Skip to main content

Full text of "Lost certificates of Knight's fees for the counties of Nottingham and Derby : from ... Red Book of the Exchequer with ... history"

See other formats


Lost Certificates 


Knights Fees 

Jfor the dounties of mottinobam nni> Drib?, 






**ffbe jf cabal Ibistor^ of the County of H)erbp/' 

{Chiefly during aie nth, izth, and lyh Centuries,) 



{Of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Laiu, formerly of Einmanitel 
College, Cambridge, and F.R.ff.S., &^c.) 

Author of "The Early Genealogical History of the House of Arundel;" "The 
History of the Common Law ok Great Britain and Gaul;" "An Introduction to the 
Study OF Early English History;" " The Mayor's Court Act, 1857; ' " An Introduction 
to the History of the House of Glanville;" "A Treatise on the Law of Trades 
Marks;" "The Origin of the Nations of Western Europe;" "The Records of Ches- 
terfield;" "A Treatise on thk Law of Ancient Demesne;" " The Domesday Book for 
THE County of Derby;" "The Pipe Rolls for the Counties of Nottingham and Derby;" 
"An Exposure of the Mismanagement of the Public Record Office," etc., etc 

XonDou : 









3 1833 00674 7726 


Lost Certificates 


Knights Fees 

Jfor tbe CouiUice of IRottinobam anb Bcrb^, 






'' Zbc 3f cubal Ibietor^ of tbe County of E)erb\>/' 

{Chiefly during the \ith, 12th, and X^th Centuries,) 


{Of Lincoln s Inn, Barrister-at-Laiu, formerly of Eiiniianiiel 

College, Cambridge, and F.R.H.S., is^c.) • 

Author of "The Early Genealogical History of the House of Arundel;" "The 
History of the Common Law of Great Britain and Gaul;" "An Introduction to the 
Study OF Early English History;" " The Mayor's Court Act, 1857;" " An Introduction 
to the History of the House of Glanville;" "A Treatise on the Law of Trades 
Marks;" "The Origin of the Nations of Western Europe;" "The Records of Ches- 
terfield;" "A Treatise on the Law of Ancient Demesne;" "The Domesday Book for 
the County of Derby;" " The Pipe Rolls for the Counties of Nottingham and Derby ;" 
"An Exposure of the Mismanagement of the Public Record Office," etc., etc. 

Xon&ou : 











The Red Book of the Exchequer is a volume of rare value and 
authority, although it is admittedly only a copy of certain very 
ancient records which were kept in the Exchequer, most of 
which have long since disappeared. One only of the whole 
class of certificates of knights' fees has escaped destruction. 
Madox refers to it, and it can be found at the Record Office, 
classified as a " seal." In appearance, it in no way differs from 
an ordinary charter of the period. 

Like Domesday, the Red Book is a purely fiscal document, 
and its chief value consists in the fact that it gives full 
particulars of certain records of which only the summaries are 
given in the Pipe Rolls. The greater part of the book is occupied 
with extracts from the Pipe Rolls, made no doubt for the con- 
venience of the officers of the Exchequer ; but these are of small 
practical value, since they are neither so full nor so accurate as 
the originals, and therefore, when they differ, must be summarily 


rejected ; but the portions of the book here given are of the 
highest vahie, because the originals are lost, and we have no 
other evidence of their contents. They do possess partly the 
character of original documents, in the same way that the 
" Record " in a law suit is an original document, although in fact 
it is only a copy of the pleadings. These copies were no doubt 
used by the officers of the Exchequer for the purposes of 
assessment. Heme, in his collections, has published the valuable 
portion of this book, and of the copy of it called the Black Book 
(why so called it is not known, possibly to distinguish between 
the books, one of which was probably kept in the Chancery, and 
the other in the Exchequer) ; and it is now proposed to publish 
the whole of it ; but inasmuch as the Pipe Roll Society has 
undertaken to give those portions from the original, this seems 
to be not only uimecessary, but unfortunate, since it is always a 
mistake to propagate erroneous accounts. 

The author has already given the portion of the Red Book 
which is copied from the Pipe Rolls, and proposes now only to 
give that which supplements it — namely, the particulars of the 
fees of the greater barons, and, unfortunately, only a portion of 
them are here to be found, proof that this collection was made 
at a late date, when some of this class of documents were lost. 
It is very difficult to assign a precise date to any of these 
records, but this is clear, that the commonly received idea that 
they were returned for the scutage levied upon the marriage of 
the daughter of King Henry the Second is a false one, for some 
of them date long afterwards. 

This is absolutely clear, from the certificate of Wm. Briwere, 
who, as it will be shown in the parochial history, had no connec- 
tion with Derbyshire until about the fifth year of King Richard 
I., when he was Regent. Chesterfield was one of the manors of 
the ancient demesne -of the Crown, and prior to that date was 
farmed by the hospital of lepers at that place, as appears from 
the Pipe Rolls of this date ; so, too, other returns show that 
some of the barons appearing were dead at that period. Again, 
it is abundantly clear that several scutages were assessed from 
the same record, and that a scutage was frequently used long 
after some of the knights apparently living were dead ; and it is 
only when we come to the age of King Henry HI. that any note 
of this appears upon the face of the record itself The scutage 


lists were corrected just as Domesday was made on the Itinerary 
of the justices ; and this, too, is apparent, that a fresh certifi- 
cate would be onl}'' required when there was a change of tenure, 
and not upon the occasion of successive taxations, and this 
return would probably last for the life of the baron who made it, 
when his successor would make a new one, and the old one 
would be discarded. 

The aid for marrying the king's daughter was levied in the 
14th year of his reign (see page 109) ; and the order in which 
the knights are named is different from the order of this docu- 
ment, although, with the exception of the name of Warner de 
Insula appearing in the first, and that of William Briwere in his 
place in the second, they are identical. The brethren of the 
hospital are in this record charged for the |- fee held subsequently 
by William Briwere. 

It is quite clear, therefore, from this comparison that these 
certificates were not made for the scutage of the 14th Henry II. 

Madox gives a note from a Pipe Roll two years earlier, 
showing that the certificates of the knights' fees were then kept 
in the county (probably only the duplicate copy), for a hutch is 
made to receive them. This shows that some were made 
prior to 14th Henry II., just as William Briwere's certificate 
shows that some were made subsequently ; and this also 
establishes the fact that they were made at different times. The 
strong probability is, that they were made when there was 
occasion for them, that is, when seizin was given to the new 
baron. The value of this fact is of wider import than Derby- 
shire history, for this assumed date has been acted upon for 
centuries, and consequently numerous well-known pedigrees 
are wrongly dated. 

The Close Rolls show that on every scutage a writ was 
addressed to the greater baron to enable him to make his own 
return, as well as to the sheriff, to return for the lesser holders, 
and for those great barons whose estates were in the king's 
hands ; but this does not necessarily imply that a fresh certifi- 
cate was given upon each occasion, but only another payment. 

The Pipe Rolls show only two other scutages in the reign of 
Henry II., one in the eighth year of the king, and that of those 
who did not go with the king's army into Galway, in the 
thirty-third year of the king, when Hasculf Musard was dead. 


and it is generally assumed that there were no other scutages 
in his reign, but it should rather be considered that those 
assessments were of an extraordinary character, and that the 
certificates of knights' fees were made, not only for them, but 
for all other exactions of the exchequer, for Danegeld, and 
the annual farm of the county. In fact, that just as the 
sheriff made returns for the purposes of scutage upon the 
inquests taken before the Justices Itinerant from, and including, 
the date of Domesday, so those barons who were privileged to 
make their own returns, corrected the charters of their own 
baronies at the same periods, if it was found necessary to do so. 

In the second year of Henry II. (see page lOo), we find 
mention of a great variety of payments. Danegeld for both 
counties, ^38 5s.; Burgess aid, £iS', Gift of the county, 
80 m. ; Farm of the county, ;^I23 14s. id., and rents of the 
king's manors for the whole of the county, ;^i8o 14s. This 
does not include forfeited estates, for ^103 i8s. 6d. was received 
for Wm. Peverel's lands, and ;^94 6s. 2d. for the rents of his 
manors ; for many of these purposes the same assessment would 
be requisite. 

In 4 Henry II. (page 104), the sheriff accounted for £g^ 6s. 8d. 
for the gift of the count}-, which was evidently a regular levy, 
for the names of some who were excused payment are given. 

In 5 Henry II., p. 104, the sheriff again accounted for ,-^168 
of the gift of the county. 

In the sixth year, the Earl of Ferrars' estate was in the king's 
hands, and in the following year there was evidently an assess- 
ment ; and in the eighth of the king both a scutage and 
Danegeld were levied ; in fact, payments of some kind were 
exacted nearly every year. It is rash, therefore, to assign a 
particular date for a scries of documents which were in constant 
requisition for a variety of purposes ; and the safe conclusion 
seems to be that they were made when they were wanted, 
that is, upon a change of tenancy ; and the only certainty seems 
to be that they were made under the old system of taxation 
derived from and laid down in Doniesday, before it was altered 
by Archbishop Hubert Walter in 1198. It is highly probable, 
though it cannot be put higher, that the Archbishop caused 
this collection of documents to be recorded for the purposes of 
the new assessment, and that they were recopied with the 


muniments of a later date — when the present Red Book was 

We shall find, when we come to the Testa de Nevil, that 
the privilege of the greater barons in making their own 
assessments, or returns, was highly valued, and that it was the 
subject of fierce contention. No doubt it was also profitable, 
as well as honourable, to be independent of the sheriff, and 
consequently the privilege was religiously guarded and pre- 

The returns for the Counties of Nottingham and Derby are 
given together, since as the names of the manors held by the 
several knights are not given, it is impossible to separate 
them. We only possess the returns made by the Earl of 
Ferrars, Ralf Anselin, Robert de Chaus, Ralf fitz William, 
Hubert fitz Ralf, Roger de Buron, and Hasculf Musard, only 
seven for both counties out of a total of thirty-two barons 
and abbots of the time of Domesday, and only four of these 
barons were certainly descended in the male line from the 
Domesday holder. 

The return, however, of the Earl Ferrars, is of the greatest value, 
more especially since he divides it into three distinct periods : 
those knights who were enfeoffed by the Domesday holder, the 
ancestor of his grandfather, those enfeoffed by his grandfather, 
and those of his father's feoffment. This return takes us back, 
as respects the greater part of the county, to Domesday itself, 
and as to the second portion, to a period commencing within 
two years, for Robert de Ferrars, son of the Domesday Baron, 
flourished from the year 1088 to the year 1139, four years 
after the death of Henry I. His son, Robert de Ferrars, 
flourished from 11 39 to 1162, in which year William de 
Ferrars, who made the return, came into the possession of 
his barony. His return, therefore, could not have been made 
earlier than this latter year, though, probably, very soon after, 
for he had made no alteration amongst his knights. It will 
be observed that the vast majority of the earl's retainers 
were enfeoffed by the ancestor of Robert de Ferrars, that is, 
prior to 1088, and that, in most cases, the descent of the land 
is given to the date of his great grandson. 

Now, considering that Henry de Ferrars held no less than 
114 manors in Derby alone, and that many of his knights 


held lands under other barons, it will be seen that this return 
covers a most important portion of the county, in fact, the 
■greatest part of it, and doubtless, nearly every one of these 
knights have left descendants collateral or direct, who now 
survive, and form the staple of the people of the county, 
though, in most instances, their descendants, having adopted 
local names, have lost all memory and trace of their names 
and descent. 

Henry Ferrars, the chief landowner of the County of Derby 
at Domesday, was of a Norman family, who were of the most 
distinguished position, both in Normandy and England. He 
was the son of Vauqueline, or VValkelin (as the name is 
written in England), Lord of Ferrieres St. Hilaire, near Bernai, 
where, even in those days, he had great ironworks. His 
descendants bore the curious title of Premiers Barons Fossiers 
de Normandie. It is perhaps not singular that Henry, son of 
Vauqueline de Ferrars, should obtain the lordship of one of the 
chief mining districts in England. As an instance of the 
keenness of the famify for mines, Robert de Ferrars, in the first 
Pipe Roll, pays ;^8o for the farm of Wirksworth, where the 
king had no less than three leadworks, and the large amount 
of rent paid shows their value. Vauqueline de Ferrars perished 
in one of those lawless feuds which marred the minority ot 
Duke William. He and Hugh de Montforte sur Risle, the son 
of Toustain de Bastemburg, one of the most proud and violent 
of the Norman nobility, levied war upon each other, and 
both of them perished in the murderous affray. As this 
occurred about 1035 or 36, Henry de Ferrars could not have 
been a young man at the time of the conquest of England. 
He is perhaps best known as one of the Commissioners who 
compiled Domesday for the circuit in which his property lay ; 
that is, that as one of the greatest personages of his circuit, 
the ancient kingdom of Mercia, he was employed as one 
of the king's Justices Itinerant. Modern writers are pleased 
to assert that Justices Itinerant and their circuits was an in- 
vention of several centuries later ; but a series of documents 
show that they did exactly the same work as the Domesday 
Commissioners, in addition to the work of the Aula Regis ; 
in fact, that this part of the work of the Domesday Com- 
missioners was, and continued to be a part, and a very material 


part, of the regular duties of the Justices Itinerant, and that 
the circuits they travelled which were coterminous with the 
ancient kingdoms into which England was divided, practically 
agree with the divisions of the circuits of the present day. 

We possess, in a document to be given presently (a fragment), 
a specimen of the mode in which scutages were assessed. This 
is called Kirby's Quest ; and the only difference between the 
method pursued in it and in Domesday is that, in the later 
documents, or assize records, only the lesser baronies are 
detailed. The great barons, probably on account of their high 
rank, made their own returns to the king by their own charters, 
under their own hands and seals, which are given here as 
certificates of knights' fees. It will be seen that the scutage 
lists of the Pipe Rolls give no particulars of the great fiefs here 
given, so that they are, in fact, a supplement to those records. 
We invariably learn this from the Pipe Rolls, and no more, 
that the Earl of Derby answered for 68i fees. Here, for the 
first time, we obtain particulars of his holding ; so the fees of 
Hubert fitz Ralf of Domesday, of Ralf Hanselin, and of many 
others, are lumped together : here only we obtain the particulars 
of them. We obtain from the Pipe Rolls the particulars of the 
great fief of William Peverel, because it was in the king's 
hands, and that is omitted in this book. In fact, these returns 
supplement the other, and together make up a more modern 
account of those fees which, at the time of Domesday, paid 
scutage to the king. The history of the great baronial family 
of Ferrars, although in its younger descendants it has produced 
many peerages, has never been correctly given. This will be 
attempted in the Parochial portion of the work. 

Mr. Llewellynn Jewitt asserts that Henry de Ferrars held 
1 14 manors in Derbyshire alone, and this seems to have been 
the number of vills he held ; but it appears from the statement 
of his grandson, William Earl of Derby, that he held this vast 
estate for the service of sixty knights ; and it would appear that 
it was for the service of this number, with half a knight's fee 
added, that he enfeoffed some twenty-six knights during his 
tenure of the lordship. That (counting the monks of Tutbury, 
who would find a substitute) was also the number of tenants 
who are recorded in Domesday. One of these knights answered 
for the service of five knights ; that is, he was bound to produce 


them equipped for the field when called upon. Five answered 
for four each, four answered for three, seven for two, nine for 
one, and one for half a knight's fee ; 6o| altogether. It is not 
quite clear how many knights' fees he held in demesne, that is, 
kept in his own hands ; but, judging roughly, this will give him 
about fifty manors in hand, for which he paid no hide. For this 
he would probably be assessed, for the gift of the county ; so 
that he would have no difficulty whatever to form his contingent 
of the royal army whenever called upon ; and doubtless this 
is the list of knights, but with few exceptions, who fought 
under him at the great Battle of the Standards. Comparing the 
list of his knights as given at Domesday, and that which 
appears in his great grandson's certificate, it is very difficult to 
reconcile them ; and yet they must be practically identical, for 
he only survived two years after Domesday, and he would 
hardly have changed many tenures in that short period. No 
doubt the list, as we have it, is the list as it was altered by 
deaths and successions during the life of his son, that is, during 
fifty years. But still, every one of these tenants, save those 
expressly excepted, was a lineal descendant of the Domesday 
holder, that is of the knight who was enfeoffed by Henry de 
Ferrars before Ii88. It rarely happens that evidence can be 
obtained of such close approximation to the date of Domesday. 
The general rule is, that proof can only be obtained of a 
holding prior to the death of Henry I., nearly fifty years later. 
This, therefore, is an especial piece of good fortune for the 
Derbyshire families. 

Of course this does not apply to those who, in the time of 
Earl William, bore a different name. For instance, William de 
Hastings does not necessarily descend from Henry Cuneigeston 
or Galfry Marmion from Ivo de Heriz, or William Pantoul from 
Robert Luvitot, or Henry Hosato from John Turbuiville, 
though they may do so through females, or they may have 
been new grantees. In all the other cases where the property 
remained in the same name, the identity may be considered 
fairly and conclusively established, and therefore this follows 
that the descendants of every one of these knights, with the 
exception of the four just mentioned, may claim to possess a 
true Domesday pedigree. Perhaps no other county in England 
can claim this right for so large a number of families. The 


names of the greater part are, as we should expect from the 
earl's high position and connections, some of the best known 
of the Norman nobility. No less than sixteen of them are 
enumerated by Hollinshed in his list collected from the 
Chronicles of Normandy, or from that rather suspicious 
document, the Roll of Battle Abbey. Suspicious, not because 
there is any idea that it is an invention, but because there is 
good ground for suspecting that obliging curators of this 
document have, from time to time, interpolated certain names 
which, no doubt, in the opinion of their descendants, or perhaps 
only casual holders, ought to have been there, but which, by 
some mysterious accident, were omitted. This may be a libel 
upon the Abbey of Battle, but it is a widely spread one. Those 
names here given are Baskerville, Curzon, Camera, Curtenei, 
Chaucis, Dive, Harcourt, Hastings, Luvitot, Montgomery, 
Albini, Nieuton (Neville) fitz Otes, Tuberville, and Trussel, — a 
complete chaplet of roses to the genealogist. One thing is 
perfectly clear : Henry de Ferrars, whatever he may have done 
in keeping English knights or sub-tenants in his own household 
and family, so to speak, that is in his own demesne, allowed 
but very few of them to be in his service as knights. He 
seems to have made an exception in the cases of Swan, of 
Cowley, Alric, of Church Somersal, and Cola, and Cole 
(probably the same person), who held several manors under 
him. But, with these exceptions, we cannot at present 
positively identify any others of the names of the Domesday 
tenants with those who enjoyed these manors in the time of 
Edward the Confessor. True, twenty years had passed away — 
nearly a generation, perhaps quite one in those days of con- 
quest and plunder during the first twenty years of William's 
reign, when many an English head was prematurely laid low. 
It is difficult positively to identify the tenants under Edward 
the Confessor, but the Domesday scribe, no doubt instigated by 
the Domesday Commissioner, the Earl himself, has given them 
with more exactness than we generally obtain, and we are able 
to identify amongst the tenants several Royal Princes. Si ward 
the Earl, Edwin, his brother, Earl Walleof, Godwin, Leuric, 
and Levenot (younger Princes), and as we should expect from 
such company, many great Danish names, so that it is 
probable that there would be fewer changes in the tenancies 


than at first sight appears ; but these questions will more 
properly be discussed in the separate portions of the parochial 
history. At present it is sufficient to call attention to the 
jewels with which Domesday is thickly studded, and in no 
part of England more richly than in this half county of Derby. 
Evidently from the great beauty and charms of its situa- 
tion, valuable for its mining facilities, enjoyable for its sport, 
it was a favourite spot for Royalty, and would lose none 
of its attractiveness in the hands of its princely lord, who, 
perhaps not unlike some of his great successors, knew well 
how to combine the pleasures and hospitalities, the true 
charms of life, with a due regard to its duties and profits — 
a good guarantee for a permanent settlement, and far more 
admirable than the lavish splendour, with the inevitable 
ignominy to follow, of the unhappy spendthrift. 

The old Earls of Derby were proud of their connection 
with mining industries, and not only assumed the character 
in their titles, but emblazoned it upon their arms. The 
horseshoes borne by these princes were no unmeaning insignia ; 
it was an exposition of the fact that the shoeing of horses and 
the winning and preparing the metal for the purpose was 
their business. In that age of blood and iron, as in our 
own, the man who could gather his wealth from the bowels 
of the earth was not to be despised or trodden under 
foot, and he held his own with the mightiest in the land, 
a happy safeguard for peaceful industry and honourable 

An alphabetical list of the tenants of Henry de Ferrars, 
collected from Domesday, is already published at page 74 of 
Section I. In this return they will be taken in the order given 
by the Earl himself in his certificate. There is a very remark- 
able feature in this return which gives it an exceptional and 
great value. The Earl William has divided his return, not 
according to the tenor of the King's writ, which directed him 
simply to say which were of the old and which of the new 
feoffment, but as before noticed he has divided his return into 
no less than four divisions, the first and most valuable being 
those knights with their precedessors who were enfeoffeed by 
his great grandfather, who died in 1088, the next list tliose 
who were enfeoffed by his grandfather, who died in 11 38, and 


then those by his father, who was probably only just dead, and 
who died in 1 162. 

In these certificates unfortunately, though we get the full 
name of the tenant, we do not learn the names of their fees, 
whilst Domesday gives the contrary information, a good account 
of the fee, but only as a rule the Christian names of the 
tenants, and not always that, but the return of Henry Ferrars 
supplies an account of the tenants at these difterent epochs, 
and in some places giving a complete pedigree from Domes- 
day, in the majority of cases taking us back within two years 
of its date. 

The few facts relating to the motive of these returns, which 
are to be found in the Derbyshire portion of the book, are very 
much condensed compared to those of some other counties, 
but an examination of a considerable portion of the whole 
returns has failed to produce any satisfactory evidence which 
might determine their date and meaning. In no instance has 
a full copy of the King's writ been discovered, but in several 
there is a recital of it, which probably gives the best part of it, 
notably is this the case in the return of Robert de Brinton, ot 
Staffordshire. He writes to the King — " I, Robert de Brinton, 
myself, and others, my peers (comparibus meis), are directed by 
your letter that by the fidelity and allegiance which we owe to 
you our Lord by our letters under seal, we should show to you 
what knights we have of the old feoffment of the time of the 
King your grandfather, and what knights we have of the new 
feoffment after the time of Henry your grandfather, and what 
of our own demesne." 

Herbert de Castell, in the County of Salop, began in the 
same form. Scores of returns show that the King's order was 
strictly to divide the returns of the knights into the two classes 
of new and old feoffments, and these recitals place beyond all, 
doubt what was the King's definition of each of these classes. 
Supplement this by the fact that throughout these returns 
the reign of Stephen and his very name is ignored, although 
an occasional reference is made to his period as the time of 
war, and we obtain an important clue to guide us in the search. 

In Cambridgeshire, Mannassah Damartin stated that he 
held one fee in the time of King Henry, and that in the time of 
the war he gave Walter de Gornac one quarter of it, which 


William, his son, then held, and, he added, that of new feoffment 
he had none. The mode by which the leturn is made is 
significant. John de Port, in Southampton, writes the King — 
" Because on your part you have commanded that I should 
certainly make you to know what of old and what of new 
feoffment belongs to me (respicet) quoad yourself what and 
which fees I hold. By this present writing I truly state." 

Other Barons show that they made the enquiry by jury of 
legal and honest men. The Bishop of Bath made his return 
by his legal knights, and offered to give further information if 
required. Earl Patric (Salisbury) made the return by. his 
honest and ancient men. Probably the universal method was 
to obtain the return by such a jury, and the sole privilege which 
was originally proposed to be given was, that the machinery of 
the baronial court was not to be superseded by the king's 
justices : a great advantage to the lord, since it carried with it 
the power of selecting the jury. 

The return for the Earl of Arundel's Sussex fee shows that it, 
probably like the rest, was made upon oath. This was an excep- 
tional case, for it would appear that this barony was then in the 
king's hands; and it is recited that King Henry, on account of 
certain contentions which arose between the knights of the Honour 
of Arundel concerning service in the army of Wales, chose four 
knights of the highest rank of the said Honour — Ranulf de 
Sartil, Ralf fil Bruer, Will de Favarches, and Peter de Hatton, 
and made them acknowledge the services of the Honour, and 
therefore no one dare be heard against their legality and 

Richard de Aquila declared that he liad made no new 
feoffment in Sussex since the reign of Henry I. John Count 
of Ewe declared he had fifty-six fees of the feoffment of the 
time of King Henry L, and no fees of new feoffment. 

And this seemed the real point of the return, to show if 
any feoffments had been made tcmpe Stephen, and by whom. 

Walter de Med, in Kent, was probably caught, for he 
returned to " Henry by the grace of God, King of the Angles. 
May it be known to you that in the year and day in 
which King Henry, your grandfather, was alive and dead, 
Galf Talbot held twenty knight.s' fees of him, which, by your 
favour, I now hold of ^•ou." 


Walter fil Helte, in the same county, had to return that 
he had only three knights' fees (no date of feoffment given ?) 
but after the death of Henry the king, I gave one-fifth of a 
fee of my own demesne to a certain one of my family. As 
no consent of the king is mentioned, this was probably done in 
the time of King Stephen. 

Richard de Greenstead, in Wilts., answered that he had no 
knights of the new or old feoffment, but for his demesne he 
did the service of one knight to the king. 

So William de London, in the same county, by his return 
admitted that he ought to answer for his fee by the services 
of his body. 

In Somerset, Alexander de Alno declared that he had 
enfeoffed no one since the death of Henry I., but that his 
father had given to his brother Hugo, the . knight, certain 
lands, but this was in the time of King William. 

