Non omnia grandior setas
Quae fugiannis habet.





1. To face page 6. THE LEGEND OF ST. MILBURG.
2. To face page 19. THE HEATH CHAPEL. Mrs. Stackhouse Acton, del.
3. To face page 70. DOORWAY, Holgate. Mrs. Stackhouse Acton, del.
4. To face page 70. FONT, Holgate. Mrs. Stackhouse Acton, del.
6. To face page 156. STOTTESDEN CHURCH. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
7. To face page 156. FONT, Stottesden. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
8. To face page 226. CHANCEL ARCH, Cleobury Mortimer. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
9. To face page 256. KINLET CHURCH. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
10. To face page 289. SOUTH DOOR, Wheathill. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
11. To face page 322. WINDOW, Burford. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
12. To face page 363. CHANCEL ARCH, Cainham. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
13. To face page 372. FONT, Bitterley. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
14. To face page 382. SOUTH DOOR, Silvington. Rev. J. Brooke, del.

THE syllable "Hope" or "Hop" enters frequently into the composition of Shropshire names, and especially so in the district whereof we are treating.

The word is said to be Celtic, and to denote "a valley"; [1] and this opinion is so in conformity with other evidence that, without pretending to discuss the matter philologically, I hesitate not to accept it.

Mylen (Saxon), and Melin (British), both signify "a Mill", while Myllyn (in the latter language) is "a violet". Again, the Saxon adjective Milirc signifies "sweet".

The various modes in which the name before us has been spelt and pronounced leave the question of its etymology uncertain. I have stated what I conceive to be the alternatives.

Domesday notices the Manor of Millichope thus:-

"The same Helgot holds (of Earl Roger) Melicope. Gamel held it (in Saxon times), and was free. Here is I hide geldable. There is (arable) land (sufficient) for III ox-teams. In demesne there is one (such team) and IIII Serfs. Its old value was 50s. (per annum). Its present value is 15s". [2]

I have already recited the Charter or alleged process by which Earl Roger gave "Milinchope" to St. Milburg in exchange for Eardington. [3]

This was probably at the period immediately succeeding Domesday; but it is strange that the gift was accompanied by no mention of Helgot's previous interest in Millichope, and that there is no formal statement of his necessary concurrence in such a transfer. [4]

The truth of the Charter is nevertheless confirmed by all subsequent history; for Millichope is never again mentioned in connexion with the Barony of Helgot, but only with the Fief of St. Milburg.

[1] Salopia Antiqua, p. 267.
[2] Domesday, fo. 258, b, 1.
[3] Vol. I, 109.
[4] Helgot is a witness however of the more general Charter, which involves this and the Earl's other acts in relation to Quatford Church. (Vide Vol. I, p. 111.)


We have seen how that early in the twelfth Century one Stephen, a Clerk (probably Rector of Munslow), claimed the two Milinsopes (Upper and Lower), to belong parochially to Mulsleie (Munslow); how also the Viceroy of Henry I in full Court at Castle Holgate annihilated this and every other claim which trespassed on the spiritual jurisdiction of St. Milburg. [5]

There can be little doubt I think, that the Domesday Manor of Millichope (involving Upper and Lower Millichope and Hungerford) had been in Munslow Parish; but the temporal change from Helgot's Barony to St. Milburg's Fief worked, rightfully or not, a spiritual transfer.

Let us see what allowance the Viceroy awarded to the Rector of Munslow for his implied losses:-

"There is nevertheless conceded to Stephen, not in virtue of his claim, but for the sake of peace and for love of his Lord, the tithe and the sepulture of the Rustics of Lower Milinsope and the third garb of the tithe of the same Lord; so also as that if any of them shall have desired to be buried at Weneloc, his acknowledgment being first made to the Church of Mulslaye, he shall not be forbidden to be thereafter buried at Weneloc".

This "concession", made about A.D. 1115, has worked in a most remarkable manner. At this very day Lower Millichope is in Munslow Parish, while Upper Millichope and Hungerford are in St. Milburg's Parish of Eaton. Again, the Prior of Wenlock, though Lower Millichope was not in his Parish of Eaton, retained till the Dissolution a part of the tithes thereof, viz. 8s. per annum, which in the Valor of 1334-5 is described as a Portion from the Vill of Millichop, and in 1541-2 as the ferm of the tithes of Millichere Inferior. [6]

I must now speak separately of the several constituents of the Domesday Manor, inasmuch as their history is by no means identical.

LOWER MILLICHOPE.- The person designated in the above Charter as "Lord of Stephen, Clerk of Munslow", was perhaps Lord of Munslow itself. [7] He would seem more surely to be Lord of Lower Millichope, and if so, I suppose he must have held the latter under the Prior of Wenlock. His name in either or both capacities seems left to conjecture.

[5] Supra, Vol. III, p. 233.
[6] Monasticon, V, 81.
[7] Richard Banastre, the second lay witness of the Viceroy's Charter, was Lord, I think, of Munslow, but I cannot show that Lower Millichope remained in tenure of any of his successors.


After a very long interval, and in the year 1255, I find Peter de Lasy returned as Lord of Lower Millinghop. " He held it of the Prior of Wenlock, and paid the Prior 20s. annual rent. He did suit to the Prior's Court by afforciament, and his antecessors had been wont to do suit to Munslow Hundred till the time of King Richard I. Lower Millinghop was half a hide". [8]

All I can say further of this Peter de Lascy is that he occurs in the following year, 1256, with Margery his wife, as having been party to a suit of mort d'ancestre, apparently concerning lands in Herefordshire. [9]

Cotemporary with Peter de Lacy we find Robert de Lacy, a Knight, holding more than one estate in Shropshire under different Lords. How he was related to Peter I cannot say, but it would seem that the eventual succession of both was in the same person, a female.-

This was Amicia, wife, first of Thomas de Grete (by whom she had a son and heir Roger), secondly, of William de Schippeye. I shall elsewhere dwell more fully on this succession, but it was necessary to say thus much here in order to explain a Fine, now to be cited, by which Amice divested herself and her descendants of all concern in Lower Millichope. [10]

This Fine was levied at Westminster, in June, 1293, between Philip Burnel, Plaintiff (querentem), and William de Schippeye, with Amice his wife, Deforciants, of the Manors of Wodeton, Walton, Parva Milinghope, and Oneburi, and the Advowson of the Church of Oneburi, all in the County of Salop, whereof was Plea of Convention. William and Amice acknowledged the premises to be the right of Philip, by their own gift;- to hold the same for ever, to him and his heirs, of the Lords of the respective fees. And William and Amice and the Heirs of Amice shall warrant the same. For all this Philip conceded to William and Amice and to Roger de Grete, son of the said Amice, the Manors of Welewe, Mardele-Philippi, and Aytemunsichet with the Advowson of the last, all in Hertfordshire.- To hold to William, Amice, and Roger, and to the heirs of Roger lawfully begotten, of the chief Lords of the Fees,- with remainder, failing lawful issue of Roger, to Matilda his Sister, and her lawful issue,- with remainder, failing such issue, to Agnes, Matilda's sister, and her lawful issue; failing which, remainder to the right heirs of Amice.

[8] Rot. Hundred, II, 85.
[9] Rot. Fin. II, 222.
[10] Pedes Finium, 21 Edw. 1.


The Inquest held in July, 1294, on the death of Philip Burnel, represents him to have held certain lands in Millinghop of the Prior of Wenlock, by a rent of 20s. [11]

The Feodary of March, 1316, gives William de Ercalwe as one of the Lords of Millinghope. [12] He was doubtless Tenant to the Burnels here, as he was at High Ercall.

In 1521-2, the Foreign Rent-Roll of Wenlock Priory includes 20s., still receivable from the "Lord of Nether Millynchope", whose name however is not mentioned. [13]

UPPER MILLICHOPE.- The Feoffees, who held this Manor under the Prior of Wenlock, were also hereditary Foresters of that vast jurisdiction, which, in its original state, was known as the Long Forest. They were therefore immediate servants of the Crown, and their names not unfrequently appear on public occasions.

The first of this family of whom I find notice was Thomas de Millinghope, who, between the years 1169 and 1176, attests Charters of Peter, Prior of Wenlock, and of Hugh de Periers, Lord of Ditton.

In 1199 Roger de Millinghope fined one merk with King John, for having the bailiwick of the Long Forest, which his Father had held. [14]

In November, 1221, Thomas and Roger de Millingehop are pledges for Peter le Macun, who neglected to prosecute a lawsuit. [15] Within the next five years Roger de Millinghop attests a deed, which concerned a Brother Forester and the Prior of Wenlock. [16]

On February 3, 1243, Roger de Millinghop has essoign in the suit of dower, wherein he was impleaded at Westminster by Agnes, widow of Roger Stosty. [17] In Trinity Term following, the Plaintiff, called widow of Roger Tosty, appeared in support of her claim to a third part of half a virgate in Millingchop; but the Justices adjourned the case till the next Iter, and we hear no more of it. [18]

On March 2, 1249, the King ordered Inquisition to be made as to the estate of Roger de Millingehope, deceased. The Return says that he had held nothing in capite of the King, but he held a carucate of land in Millinghope, of the Prior of Wenlock, to whom

[11] Inquisitions, 22 Edw. I, No. 45, c. Another Inquest particularizes Philip Burnel's tenure as in Millynchehope Minor.
[12] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 397.
[13] Register at Willey, fo. 39.
[14] Rot. Pip. 1 John, Salop.
[15] Assizes, 6 Hen. III, m. 4.
[16] Monasticon, V, 76, VI.
[17] Placita, Hil. Term, 27 Hen. III, memb. 4.
[18] Ibidem, Trinity Term, memb. 7.


he paid 1. 12s. 6d. yearly rent. He had also held an acre of land in Eaton (Aston Munslow), of William de Camera, and a meadow, of William de Furches. His whole estate was worth 6. yearly. Juliana, his daughter and heir, was sixteen years of age, but the Jurors knew not where she was. [19]

In 1250 the arrentation of Geoffrey de Langley assessed an annual rent of 7s. on the heirs of Roger de Millinghop, and on Juliana, his Mother, for seven acres in Millinghop; [20]- probably assarted land within jurisdiction of the Forest.

It appears that Geoffrey de Langley took other cognizance of this estate; for Thomas de la Mare having married the above-named heiress, and holding thereby the Royal Forestership already mentioned, was questioned as to the legality of such marriage before the said Justiciar.

The Wenlock Jurors who reported this in the Inquisition of 1255, did not state the result, but they stated elsewhere that- "Thomas de la Mare was Lord of High Milligehop, and held the vill of the Prior of Wenlock, at an annual rent of 1. 12s. 6d., and did suit to the Prior's Court by afforciament", and that "his antecessors, till King Richard's time, did suit to Munslow Hundred". "High Millichope", they said, "was half a hide". [21] Thomas de la Mare was himself on this Jury, as was he also on the Jury of Wenlock Liberty, at the Assizes of January, 1256. On March 19, 1262, he sat as a Forester of the Fee, on an Inquest held at Brug; [22] at Michaelmas, 1267, I find him owing an amercement of 20s. for some non-attendance; and further I cannot say of him or his descendants,- except that Roger de la Mare was a Forester, of the Fee on the great Perambulation of 1300, [23] and that the Feodary of 1316 gives Ralph de la Mare as one of the Lords of Millinghope. [24]

In 1521-2, the Foreign Rent-Roll of Wenlock Priory gives 30s. as the Chief-Rent payable by the Lord of Over Myllynchope, but does not give the said Lord's name. [25]

AN OLD HOUSE still remains at Upper Millichope, the details of which are well worth the notice of Antiquaries, but more appropriate to a Work on Domestic Architecture than to the present

[19] Inquisitions, 33 Hen. III, No. 40.
[20] Rot. Pip. 38 Hen. III, Salop. I am inclined to think that the word herede should be substituted for heredibus in this entry. If so, Juliana will have been wife, not mother of Roger de Millichope, for the subsequent word ejus will refer to the heiress, not to the said Roger.
[21] Rot. Hundred, pp. 86, 85, 84.
[22] Inquisitions, 46 Hen. III, No. 41.
[23] Salop Chartulary, No. 279.
[24] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 397.
[25] Register at Willey, fo. 39.


undertaking. [26] I have little doubt that the building, though it stood in the Prior of Wenlock's Fee, was more pertinent to the Tenant's position as a King's Forester,- that it was in fact the Lodge of the hereditary Foresters of the Long-Forest.

HUNGERFORD.- Of this small township I have no further particulars than have been given in conjunction with the two Millichopes.

UPPER MILLICHOPE CHAPEL- occurs to my notice only once, and then as an affiliation of the Church of Eaton-under-Heywood. This has been already alluded to. [27]

Stoke St. Milburg.

THERE were several Stokes in Shropshire, which is not to be wondered at, seeing that the Saxon word Stoc signified a village, or inhabited place. In course of time the several places thus named came to be distinguished by some adjunctive term. The one before us, called at one time God-stoke, at another Stoke St. Milburg, owes each name to the spiritual fief of which it was a member.

Of the many Legends about St. Milburg, most, I believe, alresdy, exist in print. There is one however still current among the Inhabitants of Corve-Dale, which has been hitherto neglected, but which, as it specially concerns Stoke St. Milburg, may stand side by side with our more commonplace details. [1]

Domesday describes the extensive Manor under notice thus:-

"The same Church (St. Milburg's) held Godestoch (in Saxon

[26] "The lower Story seems to have been used as a storehouse or barn, the upper as a dwelling. The precautions against attack are elaborate. The architectural details of the principal Door and Window belong to the thirteenth centuryt; but the stones which now form a round Arch in the doorway are not in situ, and (being sculptured with the ball-flower ornament) probably formed a pointed arch originally. This factitious form of the Arch conveys, at first sight, a notion of greater antiquity than the other details will warrant".- I am indebted for these remarks to Mrs. Stackhouse Acton.
[27] Supra, Vol. III. p. 314.- This destroyed Chapel perhaps furnished the stones of the doorway arch, above described.
[1] I am indebted in this matter to the kindness of two Contributors,- to one (Mrs. Stackhouse Acton), for collecting the particulars of the Legend; to another (Miss Petit), for combining the local tradition with other more generally aaserted facts, and in an appropriate form.

Ye Legende of S. Milburge.

Ye Systeres of Llan Meilien,
Rounde ye Abbesse Milburg stode:
O Ladye staye, goe notte awaie
Thro yor derke lonesum wode.
Ye rode of wolvys is sore besett,
Ande eke of Paynim fos:
Then tarrie here, O Ladye dere,
To Godstockke doe notte goe.

Kynge Merewalds daughters rasyd hyr honde,
Ande sadlie shoke hyr hede:
Ere breke of dale I must awaie
To Godestoch, schee sayde.
For swerd I'll take ye holie crosse,
My mayden trwthe for shelde;
Soe armyd myne esse and I mote passe
Safe thro a battel felde.

Yatt nighte a solempne vigille
Ye holie Mayden kepte.
Withyn ye celle I wot ful wells,
Yatt notte a Syster slepte.
Ande ere was seen o'er easterne hylle
A stroke of palyst lyghte,
Without ye gate dydde meeklie waite
Ye asse soe milkie whyte.

Pale was Milburgas cheke,
Butt tearlesse was hire eye,
As schee bleste ye systers everich one,
Ande bade yem ale gode bye;
Butte whenne Merewalds daughter Milgythe,
Hyr own Syster, shoe dydde see,
Schee flunge hyr armys arounde hyr necke,
Ande bytterlie wepte shee.

O Syster dere I doe notte fere
Ye peryle of ye rode;
Tho derke ye wode and depe ye flode,
Ande wolvys prowle abrode,
Hee yn whose cause I journeye,
Gainst foes wylle take my parte;
Butte Milgythe dere, I needes must fere
Thys weake ands synnfulle herte.

In dremes ye daies of chyldhode
Returne to mee againe,
Ande one we as a brothere luvd
I see before mee thenne.
Blacke derknes hangea o'er Wolfganges pathe,
O'er oures ye lighte of daie:
Whye didde I chuse and hee refuse
Ye Gospelles savynge raie?

Thou knoweste how whenne dutie calld,
I caste my luv asyde;
Wolfgange, I sayde, a Xtian mayde
Can ne'er bee Paygans bryde.
I vowd my lyfe, mie luv to God,
My plightyd feythe I brake;
Ande, Milgythe, I have nevere rued,
Ye words whilk thenne I spake.

But whenne I journey alle alone,
Ande foes arounde me waite,
I fere least I schoulde mete withe one
Whose luv ye turned to hate.
I dailie praye for Wolfgange,
For hys sowles weale I praye;
Butte, Syster dere, alas! I fere
To meet hym bie ye waye.

S. Milgythe tryst hyr Systers cheke,
And werdys of comforte spake,
As from ye shroude of mistye cloude
Ye fyrste faynt sunnbeames brake;
Ande Milburg mountyd on ye asse,
And uppe ye hyllys stepe syde,
And thro ye thicke ande leaflesce wode
Beganne hyr wearie ryde.

Oer hylle and dells, thro brake and felle
Sped on ye milkwhyte asse,
And ere ye sonne had reachd hys noon,
Thro Corves fair vale they passe.
There in ye depe redde furrowe
Ye sowers droppyd ye graine,
An armyd Paygan bye their syde
Lookyd oute athwart ye plaine.

Ande whenne hee saw Milburga,
Hys blakke eye flashyd fyre:
False mayde, bee cryed, once trothd my bryde
By thy faynthertyd Syre:
Thou who hast tramplyd on ye luve
Of Saxon nobly borne,
Schalt rue ye daie thou saydst me naye,
And paye for alle thie scorne.

Ye Maydene herte ytt quailyd notte;
Schee meeklie raysyd hyr eye:
Wolfgang, thyne arme can never harme
One yatt hath frinde on highe:
He who can mak you graine to sprynge
Ande rypen ynto frute,
Powrs rayn ande sonneschyne yn ye herte,
Ande bydds ye feythe take rute.

Schee poyntyd too ye furrowyd felde;
Loe, even as schee spake,
From ye dry sede upsprang greene blade,
Ande stalke ande fulle eare brake!
In sore amaze ye serfys gaze,
Ye Warrior smote hys brest,
Ande humblye on hys bendyd knee
Ye Xtians Godde confeste.

Changyd was hys mien. Hee loold and loe
As ynn a glorious dreme,
Beholde ye Mayden ande ye asse
Ayent Corves glyttering streme;
Ande where they goe fresche flowerettys growe,
Ande to thys daye is seene
Upon ye sod whilk they have trodde,
A belte of freschyr greene.

Butte wherefore Milburge ryde soe faste?
Noe danger nowe ys nighe.
Thynke notte, shoe cries, my peryls paste;
From myne owne herte I flie!
My prayer ye herd, we twain schalle meete
Yn ye brighte realmys abuv,
Butte not againe on Earth's wyde plaine;
Inn Heaven is alle my luv.

Spede quicke, myna asse! Ye asse sped onne
Til well nighe Godestockke,
Hyr strength was spente, shee totteryd, bente,
Ande sanke uponne ye rocke.
Grete bloudegoutys fromme hyr nostryle felle,
Ande stained ye stone withe redde.
Ye saintlie Mayd knelte bye hire syde,
Ande stayd hyr fayntinge hedde.

Ye wyckyd profette smote hys asse,
I wull notte the soe smote;
For Godde dothe staye myne onward waye,
Til I schalle walke arighte.
Truste notte yn charriott nor yn stede
Tis wrytt, butt truste yn mee.
Butt I soughte safetie yn grete spede,
Thoughe none pursue I flee.

Soe spake ye pious Mayde; and loe,
A sparkelinge fountayne burste
Fromme ye drye grounde ande bubblyd rounde,
And ye asse alakyd hyr thurste;
Ande strengthenyd gayned ye journey's ende;
Ande holie pilgryms telle,
There dothe remayne a derke redde stayne
Atte bottom of ye welle. S. Milburge yn Llan Meilien,
Hire sacryd daies didde close;
Ande yn ye celle schee luvd soe welle
Hyr relics doe repose.
Whatte tho ye walles schalle crumble,
Ande ye sepulchre decaye,
Ande Llan Meiliens very name
Schalle for ever passe awaye;-

Whatte tho ye Normanne Conquerore
A proudyr fane schalle reare,-
Thro Corves sweete vale for evere schalle
Ye Sainte bleete name bee dere.
Schee sleepes yn Wenlock Priorye,
Holie fragraunoe markes ye spotte;
Nor til eche stone bee overthrone,
Wylle S. Milburge bee forgotte.


times). Earl Roger hath given it to his Chaplains, but the Church ought to have it. Here are XX hides; of which three are not geldable; but the others are geldable. In demesne are II ox-teams and XXV Villains, and (there are) V Boors with IX teams, and there are IIII Neatherds. And there might be XIX more teams here. In time of King Edward the Manor was worth 13 (per annum); now it is worth 9". [2]

I have before stated that Stoke St. Milburg reverted to Wenlock Priory, and probably as the Earl's Chaplains died off.

The Domesday Manor must be taken to have included Stoke, The Moor, Clee-Downton, Newtown, Bockleton, Kinson, Norncott, and The Heath. In none of these except The Heath and Norncott had the early Priors of Wenlock any Tenant-in-Fee. They held the bulk of the Manor partly in demesne, but mostly leased out to Life-Tenants, in the mode of which the Wenlock Fine-Roll of 1321-2 has already afforded us so many examples.

Of the early history of estates thus managed we necessarily know but little. Transactions between Lord and Tenant, though numerous enough, were on a small scale and confined to Manorial Courts.

In 1230-2 the Prior of Wenlock had much trouble on behalf of his Tenants of Stoke, who suffered from the exactions of Walter de Clifford, of Corfham. The latter had, or asserted himself to have, certain rights in his Forest of Clee and Ernestree, and the jurisdiction of that Forest, originally Royal, extended over the Priors' Manors of Stoke and Ditton. The particulars of this dispute and its termination I will give in another place.

The Wenlock Jurors of 1255 gave an account of the Manor of Stoke which I cannot think to have been quite accurate originally. The printed copy thereof contains also some verbal error. The entry is as follows:- "Sthoke with its appurtenances is a Manor of the said Prior" (of Wenlock), "Hunton" (where read Dunton, i.e. Clee-Downton), "Newton, Bothton " (i.e. Bockleton) "and Ekinestaneston" (i.e. Kinson). Then the Jurors give particulars of certain Tenures-in-fee at Clee-Stanton, Heath, and Norncott; and conclude as follows:- "The Jurors also say that the Manor of Sthoke, with its appurtenances and with the aforesaid Vills, contains in itself XX hides". [3]-

The intention of these Jurors was evidently to give account of the contents of the Manor of Stoke as measured by its Domesday hidage.

[2] Domesday, fo. 252, b, 2.
[3] Rot. Hundred, II, 86, a.


They also adopted an arrangement which distinguished those members of the Manor which were held in Fee from the ordinary members. Their mistake consisted, either in estimating Clee-Stanton at all as a member of Stoke, or else in limiting Stoke to 20 hides. Clee-Stanton was, at the time of Domesday, a distinct Manor. It contained it hides in itself, and was in Culvestan, not in Patinton Hundred.

At present, therefore, I continue to speak generally of the Manor of Stoke St. Milburg, exclusive of Clee-Stanton.-

In 1291 the following was the valuation of the Prior of Wenlock's interests here. Six carucates of land (held in demesne), 4. Four acres of meadow, 8s. Assized rents, 9. 6s. 8d. Tallage, 6. 13s. 4d. Pleas, perquisites (of Court), and Labour-dues, 1. 60. 8d. Total, 21. 14s. 8d. [4]

The Fine Roll of 1321-2 contains very many entries relating to Stoke St. Milburg. I select those which involve any topographical allusion, or point out any manorial custom.

"Stok, Oct. 13, 1321. A married woman gives the Lord 40d. that she may have for life four acres in Sturepottes-Rudynge; land which she had taken from the previous Tenant thereof, in lieu of a debt due to her in frank-marriage from the said Tenant.

Newetone (same day). Fine of half a merk for a messuage and land, to be held for life of the Tenant, by performance of usual services.

Dountone (same day). Fine of 10s. for a messuage and land conceded by an off-going Tenant.-To hold to the new Tenant for life.

Dountone (same day). Fine of 1. given by the same party as the last, that he may hold in peace two parcels of land which he previously held, and that he may not be compelled hereafter to take any other land.

Stok (same day). The Tenants of the Manor fine 6s. 8d. with the Lord, that he will commute a certain rent of geese hitherto payable by them in kind, for a rent in money, viz. at the rate of 3d. per goose.

Stok (same day). Two Tenants give the Lord twelve pullets for license to convey, the one to the other, some meadow-land near St. Milburg's Cross.

Stok (same day). Alice, daughter of Walter Waltais, of Bochtone, gives the Lord 2s. for license to be married at Stauntone (Long Stanton, I presume).

[4] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 164.


Stok (same day). Thomas, son of William Miller, fines 7 merks for the reversion, after his father's death, of that messuage, mill, and land of More, now held by his Father.- To hold for life by accustomed services. The Lord further concedes to said Thomas one acre in each of the three fields of his demesne at 4d. per acre rent. Afterwards Agnes, the Lessee's Sister, undertook all his Covenants, adding however 1. more to the Fine.

Stok, April 19, 1322. A Tenant fines for license to marry.

Stok, April 25, 1322. A Tenant fines 40d. for license to sell to another that curtilage called The Bury;- to hold to the purchaser and his wife for their lives.

Stok, July 6, 1322. A Tenant fines 20s. that he and his son may hold the lands already taken by them, in the form by which they now hold them, and that they be not compelled to take more land against their will.

Stok (same day). A Tenant surrenders a garden called The Chirchard yord; another taking it for life. Both give a fine of 12d.

Stok (same day). A Tenant fines 20s. for a certain enclosed Croft called Olderugges, near the Court, together with its hedges and ditches;- to hold for life at 12d. rent.

Stok (same day). A Tenant fines 20s. for a parcel of land, near the vill, called "St. Milburg's acre"; to hold for life,- keeping it enclosed all the year.- Rent 1s.

Stok (same day). The Tenant of a place of land in Sturepotesleye gives one goose and six pullets for license to fence it, and keep it fenced.

Stok (same day). A Tenant takes a messuage and half-virgate lately held by his Father;- to hold for life "by the usual services". (No fine in this case.)

The Valuation of this Manor in 1379 was:- A capital messuage yielding nothing. A garden, 6d. Three carucates of land, 10s. Three acres of meadow, 3s. Two water-mills, 10s. Assized rents of free and native tenants, 6. 18s. Pleas and perquisites of Court, 1s. Total, 8. 2s. 6d. [5]

We have a good Rental of Stoke in the time of Prior Roland (1521-7). It runs as follows:-

[5] Monasticon, V, 78. This Valuation, like that of Eaton, is discredited by that of 1390, where the Rents and Mill of Stoke are said to yield 13. 8s. per annum; the Fines and perquisites of Court 1.


Stoke. Ferm of Stoke with its Tithes: 8 13s. 4d.
Rents of 3 Tenants, and of the Mill there: 2 3 8
More (The Moor). Rents of 4 Tenants: 4 2 0
Downton (Clee Downton). Rents of 6 Tenants: 3 2 8
Newton. Mr. Edwards Blount's rent for the whole vill: 1 0 4
Boculton. John Corbet, Esq.; Rent 3. 0s. 4d. Tithe 16s: 3 16 4
Kynston. Rents of 6 Tenants: 3 1 9
Total: 26 0 1

To this is added for Tithes of Stoke and Bitterley, 5. 6s. 8d,;- and for Tithes of The Heath, 6s. 7d. [6]

In 1534 the Rental of Stoke was returned at 22. 10s. 8d.; [7] but in 1541-2, that is, after the Dissolution, a very different result was obtained by the Officers of the Crown, viz.: "Stoke Milbrudge.- Rents of Tenants at Will, 11. 0s. 10d.; Rents of Copyholders, 11. 4s. 7d. Ferm of the capital messuage and demesne-lands, 8. 18s. 4d. Ferm of More, 2. 16s. 8d. Ferm of Bucculton, with the corn tithes, 3. 16s. 4d. Ferms of Newton, 1. 1s. Portion of the tithes of Kynston, 6s. 8d". Total, 38. 19s. 5d. [8]


A Church has probably existed here from time immemorial, and in the gift of Wenlock Priory. It was not, like most of the Prior's Churches, in the Deanery of Wenlock, but in that of Ludlow. Its Parish included not only the Manor of Stoke, but also that of Clee Stanton. In 1291 the Church was still a Rectory, valued at 10. 13s. 4d. per annum, over and above the portion of 3. which the Prior of Wenlock derived therefrom. [9] Hence in his Charter of May 27, 1331, the Bishop of Hereford expresses himself satisfied as to the Prior's title to a pension in this Church:

In 1341 the Taxation of Stoke Mylborgh Church is correctly cited as 20 merks (13. 13s. 4d.); but the Assessors of the ninth charged the parish only 4. 10s. on the wheat, wool, and lamb of the district, because the wheat was for the most part destroyed by

[6] Register at Willey, fo. 40, b. A rent of 6s. 8d. (not included here), derivable from a Mill at Stoke, belonged to the Convent-Kitchen.
[7] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 215.
[8] Monasticon, V, 80. Num. xii.
[9] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 166.


dreadful storms, because there were no sheep, and eleven Tenants had thrown up their holdings which lay fallow. Also the small tithes, offerings, and glebe went to make up the greater taxation and were not now to be reckoned. [10] Soon after this the Prior of Wenlock, not content with his pension from this Church, sought an appropriation thereof as well as of that of Madeley. The process is worth recording.-

The Prior first petitions [11] the Bishop, Dean and Chapter of Hereford, stating the poverty of his house, and asking to appropriate these two Churches, "of which, according to the current taxation, the income does not exceed 28 merks". [12]

Thomas the Bishop, Stephen the Dean, and the Chapter of Hereford, by their Charter, dated March 17, 1342 (i.e. 1343), recite the Prior's Petition, and direct the Dean of Wenlock to make inquiry as to its truth, and send in his report before Sunday in ramis palmarum (April 6, 1343).

The Dean of Wenlock, by letter dated March 28, 1343, certifies both the poverty of the Priory, and the joint value of the Churches, as already asserted. His inquiries have been assisted by John Aaron, Rector of the Chapel of Borewardesley (who, be it observed, was also Rector of Madeley), Richard, Rector of the Chapel of Mittelton, William, Vicar of the Holy Trinity of Wenlock, and other Clerks and Laics.

On June 26, 1343, the Charter of Thomas, Bishop of Hereford, dated in the Chapter-House there, and ratified by the Dean and Chapter, allows the appropriations sought for. He recites the King's (Edward III's) license to the same effect. [13] He directs that, on the deaths of the present Rectors, Vicars be appointed to the two Churches, with competent portions. The Priory is to pay a merk

[10] Inquisitiones Nonarum, p. 188.
[11] These particulars are taken from a Fragment of a very fine Chartulary of Wenlock Priory. The Fragment (only 12 leaves) is in the Duke of Sutherland's possession and has been incorporated in the Lilleshall Chartulary. This mistaken arrangement is of no modern date; for an old Index (written I think by Le Neve) treats the two Chartularies as if paged continuously and forming a systematic whole.
[12] This was quite correct. Deducting the Prior's pension from Stoke, the taxation of Stoke was 16 merks. That of Madeley was 12 marks.
[13] The Royal License for these appropriations bears date at Woodstock, June 21, 1342. The King had 20. for the same. His Patent speaks of the Priory being "in his hand by reason of the war with France", a circumstance which in point of fact made him Patron of the Churches. He grants the license notwithstanding. (Patent 16 Edw. III, p. 2, memb. 36.)


annually at Lady Day to the Choir of Hereford as an acknowledgment.

Richard de Weston, last Rector of Stoke St. Milburg, resigned, in the Prior's chamber on June 30, 1344, before many witnesses. At this time the See of Hereford was vacant; so Master John Rees, Canon of Hereford and Vicar General of John, Bishop elect, being at Stottesden on July 30, 1344, wrote to the Dean of Ludlow, ordering him to induct the Prior of Wenlock into the Rectory of Stoke. On July 31, Griffin de Weston, Perpetual Vicar of Staunton Lacy and Dean of Ludlow, inducted the Proctor of the Prior (appointed by letters of proxy dated July 27 previous, under hand of the Prior) into corporal possession of the Church of Stoke, in presence of Sir Henry de Laverden, Parochial Chaplain of the Church of Stoke. On October 3, 1344, Guychard, Prior of Wenlock, assigns to Sir Robert, "Perpetual Vicar of our Church of Stoke", the house and land held by former Incumbents at The Heath, and (for his salary) the small-tithes and oblations of Stoke. Out of these however he is to pay 6s. 8d. yearly to the Choir of Hereford.

In 1369 the Church of Stoke is valued at 10, i.e. the Rectorial interest therein. [14]

In 1534, Thomas Haryngton being Vicar of Stoke-Mylburg, his Vicarial tithes were valued at 6. 3s. 4d., and his glebe at 10s. per annum. He was chargeable with 14s. 4d. for synodals and procurations. The Impropriators were the Prior and Convent of Wenlock. The only entry in their cotemporary return which can be supposed to represent the Rectorial income is a "portion of 4. 6s. 8d. from the vill of Stoke Milburg". [15]


ADAM DE STRETTON, the first Rector of whom I find mention, was presented by Letters-Patent of King Henry III, dated Oct. 30, 1272, Wenlock Priory being then vacant. The Bishop of Hereford (John Breton) was ordered to induct. [17]

JOHN DE BEVERLAND, Acolyte, presented Dec. 23, 1298, by the Prior and Convent of Wenlock.

[14] Register at Willey, fo. 36. Spirilualia.
[15] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 201, 216. An entry on the Register (fo. 36, b) shows that the Tithes of Clee Stanton, Clee Downton, Kynston, Newton, Bockleton, Stoke, The Heath, and Moor, had, at one time or other, amounted collectively to 20. or 30.
[16] From Blakeway's MSS., except where other reference is given.
[17] Patent, 57 Hen. III.


PETER DE PUSIACO, Priest,- presented Jan. 17, 1301.- Same Patrons.

RICHARD DE LARDEN, Priest,- presented Dec. 12, 1312.- Same Patrons. As Sir Richard de Laverden, Rector of Stoke St. Milburg, he is Grantee in a Thonglands Deed of Oct. 14, 1315, and attests a Rushbury Deed of about the same date.

SIR RICHARD DE WESTON, last Rector, resigned June 30, 1344. [18]

ROBERT DE ETTON alias ROBERT DE ETON-PRIORS, was nominated first Vicar by Letters Patent of King Edward III, dated July 5, 1344, Wenlock Priory being in manu Regis by reason of the war. [19] He was instituted in October following.

SIR GILBERT AUNGER, Chaplain or Priest, was similarly nominated April 27, 1349. [20]

JOHN BRUGG was similarly nominated on Oct. 1, 1349. [21]

JOHN BODYN, Priest, was instituted Dec. 16, 1362, on presentation of the Prior and Convent of Wenlock. On April 22, 1372, as "John Body" he exchanged preferments with-

SIR WILLIAM PARKER, late Vicar of Momele, the Prior and Convent presenting the latter.

NORNCOTT.- In 1255 Sir Richard Tyrell held Normonechot in fee, of the Prior, except one virgate.- Of him and his family I shall speak elsewhere.

The virgate thus excepted was held by Richard de Twonlond (Thonglands) of the Prior, in fee. He paid the Prior 5s. per annum thereon, and did suit to the Prior's Court by afforciament, as his Tenement had done suit to Munslow Hundred till Richard I's reign. His Under-tenants in the said virgate were the Heirs of Thomas de Normonecot. [22]

The Foreign Rent-Roll of Wenlock Priory, dated in 1521-2, includes a rent of 5s., receivable from Edward Lytelton for Normcote, [23] and the same Rent stands among the Assets of the late Priory in 1541-2. [24]

THE HEATH.- This member of their great Manor of Stoke was held in fee under the Priory by the Barons of Castle Holgate, and that from a very remote period.

[18] Supra, p. 12.
[19] Patent, 18 Edw. III, p. 2, m. 40.
[20] Patent, 23 Edw. III.
[21] Ibidem, 23 Edw. III, p. 3, m. 31.
[22] Rot. Hundred, II, 85.
[23] Register at Willey, fo. 39.
[24] Monasticon, V, 81.


These Barons had, early in the 13th century, a Tenant at The Heath, one William fitz John; and he again had his Under-tenants there, as will appear by the following document. On Nov. 24, 1236, a Fine was levied at Salop, between Peter fitz Reginald, Plaintiff, and William fitz John, Deforciant, of 2 virgates in Hethe, whereof was Plea, etc. Peter renounced his claim, whereupon William fitz John granted half a virgate in the same vill to Peter, Amice, wife of Peter, and Alice, Mother of Peter, to hold for the longest of their three lives, at a rent of 7s.,- with reversion to William and his heirs. [1]

In Easter Term, 1241, I find Peter fitz Reginald suing William fitz John at Westminster, "that he should keep the fine made at Salop".- The Defendant appeared not. [2]

About this time William fitz John is entered as holding by service of a Knight's-Fee under the Barons of Holgate. [3] Probably however the entry does not primarily relate to his tenure at The Heath.

In Nov. 1248, the following Fine was levied between William fitz John and his Suzerain, William Mauduit, whom he had been suing, to allow him to turn his swine into Castle-Holgate wood during the mast season, free of pannage. The Fine was a concession by Mauduit of the right claimed, but only for thirty swine, and excepting the Park from all such intrusion. Mauduit also allowed the Plaintiff a right of common pasture. The Plaintiff in return renounced all rights for any number of swine above thirty, and all common pasture in the Park or Garden of William Mauduit. [4]

In Easter Term, 1250, William fitz John was suing William Mauduit at Westminster for non-observance of this Fine. [5]

In the same Term William fitz John was a Defendant in the same Court in a much more serious matter; viz. to give answer to Herbert de Corfton as to wherefore he, William, had seized the working cattle and chattels of Herbert, and still detained the same unjustly. Herbert stated that on St. Andrew's Day (Nov. 30), 1248, William came with his power, to Herbert's house at Corfton, about midnight, and took 8 cattle, 6 sheep, 5 cart-loads of corn, 2 carts, and of other chattels 5 horse-loads, whereby he (Herbert)

[1] Pedes Finium, 21 Hen. III, Salop.
[2] Placita, Easter Term, 25 Hen. III, memb. 12.
[3] Testa de Nevill, pp. 46, 48, 50.
[4] Pedes Finium, 33 Hen. III, Salop.
[5] Placita apud Westm. 34 H. III, memb. 4. William fitz John is charged 6s. 8d. on the Pipe-Roll of the year, "pro habendo brevi" (for suing out a writ).


was damaged 10. William denied the charge of violence, and said that Herbert was his Villain, and had fled from his land, and had refused, when required, to act as William's Bailiff (prepositus); moreover he (William) had seized nothing but cattle. William was hereupon asked by the Court if he had any free tenement in Corfton, and if he had ever claimed Herbert as his native in the County-Court, and by writ-royal? To both questions he answered in the negative; whereupon the Court ordered him to restore the cattle, and to be sent to gaol. As to the sheep and other chattels, he appealed to a Jury, and the Sheriff had orders to summon a Jury accordingly, and to report the result at Westminster on June 25. Meanwhile the Parties accorded, William giving the King 5 merks for license so to accord, by Surety of William Mauduit. Herbert renounced all charge as to chattels and damages. William paid Herbert 2., and gave him back 1 cow and 2 carts. [6]

It is observable that in the above action a part of the criminal charge which really lay against William fitz John was not alluded to. Five years afterwards (viz. at the Assizes of January, 1256), the Munslow Jurors presented that William fitz John had, on the night of St. Andrew, 1248, imprisoned Herbert de Corfton, Matilda his wife, and John his son, at The Heath. [7]

In Michaelmas Term, 1251, and after an apparent silence of ten years, I find Peter fitz Reginald suing Robert (read William) fitz John, that he should hold to the Fine made before Justices Itinerant at Salop, concerning two virgates in Heth, whereof was Cyrograph. Robert (read William) appeared not, and had summons for Hilary Term following. [8]

In the same Michaelmas Term, 1251, the Prior of Wenlock is suing "William fitz John of Castle Olegod", for 2 carucates in La Hethe. The Defendant not appearing, had summons for Feb. 3 following, and the land meanwhile was to be seized into the King's hand. The nature and result of this suit will appear presently. [9]

In 1255 the Jurors of Wenlock Liberty found William fitz John to be "Lord of The Heath. He held it of William Mauduit, who" (holding of the Prior) "paid the Prior 13s. per annum". [10]

The Assizes of January, 1256, found William fitz John encompassed

[6] Ibidem, memb. 2, dorso. On the Pipe-Roll of Michaelmas, 1260, William fitz John de Castro Holegod pays 8. of his fine pro licentia concordandi, and owes 6s. 8d.
[7] Placita Coronae, 40 Hen. III, Salop, memb. 3. William fitz John is here entitled as "of Castle Holgate".
[8] Placita, Mich. Term, 45 Hen. III, memb. 21.
[9] Ibidem, memb. 47.
[10] Rot. Hundred, II, 85.


with Litigation. As against the Prior of Wenlock he had called William Mauduit to warranty.

Hence the following Fine between Prior Imbert, as Plaintiff, and Mauduit, as Voucher of William fitz John,- concerning 2 carucates in La Hethe, whereof was recognition of Grand Assize. The Prior acknowledged the same to be the right of William Mauduit, and gave them to be held of the chief Lords (that is of himself and Convent). In turn William fitz John, at instance of William Mauduit, granted that he would pay the Prior a rent of 30s. for the same, and give a power of distress in case of default. [11]

Fitz John's other suits at these Assizes were with his own Under-tenants. He was found to have disseized Thomas le Clerk of half a virgate and two acres in La Heth. [12]

He had also raised a stank in La Hethe, to the damage of the same Thomas's free tenement there. "Let the stank be thrown down", said the Court.

On the other hand, Alexander de Hethe had disseized William fitz John of a place of land in the Hethe; and Nicholas fitz Andrew withdrew a suit of novel disseizin which he had against William fitz John for common pasture here. [13]

In this same year (1256) William fitz John de la Hethe was reported among those in Shropshire, who holding 15 librates of land, were not yet Knights.

Soon after this, William fitz John died, seized "in demesne as of fee" of The Heath. The King of Almagne, then Lord of Castle Holgate, entered on the Manor as Suzerain. John, son and heir of William fitz John, hereupon procured a letter from the King of Almagne, ordering that the said heir, if of full age, should have seizin of the premises. Meantime however, and before this order could be acted upon, the said King's Bailiffs had given to Alina, widow of William fitz John, her dower in The Heath. This dower became afterward matter of some litigation, of which presently.- The King of Almagne's Bailiffs, on receipt of the King's Letter, finding John fitz William to be of age, gave him seizin of the residue of The Heath, apparently a messuage, 2 carucates of land, and 53s. annual rent. This residue John fitz William granted in fee to John Fitz Alan (II), and then died, seized obviously of nothing in The Heath;

[11] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 6. Pedes Finium, 40 Hen. III, Salop. The Prior's pleadings asserted that his Predecessor, Prior Henry, had been seized in demesne of The Heath in the reign of Hen. II.
[12] Ibidem, memb. 4 dorso.
[13] Ibidem, memb. 8 dorso, 10 dorso, and 12 recto.


for what he had not alienated, his father's widow was still holding in dower.

On Nov. 11, 1263, the Master of the Knights Templars (having at the time the Barony of Holgate by concession of the King of Almagne) was being sued by John Fitz Alan (II) for disseizing him of his free tenement in La Hethe. [38] Again, on April 23, 1265, John Albert has an Assize against the Master of the Templars for lands in Castle Holegod and La Heth. [39]

In October or November, 1267, John Fitz Alan (II) died, and the Inquisition on his death, held at Ludlow, on Nov. 25, states with remarkable accuracy that he died seized of "2 carucates in La Hethe, which he held of John fitz William, formerly Lord of La Hethe, by service of paying 20s. rent to the Prior of Wenlock. The value of the tenancy was 4. 4s. 8d". [40]

John Fitz Alan (II) was, as we know, succeeded by his son, a third John, who died on March 18, 1272; not, that we hear of, seized of anything at The Heath, and indeed there is some probability that he granted the same to one who was doubtless his kinsman, and who is styled John Fitz Alan de Arundel.

The latter, I imagine, held the same during the minority of Richard Fitz Alan (son and heir of the third John): but the Feodary of 1284 states that "Richard Fitz Alan holds the Vill of Hethe for half a Knight's-fee, of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, the Bishop of the Earl of Cornwall, and the Earl of the King", omitting John de Arundel's under-tenancy. [41]

I must now say something as to the dower of Alina, widow of William fitz John. She survived her husband, how long I cannot say, but on the death of John Fitz Alan (III) (March 18, 1272) this share of The Heath was by some means or other given to Isabella, widow of the deceased Baron, instead of reverting to John, son of John, son of William fitz John. On the death of the said Isabel Richard Fitz Alan, Earl of Arundel, her son, entered on the same, with manifest injustice, as the said John fitz John afterwards proved.

