robert of Akeld, who preceded William of Akeld
mentioned above.* The latter was still living in 1255,^ but there is no
further mention of his name in connection with the township, and in view
of later information there seems a strong probability that the family ended
in four co-heiresses.^ One quarter of the manor came into the possession
of the Prendergest family, which first appears in 1279 when Margaret,
widow of Adam Prendergest, recovered against Henry Prendergest dower
in one messuage, 300 acres of land, 10 acres of meadow and 4 acres of
wood in Akeld." This leads to the inference that each of the four defendants
in a case brought by one William son of Robert Parys in 1291 was the
holder of a fourth part of the manor. The plaintiff claimed a messuage, 30
acres of land and one acre of meadow in Akeld on the ground that his
father died seised of them, but Thomas Haggerston, Robert of Bellingham,
Thomas of Detchant and John Prendergest, who held the property in equal
portions, maintained that Robert Parys had been exiled and outlawed for
murdering his wife Hawys, and his lands were therefore forfeit, a defence
which a reference to the records found valid. ^ It thus seems probable,
that on Robert's forfeiture each of the four owners of the manor had
received a fourth share of the escheated property, and of these John Pren-
dergest was doubtless the heir of the Henry Prendergest of 1279. The
subsidy roll of 1296, drawn up only three years later than the judgment in
1 P.K.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. Hen. VI. file iii. When the feudal aid of 1428 was collected they were
still held in chivalry three parts of them being held for half a knight's fee and the fourth part of Akeld
for one fifth of a knight's fee, no mention being made of the fourth part of the other two vills. Feudal Aids,
vol. iv. p. 87.
' P.R.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. Edw. VI. file 75.
' Liber feodarii, 1568 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. Ixiii. Coupland is not mentioned anywhere in this
document, but probably it also continued to be so held and was omitted from the record by mistake.
' Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 84. Robert of Akeld and William of Akeld son of Robert of Akeld both
witnessed Robert of Muschamp's grant of Trollop to the monks of Melrose. Liber de Melros, vol. i. pp. 268-269.
5 Cal. 0/ Inq. p.m. vol. i. p. 93.
" John Prendergest held one quarter of the manor towards the close of the thirteenth century {I>iq.
A.Q.D. 12 Edw. II. No. 82 — Bain, Cal. oj Documents, vol. iii, p. 120), and in the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries three parts of the manor were held by one man and a quarter by another. {Feudal .4 ids, vol. iv.
pp. 65, 87.)
' Assize Roll, Divers Counties, 7-9 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xx. pp. 60-61, 70-71.
« Coram Rege Roll, No. 128 ; Assize Roll, 22 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxiii. p. 384 ; vol. xviii.
pp. 109-110. Judgment was given in 1293.
AKELD TOWNSHIP. 23I
this case, does not throw much Hght on the problem. It reveals the
township as both populous and wealthy, since the moveables of thirteen
householders reached the sum of £53. The wealthiest inhabitant was
WiUiam Palmer, assessed on £13 8s. 4d., and next to him stood the Lady
Lucy, assessed on £10 15s. 2d., Thomas Baret with £6 los. 4d. and Emma,
wife of William, with £6 3s. 2d.^ It is very improbable that any of
these, with the exception of the Lady Lucy, represented the manorial
families, and she was probably the widow of one of the four lords,^ though
not of John Prendergest, for his widow named Margaret appears three years
later. She then claimed dower in a fourth part of the manor from John,
son of William Heselrig, in 2 messuages, 40 acres of land and 8 acres of
meadow from Robert Palmer, and in an exactly similar holding from W^illiam
Palmer.^ John Prendergest had thrown in his lot with his Scottish
countrymen at the outbreak of the war with England and his lands in
Akeld had escheated not to the crown, as might have been expected in
case of treason, but to the overlord Nicholas Graham, who, a Scot himself,
suffered forfeiture for treason shortly after this. Nicholas gave a fourth
part of the manor to one William Heselrigg, who died shortly afterwards,
leaving the property to his son John, a lad under age.^ Doubtless it was
the minority of the heir which had tempted Margaret to put forward her
quite inadmissible claim, but the minor's guardians did not neglect to
do their utmost to secure his inheritance, since in 1302 they tried to recover
a messuage and 24 acres of land in the township, once part of the Prender-
gest property. The jury found that these lands had been alienated to
William Palmer by John Prendergest two years before he took his
departure for Scotland, as it politely put it.^ The Palmer family was
evidently a large one. This William was doubtless identical with the
man of the same name assessed so highly in 1296, another named Robert
was assessed on £j lis. od.,^ and a third, named Thomas, also
dwelt in the township as his house there was burgled in 1293.''
' Lay Subsidy Roll, 1296, fols. 109-no.
* There is mention in 1255 of a Thomas of Akeld and Lucy his wife [Pedes Finium, 40 Hen. III. No. 154 —
Duke's Transcripts, vol. i. p. 302), but there is no evidence that they were connected with the owners of
Akeld.
' De Banco Roll, No. 130, m. 17 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. x.xviii. pp. 476-477.
■• Ing. A.Q.D. 12 Edw. II. No. 82 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. iii. p. 120.
' Assize Roll, 21 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts; vol. xix. pp. 113-116.
" Lay Subsidy Roll, 1296, fols. 109-110.
' Assize Roll, 21 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xvii. p. 70.
232 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
John Heselrigg had a short and uneas}' tenure of the Prendergest
property in Akeld. He was worried by a charge of steahng cattle, brought
by WiUiam Pahner, who failed to appear in court to substantiate the
accusation, 1 and shortly after, when he had only held the lands a
little over two years, he was forcibly evicted by Henry Prendergest,
who claimed them as brother and heir of John Prendergest. Henry,
however, also joined the Scots, and the property was then taken into
the king's hands, ^ and in 1316 was granted during pleasure to Robert
Felton, king's yeoman.^ With the fall of his rival, John Heselrigg put
forward his claims once more, and got an order for inquiry, the result
of which was to substantiate his claim,* but nothing was done, and in
1329 steps were taken to restore the property to Henry Prendergest,
who as a Scot could claim his English lands under the agreement come
to in the negotiations which led to the 'Shameful Peace' of 1328. It
was found by inquest that Henry Prendergest, knight, had held a
messuage, 40 acres of arable land and two husbandlands in Akeld,
together with lands in Yeavering, of Sir Nicholas Meinill for a quarter
of a knight's fee, worth before the war 60s. but now leased for 20s. a
year.^ In vain did John Heselrigg petition the king, pointing out the
fact that two justices had established by inquisition that Sir Henry
Prendergest had disseised him of the fourth part of the manor,^ and in
May, 1300, the order for restitution to the Scottish knight was issued."
Five years later another member of this Scottish family was in trouble
over his property, for on February ist, 1335, the king granted to
Thomas Heton and his heirs the lands in Akeld which had escheated to
the crown by the rebellion of Adam Prendergest, a Scot.^ Before the end
of the year, however, Adam had made his submission and his forfeited
' De Banco Roll, No. 133, ra. igdo — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxviii. p. 570.
' Inq. A.Q.D. 12 Edw. II. No. 82 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. iii. p. 120.
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1313-1317, p. 539; Privy Seals, lo Edw. 11. file 9 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol.
iii. p. no.
* Inq. A.Q.D. 12 Edw. II. No. 82 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. iii. p. 120; Cal. of Inquisitions,
Miscellaneous, vol. ii. p. 93.
' Inq. p.m. 3 Edw. III. No. i — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. iii. p. iSo ; Cal. of Inq. Miscellaneous, vol.
ii. p. 261.
'^Chancery Files, No. 132 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. iii. p. 181. Bates, Hist, of Northumberland,
p. 159, says that John Haselrigg of Akeld forfeited his lands for taking part in the Middleton rising in 1317,
and though this is nowhere alleged in the documents, this may account for his failure to substantiate his
claims.
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1327-1330, p. 522. * Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1334-1338, p. 77.
AKELD TOWNSHIP. 233
lands were restored to him. Some of them however, lying in Akeld and
Yeavering, being still in the king's hands and not having been so
restored, were ordered to be handed over by writ dated November 24th,
1335-^ It would seem that this order involved a cancellation of the
previous grant to Thomas Heton^ ; at any rate Adam Prendergest is
found witnessing a deed with regard to lands in Akeld in 1349,^ which
presupposes his restoration, and possibly his residence in the township.*
It is however by no means clear that Adam held the quarter of the
manor, though he may have done so. In June, 1359, the escheator of
Northumberland reported that, as to Adam Prendergest's tenements in
Akeld and Yeavering, he did not take them into the king's hands, but
he found by inquisition that Henry Prendergest lately adhered to the Scots,
and then held a tenement in these vills, which John Coupland formerly
held, consisting of the fourth part of the hamlets of Akeld and Yeavering
worth yearly 40s., but before the late destruction of the Scots in these
parts 60s. This property was now in the king's hands. ^ The wording
of this return implies that the holdings of Adam and Henry were
distinct, and that they had held land simultaneously in both vills, and
that Adam continued to hold his share, whereas Henry had once more
suffered forfeiture for joining the Scots. The statement that John
Coupland had once held the quarter of the manor is unsubstantiated by
any document, but he was certainly given it now, for, together with a fourth
part of the advowson of the chapel of Akeld, it was included in a royal
gift of lands to him in the following July.** When soon after this the
feudal aid of 1346 was collected, John Coupland was returned as
holding three parts of Akeld, Coupland and Yeavering of Peter Mauley
and Elizabeth his wife for three quarters of a Knight's fee," and it is
thus evident that he had acquired or inherited two other portions of
1 Rot. Scot., vol. i. p. 388.
* No mention of these lands is found in the inquisition on Thomas Hcton's death nor in that of his
son Alan, to whom he gave his lands in Hethpool. None the less reference to a tenement and land pertaining
thereto worth 3s. annually is found in the partition of .Plan's estate among his throe daughters, this being
assigned to Elizabeth and John Fenwick. Inq. p.m. 12 Ric. II. No. 28 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxviii.
p. 176. Cf. Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 255. It is possible that it was included as property to which he had
claims though they had not been substantiated.
' Belvoir Deeds, drawer 2.
' In 1357 Isabel widow of Adam Prendergest alluded to her husband having in 1355 brought wool for
safe keeping from Prendergest to Haggerston, which implies that the latter was also his property and that
he resided there. Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1354-1358, p. 555.
•'' Chancery Files, bundle No. 265 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. iv. p. 9.
« Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1358-1361, pp. 233-234. ' Feudal Aids, vol. iv. p. 65.
Vol. XI. 30
234 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
the manor, though at what time and by what means remains vinlcnown. At
his death the property went to his widow Joan,^ wlio in 1372 ahenated
it with her other lands to Richard Arundel.^ When Sir John Arundel
died in 1379, the manors of Akeld, Coupland and Yeavering were valued
at ;^I2 annually,^ and by 1428 they had passed to the Greys, doubtless
having been sold in 1408 together with the moiety of Wooler.* Sir
Ralph Grey thus held three parts of the three \'ills for half a knight's
fee,^ valued at 40s. yearly in 1443.^
Descent of Three Quarters of the Manor. — This property, doubtless
the three parts of the manor as described in 1428, continued in the
Grey family and its successors for three hundred years. In 1541 the
township, consisting of 'xvi husbandlands all plenyshed, ' was reported as
'of th'inherytaunce of .... Mr. Graj^e of Chyllyngham,"' and in 1663
the compilers of the Rate Book give his descendant Lord Grey, with a
rental of £250, as the only landowner in the township.^ At the death
of Ford, Lord Grey, in 1701 the property went to his brother Ralph,
Lord Grey, in pursuance of whose will and by virtue of a decree in
the court of chancery Akeld was offered for sale in 1733, and was
bought by Samuel Kettilby of Berwick for £4,200.^ The latter in 1737
vainly tried to purchase Sir Chaloner Ogle's portion of the township,
though he was ready to pay ;^i,8oo for it.i" His son, Walter Kettilby,
sold the property in 1767 for Iti.,ooo to George Sparrow, formerly
Barkas, of Washington, county Durham,^^ whose grandson George Wingfield
of Mattingly, county Southampton, succeeded and took the name of
Sparrow. The latter sold the property to Matthew Culley, lord of Denton
in Teesdale,i2 whose descendants still hold it.
Descent of One Quarter of the Manor. — One of the four quarters,
into which the manor of Akeld was divided, had a quite separate
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1367-1370, p. 39.
^ Cal. of Close Rolls, 1369-137^, p. 448: Pedes Fivium, 47 F.dw. III. No. 158— Duke's Transcripts,
vol. xxxix. pp. 312-315.
^ Inq. p.m. 3 Ric. II. No. i — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxviii. pp. 43-45. * See page 324.
5 Feudal Aids, vol. iv. p. 87. « P.R.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. Hen. VI. file iii.
' Survey of the Border, 1541 — Border Holds, p. 33. ' Rate Book, 1663 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 277.
» Ewart Park MSS. Cf. Akeld Title Deeds — Berwickshire Naturalists' Club, vol. xi. p. 411. where the
purchase money is given as /2,40o.
'» Letter of Samuel Kettilby to Mr. Robert Paul, Customs House, London, April 15th, 1737; Ewart
Park MSS. . . 1 j . /j/
" Akeld Title Deeds ut supra p. 412. 12 m^ p ^^-^
AKELD TOWNSHIP. 235
history till quite modern times. The first holder thereof was probably
Thomas Haggerston, mentioned in 1291/ and it was doubtless his heir,
who as Philip Haggerston together with his wife Mary and Robert, son
of the said Mary, levied a fine whereby William of Goswick and Constance
his wife settled a messuage and one carucate of land in Akeld on them
jointly with remainder to the heirs of Robert.'- Doubtless this Robert
took the name of Haggerston, and was the ancestor of Robert Haggers-
ton, who in the middle of the fourteenth century held a fourth part of
the vills of Akeld, Coupland and Yeavering of the barony of Muschamp
for a quarter of a knight's fee,^ and who is also mentioned as a land-
owner in the township in a deed of 1349. ■* By the second quarter of
the following century this fourth part, so far as Akeld was concerned,
had become the property of Robert Houp^-n, and was held for one fifth
of a knight's fee." Though we cannot identify it with absolute certainty,
there is good reason to believe that the property in the township,
owned by the Wallis family throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries, was this same fourth part. The first member of this family to
be found connected with Akeld was a certain James Wallis of Akeld,
who married Eleanor, daughter of Jasper Bradford, and must have
flourished about the beginning of the sixteenth century.^ One Gilbert
Wallis was bailiff of Akeld in 1551,^ and was still living at Akeld in
1563.^ A William Wallis of Akeld b}* his will, dated September ist,
1588, left all his inheritance within the fields of Akeld to his eldest
son William and his heirs male, with successi\'e remainder to his sons
Robert, Thomas, Oswald, Gilbert and James. ^ No more is heard of
the family till 1669, when James Wallis of Coupland, mortgaged 'three
several messuages, farmholds, &c. in Akeld, now or late in the occupa-
tion of John Wilson, John Hall, James Carr and Richard Mowfitt, ' to
Edward CoUingwood of Newcastle-upon-T^-ne,^" and twenty years later,
' See page 230.
- Pedes Finium, 33 Edw. I. No. 81 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. vi. pp. 191-192; De Banco Roll, No. 153,
m. gi — Ibid. vol. xxix. p. 441.
' Feudal Aids, vol. iv. p. 6j. * Belvoir Deeds, drawer 2. ' Feudal Aids, vol. iv. p. 87.
" Northern Visitations, pp. 128-129. John Wallis was in charge of Akeld tower in 1522. Letters and
Papers oj Hen. VIII, vol. iii. part ii. p. 852.
' Leges Marchiarium, p. 337. " Coupland Deeds — Arch. Aeliana, vol. xxv. p. 175.
9 Wills and Inventories, vol. ii. p. C>in. He had also five daughters Elspeth, Dorothy. Isabel, Jane
and Agnes. His wife's name was Isabel.
'» Coupland and .\keld Title Deeds — Berwickshire Naturalists' Club, vol. xi. p. 409.
236 PARISH OF KIKKNEWTON.
the same, or another, James Walhs raised another loan on the estate.'
By 1693 James WalHs of Knaresdale, an infant, held it.^ Finally in
1713 Ralph Wallis of Knaresdale sold his property in the township for
;^2,i5o to John Ogle of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, who bought it on behalf
of his son Chaloner Ogle.^ The fact that the fields had not been
enclosed caused considerable trouble to the two proprietors in Akeld,
for the various parcels of lands belonging to them lay 'intermixt and in
common, which is not only a great discouragement and bar to the
improvement of them, but as the tenants are continuall}' trespassing
upon each other, the produce of the crops of hay and corn are greatly
lessened, and thereby the tenants' stocks reduced to their great
impoverishment, who being also many in number on so small an estate,
they are all in low and mean circumstances.' An attempt to collect
the scattered strips into two compact holdings was made by Sir Chaloner
Ogle when he first acquired his quarter of the manor,* but it was only
in 1 741 that he came to an agreement with Samuel Kettilby with
regard to their 'intertwined lands. '^ He left all his estate to his widow,
Isabel,^ from whom it passed to the very Rev. Newton Ogle, dean of
Winchester,' whose son Nathaniel succeeded in 1804, and two years
later sold it to Thomas Bates of Brunton.^ The latter's only sister and
heir apparent was the mother of Matthew Culley, who succeeded to the
property in 1830, and thus the whole manor had come into his hands.
Various Holdings. — There are a few references to small freeholders
in Akeld outside the manor. The first of these is found mentioned in
1349, when Adam Davidman of Akeld gave to Walter of Hakeford and
his heirs one toft and one acre of land with a fourth part of one rood
of land in the peat-moss in the vill and territories of Akeld and Akel-
strother. The toft lay on the eastern side of the township between the
toft of dominus William Heron on the north and that of Alan of
' Coupland and Akeld Title Deeds — Berwickshire Naturalists' Club, vol. xi. p. 410
^ Ibid. p. 410. One of the mortgagees was Susanna Bland of Newcastle, widow. It is significant that
the Bland family held a small freehold in Akeld till about the last quarter of the nineteenth century.
3 Ibid. p. 411.
' Letters of Mr. Samuel Kettilby, August Sth, 1734, April 8th, 1737 — Ewart Park MSS.
'- Akeld Title Deeds — Berwickshire Naturalists Club, vol. xi, p, 412.
" Will dated April loth, 1739. Proved September 3rd, 1750, Ogle and Baikal, app. No. 560.
" Kirkley Deeds — Ogle and Bothal, App. Nos. 688, 692.
» Died at Coupland Castle June, 1830, aged 67. A tablet to his memory, erected by his niece Elizabeth
Robinson, is in Kirknewton Church.
AKELD TOWNSHIP. 237
Bellingham on the south. Half the acre lay on le Milnefeld between
the land of William Heron and that of Robert Haggerston, the other
half in three butts near the Glen, one between William Heron's land
and 'le Smithland,' one between the land of Allan of Bellingham and
that of David Grey, the river running through the midst of it, and the
third bounded on both sides by the lands of David Grey.^ This is the
only mention of the Herons in connection with the township ; Alan of
Bellingham may have been a descendant of the Robert of Bellingham
mentioned in 1291 ; of David Grey we know nothing beyond this
allusion, but a 'William Grey of Akeld, gent.' is recorded among the
freeholders of the county in 1628.2 In the second half of the fifteenth
century there are two allusions to the Manners family. In 1452 William
Lelay leased for thirty years to Robert Manners, lord of Etal, his
nearest maternal relative, 'i cotaige within the towne and feld of Akeld,'
and at the same time gave him the first option of purchase if the estate
should be alienated.^ Exactly forty years later Gilbert Manners, one of
the ushers of the king's chamber, and probably younger brother of the
Robert Manners of Etal who died in 1495, received a grant from the
crown, during pleasure, of a parcel of land in Akeld called 'Saint
Andrewe land' valued at 3s. yearly.* In the sixteenth century John
Baxter and his wife Margaret owned lands in the township, which were
the subject of a fine in 1589,^ when also there is mention of glebe
lands there held by Thomas Eorster of Adderstone.^
The Chapel. — There seems to have been a chapel in Akeld in quite
early days, certainly by the first half of the thirteenth centur}-. While
the manor was still owned by the famil}' which took its name from the
place, an endowment was provided by Robert of Akeld, who gave two
bovates of land, held by Adam Despenser, and another six acres of land
and two of meadow, lying next to the path leading to the mill, to the
canons of Kirkham.'^ It was probably in return for this gift that the prior
1 Belvoir Deeds, drawer 2.
= Freeholders of Northumberland, 1628 — Arch. Aeliana, O.S. vol. ii. p. 321. This may of course be a
mistake for Lord Grey who then owned three parts of the manor and whose name was William.
' Belvoir Deeds, drawer 21. ■■ Cal. oj Patent Rolls, 1485-1494, p. 379.
* Feet of Fines, sixteenth century, pp. 56-57. " Wills and Inventories, vol. ii. p. 167.
' Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 84. No statement as to the endowment of the chapel is made, but tliis and
the following documents in the Cartulary are headed 'Cartae de Terra Kcclesiae de .\kyKI.' .\l a later date
William of Akeld, probably the man who was living in 1255, came to an agreement witli the canons as to
the rights of common in wood and field pertaining to this holding. Ibid.
238 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
and convent gave licence to Robert of Akeld, his heirs and his household,
to have a chantry in the chapel of Akeld, ^ provided that they attended
the parish church of Kirknewton on the vigil of Christmas, Epiphany, Palm
Sunday, Good Frida}-, the vigil of Easter Day and Easter Day itself, on
all Rogation Days, Ascension Day and Whitsunday and the Feasts of St.
John Baptist, St. Peter and St. Paul, All Saints and all the festivals of
Our Lady and of St. Gregor}'. Robert bound himself and his heirs to
keep the chapel in repair, and to provide all necessar}' books and
vestments so long as they wished to have a chantry there, and in their
turn the canons undertook to pay los. a year to Robert and his heirs
so long as the latter maintained the chapel and chantry. ^
The land thus given to Kirkham passed at the dissolution of the
religious houses to the crown. ^ Such was not the fate of another
portion of the endowment of the chapel, for in 1386 the king granted
for life to John, son of John Creswell, in part payment of a debt, ' a
messuage and twenty-four acres of land in Akild A\'hich the lady of
Akild once gave for a chaplain to celebrate divine service three days
a week in the chapel there.'* It is tempting to identify this bene-
factress with the Lady Lucy who was living in the township in 1296,''
but how this property came into the hands of the crown remains a
mystery. At any rate it suggests that the chapel may have fallen into
disuse by 1386, though as recently as 1359, when John and Joan Coup-
land were granted the Prendergest inheritance, this had included the
fourth part of the advowson of the chapel of Akeld. ^ It was
probably the endowment of this chapel which Mr. Kettilby, owner of
three parts of the manor, alludes to in a letter of 1737 as 'about 54
acres of land called churchland, ' which was a separate and distinct
estate carved out of the fourth part of the manor, then held by Sir
Chaloner Ogle, and free from the payment of all tithes. It was then
the property of Mr. Kettilby.''
' The ' cantaria ' here mentioned probably refers to the ordinary services, and it seems as though
this was the foundation charter of the chapel itself.
- Kirkham Cartulary, fol. S4. ' Ministers Accounts, 7-8 Eliz. — Watcrford Documents, vol. i. p. 63.
■■ Cal. oj Patent Rolls. 1385-1389, p. 287. ' Lay Subsidy Roll, 1296, fols. 109-110.
« Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1358-1361, pp. 233-234.
' Letter of Samuel Kettilby, April 8th, 1737 — Ewart I'ark MSS. It is to be noted that .54 acres of land
would correspond very accurately with the tw-o bovates and six acres of Robert of Akeld's gift to Ivirkham.
AKELD TOWNSHIP. 239
Of the priests who served this chapel we know next to nothing.
A \\'alter 'le Chapellein' of Akeld is mentioned in 1279/ ^"d a Robert
'clerk' of Akeld in 1287.2 In 1296 John, the chaplain, was assessed for
subsidy on goods valued at £1 7s. 6d., while somewhat surprisingh'
Thomas, the servant of the chaplain, had goods valued at £3 8s. lod.-''
Fig. II. — Interior of Basement, Akeld Tower.
The site too cannot be located with certainty, though it was probably
near the old graveyard about which Archdeacon Singleton wrote in 1828,
'there is a tradition of a parochial chapelyard at Akeld, but it seems
now to be alienated, and I was told the high road to W'ooler passed
through it.* In 1889 this graveyard was enclosed on three sides but
' Northumberland Assize Rolls, (Surtees Soc.) p. 235.
- Stevenson, ScotUsh Documents, vol. i. p. 34. ' Lay Subsidy Roll, 1296, fols. 109-110.
' .\rchdeacon Singleton's Visitation, 1828 — Arch. Aeliana, N.S. vol. xvii. p. 255.
240 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
was open to the road,^ and it still exists, though now it is entirely shut
in. From tlie existence of a 'Lady's Close' and 'Lady's Well' in tlie
near neighbourhood it has been thought that the chapel may have been
dedicated to the Blessed Virgin,- and the obligation to attend the
mother church on all festivals of Our Lady, supports the suggestion.
On the other hand the possession by the crown of a parcel of land
called 'Saint Andrewe land' in the township^ might, in view of other
portions of the endowment having found their way into the same hands,
suggest an alternative theory.
The Tower. — On the northern slope of Akeld Hill, among the present
day farm buildings, there is incorporated in a two-storied structure the
vaulted basement of the ' lytle fortelett or castle house without a
barmekyn' mentioned in the border survey of 1541.* It was standing as
early as 1522, when Lord Dacre proposed to place ten men there under
John Wallis for the defence of the border.'^ The building on the exterior
measures 62 feet north to south, and 24 feet 6 inches east to west, and 16
feet wide on the interior. The ancient portion comprises a rude semi-
circular vaulted basement, entered on the west side by a square-headed door
with a relieving arch over, and on the interior a rough flat arch.^ In the
south jamb is a hole 7 inches square for the bar securing the door. At
either end of the chamber is an original square loop for light and air.
There is no indication of a staircase to the upper floor. The modern
granary which occupies the upper floor is approached by an external stair
at the south end. The structure throughout is built of very roughly hewn
stone, and the lower courses of masonry are formed with large undressed
boulders.
' Arch. Aeliana, N.S. vol. xiii. pp. 66-67.
- Arch. Aeliana, 3rd series, vol. ix. p. 40. ^ Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1485-1494, p. 379.
* Survey of the Border, 1541 — Border Holds, p. 33.
' Letters and Papers of Hen. VHI., vol. iii, part ii, p. 852. " See fig. 11, page 239.
YEAVERING TOWNSHIP. 24I
YEAVERING TOWNSHIP.
The farm of Old Yeavering^ is now the only inhabited spot in the
township of that name,^ which mainly consists of the rugged hill known as
Yeavering Bell, whereon one of the finest prehistoric camps in Northumber-
land is situated. Many consider that this is ' Adgefrin, ' where Edwin and his
consort Ethelburga had their country seat, and where they were visited by
Paulinus, who for thirty-six days made it the centre of a missionary
campaign, during which he baptized his converts in the river Glen. The
following kings abandoned this dwelling and built another at a place
called 'Melmin.'^
Descent of the Manor. — The manorial history of the township down to
the fifteenth century is identical with that of Akeld, being held together with
that township and Coupland for one knight's fee of the barony of Muschamp.*
Of details of the lands we have none, save that the Prendergest quarter
of the 'hamlet,' as it is called, is described in 1279 as one messuage
and 40 acres of land,^ and in 1329 as a messuage 26 acres of
arable land and a husbandland.^ It possessed but few inhabitants,
only six being assessed for the subsidy of 1296, the richest having
goods to the value of £2 os. 4d. and the total wealth in moveables only
coming to £S 3s. id.' The first indication, that the history of Yeavering
had diverged from that of Akeld, is found on the advent of the Greys
at the close of the fourteenth century. Sir Thomas Grey, who died in
1400, held a husbandland there, wasted by the Scots,^ and in the records
of the Feudal Aid of 1428 Sir Ralph Grey is credited with three parts
of the vill, but nothing is recorded with regard to the fourth part,
' The Census returns are : iSoi, 68 ; 1811,59; 1821,64; 1831,68; 1841,68; 1851,29; 1861,51
1871, 55 ; i8Si, 44 ; 1891, 49 ; 1901, 5 ; 1911, 5. The tow-nship comprises 866065 acres.
- Earlier Ad gejrin (Bede), trt gefrin (O.E. Bede), Yever. Yverne, Yeure, Yevere, Yetern, Yeverin, Yever-
inglon. Clearly a pre-English name. Bede's forms are interesting examples of the old idiom whereby you
would say not the name of my home is Yeavering,' but 'the name of my home is .\t- Yeavering," so firmly
was the preposition attached to the noun. The local pronunciation is Yivrin — ing is a modern barbarism.
' Venerahilis Baedae Opera Historica, ed. C. Plummer (Oxford, 1896), pp. 114-115. Mclmin has been
identified witli Milfiold, which is impossible, as this is not an ancient name. It may perhaps refer to
Miiulrum.
* Testa de \evill — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 211.
' Assize Roll, Divers Counties, 7-9 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xx. pp. 60-61.
' Cat. of Inq. Miscellaneous, vol. ii. p. 261. ' Lay Subsidy Roll, 1296, fol. loi.
' Inq. p.m. 2 Hen. IV. No. 50 — Scalacronica, Proofs and Illustrations, p. Ixi.
Vol. XI. 31
242 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
which had once belonged to the Haggerston family. * Sir Ralph Grey
died in 1443 seised of 'the township of Yevern worth yearly 20s./ then
held of the manor of Wooler b}^ socage, ^ which probably means that
the Greys had acquired the fourth part, as there is no mention of any
other landowners in the township throughout the sixteenth century. In
1541 there were eight husbandlands there all owned by Ralph Grey of
Chillingham,^ and in 1568 the family is said to have held the vill in
chief.* Dame Isabel, widow of Sir Ralph Grey of Chillingham, who
describes herself as of Ogle Castle, evidently held Yeavering as part of
her dower, for in the inventory of her goods, taken in 1581, there is the
entry 'The goods at Yeveringe — Two score and seaven ewes j£ xvi.
weathers 40s. xvi. hoggs 21s. xxxiii. thrave of wheat and rye 35s.
xxxiii. thraves of bere 50s. oats xxx. thraves i8s. 8d.'^ Towards the
close of the century several members of the Storey family were living
in the township, and in his will dated December 20th, 1589, Sir Thomas
Grey of Chillingham left a life interest to John Storey and his wife in
'the fyrmett he hathe in Yeavering,' and to his son Fergus for 21 years
a tenement there, now in the occupation of his uncle Robert Storey, of
the yearly rent of 26s. 8d.^ In 1663 Lord Grey was returned as the
sole owner, the rental value of the estate being £80.''
After the death of Ford, Lord Grey, in 1701 Yeavering went with
the barony to his brother Ralph, Lord Grey, who died in 1706. In
pursuance of the latter's will and by virtue of a decree of the court of
chancery it was offered for sale in 1733, and was bought by 'a gentle-
man in this neighbourhood,' evidently as a speculation, as he at once
announced that he was prepared to resell at ;^2,200, being £200 more
than he had given for the property. In 1734 he found a purchaser in
Mr. Robert Paul of the Customs House, London,^ whose son Robert
St. Paul sold the estate in 1777 to Samuel Phipps. The last named
devised it by will, together with Barmoor, to Francis Hurt, who later
assumed the name of Sitwell, and Major F. H. M. Sitwell, the great
» Feudal Aids, vol. iv. p. 87. ^ P.R.O. Chancery Inq. P.M., Hen. VI. File iii.
'' Survey of the Border, 1.541 — Border Holds, p. 33.
* Liber Feodarii, 1568 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. Ixiii.
' Wills and Inventories, vol. ii. p. 53. A thrave consists of 24 sheaves or four shocks of corn. 'Bere'
means barley.
• Ibid. vol. ii. p. 175. ' Rate Book, 1663 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 279.
' Ewart Park MSS.
MILFIELD TOWNSHIP.
243
grandson of Francis Hurt Sitwell, sold it in 1867 to Henry Thomas
Morton of Biddick Hall, Fence Houses, county Durham, who in turn
sold it to George Frederick D'Arcy, second earl of Durham. The last
named died in 1879, having by his will devised his estates in North-
umberland to his son, the Hon. F. W. Lambton, who in 1884 sold
Yeavering back to Mr. Morton. Under the provisions of the latter's will, the
property passed on his death to the present owner, his cousin Thomas
Knight Culley, a younger brother of the late Very Rev. Monsignor Culley
of Coupland Castle.^
MILFIELD TOWNSHIP.
Though to-day a township within the parish of Kirknewton,
Milfield has not enjoyed this position from early times.- It finds no
mention in any record earlier than the sixteenth century, and must
have formed part of one or more of the neighbouring \-ills in early days.
Its southern boundaries are suspiciously straight, so that it may have
belonged in part to Lanton and Coupland, and some of it undoubtedly
once formed part of Howtel Common.^ It springs into notice at the
same time as its neighbour Flodden, for it is first mentioned in the
year before Flodden Field as the site of a considerable skirmish between
Scots and English. In August, 1512, Alexander, Lord Home, on
plundering bent, crossed the border with about 3,000 horse according to
Scottish accounts, or seven or eight thousand, which is the English
version. On their return they fell into an ambush carefully laid for
them in 'a brome felde called Mylfeld' by Sir William Bulmer with a
hastily levied force of something under a thousand men.'* Despite their
stout resistance, a small force of professional archers turned the struggle
in favour of the English, and many of the Scots were slain, five or six
hundred according to the English account, and two or three hundred
more taken prisoner, including George Home, Lord Home's brother. The
' Yeavering Deeds.
- The Census returns are ; 1801,193; 1811,168; 1821,259; 1831,262; 1841,225; 1851,246; iS6i,
225: 1871,222; 1881,176; 1891,172; 1901,131; igii. 124. The township comprises 1540-952 acres.'
' There is mention of ' Ic Milnefeld' as situated in .Mceld and .-Vkeld Strother in 1349 {Bclvoir Deeds.
drawer 1), but .MccId touches the modern Milfield at no point. Still there is a possibility that MilAeld was
known in the middle ages as .\kcld Strother of which there is no other mention.
' The Scottish chronicler gives the number as 300.
244 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
Scots maintained that it was only their rearguard that was thus partially
annihilated, and that the booty, which had gone before, remained in their
hands, but the English report had it that ' the pray was reckned beside
a great number of geldings.' 'This,' writes the southern chronicler,
'was the fyrst open token of warre shewed by the Scottes, whiche call
this journey the yll Roade.'^ Despite this disaster, the Scots three
years later ' to the nomber of 400 men came into England to a place
called Corkleche upon Mylnefield,"- which they used as their head-
quarters from which to send forays, the most serious one being to
Holburn. The English borderers, pursuing the returning forayers, were
trapped by the Scottish main force at Millield, and many of them were
carried off prisoners to Scotland.^ On the other hand Milfield was used
in 1523 by the English borderers as a gathering place from which to
make a raid into Scotland.* Only on one other occasion did the hamlet
play a part in militar}' operations, when the Scottish army invaded
England in 1640. In order to avoid Berwick, it crossed the Tweed at
Cornhill, and making its way up the broad valley of the Till, lay on
August 2ist, its first night on English soil, at Milfield.^
Descent of the Property. — It is in the year 1541 that we get the first
indication as to the owner of Milfield, when a survey of that year records : 'The
towneshippe of Mylnefelde conteyneth vi. husband lands plenyshed without
any fortresse or barmekyn and ys of th'inherytaunce of a wedowe late the
wyfe of Mychaell Muschiens.'" This lady had died by 1658, when
'Oswald Muschiens' held the vill in capite."' The whole township did
not belong to this branch of the Muschamp family, since in his will
made in 1542 Thomas Manners, first earl of Rutland, alludes to his
property there. ^ In 1591 John Muschamp held lands and tenements in
Milfield of Sir Thomas Grey, as of the manor of Wark,^ and he was
' Hall, p. 556 ; Buchanan, Book xiii. vol. ii. p. 131.
^ This is doubtless Corkledge, a plantation beside the high road. It now lies in Coupland.
'October 12th, 1515. Relation of the Misdeeds of the Scots dated March 15th, 1516 — Raine. North
Durham, p. i.x. ; Letters and Papers of Hen. VlII . vol. ii. pt. i. p. 470.
* Despatch from Surrey to the king, May 21st, 1523 — Raine. North Durham, p. x.
' Cal. of Stale Papers, Domestic, 1640, pp. 615-616, 621.
• Survey of the Border, 1541 — Border Holds, p. 34.
' Liber Feodarii, 1568 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. Ixx. The place is spelt '.Mytfield' but the identifi-
cation seems fairly certain.
" North Country Wills, vol. i. p. 1S7. » Inq. p.m. a Eliz., Thomas Grey, kt.— Lambert .MS.
MILFIELD TOWNSHIP. 245
probably John Muschamp of Lyham Hall, whose wife Barbara was
daughter of Eleanor Collingwood, widow of one of the Collingwoods of
Etal.^ This property was Milfield Hill, which Ralph Muschamp in 1616
leased to Thomas Unthank, who later held a mortgage on it. This
Ralph Muschamp had a son and heir Robert, by his wife Eleanor, but
in 1653 he sold Milfield Hill to WiUiam Lord Grey of Wark.^ In 1584,
too, John Collingwood, who also held land in Lanton and Branxton,
was part owner of the vill,-'^ and another share is mentioned in 1608 as
belonging to Thomas Burrell of Milfield.* This Thomas was succeeded
by his son Robert,^ who in 1618 bought for £240 certain messuages,
lands, &c., in the township from Henry Collingwood of Etal, Margaret
his wife and George Collingwood of Etal, his brother.^ In 1628, and again
in 1638, among Northumberland freeholders appears the name of Robert
Burrell of Milfield." In the Rate Book of 1663, Lord Grey was assessed
on a rental of £80 and Mr. George Grey on one of £30.^ The latter
was the husband of Catherine, widow of Thomas Burrell, whose son Ralph
succeeded, and in 1678 sued David Wake, Catherine's third husband, for
an account of his property.^ The Burrell portion was Milfield Ninths,
which was sold in 1719 by Thomas Burrell of Broompark to Robert Blake
of Twizel for ;^430,^'' and in 1722 James Wilson of Coupland and Robert Blake
of Twizel voted for the township, being replaced by John Ord of Morpeth
and James Wilson of Milfield in 1748.^^ According to the court rolls of
Wark, Sir Henry Grey, as heir to Ralph, Lord Grey, to whom this
portion of the Tankerville inheritance descended, Francis Blake and
James Wilson held lands in Milfield of that manor in 1738 and 1759,
but in 1764 John Ord took the place of Wilson, ^^ though it is evident
1 Will of Eleanor Collingwood, dated November 3rd, 1597 — Rainc, Teslamenta, vol. ii. p. 83.
- Milfield Muniments. ' Cal. of Border Papers, vol. i. p. 15.
* Moneys levied at Northumberland Assize nth .\ugust, 6 James I. — Watcrford Documents, vol. i. pp.
57. 58.
' Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. i. p. 53. He left his second son John his property in Slateraw in Ford.
' Newcastle Public Library, Coleman Deeds, iii. 22. By his will dated 9th November, 1603, Henry
Collingwood of Old Etal left to his son George all his lands in Milfield. He mentions his wife Margaret.
(Kaine, Teslamenta, vol. i. p. 41.) It seems as though he was still living in lOiS, and that George
Collingwood of the conveyance was his son not his brother.
' Freeholders of Northumberland, 1628, 1638 — Arch. Aeliana, O.S. vol. ii. pp. ^ii, 32^. Thomas Unthank
of Milfield took a mortgage on a portion of the Ford estate in 1616. Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. i. p. 55.
» Book of Rates, 1663 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 278.
' P.R.O. Chancery Proceedings, Bridges, bundle 448, Nos. 116, 132 ; bundle 445, No. 117. See X.C.H.
vol. vii. p. 223, where a pedigree of the family will be found.
i» Milfield Muniments. " Xorthumberland Poll Book. '- Lambert MS.
246 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
tiom the Poll Book that both these last held lands in the township in
1748. When in 1789 Milfield, otherwise Lanton, Common was enclosed,
Sir Henry Grey received by far the largest allotment, amounting to
246 acres in respect of Milfield Hill, William Ord held Milfield Demesne
and other lands, but received therefor only 87 acres, while Sir Francis
Blake with 42 acres in respect of Milfield Ninths had the smallest
allotment.^ A portion of this last property, now known as the Manors,
was sold in 1877 with Crookham, to which it lies adjacent, by Six
Francis Douglas Blake to the late earl of Durham, who bequeathed it
to his second son, the Hon. F. W. Lambton.^
The rest of the township later became the property of George Annett
Grey, whose grandfather George Grey had owned Sandy house. ^ When
this latter came to Milfield, 'the plain was still a forest of wild broom.
He took his axe and, like a backwood settler, cut away the broom and
cleared for himself a space on which to begin his farming functions.'*
He farmed Milfield Hill, and on his death in 1793 his widow carried on
his work, as his son John was only eight years old. John Grey grew up
to manhood under the kindly inspiration of his neighbour George Culley,
and he soon became a well known figure in the agricultural life of
Northumberland. He was a great reformer, and championed such causes
as parliamentary reform and the abolition of slavery, and, much to
the surprise and horror of his friends and associates, was a constant
advocate of the repeal of the corn laws. In 1833 he was appointed
to take charge of the Greenwich Hospital estates, and he moved to
Dilston. He never ceased to contribute largely to the agricultural
literature of the time, working always on the principle that if agri-
culture was ever to rank with the other great sciences, 'the culture of
the mind must precede that of the land.'^ His son George Annett Grey
bought Milfield Hill, of which he was already tenant, from Earl Grey in
1850,^ Milfield Demesne from Charles William Orde in 1862,^ and
Milfield Ninths from Sir Francis Blake in 1877. The present owner of
the estate is his great-grandson, Mr. John Neil Grey.
' Milfield Hill Deeds. "- Croohhoiise Deeds. » Milfield Hill Deeds.
' Memoir of John Gyey oj iJilston, by his daughter, Josephine I'.utlcr (Lundon, 1874), p. 8.
'" Ibid, passim. « Milfield Hill Deeds. ' Milfield Demesne Deeds.
MILFIELD TOWNSHIP.
247
GREY OF MILFIELD.
Margaret Dobson, mar-
ried St. Nicholas,
Newcastle, 23rd
October, 1736.
John Grey of the parish of LongHorsley; after-
wards of Nesbit Chapelry in Doddington ;
baptised at Long Horsley, 3rd April, 1696/7 ;
will dated 24th Novenaber, 1778 ; proved
1779.
Margaret, daughter of Rdward Grey
of Birgham, her husband's cousin ;
married 174^ {g) ; died at
Heton, 2ist February, 1801, aged
86(c).
I
John Grey of Heton, parish of Norham ;
purchased lands in Middle Ord in 1788 ;
died 2nd October, 18 17, aged 7i(/).
Patience, daughter of George Anderson of Glanton ; baptised 7th
November, 1743 (A) ; married 23rd January, 1767(A) ; died 21st
May, 1813, aged 69 (/).
I
G e o r g e = Isabella, dau. of
Anderson John Morrison
Grey of
Middle
Ord; died
iithjuly,
1852 aged
79 (7) •
of Berwick;
married there
May, 1823;
died 30th
Nov., I 86 I ;
aged 59.
John
Grey
of He-
ton.
I I
Edward William =
Grey. Grey,
youngest
son.
dau. Sarah, wife of John Forster
of of Gatherick ; marriage
Archbold ; bond 8th .Mar., 1 798 ; died
married 8th Feb., 1854, aged 78.
at Corn- Patience, born at Glanton;
hill, 19th wife of John Carr of Ford ;
July, 1 82 1. buried at Kyloe.
Mary, wife of George Purvis
of New Etal ; married
September, 1803.
Hannah.
I I
John George Grey = M a r y,
Grey, of Heton,
died to whom
West his uncle
Sunni- gave Middle
side. Ord ; died
25th Aug.,
1865.
Christian Margaret, daughter and sole heir ; married 24th July, 1878, George Grey Grey of Milfield.
ary, dau.
Edward =
= M a r y
Jam
e s
William
= Jane, daughter
of JohnMac-
Grey of
Anne.
Grey
of
Grey.
1 of Christopher
Laren of
Blink -
dau. of
Sunder-
^ Jobsonof Stur-
Coldstream ;
bonny.
land.
ton Grange ;
captain . . . .;
Sharp
. ,
died at Wark,-
died I I th
of Ber-
worth, 27 Mar.
Jan., 1863.
wick.
1902, aged 69 ;
buried Wood-
horn.
Mary.
Margaret.
George Grey of
West Ord and
Milfield ; pur-
chased lands
in West Ord
on 17... ; died
July, 1793.
aged 38 (6);
will dated
30th Sept.,
1790 ; proved
1791 (A).
Mary, dau. of
John Burn
of Berwick ;
mar. there
28th Nov.,
1782; named
in her hus-
band's will ;
died at Kelso
Manse, 27th
Aug., 1827,
aged 68 (b).
I
William =
Grey of
Roslyn, 1
Western 4^
A u s t-
ralia.
Allison
Bell, mar.
1 6th Dec,
1779, at
Berwick.
I
James Grev
of the
Chirm ; d.
at Milfield,
aged 70 ;
bur. 8 May,
1813(c).
I
Edward Grey :
of Morpeth,
surgeon ; d.
at Heton;
buried 5th
March, 1 822,
aged 77 (c).
Jane Camp-
bell, mar.
at Aln-
wick 4th
February,
I77-1-
Henry Grey. D.D., born at Alnwick nth = Margretta, dau.
Feb., 1778 ; minister of Stenton, after- 4, of George Grey
wards of Edinburgh ; d. 13 Jan., 1859. (a).
Elizabeth.
Margaret, wife
of Thomas
Vard y of
F e n t o n ;
named in
the will of
her brother
George (ft) ;
mar. at Dod-
dington loth
Nov., 1780.
I
John Grey of Milfield
and of Dilston ;
born 23rd August,
1785 (a) ; to whom
his father gave his
lands in West Ord
and his interest in
Tweed fishings (A) ;
died 22 Jan., 1868;
buried Corbridge.
Hannah Eliza, dau.
of Ralph Annett
of Alnwick ; mar-
ried at Alnwick
27th December,
1814 ; died i6th
May, i860; buried
Corbridge.
George Grey of ;
Sandyhouse ;
born 28th
June, 1794
(a) ; died
W o o d c o t,
Surrey, 7th
Oct., 1824.
Jane, dau. of«
John Greg-
son of Bel-
Chester;
married at
Edinburgh
22nd Mar.,
1813.
I I I
Hannah, born 15th .\ug.
1783(a):
died i8th Januarj-, 1789(6).
Margarette, born 6th Jan., 1787
(a); mar. 12th Oct., 1808(a);
her cousin. Rev. Henrj' Grey,
minister of Stenton.
Mary .born 8th Nov., 1 788 (a): mar.
first. Rev. R. Lundie, minister
of Kelso, and second, Henrj"
Duncan, D.D.. of Edinburgh.
248
PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
Elizabeth
Boyd, dau.
of Robert
Neil of
Rosedon ;
mar. 5th
Oct., 18:59;
died I 8 1 h
Nov., 1856
(6).
George
Annett
Grey "f
Miltiekl;
bapt. 17
Jan..
1 816 (a);
died 20
Jan.,
i886(fc).
Elizabeth
Jane. dau.
of Henry
Morton;
mar. 15th
April, 1858;
died I 8 1 h
Aug., 1893,
aged 72,
s.p. (6).
John
Henry
Grey,
bapt.
6 Aug.
I 8 I 7
(«):
died at
sea in
1844.
E m i 1 y, = Charles Grey = Eliza
d a u. of
Thomas
Holton
of Hally
Kisheen,
CO. Tip-
perary.
Grey of Dils-
ton; bapt. 9th
Jan., 1826(a);
M.A. Univ.
Coll. of Dur.;
afterwards of
Dublin, where
he died 27th
Feb., 1915 (/).
Jam-
phries,
died
20tll
J>'iy.
1920
John George
Grey, born
31st March,
1844; mar.
at South
Charlton 26
June, 1872;
d. at Biar-
ritz 30th
Mar., 1879
(6).
Anna Maria,
daughter of
George Faw-
cus of Dun-
ston Steads ;
married 2nd
Shield.
George Grey
Grey of Mil-
. field, born
f)th April,
185 1 ; died
15th Sept.,
191 5; buried
at Milfield.
Sybil Anne.
Annette, wife of Keys,
captain.
Beatrice Neil, wife of
Algernon J. P. Coke,
captain.
I I I I I
Christian Other Elizabeth Neil, bapt.
Margt., issue, 25th Jan, 1841 (n).
dau. and died Jane Eliza, bap. 13th
heiressof in in- May, 1842 (a) ; mar.
George fancy. 24th April, 1867,
Grey of wife of Sir Horace
Middle St. Paul, bart. ; died
Ord,mar. 9th June, 1881.
24th J ulv, Hannah Mary, born
1878. ' 5th Nov., 1845 ;
mar. 2nd August,
1875, Ralph Hart
Tweddell ; died
28th Oct., 1914 (0-
Mary, wife of George
Grey Rea, of Dod-
dington.
I I I I I I I I
Hannah Eliza, bapt.
30th .Mav, 1819 (a);
wife of William
Morrison of Hong-
Kong.
Mary .\nnc, bapt. nth
.\ug., 1820 (a) ; wife
of Edgar Garston.
Frances Hardv, bapt.
1st July, 1823 (a) ;
wife of Rev. George
H. Smythton.
Josephine Elizabeth,
bapt. loth May, 1828
(a) ; wife of Rev.
Geo. Butler, canon
of Winchester ; died
30th Dec, 1906, age
78, at Wooler (w).
Harriet Jane, bapt.
17th May, 1.S30 (a) ;
wife of Tell Meuri-
coffie of Naples.
Eleanor Margaret, bap.
i6th April, 1832 (a).
Mary Isabelle.
Emily, married first,
William De Pledge,
and second, Jasper
Bolton.
ohn Neil
1
George Henry =
= Kathleen,
Eric Ida =?
Dorothy,
Charles Boyd
G e rva i s =
Ruth
Grey of
Ivar Grey
dau . of
Grey, |
third
Grey, M.C.,
M i n 1 0
Frances,
Milfield,
of Middle
Sir Francis
b 0 r n 4/
dau. of
of Bukaboli
Grey,
daughter
born 7th
Ord ; major,
D. Blake,
25 Aug.,
the Rev.
Estates,
mar. 1 1
of the
Nov.,
R.G.A.; born
of Ti 1-
1885;
R. Ward-
Uganda;
Aug.,
Rev. E.
1879.
I 2 th May,
m 0 u t h ,
married
ropper.
born 3rd
I 9 I 7 ;
Gordon.
1882.
bart.; mar.
5 Jan.,
Mar., 1888;
of Bu-
14th Sept.,
1916.
captain.
kaboli
1910.
R.G.A.
Estates,
Uganda.
John Francis, born
29th Nov., 1912.
Robert George,
1917.
born
Hestia Dagmar, born
6th July, 191 1.
Angela Mary, born
2nd Feb., 1914.
I I
Christian
Elfrida,
mar 17th
D e c,
1907,
Charles
William
Dixon
Johnson.
M a r y,
M.B.E.
Lena, born
1919.
(a) Kirknewton Regisier-;.
(fc) Monumental Inscriptions, Kirknewton.
(c) Ford Registers.
{d) Monumental Inscriptions, Ford.
(e) Tweedmouth Register.
if) Monumental Inscriptions, Tweedmouth.
(g) Felton Registers,
(h) Whittingham Registers.
(A) Raine, Test. Dunelm.
(/) The Times.
( III) Newcastle Daily Journal.
Before George Grey and his son John had developed the possibihties of
the land for agricultural purposes Milfield Plain had been used as a race-
course. ' A gold cup of sixty guineas value ' was ' to be run for on Milfield
Plain,' on 2C)th October, 1723,^ and Milfield races were held as late as 1790. ^
' Newcastle Couraiit, 14th October, 1723. Cf. Proceedings of Newcastle Antiq. 3rd series, vol. v. p. 24.
- A bill of Milfield Races, 1790, is in the possession of Mr. Grey of Milfield.
HETHPOOL TOWNSHIP. 249
HETHPOOL TOWNSHIP.
HethpooU to-day is a township without a village, and the sole
inhabitants are the dwellers in a small country house, a farm, and a few
scattered shepherds' cottages. ^ In earlier days it must have been far
more populous, for in the Lay Subsidy Roll of 1296 no less than
eighteen persons were assessed, and their chattels were valued at
£48 i6s. 2d., and this despite the fact that none of the chief land-
owners possessed moveables in the vill.^ Still, despite its greater popu-
lation, it had no greater part in the history of the times then than
now, save from the fact that it lay close up to the Scottish border.
Perhaps the inhabitants were in consequence a little more turbulent
than their successors of a later age. At one assize in 1293 for instance
there were two cases of murder by night, for John Scheles had slain a
clerk, William son of Christine, by striking him on the head with a
sword, and John Merlyon had treated Astinus Forester in a similar
manner. One of these criminals was a man of some little sub-
stance, for his goods were valued at 33s. yd.* Some, like Thomas
Lightharness, were often in trouble, now for trespass on the vicar's
property, now involved with his lord in preventing turves being cut,
now accused of robbery with violence as far away as Edlingham.^
In 1303 there is further record of a violent death, when Isabel, widow
of John son of Hugh, was striving to bring home the death of her
husband to the agency of Richard, son of Abraham, of Hethpool.^
Such incidents suggest a turbulence above the normal, and this
doubtless was aggravated by the constant state of warfare which an
undefended border place such as this experienced. Of raids during the
middle ages we know nothing, save for the record of devastated lands.
In 1342 Hethpool is reported as having been 'for the most part devas-
tated by the Scots, rebels and enemies of the king' ;' the same tale was
1 Earlier Helhpol, i.e. pool under Great Hetha. The old forms accord with the local pronunciation and
show Heathpool to be a barbarism of the Ordnance Map.
= The Census returns are : 1801,38; 1811,46; 1821,42; 1831,43; 1841,51; 1851,44; 1861. 21 ;
1871, 32; 1881, 14; 1891, II ; looi, 17; 1911, 20. The township comprises 1 123780 acres.
' Lay Subsidy Roll, 1296, fols. 107-108.
* Assize Boll, 21 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xvii. pp. 64, 70.
* Coram liege Rolls, No. 123, m. 7, No. 142. m. 3 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxiii. pp. 277, 578-579.
' Cal. o] Patent Rolls, 1302-1307, pp. 379, 439 ; Cal. of Fine Rolls, vol. i. p. 53S.
' Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. viii. p. 237.
Vol. XI. 32
250 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
told in 1385 and 1399/ and in 1385 it was stated that nothing had
been levied there for the last two years on account of tlie destruction
and burning of the Scots. ^ In 1429 the lands of the township were
once more waste. ^ During the sixteenth century some relief was afforded
by the tower of refuge which had been built as early as 1415.^ In 1541
this was described as 'a lytle stone house or pyle whiche ys a greatc
releyffe to the tennants therof,'^ and it figures outside the ring of
fortresses in Christopher Dacre's plan of border fortifications.^ As it
stands to-day, a small square tower ruined save for the ground floor,
it gives an impression of strength rather than roominess. Indeed it is
so small as to have been useless save for a sudden and short emergency.
It was evidently for the use of the locality and not part of the defences
of the border. •
That the township suffered heavily during the Scottish incursion of
1513 is to be gathered from a report of Sir William Eure in 1541 that
it had been 'replenished' since Flodden Field, and that the Scots no
longer pastured their cattle along the East March with impunity," but
a month or two later he had to recount how a company of the Scottish
clan of Ker, including the laird of Cessford's brother, with a band of
60 or 80 ' light yonge men ' had come to Mindrum and Hethpool, ' twoo
of your gracis uttermoste plenishide townes,' and had burnt a house
and carried off prisoners and cattle, 'myndinge, as it is thought, and as
they saide theyme selves, to provoke warre bitwene this youre gracis
realme of Englande and the realme of Scotlande.'^ Again in 1568
Captain Carvell wrote to Drury, 'this present Saturday about three in
the afternoon the Scots ran (a foray) at Hethpool, and slew one man
and hurt others and drove away threescore nolte.' Though pursued and
engaged, the raiders made their way back to Scotland with the stolen
• Inq. p.m. 8 Ric. II. No. ig — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxviii. pp. 127-128 ; Im]. p.m. 22 Ric. II. No.
17 — Ford Tithe Case, p. 230.
= Inq. p.m. 8 Ric. II. No. 19 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxviii. pp. 127-128.
' L.T. Remembrancer's Records, 18 Hen. VI. No. xxv. — Ford Tithe Case. p. 236.
* List of Castles, 1415— Border Holds, p. 17. ' Survey of the Border, i^^i—I^order Holds, p. 32.
« Photograph — Border Holds, pp. 78-79.
' Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII. vol. xvi. p. 478. In the same year Hethpool is reported to contain
'6 husband lands newe plenyshed.' Survey of the Border, 1541 — Border Holds, p. 32.
' Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII. vol. xvi. p. 589 ; Hamilton Papers, vol. i. p. 107.
HETHPOOL TOWNSHIP.
251
cattle. 1 In 1596 the enemy was very bold, his bands 'never leave
riding day or night,' and on June 9th 'the Carres, Younges and Bumes
took away from Hethpoole 40 kyen and oxen, and killed one man shot
with a piece.'-
With this incident the curtain rings down on the border raids in
Hethpool, and henceforward we have no glimpse of the township filling
a part in the drama of national history. But just before the close of
this period it had attracted the attention of the privy council for a
moment. In 1577 that body wrote to Sir Robert Constable commending
him for his 'wise handling of a boye of Hethpool, suborned by his
parents to conterfet to be domme and lame and to abuse the people.'
He had compelled the parents and child to make open confession of
their fault, and had taken steps to secure the person of 'a Scottishe
priest popishe, accused by the saide boye to be a chief doer of the
same.' Wherefore the lords of the council 'thinke it very mete that
he deUver the boye and his parents to such as shal be sent for them to
be carried to Kelsey and Yedworth, as is required on the Scottishe
parte, and after dewe acknowledge of the abuse in those places, then to
be sent againe to him to be restored to their dwellings upon bandes and
good sureties for their better behaviour hereafter ; and as for the
priest, when their lordships shall understand that he hath taken him,
they shall have furder direction from their lordships for him.'^
Hardly at any time in its history have the owners of the township
been resident. In the sixteenth century a branch of the Storey clan
seems to have dwelt there, for there is mention of a Sandy Storey of
Hethpool in 1537,* and about the same time of eleven residents recorded
no less than seven bore this surname.^ Towards the middle of the
century there is mention of Robert Storey of Hethpool,^ and Ralph
Storey appears there in 1655.' Again in the later eighteenth and early
nineteenth centuries the Reeds, having ceased to be owners of the
property, came back as tenants.^
' Cal. of Slate Papers, Foreign, 1556-1558, p. 515. ' Cat. of Border Papers, vol. ii. pp. 137, 148.
' Ads of Privy Council, vol. ix. pp. 335-336. ' Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII. vol. xiii. pt. i. p. 182.
^ Ibid. vol. vi. p. 497. • Northern Visitations, p. 99.
' P.K.O. Chancery Proceedings, Bridges Division, bundle 376, No. 67.
' See Genealogy of Reed of Hethpool, pp. ^58-239.
252 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
Descent of the Manor. — Hethpool, ' a beautiful highland place ' as
one of its eighteenth century owners called it.^ was parcel of the barony
of Muschamp, and part was subinfeudated, part let out in socage, and
part retained in demesne. In 1212 Robert Muschamp held it in capite,
having retained in his own hands less than a quarter of the whole
manor. One quarter was held of him in fee by Odinel Ford, half a
carucate was held by Stephen Coupland for the twentieth of a knight's
fee, while in socage Thomas of Hethpool held two bovates and Ralph
and Patrick together held a moiety of the township. ^ Still it would
seem that Robert contemplated residence there from time to time, for
he gave to the priory of Kirkham and the church of Kirknewton all
tithes of his forest of Hethpool and the land and mill there, that is
tithes of all the progeny of cows, mares and pigs, together with tithes
of cheese and butter and other titheable things, in return for permis-
sion to have in the chapel of Hethpool a chantry for his own chaplain
at all times that he and his wife were there. ^ It is therefore obvious
that even at this early date a chapel had been provided for the spiritual
needs of the vill. When Robert died, the portion originally retained in
the chief lord's hands was practically all let out, save the site of
the court, of which the herbage was valued at 2od. Eleven cottars,
each with a toft and croft, paid i6s. yearly and were bound to fold
the lord's horses, a duty valued at 22d. Two oxgangs were held by
a widow in drengage at a rent of 4s., and there were two other
drengage holdings paying two marks at Martinmas. The demesne
meadow was valued at half a mark and the brewery returns at 13s. 4d.
yearly, making in all a rent roll of £3 los. 2d.^ The history of this
property is the same as that of Wooler. The share of Isabel Ford
was four farmholds, paying yearly 4s. 3d., and the third part of the
brewhouse valued at 5s., the third of a meadow valued at 2s. 2|d.,
and i6d. of the service of John of Hethpool,^ or as it was described a
few years later, 4s. 3d. rent and a third of a meadow worth 2s. 2|d.,
and of the toUage of drengages worth 4s. ^ This holding on her death
' Aulobioi;raphy of Dr. Alexander Carlyle, ed. J. H. Burton (London, and Edinburgh), 1910, p. 429.
' Testa de Xerill — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. pp. 210-211, 219. ' Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 83.
* Inq. p.m. 39 Hen. IH. No. 40 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. i. p. 371.
' Inq. p.m. 35 Hen. HI. No. 41 — Bain, Cat. of Documents, vol. i. p. 335 ; Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. i. p. 54.
^ Inq. p.m. 39 Hen. IH. No. 40 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. i. p. 375 ; Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. i. p. 92 ;
Ford Tithe Case, p. 223.
HETHPOOL TOWNSHIP. 253
was exactly halved between Isabel Huntercumbe and her two nieces
Muriel and Margery, the farmholds of Michael le Vacher and Henry son
of Giles being assigned to the former, and those of Ralph son of Michael
and Elias son of Michael to the latter. The service of John of Hethpool
was divided between the two, that portion assigned to Isabel being valued
at 8d. the other at yd.i When Muriel died, her share of this inheritance,
which passed to her sister Margery, or Mary as she was later called,
was returned at £=, gs. rent of assize, not counting profits of court.^
Thus the demesne lands of Hethpool were like the manor of Wooler
divided into moieties, one held by Nicholas Graham and his wife
Mary, and the other by William Huntercumbe and his wife Isabel.
The moiety of Mary and Nicholas Graham.— The manorial
Uberties in Hethpool claimed by Nicholas Graham in the Quo Warranto
enquiry extended only to the amendment of the assize of beer,^ and
henceforth the property shared the fate of the Graham moiety of
Wooler, being described in 1306 as a several pasture, divers free
tenants rendering 9s. lod., two cottars rendering 4s. and a brewery,-*
and in 1342 as three cottages, 6s. rent and 6 acres of meadow, which
used to render 6s. 6d., but now nothing thanks to Scottish devastations."
When Philip Darcy died in 1399, his widow's dower in the vill consisted
of one acre and a half and one rood of meadow, one waste cottage,
and £2 2s. 2|-d. rent issuing from the lands in the township belonging
to Sir Roger Heron, together with rents and services of free tenants
belonging to the lord Darcy.« Again when the widow of John Darcy
died in 1454, she was seised in her own right, in addition to her dower,
of one acre of land held of John Galley by fealty only, valued at
4d. yearly." Ultimately the inheritance was divided between Philip
Darcy 's two daughters Elizabeth, who married Sir James Strangways, and
Margery, who married Sir John Conyers.
The Conyers moiety of the Graham moiety. — Sir John Conyers
died in 1390, having outlived his wife and his grandson William
' Inq. p.m. 39 Hen. III. No. 40 — Bain, Cal. oj Documents, vol. i. pp. 37O. 378.
- Iiiq. p.m. 20 Edw. I. No. 26 — Stevenson, Scottish Documents, vol. i. p. 258 ; Compotus Thomae de
Normanville — Ibid. vol. i. p. 230.
' Assize Roll, 21 Edw. I.— Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. pp. 1S1-182 ; Duke's Transcripts, vol. xvii. pp. 33. 38;.
* Cat. of Inq. p.m. vol. iv. p. 237. s Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. viii. p. 237.
' Inq. p.m. 22 Kic. II. No. 17 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. .xx.wiii. pp. 331-332, 336.
' Inq. p.m. 32 Hen. VI. No. 15 — Ford Tithe Case, p. 237.
254 PARISH OK KIRKNEWTON.
succeeded to the property, ^ but from this time forward we lose sight of
it, though it probably fared the fate of Cheviot. At any rate when in
1611 Claudius Forster sold what had been the Conyers moiety of the
forest to Sir Ralph Grey of Chilhngham, he included 'Hethpool ' therein. ^
The Hunterciunhe moiety. — The part of the demesne lands of
Hethpool, allotted to William Huntercumbe and his wife Isabel,^ were
handed down with their share of Woofer to their son Walter, who was
granted free warren in all his demesne lands there in 1290,* and success-
fully maintained his right thereto in the Quo Warranto inquiry of 1293.^
For some time he was in occupation of most of the demesne lands, as
Nicholas Graham and his wife Mary gave him for the term of his life
1,000 acres of pasture and 100 acres of wood in the township. In 1305
they accused him of wasting the woods, and on his refusal to appear in
answer to the charge, the sheriff was ordered to go in person to
Hethpool and hold an inquiry by jury* of inquest. After her husband's
death Mary tried to re-enter on her property thus leased, but Walter
pleaded his life interest, though he wrongly treated the property as
though it had belonged to Nicholas, and called John Graham, his son,
to warrant, whereas John could have no interest in the lands till after
his mother's death. ^ Relations between the two parties were evidently
very strained, as in the same year Mary sued her life tenant for having
stolen her cattle.' Walter's widow, Ellen, at his death was granted
'the hamlet of Hethpole' in dower by the crown with the
consent of Nicholas Neubaud his nephew and heir.** The last named,
who assumed the name of Huntercumbe, sold his reversion of Hethpool
as well as the rest of his property, to Sir John Lilburn in 1326,^
having two years previously agreed to settle it on his son John, who
had been betrothed to Sir John's daughter Constance, provided that he
' Cal. of Inq, p.m., second series, vol. i. p. 260. - Lambert MS.
' William commuted the tithes of herbage and hunting on Hethpool moor for half a mark sterling paid
annually to the canons of Kirkham. Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 83.
' Cat. oj Charier Rolls, vol. ii. p. 2S2.
* Assise Roll, 21 Edw. I, — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xvii. p. 33, vol. xviii. p. 387 ; Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i.
pp. 132-133 The document as printed in Ford Tithe Case, p. 225, makes him claim the amendment of the
assize of beer, but this is probably a fault of transcription, as the originals put this as part of the claim of
Nicholas Graham.
' De Banco Rolls, Xo. 155, m. 219, No. 158, m. 254do, No. 163, m. 255 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxvii.
pp. 70-71, i57->58, 4(>-'-
' De Banco Roll, No. 164, m. 28 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxvii. p. .174.
* Cal. of Close Rolls, 1313-1318, p. 15.
» Inq. A.Q.D. 20 Edw. II. No. 21 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 399 ; Cal. 0} Patent Rolls, 1324-1327, p. 303 ;
Pedes Finium, y Edw. III. N'o. 41 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxix. pp. 91-94.
HETHPOOL TOWNSHIP. 255
could defeat the estate of Richard Neubaud therein. ^ Richard had an
undoubted claim to the reversion of Lowick, but what his. rights in
Hethpool were is unknown. In any case Sir John was compelled to
bring an action in 1328 to call on Nicholas to keep the terms of the
sale, an action which the latter could not resist. ^ The fine by which
the lands were conveyed was recorded again in May, 1334,^ as though
the dispute was still unsettled, but in July of that same year Thomas
Heton was pardoned for entering without licence into the manor of
Hethpool after a grant by Nicholas Huntercumbe of the remainder and
by Ellen of her life interest therein.* Nicholas Huntercumbe had
evidently been playing a double game with his property in Hethpool,
but why his conveyance to Sir John Lilburn did not hold good is
inexplicable, since Richard Neubaud's alleged prior claim was not pressed.
The fact remains, that the sale to the Heton family was effective, since
the name of Lilburn appears no more in connection with the demesne
lands. Thomas Heton however was not seised of them when he died in
1353.^ 3,s he had seemingly alienated them during his lifetime to his
illegitimate son Thomas.® At any rate this Thomas died in 1362, seised
of a moiety of the lordship and vill of Hethpool, held in capite by
service of a sixth of a knight's fee, valued in ordinary times at £10
per annum. His heir was his son Henry, a minor, and the rents and
profits were granted by the crown to Sir Alan Heton, brother of Thomas.
By 1385 Henry was twenty-two years old, and it seems that liis uncle
was unwilling to relinquish the property, for another inquest was held
in that year, presumably to establish the former's right to his inheri-
tance.'' By this time, too, his mother Joan was probably dead, for no
mention is made of the dower assigned to her in 1362 of a third part
of 200 acres of land in the township.^ This Henry Heton died in
' Cat. of Close Rolls, 1323-1327, pp. 316-318. * P.R.O. De Banco Roll. Xo. 268, m. 5.
' Pedes Finium, g Edw. III. No. 41 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxix. pp. 91-94.
* The name is given as 'Eton.' Col. of Patent Rolls, 1330-1334, p. 566.
^ Inq. p.m. 27 Edw. III. No. 66 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 77.
" For the pedigree of the Heton family see N.C.H. vol. ix. p. 116.
' Tnq. p.m. 8 Ric. II. No. 19 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxviii. pp. 127-128. .\ former inquest had been
held in 1362 when Thomas died, but Hethpool is not named though probably ' Hethorpc, ' mentioned therein,
is a mistake for Hethpool. Inq. p.m. 36 Edw. III. part i. No. 88— Hodgson, jit. iii. vol. i. pp. So-Si. It
is to be noted that in the record of the feudal aid of 1346 Thomas Heton is said to hold the moiety of the
vill of Hethpool of John Coupland for the eighth part of a knight's fee. Feudal Aids. vol. iv. p. 65. John
Coupland certainly held lands in Hethpool in capite, but this was not the demesne lands. Thomas may
have acquired some of these lands, but they were mostly subinfeudated to the HcrOn family.
s Cal. of Close Rolls, 1360-1364. p. 3S0.
256 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
possession of lands in Hethpool in 1399,^ but his son, who followed him
to the grave two years later, held nothing in the township at his death, -
and there is no evidence showing to whom the property had been alienated,
though there is some possibility that it went to Henry's first cousin,
Elizabeth, eldest daughter of Sir Alan Heton. Alan had himself held
certain lands in Hethpool by the gift of his father in 1336,' but
strangely enough this holding is not mentioned in the inquisition taken
at his death, though in the partition of his estates among his three
co-heiresses in 1389 several lands and tenements in Hethpool, valued
at £10 a year, were allotted to his eldest daughter Elizabeth and her
husband Sir John Fenwick.'* From the fact that the value here put
upon the estate is exactly the same as that given to the moiety in
1385, it would seem that this was indeed the moiety itself,
Sir Alan Heton was not a very particular person, and he may
have managed to wrest the estate from his nephew in 1385 on the
strength of the crown grant, which was presumably only for the dura-
tion of the latter's minority. Be this as it may, three inquests were
taken on the lands of Elizabeth Fenwick between 1409 and 1424, which
varying enormously as to the lands held by her, agree in giving her
a third of the vill of Hethpool.^ This must have shared the fate of
the Fenwick portion of Lowick, though it is not mentioned again till
1596 when it was owned by John Denton of Cardew who had leased
it to Sir Cuthbert Collingwood.^ This John Denton, the historian of
Cumberland, died in 1618 seised of a third part of the manor of Heth-
pool with lands and tenements to the same belonging worth yearly
13s. 4d.,'^ but there is no mention of this property in the inquisition
taken at the death of his son and heir, Henry Denton, in 1627.^ This
however is not conclusive evidence that he did not own it, as it had
not appeared in earlier inquisitions.^
1 Inq. p.m. i Hen. IV. No. 4 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 262.
- Inq. p.m. 5 Hen. IV. No. 18 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 264.
' Pedes Finiunt, 10 Edw. III. No. 48 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxix. pp 105-107. These lands were
said to be not held in capile.
* Inq. p.m. 12 Ric. II. No. 28 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxviii. p. 176.
^ Inq. p.m. 11 Hen. IV. No. 2, 13 Hen. IV. No. 20, 2 Hen. VI. No. 39 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol ii. pp.
266, 270.
^ Wills and Inventories, vol. ii. p. 269. ' P.R.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. series ii. file 382, No. 17.
' Ibid, file 455, No. 45.
» For the details of this descent see Dr. Dendy's article ' The Heton-Fenwick-Denton Line of Descent'
in Arch. Ael. 3rd series, vol. xiv. pp. 173-190.
HETHPOOL TOWNSHIP. 257
Later Descent of the Manor.— At some time before the close of the
fifteenth century the overlordship of Hethpool passed into the hands
of the Greys, and one WilUam Badby of Hethpool died in 1479 seised
of the ' manor of HethepuU ' worth yearly 6 marks and held of Thomas
Grey as of the barony of Wark.^ Unless this was a mistake, the
township must have been transferred from the barony of Wooler,
though the owners of both moieties of the latter still held certain
demesne lands there. To William Badby succeeded his son George aged
twenty,^ but the name never appears again. The Greys on the other
hand ultimately became the chief landowners in the vill, and according
to an inquisition of 1518 the}^ had held lands there since 1358. In
1518 Thomas Grey died seised of these, worth los. yearly and associated
with the manor of Wooler, ^ not of Wark as stated in the inquest of 1479.
The larger part of the township, however, was held by another branch
of the famih', for in 1541 'the most parte of thys towne' belonged to
Sir Roger Grey 'and other ffreholders have parcell of the same.'^ This
probably was Sir Roger Grey of Horton, whose will is dated 14th
February, 1540,* and the property doubtless passed to his son Thomas
who had no rtiale heirs. His second daughter, Anne, married Robert
Clavering of Callaley, and as this man was returned as holding lands in
Hethpool in 1568,^ they had doubtless come to him as his wife's inherit-
ance. The only other landowTier mentioned in 1568 is Thomas Grey of
Chillingham, said to hold the vill,'^ but when he died in 1590, though he
held the overlordship, he only had certain lands in demesne.'' In 1597,
when Sir Ralph Grey of Chillingham was accused of letting his lands in
Hethpool to Scotsmen, he declared that he had 'only one tenement in
the town, inhabited by one George Grey,' and that the rest belonged
to others.^ The main Grey property in Hethpool seems to have been
acquired in 1611, when Sir Claudius Forster of Bamburgh conveyed 'all
those lands .... commonly knowTi by the name of ... . Hethpole,'''
probably the Conyers inheritance, to Sir Ralph Grey, and henceforth
the Greys were the chief landowners in the township, and in 1663 Lord
' P.R.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. Edw. IV. File 74. - Iiiq. p.m. 10 Hen. VIII. — Lambert MS.
' Survey of the Border, 1541 — Border Holds, p. 32. ' Wills and Inventories, vol. i. p. 115.
' Liber Feodarii, 1568 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. lx.\. ' Ibid.
' Inq. p.m. 32 Eliz. — Lambert MS. * Cal. oj Border Papers, vol. ii. p. 401.
» Lambert MS.
Vol. XL 33
258
PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
Grey was rated for land and mill on a rental of /70, while of the two
other freeholders mentioned only Arthur Grey with a rental of £20 had
a holding of any rateable size.^ The identity of Arthur Grey is not
clear, nor can we tell to whom his property passed. As to Lord Grey's
holding, it had passed from his heirs by early in the eighteenth century,
though the mill, situated as it was in the neighbouring township of
Greys' Forest, was still theirs in 1873, when it was sold by Lord Tanker-
ville to Mr. Alexander Thompson of Kirknewton.^
' Rate Book, 1663 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 278.
- Notices of Hethpool by James Hardy — Berwickshire Naturalists' Club, vol. xii. p. 407.
REED OF HETHPOOL.
Gilbert Reed of Coupland Bassington
and of Hethpool (h) ; living i688.
William Reed
of Bassington,
son and heir of
Gilbert Reed of
Bassington (/i) ;
in 1726 he re-
tired to Heth-
pool to end his
days with his
nephew, George
Reed.
Mary, daughter of :
George Alder of
Prendwick, named
(with her husband)
in his father's will ;
bond of marriage
17th .\ugust, 1685;
named in her
father's will, died
nth October, 1696
(d).
Lancelot Reed of Hethpool, voted :
at the election of knights of the
shire in 169S and 17 10 (g) ;
party to deed i oth April, 1 7 1 8 (a) ;
died at Alnwick and was buried
there 24th August, 1723 ; admin-
istration with will annexed
granted 14th December, 1725, to
Percival Horsley, his son-in-law
and creditor.
Elizabeth Harper of Alnwick,
widow; bond of mar. 2nd Sept.,
1697; described as being a de-
cendant of Sir Francis Brandling
of Alnwick .\bbey, and as such
seised of a share in the tithes of
Denwick, which she and her hus-
band, 2oth March, 171 7, released
to Thomas Ilderton ; buried at
Alnwick 7th January, 1723/4.
I
Gilbert Reed of Hethpool, died
14th June, 1709 [d).
. Mary, wife of WilUam Stanton of
Stony Hills, Alnwick (A).
Sarah, daughter of
Alexander Colling-
wood of Little Ryle ;
baptised at Whitting-
ham 26th October,
1697; married there
22nd November, 1 7 16.
George Reed of Hethpool, voted in =
respect of Hethpool at the election
of knights of the shire in 1722 ; pur-
chased Hoppen in Bamburghshire in
1730; died loth December, 1743,
aged 57 (d) : will dated 17th Oct-
ober. 1743. — -
Sarah, only surviving child of marriage ; married Robert
Roddam, tenant of Ewart.
Lancelot Reed of Hoppen, apprenticed 24th April,
1753. to John Proctor of Berwick, burgess, after-
wards of Hatton Wall, London, timber merchant ;
died in London, November, 1784, unmarried and in-
testate; administration of his personal estate granted
in the prerogative court of Canterbury 14th Decem-
ber, 1784, to Mary Reed, his sister and heiress at law.
George Reed, named in his father's will ; died
s.p. before November, 1784, under age.
Margaret, sister of
George Jeffrey
of Holy Island;
erected a tomb
to her husband
with a Latin
epitaph in Kirk-
newton church-
yard ; had a
jointure out of
Hethpool.
Elizabeth, wife of Per-
cival Horsley of Biddle-
stone, son of William
Horsley of Linsheels,
parish of Alwinton ;
married at Norham,
18th May, 1736; post-
nuptial settlement
loth April, 1718; he
was subsequently
agent to the family
of Riddell of Cheese-
burn Grange.
William Reed, named in his father's will ; stated to
have been killed at the taking of Guadaloupe; died
s.p. before November, 1784, under age.
Elizabeth Reed, named in her father's will ; died s.p.
before November, 1784.
Mary Reed, succeeded to Hoppen as sister and heir at
law of Lancelot; died Charlotte Street, Bedford Square,
1 8th November, 1790 ; by will dated ist .August,
1789, gave Hoppen to her half brother, George Reed.
HETHPOOL TOWNSHIP.
359
George Reed, successively tenant of Lyham and of South Middleton, voted at = Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas
the election of knights of the shire in 1774, in respect of a freehold in
Milfield ; to whom Miss Mary Reed gave Hoppen ; died at South
Middleton; buried 8th January, 1796 (c).
Werge of Horton in Glen-
dale ; married 19th April,
'754 («)■
Thomas Reed of Hoppen, =
born at Horton in Glendale ; I
baptised 28th April, 1755 (e);
to whom Miss Mary Reed
of London gave Hoppen
after his father's death, was
residing at Marden in 1795 ;
died at Crookham 3rd June,
181 7, aged 62 (c, d).
Anne, daughter of
Thomas Bell, of Bel-
ford ; baptised at
Belford 2nd Januarj',
1756; married there
22nd June, 1781 ;
died at Rothbury,
31st December, 1845,
aged 90 (c, d).
I I
Lancelot Reed, born at Lyham Westfield ; baptised 6th
February, 1762 (e) ; captain ist Reg. Bengal Native
Infantry ; served in Mahratta War and at siege of
Mangalore ; party to deed 18th February, 1801 ;
captain Glendale corps of Northumberland Militia,
1804 ; died at Rothbury 15th August, 1836 (rf).
George Reed, born at Lyham Westfield ; bapti.sed 4th
October, 1768 (e) ; stated to have died in the West
Indies.
William Reed, born at Lyham = Isabella, sister of
Westfield ; baptised 3rd May,
1770 (e) ; of Lilburn, farmer,
when he took a lease of Heth-
pool, 1 2th August, 1823; died
6thMarch. 1858; aged 88 (c,d).
George Embleton
of Wooler Haugh
head ; died 8th
June. 1853, aged
73 [c. d].
John Reed, born Lyham West-
field; baptised 25th May, 1776
(e); died at South Middleton, aged
39 ; buried nth JIarch, 1814 (c).
Edwards Reed, died South Middle-
ton ; buried 17th January, 1795(c).
Margaret, died
South Middle-
ton ; buried
5th June,
1795 W-
George Reed of
Hethpool, after-
wards of Adelaide,
South Australia ;
born 7th May,
1806 ; died 14th
August, 1879.
I I
Ann. Lancelot Reed, second son ; born 21st
July, 1808; died at Hethpool nth
March, 1865, unmarried (c, d).
Gilbert William Werge Reed, third
son ; born 2gth September, 1822 ;
died unmarried 9th March, 1873,
aged 50 (d).
I
Wilham Reed,
baptised 19th
January, 1835
I
Lancelot Reed of Hethpool, ■
near Adelaide ; baptised
14th March, 1838 (c) ;
living 1909.
Elizabeth, born 14th June, 1804; married
17th April, 1838 (c). John Hunt of
Thornington, afterwards of Adelaide,
South Australia ; died at Hethpool 22nd
December, 1881 (d).
Isabella, born 20th August, 1810 ; resided
at Hethpool ; died at Wooler nth April,
1885 (d).
Jane, baptised 17th March, 1836 (c) ; living 1909
at Hethpool, near Adelaide.
Isabella, wife of Giles, living 1909, a widow,
at Hethpool, near Adelaide.
George Reed of Crookham, :
born at Adderston Mains ;
baptised Belford 3rd March,
1783 ; son and heir ; party
to sale of Hoppen 22nd
June, 1819 ; of High Harro-
gate in 1853.
Sarah, widow of
Scratchard of Har-
rogate, and daughter
of Garth of
Halifax ; died 19th
May, 1845, aged 58 ;
buried at Harrogate.
I I
Lancelot Reed, born at Adderston Mains;
baptised at Belford loth March, 1785; of
in Oxfordshire.,!,
Leighton Reed, born at Adderston Mains ; baptised
at Belford 24th August. 1787; Ueut. Royal
Marines; H.M. Frigate 'Daedalus'; died Port
Royal, Jamaica, 23rd Dec, 1807, aged 20 (d).
I
Robert Bell Reed, born = Lydia, daughter
at Marden ; baptised
at Ford 17th April,
1792 ; a lieutenant
in Northumberland
Militia ; was residing
at Alnwick, 1813 ;
died at an hotel,
York, circa 1845.
of William
Atkinson of
V e a V e r i n g;
married 8th
November,
1820.
Elizabeth, bom Adderston Mains ; baptised at Belford, 12th
April, 1782.
Ann, born Adderston Mains; baptised Belford, 14th March, 1786.
Bell Christian, born Adderston Mains ; baptised Belford 19th
February, 1790; married at Branxton 181 7; Richard
Staward of Branxton.
Elizabeth Mary, born at Marden ; baptised at Ford 14th June, 1794 ;
married at Ampton, Suffolk, 15th June, 1829 ; Jonathan Cooper
of Wordwell Hall.
(a) Hethpool Muniments of Title.
[b) Hoppen, Abstract of Title.
(•) Kirknewlon Register.
(d) Kirknewton Monumental Inscription.
(e) Chatton liegislers.
if) Autobiography of Rev. Alexander Carlyle.
(g) Northumberland Poll Book.
(A) V.R.O. Chancery Proceedings. Bridges, Bundle
78, No. 18 ; Bundle 92, No. 30.
26o PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
The main portion of Hethpool passed into the hands of a branch of
the family of Reed, the first of whom to be mentioned in connection
therewith is Gilbert Reed of Coupland and Hethpool, who in 1685 settled
three messuages and farmholds in the township, fully stocked with corn and
cattle, on his son, Lancelot Reed, when the latter married Mary, daughter
of George Alder of Prendwick.^ Lancelot was already a landowner in the
township, as he had bought a portion of Arthur Grey's property there,
consisting of six farmholds, ^ and in 1688, when a dispute arose between the
landowners in Hethpool and William Strother of Kirknewton with regard
to pasturage on the Bell, otherwise Hethpool Common or Newton Common,
the whole township was owned by the Greys and the Reeds. Gilbert
Reed owned two farmholds, called Graham's Farms, and six cottages,
William Reed, his son and heir, owned a farmhold called Wallassis
Farm, and the reversion of the cottages, Lancelot Reed, the latter's
brother, held five farmholds, three of which were called Hall's Farms,
the other two being named Hallywells Farms. He also had the rever-
sion of Graham's Farms. There were two Grey properties. Katherine
Grey, widow of Arthur Grey, owned two farmholds called the Tower
Lands or the Tower Farms and Rowell's Cottage, the reversion of which
belonged to her son Arthur, while Margaret Bell, widow of another
Arthur Grey and now wife of Thomas Bell, held for life two farmholds
called the Towne Foote Farm and Thompson's Farm, with reversion to
her son Arthur who was under age.=* Most if not all the Reed property
descended to George Reed, son of Lancelot and Mary, who lived at
Hethpool and voted for it in 1721,'' but before his death he alienated
it to Sarah, his only child by his first marriage, who married Robert
Roddam. In 1744 husband and wife settled their estate in Coldburn
and Hethpool on themselves and their issue in tail male, and, failing
such male issue, on the daughters of the marriage in common and the
heirs of their bodies. ^ Robert Roddam died at the close of that same
year, and was followed to the grave by his wife in 1745, so that the
1 P.K.O. Chancery Proceedings, Bridges, bundle 78, No. 18; Bond of Marriage, 17th .\ugust, 1685;
Raine, Testamenta, vol. iv. p. 185. The Alders were related to the Claverings of Callaley. Raine,
Testamenta, vol. iv. pp. 63-65. 185.
' P.R.O. Chancery Proceedings, Bridges, bundle 544, No. 10. Cf. page 266.
' P. K.C). Chancery Proceedings, Bridges, bundle 92, No. 30.
♦ Northumberland Poll Book, 1721, p. 10.
' Counsel's opinion on a case concerning Hethpool, 1766 — Hodgson MSS. Kirknewton Parish, p. 20.
HETHPOOL TOWNSHIP.
261
COHEIRS OF SARAH, WIFE OF ROBERT RODDAM.
Robert Koddam, son of James Roddam, postmaster of = Sarah, daughter of George Reed of
Berwick, tenant of Ewart, baptised 13th August. 1711 (6) ;
mortgaged Hethpool and Coldburn, 14th November, 1744 ;
died of small-pox 25th December, 1744 (d) ; buried 28th
December, 1744 (/).
I
Sarah (d), co-heir ;
mar. at Episco-
palian Chapel,
Edinburgh. 31st
March, 1761 ;
came of age
1 761 (h) ; buried
St. Nicholas,
Newcastle, July,
I775-
Hethpool, and only surviving child
of his first marriage — post-nuptial
settlement i6th May, 1744 (s) ;
died of small-pox 25th Dec, 1745
{d) ; will dated 9th Feb., 1745.
John Erasmus Blackett (A),
alderman of Newcastle ;
born 1st January, 1728;
admitted freeman of the
.Merchant Company, 1 753,
by patrimony; died nth
June, 1814 (,';); buried
St. Nicholas, Newcastle ;
will dated 17th Feb.,
1810.
I
Mary, co-heir ; married Edinburgh, 14th
October, 1760 (d) ; aged 17 (rf) ; post-
nuptial settlement 4th March, 1^06 (d);
died 31st Jan., 1804, aged 60 (k); party
to settlement 21st October, 1796 (s).
.Alexander Carlyle,
D.D., minister
of Inveresk (d) ;
died 25th Aug.,
1805 (A)
WiUiam Carlyle,
born nth Nov.,
1773 ; died in
infancy (i).
Sarah, born
I July, 1761
died young
(0-
Jane, bom
I Dec. 1763
died young
Mary Roddam,
born 25 Sept.,
1769; died
June, 1773 (j).
John
Blackett,
baptised
15 May,
1765 ig) :
buried
19 May,
1767, St.
Nicholas.
I
Walter
Blackett,
baptised
3 Sept.,
1775;
bur. St.
Nicholas,
24 June,
1776.
I
Sarah (/), baptised
6th July, 1762 (^):
married i6th
June, 1 791 (c), at
St. Nicholas's,
Newcastle (/);
died 17th Sept-
ember, 1819; will
dated 28th June,
i8io (s).
Cuthbert Colling-
wood, admiral,
R.N.; created
baron Colling-
wood of Heth-
pool and Cold-
burn (!) ," bapt.
24th Oct., 1748
{q) ; died 7th
Mar., i8io(»»).
I
Patience Wis?, ■■
baptised 21st
November,
1763 ; mar. St.
John's Church,
Newcastle,
22 Aug., 1782 ;
living in 1810
(n) ; vd]l dated
6th Jan., 1833
= Benjamin Stead of
Crowfield, Suffolk
(s) ; native of
Carolina, U.S.A.,
whither he re-
turned and died
s.p. before 6th Jan.
^^i3 i pre-nuptial
settlement 20th
.\ugust, 1782 (s).
Sarah, born May,
1792 {[} ; died
25th Novem-
ber, 1852 (s).
George Lewis Newnham Collingwood
(h) ; married 30th May, i8i6,
St. George's, Hanover Square,
London (s).
Mary Patience, mar-
ried June, 1817 ;
died 1 8th August,
1823 [t).
: Anthony Denny («) ; pre-
nuptial settlement 12th
J une, 1 8 1 7 ; died at Flor-
ence, :8th Oct., 1843 (s).
Sarah Newnham, died November,
1872 s.p. (s) ; will 9th March,
1861 ; proved i8th March,
1873 (s).
=(i) Cuthbert Collingwood Hal], married 9th
December, 1841 ; died February, 1859 (s).
=(2) John Richard Howell, married February,
1861 (s).
Mary Newnham,
died infant and
unmarried, in
1840 (s).
Mary
Patience,
died un-
married
before
1831 (s).
Anthony Cuthbert Collingwood Denny, == Mary Rendall,
came of age 8th September, 1839; | died 6th Mar.,
died 22nd September, 1857 [s). I 1875 (s).
I
.\ r t h u r
Maynard
Denny (s).
I
Sarah
Blackett
is)-
John Stephen
Robinson (i).
Cuthbert Collingwood Denny, conveyed his moiety of Hethpool to Mr.
Morton in 1879 (s).
(6) Berwick Register.
(c) Raine, Tesiamenta.
(d) Dr. Alexander's Carlyle' s Autobiography (Lon-
don and Edinburgh, 1910), pp. 423-425.
(e) Berwickshire Naturalists' Club, vol. xii. p. 407.
(f) Kirknewlon Register.
(g) St. Andrew's Register, Newcastle.
(A) Dr. Alexander Carlyle' s Autobiography, pp. 430-432.
(i) Ibid. pp. 552-553. (k) Ibid. pp. 601-602.
(I) Selection Jrom Correspondence of Lord Colling-
wood, ed. G. L. Newnham Collingwood
(London, 1828), pp. 16-17.
(m) Ibid. p. 569. (n) Ibid. p. 574.
(0) Ibid. p. 233. (p) Ibid. p. 472.
(q) Notes on Lord Colhngwood, by John Clay-
ton— Arch. Aeliana, N.S. vol. xiii. p. 173.
(r) Newcastle Chronicle, 18th June, 1791.
(s) Hethpool Deeds.
{t) Notes on Lord Collingwood, by Jtohn Clayton
— Arch. Aeliana, N.S. vol. xiii. p. 170.
(h) For the family of Denny, see Miscellanea
Genealogica et Heraldica, N.S. vol. iii.
p. 199.
262 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
estate devolved on their two daughters Sarah and Mary, aged five and
two respectively. The younger married Dr. Alexander Carlyle of Inver-
esk in 1760, but her elder sister waited till she was of age to marry
John Erasmus Blackett in 1761.^ Difficulties arose with regard to the
payment of the Roddam debts in 1766,'^ but this was settled by Dr.
Carlyle, who mortgaged his wife's moiety for £1,000 wherewith to pay
off the creditors.^ The estate had recently been re-let to Ralph Compton,
son of the former tenant, at a rent of £283 per annum, a rise of no less
than £103 on the terms of the last lease.* In 1776 Dr. Carlyle had two
daughters, and the Blacketts had then no issue,- but the former outlived
both his wife and his children, and the whole estate descended to Sarah,
daughter of T. E. Blackett and wife of Cuthbert Collingwood, the famous
admiral, who for his services at the battle of Trafalgar, where he was
second in command, was raised to the peerage under the title of Baron
Collingwood of Hethpool and Coldburn.^ It was just at this time that
under the Roddam entail Lady Collingwood had succeeded to Dr. Carlyle's
moiety of Hethpool, but the other moiety was still held by Mr. Blackett
who outlived his son-in-law.^ Though the home of the Collingwoods
was at Morpeth and later at Chirton,'^ the admiral took a great interest
in Hethpool, and soon after the moiety thereof came to his wife he
wrote to her ' I wish some parts of Hethpoole could be selected for
plantations of larch, oak and beech, where the ground could be best
spared. Even the sides of a bleak hill would grow larch and fir. You
will say that I have now mounted my hobby, but I consider it as
enriching and fertilising that which would otherwise be barren.'^ Later
in the same year he rejoiced to hear that Lady Collingwood was trans-
planting his oaks to Hethpool. ' If ever I get back I will plant a good
deal there in patches' he promised himself.^ He never did return,
and after his death and that of his widow, the estate passed to
' Autobiography of Alexander Carlyle (London and Edinburgh, 1910), pp. 424-425, 553. .\ short biography
of J. E. Blackett is to be found in Welford, Men uf Mark, vol. i. pp. 316-319.
^ Counsel's opinion on a case concerning Hethpool, 1766— Hodgson MSS. Kirhnewlon Parish, p. 20.
» Hodgson MSS. vol. W, p. 86.
* Autobiography of Alexander Carlyle ut supra, p. 432. 'The farmhold called Heathpoole and Cold-
burn' was advertised to let in 1761. Newcastle Courant, loth January. 1761.
' A selectioyi Jrom the correspondence of Lord Collingwood, ed. G. I.. Newnham Collingwood (London,
1828), pp. 165-166.
' Admiral Collingwood kept up a constant correspondence with his father-in-law all through his life.
Ibid, passim.
' Ibid. pp. lii, 257. * March 21st, 1806. Ibid. p. 199. " December 20th, 1806. Ibid. p. 257.
HETHPOOL TOWNSHIP. 263
their two daughters, Sarah, wife of George Lewis Newnham, who took
the name of Colhngwood, and Mary Patience, who married Anthony
Denny. Once more Hethpool was • divided into moieties. That of
the elder sister ultimately passed to her daughter Sarah, who by her
will dated March, 1861, demised it to her second husband John Richard
Howell; that of the younger descended to her son Anthony Colling^vood
Denny, who devised it to his wife, and she in turn to their son Cuthbert
Collingwood Denny. In 1879 the holders of both moieties joined in
selling the whole property to Mr. Henry Thomas Morton, who rounded
off his estate by buying the mill, which had been the last relic of the
Grey property, from Mr. Alexander Thompson in 1895. On Mr.
Morton's death in 1898 the whole passed under his will to the late
Earl Grey,^ whose executors sold it in December, 1918, to Mr., now
Sir Arthur Munro Sutherland, Bart.
One Quarter of the Manor. — Of the lands not kept in demesne
by the lords of Hethpool the most important part was a quarter of
the manor, which in the early thirteenth century was subinfeudated
to Odinel Ford, who held it together with Crookham and Kimmerston
by one knight's fee.^ From him it passed, as shown under Ford,
to William Heron, who when he was making provision for his sons,
gave to Gilbert the manor of Ford, saving the lands which John
of Ewart held in the vill of Hethpool.^ A record of 1293 shows that
this meant that Gilbert received twelve messuages, 54 acres of land
and fourteen acres of pasture in Hethpool, while one messuage and
12 acres of land there were withheld, for in that year Robert son of
Thomas of Hethpool sued Gilbert Heron for the restoration of the former
and William Heron for the restoration of the latter. \\'illiam Heron,
who took the defence of both cases upon himself, proved by reference
to the assize rolls that Thomas had indeed held those lands, but that
in 1269 he had been hung for theft. His lands had consequently been
forfeited for a year and a day to the crown, prior to their passing to
his lord, who however had redeemed them at once by paying a fine of
' The details of the descent from the Collingwoods is taken from the deeds of Hethpool.
* Testa de Nevill — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 2ii.
' Dodsworth MS. 49, fol. 7 ; Lansdowne MS. 326, fol. 51.
264 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
2^ marks. 1 William Heron also at the same assize sued Walter Hunter-
cumbe, Alan the Chaplain and Thomas Lightharness under a writ of
novel disseisin for having deprived him of his right to turbary in 200
acres in Hethpool, a right which pertained to his holding there.-
After William Heron's death, his widow, Mary, claimed a third of
Hethpool as dower, the vill being described as a member of the manor
of Ford,^ but Gilbert in 1299 came to an agreement with her whereby
Hethpool was left free of dower.* These lands seem to have followed
the descent outlined for the manor of Ford, though there are only
occasional references to them, doubtless explained by the above descrip-
tion of it as a member of the manor of Ford, and therefore
included in the descriptions of the manor. In 1335 William
Heron, lord of Ford, acquired two tofts and 40 acres of land
in Hethpool from John Hilton, in addition seemingly to his existing
possessions there,^ and in 1340 he was granted free warren in
what is described as his 'manor of Hethpol.'*' In the accounts
of the feudal aid of 1346 the sons of William Heron, Thomas
and Robert, were assessed for one knight's fee in Ford Crook-
ham and Kimmerston and one quarter of Hethpool, held of John
Coupland,' and in 1356 these two, who were minors, brought an action
against Thomas Sampson and many others for wrongful disseisin in
12 messuages, 6 carucates of land and 80 acres of meadow in the
township. The jury found that the defendants had grazed their beasts
on the Heron lands, and had destroyed corn and grass to the value of ;^i3 los.,
but that they had not disseised the plaintiffs of their messuages, so with that
impartiality which made justice so profitable in the middle ages, both
parties were fined, the one for their disseisin, the other for their false
accusation with regard to the messuages.^ The two boys were again
involved in litigation in 1360, when they claimed rights of common
' Assize Roll, 21 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xviii. pp. 115-116. The fine paid by William Heron
is recorded in the Pipe Roll, but the criminal is called Robert of Hethpool. Pipe Roll, 55 Hen. III. —
Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. 292.
2 Assize Roll, 21 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xviii. p. 252-253.
' De Banco Roll, No. 118 m. 2do — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxviii. p. 287-288.
* Dodsworth MS. 49, fol. 2 ; Lansdowne MS 326, fol. 45. For details see pages 372-373.
' Lansdowne MS. 326, fol. 51. * Cat. oj Charter Rolls, vol. iv. p. 469.
' Feudal Aids, vol. iv. p. 57. The aid was not collected till some years after 1346.
8 Assize Roll, Divers Counties, 28-32 Edw. III.— Duke's Transcripts, vol. xx. pp. 537-538; Originalia
31 Edw. III. Rot. 24 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 324.
HETHPOOL TOWNSHIP. 265
pasture on moor and pasture belonging to Elizabeth, heiress of Nicholas
Meinill, and her husband Peter Mauley. The defendants used everj'
possible device to prevent the case being tried. First they claimed
that, as the lands on which common was claimed were entailed on the
heirs of their bodies \\ith remainder to the king, the latter possessed
the fee simple and should be consulted before the proceedings went
further ; then, the king having given permission for the case to be
heard, they placed themselves on the assize, which necessitated the
summoning of recognitors from Hethpool to Newcastle ; finally they
demanded the quashing of the whole proceeding on the ground that the
original writ summoning the assize was issued by the sheriff, Roger of
Widdrington, who was a relative of the plaintiffs. As a result the case
was again adjourned, and doubtless the unfortunate brothers abandoned
it in despair. 1
This is the last we hear of this holding in the hands of the Herons,
for though the lord of Ford reappears again in 1399 in Hethpool in the person
of Sir Roger Heron, his lands were not then held of the heirs or assigns of John
Coupland but of Sir Philip Darcy, the holder of the other moiety of
the barony of Muschamp.^ How this came about we cannot tell, but
it persisted, for in 1428 the late William Heron's property consisted of
two parts of a fourth part of the manor of Hethpool held of the heirs
of Sir Philip Darcy and worth two years later only 6s. 8d. yearly, as it
was wasted. This was taken into the king's hands as the heir,
John Heron, was a minor, but later certain persons proved that before his
death William had conveyed his lands to them in trust for John, and
the property was surrendered to them.^ Accordingly when the feudal
aid of that same year was collected, John Heron, a minor, answered
for two parts of the vill of Hethpool, held of the king as of the barony
of Muschamp,'* the king's position being explained by the fact that
the Darcy inheritance was in his hands owing to the minority of Eliza-
beth and Margery, daughters and co-heirs of Philip Darcy. It is of
course possible that this was the same holding as the earlier inheritance
' Assize Roll, Divers Counties, 34-40 Edw. III. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xx. pp. 545-551.
' Inq. p.m. 22 Ric. II. No. 17 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxviii. p. 336.
» County Placita. Northumberland, Nos. 14 and 26 17 and 18 Hen. VI.— Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxii.
pp. 235-248 ; Ford Tithe Case, pp. 232-236
* Feudal Aids, vol. iv. p. 87.
Vol. XI. 3^
266 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
of the Herons, though there is no evidence of the accjuisition of the
three knight's fees in Ford, Crookham, Kimmerston and other places
by the holders of the Darcy moiety. Still the description of William
Heron's property in the township as a quarter of the manor is in
harmony with the first notice of the Heron holding in the Testa dc
Nevill} The quarter of the manor was still held of the barony of
Muschamp in 1590,- but it had probably by then passed from the Ford
estate, and may perhaps be identifted with the 'landes of Hethepoole'
bequeathed by Thomas Forster of Adderstone to his son Cuthbert and
his two sons for their lives in 1589.^ A portion of this property
reappears in 1649, when Colonel Thomas Forster of Adderstone com-
pounded for delinquency in respect of ' four farms in Heathpoole '
valued at £20 yearly,* but some of it, consisting of 6 farmholds, had
been sold by his grandfather. Sir Matthew Forster, in 1628 to Arthur
Grey,^ who in 1663 held land rented at £20. "^ At this same time a
Mr. Richard Forster was a landowner in the township.^ This was Richard
Forster of Newham Hall, who in 1662 settled Hethpool Woods Tipon his
brothers, Edward and John Forster.'^
Manners Lands. — The first mention of the family of Manners in
Hethpool is in 1336, when a fine was levied, whereby one messuage in
the township was settled on Robert Manners and his son with various
remainders.^ This messuage was not held in chief, and it may have
been identical with the half carucate of land held of Robert Muschamp a
century earlier by Stephen Coupland for the thirtieth part of a knight's fee
of new enfeoffment.^ It was this same Robert Manners who was recorded as
holding lands in Hethpool in 1345,'° and who in 1354 died seised of one
messuage in Hethpool worth 3s. 4d. yearly. ^^ No other mention of the
Manners family during the middle ages is to be found with the one
exception, that in 1415 the tower of Hethpool belonged to another
' See page 263. '' Inq. p.m. ! 1 Eliz., Thomas Grey — Lambert MS.
' Wills and Inventories, vol. ii. p. 165. •■ Royalist Compositions, p. 210.
' P.R.O. ChaKcery Proceedings, Bridges, bundle 544, No. 10.
" Rate Rook, 1663 — Hodgson, pt.-iii. vol. i. p. 278. The rental value of Mr. Richard Forster's lands
is not given.
' N.C.H. vol. i. p. 278.
* Pedes Finium, 10 Edw. IH. No. 47 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxix. pp. 103-105 ; Cal. of Patent Rolls,
1350-1354, p. 505 ; P.R.O. De Banco Roll, No. 305, m. 247.
9 Testa de Nevill — Hodgson, vol. iii. pt. i. p. 211. '" P.R.O. Inq. A.Q.D. File ccl.xxv. No. I2.
" P.R.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. Edw. HI. File 130.
HETHPOOL TOWNSHIP. 267
Robert Manners. ^ It is possible that the messuage, being of Httle
value, was used as a site for the tower of defence of which the ruins
still survive, but it is unusual for the fortification of a village to be
owned by one who had so small a stake in the fortunes of the place.
It was probably this small holding, which under the name of Tower
Lands or the Tower Farms, belonged in 1688 to Katherine Grey.^
Socage Tenants. — According to the Testa de Nevill there were
two tenancies held in socage in Hethpool. Thomas of Hethpool held
two bovates of land for 4s., while Ralph and Patrick held a moiety
of the vill for 8s. ^ It may be that this Thomas of Hethpool was father
of one Robert, son of Thomas of Hethpool, who gave to William of
Harop all his land in Hethpool, with the tofts which Adam Homel held,
in return for an annual rent of a penny, and on another occasion four
acres of land in Hethpool, with the tofts and crofts which Huttred son
of Giles held, in return for an annual rent of sixpence.* This last hold-
ing was ultimately presented by Robert to the canons of Kirkham, to
be held in perpetuity free of all rent.^ The holding of Ralph and
Patrick cannot obviously have been so extensive as its description
suggests, and it may be identical with the one in regard to which there
was litigation in 1256. In that year Eva, widow of Patrick Dreng,
brought an action for dower against Henry, son of Patrick, in 24 acres
of land and four acres of meadow, against Thomas son of Patrick
in 12 acres of land and i acre of meadow, and against John son of
John of Middleton in 6 acres of land and one of meadow, all in
Hethpool. Thomas was called to warrant b)- the other defendants, and
judgment was obtained for dower to be taken entirely from his lands.®
From this it would appear that Thomas had succeeded to the property
of his father, who may . have been the Patrick who held in socage
when the Testa de Nevill was drawn up. It was probably the same
man who, under the title Thomas son of Patrick of Hethpool, sued
Walter Huntercumbe for depriving him of his common turbary in the
vill,'' and his son who is described as W'illiam son of Thomas in 1294,
1 List of Castles, 1415 — Border Holds, p. 17. In the margin is added 'Thomi Haisandes, ' possibly the
name of the inhabitant.
2 Vide supra page 260. ' Testa de Nevill — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 219.
' Kirkham Cartulary, fol. S3. Henry son of Giles was a iirmarius on Isabel Ford's property in Hethpool
in 1255. Inq. p.m. 39 Hen. III. No. 40 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. i. p. 376.
' Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 84. * Xorthuiiiberland Assize Rolls, (Surtees Soc.) p. 26.
' Assize Rolls, Divers Counties, 17 Kdw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xx. p. 284.
268 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
when three sisters, Christine, widow of William Hemeldon, Agnes, and
Syreda, wife of Thomas Edward, sued him for 13 acres of land there. *
We have no other record of small holders in Hethpool during the
remainder of the middle ages, but there were doubtless several, and these
socage tenures had probably become the freeholdings, apart from the
main estate, alluded to bj^ the border survey of 1541.^ Even in the
sixteenth century we know little of these, thpugh in 1595 John Hall of
Otterburn left his 'lande in Hethepell' to his son Thomas,^ and in 1588
a fine was levied between Cuthbert Proctor and John Baxter with
Margaret his wife in respect of the sixth part of certain lands in the
township.* The Hall lands reappear in the seventeenth century, when
in 1638 John Hall of Otterburn bequeathed his lands in Hethpool for life
to his son Nicholas with remainder to his eldest son John.^ According to
the claim of his second son, William, in 1655, the grant had been in tail
male, with remainder in tail male to himself, the property consisting of
a farmhold held by socage tenure, worth yearly £40. The younger
John had died about 1653 without a male heir, but Ralph Storey of
Hethpool and William Bell of Elsdonburn at once entered on the
premises, as the rightful heir was far away. Bell declared that he had
bought the property from John Hall in 1649 for £300, and denied any
knowledge of the entail,^ which certainly does not appear in the original
will, and so probably he won the case.
CHEVIOT.
[NOW THE TOWNSHIPS OF GREY'S FOREST AND SELBY'S FOREST.]
Cheviot^ has in recent days become the happy hunting ground of
those who love wild scenery, and indeed there is a rhyme of some age
which runs
" Hedgehope and Cheviot are pleasant bits ot ground,
But such a spot as Langleyford is scarcely to be found." '
' De Banco Rolls, No. 105, m. 87, No. lob, m. 206 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxviii. pp. 102-118.
* Survey of the Border, 1541 — Border Holds, p. 32. ' Wills and Inventories, vol. ii. p. 25.1.
* Feel of Fines, sixteenth century, pp. 56-57. '- Rainc, Testamenta, vol. iii. p. 170.
' P.R.O. Chancery Proceedings, Bridges, bundle 376, No. 67.
' Earlier Chiuiet, Chyviot, Chyvielismores, Clivvot, Chivcot. A name of pre-English origin. The old
spellings are of interest as showing the correctness of the local pronunciation as Chivet or Chiviet.
' Denham Tracts, vol. i. p. 13.
CHEVIOT TOWNSHIP. 269
But such opinions have not always been held, for in December, 1600,
Lord Willoughby de Eresby, warden of the East Marches, wrote in no
favourable terms of the district. 'If I were further from the tem-
pestuousness of Cheviot hills, and were once retired from this accursed
country, whence the sun is so removed, I would not change my
homlyest hermitage for the highest pallace there. '^ The wilds of
Cheviot are perhaps most suited to summer weather, and owing to this
and to the fact that in ancient records it is usually described as 'a
great waste,' it is natural that it was not inhabited by any large
number of people, nor ever became the scene of many historic happen-
ings. To-day it is a wild and desolate district, with here and
there a shepherd's house, and there never has been a village or even a
hamlet boasting the name of Cheviot. ^ In earlier days it was doubt-
less no more densely populated than it is to-day. Then, as now, it
was a land of hill and heather, valuable only for such rough pasturage
and wood as could be found here and there. In 1250, for instance,
the profits of Cheviot for dead wood and herbage were valued at
120S. yd.^ A forest in the modern sense of the word it never
was : it was probably a hunting ground, but never, so far as we
know, included in the king's forests.' In the sixteenth century Leland
reported it as not much more wooded than the rest of the county.
' In Northumberland, as I heare say, be no forests excepte Chivet hills, where
is muche brushe wood, and some okke, grownd ovar growne with linge and
some with mosse. I have heard say that Chivet hilles stretchethe xx. miles.
There is greate plenty of redd dere and roo bukkes.' In another passage,
having described the lack of wood in the county generall}^ he goes on —
'in Glindale here and there wood, and Chiveot servithe them well; but
the great wood of Chivet is spoylyd now, and crokyd old trees and schrubs
remayne.'^
Cattle and horses doubtless ran wild, and were probably frequently
stolen, though only in 13 10 do we hear of any number of prosecutions
' Cat. oj Border Papers, vol. ii. p. 718.
^ Cheviot is now divided into two townships. The Census returns arc : Grey's Forest — i8oi, 58 ; 181 1,
49; 1821,54; 1831,44; 1841,56; 1851. 40; 1861, 39 ; 1871,41; 1881,42; 1891,38; 1901,29; 1911,31.
Selby's Forest — 1801,57; 1811,60; 1821,63; 1831,66; 1841,61; 1851,49; 1861,55; 1871,50; i88i,
40; 1891,38; 1901,35; 1911,39.