In the same county Hugo de Curcel (the probable ancestor 
of the Ducal House of Marlboro') stated that he held of the 
king one knight's fee, and that his father gave one quarter of 
it to Roger de Granton. This scion of the House of Churchill 
was apparently, like some of the others, making an evasive 
return, but this must not be rashly concluded, because if these 
returns are of different dates, as it seems quite certain that 
they are, only some of them were made on Henry's accession, 
and after that period the distinction of new and old feoffment 
became of less importance, and might not be insisted upon or 

Wm. de Moun (Somerset) returned the knights enfeoffed 
from the time of King Henry I. ; Wm. de Curci Dapifer those 
which his grandfather, his father, and himself held, just as did 
the Earl of Ferrars in his return ; so Humphrey de Bohun 
gave the fees of which his grandfather was enfeoffed of the first 
feoffment. These returns appear to have been made at a later 
date than Henry's accession, as in fact we know to be the case 
in the return of William de Ferrar.s, Earl of Derby, for he did 
not obtain seizin in the sixth year of Henry the king, the year 
his father died, for the lands were then in the king's hands, though 
he certainly had seizin on the 14th of the king. Sometimes 
two knights made a joint return, as in the case of Robert 
Peverel and Norman de Normanville, who held one knight's 


fee of the king in Sussex, Robert doing service for two parts, 
Norman for the other. 

The Bishop of Exeter returned under his writ sealed and 
aptum : proof that these charters were made in the most solemn 
and complete manner. 

The returns made by those who divided the feofifments by 
the epochs of their ancestors, would seem to indicate that their 
certificates had been preserved, and were, in fact, being recited, 
so that we seem to possess, in some instances in substance, the 
very certificates of those ancestors ; and the later returns of 
the Testa de Nevil proves that this system of making certificates 
of knights' fees existed for centuries afterwards. It was 
evidently therefore by some accident, such as that already 
suggested, that they were collected and transcribed in this 

The following notes are taken almost haphazard from many 
sources, which will be more regularly arranged hereafter. They 
must be taken as merely tentative in some cases, and in none 
as exhaustive. They are given to show the bent of the author's 
mind, but it must be taken that they are all open to correction, 
and many of them, doubtless, will be corrected hereafter. As 
a rule, those families only whose histories are in doubt, are 
at present noticed. 



^be Certificate of tbe ]£arl of jferrars. 

FERRARS (c. 1162). 

Henry King of England, to his well-beloved baron William 

Earl de Ferrars' health. We command you that 

in the time of King Henry, our grandfather 


Note. — At Domesday Sasuallo held Hoge, Hatune, and 
Etewall. Testa de N. : Sevvell fil Henry held Hoka (qy. Hoga). 

This is a curious statement, from which it would seem that 
both, or at any rate one, of these knights had died without 
leaving issue, for the same heirs represented both, and from 
the fact that the name of the heirs were unmentioned, it is 
probable that they were co-parceners, and female heirs or their 
descendants, and that as yet no partition had been made 
between them, so that no one was as yet responsible for the 
services due from the fees. Henry fil Sewalon was living at the 
time of the first Pipe Roll, for there he is entered as accounting 


for seven marcs of silver that he might be quit, i.e., released 
from his oath. 

This is a most interesting pedigree, and several families claim 
descent, but it is to be feared that their claims will not stand 
the brunt of investigation, for their only proof seems to be that 
their ancestors bore the names of some of the manors held by 
Saswalo, which is simply idle. The family of Shirley especially 
seem at fault with their proof, and they do not even possess 
the advantage of possessing any of Sewel's manors. The 
heralds differ amongst themselves as to the history of the Shirley 
family. When this is the case, it is almost more dangerous 
than when they are in agreement, though that is bad 
enough. But if they differ, it is tolerably certain that one 
of the body has gone wrong somewhere, and very wrong too, 
if his fellows will not support him. That the family of Sewell 
were the chief tenants of the Earl de Ferrars in the reign of 
Stephen or Henry II., is clear from a charter of Robert, 
grandson of Henry Ferrars, concerning Leke, in which Hugh 
fil Sewell is the chief witness, and Henry fil Sewal also attested 
it (1138-62). Some authorities state that Henry and Fulcher 
had three other brethren, and, if this can be shown positively, 
there may be hope of proving the pedigree. 

The surname of Sewell remained long in Derbyshire. It is 
to be found in a list of knights' fees of 10 Henry VI., when 
John Sewale held land in Wirksworth ; and the name of Swale 
is to be found in Hardwick charters of the same period. So, 
too, at an earlier period it appears in some Osberton charters. 
Domesday only indicates three of the manors held by this 
family, and it may be difficult to recover the rest. They then 
held Hoon, Hatton, and Etwall. 

Sewell fil Fulcher (who may or may not be of the same 
family : both Fulc and Sewell are common Christian names), 
gave Aldwark to Derley Abbey, a manor which was Ferrars', 
but was probably appurtinent to Bradburn, held by de Cauz. 
He is mentioned in a Pipe Roll of 21 Henry II. A Henry 
fil Fulcher is mentioned in the same Pipe Roll, and in 15 
Henry II.; and a Robert fitz Fulc in 26 Henr}^ II. In 7 John, 
Henry fil Sewall sued Sarra de Hedesferes and William de 
London. Sewall fitz Henry, 1202, fined, with William de 
Stretton concerning one bovate of land in Barlborough, and 


the descendants of a collateral branch of this family may be 
traced long afterwards. 

This brings down the family to the period when territorial 
surnames were adopted, and it is to be hoped that such a 
transmutation of names may be discovered. 

It is difficult to determine the nationality of the sons of 
Saswald, or Saswalo, from the name. Henry and Fulc are 
both Norman names, but they were so commonly Norse, that 
they were plentiful wherever the Danes settled ; and these 
names may have been given in gratitude to the Earl de Ferrars 
for placing this knight in so high a position as chief tenant of 
the Honour. The strong probability is, that he was a relation 
of his lord, possibly a son-in-law, or grandson, as was the case 
with the next tenant. 


Note. — There is no doubt about one at least of the manors 
(Catton) held by this knight, nor any about his indentity, for 
Domesday records that he held Catton (Chetune), and the 
Baron St. Amand obtained it as one of the co-heirs of Robert 
fil Nigel, Lord of Cainhoe. 

The Abingdon cartulary shows that in 1 107 Henry Albini 
of Cainhoe, whose mother was Amicia, daughter of Henry de 
Ferrars, had a younger brother, William. There is probably 
some error in the generally received pedigree of the Albinis of 
Cainhoe, for it has to be explained how the older branch of the 
family came to inherit this, if William fil Nigel was the younger 
brother of Henry, for it is generally recorded that Robert was 
his eldest son, and that he was followed by another Robert, 
whose co-heir Ailmer St. Amand married, and the difficulty is 
the greater that a family of Albini remained in Derby for 
centuries after this date, who held Abney of the Ferrars 
family. One of this family attested Robert de Ferrars' charter, 
1138-62, concerning Leke. Robert fitz Nigel was one of Henry 
de Ferrars' Staffordshire knights. The proof that the names 
Abney and Albini are identical is simply overwhelming, and 
inasmuch as this name was well known at Domesday, it seems 


impossible that the manor of Abney can be identified with 
Habenai of Domesday, as both Lysons and Glover insist. 
Swain held it at Domesday under William Peverel, under whom 
it is not recorded that the Albinis held land. They held 
Uffington, in South Wingfield, and Pentric under Ralf fitz 
Hubert, but that was to be expected, seeing the close connec- 
tion of their families. For a full account of the Albinis the 
learned reader is referred to the author's history of the House 
of Arundel. The Abneys of Willesley now undoubtedly 
represent the Derbyshire branch of this great family, who are 
of the male blood of the family of the ducal house of 
Normandy, the Lord of St. Sauveur, the ancestor of the Albinis, 
Earls of Arundel (and the Lords of Cainhoe and Belvoir), being 
the next heir male to the duchy upon the death of Duke 
Robert in 1035. The Duke of Norfolk now represents the 
Earls of Arundel. 

A William fil Nigel held Caldwell, of Burton Abbey, at a 
very early period. Dr. Cox suggests that he was de Gresley. 
This may be so, but at this period the Gresleys were not 
certainly tenants of the Ferrars' family. It is clear that they 
were knights of the Honour of Peverel, and would not become 
knights of this honour until, in the turbulent period of King 
John's reign (if any particular portion of it can be so styled), 
William de Ferrars intruded into the Peverel inheritance. 

In 23 Henry II., Robert de Albini rendered composition of 
five marcs for the duel of the Earl de Ferrars ; that is, he was 
one of his sureties ; and then headed the list of his knights 
(see page 121, where the names of a number of the earl's 
tenants of that date are to be found.) 


Gilbert held Chelardestune at Domesday. 

Note. — Robert de Curzon held Ketelston for half a knight's 
fee and one fee in Twyford, and Thomas de Curzon held four 
parts of a knight's fee, in Ketleston. Test, de Nev. 

The very greatest interest attaches to this pedigree. In point 
of antiquity, coupled with the uniform high position held by 


the family through all generations from the time of the Con- 
quest, it is almost the premier pedigree of the county. 

Genealogists have meddled with this pedigree only to mar 
it, and that which has been detailed by the heralds in their 
visitations abounds with errors, but nothing can destroy its 
absolute integrity as an undoubted Domesday pedigree, the 
family having always enjoyed the same manors from father 
to son to the present time. The heralds persist in deriving 
the family from Roger, who held Croxall at Domesday, 
alleging that the Croxall branch is the elder. This, however, 
appears extremely doubtful, for that manor clearlx' came into 
the family by the marriage of Rich de Curzon with Petronilla, 
the daughter and heiress (or co-heir) of Walter de Camville, 
who was probably the descendant of Roger of Domesday. 
There are two manors which the Curzons possess, of the 
origin of which (out of all their manors) we have no account. 
These are Kedleston and Weston Underwood. It is tolerably 
clear that they formed the whole or part of the lesser barony 
of Richard de Curzon at the time when he married the heiress 
of Camville, and at Domesday, both of them were held by 
one Guilbert, who, in all probability, was the true ancestor of 
the family. A Curzon held these estates in 1088 ; only two 
years previously Guilbert held them, therefore it may be con- 
tended he was the common ancestor of the family. It is to 
be hoped, however, as before observed, that further research 
will make this quite clear. 

The certiticate of the Earl de Ferrars places the presumption 
of a descent from the Domesday lord infinitely higher than 
that which can generally be drawn from these documents, since 
it reduces the ordinary space of seventy-five years to two, in 
fact, to so high a probability that it is almost a certainty. 

23 Henry II. Robert de Curzon rendered composition of 
40s. on account of the duel of the earl. 


Note. — Testa de Nevil, Wm. de Montgomery held Marston 
and Cubberley for three fees and one-tenth and one-thirteenth. 
The Book of Aids shows that this family then held land in 


Marchington, Cuberley, Sudbury, Aston, Snelleston, Eyton, 
Sedgeshall, Orlaston, and Sonsal. This is, again, one of the 
grandest pedigrees in Derbyshire ; but, unhke the family of 
Curzon, they no longer remain (at least under that name) in 
this county. The representation of the family is presumably 
with the families of Stanhope, the elder co-heir, and the only 
one who left issue ultimately surviving, having married Sir 
John Port, of Etwall, whose daughter and heiress, Margaret, 
married Sir Thomas Stanhope, of Shelford, ancestor of the 
Earls of Chesterfield, the Earls of Harrington, and the Earls 
of Stanhope. It is difficult, however, to state positively who 
is now the true representative of the family, so many of the 
Earls of Chesterfield having died without issue, or leaving 
only female issue, the first of whom, in point of seniority, 
being of course the true representative of the Montgomerys. 

The Vernons of Sudbury, although they possess several of the 
manors of the Montgomerys, have in fact no descent from them. 
Sir John Vernon of Haddon married one of the co-heirs of Sir 
John Montgomery in the reign of Henry VHI., but his issue 
ultimately became extinct, and his estates passed under his will 
to the issue of an elder brother of Sir John Vernon, from 
whom the present Lord Vernon descends. Although there 
cannot be a doubt that the Montgomerys Were Domesday 
tenants of the Ferrars, yet just as in the case with the Curzons, 
the Domesday ancestor is uncertain. The probabilities seem 
to lie between Ralf and John, the latter of whom is generally 
supposed to be the true ancestor. This interesting question 
must await solution until the history of the several manors held 
by this family have been more carefully enquired into. The 
arms of this family would seem to indicate a descent from the 
family of Albini, since it is a derivative coat of that of Ivri or 
Evroux, which Wm. Albini, Earl of Arundel, of this house, bore 
prior to the acquisition of that earldom. 

One of the Domesday tenants of the Ferrars called John was 
probably de Harcourt, who subsequently changed his name to 
that of Heris. He was nearly related to Roger Montgomery, 
being descended from Herfast, the brother of the Duchess 
Gunnor, amongst whose descendants we find Earl Roger de 
Montgomery. Amongst his knights there was a Ralf de 
Montgomery, who was possibly the Lord of Snelston and 


Cubley. Certainly tlie latter place was a part of the barony of 
this family. For a full account of the family of Montgomery, 
the author must refer the reader to his history of the House of 

Walter de Montgomery attested a charter to Alan de Leke, 
nephew of Elfnot, concerning that manor 1138-62. 

1 175 Walter Montgomery paid 40s. on account of the earl's 



Note. — Testa de Nevil proves that Galfry de Bakepuz held 
Alkmanton for 3 parts of i knight's fee, and that John de 
Bakepuz held Barton for i fee. Both these manors were held 
at Domesday by Ralf, doubtless their ancestor. In all proba- 
biiity the Earl de Ferrars had more than one knight named 
Ralf The Book of Aids shows that John de Bakepuz then 
held 3 parts of a fee in Alkmanton and Barton, formerly 
held by Robert Bakepuz. 

This family were long resident in the county of Derby, 
certainly much later than the reign of Edward I., which date 
Lysons gives for the termination of their residence. 

In the time of Earl Henry, ante 1088, they held more manors, 
but their descendants were resident in some of these as late, and 
probably later, than the reign of King Henry VI., although 
doubtless their chief property had passed to the Blounts. 

Besides the high position they bore amongst the lesser barons 
of the chief barony, their coat armour suggests a family 
relationship, for, in addition to the ancient arms of Ivri, which 
they probably obtained from the Albinis, they bore the three 
horse-shoes of their chief, which they would not assume unless 
there was afifinity of blood as well as a feudal relationship. 

1138-62. Geofifry de Bakepuz attested a charter of Earl 
Robert de Ferrars. 

Henry II. Walter de Bakepuz attested the charter of 
Welbeck Abbey. 

1 167. Walter and John de Bakepuz were sureties for their 


IIQ7. Robert de Bakepuz fined with the Abbot of Derley 
and the Knights' Hospitallers concerning the church of Barevv. 

1235. Walter de Bakepuz and Elizabeth, his wife, at Blythe. 

33 Henry HI. Geoffry de Bakepuz and Eincynea, his wife, 
held land in Nettlesworth by knight service of Malvesinus de 
Herecy and Theophania, his wife, and they of the Honour of 
Tickhill. This estate eventually came to the family of Denman, 
ancestors of the Lords Denman, in descent from Herecys. 

Sir Galf de Bakepuz and Amicia, his wife, granted land to 
Lenton Priory (Register 137J. 

C. Edward I. Ralf de Bakepuz (Subsidy Roll). 

20 Edward HI. John fil John de Bakepuz (Book of Aids). 

25-33 Edward HI. Thomas Bakepuz (Subsidy Roll). 

6 Henry VI. James Bakepuz of Alkmanton, and John of 
Barton (Subsidy Rolls). 

10 Henry VI. Wm. Bakepuz, of London, held land in 


Note. — This name seems to be another form of that of 

1266. Sir John Baskerville obtained a grant of Old Whitting- 
ton, in Cheshire, from Robert de Camville. 


Note. — There is but little doubt that in this knight we have a 
relation of the earl in the male line, the surname fitz Walkelin 
being that by which many of his family were known. In the face 
of the fact that the pedigree of Ferrars has never been satis- 
factorily worked out, it is dangerous to speculate as to the exact 
relationship, but, seeing that we obtain here three generations, 
the probability is that Robert fitz Walkelin, who was enfeoffed 
by Henry de Ferrars ante 1088, was his brother. 

Robert, uncle of the earl, who was surety for him in 1175, was 
probably this tenant. The word avunculus, by which the 


relationship is described, is a very loose one, and is wide 
enough to include the descendants of the uncles and aunts of a 
person on either side, though at one time it is supposed to have 
included only those relations by the mother's side, — in fact it has 
little less meaning than the word kinsman, or cousin. 

The Burton Cartulary shows that in 1150-59 Abbot Robert 
granted to Robert fil Robert fil Walkelin (no doubt this knight) 
certain land in Heanor, to be held of the Abbey at the nominal 
rent of half a mark. Gaufridus Abbot (1114-50) having granted 
to him other land in Oure at 5s. rent. The same abbot granted to 
Robert de Ferrars, at a rent of 5s., certain land in Tickenhall, 
which his father had previously held, for which he was bound to 
protect the Abbey. 

Dr. Cox appears to identify these two knights. 

The account of the fitz VValkelins will occupy much space in 
the Parochial History. 


Note. — Testa de Nevil shows that Robert de Dun held 2 
fees in Breydeston. 

It is probable that these fees lay in Breadsal and Dalbury. 
Robert de Dun was Lord of Dalbury tenipe Henry H. (Dug- 
dale's Monasticon i, 355, first edition.) 

At Domesday Dalbury is described as a hamlet of Mickleover, 
which was then belonging to the Abbot of Burton. 

This family remained in the service of the Earls de Ferrars 
for several generations. The manor of Breadsal, which they 
held, came to the Curzons through the marriage of an heiress, 
but the younger branches of the family long remained in the 

In 31 Henry IIL (Rolls called Tower Records, but properly 
forming part of the Coram Rege and Assize Rolls) there was an 
assize to enquire whether Sampson le Dun and Galf de Skefing- 
ton had disseized Robert de Ferrars (meaning the earl) of 15 
tofts, 2 carucates, and 24 bovates, 2 mills and 4 acres of wood, 
and IS. and one pound pepper rent in Breadsal, which he 
claimed to hold of the feoffment of Jacobus de Audeley. 


Sampson said that the earl commanded him that he should 
send to him his palfry, which was a fine one, and when he was 
unwilling to send it the earl sent his knights to the town of 
Breadsal, who, by the writ of the same earl, seized it and took it 
to a certain hermitage, and the same earl held it in hand for a 
long time, and afterwards gave it to Robert de Stradley, who 
gave it to Hugo de Dun, with Nicolas de Marnham, the earl's 

The earl asserted that Sampson had subsequently surrendered 
to him. 

The same year (same Roll) Wm. de Sauneby and Sibella, his 
wife, widow of Robert de Dun, sued Henry de Dun for a certain 
rent from Breadsal, and Sampson de Dun for another rent, who 
called Margaret, fil and heir of Roger fil Robert de Dun, to 
warranty, who was an infant within age in the custody of Hugo 
de Meynil. 

The Duns remained many generations as landed proprietors 
in this county. 


Testa de Nevil shows that Wm, de Gresley and Gilbert de 
Seagrave held three parts of one fee in Linton. The connection 
between this de Gresley and the family of Drakelow has not 
yet been discovered. It was not until about the year 1200 
that the latter family became knights of the Earl of Ferrars ; 
but in 1 178, Robert and Henry de Gresley, no doubt of this 
family, were sureties for the earl. 

The Liber Niger shows that Robert de Gresley held three 
fees in Staffordshire of Robert de Stafford, which at Domesday 
were held by Nigel, and it is assumed, perhaps, without suffi- 
cient proof, that he was the direct ancestor. 

Kirkby's Quest shows that Galf de Gresley held three fees in 
the reign of Edward I., and the Book of Aids (20 Edward IV.) 
that one fee in Lothington had descended to John, his son. 

The Gresley pedigree, like so many others, has been built 
up upon assumptions, the truth of which it will be attempted 
hereafter to test. 



Wm. Earl Ferrars by charter now at Hardwick Hall, granted 
and confirmed to Maurice, nephew (nepos) of Robert de 
Luvitot, the manor of Wodham, which Robert Earl Ferrars, 
his father gave to him to hold in inheritance in exchange for 
his uncle's lands given to Wm. Pantoul. 

General Wrottesley has assumed the meaning of returns in 
this form to be, that the tenant last named is the under-tenant 
of the former, but this charter seems to solve the difficulty, for 
here, at any rate, there was no undertenancy, but a simple 
exchange. The difficulty is to understand the difference of an 
old feoffment of this kind, and a new grant or feoffment. 
Perhaps it is that the new tenant, by arrangement, succeeds to 
the whole obligations and duties of the old one, as heir. 

This grant was made by the earl in his court before himself, 
his barons and knights, a grand list, which is of great value, 
since so little is recorded of this barony. 

They were Richard, Abbot of St. Peter's, sur Dive Fulc, 
Prior of Tutbury, Roger Chaplain of the Earl H. fil Fulc 
(Sewall), and H. Dankerville, Will Cap. Maurice and Anst. 
clerics, William de Ferr and Hugo, brothers of the Earl, Robert 
and H. his uncles ; William Pantoul, Robert de Piri (Dapifer), 
Robert fil Walkelin, and H. his brother, and Peter and Walter 
de Montgomery, and Ralf his son, and Rad de Montgomery, 
and William fitz Herbert, and Walter de Somerville, and Adam 
de Stanton, and William his brother, and Humphrey de Tolka 
Rad de Boscerville and Renald de G(ou)sel, Harald de Lek 
and Alan his son, Thomas Venator of the Earl, and Robert de 
C(ur)cun, and Rad de M(u)st(ers). H. de Cavis, and William 
de Dun, and Robert fil Ralf, and Peter de Sandiacre, and 
William de Munjoia, Robt. Pincerna and Thos. de Piri, 
Galf de Camara and John de Boscervill, G. de Bak, Rann 
de Manville and German his brother, John de Bak, Wido de 
Rochford, Richard fil Alan and Reginald de Danesia, Laurence 
and Ralf de Torp, and Gaufry and Gilbert his sons, H. fil Robert 
de Lega, Robert fil Richard de Normanton, Wm. de Coddinc, 


and Robert and Ralf his brothers, and Wm. fil Alcher and G. 
his son, Richard fitz Herbert, and Alan fitz John, and Roger 



Note. — Testa de Nevil shows that Henry de Chaumbreys 
held half a fee in Brunaveston. The manors of Barocote 
and Burnaston were held by Roger fil Walter de Cambrics 
in 1290, and it seems that they were the manors held by 
this knight, in 1088, one Henry, who is presumably the same, 
holding them at Domesday, and of the same knight, also 
Norbury. If this be so, it would seem doubtful if he were 
not another member of the Ferrars' family, for Robert fil 
Henry de Ferrars gave Norbury to Tutbury early in the reign 
of Henry I., and the Prior, in 1126, gave it to William fitz 
Herbert, probably identical with his nephew of that name, in 
fee farm at lOOs. rent. He was ancestor of the family of 
Fitzherbert of Tissineton. 


Note. — Lysons gives no account of this knight, but it would 
seem, from the Burton Cartulary, that Ralf, the son, was 
constable of the Earl Robert (fo. 33). 

28th November, 1208, a Lucian de Seille, and Agatha his 
wife, fined, with Bertram de Caldun, and Alice his wife, con- 
cerning a wood in Herteshorn, called Danewellhai. Amicia 
de Albini sued Lucian fil Robert de Seille for land there, to 
which he had ingress only through Lucian his grandfather. 
Lucian, the grandson, called to warranty John fitz Herbert, who 
could not come, because he was in the king's service abroad, 
and, in fact, a prisoner of the King of France in the castle of 



Note. — ^^This again raises the difficulty mooted by General 
Wrottesly, and this is complicated by a similar entry being 
found in the Staffordshire account (which the General has 
published, though without notice of this entry). There Geoffry 
de Camara held 2 fees of Henry de Ferrars, which the General 
identifies as in Marchinton, which the same two knights then 

If their estates were held officially, or rather for official 
services connected with the county, it would almost seem as if 
this Robert fil Ranulf was the sheriff, and Peter de Goldington 
his under-sheriff, for both held certain offices in connection with 
the treasury of the county, as is evinced by many entries in the 
Pipe Rolls, from the nth to the 14th year of Henry II. 


Note. — This is a very puzzling entry, and it is difficult to 
understand how two men, being owners of the same knight's fees 
near Domesday, except by sale, could pass their interest by 
descent to the same man, unless at the first period they repre- 
sented co-heirs, and one of them died without issue. In the year 
1 100 or 1 102, Robert de Heriz held Edensor, probably of Henry 
de Ferrars, for it was his at Domesday ; and he held Oxcroft of 
William Peverel, for he made grants out of both of them to his 
foundation at Lenton about that date. We have no history 
of Oxcroft from Lysons. He merely mentions that Heriz 
held it tempe Henry III., and in his account of Edensor he 
does not refer to the Heriz family. Now Robert held this 
latter place, as well as Wingfield, at Domesday; and he is 
presumably the Robert de Heriz of fifteen years later. He 
left a son, Ivo, it is very certain, for he appears from the first 
Roll of the Pipe to have been sheriff, or perhaps farmer, of 
the county at some earlier period, and he then accounts for a 


payment for his land at Wilgeby, where, at Domesday, William 
Peverel held two bovates and a half of Clifton Sok, and which, 
very clearly, Robert de Heriz held in the latter part of the 
reign of King Henry II. In 26 Henry II., Adeliza, the widow 
of William de Heriz, the elder brother of Robert (whose heir 
he was), fined with the king that she should not be compelled 
to marry. In the reign of Henry III., Ivo de Heriz, son of 
Robert, held Oxcroft, Wyngfield, and Lyvechief, for two 
knights' fees. If this family are identical with that of Yvo, 
the knight of 1088, it is clear that they must descend from a 
younger branch of it. Of this William fil Walkelin, nothing 
seems to be known. Possibly he was another brother of Henry 
de Ferrars, and he probably died without heirs ; though how 
the heirs of Galfry de Marmion succeeded to the inheritance, 
whether by descent or purchase, is unknown. Nor is it clear 
who these heirs were. One of them was probably Albreda, 
the wife of William de Camville, of Clifton Childcot, in 
Staffordshire, who 9 John sued William de Berkley concerning 
Childcot in Derbyshire, which was soc to it. 

