Non omnia grandior setas
Quae fugiannis habet.





[See the pdf for the engravings.]

1. To face page 16. SEAL of Saint James's Hospital, Bridgnorth (Vide Vol. I, p. 349). SEAL of Philip de Burwardesleg.
2. To face page 42. DOOR-WAY, South Side, Linley. A.M. Maw, del.
3. To face page 42. FONT, Linley. I.H. Maw, del.
4. To face page 124. SEAL of Saint James's Hospital, Bridgnorth. SEAL of Madoc de Sutton (rode p. 119, note 42). SEAL of Henry le Strange of Brockton (Vide p. 125, note 68).
5. To face page 162. ALBRIGHTON CHURCH. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
6. To face page 190. WHITE-LADIES. Rev. J.L. Petit, del.
7. To face page 252. TONG CHURCH. Rev. J.L. Petit, del.
8. To face page 252. SOUTH AISLE, Tong. Rev. J.L. Petit, del.
9. To face page 252. CORBEL in South Aisle, Tong. E. Petit, del.
10. To face page 252. MONUMENT - of Sir Richard Vernon, as supposed,- Tong. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
11. To face page 283. TOMB - of Sir Walter de Dunstanvill (I), as supposed - Abbey Church, Shrewsbury. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
12. To face page 338. SHIFNAL CHURCH - North aide of Chancel. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
13. To face page 338. CHANCEL, Shiffnal. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
14. To face page 338. SECTION of Chancel-Arch, Shiffnal.
15. To face page 338. FINIAL and DEVICE over the Western face of Chancel-Arch, Shifnal. Rev. J. Brooke, del.

Alnodestreu Hundred.

WE have now concluded our survey of all that territory which, having been in the Domesday Hundred of Alnodestreu, passed, or may be presumed to have passed, in time of Henry I, to the then created Hundred of Stottesden or to the extra-hundredal Liberty of Bridgnorth.

We now proceed with those Manors which, on the said dismemberment of Alnodestreu Hundred, went to constitute the newer Hundreds of Munslow and Brimstree. The Manors allotted to Munslow Hundred were but two, Broseley and Willey. [1] Each of these, like Deuxhill already noticed, was, in the third place and in time of Richard I, transferred to the Liberty of Wenlock, then first created. In that Franchise they have ever since remained. And first of-


IN determining the etymology of this name it is probable that neither the Domesday word (Bosle), nor the one now in use (Broseley) will afford so safe a guide as that current in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, viz. Burwardsley. This I take to be nearly the Saxon name, unmutilated by Norman scribes, and unabbreviated by that Anglo-Saxon genius of language which came to eschew a multiplicity of letters as much as a redundancy of words.

The name Burhredsley (Sax. Buphpebrleaz) would be perfectly intelligible as the leaz, or district, possessed by some Saxon Burhred,

[1] I do not place Linley or Coughley in this category, because they were not Domesday Manors.


and with this attempt at an etymology, I leave the question. Domesday notices the place briefly and as follows:-

"The same Helgot holds Bosle. Gethne held it (in time of King Edward) and was a free man. Here is I hide geldable. There is arable land (sufficient) for II ox-teams. In demesne is one (such team), and (there are) IIII serfs, and IIII boors and I radman with I team. In time of King Edward, the value (of the Manor) was 16s. 1d., now it is 12s. He (Helgot) found it waste". [1]

I cannot confirm my identification of Bosle with Broseley, by showing any interest as possessed in the latter by Helgot's successors. I find no evidence of this kind; but the question of identity is not thus to be determined, for Broseley was not the only Domesday manor of Helgot which passed out of his ordinary succession: moreover it became absorbed in the Liberty of Wenlock, a circumstance which is known to have effaced all, or nearly all, posterior hints of the original tenure of other Manors. I shall presently show that Broseley was long afterwards rated as a Manor of I hide (the Domesday measurement). [2]

I can say nothing of the place during the half century following Domesday, but some circumstances, to which I shall allude more particularly in the sequel, have induced me to think that the Lords of Burwardsley in the next succeeding period, were descended from that Warin de Metz who appears to have acquired a considerable influence in Shropshire during the reign of Henry I.

It is well known that whatever in the way of lands and honours that monarch had to bestow was usually given to men of little previous notoriety, and probably with less regard to any claims of descent than with a view to strengthen the influence of the crown. Henry's favourites were however persons of ability and conduct, and the allegiance which the King won by a free generosity in giving to new men, seems to have been of a truer stamp than that which resulted from his general character for impartiality and wisdom.

Of the number thus advanced I take Warin de Metz of Lorrain to have been one. The mere error by which this Warin de Metz has been identified with Warin the Bald, the first Norman Sheriff

[1] Domesday, fo. 258, b. 1.
[2] An attorney of Petronilla, wife of Warner de Williley, in 1204, is written as "Bernard de Bosleie". (Placita de Banco tempore Regis Johanna, No. 75, m. 12 recto.) This is nearly the Domesday orthography of Broseley, and serves to settle the question of identity.


of Shropshire, has long ago been pointed out, and needs no refu- tation here. [3]

Most of what we know, or rather read, about Warin de Metz, originates with those curious Chronicles which compiled from the songs of Trouveres, profess to give account of him and his successors, the Fitz Warins of Whittington and Alberbury.

These Chronicles, besides that portion of them which common sense rejects at once as fabulous, are replete with anachronisms, contradictions, and improbabilities. Nevertheless, like all other legends, they have their value, and it is our business to extract whatever element of truth they may contain. We must accept all that is reasonable in itself and which we cannot disprove by better evidence. We must not only accept but greatly prize whatever is confirmed by independent testimony.

Now the facts, which may be selected from these Fitz-Warin Chronicles for our present purpose are these, - that Warin de Metz lived in the time of Henry I, [4] - that his marriage allied him with the family of Peverel, then very powerful in Shropshire and in the Marches, - that he was related to the Dukes (or Earls) of Little Brittany, consequently to the family of Le Strange, whose progenitor Guy is represented indeed as coming to, and ultimately settling in, England by suggestion of Warin.

Accepting thus much as fact, I now hazard a conjecture, bolder than any which I have yet ventured upon these pages and in justification of which I can refer to no previous Writer. My supposition, which must be tested by the sequel, is, that either Warin de Metz himself, or William his younger son, acquired this Lordship of Broseley in time of Henry I, - perhaps by exchange,

[3] Dugdale himself is responsible for this error, which, in a general inquiry like his, was a most likely one to arise. (Vide Baronage, vol. i, p. 448.) Finding, from the Salop Chartulary, that Warin and Fulcoins were early Sheriffs of the County, and finding, from the Fitz-Warin Chronicles, that Warin de Metz and Fulk his son, were men of great trust and repute, in an era nearly as early, Dugdale naturally identified one pair with the other. This identity is uniformly ignored by Mr. Blakeway, when noticing any of the individuals concerned, and in one instance (Sheriffs, p. 31) Dugdale's error is obviously the one alluded to. Mr. Wright, in his History qf Ludlow (p. 83), has specified another of Dugdale's omissions, in his account of the Fitz-Warins; but the whole question of their descent requires that re-examination which I hope to offer on the earliest occasion.
[4] The Chronicle says that he came into notice before the death of William the Conqueror, and implies that he survived the accession of Stephen. These two data of oourse involve the third fact, of his living in the time of Henry I; but I by no means advance them both as fully correct in themselves.


perhaps under a partial forfeiture of the previous Lord, perhaps by feoffment of the then Baron of Holgate, though the seigneural interest of the latter can be traced no further.

The Archidiaconal Chapter which, about A.D. 1115, sat at Castle Holgate under presidency of Richard Bishop of London, has been already alluded to. [5] Among the fourteen lay witnesses who attended, were two whom it is to our purpose to mention here, viz. Hamo Peverel and Warinus. The subject which engaged the Chapter's attention should also be remembered.-

It was the Parochial jurisdiction of Wenlock Priory, and the frequent attestations of subsequent Lords of Burwardsley, which appear in deeds concerning that House, will render it possible that the Warin, who attested about A.D. 1115, so attested with reference to some similar connection. At the same time we must mark the concurrent appearance of this Warin with Hamo Peverel and with the Viceroy of Henry I.

For the sake of showing my hypothesis to be free from chronological objections I must now notice the first occturenoe of the sons of Warin de Metz. [6]

Of these, Roger appears to have been the eldest, Fulk the second, and eventually chief of the family; and William, if rightly assumed to have been son of Warin, will have been younger than either.

The documents which suggest this view are as follows - A charter whereby Walcheline Maminoht (one of Hamo Peverel's coheirs) between the years 1136 and 1141 exchanged lands with the Abbot of Shrewsbury is attested by Roger Fitz Warin. [7]

A charter by which the same Walcheline, about the year 1145 granted Bradford Mill to Haughmond Abbey is attested by Roger Fitz Warin and Fulk his Brother. [8]

Of the presumed third Brother, William, we do not hear so early, but when he at length occurs it is chiefly in connection with the coheirs of the Peverels.

An act of restitution to Salop Abbey by Hugh de Dover and

[5] Vol. I, pp. 217, 223.
[6] With the same view of preserving a clear chronology, I should also notice two mistatements of the Fitz-Warin Chronicles. The first is, that Warin de Metz married as late as the accession of Owen Gwyned to the sceptre of North Wales, i.e. after 1137: the second is, that it was his son, Fulk Fitz-Warin I, who married Hawise de Dynan. It was Warin's grandson (Fulk II) who espoused that coheiress.
[7] Salop Chartulary, No. 28.
[8] Haughmond Chartulary, fo. 39; and Harl. MS8., 2188, fo. 123.


Matilda his wife (one of the said coheirs), and which passed between the years 1161 and 1172, is attested by William Fitz Warin of Burewasley. [9]

A similar and probably contemporaneous act by Ascelina de Walterville, another of the said coheirs, is also attested by William Fitz Warin of Burewardesley. [10]

It was doubtless the individual under notice, in whose favour the following precept of Henry II issued early in that King's reign:-

"Henry King of England and Duke of Normandy to the Sheriff and his Ministers of Salopesire. I concede that William Fitz Warin may hold and have his assarts in Salopesire and may turn them to his profit at his own pleasure. Witness.- The Chancellor at Faleise". [11]

It was about this time (but specifically in 1170 or 1171) that Fulk Fitz-Warin I, the presumed elder brother of William, died. We are also fortunate in having proof that William was ere long succeeded at Broseley by another Warin. We thus complete a parallel between the two presumed brothers.

This Warin, the successor and almost surely the son of William, was a person of note in his day. The earliest mention I find of him is in a deed which passed while Peter was Prior of Wenlock, i.e. between the years 1169 and 1176. This deed is attested by Warin de Burwardesl' and Philip his brother. [12]

About September 1176, the three Justices appointed to that circuit under the Statutes of Northampton, visited Shropshire. Amongst others they inflicted a fine of two merks on "Warin de Burwarley, because he was present when excuse was made about the death of John". [13] A murder, I suppose, had been hushed up by the laxity of some manorial or provincial court or jury which should have investigated the case more fully, and of which Warin was a member.

At Michaelmas 1177, Warin de Burewardesley appears as one of those who had been amerced by the King himself for trespass on the Royal Forests. His fine of ten merks, when compared with his position and that of others more heavily punished, indicates

[9] Salop Chartulary, No. 30.
[10] Ibidem, No. 31.
[11] Dugdale's MSS. in Bibl. Ashmol., vol. xvii, fo. 54, quoting evidences of Sir C. Smyth, Knt. The attesting Chancellor is doubtless Thomas Becket, and so the date of the precept probably May 1163.
[12] Wenlock Register at Willey, fo. 7.
[13] Rot. Pip. 22 Hen. II, Salop.


no very aggravated offence. He discharged half the debt in the current year and half in the year following. [14]

I now come to a most important entry relating to this Manor, the appearance of which on the Staffordshire and not the Shropshire Pipe-Roll is remarkable; but such transfers are by no means unprecedented.

During a recent visit of the King's Justices a fine had been negotiated by Fulko son of Fulko Fitz Warin, which he had paid before Michaelmas 1183. He had proffered "one merk that he might prosecute in the King's Court (instead of before the Justices) the suit which he had concerning one hide of land in Burewardesley". [15]

We have here not only a satisfactory correspondence between the Domesday measurement of Bosle and the subsequent contents of Burwardsley; but, according to my view, hitherto presumptive, we have the son and heir of the elder brother suing his first cousin, the son and heir of the younger brother, for his inheritance. We shall see presently that the probable ground of this suit was heirship, i.e. that the parties derived their claims from a common ancestor.

I have no evidence of the result of this suit, but what may be gathered from subsequent events.

About this time Warin de Burward' attests a charter which has been already cited as relating to Corve (near Monk Hopton). [16] As Warin de Burwardesley or Burwardele he stands last witness of two charters which passed somewhat later in the century, and by which Isabel de Say, Lady of Clun, and her third husband William Botterell ensured her extensive grants to Wenlock Priory. [17]

At Michaelmas 1188, Warin de Burewardesley had been fined a merk by Justices of the forest, "for building a mill without regard", i.e. without view and license of the proper authorities. [18]

[14] Rot. Pip. 23 and 24 Hen. II, Salop.
[15] Rot. Pip. 29 Hen. II, Staff. Nova Placita et Nova Conventiones per Thomam filium Bernardi et Alanum de Furnellis et Robertum de Witefeld. Fulko filius Fulkonis filii Warini reddit compotum de 1 marca pro habenda loquela sua in Curia Regis de 1 hida terrae, in Burewardeslega. In Thesauro liberavit. Et quietus est.
[16] Supra, Vol. I, p. 140.
[17] Monasticon, vol. v, 76; Nos. iv & v.
[18] Rot. Pip. 34 Hen. II, Salop. This probably arose from the contiguity of Broseley to Shirlot Forest. The rights and jurisdictions appurtenant to a Royal Forest were by no means confined to the actual limits of the haye or chace. All sorts of imposts were assessable on neighbouring and often on distant Manors, and every Manor thus liable was said to be "within regard" of such and such a Forest.


During the captivity of King Richard, Warin de Burwardsley was one of those who aided in the treasonable designs of John Earl of Moreton, nay, he was actually in the employment of that Prince at Nottingham.

On the surrender of that Castle in March 1194, he would appear to have been of the garrison, and his manors and effects were seized into the King's hands in consequence. But the records (admirably consistent with and illustrative of the history of this eventful period) shall tell their own story.

At Michaelmas 1194, the Custos of the King's Escheats, under the head of "Salopescire" renders account of the following receipts, viz. - of 3. 8s. 6d., of the ferm of Warin's Burwardeley, for half a year; - of 10. for the corn of the same vill which had been sold; - of 17s. of the ferm of the same Warin's Bradelea (Bradley near Broseley); - and of 6s. 8d. for hay of the same vill which had been sold. [19]

At the same period (Michaelmas 1194) "Adam de Beissin accounted five merks for pardon, whereas he had married Mabel le Strange of Burwardesley without the King's license and for having his lands in Shropshire in peace". He had paid the whole fine. [20]

This requires some explanation. Adam de Beysin of Billingsley, Wrickton, Walkerslow, and Ashfield, the last three of which he held in capite of the Crown, had married Mabel eldest daughter and eventually coheir of Warin de Burwardsley. This being without license he was liable to fine and forfeiture, not because he had married an heiress or ward of the Crown, which was not yet Mabel's condition, but because he himself was a tenant in capite. But a still more important hint is contained in this Exchequer entry, - Mabel daughter of Warin de Burwardsley is called "Mabel le Strange".

This, in conjunction with our previous assumptions, reminds us of the inferences drawn from the Fitz Warin Chronicle, viz. that Warin de Metz was not only akin to the family of Le Strange, but might himself be well described by a name, which, if I mistake not, was originally borne by or applied to more than one family.

Very shortly after Michaelmas 1194, Warin de Burwardsley redeemed his forfeited lands, for the Escheator who accounted at

[19] "Escheat-Roll of Divers Counties", inserted in Rot. Pip. 6 Ric. I.
[12] Rot. Pip. 6 Ric. I, Salop.


Michaelmas 1195, had received nothing therefrom during the past year. Moreover among the fines which had been offered and accepted by the King since "his return from Almagne" was one to the following effect:- "Warin de Burwordesle renders account of 20 merks for having the King's goodwill and his land, who was with Earl John in Nottingham Castle. He has paid it and is quit".

At the same period (Michaelmas 1195), Warin de Burewordersle is entered as owing 2 merks, a farther fine which he had proffered "for having trial about half a knight's fee in Rowlton and Ellardine, against Griffin, son of Hereverth (so written for Gervase). Warin's pledge was John le Strange. [21] The whole of this fine was not discharged till Michaelmas, 1201.

Here again we are reminded of the connection between Warin and the family of Le Strange; and once more, when, some years later, John le Strange made a grant, in Cheswardine, to Haughmond Abbey, Warin de Burward' was a witness. [22]

This is not the place to hazard any surmise about the grounds of Warin de Burwardsley's claim on Rowton and Ellardine. Suffice it to say, that those two Manors, together with Sutton and Brockton, constituted the Serjeantry of Griffin, son of Gervase Goch, who had in the previous year (1194) succeeded to his estates. Griffin's title was questioned in another instance than this, and in that other instance he is known to have compounded the adverse claim of Ralph de Sanford by a grant of land in Brockton. Something of the same kind probably resulted in the case of Warin de Burwardsley; for an Inquisition taken about A.D. 1261 records that "Griffin de Sutton formerly alienated 2 virgates of his serjeantry at Sutton to Warin de Burwardeg". [23]

At the County Assizes (October 1203), Warin de Burwardsley sat as a juror in causes which were tried by the King's grand Assize. [24]

I must not omit to mention that besides his estates at Broseley, Bradley, and Sutton, Warin de Burwardsley was also a tenant in capite of the Crown. A Roll of Crown Tenures in the County of Stafford, which appears to have been taken in 1211, records that "Warin de Burewardesley holds the Manor of Esseleg by service of the fifth part of a knight's fee, for which he is liable to do ward

[21] Rot. Pip. 7 Ric. I, Salop.
[22] Haughmond Chartulary, fo. 42.
[23] Testa de Nevill, fo. 274.
[24] Salop Assises, 5 John, memb. 4 recto. These jurors were usually Knights, or men of knightly degree.


at Srawrthin". [25] The Manor which he thus held was Ashley- upon-Tern, in Pyrehill Hundred, Staffordshire. It had been Earl Roger's at Domesday. The Castle, to which the service specified was due, was that of Shrawardine, and at the period in question it was a Royal Castle.

Within the three years ending Michaelmas 1212, Warin de Burewardesleg had fined with the King in a sum of 20 merks, but for what purpose we cannot say.- The fine had been paid. Within the same period, and probably towards its close, he had been amerced in a similar sum of 20 merks, for a breach of the forest laws. Of this heavy penalty he had paid three parts, and the King (John) had excused the rest. [26]

I can say little more of Warin de Burwardsley, except that about 1196 he attested a composition about Priors Ditton Church already noticed; about 1200, a grant by William Mauveysin of Ridware (Staffordshire); about 1201, a grant by William Fitz Alan (II) to Richard de Leighton; and between 1205 and 1211, a grant by Ralph de Sanford which concerned land at Brockton, near Sutton. [27]

A very usual witness with Warin de Burwardsley was his neighbour Warner de Wililey, and the appearances of both indicate a high position in the County Court, if not some more specific and official connexion.

I find no later notice of Warin de Burwardsley than that above mentioned, in the year 1212. He had then been in possession of his estates nearly forty years, and he certainly did not survive many more. At his death (between 1212 and 1220), he left two sons, Philip and Roger, and three daughters, Mabel, Alice and Margery.

Philip de Burwardsley, the heir of Warin, occurs first as having fined with King Henry III for a weekly Market at "Eial" (Ashley). The Record of the Fine does not seem to be preserved, but on May 20, 1220 (the King being at Shrewsbury), Philip paid by hand of Walter de Saint Owen, a palfrey for this privilege. Accordingly a writ close dated 2d Oct. 1220, orders the Barons of the Exchequer to discharge the debt from their accounts. [28]

At the County Assizes, Nov. 1221, William Fitz Richard and

[25] Testa de Nevill, fo. 249.
[26] Rot. Pip. 14 John, Salop, which combinea (without distinguishing) the Sheriff's accounts for three years. The Fine Rolls for the whole period are lost; so is the Forest Roll, which should contain the entry we are in need of.
[27] Supra, vol. i, p. 323. Shaw's Staffordshire, vol. i, p.170; and Charters at Leighton and Haughton.
[28] Rot. Claus. vol. i, p. 431.


Emma his wife, who had arraigned an assize of novel disseizin against Philip de Burwardesley and William le Breton concerning a tenement in Wenlock and warranty of a Charter, withdrew their suit, receiving 20s. from the latter. [29]

In 1230, Philip de Burwardsley appears in the Courts at Westminster as being sued by Fulk Fitz Warin (the third of that name, as I discover) for his inheritance, or so much thereof as had not been involved in the litigation of their respective Fathers nearly fifty years before. The steps which were taken in this new suit should be given as they occur on the Rolls. On the Quinzaine of St. Hilary (Feb. 17) 1230, Fulco Fitz Warin names Henry de Waneting as his Attorney against Philip de Burwardel. [30]

On June 23, 1230, the cause came on.- "Fulco Fitz Warin, by his Attorney sues Philip de Burwardel for 2 carrucates of land in Edulvescote (Arlscot), and 2 carrucates in Bradelegh (Bradley), both in Shropshire; also for 2 carrucates in Offelegh (so written for Ashley), Staffordshire.- Philip asks view of the whole. The cause is adjourned to the Octaves of St. Martin", (Nov.18, 1230). [31]

I can trace nothing of this suit for many succeeding Terms, but on July 8, 1233, I find that the cause was still standing for trial by Grand Assize, and that Philip's Attorney, Warner de Bradele, essoigned himself by Roger Brun. An adjournment to Nov. 12 was the result. That day was given to such Recognizors as were in attendance, viz. to Robert de Essington, Robert de Halgeton, Adam de Brimton, John de Acton and William de Wilbricton of Staffordshire, and to Nicholas de Wylilegh and Robert de Stapelton of Shropshire: and the Sheriff was to produce the others (non-attendants) bodily in Court. [32]

On the day named (Nov. 12,1238), the "Great Assize between Fulco Fitz Warin, Plaintiff, and Philip de Burwardesleg concerning land in Asselegh, was respited to one month of Easter (i.e. to May 21, 1234) by reason of the default (non-attendance) of the Recognizors". [33]

On that day Warner de Bradele, Philip's Attorney, had essoign

[29] Salop Assises, 8 Hen. III, memb. 3 dorso. Philip de Burwardaley served at these Assizes, as a Juror, in several important trials, and was apparently a Knight.
[30] Placita apud Westm. Hilary Term 14 Hen. III, memb. 12 recto.
[31] Ibidem, Trinity Term 14 Hen. III, memb. 11 dorso.
[32] Ibidem, Trinity Term 17 Hen. III.
[33] Ibidem, Mich. Term 17 & 18 H. III, memb. 25 recto.


through Richard de Beysin till Oct. 27; which day was also given to Adam de Arundell, Robert de Clifton, and Nicholas de Wylilegh, Recognisors, who were in attendance; and the Sheriff had the usual order to produce the Defaulters. [34]

The Rolls of Michaelmas Term 1234 are lost, and of every Term till that of Easter 1236, when nothing further of this suit appears. We are however most fortunate in having a hint as to its probable termination. In the year 1259, the then Fulk Fitz Warin of Whittington was in receipt of an annual quit-rent of 7s. chargeable on one third of the Manor of Ashley. [35] He probably had a similar lies on the other shares of the Manor, and indeed evidence of that fact occurs. [36]

This brings round the more general and interesting question of descent with which we are concerned.-

It matters not whether the Fulk Fitz Warin of 1259 held this rent-charge as an inheritance derived from a succession of ancestors, or whether after long disuse the hereditary due had been re-established by law.-

It was clearly a seigneural right, and represented a bond fide claim. As such its existence is in perfect conformity with, nay a circumstantial proof of, the theory which has now, I think, been established, viz. that the family of De Burwardsley were Fitz Warins, they and the Fitz Waring of Whittington descended respectively from a younger and elder Son of Warin de Metz. That certain Armorial Bearings were at an early period common to both houses may perhaps be taken as a final and conclusive evidence on the question. [37]

[34] Esson. apud Westm. Easter Term 18 Hen. III, memb. 27 recto.
[35] Escheats, 43 Hen. III, No. 12, b.
[36] John de Eyton, who died in 1300, and represented another of these shares, is expressly said to have been chargeable with a chief-rent of half a merk, due on a third of Ashley, to the Fulk Fitz Warin of that period. (Inquisition, 28 Edw. I, No. 33).
[37] It is not meant by this that these or any Arms were derived from their common Ancestor, Warin de Metz, whose era was far too early to warrant such an assumption. The probability is, that when the elder house assumed a certain coat, the younger house assumed the same (with some difference, or mark of cadency), and thereby acknowledged or asserted its claim of relationship. The arms borne by Fitz Warin of Whittington were:-

"Quarterly, per fease indented, argent and gules".

The same Partition-Lines appear on the shield of Philip de Burwardsley. The colours of the latter cannot be positively determined, but there is every presumption that they were Gules and Or. The substitution of colour for metal in the first or principal quarter of the shield, would be, I imagine, a mark of cadency quite in keeping with early heraldic usage.



To return to Philip de Burwardsley.-

At Michaelmas 1231, he appears as having been amerced five merks by the Justices of the Forest "because his dogs coursed without license". He had paid two merks already, and the balance was discharged in the following year. [38]

An Inquisition of Staffordshire Tenures which seems to be of date about A.D. 1232, reports him as holding Esseleg (Ashley) by serjeantry of finding, at his proper cost, one serving horseman at the Castle of Srawrthin for fifteen days. [39]

Again in 1235-6, when the aid for marrying the King's Sister Isabella to the Emperor Frederick was levied in Staffordshire, Philip de Burewardesley paid one merk thereto, the assessment proportionate to half a Knight's fee held in capite, in Asseleg. [40]

Besides his estates already mentioned he seems to have held half a hide in Stoneacton, probably under the same Madoc de Sutton of whom he held land at Brockton. This half-hide Philip appears to have granted to the Knights Templars of Lidley before the year 1240. [41]

About this time he seems to have died, leaving no issue. His Brother Roger was his heir. His wife Emma also survived him. The period of his tenure of Broseley and Ashley is well illustrated by a series of deeds, which must be briefly recited.-

Philip de Burwardsley grants to the Abbot and Convent of Buildwas a right of quarry throughout his wood of Burwardsley towards the construction of their buildings. They may make a road from their quarries to the Severn and cut down trees for that purpose, but must leave the timber on the ground.- Witnesses: Fulco de Alberburi, William de Warren and Ranulf his Brother, Gerald Fitz Toret, Roger de Restune, Memun de Swiney, William de Aseley. [42]

Besides his attestation of two Brockton Deeds, the earliest of which passed between the years 1216 and 1224, Philip de Burwardesley deals with part of his tenure in that manor as follows.- He grants to "Ralph de Sonforde and his heirs a virgate in the

[38] Rot. Pip. 15 41c 16 Hen. III, Salop.
[39] Testa de Nevill, fo. 240.
[40] Ibidem, folios 237, 244.
[41] Rot. Hund. ii, 72.
[42] Blakeway MSS. in Bibl. Bodl. I give the witnesses' names as I am able to read them. The first is undoubtedly Fitz Warin (III) I the last connected with Ashley (Staffordshire). The deed may be dated as having passed about 1220. If so, it informs us of the date of some parts of Buildwas Abbey. The Seal is charged with the coat of arms described above, but is in the shape of a heart, and different from other, and presumptively later, seals of the same Grantor.


vill of Brocton, viz. that which Thomas held. Fifteen merks is paid for ingress, and Philip reserves to himself and heirs an annual rent of 12d. payable at Michaelmas" in the vill of Burewardesley. Philip further covenants to discharge an annual rent of 6d. due on the said virgate to the Lord of the Fee.- Witnesses: Walter de Hugeforde, Hugh de Bechebi, Richard de Ruton, William de Bagesouer, Henry le Strange, William Ruscel, Adam de la Haya. [43]

As regards his Manor of Ashley, Philip de Burwardeleg grants to Richard 1e Rekene of Podemor half a virgate in the vill of Esseleg, with such common rights as were enjoyed by his other men of Esseleg.- Richard to pay reasonable pannage if he should have any swine in the Lord's wood.- Witnesses: Sir Benedict de Bromleg, Geoffrey his son, William, Clerk of Chatculne, Gervase de Standon, Richard de Podemor, Nicholas de Derinton, John and William sons of Robert Provost of Esseleg, and others. [44]

By another deed "Philip, Lord of Burwardeley grants to William, son of Henigius of Tonge and his heirs, half a virgate in Edulvescote (Arlscott), which John, Brother of Dame Petronilla, held.- Witnesses: Richard de Middelhope, Richard de Leiton, Reginald de Leigh, Nicholas de Wilileye, Wido de Ferlauwe, William le Forcer, Richard de Kayleg, John Tece, Stephen de Swiney, Roger de Presthope, William de Burwardsley, [45] Walter Bon Valet, William de Benethale, Adam de Hesleia (Ashley). [46]

A further series of three deeds which seem to have passed successively between the years 1226 and 1240, contain many points of local and some of more general interest.-

[43] Charter in possession of the Rev. John Brooke. The Seal, of white wax, is nearly destroyed, but enough remains to show a shield of arms divided "Quarterly, per fease indented". The probable date is from 1220 to 1230.
[44] Charter at Willey. I quote this deed as affording disproof of Erdeswick's statement (Edition 1844, p.116) as to the descent of the Bromleye, of whom I have more to my presently. Podmore, Chatkill, Bromley (now Gerrards Bromley), Standon, and Dorrington, are all vills or hamlets near to Ashley; Dorrington is in Shropshire.
[45] There was a William de Burwardel, son of Baldwin, who being with King John at Dublin, in 1210, had on August 21, an advance of two merks out of the King's coffers. (Praestita, p. 218). This debt, together with another praestitum of 20s., was repaid through the Sheriff of Shropshire, in the year ending Michaelmas 1231 (Rot. Pip. 15 Hen. III), and by William de Borewardel himself, who may therefore be the witness of the above.
[46] Coyney Charters, copied by Dugdale (vol. xxxix, p. 34, in Bibl. Ashmol. Oxon.). The year 1230 must be the proximate date of this deed. It had a Seal of Arms - "Quarterly, per fesse indented". Mr. Blakeway's supposition that Dame Petronilla, mentioned in this deed, was the wife of Warner de Wililey, is not, I think, well grounded.


By the first, Philip Lord of Burwardesleg with consent of his wife and heirs, grants to Geoffrey son of Nicholas Smith of Burwardesleg the land which William Fitz Goderich held in Burwardesleg, and 5 acres in Switfeld, in lieu of the land of Hurste which Goderich, William's Father, held (said 5 acres being situate, 2 beyond the Denesti, 1 in the culture of Baredis, 1 above the Longefurlong, and 1 in the culture of Hargreve). The entrance-fee is 10 merks; the reserved rent 6s. The tenant and his heirs to have husbot and haybote in the Lord's wood, where his other free men have common-right, and all easements for himself and his animals. He may assign the premises to whom he will, except religious houses.- Witnesses: Nicholas de Wilileg, William Parson of Burwardesleg, John Tece, William le Forcer, Stephen de Swiney, William de Swiney, John le Got, Ralph de Kayleg, Adam Hesleg (de Ashley), Alan de la Dene, Warner his son, William Carpenter, and others. [47]

By the next deed "Philip de Burwardesle, in his full power, concedes and confirms to Ralph Cutuel Clerk the land which he had before given to Geoffrey Fitz Nicholas". The same premises are described and the same rent reserved "as" (says the Grantor) "the Charter which I made to Geoffrey testifies, because the same Geoffrey, in my Court, hath given the said land to the afore-named Ralph, and hath delivered to him the Charter which I made him thereof, and hath attorned the said Ralph and his assignees to render the aforesaid service to me. And I Philip, on Geoffrey's resignation, have received the homage of Ralph in my Court". For this, Ralph paid 1 merk entrance-money.- Witnesses: Robert de Haya, Walter de Huggeford, Robert de Stepelton, Roger Sprengehos, Odo de Hodenet, Maddoc de Sutton, Henry de Huggeford, Stephen de Suyney, Warin de Bradel', Roger de Pynelesdun, William de Tonge, and Adam de Easel. [48]

By the third deed of this series Philip de Burwardesle gives to

[47] Charter at Willey. The Seal, of green wax, is two inches in diameter, and nearly entire. It bears a shield of arms (party per fesse indented), and the legend - SIGILL' PHILIPPI DE BURWARDESLEG.

A former tenant of one of the acres named in the deed is called Thwst, the initial letter used by the scribe being t (the Saxon th). In the next deed the same name is written Yust.
[48] Charter at Willey. The Seal is as the last, but of rose- coloured wax, and attached by a plaited cord of red silk. Both these deeds have been marked with a cross (apparently at the time of execution) on the lower margin. It is undoubtedly the mark of the Grantor. The practice of affixing a mark belonged rather to an earlier period than the date of these deeds, but was rare at any time.

Seal of St James' Hospital, Bridgnorth.
(Vide Vol. I. p. 349)

[See the pdf for this engraving.]

Seal of Philip de Burwardesleg.

[See the pdf for this engraving.]


Robert de Haya all the land and messuage in Burwardesle which Geoffrey the Deacon, son of Nicholas, formerly held of him, and which said Geoffrey afterwards sold to Ralph the Clerk, formerly Rector of Burwardesle, and which Gilbert, brother and heir of said Ralph, afterwards sold to the Grantor (Philip). Philip also grants to the same Robert the messuage and curtilage which belonged formerly to Quepith, daughter of Godric, near the Court of the Parson of the said vill of Burwardesle. For this Robert de Haya pays 8 merks on entry (in gersumam). The reserved rent is a pair of white gloves.- Witnesses: Walter de Huggeford; Odo de Hodenet; Richard de Harleg, Clerk; Madoc de Sutton; Alan Fitz Alvic of Bruges; John de Burwarsleg. [49]

Of Roger de Burwardsley, Philip's successor, I find some notices during the life of his elder brother. On 12 March 1227, he. attests a Charter of Wenlock Priory. [50] He appears as claiming some interest in Higley against Ralph de Mortimer of Wigmore, in August 1228, and again in May 1229. [51] The result of his suits was a Fine dated Nov. 21, 1236, whereby Ralph de Mortimer granted feoffment of a caracate in Huggel' to Roger and his heirs. [52] Roger's claim had in the second instance been prosecuted under writ of "mort d'ancestre", whereby I presume that it arose through his mother, who must have been a second wife of Warin de Burwardsley, otherwise Philip, elder brother of Roger and living in 1229 if not in 1236, could have been the only claimant under such a writ.

Be that as it may, Roger de Burwardsley and another are entered on a Roll, of date about 1240, as holding one knight's fee in Hugeleg under Ralph de Mortimer. [53]

The next notice which I have of Roger de Burwardsley involves the fact of his decease previous to 12 Oct. 1243. On that day the King's Writ, directing the usual Inquisition on the death of a Tenant in capite, issued. [54]

The Return reports that the Deceased "held two carucates in Demesne in Esseleg, and seven virgates in villanage by service of finding one horseman at Montgomery [55] for fifteen days:- that

[49] Copy in Mr. Blakeway's MSS., apparently extracted from the Collections of the well-known James Bowen.
[50] Monasticon, vol. v, p. 74; Notes, No 5.
[51] Rot. Pat. 12 Hen. III, and 13 Hen. III.
[52] Fines at Salop, 21 Hen. III.
[53] Testa de Nevill, fo. 228.
[54] Inq. p. mort. 27 Hen. III, No. 28.
[55] The services of Castle-Guard due to Shrawardine were attorned to the Castle of Montgomery early in the reign of Hen. III of which more hereafter.


the land altogether was worth 5. 3s. 2d. (per annum), whereof the widow of Philip de Burwardsley had a third:- that the three sisters of Roger were his heirs, to wit, Mabel, the eldest, and Alice, and Margery".

The result was that on 19 Feb. 1244, the King rendered to the said three sisters the whole land which their brother Roger held in capite in Asseleg, and received their homage thereof. The Sheriff of Staffordshire was enjoined to take their security for payment of 100s. relief to the Crown, and to give them livery of the land in question, saving to Mabel, the eldest sister, her esnecy [56] of the aforesaid land. [57] They had accounted for the said 100s. before Michaelmas 1245. [58]

We must now say something of each of these coheiresses.-

Mabel de Burwardsley, the eldest, has already been mentioned under the name of Mabel le Strange, and as having, previously to Michaelmas 1194, been married to Adam de Beysin. Though she was now (1244) living, fifty years after her marriage, her husband had been some time dead.

At his decease in 1238, he left by Mabel, Adam his son and heir, a second son Warin, of whom presently, and a daughter Margery, who about 1225 had married Thomas de Bagsore.

Adam de Beysin, son and heir of Adam, did not live long to enjoy his paternal inheritance. He died Dec. 13, 1243, leaving an only son and heir, Robert, about sixteen months old at his father's death. During the first part of his very long minority Robert's grandmother, Mabel, was yet alive and so representing the interests of this branch of the family in one-third of Broseley.

We will first say what remains to be said of her.-

In the year 1244 or 1245, calling herself Mabel daughter of Warin de Burwardesleg, she grants in lawful widowhood to Warin her son all the land which by hereditary right had fallen or should fall to her in the villa of Edulvescote (Arlscott) and of West Bradeleye (Bradley near Broseley). The reserved rent is one pound of pepper.- Witnesses: Sir Hugh de Upton, Sir Richard de Leychton, Sir Thomas Corbet of Tasseleye, Sir Ralph d'Arraz, Knights; Hugh de Lega, Thomas de Upton, John de Bechebir', Henry, Clerk of Kinlet. [59]

[56] The right of choosing first among coparoners in an estate.
[57] Rot. Fin. 28 Hen. M, memb. 8; and Origissalia, 28 Hen. III, memb. 3.
[58] Rot. Pip. 29 Hem. III, Salop.
[59] Dugdale's Extracts from Coyney Deeds (ut supra). This deed had a Seal charged with the devioe of a Spread Eagle and the legend - S' MABILIE DE BUREWARDESLEGE.


At Michaelmas 1247, Mabel de Burwardeleg appears as having accounted half a merk to the Sheriff for some default. [60]

An Inquisition, of September 1263, presently to be cited, speaks of Mabel de Beysin having held dower in her former husband's lands; but the Record is so defaced that I can extract from it no inference as to the period of her death or whether, as was barely possible, she was living at the date of the Inquest. [61]

Of Warin her younger son, and Margery her daughter, I shall speak elsewhere; but here of.-

Robert de Beysin, gandson and heir of Mabel, who had, as I have said, a very long minority and (his father having been a tenant in capite) was in the first instance a ward of the Crown. The King granted the said wardship to Sibil Giffard, who sold it to Sir Baldwin Freville. The latter again sold it, either altogether, or in so far as the marriage of the heir was concerned, to Sir Philip le Bret. Hence the following statement by the jurors of Wenlock Liberty in 1255.-

"Robert de Beyssin is Lord of Burewardesleg, and of Edullescot (Arlscot) and Bradeleg, and he holds of the Prior of Wenlock. He does suit to the Court of the Prior as, before Richard I's time, his ancestors did suit to Munselowe Hundred. Robert was in custody of the King. The King gave said custody to Dame Sibil Gifford, she to Sir Baldwin Frevill, who sold Robert's marriage to Sir Philip de Bret". [62]

The contemporary Inquisitions as to Robert de Beysin's other Manors give additional information, e.g. under Wrickton we are told that he was already married (he was only thirteen years of age) to Philip le Bret's daughter, though Baldwin Freville is still called his guardian; under Silvington Philip le Bret is called his guardian, and William de Freville under Billingsley. [63]

Another Inquest (taken Sept. 22, 1263) informs us that Sibil

[60] Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. III, Salop.
[61] Inquisitions, 47 Hen. III, No. 26.
[62] Rot Hund. ii, 84, 86. The tenure by which Broseley was held of the Prior of Wenlock was peculiar. The Lord of the vill was to dine with the Prior on Saint Milburg's Day and carve the principal dish at table. This service seems to have been discharged by the Beysins as representing the eldest co-heiress of Broseley. It is mentioned in several Inquisitions but with some variety; for instance, in time of Edward II, the day on which the service was performed was Christmas Day, and the Beysin of that time was to pay a three days' visit to the Prior, and be entertained, together with his suit, at the Prior's charge. The Lords of Broseley also owed suit to the Prior's Hundred-Court at Burton, every three weeks.
[63] Ibidem, pp. 82, 83, 74.


Giffard conveyed the wardship of Robert to Sir William Devereux. [64] The latter certainly had it soon after 1255, but perhaps not immediately from Sibil Giffard.

The temporary interest thus acquired by Sir William d'Evereux in Broseley is involved in many matters which affected his ward equally with the other representatives of Roger de Burwardsley. We shall therefore give such details in another place. Here we will recount only those particulars which concern the guardianship, and which are in themselves somewhat complicated.

At Michaelmas 1260, Robert de Beysin had fined 1 merk "to have an assize". [65] He was in fact suing William Devereux and Matilda his wife for the Manor of Billingsley, and, as I have before mentioned, a Patent had issued for trial of the cause on July 20 previous. [66]

Owing probably to this difference between the ward and his guardian, an Inquisition was ordered to ascertain the age of the former. Its report was to the effect that he would be 19 years of age on August 15, 1261. [67]

A second Inquest on the same question sat Sept. 22, 1263, reported Robert as of full age on August 15 previous, and that he was in ward to Sir William Devereux. [68]

Sir William Devereux fell at the battle of Evesham (August 4, 1265), and though not on the Royalist side, a Patent dated Oct. 12 of the same year, grants his Manors of Hamme, Frome, and Wileby, to his widow Matilda for her life. [69]

Nor did Matilda's interest in Robert de Beysin's Manors of Broseley and Billingsley cease with his minority, or the death of her husband.-

As Matilda de Ebroicis, she grants in her lawful widowhood to Geoffrey de Bosco of Burwardesleye and Margery his wife a messuage and half-ferdendel of land in Burwardesleye, to have and to hold for her (Matilda's) life.- Rent to be 3s. 8d. The Grantress reserves suit of her own Court, as well as suit of the Hundred-Court of the Prior of Wenlock. She gives them liberty to dig marl

[64] Escheat, 47 Hen. III, No. 26.
[65] Rot. Pip. 44 Hen. III, Salop. Nova oblata.
[66] Supra, Vol. I, pp. 65, 66.
[67] Inquisitions, 45 Hen. III, No. 47. Not on February 2d, 1261, as I stated before (Vol. p. 66).
[68] Ibidem, 47 Hen. III, No. 26. This Inquest waa inadvertently stated, under Billingsley, to have sat March 3, 1263. There is some doubt about the dates, but the above is probably the true account.
[69] Patent, 40 Henry III.


in her marl-pit to dress their land.- Witnesses: Sir Nicholas de Wodeford, Philip de Swyneye, William Dispenser of Wyleleye, Nicholas de Dene, Wenne de Swyneye, &c. [70]

It is very possible that this continued interference of Matilda in Broseley, arose from the early death of her late husband's ward.

Robert de Beysin was certainly deceased before he had long completed his twenty-fifth year. On Sept. 19, 1267, the King granted marriage of his widow Isabella to Hugh de Beaumes (as I shall show more fully under Tong), and in September 1272, the said Isabella (daughter I presume of Philip le Bret) was reported by the Stottesden Jurors as having remarried Robert de Turberville without the King's assent. Their lands were ordered to be seized, and the Sheriff was to cause their appearance in Court. [71] The same Jurors also reported a murder in Isabella's household. Richard, a boy in her service, had been killed by a man of Thomas Botterel. [72]

At this time Walter de Beysin, son and heir, I presume, of Robert, was, as might be expected from what has been related of his Father, in minority.

On Nov. 27, 1274, the Stottesden Jurors reported Hugh de Beumeys as having custody of the Manors of Workiton and Walkeslowe by the King's gift. [73]

In 1284 however (as has already been shown under Billingsley) Walter de Beysin was of age and subject to a prosecution by Matilda Devereux. [74] He was at the same time in full possession of his Manors of Wrickton and Walkerslowe. [75]

At this point we may leave the subject of his succession, and revert to the history of the other two coheiresses of Roger de Burwardsley.-

Alice, the second of the three sisters, to whom livery of their inheritance had been given in February 1244, was, like her elder sister, a widow at the time.

In default of better evidence I must suppose that John de Eyton

[70] Charter at Willey.
[71] Salop Assizes, 66 Hen. III, memb. 49.
[72] Ibidem, memb. 48 dorso.
[73] Rot. Hund. ii, 108. This custody had commenced previous to June 1271, when I infer Robert de Beysin to have been dead (Plat. coram Rege. Trin. Term 55 Hen. III, memb. 9 recto).
[74] Supra, Vol. I, p. 66.
[75] Kirby's Quest. At the same time Matilda Devereux is set down as holding Longnebre (Longnor, Staffordshire, a Manor of Walter de Beysin's) under the Baron Stafford (Shaw's History of Staffordshire, Vol. I, Introduction, p. xxv).


of Water Eyton and Longnor (Staffordshire) had been the husband of Alice. [76] If so he was a tenant at both places under Adam de Beysin who married the eldest coheiress, and there is some probability that he and Adam were previously of kin.

Between the years 1244 and 1249, this Alice, calling herself daughter of Warin de Burwardsley and a widow, grants to Amicia her daughter all her land of inheritance in Adulvescote, with one-third of the tenement which Dame Emma, formerly wife of her Brother Philip, still held in dower in Burwardsley. Rent, ld. payable in Burwardsley.- Witnesses: Sir Thomas Corbet, Sir Walter de Hugford, Sir Hugh Fitz Robert, Sir William de Hedleg, Sir Richard de Lehcton, Sir Thomas de Constantine, Sir Madoc de Sutton, Sir Hugh de Scheynton, Henry de Hugford, Warin de Beysin, William de Tong, Stephen de Swyney, Anian de Burwardsley, John son of John, &c. [77]

Alice seems to have been succeeded in her share of Broseley, &c. by Roger de Eyton, probably her younger son, who sat as a Juror of Wenlock Liberty at the Assizes of January 1256. [78]

On 16 Oct. 1258, Giles de Erdinton and others are appointed Justices to try an Assize of darrein presentment brought by Roger de Eyton and others against the Bishop of Hereford and others, concerning the Advowson of the Church of Burwardsle. [79]

At Westminster, on the Octaves of Hilary 1259, Ralph de Coven and Roger de Eyton appeared against Peter Bishop of Hereford, William Devereux, and Matilda his wife, in a plea that the Defendants should attend in Court to hear an Assize of darrein presentment which the Plaintiffs had arraigned against them concerning the Advowson of the Church of Broseley then vacant.

[76] Erdeswick says as much (pp. 116, 117, 188, Edition 1844); but whereas he also says that the third coheiress married Eyton, and was mother of John del Eyton, and grandmother of Thomas del Eyton, and great grandmother of John del Eyton, and that Thomas Eyton sold Eyton and Longnor to Sir Thomas Beysine about 10 Edw. I (1281-2), his evident ignorance on the whole subject makes one hesitate to accept any part of his assertions.
[77] Coyney Evidences (ut supra). The Seal had the device of a lion rampant. If the first witness be Sir Thomas Corbet of Talley the date of the deed will be 1244-1247 in which latter year he died. If however it be Thomas Corbet of Caus, the date will be 1248-1249, in the first of which he became Sheriff, and in the last of which Sir Hugh Fitz Robert was dead. Compare the deed of Mabel de Burwardsley (supra, note 59).
[78] Salop Assizes, 40 Hen. III, memb. 12 recto (Placita Corona). Roger however must have held under the elder brother.
[79] Rot. Pat. 42 Hen. III, dorso.


The Defendants appeared not, and were summoned for the Octaves of the Purification (Feb. 9). [80]

On that day they came not; so the Assize was to be taken "by default", but was afterwards adjourned to the Quinzaine, of Easter. [81] The Rolls of Easter Term 1259 are lost, and the result of this cause does not appear.

In the same Term (Hilary 1259) in which this suit commenced, another was instituted which concerned most of the parties.

On Feb. 9, John Tezste (Tece) offered himself against William Deverenz, Hugh de Baskerville, Robert de la Male, Osbert de Coven, Alan de Paunton, William de Swynye, Thomas de Bosco, Ralph de Coven, Ivo de Paunton, Roger de Eyton, Anian de Burwardesle, and Stephen de Hull, in a plea of trespass. They had broken the stank of John's Vivary in Burwardesle and Wilyleye, and carried off the fish. They had made several defaults previously and did not now appear. So the Sheriff was to have them bodily in Court on the Octaves of the Holy Trinity. [82]

I can trace nothing further of this suit, but some years afterwards the question of the Advowson of the Church was again in agitation.-

March 13, 1263. Roger de Eyton sat on a Forest Inquisition at Brug. [83]

On the Quinzaine of Easter 1271, William son of William Devereux appears by his Easoigner against Matilda widow of William Devereux, in a plea that she should appear in Court to hear a recognition of darrein presentment, which the Plaintiff had arraigned against her and Roger de Eyton and Geoffrey de Pychford, concerning the Church of Burwardsle. The cause was adjourned to the morrow of Ascension Day. [84]

We shall presently see that in all this litigation each of the three Coparcners in Broseley were represented.

At the Assizes of October 1272, the Jurors of Wenlock Liberty reported how Roger de Eyton and Petronilla his daughter had previously accused, in the County Court, Robert de Benethall, Hugh his brother, and John de Bantreyn, of rape and robbery, and

[80] [81] Placita apud Westm. Hilary Term 43 Hem. III, memb. 4 recto, and 45 dorso.
[82] Ibidem memb. 25 recto. The suit bad commenced in the previous year. Among the Nova Oblata at Michaelmas 1258 is one by John Tece of half a merle, pro habendo brevi.
[83] Inquisitions, 48 Hen. III, No. 31.
[84] Placita. Easter Term 55 Hen. III, memb. 7 recto.


Philip de Benethall of aiding and abetting. The case, it appease, had been carried from the County-Court to the hearing of the King, but had not yet been settled. [85] In the mean time the parties had accorded among themselves. As however the King's peace was involved in the question, the Jurors were now obliged to prosecute it. They acquitted the defendants of robbery, but found them all guilty of a forcible attack on Roger de Eyton's house in Broseley and the abduction of his daughter. Hugh de Benthall, guilty of the further crime charged above, was ordered to be instantly arrested (or retained in custody). [86]

At the same Assizes, the Stottesden Jurors reported that Roger Fitz Denys of Burwardale, having accused Philip le Mouner of Benthal of robbery, and being in pursuit of him, the latter turned to defend himself on the bridge of Brug and was killed in the conflict which ensued. Roger was arrested for murder, but by the King's precept had been given into custody of certain sureties, viz. Ralph de Caueleg (Caughley), Anian de Burwardel, John de Burwardel, Nicholas de la Dene, Adam Fitz Denys, &c. Since then, Sibil, widow of Philip, had challenged Roger in the County-Court, so that he was yet in prison. The Jurors now found that he slew Philip le Mouner in self-defence. [87]

Before I quit the matter of Alice de Eyton's interest here, it may be proper to say that the head branch of her descendants (under whom it is probable that the above Roger de Eyton held) never resided at Broseley, but in Staffordshire.

Some former mis-statements as to her succession should be briefly rectified. Alice was succeeded at Ashley in 1252 by her eldest son John de Eyton, and he by another John who died in 1290. Again a John de Eyton followed, who, having been born in 1266, died in

[85] We have some record of what had taken place before the King in this prosecution. On June 9, 1269, Petronilla de Eyton appeared to prosecute the four defendants for rape and breaking the King's peace. The Sheriff was ordered to arrest them and keep them in custody till Oct. 6, and then to have their bodies before the King (Plac. coram Rege, Trin. Term 53 Hen. III, memb. 14 dorso).

On that day (Oct. 6) Petronilla again appeared to support charge of rape and robbery. The Sheriff, it seems, in case he could not find the defendants, had been ordered to require them to appear before himself and the Keepers of the Pleas of the Crown and proceed to outlaw them. He now reports that Robert de Benthall and John de Kantreyn were not found. So he was again ordered to outlaw them and have their bodies in court on Nov. 18. He was at the same time to produce Hugh de Benthall whom he had in custody (Plac. coram Rege, Mich. Term 53 and 54 Hen. III, memb. 2 recto).

[86] Placita Coronae, 56 Hen. III, Salop, memb. 25 recto.
[87] Ibidem, memb. 49 dorso.


1300, leaving a son and heir, Thomas, a Minor not then seven years of age. This Thomas is said to have sold his share of Ashley to Sir Thomas Beysin. [88] Something of the same kind must have happened in regard to the Eytons' share of Broseley, but when the alienation took place or who was the Vendor, I cannot determine.

It remains to speak of Margery, who in 1244 had livery of one third of Ashley as the youngest of the three Sisters and Coheirs of Roger de Burwardsley. She had been some time wife of John Bagot of Blymhill (Staffordshire), but had long been a Widow. As early as November 1229, I find her in litigation with Roger la Zuche of Tong, under the name of Margery Baggot. [89] Their suit concerned Blymhill, where Margery will have been then seized of dower, if not more extensively interested on behalf of her children, and where I believe La Zuche had some claim of a seigneural kind hereafter to be noticed.

In a Record which must be of date about 1240, the Heirs of John Bagot are said to hold two fees in Blimenhul and Brinton wider the Barons Stafford. [90]

These heirs of John Bagot were, I think, four daughters, but I can give particulars of no more than three, viz. Philippa wife of Geoffrey de Bromley, ? wife of William de Ipstones, and Margery wife first of Ralph de Covene, and, secondly of William de Drayton. The fourth daughter, I imagine, married a Pichford, branches of which family came to be interested both in Blymhill and Broseley, and if in one instance by purchase, yet in the other, I think, by inheritance.

But I must first speak of Margery de Burwardsley the Mother of these Coheiresses. She must be presumed to have succeeded to her share of Broseley coincidently with the period of her Brother's death, and her livery of one-third of Ashley; i.e. in 1243 or 1244. Soon after this, and calling herself Margery Fitz Warin, she granted to Ralph de Covene, and Margery her daughter, and the heirs of their bodies, her interest, or most of it, in Broseley. To secure this grant a fine was levied at Salop on Nov. 8,1248, in form following.-

[88] Erdeswick's Staffordshire (Edition 1844), p. 117, where three generations of this family are absorbed into one: indeed Erdeswick's accounts of the families of Burwardsley, Beysin, and Bromley, are altogether inaocurate, - some excuse for my prolixity in verifying statements which constitute a general contradiction of all that he wrote on the subject.
[89] Rot. Pat. 14 Hen. III, dorso.
[90] Testa de Nevill, fo. 210.


"This is the final concord &c. between Ralph de Cone and Margery his wife, Plaintiffs (Querentes), and Margery de Blomenhull, Defendant (Impedientem), of half a carrucate and two merks rent in Burewardeleg whereof was a plea of warranty of Charter. Margery de Blomenhull acknowledges the right of the Plaintiffs, as of the gift of herself;- to have and to hold, to Ralph and Margery (his wife), and the heirs of the latter. For this the Plaintiffs gave one sore sparrow-hawk". [91]

Margery de Blymhill's abandonment of her interest here to her daughter, wife of Ralph de Covene, long before her own death will also appear in another way. About January 1250, Geoffrey de Langley and his Fellow Justices were commissioned to visit several Counties for the purpose of fixing an annual rent on all those portions of the King's Forests which had been reduced into cultivation by private individuals. Whatever the period of their visit to Shropshire, three years such rent had been paid before Michaelmas 1252, by sundry persons assessed in the Arrentation- Roll of these Justices. Thus Ralph de Cove and Robert Beysin are put in charge for 6d. annually, in respect of half an acre in Borewardel, and had paid the said arrears. [92]

In 1255, William de Ypstans, Ralph de Covene, Geoffrey de Bromley, and Richard de Pychford appear as joint Lords of Blymhill, [93] which gives an approximate idea as to the coheirship of John Bagot and of his wife Margery.

The latter however was still living, and appears to have survived till 1259. The Inquisition on her death, as a tenant in capite bears date 10th May, 43 Hen. III (1259), and reports of her as follows.-

That "Margeria de Blumenhull held one third of Ascheleye by payment to the king of half a merk whenever a Scutage was levied. She also paid 7s. per annum to Sir Fulk Fitz Warin. The wife of Geoffrey de Bromle, whose name was Phelipe, was Margery's heir in respect of three parts of Ashley, and John son of William de Ipston was heir of the other quarter. Phelipe was thirty years of age and John twenty-six". [94]

[91] Pedes Finium, 33 Hen. III, Salop. Ralph de Cove accounted 2 merks for his fine for license to accord. (Rot. Pip. 34 Hen. III, Salop).
[92] Rot. Pip. 38 Hen. III. The lands thus charged were thenceforward to be free of "waste and regard" for ever, i.e. they were exempted from view of the Foresters, and from any charge of waste or damage done to the Forest.
[93] Rot. Hund. ii, 144.
[94] Inquisition, 43 Hen. III, No. 12 b. The age of Philippa de Bromley is certainly understated, and probably very much understated, in this Inquest. Her Father had been dead thirty years, and she was the eldest of three if not four of his daughters. Moreover if her younger Sister's son was twenty-six, she herself cannot have been much less than fifty.


On the 12th of June following "the King received the homage of Geoffrey de Bromle, who married Philippa, daughter and one (alteram) of the heirs of Margery de Blymenhull, and of John de Ipstones, grandson (nepotis) and other heir of the same Margery, for all lands and tenements which said Margery had held of the king in capite". Philip de Legh was to take security from said Geoffrey, Philippa, and John for their Relief and give them seizin. "And because the said Margery had long before her death enfeoffed Philippa and John in the said lands, and they asserted themselves to have been already ten years in possession, Philip de Legh, if he finds that to be the case, shall restore to them all receipts which he had had off the said lands since they had been seized into the King's hands" (on the death of Margery). [95]

From what has now been said it would appear that Margery de Blymhill divided her estates both at Ashley and Broseley at least ten years before her own death, and in that division she excluded one if not two of her coheirs from all share in Ashley. Were this point not particularized, the terms of the Inquisition and Precept just recited might lead to the erroneous inference that she had only been Mother of two daughters.

We now return to Ralph de Covene and his wife Margery, one of the daughters and coheirs thus mentioned.

Ralph had his name from Coven (near Shareshill, Staffordshire), a Manor which he held under the Barons Stafford. In the year following that in which he and his wife secured by fine their interest in Broseley, i.e. in the year 1249, he was appointed Justice for gaol delivery at Brug. [96]

In the year 1255, he appears not only as Lord of Covene and a Coparcner in Blymhill, but as Seneschall of the King's Forests in Staffordshire. [97] In August 1256, he occurs as holding the same office in the Royal Forest of Feckenham (Worcestershire). [98]

His concern in Broseley, in 1259, has already been set forth, and this is the latest notice which I have of him, except that between that year and 1262 he concurred with his wife Margery in demising their joint interests in Broseley to Geoffrey de Picheford

[95] Rot. Fin. 43 Hen. III, memb. 6.
[96] Supra, Vol. I, p. 278.
[97] Rot. Hund. ii, 114, 115.
[98] Rot. Fin. 40 Hen. III, memb. 7.


for a term of years, [99] and that before that term expired Ralph himself was dead. He left Margery his widow surviving, who soon after remarried to William de Drayton. He also left two or more daughters, of whom Alice the eldest was wife of Robert de Pendeford at the time of her Father's death. From this Robert and Alice, Geoffrey de Picheford obtained a grant in fee of the whole of what had been Ralph de Covene's interest in Broseley, but whereas Margery Ralph's widow was surviving, this feoffment and the 40s. annual rent which it reserved to the Feoffors were obviously more than they could grant or receive, with any show of justice. [100]

Shortly after this transaction Robert de Pendeford died, when his widow Alice renewed the bargain with Geoffrey de Pieheford in form following,-

"Know all men that I, Alice eldest daughter of Sir Ralph de Covene, in my liege widowhood, of my certain knowledge, and by the advice of my friends, and not under constraint, have given, &c. to Geoffrey de Picheford and his heirs all my land of Borewardeslee which my Lord Robert de Pendeford and I formerly made over to him, with the third part of the Advowson of the Church, and the third of the Dower of the Lady (Emma widow of Philip de Burwardsley) when she shall chance to die.- Rendering to me and my heirs 40s. annually under the same distraint as is more fully contained in the Charter which passed between my Lord Robert de Pendeford and me and the same Geoffrey on the subject.- Witnesses: Hugh de Bolingale, William de Perton, Philip de Beckebur, John de Grenehul, William de Umfreston, Ralph de Kachylee, Philip de Swyneye, John de Bispeston Clerk, &c." [101]

The next event iu this somewhat complex story was the re- marriage of Alice, widow of Robert de Pendeford, to Thomas Sany: and now the question seems first to have arisen whether Alice

[99] At the Forest Assizes of Feb. 1262, Ralph de Cove appears subject to an amercement of 12 merks for having hounds within limits of the Forest without warrant (Forest Pleas, No. 4, memb. 5 recto): and the debt was still unpaid at Michaelmas 1267 (Rot. Pip. 51 Hen. III, Salop). That Geoffrey de Pichford acquired an interest in Broseley before 1262 is proved by his being amerced at the same Forest Assizes for some default levied by the Justices on Edulvescot (Arlscott) (Forest Pleas, Salop, No. 4, memb. 5 dorso). As a coincidence with this I should observe that one Roger de Pychford sat as a Juror on the Wenlock Inquisition of Jan. 1256 (Assize Roll, memb. 12 recto).
[100] These particulars are from the pleadings in a subsequent law-suit.
[101] Charter at Willey. The date of this deed is sufficiently pointed out by the context, viz. as between 1259 and 1271.


had any right to deal exclusively with a third of this Manor during the lifetime of her Mother Margery. Accordingly William de Drayton and the said Margery sued Geoffrey de Pichford, the tenant, under a writ of dower in the County Court. Geoffrey called to warranty his Feoffor Alice and her then husband Thomas Sany.-

They, not venturing to vouch such warranty (timentes warrantiam), treated at once with William de Drayton and Margery, and came to an agreement whereby the latter were to withdraw their writ against Geoffrey de Pichford and receive 20s. out of the said 40s. rent during the life of Margery, Geoffrey de Pichford being authorized so to pay the same.-

But this concord did not endure; for in Hilary Term 1272, at Westminster, Thomas Sany ("Sayne") and Alice his wife are found suing Geoffrey de Pichford and Mary his wife for performance of customs, rents, and services due in Burwardele. [102] The cause was adjourned to the morrow of Ascension, but did not come on for actual trial till the County Assizes in September, and then in a different form: for "Thomas and Alice sued William de Drayton and Margery for 20s. rent in Burwardsle, which Alice used to receive from Geoffrey de Picheford, with other 20s., from one-third of a carrucate of land there". [103] William and Margery replied that "they had the said 20s. as of the dower of Margery and by gift of Ralph de Covene her former husband, one of whose heirs Alice was". The Plaintiffs here availed themselves of this misapplication of the term dower, saying that "Ralph de Covene never was tenant (sole), because the tenement was once Margery Fitz Warin's, who in her widowhood gave it to Ralph de Covene, his wife Margery (Margery Fitz Warin's daughter) and their heirs, of their bodies, by a Charter", which they (the Plaintiffs) now produced, "whereby", said the Plaintiffs, "Margery William's wife was joint tenant with her former husband Ralph (habuit quantum Radulphus), and Ralph could not give her dower of such tenement".-

The Defendants acknowledged all this, and in reply recited the previous proceedings, viz. the term granted by Ralph de Covene and Margery his wife to Geoffrey de Pichford, the death of said Ralph, the feoffment granted by Robert de Pendeford and Alice,

[102] Placita apud Westm. Hilary Term, 56 Hen. III, memb. 27 recto.
[103] Salop Assizes, 56 Hen. III, memb. 5 recto.


the suit of William de Drayton and Margery in the County Court, and the concord in which that suit had ended and which now the Plaintiffs sought to set aside.

Here the proceedings of September, 1272, suddenly terminate with a note purporting that the Plaintiffs withdrew their prosecution.

Soon after this Geoffrey de Pichford compounded his obligation to pay 40s. rent to Thomas Sany and his wife Alice; indeed we may say that he bought up their whole interest in the Manor of Broseley. A fine was levied at Westminster in Michaelmas Term 1274 between Geoffrey de Pychford Plaintiff (querentem), and Thomas Pani (so written) and Alice his wife, Impedients, of 40s. rent, one-third of a carrucate of land, and one-third the Advowson of the Church of Burwardesley, whereby Thomas and Alice surrendered the whole, as the right of Geoffrey, by their own gift:- to hold to Geoffrey and his heirs, of Thomas and Alice, and the heirs of Alice for ever:- rendering therefore to the Vendors one clove [104] yearly, and performing in their stead all services due to the Lords of the Fee. For this Geoffrey paid 30 merks. [105]

This fine was followed by another, levied at Westminster on July 1, 1275, whereby Henry de Parco and Margery his wife, Impedients, surrendered to Geoffrey de Pycheford and Mary his wife, Plaintiffs (querentes), a ninth share of the Manor and Advowson of Burwardesle, whereof was a plea of warranty:- to hold to Geoffrey and Mary, and the heirs of Geoffrey, of Henry and Margery, and the heirs of Margery, for ever:- rendering a rose yearly and performing all capital services. For this the Plaintiffs paid 60 merks. [106]

I cannot identify the interest thus bought up; but if it were the contingent one of Margery de Coven she will, after 1272, have married a third husband, and her former claims have received ample recognition. Leaving her, it remains to say that her daughter Alice de Coven, de Pendeford, or Sany, seems to have been succeeded at Coven by the issue of her first husband Robert de Pendeford, who eventually assumed her name "de Covene". I trace nothing further of her seigneural interest in Broseley, represented only by the receipt of a nominal rent.

[104] "Unum clavum gariophili", - a nominal rent as commonly reserved at this period as the well-known pepper-corn rent of later usage.
[105] Pedes Finium, 2 Edw. I, Salop, No. 4.
[106] Ibidem, No. 5.


In 1279, Geoffrey de Pychford appears to be Patron of Broseley Church, as was his Son Richard in 1310.

But we should say something of Geoffrey, as of a much more important personage than his purchases in Broseley would indicate.-

When in November 1271, the Justices of the King's Forests visited the County, he appears as "Seneschal of all the Forests of Salop", an office superior to that of John Fitz Hugh of Bowlas, who follows him on the Record as Capital Forester. [107]

But he was more than this. In 1280, he is charged with the sale of all old oak-trees within and without the King's Park of Windsor. In 1281, he was appointed Sheriff of Surrey and Sussex; in 1283, he appears as Constable of Windsor Castle; and in 1299, being dead, the Executors of his will are ordered to give up to another the Castle and Forest of Windsor with all stores, &c. for the King's behoof. [108]

He was succeeded at Broseley by his son Richard, of whom all that I shall say is, that on Nov. 3, 1312, he conveyed to Richard de Harlee and Burgia his wife all his land in Borewardeslee, with the capital messuage, Advowson of the Church, homages, services, suits of free men and natives, and two mills near the Dene, to hold to them and their heirs, rendering to the chief Lords all due services.- Witnesses: Walter de Huggeford, William le Forcer, Hugh le Fitz Ayer, Knights, Thomas de Beysin, Geoffrey de Kinsedeleye, John de Aldenham, Richard de Knyghteleye, and others. Dated at Westminster, on the morrow of All Souls, in the sixth year of Edward, son of King Edward. [109]

Having now completed our account of the principal interests in this Manor we should say something of the various Under-tenants. The names and occupancies of many of these will have been intimated by the documents already cited. A few more quotations will supply some further evidence of the same kind.

Hugh son of Walter de Mancestre grants to Robert de Hays, for his homage and service, all his land in Burwardeleg which Roger le Palmer held of his (Hugh's) Father, viz. that which is called Palmers-Croft and that caned The Dune, with a messuage and a culture called The Rudinge, between the land of Adam Fitz

[107] Forest Pleas, Salop, Nos. 5 and 6, memb. 1.
[108] Originalia, passim sub annis.
[109] Charter at Willey.


William of Esleg (Ashley) and land once held by Adam Fitz Eylward and abutting on the wood of the Lord of the vill.- To hold to Robert and his heirs, rendering 12d. at Michaelmas. For this Robert pays on entry six merks.- Witnesses: Ralph de Suhtleg, Henry and Otuel his brothers, Walter de Huggeford, Nicholas de Wylileg, James then Chaplain of Burward', John Teyce, Stepen de Swyneye, Henry de Huggeford, John de Burward', Adam de Esleg, William Carpenter, Lucas de Grane and others. [110]

Robert de Haya, the Grantee here, has already appeared as first witness to one Charter of Philip de Burwardesley and as his Feoffee in another. The dates of all Shropshire deeds in which he is concerned will probably be ascertained by stating his general and higher connections with the County. He was Deputy to Peter de Rivallis who entered upon office as Sheriff on July 11, 1232. The latter being removed early in 1234, Robert de Haya was on March 25, appointed sole Custos or Sheriff, and so continued till Nov. 4, 1236. [111]

In Nov. 1240, he visited Shrewsbury as a Justice Itinerant, in company with Robert de Lexinton, Ralph de Sulleg (the first witness of the above deed), and others. Ten years afterwards he was Fermor under the Crown of Arley (on the borders of Shropshire); and nothing further can I say of him. The above deed I imagine to have passed in 1240, a date which becomes still more probable from the fact that Ralph Baron Sudley, of Gloucestershire, the first Witness, was lately deceased on March 19, 1242.

I think it probable that Robert de Haya's interest in Broseley passed to William de Haya, who, being also Rector of the Church, enfeoffed a relation, John Fitz Silvester of Souldern (Oxon.), in his lay possessions here.

This John Fitz Silvester of Sulthom (Souldern) grants by deed to Thomas his Son all the said land, with reliefs escheats, &c. to hold of the Lords of the fee by usual services.- Witnesses: Sir Ranulf de Ardene Knight, Adam de Bray, William de Overthon,

[110] Charter at Willey.
[111] Fuller gives Robert de Haya as Sheriff or Under-Sheriff of Oxfordshire in 1227, of Berkshire in 1229, and of Oxfordshire again in 1230, 1231, and 1232 (Fuller's Worthies, p. 102). A William de Hay held the same office in Oxfordshire from 1240 to 1245. There was also a Robert de Hay Rector of Souldern (Oxon.) towards the end of Henry III's time, and who is said by Kennett to have been of the Baronial family whose coheiress, Nichola de Hay, had married Gerard de Camville (Parochial Antiquities, pp. 187, 604).


Richard Brun, Henry Brun, Philip de Fretewell, Roger de Eython, Philip de Suneye (Swiney), Henry le Forcer. [112]

By another deed which passed between 1262 and 1272, Thomas Silvester of Sulthorn grants to Jurdan de Hay his cousin (consanguineo) without reservation all the land which he had in Burwardesle by feoffment of John his Father.- Witnesses: Ranulf de Ardern, Henry Brun, Richard Brun, Alan de Mildenhale, Adam de Toresmer, John White (Albus) of Cotesford, Robert Rikeward, Philip de Sweneye, Henry le Forcer, John de Prestop. [113]


I have said something already of the vast parochial Jurisdiction which was in ancient times divided among the few Saxon Churches of this County.

The Church of Saint Milburg at Wenlock claimed and exercised the spiritual cure of a district which was bounded along its whole Southern frontier by the almost equal parish of Saint Gregory of Morville.

The Manor of Broseley stood within the bounds of Saint Milburg's Parish; and the Church or Chapel which was founded at Broseley in the twelfth or fourteenth century was so founded as subject to the Mother Church of Wenlock.

Doubtless the work was that of a Layman, and probably of the contemporary Lord of the Fee.

In token of its affiliation on the Church of Saint Milburg, and probably as a condition of its origin, the Incumbent of the Church or Chapel of Burwardsley was taxed with an annual pension of 2s., payable at the feast of St. Nicholas to the Mother Church. [114]

[112] Charter at Willey. This Deed certainly passed between the years 1243 and 1272. The first six witnesses all belong to Souldern (Oxon.), a Manor which Sir Ralph de Erderne (or Ardern) held in 1255 of the Barony of Richard's Castle. Fritwell is an adjoining Manor. (Rot. Hund. ii, 44).
[113] Charter at Willey. Again the first seven witnesses belong to Oxfordshire. The Inquest on Ploughley Hundred taken in 1279 mentions Bandulph de Arderne, Thomas Silveeter, Adam de Overton, and Richard Brun, as tenants in Sulthorn Manor. Also Alan de Tursmere, John Albus of Coteford, and Robert Rikeward, appear in the same Record. (Rot. Hund. ii, 823, c.)
[114] Register at Wiley, fo. 37. This pension seems to have been allotted to the Sacristan of the Mother Church, which may account for its not appearing in more general Rolls of the receipts of the Priory. It was recited and confirmed to Wenlock, with other pensions, on May 27, 1331, in a formal declaration by Thomas Bishop of Hereford, then visiting his diocese and being at Morville (Pat. 22 Edw. III, p. 3, m. 34).


No cure of souls went with the new foundation, and consequently the Incumbent was usually beneficed elsewhere. In the absence of any Chartulary of Wenlock Priory we must infer the date of foundation from other evidence.

In 1291, the Church or Chapel of Burewardsleye in the Deanery of Wenlock was valued at 6. 13s. 4d. per annum, and the Rector was elsewhere beneficed. [115]

In 1341, this Taxation of 10 merks was made a basis of the current assessment of this Parish to the ninth; but the Assessors allowed a considerable abatement, and exacted only 42s. The reasons were because the growing corn had been destroyed by great tempests, because a large proportion of the Parish lay uncultivated, owing to the poverty of the Tenants, and because the glebe and small tithes of the Chapel contributed to swell the greater sum (10 merks) and were not rateable on the present occasion. [116]

In 1535, Edmund Michell was Rector of Broseley and Lynley; the value of his preferment in glebe and tithes averaged 8. 5s. 8d. per annum, and the only charges thereon were for Archdeacon's Synodals and Procurations, 7s. 2d. [117]


William Parson of Burwardesleg has already appeared attesting a deed about A.D. 1230.

Ralph Cutuel, Clerk, seems, by deeds already cited, to have succeeded to this preferment very shortly afterwards and to have died before 1242,- the latest date assignable to that Charter which speaks of him as a former Rector, and makes mention of his heir.

Another William is, I find, mentioned as having been Rector of Broseley in 1241. [118] If this be correct he will perhaps be the same with that William de Haya, Parson of Burwardsley, who granted lay possessions here, before 1272, to John Silvester of Souldern.

[115] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 167. A valuation of the possessions of Wenlock Priory, dated 6 Sept. 1379, estimates a third of the advowson at four merks per annum, the Prior being then entitled to each third presentation (Mon. v, 78, viii). This would make the Living worth 8. per annum. The Prior was at the same time Lord of a third of the Manor.
[116] Inq. 2 Nonorum, p. 187. Capella de Borwasley.
[117] Valor Ecclesiasticus, iii, 208.
[118] Blakeway MSS. apparently quoting a MS. of Mr. Godolphin Edwards. James, Chaplain of Burward', who attests about 1240, will probably have been a Deputy, or a Chantry Priest.


We have already seen this Church vacant in October 1258, and January 1259. Another vacancy in 1271 is probably indicated by the proceedings then instituted relative to the right of presentation.

Oct. 29, 1279, the Bishop of Hereford collated John de Brug Subdeacon to this Church, exercising a right which had devolved to him under authority of a general Council, but declaring the right of patronage to be vested thereafter in Sir Geoffrey de Pychford. [119]

Robert Turburville was Rector of this Chapel from about 1290 to 1300. He held therewith the Parish Church of Whethulle (Wheathill), which involved a cure of souls. This tenure in plurality would not have been legal without a Papal dispensation, had Broseley been a Cure also. As this Incumbent had no such dispensation, that fact was afterwards alleged in proof of Broseley being without Cure of Souls. [120]

Richard de Pycheford was the next Incumbent of Broseley. He held the Chapel "a long time" (apparently ten years), and with it the Curative Church of Covelham in Winchester Diocese.

Aug 15, 1310, the Bishop instituted to this Chapel Geoffrey de Pychford on the presentation of Richard de Pychford. Geoffrey was Brother of the last Incumbent. In 1314 he had Episcopal license to study for three years. He held together with Broseley, a Curative Church "in Salisbury Diocese, near to Windsor Forest, and the Town of Bray". At his death and previous to 1332,-

Sir John Aaron had succeeded to the preferment. He then held together with this Chapel the Church of Madeley, which involved a cure of souls. Aaron was subjected to some proceedings by his Diocesan as a Pluralist.-

On Saturday, January 18, 1332, the Bishop's Commissary, Stephen de Salop, Rector of Oldbury, heard the case in the Parish Church of Wenlock. The first Witness - Walter de Caleweton, Literate, a man of more than sixty-eight years of age - proved from his own recollections for forty-two years the principal facts above recited. [121] The issue of the suit does not directly appear, but as Aaron resigned the "Free Chapel of Bourgwardesleye", not till 25 Sept. 1359, his tenure as a Pluralist would seem to have

[119] Ibidem, quoting Hereford Register.
[120] Robert de Turburville has already occurred as a Prebendary of Brug in 1291 and 1292 (Supra, Vol. I. p. 75).
[121] Evidence for Sir John Aaron, &c. (MS. at Willey).


been recognized, and the non-curative nature of this Chapelry may be inferred.

On October 7, 1359, the admission of,-

Roger de Knightleye to this Free Chapel bears date at Bishops Castle. The King was Patron by reason of the Priory of Wenlock being in his hands in consequence of the war with France.

John de Burton, Custos of this Chapel, resigned it on June 6, 1381, for the Prebend of Taunton in the Cathedral of Wells, heretofore held by-

James de Byllingford, who was instituted to Broseley April 23, 1383, on a presentation of the Crown similar to the last. Billyngford, called "Rector, Custos, or Master of this Free Chapel", resigned in 1385; and on May 11-

Robert Calle, Clerk, of the Diocese of York, was instituted on the King's nomination. [122]

These successive presentations by the Crown do not, I think, indicate that the Advowson was at any time the sole right of Wenlock Priory. In two out of the three cases the King was perhaps exercising a mediate right, like that which shall be noticed under Badger.


A glance at the Map will show the situation of these vills, the latter of which was occasionally called West Bradley to distinguish it from another Bradley in the same Liberty of Wenlock.

That either of these places was involved in the Domesday Manor of Bosle is more than I will undertake to say. Possibly they were Members of the greater Manor of Wenlock, but as their subsequent tenure under the Priory, by the Lords of Broseley, associates them with the latter Manor, I will give some account of them here, though it may be inaccurate thus to class them under the Domesday Hundred of Alnodestreu.

We have already seen Mabel de Burwardsley, about the year 1244, enfeoffing her younger son Warin de Beysin in all her interest in Edulvescote and West-Bradeleye at the nominal rent of a pound of pepper. [123]

Warin, thus and otherwise advanced, would seem to have been founder of a second family of Beysins.

Between 1244 and 1219, he has been seen to attest the deed of his

[122] Hereford Registers (Blakeway MSS.).
[123] Supra, p. 18.


Aunt Alice, whereby she conferred on her daughter her interests in Arlscot and Broseley.

In 1255, Warin de Beyssin sat as a Juror for Stottesden Hundred, [124] and again at the assizes of January 1256. [125] This probably arose from some feoffment in his Nephew's Manors of Wrickton, Walkerslowe or Billingsley.

The Hundred Roll of 1255, which describes the tenures of Manors in the Staffordshire Hundred of Cuddleston, writes him as holding "2 carrucates in Stuston of the Barony of Wenlock". [126]

At the Forest Assizes of February 1262, I find Warin de Beyssin in company with Ralph de Caughley, Philip de Swiney and William le Masun, as a Regarder of the Forests of Morf and Shirlet, and amerced for a careless return. [127] And this is a suitable occasion to introduce a deed whereby he grants to Margaret his daughter for her homage, &c. half his land in Edulvescote, to hold of him and his heirs.- Witnesses: Sir Geoffrey de Uviton (Overton), Sir Ralph d' Arraz, Hugh de Lega, Ralph de Cakel' (Caughley), Philip de Swyney, William de Hemton, &c. [128]

I can say nothing more of Warin de Beysin; but at the Assizes of October 1272, Robert de Edlescote had been entered as a Juror of Wenlock Liberty, and his name, for some cause, erased. [129] At the Inquest of Nov. 27, 1274, he however was a member of a similar panel. [130]

I think it possible that this Robert de Arlscot was the same person who as Robert de Beysin, and somewhat later in the century, granted to Sir Walter de Beysin and his heirs an annual rent of half a pound of pepper, receivable from certain tenements which Richard Miller and Roger Bobur used to hold of the Grantor in West Bradeleye.- Witnesses: William le Masoun of Moghale, Hugh de Patinton, John de Brocton, John de Presthop, Roger de Weston, Roger de Corfhul, Henry le Hethene de Laverden (Larden), and others. [131]

[124] Rot. Hund. 81.
[125] Placita Coronae, 40 Hen. III.
[126] Rot. Hund. 115. Shuston is a vill adjacent to Longnor which was a Manor of the Beysins. How Wenlock Priory obtained a footing there I cannot determine. The Beysins continued to hold it in the reign of Edw. II.
[127] Forest Assizes, 46 Hen. III, memb. 5 recto and 6 recto.
[128] Coyney Charters in Dugdale's MSS.
[129] Placita Coronae, 56 Hen. III, memb. 21 recto.
[130] Rot. Hund. ii,110.
[131] Charter at Willey. Mr. Blakeway suggests the reign of Edward II (1307-1327) as the probable date of this deed. I have placed it earlier. It would seem to be a relinquishment of the mesne tenure of the Grantor in the premises. The seal bears the impression of a bird.



A Tenement thus named, and which is traceable in more than one modern locality, seems to have been within the Manor of Broseley, and held by free Tenants, of the Lords of the Fee. Thus we have Alan de la Dene and Warner his Son in attendance at the Manorial Court about 1230; Thomas de la Dene a defaulter in due attendance at the Assizes of October 1272; and Nicholas de Dene a Surety for the appearance of Roger Fitz Denys at the same Assizes and also a Juror for Wenlock Liberty at the Inquest of Nov. 27, 1274, when he accused Thomas de Middlehope and William Canvile of taking a bribe to remove him from some Assize. [132]


Another member of the Manor of Broseley was held by free Tenants taking a name from the locality.

Of these Peter de Swinheie occurs Oct. 13, 1199; one, whose name is transcribed Memun de Swiney, about 1220; Stephen de Swiney at various times between 1230 and 1250; and Philip de Swiney, who sat a Juror of the Liberty of Wenlock in 1255 and January 1256, would appear to have been dead in February 1262.

Another Philip succeeded, who at the last date was a Regarder of Morf and Shirlot Forests, and amerced for a faulty return.

In Hilary Term 1267, this Philip, in company with Hugh de Bolinghale, Hamo le Botiller, and Roger de Eyton, was being sued at Westminster by Katherine de Lacy for a debt of 4 merks and also for 2 years arream of an annual rent of 10 merks, alleged to be due from them to her. [133] At the Assizes of September 1272, he was amerced with eleven other Jurors for some concealment, but with Warner de Swyneye attended on the Jury for Wenlock Liberty. The same Philip and Warner served as Jurors on the Wenlock Inquisition of November 1274, [134] and were probably the two witnesses who, as Philip and Wenne de Swyney, attested Matilda Devereux' deed before quoted.

A William de Swyneye has already occurred in January 1259,

[132] Rot. Hund. ii, 110.
[133] Plac. apud Westm. 51 Hen. III, memb. 6 recto. This alleged debt, which, before the County Assizes of 1272, had increased to 44 merks, was then sued for by the Plaintiff. A Final Concord not preserved, was the result (Salop Assizes, 56 Hen. III, memb. 6 recto).
[134] Rot. Hund. ii, 110.


and one Richard Suygg of Swiney is returned in February 1262 as being then dead, whilst his son, another Richard Suygg, was still in prison for having taken one of the King's deer 8 years before, viz. on Sept. 22, 1253.

Within this Township the Abbey of Buildwas was some time possessed of a Weir in the River Severn.-

Oct. 28, 1227, a fine was levied at Salop between Richard Fitz Nicholas, Plaintiff (petentem), and Stephen Abbot of Buildwas, Tenant of a Weir (gurgite) in Swineie, whereof was suit of Mort d'ancestre. The Abbot acknowledged Richard's right and surrendered the Weir,- to have and to hold, to Richard and his heirs, under the Abbot and his Successors, at an annual rent of 15s. [135]


THIS place is not mentioned in Domesday. It never seems to have been involved with Broseley or Willey, and therefore it is perhaps inaccurate to treat of it under the Hundred of Alnodestreu. It may in 1086 have been an outlying member of Wenlock Manor, or it may have been a then unreclaimed portion of the Norman Earl's Demesne, which we know included Shirlot Forest and other places about which Domesday is equally silent.

At all subsequent periods I can speak of Linley only as a Manor held in Socage [1] under the Priory of Wenlock, but whether that seigneury existed at Domesday, or whether it was acquired early or late in the following Century, no Record is forthcoming to inform us.

Richard de Linley, whoever held over him, was doubtless possessed of this Manor before the death of Henry I. Being also a Tenant of Hamo Peverel at Sutton or Brockton, he attests about

[135] Pedes Finium, 12 Hen. III, Salop.
[1] It will be sufficient in this instance to describe the Tesoro by $ocage negatively. It was not a tenure by Knight's service, and, whatever were the rights of the Seigneural Lords, wardships, reliefs, and marriages of theTenants were excluded.


that peripd several of the said Baron's Charters to Shrewsbury Abbey. [2] In one of these he is described as Richard son of Baldwin de Lintlega, but of his Father so named I have seen no other notice. [3]

About 1150, Richard and Ralph de Linlega stand first lay- witnesses to a Charter whereby Rainald Prior of Wenlock granted a feoffment in the neighbouring vill of Posenal. [4]

I take it to be a second or possibly a third Richard de Linley who between 1161 and 1172 occurs as last witness to two deeds already quoted, under Broseley, as of that date, and as executed by coheirs of Hamo Peverel.

In 1177, we have a Walter de Linley doubtless related to this Richard, and who has been already noticed as a Grantee of Crown Lands in Brug, afterwards enjoyed by Sibil de Linley. [5]

At the Forest Assize of 1180, Richard de Linley stands next to his neighbour Warner de Wililey as assessed in the sum of 2s. by the Justices. About the same time and in company with the same Warner and Warin de Burwardsley, he attests that invaluable Charter of Corve which I am so often referring to.

The close of the Century introduces another Lord of Linley, apparently the last in male succession. This was Philip de Linley, who besides attesting nearly contemporary charters of Isabel de Say to Wenlock and of Griffin de Sutton to Wombridge, appears in the oft-cited Composition of 1196 (concerning Priors Ditton Church), and in May 1200, was Recognizor in a law-suit which William Fitz Alan II had against Gilbert de Lacy about land at Harnage. [6]

The eventual Successors, perhaps the daughters, of this Philip were two Coheiresses, one of whom seems to have become the wife of William le Forcer, the other (Isolda) of Wido de Fernlawe (Farlow).

I shall have other opportunities of following the descent of these Coparcners in Linley. Here I will state only that which relates more immediately to the said Manor.

In 1255, Henry le Forcer, son and heir of the above-named William, served on the Inquest as to Tenures in Wenlock Liberty. The Manor of Linley is thus noticed, and as if exclusively his.-

"Henry le Forcer is Lord of the vill and holds under the Prior of Wenloc and does due suit to the Prior's Court; and his Ancestors

[2] Salop Chartulary, Nos. 19, 24, 32.
[3] Monasticon, iii, 519, No. 2.
[4] Register at Willey, fo. 6.
[5] Supra, Vol. I, pp. 359, 360.
[6] Rotuli Curiae Regis, volume ii, page 252.


used to do suit to the Hundred of Munslow till the time of King Richard. [7]

As a tenant in capite at Brockton an Inquest was summoned on the death of this Henry le Forcer. The King's Writ ordering such Inquest bears date 25th Oct. 1272. As regards Linley, the Jurors returned little more than that the deceased held half the vill under the Prior. [8] A second Inquest which sat at Newport on July 6th, 1273, in obedience to a writ of certiorari, is more explicit. It states that Henry le Forcer had held a messuage and carrucate of land at Linley under the Prior by Socage, doing homage to the Prior and owing suit of Court every three weeks: that the whole Manor was worth 3. 13s. 6d. per annum, less a rent-charge of 9s. due annually to the heirs of Philip de Farlowe: and that the Liberty of St Milburg was such as that the Prior had no right of wardship or marriage over the heirs of those his men who held by homage. [9]

Henry le Forcer left a widow, Burga, and a son, William, who (having been born Sept. 29, 1256) was under age at his Father's death, and was claimed as a ward of the Crown. That claim however was unfounded, for a reason which will be given under Brockton.

This William would seem to have been chiefly resident in Shropshire, though he inherited from his Father the Manor of Elstow (Leicestershire), [10] - a more extensive property than Linley.

Being also a Tenant of Salop Abbey (as I have shown under Nordley), William le Forcer attests two deeds of that House dated respectively May 25, 1298, and March 29, 1303. [11]

About 1310, and being then a Knight, he attests two deeds which will be given under Tong and Donington.

On Nov. 5, 1313, Sir William le Forcer appears as purchaser of lands at Dudmaston, and again on 9 June, 1326. [12]

[7] Rot. Hund. ii, 84, 85.
[8] Inquisitions, 56 Hen. III, No. 28.
[9] Ibidem, 1 Edw. I, No. 47.
[10] Elstow (generally written Ayleston) was held under the Harcourts by a curious tenure. The Tenant was to accompany his Lord whenever the latter had to serve in the Welsh wars. He was to remain with his Lord forty days at his own cost, and serve him in the capacity of Steward of the Table (Pannetarius) and Butler, during the whole period. Ayleston and Tong passed from Harcourt to Pembruge, a circumstance which will explain the attestation of Sir William le Forcer to certain deeds which shall be cited under Tong and Donnington.
[11] Supra, Vol. I, p. 50.
[12] Charters at Dudmaston.


Meanwhile, that is in March 1316, it is he who should appear as Lord of Linley on the Nomina Villarum Roll of that date. [13]

Lastly, in May 1324, the Sheriff returned him as one of twenty- two Knights of the County who were to attend a great Council then under summons to Westminster. [14]

A fine was levied in 1330 "between Thomas le Forcer and Maud his wife Complainants, and John le Botiller Defendant, of the Manor of Linley, to the use of Thomas and Maud in taile". [15]

This transaction will indicate the previous death of Sir William la Forcer and the succession of Thomas his heir.


This foundation would appear to have belonged to a class not very numerous in early times. It was I suppose a private Chapel attached to the residence of the Lords of Linley. Situated within the Parish of the Holy Trinity of Wenlock, it was without parochial cure, nor can I find that it had any permanent endowment, [16] or that its Incumbents were presented to the Bishops of Hereford for Institution. Neither does it appear to have been liable to any such charge or pension as was usually reserved by the Mother Church of any district, as a condition of these minor foundations.

In the absence of all early notice of a Chapel existing here, we find some architectural remains which attest a high degree of antiquity. Its Founder was doubtless one of those Lords of Linley who have been already spoken of as holding the yet unsevered Manor down to the close of the twelfth century.

The Wenlock Jurors at the Assizes of October 1203, reported of a Robber who after commission of his crime took sanctuary in the Church of Linley. [17] From that period till the year 1535, when the Chapel appears as united to Broseley, [18] no mention of its existence has occurred to my notice.

[13] Parliamentary Writs, vol. iv, p. 397, where the printed copy gives, with its usual inaccuracy, William Lafford as Lord.
[14] Ibidem, vol. iii, p. 648.
[15] Dukes's Antiquities, p. 264.
[16] By a settlement of the endowment of Wenlock Vicarage in 1273, it appears that all the tithes of Linley were assigned by the Priory to the Incumbent of the Mother-Church, except two merks which belonged to the Kitchen of the Priory, and except the tithes of demesne. (Charter at Willey). It does not however appear whether the Priory reserved these demesne tithes itself, or whether they were the endowment of the Chaplain of Linley.
[17] Salop Assizes, 6 John, memb. 2.
[18] Supra, p. 34.



THIS place demands a separate notice on much the same grounds as Linley, viz. as a distinct Tenure under the Priory of Wenlock, yet without any Domesday type, and without any symptom of its having been involved in Wenlock or any other Domesday Manor. The somewhat disjointed notices which seem to relate to it are as follows.-

At the Assizes of November 1221, it was found that Ralph de Sandford (who had lands in Brockton) had unjustly disseized Walter Faber and Agnes his wife of their free tenement in Cacheleg. [1]

On the death of Richard de Sanford (son of this Ralph) about 1249, it appeared that the deceased had been in receipt of a rent of 8s. payable by Ralph de Kacheleg on land in Kackeleg. [2]

At the Inquisition of 1255, Ralph de Kacheleg was on the Jury for Wenlock Liberty. He was returned as holding a carucate of land in the vill of Kakeleg for which he paid a rent of 40s. per annum to the Prior of Wenlock and did suit to the Prior's Court by afforciament; and his Ancestors had done suit to the Hundred of Munslow till the time of Richard 1. [3]

On the 16th of September 1289, a writ of King Edward I enjoins the Sheriff of Salop to summon a Jury, which should ascertain the circumstances under which the Manor of Cackeleg was held, and whether it would be to the King's damage if he allowed Nicholas Brisebon of Montgomery to grant the said Manor to the Prior of Wenlock, to have and to hold for ever? The Jury met at Wenlock on Oct. 23 following, and reported that the proposed conveyance would not injure the Crown;- that the Manor was held of the Priory already, by service of 9s. per annum. That its full value (to the Tenant) was 13s. 4d. per annum, and its contents were a carucate of land. [4]

[1] Assizes, 6 Hen. III, m. 8.
[2] Inquis. incerti temporis Henrici III, No. 111.
[3] Rot. Hund. ii, 84, 85.
[4] Inquisitions, 17 Edw. I, No. 77. The Royal Patent allowing the proposed surrender to Wenlock bears date June 20, 1290 (Pat. 18 Edw. I, m. 21). It provides that the villains on the Manor shall remain in their existing state.