Grey's Forest consists of 6620198 acres and Selby's Forest of 11500-495 acres.
' Bain, Cat. of Documents, vol. i. pp. 332-3. ' Leland, Itinerary, vol. v. pp. 67, 68.
270 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
for cattle and liorse lifting. ^ The worst thieves of course were the
Scots, for there was nothing but the difficulty of the country to prevent
them from raiding the district. In 1399 and 1412 it was reported as
laid waste by the Scots and worth nothing in consequence,^ and in
1490 it was described as 'a messuage lying waste. '^ In the sixteenth
century we have a description of the forest in the border survey of
1541. 'The forrest of Chevyotte ys a mountegne or greatt hyll foure
myles or more of lengthe, lyinge betwene the head of Elterburne and
the whyte swyre towarde the Easte and the hangyngestone towarde the
west. And toward the northe yt devydethe England and Scotland by
the heightc of yt as the water descendeth and falleth. And the Englishe
p'te thereof excedeth not three myles of breadth. And the most p'te
thereof, and espec'ially towarde the heighte, ys a wete flowe mosse, so
depe that scarcely eyther horse or cattail may goo thereupon excepte
yt be by the syde of certa^Tie lytle broukes and waters that springeth
forthe of the said mountaine, by reason whereof the said forrest ys
not inhabytable nor serveth very lytle for the pasture of any catalle
excepte onely wylde bestes as redde dere and rooes. Out of the southest
p'te of the said mountaine springeth and descendeth a lytle ryv' called
CoUedge. And out from the southe syde thereof another lytic brooke
or water called Caldegate, and upon the sydes as well of the said two
lytle riv's as nere to other little brookes springinge out of the said
mountaine and dyscendinge into the said twoo lytle ryv's there growyth
many alders and other ramell wood, whiche serveth much for the buyldinge
of suche small houses as be used and inhabyted by husbandmen in those
p'ties. The Scottes as well by nighte tyme secretely as upon the daie tyme
with a more force do come into ■ the said forrest of Chevyott dy v'se
tymes and steale and carrye awaie muche of the said wood whiche ys
to them a greatt proffyte for the maynte'unce of their houses and
buyldinge as small redresse thereof can be hadd by the lawes and
customes of the m'ches wherefore we thinke yt expedient that some
greatter correcc'on and punishemente were devysed for suche as steale
and take awaie the said wood in forme aforesaid. And also upon such
> Assize Roll, 4 Edw. II. Gaol Delivery — Duke's Transcripls, vol. .\ix. pp. 236, 254, 266.
= Inq. p.m. 21 Kic. II. Nos. 17, and 13 Hen. IV. No. 35 — Ford Tithe Case, pp. 230, 231-232.
' Cal. oj Inq. p.m. (second series), vol. i. p. 260.
CHEVIOT TOWNSHIP. 27I
Englyshemen as geve or sell any of the said wood unto the Scottes.'^
There are further evidences of the work of marauders later in the same
century. In 1568 Sir William Drury owned that though he has restrained
'the fetching of wood in Cheviot,' the Scots 'have by their long
continuance made great waste and spoil' there, and his only means of
checking it was to induce some of them to betray their fellows. ^ In
1584 Christopher Dacre on his plan of fortifications marked the site of
the township 'the Hilles of Cheviot all waiste,'^ and ten years later a
band of Liddesdale men came to Cheviot, and took away a hundred head
of cattle.* The district was perhaps the less defended because it was the
meeting place of two jurisdictions, since 'Cheviot Hill' marked the boundary'
of the East and Middle Marches.^
Strangely enough there is no mention in ancient records of Cheviot
sheep, though they have become a household word, and 'the cheviots for
mutton' occurs in more than one doggerel rhyme descanting on the
products of Northumberland.^
Descent of the Property.— It seems more than doubtful whether in
early days Cheviot ranked as a separate township, for all its association,
were with Wooler and not with Kirknewton, so much so that it may be
possible that during the middle ages it was comprised in Wooler, and
even may have been included in that parish, which would help to lessen
the marked disparity between the areas of the two parishes concerned.
There is no assessment for Cheviot in the Lay Subsidy Roll of 1296,
and almost invariably extents of lands in Cheviot put them under
the heading of Wooler, and make the sum total of Wooler include the
items relating to Cheviot.' In a document of 1293 there is an allu-
sion to 'Chyvyot in Wolloure,'^ and in an inquest of 1490 'the forest
of Chyvyot ' is described as a messuage.^ Perhaps the most notable
' Survey of the Border, 1541 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. pp. 202-205.
' Col. of State Papers, Foreign, 1366-1568, p. 398.
' Plat of Castles, etc., 1584 — Photograph in Border Holds, pp. 78-79.
' William Selby to. . . Douglas, June 25th, 1594 — Hist. Mss. Rep. Cecil, vol. iv. p. 553.
' Document dated November, 1597 ; Cal. of Border Papers, vol. ii. p. 469.
* Denham Tracts, vol. i. pp. 325, 330, cf. vol. i. p. 35,
' See e.g. A.D. 1254, Inq. p.m. 39 Hen. III. No. 40 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. i. pp. 370-371 ; A.D.
1306. Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. iv. p. 237 ; A.D. 1299, Inq. p.m. 22 Ric. II. No. 7 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxviii.
p. 336.
" Assize Roll, York, No. 103O, m. 27(4)do — Duke's Transcripts, vol. .v-xiv. pp. 1186-11S7.
' Cal. of Inq. p.m. (second series), vol. i. p. 260.
272 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
fact of all is that in an assignment of dower in 1422, in which no
lands in W'oolcr proper were mentioned, the lands in Cheviot are put
under the heading 'Wollore.'^ It is therefore more than doubtful that
Cheviot existed as a separate township in early days, and it is certain
that the division of it into the two existing townships of Grey's
Forest and Selby's Forest is a much later development. Still there
is some evidence that Cheviot was divided into three wards. In a
document of 1399 there is an allusion to 'a certain ward of Chiviot'
called 'Wollor Ward.' and to the Middlewarde of Chiviot, '^ and again in
1422 'le Midelward' 'le Westward' and 'le Estward' are mentioned.^
There is good presumptive evidence that the 'forest of Cheviot'
belonged to Thomas Muschamp, for in the Pipe Roll of 1182 immedi-
ately after the sheriff's account for the revenues of his lands, there
follows the sum of 40s. paid in for the profits of the 'forest of Cheviot,'*
but the first person of whose ownership of Cheviot we have definite
evidence is Robert Muschamp, who held at his death the 'free forest of
Chyviot, whereof the herbage and pannage with attachments are worth
one year with another 10 marks. '^ The forest was evidently divided
between his three co-heiresses, for Isabel Ford held a third part of it
deducting dower, which was estimated to be worth 35s. not counting the
third part of drengs' tallage worth gs.^ On her death in 1254 this
portion was equally divided, her aunt Isabel Huntercumbe taking one
half, and her cousins Muriel and Margery the other The boundary line
between the moieties is elaborately described. It ran 'from Stodpulle
as far as le Clou of Crumbeside, and so far as le Holinhepe that
stands within le Tays, and so far as le Holinhepe at Coldelauburne,
and so far as Moriley, between Bradstroir and le Langhestan as far as
le Brokehole in High Bradhou, and so far as le Blakeford in Wraysin-
heswood, and so ascending as far as Wulhopecar, and so ascending as
' Counly Placita, N orthutnberland , No. 13, 10 Hen. V. — D«ke's Transcripts, vol. xxii. p. 220.
2 Inq. p.m. 22 Ric. II. No. 17 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxviii, p. 336.
' County Placita, Northumberland, No. 13, 10 Hen. V. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxii. p. 220. That
Cheviot was not in early days regarded as a separate township receives further confirmation by the fact that
it is not mentioned in the Testa de Nevill in the list of vills belonging to the barony of Muschamp, whereas
it is consistently described as parcel of the barony in later documents. Cat. of Inq. p.m. vol. viii. p. 237.
' Pipe Roll, 28 Hen. III. Rot. 4 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. i. p. 24, Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii.pp. 34-35.
* Inq. p.m. 39 Hen. III. No. 40 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. i. p. 371.
' Inq. p.m. 35 Hen. III. No. 41 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. i. p. 334. Cf. Inq. p.m. 39 Hen. III. No.
40 — Bain, Cal. ot Documents, vol. i. p. 373 ; Cal. nf Inq. p.m. vol. i. p. 921. Cf. Ford Tithe Case, p. 223.
CHEVIOT TOWNSHIP. 273
far as le Lau on the south part of High Chyviot, and so by le Condes
as far as Caldeclouheued, and so far as Thewesrodc' North of this Une
was apportioned to Isabel and south of it went to Margery/ whose share
is described in 1306 as 'a forest in Chevyot called Herthop,'- an allusion
to the Harthope Burn which is the southern boundary of the township
at the present day. Thus the history of Cheviot was the same as that
of the manor of Wooler, and in 1293 one moiety was held by Nicholas
Graham by right of his wife Margery, or Mary as she is later called,
the other by Walter Huntercumbe, both claiming free chase therein as
heirs of Robert Muschamp.^
The two moieties were not to be long separated, for when Nicholas
Huntercumbe was dispersing his heritage, he alienated his share of
Cheviot to Nicholas Meinill for life, with successive remainders to
Nicholas son of Lucy Twenge and the heirs of his body, and to the
right heirs of the said Nicholas Meinill.* When the last named died in
132 1, there was some difficulty about the succession of his illegitimate
son Nicholas, son of Lucy, and the forest was taken into the king's
hands,* but towards the close of 1323 Nicholas, son of Lucy, secured
permission to retain the portion acquired from Nicholas Huntercumbe.^
Even then Nicholas, son of Lucy, or Nicholas Meinill as he later called
himself, was not left in peace, for Nicholas Huntercumbe sought to get
back the moiety, seemingly on the plea that he liad leased, not sold,
the lands. In 1324 the latter undertook to make estate by fine in the
king's court to his son John of all the lands in Northumberland that
he lately had leased to Nicholas Meinill for ten years.'' The reference
was doubtless to Cheviot, for in the following February he took steps
to challenge the inquisition taken on a writ diem clausit extremum
concerning the death of Nicholas Meinill,^ Mho held no land sa\e CheN-iot
in Northumberland. He secured permission to alienate his property
1 Iiiq. p.m. 39 Hen. III. No. 40 — Bain, Cal. of Ducumenls. vol. i. pp. 37"-379- ^'" share in Cheviot is
recorded among Muriel's possessions. Stevenson, Scottish Documents, vol. i. p. 230.
^ Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. iv. p. 237.
' Assize Rolls, 21 Edw. I., Northumberland, and 21 Edw. I., York — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xvii. pp. 197.
448-449, vol. xxiv. pp. 1184-1185, 1186-1187. Cf. Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. pp. 181, 197.
* Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. vi. p. 217. ' Cal. of Patent liolls, 1321-1324, p. 341.
» P.R.O. Inq. A.Q.D. file clxxi. No. 13. Cf. Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. vi. p. 217, where it is e\-ident that
several inquisitions were held on the question.
' Cal. of Close Rolls, 1323-1327, p. 318. ' Cal. of Close Rolls, 1323-1327. p. 342.
Vol. XI. 35
274 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
m Cheviot in 1326,^ an attempt to sell the lands twice which failed,
for Nicholas Meinill died seised of it in 1341.^
This Nicholas Meinill had also acquired the other moiety of Cheviot,
under the grant made by Mary, widow of Nicholas Graham, to the
elder Nicholas Meinill.^ Thus the whole forest or waste of Cheviot
passed with the moiety of Wooler to Elizabeth, daughter of Nicholas
Meinih, the younger, and then into the Darcy family. With the extinc-
tion of the male line of Darc3^ Cheviot was once more divided into two
portions one passing to the Strangways, the other to the Conyers as
described under Wooler.
The Strangways moiety, later Selby's Forest. — The Strangways
moiety of the forest passed with the moiety of Wooler to Robert Ross
in 1543, after the dispute over the lands caused by Sir James Strang-
way's alienation of his entailed lands,* but with the difference, that
while Wooler was only to pass in reversion after the death of Sir James's
widow, Cheviot was allotted free of dower. ^ Despite this, Ehzabeth,
widow of Sir James, and her then husband, Francis Nevill, seem to
have claimed certain possessions in Cheviot, which in 1562 they alien-
ated to Leonard Dacre,^ who is described as holding a moiety of
Cheviot in the Feodary's Book, of 1568.^ In 1571, however, Ross alienated
the reversion of the moiety of 'the forest of Cheviott in Lowycke and
Wooler,' as it is described, 'which should revert to him on the death
of Elizabeth,' to Christopher Lepton,® who sold it in 1584, to Sir John
Selby.^ In 1605 the boundaries between the Selby portion of the forest
and the other moiety were fixed, ^'^ and in 161 2 Sir William Selby
successfully defended his title against the crown, which based a claim
on the forfeiture of Leonard Dacre in 1570.1^ In 1630 he entailed his
' Inq. A.Q.D. jo Kdw. II. No. 21 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 390-
- Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. viii. p. 237. Cf. Cal of Patent Rolls, 13.(0-1343, pp. 398-399.
'See pages 312-313. Cheviot is not mentioned in the fine whereby the alienation was executed
Pedes Finium, 8 Ildw. II. Xo. 33 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xii. pp. 54-55, but its inclusion is made evident
by a document of 1342. Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1340- 1343, pp. 398-399.
* See page 317.
'' Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII. vol. .\ix. pt. i. pp. 13-14, vol. xx. pt. i. p. 58.
° Feet of Fines, sixteenth century, p. 129.
' Liber Feodarii, 1568 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. Ixv. On the Dacre claims see under Wooler.
' Feet of Fines, sixteenth century, p. 26. '■' Ibid., p. 51. '" See page 278.
" L.T.R. Memoranda Roll, 545. Easter, 10 James, I. m. 251.
CHEVIOT TOWNSHIP. 275
lands in the 'forest, waste, or chase of Cheviott' on his heirs male with
numerous remainders,^ and in 1673, George Selby of Twisell described
his property there as ' Langleyford, Ewsden, Bradstrother, Dunsdale,
Lucken Arkes (Luckenarks), Coldburne Common house and Golds-
cleugh.'- He left instructions that his executors should sell as much of
this portion of his estate as was necessary for the payment of his
debts. ^ Langleyford found its way into the hands of the Haggerston
family, as did the moieties of Branxton and Moneylaws,'* and was sold
by Lady Stanley in 1859, together with Haggerston Castle, to the trustees
of Thomas Leyland. In 1919 Mr. Christopher John Leyland sold the farm to
Mr. Frederick Carrick of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. ^ Ewsden and Common Burn
belonged to Thomas William Selby of Biddleston when his estates were
registered in 1717.^ He had succeeded his younger brother Edward in
171 1, and his grandson, Thomas Selby, sold the property in 1782 to
John Wealleans, whose direct descendant Christopher Wealleans died in
1905, leaving the property by will to his sister Mrs. Annie Phillips and
her heirs male, who now hold it.' Coldburn came into the hands of
the Roddam family, and passed with Hethpool until it became the
property of the late Earl Grey, whose son now owns it.^ Dunsdale
and Goldscleugh passed to the Leyland family, Dunsdale from a
source unknown, Goldscleugh having been in the seventeenth century
the property of James Walker, and having descended through his second
son to the Selbys of Goldscleugh.^ After the death of Miss Alice Selby
in 1869 the farm was sold by the representatives of her cousin, also
Miss Alice Selb}', who had given her a life interest therein, to the
trustees of the will of Thomas Leyland. Dunsdale and Goldscleugh
were together sold in 1919 by Mr. C. J. Leyland to Mr. D. L. A. Cayley
of Riversleigh, Lytham, Lancashire. i" Broadstrother also at one time
belonged to James W'alker, but descended through his eldest son, till in
1827 it was sold by Carleton Walker to Greenwich hospital. In 1832
it was purchased from the hospital by Colonel George Hughes of
Middleton Hall, who settled it on his nephew Joseph Hughes Pringle,
' Bill in Court of Exchequer, Easter, 30 Chas. II. — Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. pp. 112-113. ^''^e pages
1 13-1 14. He alludes to his lands in Cheviot in his will dated 22nd February, 1638. Kaine, Testamenta,
vol. vi. p. 33.
- Kaine, Teslainettia, vol. v. pp. 2G1J-J71. ' P.R.O. Chancery Proceedings, Bridges, bundle 1S3, No. 70.
' Moneylaws Deeds. ' Langleyford Deeds. " Register of lionian Catholics' Estates, p. 35.
' Comnionhurn Deeds. » See pages 260-2O3. ' See pedigree, page 277. '" Goldscleugh Deeds.
276
PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
on condition of his adopting the surname of Hughes. At the same time
Colonel Hughes bought Luckenarks from the same vendors, who in
turn liad purchased it in 1822 from the executors of William Adams of
Alnwick.^ This last was settled by Colonel Hughes on his other nephew
George Hughes Pringle on similar conditions. Colonel Hughes died in
1834, and Joseph Hughes Pringle was then on his death bed. The
whole property therefore devolved on George Hughes Hughes, whose
son is the present owner. -
SELBY OF GOLDSCLEUGH.
Gerard Seldy, tenant of Middleton in Bamburghsliire ; = .\lice, daughter of Richard Selby of Holy Island ;
buried 17th December, 1779 (a) ; will dated lotli bapt. 31 July, 1698 (c) ; mar. i Jan., 1728/9 (c) ;
February, 1777. died at Middleton ; buried 12th April, 1788 (a).
William = Isabella, dau. and
Selby,
bapt.
25th
A u g.,
1730
(a); bur.
I Sep.,
i7<J3(c).
I I
sole heir of
Edward Walker
of Goldscleugh ;
mar. loth July,
1 700 (a) ; was of
Berwick, widow,
and party to
deed, October,
1 786 (b) ; bur. 30
Dec, 1797 (c).
I
George Selby, bapt.
1 8th Feb., 1734/5
(a) ; of Billingsgate,
fishmonger, and of
Shenfield, Essex; in
October, 1786, took
a conveyance of
lands in Humbleton
(b) from his niece
and her trustees.
Gerard
Selby,
captain
R. N. ;
bapt.
9 Dec,
1736(a).
4-
Prideaux Selby, =
tenant of Mid-
dleton in Bam-
burghshire and
of Detchant ;
bapt. 24 Feb.,
1742/3 (a)-
: Ann Wilkinson ; 5 Daughters
married i 6 1 h
May, 1776 (a) ;
died Detchant,
aged 42 ; bur.
0th September,
1797 (a).
Eliza, born Easington Grange ; baptised 29th June,
1761 (a) ; died childhood.
Alice, of Goldscleugh, born Easington Grange; bap-
tised i6th June, 1763 (a) ; living 1786, then sole
heir to her mother ; died 6th September, 1843 (6).
Isabella William, born at Easington Grange ; bap-
tised 19th February, 1764 (a) ; died at Middleton ;
buried 22nd .\ugust. 1774 (a).
I
James Selby of Coomes-
hill, Greenwich ;
born at Middleton ;
baptised 20th
F e b r u a ry, 1785
(a) ; to whom his
cousin, Alice Selby,
gave Goldscleugh
after the death
of his sister
Alice.
\
Other
issue.
Alice Selby,
youngest child,
born at Det-
chant ; bapt.
31st Oct., 1793
(a) ; to whom
her cousin,
Alice Selby,
gave Golds-
cleugh for her
hfe;d. 1869(6).
(a) Beljord Register.
(c) Holy Island Register.
(b) Humbleton and Goldscleugh .-Ibstract of Title.
The Conyers moiety, later Grey's Forest. — After the succession
of William, first Lord Conyers, to his grandfather's estate in 1490, there
is no further mention of the family in connection with Cheviot. It
must however be the moiety once held by William, Lord Conyers, which
under the title of 'lands in Cheviot,' was sold in 1582 by Thomas Darcy
and CoUubra his wife to Sir John Forster, lord warden of the Middle
Marches.^ This is probably the same Thomas Darcy who married
' Luckenarks had belonged to Robert Walker, son of James Walker, and was by him sold in 1709 to
Richard Taylor of Beadnell. It descended to Thomas Taylor, who in 1778 conveyed it to Thomas Adams
of Alnwick. Lambert MS.
- Brodslrother and Luckenarks Deeds. •' beet uj Pines, si.\teenth century, p. 46.
CHEVIOT TOWNSHIP.
277
WALKER OF GOLDSCLEUGH AND BROAD STROTHER.
James Walker of Humbleton, yth August, 1628, took a =
conveyance of certain lands in Humbleton (6, c). I
James Walker of Humbleton the younger, son of James Walker the elder, party to =
deed 20th May, 1O30 (i) ; 28th November, 1667, took a conveyance of burgage at
Wooler (b) ; also proprietor of Goldscleugh and of Broad Strother ; will dated
, 1689, then residing in the parish of Chillingham (6).
James Walker (6). =
James Walker, to whom his grand-
father gave Broad Strother (b),
for which he voted at the election
of knights of the shire in 1722,
was then residing at Humbleton.
Adam Walker, to
whom his father
gave Goldscleugh in
Cheviot Forest (6) ;
sole executor to his
father's will (b) ; died
at Turvelaws; buried
4th December, 1693
(a).
Mary (c), as
of Turvelaws;
was party to
a deed 14th
June, 1695
((6) ; buried
25 April,
1717 (a.)
Robert Walker, to whom
his father gave Lucken-
arks and a messuage in
Wooler (6), the latter
of which, being then
of Wooler, he conveyed
3rd May, 1726, to (his
nephew) WiUiam Walker;
died s.p. (c).
James Walker of Broad Strother, for which place he voted = Anne, party
at the election of knights of the shire in [1748 and] I to deed,
1774 ; resided successively at Wooler and at Berwick , | 23rd Sept.,
emigrated to America and died in 17S5 at Wilmington, '770-
U.S.A.
James Walker, of
Wooler, attor-
ney; buried 30th
January, i 735/O
(a); without issue
surviving (c).
[Jane, married
1 3th Novem-
ber, 1739,
John Wade
(a), of Bows-
don j.
I
James Walker of Broad Strother, Carleton Walker of Wilmington, U.S.A. brother and John Walker ol Wilraing-
son and heir; died at W'ilming- heir, joined in conveyance of Broad Strother in ton, U.S.A. ; died there
ton, U.S.A. in 1807, unmarried. 1827 to the Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital. 6th September, 1813.
(') Isabel, marriage
bond 6th June
1709, William
Walker Tur\e-
laws and Isabel
Adamson.
. William Walker of Goldscleugh, was residing at = (^) Joan, marriage bond 9th Oct., 1725,
Turvelaws i6th July, 1720 (b), and in 1722
when he voted for Goldscleugh at the election
of knights of the shire ; described as of Wooler,
gent., in his son's marriage settlement (6) ;
buried 12th April, 1747 {a).
WilUam Walker of Turvilaws, and
Joan Scott, Barmoor, Lowick; living in
1738, with a lien of Goldscleugh for
portion if she should become a widow
(6).
Edward \\'alker of Goldscleugh, was residing at
Turvelaws in 173S, afterwards, 1748, (6) tenant of
Easington Grange; by deed 20th March, 1760,
mortgaged his lands at Goldscleugh, Humbleton,
and his tenement in Wooler (b, c) ; will dated
3rd December, 1765 ; residing at Easington
Grange when he voted for Goldscleugh at the
election of knights of the shire in 1 748.
Elizabeth, daughter of
John Smart of Belford ;
articles before mar-
riage 3rd and 4th -Vpril,
1738; married at Bel-
ford, 2nd July, 1738;
had a jointure out of
Goldscleugh ; named
in her husband's will.
I I I I I
James Walker of Eden, county
Durham ; named in his brother's
will; baptised ist June, 1712(a).
lJoIui Walker, baptised 14th May,
J 731 (a), of Wooler, afterwards
of Snitter ; buried 28th June,
1806, aged 76 (c) J.
Other issue.
Isabella, sole surviving child ; born at Turvelaws ; baptised loth March, 1739/40 (a) '■ niarricd loth July, 1760, at
Belford, WilUam Selby, eldest son of Gerard Selby of Middleton ; succeeded to an undivided interest in
Goldscleugh under her father's will. 4^
(a) Wooler Register.
(b) Abstract of Title to lands in Humbleton and
Goldscleugh, formerly in the possession
of the late Very Kev. Monsignor CuUey.
(c) Kev. John Hodgson's Collection, Sorham
Guard Book.
278 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
Elizabeth daughter and co-heiress of John, Lord Conyers, who in 1580
had sold the estate of liis wife, now deceased, in Belford and Easing-
ton to the same Sir John Forster,i for Collubra may have been his
second wife. John, Lord Conyers, was grandson and direct heir of
William, Lord Conyers, mentioned above, ^ and probably the moiety of
Cheviot had descended in regular course to him.-'^ In 1558 a fine was
levied on Sir John Forster's lands, including those in Cheviot,* doubtless
one of those conveyances, alluded to in his will, \\lierein he declared
'howe and what manner the same shall continew as well during the
tyme of my natural lyffe as after my death,"'' but two years earlier he
had leased to John Burrell for gg years 'a parcel of ground in Cheviot
betwixte Fleope burn on th'este parte and extendinge westewarde upe
the water called Colleche water on the sowthe parte, and boundringe
upon the border on grounds of Scotland on the weste and north partis '
at a yearly rental of 20s/ This holding lay in what is now called
Grey's Forest up against the Scottish border. The lease was not held
for its full term by the Burrells, for in 1607 John Burrell of Howtel
and William, his son, transferred it to William Strother of Kirknewton,
who undertook to pay the annual rent to the heirs of Sir John Forster.'
The ownership of these Cheviot lands passed from Sir John to his
illegitimate son Nicholas, and during the latter's tenure difficulties as to
the ownership of the two moieties of the forest arose. Hitherto these
had lain intermixed, but in 1605 Nicholas Forster and Sir William Selby
agreed to a partition made by certain arbitrators, the former having
first choice of the two estates thus made in return for a payment of
£200.^ He selected the western portion.** Thus was brought about the
* N.C.H. vol. i. p. 380, n. 7. = Yorkshire Visilations, 1563-15C4, p. 73.
'■' The suggestion in N.C.H. vol. i. p. 380, tliat the lands sold by Darcy were bought by John, Lord
Conyers, from Robert Roos, is probably due to the fact that it was made before the publication of Cal. of
Inq. p.m. (second series), vol. i. p. 260. where it is shown that Margery, wife of Sir John Conyers, shared
the inheritance of her father in Belford and Easington, and the whole did not go to her sister Elizabeth, wife
of Sir James Strangways, as stated by the editor.
* Feet oj Fines, sixteenth century, p. 55. '" Will dated 27th April, 1601, printed in N.C.H. vol. i. p. 158.
* Indenture dated i6th April, 1586 — Laing Charters, p. 27O.
' Attached to the deed is an obligation, addressed to Lancelot Strother of Newton by Claudius 1^'orster
of Bambrough, to perform certain conditions on receiving 40s. Indenture dated 20th May, 1O07 — Laing
Charters, p. 367.
* P.R.O. Chancery Proceedings, James I. E". i, 14. Many troubles arose out ol this agreement to pay /200.
Sir William Selby made difficulties, and was only appeased by Nicholas Forster agreeing to sell him Middleton
Hall for £600. Trouble arose from this also, and later various members of the I'"orster family had litigation
with one another with regard to bonds which they bail given for the payment of various sums to Sir William
Selby. Ibid. F. i, 14, F. 8, Go. 9 /j,,-^ I? y_ (,„
CHEVIOT TOWNSHIP. 279
division of Cheviot into two distinct estates, wliicii later developed into
two different townships, the Forster share being Grey's Forest. This
name was acquired from the fact that within a few years of the sub-
division the property passed definitely to the Greys of Chillingham. The
Greys of Horton had long laid claim to the property, and when the
Feodary's Book of 1568 was compiled Sir Thomas Grey of Horton had
secured his inclusion as holding the Conyers moiety of the forest.^ His
claims had passed through his daughter, Isabel, to her husband, Sir Ralph
Grey of Chillingham, who seems to have taken more definite steps to
assert his rights, real or imaginary. In 160S Sir William Selby, the
owner of the other moiety, laid a bill of complaint against him in the
court of chancery, reciting the descent of the property from Lord
Darcy in the two moieties which ultimately came to the Forsters and
himself, who 'held the premises as their own possession and by their
foresters and officers, who in time of peace usually made drifts of the
goods and cattle of strangers found there without license,' the owners
thereof usually paying parcage and compounding for such trespasses.
In time of war however this orderly administration of the forest col-
lapsed, as the district was so often laid waste, being so near the border
and not 'peopled like other parts.' Accordingly both Sir William Selby
and his father 'neglected the possession of the premises, and the Kers
of East Tivedale and the inhabitants of the neighbouring English
townships depastured their cattle there without let or hindrance,' par-
ticularly in the Selby moiety, a practice followed by Sir Ralph Grev
and his tenants. According to Sir William, this practice had been made
the basis for a claim of ownership by Sir Ralph Grey, who called
himself 'third Lord of Cheviot Forest and Chase,' though Sir Thomas
Grey had never made any such claims, and even Sir Ralph, living hard
by at Chillingham and necessarily cognisant of happenings in the
neighbourhood, had put in no claim when the forest had been parti-
tioned between the Selbys and the Forsters in 1605.- Though Sir
William Selby's complaint does not make it clear, it is obvious that he
suffered not from any claim to his moiety, but from the fact that Sir
' Liber Feodarii, 1568 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. Ixiii. The Strangways moiety was held by Leonard
Dacre. Ibid. p. Ixv.
' P.R.O. Chancery Proceedings, James I. S. 8, 13.
280 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
Ralph Grey, claiming the Forster portion, disregarded the division of
the intermixed lands made in 1605. The result of the chancery suit
is not known, but it was probabl}^ settled by agreement, as there is
record of 'a partition for settling the bounds of the manor and chase or
waste of Cheviot between Sir Ralph Grey and Sir William Selby ' made
in February, 1609. ^ The dispute as between the Greys and the Forsters
was settled in January, 1611, by the sale to Sir Ralph Grey of 'the
moiety or half part of the forest or chase commonly called and known
by the name of Cheviott and all those Hamlets, Waters, Rivers, Shields,
Granges or grounds commonly known by the names of Twishope,
Trowupp, Shorthope, Hethpole, Loftwyers, Losthill, Swickside, Fleeup,
Penleswyers, the whole water of College and lands on both sides thereof,
the Harrowbog, Platewell, Faucett, Roughside to the Kukhead and to the
uttermost part of the boundary to the back of Cheviott.'- Thus the
Forster moiety became definitely Grey's Forest, which in 1663 was held
by Lord Grey, whose rent roll therefrom was £256,^ and in 1682 was the
property of Ford, Lord Grey, when the yearly values of the various
holdings was given as Elsdonburn £40, Faucett £20, Fleup £40, Harro-
bogg £20 together with £20 for the water corn mill there, Shortupp £50,
and Southerly Knowe £22.* Elsdonburn continued in the Grey family,
and passed in the eighteenth century to the earls of Tankerville, who
own it to-day. It was offered for sale in 1912 but withdrawn.^ Short-
hope or Shortup, which included Troughburn, did not pass to the Bennet
earls of Tankerville, but on the death of Ford, Lord Grey and earl of
Tankerville, went to his brother Ralpli, on whose death it was sold for
£1,500." We know nothing more of its history till 1848, when as
'Shortup otherwise Whitehall' it was sold by Stephen Fryer Gillum to
the late George Burdon of Heddon, whose surviving trustee sold it in
September, 1919, to Mr., now Sir Arthur Munro Sutherland, Bart.'' The rest
of Grey's Forest, comprising Fleehope which includes Fawcett, Southern
Knowe which includes Harrowbogg, and Mount Hooley, also passed to
Ralph, Lord Grey, and by his will to Henry Nevill, with remainder to
' Lambert MS. ' Howick Muniments ; Lambert MS.
' Rate Book, 1663 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 278.
* P.R.O. Exchequer Special Commissions, Northumberland, 36 Chas. IL No. 6,218.
^ Berwickshire Naturalists' Club, vol. xxii. p. 308. ' Ewart Park MSS.
' Whitehall and Troughburn Deeds.
CHEVIOT TOWNSHIP. 281
Henry Grey of Howick, the ancestor of the present Earl Grey who still
owns these farms. ^
Troughburn. — One little portion of Grey's Forest has a history
quite separate from the rest, and indeed was not originally contained
within the boundaries of Cheviot. Sometime in King John's reign
Robert Muschamp gave to the abbey of Melrose all that portion of land
and pasture belonging to him in the territory of Hethpool contained
within boundaries, described as starting from Aildunesfot up to Hethous-
wyre, then southwards by a ditch to Trolhopeburne, and following the
valley to the Swirle of Naruswinesete, and thence to Twiselhopesheued.
The boundary then ran between the wood and the moor to Colegge, and
thence northwards, bounded by the township of Clifton, and then east-
wards along the road of Blakstafrigge, between the Muschamp lands
and those of Ralph Nanus. Then skirting Heddon, it ran by Trol-
hopeburne to Witsstafriggend, and thence by a small ditch to the north
part of Chester as far as Raxedeburne, and so northwards by the path
that leads to Heddon to a ditch, and following that ditch eastwards to
Heddonesburne. Finally the boundary followed the Heddonesbume to
the point of departure at Aildunesfot. This land was granted in free
alms together with the privilege of cutting wood in the donor's forest —
presumably the forest of Cheviot — for buildings thereon and a promise
that the Muschamp foresters would not seize cattle which had strayed
into the forest, but merely drive them back into the monastery's terri-
tory.^ The name given to this property is Trollop, and it recurs in a
further charter, which suggests some friction between the monastery and
the Muschamp foresters. This makes provision for mutual redress in
cases of trespass, and allows the servants of the monastery to use
mastiffes for the shepherding of their live stock ; and to control
their dogs by blowing horns. ^ It is evident that Trollop was not
considered a separate vill, but as part of Hethpool, though it is obvious
from its boundaries, difficult to identify though they are, that it lav
outside the modem township.
The possession of lands in Kirknewton parish bv the abbev of
Melrose caused friction on the question of tithes with the canons of
' Enrl Grey's Deeds. ' Liber de Melros, vol. i. p. 267-269. ' Liber de Metros, vol. i. pp. 269-270.
Vol. XI. 36
282 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
Kirkham, to whom the churcli was appropriated. An appeal b}' the
latter to the pope led to an enquiry, held in the church of St. Nicholas,
Newcastle in 1223 before the abbot of Newminster, the prior of Brink-
burn and the archdeacon of Northumberland, and to an agreement
between the two parties, whereby in return for an annual payment of
50S. and 2od., the monastery of Melrose was to be free of all tithes,
obventions and dues from the lands given them by Robert Muschamp.^
In 1287 the abbey had further trouble over its Trollop property, at least
they doubtless are referred to, when Nicholas Stapelton and others
were appointed to hold an assize of novel disseisin, arraigned by the
abbot against Walter Huntercumbe, concerning a tenement in Hethpool.'
The possession of lands across the border placed a Scottish monastery
in an awkward position during the Scottish wars of Edward I. and
Edward II., but there is no evidence of trouble till 1346, when Trollop
was taken into the king's hands after the battle of Neville's Cross.
For the next six years the right of the abbey was in dispute,^ and
probably it ultimately lost the property by forfeiture, for we hear no
more of it in this connection, and in 1359 ^ certain John
of Trollop is recorded as having held there messuages and 40 acres of
land in Trollop and Paston worth 20s., which were forfeited to the
crown by reason of his association with the traitor Gilbert Middleton
and the Scots.* It is probable that the land had been granted to this
man after forfeiture from Melrose abbey, and that now it was again
regranted to the Coupland family, for in 1365 the manor of Trollop was
part of the possessions which Joan Coupland entailed,^ a proceeding con-
firmed by letters patent in 1367.^ Evidently as the lands had so long
been separated from Hethpool, they were now treated as a separate
manor, and appears as such in 1372 when Joan alienated it to Sir
Richard Arundel, son of the earl of Arundel and Surrey. '^ From this
' Liber de Metros, vol. i. pp. 270-272 ; Kirkham Cartulary, fol. 87.
- Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. ii. p. 88. " Cat. of Close Rolls, 1349-1354, pp. 409-410.
' Chancery Files, bundle 265 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. iv. pp. 8-g.
'Pedes Finium, 39 Edw. III. No. 137 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxix. pp. 274-276.
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1367-1370, pp. 38-39.
' Pedes Finium, 47 Edw. III. No. 158 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxix. pp. 312-315 ; Cal. of Clo.'^e Rolls,
1369-1374. p. 448. Trollop is said to be held of the chief lord of the fee, but this is doubtless a mistake
in view of the fact that later it appears as a member of the manor of Wooler in 1380. Its position must
have been somewhat uncertain, as it was originally held in free alms and on regrant after forfeiture could not
be granted in capile. Its status was doubtless settled by its being made a member of the manor of Wooler
by the Arundels and so held with it in capi'e and, as shown below, in socage
CHEVIOT TOWNSHIP. 283
time forward Trollop, though seldom mentioned, passed with the moiety
of Wooler which had been held by Joan Coupland and alienated to
Richard Arundel. In 1380 it was found that Sir John Arundel had
held it in capite as a member of his moiety of Wooler, and had given
it before his death in trust for his little son John.^ In 1404 it was
held by Richard Arundel,- and though it is not mentioned in the
alienation of Wooler to the Greys, it appears in 1443 as the 'township
of Trollop' among the lands of Sir Ralph Grey, deceased, held of the
king as of the manor of Wooler in socage, but worth nothing because
ravaged by the Scots. ^ Its later absence from the inquisitions post-
mortem of successive members of that family w^as doubtless only because
it was taken to be included in the manor of Wooler, or because its
value was negligible, for in 1541 we find that 'the townshippe of Heddon,
Alesdon and Trohope, lyinge under the Este ende of Chevyott, hath lyen
waste and unplenyshed over sythence before the remembrance of any
man now lyvyng, and ys also of th'inherytaunce of Rauffe Greye of
Chyllinghame.''* It would seem from this that these three places were
in the sixteenth century treated as a township, though perhaps the
phrasing must not be taken too literally. At any rate in 1568
'Trowupe, Elsden and Blackheddon' were all held by Ralph Grey's son
Thomas,^ and in 1593 'Trowupp and 'Blackheddon' were the property
of Ralph Grey.^ 'Troupp''was included in the Forster sale of Grey's
Forest to Sir Ralph Grey,'' but as this conveyance was only the final
settlement of a dispute, this may have only been done to make assurance
the more sure. It may very well be that this marks the transference
of Trollop or Trowup from the township of Hethpool to that of Grey's
Forest, and that Elsdon and Heddon were then united to it. In 1682
Ford, Lord Grey's, property of ' Trowup-burne ' was valued at £60 yearly,^
and at his death it passed to his brother Ralph, Lord Grey, and was
sold after the latter's death together with Shortup for £2,220.^ There-
after it disappears till 1848, when it was once more associated with
' Inq. p.m. 3 Ric. II. No. I — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxviii. pp. 43-44 : Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1377-1381.
P- 5^9.
- Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1401-1405, pp. 309-310. ^ P.R.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. Hen. VI. file III.
' Border Survey, 1541 — Border Holds, p. 32. ' Liber Feodarii, 1568 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. Ixiii.
« Feet of Fines, sixteenth century, p. O2. ' Sec page 280.
' P.R.O. Exchequer Special Commissions, Northumberland, 36 Chas. II. No. 6,218. • Ewart Park MSS.
284 PARISH OF KIRKNEWTON.
Shortup, and with that property has now passed to Mr., now Sir Arthur
]\Iunro Sutherland. Bart.^
Heddon. — Heddon Hill on the ordnance survey marks a little pro-
perty, which was associated in the seventeenth century with Thompson's
Walls,- and from a thirteenth century document we know that it lay
on the boundary of 'Trollop.'^ In the Testa r/e A^ct^Y/ it is given as held
by Robert of Heddon of the barony of Muschamp for a fourth part of a
knight's fee of new enfeoffment.* It is impossible to trace its history from
that time onwards with any exactitude, particularly as there are many
chances of confusion with Hetton in Chatton and Black Heddon in
Stamfordham.^ In 1345 Thomas Grey was given free warren in his
lands in Heddon and other places in Glendale,^ and in 1400 his son of
the same name died seised of the 'manor of Hetton' held of Sir Richard
Arundel by military service as of the barony of Muschamp, but it was
worth nothing as it had been devastated by the Scots.' From this time
onwards the vill, if it can so be called, continued in the hands of the
Greys of Wark, but its status seems to have been changed. Thus in
1443 Sir Ralph Grey died seised of the township of Heddon, held of the
king in socage as of the lordship of Wark, worth nothing because
wasted by the Scots, ^ but no mention of it is made in the enumeration
of the estates of his son and successor.^ It reappears however as
belonging to Thomas Grey in 1480, ^** and in 1541 was, with Alesdon and
Trollop, the property of Ralph Grey of Chillingham.^^ In 1568 the
latter's son, Thomas, held ' Black-headdon,' which from the context is
obviously Heddon, 1- and died seised of it in 1590.^^ In 1593 Ralph
Grey levied a fine in connection with his property including 'Black-
' Whitehall and Trowburn Deeds. CJ. page 280.
- Rate Book, 1663 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 279. There is an allusion in 1637 to the tithes of Heddon
and Coldsmouth as distinct from those of Thompson's Walls. Terrier in Durham Registry. Caley MS.
' Liber de Metros, vol. i. pp. 267-269. In a Kilham charter too there is allusion to the road which ran
from Kilham to 'Heddun.' Kirkharn Cartulary, fol. 85.
' Testa de Nevill — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. pp. 210, 211.
^ Heddon is sometimes called Black Heddon, e.g. Liber Feodarii, 156S — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. l.\iii.,
where it is quite obvious that Black Heddon in Stamfordham is not meant.
0 Col. of Charter Rolls, vol. v. p. 38.
' Inq. p.m. 2 Hen. IV. No. 50 — Scalacronica, Proofs, p. li.x. Tliough it is spelt Hetton it is obviously
Heddon, as Hetton was in the barony of Vescy.
' P.R.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. Hen. VI. File lii. ° P.R.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. Fdw. IV. File 17.
"• P.R.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. Edw. IV. File 75. " Survey of the Border, 1541 — Border Holds, p. 32.
" Liber Feodarii, 1568— Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. Ixiii. " Inq. p.m. 33 EUz. — Lambert MS.
CHEVIOT TOWNSHIP. 285
heddon.'^ In 1663 Lord Grey held Heddon in conjunction with Thomp-
son's Walls.- It would seem therefore that Heddon was transferred
from the barony of Muschamp to that of Wark, due probably to the
fact that a moiety of the manor of Wooler was acquired by the holders
of the latter barony. In 1682 Ford, Lord Grey, held the vill of
Heddon in the parish of Kirknewton worth yearly £50,^ and probably
soon after this it became incorporated in Troughburn, of which property it
is part at the present day.
' Feet of Fines, sixteenth century, p. 62. - Kate Book, 1O63 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 279.
' P.K.O. Exchequer Special Co»iitiissions, Northumberland, 3O Chas. II. No. 6,218.
286 PARISH OF WOOLER.
PARISH OF WOOLER.
Ecclesiastical History. — Wooler parish was at first coterminous
with the township, and the advowson was originaUy in the hands of
the lords of the manor, being valued in 1254 at £20 one year with
another,^ an estimate which was continued in the assessment for Pope
Nicholas's taxation in 1291.- In the partition of the Muschamp inherit-
ance this advowson was allocated intact to Isabel Ford,^ and when
her estate was again subdivided, it passed to her nieces Muriel and
Margery, or Mary as the latter was afterwards called,* and ultimately
to Mary alone. Mary and her husband, Nicholas Graham, exercised their
right of presentation, but while the latter's property was in the king's
hands, the living fell vacant again, and Walter Huntercumbe claimed to
present on this occasion by right of second turn, asserting that the
advowson had been inherited by his mother and her two nieces jointly,
and that Muriel and Margery, together with their husbands, had made
the last presentation, which gave him the right to present on this
occasion. Counsel for the crown contended that Margery and Isabel
had made a division of the inheritance whereby the advowson went
entire to Margery, or alternatively, that it had been allotted by agree-
ment to Nicholas Graham, in return for forty bovates of land in
Ulcester given by him to Walter. Though the first defence thus put
forward was undoubtedly accurate, search among the records failed to
reveal the necessary document,^ and in the case of the second the local
jury found against the contention of the crown, so that Walter won his
case.^ A similar dispute occurred when on May 24th, 1306, the king
presented William Corby to the vacant benefice,' though the property
had been by now restored to Nicholas Graham, and was confirmed to
' hiq. p.m. 39 Hen. III. No. 40 — Bain, Cal. oj Documents, vol. i. p. 371.
' Nova Taxatio Ecclesiaslica Angliae — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 352 ; Keg. Palat. Dunelm, vol. iii. p. 98.
' Inq. p.m. 35 Hen. III. No. 41 — Bain, Cal. oj Documents, vol. i. p. 334. See pages 307-311.
* Inq. p.m. 39 Hen. III. No. 40 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. i. p. 379.
'' The document sought was Inq. p.m. 39 Hen. III. No. 40.
" De Banco Roll, No. 131, mm. 11, 99do, 284 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxviii. pp. 509, 519-522, 534-535.
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1301-1307, p. 434.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 287
his widow Mary on June 14th following. ^ Walter Huntercumbe at
once instituted proceedings calling on Mary to allow him to present, 2
and the crown also put in an appearance, but as no evidence was
offered, Walter again succeeded,^ and presumably the presentation of
William Corby was quashed. The Huntercumbe claim was based on the
argument put forward in 1300. Walter had appointed one Ralph Manton
on the strength of winning the right to the alternative presentation,
and the king had appointed his successor, one William of Escriclc*
The latter having resigned, the living was again vacant — Corby's claims
were ignored so the quashing of his presentation seems certain — and Walter
Huntercumbe claimed that his turn had come round again. Mary's defence
was similar to that of the crown in the former trial, and she alleged
that in the last partition of the estate Walter's mother Isabel received
two knight's fees, one in Ulcester and the other in Ford, as compensa-
tion for the allocation of the advowson to her two nieces. She gave a
different version of the succession of rectors, and claimed that no
presentation had been made by Walter, save that of Ralph Manton.
This last, she pleaded, should not be taken as a precedent against her, as
she was then under the power of her husband, and was not therefore
responsible. In replj' to this Walter, strangely enough, did not allege
the fact that he had won his right to present Ralph Manton in the
courts at a time when the property was in the king's hands, but fell
back on a denial that any partition had been made between Margery
and Isabel, on the one side, and his mother on the other, averring as
proof that Isabel Ford ^ outlived Margery, a legal technicality based on
a mistake of Mary's lawyers, who had substituted Margery for her two
daughters, which did not in any way invalidate the claim in equity.
Both parties appealed to a jury,® but the final issue is nowhere
recorded.''
' Close Roll, 34 Edw. I. m. 11 — Bain, Cal. o] Documents, vol. ii. p. 479.
- De Banco Roll, No. 160, m. 78 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxvii. p. 229.
' De Banco Roll, No. 161, m. 82 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxvii. p. 285.
* The name given in his appointment to the recton- in 1302 is William son of Hugh of Seleby. Cat. of
Patent Rolls, 1301-1307, p. 19. As Escrick is only some ten miles from Selby, William, son of Hugh of
Seleby, may well have been William of Escrick.
5 Throughout this record Isabel Ford is confused with her mother, who is also called 'Isabel the eldest
daughter of Robert Muschamp.' Walter's mother is called ' Isabel youngest daughter of Robert Muschamp.'
" De Banco Roll, No. 161, m. 339do — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxvii. pp. 332-336.
■ The last adjournment is Trinity, 1307, just before the death of Edward I. De Banco Roll, No. 162.
ni. 28, No. 164, m. 332do — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxvii. pp. 374-375.
288 PARISH OF WOOLER.
While the case was still proceeding, a new rector of Wooler appears
in the person of Henry Luceby, who was in possession of the living in
February, 1307.1 It is probable that he was presented by the bishop
on the ground that the right of presentation was in dispute,^ but it
would seem that Mary won her case, for by November, 1307, she had
applied for licence to alienate the advowson to the abbey of Alnwick.
It was found by inquisition that this would involve loss to the king,
in that the half of the barony, which Mary held in capite and to which
the advowson belonged, might fall at some time into the king's hands
and the living might be vacant at the time.^ The licence together with
relief from the provisions of the Statute of Mortmain was nevertheless
given on June 12th, 1308,* and the advowson passed to the abbey.
Still the claims of Walter Huntercumbe might well be raised again, ^
and despite inquest and licence the crown had not ceased to give
trouble. When the living fell vacant once more in 1312, one Robert
Emeldon was appointed to it by the king, on the preposterous ground
that the lands of the late Nicholas Graham were lately in his hands.'''
The matter was taken up at once by the abbot, and seemingly also
by Walter and Mary,'' but it was the former naturally who fought the
matter out, and established Mary's right by inheritance and her sub-
sequent gift of the advowson to his house by reference to the records
of the chancery. The crown presentation was therefore quashed, and
the living became vacant once more.^
• Cal. of Papal Letters, 1305-1342, p. 34.
^ A certain Henry Luceby, ex-prior of Holy Island, had long been an adherent of Anthony Bek, bishop
of Durham, and indeed had been prior of Durham through his influence for a time. See Arch. Aeliana,
third series, vol. ix. pp. 171-186. His opponents called him 'Henry would be prior.' Hist. Diinelm.
Scriptores Tres. p. 77. The identification of this man with the man of the same name mentioned in the
text is difficult, in view of the impossibility, at this date, of a regular being a parish priest. Lusby
(Luceby) in Lincolnshire was one of the properties of the Bee family.
' Inq. A.Q.D. 1 Edw. H. No. 8 — Bain, Cal. of Docinnents, vol. iii. p. 7. No mention is made of any
claim to alternate presentation on the part of the other moiety of the barony.
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1307-1313, p. 80 ; Reg. Palat. Dunelm, vol. iv. pp. log-iio.
' They were mentioned at least in 1312. Coram Rege Roll, No. 210, m. 34 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxv.
p. 267. In 1313 an inquest definitely states that Walter died seised of a moiety of the manor of Wooler,
except the advowsons of the churches. Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. v. p. 224.
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1307-1313, p. 487. As a matter of fact it was six years since they had been so.
' Coram Rege Roll, No. 210, mm. 34, 72do — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxv. pp. 266-268, 275-277.
' Coram Rege Roll, No. 211, m. 6do — Reg. Palat. Dunelm, vol. iv. pp. 108-110, and Duke's Transcripts.
vol. xxv. pp. 278-282. The abbey evidently made pro\ision for Robert Emeldon, for he is found as
perpetual vicar of Lesbury in 13 14 (Reg. Palat. Dunelm, vol. iv. p. 378), and he died in that cure in 1342
(Reg. Paint. Dunelm . vol. iii. p. 436). In 1312 the abbot of Alnwick is described as parson of Lesbury (Reg.
Palat. Dunelm . vol. ii. p. 873), which proves its appropriation to the monastery so probably the vicarage
was given to Robert by way of compensation for the loss of Wooler.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. , 289
Having assured their claim to the advowson, the abbot and convent
petitioned the bishop of Durliam to be allowed to appropriate and
incorporate Fenton in the parish of Wooler. In September, 1313, they
submitted that the revenues of the church of Fenton, which belonged to
them, were so small, that when a vicar had been provided for and a
sufficient portion of the fruits had been assigned to the rectory, the
church was practically of no use to them. In view of this and of the
great expenses of the monastery, due to its well known reputation for
hospitality and charity and to the demands placed upon it by the
constant passing of English troops through Alnwick on the way to
Scotland, in view too of the losses incurred by Scottish ravages, the
bishop granted, with the consent of Robert Eryn, then rector of Wooler,
that the church of Wooler and the 'chapel' of Fenton should be united
and given to the use of the abbot and convent in perpetuity. He
stipulated that a perpetual vicar should be established in the parish
with two houses for him, one in Wooler and the other in Fenton, the
latter being for the use of a chaplain. The vicar's portion of the rectory
was to be 16 marks a year, which was to provide for the chaplain's
salary as well, and the monastery was also to pay an annual pension of
4 marks to the bishop,^ and to surrender the right of presentation
to him. 2 Thus the advowson of the vicarage was vested in the
bishop and the temporalities, with certain reservations, in the
abbey. The right of presentation was at once exercised by the bishop,
who in March, 1314, collated the vacant benefice to Hugh Lokington.^
The advowson, which for fifty years had been a matter of such dispute,
remained henceforth in the .same hands, through the Reformation-* and
down to 1859, save for a brief time during the Commonwealth, when it
was usurped by Lord Grey of Wark.^ In that year it was transferred
to the bishop of Chester,*' from whom on the creation of the see of New-
castle it was transferred to the bishop of the new diocese. The tem-
poralities had a less uneventful history. From the days of Henry II.,
1 October 3rd, 1313. Reg. Palat. Dunelm. vol. i. pp. 444-44^- •'^'■''" printed m Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii.
PP- ISS'IS*^. giving the date October 5th.
- Reg. Palat. Diinelm voL i. pp. 448-450. ^ Reg. Palal. Dunelm. vol. i. pp. 595-506-
'' Barnes, Injunctions, etc., p. 10; Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. xlvii.
'■ Ecclesiastical Inquests, 1650 — Arch. Aeliana, O.S. vol. iii. p. 6.
" London Gazette, .August 5th, 1859, p. 2998.
Vol. XI. 37
290 . PARISH OF WOOI.ER.
at latest, the priory of Tynemouth had had a share in the tithes/ which
in the middle ages was assessed at £4 a year,- but which after the
Dissolution figures at 13s. 46.. yearly in ministers' accounts down to
1616.^ The vicar's stipend both at the Dissolution, and also in Eliza-
beth's reign was £5 os. 8d. a year,* though in the seventeenth century
the j'^earl}'' value of the vicarage was /loo,^ while after the Dissolution
£1 6s. 8d. is given as the portion of the monastery of Alnwick, which
was then in the king's hands.*' The boundaries of the parish, despite
the inconvenience of the inclusion of Fenton, which was cut off from
Wooler by the intervening chapelry of Doddington in the parish of
Chatton, remained the same till 1882, when Earl and Humbleton were
detached from Doddington and given to Wooler in exchange for Fenton.'
This increased the size of the parish by over a thousand acres, but
made it far more easy to administer, and indeed it was only putting
into effect a recommendation made as far back as 1650.* At a still
more recent date the townships of Coldmartin and Fowbery were
detached from Chatton and added to the parish of Wooler.^
Of the rectors or vicars of Wooler few have been noted outside
their parish. In the early fourteenth century Henry Luceby^" seems to
have played an important part in diocesan business ; he acted on more
than one occasion for the bishop at a visitation, ^^ and served on several
commissions of an ecclesiastical nature.^- So preoccupied was he in these
matters, that he received permission to absent himself from his parish
for two years in February, 1312,^^ a licence renewed the next year for
a similar term to enable him to study at a university.^* In the six-
teenth century the parish suffered the ministrations of one John Hall,
' Cal. Rot. Cart. p. 120a ; Cat. of Charter Rolls, 1257-1300, pp. 170, 172.
- Nova Taxatio Ecclesiastica Angliae — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 352; Reg. Palat. Diinelm. vol. iii. p. g8.
' Newcastle Public Libraries, Calev MSS., pp. 337, 399.
' Valor Ecclesiasttcu!,, 27 Hen. VHI — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. xliv. ; cf. p. xlvii. ; Barnes, Injunc-
tions, etc.. p. 10.
^ Ecclesiastical Inquests, 1650 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. pp. liii.-li\-. Cf. Barnes, Injunctions, etc., p. 10.
" Monasticon, vol. vi. pt. ii. p. 868. Cf. page 331. " London Gazette, March 3rd, 1882, p. 936.
" Ecclesiastical Inquests, 1650 — Arch. Aeliana, O.S., vol. iii. p. 6.
' Under the Act for the Commutation of Tithes the Commissioners awarded — Wooler — to the
vicar of Wooler. ^424 i6s. per annum ; earl of Tankervillc, £36 i6s. per annum ; -M. Cully, /17 5s. per annum.
Fenton. — To the vicar of Wooler, ;^8 13s. 4d. ; Charles Mayen, £250 os. od.
•" For Luceby's seal see Arch. Aeliana, third series, vol. ix. p. 291.
" Reg. Palat. Dunelm. vol. i. pp. 77, 115. '- Ibid. vol. i. pp. 92, 117, 161. " Ibid. vol. i. p. 154.
" Ibid. vol. i. pp. 288-289.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 29I
who having been once deprived and restored, was found in 1578 to have
ignored the episcopal injunction to all the clergy in the diocese to give
proof of their learning by describing the contents of the Gospel of
St. Matthew in Latin, if they knew the language, or otherwise in English.^
On another occasion he failed to describe the Gospel of St. Luke, and
ultimately he was deprived once more in October, 1579, ^o^ ^^t having
paid the queen's tenths. ^
There are two recorded instances of the enforcement of ecclesiastical
discipline in the parish, separated by an interval of three centuries. In
1313 John 01 Coldmartin, having struck a priest named John of
Leicester, was ordered to be beaten round the parish church three times
in the garb of a penitent, while the parochial chaplain, or curate as
he would now be called, explained to all and sundry why the penance
was enjoined.^ In 1604 one Rowland Scott was sued for drawing a
dagger on John Jackson, and for appointing combat with him in the
church at the communion table.'' At the beginning of the seventeenth
century, also, the records reflect James I.'s dislike of fortune tellers and
necromancers in the prosecution of two women as 'common charmers of
sick folks and their goods, and that they used to bring white ducks or
drakes and to sett the bill thereof to the mouth of the sick person and
mumble upp their charmes in such strange manner as is damnable and
horrible.'^ During the Commonwealth the parish suffered severely, and
was reported to be in decay, ^ and the vicar, Edward Rochester, was
'imprisoned, plundered and barbarously deprived of all lively goods,'
according to a statement made in the Restoration period.'^ The reaction
from puritan discipline is perhaps seen in the fact, that in 1663 the
vicar found it necessary to inscribe on either end of the bridge 'Doe
not swaere' and 'Bee nott drunck.'^
Of the ancient church no stone survives, and indeed hardly any
allusions to the fabric are to be found. In 1501, according to the report
of the churchwardens, it was 'in a ruinous condition, and the parish-
» Barnes' Injunctions, etc., p. 77. - Ibid. p. 98. ' Reg. Palat. Dunelm. vol. i. p. 329.
* Extracts from the Visitation Books in the Registry at Durham— .-ire/i. Aeliana, third series, vol. ii. p. 43»i.
^ Extracts Irom Visitation Books in the Registry at Durham — Arch. Aeliana, third series, vol. ii. p. 43M.
" Ecclesiastical Inquests, 1650, — Arch. Aeliana, O.S. vol. iii. p. 4.
' Durham Cathedral Library, Hunter MS. 80, item No. 3.
» Extracts from Visitation Books in the Registry of Durham— .-Iff /i. Aeliana, third series, vol. ii. p. mil.
292 PARISH OF WOOI.ER.
ioners had not sufficient means for its reparation, unless the}- were
assisted by the piety of the faithful elsewhere.^ Robert Grey of Turve-
laws, who died in 165 1 and was to be buried in the church, thought it
wise to leave money in his will for its repair.- In 1694 the structure
is said to have suffered in a severe tire,^ and in 1762 the incumbent
attributed the recent growth in the number of dissenters in the parish
to the want of room in the church, the chancel being in ruins. Arch-
deacon Sharpe accordingly took an architect to survey the building, and
they decided that it was ' so very ruinous in all parts as to be incapable
of being repaired.'* It might therefore be regarded as a matter of
congratulation that in the following year a fire swept away the cruml)-
ling ruins. ^ The present church has few traces of ecclesiastical archi-
tecture, though in recent years a chancel has been added to the existing
bamlike structure. The registers begin in 1692. The church plate includes
a paten (silver) with the inscription " The gift of John Chesholm, vicar of
Wooler, 1722," a chalice (silver) with the inscription "Robert Gray of
Turve Law, his gift to Wooller church, 1642," and two flagons (pewter).
Hospital of St. Mary Magdalene. — Very little is known of the
hospital of St. Mary Magdalene at Wooler. The first mention of it
occurs in 1288, when one Richard was master, and was accused of
trespass.^ This same Richard had some trouble with the possessions of
his house, being interested in no less than three cases in 1293, all of
which he lost. He sued Walter Forest in respect of an acre of land,
and Adam son of Adam of Wooler whom he accused of wrongfully
disseising him of certain tenements. Against Adam Sharp he sought a
moiety of one acre of pasture, but it was proved to be part of the
dower of Adam's grandmother Matilda, widow of Adam Sharp his
grandfather. '^ In 1302 Adam of Sherburn was appointed master by the
' Barnes, InjuricHons, etc., pp. xxxiii.-xxxiv. ' Raine, Teslamenta, vol. vi. p. 25.
' .4rch. Aeliana, N.S., vol. iv. pp. 143, 150. Cf. .4rch. Aeliana, third series, vol. ii. p. 43M.
Though a devastating fire swept Wooler in 1693, and a brief was issued for collections for its rebuilding,
there is no mention of the church therein. Possibly the collections made at Egglescliffe and Dillingham
were for the town not the church.
* Archdeacons' Church Notes, p. 121.
'Extract from Church Book of Ryton — Arch. Aeliana, N.S., vol. x. p. 174; Brief for rebuilding the
church of Wooler, 1763 — British .Museum Charters, Ch. Br. 13. iii. 2.
' Coram liege Roll, No. 112 m. 28do — -Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxiii. p. 253.
' Assise Roll, 21 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. .xviii. pp. 42, 77, 107, 109.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 293
king/ and he too had to prosecute John Pickering for trespass, ^ and
also sued several others for a debt of 14 marks. ^ Only one other master
is mentioned in the person of William of Bamburgh, who in 1342 was
given the custody of the hospital for life.*
The advowson of the hospital is first mentioned in 1302, when the
king held it, as the lands of Nicholas Graham were in his hands, ^ so
that it must have been apportioned to the moiety of the manor which
devolved on Mary, daughter of Margery, countess of Strathearn. It
passed henceforth with this moiety, being entailed with the rest of
Mary's possessions on Nicholas Meinill.^ It descended to Nicholas's
daughter Elizabeth and then to her son Philip Darcy, who died seised
of it in 1399, when its value was given as two pence.' After this it
passed with the rest of the inheritance,* until with the failure of the
Darcy male line it was divided between the co-heiresses. In 1490 Sir
John Conyers died seised of the advowson of a moiety of the hospital
of St. Mary Magdalene,^ which after this disappears from all recorded
history.
RECTORS.
Adam Henerkedyn or Inrrerkethyn. Presented by Robert JMuschamp 'tempore pads
Henrici III.' He died rector of Wooler and was succeeded by Robert Merley.'" In
another record the name is given as Adam Inrrerkethyn."
1254 — Adam of Edlingham. Alleged in 1306 by Mary, widow of Nicholas Graham, to have been
presented by Margery, countess of Stratherne, on the death of Adam Henerkedyn. This
would be before 1254. On his death she alleged Robert Merley was presented. '^
— 1300. Robert Merley. Presented either by Nicholas Graham, which would be after 1291, or
by the earl of Mar and Muriel his wife, jointly with Nicholas Graham and Mary {alias
Margery) his wife, which would be before 1291 and after 1254. He was still rector of Wooler
at his death in 1300.''
1300 — 1302. Ralph Manton. Presented by Walter Huntercumbe on the death of Robert Merley. Later
he resigned the living.'*
' Cal. of Patent liolls, i3oi-:307, p. 100.
- Coram Rege Roll, No. 17S, m. 2do — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxiii. p. 814
" Coram Rege Roll, No. 149, m. 353 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. x-xix. p. 303.
* Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1340-1343, p. 421. ^ Cal. oj Patent Rolls, 1301-1307, p. 100.
° Pedes Finium, Divers Counties, 27 Edw. III. No. 4926 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxix. pp. 483-487.
• Inq. p.m. 22 Ric. II. No. 17 — Ford Tithe Case, p. 230.
' Inq. p.m. 7 Hen. V. No. 78 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 268 ; Inq. p.m. ^z Hen. VI. No. 15 — Ford
Tithe Case, p. 237.
' Cal. of Inq. p.m. ^second series), vol. i. p. 260.
" De Banco Roll, No. 131, m. 99do — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxviii. pp. 519-522.
" De Banco Roll, No. 161, m. 399do — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxvii. pp. 332-334.
'- De Banco Roll, No. lOi, m. 39gdo — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxvii. pp. 335-330.
" De Banco Roll, No. 131, m. ygdo — Duke's Transcripts, vol. x.xviii. pp. 519-522.
" De Banco Roll, No. lOi, m. 339do — Duke's Transcripts, vol. .x.xxvii. pp. 332-334.
294
PARISH OV WOOLER.
1302 — 1306. William of Escrick, alias William, son of Hugh of Selby, alias William of Selbv.
Presented in 1302 by the king by reason of the lands of Nicholas Graham being in his
hands, on the resignation of Ralph Manton.' In Easter, 1305, he brought an action against
John, son of William Newcastle of Wooler, under a writ 'qiiare cessavit per bieniitin' in
respect of a messuage in Wooler, being there described as William of Selby, parson of the
church of Wooler.- Resigned 1306.'
1306 — William Corby. Presented May, 1306, by the crown by reason of the lands late of Nicholas
Graham being in the king's hands.* The appointment was probably quashed.
1307 — 1312. Henry Luceby. Licence February, 1307, to hold Wooler in plurality with the rectory
of Wald-newton, diocese of Lincoln, he having obtained them without licence.' In
November, 1311, he obtained licence on resigning one of these to accept another." Per-
mission was granted February, 1312, to him by the bishop to let to farm the church of
Wooler for a period of two years from Michaelmas, 131 2.' His actual resignation dated
November 28th, 1312.'
1312 — Robert Emeldon. Presented by the crown by reason of the lands of Nicholas Graham,
deceased, being lately in the king's hands, 24th August, 1312.' His appointment was
quashed, as the crown had no right to appoint, 28th January, 1313.'"
1312 — 1313. Robert Eryn or Erun. Presented, doubtless by Alnwick Abbey after its justification of
its right to the advowson, in January, 1313." October gth, 1313, he is described as rector of
Wooler in his resignation addressed to the bishop of Durham. '-
I3I4—I3I5•
1332-
—1341-
■341—
1354
1307
1370
1372
1412
1428
1430
1433
VICARS.
The vicarage collated to him by the bishop of Durham, March 25th,
ith, 1315," on the appointment of
Hugh Lokington.
1314."
Thomas Harpy n. The vicarage collated to him June
Lokington to the hospital of St. Edmund, Gateshead.'*
Walter Dirlond."
John Wulk of Beverley. Died vicar of Wooler in 1341."
William Baret. The vicarage collated to him 13th November, 1341, described as of tlic
diocese of Waterford.'*
Robert Hanslai'."
Thomas Manfield."
Thomas Didensale."
John DribEcks." Contributed to a subsidy voted by the clergy in 1381.-"
Thomas Fraunces.''
Thomas Percebrig.'"
John Selowe.'"
William Fo.\.'"
1 Cal. 0/ Patent Rolls (1301-1307), p. ly ; De Banco Roll, No i6l, m. 339do — Duke's Transcripts, vol.
xx.xvii. pp. 332-334.
- De Banco Roll, No. 155, m. 39 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxvii. p. 46.
' De Banco Roll, No. 161, m. 339do — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxvii. pp. 332-334.
' Cal. of Patent Rolls (1301 — 1307), p. 434. * Ca/. 0/ Papal Letters {1305 — 1342), p. 34.
' Ibid. p. 91. ' Reg. Palat. Dunehn. vol. i. pp. 151-152. " Ibid. vol. i. pp. 255-256.
' Cal. oj Patent Rolls (1307 — 1313), p. 487. '" Reg. Palat. Dunelm. vol. ii. p. gio ; vol. iv. p. iii.
" Reg. Palat. Dunelm, vol. ii. p. 910. " Ibid. vol. i. p. 449. " Reg. Palat. Dunelm, vol. i. p. 595-596.
" Reg. Palat. Dunelm, vol. i. pp. 705-70G. ''^ Ibid. vol. i. p. 706. '» Randal, Stale of the Churches, p. 28.
" Reg. Palat. Dunelm, vol. iii. pp. 412-413. '» Ibid. '» Randal, State of the Churches, p. 28.
-° Pord Tithe Case, p. 215.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
295
1434. William Gowan.'
1443, 1464. William Hepson. A trustee for Sir Kalph Grey, who died 1443, and for Sir Ralph Grey,
who died 1464.-
1549. Roland Pratt.'
1561 — 1564. John Hall.' Deprived 1564.'
1564^1577. Adam Eche.*
1577 — 1580. John Hall.' He was admonished loth July, 1597, to give his account of the Gospel of St.
John within a stated term.'
1580 — Thomas Clerke.*
1589. William Banner.'
1599—1630. Thomas Morton.' The inventory of his goods was exhibited at the probate court at Durham
in 1630, and administration of his personal estate was granted to his children. Peregrine
and Joscasta Morton.'
1631 — 1640. William Cole. Instituted 20th May, 1631.'
1640. Edward Rochester, of Brasenose College, Oxon. Matriculated 1622, aged 16. B.A. 1626.
M.A. 1628. Some time vicar of Epping. Dispossessed during the Commonwealth.'" Will
dated 20th June, 1663, proved the same year."
1650. John Lomax, M.A., of Emmanuel College, Cambridge. Presented by Lord Grey of Wark."
A man of learning, who practised physic at North Shields after being silenced at Wooler"
He was buried at Tynemouth 27th May, 1693."
1663 — 1695. John Horsbrough, M.A.'^ Paid First Fruits 22nd October, 1663.'' Sometime curate of
Bamburgh. Buried igth August, 1695."
1695 — 1725. John Chisholm." Buried nth November, 1725."
1727 — 1747. Thomas Cooper, M.A., of Peterhouse, Cambridge. Instituted 8th May, 1727.' Buried
15th December, 1747."
1747- — 1755. Martin Nixon, M.A., of Trinity College, Cambridge. Instituted 9th February, 1747.'
1755 — -1779. Cuthbert Allen, M.A., of St. John's College, Cambridge. Instituted i8th December,
1755.° Buried 3rd September, 1779."
1780 — 1805. Alexander ClEEve. Instituted 31st January, 1780.' Matriculated at Queen's College.
Oxon., 1766, aged 18, afterward of Christ College, Cambridge. Sometime minister of
St. George's Episcopal Chapel, Edinburgh, and lecturer of Trinity Chapel, Knightsbridge.
He was tutor of Sir Walter Scott. A volume of his sermons was published posthumously.
1805 — 1836. William Haigh, M.A., of Queen's College, Cambridge. Instituted 22nd October, 1805 '
Sometime lecturer of .\11 Saints', Newcastle. Buried i8th March, 1836, aged 76."
1836 — 1843. The Hon. John Grey, seventh son of the second Earl Grey, M.A., of Trinity College, Cam-
bridge. Afterwards rector of Houghton-le-Spring.
1843— 1880. John Samuel Green, M.A., of Christ College, Cambridge. Died at Wooler 15th February,
1880, aged 64."
1880 — 1910. Joseph Samuel Pickles (afterwards Wilsden), of St. John's College, Cambridge. B..\.
1859. M.A. 1862. Presented by the bishop of Chester. Resigned 1910.
1910 — Walter Isidore Moran, M.A., of Merton College, Oxford. Instituted 17th October, 1910.
' Randal, Stale of the Churches, p. 28.
^ P.R.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. Hen. VI. file 11 1, and Kdw. 1\'. file 17.
' P.R.O. Bishop's Certificates, Durham, file i, mem. i. • Ibid, file i, mem. 3.
' Barnes, Injunctions, etc., p. 98. ' P.R.O. Bishop's Certificates, Durham, file 4, mem. 4.
' Ibid, file 7, mem. 13. ' Raine, Testamenta. ' P.R.O. Liber Insiitulionum.
'" Walker, Sufferings of the Clergy, part ii. p. 34I). " Raine, Testamenta.
'- Ecclesiastical Inquest, 1650 — Arch. Aeliana, O.S. vol. iii. p. 6.
" Calamy, Ministers Ejected, vol. ii. pp. 273-275. '* Tynemouth Register.
" Randal, Slate of Churches, p. 28. '" P.R.O. First Fruits, Bishops' Certificates. '' Wooler Register.
296 PARISH OF WOOLER.
St. Niiiian's Roman Catholic Church. — The church of St. Ninian was
opened in 1856 to replace a temporary building on the same site. The
plans were drawn by the elder Pugin.
Incumbents.
1856 — 1858. Rev. Edward Consitt, afterwards a canon of the diocese of Hexham. Rev. James Chadwick,
afterwards bishop of Hexham and Newcastle ; Rev. Thomas Clavering ; Rev Suf-
FiELD ; Rev, William Farmery.
1858 — 1869. Rev. John Wm. Carlisle, afterwards a canon of the diocese of Hexham.
1869 — 1891. Rev. Denis Aloysius Buckley, on the promotion of the Rev. J. W. Carlisle.
1891. Rev. Ignatius Beale, on the resignation of the Rev. D. A. Buckley.
1891 — 1899. Rev. Edward Rigby, on the resignation of the Rev. I. Beale.
1899 — 1902. Rev. Gerald van Hooff, on the death of the Rev. E. Rigby.
1902 — Rev. Denis O'Kelly, present incumbent.
Cheviot Street Presbyterian Church. — The congregation was founded in
1702 and at first assembled in a private dwelling house which occupied
the site of the present church, first built in 1770. It was originally
in communion with the Relief Church of Scotland, but now belongs to
the Presbyterian Church of England.
Ministers.
1700? — 1718, [John] Barnes, who was buried on October i6th, 1718. as 'Mr. Barnes, the dissenting
minister.''
1718 — 1733. Daniel Atkin, who was buried on .\ugust i6th, 1733, as 'Mr. Daniel Atkin, dissenting
teacher.'*
1733 — 1777. Alexander Wilson, a licentiate of the Church of Scotland, who was buried on June 4th,
1777, as 'dissenting minister of Wooler."'
■777 — 1785. William Wilson, M.A., son, colleague and successor of Mr. Alexander Wilson. Educated
at the University of Glasgow. Emigrated to the United States of America and settled
at Clermont, N.Y., as a medical practitioner, became a judge of the county of Columbia,
and died at Clermont in December, 1828.
1785 — 1793. Thomas Murray, son of the Rev. Adam Murray, minister of the parish of Eccles, born May 31st,
1759 : ordained to Wooler, 1785 ; presented to the parish of Clannet Kirk in 1793 ; and
died there 26th October, 1808, in the fiftieth year of his age and the twenty-fourth year of
his ministry."
1793 — 1807. William Johnstone, a licentiate of the Church of Scotland. Ordained to Wooler in 1793';
translated in 1807 to Spital,' and in 1S12 to High Meeting, Berwick,* which he served to
his death, August 3rd, 1823.'
1807 — 1835. William Gilmour, ordained to Banff in 1806 ;^ died April 2nd, 1835.'
' Wooler Register. - Scott, Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae, vol. ii. p. 522.
' Ex inj. Mr. R. S. Robson, Presbyterian Historical Society of England. * Scott, Hist, 0/ Berwick, p. 370.
' Monumental Inscriptions, Wooler.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 297
1835 — 1897. I. L. MuiRHEAD, ordained in 1833 as colleague and successor of Mr. Gilmour ;' died 1897 ;
buried at Wooler.
1878 — 1883. James Grey, ordained as colleague to Mr. Muirhead. Resigned in 1883 and went to South
Africa.'
1884 — 1915. Alexander McLelland,' ordained 1884 as colleague and successor of Mr. Muirhead. Died
1915 in the thirty-second year of his ministrj'.
1915 — 1918. A. A. Smith.'
1918 — R. D. Robertson, present minister.
Tower-hill Presbyterian Church. — Founded in 1778 as a Burgher
Congregation, a church being built in 1779, which was replaced in 1868
on a new site. In 1903, on the retirement of Mr. McLeish, the Tower-
hill church was united with that of Cheviot Street. The building
was sold for /500 and by private liberality was purchased for a town
hall.
Ministers.
1778 — 1799- George Bell, ordained to Wooler, 1778.' Died unmarried; buried November 4th, 1799,
aged 62.-
1802 — 1855. James Robertson, ordained to Wooler 1802.' Died March 25th, 1855. aged 77.'
1855 — 18S0. Peter Whyte, ordained in 1848 as colleague and successor of Mr. Robertson.'
1880 — 1903. James McLeish, ordained in 1859 to North Berwick ; retired in 1903.'
Wooler Presbyterian Church, commonly called Wester Meeting. —
Founded about 1729 as an offshoot of the Cheviot Street congregation.
The original meeting house was on the south side of the High Street, a
passage adjoining to the site being still known as Meeting-house Yard.'*
A document relating to this building dated March 21st, 1787, is in the
possession of the session of the church.* The present church was built
in 1818. The Register of baptisms begins March 28th, 1749.*
Ministers.
1732 — 1755- Archibald Wallace, a native of Bowdon, near Selkirk, a licentiate of the church of Scotland ;
died in his pulpit during a Sunday morning service and was buried June 14th. 1755.^ In
1744 he published a volume of Sermons. His son, Mr. Gavin Wallace, was minister of
the Presbyterian church at Lerwick, and one of his daughters who had a ladies' school in
or near London was a friend of Hannah More.
1755 — I77<i. Patrick Creighton, stated to have been son of the Rev. .\lexander Creighton of Heworth
and Newcastle ; buried March 2nd, 1776.'
' Ex inf. Mr. R. S. Robson, Presbyterian Historical Society of England. = Wooler Register.
^ Monumental Inscriptions, Wooler.
' Gregory, Wester Meeting House, Wooler. Printed for private circulation (Edinburgh), 1894.
^ Wooler Register.
Vol. XI. 38
298 PARISH OF WOOLER.
1776 — 1777. George Grieve, M.D., Edinburgh, who resigned and became a Baptist.'
1777 — 1807. James Kennedy, born in Roxburghshire; was residing at Alnwick, April 27th, 1777, when
he was called to Wooler ;' he died October 14th, 1807, aged 60.- '
1808— 1835. James Mitchell, a native of Strageath, Perthshire. Educated at St. Andrew's University ;
in 1782 became tutor in the family of Mr. Walter Scott, W.S., Edinburgh, whose son.
Sir Walter Scott describes him as 'a young man of an excellent disposition and a laborious
student . . .a faithful and active instructor, and from him chiefly I learned writing
and arithmetic' He was ordained in 1784 to the Presbyterian church in Wellington Street,
South Shields, and in 1786, through the good offices of Mr. Scott, was presented to Montrose,
second charge. Having offended the ship masters and fishermen of the port by his protests
against sailing on a Sunday, he resigned his charge in 1805 ; he was author of An Essay
on the Christian Sabbath (Montrose, 1802), and contributed his reminiscence of his illustrious
pupil to Lockhart's Life of Sir Waller Scolt* ; called to Wooler in 1808'; he died there
October 20th, 1835, in the 76th year of his age and the 52nd of his ministry.'
1830— 1835. James Bryce, ordained 1824 to Stamfordham. In 1830 called to be colleague and successor
of Mr. Mitchell ; translated to Gilcomston, Aberdeen, in 1835.'
1835- 1843. Thomas Gray, ordained in 1835 as colleague and successor of Mr. Mitchell ; presented in 1843
to the parish of Kirkwood ; he married Harriet Barbara, daughter of Lieut. -General George
Burrell, C.B., of Alnwick, first British Governor of Hong Kong ; she died a widow at
Highgate, May i6th, 1905.
1844 — 1884. James Alexander Hine, educated at the High School and the University of Edinburgh';
ordained to Wooler, 1844'; retired in 1884.
1885 — 1888. Ale.xander Gregory, M.A., ordained to Wooler 1885'; went as a missionary to China in
1888.'
1888 — 1893. John Conway, M.A., translated in 1893 to Arthur's Hill chapel, Newcastle,' thence to
London, and thence to Bristol.'
1893 — 1903. Alexander Gregory, ALA., of the University of Glasgow, reappointed on his return from
China'; resigned in 1903 ; author of Ye Wester Meeting House, or the story of the West
Church, Wooler, from 1729 to 1894.'
1903 — 1916. John H. Reid, of Belfast College'; translated in 1916 to Middlesbrough.'
1916 — David Mayes, the present minister. Inducted 1917.
WOOLER TOWNSHIP.
Wooler is a pleasant little country town of some local importance,"
nestling at the foot of the Cheviot Hills, and looking out over a wide
prospect with the valley of the Till in the foreground and the Kyloe
Hills in the far distance. It consists of one long straggling street, with
some minor offshoots, and serves as a market centre for the district.
' Gregory, Wester Meeting House, Wooler. Printed for private circulation (Edinburgh), 1894.
2 Wooler Register. a Monumental Inscriptions, Wooler.
* Lockhart, Life of Sir Walter Scott, vol. i. pp. 106-114.
' Ex inf. Mr. R. S. Robson, Presbyterian Historical Society of England.
" Census returns for Wooler, including Fenton, are : 1801,1,679; 1811,1,704; 1821,1,830; 1831,1,926;
1841, 1,874; 1851, 1,911; 1861, 1,697; 1871, 1,610; 1881. 1,358; i8gi, 1,301; 1901, 1,336; 1911
(excluding Fenton, then incorporated in Ewart), 1,382. The township of Wooler (exclusive of Fenton)
comprises 3180-476 acres.
WOOLER TOWNSHIP.
299
Recently the building of some villas on the ground which falls away
from the main street towards the river has begun to make it a resi-
dential district. The hotels are thronged with visitors in summer, and
the building of the railway has brought the place into closer touch
with the outside world, but still Wooler, now as formerly, is a refuge
from the hurry and scurry of modern life.
On rare occasions during the middle ages royalty passed that way, but
there are only three recorded instances of this, and they all occurred between
1302-1334.1 Though the Scottish wars produced much coming and going,
Wooler did not lie on the high road of armies, which generally advanced
along a route further to the east. The town was therefore largely a
self contained unit, though it was a market centre for the immediate
district. As early as 1199 Robert Muschamp was given licence to hold a
market there every Thursday, ^ a privilege which lasted down to the
seventeenth century, when Sir Ralph Grey was allowed to hold a
weekly market and two yearly fairs in the manor of Wooler.^ The only
real connection of the place with the outer world during the middle
ages was the fact that it was the centre of a sheep rearing district,
which provided wool for other parts of the country and for abroad.
In 1296 a citizen of York had reason to complain of the forcible
detaining of three score of his sheep and the shearing of them at Wooler,*
further in 1353 Adam of Corbridge was prosecuted unsuccessfully for
numerous evasions of customs on wool and woolfells in recent years. He
evidently was in the wool business on a large scale, and lived in
Wooler, sending his goods to Berwick, and thence to Flanders.^ This was
not the only time that this merchant came into conflict with the authorities,
for in 1354 he and his servant, Simon Milip of Wooler, were prosecuted
under the statute of labourers, as it was alleged that Simon left the
service of Gilbert Elwyk at Wooler before the end of his contract of
service, and, despite the protests of his former master, had refused to
return.^
' Cat. of Close Rolls, 1296-1302, pp. 515, 516, 579 ; Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. iii. p. 31 ; Cal. of
Patent Rolls, 1334- 1338, p. 179.
- Rot. Cart, i John m. 23- — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 388 ; Cal. Rot. Cart. iia.
' April 20th, 1614. Cal. of Stale Papers, Domestic, 16U-1618, p. 232.
' Coram Rege Roll. No. 149, m. 41 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxiii. pp. 634-O35.
^ Coram Rege Roll, No. 372, m. 10 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxiv. pp. 566-567, 570.
" Coram Rege Roll, No. 376, m. 59 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxiv. pp. 596-597.
300 PARISH OF WOOLER.
Anything like settled trade was hampered, from the days of
Edward I. onwards by Scottish inroads, though Wooler did not suffer
so seriously as other border places from these visitations, thanks to the
Cheviot hills which lay between the township and the border. Still in
1312 the vicar of Wooler was given leave to absent himself from his
cure by reason of the wasting of the district by war and the burning
of churches and houses, and because it was not safe to dwell there. ^
Further, in 1340 the men of Wooler had suffered so heavily, that they
joined with those of the neighbouring parishes in petitioning the king
to relieve them from contributing to the ninth of sheaves, fleeces and
lambs voted by parliament,- and received respite from time to time till
1357-^ Again at the end of the century Wooler lay wasted after a
Scottish raid,'* and in 1409 the same story is repeated.^ In 1454 the
dower of Margaret, widow of Sir John Darcy, was ravaged and valueless.®
On the whole the life of Wooler in the middle ages passed without
great incident save of a purely local nature. Then, as later, the tavern
was the centre of social life ; sometimes on its less pleasant side. Thus
in 1302 Norman, the miller of North Middleton, came to the tavern of
Adam Grime in company with John Scott. There they sat and drank
with the other men of the vill, till a disagreement arose between them,
leading to blows. The others intervened, and threw them out by
different doors in the vain hope of separating them. Norman by his
own confession was drunk, but had the sense to make for home. John
attacked him with a stick and chased him till he reached a deep ditch
which he could not cross. Thus brought to bay, Norman hit out with
a stick in his hand and killed John by a blow on the head, but the
local jury found that he had acted in self defence, and he was com-
mended to the royal mercy.''
During the sixteenth century, the great era of border warfare,
Wooler escaped the worst effects of hostile raids, despite Lord Dacre's
description of it as a place of particular danger, ' being the outer-
' Reg. Palat. Dune'.m. vol. i. pp. 151-152. ^ Cal. oj Patent Holts, 1343-1345, p. 409.
' Cal. of Close Rolls, 1349-1354, p. 613; 1354-1360, pp. 71, 120, 185, 410.
* Inq. p.m. 22 Kic. II. No. 17 — Ford Tithe Case, pp. 230-231.
' In the accounts of a moiety of a tenth from ecclesiastical benefices, 13th June, 1409, the return from
Wooler rectory is 'nil quod vasta.' Poyd Tithe Case, p. 217.
'■ Inq. p.m. 32 Hen. VI. No. 15 — Ford Tithe Case, p. 237.
' Assize Roll, 28-32 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxx. pp. 142-143.
WOOLER TOWNSHIP. 3OI
most town of the realm, '^ and the statement of the commissioners of
1541 that 'nere thereby ys the common entree and passage of the
Scottes for invadynge this realme or makinge any spoyle in tyme of
warre or troubles peace.'- Its chief importance was, that it formed a
base from which the English armies sometimes worked, as when the
earl of Surrey in 1513, advancing against James IV., pitched his camp
at Wooler haugh,^ or when in 1559 the earl of Northumberland
repaired thither with his men to organize resistance to a threatened
invasion.^ It was the custom, too, in those troublous days, to keep a
certain proportion of troops stationed at Wooler, at one time regular
troops returned from service elsewhere,^ at another light horsemen,
'dwellers of the Waste of Glendall,' or alternatively ' Inlandes men or
others of the waste of Weste Tylle.' In this last case it was found in
1546 that Sir John Nevill, who held the command of this band, had
not done his duty, had employed ' Northern men ' and had taken up
his abode at Chillingham, for which reasons he was relieved of his
command, to be replaced by his predecessor Robert Horsley.® It
would seem therefore that Wooler was considered a more important
strategical point than Chillingham. Apart from forces such as these,
the men of . the township themselves were expected to assist in its
defence. In 1534 ten men had to keep day and night watch for which
they were paid eightpence a day,'' and in 1569 gratuitous service was
required ' to trench and pare the banks of as many fords and comings
in as may offend, ' and to keep watch nightly.^
Thanks perhaps partly to these precautions, the township did not
suffer heavily either in men or property during this disturbed century.
In 1541 the twenty-one 'husband lands' of the township were reported
to be 'all plenyshed,'^ though the disturbed state of the country
generally had its evil effect on local prosperity, so that in 1560 'this
' Letters and Papers uj Hen. V'lII. vol. iv. pt. i. p. 113.
- Survey of 1541 — Border Holds, p. 33. The entry meant is no doubt the valley of the liowmont water
entering England at Shotton.
' Surrey's challenge of battle to James IV. was 'written in the licld in Wollerhaughe 7 September,
5 o'clock in the afternoon.' Letters and Papers 0/ Hen. VIU. vol. i. p. 667.
' Cal. of State Papers, Foreign, 1558-1539, p. 77.
^ Letters and Papers of Hen. VIU. vol. iii. pt. ii. p. 886.
■' Acts of the Privy Council, vol. i. p. 343 : Letters and Papers of Hen. I'll I. vol. .v.\i. pt. i. pp. 137-13S.
' Letters and Papers of Hen. VIU. vol. iii. pt. ii. p. 1507.
' Cal. of State Papers, Foreign, 1569-1571, p. 143. ' Survey of the Border. 1541 — Border Holds, 33.
302 PARISH OF WOOLER.
propper little town,' standing 'plesentlie on an Hill,' was reported to be
'ruinous and altogether in decay. '^ Only on two occasions were troubles
of any importance reported. In 1524 one hundred 'light persons' of
Scotland set fire to five or six houses, but the inhabitants flew to arms,
and took a dozen prisoners with many geldings. The government was
proudly assured that ' for one pennyworth of hurt done by them, the Scots
received twenty pennyworth before they returned that night, although
it would not have been wonderful if they had escaped with impunity'
in view of the isolated position of the place. ^ The other incident occurred
quite at the close of the century in 1595 and led to reprisals which
disturbed the central government in London. In August of that year
some of the followers of Andrew Ker, laird of Cessford, entered Wooler
and took advantage of the parson's absence in Newcastle to steal all
his sheep and moveable goods. The unfortunate victim of this lawless
act, being unable to get redress from the authorities, took the law
into his own hands, and with the aid of some friends retaliated
by stealing an equivalent number of sheep from Cessford. The
latter threatened death to the parson for his presumption, so much
so that the poor man fled to Berwick for protection, but none
the less Cessford rode to Wooler with a company of eighty horsemen
'with trompet sownding,' killed two men there, and at a place two miles
off 'one called the Leird Baggott,' described elsewhere as Will Storey,
'and cut them all in peses.' Thus a mere border robbery developed into
a feud between the Storeys and Cessford. The former in due course
avenged their brother-in-law's death by riding into Scotland, and
seizing Cessford's shepherd 'who was the only guyd and cause of killing
their brother, and there they kylled him and cut him in peses.' Cess-
ford it seems complained to the English government, and Burleigh wrote
to Sir John Carey, deputy governor of Berwick, condemning the slaughter
of the shepherd, Jocke Dagliss, 'whiche fact her Majeste misHketh,
taketh to be verie barbarous, and seldom used among the Turckes.'
Quite undismayed by this reproof, Sir John retorted that if the govern-
ment thought that the manifold misdeeds of the Scottish marauders did
not outweigh any English reprisals, then he was willing to submit
■ Survey of the manor of Wooler, i Eliz. in possession of the earl of Tankerville — Abstracted in Lambert
MS.
- Letters and Papirs ol Hen. VIU. \ol. iv. pt. i. p. 113.
WOOLER TOWNSHIP. 3O3
himself to any punishment which her majesty miglit inflict upon him.^
Thus right down to tlie close of Elizabeth's reign it was possible for
Scots to raid England quite openly — with trumpet sounding, as the
picturesque phrase of the day had it — and borderers had to take justice
into their own hands, realizing that the government would not interfere
to protect them, and that, if it suited its policy, it would punish
them for defending their rights. It is plain, too, that the century of
border warfare, so largely the product of Tudor policy towards Scotland,
had embittered both sides, and Ehzabeth's condemnation of the mutila-
tion of the shepherd would have been more justifiable if she had
recognized that it was an act of retaliation, which if not excusable, was at
least understandable.
During the seventeenth century Wooler lay largely untouched by
the upheaval in national politics. At times the inhabitants would be
reminded of the great struggles, that were going on elsewhere, by the
passage of some armed force, or by the encamping of some detachment
on Wooler haugh. Border raids were forgotten, now that the armies
of Scotland were playing their part in English politics, a part not
altogether hostile to the wishes of Northumbrians. Thus the men of
Wooler witnessed the advance of the Scots into England in 1640, their
sympathies having been courted earher by covenanting emissaries, notably
William Carr, laird of Lochtower, who was distributing in Wooler
Hterature justifying the attitude of the Scots on August i6th, having
left the Scottish ' Declaration ' ^ with one Brediley, an innkeeper there.
Scouts were sent from Berwick to waylay him, and he was captured at
Wark just before the Scots crossed the Tweed on August 20th. ^ The
eastern wing of this invading army made for Glendale, and on August
22nd, having spent the night on Milfield plain, it made its way to
Wooler haugh, where the western wing joined it.'* An attempt by a
party from Berwick to surprise the Scots there early in the morning
failed,^ and the fact, that Berwick was in English hands, compelled them
not only to take the western route through Wooler, but likewise to hold
1 Reports of Sir John Carey to Lord Burleigh— Raine, North Durham, pp. xlv.-xU ii. ; Cal. of Border
Papers, vol. ii. pp. 36, 38.
2 This probably refers to the 'Supplication' issued by the General Assembly in 1639. as a reply to the
king's 'Large Declaration,' a pamphlet which justified his attitude towards the Scots.
3 Cal. of State Papers. Domestic, 1O40, pp. 533, 607, 614, 615.
» Cal. of State Papers, Domestic, 1640, p. 616. ' Cal. of State Papers, Domestic, 1640. p. 633.
304 PARISH OF WOOLER.
that place in some force after the main body had proceeded south-
wards. Even then the Berwick garrison strove to cut off their supphes,
and on August 24th a troop of some 80 horse under Lord Wentworth
tried to surprise the garrison left behind at Wooler. Three Scottish
cannon were seized, but the English were driven off and compelled to
abandon their captures. ^ Thus Wooler became a place of strategic
importance, as commanding the main line of communication between
the Scottish army and its base.^
After Berwick had fallen into Scottish hands, the situation was
changed. When in January, 1644, Leslie crossed the Tweed on his way
to besiege Newcastle, he chose the eastern route for his main body,
while the small royalist force in the district under Colonel Francis
Anderson retired on Wooler as its base.^ But even this was not tenable,
and on January 23rd, Anderson ha\-ing withdrawn, a Scottish division
from Kelso entered the town.^ Beyond this the troubles of the Civil
War passed Wooler by, though at the end of the Commonwealth Monk,
on his way south, took the western route, and lay in the town on
January 3rd, 1660.^
From this time till the end of the century national politics affected
the township but little, though the passing of the Test Act finds an
echo in a list of recusants of 1674, when fourteen persons were found
to come under this head in Wooler — Anne Millison, Edward Grey,
Oswald and John Garroud, George Pattison, Ralph Carre, Elizabeth
Thomson, Anne Strawhin, Elizabeth Anderson, Jane Waite, Anne Trum-
bell, EUeanor Thomson, Dorothy Alder, and Jane Hardy, while in 1677
the name of Matthew Coxon, yeoman, was added. "^ Further in 1679 the
inhabitants saw a detachment of Monmouth's army, on its way to meet
the covenanters at Bothwell Bridge, pass through their midst. '^ Of more
domestic interest was the devastating lire which swept the town on
January 24th, 1693, when fifty-four habitations, besides outhouses, corn,
' Cat. ot Stale Papers, Domestic, 1640, p. 635.
2 Troops were passing through Wooler again on October 26tli. Cal. of State Papers, Domestic, 1640-
1641, p. 200.
' Letter from Colonel Francis Anderson in Richardson's Reprints, vol. i. tract 10, pp. 9-10. Cf. Arch.
Aeliana, N.S. vol. xxi. pp. 151-152.
« John Rushworth, Historical Collections, 1618-1648 (London, 1659-17°'): vol. iii. pt. ii. p. 612. Cf. Arch.
Aeliana, N.S. vol. xxi. p. 155 ; Newcastle Anliqs. Proceedings, 3rd ser. vol. ii. p. 21.
' Cal. of State Papers, Domestic, 1659-1660, p. 597. ' Depositions from York Castle, pp. 207, 227.
' Cal. of Slate Papers, Domestic, 1679-1680, p. 37.
WOOLER TOWNSHIP. 305
etc., amounting to the value of £2,950, were destroyed.^ Fire again
visited the town in 1721, but the opportunity of rebuilding it in better
form was not taken, as a visitor in 1833 described it as 'a dirty, strag-
gling and irregular built place. It is quite neglected by Lord Tanker-
ville, who, having a French wife, totally neglects the improvement of
his English possessions. '^ Archdeacon Singleton was even less com-
plimentary in 1828, when he described it as a 'poor pothouse sort of
town.'^ On February 4th, 1863, both sides of the street for some way
down were burnt, and were rebuilt by the earl of Tankerville.*
In 1745 the Jacobite invasion passed near by. The magistrates
of the town were ordered by the rebels to provide for the quartering
of 4,000 foot and 1,000 horse for the nights of the 5th and 6th
November,^ but they were never actually required to do this, as the
Jacobites passed west of the Cheviots, though a party of 36 came
within six miles and carried off some horses.® From this time forward
Wooler ceased to be concerned in national politics, and further allusions
to it are confined to its situation as a place of resort for those
seeking health and refreshment. Thus in 1768 it was reported 'that
there is a greater number of genteel Compan}- drinking goats' whey
there this season, than has been known for many years past.'' From
the early part of the eighteenth century onwards some attempt was
made towards educating the youth of the town . In 1723 the earl of
Tankerville gave £10 a year to 'the master of the Grammar School at
Wooler,' but his successor transferred this benefaction to Chillingham,
though by 1763 Wooler was enjoying it again. About the same time
Mrs. Chisholm, a resident in the place, bequeathed £100 towards the
endowment of the schoolmaster, and in 17^9 Lord Tankerville joined
with the inhabitants in building by subscription a good school and a
house for the master.^ Thus did Wooler prepare itself for the modern
era.
' Certificate for a Brief, Newcastle Aniiqs. Proceedings, 2nd ser. vol. iii. pp. 371-372.
- Journal of John Trotter Brockett — Berwickshire Naturalists' Club, vol. xx. p. 57.
' Archdeacon Singleton's Visitations. ' Ibid.
^ Hist. MSS. Rep. Various Collections, vol. viii. p. 117. ' Ibid. vol. viii. p. 119.
' Newcastle Courant, nth June, 1768.
" Archdeacons' Church Notes, p. 121. Mrs. Chisholm was probably the wife or widow of the Rev. John
Chisholm, vicar of Wooler, who gave a silver paten to the church in 1 722. Archdeacon Singleton's Visitations.
Vol. XI. 39
306 PARISH OF WOOLER.
Descent of the Manor. — The manor of Wooler was the caput of
the barony of Muschamp/ and was held of the king in chief by the
service of four kniglits and suit at the shire court of Northumberland
at Newcastle,^ cornage of £i 7s. 6d. being due therefrom.^ It had been
conferred by Henry I. on the Muschamp family,^ the earliest member
of which, mentioned in connection with Glendale, is Ranulf ' Muscamps, '
who, in conjunction with his sister, was ordered by King Stephen to
restore certain lands pertaining to the barony in Hetherslaw, which his
brother Thomas had given to the monastery of Durham when he entered
religion there. ^ These brothers were doubtless sons of the Robert
Muschamp who about 11 18 had a dispute with Ranulph Flambard
concerning the manor of Ross in Islandshire,^ and both seem to have
died without direct heirs. Their sister Cicely succeeded to their
property, and having married Stephen Bulmer,^ left as her heir a son
Thomas, who adopted his mother's patronymic after her death, "^ and
was known as Thomas Muschamp while his father still lived. ^ Thomas
did not long outlive his mother, for Wooler is described as formerly
belonging to him in 1187,^" and his lands had been in the king's hands
and their revenues collected by the sheriff since 1182.^^ It is probable
therefore that he died about 1181, and that his son Robert was then a
minor. In iigi one Robert Muschamp paid 200 marks for his relief, ^^
but this must have been a grandson of Thomas, as in later life he
describes himself as Robert Muschamp son of Robert Muschamp. ^^ He
' Testa de Nevill — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 210.
- Cal. oj Close Rolls, 1323-1327, p. 79 ; Northumberland Assize Rolls (Surtees Soc), p. 327 ; Red Booh oj
the Exchequer, vol. ii. p. 562.
' 49 Hen. ITI. Red Book oJ the Exchequer, vol. ii. p. 713.
' Ibid. vol. ii. p. 562 ; Testa de Nevill — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 231.
' Raine, North Durham, app. No. Dcclxxx. The sister is described by the initial 'C
" Raine, North Durham, app. No. Dccxxix., Cf. p. 196. ' Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 153.
* Cicely died before 1180. Pipe Roll, 26 Hen. II. — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. 32.
" A Yorkshire charter runs, 'I, Stephen Bulmer, and Thomas Muschamp my heir,' Rievaulx Cartulary,
p. 221, No. cccxv. The charter is undated and it may belong to a period before Cicely Bulmer's death.
i» Pipe Roll, 33 Hen. II. — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. 44.
" Pipe Rolls, 28 to 32 Hen. III. — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. pp. 34, 36, 37, 41. This may mean that lie
died in 1181 or 1182 and that his son was a minor.
'- Pipe Roll, 2 Rid. — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. 51. He also paid scutage in 1195. Red Book of the
Exchequer, vol. i. p. 85. In Pipe Roll, i John (Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. 68) he is described as holding the
fee which belonged to the heirs of Stephen Bulmer. In Scuta^es, 1-12 John (Red Book of the Exchequer, vol. i.
p. 178) there is the entry ' Haeres Stephani de Bulimer modo Robertus de Muscamp, IIII. miUtes.' The early
hi-story of the Muschamp family is examined in Yorkshire Deeds, vol. ii. p. 127H.
" Liber de Metros, vol. i. p. 267.
WOOLER TOWNSHIP. 307
must therefore have been an infant when he succeeded to the property,
and he enjoyed it for nearly sixty years. ^ He held the manor in 1212,2
and again in 1239 it was doubtless the same Robert against whom
Gilbert Umfraville brought an action under the grand assize concerning
the manors of Wooler, Hethpool, Lowick and Belford,^ which was
settled in 1241 when Gilbert recognized by fine that the property
belonged to Robert in return for the nominal consideration of a sore
sparrowhawk.* In July, 1250, Robert Muschamp died 'a man of great
reputation in the northern parts of England' as one contemporary
writes,^ and was buried in the abbey of Melrose, a foundation of which
he had been a benefactor.^ With his death the male line came to an
end once more, for he left only three daughters.' The eldest Cicely
had been married to a son of Sir Odinel Ford, but they were both
now dead, and their only child Isabel Ford, aged 15 in 1254,^ was the
wife of a lad of 13 or 14 named Adam Wigton.^ The second daughter
was Margery, aged 24 in 1254, '^^'ho had married Malise, earl of Strath-
earn, and the third, Isabel, was the wife of William Huntercumbe, who
was also guardian of his niece Isabel Ford and her husband.^"
' On October 1 2th, 1 206, the lands, late of Robert Muschamp, were given in custody to the earl of Chester
until the heir was of age. {Cal. Hot. Clans, vol. i. p. 74), but this was doubtless another branch of the family,
as in 12 15 Robert's daughter Isabel and her husband Ralph Grenlegh were given seisin of Muschamp and
Ellesdon which she had inherited from her father. Cal. Rot. Claits. vol. i. p. 217.
^ Testa de Nevill — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 231. For date cf. Arch. Aeliana, N.s. vol. xxv., pp. 153, 159 ;
Red Book of the Exchequer, vol. ii. p. 562.
' De Banco Roll, 23 Hen. III. Trinity, No. 9, m. 17 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxi. p. 519.
* Pedes Finium, 25 Hen. III. No. 106 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. i. p. 220.
5 Matthew Paris, vol. v. p. 174. He died before 29th September, 1250, as on that day the king ordered
that a fine of ^100 levied on him should be paid half by his executors and half by his heirs. Excerpta e Rot.
Pin. vol. ii. p. 87.
" Chronica de Mailros, p. 17S.
' In 49 Hen. III. (1264-5) one Robert Muschamps sued Thomas Middleton for 2 carucates of land in
Wooler. Curia Regis Roll, 23-47 and 49 Hen. III. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxi. p. 367. It is not clear
who this Robert was.
' She is given as 16 in 1251. Bain, Cal. 0/ Documents, vol. i. p. 335.
» On 4th .August, 1 25 1, Isabel Ford, one of the heirs of Robert Muschamp, was fined for licence to
marry w^hom she would. Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1247-1258, p. 105 ; Excerpta e. Rot. Fin. vol. ii. p. 112. She
was then already married, as her husband is alluded to earlier in the same roll. Rot. Fin. 36 Hen. III.
Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii, p. 225. There is considerable confusion as to Adam Wigton. He is mentioned
as alive in a document of October, 1254 (Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. i. p. 372), but in another document
of October, 1251, Isabel is described as widow of Adam Wygeton. Jbid. vol. i. p. 337. The licence to marry
must have been granted after Adam's death, or may be a' licence granted after an unlicenced marriage. It
would seem that the extent of 1251 {[bid. vol. i. p. 334) was taken because her husband had died. For the
family of Wigton see A ncestor, vol. iii. pp. 73-80.
'" Inq. p.m. 39 Hen. III. No. 40 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. i. p. 372, and Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. i.
p. 51 ; Rot. Fin. 35 Hen. III. m. i— Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. i. p. 332, and Excerpta e. Rot. Fin. vol. ii.
pp. 90-91.
PARISH OF WOOLER
MUSCHAMP OF WOOLER.
Matthew Paris (Chron. Mas- vol. vi. p. 475) blasons for Robert Mus-
champ the canting arms " sail urn d'azitr el tres muschetz d'or " an
adaptation to armorial charges of the flies {muscarum campus) on
the seal of Thomas Muschamp. (PI. II. No. 9.) This must have
been an earUer shield of Robert who died A.D. 1250 and whose
seal (pi. II No. 4) shows the two bars and a chief blasoned gold
two bars and a chief gules. (Glover's Ordinary.)
Robert Muschamp (,aa).
Thomas Muschamp became
a monk at Durham (a).
Ranulf Muschamp (a), died
s.p. before 1154.
Stephen Bulmer = Cicely, died before
(i). i 1180(c).
Matilda =Robert Muschamp (66)
(66). died 1191 (cc).
William Muschamp (y).
Matilda =
(ee).
■■ Thomas Muschamp,
died 1 181 (d).
Gilia (66)= William Fitz-
john (66).
Odinel Ford, knight.
Richard Ford, knight (/)
Robert Muschamp, (') =Isabel, Uving;
died 1250 (e). 1269 (gg).
-■ (2) Richard Morin (i) died
circa 1269 {gg).
Stephen Mus-
champ [y).
I I
' Odinel Ford (k)
died before
1250 (A).
I I
Cicely, died Margery [h] =Malise, earl
before 1250 died 1254, ; of Strat-
(A). aged 24. i hearn.
William Muschamp,
living between 1256
and 1269, when his
father was dead (z) .
I
Adam Wigton, = Isabel Ford,
died i?5i, died s.p.
aged 13 or 14 1254, aged
(g). 15 (?)■
I I
Muriel, aged 10 in=Wilham, earl Margery (A), a/tas Mary, = Nicholas
1255 (/;); dieds.^.
November, 1291
(v).
Mar, died
before May,
I29I.(/).
aged 6 in 1255
died 1 8th October,
1322 (0).
Graham,
died 1306
(«).
I
John Graham, aged 28 in 1306 [n] ; died s.p. before 1315 (m).
I
died probably before 1271 (r).
Isabel, aged 24 in 1255 (A);— William Huntercumbe married by 1243 {p)
living 1271 (w). T
Walter Huntercumbe= Ellen, alias Alice, Gunora (u). =f Richard NeubauJ.
((j), succeeded to daughter and one of 1
mother's estate be- heirs of Hugh Bol- ]
fore 1279 (dd); died beck (s) ; survived >ficholas, took name of Huntercumbe, = Joan, mentioned as
5.^.1313(5). her husband (/). (a;), aged 30 or more in 131 3 (f). widow of Nicholas
Huntercumbe, in
1343 iff)-
(a) Raine, North Durham, app. No. dcclxxi.
(6) Hodgson, pt. iii. vol ii. p. 153.
(c) Pipe Roll, 26 Hen. II. — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii.
P- 32-
(rf) Pip! Roll. 28 Hen. II. — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii.
p. 3) ; Red Booh of Exchequer, vol i. p. 17S.
(e) Raine, North Durham, p. 266 ; F.xcerpta e Rot.
Fin. vol. ii. p. 87.
(/) Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. i. p. 375.
(g) Ibid. vol. i. pp. 372, 375. 337. Isabel is stated
elsewhere to be aged i6 in 1251. Ibid. vol.
i. p. 335.
(A) Ibid. vol. i. p. 332, 372.
(!) Northumberland Assize Rolls (Surtee.'; Soc), p. 7.
(t) Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. i. p. 92.
(/) Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. ii. p. iii.
WOOLER TOWNSHIP.
309
(»n) In March, 1315, the inheritance was sold without
mention of John. Cal. Patent Rolls, 1313-
1317, p. 261.
(n) Cal. 0/ Inq. p.m. vol. iv. p. 238.
(0) Ibid. vol. vi. n. 350.
(/>) Curia Regis Roll, Xo. 133 — Duke's Transcripts,
vol. XX'. p. 245.
(i^) Assise Roll, 21 l^dw. I. — Duke's Transcripts,
vol. xviii. p. 53.
(r) Patent Roll 55 Hen. III. m. 2odo. — Bain, Cal. 0/
Documents, vol. i. p. 520.
(s) C9I. oj Inq. p.m. vol. v. p. 225.
(() Cal. of Fine Rolls, 1307-1319, pp. 175, 183.
(m) De Banco Roll, No. 131, m. 11 — Duke's Tran-
scripts, vol. .xwiii. p. 509.
(v) Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. v. p. 224.
(w) Cal. of Fine Rolls, 1307-131Q, pp. 175, 183.
Stevenson, Scottish Documents, vol. i. p. 230.
Raine, North Durham, app. No. dcclxvii.
Ihid. No. DCLX.xx Richard Morin was one o£
the witnesses,
(aa) Mentioned circa 1 1 18 in connexion with the
manor of Ross. Ibid. No. Dccxxix. His
relationship to Thomas, Ranulf and Cicely
is conjectural.
Liber de Metros, vol. i. pp. 206, 200, 267.
Pipe Roll, 2 Ric. I.— Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii.
P- 5i-
Percy Chartulary, No. dclvii., p. 233.
Raine, North Durham, app. No. dcclxix. p. 136.
Local .Muniments — Arch. Aeliana, n.s. vol. xxv.
p. 67.
(gg) Northumberland Assize Rolls (Surtees Soc).
p. 138.
(y)
m
{cc)
(dd)
(ee)
iff)
The division of the Muschamp inheritance between the three co-
heiresses evidently caused some trouble, as four years later, when
matters had been complicated by the deaths of Isabel Ford and her
husband, a special inquisition was ordered to discover what lands had
been held by the late Robert Muschamp. From the extent thus drawn
up, which unfortunately is badly mutilated, some idea is obtainable of
the holdings of the barony in general and those of the manor in par-
ticular. It would seem that the Muschamps had kept in their own hands
lands in W'ooler with Cheviot, Hethpool, Lowick, Bowsden, Branxton
and other places not in Glendale, while subinfeudating the rest of their
lands. Sir Odinel Ford, the Lady Rametta, William the sheriff of Akeld
and Robert of Outchester, each held one knight's fee, Robert Manners
and William of Stainsby each held half a fee, Robert of Heddon, James
Houburn and WiUiam Muschamp each held the fourth of one, Henry of
Dichend held the fourth and the sixteenth of one, Robert Marshall held
the fifth of one, Sampson Fitz-Stephen held the sixteenth of one, William
of Yerdhill and ]\Iatilda Sarp held half a carucate of land in Wooler
for the thirtieth of a fee, William of Hexham held a carucate of
land for a thirtieth of a fee also, and Adam Sharp held a carucate for a
thirtieth of a fee likewise. All these owed suit of court and rendered
cornage, scutage, and fine of the county. In addition to the above
Carinus of Belford held a carucate by the service of the twelfth of a
knight's fee, and William Hunter held a similar amount of land in
Wooler for the twenty-fourth of a knight's fee, seemingly without
other service.^ If Robert still owed no more than his service of four
' Inq. p.m. 39 Hen. III. No. 40 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. i. 372. The inquisition without the extent
is given in Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. i. p. 51, and Ford Tithe Case, p. 222.