[38] Pat. 48 & 49, Hen. III, dorso.
[39] Ibidem.
[40] Inquisitions, 52 Hen. III, No. 37. How the Prior's Chief-Rent came to be reduced from 30s. to 20s. does not appear. It remained at the latter figure for centuries.
[41] Kirby's Quest.- The Earl of Cornwall (Edmund) was son of the King of Almagne. Bishop Burnell now held the Barony of Castle Holgate of the said Earl, and the Earl of the King. But as regards The Heath, the above statement is inaccurate: there the Prior of Wenlock held over the Earl of Cornwall, the King over the Prior.


I am alluding to transactions at the County Assizes of October, 1292, when John fitz John sought to recover the whole of The Heath from the Earl of Arundel under two separate processes. His title in one instance (that of the dower) is quite manifest, in the other it was equally unfounded. And first as to the dowry.- At the said Assizes, "John fitz John de Hethe sued the Earl of Arundel for a messuage, one and a half acres of meadow, three acres of wood, 11s. 6d. rent, one and a half carucates, and half a virgate of land in Hethe juxta, Holegode's Castel",- whereof the Plaintiff alleged that his Grandfather, William fitz John, had died seized. The Earl replied with a mere technical plea, but at the same time a false one, viz. that after the death of William fitz John, John, his son, had had seizin of the premises, and he asked the Court to give judgment against this writ, which purported to be a writ instituting a trial concerning the death of the last in seizin. The Plaintiff hereupon denied his Father's seizin at any time, and the question went to the Jury, which found that William fitz John died seized of the premises, that they went in dower to his widow (as before recited), then to Isabel Fitz Alan, and then to Richard Earl of Arundel, the present Defendant. John fitz John hereupon had his recovery by order of the Court; the Earl was declared to be in misericordia, and his damages to the Plaintiff assessed at 5 merks. [42]

The question as to the other part of The Heath, viz. that which Alina had not had in dower, was very different,- and it is remarkable that, though the Earl of Arundel might have maintained his title by a plain statement of facts in the first instance, he chose to quash the prosecution by a mere quibble, and only pleaded the facts on a second trial.-

The Plaintiff was in error no doubt, for "John fitz John de Hethe sued the Earl for one messuage, two carucates of land, and 53s. rent, etc. in Hethe", whereof the Earl was alleged to have no seizin "except by demise of John fitz William (father of the Plaintiff), made to John Fitz Alan, Senior, for a term, which term had now expired". The Earl, laying hold of the word "Senior", seems to have stated (and with truth) that his Father, Grandfather, and Great-grandfather were all John Fitz Alans, that the most ancient of the three was the only one who could properly be described as John Fitz Alan Senior, and that he had never any transaction with

[42] Plac. de Juratis et Assizis, 20 Edw. I, Salop. memb. 8 dorso.


[For engraving, see pdf.]


John fitz William about The Heath. A jury found accordingly, and the Earl had judgment in his favour. [43]

John fitz John, at the same Assizes, renewed his Suit, making a merely verbal alteration, viz. that the Demisee of his Father had been John Fitz Alan. Now the Earl called John Fitz Alan de Arundel to warranty, who vouched the said warranty and proved that the demise by John fitz William was not for a term, but in-fee; and so said the Court; and John Fitz Man de Arundel was dismissed sine die. [44]

Philip Burnel, who died in 1294, was Baron of Holgate. Hence the Inquest taken as to his Fees on May 28, 1295, states that John de Arundel held the Hamlet of The Hethe by half a knight's fee of him, and that the value of the tenement was 7. 6s. per annum. [45]

In 1521-2 the Foreign Rent-Roll of Wenlock gives 20s. as still receivable from the Earl of Arundel for La Hethe; and in 1541-2 the same rent stands among the Assets of the late Priory. [46]

THE HEATH CHAPEL.- The Architectural remains [47] of this Chapel bespeak its antiquity in the absence of any written Record. Of its history I can learn nothing, and only judge by analogy that it was founded by some Layman, holding the Manor of the Prior of Wenlock in the twelfth century. Its parochial subjection to the Church of Stoke St. Milburg is undoubted. In such a case we should not expect any evidence as to its endowment or Incumbents. The Monastic appropriation of the Mother Church had the usual effect on the Daughter, whose existence during four centuries is unrecorded, and whose Altar, for much of that period, was probably unserved.

THE LEE.- This Member of Stoke St. Milburg is probably represented by the "High-leys Farm". It consisted of half a hide. On Nov. 23; 1236, William de la Lee, being tenant of two- thirds of the said half-hide, had a suit with Imbert, Prior of Wenlock,

[43] Ibidem, memb. 8 dorso.
[44] Ibidem, memb. 16 demo. The fact of the Seigneur calling his Tenant to warranty is unusual, and may perhaps be thus explained.- The Suit was a Placitum de Ingressu. Had the Plaintiff sued under writ of mort d'ancestre, he must have impleaded the party seized, viz. John de Arundel, who would then have called the Earl (as heir of his Feoffor) to warranty.
[45] Inquisitions. 22 Edw. I, 45 d.- Here again there is a double Omission. The Heath was no part of Burnel's Barony, but held by him under the Prior of Wenlock; moreover the Earl of Arundel held it of Burnel and John de Arundel of the Earl.
[46] Register fo. 39. Monasticon, V, 81.
[47] For a good acoount of the Architectural features of The Heath Chapel, I refer to Mr. Wright's History of Ludlow, pp. 99, 100.


about the remaining third. The Prior, receiving 20s., agreed that William and his heirs should be Tenants of the whole at a rent of half a merk. On Jan. 23, 1243, a Plea of Fine levied being ostensibly on foot between Prior Imbert, Plaintiff, and William de la Lee, Deforciant, concerning the third part of half a hide in the Manor of Stokes, William, receiving 100s., surrenders not only the said third but the other two-thirds, "and the former fine was annihilated". [48]


I HAVE already explained the termination "bold".- Of the numerous English places which have a name from some association with the Ox or with Oxen, Oxenbold and Oxenhall are thus found to be equivalent.

Domesday tells us that- "Helgot holds Oxibola (of the Earl). Edric and Siuuard held it (in Saxon times) for two Manors, and were free. Here is a hide geldable. There is (arable) land for IV ox-teams. In demesne there is half (a team), and there are I neatherd and I villain and I boor and one Frenchman, [1] with a team and half. Its former value was 11s. (per annum). Its present value is 8s". [2]

I have spoken of Robert de Girros, who lived in the reigns of Stephen and Henry II, under Charlcott, Burwarton, and Claverley. In the two former he was Feoffee of the Lords of Castle Holgate. Oxenbold was his by the same tenure. Hence for the half-year ending March 1195, when the estates of the said Robert were in the King's hands, the Escheator accounts 11s. for the receipts of his estate of Oxebold, and 5s. for hay sold off the same.

Soon after this Robert de Girros (II) had recovered all his estates. In the summer of 1204 his title to Oxenbold was disputed; for William de Furchis fined one merk to have the King's writ of

[48] Pedes Finium, 21, 27, Hen. III, Salop.
[1] It is very seldom that the Francigenae are mentioned among the inferior occupants of Domesday Manors. The inference is, that even the common soldiers of Duke William's army were more handsomely provided for.
[2] Domesday, fo. 258, b. 1.


Praecipe [3] concerning 1 hide in Oxueboud against Robert de Giros; the said writ to be returnable at Westminster on the quinzaine of Michaelmas. [4]

I follow the progress of this instructive case through all its steps.- An Easoign-Roll, apparently of Michaelmas Term, 1204, gives Robert de Girros essoigning himself on account of illness (de malo lecti), at Fittesho (Fitz), in a suit of land against William de Furchis. His Essoigners were Reginald Fitz William and Reginald de Rugworthin. [5]

In consequence of some further delay, this Suit came before the King at Portsmouth, on June 6, 1205, when William de Furcis is stated to sue Robert de Girros for 1 hide in Oxenbode, whereof William his Grandfather was seized on the day whereon King Henry, Grandfather (read Great-Grandfather) of King John, was alive and dead. [6] An essoign-roll of Michaelmas Term, 1205, exhibits Osbert de Hetlebi, attorney of William de Furcis, essoigning himself by William de Corfton. An adjourned day, viz. Thursday after the feast of All-Saints, was given to him, as also to William de Middlehope, attorney of Robert de Girros, who essoigned himself by Reginald Fitz William. [7]

At Westminster, on the Quinzaine of Easter, 1206, the Grand Assize between William de Furcis, Plaintiff, and Robert de Gilros, Tenant, of 1 hide in Oxenebode, was put in respite till the Justices Itinerant should visit Shropshire; the Plaintiff praying this on the ground of the default of the Recognizors. Much will it avail for future purposes if I give the names of the seventeen Knights who composed this panel. Those who excused themselves were Robert de Wodecot, William de Lia (Lye), Hugh Boschard, Philip de Stapelton, Warin de Wilileg, Malcoline de Harley, Helias de Etingham, and Roger Espringald; the Defaulters (whom the Sheriff was ordered to attach) were Hugh de Lega and William Carbonell: those who duly appeared were Hugh de Wodenerton, Philip de Ferlawe, Philip de Grete, Hugh de Buterle, Roger de Buffers, Richard de Stireslee (Stirchley), and Walter de Huggeford. [8]

The next County Assizes for Shropshire were held in November,

[3] The writ called Praecipe gave the Defendant an option either to do what a Plaintiff required (in this case to restore the land) or show cause to the contrary.
[4] Rot. Fin. p. 209.
[5] Essoniae incerti temporis Regis Johannis (No. 66), memb. 2 dorso.- Fitz was an estate of Robert de Girros.
[6] Dodsworth, Vol. XCVII.
[7] Essonia, Mich. Term, 7 John, m. 2.
[8] Placita, Easter Term, 7 & 8 John, memb. 1 dorso.


1208. We have no Record of Pleas preserved, but the Fines are still in existence. One of them, levied on Nov. 8, is between William de Furchis, plaintiff, and Robert de Gyros, Tenant, of one hide in Oxenbold, "whereof recognition of mort d'ancestre had been summoned in the same Court". William remitted and quit-claimed all right, for which Robert gave him five merks. [9]

By a Deed of uncertain date, Robert de Gyros grants to Thomas Fitz Robert a place of land in his Manor of Oxenbolde. Witnesses: Symon de Stanton, Roger fitz * * * de Wemme, Hugh de Roshale, Roger de Gyros of Stanton. [10]

In or before the year 1244, Robert de Girros granted his Manor of Oxenbold to Wenlock Priory, and the Prior, probably as a matter of form and to make a good title, sued him at Westminster for warranty of his Charter. Hence another Fine levied Nov. 3, 1214, between "Hymbert, Prior of Wenlock, plaintiff, and Robert de Gyroys, Impedient, of the Manor of Oxenebode, whereof was plea of warranty, etc.- Robert acknowledged the right of the Prior, as that which he had by gift of Robert himself:- to have and to hold in free, pure, and perpetual almoign. And Robert and his heirs will warrant the same. And besides, Robert remitted all right which he had in a moiety of the Advowson of the Cell of Prene. For all this the Prior received the said Robert into all benefits, prayers, etc., which should be offered up in his House for ever". [11]

Before Oct. 13, 1251, Robert de Girros was deceased, and a double suit awaited the Prior of Wenlock in respect of the Manor of Oxenbold. On that day William Mauduit, then Lord of Holgate, sued him at Westminster for 2 carucates in Oxenbold as his right. The Prior demanded view thereof, and the cause was adjourned to Feb. 3, 1252. [12]

Also on Nov. 2, 1251, the Prior, being sued by Isabel, widow of Robert de Girros, for a third of this Manor, which she claimed as dower, called the heirs of the said Robert, viz. Thomas de Constantine and Walter de Hopton, to warranty. They came not, and so the Court ordered an equivalent to be seized out of their other lands till a further hearing in Easter Term, 1252. Of this suit I can learn no more,- but in Trinity Term, 1253, the suit between the Prior and William Mauduit is adjourned to Michaelmas Term, 1253, and again adjourned in that Term to the Quinzaine of the Holy

[9] Pedes Finium, 10 John, Salop.
[10] Blakeway's MSS.
[11] Pedes Finium, 29 Hen. III, Salop.
[12] Placita, Mich. Term, 35 Hen. III, memb. 10 and 33 dorso.


Trinity, 1254; the last adjournment being from "default of Knights", i.e. Jurors of Grand Assize. The Prior, in short, did not arrange this matter with the Seignoral Lord of Oxenbold till Jan. 20, 1256, when at Salop Assizes the cause was heard, [13] and a Fine was levied between "William Malduit, of Castle Holegod, plaintiff, and Imbert, Prior of Wenlock, Tenant, of 2 carucates in Oxebold, whereof was recognition of Grand Assize, etc". The Baron renounced his claim, to the Prior and his Successors for ever, and for this the Prior gave him, not the prayers of his House, as in the fictitious case before narrated, but 10. sterling. [14] It is evident that Robert de Girros' grant was questioned not for want of sufficient consent on the part of his Suzerain, but in respect of his own previous title as Feoffee.

Meanwhile, the Prior had been showing no diffidence as to the validity of his Title. Notwithstanding the enormous expenses which the recent Iter of Geoffrey de Langley had inflicted upon him, he fined in the year 1251, 300 merks with the King, that he might enclose, and keep enclosed, his Park of Oxenbold. The King's Charter of Nov. 4, 1251 (already quoted), embodies a license to that effect, adding that Oxenbold was within the bounds of the Forest. [15] Before Michaelmas, 1252, the Prior had paid 100 merks of this specific fine, had been excused 50 merks, and still owed 150 merks. [16]

In 1255 the Jurors of Munslow Hundred, as well as of Wenlock Liberty, presented the state of this Manor.-

Their joint account was that the Manor was half a hide, that Sir Robert de Girros had, ten years before, given it to the Prior of Wenlock; that the Prior had attracted to himself (i.e. to his Franchise) the Suit of the Vill, and deprived Munslow Hundred thereof: that the King had already been damaged (as Lord of Munslow Hundred) to the extent of 25s. by this withdrawal, viz. 5s. for ten years' arrears of 6d. stretward and Motfee, and 20s. for ten years' Suit of Court, valued at 2s. per annum. The Munslow

[13] I do not give the particular pleadings here, inasmuch as they belong to another subject, viz. the ancestry of William Mauduit, who alleged a Seizin-in-Fee of his Great-Grandfather in time of Henry II. Though William Mauduit held his Barony by the same descent, it should be carefully noted that Robert de la Mare (the Ancestor in question) had never been himself Baron of Holgate. It was after his death that that Honour lapsed to his line. He had however been largely enfeoffed in the Barony, as a Cadet of the older House, and, as Mauduit supposed, in Oxenbold.
[14] Pedes Finium, 40 Hen. III, Salop.
[15] Cart, 36 Hen. III, No. 27.
[16] Rot. Pip. 36 Hen. III, Salop.


Jurors knew not the Prior's warranty for all this. The Wenlock Jurors reported how he had made a Park at Oxenbold, to which the Munslow return adds a Vivary. [17]

A Deed which passed between the years 1251 and 1261 will further illustrate the Prior's activity in regard of Oxenbold Park. It was thus agreed between Sir Humbert, Prior of Wenlock, and Roger fitz William of Corfhull.- Roger grants a parcel of his land in Corfhull, viz. half an acre, between the River Corve and the Old Park, formerly Robert de Girros', and surrenders all rights within the enclosure of the said Park. The Prior grants to Roger free pasture, except for swine and goats, in such fallow-land in Oxenbold as lay outside his Parks, Woods, and Meadows, so as that no right of common-pasture could be demanded within the fences of the Prior's New Park in Oxnebold. Witnesses: Roger de Pyvlesdon, Roger de Girros, Roger de Weston, Peter son of Peter de Caleweton, Vivian de Castellione, [18] Gilbert Marescall. [19]

The Taxation of 1291 proves that the Prior's Manor of Oxenbold was reputed to contain much more than had been spoken of (under that name) by the Jurors of 1255, or had been questioned in the Suit with William Mauduit. The truth seems to be, that the Domesday Manor (1 hide) had been dismembered earlier than 1255, when Oxenbold appears only as half a hide. Of its original members, and their earlier alienation, we shall say more presently.

In 1291, the Manor of Oxnebold, whatever composed it, contained seven carucates of arable land, held apparently in demesne by the Prior, and valued at 16s. per carucate, or 5. 12s. per annum. Three acres of Meadow yielded 6s. The assized rents and Mill yielded 2. The Tallage was 2.; and the Perquisites of Court and Labour-Dues were 1. Total, 10. 18s. [20]

In quoting from the Wenlock Fine-Roll of 15 Edw. II, I shall add to the little which occurs under Oxenbold, the notices of Monk Hopton, Weston, and Monk-Hall.-

Hoptone, Oct. 7, 1321.- Roger le Hunte took from the Lord a messuage and land surrendered by another; paying 1. rent for each of the two first years of his tenancy, and 24s. for the rest of

[17] Rot. Hundred, II, 71, 72, 73, 85. Here we observe that King Richard's Charter, which virtually embodied the new Franchise of Wenlock, was construed by the Priory to have a prospective effect, that is, to throw into the said Franchise not only what the Prior then had, but all that he could afterwards acquire. This principle was carried out as regards Oxenbold, but not elsewhere, I think.
[18] Probably a relation of Richard de Castellione, Rector of Madeley in 1267.
[19] Newport Evidences (Blakeway).
[20] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 164.


his life; performing also in the latter period all other services and customs which his neighbours performed for any virgate of land.

Oxnebold, Feb. 10, 1322.- Richard Toky of Weston fined 3s. for 2 acres of land, to hold for lives of himself or his wife, according to the custom of the Manor.

Weston (same day).- Matilda, relict of Roger Bepe, fined 6s. 8d. for a messuage and half-virgate, and some new land adjoining thereto, all which her late husband held in Weston;- to hold for life, according to customs of the Manor.

Hopton, April 13, 1322.- A fine of 2s. to sell 2 acres.

Weston, April 25, 1322.- Matilda, relict of Roger Bepe, fined 1s. for license to remarry.

Hopton, May 9, 1322.- Fine of 1s. to buy half an acre in Lythewode and La Bache.

Moghale, May 31, 1322.- Thomas Fitz John of Moghale fined 16s., for the messuage, etc. which William Bedell held (tenuit) at the Brochous; to hold to Thomas, his wife, and son, for the longest of their three lives, and to be entered upon at the death of William without further fine:- saving to the Lord his right, viz. a third of the goods and chattels found on the premises at the death of each tenant, and all other services and customs.-

The same day, it was allowed to said Thomas to cultivate all the said lands in champarty, for life of the said William ad la Broks: the latter to have half the crops, and to do customs and services; but at his death Thomas's share of crops not to be chargeable with thirds.

Moghale, June 13, 1322.- Henry ate Wode and Alice his wife, fine 21s., to buy 6 acres in Calleye (Cawley) from another,- to hold for the longest life,- performing services and customs. The Lessee may grub-up or leave standing a certain fence in Calleye as he may think most expedient.

In 1379 the following was the Valuation of the Prior's Manor of Oxenbold.- A Capital Messuage yielding nothing: a water-mill 6s. 8d.: a park, whose herbage was worth 2s., and whose under-wood was valueless: four carucates of land averaging 24s.: 2 acres of meadow 2s. "And", says the Record, "there are of assized rents in diverse hamlets annexed to the said Manor, viz. Hopton, Weston, and Prior's Monghale, and in Staunton, 6. 0s. 6d. from free Tenants, and one pair of white spurs". The total annual receipts were therefore 7. 15s. 2d. besides the spurs. [21]

[21] Monasticon, V, 77.


In 1390 the Rents of Oxynbold Manor are given in the usual ratio of excess over the last Record, viz. as 14. 13s. 7d. per annum, whilst the fines and perquisites of Court were 1. 10s. [22]

In 1534-5 the Demesne-Lands of the Prior in Oxenbold Manor were returned as yielding 17. per annum; whilst the rents seem to be involved in other sums, given in gross as Foreign Rentals. [23]

The Minister's Accounts [24] of 1541-2 give a number of receipts of the dissolved Priory, which I must needs class together in this place:-

Oxenbold.- Ferm of the Manor with the demesne lands: 17 13 4
Weston.- Ferm of one tenement: 1 13 4
Harpis Muckhall.- Ferm of one messuage: 1 11 9
Mukhole in Hopton.- Ferm of one Tenement: 1 11 9
Weston, Hopton, and Muckhall.- Ferm of tithes: 4 13 4
Longslaton (Longstanton).- Ferm of the messuage called The Crossell: 3 0 0
Longslaton.- Ferm of another messuage: 1 8 8

The first entry refers to a lease of Oxenbold proper, which the Priory had probably granted to some Fermor under the prospect of Dissolution. The other items, though they had occasionally been combined in previous estimates of Oxenbold, I shall have to cite separately hereafter.


BEFORE I attempt to indicate those Domesday Members of Oxenbold, which, constituting half a hide, had before 1255 been severed from the original Manor, I must introduce an idea (I can call it nothing more) which I entertain as to that Manor in Patinton Hundred, which the Record calls Buchehale.

Domesday notices it thus briefly.-

"William holds Buchehale. Elmer held it. Here is I virgate. There is arable land sufficient for half a team. It was and is waste". [1]

In the margin is the affix- "In Patintun Hundred", which, by

[22] Register at Willey, fo. 35, b.
[23] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 215.
[24] Monasticon, V, 80, 81.
[1] Domesday, fo. 257, b. 1.


the way, cannot possibly be taken to apply to any other Manor named consecutively with this.

We must therefore look for some such place as Buchehale within the known area of Patintun Hundred, and I believe that under its Domesday name we shall look in vain.

Let us endeavour to trace it by its Domesday owner,- William;- and first we must decide who William was. This can be done satisfactorily by reference to the original Record. In the column, at the middle point of which the list of William Pantulf's Manors is broken off, there is a marginal mark opposite the Iast of the series (Sudtelch). This mark corresponds with another at the foot of the column, annexed to which, in paler ink and in supplementary form, are notice of the Condetret Manor of Ingurdine, and the Patintun Manor of Buchehale, the owner of which is respectively described as "Isdem W" and " Wills". It is clear therefore that William Pantulf was Domesday Lord of the two small Manors of Ingwardine and Buchehale. But William Pantulf is not known to have had any subsequent interest in Ingwardine. The Seigneury of that Manor passed to Fitz Alan, as did also the Seigneury of other Pantulf Manors in South Shropshire. Now, as Pantulf is also known to have had nothing in perpetuity within the area of Patintun Hundred, we conclude that Buchehale passed either to Fitz Alan or to some Religious House, where all evidence of the original seigneury became effaced. Such a House in this quarter could only be Wenlock Priory. Buchehale therefore, or whatever that name represented, must be looked for as afterwards involved in some Manor of Fitz Alan, or of the Prior, or of both.

My idea is that the Domesday Scribe wrote "Buchehale" where he ought to have written "Muchehale"

There are three small tenements, lying nearly midway between Acton Round and Oxenbold, which are now known as Upper Monkhall, Lower Monkhall, and Far Monkhall, but which in 1255 were known as the three Mughales. The two former of these were then combined with Fitz Alan's Manor of Acton Round, the third with the Prior's Manor of Monk Hopton.

At the Dissolution two of them seem to have belonged to Wenlock, and were described as Harpis Muckhall and Mukhole in Hopton.

Whether one, two, or all of these constituted the Domesday Manor, or which of them, I will not further conjecture.

I must now notice Monk Hopton, and some other tenements and


vills in this quarter, which I cannot demonstrably associate with any Domesday Manor, but among which we have, I doubt not, the half-hide which had been lost to Oxenbold in 1255, from some previous grant to Wenlock Priory.


ABOUT the year 1180, Reimund and Roger de Hopton and Iverard, Chaplain of Hopton, attest a Deed which I have often quoted, and which I shall presently set forth under Corve.

In October, 1203, I find one William de Hopton, apparently a knight, acting as Juror in a trial which concerned land in the same vill of Corve. It appears to me that this William must have been Lord of the Manor now under notice. [1]

I suppose also that Nicholas de Optun, who was attending the Prior's Court of Burton in March, 1227, was of this place. [2]

On November 22, 1248, Remund de Hopton, being called upon to warrant his Charter of a virgate and acre in Hopton to Roger Fitz Roger, did so in the King's Court at Shrewsbury, by a fine, wherein he acknowledged to have given the premises to said Roger,- to hold of the Lords of the Fee. Roger is said to acknowledge the fine with a sore sparrow-hawk. An indorsement on the Fine states that the Prior of Wenlock apposes his claim. [3]

I believe this Roger Fitz Roger to have been identical with Roger de Weston, whom I shall mention presently.

In 1255 the Jurors of Wenlock spoke of Monk Hopton as a member of the Manor of Weston, instead of adopting the inverse classification which other circumstances suggest. They merely said that "Weston with its appurtenances, viz. Hopton and Mughal, was a Manor of the Lord Prior of Wenlock". [4]-

They evidently knew nothing of the hidage or ancient status of the Manor thus described; and their ignorance was precisely the same as that which I now experience, and which nothing probably

[1] Because neither of Hopton Cangeford, Hopton Wafre, or Upton Cressett, the only other places which can be taken into the question.
[2] Supra, Vol. III, p. 341, note.
[3] Pedes Finium, 33 Hen. III, Salop.
[4] Rot. Hundred, II, 85.


can remove but the discovery of some Chartulary of Wenlock Priory.

The Fine-Roll of 15 Edw. II indicates little with regard to the status of Hopton as a whole. Parts of it were held by Copyhold tenure, according to the usual customs adopted by Wenlock Priory, wherever it had power to introduce them. Another part may also have been held in fee, a matter on which of course that Record is silent. I have given all extracts from the said Fine-Roll, which relate to Hopton, Weston, and Monk Hall, under Oxenbold.

In 1495-6, the rents of a Mill and Tenement in Hopton, amounting to 6s. 4d., specially belonged to the Kitchen of the Priory. [5]

MONK-HOPTON CHAPEL.- That Monk Hopton and all the adjacent vills stood within the area of the alleged Parish of the Holy Trinity of Wenlock, is evident from the boundary of the latter already given.

A Chapel nevertheless existed at Hopton from a very early period, as we learn from mention of Iverard, its Chaplain, in the twelfth Century.

It may be doubted whether any succession of these humble functionaries was pretended to be kept up. Of course none of them appear on the Diocesan Registers.

Bishop Swinfield, by his Charter of Jan. 29, 1284, increases the previously fixed endowment of the Vicar of Wenlock, by giving him the Schrysicorn and Cornmol of Weston, Muchale, and Hopton. This I have noticed before, [6] and only observe here that the Bishop does not even mention a Chapel or Chaplain at Hopton.

The Charter of Thomas, Bishop of Hereford (May 23, 1331), mentions and confirms to Wenlock Priory, the Chapel of Hopton, as a dependent of the Church of the Holy Trinity.

The Spiritualities of Wenlock Priory, in 1369, are stated to include a receipt of 3. 13s. 4d. from the Chapel of Hopton. This was doubtless the great tithe of the district, which I learn from another Schedule to have been appropriated to the support of the Convent, and which, in 1541-2, was, as we have seen, represented by the greater sum of 4. 13s. 4d., at which the tithes of Weston Hopton and Muckhall were then farmed.

The Pensions assigned by Henry VIII's Commissioners on Jan. 6, 1540, to the Fraternity of the late Priory, include one of 5. 6s. 8d. to a Monk and Priest named William Morthowe. [7]

[5] Register at Willey, fo. 32, b.
[6] Supra, Vol. III, p. 267.
[7] Monasticon, V, p. 80. Num. XI.


In 1545, the circumstance of William Morphoo having been a Monk is mentioned in conjunction with his being Curate of Monk Hopton; but my authority [8] does not supply the bearing of such a coincidence.


About 1220-30, one Roger de Weston attests a Deed which concerned Patton, Corve, and Cawley.

I think that Roger Fitz Roger, whose fine of 1248 has been noticed under Hopton, was Roger de Weston's son, and identical with "Roger, son of Roger de Weston", who in 1256 was concerned in Charlcott. [9] He was afterwards called Roger de Weston.

At this time the Prior of Wenlock had footing in Weston, and it was called a Manor. The Jurors of Wenlock Liberty presented, long after, that Hymbert, Prior of Wenlock (he died in 1260), had made purpresture on his own land in the Manor of Weston within the King's Forest, having warranty to do so, and that the locality was put out of regard in Henry III's time. [10]

In the last half of the thirteenth century, I find Roger de Weston a frequent witness of local deeds. Also at the Assizes of 1272, the Inquest of 1274, and the Assizes of 1292, the same person was on the Jury for Wenlock Liberty.

A step of succession is indicated by a Larden Deed, dated July 12, 1306, which is tested by Roger, son of Roger de Westone. The Fine-Roll of 15 Edw. II, already quoted under Oxenbold, indicates that the Prior had Copyhold Tenants here; nor do the subsequent Rent-Rolls of Wenlock show the continuance of that tenure in-fee which I suppose to have been enjoyed by the three Roger de Westons above mentioned.


I have great difficulty in treating separately of three places which were adjacent, and not always described by any distinctive name. If therefore I confuse the Prior of Wenlock's Tenants in Far Monk-Hall with Fitz Alan's Tenants at Upper and Lower Monk-Hall, the mistake is unavoidable. I think however that the Masons (the principal Tenants in question) held both under the Prior and under Fitz Alan.

In 1182 the Sheriff of Shropshire accounts 7s. for the chattels of William de Muggehal, who had been hanged. [11]

[8] Blakeway's MSS.
[9] Supra, Vol. I, p. 157.
[10] Rot. Hund. II, 110.
[11] Rot. Pip. 28, Hen. II, Salop.


At the Assizes of November, 1221, Peter le Macun and Alice his wife having a suit of mort d'ancestre against William le Macun failed to appear; whereupon they were subject to Amercement, their Sureties being Thomas and Roger de Millingehop. [12]

On March 12, 1227, William de Mughale was attendant at the Hundred Court of the Prior of Wenlock at Burton.

In 1255 William le Mason, of Mughale, and his fellows, were amerced half a merk by Henry de Herwinton, a Justice Itinerant. They paid the same to Philip de Pres, Receiver of Robert de Grendon, then Sheriff of the County: but Philip gave no sufficient discharge, and they had to pay the same again. [13]

At the Assizes of 1256 William Macun, of Mughale, was a Juror for Munslow Hundred.

I have noticed already that this William le Mason was a Regarder of Shirlot Forest, in 1262. [14] As such he and his Colleagues were fined one merk in 1267, for some concealment. [15]

From this time till 1305 we find a person or persons described as William de Mughale or William le Mason, of Mughale, frequently attesting local deeds. Coincidently, William de Mughale was a Defaulter, reported by the Stottesden Jurors at the Assizes of 1272. William le Mason was a Juror of Munslow Hundred in 1272, 1274, and 1292. He occurs too on a Jury at Brug in 1278, on a Jury at Wenlock in 1289 (where a fellow juror was Roger le Fleming, of Mughale), on other Juries at Brug in 1291 and 1294, and on another at Wenlock in 1296.

The name of Mason was among the Tenants of Wenlock Priory two centuries later. In 1495-6 John Mason was Tenant of a Mill, and of a meadow and pasture near Bradley Mill, paying 12s. 10d. to the Convent Kitchen. A tenement in Muchall was charged with 16s. 4d. rent, payable to the same; and Ralph Mason paid 2s. per annum to the Custos of St. Mary's Chapel, within the Priory. [16]

[12] Assizes, 6, Hen. III, memb. 4.
[13] Rot. Hund. II, 111. The main facts were reported by the Wenlock Jurors of 1274. The dates are supplied from other sources.
[14] Supra, Vol. II, p. 37.
[15] Rot. Pip. 51, Hen. III.
[16] Register, fo. 32, b. 33, 34. St. Mary's Chapel had a separate endowment, amounting apparently to 10s. 6d. per annum.



THE Saxon word Stan is more accurately preserved in compound names than in the simple form "stone".

Long-Stanton is distinguished from other Stantons in Shropshire by a word which bore reference, I think, to the Parish rather than the Manor. The former ran up to Brockton and Patton, and thus had a length of four miles, with a breadth of little more than one. Domesday notices Long Stanton thus:-

"The same Roger (de Laci) holds (of the Earl) Stantune; and Herbert (holds it) of him. Eluuin held it (in Saxon times), and was a free man. Here are III hides geldable. In demesne is one oxteam and a half, and (there are) II Serfs and I Boor, with half a team. Its former value was 6s. (per annum). It is now worth 12s". [1]

I have spoken under Cleobury North of the early dismemberment of Lacy's Domesday Fief. [2] In no Record later than Domesday can I find the slightest hint that those Barons retained any interest in Long Stanton. That Manor I take to have been an Escheat of the Crown at least as early as the reign of Henry I.

Of Herbert, the Domesday Tenant of Long Stanton, I would observe, that he seems to have been Lacy's Tenant elsewhere, viz. at Patton, Middlehope, and Corfton, and to have also held Great Sutton, under Helgot, at the time of the Survey.

The subsequent tenures in Long-Stanton were of such a divided character that it is impossible to associate them with an abiding or general interest of any single Feoffee. I must therefore conclude that Herbert's tenancy here vanished during the same unchronicled period as put an end to the seigneury of Lacy.

I proceed to speak of these divided Tenures with as much distinctness as a few very scattered evidences enable me.-

SERJEANTRY OF LONG-STANTON.- This consisted of a small estates bestowed, together with More (near Lydham) and other lands, on one whose name is unrecorded, but whose office it was to act as a Constable of 200 foot-soldiers whenever any King of England invaded

[1] Domesday, fo. 256, b. 1.
[2] Supra, Vol. III, p. 24.
[3] The extent is variously described as 2 carucates, 1 carucate, and 1 virgate.


Wales. The descendants of the first Constable thus endowed took the name of More from the principal of their estates. Of them and their succession I shall speak in another place. Here it is only pertinent to say that one of these constables, at least as early as the twelfth century, granted whatever he had in Long- Stanton to a Tenant-in-fee. His right to do so was afterwards questioned, and his Descendants had to compound for his act by an annual payment to the Crown. The rights of his Feoffee were not however brought into question.

The first of these Tenants of whom I have found any mention was perhaps the original Feoffee: he was known as Simon de Stanton, in or about the year 1174, when we find him attesting a deed of Guy le Strange, already given under Badger. [4] About six years later the name of Simon de Stanton follows that of Robert Walsh (Gualensis), and both occupy a very prominent position in the testing-clause of that Corve charter which I have so often quoted.

Simon de Stanton was succeeded by his son Thomas, who appears to have held this estate for at least 36 years, and to have made many subinfeudations thereof. The following list of his sales, as they are called, professes to give the proximate date of each, and with much probability.

About 1215 he enfeoffed Geoffrey Griffin in 3 nokates ( virgate).

About 1231 he sold to Henry de Lotwich one noke.

About 1235 he sold to Richard, a Chaplain, half a virgate.

About 1240 he sold to the same 15 acres.

About 1243 he enfeoffed Roger de Thongland in 2 acres.

About 1247 he sold to Sabina fitz Simon half a virgate, to Philip fitz Simon 9 acres, to Richard Dodinol 1 acre, and to Alice Brewer (Braciatrix) 1 acre.

About 1251 he sold to Cecily, his daughter, 1 acre. [5]

The first feoffment, that of Geoffrey Griffin, is curiously substantiated by a Deed in the Haughmond Chartulary, whereby-

Thomas, son of Simon de Staunton, grants to Geoffrey Griffin, for his homage and service, three bovates in Staunton, those namely of which Philip fitz Edric held, half a virgate, and Richard the Priest, one bovate,- rendering a pair of white gloves. For this Geoffrey gave five merks. Witnesses: Vivian de Roshall, Robert de Girros, Robert de Wudeton, Richard de Midlehope. [6]

[4] Supra, Vol. II, p. 66, note.
[5] Rot. Hundred, II, 72.
[6] Chartulary, fo. 141. The nokate and bovate were then in this case synonymous, and four of them equal to a virgate.


Further, the Hundred Rolls inform us that about 1285 Geoffrey Griffin enfeoffed the Abbot of Haughmond, in these premises. Again the Chartulary is in concert, for in one deed-

"Geoffrey Griffin exchanges with Haughmond Abbey for a virgate in Besforde, those three bovates which he bought from Thomas fitz Simon.- Witnesses: John Fitz Alan, Henry de Audley, Vivian de Roshale". In another deed,- "Thomas de Long Staunton, son of Simon de Long Staunton, confirms to the Abbey the three nokes in the vill of Long Staunton, which the Abbey had obtained by exchange with Geoffrey Griffin, Clerk.- Witnesses: Richard de Midelhope, Thomas de Roshall, Geoffrey Griffin Clerk, Bertram his Brother".

The Hundred Rolls still further inform us that about 1236 the Abbot of Haughmond enfeoffed Brun Edrich in these premises for 7s. annual rent. The word "enfeoffed" seems to be here used at random. The Chartulary, though it does not supply the Abbot's charter to Brown Edrich, gives us a subsequent renewal to his Son, wherein- "The Abbot demises to Richard, son of Edrich Brown, of Staunton, half a virgate, which his said Father, and Matilda, his Mother, had held for life. The new rent is to be 13s. 4d". [7]

I can trace but little of the other subinfeudations granted by Thomas fitz Simon between 1215 and 1251.

About that time however there was one Simon, Rector of Long Stanton, who seems to have been father of a numerous family if, as I guess, Philip and Sabina above mentioned were his son and daughter. A son he certainly had, named Simon, who, before 1255, having a seignoral right over three nokates in Long Stanton, gave the rent thereof (9s. 3d.) to Haughmond Abbey, together with his body in burial. [8]

The Taxation of 1291 gives the Abbot of Haughmond as seized of 17s. 4d. assized rent in Longestaunton. [9] And his interests here continued till the Dissolution, for, in 1541-2, the Ministers' Accounts give a rent of 18s. from a Tenement in Long Staunton among the assets of the late Monastery. [10] To return to an earlier period:-

It was during Thomas fitz Simon's time that these Inquisitions

[7] Chartulary, ibidem. On Dec. 6, 1333, Mabel, daughter of Richard Brown, being apparently married to Richard, brother of Henry le Gyros, the two have a new demise from the Abbot at the old rent,- 13s. 4d.
[8] Chartulary, ibidem. Witnesses: Richard and Roger de Midelhope, Robert de Bolledon.
[9] Pope Nich. Tax. p. 168.
[10] Monasticon, VI, 118. Num. xiv.


of Serjeantries were made which have supplied most of the above information. Roger de la More was then Lord of More, and compounded for all the alienations of his Predecessors by paying an annual rent of one merk to the Crown, in addition to the discharge of his service as Constable. This rent, whereof 5s. was the specific portion charged in respect of Long Staunton, [11] began to accrue from March, 1247. The various Feoffees paid their ratable shares to Roger de la More, while he accounted for the whole to the Sheriff. In the arrentation of 1247 Thomas de Long Staunton is said to hold one carucate in Long Staunton, the annual value of which to him was 1. 6s. 8d.-

He was living in 1251, but was deceased in 1255, when his Grandson, Thomas, son of his son Reginald, was in possession. In that same year this second Thomas sold to Richard, Chaplain (a former purchaser in the Manor), rents of 18s. and one pound of cumin arising from his Tenants here. He also sold to the Knights Templars of Lidley a moor of the annual value of 3s. [12]

In 1259 he fines half a merk to have some Assize, [13]- probably that assize of mort d'ancestre which, in October, 1259, Giles de Erdinton is commissioned to try, as "arraigned by Thomas fitz Reginald, of Long Stanton, against Philip le Clerc". [14] The tenement in dispute was in Long Stanton, and perhaps Philip le Clerc was identical with Philip fitz Simon, already mentioned. Again, in 1260, Thomas fitz Reginald fines half a merk for a writ of pone, [15] wishing, I suppose, to change the venue of some lawsuit.

Previous to this, and in or about the year 1256, we hear from another Record [16] that Thomas fitz Reginald had enfeoffed the Knights Templars of Lidley in all his residue in Long Staunton.

The Templars' interests, already existent in this quarter, were so multiplied in the next ten years that we lose all distinct notice of their specific tenure as Grantees of Thomas fitz Reginald; but it was probably in his right that (as we shall see) they afterwards claimed the Advowson of the Church.

[11] Vide Testa de Nevill, fos. 264, 268. A fragment of an Assize Roll preserved in the same Record seems to be of date about 1251. It says, under Munslow Hundred (fo. 274), with much inaccuracy, that "Roger de la More of Lidmesfield, holds one virgate in Longesdon by serjeantry, the jurors knew not his service". Here the name Lidmesfeld seems to be a confusion between Lydham and Linley. Longesdon is put for Long Stanton. The extent of land and the ratio of the tenure are equally false.
[12] Rot. Hund. II, 73.
[13] Rot. Pip. 43 Hen. III.
[14] Patent, 43 Hen. III, dorso.
[15] Rot. Pip. 44 Hen. 3, Salop.
[16] Rot. Hundred, p. 101.


In October, 1292, the Munslow Jurors represented how the Master of the Templars was holding the Vill of Long Stanton, which Thomas de Stanton formerly held by Serjeantry. The Master came into Court, and pleaded the seizin of his Predecessor; but Hugh de Louther, the King's Attorney, was ordered to follow up the matter under writ of Quo Warranto. [17] I do not find that this was done.

An Escheator's Roll, apparently of the year 1316, and so after the forfeiture of the Templars, represents their late tenure in Staunton Long and Holt Preen as held of the King and of the Honour of Montgomery, by Serjeantry. [18] The change thus indicated is a fitting point for concluding this branch of the subject, except to state that an Inquest taken previously (on Oct. 25, 1315), had found Long Stanton to have been an Escheat of the Templars, but to have been held of Edward Burnell's Honour of Castle Holgate without any service. [18] What I shall have to say under Castle Holgate will nearly reconcile the two statements.

KNIGHTS TEMPLARS' FEE.- This consisted of four virgates acquired by the Knights long before their feoffment by Thomas de Stanton. If, as is said, it was originally of the Fee of Castle Holgate, it follows that the Barons of Holgate had, on the first partition of Lacy's estate here, obtained from the Crown a part of Long Stanton. [19] There are many other considerations which make this probable, but here especially the propinquity of the forfeited land to Holgate Castle rendered it an object.

The Tenant of these four virgates, whether under these Barons or not, was Robert Walsh, already noticed as a fellow-witness with Simon de Staunton about 1180. Even earlier than this, that is, previous to the year 1176, I find this Robertus Walensis attesting a Charter of Peter, Prior of Wenlock, concerning Hughley.-

In Nov. 1194, he appears as Recognizor in an assize which I have mentioned under Hollicott. [20]-

And further I cannot say of him, for I think it must have been his son, another Robert, who about the year 1225 is said to have given to the Templars the four virgates in Long Staunton which he held of the Fee of Castle Holgate. [21]

[17] Placita Coronae, memb. 3 dorso.
[18] Escheat Roll:- embodied in Kirby's Quest. Inquisitions, 9 Edw. II, No. 67.
[19] I cannot suppose that they inherited from Herbert, the Domesday Tenant, or that the said Herbert was identical with Herbert, son and heir of Helgot; for if so, the Barons of Holgate would have held all Long-Stanton.
[20] Supra, Vol. I, 181.
[21] Rot. Hundred, II, 72.


GIRROS FEE.- This too, judging from the slender evidence which we have about it, I should think to have been conferred by the Crown, after Lacy's forfeiture, on the Barons of Holgate. The latter perhaps gave it with other estates to De Girros, the greatest Feoffee in their Barony, probably their near Relation. Certainly something in Stanton was included in the escheated estates of De Girros in 1194, something which yielded to the Escheator a return of 2s. on the half-year, for which he then accounts, and 2s. more on half a year, for which he accounts in 1195. [22]

Robert de Girros (II) seems to have had as Tenant in Stanton a Cadet of his own family We have seen Roger de Girros of Stanton attesting an Oxenbold grant of the said Robert before the year 1244.-

We have the same Roger, as I suppose, attesting other deeds in the middle of the thirteenth century, and in one of these he is accompanied by his son, a second Roger. I shall speak of this branch again under Poston, where they had more important interests than at Long Stanton. What became of their tenure here I know not, nor yet can I account for the interest which the Prior of Wenlock acquired here, and which I will speak of briefly as the-

WENLOCK FEE.- In 1291 the Prior had a Mill in Long Stanton, worth 1. 6s. 8d. per annum. [23] In 1379, the Prior's Rents, in Hopton, etc., include some receipts from Staunton. In 1341-2 he had two messuages here (one called the Crossell) which together yielded 4. 8s. 8d. per annum. [24]

CORFIELD, formerly CORPHULL.- This was a member both of the Manor and Parish of Long Staunton, but to which Fee it belonged I cannot say.

