(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Children's Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "A history of Northumberland. issued under the direction of the Northumberland county history committee"



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 





I — I 


6 


75 





2 — 2 


6 


225 





3 





20 





4 





20 





4 


6 


80 





20 





4 





50 





3 






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 


Frances, 


Milfield, 


of Middle 


Sir Francis 


b 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 u t h , 


married 


ropper. 


born 3rd 


I 9 I 7 ; 


Gordon. 




1882. 


bart.; mar. 


5 Jan., 




Mar., 1888; 


of Bu- 








1 4th 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. 

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.