310 PARISH OF WOOLER.
knights to the king, it is obvious that he had subinfeudated his land to
great advantage, for he drew scutage for more than six and a half fees
from the tenants, quite apart from the land which he had retained in
his own hands. So far as Wooler itself is concerned, apart from several
small holdings subinfeudated, as mentioned above, the jurors reported
that the 'burgh' of Wooler returned yearly a fixed rent of £2 i6s. lod.
while toll and stallages together with pleas of court were worth yearly
£4. The demesne consisted of 220 acres of meadow, worth I2d. an
acre yearly and 20 acres of meadow worth i8d. an acre yearly, and the
garden was returned as worth los. yearly. The water mill brought in
£5 a year, and in addition to this there were certain freeholders whose
rents totalled 2s. lofd. a year. Altogether this brought in an annual
income of £24 19s. 8|d., and added to this, and included in the Wooler
possessions, was the free forest of Cheviot, whereof the herbage and
pasturage with attachments were worth on an average 10 marks a year.
His total income from Wooler is therefore given as £31 13s. o|d. ^
The share of this inheritance which fell to Isabel Ford was only
hers for four years at the utmost. In 1251 it was recorded that her
inheritance in Wooler consisted of a moiety of the capital messuage,
32 acres of arable in demesne worth i8d. an acre and 8 acres of meadow
each worth 2od., 3^ bovates of defensible ^ land worth 40s., the third
part of the mill and the burgh, each worth 40s., and a third of the
garden worth 4s. together with the advowson of the church.^ The
extent of her lands after her death, taken March 20th, 1255, corres-
ponds almost exactly with this estimate, save that the rent of the
burgh is given as i8s., and the value of the garden as 4od., while there
is an added item of toll and market valued at i8s. She died childless,
her youthful husband having predeceased her, and her heirs were her
aunt, Isabel Huntercumbe, whose age was given as 24, and her two
cousins, daughters of the now deceased Margery, countess of Strathearn,
Muriel aged 10 and Margery aged 6.* It therefore became necessary
to divide this third part of the inheritance into two parts, the first falling
' Iitq. p.m. 39 Hen. III. No. 40 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. i. pp. 370-371.
- That is geldable or taxable.
' Inq. p.m. 35 Hen. III. No. 41^ — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. i. p. 334, and Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. i. p. 54.
* Inq. p.m. 39 Hen. III. No. 40 — Bain, Call of Documents, vol. i. p. 375 ; Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. i. p. 92
Ford Tithe Case, p. 223.
WOOLER TOWNSHIP. 3II
to William Huntercumbe and his wife Isabel, the other to Muriel and
Margery.^ Save that the advowson of the church was assigned wholly
to Muriel and Margery, the division, so far as Wooler was concerned,
was an exact halving of all the possessions. ^ Muriel and Margery were
wards of the crown by reason of their age, but for a fine of £ioo, or
15 marks of gold, their father secured the custody and marriage of his
daughters and the custody of the moiety of Isabel Ford's lands falling
to them in heritage.^
The portion of the Muschamp inheritance, which fell to Muriel, did
not comprise much land in Wooler, for though she held a fourth of the
whole, she only possessed 6 bovates of land in the capital township
which brought her in £6 a year."* She married William, earl of Mar,
who died in the early part of 1291,^ and was followed to the grave by
his wife before the end of that same year.^ There being no issue of
their marriage, this fourth part of the barony passed to the countess of
Mar's sister Margery, or Mary as she was always henceforth named in
official documents, and her husband Nicholas Graham.' Thus the
barony was now divided into two halves.
The Graham moiety. — The moiety of the barony held by Nicholas
and Mary Graham comprised in Wooler the capital messuage ^ with
60 acres of arable and 12 acres of meadow, divers bondmen
holding 60 acres of arable and rendering 65s. a year, and divers free
tenants of the borough rendering 28s. a year, a market every Thursday,
a water mill, a bakehouse and divers foreign free tenants rendering I4d.
and one pound of cummin. ^ Nicholas was a Scot,^" and joined
1 Excerpta e Rot. Fin. vol. ii. p. 207 ; Bain. Cal. of Documents, vol. i. p. 380 ; Ford Tithe Case. p. 224
* Inq. p.m. 35 Hen. III. No. 40 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. i. pp. 376-379. .\t the end of the award
it is recorded ' This partition was made soon after the death of Robert de Muscamp by consent of his heirs,
viz., the earl of Stratherne. William de Huntercumbe and .\dam de Wyghetone. .^nd the (present) partition
was made on Monday next before the feast of St. Mark Evangelist, by Sir W. de Muscamp, &-t.' Ibid.
vol. i. p. 379.
» Excerpta e Rot. Fin. vol. ii. p. 207; Pipe Roll, 40 Hen. III. — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. i. p. 392.
' Inq. p.m. 20 Edw. I. No. 26 — Stevenson, Scottish Documents, vol. i. p. 258 ; Compotus Thomae de
Normanville — Stevenson, Scottish Documents, vol. i. p. 230.
5 Close Roll, 19 Edw. I. m. 6 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. ii. p. m ; Stevenson, Scottish Documents,
vol. i. p. 230.
* Fine Roll, 19 Edw. I. m. I — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. ii. pp. III.
' Inq. p.m. 20 Edw. I. No. 26 — Stevenson, Scottish Documents, vol. i. p. 258.
' There was a principle of law that a barony was technically indivisible though the lands pertaining
thereto were, and that the caput also could not be divided. This seems to have held good here, though
there is no evidence in the former divisions that the caput had not been di\-ided, but it is to be noticed
that the advowson was not divided.
' Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. iv. p. 237.
'" He is described as 'of Scotland' in 1302. Cal. of Palent Rolls, 1301-1307, p. 100.
312 PARISH OF WOOLER.
the cause of Bruce, whereupon the moiety of the barony was forfeited
to the crown and granted in 1300 to Isabel, widow of John Vescy, the
elder, in recompense for services to Eleanor, the late queen consort. ^
This John Vescy had acquired in 1283 from Henry Scot of Newcastle a
portion of the demesne garden in the vill of Wooler, together with one
bovate of land from the demesne and 52 acres of land elsewhere in the
township, which Henry in turn had received from Walter Huntercumbe
in 1279.2 At his death in 1299 he possessed land yielding £4 17s. 4d.
a year in Wooler, which had been assigned in its entirety to Isabel
Huntercumbe in dower,^ so that for a short time his widow was a large
landowner in the township,* but Nicholas Graham had secured the restora-
tion of his wife's inheritance before his death in 1306. ^ On June
14th, 1306, the king's escheator was ordered .to give Mary seisin of
her heritage for which she had done homage.^ John, son of Nicholas
and Mary, was heir presumptive to his mother's property,'^ but after his
death Mary made provision for the descent of her lands by entailing
' June 7th, 1300. Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1292-1301, p. 513; Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. ii. p. 291 ;
Cal. of Close Rolls, 1288-1296, pp. 16-17.
= Percy Chartulary, Nos. dclvii., dccii., pp. 233, 259. The second document is undated, but the witnesses
are the same as those of No. dccvi., p. 260, which is dated nth January, 1283.
' Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. ii. pp. 445, 446.
'' The Vesci lands in Wooler were acquired by the Percies in 1324, when Gilbert Aton granted to Henry
Percy the reversion of 4 messuages, 12 bovates of land and a third part of a mill in Wooler and lands in
Trasterton, held in chief, after the death of Isabel Vescy, who held them in dower for life of the inheritance
of the grantor. (Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1321-1324, p. 435; Percy Chartulary, Nos. Dccxiv., dccxvii., pp. 263,
265; Originalia, 17 Edw. II. Rot. 35 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 299). Ten years later these lands, now
described as a toft and five bovates of land in Wooler, were formally settled on Henry in tail male, after the
death of Isabel who still held them in dower. (Cat. of Patent Rolls, 1334- 1338, p. 30 ; Percy Chartulary, Nos.
D.xxin., DLXii., DccLxviii., pp. 171-173, 188-190, 300-301 ; Pedes Finium, g Edw. III. No. 40 — Duke's
Transcripts, vol. xxxix. pp. 89-90). When Henry Percy died in 1346, he held in capite 5 bovates of land in
Wooler of which two were assessed for purposes of taxation at 20 shillings per annum, the other three lying
fallow and waste, the herbage being worth 3s. 4d. yearly. [Inq. p.m. 21st March, 20 Edw. III.— Hartshorn,
Antiquities, vol. ii. App. p. cxxx). His son and successor, another Henry, died seised of the land in 1352
[Inq. p.m. 26 Edw. III. No. 52a — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 77), and in 1353 Henry, Lord Percy, leased all
his lands, tenements and rents in Wooler for 20 years at a yearly rent of 4od. to Sir John Coupland, who had
recently acquired a moiety of the manor from Sir John Lilburn. (Percy Chartulary, No. Dccxxi., pp. 340-341.)
This lease had not run its course when Henry Percy 'le Piere' died in 1368 (Inq.'p.m. 42 Edw. III. No. 48 —
Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 84), and the Wooler lands were given to his widow Joan in dower out of the inheri-
tance of the younger Henry, his son and heir. (Cal. of Close Rolls, 1364-1368, pp. 438-439, Cf. Inq. p.m.
43 Edw. III. part ii. No. 16 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 85, where Joan is described as co-heiress of Tatershale,
and her holding is erroneously described as Wooler manor). This small holding of a toft and five bovates of
land was in the hands of the earl of Northumberland in 1460. (Inq. p.m. 38 Hen. VI. No. 37 — Hodgson,
pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 276).
* Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. iv. p. 237. Nicholas Graham received back his lands in Scotland by order
dated May loth, 1304, as then he 'had been long in the king's peace.' Cal. of Close Rolls, 1302-1307, p. 138.
" Close Roll, 34 Edw. I. m. 11 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. ii. p. 479. This order states that Mary
had been in conjoint fee with her husband, but the inquisition on Nicholas's death distinctly states that he
and his wife were never jointly enfeoffed nor held the barony in marriage. Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. iv, p. 238.
' Cal. of Inq. p.n\. vol, iv. pp. 237-238.
WOOLER TOWNSHIP. 3I
-5
them in 1315 on Nicholas Meinill, Lord of Whorlton' and the heirs of
his body, and, faihng such issue, on Nicholas, son of Lucy daughter of
Robert Twenge, and the heirs of his body, with remainder to the right
heirs of Nicholas Meinill.- Nicholas, son of Lucy, was the illegitimate
son of Nicholas Meinill, who in 1305 had carried off the lady from her
lawful husband, William Latimer. The latter unsuccessfully prosecuted
his rival on a charge of having procured rufhans to kill him.^ Lucy
managed to secure the excommunication of her husband in the following
November, and she seems to have defied all his attempts to get her back.
In 1307 she and her lover were cited by the archbishop of York to
answer a charge of adultery, while in 1309 she was accused of renewed
adultery and incest, and both parties were heavily lined.* Lucy later
married Robert Everingham, who died in 1316.5 Nicholas Meinill never
came into the property, as he died on 26th April, 1321, whereas Mary
survived him by some sixteen months and died i8th October, 1322.
Nicholas son of Lucy, or Nicholas Meinill as he came to be called,*' was
already in possession of the property,' of which he died seised in 1341,
leaving an only daughter Elizabeth, aged nine, as his heiress.^ It was
taken into the king's hands, but in April, 1342, it was restored to Nicholas's
widow Alice. 3 In the following May the wardship of Elizabeth Meinill
was claimed by the archbishop of Canterbury, who appeared ' before the
chancellor, justices and others of the council,' and pleaded that as Nicholas
was his tenant for certain lands, the law gave him the custody of them
during the minority of the heir, even if other lands were held by the
same tenant of the king. The king's Serjeants argued on the other
side that in the case of minors who held some lands in chief and some
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1340- 1343, p. 39S. For descent of Meinill see Clay, Extinct and Dormant Peerages
oj the Xorthern Counties, (London, 1913), pp. 135-136-
2 Inq. A.Q.D. 8 Edw. II. No. 147 — Ford Tithe Case, pp. 227-228 ; Pedes Finium, 8 Edw. II. Xo. 33 —
Duke's Transcripts, vol. xii. pp. 54-55. The licence for this was granted by the king to Nicholas Meinill
for a fine of ;£io, 14th March, 1315. Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1313-1317, p. 261 ; Ford Tithe Case, p. 228.
^ Cartularium Prioratiis de Gyseburne, ed. W. Brown, 2 vols. (Surtees Society, 86 and 89), vol. i., pp.
126-129.
■• Register of Archbishop Greenfield, i. 32do. cited ibid, vol. ii. p. x.\. (Introduction), and in W. D. Dixon.
Fasti Eboracenses, ed. J. Raine, (London, 1863), vol. i. p. 377.
' Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. v. p. 376. * Ibid.
' Cat. of Inq. p.m. vol. vi. p. 350 ; Close Rolls, 1323-1327, p. 79.
» Ca/. o//h?. /j.iH. vol. viii. pp. 237-238. Elizabeth was born 15th October, 5 Edw. Ill Proof of Age —
Dep. Keeper's Rep. vol. iv. app. II. p. 131. The lands were taken into the king's hands zoth November,
1341. Cal. of Fine Rolls, vol. v. p. 256.
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1340- 1343, pp. 398-399.
Vol. XI. 40
314 PARISH OF WOOLER.
not, the whole fell to the custody of the king, but 'an inspection of the
chancery rolls for the times alleged by the archbishop,' revealed 'that
the archbishops were seised of the custodies as alleged, and tlie right
of his church in the matter (was made) apparent by this and by other
evidences and reasons ;' so the king's hand was moved from the
custody in question, which was restored to the archbishop.^ It
would seem that the moiety had been leased before Nicholas's death
to John Darcy, son of John Darcy of Knaith,^ who after the death of
Alice put in a claim on his own account, for in July, 1344, Elizabeth
daughter of Nicholas, son of Lucy, through her guardian, brought
a successful action against him for holding the moiety contrary to the
terms of the entail,^ and it was taken into the king's hands till the
heiress should come of age.^ In the following October it was ordered
that thenceforth the moiety was to be administered, not by the escheator,
but by special agents of the king's chamber, and all orders with regard
to it were to be issued under the special seal called 'Giuffon.'^
Henceforth the title of Elizabeth Meinill was undisputed, and John
Darcy was quick to adapt himself to the circumstances, for he secured
from the crown a lease of the moiety, saving knight's fees and advow-
sons, for the duration of Elizabeth's nonage at a rent of £40 per annum,
the letters patent confirming this being duly issued under the king's
seal called 'Griffon.''* To make things doubly sure he determined to
marry the heiress herself, and he appears as her husband for the first
time in 1353, when the moiety, including the advowson of the hospital
of St. Mary Magdalene, was entailed on John Darcy, knight, and
Elizabeth his wife and the heirs of their bodies, with remainder to the
king and his heirs. '^ Three years later Darcy died, and Elizabeth was
left once more in sole possession of her inheritance,* but she had
married again bv August ist, 1360, when Peter Mauley is described as
' Cal. of Close Rolls, 1341-1343, pp. 521-523. - Cal. of Fine Rolls, vol. v. p. 379.
' P.R.O. Chancery Miscellanea, l)undle 72, File I, No. 12. C(. County Placita, Noiihiinihciland. 18
Edw. III. No. 28 — Ford Tithe Case, p. 230 ; Duke's Transcripts, vol. x.^ii. pp. 45-48.
* Cal. of Fine Rolls, vol. v. p. 379. ' Cal. of Close Rolls, 1 343- 1346, p. 42O.
'■ Inspe.ximus and confirmation dated 15th June. 1345. Cal. oj Patent Rolls, 1343-1345, p. 485.
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1350-1354, pp. 439-440 ; Pedes Finium, 27 Edw. III. No. 492B — Duke's Tran-
scripts, vol. xxxix. pp. 483-487. For pedigree of Darcy see A'.C.W., vol. v, p. 411. Cj. Clay, Extinct and
Dormant Peerages of the Northern Counties fl-ondon, 1913), pp. 41-42.
' Cal. of Close Rolls, 1354-1360, p. 261.
WOOLER TOWNSHIP. 315
her husband.^ In July, 1368, Elizabeth herself died, her propert}' in
Wooler and Cheviot being valued at £26 13s. 46..,^ and in 1370, Peter Mauley
being also dead, the guardianship of her son Philip Darcy, together with
the custody of his inheritance, was committed by the king to Sir William
I^atimer, in return for an annual payment of £94 is. 8d., of which forty
marks was for the moiety of Wooler and Cheviot. Knights' fees,
adx'owsons, reliefs, wardships, and goods of felons were reserved to the
crown. Latimer was to keep the houses and other buildings on the
estate in proper repair, and he was to be allowed out of the estate
forty marks a year for the sustenance of Philip and his sister Alice. ^
Philip duly came to man's estate, but he lived in troublous times, and
when he died in 1399 his estate in Wooler was returned as of no value,
as it had been wasted by the Scots. His widow, Elizabeth, received as
her dower in Wooler 3 bovates of demesne land and meadow, 8 acres
of arable land with half the mill which was waste, and half the
burgage firms and half the tolls together with half a wood there called
'le Hot.'* She survived till 1412, by which time her son John had
died, and her grandson Philip, a lad of 15 or 20, had succeeded to
the property, which had recovered somewhat, for the dower lands in
Wooler now brought in 13s. 4d. a year instead of nothing.^ Before his
death John, who was described as 'Lord of Darcy and Meinill,' had
conveyed his estates to Thomas Darcy of Semer and others, with the
view of entailing them, but he died before this was accomplished, and
it was not until October, 1413, that they were settled on his son Philip
Darcy, knight, and Eleanor, his wife, and the heirs of their bodies, with
remainder to the right heirs of Philip.^ The last named died while still
' Assize Rolls, Divers Counties, 34-40 Edw. III. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xx. p. 545. It is to be noted
that in the accounts of the Feudal .\id of 1346 it is recorded that £8 was received from 'Peter Maul and
Elizabeth his wife and John Coupland iit de jure of the said Elizabeth for four knight's fees, which persons
held the whole barony of Muschamp.' Cal. of Feudal Aids, vol. iv. p. 64. Peter Maul is obviously Peter
Mauley — he is so described elsewhere in the same record. John Coupland, named as holding the other
moiety, did not acquire it till 1351, so it is obvious that tlie aid of 1346 was not collected till between 1360
when Peter Mauley married Elizabeth and 1305 when John Coupland died. See page 3JI.
- P.K.O. Chancery, Inq. p.m. File 3O5, 15,
'Rot. Fin. 44 Edw. III. m. 10 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxii. pp. 121-123. In an inquisition of
4 Hen. VII. Philip is erroneously said to have been brother and heir of John Darcy. Cal. of Inq. p.m. (second
series), vol. i. p. 187.
' Inq. p.m. 22 Itic. II. No. 17 — Ford Tithe Case, pp. 230-231, and Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxviii. pp.
331-332, 336.
' Inq. p.m. 13 Hen. IV. No. 35 — Ford Tithe Case, pp. 231-232. Elizabeth's late husband is printed as
Thomas, but this is a mistake for Pliihp. See the extract from the Cal. of Inq. p.m. in Hodg.'^on, pt. iii.
vol. ii. p. 2O7.
'' Cal. ol Patent Rolls, 140S-1413, p. 440.
3l6 PARISH OF WOOLER.
under age and in tlie wardship of the crown, and his widow Eleanor
had to wait some time before dower was assigned to her.^ He left two
co-heiresses, Elizabeth, who married Sir James Strangways and Margery
who married Sir John Conyers,^ and between them the moiety was
divided.
Margery Conyers lived till 1469, holding her moiety of the moiety
in joint fee with her husband, and after her death Sir John remained
in sole possession till his death in 1490, having survived his eldest son
John. The property, having been entailed in 1469, devolved on Sir John's
grandson, William Conyers, but it was in no flourishing state at that time
as Scottish ravages had again reduced its value. ^ To whom this property
ultimately passed remains a matter of conjecture. In 1575 a certain
William Waller purchased a third part of the manors of Wooler and
Belford from John Jackson and Asculphus Clesbie,* and it may be that
this is the Conyers inheritance in whole or part, as the male line of
the family had come to an end with John, third Lord Conyers, who
died in 1557 leaving four co-heiresses.^ Waller was probably a specu-
lator in land, for he sold the Belford part of this property two 3'ears
later,^ but what he did with his Wooler lands is not known. The
history of the other half of the moiety is also to some extent obscure.
It did not descend to Sir Richard Strangways, son and heir of Sir
James Strangways, who died in 1488,'^ but his son, Sir James Strang-
ways, seems to have leased the manors of Wooler and Lowick and lands
in Wooler, Lowick and Cheviot in 15 19 to Thomas Forster, who later
transferred the lease to Nicholas Houburne, the rent being £14 a year,
only half payable in time of war between England and Scotland.^ On
December 28th, 1540, Sir James Strangways, grandson of the above named
' Inq. p.m. 7 Hen. V. No. 78 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 268 ; County Placita, Northumberland, 10 Hen.
v. No. 13 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxii. pp. 217-218, 220.
' Inq. p.m. 32 Hen. VI. No. 15 — Ford Tithe Case, p. 237. Elizabeth was aged 36 or more and Margery
32 or more in 1454. Eleanor, widow of Philip, died in 1456-7. Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 277.
' Cal. of Inq. p.m. (second series), vol. i. p. 260. In 1480 the manors of Wooler. Lowick, etc., were held
by Thomas Grey together with Sir James Strangways and Sir John Conyers. P.R.O. Chancery Inq. p.m.
Edw. IV. File 75.
■■ Feet oj Fines, sixteenth century, pp. 134-135.
' Clay, Fxtinct and Dormant Peerages of the Northern Counties (London, 1913), p. 35.
" N.C.H., vol. V. p. 391. ' Cal. of Inq. p.m. (second series), vol. i. p. iig.
* P.R.O. Miscellaneous Books Exchequer K.K., vol. 38, fols. 60-63. The term of the lease is here stated
to be 61 years, but in P.R.O. Augmentation Office, Particulars for grants. No. 2392, it is given as 100 years.
WOOLER TOWNSHIP. 317
Sir James,! obtained a royal licence to alienate a moiety of the manor of
Wooler and of the forest of Cheviot, together with the manor of
Lowick, to William, Lord Dacre and Greystoke, and his heirs,^ and a
fine to this effect was duly levied in Hilary Term, 1541.^ This was
followed almost immediately by the death of Sir James, whereupon his
heirs put in a claim to his property on the plea that it was entailed.
These were his cousin Robert Ross, son of Sir James's aunt Mary, and
his other aunt Joan and her husband Sir William Mauleverer."* After
some delay the matter was referred for settlement to the king, who in
1543 divided up the inheritance between the various claimants, appor-
tioning the Wooler and Lowick lands in dower to Dame Elizabeth
Strangways, widow of Sir James, with reversion to Robert Ross,^ who
entered on the inheritance in 1545.*' This Robert was a spendthrift
and soon alienated his property," the reversion of his moiet}' in Wooler
and Lowick being sold in 1571, before his grandmother's death, to
Christopher Lepton.^ It would seem that Elizabeth, widow of Sir James
Strangways, and her third husband, Francis Nevill, tried to treat the
moiety (called in each case the manor), which was Elizabeth's dower,
as a fee simple, for it was the subject of a fine in 1564 between them
and Leonard Dacre, son of the Lord Dacre who had tried to buy the
moiety from Sir James Strangways,^ with warrant against Francis and
Elizabeth and their heirs for ever.^" Moreover the conveyance, for a
time at any rate, held good, for when Leonard Dacre was outlawed for
high treason and his lands were forfeited to the crown for participa-
' For the Strangways descent see Complete Peerage (new edition), vol. iv. p. 68.
" Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII. vol. xvi. p. 176.
' Feet o/Fin(fs, sixteenth century, p. 125. Arecordof some thirty years later states, that on 22nd January,
1541, the manor of Lowick with lands in Wooler and Cheviot had been granted to Sir James Strangways for
life, with remainder to his direct heirs, and. failing such issue, remainder in tail male to Leonard Dacre,
George Dacre and Edward Dacre successively, and in default of such issue to William, Lord Dacre. and
his heirs. P. R.O. .\ugmentation t)ffice. Particulars for grants, Xo. 2,392.
' Yorkshire .4rck. Journal, vol. vii. p. 490 ; Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII. vol. xix. pt. i. pp. 13-14.
The record as printed in Letters and Papers makes Mary and Joan sisters and not aunts of Sir James, i.e.
daughters of Sir James Strangways's father (not grandfather as in Yorks. Arch. Journal) of Sir James,' the
late holder of the moiety. That the version in Yorks. Arch. Journal is correct is proved b\' P.R.O. L.T.R.
Memoranda Roll, 545. Easter 10 James I. m. 251.
5 Act of Parliament not on the KoUs. Yorks. Arch. Journal, vol. vii. pp. 491-492 ; Letters and Papers
of Hen. VIII. vol. xix. pt. i. pp. 13-14 : P.R.O. L.T.R. Memoranda Roll, 545, Easter 10 James L m. 25 j.
" Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII. vol. x.x. pt. i. p. 58. ~ See N.C.H. vol. v. p. 412.
' Feet of Fines, sixteenth century, p. 20.
» Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII. vol. xix. pt. i. pp. 13-14. For Dacre descent see Clay, F..\tincl and
Dormant Peerages of the Northern Counties (London, 1913), pp. 36-39.
10 pi,gi yj Pines, sixteenth century, p. 1 29.
3l8 PARISH OF WOOLER.
tion in the Rebellion of the North, the manor of Lowick, with lands in
Wooler and Cheviot were granted in 1571 to the queen's cousin, Lord
Hunsdon, who had been responsible for tlie defeat of Dacre's rising,
with reservation of the life interest to Lad> Elizabeth Brandon, now
the wife of Christopher Nevill.^ Doubtless Dacre had never entered on
these lands, though Robert Ross had had to meet an action concerning
the moiety bought against him by Christopher Lascelles,^ who being a
friend and political associate of Dacre, may well have based what right
he claimed on some grant from him. At any rate the conveyance from
Ross to Lepton held good, for in 1586 the latter sold i messuage, i
cottage, 2 gardens and land in Wooler to Richard Forster,^ while the
Lowick and Cheviot lands were disposed of elsewhere. Whether the
property thus sold was the whole of the original Strangways share of
the moiety, cannot be affirmed, but in any case there is no further
mention of either Lepton or Forster as landowners in the township. It
is obvious, however, that as the Greys owned the whole manor at
a subsequent date,* they must have acquired this moiety probably
somewhere about this time.
The moiety of Isabel Huniercumbe. — Isabel, third daughter of
Robert Muschamp, inherited, as we have seen a third of the barony
of Muschamp from her father, and by the death without heirs of her
niece Isabel Ford, her share was increased to one lialf.^ She had
married William Huntercumbe before her father's death, and in 1243,
with her husband, had sued her father to compel him to keep an
agreement made between them in the matter of four knight's fees in
Wooler, Lowick, Heathpool and Belford.^ William seems to have died
before March, 1721, when we find his son, Walter,' bringing an action
of no\el disseisin with regard to tenements in Wooler, Lowick, Hethers-
law and Branxton against Isabel Muschamp, probably his mother.^
' p. K.O. Augmentation CJIlice, Particulars jor grants. No. Zi<)i\ P.K.O. Miscellaneous Books, Exchequer
K.R. vol. 38, fols. 60-03. Lady Elizabeth Brandon was Sir James strangways widow. Col. of Border Papers,
vol. i. p. 16. Christopher is probably a mistake for Francis Nevill.
- P.R.O. Chancery Proceedings, second series, 1558-1571, cxv. 29.
' Feet of Fines, sixteenth century, p. 52. ^ See page 325. '' See pages 310-311.
" Curia Regis Roll, No. 133, 28 Hen. III. Easter — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxi. p. 245. Cf. P.R.O. De
Banco Roll, 28 Hen. HI. No. n, m. 13.
' Assize Roll, 21 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xviii. p. 53.
" Patent Roll, 55 Hen. HI. m. 2odo — Bain, Cal. 0'' Documents, vol. i. p. 529, The document cannot be
traced on the Patent Kull cited.
WOOLER TOWNSHIP. 319
Walter enjoyed his mother's heritage till his death in 1313. He was
granted free warren in his demesne lands in 1291/ and during the
Quo Warranto proceedings he claimed not only this but free chase in
Wooler and Cheviot, and waif, infangenthef, gallows, market, pillory,
tumbrel and the assize of bread and beer in Wooler, together with
the goods of felons condemned in the baronial court there. ^ Walter
was a man of importance in his day, and played a considerable part
in the Scottish wars, being employed to organize the commissariat, to
raise men in Northumberland, and to command troops on minor expedi-
tions.^ For a time he was given the custody of the Isle of Man,* and
from October, 1296, to November, 1298, he was keeper of the castle of
Edinburgh.^ In December, 1298, he alienated his capital messuage in
Wooler with his whole demesne, as well arable land as meadow, to
Walter Burdon,^ but this was probably only for purposes of regrant,
as was undoubtedly his alienation of the moiety of the manor to Alan
his chaplain in 1306.' At his death in 1313 he held the moiety of the
manor of Wooler and one twentieth of a knight's fee therein of which
William Dring was sub-tenant,^ this last being set aside as dower for his
widow Ellen or, as she is sometimes called, Alice. ^ His heir was his
nephew Nicholas Neubaud, who at once took the name of Huntercumbe.^"
Nicholas was evidently something of a spendthrift, for there are several
notices of his debts, one being of a sum of £600, and another of 1,000
marks, ^1 and he mortgaged his manor of Chillingham for 200 marks to
Thomas Heton.^'^ It would seem that financial embarrassment is the
explanation of an elaborate settlement agreed to by Nicholas and Sir
' Cat. of Chatter Rolls, 1257-1300, p. 382.
^ Assize Rott, 21 Edw. I. and Assize Rett, York, 21 Edw. I. — Duke's Tyanscripts, vol. xviii, p. 387, vol.
.xxiv. pp. 1184-1187.
' Bain, Cat. of Documents, vol. ii. pp. 266, 352, 347 ; Stevenson, Scottish Documents, vol. ii. pp. 180, 181-
182, 291, 293-294 ; Rot. Pari. vol. i. p. 194.
' Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. ii. p. 103.
' Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. ii. p. 223 ; Stevenson. Scottish Documents, vol. ii. p. 338.
" Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1 292-1301, p. 393.
' Inq. p.m. 34 Edw. I. No. 100 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 57 ; Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. v. p. 225. .^lan
was his domestic chaplain. Coram Rege Roll, No. 128, m. gdo — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxiii. p. 370.
* Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. v. pp. 223-226.
' Cal. of Close Rolls, 131^1318, pp. 58-59. This dower is elsewhere described as i mill and 3 carucates
of land. P.R.O. De Banco Roll. No. 268, m. 5.
"• Cal. of Fine Rolls, 1307-1319, pp. 175, 183 ; Cal. of Close Rolls, 1313-1318, pp. 66, 102.
" Cal. of Close Rolls, 1318-1323, pp. 235, 487, :327-i330. pp. 225, 409.
•- Cal. of Close Rolls, 1323-1327, p. 317.
320 PARISH OF WOOLER.
John Lilburn in view of the prospective marriage of Jolin, son of
Nicholas, and Constance, daughter of Sir John, dated October 14th, 1324.
Among other lands to he settled on the couple was the moiety of the
barony, excluding tlie knight's fees and the moiety of Cheviot, but
including the moiety of the manor of Wooler and appurtenances, with
the services of the free men belonging to it, except the lands held
by Sir Ralph Nevill in Wooler for his life of the lease of Nicholas
at an annual rent of 10 marks, which were however to remain to John
and Constance on the death of Sir Ralph. ^ Nicholas agreed to release
his right in all these tenements, which were to be settled by fines or
charters at the cost of the said Sir John, who also obliged himself to pay
off the mortgage on the manor of Chillingham, and to find reasonable
and honourable maintenance in food and clothing, according to their
estate, for the young couple and any children they might have. In
retiirn for this Sir John was to have all the profits from the lands so
to be settled till the bride and bridegroom came of age, and in the
event of the bride's death, to continue to hold the lands till he had
recouped himself for the expense to which he might be put under the
agreement.- This marriage, if it was ever solemnized, did not affect the
succession to the moiety, as we hear no more of John Huntercumbe, whose
father in June, 1326, conveyed to Sir John Lilburn the moiety of Wooler
and other manors and the reversions of the holding of Sir Ralph Nevill in
Wooler and of the dower lands held by Ellen Huntercumbe.-'^ This
conveyance, agreed to just when his final troubles were descending on
Edward II., was not enrolled at the time,* and licence to effect it was not
secured till later. ^ Confirmation of this licence had to be sought from
the new king^ and an action instituted by Sir John, before Nicholas
would keep his bargain,' the fine whereby it was accomplished being
recorded once more in 1335.^
' Sir Ralph died in 1367, when hs is recorded as holding a yearly rent of £20 for life from a moiety of
the vill of Wooler. Inq. p.m. 41 Edw. III. first numbers, No. 47 — Percy Charlulary, p. 433, and Hodgson,
pt. iii. vol. i. p. 82.
^ Cal. of Close Rolls, 1323-1327, pp. 316-318.
' Pedes Finium, g Edw. III. No. 41, recapitulating a fine of ig Edw. II. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxix.
pp. 9i-g4 ; P.R.O. Inq. A.Q.D. File cxc. No. 13, 20 Edw. II.
* P.R.O. De Banco Roll, No. 268, m. 5.
* Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1324-1327, p. 303 ; Rot. Fin. 20 Edw. II., m 5 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxx.
pp. 287-288 ; Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. pp. 300, 399.
^ Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1327-1330, p. 226. ' P.R.O. De Banco Roll, No. 268, m. 5.
* Pedes Finium, g Edw. III. No. 41 nt supra note 3.
WOOLER TOWNSHIP. 32I
Sir Jolin Lilburn very probably only acquired the property to
avoid a bad debt, for despite the fact that he had sons.i he alienaterl
the moiety of Wooler together with the three knight's fees to Sir John
Coupland and Joan his wife and their heirs in 1351, the moiety and fees
being held of the king in chief by the service of one knight's fee and suit at
the county of Northumberland, their value being estimated at £13 17s. 4d.
yearly.- Sir John Lilburn, however, retained some of his property
in Wooler, for at his death in 1355 he held three burgages in the
vill, of which each was worth yearly 3s., and 40s. rent in the same
town. 3 Complications with regard to the moiety arose, for in November,
1358. John Coupland petitioned the king, showing that he had acquired
the moiety of the manor and the three knight's fees from Sir John
Lilburn,'* but that now by an inquisition it had been found, that they
should belong to the king, because Sir John had been an adherent
of the rebel Gilbert Middleton and of the king's Scottish enemies.
The petitioner therefore requested and received a regrant of these to
himself and his wife, in return for a fine of 100 marks. ^ Further, in
the December following, other lands in Wooler and elsewhere, late
belonging to Sir John Lilburn and of the inheritance of his son
William, and late in the tenure of the said William and his mother,
were restored to the latter on the ground that Sir John's loyalty had
never wavered.®
Of the Lilburn family we hear no more as landowners in Wooler.
The Couplands were already large holders of property in Glendale, and
the whole of this, together with the manor of Wooler — as it is described
— but not including the three knight's fees, was the subject of a fine
which confirmed it to Joan, widow of John Coupland, and her heirs in
1365,'' and this was further confirmed by letters patent, together with a
1 John mentioned in Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1358-1361, p. 141, may have already died, but when Sir John
died in 1355 his heir was his son William. P.R.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. Edw. III. File 131, No. 4.
- P.R.O. hiq. .-J.g.D. File cccii. No. 50, 7th July, 25 Edw. III. Pardon for acquiring the lands was
granted to John and Joan Coupland February 6th, 1352. Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1350-1354, p. 212.
' P.R.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. Edw. III. File 131, No. 4.
* The moiety is described as only acquired on reversion at the death of Ralph Nevill, but this is obviously
a mistake. See page 320.
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1358-1361, pp. 121-122 ; Rot. Fin. 32 Edw. III. m. 2 — Duke's Transcripts, vol.
xxxi. pp. 447-448 ; Originalia, 32 Edw. III. Rot. 24 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 325. Fifty marks of the
fine were remitted. Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1358-1361, p. 125.
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1358-1361, p. 141.
''Pedes Finium, 39 Edw. III. No. 137 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxi.x. pp. 274-276. In 1365 Joan
secured the royal licence to agree with Thomas son of Roger of Howtel, who was the defendant of the line
in this same year. P.R.O. De Banco Roll, No. 421, m. 297do.
Vol. XI. 41
322 PARISH OF WOOLER.
pardon for all treasons, robberies and all other felonies, in 1367. ^ Thus
was the taint of forfeiture incurred by the alleged rebellion of Sir John
Lilburn finally wiped out. Joan Coupland was doubtless childless, as in
1372 she alienated the manor, as it is still called, together with the three
knight's fees and much of her other property, to Sir Richard
Arundel, son of the earl of Arundel and Surrey, Sir Edward St. John,
Sir Thomas Ludlow, David Hanemere and John Kyngesfeld their heirs
and assigns, to be held to the use of Sir Richard Arundel and his
heirs.- No sooner was this sale accomplished than Katherine, widow of
Sir John Lilburn, brought an action against Joan Coupland for the
third part of 20 messuages, 200 acres of land, 40 acres of meadow,
30 acres of wood, 40 acres of pasture and 40s. rent in Wooler, and of
one water mill there, as her dower of the endowment of her late
husband. The defence put in was a document, purporting to be executed
by Katherine in 1355 since she became a widow, whereby she renounced
all claim in the lands and tenements purchased by John and Joan
Coupland from her late husband. The authenticity of this document
was challenged by the plaintiff, and the case was adjourned,^ no more
to be heard of.
Sir Richard Arundel succeeded his father as earl of Arundel and
of Surrey in 1376, and was beheaded for treason in 1397, but there is
reason to believe that his Northumberland property had been trans-
ferred before this to his brother Sir John Arundel who died on i6th
December, 1379, under somewhat notorious circumstances. He had been
placed in command of one of the detachments of an expedition organized
to assist the duke of Brittany against the French, and on reaching the
port of departure he allowed his men to terrorize the district. His fellow-
captains. Sir Hugh Calverly and Sir Thomas Percy, kept their followers
in hand, but Arundel, despite protests, billeted his men in a nunnery,
and allowed them to outrage both the nuns and the }'oung girls who were
being taught there. Thoroughly out of hand, the soldiers ravaged the
whole district, pillaged a church and carried off a number of the
unfortunate women to their ship. In spite of warnings Arundel pro-
' Cal. 0/ Palept Roll'!, 1367-1370, p. 39.
- This alienation was effected by charter. Cal. 0/ Close Rolls, 1369- 13 74, p. 448 ; and by fine, Pedes
Finium, 47 Edw. III. No. 15S — Dukes Transcripts, vol. xxxix. pp. 312-315.
' P.R.O. De Banco Roll, No. 449, ra. 311.
WOOLER TOWNSHIP. 323
ceeded to sea before the storm, which was raging, had sufficiently abated.
Carried to the coast of Ireland, his ship's company sought to lighten
the ship, and to this end, and it seems with a view to placating an
avenging fate, threw the women overboard. The captain sought to run
his ship into shelter between an island and the mainland, but she struck,
and most of those on board, including Sir John Arundel, were drowned,
The outraged chronicler who recounts this tragedy evidentl}' considered
this a fitting end to a scandalous career, and he recounts with condem-
nation the luxurious habits of this lordling, which caused him to take on
a w^arlike expedition goods valued at 1,000 marks, including fifty-two
new suits. ^
In view of the youth of his son and heir John,- Sir John Arundel
had conveyed his property- to trustees, of whom his brother Thomas,
bishop of Ely, was the chief, the moiety of Wooler together
with the three knight's fees being valued at £13 15s. 6d. yearly.^ From
1379 to 1404 there is no allusion to the moiety of the manor belonging
to the Arundels, which may be accounted for by the misfortunes which
befel that house. In December, 1386, the king granted for life to John,
son of John Creswell, in return for a debt owed to his father for service
in Aquitaine under the Black Prince, a cottage late of William Sergeant,
2 tofts late of William Middleton, half a burgage late of Patrick Hag-
gerston and half a burgage late of Robert Molson, all in Wooler, for a
nominal rent.^ It would seem from this that certain Wooler estates
were in the king's hands at this time, and it is possible that they were
so through some Arundel forfeiture. ^ At any rate it is only after the
accession of the House of Lancaster that a new member of the family
appears as possessed of these estates in the person of Richard Arun-
del, described as 'king's knight.' The identity of this man is obscure.
He was not the heir of Sir John Arundel, who died in 1379, for this was
the latter's grandson John, who later became earl of Arundel on the
death of his cousin Thomas at the siege of Harfleur. Richard Arundel
' Chron. Augiiae (Rolls Series No. 64) pp. 247-254. - He was fifteen in 1379.
' Inq. p.m. 3 Ric. II. No. i — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxviii. pp. 43-45 ; Cat. 0/ Patent Rolls, I377-I38x,
p. 529 ; Rot. Fin. 4 Rich. II. Grossi Fines, m. 2 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. .x.^xii. p. 278.
' Cat. 0} Patent Rolls. 1385- 1389, p. 287.
^ The Arundels also held Kilham of the barony of Wark, and in 1388 an inquisition found that certain
lands there were held of 'the heirs of John .■\rundel.' (Inq. p.m. 11 Ric. II. No. 31 — Dukes' Transcripts,
vol. xxxviii. p. 163), which implies that the family property was not at that time forfeited.
324 PARISH OF WOOLER.
therefore was probably an uncle of this John.^ He too had trouble in
connection with his Northumberland property, which he had mortgaged
to Harry Hotspur for 500 marks, and on the latter's forfeiture for
treason those lands, being then in his possession, were forfeited to the
crown. The king, however, restored them on May loth, 1404, to Richard
Arundel,"- who in 1406 mortgaged the manor of Wooler,^ and in 1408
conveyed it together with the three knight's fees to Thomas Grey of
Heton and his heirs."*
Thomas Grey was 24 years old when he thus acquired the moiety of
Wooler,^ and when his son Sir Ralph Grey died seised of it in 1443,
it was worth 60s. yearly, and was said to be held of the king by the
twentieth part of a knight's fee.^ When Ralph's son and heir, another
Sir Ralph, died in 1464, the value of these lands had risen to just
double this sum, and were said to ha\'e been held by the sixth part
of a knight's fee." Throughout the sixteenth century there are
frequent allusions to members of the Grey family as resident at
Wooler, representatives apparently of the senior branch at Chillingham.
Thus in 1509 Hector Grey was the 'inhabitant' of Wooler,^ and in 1522
a royal garrison was sent to serve under his command there, ^ though
in the following year he was accused of traitorous correspondence with
the Scots. 1" This probably closed his career, for in 1538 Roger Grey of
Wooler was summoned to take part in a raid,^^ and in 1543 this same
man was described as bailiff of Wooler, who, according to a letter from
Sir Robert Ellerker to Sir Robert Bowes 'will neither make man nor
money, nor distrain them that be under his rule, for setting forth of
men at this time to serve the king under Mr. Bowes.' An order was
' John Arundel who died in 1379 had a son Richard, who is mentioned in the will of his brother William,
but about whom nothing else is known. See Pedigrees in M. A. Tierney, Antiquities of the Castle and Town
of Arundel, (London, 1834) vol. i. p. 192 ; J. P. Yeatman, History of the House of Arundel (London, 1882),
P- 324-
2 Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1401-1405, pp. 309-310. " Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1405-1408, pp. 165-166.
■■ Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1405-1408, p. 433.
* He was born 30th November, 1384. Inq. p.m. 8 Hen. IV. No. 87 — Scalacronica Proofs, No. xxiv.
p. Ixii.
" He is said to 'hold the manor.' P.K.O. Chancerylnq. p.m. Hen. VI. File in.
' P.R.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. Edw. IV. File 17.
» Holdis and Towneshyppes, 1509 — Border Holds, p. 24. The owner is said to be Christopher Clapham
who was inhabitant of Fenton. He was the husband of EUzabeth, widow of Sir Ralph Grey of Chilhngham.
Durham Cursitor Records — Dep. Keeper's Rep. vol. xliv. App. p. 400.
' tellers and Papers of Hen. VIII. vol. iii. pt. ii. p. 852. '" Ibid. vol. iii pt. ii. p. 1228-1229.
" Ibid. vol. xiii. pt. ii. p. 140.
WOOLER TOWNSHIP. 325
therefore issued committing him to ward, and he was to be compelled with
those under him ' to bear like charges with their neighbours.'^ Nearly
twenty years later we find another cadet of the same house described
as Lionel Grey of Wooler.-
Descent of the Re-united Moieties. — At some time or other the Greys
obtained bv purchase, or by some other means, the Graham moiety of the
manor, but tliere is no clear indication as to when this took place. In 1561,
when negotiations were on foot for an exchange of lands between the crown
and Sir Ralph Grey, the latter was credited with the whole barony of
Wooler, which with its appurtenant townships was valued at £60 i8s. 4d.
gross and £48 5s. od. nett yearly,^ and in 1568 Thomas Grey of Chillingham
was said to hold both the manor and vill in chief, ^ but we know that part
at least of the other moiety of the manor was still in other hands.^
A formal grant made by the crown to Sir Ralph Grey in i6i8-ig may
mark the reunion of the two moieties in the same hands. Thereby
James L granted to Sir Ralph the manor of Wooler 'with every its
rights, members and ap]:>urtenances formerly parcel of the possessions of
the barony of Muschamp .... to be held in fee as fully as any baron
of Muschamp ever held the same and as fully as it came into the hands
of the king or any of his predecessors.'^ The manors of Wooler and
Doddington were entailed by William, Lord Grey, son of the last named
grantee, on his son Ralph with remainder to Ralph's son Ford," and by
this last was mortgaged together with his Essex property.^ Wooler
passed to Mary, only child of Ford, Lord Grey, Viscount Glendale and
earl of Tankerville, who married Charles Bennet, second Lord Ossulston,
created earl of Tankerville in 1714. It remained part of the Tankerville
property till 1913, when portions thereof were sold. The site of the
ancient castle and of the manor were not offered for sale, the farm of
Turvelaws, Horsden Farm, Brick-sheds Farm, and Wooler Cottage Farm
• Ibid. vol. xviii. pt. i. p. 434. 'Mr. Bowes' is perhaps to be identilied with Richard Bowes, who in
1540, together with Elizabeth his wife, sued John Roddam for lands in Wooler. P.R.O. De Banco Roll,
No. 411, m. 265do.
- Wills and Inventories, vol. ii. p. 52. In 1584 the tower of Wooler was said to be 'decayed by Sir
Thos. Gray and his farmers.' P.R.O. State Papers, Domestic, Elizabeth, .\dd. vol. x.xviii. gjdo. Cf. Bordei
Holds, p. 80, which shows that the Greys had had baihfis in residence there.
' P.R.O. State Papers, Borders, 5, f. 103. ' Liber Feodarii, 1568 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. Ixiii.
■' See page 317. <■ Rot. Pat. 16 Jac. I. p. 4, m. 13— Calcy MS.
' P.R.O. Chancery Proceedings. Bridges, bundle 490, No. 60.
" The mortgage was transferred in ibSj. British Museum Additional Charters. 13731.
326 PARISH OF WOOLER.
were offered but withdrawn, while Mr. W. Purves of Ayton, Berwick-
shire, bought the farm of Way to Wooler, which was resold to Mr. John
Dryden in 1920, Mr. Robert Bruce bought the hill farm of Wooler Common,
Mr. Redpath of Wooler bought High Burn Howe Farm, and Mr. John Seed
purchased the Tankerville Arms, better known as the Cottage Hotel, with 90
acres of land adjacent. In addition to this much small house property and
many ground rents in the town of Wooler were sold.^ In 1921 Brick-
sheds farm was sold to Mr. John Dryden.
Sub-Tenants of the barony in Wooler. — Of the sub-tenants who
held under the lords of Wooler in the township itself a few names can
be discovered. In 1212, or thereabouts, one Adam Sharp held half a
carucate of land for the thirtieth part of one fee of new enfeoffment, ^
and the same name persists at different intervals, so that there was an
Adam Sharp in Wooler for nearly a hundred years. The same holding was
held by one of the same name in 1254,^ again Adam 'Sharp' was assessed
at 5s. 4d. in the lay subsidy of 1296,* and in 1293 the same man was
successful in a suit concerning a moiety of one acre of pasture against the
master of Wooler hospital.^ In 1318 Adam Sharp of Wooler witnessed
a document,*^ but the family died out before the feudal aid of 1346 was
levied, for Robert son of Thomas of Wooler then held the half carucate
which once belonged to Adam Sharp. ^ Sharp was a well known
Wooler name, for in 1254 William of Yerdhill and Matilda Sharp held
half a carucate of land of the lord,^ and Thomas Sharp was assessed
at IS. 2|d. for the subsidy of 1296.^ Another sub-tenant in or about
1212, was William of Hexham, who held a carucate of land in Wooler
for one-twentieth of a fee.^" In 1254 ^ rn^^^ o^ the same name held
a similar holding.^^ In the account of the aid of 1346 William
Collingwood and Alice his wife held this carucate, once the holding
of William of Hexham, as of the right of Alice, who may have been of
1 Dismemberment of the Tankerville Estates, by Mr. J. C. Hodgson — Berwickshire Naturalists Club,
vol. xxii. pp. 312-313.
- Testa de Nevill — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 2ii.
^ Inq. p.m. 39 Hen. III. No. 40 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. i. p. 372. He also appeared in a
document of 1251, Bain, Cal. oj Documents, vol. i. p. 337.
■' Lay Subsidy Roll, 1296, fol. 35. ^ Assize Roll, 21 Edvv. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xviii. p. 109.
« Cal. of Close Rolls, 1318-1323. p. 98. ' Feudal Aids. vol. iv. p. 64.
' Inq. p.m. 39 Hen. III. No. 40 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. i. p. 372.
» Lay Subsidy Roll, 1296, fol. 34. '" Testa de A't-wj//— Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 211.
" Inq. p.m. 39 Hen. III. No. 40 — Bain, Cal. oj Documents, vol. i. p. 372. The record says for one thirtieth
of a fee, but this is probably a mistake. Cf. Feudal Aids, vol. iv. p. 65.
WOOLER TOWNSHIP. 327
this family, and who also had brought to her husband another holding
of one messuage and half a carucate of land, for which one- thirtieth
of a fee was owed to the lord of the manor of Wooler. This last was
formerly the holding of William Hunter, who had appeared as its tenant
in 1212.1 In 1353 William Collingwood and Alice his wife entailed their
lands, which consisted of 8 messuages and two carucates of land in
Wooler and Humbleton, on their son William and the heirs of his body,
and failing them on Sir Thomas Grey and the heirs of his body.- In
1360 William Collingwood increased his property by securing, in return for
a fine of 10 marks, a grant from the king of lands and tenements in
Wooler, which had been forfeited to the crown. ^ Beyond this we have
no evidence of the existence of the family in Wooler, though there is
a solitary undated allusion to Elizabeth Collingwood, wife of William
Swinburne, on whom certain lands in Wooler, belonging to her father-
in-law, William Swinburne, kt., were entailed.*
There are other isolated references to families holding lands in Wooler,
similar to this instance of the Swinburne family. In 1323 David Baxter of
Moneylaws died seised of g acres of land, held of Joan of Staynesby,
in Wooler by service of one penny yearly, ^ and in 1333 Richard
Emeldon died seised of a burgage held of Nicholas Meinill by service
of I2d. yearly.^
Towards the close of the fourteenth century a few small holdings
in Wooler came into the hands of other well known Northumbrian
families. In 1387 Sir Alan Heton died holding in fee simple 8 burgages
with various lands in Wooler called Hacfordland of Philip Darcy in
socage. In the past these had been worth 76s. yearl}-, but the ravages
of the Scots had made them now valueless." This property descended
to Sir Alan's eldest daughter Elizabeth, wife of Sir John Fenwyk,® and
another daughter, Joan, was married to Sir Robert Ogle,^ who held lands
• Feudal Aids, vol. iv. pp. 64, 65 ; Testa de Nevill — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 211.
- Pedes Finium, 27 Edw. III. No. 94 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxix. pp. 199-201.
3 Originalia, 34 Edw. III. Rot. 33 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 327 ; Rot. Fin. 34 Edw. III. m. 20 —
Duke's Transcripts, vol. x.xxi. p. 464.
•■ Dodsworth MS. 45, fol. 57; Lansdowne MS 326, fol. i45do. ^ Cal. of I-nq. p.m. vol. vi. p. 289.
' Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. vii. pp. 369, 370. For Richard Emeldon see page 80.
' Inq. p.m. 11 Ric. II. No. 31. 15 Ric. II. part I. No. 87 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxviii. pp. 163, 240.
« Inq. p.m. 12 Ric. II. No. 28 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxviii. p. 176. The land is here described
as belonging to John Hackforth — hence the name Hackfordland.
' Ogle and Bothal, .^pp. No. 63.
328 PARISH OF WOOLER.
inWooIer, which were entailed on their children, in 1399.' Joan died seised of
them in 1417,'- after whicli no more is lieard of the Ogle family in the town-
ship. In 1417 Robert Hebburne died seised of a holding in Wooler,^
and Agnes, widow of Robert Hebburne, held it when she died in 1449.''
This doubtless remained in the family, for in i486 John Hebburne, senior,
of Hebburn conveyed to trustees all the lands he had in Wooler.^ In
1359 the Herons secured a holding in the township, when Alice, wife of
Stephen of Wooler, and William of Wooler, her son, gave to Sir William
Heron all their right in the manor of Wooler,^ and their neighbours of
Etal also held land there, for in 1402 Robert Manners gave to his eldest
son John Manners and Agnes, his wife, in free marriage all his lands
and burgages in Wooler,''' and in 1492 the king granted during pleasure
to Gilbert Manners, one of the ushers in his chamber, a parcel of land in
the lordship of Wooler of the value of 2s. yearly.^ There is mention of
the possession of certain lands in the township in the will of Thomas
Manners, first earl of Rutland, dated i6th August, 1542,^ and in 1562
Henry, earl of Rutland, sold to Ralph Swinhoe of Cornhill all his messuages
and lands there, free from all incumbrances, except the lease to the occupier,
widow Reveley, whereupon the old accustomed rents were received and
the rents due to the chief lord of the fee.'" Finally it appears that up
to the suppression of the order, the Templars held land in Wooler ; at
least during the reign of Edward I. the master successfully claimed
certain liberties in the township for himself and his men there. ^^ Towards
the close of the sixteenth century three other families, well known in
the neighbourhood, appear for the moment as landowners, in Wooler. In
1581 John Selby of Branxton included property in Wooler in the entail
of his lands, 12 eight years later John Baxter and his wife, Margaret, were
defendants in a fine concerning lands in Wooler and elsewhere, ^^ while
in 1588 William Wallis of Akeld bequeathed ' all his inheritance within
the fields' of Akeld, Humbleton and Wooler to his eldest son Wilham.' i'*
' Pedes Finium, 22 Rich. II. No. 31 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. .vxxi.v. pp. 3f38-37i.
- Inq. p.m. 4 Hen. V. No. 33 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. 267.
' Inq. p.m. 4 Hen.V. No. 26 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 267.
■* Inq. p.m. 27 Hen. VI. No. 32 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 274.
' Foster Visitations, p. 66. « Lansdovvne MS. 326, fol. ^zAo. ' Belvoir Deeds, drawer 21.
» Cat. of Patent Rolls, 1485-1494, p. 379. ' North Country Wills, vol. i. p. 187.
'» Belvoir Deeds, drawer 14. " Assize Roll, 21 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xviii. pp. 424-425.
'- Feet of Fines, sixteenth century, p. 45. " Ibid. pp. 56-57. " Wills and Inventories, vol. ii. p. 6i«.
WOOLER TOWNSHIP. 32q
Some of these small holdings and burgages were doubtless absorbed
into the manor, but others have survived down to the present day.
The Tower. — A gentle slope from the middle of Wooler town gives
on to the churchyard and continues to a mound, possibly about 50
yards in diameter at the top and most precipitous to the north and
east, where it falls to the stream called Wooler Water. On this mound
stood the castle of the Muschamps. No stone structure probably ever
existed here in the middle ages, and fortification of any kind had dis-
appeared as early as 1255, when it was recorded that Isabel Ford held
one third of the capital messuage of Wooler, which is a waste mote of no
value. ^ There is no indication that there was any fortress, or even place
of refuge, in the township from this time till the beginning of the
sixteenth century, due doubtless to the fact that Wooler does not seem to
have been a place of residence for the owners of the barony of which it
was the head. In the early part of that century, however, the disturbed
state of the border necessitated the building of a tower, probably on
the original mound, as a few pieces of broken masonry 6 feet in thick-
ness and faced with stones of varying sizes are there to be found at
the present day. In 1509 in a list of holds to lay in garrisons of
horsemen Wooler figures as a place for the accommodation of 20 men,^
and in 1522 it was proposed by the lord warden to place ten men in
wages with Hector Grey in the tower. ^ That this was a recent erection
is proved by an allusion made to 'the new castle at Wooler' in 1526.*
Those responsible for the survey of the border in 1541 laid considerable
stress on the importance of this 'lytle towre standynge strongely,
whiche d\d muche releyve as well the Inhabytants of the same towne
as of two or three vyllages nere adjoyninge thereunto. Yt stode in a
marvelous convenyent place for the defence of the countrye thereaboute.
and the half of yt ys fallen downe for lacke of reparacons nowe lately
this same yere. And yt had much nede to be reedyfyed againe for the
defence of all that quarter And yt is thought that fourtye
pounds would yett repare the ruynes and decayes thereof. And yf yt
be not shorterh^ amended yt wyll allwaies in processe of tyme fall in
' 'Mota vasta.' Inq. p.m. 39 Hen. III. N'o. 40 — Bain, Cat. of Documents, vol. i. pp. 374"375
■ List of 'Holdis' — Border Holds, p. 24.
' Lord Dacre to Wolsey, Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII. vol. iii. pt. ii. p. 852.
' April, 152O, Patrick Sinclair to Magnus. Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII. vol. iv. pt. i. p. 934.
Vol. XL 4^
330 PARISH OF WOOI.ER.
gretter decaye and the more chargeable lu rcpare.'^ In 1545 the gar-
rison of Wooler formed part of the organized defences of the border, -
though by 1580 the tower was reported once more to be in need of
repair,^ and was in even worse state in 1584. It was at this last date
that a commission was appointed to survey the border and report on
its fortifications, and it found that 'Wooler Tower, belonging to Sir
Thomas Gra}-e, standing up upon the verye plenished ringe of the
border (was) decaied either by warres or by want of reparacions by long
contynuance . . . we knowe not.' It was not clear to the commissioners
as to whether the queen or the owner was responsible for the cost
of restoration, which they estimated at £60, but they were convinced
that it was ' a verye fit and convenient place . . . for a small number if
it were repaired.'* The real importance of the place was that it formed
a link in the chain of forts which Christopher Dacre portrayed in his
plan of the border defences of the same year — the 'plenished ringe' to
which the commissioners alluded,^ and it would seem that steps were
taken to find out on whom the cost should devolve. At any rate an
inquiry was held within a fortnight of the commissioners report, and it was
recorded that at Wooler there was 'one gentleman's house with a tower
of defence there built, decayed by Sir Thomas Graye and his termers,'^ but
probably nothing was done. The defence of the borders was soon to
become a matter of decreasing importance, and from that day onwards
there is no mention of any fortification at Wooler.
FENTON TOWNSHIP.
Ecclesiastical History. — Fenton has had a somewhat chequered
career as an ecclesiastical entity. Originally it was an independent
parish, probably the smallest in all Northumberland, and the advowson
was as usual in the hands of the lord of tlie manor. At the end of the
twelftli century however, John the Sheriff II. gave to the church of St.
Mary, Alnwick, and the Premonstratensian canons there the church of
Fenton in frank almoin for the souls of himself, his wife and his heirs,
' Survey of 1541 — Border Holds, p. 33. - Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII. vol. xx. pt. ii. p. 310.
' Cal. oj Border Papers, vol. i. p. 32.
' Report of Commissioners, 8th September, 1584 — Border Holds, p. 73.
' Photograph in Border Holds, p. 78-79. « Inquest, 24th September, 15S4 — Border Holds, p. 80.
FENTON TOWNSHIP. 33I
his father John and his mother Ahce.^ His son. John the Sheriff III.,
contested the canons' right when the hving was vacant in 1223, ^ but he
was unsuccessful, and in I26q, Alan Lascelles recognized that the abbey
of Alnwick was patron.^ Of the earh' incumbents we know nothing, save
that Robert Heron held the church in plurality with Ford and Chil-
lingham in 1297, and that the king claimed lOos. from him as arrears
for a clerical subsidy,* though the abbot of Alnwick should have paid it
and seems to have done so eventually.^ In 1313 Alnwick abbey secured
the consent of the bishop of Durham to the merging of Fenton in the
parish of Wooler,^ and so it remained till 1882, when it was merged
in Nesbit, as part of the parish of Doddington, in exchange for Farle
and Humbleton surrendered to Wooler.'
The value of the rectory in 1291, before its absorption in W'ooler,
was £6 13s. 4d.,^ but by 1306 this had risen to 15 marks, ^
and this assessment was repeated in 1340.^" If we are to believe
the records of the augmentation office after the dissolution of the
religious houses, all that Alnwick abbey enjoyed of this was £1 6s. Sd.,^^
but this is evidently only the four marks which the abbey paid annually
to the bishop of Durham in recognition of his permission, given in 1313,
to unite Fenton with Wooler.^^ j^ j^^ probable that the whole endowment
came from tithes, and these seem to have been sold by the crown to the
Greys, as in 1581 Isabel Grey, widow of Sir Ralph Grey of Chillingham,
alluded in her will to her 'leases of the corn and sheaves of Fenton. '^^
In 1650 the 'salary' attached to the chapelry of Fenton was £8 13s. 4d.,
paid by Lord Grey of Wark." It seems that when Fenton was
sold in 1734, the tithes were conveyed therewith, and the owner
' Cal. of Charter Rolls, vol. iii. p. 86.
-De Banco Rolls, 7-8 Hen. III. Michaelmas, 8 Hen. III. Trinity ; Curia Regis Rolls. Nos. 83. 84, 86 —
Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxvi. pp. 6, 7, vol. xxi. pp. 149, 500, 501.
" Northumberland Assize Rolls (Surtees Soc), p. 138. * Stevenson, Scottish Documents, vol. ii. p. 174.
' Reg. Palat. Dunelm. vol. ii. pp. 836, 849, 851, 860, 873, 925.
' See page 289. In ci\-il documents of 1344 and 1353, Fenton is still described as a parish.
Cat. of Patent Rolls, 1343-1345. p. 409 ; Cal. of Close Rolls, 1349-1354, p. 613.
' London Gazette, March 3rd, 1882, p. 935.
« Taxatio Eccles. Angliae, 1291 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. ^^i. ' Reg. Palat. Dunelm. vol. iii. p. 98.
" Nonarum Inquisitiones, 1340 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. xxxix.
" Ministers Accounts, 32 Hen. VIII. — Monasticon, vol. vi. pt. ii. p. 868.
'- See page 289. " Wills and htvenlories, vol. ii. p. 51.
'* Ecclesiastical Inquisitions, 1O50 — Arch. Aeliaiia, O.S. vol. iii. p. 6.
332 PARISH OF WOOLER.
of the manor in iSoy was still paying £8 13s. 4d. to the vicar
of Wooler annually in lieu of tithes. If this were a modus, it was not
valid, as it certainly did not date back to the reign of Richard I.,
but more probably the tithes had been conveyed to the Greys by the
crown, a condition being this annual payment to the vicar of Wooler. ^
Though the deed incorporating Fenton with Wooler provided for a
resident chaplain in the former place, ^ only one of these chaplains is
known to us by name. In 1296 Ralph, the chaplain, was assessed on
goods \alued at {4 los. lod. for the lay subsidy of that year, a sum
more than half that at which the lord was assessed.^ He was probably
a man of some importance, as he appears again in 131 1 on an eccles-
iastical inquiry.^ After the Dissolution we hear of John Hall as curate
of Fenton in January, 1578, but he had resigned by the following July,
when the curacy was vacant.^ In 1825 some parts of the ruin of the
chapel still remained,'' but to-day all that is left is the old graveyard
with its grass grown graves.
Descent of the Property. — According to Testa de Ncvill Fenton w-as
held of the barony of Muschamp by John the sheriff by one knight's fee of
old enfeoffment,^ and the first of the family to be mentioned in connection
with the place was John son of John the sheriff, who about 1200^ gave
the church to Alnwick Abbey. ^ As holder of the barony of Embleton
the family naturally did not live at this small adjunct to their pos-
sessions, which in 1226 was at least in part in the hands of John son
of Simon. ^" The line ended in 1244 with Rametta, only daughter of
John, the sheriff III., and in 1255 she and her second husband,
Hereward Marsh, exchanged the barony of Embleton for other lands,
the new owner being Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester. Fenton
seems to have been included in this exchange, and on April 3rd, 1255,
Richard Morin took possession of the manor in the name of the earl,
but on May 3rd himself arranged to bu\- it from Hereward and
1 The matter was raised by the vicar in 1809, as he had found a receipt given by one of his predecessors
in 1749 for '£6 Modus for great tithes, £z 13s. 4d. composition for the small tithes. ' Mr. Caley was consulted
on the matter, and his tentatis'e conclusion is accepted above. Newcastle Public Library. Caley MS.
• See page 289. ' Lay Subsidy Roll, 1296, fol. 95 * Reg. Palat. Diinehn, vol. i. p. ji.
' Barnes, Injtmclions, etc., pp. 40, 78, 94. " Mackenzie, vol. i. p. 392.
' Testa de Nevill — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. pp. 210, 211.
" For date and genealogy of the family see N.C.H., vol. ii. p. 1 1 . ' Cal. <>/ Charier Rolls, vol. iii. p. So.
•" Curia Regis Roll, No. 95 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxi. pp. 1O7-16S.
FENTON TOWNSHIP. 2;^^
Rametta.^ This transaction seems confused, as the property does not
seem to have belonged to Rametta at the time of this last conveyance,
and when Simon de Montfort's property was forfeited to the crown at
his death in 1265, Fenton was included therein, and was granted with
the barony of Embleton to the king's younger son, Edmund, earl of
Lancaster, who enfeoffed the Lascelles family therewith.- Richard Morin
was by then dead, but the fact that he had once held the manor is
evidenced by his widow's claim in 1269 against Alan Lascelles for
dower therein. She was non-suited, as Alan proved that the abbot of
Alnwick held the ad\-owson of the church, while Walter of Branxton and
Alice his wife held a third of the manor, and one Walter of Fenton
2 bovates of land.'^ The widow returned to the attack with an amended
claim, but the case was still undecided when Edward L came to the
throne.* It is evident from this that Alan Lascelles did not owTi the
whole township, and we have further evidence in 1256 that Walter of
Fenton held land there, which he had subinfeudated to Robert son of
William of Trokeland.^ More puzzling is the identity of Alice, wife of
Walter of Branxton, as she must have been the widow of a former
proprietor of the manor. She was in possession of her dower there as
early as 1259, ^^^ i^ February of that year a dispute arose between her
husband, Walter of Branxton, and Richard Grey as to the boundary
of their adjoining lands, the former's in Fenton, the latter's in Nesbit.^
During the inquiries into the alienated crown lands, instituted by
Edward L, Alan Lascelles was called upon to justify his rights, and he
was found to hold of the barony of Stamford,' and to claim the right
to hold pleas of namium vetitum ^ and to exclude the king's bailiff
from the \\\\.^ It is thus evident that the connection of Fenton with
' The deed was signed at Lowick. Duchy of Lancaster, Great Cowcher, fol. i49do, Xo. i6; Duchy of
Lancaster Documents, class ti, No. i, liber i, fol. i57do, No. 48 — N.C.H. vol. ii. p. 17 ni.
= Alan Lascelles held it in 1274 Hot. Hund. — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 100, his son Robert in the
Quo Warranto inquiry called the earl of Lancaster to warrant, and he claimed the township as part of the
forfeited Montfort inheritance. Quo Warranto — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 129.
' Northumberland Assize Rolls {Surtees Soc), p. 138.
* Curia Regis Rolls, Nos. 199, 202 ; De Banco Rolls, No. 20, m. i, No. 22. m. 4do, No. 5, m. i — Duke's
Transcripts, vol. xxi. pp. 558, 570, vol. xxvi. pp. 58, 66, 131.
* Northumberland Assize Rolls (Surtees Soc), p. 31.
° Close Roll, 43 Hen. IIL m. i4do — Bain, Cal. 0} Documents, vol. i. p. 420.
* Stamford is the neighbouring township to Embleton, and the baronial court was held there.
" Namium Vetitum was an unjust taking of the cattle of another and driving them to an unlawful
place, pretending damage done by them.
° Rot. Hund. — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 100.
334 PARISH OF WOOLER.
Embleton had been converted into an incorporation oi the former in tlie
barony of Embleton, which had now become a Hberty- Alan was still
owner in 1279/ but by 1293 he was dead, and his widow Isabel was
living there with her third husband Walter of Rothbury.^ The owner
of the estate was Robert Lascelles, who called to warrant his overlord
the earl of Lancaster when the Quo Warranto inquiries were being held,^
but he was still non-resident in 1296, when the lay subsidy of that year
was collected, and the resident inhabitant was Walter of Rothbury
assessed on £4 los. lod."* Robert Lascelles still held Fenton for half a
knight's fee when an extent of the Lancaster estates was made in 1297,
after the death of Earl Edmund in the previous year, and he t)wed in
addition two gilt spurs or 6d. annually to his overlord, the value of
the property being estimated at £30.^ Sometime before 1299 he sold
it to Thomas of Richmond, who found Walter of Rothbury in posses-
sion, and strove vainly for three years to eject him, thanks to the
privileges of the liberty which enabled the defendant to defy the
attempts of the sheriff to compel his appearance in court.® The result
of this struggle between Thomas of Richmond and Walter of Rothbury
is not known, and for nearly fifty years thereafter we hear nothing of
the township, which reappears in 1345 in the possession of Thomas
Grey of Heton, who in that year was granted free warren for himself
and his heirs in his demesne land there. '^ He held the manor on heavier
terms than the Lascelles, for in addition to the rent of 6d. recorded in the
baihff of Embleton's accounts for 1348-1351,^ he was assessed on a full
knight's fee for the feudal aid of 1346.^ Fenton no longer belonged to
' In that year an unsuccessful action for 3 acres and one rood of land in Fenton was brought against
him by Robert of Hydeslye, and a certain Christine, widow of Walter of Tritlington, sued him for 5 messuages
and 65 acres of land in Fenton. She withdrew her case, and Alan came to an agreement with her whereby
he surrendered one messuage and 24 acres of land forthwith, and agreed to hand over the rest at the end
of six years. Northumberland Assize Rolls (Surtees Soc), pp. 243, 255.
- Isabel's first husband had been Roald Fitz.\lan. She was married to Alan Lascelles by 1206. Coram
liege Roll, No. 12(>, m. 8 do — Bain, Cal. 0/ Documents, vol. i. pp. 477-478.
' Assize Roll, 21 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xviii. pp. 153, 325, 382, 383 ; Quo ll'arranto — Hodgson,
pt. iii. vol. i. pp. 129, 131, 132. The earl also claimed to regulate the assize of beer and to exclude the king's
bailiff and coroner from the township. J bid. pt. iii. vol. i. p. i8g.
' Lay Subsidy Roll, 1296, fol. 95.
' Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. iii. p. 305. The value is not given in the calendar but is found in the abstract
in N.C.H. vol. ii. p. 22.
^ De Banco Rolls, No. 131, mm. 5do, 288do, No. 134, m. ig.ido, No. 136, m. 179, No. 139, ni. 2oido —
Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxviii. pp. 509, 537, 605-606, 679, 743.
' Cal. of Charier Rolls, vol. v. p. 38. ' Bodleian Library, Yorkshire Rolls, 2 — N.C.H. vol. ii. p. 27.
° l-'eudul Aids, vol. iv. p. 70.
FENTOX TOWNSHIP. 335
the Greys by 1361, when the Lancaster estates passed from Henry,
duke of f.ancaster, to John of Gaunt, for in the extent then made it
was said to be held 'by the men of that town' for one knight's fee.^
Strangely enough in 1415 Ralph Grey held the tower. ^ In 1427
there is allusion to a 'Walter lord of Fenton,'^ and in the accounts of
the feudal aid of the following year Gilbert Lancaster and Alice his
wife are said to hold the vill of Henry Percy, earl of Northumberland,
as of his barony of Alnwick for half a knight's fee.* Thus the full
knight's fee had been reduced to the original half fee, but once more a
change had occurred in the overlordship, and having passed from Mus-
champ to Embleton, it had now become part of Alnwick barony, possibly
as a reward given by Henry IV. for the assistance the Percies gave
him when, as duke of Lancaster, he seized the throne. That the
transference was not the unauthorized blunder of a scribe is proved by
the fact, that when the manor had found its way back to the Grey
family in the mid fifteenth century. Sir Ralph Grey, beheaded in 1464,
was said to have held the manor of Fenton of John, earl of Northum-
berland, as of his manor of Alnwick.^ But yet another change was
about to take place, for in 1480 Sir Ralph's son, Thomas, held Fenton in
chief, together with Sir James Strangways and Sir John Conyers, as one
of the manors pertaining to the barony of Muschamp.^ By 1512 how-
ever the township was once again included in the liberty of Embleton,
for in that year it is mentioned at the court of the hberty held at
Stamford, and in 1523 Sir Edward Grey did suit thereat for it."
The survey of 1541 described Fenton as belonging to the Greys of
Chillingham,^ and Sir Thomas Grey of Chillingham held the vill in chief
in 1568.^ It seems to have been used as part of the dower of the
widows of the family in the sixteenth century, for in 1509 Christopher
Clapham was the ' inhabitant, '^^ and he had married Elizabeth, left a
' Cal. of Close Rolls, 1360-1364. p. 204.
• List of Towers, 14 15 — Border Holds, p. ig. Tliis may be the son of Sir Thomas Grey executed later
in the same year. If so, he would be grandson of the Thomas Grey who held Fenton in 1351.
3 Privy Seals, 6 Hen. VI. — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. iv. p. 207.
« Feudal Aids, vol. iv. p. 88. <■ P.R.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. Edw. IV. File 17.
" P.R.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. Edw. IV. File 75.
' P.R.O. Court Rolls, Duchy of Lancaster, bundle 107, No. 1540.
* Survey of the Border, 154 1 — Border Holds, p. yj.
' Liber Feodarii, 1568 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. Ixiii.
'» List of 'Holdis and Towneshyppes,' 1509 — Border Holds, p. 23.
336 PARISH OF WOOLER.
widow by Ralpli (irey in 1508. ^ In 1582 there died also Isabel Grey of
Ogle Castle, widow of Sir Ralph Grey of ( hillingham, and her person-
alty at Fenton was such as to prove that she had held the place in
dower. This included 18 oxen, valued at £24, 31 Kye, 16 calves and a
bull valued at a like sum, and 12 'young cattell, everie of them a
yere old and a half worth £3. In stack she possessed 'hard corne
180 thraves £13 6s. 8d., oates 18 score thraves £10 13s. 4d., of beere
18 score thraves £8,' while the hay was valued at £5 and the carts,
ploughs and yokes at 20s. Her corn at Fenton, both sown and un-
sown, she left to her son Sir Arthur Grey of Spindleton, and of money
she bequeathed £6 13s. 4d. 'to the poore of Fenton and Dodington
upon the day of my buriall.'^ Sir Thomas Grey, the eldest son of the
last testatrix, left 20 draught oxen at Fenton to his wife Katherine,
and also to his servant, 'Walter Greame, twoo tenements in Fenton, in
the occupacion of one Ladelie, for xx. years or for his hfe, or else the
some of XX. markes att his choyce.'^* Again Sir Ralph Grey, who made
his will in 1623, left his servant George Grey an annuity of £4 and
'his farmehold in Fenton during his life.'* At the division of the Grey
inheritance on the death of Ford, Lord Grey, and earl of Tankerville,
Fenton fell to the share of Ralph, Lord Grey, and from him passed to
the Hon. Henry Grey, formerly Neville, who sold it in 1734 to Anthony
Isaacson for £5,700.^ The latter's daughter Frances succeeded to the
property and, being a spinster, demised it by will, dated March 29th,
1750, to her cousins Mary Altham, wife of Roger Altham, and Arabella
Isaacson as joint tenants. The former of these two moieties devolved
on the daughters of Roger and Mary Altham, who had no male issue,
Frances wife of James Heseltine, Arabella wife of John Graham Clark,
Mary wife of Aubone Surtees, Jane wife of Nathaniel Bishop and
Charlotte wife of Thomas Lewis, each being entitled to one-ftfth of half
the estate. The fifth of Mary Surtees was sold on the 13th May,
1829, by the surviving trustees of the settlement to James Graham
Clark, who had already purchased in the preceding January the share
' Durham Cursitor Records — Dep. Keeper s Rep. vol. xliv. .^pp. p. 400.
- IVills and Inventories, vol. ii. pp. 50. 53. ' Ibid. vol. ii. pp. 172, 174.
' Probate Registry at York, vol. xxxviii. fol. 237CI — Proceedings of Nezvcastle Aniiqs. third series, vol. iii.
p. 177.
■* Letter ol Samuel Kettilby, September 28th, 1734 — Ewart Park, MSS.
FENTON TOWNSHIP.
337
ISAACSON OF NEWCASTLE AND FENTON.
Anthony Isaacson of Newcastle, ninth son of Henry Isaacson = Jane, daughter of John Lawson of Newcastle,
of London, sometime treasurer of Bridewell and Bedlam j merchant adventurer; married 27th April,
Hospitals (;j; buried iSth June, 1693 (6). I 1665 (c), [buried 24th May, 1716(a)].
Henry
Isaac-
son,
bapt.
14th
Mar.,
1665/6
W;
[bur.
loth
Oct.,
1697,
at
Tyne-
mouth].
John Isaacson, =
Recorder of \
Newcastle ; \
bapt. 26th
Jan., 1666/7 [
(c) ; entered 1
at Lincoln's
Inn 22nd
January,
1683/4;
Recorder of
Newcastle
from 1725 to
his death,
3rd January,
1737/8 lb):
will dated
I I th Dec,
1737-
Jane Lambert
of N e w-
castle; bond
of marriage
5th April,
1 7 1 8 ; mar-
ried 7th
July, 1718,
at Long
Benton;
buried 5th
Aug., 1770
{a).
I
Anthony
Isaac-
son,
bapt.
17th
Feb.,
1667-8
(c) ; bur.
17th
May,
1668.
Anthony Isaacson, =
Collector of Duke
of Richmond's
Dues at Newcastle;
[bapt. 1st March,
1669/70 (a) ] ; pur-
chased Fenton in
1734, and voted
for the same the
same year at the
election of knights
of the shire ; High
Sheriff of North-
umberland, 1742;
died at his house
in Lincoln's Inn
Fields, Oct., 1746 ;
will dated i oth
July, 1745.
: Margaret,
dau. and
co-heir of
SirWilliam
Creagh,
Mandamus
.Alderman
of New-
castle; bur.
1 6th May,
1732(0).
John Isaacson
of Newcastle,
baptised 17th
Sep., 1719
(a) ; entered
atGray's Inn,
I 2 1 h May,
1738; of New-
castle, Attor-
ney ; died
i6th June,
1752, at his
house in Pil-
grim Street ;
buried i8th
June, 1752
(a); will dated
6th June,
1 75 1 ; proved
1765 (/)■
Henrietta, dau.
of Rev. Nat.
Ellison, D.D.;
bond of mar-
riage 21st
Sept., 1743
married 22nd
Sept., 1743
(c); bur. i8th
Dec, 1765 ;
aged 59 (a)
(fc).
Henry Isaacson=S a r a h ,
of Newcastle,
surgeon ; bap-
tised 3rd May,
1722(c); voted
for Fenton at
the election of
knights of the
shire in 1774,
and at the
election of
burgesses i n
Parliament in
1777; bur.
i8th March,
1778 (a).
dau. of
.Anthony
Isaacson,
the Col-
lector ;
married
her
cousin
1 1 Feb. ,
1747/8
(c) ; bur.
24 Feb.,
1788 (a).
I I I I I I
Anthony Isaacson, bapt.
28th Dec, 1720 (a) ; bur.
13th Feb., 1725/6 (a).
William Isaacson, bap. 6th
April, 1725 (c);living 1737;
[bur. 8th June, 1744 (a)l.
.\nthony Isaacson, bapt.
2nd Nov., 1727 (c) ;
executor of the will of
his sister Henrietta.
Jane, bapt. 21st Jan.,
1723; wife of her cousin,
William Isaacson.
Henrietta, bapt. 20th Jan.,
1728/9 (c) ; died unmar. ;
bur. 20th Jan., 1778 (a) ;
will dated i8th Oct.. 1777.
Catherine, baptised 2nd
Aug., 1731 (<■) ; [bur. 3rd
Sept., 1754 (a)].
Perhaps other issue.
MM
John Isaacson, baptised 28th May, 1745 {c) ; buried
16th April, 1747 (a).
John Isaacson of Newcastle, attorney ; bapt. 7th Sept.,
1748 (k); married 13th May, 1769, at Gretna Green,
Mary Comforth ; died 11th January, 1778, at Easing-
wold, when on his way to York; buried St. Nicholas
(a) ; will dated loth December, 1776. ^,
Chaloner Isaacson, baptised 5th January, 1746/7 (r) ;
buried 30th January, 1754.
Henrietta, bapt. loth April, 1751 (A); wife of Henry
Ellison of Gateshead Park ; bond of marriage 14th
May, 1779; married 15th May, 1779 ((f).
li
enry Creagh Isaacson, only son,
bapt. ibth March, 1748 9 (*),
of Magdalen Hall, O.xford ;
matriculated 9th .^pril, 1 767,
aged 18; B.A., 1770 ; M..^.,
1773; clerk in orders; died
27th JIarch, 1779 (a).
Sarah, bapt. 6th Feb., 1752 (o) ;
bur. 11th Oct, 1790 (a).
Frances, bapt. 3rd Sept., 1750(d);
bur. 16th Dec, 1755 (a).
Ill lllll M
James Isaacson,
bapt. 23rd Mar.,
1670/1, (a); bur.
31st May,
1671 (a).
Charles Isaacson,
bapt. 15th April,
1675 (a); appren-
ticed 15th April,
1691, to John Bell
of Newcastle,
mercer ; owned
the books 24th
July, 1 701 (e);
mar. 19th Oct.,
1728, Martha
Alorallee (c); bur.
ist June. 1731;
will dated 27th
Nov., 1729;
proved 1731;
she mar. (2) at
South Shields,
25th Sept.. 1732,
Thomas Brown.
I.awson Isaacson,
bapt. 17th July,
1677 (a) ; buried
22 May, 1678(c).
.■\nn, bapt. 9th
Mar., 1668/9 (a).
Elizabeth, bapt.
17th March,
1 67 1/2 (c) ; wife
of Nat Ellison,
vicar of New-
castle; mar. 27
.\pril. 1691 (a).
Jane, bapt. 17th
.\pril, 1673 (it);
died 21st May,
1716(6).
Mary, bapt. i8th
.\pril, 1676 (a).
Henrietta, bapt.
17th .\ugust.
1678 (a) ; (wife
of Ogle].
Margaret [bapt.
4th Sept., 1679
(a)]; named in
the will of her
niece. Frances
Isaacson.
Catherine, bapt.
31 Oct, i68o (a).
Vol. XI.
43
338
PARISH OF WOOLER.
Anthony Isaacson of ;
Newcastle, bapt. Qth
July, 1 7 13 {d]; heir
to his mother's un-
divided fourth part of
the real estate of John
Rogers, the lunatic ;
named in the will of
his sister Frances ;
was residing at Dover
when he was party to
a release dated 13th
August, 1765 ; died
November, 1765, at
St. Omer.
Hannah, dau. of
William Isaac- ==
Jane, dau.
Rev. Edward
son of New-
of John
Arthur of Bar-
castle ; bapt.
Isaacson,
moor ; bond of
I s t J u 1 V,
the Re-
marriage 27th
1725 {li):
corder;
Jan., 1736/7 ;
named in
mar. 1 8th
marri e d ist
his father's
April,
Mar., 1736/7.
will ; buried
1748 (c) :
at Norham ;
1 4th Decem-
died 23rd
party to r e-
ber, 1770
July.
lease 13th
{«)■
1777 («)■
Aug., 176.5.
1/2
{d):
{d).
took
died
MINI
Francis, bapt. 2nd Feb.. 177
bur. loth June, 1713 (a).
William, bapt. gth June, 17 15
bur. 28th Sept.. 1722 (a).
Frances, bapt. 27th Dec, 1710 {d) ;
Fenton under her father's will ;
circa 1732; will dated 29th March, 1 750.
Sarah, bapt. 30th June, 1717 (d) ; wife
of her cousin, Henry Isaacson of
Newcastle, surgeon ; named in her
father's will.
Ann, bapt. 19th Feb., 1718/9 (rf) ;
bur. 23rd August, 1720 (a).
Elizabeth, bapt. loth Oct., 1723 (rf);
bur. 2nd Mar., i7J4/5 (a)-
C o s e n s,=
sister of
Cosens,
minister of
Teddington,
Middlesex(A) ;
mar. March
or April,
1763, at
Southamp-
ton.
I
Anthony Isaac- =
son of Fen-
ton ; baptised
i6th March,
1737 / 8, at
Lowick; party
to release
13th August,
1765 ; a cap-
tain in the
army.
[Charlotte Green,
married 28th
Nov., 1768, at
St. George's,
Bloomsbury.]
I I
Montague Isaacson,
bapt. 5th October,
1742 (c) ; died 25th
December, 1772 ;
aged 30 ; M.I. .\ln-
wick chancel.
William Isaacson,
Lieut., R.N.; bapt.
I St May, 1744 (c) ;
stated to have died
at Havannah (g).
Ill-
Jemima Margaret, bapt.
25th .\ugust, 1 74 1 (c).
wife of William King
of Mark Lane, London,
coal merchant ; married
26th Oct., 1759, at St.
Olave's she died May,
1805, at Southampton.
Sarah, bapt. 6th July 1748
(c) ; died at Kew, 31st
July,i8io, unmarried.
(a) St. Nicholas Registers, Newcastle.
(6) Monumental Inscriptions, St. Nicholas.
(c) 5/. A nirew's Register, Newcastle.
(d) St. John's Register, Newcastle.
(e) Dendy, Newcastle Merchant Adventurers.
(/) Raine, Test. Ebor.
(?) Newcastle Courant, 12th February, 1763.
(h) Ibid., 30th April, 1763.
(i) St. George's Visitation of London, 1634.
(A) All Saint's Register, Newcastle.
of Frances Heseltine who was then dead. The fifth of Arabella
Graham Clark was settled on her son John Altham Graham Clark and
his son of the same name, while that of Charlotte Lewis passed, on her
dving intestate, to her son Thomas Charles Lewis, who in 1829 also
purchased the share of Jane Bishop which had passed to her eldest son,
James. These two-fifths were devised by Thomas Clark Lewis by will,
dated 22nd March, 1833, to his sister Arabella Lewis, who by her will,
dated gth May, 1856, devised all her real estate to her cousin Arabella
Adams. Thus the moiety was now in three not in five different hands,
and the owners all joined in 1859 in the sale of their respective shares
to the late earl of Durham. Meanwhile the beneficial ownership of
the other moiety, devised by Frances Isaacson to Arabella Isaacson,
later Denison, had passed to the latter 's son William Denison, who died
on 3rd January, 1834, ^^'^ o^i his death to Charles Mayo, who died on
i8th December, 1858, when the property had passed to his nephew
and heir-at-law, William Herbert Mayo, from whose executors and the
FENTON TOWNSHIP. 339
surviving trustees of the will of Arabella Denison the late earl of
Durham purchased it in 1861. The whole estate of Fenton was thus
reunited, and under the late earl's will became the property of the
present owner, the Hon. F. W. Lambton.^
During the eighteenth century Fenton figured largely in the agri-
cultural revival of the northern counties, owing to the fact that it was
farmed by Matthew and George Culley, who moved thither in June,
1767, from the family estate of Denton, near Darlington. In the words
of their neighbour and disciple, John Grey of Milfield, 'they
carried with them into Glendale superior knowledge and intelligence,
which they at once brought to bear in their extensive undertakings
with unremitting application and perseverance.'- Their success is to be
measured by the results obtained on the farm of Wark, which they
entered on a year later. In fifteen years they raised the yield of oats
from 15 to 84 bushels per acre, and that of wheat from 9 to 62
bushels per acre,-^ and they were paying a rent of £3,200 per annum as
compared with £800 when they began operations.* Their most lasting
influence was on the breeding of live stock, and particularly in the
introduction of the breed of Leicester sheep from the herd of their friend
Bakewell of Dishley. George Culley was also a prolific writer on
agricultural subjects, a large contributor to the Annals of Agriculture,^
and author of 'Observations on Live Stock, containing Hints for
Choosing and Improving the Best Breeds of the most useful kinds of
Domestic Animals,' first published in 1786.
The Tower.— -A tower existed at Fenton as early as 1415,^ but
this is the only mention of it before the sixteenth century, when it
ranked as one of the more important of the secondary fortifications
near the border. In 1509 it was said to have accommodation for a
garrison of 40 men,' and the commissioners for surveying the border in
1541 described it as 'a grett towre with a barmekyn,' but it was 'in
great decaye in the rooffe and fioores, and the walls of the barmekyn
with other necessary houses within the same.' Its repair was a matter
' Fenton and Nesbit Deeds. - Journal oj Roy. Agric. Soc. vol. ii. p. ijj.
' Ibid. p. 15S. ' Berwickshire Xaliiralists' Club, vol. xii. pp. 427-428.
^ .4nnals 0] Agriciilliire, vol. .>civ. p. 180, vol. xvii. p. 347, vol. xix. p. 147, vol. xx. p. 167.
^ List of Castles and Towers, \.\i^^Border Holds, p. ig.
' Holdis and Towncshippes — Border Holds, p. 23.
340 PARISH OF WOOLER.
of urgent necessity 'for yt standeth in a very convenient and aptc place
for lyingc of an hundreth men in garryson in tyme of warre against
Scotland.'^ These repairs must have been executed, as in November,
1542, it was classed with Etal and Ford among 'houses of strengthe, '
which in case of a Scottish invasion could defend themselves till such
time as they were relieved by other garrisons. -
During the Scottish wars of Edward VI. 's reign the tower was used
as a base in which 50 men were housed,^ and in 1549 '^ hundred foot-
men under Sir John Forster were stationed at Fenton, though they may
not all have been accommodated in the tower.* It was also during this
period used as a place for the temporary confinement of Scottish
prisoners.^ Despite this we hear only once of fighting within the town-
ship, and this a mere foray, which retired towards the border so soon as
forces came up.*' With the close of the sixteenth century we hear no
more of Fenton tower, but its foundations could be traced still in the
mid nineteenth century in the farm house garden.^
' Survey of the Border, 1541 — Border Holds, p. 39.
- Hamilton Papers, vol. i. p. lx.xiv. ; Letters and Papers of Hoi. VIII. vol. .xvii. p. 614.
' August 8th, 1547- Cal. of State Papers, Domestic, 1547-1565, p. 329.
* Belvoir Papers, vol. i. pp. 37, 46. ' Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII. vol. -xxi. pt. i. p. 684.
' Cal. of Stats Papers, Foreign, 155S-1559. p. 77. ' Arch. Aeliana, N.S. vol. xiii. pp. 67-68.
PARISH OF FORD. 34I
PARISH OF FORD.
Despite the fact that it was the home of a prominent border family
and contained within its boundaries an important unit of border defences,
Ford^ played no more prominent part than its neighbours in the history
of England. Only on one occasion is there evidence of a royal visit,
when on Saturday, December 13th, 1292, Edward I. lay at Ford on his
way southwards.- Some eighteen months earlier he had stayed at
Hetherslaw, where he had presided at the trial of numerous cases of
assize.^ Of the four townships, later to be included in the manor of
Ford, that of Ford itself w-as assessed at the highest figure for the
subsidy of 1296, but if the lord's valuation of £37 i8s. od. be deducted
from the total of £49 3s. 3d., it is reduced to third place, for Hethers-
law was assessed on £19 is. 9d., Crookham on £17 4s. 4^d. and
Kimmerston £10 8s. 7d. So far as the number of persons assessed is
concerned Crookham headed the list with 13, Hetherslaw came next with
12, and Ford and Kimmerston had 7 each.*
If we are to judge from two assize rolls of the thirteenth century,
to live in Ford in those days had its dangerous side. In 1256 a quarrel
between Gregory Newston and Robert Bateman in Hetherslaw ended in
the latter striking his knife into the former's stomach with fatal results.
Adam le Brasur and Roger, son of Alexander, though present, made no
attempt to arrest the culprit, who escaped, and one Edwal, though not
implicated, fled the country for fear of suspicion falling on him. Adam
and Roger were fined, and Edwal was allowed to return, but his goods
were to be confiscated, though this cannot have worried him as he
' The Census returns, which include Ktal, Kimmerston, Hetherslaw and Crookham, are: iSoi, 1903 ; iSii,
i,8Go ; 1821, 1,807 ; 1831,2,110; 1841,2,257; 1851,2,322; 1801,2,072; 1871,1,841; 1881,1,584; 1891,
1.435; 1901,1,140; 1911,1,051. Under 1871 it is noted that the decrease in population was due to emigra-
tion and migration in search of more remunerative employment. The parish comprises 11725-516 acres.
' Document dated at Ford — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. ii. p. 153. His household accounts show that
there were disbursements that day of £2^ los. iid. for 63 scxtarii of wine from the cellar and 126 pounds of
wax. Household Accounts — Stevenson, Scottish Documents, vol. i. p. 371. A sextarius was about ij pints.
He must have boon accompanied by his son-in-law, John of Brabant, whose accounts about the same day-
show a payment of <)d. lu Wilcoc, a page, at I'ord, for stockings. Household Uoll of John of Brabant —
Stevenson, Scottish Documents, vol. i. p. 375.
^ Coram lie^e Roll, No. 127, ram. 56, 61, Cido — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxiii. pp. 317, i(ji, 367.
' Lay Subsidy Roll, 1296, fols. 99, 101-104, 109.
342 PARISH OF FORD.
possessed none. Further, the vills of Ford, Crookham and Hetherslaw
were fined for not responding to the hue and cry. On the same occasion
two other murders in Ford were reported, in one of whicli the victim
had been slain in the presence of his wife by some unknown male-
factor, who, despite the immediate raising of the hue and cry, managed
to escape, and once more the vill was amerced for its supineness.^
When the justices visited Newcastle in 1293, there was quite as large
a number of crimes from this district as in 1256. To two cases of
manslaughter from Hetherslaw and one each from Ford and ("rookham
were added two cases of burglary by unknown miscreants at Crook-
ham."^ Kimmerston seems to have been a quieter place to live in,
though in 1243 William Clerk and other malefactors had been slain
there by one Robert Bruce, who secured the king's pardon for the
deed.^
Open though it was to the attacks of Scottish enemies, we seldom hear
of raids in this district, unless the enemy was strong enough to make
an assault on the castle. When Robert Bruce was devastating northern
England in 13 14, the whole manor, including the church, was absolutely
destroyed, and no messenger dared visit the stricken place.'* It was
still waste in 1318.^ The incursion of 1340 left its mark on the whole
parish, the men of which sought exemption from taxation in 1344 on
the ground that their crops and goods had been burnt on that occasion.
They still had not paid in 1357.^ Doubtless it was due to the
experiences of 1340 that William Heron obtained permission to crenellate
his house, as he did that year ; still, despite this, and its promotion to
the dignity of castle in 1342, the whole parish was devastated in 1379
and 1380,'' and Hetherslaw lay waste in 1399 and again in 1454.^ In
1560 a jury of inquest declared that the four vills of Ford, Crookham,
Kimmerston and Broomridge had been greatly devastated ever since the
beginning of the last Scottish war, as they lay only six miles from the
• Northumberland Assize RoUs (Surtees Soc), p. iro.
' Assize Roll, 21 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xvii. pp. 66, 67, 69, 73.
' Cat. 0/ Patent Rolls, 1232-1247, p. 379. ■• A'g?. Palat. Dunelm, vol. ii. pp. 724, 1037-103S.
' Xova Taxatio, 11 Edw. II. — Ford Tithe Case, pp. 211-212.
* Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1343-1345, p. 409, 1345-1348, pp. 103-104 ; Cat. at Close Rolls, 1349-13^4, p. O13,
1354-1360. PP- 7'. 120, 185, 410.
' Taxation Accounts — Ford Tithe Case, pp. 214, 215.
' Inq. p.m. 22 Kic. II. No. 17, 32 Hen. VI. No. 15 — Ford Tithe Case, pp. 230, 231, 237.
PARISH OF FORD. * 343
border. Recently the tenants had only paid half rents on the strength
of an ancient custom which allowed such procedure after a war with
the Scots. 1 The existence of this custom is significant of the usual
fate of Ford in time of war, and it is confirmed by a similar return of
1589, which gives the respective value of the estate in times of peace
and war, the war time rent being then a little more than half the
peace \'alue.- Nevertheless the only recorded raid on Ford, apart
from the times when the castle was captured, was in 1524, when on
February 23rd Ford, Branxton and Comhill were burnt. Lord Dacre
the warden of the East March was furious at the way the inhabitants
of Glendale refused to rise to resist this attack, considering what the
king had spent in defending them during the war, and he declared it
folly to help those who would not help themselves. Later in the year,
however, when he had somewhat recovered his temper, he owned that
only part of the village had been burnt, and that the damage done could be
repaired for quite a small outlay.^
Still, Ford was witness of much military campaigning in the days of
border warfare. It w^as on Flodden hill that the Scottish king pitched
his camp in 1513, or as a contemporary describes it 'uppon the syde of
a hyghe mountayne, called Floddon on the edge of Chevyot, where was
but one narrow felde for any man to ascende up the syde hyll to hym,
and at the foote of the hyll laye all hys ordinance. On the one syde of
hys armye was a great Marrishe, and compassed with the hylles of
Chevyot, so that he laye to stronge too be approached of any syde :
excepte the Englishmen would have temerariously ronne on hys ordi-
naunce.'* A strong position indeed, though perhaps not quite so much so
as the chronicler would have us believe, for undoubtedly Surrey's flank
march was dictated as much by a desire to cut off the enemy from his
base by getting between him and Scotland, as by the fear of the
consequences of a frontal attack. Still, Flodden Edge had its strategic
value, since more than a century later it was reported in 1640 that 'the
Scots rendezvous tomorrow is at Flodden,'^ and there must have been
strong considerations to induce a superstitious race to gather on a spot
» P.R.O. Inq. p.m. Court oj Wards, vol. 8, No. 42.
- P.R.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. series 2, vol. 227, No. 195.
' Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII. vol. iv. pt. i. pp. 48, 49, 60, 89, 93, 113.
* Halls Chronicle, p. 560. ' Cal. 0/ State Papers. Domestic, 1640, p. 592.
344 PARISH OF FORD.
associated with unfortunate memories. On the other hand Crookham was
a favourite meeting place for Enghsh borderers gathering for a foray
into Scotland. In a field to the north-west of Crookham Westfield farm
there still stands, some seven feet above the ground, an ancient stone,
which modern tradition calls the 'king's stone,' associating it with the
battle of Flodden. It is obviously of far greater antiquity than this,
and there is frequent mention of it in sixteenth century documents, not
as a memorial of any event, but as a gathering place for those who
came from the surrounding districts to make a descent upon Scotland.
Thus in 1533 the garrisons of the various border castles were ordered
to meet at 'Crookham Stone' to avenge the burning of Cornhill and
Wark.i In 1542 a similar gathering was ordered for men of the Middle
and East Marches at the 'Stoone of Crookham More.'^ and when the
earl of Hertford was leading his punitive expedition into Scotland
three years later, his army was appointed to meet 'at the standing stone
upon Croeke a More.' He himself rode from Chillingham 'to the
foresaid stone on Crackamowre,' and camping a mile beyond, next day
'passed by Warke in three battles and forded the water. '^ At that
time the present field was evidently a moorland, and the stone, rising
up in the bare expanse, formed a landmark seen some distance away.
After the close of the sixteenth century Ford ceased to play any
part in national history. Indeed very little is known about
the life of the place. The extant court rolls of the manor, the earliest
of which is dated October 14th, 1658,* reveal very little that is not
common to all such records. Thus in 1676 the town of Hetherslaw
was presented by the bailiff for not repairing the stone causeway there,
and together with Crookham for having no pinfold and for neglecting
to keep its stocks in repair. So far as the last named were concerned
Crookham was ordered to repair them as late as 1838.^ Regulations also
were issued by order of the court at various times during the later
seventeenth century with regard to the cutting of sods on the common, the
'■ Letters and Papers oj Hen. VIII. vol. vi. p. 75.
^ Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII. vol. vi. pp. 6o^, 608, 629, 673 ; Hamilton Papers, vol. i. pp. xciii.,
304.341-
' Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII. vol. xx. jit. ii. p. 290.
* Extracts from Court Rolls — Ford Tithe Case, p. 113.
' Fortl Manorial Court Rolls — Ford Tithe Case, pp. 120, 131.
PARISH OF FORD. 345
pulling of heather and the bringing of corn by the tenants to be malted
in the lord's barn. Further, from an entry of 1672 it appears that it
was a custom oi the manor that no manure should be disposed of to
any one but the farmers of Ford, save once every four years. ^
The interests of Ford, after the days of border warfare and local
turbulence were passed, were almost purely agricultural. The village
had its weekly market and its two fairs every year from 1340
onwards. 2 It is probable that during the troublous times of the
sixteenth century these meetings were interrupted, at any rate in 1604
an inquiry was held as to the advisability of allowing Ford to be a
market centre, and as a result it was reported that it was a 'place
very needfull and fytt to have a Markette keept in itt every Thursedaye
yearly, and twoe faires to be keepte there in the said Towne in the
yeare, that is to saye one faire to be keept all the feaste of Saint
John Baptiste and the other faire to be keepte in the said Towne att
Saint Thomas daye th'appostle yearely for ever, for that the said Markett
and faires are nott prejudiciall or hurtful to any his Majestes Marketts
or other faires in the said county.'^ That this was a revival after long
disuse, seems evident from the fact that the market of the middle ages
had been on Monday not on Thursday, and the fairs at Corpus Christi
and Michaelmas not at Midsummer and Christmastide. As to the
agricultural interests, which the market and fair served, we are fortunate in
the preservation of some answers given to questions put forward by the
board of agriculture soon after its inception, which help us to realize
something of the agricultural development of the manor during the
later eighteenth century. This report, which is dated 1793, begins by
giving details as to the crops grown. Land newly broken up was first
cropped with oats, then wheat, or perhaps left till the spring and sown
with barley and sometimes with oats. When the ground was laid off
for grass, the most usual seeds used were red and white clover, rye
grass and to a certain extent common hay seeds. All green crops, such
as turnips and clowns, were grown in great perfection on the estate.
The conditions on which the land was leased allowed tenants to keep
half their holding in tillage and half in grass, one-fourth of the former
' Ford Manorial Court Rolls — Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. pp. 1 15-1 16.
2 Cal. of Charier Rolls, vol. iv. pp. 468-469. " Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. ii. p. 57.
Vol. XI. 44
346 PARISH OF FORD.
luixing to lie fallow cver\' Near. Tenants were allowed to lav off
laml into grass and to j^iough up existing grass land, but not without
seeking permission from the landlord in each case. With regard to stock,
the horses were principally of the Scottish breed, or bred by the farmers
themselves from a cross of the strong English stallion and the Scottish
mare, which produced a very good draught horse. The horned cattle
were wholly of the Dutch breed, tolerably good, as the report says, but
capable of considerable improvement, if more attention were paid to
procuring some of the best bred bulls of the species. The sheep were
for the most past ' of the most approved breed now used in the county,
and seem very well chosen and proper for the land in general, and to
attempt other breeds would be imprudent.' The most up to date two
horsed ploughs, 'such as has been recommended by the late ingenious
Mr. Cuthbert Clarke, lecturer in natural and experimental philosophy,'
together with the most improved drill plough for turnip husbandry,
were in general use. Among other implements in use, there were two
wheeled carts 'with narrow wheels hooped,' long carts with shelvings,
'the double-hinged brake,' single horse harrows, the turnip drill, turnip
hoes and other usual hand instruments. For draught purposes horses
were in common use, but oxen were not unknown.
The Ford estate had felt the full force of the agrarian revolution
of the later eighteenth century, and the report gives a detailed descrip-
tion of the improvements introduced during the last thirty or forty
years. About 1760 the whole estate was lying open and unenclosed,
many parts covered with ling and heather and scarce a hedge, tree or
fence upon 7,000 acres of land, except a few trees standing near the
castle. To remove such 'enemies to husbandry,' the proprietor of that
time began to enclose and build farmhouses upon such parts of the
estate as were most eligible and convenient for subdividing some of the
larger farms into smaller ones. He likewise kept a large part in his
own occupation, so as to bring it into proper cultivation the sooner.
Since that time large sums had been sunk in planting hedges and
building walls, though the former method of enclosing was most favoured.
Lord Delaval alone had spent £4,067 is. od. in this work. Thirteen new
farmhouses had been bvult, exclusive of additions to the old ones, some
of which had been practically rebuilt, at a cost of over £6,000, and yet
PARISH OF FORD. 347
a good return had been obtained for the outlay by the greater produc-
tivity of the estate. As things stood in 1793, the extent of waste lands
was small in comparison to the gross acreage, and considerable tracts
had been planted at an additional cost of £1,496. Passing from estate
management to wages and prices, the report states that 'common
labourers, were paid I5d. to i6d. a day all the year round, save in the
winter quarter, when they only got is. a day. Harvest wages ranged
from IS. to IS. 6d. a day, and 'artificers' were paid is. 8d. to 2s. 6d. a
day, the hours of labour for three quarters of the year being from
6 o'clock in the morning to 6 o'clock in the evening. Low though
these rates may seem to modern ideas, they show a marked improve-
ment on what they had been in 1761 on the same estate, when a
labourer was paid 4d. and his wife 3d. for a day's raking and shearing
respectiveh^ while his son earned £2 os. od. for driving a plough 'from
Barthorlowmas to Candlemas. '^ The purchasing power of these wages
of 1793 is best appraised by a comparison with the prices of provi-
sions at that time. Beef or pork ranged from 3d. to 4d. a pound,
mutton from 3d. to 4|d., veal from 4|d. to 6d., and bacon from 6d.
to 7d. Fish fluctuated enormously in price, owing to the irregularity
of the supply. The average prices of cereals were wheat 40s., oats 16s.,
barley 20s. and peas and beans 28s. per quarter, while poultry was
described as moderate at 2s. for a goose, 2S. 6d. for a turkey and 6d.
for a chicken. Butter cost 8d. or 9d. a pound, cheese 3d. to 7d. On
the whole butcher meat was fairly steady in price, but corn fluctuated
a little. 2 Even on this basis of prices the wages paid at Ford in 1793
were not very adequate. If judged by the moderate demands of the
Norfolk labourers two years later, based on a sliding scale according to
the price of wheat, they fell short by 4d. or 5d. a day from what was
considered a living wage.^ On the other hand, compared with the
wages paid in northern England at that time, the rate was probably
quite generous, for it was an age of low wages, so low that in that
very year was begun the disastrous system, inaugurated by the Berkshire
justices, of supplementing wages by outdoor relief on a regular scale.
' Delaval Private ."Accounts — Ford Tilhe Case, p. Sj.
- Answers to queries published and set fortli by the Board of .\griculture — Waterford Doctimenls, vol. iii.
rp- 137-139-
' The demand was that when wheat was £zo per last {i.e., lo quarters), the daily wage should be 20<1.
Cunningham, Growth of English Industry and Commerce (Cambridge, 1903), vol. ii. p. 717, n.
348 PARISH OF FORD.
Life was hard in eighteenth century Enghmd, but it had its com-
pensations. In the country districts, at any rate, there were many rehcs
of the days of 'Merrie England', and an unknown writer of the period
has left a record of some of the traditional customs then still extant at
Ford. Shrove Tuesday was still a day of great celebrations. On that
day the schoolboys were 'allowed to fight each a cock upon paying the
schoolmaster a penny.' The lucky owner of the cock victorious in most
battles was given the title of 'victor,' and the owner of the second
doughtiest fighter was known as 'the victor's man.' On Palm Sunday
the victor had 'the honour of running from the church about a mile
and back again attended by his man,' while the other boys, armed with
long palm-rods, set out in pursuit, handicapped by having to run three
times round the church before they set out. If overtaken, the victor
paid for this ' honour ' dearly, for ' it is well if he escapes a severe flogging,
tho' his man, or second, endeavours to ward off the blows as much
as possible.' The adults too had their celebration on Shrove Tues-
day, which took the form of a football match between married and
single, the former playing towards the church, the latter from it.
Before the match began, all who had been married within the year
were compelled to 'jump or wade through a wide deep watery hole,
which they call the gaudy loup,' on pain of not being allowed to play,
did they refuse. Easter Tuesday was the occasion of what was known
as 'the Dow Dancing,' in which not only the villagers of Ford, but those
from the neighbourhood, took part. The proceedings began with indis-
criminate dancing in the village street till they were 'satisfied,' as the
record puts it, and then ' two female combatants are singled out to dance
with each other as long as they can.' A pigeon, decorated with various
kinds of ribands, was held up by the feet while this dancing contest con-
tinued, and became the possession of the victor. Midsummer Eve used
to be celebrated by a bonfire of horses' bones, lit on an eminence above
the village, but by the eighteenth century this custom had fallen into
disuse. On All Saints Eve, 'commonly called Nutcrock Night,' the
young fellows, as a body, robbed all the gardens of their cabbages,
which according to a 'Gothic custom,' as our informant puts it, they
threw down people's chimneys, a proceeding often attended with
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 349
dangerous consequences. This last custom was well known in the
villages round, and spread into many parts of Scotland.^
It will be noticed that a schoolmaster is mentioned at presiding
over the Shrove Tuesday cock fighting, just as we are told he did in
London far back in the days of Henry II., and possibly we can date
the appointment of the first to hold that post in 1707, when ten
inhabitants of Ford agreed to subscribe varying amounts of rye and
barley 'for ye encouragement of a Schoolmaster,'- certainly he was an
institution in 1717, when Sir Francis Blake bequeathed 40s. to 'William
Youngson, clerk, teacher of the poor children of Ford.'^ Education was
thus prized at Ford at a time when it was considered a wild extrava-
gance even more commonly than it is now, and this tradition was kept
up, for when the marchioness of Waterford was beautifying the village,
in which she took great pride, she did not forget the school, but with
her own hand covered the walls with frescoes, which are one of the
sights of Northumberland to this day.
Ecclesiastical History. — The manor and parish of Ford have
been closely connected all through their respective histories, and the lord
of the manor has also owiied the advowson practically without inter-
mission. It was the property of Isabel Ford when she died in 1255,
being then valued at 60 marks,* and when, in 1292, William Heron
gave his Ford property to his son Gilbert, it was included in the gift.^ In
the hands of the Herons it remained till 1504, when William Heron
alienated it to Sir Thomas Dacre, who claimed to present to the living
two years later.'' Heron resisted the claim, and though the advowson
is not mentioned as part of his estate when he died in 1535, it was
none the less in the possession of the Carrs of Ford very soon after,
and continued there till the failure of the line," passing thereafter with
' 'Peculiar customs that prevail among the Common People of Ford," written in an eighteenth century-
hand. Waler/ord Docunients, vol. iii. p. 113.
2 Ford Manorial Court Rolls — Ford Tithe Case, p. 121.
' Will of Sir Francis Blake — Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. ii. pp. 14-16.
* Inq. p.m. 39 Hen. III. Xo. 40 — Bain, Cal. oj Documents, vol. i. p. 375.