About the middle of the thirteenth century "Roger de Corfhul grants to Richard fitz William, of Oxnebolde, two acres in the fields of Corfhul, abutting on lands called Medowecros, Capegreve, Oldecorfhul, and Luttlemorl,- for his homage and 11s. paid:- to hold to him his heirs and assigns, except any Religious House,- at an annual rent of 2d. Witnesses: Thomas, Lord of Staunton, Hugh de Patiton, Roger de Ghyros, Roger de Kylmescot, Richard de Westbradeley, William de Lotwich, and others". [25]

The Grantor in this deed is the same person with Roger fitz

[21] Rot. Pip. 6 & 7 Rich. I, Escheator's Schedule.
[22] Pope Nich. Tax. p. 164.
[24] Monasticon, V, 77, 80. In the last instance the place is spelt "Longslaton".
[25] Charter in possession of Mr. George Morris.


William, of Corfhul, already noticed as coming to an agreement with the Prior of Wenlock about Oxenbold Park. [26]

One Roger de Corfhul has also occurred to us later in the thirteenth century. [27] In May, 1295, he was on an Inquest held at Holgate. In May, 1296, we have Reginald de Corfhull as a Juror, in another neighbouring Inquest. In January, 1320, Roger and Richard de Corfhull were members of a Jury at Brockton.

COTES.- I am by no means sure that what I have to say about a place thus called in Munslow Hundred relates to "Coates-Farm", in the Parish of Long Stanton.

If it does, then was this Cotes separated manorially from Long Stanton, while the latter Manor was in the Crown, and granted to the King's Chief Forester for Shropshire, as part of his Serjeantry. The case of More's Serjeantry, similarly augmented by a part of Long Stanton, makes this idea plausible.

The Chief Foresters of Shropshire were a succession of Knights descended from Ulger Venator, and seated at Great Bowlas, at least as early as the reign of Henry I. Their descent from that period is well established. They held estates in Shropshire and Herefordshire in virtue of their hereditary office, and therefore by Serjeantry. The little that is known of Cotes, one of the estates so held, is as follows

A Roll of Shropshire Serjeantries, drawn up for purpose of some assessment, about the year 1200, intimates that Robert fitz William, the King's Forester for Shropshire, held a fourth part of a Carucate in Cote (of 4s. annual value), and 3s. rent there. [28]

A fragment of an Assize Roll, of October, 1227, tells us, under the presentments of Munslow, that "Hugh fitz Robert holds 20 solidates of land in Cotes, by service of keeping the Forests of Shropshire". [29] Hugh fitz Robert was son and successor of Robert fitz William before mentioned. Previous to his death in 1249, he enfeoffed one Thomas le Moynur in a whole carucate in Cotes, reserving to himself only a rent of a pair of spurs. Thomas le Moynur was succeeded by a son of the same name, and the latter dying before 1272, left his son, a third Thomas le Moynur, in minority.

I think it was Thomas (II) or Thomas (III) whom we shall see attesting a Ruthall Deed, between 1255 and 1295, as "Thomas Lord of Cote".

Meantime, Hugh fitz Robert dying in 1249, was succeeded by

[26] Supra, p. 24.
[27] Supra, Vol. II, p. 37.
[28] Testa de Nevill, p. 61.
[29] Ibidem, p. 54.


John fitz Hugh. The latter, on the death of Thomas le Moynur (II) seized the estate at Cotes, claiming to have custody of the Infant Heir. Hence we find that at the Assizes of Oct. 1272, [30] Thomas le Moynur of Cotes claimed against John fitz Hugh a carucate in Cotes, whereof the Plaintiff alleged his Father to have died seized. This was a suit therefore of mort d'ancestre, which the Defendant met, not by denying the Father's seizin, but by explaining that he only claimed custody of the Heir. Thomas le Moynur (III) hereupon produced the Charter by which his Grandfather had been enfeoffed by the Plaintiff's Father. That Charter is not set forth on the Rolls, but its terms seem to have been inconsistent with John fitz Hugh's claim of custody. Sentence was given in favour of the Plaintiff, i.e. he recovered the estate at once.

Clear as these particulars are, they do not inform us precisely where Cotes was, and I have searched in vain for further information on the subject. My idea that it was Cotes, near Long Stanton, seems most consistent with all ascertained particulars, for every member of that Manor would certainly belong to Munslow Hundred. [31]


At the time of Domesday the Church of this Parish was perhaps at Patton. About a century later we have mention of Walter, Chaplain of Stanton, which is the earliest indication I have of a change, probably effected very soon after Domesday.

The Advowson was attached to the Tenure by Serjeantry, and Thomas de Long Stanton seems to have granted it to the Priory of Wenlock: for in April, 1245, a fine was levied at Westminster between Prior Hymbert, plaintiff, and Thomas de Longa Stanton, Impedient, of the Advowson of the Church of Longa Stanton, whereof was Plea of warranty of Charter. Thomas acknowledged the Prior's right, as arising by his own gift, and surrendered the said Advowson,- to hold to the Prior and his Successors in frank almoign, and Thomas and his heirs would warrant the same against all men. The Prior received said Thomas and his heirs "into all benefits and prayers which thereafter should be made in his Church of Wenlock for ever". [32]

[30] Assizes, 56 Hen. III, memb. 7.
[31] Cotes and Coten, meaning literally "cottages", are oommon names of hamlets. There was another Cotes in Munslow Hundred, near Rushbury, but its history seems quite distinct from the above, though equally little is known of it.
[32] Register at Willey, fo. 4.


It appears that, on a subsequent vacancy, the Knights Templars of Lidley claimed, in the King's Court, the Advowson of this Church, but sued the Prior for the same to no purpose. [33] I do not find, on the extant Plea-Rolls, the first proceedings in this cause, but the following indicates the period of the Suit and its result. In the Quinzaine of Michaelmas, 1266, the Justices sitting at Westminster found that a previous order of theirs had issued to the Sheriff of Shropshire, viz. "that on the lands and chattels of the Master of the Knights Templars he should levy a sum of 20 merks, and should have the said sum here in Court, to be paid over to the Prior of Wenlock, seeing that the said Master had impeded the Prior in presenting to the Church of Long Stanton" The Sheriff not having obeyed the Writ, was enjoined to do so before three weeks of Hilary, 1267. [34] On the Octaves of Hilary, 1267, there is a memorandum on the Rolls, stating that the Writ was still unfulfilled, and making it returnable in three weeks of Easter.- I hear no further of this matter.

On Sunday, April 23, 1290, Richard Swinfield, Bishop of Hereford, then visiting his Diocese, was at Munslow. Corn-provender for the horses of his Suite was presented by the Rector of Long Stanton. [35]

The Taxation of 1291 values the Church of Long Stanton in the Deanery of Wenlock, at 13. 6s. 8d. per annum, and enters it as belonging to the Prior of Wenlock. [36]

Meanwhile, however, that is before the year 1275, the Prior of Wenlock had given the Advowson of Long Stanton to the Dean and Chapter of Hereford, and John le Breton, Bishop of Hereford (who died in that year), had given license to the Chapter to appropriate the same on the next vacancy. This Vacancy occurred in 1294; and on April 29, 1295, Bishop Swinfield confirmed the appropriation allowed by his Predecessor. [37]

In 1341 the Taxation of this Church being quoted at 20 merks (13. 6s. 8d.), the Assessors of the Ninth rated the Parish only at 3. 10s.; and 13s. 4d. of the latter sum was specially apportioned on the Prior of Wenlock in respect of that share of the Ninth which belonged to his temporalities within the Parish. [38] The reasons for

[33] Memorandum in Hereford Register, sub anno 1294.
[34] Placita, Mich. Term, 50 & 51, Hen. III, memb. 10.
[35] Household Roll (Camden Society), pp. 76 and clxxxvi.
[36] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 167.
[37] Blakeway (from Hereford Registers).
[38] The Prior's interests in Patton and Brockton were most probably taken into account.


the general assessment being low were,- the destruction of corn by great storms, murrain of sheep, surrender of eleven tenants and non-cultivation of their lands, and because the glebe and alterages, which were reckoned in the Church-Taxation, could not be accounted of in estimating the Ninth. [39]

In 1534-5 the Vicarage of Long Staunton (Thomas Growse being Incumbent) was valued at 7. 0s. 8d., in glebe and tithes.

The Procurations and Synodals chargeable thereon were 7s. 8d. [40]

The Rectories of Diddlebury and Long Staunton, as appropriated by the Dean and Chapter of Hereford, were at the same time returned as jointly worth 24. per annum.


SIMON was Parson here before the year 1255. [42] The Church was vacant about 1265-6.

WALTER, the last Rector, was Incumbent in or before 1275, and died in 1294. His Patron will have been the Prior of Wenlock.

PHILIP DE WYTTELEYE, Priest, admitted as Vicar on July 30, 1303, at presentation of the Dean and Chapter of Hereford.

RICHARD DE CHARHAM, Priest, admitted Oct. 30, 1305, on a like presentation. He resigned in 1322, and-

WILLIAM DE OLDEBUR, Priest, was admitted on June 16.- Same Patrons.

WILLIAM DE TOGGEFORD, Priest, admitted Aug. 30, 1319. In 3 Ric. II. (1389-90)-

WILLIAM, perpetual Vicar of Long Stanton, was indicted for breaking a staff on the Bailiff of Wenlock. He or another, called-

WILLIAM POWER, was Vicar in 1398.

SIR WILLIAM LONE, admitted June 5, 1399, on presentation of the Dean and Chapter, resigned in the same year.


THIS place was perhaps at one time the caput of the Hundred to which it gave a name. Its importance does not seem wholly to have vanished at the time of Domesday, when it was thus noticed:-

[39] Inquisitiones Nonarum, p. 186.
[40] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, pp. 210 & 5.
[41] From Blakeway's MSS.
[42] Vide supra, p. 34.


"The same Roger (de Laci) holds of the Earl Patintune. Aluuin held it (in Saxon times), and was a free man Here is I hide geldable. Herbert holds it of Roger (de Laci). In demesne he has I ox-team and II Serfs, and I Villain and I Radman, with I team; and there might yet be III teams more (employed here). Here is a Priest and I Boor. In time of King Edward, the Manor was worth 10s. (per annum), and subsequently it was waste. Now (it is worth) 24s". [1]

There is a remarkable parallel between this Manor and that of Long Stanton. They ever were, and still are, in the same Parish, though perhaps the Parish-church was originally at Patton. Alwin, the Saxon Lord of Patton, was doubtless identical with Eluuin, the Saxon Lord of Long Stanton. Roger de Lacy was the Domesday Lord, and Herbert the Domesday Tenant of both. Both were ultimately lost to De Lacy's Barony. Both two had other features in common as regards their gradual and unexplained disintegration.

HALF OF PATTON passed to the Seigneury of Wenlock Priory, probably as early as the reign of Henry I., but by whose gift we are not told.

It seems in the first instance to have been brought into the Prior's demesne, or rather into that class of estates which were disposed of to Tenants for life, according to an established custom of the Priory.

A very ancient lease of this part of Patton is still in existence. Its date cannot be later than 1160, and as a specimen of this kind of document, it must be given entire:-

"Sciant presentes et futuri quod Umbaldus Prior de Wenloch consensu Conventus concessit Arnaldo dapifero de Ludelane terram de Patintuna tenendam in vita suit tantum. Dando singulis annis ad festum Sancti Michaelis unam marcam argenti tantum. Ipse vero Arnaldus dedit Deo et Sanctae Milburgae in decessu suo dimidiam partem totius catalli sui quod habebit in Patintun die mortis suae. Quod si uxor sua, Emma scilicet, eum supervixerit, eandem convencionem tenebit supra dictam terram in vita sua, dando etiam totum catellum omnium rerum suarum quas habebit in Patintuna Sanctae Milburgae die obitus sui. Post eorum decessum revertetur prefata terra ad monachos de Wenloch libere et quiete, omni calumpnia et causa reclamationis remota. Hoc etiam ipse Arnaldus juravit super quatuor Evangelia quando fecit hominium Sanctae Milburgae et Monachis, et suscepit predictam terram de manibus

[1] Domesday, fo. 256, b, 1.


eoram, quod neque per consilium suum nec etiam per voluntatem suam impedietur aut occupabitur supradicta terra quominus post mortem suam libere et quiete redeat ad monachos de Weneloch. Testes autem sunt Herbertus de Furches, Henricus Malus Vicinus, Hoddo prepositus de Stanton, Huchtredus presbiter, Huctedus (sic) prepositus, Edwinus prepositus, Ernaldus filius Willielmi, Rogerius Despencer, et Tomas frater ejus. Simon de Sart'n et Anno filius Gaufridi, Rogerius Welcume et plures alii". [2]

The land thus leased we should expect to become Copyhold, but the Taxation of 1291 makes no mention of the Prior having any such copyhold estate at Patton; nor does the Roll of 15 Edw. II contain any fine referable to copyhold lands here.

That part of Patton which I suppose to have been the subject of the above Lease, was afterwards granted in fee to a Tenant of the Prior: it was half a hide, a moiety therefore of the Domesday Manor. It paid a chief-rent of 13s. 4d. to the Prior of Wenlock, but, like other Lacy estates, it was charged with a service of Castle-guard at Montgomery. This Incumbrance certainly originated at a period anterior to that at which Wenlock gained the said moiety, and whereas neither the Prior nor the above Lessee was charged with the said service, we conclude that the responsibility rested with him who had granted the Land to the Priory. This points to Herbert de Furchis as the Grantor, for his descendants were chargeable with the service in question.

The first apparent mention of any Tenant in Fee of the Prior is in the oft-quoted Corve Deed, about 1180, where Hugh de Patinton and John, his son, are witnesses. Hugh was, I suppose, succeeded by his son John. The latter appears to have been slain in the year 1213, by his neighbour, Roger de Presthope; at all events the said Roger was accused of the Deed by Juliana, the Widow, and Herbert, the Brother of the deceased. [3]

The next of this family of whom I find mention, was Stephen de Patinton. About 1225 he attests a confirmation by Humbert, Prior of Wenlock, quoted under Badger. [4]

In August, 1226, he appears amongst Knights and chief men of

[2] This Charter is in possession of Mr. George Morris, of Shrewsbury. Its date must be early in the time of Prior Humbald, for four of the witnesses attest a Charter of his Predecessor Rainald, which I have quoted under Posenhall (supra, Vol. III, p. 285).
[3] Patent, 15 John, p. 109.
[4] Supra, Vol. II, p. 71.


the county, on a Jury concerning the Forest rights of the Barons of Caus.

In Trinity Term, 1230, he appeared at Westminster as Attorney for the Prior of Wenlock, in a suit with Walter de Clifford.

Christiana, wife of Sir Stephen de Patinton, was an heiress: her lands lay at Smethcote and Pyklescote. As she had two husbands previous to her marriage with Stephen, we are not surprised to find his successors without any apparent interest in her estate.

There is a Deed of Stephen de Patinton's which I give in brief, merely remarking that the locality concerned seems to be that which is now known as Cauley Coppice, and which, under the name of Calley, we noticed above in connection with Mughale and Monk Hopton:-

"Stephanus dominus de Patinton dedi, etc. Philippo filio Thomae de Corve pro homagio et pro 10 solidis unam acram bosci mei de Kalflei ad assartandam, de libero tenemento meo juxta campum de Corve ad mensuram acrarum de Leiga. Habendam, etc. Reddendo 2 denarios ad festum Beatae Mariae in Martio. Hiis testibus, Johanne de Corve Warino de Bradelega, Godwino de Esthop, Rogerio de Westun et multis aliis." [5]- This Deed passed, I imagine, about 1230, a matter which will appear more fully from what I shall have elsewhere to say of the Grantee and the several witnesses.

Whether Hugh de Patinton, who succeeded Stephen, were his son I cannot say. He occurs on the Pipe-Roll of 1238, as being amerced 6s. 8d. for unjust detention. In 1249 this Hugh, in conjunction with Alianore la Fleming (his wife apparently), is mentioned as party to a suit which concerned the estate of Walter le Fleming, at Winsbury. This matter I shall again refer to, but must now relate what the Wenlock Jurors of 1255 said about the part of Patton now under notice:-

"Hugh de Patinton holds half a hide in Patinton of the Prior of Wenlock, and he pays the Prior one merk yearly, and does suit to the Prior's Court by aforciament; and he does ward at Montgomery in time of war for ten days, with two Serjeants and horses and two hauberks".

At the same time Hugh de Patinton was a Juror for Munslow Hundred. He was also Co-parcener in the Manor of Stanwardine in the Fields, which was a recognized member of the Honour of Montgomery. [6]

[5] In possession of Mr. George Morris.
[6] Rot. Hund. II, 69, 75, 85.


The Munslow Jurors of 1255 speak of the Wenlock share of Patinton somewhat differently to the Wenlock Jurors, and add information as to the other share. It appears that the whole of Patton was in some sort reputed to be in Munslow Hundred, if not a member of the Manor of Corfton. If I understand the Record rightly, Hugh de Patiton held half a hide in Patton of the Prior of Wenlock, doing ward at Montgomery in proportion to one-third of a Knight's Fee, but doing it through William de Furches, then Lord of Corfton.

The other moiety of Patton (half a hide) was held by the same Hugh de Patiton under Walter de Hopton, and for this he did suit to Munslow Hundred and paid the King 6d. per annum for Stretward and Motfee. Under whom Hopton held we are not told. [7]

I find Hugh de Patiton on a local Jury of Dec. 2, 1258, and in February, 1262, he appears as a Regarder of the Long Forest. In 1269, John le Fevre of Patinton is fined half a merk for default in some attendance. In 1273-4, Hugh de Patiton and John his son joined Thomas de Brocton in resisting a trespass on a meadow of the latter; the aggressor, Philip de Cherlecote, was wounded in the fray which ensued. On this pretext Ralph de Mortimer, then Sheriff, imprisoned Hugh de Patiton, and distrained the goods of John de Patiton and of Thomas de Brocton till he had extorted a sum of 20s. from each of the three. [8]

I suppose that John de Patinton, who sat on a Jury at Wenlock, in October, 1289, was then Lord of the Vill, and was identical with John son of Hugh, above-mentioned.

In May, 1296, a third Hugh de Patinton occurs on a similar Jury, and is a witness of several deeds of that period.

In 33 Edw. I (1304-5), Hugh, son of Hugh de Patiton (a younger son, I imagine), quits, to Hamund, son of Richard Faber, and Alice his wife, half a virgate of land. Witnesses: John de Brocton, William le Masoun of Moghale, Thomas de la Merhous. [9]

On Feb. 17, 1306, Thomas de Patinton was on a Jury at Easthope.

The Feodary of March, 1316, places Patyton in Munslow Hundred, and returns it as in possession of Sibil de Patyton. [10] Soon after this, if the family of Patton did not become extinct, their Tenure in Fee seems to have lapsed to the Priory.

THE OTHER MOIETY OF PATTON, of which I now return to speak,

[7] Rot. Hundred, p. 70.
[8] Rot. Hundred, II, 101.
[9] Newport Evidences (Blakeway).
[10] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 398.


did not pass to Wenlock till the fourteenth Century. Herbert de Furches, the first witness of Prior Humbald's Lease (before 1160), was, I think, Lord thereof at the time. Possibly he represented Herbert, the Domesday Tenant of the whole Manor.

This moiety of Patinton constituted, I think, a part of those three Knight's Fees of old feoffment, which William de Furcis held in 1165 under Hugh de Laci. About one of these Fees there was a doubt whether it was assessable to any service, in fact, whether it was a Fee at all: Laci never had received any service therefrom. [11]

In 1240, William de Furcis held a Fee in Corfton, of Laci's Shropshire Barony. [12] The Tenure, I think, included a moiety of Patinton, though the Record does not say so. In 1255, Walter de Hopton's tenure of a moiety of Patinton, over Hugh de Patinton, is clear, as already quoted;- that he held it under William de Furcis, Lord of Corfton, is not quite so evident from the Record, but as much is, I think, implied. The Feodary of 1284 names Patynton (this moiety thereof is meant) under Munslow Hundred, and says that it was held of Walter de Hopton by the fourth part of a Knight's-Fee; but it was not known of whom the said William (read Walter) held it, [13] neither does the record mention the Under-Tenant (Hugh or John de Patinton). The Interest of William de Furches at Corfton passed to Robert Burnell, Bishop of Bath and Wells, and I doubt not that this moiety of Patton went with Corfton as an appurtenance. Lacy's seigneury in neither continued with his coheirs, and Walter de Hopton's mesne interest in Patton vanished. In 1316 Sibil de Patinton was, as we have seen, Lady of the whole of Patinton, holding probably half under the Prior of Wenlock, and half under the Barony of Burnell.

Next we shall see how, in 1363, the Prior of Wenlock bought up the Under-Tenant's interest, whatever it was, in this moiety of Patton, and so reduced the whole to his own jurisdiction. On April 5, 1363, King Edward III orders inquiry to be made whether it would injure the Crown if Master Henry de Shipton, Hugh Yong Clerk, John Vicar of Wenlock, and John Corne (evidently trustees) were to convey to the Prior of Wenlock the Manor of Patynton, a third of the Manor and Advowson of Broseley, and a messuage in Wenlock, as part of lands to the value of twenty merks per annum, which the Prior had the King's license to purchase.

The answer given by Inquest on June 22nd was as regards all

[11] Liber Niger, I, 154.
[12] Testa de Nevill, pp. 45, 50.
[13] Kirby's Quest.


the premises that the transfer would not injure the Crown, as regards Patinton, that it was held by the proposed Vendors under Sir Nicholas Burnel, by a rent of a half-penny, that it was worth 15s. per annum.

A second Writ Royal, dated July 5, orders inquiry to be made of the true value of the Manor of Patinton, and the third of Broseley. The return, dated August 14, states that a carucate of land, two acres of meadow, and certain rents in Patinton, were worth, altogether, 18s. 2d. yearly. [14]

The Prior doubtless concluded the proposed purchase. Hence, in 1379, the Prior is said to have a capital messuage in the hamlet of Patiton. He had also two-thirds of a carucate in demesne, which were worth 3s. 4d. per annum, and an acre of meadow worth 1s. His assized rents, of free tenants there, are stated at 40s. Total, 2. 4s. 4d. [15]

Of this sum it is probable that a part arose from the land which had long been of the Prior's Seigneury. The residue will have been the issues of the other moiety of Patton, which the Prior had purchased in 1363. In 1541-2 (after the Dissolution) the Capital Messuage and demesne lands of Patton were at ferm for a rent of 3. 22. per annum. [16]

I here quit a subject full of difficulty, and which, as regards the succession of De Laci, De Furchis, and De Hopton, I have been compelled to treat in outline. That defect will in some degree be remedied by what I shall hereafter have to say under Corfton, Middlehope, and other places.

Routhall, or Ruthall.

THIS place now forms, together with Ashfield, a township in the Parish of Prior's Ditton;- the only township therein which is in Munslow Hundred. This was because the Prior of Wenlock, though temporal Lord of Ditton, never obtained ingress into Ruthall or Ashfield, and so could not unite them to his Franchise.

Ruthall was however distinguished from Ashfield in ancient

[14] Inquisitions, 37 Edw. III (Second Numbers), No. 53.
[15] Monasticon, V, pp. 77, 78.
[16] Monasticon, V, 80, Num. XII.


times by many circumstances, and, among the rest, by being a Manor of itself at Domesday, when it was described thus:-

"The same Gerard holds Rohalle (of the Earl), and Gerelmus holds it of him. Oschil held it (in Saxon times) and was a free man Here is half a hide geldable. There is (arable) land (sufficient) for II ox-teams. In demesne there is half a team, and (there are) II Neat-herds and III Boors with half a team. In time of King Edward the Manor was worth 6s. (per annum): now it is worth 8s". [1]

So Gerelmus held Ruthall of Gerard de Tornai, Gerard of the Norman Earl, the Earl of the King. Consequently on the forfeiture of Gerard de Tornai, and the fall of the Norman Earls, the mesne tenures between Gerelmus and the Crown were effaced, and we expect at later periods to find the representatives of Gerelmus holding Ruthall in capite.

And so it came to pass, for the Sandfords, who after Domesday became Lords of Sandford (another Tornai Escheat), held both that and Ruthall immediately of the Crown. Their service was at first that of half a Knight's fee, but afterwards by Serjeantry. Whether the Sandfords, besides being successors to Gerelmus at Ruthall, were also his descendants, I cannot venture to declare; nor shall I now say much of their succession, except as occasionally connected with Ruthall; for they enfeoffed an Under-Tenant here, whose family, taking name from the place, will now form our proper subject.

The vill of Rohale has already been mentioned in conjunction with Ashfield, under date of 1167. [2]

At the County Assizes of October, 1203, we learn that Ralph de Sanford had unjustly disseized Basilia de Rohal of her free tenement in Rohal. Reseizin was ordered for Basilia, and Sanford adjudged to pay a merk damages, and a merk fine to the Crown. His sureties were Richard de Lake and Ralph Hose, of whom we shall hear again. [3]

At the same Assizes Philip de Rohal, alleging that his brother John de Rohal had died seized of some part of a hide in Rothal, sued Ralph de Sanford as holding the same. Certain free men came into Court and showed that they held part of the premises, whereupon Philip explained that he did not sue for the premises except as they were held by Sanford; that is, what Sanford was holding

[1] Domesday, fo. 259, a, 1.
[2] Supra, Vol. III, pp. 346-7.
[3] Assizes, 5 John, memb. 4.


in service (as Seigneur over tenants) that he, Philip, claimed so to hold, and what Sanford held in demesne he claimed to hold in demesne. Hereupon Sanford particularized the tenure of William de Rohal, of whose service he said that John de Rohal had not died seized, for this very William (Philip I suppose is meant) had sometime brought a suit of mort d'ancestre (against Sanford, I presume) for the service of the said William and had taken nothing, nay, had been put in misericordia for the attempt. Moreover, said Sanford, John de Rohale never held any of the premises as his inheritance. The Jury however decided that the said John had died seized of the whole. Reseizin was ordered for Philip, and Sanford adjudged to be in misericordia. His Surety was Ralph Walsh (Walensis). [4]

Again at these Assizes Alice, widow of Richard fitz Robert, sued William de Rohal (the tenant above mentioned) for her dower, viz. a third part of a virgate in Rohal, and, William not answering, she recovered it. [5]

In 1207 Philip de Rohall was amerced half a merk for some unspecified offence. [6]

If I mistake not, some of these Litigants appear again at the Assizes of November, 1221, when William de Rohal, under the name of William fitz Robert, is sued as Tenant of two acres in Rohal, which Philip de Rohal claims as heir of John his deceased Brother. This Suit was accorded, Philip conceding the point for 2s. [7] In another case, not concerning Ruthall, but already recited under Middleton Priors, [8] I have only to notice how Alice, called widow of Richard de Rothal, in 1221, was identical with Alice, called widow of Richard fitz Robert, in 1203, and how in the interval she had remarried to Roger fitz Tropinel.

At this period (1221) Ralph de Sanford was Tenant in capite of Ruthall, Philip de Rohall was his Feoffee, and had several Under Tenants there. Nothing in the above litigation can be taken to have disturbed this feudal ratio.

On March 12,1227, we have John de Rothale (son and heir I sup- pose of Philip) attending the Prior of Wenlock's Court at Burton. [9]

I have already noticed the Inquest which in 1249 sat on the death of Richard de Sandford, son and successor of Ralph above

[4] Assizes, 5 John, memb. 4 dorso. For Ralph Walsh, see Vol. II, p. 123.
[5] Ibidem, memb. 6.
[6] Rot. Pip. 9 John, Salop.
[7] Placita (apud Salop, 6 Hen. III, m. 6 dorso.
[8] Supra, Vol. III, p. 340.
[9] Supra, Vol. III, p. 341, note.


mentioned. [10] It reported that the Tenure in capite of the deceased had been by service of half a knight's fee, and that it was in Sandford and Rothale jointly: his Tenant in the latter was not named.

In 1255 John de Rodhale was himself among the Jurors of Munslow Hundred, who reported that he held Rodhale for half a hide (the Domesday estimate), and that he paid 6d. per annum for stretward and motfee;- which was the sum proportioned to half a hide in Munslow Hundred. [11] The Jurors did not state who was John de Ruthall's Seigneur here.- It was Ralph de Sandford, a Minor at the time.

John de Rothal again served as Munslow Juror at the Assizes of 1256 and 1272.

The following deed passed between 1255 and 1295:-

John, Lord of Rothale, grants to Roger Slenketel, of Rothale, for 40s. paid, a messuage and forty acres of land in Rothale. Rent 12d. Witnesses: Thomas Lord of Cote, Roger le Gerous (de Girros, probably) of Staunton, Adam le Kynge, of Hasfield (Ashfield), Reginald do la Mers of Rothale, Herbert le Woodward of Rothale. [12]

The Lord of Ruthall (under Sandford) seems to have had the name "John" for at least two generations. Besides numerous undated attestations of the first or second John, whom I cannot always distinguish, we have John de Rothal sitting on a great Forest Inquest at Sheriff-Hales in June, 1259. In 1267 we have John de Rocchale and his twelve fellow Jurors amerced one merk for false presentment. [13] In November, 1274, John de Rothale was foreman of the Jurors who held the Inquest of Munslow Hundred. [14]

In 1284 we are told concisely, and I think most accurately, that John de Rohale held the Vill of Rohale of Ralph de Sanford, and Ralph held it in capite of the King by service of a sixth part of one knight's fee. [15]

A Record of about three years later is not irreconcilable, which states that Ralph Sondford holds Rowthall in Munslow Hundred, and Sondford in Bradford Hundred, in capite sine medio; and that his service was to find one horseman at Montgomery for forty days, in time of war, at his own cost. [16]

[10] Supra, Vol. II, p. 127.
[11] Rot. Hundred, II, 71.
[12] Deeds in Harl. HS. 2063,- in possession of "Philip Forge, of Caynton, Aug. 4, 1656".
[13] Rot. Pip. 51 Hen. III, Salop.
[14] Rot. Hundred, II, 100.
[15] Kirby's Quest.
[16] Tenure Roll, in my possession.- The collective tenure in Sandford and Ruthall is more usually stated as by service of half a knight's fee (probably one-third on Sandford and one-sixth on Ruthall). It was necessary that Serjeantries, when liable to scutage (as Sandford's was), should stand at some definite feodal figure on the Books of the Exchequer: otherwise the basis, whereon to assess any scutage, would have been wanting. De Sandford always paid scutage on half a fee.


The Inquisition on the death of Ralph de Sandford, who died in 1307, says nothing of Seigneury at Ruthall, but the service on his Serjeantry was still the same, Sandford only being stated to be held thereby.

The Feodary of March, 1316, would seem to make one William Bastard Lord of Rothale in Munslow Hundred. [17] Of him I can say nothing further.

Castle-Holgate, formerly Stanton.

Domesday describes three Manors in Patintune Hundred by the same name,- Stantune. One of these we have already identified with Long-Staunton. The other two soon lost altogether the name of Stantune, [1] and united to form a great Manor called Holgate, after its first Norman Possessor.

Domesday speaks thus of the two Stantunes under notice:-

"The same Helgot holds Stantune (of the Earl). Chetel held it (in Saxon times), and was a free man. Here are II hides geldable. There is arable land for III ox-teams. Here is I Radman with half a team and I Serf and I Boor. The former value was 8s., the present is 3s. (per annum)".

"The same Helgot holds Stantune. Genust and AEluuard, Dunning and Elveva (held it in Saxon times) for four Manors, and were free, together with their lands. Here are III hides geldable. There is arable land for VI ox-teams. Here Helgot has a Castle and II ox-teams in demesne, and (he has) IV Serfs and III Villains and III Boors and I Frenchman, with three and a half teams. Here is a Church and a Priest. In time of King Edward (the Manor) was worth 18s. (per annum); now it is worth 25s.: (Helgot) found it waste".

[17] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 398.
[1] A farm here is however still known as Stanton-Holdgate farm.
[2] Domesday, fo. 258, b, 1.


The name of Helgo was known in Normandy long before the Conquest,- known in that very region of the Oximin which sent its Vicomte, Roger de Montgomery, to share in the spoils of Duke William's invasion. [3]

Helgot, perhaps a Scion of the house whose fortunes are told at length by Ordericus, was doubtless a Norman, and, as a Follower of Roger de Montgomery, held nineteen Shropshire Manors under that Earl at the time of Domesday. Fixing his residence at Stanton, he there founded that feudal Castle which once frowned subjection on the upper Valley of the Corve. The spot seems to have been selected without reference to any other consideration than the will of the Founder. It presented no feature of natural strength. It was far from the Welsh Border, where every Fortress built by the Normans was part of a system organized by the first Earl of Shrewsbury, and afterwards recognized and maintained by the Crown. But Helgot's Castle, however it may have disturbed the rich repose of Corve Dale, figures little on the page of History. The line of its Chieftains, though their sway may have been in rude contrast with the mild rule of the neighbouring Priory of St. Milburg, is hardly to be traced during the two Centuries which followed the Conquest. After that period had expired, not an acre of Helgot's Domesday Fief remained with his elder representatives.


HELGOT, the Founder of this house, was probably advanced in life at the time of Domesday. I have sometimes thought that Herbert, who is mentioned in that Record as the Under-tenant of Roger de Laci and of Helgot, was the eldest Son of the latter. [4] I have reason to change this opinion. That Helgot's eldest son was named Herbert, and that the said Herbert was of full age in 1086, has already appeared under Quatford. Helgot in that instance was surnamed "De Stanton", a fact so consonant with Domesday as to need no explanation. All that I shall further say of Helgot is that his grant of Monk-moor to Shrewsbury Abbey must have passed after Domesday, but probably in the same century, and perhaps as a closing act in the Grantor's life.

I have, under Quat, stated my belief that Helgot left three Sons, each of them favoured by King Henry I.

[3] Ordericus, p. 463.
[4] Supra, Vol. I, p. 111. I think that Herbert, the Under-tenant of Domesday, was Ancestor of De Furchis.


HERBERT FITZ HELGOT was the eldest, and of him, under that or some other name, I proceed to speak. He was one of the five Barons (for I can call them no less) who, between the years 1108 and 1113, were Assessors to King Henry I, and his Viceroy when the latter settled judicially the right of Shrewsbury Abbey to a Morville Prebend. [5]

On October 17, 1109, a great Council of the realm was held at Nottingham. Its chief business was in regard to the recently created See of Ely, to which Hervey, late Bishop of Bangor, had been appointed.

The King's Charter to Hervey, which must necessarily have passed shortly before the said Council, is preserved. The King was then a Guest of Herbert fitz Helgot, at whose Castle the document is dated. [6]

I have often spoken of the Great Court held by King Henry's Viceroy at Castle Helgot about A.D. 1115. It is very singular that among the influential laymen who were present Herbert fitz Helgot, though certainly living, does not demonstrably appear. But the third lay-witness of the Viceroy's Charter is written as "Herbert de Clive" (or "de Cline"). [7] He, I think, was identical with Herbert fitz Helgot, but to account satisfactorily for his being described as "De Clive" I am unable.

Henry I's great Charter to Shrewsbury Abbey can be shown to have passed at Westminster about the end of May, 1121. It is attested by constant attendants at Court as well as by persons of local notoriety, amongst others by Herbert fitz Helgot. The latter had previously been a benefactor to the Abbey. He had given thereto his Manor of Norton (in Hales), and, what is more to our present purpose, he had given "the Church of Stanton with all the tithes of himself and of his Knights, and with all things which pertained to the same Church". [8]

It was apparently after the year 1121 that Murieldis, wife of Herbert fitz Helgot, added a carucate of land in Stanton to her husband's previous gifts to Shrewsbury Abbey. Certainly it was between the years 1121 and 1126 that Herbert and his whole family united in a formal act of confirmation to that House, which I must give as it is related in the Chartulary,- "Herbert, son of Helgot,

[5] Vol. I, p. 32.
[6] apud Castrum Helgoti in Scalopeseyra. Monasticon, I, 482, Num. xvii.
[7] Pat. 22 Edw. III, p. 3, memb. 34.
[8] Salop Chartulary, No. 35. By the "Church of Stanton" is meant the Church of Holgate, not that of Long Stanton.


being unwilling that after his death any claim should be made to those things which his Father or himself had given to this Church, although he had confirmed those things in the King's Charter (that of Henry I), yet wished that his Sons should confirm the same by their own proper concession. He sent them therefore with their pious Mother to this Church (the Abbey), viz. Eutropius, who was destined to be his Father's Heir, with his other Brothers, Nicholas and Herbert, who, their declarations being taken in the Chapter-House [9] and the grants of their Father and Grandfather being allowed (by them), holding in their own hands the holy Gospels, offered on the Altar of St. Peter the things previously conceded, before many witnesses.- These were the Church of the Castle, which (Castle) is called Stanton, with certain land which their Mother, on her part, had given in the same vill"; also Norton juxta Lime, and lastly, Moor, as given by Helgot their Grandfather. [10]

Another Charter of Shrewsbury Abbey states the grant of Herbert's wife to have been land of 4s. annual value; [11] and a third Charter mentions the Lady's name, Murieldis, and also says that Herbert gave a hide of land at Stanton to the Abbey, [12] but whether this hide was given as an appurtenance of the Church, or independently, does not appear.

To this same period (1121-1127) we may attribute that existing Charter of Herbert to Herlewyn de Butailles, which I have already set forth.- The Grantor styles himself "Herebert fitz Holegod, Lord of the Castle", and it will now be seen that "De Castello" was afterwards adopted as the name of the family.

EUTROPIUS FITZ HERBERT, if he lived to succeed his Father, of which I have no evidence, seems at all events to have died without issue. His Brethren, Nicholas and Herbert, must I think be named above in an order contrary to that of their respective ages. I proceed to speak of-

HERBERT DE CASTELLO as the third Baron of this line. Before 1138, as I have already indicated, this Herbert had endowed the Church of Billingsley. [13] I have also shown how, in 1138 or 1139, he is followed by Nicholas, his Brother, in attesting Philip de Belmeis' grant to Buildwas Abbey; how also he attests, a few years later, another Charter of the same Philip, who was in fact his Tenant at Meadowley. [14] Whatever the political line taken by Herbert de

[9] Acceptis oracionibus in capitulo.
[10] Salop Chartulary, No. 1.
[11] Monasticon, III, 519, Num. ii.
[12] Monasticon, III. 523, Num. xv.
[13] Vol. I, p. 66.
[14] Vol. II, pp. 203, 205.


Castello during the usurpation of Stephen, I do not find that it injured him in estate or eventually affected his credit with King Henry II. In 1156, the second year of Henry's reign, half of a debt of ten merks due to the Crown was made payable, by special bounty of the King, to Nicholas de Castello, [15]- Brother, I presume, of the Lord of Holgate.

In 1165 Herbert de Castello, like other Tenants in capite, having received the King's order to return a list of his Knights'-Fees, both old and new, does so, addressing the King as "his most dear Lord", and bidding him "health and faithful service". His return was of five Knights'-Fees, of old feoffment, and each of those Knights had done homage and allegiance to the King. [16]

At the same time Hugh de Laci as a Tenant in capite reported that Herebert de Castellis held under him two knights'-fees of new feoffment. [17] These had been acquired certainly since the death of Henry I, probably therefore during the reign of Stephen, and while Laci's Barony was an Escheat. I have before noticed how at the same period Herbert de Castello was associated with other Tenants of Laci's Fief. [18] Such are the phaenomena which, in default of further evidence, hardly suffice to indicate a fact, and if they only suggest an idea, enough has been said about them for the present.

At Michaelmas 1171 Herbert de Castello had been associated with Engelard de Stratton as Visor of repairs at Shrawardine Castle; in 1173 these Colleagues had discharged a similar duty at Shrewsbury Castle; and in 1174 a further memorandum of the latter service is entered on the Pipe Ro11. [19]

In 1176 and 1177 he appears on another list, that namely of men whose fidelity to the Crown had not endured through a period of disturbance, but whose punishment purported to be for the overt act of forest-trespass. Herbert was fined by the King himself five merks in Herefordshire in 1176, and forty merks in Shropshire in 1177. [19]

Herbert de Castello died about the end of the year 1189, for the earliest fine during the fiscal year, which ended Michaelmas 1190, was that of his widow for her marrrage. [19] It was twenty merks, and probably exempted her from any second marriage to which she

[15] Rot. Pip. 2 Hen. II, Salop, p. 43.
[16] Liber Niger, I, 146, 147.
[17] Ibidem, p. 164. These Fees, being of new feoffment, indicate that the Herbert who held under Laci at Domesday was not the Ancestor of Herbert de Castello: had they so descended, they would have been of old feoffment.
[18] Vol. II, p. 206.
[19] Rot. Pip. de eisdem annis.


[For pedigree, see pdf.]


might have been constrained by the Crown both as Widow of a Tenant in capite, and as, in her own right, heiress of the Barony of Pulverbatch. Before Michaelmas, 1193, she herself was deceased without issue, so that two Shropshire Baronies passed about the same period to collateral heirs. Of Emma de Pulverbatch and her succession I have spoken before, and it is no part of our present subject.

The Heir to Herbert de Castello's Barony had to be sought amongst his kindred. The matter was unsettled, or a settlement thereof was still questioned ten years after his decease. The dispute lay between that family of De Girros, of which I have so often spoken, and the descendants of one Richard de la Mare. Both De Girros and De la Mare, as connections of the House of Helgot, had held large Feoffments in the Barony during the reign of Henry II, and before the Barony itself became vacant. It is remarkable that no knights'-service was reserved on either of their Tenures. De Girros' Fee was much the larger of the two; nevertheless all evidence favours the assumption that the posterity of Richard de la Mare were the nearest heirs to the Barony: of him and them I therefore proceed to speak.-

RICHARD DE LA MARE, who possibly married a Sister of Herbert de Castello, held Uffington under the said Herbert either in the reign of Stephen or early in that of Henry II. Before 1172 he made several grants in Uffington and Pimley to Haughmond Abbey, and in one or all of these he was joined by his son and presumptive heir, Robert.

ROBERT DE LA MARE had succeeded his Father at Uffington before the year 1172, at least his attestation of a deed, which I shall hereafter quote under Eaton Mascott, implies as much. I have given a Charter under Beobridge of date about 1186 in which Robert de la Mare and Robert de Girros attest the act of Herbert de Castello. Their names, occurring in this order and under such circumstances, are illustrative, if not significant, of the genealogical fact which we are endeavouring to establish. Robert de la Mare is mentioned in other Charters of this period. He confirmed to Haughmond Abbey his Father's grants in Uffington and Pimley, of which I shall say more hereafter. I should now notice a Charter whereby he gave to that Abbey, with the body of Aliza his wife, the Mill of Bretham. The witnesses of this Deed were Walter Abbot of Lilleshall, Herbert de Castello and Robert de Girros, [20]-

[20] Haughmond Chartulary: Tit. Bretham Mill.


names which prove it to have passed between 1174 and 1190. Bretham I take to have been in Hampshire, [21] and the Mill probably came to Robert de la Mare with his wife Aliza, but who she was I cannot say, nor is this the place to investigate so incidental a question.

At the time of Herbert de Castello's death, Robert de la Mare had left or was leaving England, for I cannot but conclude that the Crusade in which he joined was that undertaken in 1188. Whether Robert de la Mare accompanied the English contingent in that year, or went under the banner of Coeur de Lion in 1190, we do not know. More surely he was one of those who left Palestine in the Autumn of 1192, when Richard I abandoned the enterprise. The story of the King's homeward journey is well known. Robert de la Mare would seem to me to have taken the ordinary route, that is, to have sailed with the fleet which escorted the Queen safely to Sicily. He seems further to have landed in Italy, meditating, doubtless, an overland passage to England. Arriving at Benevento, he was there seized with mortal sickness, and his last act was to grant his whole vill of Uffington to the Abbey of Haughmond. This he did by giving investiture thereof, in trust, to Sir Alan de la Mare, his Cousin and companion, and by sealing a deed, in which the above particulars of his illness are recited, and which was attested by the Preceptor and one of the Brethren of a House of Knights Hospitallers at Benevento.
[22] It may be presumed that the intelligence of Robert de la Mare's death reached England early in 1193. That may well be the date of a Roll of Fines, in which "Agneta de la Mare" is said to "fine at the discretion of the Lord Chancellor, [23] for her relief of the land which had belonged to her Father, Robert de la Mare, of whom she was the nearest heir". [24]

[21] William de Warblinton, who was Lord of Shirfield, near Odiham, in Hampshire, afterwards gave to Haughmond Abbey a rent of 10s. in Shirfield, in exchange for Bretham Mill. The exchange is attested by Thomas Mauduit, Robert Mauduit, and Walter de la Mare (Chartulary Tit. Shirefelde). It took place in the first half of the thirteenth Century. Some very ancient but long-enduring connection between the families of Mauduit, De la Mare, and Warblinton, is shown in other Counties and other instances, but the recital would be too fragmentary.
[22] Chartulary, fo. 217. I shall give this deed in extenso under Uffington. Its surpassing interest will excuse the repetition.
[23] "Finivit in misericordia domini Cancellarii",- an expression minutely consistent with the cotemporary absence of King Richard. The Chancellor in question was William Longchamp, Bishop of Ely.
[24] Placita Roll. No. 12, m. 1 dorso.- This Roll is one of miscellaneous contents, but relates apparently to transactions during Richard I's absence from England. It is labelled as an "Essoign Roll of the time of King John",- a mistake both as to its date and nature.