Without attempting to account for this apparent change of value since 1255, I will here only say that this Nicholas Brisebon had two sons, Roger and Hugh, each holding lands in Brockton (near Sutton), and that Roger Brisebon both before and after the date of this Inquest (1289) was engaged in many transactions with Wombridge Priory, to which house he seems finally to have conveyed most of his said property in Brockton. [5]

In 1291, among the Temporalities of the Priory of Wenlock was a carucate of land at Caughley, apparently held in demesne, and the annual value of which is laid at 12s, This was doubtless the carucate recently redeemed from Nicholas Brisebon; but besides this, the Prior was in receipt of 20s. rent in Caughley, evidently chargeable on other land. [6]

On the 12th of May 1296, another Inquest of the kind called "ad quod damnum " was ordered in relation to this Manor. The Jury in this case was to report as to a grant which Philip de Caughleye and Margery de Prestehope proposed to make to Wenlock Priory of a messuage, four virgates of land, and ten acres of wood in Caughleye. The Jurors again gave a verdict in favour of the grant; and added that the land was already in the Prior's Liberty and held of him by service of 40s. rent and two suits per annum at the Prior's Court at Burton,- that the annual value of the premises was 10s. more than the services,- that Philip had never been liable to serve on Juries in regard to his tenure at Caughleye, but that he held a messuage and half-virgate at Shineton which would oblige him so to serve. [7]

A valuation of the possessions of Wenlock Priory, taken Sept. 6, 1379, explains part of the apparent inconsistencies of the above extracts. The Monks had then two carrucates at Caugheleye, the result I presume of the two transactions of 1289 and 1296, but the whole was valued only at 6s. 8d. per annum. [8]

As regards the family which took its name from this place, and of which the above-mentioned Philip was probably the last, a few notices should be added. We have seen Richard de Kayleg attesting a Broseley deed about 1230, and Ralph de Kayleg

[5] Wombridge Chartulary. Tit. Brocton, passim.
[6] Register at Willey, fo. 7. A better copy of Pope Nicholas Taxation than is supplied on page 164 of the printed Record, where this place is spelt Caleuve.
[7] Inquisitions, 24 Edward I, No. 83. The Patent by which the King allowed the proposed grant did not issue till March 27, 1299 (Pat. 27 Edw. I, memb. 88).
[8] Monasticon, v, p. 78, No. 8.


attesting later in the century. Besides his occurrence in 1249 and 1255, this Ralph de Kauchelea appears in September 1258, as negotiating a twelve years' lease of lands in Astley Abbots under Sibil daughter of Henry Fitz Tyrric. [9]

In February 1262, he appears as Ralph de Cauweleg and as a Regarder of the King's Forest. For some neglect in that office he was amerced. [10]

The last that I find of him is his complaint in Nov. 1274, against William de Caverswell, who while Sheriff (1268-9) had received a fine of 2s. 7d. from this Ralph, for not producing one for whom he was Surety. The said Sheriff had given the complainant no acquittance, so that he had been again charged with the debt. [11]

Philip de Caughley, apparently successor of Ralph, has already been spoken of.


THIS Manor was, in 1086, a member of the Fief held by Turold under the Norman Earl, and is thus noticed in Domesday.- "The same Turold holds Wilit, and Hunnit (holds it) of him. This same (Hunnit) held it (in time of King Edward) and was free. Here is half a hide geldable. There is arable land sufficient for II oxteams. Here those ox-teams are, together with II villains and II boors. Its value was, and is, v shillings". [1]

This mode of writing the place ("Wilit") is probably the result of a scribal inaccuracy, and no safe guide as regards its etymology.

The true Saxon name is more likely to be represented by the usual and very old forms of Wililey or Wilileg. The probable constituents of that name are piliz, a willow (whence pile, a basket), and leaz, a district.

[9] Salop Chartulary, No. 152 b. A curious condition is attached to this lease. If the Lessor should take to herself a husband within the term, she was to satisfy the Lessee for the residue of the term and his previous outlay.
[10] Placita Forestae, 46 Hen. III, Salop.
[11] Rot. Hund. ii, 111. The name is printed "Rad de Taweleg".
[1] Domesday, fo. 258, a 1.


Turold, the Domesday Lord of Willey, held thirteen Manors under the Norman Earl. Among them were Longford, Chetwynd, Draitune (Little-Drayton in Hales), Pichford, and Wigwig. He also held Etone (Little Eton, near Pichford, a vill now destroyed) of the Collegiate Church of St. Chad, Shrewsbury. [2]

This Turold has been represented as a Saxon, and I suppose on very insufficient grounds. [3] The name does not belong to the Sawn language, and if not originally Norman or Angevin, it

[2] Domesday, fo. 258, a 1.
[3] There is perhaps no subject on which Mr. Blakeway, the greatest of Shropshire Antiquaries, has left less valuable comments than this of Turold, his origin, his descent, and his connection with Toret. I cannot pretend to a single item of documentary information which did not reach Mr. Blakeway, and can only attribute our differences to his having lent only a cursory attention to the matter. Parts of the subject may more properly belong to a future section of this Work; but it can hardly be divided, and the earliest is perhaps also the best oppcrtunity to deal with a question which has been misapprehended by any great authority.

Mr. Blakeway tells us substantively (History of Shrewsbury, p. 25) that Turold and Toret, who appear in the Shropshire Domesday, and Tetbald, whose Son Robert occurs as a Feoffee in that Record were one person. Domesday gives no hint whatever of such identity, and writes the three names with every apparent observance of their orthographical distinction. If Turold and Tetbald were identical, then we have a Father and son contemporary and considerable Tenants of the Norman Earl,- a circumstance of great inherent improbability.

Mr. Blakeway also says that the Draitune held by Turold in Domesday was "Little Drayton, now called Deckar-hill, in the Parish of Shifnal". The fact however is, that Turold's Manor of Drayton was in Odenet Hundred, which did not approach Iteshale (the Domesday Shiffnal) in any direction, whilst the Little Drayton, which was a member of Iteshale, then and afterwards, belonged as such not to Turold, but to Robert Fitz Tethald.

But even adopting for a moment Mr. Blakeway's ideals that the Draitune, which Turold granted to Salop Abbey in time of Henry I, was Drayton near Shiffnal, and that Robert Fitz Tetbald was identical with Robert Fitz Turold, we at once find ourselves beset with anomalies, viz. the Son possessed of the Capital Manor (Iteshale), while the Father had only the member (Draitune); the Father granting in a generation after his son's advancement; to say nothing of the Abbey being supposed to receive lands in a quarter where they retained no such property, rather than in a quarter where they were afterwards largely interested.

Mr. Blakeway further says, that Turold was a Saxon, that he held thirteen Manors in Domesday, "in which he is sometimes called Turold, and at others Toret". However in the thirteen Manors alluded to, and even in a fourteenth, Turold is uniformly so written; but if Toret were the same person, then there is mention of Toret in four other Domesday Manors, so that their aggregate tenure was eighteen rather than thirteen Manors.

A note by the same Authority also says, that Toret "though favoured by the Normans, was removed from all the estates which he held in time of the Confessor". This again is untrue as regards at least half of Toret's Saxon Manors.

It is a wonder that Toreth's attestatian of Robert Fitz Turold's Charter to Salop Abbey, did not dissipate this mistake as to his identity with Turold; but the error is substantively repeated in the "Sheriffs of Shropshire" (p. 43), where again the mention of Toret's Saxon Manor of Rodington, which he retained in 1086, might have suggested a revision of the whole question.


occurs in Normandy before the Conquest, and was borne by several who profited by the Norman invasion of England.

With regard to the thirteen Manors held by Turold of the Norman Earl, an usual but not quite uniform rule of succession is observable. The general rule is that whatever Turold thus held in 1086, was afterwards held by Turold's heirs or successors, not immediately of the Crown, as might have been expected, but as an appendage of the Barony of Fitz Alan.

The exceptions to this rule are Longford, Little Drayton, and Wigwig.

The first of these (Longford) continued indeed a tenure in capite, that is, was never subjected to the seigneury of Fitz Alan; but its Tenants were no longer Turold or his heirs, for Henry I bestowed it in another line of succession. This loss of his principal Manor, as well as the degradation of his Fief in the scale of feudal tenures, are circumstances, which I doubt not were associated with some sympathy or partizanship exhibited by Turold in the cause of Earl Robert de Beleame.

Turold evidently survived the fall of his Suzerain, and apparently escaped any more summary forfeiture than that already indicated.

It was during the period when King Henry I was holding this County in demesne, [4] that under the name of Torald de Verleio (another evidence of his Norman extraction) [5] this Turold granted to Shrewsbury Abbey a hide in Lesser Draiton, or in fact all that Domesday says he possessed there. [6] The mode in which King Henry I confirmed this grant, in 1121, would make it probable that it passed during the Viceroyalty of Richard Bishop of London. [7] The limits of date thus ascertained, viz. 1108-1121, apply apparently to the further event of Turold's death and the succession of his son and heir Robert. Certainly before the latter year this Robert had followed his Father's example by granting to Shrewsbury Abbey the vill of Wigwig (villam nomine Wichewicam).

[4] Monasticon, p. 519, Num. 2, "Historia Fundationis".
[5] Verleium is obviously the name of some French Town Latinised according to a mode very usual with Norman writers, e.g. Ivry, Pacy, Cressy, &c., are usually written Ibreium, Paceium, and Cresseium. The name Verlay which would thus become Verleium, is on the Roll of Battle Abbey, a further proof of the Norman origin of its bearer.
[6] Domesday, fo. 258, a. 1. It is Drayton Parva, a township now involved in Market Drayton.
[7] Salop Chartulary, No. 86.


There were witnesses of this, besides the said Bishop, Hamo Peverel, John son of Grip, and Toreth. [8]

Of Turold and his son Robert, I learn nothing further or with certainty. [9]- In eleven of the fourteen Manors which Turold held in 1086, I shall hereafter show that a family, which took name from Chetwynd the chief of those residuary Manors, inherited or obtained Turold's interest. This uniformity of succession in so many Manors indicates I doubt not an inheritance by blood; but I can establish no particular of generic descent from Robert son of Turold de Verley, who lived in the beginning of the twelfth Century, to Adam de Chetwynd who occurs towards its close.

The general rule of territorial succession, now alleged, remains however to be established by particulars. Of the eleven Manors in which we are to show De Chetwynd as the successor of Turold, there is no case in which all evidence on the point might more easily have been lost than that of Willey. It was one of the Manors which were absorbed into the Liberty of Wenlock in time of Richard I; and thus all trace of its original Tenure might well have vanished; in fact the usual statement about Willey and other Manors so transferred was that they were thenceforward held of the Prior of Wenlock. Nevertheless it can be shown by a single and fortuitous notice, presently to be cited, that Wiley followed the ordinary descent of Turold's Manors, and that in the thirteenth Century it was, in some sort, held of the Fee of Chetwynd, and by Chetwynd under Fitz Alan.

We must now speak of Hunnit who was a Saxon, and who having held Wiley before the Conquest was permitted to retain it under a Norman Lord, and so had it in 1086. This continuous Saxon interest in the Manor was probably the cause of its non- diminution of value since the time of Edward the Confessor, as well of its being cultivated to its full capability when the Domesday Commissioners took their account of it.

Hunnit and his Brother Uluiet had in Saxon times held other

[8] Salop Chartulary, No. 35.
[9] That Charter of Shrewsbury Abbey which has just been quoted as the "Historia Fundationis", is a statement of the possessions of that house, drawn up apparently in the beginning of Stephen's reign; for it recites that King's Confirmation, which must have passed about 1136, but does not notice the Charter of the Empress Maud, which will have followed in 1141. This "History", speaking of Robert son of Turold adds, "qui et haeres ipsius est", as if he were then living.

The Feodary of 1165 contains, under Fitz Alan's Barony, no name and tenure which I can suggest as likely to represent the "Fee of Chetwynd".


Shropshire Manors besides Wiley. In two of these, viz. Moreton and Preston, Hunnit was still Turold's tenant in 1086. In a third, Lawley, he also held under Turold, but the Saxon owner of that Manor is not particularized in Domesday, though probably it was he. The usual Norman policy, when a Saxon was allowed to retain any land at all, was to assign it elsewhere than in those localities where its possession would be accompanied by the influence of old associations. [10] This policy had not as yet been adopted, in 1086, against Hunnit; but there is strong presumption that eventually he was thus dealt with. Toret, another Saxon, and Hunnit's contemporary, had held six Shropshire Manors in the time of King Edward. Three of these he retained in 1086, and perhaps had some interest in a fourth. His total loss of other two seems to have been compensated by his feoffment in a seventh Manor, where he had held nothing previously.

Toret was succeeded, by at least two generations in the male line. His estates then passed with a female to Corbet of Wattlesborough; but the extraordinary feature of this succession is, that whatever can be traced to have so passed to Toret's heirs was not Toret's at Domesday, but rather Hunnit's and Uluiet's. Consistently with this fact we observe that Toret, having held nothing under Turold at Domesday, was yet a witness of Robert Fitz Turold's Charter to Shrewsbury Abbey before 1121. We naturally infer that before the same period, Toret had succeeded Hunnit or Uluiet, or both, in certain tenures under Turold or his Son; Willey however was not of the number, and that Manor is no further involved in this question than that if, according to a recognized policy, Hunnit lost his interest in several of his Domesday Manors, he probably lost it in all.

Willey then, not passing from Hunnit or his heirs to Toret or his heirs, nor yet remaining in any succession of Hunnit, would seem to have been transferred to a new Feoffee, the Ancestor of a family which took name from the place. And this same family inherited other estates, held of the "Fee of Chetwynd", and with which neither Hunnit nor Toret had ever been concerned. Hence I conclude that the family of Willey acquired its feoffments in the "Fee of Chetwynd", not by any right of inheritance, but solely by favour of the Chief Lord.

[10] See Sheriffs of Shropshire, p. 48, where this policy is alluded to though its application to the case in question is misstated. See also History of Shrewsbury, ii, p. 25, n. 1.


That which I have further to say of Willey will best be introduced by a Pedigree, and some account of the successive members of the family which took its name from this acquisition of the Manor.-

Among the Laymen who were Assessors to the Viceroy of the County when, about A.D. 1115, he presided over the great Archidiaconal Chapter, already mentioned [11] as having been held at Castle Holgate, was one, evidently of rank, but who, according to a common usage at the time, is described only by his Christian name,-

WARNERIUS. Him I am inclined to take for the Ancestor of the family of Wililey, though on the slight evidence of name and position. The name Warner was uncommon at the period and by no means identical with Warin. The distinction between the two, though afterwards forgotten, was in the twelfth century carefully observed; indeed it is so observed in the very document which I am quoting. Neither name was Saxon, and I have found that of Warner used by no contemporary family of distinction, and likely to have been represented at Castle Holgate on this occasion, except that of De Wililey. [12]

If this Warner were indeed Lord of Willey, he will have survived the only occasion on which he occurs but for a short time.

A very curious deed, dated A.D. 1120, by which Peter, Prior of Wenlock, grants certain rights in Beckbury to Walter Fitz Warin, is attested inter altos by Hugh de Welileia, Turold, and Warner de Becheberi. [13]

Besides this recurrent distinction between the names of Warner and Warin, it is singular that HUGH DE WELILEIA, whom I take to have been surely Lord of Willey, and then Feoffee of Robert Fitz Turold, should be followed in his attestation by one named Turold. [14] By no means identifying the latter with Turold de Verley, who, if living, would have preceded his Tenant in any testing-

[11] Vol. I, pp. 217, 228.
[12] There was indeed a contemporary Warner de Beckbury, as we shall presently see, but he was not Lord of Beckbury, nor does he appear under any such circumstance as would tally with the presumptively high position of an Assessor to the Viceroy.
[13] Register of Wenlock Priory (at Wiley), fo. 6.
[14] A very ancient Charter of Bulidwas Abbey (in possession of George Pritchard, Esq. of Broseley), which passed within twenty years of this period (1120), is tested, inter alios, by "Thurold de Mainnio". He may be the Turold who attested in 1120, but I can say nothing more of the person indicated under either denomination.



[For pedigree, see pdf.]


clause, we may associate the name with some conjectural relation-ship of these consecutive witnesses and the Lord under whom at least one of them held.

Passing over the next sixty years, no extraordinary hiatus in the manorial or genealogical details of the twelfth century, we anive at the year 1180, when:-

WARNER DE WILLILEY, son perhaps or grandson of Hugh, was undoubtedly Lord of Willey. With him all obscurity of descent at once vanishes. In that year he was assessed by the Justices of the Forest, at 2 shillings, for some charge within their jurisdiction, and probably arising from the proximity of Willey to the Royal Haye of Shirlot. [15]

About the same time, for I cannot assign any more probable date to the transaction now to be mentioned, Warner de Wilile stands at the head of the nine witnesses who seem to have been present on behalf of Wenlock Priory when Gervase Paganel "offered on the Altar of St. Mylburg", the Charter by which he endowed the subject Priory of Dudley and ratified its dependence on the Shropshire House. [16] Within nine years of his first appearance, i.e. before the year 1199, Warner de Wililey contracted a marriage which, realizing an immediate and considerable addition to his property, brought, in consequence of the eventual heirship of his wife, still greater benefits to his posterity.

The period of his marriage and the family and fortune of his wife will best be indicated by the follovring Charter:-

[15] Forest Rolls at Westminster, No. 1, memb. 2.
[16] Monasticon, v, 84, No. 2. This deed apparently contains a double testing-clause. The first consists of the Baron of Dudley's Retainers, the last of persons appearing in other Charters in the Court of the Prior of Wenlock.

The date which I assign to the Charter should be accounted for. Pope Lucius III confirmed Gervase Paganel's Foundation in its chief particulars on June 16, 1182, as we learn from another Charter (Ibidem, p. 83, No. 1). Also out of the eight witnesses who, besides Warner de Wilile attest on the part of Wenlock Priory, six are found to attest a feoffment by Prior Robert, who succeeded about 1176.

In thus confidently stating the date of Pope Lucius' Bull I should add that it is itself dated on the 16th of the Calends of July, in the year of the Incarnation 1190, the 15th year of the Indiction, and the first year of the Grantor's Pontificate". This clause, however inconsistent, establishes the date which I have given above, viz. June 16, 1182, though the Editors of the Monasticon have been satisfied with 1190, which was the eighth year of the Indiction and the fifth after the death of Pope Lucius. I have before remarked on the preference which in these dating clauses should be given to anything rather than the dominical year (Vol. I, p. 250). In the present instance the Indictional and Papal year being consistent, point conclusively to A.D. 1182.


"William, son of William Fitz-Alan, certifies that he has conceded to Warner de Wilileia, together with Petronilla daughter of Roger Fitz Odo, [17] and to their heirs, the donation, which Thomas Fitz Odo made to them, of Keneleia (Keeley), and one hide in Grotintun (Gretton) with the Mill, in frank marriage, as (the said donation) was made at Salop, in full County, and in his (Fitz Alan's) presence.- Witnesses: Hugh Pantulf, Sheriff, Robert Corbet, William de Wudeton, Robert de Giros, Richard de Costentin, Adam Salvage, Peter Fitz Toret, Master Walter de Dunstanvill, Master Adam de Bromfeld, and many others, both Knights and Gentlemen (Liberis hominibus)." [18]

The Shrievalty of Hugh Pantulf alone determines this deed to have passed in the County-Court between Michaelmas 1179 and Michaelmas 1189.

The estate thus settled upon Warner de Wililey and Petronilla his wife was further assured to them by a fine levied at Westminster in June 1194. The Record gives this very early fine as follows.-

Thomas Fitz Odo and Roger his Brother, Tenants, and Warner de Wilileia and Petronilla his wife, were accorded concerning the land of Keinleia with its appurtenances and concerning 1 hide of land in Grotington and the Mill, so as that the whole land and Mill shall remain to Warner and Petronilla for ever; for 2 merks which the same Warner gave them. [19]

[17] It is a most extraordinary circumstance that this Petronilla, wife of Warner de Wililey, is stated in an equally authentic document (a fine of 6 Hen. III) to have been daughter and heir of Herbert de Rushbury. The latter was doubtless of the family of Fitz Odo, but that does not clear the difficulty. I willingly postpone a solution of so perplexing a matter.
[18] The original of this Charter is not known to be in existence. The copy from which I make extract is in Vol. xxxix of Dugdale's MSS. in the Ashmolean Library, Oxford. It is accompanied by transcripts of other Charters and Evidences, described by Dugdale as having in 1583 been in possession of Rowland Lacon, Esq. of Willey. Of course Dugdale copied them in the following century, but in whose custody the originals then were he does not say. Their presumed loss is all but compensated by the unrivalled excellence of Dugdale's transcripts; for the King of Heralds and Antiquaries condescended to write legibly and to copy fully and carefully. Such are the dccuments which I shall quote, after this explanation, simply as "Lacon Evidences".
[19] Placita apud Westm., entitled as "incerti temporis Regis Ricardi", memb. 2 dorso. Some extracts from this Roll are printed in the Abbreviatio Placitorum (pp. 96, 97) and ascribed to "an uncertain period of King John's reign". The internal and other evidence (part of which is implied above) proves the Roll to have been of Trinity Term, 5 Richard I (1194). It is one of those which owing to this uncertainty of date was unfortunately omitted to be printed in vol. i. of the Rotuli Curiae Regis. (Vide supra, Preface, Vol. I, p. 6.)


The sum thus paid by Warner, as well as the fact that Thomas and Roger Fitz Odo are described as Tenants in the preamble of this fine, would induce a supposition that the grant implied by Fitz Alan's Charter had not been, in the first instance, fully conveyed, nor without some litigation. Notwithstanding this fine of June 1194, the supposed dispute was renewed in November of the same year and again settled by Warner's allegation of the previous concord.

In subsequent years there were other law proceedings affecting the details rather than the principle of the original grant; but these particulars belong rather to Kenley where I propose to give them. It is sufficient here to say that Warner de Wililey again in 1204, alleged the fine of Trinity Term 5 Rich. I, and again obtained judgment in a suit then pending.

To return to the reign of Richard I. I have already alluded to a composition which about the year 1198 passed between the Dean of Brug and the Prior of Wenlock; Warner de Wililey was a witness, and doubtless on the part of the Prior. [20]

His marriage, above mentioned, involved a considerable tenure under the house of Fitz Alan. William Fitz Alan II, was at this pesiod Sheriff of Shropshire, and from Michaelmas 1198 to Michaelmas 1200, Warner de Wililey acted as his Deputy. For the next ten years he appears variously interested in the concerns of that Baron, attesting his Charters or acting as his Attorney. In 1208, being a Knight, he sat as Juror on several causes of Grand Assize. In 1219, I find him appointed as a Justice to make inquiry concerning assarts and purprestures in the Royal Forests of Shropshire. [21] Such being his station and trusts, he appears in 1221 as convicted of an act of oppression and treachery which even in that day was marked with some weight of legal animadversion. Coveting another man's land, and that man his own Vassal, whom he was bound to protect, he contrived that his Dependant should appear guilty of a fictitious but capital crime.

By information of Petronilla, Warner's wife, the assumed Felon was arrested, and his chattels sold by a King's Bailiff. Should he be finally outlawed his lands must, in course of feudal law, become forfeit to the Lord of the Fee. However such equity as could

[20] Supra, Vol. p. 322. The witness's name is printed Warin, and very possibly by error of the transcriber.
[21] Pat. 3 Hen. III.


not be attained in a local court was forthcoming at the hands of the King's Justices. At the Assizes of November 1221, the whole case was gone into, the innocence of the accused established, and Warner de Williley and the King's Bailiff committed to prison. However a fine of five merks released the greater culprit.- No crime at that day was without a fiscal equivalent. A criminal who could pay could not be punished. [22]

Thus ended a case, the motives and moral features of which had been typified in an older story, [23] though here the successful crime and the monumental retribution are wanting to complete the parallel.

In 1222, Warner de Wililey appears as Surety for John Fitz Alan in a cause then depending at Westminster.

In 1226, I find him acting with the principal men of the County on an Inquest, which was to deride between the King and the Baron of Caus as to some questions of feudal right. In the same year he was himself questioning the title by which Ralph, then Lord of Pichford, held that Manor. [24]

Warner de Wililey had now for forty-six years been a prominent person in the County. All that I need further to relate of him is implied in a deed whereby he and his wife Petronilla are said to have granted to William de Harley and Engelard a Chaplain (Feoffees in trust), their Manors of Gretton, Wilderhope, Walle under Heywode, Rushbury, Kenley and Williley, with the Advowsons of such Churches as were attached thereto. [25]

[22] The circumstances of this cause shall be given more minutely under Kenley, where the coveted land lay.
[23] 1 Kings, chap. xxi.
[24] Pichford, be it observed, was like Willey held under the fee of Turold, i.e. Chetwynd. The Son of Warner de Wililey appears subsequently to have married the daughter of Ralph de Pichford. I infer this from a deed in Glover's Collection (A. iii, b.)
[25] I speak with some hesitation about this deed, of which there seems to have been two originals,- one seen by Dugdale among the Lacon Evidences, the other extracted by Mr. Blakeway from a set of deeds which he classifies under the title "Jones". The former had had two Seals, but Dugdale gives only the impression of the second or sinister, vis.- Arms * * on a chief * two cinquefoils *. Mr. Blakeway describes his deed as sealed with a fret (the bearing of De Williley). There are some other differences between the two copies, but unimportant, except that Dugdale gives a set of witnesses with his deed whose names are as follows:-

Wm. de Ercalewe, Walter de Beysin, Will de Hugford, Knights, Walter de Hopton, Ivo de Clinton, Robert Dodington.-

Now I need not point out to any one conversant with Shropshire genealogies of the thirteenth century, that this combination of witnesses existed only at its close, and therefore is inconsistent with a deed which must have passed at its beginning. A transcript of Dugdale's is not to be lightly questioned, neither can I think the deed which he saw to have been a forgery.

My own idea is that Dugdale, copying a number of deeds, inadvertently took a testing-clause for this one from some other document lying before him. His limited acquaintance with Shropshire names might prevent his detection of an inconsistency which would strike a native Antiquary at once.


The Feoffees, by another deed, regranted the premises (or most of them) to Warner and Petronilla in tail with remainder to the right heirs of Petronilla. [26]

All that I shall here say of this Heiress is that she survived her husband many years and was living at least as late as 1240.

Nicholas, son and heir of Warner de Wililey, appears first in 1231, as having been amerced for inattention to his duties as a Regarder of the King's Forests.

In 1233 and 1237, he is mentioned as a juror of Grand Assize and a Knight. On the 10th of April 1241, he was serving the office of Under-Sheriff to John le Strange; [27] and nothing further can I learn of him except that dying within the next fourteen years, he left a Widow Burga and a Son Andrew, then an Infant.

Burga would appear to have obtained the wardship of her son from John de Chetwynd (obviously as seignoral Lord of Willey and other lands of Andrew's inheritance). Five years before his Father's death, this young Heir had been married to a daughter of Walter de Hugford. In 1255, we have the following notice of the Manor of Willey as recorded by Jurors of the Liberty of Wenlock.- "Andrew Fitz Nicholas is Lord of the vill of Wilileg, and holds it of the Prior of Wenlock and does due suit at the Court of the Prior, and his Ancestors used to do suit to the Hundred of Munslow till the time of King Richard". [28]

This extract is noticeable on two grounds: first, that it makes no mention of Andrew de Wililey's still continued Minority; next, that it asserts the Prior's Seigneury over Willey as that of any ordinary feudal Lord.-

The truth is, that the Jurisdictional or Hundredal Seigneury, originally an adjunct of the Palatine Earldom of Shropshire, had passed by grant of the Crown to Wenlock Priory, so that the Manor was in some sort held of the Prior; but at the same time the ordinary feudal Seigneury, which involved the right of wardship, relief, and marriage, remained with Chetwynd as the representative

[26] Blakeway MSS. sub signo "Jones". Dugdale gives no transcript of this.
[27] Sheriffs of Shropshire, Preface, p. 6, quoting Salop Chartulary, Nos. 26, 406.
[28] Rot. Hund. ii, 85.


of Turold. [29] Thus the minority of Andrew de Williley in 1255 was no concern of the Prior's, and was not alluded to in an Inquest which related mainly to the Prior's Franchise.

This will appear still clearer from the following.-

At Salop Assizes, January 1256, Margery de Lacy sued Burga de Wililegh that she should surrender to said Margery, Andrew, son and heir of Nicholas de Wililegh, custody of whom Margery asserted to belong to herself, because Nicholas had held under her at Rushbury by half-a-Knight's-fee; whereas Burga ever since Nicholas' death kept Andrew from the Plaintiff, who was thereby damaged to the extent of 10. Burga appeared and called John de Chetewind to warranty, who also appeared, vouched the said warranty, and further called to warranty John Fitz Alan (his own Seigneur). Fitz Alan being present acknowledged the responsibility, but said that, as regarded marriage of this heir, Margery could claim nothing, because the said heir had, five years before his father's death, been married by his said father to a daughter of Walter de Hugford, which Walter was present in Court and in seizin of the said heir. On this ground Fitz Alan asked the judgment of the Court in his favour, stating at the same time that he had other pleas to offer if this were not enough. [30] Here the case was broken off, apparently for ulterior Consideration; but no result appears on the Rolls.

Andrew de Wililey, when at length he came of age, associated himself with the malcontent party of that troubled period. His career was short and tragical. He fell on the field of Evesham on August 4, 1265, leaving an infant daughter, the inheritress of a forfeited estate.

This estate, or rather the redemption money which under the Dictum de Kenilworth must be paid for the same before it could return to its lineal claimant, was granted by the Crown to Robert le Strange, a younger son of John third Baron Strange of Nesse and Cheswardine.

Robert le Strange was one of those who in 1270 accompanied

[29] In process of time the service rendered by the Lord of Willey to the Prior of Wenlock became much extended. On June 26, 1888, "Sir Robert de Harley came to Wenlock and before many witnesses did his homage and fealty to Sir Guychard, Prior of Wenlock, and acknowledged himself to hold the Manor of Williley of the said Lord Prior by service of carrying the frock of the same Prior to Parliament, and of doing suit every three weeks to the Hundred Court of Burton, and suit also to the two great Annual Hundred Courts of Burton. (Register at Wiley, fo. 26).
[30] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, memb. 6 dorso.


Prince Edward to the Holy Land. From that expedition he returned, but survived not long. He was dead Sept. 10, 1276, [31] and being in debt to the Crown, Willey, with other estates of which he was something more than a Trustee, was again seized into the King's hands. Meanwhile Burga, the heiress of these unredeemed lands, had married Philip de Stapelton; and in 1277, King Edward issued his precept to the Sheriff of Shropshire commanding him to take extent (valuation) of Willey, and when extended to deliver it to William de Stapleton, whose son Philip had married the said heiress; and William de Stapleton was to cultivate and sow it and render account to the King during the King's pleasure. A similar precept again issued in 1278, but in behalf of Philip de Stapleton himself. [32] He however lived not long to discharge this trust. Before December 1283, Burga, sole daughter and heir of Andrew de Williley, was wife of Richard de Harley, and to her posterity by him she transmitted the splendid and at length disencumbered inheritance. As this lady survived the date of her second marriage at least fifty-four years, a presumption arises that Philip de Stapleton had been only the husband of her infancy.

As some later particulars which I have to give of Willey will be implied in my account of Harley and other Manors, I will here take leave of this part of the subject. [33]

THE ONLY UNDER-TENANCY which deserves notice in this Manor was that of Walter le Stalhere, who left two daughters and coheirs. On June 18, 1245, a fine wes levied at Westminster, whereby Alice, one of these coheirs, concurred with her husband William Marescall in conveying half a virgate in Wylleleg to Nicholas le Despenser and Christiana his wife, the other coheir. For this the Grantees paid five merks. [34]

This Nicholas le Despenser was suspected of unlawful interference with the King's venison. Specifically he was accused of having taken a stag in Shirlot Forest on Sunday July 6, 1258, but was not tried till the Forest Assizes of Feb. 1262, when he escaped the charge by a fine of 6s. 8d., for payment of which Richard le Yreis (Irish) of Dawley and Adam Traynel of Willey were his Sureties.

[31] Claus 4, Edw. I, numb. 4.
[32] Originalia, i, pp. 27, 30, where the inaccuracy of one printed entry is corrected by the other.
[33] It is singular that two Manors named Linley and Willey should have been the property of William Mallet of Girardville, a Norman, and as forfeited to the Crown, should appear together on several Rolls of the reigns of John and Henry III. The entries relating to them have been printed elsewhere in connexion with the same adjoining Shropshire Manors. It may save some oonfusion to say that they were in Hertfordshire
[34] Pedes Finium, 39 Hen. III, Salop.


This Nicholas sat as first Juror of Wenlock Liberty at the Assizes of October 1272, and as second Juror on the Inquest of that Franchise which was taken in November 1274.


The Advowson of this Church or Chapel was already a matter of litigation in the beginning of the 13th Century. In Hilary Term 1214, the Attorney of the Prior of Wenlock had essoign at Westminster, in a suit of darrein presentment which the Prior was prosecuting against Warner de Wilileg. [35]

Again in Michaelmas Term 1233, and probably on occasion of another vacancy here, there were several essoigns in a similar suit, which the same Prior had against Nicholas de Wilileg. [36] The result of this litigation must be gathered from other documents than the Plea Rolls.-

In 1291, the Church or Chapel of Wyleleye in the Deanery of Wenlock was valued at 5. 6s. 8d. per annum. The Prior of Wenlock was not the Patron, nor was his receipt of any pension arising from this Church entered on the Record. [37]

The Church however is elsewhere stated to have been chargeable with a pension of 7s. payable annually on the day of the Translation of Saint Milburg (May 26) to the Priory Kitchen. [38]

An Inquisition of the year 1323-4 found this Church to be without cure, and that the person who should see to the performance of divine service here was the Vicar of the Holy Trinity of Wenlock. [39]

Hence the district which was taxed to the Ninth in 1341, under the title of "The Chapel of Welyley", must not be understood as a distinct Parish, but as that territory (probably coextensive with the Manor) from which the Rector of Willey drew his endowment. On this occasion the said district was assessed at 40s. only, the ninth of wheat, wool, and lamb therein being so much less than the endowment of the Church because of tempests and murrain, and because the glebe land, small-tithes and offerings, which went to swell the endowment, could not be taken into account in estimating the value of the ninth. [40]

[35] Essoigns Hilary Term, 15 John, memb. 11 dorso.
[36] Essoigns Michaelmas Term, 17 Hen. III, m. 9 dorso.
[37] Tax. Papae Nich. p. 167.
[38] Register at Willey, fo. 83.
[39] Hereford Register (Blakeway MSS.).
[40] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 187.


A valuation of 1379 puts the annual value of the Chapel of Wilileye at 10 merks (6. 13s. 4d.) and states it to belong to the Presentation of the Prior. [41]

In 1534, John Podmore being Rector of Wylley, his benefice was put at the old valuation of 5. 6s. 8d. for glebe and tithes. The only charge specified thereon was 6d. per annum for Archdeacon's Synodals. [42]

Summarily then, the Church of Willey may be presumed to have been founded and endowed by the Lords of the Manor. It had no Parish, being within the Parish of Wenlock, but it was perhaps chargeable with a pension as an affiliation of Wenlock Church, and the Vicar of the latter was responsible for its service. The Rectors of Willey being without cure were probably non-resident. They were nominated by the Lords of Willey to the Prior of Wenlock and then presented by the latter to the Bishop of Hereford for institution. This mediate right of the Prior seems to have been in acknowledgment of the ancient ecclesiastical jurisdiction of St. Milburg, though the pension, which doubtless was an original part of the same reserved right, may have fallen into disuse.


June 24, 1276. Custody of this Church was committed to ADAM DE WETENHALE, Acolyte, whom the Official was ordered to induct.

Oct. 14, 1304. HENRY LE FORCER, Subdeacon, was admitted on presentation of SIR RICHARD DE HARLEY.

Jan. 27, 1323-4, SIR PHILIP DE HARLEY, Priest, was admitted on presentation of the Prior and Convent of Wenlock, on the further presentation or nomination of Dame Burga de Harley, "the true Patron".

Aug. 6, 1357. PHILIP DE HARLEYE was presented by Robert de Harleye.

March 23,1357-8. ROBERT DE SHARDELOWE, Clerk, was instituted to this "Free Chapel", on presentation of the King, who then had the alien Priory of Wenlock in his hands, by reason of the war with France.

March 30, 1359. ADAM DE EVERYNGHAM, late Canon of York, was instituted, having exchanged preferments with Shardelowe.

[41] Monasticon, v, 78, No. viii.
[42] Blakeway's MSS. in Bibl. Bodl.
[43] Valor Ecclesiasticus, iii, 209.


March 30, 1360. SIR HUGH LE YONGE, late Prebendary of St. Mary's Salop, was instituted, having exchanged with Everyngham.

Feb. 22, 1383. SIR WILLIAM AUMENEYE, Chaplain, was instituted on the King's presentation, Wenlock Priory being still in his hands. On Aumeneye's resignation as Custos - viz. on Aug. 13, 1886, MASTER WILLIAM HERTFORD (or Hereford) was instituted, his presentation by the King bearing date however on Nov. 26 previous.

Dec. 16, 1387. THOMAS PRESTON, Clerk, was instituted on a Crown presentation similar to the above. On his resignation,-

Aug. 2, 1391. Sir ROBERT DERBY was instituted on presentation of the Crown. Being styled Custos of the Free Chapel or Chantry here, and also Parson of Falley (in Linc. Dioc.), he gave up both preferments for the Custody of the Chantry of Melton in Wappenham (Linc. Dioc.), and on Feb. 25, 1393-4, John CAYSOHO, late Custos of the said Chantry, was instituted here. He died in 1410.

WE NOW PROCEED to those constituents of the Domesday Hundred of Alnodestreu which went to form, probably in the time of Henry I, the newly created Hundred of Brimstree.

One of these Manors was, within a century, again transferred to the Liberty of Wenlock; and it will properly head this series, as thus following Broseley and Willey, which were similarly separated from their second Hundred of Munslow. This Manor was-


It is noticed in Domesday thus,-

"Osbern holds of Earl Roger Beghesovre and Robert (holds it) of him. Bruniht held it (in time of King Edward) and was a free man. Here is half a hide geldable. There is arable land (sufficient) for II ox-teams. In demesne is I ox-team, and (there are) II boors with I ox-team. There is a wood which will fatten thirty swine. Its value (in time of King Edward) was 7s. now it is 10s." [1]

Dugdale remarks that all towns compounded of Over "do stand upon hilly ground, Over importing as much as supra".

[1] Domesday, fo. 557, b. 2.


The word however, whieh enters into many names (and indeed the very name of which Dugdale was treating, viz. Browns-over), is more probably the Saxon noun-substantive Open (a bank, brink, or shore), than the similarly written preposition, which is equivalent to the modern over.

The variety of ways in which Badger was written in early times renders its further etymology a matter of some uncertainty. There are two Anglo-Saxon words which have, or may have had, an equal applicability to local circumstances. Beccer, the possessive case of Becc (a brook), would render the whole name intelligible as "the bank of the brook", while Becer, the poessessive case of Bece (a beech-tree) affords an equally apparent meaning and is perhaps the more genuine Anglo-Saxon word of the two.

Osbern, who held the neighbouring Manors of Badger, Brockton, and Ryton, under Earl Roger, in 1085, was no other than Osbern Fitz Richard, Baron of Burford and Richard's Castle, whom we have already seen attesting the Earl's foundation of Quatford Church very shortly after Domesday. [2]

It will be better to speak of him and his house when we come to treat of his greater Domesday Fief, viz. that which he then held immediately of the Crown. His Manors in Alnodestreu Hundred will indeed have some time been annexed to his Tenure in capite; but I find no hint of his successors retaining any such concern in Brockton or Ryton, as might be taken to represent his Domesday interests there.

With Badger however it was otherwise, for the Inquisitions which, down to the time of Richard II, detail the possessions of the successive heirs of Osbern Fitz Richard's Barony, imply their continuous claim upon this Manor, though such claim probably amounted to nothing more than the payment of a small quit-rent. It is singular that except by these Inquisitions and the evidence of one or two private deeds, we should not have been able to identify Earl Roger's Tenant Osbern, with the powerful Baron whose name occupies other folios of the Domesday Record.

Of Robert, Sub Tenant here, in 1085, I can say nothing further, nor whether he left descendants to inherit his interests. However, about the time of Henry II's accession, it would seem that one William de Begesour was tenant under Osbern Fitz Hugh, grandson of Osbern Fitz Richard above mentioned. The tenancy over

[2] Supra, Vol. I, p. 111.


this William, who very possibly may have been son or grandson of Robert, was granted by the said Osbern to Guy le Strange.

Osbern Fitz Hugh made a return of his Barony in 1165, but it was sent back to him owing to some informality, and thus its contents are lost to posterity. Had this return been preserved, it would probably have contained a statement to the effect that Guy le Strange held something of new feoffment under the said Osbern. The loss of the document is in the present instance harmless, for that mixture of secondary evidence and analogy, which must often be our guide in these investigations, has enabled us to indicate the mode in which Guy le Strange and his heirs became Mesne-Lords of Badger.

Hereby the history of another great family becomes associated with the place, but I postpone all detailed account of the descent of Guy le Strange to a future occasion. Some facts necessary to such fuller account will however be furnished by our present inquiry.

The nature of the subinfeudation just alluded to is so well made out by contemporary documents as to merit particular attention. When Guy le Strange received feoffment here, the reserved rent payable by him to Osbern Fitz Hugh was probably 4s.

Thenceforward whatever rent and service had been paid by William de Begesour to the same Osbern became due to Guy le Strange. Within a short period however this William sold his subtenancy to one Philip Fitz Stephen who thereupon became Le Strange's tenant. Of William de Begesour we shall hear again, inasmuch as he probably carried elsewhere and retained the name which he had derived from his original feoffment.

Philip Fitz Stephen and his Successors, as the actual Tenants- in-fee of Badger, will now constitute our proper subject, a subject rendered most clear by a very unusual concurrence of evidences. The Royal Forestership of Shirlot, a tenure in capite at Ackleton and Bardeley, Feoffments under the Priory of Wenlock, the Abbey of Shrewsbury, the families of Le Strange and De Haughton, an interest in the Borough of Bridgnorth, and (more than all) the careful preservation of a few early documents,- these are the circumstances which, while they supply facts and illustrations of

[3] That is the sum mentioned as receivable from Baggesore in the Inquisition of 12 Ric. II (1388-9) on the death of John Talbot of Richards-Castle, (Calend. Inquis. iii, 105).


much antiquarian value, furnish also that rare curiosity - an ancient and at the same time an authentic pedigree.

The Grandfather of Philip Fitz Stephen, whose name however does not appear, held Ackleton, a member of the Royal Manor of Worfield in time of Henry. I.

The father of the said Philip, whose name was of course STEPHEN, succeeded to Ackleton in the same reign. Some disturbance of this tenure very possibly took place in the time of the Usurpation. At all events the following document issued in the fitst ten years of the reign of Henry II, and was apparently elicited by some claim for restitution urged by,-

PHILIP FITZ STEPHEN, the heir. The Royal Writ runs thus.- "Henry King of England and Duke of Normandy and Aquitain and Earl of Anjou to his Sheriff and Ministers of Salopescire greeting. I enjoin you that ye cause recognition to be made by oath of lawful men of the vicinage, as to the kind of service by which Stephen father of my Forester Philip, and the grandfather (of the same Philip) held Acclinton, their land, in time of King Henry my grandfather: and that, when such recognition shall have been made, ye shall permit him so to hold it and with such comparative advantage and freedom, both in waters and meadows and pastures, and by the same service. And except ye shall so do, let William de Beauchamp see to the doing hereof.- Witness: Mannasser Biset, Dapifer; at Wirecestre". [4]

We have seen this Philip Fitz Stephen become (about 1160) tenant to Salop Abbey, of a fishery or weir at Sutton. We have also seen him (each year, from 1169 till 1173 inclusive) discharging the trust of Visor, or Inspector, of the Sheriffs' expenditure on the works of Brug Castle.

In the year 1174, Guy le Strange being Sheriff and still continuing an outlay on these works, Philip Fitz Stephen ceases to act

[4] Charter in possession of R.H. Cheney, Esq. of Badger. The date assigned above to this early document is thus arrived at. William de Beauchamp was obviously the contemporary Sheriff of Worcestershire, a man much trusted by Henry II. The King can hardly have been at Worcester at any time of Beauchamp's Shrievalty after 1164. Further, of the numerous attestations of Manasser Biset (he was Lord of Kidderminster) none appear later than 1165. Henry was at Worcester in 1157, and again at Easter 1158, when both Manasser Biset and William de Beauchamp were with him. A precept, of very similar character to this, issued from Rouen to Richard de Luci, and is tested singly by Manasser Biset (Bibl. Cott. Claud. b. vi, p. 174). It certainly passed between 1158 and 1162.



[For pedigree, see pdf.]


as his Comptroller. This, as I believe, was because at that very time he became his Tenant, by purchasing William de Begeshoure's interest at Badger: Guy le Strange (in a deed to which I should on other grounds assign the date 1173-1177) informs his lieges, French and English, of the said transfer. He receives the homage of the new Tenant, and concedes the land of Begeshoure in fee and inheritance to Philip Fitz Stephen, reserving to himself only an annual rent of half a merk.

And Osbern Fitz Hugh under whom Guy le Strange holds must, according to feudal law, ratify the act of the Mesne-Lord. The Deed by which he does so is preserved. It informs us of some further facts, viz. that William de Begesour's Wife and Heir both concurred in the sale, and that it took place in the County Court "before Guy le Strange", an expression which I understand to allude rather to Le Strange's presidency as Sheriff than his private interest in the transaction. In other respects Osbern Fitz Hugh's Charter is merely a confirmation of Guy le Strange's previous act. [5]

At Michaelmas 1176, Philip Fitz Stephen appears as owing the

[5] These deeds, still at Badger, are peculiarly illustrative of the law and practice of Subinfeudations, and supply us with the exact process of a very early Conveyance. Their date (c. 1174) being proximately certain, the names which they contain must make them a subject of repeated reference in these pages. I therefore transcribe them in extenso.

Guido Extraneus omnibus hominibus suis et amicis, Francis et Anglicis, salutes. Notum sit vobis Willelmum de Begeshoure vendidisse terram suam de Begeshoure cum omnibus pertinentiis suis Philippo filio Stophani et cui voluerit post ipsum in feudo et hereditate et coram Comitatu illam in manu mea reddidisse. Unde sciatis quod ego predictam terram supradicto Philippo et cui voluerit post ipsum pro homagio suo dedi et concessi in feudc et hereditate de me et de heredibus meis tenendam; Solam et liberam et quietom de scuagiis et tailagiis et wardis et de omnibus querelis et servitiis; reddendo annuatim dimidiam marcham argenti ad festivitatem Sancti Michaelis. Hi sunt testes: Johannes Extraneus,

Hugo Extraneus, Willms de Baucis, Rogerius filius Grent, Grent filius Leyni, Olfridus Henrici, Adam filius Hamonis Extraneii (sic), Willms filius Walteri, Simon de Stantune, Johannes frater Hugonis Extranei, Rogerius de Levendene, Radulfus de Lacheia, Walteras de Bidun, Distil, Swinudus, Daniel, Robertus Camberlangius, Willms de Petra Ponte, Willms de Bigedune, Robertus Carpentarius, Alexander Forestarius.-

The Seal of this Deed is of white wax, coloured superficially with a red varnish. It is very rude and more than two inches in diameter. It represents a Knight on horseback; his right hand (which probably held a sword, now defaced) is extended:- On his left arm hangs a triangular shield. The horse is walking. The Legend is broken off.

Osbern Fitz Hugh's confirmation is as follows:-

Osbertus Finns Hugonis, omnibus hominibus suis et amicis suis Francis et Anglicis salutem. Sciatis quod ego vendicionem illam quam Willelmus de Begesoura et uxor sua et heres sum fecerunt Philippe filio Stephani in Comitatu Salopessirie de terra de Baggesoura cum omnibus pertinenciis suis coram Widone Extraneo qui terram illam de me tenet, et concessionem et donationem Widonis Extranei quasi fecit predicto Philippo de eadem terra concedo, et quicquid Carta Widonis Extranei super his testator concedo et carta mea ccnfirmo. Hiis testibus: Fretherico Capellano, Reginaldo Presbytero, Adame Presbytero Rogero Clerico de B (Bagesours I suppose) Galfrido Clerico, Philippo de Cure, Willmo de Muleston, Alexandre de Pucclesdon, Willmo de Wicetre, Radulfo de Cnulle, Pagano de Heches, Willmo Carb (Carbonel) de Herefordia, Hauci de Stepeltunis, Lofwino filio Lofwini, Waltero Juveni de Cliffordia, Ricardo fratre suo, Roberto Wiart, Ricardo des Bles, Willmo de Loges, Galfrido de Lam, Philippo de Colington, Osberto de Cure, Willmo de Cure, Roberto de Hop, Benett de Hop, Raulfo le Blun (Blund) Samson de Chend, Hollis de Brerlecton, Stephano de Midelton.-

Most of these witnesses were Feoffees of Osbern Fitz Hugh in different counties. The two Clifords were brothers of his wife, brothers also of Fair Rosamond.

The Seal of this Deed is compounded as the last and is of the same size. It represents a Knight on horseback, charging at full speed. The Legend is gone.


King ten merks and a Destrier of Wales, his fine that he might hold Aclinton a member of Worfield at a fee-farm rent of 60s. He now paid five merks of the said fine into the Treasury. The Destrier he had delivered to the King himself. The balance of five merks he paid in the year following. [6] His object in paying this fine was probably to get rid of some inconvenient service hitherto exacted from the King's Tenant at Ackleton.

At Michaelmas 1185, Philip Fitz Stephen having been convicted of some offence by the justices of the Forest paid 40s. fine "that his amercement should be settled before the King". [7] I suppose that as a Crown Tenant and Officer he expected his case to be dealt with leniently.

About 1196, this Philip, at length called Philip de Beggesour, attests in a prominent position the composition about Ditton Church which I have so often alluded to.

The following Fine, illustrative of a very ancient mode of legal procedure, relates, I doubt not, to a title which this Philip de Bagesore had to land in an adjoining Manor.

The document runs thus.-

"This is the final concord made in the Court of the Lord King at Westminster on Thursday next after the Octaves of St. Hilary in the seventh year of the reign of King Richard (i.e. on Jan. 25, 1196) before H. Archbishop of Canterbury &c.- Between Ralph de Herleton, Plaintiff (petentem), and Philip de Bechesore, Tenant, by

[6] Rot Pip. 22 & 23 Hen. II, Salop. Montgomeryshire was at this time famous for its breed of horses. For the causes, see History of Shrewsbury, i, 54.
[7] Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. II.


Reginald his son, put in his place, to gain or lose,- of one hide of land in Bechesbire (Beckbury), whereof a duel was guaranteed between the parties, and furnished forth, and actually foughten (unde duellum fuit invadiatum inter eos, et armatum, et percussum) - in the aforesaid Court,- to wit, that Philip hath remitted to the aforesaid Ralph and his heirs half of the aforesaid land, quit of him (Philip) and his heirs, to hold of the Capital Lord. And Ralph hath quit-claimed to Philip the other moiety, to hold of the Capital Lord". [8]

This technical language requires some explanation.- Philip de Bechesore held a hide of land in Beckbury under the Lord of that Manor. His right to do so was challenged by Ralph de Herleton. The question was adjudged to be settled by duel. Philip (a very old man) acted in this phase of the litigation by his (younger) son Reginald. The duel was fought and probably without any such decided result as was believed to constitute the "judgment of heaven" in such matters. So after these solemn appeals to the law and to Eternal justice, the case was settled by the modern, and simple, though seldom honest mode of "splitting the difference".

Philip Fitz Stephen of Badger was at this period, as I have intimated, a very old man, indeed there is evidence of Roger, his eldest son and heir, having sat in the County Court before the date of the final-concord just quoted. [9]

This Roger de Bechesore, whose succession to his Father Philip cannot be put much later than 1196, occurs in various relations. As a Tenant of Salop Abbey at Astley he appears twice in Charters of that House, which passed during the time of Abbot Hugh (1190-1218), and related to its affairs in the said Manor. [10] He stands first witness to a grant which Haughmond Abbey had at Rudge. [11] As a Knight and accompanied by his heirs he attests a Charter of Ralph de Sanford which concerned land at Brockton, and must have passed between 1205 and 1220. [12] To the Abbey of Lilleshall and the Priory of Wenlock he was himself a Grantor. Of the former benefaction I can say nothing more than that it is expressed to be of 5s. annual rent in the Lye (La Lya). [13]

[8] Pedes Finium, "quorum Comitatus ignoratur".
[9] He attests with other principal men of the County an agreement between the Abbot of Salop and John le Strange which must have passed before June 1196. (Salop Chartulary, No. 16).
[10] Salop Chartulary, Nos. 137, 150 c.
[11] Haughmond Chartulary, fo. 176.
[12] Wombridge Chartulary. Tit. Brocton, No. 10.
[13] Patent, 18 Rich. II. p. 1, m. 7.


His Charter to Wenlock Priory is still in existence.- Calling himself Roger son of Philip de Beggeshore, he grants to God and to St. Mylburg of Weciel and to the Monks there serving God, for the health of his soul and the souls of his Ancestors and Successors, in pure and perpetual almoigne, 10s. of his Mill of Beggeshore, for the kitchen of the Brethren, to be paid annually at two terms, viz. 5s. at the Feast of St. Andrew and other 5s. at the Feast of St. John Baptist. The deed purports to be sealed with the grantor's seal and is attested singly by Warin de Burwardell. [14]

It is here proper to state that Wenlock Priory must have had manorial rights at Badger from time immemorial, and that the Wenlock fee of Badger was originally distinct from the Richards- Castle fee. Nevertheless, the latter only is mentioned in Domesday.

The tenants of the two seem to have been identical at all recorded periods. [15]

The grant last quoted must have followed immediately on the period when the Prior of Wenlock was enabled much to strengthen his Seigneury at Badger;- a consequence of the Manor being transferred from the Hundred of Brimstree to the Prior's new Franchise of Wenlock. Thus the subsequent Lords of Badger are stated indifferently to hold the Manor of the heirs of Le Strange and of the Prior of Wenlock. And their service to the latter was much the most onerous of the two, being, I suppose, partly in composition of that attendance at the Prior's lesser Hundred Court of Burton which was exacted, every three weeks, from Manors less remote.

To return to Roger de Beggeshore.- In the year 1199 (as I think) the following writ was issued in his favour by Geoffrey Fitz

[14] In possession of R.H. Cheney, Esq. The orthography given for "Wenlock" is peculiar to this document.

Neither the Valor Ecclesiasticus of 1584, nor the Ministers' Accounts of 1541, mention this charge upon Badger-Mill among the receipts of Wenlock Priory. Lord Forester's Register has however (fos. 32, 33) a curious Rent Roll of the Priory-Kitchen, taken apparently in the years 1495-6. Under the Title "De Termino Sti Andrea Apostoli", this Roll contains an item- "De redditu molendini de Begesor - x sol". So Roger de Bageor's benefaction endured nearly three centuries.
[15] The analogy of Linley and Caughley has already suggested that the Domesday Survey of St. Milburg's Manors was somewhat superficial. This will appear more evidently in regard to Badger, otherwise I should offer a fuller explanation when thus assuming any inaccuracy of Domesday. Much of St. Milburg's land was not assessable to Danegeld, and this immunity may have withheld some Manors, or parts of Manors, from recognition of the Commissioners.


Piers, then Chief Justice of England and acting as Viceroy of King John, who was absent in Touraine.

"Geoffrey Fitz Peter Earl of Essex to Philip de Gret, greeting. We enjoin you that without delay you do full right to Roger de Bagesoure concerning two parts of half a hide of land and an eighth part of a Mill in Beckebir, which parts he claims to appertain to his free tenement which he holds of you in the same vill by the free service of 5 shillings per annum for all services: which parts Hugh de Beckebir withholds from him. And except you thus do let the Sheriff of Salopesire see to the doing hereof; and let him no more have to complain for want of justice. Witness myself at Brug the 26th day of September". [16]

The premises alluded to in thia writ were doubtless part of that half-hide of land which had remained to Roger's Father in 1196. We now see that the said tenure was under Philip de Grete, a great Feoffee of the Barons of Richards-Castle. We shall hear again of this land in Beckbury.

At Michaelmas 1200, Roger de Baehesore appears on the Sheriff's Roll aa having been amerced half a merk by Justices of the Forest, for faulty custody of his Bailiwick,- the Forestership of Shirlot I presume,- an office which was hereditary in his family.

At the County Assizes of October 1203, being a Knight, he sat as a Juror on some causes tried by Grand Assize.

Besides the Custody of Shirlot Forest he held in capite of the Crown a virgate of land at Bardeley in the Royal Manor of Stottesden, for which he paid a rent of six shillings per annum at the Exchequer. As thus holding he is entered among the King's Tenants by Serjeantry, in a Roll which must have been drawn up about 1211. [17]

About this time he obtained the following privilege from his neighbour Walter de Hugeford;- who "grants his bank of Wrhe (Worfe) abutting on the Red Weir, whereunto said Roger may attach his said Weir". The Grantee is to pay a pair of white gloves yearly on the feast of St. Mary Magdalene for this privilege. [18]

[15] Charter at Badger. The year, as was usual in Geoffrey Fitz Piers' writs, is not mentioned. We can however determine it to have passed most probably in 1199, and almost certainly in 1199 or 1200, by evidence which is too long to insert.
[17] Testa de Nevill, fo. 254.
[18] Charter at Badger. The witnesses are Griffin Gohe, Lord of Sutton; Robert de Stocton; Hugo de Bolinghale; Nicholas, his Brother; Nicholas, Chaplain of Stocton; Richard, Chaplain of Becheberi; Roger, Clerk of Begesour; Richard de Estwelle (Astall); and Philip de Estwelle.


At Michaelmas 1212, among oblata lately received by the Sheriff, one of twenty merks from Roger de Bagesoure is recorded, a heavy fine; but the object of which does not appear. [19]

He has already been mentioned as living May 20, 1220, and his concern in the Royal Forests is apparent in that instance. [20]

Within five years of the last date, Roger de Begesoure seems to have deceased. He left two sons, Thomas and Philip. Thomas the eldest married (about 1225) Margery daughter of Adam de Beysin. Also, on succession, he obtained a Charter of Confirmation from the Prior of Wenlock, which illustrates the nature of the seigneury exercised by the latter over Badger, and shows how independent it was of the seigneury of Le Strange's Heirs.

By this deed, already printed, [21] "Brother Humbert Prior of Weneloch confirms to Thomas de Begelhovere and his heirs the vill of Begelhovere, of the Fee of Saint Milburg, with all its appurtenancies; to hold to him and his heirs, of the Prior and his Successors, for his homage and for the same service by which his Father Roger held it, viz. for 20s. payable annually at Michaelmas, and for suit to be done to the Court of St. Milburg by afforciament of Court". The witnesses were, Philip de Burwardel (uncle of the Grantee's wife), Robert de Wodetun, Hugh de Beckebur, Adam de Beising (the Grantee's Father-in-law), Hugh de Lega, &c.

Philip, younger brother of this Thomas, seems to have held under him that land at Beckbury which has already been mentioned tvrice. Philip surrendered his tenancy under circumstances of some interest.-His deed of surrender runs thus:-" Know all men that I Philip de Beggesoure have rendered and quit-claimed to Thomas de Beggesoure my brother, his heirs and assigns, all my land in Bechebiri which I held of him (that namely which Reginald and William le Sage held under me),-for five merks of silver which the said Thomas hath given me for my journey to Jerusalem.- Witnesses: Sir Walter de Huggeford, Walter de Bealmeis, Adam de Beyain, Roger de Subiri, John de Beckebiri, Walter de Eudinaa (Ewdness), Eudo de Rugge (Rudge), Robert de Alditone, Thomas de Aclitone (Ackleton), &c".

The witnesses' names alone would enable us to determine the period of this transaction within a few years, but we learn its exact date in another way.- Philip de Beggesoure was undoubtedly one

[19] Rot. Pip. 14 John, The Fine or Oblata Roll of this year, which probably would be more circumstantial, is lost.
[20] Supra, vol. I, p. 299.
[21] Monasticon, v, 76, No. vi.
[22] Charter at Badger.


of those who at the preaching of Hubert took the Cross in the Summer of 1227. Matthew Paris tells us that from England alone 60,000 fighting men set out on that Crusade and that most of them were poor. Their outset was accompanied by a celestial sign on the night of St. John the Baptist (June 24). [23] The expedition failed owing to the vacillation of the Emperor Frederick, who however after being excommunicated by Pope Gregory IX, landed at Acre in September 1228. Here he found an army of 90,000 men of all nations, and among them the English Bishops of Winchester and Exeter. Jerusalem surrendered to the Christian arms early in 1229.

I can say little more of Thomas de Baggesore. In Michaelmas Term 1228, he was sued with many others who held messuages in the town of Newport (which was Royal Demesne) as to his title to the same; but the result does not appear. [24]

He was also possessed of houses and land in the High Street and in the fields of Brug. The former he sold for the large sum of twenty-four merks to Robert son of Philip Fitz Thorold, reserving to himself a chief rent of white gloves payable at Brug at the fair of the will, viz, at the feast of St. Mary Magdalene. [25]

The time of Thomas de Baggesour's death I cannot further determine than that it was before March 1246, when his son Philip will presently appear as Lord of Badger. Besides the said Philip, Thomas left other issue, and his wife Margery surviving.

She having brought Ashfield in frank marriage to her husband, disposed of it some years after his death to her younger children. She was living in 1255.

In 1246, Philip Lord of Beggesovere, who will have then lately attained his majority, was involved in a dispute with Alan, Rector of the Parish, who claimed the tithe of hay in all meadows within the same. The matter was settled on March 29, in the Church of Long Stanton before William de Ros, Clerk of the Bishop of Hereford, Roger, Dean of Sypton, and a full Chapter. The young Layman gave up the point, renouncing all future dispute and especially the alternative of an appeal to the "Royal Prohibition". [26]

[23] Vol. i, p. 838 (Watts' Edition).
[24] Placita, Michaelmas Term, 12 & 13 Hen. III, memb. 5 recto.
[25] Charter at Apley. Hamo le Palmer and Roger Fitz William are the attesting Praetors of Brug.
[26] Charter at Badger. The Plea Rolls of this period exhibit constant appeals to the Curiae Regis against decisions of the Courts Christian, as they were called. I cannot however make out why any interference of the temporal Courts should be apprehended in a question of Tithes.


About this time Philip de Baggesour married, and without license of the Crown, a step which afterwards caused him some trouble.

Matthew Paris speaks of the memorable Iter whereby Geoffrey de Langley and his Fellow Justices of the Forest enriched the King's Exchequer and impoverished his subjects. [27] The Chronicler seems to place their visit to the Northern Counties in the Summer of 1250. They held pleas and made arrentations in Shropshire somewhat earlier. Among other sufferers Philip de Baggesore was deprived of his Forestership of Shirlot on account of his illegal marriage. He fined with the King in a sum of 20 merks "for the same marriage and for having the Bailiwick of the Forest of Shirlot which his Father Thomas had had". A Royal Writ, dated Jan. 21, 1250, allows him to pay the said fine at the rate of 100s. per annum. [28]

The Inquisitions of Hundreds in 1255 exhibit this Philip in various relations, [29] viz. as holding half the Manor of Cleobury-North, under Robert de Haluchton, as holding four virgates in capite at Bardeley, and as Forester of the Fee in the King's free Haye of Schyrlet, where, says the Record, "he has under him two Foresters, viz. William de Bottesfeld and John his Brother, who give said Philip 20s. per annum for holding their office; and they make a levy on oats (fields sown with oats) in Lent, and on wheat in Autumn: and the aforesaid Philip hath in the said haye, of wind-falls as much as seven trees, and likewise the dead trees which are wind-fallen, the Jurors know not by what warrant except that of ancient tenure".

The Wenlock Jurors, of whom Philip himself was one, returned him as Lord of the of Bagesover, and that he held it of the Prior of Wenlock and paid 30s. per annum to the Prior, and did suit to the Prior's Court by afforeciament, and that his ancestors used to do suit to the Hundred of Brimestre till King Richard's time.

These Jurors estimated at four hides the united Manors of Badger, Beckbury, and Madeley. [30] The Domesday measure was however greater, viz. half a hide, one hide, and four hides respectively, or five-and-a-half hides collectively.

The Inquisition on the death of this Philip de Baggesore is preserved. The King's Writ ordering the Inquest bears date

[27] The penalties infficted in Shropshire amounted to the great sum of 526. 0s. 6d. (Pipe Roll).
[28] Fines, ii, 69.
[29] Rot. Hund. ii, pp. 81, 82, 88.
[30] Ibidem, pp. 84, 85. The rent of 30s. is obviously inclusive of the rent-charge of 10s. on Badger Mill.


2d Dec. 1258. The Verdict of the Jurors sets forth most clearly that co-ordinate seigneury which existed over the Lords of Badger. The deceased, they said, had held the vill of the Prior of Wenlock at an annual rent of 20s., and land therein of Henry de Harecourt (a descendant of Le Strange), at an annual rent of half a merk. The tenure under Harcourt is measured at two virgates of land and five acres of wood, probably the exact Domesday estimate. He also held Aclinton of Sir Henry de Hastings (then Lord of Worfield), by service of 60s. per annum.

Badger was worth 3. 5s. 9d. per annum. Ackleton was worth 2. 10s. 6d. Philip's tenancies at Bardeley and Cleobury-North are further particularized. The Inquest concludes with finding that Philip was his son and next heir, and was eleven years of age, and that all his lands were in the King's hand. [31]

It does not appear that the Crown asserted any right of wardship over this heir, whose fealty for Bardeley was accepted shortly after as a tenure in socage.-

The Escheator had the King's precept, dated 5th Feb. 1259, to give Philip, son of Philip de Bagesouere, livery thereof after taking security for his relief of 6s. [32]

Payment of that sum is acknowledged by the Sheriff in his account of Michaelmas 1260. [33]

This was that Philip Lord of Baggesovere who, about the year 1267-8, in other words as soon as he was of age, sold his tenure at Astley to Salop Abbey. The particulars have been already given except that at the time of the grant he appears to have been married. [34]

It will appear hereafter, under Alveley, how Ralph Noel, a descendant of Guy le Strange, became entitled to half the chief- rent originally reserved by the same Guy when he enfeoffed Philip Fitz Stephen in Badger. It is also supposable that Ralph Noel, thus receiving 3s. 4d. per annum on Badger, paid half the capital chief-rent of 4s. reserved to the Lords of Richards- Castle. Ralph Noel sold his rent, with the liabilities attached thereto, to William de Hempton. This makes intelligible a deed whereby William de Hempton remits and sells to Philip de Begesovere all his right in 40d. annual rent

[31] Inquisitions, 43 Hen. III, No. 32.
[32] Fines, ii, 294.
[33] Rot. Pip. 44 Hen. III, Salop.
[34] Supra, Vol. I, p. 45. See also History of Shrewsbury, ii, 97, 98, where most of the Deed of Surrender is recited. The witnesses were Henry le Forcer, John de Esthop, and Philip de Swyney (not Scoyney, as there printed).


which he bought of Ralph Noel;- to have and to hold to said Philip and his heirs with all escheats and homages, rendering therefore yearly due service to the chief Lords of the Fee, viz. 2s. at Richards-Castle, at the feast of St. Laurence, for all services. For this, Philip gave 1. 16s. 8d. [35] Thus did this Philip, as far as regarded a Moiety of the Tenure, buy up the mesne Seigneury, once Guy le Strange's, and become himself immediate tenant of the Barons of Richards-Castle. He doubtless bought up the other moiety also, as will appear by the Inquisition on his death.

Having, in January 1291, presented Philip his younger Son (who could not have been more than twelve years old) to Badger Church, he died within a few months. On the 26th of October following King Edward's Writ of diem clausit extremum, issued from Abergavenny to Malcolumb de Harley (then Escheator citra Trent) commanding him to hold Inquest on the death of Philip de Brachesovere. The Jurors met at Brug on Nov. 19, 1291, and found as follows, viz.- That besides his Tenures at Bardeley, North Cleobury, and Cold-Weston, the Deceased had held a certain Bailiwick of Shirlot Forest, not of the Crown (that is not of ancient demesne) but of the King's Escheat through (forfeiture of) Robert de Belesme;- that the office was worth 13s. 4d. per annum, and that neither Philip nor his Ancestors had done other service for the same than fealty to the Chief Forester of Shropshire. [36]

"He had also held of the Prior of Wenlock one messuage and four- and-a-half virgates of land in Baggesore, at a rent of 30s. [37] and the tenure was altogether worth 70s."

"He had also held of the heir of Robert de Mortimer of Richards-

[35] Charter at Badger,- attested by Sir William de Huggeford, John le Poer, Alan de Glazeley, Richard de Bagesore (Uncle of the Grantor I think), William de Pilarditon, Robert de Dodinton, and others. The Peers were Lords of Romsley, which they held by service of one Knight's Fee under the Barons of Richards-Castle. Badger is sometimes included in this Knight's Fee. If properly so, then Le Poer will have been mediate between the Baron of Richard's Castle and Le Strange's coheirs. But I never find Le Poer's interest operating at Badger, in fact it will have been at any time little more than nominal.
[36] These specifications were obviously to bar any claim which the Crown might assert to wardship of the heir.
[37] The contemporary Taxation of Pope Nicholas (page 164) gives among the Temporalities of Wenlock rent of only 1. as receivable from Baggesoure, but the above estimate includes 10s. rent-charge on the Mill. Lord Forester's Register contains two memoranda of the fealty acknowledged, in 1502 and 1507, by Thomas and Henry Petyt, then respectively succeeding to Badger. A quit-rent of 20s. per annum and two suits at the Great Hundred Court of Burton were the annual services recognized by each. A Heriot on the death of any tenant was also acknowledged.- It was three quarters of wheat and three of oats, but had been compounded "from ancient time" by a money payment of 1 merk (Register, fo.17). In the Valor of 1534 these outlying assets of Wenlock Priory are estimated in gross under the head of Foreign Rents; but after the Dissolution I find that the Lords of Badger paid a quit-rent of 1. 14s. annually to the Crown, which I doubt not represented, though not quite exactly, their older obligations to the Priory. (Blakeway MSS).


Castle (then a minor) in Baggesore, one carucate of land in demesne, eight acres of wood, and four acres of meadow, worth 20s. 10s. and 13s. respectively, per annum. He had also held at Acliton twelve virgates of Sir John de Hastings, of the fee of Worfield, by service of 60s., and this was worth 6. 19s. 6d. per annum; also six acres of meadow which he held there were worth 16s. per annum, and he owed suit to the Manor Court of Worfield".

The Jurors concluded by stating his son Thomas to be his next heir, and that he entered his fourteenth year on the feast of St. Laurence last past (i.e. Aug. 10th, 1291). [38]

Thomas de Baggesovere (with whom I must conclude these extracts) consequently came of age Aug. 10, 1299, and on June 6, 1300, I find him exercising his office, as Forester of the Fee, with others of the same rank, and contributing to the great Perambulation or settlement which then defined the rights of the Crown in regard to the Forests of Shropshire. [39]

On March 15, 1301, this Thomas occurs as holding over Roger de Bagesore, his relation and Tenant at Cleobury-North, who was then deceased. [40]

Before 1316, Thomas was himself dead, leaving a widow Anabel, who, in January of that year, presented to Badger Church; and a son Philip, who, though he can hardly have been of age, is yet entered as Lord of Badger in the Feodary which was ordered to be taken in March following. [41]


Badger and Beckbury evidently formed a detached portion of the great Saxon Parish of St. Milburg, a condition which is represented at this day by their belonging to the Diocese of Hereford, though isolated among Parishes which were formerly in Chester and are now in Lichfield Diocese.

The Church here, probably founded in the beginning of the

[38] Inquisitions, 19 Edw. I, No. 10.
[39] Salop Chartulary, No. 279.
[40] Inquisitions, 29 Edw. I, No. 7.
[41] Nomina Villarum (Parliamentary Writs, iv, 397).


twelfth century, and by the Lords of the Fee, was always in their gift; but they were bound to present their nominee to the Prior of Wenlock, who further presented him to the Bishop.

A pension also (for the due payment of which this mediate right of Presentation enabled the Prior to exact fealty and security from each nominee) was reserved to Wenlock. Such were in this instance the remains of the ancient spiritual jurisdiction of St. Milburg.

The Formula by which a Prior of Wenlock presented any nominee of the "Real Patron" of this Church is preserved. It addresses the Bishop of Hereford, or his Vicar General, and recites that the Nomination to the Parochial Church or Curative Chapel of Badger belongs to A.B. (the Lord of Badger) by reason of a concession canonically made thereof by the Prior's predecessors. It further alleges an existent vacancy, and concludes by presenting C.B. (as nominated by A.B. to the Prior) to the Bishop, for admission; "saving to us a pension of 40d. which in ancient times was wont to be paid to our house". [42]

This form seems to have been used in 1524 by Roland Prior of Wenlock when presenting a Clerk to Charles Booth, then Bishop of Hereford.-

It explains not only what follows as regards Badger Church, but gives us the ratio of many similarly mediate rights of presentation.

In 1291, this Chapel is merely entered as being of less than 4. annual value. It was therefore not assessable; nor is the Prior's pension mentioned. [43]

On May 23, 1331, Thomas (Charlton) Bishop of Hereford, in course of a Visitation, was at Wenlock. On this occasion the Prior exhibited his titles to a number of spiritual claims, which were duly examined, and pronounced to be satisfactory by a Charter of the same Bishop dated at Morville, on May 27 following. Among these recognized rights are, "the Pensions which the Prior and Convent are receiving in the Churches or Chapels of Glazeleye, Maddeleye, Parva Wenlock, Bechebury, Bagesore, Wilileye, and Borewardesleye".

In the Assessment of Parishes (A.D. 1341 44) neither Badger nor

[42] Register at Willey, fo. 25, b.
[43] Pope Nicholas' Taxation, p. 167. b. "Ecclesia de Baddeshovere (in Decanatu de Wenlak) non valet 4."
[44] Rot. Pat. 22 Ed. III, part iii, numb. 34 (inspeximus).


Beckbury appear. Their proper place was under the Deanery of Wenlock, but their isolated position perhaps preserved them from the ordinary notice of the Commissioners.

An Extent (or Valuation) of the possessions of Wenlock Priory, taken Sept. 6, 1379, gives the Chapel of Bagesore as in the Presentation of the Prior and as worth 5 merks (3. 6s. 8d.) per annum. [45]

Among the receipts of the Sacristan of Wenlock Priory apparently in time of Henry VII, one of 3s. 4d. payable at the Translation of St. Milburg (May 26) from Bagsor is enumerated. The same due is entered less particularly in the Valor of 1534 and in the Minister's Accounts of 1541. [46]

The Valor states the Rectory of Bagesore, of which George Barret was then Incumbent, to be worth in glebe and tithes 4. 11s. 2d.; the charges whereon were the above Pension and 4d. per annum for Synodals.


ROGER, CLERK OP BAGGESOUR, has already occurred in two deeds which we have dated about 1174 and 1211 respectively. I suppose Roger in each case to have been Incumbent of the Church whether there were two of the same name or not.

ALAN was Rector here in 1246 as stated above.

Jan. 28, 1291, the Prior and Convent of Wenlock presented by their letter patent, PHILIP DE BAGGESORE, CLERK, to the vacant Church; which letter Philip, Father of the Presentee, exhibited to the Bishop, requesting him to show favour to his son in the premises. To whom the Bishop replied, that he would commend the Church to some good Priest till he should see fit to order otherwise; to which arrangement Philip (whose right it was to present a fit Parson to the Prior and Convent that they again should present the same to the Bishop, whenever the Church were vacant) fully acceded. [47]

June 19, 1308. MARTIN DE WISTANESTOWE, PRIEST, was admitted on Presentation of the Prior and Convent of Wenlock.

Jan. 27, 1316. PHILIP DE STRIETHAY, CLERK, was admitted On presentation of Anabel Lady of Badger, "the true Patron", transmitted through the Prior and Convent. Philip's death took place

[45] Monasticon, v, 78, No. viii.
[46] Valor Ecclesiasticus, iii, 209, 216. Monasticon, v, 80, xii.
[47] A Blakeway MSS. from Hereford Registers. The youth of this nominee has been pointed out above.


June 22, 1344, and on July 28, 1344, it was found by Inquisition that Philip Lord of Bagsore, was the true Patron, exercising his right through the Prior of Wenlock; that Anabella, Philip's Mother, last presented; and that the "Cure of souls at Badger remained with the Vicar of the Holy Trinity of Wenlock".-

JOHN, SON OF JOHN LORD OF BECKBURY, aged twenty-five years and more, was accordingly presented by the said Philip, and admitted by the Bishop.-

There was an informality in this. Wenlock Priory being at this time in the King's hands, in consequence of the war with France, its mediate right of Patronage should have been exercised by the Crown. The King however, being ignorant of any presentation having been made, and conceiving the right to belong ordinarily to Wenlock, presented JOHN WOTENHULL in the following year (1345). [48]

Wotenhull immediately attempted to oust Beckbury, and at this juncture Philip de Bagsore the Patron died. The matter consequently remained in dispute two years, when "William de Bagesore, Lord of the Manor of Bagesore, petitioned the King, showing that nomination to the Chapel belonged to the Lordship, and that all his Ancestors had immemorially presented a Clerk to the Prior and Convent of Wenlock, who had nominated the same Clerk to the Bishop, and that Philip, the Petitioner's father, not aware that the right of the Priory was in the Crown because of the war, had on a late vacancy presented John de Beckbury to the Prior, who presented to the Bishop, who instituted the said John". The King hereupon issued a Patent revoking his presentation of Wotenhull. [49]

After the death of John de Beckbury, and on-

March 23, 1349, the King, addressing J. Bishop of Hereford, presents HUGH CARLES, CLERK, to the "Chapel of Baggesovere, as being nominated to us by William de Baggesore, to whom it appertains so to nominate to us, seeing that the Priory of Wenlock is in our hands by reason of the war". [50] The Bishop's Admission of Hugh Carles, date April 7, 1349, recites the above Patent.

Oct. 8, 1368. ROGER DE HONDESLOWE was presented by Richard Clodeshele and Alice his wife, through medium of the Prior, &c. He was admitted by the Bishop on Oct. 18 following, and, for some

[48] Pat. 28 Ed. III, p. 1, m. 23.
[49] Pat. 21 Ed. III, p. 1, m. 10.
[50] Pat. 19 Ed. III, p. 1, memb. 23.


cause of doubt again occurring, was confurmed in his possession by a Royal Patent dated Feb. 24, 1376.

March 14, 1409. WILLIAM NEWTON, CHAPLAIN, was instituted on nomination of Thomas Smythe, and on presentation of the Prior of Wenlock. [51]


DUGDALE, speaking of places thus named in Warwickshire, assigns to them an etymology "obvious enough, forasmuch as the soyl there is of a light sandy disposition, and beareth Rye best of any Grain". [1]

Domesday notices the Shropshire Manor as follows;-

"The same Osbern (Fitz Richard) holds Ruitone (under Earl Roger) Wiuar and Brictstual held it (in time of King Edward) for two Manors. Here are v hides geldable. There is (arable) land (sufficient) for VIII ox-teams. In demesne there are II ox-teams and III serfs, with III boors. Here is a mill rendering horse- loads of fine wheat (siliginis). In time of King Edward (the Confessor) the Manor was worth xxx shillings (per annum). Now it is worth xx shillings. He (Osbern) found it waste". [2]

I have already said that of the three Alnodestreu Manors held by Osbern Fitz Richard under Earl Roger in 1086, no interest in two seems to have passed to his descendants. We have scanty means of judging how this disseverance happened, and no hint as to any forfeiture, partial or general, having befallen the early Barons of Richards-Castle.

True it is that Osbern Fitz Richard joined in the rebellion of 1188, when Wulstan Bishop of Worcester so ably maintained the cause of William Rufus in the West; but then the chiefest

[51] Hereford Registers (Blakeway MSS). The Priory of Wenloek was declared Denizen by Richard II in 1395. Hence the restitution of all its rights of Patronage.
[1] Dugdale's Warwickshire (Thomas's Edition, i, 46).
[2] Domesday, fo. 257, b. 2.


if not the most open of the Revolutionists was the Norman Earl of Shrewsbury himself, and he was freely pardoned. His less politic Vassal may however have suffered a partial forfeiture even in a district where his interests were associated with those of so influential a Suzerain.

Another hypothesis, as to this and some similar and early dismemberments of great Fiefs, remains to be offered. There can be no question that the original Norman settlement of this County involved all the ordinary feudal tenures, as well those by Knight's service as by Castle-Guard and Petit Serjeantry of other kinds. The Shropshire Domesday however takes no notice of such liabilities, as attaching to particular Manors; and indeed these details hardly seem appropriate to a Census which had for its object the ascertainment of gross rather than net value and extent. The silence of Domesday as to conditions of tenure does not, in short, imply the non-existence of such conditions at the time when the Survey was taken. It is therefore very possible that to Osbern Fitz Richard's tenure of Ryton and Brockton services were attached, in 1086, identical or similar with those which were afterwards exacted from the Tenants of those Manors. It is further very possible that a Baron, the bulk of whose Fief lay in distant parts of this, or in other Counties, might find some outlying Manors a mere incumbrance; in other words, that the services with which they happened to be charged were more than they were worth to him. In such cases a direct surrender or a neglect to comply with the terms of tenure would lead to the same result, viz. a reversion of the Manor or Manors in question to the Suzerain. Thus, as I apprehend, did Osbern Fitz Richard's tenure of Ryton and Brockton cease, and those Manors become subject to the re-disposal of the Norman Earl or of the Crown.

That which I have next to offer about Ryton amounts to little more than a choice between two possible alternatives, one of which seems however to be recommended by some external evidence. Before the death of King Henry I, and probably by that Monarch, it was granted as the whole or part of a Knight's Fee either to one whom I shall presently notice as Engelard de Stretton, or else to some one from whom the said Engelard inherited. If the former, then Engelard must have survived his feoffment at least forty-three years (a thing not impossible in itself, but which implies either an unusually early advancement or an extraordinary longevity of the Feoffee): if the latter, then the descent from the first Feoffee to


Engelard will have been through a female, for Engelard (being a younger son of his Father) can have inherited nothing except through his Mother, she not being the Mother of his elder Brother. And the latter theory will become more probable from a fact, which will presently appear, viz. that Engelard's successors at Ryton were the descendants of his Sister and not those of his elder Brother. It is obvious therefore, according to all ordinary rules of succession, that the said Sister was his uterine Sister, and that the fact which excluded their elder Brother from this inheritance must have been his non- participation in the whole blood of his Father's younger children.

This Engelard de Stretton was a man of great importance in his day; and as Ryton was his only, or principal, tenure in capite, it is fitting here to relate all that I can learn of him. Some scattered evidences, which when brought together will explain each other, should suffice also to show that what I have above advanced without references is not therefore mere theory. Engelard de Stretton was, as I suppose, younger Son of that Ralph de Pichford of whom we have already heard as a Tenant in capite, and as having distinguished himself by essential services to King Henry I during the siege of Brug Castle in 1102. His elder Brother, Richard de Pichford, succeeded their presumed Father, Ralph, not only in several Manors which had formed the Domesday Fief of Norman Venator, but also in that addition at Little Brug with which King Henry rewarded the zeal of his Follower.

Before the year 1157, Richard de Pichford and Engelard his Brother are witnesses to a deed whereby William Fitz Alan (I) and certain of his Vassals concurred in granting Sundorn to Haghmon Abbey. [3]

Also before 1157, when Richard de Pichford gave to the same house a hide of land in Brome (near Ellesmere), Engelard his Brother was present and (being I suppose Tenant thereof) consented. Again, after the said Richard's death, and before 1172, "Engelard de Stretton" makes an independent grant of this hide of land, adding thereto the site of a Mill. [4]

Richard de Pichford dying I suppose in 1157, and leaving his son, another Richard, under age, the latter, as a Tenant in capite, became a ward of the Crown. At Michaelmas 1157, the following

[3] Haughmond Chartulary, fo. 213. [4] Ib. fo. 40, and Harl. MSS. 3868, fo. 11.


entry occurs on the Shropshire Pipe Roll:- "Engelard renders account of 20 merks for custody of the land of his Nephew". He had in fact bought the wardship from King Henry II; and he paid the said fine in this and the following year. [5]

Thus much for the family and relations of Engelard; and next for the reason of his being called "de Stretton" rather than "de Pichford". This will appear most satisfactorily. Within a few months of the accession of Henry II, he (Engelard) was made Castellan of Stretton, then a Royal Fortress and Manor. [6] The Manor, fiscally reputed to be worth 4. per annum, furnished his Salary. Hence the following charge made by the Sheriff of Shropshire on the King's Revenue in 1156, viz. "To Engelard, Custos of the Castle, 4. in Stratton". And each Sheriff till the year 1177 repeats this annual charge as of 4. bestowed "in custody of Stratton Castle".

In the Summer of the latter year, this Salary was augmented to one of 20. per annum chargeable on Wellington, Edgmond, and Stretton, and at the same time another Castellan than Eugelard is named. The probable reason of this will appear presently.

To show Engelard de Stretton's connexion with Ryton, I must now refer back to the witnesses of that deed, whereby before 1172, Richard de Picheford granted Picheford Mill to Haghmon. Three of those witnesses are Nicholas, Brother of the Grantor, Engelard (whom I suppose to be Engelard de Stretton and Uncle of the Grantor), and Richard Fitz Odo de Ruttune (whom I take to be Engelard's Tenant at Ryton).

I will make these assumptions very plausible. In the year 1165-6, the return of the Tenants in capite of the Kingdom, known as the Liber Niger, was made. [7] Engelard de Stratton was one of the King's Vassals of Salopescire, whose Carta or Return is preserved. He gives the King greeting, and his faithful service, recites the Royal Mandate, and in compliance therewith, informs the King that he (Engelard) "has only one Knight, viz. Richard Fitz Odo, and that he has no Knight of the New Feoffment". [8] The meaning of this is that Engelard de Stretton only held one Knight's Fee in capite, that the Feoffment creating it was of date anterior to the death of Henry I (1135), and that the Knight then holding it under Engelard was Richard Fitz Odo.

[5] Rot. Pip. 3 and 4 Hen. II, Salop.
[6] Supra, Vol. p. 358.
[7] Supra, Vol. I, p. 3.
[8] Liber Niger. vol. i, pp. 147, 148.


Beyond his attestation of several local Deeds, which will appear in their proper connexion, I have little more to say of Engelard de Stretton. At Michaelmas 1178 and 1174, he appears as having acted as Visor over Guy le Strange's repairs of Shrewsbury Castle.

At Michaelmas 1177, he had been amerced by the King himself for trespass on the Royal Forests, a circumstance which tallies so nearly with his ceasing to be Castellan of Stretton, that I cannot but associate the two events. His amercement was 10 merks and a Destrier. He paid 5 merks in 1177, and the balance before Michaelmas 1178. [9]

Presuming him not to have long survived the latter year, I will merely say of his succession that he had a daughter Felicia, but that his eventual heirship was in his Sister Alice and her issue by her husband Philip de Burgo; that the son of the said Philip and Alice was Bertram de Burgo, [10] and that Bertram as well as his Son and perhaps Grandson of the same name, successively inherited a kind of seigneury in Ryton. They had other interests also, both in Staffordshire and Shropshire, and, as regards the latter, these De Burghs usually appear to have been Tenants of the Pichfords, that is of the male descendants of that Ralph who was Father of their maternal Ancestress, Alice.

But there was a long interval during which the seigneury of De Burgh at Ryton is unrecorded. The apparent reason of this is that the tenure from being simply by service of a Knight's-Fee came to be commuted for a tenure by service of doing ward at the King's Castle of Shrawardine, and that so, he who held Ryton under De Burgh and performed the latter service was reputed to be and often registered as the actual tenant in Capite.

Of him and his succession we will now speak:-

We have already seen him as Richard Fitz Odo in 1165, and as Richard Fitz Odo of Ruttune before 1172. He or his Son, called simply Richard de Ruiton, appears as a witness to various deeds

[9] Rot. Pip. 23 and 24 Hen. II, Salop.
[10] Liber Ruber Scaccarii, fo. ccxiij. This is a memorandum by some Officer of the Exchequer as to the descent of the Knight's Fee once held by Engelard de Stretton. It merely traces the descent to Alice, Engelard's Sister, wife of Philip de Burgo, and to her Successor, Bertram de Burgo. Mr. Hunter's Index of the Liber Ruber attributes this portion of its contents to transactions of the time of Henry II and Richard I. I know from other evidence that Bertram thus mentioned was dead before 1219. The other particulars of this family shall form a future subject.


affecting land in the neighbourhood, the dates of which may be summarily taken as between 1190 and 1230.

In October 1208, Richard de Ruton occurs as a juror in causes of Grand Assize tried at Salop; he was himself amerced half a merk for some transgression, and was Surety for the fine of a neighbouring landholder, Henry de Hugford. [11]

At Michaelmas 1204, when King John's fifth Scutage had been Assessed, as well as upon Tenants by Knight's service as Tenants by Serjeantry, Richard de Ruiton had been charged and had paid half a merk to the same, as if he were a tenant of one-fifth of a Knight's fee. [12]

In the year 1211, he is entered as one of the King's Tenants by Seijeantry in the County of Salop, his service being to find one serving foot-soldier with a lance, for the ward of the King's Castle of Shrawardine. [13]

His trust in 1220, has before been noticed. [14]

At the Assizes of November 1221, he appears both as a Knight and Juror of Grand Assize, but beyond his attestations of some later deeds I can say nothing further of him.

His successor seems to have been John de Ruton, who in two lists of Fitz Alan's Shropshire Barony is said, about 1240, to hold half a Knight's fee in Ruton of John Fitz Alan. [15] A third and nearly contemporary list omits this entry, [16] and indeed Ryton could only be said to be held of Fitz Alan because it owed service to Shrawardine, a Castle of which John Fitz Alan was then seized.

This John de Ruton appears on several Juries, and as witness of many local deeds. At the Assizes of January 1256, he was one of the two principal Jurors of Brimstree Hundred whose office was to choose their ten fellows. I do not find him attesting deeds to which I can sisign a later date than 1263.

His successor, William de Ruton, I find similarly engaged as a juror and a Witness from about 1270 to 1803.

Early in that period, he gave two acres to Wombridge Priory,- the said two acres lying intermixed with lands in Grindle which

[11] Salop Assizes, 6 John, m. 4 recto, 6 dorm, 4 dorso.
[12] Rot. Pip, 6 John, Salop.
[13] Testa de Nevill, fo. 254. Liber Ruber Scaccarii, fo. cxxxvij.
[14] Supra, Vol. I, p. 300.
[15] Testa de Nevill, pp. 48, 49.
[16] Ibidem, p. 44. At the same time Ralph de Pichford is said to hold a Knight's Fee in Albrighton and Ruton in capite (Ibidem, p. 45). This again is not absolutely correct. Ralph de Pichford had nothing at Ryton, except perhaps the Advowson of the Church.


had previously been given to the same Canons by Richard de Grenhull. [17]

But Buildwas Abbey profited to a much greater extent by the grants and alienations of this William. He had sold Ryton Mill to Hugh de Weston who, calling himself Hugh Lord of Weston, releases all his right therein to the said Abbey, his charter being attested by Sir Robert de Knigteleg, Sir Hugh de Beaumes, Sir John Giffard, Knights, Michael de Morton, Master Thomas de Blumenhull (Blymhill), Ranulph de Grenhull, and Thomas de Beckebur. [18]

This deed, whose date may be placed between 1279 and 1284 [10] was followed immediately by a confirmation from the Lord of the Fee which shall be given more fully.-

"I William Lord of Ritton have granted and confirmed to God and Saint Mary and the Monks of Bildewas a certain Mill in the vill of Ritton which the Monks have of the gift of Sir Hugh de Weston. I have granted it free from all earthly service, with easements and free pasturage for their horses and beasts of burden coming to the Mill, in places nearest thereunto, except corn-fields and meadows under crop; also I grant that the Miller, for the time being, may have around the same Mill, Cocks, Hens, Capons, Geese, Ganders, Chickens, and Ducks; also I quit the whole bylet at the back of the said Mill as on all sides the water bounds it; also a certain meadow in the vill of Ritton, which the Monks have of the gift of Thomas de Marham near the meadow called the Moremede which they have of my gift.- Witnesses: Sirs Hugh de Weston, Hugh de Beaumeys, John Giffard, Knights; John de Styvynton, John de Prees, Hugh de Halegton, Robert le Fremon de Albrichton".

[17] Wombridge Chartulary. Tit. Grenhal, No. 8. The land is further expressed to be bounded by Ruhamstrete and the water- course of Hadinton (Harrington).- Witnesses: Phillip de Bekebur, John de Grenhull, and John de Stiventon.
[18] Roll of Buildwas Charters (in possession of Thomas Langley, Esq. of Golding, 1736),- as copied by Wm. Mitton, and extracted from the collection of the latter by the Rev. J.B. Blakeway.

The Document or rather Chartulary from which these deeds are taken divides the various Charters of Buildwas into two classes, viz. those which passed "before the Statute, and those which did not". In the latter class are arranged the four deeds now under notice. They therefore passed after 1279, when the first Mortmain Statute, entitled "De Religiosis", became Law.

So great a check did this enactment give to the Monastic acquisition of lands that it was thus known among Monks simply as "The Statute".
[19] The grounds for the later limit of date (1284) will appear presently. The names of all attesting witnesses fully bear out the date thus ascertained.