* Dodsworth ilS. 49, fol. 7 ; Lansdowne MS. 326, fol. jido.
' De Banco Roll, No. 976, m. 405 — Arch. Aeliana, third series, vol. vi. p. 84.
' Liber Feodarii — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. l.xiv. ; Barnes, Injunctions, p. 10 ; Ecclesiastical Inquest.
1650 — Arch. Aeliana, U.S. vol. iii. p. 3. It is obvious that the advowson was part of the inheritance of
the Herons to which the Carrs succeeded, as in a list of Patrons circa 1577 (Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. xlvii.)
the careful compiler, in view of the dispute about the succession, has put down as patrons of Ford ' Mr. Carr
and .Mr. Heron.'
350 PARISH OF FORD.
the manor right down to the present day. The ecclesiastical history of
Ford centres round the relations of the incumbents and the patrons,
relations which from time to time were far from cordial, due to dis-
putes about the emoluments and rights of the rector. According to
Pope Nicholas's Taxation of 1291 the benefice was valued at £86 13s. ^d.}
a considerable advance on the 60 marks of 1255,- but Robert Heron,
the rector of that period, found cause to complain of the infringement
of his rights by the patron. He was one of that class of adminis-
trative officials, whom Edward I.'s reorganization of national government
helped to develop. He paid little attention to his cure, for in
1291, when we first hear of him as rector, he was assistant to
the English chamberlain of Scotland,^ and in 1297 he was appointed
comptroller of Scotland,^ an office which he held continuously down to
1311.^ In addition to this he was guardian of the customs at Berwick,
and was responsible, in particular, for the collection of the nova custuma
on wool.*^ In 1304 he was involved in the mysterious disappearance of
some of the king's money, which had been left in his charge at Berwick by
Sir Hugh Cressingham, when the latter set out on the journey which
was to end so fatally at the battle of Stirling Bridge,' and when he
died in 1314, the crown claimed that he owed debts and accounts not
yet rendered in respect of both his offices,^ while a merchant of Berwick
put in a claim for wool unlawfully taken from him.^ Earlier he
had been distrained for arrears amounting to £12, 8d. 8d., due from his
revenues from Ford for a clerical subsidy, and for other sums, due from
his benefices of Chillingham and Fenton.^*^ Like all pluralists, he was
very careful as to the rights of his much neglected benefices. During
' Taxatio Ecclesiaslica Angliae, 1291 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. 1. p. 352 ; Ford Tithe Case, p. 211. .Accord-
ing to a document of 1 283, the predial tithes of ' Fordes ' were granted to the seventh prebend of the collegiate
church of Lanchester. Monaslicon, vol. vi. pt. iii. pp. 133-134. Though this has been interpreted as
referring to Ford, county Northumberland, the place meant was probably what is now called Greenwell
Ford, south of Lanchester.
- Inq. p.m. 39 Hen. III. No. 40 — Bain, Cal. oj Documents, \o\. i. p. 373.
' Receipt by Robert Heron for payment of his wages — Stevenson, Scottish Documents, vol. i. p. 261 ; Bain,
Cal. of Documents, vol. ii. p. 134.
* Stevenson, Scottish Documents, ii. pp. 195-196. Cj. Foedera, vol. ii. p. 6.
* Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1307-1313, p. 381.
^ Stevenson, Scottish Documents, vol. ii. pp. 103, 261 ; Hot. Pari. vol. i. p. 467.
' E. \ chequer Q.R. Memoranda, 33 Edw. I. m. 37 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. ii. pp. 417-418.
' Reg. Palat. Dunehn. vol. ii. pp. 1020-1021, 1038. •' Reg. Palat. Dunchn. vol. ii. pp. 983-984.
'" Stevenson, Scottish Documents, vol. ii. p. 174.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 35 1
the course of 1294 he brought no less than three separate suits against
Gilbert Heron, the lord of Ford. In the first he complained
that he had been disseised of his right to take grass from a certain
tenement of 15 acres called Horshalgh for the sustenance of his horses,
by other animals being pastured there, and further prevented from a like
privilege in a meadow of 10 acres, called Bredefordmede, whenever the
lord cut grass there. The rector's right of pasture was based on a
grant of Richard Ford, that the parson might take grass whenever and
wherever the lord did so, and pasture his horses and those of his guests
under the same conditions. With regard to Horshalgh, however, an
agreement had been come to between Robert Heron and William Heron,
the present defendant's father, that it should be left untouched from
February 2nd to June gth every year, and that the parson should have
in return the right to take paddock-ppie^ for his horses in a place called
Dedrygh from the feast of the Ascension or earlier if the lord began to
take paddock-pipe thence, and after June 9th should be allowed to take
grass elsewhere whenever the lord began to do so. In accordance with
this agreement Robert Heron had begun to take paddock-pipe for his
horses at Ascensiontide this last year, and Gilbert had promptly agisted
his cattle there and consumed the w^hole of the crop within four days.
Robert had thus to fall back on his right to take grass elsewhere when
Gilbert began so to do, but the latter never did begin to do so, and
thus Robert could not get enough grass to keep his horses. Judgment
was therefore given for Robert with damages of 4s. As to Bredford-
mede, the parson had no case, for the jury found that the lord had
not taken grass thence this last year, which automatically suspended
Robert's right to do so.- Nothing could illustrate more clearly the
basic necessity of give and take under the manorial system. Gilbert
Heron evidently desired to injure the rector, and had succeeded in
doing so without much loss to himself by the careful regulation of his
actions. The contentions between the two men were further illustrated
by an action brought against Gilbert by Robert in the same year, for
having deprived him and his cottagers of common pasture in 300 acres
of moor, and of their rights of cutting turves in Ford. The defence
' Paddock-pipe, padow-pipe or toad-pipe is a name given to one species of Equisetum (horse-tail or mare's
tail) which grows in meadows and in grass beside streams.
* Assise Rolls. Divers Counties, 22 Edw. I. — -Duke's Transcripts, vol. .xx. pp. 295-.:9S.
352 PARISH OF FORD.
put in took tlic line that, while the rights claimed were not denied, there
was no justification for the rector's claim that the inhabitants of four
newly built cottages should share in them. To this answer was made, that
the cottages in question were not new, except in so far as that, being
in a ruinous state, they had been rebuilt. The jury's finding explained
quite clearly how this difference of opinion had arisen. A former
rector, Walter Heron, had appointed a vicar named Miles, and had set
apart for him a holding, to which Richard Ford had added a piece of
the waste land adjacent thereto. Miles held this till the death of
Walter Heron, enjoying the rights of common and turbary pertaining
thereto, but with the advent of a new rector, one Odinel, the holding
was reoccupied by him, as he was doubtless resident and did not need
a vicar. When Robert Heron succeeded Odinel, he built the four
cottages in question, under one roof, on the site of what had been the
vicar's holding, partly on the original glebe, partly on that portion
added thereto by Richard Ford. The cottagers, Walter White,
Robert Carter, Stephen Tredecorn and William of Heselden. were
tenants at will, enjoying rights of chase and wood and estovers in the
said moor, but when William of Heselden pastured a cow there, he was
stopped doing so by the lord at the end of half a year, and all were
forbidden by him to dig turves there as part of their estovers. So
far as the rector's plea that these were not new cottages was concerned,
it was true that formerly there had been three more cottages than
Walter Heron found when he was appointed to the cure, and that
these had enjoyed common of pasture and turbary with all the other
tenants of the glebe lands. In view of this finding judgment was given
for the rector in respect of three cottages but not of the fourth. ^
Even then all points at issue between lord and rector were not settled,
for the latter claimed common pasture in fifty acres of wood, moor and
pasture, and in 40 acres of pasture elsewhere, and reasonable estovers
of taking stone in about four acres of quarry and of taking clay and
sand in about two acres of waste for repairing his rectory house, all
of which he complained had been denied him by the lord. On this
matter agreement was come to out of court on terms, that Robert Heron
should have these rights for life, without prejudice to the rights either
1 Assize Rolls, Divers Counties, 22 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xx. pp. 299-303.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 353
of the church or of the lord of the manor.^ It is hardly to be ex-
pected that, being of such a litigious disposition, Robert Heron would
escape a quarrel with Gilbert Heron's acquisitive mother Mary, who in
1303, after the death of her second husband, John Cambous, was sued
by the rector for a debt of £40,- and in 1307 for taking his cattle and
unjustly detaining them.^
When Robert Heron died in 1314, Ford was in a sad condition,
and the church had been burnt down by the Scots. As a result of an
inquest held in January, 1315, it was reported that, so far as could be
gathered, the only dilapidations secured by Robert Heron from his
predecessor were {6 for the repair of the chancel roof, but now the
whole structure was destroyed and would cost at least £200 to rebuild.
Further there were three rooms for state occasions,* which the late
rector had been ordered to keep in repair by the bishop after his
visitation, and which could only be rebuilt at a cost of £30. £3 would
be needed to restore the vestments, and a similar sum to replace neces-
sary utensils. Further, two breviaries belonging to the church had been
carried off by Walter Heron. The chancel roof would need another
£6.^ It was further declared, that the late rector had converted to his
own use property belonging to the church to the amount of £48 12s. od.,
but his executors denied the accuracy of these returns, stating that the
deceased incumbent had left everything in thorough repair and had
rebuilt the parson's house, and that the destruction by the Scots had
taken place after his death. On an appeal to the archbishop of York,
proceedings were stayed, but the king intervened \\dth an order that all
the dilapidations should be paid out of Heron's estate.'' In the end
the new incumbent and the executors agreed to leave the matter to be
decided by the bishop of Durham.^
The rectory of Ford was indeed in a bad way in 1314, and this
was by no means an unusual occurrence. In 1318 and again in 1380
and 1381, it was valueless,^ though the old assessment of
' Assize Roll, Divers Counties, 23 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. x.\. pp. 313-314.
- De Banco Roll, No. 145. m. 211, No. 150, m. 204 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxix. pp. 134. 342-343.
' De Banco Roll, No. 1O4, m. 330 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxvii. p. 514.
* Solemnes cameras. ' Reg. Palat. Dunelm, vol. ii. pp. 723-724.
' Ibid., vol. ii. pp. 741-744, 1066-1068, 1081-1082; Cal. of Close Rolls, 1313-131S, p. 221.
' Reg. Palat. Dunelm, vol. iv. pp. 489-490.
* Taxations Returns— Forii Tithe Case, pp. 211-212, 214. 215.
Vol. XI. 45
354 PARISH OF FORD.
;^86 13s. 4d., still held good.^ In 1409, however, it was valued at £20
only,"'^ and in 1535 at £24,^ an estimate reaflirmed in Elizabeth's reign.*
It may very well be that the rectory, like the tenant's holdings in the
manor, was valued at a different sum in time of peace and in time of
war, or it is possible that the lords of Ford were beginning to lay
hands on the revenues. More probably the ;^20 represents the Nova Taxatio
of 1318 and the 1380 and 1381 values were founded by mistake on the
1291 assessment. It is however significant that it is in 1590, that we
first hear of the lord being possessed of tithes,^ and that soon after this
we find dissensions arising once more between rector and patron.
When Robert Rotherham was rector, early in the seventeenth century, he
quarrelled badly with Thomas Carr, nominally because the former had
converted the clapper of the church bell to some secular use. Legal
proceedings followed, but after seven years contention it was ended by
a public apology made by Rotherham one Sunday at the end of his
sermon. Not content with this, the incumbent, according to an eye
witness, 'came down from the pulpitt and satt down upon his knees
before the pew or seate where the said Mr. Carr and his family then
satt, and asked the said Mr. Carr forgiveness, and did openly and
publickly declare he had done him much wronge.' Thus was peace
restored," but in the light of later events it is highly probable that
there was more than a bell-clapper in dispute between them. Accord-
ing to the evidence of Thomas Carr's daughter-in-law, Rotherham was
paid £40 yearly in lieu of all tithes, 'but the lords of the said manor
were usually kind to the incumbents by inviting them to their house
and by being further beneficient towards them."^ It seems fairly
obvious that Rotherham at any rate preferred his rectorial tithes to
the ' beneficience ' of the patron, but that he was beaten in the struggle.
At any rate it was later declared that this Thomas Carr held the
' Reg. Palat. Dunelm, vol. iii. p. 97 ; Nonanim Inquisitiones, I3.|0 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. x.x.xix.
* Taxation Returns — Ford Tithe Case, p. 217. It is valued at 'not more than £.^o' in 1450. Papal
Letters, vol. x. p. 480.
' Valor Ecclesiasticus, 27 Hen. VIII. — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. xliv.
* List of Churches, circa 1577 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. xlvii. ; Barnes, Injunctions, p. 10.
* P.R.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. series ii. vol. 227, No. 195.
* Deposition of George Nesbitt, 1679 — Ford Tithe Case, pp. 178-179.
' Deposition of Susannah Salkeld in Jenkins v. Blake and Davison — Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. pp.
M--I43-
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 355
rectory impropriate.^ Still, during the Commonwealth, when the Carrs
were frowned on by the government, John Pringle, the puritan divine
placed in the living by that government, though he exacted more than
the ;^40 paid to Rotherham, did not get the tithes as a whole, valued
at £250, but was paid £60 by the patron.'- Pringle 's successor, James
Scott, found 'the church ruinous, the means usurped ... no glebe nor
tithe that he can get possession of,' and for three years he got prac-
tically nothing for his work.^ He tried to secure the tithes, but
compromised with Francis Blake,* and it was left to his successor,
Alexander Davison, to take the matter into court. In 1678 he sued
Blake for the tithes, asserting that the latter had got him before being
presented to bind himself to resign the living, if called upon, and
that now that he had demanded the tithes, he had been called on to
do 80.^ The defendant denied that he had called on the rector to
resign because he claimed tithes, and said that he had done so because
Davison had accepted the vicarage of Lewisham and this would entail
non-residence at Ford.^ As to the tithes, he claimed that by an ancient
modus he was entitled to all the tithes of his lordship, in return for
the payment of £40 annually to the incumbent.'^ William Carr of Etal,
however, claimed no such right for his lands within the parish, though
Catford Law had only recently been bought from the Ford estate,^ and
came to an agreement with the rector, being 'resolved not to contend
with the church, ' as he told his neighbour.^ Davison did not carr^- the
suit to the bitter end, and agreed to accept the £40 before judgment
was given, but this raised an awkward position, since he had already
leased to John Jenkins the tithes of the lands owned by the latter at
1 P.R.O. Chancery Proceeding!:, Bridges, bundle 32, No. 21. On Xovember 24th, 1625, George Carr and
Richard Unthank were ordered to pay the costs of Robert Rotherham, rector of Ford, in a suit brought by
the latter with regard to the parish of Ford. Hunter MS. 6, p. 87. George Carr may be identified with
George Carr the second son of Thomas Carr by his second wife. This suggests that Rotherham succeeded in
some of his attempts to assert his rights.
2 Ecclesiastical Inquests. 1650— -Arch. Aeliana, O.S. vol. iii. p. 5; Statement by Blake, 1678 — Ford
Tithe Case, p. 176 ; Statement by Ralph .\rchbold, 1686— Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. p. 146.
^ Survey of the Churches of Northumberland, 1663 — Arch. Aeliana, N.S. vol. xvii. pp. 255, 257.
* Deposition of Susannah Salkeld in Jenkins v. Blake and Davison. 1686 — Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii.
pp. 142-143.
^ Chancery Bill, 1678 — Ford Tithe Case, pp. 171-174.
8 As a matter of fact Davison was instituted to the vicarage of Lewisham on March 2nd, 1677, a full
fortnight before he signed the bond. Ford Tithe Case, pp. 247, 172.
• Answer in Chancery. 1678 — Ford Tithe Case, pp. 174-176. ' See page 397.
» Deposition ot William Carr of Etal, 167S — Ford Tithe Case, p. 199.
356 PARISH OF FORD.
Hetherslaw and Crookham. Blake now claimed these, and he and the
rector had to defend an action brought by Jenkins for damages for
preventing his collection of the tithes. They won their case, but were
compelled to pay their own costs. ^ To a certain extent this judgment
strengthened the claim of the lords of Ford to the tithes, but Sir
Francis Blake evidently did not think the position secure, for by his
will in 1717 he left his property in trust, with directions to the trustees
to pay £40 a year to the rector of Ford by way of modus, with pro-
vision that if the rector should commence any action for tithes in kind
from his estates in Ford, the payment of the £40 should cease forthwith. ^
Such was the situation with regard to the rectory in the early
eighteenth century, and it did not commend itself to Mr. Drake of
Norham, when he wrote in 1725 — 'This living has been so unfortunate
as to have from time to time for incumbents men of so much con-
descension and for patrons men of such power and injustice, as that
the church cannot come at her right without the ruin of her minister.
About 50 years ago the rector was shot in the churchyard from the
castle for attempting his right If justice was done this
living, it would be the most eligible in the northern part of the
diocese, both in respect of its value and the smallness of the cure. . . .
The glebe is altogether and supplies the wants of a family.' The tithes
of the Ford estate were computed to be worth £250 per annum, just
as they had been in 1650, but the rector's income came to £210, made
up from Etal tithes, let for £140 a year, the £40 from the Ford estate,
and small tithes, fees, glebe house and so forth estimated at £30.^ If
the legend about shooting the rector be true in fact and date, it points
to the incumbency of Davison, though it may well refer to an earlier
time. It is obvious that those with a clerical bias believed the claims
of the rectors to be justified, and that the owners of Ford were not at
all sure of their position. That a modus dating back to time beyond
memory existed could not be proved in the light of past history, and
we have seen that on the rectors in the middle ages, at any rate, had
fallen the obligation to repair the chancel. Still, the Delavals did their
' Proceedings in the Court of Exchequer, Jenkins v. Blake and Davison — Ford Tithe Case, pp. 182-205.
' Will of Sir Francis Blake — Ford Tithe Case, p. 143.
' An account of ye Deanery of Balmbrough in 1725, by Mr. Drake, vicar of Norham — Proceedings
of Sewcastle Antiqs. second series, vol. i. p. 145.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 357
best to strengthen the case. In 1760 an action for the tithes was begun
by the incumbent, George Marsh/ evidently in colhision with the
patron, since he was at the same time begging successfully for the
next presentation for his son.^ Perhaps the defence did not prove good
enough, as the proceedings were abandoned. A few years later, when
Dr. Askew was purchasing lands in Crookham from Sir John Hussey
Delaval, he showed no little scepticism as to the Delaval title to the
tithes,^ so altogether it was not perhaps surprising that in 1830 the
rector, then Thomas Knight, raised once more the question of his right
to them. He got a verdict in 1841 in the court of exchequer and
again at the Northumberland assizes of 1846 against the marquis of
Waterford,^ who appealed to the house of lords, but before the appeal
came on for hearing compromised by agreeing to pay £10,000 in full
discharge of all claims put forward by the incumbent for tithes up to
July, 1847, and to burden his estate with the obligation of a tithe rent
charge of £500 a year.^ Under these conditions the rectory is returned
at the present day at a gross value of £968 and nett value of £820
a year.
Protestant nonconformity was strong in Ford. In the later 17th
century, Gabriel Semple, a presbyterian, acted as curate to James Scott,
rector of Ford.^ For some years he seems to ha\'e carried on the only
pastoral work done in the parish. As he himself said, ' these borderers
were looked upon to be ignorant, barbarous and debauched with all
sort of wickedness, that none thought it worth their consideration to
look after them, thinking that they could not be brought to any
reformation. Yet in the Lord's infinite mercy the preaching to these
borderers had more fruit than in many places that was more civilized.'
His ministrations were so well appreciated that, when there was talk of
his removal, a petition was signed by the people from the neighbouring
parishes ' begging for his continuance with them, and pleading that he
had taken compassion on them in their blood and been twenty four
years among them."' In 1690 he was translated to Jedburgh and died
1 Ford Tithe Case, pp. 247-25:. * Ford Tithe Case, pp. 251-252.
' Correspondence — Ford Tithe Case, pp. 255-265.
* Ford Tithe Case, pp. 1-2 ; Newcastle Chronicle, Friday, August 7th, 1846.
' Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. p. 140. ^ Scott, Fasti Ecclesiae Scotecanae, vol. ii. pp. 481, 590.
' Memoirs of Mr. William Veitch and George Bryssou, \vritten by themselves. Ed. T. M'Crie (Edin-
burgh, 1825), p. 1 19.
358 PARISH OF FORD.
their in 1706 in the fiftieth year of his ministry. ^ The fruits of his
devoted work were seen all through the eighteenth century. In 1725
it was reported that there was 'a famous conventicle' in the parish,
which made the church more than large enough for those of the
Anglican communion,- but long before this there had been signs of
a growing tendency in this direction. This was particularly evident
in 1678, when the suppression of the Covenanters in Scotland was
driving them towards the open rebellion which culminated in the
defeat of Bothwell Brig. Their activities extended across the
border, and in September a small band of them fell on a
small party under Colonel William Strother, who was evidently in
charge of the forces which were trying to suppress conventicles on the
English side. In the fray, which took place near Crookham, Captain
Robert Morley and at least one of the Scots were killed, but the most
significant part of the incident was the open sympathy of the inhabi-
tants with the Covenanters, who 'were entertained in one house
immediately before the act, and during the dispute many got on the
houses and stacks, expecting success to their wishes, . . . not one giving
assistance to the weak party, nor after the misfortune would stir to
make hue and cry.' Even those in authority refused to act, for 'the
offenders were sheltered and countenanced in all these towns near the
borders.'^ Crookham, indeed, was a great presbyterian centre, the
conventicle alluded to in 1725 being there situated. A legend grew up
round this church, that when the ground was marked out for the
foundations, some spiritual agency moved the marks so that it was
built about twice as large as was originally intended, and that at the
first sacrament there celebrated, an apparition declared that the place
would always be cursed with fightings and contentions.* In 1827 it
was registered for the solemnization of marriages.^
The Church.— The parish church of St. Michael, despite much
restoration, is fundamentally an ancient structure, dating from the 13th
century. In 1314 it was burnt, ^ and a good deal in the way of repairs
' Scott, Fasti Ecclesiae Scotecanae, vol. ii., pp. 481, 590.
" An account of ye Deanery of Balmbrough by Mr. Drake, vicar of Norham — Proceedings of Newcastle
Anliqs. second series, vol. i. p. 145.
' Cal. oj State Papers, Domestic, 1678, pp. 411-412, 416, 417, 419, 420, 447.
< Deuham Tracts, vol. i. pp. lo-ii. * London Gazette, September 29th, 1837, p. 2521.
' Reg. Palat. Dunelm, vol. ii. pp. 723-724.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 359
was needed in 1431.1 In 1598 it was reported to be in decay, 2 and in
1663 the chancel was in ruins and without any roof, and the nave httle
better, without door and windows and so faulty in the roof that no
one could keep dry therein, when it rained. The walls were not
plastered, nor the floor paved, and there was 'no ffont, noe com-
munion table, no cloth nor vessels thereto belonging, no desk, no
surpless, no register, noe chest, noe vestry. '^ When Dr. George
Chalmers came to Ford in 1690, he found the chancel and church-
yard wall in a ruinous condition and 'with all things wanting appointed
to be used in every chancel for decency and order.' He did much in
the way of restoration, and the chancel was 'for the first time glazed,
its floor levelled, and its door hung in.' In 1694 an altar was built
and railed in, and the bell was sent to Edinburgh to be re founded.*
By 1725 the church could be reported as 'regular and neat," though the
chancel stiU lacked much in the way of 'light, whitewashing and floor-
ing,'^ and in 1734 it was 'in very good order and well built.'*' The
Delavals spent a good deal of money on the chancel. In 1752 two
'gothick' windows and a circular one were inserted and the roof repaired,
while in 1776 the roof was taken down and rebuilt and three 'hewn
rose Windows' inserted. '^ According to a terrier of 1792 the church
was quite well furnished according to the ideas of the time, many of
the necessaries having been presented by Dr. Chalmers.^ In 1810
£93 8s. lod. was spent on restoration.^
A piscina on the eastern wall of the south aisle suggests that
here was the chantry of Ford, the dedication of which is in some doubt.
At Easter, 1344, Stephen Newton was ordained by the bishop of
Durham to the title of the perpetual chantry of the chapel of Ford,
to which he was presented by the prior and convent of Brinkbum,^"
the only mention of any relationship between Ford and the priory. ^^ An
1 Commission of Sequestration — Ford Tithe Case, p. 219. ^ Consistory Court Visitation Books.
' Survey of the Churches of Northumberland, 1663 — Arch. Aeliana, N.S. vol. xvii. p. 257.
* Extracts from Parish Books — Proceedings of Newcastle Atiliqs. second series, vol. ill. p. 345.
' An account of ye Deanery of Balmbrough by Mr. Drake, vicar of Norham — Proceedings of Newcastle
Antiqs. second series, vol. i. p. 145.
^ Mark's Siirvev, p. 77. ' Delaval Accounts — Ford Tithe Case, pp. 75-80, 96, loi, 104, 105, 109.
' Terrier of August, 1772 — Ford Tithe Case, p. iii.
» Proceedings of Newcastle Antiqs. second scries, vol. v. p. 66. '" lieg. Palat. Dunelni, vol. iii. p. 141.
" Evidently the prior and convent were made trustees of the chantry by the founder, with reversion of
patronage at his death.
36o
PARISH OF FORD.
allusion to John chaplain of Ford in 1369^ may refer to the priest of
this cliantry, and in 1345 the crown presented William Hunter, chap-
lain, to the chantry of the altar of St. Katherine in the parish church
of Ford in the diocese of Durham. ^ Matters are complicated, however,
by the fact that on the dissolution of the chantries under Edward VI.,
a grant of a cottage and one small croft of land adjoining thereto
'parcel of the late chantry of St. Mary of Ford' was granted to Sir
Thomas Gargrave and William Adam the younger,^ while in some
ministers accounts of 1565-1566
among chantries, guilds, &c., in the
P, queen's hands, there is mention of
'the late chantry of St. Margaret
founded within the church of
Ford.' ^ Thus we have three
different dedications for what
seems like one chantry. The
dedications of St. Katherine and
St. Margaret undoubtedly refer
to chantries in the church itself,
the other might possibly refer
to one which by tradition stood
in what is still known as the
' chapel field ' in Hetherslaw,^ but
its dedication identifies it with the
chapel of St. Mary in Etal, men-
tioned in 1345, when Sir Robert Manners provided an endowment for a
chaplain to say Mass there daily.®
The church now consists of an aisleless chancel, and a nave with
north and south aisles, and in the centre of the west gable a massive
bell turret. A small south porch encloses the door. In 1853 John
Dobson, the architect, added the north nave aisle and the south
porch, and removed the strange projection shown on the sketch, (fig.
12,) which is from a small drawing by Mr. A. Richardson.
1 Cal. of Close Rolls, 1369-1374, p. 87. ' Cal. oj Patent Roth, 1420-1436, p. 460.
' P.R.O^ Augmentation Ofifice. Particulars (or Grants, No. 1,625. Cf. Patent Rolls, 3 Edw. VI. part I.—
Proceedings oj Newcastle Aniiqs. second series, vol. ix. p. 299.
* Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. i. p. 67. ' Under a Border Tower, p. 149.
' P.R.O. Inq. A.Q.D. File CCLXXV. No. 12, File cclxxxi. No. 7 ; Cal. oj Patent Rolls, 1343-1345, p. 529.
Fig. 12
Ford Church,
1836.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
361
^•/'v/V/WmMA/ ••'/Attttt^,
J*
^'i.
.y//.9r^,-y/m\ m>//.9»~^^,.
4S 6
«--i6 6 ^ ii s «jr 11 * > < ir 3
Fig. 13. — Plan of Ford Church before Restoration.
•wM,,
Previous to 1853, the plan was as shown on fig. 13, which is
Dobson's survey made before the alterations. The length of the chancel
is 45 feet 10 inches. On the south side there is some ancient walling
below the window-sill, including a stepped double splayed base. On
the plan the chancel arch is narrow and is suggestive of early date; it
was destroyed in 1853. Of the nave, 58 feet 10 inches in length, the
details are of thirteenth century character; an ancient window in the
west gable to the north of the bell turret is a lancet, with widely
splayed jambs and arch within. The springing stone of the arch is
shouldered and similar to the chancel windows at Corbridge and
Ovingham. The south aisle f| (J'
was added at a later date,
the nave wall being re-
placed by an arcade of
three arches formed of two
chamfered orders, carried
on two piers with cylin-
drical shafts and moulded
capitals and bases. Two of the members of the capital of the western
pier are enriched with nail head ornament. At the east and west
ends the arches spring from moulded semi-octagonal brackets.
The east end of the south aisle was doubtless the site of
the chantry mentioned above, there is no trace of an altar, but
at the east end of the south wall is a piscina with an ogee head and
broken basin. The external angles of the aisle have diagonal buttresses,
that to the west being merely weathered on the top, but the eastern
one has in its two upper stages trefoil-headed niches.
The angles of the west nave gable were enclosed with flat buttresses
of slight projection. On the apex of the gable is a bell turret, which
has been clumsily restored ; it is pierced above the roof level with three
arches and finished with a pyramidal stone roof. The arches are
pointed and arranged in two stages, one in the upper and two in that
immediately below. The outer jambs of the double arches are further
pierced by openings to the north and south. A quirked roll is worked
on the external angles of the turret at this level.
Vol. XI.
46
362 PARISH OF FORD.
On Mr. Richardson's sketch, fig. 12, is a small pointed window at
the east end of the south aisle, and a stepped weathered buttress on the
south side. The windows in the south wall of both nave and chancel
appear to be of the eighteenth-century churchwarden type.
There are several grave slabs in the church, including one with a
cross with a quatrefoiled head within a circle, another with a repre-
sentation of the Northumbrian pipes, and a fragment of a tegulated
grave cover on which the tiles are curved upwards. The registers date
from 1683.
Lady Augusta Fitzclarence of Etal and Clarencedale, in the year
1859, built and endowed for the accommodation of a portion of the
inhabitants of the parish of Ford, a chapel dedicated to the Blessed
Virgin Mary, situate in the manor of Etal, in memory of her deceased
husband. Lord Frederick Fitzclarence, and their only child. The chapel
is about 80 feet long and together with its south transept is seated
for 80 persons. It is situated near the public highway on the right
hand side of the drive leading from the village to the hall.^
The Parson's Tower. — Though there are allusions to the parson's
dwelling in early days, the first description dates from 1541, when it
was 'a lytle tower which was the mansion of the parsonage . . . and a
quarter thereof was casten downe by the last King of Scotts' before
Flodden, 'and Sir Cuthbert Ogle, parson of the churche there, beganne
to reedyfie the same again and rased the wall thereof two houses
highte, and there so yt resteth, and yt were muche requysite to be
fynyshed for defence of that towne.'^ Little was left of this in 1663,
when there was 'no house for the parson, what was, is totally
demohshed,'^ but by 1725 the house was 'strong and convenient.'-* A
century later it was described as 'old, with small and low rooms, but
the view is delightful.'^ It had then been enlarged by the addition of
a wing in the shape of an L, 20J feet by 14 feet, and of kitchen
premises, 6 but in 1878 the Rev. H. M. Neville made an exchange of
' Berwickshire Naturalists' Club, vol. iv. p. 179. - Survey of the Border, 1541 — Border Holds, p. 39.
' Survey of the Churches of Northumberland, 1663 — Arch. Aeliana, N.S. vol. xvii. p. 257.
' An Account of ye Deanery of Balmbrough by Mr. Drake, vicar of Norham — Proceedings of Newcastle
Antiqs. second scries, vol. i. p. 1.15.
' Archdeacon Singleton's Visitation, 1828 — Arch. Aeliana, N.S. vol. xvii. p. 257.
° Terrier of 1792 — Ford Tithe Case, pp. no, in.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
363
Jands with Lady Waterford, and the old house was included in the
castle grounds, giving place as a residence for the rector to the present
rectory house. ^
The tower is now only one storey in height, and is overgrown with
trees. It is square on plan, measuring in the exterior 33 feet 6 inches,
and within ig feet 6 inches. The walls are 7 feet
in thickness. The entrance is on the east side by
a flat arched door, which opens on to a staircase
2 feet 8 inches wide in the thickness of the wall.
The basement has a semi-circular vaulted roof, and
was lighted by a small square-headed window at
the south end. A splayed offset occurs on the
exterior at the level of the upper floor.
The tower is not so early in point of date,
but is much larger on plan than the vicar's pele
at Corbridge,- and of Halton Tower,^ and almost
as large as the ' King James's tower ' at the Castle.
SCALE Of FEET
wh knowues mens et del
Fig. 14. — Parson's Tower,
Ford.
1241.
1248 — 1260.
1260? — 1291?
1291— 1314.
1314 — 131O.
Rectors.
Henry, parson of Ford in 1241.*
Walter Heron, mentioned as rector of the church of Ford, .\ugust 24th, 1248,' and again
on May 3rd, 1252.° Rector at the time that Richard Ford was lord of Ford.' Still rector
in May, 1260.'
Odinel, mentioned in 1293 as successor of Walter Heron and immediate predecessor of
Robert Heron. Died rector of Ford.'
Robert Heron, first mentioned as rector of Ford, December ist, 1291.'° Died rector of
Ford before June, 13 14.''
Roger Northburgh, on November 26th, 1314, the bishop of Durham granted the church
of Ford in commendam for six weeks to Roger Northburgh, presbyter, rector of Bowness,
diocese of Carlisle, provided that the divine offices and other necessary things in the church
of Ford were performed. Roger had been presented to Ford by the bishop through Roger
Heron, the real patron.'- Still rector March 29th, 1315." Later bishop of Lichfield.
' Statement by Mr. Neville in i8()i— Proceedings of Newcastle Antiqs. second series, vol. v. p. 64.
- N.C.H. vol. X. p. 214. ' Ibid. p. 410.
' Durham Treasury Document — Raine, North Durham, app. No. dcclxxXiv. p. 140.
' Newminster Cartulary, p. 143. ' Cal. of Charter Rolls, vol. i. p. 390.
' Assize Rolls, Divers Counties, 22 Edw, I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xx. p. 296.
' Reg. Palat. Dunelm, vol. i. p. 337.
' Assize Holts, Divers Counties, 22 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. x.x. p. 301.
'° Chapter House Document — Bain, Cal. oj Documents, vol. ii. p. 134.
" Reg. Palat. Diinehii, vol. i. pp. 536, 563. " Ibid. vol. i. pp. O4O-O47. " Ibid. vol. ii. p. 1067.
364 PARISH OF FORD.
1316 — Roger Nassington, order for institution, June 4th, 1316.' Under the description 'rector
of Ford, acolyte,' granted leave to absent himself at a university for seven years and mean-
while to be relieved of obligation of residence and taking superior orders, except the order
of the sub-diaconate which he must take within the year, August 20th, 1316.- Later
chancellor of Lichfield by appointment of Roger Northburgh, then bishop of Liclifield.
1326. Roger Heron, mentioned as parson of the church of Ford in 1326.'
1337 — 1341. William Middleton, mentioned as parson of the church of Ford in 1337 and in 1341'
134O. Robert Heron, mentioned as parson of the church of Ford in 1346.'
William, mentioned as parson of the church of Ford, in two separate documents in 1370.'
May be identical with
1371, 1381. William Flixburgh, mentioned as rector of Ford in 1371 and sued John Gourlay of Lowick
for trespass 1372 — 1374.' mentioned in levying a subsidy 1381.'
1400 — John Haliwell, presented to the church of Ford by the crown, November 25th, 1400.'
1409 — 1431. Anthony St. Quintin, ratification of his estate in the parsonage of Ford, February 12th,
1409.1° In 1413 he sued John Manners and John Fenwick of Gunnerton for a debt of
18 marks."
1431 — John Skipton, presented to tlie church of Ford by the crown, January 28th, 1431.'- An
order issued September 12th, 1431, for the sequestration of the goods of Anthony St. Quintin,
the immediate predecessor of Skipton, until the latter had secured dilapidations."
Nicholas Newton, presented by the crown to the parish church of Ford, February 17th.
1434.''' Instituted 9th March, 1434. On loth April was empowered to take such Orders
as he had not yet receive*'^
Richard Hinde, December nth, 1347. Exchange of benefices between Richard Hinde,
parson of the church of Wilden, county Bedford, and Nicholas Newton above.'* Resigned
1438."
Robert Locker, presented by the crown to the cliurch of Ford, void by the resignation of
the above, March 8th, 1438." Resigned 1439."
Robert Chester, presented by the crown to the church of Ford, void by the resignation of
the above, May 25th, 1439.'*
Emeric Burell alias Herton, died rector of Ford in Rome, 1450.''
1450 — Francis, bishop of Porto. Papal grant in commendam of the church of Ford void by the
death of tlie above at Rome, June 15th, 1450.-" Francesco Condulmieri was a nephew of
Eugenius IV. He died in 1453.
1496— Lawrence Heron. On February 27th, 1496, Lawrence Heron, rector of Ford, was ordained
sub-deacon by letters dimissory. He took his title from his benefice. -'
1 Reg. Palal. Dunelm, vol. ii. pp. 788-789. 2 JUii^ vol. ii. p. 823.
' Proof of Age — Arch. Aeliana, O.S. vol. iv. p. 328.
* Pedes Finium, 11 Edw. III. No. 52, 15 Edw. III. No. 58 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. .xxxix. pp. 115, 129.
° De Banco Roll, No. 348, m. 33odo — Arch. Aeliana, third series, vol. vi. p. 51.
* Lansdowne MS. 326, fol. 44 ; Rot. Fin. 44 Edw. III. m. 24 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. x.xxii. p. iir.
' Rot. Fin. 45 Edw. III. m. i ; Coram Rege Roll, No. 447, m. 96 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxii. p. 145,
vol. XXXV. pp. 424-425, 460 ; Cal. oj Patent Rolls, 1370-1374, p. 143.
' Accounts of Archdeacon of Northumberland — Ford Tithe Case, p. 215.
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1399-1401, p. 387. '° Ibid. 1408-1413, p. 118.
" De Banco Roll, No. 610, m. 8ido — Arch. Aeliana, third series, vol. vi. p. 70.
12 Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1429-1436, p. 100.
" Commission for Repair of Ford Church (from Langley Register, fol. 181). — Ford Tithe Case, p. 219.
" Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1429-1436, p. 332. '* Langley Register, fol. 302.
" Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1436-1441, p. 140. " Ibid. p. 144. '" Ibid. p. 259. '° Pap.1l Letters, vol. x. p. 480.'
-" Ibid. '-' Reg. Rothcrham ad finem — Testamcnta. Ebor. vol. iv. p. 97 n.
1434-
-1437-
1437-
-1438.
1438-
-1439-
1439-
-
-
-1450-
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 365
1503 — Thomas Tindin, presented by the crown to the parish church of Ford, November i6th, 1503. »
1516, 1532. CoTHBERT Ogle, mentioned as rector of Ford, July 4th, 1516.' Licence to absent himself
from his benefice at Ford, and to receive to farm during his hfe or a term of years, lands,
tenements, &c., or rectories and other benefices, not exceeding the annual value of 100
marks, notwithstanding the statute 21 Hen. VIII. March 4th, 1532.' According to
Ford Tithe Case, pp. 49-50, he was rector in 1497, which is impossible.
1546 — 1561. William Collingwood, collated nth April, 1546, on death of Ogle, by John Collingwood
pro hoc vice.'
1561 — 1565. John Robson, first fruits 3rd July, 1561,* on death of CoUingwood. Resigned 1565.'
1565—1575- William Bradford, M.A., Christ's College, Cambridge. First fruits, 30th May. 1565.'
Murdered near Alnwick, October, 1575. The arrest of Robert Carr ordered on suspicion of
being the murderer.'
1577 — 1581. Thomas Clerk, first fruits, 19th April, 1577.' Rector of Ford and vicar of Berwick, 1578.
He was excused his task at the Chancellor's visitation that year. Robert Watson, curate
of Ford, duly performed the task of giving an account of the Gospel of St. Matthew.'
Resigned 1581.'
1581 — 1597. Thomas Carr, first fruits, 9th November, 1582.' In February, 1589, was parson of Ford."
Mentioned as parson of Ford April 17th, 1592," and as rector of Ford, April 17th, 1593."
1597 — i6°o- W'illiam Selby, M.A. Presented to the parsonage of Ford by the crown, July nth, 1597."
Resigned, 1600.'*
1600 — 1616. Ezekiel Clarke. On November 3rd, i6oo, Thomas Carr sold the ne.\t presentation of the
rectory of Ford to John Kinge of the city of Durham, who on November 8th following
presented Ezekiel Clarke to the hving vacant by the resignation of WilUam Selby,
and the bishop ordered that he should be inducted." First fruits 14th February, 1606.'
Described as an absentee in 1604/5 and as a "sinecure rector" in 1606."
1616 — 1631. Robert Rotherham, instituted 7th July, i6i6." Order dated November 24th, 1625, for
George Carr and Richard Unthank to pay the costs of Robert Rotherham, rector of Ford, in a
suit brought by the latter.''
1631 — Alexander Edminston, instituted 5th March, 1631. »' Mentioned as parson of Ford in 1634"
and again in a document dated October 28th, 1637."
1650. John Pringle, given the living of Ford by the Commonwealth government,-" was 'serving
the cure' there in 1650.°'
1660 — 1676. James Scott, instituted nth December, 1660.=- Appointed by Charles H as Thomas Can-
failed to make a presentation. =^ In 1663 had served the cure for nearly three years.-* 21st
' Cal. 0/ Patent Rolls, 1494-1509, p. 343. = Laing Charters, p. 79.
' Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII.. vol. v. p. 427. ' Randal, State oj the Churches, p. 24.
^ P.R.O. Exchequer First Fruits. ' Acts of Privy Council, vol. ix. p. 291.
' P.R.O. Exchequer First Fruits. ' Barnes, Injunclions, &-c., pp. 40, 76, 77.
' Randal, State of the Churches, p. 24,
'° Suit at Durham, Katherine Car v. Ann Car — Carr Family, vol. ii. app. i. p. 203.
" Hist. MSS. Rep. Cecil, vol. iv. p. 188. ''^ Wills and Inventories, voi. ii. p. 225.
" Cal. of State Papers, Domestic, 1595-1597, p. 458. " Durham Cathedral Library, Randall MS. 4, p. 164.
" Consistory Court Visitation Books. '" P.R.O. Liber Institutionuyn.
" Durham Cathedral Library. Hunter MS. 0, p. 87.
" List of Churches, 1 634 — Hunter MS. n , Item No. 19.
" Release of Tithes — Ford Tithe Case, pp. 241-242.
'" Bill in Chancery — Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. p. 146.
2' Ecclesiastical Inquests, 1650 — Arch. Aeliana, O.S. vol. iii. p. 5. -- P.R.O. Liber Instituiionum.
-■" Chancery Proceedings, 29 Chas II. Townsend — Lord foicey's Deeds, vol. iii. pp. 114-115 ; Deposition
of Alexander Davison, 1685 — Ford Tithe Case, p. 198.
" Survey of the Churches of Northumberland, 1663— /frcA. Aeliana, N.S. vol. xvii. p. 257
366 PARISH OF FORD.
May, 1672, the archdeacon of Northumberland issued a sequestration against James Scott,
rector of Ford, for not attending his visitation at Alnwick, and for absenting himself from
Ford and neglecting his flock.' In 1677 the living was said to be vacant owing to the resig-
nation of James Scott. -
1677 — 1689. Alexander Davison. Presented to Ford rectory by Francis Blake, October 3rd, 1676,' on
the resignation of Scott.* Instituted 24th August, 1677.' Died rector of Ford and buried
at Norham July toth, 1689.^
1689 — 1722. George Chalmers. Receipt for /20 given by Chalmers as rector of Ford for moneys due
from Martinmas, 1689.' Instituted November 22nd, 1689, and came to reside April i8th,
' 1690.' Buried at Ford, 29th January, 1722.
1722 — 1760. George Marsh, M. A. of Queen's College, Cambridge. Instituted 7th July, 1722." Inducted
about October 5th, 1722." Seeks next presentation for his son, March, 1760. '•
1760 — George Marsh, B. A., of Lincoln College, O.xford. Son of the above. Bound himelf by bond
June nth, 1760, that if appointed to Ford, he would not apply for any dispensation not to
reside.'- Instituted 26th June, 1760."
1796 — 181 1. William Warkman. Signed bond dated December 23rd, 1795, to resign the living of Ford
if called upon to do so. After delays owing to the bishop of Durham's doubts as to the
propriety of the bond, Warkman was inducted April 22nd, 1796." Died rector of Ford, 1811."
1811 — 1819. John James, instituted 22nd May, 181 1.' Appointed to the living of Ford, vacant by the
death of Warkman by Susanna Elizabeth, baroness Delaval. He agreed to resign upon
request to the intent that Lady Delaval might present thereto either Thomas Knight, then
of Houghton-le-Spring School, or John Knight of the same, sons of Mr. Henry Knight of Ford
Cottage. On September 25th, 1819, he was called on to do so."
1819 — 1872. Thomas Knight, B.A., of Peterhouse College, Cambridge. Inducted November, 1819."
Buried at Ford.
1872 — 19H. Hastings MackElcan Neville, B.A., of Clare College, Cambridge. Died 12th February, 191 1.
1911 — Moore Richard Neligan, D.D., M.A., of Trinity College, Dublin. Consecrated bishop of
Auckland, New Zealand, 1903. Presented to the rectory of Ford, 1911.
Etal Presbyterian Church.
The congregation was founded in 1697, ^-nd in 1736 Bishop Chandler
reported that many people from North Durham repaired ' every Lord's
Day.. ..to a licensed meeting at Etal.'^^ The church was registered for the
solemnizing of marriages on 23rd May, 1856.^''
' Order for Sequestration — Ford Tithe Case, p. 170.
- Chancery Proceedings, 29 Chas. II. Townsend — Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. pp. 114-115.
' Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. ii. p. 62. * Statement by Davison — Ford Tilhe Case, p. 171.
* P.R.O. Liber Instiliitionum. s Norham Registers — Ford Tithe Case, p. 171.
' Receipt dated November 5th, 1690 — Ford Tithe Case, p. 60.
* Parish Books — Proceedings of Newcastle Antiqs. second series, vol. iii. p. 345.
' P.R.O. Liber Inslitutionum. "> Statement by Marsh in Chancery Suit — Ford Tithe Case, p. 247.
" Letter dated March 19th, 1760 — Ford Tithe Case, p. 251.
'- Bond and Letters — Ford Tithe Case, pp. 252-253. " Ibid. pp. 266, 268-271.
" Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. p. 140.
'^ Statement for the Appellant — Ford Tithe Case, p. t.
'" Newcastle Soc. of Antiq. Proceedings, 3rd series, vol. iii., p. 129.
" London Gazette, 23rd January, 1856, p. 1883.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. ' 367
Ministers.
1697 — 1731. Aaron Wood, a native of Staffordshire. Educated at Frankland .Vcad-ray, and at Atter-
clifie.' During his ministry a new church was built ciVca 1703.' He was buried October
ist, 1731,* near his wife, 'Mrs. Catherine, spouse to Mr. Aaron Wood, Etal," who was buried
November 1706.^
1731 — 1736. JohnLithgow, M..\., Edinburgh,' a native of f.auderdale, sometime school master at Wooler ;
retired in 1736, and dying at Etal was buried at Ford, October 15th, 1746.*
1736— 1742. Isaac Wood, son of the above named Aaron Wood, was baptized February 28th, 1702/3,^ was
educated by his predecessor Mr. Lithgow and at Doddridge's Academy, Northampton.' He
retired from Etal in 1742 and became the first minister of the Presbyterian Church at
Crookham.'
1742 — 1752. Edward Arthur, previously minister at Barmoor. Was translated to Swalwell, county
Durham, in 1752, and dying at Newcastle was buried at St. Nicholas's, September 30th.
1760. Author of Sermons on Various Subjects, by the Reverend Mr. Edward Arthur, minister
at Barmoor, Etal, and last at Swalwell, near Newcastle. (Berwick, 1783).
1754—1759. Matthew Moncrieff, ordained in 1737 to Auchtermuchty, and in the same year presented
to the parish of Bressay, Shetland.' Translated in 1754 to Etal, and in 1759 to Ires-
hopeburn in Weardale.'
1760 — 1765. James Thompson.' Licentiate of the Church of Scotland.
1765 — 1776. Robert Cramond, D.D., of Marischal College, Aberdeen. Ordained to Etal in 1765,- pre-
sented in 1776 to the parish of Yarrow and died there February- 14th, 1791, in the fiftieth
year of his age, and twenty-sixth of his ministry.'
1776 — 1778. Adam Landels, ordained to Etal in 1776. Presented in 1788 to the parish of Hutton, Ber-
wickshire, and in 1821 to the parish of Whitsome, in the same county, where he died May
25th, 1838, in the ninety-first year of his age and the sixty-second of his ministry.^
1789 — 1851. David Aitkin, M.A., of Nisbetand the University of Edinburgh. Ordained to Etal 3rd June.
1789.* Died I2th October, 1851,' portrayed as Ayton in Wilson's novel Matthew Paxton.'
1851 — 1852. William Wilson, son of Francis Wilson, H.M. Customs, Liverpool. Ordained 24th October,
1850, as colleague and successor of Mr. Aitkin. Brother of Mrs. M. O. W. Oliphant,
the novelist,' Resigned 1852. .\uthor of Matthew Paxton, a novel dealing with
Northumberland . '
1852 — 1865. Thomas Robinson, a native of Morpeth, of University College, London. Ordained to Etal
23rd September, 1852.' Resigned in 1865. Minister at Seaton Burn, 1873-1890. Died
in Edinburgh 28th March, 191 1.'
1866 — 1892. George McGuffie, of Whithorn, Wigtonshire, and of the University of Edinburgh, F.S.A.
Scot. Ordained to Etal loth January, 1866.^ Resigned 1892. Died at Bridge of Earn,
Perthshire, 21st April, 1914. Author of TAe Pnes/i 0/ iE^to/, which has gone through four
editions ; History of Libester Parish, The Cat, etc. By his will he gave /s.ooo to the
University of Edinburgh to found the McGuffie bursaries.'
1895 — 1899. Finlay M. Harkness, of King's College, London. Ordained to Etal, 29th August, 1895.
Died 2ist September, 1899.'
1900 — 1 91 2. Arthur McArthur, of Glasgow. Educated at Glasgow University. Ordained 7th Januarj-,
1870. Inducted to Etal, 24th May, 1900. Resigned 1912.' Died in Newcastle, 1920.
' Ex. inf. Mr. R. S. Robson, Presbyterian Historical Society of England.
- Ford Register. ' Scott, Fasti Ecclesiae Seotecatiae, vol. v. p. 423.
* Ibid. vol. ii. p. 564. ' Ibid. vol. ii. pp. 441, 452.
• Ex. inf. Mr. D. B. Shaw, editor of Fasti of the Presbyterian Church of England.
' Autobiography and Letters of Mrs. M. O. W. Oliphant (Edinburgh, 1899), p. 25.
368 PARISH OF FORD.
1913 — 1916. William Lamb Fordyce, M.A., of the University of Glasgow,' some time a minister in
Australia, where he v/as editor ol The Presbyterian. Inducted to Etal 3rd July, 1913. Trans-
lated to Clayport church, Alnwick, in 1916.-
1917 — 1920. W. S. NicHOL, ordained at Stamfordham, 21st July, 1898. Called to Etal, 1917.- Trans-
lated to West Stanley, 1920.
1920 — W. L. DuNLOP, M.A., of the University of Edinburgh. Inducted 1920 to Etal, together
with the branch church at Fenton, founded in 1906.
Crookham Presbyterian Church.
The congregation was founded in 1732, and the church was buih in
1745.^ The register of baptisms begins in 1742.^
1742 — 1768. Isaac Wood, pre\'iously minister at Etal. Buried May 17th, 1778.'
1768 — 1790. John Wood, son of the above named Isaac Wood.' Drowned in the river Till. Buried
July 17th, 1790.'
1790 — 1809. W'lLLiAM Sawers, a licentiate of the Church of Scotland. Died at Coldstream May 15th,
1809, aged 49,' from the effects of a riding accident. Author of Essays on Subjects Moral
and Divine in Prose and Verse, (Berwick, 1796).'
1809 — 1844. Thomas Hall, of Swindon, near Yetholm, and of the University of Edinburgh.' Ordained to
Thropton 25th April, 1808. Translated in i8og to Crookham. Retired 1844. Died 29th
October, 1849, aged 61.^ Stated to have been the original of Matthew Paxton in Wilson's
novel of that title.^
— 1851. Alexander Cromer, of Aberdeen, and of the University of Edinburgh. ^ Ordained 1847 as
colleague and successor of Mr. Hall.' Translated in 1851 to St. George's Presbyterian
Church, Liverpool. Died there i6th June, 1863.' Author of A Vindication oj the Organ,
(Edinburgh, 1856,-) the introduction of which instrument he advocated in the Presbyterian
Church in England.'
1852 — 1862. William Hutton Edmonds, of Crookstown, Ireland, and of Belfast College. Ordained to
Crookham i6th March, 1852. Translated in 1862 to Millwall, London. Died in London
14th April, 1906.^
1862 — 1863. Robert B. Waugh, ordained to Crookham 12th March, 1862, and died in the following year.*
1864 — 1893. James Ayton Crmg, of Eaglesham, Renfrewshire, and of the University of Glasgow.
Ordained to Crookham 24th Februarj', 1864. Died there 27th October, 1893, aged 66.
1893 — . Moses Forsyth, of the L'niversities of Glasgow and Jena. Ordained and inducted to Crook-
ham 9th May, 1893.* The present minister.
FORD TOWNSHIP.
The village of Ford lies on the right bank of the river Till on
ground rising gently to Ford Common behind it. It looks out west-
wards across the fertile valley to the Cheviot range, and, with its ancient
church and its castle, occupies a picturesque situation, hidden amid well
grown trees. The village itself consists of well built modern houses of
' Ex. inf. Mr. R. S. Robson, Presbyterian Historical Society of England.
- Ex. inf. Mr. D. B. Shaw, editor of Fasti of Presbyterian Church of England. ' Ford Register.
,C;
-5
^5
^
FORD TOWNSHIP. 369
a totally different type of architecture from the sombre stone buildings
of the district.
The Descent of the Manor.- From the earliest times in which we
hear of it, the manor of Ford, together with the vills of Crookham and
Kimmerston and a quarter of the vill of Hethpool, was parcel of the
barony of Muschamp, and held of it by sub-tenants as one knight's fee
of new enfeoffment,^ being one of those three knight's fees of the
Muschamp inheritance which fell to the Huntercumbe moiety of
the barony, and passed with the Huntercumbe moiety of Wooler
in turn to the Lilburns, the Couplands and the Arundels and
finally to the Greys in 1408. ^ In 1535 a jury of inquest declared that
they did not know of whom Ford was held,^ and in 1568 it was said to
be held in capites Indeed all through the sixteenth century it was
considered to be thus held. In the early thirteenth century Odinel
Ford was seised of this fee,^ and was granted free warren in his demesne
of Ford, Crookham, and Kimmerston in 1244.^ He was still alive in
September, 1254,'' but had died before the following March, when his
granddaughter, Isabel Ford, followed him to the grave, holding the fee
of Sir William Huntercumbe. All told she held in her demesne in the
three vills 400 acres 'by the long hundred,'^ and another 115 acres of
arable, valued at yd. an acre. She also had 27 acres of meadow worth
I2d. an acre, and £40 os. 4|cl. rent of mills, bondmen, cottars, with
their services, and free tenants.^
Isabel's heir was her uncle. Sir Richard Ford,^" presumably her
father Odinel's younger brother, but we hear no more of the familv
after this, and indeed the manor disappears from all records till 1293, when
it was in the possession of William Heron, though in 1276 a William
' Tesia de Nevill — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 2H. The leudal aid ot 1346 records a similar tenure.
Feudal Aids, vol. iv. pp. 57. 6.).
- See pages 318-324. ' Inq. p.m. Hen. VHI. No. 116 — Ford Tithe Case, pp. 238-239.
* Liber Feodarii — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. Ixiv. ' Testa de Nevill — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 211.
' Cal. of Chatter Rolls, vol. i. p. 277.
' Inq. p.m. 39 Hen. HI. No. 40— Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. 1. p. 372. ' Per majorcm numerum.
' Inq. p.m. 39 Hen. IH. No. 40 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. i. p. 375 ; Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. i. p. 92 .
Ford Tithe Case, p. 223. In another document of .\pril 2nd, 1255, Isabel's inheritance from her Muschamp
mother was divided, and it is stated that the service of Odinel had been previously assigned to William
Huntercumbe. Cal. of Inq. p.m. vol. i. p. 93. Doubtless this strange phrasing was due to the fact that
while Isabel held a moiety of the barony in capite, she was also a sub-tenant of another moiety of the same
barony, as heir to her father.
" Inq. p.m. 39 Hen. IV. No. 40 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. i. p. 375.
Vol. XI. 47
370 PARISH OF FORD.
Heron had offered as sureties Henry, bailiff of Ford, and Thomas
Turpin of Ford,^ which suggests that he was at that date lord of the
manor. It is probable, therefore, that the Herons had acquired the
property by marriage, and Raine asserts that it was by the union of
this William's father, of the same name, and ' Mary, daughter and
ultimately sole heiress of Odinel de Ford, lord of Ford.'^ No evidence
now available suggests this, and at first sight it is improbable, though
it may be that Richard Ford died childless, and that his property
passed to a sister Mary, daughter of Odinel, the elder, who married
William Heron. ^ If this be the true story, the inheritance can hardly
have come to this William Heron, as he is stated by Raine to have
died in 1256-7,* and Richard Ford was only 26 when he entered on his
niece's inheritance in 1255.^
In 1292 William Heron made provision for the descent of his Ford
estate by conveying to his son Gilbert and the heirs of his body the
manor of Ford with the vills of Crookham and Kimmerston, with
remainder in turn to Gilbert's brothers Roger and Odinel, and ulti-
mately to the donor's right heirs. An annual rent of ;^ioo was reserved
by William for the duration of his life.^ In another charter of about
the same date, but whether earlier or later is not clear, a similar grant
is made, save that there is no reservation of rent and in the remainders
the heirs of William's son, Walter, are substituted for the right heirs of
William Heron.'' William Heron was still lord of Ford in 1293, as in
that year he successfully claimed the right of free warren in the vills
of Ford, Crookham and Kimmerston, basing it on a royal grant to
Odinel Ford, whose heir he was,^ but the conveyance to his son Gilbert
was completed by 1294, when the latter was confronted by a claim for
' De Banco Roll, No. 17, m. godo — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxvi. p. 302.
' Raine, North Durham, p. 304.
' Carr Family, vol. ii. p. 91, states, without giving any authority, that Mary was the daughter of Richard
Ford.
* He is probably the William Heron, sheriff of Northumberland, who, according to Matthew Paris, died
in 1258, 'a most avaricious man, a hammer of cruelty to the poor, and a persecutor of rehgious orders.
From worldly avarice and a thirst for wealth he passed, as is believed, to the infernal regions to experience
the thirst of Tantalus.' (Matthew Paris, Chron. Major, vol. v. p. 663).
' Inq. p.m. 39 Hen. III. No. 40 — Bain, Cal. 0} Documents, vol. j. p. 375.
• Dodsworth MS. 49, fol. 7 ; Lansdowne MS. 326, fol. 5ido. The date is fixed by one of the witnesses
'Hugh Gubion, sheriff of Northumberland.'
' Lansdowne MS. 326, fol. 48.
' Assize Roll, 21 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xviii. pp. 423-424. CJ. Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i.
pp. 161-162.
FORD TOWNSHIP. 37I
dower in them brought by his sister-in-law AUce, widow of Walter
Heron, who, she claimed, had dowered her with the third part of the
manors of Ford and Crookham and of 16 bovates of land in Kimmer-
ston on their marriage, at the church door, with the consent of his
father William. ^ This claim, of which the essential statements were
never denied, shows that William had originally designed his Ford
estate for his son and heir, and that the splitting up of his inheritance
was due to a later decision. He himself was also sued at this same
time by his daughter-in-law for lands in Hadstone which he still held,
and the best he and Gilbert could do was to delay the action on the
technical plea that they neither held the whole of the lands described
in the originating writ, Gilbert stating that one William Heron held one
bovate of the lands ascribed to him.^ Alice amended her writ,^ but
before anything else could be done, William Heron died and his widow
Mary put in a similar claim for dower against Gilbert. She had
evidently been William's second wife, for the question of whether she
was married before the marriage of Walter and Alice was raised.
Gilbert urged against her claim that he was given the Ford estate,
which here was said to include Hethpool as part of the manor of Ford,
by his father with a warranty against all claims on behalf of himself
and his heirs. He therefore called to warrant William's heiress, Emeline,
daughter of Walter Heron, who was under age, and said to be in the
custody of her mother, Alice. Alice declared that she was living
together with her daughter with her mother, also called Emeline, and
that the little heiress was really in the custody of her grandmother.
Nevertheless sufficient evidence was before the court to decide that
Mary was entitled to her dower, but it was ordered that it should be
taken from the lands now in the king's hands by reason of Emeline's
minority, and that Gilbert was free from all responsibility therefor.^
Still one plot of land in the estate, consisting of one messuage, 16
bovates and ig acres of land in Kimmerston, was excepted from this
aw'-ard as not having been held by William, and Mary started fresh
' De Banco Roll, No. 106, m. i85 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxviii. pp. 115-116,
^ De Banco Roll, No. 108, m. 45 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. :!?xviii. pp. 138-140.
' De Banco Roll, No. no, m. 2i6do — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxviii. p. 185.
* De Banco Rolls, No. 118. m. 2do, No. 121, m. 42do — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxviii. pp. 2S7-2SS,
328-330.
zr-
PARISH OF FORD.
litigation against Gilbert with regard to dower in this, and carried it on
against his successor, though apparently without success. ^ No sooner
had the question of Mary's dower been settled, than Alice's case came
on for trial. An attempt to nonsuit her, on the ground that she
claimed a third of the whole estate and not a third of two parts, was
countered by proving that she had sued for her writ before Mary put
in any claim, indeed she had done so before Mary was widowed. Her
statements as to having been dowered were proved, and she was allowed
the value of a third of two parts of the manor of Ford, as against the
estate of which William had died seised, but as there were not enough
lands to meet this as well as Mary's dower, it was ordered that Gilbert
should make himself responsible for the balance. ^
Even then the unfortunate Gilbert was not free from dower troubles,
for it seems that his stepmother was actually assigned a third of his
estate, and he was left to recover its value as best he might from the
property of his niece Emeline, with the proviso that here, as in the
case of Alice, he was responsible for providing the balance, if the Had-
stone estates were not sufficient to provide the full amount. As a
matter of fact ]\Iary seems to have managed to get both her dower in
Ford and the alternative allowance from Emeline's manor of Hadstone,
but at last in 1299 she and Gilbert came to an amicable agreement,
whereby she surrendered land in the Ford estate equal to the allotment
she had received in Hadstone. Thus the chief messuage of Hadstone
was to be taken by Gilbert and 2s. was to be subtracted from the 5s.
which he was accustomed to pay his stepmother for the chief messuage
of Ford. Mary was to surrender 93 acres of demesne land, equally
taken from her shares of Ford and Crookham and valued at 31s. more
or less, being compensated with land of the same acreage and value in
Hadstone, with the proviso that she was to receive a monetary allow-
ance for all crops already sown at the rate of 2id. for every acre of
barley,^ igd. for every acre of wheat and 2od. for every acre of oats,
an interesting sidelight on the comparative values of the various corn crops
in Glendale at this period. Gilbert was to have 4 acres 3 roods of
meadow land in Chapelmede in Ford, and the lands occupied by Hugh
^ De Banco Rolls, No. 133, m. igdo, No. 139, m. 27— Duke's Transcripts. vo\. xxviii. pp. 571, 710.
* De Banco Roll, No. 121, rn. yodo — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxviii. pp. 332-336.
' The word is ' frumentum, ' but the context sl)ows that it means barley.
FORD TOWNSHIP. 373
son of Christine of Ford, Ralph Crodyn of Crookham, Ughtred of Kim-
merston, Adam Gilhnge of Crookham and by Wilham Grene and
Edmund Ta of the same place, valued in all at £5 3s. 6d. Eight
shiUings and tenpence three farthings, being the \'alue of the third of
the mill of Hadstone, was to be deducted by Gilbert from Mary's share
of Ford Mill. In view of the fact that there were certain deductions for
suit at the county court and other dues from the Hadstone estate, a
portion of this was left in Mary's hands without having to surrender a
corresponding share of dower in Ford, but she was to pay Gilbert one
mark yearly till Emeline came of age, and after that, if relieved of
these charges, she was to pay to Gilbert 60s. ' about the feast of Easter
next for one year when she has wholly had her dower from tenements
in Ford, Crookham and Kimmerston of which Gilbert has had no allo-
cation.'^ The interpretation of the last quoted phrase is somewhat
obscure, but it would seem to imply that when Mary was relieved of
dues which the crown would not pay during Emeline's minorit}-, and in
return for which she still held lands in the Ford estate, she should
pay an annual rent of £3 for the right to continue in possession of
these lands.
Despite the undoubted burden that this twofold dower must have
brought upon him, Gilbert seems to have been a man of some con-
siderable wealth, for he was assessed on goods valued at £-^j i8s. od.
for the subsidy of 1296,^ a considerable sum for the younger son of
even an important family. He evidently had no children, for his
brother Roger succeeded him in 1301 under the provisions of the entail,^
and almost at once had trouble with his troublesome stepmother over her
dower. She complained that he had disseised her of a piece of land
15 roods by 17 feet in extent, the third part of a piece of waste 14
roods b}^ 8 feet in extent and a third part of 300 acres of wood, to
which Roger replied, that the first was a ditch pertaining to his house
of which the plaintiff was never seised, the waste he had appropriated
as lord of the manor with Mary's consent, as to the wood it was not
nearly so large as was averred, and his sister-in-law Alice had claims
' Dodsworth MS. 40. fol. 2 ; Lansdowne MS. 326, (ol. 45. - Lay Subsidy Roll, 1296, fol. 109.
' Gilbert Heron is named as defendant in a suit about her dower brought by Marj-, widow of William
Heron, Easter 1300, but Roger has taken his place in the same suit when it is again mentioned in Trinity, 1301.
De Banco Rolls, No. 133, m. igdo, No. 139, m. 27 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. .xxviii. pp. 571, 710.
374 PARISH OF FORD.
on it in dower which would reduce Mary's share to one fifth. ^ In this
last point Roger was prevaricating, though the jury supported him, for
the courts had ah-eady decided that Mary had a prior claim to Alice
in the matter of dower. A certain Thomas Feud was associated with
Roger in this case, and Mary had a separate quarrel with him too, for
in 1301 she ordered one of her servants to seize one of Feud's horses
by way of damages which she claimed to have recovered at law. Feud
retaliated by forcibly taking the horse from Mary's park on the follow-
ing day, and further legal proceedings ensued. ^ Even then this litigious
lady had not done with the courts, for three years later she sued one
Thomas Grey for 8 marks, the price of a horse sold to him, and 4s.
damages for non payment.^
Roger Heron lived to enjoy his property for over thirty years.
In 1304 he was granted free warren in his demesne lands in Ford and
Crookham for himself and his heirs,* and in 1327 he was once more in
the courts with respect to land in Ford, about which he sued Robert
Haggerston and Christine his wife.^ He is probably identical with the
Roger Heron who in 1331 claimed disbursement* incurred when constable
of Bamburgh Castle, and in 1332 acted as a justice of oyer and
terminer in Northumberland.^ He died probably soon after this, as
in 1333 WiUiam Heron, son and heir of Roger Heron, was in negotiation
with the crown in respect of money owed by his father in connection
with the constableship of Bamburgh Castle,' and four years later
William, son of Roger Heron, took steps to settle the manor of Ford on
himself and his wife Isabel for their lives, with remainder successively
to their sons Roger, William, John and Thomas, and the heirs male of
their bodies, providing however for the life interest of Margery, widow
of Roger Heron, in her dower. ^ In 1340 this entail was cut so as to
give Isabel a life interest in a portion of the estate only. It is evident
' Assize Roll, 28-31 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xix. pp. 119-120.
' De Banco Roll, No. 141, m. 86 ; No. 143, ra. 96do — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxix. pp. 11, 66-67.
' De Banco Roll, No. 153, m. 87do — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxix. pp. 439-440.
* Cal. of Charter Rolls, vol. iii. p. 42 ; Ford Ttthe Case, p. 226.
* De Banco Rolls, No. 269, m. 55do, No. 275, m. i93do. « Cal. of Close Rolls, i33o-i333. P- i95. 610.
' Cal. of Close Rolls, i333-i337. P- 30-
' Pedes Finium, 11 Edw. III. No. 52 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxix. pp. 114-118 ; Ford Tithe Case,
pp. 237-23S. John Darcy, son of JohnDarcy 'le cosyn, ' endorsed the fine. He was the son of Emeline,
daughter of Walter Heron, see page 378.
FORD TOWNSHIP. 375
from the wording of this document that the manor of Ford was taken
to include the three vills which formed the fee, since when it was
divided into moieties, one of them, excepting 26 messuages, i mill and
7 carucates of land in Kimmerston, was settled on William alone for his life,
while the other, including the above excepted lands, was settled on both
William and Isabel for their lives. The remainders which were to take
effect as to the first moiety on the death of William, and as to the
second after the death of both husband and wife, were identical with
those of the last entail, save that the place of the youngest son Thomas
was taken by another son Walter, ^ a change which probably means
that Thomas had died and another son, Walter, had been born.^
This William Heron was a man of considerable prominence in the
Northumberland of his day, and raised the position of Ford from being
a mere fee of the barony of Muschamp to one of equal importance
with Wooler. In 1338 he secured permission to crenellate his dwelling
there,^ and two years later, for services rendered to the king in Scotland
and elsewhere, he was given yet further privileges, being described as
'king's Yeoman' in the grant. His house was created a castle, and
further he was granted free warren in all his demesne lands in Ford,
Crookham, Kimmerston, Hethpool, Fenrother, Bockenfield, Espley, and
'Heyroun,' with the right to hold a market weekly on Mondays at Ford
and two yearly fairs there, one on the vigil, feast and morrow of Corpus
Christi, and the other on the vigil, feast and morrow of St. Michael and
All Angels. A yet greater mark of favour was the grant of liberties,
seldom held by any but great lords, and still more seldom granted to
any one since the policy of limiting the franchises had been inaugurated
by Edward I., in the form of infangenthef, gallows and wayf and stray,
and exemption from toll, pavage and murage throughout the realm of
England.* By 1348 W'illiam Heron was arranging for the heiress of the
Lisles of Chipchase to marry one of his three sons, William, John or
Walter, if one of them should come to an age to do so,^ and he was
' Pedes Fiyiium, 15 Edw. III. No. 58 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxix. pp. I2<)-I34.
" According to Rainc, Thomas was the ancestor of the Herons of Meldon, Walter of the Herons of Chip-
chase. He ignores the e.xistence of Roger. Raine, North Durham, p. 305.
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1338-1340, p. 114. Cf. Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii p. 387.
* Cal. of Charter Rolls, vol. iv. pp. 468-469 ; Ford Tithe Case, pp. 228-229 ; Bain, Cai. 0/ Documents,
vol. iv. p. 18.
' Lansdowne MS. 326, fols. 46, 53do. Cf. Memorials 0/ Hexham, vol. ii. p. 98.
376 PARISH OF FORD.
probably the William Heron who was keeper of the tower of Berwick-
upon-Tweed in or about 1350.^ Just about this time the public records
abound with acknowledgments of debts, some so large as 1,200 marks,
others as small as £8 or £10, signed by Sir William Heron, generally in
conjunction with other persons,^ but whether these refer to private
speculations or to transactions due to some official position we cannot
tell. It is significant however, that also about this time he seems to
have divested himself of his property in Ford by conveying it to his
son Roger, who in 1350 was declared to be seised of the manor
in demesne and in reversions and services, held of Sir John
Lilburn, by homage, fealty, scutage at the rate of one penny in the
shilling of the sum demanded from the chief lord, and suit at the court
of Wooler every three weeks and paying lOOs. yearly at Whitsun and
Martinmas. In 135 1 Sir John Lilburn sold the overlordship to John Coup-
land and his wife Joan, who complained that Roger, who was under
age, 'maliciously plotting to defraud,' his overlord of his dues, had
enfeoffed his brothers Thomas and Robert, also under age, of the manor
to be held of the chief lord of the fee on condition of paying 1,000
marks yearly, with a clause of distress in case this rent should be in
arrears. The rent was in arrear, and John Coupland did not know
whether Roger had entered on the manor by virtue of this clause, but he
maintained that all three brothers were by reason of their minority and
this clause 'indifferently and at their pleasure tenants of the said
manor.' On the strength of this statement John Coupland and his wife
applied to the .court of common pleas to force these three children
to assign the services to them. In defence Thomas and Robert maintained
that they held the manor, and were ready to attorn if as minors they
could do so. The court decided that though under age, they could do
so, and they at once obeyed the order, but when the Couplands
demanded that Roger should attorn too before he left the court, the
judges took time to consider their decision.^
It is hard to discover why Sir William Heron and his wife sur-
rendered their life interest, or why the manor was handed about in
this way among children all under age, but it explains the statement in
' Cal. of Close Rolls, 1349-1354, p- 173.
' Cal. of Close Rolls, 1340-1354, pp. 505, 512 ; 1354-1360, pp. 70, 85, 115, 192, 199, 414, 502, 503, 510.
' P.R.O. De Banco Roll, No. 367, mm. 78, 228do.
FORD TOWNSHIP.
377
the accounts of the Feudal Aid of 1346, which was certainly not
collected till 1355, if then,i that Thomas and Robert Heron held the
vills of Ford, Crookham, Kimmerston and the fourth part of Hethpool
of John Coupland as one knight's fee.^ This arrangement still held
good in 1360, when the boys were still under age," and when it ceased
we cannot tell. A William Heron was lord of Ford in 1370,* and a
man of the same name served with Alan Heton as knight of the shire
of Northumberland in the famous anti-clerical parliament of 1371,-'' which
drove William of Wykeham from power. Sir William Heron and Sir
Roger Heron, together with Thomas Heron, were called to attorn when
the three knight's fees of which Ford was one were sold by Joan
Coupland to Richard Arundel in 1373,^ and this would imply that Sir
WiUiam, who succeeded in 1333, was still alive, and that his son Robert
was dead, but that the other two sons Roger and Thomas still held
their old interest in the estate. In 1381 three cottages in Ford worth
13s. 4d., belonging to Sir Roger Heron, were seized in the name of
distress, '^ but before this he seems to have handed on the main part of
his estate to his son, since in December, 1374, William Heron, son of
Roger Heron, knight, was lord of Ford,^ and again appears as such in
1377.^ Later in the same year John Heron of Ford was appointed a
collector of two-tenths and fifteenths,io but this may have been William's
uncle of that name ; at any rate he cannot have been the owner of
the manor, for in 1404 William Heron, son and heir of William Heron,
a minor, is mentioned as holding his lands of the manor of Wooler by
knight service, ^^ an obvious allusion to the manor of Ford, since the
three knight's fees belonging to the Arundel family were in question. i"-
Thus William, son of Roger, must have died seised of Ford before 1404,
leaving as his heir a son, also called \Mlliam, under age, who appears
as William Heron, knight, owner of Ford Castle in 1413.^^
^ Cal. of Close Rolls, 1354-1360, p. 115. ^ Feudal Aids, vol. iv. pp. 57, 64.
* A.^size Rolls, Divers Counties, 34-40 Edw. III. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. x.\. pp. 544, 545. See for this
pages 264-265.
* Lansdowne MS. 326, fol. 44. ' Cal. of Close Rolls, 1369-1374. p. 290.
« P.R.O. De Banco Roll, No. 450, m. 186. ' P.R.O. Enrolled Accounts, Sheriff's Seizures, V g, Ric. II. c
' Dodsworth MS. 49, fol. ido ; Lansdowne MS. 326, fol. 44. • Lansdowne MS. 326, fol. 54do.
'° Rot. Fin. I Ric. II. m 4 — Duke's Transcripts, voi. xxxii. p. 218.
" Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1401-1405, pp. 309-310. '- See page 324.
" List of Castles, 1415 — Border Holds, p. 14.
Vol. XI. 48
378
PARISH OF FORD.
HERON OF FORD.
Arms : Gules three herons silver. These are the tinctures blazoned {or
Sir William and Sir Roger Heron in the Powell and Parly.
Rolls of F.dvv. II. and III. date. Others of the family bore the
field azure with various other differences. For these see
Papworth's Ordinary oj British Armorials, p. 327. and Some
Feudal Coats of Arms, by J. Foster, p. 129. For seals, sec
plate facing p. 112, Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, and also Arch. Aeliana, 3rd
series, vol. viii. pp. gg-ioo, and plates Nos. 14 and 16
ibid.
John Cambous(-), killed in Scottish :
war, 1303 (h).
: Mary (^) (6), living = William Heron, gave Ford to his son = (') .
1305 (ad). Gilbert, 1202 (a); died 1297 (6).
Walter Heron(')= Alice, daughter={*) Thomas
died before
1294 [aj).
of
Emeline
le Rous
I
Gilbert
Heron (a)
died s.p.
1300 (d).
Roger Heron (') = Margery, =(^)Gilbert of
living in 1292, (a),
succeeded to Ford
in 1300 (d) ; died
circa 1332(g).
Emeline, under = John Darcy
age in 1294(6). i (c).
probably
a second
wife (e) ;
living
1337 (/)■
Borendon
(e).
I
William Heron, knight, = Isabel
John Darcy, son and heir (c).
(/) living in 1333 (() ;
entailed Ford 1337.
(/)■
Roger Heron [h).
John Heron, knight (:').
Odinel Heron,
living 1292
(a); died
before 13 12
(s).
Roger Heron, knight, living 1337 (/) ; =
a minor in 1352 (h), living 1381
{ah).
I
William Heron,
1374 W-
lord of Ford in = .
WiUiam Heron, son and heir, a minor and seised of = Isabel (p).
Ford in 1404 (m) ; slain 1428 (0).
William Heron, living 1337 (/), and 1348 (ag).
John Heron, living 1337 {/) and 1348 (ag).
Thomas Heron, living 1337, probably died before
1340 (/)■
Walter Heron (h). living 1340 (/), and 1348 (ag).
Thomas Heron, minor in 1352 (h), and 1360 (k).
Robert Heron, a minor in 1352 (h), and i36o('().
Andrew Heron, living 1352 (h).
i
Walter Heron, given Hetherslaw
in 1374 W-
John Heron, knight. 10 years old in 1428 (0); died 1 46 1, = Elizabeth, daughter and heiress of Sir
probably killed at Towton (r)
William Heron, dispensation to marry,
1438 (?).
John Heron, lord
of Ford, under
16 in 1485 in) ;
lieutenant of East
and Middle Mar-
ches, 1494 (*■).
Roger Heron, knight, eldest son and heir in 146 1 (r);
restored to his estates 1472 (ai)\ died before 1485 («).
Elizabeth
(I.).
WilUam Heron, (') pre-
deceased his father
(a.).
! I
Henry Odinel
Heron (y). Heron
(4-
Margaret, daughter of Sir Thomas -.= (=) John Heron of Thorn- = (') George Heron
Forster of Adderstone, married ton, married before 1536 of Chipchase
1524 (z). (w). (ac).
Elizabeth == William Heron of Ford, so described in — Agnes
(ae). 1500 when his brother John was still (w).
1 living (aA) ; died i8th June, 1535 (w).
FORD TOWNSHIP.
379
Thomas Carr (aa), murdered =p Elizabeth, aged 3 in 1536 {w) ; died
January, 1558 (ab). \ 13th January, 1554 (ac).
(a) Dodsworth MS. 40, f. 7.
(6) De Banco Roll, No. i^i, m. 42do — -Duke's
Transcripts, vol. .xxviii. pp. 328-330.
(f) De Banco Roll, No. 348, m. 33odo — Arch.
Aeliana, 3rd series, vol. vi. p. 51.
(a) De Banco Rolls, No. 133, m. lodo. No. 139, m.
27 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxviii. pp. 571,
710.
(e) Assize Roll, 28-31 F.dw. I. — Duke's Transcripts,
vol. xix. p. 120.
(f) Pedes Finium, ii and 15 Edw. III. Nos. 52 and
58 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxix. pp. 114-
n8, 129-134.
(g) Cat. Close Rolls, 1333-1337, p. 30.
\h) P.R.O. De Banco Roll, No. 367, mm. 78, 338do.
(i) Cal. Close Rolls, 1354- 1360, p. 502.
{k) Assise Rolls, Divers Counties, 34-40 Edw. III. —
Duke's Transcripts, vol. xx. pp. 544, 555.
(/) Lansdowne MSS. 326, f. 44.
im) Cal. Patent Rolls, 1401-1405, pp. 309-310.
(h) Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. ii. p. 355.
(0) Inq. p.m. 6 Hen. VI. No. i j — Ford Tithe Case,
p. 232. According to other inquisitions John
Heron was aged 13 in January-, 1428, and 14
in April, 1431. Durham Cursitor's Records
— Dep. Keep.'s Rep. vol. xlv. aps. I. p.
220.
(p) Document in Durham Treasury — Kaine, North
Durham, p. 210.
(q) Lansdowne MS. 326, f. 48 ; Cal. Patent Rolls,
1446-1452, p. 259.
(r) Rot. Pari. vol. v. p. 470; Cal. Patent Rolls,
1461-1.167, p. 29.
(s) De Banco Roll, No. 63, m. 41 — Duke's Tran-
scripts, vol. xxvii. p. 179.
(/) Cal. Close Rolls, 1333-1337, p. 30.
(«) Wills and Inventories, vol. i. p. 100.
{v) Lansdowne MS., 326, f. 94.
iw) Inq. p.m. 28 Hen. VIII. No. 116 — Ford Tithe
Case, pp. 238-239.
Ix) Bain, Cal. of Documents vol. iv. p. 418.
(v) Lansdowne MS. 326, £. 47do.
(z) Ibid. f. 48do.
(aa) Survey of the Border, 1551 — Raine, North
Durham, p. xxviii.
(ab) Acts of Privy Council, vol. vi. p. 254.
(ac) P.R.O. Court of W ards, Inq. p.m. vol. S, No.
42-
(ad) De Banco Roll, No. 154, m. 30 — Duke's Trans-
cripts, vol. xxxvii. p, 21.
(ae) Hall's, Chronicle, p. 558.
(af) De Banco Roll, No. 106, m. 186 — -Duke's Trans-
cripts, vol. xxviii. pp. 115-116.
(ag) Lansdowne MS. 326, ff. 46, 53do.
(ah) P.R.O. Enrolled Accounts, Sheriff's Seizures.
F. G. Ric. II. C.
(ai) Rot. Pari., vol. vi. p. 47.
(ak) Lansdowne MS. 326, fol. 47do.
The elder of these two WiUiams in 1387 laid a long complaint
before parliament, showing that about two years previously, in time of
truce, the Scots had descended on his lands, doing much damage and
killing and carrying off beasts to the value of £600. His men had
carried out a retaliatory raid, for which the earl of Northumberland had
made him compensate the Scots to the tune of 320 oxen and cows,
1,600 sheep and £100 in money, promising at the same time to recoup
him for his previous losses. This is doubtless an allusion to the attempt
to secure a peace with Scotland earlier in the reign, and the turbulent
lord of Ford was evidently an obstruction to the accomplishment of
such an end, for shortly afterwards, having received none of the
promised compensation, he was thrown into prison at Newcastle by the
earl, and his enemies, led by Henry Lilburn, seized this opportunity
to attack Ford Castle, killing its defenders and carrjing off much booty.
That a border feud lay behind all this is obvious from the fact, that in
answer to William's petition for redress, certain lords were appointed
380 PARISH OF FORD.
to negotiate between the parties concerned and bring them to an
agreement.^ The younger WilHam Heron met his death on 20th
January, 1428/- in a violent manner, and a royal commission was
appointed on February 8th to discover who were the malefactors who
had slain him.^ In a manner eminently characteristic of the border the
quarrel thus aggravated — for it was evidently not a solitary unprovoked
attack — was not made a mere question for the law courts, but was also
discussed and debated by arbitrators appointed by both sides. Isabel,
the widow, declared that her late husband had been 'maliciously slayne'
by John Manners of Etal, whose version of the affair was that William
Heron coming to Etal with an armed force, had had 'gret assaut
made in shotjmg of arrowes, strykyng with swerdes,' and in the
fighting had been slain, John himself being quite guiltless of the actual
blow, as he was a spear's length or more away from him at the time,
'whose dede the sayd John all tymes sore hase repented.' The widow
claimed against him the payment of her husband's debts, amounting to
£666, and costs of all legal proceedings consequent on his death, esti-
mated at £137 5s. 3d., and demanded that he should have the king's
hand removed from the lands of the heir, who was a minor, since it
was alleged that the wardship had been claimed by the crown ' by ye
procuryng, steryng and assent of ye sayd John Maners and his frendes.'
Further Thomas Atkinson demanded damages for the death of his
brother Robin, who had been killed in the same scuffle. Manners strove
hard to avoid submitting to these heavy terms. He complained that
his opponents had prosecuted him in the king's court, when 'for the
hertis ese of ye said parties he will alway be redy to acquite him of,
lyke a gentilman, of dede, assent, wyll or procurment' before a company
of lords, knights and squires. As guiltless of Heron's death, he denied
all liability for his debts or for the costs of his friends : he had never
tried to get the heir's lands taken into the king's hands, and he
counterclaimed for his own legal costs of £300, which he pointed out
Isabel would have to pay if he were acquitted in the king's court 'as
he trowes to Goddes mercy lawfully to be,' and further damages 'for
ye empresonement yat he and his servauntes hase suffred.' This brave
' Rot. Pari. vol. iii. pp. 255-256. * 7,,^ p ,„ 5 j^en. VI. No. 15 — Ford Tithe Case, p. 232.
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1422-1429, p. .(67.
FORD TOWNSHIP. 381
show of resistance led up to an offer of ;^8o, to be paid for masses for
the souls of the two victims on condition that their children gave
surety to do no bodily harm to John Manners. To this the negotiators
on the Heron side countered by a proposal, that Manners should make
submission in person to Heron's kinsmen, pay all the dead man's debts
and found a chantr}^ at Ford of the value of 12 marks per annum to
pray for Heron's and Atkinson's souls. Further he should pay an annual
40s. to Atkinson's mother, and promise, with all present at Heron's death, to
absent himself from anywhere north of York ' for seven years. ^ The
matter was eventually referred to the arbitration of the priors of
Durham and Tynemouth, who, on September 31st, 1431, gave their
award to the effect, that Manners and his associates should on a day
to be appointed come to Newcastle, 'and lawley submit thaym with
wordes and dedes of humblenesse and submission,' and further should
have 500 masses sung within the year for the repose of the soul of
William Heron, and pay the widow 250 marks, one hundred of which
were to be devoted to masses for the soul of Atkinson. Even then the
quarrel dragged on, for we find Manners in a fresh justification com-
plaining that, though the arbitrators had required him to have 500
masses said, he had paid for 800. We hear no more of this typical
border quarrel, in which, according to custom, the gentlemen of North-
umberland had taken sides, Sir Robert Umfraville for the Herons and
Sir Robert Ogle, Sir John Middleton and others of less note for the
Manners.-
It may be that we can take the year 1439 as marking the con-
clusion of this feud, since it was then that the vexed question of the
wardship of the heir, alluded to in the course of the quarrel, was
settled. The crown claimed the wardship on the ground that part of
the property had been held of Sir Philip Darcy,^ whose co-heirs were
now minors and the king's wards. The king also might put forward a
claim to the wardship on the ground that William Heron had held
lands elsewhere in chief. At any rate the lands of William's son John
^ This document is dated at Durham, April 23rd, 1427. Doubtless this is a mistake, as the date of Heron's
death is officially testified, and he served on an inquisition dated January 22nd, 6 Hen. VI., (1428.) Inq. p.m.
in Cane. Durham — Raine, North Durham, p. 46.
' Documents in Durham Treasury — Raine, North Durham, pp. 210-21 1.
' Inq. p.m. 6 Hen. VI. Xo. 15 — Ford Tithe Case, p. 232. Cf. Feudal .iids, vol. iv. p. S7.
382 PARISH OF FORD.
were taken into the king's hands, and were granted out, together with
the marriage of the heir, to the earl of Northumberland, William
Carnaby and Henry Trollop. ^ Objection to this was raised by Sir
Robert Umfraville, Sir William Tempest, Sir Thomas Grey of Horton
and seven others, who averred that on January 2nd, 1427, William
Heron had conveyed all his lands to them, evidently, though it is not
so described, as trustees for his heir. After long delays, and after all
the trustees save three had died, the crown accepted their claim, and
the letters patent granted to the earl of Northumberland and William
Carnaby — Henry Trollop being now dead — were revoked. ^ It may well
be surmised that this gift to trustees was made in view of the feud
with the Manners, which must have already begun in 1427, and that
the struggle went on after the death of William Heron, waged with
other weapons besides words, as the extraordinary mortality among the
trustees seems to suggest. Read in the light of these facts, John
Manners' disclaimer of having interfered to get the lands into the king's
hands can hardly be accepted as literally as he would have liked.
The inheritance of John Heron, so hardly secured, was in 1428
described as the castle of Ford, two parts of the manor of Ford and
the advowson of the church together with the hamlets of Crookham and
Kimmerston, worth 10 marks yearly. Added to this there were two
parts of the manor of Hetherslaw, two parts of a fourth part of the
manor of Hethpool, and 100 acres of land and 40 acres of pasture in
Bowsden, worth in all 5 marks yearly, besides considerable estates in
other parts of the county.^ Two years later the inheritance was
described as the ruined castle of Ford, worth nothing, two parts of two
parts of the manor of Ford, which was waste, two parts of two parts
of 240 acres of land and 240 acres of pasture belonging to the same
manor, and two parts of two parts of 13 cottages there, of which 4
cottages were waste ; the rent with the above land and pasture was
valued at 50s. yearly. In Crookham there were two parts of two parts
of 3 messuages, 4 cottages, 300 acres of land and 200 acres of pasture,
1 8th July, 1428. A mistake, whereby the heir was called WiUiam, necessitated the issue of fresh letters
patent September 14th, 1429.
2 County Placita, Northumberland, 17 and 18 Hen. VI. Nos. 14 and 15 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxii.
pp. 235-248 ;- L.T. Remembrancer's Office, Common Business, Michaelmas Term, 18 Hen. VI. No. 25 —
Ford Tithe Case, pp. 232-236 ; Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1436-1445, pp. 258-259.
' Inq p.m. 6 Hen. VI. No. 15 — Ford Tithe Case, p. 232.
FORD TOWNSHIP. 383
worth 53s. 4d. yearly, while in Kimmerston there were two parts of
two parts of 4 messuages, 100 acres of land and 100 acres of pasture,
worth 3od. yearly, besides land in Pletherslaw and Hethpool.^ Here
we have further evidences of the ravages of the feud, which seems to
have reduced the castle to ruins, and to have wasted a considerable
portion of the lands belonging to it. It would appear also that
William Heron had never enjoyed the full estate, as it was evidently
burdened with dower, and his son incurred a further such liability
to his mother.
* In 1438, when he was about 20 years old, John Heron secured a
dispensation to marry his kinswoman, daughter of Sir William Heron,
who since her father's death had been in the wardship of the bishop of
Durham. In January, 1426, the latter had granted the custody of her
person and lands to John's father,- who possibly had designed this little
heiress for his son, and his action in putting his estate into the hands
of trustees may have had something to do with it. The son had a
no less adventurous career than his father. As early as 1445 he was
being employed by the crown on public business, being then appointed
at the head of a commission to inquire into the smuggling of wool and
woolfells into Scotland from Glendale, Coquetdale, Norhamshire, Island-
shire and Bamburghshire.^ Within a year of this however, the crown
seized three husbandlands belonging to him in Ford by way of distress,*
and when prosecuted for debt in 1447, he was described as late of Ford.^
In 1449, in company with his wife, he received a pardon for all entries
and intrusions made by them into their inheritances or any lands or
possessions without suing livery thereof out of the king's hands, and of
all felonies, misprisions and contempts, accounts, debts, prests, arrears
of accounts, impeachments and respites, and all actions and demands
which the king could have against them.^ England was now entering
on a troublous period, and a scion of the house of Heron was hardly
' L.T. Remembrancer's Office, Common Business. Michaelmas Term, iS Hen. VI. Xo. z^^Ford Tithe
Case, p. 236.
" Lansdowne MS. 326, fol. 48, cf. fol. 50. Raine, North Durham, p. 305, names this Sir William as d)-ing
1st September, 1425, seized of lands in Cornhill and a fishery at Tweedmouth. He places him as grandson
of Sir William Heron, brother of Sir Roger Heron of Ford.
' Cat. of Patent Rolls, 1441-1446, pp. 368-369.
' P.R.O. Enrolled Accounts, Sheriffs Seizures, F. 23, Hen. VI. G.
' De Banco Roll, No. 747, m. 268do — Arch. Aeliana, 3rd senes, vol. vi. p. 78.
^ Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1446-1452, p. 259.
384 PARISH OF FORD.
likely to be neutral, when civil war was the rule of the day. At lirst,
however, John Heron seems to have kept clear of championing either
Lancastrian or Yorkist, since after the triumph of the latter he was
specially retained in the office of constable of the castle and lordship of
Bamburgh,^ which he had been granted in 1452. ^ Again in 1459, when the
Lancastrians controlled the government, his position was made still more
secure by the grant in survivorship to himself and his son Roger of
the office of constable and of the keeping of Bamburgh Castle, and of the
survey of the lordship of the castle, with all appurtenant wages, fees
and profits, to hold themselves or by deputy, and of £40 yearly by
reason of the said offices from the issues of the castle and lordship.
In the following year he acted as royal ambassador to Scotland^ on
behalf of the Yorkists, who had just seized the control of the govern-
ment. Ultimately, however. Sir John threw in his lot with the Lan-
castrians, for whom he fought on the stricken field of Towton. He was
accordingly attainted in parliament and his estates were forfeited.* It
is fairly obvious that he was slain in the battle, since the order for the
sequestration of his property described him as dead, and included an
order for the arrest of his son and heir, Roger. ^
The Herons were not long exiled from Ford. In 1472 Roger secured
the regrant of his father's inheritance, together with all rights and
privileges enjoyed by his ancestors,^ and he appears as Sir Roger Heron,
lord of Ford, in 1477.'' He died before 1485, when his son, John, had
succeeded to the property as a child still under 16.^ In 1494 this last
held the important office of lieutenant of the East and Middle Marches.^
In 1500 William Heron of Ford, lieutenant of the Middle Marches,
gave lands in Temple Thornton, North Gosforth and elsewhere
to his brother Henry, and appointed his brother John to act as
his attorney.^" William Heron can hardly have been the son of the John
Heron who was under 16 in 1485, seeing that he had two brothers,
presumably of man's estate, in 1500, and another mentioned three years
' Rot. Pari. vol. v. p. 316. ^ Cat. oj Patent Rolls, 1452-1461 p. 512.
' Rot. Scot. vol. ii. p. 398. * Rot. Pari, vol. v. p. 479, vol. vi. p. 47.
' Cal. oJ Patent Rolls, 1461-1467 p. 29. ' Rot. Pari. vol. vi. p. 47.
' Lansdowne MS. 326, lol. 52do. ' IVills and Inventories, vol. i. p. 100.
• Bain, Cal. 0/ Documents vol. iv. p. 418. '» Lansdowne MS. 326, fol. 47do.
FORD TOWNSHIP. 385
later,^ so we may conclude that he was his brother. In 1504 William
Heron of Ford was granted a pardon for all offences previous to
January ist in that year,- but within two years he was in trouble
again, having become involved in the border feud originated by his
illegitimate brother, John Heron the bastard, who had slain Sir Robert
Carr, warden of the Middle Marches of Scotland.^ Eventually he was
handed over to the Scottish king as a hostage for his brother, who could
not be found,* and this doubtless explains the fact that in 1509, though
the owner, he was not the 'inhabitant' of Ford castle, ^ and also throws
light on an allusion by Lord Dacre in 1514 to 'Wilham Heron of Forde,
now belonging to my lord of Northumberland.'*' When James IV.
invaded England in 15 13, Elizabeth Heron, the wife of the lord of Ford,
was, according to Scottish chroniclers, living alone in her husband's
castle. Anxious to explain the defeat of Flodden, these writers allege
that the king lost time at Ford owing to an intrigue with this lady,
who, having played with him for a time, secured permission to visit
the English camp to glean news for the Scots, and then betrayed the
invader's plans to the English commander.^ The details of the storv do
not fit in with the chronology of the campaign, and it would seem, if we
accept the English version, that Elizabeth Heron begged James to spare
the castle and secured his promise to do so, if certain Scottish prisoners
in English hands were released. It was on this mission that she visited
Surrey, who was induced by her to offer the release of other prisoners
in exchange for her husband.^ After the battle William Heron was
released from his Scottish prison in exchange for George Hume,^ and he
appears as lord of the manor in 1520. ^^ In 1524 certain roj-al commis-
sioners, sent to gather forces for an expedition against France, found
1 I.ansdowne MS. 326, lo!. 48do. - Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1494-1509, p. 340.
' Ibid., p. 521.
* Buchanan, book xiii. vol. ii. p. 128. The author bv a mistake gives Heron of Ford the name of John
too.
5 List of Castles — Border Holds, p. 24.
^ Cotton MS., Caligula, B. 11, f. 190. Abstracted in Raine, North Durham, p. vii.
' Pitscottie, vol. i. pp. 262-264. ^^ only reports it as an unconfirmed .story. Buchanan, Book xiii.
vol. ii. p. 133, accepts this story as a fact, but gives no details.
' Hall. p. 558. Cf. Dr. HodgkJn's criticism of the stor\' in Arch. Aeliana, N.S. vol. xvi. pp. 30-44.
• Buchanan, book .\iii. vol. ii. p. 131, speaks as though this took place before the invasion of 1513, but
this is impossible even by his own showing.
" Lansdowne MS. 326, fol. 52.
Vol. XI. 49
386 PARISH OF FORD.
him anything but tractable. He refused to attend before them in New-
castle save at an hour convenient to himself, and when he did come, it
was . 'in froward maner rather like as a quarrel than otherwise' and
"seid opynly 'ye lieutenants undoys the countrie,' with divers other
froward wordes, and if his power had been better than ours, ferther
trouble hade been like to have growen emongs us. At length he saih
he wolde prepare xvi personnes to serve your grace in this voyage,
which nombre we thinke verrey smale consideryng his power and
auctoritie. His words were sklanderous to us, beseeching your grace
that he may be compelled to shew the causes why he soo said. His
disdeyn appereth verrey great agaynst us, which we think proceeds for
that his auncestors have been lieutenants here and that we be estraun-
gers here in that countrie, that disdeyn runneth emonges diverse of
theym." This naive horror of border brusqueness, and shocked surprise
at the independence of Sir William Heron, betray the striking contrast
between the ways and manners of Northumberland and those of the
south of England, and the commissioners doubtless spoke truth when
they confessed that 'it liggs not in our power to ordre this countrie.'^
Sir William continued to live at Ford till his death in 1535. In 1524
he married his son and heir, William, to Margaret, daughter of Sir
Thomas Forster of Adderstone,^ and in 1533 he made provision for his
wife by settling certain property on her valued, so far as the Ford
estate was concerned, at £9 13s. 4d. yearly.^ In 1533 he gave an
annuity of 5 marks yearly from lands in Ford and elsewhere to Henry
Brown of Berwick.* At his death his property, including the Ford
estate, the castle of Simonburn and other properties, was valued at
£88 los. 2d., to all of which, his granddaughter Elizabeth, aged 3, was
heir.^ She therefore became a ward of the crown, and her wardship
and marriage were granted to the lord chancellor, Sir Thomas Audley,^
but before the year was out Sir John Heron of Chipchase had put in a
claim as heir to the property on the ground that it was entailed in tail
1 Document in Raine, North Durham, pp. xii.-xiii. ^ Lansdowne MS. 326, fol. 48do.
" Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. i. pp. 53-55. ' Cal. of Ancient Deeds, vol. v. p. 434.
* Inq. p.m. 28 Hen. VIII. No. 116 — Ford Tithe Case, pp. 238-239. Surveys from the Court of Wards and
Liveries — Ibid. pp. 240-241.
* Letters and Papers of Hen. VI H. vol. ix. p. 374.
FORD TOWNSHIP. 387
male.i The matter it would seem was decided against Sir John, for the
custody of the property and the wardship and marriage of the heiress were
once more granted to Sir Thomas Audley in 1537,'-^ though this may
have been because Sir John had become involved in the Pilgrimage of
Grace, when it was reported that 'he Kepyth the Castell of Forde by
stronge hande.'^ The survey of 1541 wisely did not commit itself, and
merely stated that Ford belonged to the heirs of Sir William Heron,*
but we may surmise that till Elizabeth came of age the Heron influence
there was predominant. The survey of 1551 on the other hand could
not ignore the fact that serious trouble was brewing, owing to the fact
that the young heiress had married Thomas Carr, younger son of John
Carr, captain of Wark.^ Doubtless this marriage was arranged in opposi-
tion to the wishes of her relations, and as Carr had played a valiant
part in the defence of Ford in 1549,® i^ "^^Y perhaps be surmised that
Elizabeth had then formed a romantic attachment to her deliverer.'
The marriage kindled once more the claims of the Herons of Chipchase,
who had been content to await developments while it had been possible
to arrange for the marriage of the heiress to one of their house, ^ and the
authors of the survey of 1551 therefore reported that Sir George Heron
of Chipchase asserted that Ford was his as heir male of the late Sir
William Heron of Ford, while Alexander Heron of Meldon put in another
claim, also as heir male of Sir William. The quarrel was rapidly
developing into a feud, and the gentlemen of Northumberland were
beginning to take sides, 'wherefore it were a good deed for quietness of
the countrey, that clame and traverse were brought to agreement and
quietness ; otherwise there is like much trouble to ensue thereof.'^
' Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII. vol. ix. p. 216.
* Ibid., vol. xii. pt. i. p. 513.
^ Ibid., vol. xii. pt. i. p. 508 ; Memorials of He,vham, vol. i. p. cxlv.
' Survey of the Border, 1541 — Border Holds, p. 39.
' Northern Visitations, pp. 11, 31 ; Survey of the Border, 1551 — Raine, North Durham, p. xxviii.
* See pages 412-413.
' Carr Family, vol. ii. p. 95, states that the marriage took place in 1548, but no authority is given for
the statement.
* Elizabeth's mother was wife of Sir John Heron of Chipchase in 1555, and may have married him some
years earlier. Carr Family, vol. ii. p. 89.
' Survey of the Border, 155 1 — Raine, North Durham, p. xx\iii. According to Carr Family, vol. ii.
p. 94, Sir William Heron in 1500 had settled his lands in tail male with successive remainders to his brothers
Odinel and Henry and to John Heron of Chipchase. The latter was elder brother to Sir George Heron, who
succeeded him at Chipchase, and whose claim to the land was deemed void from a defect in the hvery of
seisin. After litigation. Queen Elizabeth finally referred the controversy to York, when the feoffment was
declared void. The authority for these statements has not been discovered, though it may be the Talbot
Papers in the College of .\rms cited below.
388 PARISH OF FORD.
'Much trouble' did ensue from this dispute, which within a few-
years developed into a little private war, such as the borderland knew
so well. On Saturday, 27th March, 1557, matters came to a head in
an attack on Ford planned by the Herons. According to the account
sent up a week later to the privy council by Sir Robert Ellerker, the
sheriff, and certain justices of the peace, who all had visited the scene
of action, John Dixon, one of the constables of Berwick, with about
20 men from the garrison, appeared late on that Saturday night at
Ford Castle, and in the interests of George Heron of Chipchase 'peacably,
as we are informed, did expell and put out of the said Castle of Ford,
the servauntes and folkes of the said Thomas Carre, being in number
lyve men and three women or thereuppon.' In the forenoon of the
following day another party of thirty or so, among whom were Sir
Ralph Grey of Chillingham, Giles Heron, treasurer of Berwick, and
Robert Barrow, mayor of Berwick, while riding towards Ford were set
upon by a much smaller body of no more than sixteen led by Thomas
Carr's brother, Robert, who had been one of the five expelled the night
before. The smaller party must have taken their enemies unawares, for
the mayor was slain, and several others, including Giles Heron, were
wounded, but in the afternoon more of the Grey tenantry from Chil-
lingham came up and next day still more of Heron's men, the castle
being seemingly still in the hands of the Heron faction. Sir Robert
Ellerker and his associates thought the situation very serious. The
county was suffering generally from a bad administration of justice, and
'this hundrethe yeare forepassed never happed there so piteouse a state
of dissention and hateredd to be sowen in this contrey as in preser-
verentlye in planting and like to take rote if the same be not quickely
mett withall and prevented and hatred groweing uppon these presents
almost throwtheout the hole contre.'^ Lord Wharton, lord warden of
the Marches, gave the privy council a somewhat different account,
wherein he portrayed the Heron cavalcade as 'lydinge in peaceable
manner' when attacked, and asserts that Giles Heron had received
fifteen 'blodye wounds' from which he had since died, his death being
laid to the door of the Carrs and the Collingwoods.^ The Collingwoods
'■ Letter dated April 3rd, 1557. Talbot MSS. in Heralds' College — Carr Family, vol. ii. pp. 75-76.
- Letter dated April 14th, 1557. Talbot MSS. in Herald's College — Carr Family, vol. ii. pp. 76-77.
FORD TOWNSHIP. 389
were almost alone among the Northumbrian gentry in supporting the
Carrs, while the Herons' list of supporters contained most of the well
known families of the county.^ The privj' council was also approached
by Thomas Carr, and while the earl of Shrewsbury was commissioned
to examine into the breaking of the peace, the earl of Westmorland and
the bishop of Durham were instructed to look into the quarrel as to
title which had caused the disturbance, since ' further inconvenience maye
followe.' Whichever party had been in possession of the castle for the
last three years was to be put in possession of it now, and that done, the
earl and bishop were ' to procure to bring the matter to some good ende
by way e of communicacion or arbitrament,' and failing this were to bid the
parties to refer the matter to the court of chancery, not forgetting
to bind both Carrs and Herons to keep the peace.- The 'arbitrament'
failed, and in May Thomas Carr, George Heron and Ralph Collingwood
all appeared before the privy council in London,^ but on 26th
January, 1558, Thomas Carr was murdered. This murder was no
overt act, but one accomplished by stealth. On January 31st,
the earl of Northumberland was bidden to 'boulte out who murdered
Thomas Carr,'* and the records of the privy council display great
eagerness to bring the offenders to justice, the earl of Northumberland
being also busy in the matter, and receiving constant instructions from
London to clear it up.^ George Heron of Chipchase naturally fell under
suspicion, but attempts to arrest him were frustrated either by his
armed retainers or by the connivance of the officials.^ Sir John Forster
of Bamburgh was also sent for to Newcastle to explain his position,
but since he was 'a man of great servyce on the borders, and d3'd
notobley well nowe of late, the Lords do therefore wysshe that his
Lordship (the earl of Westmorland) do neither doo nor saye anything
unto him touchinge the matter of Thomas Carr, whereby he might be
discouraged or conceive his servyce to be defaced, on lesse there be the
more pregnant matter wherwith to charge him."^ The two earls in fact
were far more thorough in their methods than the privy council liked.
The earl of Northumberland was severely taken to task for having issued
1 List from Talbot MSS., Herald's College — Carr Family, vol. ii. pp. 77-78.
" Acts of Privy Council, vol. vi. pp. 72-73. " Ibid. vol. vi. pp. 86-87.
* Ibid. vol. vi. p. 254. ' Ibid. vol. vi. pp. 255, 267, 270, 277, 297.
^ Ibid. vol. vi. pp. 2G4, 2O7. ' Ibid. vol. vi. pp. 270-271.
390 PARISH OF FORD.
a proclamation against George Heron and Robert Lisle of Bedlington,
describing them as the murderers, for though ' it semeth to rise of
zeale to justyce and the punyshement of the heynouse murder, yet it
cannot be thought but very straunge that he woulde make any such
straunge proclamacion, having no further matter against them, and
knowing that the parties were within the realme and waiting here
uppon the Counsell, and therefore he is wylled to have more consydera-
cion henceforth.'^ The earl of Westmorland, too, was reproved for
seizing the goods of Heron and Lisle, who had not yet been brought to
trial, and he was ordered to return them to their respective wives
after inventory thereof had been made.^ Heron and Lisle were evi-
dently by now under arrest, certain documents in cipher which were
supposed to implicate them having been seized,'^ and in June they,
together with Sir Francis Leke of Sutton, county Derby, and Sir John
Forster, were bound over to keep the peace and to appear before the
bishop of Ely and the master of the Rolls, who were to go north as
special commissioners to inquire into the matter.* By August these
commissioners, having accomplished their task, reported to the council
that they had secured an agreement between the two parties signed
by John Heron and John Carr, though nothing is said as to tracking
down the murderer.^
Agreements might be signed for the benefit of officials sent from
London, but they did not bring border feuds to an end. In the follow-
ing December, when Elizabeth had succeeded Mary on the throne, the
earl of Westmorland, in the course of a general review of the East and
Middle Marches, reported continued divisions 'between the surnames of
the Hearons and the Carres,' and that 'if the one were more advanced
than the other, a new discord and disdain would grow.' The title to
the disputed estate was still unsettled,^ and the agreement come to was
threatened by an appeal against it lodged by Giles Heron's w4dow.'
More effective steps were taken by the Elizabethan government to
arrest those guilty of the murder of Thomas Carr, and in 1561 the
' Acls 0/ Privy Council, vol. vi. pp. 278, 284. - Ibid. vol. vi. pp. 297-298. ' Ibid. vol. vii. pp. 277-278.
* Ibid. vol. vi. p. 331 ; Col. of State Papers, Domestic, 1547-1565, p. 480.
' Acts of Privy Council, vol. vi. p. 360. " Cal. of State Papers, Foreign, 155S-1559, p. 56.
' Cal. of Stale Papers, Domestic. 1547-1580, p. 132. The letter is given in lull in Carr Family, vol
ii. p. no.
FORD TOWNSHIP.
391
CARR OF FORD.
Arms : Gules on a chevron silver three stars sable. Harvey's Visitation
of Northumberland A.D. 1552 ; Surtees Society Pub!.,
No. 122, p. 10.
John Carr of Hetton («) ; \viU= daughter of Robert Clavering
dated August, 1551 {>■). of CadeUe (a).
'Margaret,
daughter
of Robert
Co 1 1 i n g-
wood of
Eshngton
John Carr, cap- :
tain of Wark (a).
n
Cuthbert Carr
(fl).
Margery {a).
z^Isabel daughter of Hum-
phrey Carr [a).
'Ursula, daughter of William
Bukton of Benningholme,
county York, and widow
of John Collingwood, of
EsUngton (a).
Richard
Carr (a).
Robert
Carr (a).
Edward
Carr (a) .
George Janet (a)=
Carr (a).
=George Isabel (a)=john
Swinburne. Unthank.
John Carr (a) ; guardian Anne
to his nephew William Horsley
1559 (ab) ; called John (a).
Carr of Ford in 156 1
(ac).
Thomas Carr (a) ; in
command of horse-
men at Ford 1549
(aa) ; murdered
January, 1558 (ft).
EUzabeth, grand-
daughter and
heiress of William
Heron of Ford (a) ;
died 1554 (/).
Ursula (c), dau-= William Carr,
ghter of Henry
Brandling of
Newcastle.
born nth Nov.
1551 (/); died
1st Jan. 1589
(c).
Ralf Carr of Holbom (c) ; trustee under Agnes
his brother William's will (c) ; living {h}.
at Ford 1593 {ad); deputy for Eliza-
Warden of Middle Marches, 1597 ; beth
(a«) ; in the entail of 1606 {e}. (h).
Robert Carr (1) ; involved
in the Carr-Heron
quarrel of 1557 (z).
Ehzabeth {a)=John Carr
of Bowmer.
Jane (a) ^ Anthony Rat-
cliffe.
Margaret (a) = Thomas
Swinburne of Eglingham.
Janet (a) =-John Shotton
of Berwick.
Eleanor (a), unmarried.