AGNES DE LA MARE, sole daughter and heir of Robert de la Mare, was at this time (1193) a Widow, but the Mother of at least three infant children, sons of her late husband, Robert Mauduit. Most of the above particulars are furnished by the Deed in which, while still a Widow, she confirmed her late Father's bequest of Uffington to Haughmond Abbey. Richard I confirmed the gift of Robert de la Mare and Agnes his daughter to Haughmond, on April 25, 1194, the King being then at Portsmouth. [25]

Before Michaelmas, 1194, Agnes de la Mare had remarried to Ralph de Arderne, a Justiciar of that period, and sometime Sheriff of Herefordshire. It seems to be quite clear that in her right he had seizin of the Barony of Holgate, though he had not the wardship of the two sons of Robert Mauduit, nor custody of the lands of which the latter had died seized in his own right.

When, in 1194, the Scutage for King Richard's Redemption was levied in Shropshire at the rate of 20s. on each Knight's Fee, Ralph de Arden was assessed at 100s., "scutage of the fees of Herbert de Castello", which, as we have seen, were five in number. Ralph de Arden had however quittance of the whole charge by special order of the King, "because he was then with the King in the army of Normandy". [26]

Agnes, the wife of Ralph de Ardern, was of a different mind to Agnes, the Widow of Robert Mauduit, in regard to her father's grant to Haughmond. However, by a fine, levied Feb. 14, 1195, she and her second husband quitted all claim to Uffington, receiving forty merks from the Abbot. [27]

In 1195 and 1197 Ralph de Ardene was again assessed by the Sheriff of Shropshire, to the second and third scutages of King Richard, and at 100s. in each instance. [28]

In 1199 I apprehend that Agnes de la Mare was deceased, for Hugh de Bosco, who was already Guardian of her son Thomas Mauduit, accounted in that year for the scutage assessed on the Barony of Holgate. [28]

It is now necessary to turn back and say something of the first husband of Agnes de la Mare.-

ROBERT MAUDUIT, of Warminster, was doubtless a Cadet of that fortunate House, whose elder Representative for many generations

[25] Harleian MSS. 2188, fo. 123.
[26] Rot. Pip. 6 Ric. 1, Salop.
[27] Chartulary: Tit. Uffinton.
[28] Rot. Pip. de eisdem annis.


inherited the Chamberlainship of the King's Exchequer, and which is technically known to Genealogists as the House of Mauduit of Hanslape.

The elder House of Mauduit had many offshoots, and two at least of these minor branches attained at one time or other to some distinction. Warned by the errors, and much perplexed by the omissions of former Writers, I will venture to say but little of Robert Mauduit of Warminster; and something of that little must be of a negative character. He was not then one of the four sons of William Mauduit, the Chamberlain, who died about the year 1170, and yet the eldest of those sons had the name of Robert, and having been Chamberlain to King Henry II, died before 1181, leaving no issue. His Successor was apparently his next Brother, William.

In speaking therefore of Robert Mauduit, husband of Agnes de la Mare, I shall be careful to mention only that which must apply to him in clear distinction from his namesake and probable relation,- Robert Mauduit, the Chamberlain. It was, I suppose, the husband of Agnes de la Mare who, as we are told, was Sheriff of Wiltshire for the year ending Michaelmas, 1180, and thenceforward till Michaelmas, 1185, as also for the half-year ending Easter, 1187. [29] About this time Robert Mauduit was Fermor of the Wiltshire Manors of Bretford and Cumbe, and an arrear (10. 6s. 7d.) on that account is charged against him at Michaelmas, 1189. At the latter period he was seized, by grant of the King, of the great Wiltshire Manor of Warminster, whose value to the Royal Exchequer was estimated at 40. blanch. [30] It appears by the Pipe Roll of the following year (1190) that this acquisition cost him a fine of 200. Of this fine he had paid 3. 2s. 4d. at the Exchequer, and, apparently, 33. 6s. 8d. to the Chancellor (Longchamp). [31]

At Michaelmas, 1191, his debts are charged against him without allowing the above sum of 33. 6s. 8d., or any further instalment,

[29] This is the substance of Sir William Dugdale's account of his Shrievalty (Baronage I, 399, b). Fuller's list of Wiltshire Sheriffs would make Robert Malduit to have been Sheriff or Deputy from the year ending Michaelmas, 1181, to that ending Michaelmas, 1187. The combined accounts probably indicate the proximate truth as far as we need it here, and I have not thought it worth while to consult the original Pipe-Rolls on the point. I may however mention that neither Fuller nor Dugdale accurately understood the chronological system of the Pipe- Rolls. Antiquaries of the nineteenth century (e.g. Mr. Stapleton and Mr. Hunter) have eliminated the true theory.
[30] Rot. Pip. 1 Ric. I, pp. 171, 178, Wilts.
[31] Rot. Pip. 2 Ric. I, Wilts.


and the Pipe-Roll [32] states summarily that he was dead. Thus it appears that Herbert de Castello, Emma his wife, Robert de la Mare, and Robert Mauduit, all died within a space of five years, and this circumstance naturally leads to some confusion in the Records of the period. Nevertheless the main facts are quite apparent.-

THOMAS MAUDUIT, the eldest son of Robert, was probably under ten years of age at his Father's death. In 1194 he was impleaded by William Revell, who claimed the Advowson of Warminster in right of his wife. [33]

After King Richard's return from captivity, and before Michaelmas, 1195, Hugh de Bosco fined two hundred merks with the King for custody of the land, and marriage of the heirs, of Robert Mauduit, till they should be of age. His Sureties (twelve in number) were headed by Geoffrey fitz Piers and Earl Roger Bigot. He had paid fifty merks already to the Sheriff of Shropshire, and was to pay the balance to the Sheriff of Hampshire. [34]

About September, 1199, Hugh de Bosco compounds with the King (John) for the debts of himself and Robert Mauduit (deceased). He will pay five hundred merks at fixed periods in lieu of five hundred and thirty-eight merks stated to be due. [34]

The first scutage of King John was assessed in 1199 at two merks on each knight's fee. Only ten merks were charged in Shropshire on Hugh de Bosco and John de Kilpec, viz. on five fees of Herbert de Castello. This was inaccurate.- The fees intended to be assessed

[32] Rot. Curiae Regis, I, 63. This suit was still pending in 1199, when Hugh de Bosco (Thomas Mauduit's Guardian) was the Defendant. (See Rot. Curiae Regis II, 54.)
[33] Rot. Pip. 7 Ric. I, Salop.
[34] Oblata, pp. 27, 28. Hugh de Bosco waa at this time Sheriff of Hampshire, and had many other ferms under the Crown, so that it is difficultto say how this debt of five hundred and thirty-eight merks arose. Robert Mauduit's debt, when properly balanced, was 173. 17s. 7d., or about two hundred and sixty-one merks: but to show how very unsystematically these accounts were kept, I should state that on the Chancellor's Roll of 1201, Hugh de Bosco is not only charged with his fine of five hundred merks, but with two debts of Robert Mauduit,- both erroneously computed, and amounting to more than 200. Again, two Writs-Close of Feb. 21 and 23, 1207, compute Robert Mauduit's original fine for Warminster at 200., of which he is said to have paid 33. 6s. 8d. only in his lifetime, whereas he had paid that sum (fifty merks) to Longchamp, and 3. 2s. 4d. besides. The Writs proceed to charge the supposed balance thus,- viz. 66. 13s. 9d.. against Thomas Mauduit, the Heir, and 100. against Hugh de Bosco, who had had custody of the said Heir. The Sheriff of Kent was further enjoined to compel payment by seizure of Hugh de Bosco's lands (Claus. I, 78). It would seem then that Hugh de Bosco's fine of 1199 was nugatory, and that the whole account had bwen re-opened.


were those of Castle Holgate and Pulverbatch collectively, and were at least six in number, whereof five were Holgate fees. Nevertheless Hugh de Bosco profited by the confusion, paid only six merks where he ought to have paid ten, and left two merks charged against himself and Kilpec jointly. Kilpec paid two merks. [35]

In October, 1199, Thomas Mauduit is set down as suing Robert de Giros for land in La Clie (Cleo St. Margaret). Also Robert de Giros essoigns himself in a "plea of appeal", where Thomas Mauduit and Hugh de Bosco appear, intelligibly enough, as joint prosecutors. [36] Both causes were adjourned to November, and then Hugo de Bosco and Robert de Girros are mentioned as parties to two suits, viz. of novel disseizin and of injury inflicted (injuriae illatae), which, at request of the said parties, were adjourned to Easter Term, 1200. [37] I hear nothing more of either of these suits, but in April, 1200, an old Charter of Herbert de Castello and his wife Emma wao exhibited as evidence in another suit by the Master of the Knights Templars, but the cause could not progress because the "lands of said Herbert and Emma were in the King's hand, and there was contention between the heirs, and so the Master knew not whom he could call to warranty of the said Charter". [38]

At Michaelmas, 1201, Hugh de Bosco is entered on the Wiltshire Pipe-Roll as holding "Warminster and its Hundred with the heir of Robert Mauduit", that is, as part of the said heir's inheritance. At the same time Hugh de Bosco has quittance, under Writ Royal, for the second scutage of King John assessed on the Tenants in capite of Shropshire. [39] He was similarly acquitted of King John's third scutage, levied in 1202; but on the list of the fourth scutage, in 1203, his name only appears, without any charge annexed or any note of payment or acquittance.

About this time Thomas Mauduit came of age, for on the fifth, sixth, and seventh scutages of John, levied respectively in 1204, 1205, and 1206, he stands acquitted by name in regard of his Shropshire Fief.

About August, 1207, Thomas Mauduit was one of the chief men in Hampshire who stood Sureties for Roger fitz Adam, late Sheriff

[35] Rot. Pip. 1 John, Salop. The two merks left in arrear continued so in 1209; I do not find that they were ever paid.
[36] Placita, Mich. Term, 1 John, No. 9, memb. 10, and No. 10, memb. 1 and 8. In one instance Hugh de Bosco is called Hugh de Nemore.
[37] Ibidem, No. 10, m. 16 dorso.
[38] Rot. Curiae Regis, II, 206. It seems by a later step in this suit that the real person wanted in the case was the heir of Emma de Pulverbatch.
[39] Rot. Canc. 3 John, pp. 223, 128.


of that County, who fined one thousand merks for the King's good will. Mauduit's undertaking for 6. 13s. 4d. is followed by that of William de Warblinton for 5., [40] and this is one instance out of many where the two names occur together in relation to Hampshire. In 1210 both accompanied King John to Ireland; and we learn from the Praestita-Roll of that year, how the King accommodated Mauduit with several loans of three or four merks at Pembroke, Carrickfergus, and Dublin, in June, July, and August. [41]

A Shropshire Feodary of the year 1211 perpetuates the confusion between the Fiefs of Castle Holgate and Pulverbatch, saying that Thomas Mauduit, Baron, and William de Cantilupe hold them in capite and owe the service of five knights; [42] whereas such service was due on the Castle-Holgate Barony singly.

The Scutage of Poitou, assessed in 1214 at the rate of three merks (2.) per fee, is more accurate as regards Mauduit's Shropshire Barony. He is expressly said "to owe 10. for the Fees which had been Herbert de Castello's". It is added, that subsequent to the assessment he had quittance by a Writ Royal. [43] The reason is apparent from another Record. On May 26, 1214, he appears as personally serving in Poitou, and has Letters-Close empowering him to receive himself the Scutage due from his Knights. [44]

In 1216 Thomas Mauduit joined the Barons' party against John. On Sept. 1 the King grants his land of Warminster to Ralph Gernun during the King's pleasure. On Sept. 13 Castle Holgate is similarly given to Hugh de Mortimer, of Wigmore. Nor did Mauduit return to his allegiance on the accession of Henry III, for on March 16, 1217, all his lands in Shropshire, Hampshire, and other Bailiwicks are given to Robert de Ferrars, wherewith to support himself in the King's service, and during the King's pleasure; but on the 23rd July following, reference being made to the Rolls of King John, it was found that Warminster had been previously granted to Ralph Gernun, and to him the Sheriff of Wiltshire was ordered to give seisin thereof. [45]

On Sept. 14, 1217, Thomas Mauduit, having returned to his allegiance, is reinstated in his possessions. [46] In 1218 he is assessed to the first scutage of Henry III, namely ten merks on five fees formerly Herbert de Castello's. In 1221 he was exempted from the

[40] Oblata and Fines, pp. 389, 448.
[41] Rot. de Praestito, 177; 205, 220.
[42] Testa de Nevill, p. 55.
[43] Rot. Pip. 16 John, Salop.
[44] Rot. Claus. I, 200, 201.
[45] Ibidem, pp. 285, 287, 300, 315.
[46] Claus. I, 321,- where for "Suffolk" read "Suthants".


Scutage of Biham in regard of his personal service, and had the usual authority, dated Feb. 19, to receive his own scutage. [47] In 1222 he had license to hold a weekly market on Thursdays at Holgate, until the King should be of age; for which he fined five merks and a palfrey. [48] In 1224 he appears as having been exempted by Writ-Royal from the Scutages of Montgomery and Bedford. [49] In December, 1225, he occurs as one of the Commissioners who had to collect the tax of the fifteenth in the Counties of Salop and Stafford. [50] His cotemporary office as Constable of Brug Castle has been already particularized. [51] In 1229 he was assessed ten merks to the Scutage of Keri, viz. on five knights'-fees in Shropshire, but was afterwards exempted. So also in 1230 was he acquitted of the Scutage of Brittany, and had letters of protection dated April 20, at Portsmouth, for so long as he should be over sea with the King. [52] Again, in 1231 he had exemption from the Scutage of Poitou. In 1231-2 he had a grant of Free-Warren for his Wiltshire Manor of Warminster. [53] In 1232 his five Shropshire Fees are discharged of the Scutage of Elvin.

In September, 1235, and Easter, 1236, Thomas Mauduit, of Castle Holgate, paid by the hand of Robert de Aula, Seneschal of Castle Holgate, his quota of the aid then levied on marriage of the King's Sister. He was assessed, be it observed, on five and a quarter fees of old feoffment, and he paid accordingly ten and a half merks. [54]

About the year 1240 we have three nearly cotemporary, but discordant, statements as to the Fees of Thomas Mauduit's Barony. [55] Each list specifies in effect the five tenures which constituted the Barony in 1165, but one of the component fees (Bouldon) is reduced by the fourth part of a Knight's Fee. Also in addition to the Fees of 1165, we have in these lists the tenure of William de Castle Holgate variously estimated at a whole fee and at half a fee; and one list adds Belswardine as held by service of half a fee. The general conclusion is that the services due to the Barony had increased since 1165 in consequence of more recent feoffments, but this net increase was variously stated at one-fourth or at three-fourths of a Knight's Fee.

[47] Rot. Pip. 6 Hen. III, Salop. Claus. I, 475.
[48] Dugdale's Baronage, p. 599. Rot. Pip. 7 Hen. III, Salop.
[49] Rot. Pip. 8 Hen. III, Salop.
[50] Claus. II, 147.
[51] Supra, Vol. I, pp. 275, 277.
[52] Pat. 14 Hen. III, dorso.
[53] Calendar Rot. Cart. p. 48.
[54] Testa de Nevill, pp. 61, 60. Hugh de Kilpec paid at the same time two merks, i.e. his scutage on one fee,- that of Pulverbatch.
[55] Testa de Nevill, pp. 46, 48, 50.


Thomas Mauduit, being, I suppose, little short of sixty years of age, excused himself from the unfortunate expedition which, in 1242, Henry III conducted into France. His absence was purchased by a Fine of 80. over and above his Scutage. [56] And shortly after this he died, being succeeded, as one Record suggests, [57] first by his son Robert, secondly by his son Thomas, and thirdly by his son William, whose two elder Brothers had died without issue. The Fine and Originalia Rolls make no mention of the two elder sons, Robert and Thomas, but treat William Mauduit's succession as immediate to his Father, Thomas. The King took William's homage on June 10, 1244, and ordered the Sheriffs of Shropshire, Hampshire, and Wiltshire to give him seizin of his inheritance in those Counties. [58]

I shall have other opporttmities of noticing certain grants of Thomas Mauduit to Shrewsbury and Haughmond Abbeys. He seems to have been buried at Haughmond, for by his last Will and Testament he bequeathed, with his body, to the Canons of that House, 20s. rent arising ott of his Mill of Castle Holgate, wherewith the Canons were to celebrate his anniversary. His Executors, Nicholas de Haversham, Cecilia Mauduit, and John, Rector of the Church of Dene, certified this grant, [59] which was soon followed up and increased by a Charter of-

WILLIAM MAUDUIT, who, styling himself "Lord of Castle Holgate", grants to the Canons the whole of the said Mill, its appurtenances and suits, and all facilities for repairing the same; also the messuage and land which Gilbert, the Miller, held in the time of his Father. [60] He further, by letters-patent, informs Robert de Bouldon, Constable of Castle Holgate, of this Grant, and directs him accordingly; and the Constable acknowledges the receipt of his Lord's Mandate in an instrument dated A.D. 1248.

In 1245 the Aid for marriage of the King's Daughter was assessed at 100s., or 1. on each of the five reputed fees of this Barony. [61] In 1246 the Scutage of Gannok was sssessed on five fees of this Barony, but the assessment was excused by Writ Royal. [62]

[56] Dugdale's Baronage, I, 399, quoting Rot. Pip. 26 Hen. III, Wilts.
[57] Salop Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 2. The statement was that of William Mauduit himself, but Robert and Thomas can hardly have survived their Father.
[58] Rot. Fin. I, 418. Originalia, I, 6.
[59] Chartulary: Tit. Holgate.
[60] Chartulary, ibidem. Witnesses: Sir Peter de Say, Sir John de Muklenes, Sir Elias de la Mare, Peter de Dudemoneston, Richard de Midelhope, Robert de Gyros, John Mauduit, John, Parson of Dene, etc.
[61] Rot. Pip. 29 Hen. III, Salop.- The assessment is charged on Thomas Mauduit, a usual mistake at this period.
[62] Rot. Pip. 30 Hen. III, Salop.


On Nov. 8, 1253, the King being at St. Machary, in Gascony, granted to William Mauduit, of Warminster (who was doubtless there also), a yearly Fair at Warminster, and a weekly Market on Thursdays at "le Holegod". [63] In 1254 William Mauduit was returned as one of those who held lands of 20. annual value and upwards in the Counties of Salop and Stafford. In the same year his Barony was assessed at five Fees to the Aid for knighting Prince Edward. [64]

In 1255 the Munslow Jurors reported that William Mauduit was holding Castle Holegod, with its appurtenances, of the King. It was reputed to be five hides, and so had not varied from the Domesday measurement of the two Stantons which constituted the Manor. "William Mauduit had a Franchise", said these Jurors: "he did suit to the County, but not the Hundred, nor did he pay stretward nor motfee:" [65] his Franchise is elsewhere particularized. He had gallows, held pleas of bloodshed, and hue and cry; had assize of beer, and was entitled (for all causes within his liberty) to a Writ of Right, i.e. to a Writ-Close empowering him to try them in his own Court. [65]

It was at the County Assizes of January, 1256, that William Mauduit, having a suit about Oxenbold with the Prior of Wenlock, alleged his title to have descended as follows, viz. from Robert de la Mare, living in the time of Henry II, to Agnes, his daughter and heir; from Agnes to Thomas, her son and heir; from Thomas to Robert and Thomas his sons, who died successively without issue; from them to William, their Brother, the present Plaintiff. [66]

It was apparently within the next two years that William Mauduit alienated Castle Holgate, and indeed ail his Shropshire Barony, to Richard Plantagenet, Earl of Cornwall, Brother of King Henry III, better known by his foreign titles of "King of Almagne" or "King of the Romans".

Though the Baronial House of Mauduit now vanished from Shropshire History, [67] I imagine that the line continued elsewhere for many generations. [68] But adhering to our proper subject and

[63] Rot. Vascon, 37, 381Ien. III, m. 16.
[64] Rot. Pip. 38 Hen. III, Salop. Thomas Mauduit's name is again entered.
[65] Rot. Hund. II, 71, 72.
[66] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 2.
[67] In July, 1257, William Mauduit has letters of protection whilst serving the King in the parts of Wales, but it is worth noting that he is styled " William Mauduit, of Warminster" (Patent, 41 Hen. III).
[68] Vide Dugdale's Baronage, p. 399, col. 2, for some further account of Mauduit of Warminster. William Mauduit's immediate successor is not noticed by Dugdale. It was Thomas Mauduit, who in August, 1270, being about to accompany Prince Edward to Palestine, has license to put out at ferm his demesnes of Warminster (Pat. 54 Hen. III).


the vast purchase (for such I suppose it was) of the Earl of Cornwall, I proceed to say that the latter forthwith conveyed his acquisition to the Order of Knights Templars, who had a House at Lidley in this County. What was the precise nature of this conveyance I cannot learn from any specific document: its general character is apparent from the results. In 1260, when the Scutage of Wales was assessed at 2. per fee on the Tenants in capite of Shropshire, among those who had quittance by Writ-Royal was the "King of Almagne, in respect of five fees of Thomas Mauduit". A parenthetical note implies that the Master of the Templars profited by, or was the person concerned in, this quittance. [69]

In 1274 the Jurors of Munslow Hundred reported how William Mauduit once held the Manor of Castle Holegod of the King in capite, by Barony; how he alienated it to the King of Almagne, by whose subsequent concession the Templars were then holding it. They further reported how the King of Almagne had withdrawn the suit of Bouldon, Allaunston, Stevinton, and Esfeld from Munslow Hundred. [70] The Vills in question (except Ashfield, of which I have spoken before) are known to have been members of the Barony of Holgate. Similar complaints were made in other Hundreds as to Holgate Fees, whose Suits had been attracted to the Castle.

Another presentment of the Munslow Jurors was that the Templars at Castle Holegod had held trial in cases of unjust distress [71] for eighteen years past. This proves the date of their introduction to the Barony as about 1256. The franchise thus exercised by them seems to have belonged rather to their Order than to the Fief of which they happened to be seized.

The prestige and influence of the Templars was at this period (1274) on the decline. There were symptoms of that decay which early in the next century rendered their total suppression an easy task. Powerless, as it would seem, to redress their own injuries, an aggravated insult offered to their Order was reported by the same Munslow Jurors whom I have quoted above.- "As the bailiffs of the Templars of Castle Holegod were conveying six quarters of oats towards Ludlow, and were passing near Corfham, there came John,

[69] Rot. Pip. 44 Hen. III, Salop.
[70] Rot. Hund. II, 100, 101.
[71] Tenent placitum de namio vetito. This Suit was the remedy of a person whose cattle, etc. had been wrongfully impounded, or impounded in some place not warranted by prescription or other right.


the Beadle, and other bailiffs of Sir John Gifford, and seized both the corn and the horses (which carried it). They then conveyed the oats on to some demesne-land of their Lord, and there and then sowed the same, harrowing the ground with the said horses".- Sir John Gifford of Corfham Castle was, as we know from other sources, a man of the most unscrupulous violence; but go back fifty years, and a company of such Barons would hardly have ventured thus to insult a College of Knights Templars.

Richard Plantagenet, King of the Romans, dying in 1272, was succeeded in the Earldom of Cornwall by his Son Edmund. A document of the year 1276 shows the Master of the Templars paying to the said Earl Edmund a certain Ferm for the Barony of Holgate. [72] I do not know that an otherwise inaccurate Inquisition of Feb. 1, 1283, which I have before quoted, [73] and which connects the Master of the Templars with the Honour of Castle Holgate, is good evidence that the Templars' tenure was still existent. The Feodary of 1284 shows Robert Burnel, Bishop of Bath and Wells, holding the Manor of Castle Holgate of Edmund, Earl of Cornwall, by service of three Knights'-Fees; the Earl holding of the King. [74] We know from the same and from other Records that this alleged Tenure of the Manor of Holgate involved a Seigneury over all the Fees which constituted the Barony.

This then was the greatest of Bishop Burnell's great acquisitions. Castle Holgate may be considered as the Caput of the whole Honour which he left to his Heirs, and which made them Barons of the Realm. This revolution in Shropshire Tenures was of a new kind. It was not brought about by the previous forfeiture of the Barons of Holgate. It was not founded on any remote claim of hereditary right. [75] It was the supremacy of genius asserting its place against the laws and prejudices of Feudalism, laws as yet only partially relaxed, prejudices hardly yet shaken. Robert Burnell, the great Chancellor of King Edward I., died on Oct. 25, 1292. I shall often have to refer to the particulars of his territorial acquisitions.

[72] Inquisitions, 4 Edw. I, No. 69. Earl Edmund owed the Queen five hundred marks. The Sheriff of Shropshire is ordered to secure fifty marks thereof out of the rent due from the Master of the Templars for the ferm of Castle Holegod.
[73] Supra, p. 28, note 23.
[74] Kirby's Quest.
[75] Bishop Burnell was of a Shropshire family, respectable as regarded station, but nothing more; something much less as regarded the character of its representative in the generation preceding his own. This person was a Felon and an Outlaw. A Genealogy of the Burnells, improvised after their ascendency and too credulously adopted by Dugdale, is only a tissue of fabrications.


The biography of Chancellors is no longer matter for a County Historian.

I now proceed to quote the Inquisition which, after the death of Bishop Burnell, took account of his Manor at Holgate.- In the first place, his tenure of Castle Holgate was a tenure in capite, that is, the Earl of Cornwall's mediate interest had been done away with; in the next place, it was held by service of two Knights (not three as before), in time of war, at Montgomery. The Capital Messuage and garden were valued at half a merk per annum; the Old Castle could not be valued because it yielded nothing. A Dove-House, worth 40d., three carucates of demesne, worth 6., six acres of meadow, worth 12s., a private (separalis) pasture, worth 2s., five acres of wood, worth 12d. per annum, the rents of Free Tenants yielding 17s. 4d., the rents of Customary Tenants and Cottars yielding 5. 9s. 4d., the Pleas and Perquisites of Court yielding 3., and a Water Mill (held of Roger de Bradeleye) yielding 2. per annum;- these were the constituents of the Manor of Holgate. [76]

Philip Burnell, Nephew and Heir of the Bishop, died in 1294. The Inquest on his death limits the service due to the Crown on Castle Holgate to that of two horsemen (homines equitantes), who were to serve at Montgomery for forty days. Another Inquest shows that at the time of his decease half his Manor of Holgate was in the hands of certain Merchants of Lucca, whose claims on his estate shall be more fully set forth under Abdon. [77] I quit this subject merely remarking that on the death of Edward Burnell, in 1315, Castle Holgate was stated to be held of the King's Honour of Montgomery Castle, but by service of finding a single serving horseman for forty days at the Castle of Montgomery, in time of war. [78]

Of the UNDER-TENANTS at Holgate I can say very little. Probably the estate was held chiefly in Demesne by the Lords of the Fee, whether Barons or Templars. William fitz John, whom I have spoken of as their Tenant at The Heath, was probably identical with that William de Castro Holegod who is stated to hold either a whole or half-fee in Castle Holegod about 1240. [79] His Tenure was perhaps both here and at The Heath, but the latter, it should be remembered, could not with strictness be reckoned as a member of

[76] Inquisitions, 21 Edw. I, No. 50.
[77] Inquisitions, 22 Edw. I, Nos. 46, c. and 159.
[78] Inquisitions, 9 Edw. II, No. 67.
[79] Testa de Nevill, pp. 46, 48, 50.


Thomas Mauduit's Barony, so that the Fee on which William fitz John owed knight's-service was very possibly in Holgate alone.

The Abbot of Haughmond was, as we have seen, a Tenant in Holgate Manor, under the bequest of Thomas Mauduit and the grant of William Mauduit. The Mill and tenement which he thus acquired lay probably near Brookhampton. The Chartulary of Haughmond supplies two subsequent transactions affecting this tenancy. About 1260, Henry le Perer, of Castle Holgate, quit-claims to the Abbey half an acre of meadow in the vill of Castle Holgate, near the Mill. [80] On Nov. 23, 1348, John Abbot, of Haughmond, demises to Sara, Widow of William Baghil, of Brokehampton, and Sir William, her son, Chaplain, for their lives, a messuage in Brokehampton, with a meadow and three acres of land;- at a rent of 3s. per annum. [81]

In January, 1271, Richard Langefote was suing John A1bard for a tenement in "Holgodes-Castel", under Writ of novel disseizin. [82]


The Church and the Priest which belonged to Helgot's Domesday Manor of Stanton, seem to me not to have been placed there by himself, but rather to have been the remains of a Saxon Foundation. His son Herbert, as we have seen, granted the Church to Shrewsbury Abbey in the time of Henry I, and before the year 1121. Between that year and August 1127, the said Herbert appeared in the Chapter House of Hereford, and there, in presence of Richard (de Capella) the Bishop, he and his son Eutropius conceded, that is, formally allowed the previous gift.
[83] The Church was at this period still called the Church of Staunton. About the year 1138, Robert de Betun, Bishop of Hereford, calls it the Church of Castle Helegot, and confirms the Abbey of Shrewsbury in its right of receiving an annual pension of 8s. 8d. out of the same. [84]

[80] Fo. 114. Witnesses: Richard Burnell, John de Esthope, Richard de Bellecote, William le Enfant, Rob. de Monselowe.
[81] Ibidem.- The Taxation of 1291 gives the Abbot of Haughmond 16s. per annum from a Mill at Tugford, as well as 2. of assized rents there, but makes no mention of any Mill or other property at Holgate (Pope Nich Tax. p. 163). Probably there is some confusion in this, for his alleged interest at Tugford is even more unaccountable than the non-entry of his known interest in Holgate.
[82] Patent, 55 Hen. III, dorso.
[83] Salop Chartulary, No. 338.
[84] Salop Chartulary, No. 334.



[For engravings, see pdf.]


It does not appear whether this Church was Portionary from the first, or how it became so. The following Deed and Fine, one, and probably both, of which passed in 1210, exhibit the Church as already held by three Portionists or Prebendaries. These were afterwards known as the Presbyteral, the Diaconal, and the Subdiaconal Prebends. The Advowson of the first and third pertained to Salop Abbey, the Lords of Holgate presented to the second. By a Charter, preserved in the Salop Chartulary, Thomas Mauduit quit-claims to the Abbey two Prebends in this Church, viz. those which Helias and Osbern, Priests, held by presentation of the said Abbey. [85] A Fine levied at Northampton, before the King himself; in November, 1210, is more explicit. It purports to be between Thomas Mauduit, Plaintiff (by his Attorney, William fitz Warin), and Hugh, Abbot of Salop, Tenant (by William, a Monk, his Attorney), concerning the Advowson of a third of the Church of Castle Holegot, whereof recognition of darrein presentment was summoned, etc. The Abbot acknowledged the said third to be the right of the Plaintiff, so that he and his Heirs shall present a fitting Clerk for the same to the Abbot and his Successors, who in turn should present the said Clerk to the Diocesan Bishop:- Saving to the Abbot and his Successors the pension due of old. For this acknowledgment Mauduit quit-claimed, for himself and heirs, to the Abbey, all right in the Advowson of the other two parts of the said Church. [86]

On August 23, 1280, John de Peckham, Archbishop of Canterbury, having inspected the Charters of Shrewsbury Abbey, confirmed (inter alia) its title to a pension of 8s. 8d., receivable from the Church of Castle Helgod. [87] Soon after this, the Patronage of Tugford Church, and of two of the Holgate Prebends, passed from Shrewsbury Abbey to the See of Hereford. How this happened I will not here attempt to state, for the transfer seems to have been but a part of more extensive transactions to which I shall have other opportunities of referring. How all the three Prebends came to be eventually consolidated in a single Rectory I cannot declare.

In the Taxation of 1291, the three portions in this Church are valued separately; the first at 6., the other two at 4. 6s. 8d. each. [88] Consistently with this, the Taxation of the Parish in 1341 quotes the Church Taxation at twenty-two merks (14. 13s. 4d.):

[85] No. 295.- Attested by Robert Mauduit, Robert de Giraus, Vivian de Rosall, Walter de Mara, William, Clerk of Gretel, William, Clerk of Baschirch, William de Tongelond, Richard Osilar.
[86] Pedes Finium, 12 John, Salop.
[87] Salop Chartulary, No. 62.
[88] Pope Nich. Tax. p. 167. The three Prebendaries of Holgate also received portions of 3s. 6d., 3s. 3d., and 3s. 3d. from the Church of Bold. (Vide supra, Vol. I, p. 158.)


but the Assessors only taxed the Parish at 4. 13s. 4d. to the Ninth. The reasons were, because sheep and lambs were not in the stock of the Parish; because the small tithes, offerings, and glebe went to increase the Church Taxation, and were not to be reckoned for the Ninth; and because four acres of land, assessable to the Ninth, lay uncultivated. [89]

In 1534 the Rectory of Holgott, in the Deanery of Wenlock and Diocese of Hereford, was enjoyed by Edward Strete, Rector. His preferment, in glebe and tithes, together with a pension of 4s. receivable from the Rector of Aston Botterell, was valued at 13. 7s. 4d. per annum. The charges thereon, for synodals and procurations, were 7s. 8d. [90] It appears also that the Vicar of Leighton paid at the same period a pension of 5s. to the Rector of Holgate. [91]



HELIAS, a Priest, mentioned in 1210, may be taken to have been then Incumbent of this Prebend, and his Patrons were the Abbot and Convent of Salop.

GYFRID DE VIRIACO is the next of whom I find mention; and in succession to him, on Feb. 1, 1283,-

MASTER RICHARD DE HEYTON was instituted, on presentation of the Abbey and Convent of Salop. On April 24 and 27, 1290, when Bishop Richard de Swinfield was at Stanton Lacy and at Stokesay visiting his Diocese, he had presents of oats and hay from this Prebendary of Holgate. [93] The Church itself does not appear to have been visited. In the next year Master Richard de Eyton is returned as Incumbent of the chief Prebend in this Church, and also as entitled to the best of the three pensions receivable by the Prebendaries of Holgate from the Church of Bolde. [94]

[89] Inquis. Nonarum, p.186. Wenlock Deanery.
[90] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 209, 211. It is observable that the pension receivable by the White Nuns of Brewood from Bold (6s. 8d.), when added to the pension of the Rector of Holgate from Aston Botterell (4s.), are nearly equal to the three pensions (collectively 10s.) which were payable to the Co-Rectors of Holgate by Bold in 1291.
[91] Ibidem, p. 184.- Leighton was in another Deanery, Archdeaconry, and Diocese to Holgate. It is vain, I fear, to conjecture the origin of this pension.
[92] From Blakeway's MSS., except where other reference is given.
[93] Household Roll of Bishop Swinfield (Camden Society), p. 78.
[94] Pope Nich. Tax. pp. 167, b, 166, a.


ROBERT BROM was presented by King Edward II, April 19, 1317, to the "Prebend (late Master Richard de Eyton's, deceased) in the free Chapel of Holgod Castell";- this because the See of Hereford was then vacant".

WILLIAM DE MORTON, Incumbent of this Prebend, exchanged it on July 6, 1322, for the preferment of-

WILLIAM DE CHEYNESTON, late Rector of Hopton Wafre.

JOHN DE ASKEHAM was presented by King Edward III, on Nov. 20, 1336, because the See of Hereford had lately been vacant and in the hand of Edward II. Thomas, now Bishop of Hereford, is ordered to admit the Presentee. [96]

ROGER DE ACTON, Clerk, is presented by Letters Patent directed to John, Bishop of Hereford, and dated June 20, 1348. The King again asserts a right of presentation because of a recent vacancy of the See of Hereford, and the said See having been in the hands of Edward, late King. [97]

MASTER RICHARD DE SYDENHALE, Prebendary of this portion, dying in 1349, the Bishop of Hereford, on July 24, in that year, collated-

WILLIAM DE HOWYNTON to the same. Again, on Oct. 20, 1353,-

MASTER THOMAS DE TRILLEK was collated by the Bishop to the Prebend lately held by William de Howynton. Also, on July 14, 1364,-

MASTER ROGER DE OTERY is instituted to the "Canonry and presbiteral prebend" late held by Master Thomas de Trillek. But on Nov. 26, 1372,-

JOHN DE RODENE, Clerk, was presented by the King to Master Thomas de Trilleg's Prebend, the "Temporalities of the See of Hereford having been lately in the King's hand"."

JOHN NOKE, Clerk, was instituted to the chief prebend of Holgate on Oct. 18, 1387.


The Prebend, so called at a later period, seems to have been vacant

[95] Patent, 10 Edw. II, p. 2, m. 20.
[96] Pat. 10 Edw. III, p. 2, m. 14.
[97] Pat. 22 Edw. III, p. 2, m. 34. The latter clause must be an error of the Scribe.
[98] Pat. 46 Edw. III, p. 1, m. 9. The presentation is accompanied by a Mandate to the Bishop of Hereford to admit the Presentee and assign him his stall in the Choir and place in the Chapter;- also by a mandate to the Dean and Chapter of Castle Holgate to the same effect.- This shows that verbal accuracy was little necessary to the validity of a Patent. It is further difficult to see how any Vacancy in the See of Hereford could possibly have occasioned this lapse to the Crown.


in 1210, but it does not appear who was presented by the then acknowledged Patron, the Lord of Holgate Castle.

ROGER, surnamed CUCCU, of Kent, is the first Prebendary whom I find holding this portion. His Successor was-

MASTER ROBERT DE BRUGES, Priest, instituted June 8, 1285, on presentation of the Bishop of Bath and Wells (as Lord of Holgate). He has license to study for three years, and to ferm out his portion, the Sequestrator retaining six merks thereof, and paying the balance to the Prebendary. He is perhaps identical with "Robert", mentioned as the second Portionist of Holgate in 1291, and as entitled to a portion (3s. 3d.) from the Church of Bold. [99]

ROBERT CHETE, Incumbent of this Prebend, being dead, on May 30, 1322, his portion is committed to-

ROBERT DE ERCALEWE, on presentation of Dame Alyna Burnell.

JOHN DE CATTELEYE, being similarly dead, his Prebend is given, on April 3, 1360, to-

Sir NICHOLAS POYWYK, Chaplain, on a similar presentation.

PHILIP DE LAWLEY resigned, on April 2, 1364, the Diaconal Portion of Holgate for the preferment of-

JOHN DE GREYBY, late CaI1011 of St. Chad's, Shrewsbury.

THOMAS KYNWYN was instituted on Feb. 4, 1386, to the "Prebend of the Deaconry of the Parish Church of Holgate", his Patron being Hugh Burnel, Lord of Holgate. He died in 1391, when, on Sept. 15,-

SIR JOHN HYDE, Chaplain, was instituted to the "Diaconal Prebend" on presentation of the same Sir Hugh.


OSBERN, a Priest, mentioned in 1210 as a Portioner of Holgate, probably had this Prebend, his Patrons being the Abbot and Convent of Salop.

MATTHEW, in 1291, is the name of the third Prebendary of Holgate, and as recipient of one of the lesser portions from the Church of Bold. [99]

JOHN TALBOT is the next Incumbent of this Prebend of whom I find mention. His Successor was-

WILLIAM DE WYGYNTON, Acolyte, collated to this Prebend on Sept. 26, 1327. His Successor was-

MASTER WILLIAM DE HOWYNTON, OffiCial of the Bishop of Hereford,

[99] Pope Nich. Taxation., pp. 166, 167, b.


collated to William de Wygynton's Prebend on June 6, 1349.- Patron the said Bishop. On July 24 following, Howynton was promoted, as we have seen, to the chief Prebend; but previously, that is, on July 2,-

JOHN DE HOPE, Clerk, had been presented by the Bishop to the "second portion" in Holgate Church,- by which is meant the second portion in the Bishop's gift. On June 17, 1352, Hope resigned the "Prebend of the Subdeaconry" here for the preferment of-

THOMAS CRENE, perpetual Dean of the Deanery of Fordham (Norwich Diocese), who succeeded to this Prebend.

Clee Saint Margaret.

Domesday notices this Manor as follows:-

"The same Helgot holds Cleie (of Earl Roger). Aluric held it (in Saxon times) and was a free man. Here is I hide geldable. There is arable land (sufficient) for IIII ox-teams. In demesne there is I team and (there are) IIII Serfs and II Villains, with I team, and II Boors, and a Mill serving unto the Court-house. Its old value was 8s. per annum. Now it is worth 10s". [1]

This is one of the places which took its name from the Great Clee Hill. The addition of "St. Margaret", to distinguish it from other Clees, probably arose from the Church having been dedicated to that Saint.

If I have rightly identified Herbert fitz Helgot with him who occws about 1115 as Herbert de Clive (or Cline), his possession of this Manor and other property in the vicinity of the Clee Hill, may perhaps account for his being thus named. [2]

The gradual dismemberment of this Manor by the Lords of Holgate can be traced with precision, though many of the circumstances are buried in oblivion.

The first who occurs as holding it of those Barons was Agnes Banastre, after whose death it reverted to the Seignoral Lords,

[1] Domesday, fo. 268, b, 1.
[2] The Chace or Haye of the Clee-Hill is in one instance described as 'Les Clines' (Hearne's Liber Niger, I, 149).


though Robert de Girros claimed it, and perhaps for a time enjoyed it. Who Agnes Banastre was is a question on which I may have more to say hereafter. Suffice it here to say, suggestively, that the second lay-witness in the Chapter of 1115, at Castle Holgate, was Richard Banastre, the third Herbert de Cline, as already stated. Further, at a period so remote as that the Munslow Jurors of 1255 could not recall it, Agnes Banastre gave a virgate in Clee St. Margaret to Wenlock Priory. That Agnes Banastre was a near relation of the Lords of Holgate I cannot doubt; that she was identical with Agnes who died seized of Clee St. Margaret in or shortly before the year 1199, is also I think plain. If so, she was Aunt (amita) of Robert de Girros (II), but it does not appear that he claimed Clee St. Margaret as her heir, but as his own by some other hereditary title.

During the reign of Richard I, the male line of the Lords of Holgate failed, and the Barony fell into the King's hands by reason of the minority of the heir. At the same time Robert de Girros (II), by far the greatest Feoffee in that Barony, was in minority also, and the lands of his Fief were in the Escheator's hands, because the Barony itself under which he held was in the Crown. It was between June and September, 1199, that Robert de Girros (then of age) fined twenty merks with King John, to "have seizin of the land of Clie, which was his right and inheritance, and which was seized into the hands of the King because Agnes, his (Robert's) Aunt, died therein". [3] Of this Fine Robert de Girros paid instalments in 1200, 1201, and 1203, but still owed eleven merks four shillings, a debt which I do not find further liquidated. Meantime he appears to have entered on Clee St. Margaret, disseizing Thomas Mauduit and his Guardian, Hugh de Bosco, who probably claimed the same as Representatives of Agnes. Hence arose the Suits of Novel Disseizin and Injury inflicted, in which Mauduit and his Guardian were suing Robert de Girros in October and November, 1199. [4] These suits, as I have already said, I can trace no further. It is certain however that Mauduit eventually recovered Clee St. Margaret; and perhaps the discontinuance of De Girros' payments on his Fine for this Manor, indicate a cotemporary defeat of his object.

About the year 1210 Thomas Mauduit grants to Salop Abbey the homage of Henry fitz Sweyn and half a virgate in the vill of Clia,

[3] Rot. Pip. 1 John, Salop. Nova Oblata.
[4] Vide supra, p. 62.


and one acre of his demesne in Middulhull, adjoining the said half virgate. Witnesses: Robert Mauduit, Robert de Girros, etc. [5]

The next alienation which Thomas Mauduit made in Clee St. Margaret was of a virgate, given to Haughmond Abbey for the souls' health of himself, his wife Agnes, and his brother William: half of it was of his demesne, the other half held by Henry fitz Pagan. [6]

About 1250, one Philip, a Chaplain, evidently a Tenant of William Mauduit here, gave three nocates of land to the Knights Hospitallers of Dinmore (Herefordshire). Thus in 1255, Nicholas Andreu, otherwise called Nicholas Fitz Andrew, of Ludlow, was William Mauduit's sole remaining Tenant here. His tenure was a quarter of a hide; he did suit to William Mauduit's Court of Castle Holgate, and paid 3d. per annum for stretward and motfee. The Jurors of Munslow Hundred, of whom he was one, reported this Tenure, as well as all the previous alienations from the Manor. [7] It will be observed that, taking the nocate to be the fourth part of a virgate, the aggregate contents of the Manor accounted for by these Jurors were 4 virgates;- an increase, if anything, on the single hide of Domesday.

Nicholas Andreu was again a Munslow Juror at the Assizes' of 1256.

The Seigneury of Clee St. Margaret passed with the Barony of Holgate to the King of Almagne. Hence in 1284, Master William Ondreu (Andrew) is said to hold the vill of Clya St. Margaret of

[5] Salop Chartulary, No. 13.- The Munslow Jurors of 1255 made great mistakes about this grant. They thought it to have passed about 1226, and in the time of Abbot Henry of Shrewsbury (who succeeded August 24, 1223). They further described the grant as a sale by Thomas Mauduit for 4s. annual rent. (Vide Rot. Hund. 71.)- Now Mr. Blakeway (Hist Shrewsbury, II, 109) proves that this grant was in or before the time of Abbot Hugh, who set apart several sums of money wherewith his Convent should celebrate his anniversary; and, among other such sums, was a rent of 6s., receivable from Clie, "which 6s. rent Thomas Mauduit gave to the Abbey". (Salop Chartulary, No. 379.) As regards the era of Abbot Hugh, Mr. Blakeway himself requires correction. He was living Nov. 3, 1218, but dead in 1221, having ruled his Abbey about thirty years. But the date of Thomas Mauduit's Charter is proved to have been about 1210 in another way. Its eight witnesses are exactly identical with the eight who attested his Charter about the Prebends of Holgate Church, and the latter Charter we know to have passed about 1210. (Vide supra, p. 71, note 85.)
[6] Haughmond Chartulary: Tit. Clia Margaretae. The only witnesses (Robert Mauduth and William the Parson) do not suffice to date the Deed: the Munslow Jurors of 1255 placed it earlier than 1225.
[7] Rot. Hundred, II, 71.