There is a very puzzling account of a fitz Walkelin family, 
of Derby, which possibly may be the same. In the reign of 
Henry II., Walkelin of Derby, and Goda his wife, were dealing 
with certain rights in a mill at Derby, which he had purchased 
of William de Heriz. Was this William that son of Ivo de 
Heriz who died 23rd Henry II.? Magister Robert fil Goda, 
who died ante 1176, granted a messuage, with a bakery 
(cum furno), which Wachelin held in Derby, and the land, 
which Petronilla fil Peter (his father) gave to the Canons of 
Derley. It would seem that he had several younger brothers, 
called Wachiline, Henry, Augustine, Peter, William, and Walter. 
Most of them Ferrars names, and curiously a Wachiline de 
Ferrars, an uncle of William the Earl, married, presumably in 
the time of Stephen or of Henry I., one Goda, the daughter 
of Robert Todeni, with whom it seems tempting to identify 
this couple. But the Ferrars' pedigree is in such an uncertain 
state as to dates, and they have adhered so frequently to the 
same Christian names, that it is by no means safe to trust to 
the printed accounts. 




Note. — Robert de Boskerville held Eisse, Hiltune, and 
Turvedestun at Domesday. 

The question arises who was this William de Boskerville, and 
Derbyshire historians give no answer to it. We must in this 
case go direct to Norman records for an answer, and we at 
once see that Boscheville in Normandy, or part of it, was the 
territory of the Avenel family, another great Derbyshire family 
of whom as little is known. Now nothing is clearer than that 
the Avenel family held Haddon at a very early period, for the 
foundation charter of Lenton, c. iioi, was attested by Avenel 
of Haddon, and he granted land out of Haddon, Method-we-ploth, 
and Maniax to that foundation; and Wm. Avenel, who in all pro- 
bability was this Wm. de Boskerville, attested a somewhat later 
charter of the son of the founder (after 1113). 

Robert de Avenel attested the foundation charter of Welbec 
in the time of Stephen, and Ralf de Avenel, early in King 
Henry II. 's reign, gave the church of Sutton to the Prior of 
Trentham. (Madox Form, Aug., No. 4. 507.) 

1 175. Ralf de Boscherville was surety half a mark on 
account of the Earl's duel. 

We obtain no trace of Wm. Avenel in Domesday, but we 
learn that at Domesday Haddon was part of the ancient 
demesne of the Crown, as was Oneis, another of Wm. Avenel's 
manors, except one carucate in Haddon which Henry de Ferrars 
claimed against the king. These Berewites, with others, 
belonged to Bakewell, where there was a lead work, which with 
the king's other mining districts were now in the hands of the 
Baron's Fossiers, and long held by them, till the favoured 
family of the Gernons, the alleged ancestors of the Dukes of 
Devonshire, possessed it. Certainly we gain from this no direct 
evidence of a holding under Henry de Ferrars. We must look, 
therefore, to see if any evidence is procurable from other records, 
and fortunately we shall obtain from the partition of his estates 


in the time of King Richard an account of the fees which were 
then held by the family, and which were divided between the 
co-heirs, Simon Basset and Helizabeth his wife, and Richard 
Vernon and Amicia his wife. 

The Rotuli Curiae Regis, No. 5, which was formerly dated 
by the authorities of the Record Office as that of the second 
year of King John, but upon the redating, which was made in 
consequence of the author's strictures (written in several articles 
of the " Law Review " of 1875), is now dated 6 Richard I. Now, 
beside the fact that some of the Rolls of this bundle are of the 
date of King Henry III., this date can hardly be correct, 
since the Pipe Roll of that year shows that . . . Basset paid 
100 shillings for half the farm of Bassellaw. A Richard de 
Vernon farmed the other half, and the same roll shows that at 
the same date Hugh de Haddon (who was probably a Basset) 
paid ^10 for having his land, which was a knight's fee, in 
Haddon. (We must remember that there are two Haddons.) 
More than this, the Sheriff accounts for 12s., the value of the 
goods sold this year, late of Robert de Avenel, " one of the 
king's enemies," from which fact it is easy to read that Robert 
de Avenel had for some reason forfeited his lands, and that 
they were in the king's hands, yet his co-heirs were practically 
allowed to enjoy them, paying a rent, or farming them from the 
Crown. The meaning of this can probably be ascertained from 
a charter now at Belvoir Castle (where many valuable Vernon 
papers are deposited by reason of the representation of the 
Dukes of Rutland of this branch of the Vernon family.) The 
charter is of William Avenel, and it concedes to Richard Vernon 
and Simon Basset, who had married his two daughters and co- 
heirs, all his estate in free marriage. 

The partition, of whatever date it is, shows that Simon Basset 
obtained the whole vill of Haddon and half of Basselaw, whilst 
Richard de Vernon obtained Hadstock, Hurlingburc, and half 
of Basselaw. 

The Croxton Chartulary, also at Belvoir, shows that Gilbert 
Avenel was a benefactor granting land in Empton. This 
Gilbert was clearly in the direct Haddon line. 

The Pipe Rolls for Notts, and Derby give some evidence. 

2 Henry H. Gcrvase Avenel paid 20 marks for the land 
of Basselaw. 


19 Henry II. Gervase and Robert Avenel were two of the 
overseers respecting works done to the Castles of Bolsover and 

Robert again in 20 Henry II., Gervase in 23 Henry II. 

In 26 Henry II., the sheriff accounted for 68s. for corn sold 
off the land of Gervase Avenel of the Honour of Peverel, 
proof that he had forfeited his lands, unless they were for 
other reason, perhaps, a minority, then in the king's hands. 

In 7 Richard I., Wm. Basset was charged 40 marcs for land 
in Nottingham and Derby, and Robert Avenel one marc for 
seven shillings rent in Pleslie and in Sutton. 

In 3 John, Wm. Avenel paid 4 marcs for having writ to 
recover one fee in Basselaw, Bubbeshill, Cardeburc, and Froggat, 
against Simon Basset, and Richard de Vernon and Alice his 
wife. Unfortunately, we can find no trace of this suit in the 
Rot. Cur. Regis, so that the real reason of the disappearance 
of the Avenels is not clear. 

In 6 Richard I., Amicia ux Gilbert Avenel placed her hus- 
band against Mathew fil Odo (qy. Ivo) de Eston p Thomas 
fitz Ralf, for her dower in the vills of Normanton and Eston, 
held by her former husband, John de Eston, but Mathew said 
it was his mother's inheritance (who was one of eight co-heirs), 
and his father could not endow his second wife out of it. 

As to Basselaw, this, again, was one of the king's manors, 
and we learn nothing from Domesday, and it is the same with 
Froggat, which was part of this manor, and also with respect 
to Bubbeshill. Cardeburc is not traceable at present. 

With regard to grants out of these properties, we find that 
Wm. de Avenel, Lord of Haddon, gave One Ash to Roche 
Abbey ; this again, if Lysons has rightly identified it, was in 
the king's hands at Domesday, but possibly this was Ash in 
Sutton-on-the-Hill. We also find that he gave Conkesbury to 
the Abbot of Leicester, and here we find a true Ferrars con- 
nection, for this place is in Youlgrave, one of Henry de Ferrars' 
Domesday manors. 

But perhaps the clearest evidence is to be extracted (almost 
dragged) from the history of Sutton-on-the-Hill. This was 
held by Henry de Ferrars at Domesday, and it contained Ash, 
Osleston, and Thurveston. 

Ralf de Boscheville (probably the Ralf of the Red Book) 


gave the church of Sutton to Tutbury, and John gave half 
tlie tithes of Osleston and Nether Thurvaston to Tutbury. 
He was probably the father of Odo, who held one of Wm. 
de Boscheville's knight's fees tempe Henry H. 

Reginald Bassett attested a Rufiford charter of Gerard de 
Furnival c. John. 

English records failing to supply evidence, we must turn to 
Norman, and here we quickly discover a close counection 
between the Ferrars family in England and that of Avenel 
in Normandy. Perhaps the Avenels ranked even higher than 
the families of the Barons Fossiers, for just as in England 
the Ferrars granted manors to the Avenels, in Normandy 
the Avenels were lords of the Ferrars. 

The author must refer the learned reader for an account 
of the Avenels to his history of the House of Arundel. In 
that work he has endeavoured to identify them with the great 
family of Picot de Say, and a direct connection between the 
Avenels and the Ferrars family is established by the marriage 
of Roger Albini, the King's Pincerna, and Wm. de Say, with 
two of the sisters of Hugh de Grent Mesnil, this Roger 
d'lvri being brother of Nigel Albini, who married the sister 
of Wacheline de Ferrars. The chief seat of this family was 
at the Bois Avenel, in Landelles, near Biarz, in La Manche. 

The Says or Avenels were knights of Roger Montgomery, 
and by him settled in Shropshire and various places in England 
about the time of the Conquest. The Chronique de Normandy 
names amongst the companions of the Conqueror, the Sire de 
Biars, and "Avenel de Biars." 

The Chartulary of Marmontier (Bibl. Natl, de France) gives 
a grant, dated 1037, of the Church of St. Martin's de Belisme, 
by Hughes, son of John de Roceto, which was attested by 
Henry de Biars, his kinsman, who was ultimately his heir in 

Sigembert de Biars and Ormenellus, surnamed Avenellus, 
gave a third of his rights in the same church to the same 
Abbey (Gal Christ. XL, part 153). (It will be remembered 
that the first Avenel of Haddon who attests Lenton Chartulary, 
2 Henry I., only signs with a surname, a practice only in vogue 
at that period amongst very high personages.) 

William Avenel, of Biars, 1082, gave the Church of Vezens 



and the Priory of Biarz to the Abbey of La Couture, in the 
Diocese of' Mans, Ralf, his brother, and Rainold (Ralf), his son, 
confirming the gift. This William Avenel had sons named 
William, Richard, Robert, and Hugh. 

The Chartulary of Lessay, at St. Lo, records a grant of 
Richard Avenel, brother of William, confirmed 1 126 by Henry I. 
Ralf and William Avenel both attested the charter of Wm. 
de Campo Ernulphi to the Abbey of Marmoutier, about 1088. 

The Chartulary of Savigni (fol. 80, Cartulaire de Normandy — 
Rouen Libl.) proves distinctly that Wm. de Ferrars was a 
knight of Robert de Avenel's in Normandy, for he gave the 
land of Broilli D'oet with his consent to that foundation. The 
date of this charter is c. Henry II. Robert Earl Ferrars had 
made a grant of land in Northamptonshire to the same Abbey 
just previously. 

Oliver fil Alain and Mary his wife, gave half the mill of 
Pasbray to the same foundation, with the consent of Ranulf de 

c. 1 158. Wm. Avenel Siegneur de Biarrs mentions his three 
sons, Roland, Nicolas, and Oliver. Roland married Havis de 
Parigni. Oliver, who died in 1228, married Petronille de la 
Cheze, leaving Oliver his son. 

The Chartulary of Mont St. Michael contains many entries 
relating to the family. About 1080, Ranulf Avenel and Hervey 
Avenel attested the charter of Robert Earl of Mortain, and he 
gave the Church of Sartilly to that foundation, which Ranulf, 
his son, confirmed about 1105. In 1121, William Avenel was 
senescal of the earl. That this is the same family appears most 
probable, from a grant of Ranulf Avenel of certain services in 
the vill of Coutance, the Honour of the St. Sauveur (Albini 
family), about iioo. 

Ralf Avenel was a witness to a charter granted to the Priory 
of Mortain, A.D. 1082. 

But the most pertinent fact to this enquiry is that Emma de 
Vernon, daughter of Baldwin Brionis, Earl of Devon (also called 
Baldwin de Insula), married William Avenel. Matilde, the 
daughter of Ralf Avenel (heV son), married successively Robert, 
natural son of King Henry I., and Robert of Averanches, whose 
daughter and heir married Rainald de Courtney, and so founded 
that family in the West of England. The great importance of 


this connection exists in the great probabiHty that the Vernons 
of Haddon were of the family of the Earls of Devon, and not 
of that of the Vernons of Chester, upon whom the heralds have 
afifiliated them. 

Now let us turn to the evidence of the Cartulary of the Abbey 
of Monteburg (the public library of Paris). 

First at fol. 8 we find Richard Avenel granting the mill of 
Otelin to that foundation ; to a charter of William de Vernon, 
granting land in the territory of the Albinis at St. Sauveur 
(Neelhuma), William Avenel and Richard, his sons, were 
witnesses. This is very important, as it emphasises the idea of 
the origin of Richard de Vernon, who married the daughter 
of William de Avenel of Haddon, showing that this William de 
Vernon actually had a son Richard at this period. 

At fol. loi we find a charter of Roger de Magnaville, Lord of 
Goelso .... granting the land which Oliver Avenel (no 
doubt another son of William) held of him, Stephen fil Roger 
de Magnaville and Roger, his uncle, being witnesses. Geoffry 
fil Robert de Magnaville held a tenement in Baskerville (fol. 8). 

Fol. T03. Roger de Magnaville' gave the church of Bernville, 
which William Avenel, Richard and Oliver, his sons, attested 
with William Magnaville. 

Fol. 104. William Avenel confirms the grant of the land of 
Boscherville, which was of the fee of Robert Magnaville, and 
which they gave to Margaret, his wife, and Goisford, his son, with 
the consent of Count Baldwin (de Redvers) and Stephen de 

For further information respecting the family of Magnaville 
and their relations, the author must refer the reader to his 
introduction to Mr. Glanville Richards' History of the House of 
Glanville, where he has referred to this interesting family. 

It must not be forgotten that the Magnavilles, or Mandevills, 
were closely connected with the Rye family, Geoffry de 
Mandeville having married Eudo de Rye's daughter. Eudo at 
one time was the lord of all the property of the Vernons, 
Redvers, and Magnavilles referred to in the Monteburg 
Cartulary, having for some reason, perhaps as sheriff only, 
obtained the inheritance of the family of St. Sauveur. 

Hardly less pertinent, and perhaps more necessary to the 
history of this fee, is that of the origin of the Vernons of Haddon. 


Obviously the Heralds are entirely at sea on this subject, and 
have made some shocking guesses in order to confirm the theory 
of the identity of the Vernons of Haddon with the great 
family of Vernon of the County of Stafford in the time of 

It appears from Omerod's History of Cheshire that prior to 
this date it had been supposed that Richard de Vernon, who 
married the co-heir of Avenel of Haddon, was the son of Sir 
William Vernon, chief justice of Chester, who was a younger son 
of the Baron of Shipbrook ; but Omerod, and following him, his 
learned editor, the late Mr. T. Helsby, threw cold water upon 
this suggestion, without, however, absolutely rejecting it ; and it 
still holds its shameless head in Burke's Peerage, the only 
difference being that Sir Bernard Burke has married the heiress 
of Avenel to the Baron of Shipbrook himself. Omerod adds 
that it seems more probable that he was a descendant of Walter 
Vernon of Harlaston ; and if ever there was such a personage, 
this would be no doubt greatly more likely, for the dates 
absolutely disprove a descent from the justice of Chester. The 
marriage with the heiress of Haddon took place probably early 
in the reign of Richard I. or late in that of Henry H. Sir Wm. 
Vernon was justice of Chester 15 Henry HI., some 50 years 
later. The author of the pedigree published by Sir Bernard 
Burke was therefore right as to the date in converting Sir Wm. 
from father to son of Sir Richard, but absolutely without 
authority for doing so, and more than this, in the direct face of 
authority, for these two knights, Richard of Shipbrook, and 
Richard of Haddon were separate, though contemporary person- 

Burke's Peerage again states that Richard Vernon obtained a 
grant of Peak Castle in 1252. This does not appear upon the 
Pipe Rolls, but the name does ; and it seems that Richard de 
Vernon was in that year an attorney or pledge for one Robt. de 
Warth, a very different affair. 

Shaw, in his History of Staffordshire, has taken to task 
Collins and Edmonson, who are the authors of the absurd 
Histories of the Vernon Pedigree, very severely, and he has 
exposed the fact that these untrustworthy writers have actually 
only given three descents from William Vernon of Domesday to 
Sir William the justice of Chester, a period of 300 years ; and in 


the short space of 99 years has given 10 descents from him to 
Sir Richard of the time of Henry VI. ; and in writing his own 
account, showing how history was then written, he adds, " I have 
inserted a Sir Richard partly in conjecture ; I rejected several 
others." Mr. Helsby, in commenting upon this wonderful 
pedigree, states that the writer of Shaw's account was a learned 
antiquary named Samuel Pope Wolferston. It is fortunate that 
he was so honest as to admit that he made up his pedigrees 
partly by conjecture. 

Now the groundwork of Mr. Wolferston's account is a charter 
of Hugh, Earl of Chester, and of Matilde his countess, grant- 
ing to Walter Vernon the land and honour of Harlaston, which 
Walter, his grandfather, held of the Earl of Chester fnot 
naming him), and which was then part of the dower of Maud, 
his countess. However this may be, it was in the king's hands 
in II Henry IL, for the sheriff then accounts for 4s. 6d. rent 
for it. This charter is set out in Shaw, but apparently is a 
forgery. In the first place, Harlaston was never an honour, but 
only part of the. king's manor, none of the witnesses can be 
identified, except the third, Eustace fitz John, who died at a 
very advanced age in 1157, before Hugh, the Earl, succeeded 
(11 58); and the third place is hardly that in which we should 
expect to find so important a personage as Eustace fitz John. 
The first witness is one Richard fil the Earl of Gloucester, 
apparently a mythical personage. 

Maud, the countess, was the daughter of Robert, the son of 
King Henry I., who married Maud, the daughter of William 

But the Vernons were disseized, according to this charter, 
for the lady held it in dower ; and we do not learn from the 
charter itself of which Earl of Chester, Walter, the grandfather 
of the donee, held it. Looking at the dates, this would carry 
us back to Domesday ; and then we find a Walter de Vernon, 
and Wachiline a nephew of Walter de Vernon, as well as 
Richard Vernon, holding lands of the Earl of Chester, but not 
the manor of Harlaston, then part of Clifton, the king's manor ; 
and subsequently Robert Marmion held it of the Earl of 
Ferrers. If we could only rely upon this charter, it would 
perhaps give a complete pedigree for the family. As it is, 
there is no evidence, as there should be, of any kind to support 


it, and having regard to its intrinsic improbabilities, we can 
only regard it with suspicion. 

We know nothing of any Walter Vernon, of Harlaston, in the 
time of Henry II., though we have evidence, from the Stafford- 
shire Pipe Rolls of 6 Richard I., that Haslaston had, previously 
to that date, been the property of a Richard Vernon, and that 
he had some time previously forfeited it, for the sheriff accounted 
for 40s. rents, proof, General Wrottesley considers, that he was 
an outlaw. The Derbyshire Pipe Rolls for the same year, it 
must be remembered, show that Richard de Vernon and Simon 
de Basset were each farming half the land of Avenel, of 
Basselaw, then part of the Honour of Peverel. It also shows 
that Robert Avenel was then an outlaw ; and the Bucks, and 
Bedfordshire Rolls still add to the puzzle, for they show that 
Simon Basset paid 100 marcs for having the land of Richard 
de Vernon, which he took with his wife, which was the in- 
heritance of Simon's wife ; one Richard Vernon, an outlaw at 
Harlaston, Stafford, another (or the same), farming his wife's 
inheritance, and a third (or again the same), wrongfully 
enjoying the land belonging to his wife's sister in Bucks, 
and Beds. 

It should be noted, however, that General Wrottesley in- 
terprets the Bucks, entry as proof that Richard Vernon's 
inheritance had passed to a female. This, however, appears 
to the author to be erroneous, but if accurate, it itself disposes 
of the alleged Harlaston descent. 

In 7 Richard I., Richard Vernon's Harlaston estate was still 
in the king's hands ; but in 8 Richard I. he agreed to pay ;^20 
for twenty librates of land in Staffordshire, which General 
Wrottesley, with much reason, assumes was Harlaston. 

There is an entry in the Staffordshire Roll of Richard 
Vernon being fined in 22 Henry II. ; this was possibly on 
the occasion of his forfeiture. Testa de Nevil shows that in 
39 Henry III., Richard de Vernon held Harlaston of the Earl 
of Derby. Now, it is quite clear that the Earl of Derby 
inherited some of the Staffordshire estates of the Earl of 
Chester through his marriage with Agnes, daughter of Hugh, 
Earl of Chester, the alleged grantor of Harlaston to Walter 
Vernon ; but it is not so clear that Harlaston was ever part 
of them. Clifton, no doubt, was held by the Earl. But this 


was a separate manor, and no account shows that the Chester 
family had ever held it. Cough's Camden II., p. 394, gives a 
record, 27 Henry III., rot. iia, in proof, but this has not yet 
been found. 

There was a family named de Herlaston in the time of King 
John, of whom nothing has been publislied. In i John, Robert 
de Herlaston was essoinator in a Clifton suit, and in 6 John 
William de Herlaston, and Amicia his wife, in a suit (which was 
settled) between themselves, and one Henry de Dernston, in 
which William fitz Herbert was called to warranty. 

Huntback's pedigree of Vernon makes William de Vernon 
the son of Richard, who married the heiress of Avenel, die 

26 Henry III., leaving two sons : Richard, who died s. p. 27 
Henry III. ; and Robert, who died without male issue, leaving 
a daughter and heiress, who married Gilbert le Francis, and 
whose son assumed the name of Vernon. Other accounts 
assert that Sir William married the daughter and heir of 
Gilbert Francis of Harlaston, and no question can be raised 
as to the fact that Gilbert Francis was Lord of Harlaston 
tempe Henry III. and Edward I., and that he died seized of it, 
though we have not any inquisition which proves by what title 
he acquired it. But the inquisition taken at his death in 6 
Edward I. shows that he held Haddon, Roulesley, Basselaw, 
and Bobenhall of the Earl of Derby, and that Richard was 
his son and heir, aged fifteen. The inquisition after his death, 
taken at Westmorland, shows that Richard, his son, was then 
married to the daughter of Matthew de Harcla, and this after 
Gilbert's decease. 

Richard fil Gilbert Francis must have died young, and we 
have no inquisition at his death. His son Richard died 16 
Edward II. (forty-four years after Gilbert le Francis' death); 
and he then held Harlaston and Appleby, Parva of the Honour 
of Tutbury (then in the king's hands), which Richard, his father, 
held in 8 Edward II., as also the Derbyshire estates. 

Now these dates prove conclusively that Sir William Vernon 
did not obtain these manors from Francis, for he held them at 
his death, years after the decease of the former, and yet it is 
clear that they were in the hands of a Richard Vernon in 

27 Henry HI., from whom Gilbert le Francis can only have 
obtained them by marrying his daughter, or by purchase, for 


in truth there is no evidence of the existence of any daughter 
of this Richard, the suggestion being a mere guess. 

This is brought down to a still closer date by a record of 
Trinity Term, 42 Henry III., given by General Wrottesley, 
from which it appears that Robert Vernon was alive that year, 
for he and William de Camville were sued by Robert de 
Beverley ; and it would seem that Richard de Vernon was still 
alive, for Walter de Palton sued for land in Swinfen, which a 
Richard de Vernon lost by a default. He however may have 
been of the Cheshire family. 

On 26th June, 1272, Margery, widow of Peter Anesy, and 
Matthew de Anesy, sued Richard de Vernon, with Gilbert le 
Francis and another, which seems to show that Richard Vernon 
survived longer than is supposed, and that Gilbert Francis, his 
successor, was associated with him in the inheritance. 

Another very useful series of dates concerning the Tymmore 
property shows the succession still more clearly, the mill of 
which place was held by the Vernons under the Sage family. 

Here, again, the Heralds, in their anxiety to magnify the 
antiquity of the family, have endeavoured to show that the 
Vernons held Tymmore as early as the reign of Henry I., and 
they produce a lease as of that date from Petronilla le Sage to 
William le Vernon ; but William, son of this Petronilla, was 
living 25 Henry HI., when he gave a fresh lease of the mill for 
20 years. 

Richard Vernon obtained a renewal of the lease in 41 Henry 
III. for 19 years ; and Gilbert le Francis obtained a lease in 4 
Edward I., which Richard Vernon, son of Gilbert le Francis, 
assigned in 8 Edward II. to Richard, his son. As we have 
seen from the Inquisition Post Mortem, he was living this 

Appleby Parva came into the family of Vernon through the 
marriage, tempe John, of Wm. de Vernon, said to be the Justice 
of Chester, with the heiress of Stockport ; in the same way 
Marple came into the family. This was granted by Ralf, Earl 
of Chester, to Robert fil Robert de Stockport ; whose grant 
was attested by Philip de Orreby, Justice of Chester, 1210-29, and 
Wm. de Vernon. There is a suit in 21 Edward I. by Geoffry de 
Camville against Richard Vernon for two acres of land in 


Catnville ; but Richard was then in prison, and the suit was 

Of the family of Francis little is known. They came into the 
Vernon property between the years 1272 when Richard Vernon 
was alive, and 1276-7, when Gilbert obtained a renewal of the 
lease of Tymmore ; how is yet not positively known. 

But this is known ; Gilbert le Francis, at his death, held a 
great number of small properties in Cumberland and Westmore- 
land, not of inheritance, but which he farmed. He, however, 
held one property there which had been held by a John le 
Francis, whose heir he evidently was. If it could be shown 
that he was the son of this man, we might get the pedigree 
still a generation higher, for a John, son of Robert le Francis 
was well known in Staffordshire. In ii Henry III. there 
was an Assize in Stafiford, if Robert, father of John, held the 
manor of Huse, which Robert Howell then occupied, which 
was settled by giving up one-fifth of the manor to John. 

The Staffordshire Pipe Rolls show that Robert le Francis was 
repeatedly fined for selling wine contrary to the assize. This 
occurred in 1189, and in several years afterwards. In 5 
Richard I. Robt. le Francis was fined 40s. for making a false 
claim. In i John he was again fined for selling wine in the 
house of Tatmanslow. 1 1 John he was found guilty of 
intruding into the land of Wm. de Pailes, in Handsworth, 
whilst he was in prison. He was a native of Newcastle. 

The result of the whole facts seems to indicate that the first 
property obtained by the Vernons of Haddon was Haddon 
itself, that Haslington was the next, which was obtained by the 
payment of i^20 to the king in 6 Richard I., that the payment 
was accepted probably because it had been Vernon property, but 
which was forfeited as early as ii Henry II., and was still in the 
king's hands ; that possibly it had belonged to the ancestors of 
this Richard Vernon, or merely to some of the name; and that 
he was brought into England through his marriage with the 
heiress of Avenel, he probably being one of the family connected 
with the Avenels in Normandy, and a Vernon of the house of 
Briones or Redvers. 