(') William Carr = Jane (c); natural
of Greenhead
ized
(a/)-
in 1622
I I
Robert Carr Gilbert
(c). I Carr(c).
Carrs of Etal.
Five other
children (c).
I
(^) Thomas Carr, bom
August ist, 1577
(r) ; gentleman of
the bed-chamber
to James I. (a/);
settled his es-
tates 1606 (c) ;
died 4 th August,
164 1 (ag).
('j Isabella, dau.
of Sir John
Selby , knight
of Berwick (c) ;
married at Ber-
wick, 15th Jan-
uary, 1598/9 ;
died about 1608
{0).
William Carr = .
of Eshot
(ai) ; in the
entail of j
1606 (c).
William Carr (d)
of Sunnylaws.
Peregrine
Carr (ft)
died be-
fore 1606
(<•)■
William Carr{») :
born before
I 606; about
33 in 1638;
died 20th
December,
1644 (c).
Susan, daugh-
ter of (apt.
Thomas Hodg-
son (c); married
in 1632 (c).
(■) John Ratcliffe (i); = (») Ralph Sal-
married May, 1647 keld, bond
{w) ; executed 1664 of marriage
for murder of 7th May,
Thomas Carr [r). 1664.
John RatcUffe, living i66^(q).
Thomas Carr, aged 10
years 7 months 21st
Deer, 1644 (0) ; slain
by John RatcUffe
before Oct., t66o (s).
I
Margaret :
: Arthur
Babing-
ton (m).
See Pedigree p, 404.
I
Elizabeth (m), baptised = Francis
20th Dec, 1640, at Blake
Berwick, mar. at St. (m).
Paul's.Covent Garden,
12th Feb., 1662 («).
Susan
I i I
John Carr,
born alter
1606 (r), died
circa; 1636(A)
Elizabeth
(A).
Susan (A).
Thomas Winkles,
(m), died before
Dec, 1668 (/).
See Pedigree p. 406.
392
PARISH OF FORD.
Thomas Carr {^,
of Belford born
before 1625 (I)
owned Slate-
row in 1644 {ah);
Grace, daiigh- =(') Thomas George Carr (ro) .
ter of Richard Armorer James Carr (7(1).
Forstcr of of Bel- Margaret = Henry Colling-
Newham (0). ford(o). wood of Hcslerigg (i&).
Jane (;;').
r
Grace (/>). r-^: William Alder {/>) oIKirkncwton ; mar. at Bamburgh, 14th Sep., 1685.
Thomas .■\ldcr, sold Mardcn in 1767 (x).
I I I I I I
Henry Carr. in the entail
of 1606 (c).
Dorothy (c).
Margaret {c), bapt. in St.
Nicholas's, Newcastle,
3rd March, 1576/7.
Elizabeth (c), ,bapt. 24th
May. 1575, at St. Nich-
olas's. Newcastle.
Jane (c).
Eleanor (r).
[a) Northern Visitations, pp. 31, 49.
(6) Acts of Privv Council, vol. vi. p. 254.
(c) P.R.O. Chancery Tna. p.m. series 2, vol. 227,
No. lys; Chancery Bills and Ansivers,
Chas. I. cc. loi, No. 23 — Lord Joicey's
Deeds, vol. iii. pp. 140-144.
(d) Chancerv Proceedings — Carr Family, v. 136.
(e) Hall, p.'.ssS-
(/) P.R.O. Court of Wards, Tnq. p.m. vol. 8, No. 42.
\g) Northern Visitations, p. 183.
ih) Ibid. p. I T .
(t) Chancery Depositions. Collins 12S, Xo. i —
Carr Family, vol. iii. app. ii. p. 144.
(k) Chancery Depositions, i Chas. II. — Cair
Family, vol. ii. p. 124.
{V) Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. i. pp. 36-39, 55.
(m) Ibid. vol. iii. p. 128 ; Depositions of Francis
Blake — Ford Tithe Case, p. 185.
(«) Indices of Marriage Licences in College of
Heralds — Carr Family, vol. ii. p. 146.
(o) Chancery Record — Carr Family, vol. ii. pp.
1.S7-158.
[p] Bamburgh Registers, 14th September, 1685.
(17) Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. i. pp. 52-53, vol. iii. p.
119
(>•) Cal. of State Papers, Domestic, 1663-1664, p. 120.
fs) Ibid. 1660-1661, p. 344.
(/) Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. p. 121.
(»1 Ford Tithe Case, p. 134.
[v] Ibid. pp. 14 1- 142.
{iv) P.R.O. Chancery Proceedings, Bridges, bundle
31, No. 14 ; bundle 32, No. 21.
(.r) Genealogist, new series, vol. vi. p. 91 ; vol. vii.
pp. 183-184.
(v) Wills and Inventories, vol. i. p. 138.
(z) Talbot MSS. — Carr Family, vol. ii. pp. 75-76.
(aa) Belvoir Papers, vol. i. p. 39.
(ab) Acts of Privv Council, vol. vi. pp. 254-255.
{ac) Document in Raine, North Durham, p. xxxi.
(ad) Wills and Inventories, vol. ii. pp. 224-225.
iae) Cal. of Border Papers, vol. ii. pp. 378, 778.
[af] Cal. of State Papers. Domestic, 16 19- 16 23, pp.
432. 5'''5. 568.
(ag) Undocumented Statement in Carr Family, vol.
ii. p. 138.
[ah) Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. p. 118.
(ai) This William Carr, "brother of Thomas Carr,"
is described as " of Eshot " in the entail
of 1606, of which there are several inde-
pendent copies (see note (c) above) . This
conflicts %vith the account of the descent
of Eshot in Northumberland County History,
vol. vii. pp. 345-346, based on Carr
Family, vol. iii. p. 36.
council of the north reported that Gregory Ogle, his servant Wilson
and Roger Heron had been secretly detected as the guilty parties.
Indeed secrecy was the essence of the whole thing, the discoverers,
whose names were deliberately not disclosed, had 'the more circum-
spectly travailed in the search of the matter, lest it should be thought
that any malice of the friends of the Carrs had revealed the same.'^
Two years later negotiations were pending with the Scottish queen for
the surrender of certain of the Lisles, who were described as having
been 'at the slaughter of Heron with Ralph Eligar.'^ The Lisles and
the Herons were neighbouring landowners in the parish of Felton, and
this may refer to troubles dating back as far as 1526.^ The perennial
' Cal. of State Papers, Foreign, 1568-1562, pp. 221-222. * Belvoir Papers, vol. i. p. 86.
^ See N.C.H. vol. vii. pp. 342-343.
FORD TOWNSHIP. 393
quarrel is alluded to again some time after 1576, when the Herons
declared that Robert Carr, William of Ford's uncle, had assaulted Lionel
Heron, cousin of John Heron of Chipchase, whereas the Carrs retorted
that Robert was trying to apprehend him for the murder of Ralph
Lisle, Carr's brother-in-law, and that Lionel was wounded in resisting
arrest and in company with several relatives had to flee the country.
The Herons declared that this had broken the compact agreed to in the
past, and still more so since one condition was that William Carr of
Ford should marry within eight years either Elizabeth or Dorothy
Heron, whereas he had married elsewhere. The Carrs replied that
Elizabeth, daughter of Giles Heron, died before the eight years were
accomplished, while William was quite willing to marry Dorothy, but
that her father, John Heron of Chipchase, had been forbidden by his
father, George, to fulfil the agreement, as the latter had sworn that
while he lived his granddaughter should not marry a Carr.^ That the
Herons had not abandoned their claim to Ford is manifest from the
fact that on October nth, 1576, John Heron of Chipchase solemnly
conveyed the castle and manor to Cuthbert, his son and heir.^ So the
quarrel went on, and it was doubtless to this renewal of it that
reference was made in an official report of December, 1572, as to the
sources of the decay of the English Marches in Northumberland, which
put first and foremost the 'private quarrels between the Herons and
Carres, involving other houses, who would rather overthrow each other
than face the enemy. '^
When Thomas Carr was murdered in 1558, he left a son and
heir aged seven, who was thus an orphan, since his mother
had died in 1554. The estate to which he succeeded was described as
the castle and manor of Ford and 1300 messuages, 1,000 acres of land,
200 acres of meadow, 1,000 acres of pasture, 1,000 acres of furze and
heath, 2 water mills and 3s. rent in Ford, Crookham, Hetherslaw,
Kimmerston and Broomridge, worth yearly in time of peace £66 6s. 8d.,
but recently yielding only half this sum. In addition to tliis there
were a few small holdings on the estate valued at about £6 3'early,
' Enrolled Decrees, Hen. VIII. to Elizabeth, vol. i. 40th pt. temp. Eliz. No. 54 — Carr Family, vol. iii.
pp. 17 i8»7. This must have been after 1576, the date when John Heron succeeded his father George at Chip-
chase.
- Lansdowne MS. 326, fol. 48do. ' Cal. of Border Papers, vol. i. p. 13.
Vol. XI. 50
394 PARISH OF FORD.
which had been granted to various people for terms of years, and also
Margaret, the young heir's grandmother and now wife of George Heron
of Chipchase, held in dower 20 messuages, 400 acres of land, 60 acres
of meadow, 500 acres of pasture, 40 acres of wood and some rent,
some of which was situated in Hetherslaw, though none in the other
townships.^ At his father's death William Carr became a ward of the
crown, and Queen Mary directed that 'the moste nere of kynne ....
who will best see to his good education, shall have the wardship of him,'
and as this was in reply to a suggestion that his uncle John Carr
should be appointed guardian, ^ we may take it that it was
on him that the duties fell.^ In 1568 William is returned as
holding the whole Ford estate including Hetherslaw in capite,'^ but he
continued in the wardship of the crown down to 1570.^ Despite this
long royal control, he was known soon after as a ' Papist and a favourer
of Papists,'^ though no active participation in treasonable or seditious
movements is recorded against him. He died on January ist, 1589,
seised of 25 messuages, 30 cottages, 2 water mills, 500 acres of land,
100 acres of meadow, 200 acres of pasture, 40 acres of wood, 300 acres
of furze and heath and 39s. 9d. rent in Ford, Crookham, Hetherslaw,
Kimmerston and Broomridge, worth in all -£^2 3s. 4d. yearly in time of
peace. He left his lands and tithes in Crookham and the two water
mills in Ford, worth £30 yearly in time of peace, in trust to provide
portions for his five daughters, and committed the wardship and
marriage of his son and heir, Thomas, to Lord Hunsdon, though his
brother Ralph was to enjoy the rents of certain property till Thomas
came of age, on condition of providing for the maintenance and educa-
tion of his two younger sons and his five daughters. His widow, Ursula,
continued to dwell at Ford,'' as seemingly also did Ralph, who is
described as of Ford in 1593.^ The appointment by William Carr of
Lord Hunsdon as guardian must have been after consultation with
the crown, which exercised its rights of guardianship in 1597,
' P.R.O. Inq. p.m. Court of W ards, vol. 8, No. 42. = Acts oj Privy Council, vol. vi. pp. 254-255.
' John Carr of Ford is mentioned in a document of 1561. Raine, North Durham, p. xx.\i.
* Liber Feodarii, 1568 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. iii. p. Ixiv.
' Cal. oj State Papers, Domestic, 1560-1579, p. 327.
• Ibid., 1580-1625, p. 231. C(. Carr Family, vol. ii. p. 113.
' P.R.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. series 2, vol. 227, No. 195. ' Wills and Inventories, vol. ii. pp. 224-225.
FORD TOWNSHIP. 395
when the hving of Ford was vacant. ^ It is probable that Lord
Hunsdon was reahy the nominee of the crown, and that Wilham Carr
was merely acting on instructions in appointing him as guardian to his
son. It can hardly be thought that he would appoint him by choice,
if he can be identified with the William Carr about whom Lord Hunsdon
had written to Lord Burghley in 1572, that he had been arrested
carrying letters from Lady Northumberland, and that though there was
nothing incriminating therein, it might be well to send him for trial
'for daring to bring such books, beads and other idolatries as tend to
the maintenance of the old idolatry and popery.' ' Tell me,' he continued,
'what to do with him, or whether to hang him here.'^ In view of
William Carr of Ford's known leanings to Roman Catholicism, it is just
possible that he is here meant, though the summary methods of dealing with
him suggested by Lord Hunsdon are somewhat forcible for use against
a well knoM'n gentleman of the border. Be this as it may, Ralph Carr
evidently found no difficulty in working in close co-operation with his
nephew's guardian, for in 1597 Sir Robert Carey, Lord Hunsdon's son,
wrote to the government that during his absence from Northumberland,
where he was warden of the Middle Marches, he left a 'very suffitient
deputy' in the person of 'Mr. Rafe Ker of Fourd.'^
By 1601 Thomas Carr had married Isabel Selby, daughter of Sir
John Selby of Berwick, and was beginning to show a disrespect for the
government, which might be a survival of his father's papist leanings.
At any rate it was reported in that year to Sir Robert Cecil, the
secretary of state, that the young laird of Ford during a recent visit
to his mother-in-law at Berwick had spoken disrespectfully of his
sovereign lady, 'Were shegon' — he declared — 'then men might be sett by,
but as long as she lived, men would not be cared for.'* No notice was
taken of this outburst, and the death of the queen, some fifteen
months later, provided Thomas with a sovereign more to his liking, as
by 1623 he had served James I. as gentleman of the bedchamber so
faithfully as to receive a pension of ;^500.^ His preoccupations in
1 Cal. 0] State Papers, Domestic, 1595-1597, p. 458. By 32 Hen. VIII. Cap. i the rights of the crown to
wardship of heirs of tenants by knight service were modified to extend to only one-third of such wardship.
* Cal. 0/ State Papers, Domestic, 1566-1579, p. 416. ' Cal. of Border Papers, vol. ii. p. 378.
' Cal. pf Border Papers, vol. ii. p. 778 ; Chancery Bills and Answers, Chas. I. cc. loi, No. 23 — Lord
Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. p. 140.
' Cat. oj State Papers, Domestic, 1619-1623, pp. 505, 5OS.
396 PARISH OF FORD.
London, and, later in life, his uxorious devotion to his second wife,
helped to undermine his fortune and to cause trouble to his descendants.
On his first marriage he had promised, in return for his wife's
dowry of £1,000, to entail the estate on the children bom to him by
her, and in 1606, seemingly after the death of his firstborn who
had been named Peregrine,^ he executed an elaborate entail,
whereby all his real property was to descend to his eldest surviving son,
William, in tail male, with remainders successively in tail male to the
heirs male of Thomas Carr's body, William and Henry the latter's
brothers, Ralph Carr of Holburn his uncle, Eldward Carr of Snipe House
and William Carr of Hetton, with remainder over to the right heirs of
Thomas Carr for ever. The estate thus entailed comprised the castle
and manor of Ford, Crookham, Hetherslaw, Kimmerston, the messuage
or tenement called Brownrigg, the great hill or parcel of ground called
Flodden Hill, divers messuages and lands in Howtel, 16 tenements in
Cornhill and tithes of all such property as lay within the parish of
Ford. The whole estate was valued at a clear £1,200 a year,- a fine
property if unencumbered, but this it was not to be for long. Bit by
bit almost the whole was mortgaged, beginning in 1624 with Flodden
and the tithes of Hetherslaw, on which he borrowed £400 from his brother
William.^ So long as these transactions were kept within the family,
it did not so much matter, but in 1630 he began business relations with
the Bradford family by borrowing £8,000 on the security of the whole
estate,* and ultimately in 1640 he obtained another £2,400 on a similar
security from the Bradfords and other financiers.^ One portion of the
property was definitely sold off. Adjoining the northern boundary of the
castle demesne there is a farm, now known as Hay Farm, but originally
called Catford Law. Though now considered as part of Etal township,
originally it belonged to Ford, a fact made more obvious by the
situation of Ford Hill and Ford Forge, admittedly still part of Ford
1 P.R.O. Chancery Proceedings, Bridges, bundle 31, No. 14. Isabel Selby's dowry was paid mostly
in ready money and the residue by the dehvery of twenty cows and one bull.
^ Inq. p.m. 21 Chas. II. — Carr Familv, vol. ii. pp. 120-121 ; Chancery Bills and Answers, Chas. I. cc. loi,
No. 23 — Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. pp. 140-144 ; Chancery Depositions, Collins, 128, No. I — Carr Family,
iii. app. ii. p. 144.
' Ford Tithe Case, p. 137. * Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. ii. pp. 57-5S ; vol. iii. p. 131.
■"^ Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. ii. pp. 74-76 ; Ford Tithe Case, pp. 139-140. Various other mortgages are to
be found in Lord Joicey's Deeds. Some of these, though not all, are summarized in Carr Family, vol. ii.
p. 129.
FORD TOWNSHIP. 397
township, which abut on Hay Farm, but do not touch the present town-
ship of Ford at any point. This portion of the Ford estate was mortgaged
in 1629 to Sir John Selby of Berwick, under the style of 'all that
grange and tenement known by the name of Catford Law, ' with reserva-
tion of all coal mines and coal with free access thereto. This mortgage
was transferred later in the same year to Dame Margaret Selby, who in
turn handed it on to Robert Carr of Etal in 1637. Finally in 1640
Thomas Carr sold the farm, including the minerals, outright to the
mortgagee, and thus Catford Law became part of the Etal estate.^ In
one case, and one case only, did Thomas Carr appear as a purchaser and
not as a borrower, and that was in connection with a piece of land
described as a 'capital messuage in the town fields of Ford called
Slayterow', which at some earlier date seems to have been separated
from the Ford estate. In 1584, being the property of Gilbert Chamber-
lain, sometime bailiff of Wark, it had been sold to Thomas Burrell of
Milfield, who had left it to his younger son John. The latter evidently
got into difficulties and mortgaged the land, which in 1625 was sold to
Thomas Carr."^
Thomas Carr's wife, Isabel, died about 1608, and his choice of her
successor brought endless trouble to the family. This second wife was
Jane, widow of William Carr of Scotland,^ for whom naturalisation was
secured in 1622, and who in 1623 was associated with her husband
when he was granted his pension of £500.'* It is possible that the lady
was connected with the Scottish Robert Carr, who rose to much
prominence as the favourite of James L, and that she and her husband
owed their introduction to court to this fact. She was apparently just
as unscrupulous as this disreputable minion, if we are to believe
the complaint laid before the court of chancery in 1638 by William
Carr, her stepson. She 'not only brought small or no fortune, advance-
ment or preferment in marriage at all unto him, but on the contrary
brought him five children . . . who not only have been very chargeable
• Deeds relating to Catiord Law — Ford Tithe Case, pp. 163-164. It seems doubtful whether Catford
Law was included in the entail of 1606. It is not mentioned by name in the deed, but it was stated to be
included in Carr v. Foster in 1656. PRO. Chancery Proceedings, Bridges, bundle 31, No. 14. If this last
statement is true, it is additional evidence that Catford Law was part of the township of Ford.
- Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. i. pp. 47, 53. 55.
' Chancery Bills and Answers. Chas. I. cc. loi. No. 23 — Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. ill. pp. 140-144.
* Cal. 0/ Stale Papers, 1619-1623, pp. 432, 565, 568.
398 PARISH OF FORD.
unto the plaintiff's said father, but the said Jane, the plaintiff's mother-
in-law (stepmother), out of a ceaseless ill disposition towards the plaintiff,
labouring and practising by all means she can to bring him out of
favour and into disgrace and contempt with the said Thomas Carr, his
natural and otherwise his loving father,' had sought to get the whole estate
settled on Robert and Gilbert, her own two sons by her former husband.
William Carr went on to complain that his stepmother had induced her
husband to live 'in southern parts' — a confirmation of the theory that
it was through her that Thomas was received into court circles — and
had placed Robert and Gilbert in possession of Ford Castle, 'intending,
having gotten her two sons in possession of plaintiff's father's chief
house, if plaintiff's father die, being very aged above 64 years of age,
utterly to keep plaintiff out of possession of all his father's lands.'
Indeed she was suspected of having secured a secret conveyance of a
part of the premises to herself or her two sons. Further, William
complained, that despite many offers of most suitable brides for him,
she had deliberately prevented his marriage and had kept him 'in as
poor a condition of apparel and clothes as any servant, and not allow-
ing or suffering the plaintiff to have competent allowance of meat or
drink, with extreme hard usage of a mother-in-law, not to be endured
by flesh and blood.' About six years past, when he was twenty-seven
years old, 'not being able to endure such affliction, hard measure and
oppression any longer,' he took the law into his own hands, and married
Susan, one of the daughters of Captain Thomas Hodgson, and grand-
daughter on her mother's side of Sir William Bouyer, who, according to
plaintiff, had been much trusted as governor of Berwick under James I.^
William Carr went on to show that he was in debt to his wife's
relatives, since all he had had from his father was a rent of ^^27 a year
and this was mortgaged, while he had been induced to join his father
in giving a bond for £1,000, from which he could not secure relief.
Further, his stepmother had induced her husband to prefer a petition
to the king slandering his eldest son, who was therein said to have
married beneath him and to be worrying his father in his old age by
vexatious law suits, and praying that all suits brought against him
1 The proof given for this statement is so ingenuous that it should be recorded. The plaintiff declared
that he and his wife still possessed above tv^enty letters addressed 'To our trusted and well beloved William
Bowyer, Kt.' and signed with his late majesty's own handwriting and sealed with the privy signet.
FORD TOWNSHIP. 399
before the council of the north be quashed. She had also carried the
unfortunate Thomas off south to be out of the jurisdiction of the council
of the north, thus making the plaintiff travel three hundred miles to
have his case heard. William Carr's object in bringing these proceed-
ings was to secure the production of the deed of entail of 1606, which
confirmed the inheritance to him as his father's heir in tail male. The
result of the case is not known, but it produced a complete denial of
all the allegations, including the existence of the deed of entail, from
Robert Carr, presumably Jane's eldest son by her first husband, and of
the acknowledgment of the existence of such a deed by John Craster
and William Ord, the latter of whom offered to produce a copy thereof,
made by him in October, 1619, when the document was in his posses-
sion.^ The dispute was still active when the unfortunate Thomas
died on August 4th, 1641,^ for though in his last moments the old
man sent for his son and heir, the latter was treated with insult so
soon as his father had passed away. A few years later one who was
present at the time deposed, that 'William Carr, coming forth of the
castle to perform the filial office of funeral, was afterwards violently
withheld from entering into the said castle, and forcibly denyed the
benefit of any part of the estate by Jane Carr, the second wife, and
other her adherents.'^ Despite this rebiiff, William Carr persevered in his
claims, and when he died on December 20th, 1644, he was seised of
the whole of his father's property, but the recital by the jury of inquest
of the deed of entail of 1606 seems to imply that it was still necessary
to assert the rights of his son to the estate.* It is to be noted, how-
ever, that the little property of Slaterow, bought after 1606, had
devolved on Thomas Carr, the eldest son of Thomas and Jane Carr and
stepbrother of William Carr, and in mortgaging it in Jul3^ 1644, he
described himself as Thomas Carr of Ford, one of the sons of Thomas
Carr of Ford, deceased.^
Thomas Carr, the younger, was ten years old when he succeeded
his father William, in 1644.* His official guardian was Lord Grey of
' Chancery Bills and Answers, Chas. I. cc. loi, No. 23, cc. 7, No. 6 — Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. pp. 140-144.
• The only authority for this date is a statement without reference in Carr Family, vo). ii. p. 138.
' Deposition of William Read — Carr Family, vol. ii. p. 138.
* Inq. p.m. 21 Chas. I. — Carr Family, vol. ii. pp. 120-121. ' Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. p. iiS.
400
PARISH OF FORD.
Wark,^ but after his mother's remarriage with John Ratchffe in May,
1647,2 the latter seems to have acted in this capacity,^ and this cannot
have added to the happiness of the unfortunate boy, who was destined
sixteen years later to be murdered by the man who posed as his
protector. Financial trouble, too, loomed over the estate. It would
Fig. 15. — Ford Forge.
seem that there was some considerable difficulty in maintaining the right
of the young heir under the deed of entail of 1606; but here, at any
rate, he was supported by his stepfather, who wanted to secure the
dower of his wife.* Still the claims of Jane, widow of Thomas Carr the
elder, were not allowed to be forgotten, and it would seem that there
' Lord Joicey'a Deeds, vol. i. pp. 45-46. ^ P.R.O. Chancery Proceedings, Bridges, bundle 31, No. 14.
' Bill in Chancery — Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. p. 146.
• P.R.O. Chancery Proceedings, Bridges, bundle 32, No. i ; bundle 31, No. 4; Chancery Bills and
Answers, Collins, bundle 128, No. i — Carr Family, vol. iii. app. ii. p. 144.
FORD TOWNSHIP. 4OI
were many attempts to prove that the entail had been cut, even Sir
Robert Carr, who was merely a stepson of the elder Sir Thomas Carr,
putting in a claim. ^ All this was complicated by the claims of the
mortgagees. 2 In 1655 Lionel Bradford held a mortgage on certain
parts of the estate, and leased them to Robert Colthurst, who the next
year brought a successful action for trespass against Bradford for
ejecting him from the premises so leased ;^ but the holder of the chief
mortgage was Ralph Bradford, who had inherited it from his' grand-
father, Henry Bradford, and his father Thomas.* Some troubles arose
between Thomas Carr and Ralph Bradford, and they referred the matter
to the arbitrament of Ralph Jenison,^ who gave his award in 1659.
Thomas Carr thereby acquired a chance of redeeming the whole mort-
gage, save in so far as it related to his Cornhill property, by paying
Bradford ^(^2,700 on June 20th, 1664. Till that date Bradford was to
have complete possession of Hetherslaw and 8| farms in Crookham,
while Carr was to hold East and West Flodden, Hetherslaw Mill, Ford
Com Mill, and Ford Walk ]\Iill, all of which he was to forfeit to
Bradford in the event of the money not being forthcoming in 1664.^
This engagement Carr did not live to fulfil, for he met a violent death
before the close of the following year at the hands of his stepfather,
John Ratcliffe of Alnwick.' It may be that Ratcliffe was tempted to
violence because he realized that his day of power was past.
He had continued to live at Ford Castle, even after Ms stepson
had come of age,^ enabled to do so doubtless partly by the latter's
indebtedness, but partly, too, because he was in favour with the Common-
wealth government, whereas the Carrs were 'under oppression for loyalty
to his late majesty.'^ Now with the Restoration the tables would be
turned, and his long oppression of his unfortunate stepson would have
to end.
' Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. p. 143; Extracts from Chancery Proceedings — Carr Family, vol. ii. p. 135.
- Extracts from Chancery Proceedings — Carr Family, vol. ii. pp. 122-123.
' Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. p. 119.
^Chancery Proceedings, Bridges, bundle 32, No. 21 ; Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. i. pp. 37-39. vol. iii.
pp. 131-132.
5 Chancery Proceedings — Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. ii. pp. 74-76. " Ford Tithe Case, pp. 132-133.
' Cal. of State Papers, Domestic. 1660-1661, p. 344, 1663-1664, p. 120 ; Depositions of \vitness in 1679 —
Ford Tithe Case, p. 178.
' Deposition of Susan Salkeld, 1686 — Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. pp. 142-143.
' Chancery Proceedings, 1686 — Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. p. 146 ; Deposition of Francis Blake, 1678 —
Ford Tithe Case, p. 176.
Vol. XI. 51
402
PARISH OF FORD.
BLAKE OF FORD CASTLE.
Thomas Blake of Easton- = Eleanor, daughter of
town, (a) Hants. I Thomas Hall (a).
Sir Richard Blake of Strand, Catherine, = Francis Blake of London, = Mary ..., William Blake =
Middlesex, knight, fifth son ; daughter of
tailor to King Charles II. ; Sir Valen-
knighted Whitehall gth tine Brown ;
May, 1675 ; died 26th buried at
August, 1683, aged 69 ; Coggs.
buried Savoy Chapel (M.I.).4-
fourth son (fl) ; of parish of St. named of St. Paul's,
Paul, Covent Garden, and of in her Covent Gar-
Highgate; party to deed 26th h u s- den; named
March, i566?(6); will dated band's 1693 in will
26th October, 1691 ; proved will. of nephew
23rd March, 1693/4 (/)■ WilUam.
Daniel Blake of St. Paul's, Covent
Garden, woollen draper ; bachelor,
aged 28, on October 12th, 1687 ;
took out a licence to marry Ellen
Stafford, daughter of John Stafford
of Stepney, aged about 20 ; baptised
28th January, 1655/6, at St. Paul's,
Covent Garden, as son of Wilhara
and Mary Blake.
Emanuel Blake of St. Paul's, Covent =
Garden, woollen draper; was a
bachelor, aged 25, April 17th, 1682,
when ha took out a licence to marry.
Amy Bellinger, daughter of
John Bellinger of St. Dun-
stan's in the West, citizen
and stationer (/) ; living
27th April, 1703 (c).
Sarah Blake was named in the will of her grandfather, John
Bellinger, dated 8th March, 1693/4 (/) '• living 27th April, 1703,
bapt. 4th March, 1687/8, at St. Paul's, Covent Garden.
Sir Francis Blake
of Ford Castle,
kt , was 2 2 years
of age at date ot
marriage licence;
knighted 27th
August, 1689 ;
M.P. for Berwick
1688, 1689, 1698;
knight of the
shire, 1700 ; ex-
ecutor and re-
siduary legatee
of father's \vill
(c.J. ) ; died 8th
Jan., 1717/8 (6);
will dated 17th
August, 1717.
Elizabeth,
daughter and
co-heir of
Thomas Carr
of Ford Castle ;
bond of mar-
riage 1 2th Feb-
ruary, 1 66 1/2 ;
married at St.
Paul's, Covent
Garden, 13th
February,
1 66 1 /a; dead
before 24th
Feb., 1743;
[baptised 30th
Dec, 1640, at
Berwick] .
WilUam Blake of London, mer-
chant, and of Coggs, Oxford-
shire ; beUeved to have been
one of the founders of the
Witney blanket industry ;
erected a market cross at
Witney; died iSth September,
1695, aged 63, and was buried
in Coggs church (e) ; will dated
6th April, 1693; proved P.C.
Canterbury, 4th December,
1695 (/)•
Sarah, to whom
her husband
gave a legacy
of £400 over
and above her
jointure of
/350 p.a. (/) ;
died 1 7th
April,
(e).
1 701
■Eleanor, wife of . . ,
Biscoe, named in
wills of father and
brother Wilham ;
will dated 25th
June, 1688, then
of the parish of St.
Margaret's, West-
minster ; widow ;
proved 9th Aug.,
1688 (/).
Francis Blake, only son and heir, of St. Edmund Hall, Oxford, matriculated
6th April, 1677, aged 15 ; B.A. 1680 ; entered at Middle Temple,
1677; [? baptised St. Paul's, Covent Garden, i6th December, 1660];
died in his father's hfetime, i8th December,: 681. aged 22; buried
in Coggs church (e).
M I I I I M
Francis Blake, son and heir, died in his father's hfetime ; buried igth March, 1683/4 W-
Eleanor, daughter and co-heir, married ist George Selby of Twizell in Norhamshire ; bond of marriage 2nd
November, 1682 ; and secondly, 8th December, 1687 (c). Charles Howard of Overacres in Redesdale ; buried
1 6th June, 1705 (c). 4-
Mary, daughter and co-heir, married first loth June, 1684 (c), Ralph Ord of West Ord, and secondly Edward
Delaval of South Dissington ; buried Newbum chancel 7th December, 1711, aged 47. 1'
Sarah, daughter and co-heir, married Robert Blake, an Irishman, she died 6th December, 1756. aged 90 (c).-;,
Anne, daughter and co-heir, married as his first wife, John Trevanion of Caerhayes, Cornwall, and died s.p
EUzabeth, daughter and co-heir, married first, Michael Mitford of Seghill, and secondly, i8th June, 1717, at Biack
Bourton, Oxfordshire, Edward Hungerford of Black Bourton. -i
Susan, daughter and co-heir, married Sir Charles Dalston of Dalston, third baronet.
Catherine, daughter and co-heir, married first Sir Richard Kennedy of Mount Kennedy, county Wicklow, fourth
baronet ; and secondly. Lord Frederick Howard, sixth son of Henry, sixth duke of Norfolk; she died 22nd
January, 173 1/2 {(i).
(a) Le Neve, Pedigrees oj the Knights, p. 299,
Harl. Soc. No. viii.
(fc) Ford Muniments,
(c) Ford Register.
[d) G. E. C. Complete Baronetage.
(e) Monumental inscriptions. Coggs.
(/) Probate Registry, Somerset House.
FORD TOWNSHIP. 403
The death of Thomas Carr, unmarried and without issue, created
quite a Gilbertian situation. Jane Carr and her second family had been
striving their best to prove that the entail of 1606 had been
barred, so that they might participate in the estate of Thomas Carr,
the grandfather of the recently murdered man. Now the senior repre-
sentative of that second family, Thomas Carr of Belford, must put for-
ward his claim to the whole estate on the strength of that very entail,
since the only representatives of the first family were the three sisters
of the murdered Thomas Carr, Margaret, wife of Arthur Babington,
Elizabeth, wife of Francis Blake, and Susan, wife of Thomas Winkles,^
and the entail was restricted to heirs male. Thomas Carr of Belford
was not in the best position to prosecute his claim, since on June 2qth,
1661, he was committed to the Marshalsea as a debtor on the motion
of Robert Colthurst, but later he escaped from custody. This, however,
availed him little, as he thereby incurred a debt of £8,000, a sum in
which he had become bound not to attempt an escape."^ The most
enterprising person among the claimants was Francis Blake, who on
February 26th, 1661, mortgaged his wife's share to his father,^ presumably
to raise funds to fight the matter out, and on March 31st, 1662, though
the case was by no means 3'et settled, entailed this share on the heirs
male of himself and his wife, with remainder over to the heirs of their
bodies.* On the other hand the person on the spot had the immediate
advantage, and the murdered man's mother, Susan Ratcliffe, with that
acquisitiveness which seems to have been a universal quality in Carr
wives, possessed herself of the larger part of the property. Thus in the
Rate Book of 1663 she is recorded as the proprietress of Broomridge,
Ford and Flodden, together with the two corn mills of the estate.
Bradford, as mortgagee, held Hetherslaw, while a part of Crookham and
' Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. p. 128 ; Deposition of Francis Blake — Ford Tithe Case, p. 185.
^ Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. ii. p. 21 ; vol. iii. pp. 123-124. There is some uncertainty as to the identity
of this prisoner. He is described as Thomas Carr of Ford Castle, and the suspicion arises that the Thomas
Carr who was murdered is meant, particularl)- as we know that Robert Colthurst held a lease of one of the
mortgages. This is strengthened by the statement in the same document that by May i6th, 1662, "Carr was
now dead,' whereas Thomas Carr of Belford did not die for several years to come. The statements ais to the
actual day of Thomas Carr's murder are not very exact, but there is conclusive evidence that it took place
before February 26th, 1661, a date on which Francis IJlake and EUzabeth his wife, sister and co-heir of
Thomas Carr of Ford, mortgaged their share of the inheritance which they claimed, to Francis Blake the
elder. Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. pp. 127-128. This would make it impossible for him to be committed
to the Marshalsea on June 29th, 1661.
» Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. pp. 127-12S * Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. p. 129.
404
PARISH OF FORD.
BABINGTON.
Philip Babington of Kiddington, county Oxford, eldest son
of Sir William Babington of Kiddington, knight (a).
Muriel, daughter of Sir John Goodwiu
of Winchington, Bucks., knight (a).
Sir Henry Babington of Heaton =
near Newcastle, and of Ogle '
Castle ; of Oriel College, Ox- j
ford; matriculated loth June,
1597. aged 16 ; sold Kidding- !
ton ; knighted ist May, 161 7;
a steward of Newcastle races
in 162 1 ; administration of his
personal estate, 28th July,
■1'34. granted to his son
William.
Anne, daugh-
ter of (Sir)
Richard jen-
kinson of
T u n s t a 1 1 ,
Norfolk; re-
nounced ad-
ministrat i o n
of her hus-
band's per-
sonal estate.
Other issue
{a).
Letitia, died at
Ogle Castle ; ad-
ministration of
her personal es-
tate 26th Febru-
ary, 1628, granted
to her brother
Robert [d).
Alice:
buried
I 2 til
Nov-
ember,
1638
(b).
I
Robert
Babing-
ton of
New-
castle,
buried
15th
J uiy.
1057(6).
Anne, dau. of
Peacock, succes-
sively wife of John
Clavering and
Edward Bulmer
(b) ; mar. loth
Aug., 1640(6); bur.
30th Nov., 1663
(6) ; will dated
22nd Sept., 1663;
proved i6b3 (dj.
William Bab-
ington of
Heaton & of
Ogle Castle ;
ot University
College, Ox-
ford ; matri-
culated i6th
April, 1624,
aged 16; bur.
20th May,
1648(7); ad-
ministration
of personal
estate, 12th
July, 1648
(</).
Catherine, :
daughter of
Sir Arthur
Heselrig,
widow of
George Fen-
w i c k of
Brinkburn ;
buried in a
rock tomb
atHarnham
gth Sept.,
1670, ' in
hopes of
future bUss'
(M.I.).
Elizabath,
daughter
of Sir
Henry
Helmes
[bur. at
iMorpeth,
iSthFeb-
r u a ry ,
1696/7].
Other
issue
is)-
MM
Charles Babington, bapt. 19th
June, 1625 (b) ; of New-
castle, boothman ; appren-
ticed 1st November, 1641, to
Richard Swan of Newcastle,
boothman ; set over i6th
Oct., 1O46, to Geo. Erring-
ton ; adminstrated free of
Merchants Company loth
December, 1651.
Ralph Babington, baptised
9th August, 1627 (6) ; buried
20th Oct., 1628, at Ryton.
Robert Babington, buried
i6th March, 1625/6 (6).
Robert Babington, baptised
1 6th August, 1637 (i).
M M M I
Barbara, buried 19th July,
1615 (6).
Jane, bapt. 21st Oct., 1617,
at J arrow.
Mirrell, baptised 18th Sept-
ember, 162 1 (b); buried
I3tli June, 1639 (6).
Margaret, bapt. 27th Sept.,
1629 (6) ; wife of Gilbert
Errington of West Den-
ton ; named in her step-
mother's will.
Margery, baptised 30th
June, 1633 (6).
Miriam, buried 20th May,
1631 (6).
Alice, bur. 1 2 Nov., 1638 (6) .
i I J
Edward Bab-
ington, named
in liis mother's
will (rf).
,jane, baptised
5th Decem-
ber, 164 1 (g);
wife of George
Errington;
married 24th
April, 1665
Eli z a b e t h ,
baptised 15th
July, 1643,
i
PhiUp Babington of Harnham and
Bowsdon ; of Christ Church, Ox-
ford, 1650; admitted to Gray's
Inn, 26th October, i66i ; was
rated for lands in Thirston and
Tritlington in 1663 ; a major of
the 6th Foot Dutch Establish-
ment ; he was wounded, and later
prisoner, at the battle of St.
Denis ; he returned to England
with Prince of Orange ; gazetted
colonel 7th April, i688 ; M.P. for
Berwick, 1688; governor of that
place, 1688 or 1689 ; from an entry
in Diary of Narcissus Luttrell
under date 5th January, 1690/1 ;
he died of a fever. I
Anne, daughter
o f William
Webb of Swin-
hoe, master of
B e r w i c k
school; married
at Berwick,
29th May,
1679 ; of St.
Martins in the
Fields when
she made her
will 5th June,
1727; proved
in London,
27th June,
1728 (d).
Arthur Bab-
ington was
residing at
Ford 29th
January,
1663 ; in
1688 a cap-
tain 6th
Foot, and
apparen 1 1 y
left the ser-
vice soon
afterwards ;
party to
deed 5th
Decem ber,
1668 (c) ;
PhiUp Babington,
ensign of 6th
Foot, 1695;
captain ist Jan-
uary, 1712.
Ann.
Elizabeth.
Mary, [wife of Charles Whit-
ell of Gilmonby, Yorks {g);
and of Furnivalls Inn.
Margaret,
daughter
of Wil-
liam Carr
of Ford
Castle,
and sister
and co-
heir of
Thomas
Carr of
the same
place;
party to
deed 17th
July, 1685
{c).
An infant,
buried
29th
May,
1639 (/).
Jane, bap-
t i s e d
30th
March,
1639 (/).
Catherine [married
first, John Astley,
and secondly, Win-
gate Pulleine of
Carlton, Yorks (g)j.
Philip
Babington.
son and
heir.
Elizabeth, wife of
William Tipping of
Cheshire.
Catherine, bur. 22nd
December, 1711 (e).
(a) Visitation 0/ Oxfordshire, Harl. Soc. pub.
vol. V.
(6) All Saints Register, Newcastle.
[c] Ford Muniments.
(dj Raine, Test. Dunelin.
(e) Ford Register.
If) St. Nicholas Register, Newcastle.
(g) St. Johns Register Newcastle.
FORD TOWNSHIP. 405
Kimmerston, with the tithes therefrom, was held by Henry Thompson
and Ralph Archbold, doubtless also as mortgagees. The only remaining
propert}' consisted of the larger part of Crookham, assigned to 'Mr. Can
of Ford,' which doubtless means Thomas Carr of Belford.^ That the
record is not quite accurate is obvious from the fact, that another,
perhaps more authentic, copy of the Rate Book gives Mrs. Ratcliffe's
holding as Ford together with the rectory and mill, Crookham, Flodden,
and Broomridge, the latter evidently only in part.^ This last, moreover,
corresponds more closely to the award made between Thomas Carr and
Bradford by Ralph Jenison in 1659.
Thomas Carr of Belford seems to have made up his mind before
very long that, whatever the justice of his claims, his past repudiation
of the entail of 1606 and his lack of money to carry on the contest
gave him a poor chance of success. Further it was stated by his
opponents that he had conveyed all his rights in the Ford estate to the
murdered Carr.^ In 1663 he compromised with the three co-heiresses,
before the courts had come to a decision. He was to receive £264 to
pay off all obligations he had incurred as trustee for the late owner of
Ford, together with the land and farm known as Marden Demesne in
Crookham with three cottages there, all valued at £40 yearly, to be
held by Thomas Carr and his wife Grace and the heirs of Thomas's
body, and in default to revert to the three Ford co-heiresses. A moiety
of this land was not to fall to Thomas till after the death of Susan
Ratcliffe. A further proviso was added that, if the co-heiresses managed
to compound for the debts of the late Thomas Carr at a less sum
than £1,000, a further parcel of land of the annual value of £10
should be ceded to Thomas Carr of Belford.* Yet another agreement,
signed in the following year, reaffirmed this bargain, describing Thomas
Carr's share as Marden Demesne, 16 stints or cowgates and 3 cottages
in Crookham, and providing for its descent in strict entail. At the
same time the remainder of the property was divided between the three
co-heiresses in equal proportions, after a certain portion, consisting of
8| farms in Crookham, the whole of Hetherslaw, East and West Flodden
' Rate Book, 1663 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 277. ' Rate Book, 1663 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 343.
' Babington v. Carr — Carr Family, vol. ii. p. 155.
• Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. p. 1 28. This document is totally misconstrued in the abstract given
in Carr Family, vol. ii. p. 131.
4o6
PARISH OF FORD.
and Hetherslaw Mill. Ford Mill and Ford Walk Mill with the lands
belonging thereto, had been set aside for Francis Blake and his wife
and the heirs and assigns of Francis Blake. ^ Francis Blake was
evidently a wealthy man, or rather his father was, and, having provided
' Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. ii. pp. 80-81 ; Carr Family, vol. ii. pp. 152-153.
WINKLES AND OGLE.
Griffin Winkles of Harnham, gent., whose name occurs in a list of freeholders =
in 1628; buried St. Nicholas, Newcastle, 6th November, 1638, whose debts were
discharged by his grandson, Thomas Wrinkles the delinquent (d).
I
[John] [e) Winkles ==
I
Thomas Winkles of Harnham, fought in the =Eleanor, settle-
Civil War under the duke of Hamilton,
afterwards went to Ireland ; a delinquent,
his name being in Act for Sale, 2nd
November, 1652 ; dead before 20th July,
1653, leaving seven children (d).
ment after
marriage, 29th
Sept., 1645;
living a widow
1666 (d).
I I I
Griffin Winkles, named in settle-
ment, 2gth Sept., 1645 [d], (e).
Charles Winkles, named in settle-
ment 29th Sept., 1645 (d), (e).
John Winkles, named in settle-
ment, 29th Sept., 1645 (d), (e).
I I
Honor
(>:)■
Dorothy
Thomas Winkles (a) of = Susanna, daughter of Wilham -
Harnham, and fure
uxoris of Ford Castle ;
party to deed ist Sept-
ember, 1664 (a), (b) ;
sold Harnham in par-
cels, 1665-1670 (e).
Carr (a) of Ford Castle,
and sister and co-heir of
Thomas Carr of the same
place [buried 5th August,
1732 (e)].
John Carr of Crook-
ham, second hus-
band, 1670 [bur-
ied 13th April,
1708 (e)].
Margaret (e) ; buried i8th
March, 1661/2 (/).
Philadelphia (e) ; wife of
Ohver Wade, mar. 17th
May, 1692, at Mitford.
Jane, wife of John Ogle of
Kirkley; married 30th
August, 1668 (/).
William Winkles of Crook-
ham, buried 22nd Feb.,
1685/6 (6), (c).
Phoebe, died Crook-
ham; buried 15th
August, 1 7 10 (c).
Mary, only surviving sister
and heir (a) ; buried 29th
September, 1693 ('-)•
I 1 I
Thomas Ogle,
bapt. I ith Feb-
ruary, 1691/2;
bur, 12th April,
1693 (/)•
John Ogle, bapt.
23rd October,
1702 (/).
Mark Ogle, bapt.
3rd January,
1705/6 (/).
I
Catherine, co-heir = Daniel
of her mother;
party to deed
15th Oct., 1735
(a) ; baptised
13th June, 1689
(/); died at
Ford Castle ;
buried 3rd Feb-
ruary, 1 739/40
(c).
George Ogle [a) of ==.,
Shortflat and of |
Harnham (a) ; bur. ^
15 July, 1731 (/).
Whitton (a), was of
Ford in 1728 when he
voted at the election of
knights of the shire in re-
spect of an annuity out of
Crookham and 1 748 ; with
his wife and others levied a
fine Mich. Term 9 Geo. H.
of a third part of the manor
of Ford (a) ; party to deed
15th October, 1735 {a).
I
Eleanor {a), co-heir of her mother, wife of
William Thew of Denwick, in the parish of
.\lnwick ; their only daughter and heir,
Mary Thew of Crookham, spinster, by deed
dated 4th Sept., 1733, conveyed to John
and Isabel Archbold her third part of the
manor and castle of Ford, lands in Ford,
Crookham, Kimmerston, Marden, Pallins-
burn. also a moiety of certain lands
called Harnham Moor, in the parish of
Bolam (a) ; married 24th April, 17 11 (/).
Jane, bapt. 6th April, 1704 (/) Isabel, bapt. i8th December, 1707 (/). Mary, bapt. nth May, 1710 (/).
On the 1 8th May, 1719, Daniel Whetstone, of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, gingerbread maker,
lodged an information at Quarter Sessions. — Session Records.
{a) Ford Muniments, box 40, bundle 4.
(6) Hist. Family of Carr, vol. ii. pp. 117, 148,
151. 152.
(c) Ford Registers.
(d) Welford, Royalists' Compositions.
{«) Rev. ]o\mYlod%s,on, Hist. Northumberland,
pt. ii. vol. i. pp. 77, 345, 346,
(J ) Bolam Register.
FORD TOWNSHIP. 407
the funds for contesting the claims of Thomas Can of Belford, was
rewarded by a special share of the inheritance. It is, moreover, notice-
able that the portion set aside for Francis Blake was that part of the
estate which had been the subject of the award of Ralph Jenison in
1559, and it is evident from an agreement of 1664, whereby Thomas
Winkles resigned all claim to this portion of the property if Blake should
pay the money due under the award and thus redeem the estate, ^ that
the latter had undertaken the obligations of the mortgage. He borrowed
the necessar}' £2,700 from his father, ^ but difficulties arose owing to
the fact that Bradford had encumbered Hetherslaw and the 8^- farms in
Crookham which had been left in his hands by the award, with
jointures and mortgages, and the matter had to be settled in 1671 by a
chancery suit, wherein judgment was given to the effect, that the Brad-
ford co-heirs — for Ralph Bradford had died before the settlement — were
to retain Hetherslaw and the 8^ farms in Crookham, while resigning
all claim to the £2,700 and the rentcharge of £60 a year.^ So far as
the rentcharge was concerned, the Bradford heirs appealed against the
judgment,* apparently without success. Thus a portion of the estate
was definitely severed from Ford, and fell into the hands of John Jenkins
of Gateshead, who had married Margaret, widow of Ralph Bradford, and
had already bought out the other Bradford claimants.^
Having settled this matter, Francis Blake turned his attention to
the acquisition of the rest of the lands which had once belonged to
the Herons and the Carrs. In 1668 he bought the share which had
fallen to Margaret and her husband Arthur Babington,*^ and in 1673 he
bought out the claims of his other sister-in-law, Susan, who since the
death of Thomas Winkles had married John Carr. The latter des-
cribed himself consistently as of Ford Castle, and he and his wife
probably lived there in the three rooms called the middle chamber, the
eastern chamber and the closet which they now included in the sale."
It was not till 1685 that Blake bought out the rights of Susan's son,
' Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. pp. 128-129.
* Ibid., vol. iii. p. 130.
' Ibid., vol. ii. pp. 74-76 ; Decree in Blake i'. Bradforth — Ford Tithe Case p. 133.
• Hist. MS. Rep. No. LX. vol. ii. p. 32.
' Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. p. 122, vol. i. pp. 37-39.
' Ibid., vol. iii. pp. 114-115, 121.
' Ford Tithe Case, p. 140 ; Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. ii. pp. 77-78. vol. iii. p. 123.
408 PARISH OF FORD.
William Winkles, for ;^25o/ and even then the claims of the Winkles
famih' do not seem to have been finally disposed of, for as late as 1735,
James Blake Delaval, then owner of the Ford estate, was compelled
to buy out the descendants of Mary, sister of WiUiam Winkles. ^
Other scattered portions of the Ford estate were acquired later by
Francis Blake. Thomas Carr held Slaterow as part of the estate not
included in the entail of 1606, though at one time it was in the posses-
sion of William Carr's widow, Susan, and her third husband Ralph
Salkeld, who in 1664 let it on long lease, together with Broomridge and
their other holdings, to Francis Blake. ^ In 1676 Thomas Carr sold
Slaterow to Blake,'* who in the same year bought Broomridge and Ford
Wood from John Ratcliffe, son and heir of Susan Salkeld, by her
second husband, the murderer of Thomas Carr.-'' Having thus completed
his various purchases, Francis Blake in 1676 took steps to have a fine
levied for the definite securing of the estate, while at the same time,
having doubtless spent most of his ready money in his various disbursements,
he mortgaged a portion of his property, including the two Floddens,
Hetherslaw Mill, Ford Mill, Ford Walk Mill, Ford Wood and such por-
tions of Crookham as belonged to him, for £2,850 to William Blake. ^
Francis Blake, later Sir Francis, had a very long family of daughters,
but his only son Francis died in 1684, and the later years of his life
were much occupied in arranging for the devolution of his North-
umbrian property. He made no less than three wills, in all of which
he named as his heir his grandson Francis Delaval, son of his daughter
Mary, who had married Edward Delaval of South Dissington. The first
was dated August 4th, 1713,' but this was soon replaced by another
dated December 8th, 1714, which saddled the estate with annuities for
his numerous descendants, but made no other provision for
his wife than certain accommodation for life in Ford Castle in lieu of
dower. This consisted of the dining room, the silk room, the room
' Ford Tithe Case, p. i.^i.
- Ibid., pp. 141-142.
' Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. i. pp. 52-53.
' Ibid., vol. iii. p. 125.
5 Ibid., vol. iii. p. iii. By his will dated August 12th, 1682, Ralph Salkcild of Ford bequeathed
to Franci.s Blake of Ford all his rents and personal estate. Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. p. 125.
• Ford Tithe Case, pp. 140, 141.
' Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. pp. 135-136.
FORD TOWNSHIP.
409
in which she usually lay and the room above it, with the kitchen above stairs
and the cellar beneath it. She was also to be allowed the use in
common of the brewhouse under the tower chamber, and the tower house
with the rooms belonging to it, free use of the garden to walk in, and the
right to sow such seeds and to take such fruits there as she wished.
She could have pigeons out of the dovecote, rabbits from the warren
and coals from Ford colliery for the use of her household, and finally
she was to be allowed the use of the stable under the East tower. ^
The third will, dated August 17th, 1717, ultimately became operative.
Therein the testator left, besides the use of the castle and its contents, an
annuity of £300 to his wife, and others of £40 to his granddaughter Elizabeth
Howard, of £60 each to his daughters Lady Catherine Howard and
Mrs. Anne Trevanion and of £20 to his grandson Michael Mitford.
£200 was to be paid to his grandson Francis Mitford, when his
aj)prenticeship expired, and among numerous legacies to servants and
others were one of £100 to his daughter Dame Susanna Dalston, one
of 40S. to William Youngson, clerk, teacher of the poor children of
Ford, and one of ^£20 to the poor of the parish of Ford. All these
were made chargeable on his Ford estate, while his daughter, Mrs.
Elizabeth Hungerford, and his granddaughter, Dorothy Crosby, were
provided for out of Cornhill and Twizel, and his lands in Lowick were
already charged with an annuity of ;£iio for his daughter Dame Eleanor
Howard. Subject to all this, his Northumbrian property was settled in
tail male successively on his grandsons Francis Delaval, Francis Blake,
Francis Mitford and Michael Mitford, and in default successively on the
second and younger sons of Dame Susanna Dalston and the sons of
Lady Frederick Howard, provided always that any one inheriting the
property should take the name of Blake. ^ There is more than a touch
of human nature in this will, for it is to be noted that the majoritv
of those wise mothers, who chose the name of Francis for their sons, had
the satisfaction of seeing them in the line of succession.
At the death of Sir Francis Blake in the following year the estate
passed to Francis Delaval, who in accordance with the provisions of
the will took the name of Blake. In 1743 he was called on to defend
' Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. pp. 134-135-
' Ibid., vol. ii. pp. 14-16 ; Ford Tithe Cass, p. 143.
Vol. XI. 52
410 PARISH OF FORD.
his right against the various descendants of Sir Francis Blake, who,
they asserted, had died intestate,^ but this was not a difficult matter
to dispose of, and the property continued in the Delaval family down to
the death of Lord Delaval in 1808. Once more this fair estate suffered
from the prodigality of its owners as described in the history of Seaton
Delaval township,^ but the property, with the addition of Hetherslaw
bought in 1768 from Dr. Adam Askew,^ passed intact by the will of
Lord Delaval to his widow for life and then to his granddaughter Susan,
marchioness of Waterford, for life with remainder in tail male to her
first and other sons.* Lady Waterford died in June, 1827, and was
succeeded by her son Henry de la Poer, marquess of Waterford, a boy
of about sixteen, 5 who on coming of age cut the entail in 1832.
At that time the whole estate consisted of 7,145 acres, 2 roods, 21
poles with an annual rental of £9,579 12s. 7d.,*' and it remained in
the family till sold by the sixth marquess of Waterford in 1907 to
Lord Joicey.
The Castle. — Ford played no unimportant part in the history of
the border, thanks to its possession from the middle of the fourteenth
century onwards of a castle, which, though not situated on the actual
frontier like Wark, Norham and Berwick, was, with its near neighbour,
Etal, a strong point d'appui in the second line of defences. The original
crenellated manor house, for which licence was secured in 1338 by
William Heron,' was enclosed by a high embattled wall, and in 1340
it was raised to the status of a castle for the defence of Glendale
from Scottish inroads.^ By 1367 it was a recognized unit in the defence
of the border, for when in that year Henry Percy, le Fitz, was appointed
supervisor of all castles and fortalices in the East March, so that they might
all be properly munitioned and armed. Ford appeared on the list of
fortresses committed to his care.^ The castle must have figured in
' Bill in Chancery — Lord Joir.ey's Deeds, vol. ii. pp. 14-16.
* See the descent traced in N.C.H. vol. ix. pp. 163-164.
' Lease and Release — Ford Tithe Case, p. 150.
' Will dated September 24th, 1806 — Ford Tithe Case, p. 150.
' Depositions in 1831 — Ford Tithe Case, pp. 8, n.
' Common Recovery — Ford Tithe Case, pp. 151-154. ' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1338-1340, p. 114.
» Cal. of Charter Rolls, vol. iv. pp. 468-469. The document is printed in Ford Tithe Case, pp. 228-229.
» Rot. Scot. vol. i. p. 911.
FORD TOWNSHIP. 4II
many a struggle of which no record survives, but the first occasion on
which there is mention of an attack on it by the Scots was in 1385, an incident
to which the unfortunate owner alluded when cast into an English
prison for reprisals, quite justifiable, despite the truce recently con-
cluded. ^ Worse was to follow, for while he lay in prison, William
Heron learnt that certain private enemies had assaulted his castle and
carried off thence much booty. ^ This, together with Heron's death in
a quarrel with his neighbour of Etal,^ was so disastrous to the fabric
of his home, that a few years later it was officially described as 'the
ruined castle of Ford.'* According to a return of 1509 the castle could
accommodate forty men, and it was at that time in charge of William
Selby,^ since the owner was a prisoner in Scotland, as he still was when
the home of his ancestors leaped into the public eye as the centre
round which revolved the campaign which culminated in Flodden Field.
Before James IV. crossed the border in 1513, Lord Dacre, the warden of
the East March, realized his intentions, and warned his master thereof,
writing from Ford,^ which he evidently made his headquarters.'' When
the threatened invasion materialized, James made straight for Etal and
Ford, which commanded the centre of Glendale, but which the lack of
sufficient preparation on the English side made it impossible to defend.
At Ford the Scottish king made his headquarters, and it was there
that the first messengers sent by the earl of Surrey found him.^
Before taking up his position on Flodden Hill James burnt the castle
where he had sheltered,^ and though a certain amount of repairs was
thereafter executed, the castle was not restored to its former strength.^"
Lord Dacre within a month of the battle urged the pressing necessity
for manning it efficiently,^^ but now that its owner was restored to
1 Rot. Pari. vol. iii. p. 255. CJ. Ridpath. p. 355. - Rot. Pari. vol. iii. pp. 255-256. ' See pages 380-381.
* L. T. Remembrancer's Office, Common Business of Michaelmas Term, 18 Hen. VI. Xo. 25 — Ford Tithe
Case, p. 236.
' List of Holdis, 1509 — Border Holds, p. 24.
« Letter dated December loth. 1512. Brit. Museum Cotton MS. Caligula B, III. fol. 27. A copy iscon-
tained in Ford Castle Notices, pp. 54-59.
' In another letter dated August 17th, 1513, he alludes to letters reaching him at Ford. Letters and
Papers of Hen. VIII. vol. i. p. 658. A copy is contained in Ford Castle Notices, pp. 65-67.
» 'The trewe encontre or Batayle lately don betwene Englande and Scotlande,' by Richard Faques.
This was evidently written almost immediatelv after the battle, since allusion is made to the earl of Surrey
in his then title and not as duke of Norfolk, the tract is scarce and there is no origmal copy in the British
Museum. A transcript of it is in Ford Castle Notices, pp. 76-83.
' For details of the negotiations leading up to this see page 385.
'" Survey of the Border, \5.^\— Border Holds, p. 39. " Letters and Papers oj Hen. VIII., vol. i. p. 6S2.
412 PARISH OF FORD.
libert\-, there may have been some difficulty in carrying this out,
for he sliowed an independent, even truculent, attitude with regard
to service under the crown. ^ In 1522 there was a project for
placing his irrepressible brother John Heron, the Bastard, in command
with twenty men paid by the crown,- and somewhere about this time
Sir Arthur Darcy actually did command the garrison of the castle,^
but it was officially reported in 1541 that ' the great buyldinges and
most necessarye houses' had lain 'waste and in decaye' ever since 1513,
'the whiche if they were repared were able to recyve and lodge an
hundreth and mo horsemen to lye there in garryson in tyme of warre,
and for that purpose yt is a place much convenient and standcth well
for servyce to be donne at any place within the said Est marche.'* Thus
the castle had the elements of a strongly fortified place, or as Leland
somewhat paradoxically put it, was 'metly stronge but in decay. '^
Something in the way of restoration may have been done, for in
November, 1542, while the Scottish raid, which ended so disastrously at
Solway Moss, was threatening on the West March, Sir William Evers
reported that, in case of need, the frontier garrisons could withdraw to the
second line of defence, and that Ford could very well be defended till
reinforcements were brought up.^ It would seem that after Etal was
acquired by the crown, the two castles were placed under the same
command, and were provided with a garrison of 100 men between them,
under the control of the warden of the East March, who in 1545,
in view of the possible departure of the existing commandant, Sir John
Ellerker, to a similar post in the newly captured town of Boulogne,
appointed John Ogle to succeed him.''
It was doubtless in the capacity of commander of the two castles,
that Thomas Carr, a younger son of John Carr, captain of Wark, took
upon himself the defence of Ford when threatened by the Scots in 1549.
The French, anxious to recapture Boulogne, were using their traditional
alliance with the Scots to thwart the policy of the Protector Somerset,
and to this end they had sent troops to Scotland to assist in the
' See page 386. - Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII., vol. iii. pt. ii. p. 852.
' Evidence of one Richard Saxe, given in 1534, that he had formerly served under Darcy in For.l Castle.
Letters and Papers ot Hen. VIII., vol vii. p. 106.
' Survey of the Border, 1541 — Border Holds, p. 30. * Leland's Itinerary, vol. v. p. O4.
' Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII., vol. xvii. p. 614.
' Acts 0/ Privy Coiincil, vol. i. p. 344 ; Cat. of Slate Papers, Domestic, 1547-1565, p. 3^9.
FORD TOWNSHIP. 4I3
expulsion of the English garrisons planted in the Lowlands after the battle
of Pinkie. Some of these, under the command of the French general
Desse, carried their successful war over the border, and assailed the
castle of Ford with four pieces of ordnance. A brilliant defence ended
in the repulse of the enemy, but not before a large part of the forti-
fications had been destroyed by fire, one tower only being left to shelter
the gallant garrison.^
Much in the way of restoration cannot have been carried out after
this last destruction, since the castle became the prey of the struggling
factions of Carr and Heron,^ and in 1580 it was reported to be in need
of repair.^ Four years later it was officially described as 'decaied by
want of reparacion of a long contynuance,' but 'verye fitt . . . yf it
were repaired, the charge of which reparacions we esteeme to three
hundreth pounds.'* Doubtless this three hundred pounds was never
spent, for the days of border warfare were nearing their end, and indeed
we hear no more of Ford Castle as a fortress. It was as a mansion,
rather than as a castle, that it was plundered during the Civil War by
the Scots, who carried off or destroyed many of its archives.^ This last
Scottish visitation was not carried out by the invaders of 1640, as has
been generally inferred, for on that occasion it was reported that 'they
deal very subtilly, they hurt no man, and pay for what they take, so
the country gives them all the assistance they can. Many of the
country gentry come to them and entertain them, one of them is Mr.
Carr of Ford.'*' According to the widow of Wilham Carr, who continued
to live in the castle after her husband's death in 1644, it was the soldiers
of Sir Marmaduke Langdale who did the plundering 'when Berwick was
taken,"' which places the occurrence in 1648,^ and the guilt on the
shoulders of the royalists. It was thus probably a battered mansion
as well as an encumbered estate which in 1660 devolved on the three
1 Hisloire de la Guerre d'F.scosse (Bordeaux, 1862I, p. 220. C/. Ridpath, Border History, p. 567.
2 See pages 387-393. ' Cal. of Border Papers, vol. i. p. 32.
' Report of Commissioners, 1584 — Border Holds, p. 73.
^ Depositions in Chancery Proceedings, 1686 — Ford Tithe Case, pp. 190, 194.
° Cal. of State Papers, Domestic, 1640, p. 626.
' Depositions of Susan Salkeld in Chancery Proceedings, 1686 — Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. pp. 144-145.
' The presence of troops in Ford Castle in 164S is further evidenced by an entry under the date May and
|une, 1648, of 6s. paid by Major Saunderson 'to one to go to Alnwick and from thence to Ford Castle, where
the enemy first settled a garrison.' Cal. of State Pap'-rs, Domestic, 1O4S-1649, p- i37-
414 PARISH OF FORD.
sisters of Thomas Carr, and the former cannot have been improved
from the fact tliat it was equally divided amongst the three heiresses.
In May, 1667, the husbands of the three ladies came to an agreement
as to what should be the share of Francis Blake, which was to consist
of ' the chamber that he now liveth in with the garrett above the same,
being in the last built parte of the said castle, the kitchen he now pos-
sesseth with the roome above the same, being in the tower which is
called by the name of the Cowed tower, a chamber called by the name
of the dyneing roome with a roome betwixt the said dyneing roome
and the upper chamber in the Cowed tower, the vault under Mr. Bab-
ington's cellar, and one halfe of the roome under the lower broad hall
beginninge from the greate east an so westward. And it is further
agreed ... for . . . Mr. Thomas Winkles to bear the full halfe of the
charges for the repaireinge of the batlement and roofe above the dyne-
ing roome and broad hall.' To make his part the more convenient,
Blake also bought from Babington for the sum of 20s. 'a closet in the
said castle, being in the left hand of the entry to the kitchen of the
said Francis Blake. '^ After Francis Blake had bought out all the other
claimants, he devoted his attention to the house, and in 1694 he signed
a contract for considerable alterations. A stair two storeys high was
to be built on the east side of the tower, and a door was to be broken
into the first storey. Three windows on the west and one on the north
and four chimneys on the east side of the tower were to be made, and
the whole of it rendered secure from bottom to top, the lantern being
raised a foot higher. The doors of the turrets were to be made
' fashionable and uniform,' and a battlement was to be built at the top
of the wall 'to secure one going up to the highest room;' the stairs
were to be repaired, and the outside of the turret was to be 'of ashlar
work."^ Doubtless it was to procure a record of the castle after this
work had been done, that Sir Francis Blake had the drawings, repro-
duced on p. 414, made by John Purdy in 1716. If these are to be taken
as approximately accurate, these repairs and additions were executed,
not on the great north-western tower, which is part of the present
building, but on the south-western tower, since at least two windows
' Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. p. 120.
- Waterford Documenls, box lO, Loose Papers, No. 18 (I. Si). Cf. Proceedings oj Newcastle Aniiqs.
second scries, vol v. p. O2.
4l6 PARISH OF FORD.
are shown on the western front of this, a nearer approach to the
three ordered than the absolutely sohd face of the north-western
tower. There, too, can be seen the lantern and the battlement beneath
the top storey, alluded to in the contract. These drawings may
be compared with others, possibly executed by the Bucks about 1728,
whch shows the walls of the east and west wings facing the courtyard.
The long room, described above as the hall, is marked Xhaple,' and
its windows are shown to be pointed. This view helps us to date
approximately the later buildings. Over the door are the arms of
Heron quartering Muschamp and the initials W. C, which must probably
refer to William Carr, who died in 1589, while in the gable of the porch
are the arms of Blake and the date 1677 under the initials f^r. as
figured on Purdy's plan. The classical gateway is surmounted by a shield
of Blake quartering Carr, with the date 1679, and on the vane of the
south-east tower is the inscription 'Sr F. B. 1695. '^ Here again we
have further confirmation that the contract of 1694 referred to the
south-east tower.
It is well that we have these drawings of Ford Castle in the
early eighteenth century, for in 1761 Sir John Hussey Delaval, later
Lord Delaval, inaugurated a period of 'restoration,' which transformed
the remains of the mediaeval castle and the Tudor mansion of the Carrs
into a so-called 'Gothic' building of the Strawberry Hill type. Accord-
ing to a statement made in 1793, presumably on the authority of Lord
Delaval himself, the castle was in ruins and not inhabitable when he
succeeded to the estate, but he at once set about repairing and
rebuilding it, spending in all some £10,500, so that it became 'an useful
and noble country seat.' All this was done, so it was affirmed, with
the intention of keeping it 'as near its ancient form as would admit, '^
but this, being interpreted, might well read 'as near what the eighteenth
century thought that it ought to have been.' So far as we can tell, no
architect was employed, and to a great extent the work was under the
control of George Raffield, the Seaton Delaval joiner. Some traces of
Raffteld's ideals are to be found in a letter of 1763, addressed
to Sir John by Thomas Delaval, his brother, who seems to have kept
' Bodleian Library, Gough MSS. vol. xxv. fol. 70. Cf. Border Holds, p. xxi.
' Answers to queries of the Board of Agriculture. Waterjord Documents, vol. iii. pp. 137-139.
FORD TOWNSHIP.
417
an eye on the work. 'George Raffield tells me he wrote you that it
would be better to take off the arch on which my Lady's room was
placed, on account of getting more room for the windows. I have
been looking at it, and told him I thought he was entirely wrong ;
the arch is a very fine piece of workmanship. It would not only be
great expense to pull it down and lay joists instead of it, but not half
so good for the purpose when done.'^ If this referred to the vaulted
basement of the north-west tower, Thomas Delaval was successful in his
protest, but no other vaulting survives, and it may have had reference
to vaulting underneath what is now known as King James's room, and
if so, the joiner had his way. Again, quite near the end of the eighteenth
century, a certain Alexander Gilkie, a builder of Coldstream, was
employed to remodel the great gateway, lodges and towers with the
assistance of a Kelso architect named Nesbit,i but the whole effect was
such as to induce Archdeacon Singleton in 1828 to describe the castle
as 'a melancholy instance of the frippery and degrading taste of George
II. 's [sic] time. Two fine old towers — he wrote — are lost and overlaid with
the violent gothic of Batty Langley, and Adams with his lath and
plaister has attempted to form a gallery ! In such a gallery Dame
Heron never sang nor gallant monarch ever trod.'^ Some of the worst
aspects of this eighteenth century work were removed by Lady Water-
ford when she undertook the work of restoration in 1861.
To realize it as a mediaeval structure, the best view of Ford Castle
is now obtained from the north-west, which embraces the major por-
tion of the ancient masonry remaining above ground. In a general
way the site and structure resemble those of the castles of Lumley
in Durham and Bolton in Yorkshire, also erected in the fourteenth
century, when domestic architecture had attained to some comfort
and convenience in its planning, while retaining sufficient strength
to resist for a period the form of attack prevalent at the time. Ford
possessed many features and details resembling those at Etal,'' and
Chipchase.**
It is unfortunate that successive owners have in turn so effectively
destroyed the work of their predecessors, the Carrs that of the Herons,
> Proceedings of Newcastle Antiqs. second series, vol. v. p. 63. ' Archdeacon Singleton's Visitations-
' See pages 460-470. * See N.C.H. vol. iv. p. 334.
Vol. XI. 53
<
o
■a
J3
O
•a
FORD TOWNSHIP. 419
the Blakes that of the Carrs, whilst the Delavals and the Waterfords
are responsible for considerable destruction of ancient work. The
marchioness of Waterford's additions resulted in a commodious and
charming abode, from which unrivalled views are to be obtained in the
direction of the Cheviots and of Flodden Field. For much information
of the form and extent of the buildings we are dependent on the two
drawings already mentioned. The general view/ is based on the com-
bined infoimation afforded by these drawings.
The general plan, it will be observed, comprised a rectangular court-
yard or bailey with a massive tower at each angle, and over all from
north to south measured about 188 feet, and from east to west 152
feet. Such was the mediaeval manor house of Sir William Heron,
which probably sufficed with minor alterations until the time of Flodden
Field and the visit of King James. The drawings also indicate very
clearly the second building period to be attributed to the Carrs, at the
end of the sixteenth or the beginning of the seventeenth centur}-. All that
now remains of the early work is the north-west and south-west
towers, much altered, the west curtain wall connecting them, and the
north curtain, now incorporated in the modern residence.- The north-
west tower is a massive pile built on the lines of earlier keeps.
The south-west and south-east towers were smaller ; that at the north-
east was of oblong shape and supplied the principal dwelling-place,
as at Etal. The north-west tower, now styled King James's tower, is
undoubtedly that which was defended by Thomas Carr in 1549. It measures
on the exterior about 37 feet square, and, including the vaulted chamber below
the basement floor, is five storeys in height. In this connection it must
be remembered that the so called basement, or ground floor, was originally
entirely above ground, and that the present level of the courtyard is now
much higher than it \\ as originally. The plan of the ground fioor,^ is with-
out external piojections and on the interior measures 19 feet 2 inches
by 19 feet with walls 9 feet in thickness. The room is entered
by a pointed door in the east wall, and is lighted by two small windows,
one in the north and the other in the south wall. That in the north
wall has chamfered and rebated jambs and tref oiled head. The south
window commanded the entrance to the courtyard mentioned below.
' See page 418. ' See fig. iS, page 420. ' See fig. iS, page 420.
420
PARISH OF FORD.
In the south wall is a small recess or locker. Below the room is a
chamber or dungeon, i6 feet 3 inches square, with a pointed vault
on four ribs. It is lighted by a narrow slit placed high in the east
W.H.KNOWLES,F.S.A. MENS. ET DEL.
Fig. 18. — Plan of Kord Castle.
wall. The entrance is now by a straight stair immediately below the
entrance to the room above, a very inconvenient arrangement. Like
the dungeon in the south-west tower, this chamber may originally
have been accessible by a trap door in the crown of the vault.
FORD TOWNSHIP.
421
BELOW BASEMENT
N.WTOWER
The first-floor room is 20 feet 2 inches by 18 feet 4 inches. It
has a pointed arched doorway in the east side, and was Ughted by two
windows, one in the north and one in the south wall. In the north
wall is a latrine entered by a small pointed door. On the second floor
the only ancient feature is a pointed door, which
opens on to a straight stair in the thickness of the
north wall. On the third floor is the room asso-
ciated with the name of King James, which has
been much altered. It is uncertain how the first
floor was reached, and evidence is also lacking as
to the means of reaching the second floor. Occasion-
ally an external staircase sufficed for the first floor,
but as the walls are sufficiently wide to accommodate
a mural stair, it is possible that such was the
means here used and that it is now built up. *hkno*le5fsa
^ MENS ET DEL
Immediately to the south of the tower a recess in fig. 19.
the thickness of the curtain wall indicates the
position, at the ground level, of the pointed arched opening giving access
to the courtyard from the direction of the village, described on Purdy's plan
as 'The western Gate or Common Passage into the Castle.' The
south-west tower, including a vaulted chamber below the basement
level, is four storeys in height. It measures on the
exterior 28 feet 4 inches by 27 feet 3 inches and
on the interior 14 feet 3 inches by 13 feet 6 inches..
The doors and windows, which were in the north
and east walls, have been completely mutilated.
Below this room is a small chamber or dungeon,
with a pointed vaulted roof supported on two ribs.
Its size is 11 feet 3 inches by 11 feet, the height to
the springing of the vault is 6 feet 8 inches, and
to the apex 11 feet. The only access to it is by
an opening in the crown of the vault, and there
is no other means of light or ventilation. The upper floors have
been much altered, access to the first being by an outer stair and to
the second by a straight stair in the thickness of the north wall. The
upper floop . nw towee
Fig. 20
422
PARISH OF FORD.
lO O lO 20 30
*.H.KNOWLES, FSA MENS. ET DEL
MODERN
Fig. 21. — Plan of Ford Castle.
FORD TOWNSHIP.
423
mullioned windows, shown on ' The southern prospect ' and ' The west
profile without ' of Purdy's drawings, have been destroyed.
The north curtain wall, shown on Purdy's plan, has been incorpor-
ated in the present structure,^ as has also a portion of the west wall
of the building, which occupied the north-east angle of the courtyard,
together with the circular newel stair The thickness of the walls
on Purdy's plan suggests that they belonged to the mediaeval castle,
but it is very doubtful whether the walls, similarly shaded, of the
buildings on the north and west of the courtyard should be so con-
sidered, as they appear to appertain to the Carr period. The 'hatched'
walls possibly may be due to the Blake additions. The circular staircase
may fairly be claimed as part of the north-east building, and from com-
parison with Etal," Belsay, Chipchase,^ and Cocklaw,* it was probably em-
bodied in the forebuilding, which comprised the space immediately to the
north of the staircase, wherein was a small chamber such as is found in all
the examples just mentioned. Whether or no this was the case, the
entrance and a staircase occupied the position, as is clearly shown on
'The south view of Ford in Northumberland' now in the Bodleian
Library and incorporated in the view.^ On the drawing the building
is shown as of three storeys. On the lowest, a pointed doorway
appears midway in the length of the west wall contiguous to the cir-
cular staircase. This led into the basement, which was lighted at the south
end by a small trefoil headed window, and may also have been con-
nected with the circular staircase. At the first floor level three small
windows are indicated, two in the west and one in the south wall.
The second floor was the most important, as the large traceried windows
indicate. Here undoubtedly was the 'Hall,' but this alone did not
occupy the whole length (55 feet) of the building, which it may be
reasonably inferred was divided where the staircase occurred, and had at
the north end a kitchen, and possibly at the south end a solar or with-
drawing room. The surveys do not suggest a gatehouse, but there must
have been some other entrance than that near the north-west tower.
The gatehouse was probably in the south curtain wall, where the arched
entrance is depicted.
' See fig. 21. » See page 422. ' N.C.H., vol. iv. p. 334.
* Ibid. vol. iv. p. 182. 5 See fig. ij, page 418.
424
PARISH OF FORD.
The eighteenth century views of the castle indicate tliat the Carr
enlargement doubled the accommodation provided by the mediaeval
work. It removed the military aspect, and transformed the place
into a picturesque mansion, filling the area between the angle towers
Fig. 22. — Ford Castle from the North West.
on the north and west sides of the courtyard. The portion on the
north side had a central doorway, with a four-centred arch, flanked
with columns, and on either side mullioned and transomed windows, the
whole surmounted by a battlemented parapet. The ancient circular stair-
FORD TOWNSHIP. 425
case at the east end was balanced by a spacious square one at the
west end, and both were carried up and finished with gabled roofs above the
level of those adjoining. A similar addition was made to Dilston
Castle, the architect's plans of which have been preserved and repro-
duced,^ and are interesting, as affording a contemporary example showing
the purpose to which the rooms were put. The south curtain wall was
pierced in the centre of its length by a semicircular arched gateway
enclosed by columns and moulded cornice. The curtain wall on either
side was finished with an enriched battlement. The walls of the angle
tower were similarly treated on their exterior faces, and on the interior
face was erected an apartment, crowned by a large lantern, with octagonal
shaped roof and ornamental metal vanes.
Of all this beautiful work no vestige now exists, nor do the build-
ings on the west side of the courtyard, mentioned elsewhere as the
portion of Francis Blake in 1667.- The house, as we now see it, is as
it was altered by the Marchioness of Waterford, including the added
accommodation without the north curtain wall, as depicted in outline
in fig. 18.
The Colliery. — There is no mention of a coal mine in Ford till after
the property had passed from the Carrs, but it must have been worked
before then, for in the division of the inheritance among Thomas Carr's
three sisters, each had a third share of the 'collieries and coal mines,
within the manor of Ford.' The Babington share was bought by Francis
Blake in 1668, and he secured a long lease of the W'inckles share
in 1673.^ The whole property evidently passed ultimately into his
hands, and from him to the Delavals. In 1776 William Landless
of Doddington was given a seven years' lease of the right to
work 'the seames of coal caUed the stony coal and the main
coal under the lands called the Coal Hill in the parish of Ford,' pa3dng
therefor an annual rent of £100. Again in 1798 Robert Smith of Shotton
was granted a 21 years lease of 'the colliery and seames of coal and
limestone in lands within the parish of Ford bounded on the south by
Broomridge Farm, on the west by the conflux of the present colliery's
water drift and by Harry Heugh plantation, on the north by the Etal
• N. C. H., vol. X. p. 290. - Sec page 414. ' Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. pp. i.:i, 1^3, 132.
Vol. XI. 54
426 PARISH OF FORD.
Baremore estates, and on the east by the Baremore estate.' Smith
evidently found the undertaking too large for his resources, as four years
later a new lease was granted, in which Adam Sibbitt of Ancroft became
joint lessee with him for a period of 25 years. ^ According to a report
of 1823, the outgoing expenses of running the colliery, in addition to
the annual rent of ;f25o, were a. steward at a guinea a week, an over-
seer paid in kind, 12 hewers at 3s. a day each, 6 drivers or putters
at IS. 6d. a day each, 3 brakesmen at 2s. 6d. a day each. Six gallo-
ways were kept at an estimated cost of los. a week each, and
thiis the sum total of expenses, other than those for general upkeep,
amounted to about £1,136 7s. od. in the year. On the other hand each
hewer worked 55 bolls of coal a day, and the estimated weight sold in
the year, exclusive of allowances, was 198,000 bolls valued at 5d. a
boll, or a total of £4,125.- The estimated weight of coal seems to be
generous, as it takes the whole output for 300 working days, and if we
exclude Sundays and allow for no lost time, leaves only 13 days for
winning the coal used in allowances for the steward and the general require-
ments of the colliery. Another report of some years later, when the marquis
of Waterford had come into the property, gives some account of the work-
ings of the colliery. Originally the old pit had merely tapped the
Scremerston seam, which was a stony coal, but afterwards the same
shaft was sunk to the main coal, and the coal was then won to the dip
by an under-level drift. ' Prior to coal here being driven all away' — the report
proceeds — 'the works were carried on after the fashion of pillar work.
At this time there was a pitt called Ben Oxley's Pitt, called from a
person who sunk it, and thereby he won some extent of coal to the dip
of the Day level. To this pit there was a water wheel, which being
supplied by Ford Moss with water, it always ran short in the summer
months, and they thus from time to time lost water level until they
again came to the Day level. This pillar work is now a drowned waste,
but there is a barrier kept between the pillar work and the drowned
waste of about 107 yards thick.' The coal wrought, reckoned from the
surface, lay in four seams, stony coal, main coal, cupur eye or lady coal,
' Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. p. no.
* Mining Institute, Bell MSS. Collection, vol. xv. pp. 633, 634. This information is taken from two differ-
ent collections of notes written in different hands on the same sheet, and only one is dated 1823, but the
similarity of the figures and other internal evidence proves them to belong to the same period.
FORD TOWNSHIP. 427
and wester coal. This last lay in three beds, each a foot thick, with
black grey metal of about six inches thick between each bed. 'This coal
has been wrought ' — the report goes on to say — ' at Ford and at Etal.
It lies about twelve fathoms below the cupur eye seam. It is not
generally known, and was first sunk to by Andrew Scott and John
Stevenson at Ford Moss and Etal. It was won at the latter place and used
from 1806 to 1821.'^ Unlike its neighbour. Ford colliery is still worked at
the present day.
HETHERSLAW AND FLODDEN TOWNSHIP.
Hetherslaw- and Flodden is the name now given to what was
originally the township of Hetherslaw. Flodden appears nowhere in
any records earlier than 1513, and was only brought into prominence
by the fact that in that year James IV. of Scotland placed his camp
on the hill of that name, whereby the battle that ensued on
Branxton Moor very soon acquired the quite incorrect name of
Flodden Field. ^ As the description of an estate it appears nowhere
earlier than the middle of the seventeenth century, and its distinction
from Hetherslaw probably dates from 1620, when Thomas Carr, lord of
Ford, arranged with George Carr of Ford Hill for the latter to sur-
render a lease of certain lands in Hetherslaw 'now with others converted
into a new demesne.'^ It was soon after this that Hetherslaw and Flodden
passed into different hands, though they did not long remain so, and
soon belonged again to the same owner. In 1658 three constables
were appointed for Hetherslaw, one of these being specially set aside
for duties in Flodden,^ and in 1838 Adam Smith of Berry Hill declared
that when he first knew Ford, some fifty-six years earlier, Flodden and
Hetherslaw were separate townships, but that soon after this the two
were consolidated.^
1 Mining Institute Bell MS. Collection, vol. xv. p. 634.
2 Earlier Hedereslawa, Herdeslaue, Herderslawe, Hedderslawe, Haddreslawe, Heyther%law, O.E.Htzdheres-
/r/aiti=H;Edhere's hill.
5 The Survey of 154 1 (Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 173) aUudes to 'the last felde or feghte of Flodden
or Brankeston.'
* Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. i. pp. 45-46. ' Manor Court Roils — I'ord Tithe Case, p. 114.
' Ford Tithe Case, p. 27,
428 PARISH OF FORD.
Descent of the Property. — Hetherslaw, despite its proximity and later
close connection with Ford, was not in early days associated with it.' A mem-
ber of the barony of Muschamp, it was not subinfeudated, and we first hear of
it in a dispute between the Muschamp family and the monks of Durham.
The latter claimed that Thomas Muschamp when he joined their order
had given them the whole viU in free alms by the in\estiture of his
sword, but his brother Ralph and his sister Cicely refused to recognize
the gift. King Stephen ordered them to surrender the vill to St.
Cuthbert, dating his maiadate from Durham itself, which suggests the
year 1138 when he was in the north, but his itself, commands secured
even less obedience in the northern comities than elsewhere. Henry II.
renewed his predecessor's order, addressing it to Cicely and her son Thomas,
as doubtless Ralph was by now dead, and when this too was dis-
regarded, he waxed wroth and demanded the surrender of the vill at
once, so that he should not be annoyed by complaints of lack of good
justice. The matter seems to have gone to arbitration, for the monks,
while formally asserting the justice of their claims, agreed to attend to
prove them on a day appointed by Stephen Bulmer, who as Cicely's
husband, can hardly have been chosen as adjudicator.'^ The Muschamps
seem to have maintained their point, for Hetherslaw undoubtedly
continued in their possession, though in a royal confirmation of its
possessions in 1195 the monastery secured the inclusion of lands in the
township, and this received further formal confirmation in 1335.^ Robert
Muschamp held Hetherslaw in capite and of him it was held in the
days of the Testa de Nevill by the heir of Odinel Ford, junior, in frank
marriage.* This must mean that it had formed the marriage portion of
Cicely Muschamp, who had married Odinel, son of Odinel Ford, and had
passed to their only daughter, Isabel Ford. The last named was
evidently in possession after her grandfather's death in 1250, though her
grandmother, Isabel, widow of Robert Muschamp, claimed dower in
the vill. 5
' In 1840 Mr. Justice Cresswel, with insufficient data before him, ruled in the course of his summing
up in the Ford Tithe Case that the 'distinct and separate manorship of Hetherslaw had not been proved.'
Newcastle Chronicle, .\ugust yth, 1846.
' Kaine, North Durham, app. Nos. dcclxxxi., dcclx.xxii., dcclxxxiii., dcclxxxiv., p. 141.
' Cal. oj Charter Rolls, vol. iv. pp. 323-324.
* Testa de Nevill — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 211, cf. p. 220.
* Curia Regis Roll, No. 145 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. x.xi. pp. 309-310.
HETHERSLAW AND FLODDEN TOWNSHIP. 429
At her death in 1254 Isabel Ford held in Hetherslaw a rent of 40s.
from two drench men and 4s. 5d. from two sisters. The brewhouse
was worth 13s. 4d., and the beadelary 3s. 4d.,i but it is evident that
in addition to this a certain portion of the township was subinfeudated
for a total service of one-sixth of a knight's fee. This is proved by
the detailed description of the division of this inheritance into two
parts, each of which included the service of a twelfth of a knight's fee
in addition to half of the estate described above. -
The Graham Moiety.- — The moiety of Isabel Ford's estate in Hethers-
law which fell to her cousins Muriel and Margery totalled rents and
dues to the value of £1 los. 6|d., that is 20s. from the drengage of
Robert son of Alan and 2s. 2jd. from Ysoda, widow of Walter Roddyn,
6s. 8d. from the brewhouse and 2od. from the beadelary. In addition
to this there was the ser\ice of three sisters, Margaret Hoddun, Cicely
and Julia for the twelfth part of a knight's fee.^ Seemingly the whole
of this went direct to Margery, or Mar}- as she was now called,
for when Muriel died she held the mill of Hetherslaw with /s
a year and nothing else.^ When or how she acquired this cannot
be ascertained, but in view of the large share of her cousin's
inheritance in Lowick which she received, the allotment to her sister
of all the Hetherslaw moiety is understandable. Thus Mary inherited
a moiety of the whole township from her cousin, and the mill from her
sister, and this passed with her moiety of Wooler, first' to the Meinill and
thence into the Darcy family.^ In 1293 her husband, Nicholas Graham,
substantiated his claim to have the regulation of the assize of beer in
this moiety,^ but the property was forfeited for a time, in like manner
as Wooler, owing to his dealings with the king's enemies.'' When
Nicholas died in 1306, he had been reinstated, though the extent of his
wife's holding in the township was then only 7s. o^d. rent of tenements
' Inq. p.m. 39 Hen. III. No. 40 — Bain, Cal. oj Documents, vol. i. p. 375 ; Cal. oj Itiq. p.m. vol. i. p. 92 ;
Ford Tithe Case, p. 223.
^ Inq. p.m. 39 Hen. III. No. 40 — Bain, Cal. oj Dooumenis, vol. i. pp. 377, 379.
' Ibid. vol. i. p. 379.
* Inq. p.m. 20 Edw. I. No. 26 — Stevenson, Scottish Documents, vol. i. p. 258 , Compotus Thomae de
Normanville — Ibid.vol. i. p. 230.
' See pages 313-315.
« Assize Roll, 21 Edw. I.- — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xvii. pp. 449-450 ; Ford Tithe Case, p. 224. Cf.
Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. pp. 132-133.
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1292-1301, p. 577 ; Cal. 0/ Close Rolls, 1296-1302, p. 50S.
430 PARISH OF FORD.
and a watermill worth £4 yearly. i- During the tenure of the Darcy
family their moiet}- of Hetherslaw was seldom mentioned, save when it
formed part of an allotment of dower. In 1399, when the whole town-
ship lay waste, Elizabeth, widow of Philip Darcy, was assigned the
moiety of a certain waste mill with suit and service of the free tenants
there,- but when she died in 1412, her holding was returned as a third
part of the moiety of the manor worth 13d. ^ Margaret, widow of
Philip Darcy, died in 1454 seised of a third of two parts of the moiety,
as her husband had predeceased his mother and the property was there-
fore burdened by two dowers.* The moiety was ultimately divided
between the two heiresses of the last Darcy who died in 1419, Elizabeth,
wife of Sir James Strangways and Margery, wife of Sir John Conyers,
as in the case of Wooler.
The Hunter cumbe Moiety. — The moiety of Hetherslaw which Isabel
and her husband William Huntercumbe inherited in 1255 from Isabel
Ford, consisted of a rent of 20s. yearly from Robert Heyr and one
of 2s. 2|d. from Agnes, widow of Hugh the baker, a moiety of the
brewhouse, worth half a mark, and of the beadelary worth 2od.,
together with the service for the twelfth part of a knight's fee
due from Yvo Puncherdone.'' This property was handed on to
their son Walter Huntercumbe, who in 1293 substantiated his
claim to regulate the assize of beer in the township.^ Henceforth
this property cannot be traced. It certainly did not descend with the
rest of the Huntercumbe inheritance to Nicholas Neubaud, and the only
possible explanation of its destination is contained in a gift to some
unnamed person by Walter Huntercumbe of ii| marks of rent from the
mill of Hetherslaw, an action confirmed by the king in a document
which also deals with the relations of the donor with Philip Rydale."
The latter was mortgagee of Walter's property in Lowick, and it may
well be that he also held a mortgage of these Hetherslaw lands, and
* Cal. oj Inq. p.m. vol. iv. p. 237.
' Inq. p.m. 22 Ric. IX. No. 17 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxviii. pp. 331-332, 336; Ford Tithe Case,
pp. 230, 231.
' Inq. p.m. 13 Hen. IV. No. 35. — Ford Tithe Case, pp. 231-232.
* Inq. p.m. 32 Hen. VI. No 15 — Ford Tithe Case, p. 237.
' Inq. p.m. 39 Hen. III. No. 40 — Bam, Cal. oJ Documents, vol. i. p. 377.
* Assize Roll, 21 Edvv. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xviii. p. 387 ; Hodgson, ot. iii. vol. i. pp. 132133.
' Cal. oJ Patent Rolls, 1 272-1281, p. 448 ; Bain, Cal. oj Documents, vol. ii. p. 61.
HETHERSLAW AND FLODDEN TOWNSHIP. 43I
that he ultimately foreclosed on them, since in 1300 he secured the
king's permission to alienate all his lands and possessions in the vill of
Hetherslaw, together with its mill, to the master, brethren and poor
inmates of the hospital Domus Dei on the bridge of Berwick-upon-
Tweed. ^ The gift of the mill both in this grant and in the former one
proves that there were two mills in Hetherslaw, since in 1291 'the mill
of Hetherslaw ' was among the possessions which Mary Graham inherited
from her sister Muriel, countess of Mar.^
The property, thus acquired by the hospital Domus Dei, therefore
may well have been the Huntercumbe moiety of the manor, though
there is one difficulty in the way of accepting this theory. In the
accounts of the feudal aid of 1346 it is stated that half a knight's fee
was held in Hetherslaw of Peter Mauley and Elizabeth his wife and of
John Coupland.3 This last was the holder of the moiety of Wooler
and three knight's fees pertaining to the barony of Muschamp once
belonging to the Huntercumbe family, and the above statement
seems to suggest that the moiety of Hetherslaw had not been separated
from the other holdings of the barony. On the other hand it may
be that in the case of Hetherslaw, as in the case of Wooler, certain
portions of the township having been sub-let, John Coupland had
acquired the overlordship, though Hetherslaw is not mentioned among
the vills in which the aforesaid three knight's fees were situated. It
is also significant that in 1344 one Richard Edmonston had forfeited,
by reason of his association with the king's Scottish enemies, a messuage
and 24 acres in Hetherslaw, and the custody of this holding had been
granted during pleasure to John Coupland, as a reward for good service
both in the north and beyond seas.* This might explain the association
of the Coupland name with the township, and in any case the weight
of evidence suggests that the Huntercumbe moiety was held by the
hospital Domus Dei. This foimdation probably continued to hold it
till the dissolution of the religious houses, though only once thereafter
is it mentioned in connection with the township, when in 1358 John
Ashbourn, master of the house, was given the custody of Ms moiety
1 Stevenson, Scottish Documents, vol. ii. p. 423 ; Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. ii. p. 300.
2 See page 429. ' Feudal Aids, vol. iv. p. 65.
' Cal. of Close Rolls, 1343-1346, p. 354 ; Rain. Cal. of Documents, vol. iii. p. 260; Cal. of Fine Rolls,
vol. V. pp. 336-337, 367.
432 PARISH OF FORD.
of the mill of Hetherslaw, which the king's escheator had taken into
the king's hands for certain causes.^ Doubtless this marks the first
steps towards the restoration of the English possessions of the house,
which had probably been forfeited during the state of war between
England and Scotland brought to a close by the treaty of October,
1357- Indeed this was not the first time that such an experience had
come to the master and brethren of this hospital, situated so exactly
on the border of the two countries, for they had lost their English
lands during the wars of Edward I., and had only secured their restora-
tion at the peace of 1328.'-
What became of these lands after the dissolution we do not know,
nor is there any evidence of the fate of another plot of land in the
township held in mortmain. In 1345 Robert Manners got licence to
alienate in mortmain 5 messuages and 107 acres of lands in Hetherslaw
and Branxton to the use of the chapel of St. Mary at Etal,^ and it
may be that it is to this as well as the possessions of the Domus Dei
to which reference is made in 1574 when the crown leased divers
tenements in Hetherslaw to Henry Haggerston,* though more probably
it was the land which Robert Manners had retained in 1345,^ and of
which, save in a Manners will of 1542,*' no other mention is made until
it was conveyed to the crown with the rest of the Manners estate
in 1547.^ Ii^ ^604 this plot of land was described as 18 acres in extent
of the yearly value of £1 i6s. od., though the customary tenant of it
only paid 6s. 8d. a year.^
The Heron Property. — The first mention of the Herons in con-
nection with Hetherslaw is found in 1291, when \Mlliam Heron
claimed an acre of pasture in the township, then held by Gilbert
the clerk of Crookham, on the ground that his father Richard, son of
Roger of Hetherslaw, had died seised of it. The jury found that the
' Rot. Fin. 32 Edw. III. m. 6 — -Duke's Transcripts, vol. \xxi. pp. 443-444.
- Col. of Close Rolls, 1327-1330, p. 314.
' P.R.O. Inq. A.Q.D. File ccLxxv. No. 12; Col. of Patent Rolls, 1343-1345, p. 529; Rot. Fin. 19
Edw. III. Grossi Fines, m. 2 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xx.'ci. p. 289-290. Cf. Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 74.
* P.R.O. Augmentation Office. Particulars for Leases, Northumberland, 16 EUz. File 4, No. 26.
* P.R.O. Inq. A.Q.D. File cCLXXV. No. 12. « North Country Wills, vol. i. p. 187.
'^P.R.O. Augmentation Office. Deeds of Purchase and Exchange, box F, No. 23. In 1535 Robert Manners
of Etal alienated two tofts in Hetherslaw to William Heron of Ford. Lansdowne MS. 326, fol. 50.
' Survey of the Border, 1604, p. 129.
HETHERSLAW AND FLODDEN TOWNSHIP. 433
meadow had been granted by Richard to Gilbert for hfe in return for
the latter's counsel and assistance.^ The identity of this William Heron
cannot be definitely stated, but he certainly was not the owner of Ford,
and the famil}- does not occur again in the township till 1345,
when according to a note made by Dodsworth from the Heron
Deeds William Heron, lord of Ford, held lands in Hetherslaw.^
There is evidence to suggest that this holding was identical with
the property in Hetherslaw inherited by Mary Graham, as the Herons
are later said to have held their lands in the township of
the assigns of her property. Probably Mary had subinfeudated her
inheritance in Hetherslaw, some of it to David Baxter, who died in
1323 seised of 12 acres of land then held of her by service of one
pound of cummin.^ Possibly this holding was added to the existing
Heron lands and the whole was held of Mary's assigns, Nicholas Meinill
and his heirs. At any rate when the feudal aid of 1346 came to be
collected, William Heron and Robert Haggerston* paid for half a knight's
fee in the vill of Hetherslaw held of Peter Mauley and Elizabeth his
wife, the latter being Nicholas Meinill's heiress, and of John Coupland.'
In 1376 William Heron, son of Roger Heron, lord of Ford, gave to
William Fhxburgh, rector of Ford, Walter Heron his son, and Nicholas
Raynes, the whole vill of Hetherslaw and the new water mill 'on the
other side of the river Till towards the said vill of Hetherslaw,' which
suggests that this mill was on the western bank of the river, as the
deed was dated at Ford." It is possible to interpret too hterally the
words in a medieval deed describing a holding, but it is fairly
obvious from this that most of the township belonged to the Herons,
and this was doubtless a conveyance for the purposes of entail. Three
years later the same William Heron gave to Gordon, son of Agnes of
1 Coram Rege Roll, No. 12S, m. lyodo — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxiii. pp. 370-380.
' Lansdowne MS. 326, fol. 49do.
3 Cal oflnq. p.m. vol. \'i. p. 289. As a matter of fact Jlarj' had died in the previous October. In 1369
Margaret, widow of David Baxter, was allotted dower in Hetherslaw (Belvoir Deeds, drawer 21) amounting
to 2 messuages, 40 acres of land, and 5s. rent. De Banco Roll, No. 441, m. i23do.
' A deed of the early thirteenth century records that Robert of Humbledon gave to Helias, son of John
' Hagerstyum ', in free marriage with his daughter Matilda after his decease, all the lands of Hetherslaw which
Robert Muschamp gave him for his homage and service, and all the lands which he had acquired for his
homage and service from Robert Ford and his brother William, unless male issue were born to him. Lans-
downe MS. 326, fols. 49do-50.
' Feudal Aids, vol. iv. p. 65.
« Lansdowne MS. 326, fol. 44.
Vol. XI. 55
434 PARISH OF FORD.
Kirkton, all the lands, tenements, &c., in the vill which he had of the
gift and enfeoffment of John Robinson and Marcona his wife, daughter
, and heiress of William of Brankeston, together with the mill, to be held
by the said Gordon and his heirs male with successive remainders to
Odinel, son of Agnes of Kirkton, his brother Gordon and Liellus, son of
Agnes of Kirkton, remainder over to the grantor and his heirs male,
and failing them to the right heirs of the grantee. ^ From the strange
wording of the remainders and the recurrence of the same name twice,
it may perhaps be surmised that Agnes had had two families, but
whatever the truth, the fate of this holding cannot be further traced.
William Heron of Ford, slain in 1428, held two parts of the manor of
the heirs of Sir Philip Darcy, a property described two years later as
consisting of 5 messuages, 100 acres of land and 240 acres of pasture
worth 50s. per annum. ^ It is obvious that by now practically the
whole vill was held by the Herons of Ford, since WiUiam is at the
same time only credited with two parts of the manor of Ford, the
other third being allotted in dower.^ To William succeeded his son
John, a minor, who, in the accounts of the Feudal Aid of 1428 is
described as holding the vill of the king, as the barony of Muschamp
was then in the custody of the crown owing to the minority of Philip
Darcy's two co-heiresses.* In 1533 Sir William Heron of Ford granted
'one tenement in the vill of Ayderlawe, now in the tenure of Richard
Moffatt, of the yearly value of 22s.' to trustees to be held to the use
of himself and his wife and, after their decease, to the use of his right
heirs.5 The right heir was his grand-daughter, Elizabeth, whose inheri-
tance in the township was described in 1536 as lands and tenements
granted to Ralph Alder for life, and lands and tenements granted to
Gerard Barowe for life, both holdings being valued at 40s. yearly each.^
According to the survey of 1541, the whole township, containing 21
'husband lands plenyshed,' belonged to Elizabeth Heron,' who by her
1 Lansdowne MS. 326, fol. 54do.
' Inq. p.m. 6 Hen. VI. No. 15 — Ford Tithe Case, pp. 232, 236 ; Coiinly Placita, Northumberland, 17-18,
Hen. VI. Nos. 14, 26 — Duke's Transcript.<:, vol. xxii. pp. 235-248.
' For this and the trouble over the wardship of the heir see pages 381-383.
' Feudal Aids, vol. iv. p. 87.
* Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. i. pp. 53-55.
« Extent of lands of Sir William Heron, 28 Hen. VIII. — Ford Tithe Case, p. 240.
' Survey of the Border, 1541 — Border Holds, p. 34.
HETHERSLAW AND FLODDEN TOWNSHIP. 435
marriage took this property into the family of Carr, during whose period
of ownership it passed through many vicissitudes, and was mortgaged
to Ralph Bradford, who in 1659 was given possession of the whole
township till his debt should be repaid. 1 Ultimately, after the death
of the last Carr of Ford and the acquisition of the Ford estate by
Francis Blake, the Bradford heirs secured a judgment whereby Hethers-
law became their absolute property, 2 and John Jenkins of Barnes, who
had married one of the Bradford claimants, bought out all the rest
and became owner of a considerable part of the township.^
The property of John Jenkins in Hetherslaw did not include one
large portion of the township which had been split off from the rest
and, under the name of East and West or High and Low Flodden
remained part of the Ford estate in the hands of Francis Blake. This
continued to share the history of that estate,^ save perhaps for a por-
tion in West Flodden, described as 16 stints of meat beasts, which seems
to have been part of the Harden Demesne estate owned by Thomas
Carr of Belford.^ In Hetherslaw itself, restricted to its narrower limits,
Blake also held some property. In 1671 he bought the remaining ten
years of a lease of certain lands there from Roger Wallis,^ and from a
document of 1678 it is evident that he also owTied the corn mill, with
the messuage and lands belonging thereto, and another messuage with
land attached.'^ The Jenkins portion was doubtless sold some time
before 1760 to Adam Askew, who in that year owned 'two parts out
of three of the farm of Hetherslaw. '^ In 1768 this property was
reincorporated in the Ford estate when Sir John Hussey Delaval bought
for £8,400 from Adam Askew 'all that tenement or farmhold, lands,
grounds and hereditaments .... commonly called and known by the
name of Hetherslaw Farm situate at Hetherslaw . . . containing in the
whole 750 acres or thereabouts.'^ When in 1832 Lord Waterford cut
the entail on the Ford estate, the schedule of his lands attached to the
indenture shows that he owned the whole of what is the modem
' Ford Tithe Case, pp. 132-133. See page 401.
- Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. ii. pp. 74-76 ; Ford Tithe Case, p. 133.
' Lord Joicey s Deeds, vol. iii. pp. 122, vol. i. pp. 37-39. ' See pages 407-410.
* On May 28th, 1675, Thomas Carr of Belford leased to John Carr of Ford Castle Marden demesne
with 16 stints of meat beasts in West Flodden. Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. p. 125.
' Ford Tithe Case, p. 138. ' Ibid. " Receipts for Gaol and Bridge Cess — Ford Tithe Case, p. 82
» The intention seemingly was to give Askew a lease of these premises for 5,000 years, but there is no
evidence that this was ever carried through. Ford Tithe Case, pp. 149-150, 255.
436 PARISH OF FORD.
Hetherslaw, though this name is only appHed to one holding of some
190 acres, the rest bearing the names of the various farms, Linthaughs,
Look Out, Oak Hall, Mount Pleasant, Blink Bonnie, Encampment
(later known as Camp Hill), Noxes Farm and Henlaws. In addition
to this he held the farms of North and South Flodden and the Flodden
Tile Manufactory.! ^u ^i^jg passed with the rest of the Ford estate to
Lord Joicey, who in addition bought in 1913, Flodden Edge, an allot-
ment made to Lord Tankerville on the division of Howtel Common. -
CROOKHAM TOWNSHIP.
Descent of the Property. — The early history of Crookham^ is
identical with that of Ford, for it was one of those townships, held with
Ford for one knight's fee of the barony of Muschamp, which passed from
the family of Ford to the Herons and from them to the Carrs. In 1429
the full amount of this property was described as the hamlet of Crookham,
containing 3 messuages, 4 cottages, 300 acres of land and 200 acres of pasture
worth 53s. 4d. annually.* In 1533, when Sir William Heron conveyed his
land to trustees, the same holding was described as one tenement in
the tenure of George Chamberlain of the yearly value of 26s. 8d., and
another in the tenure of John Lowe of equal value,^ which shows that
the estimated value of this property was then exactly the same as it
had been in 1429. According to the survey of 1551, 'the towneshippe
of Croukhame conteyneth xxi. husband lands plenyshed without anye
fortresse or barmkyn. Albeyt the tenants thereof in a troublous tyme
or warre do resorte for their relefe to the castell of fforde.'*^ It was
not till the Ford estate passed from the Carr family, that the Crookham
portion of that property began to have a separate history. When
disputes arose as to the succession, Thomas Carr of Belford in 1663
resigned his claims in return for the land and farm known as Marden
' Common Recovery — Ford Tithe Case, p. 153. - Berwickshire Naturalists' Club, vol. .xxii. p. 308.
' Earlier Crucum, Crukum, Crocum, Crokome, Croukham. Crook is a common word, meaning a bend
or winding, of Scandinavian origin. \i this is so, we can hardly presuppose O.E. (ist thccm) crocum=^at the
winding, but must rather take it as late O.E. f>-«A:Aam=farmstcad, by one of the crooks in the course of
the Till.
* L.T. Remembrancer's Office. Common Business, Michaelmas Term, 18 Hen. VI. No. 25 — Ford
Tithe Case, p. 236.
' Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. i. pp. 53-55. " Survey of the Border, 1551 — Border Holds, p. 34.
CROOKHAM TOWNSHIP. 437
Demesne in Crookham with three cottages there all valued at £40
yearly/ a property which in a confirming deed of the following year
was described as Harden Demesne, 16 stints or cowgates^ and three
cottages in Crookham, all settled on Thomas Carr in tail male.^
Yet another portion of the township was separated from the Ford
estate owing to the unredeemed mortgages of the Carr proprietors. In
1659 an award between Thomas Carr and the mortgagee Ralph Bradford
had given the latter possession of 8| farms in Crookham till the capital
sum should be repaid, and if this were not accomplished by 1664, pos-
session was to become ownership.* The money was not paid, and when
Francis Blake was buying up the scattered portions of the Ford estate,^
he had to be content to surrender the 8| farms to the Bradford heirs, "^
whose rights were bought by John Jenkins of Gateshead, alias of Barnes,
the second husband of Ralph Bradford's widow." Thus the township
of Crookham was divided between three owners. Harden Demesne was
the property of Thomas Carr of Belford, these 8| farms were owned by
John Jenkins, while the rest, consisting of Barelees Farm, remained,
and still remains, part of the Ford estate.
Those parts of Crookham belonging to Carr and Jenkins were before
long to be united into one estate. In 1735 the Jenkins property was
bought by Benjamin Godfrey of Bethnal Green, doctor of physic,^ who
in 1763 sold to Adam Askew of Newcastle, already the owner of
Hetherslaw, at the price of £6,363 17s. gd.^ In 1767 Harden Demesne
was sold by William Alder, to whom it had descended from his grand-
mother Grace, daughter and heiress of Thomas Carr of Belford and wife
of William Alder, to William Graham. 10 From him it passed to Thomas
Younghusband, whose widow sold it in 1801 to Thomas Howy of Wooler.
From this last it was purchased in 1813 by George Adam Askew. ^
• Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. p. 128. Cf. page 405.
- There is reason to believe from a lease of 1675, that the 16 stints were in West Flodden. Lord Joicey's
Deeds, vol. iii. p. 125. Cf. page 435, though in the Deed of 1664 they are distinctly said to be in Crookham.
^ Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. ii. pp. 80-81 ; Carr Family, vol. ii. pp. 152-153.
* ford Tithe Case, pp. 132-133. ^ See pages 407-408.
' Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. ii. pp. 74-76 ; Decree in Blake v. Bradforth — Ford Tithe Case, p. 133.
' Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. pp. 122, vol. i. pp. 37-39- ' Pallinsburn Deeds.
' Indentures of Lease and Release — Ford Tithe Case, pp. 164-105.
" Genealogist, new series, vol. vi. p. 91, vol. vii. pp. 183-1S4.
438
PARISH OF FORD.
ASKEW OF PALLINSBURN.
Anthony Askew of
Kendal, M.D.
Anne, daughter of Adam Storrs ot
Storrs Hall, county Lancaster.
Adam Askew of Newcastle, born at Kendal ; of St. John's = Anne, daughter and co-heiress
College, Cambridge ; matriculated 24th May, 1714 ; M.B. | of Richard Crackenthorpe
1720; aged 17; settled in Newcastle as a physician in of Newbiggin, Westmorland,
Other
issue.
1725; buried 19th January, 1773, aged 77 (a).
[bur. 8th October, 1888 (a)].
Elizabeth, daughter
of Robert Holford,
master in chancery,
a second wife.
Anthony Askew of Queen's Square, London, M.D. ; = Margaret, daughter of Cuth-
educated at Sedbergh and Newcastle schools, and bert Swinburne, of Long
at Emmanuel College, Cambridge; M.B. 174,5; Witton ; married at Hart-
M.D. 1750; also of the University of Leyden ; burn 15th November, 1751;
F.R.S. 1749; died 27th February, 1774, aged 51. . . . s.p.
Adam Askew of Middleton ; baptised 26th Richard Askew,
March, 1724 (a); of St. Edmund Hall, baptised 29th
Oxford ; matriculated 24th March, March, 1726
1742/3, aged 19; B.A. 1746; M.A. 1750; (a); buried 18th
rector of Plumbland ; died 23rd Feb- October, 1732
ruary, 1791. (a).
I
Henry Askew of Red- =
heugh, baptised 21st
April, 1730 (a); of
Emmanuel College,
Camb., matric.1750 ;
M.B. 1756; buried
26th March, 1796 (a) .
Dorothy,
daughter of
Adam Boult-
by of Whitby;
buried 28th
March, 1792.
John Askew of Pallinsburn,
baptised 21st August, 1732
(a) ; high sheriff of North-
umberland, 1776 ; died 28th
October, 1 794 ; buried Holy
Island; will dated 21st Sept-
ember, 1794.
Bridget, daughter of
Thomas Watson of
Berwick and Gos-
wick ; married 29th
Sept., 1770 (a); died
30th June, 1823.
Motram, baptised 9th May,
1728 ; buried 19th March,
1737/8 (a).
Richard Askew baptised 3rd
June, 1724 (a); buried 4tli
July, 1743 (a).