By a further deed very similarly attested, the same William, Lord of Ryton, grants to Buildwas "a certain plat of ground in the territory of Ruton thus bounded, viz. from a certain Cross which stands on the boundary between Cospeford (Cosford) and Archesleg (Atchley) along a road to Crassitismere (Crasset's Mere), and thence along a made fence to a certain white-thorn, and thence to the headland of a certain culture which extends to Trendelleswallemerch, and thence to a place called Munebehatch, and thence along the high road as far as the first-named Cross". He also grants the Monks "common pasture for all their animals lying at their Grange of Cospeford, in a certain plot of his enclosure, viz. from the road which is above the two Stews, going down between the said Stews to the bank of Woth" (Worfe).

Another Charter of the same William conveys yet more extensive privileges to the Monks.- He grants them common pasture for all their animals in their Granges of Gospesford and of Hatton, without number, taxation, or count, through his whole Fee of Ruton, except in a tract of land fenced by a foot-path which passes from his greater Stew to the high-road outside his Court- house at Atchley, towards Ryton, and so along the said road to Calvercroft and thence to Cecilies Meadow.- If the Monks' Cattle happen to stray within this boundary they shall not be impounded but restored without trouble; but if they be found there with a Keeper, surety shall be taken from said Keeper for reasonable damages, to be settled by two Umpires within eight days after the trespass. The Monks may also make a bridge across the water of Wergh (Worfe), over which they can drive their cattle to said pasture from Hatton.- Witnesses: Sirs Hugh de Beaumeys, Peter de Eyton, and John Gifford, Knights; Philip Lord of Baggesovere, Ranulph de Grenhull, John de Bispeston (Bishton), John de Styvynton, Hugh de Haleghton (Haughton), Roger Hod, and others.

These and possibly some still further grants of the same William de Ruton, having been made subsequent to the Mortmain Statute of 1279, required a Royal License, which was not usually issued till an Inquisition had been held as to the damage which the Crown might sustain by allowing the transfer. Such an Inquisition was held in 14 Edw. I (1285-6), and appears to have reported in favour both of these grants at Ryton and of some contemporary acquisition made by the Monks at Bikedon (Bicton near Shrewsbury). [20]

[20] The Inquisition is lost from the proper Custody. It existed when the Calendar of Inquisitions was first made, but not when that Reoord was printed (1806). All we can gather from the Abstract is that it was an inquiry as to the tenure of William de Routon and in behalf of the Abbot of Bildwas; and that it concerned or named the following places, viz. Cospesford, Hatton, Routon, and Bikedon (Calendar, vol. i, p. 92).

In 1291, the Monks of Buildwas were seized of a Mill at Ritton, which was of 10s. annual value (Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 260).


In the meantime, that is about 1284, a Record of Tenures in the Hundred of Brimstree was made. It points out the seigneury of Engelard de Stretton's heirs as still existing at Ryton. "William de Ruton", it says, "holds the vill of Ruton of Bartholomew de Burgo in chief, by one fourth of a Knight's Fee, but there is no mention of whom the said Bartholomew holds in chief". [21]

The latest that I find of William de Ruton is his occurrence as second Juror on an Inquest which sat at Donington, June 15, 1303, and which was to report upon the prescriptive Manorial rights of the Lords of Albrighton.

Before the year 1316 his own interests at Ryton had passed, either by purchase or descent, to Roger Carles, who is then entered as Lord. [22]

This Roger Carles (whom I take to have been Son of Nicholas Carles of Albrighton) had been for some time a prominent person in this neighbourhood, and so continued for at least sixteen years longer. All that I shall further say of him here is, that on Jan. 11, 1318, he obtained the King's Charter of Free Warren in Ryton, Whiston, Bonigale, and Albrighton, in each of which localities he will therefore have had a considerable interest. [23]


The parochial district now attached to this Church would seem originally to have been within the Saxon Parish of Idshall. [24] The separation probably took place in the twelfth century, and the Founder of the district Church was still more evidently the Lord of the Fee.

About the year 1186, the Priests of Ryton, Albrighton, and

[21] Kirby's Quest, a Record of extreme value as regards this Hundred inasmuch as the Brimstree Inquests of 1255 and 1274 are both lost.
[22] Parliamentary Writs, vol iv, p.399. The place is printed in this very inaccurate Record as Ruyx.
[23] Charter, 11. Edw. II, No. 43. The line of Roger Carles ended in a female who carried the Manor and Advowson of Ryton to the Corbetts of Habberley, afterwards of Longnor.
[24] In token of the original subjection of Ryton Church to that of Idshall, the Vicar of Shiffnal is still entitled to an annual pension of 2s. from the Rector of Ryton.


Dawley, attest a charter relating to Sutton Advowson, a circumstance which indicates the previous existence of a Church in each locality. [25] The name of the Ryton Incumbent was Bernard.

At the Assizes of September 1272, the Jurors of Brimstree Hundred reported that William de Cheney, whilst Constable of Brug, took away the key of the Rector of Ryton's grange (i.e. barn), saying that he would have corn for the Castle of Brug, and that this was since the war (1265) and the proclamation of peace, and that said William took half-a-merk from the said Rector for restoration of the key. [26]

In 1291, the Church of Ryton, in the Diocese of Lichfield and Coventry, the Archdeacoruy of Salop, and Deanery of Newport, was valued at 2. per annum. [27]

In 1341, the Assessors of the ninth of wheat, wool, and lamb, charged only 10s. on this Parish. The reasons for so small an assessment were because the small tithes, offerings, hay-tithe, and glebe, which went to make up the greater taxation (2.), were not to be reckoned in the ninth, and because the Rector had a carucate of land besides, and several Tenants, and because much land lay untilled by reason of the poverty and quitting of the occupiers. [28]

In 1534, Richard Rowley being Rector here, the gross value of his Benefice was ascertained by the King's Commissioners to be 6, on which there was an annual charge of 6s. 8d. for Procurations, and 1s. 5d. for Synodals. [29]

The ADVOWSON of Ryton seems to have been held by the elder branch of the Pichfords rather than by the De Burghs who were representatives of the younger branch.-There is a similar compli-cation of these two interests in nearly every Manor where either was concerned.

An Inquest which was held at Albrighton, May 6, 1285, on the death of John de Pichford, found him to have been seized of this Advowson. [30] The Lords of Albrighton continued to present to the Church for forty years longer; then the Advowson and the Manor became united in the Carles family, and both descended to Corbett of Longnor. [31]

[25] Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. " Brocton et Suttone Madoke", No. lxxxv.
[26] Assize Roll, 56 Hen. III, m. 22 dorso.
[27] Pope Nich. Tax. p. 245.
[28] Inquisitiones Nonarum, p. 193.
[29] Valor Ecclesiasticus, iii, 187.
[30] Inquisitions, 13 Edw. I, No. 14.
[31] Sheriffs of Shropshire, p. 126.



About 1186, BERNARD, PRIEST OF RYTON, has occurred above.

In 1314, the benefice being vacant by death of SIR ADAM DE PICHEFORD, late Rector, and being under sequestration, the Bishop, on June 12, at Prees, gives custody of the Fruits and Profits thereof to JOHN DE STEVYNTON, Acolyte, who need not render any account thereof to the Bishop; and Nov. 1st, 1314, the same John de Stevynton was admitted to the Church on presentation of Sir John la Warr, Knight.

He resigned July 26, 1320; and on-

Nov. 29, 1320, ROGER DE SCHEFFELD, Acolyte, was admitted on presentation of the same. [32] He resigned in 1324, and on June 22 of that year, SIR RICHARD DE GOUNSTON, Chaplain, was admitted to the Church and instituted (in person of Richard de Cressevyle, Clerk, his Proctor) on the presentation of Sir John de la Warre.

After the death of Richard de Gonston, viz. on-

Aug. 28, 1342, the Bishop conferred this Church on SIR JOHN DE COTYNGHAM, Priest, the right of collation having in this instance lapsed to the Bishop. In 1344, Cotyngham exchanged this benefice for the Chantry of Conedovere in the Cathedral Church of Lichfield; and on-

June 11, HUGH DE GREYBY, Clerk, late Incumbent of the said Chantry, was admitted here on presentation of William Carles, the true Patron. Greyby resigned Aug. 1, 1349, and on-

Sept. 23 following, WILLIAM TAYLOR, Chaplain, was admitted on presentation of William Careles. [33]

In Sept. 1365, WILLIAM WALKER was Rector of Ryton. [34] He died in 1387.

JOHN DE BYSSCHTON, Priest, was his Successor. [35]


This Township, not mentioned in Domesday, but which seems subsequently to have constituted a distinct Manor, is entitled to another name than modern usage has bestowed upon it. It was of old called Gren-hulle or Gren-hul, i.e. Green Hill.

Though in the Parish of Ryton, I cannot show it to have been held under the same superior Lords, nor yet can I well support a surmise that it might have been a member of Idshal.

[32] Lichfield Register A, folios 67, 669 b.
[33] Lichfield Register B, folios 204, 218 b, 219, 224 b.
[34] Charter at Houghton.
[35] Blakeway's MSS.


The Feoffees here took name from the place, and seem, as a family, to have been of nearly equal importance with their neighbours at Ryton.

The first of whom I find mention is Robert de Grenhul, who about the year 1190, attests Walter de Dunstanville's grant of Aynulfs-Lee to Wombridge Priory. [36]

At the Assizes of October 1203, this Robert de Grenhul sued Hugh de Beckbury for unduly raising a stank in Beckbury whereby Robert's freehold in Grenhull was injured, and his meadows inundated. Damages of 8s. were given, and the stank ordered to be lowered to its previous state. At the same Assizes, Robert de Grenhul essoigned his own attendance at the "common summons".

He was succeeded by Richard de Grenhul, who in 1220, was a Recognizor in a great trial about the Advowson of Tong.

From this time till about 1250, Richard de Grenhul appears a frequent witness to Charters of Wombridge and Buildwas.

At the Assizes of November 1221, Richard de Grenehull was Defendant in a trial of Grand Assize, wherein William Coterel sued him for a half-a-virgate in Herthull. [37] Richard gave half-a-merk for license to accord, his Surety being Hugh de Beckbury. The fine which resulted is preserved.- Thereby Richard conceded the premises to William,- to have and to hold of Richard and his heirs at a rent of 12d. For this William gave two merks. [38]

This Richard, calling himself Lord of Grenhull, and for the health of the souls of himself, his Ancestors, and Successors, made a considerable grant to Wombridge Priory. The gift comprises two half-virgates in the vill of Grenhulle with the meadow appertaining thereto, also a meadow called Alan's meadow, also a culture bounded "by the green lane, which goes from Brocton to Ruton and by the rivulet which runs under Hadinton" (Harrington).

He also allows that the Canons shall have pasturage for 200 sheep, and for the working Cattle of themselves, or their tenants, or assignees occupying said land; the latter right to extend to the Grantor's meadows or cultures when not under crop. He also grants free transit through his land for their carts and other implements, and liberty to get stone in his quarries; and lastly that the Canons shall be quit of all suit of his Court, and need not attend there unless it be for their own pleasure or profit. [39]

[36] Wombridge Chartulary; Tit. Lega Prioris, No. 1. The other witnesses appear to be dependants or connections of the Grantor, who was Lord of Idshale.
[37] Salop Assizes, Hen. III, m. I recto. I cannot determine the situation of the premises in dispute.
[38] Pedes Finium, 6 Hen. III. Salop.
[39] Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Grenhul, No. xii. The witnesses are Sir William de Hedleg (Hadley), Sir Hugh Fitz Robert (of Bowlas), Sir Odo de Hodeneth (Hodnet), Sir Madoc de Sutton, Herbert then Seneschal of Ideshall, Oliver de Knoll, Radulf de Stanton, Adam Pollard, Adam Walsh (Wallensis).


Richard de Grenhull by another and later deed concedes to Sir Walter de Dunstanvill and his heirs the Mill of Grenhull with the site thereof, and the whole suit of the vill of Grenhull, and right of road to and from said Mill, and right of dam and water-course and fishery, from Ricford down to the same Mill; rendering therefore yearly a pair of white gloves, or one halfpenny instead. [40]

Within the next twenty years, Sir Walter de Dunstanville granted to Wombridge Priory the Mill which he had bought of Richard, Lord of Glenhull; by which transfer, it should be observed, the Canons became Tenants of the Mill, paying a nominal rent of one halfpenny to the Lord of Grindle. [41]

Meanwhile, that is about the year 1250 (as far as we can judge from his attestation of undated deeds), John de Grenhull had succeeded Richard in the Lordship of Grindle.

At the Assizes of January 1256, this John officiated as a Juror for the Hundred of Brimstree, and he is found continuously as a Juror or Witness in records or deeds down to November 1277.

There is a Quit-claim of his in the Wombridge Chartulary, which (being apparently of date October 21, 1270) releases to that house the rent of one halfpenny, due to him on Grindle Mill. [42]

This was clearly in consequence of a contemporary agreement whereby the Canons had given him a fee-farm grant of the same Mill at an annual rent of one merk, reserving to themselves the usual seignoral rights whenever any of John's heirs or successors should happen to be in minority - reserving also a power of distress (in case of the said rent being unpaid) to be levied by the Bailiff of the Hundred on all the Tenant's goods. [43]

Between the years 1277 and 1285, John de Grenhull was succeeded by Ranulph de Grenhull. The latter occurs in various documents down to the close of the Century, but under no circumstance of particular interest.

[40] Ibidem, No. 1. The witnesses are Sir John Dunstanville, Sir Walter de Hugeforde, Sir Richard de Sanford (of Brockton Sanford, &c., who died 1249), the Lord Prior of Wombridge, Sir Walter de Kembricton, Sir Yvo de Brocton. The deed passed between 1241 and 1249. This Mill, called in later times the Forge-Mill, is no longer in existence.
[41] Ibidem, Nos. ii and xi.
[42] Ibidem, No. ix.
[43] Ibidem, No. x. In 27 Hen. VIII (1535-6), the Prior of Wombridge returned the receipts of his house as 6. 4s. 10d. per annum, from Tenements in Sutton, Brockton, and Grendull (Vale Eccles. iii, 194).

93 Brocton.

THIS place derives its name from the little brook (broc) which, flowing hither from Madeley, passes on to join the Worfe at Beckbury.

A great proportion of the lands which are now associated with the village of Brockton were, in 1085, involved with Sutton, but there was also a small and separate Manor which we find thus noticed in Domesday.- "The same Osbern (Fitz Richard) holds Broctone (of the Earl) Bruniht who occurs above (i.e. under Badger) held it (in time of King Edward). Here is virgate of land and VIII acres. The (arable) land is (sufficient) for I ox- team. There is I boor with II oxen. Its former value was VIII shillings (per annum); its present is XII pence. He (Osbern) found it waste". [1]

I think that Osbern Fitz Richard's Domesday Tenant at Badger had also feoffment in Brockton. At all events that William de Begesour who, about 1174, sold his interest in Badger, appears to have retained and transmitted to his heirs a subtenancy in Brockton. The name will occur again in the latter relation.

As to Osbern Fitz Richard's Seigneury here, that reverted to the Crown within fifty years after Domesday, and probably at the same time and for the same causes as have been suggested under Ryton.

The neighbouring Manors of Stockton and Sutton were contemporaneously in the King's hands, whereby it came to pass that, on their redistribution in time of Henry II, the Domesday limits of each were not strictly observed. Hence I must speak with some uncertainty of the specific descent of that virgate and eight acres which are entered in Domesday as "Broctone".

This land was possibly represented by a tenement of two virgates, held subsequently under the Crown by petit serjeantry. The immediate tenants bore the name of Russel, and their service was that of Castle-Guard at Shrawardine.

The earliest tenant of whom I find mention was Robert Russel, who in time of Henry II, as I suppose, alienated one half of his

[1] Domesday, fo. 257, b. 2.


serjeantry, viz. one virgate, to Iweyn his brother and Agatha his sister, reserving to himself an annual rent of 5d. [2]

Of this alienation I will speak presently. The next whom I find in the position of Robert Russell was Geoffrey Russell, who attests a deed of Griffin, son of Gervase Goch, in the year 1194.

In the fiscal year, ending Michaelmas 1204, King John's fifth Scutage was levied. It was at the rate of two-and-a-half merks (1. 13s. 4d.) on each Knight's Fee; but the peculiarity of this Scutage was, that it was assessed, not only on Tenants in capite by Knight's service, but on Tenants by Serjeantry. Thus Geoffrey Russell appears upon the Roll as chargeable with half-a-merk. [3]

The same Geoffrey is found attesting certain Brockton Deeds in 1205, and between that year and 1211.

In June 1211, this Geoffrey was deceased, and William Russell was the King's Tenant at Brockton. From two Rolls of that date his obligation is gathered to be "the finding of one serving foot-soldier with a bow, for ward of the King's Castle of Srawrthin". [4]

About 1225, this William Russell granted to Ralph de Sanford, for his homage and service, and for 20s. then paid, all the land which said William had in Wunedon;- rendering therefore 2s. per annum. [5]

Some time afterwards Henry Ywein granted to Wombridge Priory an acre of land which he had in Bromcroft in the vill of Brocton. [6] A contemporary Charter by William Russel shows that this acre was held under him by Henry Ywein who was in fact his relation. [7] He confirmed the grant and added a further donation of his own, viz. three acres on the hill of Habenhull (now The Avenals), and another acre in Bromcroft. [8]

[2] Testa de Nevill, fo. 275.
[3] Rot. Pip. 6 John, Salop.
[4] Testa de Nevill, fo. 254, and Liber Ruber Scaccarii, fo. cxxxvii. Other Rolls, apparently compiled from less accurate but nearly contemporary originals, give the names of both Geoffrey and William Russel as Tenants by Serjeantry, and describe the tenure of the former as a hide of land. This I take to be a mere error of compilation, and do not think that any single original can have contained both names. These latter Rolls are to be found Testa de Nevill, fo. 879, and Liber Ruber, fo. cxxiii.
[5] Charter at Haughton Hall. The witnesses are Sir Hugh de Beckebur, Richard de Grenhull, William de Beggesouris, Roger his Son, Henry le Strange, Robert de Trillewordine, Henry Ywein, Elias Cocus.
[6] Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Brocton, No. xlvii. Tested by Sir Madoc de Sutton, Richard de Sontford (son and heir of Ralph), Roger de Begesour, William Russell, William Cocus.
[7] Ibidem, No. xxxix. Tested by the first, second, third, and fifth witnesses of the last; also by Henry Ywein and Elias Cocus.
[8] Ibidem, No. xlix. Tested by Sir Madoc de Sutton, Richard de Sonford, Richard Grenhull, Roger de Beggeshour, Henry Ywein, and William Cocus.


Before Michaelmas 1240, this William Russel was dead, and Thomas, his son and heir, is entered on the Pipe Roll as owing one merk relief for the lands which he should hold in capite. [9]

Thomas Russel underwent sentence of outlawry and forfeiture within twelve years of his succession. An Inquest of Tenures in Brimstree Hundred, which appears to have been taken about 1251, records as follows:-

"Thomas Russel, who held of the King in capite two virgates of land in Brocton, by service of being in garrison at Montgomery, with whatever arms he chose for self-defence, slew a man, and his land was seized into the King's hand. Of the said land, Robert Russel his ancestor alienated one virgate to Iweyn his (Robert's) Brother and Agatha his Sister by service of 5d. per annum, and it (the alienated land) is now worth one merk" per annum. [10]

The Brimstree Jurors at the Assizes of January 1256, reported the previous "indictment, flight, malcredit, and outlawry of Thomas Russel, and of his accomplices Adam Mestling and Nicholas Russel of Dunninton; also that none of the said outlaws had any chattels". [11]

Thomas Russell's land at Brockton continued an Escheat till the year 1261. It was apparently early in that year that the King ordered an Inquest to be taken by the Sheriff and Coroners as to the circumstance of this Tenure.

Of the Jury which sat on this occasion were Ivo de Brocton, Roger Bagh (Baggesore), Thomas de Brocton, Richard le Oyselur, Hugh Pym, William Dunnynger, William Fitz Elyas, &c.

They reported that Thomas Russel's land was an Escheat of the King, who could give it to whom he chose, but that Dionisia, Thomas's Mother, was still holding one-third thereof in dower. [12]

The King seems to have acted immediately on this information. His writ dated at St. Paul's, London, May 18, 1261, runs as follows.-

"The King having regard to the long services of Nicholas le Waleys his Messenger hath granted to said Nicholas for life that Messuage, &c. in Broghton which Thomas Russel once held in capite

[9] Rot. Pip. 24 Hen. III Salop (Nova Oblata).
[10] Testa de Nevill, fo. 276. The services which, while Shrawardine was a Royal Castle, lay upon many of the King's Tenants in Shropshire were attorned before this period to Montgomery. Shrawardine was, at the same time, probably given up to its hereditary Lords, the Fitz-Alans.
[11] Assize Roll, memb. 9 recto.
[12] Inquis. incerti temporis Hen. III, No. 96.


and which is the King's Escheat, by reason of said Thomas being outlawed for the murder of Thomas Blund of Stocton, and which the King can give to whom he will, as he learns by Inquisition which he has caused to be made by the Sheriff of Salop". The Grantee is to perform all accustomed services. At his death the premises shall revert to the Crown. The Escheator citra Trent is to put the Grantee in possession without delay. [13]

At the Assizes of September 1272, the Brimstree Jurors reported the non-attendance of Nicholas le Messager, also that "he had for ten years withdrawn from the Hundred-Court all suit for his tenure in Brocton, whereby the King was damaged 2s. yearly; also that the said tenure was a virgate of land in Brockton, for which he was to find for the King one bow (archer) with a bolt (bosone) for fifteen days, at Mungomery, in time of war". [14]

The Feodary of 1284 exhibits the extent of this tenure, and also the service due thereon to the Crown, as again changed; though I suppose that the Tenant mentioned held under Nicholas le Messager, and not, as stated, in capite.-

Alexander le Cold is entered as holding half a virgate in the vill of Brocton in capite, by service of going with the King into Wales in time of war, with one lance, for a week. [15]

At the Assizes of October 1292, a thorough investigation of the various rights of the Crown in this County brought this Serjeantry again under notice. [16]

The King, by Hugh de Louther (his Attorney), prosecuted Nicholas le Messager for one virgate in Brocton, which he, the King, claimed as his right. The Defendant did not appear, and the Sheriff having been ordered to summon him had not done so, but certified that said Nicholas was dead. Hugh de Louther denied this, and affirmed Nicholas to be alive and well (in plena vita), and was ready to prove this by Jury. The Sheriff made a similar appeal; so an Inquest was ordered thereupon, and a formal precept issued to the Coroners.

Whatever was the result of this further investigation, I find no

[13] Fines, ii, 351. Originalia, i, 17.
[14] Placita Coronae, 56 Hen. III, Salop, m. 22 dorso, 23 recto.
[15] Kirby's Quest. Alexander le Cold appears on a local Jury in September 1276; and, for several years after, his land in Brockton is a subject of mention in contemporary Charters of Wombridge Priory. In most of these his Christian name is written Tandi or Oandi,- abbreviations of "Alexander" which would seem to have been then in use.
[16] Placita de quo Warranto, p. 685.


later evidence of this Serjeantry constituting an individual Tenure in capite.

I believe that it was afterwards held by the Burnels of Langley, in common with other acquisitions in the neighbourhood which had been secured by their relative, the princely Bishop of Bath and Wells, who died, holding the Great Seal of England, at the very time when these Prosecutions were on foot.

We should say something of the descent of that IWEYN whom we have seen to become a Feoffee of Robert Russell in the twelfth century, and whose heirs were consequently under-tenants of the successive occupants of this Serjeantry. Henry Fitz Ywein is found attesting local deeds early in the thirteenth century. As Henry Ywein he has already been mentioned at a somewhat later date.

Robert Ouewyn served on a Stockton Inquest in 1243.

Richard Iwen, Iweyn, or Weyn, of Brockton, occurs as a witness before 1249, as a Juror in 1253, and was living in 1272. From the latter date till the beginning of the next century another Henry Iweyn seems to have represented the family; and in 1316, 1318, and 1336 we have Richard Owyn, Heweyn, or Vweyn in a similar position. On May 1, 1341, Sibil, widow of Richard Owyn, occurs as holding dower in Brockton. [17]


I have already hinted that of several tenures in Brockton it is difficult to distinguish the one which constituted the Domesday Manor from others which, having been involved at Domesday, in Sutton, were afterwards detached therefrom and became independent.

A second tenure (of two and a half virgates) shall have notice here, as possibly representing the Domesday Manor of Broctone.

This, in time of King Henry II, was held in capite by Richard de Linley. Of him I have spoken under Linley, and shall here say no more of him than that he appears to have alienated one-and-a- half virgates of his Serjeantry in Brocton to Sibil de Linley,18 his relation

[17] Wombridge Cluirtulary passim, and Charters at Haughton. I have not given all the varieties which ocour in the spelling of this single name "Owen". The Anglo-Saxon law-clerks were in no case very studious of a consistent orthography; but the spelling of Welsh proper names seems to have been a subject of more than usual caprice.
[18] Testa de Nevill, fo. 60. The passage is inaccurate and ungrammatical; but its intended meaning is clearly that which I have assigned to it.


doubtless, but not his heir. Sibil in turn bestowed her land in Brocton on Lilleshall Abbey, as has been before stated. [19]

We will presently return to the Lilleshall interest thus created here; but now we will follow the descent of those two Coheiresses who eventually succeeded Philip de Linley in the residuary virgate at Brockton, as well as in the whole Manor of Linley.

These were the wives, one of William le Forcer, the other (Isolda) of Wido de Farlow. [20]

An Inquest of Tenures in Brimstree Hundred taken in 1227, states that William (it should be Wido) de Fernlawe and William le Forcir hold a virgate in Brockton by service of finding one serving foot-soldier at Shewrthin (Shrawardine) for eight days if necessary; and that the annual value (of the said virgate) was 15s. [21]

GUY DE FERNLAWE was Lord of Farlow, and has already occurred to our notice as attesting a Broseley deed about 1230, and a Pickthorn Deed about 1241-2. [22] And soon after that he died, leaving Philip his son and heir, who before the year 1251, calling himself Philip, son of Wido de Farnlowe, grants to Stephen, son of William Keede (elsewhere spelt Cude) of Brockton, for his homage and for 20s. entrance-fee, half a virgate in Brockton which came hereditarily to him (Philip) from Ysonda his mother:- to hold in fee at a rent of 7s. 6d. [23]

[19] Supra, Vol. I, p. 360.
[20] Before the Brockton virgate settled into this succession, i.e., about the year 1211, the following inconsistent and unintelligible returns appear to have related thereto:-

1. William Briware holds by serjeantry one virgate in Drayton, and he should find one serving foot-soldier for ward of the Castle of the Lord King of Srawthin (Testa de Nevill, p. 56).

2. William Bruere holds by serjeantry of one serving foot- soldier with a bow, for ward of Sraworthin (Liber Rub. Scacc. fo. cxxxvii).

3. William Briwer holds Bramton by service of finding a serving foot-soldier for ward. (Testa de Nevill, p. 417).

That the tenure thus alluded to was in Brockton rather than Bramton or Drayton will be clear; but who William Briwere the Tenant was I cannot surmise. He may have been Guardian of the two Coheiresses, or he may have been the first husband of one of them, or again he may have been the heir of Philip de Linley and Father of them both.

It will not serve to elucidate the difficulty when I state that in 1226, Alice de Draiton was suing William Cude (whose family I know to have been Under-tenants in this Serjeantry) for disseizing her of a tenement in Brockton. Judgment was given for the Defendant because the Plaintiff had never been in seizin of the premises (Abbrev. Placitorum, p. 103). A confusion of the names Drayton and Brockton is not a singular occurrence.

[21] Testa de Nevill, fo. 54.
[22] Supra, Vol. I, p. 240.
[23] Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Brocton, No. xv. Tested by Adam de Doditun, Yvo de Brocton, Roger Beeg (Bagsore), Richard Beeg, Thomas Russel, Richard Pym.


I can say nothing further of this Philip de Farlow than that he was living in 1255, and dead in 1272; and that his inheritance seems to have been divided among Coheiresses, who in the year 1273, were jointly in receipt of 9s. per annum chargeable on Linley, and 7s. 6d. per annum, the rent of their share of Brockton, as reserved in the feoffment of Stephen Keede already quoted.

This rent of 7s. 6d. and the Seigneural rights which it implied were afterwards bought up by Robert Burnell, Bishop of Bath and Wells, who was at the time a ready purchaser of any Shropshire property.

On May 5, 1280, the following Fine was levied at Westminster between said Robert, Complainant (querentem), and Matilda de Farlawe, Defendant (impedientem), of 4s. rent in Brockton whereof was plea.- "Matilda acknowledged the right of Robert thereto as of her own gift. To hold to Robert and his heirs of John de Cleton and his heirs for ever;- Rendering a red-rose and capital services. The Bishop gave a sore hawk. And this concord was made in presence and by consent of, and under warranty of said rent, by John de Cleton". But Robert de Doditon and Isolda his wife put in a claim to said rent, as we learn from an indorsement on the Fine.

At the same time and place another fine was levied between the same Plaintiff and John de Cleton and Alice his wife, Defendants, of 3s. 6d. rent in Brockton, whereof was plea of warranty of Charter. John and Alice acknowledged the right of the Bishop as of their own gift;- to hold to the Bishop and his heirs at a rent of one rose and by render of capital services. The Bishop gave a sore hawk. [24]

Having now traced one interest in this Tenure to the Bishop of Bath and Wells, I proceed to show that he acquired another also, viz. that which was held in 1227 by WILLIAM LE FORCER.

This William, who has occurred as witness of two Broseley deeds about 1230, was deceased before Dec. 6, 1242, when Henry his Son and Heir fined three merks with the King, to have seizin of his Father's lands, although he (Henry) was yet under age. The King accepted his fealty, and he was to do his homage on the King's return into England. The Sheriff of Salop was to take security for the said three merks, and give Henry full seizin. [25]

[24] Pedes Finium, 8 Edw. I, Salop.
[25] Fines, i, 391. The King was in Gascony. This writ was expedited by the Archbishop of York.


On Nov. 15, 1248, Henry le Forcer having enfeoffed an Under- Tenant in his half-virgate at Brockton the following Fine was levied at Salop, viz. "between Henry le Forcer, Plaintiff (petentem), and Henry de Brocton and Sibil his wife, Tenants, of half-a-virgate in Brocton, whereof was Plea, &c. Henry de Brocton and Sibil acknowledged the right of the Plaintiff, who conceded the premises, - to have and to hold to Henry de Brocton and Sibil, and the heirs of Sibil, rendering therefore to the Plaintiff and his heir 7s. 6d. annually, and performing accustomed services to the Chief Lord of the Fee". [26]

About the year 1251, an Inquest of Tenures in Brimstree Hundred seems to give the then state of this Serjeantry. "Henry le Forcer and Philip de Franlasche (Farlow) hold two-and-a-half virgates (the original quantity) of the King, in Brocton, by Serjeantry of finding one man at Montgomery in war, for fifteen days. Out of this (two-and-a-half virgates) Richard de Linley alienated one-and-a-half virgates to Sibil de Linley, and it (the alienation) is worth 20s". (per annum). [27]

Besides what I have said, under Linley, of Henry le Forcer, I find that on March 28, 1256, he and his Brother Roger took one of the King's Deer. [28] Roger escaping from arrest was outlawed, but Henry was still in prison when, in February 1262, the Justices of the Forest visited Shrewsbury. A fine of 20s., for which Andrew de Wileley and John Tece of Tasley were his Sureties, seems then to have procured his release.

His attestation of two Charters as a Tenant of Shrewsbury Abbey at Astley must have passed between this period his death (Oct. 6, 1272). [29]

The first Inquest as to his estate reported him to "have held half-a-virgate of the vill of Brocthon, which a certain free man (his Feoffee of 1248) then held, by doing service for him (Henry) at Suarthin, also that the said Henry had sold all his right therein to Robert Burnell".

A second Inquest, which sat April 16, 1273, purports to be more correct. It says that he had held "half-a-virgate of the King in Brocton, of the Barony of Montgomery, by service of finding one foot-soldier in ward of the Castle there, that he before his death

[26] Pedes Finium, 33 Hen. III, Salop.
[27] Testa de Nevi11, p. 60. The change of service from Shrawardine to Montgomery is again observable. (Vide supra, n. 10.)
[28] Placita Forestae, Salop, 46 Hen. III, memb. 4.
[29] Salop Chartulary, Numbers 145, 151.


(had sold) the said land to Sir Robert Burnel, who has Custody of the said Barony, by some right, to himself or his heirs ..." [30]

Though the deceased was thus shown not to have been a Tenant in capite, the King's Escheator, seized upon his heir, claiming for the Crown the right of disposing of him in marriage.

Margery de Harcourt, daughter and (as she is on this occasion less accurately called) Coheir of William de Harcourt, claimed this wardship, and petitioned the Crown for the same in 1275. Her claim arose as having the Seigneury of Ayleston (co. Leicester). She alleged that her ancestors always had custody and marriage of the Heirs of Le Forcer, who were Tenants of that Manor, notwithstanding that Henry Le Forcer had held other lands of the Honour of Montgomery and the Priory of Wenlock (she alluded to Brockton and Linley).

The King's writ, dated 18 July 1275, directed the Sheriff of Shropshire to inquire into this matter. A Jury met at Brockton on January 2, 1276, and reported that Richard de Harcourt, Margery's Grandfather, had had the marriage of Henry le Forcer, deceased, the latter having been a Minor at the death of his Father William; that said Richard sold the said marriage to Nicholas le Forcer, Henry's Uncle; and that the King and his Ancestors, Lords of the Honour of Montgomery, had never had marriage or custody of the Forcers. [31]

Sir Robert Burnell, above mentioned as purchasing Henry le Forcer's interest at Brockton, was consecrated Bishop of Bath and Wells April 7, 1275. We have already seen how in 1280 he was buying the seigneury (or right to the chief-rent) of the other moiety of this Serjeantry. His object was a title to the whole rent of 15s. per annum (7s. 6d. being the reserved rent on each moiety); and it should be remembered that 15s. had been stated in 1227 to be the value of this virgate to its owners. The Bishop seems either to have changed the Under-Tenants here, or to have performed the services due on this Serjeantry by another deputy; but his transactions at this period were so numerous and complicated that I cannot do more than set down what I suppose to relate to Brockton. The Bishop had a relation, a Nephew I believe, Richard Burnell, to whom he granted Langley, at first for life, and afterwards in fee.-

In 1284, Richard Burnel is entered as holding one virgate in

[30] Inquisitions, 1 Edw. I, No. 47. This Record is much defaced.
[31] Inquisitions, 4 Edw. I, No. 77.


Brocton of the King in capite, but his warrant to do so was not known. [32]

The Bishop however still continued seized of the chief-rent of 15s.; for in 1291, Sir Philip Burnel (Nephew and heir expectant of the Bishop) gave to Wombridge Priory 15s. rent in the vill of Brocton in exchange for all land and rents which the Priory had at Norton near Condover. The said exchange was attested by the Bishop himself, [33] who seems, as regards this estate, to have anticipated the succession of his heir.

Nevertheless, Richard Burnel continued to hold this land, and to be reputed the Tenant in capite, though the service due thereon appears again to have been changed,-

In 1310, when the army of England was under summons to meet at Tweedmouth on Sept. 19th, Richard Burnel proffered service of a fourth part of a Knight's Fee to be performed by one serving man with a barded horse. [34]

Richard Burnel of Langley seems to have died in 1313, [36] and to have been succeeded both at Langley and Brockton by William Burnel. In 1328, when marriage articles were agreed upon between Edward (son of this William) and Margaret Lee, William Burnel enfeoffed the said Edward, &c. "in all his lands in Broctone near Kembrygton, except the Tenement which he held of the King in capite, and which he might not alienate without license". [36]

THE VIRGATE-AND-HALF which Richard de Linley had given to Sibil de Linley out of this Serjeantry was before 1199 granted by the latter to Lilleshall Abbey.

It would seem that one Agnes de Brocton had some claim to a rent receivable from the Abbey on this or other land in Brockton. A deed wherein she calls herself daughter of William makes over her right, whatever it was, to Ralph de Sanford, [37] who was at this period (1210-1224) purchasing largely in the neighbourhood.

[32] Kirby's Quest. It is obvious that whoever made this return was ignorant of the precise circumstances of Richard Burnel's Tenure, which must have been under the Bishop. Richard probably occupied the land and performed the military service due thereon.
[33] Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Brocton, No. liii. Tested also by Sir Roger Sprenchose, Sir William de Huggeford, Sir Ralph Sprenchose, Sir Thomas de Russell (Rossall).
[34] Parliamentary Writs, vol. iv, page 621.
[35] Calendar of Inquisitions, vol. i, page 253.
[36] Blakeway's MSS., quoting Charters of Sir Edward Smythe, Bart.
[37] Charter at Haughton - tested by Baldwin de Hodnet, Hugh de Beckenburi, Henry le Strange, William de Baggesoure, William Russel, Robert Cocus, Robert de Trillewardin.


By another deed A. (Alan) Abbot of Lylleshull enfeoffs Ralph de Sanford and his heirs in that half-virgate in Brockton which Alan Vangi held;- to hold at an annual rent of 4s. [38]

I can trace nothing further of this Lilleshall interest in Brockton except that some later deeds occasionally mention the Abbot's land as bounding other tenements.

Sutton Maddock.

This Manor, though then unmarked by the compound name, which was afterwards employed to distinguish it from other Suttons, is easily identified in Domesday. That Record tells us thus.-

"The same Gerard holds Sudtone (of the Earl Roger). Earl Morcar held it. Here are are IIII hides geldable. There is (arable) land (sufficient) for XII ox-teams. In demesne are II teams and (there are) VI Serfs and XII villains and IIII boors with VII teams; and a certain Knight has there I team and II Serfs. In time of King Edward (the Manor) was worth XL, shillings (annually). Its present value is the same". [1]

I think that Sudtone must have been originally so called with reference to its position in the Southern quarter of the great Saxon Parish of Iteshale (now Shiffnal). The two places had also been manorially associated from the earliest times. Together with Tong and Donington they had constituted an estate of the Earls of Mercia.

When Edwin and Morcar, Brothers and joint Tenants of that Earldom, rebelled against King William in 1071, their outbreak, as is well known, ended in the death of the former, the captivity, or rather disappearance of the latter, and the distribution of Mercia as of a conquered province. Thus did Earl Roger de Montgomery enter Shropshire to rule and to possess.

[38] Charter ibidem,- tested by Walter de Huggeford, Hugh de Becchebur, Philip de Burwardsleg, Roger de Spepnhose (Sprenchose), Peter de Eytun, Robert de Mukelestun. This deed passed between 1216 and 1224. It had two Seals attached, but both are gone.
[1] Domesday, fo. 259, a 1.


Among the followers and countrymen of the Norman Lord one Gerard de Tornai received a share of the spoil. He held at Domesday, and for at least a season afterwards, eighteen Manors, of which Sutton was the largest and most valuable. I can say little more of Gerard de Tornai's career in Shropshire than that it terminated in a total and absolute forfeiture, and, whereas such forfeiture must have been very nearly contemporary with the great western Rebellion of 1088, I do not see that we can help associating the two events. [2]

The disinherited Baron had one, or more than one daughter. She (if only one) was Sibil the wife of Hamo Peverel, whose influence in Shropshire, already great in time of Earl Hugh (1093-1098), will have originated in this marriage, and in the accompanying favour of that seigneural Lord, whether King or Earl, who dictated the re-disposal of Gerard's forfeited estates.

The bare mention of this name of Peverel will suggest a throng of recollections to every one acquainted with the vicissitudes which befel this County during the first Century after the Norman Conquest. National Records, Monastic Chartularies, Chronicles and Legends, all speak of the Peverels; but the pervading feature of every account or hint is, that something is kept back which either was not known or was not to be talked of.

The only specific statement yet advanced, attributes the various branches of this house to a Saxon Ancestress, who, as we are told, was first the Concubine of Duke William of Normandy, and then the wife of Ranulph Peverel of Hatfield (Essex), and who, after being Mother (by the Duke) of William Peverel of Nottingham, subsequently gave lawful birth to all the other Peverels who figured in the time of Henry I. [3]

This story, improbable in its simplest form, [4] and with the fewest

[2] Salop Chartalary, No. 296.
[3] This account is adopted by Dugdale, and appears to have been originally vouched by Robert Glover, some-time Somerset Herald. Glover's reputation as a Herald is I believe still high, and independently of that it may seem presumptuous to question an authority which Dugdale accepted. Nevertheless I cannot help doing so.
[4] Its improbability arises in two ways. It is inconsistent with the general character of Duke William. Moreover, this alleged liaison with a Saxon Lady of rank can have originated in no earlier circumstance than the event of the Duke's visit to the Court of Edward the Confessor in 1051. However, William Peverel of Nottingham, whatever his parentage, must have been born before that period, for he was old enough in 1068 to be entrusted with one of the most responsible offices in the kingdom, the custody of the Castle and Province from which he took his name.


adjuncts, has further been embodied with such a variety of impossible circumstances as to leave its credibility in extreme jeopardy.

Mystery there certainly is about the whole subject, and the truth may very possibly be buried with some tale of courtly scandal, though not of the precise character hitherto pointed out.

Leaving a curious, but perhaps hopeless investigation, we should here say that Domesday appears to make mention of only two Peverels, viz. William (of Nottingham) and Ranulph (of Essex), and that the latter had a small territory in Shropshire held under the Norman Earl.

This accident is, I believe, the fact which has mainly induced some Genealogists to conclude that Ranulf was Father of those Shropshire Peverels who attended the Court and enjoyed the favours of King Henry I. Such a conclusion wants all substantial foundation, and is directly subverted by one chief consideration, viz. that of the many Lordships enjoyed by Ranulf Peverel in four Domesday Counties (Shropshire, Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex), not one can be proved to have descended to those other Peverels of whom I am now to speak. [5]

The latter family consisted of several brothers or half- brothers, whose parentage is unknown, and whose very number is uncertain. If they were four, their names were Hamo, William, Pagan, and Robert, if they were only three, then Pagan and Robert constitute a single person described in different documents by different names. [6]

[5] Their estates lay in Shropshire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Staffordshire, Yorkshire, Huntingdonshire, Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire, Lincolnshire, Kent, and Northamptonshire, and they all came into court-favour before the death of Ranulph Peverel whose only son and successor seems to have been that William Peverel who was afterwards called of Essex or of London, to distinguish him from his Contemporaries William of Nottingham and William of Brun, or of Dover.
[6] I shall have hereafter to recur to this subject of the Peverels. I should perhaps however state here how this doubt about Pagan and Robert arises.-

Pagan Peverel had a great Fief in Cambridgeshire by grant of Henry I. He was Founder of Barnwell Priory, and the Chartulary of that House printed in the Monasticon (vol. vi, p. 86) contains a document of very general truthfulness and which professes to give account of his descendants. It makes him Father of that William Peverel who died in Palestine, and of the four Coheiresses presently to be mentioned in the text.

That he was succeeded in Cambridgeshire by the said William Peverel and then by the said Sisters, there can be no question; and the only doubt as to the Barnwell Chronicler's accuracy arises from his giving a date for Pagan Peverel's death at least ten years too early. So much for Pagan Peverel as Father of William

In a charter of Thorney Abbey (printed in the Monasticon vol. ii, 601, viii) this identical William Peverel (the Crusader) mentions his Father's Christian name as having been Robert.

Dugdale has adopted both statements in different parts of his Baronage without adverting to their apparent inconsistency.


Hamo Peverel, as I have already said, acquired a great position in Shropshire before the death of Earl Hugh de Montgomery, and therefore during the reign of William Rufus. His two Brothers, William and Pagan, do not occur to our notice till after the accession of Henry I.

Hamo Peverel, with whom alone we are now concerned, acquired his succession to Gerard de Tornai under a title obviously ambiguous from the very first. He married the heiress or co-heiress of an escheated Barony, but such a marriage could have brought nothing to Hamo Peverel except by special favour of the Suzerain or Suzerains under whom Gerard de Tornai had held. Hence arose, as I conceive, two distinct and afterwards conflicting principles as to this succession. Hamo Peverel, and his wife Sibil, spoke of and treated this Fief as their inheritance, but yet transmitted it in such a mode as is quite irreconcilable with any known principle of hereditary descent.

With similar inconsistency Henry II once addressed the heirs of Hamo Peverel as if they were also heirs of Gerard de Tornai, and yet on all other occasions seems to have ignored and gradually to have abolished any such pretensions. He in short controlled the Fief of Gerard de Tornai as a simple escheat and as subject to every recurrent interference of himself as the immediate Seigneur.

But to return to our proper subject,- Hamo Peverel, first conspicuous in the Palatine Court of Earl Hugh de Montgomery, and afterwards enjoying the favour of King Henry I, undoubtedly held Sutton during the whole of that Monarch's reign. After Henry I's death and during the short interval of his own survivorship Hamo Peverel made to Salop Abbey that grant of the "fishery and passage of Sutton" which has already been alluded to. [7]

In the year 1138, Hamo Peverel was dead, and two youths whom he had apparently destined as his heirs, while living, occur to our notice, partly as dealing jointly with his and Gerard de Tornai's estates, but more prominently as linked together in the cause of the daughter of Henry I. [8]

[7] Supra, Vol. I, p. 44.
[8] It is hardly possible to reconcile the anomalies which are again presented at this stage of the history of the Peverels. Though Hamo Peverel appointed William Peverel the younger and Walcheline Maminoht his heirs, we have not a hint as to his relationship with the latter. Moreover Hamo Peverel had a daughter, and that daughter did not die issueless. So far from this daughter (Seburga) having been Hamo Peverel's heir, she and her descendants were only Tenants of his collateral heirs, and so far from the same Seburga being heir of Sibil de Tornai, that which she and her descendants thus held was no part of Tornai's Fief. Seburga therefore was not Hamo Peverel's daughter by his wife Sibil nor by any other wife. She must in short have been illegitimate.

As to Walcheline Maminoht he would appear to have been more nearly related to William Peverel of Dover, the elder, than to Hanao,- a thing very possible if, as I believe, the two latter were not Brothers of the whole blood.

Nor is the statement to be passed in silence which says that this elder William Peverel of Dover married another Coheir of Gerard de Tornai. Such a supposition appears at first to offer an elucidation, but still we find this William and Hamo dying without lawful issue themselves and transmitting estates not to any alleged heirs of their respective wives but to their own collateral heirs. If such disposal were by permission or under direction of the Crown we may indeed thus account for the hereditary principle having been afterwards set aside by the same authority.

Thus by a series of hypotheses we establish something of a consistent theory, but I have little faith in theories thus established. I have often found a single guess in similar subject-matter to prove erroneous. I have here hazarded two or three. My hope is that this statement of uncertainties may bring to light some document available for a future and necessary recurrenoe of the question.


The conduct of William Peverel of Dover and Walcheline Maminoht during the usurpation of Stephen associates their names with a great national struggle, rather than with their territorial interests in Shropshire. The former perished in the Crusade of 1147, leaving four sisters his Co-heirs.

On the Accession of Henry II, Walcheline Maminoht was surviving, but neither he nor the four Sisters of William Peverel succeeded in establishing any joint and general claim on the fief of Gerard de Tornai. With Sutton in particular they had no further concern, and we have henceforth to treat of this Manor in a new and changed relation.

My supposition is, that during the reign of Henry I, and while the Peverels were actively serving that Monarch in Shropshire and the Marches, a policy was first adopted which had for its object the disintegration of the national unity of North Wales. English lands and English marriages were bestowed on any native Chief who might be open to such bribes and worth the bribing. Thus, I conceive, that is either by affinity or interest, was Jorwerth Goch (the "Red Edward" of Border traditions) first associated with the English cause and with the Peverels, for I can look upon his claims on the Fief of Gerard de Tornai only as having originated while Hamo Peverel was seized of that Honour.

I understand him to have been a younger Son of Meredyth ap Blethyn ap Convyn, the last Prince who held the Kingdom of Old


Powis in its integrity. On Meredyth's death, 1138; Madoc and Gruffyth, his two elder sons, became respectively Princes of Lower and Higher Powis. Jorwerth, his younger Son, had Mochnant is Rayader, but rather as a dependency of his Brother Madoc's Fief than as a distinct Principality. Madoc was a firm ally of King Henry II, who had not been three years on the throne when Gerverd Coch (as he is written on the Pipe-Roll) appears to have made and sustained a legal claim to a great part of the escheated Honour of Gerard de Tornai.-

William Fitz Alan, then Sheriff of Shropshire, rendered account at Michaelmas 1157, of a sum of 7. 6s. 4d., being the current years ferm of the land of Gerard de Tornai. Of this sum he had paid 3. 6s. into the King's Treasury; the balance 4. 0s. 8d. he had handed over to Gerverd Coch by (order or award of) the Chancellor and the Earl of Leicester. At the same time he charges 2. 7s. for livery of the King's Archers in the Army, and by order of the King had made presents of 8. 10s. to Maddoch and 2. to Gervase (Gervetto).

These entries on the Shropshire Pipe-Roll will become very intelligible when collated with contemporary Chronicles.-

I assume that the order by the Chancellor (Becket) and the Earl of Leicester (then Chief Justice of England) implies a previous judicial decision, for had the gift to Gervase Goch been merely one of Grace it would have been authorised by writ of the King himself. However, it is probable that the claims of Gervase on Gerard de Tornai's Fief were acknowledged not simply on account of their justice but from ulterior political motives. It was in the summer of the year 1157, that Henry II undertook his first expedition against North Wales. Madoc, Prince of Powis, commanded the fleet which was destined to co-operate with the King's Army along the Northern coast of the Country, and the Welsh Chronicler tells us incidentally that in this same year "Jorwerth Goch ap Meredith got the Castle of Yale and burnt it". [9] We may hence infer the causes which placed Madoc and Gervase (his Brother) on the Shropshire Pipe Roll.

[9] Powell, sub anno. Yale was part of the territory of Madoc, Henry's Ally; but the Castle here alluded to was, as we happen to know by accident, built by Owen Gwyneth in 1149; and Owen Gwyneth, Prince of North Wales, being I suppose still in possession was, in 1157, the object of the King's hostility. This undesigned agreement of scattered facts does much to establish the veracity of the Welsh Chronicler from whom Dr. Powell took his statements.


The lands which Gervase Goch acquired in Tornai's Fief seem to have been in Sutton, Brockton, and Ellardine. What he had in Sutton was however not quite identical with the Domesday Manor, a circumstance which has already been accounted for. He further received the Manor of Rowton (near High Ercall) from Henry II, which had not been Gerard de Tornai's at Domesday, though possibly Hamo Peverel had since held it.

These lands became of course a Tenure in capite, and the service by which the Tenant was to hold them is not the least remarkable among the Serjeantries of that period. "The Lord of Sutton, &c. was to be the King's Interpreter (Latimarius) between England and Wales". [10] The further history of Gervase Goch and his successors will afford some curious indications of their performing this and cognate services.

In 1160, the Sheriff of Shropshire charges his account with several items of expense which he had incurred in the fortification of Border Castles and in subsidizing the native Chieftains of Wales. Amongst others he had paid to "Gerverd Cok" a sum of 10s.

King Henry's Welsh campaign of 1165 was a failure, which the pressure of his affairs elsewhere allowed him no personal opportunity of retrieving. The conquest of Wales, though a favorite project, might, as he deemed, be accomplished by trusty agents and a specific policy. This policy, at times actively and openly aggressive, was much more uniformly characterized by its elements of watchful intrigue or lavish bribery. In the Autumn of 1166, the King being then in Normandy, two of his most able Lieutenants, Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex, and Richard de Luci, were at Chester. Their object was hostile to Wales, but nothing more definite has transpired than that the Earl was seized with sudden sickness and died. In that same year two Welsh Princes had united in an attack on one who was their fellow-countryman and relation, but whose connection with the English King was the probable cause of their animosity. "Jorwerth Goch", says the Chronicler, was "spoiled of his lands in Powys, by Owen Cyvelioc, the son of Gruffyth ap Meredyth, Lord of Powys, and by Owen Vachan, second

[10] The word Latimarius (whence the proper-name "Latimer") was first applied to one who understood Latin. Then it came to signify one who had acquired a knowledge of any other than his native language. So the modern application of the word Romance to any imaginary tale, is a result of the poetical narratives or Minstrelsy of a former age having chanced to be embodied in a base Latin Dialect called the Lingua Romana. (See Wright's History of Ludlow, p. 64, note.)


sonne to Madoc ap Meredyth: which lands they divided betwixt them, so that Owen Cyvelioc had Mochnant above Rayader, and Owen Vachan Mochnant beneath Rayader". [11]

The accompanying genealogy will show the relationship of these parties. The two Princes were Gervase's Nephews, sons of his elder Brethren, the Coparcners of Powis-land.

The Shropshire Pipe-Roll of this year supplies a further item of the King's dealings with his Latimarius. Earl Geoffrey and Richard de Lucy had ordered the Sheriff to purchase for the King's use fifteen horses from the stud of Gerverd Chok. The cost (14. 16s. 8d.) had been paid to the said Gervase, and the horses had been sent, I suppose over sea, to the King; for Roger Mussun (of whom we shall hear again) had received 20s. for taking them somewhither.

At Michaelmas 1167, Gervase's Manor of Sutton (Sutton Gerverdi Cok) had been amerced one merk by the Justiciar of the Forest, but before the following Michaelmas the King, still beyond sea, had transmitted his Writ, ordering the debt to be cancelled in favour of Gervase himself.

At the latter period (Michaelmas 1168), William de Beauchamp, Sheriff of Worcestershire, obeying an order of Righard de Lucy, had delivered forty horse-loads of corn to "Yerverd Coch", wherewith to victual the Castle of Chirk.

At this precise period Gervase Goch was taken still more openly and completely into the King of England's service. In respect of his past sacrifices, or in prospect of his future usefulness, the enormous Salary of 91. per annum was appointed for his maintenance; [12] and this he regularly received for the years ending Michaelmas 1169 and Michaelmas 1170, and for forty-seven weeks of the year ending Michaelmas 1171.

The cause of his salary being discontinued does not appear, but at this period a pacification was effected between the King of England and Rese Prince of South Wales;- and three years later

[11] Powell, p. 163, sub anno 1166.
[12] This salary was 5s. per diem, i.e. sixty times as much as the pay of a common soldier. It may be computed as equal to about 4500 of modern currency. At Michaelmas 1170, William the Clerk of Geoffery de Vere, accounting for his deceased Employer as Fermor of "The Honor of the Constable", charges 40s. for forty horse-loads of corn given to Gerrard Coch and Roger de Powis. (Rot. Pip. 16 Hen. II.)

The Pipe-Rolls also supply those other statements in the text of which I have not given specific authority.



[For pedigree, see pdf.]


David, Prince of North Wales, became not only the Ally, but the Brother-in-law of Henry II.

Possibly however, the death of Gervase Goch rather than the cessation of his diplomatic functions, was the cause of his disappearance at this crisis. I hear nothing further of him, and find little more than the name of his eldest son and successor at Sutton.-

About the year 1186-7, this Madoc, calling himself son of Gervase Ghoc, granted to Wombridge Priory the Advowson of his Church of Sutton as far it belonged to him. [13] He willed also that his body, wherever he might chance to die, might be buried at that Monastery; and he promised an annual payment of 2s. during his life in maintenance of the Fraternity of Saint Leonard, his Patron. [14]

In 1187, this County was visited by the Justices of the Forest. Among amercements imposed by them, one of two merks for some default is entered against Madoch, son of Jetun de Sutton; and this debt, though it remained on the Rolls of eight consecutive years, does not appear to have been ever liquidated. [15]

Before the year 1194, Madoc, son of Gervase Goch, will have deceased without issue, leaving his Brother Griffith his heir. In or shortly before that year, the latter, calling himself Griffin, son of Gervase Goch, confirms the Charter which his Brother Madoc had given to Wombridge Priory "about the Church of Sutton". For his part, he granted to the same house an annuity of 12d., to be chargeable on land held by Fulco the Clerk. He also "would wish by all means to be buried at Wombridge with his aforesaid Brethren the Canons, if he should happen to die in England". [16]

[13] Alluding apparently to a contemporary grant by King Henry II, which treats the Advowson as the exclusive right of the Crown. (Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Brocton, No. lxxxxvij.)
[14] "Ad fraternitatem Domini mei Sancti Leonardi manutenendam". Wombridge Priory was dedicated to St. Leonard. The witnesses of this Charter are, Richard, Archdeacon of Salop; Master Robert, Dean of the same; Master Walter de Dunstanville, Clerk; Robert Dean of Dreiton, William de Ercalew; Bernard, Nicholas, and William, Priests of Ruton, Albriton, and Dalilea (Dawley); Pagan de Hadley with ... and Richard his nephews, Peter de Heiton (Eyton), and Radulf de Horliton (Orleton), and Master Richard of Ydeshall (Idsall). (Wombridge Chartulary, Brocton, No. lxxxv.)
[15] Rot. Pip. 33 Hen. II to 6 Ric. I, Salop.
[16] Wombridge Chartulary, Ibidem, No. lxxxvi. The witnesses are, Walter de Dunstanville and his Knights; Peter Fitz Thoret and his Sons, Philip and Bartholomew; Reginald de Davull and Faremus (Pharamus) de Traci; William de Hadley and Hamo his Brother; Geoffrey Russel; William de Beggesour; Henry Ruffus de Wrocwaryni; Wurgena, Cadugane (both Welsh names); and Helias (probably Helias Cocus, of whom hereafter). The first witness died about Michaelmas 1194, and the Grantor can not have succeeded to Sutton long before. These two facts give the date of the Deed.


Soon after the return of King Richard from captivity (March 1194), Griffin, son of Jereverth, appears on the Pipe-Roll as fining for his lands, in succession, as I presume, to his Brother. The sum of 40 merks was thus paid by him in 1195 and 1196.

In the former year died Ralph le Strange, Baron of Knockyn, Alveley, and Weston, in the prime of his life, and leaving a fair inheritance to be divided amongst three Sisters, his Coheirs.

One of these, Matilda, became before Michaelmas 1196, the wife of Griffin de Sutton, who then appears, with the husbands of the other Coheiresses, as fining 200 merks for seizin of the said lands. [17]

A fine of this amount indicates a succession to no mean estate, and Griffin de Sutton's influence in Shropshire was proportionably extended. Some litigation, in which the Coparcners of Ralph le Strange's Barony came to be involved, shall be reserved till we reach the localities concerned. Here we should briefly mention that the three Coheiresses concurred with their husbands in surrendering Knockyn to their Cousin, John le Strange of Nesse and Cheswardine, who claimed it as his right. Some equivalent was however given in each case. Thus Griffin, son of Gervase Gohk, and Matilda his wife, obtained John le Strange's feoffment in the whole vills of Dovaneston (Dovaston), and of Kineverdeston (Kinaston), in lieu of their third of Knockyn. [18]

In Easter Term 1200, Griffin, son of Selverd Coc (as his name is written), happened to be under summons to appear in the Law- courts at Westminster. The suit then pending had nothing to do with Sutton, but the reason of his non-appearance is curiously illustrative of the tenure by which he held that Manor. A King's writ had been handed into Court which vouched that Griffin could not attend there on the proper day "by reason of his service".

[17] Rot. Pip. 8 Rich. I, Salop.
[18] Fines, 9 Rich. I, Salop. The general account is that the Shropshire Kynastons are descended from Griffin, son of Gervase Goch, and took name from the very vill of Kinaston which he thus acquired. All this is, I believe, perfectly true, but the details which have hitherto accompanied this statement are so inaccurate as to run the risk of bringing discredit upon the whole story. John le Strange's original grant of Kinaston and Dovaston expressly limits the succession to the heirs of Griffin, by his wife Matilda, with remainder (in default of such heirs) to the Grantor and his heirs.

The Heralds and Genealogists however give us a Pedigree of Kynaston in which no mention whatever is made of Matilda, wife of Griffin. They assign to Griffin another wife, it is true, and issue by the same. It is however clear that even if he was twice married, he had issue only by one wife, viz. Matilda le Strange, and that, through her, he and his descendants became possessed of Kinaston.
[19] Rot. Curiae Regis, ii, 185.


Griffin de Sutton was rateable to Aids and Scutages in respect of his wife's inheritance, his own tenure by Serjeantry not being ordinarily liable to those imposts. It may be doubted however whether, for some of the Scutages of King John, he was not assessed on both accounts. On the fourth Scutage, for instance, which was levied in the year 1203, at the rate of 2 merks on each Knight's-Fee, Griffin, son of Yerverd, is charged 5. (7 merks) on his Serjeantry. In the year 1204, King John's fifth Scutage was assessed at the rate of 2 merks. Here again Griffin de Sutton was chaged 5. in respect of a Knight's Fee, whilst his share of Le Strange's inheritance can at no time have exceeded half-a-fee.

In 1205, Griffin Goch fined, or made composition in respect of King John's sixth Scutage; and in 1206, when the seventh Scutage was levied at the rate of 1. (1 merks) per Fee, Griffin Goch paid 4 merks thereon. [20] I do not find him or his Son assessed to more than one subsequent Scutage, in respect of their tenure at Sutton.

A return of the year 1211 gives the first formal statement as to Griffin de Sutton's Serjeantry. He holds, says the Record, Ruelton (Rowton), Ellewr'thin (Ellerdine), Sutton, and Brocton, of the gift of King Henry II, by Service of being Latimarius between England and Wales. [21]

On January 24, 1221, the King certifies the Sheriff of Salop that Maddoc, son and heir of Griffin de Suttun, deceased, has done homage and fealty. The Sheriff is to take security from said Maddoc for 100s., his relief for one Knight's Fee which he holds in capite in Suttun, and give him full and immediate seizin thereof. [22]

Griffin de Sutton, thus dying, left his widow Matilda surviving, and other issue besides Madoc. His sons Griffin and Hoel are however the only ones of his younger children whom we need mention here.

Something should be said of the successive grants of Griffin de Sutton to Wombridge Priory. His confirmation of 1194 has already been cited. Within ten years of that time, calling himself Griffin, son of Jareford Goch, he grants to the same Canons, for the

[20] Rot. Pip. 5, 6, 7 & 8 John, Salop. The feudal Tenants of the Crown in King John's reign do not appear to have had the option of excusing their personal service by a money payment according to the rate of the current Scutage. They had specially to compound for non-attendance. Hence the high rates per fee at which we find many of them to have been assessed.
[21] Testa de Nevill, p. 56.
[22] Rot. Fin. 5 Hen. III, memb. 8.


souls' health of himself, of M. le Strange his wife, and of his heirs and ancestors, all his land and wood of Berdelei in his Manor of Sutton, with all the vestures and appurtenances thereof, and free liberty to make assart therein or otherwise dispose thereof to their advantage. [23] He certifies that the Canons, having regard to his affection for their house, and in acknowledgment of the favour which he had shown them, had given him a dapple (ferrandum) Destrier and a black Palfrey. [24]

By another and, as I think, later deed, he grants to the Priory a rent of twenty-four cocks and hens which Thomas paid him for an assart in Sutton. [25]

By a still later deed, he grants to the Priory the Cartilage in Sutton which Sibil and Emma, daughters of Fulcoius (Fulco the Clerk of his former Charter), held, and of which he had already given 12d. rent to the Canons. He also gives 12d. rent (chargeable on the land of Robert Cocus in Brocton) in exchange for that assart on the hill of Severn which had been Thomas Pistor's, and from which the Canons were already in receipt of a rent of twenty-four cocks and hens. [26]

Another deed of this Griffin shall be cited when I come to speak of the many Feoffments or alienations which he made in his tenure.

His Widow, Matilda le Strange, survived him twenty-two years.

At the Assizes of November 1221, the Jurors of Brimstree Hundred reported her to be in the King's gift and not as yet bestowed in marriage. Her land of inheritance in that Hundred (viz. at Alveley) was worth 4. per annum; her dower (which must have been in Sutton

[23] This is the grant described in an Inquest of 1251 as an "alienation of six acres of wood worth 2s. per annum by Griffin de Sutton to the Prior of Wombridge". (Testa de Nevill, fo. 274.)
[24] Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Brocton et Suttone Madoke, No. lxxxvij.- Witnesses: Hugh and Richard Chaplains of Sutton, Walter de Dunstanville Parson of the Church of Ydeshal, Warin de Burwardesleg, Philip de Linleg, Richard de Balton, Robert de Sutton, Roger Corbet, William de Hedleg, Bartholomew Fitz Peter, and Walter his Brother, Walter de Godemoneston (probably Dodemoneston), Philip de Ydeshall, Helyas Cocus, &c.
[25] Ibidem,No. lxxxiv.- Witnesses: Hugh Chaplain of Brocton, and Richard his Brother (probably identical with the two first witnesses of the last deed); Robert de Sutton; Nicholas the Chaplain, his Brother; John Chaplain ... Hugh de Bekebur, Walter de Hugefort, Geoffrey Griffin.
[26] Ibidem, No. xxxv.- Witnesses: Hugh de Bekkebur, Walter de Stirchleg, Ralph de Sontford, Henry Le Strange, William Russel. This deed involves some unintelligible condition, a part of which mentions the Prior presenting the Grantor with a sextary of wine at Wombridge.


and Brockton) was worth 2. The Bradford Jurors reported her lands in their Hundred to be worth 10. per annum. [27] This must have included her share of Weston-under-Red-Castle and probably her dower in Rowton and Ellardine. I do not find any account of her second marriage. She died shortly before May 4, 1242, when the King received the homage of Maddok de Sutton, son and heir of Matilda le Strange, for all lands which she had held in capite in Alvithele and Weston. The relief payable by Maddok was to be three merks. [27]

Some previous circumstances in the life of this Madoc require notice. It was from him I imagine, rather than his Uncle, that this Manor of Sutton acquired its distinctive name of Sutton Maddock. He was possessed of it more than forty years, and if his importance may be measured by the frequent mention of his name he was a chief among the Knightly personages who constituted the Court of the County.

Soon after his succession, Madoc, son of Griffin, and Duce his wife are found suing Imbert, Prior of Wenlock, for disseizing them of their free tenement in Dallyle (probably Dawley). The case was heard by the King himself when, in August 1226, he visited Shrewsbury. The Prior was found to have disseized the Plaintiffs of a quarter-of-an-acre of moor-land. [29]

The litigation did not end here. In Michaelmas Term 1228, the Prior of Wenlock was prosecuting a suit at Westminster against Maddoch, son of Griffin, and Cecilia his wife, Tenants of 12 acres of wood in Sutton and 6 acres of land in Daghele. But the King had issued mandate to his Justices in banco, that the case should be postponed till Madoc should be released from prison, he having been arrested by Lewellyn, Prince of North Wales. [30] This suit was still on foot in Easter Terra 1229, when Cecilia names her husband (now I suppose at large) as her Attorney therein, removing at the same time Wymanus de Karleton her former Attorney. [31] I find not how it ended, but it has already supplied us

[27] Salop Assizes, 6 Hen. memb. 8.
[28] Rot. Fin. 26 Hen. III, memb. 3.
[29] Placita coram Rege, 10 Hen. III, memb. 4.
[30] Placita apud Westm. Michaelmas Term, 12 Hen. III, memb. 1.
[31] Ibidem, Easter Term, 13 Hen. III, memb. 1, 2. I wish to mark for a future object this apparent instance of the same Lady being described under two Christian-names. The names Dulcia (abbreviated "Duce") and Cecilia have no meaning in common. They were not therefore convertible, as some names were, iin respect of their signification. I have met with many a genealogical problem, which cannot be solved on any other hypothesis than this, viz. that females were occasionally known by two distinct Christian-names.


with an interesting illustration as to the treatment which the King's Latimarius might suffer in discharge of his office.

In Michaelmas Term 1242, Madoc de Sutton appears with twenty-two others as impleaded in the Courts at Westminster by John de la Lawe for robbery and breach of the King's Peace. The Defendants had repeatedly failed to appear, so the Sheriff was ordered to have them bodily in Court on the Octaves of St. Martin. [32]

On that day (Nov. 18), the Sheriff had done nothing. He was ordered to distrain them to appear in Hilary Term following. [33] Ere that time the matter was compounded, and Madok de Sutton acknowledged, in Court, that he owed 10 merks to John de la Lawe "for a fine in a certain appeal". [34]

At Michaelmas 1247, Madoc de Sutton had been amerced one merk for some default. [35] This perhaps arose thus,-

In 1248, certain persons, who had been assessable to the auxilium levied in 1235 and 1236 for the marriage of Isabella the King's Sister, and had escaped payment, appear to have been put in charge as Defaulters. Among them Madoc de Sutton pays 2 merks, the sum chargeable on a Knight's Fee. [36]

In 1250, when Geoffrey de Langley assessed various persons in this County for lands which they had assarted without license, Madoc de Sutton was put in charge for some land thus reclaimed in Sutton. [37]

Madoc de Sutton was returned in 1253-4, as one of eleven persons in the Counties of Salop and Stafford, who being of less than Baronial degree were yet possessed of lands to the extent of 20. annual value. [38]

In 1256, Madoc de Sutton formed the design of alienating his interest at Sutton and Brockton to Wombridge Priory. His inducement

[32] Placita apud Westm. 28 Hen. III, memb. 11. Among the Defendants were, Roger Russel, Henry le Strange, Thelric the Provost, Richard de la Broke, Henry Fitz Avice, and other names connected with Sutton, Brockton, Bridgnorth, and its neighbourhood.
[33] Ibidem, memb. 29 dorso. Thelric the Provost is here written Terricus. We have, I think, met with him before as Terricus Fitz Reginald Provost of Brug. (Supra, Vol. I, p. 814).
[34] Ibidem, 27 Hen. III, Hilary Term, memb. 11 dorso. Madoc's Sureties for payment were Odo de Hodenet and Lucas de Torpell.
[35] Rot. Pip. 81. Hen. III, Salop. On the same Madoc son of Griffin stands excused a sum of ten merks which had been lent him by the King. Unless he were identical with Madoc de Sutton I am at a loss to say who he was.
[36] Rot. Pip. 32 Hen. III, Salop.
[37] Rot. Pip. 38 Hen. III, Salop, when three years of rent are charged.
[38] Dukes' Introduction, p. vii, where however the return is dated by mistake 27 Hen. III (1242-3).


I imagine to have been a pecuniary consideration rather than a religious impulse. The Crown however interfered, threatening forfeiture of the whole if Madoc did more than grant a lease thereof to the Priory for a term of three years. [39] This alternative seems to have been adopted, for on August 7, the King being at Worcester, ratifies by Letters Patent the Concession which Madoc had made of the Manor of Sutton with the rents and escheats of Brocton and Hedinton (Harrington),- to hold to the Prior and Convent of Wombrig for three years. [40]

I doubt not that at the expiration of this term, Madoc was repossessed of the Manor, for I not only find Sir Madoc de Sutton standing as first witness to a charter of Wombridge which passed about Easter 1261, [41] but in February 1262, he appears on a list of the Regarders of the Forests of Wombridge, Mount Gilbert, and Haughmond. Moreover he eventually succeeded in alienating this Manor as well as Rowton and Ellardine to John le Strange, third Baron of Nesse and Cheswardine, who died early in 1269.

This sale, as I suppose it to have been, was clearly with sanction of the Crown, but the tenure by which Sutton was held was altered. The Lord thereof was no longer the King's Latimarius, though at first his office was of a cognate kind. Of this however presently, for we have not yet done with Sir Madoc de Sutton. He seems to have left nothing of his possessions in East Shropshire to his heirs or to his issue, if we except his share of Alveley, which he gave in frank marriage to his daughter Isabel, wife of Henry de Morf. His end is a mystery. At the time when he sold Sutton he must have been an old man, and it was a period when the conflicts between the English and Welsh were incessant.-

Something more definite may perhaps be found regarding him and his succession when we come to investigate the history of the Border. I will enumerate here some charters which passed in his name whilst Lord of Sutton.-

As Madoc son of Griffin de Sutton he enfeoffs Radulph de Sanford in an acre of land in the fields of Brocton, viz. that which Henry le Strange held in the Hemme. He also releases to said Radulf all right in the Moor of Kerswalle. Radulf at the same time

[39] Rot. Pat. 40 Hen. III.
[40] Ibidem, sub die.
[41] Wombridge Chartulery, Tit. Upinton, No. clxxv.


concedes to Madoc a power to enclose part of said Madoc's wood of Sutthon Haye. [42]

As Madoc de Sutton he grants to Simon de London, Clerk, all his right in, together with a rent of 2s. issuing from, a virgate in Brocton, formerly held by Elyas Cocus. [43]

But this grant will have been surrendered by the Grantee, for, by a later deed,-

Madoc Lord of Sutton. grants the 2s. rent, which Elyas Cocus used to pay on a virgate, to Wombridge Priory. [44]

Madoc Lord of Sutton grants to the same Priory 2s. which Adam Atte Tuneshende (Townsend) used to pay him for a virgate in the vill of Brocton. [45]

He also confirms to the same, several grants of Madoc and Griffin sons of Gervase Goch, before recited, as well as the grant of William Cocus hereafter to be particularized. [46]

He confirms the grant of Berdelay-wood made by Griffin son of Yareford Goch to the same Priory. [47]

He moreover grants to the same his Mill of Sutton, with suit of his men in the whole Manor of Sutton, and license to take timber, under view of the Forester, throughout his wood of Sutton, and to dig turf for repairs of the said Mill. [48]

As Sir Madoc de Sutton he grants to John, Clerk of Brocton, common right in his wood for 20 hogs and a boar, without pannage (payment per head), John paying half-a-merk down, and an annual rent of d. [49]

[42] Charter at Haughton Hall.- Witnesses: Sir Walter de Hugheford, Thomas Corbet, Richard Walensis, Henry le Strange, Robert de Trilleworthin, William de Baggesour, Helyas Cocus, William Fitz Seman. The deed passed between 1225 and 1235. The Seal, of white wax, is broken, but the accompanying lithograph re-unites the fragments.
[43] Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Brocton and Suttone Madoke, No. xxvij.- Witnesses: Peter de Neuton, William de Ercalew, Thomas de Constentin, Knights, Master Thomas de Codshall.
[44] Ibidem, No. lxxxj.- Witnesses: Sir Walter de Dunestanvill, Sir Walter de Huggeford, Walter de Kembricton, Philip de Pres, Philip de Beckebur, John de Raton, Ralph Brocton (read "Britton") Clerk.
[45] Ibidem, No. lxxx.- Witnesses: Sir Walter de Dunstanvill, Walter de Huggeford, Odo de Hodenet, Roger Corbet, Symon de London, Roger de Pyweston (Pivelesdon), Walter de Kembrington, Herbert de Ydeshall, This deed passed between 1247 and 1256.
[46] Ibidem, No. lxxxiij.- Witnesses: Sir Walter de Dunstanvill, Sir Walter de Huggeford, Walter de Kembriton, Philip de Pres, Philip de Bekebur, John de Ruton, Ralph Britton Clerk.
[47] Ibidem, No. lxxxviij.- Same witnesses exduding the last.
[48] Ibidem, No. lxxxx.- Same witnesses adding Ralph de Ruton (Britton) Clerk.
[49] Ibidem. No. xiij.- Witnesses: Sir Nicholas Vicar of Sutton, Ivo de Brocton, Roger Bege (i.e. Begesour), Thomas de Brocton.


As Lord of Sutton, he grants to Wombridge Priory a plot of land adjoining on the south to the cemetery of the Church of St. Mary in the vill of Sutton. [50]

As Madoc, son of Griffin de Sutton, he granted to the same Priory a rent of 4s. receivable on a half-virgate in the Heamme; and a rent of 6d. receivable on the Meadow of Bwbemere. [51]

I have already intimated that between the years 1262 and 1269, Madoc Fitz Griffin sold his Manors of Sutton, Ellardine, and Rowton, to John le Strange (III) of Nesse and Cheswardine. I find it positively stated with regard to Ellardine and Rowton, that John le Strange enfeoffed his eldest son and heir therein, and that the latter granted both to Robert his younger Brother. [52]

Something of the same kind evidently happened in regard to Sutton, for at the Assizes of September 1272, the Brimstree Jurors, reporting the Serjeantries in their Hundred, certify that "Robert le Strange holds the Manor of Sutton by serjeantry of conducting the King in Wales in time of war. [53]

This Robert le Strange, as I have already said under Willey, was one of the Crusaders then absent from England. Though he lived to return, it would appear that before his departure he had taken the precaution of granting Sutton to Fulk the second of his then infant Sons. Upon Robert le Strange's death (about August 1276), Sir Bogo de Knovile, then Sheriff of Shropshire, seized Sutton into the King's hand. This step, the result of Fulk le Strange's minority, was called in question, and an Inquest was ordered to ascertain and report all particulars to the King. The Jurors, headed by the Sheriff and the King's Escheator, sat at Shrewsbury on September 25, 1276. They reported the above particulars, and that the Manor of Sutton was of the annual value of 12. 7s. 9d. [54]

[50] Ibidem, No. lxxxij. - Witnesses: Oliver de Stocton, Philip de Pres, John de Ruton, John de Grenhull, Yvo de Brocton, Thomas de Brocton.
[51] Monasticon, vi, p. 390. This grant, though included in Edward II's Inspeximus, is not in the Chartulary.
[52] Placita Coronae, 20 Edw. I, Salop, memb. 16 dorso.

A Wombridge deed which passed, I think, between 1260 and 1270 is attested by John Lord of Sutton, whom I take to be John le Strange the younger. (Chartulary, Tit. Brocton, No. xxxxvj).
[53] Placita Coronae, 56 Hen. III, m. 23.
[54] Inquisitions, 4 Edw. I, No. 37. Bogo de Knovile afterwards married Alianora the widow of Robert le Strange. In her right he was seized in 1292 of 6. annual rent in Sutton, being her dower out of the estate of her first husband and "the inheritance of Fulk le Strange". Bogo was questioned at the Assizes for his authority in contracting this marriage. He called "the Record" (the Patent or Close Roll containing the King's license) "to warranty". Placita Coronae, 20 Edw. I, memb. 22.


We know how this investigation resulted.- Fulk le Strange continued a ward of the Crown, and Sutton an Escheat till 1289, for at the Assizes of 1292, the Jurors of Brimstree Hundred reported as follows.- "Fulco le Strange holds Sutton, which is worth 10, by Serjeantry, viz. by finding four foot-soldiers to the ward of Montgomery for fifteen days at his own cost, and he owes suit to the Hundred every three weeks". And Fulk (being summoned into Court to give account of his due discharge of these services) came forward and said that the Manor had been in the King's custody till three years since, when the King restored it to him, and that he did the said suit (which the Sheriff certified), and acknowledged the said (obligation to do) ward. [55]

About the time, when this Fulk le Strange obtained livery of Sutton by reason of his majority, he also became the heir of his elder Brother, John le Strange of Whitchurch, who, dying without issue at the early age of twenty-three, left a considerable inheritance to this his Successor. Thus, and by formal writ of Parliamentary Summons, did Fulk le Strange become first Baron of the House of Blackmere, the originator of that noble succession, which, after twice merging in lines greater than itself, is now no longer represented by a Talbot or a Howard, but is in abeyance between the heirs-general of those illustrious races. [56]

We have now only to notice the sequel of Fulk le Strange's connexion with Sutton.

About the year 1291, calling himself Lord of Sutton Madoc, he confirmed to Wombridge Priory all its acquisitions in that Manor, particularly some, which the Canons appear to have recently made under grants of John de Brocton, Clerk, and Roger, son of Nicholas

[55] Placita Coronae, 20 Edw. I, memb. 23. The Inquest of 1284, called " Kirby's Quest", so misrepresents the status of this Manor as to be hardly worth quoting except to show that implicit reliance on that Reoord would be misplaced. "Fulco le Strange", it says, "holds the Manor of Stocton cum Brocton of the King in capite by service of one Knight to go with the King into Wales for fifteen days in time of war at his own cost. Fulco also pays a 4s. for purpresture".

Fulk le Strange was under age, but Tenant is capite both of Stockton, Brockton, and Sutton. Whatever is true in the above entry applies chiefly to Stockton, but the Knight's service possibly alludes to the tenure of Sutton. The 4s. rent was due on Stockton, but not for purprestere. Thus Sutton and Brockton remain all but unnoticed.
[56] The present Lords Petre and Stourton represent between them not less than a dozen abeyant Baronies. Among the number are those of Howard, Mowbray, Segrave, Tslbot, Strange of Blackmere, Furnival and Giffard of Brimmeefield.


Brusebon. He also grants them common-pasturage throughout the Manor, except for goats. [57]

About the same time Fulk le Strange came to an agreement with the Canons, whereby the latter surrendered Madoc de Sutton's grant of Hadinton (that is Sutton) Mill, in exchange for a messuage, garden, croft, half-a-virgate of land, and other small parcels within and without the vill of Brocton. [57]

About June 11, 1300, he further releases to the Canons all his right in land which they held in the Moor of Brocton, in the field of Habenhul, on the day mentioned. [58]

On March 11, 1308, styling himself Fulco le Strange, Lord of Sutton Madoks, he grants to Richard de Sanford a parcel of his waste land in Brocton, in his Manor of Sutton, lying between lands of said Richard and of the Prior of Wombridge. The rent reserved is 6d. [59]

It would be hardly consistent with my design to enumerate the various public offices and honours which distinguished this Fulk le Strange. Suffice it to say that as holding lands and rents to the value of 20. and upwards, he was returned by the Sheriff of Shropshire among those who were to muster at London on July 7, 1297, for foreign service. [60]

The Feodary of 1316 mentions him as Lord of Whitchurch, Wrockwardine, Corfham, Longnor, and Sutton. [60]

He died in 1324, seized, either in his own right or in that of Alianore his wife (daughter and Coheir of John Giffard of Brimmesfield),

[57] Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Brocton Nos. lxi, lxxxix.- The witnesses of these deeds seem to have been nearly identical, viz. Sir Robert Corbet (of Moreton), Thomas Corbet (of Hadley), Sir William de Hugford, and Richard Horde, with Yvo de Soultone also in the last.
[58] Ibidem, No. lxij.- Witnesses Sir Symon de Leybourne, Sir Peter de Eyton, Master Adam le Gust Rector of the Church of Ydeshall, Roger Fitz John, John Stivington.
[59] Charter at Haughton Hall.- This deed is tested by Sir Roger Corbet, Peter de Eyton, Pagan de Preston, Richard de Mokeleston, John Fitz Thomas of Brocton, and others. It is dated at Hadleye (the seat of the first witness), on the vigil of St. Gregory the Pope in the 36th year of King Edward,- an impossible date, which probably purports to be March 11, 1308, (the Clerk who drew the Conveyance not adverting to the fact, that Edward I had died eight months previously). The Seal of this deed, though mutilated, is a specimen of the tasteful design and neat execution which distinguished the heraldic devices of the period. The lower half of a shield exhibits one of the Lions Passant of Le Strange. Exterior to the dexter margin of the shield is a Lizard beautifully engraved. The only remaining part of the Legend is the word STRAVNGE.
[60] Parliamentary Writs, vol. i, p.848, and vol. iv, pp. 1468-70, where also are more than sixty entries of his offices, liabilities, and summonses, both military and parliamentary, during a period of thirty years.


of various Estates in Nottinghamshire, Hampshire, and Shropshire, including this Manor of Sutton, which descended to John his eldest son and heir, then eighteen years of age. [61]

WE MUST not leave this Manor without noticing some of those Tenancies or Subinfeudations in which it abounded. The principal of these were granted by Griffin Goch while Lord of Sutton (1194-1221); but his Feoffment of Ralph de Sanford claims first attention, not only by reason of its extent and the importance of the Feoffee, but because it can be illustrated by an unusual and most interesting concurrence of evidences.


At Salop Assizes, Oct. 6, 1203, a Fine seems to have been levied between Griffin son of Yorward (Gervase) Plaintiff, and Ralph Wolaston, Tenant, of one hide of land in Brockton, whereof was suit at law. [62] The particulars of the Fine, I cannot declare, but think from what will presently appear, that it must have involved a surrender of the Tenancy.

At these same Assizes one Ralph Wallensis should be noticed as standing Surety for Ralph de Sanford in a suit which concerned possessions of the latter in Rothal (Ruthall near Ditton Priors).

Among some Pleas in Banco which appear to belong to Michaelmas Term 1204, the following is entered:- "Ralph de Samford offered himself against Griffin, son of Gervord, and Wilikin, his man, and Robert Cocus (and five others) in a plea of appeal. And they (the Defendants) are not forthcoming, neither have they essoigned themselves, and though they should be under pledges (to appear) the Sheriff has sent the names of none (such Sureties). Therefore the Court decided that they should give sufficient pledges for their appearance in Court, on the Octaves of St. Martin, to answer herein, and that the Sheriff do also attend to show why, &c." (he had neglected the former order of the Court). [63]

On the day named (Oct. 18) "Ralph de Sanford appeared against William, the man of Griffin, and others, in a plea of land" (as the

[61] Inquisitions, 17 Edw. II, No. 73.
[62] This Fine does not exist in the proper Custody. The extract which I give is all that can be gathered from Memorandum in Harl. MSS. 1396, fo, 356 b; where, however, I should notice particularly that it stands at the head of some Sanford Evidences, thus proving that the Sanfords were interested in its preservation and that it concerned the very hide of land which they afterwards held.
[63] Placita anni uncerti Regie Johannis, No. 75, memb. 3 dorso.


Record has it). But both the Defendants and the Sheriff are absent and the latter as remiss as before. So a stringent order is made on all parties to be in Court on the Quinzaine of St. Hilary (Jan. 27, 1206). [64]

The Rolls of that Term are lost, but we have Rolls of Easter Term 1206, which say nothing of the continuance of this Suit. We may, therefore, conclude that it had been settled in the interval; and in extraordinary corroboration of such an idea a Charter happens to be found in a private collection, of which the substance is as follows:-

Grifin, son of Gervase Goh, gives and concedes to Ralph de Sanford one hide of land in Brockton for his homage and service, viz. that hide which Ralph Walensis held;- to hold to him and his heirs, rendering 2s. yearly.- For this, Sanford had given the Grantor twenty-six merks, and had acquieted him in that appeal in which he had drawn him into a Suit in the Court of the Lord the King. He also grants that the said Ralph shall have pannage in his wood of Sutton for all the swine which shall be reared on said hide of land. [65]

Thus did Ralph de Sanford, Lord of Sanford and Ruthall, obtain footing in Sutton. The transaction is described with great accuracy in an Inquest nearly fifty years afterwards, which recounted the several alienations from the Serjeantry of Madoc de Sutton. "Griffin, Madoc's Father", says the Record, "alienated four virgates" (equal to a hide) "of land to Ralph de Saumford, out of the Manor of Sutton". The four virgates were at the time of this return worth 40s. per annum. [66]

The additions which Ralph de Sanford continued to make to this estate are the subject of an interesting series of documents, three of which have been already cited, one under Brockton, one under Sutton, and one under Broseley. By another Deed, Henry le Strange grants to the said Ralph, for two merks, two acres in Brockton, "called the Parroc, and which are close to Medebroc". [67] - Rent to be 2d. yearly. [68]

[64] Ibidem, memb. 12.
[65] Charter at Haughton,- attested by Walter de Huggeford, Richard de Ruiton, Hugo de Becheburi, Richard de Stirgle, Robert de Say, Reginald de Tirne, Robert de Espele, Baldwin Wiscard, Robert de Longeb, Hugh de Wonlock, Geoffrey Rusel, and William de Beggesore,- whose names would alone prove the deed to have passed between 1201 and 1211.
[66] Testa de Nevill, fo. 274.
[67] The small stream still known as the Mad-brook, and which gave a name both to Madeley and Brockton.
[68] Charter at Haughton.- Witnesses: William de Beggesoure, William Russel, Helias Cocus, Robert Cocus, Richard de Beggesoure, Robert Dapifer, Henry Fitz Ywein, Adam Fitz Idel, William Beadle of Sutton. The Seal of this deed is well executed and bears a Legend, proving the Grantor to have been son of some Ralph le Strange.-

There was also a Roger le Strange of Brockton in 1276.

Seal of Griffin son of Gervase Goch. (Vide page 124 note 65)

Seal of Madoc de Sutton.

(Vide page 119 note 42}

Seal of Fleury le Strange of Brockton. (Vide page 25 note 68) SUTTON MADDOCK. 125

At the Assizes of November 1221, I find that Ralph de Sanford had a suit concerning 2 virgates of land against William de Bechesaur, which he failed to prosecute. [69] I cannot help associating this suspended suit with a deed whereby William de Begesoure grants to Ralph de Sanford a virgate in Brocton, half of which was held by Hugh de Beckbury, and half by Adam Ythel, at an annual rent of 5s. [70]

By another deed Richard de Beggesoure grants to the same Ralph an acre in the field of Hemme, "which extends to the torrent opposite the croft of Alan Infans". [71]

William Cocus of Broctun, grants to the same Ralph half-a- virgate in Broctun at a rent of 6d. [72]

This deed passed between the years 1231 and 1235, in the former of which Helias Cocus the predecessor of William was living, and in the latter of which Ralph de Sanford the Grantee was deceased.

We have thus altogether a series of 10 deeds, commencing about 1205, and ending within 30 years later, and which exhibit the feoffments of one individual in the same Manor.

I now proceed to give the substance of another series of deeds, extending through the same period, and which show the mode in which Ralph de Sanford dealt with these acquisitions.-

By the first of these, Radulf de Sanford gives and concedes to Margaret, daughter of Richard the Priest (Sacerdotis) of Brocton, a virgate in Brocton, half of which Roger French (Francigena)

[69] Salop Assizes, 6 Hen. III, memb. 7.
[70] Charter at Haughton. The names of the witnesses are in perfect accordance with the date assumed (1221). They are Hugh de Becheberi, Walter de Hugeford, Richard de Ruton, Henry le Strange, Walter de Stircheleg, Robert Cocus, Richard de Begesouer, William Russel, Robert de Trillewurthin.
[71] Charter ibidem.- Tested by Henry le Strange, William de Beggesoure, Robert Trilleworthin, William Russel, Henry Iweyn, Helias Come, Alan Infans, Philip de Preee, Clerk.-

The Seal of this deed is rude. The device seems to be four ears of wheat with the stalks conjoined cross-wise. In the Legend the Grantor's name is spelt "Becesovre", which gives the exact original of the name "Badger". I incline to date this deed at least ten years later than the last.
[72] Charter ibidem.- Tested by Philip de Burewardesleg, Walter de Huggeford, Gerard de Ivelith, Henry le Strange, William Ruffus, William de Beggesour, Robert de Trillewurthin. The Seal has the Legend-


The deed passed between 1231 and 1235.


held, and Osbert the other half.- She and her heirs are to hold the same in fee, at a rent of 2s. payable to the Grantor and his heirs, But if the Grantor should be unable to warrant the land he would give an equivalent within 40 days. Margaret pays 12 merks for this grant.- If she die without heir of her body, she may make one of her Brethren her heir. [73]

This deed (throwing by the way some light on the kind of clerical celibacy practised at the time) was nearly contemporary with another, whereby Radulf de Sontford, for 30s., enfeoffs Richard Fitz Roger in a virgate of land at Brocton, which his Father held in Wodecrofte, and also in all that land which Richard de Grene held. The rent in this case was to be 14s. [74]

By another deed Radulf de Santford grants to John, son of Sibil de Brocton, 1 virgate in the till of Brocton, viz. that which Sibil, John's Mother, held.- To have and to hold after Sibil's decease, first to John and Agnes his Wife and their heirs of their bodies, then to the heirs of John by any future wife, or to Agnes if she survive John; and then to William, son of Alan L'Enfant, for life only. A relief of 12s. is to be paid at Sibil's death, and a further rent of 12s. per annum. The fine, acknowledged as already paid for the grant, is 40s. [75]

Sir Ralph de Sanford was, as I have said, deceased in 1235. He was succeeded at Brockton and elsewhere by Richard his son and heir, who during the next fourteen years is found attesting several

[73] Charter ibidem.- Tested by Roger de Beggesour, Warin de Burwardsley, Warner de Wililey, Walter de Hugford, Richard de Ruton, Hugh de Becheburi, Geoffrey Rusel, William de Beggesour, Helias Cocus, Robert Cocus, and many others, Clerks and Laymen. This deed passed between the years 1205 and 1211. It is worth observing that by this subinfeudation of one fourth of the land which he had obtained from Griffin de Sutton, Ralph de Sanford realized the whole rent and nearly half the purchase money payable or paid to his own Feoffor.
[74] Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Brocton, No. x.- Tested by Sir Gryffin de Sutton and his heirs, Sir Roger de Beggesour and his heirs, Mancell de Petteshull (Patshull) and his heirs, Hugh de Beckburi and his heirs, Richard de Ruton and his heirs, William de Beggesour and his heirs.
[75] Charter at Haughton.- Tested by the Lord Prior of Wombrug, Madoc Fitz Griffin, Griffin his brother, Gilbert Chaplain of Kembricton, Nicholas Chaplain of Sutton, Henry le Strange, Robert de Brocton, William Russel, Thomas his son, Henry Fitz Iwein.-

This deed is of date about 1231, at least a dated Charter of that year contains nearly the same names. It appears to be in the same hand-writing as that of William Russel (supra, p. 94). The Seal of this deed is of green wax and well preserved. It exhibits a Knight on horseback, charging sword in hand, and this Legend-



deeds in this neighbourhood, and who, I think, occurs as a witness in one instance before his Father's death.

He, like his Father, was a Knight. A deed which must have passed between 1241 and 1249, shows Stephen Cude of Brocton, granting to "Sir Richard, Lord of Sonford" for the sum of 4s. 6d. half- an-acre of land in Hemme. [76] This Stephen Cude or Keede has already appeared as holding half-a-virgate under Philip de Farlow. He, or his Father William, had also, as we shall presently see, been enfeoffed by Ralph de Sanford in a virgate at Brockton.

But to return to Richard de Sanford.- He appears to have died in 1249, and being a Tenant in capite at Sanford and Ruthall an Inquest was held shortly after, as to his estate. [77] The Jurors, among whom were Roger de Bagsore and Ivo de Brocton, said that he had held in Brocton under Sir Madoc de Sutton by service of 2s. per annum: that he had there half-a-carucate in demesne, which, with its meadows, was worth 20s. per annum; that he had a Mill there worth 10s. per annum, and rents from Tenants amounting to 2. 6s. 8d.; that Ralph de Sanford his son and next heir was 14 years of age.