Bishop Robert Burnell, the Bishop to hold it of the Earl of Cornwall, and the Earl of the King (of England) in capite. [8]

Dismissing all further account of the Seigneury, I proceed to observe that Master William Andreu, the Tenant, was living in 1292, that he had had an Under-Tenant here, on whose death William de Middelhope entered upon the Tenement of the said Under-Tenant, claiming to be his Landlord. William Andrew, accompanied by John Mile and William de Stapleton, hereupon endeavoured to gain an entry into the said tenement, but failing to do so, William de Stapleton set the house on fire. William de Stapleton was dead when this matter came before the Justices in Eyre at the County Assizes of October, 1292. Then William Andrew and his surviving companions, being put upon their trial, pleaded that they were Clerks. As such the Archdeacon of Salop, on behalf of the Bishop of Lichfield, denlanded their persons to be given up to him, and this apparently was done. [9] I shall speak of William Andrew and his family more particularly hereafter. I add here a few further facts relating to the different Tenures in Clee St. Margaret.-

HAUGHMOND FEE.- The Abbot is said to have sold his virgate about 1225 to Henry Latewis for an annual rent of 7s. [10] A feoffment or lease is probably indicated; for the Haughmond Chartulary exhibits the Abbot as leasing half a virgate here in 1445 at a rent of 5s.: and in 1541-2, two rents of 8s. and 1s. in Clive St. Margaret are among the assets of the dissolved Monastery of Haughmond. [11]

WENLOCK FEE.- From various Rent-Rolls of the Priory, I find that 6s. 8d. of the rent of the Mill of Clee St. Margaret went in 1495-6 to the Convent Kitchen. The Sacristan had also 3s. 8d. rent in the Clee, 2s. whereof seems to have arisen from the same Mill. In 13 Hen. VIII (1521-2) two rents of 4s. and 3s. 4d. from Clee St. Margaret are among the general forinsec rents of the Priory. [12] In 1541-2 the rents of Clee St. Margaret are stated among the assets of the late Priory at 1. 2s. 4d. [13]

Of the interests acquired by SHREWSBURY ABBEY, and by the KNIGHTS HOSPITALLERS in Clee St. Margaret, I can give no further

[8] Kirby's Quest.
[9] Placita Coronae, 20 Edw. I, Munslow Hund. memb. 8. Though the offence was committed in Hereford Diocese, the Defendants were probably beneficed in that of Lichfield.
[10] Rot. Hundred, II, 72. I suppose Henry Latewis to be identical with Henry de Lotwich, a purchaser in Long-Stanton about 1281. (Vide supra, p. 33.)
[11] Monasticon, VI, 113, Num. xiv.
[12] Register at Willey, fos. 33, 30, b, 37, b, 39.
[13] Monasticon, V, 81.


account. It only remains therefore to say that which I have found relative to another Tenure in the Manor.-

In 1251, Richard Seward had sued Thomas Seward under writ of novel disseizin for a tenement in Le Cle. [14] At the County Assizes, January, 1256, these two Brothers, sons of Robert Syward, had a suit still pending concerning a tenement in the vill of St. Margaret de Clyes, but Richard, the Plaintiff, failed to prosecute it. His Sureties were William fitz Clerk of The Heath, and Richard Cunseil of the same. [15]


The first notice which I can suppose to relate to this Church is in the Taxation of 1291, where it is entered in the Deanery of Ludlow as the Church of "La Cleye St. Milburge", and is said to belong to the Hospitallers of Dinmore, but its value is not specified. [16] In the Assessment to the Ninth, of 1341, this Parish has no mention either in the Deanery of Ludlow or elsewhere. But in the Valor of 1534-5, "the Chapel of St. Margaret de Lee Clee" is distinctly noticed in the Deanery of Ludlow. Its Value in Corn and Hay-Tithes was 3. per annum, out of which a pension of 14s. was annually payable to the Commander of the Commandery of St. John of Dynmore. [17]

No INCUMBENTS are mentioned in the Hereford Registers previous to the Dissolution, and the first of whom I hear is-

RICHARD RUSHTON, Parson of this Church in 38 Hen. VIII (1546-7). [18]


I MUST now turn to one of those eight Manors in Patinton Hundred which sometime formed an element in the large Fief of the Sheriff of Shropshire. I mean by the Sheriff of Shropshire that greatest of Earl Roger's Feoffees, whose lands were hereditary, and whose office was quasi-hereditary, from the Norman Conquest of Mercia to the reign of King John.

[14] Patent, 35 Hen. 3 dorso.
[15] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, memb. 4.
[16] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 166, b.
[17] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 202.
[18] Blakeway's MSS.


I am not proposing to offer, under any Manor of Patinton Hundred, a detailed account of this succession of Sheriffs; but the history of Tugford supplies an early and positive fact to that future and more important subject.

Domesday notices Tugford thus:-

"The same Rainald (the Sheriff) hath given Dodefort to the Church of St. Peter, for the soul of Warin his Antecessor. Eluuin held it (in Saxon times) and was free, together with the land. Here are three and a half hides. In demesne are III ox-teams and (there are) III Serfs, III Neatherds, III Villains and VIII Boors with V teams. Here is a Mill of 4s. (annual value). The Manor was worth 20s. (in Saxon times): now it is worth 40s. (per annum). Of this land Rayner holds I hide of Rainald. Here he has I oxteam and I neatherd, III Villains and I Boor with I team Its value is 8s". [1]

This requires some comment.- It was Warin himself, the first Sheriff of Shropshire, who gave to Shrewsbury Abbey whatever it had at Tugford, viz. two and a half out of the three and a half hides of which the Manor consisted. Warin died before Domesday, and Rainald, marrying his Widow, succeeded him as Sheriff. Hence Domesday calls Warin the Antecessor of Rainald, i.e. his predecessor in office and estate. The assertion that Rainald gave Dodefort to Salop Abbey, must be construed to mean that he executed the previous gift (perhaps incomplete, perhaps testamentary) of Warin. The hide in Tugford, which neither Warin or Rainald gave to the Abbey, continued to be held in fee under their Successors. It was Thonglands.

There are six imperial Charters of general confirmation to Shrewsbury Abbey, if we include that of the first Palatine Earl. Each of these mentions the grant in Tugford, and ascribes it to "Warin the Sheriff"; each of these calls Rainald Warin's Brother, by which is meant only Brother-in-Law. Earl Roger's Charter describes Warin's grant as that of the vill of Tugford, with its appendages; the Charters of King William, Henry I, and Stephen, limit it to two hides in Tugford; but those of Henry II and Henry III say most accurately that it was two and a half hides.

In 1180, Hemming and Ralph, two residents in Tuggefort, are charged 12d. for an embladement of one acre, by the Justices of the Forest. Reginald de Tugford and his Brother William, a Chaplain, occur between 1222 and 1234. [2] About this time Roger Borde concedes

[1] Domesday, fo. 254, a, 2.
[2] Supra, Vol. I, p. 210.


for one merk to Salop Abbey all his right to half a virgate in Bellecote (Baucot near Tugford), which William Carpenter held. Witness (inter alios): Richard de Bellecote. [3] On Nov. 21, 1236, a Fine was levied between Henry de Ticheford, Plaintiff, and Henry, Abbot of Salop, tenant,- of half a virgate in Ticheford, whereof was assize of Mort d'ancestre. Henry de Ticheford renounced his claim, whereupon the Abbot conceded him a life-lease of the premises at a rent of 2s. 6d., and for six merks paid down. [4]

In 1255, the Munslow Jurors found that the "Abbot of Salop held the Manor of Tugford, with its appurtenances, for five hides. He had a franchise there, and did no Suit either to County or Hundred, nor paid stretward nor motfee: his Franchises are particularized. He held pleas of bloodshed and hue and cry, he assized beer, and could make return to a Writ de recto for any cause arising within his liberty, but he had not Gallows". [5]

Here we notice that the hidage of Tugford is reported as just double the original grant of Warin. I suppose Thonglands (one hide) to be included in the estimate, and perhaps that Manor owed Suit-of-Court to Tugford rather than to Munslow Hundred. The proximity of Broadstone, Holgate, Abdon, a place called Fertecote, and Cold Weston, in all of which the Abbey had acquired lands independently of Warin's grant in Tugford, may account for the remaining increase.

The Abbot's Charter of Free Warren, dated May 21, 1256, includes Tugford. [6]

At the County Assizes of 1272, the Abbot of Salop sued John de Wodewale, Walter de Hull, Richard le Carpenter, William Wise, Richard de la Hall, Isabella de Baggesore, and others, to constrain them to do Suit to his Court of Magna Tugford, alleging that Abbot William, his predecessor, was seized of such Suits: all agreed to perform the required service, or were sentenced so to do. [7] Again, Richard le Carpenter having commenced a suit against Abbot Luke, claiming to be allowed common-pasture in Ballecote, failed to prosecute: he claimed the said right, as appurtenant to his own tenement in Thonglands.7 Richard de Balcote was on the Munslow Jury at these Assizes. About this time Osbert, son of William, son

[3] Salop Chartulary, No. 110. The other witnesses were inhabitants of Shrewsbury.
[4] Pedes Finium, 21 Hen. III, Salop.
[5] Rot. Hundred, II, 71.
[6] Salop Chartulary, No. 53.
[7] Assizes, 56 Hen. III, memb. 8 and 10.


of Walter de Tugford, releases to Salop Abbey two messuages and five nokes in Tugford, for which Abbot Luke gave him 10. [8]

In Nov. 1274, the Jurors of Munslow Hundred reported how Sir John Giffard, with his Constable, John del Ewe, and his other Bailiffs, had appropriated to Ernestre Forest for three years past a Moor called Viselesmor, which was of the demesne of the Abbot of Salop, and belonged to Tugford. The Constable had also entered the Abbot's Grange at Tugford, and carried thence to Corfham ten trusses of hay. [9]

The Feodary of 1284 mentions the Abbot of Shrewsbury's tenure of Tugford in capite. In 1291 his Temporalities here were valued as follows:- Two carucates of land, netting 1. 6s. 8d.; a mill, 14s.; assized rents, 6. 0s. 4d.; pleas and perquisites (of Court), 3s. 4d. Total, 8. 4s. 4d. [10]

In May, 1296, I find Giles de Togford on a Wenlock Jury, and on March 15, 1301, Henry de Tugford on a Jury at Cleobury North.

A Rent-Roll of Salop Abbey, belonging to the end of the fifteenth century, gives the Abbot's collective receipts from Tugford, Balcot, and Bradston, at 26. 13s. 6d. [11] The Return of 1534 values the Tugford Estate summarily at 13. 17s. 2d. [12] The Ministers' Accounts (1541-2) give the Assized Rents, the Rents of Customary Tenants and of Tenants-at-will in Tugford, as amounting to 13. 17s. 5d.;- an unusual agreement with the previous "Valor". [13]


The Ordinance of Bishop Robert de Betun, which I have ventured to date about 1138, mentions as already existing the Chapels of Tugaford and Bolecote (Baucott), and orders that they be thenceforth accounted as one Chapel. It is evident that both were in the patronage of Shrewsbury Abbey, and it would almost appear that they were within the great Parish of St. Gregory of

[8] Salop Chartulary, No. 109. I have erroneously stated this release to have been in Cold Weston (Vol. I, p. 68).
[9] Rot. Hundred, II, 101.
[10] Pope Nicholas's Taxation, p. 163. The Abbot of Haughmond's appearing at this time to have rents of 16s. and 2. from a Mill and other property at Toggeford, has been alluded to before (supra, p. 70, note). I find no other mention of such an interest.
[11] History of Shrewsbury, II, 508.
[12] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 189. The name is printed El Twyfforde.
[13] Monasticon, III, 528. The name is printed Ugfforde.


Morville. [14] Another Charter of Bishop Betun, nearly cotemporary, confirms Salop Abbey in the receipt of an annual pension of 2s. from the "Church" of Tuggeford, and also in the receipt of all the tithes of the Abbot's demesne at Tuggeford.
[15] The Incumbent of Tugford will therefore at this period have been in receipt of all other tithes, but acknowledging his subjection to the Abbey of Shrewsbury (or rather perhaps to the Church of St. Gregory) by payment of the aforesaid pension. The pension is included in Archbishop Peckham's Confirmation of 1280. [16]

The Taxation of 1291 values the Church of Tugeford, in Wenlock Deanery, at 5. 6s. 8d., besides the Abbot of Shrewsbury's portion of 2s. arising therefrom. [17]

In 1301, if not earlier, the Bishop of Hereford was Patron of this Church, as I have noticed under Holgate.

The Parochial Assessment of 1341 quotes the Church Taxation correctly at eight merks two shillings (5. 8s. 8d.); but the Commissioners taxed the Parish only at 30s. for the Ninth of its wheat, wool, and lamb. The reasons were that the glebe-land, valued at 1. 6s. 8d., the alterages, valued at &2., and the hay-tithes, worth 10s. per annum, were all reckoned in the Church Taxation, but could not be estimated as regarded the Ninth. Moreover the Tenants, under stress of poverty, were not tilling the land, and six of them were Mendicants. It seems also that there was no tithe of wool or lamb in the parish. [18] It would appear from this that the Parish, instead of being taxed 30s. to the Ninth, should not have been taxed at all;- for the Church Taxation, all but 2s., was made up of items not calculable in the present assessment, to say nothing of the other causes of insolvency. The Inquisition however intimates that the assessment of 30s. was levied "on the temporalities

[14] Salop Chartulary, No. 333. At first sight the Charter seems to classify the Chapels of Shrewsbury Abbey into two divisions, viz. those which did and those which did not accrue as members of the Parish of St. Gregory of Morville. A fuller examination thereof suggests the idea that the Bishop enumerates none but the Chapels of St. Gregory, and intends to distinguish them as those which he had himself consecrated and those which had been pre-existent: Tugford and Bancott will have been of the latter class. It is very singular, and I have before alluded to the fact, that King William's Charter to Salop Abbey mentions Tugford first as an original possession of the Church of St. Gregory, and then as a gift by Warin the Sheriff. (Compare Vol. I, pp. 28, 29, 68). If we understand the former expression to relate to the Chapel and spiritual jurisdiction, the latter to the temporal fee, everything becomes consistent.
[15] Chartulary, No. 334.
[16] Ibidem, No. 62.
[17] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 167.
[18] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 186.


of the Abbot of Salop in this Parish as well as on other parishioners". Here, then, was a case showing the clumsiness of this mode of taxing Parishes. Because it happened that the tithes of demesne and the other corn-tithes were the Abbot's, they had never been reckoned in the Church Taxation, and so, if that Taxation had actually been adhered to as a basis in this instance, the Ninth of Tugford would have been nothing. The Commissioners (fairly enough) assessed, not that value which was indicated by the Church Taxation, but that which was excepted.

In 1534 the preferment of Ralph Blakemore, Rector of Tugford, was (in glebe, tithes, and offerings) 4. 13s. 4d., which sum was chargeable with 7s. 2d. for Synodals and Procurations. [19] I find no notice either of tithes or pension among the cotemporary receipts of Salop Abbey.


JOHN DE MOSEWELL, Clerk, resigned Tugford, Oct. 9, 1291, on the ground of ill health. The Bishop of Hereford assigns him a pension of 20s. out of the Benefice, payable to him yearly, on St. Luke's day, in the Church of St. Magnus the Martyr, London.

STEPHEN DE TANET, a favoured Clerk of Bishop Swinfield, seems to have been the next Rector. [21] The Bishop had probably the patronage of the Church at the date of Tanet's appointment, which date however I do not find.

ROBERT DE IK, Subdeacon, was presented by the Bishop of Hereford, in full right as Patron, on June 11, 1301.

RICHARD DE LA CANE, Acolyte, was presented Sept. 2, 1302. Patron:- The Bishop. He it probably was who, as-

RICHARD DE DANE, Rector of Tugford, has license of non-residence on June 2, 1330. He died in 1331, when, on Oct. 30-

SIR ROGER DE BERKELEY, called "De Wynton", Priest, was presented by the Bishop.

HUGH DE NEENTON resigned this Living in 1348, having exchanged with-

JOHN DE MIDDELTON, Rector of Merstede (Winton Diocese), who is admitted here on May 30. He resigned on July 9, 1348, having exchanged preferments with-

MASTER PHILIP ILG, Clerk, Canon of Hereford and Rector of

[19] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 209.
[20] From Blakeway's MSS., except where other authority is given.
[21] Household Roll of Bp. Swinfield, p. 119, where other particulars about Tanet are recorded.


Eastnor. The latter resigned on Sept. 4, 1349, and on Oct. 29 following-

RICHARD DE BROCHAMTON, Priest, was presented to Tugford by the Bishop of Hereford.


This, as I have said, was that hide in Tugford which, at the time of Domesday, was held by Rayner under Rainald the Sheriff.

Rainald's Tenant was doubtless identical with him to whom, under the name of Rainer de Tangeland, Fulchered, Abbot of Shrewsbury, granted some land (terrulam) called Fertecote, for life only, and with a condition that it should revert to the demesne of the Abbey. [22] Fertecote, wherever mentioned, occurs either in connection with Tugford or Thonglands. It was probably near to both, but the name is now lost. Perhaps the place was that afterwards known as Ballecot or Baucott, but the etymological change is a great one.

On the death of Rainer de Tangeland, William his Son, desiring to retain Fertecote, vexed the Monks of Salop by much litigation. It was between the years 1107 and 1113, probably in 1109, that Abbot Fulchered, proving his original agreement with Rayner, obtained restitution of Fertecote by judgment of a Court which, if it was not presided over by Henry I himself, as the Charter implies, was attended by Richard, Bishop of London, Alan fitz Flaald, Hamo Peverel, Roger and Robert Corbet, and Herbert fitz Helgot. [23] William fitz Reyner, thus losing Fertecote, transmitted Thonglands to his descendants, as held under Alan fitz Flaald, just mentioned, and his successors, the Fitz Alans. Hence, in 1165, Robert de Tungelande is found to hold of the Barony of Fitz Alan by service of one muntator, his fee being of old feoffment. [24]

At the Assizes of 1221 the then Abbot of Shrewsbury had a Writ against William de Thongeland, which however he did not follow up. [25]

Three nearly cotemporary Rolls give the Tenures of Fitz Alan's Barony in 1240-1. In one of them William de Thonglands is the Tenant by service of half a knight's-fee. The other Rolls imply that

[22] Fulchered became Abbot in 1086-7, and was deceased, probably in 1113. Mr. Blakeway's chronology of the two first Abbots of Shrewsbury is inaccurate, and not warranted by Ordericus, on whose statements he ostensibly relies. (Vide Hist. Shrewsbury, II, 106, 107.)
[23] Salop Chartulary, No. 1.
[24] Liber Niger, I, 144.
[25] Assizes, 6 Hen. III, memb. 7.


Richard de Thonglands was Tenant here. [26] About the same time (1241) we have Richard de Thuongland standing first witness of a deed which I shall quote under Corve. He is here followed by Roger de Thuongland and Robert fitz Henry de Thuongland.

The Munslow Inquisition of 1255 takes no distinct notice of this Manor, but in 1256 Roger de Thongland was returned among those who, holding fifteen librates of land in this County, had not taken knighthood. Cotemporary with Roger de Thongland were Philip de Thongland, Lord of Upper Poston, and Richard de Thongland, of Aldon, Norncott, and Lower Poston.

One Thomas de Thonglands has already been mentioned as occurring in 1259, and as concerned in Cold Weston. [27] In May, 1260, I find the Abbot of Shrewsbury suing Richard de Thongland for disseizing him of a Tenement in Tugford. [28] In 1267 one John de Tongelond fines one merk to have some Assize. [29]

The Inquisition on the death of the third John fitz Alan, in 1272, includes Thongland in his Fief. [30] At the County Assizes in that year, it appeared that John, son of John de Thongland, having obtained a writ de ingressu against Isabella de Hamme concerning a messuage, two carucates of land, and two Mills in Thonglond, failed to prosecute. [31]

In 1284 Roger de Bradeley held Thongelond of the heir of John fitz Alan by service of half a knight's-fee. [32]

An abstract of a series of Deeds [33] will convey some further hints as to various interests involved in this Manor.-

1. By a Deed unattested and undated, but which, I think, passed early in the fourteenth Century,- "Henry de Bradeleye, Lord of Thonglonde, and Cecilia, his wife, grant to the whole vill of Thongelonde, which held any land of the Grantor, a field called Necroft, near Thonglonde Mill, together with pasture of the Moor called Wolful".

[26] Testa de Nevill, pp. 44, 48, 49. The name is written Thoneland, Changland, and Chongland.
[27] Vol. I, p. 68.
[28] Patent, 44 Hen. III, dorso.
[29] Rot. Pip. 51 Hen. III, Salop.
[30] Calendar, Vol. I, p. 40. The Inquisition is now illegible.
[31] Assizes, 56 Hen. III, memb. 8. The Writ de ingressu was addressed to the Sheriff, requiring him to command the Tenant of a disputed tenement to render the same to the Demandant, who in set form alleges the Tenant "to have no ingress therein save by disseizin, intrusion", or the like. The Writ commenced with the words Principe quod reddat, and is sometimes called a praecipe.
[32] Kirby's Quest.
[33] In possession of Sir Baldwin Leighton, Bart.


2. On October 14, 1315, Roger le Schwyer, of Thonglonde, grants to Sir Richard de Laverdene, Rector of Stok St. Milburge, and to Richard, son of John Smalemon, of Shiptone, and his heirs a meadow in Thongelonde called the Tunde, for a sum of money;- to hold of the Lord of the Fee,- Witnesses: Roger de Kylmescote, Roger de Corfhul, Thomas fitz Nicholas of Bradistane, John le Champion of Hungerforde, John de Hethe. Dated at Thongelonde.

3. On Nov. 12, 1325, Alice, widow of Roger, Provost of Schiptone, with Roger, her son, grant to Richard fitz William of Walle, two acres in the field of Thongelonde, called Westecroft, near the land of Sir John Abert, Chaplain;- to hold to the Grantee and his heirs, of the Lords of the Fee,- Witnesses: John de Wiggeleye, Richard fitz John of Thongelonde, John le Champioun of Hungerford, etc. Dated at Hungerford.

4. On March 4, 1347, Edith, widow of John de Walle, of Hungerford, with William, son of the said John and Edith, grant to Baudwyne fitz Philip, of Stapelton, two acres in Thongland, in the field called Westecroft, for a sum of money;- to hold to Baudwyne and the heirs of his body, under the Lords of the Fee;- with remainder to Robert, Lord of Stapleton, and his heirs.- Witnesses: John de Balcote, etc. Dated at Hungerford.

5. On Jan. 9, 1348, Margaret, widow of John de Bradley, grants to John de Stapulton all lands, etc. in Thonglonde which she and her late husband had by demise of Richard de Baggesovere;- to hold to the Grantee, for her life, under the Lords of the Fee.

6. On Sept. 21, 1366, William de Dernewelle, Parochial Chaplain of Coffeton (Corfton), grants to Alice le Brette, of Whythynton, widow of Baldwin de Stepulton, all lands, etc. which the Grantress had by feoffment of the said Baldwin, in Thongelond juxta Holgot:- to hold to Alice, for life, of the Lords of the Fee;- remainder to John, son of Robert Lord of Stepulton, to hold for life;- then to Robert, son and heir of Robert Lord of Stepulton, and the heirs of his body;- remainder to the right heirs of Robert de Stepulton. Dated at Thongelond.

THONGLANDS CHAPEL.- Though Thonglands is now in the Parish of Munslow, it once had a Church of its own, subject perhaps to Munslow. In 1291 the Church of "Thungelond or Thukelond", in Wenlock Deanery was not taxed, as being of less than 4 annual value. [34]

[34] Pope Nich. Taxation, pp. 167, 176.


In 1341 the Taxation of the Chapel of Thonglond being first quoted as 4., the Commissioners assessed the Parish for the Ninth at 13s. 4d. There were no sheep here; four virgates of land here paid tithe to Munslow Church, and only three and a half virgates paid tithe to this Chapel. [35] This Chapel is not mentioned in the Valor of 1534, its suppression was therefore anterior to the Reformation; yet its former existence would seem still to be known traditionally, [36] as well as from the better evidence afforded by the following list of its-


SIR ROGER DE THONGLAND, Chaplain, was instituted to the Rectory of Thongland on March 20, 1280,- Patron Sir Roger de Bradeleye. This Rector has a year's license to study theology on Aug. 22, 1282.

WALTER, SON OF HENRY DE BRADELEY, was admitted Feb. 27, 1313.- Same Patron. The Church is however commended to John Aber, of Thongland, Priest (of whom we have just now heard). Sir William de Bradeleye resigned in 1326, when, on January 17,-

SIR ADAM DE OMBRESLEYE, Priest, was instituted.

SIR RICHARD, Rector of Thongland, has license, on Sept. 20, 1328, to stay in the suit of the noble personage, Richard le Croupis, Knight.

SIR HUGH DE MONSALOWE, Priest, having been presented by Sir Nicholas Burnell, knight, between 1348 and 1362, [38] a commission issued from the Bishop to inquire into the right of presentation.

BENEDICT DE PICHFORD, Clerk, was instituted March 2, 1362, on presentation of Sir Nicholas Burnell, Knight.

SIR RICHARD DE ARDERNE, Chaplain, instituted May 17, 1392, on presentation of Sir Hugh Burnell, Knight, Lord of Holgot.

He resigned Nov. 4, 1401, having exchanged with-

HENRY WARDE, Vicar of Priors Ditton, who is admitted here on presentation of Sir Hugh Burnell.

[35] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 186. The Record is somewhat obscure, but I have probably given its meaning. The four virgates were, I presume, assessed under Munslow, otherwise their paying tithe to Munslow could be no reason for diminishing a temporal tax on Thonglands.
[36] Dukes's Antiquities, Appendix, p. xiv.
[37] Blakeway's MSS., from Hereford Registers.
[38] The date of this presentation is inferred: Mr. Blakeway omits it.



Domesday mentions Stanway thus under Patintune Hundred.- "The same Rainald (the Sheriff) holds Stanweie of the Earl, and Odo holds it of him (Rainald). Aluric held it (in Saxon times) and was a free man. Here are II hides geldable. In demesne are II ox-teams, and (there are) IIII Serfs, III Villains, and I Boor with II teams, and there might be III teams additional. In time of King Edward (the Manor) was worth 40s. (per annum); now (it is worth) 30s.: it was waste when he (Rainald) obtained it". [1]

Odo, the Domesday Tenant of Stanway, was Founder of the family of Fitz-Odo. Besides Stanway, Odo held Acton Pigott, Kenley, Golden, and half Gretton, under Rainald, the Sheriff; he also held Rushbury under De Laci: he was therefore a Chief among the Knights of Shropshire. Odo, whose Norman name, De Bernieres or De Berneriis, has been not quite obliterated by English Scribes, was living at least thirty years after Domesday; but I will treat of him and his descendants as they appear in their territorial connections. With this object I divide the Domesday Manor of Stanway into its constituents, and speak first of-


One of the greater Confirmations to Salop Abbey (that of Stephen) tells us that Warin, the Sheriff, gave a part of the vill of Bradeston to that House. [2] If this was so, the gift was prior to Domesday, and prior to the feoffment of Odo, in Stanway. The part too thus given will have been no part of the land mentioned in Domesday under Stanweie: the Monks probably annexed it at once to their neighbouring Manor of Tugford. Odo de Bernele and his Brother are among the Laymen who, about 1115, attended a Court of the Viceroy at Castle Holgate. It was apparently between 1121 and 1136 that Odo de Berneles gave to Salop Abbey a ferdendel [3] in Bradeston. [4] The Charters of Henry II (in 1155) and Henry III,

[1] Domesday, fo. 254, a, 2.
[2] Monasticon, lII, 519, a.
[3] A ferdendel, or farthing-land, is a fourth part of a Carucate.
[4] Monasticon, ibidem. The grant, not included in Henry I's Confirmation of 1121, is recited in Stephen's of 1136.


confirm this grant as of "a virgate given by Odo de Berneris and his Sons in Bradestan". Who those Sons of Odo were who thus, between 1136 and 1155, became associated vrith their Father's grant, is a question. Possibly they were more than two, but if only two, I imagine them to have been "Philip fitz Odo and Roger his Brother", the first of whom attests, about 1138-9, the Charter of Philip de Belmeis to Buildwas Abbey, and who both attest the same Philip de Belmeis' grant to Canons of Dorchester not ten years later. [5]

The following acquittance seems to have relieved the Monks of Shrewsbury of all service due to the Seignoral Lord in respect of the land previously granted by his Tenants. I take it to be the Deed of that William fitz Alan who, being restored to his Shropshire estates in 1155, died in 1160: it runs thus,- "William fitz Alan, to all his men, etc. I have conceded to God and to St. Peter quittance for one ferdendel, which is in Bradestan, and it was formerly (a member) of Stanewei, of the fee of Philip Fitz Odo". [6] Philip fitz Odo, if living at the time of this deed, was certainly deceased before 1165: his successor was Roger fitz Odo, not, I think, his brother above mentioned, but more probably his son.

In 1165 Roger fitz Odo held the fees of one knight and three Muntators of the Barony of Fitz Alan; this tenure was of old feoffment: he also held one knight's-fee of the Barony of Hugh de Lacy, which is said to be of new feoffment. [7] The latter fee was unquestionably Rushbury; but how it came to be enrolled as of new feoffinent is a matter which I cannot account for.

I cannot tell whether it was earlier or later than this, that is, whether it was in the time of the first or of the second William fitz Alan, that- "Roger fitz Odo, of Rusbery, and his Brother and their Mother, conceded the ferndell in Bradestane, which their antecessors had given to St. Peter, and that this should be secured, William fitz Alan, Lord of that Honour, confirmed this donation with the impression of his Seal". [8]

[5] Vide supra, Vol. II, pp. 203, 205.
[6] Salop Chartulary, No. 12.
[7] Liber. Niger, I, 142, 154.
[8] Salop Chartulary, No. 11, attested by "Rainald fitz Pagan, Reiner fitz Renfrid, Richard Sadoc, Radulf, Alan, Painoth, William, Robert, and many others". The Deed passed either between 1155 and 1160, or between 1175 and 1180. If, as it seems to be, it was a confirmation given on the principal Grantor's succession, we date it in the former period, and learn also that Roger fitz Odo succeeded from five to ten years earlier than we can otherwise show him to have done: and, in support of this, we find William fitz Odo (doubtless the "Brother" alluded to in the Deed) attesting Charters of the first William fitz Alan between 1155 and 1160.


I will resume my account of Roger fitz Odo and his family under more suitable localities. All that I know further of Broadstone is as a possession of Shrewsbury Abbey, and has been expressed under Tugford or Thonglands: like the latter it is now in Munslow Parish.

Of BROADSTONE CHAPEL, its origin or former state, I can give no account whatever. It is now, and probably always was, annexed to Munslow Church. Traditions, Architectural fragments, or Documents often apprise us of the former existence of Chapels, now destroyed: here is a Chapel without, as I think, any such witnesses, yet still in being.


These Vills, which constituted the bulk if not the whole of the Domesday Manor of Stanweie, are separated, the last from the two first, but are all in the Parish of Rushbury.

The whole passed from Roger fitz Odo, by whatever descent, to Herbert de Rushbury. The latter, who occurs in 1200 and 1209, gave, though perhaps at a later period, "the whole land of the two Staneweyes, with all their appurtenances", to Henry de Audley, who was at the time accumulating a large estate in Shropshire and Staffordshire. This gift, inter alia, was confirmed by a Charter of King Henry III, dated May 2, 1227. [9]

The Visors of the Forests of Shropshire, in 1235, reported that "the Bosc of Stanewey was much wasted, what time it was in the hand of Henry de Audley, and that was in the time of liberty". This remark, together with what has been elsewhere said as to the allusions of this survey, [10] will fix the year 1225 as a period when Audley was holding Stanway, and the year 1235 as a period when he no longer held it. We know also from other evidence that, between 1227 and 1240, Henry de Audley quitted all his right in Stanway to Madoc de Sutton in exchange for a share of Weston under Red Castle; Madoc de Sutton therefore became Fitz-Alan's immediate Tenant at Stanway and Stone-Acton. His Under-Tenant at Stone-Acton, probably by his own feoffment, was Philip de Burwardsley, who granted the same (estimated at half a hide) to the Knights Templars of Lidley. This was about the year 1240, and a Record of nearly that date exhibits Madoc de Sutton as holding

[9] Rot. Cart, 11 Hon. III, p. 1, No. 51.
[10] Supra, Vol. III, p. 215, note 6.


one knight's-fee in Stanewey and Stainacton with their appurtenances. [11]

The Munslow Inquest of 1255 is still more particular.- "Madoc de Sutton holds the two Vills of Stanwey under John Fitz Alan, for a hide and a half of land. He does suit to the County, but not the Hundred: he gives the King 18d. annually for stretward and motfee". And again,- "The Templars of Lidleye have entered into Stoniacton by Philip de Burwardelleg, which contains half a hide of land, fifteen years back: and that vill, which is of the Fee of John fitz Alan, does not appear at the Sheriff's tourn as it used to do". [12] The change was probably owing to the special privileges allowed to the Warrior-Monks. One Henry de Stonacton, amerced for default by the Justices of the Forest in 1262, was probably a Tenant of the Templars. With them we leave Stone-Acton, and proceed with the two Stanways.-

In 1272, the Inquisition, on the death of the third John fitz Alan, gives Stanewey as in his Fief: it is not mentioned in the Feodary of 1284, nor yet in the Nomina Villarum of 1316. It continued to be a member of Fitz Alan's Barony, though apparently held by only half a knight's-fee. [13]

I return to say something of the UNDER-TENANTS here.-

John de Hungerford, before 1227, had sold to Henry de Audeley not only a meadow which he held of the Lord of Rushbury, but something apparently in Stanewey. [14]

In 1250, Isabella le Strange was assessed by Geoffrey de Langley for asserting one and a half acres in Stanwey: [15] she was perhaps a Sister of Madoc de Sutton, bearing, if so, her Mother's name.

Henry fitz John and Alice his wife were Tenants in Nether Stanwey in 1261. They (in right of the said Alice) were Vendors of their interest here to Robert de Belmeis, by a fine, already quoted as levied on June 3, 1261. I have also detailed the other interests of Robert de Belmeis in this Manor, as well as those of his presumed son Hugh. I have further mentioned the sale therein by Hugh de Belmeis to John de Belmeis of Donington, [16] and something

[11] Testa de Nevill, p. 45. This Tenure is erroneously classed under "Fees of Tornay", a mistake which doubtless arose out of the recent exchange. However Weston itself was not strictly speaking a Tornay fee, though a reason why it should be mistaken for one is not difficult to give.
[12] Rot. Hundred, pp. 70, 72.
[13] Escheat Calendar, III, 223 (21 Rich. II, 1397-8).
[14] Cart, 11 Hen. III (ut supra).- The Record is defaced.
[15] Vide Vol. II, p. 26, for an account of these arrentations.
[16] Supra, Vol. II, pp. 242-244.


as to the subsequent interests of the latter. [17] At the Assizes of 1292, John de Beumes was questioned as to his right of assizing bread and beer in his Manor of Stanweye. He pleaded King Henry III's Charter of 1271, which granted to Hugh de Beumes license to hold a market weekly on Thursdays, and a fair of two days (Oct. 8 and 9) yearly at Stanwey: he added, that he now held the manor by feoffment of the said Hugh, and that the privileges for which he was questioned were part and parcel of the said Market and Fair. Here Hugh de Lonther, the King's Attorney, objected that King Henry's Charter was to Hugh de Beumes and his heirs, and that John was not the heir of Hugh, but altogether un-related to him (omnino extraneus). I cannot trace any further this curious question, which was adjourned to the next Parliament. [18]

I have before mentioned a suit prosecuted in 1260 by William, son of William le Fraunceys concerning a tenement in Stanwey.
[19] The name will recur again, but not in any intelligible connection with the said suit.

In 1263 one John Aberd of Stanwei is taking out a Writ in some Suit at law: also Walter de Kenigford and Margaret his wife fine one merk to have a Writ ad terminum. [20] It does not explain this to state that Alice, daughter of Walter de Kenigford, was sometime the wife of John Aberd, and was divorced from him. In September, 1272, Walter de Kenigford and his wife appear to have been dead. At the Assizes then held, Alice their daughter sued John Abel (Aberd) and Thomas de Holgotcastle for disseizing her of three messuages and one and a half virgates in Nether- Stanwey. John pleaded that Margaret, Mother of the Plaintiff, had enfeoffed himself and Roger le Franceys in the premises, and that Roger le Franceys had since transferred his interest to John. The Jury found that Margaret had indeed sometime given a part of the premises to Roger le Franceys, but only as Tenant at her will, that she had since re-seized that part and given the whole to John Abel in marriage with her daughter Alice; lastly, that when John and Alice were divorced, John retained the land. Hereupon the Court gave sentence of unjust disseizin against John Abel. [21] At the Assizes of 1292, some members of this family again appear; for it is noted that Felicia, Juliana, and Isabel, daughters of John Aberd, withdrew the suit

[17] Ibidem, pp. 178, 179.
[18] Placita Coronae, 20 Edw. I, m. 3 dorso.
[19] Supra, Vol. II, p. 242.
[20] Rot. Fin. 47 Hen. III, and Rot. Pip. 51 Hen. III, Salop.
[21] Assizes, 56 Hen. III, memb. 8.


de ingressu which they had against Herbert Aberd for a messuage and virgate in Nether Stanwey. [22]


LEAVING in abler hands a question as to the antiquity of this Station (Roman at least, if not antecedently British), I pass to its condition as a Domesday Manor, in Patintune Hundred.-

"The same Roger (de Laci) holds Riseberie (under the Earl), and Odo holds it of him. AEluuin held it (in Saxon times) and was a free man. Here are V hides geldable. In demesne are II ox-teams and (there are) IIII Serfs, I Villain, III Radmans and II Boors with V teams. Here is a Mill, a Wood capable of fattening XL swine, and a Hawk's aerie. In time of King Edward, the Manor was worth 60s., and, afterwards it was waste: now it is worth 35s. (per annum), and there might be II more teams (employed) there". [1]

That Rushbury followed the succession of Odo, as indicated under Broadstone, I cannot doubt; it was therefore the knight's-fee held, in 1165, by Roger fitz Odo, under Hugh de Laci, but why the said fee was registered as of new feoffment I forbear to conjecture: we have more serious difficulties before us. Roger fitz Odo, the head of his house, was living in 1167, when his Fief was amerced half a merk by Alan de Nevill. There was a Thomas fitz Odo living at the same time, but the name of the Lord of Rushbury, in 1180, appears still to have been "Roger", for such a person was then accountable for an imbladement of four acres in "Rissibery". [2]

Between 1179 and 1189, as I have before shown, [3] Petronilla, daughter of Roger fitz Odo, married Warner de Wililey, and had Kenley and half Gretton by grant of Thomas fitz Odo. I will not here enter fully upon the grounds which induce me to think that Thomas fitz Odo thus mentioned was only a cousin of Petronilla, in fact, a Cadet of the House of which her Father Roger, and she

[22] Assizes, 20 Edw. I, memb. 4.
[1] Domesday, fo. 256, b, 1.
[2] Forest Rolls, Salop, No. I. "De Rissiberia de Rog' pro 3 acr avene et 1 acr Siliginis, 2s. 6d". The two preceding and two following assessments are levied on persons whom we know to have been Lords of Lee-Cumbray, Leighton, Harley, and Cressage; probably therefore Roger was Lord of Rushbury.
[3] Supra, Vol. II, p. 53.


herself eventually, were the Senior Representatives: Thomas fitz Odo's grant was, if this be right, the surrender of a tenancy under Roger fitz Odo or his Heir. I further find, in correction of a former doubt, or rather error, that the son and heir of Roger fitz Odo was Herbert de Rushbury: [4] if so, both Herbert and his Sister Petronilla were probably under age when the latter was married, and this will account for Herbert's not appearing in the negotiation then effected. We now come to something more certain than a choice between probabilities. It is clear that the next Lord of Rushbury, of whom we hear after Roger fitz Odo, was Herbert de Rushbury.-

On Jan. 27, 1200, in Court at Westminster, Herbert de Russebery, being at Russebery, essoigns himself through Ralph and William, his men, in a plea of land, wherein Walter de Witefeld was Plaintiff. The cause was adjourned to April 23, [5] 1200; and on that day "Walter de Witefeld, in behalf of Eva his wife, sues Herbert de Risbery for forty acres of wood and twenty acres of pasture, with the appurtenances, in Risberi, which he claims to belong to the free tenement of himself and his wife, which they hold in Kotes and in Wall, and which were of the marriage portion of Sibilla, Mother of the same Eva, whose heir Eva is. And Herbert disputes (defendit) their right, and puts himself upon the King's Grand-Assize, and asks that recognition be made whether he hath the better right to hold this land in demesne, or they to hold it under him".- A future day (June 18) was given to the parties, and then "let four (Knights) attend to choose twelve" (other Knights for a Jury). [6] It appears from later entries on the Plea-Rolls (where however the Mother of Eva is called Basilia) that, on June 18, 1200, the four Knights having order to be in Court, Herbert essoigned himself. A further day (July 8) was given, and then both Herbert and the Knights excused themselves by the essoign called de malo veniendi. Another day (Oct. 20) was given, and then Walter de Witefield duly appearing in Court, Herbert neither came nor sent any essoign: so the Court ordered the lands to be seized into the King's hand, and Herbert was summoned to hear judgment on Nov. 25. Then again he did not appear, and the Court gave sentence:- "Let Walter have his seizin of the lands in question".

[4] Ibidem, note 17. The Fine to which I alluded speaks of Herbert de Rushbury, "whose heir Petronilla was", as her Brother, not Father.
[5] Placita, Hill. Term, 1 John, m. 4. This Roll is inaccurately entitled as of 10 John.
[6] Rot. Curiae Regis, II, 227.


We hear little of Herbert de Rushbury in connection with Shropshire, and I think it very probable that the Irish interests of his Suzerain, Walter de Lacy, were participated in by him. About November, 1200, I find that Herbert de Rissebiry, and Elias de Say (another of Lacy's Shropshire Feoffees) were joint claimants of land in Meath against William Parvus. They gave the King ten merks that "their suit might proceed notwithstanding any Charter which William might have obtained from the King prohibiting him from being sued in any matter except before the King himself, because", said they, "such Charter must always be construed to extend to the King's Chief Justice". [7]

The Shropshire Forest-Roll of 1209 exhibits several assessments for assarts and imbladements within Regard of the Long Forest. Herbert de Rushbery is assessed more than once under that name. Once he is called Herbert fitz Odo, and once he is only called "Lord of Rushbury". Richard de Rusbury and Warner de Wililey are also assessed. Herbert de Rushbury was deceased before November, 1221, for then Petronilla, wife of Warner de Wililey, is called his heir, and, as I have explained, his Sister. In a suit which she had about Golden, Roger de Buterleg appears to have had a collateral interest: he was also a Feoffee of Lacy, at Bitterley.

In 1240, Rushbury was held by service of one Knight's-fee of the Barony of Walter de Lacy, whose immediate Tenants were Stephen de Buterleg and Petronilla de Kenley. [8] Petronilla, thus named, was now Widow of Warner de Wililey. As her share of Rushbury was hers by inheritance, [9] so I conceive was Stephen de Bitterley's; but how the latter inherited I cannot say. This division of Rushbury between the houses of Willey and Bitterley makes it impossible to pursue any account of the Manor as a whole;- for the truth is that it came to be split up into no less than six Manors, viz. Rushbury proper (half a hide), Eastwall (one hide), Westwall (one hide), Wall sub Heywood (one and a half hides), Coates (half a hide), and Wilderhope: which last (if half a hide) will complete the Domesday complement of five hides. I must treat of these members of Rushbury in detail.-

RUSHBURY (proper).- In 1250, Stephen, Lord of Rushbury, and Richard, Parson of Rushbury, had an arrentation of 9d. each set upon them by Geoffrey de Langley, in respect of small parcels of

[7] Oblata, p. 79.
[8] Testa de Nevill, p. 45, a.
[9] See the settlement thereof by her and her husband jointly,- Supra, Vol. II, pp. 55, 56.