I I
Deborah, baptised
27th May, 1735
(a).
Anne, baptised
5th January,
1737/8 (a).
Adam Askew of Redheugh; high sheriff of
the county of Durham, 1809; died 21st
November, 1844, aged 86, buried Kensal
Green ; married ist. Amy, daughter of
Robert Carey ; 2nd, Elizabeth, daughter
of Sir Richard Rycroft, bart.
I
Anthony Linacre Askew,
of King's College, Cam-
bridge, fellow; B.A.
1783; M.A. 1788;
entered at Lincoln's
Inn, 9th July, 1777.
Henry Askew, = Anne, dau-
rectorof Grey- I ghter of
stoke ; died Thomas Sun-
25th Decem- derland of
ber, 1852. Ulverston.
Richard
Askew,
major,
27th
Regt.
Thomas = L u c y ,
Askew daughter
of Robert
Carey of
London.
I I I
Anne Elizabeth, wife of George
Adam Askew of Pallinsburn.
Sarah.
Deborah, wife of Sir Lucas
Pepys, M.D.
I I I
Amy, wife of Rev. John Wash-
ington.
Mary.
Elizabeth, wife of Henry Percy
Pulleine of Carleton, Yorks.
George Adam Askew =
of Palhnsburn, son
and heir ; born 1 9th
July, 1 771 ; bapt.
i5thAug., 1771(a);
high sheriff of Nor-
thumberland, 1800,
died , 1838.
Anne Eliza- John Watson Askew, baptised 26th December, 1 773 (6) ; of University
beth, dau. of College, Oxford; matriculated i6th March, 1793, aged 19; B.A. 1796;
Anthony As- M.A. and fellow, 1799; died unmarried 17th November, 1810; buried
kew of Lon- Holy Island; will dated 19th January, 1805.
don, M.D. ; Sir Henry Askew, K.C.B., born 7th May, 1775; First Foot Guards and
married 19th lieut. -general; baptised 1 5th May, 1775(6); succeeded to Pallinsburn
Dec, 1795, at on the death of his brother, 1838; died Cologne 25th June, 1847;
Gateshead. buried Ford, 14th July, 1847.
CROOKHAM TOWNSHIP.
439
William Askew, Richard Craster Askew, bom 5th Sept- -
R.N. ; lieu- ember, 1778 ; baptised 6th September,
tenant, H.M.S. 1778 (6) ; entered at Lincoln's Inn
' Triumph' ; 22nd January, 1802; called to the
killed by an ac- bar 13th June, 1807; recorder of
cident on board, Newcastle ; succeeded to Pallinsburn
1806 , baptised in 1847 on the death of his brother ;
1st July, 1776 (6). died , 1851s./).
- Elizabeth,
daughter of
Thomas
Davidson,
Clerk of
the Peace
for North-
umberland.
Christopher Cracken-=
thorp Askew, captain
R.N. ; of Petersfield,
Hants. ; born 24th
May, 1782 ; died
6th December, 1848 ;
baptised 22nd Sept-
ember, 1782 (6).
Sarah, dau.
of Patrick
Dickson of
Berwick;
mar. Feb-
ruary, 1828;
died 13th
February,
1886.
Watson Askew of PalUnsburn. nephew
and heir ; born 6th August, 1834;
of Christ Church, Oxford ; matri-
culated 2oth October, 1852, aged
18; highsheriff of Northumberland,
1862 ; assumed the additional
name of Robertson by royal hcence
2oth September, 1890 ; died 20th
November, 1906.
Hon. Sarah Rob-
ertson, daughter
and co-heir of
David Robert-
son, first Baron
Marjoribanks of
Ladykirk ; mar-
ried 20th August,
1856.
Christina Crack-
enthorp, wife
of Rev. Wil-
liam Chandos
Pole, rector of
Radbourn,
D er b y s h i r e ;
married, 1865.
I I I
Hugh Bertram Askew, baptised
7th December, 1783 ; E.I.C.
Naval service ; died 1868.
EUzabeth Ann, baptised nth
October, 1772 (b); died, 1857.
Isabella, baptised 3rd September,
1777 (b) ; died, 1864.
George Christ- David Hugh Watson Askew of
opher Hugh Castle Hills, Berwick, born
Askew, born 21st October, 1863; of Christ
loth Feb- Church, Oxford ; matriculated
ruary, 1858; 27th May, 1882, aged 18;
died 15th B.A. 1885; of Inner Temple,
February, barrister-at-law ; high sheriff
1862. of Northumberland, 1912.
I
WiUiam Haggerston Askew,
born 4th October, 1868 ;
of London.
Marjorie, daughter of
Hon. John Edward
Gordon; married 28th
March, 1903.
John Marjoribanks Eskdale
Askew, born 1908.
Mary Marjoribanks.
John Bertram = Fredericka,
Askew, born daughter
1 6th October, of
1 86g ; mar- Dallas,
ried ist July, colonel.
1893-
I
Charles Mar-
j o r i b a n ks
Askew, born
6th Sept-
ember, 1871,
died 1918.
(a) St. John's Register, Newcastle.
Bridget Watson, wife of Raleigh Gilbert Egerton, Ueut.-col.
Guides.
Mary Marjoribanks, wife of Sir John B. Wilkie Dalyell, gth
baronet of Binns and of Foulden; married 6th February, 1894.
Isabel Sarah, wife of Rev. R. D. R. Greene, vicar of Holy
Saviour, Tynemouth ; married i6th January, 1903.
lb) Ford Register.
The united property^ was given the name of PaUinsburn, the first
mention of which occurs in the very next year, when Adam Askew of
Palhnsburn sold Hetherslaw and lo cottages in Crookham to Sir John
Hussey Delaval,^ and in return bought for ^^5,950 los. od. Crookham
West Field, estimated at 200 acres, another two acres in the south-west
comer of a certain field called Southfield or Award Bree and all tithes
of the same.3 Thus there were now two properties in Crookham. The
portion belonging to the Ford estate consisted evidently of the whole
village of Crookham and in addition Crookham Demesne to the north-
' Possibly Marden was considered a separate estate from Pallinsburn. At any rate the land steward
of the Askews excepted Marden, but included all the other property of his employer in Crookham, when he
spoke of PalUnsburn in his evidence in the Ford Tithe Case. Ford Tithe Case, p. 38.
- Indenture of Lease and Release — Ford Tithe Case, p. ijo. ' Ibid., p. 105.
4-10 PARISH OF FORD.
east of the township, Barelees to the north-west and Crookham Ridge
on the south, all of which passed in due course to the marquess of
Waterford.i and ultimately with the rest of the Ford estate to Lord
Joicey- The Pallinsbum estate on the other hand consisted of
Pallinsburn House, w'est of Crookham village, and the ground attached
consisting of some 240 acres, Pallinsburn East Farm and West Farm;
consisting of about 360 and 150 acres respectively and Burn Farm of
about 60 acres. In 1770 all this was settled by Adam Askew on his
youngest son John on his marriage with Bridget daughter and heiress
of the late John Watson of Goswick.'^ The Estate continued in the
Askew family until it was sold in February, iqii, to Major Mitchell,
the present owner.
KIMMERSTON AND BROOMRIDGE TOWNSHIP.
Kimmerston^ was from early days associated with Ford as one of the
townships held of the barony of Muschamp for one knight's fee, and the
descent of the property right down to the present day is identical with
that of Ford. Broomridge is not mentioned in any record earlier than 1533,
and there is no doubt that it was included in the township of Kimmerston
during the middle ages. Even to this day there is nothing approaching
to a hamlet there, and the name itself has given place to the title
Fordwood. In 1296 eight inliabitants of Kimmerston were assessed for
the subsidy, but their united possessions only reached the sum of
£10 8s. 7d,* and the only extent of the lands held by the lords of
Ford in the township is one of 1429, when 4 messuages, 100 acres of
land and 100 acres of pasture worth 30s. annually went to make up
the 'hamlet.'^ By 1533 a distinction had arisen between Broomridge
and Kimmerston, for when in that year Sir William Heron conveyed
his property to trustees, he included 6 ' le landes ' in the town fields of
' Indenture of Bargain and Sale, May 3rd, iS^i^Ford Tithe Case, p. 153.
' Indentures of Lease and Release — Ford Tithe Case, p. 167.
' Earlier Kynemerston, Kenemeriston , Kynmerston, Kyemerston, Kymerslon. O.E. Cynemrsres-tun=:
Cynem^r's farm. The same personal name is found elsewhere in Kilmersdon, Somerset, ICempsford and
Kemerton, Gloucestershire.
* Lay Subsidy Roll, 1296, fol. 109.
' L.T. Remembrancer's Office, Common Business of Michaelmas Term, 18 Hen. VI. No. 25 — Ford
Tithe Case, p. 236.
CROOKHAM TOWNSHIP. 44I
'Skymerston'i of the yearly value of £6 los. and all his lands and tene-
ments in 'Bromerigge' of the yearly value of £5 6s. 8d., then in the
tenure of David Small, Nicholas Archbalde and John Ekkylde.-
Like all the rest of the Ford estate these two properties were
mortgaged at one time or another ; Kimmerston suffered this fate for
the first time in 1618, when Thomas Carr raised £400 on his 'three
several messuages, tenements or farmholds within the township, terri-
tories and fields of Kimmerston' from Henry Archbold of Kimmerston,
yeoman,^ doubtless a descendant of the Nicholas ' Archbalde ' who farmed
part of Broomridge in 1533. After the property had passed from the
Carrs to Francis Blake, the latter mortgaged it in identical terms to
Ralph Archbold of Kimmerston,* from whom it was redeemed in 1688.^
It is evident that, when it was mortgaged again by Francis, then Sir
Francis, Blake, in 1692, it was not considered to be a township
by itself, since it is described in similar terms and as being 'a third
part of all the lands of the Towne of Kimmerstone.'^ Broomridge was
mortgaged by Thomas Carr to his stepfather John Ratcliffe, in 1655
under the title 'all that village shed or hamlet .... commonly called
or known by the name of Broomrigg, together with the wood called
Foord Wood and Grist of Kimmerston as the same were therein
bounded,' and the boundaries are described in such terms as to afford
additional evidence that there was no separate township of Broomridge.
These boundaries ran ' from the west end of the place called Houghton
Banke, down the burne side by Houghton Milne, along to the west end
of the meadow called the Clerkes peice, and from thence to the Thome
Dyke, and soe along to the highway betwixt Kymerston and Fourd,
and soe along the high way by the thorne dyke to the Stock bridges,
and from thence upp the burne called the bogg graines dyke always
upp the long heald dyke to the south end of the Jacke meadowes,
and from thence by the north side of the long mosse called Foord long
mosse, and soe down to the how foord and along to the horse bogg,
" At first sight this might seem to indicate Scremerston in North Durham, but that it refers to Kimmers-
ton is obvious from the tenor of the inquisition taken on the death of Sir William Heron. Inq. p.m. 28
Hen. VI. No. 116 — Ford Tithe Case, p. 239.
^ Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. i. pp. 53-55. ' Indenture of mortgage — Ford Tithe Case, p. 134.
* Indenture — Ford Tithe Case, p. 135. ' Articles of Agreement^Ford Tithe Case, p. 135.
" Indentures of Lease and Release — Ford Tithe Case, p. 136.
Vol. XI. 56
442
PARISH OF FORD.
and round about the horse bogg to Fenton march, and from thence to
Foord wood lyn, and soe down to the west end of Houghton bankes,
as aforesaid. '1 The mortgage was subsequently redeemed by Francis
Blake. -^
Whatever division there had been between Kimmerston and Broom-
ridge in the past, it ceased to exist before the close of the nineteenth
century. Giving evidence in 1838, Adam Smith of Berry Hill in Etal
declared that when he had first known Ford, some 56 years earlier, these
two places had been separate townships, but that some 16 years later they
had been united into one.^ They were one evidently in 1823, when the
marquis of Waterford cut the entail, for in the schedule of his estates
they appear together as one holding, consisting of 1,702 acres, 2 roods,
39 poles and rented at £1,600 a 3'ear.*
ETAL TOWNSHIP.
The picturesque Httle village of Etal^ consists of two rows of
thatched cottages on either side of a broad road running up to the
ruins of the castle. With its neat gardens, all bright with flowers, it
has none of the austerity so common to the villages lying nearer
Cheviot.
Descent of the Manor.— Etal was a member of the barony of
Muschamp and according to the Testa de Nevill was held of Robert
Muschamp by Robert Manners for half a knight's fee of new enfeoff-
ment,'* though earlier, when the barony was in the hands of Stephen
Bulmer, Robert Manners and Hugh Dichend were returned as holding
between them one knight's fee of old enfeoffment.'' The earliest
definite date at which we can place the Manners at Etal is in 1232,
when a dispute about boundaries between Robert Manners and William
Muschamp of Barmoor caused a perambulation by the sheriff to
1 Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. p. 115. - Lord Joicey's Deeds, vol. iii. pp. Ill, 120.
' Ford Tithe Case, p. 27. * Indentures of Bargain and Sale — Ford Tithe Case, p. 151.
' Earlier £://ia;<^, Hethal', Etal(l), Etayle, O.K. (q;() Eatanheale, i.e., (at) Eata'shaugh, /leo/e being the dat. sg.
of O.E. Aea/A=ihaugh.
« Testa de Nevill — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. p. 211 ; Ford Tithe Case, p. 221.
' Liber Niger Scaccarii, vol. i. p. 333. In the fifteenth century the manor was held for a quarter of a
knight's fee. Feudal Aids, vol. iv. p. 87. The Manners property in Hethpool seems to have been included
in the half fee. P.K.U. Chancery Inq. p.m. Edw. iii. File 130.
ETAL TOWNSHIP. 443
be ordered by the king,i and in 1250, when Robert Muschamp
died, a Robert Manners held half a fee of him. 2 This may have
been a son of the earlier Robert, though certainty on this point
is impossible in view of the fact that the family in early days
had such a predilection for the name of Robert. It was this
man's son doubtless who, as Robert Manners son of Robert Manners,
was called on in 1274 to keep an agreement made by his father with
one Philip Haliburton with regard to Etal mill.^ For a time the
manor seems to have passed out of the family, for in 1293 a dispute
as to its revenues revealed, that in 1275 a certain William Bonclerk had
seisin of it and gave it to his daughter Annabel on her marriage with
Walter, son of Gilbert of Crookham, the couple being both under age.
The administration of the manor thus fell to Gilbert of Crookham,
but matters were complicated by the divorce of W'alter and Annabel,
and the latter 's remarriage to Thomas Clerk of Emeldon."* In 1290 the
young couple began proceedings against Gilbert, calinig on him to
submit accounts for the time that he had been Annabel's bailiff in Etal,
and against both Gilbert and W'alter for having throwTi down a bakery
valued at 40s., and wasted two parts of half a carucate of land there
besides other damage in ComhiU. The defence tried to ignore the
divorce, but the parties ultimately came to an agreement in 1293,
whereby the prosecution surrendered its right to demand accounts and
received 3^ marks as damages and a similar sum in respect of all
moneys due.^
The whole proceeding is strange, and some suspicion arises that
the description of the property as the 'manor' of Etal may be a
mistake, since three and a half marks is not an extravagant redemption
for over seventeen years enjoyment of the revenues of the whole vill,
though it may have been merely nominal damages. At any rate three
years later a Robert Maimers was back in residence, being assessed on
^ Cal. oj Close Rolls, 1231-1234, p. 285.
2 Inq. p.m. 39 Hen. III. No. 40 — Bain, Cal. of Documents, vol. i. p. 372.
3 De Banco Rolls, No. 5, m. 42, No. 10, m. 36 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. .x.x\t. pp. 152, 217.
'' He appears variously as 'Thomas le Clerk de Emeldon' and 'Thomas de Emeldon, clerk."
^ De Banco Rolls, No. 83, m. 64, No. 89, m. 151, No. 90, m. 69, No. 91, mm. 196, 2i4do, No. 96 m. 1S3 ;
Assise Roll, 11 Edw. i — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xviii. pp. 73-74, 111-113, vol. x-xvii. pp. 456, 542-543, 559.
601, 602, vol. xxviii. p. 30. At the same time Thomas Clerk and Annabel sued William Scot of Etal for the
return of two charters wrongfully detained by him. Assize Roll, 21 Edw. I. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. x\-iii.
P- 157-
444
PARISH OF FORD.
\m9m':ms'^:}
MANNERS OF ETAL.
Arms : Gold two bars azure and a chief gules. Blasoned for Sir Robert
Manners in the "Nativity" roll circa AD. 1300 and in the "Powell"
roll of ciVca A. D. 1345. Jenyn's Ordinary blasons the same shield
for Sir John Manners. The charges, differenced by change of
colour, are the same as and probably derive from those of the
Muschamps, lords of Wooler. In A.D. 1525 Thomas Manners,
Lord Roos, earl of Rutland, was, to note his royal descent through
his mother, granted, as an augmentation, a portion of the royal arms,
namely, a chief quarterly I. and IV., azure two fleurs de lys gold,
II. and III., ^M^es a leopard gold. For seal of Sir Robert Manners in
A.D. 1331 and 1347 see pi. facing p. 152, No. 8. To a charter
of I2th May, 1388' Robert Manners appends an armorial seal,
quarterly I. and IV., Tivo bars and a chief (Manners), II. and III.,
three squirrels (Baxter).
' Laivg Charters, No. 80.
Robert Manners, lord of =j= .
Etal in 1232 (a).
Robert Manners, described as son of Robert Manners in 1274 (6) ; == .
destrained for Icnighthood in 1278 (66).
Margaret = Robert Manners ('), lord = (^) EUen = John More (*). Adam Manners fc) =f .
Uving 1343
(ee).
of Etal in 1336 (c) ; died
28th September, 1354
(/)■
(d) ; died 3rd died before
August, 1362 1362 (q).
(?)•
R o b e r t = Margaret Eleanor ,= William Manners
Manners, living in
died be- living in 13.54 («)
lore 1347 1354 (e).
died before 13,54
(e).
Robert Manners, living in 1352 (i).
Robert Manners (c).
John Manners, = Alice, sister and heiress
aged I year on
28th Septem-
ber, 1355 (/) ;
died before his
wife (h).
of Sir Henry Del-
aval, and widow of
John Whitchester
{g) ; died 26th Dec-
ember, 1402 (A)-
= Robert Manners, owned Etal in 141.5 [k) ; gave lands in Humbleton and Lanton to his son
John 1402 (>■).
Agnes, dau.ghter of John Middleton (»;). = John Manners («) lord of Etal in 1427 (/) ; died 1438 (m).
John Manners,
son and heir
in 1427 '^
Robert Manners, heir to his father, = Jenetta, daughter of Sir Robert
and aged 30 in 1438 (m) ; died
1461 (0).
Ogle, and sister of first Lord
Ogle (p).
Daughters
Robert Manners, ^ Eleanor, sister
knight, lord of | and co-heir
Etal; died 1495 of Edmund,
(s). I Lord Roos
Gilbert Manners second brother of Jane = William Swinhoe,
( Robert Manners of Etal, knight (h). (/). of CornhiU (<).
Euphemia [11) = Ralph Bradford (u), of Bradford.
Bradford of Bradford, county Northumberland.
ETAL TOWNSHIP.
445
R a 1 p h (2) = Elizabeth P), dau. =(>j George Manners,
Haggers- and co-heir of John Lord Roos, of
ton (x). Manners, lord of full age in
Cheswick ; died 1495 {s) ; died
1538 W- 1514 M
Thomas Manners {z) Lord Roos,
aged 16 in 15 14 {v) ; created
earl of Rutland 1525 ; will
dated i6th August 1.54-2 ;
proved igth May (y). ^
(a) Cal. 0/ Close Rolls, 1231-1234, p. 285.
(6) De Banco Roll, No. 5, m. 42 — Duke's Transcripts
vol. xxvi. p. 152.
(66) Parliamentary Writs, vol. i. p. 214.
(c) Pedes Finiiim, 10 Edw. III. No. 47 — Duke's
Transcripts, vol. xxxix. pp. 103-105. There
is no direct evidence that Robert Manners was
the son of Robert Manners of 1274, or that
Adam Manners was his brother.
(d) Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1358-1361, pp. 117-118.
(e) Durham Inq. p.m. 10 Hatfield — Dep. Keeper's
Rep. vol. xlv. app. i. p. 235.
(ee) Durham Inq. p.m. 10 Bury — Dep. Keeper's Rep.
vol. xxxi. app. p. 90.
(/) Seep. 447, n. i.
(?) N.C.H. vol. ix. p. 169.
(A) P.R.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. Hen. IV. File 35.
(i) Durham Treasury- Document — Raine, North
Durham, pp. 209-210.
(A) List of Castles, 1415 — Bates, Border Holds, p.
14. His relationship to .John Manners is only
conjectural.
(•) Anne, daughter of Sir Thomas
St. Leger by Edward IV.'s
sister Anne, divorced wife of
Thomas, duke of Exeter (z).
Edward
Manners (z).
Elizabeth (z).
Cecily (z).
I I
Oliver Manners (z).
Anthony Manners (z).
Richard Manners (z).
John Manners (z).
^,.1 I I I i
Elizabeth (z).
Catherine (z).
Eleanor (z).
Cicely (z).
Margaret (z).
(I) Durham Ireasury Document — Raine, Worth
Durham, p]). 210-21 1.
(m) P.R.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. Hen. IV. File 91.
(«) Belvoir Papers, vol. iv. p. 74.
(0) Raine, North Durham, p. 212.
(*) Harleian MS. 1529, f. i7do.
(q) Inq. p.m. 36 Edw. III. pt. i. No. 1 18 — Bain, CaJ.
0/ Documents, vol. iv. p. 19.
(r) Belvoir Deeds, drawer 2 1 .
(s) Durham Inq. p.m. n Fox — Dep. Keeper's Rep.
vol. xliv. app. p. 464.
It) Northern Visitations, p. 112.
(k) Ihid. p. 129.
(v) Durham Inq. p.m. 5 Ruthall — Dep. Keeper's
Rep. vol. xliv. app. p. 467.
[m) Harleian MS. 1529, f. lydo.
(x) Durham Inq. p.m. g Tunstall — Dep. Keeper's
Rep. vol. xliv. app. p. 423.
iy) North Country Wills, vol. i. p. 187.
(^) Ancient Pedigree in Monasticon, vol. v. p. 281.
the no inconsiderable sum of £27 los. 6d. for the subsidy of 1296. >
It was the same Robert, doubtless, who in 1328 called on John Florison
of Etal and Adam Waselesegh of Branxton to account severally for the
time when either was his bailiff in Etal and receiver of his money there, -
and it was perhaps his son, another Robert, who in 1336 exchanged
with Alexander, son of Patrick of Cheswick, two messuages and two
husbandlands in Goswick worth 30s. a year for lands in Etal.^ This
last transaction is interesting as showing early relations between two
families that were later to intermarry, for in the early fifteenth century
one of the two grand-daughters of this Alexander was to take a moiety
of Cheswick into the ^Manners family by her marriage wdth another
Robert Manners.'* Robert Manners of Etal of 1336 did something towards
bringing the township into prominence. He followed the lead of his
' Lay Subsidy Roll, 1296, fol. 102.
* P.R.O. De Banco Rolls, No. 272, m. i28do.. No. 274, m. i76do.; No. 275, m. 193.
' Belvoir Deeds, drawer 18. * Kaine, North Durham, pp. 228, 230.
446 PARISH OF FORD.
neighbour of Ford by crenellating his mansion in 1341,^ and perhaps
showed signs of the later rivahy with the Herons by this and by
providing an endowment for a perpetual chaplain in the chapel in Etal.'-
He was much concerned as to the succession to his estate. As early
as 1336 he levied a fine whereby the manor was settled on himself
for life with remainders to Robert, son of Robert Manners, to Robert
son of Adam Manners and to William son of Robert Manners successively
in tail male with remainder over to his own right heirs. ^ The wording of
the remainders of this fine are obscure, but despite the omission of
the word 'said' before 'Robert Manners' it must be supposed that
both Robert and William were sons of the Robert Manners who levied
the fine, particularly as we know that he had sons bearing these
names. ^ Still it is strange that he should have placed another member
of the family in the succession before his son William, and this made
it necessary for him to make fresh arrangements for the descent of his
land in 1347, when his elder son had died, as not to do so would
disinherit his younger son in favour of a more distant relative. In
that year, therefore, a fine was levied whereby the manor of Etal,
excepting one mill and one messuage therein, was entailed on William
Manners of Etal and the heirs of his body with remainders successively
to Robert son of Adam Manners, knight, and the heirs of his body,
Gilbert Heron and the heirs male of his body and Nicholas, son of Hugh
of Carlisle and the heirs male of his bod}', with remainder over to the right
heirs of Robert Manners. ^ William Maimers had doubtless already taken up
his residence at Etal, for he is described as of that place on more than one
occasion about this time,^ and was thus designated as his father's heir, but he
also predeceased his father,^ probably before November, 1353, when the latter
secured an exemplification under the great seal of the fine by which
he had entailed the property in 1336.^ This would have brought Etal
1 Cal. of Pa/e>il Rolls, 1340- 1343, p. 179.
- P.R.O. Inq. A.Q.D. File ccLxxv. No. 12, File cclxx.xi. No. 7 ; Cal. oj Patent Rolls, 1343-1345, p. 529.
' Pedes Finium, 10 Edw. III. No. 47 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxix. pp. 103-105.
* Re^. Palat. Dunelm, vol. iv. pp. 288-291 ; Durham Inq. p.m. 10 Hatfield — Dep. Keeper s Rep. vol. .xlv.
app. i. p. 235.
' Pedes Finium, 21 Edw. III. No. 81 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxix. pp. 175-178.
' In 1346 and 1348. Documents in Raine, North Durham, p. 209.
' Durham Inq. p.m. 10 Hatfield — Dep. Keeper's Rep. vol. xlv. app. 1. p. 235.
* Cat. of Patent Rolls, 1350-1354, p. 505.
ETAL TOWNSHIP.
447
to Robert, son of Adam Manners, but by his second marriage, which
took place certainly as early as 1347, Robert Maimers, the elder, had a son
bom to him somewhere about September, 1353,^ and this son, named John,
was acknowledged as heir when Robert died on September 28th, 1354.
The property which Robert left in Etal consisted of the manor, except
two messuages and one carucate of land therein, the site of which was
worth 20s. yearly beyond reprises. In demesne there were 260 acres
of arable land, each worth yearly 6d., and 18 acres of meadow each
worth yearly I2d., while outside the demesne there were 16 husband
lands, each consisting of 24 acres valued at yd. the acre yearly, fourteen
cottages rented at i8d. a year, a water mill and a fulling mill valued
at IOCS, and 40s. a year respectively. The yearly profits of court in
the manor were estimated to be worth 20s. ^ The king claimed the
guardianship of the heir, since the rightful overlord, John Coupland, was
at the time having difficulties as to his title.^ Accordingly it was by
crown appointment that Edward Letham was given the custody of all
the lands and tenements which had belonged to Robert Manners till the
heir came of age, paying therefore annually to the Exchequer £31 3s. 2|d.,
the value put upon the whole property including small holdings in
Hethpool, Tosson and Alnwick, and an additional £8 i6s. g^d. by way
of augmentation.* The guardianship of the heir was evidently left in
the hands of his mother Ellen, who in 1358 was granted his marriage
for a fine of £20.-^ Her relations with the guardian of the lands were
not alwaj's quite cordial, and later in the same year she got lis. 8d.
damages against him for depriving her of one messuage one acre of land
and a plot of land 100 feet square.** It seems that her husband had
intended to create a life interest for her in this small holding, which is
' The date of this child's birth is variously given. P.R.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. Edw. III. File 130, gives him
as one year and three weeks old. presumably on .^pril 19th, 1355, when the inquest was held. Durham Inq. p.m.
10 Hatfield, Dep. Keeper's Rep. vol. xlv. app. i. p. 235, makes him one and a half years old on March 10th.
1355. In a proof of age taken in 1375. {Dep. Keeper's Rep. vol. iv. app. iii. p. 138 ; Arch. Aeliana. O.S. vol.
iv. p. 328) he is stated to have been twenty-one on September 28th last past. This last, which is probably
the most accurate, would make him exactly one year old on the day his father died, if the proof of age was
taken before September 28th, 1375.
2 P.R.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. Edw. III. File 130. * See page 321.
♦ Rot. Fin. 29 Edw. III. m. 3 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxi. p. 406. Cj. Chancery Inq. p.m. Edw. III.
File 130. No deduction was allowed for the widow's dower, which was of course not included in the grant
of custody. See below.
* Rot. Fin. 32 Edw. III. m. 11 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. x-X-xi. pp. 431-432. If John died under age, his
mother was to have the marriage of his heir.
« Assize Roll, Divers Counties, 28-32 Edw. III.— Duke's Transcripts, vol. .xx. p. m.
448 PARISH OF FORD.
elsewhere described as one fulling mill and one plough-land, and it had
been carefully excluded from the entail of 1347. He delayed the
necessary formalities till fifteen days before his death, when he conveyed
the property to the vicar of Kirknewton with intent to have it settled
on himself and his wife, but he died before anything could be done.
The vicar accordingly enfeoffed the widow for life with remainder to
the right heirs of her late husband. Despite the fact that the inquest
taken after the death of Robert Manners carefully stated that he did
not die seised of the property, Letham had got hold of it. According to a
statement of a jury, empanelled to settle the question, the mill was
worth 40s. and the land 13s. 4d. yearly. ^ Ellen died in 1362, having
survived her second husband John More,- and the custody of her caru-
cate of land in Etal together with her dower, valued at £6 19s. 8d.,
was given to Letham, who was to pay therefor £10 a year and provide
for the heir.^ Here, as before, the crown had driven a bargain which
precluded Letham from any profit or even from paying his way, unless
he resorted to doubtful means, and it is therefore not surprising to find
the heir prosecuting him in 1367 for refusing to provide for his sus-
tenance according to the terms of the grant.* Still more remarkable
was the sequel. The crown, as a result of those proceedings, ordered
Letham to pay up the four years arrears due to the heir, and provide
him with 10 marks annually for maintenance in future, but three
months later this order was cancelled and fresh instructions were
issued that these moneys should be paid into the exchequer. The
explanation of this change was that the king had been looking into the
matter and had found that far too low a sum had been charged Ellen
Manners when she bought her son's marriage, as the £20 paid might
well have been 100 marks. So presumably the guardian of the boys'
person had to provide the maintenance and the only gainer by the whole
transaction was the crown. ^ Edward HI.'s various expedients for
raising money are by themselves an interesting field of study, and this
' P.R.O. Chancery, Miscellaneous Inquisitions, File 176 ; Cal. oj Patent Rolls, 1358-1361, p. 117-118.
- Inq. p.m. 36 Edw. III. pt. I. No. 118 — Bain, Cal. 0/ Documents, vol. iv. p. ig.
' Rot. Scot. vol. i. pp. 863-864 ; Rot. Fin. 36 Edw. III. ra. 8 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxii. pp. 9-10 ;
Cal. oJ Close Rolls, 1364-1368, p. 320 ; Originalia, 36 Edw. III. Rot., g — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 329.
* Coram Rege Roll, No. 425, m. 3ido. — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xx.xv. pp. 179-181.
s Cal. of Close Rolls, 1364- 1368, pp. 320, 337.
ETAL TOWNSHIP. 449
may be taken as an excellent example of them, but when Letham died
in the following year, even he was compelled to vary the terms of
agreement and allow the widow, as executrix of her husband's wall,
to keep back £20 of the annual sum due to the crown for the sus-
tenance of her children, and only pay 10 marks into the exchequer.'
This was only a temporary relief for the unfortunate widow, as in 1371
information was laid that her husband and she had ' made wastes, sales
and destructions of land, houses, woods and gardens' in the premises
committed to their care, which caused a commission of enquiry to be
appointed.- Next j-ear the heir's guardian began to agitate again for
the payment of maintenance, and with sublime indifference to the order
of 1367 denying the heir his maintenance, the crown called on Letham's
widow, now wife of Sir Robert Clavering, to pay up the arrears of 40
marks and provide future 10 marks annually for the heir.^ John Manners
came of age in 1374, but the fact was not established without enquiry, "*
and troubles concerning his minority were not over, for in 1379 there
was litigation over his marriage which had passed to his step-father,
John More, and by him had been sold to Sir William Heron of Ford.
John Manners was now obviously contemplating matrimony, as the
Heron claims w^ere now pressed against him,^ and the wife of his choice
was Alice, sister and heiress of Sir Henry Delaval and widow of John
WTiitchester,^ who died a widow for the second time in 1402.'^ John
Manners therefore must have died before this date, and the next
member of the family to be mentioned in connection with Etal is
Robert Manners, who was in occupation of the castle in 1415.* This
was probably John's son,'' and the John Manners, who was lord of Etal
1 Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1367-1370, p. 119. The rent due by Letham must have been reduced considerably,
for by his two agreements and the additional payment for sustenance of the heir he was liable to pay in all
£=,(, 13s. 4d. not 40 marks as this record states. " More probably the king's clerks had got mixed, and were
taking the 40 marks arrears of maintenance due to the crown as the annual rent for the custody of the lands.
2 Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1370-1374, p. 107.
' Cal. of Close Rolls, 1369- 13 74, p. 400. In a short abstract of this document in Bain, Cal. of Documents,
vol. iv. p. 44. Joan is described as sister, not widow, of Edward Leetham. This must be a mistake ol tran-
scription.
' Proof of Age — Arch. Aeliana, O.S. vol. iv. p. 328.
5 De Banco Roll, No. 473, m. 47do — Arch. Aeliana, third series, vol. vi. p. 62.
« N.C.H. vol. ix. p. 145. The earliest mention of Alice as his wife is in 1388. Rol. Fin. 12 Kic. II.
m. 8 — Duke's Transcripts, vol. xxxii. p. 378.
' P.R.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. Hen. IV. File 130. C}. N.C.H. vol. ix. pp. 143. 168.
' List of Castles, 1415 — Border Holds, p. 14.
9 Raine, North Durham, p. 2 1 1 . thinks that John Manners died without issue and that the line was carried
on by Robert, son of William Manners, John's eldest half brother. This Robert was alive in 1352 (Ibid.
pp. 209-210), but he must have died before his grandfather, otherwise he. and not lus uncle John, would
have been named heir in the inquisition taken after the death oJ that grandfather.
Vol. XL 57
450 PARISH OF FORD.
in 1427 and fell out with William Heron, ^ may have been Robert's son,^
though when he died in 1438 he left a son Robert aged 30 as his heir,^
and this was not his eldest son, for one, John, had figured as such in
the quarrel with the Herons.'' In 1438 the manor and vill of Etal had
fallen on evil days. The capital messuage was ruined and worth
nothing, the 80 acres of demesne land were valued at 2d. each yearly,
and the 40 acres of meadow at 4d. each yearly, the low value being
attributed not merely to the Scots in the usual fashion, but also to
the general barrenness of the country. In addition to the above the
property comprised 16 husbandlands each worth i6d. yearly, and 24
cottages each worth 4d. yearly. It is remarkable that the manor was
said to be held by the twentieth part of a knight's fee,^ whereas the
records of the Feudal Aid of 1428 gives it as a quarter of a knight's
fee,^ and the original tenure had been half a knight's fee.'' Robert
Manners seems to have been a man of some note on the border, for in
1449, together with Sir Henry Percy, he was given, as a reward for good
service on the marches towards Scotland, all the goods of and the issues
of all lands late belonging to Sir Robert Ogle, who had been outlawed.^
This gift is the more interesting as Sir Robert Ogle was brother-in-law
to the lord of Etal, who was also related to William Lelay, from whom
he secured a lease of lands in Howtel under the title 'Robert Maners of
Etell lord of that ilke.'^ He died in 1461,^° and was succeeded by his
son of the same name. This last seems at one time to have been
short of money, for in 1494 his servant came to the Exchequer at
Durham and redeemed a silver dish ornamented with a gilt rose and
two wash basins of silver which had been pledged for the sum of £10."
He died in 1495, leaving his son George of full age as his heir.^^
Sir Robert Manners by his marriage with Eleanor, eldest sister and
' See page 380.
' In 1402 a Robert Manners had a son who married Agnes, daughter of John Middleton, and was given
lands in Humbleton. Belvoir Papers, vol. iv. p. 74.
' P.R.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. Hen. VI. File 91.
* Document from Durham Treasury — Raine, North Durham, p. 210.
' P.R.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. Hen. VI. File 91.
« Feudal Aids, vol. iv. p. 87. ' See page 442. ' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1446-1452, p. 214.
' Belvoir Deeds, drawer 21. •" Breve de diem cl. extr. 4 Booth, cited in Raine, North Durham, p. 212.
•' Reg. Parv. Prior. Auckland — Raine, North Durham, p. 211.
'' Durham, Inq. p.m. 11 Fox — Dep. Keeper's Rep. vol. xliv. app. p. 464.
ETAL TOWNSHIP. 45I
co-heiress of Edmund, Lord Rods, brought the barony of Roos into his
family, for his son George succeeded to it on the death of the survivor of
his two maternal aunts, Isabel and Margaret. George Manners conveyed
his manor of Etal to trustees in 1498, ^ possibly for the purposes of an
entail which has not survived, and died in 15 13, leaving his son Thomas
aged sixteen as heir to his title and property.- Thomas Manners was
created earl of Rutland in 1525, and it is during his possession that we
hear for the first time of New Etal, which was burnt by the Scots in
1533,^ and in the survey of 1541 is described quite separately from Etal
Castle. The absence of any allusion to inhabitants or cultivated lands
near the castle seems to suggest, that the site of the village had been
moved across the Till to the north eastern part of the township. ' The
towneshippe of new Etayle — so the report ran — conteyneth viii. husband
lands plenyshed without fortresse or barmekyn and ys of thinherytaunce
of the Erie of Rutland, and the tenants thereof in tyme of nede resorte
to his castell of Etayle standynge upon the Est syde of the said ryver
of Tyll.'* New Etal to-day lies off all main roads, but this was
probably not the case in the sixteenth century, for just south of the
castle, a bridge, the piers of which can still be seen when the water
is low, spanned the stream.-^ In 1541, however, it had recently collapsed,
'to the great trouble hurte and annoyaunces of thinhabitants there-
abouts, whiche had allwanis redy passage over when the said river is
waxen greate and past rydinge upon horsebacke.' It was reported,
too, that its restoration was necessary for military purposes, as it was
used for conveying 'ordenence and armyes' into Scotland.*^ It is obvious
therefore that in those days the main road crossed the river at Etal,
and passed through new Etal, though this might be somewhat of a
detour, on the way to Comhill or Wark. The earl doubtless did not
live at Etal, indeed there is a mysterious allusion to ' Robert Manners,
lord of Etal', in a document of 1535,'^ which probably means that the
owner had placed a relative in possession, and so little did he care for
' Belvoir Deeds, drawer i6.
2 Durham Intj. p.m. 4 Ruthall— i5e/). Keepers' Rep. vol. xliv. app. P, p. 4O7. Cf. Raine, North Durham,
p. 212.
» Letlers and Papers of Hen. VIII., vol. vi. p. 20. * Survey of the Border. 15^1— Border Holds, p. 35.
= Leland's Itinerary, vol. v. p. 66. ° Survey of the Border, 15.il— Border Holds, p. 38.
' Lansdoune, MS. ^zh, fol. 50.
452 PARISH OF FORD.
his Northumbrian seat, that in 1547 he made an exchange, whereby in
return for lands elsewhere he conveyed the whole of his property in
the county to the crown. ^
For the remainder of the sixteenth century Etal remained the
property of the crown, the management of the estate being in the hands
of the Collingwoods, a family living there. In 1549 one Oswald Col-
lingwood was bailiff,^ and in 1604 it was reported that Oswald CoUing-
wood held that ofhce, which his brother, lately deceased, had held
before him, the fee payable for his services being 33s. 4d.'^ In addition
to this the family held several leases of portions of the estate. In
1590 Henry Collingwood, his brother Oswald, and his son Henry
became tenants of the 'Meade Close,' a field called 'Southfielde,' certain
pasture and fishery called the 'Welle Arke and the Dovehouse on the
west side of the Castle,' all recently in the tenure of John Collingwood,
at the respective rents of 26s. 8d., 73s. 4d., 20s. and 13s. 4d.'*
About the same time Henry, George and Thomas Collingwood were
granted a lease for the extent of their three lives of the demesne of
Old Etal at a yearly rent of £10.^ Henry Collingwood also occupied
a corn mill at a rent of £6 per annum. ^ There was, indeed, great
competition for land in the manor, and in 1568 Sir William Drury,
writing to Cecil from Berwick, reported that 'certain merchants of this
town and others have repaired to London to be suitors for leases of
the Queen's lands at Etal and other places. The like heretofore
obtained has no whit strengthened the borders.'" Other royal officials
on the spot complained of the lax administration of these lands, ^ but
little notice was taken, and numerous leases of lands in Etal were
granted between this date and 1591, including eight tenements in New
Etal rented at 20s. each to Sir William Drury himself, who however
paid heavily for the privilege, as he agreed to pay an annual rent of
£10 together with a tine of £20 on taking up the lease and to give a
' P.R.O. Augmentation Office. Deeds oj Purchase and Exchange, box F, No. 23.
- Belvoir Papers, vol. i. p. 39. " Survey of the Border, 1O04, p. 131.
* Roi. Pat. 38 Eliz. part. iv. m. 20 — Survey 0/ the Border, i6o.|, p. vii.
' Survey of the Border, 1604, p. 131. Cf. P.R.O. Augmentation Office. Particulars Jor Leases, Northum-
berland, File 3, No. 44.
* Ministers Accounts, ^2 Eliz. — Ford Tithe Case Papers, apud Mr. W. I. Bolam, No. 197.
' Cal. n] Stale Papers, Foreign, 1566-1568, p. 415. ' Cal. of Stale Papers, Foreign, 15O1-1302, p. 641.
ETAL TOWNSHIP. 453
bond to let each to an able bodied tenant provided with horse and
armour. Likewise Sir Henry Woodrington was given a twenty years
lease of New Etal at a rent of £io, in recognition of his services on
the border. 1 According to the accounts of Henry Haggerston, the
queen's collector in Etal, the sum total of the rents for the year 1590,
excluding those due from the CoUingwoods for the demesne amounting
to £6 13s. 4d., was £50 13s. 6d., less £7 2s. od., the expenses of
collecting. 2
Soon after the accession of James I. the manor of Etal was
surveyed, and was found to contain 4,971 acres, but of this only 1.984
lay in Etal itself, for the term 'manor' covered all that had once been
Manners property, including lands in Bowsdon, Humbleton, Howtel,
Kilham, Hetherslaw, and Ewart in Glendale, and Berrington, Buckton,
Goswick, and Norham in North Durham. There was only one free-
holder in what is described as Etal, and he held ten acres ; m Old Etal
there was the demesne consisting of grounds, fishing, a dovecot, two
walk mills and two corn mills, covering in aU 354 acres valued at
£49 14s. od. yearly, and customary tenants held 400 acres of arable
and 800 acres of common valued at £73 6s. 8d. yearly. In New Etal
there were 420 acres of land let on lease, valued at £52 los. od. yearly. The
values appended included the estimated augmentation, and were far in
excess of the rents paid, which only amounted all told to £42 17s. 6d.^
The military advantage of having crowTi property on the border had
passed away with the union of the two crowns, and the manor of Etal was in
1604 granted to George Hume, recently created Baron Hume of Ber-
wick, to be held of the king in free and common socage as of the
barony of East Greenwich, paying therefor £48 6s. lod. annually.-*
Lord Hume, later the earl of Dunbar, died without male heirs in 1611,
but probably before that he had transferred Etal to Theophilus, Lord
Howard de Walden. At any rate the latter owned the pioperty in
1616,^ and two years later a survey revealed that in New Etal there
' Cal. oj Border Papers, vol. i. p. a ; Cal. of State Papers, Domestic, 1581-1590, p. 167 ; Survey oj the
Border, 1604, p. 131 ; P.R.O. .Augmentation Office, Particulars jor Leases, Northumberland, File i, Nos. 56,
57i 59. File.?, Nos. 22, 31, 34, File 4, So. 26, File 5, Nos. 3, 23, 24, File 0, N'os. 12, 25, 30, File 7, Kos. i, 3, 4.
2 Ministers' Accounts, ^z ]i.\iz.~Ford Tithe Case Papers, apud Mr. W. 1. Bolam, No. 197.
' Survey 0/ the Border, 1604, pp. 128, 135.
' Cal. oj State Papers, Domestic, 1603-1610, p. 177 ; Ford Tithe Case Papers, apud Mr. W. I. Bolam,
No. 200.
' Accounts of Thomas Orde of rents received on behalf of Theophilus Lord Howard de Waldeu, 1016 — •
Raine, North Durham, p. 43.
454 PARISH OF FORD.
were eight tenants at will each holding one tenement of one husband
land, no less than half of them being named Archbold. In Old Etal
there were ten tenants at will, eight of them with similar holdings,
while Henry Collingwood and Alexander Hume each held four tenements
and four husband lands. Henry Collingwood^ also held the demesne
under the lease granted by Queen Elizabeth, and two water corn mills,
one in Old and the other in New Etal, at will, and he also held the
coal mine on lease. There was yet one other water mill on the estate,
held at will by George and William Walker. Finally there were twenty
nine cottages, excluding a small group known as 'The lone cottages,'
and five cottier holdings.^ Lord Howard de Walden, who succeeded his
father as earl of Suffolk in 1626, alienated the property ten years later
to Robert Carr of Etal, a description which suggests that he was
already resident there. It was to be held of the crown on the same
terms as had been granted to Lord Hume, and the purchase money
paid to the earl of Suffolk was £2,400,^ though owing to the CoUing-
woods' life interest £400 of the purchase money was not paid over at
the time.'*
This Robert Carr was by his own avowal and the witness of his friends
a Scot,'^ and the son of Thomas Carr of Ford's second wife Jane by her
former husband,^ William Ker or Carr of Greenhead. Despite his acqui-
sition of Etal and his further purchase of Catford Law from his step-
father, Thomas Carr of Ford," Robert remained a Scot at heart, and
when his fellow countrymen invaded Northumberland in 1640 he held
command in their army, and later was active on the side of parliament,
working from headquarters in Sunderland.** Some time before
1645 he had transferred his allegiance, for he was then a prisoner of
^ This must be the son Henry mentioned in 1590, as his father's will is dated gth November, 1603.
Kaine, Testamenta, vol. i. p. 41.
- Survey of Etal, 1618 — Ford Tithe Case Papers, apud Mr. W. I. Bolani, No. 198.
' Conveyance of Etal, loth February, ibib—Ford Tithe Case Papers apud Mr. W. I. Bolam, No. 200.
■* Close Roll, 12 Chas. I. part 32 — Carr Family, vol. iii. p. 30. Cf. Poyalist Compositions, p. 149.
^ Royalist Compositions, p. 148 ; Depositions of James Burrell of Berwick and Mathias Hunter of Alnwick,
1554 — Carr Family, vol. iii. p. 30. Denization was granted in April, 1613, to 'Robert Carr, kt., born in the
realm of Scotland.' Privy Seal, extracted in Sharp MS. 67, fol. 36.
" Deposition of Susan Salkeld 13th July, 1686, in Jenkins v. Blake and Davison — Lord Joicey's Deeds,
vol. iii. p. 143. Susan Salkeld was the widow of William Carr of Ford, stepson of Jane Carr.
' He took over the mortgage on Catford Law in 1O37, a"d bought out Thomas Carr in 1639. Ford
Tithe Case, pp. 59, 199.
' Royalist Compositions, pp. 148, 14S n.
ETAL TOWNSHIP. 455
the Scots in England, and the king was doing his best to get him
exchanged.^ In December, 1647, Charles from his refuge and virtual
prison at Carisbrooke granted him, in return for a payment of £400, the
benefit of making a baron and baronet in England, in consideration of
his faithful services and 'his continued endeavour in promoting our
interests not only while we were present but in the hazardous condi-
tion of our absence and necessitated retirement. '^ It was in Scotland,
seemingly, that he fought for Charles,^ and in due course his property
in England was sequestrated by the government under the title of ' the
lordship or manor of Etal otherwise Etal Berryhill,' the first mention
of this latter name in any document. The property was entailed and
valued at £240 yearly, but he sought for deductions consisting of an
annual charge of £16 to his sister by way of dower, £400 still owing
on the purchase money, £130 for which sum Berryhill was mortgaged
and £796 due to several persons under certain legal judgments. New
Etal, Berryhill and the two water mills had been let since sequestration
to Charles Newton of Elswick at an annual rent of ;f300, a sum which
suggests that Berryhill was the usual term then used to designate Old
Etal. In June, 1654, he secured discharge after composition and the
payment of a fine.* None the less his neighbour, the unscrupulous John
Ratcliffe, stepfather and guardian of Thomas Carr of Ford, used his
relations with the protectorate government to claim both the tithes of
Etal and certain lands, probably Catford Law, belonging to the Etal
estate. At the restoration Sir Robert Carr at once proceeded to
reassert his rights. He not only desired the confirmation to him of his
previously granted and hitherto useless warrants for the creation of a
baron and a baronet, or two baronets as he now styled them, and the
repayment of £300 disbursed on behalf of the late king, but he sought
to have the use of Ratcliffe's estate, forfeited to the crowTi by reason
of his murder of Thomas Carr.^ In 1663 he was rated for Etal and
Catford Law,^ and it may have been he whose property was in question in
1664, when a bill was laid before parliament at the instance of the
' Cal. 0/ State Papers, Domestic, 1645-1647, p. 149.
2 Cal. of State Papers, Domestic, 1645-1647, p. 584 ; 1661-1662, p. 60.
» Royalist Compositions, 14 8k. * Royalist Compositions, pp. 148-149.
' Cal. of State Papers, Domestic, 1661-1662, pp. 60, 146, 491.
" Rate Book, 1663 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. i. pp. 277, 343.
456 PARISH OF FORD.
children of Sir Robert Carr for the settling of his estate, on the ground, seem-
ingly, that he was incapable of administering it. It was asserted that 'he
had been locked up by Lady Carr in the country and by ill usage rendered
incapable of management,' whereas she 'being nobly provided for, had no
ground for complaint. '^ It is no matter of conjecture that Sir Robert
fell into financial difficulties towards the end of his life. In 1661, in
consideration of ;f2,ooo paid to him as the marriage portion of Margaret
Boscawen, the bride of his eldest son, William, he had settled a large
part of his property, consisting of the hamlets of New Etal, Berryhill,
Old Etal, and Catford Law and the farm called Letham Hill, on the
newly married pair with immediate possession, only retaining for his
own use the demesne of Old Etal, the farm or hamlet of Rodds and the
two water corn mills belonging to the manor, with remainder to William
and Margaret and the heirs of William, and remainder over to
his second son Robert. Some years later, having run into debt to the
extent of £4,000, he went to New England and lived there till May,
1667, when he returned, only to die at Bristol before reaching home.
Before death he made his will, leaving all his estate, saving one planta-
tion in America, consisting of six islands, one known as Carr's Island, to
his eldest son. William Carr therefore succeeded to the whole estate
in 1667, though his brother Robert, evidently a spendthrift who had
angered his father by an ill-considered marriage, tried to extract £500
from him on the strength of an earlier will made by their father. ^
This William Carr within a year of his succession entered on disputes
with his neighbours with regard to the boundaries of their respective
properties, a legacy doubtless from old quarrels dating back as far as
1232.-'' He applied to the court of chancery for a delineation of the
boundary between Etal and Duddo, at the time held by Dame Anne
Clavering, widow of Sir John Clavering, for life, with remainder to Sir
John's son and heir Robert Clavering. He claimed that the line ran
from the Till up the 'Home bourne,' nqjv known as Duddo Mill Burn,
to a field called 'Manners Knowes,' which lay in Etal, and then east-
' Cal. 0] State Papers, Domestic, 1664-1665, p. 196. The only difficulty of identifying this Sir Robert
Carr with the owner of Etal is that his heir is also called Sir Robert, whereas it was Sir Robert of Etal's second
son who was called Robert.
- P.R.O. Chancery Proceedings, Bridges, bundle 459, No, 48. The will, dated 29th May and proved
6th July, 1667, is printed in Carr Family, vol. iii. app. ii. p. 14s.
' See_page 442.
ETAL TOWNSHIP. 457
wards by 'Graves Dyke' to the end of that dyke and then northwards,
leaving Greenlaw Walls on the left, then eastwards to 'a great stone
called the Sword Stone' and then north-east along a green lane, called
Gatherick Way, to Bartram Letch. The boundarv^ as claimed by the
defendants seems to have differed very slightly from this, and where it
did so, must have been between the leaving of Duddo Mill Bum and the
Sword Stone, there called a 'Martch Stone.' The difficulty indeed seems
to have been one between the tenants rather than the owners, since
cattle were constantly straying from the waste of one manor to that of
the other. 1 The very next year William Carr was in controversy^ with
Peter Blackbarrow, owner of Barmoor and Gatherick, ^ as to boundaries,
the straying of cattle being once more the cause of the dispute. The
line ran, he averred, from Bartram Letch 'down against the mere stones
and so up and along the said letch eastwards to a Hathery Dyke called
Grayes Dyke.' It then went along the eastern side of this dyke to
Wood End following a green lane, which then turned southwards, to
the end of Woodend Dyke, and then ran on to a cross dyke and thence
to the neighbourhood of 'Three Knowes.' Thence it passed due east
to the stone causeway, which it followed to 'Theifemen's Rodd' and
thence passed to the 'State ford' and on to the 'Winter Bame' and
westwards to the 'three Lorde Well' The boundary put forward by
the defendant is hard to trace, partly by reason of the mutilation of
the record, partly by reason of the fact that the boundary of the whole
township of Barmoor is given. That any definite judgment was secured is
doubtful, for the parties continued to sue each other on the question for
the next five years at least, and in the course of the litigation it
became apparent that it was the mineral rights rather than the straAang
of cattle which were the real cause of the dispute.^
William Carr died in 1689, and having no children, he made his
nephew, also called William, son of his brother George, his heir,-* his
brother Robert having seemingly died childless or agreed to the cutting
of the entail of i66f. This William died in 1715 leaving his house and
1 P.R.O. Chancery Proceedings, Bridges, bundle 8i, No. 56, bundle 459, No. 57.
« Blackbarrow is treated as owner of Barmoor, though William Carr had bought it from him in 1661,
and claimed it as late as 1689. P.R.O. Exchequer Plea liolls, 17 Chas. II. Trinity, m. (i-
' P.R.O. Chancery Proceedings, Bridges, bundle 459, Nos. 52, 53. Of. page 471.
» Will dated 22nd June, 1687, proved 1689 — Carr Family vol. iii. app. li. p. 146.
Vol. XI.
58
458 PARISH OF FORD.
lands in New Etal and Hesleyside to his wife Mary for life and after
her death to his eldest son William. ^ The widow, who was a Carr of
Eshot, showed her family's tendencies towards Roman Catholicism, and
was reported to be 'one of the highest Jacks (Jacobites) in the king-
dom' at the time of the rebellion of 1715.^ Sir William Carr, bart.,
who succeeded in 1715, was the last of the name to possess Etal, as
his only son died an infant, and his property was entailed on his eldest
daughter, Isabel, who in 1762 married James, fifteenth earl of Erroll.^
The estate passed to George, sixteenth earl of Erroll, the son of this
marriage, but in 1790 he died under tragic circumstances at Grenier's
Hotel in London. The title went to his brother William, but under
the terms of Sir William Carr's settlement Etal passed to Charlotte,
the late earl's eldest sister, who took out a royal licence to herself, her
husband and the heirs male of her body to bear the name and arms of
Carr. Her husband was the Rev. William Holwell, vicar of Menheniot,
Cornwall, and she died in 1800, leaving a son who followed her to the
grave six years later, and the estate passed to his aunt Augusta, third
daughter of James, earl of Erroll, and Isabel Carr,* and wife of George,
fourth earl of Glasgow. She was succeeded in 1822 by her son, James,
viscount Kelburne and later fifth earl of Glasgow, who died without
issue in 1869, when the title went to his half brother, but the Etal
estate passed to his sister Augusta, the only surviving child of the
fourth earl of Glasgow by his first wife, and then widow of Lord
Frederick Fitz-Clarence, one of the natural sons of William IV. ^ At
her death in 1876 the estate passed to William George, seventeenth earl
of Erroll and then to his son William Henry, the eighteenth earl, by
whom it was sold in 1886 to James Laing of Sunderland. This last
purchaser divided the property among his three sons, and in 1908 they
sold it to the present owner. Lord Joicey.^
* Will dated i8th January, 1715, proved 1715 — Carr Family, vol. iii. app. ii. p. i.\6.
''■ MS. Letter apud Lord Northbourne of Betteshanger — Carr Family, vol. iii. p. 43.
= Newcastle Courant, 7th August, 1762. ' The second daughter had died unmarried.
^ The Scots Peerage, ed. by Sir James Balfour Paul, Lyon King of Arms (Edinburgh, 1904-1911), vol. iii.
pp. 581-583, vol. iv. pp. 217, 218. Cj. Miscellanea Genealogica et Heraldica, new series, vol. ii. pp. 416-417.
« Etal Deeds.
ETAL TOWNSHIP.
459
CARR OF ETAL.
William Ker of Greenhead, county
Roxburgh (e).
Jane, who married secondly Thomas
Carr of Ford («).
Sir Robert Carr, knight, claiming to be of the family of Kerr of
Greenhead, county Roxburgh, purchased Etal loth February,
1636, from the earl of Suffolk ; a commander in the Scottish
army circa 1640 [c) ; was 'very active at Sunderland and
Boldon fight'; his ship the 'Samuel and Justina' of New-
castle sequestered in 1652; compounded for delinquency in
1655 (c) ; rated for Etal and Catfordlaw in 1663; died at
Bristol ; will dated 29th May, 1667; proved 6th July, 1667.
Margaret Margaret, wife of James Moffat,
[Bonner minister of Dornock, Dumfries-
of New- shire ; ' daughter of William
castle], Ker, esq., sister to Sir Robert
living Ker'; died 25th June T7'~8,aged
1673 (e). 78 ; Monumental Inscriptions,
Dornock ; [had a rent charge
ol ;£io secured on Etal (c) ].
William Carr of Etal entered at Gray's Inn 20th Nov., =
1652, as eldest son of Robert Carr of Etal ; of Christ
Church, Oxford; matriculated ist April, 1656; B.C.L.
from All Souls College 15th Oct., 1664 ; cursitor
baron 1685-8; was 27 years of age at the time of
his marriage; purchased Barmoor in 1661 ; recorder
of Ber\rick, 1683 ; buried i6th January, 1688/9 («) ;
will dated 22nd June, 1687 ; proved 1689 (b).
- Margaret, daughter
of Hugh Boscawen
of Tregothean,
Cornwall ; bond of
marriage 12th Nov-
ember, 1661 ; will
dated gth July,
1702.
Robert Carr,
second son
in 1661, dis-
putes his
father's will
in 1667
George Carr =
[of the city
of London],
dead before
the date of
his brother
William's
wiU.
I
William Carr of Etal, nephew, heir and
devisee of William Carr [entered at
Lincoln's Inn, 24th May, 1692. as son and
heir of George Carr of the city of London,
gent., deed., of Wadliam College, Oxford ;
matriculated 27th October, 1694, aged
16] ; buried 24th January, 1714/5 (a) ;
will dated i8th January, 1714/5 ;
proved 17 15 (6).
Mary, daughter of William Carr
of Eshot ; married at Felton
3rd November, 1698 ; ex-
ecutrix of her husband's will ;
married secondly, William
Ogle of Causey Park ; bond
of marriage 24th November,
1 721; [buried 20th February,
1725 6 (a) ].
Gilijert Carr, named in the will of
his brother William ; died at
Etal ; buried 2nd May, 1692 (a).
Catherine, wife of [John] Carr,
with her children, named in the
will of her brother William (b). 1
[Margaret, named in the will of
her brother William (6).j
Isabella, daughter of -
William Bacon of
Styford ; baptised
at Auckland St.
Andrew, 25th Jan-
uary, 1711; mar-
ried St. Oswald's,
Durham, Decem-
ber, 1740 ; bond
of marriage, 4th
December, 1740 ;
buried 24th March,
1746/7 (a).
I
■ William Carr of Etal, =
baptised 14th December,
1703(0); on the death of
Sir Robert Ker of Green-
head i6th April, 1776,
assumed the title and
style of baronet, but
disclaimed the same in
a codicil to his will ;
buried 17th April, 1777
(a) ; will dated 19th
Oct., 1776; codicil 20th
January, 1777 (b).
Anne, widow of
Henry Ogle of
Cawsey Park,
daughter and
co-heir of
William Ord
of Sandybank;
married 26th
May, 1761 (a) ;
buried loth
March, 1766 (a) ;
will dated i6th
January, 1 766 (6)
Mark Carr of
Berrj'hill [bapt-
ised 14th Feb-
ruary, 1710/1]
(a) ; died at
Carr's Grove ;
buried 31st Jan-
uary, 1769 (a).
Margery WalUs of
Sandybank, parish
of Norham ; mar-
ried 27th April,
1762 (a) ; died
Berrj'hill ; buried
1 2th February,
1803, aged 69 (a).
Marv', bom at Berryhill ; baptised 19th
June, 1765 (a) ; buried 23rd Sept-
ember, 1765 (a).
I
William Carr, son and
heir, born Sunday
15th, baptised 17th
April, 1744 (a) ;
buried nth Feb-
ruary, 1745/6 (a).
Isabella, daughter and co-heir;
baptised 22nd March, 1741
(a) ; married 3rd August,
1762 (a) ; (as his second
wife), James Hay (formerly
Boyd), earl of Erroll.
I
Margaret, daughter and co-heir, baptised 26th February,
1746/7 (a) ; married first 24th December, 1770 (a) ;
Hon. Alexander Mackay, lieut.-general in the army,
son of George, third Baron Reay ; and secondly 4th
October, 1792 (as his second wife), James Farquhar-
son of Invercauld.
George Carr, major, 2nd reg. Invalids; baptised 2nd October, 1705 (a) ; a trustee of
his brother William's settlement, 2nd January, 1762; died Percy Street, New-
castle; buried 20th August, 1772 (a); will dated 3rd October, 1764; proved 1772(6).
Elizabeth [Reid], named
in her husband's will;
married 2nd June,
1740 (a).
460
PARISH OF FORD.
I I I
Elizabeth, daughter and co-heir, named in her father's Mary, daughter and co-heir, named in her father's will,
will; married Samuel Rolleston of the Inner Temple. Jane, daughter and co-heir, named in her father's will.
I
Grace, daughter of — Robert Carr of Ludgate Hill, mercer, baptised 30th January, = Mary
Thomas Bigge of | 1706/7 (a) ; assumed the style of baronet on the death of Little.
Byker; baptised , his brother in 1777 ; rebuilt Carrville in the parish of
30th March, 1 7 10. I Walker; died 6th March, 179 1 ; s./>.m. buried Hampton.
Elizabeth, daughter and co-heir,
only surviving child of first
marriage ; married as his second
wife, Sn- Richard Glyn, bart., and
died 14th April, 1814.
{a} Ford Registers.
(6) Raine, Test. Dunelm.
(c) Royalist Compositions, p. 148.
Mary, daughter and co-heir, only surviving
child of second marriage ; named in the will
of her uncle William Carr, 1776 ; married
1796, William Parker Hamond of HaUng,
Surrey ; a quo Hamond of Pampisford.
EUzabeth, bapt-
ised 2nd Feb-
ruary, 1709/10
(n) ; died Etal ;
buried nth
September, 1732
(a).
Jane, buried iSth
August, 1788
(a).
(d) Ford Munitnents.
(e) Genealogist, vol. x., p. 128.
(/) P.R.O. Chancery Proceedings, Bridges, bundle
459, No. 48.
The Castle. — The castle of the Manners never attained to the fame
of that of the Herons, but its ruins to-day show that it was once a
fortress of no mean defences. It stands on a comparatively level site,
where the river Till makes a bend round its northern and western
walls, on the north running only thirty yards distant from the masonry.
It was probably begun as a challenge to Ford, since Robert Mamrers
secured a licence to crenellate his dwelling place of Etal in 1341,^ just
three years after a similar licence had been granted to the Herons at
Ford. It was doubtless at that time a mansion of some importance,
and even as far back as 1291 the archbishop of York had stopped
there in preference seemingly to Ford.'- The crenellated dwelling place
soon developed into a castle, for though it is described only as a fort-
alice in 1355, when Edward Letham was given custody thereof,^ together
with the other Manners property, it is given the name of castle in 1368,
when his widow took over the administration of his estate.* Save for
the skirmish with the Herons outside the walls in 1427,° we hear little
of its history during the middle ages, though the statement in an
inquisition of 1438 that the capital messuage of Etal was ruined and
' Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1340-1343, p. 179. 2 Northern Registers, pp. 91-92.
' Cal. oj Patent Rolls, 1353-1358, p. 283.
* Cal. oj Patent Rolls, 1367-1370, p. 119. It also ranks us a castle in 1415. List of Castles, 1415-
Border Holds, p. 14.
^ See page 380.
ETAL TOWNSHIP. 461
therefore valueless^ may indicate that at the time the castle was dis-
mantled. It was naturally in the sixteenth century that the castle figured
most prominently. It was, like Ford, a link in the second line of defence
for the border, and was frequently garrisoned by the king's forces quite
independently of the owners. Indeed it is remarkable that the Manners
do not appear to have taken any share in the management of the
castle, and are practically never mentioned in connection therewith,
save occasionally as owners."- Successive members of the family of
Collingwood not only leased the demesne lands,^ but also filled the office
of constable practically throughout the sixteenth century. Jolm Col-
lingwood was ' inliabitant ' of the castle in 1509 for Lord Roos who was
evidently non-resident,* and he was in command of the garrison in
1522.^ In 1535 a report of the lord warden records that 'Henry
CoUingwood is constable of Itall for term of his life, and dwelleth
there four miles from Scotland, and may dispend 20 marks a year
during his life in fee and annuity, and may serve the kmg of such
lands as he has rule of with 30 horsemen. He is a true sharp borderer
and keepeth a good house. '"^ Harry ColUngwood was constable in 1541,^
and was responsible for a sharp defeat of some Scottish ravagers in 1543.*
Soon after this it seems that the garrisons of Ford and Etal were put
under the command of Sir John EUerker,^ who in 1549 ^^'^^ i^ command
of 100 horsemen at Etal while John Leek had charge of 200 footmen
there. 1" This was just at the time when the castle passed from the
earl of Rutland to the crown, and this may explain why the CoUing-
woods lost their position, or at least had someone put in superior com-
mand over them. In 1551, however, Henry Collingwood was constable,^^
but he died probably shortly after this, for the privy council was busy
in 1556 trying to find out whether the claims of 'younge Collingwood,'
who was a child, to the office of constable were justified, and whether
letters patent making such an inheritable grant had been issued.^'- In
' P.K.O. Chancery Inq. p.m. Hen. VJ. File yi.
* E.g. in 1522. Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII., vol. iii. pt. ii. p. 852. ' See pages 452-454.
* List of Holdis, 1509 — Border Holds, p. 23.
' Letters and Papers oj Hen. VIII., vol. iii. pt. ii. p. 852. ' Ibid. vol. ix. p. 372.
' Ibid. vol. xvi. p. 478. " Ibid. vol. xviii. pt. i. p. 515.
° Ibid. vol. .^cxi. pt. i. p. 137-138 ; Acts oJ Privy Council, vol. i. p. 344.
'" Belvoir Papers, vol. i. p. 36. " Survey of the Border, 1551 — Hodgson, pt. iii. vol. ii p. 207.
'- Acts oJ the Privy Council, voL v. p. 313, vol. vi. pp. 64-65, 98.
462 PARISH OF FORD.
1596 Henry Collingwood, his brother Oswald and his son Henry were
commissioned to keep the castle,^ and ultimately in 1601 the ' office and
offices of constable and keeper of the Castell of Etell' were granted by
the crown to Sir William Selby, who appointed Roger Selby, of Grindon
as his deputy, and this was the position in 1604, though Oswin Col-
lingwood—probably the Oswald mentioned above — was bailiff. -
The castle was estimated to accommodate 100 men,^ though this
number could be exceeded in time of need,* and it was evidently much
prized as a position of strategic importance. It was captured by
James IV. before Flodden,^ but was seemingly not destroyed. At any
rate it was considered a safe place in which to house the captured
Scottish ordnance after the battle, "^ and immediately steps were taken
to garrison it in case of fresh attack." Lord Dacre evidently con-
sidered it a place of considerable strategic importance, and during 1515
and 1516 was frequently found there. ^ The commissioners who drew
up the survey of 1541 also used it as one of their headquarters,^ and
they found it 'for lacke of reparacons in very great decaye and many
necessary houses within the same become ruynous and fallen to the
giound.' They urged its immediate repair, as a valuable unit of border
defences and an excellent place in which to place a garrison in time of
war.i" seemingly for the purpose of reinforcing the defenders of some
threatened place. It may have been that the crown was induced to
obtain Etal from the earl of Rutland by this report, but after it had
secured the castle little was done in the way of repair. In 1564 the
marquess of Winchester told Cecil that 'the Queen's house at Etal is
greatly decayed, scant able to lodge the captain, '^^ in 1580 it was still
in need of repair, 1- and the commissioners of 1584 reported it as 'decaied
for want of reparacion of longe contynuance,' but eminently a place
that must be restored, the cost of which they estimated at £200.^^
1 Rot. Pal. 38 Eliz. part 4, m. 2O — Survey of the Border, 1O04, p. vii,
- Survey oj the Border, 1604, pp. 130-131.
" List of Holdis, 1509 — Border Holds, p. 23 ; Survey oj the Border, 1541 — Border Holds, p. 38.
* Cal. of State Papers, Domestic, 1580-1625, p. 95 ; Belvoir Papers, vol. i. p. 36.
' Buchanan, book xiii. vol. ii. p. 133. ' Letters and Papers of Hen. VIII., vol. i. p. 673.
' Ibid. vol. i. p. 682. * Ibid. vol. ii. pp. 241, 247, 442. ' Hamilton Papers, vol. i. p. 108.
'° Survey of the Border, 154 1 — Border Holds, p. 38.
" Cal. of State Papers, Foreign, 1564-1565, p. 135. '- Cal. of Border Papers, vol. i. p. 32.
" Keport ol Commissioners, 1584 — Border Holds, p. 73.
Fig. 23.
464 PARISH OF FORD.
The structure is now in ruins, hut has been divested of vegetation
and carefully pointed to preserve it from further decay. In shape the
area enclosed is roughly rectangular, ^ measuring approximately 182
feet from north to south and 168 feet from east to west. The
eastern frontage is 170 feet, whilst the western is only 132 feet.
At the south-east angle is a gatehouse-tower, and at the north-west
stands the keep. A small vaulted chamber encloses the south-west angle.
On the north-east a few stones suffice to indicate the interior
angle of the courtyard or of a tower, if such existed at the point. The
southern curtain wall exists to the level of the rampart walls, but the
foundation only on the other sides. Both gatehouse and keep retain
many important details, particularly the gatehouse which embodies
several features both architectural and military, constituting it one
of the most interesting buildings in Northumberland, taking into con-
sideration its size and the minor importance of the place.
The gatehouse is about 36 feet square on the outside. The entrance,
deeply recessed, is in the centre of its eastern face, and is flanked by
towers, which are carried above the level of the battlement. Above the
entrance is a shield with the arms of Manners, a chief and two bars,
and above it a helm with dagged mantling and crest a bush of feathers.
The entrance was strongly protected by a portcullis, a gate, and prob-
ably a drawbridge. Provision for the latter is suggested by the omission
of the base course, which is carried round the building, but not returned
at the entrance, and by the occurrence of some holes by the side of the
upper floor window which may be associated with the same. Some
building stones, projecting on either side of the entrance, possibly
bonded into the walls of a barbican, although there are no other traces
of a forebuilding. Within the gate the passage has a pointed vaulted roof
carried on six double chamfered ribs. On either side is a guard room 21 feet
in length, 5 feet wide on the south side, and 6 feet 8 inches on the north;
both are ceiled with flat pointed vaults over five double chamfered ribs.
The guard room on the south side was entered by a pointed chamfered
and rebated door and lighted by a small ogee window, which pierces
the vaulting on the south side. The north guard room was entered by
two doors, and lighted by a small pointed chamfered and rebated
» See ag. 23, page 463.
ETAL TOWNSHIP. 465
window. In the north-east angle is a latrine, the broken shaft and
roof stones of which are visible on the north side. Access to the upper
floor is by a straight stair in the thickness of the north wall, the pointed
entrance door being on the western face of the gatehouse. The ceihng
of the staircase is formed of stepped arched ribs. The chief apartment
of the upper floor^ is 22 feet long by 19 feet wide, and is entered by a
doorway with a pointed arch, towards the
landing, in two stones, but flat within. The
room is lighted by three two-light pointed
windows with cusped tracery; the jambs and
muUions are chamfered and rebated for shutters.
On the interior the sofhts of the windows have
segmental arches with chamfered ribs, and on
either side of the recesses are chamfered stone
seats. In the east wall is a cavity for the ,050 ,0 'on to a
-^ . ... T ° TORE BUILDING
portcullis when raised, and on either side of scale or -eet
. . Fig. 24.
the window a chase, on which the chams to
hft the portcullis worked. The room was warmed by a fire in the south
wall. At the south-east angle of the apartment is a vaulted chamber,
7 feet 6 inches by 7 feet 6 inches, lighted by two small ogee headed windows.
A pointed door gives access to the chamber, and a similar door at
the north end of the east wall opens into a passage, lighted by a slit
on the south side, which also commands the entrance below\ There
is a latrine on the north, and at the east end of the passage a flat
pointed chamfered and rebated door. The object of this door, almost
20 feet above the exterior ground level, was apparently to give access
to a forebuilding of sorts, but whether this was a barbican or a plat-
form with boarding we cannot now determine. Evidently it was
combined with some protection additional to the details already enu-
merated, and this emphasises the care and intention of the architect to
provide an effective defensive work. The roof level was reached by a
circular newel stair in the north-east angle of the building, which termin-
ated in a turret, similar to that at the south-east angle, and containing
a vaulted chamber. The parapet was projected slightly at the south-
west corner,- but unfortunately no fragment of the battlements which
• See Fig. 24. ' See fig. 26.
Vol. XI. 59
466
PARISH OF FORD,
surmounted the walls is left. A door in the newel staircase above the
level of the upper floor landing gave on to the rampart walk of the east
curtain wall.
Fig. 25. — Gatehouse, Upper Floor, S.E.
The keep or dwelling-place was a four-storeyed building, and in its
size, plan and interior arrangements resembles the pele at Cocklaw.^ On
the exterior at the ground level it measures 46 feet 2 inches by 32 feet,
with a forebuilding at the east end, 17 feet 6 inches in width by 7 feet
10 inches projection. The interior comprises one large room on each
' N.C.H., vol. iv., p. 182.
ETAL TOWNSHIP
467
floor, and in the upper floor is a small apartment, together with several
mural chambers, as at Chipchase.^
The entrance is at the east end of the keep on the basement or
ground level.- Of the forebuilding only the masonry at this level
is now standing. At a distance of four feet from the entrance door are
the grooves for a portcullis, a feature which occurs at Chipchase, but
is not common in towers of the size of Etal. Opposite the entrance
Fig. 26. — The Gatehouse from the North-west.
is a pointed arched door 3 feet 10 inches in width, leading into the
basement, 39 feet 9 inches in length by 16 feet 9 inches in width. The
basement has a flat pointed vaulted roof with seven double chamfered
ribs. In the south wall is a square locker with rebated jambs for a
door, and in the east wall a small ogee headed slit was the only
provision for light and air. On the right of the passage is a door
* N.C.H. vol. iv. p. 334.
* See fig. 23
468
PARISH OF FORD.
similar to that adjoining it, giving into a circular newel stair 6 feet 3 inches
in diameter. The apartment on the first floor ^ is 31 feet by 18 feet, and
is entered by a pointed door opening off the staircase. It is lighted
by three two-light transomed windows with cusped trefoil heads in one
stone. The openings are rebated for shutters. On the interior the
recesses are covered with a flat segmental arch, and on either side of the
jambs are chamfered window seats. In the north wall is a fireplace
with segmental arched lintel. In the north and south walls are mural
chambers entered by pointed doors, and lighted by small windows with
cusped ogee heads. The ceiling of the southern chamber is of two
eoDM
f*oRE building;
scale of feet
Fig. 27. — Etal Keep.
*ftM-l\NO*LES F-5A
MENSETOEL
arches springing from the end walls and a centre lintel stone. In the
north-east angle is a latrine. A door, pointed to the interior, and with
a flat rere lintel, gives access to a room 10 feet by 7 feet in the fore-
building, from which the portcullis was worked. On the north side
of the small room was a passage or landing off the circular staircase,
which probably at its east end led into the contiguous curtain walk.
The second floor is of the same dimensions as that below, and had
similar door openings. It was lighted by three double-light windows
of similar details to those already described. The fireplace is in the
1 See fig. 27.
ETAL TOWNSHIP, 469
south wall. In the north wall is a mural chamber, and in the south
wall another, which opens off the east jamb of the south window : here
the window seat is omitted. This chamber was lighted by a small
window, and is roofed with a pointed vault. At the springing level are
small corbels on either side. At Chipchase^ there is a chamber in the
same position which was used as an oratory. Opening off the north-east
angle of the large chamber is a latrine, the drain being in the thickness
of the wall. A door in the east wall opens into a chamber over the
forebuilding, the exact shape of which cannot now be determined.
The third floor was slightly larger in size than the others, owing to
the walls being set back from the masonry below. It was lighted by
three double-light windows, as in the lower rooms, and in addition had
a small cusped ogee window near the east end of the south wall. The
chamber in the forebuilding is repeated, but there is only one mural
chamber, which is at the west end of the north wall. At the east end
of the same waU is a latrine over those below. The staircase terminated
in a square tower above the level of the battlements, and was covered
by a ribbed vault, of which the west side remains, but no other fragment
of tower or battlement survives to suggest their shape or character.
Of the south west tower which was small, being only 14 feet by 10
feet 6 inches on the interior, only the basement floor is now standing.
It has a high ribbed pointed vault 13 feet to the crown. On either
side, at 7 feet above the floor, are corbels which supported beams and
possibly a floor, and thus added to the storage area. The tower was
entered by a door in the east wall pointed to the exterior and flat
within. There are two lockers, one in the east and one in the north
wall.
The curtain walls on three sides, the north, east and west, have
been destroyed to the level of the ground ; they were not very massive,
being only about 4 feet 6 inches in thickness, but the south curtain,
which is standing to the level of the parapet walk, is even slighter,
being only 3 feet 3 inches thick. The width of this walk was increased
and carried by oversailing corbels of considerable projection.- The
masonry of good squared stones in courses is of excellent character
throughout. The details of the keep seem earlier m point of date than
1 N.CJJ. vul. iv. p. 3 j^ . ' iJoe ''S- -6-
470
PARISH OF FORD.
those of the gatehouse, possibly the keep preceded, whilst the gatehouse
followed the licence to crenellate.
The Colliery. — The first mention of mining coal in Etal is in the
lease of 1585 of a coal mine there to George Muschamp, doubtless the
owner of Barmoor, Elizabeth his wife and William Selby at a rent of
13s. 4d.^ In 1591 John Ware took a lease of the mine for 31 years
Fig. jS. — West End of Klu'.
at the same rent, but immediately assigned it to George Muschamp,^
who in turn seems to have surrendered it some time before 1618 to
Henry CoUingwood.'^
• Ministers' Accounts, 32 Eliz. — Ford Tithe Case Papers, apiid Mr. W. I. Bolara No. 197 ; P.R.O.
Augmentation Of&ce. Particulars for Leases, Northumberland, File b, Nos. 12, 25.
2 Survey oj the Border, 1604, p. 133.
^ Survey of Etal. 161S — Ford Tithe Case Papers apud Mr. W. I. Bolam, No. ujS
ETAL TOWNSHIP. 47 1
In 1674 William Carr had a dispute with the owner of Gatherick on the
question of boundaries, since the seam was worked on both estates, the
actual situation of the Etal mine within the bounds of Berryhill being
for the first time mentioned. Carr declared that certain boundary
marks and trees had 'lately fallen in and are defaced by reason of
the defendant having dug for coals' in Gatherick, and having driven a
shaft beneath the boundary without putting in supports. Further the
owner of Gatherick or his agents had sunk shafts actually in Berrj'hill
itself, and particularly on the south side of 'Bartram Letch.' In
defence Peter Blackbarrow declared that no workings of his were within
150 yards of the boundary, since he claimed to own the land for some
distance south of 'Bartram Letch.' The result of this action is not
known. ^ Coal continued to be worked in Etal all through the eighteenth
century and down to comparatively recent times. In 1795 Adam
Sibbitt took a lease of the colliery for twenty-one years at a yearly
rent of £350, and later, when it was found that a shaft would have to
be sunk, the fixed rent was reduced to £320 and a royalty added of
25s. per ten after 256 tens had been wrought.'^ Between 1825 and
1828, however, the old rent was restored, and during these three full
working years 19,612 score 12 bolls were wrought, of which 16,753
score 7^ bolls were sold and 2,051 score 9I bolls consumed, the average
selling price being los. per score. ^ The exact date at which the colliery
used to be worked is uncertain.
' P.R.O. Chancery Proceedings, bundle .(59. No. 53.
2 A ten is a measure of coal on which the landlord's rent is paid. It varies considerably, but usually
consisted ot 440 bolls or 48 tons iij cwts.
- Mining Institute, Wilson Collection of Colliery MSS.
472
INDEX.
INDEX
Abberwick, in barony of Roos, 32.
Aberford, Robert de (1367), master of cell at
Carham, 22n.
Acton. Elizabeth, (Widerington), 80 ; Richard,
marriage. So.
Adam. William, grant to, of chantry lands of Ford,
360; R. & T., architects, 417.
Adams, Arabella, (1856), inherits property in
Fenton, 338 ; Thomas (1778), Luckenarks
conveyed to, 276 ; William, executors of, sell
Luckenarks, 276.
Adamson, Isabel, (Walker), 277.
Addanescrok, property in Kilham, 165.
"Adgefrin, " seat of King Edwin, 241.
Aidan, St., St. Cuthbert's vision of, 77*!.
Aids, Feudal : Akeld (1346), 233 ; (1428), 230 n ;
Coupland (1346), 218 ; (1428), 221 ; Etal (1428),
450 ; Fenton (1346), 334 ; (1428), 335 ; Ford
(1346), 369H, 377 ; Hetherslaw {1346), 431,
433 ; (1428), 434 ; Hethpool (1346), 255H, 264 ;
(1428), 265 ; Lanton (1428), 137, 140 ; Money-
laws (1428), 89 ; Presson (1346), 94 ; (1428),
95 ; Wark (1428), 39M, 42 ; Wooler (1346),
315". 326 ; Yeavering (1428), 241.
"Aildunesfot, " on boundary of Trollop, 281.
Aitkin, David, minister of Etal (1789-1851), 367.
Akeld, Robert of, first lord of Akeld, 230 ;
endowment by, 237, 238K ; licensed to have
private chantry, 238 ; Thomas of (1255), 23i« ;
William of (1255), holding of, 214, 222, 229, 230;
agreement with canons, 237H ; holding in barony
of Muschamp, 309.
Akeld TOWNSHIP, 229-40 ; derivation of name,
229« ; census returns, 229K ; in barony of
Muschamp, 214, 241 ; descent of manor, 230-6;
valuation of, 234 ; small freeholds, 236-7 ;
tithes from, 117, 134; tithes of, leased, 118,
119; payment of aid for, 218; service for,
222 ; lands in, mortgaged, 223 ; sale of, 221 ; |
lands in, bequest of, 328 ; the chapel, 237-40 ;
the tower, 240 ; Hill, glacial channels on, 9 ;
Akeld bum, 229.
Akeldstrother, grant of property in, 236 ; possible
identity with Milfield, 243B.
Albany, Duke of, attacks Wark Castle {1522-23),
56, 57 ; invasion by, 105.
Alder, Dorothy, (1674), recusant, 304 ; Elizabeth
(Selby), 174 ; Mary (Reed), 258, 260 ; Ralph
(1536), life tenant in Hetherslaw, 434 ; Thomas,
(1767), sells Marden, 392 ; Wilham (i), marriage
(1685), 393, 437 ; Wilham (2), acquires Beau-
mont Hill, 187 ; sells Marden Demesne (1767),
437-
Aldhun, Bishop, death of (1018), 23.
Alesdon. See Elsdon.
Alexander II. of Scotland, charter of, 191.
Alexander III. of Scotland, marriage, 33 ; captured
by Alan Durward, 48.
"Alk, " towards Shotton, pasture in, 178-9.
Allan, Anne (BurreU), 200 ; Dorothy (Burrell),
igg.
Allen, Cuthbert, vicar of Wooler (1755-79), 295.
Alnwick, railway to, i ; siege of (1462), 43 ; barony
of. 335 i holding in, 447 ; chancellor's visitation
at, 126; abbey of , advowson of Wooler alienated
to, 288, 294 ; shares tithes of Wooler, 290 ;
Fenton church presented to, 330, 332, 333 ;
union of Fenton ^vith Wooler procured by, 289,
331-
Altham, Arabella (Clark), 336 ; settlement of
property of. 338 ; Charlotte (Lewis), 336 ;
property of, 338 ; Frances (Heseltine), 336 ;
property of, in Fenton, purchased, 338 ; Jane
(Bishop), 336 ; property of, purchased, 338 ;
Mary (Surtees), 336 ; Roger, marriage, 336.
Anderson, Ehzabeth (1674), recusant, 304 ; Col.
Francis (1644), retires on Wooler, 304 ; John
Farmworth, incumbent of Carham (1894-1904),
22 ; Patience (Grey), 247.
Andeslowe, John, constable of Wark Castle (1507),
54-
Andrewslaw, property in Kilham, 165.
Angus, Earl of, takes refuge at Wark, (1584),
71. See also Douglas.
Annett, Hannah Eliza (Grey), 247.
Antechester, in manor of Kilham, 170 ; identified
\v'ith Thompson's Walls, 187.
Anterdams, pasture in Carham, 27.
"Anthony's land," farmhold in Howtel, 201;
sale of, 204.
Aquitaine, military service in, 323.
Archana, Archane, reports on damages at Wark
(1544), 63,
Archbold, Henry (1618), holds mortgage on
Kimmerston, 441 ; John, conveyance to, of
property in Ford (1733), 406 ; Nicholas (1533),
tenant in Broomridge, 441 ; Ralph, mortgage
held by (1663). 405, 441 ; Wilham (1722), votes
at election, 199 ; — , marriage, 199 ; — (Grey),
247.
Archer of Kilham, pedigree, 162.
Archer, John (i) (1309), holds land in Downham,
81, 84 ; suit brought by, 161 ; lord of Paston,
170 ; called to warrant, i8om ; John (2), sells
manor of Ivilham (1353), 162 ; Robert (i)
(1290). claims property in Kilham, 160;
property alienated to, 161 ; Utigation with
Kirkham priory. i66 ; sells property in Paston,
180 ; Robert (2) (1332), inherits land in
Downham, 81, 84 ; succeeds to manor of Kilham
161 ; mentioned in charter, 166 ; Thomas,
(i) (1290), holding in KOham, 160 ; Thomas
(2) witness (1317), i88k ; Thomas (3) (1348),
sells property in IVIindrum, 81.
INDEX.
473
Architecture: — Wark Castle, 73-4 ; Coupland Castle,
228-9 : Ford Castle, 414-25 ; Etal Castle, 464-
70 ; Howtel Tower, 209 ; Parson's Tower, Ford.
363 ; St. Michael's Church, Ford, 358-62 ; St.
Paul's Church, Branxton, loo-ioi ; St. Gregory's
Church, Kirknewton, 121-4.
Argyle, Earl of, leads troops at Flodden, 107 ;
defeat of, 108.
Aristotil, Gilbert, appointed to Branxton rectory,
97, lOI.
Armorer, Thomas, marriage, 392.
Arms: — Burrell of Howtel, 199 ; Carr of Ford, 391 ;
Corbet of Lanton, 130 ; Coupland of Coupland,
217 ; CuUey of Coupland Castle, 224 ; Grey,
217 ; Heron of Ford, 378 ; Manners of Etal,
444 ; Muschamp of Wooler, 308, 444 ; Roos
of Wark, 37 ; Strother of Kirknewton, 132.
Arthur, Edward, minister of Etal (1742-52), 367 ;
Hannah (Isaacson), 338.
Arundel, Sir John (i) (d. 1379), holds manors of
Mindrum and Presson, 81 ; holds Kilham,
162, 188 ; owns Antechester, 188 ; holds .\keld,
234 ; holds Trollop, 283 ; expedition commanded
by, 322 ; conveyance by, 323 ; son of, 324)! ;
John (2), Trollop left to, 283 ; trustees appoint-
ed for, 323 ; John (3), Earl of Arundel, 323, 324 ;
Sir Richard (i) (d. 1397), Mindrum conveyed
to, 81 ; Presson conveyed to, 94 ; lands in
Presson held from, 95 ; manor of Kilham sold
to, 162 ; Paston sold to, 171 ; purchases
Antechester, 188 ; purchases Coupland, 221 ;
purchases Akeld, 234 ; Trollop alienated to,
282 ; Heddon held from, 284 ; Wooler alien-
ated to, 322 ; purchases Ford, 377 ; beheaded for
treason, 322 ; Richard (2) (1400), owns Kilham,
161, 163 ; lands mortgaged by, 188, 324 ; holds
Trollop, 283 ; holds estates in Wooler, 323 ; Rich-
ard, (3), in will, 324H ; Thomas (i), Bishopof Ely,
trustee (1379), 323 ; Thomas (2), Earl of .\run-
del, killed at Harfleur (1415). 323 ; WiUiam,
will of, 324.
Ashbourn, John (1358), master of Domus Dei
hospital, 431.
Ashley, Sir John, holds Alnwick for Yorkists
(1463), 43.
Askew of Pallinsburn, pedigree, 438.
Askew, Adam, purchases lands in Crookham
('763). 357. 437; settlement by, 440; sells
Hetherslaw, 410, 435, 439 : Christopher, buys
Kypie (1824), 204 ; George .\dam, buys property
in Branxton (1813), n6 ; buys Marden Demesne,
437 ; Sir Henry, commutation of tithes paid
to (1835), 99H ; owner of Kypie, 205 ; John
(1770), inherits Pallinsburn, 440 ; Watson,
afterwards Robertson, buys Howtel estate
(187 1), 205 ; William Haggerston, inherits
Howtel, 205.
Astley, John, marriage, 404.
Atkiii, Daniel (1718-33), minister of Cheviot Street,
Wooler, 296.
Atkinson, Christian (Davison). 116 ; Jane (CuUey).
224 ; Lydia (Reed). 259 ; Robin (1428), murder of,
380 ; Thomas (1428), damages claimed by. 380.
Aton, Gilbert (1324). grants property in Wooler,
312".
Atterell, Thomas, sells property in Kilham (1342),
168 ; in Paston, 181.
Vol. XI.
Audley, Sir Thomas, wardship granted to (1535),
386, 387.
Austwicke, James, curate of Kirknewton (1578),
126.
Award Bree. See Southfield.
Ayr, Robert (1292), action brought by, 197.
Ayr, sheriff of, leads raid on Branxton, 106.
B.
Babington, pedigree, 404.
Babington, Arthur, marriage, 391, 403, 407 ;
share in Ford Castle, 414.
Bacon, Emma, (1347). claims land in Howtel,
197 ; Isabella, (Carr), 459 ; William (1738),
of Newton Cap, marriage, 28.
Badby, George, succeeds to manor of Hethpool,
257 ; William (1479), holds Hethpool, 257.
Badlesmere, Margery (Roos), 38.
Bagot, Nicholas, murder of, (1363), 220.
BaiUfl's Close, crown land in Howtel, 207.
Baird, John Forster, inherits Beaumont Hill,
187 ; buys Thompson's Walls, 189.
Baker, Francis (1738), of Tanfield Leigh, marriage,
28.
Bakewell, Robert, of Dishley, breeds Leicester
sheep, 339.
Balleny, C.D.W., marriage, 30.
BaUioI, John, Scottish crown awarded to, 49.
Bamburgh, "Ihomas, master of Bolton hospital
(1331), 80; free warren granted to. no, 176;
William of (1342), master of St. Mary's hos-
pital, Wooler, 293.
Bamburgh, held against Yorkists by Grey, 43 ;
settlement of property in, 167 ; David Bruce
imprisoned at, 219 ; castle, constableship of,
374. 384-
Bamburghshire, smuggling in, 383.
Banner, William, vicar of Wooler {1589), 295.
Bannockburn, battle of, (1314), 50, 89.
Barelees Farm, in Crookham, 437, 440.
Baret, Thomas (1296), property in Akeld, 231 ;
William, vicar of Wooler (1341 — ), 294.
Barkas, George. See Sparrow.
Barker, Algernon Prest Bird, incumbent of Carham
(1909-17), 22 ; William, curate of Kirknewton,
(1818-20), I2I«.
Barmoor, English army march past, to Flodden.
106 ; bequest of. 242 ; estate bounds Ford
collierj', 426 ; boundaries of, 457 ; estate of.
470.
Barnard Castle, John of (1363), vicar of Ivirk-
newton, 125.
Barnes, John (d. 1718), minister of Cheviot St.,
Wooler. 296.
Barrow, Gerard (1536), life-tenant in Hetherslaw,
434 ; Robert, Mayor of Berwick, killed in
border fray (1557). 388.
Barton, William de, holding of, in Newton, 15711.
Bartram Letch, marks boundary, 457. 471.
Basker\ill, Thomas (1225), holds moiety of Lanton,
139-
"Bastile, " Lanton. See Lanton Tower.
Batayle, Robert (1256), claims property in Money-
laws, 87 ; William, holds property in Money-
laws, 87.
Bateman, Robert, murder by, at Hetherslaw
(1256), 341.
60
474
INDEX.
Bates, Elizabeth (CuUey), 224 ; Thomas, buys
property in Akeld, 236.
Baxter of Lanton, pedigree, 139.
Baxter, David, (r) (d. 1323), has custody of Wark
manor, 39 ; Moneylaws granted to, 8g ; free
tenant in Lanton, 131 ; property in Kilham,
167 ; property in Shotton, 183 ; tenant in
Howtel, 197; holds Crookhouse, 2ii ; settles
property in Coupland, 216 ; defendant in fine,
226 ; tenant in Wooler, 327 ; tenant in Heth-
erslaw, 433 ; inquest on death of, 139; David,
(2) (1362), holdings of, 135 ; writs against,
136; dispute with Strother, 136, 139, 185, 212 ;
holding in Kirkncwton, 144 ; holds Lanton
tower, 141 ; dower allotted to widow of, 167,
226 ; tenant in Howtel, 197-8 ; Elizabeth,
(1334), sued for rent, 131 ; John, (1589),
defendant in fine, 167, 181, 198, 237, 268; pro-
perty in Wooler, 328 ; Margaret (Blenkinsop),
dower of, 140. 152, ig8, 226; Thomas (i) (1295),
property in Lanton, 39 ; licensed to build oratory,
139. 143 : grant to, of property of Newton
hospital, 151, 152 ; holding in Kilham, 160 ;
dower claimed from, 196, 197 ; suit by,
216; leases property in Crookhouse, 210;
Crookhouse conveyed to, 211; property in
Coupland conveyed to, 215, 226 ; Thomas (2)
(1332), minority of, 89; suit by, for land in
Coupland, 226.
Beale, Ignatius, incumbent of Wooler R.C. Church
(1891), 296.
Beaumont, Charles, marriage, 174 ; Henry, makes
use of Wark Castle (1315), 50; Lewis, Bishop
of Durham (1318), 50; Mary (Selby), 174;
— , marriage, 174.
Beaumont Hill, farm of, 187.
Bechefeld, Richard of (1258), instituted to
Branxton vicarage, 97, loi.
Bedford, Earl of (1565), protest by, concerning
lease of Carham Rectory, 17.
Bek, Anthony, Bishop of Durham, presentation
by (1307), 288K.
Belford, Carinus of, holding in barony of Muschamp
(1254), 309.
Belford, sale of estates in, 278, 316 ; action at
law concerning property in, 307, 318.
Bell, Allison (Grey), 247 ; Anne (Reed), 259 ;
George, minister of Tower-Hill, Wooler (1778-
99). 297 ; George Frederick, buys Thompson's
Walls (1918), i8g ; John (1691), mercer of
Newcastle, 337 ; Thomas (i) (1688), marriage,
260 ; Thomas (2) (1743), marriage, 116 ; William
(1649), buys property in Hethpool, 268 ;
— , buys Mindrum Farm, 83.
Bell, the. See Hethpool Common.
Bellamy, George, marriage, 224.
Bellingham, Alan of, land of, in Akeld (1349),
236-7 ; Robert of, holds portion of Akeld
(1291), 230, 237.
Bellinger, Amy (Blake), 402 ; John, will of (1693),
402.
Bellister, township of, confiscated by crown,
40 ; manor of, claimed, 94«.
Belsay, castle of, 423.
Benet, Robert, patron of Uving of Branxton
(1574). 103-
Bennet, Charles, baron Ossulston, succeeds to
barony of Wark (171 4), 44 ; created earl of
Tankerville, 325.
Berkenstrother, property in Newton, 156, 157.
Bernil, Richard of (1251), rector of Bran.xton,
lOI.
Berrington, property of Etal manor in, 453.
Berryhill, estate in Etal, 455 ; settlement of,
456 ; mine situated in, 471 ; Crag, geology
of, 2, 7.
Bertram, Christine (Roos), 37 ; dower of, 34n ;
— , marriage, 37.
Berwick, William of, purchases property in Kilham
(1344), 168 ; in Paston, 181.
Berwick-upon-Tweed, garrison at, 54, 55, 61, 64 ;
ordnance from Wooler sent to, 50, 72 ; party
from, attacks Scots, 303 ; captured by Scots,
304 ; captured by Royalists, 413 ; mills at,
2I9« ; collection of customs on wool at, 350 ;
tower of, 376; castle, 410; hospital of Domus
Dei at, 431 ; mayor of, arrests malefactors at
Carham, 24.
Berwick, New, glacial lake extending to, 10.
Bigg, Isabel (1694), Crookhouse mortgaged to, 213.
Bigge, Grace (Carr), 460.
Billingham, collection made at, for rebuilding
of Wooler, 292H.
Bingham, raid near, 105.
Bires in Auckland, canonry of, 125.
Birilot, wife of Helyas, grants land in Presson
to Kirkham priory, 92 ; Gregory, son of, confirms
grant, 92.
Biscoe, — , marriage, 402.
Bishop, James, sells property in Fenton (1829),
338 ; Nathaniel, marriage, 336.
Blackbarrow, Peter (1669), in dispute as to
boundaries, 457, 471.
Blackburn, pasture on banks of, 165.
Blackett, John Erasmus, marriage (1761), 261,
262 ; Sarah (Collingwood), 262 ; Thomas (1540),
tithes in Carham leased by, 17.
Black Gate Museum, Newcastle, cross shaft from
Carham preserved in, 26.
Blackhead, Sir John, in conference at Carham
(1,539), 24.
Blackheddon. See Heddon.
Black Heddon, in Stamfordham, 284.
Black Law, "dry" valley near, 9.
Blackstaffrigg, road of, bounds Trollop, 281.
Blair, Thomas, (c. 1725), vicar of Branxton, 103.
Blake of Ford Castle, pedigree, 402.
Blake, Anne (Trevanion), (1717), bequest to,
409 ; Catherine (Howard), bequest to, 409 ;
Eleanor (Howard), bequest to, 409 ; Elizabeth
(Hungerford), bequest to, 409 ; Sir Francis
(i) (d. 1717), purchases West Moneylaws, gi ;
complaint against, in chancery, 114; threats
against, 202 ; bequest by, to Ford schoolmaster,
349 ; presents to living of Ford, 366 ; sued
for tithes of Ford, 355 ; directions in will as to
tithes, 356 : marriage, 391, 403 ; share of Ford
estate, 406 ; acquires remainder of estate,
407-8, 435, 437 ; share of Ford castle, 414 ;
repairs Ford castle, 414, 416 ; acquires Ford
colliery, 425 ; mortgages Kimmerston, 441 ;
redeems mortgage, 442 ; wills of, 408-g ;
Francis (2), death of (1684), 408 ; Francis (3),
INDEX.
475
in entail (1717), 409 ; Francis (4), formerly
Delaval, inherits Ford estates (1717), 409 ;
Francis (5), of Twizel (1738), holds property
in Milfield, 245 ; Sir Francis (6), of Twizel,
landowner in Howtel (1777), 202 ; sells property
in Howtel, 205 ; holds Milfield Ninths, 246 ;
Sir Francis {7), of Twizel, 3rd baronet, will of
(i860), 213 ; Francis (8) {d. 1861), inherits
Crookhouse, 213; Sir Francis Douglas, sells
Crookhouse (1877), 213 ; sells property in
Milfield, 246 ; Kathleen (Grev), 248 ; Mary
(Delaval), 408 ; Robert (i) (1716), of Twizel,
purchases Crookhouse, 213; purchases Milfield
Ninths, 245 ; Robert (2), marriage, 402 ;
WiEiam {1676), mortgages held by. 408.
Blake Lane, drumlin at, 8.
Bland, Susanna, holds mortgage on Akeld estate,
236H.
Blenkinsop, Thomas, marriage (1369), 139, 140,
226 ; wife of, claims dower, 8g.
Blink Bonnie, farm in Hetherslaw, 436.
Bockenfield, grant of free warren in, 375.
Bolbeck, Ellen, alias Alice, (Huntercumbe), 308 ;
Margery (Corbet), 130.
"Bolbenthalme, " included in Crookhouse, 210.
Bolesdon, Henry (1590), lands in Howtel leased
to, 207.
Bolton, Emily (Grey), 248 ; Jasper, marriage, 248 ;
Roger of, land claimed from (1276), 181.
Bolton, in barony of Roos, 32 ; hospital of
(St. Thomas'), advowsons of, 14, 38 ; mill of
Mindrum granted to, 79*!, 80 ; property of,
in Branxton, 104, iii ; rents of Branxton paid
by, 109 ; gift to, of land in Kilham, 159, 166 ;
holds land in Paston, 176 ; master of, claims
suit from Downham, 84 ; claims guardianship,
193 ; collegiate Church of, 112 ; lands held
from church of, 197.
Bolton, castle of, Yorkshire, 417.
Bolton Moor, murder on, 220.
Bonclerk, Annabel, marriages of, 443 ; William
(1275), gift by, of Etal manor, 443.
Bondrick, Emma (1256), claims land in Howtel,
196.
Bonner, Margaret (Carr), 459.
Borendon, Gilbert of, marriage, 378,
Borthwick, Alexander, buys Mindrum Mill, 83.
Boscawen, Margaret (Carr), 456, 459.
Bothwell, Earl of, leads troops at Flodden, 107, 108.
Bothwell Bridge, battle of, 304, 358.
Boucher, John, vicar of Kirknewton, (1802-18),
121, 126; Wilhelmina, buried at Kirknewton,
126.
Boulla Crag, rocks exposed at, 5.
Boulogne, capture of (1345), 412.
Boultby, Dorothy (Askew), 438.
Boulton, William, marriage, 158, 180 ; suit by,
l62«.
Bourne, Alan (1360). parts with property in
Kirknewton, 144, 145.
Bowes, Richard (1540), suit by, 325H ; Sir Robert,
recommendation by (1546), 65 ; letter to, 324 ;
survey by, 66, 69, 188-9 ; see also Surveys.
Bowmont Hill, census returns, I70« ; Union
Meeting Church at, 127.
Bowmont Water, becomes river Glen, i ; deposits
in, 10; possible diversion of , 10, 11; Mindrum
in valley of, 77«, 82 ; Downham on banks of,
84 ; priory lands bounded by, 156, 164 ;
Crookhouse bounded by, 210 ; bridge over,
206 ; enters England at Shotton, 301.
Bowsden, William of. See William of Branxton.
Bowsden, royal grant of, 109 ; in barony of
Muschamp, no, 309; inheritance in, 382;
property of Etal manor in, 453.
Bowsden Dyke, 8.
Bowyer, Sir William, governor of Berwick, 398.
Boyd, James : see Hay ; John, porter at Wark
Castle (1545), 64.
Brabant, John of, visits Ford (1292), 34 in.
Bradford, Eleanor (Wallis), 235 ; Henry (1630),
holds mortgage on Ford estate, 401 ; Lionel
(1655), holds mortgages on Ford estate, 401 ;
Margaret (Jenkins), 407 ; Ralph (i), of Bradford,
marriage (c. 1500), 444 ; Ralph (2), (1655),
inherits mortgages on Ford estate, 401, 403 ;
award to, 401, 405 ; holds mortgage on
Hetherslaw, 435 ; property in Crookham, 437 ;
award to co-heirs of, 407 ; Thomas, holds
mortgage on Ford, 401 ; William, rector of
Ford (1565-75), 365.
Brandford, Rowland, property in Kilham leased
to, 166.
BrandUng, Sir Francis, descendants of, share
tithes of Denwick, 258 ; Ursula (Carr), 391,
394-
Brand's Hill, "foreign" drift at, 9.
Branscombe, Devon, derivation of name, I04n.
Branx Bridge, the, track over moss at Branxton,
106.
Branxholm, Roxburgh, derivation of name, I04n.
Branxton, Adam of (1290), dower claimed from,
196 ; action against, 197 ; Alexander of (1208),
confirms grant, 97, loi, no; lands exchanged
by, no, 192; Anabel of, marriage, no;
Christine of (Marshal), no; Henry of, gift
to Kirkham priory, 165 ; Marcona of (Robin-
son), 434; Matilda of, marriage no; Ralph
of, grant to monks of Durham by, 96, loi,
no; Richard of (1273), Wear of Branxton,
loi ; Theobald of, property passes to, 97,
no; lands exchanged by, no, 192; Walter
of (1269), holds part of Fenton manor, 333 ;
WilUam of, holdings in Bowsden and Branxton,
no; action against, 194, 197.
Branxton Parish, 96-116; ecclesiastical history',
96-103 ; dispute as to ownership, 96-7 ; value
of vicarage, 98-g ; St. Paul's church, 100-01 ;
rectors, loi ; vicars, 101-03 ; geology of
district, 2, 5.
Branxton Township, 104-116 ; derivation of
name, I04« ; census returns, I04n ; Scottish
raids at, 86, 105-6, 343 ; site of battle of
Flodden, 106-9, 427 ; descent of the property,
109-116 ; lands exchanged in, 192; common,
115, 205; holding in, 245; moiety of, passes
to Haggerstons, 275 ; held by lord of Mus-
champ, 309 ; action concerning property in,
318 ; land in, given to St. Mary's Chapel, 432 ;
course of Till at, 9.
Branxton Moor, agates exposed at, 4.
Brasur, Adam le, fined at Hetherslaw (1256),
341-
Bredefordmede, pasture ground in Ford, 351.
476
INDEX.
Brediley, — , innkeeper at Wooler, 303.
Brewster, Thomas (1372), indicted for murder,
220.
Brick-sheds Farm, in Wooler, 325.
Briggs, Leonard, buys Thornington, 163.
Brinkburn priory, presents to chantry of Ford,
359 ; prior of, enquiry' before, 282.
Brittany, duke of, expedition to assist (1379),
Broadstrother, property in Cheviot Forest, 275.
Brodie, Ballantyne, minister of Bowmont,
(1872-82), 127.
Brome, Adam (1364), tenant of Strother family,
136.
Broomridge, vill of, wasted by Scots, 342 ; Ford
estate in, 393, 394, 403, 405 ; sale of, 408 ;
Farm, bounds F'ord colliery, 425 ; Township :
See Kimmerston and Broomridge.
Broomridge Dean, Lower Carboniferous rocks
at, 5.
Brown, Catherine (Blake), 402 ; Henry (1533),
receives annuity from Ford, 386 ; James,
declaration by, 205W ; Thomas (i) (1732),
marriage, 337 ; Thomas (2), owns West Lear-
mouth, 76 ; — , marriage, 30.
Brownrigg, entail of, 396.
Bruce, David, capture of (1346), 218, 219 ;
Robert (i) (1243), malefactors slain by, 342 ;
Robert (2), campaign of Edward IL against,
(1309). 50 ; forfeiture for support of, 312 ;
Ford devastated by, 342 ; Robert (3), buys
farm in Wooler (1913), 326.
Brune, Thomas (1290), dower claimed from, 196.
Brus, Margaret (Roos), 34H, 37, 94 ; sues for
land in Presson, 93.
Bryce, James, minister of Wester Meeting,
Wooler (1830-5), 298.
Buckley, Denis Aloysius, incumbent of Wooler
R.C. Church (1869-91), 296.
Buckton, Ursula (Collingwood, Carr), 391.
Buckton, property of Etal manor in, 453.
Bugg, William, marriage, 30.
Bugthrop, Sir Robert (1387), vicar of Kirknewton,
125-
Bullock, Robert, vicar of Kirknewton (1545-54),
126.
Bulmer, Edward, marriage, 404 ; Stephen,
marriage (c. 1150), 306. 308, 428; holds
Muschamp barony, 442 ; Sir William, attack
on Scots by (15 12), 243.
Burdon, George, purchases Shorthope (1848),
280 ; Walter, Wooler alienated to (1298), 319.
Burell, Emeric, alias Herton, rector of Ford
(d. 1450), 364.
Burleigh, Lord, reproves Governor of Berwick,
302 ; letter to, 395.
Burn, Mar>' (Grey), 247.
Burn Farm, in Pallinsburn estate, 440.
Burrell of Howtel, pedigree, 199 ; arms of, 199.
Burrell, .\ndrew, in entail (1454), 200 ; Ann
Selby, sells property in Howtel (1802), 204;
Benjamin (1694), accusation against, 202 ;
Catherine (Grey, Wake), 245 ; Dorothy, sells
property in Howtel (1802), 204 ; Harriet
Barbara (Gray), 298 ; James (i), of Berwick,
deposition by (1554), 454 ; James (2), marriage
(1620), 134 ; John (i), entails property in Howtel
(1454), 200 ; John (2), in entail (1454), 200 ;
John (3), property in Howtel (1541), 200;
land in Cheviot leased to, 278 ; John (4), pro-
perty in Ho\vtel (1580), 200, 205H, 207 ;
transfers lease, 278 ; owns Howtel tower,
201, 208 ; sells Slaterow, 397 ; John (5)
(c. 1808), sells land in Howtel, 205 ; Martha,
sells property in Howtel (1802), 204 ; Michael
(1694), attack on, 202 ; Ralph (1656),
directions for burial in will of, I22w ; suit by,
245 ; Robert (i) (1454), in entail, 200; Robert
(2) (1618), buys lands in Milfield, 245 ; Roger,
(1454), in entail, 200; Thomas (i) (1427),
prosecuted for trespass, 137 : in entail, 200;
Thomas (2) (1608), property in Milfield, 245 ;
buys Slaterow, 397 ; directions for burial, I2 2n ;
Thomas (3), case against (1657), iign ; Thomas
(4) (17 19). of Broompark, sells Milfield Ninths,
245; William (i) (1454), in entail, 200 ; William,
(2) {d. 1633) inherits Howtel, 201 ; transfers
lease, 278 ; William (3), freeholder in Howtel
(1638-63), 201 ; tithes due from, 120; William
(4), tenant in Howtel (1664), 201 ; William
(5), redeems mortgage (1686), 201 ; attack
on, 202 ; William (6) (1687), dispute over
property in Howtel, 201, 202 ; William (7)
(1719), purchases close in Howtel, 203 ;
directions for burial, 122K ; William (8), pur-
chases Howtel east demesne (1747), 202 ;
property of, sold, 204 ; Burrell family vault,
in Kirknewton church, 122.
Bussey, Jordan (1138), commands garrison of
Wark, 45 ; grant to, of land in Carham, 32 ;
owns land in Learmouth, 75; William (1153),
marriage, 32, 37 ; grant to, of land in Carham,
3-2-
Buston, in barony of Roos, 32.
Bute, Marquis of (1848), buys advowson of
Kirknewton, 121.
Butler, Rev. George, marriage, 248 ; Walter,
receives land in Learmouth, 76.