The deceased, as I find from another Record, left a Widow, Alianora, whose lands were in 1255 estimated at 100s. annual value, and wbo was then remarried to Richard Burnel. [78]

The wardship of the heir, Ralph de Sanford, was granted by the King to Germanus Scissor, who selling the same to Odo de Hodnet, the latter obtained the King's Letters Patent dated Sept. 1, 1249, confirming such transfer. [79]

In Easter Term 1250, Felicia, widow of William Kede, is found suing Stephen Kede for dower in a virgate of land. Stephen called Ralph Sanford (the Minor) to warranty. [80] A protracted litigation ensued, for in July 1251, I find Simon de Wanton and Robert de Grendon appointed to try the suit which "Felicia, widow of William Code, had against Odo de Hodnet and Stephen Code as to a tenement in Brocton". [81]

[76] Charter ibidem.- Tested by Robert de Tizlewurthin, Ivo de Brocton, Roger Bagesore, Thomas Russel, Richard Iwen. By the "Hemme" mentioned in this and other Brockton deeds we are not to understand the neighbouring vill, so called, and which is in Shiffnal Parish. One of the large town-fields of Brockton was thus named.
[77] Inquisitiones incerti temporis Henrici III, No. 111. The date of this Inquest (1249) is found by evidence quite conclusive, but too long to insert.
[78] Rot. Hund. 67.
[79] Rot. Pat. 33 Henry III.
[80] Placita apud Westm. Easter Term 31 Hen. III.
[81] Rot. Pat. 35 Henry III. Another Patent of the same time shows Richard Burnell and Alianore his wife, in litigation with Odo de Hodnet about their respective rights at Sandford. This will illustrate the next entry in the text.


It is clear that Odo de Hodnet was a party in consequence of his continued guardianship of Ralph de Sanford.

At Salop Assizes, January 1256, "Robert Prudhome challenged Richard Burnel, for that whilst he, Robert (being in the King's-Peace) was in a barn of Odo de Hodenet's at Brocton, on Wednesday, August 11 (1255) Richard came and took away twelve thraves of corn. He (Robert) also charged William Parvus, Stephen Kede, Yvo de Brocton, and Thomas de Wyke, that they were aiding and abetting said Richard. This challenge was declared to be null. [82]

At the same Assizes there was (in continuation of the former suit) a prosecution under writ of mort d'ancestre by Sibil and Margery, daughters of William Kede, against Stephen Kede, to ascertain whether the said William died seized of half-a- virgate in Brocton, and whether the said Sibil and Margery were his next heirs. Stephen Kede, the Tenant, "appeared and called to warranty Ralph, son and heir of Richard de Saunford, who was under age and in custody of Odo de Odenet, by charter of Ralph de Saunford, grandfather of the aforesaid Ralph, which charter of feoffment he (Stephen) produced". The cause was adjourned till Ralph de Saunford should attain his majority. [83]

This Ralph must have come of age shortly afterwards, but I postpone further mention of him to another occasion, inasmuch as I find little to connect him with Sutton and Brockton beyond his attestation of a few local deeds. He thus attests as a Knight, about 1290, and dying in 1307, left a son Richard, thirty years of age, who has already been mentioned as a Grantee of Fulk le Strange in March 1308.


I have already adverted to the fact of Griffin de Sutton having enfeoffed Warin de Burwardsley in two virgates here, and have suggested that the said feoffment was in composition of some claim which Warin had, in 1195, on Griffin's Manors of Rowton and Ellardine. Deeds have also been cited, showing that Warin de Burwardsley's estate in Brockton remained to Philip his son, and that the latter enfeoffed Ralph de Sanford in one-half of the premises,

[82] Placita Coronae, 40 Hen. III, Salop. memb. 9.
[83] Assizes at Salop, 40 Henry III, memb. 2.


reserving however an annual rent of 12d. to himself and his heirs. I neither find what became of the other virgate nor any subsequent notice of a mesne interest here continuing with the heirs of Burwardsley. In 1251, however, these two virgates are mentioned and recognized as a distinct tenement, of the annual value of two merks, but nothing whatever is said of their occupation at the time. [84]


The Record last quoted specifies another alienation made by Griffin de Sutton in this Manor. It was of one virgate to Elyas Cocus at a rent of 2s., and this land was in 1251 worth 15s. per annum.

Accordingly we have Elias or Helias Cocus a witness in various deeds ranging in date from the year 1194 to 1231.

"Helyas Coquus granted to Wombridge Priory for the health of his soul an acre of land at Brocton in the field called Bedlesdun". [86]

He also granted to the same, in composition of a certain debt, three acres in the field of Brocton for a term of twenty years, commencing Oct. 26, 1231. [86]

Contemporary with Helias Cocus was Robert Cocus, whose rent of 12d. payable to Griffin Goch we have already seen transferred by the latter to Wombridge Priory.

The successor of Helias Cocus was William Cocus, whose grant of half his estate (half-a-virgate) to Ralph de Sanford, reserving 6d. rent, has been cited as having passed between 1231 and 1235. The sequel of this name and Tenure will be best shown by a few extracts from the Wombridge Chartulary.-

John Ithell de Brocton grants to William Cocus an acre of three

[84] Testa de Nevill fo. 274.
[85] Wombridge Chartulary. Tit. Brocton, No. lix, No. lix.- Tested by Henry le Strange, Nicholas de Kembricton, John Fitz Sibil.
[86] Ibidem No. lx.- Tested by Sir Madoc de Sutton and Griffin, his Brother, Nicholas the Priest (Sacerdote), William de Sutton, Henry le Strange. The way in which the Term of twenty years is fixed by this deed shows how unused were the Country Law-Clerks to express a date and how oddly they did it. The Term is to commence "from the year when Castle Matilda was fortified; and Sir R. de Novavilla, the Chancellor, was elected Archbishop; and E was the Sunday letter". The deed was also written "on the 7th of the kalends of November in that year". It was about July 1231 that Henry III rebuilt Castle Matilda in Elvein: soon after August 2, 1231, Ralph de Nevill, Bishop of Chichester and Chancellor, was elected Archbishop of Canterbury; and E was the Sunday letter of 1231. The deed (it may be added) passed on a Sunday.


seilions near Kembrichaismere, for 6s. paid, and a rent of 1d. [87] The same John "Idthel" grants the same acre to Wombridge Priory, [88] that is I suppose he grants his reserved right therein concurrently with the following grant by his former Feoffee.-

William Cocus of Brocton grants to Wombridge Priory half-a- virgate which he held in Brocton with a certain messuage and croft; also an acre which he bought from John Yethele; also 6d. annual rent receivable from the heirs of Ralph de Sontford on half-a-virgate which they held of him in Brocton. [89]

Thus about the year 1250 did this tenure in Brockton become wholly absorbed by Wombridge Priory.


I have already said that William de Begesour, who, about 1174, sold his inheritance at Badger, appears to have left successors elsewhere. That he should have an interest in Brockton becomes the more probable inasmuch as the Fief of his Suzerains, the Lords of Richard's Castle, at one time extended to that quarter.

However I cannot determine the mode in which his presumed descendants, the Begesours of Brockton, held their lands. Their deeds are unattended by any confirmation or consent of a superior Lord, and yet it is certain that they were not Tenants in capite.

Of this family William de Begesour occurs from 1194 to 1232; also Roger son and heir of William occurs during his Father's life-time and subsequently till about 1263. Contemporary with both Father and Son was Richard de Begesour already mentioned.

The son and heir of Roger was a second William, occurring from about 1268 to 1280. A Richard occurs about 1300, a third William in 1316, and Thomas in 1341, all being distinctly of Brockton and in no way confounded with the family of the same name which held a higher position at Badger.

Of the persons thus named I find little more than their names.- William de Beggesoure approves and attests about 1230 a transfer

[87] Ibidem, No. xxiv.- Tested by Madoc de Sutton, Hugh de Hadinton, Richard de Grenhull.
[88] Ibidem, No. xxxvij.- Tested by Sir Madoc de Sutton, Nicholas Chaplain of Sutton, Hugh de Hadington, John Lord of Grenhul.
[89] Ibidem, No. xlij.- Tested by Sir Walter de Dunstanvill, Walter de Huggeford, Madoe de Sutton, Odo de Hodenet, Walter de Kembriton, Herbert de Ydeshal, Hugh de Hedinton, Hugh de Bolinthal, John de Grenhul, Oliver de Knoll, Yvo de Emden.


of land by one of his under-tenants at Brockton; [90] Roger was a Benefactor about 1263 to Wombridge Priory, and his deed mentions two of his Tenants, viz. Richard Fitz Edith and Thomas de Brocton. [91]

The second William de Begesour had three transactions with Wombridge Priory, the first a small grant, the other two exchanges. [92] His amercement for some default at the Forest Assizes of Nov. 1271, is all that I find further noticeable, either as regards him or the continuators of his name at Brockton. [93]


This was undoubtedly a member of the Domesday Manor of Sutton and so continued till the death of Hamo Peverel, about 1136. In 1157, part of Harrington (a virgate) went still with Sutton and the other Tornai lands, then obtained by Gervase Goch; but the remainder (more than 4 virgates) was not thus involved, probably as having been previously bestowed elsewhere.

I will first speak of the virgate obtained by Gervase Goch.- A Record already quoted, informs us that Griffin (son of Gervase), enfeoffed Hugh de Beckbury therein, by service of 12d. (rent), and that its full value was then (1251) 10s. per annum. [94] This fact is sufficiently illustrated by a number of Sutton and Brockton Deeds which, passing in the first quarter of the 13th century, have the attestation of this Hugh de Beckbury. His marriage, presently to be noticed, had given him a footing in Harrington before he obtained the feoffment of Griffin Goch, and at his death, which must have happened about Dec. 1226, he was possessed of other interests in this Manor or Township.

He left two sons, necessary to be mentioned here, John and Hugh. Griffin de Sutton's Feoffment having probably been limited to Hugh and his heirs, the virgate under notice will have descended

[90] Wombridge Chartulary. Tit. Brocton, No. xxvj.- The other witnesses being the Prior of Wombridge, Henry le Strange and William Russel; the two latter of whom attested this William's grant to Ralph de Sanford, as already noticed.
[91] Ibidem, No. xxxvj.- Tested by Sir Walter de Dunstanville, Sir John Fitz Hugh, John de Ercalewe, John de Stiventon, Herbert de Wyke, John Lord of Sutton, John de Grenhull, Ivo de Brocton, Richard Burnel, Adam Pollard of Lee, Oliver de Knolle.
[92] Ibidem, Nos. xxxij, xxxiij and lxx.
[93] It is curious to observe how this name became gradually contracted after its transplantation to Brockton. The ultimate forms which it assumed were simply Bag or Beg.
[94] Testa de Nevill, fo. 274.


to Hugh's eldest son John, and again from John, who died about 1250, to John's eldest son Philip.

Madoc de Sutton's seignoral interest in this parcel of land becomes again apparent in 1256, when his Concession of Sutton to Wombridge Priory includes "rents and escheats of Hedinton".

However a moiety of this virgate seems at some subsequent period to have reverted to the Lord of the Fee.

Hence in 1284, it was found of a virgate here that Fulk le Strange held half thereof in capite of the King, whilst Philip de Bechebur held the other half under Fulk. [95]

I find no later notice of this virgate in Harrington, and conclude that it became again absorbed in the Parent Manor of Sutton.

THE OTHER AND GREATER part of Harrington followed a succession liable to be confused with, but essentially distinct from, the parcel thus far treated of. At the time of Gervase Goch's acquisition of Sutton (1157), this land had probably been bestowed elsewhere. However about March 1163, it fell into the King's hands, by death or forfeiture of the former Grantee; consequently at Michaelmas 1163, the Sheriff renders account "of the ferm of Hadinton, escheated land which was Gerard de Turnai's; viz. for half a year 20s". [96]

About this time, the name of Roger Mussun occurs more than once on the Shropshire Pipe-Rolls among those who were in the service and favour of King Henry II.

That King also, when, about the year 1175, he visited Shrewsbury, expedited a charter whereby he gave "to Roger Mussun, his Servant, Uppington under Mount-Gilbert" and, what is more to our present purpose, "50 solidates of land in Heddinton which had been Hamo Peverell's, and were near to Bruges" (written Burgam). The service retained by the King on the whole grant, was the payment of one sore Sparrow-hawk yearly, by said Roger and his heirs. [97]

I shall here say briefly of Roger Mussun that he was a Benefactor to Wombridge Priory, and that dying about the year 1191, he left a Widow, Galiena, and at least nine daughters and Coheiresses to share his estates. Harrington, whose estimated extent seems to have been four-and-a-half virgates, was accordingly divided into several shares. Galiena, the Widow, had half-a-virgate, two of the

[95] Kirby's Quest. The Record is not very clear on this matter, but I doubt not that such is its intended meaning.
[96] Rot. Pip. 9 Hen. II, Salop.
[97] Wombridge Chartulary. Tit. Upinton, No. ccxvj.


daughters, viz. Juliana, wife of ... Corbrond, and Sibil, wife of Richard de Bruges, had half-a-virgate each, Alina, wife of Hugh de Beckbury, had a share which, with the other shares (however allotted in the first instance), amounted to three virgates, and eventually centred in Hugh the second son of the said Hugh and Mina, and in Muota, daughter of the same Hugh, junior.

Galiena, Widow of Roger Musson, gave her half-virgate in frank almoigne to Wombridge Priory, for the soul of her Husband and Parents. [98] The Priory leased it to Philip the Chaplain, for a term of years, but afterwards (about 1220) granted it to Adam de Cherleton (husband of Alice, another of the aforesaid Coheiresses) in exchange for a parcel of land at Uppinton. [99] All I shall further say of this half-virgate is, that Richard de la Buri, Great-grandson of Adam and Alice, occurs in 1284 as holding it in capite of the King, [100] and that in 1292 he was still Tenant thereof, though the King had in the interim granted the seigneury of all that was implied by the payment of the aforesaid Sparrow-hawk to Robert Burnell, Bishop of Bath and Wells. [101]

So also the half-virgate in Harrington, which after her Father's death was allotted to Juliana Corbrond, is found in 1284 and 1292 to be similarly held by Richard Corebrond, her Great- grandson and representative.

The half-virgate of Sibil de Bruges did not so long remain with her descendants, though it reached the hands of her Great- grandson also. He, viz. Richard, son of Richard de Bruges, sold it, with the messuage thereon, about 1264, for 40s. and a d. rent, to Jane, widow of Hugh de Beckbury. [102] She in turn granted it to Wombridge, on condition that at her death her body should be buried at the Priory, her name written in the "Martyrology" of the House,

[98] Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Hadinton, No. v. The deed passed about 1195. The witnesses are numerous and important, viz. Master Robert of Salopesbury (who became Bishop of Bangor, March 1197), Richard his Brother, Gregory Chaplain of Wroccester, Ernald Chaplain of Opinton (Uppinton), Philip de Welinton, Master Richard of Hidashal (Idsall), Will de Hedleg the younger (minor), Guy de Sagebury (Shawbury), Reinald de Tirne, Richard de Chesthull, Alexander de Novo Burgo (both sons-in-law of the Grantress), Ralph de Horleton, Gilbert Mussun (Brother of Roger), Ralph de Perrin, Robert Angevin, Adam de Wrocworthin, &c.
[99] Ibidem, No. i. Henry is the Prior who grants. The witnesses are Baldwin de Hodnet (dead Jan. 1225), Hugh Fitz Robert, William de Hedlee, Walter de Stirglee (Stirchley), Robert de Brocton, Roger de Besselawe.
[100] Kirby's Quest.
[101] Placita Coronae, 20 Edw. I, memb. 23.
[102] Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Hadinton, No. ij.


the anniversary of her death be duly kept, and special prayers offered up for her soul. [103]

In 1292, the Prior of Wombridge was questioned as to his tenure of this half-virgate, which he is said however to have "purchased". His reply, showing that the King had in 1286 granted the Sparrow-hawk (i.e. the seigniory) reserved on this serjeantry to Robert Burnell, in exchange for other lands, seems to have stopped the enquiry. The Prior's Tenure was, in fact, no longer in capite nor any concern of the Crown.

I NOW COME to the residue of this Tenure, viz. three virgates which went to Hugh de Beckbury and Alina his wife, daughter and coheir of Roger Mussun, or were acquired by their descendants from the other coheirs.

This Hugh, who, be it remembered, had a distinct interest here as Feoffee of Griffin de Sutton, was also Lord of Beckbury, and an important personage in many other respects. Confining myself now to his Tenures in Harrington, I shall merely notice some quarrel which he had with a neighbour of equal consequence.

Walter, Lord of Higford, claimed a right of common-pasture in Harrington, whereof this Hugh disseized him. Walter laid his complaint before King Henry III, when that Monarch, in September 1224, was at Shrewsbury with his Justiciars. Sentence was given in the Plaintiff's favour, and Hugh was moreover amerced two merks for the offence. The King, however, passing to Montgomery, despatched a writ dated at that place on October 1, whereby the Sheriff of Shropshire was ordered to discharge Hugh of half this fine, a favour probably shown to Hugh as a sometime Servant of the Crown, and at this very moment Chief Bailiff of the King's Hundred of Bradford. Hugh paid the balance of the fine, but instead of acquiescing in the judgment given against him, proceeded to plough and sow the common-land in dispute. In August 1226, the King was again at Shrewsbury, and Walter de Hugford made a second complaint. Hugh appeared, and at first denied the charge; but presently admitting it, he was adjudged to pay 20s. damages, for which Walinger de Sydenhale and Walter de Harpcote stood his Sureties. [104]

This Hugh de Beckbury was living in October 1226, but deceased before March 1227. His Wife Alina survived him at least ten years, but both were eventually succeeded at Harrington by their

[103] Ibidem, Nos. iij, iv.
[104] Placita coram Rege, 10 Henry III, Salop. Rot. Claus. 8 Hen. III, memb. 3, and Rot. Pip. 10 Hen. III, Salop.


second Son, called Hugh de Hadinton as often as Hugh de Beckbury in respect of this his Tenure.

This Hugh became a much more important person than his elder Brother John. In 1229, he was already a Knight and stirring in the affairs of the County. He acquired property at Oldbury, Diddlebury, and Acton Burnell. About 1251, his interests in Harrington are thus described:- "Hugh de Bekebur' is Tenant by gift of his Ancestors (who held part of Upton (Uppington) which is holden of the King in capite) of two virgates in Hadinton; by what service is unknown. The Tenure is worth 20s. per annum. Muota, daughter of the same Hugh, holds one virgate in the same vill by gift of her aforesaid Ancestors. However the service is unknown". [105]

The service due on Hugh's Tenure in Harrington was involved in the Sore Sparrow-hawk, paid by his Relations, the Coheirs of Uppington, by whom, or some of whom, he, his Father, or his daughter had been thus enfeoffed in Harrington.

In 1255, Hugh de Beckbury was farming the Hundred of Bradford under the Sheriff at an annual rent of thirty-three merks. [106] The extortions of some his Deputies in this, his office of Bailiff, were loudly complained of at the Inquest of 1255 by the Jurors of Hales-Owen. One Roger de Hales having, it appears, been amerced by Roger de Turkelby for some offence, Hugh de Beckbury's Beadles, or Sub-Bailiffs, made four successive seizures in satisfaction of the single debt thus incurred. [107]

At the Assizes of January 1256, Hugh de Beckbury had lost his Bailiwick, or Bailiwicks, for I think he had been Fermor of more than one Shropshire Hundred. He was, however, one of the two principal Jurors of Brimstree Hundred, whose office it was to choose their ten Colleagues. He is here called Hugh de Hadington. [108]

At these same Assizes, he was involved in a double law-suit with Madoc de Sutton. He was sued by the latter for having disseized him (Madoc) of a right of common in Hadinton, and was convicted. Neither was he successful in certain counter-charges which he endeavoured to establish against Madoc, viz. that he (Madoc) "to

[105] Testa de Nevill, fo. 275.
[106] Rot Hund. ii, 58.
[107] Ibidem II, 68. This Record is curious in one particular, viz. that it describes Hugh de Beckbury by both his names alternately, so that a reader, not aware of the identity, must fail to understand the story altogether.
[108] Salop Assizes, 40 Hen. III. Placita Coronae, m. 12.


the damage of Hugh's Tenement in Hadinton, had stopped the road which led to Sutton Church, and had disseized Hugh of his common rights in Sutton. [109]

In this year also, as was afterwards alleged, Hugh de Beckbury demised a messuage and virgate in Hadington to Thomas Corbet, for a term of twenty years, commencing June 11. Of this however presently.-

In April 1263, this Hugh was deceased, leaving a widow, Johanna, and a son and heir, Thomas. Of his daughter Muota, I learn nothing further than that her interest in Harrington seems to have reverted to her Brother or his Assignees.

Johanna, or Jane, Widow of Hugh de Beckbury, has already been mentioned more than once. [110] I can say little more of her than that in 1267 she appears, as Ida, widow of Hugh de Beckbury, to have fined half-a-merk for license to accord some law-suit: and that again in April 1271, she had proffered a similar sum for some writ of the King. In the last case she is called Johanna. [111]

Thomas de Beckbury, Son and Heir of Hugh, succeeded him at Harrington; but about September 1270, sold all his interest there to Nicholas de Hugford, and, inter alia, his interest in that messuage and virgate which Thomas Corbet had now held for fourteen-and-a-quarter years. Nicholas de Hugford forthwith ejected Thomas Corbet, whereupon the latter sued the said Nicholas, laying his damages at 100. The cause was tried at Salop Assizes, October 1272, when the Parties pleaded the various circumstances already detailed, Nicholas de Hugford asserting however, that Hugh de Beckbury, Father of Thomas, had died seized of the virgate in question, so that it descended to Thomas his (Nicholas') Feoffor. In reply to this, Corbet offered to produce the deed of lease (dimissionis), adding that Hugh de Beckbury was at his death only so seized of the premises as having been appointed his (Corbet's) Bailiff. On this issue Corbet puts himself on the Country, and Nicholas likewise, appointing however his powerful neighbour (and probably relation) William de Hugford as his Attorney against so weighty an Antagonist as the Baron of Caus. The Jury found in due course that Hugh de Beckbury died seized of the premises, and that "Corbet had nothing therein" under his alleged deed. He was therefore in misericordia. [112]

[109] Ibidem, memb. 14 and 13 dorso.
[110] Supra, Vol. I, pp. 134, 135, 372, Vol. II, p. 133.
[111] Rot. Pip. 51 Hen. III, Salop. Rot. Fin. vol. ii, 534.
[112] Salop Assizes, 66 Henry III, memb 4 dorso. Thomas Corbet, Baron of Caus, employed a considerable portion of his long life in quarrels or litigations of this kind. He was generally unsuccessful, and was in short an active and violent oppressor. However, to these law-suits, I am indebted for a fund of legal, local, and genealogical information, on which I shall often have to draw.


Nothing is said in the Inquisition of 1284, as to the interest thus acquired by Nicholas de Hugford in Harrington.

In October 1292 however, it was found as regards the Serjeantry of Roger Mussun in Hadynton that it was worth 45s. per annum; "that it was held by service of rendering one Sore Sparrow-hawk for Uppinton and Hadynton at the Feast of St. Peter ad Vincla; that John de Huggeford now (1292) holds thereof three virgates worth 20s. per annum", and that the Prior of Wombrug holds half- a-virgate, &c. [113]

An account of several other under-tenancies in Sutton, Brockton, Ryton, and Grindle, might be extracted from the Wombridge Chartulary alone, but I must leave a matter far too diffuse for my proposed, but already transgressed, limits. This Chartulary, inaccurate as it occasionally is, affords curious view of the assiduity and method with which a small Priory guarded its own minutest interests. It contains nearly 500 instruments referring to property which can hardly be estimated to have extended over twice as many acres.

An Epitome of various grants to this house by Donniger, Brusebon, John the Clerk, and other Under-Tenants in Brockton, &c., has already been printed. Edward II's Inspeximus, the document alluded to, is to be found in the New Monasticon (vol. vi, p. 388).


The earliest notice which we have of a Church here has already been stated.- Madoc son of Gervase Goch gave the same, as far as he was concerned, about 1186-7, to Wombridge Priory.

An independent and nearly contemporary grant thereof to the same Priory was made by Henry II, who treats the Advowson as the undivided right of the Crown. It appears however, from the King's Charter, that some negotiation on the subject had taken place previously, for he reserves the life-interest of Ralph the Clerk (the Rector I presume) "in conformity with the convention already made between the said Ralph and the Canons". [114]

[113] Placita Coronae, 20 Ed. I, memb. 23, 8alop.- The rest of the return has been already given, except that John de Hugford was summoned to give amount of his Tenure on a future day. The Prior of Wombridge however appeared, as before stated, and his account of the Tenure will have applied to Hugford's interest as well as his own. The heirs of Robert Burnell, Bishop of Bath and Wells, occur more than twenty years afterwards as seized of "9s. rent in Uppiton",- doubtless a substitute for the older service.
[114] Wombridge Chartulary. Tit. Brocton and Sutton, No. xcvij. and Harl. MSS. 3868, fo. 5. The witnesses are, Hugh, Bishop of Durham, and Peter, Bishop of St. David's, H. Dean of York, Ranulf de Glanvill, Brother Roger the Almoner, Hugh de Morwic and Hugh Bardulf, Sewers. The Charter is dated at Clarendon, a circumstance which, with the witnesses' names, indicates it, all but certainly, to have passed in January 1187.


This Charter of King Henry II received the usual Confirmations.- Pope Urban III, in a Bull dated at Verona, June 23, 1187, confirmed it with a condition as to its being sanctioned by the Diocesan Bishop. [115]

B. (Baldwin) Archbishop of Canterbury, "and Legate of the Apostolick See " confirmed it. [116]

Hugh, Bishop of Coventry, confirmed it, first by a Charter which must have passed soon after his Consecration (Jan. 31, 1188), [117] and again by a Charter which bears date at Lichfield "on the morrow of St. Clement, in the year in which Richard King of England set out for Jerusalem " (i.e. Nov. 24, 1190). [118]

G. (Geoffrey de Muschamp) Bishop of Coventry, in a Charter which passed at Lichfield about November 1206, not only confirms the right of the Canons of Wombridge to the Church of St. Mary of Sutton, as granted by King Henry II, and Bishop Hugh, but either authorizes or sanctions an appropriation thereof. "The Canons are to present proper Chaplains who shall receive the Cure of souls from the hand of the Bishop, and shall serve the said Church; the Canons shall assign to such Chaplains fit sustenance, according to the custom of the Country and the faculties of the Church; the residue they may retain to their own uses and the entertainment of the poor". [119]

Dec. 28, 1258, Bishop Roger (de Meuland) inspected and confirmed the Appropriations granted by his Predecessors, Geoffrey and Alexander (de Stavensby), to Wombridge Priory of the Churches of Sutton, and Lopinton, and of the Chapel of Upinton. [120]

[115] Wombridge Chartulary, Appendix No. iv. At the date of this Bull, Hugh de Novant, Bishop Elect of Lichfield and Coventry, had not been consecrated.
[116] Ibidem, Tit. Brocton and Sutton, No. ciij. This Confirmation must have Passed between 1187 and 1190.
[117] Ibidem, No. cj. This Charter, as transcribed in the Chartulary, purports to be by "Henry" Bishop of Coventry. As no such Prelate sat till the 19th Century, we have again an instance of tho errors committed by Transcribers when they have attempted to identify any name represented in an original deed only by its initial letter. The witnesses of this Charter prove it to have been by Hugh de Novant.
[118] Ibidem, No. cij.
[119] Ibidem, Tit. Lopinton, No. vij. Dated "in the year when a Council was celebrated by John the Cardinal at Reading", for which, as indicated in the text, see M. Paris, sub anno 1206.
[120] Ibidem, No. vj.


Dec. 29, 1258, Ralph the Dean, and the Chapter of Lichfield inspected and, for their part, confirmed Bishop Roger's Charter. [121]

April 28, 1262, William the Prior and the Convent of Coventry did the same. [122]

In 1281, some question had arisen as to the Taxation or Ordination of this Church, i.e. the proportions of its income which should be allotted to the Vicar before the Impropriators received the residue. The Bishop's Official writes on March 5th to the Official of the Archdeacon of Salop, alluding to an inquiry, which the latter had been previously ordered to make on the subject, and acknowledging the receipt of his report resulting from such inquiry, but at the same time stating that he (the Bishop's Official) is not thereby fully informed. The Archdeacon's Official is therefore to cite the Prior and Canons of Wombridge to appear on a certain Saturday, [123] at Stafford, before himself (the Bishop's Official), and there in the Church of the Canons (St. Thomas the Martyr's) exhibit an instrument, if they have one, as to the last Taxation of Sutton Vicarage. And, not to leave the matter liable to the contingency of the Canons producing such a document,- the Archdeacon's Official is to cite the Rectors, Vicars, and Chaplains, who live nearest to Sutton, and twelve honest Laymen who best know the true value of the said Church, to appear before the Bishop's Official or his Commissaries, on May 31, in the Parish Church of Wombridge, to give information on the point. The Archdeacon's Official is also to attend himself, and to inform the Prior and Canons that they may attend if they think better to do so. [124]

The truth is, I suppose, that the Priory had no such Instrument of Taxation, but in default of Episcopal interference had interpreted their right of Appropriation with a view to their own interests.

The stringent course proposed by Bishop Roger de Meuland's Official does not seem to have led to any immediate result.

However, on March 15, 1285, a Charter of that Prelate settles the matter and embodies the particulars of his. "Ordination of the Vicarage of Sutton juxta Bruges".-viz.-

"The Vicar for the time being shall have a sufficient House on the Glebe (in solo ecclesiastico), and half-a-virgate of land: also all Mortuaries, the tithe of hay in Sutton and Hadyngton, the tithes

[121] Ibidem, Tit. Brockton and Sutton, No. civ,- corrected by Harl. MSS. 3868, fo. 4.
[122] Ibidem, No. cv.
[123] Die Sabbati qua cantatur Scitientes.
[124] Ibidem, No. xcviij.


of wool, lambs, young swine, colts, calves, white-honey, geese, apples, and pannage; also tithes of gardens and crofts under spade culture (pede cultorum), and all oblations and offerings at the Altar however arising; also all tithes of fisheries, mills, and of wood sold within the Parish; and the tithes of flax and hemp.-

The Vicar shall bear all expenses attaching to the exercise of his office, and the Rectors bear all charges ordinary or extraordinary, which lie upon the Church". [125]

In 1291, the Church of Sutton Madok is valued at 4. 13s. 4d. [126]

May 8, 1320, Bishop Walter (de Langton) having recently made Visitation of the Archdeaconry of Salop, certifies that he found the Priory of Wombridge, Impropriators of this Church; that the Canons being summoned to exhibit their title thereunto had done so to his complete satisfaction. The Bishop therefore dismisses them as the true and Canonical Rectors of this Church. [127]

In the year 1315, the Archdeacon of Salop visiting Sutton Church, heard that the Canons of Wombridge had withdrawn two processional candles which they were bound to maintain in the Chancel of the said Church. The Parishioners, represented by Roger Brusebon and two others, moved a suit in the Archidiaconal Court against the Canons. A sentence releasing them from the alleged obligtion was given in full Chapter at Newport on Nov. 4, 1315, and certified by the Archdeacon's Official. [128]

In 1341, though the Taxation of Sutton Church stood at 7 merks (4. 13s. 4d.), the Assessors of the ninth, only rated the Parish at 3. because the small tithes, oblations, glebe, and other spiritualities of the Church went to make up the greater sum, and had nothing to do with the ninth; and because the Vicar had half-a-virgate of land, and because four virgates of land lay unfilled. [129]

The Canons of Wombridge obtained other confirmations of their Chartered and Impropriate rights at Sutton, viz. from Bishop Robert (de Stretton), dated at Heywode, July 25, 1362, from Bishop John (Bourghill), dated at Eccleshall Castle, Sept. 21, 1400, and from Thomas (Fitz Alan), Archbishop of Canterbury, dated at Lambeth, Feb. 8, 1401. [130]

[125] Ibidem, No. xcix and c compared.
[126] Taxatio Papae Nich. p. 248.- Decanatus Novi Burgi.
[127] Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Brocton and Sutton, No. cvi. Dated at Edgmond, May 8, 1320.
[128] Ibidem, No. cx.
[129] Inquisitiones Nonarum, p. 184.
[130] Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Brockton and Sutton, Nos. cvij, cviij, cix.


The Valor Ecclesiasticus of 1534-5, by some extraordinary accident, omits to notice this Church under the Deanery of Newport. The Prior of Wombridge acknowledges however his receipt of the "tithes of the Church of Sutton Madok", amounting to 8. 6s. 8d. per annum. [131]

The Minister's Accounts of 1536-7, give the Ferm of this Rectory, with the Tithes of Brockton, as together worth 4. per annum. [132]


RADULF THE CLERK, the Incumbent of 1187, was probably the last resident Rector of Sutton. He seems to have been followed by the Deputies of Wombridge Priory, styled at first Chaplains or Priests, and afterwards Vicars. Thus we have between 1194 and 1219 mention of HUGH, CHAPLAIN OF Sutton or of Brockton, and also notices of one RICHARD, called indifferently CHAPLAIN OF Sutton or Priest of Brockton.

In the next twelve years we hear of PHILIP THE CHAPLAIN as an occupier of land at Harrington, and find him attesting deeds as "Sir Philip, Chaplain of Sutton".

From 1231, for thirty years, we find repeated mention of Nicholas, at first called Priest (Sacerdos), then Chaplain of Sutton, and lastly Vicar of the same.

Then, between 1265 and 1280, HENRY DE IDESHALE, Chaplain, a benefactor to Wombridge Priory, seems to be identical with Henry, Vicar of Sutton, and with "Sir Henry, Vicar of Brockton".

In the last twenty years of the Century, SIR WILLIAM, Chaplain of Sutton, occurs. [133]

On April 12, 1302, the Bishop sequestered the Vicarage of Sutton in the Archdeaconry of Salop, for some cause which does not appear. The Dean of Newport is ordered, out of the income of the Vicarage, to provide for due service of the Church.

THOMAS, VICAR OF SUTTON MADOK, having died January 7, 1330, JOHN DE OPYNTON, CHAPLAIN, is admitted to the Vicarage on Feb. 18th following, at presentation of the Prior and Convent of

[131] Valor Ecclesiasticus, iii, 194.
[132] Monasticon, vi, 891, No. ii, Prioratus de Wombridge.
[133] Wombridge Chartulary, passim. Mr. Dukes (Antiquities, p. 195) quotes the Close Rolls of 80 Hen. III, for a Presentation by the Crown to Sutton Church. I cannot find the entry on the original Roll; but, whatever the authority for such a Presentation, I think that some other Sutton must be meant.


Wombridge. Sir John de Opynton died Aug. 15, 1345, and on December 23 following:-

JOHN DE LAWELEYE, DEACON, was admitted on the same presentation. On his resignation, Dec. 22, 1351, BROTHER THOMAS DE ETON, Canon of Wombrugg and Priest, was admitted on presentation of his Convent. [134]


Stoc (a village, or place of habitation) and run (a town or inclosure) are the two words hitherto supposed to enter into this compound. [1]

The redundancy of signification which thus arises suggests however another etymology, and that more consistent with pronunciation.

The Saxon word Stoc (with the unaccentuated or short o) means "the stock" or "trunk of a tree" and so "wood" or "fuel" generally.

Stockton therefore signifies "the town of the wood", and so involves precisely the same ideas as another and still more common Saxon name, now written Wootton or Wotton, but anciently Wudeton or Wodeton.

Domesday thus notices the Manor in question.-

"The same Gerard holds Stochetone; and Hugo (holds it) of him; Eduin and Ordui held it (in King Edward's time) for two Manors, and were Free Men. Here is I hide geldable. There is arable land sufficient for III ox-teams. In demesne there is ha1f-a-team, and (there are) I serf and I villain and I boor with half-a- team. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth XII shillings (per annum): now it is worth IIII shillings". [2]

I have no evidence of Hamo Peverel having had any concern in Stockton as Successor of Gerard de Tornai. Like other Tornai

[134] Lichfield Register, sub annis.
[1] Dugdale's Warwickshire (Thomas), 203, 340.
[2] Domesday, fo. 259, a 1.


Escheats, the Manor next appears as held in capite of the Crown, and by Serjeantry of service at Shrawardine Castle.

The earliest Crown-Tenants had name from the place, but the documents in which they occur are so little connected, that I attempt no fuller account of their succession than will be implied by citing those documents in chronological order.

About 1196, Adam de Stocton, with Robert and Gilbert his Brothers, attests a Charter of the second William Fitz Alan to Reyner de Lee. [3]

At Michaelmas 1196, Adam de Stocton and Matilda his wife had fined two merks with the King, that they might have trial against Richard Pechie concerning half a Knight's-fee in Cupton in Warwickshire. [4]

At Michaelmas 1204, Herbert de Stocton had paid half a merk, the sum assessed on 1 hide of land for King John's fifth scutage, which (as I have said before) was levied on Tenants by Serjeantry as well as upon Tenants by Knights' service.

At Michaelmas 1207, Herbert de Stocton had been amerced, apparently by Justices of the Forest. The same thing had recurred in 1209. [5]

Comparing two Rolls of Tenures by Serjeantry, of date about 1211, I find it stated that Matilda de Stocton held land by service of finding one serving foot-soldier with a bow, for ward of Shrawardine Castle. [6]

About this time Robert de Stocton occurs as second witness of a charter quoted under Badger, and the same Robert sat as a Juror on a Forest Inquisition, of date about June 1220. [7]

On the 13th of July 1243, a King's Writ ordered an Inquest to be held as to the estate of Walter de Stocton, deceased. The Jury (among whom were Walter de Kenbricton, William de Sutton, and Philip de Stocton) found that Walter had held 4 virgates in the vill of Stocton, by service of one foot-soldier with a bow and arrows for 15 days at Montgomery;- that the tenure was worth

[3] Harl. MSS. 1396, fo. 253.
[4] Rot. Pip. 8 Ric. I, Salop.
[5] Rot. Pip. 6, 9, 11 John, Salop.
[6] Testa de Nevill, fo. 254, and Liber Ruber Scaccarii, fo. cxxxvij. Other less accurate Rolls give the same redundant evidence as to this Serjeantry, which has already been remarked upon under Brockton (supra, p. 94, note 4), viz. that Herebert de Stoketon holds one hide by Serjeantry whilst Matilda de Sutton (sic) holds by service of finding a foot-soldier for Castle guard. (Testa de Nevill, fo. 879, Liber Ruber, fo. cxxiij). Two phases of the same Tenure are evidently embodied in one Roll.
[7] Inquisitiones incerti temporis Hen. III, No. 259.


20s. per annum; and that Richard de Stoeton was son and heir of the deceased. [8]

On October 27, 1244, the King received the homage of the said Richard, whose Relief was fixed at 20s. [9]

Soon after this it was found that several persons throughout the kingdom who held lands by Serjeantry, had alienated the same, wholly or in part, without license of the Crown. A Commission accordingly issued in 1246 to Henry de Wingeham, who was at the same time appointed Escheator citra Trent, to make inquest into these alienations. He with an associate Knight in each County, and a Jury if he pleased, were to inquire into the state of all Serjeantries.

Subsequently, and probably on receipt of Wingeham's reports, a second Commission issued to Robert Passelewe, Archdeacon of Lewes and Treasurer to King Henry III, in virtue of which he visited very many Counties to "take fines" or "make arrentations" of Serjeantries, that is to provide for the due fulfilment of the services attached to every such tenure, and also to exact and fix an annual rent in money as a composition for every illegal alienation. Passelewe seems to have taken Shropshire early in his progress, at least the Arrentations which he fixed here accrued from March 1247, while he is found to be in Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire in April 1250.

The results of Passelewe's visit to Shropshire are preserved in duplicate. It was found that the "Serjeantry of John le Bret (which was formerly Henry de Stockton's, in Stockton, for which he was bound to provide for the Lord King one serving foot- soldier with bow and arrows, for fifteen days, at his own cost, in garrison of Shrawardine Castle in time of war, which, service was afterwards attorned to Montgomery Castle) was alienated altogether from the right heirs". It further appeared that Philip de Stocton held three-fourths of a virgate, worth 4s. per annum, of the said alienation and that John le Bret held the residue thereof, being of 10s. annual value.-

John le Bret concluded the following Fine for himself and the other Tenant, with the consent of the latter, viz. that they would pay 4s. annually (to the Crown) and perform the prescribed service. [10]

[8] Inquisitions, 28 Hen. III, No. 3.
[9] Fines, i, 425.
[10] Testa de Nevill, folios 264, 270. Henry de Stocton I imagine to have been the original Grantee of the Crown, living at a period of which we have no Record likely to name him.


On the Shropshire Pipe-Roll of Michaelmas 1250, John le Bret's obligations as Tenant of Henry de Stocton's Serjeantry are repeated, and he is put in charge for three-and-a-half years' arrears of the 4s. rent agreed upon.

About 1251, an Inquest of Tenures in Brimstree Hundred speaks of this Serjeantry as Richard de Stocton's, values it at 20s. per annum, and notes its total alienation to John le Bret. [11]

What became of the Alienator of this Serjeantry I do not find; but as late as 1259 an entry on the Pipe Roll charges Richard Lord of Stockton with an amercement of 3s. 4d. for some non- attendance.

To return to John le Bret.- In 1250, Justices are appointed to try a suit of novel disseizen which he had against Oliver, Parson of Stocton Church, and others concerning a tenement in Stocton. [12]

At the Assizes of January 1256, the Brimstree Jurors reported John le Bret as failing in due attendance.

A Seigneury over these Tenants by Serjeantry seems to have been granted to the Stranges about the time when the latter established their interest in Sutton and Brockton. At the same time John le Bret disappears as Tenant; for at the Assizes of October 1272, the Brimstree Jurors reported Philip de Say as holding Little Stocton of Robert le Strange (of Sutton), in Serjeantry, for which he paid the King 4s. per annum. And this Philip de Say (probably identical with Philip de Stocton above mentioned) was Foreman of the Jury which sat on Sept. 13, 1276, to inquire as to the estate of Robert le Strange who had previously deceased. Again within a few years the name of the Tenant of Stockton changes; for in 12 Edw. I (1283-4), Robert Body had the King's grant of Free-Warren in Little Stocton, and in Herdwyke within the Hundred of Ellesmere. [13] The Inquisition of 1284 gives a confused account of this Manor, the result probably of Fulk le Strange, then a Minor, holding it in capite together with Sutton and part of Brockton. The Record first says that "Fulco Extraneus holds the Manor of Stocton cum Brocton of the King in capite, by service of one Knight for fifteen days, to go with the King into Wales at his own cost"; and that "the same Fuleo pay 4s. per annum for purpresture". It afterwards says that "Robert Body holds Little Stocton (by serjeantry of finding one foot-soldier for forty days at his own cost with a bow and four arrows) of the King in capite". [14]

[11] Ibidem, fo. 276.
[12] Patent, 34 Hen. III, dorso.
[13] Rot. Cart. Calendar, p. 118.
[14] Kirby's Quest. The alleged Knight's service and the duty of accompanying the King into Wales must have been suggested by the older and perhaps thus modified tenure of Sutton. The 4s. purpresture was the arrentation due on Stockton. Robert Body did not hold in capite, nor was his service for forty days, but only for fifteen.


Nov. 20, 1289, Robert Bodi of Stocton, and Hawise his wife, purchased for seven merks the messuage and all the land which Richard Fitz Yvo of Brocton had in the vill of Brocton. About the same time Robert Bodi attests a Brockton Deed, whereby John, the Clerk surrenders his Tenancy to Wombridge Priory. [15]

The aggregate service and serjeantry reported by the Brimstree Jurors of 1292 as due on Sutton, evidently includes Fulk le Strange's particular liability in respect of Stockton.

At these Assizes however Robert Body the Tenant was questioned as to his right of Free-Warren in his demesne lands at Stockton. Not at first appearing, his alleged right of Warren was ordered to be escheated, but he afterwards came forward and pleaded the King's Charter, and so was dismissed sine die. [16]

The Feodary of 1316, makes no distinct mention of Stockton, evidently because it was deemed to be involved in Fulk le Strange's Tenure of Sutton.

In Edward III's time the estates of Strange of Blackmere in this quarter are described as including the Manors of Sutton Madoc, Brokton, Norton, Little Stokton, and Muchel Stokton; [17] and I have somewhere seen the last place written as Chirche-Stockton.


This vill, probably a member of the Domesday Manor of Stockton, became detached therefrom, whilst (in the twelfth century) both were in the hands of the King.

It afterwards constituted a distinct Serjeantry, the service attached to which was that the Tenant should accompany the Sheriff of Shropshire when, twice every year, the latter conveyed the Ferm or revenue of the County to the Exchequer, the King paying the said Tenant's charges.

[15] Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Brocton, Nos. ii, li.
[16] Placila Coronae, 20 Edw. I, memb. 23.
[17] Inquisition, 37 Edw. III, 2d Nos. 7. Another writ relating to the same matter (a grant of View of Frankpledge) seems to mention in addition to these possessions of Le Strange, the Manors of Ruyton, Bekkebury, and Huggeford (Calendar, vol. ii, p. 263). These never belonged in any way to Strange of Blackmere, and it is evident that there has been some tampering with the Record. The words Ruyton and Bekkebury are written on erasures.


Thus in 1211, was Walter d'Eudinas holding the Manor in capite. [18]

This is the same Walter d'Eudinas who has already appeared attesting a Badger deed in 1227.

Before 1255, Ralph d'Eudinas was Tenant of this Serjeantry. He seems to have enfeoffed the Prior of St. John's Hospital at Brug in half-a-virgate thereof. The Jurors of the Liberty of Brug reported this alienation in that year. [19]

13 Sept. 1276, Nicholas, Clerk of Eudinas, was a Juror on the Inquest concerning the estate of Robert le Strange of Sutton and Stockton.

I find no further mention of this Serjeantry or any probable Tenants thereof. I conclude it to have been re-united to Le Strange's Tenure.


I have no proof of a Church existing here before the thirteenth Century, but there is a strong probability that the Foundation was much earlier.

In 1291, the Church of Stocton with its Chapel (or Chapels) was returned as annually worth 4. 13s. 4d. besides a pension of 6s. 8d. which the Prior of St. Guthlac of Hereford received therefrom. [20]

The only Chapel which I can suggest to be here indicated is Boningale, which remains to this day a member of the Church of Stockton.

Now Boningale, at the time of Domesday and for nearly two centuries afterwards, was manorially a member of Higford, and the latter was in the Parish of Stockton. The Lacis who held Higford under the Norman Earl had, before Domesday, given that Manor to one of their principal Feoffees: but at the same period (1085-6), these Lacis were zealous in the endowment and re- establishment of Hereford Priory. That House, dedicated to St. Guthlac, held pensions afterwards in very many Churches of De Laci's Fief.

I doubt not therefore that De Laci, Seigneural Lord of Higford, was Founder or Co-Founder of Stockton Church, at a period very shortly subsequent to Domesday, and that St. Guthlac's pension was

[18] Testa de Nevill, folio 264. One whose name is written Walter de Deuines was a juror to try causes of Grand Assize at Salop in 1221. I doubt not that he was the individual under notice.
[19] Rot. Hund. ii, 59.
[20] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 248.


either a composition in lieu of tithes of Higford, previously granied to the Priory, but afterwards resigned to this Church, or else that it was an acknowledgment reserved by the Prior on his quitting some right of Advowson at Stockton or Boningale, of which he may have had a previous grant.

In 1341, the Taxation of Stockton Church stood at seven-and-a- half merks (5), a sum which included the aforesaid pension.

The Parish was however assessed only at five merks to the ninth, the usual deductions in respect of small tithes, glebe, offerings, and other spiritualities having been allowed in reckoning the assessment, as also a murrain which had recently destroyed the sheep of the district. [21]

In 1534, the Rectory of Stoketon with the Chapel of Bonynghal in the Deanery of Newport, was valued at 14, which sum was chargeable with 6s. 8d. for Procurations and 2s. 3d. for Synodals, but with no pension of the kind before described. [22]


NICHOLAS, CHAPLAIN OF STOCTON, attests a deed already cited under Badger, and which passed early in the thirteenth Century. He will hardly have been more than a Deputy of the then Incumbent.

OLIVER, PARSON OF STOCTON, has also been mentioned under date of 1250, and must be identical with that Oliver de Stocton who stands first witness to a nearly contemporary deed of Madoc de Sutton. [23]

WILLIAM DE HUGFORD, CLERK, was instituted Rector of this Church by Commission, on May 31, 1321. On Oct. 30 following, he had license to study for a year, and on Nov. 5, had letters dimissory for Junior Orders and the Orders of Subdeacon and Deacon. On March 18, 1323, he had further license for a year's study and non-residence, and on Feb. 14, he had a still further dispensation for another year, to commence on March 18 following. [24] He occurs as Rector about 1343.

WALTER DE HUGFORD, Rector of Stockton, died in 1369, and on November 12, in that year, PHILIP DE HARLEY, Priest, late Rector of Stirchley, was presented by Walter de Hugford, Lord of Hugford. He died in 1379 on the 4th of July, in which year MASTER THOMAS DE KYRKEBY, Priest, was presented by William de Hugford. [25]

[21] Inquisitiones Nonorum, p. 184.
[22] Valor Ecclesiasticus, iii, 187.
[23] Supra, p. 120.
[24] Lichfield Registers, sub annis.
[25] Blakeway's MSS.



THE etymology of this word is obvious.- At an unrecorded period, earlier than the days of King Edward the Confessor, the "town" was posseased or founded by some Saxon "Alberic". The latter name, variously written and pronounced as Alberic, Albrecht, Albert, or Aubrey, is fundamentally the same, and has its exact equivalent in the Latin word Praeclarus or in the Greek Hepipavic.

The Manor is thus described in Domesday:-

"The same Normannus holds Albricstone. Algar and Godhit held it (in time of King Edward) for two Manors. Here is one hide and-a- half geldable. The (arable) land is (sufficient) for IIII ox- teams. In demesne are III such teams; and (there are) XIII serfs and III villains and III boors with I team. Here is a wood which will fatten 100 swine: but at present it is in the King's hand. In time of King Edward, the Manor was valued at XXI shillings (per annum). Its present value is XVI shillings. He (Norman) found it waste". [1]

I think that the first-named of the two Saxons, who had had an interest in Albrighton must have been Algar, Earl of Mercia. His possessions in the neighbouring County of Staffordshire were extensive, and included Pattingham, a Manor not far distant from Albrighton. Earl Algar's Staffordshire Fief was generally retained by King William the Conqueror in demesne. Hence perhaps, the Domesday mention of a wood at Albrighton, so singularly excepted from the jurisdiction of the Palatine Earl of Shropshire. [2]

Norman Venator (for such was the designation of the Domesday Lord of Albrighton) held seven Manors under Earl Roger. His profession, perhaps also the service by which he held his lands, is implied by his name. With his Brother Roger, also called Venator, he has been mentioned as attending the Consecration of Quatford Church in 1086, and he further appears to have been living after the succession of Earl Hugh (1093), and to have been a Benefactor

[1] Domesday, fo. 259, a. 2.
[2] This wood was, I doubt not, retained by the King with a view to the integrity or enlargement of the neighbouring Forest of Brewood; of which, as a Royal Forest, I have yet to speak.


to Shrewsbury Abbey. The locality of two of his Domesday Manors is somewhat uncertain, but in the five which can be better identified he seems to have been succeeded by the family of Pichford, whom I therefore conclude to have been his heirs. These Pichfords continued for two centuries to hold the Fief of Norman Venator, immediately of the Crown. Albrighton was its reputed Caput, and the whole constituted a tenure held by service of one Knight's-Fee, and was so assessed to the various Scutages and Aids which were levied during that period.

Of Ralph de Pichford, who distinguished himself and added to his possessions by services rendered to King Henry I at the siege of Brug in 1102, I have already spoken. All that I can further say of him is, that he attests a very ancient deed, in the time of Henry I or Stephen, which concerns land in this neighbourhood. Mention has also been made, under Ryton, of Richard and Engelard, presumed to have been the two sons of Ralph de Pichford. Richard de Pichford seems to have died before 1157, leaving a son and heir, another Richard, whose wardship (he being a Minor and a Tenant in capite) was then purchased of the Crown by his Uncle Engelard.

Though, as will presently appear, this minority must have been very brief, it left Engelard de Stretton possessed of a considerable interest in his Nephew's lands. I shall quote instances of this elsewhere, but here will mention only the following peculiar circumstance.- In the year 1167 (when Richard de Pichford had long attained his majority), the town of Albrictone had been amerced in the sum of one merk for some breach of the Forest-Laws, which had been adjudicated upon in the recent Iter of Alan de Nevill. The fine is however described on the Pipe-Roll as being set upon the town of "Albrictone Engerardi" i.e. Engelard's Albrighton, as though Engelard was then its owner, while it is clear, from other evidence, that if still interested there, he could only have been so interested as a Tenant.

This Richard de Pichford, of whom we are principally speaking, was he, who having acquired or inherited an interest in the neighbouring Manor of Cospelford (Cosford), granted to the Abbey of Buildwas the whole service of Richard Crasset therein. [3]

Richard de Pichford's grant to Haghmon Abbey is all that I can further say of him. It has been already set forth, and, at the time

[3] Monasticon, v, 359; xvi.


of its passing (before 1172), Hugh, the son and heir of Richard, was old enough to be a consenting party. [4]

On Richard's death, in or before 1176, this same Hugh succeeded him, and, whether a Minor or not, obtained his Livery by payment of 100 shillings relief to the Crown. [5]

In 1185, Hugh de Pikeford had been fined 40s. by Justices of the Forest, for not producing those for whom he was Surety. He had paid the fine, and was quit.

At Michaelmas 1194 the Scutage for King Richard's redemption having been collected, Hugh de Pichford had paid 20s. on that account, the sum assessed on every Knight's-Fee held in capite.

In 1195 he was assessed similarly for King Richard's second Scutage in support of the French wars. This Charge is entered on the Sheriff's Roll of 1196, and had been paid before Michaelmas 1197.

At the latter period King Richard's third Scutage had been put in charge. It was at the same rate for each Knight's Fee and was again for the Army of Normandy. It was assessed upon, and paid by, Hugh de Pichford.

In the years 1199, 1201-2-3-4-5-6, he was successively charged with the seven first scutages of King John; but some of these assessments imply a composition in lieu of personal service, and are in excess of the current assessment on a single Knight's- Fee, e.g. he was charged 40s. in 1199, though the current rate was 1. 6s. 8d. per fee; he was charged five merks (3. 6s. 8d.) in 1203, the rate being again 1. 6s. 8d.; he was charged six merks in 1204, the rate being two-and-a-half merks; and he was charged three merks in 1206, the rate being one-and-a-half merks.

Thus much as an instance of the heavy and constant exactions with which King John impoverished and disgusted the Feudatories of his Crown.-

Amongst Fines made in the year 1199, with Hugh de Nevill, Justice of the Forest, I find one of twelve merks contracted by Hugh de Pichford. It was, that he might assart forty acres of his own land at Pichford and twenty acres in his wood of Bruwude (Brewood).

In 1211, he was returned as a Knight, holding one fee by military service, of the Crown, his lands being worth 8. per annum. [6]

[4] Supra, Vol. I, p. 358.
[5] Rot. Pip. 22 Henry II, Salop. The Pipe Rolls are also my authority for the succeeding statements of the text.
[6] Testa de Nevill, fo. 252.


And about this time he died, leaving by his wife Burga, daughter and sole heir of Ralph de Baskerville, [7] a son Ralph, who succeeded him.

I have already noticed this Ralph, as having succeeded about 1212, to his Tenure by Serjeantry at Little Brug. In 1214, when the Scutage of Poitou was put in charge, at the rate of three merks on each Knight's-Fee, this Ralph paid his due proportion of 2. on the same. [8] And thus he continued to be assessed to various Scutages and Aids in the time of Henry III, and in manner following.

In 1218, he is charged two merks on the first Scutage of that King's reign; in 1221, 10s. on the Scutage of Biham. In 1224, he was acquitted of the Scutage of Montgomery, probably in respect of personal service, but assessed at the current rate (two merks), to that of Bedford. In 1229, he was similarly assessed to the Scutage of Keri, and in 1230, at the higher rate of three merks to that of Brittany; but Ralph Fitz Nicholas had obtained the King's acquittance of half this charge in his own favour.

In 1231, Ralph de Pichford is assessed three merks to the Scutage of Poitou, and in 1232, 1. to that of Elvein, each being at the current rate for a Knight's Fee.

In 1235, he was charged two merks for the Aid levied on marriage of the King's Sister. [9] Half of this he paid in September 1235, "by hand of Geoffrey, Provost of Pichford", whilst the balance was discharged at Easter 1236, by Adam de Pichford. [10]

In 1245, he was duly assessed 1. to the Aid, for marriage of the King's Daughter, and in 1246, paid three merks, the sum chargeable on each Knight's-Fee for the Scutage of Gannok. [11]

Returning to an earlier period for other incidents in the life of Ralph de Pichford, I find him in November 1221, as a Juror of causes, tried at Shrewsbury by Grand Assize. In 1232, he fined

[7] By this marriage, Hugo de Pichford and his wife became, in 5 John (1203-4), mesne Tenants of a Knight's Fee in Herberbury and Chesterton (Warwickshire) held of the Earls Ferrers. See Dugdale's Warwickshire, under 'Herberbury' (p. 354, Thomas's Edition) for further particulars.
[8] Rot. Pip. 16 John, Salop. The name of Hugo de Pichford had in the first instance been entered on this Roll, but the name "Hug" was crossed out and "Rad" written over apparently by the same Clerk who engrossed the Roll. In the reign of Henry III, such accuracy came to be disregarded.
[9] Rot. Pip. de eisdem annis, Salop.
[10] Testa de Nevill, fos. 279, 277, the proper order of the documents being inverted on the Record.
[11] Rot. Pip. de eisdem annis.


40s. with the Crown for the privilege of holding a Market and Fair at his Manor of Albrihtton, and obtained the King's Charter thereof. [12]

A document of the year 1234, exhibits this Ralph de Picheford as staking largely for some contingent advantage likely to result from an Irish Wardship. He gave the King three hundred merks to have marriage of the heirs, and custody of the lands, late John Fitz Deremot's, in Ireland, until the said heirs should be of age. The King, having taken security for payment of this fine in England, enjoined Maurice Fitz Gerold, Justice of Ireland, to give Ralph the necessary seizin. The King's writ bears date at Reading 22d August 1234; and on 16th Feb. following, another writ issued to the Barons of the Exchequer, allowing that payment of Ralph de Picheford's fine should be at the rate of twenty-five merks half-yearly. [13]

Tenure-Rolls of the years 1240 and 1251, exhibit Ralph de Pichford's Tenancy in Albrighton as immediately under the Crown, [14] but without further particulars, except that the former Roll includes Ryton with Albrighton, a circumstance already remarked upon.

On Oct. 5, 1252, Ralph de Pichford was dead, for then did Ralph Fitz Nicholas fine 100 merks with the King for custody of his land and heir, as well as for marriage of the latter. [15]

The Inquest on his death does not seem to have been held till the following year, that is, in obedience to the King's writ of diem clausit extremum, dated 20th April, in the 37th year of his reign. Besides Ralph de Pichford's Tenures at Dunethe and Lynne in Ireland, and those at Pichford and Little Brug, the Jurors found him to have held Albricton of the King, by service of one knight for eight days, and that John, his son and next heir, was sixteen years of age.

I shall show under other Shropshire localities the incompleteness of this Inquisition, and that Ralph de Pichford was possessed of interests not therein enumerated. [16]

In 1254, he, or rather his estate, was charged 40s. to the Aid for Knighting the King's eldest son; and a similar sum in 1260 for the

[12] Rot. Pip. 16 Hen. III, Salop; Rot. Cart. 16 Hen. III, memb. 15.
[13] Rot. Fin. vol. i, pp. 268, 274; and Rot. Pip. 18 Hen. III, Salop.
[14] Testa de Nevill, fos. 206, 274.
[15] Rot. Fin. ii, 141.
[16] Out of Shropshire he was holding in 1252 the Ferrers' Fee at Herberbury above mentioned. (Dugdale's Warwickshire, p. 354.)


Scutage of Wales. [17] Meanwhile John de Pichford, though occurring as a Minor in 1255, must have arrived at his full age. I find little to say of him during the troubled period which ensued. When the King's army stood summoned to meet at Worcester, on July 1, 1277, John de Pychford, Knight, acknowledged his service due on a Knight's Fee at Albritton, and was ready to discharge it in person. [18]

On March 27, 1278, he was among the principal Knights of the County, who made perambulation between the Bishop of Hereford's lands in Esthampton, and those of Peter Corbet in Wentnor. [19]

On January 28, 1281, he was one of the four Knights who made Inquest and report as to the ruinous condition of Brug Castle.

The King's Army being under summons to meet at Rhuddlan on Aug. 2, 1282, against the Welsh, John de Pichford attended in acknowledgment of his Tenure, but afterwards departed in consequence of infirmity. [20]

In 1284, he is entered as holding the Manor of Albritton with Hunfreyston, Wystan (Whiston), and Bispeston (Bishton), by one Knight's Fee, and by accompanying the King into Wales in time of war, for forty days at his own charges. [21]

In 1285, the Escheator was ordered to seize into the King's hand, the estate of John de Pichford deceased. [22] The King's writ of diem clausit extremum, dated April 13, 1285, and addressed to the same Officer, resulted in an Inquisition held at Pichford, on the 25th of the same month. The Jurors estimated the vill of Albryton, held in capite by one Knight's fee, as realizing 5. 14s. 8d. per annum. They also gave account of the tenure of the deceased at Pichford, and reported his son and heir Ralph to be of full age. This Inquisition proved to be unsatisfactory, as well it might. The King, in a writ, dated May 6 following, orders his Escheator to "make more diligent enquiry", and a second Inquest sat at Albrighton on the 24th of the same month. The Manor of Albrighton, with the Advowsons of Albrighton and Ryton, were in this instance estimated at 10. 8s. 6d. annual value, and the Jurors gave account also of Tenures at Lee Brockhurst and Cantlop, and

[17] Rot. Pip. 38 and 44 Hen. III, Salop. In each case the assessment is charged to the name of Ralph de Pichford. At this period the Scutage Rolls are no longer a guide as to the Christian name of an individual Tenant in capite.
[18] Parliamentary Writs, i, 203.
[19] Hereford Register (Cantilupe), fo. xxij, a.
[20] Parliamentary Writs, i, 233, 237.
[21] Kirby's Quest.
[22] Originalia, 13 Edw. I, memb. 6.


of a rent payable by Philip de Beckbury (one of themselves), all of which had been the property of the deceased. [23]

Margaret, wife of John de Pichford, survived him, and had her dower both in Albrighton and Pichford. In 1292, she was sued for estovers in Pichford Wood, by Richard de Eton, [24] and at the same time, under designation of "Margaret de Albrygton", was reported by the Brimstree Jurors to hold 7. of lands in Albrygton of the King in capite, and to be, as to any second marriage, at the King's disposal. [25]

In 1304, Margaret de Picheford complained to the King of having suffered a redisseizin at the hands of Roger Carles and William the Beadle of Brimstree, from whom, in the King's Court at Bruges, she had recovered seizin of eleven merks annual rent in Albrighton. The usual writ to the Sheriff issued accordingly, viz. to examine into the truth of the complaint, and if it were well grounded, to arrest the Defendants. [26]

I must now speak of Ralph de Pichford, son and heir of John, as of the last of his line who had any interest in Albrighton. In 1292, he was reported by the Brimstree Jurors as holding a Knight's Fee, being of full age, and yet not a Knight, whereupon he was put down as in misericordia. He was also a Defaulter in due attendance at the Assizes then held; but his right of assizing bread and beer, and of holding a Market and Fair at Albrighton being called in question, he came forward and pleaded the Charter of King Henry III, which granted the said market and Fair to Ralph, his Ancestor. He also submitted that the other privileges in question were appurtenant to those thus granted. Both pleas seem to have been admitted by the Court. [27]

On May 31, 1295, styling himself Lord of Albrighton, this Ralph grants to William de Parco de Ettingestal, two Burgages in the town of Albrighton, which he (Ralph) had of the Escheat of Ysabel le Persone of Albrighton.- To hold with right of common pasture, at a rent of one rose, payable on the feast of St. John Baptist's Nativity. [28]

Pursuant to the King's Writ, dated at Portsmouth May 27, 1297,

[23] Inquisitions, 13 Edw. I, No. 14.
[24] Dukes's Antiquities, p. 288.
[25] Placita Coronae, 20 Edw. I, memb. 22.
[26] Originalia, i, 136.
[27] Placita Coronae, 20 Edw. I, memb.
[28] Blakeway MSS. from Otley Evidences. The deed is tested by John de Beumes, John Umfrey, Nicholas Carles, John Clerk of Bishton, John Fitz Henry of Bishton. The Seal has a coat of arms- Semee of cross-crosslets, a cinquefoil voided.


Ralph de Picheford was returned by the Sheriff of Shropshire as one of those who held twenty Librates of lands and rents in the County, and who consequently, were under summons to muster at London on July 7 following, with horses and arms, ready to accompany the King over sea. [29]

This is the latest notice which I have of Ralph de Pichford, ere yet he dissipated his fine inheritance. Within three years of this time he sold his Manor of Albrighton to John, Baron Tregos of Ewyas Harold (Heref); and the latter dying on August 21, 1300, was found by Inquisition to have been fully seized thereof. [30]

John de Tregoz had had two daughters, Clarice and Sibil. Clarice the elder, having been wife of Roger de la Warre and Mother of John de la Warre, was at this time deceased: Sibil the younger was still living and the wife of Sir William Grandison. John de la Warre and the said Sibil were therefore found to be Coheirs of Sir John Tregoz. A suit arose between them as to partition of his Estates, which was finally settled in 1302, by award of Parliament. [31] Thus did the Manor of Albrighton fall to the estate of John de la Warre.

In the year 1303, John de la Warre memorialized King Edward I, as to certain privileges which he claimed by prescription in this Manor, viz. View of Frank-pledge, a market every Tuesday, and a Fair of four days' duration (the vigil, the day of, and the two days succeeding the Feast of the Translation of St. Thomas the Martyr, i.e. July 6, 7, 8, and 9, in each year). The King issued a writ of Certiorari to the Sheriff, who, after assembling a Jury at Donington, on June 25, reported that Ralph de Pichford, who sold the Manor to Sir John Tregoz, had the said right of Market, and a right of Fair for three days, also View of Frank-pledge twice in the year over his own Burgesses, but not over the other Tenants of the Manor,- that the said Ralph exercised these privileges all the time while he was Lord, and that so his Ancestors had done from time whereof memory was not. [32]

In conformity with this report, the King's Charter issued in the same year, limiting the Fair to the 6th, 7th, and 8th days of July, and fixing that two Courts for the View of Frank-pledge should be held in the Quinzaines of Easter and Michaelmas annually. [33]

The Feodary of 1316, duly returns John de la Ware as Lord of

[29] Parliamentary Writs, i, 291.
[30] Inquisitions, 28 Edward I, No. 43.
[31] Parliamentary Writs, i, 131.
[32] Inquisitions, 31 Edw. 1, No. 58.
[33] Rot. Cart. 81 Edw. I, Nos. 24, 25.


Albrighton, [34] but I must refer elsewhere for an account of his career, civil and military, as well as for the annals of the great Baronial house which he represented. [35]

I add some extracts relating to the UNDER-TENANTS of this Manor.-

In 1180, Siward son of Siward is assessed 2s. for purpresture. [36]

In 1188, Siward de Albrinton and Richard de Albrinton had each paid an amercement of 1s. to the Sheriff of Staffordshire.

In 1228, Elyas de Aunbritun and William Russel of Brockton are Sureties for a second William Russel.

Jan. 1256, Robert Fitz Agnes de Albritton is a Juror for Brimstree Hundred at Salop Assizes. Thomas de Albricton is also a Juror in a Donington law-suit.

About 1261, William Champeneys of Albriton is on a local Jury.

Jan. 1270, Nicholas Kareles and Burgia his wife and Ranulf de Albryton and Alice his wife sold land in Donington to Hugh de Beaumes.

Sept. 1272, at Salop Assizes, Nicholas Careles was a Juror for Brimstree Hundred. He occurs also on Juries of April 16, 1273, and April 25, 1285, at Astley-Abbots and Pichford.

At the Assizes of October 1292, Nicolas Carles and Adam le Serjant of Albriton were on the Brimstree Jury.

May 31, 1295, Nicholas Careless is a witness; and July 11, 1296, June 6, 1300, and June 12, 1305, Adam le Serjant occurs on Juries, accompanied in the last instance by Walter, Clerk of Albriton.

Roger Careles, whom I take to have been son of Nicholas, seems to have bettered the fortunes of his family.-

As early as November 1293, that is in the lifetime of Nicholas, he was Fermor of the great Manor of Claverley under the Crown. He appears again in that position in 1296. He has already been mentioned under dates of 1304, 1316, and 1318, and his Grant of Free-Warren in the latter year extended to lands in Albrighton, Ryton, Whiston and Boningale.

On 30 Dec. 1322, as Custos of certain escheated lands in Worcestershire and Shropshire, he is ordered to restore those belonging to Hugh de Mortimer. [37]

[34] Parliamentary Writs, vol. iv, p. 399.
[35] Ibidem, pp. 1582-3, and Dugdale's Baronage, vol. ii., pp. 15,16.
[36] Placita Forestae, Salop, No. 1. The preceding name on this Roll is that of Morinus, who is assessed 1s. for purpresture in Dunninton (Donington).
[37] Parliamentary Writs, iv, 642.


In 13 Ed. II (1319-20), he was a Commissioner for letting waste lands in the King's Manor of Ellesmere. [38]

His attestations of Charters during this period are frequent. All that I need further say of him shall presently be related in my account of Albrighton Church, to which he was a great Benefactor.


The earliest notice which I have of a Church here is only inferential, and consists in the mention of Nicholas, Priest of Albriton, about A.D. 1186-7. [39] Some Architectural remains indicate quite as early a period for the foundation.

In 1291, the Church of Albryhton, in the Deanery of Newport and Archdeaconry of Salop, was taxed at 5. 6s. 8d. [40]

About the time when Ralph de Pichford sold his Manor of Albrighton to Sir John de Tregoz, he sold the Advowson of the Church to Walter de Langton, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry. The latter sale had for some cause or other to be confirmed by Fine, and that Fine was levied by special order of the King. [41] It bears date at York on the quinzaine of St. Hilary (Jan. 27) 1301, and purports to be between the Bishop as Plaintiff (querentem), and Ralph de Picheford, Defendant (impedientem), of two acres of land in Albrighton, and the Advowson of the Church, whereof was a plea of warranty of charter. Ralph acknowledged the Bishop's right as of his own (Ralph's) gift,- to hold of the Chief Lords of the Fee. For this the Bishop gave one hundred merks; but an Indorsement on the Fine states that William de Grandisone with Sibil his wife and John de la Ware put in their claim. [42]

Bishop Langton's object in this and other purchases in Shropshire shall be spoken of elsewhere.-

The troubles which beset him about this time were probably

[38] Originalia, i, 250.
[39] Supra, p. 112, note.
[40] Pope Nich. Tax. p. 248.
[41] Fines, 29 Edw. I, Salop. This Fine is particularly instructive as to the Conveyancing Practice of the period. It was not the sale itself nor an accompaniment thereof, but a subsequent assurance of Title. This we learn from the language used in the Bishop's first presentation to the Church which took place seven months before the Fine was levied.
[42] Apponunt clameum suam.- I suppose that they disputed the right of sale, as Joint Lords of the Fee, pending the partition of Tregoz' lands, and that they had an interest in the matter. Strangers to a Fine, deeming themselves to have a rightful claim on the premises conveyed, were allowed five years after levy of the Fine, wherein they might challenge it. This time was extended in certain cases; but, in general, a Fine which had stood for five years without question barred all subsequent claim.


subversive of still greater designs than some which he actually accomplished. He retained the Advowson of Albrighton for a very short period, and Sir John de la Warre presented to the Church in 1307.

On Dec. 10th, 1326, an Inquest was ordered to ascertain if it would be to the loss of the Crown, should the King allow John de la Warre to grant an acre of land in Albriton and the Advowson of the Church to the Abbot and Convent of Dore,- the said Convent to provide three Monks as Chaplains to do daily service in the Church of Dore Abbey for the soul of said John and his Ancestors. A Jury which sat at Claverley on Jan. 8, 1327, reported that the proposed grant would not injure the Crown; that John de la Warre held the Manor of Albrighton in capite by one Knight's fee; that the Church was worth 20. per annum, that the said John had various other estates, such as the Castle of Ewias Harald, the Manor of Manchester worth 200. a year, &c. &c., in Lincolnshire, Gloucestershire, and Northamptonshire. [43]

On May 2, 1332, a King's Writ orders a Jury to inquire whether it would be to the King's injury if Roger Careles had license to grant a messuage, sixty acres of land, and 20s. annual rent in Albrighton to a Chaplain, who should perform daily service in honour of the Blessed Virgin, and for the souls of said Roger and all the faithful departed, at the Altar of the same Virgin in the Church of St. Mary at Albrighton.

The Jury which sat at Shrewsbury on June 10 following, reported favourably of the proposed grant; that the land, &c., were held of John le Wares, Lord of Albrighton, by annual service of a rose; that the whole was worth 33s. 4d. per annum; that a messuage, two carucates of land and certain rents would remain to Roger in Albrighton and Ritton (Ryton) after the proposed Conveyance; that these last premises were held of John de la Ware by service of 6s. annually, and that they were amply sufficient to discharge all customs and services due thereon. [44]

In 1341, the Church of Albrighton stood at the old Taxation of eight merks (5. 6s. 8d.), but the Parish was assessed only at five merks, for the Ninth of its Corn, Wool, and Lamb. The reasons of the difference were, because the Abbot of Buildwas had three carucates of land in the Parish on which he did not pay corn-tithe, but 10s. in lieu thereof; also because the glebe, offerings, small

[43] Inquisitions, 20 Edward II, No. 42.
[44] Inquisitions, 6 Edw. III, 2d Nos. No. 115.


tithes, tithes of Mills, and other Spiritualities were very valuable, and did not belong to the Ninth proposed to be collected. [45]

In 1534, the Vicarage of Albrighton (of which Thomas Wedouse, Clerk, was then Incumbent) was valued at 6. per annum, chargeable with 8s. for Procurations, and 2s. for Synodals. The Abbot of Dore also, at the same period, returned the Rectory as worth 6. 13s. 4d. gross annual value. [46]


After NICHOLAS, Priest of Albriton in 1186-7, I find none till WILLIAM DE PICHEFORD,- collated to the Church by Bishop Walter de Langton on June 4, 1300. The Advowson belonging to the said Bishop by purchase (ex adquisito). The Archdeacon of Salop was to induct.

INGELARD DE WARLEYE, Priest, had possession of the Church committed to him by the Bishop's Vicar, "on Nov. 30, 1307, at presentation of Sir John la Warre Knight". The Presentee was to hold it as "commended to him" (sub titulo commendacionis) "according to the Constitution".

May 26, 1308, Sir Ingelard de Warle was canonically instituted through Adam de la More his Proctor, who took the oaths in his name.

June 10, 1308, the Church of Mukleston was conceded to the same Ingelard, "for lawful cause, according to the constitution of Gregory, to hold sub titulo commendacionis". [47]

JOHN MERTON, Clerk, was presented by King Edward II, by Letters Patent, dated at York 9 Feb. 1319, by reason of the lands &c. of Bishop Walter de Langton having been late in the King's hand. [48] This presentation was evidently on the false assumption

[45] Inguisitiones Nonarum, p. 184. It does not appear at first why the Abbot's Modus in lieu of corn-tithe was an argument in diminution of the Ninth, which was a tax upon corn specifically, and which proposed to consider the tenth of corn usually paid by a Parish to the Church as an equivalent to the ninth of corn now to be paid to the King. Consequently if the Abbot paid 10s. per annum to the Rectors of Albrighton he should now pay apparently 10s. or (if his modus were a beneficial one) even a greater sum to the ninth. Perhaps however the truth of the matter is that the Assessors of the ninth meant to except the Abbot's lands and modus altogether. He was not assessed to the Tax in some other instances.

The Abbot of Buildwas' land in the Parish was Cosford Grange.
[46] Valor Ecclesiasticus, iii, 186, 33.
[47] Lichfield Register (Langton), folios 18, 27 b, 28 b, 29.
[48] Patent, 12 Edw. II, p. 1, memb. 2. It had been the honour of Bishop Langton to incur the malevolence of Piers Gaveston, the infamous favourite of Edward II. He had not only been under forfeiture but in prison. (Vide Anglia Sacrae, i, 441-2.)


that Langton was still Patron of the Church; but though I do not find it cancelled, I discover that on July 1, 1319, one ROBERT, Rector of this Church, had license of non-residence for purposes of study. This probably was the same with ROBERT DE ARDEN, Priest, who, on July 12, 1323, exchanged this preferment for that of-

PHILIP DE WARLE, Deacon, late Rector of Clopton (Lincoln Diocese). The latter was instituted here on presentation of Sir John le Ware, Knight. On Aug. 17, 1323, he had license for a year's non-residence, and again on July 2, 1325; and for two years on Aug. 29, 1328, being in each instance styled Rector of the Church of Albrighton.

JOHN DE ASTON, Chaplain, was admitted to the Vicarage of the Church of Albrighton "newly founded" [49] on the 18th Dec. 1329, at presentation of the Abbot and Convent of Dore. He, or rather one written as Sir William de Aston, vacated the Vicarage by death on Nov. 9, 1332; and on Nov. 23 following-

WILLIAM ANSEYN, Priest, was admitted on the same presentation.

REGINALD DE CHETWYND seems to have been the next Vicar, for on January 27, in the 31st year of Bishop Roger de Northburg (i.e. 1353), that Prelate appoints William, Rector of Ryton, to be Coadjutor to the said Reginald who was "worn out with old age and infirmity". Sir Reginald de Chetwynd having however spontaneously resigned in the same year:-

HENRY, SON OF WILLIAM LE SMYTH of Albryton, Priest, was admitted on Oct. 17, at presentation of the Cistercian Abbey of St. Mary of Dore. [50]


Albrighton Church has a Western Tower, the lower part of which belongs to the twelfth century; the upper part, from its similarity to Shiffnal, I should attribute to the fourteenth.

The East Window of the Chancel is a curious specimen of the

[49] The Vicarage was newly founded, not the Church, i.e. the Abbey of Dore had obtained an appropriation of the Rectory.
[50] Lichfield Registers, sub annis. - I should observe that these last two entries are given with the year A.D. 1351 as their date. They should be 1352 and 1353 respectively, for Jan. 27, 1352, and 31 of Bishop Roger are consistent dates, reckoning the ecclesiastical year to begin at Lady Day, as it did in these Registers. The correction of the second entry follows from the first; and both will fall under the year 1353 of modern reckoning.


Decorated class, with a transom,- a feature rarely found in any style except the Perpendicular. The head of the Window has rich flowing tracery.


DURING SOME RECENT and very extensive alterations of this Church, it became necessary to reduce the floor of the South Aisle to what would appear to have been its original level. In removing the soil an Altar-Tomb was discovered, lying buried about eighteen inches below the surface.

It has been carefully preserved, and placed outside the Church in a situation approximating to its former one.

It is of Stone, and embellished with numerous Coats of Arms, the bearings on all of which can be satisfactorily made out. This Tomb will have been thus unceremoniously buried more than two Centuries since; for neither Sandford, in his Church-Notes of 1660, nor Johnson, in 1699, make any mention of it, whereas the latter gives very full particulars of another and in may respects very similar Tomb at Albrighton.

This last was of Marble and is nowhere to be found, whilst the dishonour shown to the buried Tomb has resulted in its preservation; for it is constructed of not very durable stone, and is at the same time very ancient. The Arcade running round its four sides proves its original position to have been isolated from any wall or Niche. The Pillars and Arches which form this Arcade belong to the "Early-English" period of Architecture and to the thirteenth Century. Altar-Tombs of that date, in memory of private persons, are by no means common. I offer full particulars of this one, rather for its curiosity and possible import in our future investigations than that I am at present able to declare in whose memory it was first erected.-

The upper slab is occupied by a fleury cross whose lower limb extends the whole length of the tomb.

In the centre-point of this cross is this coat,-

I. Three Chevronels.

Above and below the right limb of the cross are these,-

I. Bendy of ten pieces. II. Two Chevrons.

Above and below the left limb are,-

I. Three Fleur-de-lys. II. Two Bars and (perhaps) a Canton.


On the dexter side of the lower limb are these-

I. Fretty. II. A Cinquefoil between eight Mullets, all pierced. (Pichford). III. Three Fleur-de-lys, two and one. IV. Fretty, on a Canton a Cinquefoil pierced.

On the sinister side of the lower limb are these,-

I. A Cinquefoil pierced between eight Martlets, three, two, two, and one (Pichford). II. A Fesse and in chief three Roundels. III. A Cinquefoil pierced between eight Cross-crosslets. (Pichford). [51] IV. Barry of ten pieces.

The North side of the tomb has the following, placed above the successive Pillars which form the Arcade.-

I. Three Cinquefoils, two and one. II. Fretty. III. A Cinquefoil between eight Martlets. IV. Three Fleur-de-lys, two and one. V. Quarterly-first and fourth, a Bend; second and third, Fretty. (Despencer). VI. Bendy of ten pieces.

The West side has these,-

I. A Fesse and in chief three Roundels. II. Three Chevronels.

The South side has these,-

I. Bendy of ten pieces. II. Fretty. III. Two Bars, on a Canton a Cinquefoil. IV. Three Fleur-de-lys, two and one. V. A Cinquefoil pierced between eight Martlets. VI. Two Chevrons.

The East side of the Tomb has the Arcade continued, but no Arms above the Pillars.

The corners of the Tomb immediately below the Slab are sculptured with Fleur-de-lys and Cinquefoils.

In 1699, the South Aisle of Albrighton Church contained the Marble Tomb above alluded to. Of this, as it has now disappeared, I add the particulars from an Harleian MS. [52]-

[51] Vide supra, p. 166, note 28. This coat was also borne by Umfravill.
[52] Harl. MS. 5848, fo. 41. Church Notes taken by J. Johnson, May, 1699.


The Upper slab exhibited seventeen coats of arms, five of which were arranged so as to form the upper limbs of a rude cross, which extended to the whole length of the tomb. The other twelve coats were arranged, two at the S.W. and N.W. angles of the slab, and ten down the sides of the lower limb of the cross.

The five coats composing the cross were these-

I. (Upper limb) Two Bars and a Canton. II. (Right limb) Fretty. III. (Left limb) Two Chevronels. IV. (Lower limb) A Fleur-de-lys. V. (Centre) A Chevron. [53]

The other twelve coats were as follows-

I. (At S.W. angle) Two Chevronels within a Border. II. (At N.W. angle) Three Chevronels. [54] III. (South side) Fretty, a Label of three points. IV. ( Do. ) Semee of cross-crosslets, a Rose. (Pichford). [55] V. ( Do. ) Three Fleurs-de-lys. VI. ( Do. ) Barry of six. VII. ( Do. ) Two Chevronels within a Border. VIII. (North side) A Cinquefoil pierced, between nine Martlets. IX. ( Do. ) A Fesse, and in chief three Roundels. X. ( Do. ) Semee of cross-crosslets, a Rose. XI. ( Do. ) Two Bars, on a Canton, a Rose. XII. ( Do. ) Fretty, on a Canton a Rose.

Johnson notices that the Windows of the South Aisle of Albrighton Church contained twelve coats of arms, in "very old glass". We thus obtain the colours of some of the above.

They were as follows-

I. Gu, three Fleurs-de-lys or. [56] II. Barry of six, or and az. (Pembruge). III. Az. Semee of cross-crosslets, a Rose or. [57] IV. Gu, frettee d'or, a Label of three points az. V. Gu, frettee d'or. [58]

[53] Or, a Chevron Gu, is the coat of the Barons Stafford.
[54] Arg. three Chevronels Gu, is a coat of Langton, but not of Bishop Langton. Or, three Chevrons Gu, is the better known cognizance of De Clare.
[55] Here and wherever else, in these notices, Johnson has depicted a Rose, we are to understand a Cinquefoil
[56] This charge is associated with the name of De Burgh.
[57] Probably the charge was a Cinqucfoil rather than a Rose. If so the coat was one of those borne by Pichford.
[58] Audley bore Gu, a Fret or.


VI. Gu, a fesse arg. in chief three Plates. [59] VII. Arg. two Bars az. on a Canton of the second a Rose or. [60] VIII. Arg. frettee gu, on a Canton az. a Rose or. [61] IX. Bendy of eight or and az. (Montfort). X. Az., a Cinquefoil between five Mullets or, all pierced of the field. (Pichford). XI. Az. between nine Martlets (four, two, two, and one), a Cinquefoil or, pierced of the field. (Pichford). XII. Gu, three Fleurs-de-lys, or.

In the Chancel Windows were the following coats.-

I. Blank, empaling Az., three Stirrups with leathers or (Giffard). II. Ermine, a Cross patonce sa. III. Gu, seven Mascles or, three, three, and one, a Border argent. [62] IV. Arg. on a Bend az. three Roses or. V. Arg. on a Saltire gu, a Rose or. VI. Party per pale arg. and gu, two Lions rampant counter-changed; on a chief per pale gu and arg. three Escallops counterchanged.

Dugdale inserts in his Visitation (1663-4) from the notes of Francis Sandford, Rouge Dragon, the following. [63]-

In an East Window of the Chancel.

I. Erm. a Cross patonce sa. II. Arg. six Mascles, three, two, and one, within a Border gu. III. Arg. on a Fesse az. three Cinquefoils or, pierced gu.

In a South Window of the Church.-

I. Gu, frettee d'or. II. Barry of six, or and az. (Pembruge).

In an East Window.-

I. Az. a Cinquefoil or pierced gu, between eight Mullets of the second, pierced of the field. (Pychford).

[59] Johnson attributes this coat to some name which he writes Meu:::e.
[60] The charge on the Canton I take to have been a Cinquefoil rather than a Rose. The Cinquefoil was the fundamental cognizance of Pichford, whilst the ordinaries of this shield have been already ascribed to Hadley (vol. i, p.100). Piyard bore a similar coat, viz. Arg. two Bars Gu, on a Canton Az. a Cinquefoil or. I am much mistaken if Ralph Baron Pypard (summoned to Parliament in Edward I's reign) was not related to the Pichforda.
[61] Johnson ascribes this coat to the name "Vylile".
[62] This coat, without the border, was that of Quinci. It was subsequently borne by La Zouche.
[63] Dugdale's Visitation at the Heralds' College, fo. 42. It will easily be seen that the same coats are very differently described by Sandford and Johnson. In every case I should prefer the former authority.


II. Arg. frettee gu, on a Canton az. a Cinquefoil or. III. Az. a Cinquefoil pierced, between eight Martlets or. (Pychford). IV. Bendy of ten, or and az. (Montfort). V. Gu, three Leopards' heads, two and one, jessant three Fleurs-de-lys, or. [64] VI. Gu, a Fesse arg. in chief three Plates. (Davenant). VII. Arg. two Bars az. on a Canton of the second, a Cinquefoil or, pierced of the second.


THE name of this place (originally Bishops-ton) is the only evidence of its earliest status. It was attached to some Episcopal See probably that of Lichfield, but at a period anterior to any existing Record. Domesday shows us that Bispetone was in lay hands in the time of the Confessor. Its separation from the Church was therefore no matter of Norman Sacrilege.

In 1085, Normannus (Venator) held Bispetone (of Earl Roger), Turgod had held it and was a free man.

Here was I hide geldable. There was (arable) land for VI ox- teams. Here two French men with IIII villains and XI Boors had III such teams. Here was a wood which would fatten X swine. In time of King Edward, the Manor had been worth 30s., at Domesday it was worth 10s. (per annum). [1]

Bishton followed the usual descent of Norman Venator's Manors, that is, it went to De Picheford; but being so near their growing town of Albrighton it gradually lost the distinct status which it had at Domesday and became a mere member of the greater Manor.

The Tenants who held Bishopston under the Lords of Albrighton took name from the place. The earliest of whom I find mention, was Henry de Bispeston who will be noticed under Donington, as Surety for Leticia de Humfreston in 1221.

[64] This coat is ascribed to Cantilupe, as well as the same with the Leopards' heads inverted.
[1] Domesday, fo. 59, a. 4.

ETONE. 167

Robert and Henry de Bispeston were Jurors, 20 April, 1253, on the Inquest as to the estate of Ralph de Pichford; and in January 1256, were Jurors for Brimstree Hundred at the County Assizes.

In September 1272, John de Bisopeston acted in the same capacity. Soon afterwards, in a grant made to Lilleshall Abbey by Hugh de Bolingale, the homages and services of Robert de Bispeston and John his Brother were included. [2]

On May 9, 1283, a Fine was levied at Salop, between John, son of Henry de Bisshopeston, complainant, and Robert, son of Henry de Bisshopeston, defendant (impedientem), of two messuages and one virgate in Bisshopeston, whereof was Plea. Robert acknowledged the right of John as of his (Robert's) gift - to hold of the Chief Lords by accustomed service. John gave for this Fine one sore sparrow-hawk. [3]

In October 1292, John Fitz Henry de Bispeston was on the Brimstree Jury at Salop Assizes. He occurs in May 1295, as a witness with John, Clerk of Bispeston, and in June 1300, as a Juror with John Fitz Robert of Bispeston. The latter is on a Jury of May 1304, and John Fitz Henry with Peter de Bispeston were fellow Jurors in June 1305, at the Inquest as to the estate of Hugh de Beaumes.

Feb. 10, 1306, John de Aula de Bispeston and Peter de Bispeston were Jurors on an Inquest at Claverley; and in May following, John Robert (i.e. Fitz Robert) de Bispeston was on an Inquest at Brug. Somewhat later than this John de Aula attests a deed which will be quoted under Donington.


THERE was either some uncertainty about the Tenure of this Manor, which led to its being mentioned twice over in Domesday, or else being then a Manor of one hide it was divided into two equal portions. The two entries which describe it axe as follows.-

"The same Gerard (de Tornai) holds Etone and William (holds

[2] Pat. 18 Ric. p. 1, memb. 7.
[3] Pedes Finium, 11 Edw. I, Salop.

168 ETONE.

it) of him. Turgod held it (in time of King Edward) and was a free man. Here is half-a-hide, geldable. The (arable) land is sufficient for III ox-teams. In demesne there is I (team) and I serf and IIII boors; also, there is I Guest (hospes) paying a rent of two shillings. In time of King Edward its value was XII shillings: now it is XI shillings. He (Gerard) found it waste". [1]

"The same Rainald (Vicecomes) holds in Etone half a hide. Turgot held it for a single Manor and paid geld". [2]

The latter entry is obviously incomplete, and if not erroneous, it exhibits Rainald's Tenure only as partial or involved. Wherever Rainald the Sheriff had a Domesday interest we usually find such interest subsequently represented by Fitz Alan. In the present instance I search for such a correspondence in vain. Nothing held by Fitz Alan in the later Hundreds of Stottesden, Munslow, or Brimstree is found to square with Rainald's interest in the Alnodestreu Manor of Etone.

Leaving this difficulty, and looking solely at the mention of Etone as a member of Gerard de Tornai's Fief, its identity with the modern township of Hatton will be apparent after a very few remarks.

First as to the name;- this Hatton as well as other places (so called now) are usually found to have been written Hettune or Hetune in older documents. The use or omission of the aspirate was also a matter of caprice. Its omission in Domesday is noticeable in the words now pronounced Hodnet, Hawkesley, and Hopton, which are represented in that record as Odenet, Avochelie, and Opetune.

Again, Turgod, Saxon Lord of Etone, also held in time of King Edward, the Manors of Cosford and Bishton, one of which adjoins and the other is near to Hatton.

Further, we observe that nearly all the escheated Manors of Gerard de Tornai became tenures in capite by Serjeantry, and some of them by Serjeantry of Castle-guard at Shrawardine. The latter was specifically the case with Hatton.

Lastly, Hatton is subsequently found to be a Manor of I hide, a measurement which will combine the contents of the two Domesday Manors of Etone.

I can therefore continue my account of the latter no otherwise than under the name of Hatton,-

[1] Domesday, fo. 259, a. 1.
[2] Domesday, fo. 255, a. 2.



THE first Document which I have to quote with reference to this Manor is a Deed which on the whole, and notwithstanding some appearances to the contrary, impresses me with an idea of very high antiquity,- as high as the reign of Henry I or Stephen, 1100-1154. Its substance is as follows:-

Adam Traynel of Hetton grants to Ivo his Nephew (Nepoti) his Manor of Ivelith, as well in Ivelith as in Hynynton, in the County of Salopsire, also common-right of pasture in his (Adam's) land of Hetton;- to have and to hold, &c. in fee;- rendering a Red-Rose yearly at the Nativity of John the Baptist.- Witnesses: William de Beaumeis, Walter Fitz Warin, Robert de Cadeleg, Ralph de Pichford, Richard Wudecote, John de Sahebury, Henry de Bolynghale, William de Creswell, and many others. [1]

This Adam Treynel was, I suppose, identical with Adam de Hetune, one of the earliest benefactors to Buildwas Abbey. Within fifty years of its foundation, he granted to that house with concurrence of Reginald his Son, a moiety of the vill of Hettune, which grant was afterwards confirmed by King Richard I in his general Charter to Buildwas, dated at Winchester, 22d October 1189. [2]

The original Manor of Hatton seems to have been divided into two equal portions by a small stream called Tuy-brook, the course of which may still be traced through a series of artificial pools. The moiety of Hatton which Adam Traynel granted to Buildwas lay to the East of this stream, and was therefore contiguous to those other early acquisitions which the Abbey made at Ruckley and Cosford.

[1] This Charter is among the Rawlinson MSS. in the Bodleian Library. Having never seen more than three or four manorial deeds of this early date, I have little wherewith to compare the one under notice.- It is on an unusually large scale, both as regards the parchment, the hand-writing, and the seal. The latter is completely defaced. The objection to its extreme antiquity, as assigned in the text, is that it has the formulae "Habendum et Tenendum", and "Hiis Testibus", usually taken to indicate a date no earlier than the reign of Richard I. There were a William de Beaumeis, a WalterFitz Warin, and a Ralph de Pichford in Henry III's time, and each of them likely to attest a deed concerning lands in this quarter, though I should not expect their names to occur in the order indicated above. There were also persons bearing each of these three names in time of Henry I. They were all similarly likely to attest such a deed as this.