In giving this account of the Avenel family, the author desires 
to acknowledge the great obligation he is under to that eminent 
antiquary Sir John Maclean, who, subsequently to the publica- 


tion of the History of the House of Arundel, furnished the 
author with very valuable references to the history of this famil\'. 
It is not always possible to acknowledge one's obligations to 
others, though, in a case where much information is given, it is a 
positive duty to do so. The author was unpleasantly reminded 
of this very recently by reading in the Archaeological Journal 
for Yorkshire an account of a family, the majority of the 
notices concerning which were given by him to the writer of 
it, who has not thought it fair to make any kind of acknow- 
ledgment, though privately he was grateful and very anxious 
to obtain further information. 

18. — Galf de Firetry held one fee, which Maurice his son 
gave to the White Monastery, who then held it. 

19. — Hubert de Ctirtenei held three fees, of zvhicJi Stephen, 
his nephew, then held tivo, and the Templars the third. 

Note. — This name appears to be written Curcun in the 
Black Book. Owing to the similarity of the letters t and c, 
many records relating to the Curcun, or Curzon family, are 
transcribed wrongly, Curton. 

20. — Will fil Oton held one fee, tvhich the White Monks of 
Tame then held. 

Note. — A William fil Oto married Maud, daughter of William 
de Dive, by Matilda, daughter of Geoffry de Waterville and 
Ascelina Peverel. This Geoffry was a descendant of Azelin, the 
tenant of Geoffry Ascelin of Domesday. 

21. — Pagan de Niveton held half a fee, and gave it to the 
White Monks of Combremere. 

Note. — The Pipe Rolls of 18 and 25 Henry II. mention a 
Godwin de Newton, and 34 Henry II. mentions an Artur. 

22. — Robt. de Chances held one fee. 

Note. — Goisfred Ascelin held Turalveston at Domesday, and 
Robt. de Calz succeeded to part of his inheritance. See more of 
this baron hereafter under the certificate of Geoffry de Anselin. 

23. — Henry de Cuneigeston held one fee, which William de 
Hastings then held. 

24. — fohn Turbelvill held one fee, tvhich Henry Hosato then 


Note. — We know little of the first family in Derbyshire ; but 
Henry Hosato was a well-known personage, who resided at 
Averham or Egrum, Notts., which he acquired by marriage 
with Avice, the daughter of Adam Tison and sister of Wm. of 
the great baronial family, knights of the Mowbrays. 

25. — William de Trusley, and then Robert, his son, held one 
knighfs fee. 

26. — Atrop Hastings held one fee. 


[There is an erasure here in the original, as if the word had 
been originally (proavus) great-grandfather, for which no doubt 
it was intended, the next class of knights having been enfeoffed 
out of the demesne of his son, the maker's grandfather.] 

27. — Nicolas de Breylesford, and then Hemy, his son, wJio 
held one fee. 

Note. — Testa de Nevil shows that Henry de Brailsford then 
held one fee in Breylesford. 

The Book of Aids states that Henry de Brailsford then held 
half a fee in Brailsford and half in Wingerworth, formerly the 
fee of Ralf, his father. This is one of the finest Derbyshire 
pedigrees ; they were probably of English origin, descendants of 
Elfine, who at the time of Domesday held Brailsford, Osmaston, 
Balden, and Thurvaston. Ailson de Brailsford, probably the 
same person, gave Osmaston to Tutbury, which created a great 
feud between Odinel de Ford and the Prior some time after- 
wards. It is to be hoped that this pedigree may be clearly 

28. — William fitz Herbert held one fee. 

Note. — Testa de Nevil shows that Wm. fitz Herbert held 
three parts of a fee in Ash. 

1 175, John fitz Herbert was surety for his lord. 

William fitz Herbert attested the charter of exchange between 
Dun and Pantoul. 

29. — Wm. de St. Quill ten held half a fee. 


Note. — This family in the time of King John were repre- 
sented by Robert de St. Quinten, who married Albreda, the 
daughter of Jordan Chevercourt. 

30. — David de Stanton held half a fee. 

Note. — Adam de Stanton, and William, his brother, attested 
the earl's charter to William Pantoul. 

Testa de Nevil shows that Robert fil William Stanton held 
half a knight's fee in Stony Stanton. Several families of this 
name were scattered about the county. One family was 
identical with the Pincernas of Belvoir; whilst another, settled 
at Kelum, were as clearly of the house of Albini of that Honour. 
They were probably identical with the family of Abney. 

31. — Ernald de Bee held half a fee. 

Note.— Testa de Nevil shows that Robert de Tuke and 
Galf de Bee held 1 of one fee in Milton. 

G. de Bak and J. de Bak are mentioned in the charter of Wm., 
Earl Ferrars. Po.ssibly they were of the Bakepuz family. 

And Arnald and Henry de Bee were sureties for the earl in 
23 Henry H. 

Henry de Bee and Avice, his wife, answered to a plea of the 
forest in 32 Henry H. 

This name is frequently mentioned in Derbyshire records 
down to the time of King Henry V. 

32. — Adam fil Szvanne held one fee, then held by his heirs. 

Note. — This is probably a descendant of Swain of Colley, 
tempe Domesday ; he is probably identical with Swain fil Swain, 
a Thane, of the same period, who then held Chisworth direct 
of the king. His name would indicate that he was of Danish 
origin, and he would therefore readily be accepted tenant by a 
Norman lord. 

Swain Cilt (the younger) was probably the same person. He 
held 10 manors under King Edward which Walter de Aincourt 
held at Domesday. 

Adam fil Swain is mentioned in a Pipe Roll of 12 Henry H., 
and traces of the family are to be found at a late date. In all 
probability the family of de Colley, who continued resident at 
Cowley, were of the same family. This, though not now an 
important family, is a very interesting one. 


33. Walter del Bee held one fee, zvJiich William de CJieisnei 

then held. 

34. — Hugo fil Richard held one fee. 

]V[OTE. — Robert fil Richard de Normanton was one of the 
knights of the Earl de Ferrars. 

35. — Roger le Grendon held one fee. 

Note. — The Testa de Nevil shows that William de Grendon 
held half a fee of Bubbersville of the old feoffment of Robt. St. 

It is probable that the fee was at Bradley, which, according to 
the chronicle of Thos. de Musca, was held by Serio de Grendon, 
who married the sister of William fil Ralf, the Justiciary of 
Normandy, Sheriff of Nottingham and Derby, tempe Henry II. 
Serlo de Grendon was living 24-33 Henry II. 
27 Henry II. Walkelin de Bradly is mentioned ; William, 
John Henry, and Robert de Grendon at a later date ; Hugo 
fil Ralf in Kirby's Quest, Thomas, tempe Henry VI. 
36. — Robert de Albini held one fee. 

Note. — This family has already been mentioned under 
Tenant No. 3. It is not clear whether this Robert was the 
son of William of the time of Henry II., or his uncle, as the 
first Robert died without male issue, the latter relationship is 
the most probable. Here, doubtless, we get the stem of the 
family of Abney in Hope (which Derbyshire historians have 
mistaken for Habenai, the wasted manor of Wm. Peverel), who 
are now represented by the Abneys of Willersley. The proofs 
of this pedigree, which are very voluminous, for it is one of the 
greatest in the county, must be deferred to the Parochial History. 
37. — Ralf fit z William half a fee which Hiinfry de Tolka of 
Steple then held, and half a one whicJi Manrice held. 

Note. — Testa de Nevil shows that Robert de Tuke held 
one-third of a fee with Galf de Bee in Hilton. 

1 178. Hericus de Tuche was one of the sureties of the earl. 
38. — Landries, which then Jordan, his son, held one fee. 


[The Red Book omits the word grandfather, but it is supplied 
by the Black Book.] 



39. — Hiinfred de Tolka held one fee. (See No. 37.) 

40. — Galf de Briencoiirt held one fee. 

41. — Galf Salvage held half a fee. 

Note. — At the same time, or a little later, Robert fil Galfry 
(Savage) held Hints and Tipton of Robert de Stafford. At 
Domesday these manors were held by the Bishop. In 1156 
Robert fil Galfry and Helius, his brother, attested a charter of 
Walter, the Bishop. 

The Testa de Nevil shows that Galf le Salvage still held one 
fee in Hints, and Galfry fil Warin held one in Tibeton (Tipton), 
which he had obtained in marriage with the daughter of Galf 
le Salvage. 

Kirkby's Quest shows that Hugh de Meynil held half a fee 
in Hints and Tibeton, having married Philippa, sister and 
co-heir of Galf Savage, who died without issue, 32 Henry II. 

Helius fil Galfry le Savage held Pershaw (Worcestershire). 

Galf le Savage granted land to Polesworth Priory, so did 
William and Robert his brothers (Warwickshire). 

4 Henry II. Galf le Salvage paid 10 marcs for a venison 
trespass (Derbyshire). 

7 Richard I. Galf Salvage paid 100 m. for having his 
father's lands in Warwickshire. 

It would be interesting to learn whether Robert le Sauvage, 
who obtained a grant of the marriage of Havise fil Wm. fil 
Walkelin with Steynsby in 3 John, was of this family. Very 
possibly he was identical with Robert, mentioned in the Poles- 
worth Cartulary. Inasmuch as William fil Walkelin was a 
Ferrars, it is highly probable that a knight of that house 
should secure his inheritance. 

42. — Robert de Pir held half a fee. 

Note. — His fee would seem to be in Hilton. 

This knight, though holding so small a fee, was a person 
of great consequence. He seems to have been sheriff of the 
county in the first year of Henry II., and in the sixth, when 
Robert Earl of Ferrers died, he appears to have answered for 
his estate, probably as farmer or as senescal. 


1 178. Wm. de Piri was surety for the earl. 

Thomas de Piru gave 3 bovates of land in Hilton to the 
Church of Marston (Tutbury Cartulary). He was one of the 
witnesses to the earl's charter to Maurice de Luvitot. 

43. — William Giffard held half a fee. 

44. — Maurice de Ttirtey held half a fee. 

45- — Adam Vicompte Baroches held half a fee. 

46 — Wm. de Tolka held a quarter of a fee. ((See Tenant 
No. 37.) 

47. — Hugo de Gobion held one-third of one fee. 

48. — Somerville, Walter de, held \ of one fee. 

Note.— The Black Book notes that Adam, Sheriff of Berk- 
shire, and William de Tolka, held this part fee. 

Robert, Earl of Ferrars, gave four bovates of land, which he 
obtained in exchange with Walter de Somerville, to Burton 
Abbey. Walter de Somerville held Wichnore and Terescob, in 
Staffordshire, of Robert de Stafford, and which Roger de 
Somerville held at the time of Testa de Nevil. 

49. — William de Ferrars held one manor of the lord, his {the 
Black Book states my) father, for zvhich he made the sendee of 
four knigJits. 

This was possibly William fitz Wachel, Lord of Steynesby. 


Baggarugge is mine. For sixty knights should I do service 
to you and Memstrums (Memtenin in the Black Book), Main 
holds against me. So much may it please you. 

Of Cruc I am disseized without judgment, which is one fee. 





YEARS 1066-1088 TO 1 162 (PROBABLE DATE OF 

[The number preceding the 
the number at the end, of the 
tenancy is to be found.] 


Adam, Sheriff of Berk- 


shire, 310. 



Albini, William fil 

Nigel, 281. 



Albini, Robert, 308. 



)) )) 



Bakepuz, Robert, 285. 



Baskerville, Henry, 286. 



Bee, Ernald ; John his 
son, 307. 



Bee, Walter, 308. 



Berkshire, Sheriff of, 3 10. 



Boscheville, William ; 


Ralf his son, 293. 



Breilsford, Nic. ; Henry 


his son, 306. 



Briencourt, Galf, 309. 


Cambries, Henry, 290. 



Camera, Galf, 291. 



Chaucis, Robert, 305. 


Curtenei, Hubert ; 


Stephen his nephew, 305. 


Cuneigeston, Henry, 





Curzon, Rich. ; Robert 


his son, 282. 



Dun, Robert ; James 


his son, 287. 



Ferrars, William, 310. 


name is that of the tenancy ; 
page where the account of such 

Fifehead, Rich, 292. 
Fi retry, Galf (qy. 

Tirecer), 305. 
Giffard, Will, 310. 
Goldington, Peter, 291. 
Gobion, Hugo, 310. 
Grendon, Roger, 308. 
Gresley, Reginald, 288. 
Harcourt, Yvo (see 

Heriz), 291. 
Hastings, Aitrop, 306. 

„ William, 305. 

Herbert fitz William, 306. 
Hosato, Henry, 305. 
John, Odo fitz, 293. 
Landries ; Jordan his 

son, 308. 
Luvitot, Robert, 289. 
Marmion, Galf, Heirs of, 

Montgomery, Walter, 

Niveton, Pagan, 305. 
Oton, William fil, 305. 
Pantoul, William, 289. 
Parvus, Ralf, 288. 
Pir, Robert, 309. 
Ralf, Robert fil, 291. 
Richard, Hugo fil, 308. 



41. Salvage, Galf, 309. 
I&2. Sewell, Henry fil ; Fulc 
his brother, 279. 

29. St. Quinten, William, 

13. Seyle, William ; Ralf 

his son, 290. 
48. Somerville, Walter, 310. 

30. Stanton, David, 307. 
32. Swain, Adam fil, 307. 

44. Turtey, Maurice, 310. 
39. Tolka, Hump, 308. 
46-8. „ William, 310. 
25. Trusley, William ; 

Robert his son, 306. 
24. Turbelville, John, 305. 
37. William, Ralf fil, 308. 
8. Walkelin, Robert; 

Robert his son, 286. 
15. „ William, 291. 



ma 2.— ZTbe (Tbarter of IRalf Ibansdin (aneeltnO 


I. — Will Ansel de Walesby {in one copy Wagerby^ held two 
knigJits fees. 

Note. — Part of this manor with Kirkton or Schedrington, and 
Wilgebi was soke to Grimston, some of it soke to Roger de 
Busli's Manor of Tuxforde, some to Goisfred de HanseHn's soc 
of Laxington. Wm. Lanceline's manors seem to have been in 
all these parishes. Wm. Lanceline (Ansel) gave to Wm. fitz 
Eudo de Hibaldeston with Cecilia his daughter in frank 
marriage i bovat in Walesby. Alan fil Wm. Lancelin, of 
Kirkton, gave his woods there to Robert de Laxington. 
6 Edward II. Robt., son of Robert Lanceline, still held land 
in Kirkton. 

Rad de Wadeland in Walesby gave to Rufford Abbey the 
services of John de la Chause, of Walesby, Wm. his brother, 
Wm. fil Henry, Nic his brother, Robt. D'aubeni, and Rich fil 
Philip for their services in Walesby. 

I Henry VIII. Wm. Bradbourne held land in Walesby, 
Wellavve, and Kirton. 



A William Hanselin attested a charter of Ralf Silvans to 
Rufford Abbey concerning land at Wilibi of the fee of Gilbert 
de Gant, who died 1156. (Mr. Saville's charters at Rufford 

2. — Walter de Derington held one knight's fee. 

3. — Rad de Middleton held one knight's fee. 

4. — Walter de Digby and William between them held tzvo 
parts of I fee. 

Note. — This manor was probably in North Leverton. 

2 Edward III. Robt. de Dyggeby and Sibell his wife fined 
with Adam de Everingham, of Laxton, concerning this manor. 

5, 6, 7. — Richard de Martinwast and William Sirewast and 
Puellus de Belcapo held three fees. 

Note. — In the time of King Henry I. Robert Martinwast, 
with the assent of Richard de Haia his lord and of Hugo 
his brother, granted land in the marsh of Benedicts Ville to 

8. — Ralf fil Gereviond held tzvo fees. (See Robert de Chauz, 
Charter No. 8.) 

Note. — This knight, no doubt, was the father of Wm. fitz 
Ralf, Justiciar of Normandy and Sheriff of Nottinghamshire 
and Derbyshire, whose history is unknown at present. Eyton, 
indeed, doubts whether he was sprang from English parents, but 
there seems to be no ground for this opinion. Thomas de 
Muscam relates that he was lord of half Ockbrook and of Alvaston 
cu soca. Ockbrook was clearly one of Geoffrey Ascelin's manors, 
and it seems to have passed to the BardoKs as heirs of Ralf 
Hanselin. This must, therefore, have been one of his fees, and 
as Alvaston was also a fee of Geoffrey Ascelin's, it was, no doubt, 
the other, 

9. — Robert fil Thomas held half a fee. 

Note. — This fee was probably in Cuckney, where Roger de 
Busli had a manor which Goisfred his man held. This Thomas 
of Cuckney was the grandson of Joceus le Fleming, who came 
into England at the Conquest, and son of Richard his son, who 
married a cousin of the Earl Ferrars. Thomas, his son, founded 


10. — Robert de Beniecot and Robt. fil Galfry held half a fee. 
(See note to No. 15.) 

1 2. — Henry and Roger de Westburg held tivo parts of one-fifth 
of one fee. 

Note. — Westburg is a manor in Lincolnshire which became 
the property of Robert de Cauz, the successor to part of the 
manors of Geoffrey HanseHn. Adam de Everingham settled 
this manor on Thomas de Southwell in 4 Edward II., probably 
as trustee for liimself. 

1 3. — Roger Bussard held one-tzvelftJi of one fee of the purchase 
of the Bishop Robert Bloet, whose niotJier Jie married, which I hold 
of you in chief of that land, the Bishop disseized vie this same 
land. Ralf fil Hugh Cruvnvcll holds. 

Note. — This is a well-known family settled in Lincolnshire 
and Leicestershire at the time of Domesday, tenants of Robert 
Todeni, lord of Belvoir, and, indeed, the progenitors of the 
House of Albini, one member of which succeeded to the 
inheritance of Belvoir by marriage with a co-heir of Robert 
Todeni. They acquired the name of Bosco Rohardi (here 
abbreviated) from their residence at the place, part of the 
Honour of St. Sauveur in the Cotentin, the hereditary posses- 
sion of the family. (See the author's history of the House 
of Arundel.) 

In the Anniversaria of Belvoir Priory is to be found the name 
of Helias Borrohard. He is probably identical with Helias de 
Albini, whose charter, attested by Audierno, his brother, is to be 
found in f i20-b of that MS. (Harl MSS. 2044.) 

Wm. fil Hugh disseized 100 solidates of land which I gave 
to my son of my own demesne. 




14. — Alexr. de Cressi held half a fee. 

Note. — Roger de Cressi died 3 John. Cecilia, his widow, the 
daughter of Gervase de Clifton claims dower against his son 


Wm. Cressi, of Markham (seal, three crescents and a bend), 
settled the manor of Saxelby and advowson of Brodholm on 
her. Roger de Cressi married Isabella, sister and heir of Wm. 
fil Wm. fil Roscilin (de Rya), who granted a mill in Hunting- 
field to Sibton Priory. (Harl MS. 2044). 

15. — Rad fil Galfry held half a fee. 

Note. — This fee was probably in Kirkton, or perhaps in 
Eycring. Robert fil Galfry de Kirkton, held a toft there, and 
granted it to Robt. fil Nicolas the Baker of Tuxford which 
Richard fil Toke held of Galfry his father, who gave it to 
Albreda his wife and Robt. his son. Robt. the Baker afterwards 
gave it to Rufford Abbey. (See Rufford Cartulary.) 

16. — German fil Simon held half a fee. 

ly. — IVm. Biirdet held half a fee. 

Note. — This fee was probably in Kirkton. 

Burdet of Bramcote, Warwick, obtained Foremark, Derby- 
shire, through the marriage with the heiress of Francis. 

Alice de Bosco, heir of John Burdon, gave a wood in 
Kirkton to Robt. de Laxington, which Gumbert held. 

John fil Sir John Burden, Kt. 6 Edward 2. 

25 Edward III. Sir John Burden of Mapelbec and Elizabeth 
his wife conveyed them over to John de Ascam and another. 

18. — Wm. de Line held half a fee. 

19. — Galf fil Roger held half a fee. 

Note. — It is not quite clear whether these last four knights 
did not jointly hold the same half fee. 

20. — Ralf fil Roger de Biles ton held half a fee. 

Note. — Hugh fitz Roger was on the jury concerning the 
Forest rights with Ralf Hanselin early in Henry II.'s reign. 
He was seneschal of Philip de Strelley, 4 Henry III. 

7 John. Philip de Strelly fined to have the posthumous 
daughter of Richard fitz Roger to wife. 

21. — Galf fil Gilbert held half a fee. 

22. — Reginald de Radclive held half a fee. 

Anselinus de Radclive attested Robert fitz Ralfs charter of 
land at Sutton Passeis to Lenton, given for the repose of the 
soul of Adelina his wife. 


23. — Jo Jin de Galdcges Jichi half a fee. 

2^.~-GaIfiy de Fnlbec held half a fee. 

Note. — Little is known of the connection of this knight 
with this county, or, indeed, of his family ; but by the aid of 
the Rotuli Curiae Regis and other Rolls, a fair pedigree may 
be constructed. They were knights of the Earls Conan and 
Alan of Brittany, and hereditary constables of Richmond 
Castle, though, as their surname of de Bosco confirms, they 
were probably of the family of Magnaville, or Stuteville. 
(See the author's Introduction to the House of Glanville.) They 
were closely connected with the Albinis of Belvoir, and attested 
many of their charters. Roald, son of this Gal fry, and his 
father, for they were of the same name, was constable of 
Newark, and Alan de Bosco, son of Roald, was a frequent 
witness to the charters of Leonia, the widow of Robert de 
Stuteville, the heiress of half the barony of Hubert fitz Ralf. 

Alan fil Galf, probably the same person as Alan fil Roald, 
held land in Pickering in i Richard I. As his ancestor had 
done previously, so did Wm. and Walter de Bosco, his suc- 
cessors. There is reason to believe that the latter is identical 
with Walter de Bosco, of Barlbro', temp. Henry HI., who was 
undoubtedly the progenitor of the family of Sitwell, of Ecking- 
ton, now represented by Sir George Sitwell, Bt., M.P. Although 
the connecting link has not }'et been discovered, many facts 
have been adduced which render it most probable, an Assize 
Roll of the time of Edward I., establishing the fact beyond all 
doubt that the father of Simon Sitwell of that date was the son 
of this Walter de Bosco of Barlbro'. The names Sitwell and 
Stutevill are probably identical. In the Testa de Nevil the 
Lord of Eckington is styled " Sotville." 

25. — Ulfus de Seccobiton held half a fee. 

Note. — This is a very interesting and purely English family. 
This knight is, in all probability, the progenitor of the well- 
known Derbyshire family of de Hathersage. 

The place here indicated, Seccobiton, is no doubt Skegbi, 
which formed part of Marnham, a portion of Roger de Bush's 
great lordship. Ulf held Marnham in the time of the Confessor, 
and probably there and in Sceggbi he still continued to hold 


under Roger de Busli, who supplanted him. He is probably 
identical with Uif Fenesc, who with the Archbishop of York 
and the Countess Godiva, had especial privilege with regard to 
soc and sac, showing that he was one of the chief thanes of 
the county. He or his son, perhaps both, were tenants of 
Walter de Gant, in Eicring. Wulf fil Ulf de Eicring gave 
three acres there of that earl's demesne to the monks of Rufford 
to keep Godwin, his son, till he should be of age in their house. 

A Walter de Skeggbi is also to be found mentioned in the 
Rufford Chartulary. 

Ulfus, or Wulfus fil Ulf had also two sons, named Gilbert 
and William, to whom, with the consent of Maud St. Liz, his 
wife, William Albini, lord of Belvoir, gave ten acres of land in 
Eicring. Gilbert de Sceggbi, a grandson of Wulfus, also gave 
land, part of this grant, to Rufford. 

Mathew, son of William, son of Wulfus, was fined for some 
forest trespass in that remarkable Assize (given at page 119) of 
the 22 Henry H. He was the first Mathew de Hathersage. 
He probably settled in North Derbyshire, owing to the con- 
nection of his father with the Albinis, or Abneys of Hope, also 
surnamed de Stoke, a branch of the Albini family of Belvoir. 
The Chartulary now at Rufford Abbey gives evidence of 
great interest on this point, which will be duly detailed in 
the Parochial History. 

The history of this family is a remarkably clear instance of 
the stability of the English race under Norman dominance, 
though in all probability it was by no means uncommon. The 
notable circumstance here is the retention of their ancient 
name to so late a date, the result, probably, of their high rank 
prior to the Norman Conquest. 

26. — lV;/i. de Westbiirg. (See note to No. 12.) 

27. — Adam de Cressi. (See note to No. 14.) 





1. Ansel, William. 

7. Bellocampo, Puellus. 
10. Bernecot, Robert 
20. Bileston, Ralf fil Roger. 

13. Bussard, Rog. 
17. Burdet, William. 

14. Cressi, Alex. 
27. „ Adam. 

2. Derington, Walter. 
4. Digby, Walter. 

„ William 
24. Fulbec, Galf. 
23. Galdeges, John. 

15. „ Ralf. 
10. Gal fry, Robert. 

8. Geremund, Ralf fitz. 

21. Gilbert, Galfry fil. 

18. Lincoln, William. 

5. Martinwast, Rd. 
3. Middleton, Rad. 

22. Radclive, Reginald. 

19. Roger, Galf fil. 

20. „ Ralf. 

16. Simon, German fil. 

6. Sirewast, William. 

9. Thomas, Robert fil. 

23. Ulfus de Scobbiton. 
12. Westburg, Henry. 

26. „ William. 



1Ro. 3.— Carta IRoger be Baton, 


I. — William de Her is zvho holds tivo fees. 

2. — Roger de Coiingstock holds in Cortinstock and Rempston 
two fees. 

Note. — This Roger de Cortingstock confirmed the grant of 
Andrew de Cortingstock and of Robert, his son (Roger's 
father), to Lenton. 

Robert fil Andrew de Cortingstock was a knight of Hugh de 
Buron's in 1 147. John de Cortingstock was a witness to a 
Sutton Passeis charter in 1278. 

3. — Patriciiis de Rose I holds one knighfs fee. 