Forest-land occupied by them. [10] The Munslow Inquisition of 1255 says that "Stephen de Buterleg holds Rusbury for half a hide of land, of the Heir of Walter de Lacy. He does suit to the Hundred, and pays the King 6d. per annum for stretward and motfee". [11]

On June 3,1274, a Fine was levied between Stephen de Boterleye, Junior, Plaintiff, and Stephen de Boterleye, Senior, Impedient, of the Manors of Boterleye and Russebury. As regards Rushbury, it was merely a settlement between Father and Son.- Stephen, Senior, acknowledges to have given the Manor to Stephen, Junior. The latter restores it to Stephen, Senior, and Alice his wife, to hold for life of each, at 1d. rent, of Stephen Junior.- Remainder to Stephen Junior, to hold of the Lords of the Fee for ever. [12]

A Fine levied at Westminster, on Oct. 6, 1283, indicates, I doubt not, the sale of his Manor of Rushbury by Roger de Buterlegh to Sir Hugh Burnell. The latter is Complainant, the former (by his Attorney, John de Ruceham) is Deforciant of one messuage, three carucates of land, thirty acres of meadow, one hundred acres of wood, and 40s. rent, in Russebiry, whereof was plea of convention. Roger recognized the right of Hugh (except as to the Advowson of the Church);- to hold to Hugh in inheritance,- under Roger and his heirs, at the rent of a sore sparrow-hawk: Hugh is said to pay the same premium for the Fine.
[13] Hence, on the death of Philip Burnel, son and heir of Hugh, in 1294, he was found to have held "certain lands in Rusbury of the Lord of Butterleye, by render of a hawk (nisum)". Another Inquisition shows that half the Manor of Rushbury was at the time in hands of certain merchants of Lucca,- a matter which I will speak of under Abdon. [14] During the Minority of Edward, the Infant heir of Philip Burnel, Rushbury was, with other of his estates, given in custody to Gunceline de Badlesmere. After death of Gunceline, viz. on July 10, 1302, the King orders an Inquest to ascertain whether he had committed waste in these estates, as the King had understood: the Jury returned that no waste had been committed during Gunceline's custody. [15]

Edward Burnel, deceased in 1215, was found to have held half

[10] Rot. Pip. 38, Hen. III, Salop.
[11] Rot. Hundred, II, 70.
[12] Pedes Finium, 2 Edw. I, Salop.
[13] Ibidem, 11 Edw. I.- At this period a Mesne Tenant like Roger de Rushbury could not, without license of his Suzerain, sell his interest outright. He must retain something in the nature of an acknowledgment. The Statute of Quia emptores, which passed in 18 Edw. I, removed, in great measure, the necessity of these fictions.
[14] Inquisitions, 22 Edw. I, Nos. 45 c, and 159.
[15] Ibidem, 30 Edw. I, No. 118.


Rushbury immediately of Theobald de Verdon, [16]- one of the Co-heirs of Lacy.

The Feodary of March, 1316, gives John de Hanlo as joint Lord of Rushbury: [17] he had to wife the Sister and heir of Edward Burnell. So the Inquisition taken in March, 1317, on the death of Theobald de Verdon, states John de Hanlon to be holding half a Knight's-fee in Russhebury of the yearly value of 40s., in the Fief of the deceased Baron. [18]

WALL SUB HEYWOOD.- The settlement by Warner de Wililey and Petronilla his wife, which I have already quoted, [19] speaks of Wilderhope, Walle under Heywode, and Rushbury as distinct Manors, and as if exclusively theirs to settle. This is only technical language, the parts of a Manor being often put for the whole, and vice versa. What Warner and Petronilla conveyed to Trustees was that which they had to convey, and therefore only their share of these reputed Manors.

In 1250, Geoffrey de Langley assessed an arrentation of 14d. on Petronilla de Kenley, for forest-encroachment in Wilderhope. Arrears of this rent are charged in her name in 1254, but it does not follow that she was still living: her age in 1250 must have been about eighty.

In 1255, "Stephen de Buterleg held one hide in Walle sub Eywode of the heir of Walter de Lacy. He did suit to the Hundred, and gave the King, for stretward and motfee, 6d. per annum";- which payment, be it observed, was proportionable to only half a hide; also, "Margery de Lacy held half a hide in the same, of the heir of Walter de Lacy, and as of the wardship of Nicholas de Wililey's heir. She paid the King for stretward and motfee 6d. per annum". [20]

Margery de Lacy was widow of Walter de Lacy, who died in 1241, and whose Barony was now vested in his two Grand-daughters. His Widow still retained her dower and inter alia, that Seigneural interest in Wall, which, during the minority of young Andrew de Wililey, entitled her to the custody of such lands as the said Andrew held of the Fief of Lacy. I have before related how, in 1256, Margery de Lacy claimed to have the custody of this heir's person in respect of half a knight's-fee, late held by Nicholas, his Father, in Rushbury, and how the claim was resisted on account of De Wililey's feoffments in another Barony. [21]

[16] Ibidem, 9 Edw. II, No. 67.
[17] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 397.
[18] Inquisitions, 10 Edw. II, No. 75.
[19] Supra, Vol. II, pp. 55, 56.
[20] Rot. Hundred, II, p. 71.
[21] Supra, Vol. II, p. 57.


Juliana, daughter of Warner, and consequently Aunt of Andrew de Wililey, held something in Rushbury, but whether in Wall or elsewhere, I cannot say. Under the name of Juliana de Kenley, daughter of Warner de Wilileg, she grants to John, son of Richard Torald, of Russeburi, for eight and a half merks, half of a virgate in Russeburi which Richard Torald and Robert Forester sometime held. [22] This I take to have been about the middle of the 13th century. A Pedigree which I have already given will show the further descent of De Wililey and Harley. [23]

In Easter Term, 1280, a Fine was levied at Westminster between Robert le Rydare, Plaintiff, and Richard Hobet, Clerk, Deforciant, - of two messuages and a virgate in Walle sub Eywode, whereof was Plea of Convention. Robert acknowledged to have given the premises to Richard, who now concedes them to Robert, for life, at 2d. rent.- Reversion to Richard;- to hold of the Chief Lords of the Fee. [24]

About 1310, Sir Richard de Brome, Chaplain, grants to Sir Richard de Harley, and Burgia his wife, a meadow in the fields of Rushbury, between the land of Edward Burnell and the watercourse called Strebrok, which meadow the Grantor had bought of William Collyngs and Agnes his wife, for a merk, the which sum Richard de Harley now paid him. Witnesses: William de la Cote, John de Ploudene, William de Lotwych, Richard Sprenghose of Wulveston [25] (Winston).

In March, 1316, Richard de Harley being dead, his Widow, under the name of Burga de Wililey, is returned as Lady of Rushbury, together with the Heir of the Burnels, [26] as before mentioned. In 12 Edw. II (1318-9), Burga de Harley had the King's grant of free-warren in Kenley, Willey, Gretton, Wilderhope, and Rushbury; [27] all which, be it observed, were of her inheritance, not of her dower. In the same year, William, Lord of La Cote (Coates), sells to the same Burga, and Philip her son, [28] a plot of land in Gulbury (now Gilberries), in the fee of Rushbury. Also in the same

[22] Dugdale's MSS. in Bibl. Ashm., Vol. 39, fo. 78,- from Lacon evidences. Mr. Blakeway gives another version of this, or else a second deed whereby a virgate is similarly conveyed. The Deed was attested by William de Ploeden. The Seal, charged with a Fleur de Lys, had this Legend- SIG' GILIANE DE KELEG.
[23] Supra, Vol. II, p. 51.
[24] Pedes Finium, 8 Edw. I, Salop.
[25] Blakeway's MSS.
[26] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 397.- Munslow Hundred.
[27] Rot. Cart, 12 Ed. II, No. 39.
[28] Philip de Harley was in Holy Orders, and became Rector of Willey in 1324. Vide supra, Vol. II, p. 60.


year, Roger de Bitterleye, "Lord of Asschebache", releases to Dame Burga, widow of Sir Richard de Harley, to Philip her son, and to the heirs and assigns of said Burga, all his right in the same plot. [29]

The tithes of Wall subtus Eywode, or 8s. thereof, are stated in 1495-6 to be receivable by the Convent-Kitchen of Wenlock. [30] Perhaps Westwall, as being partly in the parish of Eaton, was the specific locality intended by this entry.

WESTWALL.- The part of Rushbury thus named, contained a hide of land, which, in 1255, was held conjointly by Stephen de Buterleg, Margery de Lacy, and Burga de Wililey. The shares of the two last will have been held, one in right of custody of the Heir, the other in right of dower;- held, that is, by the Suzerain, and the Widow of the last Tenant in Fee,- Nicholas de Wililey: further, these Coparceners held collectively under the heir of Walter de Lacy. They paid the King jointly 1s. per annum for Stretward and Motfee, due on Westwall, and Stephen de Buterleg did Suit to the Hundred. [31]

I have mentioned under Faintree how, in 1272, Richard, son of John le Smyht, lost a messuage and some land in Westwal. [32] The same person, I think, under the name of Richard, son of John le Fevere, sued Richard fitz Walter, as Tenant, for a noke in Westwell, but it was proved that the Plaintiff had had an elder brother, William, who had been seized of the premises, so the case failed, as a Suit of mort d'ancestre necessarily would under the circumstances. [33] Whatever else relates to this now no longer distinct township, must be inferred from the account I give of the other members of Rushbury.

WILDERHOPE.- This member of Rushbury has no distinct mention in the Inquisition of 1255; it was perhaps included under Westwall, perhaps accidentally omitted; its modern status as a joint township with Stanway is quite unwarranted by ancient precedent. I offer such notices of this Manor as are not already implied in my account of its fellow-members of Rushbury.

It seems to have belonged partly to Petronilla de Wililey's share of Rushbury, partly to Stephen de Bitterley's. Sir Warner de Wililey, Petronilla's husband, before the year 1231, sold a virgate here to Richard fitz Osbert of Stanway.

[29] Blakeway's MSS. This deed had a seal;- the device, a dog under a tree.
[30] Register at Willey, fo. 32, b.
[31] Rot. Hundred, II, 71.
[32] Supra, Vol. I, p. 164.
[33] Assize, 56 Hen. III, m. 12.


About the year 1260 Andrew, Lord of Wililey, gives to the said Richard fitz Osbert a virgate in Grotiton (Gretton) in exchange for the virgate in Wildredhope, bought by Richard from Sir Warner de Wililey; he also grants him pesson and other privileges. Witnesses: Hugh, Lord of Lega (Hughley), Richard Sprenghos, Richard, Parson of Russburi, William de Plowden, John de la Cote, Roger Walwein. [34] This Richard fitz Osbert, it appears, married Alice, eldest daughter of Andrew de Wilderhope, and had with her, in frank-marriage, a meadow in Rushbury. William de Plowden, the second witness of the above deed, was of Wilderhope. In February, 1263, he occurs on a local Inquest.

Between 1286 and 1292 Philip Burnel, Lord of Rusbury, with assent of Sir Robert, his Uncle, Bishop of Bath and Wells, grants to Richard de Harley, and Burga his wife, the homage of Richard fitz Robert and of Richard Knotte, both of Wilderhope, and the rent which William fitz Richard fitz Reginald paid to said Philip and his Uncle in Wilderhope,- all in exchange for such rent and service as Burga, or her Ancestors, had in Acton Pigod and Elecot.- Witnesses: Sir Roger Sprenghose, Sir William de Hugeford, and Sir Ralph Sprenghose, Knights, Richard Burnel, John Honaud, Ralph de Picheford, and Thomas de Wythinton. [35]

In 1297 Sibil, Relict of William de Brome, grants to Richard de Harley, Knight, and Burgia his wife, that meadow in Rushbury which Andrew de Wilderhope gave to Richard fitz Osbert of Stanwey, in frank-marriage (as above mentioned).- Witnesses: Sir Ralph Sprenghose, Knight, Walter Sprenghose of Plesse (Plash), John Sprenghose of Wiluriston (Winston). [36]

At the Assizes of 1292 John de Plouden sat as a Juror of Munslow Hundred: his tenure is known to have been at Wilderhope.

In 9 Edw. II (1315-6), Henry Smalemon of Stanweye grants to Sir Richard de Harleye, and Burga his wife, a plot of meadow in Rushbury called Fechemer.- Witnesses: Sir Roger Tyrel, knight, Richard Sprenghose, Lord of Pleysse (Plash), Sir Richard de Laverden, Rector of the Church of Stoke St. Milburge. [37]

On the death of Theobald de Verdon in 1317, Burga, widow of Richard de Harley, was said to have held half a fee in Wildredehope

[34] Blakeway's MSS.
[35] Ibidem;- from Wm. Mytton's Collection.- Sealed with two Seals,- one the Episcopal Seal of Bishop Burnet, the other charged with a Lion rampant.
[36] Ibidem;- from "Jones's" Collection.
[37] Ibidem. The seal has for a legend, S' WILLI F WILLELMI ELWETE.


of the deceased: its annual value was 50s. [38] This is a general statement, wherein Wildredehope represents the moiety of all Rushbury as held by Harley, and as distinct from the moiety held by Hanlo.

On Sept. 20 (1321, as I suppose), Roger, son of Roger de Bromdene, grants to John, son of John de Ploudene, and Alice his wife, twelve acres in the fields of Wilderhope, which the Grantor bought from Roger, Brother of the Grantee. If the Grantee and his wife die without issue, remainder to William de Biritone. Witnesses: John de Presthope, Thomas his son, William, Lord of Lotewiche, William fitz Maline, of the same.- Dated at Wilderhope, on Sunday, in the vigil of St. Matthew the Evangelist, * * Edw. II. [39]

In 16 Edw. II (1322-3), Richard, son of Sibil, relict of Roger de la Hulle, of Gretinton, grants to Henry, son of William Andrew of Wilderhope, ten acres in the fields of Wilderhope.- Witnesses: John Lord of Presthope, John de Hopton Lord of Esthope, William Lord of Lotwyche, John son of John de Ploweden of Wilderhope. [40]

EASTWALL.- We have seen that a Lady, whose Christian name is written both as Sibil and as Basilia, but who was doubtless a Fitz-Odo, carried an estate, described as in "Kotes and in Walle", to her husband, and that it descended to her daughter Eva; which Eva, with her husband, Walter de Witefeld, in the year 1200, recovered further seizin of sixty acres in Rushbury as appurtenant to that estate. Premising that this estate was specifically in Eastwall and in Cotes, I proceed to say briefly how it descended.- Sibil fitz Odo, as I presume to call her, was wife of a Lord of Longford, whose name is unknown. Both Sibil and her husband were deceased before 1165, when King Henry II had given Eva, their daughter and heir, in marriage to Robert de Brinton. The latter, sometimes known as Robert de Longford, was deceased in 1191, when Eva had remarried to Walter de Witefeld. Hence the appearance of the latter in the Suit of 1200. Eva's eventual successor was however Adam de Brinton, her son by her first husband. This Adam died, I believe, about Jan. 1235, and was succeeded by a son and heir, Adam de Brinton (II), who was living in 1255. Meanwhile one of this succession had enfeoffed Sprenghose of Longnor, in all their

[38] Inquisitions, 10 Edw. II, No. 71.
[39] Blakeway's MSS. The year is omitted, but Sept. 20 only fell on Sunday in two years of Edward II's reign, viz. the 4th and 15th;- or A.D. 1310 and 1321. The last seems the most probable year for this Deed.
[40] Ibidem;- from "Jones's" Collection.


estate at Coates and Eastwall. Therefore in the Munslow Inquest of 1255, it is said that "Roger Sprenghose holds one hide of land in Estwalle of Adam de Brinton, and he does no suit either to County or Hundred, but pays the King 12d. per annum for stretward and motfee". [41] I should add to this Return, that Adam de Brinton probably held under the heir of Nicholas de Wililey, the said heir under Margery de Lacy, the said Margery, in dower, under the heirs of Walter de Lacy, and the said heirs, in capite, of the Crown;- a good instance of multiplied subinfeudation, but to which another step is added in a case presently to be cited.

In 9 Edw. II (1315-6), I find Roger Sprenghose, "Lord of Astwall", granting a power of Attorney, but for what purpose does not appear. It is tested by William, Lord of La Cote, Philip de la Cote, and John de Ploudene. This Deed is probably connected with another, attested by the same persons, whereby Sir Ralph Sprenchose grants to William de Neteleg and Isota his wife a place of land late Roger de la Lak's. [42]

COATES.- This member of Rushbury went in the same feudal ratio as Eastwall; but before 1255 some Sprenghose had subenfeoffed an Under-Tenant in the vill. John de Cotes, one of the line of these Under-Tenants, was deceased in 1255, whence the Munslow Jurors of that year made the following return:- "John de Gatacre holds the hamlet of Cot' for half a hide of land, in name of guardianship of the heir of John de Cot', which heir should hold of Roger Sprenghose. The Hamlet does no suit to County or Hundred, but pays the King 6d. annually for stretward and motfee". It is needless to repeat the scale of tenures under which Roger Sprenghose held. [43]

The heir of John de Cotes, under age in 1255, was apparently of full age before the death of Andrew de Wililey, whose deed, above cited, he attests as "John de la Cote". The same person was Juror on a neighbouring Inquest in February, 1263. However William de Cotes is the name entered, and then cancelled, on the Munslow Jury-List of 1272; which William (together with John de Walle and William fitz Robert of Walle) appears on a neighbouring Inquest in the end of 1273, and again on the Munslow Jury-List of

[41] Rot. Hundred, II, 71.
[42] Blakeway's Parochial Notices, Vol. I, p. 224. These two Deeds are given by Blakeway in his Collections for Eaton under Heywood. The second deed calls William and Philip de la Cote brothers.
[43] Rot. Hundred, II, 70.


1292. I have no other notices of this family except as Witnesses of Deeds,- a matter to which the Index makes sufficient reference.


The Antiquity of this Church, slightly indicated by its architectural remains, and supported by no direct early mention, may yet be deduced from a circumstance. I have already alluded to the interest which Hugh de Laci (who died before Domesday was compiled) and his Son, Roger (the Domesday Baron), took in the Priory dedicated to St. Peter, St. Paul, and St. Guthlac, at Hereford. [44] It appears to me that one of these Barons founded the Church of Rushbury and gave it to the said Priory, and that the right of the Priory was afterwards represented by a portion or pension, as was usual in these very ancient grants of Churches. Hence in 1291 we find the Church of Ryssebury, in the Deanery of Wenlock, valued at 13. 0s. 8d. per annum, besides a portion of 13s. 4d. which the Prior of Hereford had in the same: [45] moreover the Rector of Rushbury had at this time a portion of 2s. from the Church of Hope-Boudler, a totally different matter, of which I will speak when I come to Hope Boudler.

In 1341 the Taxation of the Church of Ruschebury is correctly quoted as twenty-one merks (14.), i.e. at the value of the Rectory and St. Guthlac's pension combined:- but the Assessors of the Ninth taxed the Parish only at 5. The reasons were destruction of wheat by tempest, murrain of sheep, poverty and desertion of Tenants, and because the Glebe and Alterages went to swell the Church-taxation but were not computable in the Ninth. [46]

In 1534-5 the Church of Rusburye, of which Owyn Hinsmon was Rector, was valued at 19. 15s. 4d. per annum, in Glebe, Tithes, and Oblations; which income is only stated to be chargeable with a deduction of 7s. 8d. for Archdeacon's Procuration and Synodals. [47] The Prior of St. Guthlac's Pension had evidently ceased, and the cotemporary Valuations of his income do not embody any such item. [48]


RICHARD, Rector of Rushbury, has already occurred to us in 1250, [50] and is mentioned twice in deeds of earlier date than 1265.

[44] Supra, Vol. II, pp. 147-8.
[45] Pope Nich. Taxation., p. 167, b.
[46] Inquisitiones Nonarum, p. 186.
[47] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 209.
[48] Monasticon, III, 626-7.
[49] From Blakeway's MSS.
[50] Supra, p. 96.


SIMON, Rector of Rushbury and Bitterley, has a year's license for study in 1278, and letters of Protection in 1294. [51]

PHILIP DE HARLEYE, Subdeacon, was instituted January 19, 1315, on presentation of Sir Edward Burnell. He has at the same time license to study (vacare scolasticis). He died in 1357, when, on August 7,-

RICHARD DE CHELMEDEWICH, Chaplain, brother of Reginald de Chelmedewich and of Roger, Rector of Hope-Boudler, was instituted on presentation of Sir Nicholas Burnell. He occurs as Rector in 1361; but on Nov. 24 of that year,-

HENRY DE BERKEFORD, Priest, was admitted;- Patron, Sir Nicholas Burnell.

SIR JOHN DE STRETTON, Chaplain, was admitted, Aug. 2, 1369, on presentation of the same.

THOMAS DE NEWPORT, Chaplain, resigned this benefice in 1388, and on July 11,-

HENRY COTESMERE, Chaplain, was admitted;-Patron, Sir Hugh Burnel, Lord of Helgot and Weolleye (Weoly, Worcestershire). He resigned in 1395, and, on Oct. 1,-

ROGER HAY was admitted, on presentation of the same.


Domesday speaks thus of this divided Manor:-

"The same Rainald (the Sheriff), together with one Robert, holds Grotintune of the Earl, and Odo holds it of them. Alric and Otro held it (in Saxon times) for two Manors. Here are two hides geldable. Those Thanes (Alric and Otro) were free. Here are V Villains with II ox-teams, and there might be here two teams more. In time of King Edward the Manor was worth 32s.; now it is worth 10s.: when they (Rainald and Robert) received it, it was waste". [1]

I will speak first of the moiety (1 hide) of Gretton, held by Odo and his descendants under Rainald and his Successors, the Fitz-Alans. It followed the ordinary course of Odo's succession till the death of Roger fitz Odo, when Thomas fitz Odo, his relation, and

[51] Prynne, III, 598.
[1] Domesday, fo. 254, a. 2.


probably his Feoffee here, is found giving it up to Petronilla fitz Odo on her marriage with Warner de Wililey. [2] This was about 1185, and the premises surrendered were a hide of land and a Mill in Grotintun, besides Kenley.

I have given the Fine by which, in June, 1194, and apparently after some demur, Thomas fitz Odo and Roger his Brother confirmed the above transfer. [2] A dispute again arose in the Autumn of the same year, but it was in relation to Kenley only, where we will speak of it. Thomas fitz Odo was deceased on July 1, 1213, when Margery his Widow appeared by Attorney at Westminster claiming her dower, against Warner de Wililey and Petronilla his Wife: she claimed thirds in three and a half virgates in Kenley and in a hide of land and a Mill at Grotinton. Warner de Wililey would not reply to her claim without his Warrantor, viz. Thomas, Margery's son. The Court ordered the latter to appear on Oct. 6. [3]

On that day Jundewin de Esthop, Attorney of Warner and Petronilla de Wililey, essoigned himself in the suit of dower against Margery de Chabbenour. A further day (Nov. 10) was given. This apparently trivial entry identifies Thomas fitz Odo, Margery's late husband, with one who has occurred to us elsewhere both under that name and as Thomas de Chabbenour or Thomas de Tasley: of him I have still more to say presently.

The suit of dower above mentioned was long unsettled, owing probably to those national disturbances which I have so often alluded to, as impeding at this period the routine of all public business.- On Nov. 3, 1218, a Fine was levied at Westminster between Margery de Chabbenore, Plaintiff (through her Attorney Alexander de Chabbenore), and Warner de Wililee, Tenant, of one- third of the whole vill of Kenele, and one-third of half the vill of Gretinton, together with the Mill, which thirds Margery claimed as her reasonable dower in the free tenement which was Thomas fitz Odo's, formerly her husband, in the same vills, and concerning which there was Suit at Law, etc. Now Margery remits all claim in the name of dower, and for that concession Warner gives her ten merks. [4]

It follows therefore that Margery's claim was a sound one; in other words, she was wife of Thomas fitz Odo before he first gave up seizin of Kenley and half Gretton in favour of Petronilla, and nothing had since occurred to bar Margery's dower therein.

It appears that Gretton Mill was conveyed by some one to Wombridge

[2] Vol. II, p. 53.
[3] Placita, Trin. Term, 15 John, m. 15.
[4] Pedes Finium, 3 Hen. III, Salop.


Priory, and that in 1236 the Prior's Feoffee or Assignee thereof was one Walter de Acton. The latter being impleaded for the same by Petronilla de Kenley (now widow of Warner de Wililey), called Henry Prior of Wombridge to warranty. The Prior appeared in warranty, but was obliged by Fine of Nov. 21, 1236, to compound Petronilla's claim by paying her six merks. [5]

The succession of this moiety of Gretton was identical with that of Petronilla's other estates. Hence, in 1255, the Munslow Jurors reported that "Dame Burtha (read Burga), Relict of Nicholas de Wilileg, held one hide of land in the vill of Gretiton of John fitz Alan, and in the name of wardship of Ralph (read Andrew) her Son, who was under age". [6]

I have given under Wilderhope the deed whereby soon afterwards Andrew de Wililey, now of age, exchanged a virgate in Gretton for a virgate in Wilderhope. [7]

The Feodary of 1284 tells us that Roger de Tullington holds the vill of Gretinton in right of his wife, who holds it in dower of the heir of Fitz Alan, by a fourth part of a Knight's-Fee, and the said Heir holds it in capite. [8]

Premising that only half Gretton was thus held of the heir of Fitz Alan, but not questioning that Roger de Tullington held the other half of a different Fief, I can only guess who Roger de Tullington was. I suppose him to have been the second husband of that daughter of Walter de Hugford, whose first husband, Andrew de Williley, fell at Evesham in 1265. If so, she will have had Gretton in dower.

THE OTHER MOIETY OF GRETTON, viz. that hide which one Robert held at Domesday of the Earl, and which Odo held under Robert, has a somewhat various history to the last. The Domesday Mesne-Lords of each moiety were different, though they had a Tenant in common: of course, at the forfeiture of the Norman Earls, Robert's Tenure became a Tenure in capite of the Crown. But of any Robert as a Tenant in capite under Henry I, I know nothing, neither indeed do I know who the Robert mentioned in Domesday was; I think however that his mesne interest in half Gretton must have vanished with that of the Norman Earls; it probably reverted to Henry I, either by lapse or forfeiture. The ordinary result in such a case would be that Odo would become Tenant in capite of this moiety. Nevertheless I think that Henry I did not allow the mesne

[5] Ibidem, 19 Hen. III, Salop.
[6] Rot. Hundred, II, 70.
[7] Supra, p. 101.
[8] Kirby's Quest.


interest of Robert to become quite extinct, but granted it in some sort to his Viceroy, Richard de Belmeis.

And now for any fact or hint which may serve to illustrate this curious question.- I first remark how Philip de Belmeis' Charters of 1138-9 and circa 1146 are attested, one by Philip fitz Odo, the other by the same Philip and Roger his Brother.
[9] This is consistent with, if it does not suggest, the idea that the Grantor and Witnesses stood in the relation of Lord and Vassal.

In 1230, Roger la Zouche was suing several Tenants in Salop, Sussex, and Devonshire, in a placitum servitii, i.e. to compel them to perform due service to himself as their Suzerain. Petronilla de Kenley appears to have been the Shropshire Tenant, [10] but I do not find the result of the Suit.

In 1255, the Representative of Philip de Belmeis was Alan la Zouch, as I have shown under Tong, also the Representative of Philip fitz Odo was Andrew, infant Son of Nicholas de Wililey. When therefore in that year we find that Robert de Beumys holds a moiety (one hide) of Gretton under Alan la Zouche, and holds it as Custos of so much of Andrew de Wililey's estate, [11]- we have the presumed tenure of 1138-9 clearly reasserted after an interval of more than a Century. This moiety then of Gretton had never left the tenure-in-fee of Odo's eldest representative, and both moieties were now reunited. The collective Manor in 1255 did Suit to neither County nor Hundred, but paid the King Stretward and Motfee according to the estimated hidage, viz. 2s. per annum. [11]

I have nothing more to say as to the Seigneural interests of Fitz Alan or La Zouch, nor yet of the Tenant-interest of Williley and Harley in Gretton. All three continued in the ordinary succession of each house till a later period than that which I have to deal with.

THE ONLY UNDER-TENANTS here, whom I shall mention, were the Wife of Robert Coterel and Matilda, the Widow of D. Coterel, assessed by the Regarders of the Long Forest in 1109: also William Coterel de Gretinton liable for some suretyship in 1262, and Roger Coterel de Grotinton assessed at the same time for vert, but excused as being out of regard.

[9] Supra, Vol. II, pp. 203, 205.
[10] Placita, Hill. Term, 14 Hen. III, memb. 13 dorso.
[11] Rot. Hundred, II, 70.



THIS Manor is noticed in Domesday as follows:-

"The same Rainald (the Sheriff) holds Broctune (of the Earl), and Richard (holds it) of him. Semser, Eliard, and Eduin held it (in Saxon times), and were free together with this land. Here are II hides geldable. In demesne there is half an ox-team and (there are) II Serfs, III Villains, II Boors and I Frenchman, with I Team amongst them all; and yet there might be IIII more Teams here. In time of King Edward the Manor was worth 28s. (per annum); now it is worth 15s.: when he (Rainald) received it, he found it waste". [1]

From Richard, the Domesday Tenant of Rainald, descended, as I think, a family which took its name from this Manor. The first who occurs after Richard was Nicholas de Brotton, entered in 1165 as holding by service of two Muntators, under the Barony of Fitz-Alan. [2] His Tenure was of old feoffment, and doubtless consisted of Brockton and Lutwych.

Among the men of Shropshire who were amerced for Forest-trespass in 1176-7 by King Henry II, Nicholas de Brocton answers for one merk. Soon after this, I believe Nicholas to have been succeeded by a son Robert, of whom I shall speak presently under Corve. Robert fitz Nicholas was in turn, I think, succeeded by a son William, who at the Assizes of October, 1203, under the name of William de Brocton, was found to have disseized Ulger the Canon of his free tenement in Brocton;- for which he had to pay 6d. damages and a fine to the Crown of half a merk: [3] I shall mention him again as "William fitz Robert" under Corve.

The first entry on the Assize Roll of November, 1221, concerns Hugh de Brocton, successor, I suppose, of William. He sued Richard Lugein, Tenant, for a virgate in Broctun. Richard put himself on the King's Grand-Assize, and sixteen Knights were duly empanelled to try the case. Then the parties accorded, Hugh giving the King a merk for license thereunto. Their Fine is preserved, but conveys no further particulars than that Hugh de

[1] Domesday, fo. 254, b. 1.
[2] Liber Niger, I, 144.
[3] Supra, Vol. I, p. 118, note 58.


Brocton renounced his claim for 20s., and that the suit had been originally one of mort d'ancestre.

In August, 1226, Hugh de Brochton appears on a great Jury of the County, which had to investigate certain matters connected with the Forest of Stiperstones. On March 12, 1227, Hugh de Bracton is the third of the lay attendants at the Prior of Wenlock's Court at Burton, so often alluded to.

In or about 1240, Robert de Brocton appears as Lord of Brocton, holding half a knight's-fee there of the Barony of Fitz-Alan.
[4] His Successor, and almost certainly his son, was Thomas de Brocton, whom the Munslow Jurors of 1255 found to be holding Brocton, for one hide and one-third of a hide, under John fitz Alan. He did suit to the Hundred both for Brocton and Lutwych, which latter was held under him by a Feoffee. He paid the King 16d. annually for Stretward and Motfee due on Brocton, [5] and such was the sum which, according to the average of Manors in Munslow Hundred, was chargeable on any Manor of the extent specified.

At the Assizes of January, 1256, Thomas de Brocton was sued, under the name of Thomas fitz Robert, for disseizing Roger de Kilmescott (Skimblescott) of a right of common-pasture over two hundred acres in Brocton, which right Roger claimed as appertaining to his free tenement in Skimblescott. Thomas showed that the Plaintiff had never enjoyed this right, except as a matter of favour, and because he at one time did suit to Thomas's Mill in Brocton. The Plaintiff lost the cause. [6]

I find Thomas de Brocton sitting on a local Inquest in December, 1258, as also on the Jury for Munslow Hundred, at the Inquisition of 1274. A trespass which he then had resisted, and his subsequent treatment by the Sheriff, I have already detailed. [7]

In 1284, John de Brocton was holding the vill of Brocton, by half a knight's-fee, under the heir of Fitz-Alan. [8] At the Assizes of 1292 he was a Juror for Munslow Hundred, and in March, 1316, he was still in possession here. [9] His intermediate appearances on local Juries, or as a witness of private deeds, it is unnecessary to enumerate.

[4] Testa de Nevill, 44, 48, 49.
[5] Rot. Hundred, 11,71. It will be observed that Brockton had lost a third of its Domesday hidage. The same remark applies to Lutwyche and Abdon, also Fitz-Alan Manors in Patinton Hundred.
[6] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, memb. 4.
[7] Supra, p. 46.
[8] [9] Kirby's Quest. (Munslow Hundred) and Parliamentary Writs, IV, 398.- Both statements must be taken to include Lutwyche.

CORVE. 111

As regards any UNDER-TENANTS in Brockton, I can only instance a Deed whereby, between the years 1256 and 1269, Nicholas fitz Robert of Walton gave to Wenlock Priory 5s. rent, for support of the lights of the Church of St. Milburg and the Chapel of St. Mary;- payable to the Sacristan of Wenlock, and due from Nicholas fitz Alan of Brocton. [10]


This vill or township has long ceased to exist. We know however that it stood on the bank of the Corve, and there can be little doubt that its whereabout is indicated in the still existing name of Corve-barn. [11] That Corve was originally a member of Brockton I am fully convinced. That a certain seignoral interest obtained here, by the Prior of Wenlock, in the twelfth century, should have detached Corve from Munslow Hundred, and annexed it to Wenlock Liberty, is a matter of no surprise, but rather in keeping with all analogy. I commence however with a period antecedent to that at which the Prior of Wenlock obtained ingress here, viz. while Corve was still of the Fee of Brockton, and at the disposal of Robert fitz Nicholas, presumed Lord of Brockton. He granted it in fee to Ralph fitz Edward, as we learn from that invaluable Charter, [12] to which I have so often referred, and which I have supposed to have passed about 1180.

I now give this Charter entire:-

"Notum sit tam presentibus quam futuris quod ego Robertus filius Nicholai concessi Corvet, tam in bosco quam in plano, in pratis necnon et in aquis et in universis suis pertinentiis, Radulfo filio Edwardi et heredibus suis, in feudo et hereditate, perpetuo tenendam de me et heredibus meis, libere et quiete ab omni servicio per censum xv solidorum annuatim, propter homagium quod fecit mihi et

[10] Blakeway's MSS. This deed is attested by Hugh Lord of Lega, Roger de Pivelesdone, Ralph de Cakilege, Hugh Lord of Patiton, Ralph de Presthope, Robert Lord of Harley, William de Mughale, John Lord of Esthope, and Philip Lord of Benthall.- A Rent of 5s. in Brocton is entered among the receipts of the Sacristan of Wenlock, early in the sixteenth Century (Register, fo. 31, b).
[11] Corve, if manorially a member of Brockton, was, in all probability, a member of Long Stanton, parochially, for Brockton itself is in the latter Parish; however Corve-Barn is now within the Parish of Monk-Hopton. The whole matter is obscure and perplexing, and nothing but a Wenlock Chartulary can enlighten it. However I am not sure that the Franchises of Wenlock Priory were not adequate to disturb even parochial boundaries.
[12] In possession of Mr. George Morris, of Shrewsbury.


duas marcas argenti quas dedit in introitu, et uxori meae tres solidos. Hiis testibus: Roberto filio Aer. Willielmo Goon, Roberto Gualensi, Simone de Stantunia, Warino de Burwardsleia, Ricardo de Linleia, Warnerio de Wilileia, Hugone de Patinton et Johanne filio ejus, Walterio Capellano de Stanton, Iverardo Capellano de Hopton, Reimundo et Rogerio de Hopton, Thoma de Hactun et Rogerio fratre ejus, Thoma de Leia et Willielmo fratre ejus, Herberto Clerico de Dudinton et Memun fratre ejus, Simone Bungi, Willielmo de Berdeleia, Adam de Hait".

Who Ralph fitz Edward, thus enfeoffed, was, I cannot say, nor whether Walter de Corve and Thomas de Corve, who succeeded him, did so as his heirs or only as his Under-Tenants. Be that as it may, at the Assizes of 1203 the said Walter and Thomas were found to have a better right to hold two carucates in Corve than William fitz Robert, [13] whom I have already set down as the cotemporary Lord of Brockton.

The successor of Walter de Corve seems to have been John de Corve, the successor of Thomas de Corve to have been his son Philip. The said John and Philip are respectively first Witness and Grantee in a charter which I have given under Patton, and dated about 1230. [14] That which Philip took under the said Deed he afterwards conveyed to Thomas, son (and I imagine younger son) of John de Corve. This second Deed, which passed I think about 1241, runs briefly as follows:-

"Philippus filius Thomae de Corve dedi Thomae filio Johannis de Corve genito de Juliana uxore sua de Staunton pro homagio suo unam acram de assarto in Kalveleye, quam emi de Stephano domino de Patiton. Habendam de me, etc. Reddendo 2d. Hiis testibus: Ricardo de Thuongland, Rogerio de Midlinghope, Thoma de Esthop, Johanne Tece, Willielmo le Masun de Mughale, Rogerio de Thuongland, Roberto filio Henrici de Thuongland, Rogerio Clerico hujus cartae notorio et m: a:". [15]

About this time, or perhaps rather later, John de Corve and Richard his son (I think his eldest son), attest a Deed which I shall give under Lutwyche.

In 1255 John de Corve was still living, and was apparently the sole Tenant of whatever had passed to Ralph fitz Edward under the name of "Corvet", in or about 1180, and at the same rent, viz. 158. But the intermediate ascendency of Wenlock Priory had disturbed

[13] Assizes, 5 John, memb. 4.
[14] Supra, p. 44.
[15] In possession of Mr. George Morris, of Shrewsbury.


the arrangement of the original deed of feoffment, for 7s. of John de Corve's rent of Corve was payable to the Prior, while the remaining 8s. was payable to Robert de Emsteleg, of whom he is said to hold the whole Manor, but of whom I know nothing directly, and cannot even surmise how he could in any way represent the Lords of Brockton. At the same time (1265) Corve had been removed from Munslow Hundred to Wenlock Liberty. John de Corve did suit to the Prior's Court, and his tenure was estimated only as one virgate. [16]

John de Corve was succeeded by Richard de Corve, probably his son, already mentioned. Richard sat among the Jurors for Wenlock Liberty at the Assizes of October, 1272, as well as at the Inquisition of November, 1274. Again, at the Assizes of 1292, he was a Juror of the Liberty, and in May, 1296, his name appears on a local Inquest. On October 20, 1300, a Fine was levied at York between William son of Thomas de Lotwich, Plaintiff, and Robert de Westbradeleye and Alice his wife, Impedients, of a third part of one messuage, one virgate of land, two acres of meadow, and two acres of wood in Corve, whereof was Plea of Warranty of Charter. Robert and Alice acknowledged to have given the premises to the Plaintiff,- to hold of the Lords of the Fee. For this the Plaintiff paid them 40s. [17]

In 13 Hen. VIII (1521-2) the Foreign Rent-Roll of Wenlock Priory enters Corve among the vills and tenements which were apparently held in fee, but the free-rent of Ralph Poynor, the only Tenant mentioned, was merely 8d. A Rent of 2s. 6d. in Brocton is entered as not obtainable (non levabilis). [18] The Minister's Accounts of 1541-2 give the last rent (2s. 6d.) among the assets of the dissolved Priory. [19]


THIS was formerly a Manor in itself, and was thus described in Domesday:- "The same Rainald (the Sheriff) holds Loteis (of the

[16] Rot. Hundred, II, 85.
[17] Pedes Finium, 28 Edw. I, Salop.
[18] Register at Wiley, fo. 39.
[19] Monasticon, V, 81, a.


Earl), and Richard (holds it) of him. Godwin held it (in Saxon times), and was a free man. Here is I hide geldable. In demesne is I ox-team, and (there are) II Neatherds, I Villain, and I Boor with half a team. Its former and present value is 8s. (per annum)". [1]

Richard, who thus held Lutwyche under Rainald, was identical with Richard, Rainald's Tenant at Brockton: consequently his successors, the Lords of Brockton, were mesne Lords of Lutwyche. But one of these Lords of Brockton at an early period granted Lutwyche in fee to an Under-Tenant whose descendants took name from the place. The first of these of whom I find mention was William de Lotwich. He occurs in 1203 as Surety for a debt of five merks which Hamo Marscot (another Fitz-Alan Tenant) had contracted with the Crown.

Next came Herbert de Lutwyche, whose son William is last witness in the following deed, which seems to me to have passed about 1240, and to be the act of an Under-Tenant of the said William: "William fitz Robert of Lotwyche, with consent of his wife and heirs, sells to Henry Clerk, son of William, Beadle of Esthop, for life of the lessee, an acre of land with the meadow at the top thereof, situate between lands of Richard de Kilmescot and William de Esthop, for 7s. paid down and an annual rent of 2d. Henry is to take marl from the premises sufficient for an acre of land, and the Lessor is to take marl for his own land, but if, in so doing, he injures the Lessee's land, he shall give him an equivalent elsewhere.- Witnesses: Richard de Midelhope, Thomas de Esthop, Hugh de Patinton, Roger Parson of Esthop, William de Lotwyche". [2]

Another deed of the same William fitz Robert passed perhaps five years later, and exhibits him as selling his whole estate in Lutwyche as held under William de Lutwyche, his Lord:- "William fitz Robert de Lotwich, with consent of William, Lord of Lotwich, and of his (William fitz Robert's) heirs, gives to Peter, son of Stephen Lord of Patinton, a messuage in Lotwich, between the tenement which Herbert de Lotwich sometime held and the Garden of the Lord of Lotwich:- gives also all those lands which he, William fitz Robert, at any time held of Herbert, Lord of Lotwich, and of William his Son, viz. half a virgate thus sometime held, and two acres in the field towards Wildredhope which the Grantor's father

[1] Domesday, fo. 261, b, 1.
[2] This and all other Deeds quoted under Lutwyche are in possession of Mr. George Morris of Shrewsbury.


Robert assarted, and two and a half acres [3] in Lotwich. And for a certain croft, once held by the Grantor's Father, the Grantor will give in exchange an acre elsewhere: he also gives another acre under Bileburie:- all this in consideration of a sum of eight merks paid to the Grantor in his great necessity:- To hold to the Grantee and his heirs,- paying to the Lord of Lotwich 3s. per annum for the half virgate; 4d. for the two acres; 7d. for the acre given in exchange and for the two and a half acres; and 1d. for the acre under Bileburie; by even half-yearly payments of 2s. each:- paying also to the Grantor a pair of gloves, value d., or a halfpenny every Michaelmas. If the Grantee have ten swine in the peson [4] of the Lord of Lotwich, he shall give one to the said Lord; if he have more than ten, he shall still give but one, as was contained in a Charter held by William fitz Robert.- Witnesses: Thomas de Esthop, Hugh de Patintun, William de Lotwich, Ralph de Presthop, Roger de Girros, Roger his son, John de Corve, Richard his son, Hamo de Laverden".

The next deed which I shall quote is a transfer of the whole tenement thus acquired by Peter fitz Stephen, the only difference being that in lieu of the d. or glove-rent reserved to William fitz Robert, a rent of 5d. is reserved to William de Stanton:- "Peter, son of Stephen de Patintone, sells and quit-claims to Thomas fitz Roger, of Weston, all his right in the land which he held within the vill of Lotwys, and without, in the fields of Lotwys;- for fifteen merks:- to hold to the Grantee and his heirs, quit of the Grantor and his heirs;- rendering to the Lord of Lotwys 4s. yearly, and to William de Stanton 5d. at Michaelmas.- Witnesses: Roger de Kylmescote, William Lord of Lotwys, Adam Lugein, Richard Smalemon, Henry le Hethene, William fitz Roger of Lotwis, William Greythe". This deed I take to have passed between the years 1260 and 1270, which will also be nearly the limits of the following:- "William Lord of Lotwys, gives to Thomas fitz Roger, of Weston, thirteen acres and two small meadows, whereof eleven acres lay in the moor of Lotwys and two acres in the field towards Wylderhope, intermixed with lands of Master William de Laverden, William Greithe, Hugh de Patiton, Walter fitz Roger fitz

[3] These two and a half acres seem to be further described thus:- "One acre near the Green-way towards Longefeld, one acre which William fitz Hamo assarted, and half an acre near the land assarted by the Grantor's Father".
[4] Peson or Pesson- the mast of oaks, or the money taken for the same when let out to Tenants.


Simon of Walle, Ychenard Wole of Wenlock, William de Stanton, William Vicar of Wenlock, William Knight, and Richard de Kylmescote.- This for twelve merks paid down;- to hold to the Grantee, his heirs and assigns, for a rent of 26d. payable on St. Martin's day.- Witnesses: Hugh Lord of Patiton, Thomas Lord of Brocton, Roger de Kylmescote, Roger de Weston, Roger le Girros, Henry le Hethene, Richard Smalemon of Laverden, William de Plouden".

The same grants to the same, for 12s. paid down and a rent of 4d. payable at Michaelmas, two acres in the field of Lotwys.- Witnesses: Alan de Laverden, Adam Lugein, Henry le Hethen, Richard Smalemon, Richard de la More, Roger de Kilmescote, William fitz Roger of Lotwis.