As far as I oan judge, the names of the other witnesses belong to a period anterior to the reign of Richard I.
[2] Monasticon, v , 359, No. xvi.


The Monks were ever most assiduous in extending their possessions here. During the reign of Richard I, as I conclude, they obtained a grant from John de Hemes of a virgate and twelve acres of his demesne in Hettun. This was clearly a part of that moiety which lay to the west of Tuy-brook, and which John de Hemes held under Traynel.

This second acquisition was followed by a third not later than the year 1202, and of which we have full particulars-

Walter, Son of John de Hemes, with assent of his Mother, his heir and his friends, grants and confirms to the Abbey of Buldewas in perpetual almoign all that land of Hettun, viz. a virgate and twelve acres, which his Father gave of his demesne. He adds to the gift "all the land which is between the road of Hyvelith (Evelith) and Tuibroc, which was formerly heath, and four meadows which pertain thereto". This latter land the Monks were to hold of Walter by an annual rent of 12d. payable to him and his heirs, and by discharging a further annual rent of 5s. which was due to the Grantor's Chief Lord,- Robert Trainel. The Monks were also to satisfy all foreign service due on half-a- virgate of said land, but the rest was to continue free, as of demesne. For this grant the Monks received the Grantor, his Mother, and his Heirs into their fraternity.- Witnesses: John le Strange, Hugh de Pichford, Reginald de Tirne, Wido de Saweburi, Hamo Fitz Marscot, Richard de Ruiton, Nicholas de Bolinchale, William Crasset, Baldwin de Hinetun, and John his Son, Peter de Hale, Hugh de Becchebur, Reginald le Budel of Ruiton. [3]

Robert Trainel mentioned in the above deed as Lord of Hatton, must be taken as a Successor of Adam Trainel and Reginald his Son, but by what relationship I cannot determine. At the Assizes of Oct. 1203, he appears as Essoigner of Adam de Hereford, a non-attendant at the Common Summons, and of whom we have heard before. [4]

The Tenure by which the Trainels held Hatton was Petit Serjeantry, of which we now first begin to have some evidence. King John's fifth Scutage, that of 1204, was assessed upon Serjeantries. Accordingly we read on the Pipe-Roll that Robert de Tremell fined half a merk for the same. [5]

[3] Charter formerly in possession of Humphrey Briggs, Esq., copied by Blakeway from Wm. Mytton's MSS. The Seal of this deed is charged with a Lion passant. The Legend is as follows-


Wido de Shawbury, one of the witnesses, was murdered about 1202, which gives the proximate date.
[4] Supra, Vol. I, p. 181.
[5] Rot. Pip. 6 John, Salop.


And soon after this, Robert Trainel died, for I find that about March 1205, William Tramnell gave the King fifteen merks to have custody of the lands and heir of the said Robert till the said heir should be of age. Mandate accordingly issued to the Sheriff of Salop. [6]

William Trainel seems to have been a Lawyer. He had already appeared in 1199 and 1200 in the Courts of Westminster as Essoigner of several parties to Shropshire Law-suits. He paid his fine of fifteen merks by instalments in 1205, 1206, and 1207.

Nevertheless, about March 1210, he seems to have lost this wardship, though the heir was still a Minor.

The lists of Shropshire Serjeantries, about 1211, [7] tells us that Robert de Tremeill (the said heir) was then in custody of the King; that his Tenure was Hatton, on which the Sheriff was accountable, at the Exchequer, for 40s. per annum.

In perfect conformity with this return I find that at Michaelmas 1212, the Sheriff accounted 100s. at the Exchequer "for two-and- a-half years ferm of Robert Trainel's Hatton", and that at Michaelmas 1214, he accounted 4. on the same, viz. the ferm of two years more. [8]

This ferm of 40s. per annum was the exact income of Robert Trainel's land, for, as will presently appear, he had previously to his death granted his interest in Hatton to Buildwas Abbey for a term of years, reserving only the said rent.

On Jan. 12, 1215, Robert Trainel (the younger) was of age, and fined "50s. for his Relief, and to have receipt of 40s. rent, which the Monks of Buildwas were to pay the said Robert for the term during which R. Trainel his Father had demised his land of Hatton to them to ferm, so that, the said term ended, the land may come peaceably to said Robert's hands". The King's writ forthwith issued to the Sheriff commanding him to take security for the fine of 50s. and give seizin of the said rent, and (when the term should expire) of the said land, to the heir. [9]

It was an arrear of this fine, viz. 10s. for which in 1218, Martin de Patishull a great Justiciar of that period, undertook to be answerable on behalf of Robert Trainel. Respite was accordingly given till Michaelmas for payment of the same. [10]

I am inclined to think that the Monks of Buildwas continued

[6] Fines, 6 John, memb. 5.
[7] Testa de Nevill, pp. 56, 417; and Liber Rub. Scacc.
[8] Rot. Pip. 14 and 16 John, Salop.
[9] Rot. Claus. i, 182.
[10] Memoranda, 2 Hen. III.


to hold Robert Trainel's land at ferm, either under the old lease, or a renewal thereof by himself. In 1219, they are paying the Lord of Ideshale a rent of 3s. per annum for common-pasture in Ideshale. [11]

In 1227, among Tenures in Brimstree Hundred we read that Robert Traynel holds half-a-hide in Henton (Hatton) by Serjeantry of finding one serving foot-soldier at Shrewrthin, at his own cost, for fifteen days, if need shall be, and that the Tenure is worth 40s. per annum. [12]

We now come to the transaction by which the Monks of Buildwas at length obtained full possession of that moiety of Hatton of which they had been previously Lessees, and so became Lords of the undivided Manor.-

Robert, son of Robert Traynel of Hattone, for the health of his soul, granted to the Monks in frank almoigne, all the land, and wood, and heath, and moor, which he had, as well in demesne as in seigneury (in servicio) in a moiety of the vill of Hattone, viz. whatever lay "between the rivulet of Tuybroc as it descends into the stream of Worth (Worf) on one side, and the boundary fences of Hynetone (Hinnington) and of Grenhull (Grindle) on the other side, down to the aforesaid stream of Worth". He also conceded to the same Monks the other moiety of the vill of Hattone which they already had, by gift of Adam Traynell of Hattone. [13]

This Deed probably passed about 1248, and about 1251 an Inquest of Tenures found the Abbot of Buldewas holding two carucates of land in Solde-hatton of the gift of Robert Traynel who used to hold that vill of the King in capite. [14]

In 1252, Nicholas, Abbot of Buildwas, withdrew the suit of Hatton from the Hundred of Brimstree, a further proof, not only of his seigneury there, but of the Manor being independent of any other. The King was said to be damaged 2s. per annum by this withdrawal, which probably was in conformity with the special privileges of a Cistercian House. [15]

[11] Salop Chartulary, No. 378.
[12] Testa de Nevill, p. 53. If one moiety of Hatton was half a hide, the whole must have necessarily been a hide. Herein we have a repetition of the Domesday estimate.
[13] Monasticon, v, 358; xiii. The witnesses are Sir Ralph de Picheford, Richard de Grenehul, Hugh de Leya, Osbert de Stircheleg; also (as in Rot. Cart. 20 Edw. I, memb. 40) Nicholas, Parson of Hope, Ralph de Stanton, Humfrey de Humfreston, Robert de Dudmaston, and Henry Crasset.
[14] Testa de Nevill, p. 60. I cannot account for this name or misnomer of Solde-hatton, unless it be a confusion with Cold- hatton; a place however where Buildwas Abbey had never any concern.
[15] Salop Assizes, 56 Hen. III, memb. 22 dorso.


At the Assizes of 1272, when this presentment was made, William Crasset sued the Abbot for his Manor of Hatton juxta Edeshale (Idsall), as his (William's) right and inheritance, and to be held by him of the King in capite. The Abbot appeared and pleaded that "there were two vills of Hatton in this County, viz. Hatton Crasset and Hatton Traynel", and that the Plaintiff had not specified either of them. [16] This plea, which however I cannot understand, was effectual, for the Abbot was dismissed sine die.

In 1291, the Temporalities of the Abbey of Buildwas in Atton (in Newport Deanery and Salop Archdeaconry) were thus estimated.-

Two carucates of land 1. 0s. 0d.; Profits on Live Stock 6. 2s. 6d. Pannage 2s. 0d.- Total 7. 4s. 6d. [17]

Hatton continued in possession of Buildwas Abbey till the Dissolution; the Abbot declared his rents there to amount to 5. 6s. 8d. per annum, and the tithes to be farmed at 2. [18]

A CHAPEL is said to have been sometime existent here, a most probable adjunct of a Manor so circumstanced. The district was however in the Parish of Idshall, and the Monks of Buildwas were, at the Dissolution, still paying a pension of 16s. 8d. to the Vicar of Idshall for administering the Sacraments in "Hatton Graunge". [19]


THE Saxon word bunrg (hilly) scarcely applies to the circumstances of this locality. Dunning was however a Saxon name; and a person so called, and having sometime possessed this place, may possibly be entitled to the simple but enduring monument thus indicated in a word.

Domesday mentions the Manor as follows,-

The Earl himself holds Donitone. Earl Edwin held it (in time of King Edward). Here are III hides. In demesne are iv ox-teams

[16] Ibidem, memb. 7 recto. There were four or five vills of Hatton in Shropshire, but it is clear that Hatton-Crasset and Hatton-Traynel, were names applied to two villa, or two parts of the same sill, near Shiffnal; otherwise the Plaintiff's description would have been sufficient. I should suppose Hatton Crasset to have lain towards Cosford, and to have been some time held by the Crassets under the Lords of Hatton.
[17] Pope Nicholas' Taxation, p. 260.
[18] Valor Ecclesiastical, iii, 191.
[19] Ibidem, p. 192.


and (there are) VIII neat-herds and II female serfs, and XII villains and II boors with III ox-teams; and yet there might be VII teams more (employed) here. Here is a Mill rendering V horse-loads of corn (yearly), and a wood one league long, and half-a-league wide. In Wich there are V salt-pits (belonging to the Manor), which render XX shillings (annually). In time of King Edward the Manor realized 20. (per annum); now (it pays) 9. [1]

The Manors, thus held in Demesne by the Norman Earl, are enumerated in Domesday without any formal statement as to their respective Hundreds. Donington and Tong (also a demesne Manor) stood at the convergence of three Domesday Hundreds, viz, Alnodestreu (which contained Albrighton), Bascherch (which contained Cosford and Idshall), and Recordine (which came up to Lilleshall). The Hundred of Idshall and Cosford was however determined by a peculiarity of tenure which did not extend to Donington and Tong; and whereas no Recordine Manors are known to have become Brimstree Manors, it follows, I think, from this, and from their proximity to Albrighton, that Donington and Tong were both in Alnodestreu Hundred.

After the forfeiture of the Norman Earls, the Seigneury of this Manor passed by grant of the Crown to Richard de Belmeis, Bishop of London, of whom and his Successors, Lords of Donington and Tong, I propose to give a fuller account under the latter Manor.

[1] Domesday, fo. 253, b. 2. There is one clause in this entry which requires special notice, viz. "In Wich v salinae reddunt xx solidos".-

The Domesday Annotators have left us to suppose that where Salinae (salt-works or salt-pans) are mentioned in connexion with any Manor, some local advantage is indicated, e.g. that a salt-spring or the sea-coast waa near at hand. It is further ascertained that Wich was a generic term applicable to any place where salt was produced. No etymological connexion has, I think, been established between the word Wich and salt; but I need only mention Droitwich in Worcestershire, and Nantwich, Northwich, and Middlewich in Cheshire, as a few instances of the relationship.

Are we then to conclude that in 1085 the Manor of Donington contained within its limits a district called Wich, wherein were five salt-works? I suppose it just as probable that it contained five miles of sea-coast, where marine salt was manufactured.

The truth, I imagine, is that five Salinae in Wich, that is in one of the large salt-districts of Cheshire or Worcestershire, were adjuncts of this Manor, and had been so in Saxon times.

Earl Edwin, the Saxon Lord of Donington, was, next to King Edward the Confessor, the principal owner of the Wiches of Cheshire and Worcestershire.

So much for the state of things at and before the time of Donsesday.- In the next century (the twelfth) we find Barons, Abbots, and Priors, whose territories lay mainly in Shropshire, holding or transfering shares in the salt-works of both Cheshire and Worcestershire. Distance was no bar to the acquisition of property so essential.


Here we will speak of that collateral race of De Belmeis, whose Ancestor having been enfeoffed in Donington held the same under the elder house and transmitted it, so held, to some generations of his heirs.

Without attempting to decide who that William de Beaumeis was who stands first witness of the deed with which I have commenced my account of Hatton, [2] I proceed to Richard de Beaumeis undoubtedly living in the time of Henry II, holding Donington under the Lords of Tong, and perhaps having an interest at Meadowley by a similar title.

Philip de Belmeis, Lord of Tong, and Cousin as I suppose of this Richard, made, about the year 1139, a grant to the then recently founded Abbey of Buildwas. This grant, besides other advantages, included Ruckley then a member of Tong. Philip's example was in due time followed by his relation and vassal Richard, who (as I understand his deed) granted to the same Monks now established in their Grange of Ruckley, a right of common-pasture throughout his land (of Donington), and three acres of land whereunto they might attach a bridge, which must needs be made across the stream which ran between Ruckley and Donington before such common-right could be available. [3]

Between the years 1152. and 1159, Richard de Belmeys, as a

[2] Supra, page 169. Were the date of this deed more certain, I should consider William de Beaumeis to have been Brother of the Viceroy and his Feoffee at Donington.
[3] This very ancient and curious deed is in possession of George Pritchard, Esq., of Broseley. It has already been translated (in Mr. Dukes' Antiquities, Appendix, p. lxv), but with one or two inaccuracies, which render a transcript of the original desirable. I give it with the contractions resolved:-

Notum sit omnibus ecclesie Christi Adelibus, clericis et laicis modernis et posteris, quod ego Richardus de Belmeis, cum consensu et consilio uxoris meu et fratrum meorum concessi et dedi Abbati et Monachis de Bildwas totem communem pasturam per totem terram meam, ovibus anis et ceteri animalibus que habent apud Rochele.- Et ut ad illam pasturam sine ullo impedimento possint venire, dedi eis in perpetuum tres acras de terra mea juxta rivulum sabtus Chelfesford, ubi pontem suam ultra aquam ponant. Hanc itaque terram cum predictis pastura dedi Deo et Sanctae Mariae et predictis Monachis in perpetuam elemosinam pro salute animae meae et patris et matris meae et ceterorum parentum meorum, ita libere et quiete ab omni terreno servicio et exactione seculari ut nichil nec meis in ea retinuerim nisi tutelam et protectionem contra omnes qui eis in aliquo adversari voluerint. Hujus meae donacionis et confirmacionis isti sunt testes, Bernardus de Saint cum Alano de Bildwas et Ada Sacerdote, Philippo fratre ipsius Ricardi, Radulfo Venatore, Hemmie de Shakerlau; De Monachia Adam et Gaufridus cum Fratre Rogerio, totusque Conventus.

The Seal of this deed has the figure of a Knight on horseback, with drawn sword and a conical helmet. The words RICARDI DE BELMEIS remain of the Legend.


Knight of Philip de Belmeys junior, Lord of Tong, attests the grant of the latter to Lilleshall Abbey.

In 1157, this Richard de Bealmes is mentioned as having fined ten merks with the King to have some trial (loquela) against Alan de Uppedun. This fine is entered as an arrear till 1160, when the King's writ had ordered it to be excused, calling it a fine for a plea of seizin. [4]

In 1167, Richard de Bealmes' (Manor of) Dunnincton is entered as having been amerced half-a-merk in a recent iter of the Justice of the Forest. [5]

At Michaelmas 1189, Aaron, a very wealthy Jew of Lincoln, having died, his chattels and securities escheated to the Crown. Richard de Beumes had owed him 4. 8s. 6d. which he pays through the Sheriff of Shropshire by successive instalments, the last of which is entered on the Pipe-Roll of 1200. [6]

All that I can further say of Richard de Belmeis is, that he appears to have granted a subinfeudation of Shakerley a member of Donington, to Robert, Uncle of Robert de Wodecote. [7]

It is more than probable that the several notices above given as attaching to the name of Richard de Belmeis indicate a succession of two persons of the same name, probably Father and Son. I doubt not however that, if this were so, both were Lords of Donington. From 1185 to 1203, we have occasional notices of one Robert de Belmeis who I believe to have been representative of another branch of the family, and to have had feoffment in Tong and elsewhere. Of him and his very uncertain succession, I will say more when I come to that Manor.

The next Lord of Donington whom I can discover after Richard de Belmeis was Walter de Belmeis.

He first appears in November 1221, as having been challenged by Geoffrey de Eswell for breach of the King's peace and for robbery. His accuser, though bound over to prosecute, did not appear before the Justices in Eyre, and so was to be arrested, the Jury meantime acquitting the accused. [8]

[4] Rot Pip. 3, 4, 5 & 6 Hen. II, Salop. I doubt not that the suit referred to some disputed land at Meadowley, where Alan de Upton (mentioned Vol. I, page 140.) will have been the Defendant, and where I have shown Richard de Belmeis to have been probably interested in 1180 (Vol. I, p. 150).
[5] Rot. Pip. 13 Hen. II. De placitis Alani de Nevill.
[6] Rot. Pip. 1 Ric. I to 2 John, Salop.
[7] Vide Monasticon, vi, 264, No. xiii, where Robert de Wudecote (the Nephew) transfers this Tenancy to Lilleshall Abbey.
[8] Salop Assizes, 6 Hen. III, memb. 8.


In Michaelmas Term 1223, Walter de Beaumes being one of four Knights who had to try an issue about land in Little Wythiford, was for some cause removed from the panel. About this time, and followed by Philip de Beaumes, he attests a Charter of Roger la Zouch, Lord of Tong, to Buildwas Abbey. He has already occurred as a prominent witness to a Badger Deed which passed about 1227.

About 1240, he is entered, on a Roll of Tenures, as holding a knight's fee in Doninton of the Barony of Herbert Fitz Peter. [9] Here, though the Tenant's name be stated correctly enough, it is probable that the Seigneury is altogether misrepresented.

In 1255, Walter de Belmeis was deceased, and, as I have pointed out under Meadowley, Roger de Belmeis, who was his son, had succeeded him.

At the Assizes of January 1256, I find Johanna, widow of Walter de Beaumeis, suing several under-tenants in Donington for her dower.-

Her suit against Ranulph, son of Richard Russell, for thirds in four acres of land and two of meadow, was adjourned to one month of Easter, the Defendant calling Roger de Beaumes to warranty.-

Her suit against the same for thirds in three acres of land and five of meadow, was adjourned till the Quinzaine of Easter; and the land meanwhile was seized by the Crown because the Defendant did not appear.-

Her suit against the Prioress of Brewood for a third part of 100 acres, and that against Roger de Pyweledon for a third of five acres of meadow, were met by both Defendants calling Roger de Beaumes to warranty, Roger de Pyweledon only claiming a terminal interest wider demise of Walter de Beaumes.

[9] Testa de Nevill, p. 46. Donington was at this time held immediately of Alan la Zouche and of the Honour of Tong. So far, therefore, this entry is not strictly correct. Neither can I suppose it true that Alan la Zouche held Tong of the Barony of Herbert Fitz Peter. I can account for the mistake only in one way. The Fitz Herberts had profited largely by the forfeiture of William de Braose in King John's reign, and were subsequently sharers in his inheritance. Moreover, William de Braose had had in 1204 some Seignoral Interest over Tong. During the temporary forfeiture of Roger la Zouch, this Seignoral Interest had further gained for Braose the actual possession of Tong as of an Escheat. His rights, therefore, may have inadvertently been taken to have descended to Herbert Fitz Peter, whereas the Tenant-right had been restored to La Zouche, and the Seigneural right (whatever it was) seems to have gone with the bulk of the Honour of Brecknock to the Earls of Hereford.

How Braose originally acquired a seigneury in the Honour of Tong I have not the remotest conception.


Roger de Beaumes appeared in these cases and vouched each warranty, so that the Defendants were dismissed sine die, and Johanna adjudged to have equivalents out of other lands of Roger de Beaumes. [10]

At the same Assizes, Roger de Beaumes, being impleaded by the Prioress of the White Nuns of Brewood in regard to her right to have estovers in Doninton Wood, came to an agreement on the subject. [11]

In this year also, Roger de Beaumes was returned by the Sheriff as one of those who, holding 15. of lands, was yet not a Knight. [12] In 1258, he fined half-a-merk of gold (equal to five merks of silver) to have respite in this matter, and the said fine was still in arrear at Michaelmas 1259. [13]

All that I can further say of this Roger is contained in a deed whereby William, son of Walter Spink, of Culeshal (Kilsall) quits to Roger, son of Walter de Beaumes, all his right in the land which said Walter Spink held under the Ancestors of said Roger, with a messuage, curtilage, and other appurtenances, within and without the vill of Doniton.- Witnesses: Peter Giffard, Hugh de Hadinton, Hugh de Bolinchal, John de Pres, Michael de Morton, Stephen Parker (Parcarius), Robert de Picstoc, John Fitz Pagan, Ranulph the Forester, and others. [14]

A period of at least ten years now elapses, during which I find neither deed nor Record to throw any light on this succession. In 1270, however, John de Belmeis was suing the Master of the Knights Templars under writ of Novel Disseizin for a Knight's Fee in Medweleye (Meadowley), [15] and he must have been of the Donington branch. There was also one Alan de Beaumes whom the Brimstree Jurors presented, at the Assizes of 1272, as not guilty of Larceny. John de Beaumes again occurs in 1284 as holding the Manor of Doninton with Culeshall (Kilsall) and Shakerlawe (Shakerley), under Roger la Zouch, by one Knight's Fee.

This John de Beaumes bought the Manor of Stanwey from his contemporary Hugh de Beaumes, who also had an interest in Tong and Donington. [16]

At the Assizes of October 1292, both John and Hugh officiated

[10] Salop Assizes, 40 Hen. III, membs. 13 dorso, 15 dorso.
[11] Ibidem, memb. 14 dorso.
[12] Dukes' Antiquities, Introduction, page vii.
[13] Rot. Pip. 43 Hen. III, Salop.
[14] Charter in possession of the Rev. Henry Bishton.
[15] Patent, 54 Hen. III, dorso. The Templars held at this time the Barony of Castle Holgate, of which Meadowley was a member. (Vide supra, Vol. I, p. 157.)
[16] Placita Coronae, 20 Edw. I. John and Hugh de Beaumes were not related, or related so distantly that the Crown-Prosecutor, questioning some privilege claimed by John de Beaumes at Stanwey, denied their relationship altogether. It is this single circumstance which has enabled me to distinguish the two lines which they represented.


as Jurors of Brimstree Hundred; the former too was returned as Tenant of a Knight's Fee, and yet not a Knight. [17]

July 11, 1296, both Sir Hugh and John de Beaumes were on the Inquest as to the estate of Fulk de Pembridge of Tong, but the former only is distinguished as a Knight.

A writ of King Edward I, dated May 1, 1304, directs an Inquest to be held to ascertain whether it would injure the King if he allowed John de Beaumeys to grant ten acres of land and ten acres of wood in Donyton to the Prioress of the White Nuns of Brewode. The Inquest, which was taken at Salop on May 14 following, reported in favour of the grant, adding that the land in question was held of Alan la Zouche by military service, "for that John held the Manor by half a Knight's Fee under said Alan, and therein were three carucates of land, 300 acres of wood, twenty acres of meadow, and five merks of annual rent over and above the twenty acres proposed to be alienated, which twenty acres were worth 3s. 4d. per annum". [18]

June 12, 1305, John de Beaumes was still living, for the Inquest then taken on the death of his contemporary, Hugh de Beaumes, shows the latter to have held a messuage, &c. in John's Lordship of Donington. [19]

And within ten years of the last date, John de Beaumes was deceased, leaving two sons Hugh and John, the latter of whom, being the younger, and having some interest in both Donington and Stanwey by disposition of his Father, resigned the same to his elder Brother. The deed is in the form of a common quit- claim, the Grantor styling himself "John de Beaumeys, son of John de Beaumeys Lord of Donython". [20]

In 7 Edw. II (1313-4) died Alan, last Baron Zouche of Ashby, and the Inquest on his death duly records his seigneury at Donnington where he is said to have held half a Knight's Fee. [21]

[17] Ibidem, memb. 51 recto, 23 recto.
[18] Inquisitions, 32 Edw. I, No. 125.
[19] Inquisitions, 33 Edw. I, No. 16.
[20] Charter in possession of the Rev. Henry Bishton. The witnesses are Sirs Walter de Huggeford and William le Forcer, Knights; Henry de Beaumeys (son and heir of Hugh who died in 1305), Roger Carles, Roger de Pynelesdon, Richard de Knycheleye (Neachley), John de Aula de Bispeston and others. It must certainly have passed between 1305 and 1324, and, forasmuch as it is undated, probably in the earlier half of that period.

An undated deed of Fulk Pembruge's, which I shall set forth under Tong, exhibits a combination of names almost identical, and passed probably in 1312.
[21] Inquisitions, 7 Edw. II, No. 36.


But to return to Hugh de Beaumes his Tenant.- He, like his Father, wishing to benefit the Convent of White Nuns of Brewood, procured the King's Writ (dated 10th July 1315, ordering Inquest to be made as to the damage which the Crown would suffer if he granted thirty acres of wood in Donynton to the Prioress. The Jurors sat at Donynton on 28th July, and reported that the grant would be harmless; that the wood was held of William de Mortimer Lord of Ashby la Zouche, with other lands in Donynton, by service of half a Knight's Fee; that the thirty acres were worth 5s. per annum; that the said William de Mortimer and the Earl of Hereford were mediate between Hugh de Beaumes and the King. [22]

In 1316, Hugh de Beaumeys was duly returned as Lord of the Manor of Donnington. [23]

On April 22, 1324, styling himself Lord of Donynton, he grants to John de Beames his Brother, a messuage in Shakerlew, which John atte Syche held, and two parcels of adjacent land in addition, with two pieces of waste in Donynton Wood, &c., to hold to John and his heirs lawfully begotten, at a rent of 8s. payable to the Grantor and Helena his wife and the Grantor's heirs, for all services except heriots and suit of the Grantor's Court of Donynton. He also grants wood for fire and fence, and the accustomed rights of common for all the Grantee's own stock and for 240 sheep of other persons. If the Grantee die without lawful issue, then the premises shall remain to John, son of said John, and his heirs lawfully begotten, whom failing remainder is limited to the right heirs of John Senior. [24]

All that I can further say of Hugh de Beaumes, Lord of Donington, is that he was returned in 1324, as a Man-at-Arms liable to attend the Great Cotincil summoned to meet at Westminster on May 30 in that year. [25]

A fine of the Manor of Donington levied in 1329, seems to indicate that Henry de Beaumeys was then Lord thereof. He, Henry, was no relation to Hugh, and therefore if any change had occurred it will have been rather by purchase than by

[22] Ad quod daemons, 9 Edw. II, No. 121.
[23] Parliamentary Writ; vol. iv, p. 899.
[24] Charter in possession of the Rev. Henry Bishton. This deed is dated at Donynton, on Sunday, in the close of Easter, 17 Edw. II, and is attested by Roger de Pulesdon, John Humfrey, John Carles, William de Blymhyll, and Richard son of Syman Lucas. Sir Robert de Atterlegh, Rector of Tong, is mentioned as an adjoining freeholder.
[25] Parliamentary Writs, IV. 618.


succession. This Fine shall be given at length, when I come, under Tong, to speak of the succession of the said Henry.

OF THE UNDERTENANTS at Neachley, Shakerley, and Kilsall, in Donington Manor, I have nothing more to say than has been implied already, or will appear in my notices of neighbouring places.


though mentioned in one instance as a Member of Albrighton, is much more generally associated with the Manor and Parish of Donington. I presume the place to have been named after some early Tenant thereof, of whose descendants, or of a family otherwise settled here, we have several distinct notices.-

At the Assizes of 1203, William de Omfreeston was amerced for default; [26] and at those of 1221, Leticia, Widow of William de Umfreiston, withdrew the suit of novel disseisin which she had against Walter de Beaumes for stopping up a road in Brewode to the injury of her free tenement in Umfreiston. Her Sureties were Henry de Bispeston and William Fitz Ralph. [27]

About the middle of the Century, Humphrey de Humphreyston occurs as a witness of some local charters.

In 1272, among Pleas of the Crown connected with Brimstree Hundred, William de Unfreyston is entered as in misericordia for contempt. [28]

At the Assizes of Oct. 1292, John de Unfreyston sat as a Juror for Brimstree Hundred, and I find the same person under the name of John Humfrey attesting deeds, or sitting on Juries under dates of May 31, 1295, July 11, 1296, June 6, 1300, and April 22, 1324.


The Record, which so accurately enumerates five Salt-pits, a Mill, and a Wood as adjuncts of Donington Manor, in 1085, would hardly have omitted the Church had it existed at the time. We must therefore ascribe this Foundation to Earl Roger de Montgomery whom we know to have bestowed the Advowson thereof on Shrewsbury Abbey. [29]

Donington Church will therefore have been built, endowed, and thus disposed of, within eight years of Domesday, for Earl Roger died in July 1094, if not a year earlier.

[26] Salop Assizes, 5 John, m. 6 dorso.
[27] Salop Assizes, 6 Hen. III, m.3 dorso.
[28] Salop Assizes, 56 Hen. III, 22 recto.
[29] Salop Chartulary, No. 2.


This grant to Shrewsbury Abbey received specific confirmation from King William (probably Rufus), Henry I, Stephen, Henry II, and Henry III, in their various Charters to that House.

The Monks of Shrewsbury were induced to consign this Advowson to Richard de Belmeis, Bishop of London, who, as Lord of the Manor, will have had special reasons for such an arrangement.

The last moments of that great Statesman, when he lay dying at the Priory of St. Osyth, were devoted to certain formal acts of restitution, suggested either by some previous injustice of his own, or some doubt as to the honorable inclinations of his heir. His letter on the subject of his interest in Donington Church belongs undoubtedly to this period of his life, and was suggested by some such feeling. It is as follows,-

"Richard Bishop of London to all the Barons of the County of Scropscire greeting. I will that ye tender testimony for the Monks of St. Peter, that Roger the Earl gave them the Church of Doninton before that I obtained the vill; and I do have the same Church from them, not as a gift, but as a trust (non donatam sed praestitam) as long as they may will. Farewell". [30]

Thus in January 1127, will the Monks of Shrewsbury have obtained a second title-deed to the Advowson of Donington.

I should have observed that Earl Roger's grant of Churches to Shrewsbury Abbey was accompanied by a right of appropriation, subject only to the lives of existing Incumbents. Such a right must have been from the first exercised under Episcopal sanction. In the case of Donington it was commuted at a very early period for an annual pension of half-a-merk (6s. 8d.), payable by the Incumbent to the Abbey.

These rights of Advowson and Pension generally were confirmed to the Abbey by Charters of Roger de Clinton, [31] Walter Durdent, [32] and other succeeding Bishops of Chester, Coventry, or Lichfield; the specific pension of half-a-merk, I also find authorized in a Charter of Richard Peche, [33] Bishop of Lichfield from 1161 to 1182.

In 1291, the Church of Doniton in the Deanery of Newport

[30] Salop Chartulary, No. 353 b.
[31] Harl. MSS. 3868, fo. 7, b, is undoubtedly the Charter of Roger de Clinton (1129-48). It confirms the Church of Donytone, with a pension of half-a-merk.
[32] Salop Chartulary, No. 61.
[33] Ibidem, No. 329. But a Charter of Roger Bishop of Chester (No. 328) names a pension of 3s. 4d. only as due from Donington. However the Confirmation of John de Peccham, Archbishop of Canterbury (No. 62), names the higher sum.


stands taxed as of 2. 13s. 4d. annual value, but mention of the Abbot of Shrewsbury's pension is omitted. [34]

In 1341, the Commissioners assessed the parish of Dunynton at 1. 3s. 4d. for the ninth of corn, wool and lamb. The reasons why it was assessed so low, were because a thirtieth of wheat was payable as tithe of one carucate held by the Abbot of Buildwas, and because another carucate held by the same Abbot lay unfilled; also because the Prioress of the Nuns of Brewod had three carucates of land in the Parish and paid tenths thereon to the Pope, and because the glebe, small tithes, the mill, and other spiritualities went to swell the greater sum (the Taxation) and did not affect the ninth conceded to the King. [35]

In 1534, the Rectory of Donyngton (of which Richard Hill was Incumbent) was of 14. gross annual value, which was chargeable with 13s. 4d. for Synodals and Procurations.-

The Abbot of Shrewsbury still continued to receive a pension of 6s. 8d. therefrom. [36]


The earliest of these, of whom I have any notice, was a victim of the times in which he lived.-

At the Assizes of January 1256, the Jurors of Brimstree Hundred reported how Simon, Parson of Dunyton, had been slain by unknown Malefactors, who had also burnt his house, and how the vills of Dunyton, Tonge &c. had made no pursuit after the assassins. [37]

At this period the murdered man had been succeeded by one named JAMES, for at the same Assizes an issue was tried as to whether-

Ranulph le Forester had unjustly erected a fence in Duniton to the injury of the free tenement of Hugh de Schenton in the same vill. Roger de Halcton (Haughton), Adam Pollard of Legh, Hugh de Bullinghal (Boningale), Thomas de Albrigton, Robert de Esthull (Astall), and John de Estwik, Recognizors in this cause,

[34] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 245.
[35] Inquisitiones Nonarum, p. 193. We know of no grants made to Buildwas Abbey in Donington Manor, except three acres and a right of Common by Richard de Belmeis. The Parish will therefore have originally been more extensive than the Manor, perhaps comprising part of Buckley, or else the right of Common must have been commuted for a definite quantity of land within the Manor.
[36] Valor Ecclesiasticus, vol. iii, pp. 186, 189.
[37] Placita Coronae, 40 Hen. III, memb. 9.


did not appear. It was found however that Ranulph had erected the said fence in the name of James, Parson of Duniton;- so Hugh the Plaintiff was found to be in misericordia. [38]

At the Assizes of September 1272, HENRY DE BECTON, Parson of Donington subtus Brewode, having demised a messuage and half- virgate in Donington to Ranulf Russell, and the latter being sued for the same by John, son of John Gernyn, alleged his tenancy to be at will of said Henry, and so was dismissed sine die. [39]

RICHARD DE ALBRISTON, tile next Rector of Donington of whom I find any mention, died May 4, 1311, and on June 5 following,-

RICHARD DE POLYLEYE, Subdeacon, was admitted and instituted at presentation of the Abbot and Convent of Salop. This Rector has license for a year's study Nov. 6, 1313, and resigned April 27, 1320. On May 3 following,-

SIR THOMAS DE COVENTRE, Chaplain, was admitted at the presentation of Salop Abbey. On March 10, 1329, he exchanged this preferment for the Vicarage of Wotton (Lichfield Diocese), and the late Vicar thereof,-

SIR ROGER DE BOYVYLE, was instituted here at the usual presentation. On Aug. 3, 1330, Sir Roger Doyvile (sic) exchanged for the Church of Chirchelalford (Church Lawford, Warwickshire) [40] and the Incumbent thereof,-

ROBERT LE VENER, Priest, was instituted here on the usual presentation. He did not long hold the Living, for on July 9, 1339,-

NICHOLAS DE WASTHULL, Rector of Donyngton, having exchanged this Rectory for that of Weston juxta Cammel (Bath and Wells Diocese), the late Rector of Weston,-

JOHN DE PENCRICH, was admitted here. Sir THOMAS (sic) PENECRYCH, Rector of Donington, died August 25, 1349, and on Feb. 11, 1350,-

ROGER DE UMFRESTON, Chaplain, was admitted on the usual presentation. [41]

FRANCIS SANDFORD notices (in 1663-4) two coals of arms in Donington Church Windows, apparently the same as those which may still be seen there. They are-

[38] Ibidem, memb. 15 recto (Placita de Juratis et Assizis).
[39] Salop Assizes, 56 Hen. III, memb. 7 recto.
[40] Compare Dugdale's Warwickshire, p. 31 (Thomas's Edition).
[41] Lichfield Registers, sub annis.


I. Gu, ten Bezants, four, three, two, and one. II. The same, with a Chief ermine. [42]

The first I take to be the coat of Belmeis Lord of Tong, as afterwards borne by his heir - La Zouche. The second will perhaps be the coat of Belmeis of Donington.

Brewood Forest.

BREUDE appears in Domesday as a Staffordshire Manor exclusively belonging to the Bishop of Chester. It contained a spacious wood still known as the Bishop's Wood, and which is noticed in Domesday as an adjunct of the Manor. [1]

But there was a large tract of land hereabouts of which neither the Shropshire nor Staffordshire Domesday takes any notice, but which doubtless formed an exclusive district at the time of the Survey, and was known for more than a Century afterwards as the Royal Forest of Brewood. Its extent may be clearly ascertained.- Weston and Bishop's Wood mark its Northern boundary; Brewood and Chillington its Eastern; Albrighton, Donington, and Tong complete the circle to the South and West.

I have before intimated that land exclusively of the Forest does not necessarily claim any notice in Domesday. Here then is an instance of the fact.- This district occupied hundreds of acres both in Shropshire and Staffordshire, and the only hint which we have of its existence, or the King's appropriation thereof, is where he is said to have retained in his own hands some, probably adjoining, forest-ground in Albrighton. [2]

No notice has occurred to me of any Royal visit to Brewood or its Forest before the time of King John. That Monarch, whose daily movements for the greater part of his reign are well ascertained, is found to have been thrice at Brewood, viz. April 4, 1200, January 27-29, 1206, and August 18, 1207. [3] Each of these visits

[42] Dugdale's Visitation of Shropshire, fo. 42.
[1] Domesday, fo. 247 a. 1. The Bishops of Coventry and Lichfield were generally styled of Chester in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.
[2] Supra, p. 149.
[3] See the "Itinerary of King John", by T. Duffus Hardy, Esq.,- printed in his Introduction to the Patent Rolla of that reign.


formed a halt in a journey between Lichfield and Kinver, and the adjacent Forest was doubtless the object of attraction. Nevertheless it was King John himself who, by one grant after another, surrendered the more imperative rights of the Crown in regard to this district, so that after his reign we find no mention of Brewood as of a Royal Forest.

I will quote one or two documents which indicate the progress of this suppression-

On April 10, 1200, King John, after a visit to Brewood, having reached Worcester, addresses a precept to Geoffrey Fitz Piers and Hugh de Nevill (then Chief Justice of England and the Justice of the Forest) prohibiting them from hindering the Bishop of Coventry in inclosing a Park in his wood of Brewude; for which Park, to be two leagues in circumference, as well as for fortifying Eccleshall Castle, the said Bishop had the King's License. [4]

On March 13, 1204, the King being at Bruges issued his Charter to certify that he "had altogether disforested his Forest of Browud, in all respects pertaining to a Forest or Foresters. Wherefore the said Forest, and the men who dwelt therein, and their heirs, were to be disforested for ever, and quit of the King and his heirs, in all those same respects". [5]

On Feb. 4, 1206, the King informs Hugh de Nevill that he has given the Bishop of Chester "license to make a decoy (saltorium) in his Park of Briwud towards the Forest; and Hugh de Nevill is to allow it". [6]

From this it would appear that the former Charter was not yet in full operation; but the King's retention of his Forest-rights appears more clearly and at a still later period. At the Forest Assizes of March 1209, the following proceeding was duly registered:-

"The Knights and men who live in Brewode in Salopesire give the King 100 merks that they and their heirs may be for ever disforested, according to that which is contained in the King's Charter which they, and the men of Staffordshire, have:- So that all they of the County of Salopesire who have hunted or taken beasts in Brewode within the County of Salopesir may bear their share of the aforesaid fine, rateably with the said Knights and men, according to their respective interests therein". [7]

At these same Assizes, John Bagot and Hamo de Weston were indicted for receiving Marksmen (Bersatores) and Hounds at

[4] Rot. Chart. 1 John, memb. 25 dorso.
[5] Ibidem, 5 John, memb. 10.
[6] Claus. 7 John, memb. 4.
[7] Placita Foreatae, Salop, No. ii, memb. 1.


Blymhill and Weston, but the result of this indictment does not appear. [8]

I find no later notice of Brewood as a Royal Forest nor of the Crown being seized of any lands in the district. A precept of King John, dated 26th July 1213, allows the Archbishop of Dublin to take thirty stags in Brewud Park; but this precept is addressed to the Custodes of the (then vacant) See of Coventry, from which I infer that the Bishop's Park was to supply the order. [9]


The Forest, whose boundaries and history I have been sketching, inclosed at the beginning of the 13th if not at the end of the 12th Century two principal objects of interest, viz. a Convent of Cistercian Nuns, whose house, dedicated to St. Leonard, and still known as White-Ladies, was in Shropshire, and a Convent of Black or Benedictine Nuns, whose house, dedicated to St. Mary, was in Staffordshire. [10]

So far from constituting one foundation, as these establishments are sometimes taken to have done, they had nothing to connect them but their propinquity, and nothing in common but a spirit of mutual rivalry.

It is with the Cistercian and Shropshire House alone that we are concerned, and this is the fittest time to speak of it.-

Though associated with Donington more than any other place, [11] the spot still retains some vestiges of its antient status. It is parochially and manorially independent. Its ruined wall and consecrated precinct are still protected and venerated by members of the Faith under which it was founded.

Its History, like itself, consists but of fragments, for, however

[8] Some words which seem to have stated the illicit objects of the accused are unintelligible.
[9] Claus. 15 John, memb. 3.
[10] I may, in a note, anticipate that third and more romantic interest which now attaches to this district. The Royal Forest of Brewood gave place in course of time to farms and homesteads, one of which, as yet uncleared and unnamed, was afterwards to be known as Boscobel. Perhaps indeed, and at the very time of which we treat, the King's Forest was already nourishing that sapling oak which was destined in its maturity to shelter a King's person.
[11] Tanner makes this house to be in Brewood Parish, and so a part of Brewood Parish to be in Shropshire. Neither assumption is correct. The Nuns were called "of Brewood", not because their house was in Brewood Parish but in Brewood Forest.


interesting to the Antiquary, no Chartulary of this House is known to exist; we have not even a definite Legend as to its origin. [12]

We are told, and I believe truly, that it was founded in the time of Richard I, or of John. It certainly was in full existence dining the latter reign, for besides the grant in Bridgnorth which King John made to this Sisterhood, and which has been already spoken of, [13] his Charter dated September 1, 1212, gives them some immunities in regard to land at Calvreton (Co. Notts) of which they were previously possessed. [14]

Their further endowments, as far as Shropshire contributed, will be or have been detailed in different sections of this book, and where other Counties were concerned, must be epitomized in a note. [15] I may however here say that all details collectively warrant an idea that the property of this Sisterhood was acquired by gradual and small instalments, and that each item represents the consignment of some female member of a wealthy or powerful family to the service of Religion. No more direct and apparent Patronage of this House can be traced in its scattered history than that of the Diocesan Bishops. No consent of the Crown seems to have been necessary on the election of its successive Prioresses.-

The Sisterhood elected their own Superior and the Bishop confirmed or cancelled their choice.

No Seal of the house is known to exist; [16] no earlier Charter,

[12] Mr. Dukes (Antiquities, p. 201) says indistinctively of these Black and White Nunneries, that "it is supposed that they were founded by Isabel Launder and Hubert Walter about the year 1195". Part of this supposition may rest upon a Legend, and seems to require a passing note. If Hubert Walter ever founded a Nunnery, we know enough of him to declare that it was the Cistercian rather than the Benedictine Order which would have had his patronage. If again he ever founded a Shropshire Nunnery, it will have been at about the time indicated (1195-6) when he was Archbishop of Canterbury, Legate of the See of Rome, Viceroy of King Richard, and somewhat occupied in this County. His authority in Brewood Forest must, however, have existed solely under permission or direction of the King.-

As to Isabel Launder, her name indeed is associated with the Black Nunnery of Brewood, but in a way singularly incongruous with any concern in its foundation.- She was its last Prioress, and as such surrendered it to the Commissioners of Henry VIII.
[13] Supra, Vol. I, p. 361.
[14] Rot. Chart. 14 John, memb. 5. The King calls the Sisterhood "Nuns of St. Leonard of Brewud". His Charter of Nov. 15, 1200, to the rival House describes it as the "Church of St. Mary of Brewud". (Rot. Chart. 2 John, memb. 20).
[15] See Tanner's Notitiae Monastica, under 'Shropshire'; New Monasticon, vol. v, pp. 730, 731; Leland's Itinerary, vol. vii, p. 22; Dukes' Antiquities of Shropshire, pp. 201, 202; Pope Nicholas' Taxation, p. 162.
[16] The two Seals alluded to by Mr. Dukes are both of Black- Ladies.


original or transcript, have I been able to discover than that of King John.

The names of a few Prioresses remain to us, viz.-

Alditha, who has already occurred about 1225. [17]-

Cecilia, who seems to have followed her.-

Agnes, who occurs in 1256.-

A letter of Bishop Roger de Northburgh, dated at Heywode, 10th Sept. 1326, directs search to be made through the Archdeaconry of Derby for Elizabeth la Zouche and Alice de Kallerhale, Nuns regularly professed of this House, who had left their Convent. They are when found to be admonished to return within ten days under pain of the Greater Excommunication. All who aid or abet their concealment are threatened with the like penalty. [18]

A letter, by the same Bishop, as to a recent election of a Prioress of this House, will show the names and rank of some of the Sisterhood. [19] It bears date at Heywood, May 29, 1332, and recites as follows:- "that the Priory of White Nuns of Brewod had recently been vacant by resignation of Dame Joan de Huggeford, the last Prioress; that on the third day of the vacancy the Sub-prioress and Convent met in the Chapter House and agreed to elect a Prioress by method of Scrutiny; whereupon Agnes de Weston (Sub-prioress), Beatrice de Bures, and Joan Giffard were appointed Scrutineers to collect and announce the votes of the Convent; that they did so; and that the result was the election of Dame Alice de Harlegh, a Nun of the House". The Prioress-elect had apparently offered the usual opposition to her own promotion, and at last given the not less usual consent. The premises had been reported to the Bishop whose ratification was necessary.-

He had ordered due inquiry to be made as to all particulars, and finding the process of election to have been informal, cancels it altogether, deprives the electing body of the power to elect on this occasion, and appropriates the same power to himself. The Bishop then ("in his own Pontifical Authority") appoints the same Dame Alice de Harlegh to be Prioress, lest the Convent should suffer harm by a protracted vacancy, and because he has heard of the many virtues by which the said Alice is recommended to the office.- Sir Richard Morys, Chaplain, has the Bishop's mandate to induct and instal the new Prioress.

[17] Supra, Vol. I, p. 861.
[18] Lichfield Register, iii, fo. 19.
[19] Ibidem Register, ii, fo. 810.


Dame Alice de Harley died in 1349, when Beatrice de Dene, Prioress-elect, and her Convent, agreed to submit such election to the order of the same Bishop. The Bishop in a letter dated at Heywod, July 29, 1349, appoints the said Beatrice to be Prioress, and orders the Archdeacon of Stafford to instal her. [20]

At this period the site and local possessions of the Priory extended to three carucates of land, which, as we have seen under Donington, were estimated to be in that Parish.

In 27 Henry VIII (1535-6), Dame Margaret, Prioress of this House, returned its gross annual income at 31. 1s. 4d., its outgoings at 13. 10s. 8d., and its net income at 17. 10s. 8d.-

The demesne lands at White Ladies contributed 6. 13s. 4d. of the gross income. The balance was made up by rents in Nottinghamshire, Staffordshire, and Shropshire. The latter arose from small parcels of land at Higley, Chatwall, Rudge, Bold, Sutton (Maddock), Rowton, High-Ercall, Berrington, Shrewsbury, Bridgnorth, Ingardine, Tedstill, Beckbury, and Humfreston. The Advowsons of Muntford (Salop) and Tydshull (Derbyshire) also were appropriate to White-Ladies, and a pension from Bold Chapel, already alluded to.-

Among the outgoings of the House was a chief rent of 10s. to the Lord of Donyngton; an annual fee of 16s. 8d. to Thomas Gifforde, Esq. their Seneschal; and a Salary of 5. for the Chaplain, who by appointment of the Nuns performed services within their Monastery for the souls of their Founders. [21]

The Ministers' Accounts of 28 Henry VIII (1536-7) exhibit the gross income of this House as 35. 3s. 3d. - a difference arising from the addition of a few items of revenue, the alteration of others, and the valuation of the Demesne-lands and Manor being raised to 10. 9s. 6d. [22]

THE ARCHITECTURAL REMAINS at White-Ladies consist of a Chapel in the Norman style with round Arches.

From an ornament over the North Door, I should assign the work to the latter part of the twelfth Century. On the north side is an open round Arch which might have led into a Transept or Chapel.


[20] Ibidem, fo. 224.
[21] Valor Ecclesiasticus, iii, 193, where the return is properly classified with other Shropshire Houses, while that of the Black-Ladies (p. 103) is with equal accuracy given under Staffordshire.
[22] Monasticon, v, 781.



WITHOUT hazarding a conjecture as to the etymology of this name I will proceed at once to state what Domesday says of the Manor, whilst as yet it was held in Demesne by the first Norman Earl of Shrewsbury.

"The same Earl holds Tuange. Earl Morcar held it. Here are III hides geldable. In demesne are IIII ox-teams; and (there are) VIII serfs, and III villains, and II boors with III ox-teams. Here is one league of wood. In time of King Edward (the Manor) was worth 11. (annually); now it is worth 6." [1]

If there be a place in Shropshire calculated alike to impress the Moralist, instruct the Antiquary, and interest the Historian, that place is Tong. It was for centuries the abode or heritage of men, great either for their wisdom or their virtues, eminent either from their station or their misfortunes.

The retrospect of their annals alternates between the Palace and the Feudal Castle, between the Halls of Westminster and the Council-Chamber of Princes, between the battle-field, the dungeon, and the grave.

The History of the Lords of this Manor is in fact the biography of Princes and Prelates, Earls and Barons, Statesmen, Generals, and Jurists.

These are the great names and reminiscences with which the place is associated! - the Saxon Earls of Mercia, brave, patient, and moat unfortunate; - victims of inexorable progress: then their three Norman successors, one wise and politic, another chivalrous and benevolent, the last madly ambitious and monstrously cruel; - then the Majesty of England represented by Henry I, a Prince who, in ability for ruling, almost equalled his Father, and has been surpassed by none of his Successors; - then the sumptuous and viceregal pride of De Belmeis, Bishop, General, Statesman, and withal very Priest; - his collateral heirs with their various and wide-spread interests, dim in the distance of time, but traceable to a common origin; - the adventurous genius and loyal faith of Brittany represented in La Zouche; tales of the oscillating favouritism

[1] Domesday, fo. 258, b. 2.

192 TONG.

and murderous treachery of King John;- overweening ambition and saddest misfortune chronicled in the name of De Braose;- a Harcourt miscalculating the signs of his time and ruined by the error;- a race of Pembruges. whose rapid succession tells of youth and hope and the early grave;- then the open-handed and magnificent Vernons; lastly, Stanley, a name truly English, and ever honourable in English ears, yet for one [2] of whom it was fated to add a last flower to this chaplet of ancestral memories, to cut short the associations which five centuries had grouped around this fair inheritance.

Such summarily is the history of which I am now to give a few of the earlier details.-

That the Norman Earl of Shrewsbury should retain in demesne the richest Manors of his Saxon Predecessors was an act of comparative moderation. Tong and Donington were of this class at a period when a fertile, level, and well-watered soil can alone have constituted Manorial value. That the two Manors thus combined were objects of the Earl's special regard we may learn from the only fact which remains to us of his dealings therewith.-

Within ten years after Domesday, he founded a Church in each of them. Churches were at that period so thinly scattered that the necessity of two so near together can have suggested itself only to a mind intent upon the welfare of a certain locality, and the district, thus cared for by the Earl, was doubtless honoured by his frequent presence.-

There were woods wherein he might exercise his favorite diversion, waters which could supply so devout a Catholic with the proper memo of abstinence, to say nothing of the salt-works attached to Donington,- those essential adjuncts of a great feudal establishment.

On the forfeiture of Earl Robert de Belesme, Tong and Donington will have been of the Demesne of King Henry I. How long they continued so, we know not; we only know the fact, but not the time or particulars, of a grant which that Monarch must have made of both to his Viceroy, Richard de Belmeis, Bishop of London.

Here then is a fitting opportunity to introduce a notice of this remarkable man whose public career for forty years was more or less associated with Shropshire.

[2] Sir Edward Stanley, N.B., Father of the beautiful, but too famous, Venetia, Lady Digby. She was her Father's Co-heir, and, had Sir Edward not sold the estate, Tong might have further been associated with the name of Sir Kenelm Digby.

TONG. 193

It is intimated, by a respectable authority, [3] that Richard de Belmeis was, in the first instance, largely and confidentially employed by Earl Roger de Montgomery. If so, he was doubtless largely rewarded; but being a Clerk, and his preferment probably Ecclesiastical, we cannot appeal to Domesday for any verification of this statement. [4] Nevertheless we find Richard de Belmeis prominent among the great men who attested the Charters of Earl Roger, and a witness also of all the Charters, genuine and doubtful, which are assigned to Earl Hugh, in the Register of Shrewsbury Abbey.

His non-participation in the treason of Robert de Belesme is apparent and most probably recommended him to the notice and patronage of Henry I. Here I must again quote the Welsh Chronicle for specific details which can be supplied from no other source, but whose veracity is warranted by a most extraordinary coherence with less relevant documents.-

Three Sons of Blethyn ap Convyn, Prince of Powis, had, in the first instance, allied themselves to Belesme, but the promises of King Henry had subsequently detached Jorwerth, the most influential though not the eldest of the three, from the confederacy. On the fall of Belesme, about August 1102, Jorwerth went to the King's Court to claim his reward, but without success. The King afterwards, probably mistrusting his intentions, invited Jorwerth to a conference at Shrewsbury. Jorwerth came, was accused of treason by the King's Commissioners and thrown into prison. This was at the close of the year 1102. The King's Commissioners who were sent to Shrewsbury on the occasion were "Richard de Belmersh or Beleasmo, afterwards appointed by King Henry to be Warden of the Marches and governour of the Countie of Salop: Walter Constable, the father of Milo Earle of Hereford, and Rayner the King's lieutenant in the County of Salop".-

If this be correct it shows us that Rainald, the Domesday Sheriff of Shropshire, had not joined Belesme's rebellion, but was in office at a subsequent period. It also shows that Richard de

[3] Powel's Chronicle, p. 120 (Edit. 1584). "Cheefe dooer about Roger Mountgomery, Earl of Salop".
[4] Domesday does not record the names of Church Incumbents or Church Dignitaries; but the Earl had large patronage of this kind, and we know from Ordericus that he specially abated the society of wise Clerks. Richard de Belmeis' probable tenure of a lay fee at Meadowley has been already pointed out (Vol. I, p. 149), and I am by no means sure that he does not occur elsewhere in Domesday, and in a similar relation.

194 TONG.

Belmeis did not become Sheriff or Viceroy immediately on Belesme's fall.- And the latter fact can be substantiated by other evidence.-

A Precept of King Henry restores, to Ralph Bishop of Chichester, land near the wall of that City, which he had held "in the day of Robert de Belismo". This precept is addressed to R. de Belmes, Hugh de Faleyse, and all the King's Barons of Sussex. It shows Richard de Belmeis in the King's employ indeed, and as concerned with the escheated honours of Robert de Belesme, but not yet holding office in Shropshire. And this precept passed "in Council at Westminster; "- assuredly that very Council which the King is said to have held there at Michaelmas 1102. [5]

Within the next two months Belmeis will have been sent to Shrewsbury on the commission already described, and, as I believe, for more permanent objects. In fact, there is every reason to think that this Commission closed the Shrievalty of Rainald, and that Belmeis succeeded him,- but with fuller powers than an ordinary Sheriff, and having a deputy (Fulcoius) to discharge the routine duties of the office. This will appear from another precept of King Henry, the object of which was to support the title of the Monks of St. Remigius-at-Rheims to certain lands in Shropshire. This precept is addressed to "Richard de Belmeis, and Fulqueius the Sheriff and all the Barons of Salopesire". It is dated "at Westminster, in Council", and issued certainly at Christmas 1102. [6]

The Chartulary of St. Remigius-at-Rheims supplies us with another, and perhaps later precept of King Henry, which I quote here merely to show that Belmeis was on that occasion addressed simply as Sheriff of Salop; [7] but I have before alluded to the

[5] Monasticon, viii, 1168, No. xxviii. William de Werelwast, sole witness of this deed, attests many of the King's Charters at this period. He was sent as Ambassador to the Pope in 1103, and was consecrated Bishop of Exeter in 1107.
[6] We have two copies of this Deed (Monasticon, vii, p. 1043; v; and p. 1099), one of which serves to correct the other. The sole witness, Walter or Waldric, Chaplain, attests other deeds of the period; but immediately afterwards he became Chancellor, and as Waldric or Walter, Chancellor, attests various deeds, the earliest of which bears date Jan. 13, 1103. Thus we obtain the limits within which this precept issued, viz. between Michaelmas 1102 (when Belmeis was not yet Viceroy) and Jan. 1103 (when Waldric was Chancellor). The Court which King Henry held at Westminster (Christmas 1102) is noticed by the Chroniclers and supplies the exact date.

[7] Monasticon, vii, p. 1093; vii; and p. 1099. The precept is also addressed to Robert Bishop of Chester, and Nicholas Sheriff of Stafford. It is tested by Henry Earl of Warwick, at Waltham.

TONG. 195

complex nature of his office, and the variety of names by which it was consequently described. [8]

Within the first five years of his provincial trust we have a well-recorded instance of his "violence and might", followed however by the exercise of milder powers in his capacity of a Mediator and Judge. [9] Of that however hereafter. We now pass to his ecclesiastical career.-

On Whitsunday (May 24), 1108, he was elected to the vacant See of London, and, not being in full Orders, was ordained Priest on one of the following Ember days (May 27, 29, or 30), by Archbishop Anselm at Mortlake. [10]

In July of this year the King was waiting on the coast of Sussex to embark for Normandy. Anselm came, at the King's request, to the sea-port that he might give the King his blessing, ere he sailed. On the night of his arrival Anselm was seized with sudden illness, and when morning came was so weak as to be unable to cross an arm of the sea which separated his hospice from that of the King. The Monarch, hearing thereof, sent the Bishops of Exeter and Winchester to excuse Anselm's attendance, and to recommend perfect rest. He however commended himself in his journey to the Archbishop's regard, his Son, whom he left behind, and his whole Kingdom, to the Archbishop's care. He besought him moreover, by the love he bore him, that he would consecrate Richard, Bishop-Elect of London, at Chichester, since that City was near, and there were Bishops at hand who could assist in the ceremony.

The reason, says Eadmer, why the King was so urgent about this matter was alleged to be as follows:- "because the said Richard was a most able man in secular affairs and the King was arranging to send him, on the instant, far off to the Western Marches of England, there to manage the King's concerns. Anselm had special reasons for not consecrating Belmeis at Chichester, but to oblige the King he performed the ceremony in his own Chapel at Pageham, on Sunday, July 26, the Bishops of Winchester, Salisbury, Chichester, and Exeter assisting". [11]

[8] Supra, Vol. I, p. 245.
[9] Salop Chartulary, No.1.
[10] Eadmer, p. 96.
[11] Eadmer, pp. 96, 97. I have been particular in giving theme details, because in the Sheriffs of Shropshire (p. 81) Belmeis is assumed to have relinquished his provincial office on his Consecration. The probability is that he returned to Shropshire with larger powers than ever.-

I by no means adopt the reflection which in the same page is cast upon Powel's Chronicle. Its coincidences with ascertained truth are wonderful.

196 TONG.

Thus much from the Diary of Eadmer, the friend and companion of Anselm himself, and by far the most accurate of the Chroniclers of that age.

On August 9, 1108, "Bishop Belmeis assisted at the consecration of Radulph Bishop of Rochester, and made a handsome offering to his Mother-Church of Canterbury, as indeed the King had desired him to do".

Now, probably, Belmeis returned to Shropshire, for the Welsh Chronicler describing him as "Richard, Bishop of London, whom the King had appointed Warden of the Marches", says he was at Shrewsbury in this year. There was a disturbance in Wales, for Owen ap Cadogan ap Blethyn, a Prince of the house of Powis, had forcibly carried off the wife and children of an Englishman,- Gerald Steward of Pembroke. The Bishop is represented as forthwith treating with Ithell and Madoc, sons of Riryd ap Blethyn (and so cousins of Owen) whom with other Welsh Chieftains he bribed to take or kill the offender, and revenge the insult offered to the King of England. Owen escaped to Ireland, but returning within the year was fortunate in finding his enemy Madoc ap Riryd at variance with the Bishop.

The latter had, it seems, required Madoc to deliver up certain English Felons whom he was harbouring. Madoc refused, and his quarrel with the Viceroy led to his reconciliation with Owen, and their joint attack, in the following year, on the lands of all Norman or English settlers in Wales.

Towards the end of May 1109, King Henry returned from Normandy, and the Viceroy of Shropshire was forthwith in attendance at Court. Archbishop Anselm being dead, it fell to this aspiring Prelate's lot to consecrate Thomas, Archbishop of York. This ceremony took place on June 27, 1109, in the Church of St. Paul's, London.

In the Autumn of this year the King visited Shropshire and Nottinghamshire. It was at Castle-Holgate that he issued his writ, appointing Hervey, Bishop of Bangor, to the newly created See of Ely. It was also, as I suppose, during this Royal visit that the Bishop of London adjudicated, in the King's presence, that suit about a Prebend of Morville which has been already described. [12] The Bishop of London passed on with the King to Nottingham, and

[12] Supra, Vol. I, p. 32. The Assessors in this trial were Alan Fitz Fleald, Hamo Peverel, Roger and Robert Corbet, and Herbert son of Helgot.

TONG. 197

on Oct. 17, attended the General Council, at which was finally settled the constitution of the See of Ely.

At Christmas 1109, the King held another great Court at London, and with more than usual pomp. Thomas, Archbishop of York, was in attendance, expecting that, the See of Canterbury being vacant, he would have to celebrate mass before the King and place the Crown on the King's head. The Bishop of London however led the King by the hand into Church and performed the said ceremonies. Afterwards, meeting at the King's table, the two Prelates again disputed about their precedence, whereupon the King dismissed them both to dine at home, not wishing to hear their quarrel. The Bishop of London's conduct on this occasion was justified by him on two grounds, viz. that being Dean of Canterbury he was the proper representative of the Primacy; and that his Consecration having preceded the Archbishop's he was, according to St. Gregory's Institutes, the superior. Eadmer, who relates all this, knew in fact that it was for the sake of attaining this precedence that Belmeis had hurried forward his own consecration, though other grounds (as above related) had been given out to the public. Eadmer had the truth not only from private friends of the Bishop, but from the Bishop's own acknowledgment in familiar conversation with Eadmer himself. [13]

Belmeis now probably returned to Shropshire, where the unsettled state of the Border must have required his constant presence. Owen and Madoc, before mentioned, had wound up their enormities by the murder of a Bishop, William de Brabant, which so enraged the King that they thought it prudent to retire for a time to Ireland. The year 1110 however found Madoc again in the Principality and ready to purchase the favour of Belmeis. This he effected by murdering Cadogan ap Blethyn, Owen's Father, whom, with his said son Owen, the Bishop most specially detested. Madoc was rewarded by Belmeis with a grant of lands, but Owen, returning at the same time from Ireland, effected a separate reconciliation with the King, in person.

This is the last direct notice which we have of the interference of Richard de Belmeis in Welsh affairs. The grossest treachery seems to have pervaded this part of his policy, but it was perhaps balanced by specific circumstances with which, of course, the Welsh Chroniclers do not acquaint as. They draw, however, a general picture of Wales and its Rulers, faithful enough, and which warrants a

[13] Eadmer, p. 106.

198 TONG.

suspicion of the very worst particulars. The King invaded the Country in 1114, but his success, whether in arms or negotiation, had no permanent results. Utter subjugation came in the course of ages to cure those inherent evils, which Wales self-governed must have fostered and suffered from, till the end of time.

Of the duration of Belmeis' power in Shropshire we have no direct information. The apparent dates of the various precepts which the King addressed to him in that capacity, must suffice for our information on this head. The latest of these I have already quoted, as having passed between 1121 and 1123. [14] His resignation at a somewhat later date will appear probable from circumstances presently to be mentioned.

Of Belmeis as a Jurist, we know little more than the great authority with which he was invested, and which, within his Province, was equal to that of Royalty itself. What appears more extraordinary still is, that he should be found presiding at a purely Ecclesiastical Synod of the district. His judgments, the few which remain, belong properly to the localities which they affected. Two of them are preserved to us in his own words as he recorded them in the royal form and style of Letters Patent. The first was given apparently about A.D. 1110, in a Court composed of Church Dignitaries and Laymen which sat at Wistanstow. The second was his decision given in an Archidiaconal Synod at Castle Holgate, about 1115. [15] The extraordinary prescriptive rights of Wenlock Priory were on both occasions in question, and Belmeis supported them with most determined and transparent zeal.

Something more should be said of his, not very frequent, appearance in the King's Court or in company with his fellow Suffragans, something too of his connection with his own See and Diocese.

On August 1111, he was with the King at Waltham (Hants), where the latter was waiting to embark for Normandy. In September 1114, he attended the King when similarly delayed at Burnham (Essex). On June 27, 1115, he was present at the Enthronement of Archbishop Ralph at Canterbury; and, on Dec. 28

[14] Supra, VoL p. 246. He is both addressed in, and stands first witness to, a Charter of Henry I, which passed at Shrewsbury in the same interval. (Salop Chartulary, 46, c.)
[15] Pat. 22 Edw. III, p. 3, memb. 34. King Edward treats the Bishop's acts with the same respect as those of any King his predecessor;- e.g. "Inspeximus litteras patentes quas celebris memoriae Ricardus Londinensis Episcopus fecit Wenlocensi Ecclesisiae in haec verba".

TONG. 199

following, attended with the King and Queen at the Dedication of the Abbey Church of St. Alban's. On April 4, 1120, he assisted at the Consecration of David, Bishop of Bangor; on January 16, 1121, at that of Richard, Bishop of Hereford; and on October 2, 1121, at that of Gregory, Bishop of Dublin; which last two took place at Lambeth. In this same year he attests Royal Charters at Windsor and Westminster.

On February 16, 1123, William Curboil, Prior of St. Osyth's (a house of Belmeis' foundation), was consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury. William Gifford, Bishop of Winchester, performed the ceremony, apparently because the Bishop of London was at the time suffering from paralysis. [16]

He will, however, have affixed his own signature to a great Charter which Henry I expedited, later in the same year, to the Church of Exeter. [17]

William of Malmsbury, speaking of Maurice, Belmeis' predecessor in the See of London, commends him for his magnificent improvements in St. Paul's Cathedral. "But such", he adds, "was the extravagance of his design that he left his successors to pay the cost of his vast undertakings. And at length, when Richard his Successor had assigned all the Episcopal Revenue to the building, supporting himself and his kindred from other sources, he seemed as though he accomplished nothing in proportion to such a prodigal outlay. Wherefore as years passed b he grew weary and despairing of the good intent which he entertained in his early Episcopacy, and by degrees fainted therein".

"There is a place", continues Malmsbury, "in London Diocese, commonly called Cic (Chich) by the East-Saxons, where rests Saint Osyth, that Virgin famous for miracles. This house had Richard amplified with certain grants of land and the introduction of Regular Canons. There were here, and still are, Clerks of noted learning; and a joyful harvest, so to speak, clothed the whole country under the example of men thus trained. And the Bishop himself was at one time minded to retire hither and cast off the ensnarements of the world, especially as he had experienced some warning from a chronic paralytic disorder; but the habit of power restrained his mind, diseased as it was with such allurements. William, who succeeded Ralph in the Archiepiscopacy, was the first Prior of this House, who, though a Clerk, and at first

[16] Diceto, p. 504.
[17] Monasticon, ii, 539, 20.

200 TONG.

dreaded by the Monks (of Canterbury), yet did nothing to cause them regret, being a man of sound religion, great affability, and neither slothful nor hasty". [18]

Richard de Belmeis, besides his greater donations to St. Paul's Cathedral and the Priory of St. Osyth, was also a Benefactor to the Nunnery of Clerkenwell.

There is much probability that at the last, he retired to St. Osyth's and died there. The latter event took place on January 16, 1127. When he felt his end approaching, he was careful to make formal record of a certain act of restitution which he owed to the Abbey of Shrewsbury. His Confessors were his own Nephew William, Dean of St. Paul's, and Fulk, a Prebendary of the same Church, who had succeeded William Corboil in the Priory of St. Osyth. The said Prior certified this act of restitution in a series of letters addressed to the King, to William, Archbishop of Canterbury, to Bernard, Bishop of St. David's, and to G (Geoffrey), Abbot of Salop.-

The Archbishop transmitted his intelligence to Pagan Fitz John (then Sheriff) and all the Barons of Shropshire. [19]

This restitution related to the Manor of Betton. Another, not so circumstantially recorded, was of the Church of Donington. It has been already noticed. A third was of the Church of Tong, and perhaps took place before the Bishop was in extremis. It was tested by Roger, Archdeacon of Salop, Clarembald the Clerk, and John, Clerk of the Queen. [20]

The Canons of St. Osyth procured the interment of their distinguished Benefactor, within their Priory Church, where a marble tomb long bore the following inscription:-

Hic jacet Richardus Beauveis, cognomine Rufus, London: Episcopus, vir probus et grandaevus, per totam vitam laboriosus, fundator noster religiosus, et qui multa bona nobis et ministris ecclesiae suae Sancti Pauli contulit. Obiit avi Januarii, MCXXVII. Cujus animae propitietur Altissimus. [21]

Belmeis, during his occupancy of the See of London, appears to have conferred some Prebendal preferment on his relations, and one at least of these would seem to have had something more than a

[18] W. Malmsbury, p. 134 b.
[19] Salop Chartulary, Nos. 22, 23.
[20] Ibidem, No. 329 b. The Queen, whose Clerk attested this deed, was, I doubt not, Adeliza, who had been presented with the County of Salop at a great Court held in the Christmas of 1126.
[21] Weever's Sepulchral Monuments, p. 607.

TONG. 201

collateral claim upon his consideration. We have nothing however here to do with the Prebendaries of St. Paul's.

Belmeis' successor in all those Churches and lands in Shropshire, which having first belonged to Godebald (the Priest) and Robert son of Godebald, had been conferred by Henry I on the deceased Prelate, was Richard de Belmeis his Nephew. The latter had a special grant of the same from the King, which is preserved, and must have passed about August 1127. [22] This second Richard de Belmeis was son of Walter de Belmeis, brother of Richard de Belmeis I. I shall have to notice him again as Founder or Co-founder of Lilleshall Abbey, and also as eventually occupying the See of London.

The temporal heir of Richard de Belmeis (I), was another son of his Brother Walter, viz. Philip de Belmeis, of whom as succeeding to the Lordships of Tong and Donington I am now to speak.

When Richard de Belmeis on his deathbed directed the restoration of Betton to Salop Abbey, he intimated the possible alternative that his Nephew Philip might be able to re-obtain it by the good will and free concession of the Monks. Fulk, Prior of St. Osyth, before the Bishop had expired, informed Philip de Belmeis, his Knights and serving-men, of the expressions of his Uncle and the state of the case. It appears however that Philip did not acquiesce in the proposed restitution. A suit in the King's Court ensued, and a trial was to have been held before the King and the Archbishop of Canterbury at Woodstock, probably about Easter 1127.-

Then however Philip de Belmeis made default (defecit a justitia) and Betton was restored to the Abbey, Archbishop William, Legate of the Apostolick See, certifying the same to all the faithful. [23]

Philip de Belmeis next appears in litigation with Roger de Clinton, Bishop of Lichfield. Philip had seized upon some land (probably lying between Tong and Brewood) to which the Bishop had a claim. The latter was consequently, in 1130, indebted two merks to the King, his fine "that Philip de Belmeis might try legal issue with him (placitet versus eum)" as to the land so seized. [24]

Between this time and the year 1135, we find Philip de Belmeis holding three Knights' Fees in the Honour of Arundel. [25] We have

[22] Monasticon, vi, p. 262, No. ii.
[23] Salop Chartulary, No. 66.
[24] Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. I, Staffordshire, p. 76.
[25] Liber Niger, 66.- The Liber Niger is mainly a return of the years 1166-8, and the much earlier date which I thus confidently assign to a particular section thereof needs explanation. I enter into the question more fully as I shall again have to quote this document with reference to Shropshire names.- The Earl of Arundel making return in 1165-6 of the Knights'-Fees in the Honour of Arundel, prefaces his statement thus:-

"Our Lord King Henry, on occasion of a certain dispute which arose among the Knights of the Honour of Arundel about a oertain Army of Wales, chose four of the better, more legal, and more ancient Knights, and caused them to make recognition of the Knight's service of the Honour; and he was unwilling thereafter to listen to any one touching the legality of those four Knights' decision and their sworn return. And this was their recognition", &c.

This preface (which I translate from the original and not from Hearne's inaccurate transcript) is followed by a list of the lands and persons on which and on whom the said four Knights assessed the relative proportions of service. Among them is the name of Philip do Belmeis, asusesed at three fees; of Alan de Dunstanvill, assessed at eight fees; of Hugo de Faleise, assessed at five fees; and of Savaric, assessed at three fees. Then follows further statement made by the Earl himself of such Feoffments as he had since granted in the Honour.

My position that the King Henry alluded to was Henry I and not Henry II, and that the "army of Wales" must have been levied in or before 1135, when Henry I died.

Mr. Stapleton has already pointed out that the return made by the four Knights waa referable to an earlier period than 1165. He identified the "army of Wales" spoken of with that of 1159 (meaning, I suppose, 1157). Vide Rot. Norman, ii, xxxiij.

The same internal evidence which led Mr. Stapleton to that discovery leads me still further. Savaric, one of the Tenants of the Honour, was dead in Stephen's reign, and his Son and Successor, Ralph, dead before 1157. Alan de Dunstanvill also was dead before 1156, and Hugh de Faleise, a third Tenant, has occurred to us as a man of great trust in Sussex fifty years before Mr. Stapleton's date of 1159. Less proof than this would suffice; for, having once established the date of the four Knights' assessment to be earlier than 1156, we must go back at least to 1135. There was no intermediate "army of Wales" levied by any King Henry. Now Henry I meditated an invasion of Wales in 1135. We do not indeed hear of the levy of an English army on that occasion, and the King's immediate death (Dec. 1135) is hardly consistent with his alleged unwillingness to disturb the assessment, if of the current year. Yet I cannot help referring the whole matter to that year. At all events the assessment appears to be later than 1130.

202 TONG.

already seen his Uncle the Bishop, interested in the County of Sussex, and the Nephew's tenure there had doubtless devolved to him from that source.

It was probably this Sussex Tenure which, in the year 1138, separated Philip de Belmeis from the cause for which the greater Feodaries of Shropshire were contending, and associated his interests with those of an Usurper. When Stephen, in August of that year, was besieging Shrewsbury, Philip de Belmeis was with him, and attested the Charter whereby the King confirmed the then recent foundation of Buildwas Abbey. [26]

[26] Monasticon, v, 356, No. i. Philip de Belmeis had also witnessed the Foundation Charter itself which was by Bishop Roger de Clinton, and passed in 1136 or errly in 1137. (Blakeway's MSS.; Parochial Notices, i, 76.)

TONG. 203

Belmeis' personal interest in that House, was soon afterwards shown more substantially by a grant of his own. The original deed is extant and as a document of great interest and bearing upon a very obscure period of County History, must be given entire.

Notum sit omnibus hominibus et amicis meis tam Francis quam Anglia quod ego Philippus de Belmes dono et concedo ecclesiae Sanctae Mariae et Sancti Ceddae de Bildewas et Abbati omnique Conventui ejusdem loci terram quae fuit Selferi de Rochelai pro salute animae meae totiusque prolis meae, liberam et quietam ab omni temporali servitute. Preterea sciatis me concessisse illis omnia necessaria sua simul cum pasnagio suo de bosco meo de Lusciard et de Brewud et communem pasturem de Thonga in bosco et plano. Igitur tam pro hiis quam pro aliis beneficiis prefato loco a me adjunctis ego et Matilda uxor mea et heredes mei suscipimur in fraternitatem ejusdem ecclesiae de Bildewas et matris ecclesiae de Savinneio et omnium aliarum ad illam pertinentium. Quapropter precipio et precor omnes qui mihi sint amici ut eandem elemosynam manuteneant et defendant sicut diligent salutem animae meae atque meorum. Unde etiam in confirmacionem hujus meae donacionis presentem cartam sigillo meo munio et testes assigno. Testes, Robertus de Belmes, Herbertus de Castello Nicholas frater ejus. Philippus filius Odonis, Helias de Sai, Johannes Bagot, Robertus de Girros, Hugo de Sai, Robertus Capellanus, Thuroldus de Mainnio.

Signum Philippi de Belmes. Signum Matildae uxoris ejus Signum Philippi filii ejus. Signum R filii ejus. [27]

This Charter must have passed about 1138 or 1139. It shows Ruckley to have been at that period a member of the Manor of Tong. It shows the latter to have comprised the Lizard and to have extended far towards Brewood. It gives us a list of witnesses to which I shall often have to recur. It furnishes the names of the Grantor's wife and heir, and we shall see that his second son Ranulph must be the person indicated by the initial letter-R.

[27] Charter in possession of George Pritchard, Esq., of Broseley. Of the two Seals originally attached to this invaluable document, the first (that of the Grantor) is broken, the second (probably that of his wife) is gone.

The marks were evidently added by the parties under whose names they stand. The deed is translated in Mr. Dukes' Appendix (page lxv) and supposed to be of date "about 1150".

204 TONG.

It illustrates the connexion in which Philip stood to the Lord of Castle Holgate (Herbert), viz. as his Tenant at Meadowley. Its further significances I must at present postpone.-

Philip de Belmeis' patronage of the Order of Savigny was for some reason or other soon withdrawn.

Not ten years after his grant to Buildwas, he is seen to be promoting, if not himself founding an Abbey in the immediate neighbourhood of Tong, and of a totally different class. Nay further, his mode of establishing this second House must have materially diminished the value of his former benefits to Buildwas.

Philip de Belmeis was in fact the originator of that great Augustine institution which was, through the further favour of his Brother Richard, eventually to find an establishment at Lilleshall. His deed of Foundation runs as follows,-

"To his Lord and most beloved Father, Roger the venerable Bishop of Chester, and to all other prelate and subject sons of Holy Church, Philip de Belmeis, greeting in the Lord.

Know, O Father, and A beloved brotherhood of Prelates and Subjects, that I have given and conceded in lasting almoigne and perpetual possession, for the souls of my Father and Mother, of my wife, and of my other Ancestors; and for the health of myself, my wife and children (filiorum), all the land which is contained between Wathlingestreete and Merdiche, for the foundation of a Church in honour of the Holy Mary, Mother of God, to Canons of the Order of Arroasia, who having come from the Church of St. Peter at Dorchester, are there regularly serving God and St. Mary; (I give it) free and quit, and absolved of all secular service and exaction. I concede also to them advantage of the neighbouring woods, both for fire and for building materials. I have also added the Church of St. Elena of Aessevi (Ashby, Co. Leicester), with the Church of Blackfordbi, to which sixty acres are attached, and with its other appurtenances. I have further added in the same Till of Aessibi all that land of my demesne, which is called Suarteclive, and also the land of Haco Sutor; and tithe of my mills in the same vill; and tithes of my herds, viz., of mares and colts; and tithes of my pannage; and free pannage for their swine, and advantage of my wood, both for fire and building materials. Of this donation then and concession these underwritten are Witnesses: Robert, Bishop of Hereford; Philip son of Philip de Belmis, who is not only a witness but a Promoter and Conceder (Conditor et Concessor) of the aforesaid almoigne;

TONG. 205

Dame Matilda, daughter of William Meschin, [28] wife of Philip de Belmis aforesaid; Herbert de Castello, Hugo de Cuilli, Hugo de Say, Philip Fitz Odo and Roger his Brother; Roger de Ewias, Robert Clerk, Walter de Aessebi. Farewell in the Lord to thy Holiness. Amen". [29]

This Charter passed undoubtedly after the grant to Buildwas above recited and before May 1145; for at the latter date, these Arroasian Canons, having migrated from Tong to Donington Wood, under the auspices of Richard de Belmeis, Dean of St. Alkmund's, were called Canons of Duninton. They found soon afterwards a more permanent resting place at Lilleshall, and when settled there, continued to enjoy all the benefits conferred on their fraternity by Philip de Belmeis. The Lizard however instead, of being the Site of their house, became as we shall see, only a Grange thereof.

There are other points in Philip de Belmeis' Charter which require notice. Two boundaries of the land granted for the foundation of a Church are named. These are Watling Street, the Northern boundary, and Meredich, which I conclude to have been the Eastern, and identical with the rivulet which flowing from North to South, now supplies a spacious artificial lake known as Tong-Mere. The Western limit of Belmeis' grant will consequently have been the Manor of Idsall, its Southern his own domain of Tong.

The Lizard Grange, thus bounded, is still in name a Grange, and though the locality be otherwise unremarkable, it has its interest to the Antiquary, as having been the germ and once proposed site of an establishment, which grew elsewhere to great magnificence.

[28] It does not appear who William Meschin, Father of Matilda de Belmeis was. Dugdale's account (Baronage, i, 89) of William de Meschines, Lord of Coupland, and Brother of Ranulph Earl of Chester, would not, as far as date is concerned, except him from being the person named. But this William de Meschines appears eventually to have been represented by a daughter and sole heir, Cecily wife of Robert de Romely. However, Dugdale's, and indeed all other accounts of the Barony of De Meschines, are either confused or inconclusive, and I think it possible that further evidence may connect Matilda with that house.

The second William D'Albini of Belvoir is also said to have been surnamed Meschines. A probability that his family might intermarry with that of Belmeis, arises from their relative position in the same County (Leicestershire); but the era of the Albini specified is too late to allow of his having been Father of Matilda de Belmeis.

[29] Monasticon, vi, 262; iii;- where the document is accurately printed in the original Latin.

206 TONG.

It is probable that Philip de Belmeis' possession of Ashby (now Ashby de la Zouch) and Blackfordby in Leicestershire arose under a grant thereof by Henry I, to his Uncle the Bishop.

Be that as it may, we have now seen Philip seized of lands in Shropshire, Sussex, and Leicestershire. It is almost certain that he had Manors also in Staffordshire, and probable that some estates in Cheshire and other Counties which were held by his heirs were derived from him.

The last feature which I shall here notice in his Charters is that attestation by Tenants of the Honour of De Lacy which may serve to throw some light on a great and as yet unexamined genealogical problem.

I cannot suppose that Philip de Belmeis long survived his grant to the Arroasian Canons of Dorchester.

Of Philip de Belmeis the younger I have only one notice as his Father's Successor. Calling himself Philip, Son of Philip de Beumes, and addressing Walter, Bishop of Coventry (who sat from Oct. 1149 to Dec. 1159), he confirms to "the Canons Regular of St. Mary of Lilleshill, of the Order of Arroasia, all the land which lies between Watlingestret and Merdische, and also the Church of Aessibi with that of Blackfordbye". [30]

Philip de Belmeis junior, who was living at the time of Henry II's

[30] Dodsworth, vol. cx, fo. 43, b. I am favoured by T. Rossell Potter, Esq., with another transcript of this deed, including the Testing Clause, which is very important. The names given are Richard Bishop of London (consecrated 28 Sept. 1162), Richard Archdeacon of London (omitted in Le Neve's List), Hugo a London, Radulf de Belmeys "my Brother", Peter Fitz William, Roger de Arundel, Richard de Belmeye, William de Costenteine "my Knights", and Roger "my Clerk", and Robert Fitz William, William de Pontefracto, Robert de Belmeys, William his Brother, Peter "Candarius (Qy. Camerarius) meus", Maurice Pincerna, Robert Camerarius, and other Servents of the Bishop of London.-

The deed therefore passed between 1162 and 1169. Another transcript by Dodsworth (vol. 141, fo. 49, b.) gives Hugh Archdeacon of London, and Philip Fitz William, as second and fourth witnesses.

Dodsworth appends to this deed his ides of the descent of Belmeis and La Zouche. The scheme is however inconsistent with the very evidence on which Dodsworth founds it. A Trial about the Manor of Betton, which is recorded on the Rolls of Hilary Term, 1226, gives William de Belmeis as the Brother and next heir of Philip junior, and omits all mention of Ranulph. This is a mere mistake of the Law-Clerk. At a previous stage of the same suit, during the County Assizes of 1221, the descent was declared to have been as stated in the text and much secondary evidence confirms the better authority of the Provincial Record.

The annexed Pedigree of Belmeis and La Zouche is, I believe, accurate in all points which it distinctly asserts. The doubts which are inseparable from such an investigation I have indicated by waved lines, or such other marks as seemed suitable for the purpose.

TONG. 207

accession (1154), was succeeded by his Brother Ranulph, of whom I have the following notices.

In a donum of the Knights of Nottinghamshire, recorded Michaelmas 1159, Radulf de Bealmes' proportion (two merks) is pardoned by writ of the King. [31]

A Certificate remains on the Salop Chartulary, whereby Ranulph de Belmeis, addressing all his heirs, kindred, friends, and vassals, tells them that he came before the full County of Salop and there acknowledged that he wrongfully held Betton, which belonged to the Monks of Shrewsbury, and which his Ancestors had unjustly held. He restored it, and was thereupon received into the Society of the said Monks. Of this were witnesses the Barons and Knights of the whole County. [32]

In the Liber Niger (1165-6), his return as a Tenant in capite is not preserved. His Tenure at Meadowley, indicated in that Record, has been already noticed. But a Tenure of three Knights' Fees held by him under the Baron Stafford at that period, is fully stated and requires particular notice. These fees were apparently of old feoffment, that is, had been bestowed on Ranulf's ancestors before the death of Henry I. His Under-Tenant in two thereof was John Bigod (Bagod) and in the third, Hervey de Wilbrichtone. [33]

Ranulph de Belmeis therefore may be taken to have been Mesne-Lord of Blymhill, Brinton, and Wilbrighton, all in the County of Stafford. His Tenure in Sussex at the same period has before been noticed, viz. as standing in the Record under the name of his Father.

At this period Ranulph de Belmeis seems to have been employed by Henry II in Wales. The Castles of Rhuddlan and Basingwerk had remained in the King's hands since 1157, when they were garrisoned by him as a result of his first Welsh campaign. At Michaelmas 1166 the Sheriffs of Warwickshire and Leicestershire had paid 10. by the King's order to Randulph de Belmes for garrison (municionem) of the Castles of Basingwer, Roelend and Prestinton (Prestatton).

At Michaelmas 1167, Tong and Tong-Norton (entered as "Tonge et Norton Randulfi") had been amerced one merk by Alan de Nevill for some offence against the Forest-Laws.

At the same period, Ranulph de Belmeis was deceased, for the Sheriff of Shropshire accounts to the Crown, for a sum of

[31] Rot. Pip. 5 Hen. II.
[32] Salop Chartulary, No. 294.
[33] Liber Niger, i, 136.


[For pedigree, see pdf.]

210 TONG.

3. 10s. 6d. "of the ferm of Twanga, the land of Randulf de Belmeis". [34]

Thus terminated the elder male line of De Belmeis, for Ranulf died without issue, and his heir was his Sister Alice.

She, whether single at the time or a Widow, is recorded under the name af Alice de Beaumeys as having granted the Mill of Tong to Lilleshall Abbey. [35] I do not find this gift to have had any subsequent confirmation, nor can I think that it was operative.

I proceed now to speak of the Husband and the descendants of this Heiress.-

Alan la Zouche, son of Geoffrey Vicomte of Rohan in Brittany, was doubtless descended from the reigning Earls or Dukes of that province. [36] The particular line of such descent I will not here attempt to determine. Its general probability arises from three considerations, viz. that those Earls had had various interests in England ever since the Conquest, that others of their descendants were surnamed La Zouche, and that Swavesey (Cambridgeshire), which had originally been given to one of these Earls, subsequently belonged to Zouche of Ashby.

It was in the Spring of 1166 that Henry II, by an able negotiation

[34] Rot. Pip. 12 & 13 Hen. II.
[35] Patent, 18 Ric. II, p. 1, memb. 7.
[36] Dugdale (Baronage, p. 688), prefacing hia account of Zouche of Ashby, says as follows:-

"That this Ancient and Noble Family is branched from the Earls of Britanny, all our Genealogists do agree; though they do not deduce the Line of that Descent in each Point alike. To the intent therefore that it may the more clearly appear how it is, I have thought fit to take notice, That William la Zusche in that confirmation to the Monks of Swavesey in Cambridgeshire, of the grants made by his Ancestors unto the Abbey of S. Segius and Bacus in Anjow (whereunto thbs Priory of Swavesey was a Cell) calleth Roger la Zusche his Father, and Alan la Zusche Earl of Britanny (Son of Geffrey) his Grandfather.-

Which William died in 1 John".

The parenthetical "Son of Geffrey" seems to have been adopted by Dugdale on the authority of Glover (Somerset Herald). It serves but to increase confusion.- The only Earl Alan of Bretagne whose Father's name was Geoffrey was Guardian of William I, when Duke of Normandy, and died by poison in 1040; whereas Alan, first Lord Zouche of Ashby, was living in 1186, and is not said on good authority to have been son of any Earl Geoffrey, but of Geoffrey Vicomte of Rohan. Moreover this Alan la Zouche of Ashby was succeeded by his son William, William by his Brother Roger, and Roger by his son Alan,- a descent not strictly identical with anything implied by the Swavesey Charter.

That document, if it proves anything (and is accurate as well as genuine), proves that other descendants of the Earls of Britanny, besides Zouche of Ashby, were called La Zouche and had a claim upon Swavesey.

Further to explain the Swavesey Charters (Monasticon, vii, 1001) I am unqualified. The attempt would involve a dissertation on the descent of the Earls of Bretagne, a problem of sufficient interest and difficulty to fill a volume.

TONG. 211

annexed the substantive sovereignty of Bretagne to his foreign dominions. Conan Le Petit, the reigning Earl, gave his daughter Constance to Geoffrey, third son of the English King, a boy then in his eighth year, and ceded his power to Henry, as Guardian of the infant couple. Henry, after receiving the homage of the Bretons at Thouars (in Poitou), passed on to Rhedon and Dol, principal Cities of the newly acquired Province, to settle the details of his future government.

As a natural sequence of these transactions I reckon the promotion of Alan la Zouche in England.-

It was clearly the policy of our early Kings to contrive that the most influential of their foreign Vassals should have possessions on this side the Channel. The allegiance thus secured was based on the most available though not the noblest of human motives, - self-interest.

Thus, I conceive, did Henry II deal with Alan, Son of Geoffrey Vicomte of Rohan.

In 1172, I find Alan La Zuche assessed at and paying 20s. for the Scutage of Ireland, in respect of one Knight's Fee which he held in capite in Northamptonshire. [37]

Two law-suits which concerned lands in that County, and in which he was Defendant, are mentioned on the latter Pipe-Rolls of Henry II. One of these seems to have involved a great interest, and to have originated about 1177; the other which concerned land of 5. annual value commenced about 1186.

This Alan la Zouche describing himself as Son of Geoffrey the Vicomte, and for the health of himself, his wife Alice, and their children (puerorum), and for the souls of Philip de Beumeis senior, Philip junior, and his (Philip senior's) other Sons, confirmed and increased the grants above cited to Lilleshall Abbey. His Charter specifies the Church of Essebi; the Chapel of Blackfordeby with sixty acres in the latter and three virgates in the former vill; a fourth virgate outside the vill (of Ashby) which was William Forester's; the land of Haco Sutor; all the land of Suarteclyve between the road from Pakynton to Bredon and the boundaries through the wood; the land of Overton; tithe of his mills; the land of Lusard; and accommodation in his wood of Tong Castle. [38]

[37] Liber Ruber, fo. xlix; Madoae Exchequer, page 408, p.
[38] Monasticon, vi, 268, No. v. I am favoured by T. Rossell Potter, Esq., with a transcript of this deed, which gives the witnesses. Another transcript is in Dodsworth, vol. cxli, fo. 49.

The witnesses seem to have been Roger de Mortimer, Alcher, Richard de London, William Cardiffe, Roger Clerk, Elias Codrell, Robert de Sudenhall (Sydnal), Dame Adheliza de Belmes, William de Belmes her Son, Philip de Belmes his Brother, and Robert de Horseley.

I suppose the deed to have passed between 1185 and 1190.

212 TONG.

This Alan and Alicia left three Sons, William, Roger and Philip. I cannot determine the exact period when William, the eldest, succeeded. His confirmation to Lilleshall Abbey is well worth notice. Therein he styles himself "William de Belmeys son of Alan la Zouch." He also makes mention of "Adelhiza de Belmeys his Mother" and of "Philip de Belmeys Senior, Philip Junior and Ranulph Brother of Philip Junior" as his (William's) Antecessors. [39] The Charter is in other respects a repetition of the grants already specified.

Another notice which I have of this William is in connexion with Tong; viz. how, conceiving the Advowson of the Church to belong to him, he forcibly ejected a Clerk who had been admitted thereto by Hugh Bishop of Coventry (and therefore between 1188 and 1194), on presentation of Salop Abbey.

William la Zouche was deceased before June 1199, and without issue; for then did Roger his Brother fine 100. for his lands. The Sheriffs of Devonshire, Sussex and Shropshire were ordered each to take security for a third of this debt. [40] But, at Michaelmas 1201, the Sheriff of Devon had received the final instalment of 40.