4. — Albertus, who viy father enfeoffed after the death of King 
Henry, holds one knighfs fee, and I myself do service for four 
knights fees of my demesne. 



1Ro. 4 —Carta Ibascuil nOusaiU 


I. — Aitorp Hastings, five fees. (See No. 7 of the Earl de 
Ferrars' knights.) 

2. — Oliver de Mara, two fees. 

3. — Macn de Hatrop, tzvo fees. 

4. — Walter de Eston, two fees. 

5. — Galfrey de CJieleivorth, one fee. 

The sum of his old feoffment, twelve knights, and of his 
own demesne of the new feoffment. Two and a half, and 
one-fifth of one fee namely, 

6. — William de Caisneto, half a fee. 

7. — The zuidow of Richard Musard holds in dozver tzvo fees. 

8. — FhIco de Musters, one-fifth of one fee. 



IRo. 5.— Charter of IRobert be Cbau3» 


Genealogists appear to have satisfied themselves with guess- 
ing, instead of investigating, the facts pertaining to the history 
of this baron ; and the consequence is not satisfactory. Yet 
there exists many facts which might lead to a discovery, for 
this is quite clear, that, although not the holder of great 
manors, we find the first Robert de Cauz in high company very 
shortly after Domesday, signing the Foundation Charter of 
Lenton next after the Earls of Leicester and Northampton, and 
Hugh de Grentmesnil, Sheriff of Leicester, and before all the 
great Nottingham and Derbyshire barons, the Burons, the Fitz- 
Ralfs, and. the Avenels. Of course there was some reason for 
giving this consideration, and it is probably to be found in his 
near relationship to Hugh de Grentmesnil, whose guest he 
probably was upon that occasion. 

Now, turning to the Grentmesnil pedigree, we find that all 
those personages named were closely related. Robert, Earl of 
Leicester, was son-in-law of Hugh de Grentmesnil, and Simon, 
Earl of Northampton, was closely related to his mother ; and 
one of his aunts married William de Say, of the family of 
Avenel, and another Robert de Curci ; and the question 
immediately arises, was this name Robert de Curcis identical 
with that of Robert de Curci ? This seems very probable, 
for a final s is frequently dropped or adopted, and both families 


spelt their names in very much the same manner. Chauces 
is very near Chauci, or Chaucis, and Kawcis, or Kvvarces. 
Other forms occasionally used are still more like it. These are 
the forms in which both the Cauz family and that of de 
Chaworth usually spelt their names in the earlier charters 
we possess ; but no name, perhaps, has been subject to such 
exquisite torture of misspelling as this. It would not be 
difficult to enumerate above a score of different forms of it. 

The first notice we possess is in the remarkable certificate 
of William, Earl of Ferrars, which proves that Henry de 
Ferrars enfeoffed the ancestor of Robert de Chaucis, who was 
then his tenant prior to 1088? At the same time, it may be 
noted that Galf Camara held two fees, which Robert fil Ralf 
and Peter de Goldington then held. We next hear of Robert 
de Caucis holding land in Wragby, Lincolnshire, in 11 12-14 
(four carucates and five bovates, and one-third of one), 
apparently with Goisfridus de Hanselin, who would appear to 
be living as late as the 26th Henry I., since, it is alleged (?) that 
he fought at the Battle of the Standards. This is unfortunately 
the only reference to the Hanselin family in this document. (See 
Mr. J. Greenstreet's edition, page 16, line vii., of the facsimile, 11 
of the translation.) Mr. Chester Waters, in his edition of this 
important document, states that the one was son, the other 
son-in-law, of the Domesday Lord, Goisfred de Hanselin, or 
Ascelin. But, unfortunately, though so very positive, he 
adduces no proof whatever in support of his assertion ; and 
the document, presently to be quoted, seems positively to 
contradict it. It has been contended that Robert de Calz 
succeeded to a part of Geoffry de Hanselin's estates, but we 
have no proof that the Geoffry of 1114 was not him of 1086, 
and certainly Ranulf de Hanselin did not succeed until a few 
years, at most six or seven, after the Battle of the Standard. 
That there were two Goisfred de Hanselins seems to be a mere 
assumption on the part of Mr. Chester Waters. 

In the first great Roll of the Pipe, we find some very 
important entries relating to this knight. ^226 was paid upon 
the pleas of G. de Clinton for the land which Robert de Calz 
obtained with his mother, and 200 marcs besides, that the 
king might exonerate him from certain pleas at Blythe ; and, 
with Walter his son, he paid lOO marcs of silver, and one of 


gold, for a grant of the land of Leowin Chidde, that is, Leowin 
the younger. In Derbyshire, Lewin Cilt held Sapperton and 
Breaston at Domesday ; but neither of these manors are con- 
cerned in this entry. The land which he obtained with his 
mother, it is generally taken for granted, was the twelve and 
half fees of the Honour of Goisfred Ascelin. We find some 
colour for this statement in a Pipe Roll of 14 Henry H., 
where this number is deducted from the holding of Ralf 
Hanselin, and said to be in the king's hands, possibly only 
deducted for the purpose of dower ; but it may be, perhaps, 
that the lands of this lady were a portion of Roger de Busli's. 
In the present Roll, Ralf Hanselin accounts for 200 marcs of 
silver, and one of gold, for a relief for his father's lands, of 
which he obtained only the twenty-five fees. Now, it would 
appear from the records of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem 
(Monas., Vol. II., page 534), that Amicia was the name of this 
lady, and that she was with Robert, her son, a benefactor of 
that foundation. But possibly this was a second, or even a 
third, Robert de Calz, for the number of the barons of this 
name is by no means clear. 

It would appear from the charter relating to the land of 
Galfry de la Fremunt, the chief tenant of Robert de Calz, 
that his mother must, in some way, have been connected with 
the family of Roger de Busli, for in the reign of Henry I. 
Jordan fil Halan, Lord of Tuxford (no doubt his nephew), 
granted the whole of the manors held by this tenant of Robert 
de Calz to him ; and the fine of 200 m. which, according to 
the first great Roll of the Pipe, Robert de Calz accounted for 
at Blythe, was probably in respect of these fees. Thoroton, 
Vol. III., p. 213, asserts that this Jordan fil Alan was sheriff 
of these counties the previous year. But that may be an 
error, for Ivo de Heriz answered for the rents of the manors 
of the county, and for the old farm of the same. The late Mr. 
Eyton has endeavoured, unsuccessfully it appears to the present 
writer, to prove that William Peverel was the earlier sheriff; 
but there seems every reason to believe that Ingelram, Lord 
of Alfreton, was hereditary sheriff of the two counties. He 
may, indeed, have succeeded Jordan fitz Alan, who was his 
cousin, in the sheriffdom, but there seems to be no proof of it. 
At any rate, his descendants enjoyed the sheriffdom for four 


generations. The first great Pipe Roll shows that, for some 
cause, Ranulf fil Ingeh'am had been disseized, for he paid a 
small fine of ten marcs to repossess his lands ; and possibly 
during this period a deputy had acted for him. As before 
noticed (page 94), Jordan fil Ahm was probably identical with 
Jordan de Husli, also mentioned in this Roll ; and it would 
seem that he must also be identical with that Jordan fil Ernald, 
the brother of Roger de Busli, through whom the Viponts 
claimed. This discrepancy in the name of Jordan's father was 
probably well known in the reign of King Henry III., when 
the great Busli suit was in issue ; and it will account for the 
omission in that suit of the Christian name of Jordan de Bush's 
father. Probably Roger de Busli had brothers of both names. 
It is to be hoped that this clue, when worked out, may throw 
a clearer light upon the history of the family. 

It would seem from the expression, " Robert de Calz received 
this land with his mother," that he obtained her marriage and 
dower (twelve and half fees being exactly one-third of Goisfred 
Hanselin's fees), and this fee, notwithstanding its illegality, 
remained in the possession of the family of de Calz. It is 
nearly certain from this that this lady was the widow of 
Goisfred Hanselin. But Robert de Cauz was probably her son 
by her second husband (who was probably Robert de Caucis, 
the witness of Lenton Priory, and afterwards the Forester of 
Nottingham). That Robert de Calz was descended from the 
Forester is stated in several records, but although the mode of 
descent is given, it is not stated whether he was heir on the 
part of his mother or of his father. We have proof that, 
during the reign of Stephen, Robert de Caus enjoyed the 
land, for which he had fined, for in 1139, Alexander, Bishop 
of Lincoln, in founding the Priory of Hafreholm, gave satis- 
faction to Ralf Hanselin and Robert de Caus, the Lords of 
Stretford (Monas., Vol. II., p. 792, old edition). 

In 4 John (R.C.R. No. 17), Matilda, widow of Robert de Caus 
(he left a widow, as appears by the Lady's Roll of 33 Henry II., 
who was the daughter of Richard Basset, Chief Justice of 
England }) sued John de Caus for her dower in Kilburn, 
Bliburc, and Redburn, in the County of Lincoln. It seems 
incredible that this lady could have been the widow of the 
lord of 33 Henry I., but it is just possible. 


John de Caus contested the claim with regard to Bliburc. He 
was, therefore, clearly the son of a previous marriage, for his 
mother was already endowered therein. This leads us to a mass 
of information somewhat difficult of digestion ; but it opens up 
the possibility of the mother of Robert de Calz having had no 
inheritance which could descend to her son, she having been the 
second wife of both her husbands. (See more of this matter 
hereafter in No. 7, Charter of Ralf fil William de Walichville.) 

Turning to the Lincolnshire Roll, we find that in 11 12-4 
Gilbert de Calz (fo. 3) held 5 bovates in Ounebi, 4I in Bliburc, 4 
in Wadingheheim ; and that Gilbert fil Gocelin held 7 bovates 
in Bliburc, land in Harpsvvella, Glentworda, Ingham, Cotes, 
Hacktorn, Ounebi, which Robert de Haia held of him ; sum, 10 
carucates and 2 bovates. 

Nigel Albini also held land in Bliburc. 

From the same Roll (fo. 4) we find that Gilbert, son of 
Goscelinus, held other carucates in Redburne, Botelsford, Asebi, 
Scallibi, and Wadingham ; together, 11 carucates and 3 bovates. 
It would seem, therefore, that both Robert, and John de Caus, 
his son, inherited the land of Gilbert fil Goselin of the time of 
Henry I. He was a great landowner; and we find many other 
entries in this Roll relating to him. 

(Fo. 8.) Robert, the Bishop of Lincoln, of the barons of the 
king, holds in Stowa i carucate of Gilbert fitz Gocelin. (Fo. 
9.) Gilbert fil Goscelin holds in Viflingeheheim 6 carucates ; 
(fo. 10) in Teflesbi, Wiflingeham, and in Normanabi. (Fo. 15.) 
In Chelebi Gisl de Chaz holds 2 bovates, and in Harburc, 
Neosum, and Brochesbi. (Fo. 18.) Gisl, son of G. and Geradus, 
in Sticheswold. (Fo. 19.) Gislebertus, son of Gocelinus, 2 caru- 
cates in Welletuna ; Freschena (fo. 20) in Marchebi 4 bovates, 
Maltebi 4 bovates, which Walter fitz Ragmerus holds ; (fo. 22) 
Houtona, Bekering, Snellesland, Reresbi, Suntorp, and Bleseby ; 
(fo. 24) in Aschi, Sumerdibi, Tedford, Hamrigheheim, and 

There was a Robert de Caus of Ingwardine who died 
without issue in 1187, leaving a brother Alexander, but his 
widow's name was Lucia. In 1226 Alexander demised to Wm. 
de Creddon. 

The Pipe Rolls of Henry II. show distinctly what was the 
lands for which Robert de Cauz paid so large a sum at the time 


of the first great Roll of the Pipe, but they do not show under 
what right of succession he obtained them ; and it is probable 
that this was one of the high-handed acts so common in that 
age. It would seem that it was not his mother's inheritance, 
though it may have been his grandmother's ; but it is probable 
that it was part of Goisfred Hanselin's. He certainly enjoyed 
part of it in his mother's lifetime (as the Lincolnshire Rolls 
prove), in conjunction with the true heir ; and he paid a relief 
for his inheritance the same year. All this forms a story so 
complete, that but little doubt is left as to its true meaning ; but 
if any doubt remained, it would be clear, from the notices in the 
Roll of 14 Henry II., when the entire inheritance of Ralf Hanselin 
is acknowledged to be 37^ fees, and I2i or one-third arc still 
stated to be in the hands of the king, although another part of 
the same Roll discloses the fact that Robert de Chauz was 
holding them, perhaps as farmer : we do not know when 
his mother died, and the excuse for his doing so may have 
remained for a long period. 

Ralf Hanselin died before 18 Henry II., for Thomas Bardolf 
his heir then paid scutage for 25 of his fees. There are 
several entries upon the Pipe Rolls which are worthy of con- 
sideration, if only to show the position of Robert de Calz. 
Thoroton seems to deny that he was ever forester, and would imply 
that William de Peverel held the office, because in the first Roll 
of the Pipe, which he erroneously asserts is the date of i Henry 
II., he then accounts for ^23 6s. 8d. for the pleas of the forest ; 
and when his estate was in the hands of the king the sherifif 
accounted for £4 for waste of the forests ; and he assumes 
that the sheriff had the whole revenues and profits of them. 
But it by no means appears clear whether the first item has in 
fact anything to do with the pleas concerning the forests, or at 
any rate with the especial office of the forester. The ordinary 
pleas of the Crown were called pleas of the forest because the 
king frequently heard suits whilst hunting, and the payment of 
£4 may well have been for some forest trespass of the exiled 
baron. Thoroton (or rather Serjeant Boun, for he is the author 
of this account) has overlooked a most important entry, which 
shows distinctly that Robt. de Chauz held the office (in a Pipe 
Roll of 3 Henry II.) " Robert de Chalz renders composition of 
20 marks for the ministry of the forest," and he may have held 


the office much earlier, possibly at the date of the Lenton 

It would seem that Robt. de Cauz was not a favourite with King 
Henry II., for in the 6th of Stephen he included in a charter to 
the Earl of Leicester, which may be genuine, though it was 
never acted upon, the estates of Robert de Chalz ; and lo 
Henry II. Robert de Calz, besides paying ;^20, paid 40 m. de 
misericordia. Evidently he was now in some fresh trouble. 
Nor does he appear to have recovered his position, for in 13 
Henry II. Rich Ursel, his tenant, pays for him ; and in 14 Henry 
II. Reginald de Lucy pays ;^20 de censu foresta, and owes 
£1$ 16s. de misericordia of Robt. de Calz: and he is charged 
I2| marks for scutage, so that Richard de Lucy was evidently 
farming the inheritance. 

In 16 Henry II. there is a curious entry. Matthew and John 
render composition of £S for having the goods of Stephen the 
forester. The following year Ralf Hanselin was dead, and 
probably Robt. de Calz. The king excuses the balance of his 
fine, ;^I5 i6s. The sheriff accounts for ;^i8 9s. 6d., the pleas of 
the forest, and ;^8o 28s. 8d. for wastes and assarts for the 
counties of Nottingham and Derby. 

In 21 Henry II. there is an entry Fridbor de Terra, Robert de 

In 23 Henry II. Ralf fitz Stephen pays ^20 de censu foreste 
in Sherwood. Was he in any way connected with the forester 
Stephen who died only a few years previously? 

In 9 Richard I. Ralf fitz Stephen paid i^i2 scutage for the 
fees of Robert de Calz, by which time he had married the 
heiress ; and we know that he was dead before the 6th of King 
John, for that year Godfrey de Albini fined with the king for 
^1000 for license to marry Matilda de Calceto, the widow of 
Ralf fitz Stephen ; and he modestly adds, " si ipsa voluerit eum 
accipere." It would seem that his modesty was not at fault, for 
there is a subsequent entry in the Roll showing that no payment 
was made ; the king forgiving the debt. 

The previous year the Earl of Huntingdon was ready to 
account for 1,000 marcs that his son Henry should marry Maud 
de Cauz with her inheritance. In 15 Henry III. Stephen de 
Seagrave bought and paid for the marriage of Emma de 
Caus, a widow, for his son John. 


The history of Ralf fitz Stephen is involved in obscurity, 
and we must probably look' to the history of the Caus family 
to unravel it. Turning to the Lincoln Roll, 11 14, we find that 
Gilbert fil Goisfridus de Calz held lands in the manors of 
Westletebi, Sunetorp, Snellesland, and Reresby, all in the 
wapentake of Wengho, and, curiously, Simon fil William de 
Kime held land in all these places. Now, from the Kirkstead 
Chartulary (Cott. Lib. Vesp. E. xviii.) in 1163, we find a Simon 
de Cauci attested a charter of Philip de Kime, son of Simon, 
and from this chartulary we can draw a complete pedigree of 
this family of fitz Stephen for several generations, all of them 
dealing with those four vills of Gilbert de Calz. 

(Fo. 109.) Stephen fitz Herbert, Camera of the King of 
Scotland, granted land in Sunetorp and Snelland to the Abbey, 
to which Philip de Kime was a witness. 

(loS C. V. L.) Stephen de Wikekebi (no doubt the same 
person) granted the manor of Westletebi to the Abbey, to 
which Robert de Curli, Hugo de Ard, and Hugo fil Com de 
Warwick, with Simon de Kime were witnesses. This charter, 
from the name of the last witness as well as from its place in 
the chartulary, clearly precedes the other in point of date. 

Simon de Wik Camera granted land in Wik {tenipe Lambert 
de Scoteny), in which he mentions Robert his son ; attested 
amongst others by Roger de Derby and Drogo fil Ralf. 
William, Earl of Warwick, confirmed this charter, Robt. de 
Curli, Hugo de Ard, Hugo, brother of the Earl, and Simon de 
Kime attesting. 

(Fo. 109.) William fitz Eudo gave a toft in Reresby, to which 
Stephen Camera was a witness (at fol. 23 of the chartulary 
there is mention of a Eudo fil Gocelin). Stephen Camera with 
Ralf Tany (?), Drogo Freville attested the charter of Martin 
Martel of Canwich. (Gilbert de Gant's manor.) 

(Fo. 109.) Ralf fil Stephen de Holland gave a toft in 

(Fo. 117.) Ralf fil Stephen de Wibreton gave land in Snel- 
land and Sunetorp. The names of the vills out of which these 
grants were made, clearly show that the families of Wikekebi, 
Wik, Holland, and Wibreton were identical. 

Ralf fil Ralf de Wibreton confirmed with Stephen and Roger 
his brothers. 


(Fo. 1 196.) Helto de Snelland gave land there of the fee of 
Rad de Hoyland and of WiUiam fil Gauf, which Robert Marmion 
attested. He himself attested a charter of William fil Eudo 
concerning Reresby. Ralf fil Stephen confirmed Helto's charter, 
so did Ralf fil Ralf fil Stephen de Holland, obviously the 
same family, Wibreton lying in Holland. 

The William fitz Ralf mentioned in Helto's charter was 
probably William fitz Ralf (de Hardwick) of Steynesby, who 
was a son of Pagan de Scapwick. Sir Jocelyne de Scapvvick 
attested his charter. Ralf fil Stephen de Holland attested Robt. 
de Carlton's charter. 

(F. 116.) We have a Robert fil Stephen Camera of Wiken- 
hebi, who also granted land in Westletebi. 

There is no doubt whatever that Ralph fil Stephen was closely 
related to the chamberlain or Camera of Henry H., to whose 
office he ultimately succeeded. In 3 Henry H. it is stated that 
Ralf fitz Stephen paid in the Camera of the king by the 
hands of Warin fitz Gerald, who about the same time 
ceased to hold the office, as we have seen Robt. de 
Chalz accounted this time. We have met with a Geradus 
before in^ Lincolnshire holding land in conjunction with Gilbert 
de Chalz. Now, if Chalz or Caucis is the same name as Cauci, 
this Warin was probably the son of the former. Guarin fitz 
Gerald was one of the witnesses of Henry H.'s charter to the 
Earl of Chester just mentioned, and Robert de Curci Dapifer 
or Camera was also a witness to it, though what his relationship 
was we do not know, and we find at Belvoir Castle two charters 
of Guarine fitz Gerald, Camera Regis, and Alice de Curci his 
wife granting land to Fulc Breant and Henry de Codham. 

Robert de Curci was in England in the time of William 
Rufus, for he attested his charter to Lincoln. Surely he was the 
witness of this charter to Lenton only a (ew years later, and 
uncle of Robert de Cauz of Nottingham. But we must resort 
to Norman records for an account of the family in order to 
explain their connection with the Grentmesnils. 

They were seated at Curci sur Dive, and were neighbours 
and allies of the great families of Giroe and Grentmesnil. 
Ordericus gives an account of their warfare with Robert de 
Belesme, the exiled Earl of Arundel. Richard de Curci was then 
an old man like the great Hugh de Grentmesnil, but they 


both acted vigorously in this campaign, and in no small 
degree contributed to its success. Ordericus as usual gossips 
about the relations between the two families, and tells us that 
Robert de Curci had married Rohaise, daughter of Hugh de 
Grentmesnil, and that she had borne him five sons. We learn 
also from Ordericus that the seneschal or Camera of Hugh 
Grentmesnil was one Gerald by name, who was governor of the 
Castle Neufmarche. Probably Warin fitz Gerald, who married 
Alice Curci, was his son. We know that Robert de Cauz had 
a sister Alice, for she held a fee of him, as appears by the 
first part of the reign of Henry H., of new feoffment. Richard 
de Curci attested the charter of William the Conqueror to the 
Abbey of Marmoutiers, confirming the grants of Nigel de 
Constantine (Albini) to that institution. Again, with Hugh 
Grentmesnil, he attested the charter of the king to the Abbey 
of St. Stephen at Caen, and a few years earlier amongst the 
knights of the same Viscount St. Sauveur, granting land to the 
same Abbey is the name of Goisfridus fil Robert Venator, who 
may possibly be the father of Gilbert Chalz of Lincolnshire, 
for the suit of the time of King John shows clearly that they 
were all of one family, and this record his profession. 

Robert de Cauz gave Doverbeck to Thurgarton Priory. 

It seems very probable that the family of lorz of Burton 
were a branch of this family, but still more clearly would it 
appear that the Chaworths are so. In the reign of Henry II. 
their name was spelt Chaucis, and in some documents re- 
lating to Marnham it was spelt Kawcs, which is as near the 
name Caus as a blundering scribe could make it, and utterly 
unlike the modern form of their name. 

It is doubtful whether that Robert de Caucis who married 
the daughter of Ralf fil William de Waltville or Walichville 
was the founder or the intermediate ancestor of the house of 
Chaworth. The Red Book gives no intimation where the fee 
lay, and we can only judge from the context that it was one 
of Goisford de Hanselin's manors. Thoroton assumes that it 
was Marnham, but without any proof It must not be forgotten 
that at Domesday the manor was held by Ingram, lord of 

In 14 Henry II., the Pipe Rolls show that Robert de Chaucis 
paid 20s. for one fee to the scutage of that year, but there is no 


proof that Marnham was tlie fee referred to in the certificate of 
William de Walichville, and it would seem that John, the 
constable of Chester, whose claim to it could only be through 
the de Buslis Lords of Ingram's family granted the Church of 
Marnham to the Knight Templars, with whom it remained 
until the reformation of Henry VIII., when, of course, it fell 
into reformed hands. King John, in the fifth and sixth years 
of his reign, confirmed to Robert de Chaucis the manors of 
Marnham and Wadworth, which it was stated was the in- 
heritance of William, his father, but these grants often lie, 
especially in King John's reign, and at this time probably 
the marriage of William de Chaucis with the ultimate heiress 
of Alfreton had taken place. 

In 14 Henry III., William de Chaucis (son of Robert) 
acknowledged that he owed Alice, Countess of Auge, 55 marks 
of the fine made some time previously between them, and in 
28 Henry III, the king confirmed the grant of the said Countess 
of Ewe to Robert de Lexington, of the custody of the whole 
land which was William de Chaucis' in Marnham. Upon the 
whole circumstance of the case, it would seem that Marnham, 
like Edwalton, devolved upon the Chaworths and the Lathams 
by reason of these marriages with the co-heirs of fitz Ralf of 
Alfreton, and the deeds so judiciously arranged by Thoroton 
must be displaced. The family very possibly held Marnham 
of the fitz Ralfs, though King John, for some reason, was 
induced to ignore them. It must be remembered that the 
Countess of Ewe had not yet re-established her claim to 
Roger de Bush's inheritance. The grants of William de 
Kawrcs, son of Robert de Kawrcs, to Radford, may have 
been made by the last William. 

A Robert de Chaucis held one fee and a half of William 
Albini, Lord of Belvolr, in Leicestershire, of the old feoffment. 
Looking at the connection of the Curcis with the house of 
Belvoir (Roger Albini, the head of that family, teinpe the 
Conquest, having married another daughter of Hugh Grent- 
mesnil), it would seem to refer to that connection. 

The only Ferrars manor that can be distinctly traced to the 
Cans family is that of Bradborne, which Lysons states, though 
he gave no authority, was held at an early period by the 
family of Caws or de Cancels. 


The churcli was given by Gcoffry de Cauceis, in 1205, to 
the Priory of Dunstable, and he conveyed the manor to Godarde 
de Bradbourne, in the reign. of King John. In all probability 
this Geoffry de Cauceis was the tenant for one fee of new 
feoffment mentioned in the certificate of Robert de Cauz, in 
I — 12 Henry II. 

A manor in Brampton, called Caws Hall, was held by the 
family at a very early period. Lysons asserts that it was 
given toiipe Henr}- II. to Peter de Brampton, whom he sup- 
poses was the second son of Maud de Caus. He, however, 
erroneously supposes that Adam (Peter's father) was the second 
husband of this lady, so that it is obviously a mere guess ; 
besides, the dates show it is wrong, for Ralf fitz Stephen 
(Maud's second husband) was living in the time of King John. 
The manor was held under the Musards, and was probably an 
old holding of the family. 

It may be asked why Hugh de Grentmesnil was a party 
to the grant of the Lenton charter, and it is difficult to account 
for his presence, except that possibly he was enjoying a hunt- 
ing expedition. His only estate in the county was Roger 
Pictaviensis's manor of Edwalton, which he held in demesne. 
How it came to him does not at present appear, but his 
tenant, Robert fitz Ranulf de Alfreton, gave the church to 
Beauchief Abbey, and Thomas de Chaworth confirmed it. 