Again, William Lord of Lotwys gives to Thomas fitz Jeldwyn of Esthope, for his homage and for 14s. paid, two and a half acres in the field of Lotwys, bounded on one side by the division of the fields of Esthope and of Lotwys, on the other by land of the Feoffee.- For * * * pence rent, payable by the Feoffee and his heirs at Michaelmas.- Witnesses: John de Esthop, Thomas de Brocton, Hugh de Patiton, Roger de Kylmescote, William de Ploedene, William Smith (Faber) of Esthope, Henry Smith of the same.

William Lord of Lutwyche, thus named in so many deeds, appears at the Inquisition of Munslow Hundred in 1255, though the Manor is estimated at one-third less than its Domesday hidage:- "William de Lotwich holds Lotwich, for a third part of two hides, of Thomas de Brocton. He does no suit to the Hundred, because said Thomas does suit for him, but he pays the King 8d. annually for stretward and motfee". [5]

In 1262, William de Lutwyche appears as a Regarder of the Royal Forests, but further I cannot say of him.

In 1300 we have had mention of another William, son of Thomas de Lutwyche, possibly identical with William de Lotwych, who attests a Rushbury Deed about 1310, and with William Lord of Lotewiche, who similarly attests in 1321.

[5] Rot. Hundred, II, 71. The Record omits the further fact that Thomas de Brocton held under Fitz-Alan.



"THE same Rainald (the Sheriff) holds Stope of the Earl, and Fulcher (holds it) of him. Ernu and Uluric held it (in Saxon times) and were free. Here are II hides geldable. In demesne is I ox-team and IIII Serfs, I Villain, and V Boors with I Team, and still there might be II Teams added here. In time of King Edward the Manor was worth 15s. (per annum); now it is worth 20s.: when he (Rainald) received it, he found it waste". [1]

We shall have to speak of Fulcher again as Rainald's Tenant in other Domesday Manors, which however were not enjoyed by his Successors at Easthope. There is no evidence therefore that the Lords of Easthope, of whom we are now to speak, were Fulcher's descendants. However the Fee held by Roger de Estrope, in 1165, by service of one Muntator in Fitz Alan's Barony, was of old feoffment, [2] i.e. awarded to Roger or his ancestors before the death of Henry I.

In an assessment by the Regarders of the Long Forest, embodied in the Assize-Roll of 1200, Henry and Edric de Esthop are both charged. A second assessment exhibits the name of Henry de Esthop only, and him I take to have been Lord of the Vill. Next to him occurs Thomas de Easthop, who, in 1238, sued out a writ of novel disseizin against some party unnamed, and who appears to have fined five merks, that the cause should be tried by four Justices. [3] In or about 1240, this Thomas de Easthop is entered as holding half a knight's-fee in Easthop of the Barony of Fitz Alan. [4]

In May, 1247, William de Easthop occurs on the Jury which made inquest as to the rights of the Burgesses of Wenlock, and in the same year he and Odo de Hodnet were amerced half a merk for not producing one for whom they were Sureties.

In 1255 the Munslow Jurors found John de Esthop holding Esthop of John fitz Alan, for two hides of land, doing suit to the Hundred, and paying the King 2s. annually for stretward and

[1] Domesday, fos. 254, a, 2, and b, 1.
[2] Liber Niger, I, 144.
[3] Originalia, 22 Hen. III. Rot. Pip. 22 Hen. III, Salop.
[4] Testa de Nevill, p. 44.


motfee. [5] This John de Easthope was a man of some repute, and remained in possession of his estate more than fifty years. During that period he is a constant witness of local deeds, and a Juror on Inquisitions and Perambulations, affecting other parts of the County. [6]

The reason of this probably was that he held office as one of the Coroners of Shropshire, and so ranked in importance only next to the Sheriff. He was appointed to this post after the Assizes of 1256, when he appears merely as a Juror for Munslow Hundred, but held it, and answered for his conduct therein at both the subsequent Assizes of 1272 and 1292.

At the latter Assizes he was one of the four who, being entitled "milites et servientes", chose the twelve Jurors who had to try many Pleas of Quo Waranto between the King and his Shropshire subjects. [7]

At these same Assizes he was said, by the Munslow Jurors, to be holding 4s. annual rent in the Serjeantry of the Beysins, [8] probably at Ashfield.

I do not find that he ever ranked as a Knight, but on June 6, 1300, he was the first of those of next degree who made the great Perambulation of the Shropshire Forests, by ordinance of King Edward I. [9]

A Fine, levied at York on Oct. 6, 1303,10 may be taken as the the last Will and Testament of John de Esthope, though disguised in a technical form. It purports to be levied between John de Esthope, Complainant (querentem), and Roger de Esthope, Deforciant (through William de Routon, his Attorney),- of the Manor of Esthope, whereof was Plea of Convention. John recognized the right of Roger. In return Roger (of course a Trustee to that end) conceded the Manor to John, to hold for his life of the Lords of the Fee, with remainder to John son of Thomas de Esthope, and to Margaret daughter of John de Wenlock, and the heirs of their bodies lawfully begotten;- with further remainder to the right heirs of the said John son of Thomas, to hold of the Lords of the Fee.

[5] Rot. Hundred, II, 70.
[6] On March 27, 1278, though not a Knight, he was on a great perambulation at Wentnor.- Heref. Regist. (Cantilupe), fo. 22.
[7] Placita de Quo Waranto, p. 674.
[8] Placita Coronae, 20 Edw. I, memb. 4 dorso. Vide supra (Vol. III, p. 350), where it appears that he afterwards sold this rent.
[9] Salop Chartulary, No. 279.
[10] Pedes Finium, 31 Edw. I, No. 133, Salop.


The result of this settlement will be found in an Inquest ordered, by a King's Writ, dated Jan. 23, 1306, to be held on the death of John de Esthope, seeing that the said John had held of the infant heir of Richard fitz Alan, which heir was at the time a Ward of the Crown. The Jurors assembled at Esthope on Feb. 17, 1306, viz. John de Presthope, Thomas le Enfant, Adam Arundel, Thomas de Patinton, John Engelard, and others.- They found that the deceased had "held the Manor of Esthope for term of his life, by service of finding a man and horse at Oswestry, for forty days, in time of war;- that he had the Manor by concession of Roger de Esthop, by fine levied in the King's Court". The fine is then substantively recited by these accurate Jurors, who further depose that John, son of Thomas de Esthop, had died before John de Esthop, and without any lawful heirs by Margery de Wenlock, who was still surviving, and whom indeed he had never espoused; that Thomas, son of Thomas de Esthop, and brother and heir of John son of Thomas, was the reversioner, and that he was twelve years of age on June 24 last (1306). [11]

It is very possible that this infant Thomas was not more nearly related to the aged person who was dead than as Great-Grandson, or Grandson. Of that matter I have no evidence, and must leave the descent of the Lords of Easthope till, as Patrons of the Church of Easthope, they will again recur, for a further period.

I now turn back a century, to take brief notice of a collateral branch of this family.-

On Oct. 6, 1213, I find one Jundewin de Esthop acting as Attorney-at-Law for Warner de Wililey.

The same person as Godwin de Esthop attests a Deed, which I have set forth under Patton, and dated about 1230.

Again, some thirty years later, we have had the son of this Godwin (under the name of Thomas, son of Jeldewyn de Esthope) as a Grantee in Lutwyche.


The first notice which I have of this Church is in the name of its Parson or Rector, about A.D. 1240.

In 1291, the Church of Esthop, in the Deanery of Wenlock, was set down at less than 4. annual value. The Rector of "Snede",

[11] Inquisitions, 34 Edw. I, No. 27.


or "Conide", who had a portion of 3s. in the same, must be understood as the Rector of Cound. [12]

In 1341 the Taxation of Hesthope Chapel is quoted at six merks (4.). The Assessors of the Ninth taxed the Parish however only at 9s. The reasons were, that the greater part of the Tithe of the said Chapel belonged to the Church of Condour (Cound must be meant), and much of the Chapel's income consisted of Offerings, and there were no Sheep in the Parish; moreover, what with murrain among the live-stock, and diverse taxes, the best part of the Vill was annihilated. [13]

In 1534-5, the Rectory of Estope, of which Richard Backewege was Incumbent, stands valued at 3. 6s. 8d. per annum. That Income was chargeable with a pension of 3s. 4d., payable to the Church of Cownde, and with 4d. for Archdeacon's Synodals. [14]


ROGER Parson of Easthope, occurs about 1240. [16]

JOHN DE CHEYNE was admitted to this Church Feb. 19, 1312, on presentation of Roger de Cheyne, Guardian of Thomas, the heir of John de Esthope, late Lord of the Vill. The Church is coincidently committed to Reginald de Haubordyn, Uncle of the Presentee.

JOHN DE STRATTON, Acolyte, admitted August 23, 1314. (Same Patron exercising same right.) He has a license to study in 1317, and Letters dimissory for further Orders, Jan. 10, 1321.

SIR ROGER DE CORFHULL, Priest, admitted Nov. 10, 1349, on presentation of Richard, Earl of Arundel (evidently because the Manor was in the hands of the Suzerain).

WILLIAM GARMSTON, Priest, was deprived of this Benefice June 8, 1383, he having murdered John de Esthope, Patron of the Church.

SIR HUGH CHEYNE resigned this benefice Feb. 19, 1386, having exchanged preferments with-

SIR THOMAS CLERK, late Rector of St. Owen's, Hereford, who is admitted here, Edith, relict of John de Esthope, exercising the right of Patronage.

SIR THOMAS DE BORTON, Chaplain, was admitted here on July 10, 1386,- Edith, Lady of Esthope, exercising the same right.

[12] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 167. I have before attempted to account for the pension which the Rector of Cound had from Easthope (supra, Vol. I, p. 183).
[13] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 186.
[14] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 209.
[15] From Blakewav's MSS.
[16] Supra. p. 114.


Acton Round.

ALL Actons have their name from the Saxon Ac (an oak-tree), [1] and tun (a town); but why the place before us should be distinguished at a very early period as Acton-Round is a problem which, notwithstanding its tempting singularity, I hardly dare to approach. [2]

Domesday notices the Manor thus:-

"The same Rainald (Sheriff) hold Achetune of the Earl. Here are IIII hides geldable. Uluiet held it (in Saxon times) and was free, together with this land. In demesne are II ox-teams, and (there are) VII Serfs, IX Villains, and IIII Boors, with IIII Teams, and yet there might be III Teams more. Here is a Mill of 32d. (annual value). In time of King Edward (the Manor) was worth 60s. (per annum): now it is worth 40s". [3]

Rainald's Successors, the Fitz Alans, held this Manor in demesne for many generations, that is, they never granted it wholly, in fee and inheritance, to any Vassal. Of this we have scattered but sufficient proof.-

In 1180, their Bailiff (as I take it) here, was assessed 2s. by Justices of the Forest, under the name of Alurich, Provost of Acton.

About 1251, a Munslow Jury found that John fitz Alan held the Manor of Acton of the King by unknown services. [4]

[1] We preserve the vowel most nearly in the word "acorn".
[2] I am indebted to Mrs. Stackhouse Acton for the following information:- At Wynnstay there is a curious Register, the work of Sir Thomas Boteler, Vicar of Much Wenlock, and recording matters which occurred to his notice between the years 1538 and 1562. Boteler says that "the Chapell of Acton Round was sometyme round like a Temple", and intimates that the Manor or lands therein had formerly belonged to the Knights Templars of Lidley. No Record that I have seen contains a hint of any interest of the Templars in Acton Round,- either in the Church or Manor. But the Templars were introduced into Shropshire at a period to which very few Records extend, and they were so introduced by the Fitz Alans, the Lords of Acton Round. That the Templars built round Churches, and that places of the same name were often distinguished from one another by some allusion to their respective Churches, are matters sufficiently notorious to make Boteler's implied etymology of Acton Round worthy of attention. If we suppose that the Chapel in question was originally built by a Fitz Alan, but its form suggested by some cotemporary building of the Templars of Lidley, we shall have made the most of the tradition.
[3] Domesday, fo. 254, a, 2.
[4] Testa de Nevill, p. 60. The Manors of Acton Scott and Stone- Acton were also in Munslow Hundred, and the Seigneury of both was in Fitz-Alan; but their co-temporary status, and the context of the Record quoted, exclude them from all probability of being thus mentioned.


Again, in 1255, the Munslow Inquest found John fitz Alan to be holding Acton, and two Mughales, and Muchel (Muckley) of the King. Fitz Alan did suit to the County, but not to the Hundred, nor did he pay stretward nor motfee for this tenement, but the Jurors knew not his warrant for exemption. [5]

The Assize-Roll of January, 1256, reports a Perambulation made by precept of the King, between the land of John Fitz Alan in Acton, and the land of the Prior of Wenlock in Burgton (Burton) and Calweton (Calloughton). It seems that part of the wood of Sponhull (Spoonhill) was in question. The boundary determined mentions an oak-tree, "Ronsok", which stood upon the King's highway between Weston and Wenlock, also another large (grossum) oak-tree, which stood upon Corve towards the West. [6]

Acton Round was part of the Dower of Matilda de Verdon, Widow of the second John fitz Alan, who died in the Autumn of 1267. This Lady remarried to Richard de Amundeville, and with him was still holding her Dower on the decease of her son, John fitz Alan (III), in 1272. Her Grandson, Richard fitz Alan, was at the same time an Infant. It appears from a Writ of Edward I to the Justice of the Forest, dated March 18, 1278, that Richard de Mundeville and his wife were reported to be making great waste in the woods which belonged to the Lady's dower, but were of the inheritance of her Grandson, then a Ward of the King. The Justice was to make inquiries, and if he found the allegation true, to seize the said woods into the King's hand, and report all progress to the King in Parliament. Accordingly the Justice, on April 2 following, presided at Brug, over an Inquest composed of the Foresters, Verderers, and Regarders of the Shropshire Forests. They found that the Wood of Shirlet within the Forest of Shirlet, and the Wood of Sponhulle without the Forest, both being appurtenant to the Manor of Acton, were almost destroyed by Amundeville and his wife and their Bailiffs, that Hugh le Mascun, Woodwarden-of-the-Fee in those woods, had made prize and sale thereof, that he had been attached and committed to the Sheriff for imprisonment, and that the Woods had been seized for the Crown.

Matilda de Amundeville died on Nov. 27, 1283. Several Inquests were forthwith held to value the estates which her husband

[5] Rot. Hundred, II, 71.
[6] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, fo. 15.
[7] Inquisitions, 6 Edw. I, No. 90.


Richard de Amundeville held as her dower, and to report as to her heir. The returns give accounts of young Richard fitz Alan's age, which differ from each other, and from better authority. This is not to be wondered at, seeing that two of the said Returns state Richard fitz Alan to have been son of the deceased Lady, whereas he was manifestly her Grandson. What now concerns us is, that the Jury which sat at Upton (Magna) on Dec. 18, found that Amundevill held in Acton la Runde, of the dower of Matilda, a messuage, a garden, one hundred and forty acres of land in demesne, some meadow-land, rents, both free and customary, Woods and Pleas of Court, to the value of 14. per annum. [8]

In the year 1284, though according to no account could Richard fitz Alan have attained his majority, he is entered as holding the Manor of Acton Round of the King in capite. [9]

The Inquisition taken at Acton le Rounde, May 21, 1302, on the death of Richard, Earl of Arundel, [10] calls the Manor a member of Oswestry. The late Earl's demesne there consisted of a messuage, forty acres of arable land, one acre of meadow, and twenty acres of Bosc. The rents of free tenants were 1. 10s. 6d. Twelve bondmen and four Cottars, holding about half a virgate each, paid 4. 17s. 8d. rent. The pleas and perquisites of Court were valued at nothing. [11] It appears that besides this income, the Earl, while living, had demised to John de Sibbeton 100s. annual rent of certain Tenants in Acton Round, for the life of said John. This was unlawful, or said to be so, because the rent was a Tenure in capite, and had been thus demised without license. So on the Earl's death, John de Beckbury, Subescheator of Shropshire, seized the said Rent for the Crown. Then again Richard de Harley, as Seneschal of the Earl of Savoy, who had the wardship of Fitz Alan's heir, seized the Rent. Sibbeton hereupon petitioned the King, and an Inquest, which ascertained the above facts, sat in August, 1304-5; [12] but we learn nothing of the result, except that Richard de Harley, in a letter to the King's Chancellor, acknowledges himself to be receiving the said Rents.

[8] Ibidem, 12 Edw. I, No. 29.
[9] Kirby's Quest.
[10] Inquisitions, 30 Edw. I, No. 30.
[11] Yet the Manor-Court of Acton Round was at one time central and important, for instance, Suit of the Lords of Eudon Burnell was said to be due thereto (supra, Vol. I, p. 188); and Thomas Corbet, previously of Tasley, and late of Hatton Hyneheath, was found, in 1300, to have paid his quit-rent to Fitz Alan at Acton Round. (Inquisitions, 28 Edw. I, No. 17.)
[12] Inquisitions, 32 Edw. I, No. 6.- Though the Inquest purports to have sat in the King's thirty-second year, the King's Writ ordering it to sit is dated May 29 of his thirty- third year.


The Feodary of 1316 gives the Earl of Arundel (then Edmund fitz Alan) as Lord of Acton Round. [13]

THE UNDER-TENANTS of this Manor require some notice, for though the Manor itself, and much of the land, were held by the Fitz- Alans in demesne, they had Feoffees of some consequence here. The first who seems likely to have stood in this position is that Thomas de Hactun, who, with Roger his Brother, attests, about 1180, the Deed quoted under Corve. In 1191 we have notice of Engelard de Acton, as being amerced half a merk for some false claim. There were two or three persons of this name in a succession, which lasted upwards of eighty years. I cannot distinguish them, and therefore will set down what I find of them collectively, as well as of other Under-tenants in Acton Round. In 1200 Engelard fined one merk with the Justice Itinerant of the Forest, that he might be under plevin. [14]

At the County Assizes (Nov. 1221) Richard fitz Adam, who had arraigned a suit of mort d'ancestre against Anselm de Brocton for half a virgate in Acton, withdrew the cause. His amercement was excused on account of poverty. His Sureties, viz. Gerard le Angevin, and William, Clerk of Ludlow, were in misericordia.

At Warwick, on Jan. 14, 1222, Engelard de Acton, on behalf of himself and his wife Laurina, sued William Hunaund for half a virgate in Acton as the right of Laurina, whose former husband, Richard de Baschirch, had wrongfully sold it to said William. William first pleaded that the premises were not Laurina's marriage-portion, but a purchase of Richard de Baschirch, whose son and heir he called to warranty. Then he pleaded more specifically that Alexander, Laurina's Brother, had sold the premises to Richard de Baschirch. An Inquisition was ordered, returnable at Westminster on the Quinzaine of Easter. [15] Owing to default of the Defendant on two occasions, the land was seized by the Crown in the first instance, and given to Engelard and Laurina in the second, viz. on the Quinzaine of Trinity Term. [15]

On Oct. 13, 1227, Ingelard de Acton was on a Shropshire Jury, which attended the King at Worcester.

In 1235, and in January, 1256, Engelard de Acton was a Juror

[13] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 397.- Munslow Hundred.
[14] Rot. Pip. 2 John, Salop. Plevin was a remedy granted in cases of unjust distress. The distrained party recovered his goods on giving Sureties to prosecute the Distrainer, or try by law the justice of the distress.
[15] Placita apud Warwick, Hil. Term, 6 Hen. III, m. 3 dorso and 6 dorso.


of Wenlock Liberty: in 1262 a Regarder of the Long Forest; in September, 1272, a Juror for Munslow Hundred, and in the same post at the Inquisition of November, 1274. [16]

He was succeeded, I think, by one who, under the name of John Engelard, attests some local deeds at the close of the thirteenth century, and occurs on a Wenlock Inquest in May, 1296, and an Easthope Inquest in February, 1306.

The Free-Tenants who, in 1302, were holding lands in Acton Round of the Estate of Richard, late Earl of Arundel, were- William Mason (three virgates), William de Lutwych, Roger de Patinton, Richard de Corve, John Engelard, Thomas le Frenshe, Richard Numayn, and Richard le Harpur. Those who paid the Rents conveyed to John de Sibbeton were Nicholas de Mokeley, Roger le King, William Abovetoun, Matilda and Richard Candilan.

Among the Jurors who, in 1304-5, reported as to the latter rents, were- William le Masun, John Engelard, Thomas le Frenshe, Thomas de Mughale, John de Mokley, Richard de Corve, and Richard and William de Mughale. [17]


Adam, Parson of Acton, who in March, 1227, attended the Prior of Wenlock's Court of Burton, is the first Rector of Acton Round whom I can instance, and his style implies the earliest notice which I have of this Church. [18]

In my account of the Church of the Holy Trinity of Wenlock, I have recited the process which ended in Bishop Swinfield's assigning the Chapel, of Acton-Rotunda to the said Church as a mere affiliation, because situated on "St. Milburg's land". [19]

This was in the year 1284, and Master Hugh de Pedwardyn, the then "Occupant" of the Chapel of Acton Rotunda, was deprived, whilst any Chaplain serving the same in future was to pay a pension of 2s. per annum to the Mother-Church.

Again, we observe that the Spiritual and Temporal Fiefs of St. Milburg were not coextensive, and that the former jurisdiction was

[16] Assize Rolls, 40 and 56 Hen. III; Rot. Hundred, II, 84 and 100; Forest Roll, 46 Hen. III.
[17] Inquisitions, 30 and 32 Edw. I (ut supra). I have spoken of some of these Tenants under Monk Hopton (supra, p. 31), and will give other particulars under Muckley and Upper and Lower Monk-hall.
[18] Supra, Vol. III, p. 341, n.
[19] Supra, Vol. III, p. 267.


reasserted and maintained, after long disuse, in a district where the Lords of the soil, whether Saxon or Norman, were Laymen.

In 1291, the Church or Chapel of Acton Rotunda, in the Deanery of Wenlock, is set down as belonging to the Prior of Wenlock, and valued at 6. 13s. 4d. per annum. [20] Again, it was confirmed to the Prior as a dependent Chapel of the Church of the Holy Trinity by Bishop Charlton in 1331. [21]

In 1341, the Church-Taxation of Aicton Ronde Chapel being quoted at ten merks (6. 13s. 4d.), the Assessors of the Ninth proceed to rate the Parish at 2. 16s. only. The reasons for the abatement were,- destruction of the wheat-crop by an unfavourable season, want of all sheep-stock in the parish, non-cultivation of several holdings through poverty of the Tenants, and because the small-tithes, glebe, and offerings of the Chapel, went to the estimate of the Church-Taxation, but were not to be reckoned in the present instance. [22]

In 1369, the Spiritualities of Wenlock Priory include a sum of 5. receivable from the Chapel of Acton-Rotunda, and a later list of the Tithes payable to the Priory includes those of Rownd Acton without giving their value. [23] This was apparently because they were devoted to the special support of the Convent.

In 1534-5, the "Portion" received by the Prior from the Vill of Acton Rownd was returned at 3. 6s. 8d.; but among the pensions payable by the Prior, we now hear for the first time of 14s. payable annually to the Rector of Cownde, for the Chapel of Acton Rownd. [24]

This indicates, I think, that the Lay Lord of Acton had at some very early period given the tithes thereof to the Church of Cound, but that the latter had relinquished them for a composition to the Prior of Wenlock, as Lord of the spiritual fee of St. Milburg.

The Valor of Churches in Wenlock Deanery makes no mention of this Chapel. The Diocesan Registers are silent as to its occupants, and except the two Rectors already named, I find no mention anywhere either of an early Incumbent or a later Chaplain. In 1541-2, i.e. after the Dissolution, the only asset of the late Priory which I can connect with Acton Round is a payment of tithe therefrom, inexplicably reduced to 1s. per annum. [25]

[20] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 167.
[21] Patent, 22 Edw. III, p. 3, m. 34.
[22] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 187.
[23] Register at Willey, fo. 36, 36 b.
[24] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 216. Compare Easthope (supra, p. 120).
[25] Monasticon, V, 81.

ABDON. 127

MUCKLEY. UPPER MONK-HALL. LOWER MONK-HALL.- These Messuages or hamlets, like Far Monk-Hall, already noticed, are in the Parish of Acton Round, and were doubtless members of the Manor. The interest which Wenlock Priory acquired in Far Monk-Hall, and perhaps in one or both of the other Monk-Halls, has been sufficiently spoken of. I here add a few omitted particulars possibly relative to that lay-tenure which in 1255 associated Muckley and two Monk-Halls as members of Acton Round.

In 1180, Edward de Muckilleia and Richard de Lokere, precede Alurich, Provost of Acton, as being assessed at 1s. each by Justices of the Forest.

In 1255, we have had Richard Mukley as Attorney of John fitz Aer at Aston Eyre, and the name is repeated in 1262. [26]

Before 1496, the Prior of Wenlock seems to have obtained some interest in Muckley, for Roger Baylye, of Muckley, paid him a rent of 14d. [27]


"THE same Rainald (Sheriff) holds Abetune (of the Earl), and Azo (holds it) of him. Uluuin held it (in Saxon times), and was free together with this land. Here are III hides geldable. Here is I ox-team and III Serfs, I Frenchman, II Villains, I Radman, and II Boors with I team, and yet there might be III additional teams. Its former value was 20s. (per annum); it is now worth 12s". [1]

Azo, Rainald's Domesday Tenant at Abdon, held other lands in the Fief of the Sheriff. He seems to have been living thirty-five years after Domesday, for between the years 1121 and 1136, he granted under his Norman appellation of Azo Bigot half a hide in Longnor and a ferdendel in Abeton to Salop Abbey. [2] The Confirmations of Henry II (1155), and Henry III (1227), [3] both mention this grant of a ferdendel or virgate in Abdon given to Salop Abbey by Azo Bigot. They also repeat his grant in Longnor, and recite

[26] Vol. I, pp. 206, 206.
[27] Register at Willey, fo. 82 b.
[1] Domesday, fo. 254 a, 2.
[2] Monasticon, III, 519.
[3] Salop Chartulary, Nos. 36, 37.

128 ABDON.

a gift by the wife of Azo, viz. of certain land in the Town (of Shrewsbury), given for the soul of her son Rainald, and which produced 10d. annual rent.

Robert, a Knight, of whom the Salop Chartulary relates the following conduct, may well have been another Son of Azo and his wife above mentioned; for the transaction, which I will relate as I find it, belongs to a period not later than between the years 1155 and 1180.

"William fitz Alan conceded the donation which Robert his Knight made to the Church of St. Peter at Salop, of the vill which is called Abbeton, which was of his (Fitz Alan's) Fee; and this was at the request of the same Robert. But for this concession, which with his own hand he (Fitz Alan) placed upon the Altar, the Monks conceded to him, for the soul of his Mother who was lately deceased, [4] one annual service; and out of the slender means [5] of their Church they gave him fifteen merks of silver and one palfrey. Witnesses: Roger, Archdeacon, Richard and Heming, Priests, and many others of the men of the same William.- But when the same Robert, his Lord allowing it, offered the said Vill upon the Altar of St. Peter, Richard his Nephew (nepos) willingly conceded the thing, and with him (Robert) made the donation.- Witnesses: Roger, Archdeacon, and others". [6]

This is one of those simple recitatory Charters which convey to my mind a conviction of genuine and honest truth. Nevertheless it is certain that Shrewsbury Abbey profited nothing by this grant, and it was perhaps the very fact of their losing Abdon which induced the Monks to be thus particular in recording their title.

Again, it is all but certain that the Knight Robert, and his Nephew Richard, did not regain what the Monks lost, nay, that the line of Azo became extinct within a few years of this grant; for in 1165 Abdon and certain others of Azo's Domesday Manors had doubtless gone to form those two knights'-fees of new feoffment which John le Strange then held of the Barony of Fitz Alan. [7]

If, on the other hand, Shrewsbury Abbey retained its previous and royally confirmed grant of a virgate in Abdon, that virgate became

[4] Avelina, Mother of the first William fitz Alan, seems to have died about the time of his restoration to his Shropshire estates, viz. 1155.
[5] De pecia ecclesias:- "a humble phrase", says Mr. Blakeway, "used by the Monks to denote their little property".
[6] Salop Chartulary, No. 309.
[7] Liber Niger, I, 144. Compare what I have said under Glazeley (Vol. I, p. 211).

ABDON. 129

annexed to its adjacent Manor of Tugford, and we hear no more of it as a distinct estate.

We are now to speak of Abdon as held by Le Strange and his Under-Tenants. The first of these of whom I find mention was perhaps Alan de Abeton, amerced 2s. in 1180 for waste, by Justices of the Forest.

In 1226 Geoffrey de Ledwych, of whom I shall speak more particularly elsewhere, held Abdon under Le Strange, and was impleaded by William, son of Achilles, for half a virgate-there, under writ of mort d'ancestre. Geoffrey not appearing before the King when at Shrewsbury in August, the case was adjourned till the next eyre of the Justices. [8] This happened to be in October, 1227, when a Fine was levied between William, son of Achilles, Plaintiff, and Geoffrey de Ledewic, Tenant of the said half-virgate. Geoffrey allowed the right of William, and conceded the land to him,- to hold in fee, by service of a pair of gilt spurs, payable yearly at Michaelmas to said Geoffrey: for this William gave 30s. [9]

Of William Achilles and his family I shall say more under Culmington and Diddlebury, where their chief possessions lay.

In 1240, Abdon was clearly among those 2 fees which were held by John le Strange of Fitz Alan's Barony, [10] but the Under-Tenant is not named. The fee was however still in the Ledwyches, and the Munslow Inquisition of 1255 tells us how Geoffrey de Leddewich then held Abbeton for two hides of land under John le Strange, the said Geoffrey doing suit both to the County and Hundred, and paying the King 2s. per annum for stretward and motfee. [11] The Inquest omits the further fact of Le Strange holding under Fitz Alan.

After this I find mention of a deed whereby-

Geoffrey de Ledwich granted to Richard fitz Philip of Sutton, for his homage and service, a messuage in Abdon which Roger Forester once held.- Witnesses: Walter Torel, John de Heth. [12]

It will appear that Geoffrey de Ledwich of 1255 was Son of the Geoffrey who occurs previously. At the Assizes of January, 1256, the Munslow Jurors reported him as of full age, as tenant of a whole Knight's-fee, and yet not a Knights. At these same Assizes he

[8] Placita apud Salop, 10 Hen. III, memb. 8 dorso.
[9] Pedes Finium, 11 Hen. III, Salop.
[10] Testa de Nevill, fos. 46, 48, 49. Middle and Child's Ercall alone are mentioned as the localities of Le Strange's tenure, but that, as we shall often observe, does not determine the matter.
[11] Rot. Hundred, II, 71.
[12] Blakeway's MSS.
[13] Placita Coronae, 40 Hen. III, Salop m. 3 dorso.

130 ABDON.

was impleaded by Agnes, daughter of John de Bracy, under the name of Geoffrey, son of Geoffrey de Ledwich, for disseizing said Agnes of half a virgate in Abbeton. Young Geoffrey appeared in Court, and pleaded that he had no claim in the premises, for one Herbert de Abbeton held the land, both then and before Agnes sued out her writ. The Court found that young Geoffrey was not the Disseizor, for that his Father Geoffrey, having sometime enfeoffed Agnes in the premises, afterwards changed his mind and ousted her, so that Geoffrey Senior was the Disseizor. However as Agnes was under age, the Court overlooked her liability to amercement, and allowed her to pursue the cause under a different writ. [14] This she did at the same assizes; suing Herbert the Tenant (here called Herbert le Bonde) and Emma his wife, for the said half-virgate; but the Defendants not appearing, the land was seized into the King's hand, and John de Bracy, Agnes's father, was ordered to sue in her place on account of her nonage. [15]

I find not the result of this suit; but in September, 1258, Walter de Kapel has a writ of novel disseizin against Geoffrey de Lethewich and others, concerning a tenement in Abeton. [16]

In 1284 a younger branch of the Ledwiches was holding Abbeton of the elder, that is, Roger de Ledewyche held the vill of Geoffrey de Ledewyche, Geoffrey of John le Strange, and John le Strange by half a Knight's-fee, "of the King", says the Record, [17] again ignoring the mesne seigneury of Fitz Alan.

How Robert Burnell, Bishop of Bath and Wells, acquired Abdon I cannot say. At his death in 1292, he was holding the Vill of Sir John le Strange, for half a knight's-fee. The Rents receivable by him were from Free Tenants 37s., and from Customary Tenants 50s. per annum. The pleas and perquisites of his Court were worth 1s. [18]

However the Inquisition on the death of Philip Burnel in 1294 states him to have held Abedon of Geoffrey de Ledwych, [19] whose mesne interest seems to have been forgotten on the death of the Bishop.

Philip Burnel died on June 26, 1294; but on June 5 previously, the King's Bailiff had put certain Merchants of Lucca in possession of portions of Philip's goods, chattels, and receipts, in and from

[14] Placita de Juratis, ibidem, memb. 4.
[15] Ibidem, memb. 13.
[16] Patent, 42 Hen. III, dorso.
[17] Kirby's Quest.
[18] Inquisitions, 21 Edw. I, No. 50.
[19] Inquisitions, 22 Edw. I, No. 45, c.


Abdon and other Manors, amounting apparently to half his estate. This was in consequence of the said merchants having recovered the premises against Philip by some legal process. They held the premises till his death, but being then deprived, a Royal Warrant issued for their reinstatement on July 30, 1294, and an Inquest held at Brug, on August 14 following, determined the nature and extent of their claims. [20]

The Inquisition, on the death of Edward Burnel in 1315, found him to have held Abdon under the Lord of Knockin, that is, under John le Strange (VII), and by service of an eighth part of a Knight's-fee. The Rents, receivable from free and customary Tenants there, amounted to 4. [21]

The Feodary of March, 1316, seems to describe this place as Abeton Thongland, but there is evidently some confusion in the entry. Alina Burnel (she was widow of Edward) would appear to have been Lady of the Manor. [22]


In or about 1138, Abdon had one of those Chapels which Bishop Betun then assigned to Shrewsbury Abbey, [23] probably, I think, as having been founded within the spiritual fief of St. Gregory of Morville.

It appears that "Alveric the Dean", [24] in the Bishop's presence, rendered up the Chapel in penitential form, seeing that he had done the Monks of Shrewsbury injury in the matter. The Bishop orders that Abdon should for ever be accounted a Chapel, in which state he had found it.

Another and nearly cotemporary Charter of Bishop Betun confirms Salop Abbey in the receipt of a pension of 2s. from the "Church" of Abbeton. [25]

On Nov. 18, 1240, a Fine was levied at Shrewsbury, between Henry, Abbot of Salop, Plaintiff, and Geoffrey de Ledwic, Deforciant, of the Advowson of the Church of Abbeton, whereof was assize of darrein presentment. Geoffrey allowed the Abbot's better

[20] Ibidem, 22 Edw. I, No. 159.
[21] Ibidem, 9 Edw. II, No. 67.
[22] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 398.
[23] Salop Chartulary, No. 333. Vide supra, page 83, note 14, as to the question of Tugford being one of St. Gregory's Chapels. The case of Abdon is very similar.
[24] Alveric the Dean appears to be identical with Eluric, a. Dean who attests a deed already given (Vol. I, p. 207). The Rural Deanery of Wenlock or Stottesden was probably his sphere of office.
[25] Salop Chartulary, No. 334.

132 ABDON.

right, for which concession the Abbot received him and his heirs into all benefits and prayers of his Church of Salop. [26]

Archbishop Peckham's Charter to Salop Abbey, dated Aug. 23, 1280, confirms the pension of 2s. receivable from the Church of Abdon, [27] and this portion or pension is entered as a receipt of the Abbey in 1291, over and above the Taxation of the Church, which was returned as under 4. [28]

In 1341, the Taxation of the Chapel of Abbeton being first quoted at 6 merks 2 shillings (4. 2s.) the Assessors of the Ninth proceed to rate the Parish at only 11s. The non-cultivation of the arable land, owing to the poverty of occupiers, is the only reason alleged for this diminution. [29]

The Valor of 1534-5 gives Richard Sondye as Rector of Abdon Rectory, and values his preferment in glebe and tithes at 3., whereon 6d. was chargeable for Archdeacon's Synodals; [30] but no pension to Salop Abbey is mentioned, either as a deduction here, or as an asset in the Abbot's return.


WALTER DE BERMINGHAM, Priest, presented by the Abbot and Convent of Salop, Feb. 9, 1307.

SIR WILLIAM DE ERCALWE resigns this Church on Nov. 17, 1346, having exchanged benefices with-

JOHN DE DERYNTON, late Vicar of Atcham, who is admitted here Dec. 12, 1346.

SIR RICHARD DE LEYNTEHALE, Priest, was instituted here on May 13, 1351; the Bishop being Patron, by lapse.

SIR WILLIAM DE TOGGEFORD, Priest, was instituted here on July 24, 1359, the Bishop again exercising a lapsed right of presentation.

HUGH, SON OF DAVID DE CLON, was admitted Dec. 10, 1363.

JOHN DE OWENS was admitted 4 June, 1375. Patrons,- the Abbot and Convent of Salop.

[26] Pedes Finium, 25 Hen. III, Salop.
[27] Salop Chartnlary, No. 62.
[28] Pope Nicol. Taxation, pp. 167, 176. Deanery of Wenlock.
[29] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 186.
[30] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 209.
[31] Blakeway's MSS. (from Hereford Registers).



Domesday places this Manor in Patintun Hundred, and describes it as follows:-

"The same Roger (Venator) holds Becheberie (of Earl Roger). Azor held it (in Saxon times) and was a free man. Here is I hide geldable. There is (arable) land (sufficient) for II ox-teams. Here one Knight pays (to Roger Venator) 20d. rent. In time of King Edward the Manor was worth 12s. (per annum)".

We have several very early and apparently authentic notices about Beckbury, but no two of those notices present any features, from which, under combination, we can realize an intelligible whole.

Azor, the Saxon, we have heard of as Lord of Burwarton and Neenton, places which had subsequently nothing in common with Beckbury.

Roger Venator's Domesday Manors went, as a general rule, to constitute a Tenure in capite, known afterwards as the Fief of Pulverbatch, that Manor being the principal one involved. Yet we have no assurance, nor anything more than a hint, that the Lords of Beckbury had any subsequent tenure in the said Fief of Pulverbatch. That hint, such as it is, shall be given in its place. Meantime, I must speak of matters apparently quite irrelevant to Roger Venator or his descent.

The position of Beckbury,- isolated from, yet included in Patinton Hundred, its connection with Badger, the two forming a detached portion of Hereford Diocese,- its later history,- all these convince me that, long before Domesday, St. Milburg had some interest here which at the time of the Norman Conquest was ignored, but afterwards revived. This theory becomes almost fact when, within forty years after Domesday, we find the Prior of Wenlock disposing of the Wife, the Heir, and the land of one Rainald, whom the Prior evidently considered to have died his Tenant as regarded a hide of land in Beckbury;- all, to wit, which Domesday had alleged as the contents of the Manor.

[1] Domesday, fo. 259, a, 2.


But the Record which establishes this circumstance, must speak for itself. It is a Grant by Peter, Prior of Wenlock, inaccurately transcribed, but running in form following:-

"Sciant presentes et posteri quod Dominus Petrus Prior et Conventus Wenlocensis Ecclesiae terram de Becheberi cum uxore Rainaldi et custodia pueri usque ad xv annos Walterio filio Warini concesserunt, reddituro pro ipsa terra per singulos annos ad festum Sanctae Milburgae xxv solidos, retinentes ... [2] suam rectitudinem et omnium qui rectum de interibus, [3] in ipsa terra calumniari poterunt, ipso eam pro una hida adquietante ab omni consuetudine, et de eadem terra totam decimam suam reddente, partemque suam de omni re quam in ipsa terra habuerit pro anima sus cum vitam finierit. Teste [4] Alberto et Joberto fratribus ipsius, [5] et Roberto de Berneval [6] filio ejus Ricardo: Hugone de Welileia, Turoldo, Rogero de Ledewic, Warnerio de Becheberi, Anffredo de Benetala, Levieto de Waltuna, Rinulfo de Leges, Walterio de Flemvilla, Geraldo Presbitero et Alano filio Urini. Anno Dominicae Incarnationis MCXX". [7]

This Document carries, in its very strangeness, a corroborative proof of its asserted and ancient date (1120), as also of its genuine character as a whole.

I will first follow out the subject of the Prior of Wenlock's Seigneury in Beckbury.

In King Richard I's reign, Beckbury was removed from Brimstree Hundred to the Liberty of Wenlock, and its Lord (Hugh de Beckbury, I think) thenceforth did suit by afforciament to the Prior's Hundred Court at Burton.

In 1255 Philip de Beckbury, being Lord of the vill, is said simply to hold it of the Prior of Wenlock, [8] as if there were no other or coordinate Seigneury. His annual rent to the Prior was 25s., the very sum reserved in the lease of 1120. Yet we have no evidence that Philip de Beckbury was descended either from Walter fitz Warin the then Lessee, or from Rainald the then deceased Tenant, or yet from Warner de Beckbury, a principal witness.

Again in 1255, the collective hidage of Beckbury, Badger, and Madeley is given as four hides, [9] while the Domesday measure was

[2] The illegible word here was perhaps originally a Christian name.
[3] This word, though legible, I cannot interpret.
[4] Sic- pro Testibus.
[5] Ipsius- scilicet Walterii filii Warini.
[6] The word et should probably be inserted.
[7] Register at Willey, fo. 6, b.
[8] [9] Rot. Hundred, II, 85.


one hide, half a hide, and four hides respectively, or five and a half hides collectively.

In 1291 the Prior of Wenlock's temporalities included an assized Rent of 25s, receivable from Beckbury. [10]

In 13 Hen. VIII (1521-2) the Chief-rent received by the Prior from Edward Grey, then Lord of Beckbury, was still 25s.; [11] and after the Dissolution the said rent is expressly stated to have been paid to the Crown.

It is now time to observe the constant parallel which is to be found in the histories of Beckbury and Badger. Both are mentioned in Domesday as Manors of small extent, and held of a lay-fee. At all subsequent periods we find a lay-fee in each, amply sufficient in point of extent to satisfy the Domesday measurements. Yet we also find in each a co-ordinate seigneury of Wenlock Priory, existent doubtless before Domesday, yet not alluded to in that Record. We find that this seigneury was exercised over lands clearly distinct from those which belonged to the lay-fee of each Manor; that the Prior had his peculiar chief-rents, the Lay-Lords theirs. Also we see that the Prior's partial interest in each Manor operated, in the reign of King Richard, to change the hundredal subjection of the whole of each Manor, of whomsoever held. We shall lastly have to observe the most curious coincidence of all, viz. that as in Badger so in Beckbury, the Prior's Tenant became eventually identical with the Lay-Lord's Tenant. Thus it is that a series of facts, anomalous and suspicious when illustrated by only one example, becomes somewhat more intelligible and perfectly credible when exemplified in a second instance.

Before I proceed with some account of the Prior's Tenants at Beckbury, I should recapitulate the little that is known of another tenure (also a hide) in this Manor. It seems to have been held at one time by Philip de Grete, and if so, perhaps under the Lords of Richard's Castle. Philip's Tenants were again various, and not well agreed among themselves. The families of Herleton,

[10] Pope Nicholas's Taxation, p. 164.
[11] Register at Willey, fo. 89. There were other sums besides this chief rent receivable from Beckbury, e.g. certain pensionarii (payers of pensions) here are said to give 3s. per annum to the Sacristan of Wenlock in or about the year 1516; also in 1495 the Priory Kitchen had a rent of 3s. from diverse lands in Beckbury (ibidem, fo. 30 b, and 33). After the Dissolution these two rents of 3s. each were payable to the Crown. One is said to arise from the Rent of Beckbury Rectory, and it was clearly the portion payable by the Rector to the Priory; the other is said to arise from Thomas Gray's land in Beckbury (Biakeway's MSS.).


Bagesore, and Beckbury shared or quarrelled over this tenure. All the particulars which I have of their interests have been given under Badger. [12]

The first known Lord of Beckbury was that Hugh de Beckbury of whom I have already said so much under Harrington, and elsewhere. [13] I here add a few further particulars:-

About 1196, and probably soon after his marriage with Alina Mussun, I find him attesting a great Charter of William fitz Alan (II) to Reyner de Lee.

At the County Assizes (October, 1201), he was amerced three merks for some disseizin.

At the Forest Assizes of March, 1209, the following charge was brought against him:- "Richard de Prestewode (a Forester apparently) going through his Bailiwick of Morfe, followed two men till he came up with them, viz. Hugh de Bectebury and Thomas his Brother. They had with them three greyhounds, out of leash, and five hares; but when Richard had arrested Hugh, Thomas drew his sword and released him. Both then took to flight, and Richard raising the hue and cry pursued, till night took the fugitives from his sight". It appears that this matter was compounded by some unspecified, but doubtless heavy fine, proffered by Hugh de Beckbury at these same assizes, viz. "that he and Thomas his Brother might be quit as to this,- that they had taken hares in the King's Forest". [14]

This Hugh de Beckbury, it seems, had an estate at Hill Wotton, in Warwickshire, under whom held I will not here inquire. With consent of Alice (read Alina) his wife and John his heir, he grants half a virgate in Wotton to Godwin fitz Godwin, of Wotton.- Witnesses: Sir William Prior, of Kenilworth; Robert Painel, Constable of Kenilworth, etc. [15]

This was between the years 1214 and 1226; for Hugh de Beckbury, as I have said under Harrington, died about the end of the latter year.