At the Salop Assizes of 1203, Roger la Zuche essoigned his attendance, his excuse being that he had gone beyond sea before the general summons had issued.-

Herewith are connected some matters of contemporary History.- King John is said to have assassinated Arthur Earl of Brittany, the son of Geoffrey and Constance before mentioned, on Thursday

[39] Transcript oommunicated by T. Rossell Potter, Esq.-

The witnesses are Philip de Belmeys (probably William's Brother), Geoffrey de Blie, Ivo Brito de Sean, Roger Clerk, Roger de Flamville, Master Robert de Willesburgh, Robert Chaplain, Thomas and Ranulph Priests, Henry Parson of Hartishorn, Ralph his Brother, Simon Nephew of Abbot William, Radulf Caudrell, Hugh Trullemag.

This deed had a Seal two inches wide, exhibiting the figure of a Knight on horseback brandishing a Sword. The shield on his left arm was charged with a Fesse, and circumscribed thus,-


That this William commonly went by his maternal name is further shown by an acquittance of the Scutage for King Richard's Redemption, which, in 1195, the Sheriff of Warwickshire and Leicestershire enters, by order of the King, against the name of William de Belmes (Madoae Exchequer, p. 411, t.).

[40] Oblata, page 4.

TONG. 213

April 3, 1203. The King was certainly at Rouen on that and three following days (Good Friday and Easter Sunday were two of them), and Arthur was never seen afterwards. When this crime was rumoured in Brittany, the Bretons determined to avenge it. They joined with Philip Augustus in that united attack on John's territory which ended in the loss of Normandy. Roger la Zouche was a Breton by descent, as we have seen already. We now see why the Lord of Tong was not in attendance on the King's Justices when summoned to Salop in October 1208.

Roger la Zouche's foreign sympathies involved the forfeiture of all his English possessions;-

On June 14, 1204, King John's precept issued to the Sheriff of Shropshire, commanding him to give William de Braose full seizin of such lands in his Bailiwick as had been Roger La Zouche's and which were of the Fee of said William. [41] It is quite clear that under this writ William de Braose, then a great favourite of King John, became seized of Tong, but how Zouche had held it under him or how he (Braose) had any previous interest there I have never seen the slightest evidence.-

Later hints however are not wanting to show that Tong was reputed to be held of the Honour of Brecknock and of the Barony of Braose.

But to continue - on August 15, 1204, the King's Bailiff in Sussex had orders to give up to William Briwere all Roger la Zouche's lands in that quarter, which lands were of the Honour of Petworth. [42]

In the 6th of John (1204), a valuation was taken of the "Lands of the Normans", that is, of the English possessions of such Vassals of the King as had adhered to Philip Augustus. Roger la Zouche's lands appear more than once on this Record. His Manor of North-molton in Devonshire was worth 12. per annum, without the stock thereon; Brictelegh a member of Northmolton was worth 40s. It belonged to William Fitz Warin, a Feoffee and Partizan of Roger la Zouche.-

Esseby La Zuche in Leicestershire, the land of Roger la Zuche was estimated, if stocked, to yield 10. per annum. John Le Strange had removed part of the Stock therefrom. [43]

[41] Rot. Claus. p. 1. I have before alluded to the mesne interest which Braose seems to have had in Tong and Donington. It perhaps explains why Belmeis and La Zouche were not usually assessed to Scutages in Shropshire, as Tenants in capite.
[42] Ibidem, p. 5, b.
[43] Rot. Normanniae (by T. Duffus Hardy, Esq.), pp. 130, 189.

214 TONG.

These valuations can scarcely have been completed when Roger la Zouche returned to the allegiance of his English Suzerain, paying a hundred merks for seizin of his lands and all issues thereof which had not been converted to the King's use. Geoffrey Fitz Piers, the great Justiciar, stood surety for this Fine. [44]

But on the 25th of April 1205, the debt was excused, Roger la Zouche undertaking to serve the King a year in Poitou with another Knight. [45]

On May 1, 1205, the King had lent Roger la Zouche fifty merks, for repayment of which William Fitz Warin appears to be liable. [46]

Roger la Zouche accompanied King John in his Irish expedition of 1210. On the 28th of June, being at Dublin, 40s. is lent to him by the King's Treasurer. [47]

About this time the following, not very consistent, returns were made as to Roger la Zouche's tenure of Tong.-

A list of Tenures, apparently taken in 1211, says that "Roger de Tusche holds in capite of the King and is bound to the service of finding two serving men in the King's Army in Wales". [48]-

Two nearly contemporary Rolls give a similar account of "Roger de la Zuche's" Shropshire Tenure"; [49] but a Roll, apparently of 1212, says that "Roger la Zuche holds the Manor of Thonk which was of the Fee of William de Braose by service of half-a- Knight's Fee". [50]

At this period the forfeiture and miserable fate of William de Braose had been consummated. He died an Exile and, if we may believe the Chroniclers, his Wife and Son were starved to death in the Dungeons of Windsor Castle.

Roger la Zouche on the other hand continued to advance in the favour of John. In February 1214, he accompanied the King into Poitou, and on May 26 had the usual Letters of Scutage in regard of his personal service. [51]

[44] Rot. Fin. p. 221.
[45] Claus. i, 28. The disseisin of Roger la Zouche is expressly said to have taken place "whilst he was in Brittany".
[46] Claus. i, 30; Rot. Fin. p. 266.
[47] Rot. de Praestitis, p. 182.
[48] Testa de Nevill, fo. 254.
[49] Ibidem, fo. 880, and Liber Ruber, fo. cxxiij.
[50] Testa de Nevill, fo. 256. A fifth Roll (Law Halter, fo. cxxxvii) omits all mention of Roger la Zouche among the Shropshire Tenants in capite; but it exhibits the name of "Philip de Doniton" without any statement as to service. I cannot help thinking that this indefinite, and probably inaccurate entry, was in allusion to Roger la Zouche's tenure of Tong and Donington, and that the officer who made the return was uninformed of the true particulars.
[51] Claus. i, pp. 166, 200.

TONG. 215

On Oct. 14, 1215, he had a grant of the Manors of Peterfield and Mapledurham (Co. Hants) which Geoffrey de Mandeville had forfeited to the Crown. [52]

On Nov. 18 following, he had a grant, during the King's pleasure, of Samihest (Southants) and Kidderminster (Worcestershire), lands which had been Henry Biset's. [53]

On April 25, 1216, the Sheriff of Gloucestershire is ordered to give him Fairford, a Manor which belonged to the Honour of Gloucester. [54]

Faithful to King John in every later extremity, he appears in his Retinue at Corf on June 11, 1216; and on that King's death shortly afterwards was no less faithful to his Son, King Henry III.

On the 15th March 1217, still retaining the Lordships of Mapledurham and Peterfield, he is ordered to allow her dower in the same to Milisent, widow of the Earl of Evreux and then wife of William de Cantilupe junior. [55]

On the 4th of April and 10th and 11th of May 1217, various Precepts issued to the Earl of Salisbury, to Hugh de Vivon, to the Sheriffs of Leicestershire and Lincolnshire, and to Peter de Manley, to give Roger la Zouche seizin of all such lands in his Fee as were tenanted by the King's enemies. [56]

I should here take notice that the Vicomtes of Rohan, who seem to have constituted an elder branch of the house, from which Roger la Zouche sprung, were at one time seized of considerable estates in England. Alan, who appears to have been the last Vicomte thus seized, occurs in 1201, as Grantee of King John in the Manor of Costesei. [57] The fact of this Alan's forfeiture of all his English estates is certain, though I am unable to ascertain its exact time and cause.-

Probably it resulted in the usual way, viz. that, during the reign of John, every man possessed of lands on both sides of the Channel was constrained to elect between two allegiances. His decision once made, all that he held under the Suzerain of his choice was confirmed and perhaps augmented, whilst he suffered a correspondent forfeiture in the other quarter.

Thus while Alan Vicomte of Rohan adhered to his French allegiance and forfeited his English Fief, so did his kinsman,

[52] Ibidem, p. 231.
[53] Ibidem, p. 237.
[54] Ibidem, p. 266.
[55] Claus. p. 300, b.
[56] Ibidem, p. 304, 308.
[57] Rot. Canc. 3 John, p. 340, Norfolk and Suffolk.

216 TONG.

Roger la Zouche adopt a contrary policy. And it further appears that King Henry III compensated Roger la Zouche for his losses in Brittany, not only by increasing his estates in England generally, but by granting him some of those very lands which Alan Vicomte of Rohan had lost.-

For instance, on July 22, 1218, the Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk is ordered to give him lands in Costesey which had belonged to the "Vicomte of Roain"; and on Jan. 10, 1219, the same Sheriff is to give him Huningeham and Eston, which the same Vicomte had once held, "unless those Manors were parcel of the Honour of Eye". [58]

Meanwhile, that is on July 28, 1218, Roger la Zouche had license to hold an annual fair at his Devonshire Manor of Northmolton; and on January 22, 1219, the Sheriff of Devonshire is ordered to give up to him for his maintenance, and during the King's pleasure, lands in Blaketorinton mul Nymed, which had once been Joel de Maine's. This grant is expressed to be in recompense of lands which Roger "had lost in Brittany, in the King's service". [59]

On May 1, 1219, he has a grant of Fair and Market at Blactorinton; and on July 9, the Sheriff of Norfolk is to give him certain lands in Bamburc, to hold during the King's pleasure, which lands had once belonged to the Vicomte of Roain, but had since been held of the "King's Bailiwick", by William de Mandeville, Earl of Essex. [60]

In July 1220, he appears in account with the Crown as one of the Executors of Enjuger de Bohun; [61] and on August 6 of that year, has Royal License to go on a Pilgrimage to St. James' (of Compostella). [62]

At the Salop Assizes of November 1221, Roger la Zouche appears in various relations. His suit with the Abbey of Shrewsbury for the Manor of Betton came on for hearing. The details of this cause belong to another portion of our History, but it happened that Roger la Zouche offered a statement of his descent, which is much to our present purpose as proving a great deal of what has been asserted above, merely on the evidence of Charters.-

On this occasion Roger la Zouche claimed to be heir of Philip

[58] Claus. i, pp. 366, 385.
[59] Ibidem, pp. 366, 386.
[60] Ibidem, pp. 391, 423.
[61] Ibidem, p. 424.
[62] Rot. Pat. 4 Hen. III.

TONG. 217

de Beaumes whom he described as his Uncle (avunculum). He of course alluded to Philip de Beaumes junior. He traced his heirship as follows.- The Successor to Philip'a rights was Ranulph, Philip's Brother: to Ranulph succeeded Alice, Ranulph's Sister, because Ranulph died without issue; to Alice succeeded William her Son; and to William, his Brother Roger, the present Litigant. [63] All that need here be further said of this matter is that Roger la Zouche's Pedigree passed unquestioned, and, though the Suit continued for years, the undecided issue was not as to his heirship, but as to the original seizin of Philip de Belmeis.

At the same Assizes, Roger la Zouche sued the Abbot of Shrewsbury for the Advowson of Tong, and without success. The particulars shall be given, when we come to speak of the Church.

His resistance of Thomas de Chabbenore's claim on his estate shall also be noticed among the various contingents of his Shropshire Fief, of which we shall hereafter have to give account. His quarrels with Buildwas Abbey should however be here particularized, inasmuch as they probably resulted in a composition, and in a Charter of Roger la Zouche to Buildwas, whose date it is much to our purpose to establish.

At these Assizes then, the Abbot of Buildwas was found to have "erected a fence to the injury of Roger la Shuch's tenement in Tong". The fence was to be taken down, but the Abbot was excused any amercement by writ of the King. [64]-

The Abbot of Buildwas further appoints Brother Walter de Bolingehal, a Monk, his Attorney in several suits, one of which was a suit of novel disseizin between the said Abbot on the one hand, and Roger la Shuche and William de Vigeford (Hugeford) on the other. I cannot determine whether this was the same suit of novel disseizin which William de Hugeford had against the Abbot about a right of common pasture in Ideshal and which he withdrew. [65]

Soon after these transactions, as I imagine, "Roger, son of Alan la Szouche", granted a full Charter of confirmation to Buildwas.

[63] Salop Assizes, 6 Hen. III, memb. 6.
[64] Ibidem, memb. 6 dorso.
[65] Ibidem, memb. 1 and 6 dorso. This right of common pasture probably arose from some interest of William de Hugford at Upton.-

Upton was then held by the Lords of Tong, perhaps under the Lords of Idsall. It adjoined lands of Buildwas Abbey, both at Buckley and Hatton. Hugford's Sureties in this litigation were Reginald and Robert de Upton, and Hugh de Beckbury.

218 TONG.

He specifies the land of Selfer de Rockle, easements and pannage in his wood of Brewode; in Buckley, dead wood for burning; common-pasture in Tong; also that they may make their bridges on each side of their Grange of Roclei, viz. one towards Hupton, and one towards Doninton, in the places where they used to be, and that they shall have his (the Grantor's) Banks (i.e. the abutments at the ends of these bridges) and free egress and regress through his land, to and from the said bridges. [66]

It will be observed that this Charter is not only a confirmation of the Grant of Philip de Belmeis senior, before recited, but it implies some cognizance of the grant which had been made by Richard de Belmeis, as set forth under Donington. Roger la Zouche therefore was confirming not only his Ancestor's grant, but the grant of his Ancestor's Feoffee. Consequently this Deed implies his continued Seigneury over Donington, whose Lord is in fact the fifth witness.

I should here notice that in May 1224, William de Serland and Nicholas de Molis were intrusted respectively with the Cambridgeshire Manors of Fulburn and Suavesey, which, having once belonged to the Vicomte of Rohan, had since been committed to William de Breant during the King's pleasure.

In October following, the privileges which had been enjoyed by "Allan de Roien", what time he was Lord of Fulburn, were ordered to be renewed to William de Serland. [67]- We shall presently recur to this subject.

In November 1229, Margery Bagot was suing Roger la Zouche under writ of novel disseizin for her free tenement in Blymhill. [68] La Zouche doubtless retained at this period the same mesne interest in Blymhill which we have already ascertained to have belonged to his predecessor, Ranulph de Belmeis.

[66] This Charter is in possession of George Pritchard, Esq., of Broseley.-The witnesses' names are Walter de Hugeford, Henry de Hugeford, Gerard Fitz Toret, Engeram Chavel, Walter de Beaumeis, Philip de Beaumeis, Thomas son of Reiner de Le, Thomas Clerk of Maumesbury, Master Richard of Ideshale, Nicholas his Son, and many others.-

The Seal, of white wax, exhibits a shield of arms, charged with a False between six ***. The following Letters of the Legend remain:-


I should here say a word about the armorial bearings proper to La Zouche, as distinct from those which the family afterwards adopted as inheriting from the Houses of De Quinci or De Belmeis. The seal of William La Zouche, elder Brother of this Roger, exhibits a Fesse as the bearing on his shield (supra, p. 212, note 39). Alan la Zouche son of this Roger, and husband of Elen de Quinci, sealed a grant to Mayden Bradley (Wilts), with Gules, a fesse between six pears or. (Nicholl's Leicestershire, iii, 568).

[67] Claus. i, pp. 599, 634.
[68] Patent, 14 Hen. III, dorso.

TONG. 219

On April 20, 12-30, Roger la Zouche has the King's Letters- Patent of Protection, dated at Portsmouth, "so long as he should be with the King in foreign parts". [69]

"In 14 Henry 8", says Dugdale, "Roger la Zouche had a confirmation from the King, of the Manor of Swavesheye and of all his lands in Fulburne, in Com. Cantabr. which he possessed by the gift of Alan Vicomte of Roan, in exchange for all those lands which he, the said Roger, then possessed in Brittany". [70]

This requires further illustration.- Roger la Zouche was at this time Sheriff of Devonshire, and high in the King's confidence. Henry himself was warring in France, if his first puny effort to recover his continental dominions can so be described.-

The contest was one of diplomacy rather than strategy, and Henry's success seems mainly to have consisted in receiving the homage and allegiance of the Earl of Bretagne and of Alan Vicomte of Rohan. His concessions to both were enormous. Those to the Earl or Duke are not to our purpose; but on the 12th of October, being then at St. Pabus, the King granted his Letters- Patent to Alan Vicomte of Rohan, promising that, if ever there should be variance between him (the King) and the Earl of Bretagne, the said Alan should not thereby lose his lands in England as long as he and his heirs discharged their services due thereon. Moreover the King granted to the said Alan an annuity of 200 merks,- to date from Michaelmas 1280, and to be paid to him and his heirs, till the King should assign them lands in England of equal value. [71]

It does not appear that any of the old possessions of the Vicomtes of Rohan were restored under this contract. Certainly Roger la Zouche transmitted Swavesey to his own descendants.

I have thus far traced the evidences of this family of La Zouche in parts of the Kingdom distant from the County with which I am immediately concerned.-

In so doing I have at least been able to correct some previous error as to the origin and relations of a great Baronial House. I doubt not that a still wider search among foreign documents might ascertain the precise affinity which existed between these English Zouches, the Earls of Brittany, and the Vicomtes of Rohan.

Returning now to Shropshire, we find "Roger la Zuche" assessed

[69] Patent, Ibidem.
[70] Baronage, i, 688, quoting Pat. 14 Hen. III, p. 1, memb. 2.
[71] Pat. 14 Henry III, page 1, memb. 1.

220 TONG.

in 1286 to the Aid for marriage of the King's Sister. His "Honour of Tange", constituted a Knight's Fee and so was rated at two merks. [72]

Dudgale has thought fit to notice, in his Baronage, the curious Deed of Feoffment which this Roger la Zouche granted to Henry de Hugford in Tong-Norton and Shaw. [73] I can add little to Dugdale's ample notice of the particulars of this Deed, except to say that Henry de Hugford was also a Tenant under La Zouche at Upton, and that this Deed passed during the last ten years of Roger la Zouche's life.

This Roger la Zouche must have lived to a great age, but I find no better evidence of the exact period of his death than is supplied by a license bearing date November 3, 1288, whereby the King allows Alan la Zouche, his Son and Heir, to pay his Father's debts to the Crown as he (Roger) had done, viz. by instalments of forty-five merks yearly. [74]

The public career of Alan la Zouche was distinguished by steady loyalty, much capacity, and a proportionate advancement of his house in riches and honour. This great Jurist married Helen or Ela, daughter and co-heir of Roger de Quinci Earl of Winchester, in whose estates, involving a share of the older Earldom of Leicester, Zouche of Ashby was thenceforth a Co-partner.

But leaving to the more honourable pages of National or Baronial History the great events in which Alan la Zouche took part, I confine myself to his very brief connexion with Tong.-

On December 7, 1240, a Fine was levied at Lichfield between Nicholas Abbot of Buildwas, plaintiff (querentem), and Alan la Zuche, defendant (impedientem), of two carucates in Rocleg, whereof was plea of warranty of Charter. Alan acknowledged the Abbot's

[72] Testa de Nevill, fo. 877. Roger La Zouche's personal payment of this Aid was an exception to the general rule. It only perplexes us as to the exact nature of his Tenure, viz. how far it was a Tenure in capite and how far a Tenure under the Honour of Brecknock.
[73] Baronage, vol. i, p. 689. A transcript of this deed is preserved among the Cotton Charters (ii, 8) at the British Museum.- The Witnesses are, Sir Walter de Huggeford, Sir Walter de Beaumyes, Sir Xsangrue Plaunce-folie, John de Beckbury, Hugh de Bolingale, Unfrey de Unfresten (Humphrey de Humphreston) and others.-

The third witnesses name I give as I am able to read it, but doubt whether its original form is thus retained. It is John de Beckbury's name, which, in conjunction with the era of the Grantor, gives the date assigned in the text.-

Besides Norton and the Shaw, and the particulars given by Dugdale, the deed mentions these localities, viz. Scherley, the Brand, Luttleford, Le Pas, and Trenswall.
[74] Rot. Fin. i, 315.

TONG. 221

right thereto as the gift of Philip de Beaumey's, Alan's relation (consanguinei), whose heir Alan is.- To hold, &c. to the Abbot and his Successors, &c.-

Also Alan conceded common-pasture for all the Abbot's stock at Rocleg Grange through the whole Manor of Tonge, except in his (Alan's) Park of Tonge, which is called Holy (Holly), and in the wood which is called Rocleg, and that they (the Monks) may have one swine-stall (porcariam) in Alan's wood of Brewde, and eight cart-loads of fuel yearly. For this the Abbot received Alan and his heirs to all benefits and prayers which should thereafter be made in his Church of Buildwas for ever. [75]

On July 1, 1247, another fine was levied at Westminster between the same plaintiff and Alan la Zuche, deforciant (by his Attorney Walter Fitz Warin), of two carucates in Rochley, whereof was plea of fine-levied. Alan acknowledged the Abbot's right to said land, with the site and approach of Rochley Grange and whatever was contained between said land and the water of Wrgh (Worf) down to Rochley wood, without any right of common therein belonging to Alan or his heirs,- all of the gift of Philip de Belmeis (as before).

And besides this, Alan conceded that the Abbot might take old stumps (sucum boscum for zucum bottom) in Rochley wood. Also he gave to the Abbot all the Tenement which he had in Upton on the day of this fine, in pure almoigne, but reserving foreign services due thereon. And Alan would warrant and defend the same against the Chief Lords from all services, suits of Court at Ideshall, &c. for ever. A provision follows in case of the Abbot's animals straying into Tonge Manor; and the Abbot's free right of road between Rochley and the bridge towards Doneton is assured.-

For all this the Abbot renounced his right of common-pasture in Thonge Manor and Brewude Wood, also his swine-stall in the latter; also his right in a virgate of land which he and his Convent had by grant of the Black Nuns of Brewude. But he reserved a certain site for a mill at Tylemoneslode, with water course, stank, right of road, &c. Lastly, he renounced all his right to common-pasture of Lusyard, towards the Grange of the Abbot of Lilleshull there, for ever. [76]

About the year 1250, as I suppose, Alan la Zouche seems to have

[75] Pedes Finium, 24 Hen. III, Salop.
[76] Ibidem, 31 Hen. III, Salop. Tylemoneslode (i.e. Tylemon's- Ford) is still to be identified. The Bridge and part of the road which connect the North Western boundary of Tong-Manor with Shiffnal are still known as Timlet-Bridge and Timlet-Holloway.

222 TONG.

given this Manor with his Sister Alice, in frank Marriage, to William son of Richard de Harcourt.

William de Harcourt was, as I take it, first Cousin to Alan la Zouche's wife, his Mother being of the house of Quinci and his Father a principal Feoffee in that Honour.

William de Harcourt, thus seized of Tong, appears in January 1256, as subject to a very extraordinary prosecution by the Abbot of Lilleshall. [77] He was summoned to give account as to "wherefore he had made such sales and wastes in the wood of Tong as that the Abbot could not get therein reasonable Estovers for his Grange of Lesyard". The Abbot complained that whereas he and his Predecessors from the first foundation of Lilleshall Abbey had been in continual seizin of such right of Estovers, now the said William had wasted the wood, for he had given away 3000 oak-trees, had sold 3000 more, and had assarted 300 acres of the wood-land. The Abbot laid his damages thereby at forty merks.-

William de Harcourt replied, denying all violence and injury, and asserting that the writ under which the Abbot sued him was of a novel and unheard-of nature, and that the Abbot could not be deprived of estovers, for that the wood in question extended to five leagues, and that the Abbot's Grange aforesaid did not contain more than one or two hearths (astra).-

The Abbot rejoined, that though Harcourt did not deprive him of Estovers, he had already destroyed that part of the wood which was nearest to Lizard Grange, and was about to destroy it all.-

The parties were ordered to attend at Westminster and hear sentence in the suit, on the Quinzaine of Easter.

The loss of many Plea-Rolls prevents my tracing the successive adjournments of this suit, but in Easter Term 1260, it was still unsettled, and the Sheriff had been ordered to distrain William de Harcourt to appear at Westminster and hear judgment. He appears accordingly and requests that the Record of what had passed at Salop be read over in Court. This being done, William expresses his willingness to let the Abbot have what is sufficient, and avers that enough of wood remains for that purpose. The Abbot replies, that he cannot have estovers so conveniently as he claims, and appeals to a Jury of the district. The Sheriff is ordered to summon such a jury to Westminster for the Quinzaine of St. John the Baptist; but afterwards, it is added, the Parties agreed. [78]

[77] Salop Assizes, 40 Hen. III, memb. 5 dorso.
[78] Placita, Easter Term, 44 Hen. III, memb. 25 recto. The Abbot fined one mark for "licence to accord", which, says a Postscript on the Plea-Roll, "appears on the Roll of Easter Term, 45 Hen. III". This alludes to the Pipe-Roll of that year, where among the Nova Oblata is the following entry:- Abbas de Lilleshall debet 1 marcam pro licentia concordandi.-

The system of adding postscripts to the Plea-Rolls of any particular Term is worth notice, and explains many entries in those Records which otherwise would be unintelligible. Often too we find a blank space left for this purpose at the foot of an unfinished Plea. In these cases the Postscript would appear to have been forgotten or un-needed.

TONG. 223

On July 19, 1260, Giles de Erdinton is commissioned to try an action of novel disseizin which John de Pres had brought against William de Harcourt and others, for a tenement in Thong. [79]

This Suit is doubtless connected with a Charter which John de Pres sometime obtained from Alan la Zouche as Seignoral Lord of Tong: and it is worth observing, that, though Harcourt has appeared above to be seized of the Manor at least as early as 1255, yet this deed of Alan la Zouche must have passed subsequently. He (Alan) grants and confirms to John de Pres and his heirs all lands, tenements, and liberties contained in the Charter of Sir William de Beumys, of the feoffment of Roger le Verner, and of Sir Roger his (Alan's) Father, and of Robert Collet, which Charter said John has in his keeping. He also grants him in addition (de incremento) the land which Robert de Betterton held in the Barnde, also his (Alan's) waste near the Pole, between the wood and the marlpit of Metheplekes, against the road which passes from Tong towards the wood,- also all the Brodmore between his (John's) culture and the water-course called Lutleford,- also his (Alan's) waste between the Brodemore and the wood of Lutleford.- To hold, &c. at a rent of 5d. payable to the Grantor and his heirs. [80]

I should now observe that Alice La Zouche, first wife of William de Harcourt, was deceased in the beginning of the year 1256. She left two daughters Orabel and Margery, of whom I shall speak presently. Harcourt hereupon espoused Hillaria, Sister of Henry Lord Hastings, who, in December 1256, became the Mother of Richard de Harcourt, the eventual heir of his Father William.

In the troubled times which ensued, William de Harcourt's political choice will have been a matter of some perplexity. Alan la Zouche, his first wife's Brother, was the staunchest of Royalists,

[79] Patent, 44 Hen. III, dorso.
[80] Cart. Cotton, ii, 9. This Charter has been applied by Nicholls (History of Leicestershire, iii, 731) to some localities called "Tonge" and "The Brand" in that County. The witnesses are, Sir William de Hugford (who succeeded after 1255), Hugh de Bolynghale, Hugh de Beckbury (deceased 1263) and Humphrey de Humfreston. These prove not only the date of the Deed, but that the locality concerned was in Shropshire.

224 TONG.

while the disaffection of Henry de Hastings was so rank and obstinate that he was one of the few who, on the promulgation of the Dictum de Kenilworth, were excluded from its benefits.

Harcourt had chosen the losing side and had forfeited all his estates in 1265; but his infant daughters were no sharers in his loss. The better-chosen and more successful policy of their maternal Uncle, Alan la Zouche, secured them a powerful intercession.

On the 22d of October 1267, the King's Letters-Patent certified that at the instance of Alan la Zuche and in aid of the marriages of Orabell and Margery, daughters of William de Harecourt and Nieces of the said Alan, the King conceded the redemption of Tonge and Ayliston and the Soke of Stratton, lands of William de Harcourt, according to the Dictum de Kenilworth. [81]

As regards Tong this transaction only entailed upon these Sisters that which was reasonably theirs as the only issue of their Mother.

In July 1270, Sir William de Harcourt was dead, leaving his second wife Hillaria surviving. Later in the same year died Alan la Zouche, and apparently without having apportioned between his Nieces the lands which he had redeemed for them conjointly.

About this time Orabell the elder of these Ladies married Henry son of Henry de Pembruge, whose family, if not himself, had been distinguished among the Anti-Royalists of the preceding period. Of that however presently.-

A story somewhat complicated in itself and rendered still more intricate by the verbal inaccuracy of certain Law Records has now to be dealt with.

On December 26, 1271, King Henry III, being then at Winchester, granted by Charter to his beloved and faithful Henry, son of Henry de Pembrig and Orabil his wife, the following privileges, viz. that they should have a weekly Market on Thursday in their Manor of Tong, and an annual Fair to last for three days (the vigil, the day and the morrow of Saint Bartholomew the Apostle) unless such Fair should be injurious to other Fairs in the neighbourhood; also that they should have Free-Warren in their demesne lands at Tong. [82]

In July 1272, Henry de Penbrigg and Orabil his wife and Margery, Orabil's Sister, gave the King a merk that an Assize might be taken before Gilbert de Preston (a Justiciar of that period); and the King's mandate issued accordingly to the Sheriff of

[81] Rot. 5at. 61 Hen. III.
[82] Rot. Cart. 56 Hen. III, memb. 6.

TONG. 225

Leicestershire, [83] in which County the lands or other matters in question, will have lain, either wholly or in part.

The result of this Assize or process of Law seems to be contained in a Fine, levied at Westminster on February 8, 1274, between Margery de Harecurt, plaintiff (querentem), and Henry Penybrigg and Orabil his wife, Defendants, of the Manor of Ayliston and the Advowson of the Church of the same vill, and six merks of annual Rent in the Sake of Stratton (Leicestershire), whereof was Plea of Convention. Henry and Orabil acknowledged the premises to be the right of Margery, to hold of the Chief Lords of the Fee by accustomed services; and Margery conceded to Henry and Orabil the Manor of Tonge (Co. Salop) to hold to Henry and Orabil and the Heirs of Orabil, of the Chief Lords of the Fee, for ever. [84]

The Suit and Fine therefore constituted nothing more than a legal and perhaps amicable partition of the estate of two Co-parcners.

Soon after this Margery de Harecourt married John de Cantilupe, and within five years both she and her husband were deceased without issue.

Moreover within the same period died Orabil, wife of Henry de Pembruge, leaving an only son Fulk. Also Henry de Pembruge himself died, [85] having however married a second wife Alice, by whom he left a son Henry.

At their Father's death, in February 1279, Fulk and Henry were both Infants, the former and elder being eight years old according to one authority, or hardly so much if, according to another, he was still under age in October 1292.

I must now retrace my steps, not only that I may give some earlier account of these Pembruges with whom so many Shropshire Families claim affinity, but that I may render more intelligible their various interests and connexions whilst Lords of Tong.

In 1285, as I infer from various entries in the Testa de Nevill, Henry de Pembruge was holding two Knight's-fees, less a twentieth part of one fee, at Weston and Woneston (Gloucestershire) of the Honour of Cormeilles. So also about eight years later is the same Henry found holding Pembridge, in Stretford Hundred, Herefordshire, of the Honour of Radnor, by one Knight's-fee. [86] The

[83] Rot. Fin. 56 Hen. III, memb. 10.
[84] Pedes Finium (Divers Comitat.) 2 Edw. I, Salop and Leicestershire.
[85] Originalia, i, p. 32, anno 7 Edw. I.
[86] Testa de Nevill, folios 301, 317, 345, 349.

226 TONG.


[For pedigree, see pdf.]

TONG. 227

Honour of Radnor was, at this time, held by Ralph Lord Mortimer of Wigmore, whose Vassal therefore Henry was.

In 1248, Henry de Penbrigg had a Charter of Free-Warren at Weston. [87]

On May 10, 1254, he fined one hundred merks to have custody of all lands, &c., which were the hereditary right of Lucia and Eufemia, two of the daughters and coheirs of Godfrey de Gamages, out of the lands which were said Godfrey's. He was to hold such lands till those coheiresses came of age, and was to have their marriages for two of his Sons. Margery de Lacy who had the said wards in her custody was to deliver them up, so to be married. [88]

On July 1, 1268, the Plea-Rolls of Westminster exhibit Henry de Penbrug, and Elizabeth his wife, with William de Penbrug, and Eufemia his wife, as suing Hugh de Plessetis for the Shropshire Manor of Stottesden, which the Plaintiffs claimed as the right of the said Elizabeth and Eufemia. The Defendant not appearing, the Manor was ordered to be seized into the King's hand, and the cause was adjourned. [89]

Of Godfrey de Gamages and his sometime interest in Stottesden it will be better to speak when we reach that Manor. Here I would observe that Henry de Pembruge's wife Elizabeth, though a daughter and Coheir of Godfrey de Gamages, was either a different daughter to Lucia for whose marriage Henry de Pembruge senior had fined in 1254, or else was described at different periods by two distinct names.

Henry de Pembruge does not appear to have ever recovered any interest in Stottesden, and for this or some other cause of discontent, he became a strenuous supporter of Montfort's treason in 1265:- nay it was alleged that after the Battle of Evesham (August 4), and after the Council of Winchester (in September following), he insulted Prince Edmund at Warwick, committed depredations, set fire to that Town, and was there taken prisoner.

He seems to have been given in charge to Roger de Mortimer, under whom he held his Manor of Pembruge. Mortimer bestowed his captive in the dungeons of Wigmore, with what object or result we shall presently learn.

[87] Rot. Chart. 32 Hen. III, memb. 4. He appears to have fined 20 merks for this privilege; but the printed Originalia Roll (vol. i, p. 10) describes the Manor as "Eston" in Herefordshire.
[88] Rot. Fin. ii, 186.
[89] Placita, Trinity Term, 47 Hen. III, memb. 23 dorso.

228 TONG.

Of course all the estates of Henry de Pembrdge were forfeited. Weston (Gloucestershire) was given to Walter Giffard, Archbishop of York, Leye (Worcestershire) to Matthew de Gamages, and Gyllock (Herefordshire) to Hugh de Mortimer.

Roger de Mortimer of Wigmore, in virtue probably of a general licence which he had to confiscate all such lands of the King's enemies as were of his Fee, entered upon his Prisoner's Manor of Pembridge. Foreseeing however that such occupation would eventually be null and void, and that Henry de Pembridge, by the King's clemency, would ultimately have that power of redemption which was accorded to Rebels in general, by the Dictum de Kenilworth, Mortimer strove rather to realize the escheated Manor than to reclaim the unsteady faith of his Vassal. The Prisoner made a formal conveyance to Mortimer of the Manor and Advowson of Pembridge; and not only that, but he wrote to his Tenants informing them of the transfer and their consequent change of fealty. He was further taken, or, as Mortimer afterwards asserted, went willingly, before the full Court of the County of Hereford and ratified the transaction.

Mortimer seems however to have felt that all these concessions, extorted from a Prisoner, could not amount to a legal conveyance. A further security was desirable. He therefore got to his Castle of Wigmore the two sons of his Prisoner, Henry and Godefrid, and leaving them there as hostages to secure his own ascendancy over the Father, journeyed with the latter to the King's Court, then sitting at Clarendon.

There on the Quinzaine of St. Martin in the 52d year of King Henry (Nov. 25, 1267) appeared Henry de Pembrdge senior (so called with reference to his eldest son and because his own Father was now deceased), and acknowledged that he remitted and quitted to Roger de Mortimer all his right and claim in the Manor and Advowson of Pembrdge for ever. He also undertook to give any such other security as Mortimer should devise in the matter, whether by Fine, to be levied in the King's Court, or otherwise. [90]

From Clarendon Mortimer seems to have conducted his Prisoner

[90] Placita coram Rege, Michaelmas Term, 51 & 52 Hen. III, memb. 25, where this Quit-claim is given independently, and without any allusion to the circumstances under which it was obtained.

Those circumstances, as detailed in the text, transpired at a trial long afterwards, when however this very Quit-claim was cited in evidence.

TONG. 229

to Ernewode, one of his Shropshire Manors, but for what purpose does not appear. Mortimer's object was gained, and Pembruge lost for ever the estate which gave name to his House. It is probable therefore that he was soon released, and indeed thus much is implied by a statement which says that he took measures in accordance with the Dictum de Kenilworth to redeem his other estates. Three years, or four at most, remained to him for such a purpose; for in 1270, or 1271, he died, leaving his wife Elizabeth a widow, and that son Henry his heir, whom we have already noticed as a Hostage at Wigmore and as Lord of Tong in right of his wife Orabell, niece of Alan la Zouche.

This youth, the third Henry de Pembrage of whom we give account, set himself strenuously to redeem the fallen fortunes of his house.

In December 1271, his peace with the King is obviously implied by the terms "faithful and beloved " already quoted in connection with his name. On January 20, 1272, "Henry, son of Henry de Pembrigg lately deceased", had been suing the Archbishop of York, Matthew de Gamages, and Hugh de Mortimer, that they should allow him to redeem those, his lands, of which they were seized. On their refusal so to do, the King had issued a mandate to Nicholas Fitz Martin and his companions, Justices appointed to hear and determine all such suits in Herefordshire, Gloucestershire, and Worcestershire, apprising the said Justices of the Claimant's readiness to abide by the Dictum de Kenilworth, and ordering them, if he was entitled to the benefits of that edict, to summon the parties before them and do their duty, according to the form of the said edict, touching Henry de Pembruge's right to recover seizin of his estates.

It would appear that the Justices thus instructed found the case to be beyond their jurisdiction.- Pembruge's claim to the benefits of the Dictum were denied by the Archbishop and others. So on the day last mentioned (Jan. 20, 1272) the parties appeared before the King himself.

The Archbishop pleaded for all. He denied young Henry's right to the benefit of redemption, inasmuch as the Dictum de Kenilworth excluded, inter alios, those who had persisted in rebellion and rapine after the Council of Winchester (the "peace proclaimed at Winchester" he calls it). He then instanced the elder Pembruge's conduct before recited.

Young Pembruge, on the other hand, urged that the Dictum de

230 TONG.

Kenilworth applied to all transgressions up to the time of its promulgation, except those of the Citizens of London; that his Father and, after his Father's death, he himself sued for redemption of their lands in conformity with the Dictum, which Dictum, he added, contained a special concession of the King's, viz. that no Rebel should suffer disinheritance.

The suit or suits did not end on this occasion, but a postscript on the Roll states that soon after the King's death, in the octaves of Hilary (Jan. 20) the parties accorded by License, and it gives reference to a Roll of the said term in the first year of Edward I (1273) for particulars. [91]-

I find the Concord thus indicated. Thereby Henry de Pembruge relinquished to the Archbishop all his right to the Manor of Weston super Egge (Weston sub Edge) receiving in exchange 1000 merks and the Manor of Ullingwyke (Herefordshire) which he is to hold under the Archbishop at a penny rent, for all services. He also remits to the Archbishop all his right in the Manor of Norton (Gloucestershire), for a sum paid down and an annuity of 10. chargeable on the Archbishop's Manor of Brockwode during the life of Elizabeth, Henry's Mother. [92]

How Henry de Pembruge recovered his other Manors of Gillock (Herefordshire) and Leye (Worcestershire) from Mathew de Gamages and Hugh de Mortimer I have not thought it worth while to inquire. Suffice it to say that he did regain them.

Thus far successful, he opposed himself to the gigantic influence of Roger Mortimer of Wigmore, suing him before the Justices Itinerant at Hereford for the lost Manor of Pembruge.

The cause was adjourned to Westminster, where it came on for hearing before the King's Council in the octaves of Hilary (Jan. 20) 1274. The pleadings are given at an unusual length but are well worth epitomizing.-

"Henry son of Henry de Penebrigg sued Roger de Mortimer, Matilda his wife, and Ralph his Son for the Manor, &c. (except ten Librates of Land) of which Manor, &c. Roger and Ralph had unjustly disseized the Plaintiff's Father, whose heir the Plaintiff is."-

The Record is ambiguous as to the appearance of the Defendants, whether all or only Matilda pleaded by Attorney. Her plea was that she claimed to hold nothing in demesne; Ralph's was that he

[91] Placita coram Rege, Hilary Term, 56 Hen. III, memb. 11 dorso.
[92] Abbrev. Placitorum, p. 185, b.

TONG. 231

held nothing except at will of his Father. So Roger was virtually the sole Defendant.

He took exception to the word "disseized" used in the Plaintiff's writ, and alleged the Charter of Henry de Pembruge Senior, his letter to his Tenants, and his voluntary quit-claim in the County-Court as inconsistent with "disseizin".-

He produced also the documentary proofs of each transaction.

The Plaintiff replied that Mortimer had ingress in the Manor by disseizin, not by the documents produced; for he entered on the Manor while his (the Plaintiff's) Father was a prisoner and before the documents were executed.

Mortimer took exception to the form of the Plaintiff's proceedings and asked judgment of the Court as to whether the Plaintiff was competent to sue under a writ "de ingressu" which involved mention of the term "disseizin". [93]

The Plaintiff answered, that if his Father had demised the premises while in prison, a writ "de ingressu", making mention of such imprisonment, was a form in which he was competent to sue; he was however prepared to show that neither in nor out of prison had his Father ever demised the premises.-

He repeated that Mortimer had ingress by disseizin, notwithstanding that his Father had given him (Mortimer) a seizin by feoffment. He appealed to the Court to say whether he was competent to sue under any other form of writ than that which he had employed.

The Court's assent to this proposition may be inferred from the continuance of the pleadings.-

Mortimer now again alleged the quit-claim in the County Court, his own seizin of the Manor for a long period, and finally Pembruge's acknowledgment in the Curia Regis. To the Rolls of Pleas in that Court he now appealed.

Henry acknowledged that such recognition had been made by his Father at the time and place stated; but he also showed how himself and his Brother being in Prison at Wigmore, his Father had acted under fear on their account and lest evil should befal them (ne de eis pejus eveniret). He asks the Court's Judgment

[93] There was a technical distinction between the writ "de ingressu " and the writ "de nova disseizina". The former applied to cases of disputed property or right, the latter to cases of disputed possession. If a party had brought his action under the superior form, "de ingressu", he could not, while that action was pending, sue under the inferior form.

232 TONG.

whether a recognition thus obtained should have force; and that it was thus obtained he was prepared to prove before a Jury (per patriam).

Mortimer hereupon expatiated on the freedom and impartiality of the Curia Regis, adding that if things had been as the Plaintiff stated, Pembruge Senior might have proclaimed the oppression in open Court at Clarendon, and, refusing the Recognition required of him, might have procured the enlargement of himself and his Sons.

Thus far the pleadings on this occasion.-

A Postscript on the same Roll intimates that another hearing took place at Westminster on Feb. 3 (1274), before Martin de Littlebury and other Justices appointed to terminate pleas; that again, after death of said Martin, the cause came before Ralph de Hengham and his Fellows, and that then Mortimer appeared in Court and asserted that judgment had been given in his favour at the previous hearing before Martin de Littlebury, Nicholas de Stapleton and Master Richard de Stanes. The two latter, being survivors of the three, he called to bear record of the fact. Their record was that judgment was given to this effect, viz. that "Mortimer and the other Defendants were dismissed sine die, and that Henry de Pembruge was adjudged to be in misericordia for a false claim". [94]

Such was the redress which misfortune obtained when it wrestled against power in the early years of King Edward,- the "English Justinian".

I now proceed to give the substance of the Inquisitions which were taken after the death of this Henry de Pembruge.

The King's writs of diem clausit extremum bear date 18 February and 3 March 1279. A Worcestershire Inquest, which sat in consequence, reported that the deceased held Leye (Legam) of the Abbot of Pershore and that Fulk his son and next heir was eight years of age.

A second Inquest, which sat at Salisbury Castle on May 5, said that the deceased was Tenant of Lora de Saunford at North Tudeworth (Wilts), but that of the age of Fulk his next heir, the Jurors knew nothing as he was not living in Wiltshire. The same Jurors found that Henry de Pembruge once held Weston sub Egge (Glouc.) of Walter Giffard, Archbishop of York, by

[94] Placita apud Westm. coram Consilio Regis, Hilary Term, 2 Edw. I, memb. 17 recto et dorso.

TONG. 233

service of one Knight's-fee, but that the deceased, son of the said Henry, had quitted all his right in Weston to the Archbishop, for the Manor of Ullyngwyke (Heref.) and 1000 merks.

A third Inquest was taken at Salisbury Castle on December 28, 1279. The Jury found that the deceased had not held Tudworth in capite, but that Roger la Zouche, who formerly held it under John Biset, gave the Manor to Gilbert de Stanford (Sanford) with his daughter Lora in frank-marriage, and that, after Gilbert's death, [95] Lora gave it to Orabell, formerly wife of Henry de Pembruge, and to Fulk the son of said Henry and Lora (read Orabell).

A fourth Inquest which sat in Herefordshire on Jan. 8, 1280, found that the deceased had held Gillock in capite by service of finding one man for fifteen days in time of war, &c;- also that he had held a third part of the Manor of Ullingewyk of the Bishop of Hereford (read Worcester) by one-third of a Knight's- Fee;- also that he held 4. 17s. 8d. annual rent in Catteley of the gift of William Devereux by service of 1d. per annum.

A fifth Inquisition sat Jan. 26, 1280, in Leicestershire, and gave the following almost accurate account; viz. that William de Harcourt, formerly Lord of Ayliston (Eltstow), had two daughters, Orabell and Margery, to whom conjointly he gave the Manors of Ayliston and Tonge;- that afterwards Henry de Pembruge married Orabell, and John de Cantilupe Margery;- that by consent, Tong remained to Henry and Orabell, and Ayliston to John;- that John and Margery died seized of Ayliston, but without issue, so that thereby Ayliston reverted to Fulk the son and heir of Henry de Pembruge, which Fulk was now under age;- that Henry, Fulk's Father had therefore not died seized of Ayliston;- that the Manor was held of Richard de Harcourt by one Knight's-fee, and by Richard of the Earl of Winchester. [96]

These details, though slightly inaccurate, supply a general and quite intelligible truth. In this respect they differ widely from some Records of Law proceedings which took place during Fulk de Pembruge's minority. These latter, taken as they stand, present us with inconsistent and impossible results; in fact, it is evident that the Law-Clerk who recorded these pleas did not

[95] Gilbert de Saunford died in 1249, leaving a son and heir under age. Either that heir never attained his majority, or else was Gilbert's son by another wife than Laura la Zouche.
[96] Inquisitions, 7 Edw. I, No. 12.

234 TONG.

understand their drift. I have therefore thought it better, while giving the substance of the original minutes, to insert in brackets whatever I conceive to be necessary for their correction or explanation. I should premise that Walter Gifford, Archbishop of York, seems to have conveyed, between 1272 and 1279, the Seigneury of Ullingwike to Godfrey Gifford, Bishop of Worcester.

In October 1282, the following is given as the result of a plea heard before the King or his Deputies.

"The Bishop of Hereford (read Worcester) recovers his seizin of two parts of the Manor of Ollingwyk alias Ullingwyk by reason of the Minority of Henry de Penebrigg. Fulco, brother of the same Henry, [97] who had custody of the said Henry by gift of the Queen, concedes that all tenements which he holds of his brother's inheritance together with the dower of Alice his wife (read Mother, i.e. Mother of Henry, step-mother of Fulk, and widow of Henry Fulk's father) shall be put in hochepot;- and that Fulk shall have two parts and Alice the third part, but not of the Manor of Todeworth in Co. Wilts". [98]

Another Record of this same plea intimates that it was heard at Salop, in three weeks of Michaelmas 1282, before the King or his Deputies. Its substance is as follows;-

"The Sheriff had mandate to bring into Court Alice, widow of Henry de Pembruge, that she might respond to Godfrey, Bishop of Worcester, in the following suit",- viz. "Whereas custody of two parts of Ollingewyk, which belonged to Henry de Pembruge deceased, except 17s. rent, pertained to the Bishop until the age of the heir" (read devisee), "in that it was held by Knight's-service,and whereas Alice now held those parts in dower,- whether she, Alice, had ought to allege why the said Bishop should not have those two parts in custody".

The Sheriff had also mandate to bring into Court "Fulk de Pembruge, who was to have with him the heir (read younger son) of Henry de Pembruge, in order that he Fulk, might do and receive as regarded the tenements which Fulk holds of the inheritance of the aforesaid heir (read younger son), and which had belonged to Henry his (Henry's) Father, and brother (read Father) of the said Fulk, whatever might appear just".-

[97] Fulk Pembruge himself was not yet twelve years of age.
[98] Abbrev. Placit. 274. I am unable to discover the original or duplicate of the original Record which the Abbreviator of the Placita must have used in compiling this abstract.

TONG. 235

Now Fulk appears; and Alice appears, and concedes that the Bishop may have custody of the said two parts of Ullingwyk saving to Alice her goods lying in that Manor. So the Bishop recovers the same.

Fulk, on the other hand, pleads that he cannot bring the heir (devisee) into Court, because he is in the Queen's custody: and as to the dower of Alice, Fulk concedes that all the tenements which he, Fulk, holds of the inheritance of Henry his Brother, together with the dower of Alice, be put in hochepot, and that Fulk should have back two parts thereof and Alice have her dower. And Alice agrees to this, if so be that she shall have such dower in the Manor of Toddeworthe, Wiltshire.-

Fulk replies that Toddeworthe was not of the inheritance of Henry (his Father), nor had he anything there except in the name of Orabell his first wife, because he, Fulk, says that Lora de Sanford gave the Manor to Orabell and to Fulk, Orabell's son, by a charter which he produces. Whereupon Fulk asks judgment of the Court if Alice ought to have dower therein.

Alice replies that Henry (her husband) held the same by inheritance, and asks that inquiry be made if it were not so. And Fulk agrees.

Afterwards at Bristol in the Quinzaine of Hilary, 13 Edw. I, (Jan 27, 1285), a Jury found that Lora gave Tudworth to Orabell and her heirs, so that Henry de Pembruge had held nothing there except in name of Orabell, once his wife. A day to hear sentence was given to the parties in the Quinzaine of Easter following. "The whole of this last enrolment", adds the Record, "is to be found in the Rolls of Hilary Term in the 13th year". [99]

Of Alice widow of Henry de Pembruge and her son Henry, I will attempt no further account, except to notice that she was living in 1300 and unsuccessful in a suit about lands in "Brenchesle and Pepingbury (Co. Herts). [100]

We return to Fulk de Pembruge, son and heir of Henry, whose minority, though for some inexplicable cause, it is not once

[99] Placita apud Salop, Michaelmas Term, 10 & 11 Edw. I, memb. 22. An abstract of this plea, but taken from another and third original, is given in the Abbrev. Placitorum (page 104). It indicates the dismissal sine die of Fulk de Pembruge.
[100] Originalia, i, 113. Henry de Pembruge son of Alice seems to have founded a distinct house. It was probably he who in 1308, and as a Knight, made a grant in Wyneston (Gloucestershire) sealing the deed with arms - Barry of six ***, over all a Bend. (Glover'a Collections, A, fo. 109).

236 TONG.

mentioned in the law-suits above detailed, endured for many years after.

At Michaelmas 1280, the Sheriff of Shropshire tendered account of 17. 14s. 9d., "issues and rents of the Manor of Tonge, formerly Henry de Pembruge's, viz. from Monday, January 16, 1279, till January 13, 1280, before that the Manor was given up to William Burnell as Custos in behalf of John de Binelard, to whom the King had given custody of Henry's lands". [101]

The Feodary of 1284, says as follows,-

"Fulco de Penebrugge holds the Manor of Togge with the vill of Norton (Tong Norton) of the Honour of Breyseynok (Brecknock is meant), for one Knight's-fee; nor is there mention in the inquisition as to whom the said Fulco holds under". [102]

At the County Assizes, October 1292, the Brimstree Jurors reported that Fulco de Penebrugg, a minor in the King's custody, claimed to have assize of bread and beer, also to hold a Market and Fair in his Manor of Tong. [103]

In March 1293, the heir of Henry de Pembruge was found to be holding Ayliston (Leicestershire) of the estate of Richard de Harcourt then deceased, by service of one Knight's-fee. [104]

Very soon after he attained his majority, Fulk de Pembruge died. He left his wife Isabel surviving, and a son and heir Fulk, not yet five years of age. On June 20th, 1296, the King's writ of "diem clausit extremum" issued to the Escheator citra Trent, and the Inquests which followed contain further particulars as to the estate of the deceased.-

That which sat at Boscomb (Wilts) on July 23, 1296, reported his tenure of Tudeworthe and found that Fulk his heir would be five years of age on August 27, then next coming.-

The Leicestershire Inquest reported his tenure of the Manor of Ayleston and rents in Stretton, and gave a similar account of the age of his heir.-

The Herefordshire Inquest gave August 24, as the heir's birth- day, and reported the tenures of the deceased in Gyllouch, Ullyngwyk, and Catteley juxta Upleden.-

A Fourth Inquisition sitting at Tong on July 11, 1296, found the deceased to have held that Manor under Sir Alan la Zouche, whose Grandfather Alan gave it (said these accurate Jurors) in marriage

[101] Rot. Pip. 8 Edw. I, Salop.
[102] Kirby's Quest. Brimstree Hundred.
[103] Placita Coronae, 20 Edw. I, m. 23.
[104] Inquisitions, 21 Edw. I, No. 46.

TONG. 237

with Alice, grandmother of Sir Fulk, lately deceased, who owed no service thereon. They valued the Capital Messuage at 5s., the Fishery of the Vivary at 2s. 8d., the Dove-cot at 1s. 8d., the Water Mill at 2. per annum. They enumerated various rents due from the free tenants of the Manor, among which one of a Chaplet of Roses is observable. The whole Manor and income they estimated as worth 20. 19s. 8d. yearly. They found Fulk, the son and heir, to have been four years old on Saturday August 27 previous. [105]

I presume that Isabel, widow of the deceased, had Tong in dower, for pursuant to the King's Writ dated at Portsmouth, May 24, 1297, the Sheriff of Shropshire returned Isabel Lady of Tong, among those who, holding lands or rents to the yearly value of 20. or upwards, were (generally) liable to be summoned to perform military service in person, with horse and arms, in parts beyond the seas, and were to muster at London on July 7 following. [106]

In 4 Edw. II (1310-11), consistent mention is made of Fulk de Pembruge's heir as still under age. The King then intrusted his land to Oliver de Bordeaux till he should attain his majority. [107]

This last event will have been on August 27, 1312, and we have several notices of him during the fourteen years of his remaining life.

On the 1st of April 1314, being at Stanton Harecourt (Oxfordshire), he acknowledges to have received from his Cousin, Monsieur de Harecourt, Lord of Bosworth, a Charter of the Manor of Tong, whereby Alan la Zouche gave and granted the same Manor to Sir William de Harecourt and Alice his wife in frank- marriage. [108]

On June 15, 1314, Fulk, son of Fulk Penebrugge, was a Knight. So describing himself and as Lord of Tong he quits to Sir Walter de Langton, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, all his claim to a plot of wood called Stryfwode, in Brewood. For this the Bishop paid him 10. [109]

[105] Inquisitions, 24 Edw. I, No. 31.
[106] Parliamentary Writs, i, 291.
[107] Originalia, i, 113.
[108] Dodsworth, vol. 96. The consanguinity implied in this deed was thus:- Sir William de Harcourt was Grandfather of Sir John (the person who gave up the Tong Charter); he was also Great-grand-father of Fulk de Pembruge who acknowledges receipt thereof.-

It would seem that when Alan La Zouche had, by composition under the Dictum de Kenilworth, secured Tong for his Sister's issue, the Title-deeds had remained with the male line of William de Harcourt, that Sister's husband.
[109] Lichfield Register (Ashmol. MSS. 1527). The deed is dated at Lichfield, and tested by Sir Robert de Stepulton, Sir Alexander de Frevill, Sir John Gifford, and Sir Roger de Ocovre, Knights; also by William de Freford, Henry de Harecourt, and Roger de Pulesdon.

238 TONG.

In time, as it would seem, of Edward II, Fulke de Pennebrugge, Lord of Tonge, appoints Nicholas le Taylour of Tonge, his Attorney, to overlook an exchange between William de Pres and Fulke's tenants of Norton and Tonge, of that land called the Old-Castle. [110]

This Fulk de Pembruge also granted a Charter of Confirmation to Buildwas Abbey which contains several points of interest. It specifies free road for the Monks' sheep and animals, to be driven to and from their Grange of Rochlegh, to their pasture of Donyntone, beyond the rivulet under Chelfesford, through Fulk's wood of Rochlegh; also that the Monks may make a fence from the corner of their field of Rochlegh to the rivulet aforesaid; also that they may make and maintain a bridge upon Fulk's land beyond the said rivulet and have easements of the bank of the said rivulet to repair said bridge when needful, as by the Charters of Roger, son of Alan la Zouche, and of Richard de Bealmeys is testified respecting the said bridge: also that, if at any time, from scarcity of their live stock, the Monks should neglect to use these liberties of road and bridge, it should not be to their prejudice or prevent them from reviving the dormant right when they chose; he also grants them a site for making a Mill at Tylesmendeslode-stank, with water-course and right of road through his land to the said mill, and earth to repair the stank when needful, "as was contained in a fine levied in the Curia Regis about making the said Mill, between the Abbot of Buildwas and Alan de la Zouche formerly Lord of the Manor of Tonge." [111]

On 16 Oct. 1313, Fulk de Pembruge was included among those adherents of Thomas Earl of Lancaster who having participated in the death of Piers Gaveston had the King's pardon.

In the Feodary of March 1316, called Nomina Villarum, he

[110] Dugdale's MSS. (vol. K, fo. 11) in Bibl. Ashm.- from a deed in Dugdale's own possession. The transcript gives 30 Edw. II for the date of this document, where of course there is a mistake as to the year, or else the reign. I have supposed the former, as the Fulk de Pembruge of 30 Edw. I was an Infant, and the last Fulk de Pembruge will hardly have succeeded so early as 30 Edw. III. Still there is doubt about the matter. The Deed was sealed with Arms - Barry of six.
[111] Charter in possession of George Pritchard, Esq. of Broseley. The witnesses are Sir Walter de Huggeford, Sir William de Forcer, Knights; Roger Carles, Hugh de Bealmeys, Henry de Bealmeys, and others. I have already estimated the date of this deed to be about 1312, i.e. on Fulk Pembruge's attaining his majority. The seal is a coat of arms, well executed, and charged with - Barry of six. The Legend is - S. FULCONIS DE PEMBRIGG.

Mr. Dukes (Appendix, lxvi) has given an abstract of this deed, but the date assigned thereto (1229) must be a typographical error.

TONG. 239

is returned as Lord of Tong (Co. Salop) and of Ullingswick (Herefordshire). [112]

On Aug. 14, 1319, he had license to exchange ten acres in Tong with the Prioress of White-Ladies who was to give him other ten acres in the same Manor. [113]

He served as a Knight of the Shire of Salop at the Parliament of York in May 1322, and was returned as a Knight of the Shire of Gloucester to a second Parliament holden at York in November of the same year. [114]

His various employments as a Commissioner to levy Archers, a Commissioner of Array, or Inspector of Levies; his summonses to Councils at home or military service abroad, are too numerous to mention here. In the years 1323-1325, his name occurs no less than eighteen times in one or other such connection. [115]

He died on January 8, 1326. The King's Writ of Diem clausit extremum issued to the Escheator of Salop, Staffordshire, and Gloucestershire on January 21, and an Inquisition as to his estate was held at Tong on Feb. 25 following. The Jurors found that he had held nothing in capite, that he and Matilda his wife had held conjointly the Manor of Tong under William la Zouche, by service of one Knight's-fee and as a member of Ashby de la Zouche: that they had it by feoffment of Henry de Byrmentham (Bermingham), who by fine levied in the King's Court had enfeoffed them, with entail upon their heirs male: that Fulk their son and heir was fifteen years of age on Nov. 30 previous. [116]

The Inquisitions of other Counties do not seem to be preserved.

Of Fulk de Pembruge (III), thus proved to have been born Nov. 30, 1810, I have only one notice after he attained his majority. In 1333, Robert Corbet of Hadley and Matilda his wife had recovered against Fulk son of Fulk de Pembruge, the Manor of Ayleston (Leicestershire). [117]

I presume Matilda, thus named, to have been Fulk's Mother, who,

[112] Parliamentary Writs, iv, 1271.
[113] Pat. 13 Edw. II, memb. 37.
[114] Parliamentary Writs, 366, 399.
[115] Ibidem, p. 1271; Foedera, ii, 592.
[116] Inquisitions, 19 Edw. II, No. 56. Henry de Birmingham had, of course, been a Feoffee in Trust. I doubt not that Matilda, wife of Fulk de Pembruge, was of the family of Bermingham.
[117] Originalia, ii, 82. In 8 Edw. III (1334-5) I find, by an unvouched note, that Alice de Penneburge was suing under writ of novel disseizin for land in Tonge. Robert Corbet of Hadley Chevr and Matilda his wife were the defendants.

Whether this Alice were Sister or Widow of Fulk Pembruge of 1333 I will not venture to say.

240 TONG.

having since 1326 remarried to Robert Corbet, had now recovered Ayleston as her dower.

I have seen no original documentary evidence which will enable me to state the descent from Fulk Pembruge III (living 1333) to Fulk IV who died in 1408-9.

Shaw informs us of a Robert de Pembruge living in 20 Edw. III (1346-7), and whom Shaw takes to have been Brother and Heir of Fulk III, and Father of Fulk IV. [118]

The latter occurs in 1371, with Margaret his wife, daughter and eventual sole heir of William Trussel of Cublesdon, by his wife Ida (or Idonea) le Botyler. [119]

Margaret, first wife of Fulk de Pembruge IV, died without issue June 11, 1402. Fulk took a second wife, Isabel or Elizabeth Lingen, but dying without issue, in 10 Henry IV (1308-9), closed the male line of his succession at Tong.

In 12 Hen. IV (1410-1) Isabel, relict of Fulk Pembruge, was busy in the Religious Foundation, since known as Tong College, the particulars of which are amply detailed elsewhere. [120]

Isabel long survived her first husband, long enough (as Shaw has it) to remarry twice, viz. to Sir Thomas Peytevine and Sir John Ludlow. [212] She died in 25 Hen. VI (1446-7).

The heir of the last Sir Fulk Pembruge of Tong was Richard de Vernon (sometimes called Richard de Pembruge). He was, if former accounts be correct, son and heir of Richard de Vernon, son and heir of another Richard de Vernon, by Juliana, sister of the said Fulk de Pembruge. [122] All that I shall here add of this Richard de Vernon, thus succeeding to his supposed Great Uncle's estates after the death of Isabel, the said Great Uncle's surviving wife, is, that he was a Minor in 1402, a Knight in 1418, and that he died in 1451, seized of various Vernon and Pembruge estates, viz. Pychecote (Bucks.), Harlaston (Staffordshire), Haddon (Derbyshire), Tong, Ayleston and Ullingwyke.

[118] History of Staffordshire, i, Additions, p. 38.
[119] Dugdale (Baronage, p. 595) makes Ida le Botyler to be wife, not wife's Mother, of Fulk de Pembruge. The true account is however given in the History of Warwickshire.
[120] Monasticon, viii, 1401.
[121] I hardly credit this.- Shaw's notion seems to have arisen from the circumstance that Henry IV's charter of Nov. 1410, directed that the future Canons of Tong should pray for the souls (inter alios) of these two Knights. So the Dame Isabel would, at that rate, have got rid of three husbands in less than the same number of years.
[122] Dukes' Antiquities, pp. 186, 189.

TONG. 241

Of the UNDERTENANTS in this Manor I can say little more than is implied in the above account of the Lords of the Fee.

Distinct notice should however be taken of a younger branch of the family of De Belmeis, which had early feoffment in Tong and elsewhere, and is on the whole easily distinguishable from those other Cadets of the same house of whom we have given account under Donington.

Whether William de Beaumeis who stands first witness of the very ancient deed quoted under Hatton were progenitor of the Tong or Donington branch, of both or of neither, I will not undertake to say.- I only guess him to have been of Donington.

I should be similarly doubtful as to that Robert de Belmeis, who about 1139 was first witness of Philip de Belmeis' grant to Buildwas: but the nearly contemporary deed of Richard de Belmeis (of Donington) seems to exclude Robert from that branch of the family. Therefore very possibly the said Robert was of Tong.

Again I notice suggestively how the Deed of Philip de Belmeis Junior to Lilleshall, which passed between 1152 and 1159, is attested not only by Sir Richard de Belmeys (undoubtedly of Donington) but by Robert de Belmeys and William his Brother. On the Staffordshire Pipe Roll of 1185, among some payments arising from a recent visit of the Justices of the Forest, it is entered that Robert de Belmes owes one merk, apparently for something sold out of the King's Forest. [123]

The same Justices holding pleas in Shropshire in the same year had further amerced Robert de Beaumes 20s. for some default.-

The latter fine he paid and was quit, but the former is renewed as an unsatisfied debt on the Staffordshire Pipe-Roll of 1186, with a note to the effect that payment should be required in Shropshire.

However in 1187, he pays half-a-merk to the Sheriff of Staffordshire, the other half remaining a debt on the Staffordshire Rolls of 1188, 1189, 1190, 1191; but transferred to the Shropshire Roll of 1192, and liquidated in Shropshire in 1193.

On Nov. 24, 1194, Robert de Beaumis is the first named of the four Knights who reported to the Courts at Westminster their view of certain litigated lands at Astley Abbots and Brug. [124]

[123] Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. II, Staffordshire. Pro extravendito de foresta is the expression,- explained by the entry on the Roll of 32 Hen. II, which gives "Pro bosco in foresta vendito".
[124] Supra, Vol. I, p. 47.

242 TONG.

At the same period or rather earlier, he attests a grant of Walter de Dunstanvill, Lord of Idshale. [125]

On April 23, 1200, the same Robert appears as Recognizor in a suit which concerned lands at Evelith (near Shiffnal). [126]

At the County Assizes, October 1203, Robert de Beaumeys essoigned himself from attendance at the general summons.

In succession as I imagine to this Robert, was that Sir William de Beumys who has already been mentioned as having given to John de Pres some feoffment in Tong Manor; [127] which feoffment, apparently granted in the first half of the thirteenth Century, was confirmed by Alan la Zouche between 1255 and 1263.

In 1255, another Robert de Beaumes occurs under circumstances which leave no doubt of his being a vassal of the Lords of Tong.

Such a person had obtained from Alan la Zouche the wardship of Ralph, son of Nicholas de Wililey, so far as related to a hide of land at Gretton (Munslow Hundred); which hide of land, as I shall elsewhere show, was held by De Wililey under La Zouche, and by La Zouche in capite of the King. [128]

Though I shall be somewhat interfering with the history of another locality, I should here state briefly that on Aug. 17, 1260, Giles de Erdinton was appointed specially to try a suit of novel desseizin which William, son of William le Fraunceys and Agnes his wife, had brought against Robert Beumys concerning a tenement in Stanwey. [129]

On December 28, 1260, King Henry III granted his Letters-Patent of Protection in favour of Robert de Beumes, so long as the said Robert should be in the service of Prince Edward in parts beyond sea. [130]

On June 3, 1261, a Fine was levied at Westminster which indicates the purchase by Robert de Belmeis of half-a-virgate and one acre of land in Nether Stanwey, for which he paid ten merks to the Vendors. [131]

In 46 Hen. 3 (1261-2), the King granted to Robert de Belmeis

[125] Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Lega Prioris, &c., No. ii.
[126] Rot. Curiae Regis, ii, 199.
[127] Supra, p. 223.
[128] Rot. Hund. ii, 70, where however I suspect that we should read Andrew for Ralph, the former being the name of Nicholas de Wililey's infant heir. The mistake, however, if it be one, is circumstantially repeated in a contemporary notice of Kenley, another of De Wililey's Manors.
[129] Rot. Pat. 44 Hen. III, dorso.
[130] Ibidem, 45 Hen. III.
[131] Pedes Finium, 45 Hen. III, Salop.

TONG. 243

a license, empowering him to hunt certain animals, under the usual limitations, and only in the County of Salop. [132]

Within the next five years, Robert de Belmeis was deceased, leaving a vridow Matilda, who remarried to Hugh de la Val. His heir, and, as I imagine, his Son, was Hugh de Belmeis, a youth whose loyal services to King Henry III are matters of frequent and honourable mention in the annals of the period.

On Sept. 30, 1265, that is in the month follovring the great victory of Evesham, the King grants his Letters of Protection in behalf of Hugh de Beumes. [133]

In 1266, being one of that Monarch's Valets, he attended him at the siege of Kenilworth Castle, and, losing his two horses in that service, was recompensed for the same. The Sheriff of Shropshire, in 1268, charges ten merks which he had paid on this account to Hugh de Beaumes by Royal Warrant. [134]

On March 15, 1267, being at Cambridge with the King, Hugh de Beaumes obtained the Royal License to hunt the fox, the badger, and the wild cat anywhere in the King's Forests of Shropshire or Staffordshire. [135]

In August 1267, the King being at Shrewsbury and various Pleas coming before him, Hugh de Beaumes was, with others, prosecuted about some right of common-pasture in Over and Nether Stanwey. Hugh amicably compounded his concern in the suit. [136]

On Sept. 19, the King, still at Salop, in recompense of the long and laudable service which his beloved Valet, Hugh de Beaumeys had rendered him, granted to said Hugh the marriage of Isabella widow of Robert de Beysyn, lately deceased, or at least the fine which belonged to the King for the said marriage. [137]

On January 20, 1270, two Fines were levied at Westminster which show Hugh de Beaumes intent upon increasing his property in the neighbourhood of Tong.

The first, levied betvreen the said Hugh as Plaintiff (by Stephen Fitz Henry Tateshale his Attorney) and Ranulf de Albrython and Alice his wife, Defendants, was of six acres in Donyngton, whereof was Plea of Warrantry. The Defendants acknowledged the same to be the Plaintiff's right by their own gift - to hold to Hugh and his heirs, of Ranulf and Alice, and the heirs of Alice, by a clove rent and

[132] Patent, 46 Hen. III.
[133] Patent, 49 Hen. III.
[134] Rot. Pip. 52 Hen. III, Salop.
[135] Patent, 51 Hen. III.
[136] Placita coram Rege apud Salop, 51 Hen. III, memb. 7.
[137] Patent, 61 Hen. III.

244 TONG.

by rendering all services due to the Chief Lords. For this Hugh gave six merks.

A second Fine between the same Plaintiff and Nicholas Kareles and Burgia his wife Defendants, was of forty acres in Dunnyngton and was (mutatis mutandis) settled as the last, Hugh paying the greater sum of thirty-nine merks. [138]

On Feb. 9, 1270, by another Fine, Hugh de Beaumes purchased for twenty-five merks from Hugh de la Val and Matilda his wife a third part of two carucates in Stanwey, claimed by the latter as Matilda's dower in the estate of Robert de Beaumes, her former husband. [139]

On July 5, 1270, the King, by Letters Patent, again making mention of the services of his beloved Valet, Hugh de Beaumes, grants him, as far as he (the King) had it, the marriage of Hillaria Widow of William de Harecurt deceased; or else such fine as said Hillaria might be about to make with the King for her own marriage; or, in the last place, such forfeit as would be coming to the King if Hillaria married to any other, without license of the King or of said Hugh. [140]

It will presently appear that neither Isabel de Beysin nor this Hillaria (daughter of a Hastings and Mother of a Harcourt) became the wife of the King's Valet.-

Unhonoured with the hand of either, but doubtless enriched with the Fines of both, Hugh de Beaumes found a wealthy wife elsewhere.

On May 18, 1271, Hugh de Beaumes had the King's Charter, to him and his heirs, of the privilege of holding a Fair and Market in his Manor of Nether Stanwey. [141] This Manor, with all his rights therein, he sold, within the next twenty years, to his contemporary and perhaps distant kinsman, John de Beaumeis Lord of Donington.

On June 24, 1272, a Fine was levied at Lichfield between Hugh de Beaumes and Isolda his wife on the one hand, and William de Mer on the other. Hugh, for an annual rent of 40s., released, for the life of Isolda, to said William, all her demesne in Norton and Mer (Staffordshire) being her dower, also a third part of half-a-virgate of land and a meadow, held by John de Mer in Norton. Sir Nicholas de Audley and others attested the transaction. [142]

[138] [139] Pedes Finium, 54 Hen. III, Salop.
[140] Patent, 54 Hen. III.
[141] Rot. Chartarum, 55 Hen. III.
[142] Blakeway's Parochial Notices, vol. ii, p. 319. It caused me much perplexity when, on first meeting with this Record, I hastily concluded that Norton and Mere were in Tong Manor, and so that Hugh de Beaumes must after all have married William de Harcourt's Widow. The Norton and Mere alluded to were on the Western Border of Staffordshire, near Market Drayton. Isolda was probably widow of some Feoffee thereof.

TONG. 245

At the County Assizes, September 1272, the Jurors both of Stottesden and Brimstree Hundreds, reported Hugh de Beaumes to be a Defaulter in due attendance. His liability arose doubtless in circumstances already alluded to, viz. in Stottesden Hundred, as Custos of certain lands of Robert de Beysin deceased, in Brimstree Hundred, as a Tenant at Donington and perhaps Albrighton.

Between this period and the close of the Century, the name of Sir Hugh de Beaumes appears in connection with various Inquisitions and Charters affecting lands in Brimstree Hundred.

In October 1292, as a Knight and Juror, he tried several of those suits de quo waranto which were then pressed by the Crown against every class of Freeholders in Shropshire. [143]

Something I should also say about the larger interests of this Hugh de Beaumeis in Lincolnshire.

In 1277, and preparatory to a Muster at Worcester against Llewellyn, which was fixed for July 1, he was returned as holding the township of Limberge (Lincolnshire) of the honour of Chester (then in the Crown) but by unknown services. [144]

For a similar Muster at Rhuddlan, fixed to take place on Aug. 5, 1282, he is returned under the same County, as ignorant of what service was due from him, but prepared, on being informed, to do it. [145]

For the Muster against the Scots, to take place at Carlisle on June 24, 1300, he was summoned in Lincolnshire, viz. as holding lands, whether in capite or otherwise, to the annual value of 40. or upwards. [146]

This Tenure in capite, for such it really was, caused the usual Inquisitions to be holden as to his estate after his death. This event took place in 1305, when, on May 20, the King's writ of Diem clausit extremum issued to the Eacheator.

An Inquest held at Limbergh found that he held that vill in capite by service of half-a-Knight's-Fee, that the whole proceeds of the same were 5. 7s., and that his son and next heir, Henry, was twenty-eight years of age and more.

A second Inquest held at Lude Muchegros (Herefordshire) found that he had been Tenant for life of half that vill, holding it under

[143] Plac. de Quo Waranto, pp. 674, &c.
[144] [145] [146] Parliamentary Writs, vol. i, pp. 200, 233, 334.

246 TONG.

Gerard de Benefford by service of a sixth part of a Knight's- Fee; that it was of the inheritance of holds formerly Hugh's wife, and that he had held it for life by Law of England (having had issue by her); that Henry, son of Hugh and Isolda, was the heir of both and that he was twenty-eight years of age on Dec. 21, 1304.

A third Inquest taken at Albrighton on June 12, 1305, said that the deceased held in Donynton under John de Beumys by services of 18d. and a pound of cumin; that he thus held a Capital messuage, a dove-cot, thirty acres of land, and one acre of Meadow: that he further held under John la Warre, Lord of Albrighton, forty acres of land by service of 8d. The age and name of his heir were returned as in the last Inquest. [147]

Henry de Beaumes, thus succeeding, seems by various lists of Jurors and Witnesses to have resided in this neighbourhood. [148] I have already mentioned his name in such relation and shall content myself with one more notice of him and his succession.

In Trinity Term 1329, a fine was levied at Westminster between John, son of Henry de Beaumes of Magna Lymbergh, and Tecia, daughter of Robert Fitz Peter of Magna Lymbergh, Complainants (querentes), through Hugh de Kilby her (Tecia's) Guardian, on the one part, and Henry de Beaumes of Magna Lymbergh, Deforciant, - of the Manor of Donynton whereof was plea of convention. Henry conceded the same to John and Tecia, to hold to them and the heirs of their bodies under Henry and his heirs; rendering to them a Rose yearly at the feast of John Baptist's Nativity, and accustomed services to the Chief Lords of the Fee. Remainder was contingently reserved to Henry and his heirs. [149]

This Fine was in short a settlement and entail on the marriage of John de Beaumeis, son, and probably expectant heir, of Henry; but how their interest in Donington came to be described as the Manor I cannot determine.


This ancient member of the Manor of Tong seems to require some distinct notice, though I have already given the chief particulars of its early history.

[147] Inquisitions, 23 Edw. I, No. 16.
[148] It was, I imagine, to the estate of this branch of the Belmeis family that the Messuage still known as Beamish Hall belonged. It is in Albrighton Parish. The old Manor House was taken down some years since.

The name Beamish is yet to be found among the poorer classes of Tong or its neighbourhood.
[149] Fines, 3 Edw. III, Bundle i, No.14, Salop.

TONG. 247

When Philip de Belmeis in 1138-9 gave to Buildwas Abbey all the land of Selfer de Rochelai, his gift undoubtedly included the whole township [150] of Ruckley, except a wood which, under the name of Ruckley-Wood, was, as we have seen, retained by his Successors.-

This was then the germ of that estate, which by successive accumulations in Cosford, Donington, Hatton, Upton, and Ryton, constituted at the end of the thirteenth century by far the fairest of the outlying possessions of Buildwas Abbey.

The matter stood thus in 1291;-

The whole Temporalities of Buildwas, in the Archdeaconry of Salop and Diocese of Coventry, were returned as annually realising an income of 76. 128. 3d. Of this sum, more than a quarter (viz. 19. 5s. 4d.) came from the estate in question, that is from Rokeleye 3. 6s. 4d., from Atton 7. 4s. 6d., from Ritton 10s., and from Cospeforde 8. 4s. 6d., which sums must be taken to include whatever the Monks had at Donington and Upton.

Rokeleye (contributing 3. 6s. 4d. in gross) was estimated as half-a-carucate of land worth 10s. per annum, and as maintaining stock, the profits on which (2. 16s. 4d.) made up the balance. [151]


The early history of Tong Church is as that of Donington. It was founded, endowed, and bestowed on Shrewsbury Abbey within eight years after Domesday, by Earl Roger de Montgomery. The transfer was sanctioned by the same succession of Royal Charters as have been mentioned under Donington. Also, as in the case of Donington, Richard de Belmeis, Bishop of London, held Tong Church under the Abbey for his life, and took care to restore it before his death. [152]

Furthermore the pension to which Shrewsbury Abbey was entitled from Tong Church was half-a-merk, and this pension was confirmed, first by the Charter of Bishop Roger de Clinton, and afterwards, by Charters of his Diocesan Successors, and of more than one Archbishop of Canterbury. [153]

[150] In 1180 the villate of Roceleis was one of those in this neighbourhood which were amerced for purpresture (Forest Rolls at Westminster, No. i, Salop.) It is with reference to this fact that I use the word "township" in the text.
[151] Pope Nicholas' Taxation, p. 260.
[152] Supra, page 200.
[153] See the authorities specified under Donington (supra, p. 166). No. 328 of the Salop Chartulary, purporting to be a confirmation by Roger Bishop of Chester, puts the pension at 3s. 4d., like that of Donington. This Charter contains so many points of identity with Bishop Roger de Clinton's Charter (Harl. MSS. 3868, fo. b), that I cannot doubt them to have been copied from the same original. If so, their few discrepancies are mere scribal errors. The Harleian Transcript is undoubtedly the more correct, and gives the pensions in question as 6s. 8d. each.

248 TONG.

These rights of Pension and Advowson were, I should observe, two distinct things. The Abbot might present one Clerk to the Incumbency or Parsonage, and another to the Pension, or he might present the same Clerk to both, or he might reserve the Pension to his House. These points as well as the Abbot's title to Tong Church are well illustrated by some legal proceedings between Roger la Zouche and Salop Abbey, in the course of which the following facts transpired.

Between the years 1188 and 1194, H (that is Hugh de Novant), Bishop of Coventry conceded and gave by Charter, to Ernulf, a Chaplain, the Church of Tong,- in pure almoigne,- to possess in perpetuity,- saving to the Bishop all rights Episcopal and Parochial.

This institution, as it afterwards appeared, was to the Parsonage as distinct from the Pension, and was on the presentation of Salop Abbey.

William la Zouche, Lord of Tong, was not well-pleased with this proceeding. He expelled Ernulf from Tong and would not allow him to live there. Ernulf's expulsion lasted some time.

Ernulf at length returned and continued to hold the Church all his life (i.e. till 1220, when he died), as Presentee of the Abbey, not as Roger, brother and heir of William la Zouche, afterwards affirmed, by gift of the said William.

Meanwhile, that is between 1215 and 1220, William de Cornhull, Bishop of Coventry, at presentation of H (Hugh), Abbot of Salop, gave and conceded by Charter to Robert de Shireford, Clerk, the Church of Tong, saving the Vicarage therein of Ernulf, Canon of Lichfield, who was to pay a yearly pension of half-a-merk to the said Robert.-

This was in fact an immediate institution only to the pension, a circumstance rendered still more clear by the words of Abbot Hugh's presentation, on receipt of which the Bishop instituted. Therein the Abbot conceded to Robert de Shireford half-a-merk out of the Church of Tong, viz. that half-merk which Ernulf, Clerk, Canon of Lichfield, had used to pay to the Abbey, and which

TONG. 249

for remainder of Ernulf's life was to be paid to Shireford; but after Ernulf's death, Shireford was to have the Church wholly (i.e. the Parsonage), and pay the pension, previously received by himself, to the Abbey.

Therefore, on the whole, Robert de Shireford had been presented to the pension and to the reversion of the Incumbency, and Bishop Cornhull's institution must be taken to have sanctioned such a mode of presentation.

On November 3, 1220, Ernulf, the Vicar and Parson, being lately dead, Roger la Zouche sued the Abbot of Shrewsbury, at Westminster, under writ of darrein presentment for the Advowson of Tong. The question in such trials was always- "who presented the last Parson, then dead, to the vacant Church under litigation"? In the present instance, the Abbot pleaded at once that the Church was not vacant, for Robert de Shireford was Parson. In proof of this, he produced Robert de Shireford in Court. Also Bishop Cornhull's Charter of Institution was exhibited, also Earl Roger's grant of the Advowson, and Henry II's Confirmation, and a Papal Bull, and Abbot Hugh's presentation.

Roger la Zouche persisted that Ernulf, lately deceased, had been presented by William la Zouche, saving to the Abbot an annual pension, in name of benefice (nomine beneficii), and that the right of presentation to all else remained to him.-

As Roger la Zouche asserted that Ernulf, now deceased, was the last Parson, the Court decided on an adjournment, and that that point should be referred to a Jury of Knights and other Freemen, who were summoned to attend at Westminster on Feb 3, 1221. [154]

The cause however was not finally decided till the County Assizes of November 1221.-

The Abbot again produced the Charters of Earl Roger, King Henry II, and Bishop Cornhull. Roger la Zouche said that the two former Charters ought not to injure him, for that, since they passed, his Brother William had presented to the Church. He admitted that his Ancestors had charged Tong Church with half- a-merk pension payable to Salop Abbey, and allowed that to such pension the Abbot might present any Clerk he pleased. He asserted again that Ernulf had been Parson, and had been admitted on presentation of his (Roger's) Brother.-

The Abbot now produced the Charter of Bishop Hugh de Novant,

[154] Placita apud Westm. Michaelmas Term, 4 & 5 Hen. III, memb. 14 dorso.

250 TONG.

which decided indeed that Ernulf was Parson; but whereas the Charter did not express by whom the said Ernulf was presented to Bishop Hugh, it would seem that at this point the case went to the Jury. The latter decided that Ernulf, late Parson, had been presented by the Abbot and admitted on such presentation: they also found how Ernulf had been expelled for a time by William la Zouche and then suffered to return. [155] In fact, I suppose that this return by permission of William la Zouche had caused Roger la Zouche's error, he identifying it with a presentation by William la Zouche. Be that as it may, the Court gave sentence that "The Abbot do recover his Seizin and that Roger be in misericordia".

In 1291, the Church of Tonge in the Deanery of Newport (Novi Burgi), the Archdeaconry of Salop, and Diocese of Coventry, was valued at 4., besides the Abbot of Shrewsbury Pension therein, which was put, as before, at 6s. 8d. [156]

In 1341, the Assessors and Vendors of the Ninth of wheat, wool, and lamb in Tong Parish, returned the proceeds at 3. 6s. 8d. i.e. 1. less than Pope Nicholas' Taxation of the Church. This low return, if I understand their statement, arose thus.- The Abbot of Buildwas held a carucate of land in the Parish (at Buckley, I presume) which did not pay tithe, but, in lieu of tithe, three quarters of fine wheat (which I infer was all he could be charged to the Ninth): [157] - also the Abbot of Lilleshull had a caracate of land here (Lizard Grange), and paid 3s. 4d. only thereon, in lieu of tithe; also the small-tithes, glebe-land, oblations, tithes of Mills, and other profits went to make up the greater sum (the taxation), and did not pertain to the Ninth now granted to the King. [158]

When Isabel, Widow of Sir Fulke de Pembruge, proposed to found the Collegiate Church of Tong she procured in the first instance the Royal License to purchase the Advowson from Salop Abbey.-

King Henry IV's Patent, dated Nov. 25, 1410, enabled her so to do, calling the Church that of St. Bartholomew the Apostle, and

[155] Salop Assizes, 6 Hen. III, memb. 6 dorso.
[156] Pope Nicholas' Taxation, pp. 245, 247.
[157] It would appear however from some other entries (e.g. Idsall, Albrighton, and Stirchley) that the Abbot of Buildwas was exempt from contributing to the Ninth at all; but at Cound he was specially assessed.

On the whole the Abbot of Buildwas' Tenure in any Parish operated to reduce the Ninth assessed on such Parish; but it is not clear whether this result was in consequence of special compositions of tithe or of some more general exemption.
[158] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 193.

TONG. 251

reserving to the Abbot the pension of 6s. 8d. which he and his predecessors had been used to receive therefrom. [159]

In the receipts of his House, during the year ending Michaelmas 1534, the Abbot of Salop returned the ancient pension of 6s. 8d. as paid by the College of Tong; and in the following year the Master of Tong College stated the value of the Parochial Church, annexed to the said College, to be 6. 13s. 4d. per annum, but made no deduction on account of the said Pension. He deducted only 4s. per annum, payable out of the Church to the Diocesan Bishop, 2s. Senage payable to the same, and 8s. Procurations payable to the Archdeacon of Salop. [160]


ERNULF, CHAPLAIN, and afterwards a Canon of Lichfield, has already been mentioned as instituted to this Church between 1188 and 1194. On his death in 1220, ROBERT DE SHIREFORD, CLERK, entitled by a previous grant to the reversion of the Parsonage, succeeded, not however without question, till November 1221, when his title to do so was established in the Secular Courts.

WILLIAM, PARSON OF TONG, was in 1255 reported by the Jurors of Brug as having impleaded Walter de Ingworthin, a Layman, before a spiritual Court, and having got from him 10s. because said Walter would not sell him boots to his wish. [161]

The first Incumbent on the Diocesan Register is:-

ROBERT DE ATTERLEY, Rector of Tonge, who has a two years license to study on May 9, 1308. He has occurred to us under Donington in 1324. On May 30, 1334, he has leave of five months non- residence on the score of ill health (causa medicinae); and on Jan. 29, 1335 he proposes to exchange benefices with-

MASTER WILLIAM DE KYNARDESEYE, Acolyte, late Rector of St, Mary's, Bristol, who is admitted to Tong by the Bishop of Worcester on Feb. 4 following.

On April 13, 1351, this Rector has a year's leave of non- residence; and again on July 15, 1354, at instance of the Bishop of Bath and Wells. On Jan. 9, 1355, he is negotiating an exchange of benefices with-

SIR ROBERT ALEWY, late Rector of Farnebergh (Dioc. Bath and Wells), who is admitted here on Jan. 19 by the Bishop of Bath and

[159] Monasticon, viii, p. 1402.
[160] Valor Ecclesiasticus, iii, 189, 196.
[161] Rot. Hund. ii, 59. The word which I have translated "boots" is in the original "estimalia". In so translating it I have ventured to read "estivalia".

252 TONG.

Wells), and on Feb. 7 has the Bishop of Lichfield's Mandate of Induction directed to the Official of the Archdeacon of Salop, and alleging the presentation of this Rector by the Abbot and Convent of Salop. On Nov. 27, 1355, Alewy is exchanging benefices with-

JOHN DE CAYNTON, Rector of Axebrugge (Bath and Wells Dioc.) who is admitted here, in the usual way, on Dec. 15; and the mandate for whose Induction bears date Dec. 22 following. [162]


Tong Church, which consists of a nave with aisles, a Chancel, and a central octagonal tower with a low spire, was principally built during the reign of Henry IV, and is a pure and beautiful example of the Early Perpendicular. To this date also belongs the south porch, and the vestry attached to the north aide of the Chancel. But a Chapel on the south side, forming a sort of transept, was added during the latest period of Gothic, and has a rich fan vaulting, all the other roofs of the Church being timber. I gave a notice of this Church in the second volume of the "Archaeological Journal", but at the time I wrote it, I had not remarked some earlier features which appear in the south aisle, in the shape of labels of arches, with their corbels or brackets, and the capitals of the piers. These lead me to suspect that the face of the arcade now looking to the south aisle, originally faced the nave of an older building, the north aisle of which would fall into the area of the present nave; for a greater amount of ornament would naturally be introduced in the side facing the central passage, than in that towards the aisle; that is, if any difference between the two was made. At any rate, a part of the present structure, however small, may be referred to the thirteenth century.



I have already descended far later than my usual limits in order that I might trace the History of Tong down, to the extinction of the male line of Pembruge and the foundation of the Collegiate Church by the Widow of the last of that House.

Many temptations there are to descend yet later,- a brilliant succession of Knights and Nobles who continued to inherit or

[162] Lichfield Registers.



TONG. 253

possess the Lordship, a Church well known in the present day as a model of its class, also a series of Monuments such as can be found in few edifices of equal scale and pretension. [163]

To one of these Monuments, the oldest and perhaps the fairest of the series, I will at least extend my remarks, associated as it is with the era to which I have already descended, and because some curiosity exists as to the persons whom it was intended to commemorate.

Sir William Dugdale, visiting Tong Church in September 1663, notices this Monument as follows;-

"Towards the North side of the Church stands a faire Tombe of Alabaster whereon do lye the figures of a man in armour (partly male and partly plate armour) and of his wife on his right hand, and on her chin a Wimpler. Upon the Helm whereon the man resteth his head is this Crest (upon a Wreath) viz. a Turkish woman's head with a wreath about her temples; her haire platted and hanging below her shoulders, with a tassel at the end of the platting.-

"This iss ayde to be the monument of Sir Fowke Pembrugge Knight, sometime Lord of Tonge Castle". [164]

This Tradition still exists, and, if it be true, the Monument comes fairly within our scope as the tomb of Sir Fulk Pembruge, the last of his line, who died in 1408-9, and of one of his wives.

His Widow was within the next three years active in founding the Collegiate Structure which we now know as Tong Church.

[163] One of these Monuments is embellished by an ornament higher than architecture or heraldry could supply - a verse (its epitaph) written by Shakespeare. I may hardly thus allude to it without giving it. It is as follows

Not Monumental Stone preserves our fame, Nor sky-aspiring Pyramids our name; The Memory of him for whom this stands Shall outlive marble and Defacers' hands; When all to Time's consumption shall be given, Stanley, for whom this stands, shall stand in Heaven".

Sir William Dugdale, in his Visitation of Shropshire, says positively that this epitaph was written by Shakespeare. Probably however it was an early effort of the Poet's genius; for Sir Thomas Stanley, to whose memory it was written, died in December 1576, when Shakespeare was not yet thirteen years of age.

The opposite, or eastern, end of this tomb exhibits six verses which I cannot help thinking to have been in imitation of the former and by an inferior Poet. Possibly also they are in praise of Sir Edward Stanley (son of Sir Thomas), to whose memory the Monument is in part devoted, for they speak of one who "lyes here", that is, was buried beneath. Now Sir Thomas Stanley is said to have been buried, not at Tong, but at Walthamstow (Essex).-

These verses are not worth transcribing.
[164] Dugdale's Visitation of Shropshire at the Heralds' College; Church Notes, p. 18.

254 TONG.

A strong probability therefore arises that the earliest Monument in a Church of this Lady's building should be to the memory of herself and her deceased husband.

Some opinions which I have taken as to the date of this Monument, and which were grounded on its details of architecture and costume, are not very positive, but not inconsistent with the idea that it was Sir Fulk Pembruge's. [165]

Thus much for one view of the matter, and now for another.-

Fulk Eytone, Armiger, a member of the family of Eyton on the Wildmoors, having apparently been serving in the French wars of Henry VI's time, directs by his Will that he shall "be intombed by his Godfather Sir Fouk de Pembrudge in our Lady Chappell of Tonge". [166]

Now the person whose burial-place is thus indicated must necessarily be that Sir Fulk Pembruge who died in 1408-9; and as it is not very probable that the Lady-Chapel of Tong was in the North Transept of the Church; [167] so it is unlikely that Sir Fulk Pembruge was buried in that Transept.

But as the relative position of "The Lady-Chapel" was not invariable, we will strengthen this doubt still further.-

I again quote Dugdale who continues his notice of this Monument as follows;-

"On the sides of this Tombe are divers Escocheons whereon Armes have been antiently depicted: but I suppose it was since the Vernons became Lords of Tonge Castle by marriage with the heire female of Pembrugge, for the painting is as followeth".

Dugdale then gives, as beneath, the bearings of twelve shields, to

[165] There is always some uncertainty in judging from these indicia, e.g. all Counties cannot be supposed to have advanced in parallels of Architectural fancy: some tombs were constructed during the lives of the persons whom they were intended eventually to commemorate, others again were built long after their decease. So too as to the Armour and Dress of monumental Effigies;- an older fashion than the one in vogue might very possibly be adopted in some cases, for aged people cling to the customs of their earlier life, and would naturally, if directing the order of their future burial, give instructions in accordance with such feelings.

And in case of a monument erected to the memory of one long deceased, it is impossible to say what anachronisms of costume might not have been adopted.

For these or some similar reasons, I suppose it comes to pass that those who should be most adequate to form an opinion as to the date of a given building or monument will seldom express a very definite one.
[166] Lansdowne MS. 860 A, fo. 370 b.
[167] The Lady Chapel in large Churches was usually at the East, behind the High Altar. There is an exception at Ely, where it joins the North Eastern Angle of the North Transept.