Robert de Lathom, who is now represented by the present 
Earl of Derby, held the other half, the Earl of Leicester, whose 
ancestor had married the heiress of Grentmesnil, then being 
chief lord. 

Ralf Basset, of Draiton, held one-third of the honour which 
Thomas de Chaworth held of him. It must be remembered 
that Matilde, daughter of Richard Basset, the Chief Justice, 
was the wife of a Robert de Cauz ; how many there were in 
succession of this name as yet has not been satisfactorily 

There is yet much to be done in order to obtain an accurate 
account of the family of Curci. They were settled in various 
parts of the country, but are probably all of the same race. 

At Domesday, Richard de Curci, who attested several of 
the Conqueror's charters, held Newham, Lecendon, and Foxcote, 
in Oxfordshire. He commanded at the Battle of the Standards, 


and was succeeded by Robert de Curci, who founded the Priory 
of Cannington, in Somersetshire, and who held the post of 
Sewer to the Empress. This was probably the witness to the 
charter of Henry II. of the date of 6 Stephen already noticed. 
It is not quite clear what relation he was to William de 
Courci, of Stoke Courcy, Devon, who founded that Abbey. 
Eton College has a charter of William Curci, the king's dapifer, 
made to St. Andrew's of Stoke, for the repose of the souls of 
Wm. his grandfather, and William his father, of a mill of 
Norham, whicli he bought of Hugh Golafre, the witnesses to 
which were Geoffry the Prior, Wm. Pantoul, John de Curci, 
Jordan de Curci, Simon fitz Peter, Wm. de Reigni, Wm. his 
nephew, Wm. and Durand Poher, Hugh Pincerna, Osbert de 
Eston, and Wm. Chaudel. This knight is said to have been 
the great grandson of Wm de Faleise and Geva. There is 
something very wrong in the history of this family ; in one 
account Wm. de Curci is said, in the time of Henry II., to 
have ratified the grant of Avice de Rumeli, his mother, who 
was the daughter of Wm. de Meschines, brother of Ranulf, 
Earl of Chester, to Ardington, in Yorkshire, of half Helthwaith 
and Swindon. In another, this lady is called Alice, and is said 
to be the daughter of Robert de Rumeli, of Skipton, by Cicely, 
daughter of Wm. de Meschines, and to have been the wife of 
William fitz Duncan, Earl of Murres, and their daughter Cicely 
to be the wife of Alexander fitz Gerald. Another record of 
the 23rd Henry II. mentions that Alice, daughter and heir 
of Wm. de Curci, then in her minority, was the wife of Warin 
fitz Gerald, who enjoyed her inheritance. This must have 
been Alice de Curci of the Belvoir charter, but there is probably 
a confusion of epitaphs, as Mrs. Malaprop would observe. A 
William de Curci was Justice of Ireland, tevipe Henry II. A 
John and a William were living in the time of Richard I., 
all of the Devonshire branch of the family. 


I. — Galf de la Fremuiit held two knights' fees ; he also held one 
of 7iezv feoffment. 

Note. — He held lands in Kirkton Wileghby, Walesby, Bes- 
thorpe, and Birchwood, which his brother ultimately sold to 
Hugh Bardolf Matilda de Cauz, of her own free will, without 


her husband, confirmed this grant as that of lands which the 
ancestors of the said Galfry held of her. Jordan fitz Alan 
(de Busli), Lord of Tuxford in the time of Henry I., gave to 
Galf de la Fremunt certain lands at Kirkton and Walesby, 
Willoughby, Besthorpe, and the wood of Muscamp ; and these 
evidently were not the Hanselin Manors sold by William, 
brother of Galf de la Phremunt, to Hugh fitz Ralf de Gresley, 
about the 5th year of King John. Possibly this grant will, 
when worked out, throw a light upon the entry in the first great 
Roll of the Pipe referred to at page 96, as the land for which 
Robert de Cauz impleaded at Blith, 

Hugh fitz Ralf de Gresley who acknowledged suit of service 
for all these lands to Olivia, Lady of Tuxford, for his own soul 
and that of Agnes, his wife, granted them to Rufford Abbey. 
Both the Lady Olivia de Tuxford and Adam de Everingham 
(separately) confirmed this grant. 

In the Rufford Chartulary, fol. 169 b., Matilde de Cauz 
describes the knight as Galfridus de la Freville (the name 
used by Gilbert de Norfolk, whom Emma de Belfou married). 

2. — Daniel de Creveceiir held one and half fees. 

3. — The wife of Robert de Arch held two fees. 

Note. — The family of de Arches held Grove of Roger de Busli 
and his successors, but little is known of them. One Robert 
held the estate at Domesday ; and Gerbert de Arches, tenipe 
Henry H. The co-heirs of Arches, married Herecy and Rufus, 
and the heir of the last Eustace de Mortain, whose name and 
family are frequently found in Derbyshire records. The Herecys 
remained established for twelve generations, when Humphrey 
de Herecy, by Elizabeth, daughter of Sir John Digby, knight, 
left eight daughters and co-heirs, one of whom married Nicolas 
Denman, who succeeded to certain of his estates near Retford, 
and who was doubtless the ancestor of the great Lord Denman 
— the upright and independent Lord Chief Justice of the King's 
Bench — one of the great men of whom Derbyshire may be justly 

4. — for dan de Chevercoiirt held one fee. 

Note. — He was the son of Ralf de Chevercourt, of Carlton, 
in Lindric. He paid his relief for one fee there 11 Henry H., 


and is supposed to have been the grandson of Turold, the 
Domesday holder. Jordan de Chevercourt married the daughter 
of Ranulf fitz Ingelram, of Alfreton, whose great-niece married 
the son of Robert de Chaucis, of Marnham. Isabella, one of 
the daughters, and co-heiress of Jordan of Chevercourt, married 
Robert Furneus, of Beigliton, and was ancester of the family 
of that place, whose ultimate heiress married Fitz Hugh of 
Ravensworth. Letice, another daughter, married Ranulf New- 
march ; Mabel, a third, Ralf de St. George ; Aubrea, Robert de 
St. Quinten. 

5- — Thomas de Miiscainp held one fee. 

Note. — This was doubtless the ancestor of Thomas de Mus- 
camp of North Muscamp and Carlton, who held them for one 
knight's fee of Robert de Everingham. The Muscamp pedigree 
is a very ancient one, but much confused on account of the 
divisions in their properties. 

6. — Robert de Daniel held one fee. 

Note. — Little seems to be known of this knight. A family of 
the name of Daniel or Daynet, were of Walkingham in this reign, 
Matilde Daynet or Daniel claiming the advowson in right of 
her ancestor against the Prior of Worksop, in 4 Ed. I. A great 
part of this parish belonged to Newstead Priory, and one of 
their properties gave rise to a curious decision — that a bastard 
could not, in law, be a vilain, because, presumably, a vilain must 
be a nativus of the lord. Throsby could find nothing in the 
place " suitable to the cravings of a hungry antiquary " (It 
seemed that he "craved" on horseback), unless it was "the azure 
limbs of certain naiads who ceased to lave them in the wave," 
whilst " the rosy band of smiles and loves going hand in hand, 
the Graces danced." All this, with much more of the sort, 
he beautifully describes in poetry. As he did so little for 
Thoroton as an antiquary, it is fortunate that something can 
be said in his praise as a Poetaster. 

7- — -Ralf de Hamerwych held one kniglif s fee. 

8. — Ralf fil Geremund held half a knighfs fee. 

This half fee was in Oxcroft and Alvaston, in Derbyshire. 
His descendants granted them to Dale Abbey. (See Note to 
Hubert fitz Ralf) 


9. — Robert de St. Peter held half a fee. 

10 and 1 1. — Ralf de Clapole atid Ralf de Budington held one 

Galf de Clapole attested the charter of Hugh fitz Ralf at 
Bingham, of land in Sibthorpe to Wm. fil Wm. de Selston, the 
first year after the election of de Langham to York. 

12. — Robert de Bellocampo held half a fee. 

1 3. — Galf de Lefremunt held one fee. ( See No. i .) 

14. — Galf de Caiiz Jield Jialf a fee. 

It is not clear where this lay. The author's index to Thoroton 
produces no Galfry ; but Lysons gives a knight of this name, who 
is probably the same who held Bradborne under the Ferrars 
family, who in King John's reign gave the church to Dunstable, 
and conveyed the land to Godard de Brabourne. The name 
seems to have been spelt Caws and de Cauceis, exactly as the 
Chaworth family at this period spelt their name. 

15. — Richard Ursel held half a fee. 

In II Henry II. Robert Ursel answered for the debt of his 
lord, probably as senescal. 

16. — A Hz, sister of Robert de Cauz, held half a fee. 

Unless this lady is Alice de Curci, wife of Warin fil Gerald, 
nothing is known of her ; but that is hardly likely, since she 
was, by one account, in her minority quite a dozen years later. 
It is very unusual to find a female holding a knight's fee, and 
this is the only instance in Derbyshire Rolls, except the case 
of the widow of Robert de Arch. 

And in his own demesne Robert de Cauz held i fee. 


6. — Daniel, Robt. 
I & 13. — Fremunt, Galf de 

8. — Geremund, Ralf fil. 

3. — Arch, widow of Robert. 
12. — Bellocampo, Robert. 
1 1. — Budington, Ralf. 
14 — Cauz, Galf. 
16. — Aliz, sister of Robert. 

4. — Chevercourt, Jordan. 
10. — Claypole, Ralf. 

2. — Creveceur, Daniel. 





— Hamerwych, Ralf. 

-Muscamp, Thomas. 
— St. Peter, Robert. 
— Ursel, Richard. 



mo, 6.— Carta Ibubcrt f!t3 1Ralt 


It may appear presumptuous to brush away summarily all that 
has hitherto passed current as history of the family of this 
baron ; but, as in many other instances, a strict adherence to 
truth renders it absolutely necessary. The Derbyshire historians, 
as they have done in the case of Robert fitz Ranulf, the sheriff, 
have mistaken the family of this baron, and here they have con- 
fused it with his mother's. It has always been confidently asserted 
that he was a member of the family of Rye, and proof has been 
offered in the shape of a strong inference which arises, it was 
supposed, from the fact that Hubert fitz Ralf of the Red Book 
bore much the same names (though the order is reversed), and 
held part of the same manors as the Domesday holder, and this 
fact has been supplemented by another equally as unsatisfactory 
and illusory — namely, that a branch of the Ryes, to which great 
family undoubtedly the Domesday Ralf fitz Hubert belonged, 
was settled in the Domesday Rye manor of Barlbro', and that 
they in the reign of Edward III. proved on a quo warranto that 
their ancestors had held a park therein from time immemorial. 
Strong facts admittedly, and perhaps far more valuable as proof 
than those which supports a very large number of the pedigrees 
which adorn Burke's Pedigree ; but, alas, both these inferential 
proofs are misleading, and both have absolutely no foundation 
to support the inferences built upon them. 


The best account of the pedigree, as representing the views 
of Derbyshire historians, is to be found in the works of that 
eminent Norfolk historian, Mr. Walter Rye. As Derbyshire is 
somewhat out of his range, he evidently took the matter upon 
trust. He writes (page 5, of "An Account of the Family of 
Rye) : — " Ralf de Rye (alias fitz Hubert) was the father of 
Ralf fitz Ralf, Baron of Crich tentpe Henry I., who, by his 
wife Matilde, afterwards a Nun at Thurgarton, had (besides 
two daughters, one of whom married Geofifry de Constantine, 
and the other, Juliana, married Peter de Wakebridge [this 
latter is an obvious mistake for a marriage of the daughter of 
Hubert fitz Ralf, grand-daughter of Matilde]) a son, Hubert 
fitz Ralf, Baron of Crich, who died about 3 Henry HI., having 
first married Edelina, daughter of William fitz Ralf, of Alward- 
deston (of a totally different family), and secondly Sara ; he 
died without male issue, leaving his daughters his co-heiresses." 

" So ended the senior male line of the Derbyshire Ryes. 
But a junior branch was long settled at Whitwell, which 
was one of the manors Ralf de Rye held when Domesday was 

It may be best to get rid of the latter statement at once. 
Now, the Placita de Quo Warranto, which Mr. Rye quotes, does 
not prove, as he has taken for granted it did, that the ancestors 
of Ranulf de Rye, in the male line, ever held this manor, much 
less from time immemorial ; and it is perfectly clear from 
several suits in the Rot. Cur. Regis., and from other documents, 
that this park and manor were held by Robert de Meynel, 
descended from a Domesday tenant of Ralf fitz Hubert, and a 
knight of Hubert fitz Ralf of the Red Book, who died, leaving 
an only daughter, Isabella, some time in the reign of Richard I. 
The Pipe Roll of the 6th of that king shows that Sewell fil 
Henry, who married her, accounted for fifty marcs that he 
might have the custody of the daughters of Robert de Meynil 
(her grandfather), with their lands. This lady died s. p., 
leaving her aunts, the two daughters married to Matthew de 
Hathersage and Adam de Credling, her co-heirs. The Pipe 
Roll of 12 Henry III. shows that Mathew de Haversegg and 
Alicia de Credling paid 200 marcs for having seizin of the land 
which was Isabella de Meisnil's, consanguineous of the said 
Mathew and Alicia, which they held of the king in capite. 


Now, it appears from the RotuH Curiae Regis, that Ralf de 
Rye who held this manor at the time of the Quo Warranto, 
before mentioned, obtained his share of it by marriage with 
the heiress of Credling, and it was his ancestors, the Meynils, 
who had enjoyed it from time immemorial. He himself, indeed, 
was not a Derbyshire, but a Lincolnshire, man, most probably 
of the family of the Domesday holder of the manor, but settled 
at Gosberchurch, in that county, from time immemorial. In 
fact, the union of the names was a pure accident. And it is 
also a fact that Hubert fitz Ralf derived his barony through 
his mother, and not through any Ralf fitz Ralf, Baron of Crich 
of the time of Henry I. This is clear beyond dispute from 
several charters in the Cartulary of RufFord Abbey, which still 
remain there. A copy is to be found in the British Museum. 
The Thurgarton Cartulary (Bodleian Library) shows that 
Hubert fitz Ralf's father was a benefactor of that foundation 
tempe Henry L, and that his mother, Matilde, afterwards took 
the veil there, when Hubert fitz Ralf himself gave, with her, 
the land which William fitz Gregory held in Scarclifif; and 
that Cartulary also shows that Hubert fitz Ralf called Robert 
Deincourt (a younger son of the founder) his brother, a fact 
which has always puzzled genealogists. The Rufford Cartulary 
explains this. It appears that Matilde (Hubert fitz Ralf's 
mother) was herself a co-heiress of Ralf fitz Hubert of 
Domesday (daughter or grand-daughter does not appear), and 
that she gave lands out of Scarcliff to Rufford Abbey for the 
good of the souls of Hubert, her son, and of Ralf fitz Eudo, 
her lord ; and the charter shows that this was a certain 
portion of her land (quendam porcionem terre mee) in Scarclive 
and in Languard, and that she made the donation in the 
name of Hubert, her son, and from him, for whoever would 
be her heir (faciam concedere et dare a filio meo Hubert, et 
ab eo quodcunc erit heres mens). Very clear words to show 
that it was her inheritance. The only puzzle is with regard 
to the word Languard. This must mean Langwith, which 
adjoined Scarcliff. If it refers to Langar, it will be found 
that the Deincourts held lands there, but that she had no estate 
in them. This charter was confirmed by another granted by 
Ralf de Aincourt and the Lady Matilde, his wife, for the soul 
of Ralf fil Edonis, and for the health of Hubert, his son, of 


the same land, with precisely the same boundaries, but with 
no mention of Languar. 

This charter distinctly shows that Hubert fitz Ralf was not 
the son of Ralf Deincourt, and if Robert Deincourt was his 
brother, he must have been Matilde de Rye's son, as was 
probably the case, by lier second husband. 

A third charter, by Geoffry de Constantine, confirms the same 
grant. A fourth, by Ralf Deincourt, confirms a grant by Robert 
Avenel out of the same place, and to this Hubert fil Ralf fil 
Eudonis, the baron of the Red Book, is a witness, or perhaps his 
father (the dates prove that there must have been two Huberts in 
succession). It is, then, abundantly clear that if there ever was 
a Ralf fitz Ralf of the time of Henry I., Lord of Crich, he 
must have been the father of Matilde de Rye, though in all 
probability it was Ralf fitz Eudo, her husband, who was so 
indicated, and who was dead before 11 26, the alleged date of 
the foundation of Thurgarton Priory — a date which, fortunately, 
relieves Hubert from the stigma put upon this family by Dugdale 
and Madden, of identity with the thief who was hung by the 
partisans of the Empress at Devizes, an identity, however, 
which Mr. Walter Rye has clearly disproved. The only 
puzzling fact which arises from these circumstances is the 
date of these grants. The Pipe Rolls show that Hubert fitz 
Ralf was an infant as late as 14 Henry H., whereas the 
charters of the Deincourts concerning Scarclive, which were dated 
before 1126, were attested by him, from which it is certain that 
there were at least two Hubert fitz Ralfs in succession, and 
that the baron of the Red Book was not the survivor of 
the reign of Henry HI., but his father. 

The question now arises whether this Ralf fitz Eudo was a 
cousin of his bride, and himself a Rye, or whether he was of a 
different family. This is by no means an easy matter to 
determine. At first sight it appears very probable that Ralf 
fitz Eudo of the time of Henry I. was of the same family of 
Ralf fitz Hubert (or Eudo, these names being probably 
synonymous) of the time of Domesday. At any rate it is more 
probable than the supposition which has so long passed current 
in history, that Hubert fitz Ralf was so descended. I cannot 
but fear that Ralf fitz Ralf was an invention to bridge over 
the difficulty ; but there was another great family at this period 


in Lincolnshire called fitz Eudo, from whom it is more probable 
that he was descended. This family were the ancestors of 
the lords of Tatershall, and were distinguished by the sobriquet 
of de Brito, no doubt adopted, as both were great Lincolnshire 
lords, to prevent confusion between them and the Ryes of 
Lincolnshire, the latter being a Norman family. 

Following up this clue, the first we hear of the Britos in 
Derbyshire is in the year 1102, at the foundation of the Lenton 
Priory, when Roger de Brito, a knight of Wm. Peverel's, gave 
certain tithes in Walton and Calow, which he then held in fee- 
farm of the king. Now, this foundation was benefited by 
Odo de Boney, who attested it next after Hugh de Buron, and 
who was undoubtedly the son of Ralf fitz Hubert of Domesday. 

Next we meet with a Ralf Brito of Annesley, who shortly 
prior to 1161 founded the Priory of Felly, and endowed it with 
the church of Annesley. The date shows that he could not 
have been the husband of Matilda de Rye, for he died before 
1 1 26; but he may have been his son by a previous wife. 
When this foundation took place does not appear, nor is the 
foundation charter known to be in existence. The strong 
probability is that it has disappeared for ages, and that 
the delay in confirming this grant by the Pope, if this 
Ralf de Annesly was the son of the husband of Matilda de 
Rye, arises from the fact that Hubert fitz Ralf their son, or 
probably his nephew, was yet an infant. This foundation 
was carved out of Matilda de Rye's Barony, and she must have 
been a party to its confirmation. In the account given 
by Thoroton it is stated that Ralf Brito made this foundation 
with the consent of his heirs, and afterwards it was granted 
by Ralf Brito, and Reginald de Anesley, his son, to Worksop. 
This part of the Rye Barony remained for centuries in the 
Anesley family, although for a time the Stutevilles, who suc- 
ceeded to this portion of it, affected to confirm their grants. 
It would not seem that Hubert fitz Ralf himself very greatly 
favoured this foundation, for he only gave it a small rent, 
but the Pleslies, the Herizs, Barres, Insulas, and other great 
tenants of the fitz Hubert Barony, all supported it, and so did 
the Britos of Walton and Chesterfield, which tends to show 
the connection between the two Brito families. 

It is difficult to understand why this estate did not follow 


the rest of the fitz Hubert Barony, and it can only be accounted 
for by the supposition that Ralf, father of Reginald de Anesley, 
was a son of Ralf fitz Eudo (Matilda de Rye's husband) by 
an earlier marriage, and that this was given to him with her 
assent, and this was done in the reign of Henry I. The alleged 
Warsop grant being probably dated wrongly : looking at the 
dates, it is not very wonderful that all proof of the transaction 
is lost, and that we can only depend upon the mode of the 
devolution of the estates. 

Derbyshire historians have always assumed that the fitz Ralfs 
were the male issue of Ralf fitz Hubert, whilst others (amongst 
them the learned Robert Eyton, the historian of Shropshire), 
have doubted whether he left any sons. The history of Lenton 
shows they were all in error upon this point, for one Odo or 
Eudo de Boney gave the church of Barton, half the church of 
Attenborough, and two parts of the tithes in Boney and Brad- 
mere to Lenton Priory, the foundation charter of which lie 
attested, as was before noticed. As this was within fifteen 
years of Domesday, Eudo or Odo, who was thus disposing of 
part of the fitz Herbert Barony, must have been the successor, 
and in all probability was the son of Ralf fitz Hubert of that date. 
The reason why he only disposed of half of Attenborough was 
that it was all his ancestor enjoyed, Wm. Peverel owning the 
other half Very shortly after this grant, Edward, and ^lis his 
wife, confirmed to Lenton what their ancestor Odo gave. This 
charter was attested by Ralf Barre Ranulf de Insula, and Hugh 
de Boney, and Ralf his son. It is confidently submitted that 
this Hugh and Ralf were also fitz Eudos, possibly Odo's 
brother and nephew, but almost certainly the latter was husband 
of Matilde, the sister of Odo, whose sister Matilde (possibly 
Aelis) was also the mother of the Edward who confirmed the 
charter of Odo. It is very easy to see why Ralf, the husband 
of Matilde de Rye, joined in this grant, for it remained her 
share of the Barony ; nor is it difficult to discover why Edward 
and Aelis confirmed the grant. There cannot be a shadow of 
doubt that this Edward and ^lis were of Saleby and Gunby 
in Lincolnshire, where they held part of the fitz Hubert Barony. 
We learn this from the Lady's Roll of 33 Henry XL, when 
Leonia de Raimes, the widow of Robert de Stuteville, was then 
in the king's gift, heir to this inheritance, and stated to be upon 


her father's side a descendant of Edward of Salebir, and upon 
her mother's an heiress of the family of de Reimes, from whom 
she inherited the manor of Diham in Essex. She evidently- 
thought her mother's family of greater honour than her father's, 
for, although an heiress of both, and chiefly through her father, 
she adopted her mother's name as her own. Her mother was 
the Aelis of the charter concerning Boiiey, and it is more than 
probable, she was the sister of Odo de Boney and his co-heir. 
It appears, however, that this is a disputed point, for Roger 
Dodsworth has left a pedigree of the family showing that 
Edward de Salebir was not the despised person represented, but 
was no other than the great Edward de Salisbury, the Sheriff 
of Wiltshire, whose only positively known children were Walter 
of Salisbury, who succeeded him, and Maud, who married the 
great Humphrey de Bohun, certainly not a connection that one 
would expect to be ignored for the sake of claiming a descent 
from an unknown scion of the house of Reimes. Now it is 
tolerably clear that Edward of Salisbury was living in 1119, for 
he carried the Royal Standard at the great battle of Bremule, 
between Henry, King of England, and Louis, King of France, 
and Ordericus, speaking of him, says : " His approved integrity 
was of high renown, and never failed him even when 
fighting to the death," evidently pointing, not to a younger 
son, but to one of a long and well-tried career. He is again 
mentioned as amongst those who left the Blanch Nef after 
she had started on her last and fatal voyage, his age, no doubt, 
precluding him from willingly remaining with the drunken and 
riotous youths upon her. Now this was unquestionably the 
sheriff of Salisbury, and could have been no younger son, 
for the honour of carrying the standard in battle was of the 
highest, and if the first Earl of Salisbury was dead, his son 
Walter would have succeeded to the honour. Yet Mr. Chester 
Waters, and those who adopt his views assert, though without a 
shadow of proof, that there were two Edward de Salisbury's, and 
that the great Edward died in the time of William Rufus, an 
assumption that is absolutely essential to his argument. The 
author was recently involved in a rather too exciting corres- 
pondence upon this point in the pages of the " Academy," by 
Mr. Chester W^aters, who challenged, not to say derided, the 
author's views upon the question, but that eminent scholar was 


unable to meet the obvious retort that he had dimidiated 
the real Edward of Salisbury to enable Roger Dodsworth's 
theory to fit in with the dates, for it is impossible that Matilde 
de Rye (not the before-mentioned Matilde, but her sister) could 
be a second wife of the Sherifif of Salisbury, if he was the hero 
of Brenuile, because that lady, prior to 1107, was the wife of 
Hasculf de Taney, by whom she had two sons, Rainold or Ralf, 
the elder (who is lost to history), and Graelent, who, this Red- 
book shows, held two fees of Hubert fitz Ralf of the old 
feoffment, that is, he or his ancestor was enfeoffed before the 
death of Henry I. If this was the first husband of the co-heir 
of Rye, these sons would be the lords, not the tenants of Hubert 
fitz Ralf, or, at least, would precede Leonia de Reimes in her 
share of the inheritance. The heiress of Reimes (Leonia's 
mother) married a second time in 11 30, Pagan fil William de 
Hocton, by whom she had two daughters and co-heirs, who 
apparently ought to have shared in the inheritance of Diham. 
One of whom, Matilda, was first the wife of Richard Grunbald, 
Justiciar of England, and secondly, of Rich de la Peck; and 
the other (Emma) married Ernald de Bosco. 

It should be noted that whilst Mr. Eyton apparently adopts 
the Salisbury pedigree propounded by Dodsworth, he doubts 
the accuracy of Mr. Chester Waters' statement dimidating that 
sherifif, and adds this note to his copy of it, " so says Waters." 
The real pedigree of the Salebir family is in great obscurity. 
That the name is Salebir, and not Salisbury, as recorded in the 
Lady's Roll, is tolerably clear from an entry in the Rot. Cur. 
Regis concerning it. 