Butterstone Shank, probable boundary' of Colpin-
hope, 191.
Buttes, the, meadow in Howtel, 206.
Bywell, William, vicar of Branxton (1395-1408),
102.
Cairn Hill, granite formation, 3.
Calais, English army at. 219.
Caldgate, brook, source of, 270.
Caldron Burn, boundary of Presson, 95.
Caley, John, arbitrates in dispute over tithes ol
Carham (182S), 20.
Calverley, Sir Hugh, assists in expedition against
French (1379), 3^--
Cambous, John [d. 1303), marriage, 353, 378.
Camhowe, Walter de, dower claimed from, 183.
Campbell, Henry, marriage, 175 ; Jane (Grey),
247-
Camp Hill, the, 187.
Camp Hill, farm in Hetherslaw, 436.
Campion, Richard (1278), action brought by,
194.
Camp, Prehistoric, on Yeavering Bell, 241.
INDEX,
477
Canno Mill, included in Kirknewton rectory, I
1 19; tithes from, 134; sale of, 155; descent
of property, 155 ; probable identity with
Berkenstrother, 157.
Canterbury, archbishop of {1342), claims ward-
ship, 313.
Capgrave, Robert (1225), holding in Paston, 176.
Caretoun, John, marriage, 130 ; quitclaim by
(1387). 153-
Carey, Amy (Askew), 438; Sir John (1595)
deputy governor of Berwick, 302 ; Lucy (Askew)
438 ; Sir Robert, report by, of raid (1597),
169 ; deputy appointed by, 395.
Cargho, Robert (1216), castellan of Wark, 48.
Carham Parish, 12-95; geology of, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9,
II ; ecclesiastical history of, 12-22 ; rival
claimants to church, 12 ; cell established at,
13 ; valuation of church, 14 ; other chapels
in parish, 15-16 ; dissolution of cell, 16 ; various
grants of lease of rectory, 17 ; endowment of
cure, 18-20 ; church and parsonage house,
20-21 ; incumbents, 22 ; Carham township
in, 22-30 ; Wark township in, 30-44 ; Learmouth
township in, 74-77 ; Mindrum township in,
77-83 ; Downham township in, 83-86 ; Money-
laws township in, 86-91 ; Presson township in,
91-95-
Carham township, 22-30 ; site of, 22 ; derivation
of name, 22B ; census returns, 22n ; Scottish
inroads, 23 ; conferences at, 24 ; descent of
property, 25-30 ; in barony of Roos, 32 ; name
used for Wark, 45, 53« ; stone from, used for
repairs of Wark, 62, 64 ; grant of, to Sir
Christopher Hatton, 26, 76 ; line concerning
property in, 113.
Carisbrooke, imprisonment of king Charles I.
at, 455-
Carleton, John, vicar of Branxton (1367-9),
102.
Carlisle, John WiUiam, incumbent of Wooler
R.C. church (1858-69), 296 ; Nicholas (1347),
in entail, 446.
Carlton, Richard of (1335), inherits property
in West Newton, 154';.
Carlyle, Alexander, marriage (1760), 261, 262.
Carmell's Close, property in Howtel, 201.
Carnaby, John (1569), plaintiff in fine at Carham,
26 ; Reginald (1569), plaintiff in fine at Carham,
26 ; Wilham (1439), wardship granted to, 382.
Carpenter, Adam, holding of, in Branxton, no.
Carr of Etal, pedigree, 459.
Carr of Ford, pedigree, 391 ; arms of, 391.
Carr, Christopher, marriage (17- ), 174; Dan,
of Ferniehirst, raids Branxton (1528), 106 ;
Edward, of Snipe House, in entail (1606), 396 ;
Elizabeth (Blake), 402, 403 ; George (i), costs
paid by (1625), 355«, 365 ; George (2) of Ford
Hill, surrenders lease, 427 ; George (3), son of,
made heir to Etal, 457 ; Gilbert (1638), schemes
in favour of, 398 ; Grace (Alder), 437 ; Henry,
in entail (1606), 396 ; Isabel (i) (Carr), 391 ;
Isabel (2) (Hay), succeeds to Etal, 458 ;
James, owns land in Branxton (1663), 115 ;
tenant in Akeld, 235 ; Jane (Carr), 391, 454.
459 ; naturahsed (1622), 397 ; complaint
against, 398-9 ; claims of, on estate, 400, 403 ;
John (i), captain of Wark (1538), 59, 387, 412 ;
work of, 60-65 ; death of, 66 ; John (2), of
Ford, leases Carham parsonage (1565), 17;
agreement signed by, 390 ; wardship held by,
394 ; John (3), of Bowmer, marriage, 391 ;
John (4), Marden Demesne leased to (1675),
435« ; John (5), marriage, 459 ; John (6),
of Crookham (d. 1708), marriage, 406, 407;
John (7), of Ford, marriage, 247 ; Margaret
(Babington), 403, 404 ; sells share of property
407 ; Mary (Carr, Ogle), 459 ; settlement on,
458 ; Peregrine, death of (1606), 396 ; Ralph
(i), reported sale to, of Downham, 86 ; rents
enjoyed by, 394 ; acts as deputy warden, 395 ;
in entail (1606), 396 ; Ralph (2) (1674),
recusant, 304 ; Sir Robert (i), warden of the
Middle Marches, murder of (1506), 385 ;
Robert (2), in border fray (1557), 388 ; accused
of assault, 393 ; Robert (3), arrested for murder
(1575). 365 i Robert (4) favourite of Jamesl.,
397 ; Robert (5), of Etal, mortgage transferred
to (1637), 397, 454" ; schemes in favour of,
398 ; entail denied by, 399 ; claims estate,
401 ; Etal alienated to, 454 ; royal grant to,
455; migrates to America, 456; Robert (6),
remainder to, 456 ; agrees to cutting of entail,
457 ; Susan (Winckle), 403, 406 ; sells share
of property, 407 ; Thomas (i), succeeds to
captaincy of Wark, 66 ; marriage, 205n, 379,
387 ; attack on servants of, 388 ; defends Ford
castle, 412, 419; murder of (1558), 389, 390,
393 ; Thomas (2), rector of F~ord (1581-97),
365 ; Thomas (3), wardship of, 394 ; marriage,
395 ; second marriage, 397, 398, 454, 459 ;
sells Sunnylaws, 76 ; property in Howtel,
207 ; entail by (1606), 205«, 396, 399, 403 ;
dispute as to tithes. 354 ; sells presentation
to Ford, 365 ; lease surrendered to, 427 ;
mortgages Kimmerston, 441 ; death of, 399;
Thomas (4), inherits Sunnylaws, 76 ; Thomas
(5), succeeds to Ford estates (1644), 399 ;
neglects presentation to Ford, 365 ; mortgages
Broomridge, 441 ; agrees to redeem mortgage,
401 ; award to. 405 ; debts of, 405 ; murder
of, 401, 403, 40S, 455 ; sisters of. Ford castle
divided between, 414 ; coUiery divided between,
425 ; Thomas (6), of Belford, mortgages
Slaterow, 399 ; sells Slaterow, 408 ; claims
to estate, 403, 407 ; agreement by, 405 ; owns
Marden Demesne, 435, 436, 437 ; William (i)
{d. 1589), wardship of, 394 ; marriage, 393 ;
alienates lands in Ho\vtel, 20511 ; appoints
guardian, 395 ; initials of, over door of F'ord
Castle, 416; William (2) of Greenhead (other-
wise Ker), marriage, 391, 397, 454, 459 ;
William (3), of Eshot, in entail (1606), 396 ;
purchases Sunnylaws, 76; Wilham (4), inherits
Sunnylaws, 76 ; William (5), of Hetton, in
entail (1606), 396 ; William (6), estates entailed
on (1606), 396; complaint by, in chancery,
397-8 ; succeeds to estates, 399 ; entertains
Scots invaders, 413 ; William (7), laird of
Lochtown, Covenanters' emissary at Wooler
(1640), 303;WUham (8), of Etal (d.i6SS),
agreement as to tithes, 355 ; estates of, in Etal
and America, 456 ; disputes as to boundaries,
457. 471 ; William (9), of Eshot, marriage
(1682), 134; William (10), of Etal {d. 1715)
478
INDEX.
inherits estates, 457 ; William (11), of Etal,
succeeds to estates (1715), 458.
Carr's Island, plantation in New England, 456.
Carrick, Frederick, purchases Langleyford (1919),
Carter, Robert, tenant in Ford (1294), 352.
Carvell, Captain, account by, of foray (1568),
250.
Caster Tor, occurrence of amygdaloidal bands
at, 3.
Cat, The, by George McGuffie, 367.
Catford Law, purchase of, from Ford estate, 355,
397, 454 : situation of, 396 ; claim to, 455 ;
settlement of, 456.
Caverton, Thomas of (1293), sells land in Paston,
180.
Cayley, Mrs. Beatrice, purchases estates of Carham,
(1919), 20, 28 ; D. L. A. (1919), purchases
property in Cheviot, 275.
Cecil, Sir Robert, reports to, (1601), 395; (1564),
462 ; (1568), 452.
Census Returns : Akeld, 229« ; Branxton, 104M ;
Carham parish, 22H ; Cheviot, 269K ; Colds-
mouth and Thompson's Walls, 187H ; Coup-
land, 214)) ; Fenton (with Wooler), 298H ;
Ford parish, 34in ; Hethpool, 249H ; Howtel,
192H ; Kilham, I58«; Kirknewton, 143";
Lanton, I28« ; Milfield, 243H ; Paston, 170K ;
West Newton, I52« ; Wooler, 298M ;
Yeavering, 241 «.
Ceretoun. See Caretoun.
Cessford, laird of (i), in conference at Carham
(1521), 24 ; blackmail paid to, 83 ; postpones
truce, 151 ; raid by brother of, 250 ; laird of
(2), (Andrew Ker), attack by, on Storeys,
(1595), 172, 302; raid by, on Wooler, 302.
Chadwick, James, incumbent of Wooler R. C.
Church (1856). 296.
Chalmers, Dr. George (1689-1722), rector of Ford,
359, 3f>f> ; gifts of, to church, 359.
Chambard, Robert (1293), master of cell at
Carham, 13.
Chamberlain, George (1533), tenant in Crookham,
436 ; Gilbert (1584), sells Slaterow, 397.
Champion, Richard, rights of, in Coupland mill,
215-
Chandler, Edward, bishop of Durham, visitation
of Branxton by, (1736), 99; report by, 366.
Chapelmede, meadow land in Ford, 372.
Chapman Dean, Scots claim land in, 82.
Charles I., king, grant by, 455.
Charneclyve, wood in Crookhouse, 211, 212.
Charrum, Guischard de, dower claimed from,
183.
Chatton, vicarage of, 22 ; parish, townships
detached from, 290.
Chester, Robert, rector of Ford, (1439), 364.
Chester, Bishop of, advowson of Wooler trans-
ferred to, 289, 295.
Chester, earl of, has custody of Muschamp lands,
307«.
"Chester," on boundary of Trollop, 187, 281 :
See Antechester.
Cheswick, Alexander of, (1336), lands exchanged
by, 445-
Cheviot Township, 268-85 ; derivation of name,
268n ; census returns, 269« ; descent of pro-
perty, 271-281 ; three wards of, 272 ; the two
moieties, 272-4; forest of, 270, 310; Selby's
Forest, 274-6 ; Grey's Forest, 276-81 ; property
of Selby family in, 114 ; tithes of, 119; held by
lord of Muschamp, 309 ; wasted by Scots,
270, 271 ; valuation of, 315 ; lease of property
in, 316; alienation of, 317 ; grant of lands in,
318 ; free chase in, 319 ; Troughburn, 281-4 '•
Heddon, 284-5.
Cheviot, the, granite formation, 3 ; marks boun-
dary of East and Middle Marches, 271.
Cheviots, the, Glendale bounded by, i ; geology
of, 2, 3 ; volcano reconstructed, 4, 6 ; bound
Coupland township, 214 ; overlook Akeld,
229 ; woods on, 269 ; overlook Wooler, 298,
300.
Chevy Chase, ballad, inspiration of, 91.
Chillingham, castle of, residence of Grey family,
54, 69 ; strategic importance of, 301 ; manor
of, mortgaged, 319, 320 ; living of, held in
plurahty, 331, 350.
Chipchase, castle of, 417, 423, 467, 469.
Chisholm, John, vicar of Wooler (1695-1725),
292, 295, 305)! ; Mrs., bequeathes sum towards
Wooler school, 305.
Clapham, Christopher (1509), marriage, 324n ;
resident at Fenton, 335.
Clark, James Graham, purchases property in
Fenton (1829), 336 ; John Graham, marriage,
336 ; John Altham Graham, inherits property
in Fenton, 338 ; Thomas (1564), holds lease
of Carham rectory, 17.
Clarke, Cuthbert, lecturer in natural philosophy,
346 ; Ezekiel, rector of Ford (1600-16), 365 ;
John (1639), incumbent of Carham, 22 ; Thomas,
vicar of Kirknewton (1578-80), 126.
Clavering, Alan, marriage, 80 ; Dame Anne
(i668), holds Duddo, 456; John (i) (1326),
constable of Wark, 51 ; John (2) (16 — ),
marriage, 404 ; Sir Robert (i) (1371), marriage,
139, 227; 2nd marriage, 449; Robert (2), holds
lands in Hethpool (1568), 257: Robert (3)
remainder to (1668), 456; Rev. 'Thomas, incum-
bent of Wooler R.C. Church (c. 1856), 296 ;
William, murder of (1586), 147; — ■ (Carr), 391.
Cleeve, Alexander, vicar of Wooler (1780-1805),
295-
Clennell, Avis (Boulton), i62«; sale contested by,
180; Sir Henry, killed at Piperdean (1436),
91 ; Luke, purchases West Newton estate,
155 ; Percival [d. 1796), will of, 155 ; Percival
Fenwick, (1874), sells West Newton estate,
155 ; Thomas, marriage, 158, 161.
Gierke, Thomas (i) (1290), of Emeldon, marriage,
443 ; Thomas (2), rector of Ford (1577-81),
365 ; Thomas (3), vicar of Wooler (1589), 295 ;
William, slain at Kimmerston (1243), 342.
Clerkes Piece, meadow in Broomridge, 441.
Clesbie, Asculphus (1575), lands purchased from,
316.
Clifford, — , captain of Wark (1543), 63 ; John,
murder by (1363), 220.
Clifton, township of, bounds Trollop, 281.
"Cloh, " the, property in Paston, 177.
Close, John, marriage (1781), ir6.
Clutterbuck, Alice (Selby), 175.
Coal Hill, the, in Ford parish, 425.
INDEX.
479
Coal Mines : — Scremerston coal group, 7 ; Catford
Law, 397 ; Ford Colliery, 409, 425-7 ; Etal
Colliery, 427, 454, 470-1.
Cocklaw, castle of, 423, 466.
Cogerham, Bartram, vicar of Branxton (1574-5).
103-
Coke, Algernon, marriage, 248.
Coldburn, farm of, 262 : Common, 275.
Coldmartin, John of (1313I, punished for attack
on priest, 291.
Coldmarton, burglary at, 15 ; Heath, muster on,
199 ; township, added to parish of Wooler, 290.
Coldsmouth, possible origin of, in Colpinhope,
191 ; Coldsmouth Hill, 191.
Coldsmouth and Thompson's Walls township,
187-191 ; census returns, 187); ; tithes of, 119,
120, 191M, 284K.
Coldstream, Lower Carboniferous rocks at, 5 ;
on course of ancient glacier, 8 ; railway to,
I ; prioress of, complaint by, 57.
Cole, William (1631-40), vicar of Wooler, 295.
College burn, acid dykes in, 4 ; boundary of
Trollop, 187, 281 ; source of, 270 ; bounds
holding in Cheviot, 278 ; in Grey's Forest,
280.
Collingwood, Barbara (Muschamp), 245 ;
Catherine, tithes leased to, 119; Sir Cuthbert
(i) (1586), affray by servants of, 137, 147 ;
lands in Hethpool leased to, 256 ; Cuthbert
(2), Baron, Admiral, marriage (1762), 261, 262 ;
Edward, land in Akeld mortgaged to (1669),
235 ; Ehzabeth (i), (Burrell), 199 ; Elizabeth
(2) (Swinburne), 327 ; George, lease granted
to (1590), 452 ; sells property in Milfield, 245 ;
George L. N., marriage (1816), 261, 263 ; Henry
(i) (1536), tithes leased to, ijn ; constable
of Etal Castle, 461 ; Henry (2) tenant in Etal
(1590), 452 ; in charge of Etal Castle, 462 ;
Henry (3) (1618), sells property in Milfield,
245 ; owner of Sandyhouse, 141 ; tenant in
Etal, 452. 454 ; in charge of Etal castle, 462 ;
leases Etal coal mine, 470 ; Henry (4), of
Heslerigg, maniage {c. 1650), 392 ; Henrj'
(5), (1712), land owner in Bran.xton, 115;
owns Kypie, 204 ; Henry (6), land owner in
Howtel (1777), 202; Henry (7), sells estate
in Branxton, ii6k; sells Kypie (1824), 204;
John (i) (1509) .constable of Etal castle, 461; John
(2), presentation by (1546), 365; marriage, 391;
John (3) (1580), property in Lanton, 141, 142 ;
property in Milfield, 245 ; tenant in Etal, 452 ;
John (4) (1835), commutation of tithes paid to,
ggn ; John (5), property in Bran.xton, 116;
Luke (i), property in Lanton (1663), 141 ;
Luke (2), conveys property in Lanton, 141 ;
Margaret (i) (Carr), 391 ; Margaret (2) (1674),
recusant, 14m ; Mary Patience (Denny), 263 ;
Oswald (i) (1549). bailiff of Etal, 452 ; Oswald
(2) (1590), tenant in Etal, 452 ; in charge of
Etal castle, 462 ; Ralph (1557), summoned
before privy council, 389 ; Robert (i), vicar
of Branxton (1493-99), 103 ; Robert (2), keeper
of Wark castle (1510), 59; tithes leased to,
119 ; Sarah (i) (Reed), 258 ; Sarah (2) (ColUng-
wood), 263 ; Sarah (3) (Howell), 263 ; Thomas
(i), lease granted to (1590), 452 ; Thomas
(2), marriage, 115; William (i) (1346). holding
in Wooler, 326 ; entail by, 327 ; William (2)
(•353). lands entailed on, 327; William (3),
rector of Ford (1546-61), 365; — (1565),
constable of Etal, leases Carham parsonage, 17.
Colman, Thomas, widow of, gives land to Kirkham
priory, 165.
Colpinhope, territory of Kelso monks in, 182,
189-90 : mill of, iqo ; possible origin of Cxilds-
mouth in, 191.
Colpinhope Charter, the, 130.
Colthurst, Robert (1655), leases part of Ford
estate, 401 ; prosecutes for debt, 403.
Colwell, Adam, over-lord of West Newton (1288),
152 ; Ellen, quitclaim by (1322), 152 ; John,
quitclaim by (1334), 152.
Colwell, gift of land in, I28n; portion of West
Newton so called, I52n.
Colyn, Richard (1432), masterof cell at Carham, 13.
Comb Hill, Granite formation, 3.
Common Burn, property in Cheviot, 275.
Commons and Pastures : Branxton common.
115, 205 ; Carham, pastures in, 27 ; Cheviot
Forest, pasture in, 310 ; Coldburn common.
275 ; Colpinhope, pasture in. igo ; Coupland.
pasture in, 215 ; Etal, pastures in, 452 ; Ford
common, 368 ; Ford parish, pasturage in,
351 ; Hethpool common, 260 ; Ho«-tel. pastures
in, 206 ; Howtel common, 202. 203, 204, 205.
243, 436 ; Kilham, pastures in, 165 ; Lanton
or Milfield common, 141, 246; Paston, pastur-
age in, 177-9 ; Shotton, pastures in, 182 ;
Stevensheugh and Newton, pasturage in,
156-7 ; Wark common, 44.
Commutation of Tithes Act (1835), ggn, 290M.
Compton of Carham, pedigree, 29.
Compton, Anthony (i), offers to rent Carham
estate (1717), 28« ; Anthony (2), purchases
Carham estate (1754), 28 ; Anthony (3), inherits
Carham, 28 ; .Anthony (4), will of (1830), 28 ;
Catherine, inherits property in Carham, 28 ;
Isabella, inherits property in Carham, 28 ;
Ralph, inherits Carham, 28 ; acquires Tithehill,
76 ; Hethpool leased to. 262 ; Rev. William,
incumbent of Carham (1796-1843). 22; builds
vicarage at Carham. 21 ; — , dispute over tithes of
Carham (1828), 20 ; family, patrons of Carham, 19.
Condulmieri, Francesco, {d. 1453), bishop of
Porto, rector of Ford, 364.
Conisburgh, Isabel of (Grey). 42 ; Richard of,
created earl of Cambridge (1414), 42.
Consitt, Edward, incumbent of Wooler R. C.
Church (1856). 296.
Constable, Sir Marmaduke, commands division,
at Flodden, 107 ; Sir Robert, letter to, from
privy council (1577), 251.
Conway, John, minister of Wester Meeting, Wooler
(1888-93), 298.
Conyers, Eleanor (Strothcr, Widdrington),
133 : Elizabeth (Darcy), estates of. 278 ; Sir
John (d. 1490). estate of. 109 ; marriage, 253,
316, 430 ; holds moiety of Wooler hospital,
293 ; holds part Fenton. 335 ; John. 3rd Lord
(d. 1557). succeeds to moiety of Cheviot, 27S ;
co-heiresses of, 316 ; WiUiam, Lord (1490),
succeeds to property in Hethpool. 253 ; in
Cheviot. 276, 278 ; in Wooler, 316 ; family,
receive rents of Branxton, 109.
48o
INDEX.
Cook, Dorothy (Carr, Selby), 174; John, tithes
leased to, 119.
Cookeson, Roger, vicar of Branxton (1575-),
103.
Cooper, Jonathan' {1829), marriage, 259 ;
Thomas, vicar of Wooler (1727-47), 295 ;
William (1695), marriage, 29.
Copeland in Auckland, derivation of name, zi^n.
Coquet, agates of the, 4.
Coquetdale, smuggling in, 383.
Corbet of Lanton, pedigree, 130 ; arms of, 130.
Corbet, Christine, marriage, 128, 143 ; confirms
gift, 190; Ehzabeth (Rea, Caretoun), 153;
Isolde, dower of, 131 ; John, marriage, 132 ;
Nicholas (1280), inherits manor of Lanton, 128 ;
confirms gift of Newton Hospital, 151 ; gifts
to Kirkham Priory, 156, 157 ; complaint by,
193 ; Patrick, grants lands of Newton hos-
pital, 151 ; Roger (1330), grants property in
Lanton, 131, 132 ; in Kirknewton, 144 ; leases
lands in West Newton, 153 ; sells property in
Shotton, 185 ; releases rights in Howtel, I98« ;
releases rights in Crookhouse, 211 ; Thomas,
(1286), sues prior of Kirkham, 143 ; Walter
(i), claims right of presentation, 117 ; property
in Lanton, 128 ; grant to monks of Fame, 143 ;
founder of Newton Hospital, 151 : gifts of,
to Kirkham priory, 156 ; gift to Kelso monks
confirmed by, 182, 189; Walter (2), manor
of Lanton conveyed to (1280), 128 ; Walter
{3) conveyance by, of Lanton (1315), 129, 131 ;
leases lands in Kirknewton, 143 ; conveys
property in West Newton, 152 ; implicated
in rebellion, 135, 185 ; William (1288), suit
brought by, 152 ; death of, 129.
Corbridge, Adam of (13.53), prosecution of, 299.
Corbridge, church, chancel windows of, 361 ;
vicar's pele at, 363.
Corby, WilHam (1306), presented to benefice of
Wooler, 286, 294 ; presentation quashed, 287.
Corkledge, Scots encamped at, 244.
Cornage, of barony of Roos, 32 ; paid at Lanton,
136, 185, 198, 212 ; of manor of Wooler, 306;
of barony of Muschamp, 309.
Comforth, Mary (Isaacson), 337.
Comhill, Hugh of, dower claimed from (1242),
183-
Cornhill, former junction of Till and Tweed near,
9, 10 ; Scottish raids at, 105, 343, 344 ; Scots
cross Tweed at, 244 ; curacy of, 103 ; property
in, 383«, 396 ; mortgage on, 401 ; bequest
of property in, 409 ; suit for damage in, 443.
Coroumber. See Carham.
Cosens, — , (Isaacson), 338.
Coteside, sheepfold in Kilham, 164.
Cottage Hotel, Wooler. See Tankerville Arms.
Coucy, William de, lands held by, 2i8h.
Coulson, Arthur Blenkinsop, incumbent of Carham
(1867-90), 22 ; vicar of Branxton (1890-1905),
103.
Coupland of Coupland, pedigree, 217 ; arms of,
217.
Coupland, Agnes (Howtel), T95 ; mill purchased
from, 226 ; David, sued by vicar of Kirknewton
(1293), 125; kinship with Baxter family,
139; suit by, 214; conveyance by, 215, 226;
assessment of, 216 ; Joan (i) (Mautalent),
216 ; claims property in Howtel, 195 ; property
lost by, 218 ; Joan (2) (1365), barony of Wark
leased to, 41, 52 ; fine levied on property of,
153 ; owns Mindrum, 81 ; owns Presson,
94 ; tenant of Strother family, 13O ; Trollop
entailed by, 282 ; sells Kilham, 162 ; sells Paston,
171 ; sells Shotton, 184 ; fine levied by, 196 ;
sells Akeld, 234; sells Antechester, 188; restores
Colpinhope to Kelso abbey, 190 ; sells manor
of Coupland, 221 ; manor of Wooler confirmed
to, 321 ; alienates manor, 322 ; sells Ford,
377 ; holds over-lordship of Hetherslaw, 431,
433 i (s^s ^Iso Lanton, Joan of) ; John (i)
claims lands in Coupland (1277), 214 ; John
(2), suit against (1300), 216 ; Sir John (3)
{d. 1363), resides at Wark, 41 ; buys
property in Mindrum, 81 ; buys Kilham, 162 ;
buys Paston, 170, 179 ; property in Shotton,
184 ; Ruttok wood granted to, 145K, 153 ;
Antechester entailed by, 188 ; Colpinhope
presented to, 190 ; property in Howtel granted
to, 195, 198; purchases land in Howtel, 196;
claims Coupland, 216 ; gift to, of lands in Akeld,
233, 238 ; lands of, in Hethpool, 2j^n, 264,
265 ; property in Wooler leased to, 3I2« ;
acquires moiety Muschamp barony, 3I5« ;
acquires moiety of Wooler, 321 ; applies for
dues from Ford, 376 ; Ford held from, 377 ;
overlord of Etal, 447 ; takes prisoner David
Bruce, 218 ; service under crown, 219 ; murder
of, 220, 227 ; buried in Carham church, 14 ;
Nicholas (1285) lands purchased from. 215 ;
Robert, suit against (1274), 214 ; Sampson
(i), leases lands to Kirkham priory, 214 ; Sampson
(2), lease confirmed by, 214 ; Sampson (3),
lands alienated to, 214 ; Simon, surety given
for (1302), 102 ; holding in Howtel, 195 ;
succeeds to estate, 216 ; suit against, 226 ;
claims to estate of, 218; Stephen, holding in
Hethpool (1212), 252, 266; William de (1256),
suit by, 196 ; family, chapel of, in Kirknewton
church, 123.
Coupland township, 214-229 ; derivation of
name, 214K ; census returns, 214H ; descent
of manor, 214-225 ; in Muschamp barony,
214, 229, 241; tithes from, 117, 119; holdings
in, 233, 235 ; valuation of manor, 234 ;
possibly contained part of Milfield, 243 ; the
mill, 215, 221, 222, 226-7 • freeholders.
226-7 '' ttis castle, 227-9 ; course of glacial
lake past, 10.
Covenanters, expedition against, 72.
Coventry, Robert (1320), conveyance by, of
manor of Denum, 85K.
Coxon, Matthew, (1677), recusant, 304.
Crabbe, Peter, sells holding in Paston, (1453),
170.
Crackenthorpe, Anne (Askew), 438.
Craig, James Ayton, minister of Crookham
(1864-93), 368-
Cramlington, John of, Proof of Age of, 102.
Cramond, Robert, minster of Etal (1765-76), 367.
Cranstoun, Anne (Selby), 173.
Craster, John (1638), claim supported by, 399.
Crawford, John, vicar of Branxton (168 r — ), 103.
Crawford, earl of, leads troops at Flodden, 107 ;
slain in battle, 108.
INDEX.
481
Creagh, Margaret (Isaacson), 337.
Creighton, Patrick, minister of Wester meeting.
Wooler {1755-76), 297.
Crenehalwe, pasture in Killham, 165.
Cressingham, Sir Hugh (1304), expedition of,
to Scotland, 350.
Cressop, William of (1364), vicar of Kirknewton,
125-
Crests: Burrell of Howtel, 199 ; Sir John Coupland,
217, 2i8m.
Creswell, John (1386), land in Akeld granted to,
238 ; property in Wooler granted to, 323.
Crodyn, Ralph, holding of, in Crookham (1299),
373-
Cromer, Alexander (1851), minister of Crookham,
368.
Crookham, Gilbert of (1290), proceedings against,
443 ; Walter of (1275), marriage and divorce
of. 443.
Crookham township, 436-40 ; derivation of
name, 43614 ; descent of property, 436-40 ;
Pallinsburn estate in, 439-40 ; census returns.
34 1 H ; assessment of, 264, 341 ; held from
lord of Hethpool, 263, 266 ; included in manor
of Ford, 377, 382, 393, 394. 396, 405 ; in
barony of Muschamp, 369 ; free warren granted
in. 374. 373 ; dower from. 371, 372-3 ; tithes
for, 356 ; sale of property in, 246, 357 ; con-
veyance of lands in, 370, 406 ; mortgages on,
401. 403. 407. 408 ; vill of. fined, 342 ; pre-
sented in court, 344 ; devastated by Scots,
342 ; meeting place for borderers, 344 ; fray
near, 358 ; centre of presbyterianism, 358 ;
Presbyterian church, ministers of, 368 ; course
of Till from, 9, 10 ; moor, position of EngUsh
army on, 106 ; Demesne, in Ford estate. 439 ;
Ridge, in Ford estate. 440 ; Westfield, dolomite
near. 5, 344 ; purchase of, 439.
Crookhouse, township, 210-213; tithes of, 119.
120 ; holding in. 135 ; property in. 197 ;
descent of the property, 210-13 i census returns.
210K ; derivation of name. 2iok; site of pond
in, 193-
Crosby, Dorothy, bequest to (1717). 409.
Croyde, John (1317), sells land in West Newton,
I54«.
CuUey of Coupland Castle, pedigree, 224 ; arms
of. 224.
Culley. George, agriculturist, 246. 339 ; farms
Fenton, 339 ; Matthew (i) (d. 1804), purchases
property in Akeld, 234 ; farms Fenton, 339 ;
award to. from tithes of Wooler, 290K ; Matthew
(2), Coupland mill conveyed to (1827). 222 ;
succeeds to property in Akeld, 236 ; Thomas
K., owner of Newton Tors. 150 ; of Yeavering.
243 ; the Very Rev. Monsignor, of Coupland
Castle. 243.
Cuthbert. St., Carham church dedicated to, 12 ;
miraculous cure by, 251! ; grant to, by king
Oswin, 77«, 183M.
Cuthbert. William (1774). buys Little Shotton, 187.
Cynemaer, derivations from name, 440«.
D.
Dacre, Christopher, draws up Plat of Castles (1584),
82, 169H, i7in, 189, 228, 250, 271, 330 ; Edward
Vol. XI.
(1541), in entail, 3i7n ; George (1541), in entail,
3i7« ; Leonard (1562), holds moiety of Cheviot,
274, 279H ; outlawry of, 317 ; SirThomas (1504.)
advowson of Ford alienated to, 349 ; William,
Lord, and Greystoke, (1541), property in Wooler
alienated to, 317 ; — , Lord, in conference at
Carham (1521). 24: Wark castle restored by.
54. 58 ; in command against Scots at Wark. s'O ;
tower of. at Rockcliff. 82 ; fortifies Branxton.
105 ; commands division at Flodden, 107. 108 ;
mans Lanton tower, 142 ; proposes to fortify
Akeld tower. 240 ; and Wooler tower. 329 ; des-
cription of Wooler, 300 ; visits to Etal castle,
462.
Dagliss. Jock, shepherd, killed in border reprisals
(1595). 302-
Dallas, Fredericka (Askew), 439.
Dalleston, Robert, vicar of Branxton (1426-38),
102.
Dalston, Sir Charles, marriage, 402.
Dalton, Henn,'. vicar of Branxton (1364-7), 102.
Dalzell, Sir John B. W., marriage (1894). 439.
Darcy. Alice, guardianship of, 315; Sir Arthur, in
command at Ford castle, 4 12: Elizabeth (i), widow
{d. 1412), holding in Hetherslaw, 430 ; Elizabeth
(2) (Strangways), inheritance of. 253. 27811. 316;
minority of (1428), 265; inheritance in Hetherslaw,
430 ; John (i), marriage (12 — ), 378 ; John (2)
{d. 1356), marriage, 314 ; John (3I, fine endorsed
I>y (1337). 374" ; John (4) (d. 1412). conveyance
by. 315 ; Sir John (d. 1454). property in Heth-
pool. 253 ; Margaret. wdow {d. 1454), holding in
Hetherslaw. 430 ; dower of. 300 ; Margery
(Conyers), inheritance of, 253. 278H, 316 ; min-
ority of. 265 ; inheritance in Hetherslaw. (1419)
430 ; PhiUp (i). {d. 1399). property in Hethpool,
253 ; holds advowson of Wooler hospital, 293 ;
guardianship of, 315 ; property in Wooler held
from, 327 ; Philip (2), estates settled on, 315 ;
property in Hethpool, 265 ; property held from,
381 ; co-heiresses of. 253. 434 ; Thomas (i)
(1412). estates conveyed to. 315 ; Thomas (2).
Lord (1509), created constable of Wark and
Chillingham. 54 ; Thomas (3) (1582), sells moiety
of Cheviot, 276 ; family, receive rents of Branx-
ton, 109.
Darel, Sir Edward, constable of Wark (1314), 50.
Darling. Elcanor(Culley). 225 ; Isabella (Compton),
30; James, marriage (1803), 224; Oliver
Warner, incumbent of Carham, (1890-94) 22.
D'Aussi. Seigneur, leads troops at Flodden. 107.
David, king of Scotland, besieges Wark. 44. 43.
Davidman, Adam (1349), grants freehold in Akeld,
236.
Davidson, Elizabeth (Askew). 439 ; John (i). of
Newcastle (1795), buys advowson of Kirknewton,
121 ; John (2) of Otterburn (1828). hving of
Kirknewton in gift of, 120 ; John (3), minister of
Bowmont (1882-95), 127 : William, owner of
East Lcarmouth, buys Tithehill, 76.
Davison of Branxton, pedigree. 1 16.
Davison. Alexander (i). rector of Ford (1677-S9),
366 ; sues patron for tithes. 355 ; Alexander (2),
buys property in Lanton (i7(>2). 138; property
exchanged by. 141 ; buys Thompson's Walls,
189 ; buys property in Ho«-tel, 204, 205 ; Alex-
482
INDEX.
ander (3), monument erected by, 138 ; George,
of Hopeton, marriage, 187 ; Hugh Percy, sells
Howtel estate (1847), 205 ; John {d. 1827),
succeeds to property in Lanton, 138 ; Ralph
(1712), landowner in Branxton, 115; William
(i) (1805), sells property in Branxton, 116 ; Sir
WiUiam (2), of Swarland, (d. 1873) succeeds to
Lanton, 138 ; buys Sandyhouse, 141 ; — , of
Swarland, owns porch of Kirknewton church,
122 ; — , marriage, 174.
Day, John, assault upon (1364), 140.
Deanbuts, arable in Carham, 27.
Deanham, in Hartburn, conveyance of manor,
85«.
"Dedrygh," pasture-ground in Ford, 351.
Delaval, Alice (Whitchester, Manners), 444, 449 ;
Edward, marriage, 402, 408 ; Francis
(afterwards Blake), heir to Ford estate, 408-09 ;
(and see Blake) ; James Blake (1735), owns Ford
estate, 408; John, pays tax for Howtel (1760),
205M ; John, Lord, -will of (1806), 205, 410 ;
expenditure by, on Ford estate, 346 ; Sir John
Hussey, landowner in Howtel (1777), 202 ;
lands in Crookham bought from, 357 ; restores
Ford castle, 416 ; purchases Hetherslaw, 435,
439; Margaret (Strother), 134, 148, 213; Sus-
anna Elizabeth, baroness, presents to living of
Ford, (iSii), 366; Thomas (1763), supervises
restoration of Ford castle, 416-7.
Denison, William {d. 1834), inherits moiety of
Fenton, 338.
Denny, Anthony, marriage (1817), 261, 263 ;
Anthony Collingwood, inherits moiety Hethpool,
263 ; Cuthbert Colhngwood (1879), sells Heth-
pool, 263.
Denton, Henry, inquisition on death of (1627),
256 ; John, of Cardew (1596), owns portion of
Hethpool manor, 256 ; J. (15 — ), tithes in Car-
ham leased by, 17.
Denum, Constance, in entail, 85 ; John of (1324),
property of, in Downham, 84, 85 ; rent paid to,
85K ; Richard, in entail, 85 ; Thomas, in entail,
85 ; William of, (1320) manor of Denum, con-
veyed to, 85«.
'Denum.' See Deanham.
Denwick, tithes of, 258.
De Pledge, William, marriage, 248.
'Derecestre,' identified with Antechester, 188.
Derenzy, William, marriage, 174.
Despenser, Adam, tenant, in Akeld (12 — ), 237 ;
Gilbert (12 — ), holding of, in Branxton, no;
Hugh, cattle of, seized at Presson (1296), 93.
Desse, French general, attacks Ford (1549), 413.
Detchant, Thomas of, holds portion of Akeld
{1291), 230.
Dichend, Henry of, holding in Muschamp barony
(1254), 309 ; Hugh of, holding in Etal, 442.
Dickson, Sarah (Askew), 439.
Didensale, Thomas, vicar of Wooler (1370), 294.
Dilston, castle of, 425.
Dirlond, Walter, vicar of Wooler (1332), 294.
Dissolution, the, of the Monasteries, 16, 18, 26, 98,
III, 118, 166, 179, 207, 238, 290, 331, 332, 431 ;
of the Chantries, 360.
District Church Tithes Act (1865), 20.
Dixon, John, attacks Ford castle (1357), 388.
Dobson, John, architect, restores church of Ford
(1S53). 360 ; Margaret (Grey), 247.
Dobun, Agnes (1290), dower claimed from, 196.
Dodd, Randall, curate of Kirknewton (1578), 126.
Doddington, bastel house at, 169 ; chapelry of,
290 ; manor of, entailed, 325 ; Fenton merged
in parish of, 331 ; poor of, bequest to, 336.
Domus Dei, hospital of, acquires property in
Hetherslaw, 431.
Donaldson, Thomas, marriage (1791), 174.
Doncaster, execution of Sir Ralph Grey at, 43.
Douglas, William, earl of Angus, in battle at Piper-
dean, (1436) 91.
Dovehouse, the, property in Etal, 452.
Downham, Robert of, leases lands in Downham
to Roos family, 78.
Downham township, 83-86 ; derivation of name,
83« ; census returns, 22K ; descent of manor,
83-86 ; in barony of Roos, 32, S3 ; property in,
77, 81 ; originally in Kirknewton parish, 12,
15 ; grant of tithes of, 17 ; attacked by Scots,
85, 106 ; on former course of Bowmont water,
10, II.
Drake, Jane, Canno Mill left to (1723), 155 ;
Thomas, marriage, 155 ; — , vicar of Norham,
report by (1725), 20, 99, 356, 362.
Dribecks, John, vicar of Wooler, (1372) 294.
Dring, Eva, claims dower in Hethpool, 267 ;
William (1313), tenant in Wooler, 319.
Drury, Sir William (1568), trouble with Scots in
Cheviot, 271 ; leases property in Etal, 452.
Duddo, dispute as to boundary of, 456.
Duddo Mill Burn, marks boundary, 456, 457.
Dun limestones, quarrying of, 8.
Dunbar, Patrick, Earl of, dispute concerning fish-
pools, 14 ; seizes Derecestre, 188 ; William (son
of Patrick), marries heiress of Lanton, 128, 130,
143 ; grant by, to monks of Kelso, 182, 190.
Duncan, Henry, marriage, 247.
Dunlop, W. L., minister of Etal (1920 — ), 368.
Dunsdale, property in forest of Cheviot, 275.
Dunstanburgh, lead fetched from, for repairs at
Wark, 58.
Durham, John, vicar of Branxton, (1408-16), 102.
Durham, bishops of : — Aldhun, death of (10 18),
23; Ranulf Flambard (1099-1128), mentioned
in charter, I2w ; dispute with, 306 ; Hugh
Puiset (1153-95), confirms grant to Kirkham
priory, 15, 92*1 ; reference to, 124 ; [Philip of
Pictavia (i 195-1208)], confirms Branxton to
monks of Durham, 97 ; Nicholas of Farnham
(1241-49), decree of, 97; Walter Kirkham
(1249-60), allocation confirmed by, loi ; grant
confirmed by, 117 ; Robert de Insula (1274-84),
confirms grant, gyn ; Anthony Bek, presentation
by (r307), 288n ; [Richard Kellaw (1311-
13 18)], agrees to union of Fenton with Wooler,
289, 331 ; grants church of Ford, 363 ; decides
on dilapidations of Ford, 353 ; Lewis Beaumont
(13 18), appointment of, 50 ; [Richard Bury
(1333-45)], ordains to chantry of Ford, 359 ;
[Thomas Lanley (1406-1438)], trial before, 13 ;
wardship held by, 383 ; [Cuthbert Tunstall
(1530-1559)], arbitration by, 389 ; Edward
Chandler (17^0-50), visitation by, 99 ; report by,
366.
Durham, Earl of. See Lambton.
INDEX.
483
Durham, dean and chapter of, advowson granted
to, 98, 99 ; lease held from, 224.
Durham, monks of, church of Carham granted to,
12, 25 ; claim renounced by, 13 ; church of
Branxton granted to, 96, 97 ; claims of, to
Newton church, 117; gift to, of lands in Hethers-
law, 306 ; claim to Hetherslavv disputed, 428 ;
prior of, arbitration by, 381,
Durham, school of, loi.
Durnford, Richard, marriage, 175.
Durward, Alan, assumes government of Scotland
(1255), 48 ; takes refuge at Norham, 49.
'Dynchonsland,' property in Lanton, 140.
Earl, added to parish of Woolcr, 290, 331.
Earle, Mary (Pinkerton), 204.
Easington, sale of estates in, 278.
Eche, Adam, vicar of Wooler (1564-77), 295.
Edinburgh, sacking of, 63 ; castle of, 319 ; bells
refounded at, 359.
Edington, David, landowner in Howtel (1663), 201,
Edlingham, Adam of, rector of Wooler (1254 — ),
293-
Edlingham, inquiry into vicarage of, 125 ; robbery
at, 249.
Edminston, Alexander (1631 — ], rector of Ford,
365.
Edmonds, William Hutton, minister of Crookham
(1852-62), 368.
Edmonston, Richard (1344), forfeits messuage in
Hetherslaw, 431.
'Edmundeschale,' gifts of land in, 177, 178, 179.
'Edredsete,' boundary of Colpinhope, 191.
Edward I., king, inquiry into liberties by, 26 ;
visits Wark castle, 49 ; visits Ford, 341.
Edward II., king, marriage of, 24 ; charter con-
firmed by, 25« ; visits Wark, 50.
Edward III., king, visits Wark castle, 52?! ; grant
by, of Moneylaws, 89 ; grant confirmed by, 117 ;
methods of raising money, 448.
Edward VI., king, dissolution of chantries by,
360.
Edward, the Black Prince, in Aquitaine, 323.
Edward, Syreda, suit by, 268.
Edwin, king, seat of, at 'Adgefrin,' 241.
Egerton, Raleigh G., marriage, 439.
Egfrid, king of Northumbria, presents Carham to
S. Cuthbert (674-5), -5-
Egglescliffe, collection made at, for rebuilding of
Wooler, 292«.
Ekkylde, John, tenant in Broomridge (1533), 441.
Eleanor, queen of Edward I., reward for service to,
312.
Eligar, Ralph, in border fray (1526), 392.
Elizabeth, queen, grant by, of Carham rectory
and tithes, 26 ; orders survey of Wark castle,
68.
EUerker, Sir John (1545), commandant of Ford
and Etal, 412, 461 ; Sir Robert, tithes leased to,
119 ; letter from, 324 ; inquiry by (1557),
388 ; William, constable of Wark castle, 56, 58 ;
deserts Wark castle (1522), 56.
ElUson, Henrietta (Isaacson), 337 ; Henry, mar-
riage (1779), 337 ; Rev. Nat., marriage (1691),
337-
Elphinstone, Guy, killed at Piperdean (1436), 91.
Elsdon, united with Trollop, 283, 284 ; seisin of,
given, 307«.
Elsdonburn, Coldsmouth joined with, 191 ;
valuation of, 280.
Elterburne, bounds forest o£ Cheviot, 270.
Elwyk, Gilbert (1354), prosecution by, 299.
Ely, bishop of, appointed special commissioner
(1558), 390.
Embleton, Isabella (Reed), 259.
Embleton, parish, farm in, 203 ; barony of, — ex-
changed, 332 ; grant of, 333 ; Fenton incor-
porated in, 334.
'Emdilau,' gift of land in, 177.
Emeldon, Agnes (Graper), 80, 132 ; Christine
(Plumpton), dower of, 80, 81 ; Jane (Clavering.
Stryvelyn), 80, 81 ; Maud (Acton), 80 ; Richard
(i^- 1333). holds moiety of Mindrum, 80; holding
in Wooler, 327 ; Robert, appointed to living of
Wooler (1312), 288, 294.
Encampment. See Camp Hill.
Enclosures: Branxton Common, 115; Howtel
Common, 202, 205, 436 ; Lanton Common, 141,
245 ; Wark Common, 44.
Enclosure Act, the (1799), 44.
Eresby, Lord Willoughby de, warden of East
Marches (1600), 269.
Errington, George, marriage (1665). 404 ; Gilbert,
marriage, 404.
Errol, Earl of, leads troops at Flodden, 107 ; defeat
of, 108. See also Hay.
Eryn, Robert, rector of Wooler (1313), 289, 294.
Escrick, William of, appointed to benefice of
Wooler, 287, 294.
Espec, Adeline (Roos), 32 ; Albreda (Traille), 32 ;
Hawise (Bussey), 32, 75; Walter [d. 1153),
grants Carham church to Kirkham priory, 12,
25, 26 ; grants Ne%vton church to Kirkham Priory,
117 ; barony granted to, 31 ; owns Wark castle,
45, 46 ; holds Moneylaws, 86 ; holds Paston,
170 ; lands inherited from, 15 ; gift for repose of
soul of, I59».
Espeley, WilUam, vicar of Branxton (1314), 102.
Espley, grant of free warren in, 375.
Essays on subjects Moral and Divine, by William
Sawers, 368.
Etal TOWNSHIP, 442-71 ; derivation of name,
442« ; census returns, 34IH ; descent of manor,
442-460 ; in Muschamp barony, 442 ; valuation
of manor, 447, 450, 453 ; manor of, conveyed
to crown, 167, 452 ; manor of, lands in Howtel
belonging to, 207 ; estate, Catford Law included
in, 396-7 ; estate, bounds Ford colliery, 425 ;
tithes of, 455 ; tithes of, leased, 356 ; chapel of
S. Mary, III, 112, 360, 362, 432, 446; Presby-
terian church, ministers of, 366-8 ; the castle,
417, 419, 423, 451, 460-70 ; acquired by Crown,
412, 461 ; border stronghold, 340, 410 ; raid on,
380 ; King James IV. at, 411 ; fishing at, 452,
453 ; mills of, 443. 446, 447, 448. 452, 453, 454.
455. 456 : colliery, 7, 427, 454, 470, 471 ; Berrj'-
hill estate, 455 ; geology of district. 2. 5 ; situa-
tion on Till, 451 ; character of Till valley at,
9, lo.
Etal, New, burnt by Scots, 451 ; position of, 451 ;
leases of property in, 452, 453, 455 ; settlement
of, 45C, 458-
484
INDEX.
Ethelburga, queen, at 'Adgefrin,' 241.
Eugenius the Bold, king of Strathclyde Br>-thons
, (1018), 23.
Eure, Sir William, reports from (1541, 1542), 250,
412.
Eustace, William, son of (1293), takes sanctuary
at Mindrum, 15.
Everingham, Robert (d. 1316), marriage, 313.
Evers. See Eure.
Ewart, John of, holding in Hethpool,vi293), 263 ;
Matthew, life-interest in lands in Carham
bequeathed to (1589), 27 ; Ralph, bequest to
(1589), 27 ; Sanders, bequest to (1589), 27.
Ewart township, joins Coupland farm, 222«;
Fenton incorporated with, 298H ; property of
Etal manor in, 453.
Ewart, lake, origin of, 9, 10.
Ewsden, property in forest of Cheviot, 275.
Exeter, Thomas, Duke of, divorce of, 445.
Exeter, S. Olave's church at, 19, 21, 30.
Eyre, Ida, grants land in Learmouth, 76 ; Robert
{1291), holds land in Learmouth, 76 ; in Presson,
93 ; William (1310), free tenant in Presson, 94.
F.
Faber, Alexander, holding of, in Branxton, 110.
Farmery, Rev. William, incumbent of Wooler
R.C. church {1858), 296.
Fame, monks of, rent from Newton granted to,
143-
Farnham, Nicholas of. Bishop of Durham (1241),
decree of, 97.
Farquharson, James, marriage (1792), 459.
Fawcett, property in Grey's Forest, 280.
Fawcus, Anna JMaria (Grey), 248.
Felbridge, Adam, vicar of Branxton (1664-81),
22, 103 ; incumbent of Carham (1679-1701), 22 ;
John, incumbent of Carham (167 1-9), 22.
Felton, Robert (1316), grant to, of property in
Akeld, 232.
Felton, parish, landowners in, 392.
Fenrother, grant of free warren in, 375,
Fenton, Walter of, holding of (1269), 333.
Fenton township, 330-40 ; census returns, 298H ;
descent of the property, 332-9 ; agricultural
revival at, 339 ; the Tower, 339-40 ; presby-
terian church at, 368 ; ecclesiastical history,
330-2 ; living held in plurality, 350 ; incor-
porated in parish of Wooler, 96, 289, 331 ;
separated from Wooler, 290, 331 ; incorporated
with Ewart, 298)!.
Fenton Hill, sandstone crags near, 7.
Fenton march, bounds Broomridge, 442.
Fenton Will, Lower Carboniferous rocks at, ,5.
Fenwick, Christopher, commutation of tithes paid
to (1835), 99M ; estate of, in Branxton, iiGn ;
George, marriage, 404 ; Sir John (i), property
in Akeld assigned to, 233?! ; property in Heth-
pool, 256 ; marriage, 327 ; John (2), of Gunner-
ton, sued for debt {1413), 364 ; Sir John (3),
marriage (1604), 167 ; Sir Ralph, seeks charge
of Wark castle, 58 ; Roger, roj'al grant to (1510),
109 ; Thomas (1833), inherits West Newton
estate, 155.
Feodary's Book, the, (1568), 274, 279.
Fermory, Richard (1301), action brought by, 26.
Feud, Thomas (1301), damages claimed from, 374.
Fisheries : at Etal, 452 ; at Howtel, 193, 194 ;
on the Tweed, 14, 39 ; at Tweedmouth, 383K ;
at Twisilburn, 206.
FitzAlan, Isabel (Lascelles, de Rothbury), 334 ;
Roald, marriage, 334.
FitzClarence, Lady Augusta, succeeds to Etal
{1869), 458 ; builds chapel at Etal, 362 ; Lord
Frederick, marriage, 458 ; chapel to memory of,
362,
FitzDuncan, William, attacks Wark (1138), 45.
FitzHumphrey, Adam, dower claimed from (1290),
196.
Fitzjohn, Eustace (1139), Paston granted to,
170 ; William, marriage, 308.
Fitzjues, Adam (1291), rent claimed from, 197.
FitzRoger, Robert (1300), in command at Wark,
50 ; inquisition of, i84n.
FitzStephen, Sampson, holding of, in Muschamp
barony, 309.
Flambard, Ranulf, bishop of Durham, I2h ; dis-
pute with, over manor of Ross, 306.
Fleehope, property in Grey's Forest, 280 ; Burn,
in Cheviot, 278.
Flixburgh, William (1371-81), rector of Ford, 364 ;
conveyance to, 433.
Flodden township : see Hetherslaw and Flodden ;
, bounds Howtel estate, 205 ; East and West,
Ford estate in, 403, 405 ; property in, 437« ;
mortgage on, 401, 408 ; tile works, 436 ; clay
at, 9.
Flodden Edge, allotment from Ho%vtel common,
436 ; Scots army encamped on, 343.
Flodden Field, battle of, 243, 250, 385, 411, 419;
notes on, by vicar of Branxton, 103 ; descrip-
tion of, 106-9.
Flodden Hill, entail of, 396.
Florison, John (1328), accounts required from, 445.
Ford, Isabel (d. 1254), share of Hethpool property,
252, 267K ; share of Cheviot, 272 ; advowson
of Wooler held by, 286, 287 ; marriage, 307,
308; inheritance of, 310, 369; property in
W'ooler, 329 ; owns advowson of Ford,
349 ; inherits Hetherslaw, 428, 429 ; death of,
309; heirs of, 311, 318, 430; Mary, suggested
marriage of, 370 ; Odinel (i), holds portion of
Hethpool manor (1212), 252, 263 ; holding in
Muschamp barony, 309, 369 ; royal grant to,
370 ; Odinel (2), marriage, 307, 308, 428 ;
Richard, grants pasturage to rector of Ford,
351 ; grants land to vicar, 352 ; lord of Ford,
363. 369, 370; Robert, holds 'Derecestre'
(1249), 188 ; lands in Hetherslaw acquired from.
433« ; William, lands in Hetherslaw acquired
from, 433«.
Ford PARISH, 341-471 ; geology of, 2, 7, 8 ; census
returns, 34i« : in assize rolls, 341-2 ; Scottish
raids on, 342-3, 353 ; market and fairs, 345 ;
agricultural development, 345-7 ; local customs,
348-g ; ecclesiastical history. 349-68 ; recom-
mended merging of Branxton in, 98 ; error as
to parish, 120 ; living held in plurality. 331 ;
endowment of, 19 ; valuation and rights of
benefice, 350-57 ; non-conformity in, 357-8 ;
the church of S. Jlichael, 358-60 ; the chantries.
INDEX.
485
359-60 ; the parson's tower, 362-3 ; rectors,
363-6 ; Etal presbyterian church, 366-8 ;
Crookham presbyterian church, 368 ; Ford
Township in, 368-427 ; Crookham TowTiship in,
436-40 ; Hetherslaw and Flodden Township in,
427-36 ; Kimmerston and Broomridge Town-
ship in, 440-42 ; Etal Township in, 442-71.
Ford TOWNSHIP, 368-427 ; situation of, 368 ;
course of Till at, 10 ; market and fairs held at,
375; attacked by Scots, 105, 379, 411, 413;
attacked by French, 413 ; descent of manor,
264, 369-410 ; valuation of manor, 382, 393,
394, 396, 410 ; property in, 266 ; grant of manor,
263 ; gift of land in, 287 ; mortgages on, 441 ;
border stronghold, 340 ; the castle, i, 410-25 ;
coal mines in, 397, 409, 425-427 ; corn mill,
401, 406, 408 ; Walk mill, 401, 406, 408; Wood,
408, 442 ; mortgage on, 441 ; Forge, situation
of, 396 ; Hill, situation of, 396.
Ford Moss, fault at, 7 ; old lake at, 11; supplies
Ford colliery, 426.
Fordwood, present name of Broomridge, 440.
Fordyce, William Lamb, minister of Etal (1913-16),
368.
Foreloanings, arable in Carham, 27.
Forest, Walter, sued for land in Wooler (1293), 292.
Forester, Astinus, murdered at Hethpool (1293),
249.
Forster, Claudius (161 1), sells property in Heth-
pool, 254, 257 ; deed by, 278H ; Cuthbert (1589),
lands in Hethpool bequeathed to, 266 ; Edward
(1622), Hethpool Woods settled on, 266 ; Fer-
dinando Bacon (1747), chancerj' proceedings
by, 28 ; Grace (Carr), 392, 405 ; Jane (Compton),
29 ; Sir John (i) (1565), protests on lease of
Carham rectory, 1 7 ; visits Wark, 70 ; landowner
in Howtel, 200, 207 ; sells land in Coupland,
222 ; purchases moiety Cheviot, 276 ; fine on
lands of, 278 ; commands garrison at Fenton,
340 ; summoned and bound over, 389-90 ;
John (2), of Crookletch, 28 ; John (3) (1662),
Hethpool Woods settled on, 266 ; John (4), of
Adderstone (17 17), remainder of property to,
27 ; settlement by, 28 ; John (5), marriage
(1798), 247; Margaret (i) (Heron), 378, 386;
Margaret (2) (Baker), sells property in Carham
(1738), 28 ; Margaret (3) (Bacon), bequest to
sons of (1738), 28 ; Matthew (1589), Carham
township bequeathed to, 27 ; land in Kilham
bequeathed to, 167 ; lands of, in Hovrtel, 207 ;
sells lands in Hethpool, 266 ; Nicholas (1605),
agreement for partition of Cheviot property,
278 ; Peter (1589), lands in Carham bequeathed
to, 27 ; Ralph (1717), remainder of property to,
27; deed of gift to, 28; Richard (i) (1586),
purchases lands in Wooler, 318 ; Richard (2),
property in Hethpool (1662), 266 ; Rowland
(1565), reversion of lease granted to, 1 7 ; bequest
to son of, 27 ; appointed captain of Wark, 67,
69 ; holds lease of lands in Mindrum, S3 ; death
of, 70 ; Thomas (i) (1519), holds lease of Wooler,
316 ; Thomas (2), of Adderstone, tithes of Car-
ham reconveyed to (1579), 18, 27 ; moiety of
Learmouth granted to, 76 ; sells property in
Coupland, 222 ; holds glebe land in Akeld, 237 ;
vnl\ of (1589), 27, 266 ; Thopnas (3), of Adder-
stone, bequest to son of (1589), 27 ; bequeaths
land in Kilham, 167 ; Thomas (4), Colonel, owns
Carham rectory (1650), 18, 27 ; property in
Hethpool, 266 ; Thomas (5) (1711). disagree-
ment with incumbent of Carham, 19 ; lease by,
27 ; settlement by, 27, 28; Thomas (6), General,
tithes of Carham conveyed to, 19, 27 ; forfeits
estates, 27; property settled on issue of, 28;
William (171 1), property of, in Lanton, 141.
Forsyth, Moses, minister of Crookham (1893 — ), 368.
Foster, Katherine. See Hewine.
Fowbery, Roger, mortgage on property of (1589),
147.
Fowberry, estate, mortgage on, 133, 147 ; gift of,
134 ; township, added to parish of Wooler, 290.
Fowberry tower, glacial lake extending to, 10 ;
purchase of, 133.
Fox, William, vicar of Wooler (1433), 294.
Fraunces, Thomas, vicar of Wooler (1412), 294.
Froissart, account by, of Sir John Coupland, 219.
Fysshewyk, Robert (1427), prosecuted for tres-
pass, 137.
Gadelef, Adam of (1256), suit against, 180.
Galewood, course of glacial lake past, 10.
Galley, John {1454), land of, in Hethpool, 253.
Gargou, Joan (1276), holds property in ilindrum,
77 ; Robert (1266), landowner in Mindrum, 77,
78.
Gargou, manor of, received by overlord of Roos,
34»-
Gargrave, Sir Thomas, grant to, of chantry lands
of Ford {c. 1550), 360.
Garroud, John (1674). recusant, 304 ; Oswald
(1674), recusant, 304
Garston, Edgar, marriage, 248.
Garth, Sarah (Scratchard, Reed), 259.
Gates, Anne (CuUey), 224.
Gatherick estate, boundaries of, disputed, 471 ;
Gatherick Way, marks boundary', .^57.
Gathering Stone, the, on Crookham Moor, 106.
Gaunt, John of. See Lancaster.
Gell, Robert, vicar of Branxton (1416-26), 102.
Geologj' of Glendale, 2-1 1 ; rocks of Old Red Sand-
stone age, 2 ; Granite, 3 ; Tuedian Group, 5 ;
Fell Sandstone, 6 ; Coal, 7, 426-7 ; Limestones,
8 ; Superficial Deposits, 8.
"Giddehu-sefunter," gift of land in, 177.
'Gildenstreth,' gifts of meadow-land in, 177, 178,
179.
Giles, — , marriage, 259.
Gilkie, Alexander, employed in restoring Ford
Castle (c. 1790), 417.
Gillimichael, Adam, son of, endows Mindrura
chapel, 15.
Gillinge, Adam, tenant in Crookham (1299), 373.
Gillum, Stephen F., sells Shorthope (184S), 280.
Gilly's Nick, burial ground at, 16.
Gilniour, William, minister of Cheviot Street,
Wooler (1807-35), -97-
Glanton, moiety of, in barony of Roos, ^2.
Glasgow, George, earl of, marriage, 458 ; James,
earl of, succeeds to Etal (1822), 458.
Glen river, joins Till, i ; valley of, occupied by
lake, 10 ; estate bordering on, 150 ; Coupland
on bank of, 214, 222 ; property in Akeld near,
237 ; converts baptised in, 241.
486
INDEX.
Glendale, Viscount. See Ford, Lord Grey.
Glendale, district, extent of, i ; geology of, 2-1 1 ;
covenanting army encamped in, 303 ; property
in, 81, 321: value of corn crops of, 372 ;
smuggling in, 383 ; defence of, 410.
Glendynne's Close, crown land in Howtel, 207.
Glyn, Sir Richard, marriage, 460.
Godergyl, Thomas, vicar of Branxton (1499-1528),
103.
Godfrey, Benjamin (1735), purchases property in
Crookham, 437.
Goldscleugh, property in forest of Cheviot, 275.
Goodson, Sir Alfred, buys farm of Kilham, 163.
Goodwin, Muriel (Babington), 404.
Gordon, Marjorie (Askew), 439 ; Ruth Frances
(Grey), 248.
Gosforth, North, gift of lands in, 384.
Goswick, William of, settles property in Akeld,
235-
Goswick, exchange of lands in, 445 ; property of
Etal manor in, 453.
Gourlay, John, sued for trespass (1372-4), 364.
Gowan, William, vicar of Wooler (1434), 295.
Gower, Thomas, in ""charge of repairs at Wark
(1543). 63, 66.
Graham, John, heir to moiety of Muschamp barony,
(1306), 312 ; called to warrant, 254 ; Mary,
widow : see Strathearn ; Nicholas (d. 1306),
receives rent of Branxton, 109 ; moiety of Mus-
champ estates passes to, 229, 311 ; forfeiture of,
231 ; holds share of Hethpool, 253 ; grants life
tenancy, 254 ; holds moiety of Cheviot, 273 ;
holds advowson of Wooler, 286, 288 ; of St. Mary's
hospital, 293 ; presentation by, 293 ; lands of,
in king's hands, 293, 294 ; property restored
to, 312 ; property in Hetherslaw, 439 ; marriage,
308 ; Walter, servant, bequest to (1589), 336 ;
William (1767), purchases Marden Demesne,
437-
Graham's farms, property in Hethpool, 260.
Graper, Adam, marriage, 80 ; Maud (Strother),
132-
Gray, John ( — 1427), vicar of Kirknewton, 125 ;
Thomas, minister of Wester Meeting, Wooler
(1835-43), 298.
Graydon. John, descent of, 132.
Grayes Dyke, on boundary of Etal, 457.
Green, Charlotte (Isaacson), 338 ; John Samuel,
vicar of Wooler (1843-80), 295.
Greene, Rev. R. D. R., marriage (1903), 439.
Greenlaw Walls, overflow of Tweed glacier past,
10 ; on boundary of Etal, 457.
Greenwell Ford, predial tithes of, 350H.
Greenwich, East, barony of, 453.
Greenwich Hospital, estates of, 246 ; commissioners
of, purchase Broadstrother, 275, 277.
Gregory, Alexander, minister of Wester meeting,
Wooler (1885-8, 1 893- 1 903), 298.
Gregson, Jane (Grey), 247.
Gren, John del (1310), free tenant in Presson,
94-
Grendon, Roland, acquires land in W. Ne\rton
(1334). 154"-
Grene, William, tenant in Crookham (1299), 373.
'Greneagrc,' boundary of Colpinhope, 191.
Grenlegh, Ralph (12 15), marriage, 307K.
Grey of Milfield, pedigree, 247.
Grey, Agnes (Strother), 133 ; betrothal of, 146 ;
Anne (Clavering), 257; Arthur (i), of Spindle-
ton, bequest to (1582), 336 ; Arthur (2), marriage
(1636), 173 ; estate claimed by, 175 ; Arthur (3),
freeholder in Hethpool (1663) 258, 266 ; farm-
holds sold by, 260 ; Arthur (4), reversion to, of
property in Hethpool (i588), 260 ; Arthur (5),
holding in Hethpool (168-), 260 ; Arthur (6),
reversion to (1688), 260 ; Barbara (Strother),
133 ; David (1349), property in Akeld, 237 ;
Sir Edward (i), succeeds to property in Durham
(1509), 56 ; does suit for Fenton, 335 ; death of,
59 ; Edward (2) (1589), holds life interest in
Mindrum, 83 ; Kilham bequeathed to, 163 ;
Edward (3) (c. 1560), owns mill in Learmouth,
75 ; Edward (4) (d. 1667), rights of, in Paston,
175 ; Edward (5) (1674), recusant, 304 ; EUza-
beth (Clapham), 324H, 335 ; Ford, Lord (1695),
created Viscount Glendale and Earl of Tanker-
ville, 44 ; holds Grey's Forest, 280 ; holds
Trollop, 283 ; holds Heddon, 285 ; Wooler
mortgaged by, 325 ; death of, 75, 95, 189, 234,
242 ; division of estates of, 336 ; George (i)
(1597). tenant in Hethpool, 257 ; George (2),
servant, bequest to (1623), 336 ; George (3),
assessed for Tuperee (1663), 201 ; assessed for
property in Milfield, 245 ; George (4) [d. 1793),
of West Ord and Milfield, gift to Kirknewton
church, 124; property of, in Lanton, 141;
farms Milfield Hill, 246, 248 ; George (5) {d.
1824), inherits property in Lanton, 141 ; George
Annett, buys Milfield Hill (1850), 246; Hector
(1509), commands garrison of Wooler, 324, 329 ;
Sir Henry, of Howick, inherits property in Grey's
Forest, 280 ; inherits Learmouth, 76 ; inherits
Downham, 86; sells property in Shotton, 186;
holds lands in Milfield, 245 ; allotment to, from
Milfield common (1789), 246 ; Isabel (Grey),
279 ; holds tithes of Fenton, 331 ; property of,
in Fenton, 336 ; inventory of goods of (1581)
242; James (i), of Alnwick (1766), inherits
Thompson's Walls, 189; James (2), minister of
Cheviot Street, Wooler (1878-83), 297 ; John (i),
vicar of Kirknewton (1338-44), 125 ; John (2),
of Lowlyn, receives rents from Lanton (1376),
137 ; John (3), vicar of Kirknewton (1488), 126 ;
John (4), of Howick, reversion of Learmouth
bequeathed to (1705), 76 ; John (5) [d. 1775),
inherits Thompson's Walls, 189 ; John (6), sells
property in Lanton (1825), 141 ; farms Milfield
Hill, 246, 248 ; a disciple of George CuUey, 339 ;
Hon. John (7), vicar of Wooler (1836-43), 295 ;
John Neil, owner of Milfield Hill, 246 ;
Katherine (i) (1589), widow, bequest to, 336;
Katherine (2) (1688), holding in Hethpool, 260,
267 ; Leonard, Lord, takes part in siege of
Wark (1523), 56, 57>2 ; Lionel (i) (1541), holds
Presson, 95 ; Lionel (2) (c. 1560), resident in
Wooler, 325 ; Margaret (i) (Bell), holding in
Hethpool, 260 ; Margaret (2) (Grey), 247 ; Mary
(Bennet), 44 ; inherits Wooler, 325 ; Sir Ralph
(i) (d. 1443), inherits barony of Wark, 42 ; holds
Mindrum, 81 ; holds Presson, 95; holds Kilham,
162 ; holds Paston, 171 ; holds Coupland, 221 ;
property in Akeld, 234, 241, 242 ; holds Trollop,
283 ; holds Heddon, 284 ; holds Wooler, 324 ;
holds Fenton tower, 335 ; trustee of, 295 ;
INDEX.
487
Ralph (2), takes part in Wars of Roses, 42 ;
trustee of, 295 ; holds Wooler, 324 ; holds
Fenton, 335 ; execution of (1464), 43 ; Ralph (3),
inherits barony of Wark (1499), 43 ; land in Shot-
ton held from, 1S4 ; death of (1507), 54 ; widow of,
336; Sir Ralph (4), inherits barony of Wark as
minor (1531), 59 ; Wark castle restored to, 66 ;
captain appointed by, 67 ; negotiates with crown,
68-9 ; owner of Presson, 95 ; of Kilham, 163 ;
of Antechester, 188 ; property in Yeavering,
242 : owns Trollop, 283 ; owns Heddon, 284 ;
holds Wooler, 325 ; takes part in border raid,
388 ; widow of, 336 ; Sir Ralph (5) Wark castle
restored by (1592), 71 ; owns Kilham, 163 ;
priory lands sold to, 166 ; holding in Shotton,
186; purchases Thompson's Walls, 189 ; entails
Coupland, 221 ; purchases share of Hethpool,
254; property in Hethpool, 257 ; claims moiety
of Cheviot, 279 ; agrees to partition, 279 ; holds
Trollop, 283 ; holds Heddon, 284 ; Ucensed to
hold market at Wooler, 299 ; grant to, of manor
of Wooler, 325 ; will of (1623), 336 ; Ralph (6),
Wooler entailed on, 325 ; Ralph {7), Lord
{d. 1706), inherits portion of Wark estate, 44«,
75, 95 ; inherits Downham, 86 ; inherits pro-
perty in Shotton, 186 ; inherits Thompson's
Walls, i8g ; inherits Akeld, 234 ; Coupland
settled on, 221 ; inherits Yeavering, 242 ; pro-
perty in JMilfield, 245 ; inherits property in
Grey's Forest, 280 ; holds Trollop, 283 ; inherits
Fenton, 336 ; Richard (1259), boundary disputed
by, 333 ; Robert (i), of Turvelaws '(d. 1651),
gift to Wooler church, 292 ; Robert (2), of
Alnwick, marriage (1802), 200 ; Roger (i) (1242),
marriage, 158, 159 ; Roger (2) (1538), bailiff of
Wooler, 324 ; Sir Roger (3), of Horton, will of,
(1540), 146, 257; Thomas (i) (1301), sued for
non-payment, 374 ; Sir Thomas (2) (1345),
lands of, in Heddon, 284 ; lands in Wooler
entailed on, 327 ; holds manor of Fenton, 334 ;
Sir Thomas (3) {d. 1400), acquires barony of
Wark (1398), 41, 53 ; tenant in Kilham, 163 ;
holding in Yeavering, 241 ; holds Hetton, 284 ;
heirs of, 2i8k ; Sir Thomas (4), inherits barony,
41 ; Wooler conveyed to, 324 ; conspiracy and
execution of (1415), 42, 335n ; Thomas (5)
{d. 1440), holds lands in Presson, 95 ; Thomas
(6), of Horton (1439), appointed trustee, 382 ;
"Thomas (7) {d. 1499), inherits barony of Wark, 43;
lands in Coupland held from, 222 ; lands in
Hethpool held from, 257 ; holds Heddon, 284 ;
holds property in Wooler, 3161! ; holds Fenton.
335 ; Thomas (8), inherits barony of Warkas minor
(1507). 54 ; death of, (1509) 56 ; Thomas (9)
{d. 1518), holds property in Wooler, 257 ; Sir
"Thomas (10) {d. 1590), succeeds to barony {1568),
70, 188 ; bequests of, 83, 163, 223, 336 ; property
in Shotton, 186 ; property in Hethpool, 257 ;
holds Trollop, 283 ; holds Heddon, 284 ; holds
Coupland, 221 ; claims moiety of Che\'iot, 279 ;
property in Miliield held from, 244 ; holds
Wooler, 325 ; owns Wooler tower, 330 ; holds
Fenton, 335 ; will of, 242 ; Thomas (11), bequest
to, of holding in Ivilham (1589), 163 ; Thomas
(12), inherits rights in Paston (1667), 175 ;
Wiiham, Lord (1624), created peer, 43 ; property
in Kilham, 163, i66 ; purchases Downham, 86 ;
tithes due from, 120 ; lands in Lanton held from,
138 ; property in Shotton, 186 ; owns Thompson's
Walls, 189 ; property in Akeld, 234, 237n ;
settlement of Coupland manor by, 221 ; holds
Grey's Forest, 280 ; holds Heddon, 285 ; usurps
advowson of Wooler, 289, 293 ; owner of
Yeavering, 242 ; buys Milfield Hill, 245 ; property
in Hethpool, 258 ; pays salary of Fenton chapelry,
331 ; entail by, 325 ; wardship held by, 399;
WilUam (2), of Akeld, freeholder (1628), 237 ;
— , Lord (i), of Wilton, commands army in
North (1562), 69 ; — , Lord (2), dispute over
tithes of Carham (1828), 20 ; — , Earl (i) (1847),
parts with Sunnylaws, 76 ; sells Milfield Hill,
246 ; inherits Hethpool, 263 ; inherits Coldburn.
275 ; — , Earl {2), owner of Downham, 86 ; sells
Learmouth, 76 ; owns Presson, 95 ; owns farms
in Grey's Forest, 281.
Grey's Forest, township of, 258. See Cheviot.
Greystones (or Greystead), John of, marriage,
162 ; sues for dower in Kilham (1306), 167.
Grieve, .Anne (Pinkerton), 203 ; George, minister
of Wester Meeting, Wooler (1776-7), 298;
Richard (1737), attorney, 174.
Grime, Adam, tavern of, in Wooler (1302), 300.
Gubion, Hugh, sheriff of Northumberland (1292),
370-
Guttery, Margaret, servant at Reedsford, 202.
H.
Hacfordland, property in Wooler, 327.
Hackforth, John, property of, in Wooler, 327H.
Haddon Law, watch tower to be built on, 82.
Hadstone, lands in, sued for, 371 ; dower from,
372-3-
Hag, the, old lake at, 11.
Hagg, census return, 22H ; farm, sale of, 83.
Haggerston, Camaby (1709), purchases Moneylaws,
90; property of, in Braaxton, 116; Edward,
landowner in Branxton (1712), 115; Helias,
gift of, of land in Hetherslaw {c. 1220), 433n ;
Henry, holds lease of property in Kilham, 167 ;
property in Hetherslaw leased to, (1574) 432 ;
collector for the crown in Etal, 453 ; Patrick,
tenant in Wooler, 323 ; Philip, fine le\ied by,
235 ; Ralph, marriage, 445 ; Robert (i), fine
levied by, 235 ; Robert (2), holds portion of
Coupland, 222 ; landowner in .\keld (1349),
-35' 237 ; sued for land in Ford, 374 ; holding
in Hetherslaw, 433 ; Thomas (1279), resident in
Coupland, 222n ; holds portion of Akeld, 230,
235 ; — (i), (Strother), 133 ; — (2), of EUing-
ham, holds tithes of Branxton (1725), 99.
Haggerston, property in, 23311 ; castle, sale of, 275.
Haiden Dean, overflow of Tweed glacier into, 10.
Haigh, Wiiham, vicar of Wooler (1805-36), 295.
Hakeford, Walter of, receives freehold in Akeld
(1349), 236.
Haliburton, Philip, agreement \vith as to Etal
mill, 443.
Halidon Hill, battle of (1333), 80.
Haliwell, John (1400), rector of Ford, 364.
Hall, Cuthbert Collingwood, marriage (1841), 261 ;
Eleanor (Blake), 402 ; James, sells land in
Howtel (1803), 205 ; John (i). \'icar of Kirknow-
ton (1554-78), 126; John (2), vicar of Wooler
488
INDEX.
(1561-64) (1577-80), 291, 295 ; John (3). curate
of Fenton (1578), 332 ; John (4), of Otterburn
(1595), holds lease of I.anton tower, I37«, 142 ;
property of, in Coupland, 227 ; bequeaths
property in Hethpool, 268 ; John (5), (1642),
mortgage by, 227 ; bequeaths lands in Heth-
pool, 268 ; John (6) {d. 1653), sells lands in
Hethpool, 268 ; John (7), tenant in Akeld (1669),
235 ; Nicholas, lands in Hethpool left to (1638),
268 ; Sarah (Selby), 173 ; Paston left to, 175 ;
purchases land in Paston, 176 ; Thomas (i)
(1595), inherits Lanton tower, 142 ; property of,
in Coupland, 227 ; inherits property in Heth-
pool, 268 ; Thomas (2), minister of Crookham
(1809-44), 36S • William, surrenders lease of
Lanton tower (1656), 142 ; remainder to, 227 ;
property in Coupland, 227 ; property in Heth-
pool, 268.
Hall's Farms, property in Hethpool, 260.
Hallywells Farms, property in Hethpool, 260.
Halterburn, the, possible position of Colpinhope
on, 191.
Halton tower, 363.
Halwe, le, pasture in Kilham, 165.
Hamaldunflat, arable ground in Shotton, 183.
Hamond, William Parker, marriage (1796), 460.
Hanemere, David, manor of Wooler alienated to
(1372), 322.
Hanslap, Robert, vicar of Wooler (1354), 294.
Harding, Adam (1296), assessment of, 87.
Hardy, Jane (1674), recusant, 304.
Hare, John, gift by, to Kirkham priory, 164.
'Harecloht,' gift of land in, 178.
Harehope Hill, 'dry' valley near, 9.
Harelaw, geology of, 3 ; ownership of, 1 75K ;
EUzabethan house at, 176; meadow on, 178;
property in, i86«.
Harfleur, siege of (1415), 323.
Harker, Peter, owner of East Demesne, Howtel,
204.
Harkness, Finlay M., minister of Etal (1895-99), 367.
Harnham Moor, conveyance of property in, 406.
Harop, William of, granted land in Hethpool, 267.
Harper, Elizabeth (Reed), 258.
Harpyn, Thomas, vicar of Wooler (1315 — ), 294.
'Harriage,' definition of, 24K.
Harrison, Mary (CuUey), 224 ; William, marriage,
224.
Harrowbogg, property in Grey's Forest, 280.
Harry Heugh, plantation bounding Ford colliery,
425-
Hart, John de, vicar of Branxton (?) (1351), 102.
Harthope burn, forms boundary of Cheviot, 273.
Hastings, David, buys West Shotton (1765), 186 ;
— . Lord, besieges Alnwick (1462), 43.
Hatton, Sir Christopher (1579), granted various
tithes and property in Carham, 17, 18, 26;
moiety of Learmouth granted to, 76.
Hawke, Peter (1747), sells property in Howtel, 202.
Hay, Augusta, succeeds to Etal (1806), 458 ; Char-
lotte (Holwell), succeeds to Etal (1790), 458 ;
George, Earl of Erroll {d. 1790) succeeds to Etal,
458 ; James (formerly Boyd), Earl of Erroll,
marriage (1762), 458, 459 ; William, succeeds
to title (1790), 458 ; William George, 17th Earl
of Erroll, succeeds to Etal (1876), 458 ; William
Henry, i8th Earl of Erroll, seUs Etal (1886), 458.
Hay Farm. See Catford Law.
Hayton, William of (1364-66), vicar of Kirk-
newton, 125.
Hazley Hill, whin dyke near, 8.
Hebburne, John (1486), property in Wooler, 328 ;
Robert (141 7), holding in Wooler, 328.
Heddon, Robert of, holding of, 284, 309.
Heddon, tithes from, 120, I9IM ; bounds Trollop,
281, 284 ; united with Trollop, 283 ; descent of
property, 284-5.
Heddonsburn, the, bounds Trollop, 281.
Hedgehope, granite formation, 3.
Hedgely Moor, battle of, (1464) 43.
Heethhorne. See Hicchorne.
Held, le, gift of land in, 178.
Helmes, Elizabeth (Babington), 404.
Helyas, wife of, grant by. See Birilot.
Hemeldon, Christine (1294), suit by, 268.
Hendelaw, gift of land in, 178.
Henerkedyn, Adam, rector of Wooler, 293.
Henlaws, farm in Hetherslaw, 436.
Henry L, king, grant confirmed by, 12, 117;
barony of Roos granted by, 31 ; manor of
Wooler granted by, 306.
Henry II., king, confirms charter to Kirkham, 13,
25n ; inheritance of Espec held by, 32 ; fortifies
Wark castle, 46 ; orders surrender of Hethers-
law, 428.
Henry III., king, seizes barony of Roos, 33.
Henry IV., king, assisted by Percies, 335.
Henry V., king, conspiracy against, 42.
Henry VI., king, possible visit to York, 53H.
Henry of Scotland, earldom of Huntingdon offered
to, 45 ; Paston held by, 170.
Henry (1241), rector of Ford, 363.
Hepburn, Adam, of Hailes, in battle at Piperdean
(1436). 91-
Hepple, Robert, vicar of Kirknewton (1359). 125.
Hepple, John Dixon, vicar of Branxton (1870-88),
103.
Hepson, William, vicar of Wooler (1443), 295.
Heraldry : Heraldic Visitation of 1615, 137K,
146H, 199 ; augmentation, grant of, 444. See
also Arms, Crests, Seals.
Hereford, earl of, lands claimed by (c. 1200), 24.
Heron of Ford, pedigree, 378 ; arms of, 378.
Heron, Alexander, of Meldon, claims Ford estates,
387 ; .'Mice, widow, claims dower, 371, 372-4 ;
Cuthbert (1576), Ford conveyed to, 393 ;
Dorothy, disputes as to marriage of, 393 ;
Elizabeth (i) (Heron) (1438), 378, 383 ; Eliza-
beth (2), story of intrigue with James IV., 385 ;
Elizabeth (3) (Carr), 205H, 387, 391 ; heiress to
Ford estate, 386 ; holds Hetherslaw, 434 ;
Elizabeth (4), dispute as to marriage of, 393 ;
Emeline (Darcy), 374« ; heiress of Hadstone,
371, 372, 373 ; George (i), of Chipchase, claims
Ford estates (1551), 387 ; causes attack on Ford
castle, 388 ; suspected of murder, 389-90 ;
marriage forbidden by, 393 ; marriage of, 394 ;
George (2), marriage (1636), 134 ; Gilbert (i)
(1293), holding in Hethpool, 263 ; agreement
by, 264 ; manor of Ford settled on, 349, 370 ;
suits against, 351-2 ; dower claimed from, 371-3 ;
Gilbert (2), in entail of Etal (1347), 446; Giles
(1557), in border fray, 388 ; appeal by widow of,
390 ; Henry (1500), in entail, 387H ; lands
INDEX.
489
granted to, 384 ; Hugh de, tenant in Ford, (1299)
372 ; Humphrey (1566), sells land in Coupland,
223 ; John (i), in entail (1337), 374 ; suggested
marriage, 375 ; appointed collector of dues
(1377). 377 ; John (2), minority of, 265 ; ward-
ship of, 381 ; inheritance of, 382 ; marriage of
(1438), 383 ; in Wars of the Roses, 384 ; holds
Hetherslaw, 434 ; John (3), succeeds to pro-
perty {1485), 384 ; John (4), the Bastard, in
battle of Flodden, 108 ; murder by, 385 ; pro-
posed commander of Ford garrison, 412 ; John
(5), of Chipchase, claims Ford estate (1535),
386, 387 ; in entail, 387H ; agreement signed by,
390, 393 ; John (6), of Bockenfield, sells land in
Coupland (1566), 223 ; John (7), defendant in
fine (1600), 223« ; Lawtence, rector of Ford
(1496), 364 ; Lionel, accused of murder, 393 ;
Mary (Cambous), suits against, 353 ; claims
dower, 371-4 ; Odinel (i), remainder to (1292),
370 ; Odinel (2), in entail (1500), 387^ ; Robert
(i), rector of Ford (i 291- 13 14), 350, 363 ; holds
living of Fenton, 331 ; suits by, against lord of
manor, 351-3 ; Robert (2), rector of Ford, (1346)
364 ; Robert (3), actions brought by (1356),
264 ; enfeoffed of manor of Ford, 376, 377 ;
Roger (i), remainder to, 370 ; succeeds to manor
of Ford (1301), 373 ; suits against, 373-4 ;
presents to church of Ford, 363 ; Roger (2),
rector of Ford (1326), 364 ; Roger (3), in entail
(1337). 374 ; manor of Ford conveyed to, 376 ;
holds manor of Ford, 377 ; accused of murder,
221H ; lands of, in Hethpool, 253, 265 ; Roger
(4), inheritance restored to (1472), 384 ; Roger
(5), found guilty of murder (1561), 392 ; Thomas
(I), in entail (1337), 374; death of, 375;
Thomas (2), enfeoffed of manor of Ford (1351),
376, 377 ; actions brought by, 264 ; Walter (1),
rector of Ford (1248-60), 363 ; appoints vicar,
352 ; removes breviaries from church, 353 ;
Walter (2), heirs of (1292), remainder to, 370 ;
Walter (3), in entail {1340), 375 ; suggested
marriage, 375 ; Walter (4), property conveyed
to {1376), 433 ; William (i), (d. 1256-7) suggested
marriage, 370 ; William (2) {1276), sureties
given by, 369-70 ; WilUam (3) [d. 1297), portion
of Hethpool passes to, 263 ; suit by, 264 ; gift
by, of Ford property, 349 ; agreement with
rector of Ford, 351 ; holds manor of Ford, 369 ;
convej'ance by, 370 ; agrees to dower, 371 ;
estate of, 372 ; claims pasture in Hetherslaw,
432, 433 ; William (4) (1294), holding of, 371 ;
Wilham (5), settles manor of Ford (1333), 374 ;
tenant in Kilham, 168 ; sells land in Howtel,
iq6 ; accused of murder, 22in ; property in
Aield, 236-7 ; property in Hethpool. 264-6 ;
secures holding in Wooler, 328 ; permitted to
fortify house, 342, 375, 410 ; royal favours to,
375 ; conveyance by, 376 ; knight of the shire,
377 ; Ford castle as occupied by, 419 ; lands in
Hetherslaw, 433 ; William (6), in entail (1337),
374 ; suggested marriage, 375 ; William (7),
holds manor of Ford (1374), 377 ; attacked by
Scots, 379, 411 ; conveyance by, of property
in Hetherslaw, 433 ; marriage granted to, 449 ;
William (8), owner of Ford castle (1415), 377 ;
holds lands in chief, 381 : conveyance by, 382 ;
dower paid by, 383 ; property in Hetherslaw,
Vol. XI.
434 ; quarrel with Manners of Etal, 450 ; murder
of (1428), 380 ; William (9), lands granted by,
384 ; prisoner of Scots (1513), 385 ; property
in Howtel, 205)1 ; alienates advowson of Ford,
349 ; settlement of property by, 386, 387n ;
heirs of, 387 ; conveyance by, 434, 436, 440 ;
inquisition on death of, 44in ; \Villiam (10),
marriage, 386.
Herpam, Robert, grant to, of lands in Presson, 92.
Hertford, earl of, in command against Scots (1543),
62, 64 ; leads expedition into Scotland, 344.
Herton, Emeric. See Burell.
Heselden, William of, tenant in Ford (1294), 352.
Heselrigg, Catherine (FeuNrick, Babington), 404 ;
John (1306), called to warrant, 167 ; dower
claimed from, 231 ; evicted from property, 232 ;
William, property of, in Akeld, 232.
Heseltine, James, marriage, 336.
Hesleyside, settlement of property in, 458.
Hesthalwe, le, pasture in Kilham, 165.
Hetha, Great, 249)1 ; acid dykes near, 4.
Hetherslaw, derivation of name, 427n ; census
returns, 34IH ; in assize rolls, 341-2 ; presented
in court by bailiff, 344 ; tithes due for, 356 ;
visited by Edward I., 341 ; wasted by Scots,
342 ; traditional site of chantry in, 360 ; lands
in, given to Durham monaster^', 306 ; Etal
chapel endowed with lands in, iii ; property
of Etal manor in, 453 ; action concerning pro-
perty' in, 318 ; inheritance in, 382-3, 393, 405 ;
dower from, 394 ; entail of, 396 ; mortgages on,
401, 403, 407 ; purchase of, 410, 437, 439 ; mills
at. 401, 406, 408, 429, 430. 431, 432, 433, 434,
435 '■ geological fault extending to, 5.
Hetherslaw and Flodden township, 427-436 ;
descent of property, 428-36 ; valuation of, 429,
430 ; separation of Flodden, 435 ; farms in
township, 436.
'Hethouswj-re,' on boundary of Trollop, 281.
Hethpool, Henry of, action against, 267 ; John of,
service of, 252-3 ; Patrick of, holding in Heth-
pool (1212), 252, 267 ; Ralph of, holding in
Hethpool {1212), 252, 267 ; Robert of (i). gift
by, to canons of Kirkham, 267 ; Robert of (2)
(1293), claims lands in Hethpool, 263 ; Thomas
of (i), holding in Hethpool (1212), 252, 267;
Thomas of (2) (1269), hanged for theft, 263;
Thomas of (3), suit by, 267 ; William of (1294),
sued for land in Hethpool, 268 ;
Hethpool TOWNSHIP, 249-68 ; derivation of name,
249« ; census returns, 249)1 : descent of manor.
252-66; tithes from, 117, 119, 252. 254*1; in
Muschamp barony, 188, 252, 309, 369 ; portion
of, included in manor of Ford, 371, 377. 382,
383 ; Manners' lands in, 266-7, 442)1, 447 ;
socage tenants in, 267-S ; property of Roddams
in, 275 ; free warren in, 375 ; action at law
concerning property in, 307, 318 ; bequest of
lands in, 233)1 '• sale of, 280 ; Scottish raids on.
172, 249-51 ; situation outside border ring, 189,
250 ; the tower, 209, 250, 266 ; the mill, 252.
258 ; the common (the Bell, or Newton common).
260 ; Trollop included in, 281, 282 ; Trollop
transferred from, 283.
Heton, Sir Alan (i) (d. 1387), estate of. 233)1 :
granted property in Hethpool. 255 ; partition
of estates of, 256; holding in Wooler, 327;
62
490
INDEX.
knight of the shire, 377 ; Sir Alan (2) (1604),
tenant in Kilham, 167 ; Ehzabeth (Fenwick),
167. -33 ; lands in Hethpool, 256 ; property in
Wooler, 327 ; Henry (rf. 1399), succeeds to pro-
perty in Hethpool, 255-6 ; Isabel (Baxter),
139; Joan (Ogle), 327: holds property in
Wooler, 328 ; Mary (Strother, Swinburne), 132 ;
Thomas (i) (1348), holds moiety of Mindrum,
81 ; grant to, of lands in Akeld, 232 ; grant
to, cancelled, 233 ; lands in Hethpool conveyed
to, 255; ChilUngham mortgaged to, 319;
Thomas (2) [d. 1362), holds moiety of Hethpool,
255-
Heton castle, English army ford Till near, 106.
Hetton in Chatton, 284.
Hetton Hall, glacial lake extending to, 10.
Hewine, Katherine, alias Foster, sued for lands
in Downham (1590), 85.
Hexham, William of, tenant in Wooler (1254),
309, 326.
Hexham, battle of (1464), 43.
Heyr, Robert, tenant in Hetherslaw (1255), 430.
'Heyroun,' grant of free warren in, 375.
Hicchorne, Matilda (Strother), 132.
High Burn Howe Farm, Wooler, sale of, 326.
Hilles, property in Coupland, 214.
Hilton, John (1335), sells property in Hethpool,
264.
Hinde, John Hodgson (1833), marriage, 30 ;
Richard, rector of Ford (1437-8), 364.
Hine, James Alex., minister of Wester Meeting,
Wooler (1844-84), 298.
History of Libesier Parish, by George McGuffie,
367-
Hoare, Sir Richard, holds mortgage on Paston
(1780), 176.
Hoddun, Cicely, tenant in Hetherslaw (1254), 428 ;
Julia, tenant in Hetherslaw, 428 ; Margaret,
tenant in Hetherslaw, 428.
Hodgson, Richard {afterwards Huntley), marriage,
30 ; Susan, (Carr, Ratchffe, Salkeld), 391, 398 ;
share of, in Ford estate (1663), 403-405 ; holds
Slaterow, 408 ; deposition by, 454;!.
Hogarth, John, vicar of Kirknewton (1778-1802),
126.
Hoggitt, Darcy, vicar of Branxton (1799-1834),
103.
Holburn, raided by Scots, 244.
Holford, Elizabeth (Askew), 438,
HoUingbrow, property in Newton, 156.
Holme, le, property in Kilham, 165.
Holwell, Rev. William, marriage, 458.
Home, Alexander, Lord, defeated at Milfield
(1512), 243 ; George, taken prisoner (1512),
243 ; Jennet (Compton, Smith), 29 ; — , earl
of, leads Border Horse at Flodden, 107 ; defeat
of, 108 ; retreat of, 109.
Homel, Adam, holding of, in Hethpool, 267.
Homeldun. See Humbleton Hill.
Hook, Thomas, sells property in Howtel (1810),
205.
Hooley, Mount, property in Grey's Forest, 280.
Hope, — . (Strother), 133.
Horne'bourne. See Duddo Mill Burn.
Hornidell, property in Howtel, 201.
Horsbrough, John, vicar of Wooler (1663-95), 295.
Horsden Farm, in Wooler, 325.
Horse Rigg, in Mindrum, 79 ; boundary of Prcsson,
95 ; conjectured boundary of Antechester, 187.
Horshalgh, pasture in Ford, 351.
Horsley, Anne (Carr), 391 ; Percival (1725),
marriage, 258 ; Robert (1546), in command at
Wooler, 301 ; Simon, damages awarded to
(1256), 93 ; — (Strother), 133.
Horton, — (Strother), 133.
Hospitallers, holding of, in Branxton, in ; receive
property in Lanton, 128 ; holding in Paston,
176.
'Hot, le,' wood in Wooler, 315.
Houburn, James, holding in barony of Muschamp
(1-54). 3°9 ; Nicholas (1521), lease transferred
to, 316.
Houghlands, property in Carham, 27.
Houghton Bank, bounds Broomridge, 441, 442.
Houghton-le-Spring, school at, 366.
Houghton Milne, bounds Broomridge, 441.
Houpyn, Robert (c. 1426), holds property in Akeld,
325-
Houstoun, Peter, vicar of Branxton (1662-4), i°3-
Howard, Charles, marriage (1687), 402 ; Sir
Edmund, commands division at Flodden, 107,
108; Elizabeth, bequest to (171 7), 409; Lord
Frederick, marriage (17 — ), 402 ; Thomas, Lord,
leads English vanguard at Flodden, io5-8.
Howard de Walden, Theophilus, Lord, earl of
Suffolk, owns Etal (1616), 453 ; alienates Etal,
45-1. 459-
Howburn, chapel of ease at, 21 ; boundary of
Carham and Presson to north of, 92.
Howell, John Richard, marriage (1861), 261 ; sells
Hethpool, 263.
Howey, Thomas (1813), sells property in Branxton,
116 ; purchases Harden Demesne, 437.
Howtel of Howtel, pedigree, 192.
Howtel, Adam of (1364), tenant of Strother family,
136 ; Alan of (i), undertaking by, 193 ; gifts
of, to Kirkham priory, 206 ; Alan of (2), claims
guardianship (1280), 193 ; tried for disseisin,
194; alienation of Crookhouse by, 210-12;
Crookhouse held from, 211 ; Alan of (3) (1364),
tenant of Strother family, 136 ; Alexander of
(c. 1200), succeeds to property, 193 ; gifts of,
to Kirkham priory, 205, 206 ; Bernard of, gift
by, 192, 206 ; Hugh of, dispute over guardian-
ship of, 193 ; action brought by (1305), 194 ;
John of, property of, in Howtel (13 — ), 197 ;
Patrick of (i), grant to Kirkham priory, 193,
206 ; Patrick of (2), gift confirmed by, 194,
206 ; tenants of, 197 ; suit against, 193, 196 ;
Robert of (i), lands held by, 193, 206 ; Robert
of (2), action against (1292), 197 ; Roger of (i),
succeeds to property, 193 ; gifts of, to Kirkham
priory, 206; Roger of (2), forfeits property (1359),
159, 198; inheritance claimed by, 217, 226;
Simon of, grant to, of Newton hospital (c. 1250),
151 ; Stephen of, service of, iio, 192 ; Thomas
of (i), tried for disseisin (1278), 194 ; Thomas
of (2), succeeds to property, 195 ; inheritance
of claimed, 217, 226; Thomas of (3), dower
claimed from (1290), 196; Thomas of (4), pur-
chases manor of Shotton (1365), 184 ; property
conveyed to, 196 ; defendant in fine, 217, 3211! ;
Walter of (i), gift by (c. 1250), 192, 206 ; Walter
of (2), service by, 193 ; Walter of {3), actions
INDEX.
491
brought by (1286), 193 ; action against, 194 ;
marriage, 195, 217 ; land held from, 197 ;
assessment of, 210 ; Walter of (4), tenant of
Strother family (1364), 136 ; William of (i)
(1290), dower claimed from, ig6 ; William of
(2), dower claimed from, 196.
Howtel TOWNSHIP, 192-209 ; derivation of name,
192M ; census returns, 192K ; in barony of Koos,
192 ; descent of property, 192-205 ; tithes of,
119; boundaries of estate, 205; Crookhouse
formerly included in, 210 ; exchange of lands
in, no, 192; holding in, 135, 146; lands
claimed in, 218; lease of lands in, 450; laud
in, entailed, 396 ; property of Etal manor in,
453 ; Kirkham priory lands in, 205-7 > the
tower, 207-9 ; the common, 202, 203«, 204, 205,
243. 436-
Howtel Hill, 205 ; Castle Hill, 207 ; Pasture, 205.
Howtel valley, lower carboniferous rocks in, 5.
Hoy, John, marriage, 199.
Hoyle, Charles Ernest, vicar of Branxton (1906),
103.
Hudson, Lord, connection with Shotton (1580), i86.
Hudspeth, Stephen, vicar of Branxton (1580-1627),
103.
Hughes, Colonel George (1832), purchases Broad-
strother, 275 ; purchases Luckenarks, 276 ;
George Hughes : see Pringle.
Humbledon, Jlatilda, marriage, 433K ; Robert,
gift by, of property in Hetherslaw, 433«.
Humbleton, purchase of lands in, 223 ; land in,
entailed, 327 ; bequest of lands in, 328 ; added
to parish of Wooler, 290, 331 ; property of Etal
manor in, 453.
Humbleton Buildings, clay at, 9.
Humbleton Hill, 'dry' valley near, 9, 10; rivulet
near, 182, 191 ; pasturage on, 207.
Hume, Alexander (1618), tenant in Etal, 454 ;
George (i), taken prisoner at Flodden (1513),
385 ; George (2), earl of Durham {d. 161 1), Etal
manor granted to, 453, 454 ; John, vicar of
Branxton (1627-62), 103.
Hungerford, Edward, marriage (1717), 402.
Hunsdon, Lord, property in Wooler granted to
(1571). 318 ; wardship held by, 394, 395.
Hunt, John, marriage (1838), 259.
Hunter, Matthias, of Alnwick, deposition by
(1554), 454n ; William (i), holding of, in Wooler
(1254), 309, 327 ; William (2) (1345), presented
to chantry of Ford, 360 ; William (3), vicar of
Branxton (1443-49), 103.
Huntercumbe, John (1324), betrothal of, 254,
320 ; lands granted to, 273 ; Nicholas (or
Neubaud), sells reversion of Hethpool property
(1326), 254, 255 ; alienates share of Cheviot,
273; debts of, 319; conveyance by, 320; in-
heritance of, 430 ; Walter (1290), inherits pro-
perty in Hethpool, 254 ; sued for disseisin, 264 ;
suit against, 267 ; holds share of Cheviot, 273 ;
arraignment of, 282 ; claims right of presenta-
tion to Wooler, 286, 287, 288 ; presentation by,
293 ; grants property in Wooler, 312 ; action
brought by, 318 ; ahenations by, 319 ; holds
Hetherslaw, 430 ; William, holding in Hethpool,
253, 254 ; marriage, 307, 30S, 31S, 430 ; inheri-
tance in Wooler, 311 ; agrees to award (1254), |
3 1 IK ; knight's fee held from, 369. I
Huntingdon, David, Earl of, gives evidence at
Carham (c. 1200), 24.
Huntley, Earl of, leads Gordon Highlanders at
Flodden, 107.
Hurt, Francis. See Sitwell.
Hutchins, Horace George McKenzie Chester, in-
cumbent of Carham (1917), 22.
Hutchinson, Hannah (Compton), 29 ; Jane
(Strother), 134.
Hydeslye, Robert of, action brought by (1279),
334"-
I.
Ilderton, Robert, holds mortgage on Reedsford
(1719), 202 ; sale by, 203 ; lands of, in Howtel,
204 ; Thomas (i), {d. 1478), holding in Coup-
land, 222 ; Thomas (2) (1717), tithes of Denwick
released to, 258.
Ilderton, in barony of Roos, 32 ; rectory of, 17;
endowed with moiety of Learmouth, 75, 76.
Ingleby, Thomas (1370-80), vicar of Kirknewton,
125-
Inrrerkethyn, Adam. See Henerkedyn.
Insula, Robt. de. Bishop of Durham (1274-84),
confirms grant, 97n.
Irene, Tragedy of, authorship of, 2I3«.
Isaacson of Newcastle and Fenton, pedigree, 337.
Isaacson, Anthony (1734), purchases Fenton, 336 ;
Arabella (Denison), inherits moiety of Fenton,
336, 338 ; will of, 339 ; Frances, will of (1750),
336, 338 ; Mary (.■Mtham), inherits moiety of
Fenton, 336.
Islandshire, smuggling in, 383.
J.
Jacke meadows, in Broomridge, 441.
Jackson, John, attack on (1604), 291 ; lands pur-
chased from, 316.
Jacum, Robert of, in Lanton subsidy roll (1296),
129.
James II., king, of Scotland, attacks Wark castle,
53-
James IV., king, of Scotland, captures Wark
castle, 54 jj Lanton tower destroyed by, 142 ;
challenged by Surrey, 301 ; connection with
Lady Heron, 385 ; visits Ford castle, 411, 419,
421 ; captures Etal castle, 462 ; at battle of
Flodden, io6-8, 427.
James VI. and I., king, conspiracy against, 71 ;
grant by, 325 ; pension from, 395 ; favourite
of, 397-
James of Kirkne\vton, pedigree, 149.
James, Collingwood Forster, inherits part of Kirk-
newton (1768), 148; will of, 149; EUzabeth
(Thompson), 149 ; John, rector of Ford (1811-19),
366; Thomas (1762), purchases farm of Kirk-
newton, 148 ; William, inherits part of Kirk-
newton (1768), 148 ; will of, 149.
Jamphries, Eliza (Grey), 248.
Jedburgh, foray near, 51.
Jeffrey, Margaret (Reed), 258 ; Marj' (Pinkerton),
203.
Jenison, Ralph, award by (1659), 401, 405, 407.
492
INDEX.
Jenkins, John (1678), tithes due from, 355 ; action
for damages by, 356 ; acquires portion of Ford
estate, 407 ; property in Hetherslaw, 435 ;
property in Crookham, 437.
Jenkinson, Anne (Babington), 404.
Jobson, Jane (Grey), 247.
John, king, confirms barony of Roos, 32.
John's lands, property in Howtel, 201 ; sale of, 204.
Johnson, Ctiarles \V. D., marriage (1907), 248 ;
Gilbert (1487-93), vicar of Branxton, 103 ;
Rowland (1561), reports on Wark castle, 68.
Johnstone, William, minister of Cheviot Street,
Wooler (1793- 1 807), 296.
Joicey, Lord, owner of West Moneylaws, 91 ;
Howtel estate conveyed to, 205 ; purchases
Ford estate, 410, 436, 440 ; purchases Etal, 458.
Jones, Robert, vicar of IJranxton (1834-70), 103 ;
William (1726), marriage, 29.
K.
Kaim, the, at Wark, 8.
' Kariethelaw,' meadow, near Carham, gift of, 26.
Kelburne, Viscount. See James, Earl of Glasgow.
Kellow, Thomas, vicar of Branxton (1380-95), 102.
Kelso, lead for repairs brought from, 63 ; Scots
from, enter Wooler, 304 ; connection with
Shotton, 182, 191 ; public confession made at,
251 ; episcopalian congregation at, 19 ; abbot
of, claims rights in Newton church, 117; Col-
pinhope granted to monks of, 182, 189 ; restored
to abbey of, 190.
Kelso Trap, geology of, 5 ; rocks overlying, 6.
Kemerton (Gloucestershire), derivation of name,
440n.
Kempsford (Gloucestershire), derivation of name,
440U.
Kendal, William, murder of (1363), 220.
Kennedy, James, minister of Wester Meeting,
Wooler (1777-1807), 298 ; Sir Richard, marriage,
402.
Keppey. See Kypie.
Kerlingburne, the, gift of lands by, 177.
Kerr, Andrew, laird of Cessford, see Cessford ;
John Strother (1762), sells advowson of Kirk-
newton, 121 ; sells property in Lanton, 138 ;
inherits Kirknewton, 148 ; sells Kirknewton
farm, 149 ; descent of, 134 ; Sir Robert, of
Greenhead, death of (1776), 459 ; Walter,
marriage (1702), 134, 148 ; agrees to sale of West
Newton, 155 ; inherits property in Shotton,
i85';^sells Crookhouse, 213 ; William, of Green-
head : see Carr.
Keth, Robert (1427), prosecuted for trespass,
137-
Kettilby, Samuel, purchases property in Akeld
(1733), 234 ; makes agreement with Sir C. Ogle,
236 ; letter of, referring to church land in Akeld,
238 ; Walter, sells property (1767), 234.
Keys, — , marriage, 248.
Kilham of Kilham, pedigree, 158.
Kilham, Adam, property alienated to, 161, 162 ;
sells land to Kirkham priory, 165 ; buys land
in Paston, 180; act of disseisin against, 181 ;
Aline (Clennell, Sweethope), 161, 180; Idonea,
dower of, 160, 161, 180 ; Isabel, confirms grant,
159 ; John (1290), holding in Kilham, i6o ;
property alienated by, i5i, 162, 180 ; called to
warrant, 183 ; Michael (d. 1290), dower paid by,
159 ; property of, 160 ; gifts of, to Kirkham
priory, 165; grants confirmed by, 178; grants
land in Paston, 180; Nicholas (1290), holding
in Kilham and Shotton, 160, 168 ; in Paston,
180 ; sued for property, 161 ; lands of, pass to
Kirkham priory, i66« ; rights of pasture granted
by, 178 ; dower claimed from, 183 ; Patrick
(1323), property sold to, 161, 162 ; acquires
land in Paston, 180 ; Richard, property in Kil-
ham, 168 ; Robert (1290), holding in Kilham,
160 ; in Paston, 181 ; purchases part tithes of
Moneylaws, 88 ; Thomas (1227), grants lands to
Kirkham priory, 159, 164-5 '• grant by, to monks
of Melrose, 183 ; sub-infeudates land in Paston,
179 ; Walter, confirms gift to Melrose, 159 ;
concessions by, to Kirkham priory, 164 ; holding
in Shotton, 183 ; agreement with monks of
Kelso, 190; William (1296), purchases part
tithes of Moneylaws, 88 ; holdings of, in Kil-
ham and Paston, 160, 180 ; gift by, to Kirkham
priory, 165.
Kilham township, 158-169 ; descent of manor,
158-163 ; census returns, 158K ; derivation of
name, I58« ; in barony of Roos, 158 ; value of
property, 163, 182 ; lands of Kirkham priory
in, 163-6 ; lands of Bolton hospital in, 166 ;
sub-tenants of manor, 167 ; independent free-
hold in, 168 ; sale of manor, 170 ; settlement of
property in, 146; tithes of, iig, 120; .A.nte-
chester in manor of, 188 ; property of Etal
manor in, 453 ; held by Arundel family, 323K ;
the tower and border raids, 168-9; roads from,
206, 2844!.
Kilkilorok, property in Howtel, 206.
Kilmersdon (Somerset), derivation of name, 440K.
Kilnese, Philip of, ejected from Kirknewton vicar-
age (1344). 125.
Kimmerston, Ughtred of, holding of (1299), 373.
Kimmerston, derivation of name, 44012 ; census
returns, 341" ; assessment for, 264, 341 ; in
assize rolls, 342 ; in Muschamp barony, 369 ;
held from lord of Hethpool, 263, 266 ; included
in manor of Ford, 377, 382 ; Ford inheritance
in, 383, 393, 394 ; conveyance of property in,
370, 406 ; dower from, 371, 373 ; entail of, 396 ;
mortgage on, 405 ; wasted by Scots, 342 ; mill
at, 375 ; Lower Carboniferous rocks at, 5.
Kimmerston and Broomridge township, 440-442 ;
distinction between the properties, 440 ; mort-
gages on, 441 ; union of, 442.
King, John Richard, incumbent of Carham
(1865-67), 22 ; John H., minister of Bowmont
(1910-15), 127; William, marriage (1759), 338.
Kinge, John, presents to Uving of Ford (1600),
365-
' King's Stone,' the, dolomite, 6 ; used as gathering
place, 344.
Kingsmead, conveyance of, 178.
Kippie farm. See Kypie.
Kirkby, William (1369-79), vicar of Branxton, 102.
Kirkgate, road in Howtel, 206.
Kirkham, Walter, bishop of Durham (1251),
allocation confirmed by, loi ; grant confirmed
by, 117.
INDEX.
493
Kirkham, priory of, body of Sir John Coupland
transferred to, 14 ; Carham church granted to,
12, 25, 26 ; estabhshes cell at Carham, 13 ;
agreement of, with parson of Kirknevvton, 15,
124; agreement of, -with Robert Roos, 16;
advowsons of, retained by William Roos, 14,
38 ; land in Learmouth granted to, 75 ; pro-
perty of, in Mindrum, ygn ; gifts to, of land in
Presson, 92 ; dispute concerning church of
Branxton, 96 ; payment to, from Branxton, 98 ;
Newton church granted to, 117 ; Canno Mill
owned by, 155 ; lands of, in West Newton and
Kirknewton, 156-7 ; gift to, of land in Kilham,
159 : property of, in Kilham, 163-6 ; grants to,
from Kilham, 170 ; property of, in Paston,
176, 177 ; lands in Shotton alienated to, 183 ;
gifts to, of property in Howtel, 192, 193 ; pro-
perty of, in Howtel, 205-7 : lease to, of property
in Coupland, 214 ; gift to, of land in Akeld, 237,
238 ; gift to, of tithes in Hethpool, 252 ; com-
mutation paid to, 254« ; gift to, of land in Heth-
pool, 267 ; dispute with Melrose abbey, 282 ;
prior of, purchases tithes in Moneylaws, 88 ;
writ against, 136 ; gives license to build oratory,
139 ; holding of, in Kirknewton, 143 ; lease
given by, 144 ; dower paid by, 160 ; obtains
property in Kilham, 162 ; suits against, 142,
196 ; suit by, 210.