TONG. 255

which I add the names of those families to whom I conceive the said bearings to have belonged.

I. Blank. II. Party per pale;- Dexter.- Barry of six (Pembruge), empaling,- A Lion Rampant (Ludlow). Sinister.- Blank. [168] III. Barry of six (Pembruge), empaling Fretty (Vernon). IV. Arg Fretty Sa (Vernon). V. Arg Fretty Sa (Vernon), empaling Barry of Six (Pembruge). VI. Arg Fretty Sa (Vernon). VII.} Barry of six Or and Az (Pembruge). VIII.} IX. Barry of six Or and Az (Pembruge), empaling - Az, a bend lozengy Or (Bermingham). X. Az a Bend lozengy Or (Bermingham). XI.} Barry of six Or and Az (Pembruge). XII.}

These coats are not all which the tomb has or once had; but some others, still to be recognized, are repetitions of Nos. VI and XI; others again are wholly defaced and were apparently so in Dugdale's time.

Now, notwithstanding one or two difficulties in accounting for each of these insignia, it is clear on the whole that the tomb is that of a Vernon. If compared also with the annexed Pedigree it will further appear I think, that it is the tomb of Sir Richard Vernon, Treasurer of Calais, who died in 1451, and of his wife Benedicta de Ludlow. [169]

This Sir Richard Vernon was the first of his line who inherited the estates and arms of Pembruge, and who, on one occasion at least, bore the name of Pembruge also. If he were commonly called Sir Richard Pembruge (and we do not know to the contrary) then the Tradition about the Tomb instead of being disproved has only been explained and corrected.

[168] This I take to be the significant coat of the series. It must be that of Sir Richard 'Vernon, who died in 1461. The Pembruge Arms are assigned to him as Heir of Pembruge. Impaled therewith are the Arms of his first, but perhaps not only, wife, Benedicta de Ludlow. He married, I presume, a second wife, whose Arms were either not known or else were omitted.
[169] No one, I presume, will undertake to say that Sir Fulk Pembruge's Widow emblazoning his tomb after his decease would add thereto the insignia of his apparent heirs, omitting her own arms (Lingen) and those of his first wife (Trussel).

256 TONG.

Before I leave this Tomb another curious circumstance, in probable connection therewith, should be told.-

A Tourist visiting Tong Church towards the close of the eighteenth Century, after mentioning the Monuments, says that he "noticed one of Alabaster to the memory of a Vernon. The effigies", he continues, "lie on an altar-tomb and had the remains of a garland of flowers (then nearly reduced to dust) round the neck and breast. The Sexton told me that on every Midsummer day (June 24), a new garland was put on and remained so until the following, when it was annually renewed. As this is a singular custom, I could not forbear noticing it, and wish to be informed what was the origin of it". [170]

My Brother Antiquary's inquiring spirit is ere this at rest, and, though the custom which he describes is now disused, others may care to hear a suggestion as to its origin.-

When Roger la Zouche, between the years 1227 and 1237, enfeoffed Henry de Hugford in lands at Tong (as before recited) the only acknowledgment reserved was "a Chaplet of Roses payable to the Grantor and his Heirs upon the Feast day of the Nativity of St. John Baptist (June 24), in case he or they should be at Tong; if not, then to be put upon the Image of the Blessed Virgin in the Church of Tonge".

We have seen this quit-rent to have been payable to Fulk de Pembruge (who died in 1296) among his other receipts in Tong Manor; we now, as I think, see it either paid, or commemorated, six centuries later; no longer indeed appended to the Image of the Virgin, which was of course removed in the sixteenth Century, but placed instead on the earliest Monument of the Manorial Lords which the Church happened to contain.

THE WINDOWS of the Collegiate Church of Tong were formerly embellished with armorial insignia. These deserve notice, some of them as illustrating the ascertained history and alliances of the houses of Pembruge and Vernon, others as suggesting further genealogical truths.

Dugdale, in 1663, observed the following shields in the South Windows of the Chancel.-

I. Barry of six Or and Az (Pembruge); empaling Barry of six Or and Az, on a bend Gu, three Roses Arg (Lingen).

[170] Gentleman's Magazine, vol. 70, p. 934.

TONG. 257

II. Pembruge.
III. Lingen.
IV. Gu, a Lion rampant Or (Fitz-Alan).
V. Arg Fretty Sa (Vernon).
VI. Arg Fretty Sa, a Canton Gu (Vernon).
VII. Az two Pipes between nine cross-crosslets Or (Pype).
VIII. Az a Bend Arg cotized between six Martlets Or (De la Bere).

In the North Windows of the Chancel.-

I. Arg Fretty Gu, with a bezant on each joint of the frette (Trussel);- empaling,- Or, a Lion rampant Sa (Ludlow).
II. Ludlow, empaling Lingen.
III. Ludlow, empaling,- Arg Fretty Sa, a Canton Gu (Vernon).
IV. Lingen.
V. Pembruge.
VI. Pembruge empaling Lingen.
VII. Arg Fretty Sa, a Canton Gu (Vernon) empaling- (blank).
VIII. Az a Bend Arg cotized, between six Martlets Or, empaling,- Gu a Lion rampant Or. [171]

Some Church Notes taken about A.D. 1699, show that many of the above Coats were then remaining. [172] Thus we have,- 1, Pembruge; 2, Lingen; 3, Pembruge empaling Lingen; 4, Pembruge empaling Bermingham; 5, Pembruge empaling Trussell; 6, De la Bere empaling Ludlow; 7, Vernon empaling Pype:- and also these-

I. Arg Fretty Sa (Vernon) empaling,- Or a Lion rampant Sa (Ludlow).
II. Arg Fretty Sa, a Canton Gu (Vernon),- empaling- (Ludlow).
III. Ludlow, empaling, Arg Fretty Sa, a Canton Gu (Vernon).
IV. A Lion rampant double-queued, [173]- empaling (Lingen).
V. Arg on a Bend Sa, three Harvest-flies of the first.

[171] Some Church Notes taken by Francis Sandford, Rouge Dragon, in 1660, make it probable that the coat here empaled was- "Or, a Lion rampant Sa" Ludlow).
[172] Harl. MS. 5848, fo. 44 b; Church Notes by J. Johnson.
[173] "Arg, a Lion rampant double-queued Gu", is a coat of Montfort.



[For table, see Alnodestreu]


[For table, see Bascherch]


HAVING now completed our Survey of the ancient Hundred of Alnodestreu, we proceed to classify those various detachments of other Counties and Hundreds which, at the time of Domesday, lay intermixed with, or adjacent to, the Manors of Alnodestreu, or else have been since annexed to those Hundreds (Brimstree and Stottesden) which mainly represent Alnodestreu.

The foregoing Table presents this series in a succinct form, and, when compared with the Map already given, will indicate the proposed plan of our further investigations.

It is not however my intention to give any detailed account of Hales Owen. That Manor is no longer a part of Shropshire, and its anomalous position has already procured for it the notice of the Historian of its proper County, Worcestershire. [1] Its former connection with Shropshire demands however this passing mention, and I insert its name in the annexed Table not merely for the sake of completeness, but because it will serve to illustrate some remarks which I have to offer with respect to these eccentric divisions of territory, [2]- their causes, meaning, and objects.

Dugdale, speaking of a part of Worcestershire, which in his time was isolated in Warwickshire, says as follows; [3]-

"Before I go farther, it will not be amisse to give some probable reason (for apparent proof I have none) why this, and such parcels so encompassed (as is frequently seen) became thus severed from the Counties wherein they lye; which, in short, I conceive to be no more than this; viz. that they being originally (I mean before the division of Counties was absolutely made and settled) belonging to some great person, whose residence was far distant; and in the old assessments rated there, continued afterwards so taxt; and for that respect have been, and are still reputed part of those Shires. And that this was the first ground thereof, will be evident enough from the instances that might be given therein, through sundry parts of this Realm, as in this particular here before us"; Dugdale then proceeds to show how certain Worcestershire Manors, surrounded in his time by Warwickshire, had anciently belonged to the Church of Worcester, or to the Monastery of Pershore, and

[1] Nash, vol. i, pp. 508, 535.
[2] Supra, Vol. I, p. 17.
[3] History of Warwickshire (Thomas's Edition), vol. i, p. 628.


how they had continued to be parts of Worcestershire, notwithstanding all subsequent territorial arrangements.

Mr. Blakeway, commenting upon and assenting to this doctrine of Dugdale's, quotes a passage of Ordericus to show how it was "in the power of any great man to throw his estates into whatever district he pleased". [4]-

The transfer, thus alluded to by Mr. Blakeway, belongs to the provincial history of Normandy, early in the eleventh century, and only exhibits instances where certain Nobles submitted their territories to a specific and comparatively distant Episcopal supervision, not to any secular jurisdiction. [5] Their object was clearly to escape all imperative control whatever. Nevertheless the case is well cited by Mr. Blakeway; for an analogy of motives is observable in all such transfers whether ecclesiastical or temporal.

We may now consult the annexed Table to see how far these observations of Dugdale and Blakeway bear upon our own immediate subject.-

It will be observed that four names are prominently connected with the Domesday Manors therein enumerated. They are Earl Roger, Ralph de Mortimer, Roger de Lacy, and Robert Fitz Tetbald.

Now each of these was "a great man", and doubtless the peculiar status which then or afterwards was obtained for their respective Manors had its object. They either had in view the concentration of their own jurisdictions, or else an escape from all superior or coordinate interference.

Thus I presume that Mortimer, Lacy, and Fitz Tetbald procured their Manors to be registered in the Domesday Hundred of Baschurch; not because they themselves had any other and paramount interest in that Hundred, but to escape being classified with those ordinary Tenants of Earl Roger, who owed suit and service to Alnodestreu. Thus too Roger de Lacy, being Tenant in capite, and not Earl Roger's Tenant at Cleobury-North, will have had a still stronger motive for keeping that Manor in an isolated condition.

These, however, are instances where boundaries of Hundreds only were affected. As regards the limits of Counties the cases under notice present a totally distinct feature. Four Manors in Staffordshire and one in Worcestershire, which had been originally in those Counties, and which Earl Roger and Hugh his Son held almost wholly in demesne, retained at Domesday their ancient status.

[4] Stottesdon Parochial History, Tit. Farlow.
[5] Liber, iii, p. 464, A, B.


The obvious convenience of attaching them to Shropshire was not yet recognized. It came however to be seen, and probably soon after Domesday. The change then, in this instance, was not based upon prescription or the authority of Domesday, but was brought about afterwards; its object being evidently to give integrity to the Palatine Earldom of Shropshire.

The last and most curious case is that of the four Domesday Manors which, being locally in Staffordshire at that period, are yet exhibited in Warwickshire. These were not held by Earl Roger in demesne, but by his Tenants, one of whom I identify with Ralph de Mortimer.

It is again clear that the said Tenants were interested in disuniting these Manors, not only from the Manors of Earl Roger's demesne, wherewith they were intermixed, but also from the yet more alien Staffordshire Hundred of Saisdone: they therefore procured them to be recognized as in Warwickshire. A combination with any nearer jurisdiction or district would have been to the disadvantage of these Manors. They would in fact have constituted an hundredal minority. Summarily then there were cases where the isolation of a Manor added to its importance; there were also cases, where a Manor, already isolated, might profit by being annexed to some distant jurisdiction where its Lord was already paramount.


THE etymology of this name is more traceable in the older ways of spelling it than in that which is now current.- Gopster Fopb (Gorstes-ford) or "The ford of gorse" is a term relevant both to the shallow stream, which flows hereby, and to the nature of the soil, which in this quarter is favourable to the shrub thus indicated.

Domesday says that "Radulfus (de Mortemer) holds Costeford (of Earl Roger). Turgot held it (in time of King Edward) and was a free man. Here is one hide geldable. There is (arable) land sufficient for III ox-teams. In demesne there is one (such team). In time of King Edward it was worth XLs. (per annum); afterwards it was waste; now it is worth Vs". (per annum). [1]

This small Manor introduces to our notice one of the greatest names which occur in the Shropshire Domesday. The connection of Mortimer with Cosford was however very transient, and we must

[1] Domesday, fo. 257 a, 1.


postpone our account of that extraordinary race till we reach some locality more associated with its fortunes. A probable reason should meanwhile be given why this and some other Manors, held by Mortimer at Domesday, appear at no subsequent period in the hands of his Successors.-

I have already suggested (under Ryton) how an outlying Manor might be a mere incumbrance to a great Fief, and so be surrendered by its Tenant as a matter of policy. I have further imagined that some involuntary loss may have befallen those who shared in the rebellion of 1088. Either consideration will apply to Ralph de Mortimer's tenure of Cosford; for it was isolated from all his other possessions, and he shared prominently in that rebellion. In short, the very name of Mortimer implies turbulent restlessness and never-sated ambition, alternate honour and disgrace, the greatest ascendancy succeeded by the most utter ruin.

Besides this case of Cosford, I shall hereafter notice other early dismemberments of Mortimer's Fief, and one which must have happened within thirteen years of Domesday,- that is before the death of Earl Hugh de Montgomery in 1098.

Cosford, after its separation from the Fief of Mortimer, seems to have been annexed to that Tenure in capite which the Pichfords enjoyed in the neighbouring Manor of Albrighton.

Richard de Pichford, before the year 1176 (when he was deceased), granted to Buildwas Abbey "all the service of Richard Crasset, of the land of Cospelford".

Such is the Record of a Charter of King Richard I, dated at Winchester, October 22, 1189. [2] But another Charter of the same King, dated in the first instance on October 20, 1189, and afterwards renewed at Roche-Andely on October 24, 1198, speaks of the same or other land acquired by the Monks at Cosford in a different way. This Charter confirms them in possession of "the land of Cospelford which they had in exchange by gift of William Crasset". [3]

Of William Crasset, thus ascertained to have had an interest in Cosford, we meet with other mention. A deed dated in 1176, and which is a grant of William son of John Bagoth (of Blymhill) to Buildwas, is attested by William Crasset. [4] So also is the somewhat

[2] Monasticon v, 359; xvi.
[3] Blakeway's MSS., from W. Mytton's Collections. King Richard thus renewed many of his Charters. The reason was, that, during his captivity, the Great Seal had been lost. Its impression was therefore no longer a Guarantee of a genuine Document.
[4] This Deed which, though it concerns land in another County, must again be quoted by me, is as follows:- "I, William, son of John Bagoth, have conceded to the Abbot and Convent of Buldewas the whole Convention which was made between them and my Father about the land which is beyond the Rivulet, from the boundaries of Westune to the boundaries of Broctune. And to observe all these things firmly for the (specified) term we have made affidavit in the County Court at Staffort, viz. I, my Mother, and my Brothers, Roger, John, and Thomas. And of all these things are witnesses Hervey de Stratton, Sheriff (he was Sheriff of Staffordshire from 1166 to 1184), Geoffrey Salvage, Adam de Wrotesleg, Nicholas de Mutton, Ralph le Belcher, Alan de Bildewas, William Crasset. This last Convention was made in the year from the Lord's Incarnation 1176". (Blakeway MSS. from Mytton's Collections.)


later Charter of Walter de Hemes to the same Abbey, which I have quoted under Hatton.

Again, we have seen Henry Crasset standing last witness, about 1248, to Robert Trayners grant of Hatton to Buildwas, and finally we have William Crasset in 1272, suing the Abbot of Buildwas for his Manor of Hatton, which appears at that time to have comprehended two Townships, one called Hatton Traynel, the other Hatton Crasset. [5]

Thus from the time of Turgod the Saxon, who held, as I have already concluded, both Cosford and Hatton before the Conquest, two Centuries had elapsed;- two centuries during which nearly every notice of one Manor is either directly or indirectly associated with the other. Now at length both belonged to Buildwas Abbey, whose specific interests in Cospeforde were thus estimated in 1291, viz. two carucates of land worth annually (at 10s. each carucate) 1. 0s. 0d.-

Annual profits of Stock 6. 4s. 6d.-

Two Mills annually worth 1. 0s. 0d. [6]

In 1341, as we have seen under Albrighton, the Abbot of Buildwas is said to hold three caracates in Albrighton Parish. I know however of nothing which he had therein except Cosford; but these estimates are very often thus irreconcilable, and can be taken to prove little more than that the returns and assessments of that period were either made very carelessly or very dishonestly.

In 1535-6, Stephen, last Abbot of Buildwas declared his Rents derived from "Gofford" to be 3. per annum, from Abrighton 2s. 4d., whilst he paid the Prior of Wenlock 12s. per annum for Common near Gofforde, and 10s. to the Vicar of Albrighton for administering the Sacraments in Gofforde. [7]

The Minister's-Accounts, a year later, give 3. as the ferm of Gosforde Grange, and 4d. as the ground-rent of a Mill there. [8]

[5] Supra, page 173.
[6] Pope Nicholas' Taxation, p. 260.
[7] Valor Ecclesiasticus, iii, 191, 192.
[8] Monasticon, v, 361, No. xxv.


Iteshale, Idsall or Shiffnal. [1]

Domesday notices this place as follows,-

"Rotbert son of Tetbald holds Iteshale of Earl Roger. Earl Morcar held it. Here are 7 hides geldable. In demesne are IX ox-teams; and (there are) XXVI Serfs, and XXXVII villains, and III boors, and III radmans, with XXVII ox-teams. Here is a wood which will fatten three hundred swine. In time of King Edward (the Manor) was worth 15. (per annum); afterwards it was worth 6s. Now it pays 15". [2]

It is not always that Domesday records the value of a Manor at the period of its transfer from a Saxon to a Norman Lord. In the case before us we have however a statement on the point; and most significant that statement is.-

Iteshale, once an estate of Morcar Earl of Mercia, and ordinarily a Manor of 15. annual value, was worth no more than 6s. per annum, at the said period of transfer.

The rebellion and fate of Earl Morcar in 1071, have already been alluded to. We have here another feature of the same tragedy, viz. the almost utter desolation which visited his lands and dependants.

To this, then recent, state of disorganization, I must attribute the silence of Domesday as to a Collegiate Church which doubtless had existed here in Saxon times, [3] and which will have been re-established by the Norman Lord very soon after the period of that Survey.

[1] It is probable that the names Idsall and Shiffnal originally represented two districts lying respectively West and East of the small stream which divides the Town. Each however has, in its turn, served to describe the whole place. The name Schuffenhale, as that of the vill, first occurs to me in a deed of 1320; but deeds of that and four following centuries speak of the "Lordship, Manor, Fee, and Church of Idsall", sometimes adding "alias Shiffnall", sometimes not. Now, at length, the latter name is the only one recognized by common usage.

I take both to be Saxon words:- Iberheal is the Hall of Ide, Sceapan-heal the Hall of Sceafa.
[2] Domesday, fo. 258 b, 2.
[3] Vide History of Shrewsbury, v, p. 14, note 1, where my idea that this Church was originally Saxon seems to be countenanced.

The statement that, (in the same note) "traces of the interest of Shrewsbury Abbey are wanting in regard to Idsall Church", is however premature.


We must now speak of Robert Fitz Tetbald, who receiving this dilapidated Manor and Church from Earl Roger, seems to have restored both.

He had in 1085 three other Shropshire Manors, viz. Kemberton, Woodcote, and one whose extent was very small, and whose name is unrecorded.

He is mentioned in authentic documents not only as a witness to part of Earl Roger's endowment of Shrewsbury Abbey, but the Earl himself names him as one of his Coadjutors in that pious work. "Robert son of Theobald", says the Earl, "gave them (the Monks) the Church of Iteshale with the tithes of the same vill". [4]

This grant seems to have been increased, or more fully specified, during the time of Earl Hugh or Earl Robert, who are said to have confirmed the grant which "Robert Fitz Thetbalt, Vicecomes, made of the tithe of Cambriston (Kemberton), and the Church of Ithessal with all things pertaining thereto, and with the tithe of the same Manor, viz. in monies, and in animals, and in crops". [5]

Rothbert Vicecomes, or Robert Fitz Theobald next appears, both as a witness of the genuine, and an alleged witness of the more suspected Charters of Earl Hugh to Shrewsbury Abbey. There is, I think, no probability that his jurisdiction as Vicecomes was in Shropshire.- Of that however presently.

He does not appear to have been involved in the fall of Earl Robert de Belesme, for Richard Bishop of London (consecrated July 1108) is said to have attested a grant, whereby Robert Vicecomes, son of Tedbald, not only repeated his donations to Shrewsbury, but directed that, as fast as the Clerks (that is Canons) who were then in possession of the Church of Ithesal should die off, the Church should come into the demesne of St. Peter. [6]

Thus far of Robert Fitz Tetbald, as connected with Shropshire. I must now speak of him in a much more important relation, hitherto unnoticed by local Historians.

The Domesday Survey of Sussex presents Robert Fitz Tetbald

[4] Salop Chartulary, No. 2.
[5] Salop Chartulary, No. 35.
[6] Monasticon, iii, 518. "Et quia eandem ecelesiam tunc clerici habebant, precepit isdem Robertus, ut cum illi morerentur, ecclesia in domino Sancti Petri veniret". This was an exact imitation of Earl Roger's dealing with regard to Norville. The Normans first restored the Saxon Collegiate Churches, and then disposed of them in such a way as that they should eventually lose their Collegiate character.


as holding under Earl Roger two burgages (hagas) at Arundel, and being entitled to levy his own tolls on strangers. The same Robert Fitz Tetbald is described as holding the large Sussex Manor of Treverde (Trayford) under the Earl. [7] The same person, easily recognized under his Christian name Robertus, further appears as Tenant of more than thirty Manors in the Honour of Arundel.

Being thus by far the greatest Feoffee in Roger de Montgomery's Earldom of Arundel and Chichester, it was doubtless in this relation, that Robert Fitz Tetbald acquired his title of Vicecomes, though his Shrievalty is nowhere noticed in Domesday, and perhaps had not then commenced.

It will answer a present as well as a future purpose, if I give a summary of Robert Fitz Tetbald's Sussex Fief.- It induded Peteorde (Petworth), Cochinges (Cocking), Heriedeham (Hardham), and a number of Manors which constituted that integral portion of the Earldom of Arundel known afterwards as the Honour of Petworth. It also included Poleberge (Pulborough) and Garinges (Goring). [8]

I have already cited evidence to show that Robert Fitz Tetbald did not share the fall of Earl Robert de Belesme in 1102. His Fief both in Sussex and Shropshire will accorclingly have been held after that event under King Henry I. It is however clear that during that Monarch's life the whole lapsed to the Crown, but whether by surrender, forfeiture, or failure of heirs, I cannot determine.

The Honours of both Earl and Vicomte were thus at the redisposal of King Henry. The estates of Robert Fitz Tetbald do not however appear to have been granted to any Subject during that Monarch's reign; for the Feodary of the Honour of Arundel (which I have already determined to belong to the period between 1130 and 1185) enumerates the following Tenures and Fees without naming any Tenant. "Pettewrtha - 22 fees, Garinges - 11 fees, Poleberga - 3 fees, and Trieferda - 1 fee". [9]

Thus at the close of Henry I's reign, was the Fief of Robert Fitz Tetbald in the King's hand. I shall hereafter have to trace its subsequent history in connection with Shropshire names and estates.

At the time I speak of (1130-5), another large portion of the

[7] Domesday, fo. 23a, 1.
[8] Domesday, fo. 23-25.
[9] Liber Niger, i, 64, 65.


Earldom of Arundel, estimated at eight Knights'-Fees, had been placed at the disposal of the King. This he had granted to Alan de Dunstanvill, who was then holding the same. He had also, if I mistake not, granted to the same Alan the Shropshire Manor of Idsall.

And here, in attempting to declare who this Alan de Dunstanvill was, I must undertake the history of a great Feudal Barony, the early part of which was left unexplored by Dugdale, and has only been misrepresented by others.


In the Wiltshire Domesday, one Humphrey de Lisle (Humfridus de Insula) is recorded as holding of the King a Fief of not less than twenty-seven Manors. Of these it will suffice for our present purpose to name the following, viz. Broctone, Contone, Sterte, Cumbrewelle, Wili, Colerne, Poltone, Bedestone, Come, and Wintreburne. [10]

Of this Humphrey de Lisle, I can say no more than that in January 1091, he was in attendance at Hastings on King William II, then about to embark for Normandy. [11

He appears to have left a daughter and sole heiress, variously called Adeline de Insula, and Adeliza de Dunstanville, for it was the custom of great heiresses to retain their paternal names after marriage.

The husband of Adelina de Insula was Reginald de Dunstanville, whose marriage of so wealthy an heiress bespeaks some Court- influence, but of whose origin I can form no conjecture. The name is associated with the liaisons of Royalty, but certain it is that this Reginald was deceased before his great namesake the illegitimate son of Henry I, and afterwards Earl of Cornwall, had passed the age of boyhood.

This Reginald, under the name of Rainald de Dunestanesvill, gave to the Priory of Lewes the Church of Winterburne in Wiltshire with all that appertained thereto. [12] Now as Winterburne was among the Domesday possessions of Humphrey de Lisle, so will the various confirmations which Lewes Priory had of this Church enable us to judge of his succession.

[10] Domesday, fos. 70, b 2, and 71, a 1.
[11] Monasticon, viii, 1294; ii.
[12] Monasticon, v, 14, No. vi. A pension from the Church of Wynterborne Basset (Wilts) was payable to Lewes Priory at the Dissolution.


Adelina de Insula, wife of Reginald de Dunstanvill survived him. In her widowhood and yet previous to the year 1124, she granted to Tewkesbury Abbey the land of Poltone for the soul of the said Reginald her husband. [13] She appears also on the Wiltshire Pipe-Roll of 1130, under the name of Adeliza de Dunestanvill as Surety for one who owed ten merks to the Crown. [14] She further seems, by a document which I shall quote presently, to have made some grant or confirmation of Winterbourne Church to Lewes Priory.

In 1130, there was one Reginald de Dunstanvill who had a very large property in Wiltshire, whose Sister Guiidred had also lands there, and who both seem to have been high in Royal favour. [15] If this Reginald was in the succession of Humphrey de Lisle, I can say nothing further of him. If, as, notwithstanding some evidence to the contrary, I must believe, he was identical with Reginald Fitz Roy, then I have no present concern with him.

In the succession of Adeliza de Dunstanvill came one Walter de Pinkney. Whether he were her heir (the son of a former husband), or whether his claims superseded those of others in consequence of his siding with the dominant political party of his day, I can hardly determine. The following evidences are all I have to offer on the point.-

In or about the year 1145, this Walter, having been left by Stephen as Governor of the garrison of Malmesbury, was distinguished for his fidelity to the Usurper, and his readiness in

[13] Monasticon, ii, pp. 66, 86. Polton, near Marlborough (Wilts), continued to belong to Tewkesbury till the Dissolution. It was a Domesday Manor of Humphrey de Insula. Adelina's grant thereof was confirmed by Henry I, apparently when at East-Bourne (Sussex), and certainly before 1124.
[14] Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. I, p. 21.
[15] He is excused 7. 1s. of the Danegeld assessed on Wiltshire. His liability to such a sum indicates a large property. Several Hundreds in the same County were also under amercement, for murders committed within their limits;- but a sum of 40s. chargeable on Reginald, and one of 24s. chargeable on his Sister Gundred, in that respect, had been excused by Royal favour. Similarly 24s. of the Danegeld assessed on the County of Surrey had been excused to Reginald de Dunestanvill (Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. I, pp. 22, 51). The doubt about this Reginald being Reginald Fitz Roy arises thus:- William of Jumieges, writing apparently between the years 1135 and 1140, speaks of Reginald Fitz Roy as "adhuc juvenis et sine casemento" (still a youth and without territorial provision). Nevertheless Reginald Fitz Roy was fighting for the cause of the Empress, in Coutance, in 1138; and there are other reasons for thinking that Henry I's illegitimate children were all born at an earlier period than the Monk of Jumieges' account would imply (Vide,- Willelmus Gemmeticensis, p. 306; and Ordericus, p. 915;- inter Normannorum Scriptores).


the field. Falling however into the hands of William Peverel de Dover, an equally zealous supporter of Matilda, he was given up to the latter. Neither persuasions nor threats would induce the captive to cooperate in a scheme which the Empress entertained of obtaining possession of Malmesbury-Castle through his agency. He would not and could not further her design, for Stephen, hearing of his captivity, came to Malmesbury himself and took measures for its future defence. The Empress, cruel in her disappointment, consigned Walter de Pinkney to chains and a dungeon. [16]

It must have been two years afterwards, that Walter de Pinkney (Pinchenei) escaping from prison flew again to arms. Backed by the assistance of Roger Earl of Hereford and an efficient band of soldiers, he got possession of Christ-Church (Hants), a Castle then garrisoned for the Empress. His conduct was now marked by violent extortion, sacrilege, and the most wanton cruelties. A combination of the Citizens of Christ-Church and the neighbouring tenantry resolved to put an end to his barbarities. Passing, as it seems, from the Castle to the Church, he and his suit were waylaid by the conspirators, who in the first instance addressed him as suppliants deprecating his extortionate conduct. The answer they received was a defiant look, and a threat of yet harsher treatment. The look and the threat were the last;- in another moment Walter de Pinkney fell lifeless under the stroke of a battle-axe, his followers were put to the sword, and the Castle of Christ-Church surrendered to the Conspirators. [17]

This Walter had in his life-time, and probably before his imprisonment, expedited a Charter to Lewes Priory of which the following is a translation.

To the Venerable Lord Prior of Lewes, &c., Walter de Pencheni, greeting. Know ye that I give ye, the Church of Wintreburne, which my Mother [18] (materna mea) Adeliza gave ye;- I give it after the decease of the Clerk my kinsman (clerici, parentis mei) to whom I granted it, and as long as that Clerk shall live, he shall hold it of ye, and he shall pay ye every year, whilst the War shall last, 10s., and when God shall have given peace, he shall pay one merk of silver. But after his decease, ye shall have it wholly

[16] [17] Gesta Regis Stephani, pp. 111, 112, 132, 133.
[18] In translating materna mea as if it were simply mater I follow the Rubricator of the Lewes Chartulary, who thus heads the deed,- "Carta Walteri de Pencheni de confirmacione ecclesie de Winterburne quam Adeliza mater sua dedit".


and freely (solidam et quietam),- Hugo de Cumbrevilla and his two Brothers Roger and Reinald de Insula being witnesses;- This (I do) that I may partake in all the benefits of your Church. [19]

With this curious and not uninstructive document, I close my notice of Walter de Pinkney, and pass to those who were with less doubt the eventual heirs, and, as I think, the sons of Adeliza de Lisle and Reginald de Dunstanvill.

These were the two Brothers Robert and Alan de Dunstanvill, the former of whom, dying in course of time without issue, left his estates to the children of his younger Brother. The latter, Alan, having in the first instance no paternal inheritance, seems to have obtained certain grants in Sussex and Shropshire, which I have already ascribed to the favour of Henry I.

I will first speak of Robert de Dunstanvill, and endeavour to show by his attestation of various Charters how true he was to the cause of the Empress and her Son Henry.

On July 25, 1141, it must be he, who as Robert Fitz Reginald witnessed that famous Charter whereby the Empress, grateful for a temporary success, created Milo de Gloucester Earl of Hereford. [20] This Charter passed at Oxford, as did two others nearly contemporary, one to Geoffrey Earl of Essex, and one to St. Benet's of Hulm (Norfolk). The first of these is attested by Robert Fitz Reginald, the other by Robert Fitz Reg: probably the same person. [21]

About the same time, but at Devizes (Wiltshire), and as Robert de Dunstanvill, he attests two Charters which the Empress expedited in favour of Shrewsbury Abbey. [22] Another Charter of the Empress dated at Devises, and granting to the Monks of Radmore (Staffordshire) has the same attestation. [23]

In 1153, he attests a Charter which Henry, as yet only Duke of Normandy and Earl of Anjou, granted to Bristol Abbey: [24] but on that Prince's accession to the throne, he appears constantly at Court both in England and Normandy, at the siege of Brug also in 1155, and attesting charters which passed then and afterwards to the Shropshire Houses of Shrewsbury and Haughmond, and to the Flintshire Abbey of Basingwerc.

In 1156 (2 Hen. II), he stands exempted, by Writ Royal, from

[19] Lewes Chartulary (Cotton. Vespas. F, xv), fol. 169 b.
[20] Selden's Titles of Honour, p. 537.
[21] Dugdales Baronage, i, 201; Monasticon, iii, 87, No. xiii.
[22] Salop Chartulary, Nos. 40, 50.
[23] Monasticon, v, 446, No. i
[24] Ibidem, vi, 366; iii.


the quota of Danegeld assessed upon him in Wiltshire, Hampshire, Dorsetshire and Surrey, also from his share of the Donum of the last two Counties.

In this same fiscal year, he had had a grant from the King of the Royal Manor and Hundred of Heytesbury (Wiltshire), reputed to pay a blanch ferm of 40. per annum to the Exchequer. [25]

The Sheriff of Wiltshire, till September 1167, annually deducted that sum from his own debts to the Crown, alleging Robert de Dunstanvill as the recipient thereof, in the usual form.

But in September 1168, Robert de Dunstanvill being dead, his heir Walter de Dunstanvill is similarly entered as entitled to the Manor. [26] Of him however presently.-

It should here be noted that Robert de Dunstanvill's interest in Surrey arose by purchase. He gave for Shalefeld (Shalford) and Aldeford 100 merks and 11 greyhoimds to Robert de Watevill, a great Feoffee in the Honour of Clare. Hence, in 1165, Robert de Dunstanvill is returned as holding Knight's-Fee in Surrey, of that Honour. [27]

I must now speak of his works of piety. Being Guardian I suppose of his Nephew Alan, he gave to Lewes Priory the Church of Bercham (Sussex), of the Fee of said Alan, a grant which the latter afterwards increased by giving an annual rent of 20s. He (Robert) also gave to the same Cluniac House the Chapel of Gretham. [28] Lastly, he gave to the Priory of Farleigh (Wilts), a Cell of Lewes, the land of Cutiford, a grant which, after his death, was confirmed by his Nephews.

He died, as I have said, about 1168, without issue; but before we proceed to his Successors, we should speak of Alan de Dunstanvill his younger Brother, who died long before him. This

[25] Rot. Pip. 2, 3 & 4 Hen. II, pp. 57, 78, 116. "In terris datis.- Et Roberto de Dunstanvilla, xl, li, bl, in Hehtredebiria cum hundredo".

When the King granted away a Manor together with the Hundred, or with the issues of such Pleas within the Manor as were of the jurisdiction of the Hundred-Court, the land was said to be given "blanch" (blanca); and when, on the contrary, the King retained the Hundredal jurisdiction, and simply gave the land, it was said to be given "by tale" (numero). These terms came into use because it was currently estimated that the values of a Manor with and without Hundredal Jurisdiction were as the values of blanch (i.e. refined) money and common money (i.e. money counted by the piece, without reference to its purity). (See Stapleton's Rotuli Normannia, i, xv).
[26] Rot. Pip. passim, sub annis.
[27] Liber Niger, i, 294.
[28] Monasticon, v, 14; iii; where the grant is confused with, but must be understood as distinct from, another by Roger de Caisneto.


Alan seems to have held 8 Knights'-Fees in the Honour of Arundel, by favour of King Henry I, and before 1135. Though thereby questioning a high authority, I hesitate not to say that he was also Lord of Idsall, which he probably acquired by a similar patronage.

In July 1141, he attests at Oxford a Charter which the Empress granted to Haughmond Abbey, his fellow-witnesses being several of them connected with Shropshire. [29]

He granted to Wombridge Priory half a ferdendel (or virgate) of land, which Eilric held in Leies (afterwards Prior's Lee), with all the children of the said Eilric. [30] Lee was then a member of Idsall, of which Manor Alan de Dunstanvill is thus proved to have been Lord. This grant, as well as a further one of nine acres in Leia, passed before 1156, and both were confirmed by a Bull of Pope Urban in 1187, as the grants of Alan de Donstanvill. [31] Either in conjunction with his wife, or for the weal of her soul, this Alan granted to Lewes Priory the land of Netimbre (Newtimber, Co. Sussex), and this Charter was confirmed, during the reign of Stephen, by William de Albini Earl of Arundel, of whose Honour the said land was held. [32]

I can say nothing more of this Alan de Dunstanvill than that in 1156 he was deceased. He left two Sons at least,- Walter and Alan, the latter probably under age. He had also a daughter Alice, who married Thomas Basset.

Of Walter de Dunstanvill, eldest son and heir of Alan, we have innumerable notices. He first occurs at Michaelmas 1156, as having been excused, by writ of Henry II, his quota of the Danegeld

[29] Harl. MSS. 2188, fo. 123. The other witnesses are David King of Scots, R (Robert) Bishop of London, A (Alexander) Bishop of Lincoln, W (William Fitz Gilbert) the Chancellor, R (Richard) de Belmes Archdeacon, Rainald Earl of Cornwall, William Fitz Alan and W (Walter) his Brother.
[30] [31] Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Lega Prioris, No. xiv, and Appendix, No. iiij. The former is a confirmation by Walter de Dunstanvill I, son and heir of Alan.
[32] Lewes Chartulary, fo. 126 dorso. This Confirmation purports to be that of William Earl of Liscoln, but is addressed to his Barons and men of the Honour of Arundel.-

The mistake of the transcriber is obvious. Dugdale, taking extracts from this very Chartulary, as I think, writes the Grantor as William Earl of Arundel without note or comment (Ashmol. MSS. vol. 39, fo. 62). The witnesses of the Earl's Charter are Hugh, Prior of Neuham, Roger and Hermann Chaplains, Ralph Fitz Savaric (deceased 1157), Geoffrey de Tresgos, Amaury de Bellafago, William de Dunstanvill and Walter his Brother, Peter Alan's Dapifer, Harold Priest of Burcham and Robert his Brother, and Helias Nephew of Ralph Fitz Savaric.


assessed on the County of Sussex. The sum thus excused was 3. Again, in 1158, he is excused 14s. 6d., his share of the donum of the same County. [33]

In 1156, he had also been assessed 1. 6s. 3d. for the Danegeld of Shropshire, which debt, being left in arrear, was excused by the King in 1157. In 1158, the King further excused him a sum of 16s., his proportion of the donum of Shropshire. [34]

In 1162, when the Danegeld was again levied, Walter de Dunstanvill was assessed at and excused 27s. 6d. in Shropshire, and 58s. in Sussex. [35]

In 1165, he is returned as holding one fee of old feoffment under Adam de Port, of Herefordshire. [36] I cannot identify this Fee. His Sussex Tenure of eight Fees in the Honour of Arundel was returned by the Earl under name of Alan de Dunstanvill (Walter's Father),- the Earl, as I have before explained, quoting a Feodary taken thirty years previously. Walter himself makes no return of his Shropshire Tenure in capite.

In 1167, the Demesne of Walter Dunstanvill paid a fine of one merk, inflicted by Alan de Nevill, who had been holding Pleas of the Forest in Shropshire. [37]

In 1168, it appears that having been assessed eight merks (on eight Knights'-Fees held of the Honour of Arundel) to the Aid for marriage of the King's daughter, he had refused to pay more than five merks, alleging that the other three merks were in excess of the just demand. [38] In other words he asserted his tenure under the Earl of Arundel, to be by service of five, not eight Knights'-Fees. At or about this time, he became the heir of his Uncle Robert, succeeding thereby to Heytesbury, and other estates in Wiltshire, Surrey, and elsewhere. He is accordingly entered among the Wiltshire Grantees of the Crown as having the Manor and Hundred of Heytesbury, of 40. annual value. This entry continues on the Wiltshire Pipe-Roll till Michaelmas 1170, inclusive. It is then suspended altogether for two-and-a-half years, i.e. till

[33] Rot. Pip. 2, 3 & 4 Hen. II, pp. 61, 182.
[34] Ibidem, pp. 43, 89, 170.
[35] Rot. Pip. 8 Hen. II, Salop and Sussex.
[36] Liber Niger, i, 151.
[37] Rot. Pip. 18 Hen. II, Salop.
[38] Madox Exchequer, 405, k; Liber Ruber, fo. xlix. These 3 merks were still in arrear in 1170, and the debt subsequently disappears from the Rolls without any appearance of its ever having been liquidated.-

In fact Dunstanvill gained his point; for a Feodary of the Honour of Arundel, drawn up in 1242, shows his Grandson as holding, by service of five Knights'-Fees only, in Bergham. (Test de Nevill, pp. 222, 223).


March 1173. This break in an otherwise uniform account, indicates I doubt not a contemporary forfeiture of Walter de Dunstanvill, but it begun rather earlier, and ended rather sooner than would tally with any supposition that the disgraced Baron was associated with the Treason of Prince Henry or the Norman rebellion of a somewhat later date. At Michaelmas 1173, the Sheriff of Wiltshire recognised his tenure of Heytesbury during the preceding half-year, and accordingly deducts 20. blanch from his own liabilities at the Exchequer. In following years the usual entry allowing Walter de Dunstanvill's full tenure of Heytesbury, is continued. At Michaelmas 1177, the King having himself sat in judgment on those who were accused of trespassing on the Royal Forests, had amerced Walter de Dunstanvill in 100,- an enormous sum, and greatly in excess of other amercements inflicted on some principal persons in Shropshire. Walter had already paid 50 of this fine, and before Michaelmas 1178, he discharged the balance in two sums of 20. and 30, paid to the Sheriffs of Shropshire and Wiltshire respectively. [39]

Besides his possessions in England, Walter de Dunstanvill had large estates in Normandy, situated apparently in the Bailiwick of Dieppe and Arques. He seems to have mortgaged his land of Roumaisnil in that quarter, to one Peter de Bures, who, having been Vicomte of Dieppe and Arques during the war (1173-4), was himself indebted to the Crown in vast sums of money. In part payment of such debts, Peter de Bures transferred Walter de Dunstanvill's mortgage to the King. Hence, on the Norman Exchequer-Roll of 1180, the said Walter appears as owing the King 70. for Peter de Bures, which sum he formerly owed to said Peter, on his (Walter's) land of Roumaisnil. [40]

I should here notice that the Wiltshire Manors of Come, Colerne, and Wili, which had been of the Domesday Fief of Humphrey de Insula do not appear to have continued in his ordinary succession. They had been in possession of Reginald Fitz Roy, better known as Reginald de Dunstanvill Earl of Cornwall, and on his death (A.D. 1175), had escheated to the Crown.-

The Sheriff of Wiltshire continued to account for tallages, scutages and ferms assessable on these Manors in 1189; but at Michaelmas 1190, Walter de Dunstanvill rendered account through the Sheriff "of one hundred merks for his fine of the land of

[39] Rot. Pip. 14 to 24 Hem. II.
[40] Rot. Normanniae (Stapleton) i, 67.


Cumbe, and Colerne, and of Wili". [41] He had in fact recovered part of his inheritance, and these Manors went to his Successors.

In 1192, Walter de Dunstanvill appears to have been of the Retinue of John Earl of Moreton. [42] Whether he was also implicated in the subsequent treason of that Prince I cannot determine. That he was no favourite of King Richard is certain, but there is some obscurity, and something too of contradiction in the documents which bear upon this question. Those documents shall presently speak for themselves.

Another matter of uncertainty is the precise period of his death; and this I propose to investigate at length. Though the case is one in which a definite conclusion can hardly be established, it involves some points of collateral interest.-

To men in those days, and in the position of Walter de Dunstanvill, there were other deaths than that of physical dissolution. There was what may be termed a civil death, the consequence of forfeiture or political disqualification; and there was the death quantum ad saeculum, as it was termed, when a man, as men often did, retired from the world to a Monastery. By one of these deaths, died Walter de Dunstanvill in 1194, but by which, let a comparison of documents decide if adequate so to do.

The County of Wilts appears to have been visited by Justices Itinerant in October 1194, i.e. about six months after the King's return from captivity.-

A Record of this Iter is preserved. It contains an Inquisition as to several matters in the Hundred of Heytesbury. From this mutilated document I think that I gather the following facts; viz. that Walter de Dunstanvill's Manor of Hectredesburi, worth 40. per annum, was in the King's hands;- that Wido de Diva had so seized it for the King during some part of Easter Term preceding;- that the stock thereon had been escheated; that the Manor without such stock was worth 23. per annum,- and that William de St. Mary-Church (then the King's Escheator) had made a more recent seizure thereof. It would also appear from another entry

[41] Rot. Pip. 2 Ric. I, Wilts.
[42] On May 13, 1192, he attests with Ingeram de Pratellis a Charter of John, Lord of Ireland and Earl of Moreton, dated at Reading (Monasticon, vii, 1143; ii). On the following day, at London, the same two persons attest a Charter of that Prince to the city of Dublin (Foedera, i, 55.) About the same time a Charter of the Earl in favour of the Metropolitan Church of Rouen is tested by Walter de Dunestanville, Gilbert Basset, and many others,- Abbots, Earls, and Barons (Rot. Normanniae, II, clix).


that Walter de Dunstanvill was not deceased; for he seems to have appeared in Court, and to have deposed that a former companion or follower of his, then a fugitive and accused of murder, had left his company before the said crime was perpetrated. [43]

That Walter de Dunstanvill suffered forfeiture before his death will also appear in another way. More than thirty-five years after this Wiltshire Iter, his Widow, claiming her dower in Shalefeld (Shalford, Surrey), asserted that he (Walter) had held that Manor "all his life, nearly to the last of his days, until King Richard, in the ninth year of his reign, of his own will and without judicial sentence, diseased him of that Manor and of all his lands". [44] This Plea involved a false computation as to the regnal year of King Richard in which the alleged disseizin took place. Substituting the fifth for the ninth year of the King as the date of the disseizin, I have no doubt that the further fact (viz. that Walter de Dunstanvill survived his disgrace a very short time) is correct.

At Michaelmas 1194, the Sheriff of Shropshire accounted 20s. for the Scutage of Walter de Dunstanvill in that County; and William de St.-Mary-Church, as the King's Escheator, accounted 21. 4s. for his Scutage in Wiltshire. [45] This was the Scutage for the King's Redemption, which was assessed at 20s. on each Knight's Fee. Walter de Dunstanvill had therefore been a Tenant in capite of 22 Knights'-Fees, thus charged.

At Michaelmas 1195, William de St.-Mary-Church, as Escheator, accounts for a full year's ferm of certain Manors which were Walter de Dunstanvill's. Hectrediber, Brocton and Cumb, all in Wiltshire, and Bercham in Sussex, are thus enumerated; and in one instance (that of Cumb) it is expressly said, that "the King has the Manor in his hand, together with the Heir". [46] Here then we have evidence, not only of the summary forfeiture, but also of the death of Walter de Dunstanvill.

Before I proceed to speak of the succession of Walter de Dunstanvill, I should say something of a number of Charters wherein his name occurs, and which further inform us of his connexions, possessions, and character.

About the year 1167-8, Henry II, being then at Le Mans (in Maine), concedes and confirms to the Church of Ferlea (Farleigh, Wilts.), and the Monks there serving God, the land of Cutiford,

[43] Abbreviatio Placitorum, pp. 15, 16.
[44] Dodsworth, vol. 42, fo. 149, quoting a Plea-Roll now lost.
[45] Rot. Pip. 6 Ric. I, Salop, and Escaetae in Wilts, enrolled therein.
[46] Rot. Pip. 7 Ric. I, Escaetae.


which Walter de Dunstanvill and Alan, his Brother, had reasonably conceded and given to the said Monks, in pure alms, for the health of their own souls and for the soul of Robert de Dunstanvill, their Uncle. Wherefore the said Monks were to enjoy the said land as Walter de Dunstanvill, and his Brother Alan, and the same Robert, their Uncle, had given and by their Charters confirmed it. [47]

A Charter by Walter de "Donstanvill" himself gives to Lewes Priory the land of Niewetimbre, for the health of his soul and the souls of his Father and Mother, who had before given the same. He also gives the Church of Winterburn, the tithe of his demesne of Scaldeford (Shalford, Surrey), the Church of Bernham, with the tithes of Hammes and the Chapel of Gretham (all in Sussex). [48]

Another Charter names the land of Niewtembre only, but has the same witnesses and is confirmed by "William, Earl of Arundell, the third", in a separate deed. [49]

The Charters of Walter de Dunstanvill to the Priory of Wombridge, in Shropshire, were numerous. I hardly can pretend to notice them in the order of their dates. In perhaps the earliest of the series,-

"Valter de Dunstanvill", addressing all the faithful of Holy Church and all his men, English and Norman, informs them that he has given to the Priory the land which his Father had given, viz. that which Eilric de Leis held;- with all the children of the said Eilric, for the health of the souls of his Father and himself. [50]

[47] Harl. Chart. 48, C, 23.- Tested by Rotrode Archbishop of Rouen, Joceline, and Hilary, Bishops of Salisbury and Chichester, Earl William de Mandeville, William Malet Dapifer, William de Curci and William de Hosting.
[48] Lewes Chartulary (ut supra) fo.126. - Tested by Robert de Dunstanvill, Richer Priest of Torring, Herbert Brother of Earl Reginald, Peter Fitz-Tored, Baldwin de Frolavill, Robert de Terrill, Henry Archdeacon of Chichester, Master Jordan, Hamo de Bosco, Ralph de Schireburn, Gilbert, Aldred, Norman, Ralph de Biggenever, Gerard Cursor.-

If the first witness of this deed be, as is most probable, the Uncle of the Grantor, then the deed will have passed before 1168, and Robert de Dunstanvill will have enfeoffed his Nephew and Heir in Shalford before his own death. Robert de Dunstanvill has also been mentioned as the original Donor of the Chapel of Gretham.
[49] Ibidem, fo. 127.- Tested by Roger Rusteg the Seneschal of the Earl, Robert de Vilers, and Manassas Aguillon, who was dead in 1194, a hint, by the way, as to the great errors which pervade all received accounts of the succession of D'Albini Earl of Arundel.
[50] Chartulary, Tit. Lega Prioris, &c., No. xxviij. This Charter is tested by the Abbot of Haemon, Alan the Clerk, Peter Fitz Torret (Toret), Robert Fitz Osbert, Hugh Fitz Warin, Roger de Saint Martin. It passed, I think, before the year 1181, which seems to be the date of a general Charter of Confirmation granted by Henry II to Wombridge, wherein this grant is verbally recited.


In another Charter "Valter de Dunstanvill" confirms his Father Alan's grant of half-a-Ferendel which Eilric held in Leies; and he adds, for the health of the souls of himself, his wife, and parents, fourteen acres, to be held by the Canons together with the said land. [51]

The next grant of Walter de Dunstanvill to Wombridge, seems to be that of Aynulf's Lee; but the two deeds which he executed in this matter, have been so inaccurately transcribed in the Wombridge Chartulary, that I will venture to say nothing more of the premises conveyed, than that they seem to have been within the Lordship of Idsall, and to have constituted a part of that estate which the Canons of Wombridge afterwards enjoyed under the comprehensive name of Prior's Lee.

By the first of these transcripts he is represented, as Walter de Dunstanvill, to give for the souls' health of himself and Predecessors "Leias Amulsi" to the Priory; he wills also that his body shall be buried in the aforesaid place of St. Leonard (that is in the Priory Church of Wombridge, dedicated to St. Leonard) if it should befall him to die in England. [52]

The second Transcript shows him as granting "Amusne's Legam" in the same way, but with a different set of witnesses to the Deed. [53]

His other gift to Wombridge Priory is the Main subject of three separate deeds, transcribed in the Chartulary.- Each deed has its peculiar significance.-

By one, he gives for the sours health of himself, his Wife, Hawiz de Praheus, and of his Predecessors and Successors, his

[51] Ibidem, No. xiv. The Testing Clause of this Charter seems to have been misunderstood by its Transcribers. The witnesses are Alan de Dunstanville (probably the Grantor's Brother), Roger de Fretteville, William de Hedlega, Peres Derliton (probably De Eiton), Radulf Panton, Roger de Preston, Walter de Dunstanvill Clerk, Walter de Wattevill, Thomas de Leis, Robert de Linton (probably Lintot). I should incline to date the Deed about 1188.
[52] Ibidem, No. i. The witnesses are Peter Fitz Thoret and Philip and Bartholomew his Sons, Reginald de Dauvill and Pharamus de Traci, William de Headley, Walter de Lega and Leonard his Brother, William the Clerk and Robert de Lintot, Oliver, and Robert de Grenhul, Master Richard of Ideshal, &c.
[53] Ibidem, No. ij. The witnesses are William Earl of Ferrers, Thomas Basseth and Alan Basseth, Peter Fitz Thoret and his Sons Philip and Bartholomew, Reginald de Dauvill, (Pharamus) de Traci, and John his Brother, William de Heres, Robert de Lintot, William Paternoster, Walter de Lega and Leonard his Brother, Master Richard (of Idsall, I suppose), William de Cutona, John de Hemmes, Robert de Belmes, &c.

There can be little doubt that this deed passed between 1191 and 1194.


Mills of Ydeshal saving the multure of his own house, and of others who ought to have free multure therein. He also gives twenty acres of his wood of Lehes near the land of Thomas de Lehes, as he and his free men shall provide. [54]

Another deed, with a similar movent-clause, gives the two Mills which he had in his Manor of Ydeshal, with all the suit of his men in the said Manor, and with free water-course from every and all sources, and means of repairing the mill-stanks whenever necessary, saving the multure of his own house. And for this the Canons were to find a Chaplain who should celebrate daily service in their Church of Wombrugg, for the souls'-health of himself, his wife, his Ancestors and Successors, for ever. [55]

In the third phase of this grant, Walter de Dunstanvill, Lord of Idshall, with the same movent clause, grants to the Priory two Mills which he had in his Manor of Ideshall, viz. the Mill of Ideshall and the Mill of Patesford, with sites of both, and suit of his free tenants, &c. with the same condition as to a Chaplain officiating daily for the souls of himself, his wife Hawise, &c. for ever. [56]

I close these extracts from the Wombridge Chartulary with reference to a deed, before set forth;- wherein Walter de Dunstanvill, with his Knights, attests the Charter of Griffin de Sutton to that House. [57]

And he seems to have been interested in the concerns of other Religious Houses in Shropshire.- He attested the Certificates of Roger de Powis and John le Strange (I), wherein those great men recorded their remembrance of the first William Fitz Alan having granted Wroxeter Church to Haghmon Abbey. These Certificates, as I have before said, must have been drawn up about the year 1175; and, between that period and 1190, Walter de Dunstanvill, being

[54] Ibidem, No. xxvij. The witnesses are Abbot Leonard of Dublin, Abbot Richard of Haemon, Abbot Walter of Lilleshull, Robert Prior of Wenloke, Walter de Dunstanville Clerk "my kinsman" (cognato meo), Thomas Basseth "my nephew", Engeran de Praheus, Peter Fitz Thoret and B. (Bartholomew) his Son, Ralph Pantulf and William his Son, Peter de Heiton, &c.-

The same limits may be assigned for the date of this deed as of the last.

[55] Ibidem, No. xxvi. The witnesses are as those of the last deed, omitting the Abbot of Dublin and William son of Ralph Pantulf, but adding Roger de "Stalevill" (probably Fralevill) and Alan de Dunstanvill, and giving Peter de "Eyton" with an intelligible orthography.
[56] Ibidem, No. xlvi. The witnesses are Walter Abbot of Lileshul, Richard Abbot of Hamond, Robert Prior of Wenlok, Walter de Dunstanvill Clerk, "my kinsman", Roger de Frala-Villa, Thomas Basset "my nephew", Robert (read Roger) Corbet of Hedley, Peter de Eiton, &c.
[57] Supra, page 112, note 16.


Lord of Adderley, in Shropshire, came to an agreement with Ralph, Abbot of Salop, as to some boundary; [58]- the particulars of which agreement shall be given hereafter.

A Charter by which this Walter de Dunstanvill made provision for his Harper, Oliver, is so relative to his Seigneury at Idscall and to his other Charters, and so instructive in itself, that I must needs give it in full and in the original Latin. [59] It is as follows:-

Sciant omnes et presentes et futuri quod ego Walterus de Dunstanvilla dedi et concessi Olivario Citharedo meo pro suo servicio tutelam terre Rogerii de Halechtuna ad totem vitam suam cum uxore Rogerii quam predictus Olivarius assensu meo desponsavit, et tutelam heredis predicti Rogerii et ipsum heredem ad consulendum ad voluntatem sepedicti Olivarii. Et hanc predictam tutelam concessi liberam et quietam de tac et de tol illi et hominibus suis et de omnibus serviciis excepto quod ille mutabit unum spreverium singulis annis ad suum custum vel unum ostorium ad custum domini et tunc homines domini parabunt muiam in qua ponetur. Et cum ista predicta tutela dedi et concessi predicto Olivario pro homagio suo et pro servicio suo in expectatione sue Warisonis nominatam illam virgatam terre quam Achi et Swein de Knolla tenuerunt et omnia assarta que ego illi dedi de Longa Ruddigga usque ad Sumerlonam sicuti Smelebrock illa dividit et quieta de tac et de tol et hominibus suis et de omnibus serviciis et consuetudinibus in feudum et in hereditatem cum omnibus pertinentiis suis in bosco et in plano tenendam de me et de heredibus meis ille et heredes sui reddendo inde annuatim ille vel heredes sui mihi vel heredibus meis in die pasche quedam calcaria vel vi. d. Hanc vero donacionem et concessionem quia volo ut ille rate et inconcusse permaneant illas presentis scripti auctoritate simul et sigilli mei impressione firmiter corroboravi. Hiis testibus Alano de Dunstanvill. [60] Hawis' de Pratellis. [61] Thoma Basset. [62] Alano Basset. [62] Waltero persona de Idesal. [63] Petro filio Thoret. [64] Reginaldo de Daivill. [65] Baldwino de Fredevill. Alano filio Galfridi. [66] Gisleberto de Bernevall. [67] Willielmo

[58] Salop Chartulary, No. 21.
[59] Charter in possession of the Rev. John Brooke of Haughton.
[60] The Grantor's Brother probably.
[61] Now, or afterwards, wife of the Grantor.
[62] The Grantor's Nephews.
[63] The Grantor's Cousin.
[64] Lord of Moreton, Evelith, Hem, Hinnington; &c.
[65] A Knight holding under the Grantor at Winterburn, Wilts.
[66] Probably Alan la Zouche, Lord of Tong.
[67] Barnevill is a Norman vill, midway between Arques and Rouen.


Clerico. Rodberto de Lintot. [68] Alano nepote suo. Bartholomeo filio Petri de Morton. [69] Willielmo juvene de Hedleia. [70] Alano de Hedleia. [71] Willielmo Pater-Noster. [72] Henrico Buberel et Marcando, et multis aliis.

This Walter de Dunstanville is said to have "married Ursula a daughter and Coheir of Reginald de Dunstanvill Earl of Cornwall, and to have obtained in her right the Lordship of Ideshale". [73] We have already seen that he acquired Idsall hereditarily from his Father, nor is it probable that the Earl of Cornwall ever had any interest there. And though the Manors of Cumbe (Castle-Cumb), Colerne, and Wili, in Wiltshire, having at one time been the Earl's, were afterwards given to Walter de Dunstanvill, yet I cannot account that circumstance to be evidence in proof of the alleged match. Those Manors seem to me to have been restored by the Crown to Walter de Dunstanvill, as his own hereditary right rather than in the right of any wife.

Be this as it may, and supposing that Walter de Dunstanvill had another wife or wives previous to his marriage with Hawise de Preaux, it is certain that by any such wife or wives he had no issue surviving him, and that his only Son, another Walter, was the Son of Hawise, and a mere infant at his Father's death.

Without attempting to ascertain who was that wife of Walter de Dunstanvill to whom he alludes in his second Charter to Wombridge, we have it on Hawise des Preaux own testimony that she became his wife after the accession of King Richard I (Sept. 1189), and we have also seen that within the next five years Walter de Dunstanvill had suffered forfeiture, under which he shortly died.-

I have hinted a possibility that during such short interval he became a Member of some Religious Community. If so it was unquestionably the House of Augustine Canons at Wombridge

[68] Lintot was a vill in the Bailiwick of Arques, where also lay Dunstanvil's Norman Fief.
[69] Son, that is of Peter Fitz Thoret, the previous witness.
[70] Eldest son, and afterwards heir of William de Hadley Lord of High Ercall.
[71] The preceding witness had an Uncle and a Brother named Alan. The Uncle was Lord of Hadley and High Hatton, and Patron of Wombridge Priory.
[72] Of Drayton, near Idsall.
[73] Dugdale (Baronage, p. 591) quotes Vincent, Corr. p. 130, and Rot. Pip. 8 Ric. I, Salop, in support of these facts. The Pipe Roll however lends them no corroboration whatever, and I am much mistaken if Vincent drew his information from any sound authority. I think that both Vincent and Dugdale were, in this matter, dupes of a most scandalous imposture and forgery, which I shall, in due course, endeavour to expose.



which afforded him a retreat; and there too I suppose him, according to his own desire already expressed, to have been buried.

The following notice of his presumed Monument expresses the opinion of one who is well entitled to be heard on this or any other subject connected with Shropshire Antiquities: [74],-

"In 1825", says my authority, "the upper part of a very ancient monument, consisting of the oumbent effigy of a cross-legged knight in mail armour, with surcoat, sword in scabbard by his side, gauntlets on hands (the left holding the scabbard of and the right on the hilt of, as if about to draw, the sword), spurs on heels, head resting on a cushion and the feet on a lion, was removed from Wombridge, where it had lain in the church-yard over since the demolition of the old church, and where it went formerly by the appellation of 'old Dansyfylde', but previous to its removal by that of 'old Dangerville', to the south aisle of the Abbey Church, Shrewsbury. On its removal it was thought to represent the Walter de Dunstanville who died 25 Hen. III". [75]

My authority then refers to the Charter of the first Walter de Dunstanville, which expresses the Grantor's wish to be buried at Wombridge, and concludes the Effigy to be his.- In that view I most entirely concur.

Having undertaken to give an account of this Barony and Family of Dunstanvill, I should before I pass to the immediate succession of Walter (I), say something of his Brother Alan and his Sister Alice.

Alan de Dunstanvill follows Walter in attesting several deeds of their Brother-in-Law, Thomas Basset, and his Son Gilbert, which deeds passed before the year 1181.

In 1185-6, Alan de Dunstanvill appears as having to wife the Coheiress of Emma de Langetot, which Emma, then sixty years of age, was of the race of "Chedney and Joceline Crispin". Her lands were in Buckinghamshire. The wife of Alan was then aged thirty. [76]

This Alan seems to have been largely enfeoffed in Cornwall; probably during the time when the Earldom was held by Reginald de Dunstanvill. In 1187 be, Alan, was returned as holding twelve Fees in capite in that County. [77]

Passing some minor notices of his name it would appear that he long survived his elder Brother, for, on 5 Sept. 1216, King John empowers his beloved and faithful Alan de Dunstanvill to seize the lands of William Basset which are of his Fee, the said William being with the King's enemies. [78]-

[74] Mr. George Morris of Shrewsbury,- who contributed this notice to the Collectanea Topographica et Geaealogica (vol. v, p. 176), and by whose permission I transcribe it.
[75] History of Shrewsbury, vol. ii, Additions, p. 532. Dugdale probably originated this mistake by ascribing the grant of Aynulf's Lee to the second Walter de Dunstanville (Baronage, p. 591).
[76] De Puellis et Dominabus, p. 21.
[77] Liber Ruber Scaccarii, fo. xlix.
[78] Claus. i, 286. William, son of John son of Osmund Basset, married Cecily daughter of Alan de Dunstanvill, and had with her lands in Cornwall. These were given in frank-marriage by Alan. The Lady deceased before February 1208, when her Father was living. She is therefore improperly said by Writers on the Peerage to have been "sole heir" of Alan. She can only have been so in her issue.


These lands appear to have been in Cornwall.-

It is, I presume, from this Alan de Dunstanvill that the present Barons De Dunstanvill and Basset allege a lineal descent, but Tehidy (Co. Cornwall), from which they take their title, remained with the elder branch of the family long after the era of Alan de Dunstanvill.

Alice de Dunstanvill, sister of Walter and Alan, was married, before the year 1160, to Thomas Basset, usually styled of Hedendon. He died about February 1181, but she was surviving in 1186.-

Their issue was three sons, and a daughter, wife first of Albert de Gresley, who died about 1179, and secondly, of Wido de Creoun.-

The Sons of Thomas and Alice Basset were Gilbert, Thomas, and Alan. Each of them attained a great position and has been reputed of Baronial Rank. Gilbert, the founder of Burchester Priory, has usually been styled of Hedendon. He died in 1205 leaving a sole daughter and heir, Eustachia, then the wife of Richard de Camvill.

Thomas Basset, usually styled of Colinton, died in 1220, leaving three daughters his coheirs.

Alan Basset, usually styled of Wycombe, seems to have lived till 1232, and left three sons, who, each in turn, enjoyed his honours, but had no male issue to continue their line.

It was necessary to state thus much in order to explain various matters which came to be litigated during the life of Walter de Dunstanvill (II).

His Father Walter (I), is said to have disposed of several Manors to his relations, e.g. to have given to his Sister Alice in frank-marriage the Manor of Shalford (Surrey), to have petitioned King Richard to grant to Thomas Basset his Nephew, the Manors of Culinton and Witeford (Devonshire), [79] and to have himself granted to Alan Basset, another Nephew, that Manor of Winterburn which we have so often mentioned.

[79] Testa de Nevill, fo. 838. Thomas Basset after his Uncle's death, and for the soul of his said Uncle, gave to Wombridge Priory some land at Wich-Malbank (Cheshire). His deed is attested by Gilbert Basset and Brice Pantulf, &c. It passed between 1094 and 1206. It was confirmed by Ranulf (Blundevil) Earl of Chester, and after Thomas Basset's death (1220) by Philippa Malbank his widow, daughter and coheir of William Malbank. (Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Wyche; Nos. ii, iij, iv).


We will now follow the events of the minority of Walter de Dunstanvill (II), according to their order.-

On Dec. 12, 1194, King Richard, then at Chinon, confirms to his faithful Knight Alan Basset, the donation which "Walter de Dunstanvill made him of Winterburn, as said Walter's Charter, which Alan had, did testify". The Royal confirmation was again repeated Aug. 22, 1198. [80]

Gilbert Basset had, before his Uncle's death, been suing him in the King's Court for Scandeford (Shalford), as the marriage portion of Alice, Gilbert's Mother; and King Richard, as was afterwards alleged, rendered the same (Shalefeld and Aldeford) to Gilbert, before Walter de Dunstanvill (I) had married Hawise des Preaux. King Richard's Charter on the subject was fully confirmed by King John on 20 March, 1200, [81] Gilbert Basset fining twenty merks for such confirmation. [82] Nevertheless the Widow of Walter de Dunstanvill (I), afterwards claimed dower in that Manor, and the right of Gilbert Basset's heirs thereto was otherwise disputed.

At Michaelmas 1196, William de St.-Mary-Church, accounted 21. 4s. for the Scutage of Normandy, being the sum chargeable on twenty-one and one-fifth Knights'-Fees of Walter de Dunstanvill, in Wiltshire.-

The Sheriff of Shropshire, similarly accounted 20s. for Scutage of one Fee of the same Walter in that County.-

Further, the wife of the said Walter had been deprived of Ydeshale about half a year, and William de St.-Mary-Church paid to the Crown, a sum of 5. 6s. for rents received by him, in the interval, out of that Manor; and 13s. 4d. for other perquisites thereof. [83]

At Michaelmas 1197, the Sheriff of Shropshire, on similar accounts, paid 20s. for the third Scutage of King Richard,- 6. 3s. for one half year's issues of Ydeshal, and 8. 5s. 2d. (less certain arrears and charges) for the issues of a second half- year. [84]

At Michaelmas 1198, the Sheriff discharges his arrears of this ferm; and accounts for 16. 10s. 4d., the gross receipts of the current year, as certified by Thomas Noel, and Hugh de Chaucumb. [85]

Also in this year, I find that Geoffrey de Say, Bailiff of Arques (in Normandy), accounted to the King 40. for issues of Walter de Dunstanvill's lands in that Province.

[80] Foedera, i, 67.
[81] Rot. Chart. Regis Johannis, p. 41.
[82] Rot. Canc. 8 John, p. 275.
[83] [84] [85] Rot. Pip. 8, 9, 10 Ric. I.
[86] Rot. Normanniae (Stapleton), iii, cxxxi.


For the two years ending Michaelmas 1200, Stephen de Turnbam was Fermor of Ydeshal. His debt of 16. 10s. 4d. for each year remained in arrear till April 8, 1204, when it was discharged from the Rolls, in consequence of a fine of 1000 merks which he offered the King to be quit of all accompts and arrears, in respect of escheats and wardships held by him up to that time. [87]

These arrears included a debt of 30. due from the said Stephen, as Fermor of Heytesbury up to Midsummer 1200. [88]

From the latter period till March 1201, Robert de Berneres seems to have fermed Dunstanvill's Wiltshire and Sussex Manors. He subsequently accounted for various sums, which had thus become due on Heytesbury, Brocton, Cumb and Bercham. [89]

About April 1201, William Briwerr proffered to the King a fine of 800 merks to have custody, and marriage of the heir of Walter de Dunstanvill, saving the dower of said Walter's Widow. [90] This Fine seems in the first instance to have been accepted; for on the Levy of a Scutage in 1201, William Briwerr had received 12. 6s. 8d. from the Knights of Dunstanvill's Wiltshire Fief. [91] However Briwerr's fine was eventually cancelled; for about June 1201, Gilbert Basset proffered the double sum of 600 merks for the same Wardship. This Fine was received;- and at Michaelmas 1201, Gilbert Basset's name appears as accredited, in the usual way, with the current half-year's ferm of Heytesbury. [92]

In April 1205, Gilbert Basset has respite for a portion of his Fine then due; [93] but on Dec. 24, in the same year he was dead; for then the Tenants, both of his own lands, and of the land which he had in custody with Dunstanvill's Heir, are enjoined to answer to John Fitz Hugh, and Bartholomew a Clerk, whom the King had apparently appointed his Receivers in this matter. [94]

About February 1206, Thomas Basset proffered 200 merks, and all arrears of his Brother Gilbert's Fine, for this wardship. [95] And it is clear that he had it;- for on March 3 following, the King orders John Fitz Hugh to ascertain whether Scaldeford (Shalford) had belonged to Walter de Dunstanvill (I), and, if it had, to give it up to Thomas Basset, as Custos of the heir. [96]

[87] [88] [89] Rot. Pip. 2 to 6 John.
[90] Oblata, p. 138. A previous fine, recorded on the Oxfordshire Pipe Roll of Michaelmas 1200, is quoted by Dugdale. Thereby Thomas and Alan Basset proffered 500 merks for this Wardship, but had it not. (Baronage, i, p. 591.)
[91] Rot. Canc. 3 John, Wilts.
[92] Oblata, p. 169.
[93] Claus. i, 29.
[94] Patent, p. 57.
[95] Oblata, p. 349.
[96] Claus. i, 66.


On March 15 following, King John restores to Gerard de Camvill the Manors of Scaldeford and Anfald, which Gilbert Basset had held after his fine for custody of Walter de Dunstanvill's land. Gerard is to hold those Manors till it be cleared up in the King's Court (coram Rege), whether said Manors ought to remain to the heir of Gilbert Basset or to the heir of Walter de Dunstanvill. [97]

In Easter Term, 1206, it was settled in the King's Court that Scandeford should remain to Richard de Camvill and Eustachia, his wife, by concession and will of the King, till the son of Walter de Dunstanvill (apparently represented on this occasion by his guardian, Thomas Basset) should be of age. [98]

Meanwhile, and, as I think, before the death of King Richard, Ingelram de Pratellis (or des Preaux) had married Hawise, Relict of the first Walter de Dunstanvill. This Ingelram was a younger son of a powerful Norman family. He had been in the Retinue of Dunstanvill and was probably related to Hawise. He afterwards appears in the suit of King Richard, and among the special Favourites of King John. On her marriage with him, Hawise de Dunstanvill appears to have changed her Christian name. She is on all later occasions called Sibil. [99]

Her dower became matter of much litigation, but as early as Michaelmas 1199, I find Ingelram de Pratellis acquitted of his Scutage in Salop (assessed on the Fee of Walter de Dunstanvill), by writ of the King's Justiciar. [100] Under similar writs, of the King, he was exempted by the Sheriff of Shropshire from the second, third, fourth, and fifth Scutages of John, as assessed in the years 1201, 1202, 1203, and 1204. To the sixth Scutage, that of 1205, he was assessed two merks for one Knight's-Fee. In 1206 he was exempted from the seventh Scutage of the same reign. [101]

In June 1211, Ingeram de Pratellis was returned by the Sheriff as a Knight of Shropshire, holding the dower of his wife of the King in capite, by the service of one Knight's-Fee. His land was estimated as annually worth 10. [102]

A similar, and nearly contemporary, return of Knights holding

[97] Claus. i, 67. Gerard de Camvill was Father of Richard, which Richard had already married Eustachia only daughter and Heir of Gilbert Hemet.-

It is singular that this matter should have been kept in abeyance, when the Charters of both King Richard and King John had confirmed Shalford to Gilbert Basset.
[98] Abbreviatio Placitorum, p. 47.
[99] For this change or plurality of names vide supra, p. 116, note 31.
[100] [101] Rot. Pip. 1 to 8 John.
[102] Testa de Nevill, p. 66.


in capite in Shropshire, says that Ingelram de Pratellis holds one Fee in Hideshale, with the Mother of Walter de Dunstanvill. [103]

At Michaelmas 1214, Ingeram de Pratellis was exempted from the Scutage of Poitou, then assessed at the rate of three merks on each Knight's-Fee. [104]

Previous to this date Walter de Dunstanvill (II) had attained his majority, and it is fitting that we should mark the first opening of his career.-

On April 22, 1213, having married a daughter of William Fitz Alan, lately deceased, the King gives him 100 merks, and, as I presume, out of Fitz Alan's estate. The money was paid to Roger, a Knight and Companion of said Walter. [105]

About Dec. 1218, he occurs as a Surety in a sum of twenty merks, for a Fine proffered by Isolda Biset in Wiltshire. [106]

In February 1214, he went with King John to Poitou, [107] and the same year is Surety for a Fine proffered in Sussex by Robert le Sauvage.

On Feb. 7, 1215, being styled the King's "faithful and beloved", he has a grant of Market and Fair, to be held in his Wiltshire Manor of Heytesbury. [108]

On Oct. 9, 1215, having been apparently under some suspicion of disloyalty, the King commands his Constables of Bristol, Marlborough, and Devizes, not to injure him or his lands, and to restore aught which they might have taken therefrom. [109]

On Dec. 10 following, Henry Fitz Count (Son of Earl Reginald) and the Sheriff of Cornwall are ordered to give him reseizin of Tiggedun, of which said Henry had disseized him. [110]

On July 23, 1216, his final secession from King John's allegiance is apparent. Thomas de Samford is then ordered to give his lands of Cumb, Brocton, and Heytesbury to Geoffrey and Oliver de Butevill for their support in the King's service. [111]

[103] Liber Ruber, fo. cxxxvij. Another return made between 1210 and 1212 shows Walter de Dunstanvill to be the reputed Tenant in capite of Heytesbury, Cumbe (Castle Comb), Colerne, and Bracton, and Engeram de Pratellis to have some interest in Colerne. (Ibidem, fo. cxxxij, Tit. Wiltesh.)
[104] Rot. Pip. 16 John, Salop.
[105] Misae. 14 John (printed in Cole's Documents, p. 259). The name of Fitz Alan's daughter was Petronilla.
[106] Oblates, p. 512.
[107] Claus. i, 166, 200.
[108] Ibidem, p. 186.
[109] Ibidem, p. 231.
[110] Ibidem, p. 241.- It does not appear how the elder branch of the Dunstanvills acquired its Cornish Estates, whether by feoffment of Earl Reginald, or of King John himself, whilst Earl of Moreton and Cornwall.
[111] Ibidem, p. 278.


Before November 4, 1217, he had returned to the allegiance of King Henry III, and the Sheriffs of Shropshire, Cambridgeshire, Wiltshire, and Surrey are ordered accordingly;- to restore his estates. [112]

About the same time he has Letters of Scutage addressed to the Sheriffs of Sussex and Wiltshire; that is, being, I suppose, in the King's service, he was discharged of Scutage himself, but empowered to collect it from such of his Tenants as were not similarly in attendance. [113]

At Michaelmas 1218, not having had Letters to the Sheriff of Salop exempting him from assessment to the first Scutage of Henry III, and being probably at this time seized of Idsall, owing to some variance with his Mother, he, and not Ingeram des Preaux, is charged two merks on one fee in Ydeshall on that Scutage. He paid the same in the year following. [114]

On Feb. 19, 1221, he had the usual Letters of Scutage in respect of his personal service in the Army of Biham, but at Michaelmas following, the Sheriff of Shropshire entered the Royal exemption of the Idsall Fee as in favour of Ingelram de Pratellis. [115]

At the Shrewsbury Assizes of November 1221, the cause between Engeram de Pratellis and Sibil his wife complainants (querentes) and Walter de Dunstanvill, concerning Sibil's Dower in Ideshall was compounded. The lands which Engeram and Sibil held in dower on the day of concord were to remain to them. And Walter would give to them, in augmentation, six librates of land in Hammes (Sussex) and in Berkshire. And they would remit to Walter all their right in his remaining lands. And if the lands in Hammes (Sussex) and in Berkshire were not sufficient to realize an annual income of 6. then the deficiency should be made up out of lands in Wiltshire. This was the foundation of their agreement, and the parties were appointed to meet at Westminster on the octaves of Hilary (Jan. 20, 1222) to receive their respective Chirographs (formal Fines); and in the mean time, extent (valuation) of the lands concerned was to be made. [116]

The final Concord thus contemplated was levied at Westminster

[112] Ibidem, p. 341. Dunstanvill's Cambridgeshire lands were acquired with his wife, Petronilla Fitz Alan. Letters of safe conduct, enabling him and John Fitz Alan (his Brother-in-Law) to come to the Court, bear date Oct. 8, 1217. (Patent, 1 Hen. III.)
[113] Ibidem, p. 372.
[114] Rot. Pip. 2 & 3 Hen. III, Salop.
[115] Claus. i, 475, and Rot. Pip. 5 Hen. III, Salop.
[116] Salop Assizes, 6 Hen. III, memb. 8.


on June 5, 1222, between Engeram de Pratellis, and Sibil his wife plaintiffs (petentes), and Walter de Dunstanvill, Tenant of the Manor of Idechall with its appurtenances, which Engeram and Sibil claimed to be the dower of Sibil out of the free tenement which had been Walter de Dunstanvill's, the Tenant's Father.- And whereof there was suit at law, &c.- The Fine was, that Walter conceded to the Plaintiffs a third of the issues of all woods pertaining to the Manors of Ideshale and Aldredesle (Adderley); he also conceded Roger de Ideshale with his tenement, and Richard Was of Aldredesle with his tenement, and belongings (sequela); and the residue (of those Manors) was to remain to Walter. And Engeram and Sibil were to hold the Manor of Culne (Colerne, Wilts), and all the tenements which were of Walter's Fee in the same; but the Manor of Sterte and twenty- five virgates in Cumb (Castle Comb), and two mills, one meadow, and one wood, and all the tenement of Wily (which Nicholas Fitz Thomas held for 8. per annum, at fee-farm, and by knight's service) and all the Manor of Heterede and of Brocton were to remain to Walter. Walter further conceded to Engeram and Sibil the Manor of Hammes in Sussex, except the homage and service of Hamo de Hammes,and except the meadow, which was of old appurtenant to the Manor of Bircham, which was to remain to Walter. Moreover Walter conceded the service of William de Selinton (due) on one hide in Bercham and the tenements of divers persons in Bercham and in Waldo. And Engeram and Sibil were to have all the Knight's Fees which they held before, viz. two fees of Hugh de Cumbwell in Cumbwell and in Cumpton, and one hide in Pacheshag and one fee which Adam de Cardunull held in Polton, and one fee in the same which the Abbot of Tewksbury held, and three parts of a fee in Brictefeld which William de Nevill held, and half a fee in Wily-Bechampton which Gilbert de Meleford held, and the foreign service of four hides (whereof five hides were equivalent to one fee) held by Richard de Lucteshull in Lucteshull, and the Knight's service pertaining to five hides in Bideston, which William de Bideston held. All these were to be held by Engeram and Sibil (for the life of Sibil), of Walter and his heirs, in name of dower. And it was to be noted that this concession was made out of lands and tenements whereof Walter, formerly husband of Sibil had given dower to the said Sibil. It was also to be noted that all rents, which Engeram and Sibil had previously in Bercham, were to remain to them, except the demesne, which they surrendered to Walter. [117]

[117] Fines Divers. Comitat. 6 Hen. III, No. 21.


Before I continue my account of Walter de Dunstanvill (II), I will say what remains to be said of Ingeram de Preaux and his wife Sibil.-

On May 2, 1225, a King's writ allows Ingeram some facility for conveying corn by sea from his Manor of Hammes in Sussex. [118]

In September 1226, he and his wife appoint Attorneys in a suit which they had against William Longespee and Idonea his wife, concerning a third part of the Manor of Shalford. [119]

Idonea, wife of William Longespee, was sole daughter and heir of Richard de Camvill by Eustachia, sole daughter and heir of Gilbert Basset.-

Hence her tenure of Shalford.

Another appointment of Attorneys in November 1226, calls the Defendant, "William son of William Longespe", and states the claimed to be a third part of three carucates. [120]

At Michaelmas 1229, Ingelram de Preaux was deceased; and his heir was inadvertently entered on the Shropshire Pipe-Roll as owing two merks on one Knight's-Fee for the Scutage of Keri. But this entry has a mark of cancellation affixed, and the reason thereof given thus,- "because Walter de Dunstanvill son and heir of Ingelram's wife, answers below". Accordingly an entry lower down on the Roll charges the said Walter with these two merks, but he had subsequent exemption by writ of the King. [121]

Sibil de Preaux, now a second time a Widow, continued her suit against William and Idonea Longespee.-

On May 16, 1230, the cause came to trial at Westminster.- "Sibil de Ferrers" (so written for Praers) [122] "sued William de Longspee and Idonea his wife, for a third part of a Knight's-Fee in Shalefeld and Aldeford as her dower, whereof Walter de Dunstanvill, formerly her husband", (had been seized on the day when he had espoused her).

William and Idonea say that "Sibil ought not to have dower thereof, because said Walter was not seized of said land, so as to be able to grant dower thereof, neither on the day when he espoused Sibil nor ever afterwards;- because that King Richard, before

[118] Claus. ii, 35.
[119] Claus. ii, 155.
[120] Ibidem, 205.
[121] Rot. Pip. 13 Hen. III, Salop.
[122] It is singular to observe the amount of confusion which this one scribal error has produced. Manning and Bray, in their History of Surrey, have developed it into a complex mis- statement. Kennett, in his Parochial Antiquities, has annexed it to other mistakes with which he encumbers the genealogy of Dunstanvill.


Walter married Sibil, restored the said land to one Gilbert Basset, as the right and marriage portion of Alice Dunstanvill, Sister of said Walter, and Mother of said Gilbert, to which Alice the said Walter had given the same land in marriage. And (William and Idonea) produce the Charter of the King (Richard), which testifieth hereunto".-

And Sibil comes into Court and says, that "the Charter ought not to injure her, forasmuch as Robert de Dunstanville, Uncle of Walter aforesaid (her husband), bought that land from Robert Watevile for 100 merks and two greyhounds, and held it all his life. And because he (Robert) died without heir of his body, the land descended to the aforesaid Walter as his Nephew and heir, which Walter held the same all his life, nearly to the last of his days, until the same King Richard, in the ninth year of his reign, by his own will and without judicial sentence, disseized him (Walter) of that and all his other lands. And to prove this Sibil puts herself on the Country, &c. And the Court decides that a jury should make inquest thereon, &c". [123]

Unable to trace the result of this suit, which I conceive must have been unfavourable to the Plaintiff, I return to Walter de Dunstanvill (II), who at Michaelmas 1224, is found to be exempted, on the Shropshire Pipe Roll, from both the Scutages of Montgomery and Bedford.

On May 14, 1225, he is appointed a Commissioner to convey to Gloucester the tax of the Fifteenth then levied in the Counties of Salop and Stafford. [124]

On March 27, 1227, he has a grant of Market and Fair at Heytesbury, identical as to days and duration with the previous Charter of King John. [125]

His acquittance of the Scutage of Keri in 1229 has already been noticed.

In Easter Term 1230, he had a suit against Reginald de Valletort and Johanna his wife and her coparcners concerning land unspecified:- but it should be noted that this Joan was one of the daughters and coheirs of Thomas Basset, Walter's Cousin; which Thomas had, as was said, the Manors of Collinton and Witeford by gift of Walter's Father. [126]

In 1230, 1281, and 1232, Walter de Dunstanvill was acquitted,

[123] Dodsworth, vol. 42, fo. 149, quoting Placita de Banco, Easter Term, 14 Hen. III, Surrey.- The original Roll is lost.
[124] Claus. ii, 74.
[125] Ibidem, 179.
[126] Dodsworth, vol. 42. fo. 150.


in respect of one Fee in Ideshale, of the Scutages of Bretagne, Poitou and Elvein. [127]

In 1285-6, towards the Auxilium for marriage of the King's Sister, this Walter paid three merks on one-and-a-half Knights'- Fees in Shropshire and 16s. 8d. on one Lesser Fee at Tehidy in Cornwall. [128]

In 1238, he pays a fine of 20s. through the Sheriff of Shropshire for license to compound some law-suit.

About 1240-1, he is returned among the Shropshire Feudatories as holding one-and-a-half Knight's-Fees in capite of the King. Ideshale alone is specified as the locality of the Tenure, but I presume that Adderley was included in the estimate of service due. [129]

On Aug. 21, 1241, Walter de Dunstanvill (II) was deceased, for then did the King, at Chester, receive the homage of Walter his son and heir; and Mandate issued to the Sheriff of Shropshire to take security from the said heir for due payment of his Relief (100);- to give him seizin of his lands;- and to certify the Sheriff of Wiltshire of such security being found, so that the latter, who also had the King's Mandate on the subject, should give further seizin of the lands which lay in his County. [130]

The memory of Walter de Dunstanvill (II), to whom I return for a moment, is not associated with works of piety. The Chartulary of Wombridge does not, that I can find, mention his name. A grant which he made to Shrewsbury Abbey was only his part of a bargain, whereby he recovered the Advowson of Idsall, as will appear when I come to speak of the Church.

He so far benefited the Abbey of Haghmon as to allow the Canons a right of road through his land of Adderley when they were going to, or returning from, Wiche in Cheshire, where they had some salt-pits. This grant, in which he is styled Galter de Dunstanvill, probably passed soon after his marriage to Petronilla Fitz Alan, for it purports to be for the health of himself, his

[127] Rot. Pip. 14, 15, 18 Hen. III, Salop.
[128] Testa de Nevill, pp. 46, 201. The Shropshire Assessment included Adderley, I suppose. The Honour of Cornwall, or Moreton (as it was sometimes called), consisted chiefly of lesser fees (minuta feoda). The value of these lesser fees was reputed to be two-thirds that of the greater (quorum tria feciunt duo); but when Scutage was levied at the rate of 2 marks (26s. 8d.) on the greater fee, I find the lesser usually assessed (as in the text) at 16s. 8d., which is below the exact proportion.
[129] Testa de Nevill, p. 46.
[130] Rot. Finium, i, 351.


wife and heirs, and for the souls of his ancestors and for the soul of William Fitz Alan (who died about 1210). [131]

One Record says that William Fitz Alan himself gave Iselham (Cambridgeshire) to his daughter Petronilla as her marriage portion (ad se maritandam) and that she married herself (se maritavit) to Walter de Dunstanvill. [132]

The inference is that the marriage took place after Fitz Alan's death, and we know it to have been completed before 1213, exactly the interval in which I should suppose Walter de Dunstanvill (II) to have attained his majority.

I have no further notice of his wife Petronilla nor of his having left a Widow to survive him -

Neither have I met with any secular Deed or Charter issued in his name, except one referred to by Dugdale whereby he, as Walter de Dunstanvile, gave &c. to Alan Basset the whole Manor of Winterborne.- Witnesses: Geoffrey Fitz Piers Earl of Essex, William Marshall Earl of Pembroke, William Earl of Warren, William Earl of Ferrers, Warin Fitz Gerold. [133]

Of his son and heir, Walter de Dunstanvill (III), succeeding, as I have shown, in August 1241, we have very full accounts.

Of his relief (100.) he paid 20. to the King at Winchester, before Michaelmas 1242, and the balance in 1243. [134]

About this time he is returned as holding five fees in Bergham (Sussex) of the Honour of Arundel. [135]

In 1245, he was assessed 20s. in respect of one fee in Ideshal to the Auxilium for marriage of the King's daughter; so also in 1254, to the Auxilium for making Prince Edward a Knight. [136]

In this latter year he was also returned among those who held twenty librates and upwards of lands in this County. [137]

In 29 Hen. III (1244-5), he had a grant of Market and Fair in his Manor of Hydeshale. [138]

[131] Haughmond Chartulary, fo. 4. The witnesses' names are not given.
[132] Rot. Hund. ii, 504.
[133] Glover's Collections, A, fo. 99. This deed passed about the year 1212, probably in the Court of King John, and when Walter de Dunstanvill attained his majority. Had it not been for William Earl Warren's attestation, I should have hesitated whether to assign the deed to the second Walter de Dunstanvill or his Father, so much has it the appearance of an original grant rather than a Confirmation. The latter, however, it clearly was. It was sealed with Arms-Fretty, on a dexter canton a Lion passant.
[134] Rot. Pip. 26 & 27 Hen. III, Salop.
[135] Testa de Nevill, 222, 223.
[136] Rot. Pip. 29 & 38 Hen. III, Salop.
[137] Dukes' Antiquities, Introduction, p. vii.
[138] Rot. Chart. 29 Hen. III, memb. 2.


In 1255, his Tenure of the Wiltshire Hundred of Heytesbury is the subject of a full return, as also are his interests in other parts of the County. [139]

In 1257, he was called upon as one of the Barons-Marchers to assist Hamo Le Strange on the borders of Montgomeryshire. He had Military summons to meet the King at Chester on July 1, 1258, to oppose the hostilities of the Welsh, and in 1260 was ordered to become resident in the Marches for the better security of those parts. [140]

In the same year he had quittance of the Scutage of Wales in respect of his Shropshire Fee. [141]

He had Military Summons to be at Hereford on January 9, 1268, to oppose the incursions of the Welsh, and again to be at Ludlow on February 9 following. [142]

On the 14th of May 1264, he fought on the Rebels' side at Lewes, a transgression which was pardoned by Letters Patent issued in the name of the captive King on April 16, 1265. [143]

The following month, the King, being at Hereford, was similarly assumed to have appointed him Governor of Salisbury Castle. [144]

Whatever the pains visited upon his disloyalty no long or permanent forfeiture was the result.

He died on January 14, 1270, and an Inquisition held forthwith at Castelcombe reported him to have so died, seized of the Wiltshire Manors of Cumbe, Colerne, Sterte, Hurdecote, and Heytesbury,- that Petronilla his daughter was his next heir, and would be twenty-two years of age on February 22 following; and that she was already married to Robert de Montfort.

The Inquisitions of other Counties do not seem to be preserved, but on February 11, 1270, the King's Writ issued to the Escheator citra Trent, ordering him to give seizin of all Dunstanvill's lands to "Robert de Montfort, who had married Petronilla, daughter and heir of the deceased". [145]

The Charters in which the last Walter de Dunstanvill's name

[139] Rot. Hund. ii, 232, &c.
[140] Dugdale's Baronage, p. 591.
[141] Rot. Pip. 44 Hen. III, Salop.
[142] Dugdale's Baronage, p. 691.
[143] [144] Rot. Pat. 49 Hen. III.
[145] Glover's Collections, A, fo. 11b. The printed Calendar of Inquisitions gives this as an inquiry on the estate of "William de Dunstanvill".

Dugdale has represented Petronilla's age to have been twelve instead of twenty-two, which would have made her a Wife when only eleven years old, and a Mother before she was sixteen.






occurs are very numerous. From the Wombridge Chartulary I select the following.-

1. The Charter wherein Sir Walter de Dunstanvill is Grantee of Richard de Grenhull in a Mill at Grenhull, and which passed between 1241 and 1249. [146]

2. The Charter whereby Walter de Dunstanvill first granted the said Mill to Wombridge Priory, and which seems to have passed between 1260 and 1265. [147]

3. The Charter whereby Walter de Dunstanvill Tercius again grants the same, and which probably passed between 1265 and 1269. [148]

4. The Charter whereby Walter de Dunstanvill grants to the same the assart which Gilbert Bluet once held of him, with an acre of wood near thereto, and house-bote, haybote and free pannage in all out-woods belonging to the Manor of Ydeshall;- at a rent of 38. [149] This and the three following deeds I should suppose to have passed about 1269.