Saleby was not an uncommon name in Lincolnshire, probably 
it was a form of the name Saltfleetby, which is still called Salleby. 
Philip de Kim, who was sherifif of Lincolnshire, 1169. granted 
land in Suaby to Robert de Saleby. There was about the same 
time a Hugh and a Roger de Saleby, and very curiously the 
surname of this family was also fitz Eudo. It would appear that 
two members of the fitz Eudo family married the two co- 
heiresses of Rye, not an unlikely circumstance, since they were 
all located in Lincolnshire. 

It is a curious fact, established beyond doubt, that for some 

reason neither the daughters of Ralf fitz Hubert, nor their 

descendants, enjoyed the fitz Hubert barony during the life 


of Henry I. This is clear from the first great Roll of the Pipe, 
which shows that it was then ia the king's hands, and let to fee 
farm to several of the tenants, Gilbert de Mesnil, Ralf de 
Barre, and Robert le Lusors. The estate was then described 
as late of Odo fitz Ralf, who must have been the donor of 
Lenton priory. 

Hubert fitz Ralf, after serving the king in the army abroad 
(he was with King Richard's army several years), became mad, 
and was aided by his relatives (so far as they could manage it) 
in squandering his inheritance. There is a curious record of a suit 
brought by the Attorney-General against Brian de Insula, who 
obtained a large portion of his estate. The Chartulary of 
Newstead, fol. 138 b., now at Heralds' College, has preserved 
evidence of the transaction in a charter from Hubert, granting 
all his interest in Scarcliff, Palterton, Langwath, and Risle, 
except what he had given to Anker de Freschville with Juliana, 
his daughter. Brian de Insula pleaded his charter in answer to 
the Attorney-General, who replied that Hubert fitz Ralf was 
non compos mentis, and that, by the king's command, there had 
been hue and cry to prevent any one from dealing with his 
inheritance. Brian de Insula was a judge, and in spite of this 
he seems to have won his suit, for he left these estates to his heir. 

Brian de Lisle was closely connected with the fitz Hubert 
family. He was the son of Robert de Insula of Kirkby, a 
descendant of that Reginald who attested the fitz Hubert 
charter to Lenton. The de Lisles of Grace Dieu, according to 
Burke, claim him as a relation, but they were a distinct family. 
The connection with the Ryes is a very old one. Robert de 
Insula appears to have married a daugh'ter of Berenger Todeni, 
the brother of Agnes, who married Henry de Rye, or, at all 
events, as the Lincolnshire Roll of 1114 shows, he succeeded 
to many Todeni manors ; and Brian was also allied by mar- 
riage. For his second wife he married Gracia, the daughter and 
heiress of Thomas de Saleby, of Gunby in Lincolnshire, and with 
her enjoyed part of the fitz Hubert inheritance. (If Edward 
was of the Salisbury family, how was this Thomas allied to 
them i") We learn from Anker de Freschville's charters several 
facts which may eventually throw a strong light upon the 
history of the fitz Eudo family. It appears that no partition 
took place between the co-heirs of Ralf fitz Hubert of Domes- 


day until the 33 Henry II., and that prior to this period those 
heirs had been allowed without partition to enjoy several por- 
tions of it. Probably there were two fitz Ralfs, and one was 
a minor, and it happened that they had each held certain 
portions which ultimately on partition were assigned to the 
other co-heirs ; but this was not always the case, and it would 
seem that Alwodeston, near Derby, was enjoyed by the fitz 
Ralfs, and subsequently it came to the Freschvilles. Ralf 
Freschville, in confirming the grants of Hubert fitz Ralf to 
Derby, confirmed those of William fitz Ralf and of Robert 
his son, of the advowson of St. Michael's in Derby, and the 
chapel of Alwoldeston. 

Domesday, as we have seen, shows that Ralf (fitz Eudo .-') 
held Newton, Crich, and Scotchtorp of Ralf fitz Hubert at 
Domesday, but this family of fitz Ralf were quite distinct 
from that of Wm. fitz Ralf, the Norman Justiciary. Various 
conjectures have been made respecting this family of Wm. 
fitz Ralf, which require to be cleared up. It seems tolerably 
certain that Hubert fitz Ralf married and endowered his 
daughter Eveline, for he confirmed her grants to that foun- 
dation, though possibly they may have been made out of her 
own dowry. William fitz Ralf, her father, in some way v/as 
permitted to interfere with the inheritance of fitz Hubert, and 
to make grants out of it, but so did Ralf fitz Stephen, the 
king's chamberlain, who in 14 Henry II, would appear to 
have had the custody of Hubert fitz Ralfs inheritance. (See 
the Pipe Roll for that year.) It may be conjectured that both 
of them were descended maternally from the Rye family. 

This William fitz Ralf of Alwoldeston may have been that 
person described as William fitz Eudo de Hibaldeston, to whom 
William de Lancelin, according to the Rufiford Cartulary, gave 
a bovat of land in Walesby in free marriage with Cecilia his 
daughter. This William Lancelin was the son of Azelin 
Goisfred, Hanselin's great tenant. John and William de la 
Chause, who, doubtless, were relatives of Ralf fitz Stephen's 
wife, were tenants of the same place. 

St. Michael's, Derby, was acknowledged to be the mother 
church of Alvaston in a suit tried in the reign of King John, 
and again tempe Henry VII., and William fitz Ralf, the Sheriff 
of Derby and Justiciar of Normandy, who dealt with it, 


seems to have disposed of it in favour of his daughter Matilde, 
the wife of Geoffrey de SaHcosa Mara, for she gave the manor 
of Alvaston to Dale Abbey. 

In a Roll of the Curia Regis (no date), one Isabella of 
Alvvoldeston claimed two bovates of land in that manor 
against Galf de Salicosamara and Isabella fil Galfry. Nothing 
appears to be known of her family. 

In Rot. Cur. Regis, No. 70, m. 4 (no date, but c. John), 
there is an Assize to determine whether the Abbot of Rufford 
disseized William fil Robert, Wm. fil Eudo, and Gaufry fil 
Ascelin, of common of pasture in Grimston-cum-Welhag, which 
he had of the barony of Robert de Cundy, and Gilbert de 
Gant. Soc. of Welhag was to be found in Grimston, Walesby, 
and other places, but Welhag is not mentioned in Domesday, 
probably Gilbert de Gant granted it to Rufford as part of 

In the time of Stephen, Gilbert de Gant made a grant to 
Rufford, reserving to himself the services of Hugh and Ralf, 
sons of Ralf fitz Remigius. Possibly this was Hugo fitz Ralf, 
who gave land which he purchased of Galf de la Fremont in 
Walesby, to Rufford, which Olive Montebegonis, daughter of 
Jordan fil Alan of Tuxford, confirmed. 

This Hugh fitz Ralf was one of the barons who rose against 
King John. He married and obtained a great inheritance with 
Agnes, daughter and co-heir of Ralf de Gresley, by Isabella, 
daughter of Robert de Muscamp, a descendant of the senescal 
of the earl. More concerning him will be found in a note to 
Gresley and Wandesley. 

There was a family of fitz Ralf at Wessington in Sallow, 
resident there tevipe Henry II., and earlier, which puzzles 
exceedingly. They are only known by a series of Charters 
which are now at Belvoir Castle, Derbyshire records containing 
no mention of them. 

Wessington and Oggeston were at Domesday divided between 
Walter de Aincourt and Ralf fitz Hubert. 

Odo fitz Ralf gave Wessington to Darley Abbey, and Geoffry 
de Constantine confirmed it. Now Darley Abbey was only 
founded in the reign of Stephen, or very early in the reign of 
Henry II., and although the names Odo, Hubert, and Eudo are 
all the same, this Odo cannot be confounded with Hubert fitz 


Ralf, who was an infant till the latter part of it, nor could he 
have been the donor of Lenton Priory, who was then dead. Me 
was possibly the father of Hubert fitz Ralf II., of whom nothing 
is known. 

The church of Crich was given to Darley by the Earl of 
Ferrars. By what right he possessed it it is difficult to see. 
It is, however, situated in no less than three wapentakes, and 
therefore its history is involved, and we may have but little of it. 
Portions may have belonged to different lords. Wessington was 
held (how does not appear) by the Abbot of Darley under John 
de Heriz in the reign of Edward I., whilst some of the family 
of Fitz Ralf continued under-tenants of the Abbey. 

At Belvoir Castle is a Charter, s. d. of Ralf fil Simon to Darley 
Abbey, granting land in Wistanton and the land of Agenel, 
which Galfred Rural held, to which Robert de Oggeston was 
witness. It is sealed with a bird having its wings raised. This 
Ralf fitz Simon seems to have married Mabilia, the widow of 
Ivo de Heriz. She released her dower to John de Heriz in 10 
Henry III. 

27th Henry HI. there is a Charter between Ralf fil Ralf of 
Wistanton and Mabilia, the widow of Ralf fitz Simon, and 
another Charter of the same to Darley Abbey, granting certain 
land, some of which was held by Mabilia, widow of Ralf, his 
father, in dower. To this Charter were the following witnesses : 
Robert de Esseburn, Robert le Vavasor, and Fulcher de 
Urtona, knights ; Roger de Thoc, Peter de Ulkerthorpe, Robt. 
Artheyk, Robt. de Oggeston, Walter de Merl, Will de Ley, 
Roger Clico, and Alex, de Lowe. 

Then there is a Charter of Matilda, widow of Ralf fil Ralf de 
Wistanton, and another of 13 Henry HI. of Robert fil Ralf of 
Winfield, which latter was attested by William de Glapvvcll and 
William de Normanton. 

Henry fil John de Heriz confirmed to Walter, Abbot of 
Darley (1247-59), the land which they held of Ralf fil Ralf of 

Walter, Abbot of Darley, according to the Derby Chartulary 
(Cotton. Lib. Titus C. x., fo. 39), granted to William fil Robert de 
Oggeston the land which Robert held of Ralf fil Ralf of Wistan- 
ton. This Robert was a Brito of Walton. 

The same Cartulary contains a Charter of Simon fil Richard 


(probably Ralf fil Simons' grandfather) granting to Magister 
Robert de Derby the land which Henry, his brother, held of him 
in Oggeston. Ralf, Abbot of Darley (1229-47) with the assent 
of the convent, conveyed to Robert fil Robert de Walton 
(Brito) and Cecilia, fil Magister Robert de Derby, for his 
homage and service, the whole land of Oggeston (Eggedeston) 
which the same Robert held of Ralf fil Ralf de Winstanton, to 
hold to the said Robert and Cecilia and their heirs, etc. 

58 b. Magister Robert fil Gode being sick, gave half the mill 
of Derby to the Abbey of Darley. This was in 1 176. 

Fo. 58. King Henry H. confirmed the grant of Wachelin of 
Derby, and Goda, his wife, of the mill in Derby, which he 
bought of William de Heriz, and the grant of Ralf fitz Stephen 
and Hubert fitz Ralf of Childwell, Pentrice, and Crich. This 
William de Heriz, with Robert de Heriz and Wacheline and 
Goda de Derby gave Thurlecroft to the Abbey. This must 
have been prior to 23 Henry 11., since William de Heriz died 
that year. 

Fo. 88. Letitia fil Nigel fil Baldwin de Derby confirmed the 
land, which Hugo fil Ralf gave with his daughter. 

Fo. 1 10. Ralf fitz Stephen gave Pentrice, Ripley, and Ulker- 
thorpe, which he held of Hubert fitz Ralf. 

Fo. 132. Robert de Oggeston fil Robert de Walton gave 8 
marks to Dno Ralf de Esseburn. He married a daughter of 
Magister Robert of Derby, and held land of Ralf fil Ralf of 

Fo. 148. Wm. fil Ralf gave the mill of Alwoldeston. 
Robert fil Wm., the chapel of the same place. 
Edeline fil William fil Ralf, land in Bolton, which Peter fil 
Roger gave to the canons. 

Amelia, another daughter, land which Roger fil Reginald held. 
Hubert fitz Ralf gave land in Childwell, Pentric, Ripley, and 
Ulkerthorpe, which his father gave, and Ralf fitz Stephen 
afterwards allowed (concessit). Walter, Bishop of Coventry, 
confirmed the grant of Ralf fil Odo and Gaufry de Constantine, 
made with the assent of Earl Ferrars, of Crich, Lea, Dethic, Ibol, 
Saunessey, Wessington, and Oggeston, and Salthorn to the 
same foundation. 

To add a few Charters from Belvoir, possibly of value to the 
point, but certainly of great genealogical interest. 


III 1275 there is a Charter of John de lleriz and Henry, 
Abbot of Darley, concerning Wistanton, attested by William de 
Oi^geston. The seal of Heriz : two lions. 

Anotlier of William, Abbot of Darley, to Ralf fil Henry Hert 
of Crich. 

Hugo de Heriz de Grava to Robert fil Richard de Retford, 
vicar, and William fil Ralf, his kinsman. 

John fil Galf de Plastow to the Abbot of Darley, 4s. rent from 
land in Aginhale in Wistanton, which Peter, his brother, held. 

T. Ralf de Wistanton, Peter de Ulkerthorpe, Ranulf de 
Wakebridge, William Torcard, Alex de Lowed, Will de Ley, 
Jordan de Ybul. 

In 1252 there is a Charter of Walter, Abbot of Darley, to 
Ralf fil Ralf de Wistanton and Matilda, his wife, to which were 
witnesses Ralf de F"reschville, Roger de Eyncourt, Walter de 
Reibof, kts. ; Walter de Ufton, Robert de Oggeston, Will his 
son, Peter de Herthorpe, Ranulf de Wakebridge, John de 

Then there is a Charter of Walter, Abbot of Darley, to 
Matilda, wo. of Ralf Wistanton, 1247-59 ; with two Charters of 
Ralf fil Ralf de Wistanton with the abbot, which Walter de 
Morley, Roger of Derby Clic, Jordan de Ybul, Wm. fil Ralf de 
Normanton, Robt. fil Robert de Aldwerk, Ralf de Winefield, 
Walter de Ufton, Will fil Ralf de Mston, Fulc fil Fulc de 
Peton witnessed. 




(It will be noticed that, unlike the other certificates, this charter 

speaks in the third person, from which it would seem that the 

Baron was a minor at this period, and that Ralf fitz Stephen, 

the king's chamberlain, who had the custody of his inheritance 

(and something more, for he presutned to make grants out of 

it), made the return for him.) 

I. — Robert de Meynil holds five fees. 

Note. — No doubt these fees were at Barlbro', Whitewell, 
Clune, Stretton, Egstow, and Hanley. 

The first great Pipe Roll shows that Gilbert de Meynil then 


held part of his lord's fee from the Crown at fee-farm. He 
then accounted for ;£iJ2 of the old farm (that is, arrears), and 
;!^8o of the new. He also paid 20s. for the land of his brother, 
and ten marcs for the king's license to marry. At the time of 
Domesday, Robert held these same fees of Ralf fitz Hubert, 
and as this lease carries the possession of the family back to 
the early part of the reign of Henry I., it is most probable 
(though there is no proof of it) that he was the Domesday 
ancestor. There appears to be no doubt but that the tenant 
here recorded was descended from Gilbert de Meynil of the 
first roll of the Pipe, several charters showing that Robert fil 
Robert Meynil of Barlbro' was the grandson of Gilbert. The 
termination of his tenancy has already been mentioned in the 
account of the family of Hubert fil Ralf 

2. — Ga/f Ridel held tzvo and a half fees. 

Note. — This knight was the son of Rich. Basset, the Justiciar 
of England, by the daughter of Geoffrey Ridell, who perished 
in the Blanch Nef, 1119, whose name he assumed, whilst his 
descendants, as well as his brother, all adhered to their paternal 
name. It has been pretended that the wife of Geofifry Ridal 
was a daughter of Hugh, Earl of Chester, and undoubtedly she 
obtained a grant of some portion of his property. It is most 
probable that she was but a natural daughter, for had she been 
born in wedlock she must have succeeded, instead of Hugh's 
sister's issue, to that vast inheritance on the death of Earl 
Richard in the year 1119. He was also drowned with his wife 
in the Blanch Nef Ordericus, who gives a long account of his 
father and his misdoings, distinctly states that Richard was 
the only child of the late earl, although in another passage he 
mentions a son Robert, who was dedicated to religion, and also 
Otho, another son, tutor of the king's youngest son, but probably 
they were illegitimate also. Ordericus notices that he had 
several illegitimate children, and that nearly all of them came to 
untimely ends. The mistake with regard to Geva Ridel has 
arisen probably from the fact that in these lawless days the 
stigma of illegitimacy was scarcely regarded as a bar to 
inheritance, not at least by the Royal Family. 

The Bassets long held the manor of Duckmanton of this 
honour, which was probably the fee above-mentioned which 


Goisfred (probably Ridel) held at Domesday A charter of G. 
Ridel, is to be found in the Wolley Charters at the British 
Museum, which shows that his and the family of de Wiverton 
of Berneston were identical ; and that place, which came by 
descent to the Chaworths, is now one of the seats of Mr. 
Chaworth-Musters, of Annesley. 

3. — Robert fil Ramilf held two fees. 

Note. — This is probably the Robert fil Ralf referred to in 
the charter of Hubert fitz Ralf to Dale Abbey. 

4. — Galf Bar re held tivo fees. 

Note. — These fees were in Tiversholt and Kirkby, and, like 
the Meynils, this family can claim to have almost a Domesday 
pedigree, for, like them, they farmed part of the barony at the 
time of the first great Roll of the Pipe. Ralf Barre then 
accounted for £\2 9s. 4d. of the old farm. 

Goisfred held Tiversholt at Domesday, and his name, or 
something like it, long continued a Christian name in this 
family. He was probably the Domesday ancestor of this 

5. — Graelent de Taney held 2 fees. 

Note. — The connection between this Essex family and the 
Fitz Huberts is a very interesting one. This knight was 
the second son, and probably the heir of Matilda de Rye, 
sister of the mother of Hubert fitz Ralf, and therefore his first 
cousin. She was Lady of Gunby, one of Ralf fitz Hubert's 
Domesday manors, and by her first husband, Edward de 
Salebir, she left a daughter and heiress, Leonia de Raines, 
who inherited her property. 

Graelent de Taney succeeded to his father's inheritance in 
Essex, and at this period held 7| knights' fees in capite in 
that county. 

In 4 John, Ralf de Taney sued Robert de Taney for 8 bovates 
of land in Barneston, which he held of the gift of Ralf, his 
father. This probably constituted part of Graelent's holding. 

6. — Ralf fitz Stephen holds tivo fees of the fee of Hubert 
himself, as he, Hubert, asserts. 

Note. — This is a curious note to this tenure. It is stated 
to be of the fee of Hubert himself, as he (Hubert) alleges ; 


in fact it would appear that for some reason Ralf fitz Stephen 
himself made this return. Possibly Hubert fitz Ralf was already 
non compos mentis, or he may have been in his infancy. 

There can be no question but that this was Ralf fitz Stephen, 
Camerarius Regis. He married, perhaps subsequently, the 
heiress of Robert de Cauz, and in her right obtained part of 
the barony of Geoffry Hanseliii, with the forest of Nottingham. 
He enjoyed these, however, but a itt\Y years, for King John 
granted the Honour to him whilst Earl of Morton, and he was 
dead before the fifth of his reign, for various offers of marriage 
are then recorded for the estates and the person of his widow, 
none of which, however, she appears to have accepted. 

He appears to have been a Lincolnshire knight, and, as before 
noticed, to have held estates at Snelland, Reresby, Wikenhibi, 
Westladiton, and VViberton, some of them probably of his 
wife's family, the Cauzs. 

The Kirkstead Chartulary mentions several Charters of his 
and of Stephen, his father, Chamberlain of the King of Scotland. 
He appears to have had other sons, and to have been connected 
with a family named Fitz Eudo of Reresby, possibly Ralf fitz 
Eudo's own family. 

7. — Reginald de Annesley held 2 fees. 

Note. — These fees were of course in Annesley and Felley, 
and this knight must have been the son of Ralf Brito. 

He would, therefore, if that father was identical with the son 
of Ralf fitz Eudo, Hubert fitz Ralf's father, be his nephew, or 
perhaps his first cousin. This is not the less probable, since 
we find this fee to have been of the old feoffment. It is of 
course possible that the father of Reginald de Annersley was a 
younger son of Matilda de Rye, as well as of Ralf fitz Eudo. 
The early portion of the Annesley pedigree is in great con- 
fusion, notwithstanding the great pains taken by the Heralds 
to perfect it for the Viscount Chaworth. This work, which has 
been most kindly lent for the perusal of the author by Mrs. 
Chaworth Musters of Annesley Hall, is most valuable for the 
histories of other families connected with them, particularly 
that of the Bassets. 

8. — Scrlo de Pies lie held one fee. 

Note.— This fee was Ashover. He also held Glapwcll of 


William Pevcrel, and Pleasley also, from which place he took 
his surname. The latter is not mentioned in Domesday. 

Ashover in the thirteenth century became divisible amongst 
the heirs of Serlo, one of whom married Willoughby, and the 
other Deincourt, the co-heir of the latter marrying Reresby, now 
represented by Sir George Reresby Sitwell, Bart, and the other 
Musters, now the ancestor of Mr. Chaworth Musters of Annes- 
ley Park. 

• 9. — Ramilf de Wandesley held one knighfs fee. 

Note. — There seems to be some confusion between this 
family and that of Hugh fitz Ralf, who married the heiress of 
Gresley, who was also the heiress of Robert de Muscamp, and, 
indeed, it would seem that that Hugh must have been the eldest 
son of this Ralf, who, on account of the great inheritance he 
obtained by marriage, left this smaller one to his younger 
brother. Unquestionably, this knight was represented by his 
ancestor in the reign of Henry I. He or his son was living here 
in 22 Henry H., as we learn from the Pipe Rolls, when he paid 
three marks as his quota of the forests amerciments for that 
year. Thoroton says that a William de Wandeslie also paid 
two marks that year. 

In the I2th Henry H. Orm de Wandeslia paid los. This is 
probably a mistake for Orm de Tanesleia. 

In 25 Henry II. the Sheriff accounted for small sums received 
for the goods of Hereward and Hacon de Wandesley. 

Ralf de Wandesley gave certain lands in Wandesley to 
Felley, which Nicolas his brother afterwards confirmed. 
Alexander de Wandesley succeeded, and Ralf his son suc- 
ceeded him. 4 Henry III., there was a pardon granted to 
Henry de Estweit for the death of Ralf fitz Ralf de Wandesley. 
In 14 Henry III. the Prior of Felly brought an assize against 
Nicolas de Wandesley, Alexander fitz Hubert, and others, con- 
cerning certain fences. This Alexander certainly seems to be 
identical with Alexander de Wandesley ; and as he was the 
son of Nicolas, this name Hubert was evidently used as a 
surname. This confirms the probability of the suggestion 
already made, that Hugo fitz Ralf was of the family of Ralf 
fitz Hubert of Domesday, and of his son Odo de Boney. We 
find this Hugh fil Ralf granting rents and lands in Wandeslev, 


some twelve bovates, and twenty-four solidates of land, and 
eijrhtpence rents to Stanley Priory. How could he do this 
whilst the Wandesley family undoubtedly remained in possession 
of their inheritance for at least fifty years afterwards, until, 
indeed, in 33 Edward I., the inheritance was divided between 
the co-heirs and daughters of the last Ralf de Wandesley, Joan 
the wife of William de Cressy, and the wife of William Folc- 
jambe of Gretton. 

The Testa de Nevil states that Ranulf de Wandesley held 
Selston of Robert de Stuteville, and yet prior to this Hugh 
fitz Ralf had given a large number of bovates out of that 
place, some seven, together with a rent of 12s. which Nicolas 
de Wandesley paid him, showing that he was clearly his superior 

Selston had been the fee of Wm. Peverel, but Wandesley 
had belonged to Ralf fitz Hubert at Domesday. We can 
therefore only conclude that Alexander fitz Hubert and his 
ancestors, called fitz Hugh and fitz Ralf, were the descendants 
collaterally or direct of the Domesday holder. In Henry HI.'s 
time, Ranulf de Wandesley, with his son Galfry, attested the 
charter of Reginald de Insula. 

We find Alexander de Wandesley repeatedly attesting the 
charters of Robert le Vavasor of Shipley, and others, to Rufiford, 
and sometimes as the first witness. 

It appears from a subsidy Roll that a younger branch of 
the family held lands there in the 6th of Henry VI., in 
which time there was also some of the same name settled at 

Roger de Wandesley attested a charter of Robert de Tibetot's 
to Thomas fil John Foljambe concerning the manor of Elton, 
signing immediately after Tliomas de Gretton. A copy of 
this charter is now at Belvoir Castle. It is perhaps dangerous 
to speculate, but the guess may be hazarded, that the family 
who appeared before the Heralds on their visitation of Derby- 
shire, holding a manor of this name in Darley, which at Domes- 
day formed part of the king's manor of Mctesford, then called 
Wandesley, are identical in origin with the Nottinghamshire 
family, but the connection between them has not been dis- 
covered, nor, except in the connection between the Derbyshire 
family of Foljambe, who were also called de Gretton, is there 


at present any trace of relationship. This, however, is quite 
clear — the same family lield both manors, a very remarkable 
instance of a manor, at so early a period, being called after the 
name of its lord, that name being also the name of his territory 
in another county. 

The conclusion to be drawn from this account is that the 
Nottinghamshire family were identical with that of Hubert 
fitz Ralf their lord, and that the Hugh fitz Ralf who married 
the heiress of Gresley was no other than the witness to 
Edward de Salebir's charter to Lenton. That charter was 
probably made not very early in the reign of Henry H. (he 
probably survived), for we hear nothing of Robert de Stuteville, 
who married his daughter and heiress, and the first we hear of 
his son is in ^^ Henry H., when partition was made. 

10 and II. — Hugo de Soniery and Robert de Barton held half 
a fee. 

Note. — This half fee was probably in Barton. 

12. — Galfry de Cotes tin held iih knights' fees. Ten of his oivn 
demesne of the neiv feoffment, which he obtained in marriage 
with the sister of Hubert, by fine made before the king. 

Note. — Part of this fee was in Barton. Robert, the son of 
Robert Cotestin, had an interest here in the time of Edward I. 