Kirkham Chartulary, 156 ; agreement recorded in,
97-
Kirknewton Parish, 12, 117-285; ecclesiastical
history, 11 7- 127 ; value of vicarage and tithes,
118-20 ; terrier of vicarage, 191K ; extent of,
117; church of, Branxton church claimed for,
96 ; agreement with Kirkham priory, 15 ; lands
of Melrose abbey in, 2S1 ; claimants to, 15, 117 ;
gift to, of tithes in Hethpool, 252 ; church of
S. Gregorj', 12 1-4 ; tablet in, 236K ; attendance
at, 238 ; rectors, 124 ; vicars, 124-127, 448 ;
Bowmont Union Meeting, 127 ; Lanton town-
ship in, 128-142 ; Kirknewton township in,
143-152 ; West Newton township in, 152-157 ;
Canno Mill in, 155, 157 ; Kilham township in,
158-169; Paston township in 170-187; Colds-
mouth and Thompson's Walls township in,
187-191 ; Howtel township in, 192-209 ; Crook-
house township in, 210-213 '■ Coupland town-
ship in, 214-229 ; Akeld township in, 229-240 ;
Yeavering township in, 241-243 ; Milfield town-
ship in, 243-248 ; Hethpool township in, 249-
268 ; Cheviot township in, 268-85 ; geologj' of
district, 2, 5.
Kirknewton TOWNSHIP, 143-152 ; descent of manor,
143-150 ; census returns, 143H ; in barony of
Roos, 32, 143 ; tithes of, 119 ; holding in, 135 ;
grant of property in, 131 ; the tower and
border raids, 150-1 ; the hospital, 151-2; Kirk-
ham priory lands in, 156-7. .
Kirkton, Gordon of (i), holding in Hetherslaw
(1379), 434 ; Gordon of (2), remainder to, 434 ;
Liellus of, remainder to, 434 ; Odinel .of,
remainder to, 434.
Kirkyetholm, position of, 191. I
Knight, Harriet (Culley), 225 ; John, of Houghton-
le-Spring school (1811), 366; Thomas, rector of
Ford (1819-72), 366 ; claims tithes of Ford, 357.
Knill Yetholm, course of Bowmont Water at, 11.
Knowe, Southern, acid dykes near, 4 ; valuation
of, 280.
Knox, John (131 1), marriage, 36, 37.
Kukhead, the, in Grey's Forest, 280.
Kyloe Hills, the, seen from Wooler, 298.
Kyngesfeld, John, manor of Wooler alienated to
(1372), 322.
Kypie, included in viU of Howtel, 193 ; valuation
of, 201 ; sale of, 204 ; bounds Howtel estate,
205 ; Hill, 207 ; dykes near, 4.
L.
Ladelie, — (1589), tenant in Fenton, 336.
Laing, James, of Sunderland, purchases Etal
(1886), 458.
I-amb, Wilhara, vicar of Kirknevvton (1770-78), 126.
Lambert, Jane (Isaacson), 337.
Lambton, Capt. Claud, property of, in Kirknewton,
150 ; Hon. F. W., property of, in Lanton, 138 ;
inherits Newton Tors, 150 ; inherits Yeavering.
243 ; inherits the Manors, 246 ; inherits West
New-ton estate and Canno ^iill, 155 ; inherits
Crookhouse, 213 ; inherits Fenton, 339; George
Frederick D'Arcy, second earl of Durham, pur-
chases property in Lanton (1873), 138; buys
Newton Tors, 150; buys Yeavering, 243; buys
Crookhouse, 213; buys the Manors, 246;
purchases Fenton estate, 338-9.
Lamplatelaw, grant of pasturage near, 92.
Lancaster, Gilbert (1428). holds Fenton, 335 ; John
of, holds lands in West Newton {c. 1300), I54n.
Lancaster, Edmund, earl of, holds barony of
Embleton (1265), 333 ; extent of estates of, 334 ;
Henry, duke of, Fenton held by, (1360) 335 ;
John of Gaunt, duke of, Fenton passes to, 335 ;
conducts negotiations with Scotland (1383), 52.
Lanchester, collegiate church of, 350H.
Landels, Adam (1776-8), minister of Etal, 367.
Landless, William (i), of Easington, (c. 1790)
marriage, 204 ; William (2), death of (1800),
204 ; WilUam (3), of Doddington, leases Ford
colherj', 425.
Langdale, Sir Marmaduke, troops of, at Ford
(1648), 413.
Langeford, fish-pool made near, 14.
Langley, Batty, architect, 417.
Langleyford, property in forest of Cheviot, 275.
Langton, John (1452), bequest of, to Newton
church, 118.
Lanton, AUce of, heir to Coupland estate (1312),
216; David of: see Baxter; Hugh of (1290),
dower claimed from, 196 ; Joan of (Coupland),
217, 218; heir to Coupland estate, 216, 226:
see also Coupland.
Lanton township, 128-143 ; census returns, I28n ;
in barony of Koos, 32, 128; tithes from, 117,
120; tithes of, leased, 118, 119; descent of
manor, 128-41 ; seizure by crown, 135 ; hold-
ings in, 245 ; recovery of manor, 148 ; settle-
ment of manor, 145, 146; Shotton held from
manor of, 185 ; Colpinhope held from. 190 ;
Crookhouse held from, 212 ; possibly con-
tained part of Milfield, 243 ; Sandyhouse estate,
141 ; Lanton towers. 141-2 ; the chapel. 142;
common, enclosure of, 141. 246; the mill. 129.
131, 136, 138, 144, 152, lyS, 210, 211, 213;
road to, dykes on, 3 ; old beaches near, 10.
494
INDEX.
Lascelles, Alan (1269), recognizes rights of Alnwick
abbey, 331 ; holds manor of Fenton, 333, 334 ;
Christopher (c. 1570), action brought by, 318 ;
Robert, holds manor of Fenton, 333H, 334.
Latimer, William (i), prosecution by (1305), 313 ;
Sir William {z) (1370), guardianship granted
to, 315.
Lauder, Dorothy (Selby), 173.
Laveline, in the Vosges, granite at, 3.
Law, James, marriage, 199.
Lawes, William, of Newcastle, buys advowson of
Kirknewton (1762), 121.
Lawson, George, appointed constable of Wark
(1545), 64 ; removed from post, 65 ; in com-
mand at Wark, 67.
Learchild, residence of Corbet family, 132.
Learmouth township, 74-77 ; census returns,
22H ; derivation of name, 74« ; in barony of
Roos, 32, 39, 42, 75 ; descent of manor, 75-6 ;
chapel at, 18 ; grant of tithes of, 17 ; dues of
wheaten flour from, 14 ; stipends paid from, 16 ;
lease of glebe lands in, 27 ; money taken from
vill, 34 ; attacks on, by Scots, 74, 105 ; East,
shell marl at, 11.
Lee, Richard, stipendiary priest of Carham (1578),
18, 22.
Leek, Sir Francis, resides at Wark (1549), 65 ;
bound over, 390 ; John (1549), in charge of
garrison at Etal, 461.
Leger, Thomas, farm in Moneylaws leased to
(1299), 88.
Legge, Philip, marriage, 30.
Leicester, John of, priest, attack on (1313), 291.
Leicester, earl of. See Montfort.
Lelay, William, gives lease of land in Howtel (1452),
20jn, 450 ; of property in Akeld, 237.
Lelccelwyrlimes, property in Howtel, 206. !
Lenno.x, earl of, supported by Elizabeth, 70 ;
foray led by {1524), 105 ; leads troops at
Flodden, 107 ; defeat ot, 108.
Lepton, Christopher (1584), sells moiety of Cheviot,
274 ; property in Wooler alienated to, 317 ;
sells property in Wooler, 318.
Lesbury, vicarage of, appropriated to Alnwick,
288«.
Leslie, General, invades England (1644), 304.
Letham, Edward (1354), custody of Etal granted
to, 447, 448 ; has custody of Etal castle, 460 ;
Joan (Clavering), payment ordered from (1372),
449.
Letham Hill, farm in Etal, 456.
Lewis, Arabella (1833), inherits property in
Fenton, 338 ; Thomas, marriage, 336 ; Thomas
Charles (1829), property of, in Fenton, 338.
Lewisham, vicarage of, 355.
Leyland, Christopher John, sells Langleyford,
275 ; Thomas, trustees of, purchase Langley-
ford, 275.
Liddesdale, thieves from, raid Mindrum, 83 ; burn
West Newton, 154 ; Cheviot raided by, 271.
Lightharness, Thomas, robbery by, 249 ; sued for
disseisin (1293), 264.
Lilburn, Constance (1324), betrothal of, 254, 320;
Henry (1369), inherits property in Lanton, 140 ;
in Coupland, 227 ; dower assigned by, 11, 145,
212 ; attacks Ford castle, 379 ; John (i), suit
by (1328), 216 ; Sir John (2) (d. 1355), purchases
reversion of Hethpool, 254 ; action brought by,
255; grants moiety of Wooler, 312K, 321;
moiety of Wooler conveyed to, 320 ; alleged
rebellion of, 321, 322 ; sells overlordship of
Ford, 376 ; Katherine (1355), widow, claims
dower, 322 ; Thomas (1428), property of, in
Lanton, 140 ; William (1358), inheritance of.
in Wooler, 321.
Lilburn, in barony of Roos, 32.
'Lilesland,' property in Lanton, 140.
Lincoln, farm of city, security on, 38.
Linnels, near Hexham, battle at, 43.
Linthaughs, farm in Hetherslaw, 436.
Lisle, Ralph, murder of {c. 1576). 393 ; Robert (i),
holds lands in Lanton (1365), 136 ; holding of,
in Kirknewton, I45n ; Robert (2) (1558), pro-
clamation against, 390 ; Thomas (1369), tenant
in Howtel, 19S ; Sir William (1523), holds Wark
against Scots, 57 ; resigns post, 58.
Listen, Robert of, surrenders lands to Kirkham
priory, 178.
Lithgow, John, presbyterian minister of Etal
(1731-6), 367.
Little, Gilbert {1296), tenant in Kirknewton, 143 ;
Mary (Carr), 460.
Livermere (Suffolk) etymology of name, 74H.
Lloyd, Captain Charles, reports on Wark castle
(1639), 72.
Locker, Robert, rector of Ford (1438-9), 364.
Lockhart's Life of Sir Walter Scott, 298.
Loftwyers, property in Grey's Forest, 280.
Lokington, Hugh, presented to benefice of Wooler
(1314), 289, 294.
Lomax, John, vicar of Wooler (1650), 295.
London, ordnance sent to, from Wark, 72.
Longheugh, geological fault at, 7.
Look Out, farm in Hetherslaw, 436.
Losthill, property in Grey's Forest, 280.
Lovell, Thomas (1507), suit by, for debt,
137-
Lowe, John (1533), tenant in Crookham,
436-
Lowick, manor of, property of Selby family, 114 ;
entail of, 139 ; claim to, 255 ; descent of portion
of, 256 ; action at law concerning, 307 ; held
by Muschamp family, 309; lease of, 316;
alienation of, 317 ; grant of, 318 ; annuity
from, 409 ; inheritance in, 429 ; mortgage on,
430 ; ' Cheviot forest in,' 274.
Luceby, Henry, rector of Wooler (1307), 288, 290,
294.
Luckenarks, property in forest of Cheviot, 275.
Lucker, David of, inherits property in Lanton
(1369), 140 ; in Coupland, 227 ; Henry of,
tried for murder, 221, 227.
Lucy, Richard (1173), repels Scottish invasion,
47 ; — , conspirator against Henry V., 42.
Ludlow, Sir Thomas, manor of Wooler alienated
to (1372), 322.
Ludlow, battle of (1460), 42.
Lumley, castle of, 417.
Lundie, Mary (Compton), 30 ; Rev. R., marriage
(1788), 247; William Compton, incumbent of
Carham (1843-44), 22.
Luttrell, Narcissus, diary of (1690-1), 404.
Lysaght, John Arthur Constantine, incumbent of
Carham (1904-09), 22.
INDEX.
495
M.
McArthur, Arthur, minister of Etal (1900-12), 367.
McDermot, B. K., marriage, 174.
McDouall, Rev. P. G., vicar of Kirknewton
(1857-78), 127; Kirknevrton church restored by,
123-
McGarrity, Robert F., minister of Bowmont (1895-
igio), 127.
McGuffie, George, minister of Etal (1866-92), 367.
Mackay, Hon. Alexander, marriage (1770), 459.
McKee, John, minister of Bow-mont (1915 — •), 127.
McKellar, Constance Mary (Culley), 225 ; John,
marriage, 204.
McLaren, Mary (Grey), 247.
McLeish, James, minister of Tower Hill, Wooler
(18S0-1903), 297.
lIcLelland, Alexander, minister of Cheviot Street,
Wooler, 297.
Maers, Ralph (1660), marriage, 134.
Makendon, accumulation of volcanic ashes at, 4.
Malcolm, King of Alban, defeats Northumbrians
at Carham (1018), 23 ; IV., of Scotland, surren-
ders Wark Castle, 46.
Malonflatt, Robert, gifts by, to Kirkham priori',
92.
Malton, prior of, papal mandate to, 96.
Man, Isle of, custody of, 319.
Manfield, Thomas, vicar of Wooler (1367), 294.
Manners of Etal, pedigree, 444-445 ; arms of, 444.
Manners, Elizabeth (Planners, Haggerston), 445 ;
EUen (More) (d. 1362), holding of, in Etal, 447-8 ;
George (i) (1495), succeeds to Etal, 450 ; suc-
ceeds to barony of Roos, 451 ; appoints resident
at Etal castle, 461 ; George (2), inherits pro-
perty in Branxton (1593), 112 ; in Paston, 181 ;
Gerard, sued for property in Shotton (1451),
185K ; Gilbert (1492), land in Akeld granted to,
237 ; land in Wooler granted to, 328 ; Henry
(i) (c. 1200), affidavit by, 156 ; gift of, to Kirk-
ham priory, 159, 163, 164, 178 ; gift confirmed
by, 177 ; Henry (2), second earl of Rutland,
inherits property in Bran.xton (1551), 112 ; sells
Crookhouse, 212 ; sells property in Coupland,
227 ; in Wooler, 328 ; conveys property to the
crown, 167, 461, 462 ; Henry (3), inherits
property in Branxton (1593), 112 ; in Paston,
181 ; John (i), minority of (1354), 447 ; mar-
riage of, 449 ; John (2), marriage, 140, 227 ;
Lanton tower settled on, 141 ; property in
Wooler granted to, 328 ; lord of Etal (1427),
449-50 ; sued for debt, 364 ; prosecuted for
murder, 380-2 ; John (3), involved in quarrel
with Herons (1427), 450 ; Robert (i) (1254),
holding in barony of Muschamp, 309 ; holding
in Etal, 443 ; dispute as to boundaries, 442 ;
Sir Robert (2), agreement kept by, 443 ; assess-
ment of (1296), 443 ; arms and seal of, 444 ;
accounts demanded by, 445 ; Sir Robert (3)
(d. 1354), endows chapel at Etal, iii, 360 ; gift
of, to chapel at Etal, 432 ; holds lands in
Hethpool, 266 ; arms and seal of, 444 ; lands
exchanged by, 445 ; crenellates house, 446,
460 ; entails by, 446 ; second marriage, 447 ;
inquest on death of, 448 ; Robert (4) (d. 1347),
in entail, 446 ; Robert (5), in entails (1336, 1347),
446, 447 ; Robert (6) (1352), death of, 449" ;
Robert (7), occupies Etal castle (1415), 449 ;
seal of, 444 ; gift by, of property in Lanton,
140, 141 ; grant by, of lands in Kirknewton.
145 ; gift by, of land in Coupland, 227 ; owns
tower of Hethpool, 267 ; grants property in
Wooler, 328 ; Robert (8) (14-), marries co-
heiress of Cheswick, 445 ; Robert (9) {d. 1461),
lord of Etal, grant to, 450 ; property of, in
Shotton, i85« ; leases land in Howtel, 207n ;
leases property in Akeld. 237 ; Robert (lo)
(d. 1495), marriage of, 450 ; Robert (11) (1535),
occupies Etal castle, 451 ; Thomas (i). Lord
Roos, first earl of Rutland, property of, in
Branxton, 112 ; in Lanton, 140, 142 ; in Shotton
185 ; in Crookhouse, 212 ; in Milfield, 244 ; in
Wooler, 328 ; augmentation granted to, 444 ;
inherits Etal, 451 ; will of (1542), I45>i, 167,
186, 227 ; Thomas (2), of Cheswick. will of
(i55i)i 112; Thomas (3), of Cheswick, will of
(1593). 112, 181 ; W'illiam (1347), Etal manor
entailed on, 446.
Manners Knowes, field in Etal, 456.
Manors, the, property in Milfield, 246.
Manton, Ralph, appointed to benefice of Wooler
(1300-02), 287, 293 ; resignation of, 294.
Mar, Muriel, countess of : see Stratheam ; William,
earl of (d. 1291), presentation by, 293 ; marriage.
308, 311 ; John, earl of, takes refuge at Wark
(1584), 71-
March, earl of. conspiracy by. 42.
Marden, geological fault passes, 5 ; conveyance
of land in, 406 ; Demesne, farm in Crookham,
405. 435. 436. 437-
Mare, Margaret (Strother), 133.
Margaret, queen of Scotland, in the charge of
Robert Roos, 33 ; at Wark castle, 48.
Marsh, George (i) (1722-60), rector of Ford. 366;
action for tithes brought by, 357 ; George (2),
rector of Ford (1760), 366; Hereward (J255),
sells Fenton, 332.
Marshall, John, marriage, no; Robert, holding
in barony of Muschamp (1254), 309.
Martin, Theodore George, marriage, 225.
Martindale, John, marriage, 224.
Mary, Queen, grants restoration of Wark castle,
66.
Massun. John, of Gascony, suit by, 24.
Matilda, Queen, grant by, of Carham church, 12 ;
claim supported by David of Scotland, 45.
Matthew Paxton, by WilUam Wilson, 367, 368.
Mauduit, Roger (1327), has custody of Wark
manor, 39.
Mauleverer, Sir William (1541). marriage. 317.
Mauley, Peter (1346), lands in Akeld held from,
233 ; lands in Hetherslaw held from. 431. 433 ;
marriage, 265, 314 ; death. 315.
Mautalent, Walter, marriage, 216, 217.
Mayen, Charles, award to, of tithes of Fenton
(1835), 29on.
Mayes, David, minister of Wester Meeting. Wooler
(1916 — ), 298.
Mayo, Charles (d. 1858), inherits property in
Fenton, 338 ; William Herbert (1858), property
in Fenton, passes to, 338.
Meade Close, property in Etal. 452.
Meinill, Elizabeth (Darcy, Mauley), 265, 314:
inherits forest of Cheviot, 274 ; advowson of
496
INDEX.
Wooler hospital passes to, 293, 314 ; wardship
of, claims to, 313 ; valuation of property of,
315 ; inherits property in Hetherslaw, 433 ;
Nicholas (i) {d. 1321), Cheviot, property in,
alienated to, 273 ; lands entailed on, 313 ;
advowson of S. Mary Magdalene's held by, 293 ;
Nicholas (2) (formerly Tvvenge) {d. 1341), lands in
Akeld held from, 232 ; succeeds to share of
Cheviot, 273 ; seised of whole of Cheviot, 274,
313 ; property in Wooler held from, 327 ; pro-
perty in Hetlicrslaw held from, 433.
Melbilchesknol, shcepfold in, 206.
'Melmin,' seat of Northumbrian kings, 241.
Melrose, Scottish army at, 106 ; abbey, tithes
claimed by, 119; gifts to monks of, 159, 183,
230K, 281, 282, 307.
'Merlanflat,' property in Lanton, 216.
Merley, Robert, rector of Wooler ( — 1300), 293 ;
— , marriage, 37.
Merlin, clerk, Branxton church presented to, 96 ;
witness, 97W ; rector (1200), loi ; affidavit by,
156.
Merlyon, John, murder by (1293), 249.
Merton, prior of, papal mandate to, 96.
Mervin, William (1294), holds lands in Moneylaws,
87n.
Messiter, Vivian, marriage, 225.
Meuricoffie, Tell, marriage, 248.
Middleton, Agnes (Manners), 444: Gilbert, rebelHon
of (1317). 135. 171. 181, 184, 185, 232M.
282, 321 ; John (i) (1256), dower claimed from,
267 ; Crookhouse granted to, 210 ; involved in
lawsuit, 21 1» ; Sir John (2) (1428), takes part
in border quarrel, 381 ; Matilda, sues for
possession of land in Mindrum (1266), 77 ; Michael
(1290), dower claimed from, 106 ; property in
Crookhouse, 197 ; leases property, 210, 212 ;
mortgage by, 211; Nicholas (1256), action
brought by, 83 ; Thomas (1264), sued for land in
Wooler, 307)! ; William (i), rector of Ford (1337-
41), 364 ; William (2), tenant in Wooler, 323.
Middleton Crags, granite formation, 3 ; Hall, sale
of, 278M.
Milbank, Mark, holds mortgage on Selby property
(1683), 114.
Milburn, Robert, statement by (1335), 102 ; Roger,
vicar of Branxton ( — 1314), 102.
Miles, vicar of Ford, holding of, 352.
Milfield TOWNSHIP, 243-8 ; census returns, 243« ;
tithes of, 119, 120; wrongly identified wth
'Melmin,' 241K ; Scots defeated at, 243 ; other
militarj' associations, 244 ; descent of property,
244-8 ; common, 246 ; Demesne, sale of, 246 ;
Ninths, sales of, 213, 245, 246.
Milfield Hill, 245 ; sale of, 246 ; Lower Carbonif-
erous rocks at, 5 ; Plaia, geology of, 9, 10 ; part
of Kirknewton parish in, 117; races on, 248;
Covenanters encamped on, 303.
Milip, Simon (1354), prosecution of, 299.
Mill Ford, English army crosses Till at, 106.
Millison, Anne (1674), recusant, 304.
Mills, Robert (1808), sells land in Howtel, 205 ;
Thomas (1749), marriage, 200.
Mills: at Berwick, iign ; Canno, 155; Colpin-
hope, 190; Coupland, 215, 221, 222, 226,227;
Downham, 84 ; Etal, 443, 446, 447, 448, 452,
453. 454. 455. 456 ; Fold. 373. 393. 394. 401.
403, 405, 406, 408 ; Hadstone, 373 ; Harrow-
bogg, 280 ; Hetherslaw, 401, 406, 408, 429, 430,
431. 432, 433. 434. 435; Hethpool, 252. 258;
Howtel, (Houghton) 205n ; Kilham, 160, 161,
163, 166, i58 ; Kimmerston, 375 ; Lanton,
128, 129, 131, 136, 138, 144, 152, 198, 210, 211,
213; Learmouth, 75; Mindrum, 79K, 80, 177;
Paston, 161, 168, 172 ; Shotton, 182, 184, 185,
igo ; Wooler, 310, 311, 3I2», 319". 322.
Milne, John (1568), landowner in Paston, 171.
Milnefield, le, property in Akeld, 237 ; possible
origin of Milfield, 243K.
'Milneland,' holding in Shotton, 185.
Mindrum, Nicholas of, holding in Mindrum, 77
Robert of, claim by widow of, 77.
Mindrum Township, 77-83 ; census returns, 22H
etymology ot name, 77M ; in barony of Roos
32, 77 ; descent of manor, 77-83 ; grant of tithes
of, 17 ; when attached to Carham parish, 12 ;
chapel of ease at, 15, 21 ; disappearance of
chapel, 18 ; ancient graveyard at, 16 ; raided
by Scots, 82, 83, 150, 250 ; possible identity
with 'Melmin,' 241);; mill at, 79«, 80, 177;
shell marl at, 11.
Mintridge, Hereford, etymology of name, 77H.
' Mirebelstuel,' sheepfold of, 178.
Mitchell, Charles, purchases Howtel estate (1911).
20j ; purchases Pallinsburn, 440 ; James,
minister of Wester Meeting, Wooler (1808-35),
298 ; Moses (1855-6), vicar of Kirknewton, 127.
Mitford, Francis, bequest to (1717), 409 ; Michael
(i), marriage, 402 ; Michael (2), bequest to
(171 7), 409; Robert, holds charge on Lanton
Mill (1293), 129, 210K.
Moffat, James, marriage, 459.
Moffatt, Richard (1533), tenant in Hetherslaw,
434-
'Molmescol,' {or Molbesclol), property in Howtel,
205, 206.
Molson, Robert, tenant in Wooler (13 — ), 323.
Moncrieff, Matthew, minister of Etal (1754-9). 367.
Moneyhall, -Staffordshire, derivation of name, 86k.
Moneylaws, Hugh of (1296), assessment of, 87.
Moneylaws township, 86-gi ; census returns,
22K ; etymology of name, 86k ; descent of
manor, 87-91 ; in barony of Roos, 32, 86 ;
grant of tithes of, 17 ; 4ues of flour from, 14 ;
property of Selby family in, 113, 114 ; entail of,
89, 132 ; settlement of, 146 ; moiety of, passes
to Haggerston family, 275 ; attacked by Scots,
90 ; rocks at, 6 ; old lake at, 11.
■Monk, general, passes through Wooler (1660), 304.
Monmouth, duke of, army of, passes through
Wooler (1679), 304.
Montague, John (i), inherits castle and manor of
Wark (1344), 39; title of, maintained, 40;
death of, 41 ; John (2), exchanges barony
of Wark for lands elsewhere (1397), 41 ; owns
Wark castle, 53 ; William (1329), manor of
Wark granted to, 39, 52 ; service paid to, from
Mindrum, 80 ; holds tenements in Paston, 170.
Montfort, Simon de, earl of Leicester {d. 1265),
acquires barony of Embleton, 332 ; lands of,
forfeited, 333.
Monyash, Derbyshire, derivation of name, 86h.
Moore, William (1708), property in Lanton con-
veyed to, 141.
INDEX.
497
Morallee, Martha (Isaacson, Brown), 337.
Moran, Walter Isidore, \acar of Wooler (igio — ),
295-
Moray, Walter, takes refuge at Norham (1258), 49.
More, Hannah, a friend of, 297 ; John (c. 1360),
marriage, 444, 448 ; marriage granted to, 449.
Moreflate, gift of land in, 178,
Morin, Richard [d. 1269), marriage, 308; pur-
chases Fenton, 332 ; widow of, claims dower,
333-
Morley, Captain Robert, killed in fray near
Crookham, (1678) 358 ; — , killed in border raid
(1678), 75-
Morrison, Isabella (Grey), 247 ; William, marriage,
248.
Mart d'ancesior, writs of, 78, 83.
Morton, Ehzabeth (Burrell), 199 ; Elizabeth Jane
(Grey), 248 ; George (i) (1776), buys Canno Mill,
155 ; George (2), inherits Canno Mill (1799),
155 ; Henry, Canno Mill passes to, 155 ; mar-
riage (1816), 225 ; Henry Thomas, buys Newton
Tors (1859), 149 ; buys West Newton estate,
155 ; inherits Canno Mill, 155 ; buys Yeavering,
243 ; moiety of Hethpool conveyed to, 261,
263 ; will of, 150 ; Joscasta, administration
granted to, 295 ; Peregrine (1630), administra-
tion granted to, 295 ; Thomas, -vicar of Wooler
(1599-1630), 295.
Mount Pleasant, farm in Hetherslaw, 436.
Mowbray, Christine, connection with Robert Roos,
35«-
Mowfitt, Richard, tenant in Akeld (1669), 235.
Muirhead, J. L. (1835-97), minister of Cheviot
Street, Wooler, 297.
Murdoch, Hugh (1171-1185), witness at trial, 11712.
Murray, Adam, minister of Eccles, 296 ; Thomas,
minister of Cheviot Street, Wooler {1785-93),
296.
Murray, Earl of, soldiers of, raid Branxton (1528),
106.
Murrow, Mark, incumbent of Carham (1650), 18, 22.
Muschamp of Wooler, pedigree, 308 ; arms of,
308, 444.
Muschamp, Cicely (i) (Bulmer), 306 ; ordered to
surrender Hetherslaw, 428 ; Cicely {2) (Ford),
co-heiress, 307 ; George, holds lease of Etal coal
mines {1585), 470 ; Isabel (i), widow, claims
dower (1250), 428 ; Isabel (2) (Grenlegh), 307« ;
Isabel (3) (Huntercumbe), co-heiress, 307 ;
inherits property in Wooler, 310, 311; dower
assigned to, 312 ; holds moiety of Muschamp
barony, 318; holding in Hethpool, 253, 254;
in Cheviot forest, 272 ; in Hetherslaw, 430 ;
John (1591), property in Milfield, 244, 245 ;
Margery, Countess of Strathearn, co-heiress,
307 ; inheritance of daughters of, 310 ; presen-
tation by, 293 ; Michael, property of widow of,
in Milfield (1541), 244 ; Oswald, holds Milfield
(1568), 244 ; Ralph (i), ordered to restore
monaster^' lands (1138), 306, 428; Ralph (2),
lease given by (1616), 245 ; Robert (i) (1118),
dispute with Flambard, 306 ; Robert (2) (1182),
succeeds as minor, 306 ; Robert (3) (d. 1250),
barony of, 214 ; division of estate of. 229 ; grant
to monks of Melrose, 230)1, 307 ; presentation
by, 293 ; holds Hethpool, 252, 266 ; holds forest
of Cheviot, 272, 273 ; grants Trollop to Melrose
Vol. XI.
Abbey, 281, 282 ; licensed to hold market at
Wooler, 299 ; relief paid by, 306 ; action against
307; inquisition as to holdings of, 309, 31 in;
holds Hetherslaw, 428, 433>) ; Etal held from,
442, 443 ; Robert (4) (1206), custody of lands
of, 307n : Robert (5) (1653), sells Milfield Hill,
I 245; Roger (1347), land in Howtel claimed from,
I 197 ; Thomas (i), gift of, to monks of Durham,
306 ; becomes a monk, 428 ; Thomas (2)
(d. 1 181), holds forest of Cheviot, 272 ; succeeds
to Wooler, 306 ; ordered to surrender Hethers-
I law, 428; William (1254), holding of, 309;
I partition made by, 3ii«; dispute as to boun-
I daries by, 442.
Muschamp, barony of, 95, log, no, 188, 222, 235,
241, 252, 265, 266, 272«, 284, 285, 306, 3i5n,
318. 332. 335. 369, 375. 428. 434. 436. 440. 442 :
seisin of, given, 307)1.
Muschiens. See Muschamp.
Musgrave, Robert, owns property in Downham
(1332), 85.
Mytton, William, vicar of Bran.xton (1379-80), 102.
N.
Namiiim Vetilum, rights of, 333.
Nanus, Ralph, lands of, 281.
Naruswinesete, Swirle of, bounds Trollop, 281.
Nassington, Roger, rector of Ford (1316), 364.
Neil, Ehzabeth Boyd (Grey,) 248.
Neligan, Moore Richard, Bishop of .\uckland,
rector of Ford, (1911 — ) 366.
Nesbit, Hannah (CuUey), 224 ; Thomas, marriage,
30 : — , architect, employed on Ford castle. 417.
Nesbit, Fenton township merged in, 331 ; boun-
darj' of lands in, 333.
Netherford, fish-pool made near, 14.
Neubaud, Nicholas : see Huntercumbe ; Richard,
claim of, to property in Hethpool, 255 ;
marriage, 308.
Neville, Francis (1562), alienates property in
Cheviot, 274; marriage, 317, 3i8n ; Hastings
Mackelcan, rector of Ford (1872-1911), 366 ; ex-
changes lands in Ford, 362 ; Henry Grey. Wark
estates left to (1705), 44)2, 76 ; repurchases
Downham, 86 ; inherits property in Grey's
Forest, 280 ; sells Fenton, 336 ; Humphrey,
pardon refused to (1464). 43 : Sir John (1546).
relieved of command at Wooler. 301 ; Sir
Ralph (d. 1367), holds property in Wooler, 320,
32i»r ; Ralph, earl of Westmorland, acquires
barony of Wooler (1397), 41.
Neville's Cross, battle of (1346), 218, 282.
Newark, vicarage of, 13.
Newbiggin, Alexander, holds property in lOlham,
i62n.
Newcastle, John (1305), action against, 294.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Black Gate Museum at, 26 ;
house within castle of, pertaining to Roos
barony, 32 ; rent from property in, 80 ; church
of S. Nicholas, enquiry held in, 282 ; see of,
created, 289 ; shire court of Northumberland
held at, 306 ; assizes at. 342 : head of Grey
exposed at, 42 ; besieged by Scots, 304.
Newminster, abbot of, enquir>' before, 282.
Newnhara, George Lewis. See Colling^vood.
63
498
INDEX.
Newston, Gregory (1256), killed in affray at
Hetherslaw, 341.
Newton, Adam of : see Sampson ; Charles,
of Elswick (1650), property in Etal leased to,
455 ; John, descent of, 132 ; Nicholas, rector
of Ford {1434-37), 364 ; Robert of, quitclaim
by, 156, 157 ; Sampson of. property of, in
West Newton, 152 ; pasturage granted to, 156 ;
Stephen, (1344) ordained to chantry of Ford,
359 ; William of, grant by, of Ruttok wood
{1348), I45»^, 153.
Newton common. See Hethpool common.
Newton, East, lease of tithes of, 119; pasturage
and tithes from, 120 ; settlement of estate, 149.
Newton in Bywell, transfers of property in, I54«.
Newton in Glendale. See Kirknewton.
Newton Tors, estate in Kirknewton, 149, 150.
Newton, West, township, 152-157 ; in barony of
Roos, 32, 152 ; tithes from, 117; lease of tithes
of, 119 ; grant of property in, 131 ; settlement
of, 145, 146 ; recovery of manor, 148 ; descent
of manor, 152-55; census returns, 152H;
attacked by Scots, 154 ; Canno Mill, 155; Kirk-
ham priory lands in, 156-7.
Nichol, W. S., minister of Etal (1917-20), 368.
Nicholas, Pope, taxation of (1291), 14, 118, 286,
350.
Nicholson, — , buys Coldsmouth, 191.
Niger, Robert, tenant in Kilham, 166.
Nixon, Martin (1747-55), vicar of Wooler, 295.
Norfolk, duke of, reports on state of Wark castle,
62.
Norham, Hugh of (1285), complaint by, iii ; John
of (1338), curate of Kirknewton, 125.
Norham, in North Durham, property of Etal
manor in, 453 ; property of Selby family in,
114 ; proctor of, payments to vicar of Branxton
by, 98.
Norham-on-Tweed, castle of, 49, 54, 56, 67, 410 ;
reports on, 71, 72.
Norhamshire, smuggling in, 383.
Northburgh, Roger (1314-16), rector of Ford, 363 ;
bishop of Lichfield, 364.
Northumberland, Henry, Earl of (11 — ), 76« ;
William, earl of (1152), grants land in Lear-
mouth, 76 : see also William the Lion ; Henry, earl
of, (1387) compensation paid to, 379 ; wardship
granted to, 382 ; Henry, earl of (1460), holding in
Wooler, 3i2«; Henry Algernon, earl of (1528),
seeks charge of Wark castle, 58 ; Thomas, earl
of, appoints captain of Wark (1557), 67 ; warrant
issued by (1558), 389-90 ; organises forces at
Wooler (1559), 301 ; raids Mindrum, (1570), 83;
— , Lady, letters from, seized (1572), 395. See
also Percy.
Northumberland, archdeacon of, enquiry before,
282.
Norway, the Maid of, marriage arranged for, 24.
Nott, Ellen (Selby), 174.
Noxes Farm, in Hetherslaw, 436.
O.
Oak Hill, farm in Hetherslaw, 436.
Oberbriick, in the Vosges, granite at, 3.
Odinel, rector of Ford {1260-91?), 352, 363.
Ogle, pedigree, 406.
Ogle, Sir Chaloner, property of, in Coupland (1734),
222 ; in Akeld, 234, 236, 238 ; Cuthbert (i)
(1516), rector of Ford, 362, 365 ; Cuthbert (2)
(1541), owns manor of Downham, 85 ; tithes
leased to, 119 ; George (i), vicar of Kirknewton
(1669-75), 126 : George (2), marriage, 406 ;
Gregory, (1561) found guilty of murder, 392 ;
Henry (i), inherits Downham (1604), 86 ; Henry
(2), sells property in Downham (1673), 86 ;
Henry (3) of Causey Park, marriage. 459 ;
Jenetta (Manners) 444 ; John (i), land in Min-
drum granted to (1435), 81 ; killed at battle of
Piperdean (1436), 91 ; John (2), appointed
commandant of Ford and Etal (1545), 412 ;
John (3), (1673) sells property in Downham,
86 ; John (4), of Kirkley, marriage (1668), 406 ;
John (5) (1713), of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, buys
estate in Akeld, 236 ; Luke (i), leases Carham
parsonage (1565), 17 ; owns manor of Downham,
85 ; Luke (2) (d. 1604), inquisition on death of,
86 ; Nathaniel, sells estate (1806), 236 ; Very
Rev. Newton, inherits estate, 236 ; Robert (i)
(1383), captain of Wark castle, 53 ; Sir Robert
(2) \d. 1436), marriage, 327 ; holds lands in
Mindrum, 81 ; takes part in border quarrel,
381 ; Sir Robert {3), taken prisoner at Piper-
dean (1436), 91 ; outlawed, 450 ; Robert (4),
(1780), marriage, 29 ; Thomas, incumbent of
Carham (1701-48), 19, 22 ; parsonage rebuilt
by, 21 ; William (i), of Causey Park, marriage
(16 — ), 134 ; William (2), of Causey Park,
marriage (1721), 459; Robert, Lord, captain of
Wark castle, {1523) 27; — (Strother), 133 ; — ,
marriage {17 — ), 337 ; — , Dr., presents Coupland
chapel to Kirknewton church (1796), 123.
O'Kelly, Denis, incumbent of Wooler R.C. church
(igo2-), 296.
Oliphant, Mrs. M. O. W., novelist, 367.
Ord, Anne (Ogle, Carr), 459 ; John (i), of Morpeth,
holds lands in Milfield (1748), 245 ; John (2),
of Morbattle, marriage (1805), 200 ; John (3),
of Nisbet, buys Howtel estate (1847), 205 ;
Ralph, marriage (1684), 402 ; Thomas, marriage,
115 : William (i) (1638), entail upheld by, 399 ;
William (2) (1789), holds Milfield Demesne, 246.
Orde, Charles William (1862), sells Milfield
Demesne, 246; John, sells Canno Mill (1776),
155 ; Thomas (i), accounts of. for Etal (1616),
453n ; Thomas {2), of Felkington, marriage
(17 — ), 134 ; Thomas (3), vicar of Kirknewton
(1732-70), 126; William, marriage (1626), 134.
Orm, of Presson, private oratory allowed to, 15,
92 ; grants by, to Kirkham priory, 92 ; Patrick,
son of Orm, gift of, to Kirkham priory, 177 ;
Robert, son of Orm, controversy with canons of
Kirkham. 14 ; confirms charter, 92 ; son of : see
Malonflalt.
Ossulston, Baron. See Bennet.
Oswin, king, grants by, to S. Cuthbert, 77)1,
i83«.
Otterburn, Battle of (i3!!8), 91.
Outchester, Robert of, holding in barony of Mus-
champ (1254), 309.
Ovingham church, chancel windows of, 361.
Oxley, Amor (d. 1669). vicar of Kirknewton. 126 ;
gift of. to Kirknewton church, 124 ; Ben, Pit
in Ford colliery named from, 426.
INDEX.
499
p.
PalUnsburn, estate in Crookham, 439 ; conveyanec
of property in, 406 ; farms in, 440 ; Dairy farm,
course of Till at, 9.
Pally, Ralph, sued for land in Presson (1274), 93.
Palmer, Robert (1299), dower claimed from, 231 ;
Thomas (1293), resident in Akeld. 231 ; William,
property of, in Akeld (1296), 231 ; accusation
by, 232.
Panbury, Ellen of, forfeits property in Howtel
(1359), 195-
Parkinson, Elizabeth (Bellamy, CuUey), 224.
Parys, Robert, forfeiture of, 230 ; William, claims
lands in Akeld (1291), 230.
Paston, Adam of, grant to Kirkham priory by,
178; suit by, 186; rent claimed from (1291),
197 ; Henry of (i), gift by, to Kirkham priory,
177 ; grant confirmed by, 178 ; Henry of (2)
(1242), called to warrant, 179 ; Hugh of, claims
land in Paston (1276), 181 ; John of, conveyance
by, 179; Margaret of (1291), accusation by,
180 ; Philip of, grant by, to Ivirkham priory,
178 ; Robert of, grant confirmed by, 178 ;
land claimed from (1276), i8i ; Thomas of
(1280), Utigation with Kirkham priory, 166 ;
sued for dower, 180 ; action against, 181 ;
Walter of, sued for land in Kilham (1242), 159 ;
in Paston, 179 ; Waltheof of, sells land in
Paston, 176 ; gift by, to Kirkham priory, 177 ;
William of, sells land in Kilham, 159, 166 ;
grants by, to Kirkham priory, 178, 179.
Paston TOWNSHIP, 170-187 ; derivation of name,
170M ; census returns, I70« ; tithes of, 119,
120 ; in barony of Roos, 32, 170 ; descent of
manor, 170-6 ; property of Selby family in, 113 ;
settlement of property in, 146 ; holdings in,
160, 282 ; sale of mill at, 161, 168 ; lands held
in mortmain in, 176-9 ; sub-tenants of manor,
179-81; Shottonin, 182-7; valuation of manor, 182.
Pasturage : see Commons and Pastures.
Patterson, W. T., marriage, 204.
Pattison, George (1674), recusant, 304.
Paul, Robert, purchases Coupland estate (1733),
221 ; purchases Yeavering, 242.
PauUnus, missionary campaign of, 241.
Peacock, Anne (Clavering, Bulmer, Babington), 404.
Pedigrees ; — Archer of Kilham, 162 ; Askew of
Pallinsburn, 438 ; Babington, 404 ; Baxter of
Lanton, 139; Blake of Ford castle, 402; Bur-
rell of Howtel, 199 ; Carr of Ford, 391 ; Compton
of Carham, 29 ; Corbet of Lanton, 130 ; Coup-
land of Coupland, 217 ; Culley of Coupland
castle, 224; Davison of Branxton, 116; Grey
of Milfield, 247 ; Heron of Ford, 378 ; Howtel of
Howtel, 192 ; Isaacson of Newcastle and Fenton,
337 ; James of Kirknewton, 149 ; Kilham of
Kilham, 158 ; Manners of Etal, 444 ; Muschamp
of Wooler, 308 ; Ogle, 406 ; Pinkerton of Reeds-
ford, 203 ; Reed of Hethpool, 258 ; Roddam,
Sarah, coheirs of, 261 ; Roos of Wark, 37 ;
Selby of Goldscleugh, 276 ; Selby of Paston,
173 ; Strother of Kirknewton, 132 ; Walker of
Goldscleugh and Broadstrother, 277 ; Winkles,
406.
Penbury, Robert (1291), accusation against, con-
cerning property in Mindrum, 77B.
Penleswyers, property in Grey's Forest, 280.
Penrith, John of, sells property in Shotton (1329),
185.
Pepys, Sir Lucas, marriage, 438.
Percebrig, Thomas (1428), vicar of Wooler, 294.
Percy, Henry (i) (134O), acquires property in
Wooler, 3i2n; Henry (2) (d. 1352), property in
Wooler, 312; Henry (3), Lord, leases property
in Wooler, (1353) 3i2n ; Henry (4) (1368), in-
heritance of, 3i2n ; fortresses supervised by,
410; Henry (5), Hotspur, Kilham mortgaged
to, 162 ; Antechester mortgaged to, 188 ;
Wooler mortgaged to, 324 ; Henry (6), earl of
Northumberland, Fenton held from (1428),
335 ; Sir Henry (7) (1449), grant of land to,
450 ; Sir Henry (8), tithes in Carham leased by,
17 ; Joan, dower of, 312M ; John, earl of
Northumberland, Fenton held from (1450). 335 ;
Sir Richard, killed at Piperdean (1436), 91 ; Sir
Thomas, assists in expedition against French
(1379). 322. See Northumberland, earl of.
Ferrers, Alice, receives grant of Moneylaws, 89.
Petit, — , surveyor of Calais, reports on Wark
castle, (1544), 63.
PhiUp, vicar of Kirknewton (1316), 125.
Phillip, lava flows exposed at, 4.
PhilUps, Vaughan, acts as guardian (1693), 223.
Phipps, Samuel (1777), purchases Coupland manor,
222 ; purchases Yeavering, 242.
Picked Stone, arable in Carham, 27.
Pickering, John (1302), prosecuted for trespass,
293 ; Margaret (Culley), 225.
Pickles, Joseph Samuel {afterwards Wilsden),
vicar of Wooler (1880-19 10), 295.
Piddocke, Morris, buys advowson of Kirknewton
(1878), 121 ; vicar of Kirknewton, 127 ; Maurice
Morris, vicar of Kirknewton, (1910 — ), 127.
Pikeman, Captain, in charge of Wark castle (1570),
70.
Pilgrimage of Grace, the (1536), 387.
Pinkerton of Reedsford, pedigree, 203.
Pinkerton, James, buys Reedsford (1760),
William, owner of I^eedsford (1826), 203.
Pinkie, battle of (1547), 413-
Piperdean, border battle of (1436), 91.
Pisa, council of (1409), 105, 118.
Platewell, property in Grey's Forest, 280.
Plenmeller, township of, confiscated by crown,
suit for manor of, 78H.
'Ploweland, Ic,' property in Coupland, 215.
Plumpton, William, marriage (c. 1364), 81.
Poer, Henry de la : see W'aterford, marquis of.
Pole, Rev. Wilham Chandos, marriage (1865), 439.
Pratt, Margery (Compton), 29 ; Roland, vicar of
Wooler (1549). 295-
Prendergast, Adam (i), dower of widow of (1279),
230 ; Adam (2) (1335), rebellion by, 232 ; pro-
perty restored to, 233; Henrj- (i) (1279), pro-
perty in Akeld, 230 ; Henry (2) (1330), property
restored to, 232 ; forfeiture of, 233 ; John,
property in Akeld (1291), 230; property for-
feited by, 231.
Prendrelath, Ellen, receives lease of manor of
Moneylaws (1305), 88; Joan (Wischard), ward-
ship of, 87 ; John (1256), property of, in Money-
laws, 87 ; Nicholas, succeeds to property, 87.
Presbv, Charles, vicar of Kirknewton (1580), 126.
203;
40;
500
INDEX.
Presbyterian, The, Australian newspaper, 368.
Presfen, Michael (1322), has custody of Wark
manor, 30 ; William (1327), succeeds to custody
of manor, ^gn.
Presson township, 91-95 ; derivation of name,
9i« ; census returns, 22K ; in barony of Roos,
32, 42, 91 ; held from lord of Wark, 81 ; des-
cent of manor, 91-5 ; grant of tithes of, 17 ;
private oratory at, 15 ; license for chapel at,
20« ; land owned in, 14 ; money taken from
vill, 34; English force defeated at (1296), 35;
border fight (Piperdean), near (1436), 91.
Prestman, John, (1539), rebel, 25.
Preston Hill, geological fault extends from, 5.
Priests of Etal, The, by George McGuffie, 367.
Pringle, George Hughes {afterwards Hughes),
Luckenarks settled on, 276 ; John (c. 1650),
holds living of Ford, 355, 365 ; Joseph Hughes,
Broadstrother settled on, 275 ; William, hold-
ings of (1770), 222K.
Proctor, Cuthbert (1589), fine levied by, 198, 268 ;
Harriet (Selby), 174 ; John, of Berwick (1753),
apprenticeship to, 258.
Pugin, architect, plans of Wooler roman catholic
church drawn by, 296.
Puiset, Hugh, bishop of Durham, confirms grant
to Kirkham priory, 15, g2», 124.
PuUeine, Henry Percy, marriage, 438 ; Wingate,
marriage, 404.
Puncherdone. Yvo, service due from (1255), 430.
Purdy, John (1716), makes drawings of Ford castle,
414, 416, 421, 423.
Purves, W., purchases farm in Wooler, 326.
Purvis, George, marriage (1803), 247.
Q.
Quia Emplores, statute of (1290), 212M.
Quo Warranto, proceedings, 34, 79W, iii, 176, 253,
254. 319, 333". 334-
R.
Rackold, arable in Carham, 27.
RadcUffe, Sir Edmund, royal grant to (1510) 109 ;
Thomas, vicar of Branxton (1438-43), 102.
Raffield, George (1763), controls restoration of
Ford castle, 416-7.
Rametta, Lady, holding of, in barony of Mus-
champ, 309.
Ramsay, Alexander, of Dalhousie, in battle at
Piperdean (1436), 91 ; Lady Jean (Strother),
134-
Rand, Mr. C, buys Hagg Farm, 83.
Ratcliffe, Anthony, marriage, 391 ; John (i),
marriage (1647), 391 ; mortgage held by, 441 ;
claims tithes of Etal, 455 ; murder by, 391, 400,
401 ; John (2) (1674), descent of, 391 ; property
sold by, 408 ; Susan : see Hodgson.
Raxedeburne, on boundary of Trollop, 281.
Raymond, Robert, appointed captain of Wark
(1542), 61.
Raynes, Nicholas (1376), conveyance to, 433.
Rea, George Grey, oi Doddington, marriage, 248 ;
owner of Reedsford, 203 ; Robert, marriage,
130. 153-
Read, Captain, commands garrison of Wark
(1557), 67, 68.
Reavely, Elizabeth (Davison), 116.
Redhead, Gerard, marriage, 199.
Redpath, — , buys farm in Wooler, 326.
Reed of Hethpool, pedigree, 258.
Reed, George (d. 1743), alienates property in Heth-
pool, 260 ; Gilbert, claims lands in Howtel
(1687), 201, 202 ; property of, in Hethpool, 260 ;
John (i), marriage (1636), 173 ; landowner in
Howtel, 201 ; John (2), grant to (1664) 201 ;
Lancelot (1688), property of, in Hethpool, 260 ;
Sarah (Roddam), settles estate, 260 ; Thomas,
marriage (1711), 224; Tristram, sells property
in Howtel, 202 ; William (i), (1688), property
of, in Hethpool, 260 ; ejected from Reedsford,
202.
Reedsford, included in vill of Howtel, 192 ; grant
of freehold, 201 ; mortgage on, 202 ; sales of,
203 ; tithes of, 203 ; bounds Howtel estate, 205.
Reginald of Bath, physician (1255), 33.
Reid, Elizabeth (Carr), 459 ; John H., minister of
Wester Meeting, Wooler (1903-16), 298.
Reidswire, border battle at (1575), 70.
Rendall, Mary (Denny), 261.
Reveley, Ehzabeth (IJurrell), 199 ; Ralph, in
charge of Lanton tower (1522), 142 ; Thomas,
case against (1657), iign ; — , widow, tenant
in Wooler (1562), 328,
Reynolds, William Hunter, marriage (1856), 204.
Rhodes, geology of, 2, 7.
Riacres, property in Howtel, 206.
Richardson, James, sells Thompson's Walls (1801),
189.
Richmond, Thomas of (1299), purchases Fenton,
334-
Rickards, John, marriage, 174.
Ridale, Philip (1293), money taken from, by sub-
escheator, 34.
Ridgway, William, superintends fortification of
Wark (1547), 65.
Riederer, Baroness von, sells Lanton property, 138.
Rievaulx, abbey of, 12 ; abbot of, negotiates sur-
render of Wark castle, 46.
Rigby, Edward, incumbent of Wooler R.C. church,
296.
Rihill, Beatrice of (Kilhara, Grey), 158.
Rikeman, Henry (13 17), purchases land in West
Newton, 154)!.
Rising of the North, the (1569), 318.
Robertson, James, minister of Tower Hill, Wooler
(1802-55), -97 '■ R- I^-' minister of Cheviot Street,
Wooler (1918 — ), 297 ; Sarah (Askew), 439 ;
Watson Askew : see Askew.
Robinson, Christopher, vicar of Kirknewton
(1827-55), 121, 127; marriage, 225; Elizabeth,
tablet erected by (1830), 236n ; John, land in
Hetherslaw granted by (1379), 434 ; John
Stephen, marriage, 261 ; Thomas, minister of
Etal (1852-65), 367.
Robson, Bridget (Compton), 29 ; John (1561-5),
rector of Ford, 365.
Rochester, Edward, vicar of Wooler (1640), 295 ;
ill-treatment of, 291.
Rockliff, Cumberland, tower at, 82.
Rockmoor House, farm of, 203.
Roddam, Sarah, coheirs of, pedigree, 261.
INDEX.
Roddam, John (1540), sued for lands in Woolcr
325(4 ; Mary (Carlyle), 262 ; Robert, marriage'
258, 260, 261 ; Sarah (Blackett), 262.
Rodds, farm in Etal, 456,
Roddyn, Ysoda, tenant in Hetherslaw, 429.
Roger (1293-1302), vicar of Branxton, 102.
Rogers, John, lunatic, estate of, 338.
Rogerson, John, grants land in Howtel, 200.
Rolleston, Samuel, marriage, 460.
Roos of Wark, pedigree of, 37-8 ; arms of, 37.
Koos, Christine (1294), conveyance by, of lands in
Mindrum, 78 ; prosecutions by, 79 ; Eleanor
(Manners), 444, 450 ; Isabel (i) (Knox), claim
to barony, 36; Isabel (2) (c. 1490), co-heiress,
451 ; Margaret (i) (Salveyn), claim to barony,
36; Margaret (2) (e. 1490), co-heiress, 451;
Peter (1153), marriage, 32 ; Robert (i) {d. 1226),
commutation of tithes paid by, 15 ; Wark
chapel endowed by, 16 ; confirmed in possession
of barony, 32, 48 ; founds hospital of S. Thomas
at Bolton, 79«, 166, 176 ; buys land in Kilham,
159; grant by, of Paston, 170; Robert (2) {d.
1274), granted free warren in Carham, 26, 33;
enfeoffed of barony, 33, 77, 78 ; lends Wark
castle to Henry III., 48, 49; grants property
in Learmouth, 75 ; inherits Downham, 83 ;
grant by, to Bolton hospital, 84 ; granted free
warren in Moneylaws, 86 ; in Presson, 92 ;
damages paid by, 166 ; Paston granted to,' 170 ■
sued for land in Paston, 180; holds land in
Shotton, 183 ; Robert (3) (d. 1274), seised of
barony, 34 ; holds lands in Mindrum, 78 ;
Robert (4) (1274-96), inherits as minor, 34, 93 ;
answers to writ of Quo Warranto, 34 ; treason
of. 35. 79. 87 ; exiled, 36 ; judgment in favour
of. 75 : prosecuted for trespass, 79, 152 ; dis-
traint on Mindrum by, 79 ; wardship sold by,
87 ; claims rights in Presson, 93 ; guardian of
heir of Lanton, 129, 130; manor of Newton
held from, 143 ; holding in Kilham, 160 ;
Robert (5) (d. 1285), of Helsmley, becomes
guardian of barony, 34, 93 ; Robert (?), gift by,
to Carham church, 13 ; Thomas (1310), of
Kendal, inherits Presson, 94 ; William (i) (1226),
of Helmsley, resigns claim to barony, 33 ;
WiUiam (2) (d. ante 1269), holds Mindrum, 77,
80 ; enfeoffed with Downham, 84 ; William (3)
(1276), of Downham, owns land in Mindrum,
77 ; in Downham, 81 ; action brought by, 78 ;
suit by, 79 ; claims inheritance in Downham,
84 ; assessment of, 84 ; William (4) (d. ante
1310), of Helmsley, barony granted to, 35, 50,
79 ; saves Wark from Scots, 49 ; takes wheat
from Moneylaws, 88 ; William (5) (d. 1310), of
Presson and Kendal, holds vill of Learmouth,
75 ; holds Presson, 93 ; death of, 94 ; William,
(6) (d. 1343), succeeds to barony, 36 ; surrenders
barony to crown, 14, 38, 41 ; contract with king
Edward II., 50, 51 ; in charge of W'ark castle, 52.
Roos, Lord : see Manners.
Roos, barony of, 31, 32, 77, 83, 86, 91, 128, 143,
152, 158, 170, 192, 451; extent of, i62«.
Rosedon, in barony of Roos, 32.
Roses, Wars of the, 42-3.
Ross, Robert (1543), succeeds to moiety of Cheviot,
274, 317 ; suggested sale by, 278H ; action
against, 31S.
Ross, manor of, dispute concerning, 306.
Rothbury, Walter of, resident in Fenton (1206)
334-
Rotherham, Robert, rector of Ford (1616-31),
365 ; dispute with patron as to tithes (1625)'
354. 355«-
Roughside, property in Grey's Forest, 280.
Rous, Thomas le, marriage, 378.
Routledge, Renian, slain by Scots at Kilham (1597),
169.
Rowe, — , marriage, 30.
Howell's cottage, property in Hcthpool, 260.
Rowland, Cuthbert, tithes in Carham leased by, 17.
Roxburgh, visited by Edward I., 49 ; plan to use
spoils of, 66 ; fair of, 33 ; castle of, 53.
Roxburghshire, men of, desert at Flodden, 108 ;
grant of lands in, 218.
Rudd, Thomas, marriage, 174.
Rus, John Ic, suit by, respecting mill in Money-
laws (1271), 87.
Rutherford, Nicholas, sells property in Shotton
(1603), 186 ; Walter, case against (1657), 11911.
Rutland, lord warden, assists captain of Wark,
61,62; Thomas, earl of : sc<! Manners.
Ruttok, wood of, in Kirknewton, 145, 152, 153.
Rycroft, Elizabeth (Askew), 438.
Rydale, Philip (1300), mortgages held by, 430;
gift by, to Domus Dei hospital, 431.
S.
Sadler, Sir Ralph, reports on Wark castle fissol
68. . '
St. Andrewe land, property in .'Vkeld, 237, 240.
St Clement Danes, London, home of John
Montague, 40.
St. Cuthbert's church. Carham, 20.
St. George, Richard, Norroy, visitation of (1615),
137K, 146K, 199.
St. Gregory's church, Kirknewton, 121-4.
St. John, Sir Edward (1372), manor of Wooler
alienated to, 322.
St. Leger, -Anne (Manners), 445.
St. Marj- Magdalene, hospital of, at Wooler, 292-3,
314-
St. Maur, Almeric, master of Templars {12 — ), 176.
St. Michael's church. Ford, 358.
St. Oswald, Hugh of. vicar of Kirknewton (1285-
90), 124 ; John of, gift of, to Kirkham priory.
178.
St. Paul, Sir Horace, marriage (1867), 248 ; Robert
sells Yeavering (1777), 242.
St. Paul's church, Branxton, loo-ioi.
St. Quintin, .Anthony, rector of Ford (1409-31), 364.
St. Thomas, hospital of, at Bolton : see Bolton.
Salisbury, countess of, resides at Wark castle
(134I), 52H.
Salisbury. Treaty of (1289), 24.
Salkeld, Ralph, marriage, 391, 40S.
Salveyn, Gerrard, claim by, to barony of Roos
(1354), 40; John (1305), marriage, 36. 37.
Samman, Captain, of Willoughby Manor, pur-
chases property of Wark, 4.).
502
INDEX.
Sampson, Adam, quitclaim by, 156 ; Alan, quit-
claim by, 157 ; Hugh (i), tenant of Strother
family (1364), 136 ; Hugh (2), property of, in
Kilham (1604), 167 ; John, cattle seized by
(1296), 93; Rev. L., marriage, 174; Thomas,
action against, (1356), 264.
Sandyhouse, estate in Lanton, 141, 246; old
beaches near, 10.
Sapiencia of Carlisle (1279), manor received by,
34 «•
Sarp : see Sharp.
Saunderson, Major {1648), payments by, 4i3n.
Sawers, William, minister of Crookham (1790-1809),
368.
Sawyer, Thomas, marriage (1708,) 224.
Scamelanside, gift of land in, 178.
Scamelhowbourne, grant of pasture in, 178.
Schappelawe, pasture in Kilham, 165.
Scharp : see Sharp.
Schelderburne, Crookhouse bounded by, 210.
Scheles, John, murder by (1293), 249.
Schout, John, vicar of Branxton (1358-64), 102.
Scot, William, of Etal (1290), suit against, 443K.
Scoteflate, field in Kilham, grant of, 164.
Scott, Andrew, works coal at Ford, 427 ; George,
will of (1766), 189 ; Henry (1283), property of,
in Wooler, 312 ; James (i), rector of Ford
(1660-76), 355, 357, 365-6; James (2) (1733), of
AlnvWck, purchases Thompson's Walls, 189 ;
Joan (Walker), 277 ; John (i) (1302), murdered
at Wooler, 300 ; John (2) (1369), marriage, 132 ;
Rowland (1604), sued for offence in church,
291 ; Sir Walter, tutors of. 295, 2g8 ; Life of :
see Lockhart.
Scratchard, — , marriage, 259.
Scremerston, in North Durham, 441 h.
Scremerston coal group, j/ 8, 426.
Scrope, Lord, of Masham, conspiracy by, 42.
Scutage, payment of, 306K, 309, 310.
Seals : Coupland, Joan, 217, 2i8k ; Coupland,
Sir John, 217 ; Heron of Ford, 378 ; Manners,
Robert, 444 ; Muschamp, Robert, 308 ; Mus-
champ, Thomas, 308.
Seed, Mr. John, purchases hotel in Wooler, 326.
Selby of Goldscleugh, pedigree, 276.
Selby of Paston, pedigrees, 173-175.
Selby, Alice (i) (Selby), 276; Alice (2) death of
(1869), 275 ; Alice (3), sells farm, 275 ; Dorothy
(Colhngwood, Van Colster), bequeathes share of
Moneylaws estate, .90 ; complaints against, of
fraud, 114, 115 ; Edward {d. 1711), property in
Cheviot, 275; Ehzabeth (i) (Ord). 115; Eliza-
beth (2) (Strother, Heron), 134 ; Ehzabeth (3),
interest in Paston, 176; Frances (Selby), in-
herits share of Moneylaws, go ; confirms grant,
91 ; complaint against, 114 ; marriage, 115 ;
Francis, mentioned in entail (1581), 113 ; Gabriel,
inherits Paston (1721), 176; George (i), of
Cornhill, mentioned in entail (1581), 113 ; in-
herits estates, 114 ; George (2), in entail (1581),
113 ; George (3), in entail (1581), 113 ; George
(4), inherits estates, 114, ii5« ; settlement by,
of Moneylaws (1672), 90 ; property of, in Cheviot,
275 ; George (5), in entail (1672), 90 ; com-
plaint of, in chancery, 114; marriage, iijn,
402 ; Gerard (i) (1535), holds tithes in Kirk-
newton, 119; buys Paston, 171, 179; Gerard
(2) of Harelaw, landowner in Paston (1625), 172 ;
will of, 175 ; Gerard (3) {d. 1721), suit by, 175 ;
Gilbert, in entail (1581), 113; Henry (i), in
entail (1581), 113 ; Sir Henry (2), sergeant-at-
law (1715), 115M; Henry ColUngwood (1789)
purchases Paston, 176 ; Isabella (Carr), 391,
395; dowry of, 396n ; death of (1608), 397;
Jane (i) (Strother), 133, 1461! ; Jane (2), in will,
(1599), 172 ; John (i), will of (1565), 98, 146, :86;
chief landowner in Branxton, 112; repairs tower,
106; John (2), inherits tithes of Branxton, 99;
presents to living of Branxton, 103; entails pro-
perty in Branxton (1581), 113; in Paston, 172 ; in
Shotton, 186 ; in Wooler, 328 ; settlement by,
of Moneylaws, 90 ; lands in Howtel leased to,
207 ; purchases moiety of Cheviot, 274 ; John
(3), in entailsof Branxton( 1581, 1630), 113, 114;
Catford Law mortgaged to, 397 ; John (4),
of Learmouth, in entail (1581), 113; John (5),
in entail (1581), 113 ; John (6), slain by Scots
at Paston (1596), 172 ; John (7), of Paston
{d. 1629), 172 ; claim by daughters of, 175 ;
John (8), in entail (1630), 114; John (9), in
entail (1630), 114 ; Lancelot (i), in entail, (1581)
113; Lancelot (2), in entail (1630), 114; Mar-
garet, (i), (1629), mortgage transferred to,
397; Margaret (2) (1787), interest in Paston,
176; Margery (1652), surrenders interest in
West Newton, 154 ; Mary (Selby), 174 ; Odinel,
holds tithes in Kirkne%rton parish, 118, 119;
Oliver, vicar of Branxton (1553-74), i°3 '• Peter,
in entail (1581), 113 ; Ralph (i), in entails of
Branxton (1581, 1630), 113, 114, 115H ; Ralph
(2), in entail (1581), 113 ; Ralph (3), in entail
(1581), 113 ; Ralph (4), Moneylaws entailed on
(1672), 90; inherits estates, 114; Richard, in
entail (1630), 114; Robert (i), landowner in
Paston (1568), 171 ; Robert (2), of Berwick, in
entail (1630), 114; Roger (i), of Learmouth,
in entail (1581), 113; Roger (2), of Grindon
Rigg, in entail (1581), 113 ; deputy constable of
Etal, 462 ; Roland (i), of Cornhill, in entail
(1581), 113; Roland (2), inherits estates, 114;
consents to cutting of entail, 115 ; Roland (3),
claim of, to estates (1684), 114, 115 ; sells part
manor of Moneylaws, 91 ; Thomas (i), in
entail (1581), 113 ; Thomas (2), in entail (1581),
113 ; Thomas (3), of Bamburgh, in entail (1630),
114; Thomas (4), sells property in Cheviot
(1782), 275 ; Thomas William (1717), of Biddles-
ton, property of, in Cheviot, 275 ; William (i),
inquest on death of (1480), 112 ; William (2),
in charge of Branxton tower (1522), 105 ; in
charge of Ford castle, 411 ; William (3), succeeds
to Paston (1562), 171, 172 ; William (4), has
lease of Etal colliery (1585), 470 ; Sir William
(5), succeeds to manor of Branxton, (1596) 113 ;
entail by (1630), 114, 115)!, 274 ; takes part in
affray, 147 ; does homage for Moneylaws, 90 ;
for Shotton, 186 ; tenants of, plundered at
Branxton, 106 ; lease transferred to, 207 ;
holds moiety of Cheviot, 274 ; agreements by,
for partition of Cheviot property, 278, 280;
complaint of, in chancerj', 279 ; constable of
Etal castle, 462 ; William (6), in entail (1581),
113 ; William (7), in entail (1581), 113 ; William
(8), in entail (1581), 113 ; WilUam (9), in entail
INDEX.
503
(1581), 113 ; William (10), of Newcastle, in
entail (1581), 113; William (11), of Paston
{d- 1599), 172 ; William (12). rector of Ford
(1597-1600), 365 ; William (13), in entail (1630),
114, iisn; William (14), in entail (1630), i"i4 ;
William (15), prebendary of Durham, in entail
(1630), 114; entail cut by. 115; William (16),
in entail (1630), 114; landowner in Branxton,
115; tithes held by, 98; Sir William (17), of
the Moat, will of (1637), 134 ; WiUiam (18), in-
herits Paston (1632), 172 ; mortgage by, 175 ;
William (19), suit by, to recover Paston (1685),
175 ; William (20), marriage (1760), 277 ;
William of : see Escrick ; Branxton family of,
hold land in Carham, 27.
Selby's Forest, township of : see Cheviot.
Selowe, John, vicar of Wooler (1430), 294.
Selwyn, Henry (1717), marriage, 29.
Semple, Gabriel [d. 1706), curate of Ford, 357-8.
Senhouse, Fanny (Selby), 175.
Sergeant, William, tenant in Wooler (13 — ), 323.
Seton, — , Qaptain of Wark castle, raid by (1523),
56.
Shafto, Jane (Strother), 134, 148 ; John, party to
fine (1592). 113; Lancelot, lands in Howtel
leased to (1590), 207 ; Thomas (1759), marriage,
29.
Sharp, Adam (i) (1212), holding of, in Wooler,
326 ; Adam (2) (1254), holding of, in Wooler,
309, 326 ; Adam (3) (1296), in Wooler subsidy
roll, 326 ; sued for land in Wooler, 292 ; .\dam
(4) (1318), witness, 326; Mary Anne (Grey),
247 ; Matilda (1254), holding of, in Wooler, 309,
326; Thomas {1296), in Wooler subsidy roll,
326.
Sharpe, archdeacon, survey of ,Wooler church by,
292.
Shaw, Anne (Culley), 224.
Shawdon, in barony of Roos, 32.
Shepherd, Edward (1719), buys Reedsford, 203 ;
Thomas, mentioned in will (1738), 203.
Sherburn, Adam of, master of St. Mary Magdalene
hospital, Wooler (1302), 292.
Sherill, John the (i), alms for soul of, 331 ; holds
Fenton from Muschamp barony, 332 ; John {2)
(c. 1200), presents Fenton church to abbey of
Alnwick, 330, 332 ; John (3), contests rights of
canons (1223), 331 ; Rametta (Marsh), 332, 333.
Shidlaw, rocks exposed at, 5 ; included in Carham
township, 22 ; lease of, 27.
Shireburn, Gilbert of, master of St. Thomas' hos-
pital (1285), in; claims rent, 197; John of,
chaplain (1340), 125.
Shorthope, property in Grey's Forest, 2S0 ; sale of,
280, 283.
Shotley, derivation of name, 182.
Shotton, John, marriage, 391 ; Robert of, gift of,
to monks of Melrose, 159 ; to Kirkham priorj%
164 ; gift by, of land in Shotton, 182 ; Simon
of, surrenders land to priory, 178; Theobald of :
see Branxton ; Walter of : see Kilham.
Shotton in Glendale, 182-7 '• ■" barony of Roos,
32, 182 ; census returns, 170K ; derivation of
name, i82« ; valuation of (1296), 182 ; survey
of, 185-6; tithes of, 118, H9, 120; entail of
lands in, 132, 146 ; exchange of lands in, 159 ;
holdings in, 135, 160 ; property of Selby family
in, 113; Scots claim land adjoining, 82; con-
nection with Coldsmouth, 191; mill of: see
Mills; course of Bowmont Water at, 11, 301 ;
West Shotton, 186; Little Shotton, 187.
Shotton in Stannington, property in, i84n.
Shottonhalgh, gifts of meadow-land in. 177, 178.
Shrewsbury, earl of, report on Wark castle sent to,
63 ; commissioned to inquire into attack on Ford
(1557). 389-
Sibba, servant of, cured by St. Cuthbert, 25«.
Sibbitt, Adam, leases Ford colliery (1802), 426 ;
leases Etal colliery, 471.
Sidley, John James, vicar of Branxton (1888-9).
103.
Simonburn, castle of. 386.
Sinclair, Patrick (1526), letter of, 329.
Singleton, archdeacon, (1828) visitation by, 16,
19, 21, 120, I22«, 239, 305, 362n ; describes
Ford castle, 417.
Sitwell, Francis Hurt (1789), bequest to, of North-
umbrian properties, 222, 242 ; Major F. H. M.,
sells Yeavering (1867), 242 ; Major Francis H.,
marriage, 225.
Skipton, John, rector of Ford (1431), 364.
Slaterow, purchase of, 397 ; mortgage of, 399 ;
sale of, 408.
Slingsby, Francis, appointed captain of Wark
(1557). 67.
Small, David, tenant in Broomridge (1533), 441.
Smart, Elizabeth (Walker), 277 ; Frances (Comp-
ton), 29.
Smith, A. A., minister of Cheviot Street, Wooler
(1915-18), 297 ; Adam (1838). statement by.
427, 442 ; Eleanor (Pinkerton), 204 ; Grieve,
marriage, (1805) 225 ; Hannah Jemima (Comp-
ton), 30 ; James, marriage, 29 ; Richard, vicar
of Kirknewton (1882-86), 127 ; Robert (1798).
leases Ford colliery, 425. 426 ; William, mar-
riage (i8ri), 204.
Smithland, le, property in Akeld, 237.
Smythton, Rev. George, marriage, 248.
Solway Moss, battle of (1542). 62, 412.
Somerset, duke of, invades Scotland (1547), 65 ;
policy of, attacked by the French, 412.
Southampton, execution at, 42.
Southfield, property in Crookham. 439 ; property
in Etal, 452.
Spaldington, Osbert. in command at Wark (1296),
50-
Sparrow, George (Barkas), purchases property in
Akeld (1767), 234 ; George Wingfield, succeeds
to property, 234.
Spechynholme, property in Howtel, 206.
Spencer, Thomas, tithes leased to, 119.
Spours, Isabella (Culley), 224.
Stafford, Ellen (Blake). 402.
Stainsby, Joan of, (1323) lands of. in Wooler, 327 ;
WiUiam of, holding in barony of JIuschamp
(1254), 309.
Stainstield, geological fault at, 7.
Stamford, barony of, 333.
'Standalone': see Beaumont Hill.
Standard, battle of the (1138), 45.
Stanley, Sir Edward, commands division at
Flodden, 107 ; success of, 108 ; Dame Man,-.
commutation of tithes paid to (1835), 9911 ;
Lady, sells Langleyford (1859), 275.
504
INDEX.
Stannington, John of, chaplain, plaintiff in fines
respecting property in Mindrum, 8i.
Stanton, WiUiam, marriage, 258.
Stapelton, Nicholas, assize held by (1287), 282.
'Starbrighahve,' property in Coupland, 215.
State ford, the, at Etal, 457.
Staward, Richard, marriage, 259.
Stawford, warden court held at, 83B.
Stead, Benjamin, marriage (1782), 261.
Steavenson, Hugh Ross, marriage, 204.
Stephen, king, orders restoration of monastery
lands, 306, 428.
Stephen, rector of Kirknewton (c. 1153-97), 124.
Stephenson, James, vicar of Branxton (1449-87),
103.
Stevensheugh, plot of land in Kirknewton, 156, 157.
Stevenson. John, works coal at Etal, 427.
Stewart, Jane (Davison), 116.
Stirhng Bridge, battle of (1297), 350.
Stobart, Henry, marriage (1824), 225 ; John H.,
marriage, 225.
Stock bridges, on boundary of Broomridge,
441.
Stockdale, Thomas (1730-55), vicar of Branxton,
99, 103-
Stoddart, William, rents tithes of Carham (c. 171 1),
19, 27.
Stokenham, Devon, seat of John Montague, 40.
Storey, Fergus, bequest to (1589), 242 ; Johij,
bequest to (1589), 242 ; Ralph (1655), resident
in Hethpool, 251 ; claims property in Hethpool,
268 ; Robert (i) (1550), resident in Hethpool,
251 ; Robert (2), tenant in Yeavering (1589),
242 ; Sandy (1537), resident in Hethpool, 251 ;
Will, murder of (1595), 302.
Storrs, Anne (Askew), 438,
Stow, Fenwick, marriage, 141 ; William, estate
in Lanton settled on, 141.
Strangways, Dame Elizabeth (Brandon, Nevill),
lands alienated by (1562), 274, 317 ; dower of,
317, 318 ; Sir James (i), marriage, 253, 278m,
316, 430 ; holds part of Fenton (1480), 335 ;
Sir James (2), lease by (1519), 316; Sir James
(3), alienation of lands by (1540), 274, 316, 317 ;
Joan (Mauleverer), 317 ; Mary (Ross), 317.
Strathearn, earl of, Malise, barony of Muschamp
inherited by daughters of, 229 ; marriage, 307 ;
agrees to award, 31 ih: Margery or Mary
(Graham), inheritance in Muschamp barony,
229 ; share of Hethpool, 253 ; tenant sued by,
254 ; share of Cheviot, 272-3 ; grants pro-
perty in Cheviot, 274 ; advowson of Wooler
passes to, 286 ; dispute as to presentation, 287 ;
case won by, 288 ; holds advowson of St. Mary's
hospital, 293 ; presentation by, 293 ; inheri-
tance in Wooler, 310 ; holds moiety of barony,
311 ; seisin given to, 312 ; inheritance in
Hetherslaw, 429, 431, 433 ; heirs of, 313 ;
Muriel (countess of Mar), inheritance in Mus-
champ barony, 229 ; receives rents of Branxton,
109 ; share of Hethpool, 253 ; share of Cheviot,
272 ; shares advowson of Wooler, 286 ; presen-
tation by, 293 ; inheritance in Wooler, 310, 311 ;
in Hetherslaw, 429, 431.
Strawhin, Anne, recusant (1674), 304.
Strother of Kirknewton, pedigree, 132-4; arms of,
132.
Strother, Alan (i) (13 — ), reputed father of Joan
Coupland, 2i8n; Alan (2) (1375), Monevlaws
granted to, 89 ; Christopher, of Milfield, in
entail (1516), 145 ; Clement (i), of Duddoe, in
entail (1579), 146 ; Clement (2), in entail (1579),
146 ; takes part in affray, 137, 147 ; property
of, in Lanton, 138 ; action brought by, 147 ;
Clement (3) (1625), grants property in Paston,
179 ; Cuthbert, of Milfield, in entail (1516),
145 ; Edmund, in entail (1516), 145 ; Edward,
of Milfield, in entail (1516), 145; Eleanor (Corbet),
130 ; quitclaim by, 136, 144 ; Harry, will of
(1582), 147 ; Henry (i), Moneylaws conveyed
to (1369), 89; inherits manor of Lanton, 131,
132 ; resides at Kirknewton, 145 ; lands in
West Newton conveyed to, 153 ; manor restored
to, 135, 185 ; trouble with tenants, 136 ; dispute
with Baxter, 135, 139 ; Kirknewton leased to,
144 ; holds Colpinhope, 190 ; land in Howtel
held from, 198 ; Crookhouse held from, 212 ;
Henry (2), in entail (1369), 89 ; Henry (3), makes
grant of Moneylaws (1375), 89 ; holds Lanton
tower, 137, 141 ; evidence given by, 145 ; Henry
(4), of Bothel, in entail (1516), 145 ; Henry (5),
action brought by (1591), 147 ; James, in will
(1592), 137H ; Joan, grant renewed to, 131, 144,
153 ; quitclaim to, 152 ; suit by, 153 ; John (i),
in Moneylaws entail (1369), 89 ; betrothal, 132 ;
Lanton property granted to, 136 ; John (2),
outlawry of, pardoned (1507), 137 ; John (3), of
Milfield, in entail (1516), 145 ; John (4), will of,
(1592), 124K, 137 ; John (5), indicted for murder
(1586), 147 ; John (6), of Kilham (1596), 166 ;
John (7) {d. 1631), holds tithes of Kirknewton,
119; holding of, in Lanton, 138 ; holds Lanton
tower, 142 ; property of, in West Newton, 154 ;
sells property in Kilham, 166 ; grants land in
Paston, 179 ; sells Thompson's Walls, 189 ;
inquest on death of, 147 ; Lancelot, plaintiff in
fine (1581), 90 ; Canno mill held by, 119 ; men-
tioned in will, I37« ; in entail (1579), 146 ;
holds mortgage on Fowbery, 147 ; mentioned
in deed, 278H ; Mark, property mortgaged by
(1705), 148 ; agrees to sale of West Newton, 154 ;
inherits Canno mill, 155 ; Mary (Ker), 148,
213 ; Matthew, mentioned in will (1592), I37» ;
Oswin, in entail (1516), 145 ; Ralph, in will
(1592), I37« ; Richard (i), gives lease of Lanton
tower, 142 ; Richard (2), of Duddoe, in entail
(1516), 145 ; estate passes to, 146 ; Robert (i),
in entail (1579), 146 ; Robert (2) (1705), pro-
perty mortgaged by, 148 ; agrees to sale of West
Newton, 155 ; owns Canno mill, 155 ; Roger
(i), of Alnwick, in entail (1516), 145 ; Roger
(2), in entail (1516), 145 ; Roger (3), holdings
of (1568), 146 ; owns Moneylaws, 90 ; holding
in Howtel, 198H ; Thomas (i), in Moneylaws
entail (1369), 89 ; Thomas (2), lands in I\irk-
newi:on granted to (1388), 145 ; conveyance by,
153 ; heir of, 137 ; Thomas (3), holds Money-
laws (1428), 89 ; holds moiety of vill of Lanton,
137 ; holds vill of Newton, 145 ; Thomas (4),
entail by (1516), 145, 146 ; Thomas (5), in en-
tail (1516), 145 ; Thomas (6), in entail, (1579)
146 ; Thomas (7), of Canno mill, in entail (1579),
147 ; Thomas (8), of Chatton, will of (1603),
124M ; Thomas (9), mentioned in will (1592),
INDEX.
505
I37n ; holds West Newton, 154 ; William (i)
(1318), manor of Lanton conveyed to, 129,
139, 198 ; lands in Kirknevs'ton leased to, 143 ;
property in West Xcwton conveyed to, 152,
153 ; acquires property in Shotton, 185 ; rights
in Crookhouse released to, 211 ; reputed father
of Joan Coupland, 2i8« ; William (2), property
in Shotton entailed on (1329), 185 ; William (3),
in entail (1516), 145; William (4), settlement
of manor by (1.53.5), 14O ; iMoneylaws granted
by, 89 ; William (5), Moneylavvs settled on, 89 ;
owns Lanton tower, 142 ; property in Lanton,
140 ; marriage, 146 ; priory lands at Kilham
sold to (1553), 166 ; William (G), entail by (1579),
146, 166, 179, 185, 198 ; defendant in fine, 26 ;
holds tithes of Kirknewton, 119; plaintiff in
fine, 90 ; property in Paston, 172 ; lease trans-
ferred to, 278 ; William (7), in entail (1579), 146 ;
William (8), inheritance of (1631), 147 ; redeems
property, 138, 148, 154 ; property of, in West
Newton, 154 ; interest in Crookhouse, 213 ;
dispute with, as to pasturage, 260 ; in fray with
covenanters, 358 ; will of {1697), 124K ; William
(g), marriage (1675), 148, 213.
Strother Bog, old lake at, 11.
Stryvelyn, Sir John, marriage (1361), 81.
Stubbs, Henry (1242), dower claimed from, 183.
Sturton Grange, in barony of Roos, 32.
Stutcville, Roger (11 73), in command at Wark
castle, 46 ; accounts of, as sheriff, 47.
Subsidies, clerical: Branxton {1381), 105; Car-
ham (1380), 23 ; Fenton (1297), 331 ; Ford
(13 — ). 350; Kirknewton, (1380) 118; Wooler
{1381), 294.
Subsidy Roll (1296): Akeld, 230, 231, 239;
Branxton, 105 ; Carhara, 26 ; Coupland, 216 ;
Crookham, 341 ; Downham, 84 ; Fenton, 332,
334 ; Ford, 341, 373 ; Hetherslaw, 341 ; Heth-
pool, 249 ; Howtel, 195, 197 ; Kilham, 182 ;
Kimmerston, 341, 440 ; Kirknewton, 143 ;
Lanton, 129; Learmouth, 75; Moneylaws,
87K ; Paston, 182 ; Presson. 91, 93 ; Shotton,
182; Wooler, 326; Yeavering, 241.
Suffield. Rev. — (c. 1856), incumbent of Wooler
R.C. church, 296.
Suffolk, duke of, commands expedition against
Edinburgh, 63 ; earl of : see Howard de Walden.
Sunderland, Anne (Askew), 43S.
Sunderland, parliamentary headquarters at, 454.
Sunnilaws, separates Wark from Wark common
farm, 44 ; identified with moiety of Learmouth,
76.
Sunnyglass, shell marl at, 11.
Surd, Hugh, holding of, in Paston, 178.
Surrey, earl of, commands army against Scots
(1523), 56, 57, 58, 301 ; at battle of Flodden,
106, 108, 411 ; despatch from, 244 ; visited by
Lady Heron, 385.
Surtees, Aubone, marriage, 336 ; Kleanor (Culley),
224.
Surveys: of .\keld (1541), 234, 240; of Ante-
chester {1541), 188; of Branxton, (1541) 106,
H2 ; of Carham (1541), 23 ; of Cheviot (1541),
270, 283, 283; of Coupland (1541), 221, 228;
of Crookham (1551), 436 ; of Downham (1541),
85; of Etal (1541). 451 ; (1603), 453; (1618).
453; of Etal castle (1551), 461 ; (1541), 462;
Vol. Xl.
of Fenton (1341), 339 ; of Ford (1541), 362, 387,
412; (1551), 387; (1663), 362 ; of Hetherslaw
(1541), 434 ; of Hethpool (1541), 250, 257, 268 ;
of Howtel (1541). 200; (1584), 201 ; of Howtel
tower (1541, 1550, 1584), 208 ; of Kilham (1541),
163, 168; of Kirknewton (1541), 146, 150; of
Lanton (1541), 137, 142 ; of Learmouth (1541),
74; of Milfield (1541), 244 ; of Mindrum (1550),
82; of Moneylaws (154 1). 89 ; of Paston (1541),
171 ; of Presson (1541), 95 ; of Shotton (1541),
186 ; of Wark, barony of (15 — ), 187 ; of Wark
castle (1517), 54 ; (1541). 59 : (1550). 66 ; (1561),
68 ; (1584), 71 ; of West Newton (1541), 154 ;
of Wooler (1541), 301, 329; (1560), 301-2;
(1584). 330: of Yeavering (1541), 242.
Sutherland, Sir Arthur Munro, purchases Heth-
pool, 263 ; purchases Shorthope, 280 ; purchases
Trollop, 284.
Swan, Richard, boothman of Newcastle, 404.
Sweethope, — , marriage, 158, 161.
Swickside, property in Grey's Forest, 280.
Swinburne, George, marriage, 391 : Margaret
(Askew), 438 ; Thomas, marriage, 391 ; Sir
William (i), marriage (1388), 132 ; lands of, in
Wooler, 327 ; William (2), tenant of Wark castle
and barony {1374), 41, 52; marriage, 327;
— (Strother), 133.
Swinhoe, Elizabeth (Selby), ijin, 173; Gilbert,
surrenders lea.se of lands in Chatton Park, 116 ;
holding in Shotton (1663), 186 ; grant by, 201 ;
attack on, 202 ; holds Crookhouse, 213 ; author
of tragedy, 2i3n ; James, compounds for lands
in Kirknewton (1649), 148 ; for Crookhouse,
212 ; grant by, 201 ; owns Kypie, 204 ; pedigree,
2I3« ; Ralph (1562), purchases. Crookhouse,
212 ; purchases property in Coupland, 227 ; in
Wooler, 328 ; pedigree, 2i3« ; William, marriage,
444-
Sword Stone, the, on boundary of Etal, 457.
Symms Close, property in Howtel, 201 ; sale of,
204.
T.
Ta, Edmund (1299), tenant in Crookham, 373.
Tait, George {d. 1675), gravestone of, at Mindrum,
i6n.
Talbot, Maud (Culley), 225.
Tanker\'ille, Earl of (1723), gift of, to Wooler
Grammar School, 305 ; (1759), builds school at
Wooler, 305 ; (1833), Wooler neglected by, 305 ;
dispute over tithes of Carham (1828), 20: award
to, from tithes of Wooler (1835), 2goM ; owner
of Howtel Hill (1847), 205 ; rebuilds streets in
Wooler (1863), 305 : sells Hethpool mill (1873),
258 ; sells Howtel Pasture, 205 ; owns Colds-
mouth, 11)1 ; owns Elsdonburn, 280: see also
Grey and Bennet.
Tankerville .Vrms, Wooler, sale of, 326.
Tate, John, inherits Little Shotton, 187 ; Marj-
(Davison), li
Robert
1691), acquires
Little Shotton, 187 ; Robert (2), inherits Little
Shotton, 187.
Tatershale, heiress of, 312(1.
64
5o6
INDEX.
Taylor, Andrew, and Sons, purchase Beaumont
Hill (igrg), 187 ; David, Presbyterian minister
at Bowmont (1852-72), 127 ; Richard (i) (1343),
conveys land in West Newton, I54n ; Richard
(2) (1709), purchases Luckenarks, 276); ; Thomas
(1778), conveyance by, 276)2 ; William (1343),
acquires land in West Newton, 154K.
Tayte, George, tenant in Shotton (1597), 186.
Tempest, Sir William (1439), appointed trustee, 382.
Templar, Matilda (Colman), lands surrendered by,
177 ; William (12 — ), grants property in Paston,
176 ; holding of, 177.
Templars, Knights, own land in Mindrum, 79H ;
in Paston, 176 ; claim liberties in Shotton, 183M ;
in Wooler, 328.
Temple Thornton, gift of lands in, 384.
Test Act, the, passing of (1673), 304.
Teversheughe, watch tower to be built on, 82.
Teviotdale, raiders from, at Carham, 24 ; at Min-
drum, 83 : at Kirkne\vton, 150 ; at Kilham, 169.
Tewart, Margaret Anne (CuUey), 225.
Theifemen's Rodd, on boundary of Etal, 457.
Thew, Mary, conveyance by (1773), 406 ; William,
marriage, 406.
Thirlings, course of glacial lake near, 10.
Thomas, Anthony, incumbent of Kirknewton
(iSiS-27), 121, 127.
Thompson, Alexander, buys advowson of Kirk-
newton (1848), 121 ; buys Hethpool mill, 258;
sells Hethpool mill, 263; marriage, 149 ; CoUing-
wood, F. J., inherits moiety of Kirknewton, 149 ;
Elizabeth (James), 149; Francis, incumbent of
Carham (1844-65), 22 ; Henry, mortgage held
by (1663), 405 ; James, minister of Etal (1760-65),
367 ; Mary (James), 149 ; Rachel (Pinkerton),
204 ; Robert (i), of Fenham Hill, marriage
(1796), 149; Robert (2), inherits moiety of Kirk-
newton (1822), 149; Thomas James, death of, 149.
Thompson's Farm, property in Hethpool, 260.
Thompson's Walls, Coldsmouth and, township,
187-91 ; census returns, 1S7H ; tithes from,
120, igin, 284n ; in barony of Wark, 188 ;
formerly Antechester, 187-8 ; Heddon associated
with, 284, 285.
Thomson, Eleanor (1674), recusant, 304 ; Eliza-
beth (1674), recusant, 304 ; Henry, landowner,
in Howtel, (1663) 201.
Thoraldby, William of (1359), master of cell at
Carham, 13.
Thorne Dyke, bounds Broomridge, 441.
Thorney Dykes, alias Will's Close, property in
Howtel, 201 ; sale of, 204.
Thornhill, Sir Anthony John Compton, sells Car-
ham estate (1919), 28.
Thornington, sale of, 163 ; bounds Howtel estate,
205.
Thornton in Glendale, tithes from, 1 20 ; property
in, 184M.
Thorp, Rev. Charles, marriage, 174.
Three Knowes, the, on boundary of Etal, 457.
Three Lord Well, the, on boundary of Etal, 457.
Thrilkeld, Charles, in charge of Wark castle, 58.
Till, valley of, ;, 2, 29H, 244, 298; geology of valley,
2, 5, 9, 10 ; crossed by Enghsh army, 106; water
mill on, 433 ; joined by Hornebourne, 456 ; Ford
situated on, 368 ; Etal castle on, 460 ; bridge
over, at Etal, 451.
Tindal House, Fell sandstone exposed near, 6, 7 ;
course of Till at, 10.
Tindin, Thomas, rector of Ford (1503), 365.
Tipping, William, marriage, 404.
Tirwhit, Elias (1364), sells property in Howtel, ig8.
Tithehill : see Tythehill.
Tithes : of Branxton vicarage, 97, 98 ; of Carham
rectory and vicarage, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20; of
Coldsmouth and Thompson's Walls, 191K,
284)!; of Crookhouse, 213 ; of Denwick, 258 ; of
Etal, 455 ; of Fenton, 331 ; of parish of Ford,
354. 355. 35&. 357 ; predial tithes of Greenwell
Ford, 350K ; tithes of Heddon, 284U ; of Heth-
pool, 252, 254K ; corn tithes of Kilham, 163 ;
tithes of Kirknewton vicarage, 117, 119-20;
of Lanton, 138 ; of Learmouth and Sunnylaws,
76 ; of Moneylaws, 88 ; of Newton rectory,
I 118-119; of Reedsford and Tuparee, 203; of
parish of Wooler, 290.
Titlington, in barony of Roos, 32.
'Toddelauburn,' brook, in Coupland, 215.
Toftes, the. field in Crookhouse, 210.
'Topet,' gift of land in, 177.
Torleehouse, acid dykes near, 4 ; in Kirknewton
township, I47«.
Torn, Alan, grant confirmed by, 177.
Tosson, small holding in. 447.
Tower Lands, property in Hethpool, 260, 267.
Towlbery, Ralph, vicar of Branxton (1528-), 103.
Towne Foote Farm, property in Hethpool, 260.
Towton. battle of (1461), 53H, 378, 384.
Trafalgar, battle of, (1805), 262.
Traille, Gilbert, grant to, of land in Carham (1200)
32 ; Nicholas (1153), marriage, 32, 37.
Trasterton, lands in, grant of, 312K.
Tredecorn, Stephen, tenant in Ford (1294), 352.
Trevanion, John, marriage, 402.
Tritlington, Walter, widow of, action brought by,
334«-
Trockalowe, Robert, gifts confirmed by, i83«.
Trokeland, Robert of (1256), tenant in Fenton, 333.
Trollop, Henry, wardship granted to (1439), 382 ;
John, forfeits property in Paston (1359), 171,
181; in Shotton, 184 ; in Trollop, 282 ; Matilda,
accusation against, 181 ; Robert (1297), claims
land in Paston, 180 ; guardianship given to, 181.
Trollop, boundary delimitation of, 187, 281 ; in
barony of Muschamp, 188 ; in Grey's Forest,
280 ; connection with Heddon, 284 ; granted to
monks of Melrose, 230K, 281, 282 ; passes to
Grey family, 283.
TroUopburn, valley of, bounds Trollop, 281.
Trotter, Emmanuel, vicar of Kirknewton (1614),
126 ; property of in Lanton, 138 ; Thomas
(1664), grant by, 201.
Troughburn, included in Shorthope, 280 ; identified
with Trollop, 281-4 ; includes Heddon, 285.
Trowrupp : see Trollop.
Trumbell, Anne (1674), recusant, 304.
Trussebut. Robert, arms of, 37 : Rose (Roos), 37.
Tuperee, included in vill of Howtel, 192 ; rental
of, 201 ; added to benefice of Holy Island, 202 ;
tithes of, 203 ; bounds Howtel estate, 205.
TurnbuU, Richard, tenant in Coupland (1562), 227.
Turpin, Thomas (1276), gives surety, 370.
Turvelaws, farm of, in Wooler, 325.
Tweddell, Ralph H., marriage (1875), 248.
INDEX.
:f^7
Tweed, river, crossed by Scots, 244, 303, 304 ;
fishpools on, 14, 39 ; bounds Carham township,
22 ; gravel terraces along banks of, 11 ; ancient
glacier of, 8, 9, 10; district Lower Carboniferous
rocks in, 5.
Tweedale, George, marquis of, acquires West
Shotton (1801), i86.
Tweedmouth, fishery at, 383«.
Twenge, Lucy (Latimer, l^vcringham), 313 ;
Nicholas : see Meinill.
Twisflhopeshead, on boundary of Trollop, 281.
Twishope, property in Grey's Forest, 280.
Twisilburn, fishpond at, 206.
Twizel, Sir John, arrested at Carham (1539), 25.
Twizel, estate of Selby family, 115H; bequest
from, 409 ; Bridge, English army crosses, io6.
Tyndale, raid in, 146.
Tynemouth, manor of, 86 ; men of, desert at
battle of Flodden, 108 ; priory of, shares tithes
of Woolcr, 290 ; prior of, arbitration by, 381.
Tythehill, census returns, 22M ; acquired by Earl
Grey, 76 ; sold, xii.
U.
Ulcester, gift of land in, 286, 287.
Ulecotes, Philip (1212), has custody of barony of
Roos, 32.
Ulkelescroft, property in Howtel, 206.
Umfraville, Gilbert (1239), action brought by,
307 ; Sir Robert, takes part in border quarrel
(1428), 381 ; appointed trustee, 382.
' Undernodv\ydside,' property in Kilham, 165.
Unthank, John, marriage 391 ; Richard, costs
paid by (1625), 355H, 365 ; Thomas, holds
mortgage on Milfield Hill (1616), 245.
Utred, gift of, to Kirkham priory, 177.
V.
Valoines, Sybil (Roos), 37.
Van Colster, Sir William ( 1 709) , sells part of Money-
laws, 90.
Van Hooff, Gerald, incumbent of Wooler R.C.
church (1899-1902), 296.
Vardy, Thomas, marriage (1780), 247.
Vaux, Matilda (Roos), 37.
Vescy, Isabel, dower of, 3i2n ; grant to (1300),
312 ; John (1292), wardship sold to, 87 ; pro-
perty of, in Wooler, 312.
Vescy, barony of, 284«.
Vesey, Robert (1358), vicar of Branxton, 102.
V indication oj the Organ, by Alexander Cromer, 368.
Vosges, the, granite formation in, 3.
W.
Wackerage Cairn, in Kirknewton township, 147*!.
Wade, John, marriage {1739), 277; Oliver, mar-
riage (1692), 406.
Waite, Jane (1674), recusant, 304.
Wake, David (1678), suit against, 245.
Wakerfcld, Alan of, rector of Branxton (1234), loi.
Wald-newton, rectory of, held in plurality with
Woolcr, 294.
Walker of Goldscleugh and Broadstrother, pedigree,
277-
Walker, Carleton (1827), sells Broadstrother, 275 ;
George fi6i8), tenant in Etal, 454 ; Isabella,
(Selby), 276 ; James (1669), sells Little Shotton,
187 ; owner of Goldscleugh. 275 ; Robert (1709),
sells Luckenarks, 276n ; William (1618), tenant
in Etal, 454,
Walker's Close, the, Lanton, 138.
Wallace, Archibald, minister of Wester Meeting,
Wooler (1732-55), 297; Edward, seat of, at
Coupland, 222n ; Gavin, minister of Lerwick,
297 ; Richard (1669), purchases Little Shotton,
187 ; William, seat of, at Coupland, 222n.
Wallas, Henry (1522), presentation granted to.
118; John, presentation granted to, 118;
William, presentation granted to, 118.
Wallassis Farm, property in Hethpool, 260.
Waller, William (1575), purchases property in
Wooler, 316.
Wallington, — (Strother), 133.
Wallis, Agnes, in will (1588), 235 ; Dorothy, in will
(1588), 235 ; Elspeth, in will (1588), 235 ; George
(1642), in entail, 223; Gilbert (1) (1551), bailifi
of Akeld, 235 ; purchases land in Coupland, 222 ;
Gilbert (2), in will, 235 ; Isabel, in will (1588),
235 ; James (i) (c. 1501), marriage, 235 ; James
(2) (1567), purchases land in Coupland, 222 ;
fine levied by, 223 ; James (3). in will (1588),
235 ; James (4), entail by (1642), 223 ; mort-
gages property in Akeld, 235 ; loan raised by,
236 ; James (5), of Wooler, in entail, 223 ;
James (6), of Knaresdale, guardianship of (1693).
223 ; holds estate in Akeld. 236 ; Jane, in will
(1588), 235 ; John (i) (1522), commands garrison
of Akeld tower, 240 ; John (2) (1589), bequest
to son of. 223 ; Marger>' (Carr), 459 ; Mary
(Phillips), annuity registered by (1715). 22311 ;
Oswald, in will (1588), 235 ; Ralph, of Knares-
dale, sells property in Akeld (1713). 223, 236;
in Coupland, 223 ; Richard (i). of Humbleton.
in entail (1642). 223 ; Richard (2). incumbent
of Carham (1748-96). 19. 22 ; parsonage and
church restored by, 21 ; Robert, in will, (1588),
235 ; Roger (1671). sells lease of lands in Hethcrs-
law. 435 ; Thomas, in will (1588). 235 ; William
(i) (1588). will of, 235. 328 ; William (2). pro-
perty bequeathed to (1588), 235. 328.
Ward. Fred Thomas, marriage, 174.
Ward, le. pasture in Kilham, 165.
Warden court, holding of, 83«.
Wardropper. Dorothy (Grey). 248.
Ware. John (1593), lands in Howtel leased to, 207 ;
leases Etal coal mine. 470.
Warenne, earl, guards the border at Wark (1310).
50.
Wark (upon-Tweed) township, 30-44 ; site of. 30 ;
derivation of name. 30 ; census returns. 22n ;
separation from Carham. 31 ; manor of, 244. 245.
257, 284-5 '• barony of, 323« ; descent of barony
and manor, 31-44; manorial court of, 79;
tithes, leases of, 17 ; lease of glebe lands in. 27 ;
chapel at. 16 ; disappearance of chapel, 18 ;
geology of district. 2, 8, 11.
Wark castle, i, 20, 23. 44-74. 410; besieged by
Scots. 44. 45. 46, 47. 51, 53. 54. 56-7. 65 ; burning
of, 48, 53, 344 ; rebuilding and repairs. 48. 54-5,
5o8
INDEX.
58, 62-3, yr, 72 ; visited by Henn,' HI., 48 ; by
Edward I., 49, 50 ; by Edward II., 50 ; con-
firmed to Roos family, 48 ; becomes a royal
castle, 51, 59 ; leases of, 52-3 ; under Sir John
Coupland, 220 ; acquired by Grey family, 53 :
under Carr of Heton, 59-66 ; restored to Grey
family, 66, 67 ; munitions of, 64, 71 ; valuation
of, 69 ; surveys of, 54, 59-60, 63, 66, 68, 71, 72 ;
dismantled, 72 ; remains of, 73-4 ; castellans
of : see Cargho, Carr, Clavering, Clifford, Colling-
wood, Ellerker, Forster, Lawson, Lisle, Ogle,
Pikeman, Raymond, Seton, Slingsby, Spalding-
ton.
Wark Farm, result of farming by CuUey family,
339 ; Common Farm, allotted to earl of Tanker-
ville, 44 ; West Farm, part of, acquired by
Earl Grey, 76.
Wark in Tynedale. lordship of, given to Thomas
Grey, 41.
Warkman, William, rector of Ford (1796- 181 1),
366.
Warkworth, chapel of St. Mary Magdalene at,
allocated to Branxton, 97, loi.
Warmelawe, sheep fold in, 206.
Wartre, William, vicar of Kirknewton (1344), 125.
Warwick, earl of, besieges Hamburgh, 43.
Waselesegh, Adam (1328), accounts required from,
445-
Washington, Rev. John, marriage, 438.
Wastell, William, marriage (1703), 224.
Watchlaw, fault running to, 7.
Waterford Henry, marquis of, inherits Ford estate,
440 ; cuts entail (1832), 410, 435, 442 ; Susanna,
marchioness of (d. 1827), inherits Ford estate,
410; Henry, marquis of (1846), agreement by, as to
tithes of Ford, 357; Louisa, marchioness of, beauti-
fies school at Ford, 349 ; exchanges lands in
Ford (1878), 363 ; restores Ford castle, 417, 425 ;
Henry, marquis of (1907), sells Ford estate, 410.
Waterlawe, property in Howtel, 206.
Watson, Bridget (Askew), 438, 440 ; Constance
(Compton), 29 ; Joseph (1687), marriage, 29 ;
Robert, curate of Ford (1578), 365 ; Thomas (i),
(1659), of Berwick, apprenticeship to, 29 ; Thomas
(2) (1663), landowner in Harelaw, I75«, i86k ;
holding in Shotton, 186.
Watson's Crofts, crown land in Howtel, 207.
Waugh, Robert B., minister of Crookham (1862-3),
368.
Way to Wooler, farm, sale of, 326.
Wealleans, Annie (Phillips), succeeds to property
in Cheviot, 275 ; Christopher (d. 1905), will of,
275 ; John (1782), purchases property in Cheviot,
275-
Webb, Anne (Babington), 404.
Wedderburn, laird of, raid by (1523), 105.
Welkeden, William (1344-1358), vicar of Branxton,
102.
Welle Arke, property in Etal, 452.
Wentworth, Lord, attacks Scots at Wooler (1640),
304-
Werge, Catherine, buried in Kirknewton church
126 ; Elizabeth (Reed), 259 ; George, buried in
Kirknewton church, 126; John, vicar of Kirk-
newton (1681-1732), 126; Mary, buried in Kirk-
newton church, 126.
Westford, boundary of Presson, 95.
Westhodacres, pasturage in, granted to Kirkham
priory, 92.
' WestirhoUawys,' property in Coupland, 215,
216.
' Westmedum,' meadow in Howtel, 206.
Westmorland, earl of, raid by (1570), 74«, go«,
150 ; inquiry by, into attack on Ford, 389, 390.
Wetewang, Peter (1293), vicar of Kirknewton,
125 ; Walter, holds property in Downham
(1309), 84.
Whalton, barony of, 184K.
Wharton, Sir Thomas, to assist in defence of Wark
(1542), 61 ; Lord, sends troops to Wark (1557),
66 ; gives account of attack on Ford, 388.
Whetstone, Daniel, information lodged by, 406.
Whinfield, William, vicar of Branxton (1755-99),
103.
Whitchester, John, marriage, 444, 449.
White, Walter, tenant in Ford (1294), 352.
Whitehall, acid dykes near, 4.
Whitehill ; see Shorthope.
Whitell, Charles, marriage, 404.
Whiteside, plot of land in West Newton, 156.-
Whithorn, Wigtonshire, ancient stones at, 26«.
Whittingham, Thomas (1427-36), vicar of Kirk-
newton, 125.
Whitton, Daniel, marriage (1728), 406.
Whittons, Richard of (1370), vicar of Kirknewton,
Whyte, Peter, minister of Tower Hill, Wooler
(1855-80), 297.
Widdrington, Ephraim, marriage (1615), 133 ;
Gerard, marriage, 80 ; Henry (i), inherits pro-
perty in Shotton (1503), 184 ; Sir Henry (2),
assists in restoration of Wark castle (1592), 71 ;
John (i), of Denton (1310), holding of, in Shotton,
184 ; John (2), (d. 1434) property of, in Shotton,
184 ; Sir Ralph, inquest on death of (1503), 184 ;
Roger (i), lands forfeited by (13 17), 184 ; Roger
■ (2) (1360), writ issued by, 265 ; Roger (3) (d.
145 1), property of, in Shotton, 184 ; — (Strother)
133-
W'igton, Adam (d. 1251), marriage, 307, 308 ;
agrees to award, 31 1».
Wilden, benefice of, exchanged, 364.
Wilkie, Frances (Selby), 174.
Wilkinson, Ann (Selby), 276.
WiUiam the Lion, king of Scotland, invades
England, 96 ; attacks Wark, 46 ; See also
Northumberland, William, earl of.
Willis, John, in charge of Akeld tower (1522),
^35"-
Wills Close ; see Thorney Dykes.
Wilsden : see Pickles.
Wilson, Alexander, minister of Cheviot Street,
Wooler (1733-77), 296; James (1722), holds
land in ililfield, 245 ; John, tenant in Akeld
(1669), 235 ; William (i), minister of Cheviot
Street, Wooler (1777-85), 296; William (2),
minister of Etal (1851-2), 367 ; — , accomplice
in murder (1561), 392.
Winchester, marquis of (1564), reports on Etal
castle, 462.
Wingfield, George : see Sparrow.
Winkeshale, John, vicarage exchanged by (1363),
125.
Winkles, pedigree, 406.
INDEX.
509
Winkles, Mary, claims of descendants of, 408 ;
Thomas, marriage, 391, 403 ; share of, in Ford
castle, 414 ; property resigned by (1664), 407 ;
William, sells claim to Ford estate (1685), 408.
Winter Barne, the, on boundary of Etal, 457.
Wischard, John, marries heiress of Moneylaws,
87 ; treason of, 87 ; sells tithes of Moneylaws,
88 ; second treason of, 89.
'Witsstaffriggend,' on boundary of Trollop, 281.
Witton, Rev., of Rennington, proposed incumbent
of Kirknewton, 121.
Wolsey, Cardinal, connection %vith Wark castle,
55. 5*^. 58 ; letter to, concerning Wooler tower,
329.
Wood, Aaron, Presbyterian minister of Etal
(1697-1731), 367 ; 'Catherine (i) (Compton),
30; Catherine (2), buried at Etal (1706), 307;
Elizabeth (i) (Compton), 29 ; Elizabeth (2)
(Compton), 29 ; Isaac, minister of Etal (1736-42),
367; minister of Crookham (1742-68), 368;
John, minister of Crookham (1768-90), 368 ;
Rev. John Ayton, marriage, 30 ; curate of Kirk-
newton, (1S20-28), 121, 127.
Woodend, limestones at, quarrying of, 8 ; Dyke,
marks boundary, 457.
Woodrington, Sir Henry (c. 1590), leases property
in New Etal, 453.
Wooler, Adam of, sued for disseisin (1293), 292 ;
Robert of (1346), holding in Wooler, 326;
Stephen of (13 — ), property in Wooler, 328 ;
William of (1359), property in Wooler, 328.
Wooler PARISH, 286-340 ; Ecclesiastical Historj',
286-92 ; Fenton incorporated with, 96, 289,
331 ; Cheviot probably included in, 271, 272 ;
the old church, 291-2 ; present church, 292 ;
hospital of St. Marj- Magdalene, 292-3 ; rectors,
293-4 ' vicars, 294-5 ; St. Ninian's Roman
Catholic church, 296 ; Cheviot Street Presby-
terian church, 296-7 ; Tower Hill Presbyterian
church, 297 ; Wester Meeting, 297-8 ; Wooler
township in, 298-330 ; Fenton township in,
330-40-
Wooler TOWNSHIP, 298-330 ; census returns, 298)1 ;
market and fairs, 299 ; market centre of Glen-
dale, I, 29S ; sheep rearing centre, 299 ; Scottish
inroads, 300, 302 ; troops stationed at, 301,
324 ; Covenanting army at, 303, 304 ; Jacobite
army near, 305 ; fires at, 304, 305 ; manor of,
221, 230, 242, 257, 282n, 283, 375, 377 ; descent
of manor, 306-26 ; valuation of manor, 310 ;
division of manor, 252-3, 273, 274, 285, 369,
429, 430 ; property in, rent from, 80 ; lands in,
mortgaged, 188; sale of, 81, 234; property of
Selby family in, 113 ; valuation of barony, O9 ;
sub-tenants of barony, 326-8 ; suit at court of,
376 ; the tower, 329-30 ; the school, 305, 367 ;
water mill, 310, 311, 3i2«, 3i9n, 322; high
road to, 239 ; geology of district, 2, 5, 8.
Wooler Common farm, sale of, 326 ; Cottage farm,
offered for sale, 325.
Wooler Haugh, English army march from, to
Flodden, 106, 301 ; Scottish army (1640),
encamped at, 303.
Wooler Water, the, 329.
Woopcrton, in barony of Roos, 32.
Wright, Ann, sells land in Hou-tel, 205.
Wulf, John, of Beverley (d. 1431), vicar of Wooler,
294.
Wulfhere of Mercia. defeat of (674-5), 25.
Wyal, Walter, in Lanton subsidy roll (1296), 129.
Wykeham, William of, driven from power (1371),
377-
WyrksaU, John of (1358), vicar of Kirknewton,
125.
Yarm, Robert (d. 1350), vicar of Kirkne%vton, 125.
Yeavering, hamlet of, in Coupland township, 214,
222.
Yeavering TOWNSHIP, 241-3 ; census returns, 24in ;
derivation of name, 241 n ; descent of manor,
241-3 ; in Muschamp barony. 228 ; tithes from,
117, 119, 120 : payment of Aid for, 218; valua-
tion of, 234 ; holdings in, 232, 233, 235 ; bequest
of, 150.
Yeavering Bell, geology of dykes at summit of, 3 ;
'dry' valley near, 9, 10; prehistoric camp on,
241.
Yeavering, Old, farm of, 241 ; Lower Carboniferous
beds at, 5.
Yedworth, public confession made at, 251.
Yerdhill, William of (1254), holding in barony of
Muschamp, 309 ; holding in Wooler, 326.
Yetholm, position of, 191.
York, archbishop of, stays at Etal castle (1291),
460; citation by (1307), 313: visitation of
Kirkham by (1308), 13 : appeal to (1315), 353.
York. Edward, duke of, gift by, to Thomas Grey
(1412), 41.
York, farm of city, security on, 38.
Younghusband, Mar>' (Compton). 30 ; Thomas,
purchases Marden Demesne, 437.
Youngson, William (1717), schoolmaster of Ford,
349 ; bequest to, 409.
Newcastle-upon-Tvne :
Andrfw RtiD & Company, Limited, Printing Court Buildings, Akenfide Hill.
University of California
SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FAC'LITY
405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles CA 90024 1388
Return this material to the library
from which it was borrowed.
REC'D LOUW.
I
000 376 331
'^.
670
N8N81
v.ll
Wl
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11