5. The Charter whereby the same grants to the same a piece of land and wood near the assort of John Stiventon containing twelve acres. [150]

6. The Charter whereby Walter de Dunstanvill Tercius grants to the same all his part of that wood which was in dispute between him and Thomas Tuschet (Lord of Lee-gomery). [151]

7. Charter of the same to the same granting his side of a certain rivulet which ran between the wood of the Canons of Wombridge and the Grantor's wood of Snelleshull (Snedshill), also that wood which was in dispute between the Grantor and Grantees, and

[146] Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Grenshul, No. i.- Witnesses: Sir John Dunstanvill (probably Brother of the Grantee), Sir Walter de Hugford, Sir Richard de Sanford, the Lord Prior of Wombridge, Sir Walter de Kemberton, Sir Yvo de Brocton. (Vide Supra, p.92)
[147] Ibidem, No. xi.- Witneeses: Sirs William de Hugford, Roger de Pyvelesdon, Walter de Pedwarthin, Knights; Ralph de Stanford (probably Sanford), John de Prese, Thomas de Brocton, Roger Bees (Begesore) of the same, Robert Corbet (of Moreton), John de Stiventon.
[148] Ibidem, No. ij.- Witnesses: Sir Robert de Halegtone, Sir John Fitz Hugh, Sir Walter de Pedwrthyn, Sir John Fitz Aer, john de Ercalwe, John de Stiventon, Herbert de Wyke.
[149] Ibidem, Tit. Lega Prioris et Ideshale, No. iij.- Witnesses: Sirs John de Ercaslew, John Fitz Aer, John Fitz Hugh, Walter de Pedewardin, Knights; Thomas Corbet of Hedleg, Robert de Staunton, John de Stivinton.
[150] Ibidem, No. iiij.- Witnessee: Sirs William de Hugford and most of the last, also Robert Corbet of Morton, John de Stiventon Bailiff of Edeshall (Idsall), and Oliver de la Knoll.
[151] Ibidem, No. xlj.- Witnesses: same as No. iij (note 149), adding Michael de Morton and Herbert de Wyke.


license to make a stank and water-banks (agistiamenta aquae) on his land of Stamford in Watlingstrete, &c. [152]

In the nature of a Monastic Charter is the Convention, which in 32 Henry III (1247-8), this Walter de Dunstanvill, Lord of Ideshale, came to with Nicholas Abbot of Buildwas, and the Convent thereof. Thereby the Abbot, &c. conceded to Walter and his heirs the vill of Upton which they (the Monks) had from Alan de la Zuche. Walter and his heirs were in turn to pay the Abbot and his Successors a half-yearly rent of 20s. at the Church of Ideshale, and he charges the said rent on the following of his free-tenants, viz. on Herbert de Wyke 17s. per annum, for a virgate which he held in Wyke; on Richard de Castello 8s. for a virgate which he held at the Castle; on Thomas Golding 5s. for half-a-virgate in Wyke; on the Prior of Wombridge 2s. for an assart in Lega; on Robert the Provost 4s. for half-a-virgate in Wyke; on John Mugleston 3s. for ten acres at Woodhouse; and on Oliver de Knolle 1s. for a virgate in Knolle.

Besides these rent-charges Walter quit-claimed to the Abbot, &c. a rent of 4s. which he was used to receive from said Abbot, &c. for the heath of Hathtone (Hatton); he gave them also pasture for 300 of their sheep (reckoning by the long hundred), being at their granges of Hatton and Ruckley, within these boundaries (except in corn and meadowland), viz. from the land of Hattone along the King's highway which leads from Bishopeswey to the vill of Upton, and thence along the same road to Stauntone, and so under Stauntone along the ditch which is called Sparkmore, descending down to Wornh (Worf) and thence to Ruckley-bridge.

A Charter of general confirmation to Lewes Priory is rubricated in the Chartulary of that House as the Deed of this Walter. Thereby he concedes the land of Nytembre for the souls' health of himself, his wife Dionisia, and his Ancestors, who before gave the said land. He also concedes the Church of Wynterburn, the tithes of Scaldeford (Shalford), a pension of 20s. receivable by the Priory from the Rector of the Church of Bernham, and the Chapel of Gretham. [154]

[152] Ibidem, No. xix.- Witnesses: exactly as No. iij (note 149).
[153] Rot. Cart. 20 Edw. I, n. 41, per Inspex. The original is printed Monasticon, v, 357; v; as inspected by Petronilla de Montford, Dunstanville's daughter, about the year 1274. The witnesses belong to her Inspeximus.
[154] Cotton Vespasian, F, xv, fo. 126.- Carta Walteri tertii de Donstanvilla. Walter de Dunstanvill (III) may have had a kind of seigneury at Winterburne and Shalford, but clearly nothing more This deed is attested by Sir William de Wystereston, Hugh * * turmi, Ralph de Stapeham, Henry le Flemeng, &c. whose names, not belonging to Shropshire, do not enable me to judge of its date.


Some Manorial Deeds of this Walter de Dunstanvill shall be given under Upton, to which Township they probably refer. I should here state, that, as by the last recited Charter, the name of one of his wives was Dionisia, so must he have been married more than once; for the name of his widow and last wife was Rohese.

The latter appears to have had her dower in Great Iselham (Cambridgeshire). She was living in 1279, when Master Giles de Bridport, her Tenant at Iselham, is returned as holding the Manor under her, whilst she had held it of the heirs of Walter de Dunstanvill, and they of the heirs of Fitzalan. [155]

Petronilla, daughter and sole heir of the last Dunstanvill, was, at her Father's death, wife of Robert de Montfort, who thus in her right became Lord of Idsall and other great estates. These he enjoyed not long for he was deceased in the year 1274.

In the interval, that is at the County Assizes of September 1272, Robert de Montfort was returned by the Brimstree Jurors, as a defaulter in due attendance. [156]

As Robert Monteforde Lord of Ideshale, and for the souls' health of himself, his wife Petronilla, and all his children and Ancestors, he granted to Wombridge some small additions to Walter de Dunstanvill's grants, in the wood of Wyke, and in the direction of Stirchley-wood. [157]

Robert de Montfort dying, as I have said, in or before 1274, his wife Petronilla had sole Livery of her estates. [158]

It was probably during her widowhood, that Petronilla de Montford inspected and confirmed her Father's agreement with Buildwas Abbey, as before recited. [159]

Her eldest son William de Montfort was, at the time of his Father's death, and for long after, a Minor. Petronilla very soon remarried to John de la Mare.

[155] Rot. Hund. ii, 497, 504. The entry which describes another Tenant as then holding under Walter de Dunstanvill himself is a mere inaccuracy of expression.
[156] Placita Coronae, 56 Hen. III, memb. 22 dorso.
[157] Chartulary, Tit. Lega Prioris, &c. No. 1.- Witnesses: John de Stiventon, Herbert de Wyke, Walter Marescall, Oliver de Knoll, Richard Pater-Noster.
[158] Dugdale's Baronage, i, p. 591.
[159] Rot. Cart. 20 Ed. I, n. 41. The witnesses of Petronilla's deed were Sir Henry de Pembruge (of Tong), Sir Walter de Pedwardin, Sir John Fitz Philip (of Bobbington), Sir Hugh de Weston, Knights; Malcolm de Harley, Master John de Cherlton.


In 1284, under the name of Petronilla de la Mare, her liberties in regard to the Forests of this district seem to have been matter of inquiry. [160]

At the time of the County Assizes, October 1292, Petronilla being dead, John de la Mare was questioned as to his right of having Assize of bread and beer, Stocks, infangthef, a fair, a market, and free-warren in the Manor of Ideshale. His Attorney pleaded that John de la Mare was Tenant of the Manor by the Law of England; that it was of the inheritance of William de Montfort, without whom, as being under age, he would not answer. The Crown prosecution was therefore ordered to remain till William de Montfort should come of age.

At the same Assizes "Petronilla de Montfort's" former Tenure in Ideshall was returned as worth 80 per annum. [161]

In 3 Edw. II (1309-10), John de la Mare, of Bradwell (as he was called from his own estate in Essex), was still holding Idsall, by courtesy of England, when William de Montfort sold the Manor to Bartholomew de Badlesmere, [162] who indeed purchased from him Adderley, and all, or almost all, his other estates.

About four years later, viz. in 7 Edw. II (1313-14), died John de la Mare;- and thus ends a history of nearly two centuries, which connected the Manor of Idsall with the name and race of Dunstanvill.

I will follow the subject no later, except to remark that, coincidently with its change of Lords, the Manor appears to have been first described by its other name of Shiffnal. Thus Bartholomew de Badlesmere, in 9 Edward II, obtained a Charter to hold two Fairs in his Manor of "Suffenhale", and a contemporary grant of free-warren in his Manor of "Ideshale". [163]

The Genealogy which I have given for Dunstanvill is so different from one which rests on other authority that I cannot quit the subject without stating some points at least in what I will for the present assume to be an authentic account.-

[160] Calendar of Inquisitions, vol. i, p. 85.
[161] Placita Coronae, 20 Edw. I, memb. 23, 22. Mr. Dukes' account (pp. 141, 193) would make it appear that Petronilla was living at the time of these Assizes.

John de la Mare had himself obtained the King's Charter of Free Warren in 11 Edw. I (1283), and for the following Manors, viz. Idshall and Adderley (Salop), Cumbe, Colerne, Sterte, Heytesbury, and Herdecote (Wilts), Iselham (Cambr.), and Bergham (Sussex), all his wife's Manors; also in Micham (Surrey), Bradwell (Essex), and Bergholt (Suffolk), which were his own (Rot. Cart. 11 Edw. I, No. 24).
[162] Dukes' Antiquities, page 194.
[163] Rot. Cart. 9 Edw. II, No. 57. The same document shows Badlesmere to be Lord of Adderley, Castlecomb, Colerne, Heytesbury, Sterte, and Herdecote.


This is a MS. Pedigree of Dunstanvill, at the British Museum, marked- "P. 4". It is apparently the work of a Herald, and belonged to, or was written by, one of the Wriothealeys, three of whom bore office in the College of Arms in the reigns of Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry VII. The principal points in which this Heraldic Pedigree differs from or agrees with the one I offer are these, viz. that Rainold (Reginald) de Dunstanvill married Atheliza daughter of Reginald de Warren, Brother of William 2d Earl Warren;- that said Rainold was Baron of Castelcomb, that he granted in Waston to Tewkesbury, and that he died 3 April, 2 Hen. II (1156);- that Atheliza his wife died 1 May, 4 Hen. II (1158); that she was buried at Tewkesbury, and that her heart was buried at Castel-Acre (a Cell of Lewes, in Norfolk);- that the son and heir of Rainold and Atheliza was a second Rainold de Dunstanvill who died at Wilton in 30 Hen. II (1184), and who by his wife Isabella daughter of R * * * of Tholouse had a son Walter de Dunstanvill, Baron of Castel-Combe, whose wife was Ursula daughter of Reginald Earl of Cornwall; that the second Walter de Dunstanvill, son of Walter (I) and Ursula, married Matilda daughter of William Earl Marescall, and had by her a son and heir, the third Walter;- that Walter de Dunstanvill (III) married Isabella daughter of Thomas de Clare Earl of Gloucester (a person whose existence is not elsewhere recorded), and that their only child Petronilla, married to Robert Montfort, had by him a Son and Heir, William, who "sold by fine his lands and possessions to Bartholomew de Badlesmere in 3 Edw. II".

Now there is something in this account which indicates that the Compiler had, to a certain extent, consulted the same authentic documents as those which I have quoted in my own narrative. There is something ahso which implies a reference to other authentic documents, not indeed specified by the Compiler, nor ever seen by me, but which for the present we will presume him to have used honestly.

But this Pedigree involves a third class of assertions, directly contradictory of facts which I have advanced on what appeared to me sound authority; and these assertions are supported by written documents,- by professed oopies of original Deeds.

A better prima facie guarantee of honesty could not be offered. Here, then, are Wriothesley's Vouchers- The first is a Mandate of King John- "John, D.G. &c., to the Sheriff of Wiltshire, greeting. Whereas Reginald late Earl of Cornwall, by fine levied in our Court at Westminster, in the 8th year of the Lord Richard late King of England, acknowledged that a moiety of the Manor of Colern and a third part of the Manor of Addersley in your County, were the right of Walter de Dunstanville and of Ursula his wife, daughter of the said Earl, Father and Mother of Walter de Dunstanville now living, and whose heir he (Walter II) is, as a gift in frank marriage, the which moiety Sir Richard Marischall now holds, and the which third part aforesaid William Beauchamp occupieth,- We command you, &c., that you make known to the said Richard and William that they are to appear before our Justices on the Morrow of All Souls (Nov. 3) if they have aught to say on their parts why execution of the aforesaid moiety and third part should not be made according to the aforesaid Concord. And you are to have there the names of those summoned, &c".

To say that this document does not remain on any existing Roll of John's reign, to raise a question whether it may not have formed a part of one of the lost Rolls, to criticize its want of date and other technical informalities, is but to trifle with the truth. It is a detestable forgery, for Reginald Earl of Cornwall, whom it alleges to have been Recognizor in a Fine levied in 8 Ric. I (1196-7), died in 1175. [164]

Whether Wriothesley himself adopted or concocted this document is a matter of small importance to us now,- a question only as to the credulity or dishonesty of a

[164] Almost certainly, too, Walter de Dunstanvill (I) was dead before 8 Ric. I (1196-7).


very ancient Herald. It suggests however the idea that Vincent and Dugdale may have derived their information, about the marriage of Walter de Dunstanvill (I) and Ursula, from this, or some other equally spurious and too hastily adopted, authority.

The mention of Addersley in the forged Charter is also curious. The Forger seems to have had some indistinct knowledge of a place so named having belonged to Walter de Dunstanvill, though he did not know that it was in Shropshire, and that Walter was Lord thereof before 1190.

Another Wriothesley Voucher exhibits "Reginald Earl of Cornwall as releasing an annual rent of 10, which he had out of the Manor of Combe, to Walter de Dunstanville his son-in-law in frank marriage".

Nothing is given whereby we may test the genuineness of this document. It is rather plausible than otherwise, for Reginald Earl of Cornwall was sometime Lord of Castle-Combe, and Walter de Dunstanvill, after the Earl's death, obtained the whole Manor.

The third Voucher runs thus:-

"The Market of Combe was conceded to the first Walter de Dunstanvill by King Henry II, as is plain by Letters Patent having a cord of red silk (ut patet per litteras patentes habentes rubeam sericam)."

A grant of Market under Letters Patent of Henry II would, I believe, be a solecism; but,, passing that question, I find that Cumbe did not belong to Walter de Dunstanvill (I) till after the death of Henry II.

The fourth document says, that "the Market of Colern on Fridays was granted to Walter son of the aforesaid Walter, by King Henry III".

The Charter Rolls of that King do not, I think, corroborate this statement. However, it may be true.

The fifth Voucher is a deed-

"Know all men, &c., that I, Walter Secundus de Dunstanville, for a marriage to be had between Robert de Dunstanvill my Nephew, son of John my Brother, and Gracia de Bohun, sister of the venerable Lord, Earl of Hereford, have given, &c., to the said Gracia 50. of rents issuing out of the Manors of Colerne and Heytesberye in Com. Wiltes, to hold all her life in name of dower. The witnesses are Robert de Dunstanville my younger Brother, Roger de Budeston, Reginald de Fyloppe".

This Charter is in itself suspicious, and more so from its appearance in bad company. The testing clause is introduced in a manner not in use in the thirteenth Century. It was very unusual for a Grantor to be so minute in describing relationships, however such a practice might suit the convenienoe of later Genealogists.-

I doubt much whether the second Walter de Dunetanvill had two, or even one Brother.

The sixth and last document informs us that-

"The Market of Heytesbery was conceded to Walter de Dunstanvill and Dame Matilda his wife, daughter of William Marescall Earl of Pembroke, by King John in his 16th year, as appears by Letters Patent and Charter marked thus "- (a mark is here added indicating the original documents implied).

Here again we have a genealogical statement quite unusual to a grant of Market. Moreover, it is almost certain that the Earl of Pembroke of this period had no such daughter as Matilda, thus announced. However, in this case, as a consequence of a date being given, we are enabled to refer to the enrolment of King John's Charter.-

It is found to have passed at Marlborough on Feb. 7, in his sixteenth year (1215). It is enrolled both on the Close and Charter Rolls. [165]- Not a word does either Copy of the Grant say about Matilda or any other wife of the Grantee!

[165] Claus. i, 186; Rot. Chart. p. 205 (Hardy).


We may here dismiss this tissue of falsification and forgery. That very ancient School of Heraldry which originated such documents is perhaps extinct. Genealogy and Heraldry, apart from their moral and historical uses, are degraded studies. [166] How can that be of moral use which perverts truth, and ministers to the worst form of family pride? How can that be an available element of History which poisons the very fountains of History itself?

The Manor of Idsall involved many Townships or Members, held by Tenants of various rank and importance. Before I speak of any of these I will give account of-


which, though locally situated within Idsall Manor, is not known ever to have been a member thereof.

Its Domesday status is very uncertain. Our next subsequent notice of it would make it a separate Manor, or associate it with Hatton rather than Idsall.

We have still later and stronger indications that it was an outlying Member of Moreton (now Moreton Corbet). If this were the case at Domesday, Turold will have been its first Norman Lord and Hunnit and Uluiet his Tenants; but that Record makes no mention of any outlying member of Moreton. Such an omission is however by no means negative of the connexion. [167]

The Tenure was perhaps at Domesday a complex or a disputed one. In a case of such uncertainty it is better to follow the rule suggested by situation. I therefore treat of Evelith under Idsall.

I have set forth under Hatton the Deed whereby Adam Traynel of Hatton granted to his Nephew Ivo, "his Manor of Ivelith as well in Ivelith as in Hynynton, at an annual rent of a red rose".-

I have treated this Deed as one of debatable antiquity, but to which I was myself inclined to assign a very ancient date, viz. the earlier half of the twelfth Century.

In the end of that Century, we have several notices of Evelith

[166] For some remarks on the falsification of written documents I refer to Mr. Blakeway's Preface to the Sheriffs of Shropshire (page vi); also to the same Author (History of Shrewsbury, vol. i, p. 309, note) for a statement of the moral uses of Genealogical research.
[167] It is the general rule of Domesday to mention by name any such outlying members of a Manor as may have lain in another Hundred. As regards Moreton and Evelith this rule would not apply; for, whether we consider Evelith a member of Moreton or of Idsall, it was equally within the district described in Domesday as Bascherch Hundred.


or its owners; but none of them connected in any manner with the said Deed.- This, by the way, is a further reason for attributing to that Deed a greater antiquity.

I will now notice indifferently, except as regards chronology, the circumstances which exhibit Evelith as a member of Moreton rather than of Idsall.

Hunnit with his Brother (Uluiet) held Mortone in Saxon times. At Domesday they still continued to hold it, but under Turold its Norman Lord. I have mentioned, under Willey, that several Manors which were thus held by Hunnit and Uluiet at Domesday were afterwards held by Toret (another Saxon) and by Toret's descendants. [168]

Thus it was with Moreton and with Evelith, for Toret and his representatives will appear to have held Moreton under Turold or his representatives; and Evelith was eventually, if not primarily, held in the same feudal ratio.

Toret the Saxon, living in the time of Edward the Confessor, noticed in Domesday, and surviving in the early part of the 12th Century, was undoubtedly the progenitor of a family which took its name of Toret or Fitz Toret from him. Whether Peter Fitz Toret who lived in the last half of that Century was the grandson or great-grandson of Toret, I will not attempt to decide. His son he can hardly have been. [169]

From the year 1160 to the year 1194, the name of Peter Fitz Toret is constantly occurring in connexion with Shropshire places or Shropshire men; but in far the greater number of instances this Peter appears as a follower, a witness to the deeds of, or as a Knight of Walter de Dunstanvill (I) Lord of Idsall. But it is more than probable that he was Dunstanvill's Tenant, not indeed at Evelith,

[168] Supra, page 49.
[169] Nothing has been a more fruitful source of genealogical paradox than the mistaken idea which some Writers seem to have entertained with regard to the personal nomenclature of the twelfth Century. The Norman Aristocracy of that period adopted a system which, though in idea patronymic, was in practice anything else. In short, if I may coin the words, it was equally avonymic or proavonymic, or something higher still.

Thus (and merely for example), if we hear of Corbet before Domesday, and of Alcher or Odo at Domesday, and then hear of Roger Fitz Corbet in 1160, or of Robert Fitz Aer (Alcher), or Roger Fitz Odo in 1166,- and if we forthwith conclude that the last three were sons of the first three, we shall probably be only in degree less mistaken than those who might conclude that Peter Corbet, or Hugh Fitz Aer, or William Fitz Odo, of the fourteenth oentury, were also Sons of the same original founders of a race.-

The term "filius" or "Fitz", as generally used in the twelfth Century, means "descendant of", not "son of";- but in some exceptional cases a strictly patronymic nomenclature, like that of the Welsh, seems to have obtained among the Normans.


but at Hem and Hinnington and perhaps elsewhere. Of that we shall have to speak hereafter.

Here it should be noticed how that in some late appearances of Peter Fitz Toret he is accompanied by Philip and Bartholomew his sons, how also, in the latest of all, Bartholomew alone is his Father's attendant.

The inference is that Philip died in his Father's lifetime and without issue, for Bartholomew certainly succeeded to Peter.

As I have thus far been able to connect Peter Fitz Toret with Dunstanvill, Lord of Idshall, rather than with Evelith, so now shall I show Bartholomew Fitz Toret rather in association with Evelith than with Dunstanvill or Idsall.

On April 28, 1200, Emma Fitz Roger is suing, at Westminster, Bartholomew Fitz Peter, the Tenant, for one carucate of land in Ivelithe, under writ of mort d'ancestre. The Recognizors making default, the cause was adjourned till the King's Justices should be in those parts. [170]

I find no conclusion of this suit, but during the next thirty- five years one Gerard Fitz Toret is frequently occurring in this neighbourhood either under that name or as Gerard de Ivelith. He, I doubt not, was a younger Brother of Bartholomew, and also his Under-Tenant at Evelith.

He has already been mentioned as attesting grants of Roger la Zouche and Philip de Burwirdsley to Buildwas, and also a Brockton deed of William Cocus.

Furthermore, Bartholomew de Moreton (that is Bartholomew Fitz Toret or Fitz Peter) and Gerard de Yvelith attest a grant which Richard, son of Richard Corbet (Bartholomew's Son-in-law), made to Buildwas Abbey before 1225; [171] and in 1229 both witnesses again appear in company, and, as Knights, superintending a Convention to which Madoc de Sutton was a party. [172]

Bartholomew Fitz Toret appears to have deceased before 1235.

[170] Rot. Curiae Regis, vol. ii, p. 199. Two of the Recognizors named as Defaulters were Robert de Belmes and Nicholas de Bolinehall (Boningale).
[171] Monasticon, v, 358, No. ix. The additional witness is supplied from the original Roll.
[172] In Charter in possession of Mr. George Morrie. This Convention, as well as the last-named Buildwas Deed, are also attested by Geoffrey de Foleville, a Knight, and whose concern in this neighbourhood I cannot particularize. I cannot however help connecting the name with that of Baldwin de Frolavill, or Fredevill, and Roger de Freteville, or Frala-Villa, whom we have seen with Peter Fitz Toret and his Sons attesting Walter de Dunstanvill's Deeds of the previous Century.


I omit to say here much that still remains to be said of his Ancestry and Succession both in this and other Counties. His Shropshire estates passed with his daughter to Richard Corbet of Wattlesborough, her husband, and in course of time to Robert Corbet their Son. Robert Corbet, Lord of Wattlesborough, &c. in right of his Father and of Moreton Toret (afterwards Moreton Corbet) and Evelith, in right of his Mother, had succeeded before 1255. His connection with Evelith made him frequently a visitant here and probably an occasional resident, for he certainly held the estate partly in demesne. We have seen him attesting the Charters of Walter de Dunstanvill (III) Lord of Idsall, and his name appears in other Deeds concerning this neighbourhood.

At the County Assizes (September 1272), the Brimstree jurors reported that John Ivelithe had broken open the Grange of Robert Corbet. The accused was outlawed. [173] The Tenure-Roll of 1284, commonly known as "Kirby's Quest", says under Brimstree Hundred that "Robert Corbet holds one virgate in Yevelye of the Lord of Moreton 'Tubaud', but that the Inquisition (from which the Roll was framed) did not mention whom the said Lord (of Moreton) held under".-

That the Scribe who wrote this entry meant to present by "Moreton Tubaud", the place at first called Moreton Toret and afterwards Moreton Corbet, is evident, and his ignorance of the seigneural Lord is compensated by the entry under Moreton itself, where it is said that,- "Robert Corbet holds the vill of Moreton with its members, viz. Preston in Pymhill Hundred (i.e. Preston Brockhirst), and Ivelithe in Brimstree Hundred, under Reginald de Chetewinde, and he (Reginald) holds under Richard Fitz Alan". [174]

A Tenure-Roll of Bradford Hundred, made not three years later than the last, repeats the same statement, substituting "Ivelynton" for "Ivelithe", "Roger de Chetwene" for "Reginald", and adding that "Richard Fitz Alan holds (over Chetwind) of the King in capite by half a Knight's Fee, and that the Manor is geldable". [175]

I have said, under Willey, that the usual representative of Turold's Domesday Interest is found to be De Chetwynd in the next succeeding period. Here is an instance of that fact, as well as of the

[173] Placita Coronae, 66 Hen. III, Salop, memb. 23.
[174] Kirby's Quest.- Bradford Hundred - (where Moreton was).
[175] Tenure Roll, in my possession.


further observation that Hunnit was relatively succeeded by the descendants of Toret.

At the Assizes of October 1292, Robert Corbet was questioned as to the right of Free-Warren exercised by him at Ivelyth.

He adduced a Royal Charter of Free-Warren in Morton Corbet and Wattlesburgh, and averred that Ivelith was an appurtenance of Moreton. But Hugh de Louther (the Crown Prosecutor), asked that Judgment should be given for the King, because that Ivelyth was not named (in the said Charter), and was distant from Moreton as much as ten leagues. The Court decided that the aforesaid land of Ivelyth should be deprived of Warren (dewarrenetur), and found Corbet to be in misericordia. [176]

An Inquisition on the death of Robert Corbet of Moreton, was ordered by writ of Nov. 14, 1300. The return is sadly defaced, but is sufficiently legible to show him as having held "Ivelith under John de Chetwynd". [177]

A CHAPEL existed some time at Evelith. Its site was pointed out at the close of the last Century. [178]-

A field adjoining the spot where the Manor House formerly stood is still known as the "Chapel Yard".


This was undoubtedly a member of the Domesday Manor of "Iteshale". It was subsequently held under the Lords of Idsall, by the same men who held Evelith under the Chetwynds.

Perhaps Hunnit or Hunninc, the usual predecessor of Toret and Corbet, was also their predecessor at Hinnington. The latter name, anciently written Hunnington, indicates almost as much. If so, this is one of a very few instances where a Saxon of so late an era as the reign of the Confessor, can be supposed to have given its name to any Shropshire locality.

Adam Traynel's very early grant to his Nephew Ivo, conveys the Manor of Evelith, as if Hinnington were part and parcel thereof. That Deed however, probably in consequence of its great antiquity, can be coupled with no other known fact, either as regards the succession of Traynel or of Hunnit.

[176] Placita Coronae, 20 Edw. I, memb. 23. The Charter of Free Warren adduced by Corbet was granted on March 20, 1284 (Rot. Cart. 12 Edw. I, memb. 49). It extended only to his demesne lands in Morton-Corbet and Watlesburg.
[177] Inquisitions, 29 Edw. I, No. 46.
[178] Blakeway MSS.


I have alluded to the very frequent attestations of Fitz Toret and his descendants, which are found in Dunstanvill Deeds. These may chiefly be attributed to Peter Fitz Toret's tenure of Hinnington and Hem, under the Lords of Idsall. That Baldwin de Hinetun, who, with John his Son, attests the Charter of Walter, Son of John de Herres, to Buildwas, was probably Fitz Toret's Under-Tenant at Hinnington. [179]-

The said Charter passed before 1202, and in the succeeding period I find John de Hinitun attesting a deed which will be given under Upton. I find no other mention of Under-Tenants here, but the Inquisition taken on the death of Robert Corbet of Moreton, in 1300, says expressly that he held Hemme and Hynyton under John de la Mare. [180]

And a later Inquisition, taken May 7, 1310,, on the death of Thomas Corbet of Moreton, is still more explicit. He died seized of the "Hamlets of Hemme and Hynyton, within the Manor of Ideshale, which were held of Sir John de la Mare, Lord of Ideshale, by half a Knight's-fee". [181]


Nearly all that can be said of the Tenure of this Hamlet has been implied under Hinnington. Like Hinnington, it was held under the Lords of Idsall, perhaps by Hunnit in the first and Toret in the second instance, but more certainly by Fitz-Toret and Corbet in the third and fourth.

John de Hemes, and Walter his Son, who granted to Buildwas in the 12th Century, were probably Peter Fitz-Toret's Under-Tenants here. Their being also Under-Tenants of Traynel at Hatton, is only another phase of that inexplicable connection which associates and at the same time confuses the relative histories of Hatton, Hem, Hinnington, and Evelith.

We have further seen John de Hemmes attesting between 1192 and 1194 (with Peter Fitz Thoret and his Sons) a Grant of the first Walter de Dunstanvill, that is, as I take it, the Under Tenant attesting with the Mesne Lord a grant of the Seigneural Lord of Hem.

I have little to say more of the family of these Under-Tenants, which seems to have decreased in importance. At the Assizes of

[179] Supra, p. 170.
[180] Inquisitions, 29 Edw. I, No. 45.
[181] Inquisitions, 8 Edw. II, No. 22.


January 1256, one John de la Homme sat on the Brimstree Jury. At the Assizes of September 1272, John le Knicht was found to have disseized Henry Dud of a messuage in Hemme, and William de Ruton (Ryton) was a Recognizor on the trial but had made no appearance.


This was a member of Idsall. About the year 1219, Walter de Dunstanvill (II) conveys to Shrewsbury Abbey, among other rents, one of 12d. payable by Alan the Chaplain, his Tenant in Wyches. [182]

Walter Mareschall and Robert de Wikes were perhaps Tenants here between 1220 and 1230.

The next Tenant who occurs is Herbert de Wyke a person of some importance and apparently Bailiff to the Lords of Idsall; for I take him to be identical with "Herbert, formerly Bailiff of Ydeshall" who attests a Wombridge Charter between 1227 and 1240; [183] and Herbert Seneschal of Ideshall is found attesting a deed of very little earlier date.

In 1248, Walter de Dunstanvill (III) had three Tenants in Wyke whose Quit-Rents he assigned to Buildwas Abbey in part exchange for Upton. These were Herbert de Wyke who paid 17s. annual rent on a virgate, Thomas Golding who paid 5s. on half-a-virgate and Robert the Provost, who paid 4s. on half-a-virgate. [184]

For the five years ending October 1254, Herbert de Wyke was Agistator of the Royal Forest of Morfe and the Haye of Wellington. He attests deeds of this period as Herbert de Ideshal, and, under that name, sat as third Juror of Brimstree Hundred at the Assizes of 1256.

Soon after this he died; for when, in February 1262, the Justices of the Forest visited Shropshire they summoned Herbert son and heir of Herbert de Wyk (or de Ydeshal) to answer for the five years in which his Father had been Agistator. [185]

From this period for the next twenty years, I find Herbert de Wyke and Walter Marshall of Wyke frequent witnesses of local deeds. Two of these bear date Oct. 21, 1270, and Aug. 9, 1279.

In 54 Hen. III (1269-70), Walter le Mareschall of Wyke and Edith his wife were suing John de Stevinton under writ of novel

[182] Salop Chartulary, No. 378.
[183] Chartulary, Tit. Upinton, No. clxix.
[184] Cart. 20 Edw. I, No. 41.
[185] Placita Forestae, 46 Hen. III, Salop.


disseizin, for a tenement in Wyke. [186] In November 1271, Herbert de Wyke occurs as a Verderer of the Royal Forests, and at the Assizes of September 1272, he and Walter Marescall were Jurors of Brimstree Hundred. This Jury reported, inter alia, that Alice, wife of Walter Carter of Routhton, had challenged, in the County Court, Thomas, son of Herbert de Wyke (probably the Juror's Brother) and Robert de Duddelegh, for murder of said Walter her husband. She had also accused the Abbot of Buildwas of harbouring the murderers. Alice not appealing at the Assizes the Abbot and Duddelegh were acquitted, but it was shown that Thomas Fitz Herbert was dead. [187]

Between 1280 and 1292, Herbert de Wyke was succeeded by his Son John, who sat as 12th Juror of the Hundred at the October Assizes of the latter year, and occurs as a witness of various local deeds, and as a Juror on several Inquests of the next twenty-four years; after which Elyas de Wyke, a Clerk, seems to occupy his position.

Meanwhile, that is on Feb. 23, 1293, a Fine was levied at Stafford between Master John de Kenleye, Clerk, complainant (querentem), and Robert de Clone, and Mabel his wife, deforciants, of a messuage and twenty acres in Wyk, whereof was plea of convention. The Deforciants, relinquished the same,- to be held by the Complainant, of the Lords of the Fee. For this he gave 5. [188]

On Jan. 27, 1297, this same Master John de Kenleye was Complainant in a fine levied at Westminster, whereby Roger de Orleton, and Rohese his wife, surrendered to him a messuage and twelve acres in Ideshale, whereof was plea of warranty;- to hold of the Lords of the Fee. For this the Complainant paid 10. [189]


The name of this Hamlet or Tenement is now lost. Its situation, however, may be nearly identified, by comparing the different relations in which it is mentioned.

Between the years 1220 and 1250, Robert de Trilwardyne, with his name spelt in various ways, is a witness of local Charters, more particularly of those which relate to Brockton.

On July 13, 1253, a Fine was levied at Westminster between

[186] Pat. 54 Hen. III, dorso.
[187] Placita Coronae 56 Hen. III, Salop, memb. 23 recto.
[188] [189] Pedes Finium, 21 & 25 Edw. I, Salop.


Petronilla, Widow of Robert de Trillewardyn plaintiff (petentem), and Robert de Trillewardyn Tenant, of a third part of forty acres in * * shal (probably Idshal) which Petronilla claimed as reasonable dower out of the estate of her former husband. Petronilla renounced her claim, and Robert conceded to her nine acres in the same vill (viz. three acres in Rudingfeld, three acres in Winterfeld, and three acres in the field towards Wyk), to hold to Petronilla for her life, at a rent of one penny. [190]

This second Robert de Trillewardyn occurs occasionally as a witness during the next sixteen years; but on Sept. 29, 1269, he would appear to be deceased, for then did Edith, daughter of Robert de Trillewardine, lease to Wombridge Priory all her land within and without the vill of Brocton, for twelve years, reserving to herself a house and orchard and certain stipulated shares of of the produce of the said land. [191]

A great part of the district of which we are speaking had, in ancient times, been within the jurisdiction of the Royal- Forest.-

The Perambulation of 1300 recognizes the following villa and hamlets as disforested, viz. the villa of Prioreslegh and Wodehous (Woodhouse), a moiety of Dreyton (near Shiffnal), Haghton (Haughton), La Cnolle (still traceable in Knowle-Wood), Trillewardyn, Wyk a moiety of Hem, the wood of Kembrithton (Kemberton), a third part of Sutton (Maddock), a moiety of Brockton, &c. [192]-

Hence we approximate to the locality of Trilwardyne.

We have seen Master John de Kenleye a purchaser of land in Wyke and Idsall in 1293 and 1297. On June 8, 1801, Thomas Skybrass and Burga his wife grant to the same John and his heirs their capital messuage and forty acres of land at Trillewardyn in the Manor of Ideshale, which formerly belonged to Ralph de Kenleye, Father of Burga, and which constituted her share of his inheritance;- to hold of the Grantors and their heirs, rendering to them yearly a red rose, and accustomed services to the Lords of the Fee. [193]

[190] Pedes Finium, 37 Hen. III, Salop.
[191] Chartulary, Tit. Brocton, No. xxviij. The agreement is attested by John de Stivinton, John de Grenhull, Master Ranulph de Coleham, Clerk; Adam Pollard of Lee, Robert his Son, Walter Cocus of Lee, &c.
[192] Salop Chartulary, No. 279. Since writing the above, I learn that two fields of the Houghton Farm are still known as the "Big" and "Lesser Tillerdine". They are nearly in a line between Knowle Wood and the Wyke, and precisely where I should suppose the Hamlet of Trilwardyne might have been.
[193] Charter in possession of The Rev. John Brooke, of Haughton.- It is dated at Dublin, and attested by four Justices of the King's Bench there. Two seals, originally belonging to the deed, are gone. The writing is remarkably fine.



The House of Augustine Canons, founded at Wombridge as early as the reign of Stephen, acquired its first interest in the Lordship of Idsall under grant of Alan de Dunstanvill.

His gift, described as the land of Eilric de Leis, was subsequently increased. His Son Walter gave Aynulf's Lee (less intelligibly written as "Leias Amulsi") to the Canons.

These two grants, with some later additions, constituted, I suppose, the estate afterwards known as Priors Lee. The Canons once established in such a position, were not slow to improve it. They acquired various parcels of land and other rights in adjoining Townships. Some of these have been already instanced in our account of the succession of Dunstanvill. Others again will have to be noticed under their proper localities. One or two shall be mentioned here.-

About 1260, Thomas, Son of Roger Guest, of Lega, gave the Priory a noke of land, in the vill of Lega, which John de Mocleston once held of him. [194]

About ten years later, and apparently in completion of a previous grant of Walter de Dunstanvill (III), Alice, widow of Gilbert Bluet, quits all right which she had for life in an assart in the Manor of Ydeshall. For this the Priory paid her 20s. in hand, and allowed her an annuity of 2s. for her life. [195]

Again, about ten years later, Thomas de Brocton (of Brockton juxta Sutton Madok), gave the Priory an annual rent of 5s. 6d., which Robert, called Pollard, of Priors Lee and his heirs were bound to pay on half-a-virgate in the said roll of Priors Lee. The Canons were to apply this income as follows, viz., 2s. to the work of the fabric (the conventual buildings), 2s. to the lights in their Church, and 1s. 6d. to the Convent of the said House, to keep the anniversary of the Donor for ever. [196]

[194] Chartulary, Tit. Lega Prioris, No. ivj. Attested by Madoc de Sutton, Walter de Kembricton (he was Rector of Idsall), Oliver de Knoll, and Roger de Hadeleg.
[195] Ibidem, No. V.- Witnesses: Adam Pollard, Robert his Son, Alan de Haleheton (Haughton), Walter Cocus, &c.
[196] Ibidem, No. xlix.- Witnesses: John de Stivinton, John Son of Herbert de Wyk, William de Devises, Richard Colle, Robert de Clone, &c. This grant was afterwards confirmed by John, Son and Heir of Thomas de Dreyton (read Brocton, and compare, supra, p. 98, note 80).- Witnesses: John de Stivinton, John Herbert of Wyk, William Pater Noster, William Hode of Drayton, Richard Cocus, of Legh, and Roger Cocus.


Previous to the Dissolution, and in 27 Hen. VIII (1535-6), the Prior of Wombridge returned, among the annual receipts of his House, the following:

Rents of 7 Messuages in Priores Lees: 8. 19s. 4d.

Rents of 2 Water-mills and 2 Cottages in Sheffnall: 5. 6s. 8d. [197]

The Total of 14. 6s., thus stated to arise from the Prior's possessions within the Fee of Shiffnal, is not very inconsistent with the more detailed Ministers' Accounts of the following year.

In the latter are enumerated: s. d.

Rents of Tenants-at-will in Shyffenall: 0 8 0

Rent of Land and Cottage at Prior's Lye: 1 9 0

Ferm of Land and Messuage at Prior's Lye: 7 12 2

Ferm of a Mill in Idsall Park: 3 0 0

Ferm of a Mill at Shiffenall: 2 0 0

Total: 14 9 2 [198]


This was another member of Idsall, taking its distinctive name of Leonard's Lee, from an early possessor, the Tenant of Dunstanvill.

The situation of the vill is not to be identified by any existing name. Its whereabout may be however surmised from one or other of the following particulars.-

At the Forest Assize of 1180, Thomas de Legh fines 1s. 6d. for an imbladement (3 acres of oats) within Jurisdiction of the Forest. [199]

This Thomas was I doubt not the same person who under the name of Thomas de Leis attests one Charter of Walter de Dunstanvill (I), and who in another Charter is mentioned as Thomas de Lehes, and as owner of land near the Grantor's wood of Lehes.

I think also that Walter de Lega, and Leonard his Brother, who, before the year 1194, witness two other Charters of the same Baron, were sons of this Thomas, attesting in their Father's life-time; for at the Forest Assizes of March 1209, both Thomas de Legh and Walter son of Thomas de Lega, are assessed under what

[197] Valor Ecclesiasticus, iii, 194.
[198] Monasticon, vi, 391, No. ii.
[199] Forest Pleas, Salop, No. 1. The line taken by the Record seems to be Lilleshall, Tibberton, Legh (as in the text), Ketley, and Stirchley. All these, as well as Kemberton, Dawley, Lawley, Idsall (and lis members), and Leegomery, were within Regard of the Forest of Mount Gilbert.


is called a "Regard of Mount Gilbert", that is a statement of the liabilities of those, who living within jurisdiction of the Forest of the Wrekin, had made purpresture, imbladement, or other encroachment on the King's rights. Thomas de Lee seems to have been eventually succeeded by his second son Leonard, from whom this vill derived its distinctive name.

About the year 1219, Walter de Dunstanvill (II) in composition of the claim which Shrewsbury Abbey had to the Advowson of Idsall, assigned to the monks 27s. annual rent, chargeable on several of his Tenants.-

A sum of 2s. receivable from Leonard de Leges in respect of his fee of Leges was thus assigned. [200]

In November 1220, Leonard de Lega was a Juror in the great suit then pending about the Advowson of Tong.

Soon after this, Osbert Lord of Stirchley, granting a parcel of land to Wombridge, within the Fee of Stirchley, mentions among the boundaries of the said parcel a meadow which belonged to Richard Fitz Ralph of Parva Legh, and a fence which ran between Leonard's Ley and Stirchley Wood. Sir Leonard de Ley himself stands first witness to this grant. [201]

Another Wombridge Charter which passed in or after the year 1231, is attested by men of knightly degree, and last of all by Leonard de Lega and Walter his Son. [202]

At the same time a deed which will be quoted under Upton, and which certainly passed in or before 1232, is attested by Walter de Lega, whom I therefore take to have succeeded his Father about this time. Ten years later, and we have Henry son of Leonard de Lega as his Father's, or rather Brother's, Successor;- for on November 18, 1240, a Fine was levied at Salop between William de Eyton and Matilda his wife, Plaintiffs, and Henry Fitz Leonard, Tenant,- of a third part of six acres of lands and two messuages in Parva Legh, whereof was suit of mort d'ancestre.- William and Matilda relinquished, for themselves and for the heirs of Matilda, all right in the premises and in all lands of Henry; for which the latter paid them four merks. [203]

I should imagine from what follows, that this Matilda was a Sister or Half Sister of Henry de Legh; for on January 27, 1249, Johanna and Nicholaha de Legh, who certainly stood in one of

[200] Salop Chartulary, No. 378.
[201] Chartulary, Tit. Lega Prioris, No.xl.
[202] Ibidem, No. ix.
[203] Pedes Finium, 25 Hen. III, Salop.


those relations to Henry, released, for five merks, some lands in Stirchley to the Abbot of Buildwas; [204] and on January 27, 1256, a Fine was levied between Nichola, daughter of Leonard de Lega, Plaintiff, and Henry de Leye, Tenant, of two virgates in Parva Legh whereof was suit at law. Henry surrendered the premises, to hold to Nichola and her heirs, of the Lords of the Fee. In return Nichola conceded half the land which she had hitherto held in the same vill, viz. half-a-virgate which Richard Fitz Ralph (whom we have heard of before) sometime held, and the messuage which Roger, Parson of Styrchley, sometime held, and the messuages, &c. formerly held by Adam Hubert, Alan Hubert, and Richard Stok; to hold to Henry and his heirs, of Nichola and her heirs, at a penny rent. [205]

At the same Assizes at which this Fine was levied, other suits which concerned the same family were in progress; and though they did not relate to the locality now under notice it will be better to introduce them here.-

Joanna de Leye and Nichola her Sister sued under writ of Mort d'ancestre for two merks annual rent in Weston, which they alleged Leonard their Father to have died seized of, and which William de Forde withheld from them. The latter offered a fine of half-a-merk to the Crown that he might have a "good Assize", Thomas Boterel and * * * de Overton being his Sureties. It was found that Leonard had not died thus seized, for that the rent was the marriage portion of Joanna, Mother of William de Forde, who after holding it for many years surrendered it to her said Son for ten merks. The Defendant was dismissed sine die. [206]

In another suit, Sibil wife of Henry de Lega appoints the said Henry her Attorney against Robert de la Forde. This seems to have been a cause wherein the latter sued the former for a virgate of land in Preston (on the Wild-moors), and which Sibil and Henry had by grant of Thomas Rabaz. [207]

In Easter Term 1258, a fine was levied at Westminster between Robert de la Forde, Plaintiff, and Thomas Rabaz, whom Henry and Sibil had called to warranty,- of a virgate in Preston, and who vouched such warranty.- Thomas now acknowledged the right of Robert, who allowed Thomas to hold the land for life, at a penny

[204] [205] Ibidem. 83, 40 Hen. III, Salop.
[205] Salop Assizes, 40 Hen. III, memb. 8. It is difficult to determine what Weston was here alluded to. Aston Botterell, Overton and Ford, are near together, and not very far from Cold- Weston.
[207] Ibidem, memb. 1.


rent and performing all capital services;- but it was to remain to Robert and his heirs. [208]

About this time Henry son of Leonard de Lega granted to Wombridge Priory a parcel of land called Blakesicheshurst with the wood thereon. Its boundaries are described minutely, and among them are the "water-course of Lestewike under the grange of Wombridge", and "the road which leads to Blackpull". [209]

"Walter son and heir of Henry, son of Leonard de Lega", reciting that "Peter, son of Sir Peter de Eyton had granted to the Wombridge Canons free right of road through his (Peter's) land of Lega, for all their vehicles", and calling himself (Walter) "a Comportioner in the same vill of Lega", grants a similar privilege. [210]


The situation of this vill, formerly a member of Idsall, may be identified by a small Coppice still called "The Knowl Wood".

It has been seen how the first Walter de Dunstanvill, about the year 1185, granting to Oliver his Harper a rich marriage and wardship at Haughton, increased the gift, in terms following:-

"And together with the aforesaid wardship, I have given and conceded to the aforesaid Oliver, for his homage and service, and as a forestalment of his release from office (in expectatione Warisonis sui), that reputed virgate of land which Achi and Swein, of Knoll, have held, and all the assarts which I have given him in Long Rudigg, up to Sumerlone, as Smelebroc divides them (the assarts); and quittance of tac and of tol for him and his men; and (quittance) of all services and customs; in fee and inheritance; with all the appurtenances; in wood and in field; to hold of me and my heirs, by him and his heirs; rendering therefore yearly, he or his heirs to me or my heirs, on Easter-Day, certain Spurs (calcaria), or six pence (in lieu thereof).

Thus did Oliver, Minstrel of the Lord of Idsall, become not only a Husband and Guardian (advantages which could entail

[208] Pedes Finium, 42 Hen. III, Salop.
[209] Chartulary, Tit. Lega Prioris, No. vi. Witnesses: Sir Madoc de Sutton, Philip de Pres, Thomas Rabas, Adam de Prestone, Ralph de Prestone, Adam Pollard, Oliver de la Knoll, &c.
[210] Ibidem, No. xv. This Charter purports to be dated at Wombridge, on St. Mark's Day, "13 Edw. I" (April 25, 1285). It is tested by Roger Corbet, Reginald de Chernese, Roger Carles, Pagan de Preston, and John de Appeleie; a series of witnesses quite inconsistent with the alleged date. The deed passed after 1300 certainly, perhaps in 1320 (13 Edw. II).
[211] Supra, p. 281.


nothing on his heirs) but a Feoffee with more permanent interests.

Under his, as yet unlocalized, name of Oliver, he has been seen to attest the Deed, whereby his Lord bestowed his body in burial at Wombridge.

I think too that it must have been his wife or widow who, under the name of Sibil de Halcton, occurs as holding lands within Regard of the Forest of Mount Gilbert, in 1209. Be that as it may, he or his Son or Grandson, under the one name of Oliver de Knolle, continue to occur for about 90 years in this neighbourhood, dating from the time of the above Deed.

Besides their attestations of various Charters, one of these successive Olivers appears in 1248, as holding a virgate of land in Knolle, under the third Walter de Dunstanvill, at a shilling rent, which rent was then transferred to Buildwas Abbey. [212]

At the Assizes of 1256, an Oliver de la Knoll officiated as a Juror for Brimstree Hundred; and the same or another Oliver de Knoll attests a Charter of his Lord, Robert de Montfort, between 1270 and 1274.

We have then a Richard de la Knoll attesting a few local Deeds, and sitting as a Juror (Sept. 25, 1276) on the Inquest which reported about Robert le Strange's disposal of Sutton Maddock.

From August 9, 1279, to November 12, 1335, I find Thomas atte Knolles, or Thomas de la Knolle, a constant witness of local Deeds, and on November 17, 1336, this uniformity is interrupted by the occurrence of Pagan de la Knolle in a similar position.


A Tenement, thus entitled, was by no means the residence of the Lords of Idsall; but one of the smallest members of the Manor, still to be traced, as regards name and situation, in the "Castle Farm".

In 1248, an annual rent of 8s., due from Richard de Castello, on a virgate of land, to Walter de Dunstanvill (III), was transferred by the latter to Buildwas Abbey. [213]

About the year 1270 Emma, widow of Richard de Castre, and apparently daughter of Roger de Halston (Haughton), quits to Hugh de Halston (Son of said Roger) the house which her late Husband bought from said Roger, in the vill of Cnolle, with a garden and croft adjacent, and two acres of land, one in the field

[212] [213] Cart. 20 Edw. I, No. 41.


of Hopemon, and the other towards the Horeston. She also surrenders to the same Hugh three acres of land, which said Roger had given her in frank marriage. [214]

At the Assizes of September 1272, the name of Richard de Castro was called in question in a matter which concerned several others in the neighbourhood, but which may be mentioned here as well as elsewhere, though I am not sure whether Richard himself was living at the time or whether he had left a successor of both his names. William, son of Robert de Divises, had been apprehended and imprisoned on some charge, but, by precept of the King, had been given into custody of the following persons (bail for his appearance), viz. Richard de Castro in Ideshale, Richard Holegode of Chaffenhale (Shiffnal), Robert de Lotwych in the same, Robert Bernehoud in Upton, Roger de Howele in Upton, Henry Bluet in Ideshale, Adam le Lymer of the same, Adam de Dreyton, Thomas de Brerlakton of Staunton, Simon de Ideshall, and Richard de Stapenhull in Wodehous. Now (1272) these Sureties were reported by the Brimstree Jurors as not duly producing the accused, so they were found to be in misericordia, but at the same time the accused was acquitted of any crime. [215]


A rent of 3s. per annum, payable by John Mugleston for twelve acres in Wodehous, was in 1248 assigned by Walter de Dunstanvill (III) to Buildwas Abbey. [216]

This John de Mocleston has already occurred, about 1260, as a Tenant in Priors-Lee.

The principal Tenants at Wodehous seem, however, to have had name from the place.

Sometime in the thirteenth century, Henry de Wodehous appears to have given towards the lights of the Church of St. Mary and St. Leonard of Wombridge some land and 6d. rent, which he had purchased from Richard de Stapenhull [217] (just mentioned under The Castle).

This Henry was, if I mistake not, the same person who, under the name of Henry son of Hamund de Wodehus, was Grantee of Robert le Strange (of Sutton and Wrockwardine) in the latter Manor.

[214] Charter at Haughton.- Witnesses: John de Styrinton, Herbert de Wyks, Oliver de Cnolle, Roger Hod (of Drayton), Alan de Halston, &c.
[215] Placita Coronae, 56 Hen. III, Salop, memb. 22 dorso.
[216] Cart. 20 Edw. I, No. 41.
[217] Monasticon, vi, 388.


This will have been before 1270, but the same person was again Grantee of Fulk le Strange, of Blackmere and Wrockwardine, at the end of the Century, and also in 1305. [218]

The Family of this Henry would seem to have been originally of Hadley, but I will say more of him under Wrockwardine, where his chief property lay.

From July 1296, to May 1306, I find one Roger de Wodehous, or atte Wodehous, doubtless of this place, and a member of almost every local Jury which sat during that interval.


In 1180, the Township (villata) of Haleton was fined half-a-merk by Justices of the Forest for purpresture.

About 1185, Roger de Halechtune, Dunstanvill's Vassal here, being dead, the said Baron granted to "Oliver, his Harper, custody of the land of the deceased, for his life, together with the Widow of the said Roger, whom Oliver had already espoused, with Dunstanvill's consent. Also Oliver was to have custody of the heir of Roger, and was to take order concerning the said heir according to his own will. And this wardship was to be free of tac and tol to Oliver and his men, and free of all services except that Oliver was to mew one sparrow-hawk annually at his own cost, or to mew a goshawk (ostorium) at the cost of his Lord, in which case the Lord's men were to provide a cage wherein the bird should be placed". [219]

The remainder of this Charter, so illustrative of feudal tenures and customs, has been recited under Knowle. The Heir, thus disposed of, seems to have been that Hugh de Haltun whom we shall see attesting an Upton Deed, before 1232.

Between 1242 and 1248, Roger de Halghton, doubtless of this place, was on a Jury which settled certain forest-rights of the Abbot of Lilleshall. [220]

Between 1248 and 1256, a second Hugh de Alcton or Halighton occurs, first as attesting an Upton Deed of Walter de Dunstanvill (III), and next as being assessed, about March 1250, for certain small parcels of assarted land within the jurisdiction of the Forest. In this case, be is described as Hugh de Halighton apud Ideshal,

[218] Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Lopinton, Nos. x, xi, viij. Among the witnesses of the last deed (1305) is Richard de Mokeleston.
[219] Supra, p. 281.
[220] Pat. 18 Rio. II, p. 1, memb. 7, per Inspeximus.


and before Michaelmas 1254, he had paid three years arrears of the said assessment. [221]

Now again a second Roger de Halcton occurs, viz. as a Juror in a Donington Inquest of January 1256, and on a Forest Inquest, held at Sheriff-Hales, in October 1259. He is moreover a witness of several local deeds at this period.

This Roger was succeeded by his son, a third Hugh, before 1274; for between 1270 and 1274,-

"Robert de Montford, Lord of Idesale, grants to Hugh de Haltone and his heirs, thirteen acres of land in the Manor of Idesale, lying between Richard le Hope's assart and Hotunalle, near the assart of Roger Hod (of Drayton), in a place called Ulet-hay.-

For this Hugh paid two merks down, and was to pay an annual rent of 6s. in lieu of all services except suit of the Lord's Court. [222]

This same "Hugh de Halaton" has been already noticed as having purchased about this period certain premises from Emma, Widow of Richard de Castro, perhaps his (Hugh's) Sister. [223]

In September 1276, Hugh de Halenton sat as second Juror on the Inquest as to Robert le Strange's disposal of Sutton.

On August 9, 1279, an agreement was come to between John de Stiventon and Hugh son of Roger de Halhton. John undertook that Hugh and his heirs should peaceably hold all assarts within the Manor of Hydeshale, which they held at the time of agreement. It was also settled in regard to certain woods, plains, roads, paths, water-mills, and other liberties (in which the parties seem to have had some common interest), that either party should, with consent of the other, make improvements. Hugh also gives a similar undertaking, as regarded John's assarts, to that which John had given. Further, John quitted to Hugh one part of the wood and waste which he had in the wood of Wyke from John de Grenhull, as the parts were fenced adjacently to Trillewardin. Hugh is to pay for this donation an annual rent of 2d. to John and his heirs,

[221] Rot. Pip. 38 Hen. III, Salop.
[222] Charter at Houghton. Tested by Robert Corbet (of Moreton), John de Stiventon, Herbert de Wyke, John de Grenhul, Walter le Marchal, &c. The Seal of this deed is well preserved. It consists of a coat of arms - Bendy of 10, and in chief a label of 5 points. The Legend is- * * GILLUM ROBERTI DE MONTIFORTI.
[223] Contemporary with this Hugh was also an Alan de Houghton, perhaps also a relation. He (Alan) occurs about 1270 and in 1278.-

There was also a Robert Chop of Houghton, a landholder, juror, and witnesses of local deeds, from 1289 to 1303. His name was, I think, afterwards written Job.


besides 40s. now paid down. Two deeds alternately sealed with the seals of each party were written and exchanged. [224]

On September 2, 1281, King Edward I, wishing to do the Prior of Wombridge a favour, and to relax in his case the stringency of the recent Statute of Mortmain, gives him license "to take in fee-farm the mill of Hugh de Halghton in Halghton, at such terms as Hugh and the Prior may agree upon between themselves. And Hugh may demise the same, saving the rights of any other party". [225]

This permission was not immediately acted upon, perhaps in consequence of a dispute which arose between the parties in reference to another matter.-

In Trinity Term 1282, the Prior of Wombridge recovered a right of common-pasture in twenty-one acres of Waste, in Halghton and Knole, which right was appurtenant to the Prior's tenement in Prior's Leigh. And Hugh and his son were in misericordia. [226]

This decision seems to have been inconclusive; for, on October 20th, 1282, a cause was heard before Ralph de Hengham and his Fellow-Justices at Shrewsbury, in which the Prior of Wombridge sued Hugh de Halgton and Roger and Henry his Sons, under writ of novel disseizin, viz. that they had disseized the said Prior of common pasture in Halghton and Knole. Hugh pleaded that Robert de Montfort had enfeoffed him and his Sons therein; but nevertheless judgment was given for the Prior. [227]

On March 18, 1284, a Convention between Philip, Prior of Wombridge, and Hugh de Haleston, about Haleston Mill, was at length concluded. Hugh gives the same to the Priory, together with a water-course which he had recovered under writ of novel disseizin against the Lords of Ydeshale, saving to Hugh the fishery of said watercourse. The whole to be held in frank and perpetual almoign, together with the right of road which Hugh had obtained by gift and charter of John de la Mare, Lord of Ydeshale. Hugh is to make no other mill within the Manor of Ydeshale, nor to grind elsewhere; he is to allow earth for repair of the watercourse and other easements. The Prior in return grants to Hugh and his heirs

[224] Chyrograph at Haughton.- Witnesses: Philip de Beckebur, John de Prees, Alan de Kembriton, Herbert de Wyk, Walter Marescall of Wyk, Thomas att Knolles, Roger Hod of Draiton, Richard Paternoster of Drayton, Walter de Staunton, Master Robert of Bruges, Clerk: and others.
[225] Wombridge Chartulary. Tit. Lega Prioris, No. xliiij (being in fact a copy of the King's Letters Patent on the occasion).
[226] Abbreviatio Placitoram, p. 204.
[227] Placita apud Salop, Michaelmas Term, 10 Edw. I, memb. 6 dorso.


free multure in his mills of Ydeshale and of Haleston, for all grain necessary for Hugh's household or guests. Also the Prior and his Successors shall, on presentation of Hugh or his heirs, always receive a fit person as a Canon of their House, and on the death of one such Nominee shall receive another, so that for ever they should have one in their house, doing services for the souls of said Hugh and his wife Alice, of his Ancestors and Successors, of Sir Robert Burnel, of Master John de Kenley, of Ralph de Hengham, and of the Chief Lords of Ydeshale, and all the faithful. And the said Canon was to take his weekly turn of Monastic duties (sit ebdomadarius), and be obedient in all things, as other professed Canons of the House. To faithfully keep this peaceful adjustment (pacis reformacionem) the Prior and Hugh took personal oath, and each bound himself in case of non-observance to pay 100s. for relief of the Holy-Land, and 40s. to the Aurum Reginae, for each offence. And if it should happen that the said Mill should fall down or be destroyed, then the Prior was to be free from all his obligations. Chirography sealed with the seals of either party were eachanged. [228]

The peace thus established was very transient. In 1286, a King's Writ issues to the Sheriff of Shropshire, reciting how the Prior had formerly recovered seizin of common pasture in Haleghton and Knoll against Hugh and his Sons, and how the Prior had now petitioned the King, asserting that Hugh had redisseized him. The Sheriff is therefore to take the usual course against Hugh under the statute of Re-disseizin. [229]

The modes in which the interests of this family of Haughton vanished from the Fee of Idsall is matter of much conjecture and only partial evidence.-

We have seen that in the Convention of 1284, Alice, wife of Hugh de Haughton, and Master John de Kenley are mentioned. My idea is that Alice was Sister and eventual heir of the latter, whom we have

[228] Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Lega Prioris, No. xxix. This curious Charter has been inaccurately transcribed in the Chartulary, or I should have given it in full. It is attested by the Lord Ralph Abbot of Lilleshull, Sir Thomas Corbet (of Hadley), Sir Peter de Ryton, John Dovorose (Devereux), Master Laurence, Adam Alimund (both written as if one name), and William de Wyros (probably Devyses).
[229] Originalia, i, 62. The penalties for Redisseizin were heavy, because it was a contempt of the King's Court. The Statute of Merton (20 Hen. III) inflicted imprisonment on the Redisseizor; the Statute of Marlborough (52 Hen. III) added a fine to the Crown; and the Statute of Westminster, which had only passed a year before the above (viz. 13 Edw. I), had given double damages to the aggrieved Party.


further seen in 1298 and 1297, making purchases in Knowle and Idsall.

I also imagine that Alice, after Hugh de Haughton's death, re- married to Peter de Carmarthen, and in a second widowhood granted all she had at Haughton to Sir John de Cherleton. Certainly the eldest son of Hugh de Haughton, whose name we have already seen was Roger, was afterwards called Roger de Kenley, and made at least one concession of property in Idesall Manor to the same Sir John de Cherleton.

These ideas are borrowed from the following Deeds:- On Feb. 16 (2 Edw. II) 1309, John de Cherleton, Knight, appoints John de Cherleton Rector of Wrocwardin, William de Morton Rector of Holm, and Reginald Charles, his Attorneys to receive seizin of all lands and tenements which had belonged to Alice de Kenley, formerly wife of Peter de Kermerdin, in the vill of Halghton juxta Ideshale, whereof the aforesaid Alice, in liege and pure widowhood, had expedited her Charter to said Sir John Cherleton. [230]

Again on August 4, 1309, Roger de Kenleye son of Hugh de Haughton quits to Sir John de Cherleton Knight, and his heirs, all his claims, &c. in two assarts in the Manor of Ideshale, which are called Flethay and the Barnd. [231]

That Sir John de Cherleton made other and fuller purchases at Haughton and in Idsall than are implied by these Deeds, is evident from later Documents. By a Charter of September 15, 1309, he (Sir John) grants to Alan de Cherleton his Brother, his Messuage in the vill of Halctun prope Ydeshale and all the land which he bought from Alice de Keirmerdin.- To hold to said Alan and the heirs of his body under the Chief Lords of the Fee, rendering therefore to the said Chief Lords accustomed services

[230] Charter at Haughton. This Power of Attorney is dated at Dublin. The Seal is well executed, containing a coat of arms, apparently Or, on a chevron, three spread Eagles. Sir John Cherleton of Powis, the purchaser of these lands, &c., became, in 1313, a Baron by Summons.
[231] Charter at Haughton.- Witnesses: John de Everoys (Devereux), John de Styvinton, John Herbert (of Wyke), William Paternoster, William Hod, John de Coleshulle, &c. Dated at Salop, on "Sunday, in the Feast of St. Bartholomew the Apostle, in the third year of the reign of King Edward". This Deed is a proof of what I have often alluded to, viz., that, in the early years of Edward II, Charters were often dated in a way which would not distinguish them from Charters of the same regnal year of Edward I. Thus, in this case, we find that St. Bartholomew's Day (Aug. 24) fell, in 3 Edw. I (1276), on Saturday, but in 8 Edw. II (1309), on Sunday. And the date, thus rectified, is further proved by what is known of the Grantee, who was not born, much less a Knight, in 1275.


and rents. But if Alan should die without Heirs of his body remainder is reserved to the Grantor and his Heirs. [232]

About 1305, Hugh, son (and as I suppose younger son) of the last Hugh de Haughton, gave a piece of land in "Knolle" to Idsall Church in exchange for another piece in "Halhton".

I must close the present account with merely stating that after the feoffment of Alan de Cherleton (who was of Apley), by his Brother Sir John de Cherleton (of Powis), Haughton and its adjuncts continued in the line of Cherleton of Apley for several generations.

A CHAPEL formerly belonged to the vill of Haughton. Some remains, apparently existing in the last Century, have now totally disappeared. [233]


The principal Tenants here were of the family of Pater-Noster. The first whom I find named is William Pater-Noster, who before 1194, attests two Deeds of Walter de Dunstanvill, and who probably was identical with William de Drayton, assessed in 1209 as one living within jurisdiction of the Forest of Mount- Gilbert. [234]

At the Assizes of 1272, Alice de Drayton was found not to be prosecuting her suit of novel disseizin in Suffenhale (Shiffnal) against Robert de Montfort and John D'Evereus.

Between 1270 and 1280, Richard Pater-Noster occurs more than once, as a witness of Deeds or as a Juror.

From 1292 to 1316, William Pater-Noster occurs in similar positions, being accompanied by Thomas de Drayton in 1304, and by Richard Pater-Noster in 1316.

The last occurs repeatedly from 1320 to 1348; and John, son of Richard Pater-Noster and Nephew of William de Steventon, occurs in 1335.

ROGER HOD of Drayton represented another family which held here under the Lords of Idsall. He (Roger) occurs in 1261, and from thence till 1279. From 1296 to 1335, William Hod seems to hold the Tenancy.

[232] Charter at Haughton.- Witnesses: John Deverrois, John de Stivinton, John Erberd, William Pater-Noster, William Hod, William de Devises, and Thomas de la Knolle. This Charter is dated "at Salop, on the Morrow of the Exhaltation of the Holy Cross, in the third year of the reign of King Edward".- Again, the King, thus indicated, must have been Edward II.
[233] Blakeway MSS. Dukes' App. p. xii.
[234] Placita Forestae, 10 John, Salop, memb. 4. Assessments are charged consecutively on the Prior of Wombrigg, William de Drayton, Aky, the vill of Tibberton, and the vill of Idchall.


On May 21, 1311, William Hod of Drayton quitted to Wombridge Priory all right of common in the herbage and pannage of the Canons' Wood of Leshwyke. [235]

On Oct. 2, 1334, William Hod of Drayton leases for his own life his hall (aulam) and homestead (boverium) at Trilwardyne with a curtilage and two crofts. [236] William Hod seems afterwards to have sold his property at Trilwardine to Sir Alan de Cherleton, who renews the lease in 1336. [237]


About 1219, Walter de Dunstanvill (II) assigned to Shrewsbury Abbey rents of 4s. and 2s. payable by Robert Fitz Adam and Thomas le Hog on land in Stanton. [238]

From about 1235 to 1265, I find a Ralph de Stanton occurring under circumstances which induce me to consider him as Tenant here.

About 1269, Robert de Staunton appears in a similar position, and in 1279, Walter de Staunton seems to have had a chief interest in the vill.


There may be some doubt whether Upton were originally a member of Tong or of Idsall. Though the Lords of Idsall seem to have claimed some manorial authority here, they ultimately established an unquestioned seigneury, by composition, and not as a matter of right.

The first Under-Tenants whom I can find holding Upton seem to have been Cadets of the family of Hugford.

Walter, Lord of Hugford, in 1096, had a Brother Henry, who has already occurred under date of 1203, [239] and who very possibly was of Upton. Again William de Hugford, whom we have mentioned as at issue with the Abbot of Buildwas in 1221, [240] was, I think undoubtedly, La Zouche's Tenant here.

We have also seen how Henry de Hugford became about 1228-38, a Feoffee of Roger la Zouche in Tong-Norton and Shaw. There is good reason to believe that at an earlier period this Henry de Hugford was Tenant of the same Baron at Upton.-

[235] Chartulary. Tit. Lega Prioris, No. xx.- Witnesses: Roger Corbet, Peter Lord of Eyton, John d'Everoys, John de Stevinton, William Pater-Noster, &c.
[236] Charter at Haughton.- Dated at Ideshale, and attested by Richard Pater-Noster, Thomas de Stevynton, Thomas de la Knolle, Hugh Colle, Walter de Vises (a corruption of De Devises).
[237] Charter at Haughton.
[238] Salop Chartulary, No. 378.
[239] Supra, page 85.
[240] Supra, page 217.


In virtue of the latter tenure, and before the year 1231, Henry de Hugford granted the following subinfeudation here, viz. He gave, &c. to Peter, Clerk, son of Master Richard of Hydeshall, for his homage and service, and for 15s. paid down, half-a- virgate of land in Upton, viz. that which Alfwin held, with all appurtenances except the orchard and curtilage, in lieu whereof he, Henry, gave two acres elsewhere. He also gave seventeen acres of his demesne, viz. six acres in the field towards Stanton, seven acres in the field towards Hettun, on this side Blakenhul, and five acres in Binstun in the field of Brunestree:- to hold to the grantee and his hereditary assignee, so that he commit not the premises to any House of Religion, [241] rendering a rent of 3s. annually in lieu of all other services, except foreign service. [242]

This deed implies Henry de Hugford to have been Mesne-Lord of other parts of Upton besides the premises conveyed. Probably indeed he held the whole Township under La Zouche.

I find no mention of Henry de Hugford later than 1247; [243] nor can I suppose that his heirs continued to possess any mesne tenure in Upton. I believe their interest here to have been purchased by the seigneural Lords of Tong or of Idsall. Certainly the 3s. rent, reserved in the above Deed, was afterwards paid by the heirs of the Feoffee to Walter de Dunstanvill (III).

Following events however in chronological order, we pass to July 1, 1247, for the next notice of Upton, after Hugford's Deed.

On that day, as has appeared by a Fine already cited, Alan la Zouche conveyed to Buildwas Abbey "the whole tenement which he had in Upton, with special warranty against the capital Lords, as regarded all services, suits of the Manor-Court of Ideshale, &c. for ever". [244]

I have already quoted the Convention, whereby the Abbot of Buildwas conceded the vill of Upton to Walter de Dunstanvill (III), in 1248, for an annual rent of 40s. and other considerations. [245]

Very soon, as I think, after he had acquired Upton, "Sir Walter

[241] An unusual caution in deeds of so early a date,- but suggested in this instance, I imagine, by the coterminous acquisitions of Buildwas Abbey.
[242] Charter at Haughton. Attested by Richard de Ruton and Gerard de Ivilith, Knights, Walter de Stiriclega (Stirchley), Walter de Lega, Hugh de Haltun, Walter Marescald, Roger Stuiorius, Robert de Trilleworthin, Alan de Laueleg (Lawley), John de Hinitun, Robert de Wikes, &c.
[243] His attestation of a Broseley Deed between 1244 and 1249 is the latest notice of him which I can mention. (Supra, p. 22.)
[244] [245] Supra, pp. 221 299.


de Dunstanevile Tercius granted to Reginald de Upton, Clerk, a parcel of land lying between the Ditch without Haghul and another Ditch towards the Park of Ydeshale. [246] The Feoffee may give or sell the ground to any one, except a Religious body". [247]

The heir or successor to Peter Clericus (Hugford's Feoffee in Upton) seems to have been Richard Irish of Dawley, to whom succeeded his Son John.

The latter, styling himself "John Son of Richard Hyberniensis of Dalileg", grants to Petronilla his Sister, all his land in the vill of Upton, viz. that which Robert Bernehout held of Richard his (John's) Father. The Deed provides against any transfer of the Premises to a Religious House, and reserves "a rent of 3s. to Sir Walter de Dunstanvill, according to that which is contained in the Charter of Sir Henry de Hugford, which Charter the Grantor (John) had given to Petronilla, when he put her in seizin of the said land". [248]

Walter de Dunstanvill Tercius inspects, recites, and confirms this last Deed as Seigneural Lord, reserving the rent of 3s. to himself. [249] The confirmation seems to have immediately followed the Charter, and to have been necessary, inasmuch as the former implied an absolute change of Tenants, not a mere subinfeudation, which last would have left John Fitz Richard Irish a mesne Tenant.

Perhaps the Grantee in the last Deed is the same person who more than forty years afterwards, under the name of "Petronilla

[246] Idsall Park seems to have lain to the South of the Town, and so to have abutted on Upton to its East. A mansion at the Southern extremity of the Town is still known as Park-House, and a road leading due South is still called Park-Lane.
[247] Charter at Haughton.- Witnesses: Sir Roger de Piveleadon, John de Beckebur (deceased in 1254), John de Grenhul, William de Divises, John de Stivinton, Herbert de Wike, Hugh de Alcton (Haughton), &c.-

The Seal of this deed is broken, but the label (a slip of parchment cut from some older and then useless deed) contains a few words of writing which I shall have hereafter to give as evidence in a question of some difficulty.
[248] Charter at Haughton.- Witnesses: Radulph de Stanton, Roger de Haltun, Oliver de la Knolle, Robert de Trilleworthin, Herbert de Wyke, Adam Pollart, Robert Pollart, Robert de Lotwic, Philip Ybernensis, &c.-

This deed is fastened with those of Henry de Hugford, and with the following Confirmation of Walter de Dunstanvill. It probably passed between 1260 and 1270.
[249] Charter at Haughton.- The witnesses precisely the same as the last. The Seal of this deed is preserved. It has the Effigy of a Knight in the armour of the period, on horseback, charging sword in hand. On his shield is a Coat-of-arms-

Fretty, with a fesse;- though the latter would hardly be discoverable without some pre-expectation of such a bearing.


de Upton, gives to Richard her Son twelve acres and three roods of land in the heath of Upton, lying between lands of Richard Pater-Noster, Richard Fitz Roger, and John le Taylur.- To hold of the Lords of the Fee". [250]

SUCH WERE the principal Members of the extensive Manor of Idsall in early times. There were other Tenants in the Manor of equal standing with those enumerated, but whose interests were rather associated with the Town itself than with any particular member of the Manor. Some of these families shall be briefly noticed, e.g.-

STEVINTON.- John de Stevinton occurs from 1260 to 1304, as a Juror, on no less than eight occasions, and a witness of numberless deeds. He was in fact Bailiff of Idsall, and attests under that title, at least on one occasion.-

About 1280, being apparently resident at Wyke, he quits to Wombridge Priory all his claim in the wood of Leftwich (or Lestwyk). [251]

And John de Steventon his son and heir granted to the Priory, on April 13, 1309, a fuller acquittance of the said claim. His Charter recites previous grants in connection with the said wood of Lestwyke juxta Wombridge, viz. how in the first instance Sir Walter de Dunstanvill (III) had given his (John's) Father estovers there, and how he had afterwards concurred with Thomas Tuschet (Lord of Leegomery) in granting the wood to the Priory, how also his (John's) Father had quitted all his right therein, in favour of the Canons. [252]

On the same day (April 13, 1309), Philip Prior of Wombridge quitted to John de Stevinton all right of his House in the assarts, wastes, and improved lands of John de Stevinton in Ideshale Manor. [253]

[250] Charter at Haughton.- Witnesses: John le Taylur, Richard Pater-Noster, William de Levereshet, Elyas Clerk, Richard Howle, &c.- The deed probably passed in the time of Edward II.
[251] Chartulary, Tit. Lega Prioris, No. xxij.- Witnesses: John the Grantor's son and heir, Adam de Preston, Philip de Bekeburi, Ranulf de Grenhul, Thomas de Brocton, &c.
[252] Ibidem, No. xxj.- Witnesses: Sir Roger Corbet, Sir William de Wrotteslye, John de Bekeburi, &c.- The Charter is dated 3 Edw. I, according to an usual error of transcribers. It passed doubtless in 2 Edw. II.
[253] Ibidem, No. liij. This deed is properly dated 2 Edw. II. It is tested by the same two Knights ae the last, also by Sir Walter de Huggeforde, Sir Walter de Beysin, and Sir Thomas Corbet (of Moreton).-

The different mode in which the same day (April 13) is expressed by these contemporary Deeds is curious. The former dates itself on "Sunday after the feast of St. Leo the Pope" (meaning Leo the Great); the latter is dated on "Sunday, before the feast of Tiburtius and Valerian". Each date in 2 Edward II (1309) will be found to be reducible to Sunday April 13th.


On February 24, 1316, I find this second John de Stevinton attesting a Deed as "Seneschal of the Manor of Ideshal", an office which, if identical with Bailiff, will have descended to him from his Father.

He was living in 1320; after which William, Hugh, and Thomas de Stevinton occur as witnesses of manorial deeds.

DEVEREUX.- John Devereux,- his name spelt with all those varieties to which Norman names were especially subject,- occurs earlier than 1280, and later than 1340,- as a Juror or Witness, in Idsall Manor or its neighbourhood. Perhaps more than one or two persons may be thus indicated, but the place of his or their Tenancy does not transpire.

DEVISES.- We have already mentioned the acquittal in 1272 of William son of Robert de Divises, who had been bailed by the men of Idsall. As William de Divises, he is constantly occurring in local concerns till 1316. In 1322 and 1334, we have mention of Walter de Divises, called, in one instance, son of William senior, and appearing to be interested in Upton.

POLLARD.- There was an Adam Pollard, Juror, in the matter of Tong Advowson in 1220. The same name occurs repeatedly for the next fifty years. In some cases the bearer is described "of Legh". About 1269, Adam Pollard appears attesting deeds with Robert his Son. Then we have Robert singly till 1316. Between 1270 and 1274, this Robert had a grant of assart-land from Sir Robert de Montfort, which he afterwards surrendered to Dame Petronilla, Sir Robert's Widow. [254]


I have already stated how the Saxon and Collegiate Church of Iteshale was granted by the first Norman Lord of the Manor to Shrewsbury Abbey; how also the same Norman (Robert Fitz Tetbald) did, during the reign of Henry I, make such further assignation of this Advowson to the same Abbey, as that the Collegiate character of the Church came to be extinct, and its

[254] Blakeway MSS. (from Newport Deeds). The surrender is tested by Hugh de Bolynghale, Philip de Beckburi, and John de Stivinton.


revenues only an augmentation of the Treasury of a distant Monastery.

The Saxon Parish of Iteshale was, like other Saxon Parishes, extensive. It included Kemberton, Ryton, Sheriff-Hales, and Dawley, as we may gather from indications or evidences still existing. It was probably far more comprehensive.

I have shown how the assignation of these great Saxon Churches to Monasteries of Norman foundation or patronage, resulted in an utter neglect of all spiritual cure as regarded rural districts. The Churches or Chapels which were built to remedy this state of destitution were usually the work of Laymen. Some such were founded in the Parish of Idsall, and probably in the early half of the twelfth Century. Our present concern is however with the Parent Church.-

Robert Fitz Tetbald's gift thereof to Shrewsbury Abbey was confirmed by Charters of Henry I, Stephen, Henry II, and Henry III, though at the date of the last-named confirmation the Advowson no longer appertained to the Monks.

The earliest confirmation to Shrewsbury Abbey by any Bishop of Chester Diocese is that of Bishop Roger de Clinton (1129-1148). It is very similar in expression to those contemporary Charters of Robert de Betun Bishop of Hereford (1131-1148) which have been quoted under Morville. The two Bishops seem to have adopted the same principles as regards the subject condition of recent Churches, and the pensions and other rights of the older establishments. [255]

Bishop Roger of Chester, addressing his Archdeacons and Deans (Rural Deans) and all the faithful who shall see his letter, informs them that he "confirms the Churches or Tithes which have been given to the Brethren of St. Peter's Monastery by the faithful. The Clerks however who, by appointment of the said Brethren, preside over their Churches, are to pay the annual pensions due to the said Brethren out of such Churches, according to the mode allowed by the Bishop to the Monks. The Monks are to continue to have all tithes, as well in their own demesnes as in the demesnes

[255] There is another reason for thinking that these two Prelates acted in concert. Archbishop Theobald, confirming to Shrewsbury Abbey, addresses them together (Chartulary, No. 65);- where however the Transcriber has attributed the Charter to Archbishop Thomas, and the Writer of the Index to "St. Thomas the Martyr", meaning Becket. The latter however was not contemporary with the Prelates whom he is supposed to address. The original Charter of Confirmation begun T.d.g. Cant. Archiepiscopus, as we may learn from Harl. MS. 3868, fo. 7, b.


of others, which they, previously and without dispute, enjoyed". "And because", adds the Bishop, "necessity compelling, [256] we have consecrated Cemeteries and dedicated Chapels in certain Parishes of theirs, we enjoin that said Chapels be subject to the Mother Churches, as daughters; and that on solemn days the people assemble not at the Chapels but at the Church; and that the Priest of the Mother Church, if he wishes, may cause the bodies of the dead to be carried to the Cemetery thereof".

"We have thought proper", continues the Bishop, "to confirm with the seal of our authority, all Churches, and all Tithes, and the Pensions of the underwritten Churches"-

The list which follows, includes the "Church of Ideshale, with its Chapels, and a pension of 30s". The Bishop enjoins in conclusion that the aforesaid Brethren hold these Churches, Tithes, and Pensions in peace. He threatens with anathema any one who shall in future trouble them in the matter. [257]

The confirmation of Bishop Walter Durdent (1149-1159), to Shrewsbury Abbey, is prefaced nearly word for word as that of his Predecessor. It would imply that he too had consecrated several Chapels and Cemeteries as a matter of necessity. As regards the rights of the Abbey under Robert Fitz Tetbald's grant, he is more specific than Bishop Roger. He confirms the "Church of Itesall with the tithe of the Manor, and the tithe of Cambrestone, and with the Chapels pertaining to the aforesaid Church". His Charter makes no enumeration of Pensions. [258]

The confirmation of Bishop Richard Peche (1161-1182), to Shrewsbury Abbey, includes the Pension of 30s., but makes no mention of Tithes or Chapels attaching to "Idesale Church". [259]

Between the years 1184 and 1190, Archbishop Baldwin seems to have confirmed the Charter of Walter Durdent; and Archbishop John Peckham visiting the Diocese of Lichfield in 1280, confirmed the Pension of 30s. as due to Salop Abbey from the "Church of Ideshale". [260]

Long previous to this last date, the Advowson of Idsall, had returned to the Lords of the Manor. In what way I will now declare.-

[256] An allusion doubtless to the civil wars of the period.
[257] Harl. MSS. 3868, fo. 7, b.
[258] Salop Chartulary, No. 61.
[259] Ibidem, No. 329.
[260] Ibidem, Nos. 61, 62. The first Charter has been improperly attributed to Archbishop Boniface. It begins with the letter "B". in initial only;- which the Writer of the Index has, as usual, interpreted according to his own ideas, and interpreted wrongly.


Early in 1219, the Abbot of Shrewsbury and Walter de Dunstanvill (II) were at issue on the subject, but seem to have arrived at some basis of agreement before the date of the following.-

On October 6, 1219, the Justices at Westminster appointed the Morrow of St. Martin (Nov. 12) for the parties to receive their Chirograph (formal fine). It was enjoined to the Abbot's Attorney that he should on that day bring with him the Charter of the Abbot and Convent concerning their Quitclaim to the Advowson of a Church, whereof there had been agreement, and Walter was ordered meanwhile to assign to the said Abbot and Convent land and rent which he had given for the said Quitclaim, viz. 30s. Walter appointed Henry de Waltham his Attorney.

On the day named (says a postscript), the Abbot's Attorney produced the Charters and rendered them up; so the Parties were ordered to have their Chirograph. [261]

This Chirograph or Final Concord is preserved.-

It purports to be levied at Westminster on the Morrow of St. Martin in the 4th year of King Henry son of John (Nov. 12, 1219), between Walter de Dunstanvill, Plaintiff, by Henry de Wautham his Attorney, and Hugh, Abbot of Salopesbir, Deforciant, by Thomas, a Monk, his Attorney,- concerning the Advowson of the Church of Ydesdal, whereof was suit of darrein presentment, &c. The Abbot renounced all right therein to Walter and his Heirs, saving to the Abbot the due and ancient Pension which the same Abbot was wont to receive from the said Church. [262]

The Salop Chartulary supplies its contingent to all but a complete understanding of this transaction.-

By a Charter therein, Walter de Dunstanvill grants to the Abbey 27s. (not 30s.) annually, viz. 10s. to be received of William Fitz Ralph of Blancmunster (Whitchurch) for the Fee which he held under the said Walter in Chalvrehalle (Calverhall), 3s. receivable from Henry de Savinton (Shavington), 2s. from Leonard de Leges, 1s. from Alan the Chaplain, 4s. and 2s. from Robert Fitz Adam and Thomas le Hog for their respective Fees in Shavinton, Leges, Wyches,

[261] Placita apud Westm. Michaelmas Term, 3 & 4 Heu. III, memb. 1.
[262] Pedes Finium, 4 Hen. III, Salop. Mr. Blakeway, weighing apparently the genuineness of Earl Roger's Foundation-Charter to Shrewsbury Abbey, says adversely, that "there are no traces that either the Churches of Kemberton or Idshall ever belonged to the said Abbey, except that it enjoyed to the last a pension of 30s. issuing out of that of Idshall" (History of Shrewsbury, vol. ii, p.14, note). I believe that none of the objections to Earl Roger's Charter are much better founded.


and Stanton; also 3s. per annum from the Abbot of Buildwas for common-pasture which he enjoyed in the Manor of Hydeshale. [263]

In 1291, the Church of Ydesale was valued at 20. per annum over and above the Pension of 30s. which the Abbot of Salop received therefrom. [264]

In 1341, the Assessors of the Ninth of wheat, wool, and lamb, in the Parish of Idsall, recited the Taxation at which the Church stood as one of 20 merks (13. 6s. 8d.), but reduced their assessment to 12. 9s. The reasons which they gave for the difference were, because the Abbot of Buldewas had in the Parish a certain Grange, called Hatton, in which were three carucates of land and many sheep; and this tenure, though included in the Taxation, was not rateable to the Ninth; because also the glebe- lands, rents and services of Tenants, tithes of hay and pasture, oblations, and other small tithes of the Church, went to constitute the greater sum (the Taxation), and did not belong to the Ninth now granted to the King; lastly, because the corn had been destroyed by sundry storms. [265]

In 1534, the Abbot's pension of 80s., issuing out of Idsall Church, is duly returned among his current receipts. The Church itself, then a Vicarage, of which William Moreton was Incumbent, was valued at 16. 5s. 10d., out of which sum 16s. 8d. was payable for Procuration, and 2s. 6d. for Synodals.

The Rectory, fermed at 10. per annum, belonged to Battlefield College, as did also the Tithes of Dawley (originally a Chapelry of Idsall), which were fermed at 3. 6s. 8d. [266]


WALTER DE DUNSTANVILL, [267] the first Rector of Idsall, of whom we have any notice, was also Rector of St. Michael's, Salop, a piece

[263] No. 378. Tested by John Fitz Alan, Vivian de Rossall, and Robert de Gyros. The date is of course 1219.
[264] Pope Nicholas' Taxation, p. 248.
[265] Inquisition, Nonarum, p. 184. The "3 carucates of Hatton" probably included Upton.
[266] Valor Ecclesiasticus, iii, 188, 187, 196. The Rectors of St. Andrews of "Yddessall" also paid a pension of 13s. 4d. to the Bishop and Archdeacon, a Senage of 4s. and a triennial Procuration, averaging 8s. 10d. per annum, to the Bishop. They, that is Battlefield College, had lands at Aston, described in the same Record as Aston juxta "Shuffnall". Up to this period (1534), I do not remember that the name Shiffnal was ever applied to the Church.
[267] Mr. Blateway (History of Shrewsbury, vol. ii, p. 417) suggests that he was a Son of Reginald Earl of Cornwall, clinging, I suppose, to the old idea that the latter was sometime Lord of Idsall.-

Even if we assign him such a parentage it does not appear how he could be Cousin to Walter Baron of Idsall. He would have been his Brother-in- Law, i.e. Brother of the apocryphal, if not fabulous, Ursula, of whom we have already spoken. The family of Dunstanvill was numerous.- There was a William de Dunstanvill, with a younger Brother Walter, in Stephen's reign, and both of these may have again been Brothers of Robert and Alan. If so, our Clerk, being son of either said William or Walter, will have been also first- Cousin of Walter Baron of Idsall.


of preferment which he can only have obtained by favour of the Crown. He occurs as Rector of St. Michael's before the death of Henry II (1189), who will therefore have been his Patron. He was Cousin (cognatus) of Walter de Dunstanvill (I) of Idsall, and as such attests one of his Charters. Others he attests, simply styling himself "Clerk" or "Parson of Idsall". As "Master Walter de Dunstanvill" and "Master Walter" he appears to have attested Charters of Hugh de Novant Bishop of Coventry, one of which will have passed about 1188, the others on Nov. 24, 1190. [268]-

He was living in 1206, and, as Master Walter de Dunstanvill, then stands first witness of a matter referred to high ecclesiastical arbitration by Pope Innocent III. [269]-

His successor [270] (immediate or otherwise) at St. Michael's, was appointed by King John, on January 18, 1215; and the vacancy which four years afterwards we know to have existed at Idsall, may have originated at the same period, for during the interval no Law-Courts had been sitting, such as might have decided any pending cause of darrein presentment.

On gaining the right of Advowson in 1219, Walter Lord of Idsall seems to have presented one Philip, for PHILIP PARSON OF IDESHAL had, on 29 July 1221, Letters Patent of Protection till the King should be of age. [271]

In the middle of the thirteenth Century-

WALTER DE KEMBERTON is a frequent witness of local Deeds. In one of these he is expressly styled Rector of the Church of Ideshall.

MASTER JOHN JOYE was Rector here in 1269; on August 29th of which year he came to an agreement with the Prior of Wombridge, abandoning a claim which he had been urging on the Prior for Tithes of certain live-stock which had apparently been only

[268] Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Brocton. Nos. cj, cij.
[269] Madox Formulare Angl. No. xlvi.
[270] "Master Richard of Idshall", who oocurs before 1190 and after 1220, and often in the interval, and who was Father of at least two sons, Peter and Nicholas, does not seem to have been Rector of the Church. His apparent importance however requires some specific mention of his name, and I think that he must have been an Ecclesiastic.
[271] Patent, 5 Hen. III.


used and fed within the Parish of Idsall accidentally, but belonged to another district. The special privileges granted by the Pope to Wombridge Priory seem to have exempted it from this liability. [272]

MASTER ADAM LE GUST, [273] "Rector of the Church of Idshall", attests a Charter of Fulk le Strange, already cited, and which appears to have passed in June 1300.

In Trinity Term 1305, "Adam Gest, Parson of Ideshale", would seem to be under prosecution of John de la Mare, Lord of Ideshale, on two matters, one for cutting down trees of the said John, the other for some trespass in regard to Deer. To the first charge Adam replied that he was only taking house-bote, to the other that at the time of the alleged offence he was Seneschal of the said Lord of Idsall. [274]

Master Adam Gest died Sept. 11, 1328, and on Sept. 16 following, MASTER THOMAS DE CLOPTON was admitted to the Rectory on presentation of Dame Margaret D'Oumframvill, Lady of Badlesmere. [275]

In 1329, and, as I suppose, ignoring the last presentation, the King presented-

ROBERT SWYNNERTON to this Living, the Patronage whereof belonged to the Crown by reason of the Barony of Bartholomew de Badlesmere being in manu Regis. [276]-

This however seems to have been revoked, for on December 17, 1330, I find the Bishop readmitting SIR THOMAS DE CLOPTON, Priest, but on the presentation of King Edward III. On March 5, 1331, Thomas de Clopton resigned, having exchanged preferments with Simon de Clopton, Incumbent of Walton. Accordingly on the same day the Bishop admits-

SIR SIMON DE CLOPTON, Subdeacon, at the King's presentation. [277]

[272] Chartulary, Tit. Lega Prioris, No. li.
[273] Mr.Blakeway quotes Prynne (iii, 593) for a Protection granted in 22 Edw. I (1293-4) to Master Adam de West, Parson of Ideshale.
[274] Abbreviatio Placitorum, p. 254.
[275] Lichfield Register, B, fo. 206b. The Patroness of Idsall Church on this occasion was Margaret, Widow of Bartholomew Lord Badlesmere, who, having been taken prisoner at the battle of Borough-Bridge, in March 1322, was executed for High Treason. His Widow is said to have been by birth a De Clare, to have been imprisoned in The Tower for some time after her husband's death, and on her release to have gone into a Nunnery; but she is also said to have had Idsall assigned to her in part of her dower in 1331.-

One or other of these statements must require modification from the fact of her being styled Dame Margaret D'Umframville in 1328.
[276] Patent, 3 Edw. III, p. 1, memb. 34.
[277] Lichfield Register, B, 208 b. The presentation of Simon de Clopton is also on the Patent Rolls of 4 Edw. III (part 2, membs. 12 & 24).


On March 6, 1881, the said Simon had license to study for four years. He died August 20, 1349; and on Sept. 10 following, the Bishop admitted-

RICHARD GARLAUND, Clerk, at presentation of Sir William de Bohun, Earl of Northampton and Constable of England. [278]


Shiffnal Church is a large building of several dates. It has a nave with aisles and a south porch, north and south transept, and central tower, and a chancel with a south aisle or chapel, called the Moreton Chancel.

Part of the south transept, part of the north wall of the chancel, and the chancel arch, which is eastward of that under the east wall of the tower, are of a transitional style between the Norman and Early-English, and probably belong to the end of the twelfth century. The chancel arch is round, and the mouldings are somewhat remarkable; in one of them, the Early- English dog-tooth ornament appears.

The south porch, which has a Parvise or upper story, is of Early-English character; perhaps with a slight tendency to the Decorated, but I doubt not, belonging to the thirteenth century, though probably to the latter half of it. The outer door has a trefoiled arch. The bay of the aisle corresponding with the porch has a stone-ribbed vault, and is lower than the rest of the aisle, its pier arch too is not so high as the others.

The nave, chancel (with the exception already noticed), and central tower are of the Decorated style; I should say somewhat early in the fourteenth century. The north aisle has had some very late windows inserted. The central tower is very plain, and has a large stair-turret at the north-west angle. The tower stands on four piers of which the two eastern ones do not range with the eastern wall of the transepts, so that it is not so large as a tower fitted to the actual intersection: notwithstanding this, it is still massive rather than the contrary. The east window of the chancel, and those on the north and south, near the east end, have a peculiar character, and seem Early in the style. The west window I think must have been modernized. The chancel has some good Sedilia.

[278] Register, B, 224 a & b. William de Bohun was Lord of Idsall in right of his wife Elisabeth, Sister and Coheir of Giles last Baron Badlesmere.


The Moreton chancel, now screened off as a vestry, is of a later Decorated, and exhibits flowing tracery in its windows.

The north transept is entirely of Perpendicular work, of the fifteenth century; and the south transept has windows and parapet of the same style.

The portion of the south aisle between the porch and the transept is of very late work; I should say of the sixteenth century; it is much wider than the western part of the aisle, or than the north aisle.

The Church is on the whole in good preservation, and both the Transitional, the Early-English, and the older Decorated portions may be studied with confidence, as retaining their principal features unaltered.

J.L. PETIT. Return to top of page

URL of this page: http://www.melocki.org.uk/eyton/Vol02.html

Copyright notice:
All pages at http://www.melocki.org.uk
are Copyright Mel Lockie 2021.
All rights reserved.
For a detailed copyright policy see: Conditions of Use.