7. Anesleia, Reginald. 
4. Barre, Galf. 

11. Barton, Robert. 

12. Cotestine, Galf 
I. Meinil, Robert. 

8. Pleslie, Serlo. 

3. Raiiulf, Robert fil. 

2. Ridel, Galf 

6. Stephen, Ralf fil. 

10. Sumery, Hugo. 

5. Taney, Graelent. 

9. Wandeslie, Ranulf 



una 7.— ZTbc Cbarter of IRalf fits Milliam, 

RaLF fil William de Walichville held in the lifetime of King 
Henry I. (certain land) for the service of cne knight's fee, and 
Robert de Chaucis holds it by the same service, which he 
obtained with the daughter of the said William, except two 
carucates of land, for which the king impleaded him. 

Note. — This is a most puzzling entry, but one which, if it were 
fully understood, might aid in the solution of the difficulties at- 
tending the Cauz and Chaworth pedigrees. It can only be conjec- 
tured that this fee was in Walesby, which may be another form 
of Walichville ; and probabilities point to this Rad fil William 
being a son of William Ascelin, chief tenant of Rad Anselin. 
There was a Ralf of Wadeland, in Walesby, who gave to the 
monks of Rufford the whole territory which John de la Chause 
of Walesby, and William, his brother, and other persons, held 
in Walesby. We have met with John de la Chause before, 
when he was sued by Matilde, widow of Robert de Caus. He 
must, therefore, have been the son of Robert de Caus, or, as 
he is called here de Chauces, by the daughter of William de 
Hanselin, or Lancelin ; and the gifts of Rad de Wadeland to 
Rufford must only have been a mere nominal sovereignty. 

It is a curious circumstance that Walesby and other places 
were afterwards sold to Hugo fitz Ralf, who married the heiress 
of Gresley, and took her name. His origin, as we have seen, is 
in doubt. He may possibly be the son of this Ralf. This, 
too, would account for the puzzling charters of Matilde de Cauz 


con firm in 1]^ the grants to Hugh fil Ralf of these same places. 
(See Galfry de la Fremunt, tenant of Robert de Cauz, No. i.) 
The probabilities point to this Robert de Chauccs being the 
ancestor of the Chaworths, and, if so, his connection with 
Walesby will account for his allegiance to the Honour of de 
Busli, and for his tenure of Marnham under that family, at tiie 
same time drawing closer the bonds between the family of Cans 
and Chaworth, a tie which is difficult to explain, and which 
has not, indeed, been hitherto indicated. 

This land was probably that for which the mother of William 
de Curci fined in 1 1 Henry H. Unfortunately no details of 
that transaction are given in the Pipe Roll. The fridbor (frank- 
pledge) of Robert de Chances answered for him in 21 Henry 
H. (see Pipe Roll), and the name of William de Chaucis appears 
in another Roli of 28 Henry H. This certificate may have 
been given at any time between those two dates : it has hardly 
the precise character of the returns made earlier in the reign of 
this kinef. 



flo, 8.— 3n tbe Ibonour of Milliam peverel tbere 
are eiyt^ Knigbts' tcce ant) a bait 

(The particulars of the Honour will be found in the Testa 
de Nevil.) 



1Ro. 9— ^be Certificate of Mtlliam Briwere. 


The great importance of this return is its date, for it is 
perfectly clear from the Pipe Rolls that William Briwere had 
no farm including Chesterfield prior to the reign of Richard I. 
In 6 John (page l66), it appears that William Briwere then 
accounted for forty marcs for having Chesterfield, according to 
the tenour of the king's charter, which he holds concerning 
them. In 7 John (page 167), William Briwere accounted for 
£jc) for the farm of Chesterfield, and owed ;^i8 for the rent 
of Witington ; but, it is added, this ought not to be exacted, 
because it was comprised in the farm of Chesterfield ; and he 
also accounted for several other farms dating from the eighth 
year of King Richard, from which period he had apparently 
omitted to pay his rent. 

In 8 John (page 171), William Briwere is charged £,Z for 
Sneinton, and ;^79 for Chesterfield. Of this he paid the Lepers 
of Chesterfield £6, and was excused the balance. This is how 
great judges farmed the crown lands, and paid their rents. 

At page 173 there is a rather unintelligible entry, which 
can hardly be properly extracted from the Pipe Roll of 9 John, 
but the purport is clear. The Lepers of the Hospital of St. 
Leonards were receiving annually the sum of £6 in exchange 
for the tolls of that town, which the king gave them when Earl 
24 A 


of Morton, and which they received by the hands of the farmers 
of the town (WiUiam Briwere, as such farmer, had paid it the 
previous year). Now the farmers (not the Hospital) accounted 
for 20 m. for having the king's charter to that effect. 

In the scutage of the first year of Henry HI., WiUiam Briwere 
is assessed for i fee in Chesterfield ; in the 13th Henry HI. he 
is assessed at 3 fees for Chesterfield, the payment of which he 
was excused, as he was in the scutage of Elvain the i6th year. 

In 17 Henry III. the men of Chesterfield paid 20 m. for 
having the king's confirmation of the charter of Wm. Briwere, 
their lord. (This was the son of the late Wm. Briwere, who had 
succeeded his father, who died this year.) 

The first notice we have of William Briwere is in the 6th of 
Richard I. There is only one Roll prior to this year of this 
reign, that of the ist of Richard, when Ralf Murdac was sheriff, 
and accounted for the sum of 29s. for the fair of Chesterfield, 
clear proof that William Briwere had then nothing to do with it 
He was again sheriff for the first part of 6 Richard I., and possibly 
for the previous years, since he answered for the old farm. 29s. 
is again received for the fair of Chesterfield. 

In the 7th Richard I., p. 138, William Briwere accounted for 
^8 for the increase or rent of Chesterfield for that year ; and 
the brethren of the Hospital received 60s. on account of £6 9s. 
which was assigned to them in exchange for their fair. 

The scribe who always prepared the Pipe Rolls beforehand 
had left the usual entry for the payment of the 29s. for the fair 
which had appeared for many years, but this year it is left 
blank, so that it was now clear that William Briwere had got it 
out of the hands of the Lepers, and was farming it himself ; and 
this must have been by virtue of the charter he recites in the 
entry of 6 John, and probably at the assessment recorded by 
himself in this certificate, for it agrees with no other. The 
charter of 6 John grants it as a rent of ;,^79, and a subsequent 
charter (see Records of Chesterfield, published for Mr. Alderman 
Gee) assessed it at 3 knights' fees. 

In 8 Richard I. we have a most important entry, which shows 
that under Archbishop Hubert's new regulations the assessment 
was greatly increased, for it is there recorded (page 141) that 
Wm. Briwere accounted for ^C? 17s. 3d., the remainder of the 
rents for Chesterfield, etc., for the past year, and for ;^38 of the 


rent of Chesterfield for that year, which was assessed by himself, 
the sheriff, by William Albini, and Simon de Patteshall, and by 
a jury chosen by the knights of the county. It would be of 
little use, however, to put in force the Archbishop's regulations 
with men like William Briwere, for in the same Roll which 
records his indebtedness is also recorded the fact that the king 
excused his payment. 

There are two or three entries in the Rolls whilst William 
Briwere was sheriff, which would seem to indicate that he only 
farmed the town of Chesterfield for the king ; or else, that, 
like Derby and Nottingham, they were their own farmers. In 
4 John (page 157), the men of Chesterfield paid two marcs for 
license to buy and sell stained cloth, as they were accustomed 
in the time of Henry II. Newark made a similar payment, 
and the following year Robert fil Peter de Brimington fined 
50 m. for having the manor of Witington as his father held it 
by the charter of King Richard. This accounts for the 
objection of William Briwere to pay (or rather be charged — he 
never paid) £iS rent for that manor in the 6th of King John. 
This entry again shows that William Briwere's farm was later 
than the commencement of King Richard's reign, Peter de 
Brimington's farm being made probably in one of the years for 
which there is no Pipe Roll, and certainly before that of William 
Briwere. Several records of a later date show that this question 
of rent between Peter de Brimington and his descendants and 
the Briweres was the subject of disputes between them, though 
ultimately they were compelled to pay. 

Derbyshire historians have lost sight of the family of Peter 
de Brimington, as indeed they have of many others equally 
interesting. It is difificult to conjecture their origin, but they 
were of great importance, and, like the families called de Duck- 
manton and de Glapwell, they were almost invariably parties 
to the charters of their neighbours the Britos, of Walton. 
Perhaps this was only because they were neighbours ; but 
looking at the importance attached to the attestation of charters 
by all who might by any possibility have any title by inheri- 
tance, it would seem that they were very possibly of the same 
family. Many charters relating to the de Brimingtons are to 
be found at Hardwick Hall, at the Foljambe's, at Osberton, and 
at others of the great depositories of Derbyshire Records, which 


will appear in due course in the Parochial portion of this 

William Briwere's certificate dates prior to the first years of 
John, as the rate of assessment shows, and subsequent to the 6th 
of Richard I., for that year, or the latter part of it, was the first 
of his farm. This would therefore give the date of 7 or 8 Richard 
I. as that of William Briwere's certificate, so that it is one of the 
very latest in the Red Book ; since the following year Arch- 
bishop Hubert Walters' new financial schemes came into force, 
for the purposes of which, no doubt, the Red Book was prepared. 
An account of this important measure of finance will be given 
in the next chapter. 

gebitatcb (bn permission) to .Sir (!rbl\}art) .IJciirD .Staiilcn, 
(Bml of gcrbu, 1\.<B., %].€. 

Published by Bemrose & Sons, 23, Old Bailey, London, and Derby; 

Parker & Co., London and Oxford ; and by Wilfred Edmunds, 

"Derbyshire Times" Office, Chesterfield. 



County of S)erb^ : 

(^Chiefly during the nth, 12th, and i^th Centuries), 


(Of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law, formerly of Emanuel Cullei^e, 
Cambridge, and F.R.H.S., &c.) 

Author of "The Early Genealogical History of the House of Arundel ; " "The 
History of the Common Law of Great Britain and Gaul;" "An Introduction to 
the Study of Early English History;" "The Mayor's Court Act, 1857;" "An 
Introduction to the History uf the House of Glanville ; " "A Treatise on the Law 
of Trades Marks;" "The Origin of the Nations of Western Europe;" "The 
Records of Chesterfield ; " "A Treatise on the Law of Ancient Demesne ; " "An 
Exposure of The Mismanagement of the Public Record Office," &c., &c. 

The Author has the gratification to announce that he will have the assistance 


Sir George R. Sitwell, Bart., M.P., F.S.A., 

who has made extensive collections for the Counties of Leicester, South 
Yorkshire, and ]3erbyshire, in editing the Hundred of Scarsdale. 

Mr. Cecil J. S. Foljambe, M.P., F.S.A., 

will assist in editing the Hundred of High Peak ; and other Gentlemen 

of high Literary repute will assist the Author in 

otiier portions of the Work. 

Price for the ivhole ivork TEN GUINEAS, if paid in advance , 
Large Paper Copies, Two Gjmieas extra. 

To be published in sections of about 250 pages, Royal Octavo, each 
price Haifa-Guinea, or on Large Paper, 2s. 6d. extra. Two sections 
will form a Volume ; each Volume, which can be purchased separately, 
will be complete in itself, with full indices, the whole work to be com- 
plete (if possible) in Twenty Sections ; the subscription price will not 
be increased whatever the extent of the work. 

Only a limited number of separate parts will be sold, none until all 
subscribers' copies are distributed. 300 copies only will be printed, a 
portion of which only will be offered in England. Each copy will be 
numbered and signed by the author. 

The first portion of the work will be occupied with Collections of 
Fees made from Domesday, the Pipe Rolls, the Testa de Nevil, Kirby's 
Quest, the Book of Aids, the Subsidy Rolls, and from other sources of 
the same character, in a form somewhat similar to that adopted by 
Major-General Wrottesley for the Staffordshire William Salt Society. 

The parochial portion of the work will commence with the Hundred 
of Scarsdale, and after giving a history of its successive Lords, will 
contain that of the different Parishes and Manors, commencing with 
the Parish and Manor of Eckington. 

The General History, with an introduction, will complete the work. 
The publication of this part is delayed in order to include all discoveries 
made during its progress. 

The work will be embellished with illustrations of Castles, Ancient 
Manor Houses, Tombs, Crosses, with some modern Mansions ; and 
with many Plates of Seals and Coat Armour. 

In order to meet the wishes of those who care less for par- 
ticular History than for the contents of certain documents, some of 
which have not yet been edited, the author has determined to reprint 
certain portions separately, at a uniform price of 5s. 

No. I. — The Domesday for Derbyshire, is already published, 
88 pages. 

No. n. — Extracts from the Pipe Rolls for the Counties 
OF Nottingham and Derby, with Notes, 174 pages. 

No. HI. — The Red Book of the Exchequer for the 
Counties of Nottingham and Derby, with copious 
Notes (now in the Press). 

No. IV. — The Fee Books for the Counties of Nottingham 
AND Derby, consisting of The Testa de Nevil, 
Kirby's Quest, and the Book of Aids, with an 
explanatory account of each of them. 

No. V. — Extracts from the Subsidy Rolls for the 
Counties of Nottingham and Derby. 

No. VI. — The Domesday for Nottinghamshire is in course 
of preparation, uniform with the above. 

And possibly some others will follow. 

For the convenience of reference to the general Index of this 
work, the paging of these reprints will in future be identical with 
those of the Feudal History, of which they are a part ; the Pipe 
Rolls are paged differently. The printing of this Index, which 
is already partly made, will be deferred to the conclusion of 
the whole of these collected materials^ and it will itself be a valuable 
-work for genealogists, since it will contain, at one view, not only the 
names of persons and places, but the dates of all entries in the Rolls, 
and the localities relating to each name, and, where it is possible, 
dividing the group of each name into separate families ; in fact, under 
each name a skeleton Pedigree of the family will be given. It will 
thus be a guide for anyone desiring to trace the history of a family to 
all entries in certain of the public records relating to it. The Index 
will for this object be published separately in this series of extracts. 



One Volume, folio, large paper copies bound in Morocco, Price Six 
Guineas; small paper cupies bound in cloth, Four Guineas. 

Mitchell and Hughes, 140, Wardour Street, W.C. 

The Author has the gratification to receive permission to publish the 
following very generous criticism of the First Part of this Work from the 
pen of Mr. Thomas Helsi-.y, the learned Editor of the last edition of 
Ormerod's Historv of Cheshire, who writes : — 

" I have had the pleasure and profit just lately of perusing an admirable bocik fif 
the kind (Mr. Pym Yeatman's recent work on the Pearls of Arundel), which contains 
a great amount of entirely original matter, with all doubtful points acutely raised, and 
well — almost intensely — argued, showing the zeal and pains which have backed up the 
learned Author's judicial powers and natural acumen. Of course, like all other 
history, this one of a family which represents in the aggregate a vast extent of Norman 
and English territory, is of a tentative character, but the valuable historical and 
genealogical matter is purified from the ordinary dross of such productions by having 
had the advantage of passing through a mind evidently thoroughly capable of reducing 
it into that state best suited for the critical reader ; although repetitions may be found 
numerous enough in works of this kind, they have their use in constantly keeping 
before the mind of the reader facts and arguments that less tenacious and o:dinary 
minds would let slip." 

And the following from Sir Bernard Burke, Ulster King at Arms, 
with reference to the whole book : — 

" What a wondrous store of information you have laid up for genealogists in yoi r 
grand ' History of the House of Arundel.' I am at every leisure moment poring over 
its contents." 

Extracts from the "Manchester Courier" of 30th March, and 
6th April, 1883 :— 


" In an age when the press teems with stately folios, lumbering weak-backed 
quartos, and even with octavos, of History, Cenealogv, and Archeology, every one 
of taste and learning may be congratulaied on the bir.h of a new fulio of great 
originality and meiit, and from the true historical standpoin'. 'The History of the 
House of Arundel,' taking us back for a period of looo )ears, is one of those Works 
which may well have employed the valualile hours of a member of the learned pro- 
fession to which the Author, Mr. Veatman, belongs. The judicial f.icuhies which he 
has brought to bear upon his subject have, on the whole, thrown so searching a light 
upon some long-buried points in national history, as well as genealogical problems, 
that the volume will be hailed by every scholar of unbiassed mind with the cordiality 
it deserves. ' The Early History of the House of Arundel ' is that of many of the 
most Historic Families in this country and in France ; and the bridge, which hither: o 
has been almost of the flimsiest character, is now fairly established upon the sounil 
basis of numerous, if often fragmentary, facts — worked together, it may be, by some 
defective arguments, by much necessary repetition, dry and wearying details, Init, on 
the whole, with a sagacity and acumen that redeems the work from all reproach." 

" Nothing can well be of greater interest to the student than the genealogical 
connection of this kingdom with that of our continental neighbours and the old 
Duchies of Normandy and Brittany. Absolutely little of consequence was known 
(and this far from accurately) until the pul)lication by the late distinguished Herald, 
Mr. Planche, of liis 'William the Conqueror and his Companions.' Sir Francis 
Palgrave in his Work was barred from going into all those details of history so neces- 
sary to a just appreciation of the connection of the ruling houses of England and 
Normandy, but his eloquent sketches of the Duchy will never fade from the memory 
of the cultivated so long as history holds its domain in the human mind. Other 
gentlemen of repute have since written upon this subject more or less fully ; but it 
seems to have remained for the present learned Author to unearth from the various 
archives of the French Republic, and from the great stores of materials in the Pipe 
Rolls and the Red Book of the Exchequer, and those in the possession of the Duke of 
Rutland and Lord Arundel of Wardour (extending in date from the reigns of the 
Dukes of Normandy and regularly down to the time of Henry III. of England), a 
large amount of original information, which, although of so fragmentary a character 
ia many cases as to necessitate the utmost industry, skill and circumspection in using, 
has enabled Mr. Yeatman to give to the reader something approaching a sound and 
reliable Work on this interesting period of Anglo-Norman history." 


" To handle all the multitude of facts in this book (far exceeding in number, and 
often in abstruse significance any disclosed in the greatest cause celebre), and to deal 
with them in a comprehensive manner, giving full effect to the numerous subtleties 
of meaning they often disclose, requires a grasp of intellect which can never be too 
fully appreciated. It is not surprising then if some should slip out of hand, 
and it would ill become the critic to score his page with black marks where there 
is abundance of merit so conspicuous to compensate for almost any degree of 
shortcoming, especially in a costly first edition which cannot easily very soon be 
supplanted by a second. 

"In conclusion, the least that can be said of 'The History of the House of 
Arundel' is, that it is an admirable collection of facts; and, if for this reason 
only, is very valuable, but its facts are skilfully arranged, and the learned Author 
has placed them in the most candid manner in every conceivable light before the 
reader, however laboured his efforts may occasionally appear; and after the judg- 
ment and research displayed in this work, if he has failed to command, he has 
certainly deserved success. As a volume for the earnest student of both direct 
and circumstantial evidence, it is to be warmly commended ; and the many tabular 
pedigrees will repay the perusal of every one interested in the stream of history 
which connects so many of the past and present races with those of our own. W''e 
cordially congratulate Mr. Yeatman on the production of this admirable book." 

Fi'om the " Bristol and Gloucester Archaeological Journal," 
Vol, VII., Part I., a criticism by Sir John MacLean of Bicknor 

Court : 

"The chapter on the settlement of the house of St, Sauveur, in the West of 
England, will be found of special interest to our readers, inasmuch as it gives the 
origin of many ancient families in the western counties, but the space at our 
disposal will not admit of our entering into details, 

" To compile an authentic pedigree of one ancient family is no light task, 
but to grapple with those of many of the Norman nobility and trace their 
descendants respectively from original authorities is a work of Herculean labour, 
and Mr. Yeatman's Book, when completed, will form a monument of industry and 
patient research. He seems lo be well acquainted with the several personages who 
come within his range, and, throughout all their shifting scenes, maintains, upon 
the whole, a firm grasp of their iiulividuality. That there are many, and possibly 
important, mistakes in such a work would be unavoidable, and some of the state- 
)nents made seems to us not to be vouched for by sufficient evidence ; nevertheless 
allowing for all these errors and shortcomings, the Work will prove a most useful 
contribution to ICnglish history and genealogy." 



Price 6s. 

Burns and Oates, London. 

" Every one must own the clearness of style, the cogency of argument, the wealth 
of illustration in the way of learning, the depth of thought, and the jierfect indepen- 
dence with which the history of P2ngland is sifted. To many, perliaps most people, 
the criticism on the Aryan Theory, &c., will seem lilce an unpleasant revelation, but 
we strongly suspect it will be found far from easy to answer this liook." — The Metro- 
politan, Tpth August, 1879. 

" Mr. Yeatman is one who has had the courage to combat popular opinion on 
Philology. Should the statements contained in the book lying before us be true, 
and to bear testimony without prejudice, we think it will be no light task to prove the 
basis of his theory to be untrue, the Oxford School of Plulology is undubitably 
worthless, especially Max Midler's Aryanic Theory, which, in plain language, rejects 
the Mosaic Account of the Early History of Mankind, and holds up the Sanscrit to 
be the parent of all languages." — The Auckland Times {\st Notice), 26th Sept., 1879. 


Written in Illustration of the Records of Chesterfield. 

Price 3s. 6d. 

Wilfred Ed.munds, Chesterfield. 

Prom Dr. Charles Cox's criticism of the "Records of Chester- 
field (Journal of the Derbyshire Archaeological Society, 1885.") 

" Tbe work of transcribing, translating and editing these archives was entrusted 
to the capable pen of Mr. Pyin Yeatman, and most ably has he done his task. The 
introduction is helpful and original, its only fault being its brevity." 

"The work has been most ably done by Mr. Yeatman, than whom no one could 
have been fjund more competent for the task, and he has preceded the body of the 
work by a masterly, ?ble and valuable historical preface, which adds immensely to its 
value." — The Reliquary, April, 1S85. — By the Editor. 

" This little book deals with a subject that is very interesting just now, and the 
records quoted by the Author, from documents relating to the iiorough Courts of 
Chesterfield, are exceedingly curious. Mr. Yeatman gives some curious facts from 
Manor records and elsewhere, and his essay appears to us to contain some important 
facts which are well worth close attention from those whose special study it is to 
reconsider the history of land-holding 'm.'Eng\^xi<\..'''—The Antiquary, December, 1884. 

Some Extracts fiom the Press relating to 


The Metropolitan, 14th August, 1874. 

"Old-fashioned people who believe in ' Mangnall's Questions,' ' Pinnocks 
Catechism of English History,' or in Hume and Smollett, will read this work with 
fear and trembling. We are not prepared to endorse all the views set forth in these 
pages, but the book is so immeasurably above the ordinary run of histories, which 
are mere repetitions of facts previously invented and judiciously arranged, that we 
must cordially advise every reader to study it intently." 

Evening Standard, 12th November, 1874. 

" This is a most original Work, overflowing with learning, and marked through- 
out with a complete mastery over the most minute details of this extensive subject. 
By far the most interesting portion of the Woik is the patient research shewn by the 
Author into the origin of the English language, and his dissertation on our Saxon 
literature, laws, and customs. Some of the most dangerous errors of Drs. Marsh and 
Latham are freely exposed, and with success ; with like freedom and success the hi-- 
torical errors of Rlr. Freeman, Lord Macaulay, and Sir Edward Creasey, are brought 
home to their several authors." 

The Press, Philadelphia, 20th November, 1874. 

" Tlie present volume is a remarkable example of original thought, historical 
research, philosophical deduction, and bold disregard of the merely traditional views 
of previous writers, who, taking too much for granted, have been content to travel in 
beaten tracks merely because they are old. To a large extent the Author ignores the 
claims of the Saxons as founders of either the language or the laws of England, and 
doubts whether, indeed, they had a distinct nationality. The Work is earnest and 

The Law Review (English), Vol. III., N. S., p. 1139 (1874). 

" Mr. Yealman writes with all the spirit of a true antiquary. He has an ardent 
appreciation of his subject, and pursues it with a keenness and a zest known only to 
those who have for some time indulged in antiquarian research. His work turns up 
much fertile soil, and though we do not concur in his main views, yet we willingly 
recognise the general value of his treatise. Its main object seems to be to unearth 
those jural elements that lie deep at the base of our laws, and to assign them, if 
possible, to a British rather than a Saxon origin. In this view he is undoubtedly 
nearer the truth than those writers — and they are legion, including the great 
Blackstone himself — who ascribe a Saxon origin to our Common Law. 

" His description of the influence of Roman jurisprudence on modern law 
indicates much literary grace and skill. It is clear that Mr. Yeatman is a rheto- 
rician, and a poet of no mean order. If ever he divests his thoughts from the 
Common Law, a boundless and more fertile field will lie before him in the domain of 
general literature. He certainly has all the qualities that constitute a vigorous 
writer. Tiiere is not anything improbable in most of Mr. Yeatman's views. His 
work indicates great facility of composition, and an intimate familiarity with all the 
leading arcana of Celtic lore." 

The American Law Review, Vol. IX. (1874-75), p. 123. 

" Mr. John Pym Yeatman possesses at least two qualities in common with the 
distinguished Englishmen whose name he bears — independence and courage ; without 
the former he could not have written, without the latter he would hardly have 
published, the extraordinary book which forms the subject of this notice. Mr. 
Yeatman has produced a remarkable book." 

The Freeman's Journal (Dublin). 

"Under this unpretending title Mr. Yeatman has given to the world a veiy 
valuable book. His introduction is not, as such works usually are, a mere transcript, 
more or less abridged, of the standard and approved authors on the subject. It is as 
remarkable for the boldness and originality of its views as it is for patient research and 
easy vigour of style. The author sets out with the theory that falsehood and exaggera- 
tion have mingled so largely with the writings of English historians, more especially 
since the Reformation, that it has become almost impossible to recognise the truth in 
its twisted, distorted form. He contends that it is not in the history of the Saxons, 
but in the ignored history of the Celtic race, that England has to look for the origin 
of all that she possesses that is valuable or noble — her language, her literature, her 
Common Law, and her Constitution. In the course of his very able work he boldly 
exposes the innumerable misrepresentations with which English hi>tory is underlaid, 
and advances many strong and ingenious arguments in support of the theory he has 
adopted. The book is characterised throughout by a patient, industrious, laborious, 
and patient research, and an honest desire to discover and declare the truth at all 
liazards and under all circumstances."