[12] Supra, Vol. II, pp. 87-71. The Shrewsbury Chartulary informs us of a hide in Becchebury given before the year 1155 to that House. There is not a particle of evidence to connect the grant with this Beckbury, or I should notice it at length. I am quite at a loss however to suggest the true locality of that grant. A Rental of Shrewsbury Abbey describe, two pastures adjacent to the Abbey Foregate by the name of "Becbury" (Hist. Shrewsbury, II, 508). I cannot enlarge upon this trivial coincidence so as in any way to solve the doubts of the case.
[13] Vol. II, pp. 131-134.
[14] Forest Rolls, No. II, m. 1, 3.
[15] Kenilworth Register (Dugdale's MSS. in Bibl. Ashmol., F. 2), fo. 295.


Godwin fitz Godwin, it appears, gave to Kenilworth Priory a rent of 5s., issuing out of the land which he held of Sir Hugh de Beckbury, Knight; [16] and "Alina de Beckberi in her widowhood released to the Priory all her right in the tenement which the Canons had from Godwin fitz Godwin in the vill of Hull.- Witnesses: Henry Tycun, and Hugh, son of Alina de Beckberi"; [17]- that is, her second son, her successor at Harrington. Of Hugh thus mentioned I have already given a full account. John de Beckbury, eldest son of Hugh Senior, succeeded him at Beckbury, and on March 12, 1227, is found attending the Prior of Wenlock's Court at Burton. [18] At the Assizes of October, 1227, John de Beckebir was amerced five merks "because he withdrew himself",- from some suit, I suppose. It took three years to liquidate this heavy fine. About 1240 three collated lists of Fitz Alan's Barony record substantively, and I think untruly, that John de Beckbury then held an eighth part of a Knight's-fee in Beckbury, of that Honour. [19] He was also a Coparcener in a Knight's-fee held in Pulverbatch, of the Honour of Pulverbatch,- a coincidence which I should not meddle with here, except to remark that Beckbury had once belonged to the same Barony. John de Beckbury was living after the year 1248, but was dead in 1254. Philip de Beckbury was his son and heir; and on October 6, in the latter year, a Fine was levied at Westminster between Agnes, Prioress of Brewode, Plaintiff, and Philip de Bechebur', Deforciant, of two merks rent, which Philip should pay out of two Mills in Bechebur', whereof was suit at law. Now Philip undertook for himself and his heirs that they would pay for the future one merk yearly at Brewode; and the Prioress remitted the other of the two merks which she was claiming. [20]

In 1255 Philip de Beckbury occurs as a Coparcener in the Serjeantry of Uppington, an inheritance which came to him from his Grandmother Alina. He was living in the year 1292, and was afterwards succeeded by his son John; but as nothing occurs to me in connection with this succession which I can also associate with Beckbury,

[16] Dugdale's Warwickshire (Thomas), p. 270.
[17] Kenilworth Register, ut supra.
[18] Monasticon, V, p. 74; Notes, No. 6. The name is erroneously transcribed "Beckeburton".
[19] Testa de Nevill, pp. 44, 48, 50. In one case the name is spelt Kokebur. I do not suppose it possible that the land held of Fitz Alan by John de Beckbury was in Beckbury, or that Fitz Alan had any seigneury there. The said John is known to have held of Fitz Alan elsewhere. Being resident in Beckbury, we may thus account for the supposed error.
[20] Pedes Finium, 38 Hen. III, Salop.


I here take leave of a matter which may be resumed more advantageously under other localities.


I have given under Badger Church the exact ratio of the patronage of the Church of Beckbury. [21] The Prior of Wenlock presented the Rector to the Bishop of Hereford; but the said Rector was first nominated to the Prior by the Lord of the Fee, and the Prior's mediate right of presentation was represented by an annual pension of 3s., covenanted to be paid by the Rector when instituted. That which, exclusively relating to Beckbury, I have not mentioned under Badger, is as follows:-

In 1291 the Church of Beckbury, in the Deanery of Wenlock and Diocese of Hereford, is entered as of less than 4 annual value. [22]

In 1379 the Chapel of Bekkebury, valued at five merks (3. 6s. 8d.) per annum, is said to belong to the Presentation of the Prior of Wenlock. [23]

The Prior's pension (3s.), arising from his mediate right of Presentation, appears in a Roll of the year 1456 as being due annually on the feast of the Translation of St. Milburg. [24] Again, it is mentioned in the Valor of 1534-5 as a Portion received from the Vill of Becbury. [25]

The Valor also gives the Rectory of Beckburye, of which Richard Rugge was Incumbent, as worth 5. 6s. 8d. annually, in glebe and tithes. This income was chargeable with the pension of 3s. due to the Prior of Wenlock, and 4d. for Synodals. [26]


MASTER RALPH DE BIKEBIR', Parson of the Church of Bikebir', has letters of protection, 25 Edw. I (1296-7). [28]

WALTER DE BECKBURY, acolyte, was admitted to this "Chapel" August 13, 1308, on presentation of the Prior and Convent of Wenlock. [29]

RICHARD DE UPTON, admitted to this "Chapel" Nov. 8, 1307, on a like presentation.

[21] Supra, Vol. II, pp. 76, 77.
[22] Pope Nich. Taxation, pp. 167, 176.
[23] Monasticon, V, 78, b.
[24] Register at Willey, fo. 37, b.
[25] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 216.
[26] Ibidem, p. 208.
[27] From Blakeway's MSS.
[28] Prynne, III, 714.
[29] "Being first presented by John Lord of Beckbury", says Mr. Blakeway.


JOHN DE RONTON, Clerk, instituted Oct. 15, 1316, on presentation of the same;- John Lord of Beckbury, "the true Patron", having nominated him. He has leave of non-residence, Dec. 16, 1320.

RICHARD DE ALBRINGTON, Rector of Beckbury, has a license to study in 1322.

SIR ROGER DE CODSHALL, Priest, was admitted to this "Free Chapel" Nov. 10, 1349, on presentation of John Lord of Beckbury, the King presenting mediately because the Priory of Wenlock was in his hand, by reason of the wars with France. [30] Roger Rector of Beckbury, on April 21, 1358, exchanged preferments with-

JOHN DE TRESLE, late Vicar of Womborne (Lichfield Diocese).

THOMAS ATTE BRADE was admitted to this Church on Nov. 1, 1361, being presented by the Prior and Convent of Wenlock, after the previous nomination of Thomas de la Lowe.

JOHN LA WALEYE was admitted Dec. 11, 1363.

SIR WILLIAM HIEWET, Clerk, was presented by King Edward III on Jan. 28, 1376 ("50 Edw. 3"). He seems to have resigned immediately. [31]


Condetret Hundred.

ON the re-arrangement of the Domesday Hundreds of Shropshire, the whole of Condetret, except Neen Sollars, fell to the newly created Hundred of Stottesden. The modern Hundred of Stottesden is therefore mainly composed of Manors which stood in the Domesday Hundreds of Condetret, Patinton, Alnodestreu, and Bascherch: it also comprises two Manors which were anciently reputed to be in Staffordshire, and four Manors anciently reputed to be in Warwickshire; of all these, except the Condetret Manors, we have now given account. Besides these, Stottesden Hundred embraces a portion of the Domesday Hundred of Overs, hereafter to be spoken of. It also surrounds, but does not include, one Manor, Farlow,

[30] See Patent, 23 Edw. III, p. 2, m. 6.
[31] Mr. Blakeway says in "1375", which, according to the then mode of computing the year, would cover any period up to March 25, 1376.



[For table, see Condetret]



THE Saxon terminations den and dun are often interchanged, though the former indicates a valley, the latter a hill or down. We accordingly find Stottesden written in both ways, as well as with the termination don, as a substitute for dun. Stoder, the possessive case of the Saxon Stod (a stud of brood horses), completes the etymology of Stottesden.

This, at the time of Domesday, was one of the great Manors of the Earl Palatine's Demesne, and is described in that Record as follows: [1]-

"The same Earl holds Stodesdone.- Earl Edwin held it (in Saxon times) with VII Berewicks. Here are IX hides. In demesne are IIII ox-teams, and (there are) VIII Serfs, and III Female Serfs (Ancillae), and XVIII Villains, and V Boors, and VI Semi-Serfs [2] (Coliberti) with XI teams. Here is a Mill of 10s. (annual value), and two leagues (Leuuedes) [3] of Wood. In time of King Edward (the Manor) was worth 20. (per annum); now (it is worth) 10.

The Church of St. Peter holds the Church of this Manor, together with two hides and a half. Thereon are X Villains with IX ox-teams, and there might be II other teams (employed) thereon. This (land) is worth 20s. (per annum)".

On the forfeiture of Earl Robert de Belesme, Stottesden fell to the Crown, and was thenceforward esteemed to be a Manor of

[1] Domesday, fo. 254, a, 1.
[2] I coin a word to represent what I infer from a multitude of opinions to have been the condition of the Domesday Coliberti. They seem to have been Serfs partially enfranchised; that is, each held some land or other tenement, and paid a fixed rent in money, produce, or personal service. But the Coliberti belonged to the land; they were ascripti glebae, like the Villains, and required further manumission to make them Liberi.
[3] The Leugae, Leuuae, and Leuuedes of Domesday are, I suppose, identical. That in passages like the above, an areal measure was intended, I have before observed (Vide Vol. I, p. 165, note 4). The only explanation which I find of the Leuga, as a square measure, makes it equal to twelve Quaranteines. The Quaranteae of Domesday is said to be represented by the modern Furlong (Forty-long). The forty perches, which composed the Quaranteine, must however have been square perches, not perches of twenty feet in length, as one Commentator instructs us (Vide Kennet. Glossar. Paroch. Antiq. sub voce Quarantea).


Ancient Demesne. This however is said with some qualification, as regards the adjuncts of the Manor. The seven Berewicks which Domesday attributes to Stottesden, were, all or most of them, outlying members thereof and were granted away on various conditions, I think by King Henry I. This will be more apparent when we come to speak of those Berewicks. The Central Manor, which alone reached the hands of King Henry II as Royal Demesne, contained, I think, only four of the nine hides of Domesday. Its fiscal value was, at the time of that Prince's accession, reputed to be 14. 3s. per annum, and so much the Sheriff, as Fermor of the County, may be presumed to have paid at the Exchequer, for each of the four first regnal years of Henry II. It was sometime during the year ending Michaelmas, 1159, that the King granted this estate to Godfrey de Gamages,- a date and a fact which are thus ascertained.-

The Sheriff, accounting at that period, deducts from his gross obligations the following items:- "Et in terris datis Godefrido de Gamages, 14. 3s. et 7". [4] In what quarter the King's grant of seven librates of land lay I cannot ascertain, and indeed it seems to have been revoked within the next year; for the Sheriff, accounting at Michaelmas, 1160, attributes to Godfrey de Gamages a gift of Crown lands to the extent of 14. 3s. only, but states it expressly to be in Stottesdun. [5] And this entry on the Sheriffs' Rolls continues, without material variation, till Michaelmas, 1176, when Matthew, son of Godfrey de Gamages, appears as his Father's successor in this matter of Royal bounty. [6]

The history of the Norman Family of Gamaches belongs rather to Herefordshire than to Shropshire; nevertheless I pause to make one or two remarks as to its origin and earlier interests. The Castle and Vill of Gamaches were situated in the Norman Vexin, and gave name to a Deanery in the Archdiocese of Rouen. Godfrey de Gamaches, who doubtless derived his name from this vill, inherited two Knights'-fees of old feoffment in the Herefordshire Barony of De Lacy. [7] The English interests of his family were therefore established previous to the death of King Henry I. It is probable that Godfrey de Gamaches took some active part in the restoration of Henry II, for, in the year previous to that in which he had a grant of Stottesden, the King gave him fourteen Solidates of Crown land in Herefordshire, and also excused him a debt

[4] [5] [6] Rot. Pip. 5, 6. 22 Hen. II, Salop.
[7] Liber Niger (Hearne), I, 153.


of 16s. 4d., his proportion of the Donum then assessed on that County. [8] In 1165 Godfrey de Gamages appears as holder of the two Lacy Fees above alluded to; and, in 1172, we have evidence that he was still possessed of an estate in Normandy, viz. in the Vicomte of the Roumois, and which he held in capite by service of half a knight's-fee. [9]

Before Michaelmas, 1176, Matthew de Gamages had succeeded both to Stottesden and to such of the Herefordshire estates of his Father Godfrey as had been held in capite. Mansel Gamage, the estate held under Lacy, went to Matthew's younger brother William, by disposal of their Father. [10]

A matter, touching Matthew de Gamages's Shropshire interests, during the reign of Richard I, has already been detailed. From Easter 1193 to Easter 1197 Stottesden was an Escheat. [11] The affairs which were cotemporarily taking place in Normandy will serve to explain this. By the Treaty of Issoudun, in December, 1195, King Richard I ceded to Philip Augustus the Castle of Gamaches, with the rest of the Norman Vexin. On the renewal of hostilities, in 1196, that Castle became the scene of one of those few brilliant exploits which grace the name of John Earl of Moreton. He recaptured it, and it was instantly fortified and garrisoned for the King of England, at an expense commensurate with its importance as an outpost on the then shattered and debatable frontier. From that time till the year 1203, when Normandy was finally lost to the English Crown, the position of Matthew de Gamaches will have been as critical as that of the Castle and district with which his name is associated. The Rolls from 1197 to 1203 show him in possession both of Stottesden and of the Herefordshire Manor, which he held in capite. [12] Moreover, and as if his allegiance to the English Crown had been regarded as important, he stood seized in 1201 of three Royal Manors in Staffordshire, viz. Wiginton, Tettenhall, and More.
[12] Such bribes were vain. Matthew de Gamaches preferred a French allegiance, and all his English estates reverted to King John. The forfeiture of Stottesden in particular seems to have taken effect about Easter, 1204, for the

[8] Rot. Pip. 4 Hen. II, Herefordshire. The grant of fourteen Solidates way afterwards increased to one of fifteen Solidates, e.g.:- Et Godefrido de Gamages xv s. (Rot. Pip. 7 Hen. II, Heref. In terris datis.)
[9] Stapleton's Rot. Normanniae, II, cclvi.
[10] Testa de Nevill, p. 71.
[11] Supra, Vol. I, pp. 201, 212.
[12] Rot. Pip. de eisdem annis et Rot. Canc. 3 John, p. 46.


Sheriff, accounting for the year which ended at Michaelmas following, attributes 7. 1s. 6d., or half of the said year's ferm of Stodesdon, to Matthew de Gamages in the usual way; and with respect to the other half, he does not indeed charge himself therewith, but says that the "men of the Vill ought to answer for the same". [13] This obligation, lying on the Tenants of Matthew de Gamages, seems to have been reasserted and liquidated in the course of the next fiscal year. [14] Meanwhile, that is on January 14, 1205, King John issued his Writ-Close to the Sheriff of Shropshire, ordering him to appraise, as best he could, twenty librates of land in Stotesden, and give the same to Ivo and Hugh Pantulf, "as the King had previously by word of mouth enjoined". [15] It appears that the whole of Stottesden thus passed to the new Grantees, for the Sheriff, accounting at Michaelmas, 1205, discharges his liabilities of the following item: In terris datis; Yvoni Pantulf et Hugoni fratri suo 14. 3s. in Stodesdon, per breve Regis". [16] This entry continues substantively the same till Michaelmas, 1214, when the Sheriff names Yvo Pantulf only as the Grantee of Stottesden. This again continues till Christmas, 1223, when the Earl of Chester, as Sheriff, attributes a quarter's revenue, or 3. 10s. 9d., to Yvo Pantulf; while the Earl of Salisbury, accounting at Michaelmas, 1224, attributes 10. 12s. 3d. in Stodesdon (that is, the revenue of three-quarters of the year then ended) to William de Gamages. [17] We conclude that, about Christmas, 1223, William de Gamages was restored to this estate of his family,- a conclusion which must presently be tested by other evidence.

Even before the crisis which separated his elder Brother from England, William de Gamages had experienced the favour of King John. In or before 1201 he had a grant of Crown-lands in Gloucestershire. [18] In 1203 he had a similar grant in Normandy. [19] Again, in the same year, King John gave him the Rutlandshire Manor of Cotesmore. Of the forfeited estates of his elder Brother, Tettenhall was bestowed upon him shortly after.
[20] In August,

[13] [14] Rot. Pip., 6, 7 John, Salop.
[15] Rot. Claus. I, 17, b.
[16] Rot Pip. 6 John, Salop. A previous entry on this Roll, making inadvertent mention of Matthew de Gamages, is cancelled in the usual way, by being under-lined.
[17] Rot. Pip. 8 Hen. III, Salop.
[18] Rot. Canc. 3 John, p. 34.
[19] Rotuli Normanniae (Hardy), p. 103.
[20] William de Gamages, in May, 1205, gave Tettenhall in exchange to Archbishop Hubert, who intended to endow a Cistercian Abbey at Wolverhampton therewith (Rot. Pat. p. 152). In June the Archbishop died, and in October following King John cancelled the exchange, thus restoring Tettenhall to William de Gamages (Claus. I, 56).


1209, I find him accompanying the King in the so-called "army of Scotland". [21] In August, 1210, he was with him in Ireland.
[22] In May, 1214, he had the usual letters of Scutage, significant of his personal service in the Army of Poitou. [23] In April, 1216, King John gave him the Gloucestershire Manor of Southam; [24] and ou July 28, in the same year, the King, being then at Haye in Radnorshire, apprises the Sheriff of Shropshire that he has "restored to his faithful and beloved William de Gamages the land of Totendon (read Stottesdon), with all its appurtenances, as his right and inheritance, which land had formerly belonged to Matthew de Gamages, the Grantee's brother"; and so the Sheriff was to give the said William instant seizin thereof. [25] Nor did the Royal favour to William de Gamages cease with the life of King John. On April 17th, King Henry III pronounces the Herefordshire Manor of Dilun to be his "right and inheritance". It was Dilwyn,- the Manor, which Matthew de Gamages had held in capite, and though on his forfeiture the estate had been given to another, an equivalent was now to be provided elsewhere for the said temporary Grantee; further steps were taken in July and August following to enforce the King's intentions in this matter. [26]

In November, 1217, William de Gamages appears as entitled to a share of the Gloucestershire Manor of Westbury, in right of his wife Lisebell, daughter and co-heir of Henry de Mineriis. [27] On March 14, 1218, the Sheriff of Herefordshire has orders to restore to him his land of Boyhckered, of which he had been disseized during the late war. [28]

I must now return, to give a more particular account of Stottesden. It appears that King John's grant thereof to Ivo and Hugh Pantulf was provisional, not in fee and inheritance. Hence a Record of the year 1211 describes the said Ivo and Hugh as holding the Manor of the Bailiwick of King John, [29] that being the term by which these limited Tenures in capite were indicated. The

[21] [22] Misae, p. 125. Praestita, pp. 212, 223.
[23] [24] Claus. I, 201, 261.
[25] Claus. I, 278, b.
[26] Ibidem, pp. 306, 317, 320. In the second Writ Matthew de Gamages is erroneously described, or transcribed, as Father of William.
[27] Claus. I, 345. See also Rot. Fin. Vol. I, p. 4.
[28] Claus. I, 355.
[29] Testa de Nevill, p. 56. The Record also describes the Manor as an Escheat of Matthew de Gauches, and gives its fiscal value of 14. 3s.


Grant was afterwards suspended, probably in the year 1215, and by reason of the suspected disloyalty of the Grantees. Hugh de Mortimer (of Wigmore) then seems to have had, or to have claimed ingress therein, under some concession of King John. That Monarch however on December 2, 1215, orders Thomas de Erdinton to seize the Manor into the King's hand; but if Hugh de Mortimer could show any Royal warrant for holding it, then Erdinton was to act towards him accordingly. In July, 1216, as we have already seen, William de Gamages had King John's Writ for the restitution of Stottesden. However, within two years of Henry III's accession, Ivo and Hugh Pantulf obtained that Prince's order to the Sheriff to restore the Manor to them. But this was not acted upon; for on December 26, 1218, another Writ [31] issued to the said Sheriff telling him to delay such restoration, and recounting the two alleged but discordant grants of the late King, viz. the first to Yvo and Hugh Pantulf, as of the King's Bailiwick, and to sustain them in the King's service; the second to William de Gamages, as his right and inheritance: the Sheriff was to pause till the question was determined before the King's Council, as to which claim was superior. It was not till October 18, 1219, that the King's Justices Itinerant in Shropshire, were apprised of William de Gamages's sound title, which the King had discovered by inspection of the Rolls. [32]

What followed must be inferred from the fact that, at the Assizes of November, 1221, Yvo and Hugh Pantulf sued William de Gamages, for disseizing them of their free tenement in Stottesden. To this charge William de Gamages replied by alleging King John's Writ in his favour. The Sheriff also appeared in Court, and put in the two writs of King Henry III already quoted, viz. that to himself enjoining delay, and that to the Justices Itinerant. The Sheriff further explained that these Writs had caused him to disregard the earlier Writ in favour of the two Pantulfs, who, it seems, had never been reseized. The Plaintiffs, hereupon acknowledging that the question was not as yet fully settled in the Curia Regis, as to whose right was the best, were ordered to attend and hear sentence at Westminster on the Octaves of Hilary (1222). [33]

On May 7, 1222, the King orders full reseizin for William de

[30] [31] Claus. I, 239, 376, b.
[32] Ibidem, p. 402. There were not any Justices in Eyre in Shropshire at this date. The Writ must be taken as prospective.
[33] Assizes, 6 Hen. III, memb. 2.


Gamages, both of Stottesden and Tettenhall, [34] but without alluding to the previous litigation, which had probably been compounded in the interval. The Pipe Rolls do not recognise the restitution till Michaelmas following.

Meantime, that is in February, 1221, William de Gamages had letters of Scutage, as personally assisting at the siege of Biham. [35] In August, 1223, he had a similar favour in regard to the Scutage of Montgomery. [36] On November 16, 1223, the King orders the Sheriff of Shropshire to respite, till the next Iter of the Justices, a demand of three merks, which the said Sheriff had against William de Gamages's men of Stottesden. Their misdemeanour was that they had not produced in the County Court a certain ladder from which another Tenant had fallen, and so been killed. [37]

In April, 1225, we hear of William de Gamages as having custody of Ludlow Castle on behalf of the Crown, for which office he received a salary of fifty merks per annum. [38] On June 13, 1233, the King being at Worcester and the Barons of the Marches being required to give hostages for their faith and services till the Realm should be more tranquil, William de Garages so gave his son Henry, who was committed to the custody of Walter de Beauchamp. [39] At Michaelmas, 1235, and Easter, 1236, when the Aid on marriage of the King's sister was collected in Shropshire, William de Gamages paid two merks thereon, that being the proportionate assessment on one fee, said to be of old feoffment; he paid it by hand of Gamel de Stottesden. [40] The Pipe-Roll of Michaelmas, 1239, attributes the Tenure of fourteen librates and three solidates of land in Stottesden, in the usual way, as "given to William de Gamages".

But the Roll of 1240 represents John de Plaseto as accredited with the current year's ferm, intimating moreover that the King had given him the said lands to maintain him in the Royal service, and to hold during the King's pleasure. The fact is that William de Gamages was, at this time, deceased; that the King had recovered Stottesden from Godfrey de Gamages, son and heir of William, and had bestowed it on John de Plessetis, but in the limited and conditional way above indicated. While the Manor had been in the King's hand, we learn from the same Pipe-Roll of 1240, that

[34] Claus. I, 495, b.
[35] [36] [37] Ibidem, pp. 475, 572, 575.
[38] Claus. II, 33.
[39] Claus. 17 Hen. III, m. 8 dorso.
[40] Testa de Nevill, pp. 60, 61.


the Sheriff of Shropshire had expended 20s. on the cultivation of the Demesne lands thereof.

Before I proceed with any account of the new Lords of Stottesden, it will be fitting to trace to its extinction the male line of De Gamages. Godfrey succeeded his Father at Cotesmore, in Rutlandshire, and at Mansel Gamages, and other estates in Herefordshire and in Wales. He died in 1253, and I find an order to the King's Escheators to seize his lands, dated Oct. 2, of that year. [41] Also in the same month, Alda, his Widow, was suing John de Plessetis for a third of the Manor of Stottesden, which she claimed as her dower. The cause was adjourned to Hilary Term following, but the litigated land being apparently seized into the King's hand, John de Plessetis moves the Court to reinstate him at once therein. [42] This was probably done, either immediately or eventually, for I cannot suppose that Alda's claim was ever allowed. Godfrey de Gamages left three daughters and Coheirs, viz. Elizabeth, Lucia, and Eufemia. Elizabeth appears to have been married to Henry de Pembruge, Junior, previous to April 20, 1254, when I find her, her husband, and her two Sisters, jointly impleading one Richard de Tunderley for the land of Trewarn, which, being a member of that Honour of Boghred late held in capite by Godfrey de Gamages, had been wrested from the said Godfrey by the said Richard de Tunderley, under the false pretence that it was a member of the Honour of Castle Matilda in Elvein. [43]

On May 10, 1254, we find, as I have before related, [44] that Henry de Pembruge, Senior, purchased from the King the marriages of Lucia and Eufemia de Gamages, for two of his other sons. The Ladies were taken from the custody of Margery de Lacy, who I suppose had them in ward by reason of their late Father's tenure at Mansel Gamages. I have also before alluded to another claim of two of these Coheiresses, viz. Elizabeth and Eufemia, who, in 1263, were endeavouring once more to recover Stottesden from Hugh, son and heir of John de Plessetis above-mentioned. Their claim was unsuccessful, as the sequel will show.

It remains therefore to state that Lucia, the third Coheiress, had probably deceased in the interval, without issue; and that the descendants of Henry and William de Pembruge, husbands respectively

[41] Rot. Fin. 37 Hen. III, m. 2.
[42] Placita, Mich. Term, 37 Hen. III. m. 11 recto et 14 dorso.
[43] Inquisitions, 38 Hen. III, No. 20.
[44] Supra, Vol. II, p. 227.


of Elizabeth and Eufemia de Gamages, represent that family of almost Baronial rank, whose connection with Stottesden here ceases, but whose history as Lords of Tong I have already continued to a much later aera.

We now return to John de Plessetis, the powerful and fortunate favourite of Henry III, and whose Title to Stottesden was evidently framed in disregard of the better claims of hereditary descent. His history, as sometime Earl of Warwick, I need not dwell upon here. In the year following that in which Stottesden was given to him conditionally, he obtained a grant thereof in Fee and inheritance, with all its Liberties and appurtenances's In 28 Hen. III (1243-4) he had a grant of Market here, to be held weekly on Tuesdays, and a fair to be held annually on the eve, the day, and the morrow of the Assumption (August 14, 15, 16), together with the privilege of Free-Warren. [45]

The Jurors of Stottesden Hundred, relating in 1255 the status of this Manor, said that "it was an Escheat of the Lord King of the Land of the Normans, which Sir John de Plessy holds in capite of the King, who is enfeoffed in the same vill by Royal Charter, and for service of half a knight's fee. Therein are IIII hides of land, and they were used to be geldable, but now are not so, by Charter which the said John hath from the King; and he (John) hath withdrawn himself from Suits of Hundred Courts, and from other things implied by the term geldable, these nineteen years past; [47] whereby the King is damaged at the rate of 1 per annum, or 19 in all". The Jurors also said that "Sir John de Plessy had a Franchise in the Vill of Stottesden, and had withdrawn himself from every kind of Suit". They also reported how two hounds of Philip de Farlawe's having entered the Warren of John de Plessy, hut caught nothing therein, the said Philip had paid 4s. recompense to Henry de Chippenham, the Seneschal of Stottesden. [48]

John de Plessetis was at this time Earl of Warwick; but for the mode in which he acquired and held that Title I must refer elsewhere: [49] at the Shropshire Assizes of January, 1256, he is so styled in two instances; the first, where he recovers the person and chattels of Robert de Bollisword, his Native or Villain, whom he had

[45] Rot. Chart., 25 Hen, III, No. 5. An entry in the Testa de Nevill (p. 46), which shows John de Pleisi as Tenant in capite of one knight's-fee in Stottesden, must be dated in the same year (1241).
[46] Ibidem, 28 Hen. III, memb. 4.
[47] Fifteen or sixteen years would probably have been more accurate.
[48] Rot. Hundred, II, 81.
[49] Dugdale's Baronage, I, 772, 773.


previously sued for in the County Court; [50] the second, where Gilbert de Mitleton, having against him a Suit of novel disseizin concerning a tenement in Stokes, retracts the same. [51]

John de Plessetis, Earl of Warwick, died on February 26, 1263. The heir of himself and his first Wife, Christiana de Sandford, was Hugh de Plessetis, aged twenty-six years at his Father's death. [52] In April following this Hugh had livery of the Manor of "Suttesdon" (read Stottesdon) "as a tenure in capite, by service of one knight's-fee", his Relief thereon being 100s. He had also livery of other lands inherited from his Mother. [53] He married Isabella, one of the three Coheirs of Philippa Bassett, sometime Countess of Warwick, and on Nov. 29, 1265, had livery of his said wife's estate. [54] In 54 Hen. III (1269-70) Hugh de Plessetis gave the Manor of Stottesden, in frank marriage with Christiana his infant daughter, to John, son of Nicholas de Segrave, [55] which John seems at the time to have been about fourteen years of age. The Jurors of Stottesden Hundred reported this transfer at the Assizes of September, 1272, adding, that it was without the King's consent. They also reported John de Segrave to be then seized thereof; but among the Defaulters in their Hundred appears the name of Nicholas de Segrave, [56] as though the Father were accountable for the Suit and Service due from Stottesden while the Son was in minority. At the Inquisition of Stottesden Hundred, taken in November, 1274, the Jurors traced accurately the descent of this Manor from John de Plessetis to Hugh de Plessetis. The alienation thereof by the latter they also dated in 1270, and explained that Nicholas de Segrave was to hold Stottesden for his life.
[57] This however he did not do; for though he himself lived till 1295, his Son John was in 1277 fully seized of Stottesden. There was a Military Summons returnable at Worcester on July 1 of the latter year, and John de Segrave responded thereto by acknowledging the service of one Knight's-Fee in Stottesden, performable by himself and John Mallore, his serving-man. [58] The Feodary of 1284 consistently reports that "John de Segrave and Christiana his wife hold the Manor of Stotresdon for one Knight's-fee of the King, in capite". [59]

[50] [51] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 2 dorso and 12 recto.
[52] Inquisitions, 47 Hen. III, No. 27.
[53] Rot. Fin. 47 Hen. III, m. 7. Dugdale's statement of these particulars is not quite accurate.
[54] Ibidem, 50 Hen. III, m. 9.
[55] Dugdale's Baronage, I, 674.
[56] Assizes, 56 Hen. III, m. 49 dorso.
[57] Rot. Hundred, II, 107, 108.
[58] Parliamentary Writs, I, 206.
[59] Kirby's Quest.


At the Assizes of 1292 the Jurors of this Hundred said that John de Segrave claimed Free-Warren in Stottesden; also to hold his Free-Court there twice in the year, and decide all such Pleas as the Sheriff ordinarily decided; also the privilege of assizing bread and beer. Being questioned, as it seems, for his authority to exercise these Franchises, John de Segrave pleaded the Grant of King Henry III of the Manor and its liberties to John de Plessetis and his heirs. At the time of that grant, said he, the King held the two annual Courts in question. As to assizing bread and beer, that was further justified and implied by the Grant of Market given to the same John de Plessetis by the same King. Hugh de Lowther (the Crown Attorney) hereupon started a favourite objection of his in such cases, viz. that a Grant to John de Plessetis and his heirs could not extend to the present Defendant, who was not his heir. The result was a reference of the matter to the next Parliamant. [60]

The Feodary of March, 1316, gives John de Segrave as Lord of Stottesden. [61] He died in 18 Edw. II (1324-5), seized inter alia of this Manor. [62] His Son Stephen had obtained, four years previously, a Grant of the Hundred of Stottesden for life. [63] He died in the same year, and apparently in the same foreign service as his aged Father. The Heir of both was John, son of the said Stephen, which John was then in minority; but of him I need say no more. His career, as well as many other incidents in the fortunes of that great Baronial House which he represented, are the subject of a nobler and fuller Record. [64]


I must speak of Stottesden Church, its Parish, its Tithes, and the Estate attached thereto at Domesday, distinguishing the four as well as circumstances will permit. The Church was, I doubt not, one of those Saxon Foundations which had for its Parish a district far greater than existent Records enable us to define. Before 1085 Earl Roger de Montgomery gave this Church to Shrewsbury Abbey, as we learn from his own Charter. [65] Domesday verifies the said Charter,

[60] Placita Coronae, 20 Edw. I, memb. 20.
[61] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 398.
[62] Inquisitions, 19 Edw. II, No. 88.
[63] Dugdale's Baronage, I, 675. Stottesden Hundred belonged to the Crown. The Fermor thereof paid, in 1255, fourteen merks to the Sheriff (Rot. Hund. II, 88), and six merks in 1274 (Rot. Hund. II, 108). Stephen de Segrave was to pay the ancient ferm, but it does not appear what that was.
[64] Dugdale's Baronage, I, pp. 675-6.
[65] Salop Chartulary, No. 2.


as we have seen above, calling Shrewsbury Abbey the "Church of St. Peter", and intimating that two and a half hides of land were attached to the Church of Stottesden,- were in fact its Glebe. King William (I or II), reciting and confirming the Earl's grants to the Abbey, specifies that of the Church of Stottesdon, and indicates the very vills which formed its possessions or Glebe. They were Dodelmutha {read Dodelwicha, i.e. Duddlewick), Hinetona (Hinton), and Prestecota (Prestcote).
[66] The next point to notice, or rather recall, is, that Earl Roger in 1086 granted a third of the Tithes of Stotesden to his Collegiate Church of Quatford. [67] The Tithes of the Earl's demesne must here be understood; but it adds much to the suspicious character of one of Earl Hugh's Charters to Shrewsbury Abbey, when we hear that in the next generation the said Earl Hugh granted the tithes of his demesne of Stottesden to that House. [68] However another and a less suspicious Charter of Earl Hugh clears up the difficulty. Thereby the Earl grants to Shrewsbury Abbey two-thirds of the tithes of his Demesnes of Stottesdone, Neutone (Newton), and Walkeslawe (Walkerslow). [69]

I forbear to recite the repeated confirmations of Stottesden Church which Shrewsbury Abbey obtained from Henry I, Stephen, Henry II, and Henry III. It would seem that the Monks in the first instance appropriated the Church estates to themselves, and also extorted a pension of 4. per annum from each Rector whom they presented to Stottesden. Such a pension is sanctioned by the Confirmation of Bishop Robert de Betun, about 1138. The same Charter confirms to the Abbey the tithes of its whole demesne of Dudelwich and of its demesne of Stotesdun (meaning, I suppose, Hinton and Prestcote); also two parts of the demesne-tithes of the Lords of Stotesdun and Wa1kerlowe. [70] The last-named tithes are again confirmed by the Charter of Bishop Gilbert Foliot. [71] The next Confirmation is that of Bishop William de Vere. It admits Master William de Calne to Stottesden Church, and institutes him Rector thereof as well as of all its dependent Chapels, mentioning those of Fernlawe (Farlow), Wuerketon (Wrickton), Eston (perhaps Aston Botterell), and Wethull (Wheathill). It mentions the preceding Rector, Gamel. It further indicates the reserved pension of the

[66] Salop Chartulary, No. 34.
[67] Supra, Vol. I, p. 109.
[68] Salop Chartulary, No. 5.- See some remarks on this Document, supra, Vol. I, p. 33, note 12.
[69] Chartulary, No. 3.- Vide supra, Vol. I, p. 102, note.
[70] [71] Chartulary, Nos. 334, 331.


Abbey as being 5. instead of 4. [72] In Michaelmas Term, 1207, I find Gilbert de Lacy suing the Abbot of Shrewsbury at Westminster, to oblige the Abbot to collate him to Stottesden Church, as he was bound to do by his (the Abbot's) Charter. The Abbot was summoned to make reply before the King in Easter Term following. [73] On July 30, 1242, the King appoints Alexander, Treasurer of St. Paul's, as a Justiciar, to try a question whether certain land in Stottesdon belonged to the Church thereof, or was the lay fee of the Abbot of Salop. [74] The matter, or some question involved therewith, seems to have come eventually before a Papal Delegate; for on May 23, 1244, a King's Patent, declaring that "Stephen Hanniball had summoned William de Haverhull, Possessor (Incumbent, I suppose) of the Church of Stottesden, out of the kingdom, contrary to the privilege granted to the King by the Pope", proceeds to appoint Robert de Shardelowe as the King's Proctor, to lay before the said Judge-Delegate such things as the King should deem expedient. [75]

Archbishop Peckham's Confirmation, dated August 23, 1280, sanctions the pension of 4. receivable by Shrewsbury Abbey from the Church of Stottesden. [76] Soon after this the Church appears to have become a Vicarage, the Abbot of Shrewsbury procuring an appropriation thereof from Bishop Swinfield. The first Charter on the subject bears date September 25, 1283. The Bishop merely confirms the Church of Stottesden to the Abbot and Convent, saving a competent provision for the Vicar. On Sept. 4, 1286, the same Bishop settles the Vicarial Income at thirty- three merks (22.) per annum, by an Ordinance which assumes the gross Value of the Church to amount to the astonishing sum of 86. 13s. 4d. [77] For the particulars of the Vicar's endowment of thirty-three merks I refer elsewhere, [78] merely remarking that no subsequent Valuation of either the Rectorial or Vicarial Income is equal or proportionate

[72] Chartulary, Nos. 338 b, and 351. This Institution was in the time of Abbot Ralph, and so between 1186 and 1190. The Dependency of Aston Botterell Church seems to have been eventually shaken off. The account thereof already given (Vol I, pp. 228, 229) treats of a later period, when not a vestige of the supposed subjection remained.
[73] Placita, Mich. Term. 9 John, m. 13.
[74] Pat. 26 Hen. III, dorso.
[75] Pat. 28 Hen. III.
[76] Chartulary, No. 62.
[77] [78] Dukes's Antiquities, p. 240.- Bishop Swinfield's two Charters of appropriation,- a Confirmation thereof by the Dean and Chapter of Hereford,- and a Quit-Claim by John de Segrave, are referred to in one of the Indices of the Salop Chartulary, but do not appear in the Volume itself.


to the Sums contemplated in this appropriation and adjustment. On the 18th of April, 1290, Richard Swinfield, Bishop of Hereford, visiting this part of his Diocese, and, as I infer, the Church of Stottesden, passed the night at Duddlewick, where forage for forty-one horses of his train was provided by the Abbot of Shrewsbury, while the rest of the day's expenses were discharged by the Bishop himself. [79]

The Church-Taxation of 1291 values Stottesdon, that is, the Abbot of Shrewsbury's Rectorial income therefrom, at 26. 13s. 4d.; besides this the Vicarage, called the Vicarial Portion, was 13. 6s. 8d. The Abbot of Wigmore had a portion of 13s. 4d.; the Rector of Cornley a portion of 1.; the Precentor of Wenlock Priory a portion of 13s. 4d., and the Dean of Brug a portion of 6s. 8d., from Stottesden Church. [80] Of the origin of none of these pensions except the last can I give any satisfactory account. The last doubtless represented a composition between the Abbot of Shrewsbury and the Dean of Brug, whereby Earl Roger's grant of Stottesden Tithes to Quatford Church had sometime been commuted for a fixed annual charge. The same Taxation informs us that the Vicar of Stottesden received an annual portion of 2s. from the Church of Wethull. This doubtless was the result of the ancient dependence of Wheathill Chapel on the Mother Church of Stottesden.

On March 15, 1291, the King ordered Malcolumb de Harley to make Inquest as to the Advowson of Stottesden: this was done at Bridgnorth, on April 30 following. The Jurors found that "Roger de Belleume" (they meant Earl Roger), "who came with the Conqueror, gave Stottesden Church, with other Churches, to Salop Abbey, so as that, when the then Rectors should die, the Abbey might retain those Churches to its own uses, presenting from time to time a fit Clerk for Institution to the Bishop". They further found that Clerks were thus instituted, till, on the death of Ralph Dungoun, the last Rector, the Abbot had appropriated the Church, with Episcopal consent indeed, but after the enactment of the Statute of Mortmain. The Jurors had inspected charters of Earl Roger, King William, and Henry III, bearing on the matter, and produced by the Abbey. They valued the Church at one hundred merks, and said that the Portion recently allotted to the Vicar was thirty (not thirty-three) merks; that it would not injure the King to allow the appropriation unless there were concurrent vacancies in Stottesden Church and Shrewsbury Abbey, when the King would lose a presentation

[79] Household Expences, p. 76.
[80] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 166, a.


(to the greater emoluments): the Church, they added, was charged with all its ancient burdens and responsibilities, and the Abbot and Vicar exercised jointly greater hospitality for the relief of the people thereabouts than the former Rectors had done. [81]

It is evident that the Appropriation was eventually conceded by the Crown; but,-

In October, 1292, Hugh de Louther, as Attorney for the King, sued the Abbot of Shrewsbury for this Advowson, alleging that King Henry I had formerly been seized thereof, and had presented one John fitz Walter, his Clerk, to the Church, who was thereupon instituted, and who duly received the emoluments. Hugh de Louther, in the usual form, deduced Edward I's title and descent from Henry I. The Abbot appealed to a Jury, apparently of Knights, who were to try the single issue whether the King or the Abbot had the better right. The said Jury found for the Abbot. [82]

It will be seen, from what has been stated above, that the value of Stottesden Church, that is, the Rectory, Vicarage, and four pensions, amounted by the Taxation to 42. 13s. 4d. In 1341 the Assessors of the Ninth, after correctly quoting that Taxation, proceeded to rate the Parish at 15. 6s. 8d. to the current impost. The reasons for the diminution were, because the Glebe of the Church was two Carucates of land and 50s. rent (included in the Taxation, but not now to be reckoned). Moreover 500 acres in the Parish lay unfilled, and there was no stock of sheep or lambs, and the Tenants had quitted under stress of poverty. Again, the hay and other small tithes were computed in the Taxation, but were not regarded in estimating the Ninth; but in reckoning the said Ninth the Assessors had taken care to include the Temporalities of Shrewsbury Abbey, [83] which, as I suppose, were not accounted of in the Taxation.

In 1534 Thomas Abbot of Shrewsbury returned, among the receipts of his House, a sum of 8. as the year's issue of the Tithes of Stottesden, and 13s. 4d. as the ferm of the Tithes of Duddlewick. [84] The Vicarage, then held by John Mauncell, was valued, in glebe and tithes, at 15. 12s. 8d.; the charges on which were, for Procuration 10s., and for Synodals 2s. [85] The Minister's Accounts of 1541-2 seem to estimate the whole Rectorial Tithes of Stottesden at 8. 6s. 8d., entering the item as the "Ferm of the Tithe of Dodewyck". [86]

[81] Inquisitions, 19 Edw. I, No. 92.
[82] Plac. de Quo Warranto, p. 682.
[83] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 189.
[84] [85] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 189, 211.
[86] Monasticon, III, 628.- An Abbey Rent-Roll of the fifteenth Century seems to have reckoned the Great tithes of the Church of Dodylweke (read Stottesden) at 12. (Hist. Shrewsbury, II, 509.)- Mr. Dukes (Antiquities, pp. 240-243) gives a valuable series of documents relative to the Abbot of Shrewsbury's interests in Stottesden, and the disposal thereof after the Dissolution.



[For engravings, see pdf.]



JOHN FITZ WALTER, the first Rector of whom we are likely to have notice, was, it seems, presented by King Henry I; if so, the King's presentation will have taken place during a Vacancy of Shrewsbury Abbey, or else in disregard of the undoubted right of that House.

GAMEL, Rector of Stottesden, died or resigned between 1186 and 1190: his successor, as already stated, was-

MASTER WILLIAM DE CALNA, presented by the Abbot and Convent of Shrewsbury. Whether-

GILBERT DE LACY, suing the Abbot for a presentation to this Church in 1207, succeeded in his object, I cannot say. One-

RALPH, Parson of Stottesden, is stated to occur in the time of King John (1199-1216). [87] The next Rector of whom we hear was-

WILLIAM DE HAVERHULL, named above in a Royal Patent of May 23, 1244. We have seen this person cotemporarily holding the Prebend of Alveley, in the Collegiate Church of Bridgnorth; [88] he was also Prebendary of Islington, in the Church of St. Paul's, London. He died August 23, 1252. I cannot tell who that Archdeacon of Salop was who, having been Rector of Stottesden, appears to have died before 1256. Possibly it was-

JOHN FOLIOT, Archdeacon of the Hereford Archdeaconry of Salop in 1244, and who had been succeeded in that office, previous to November, 1255, by James de Aquablanca. The vacancy of Stottesden Church in 1256 occasioned a letter from the Pope (Alexander IV) to King Henry III, wherein the King is required to admit-

MASTER STEPHEN ANNIBALDI, Canon Of Furnes, to Stottesden Church, who had been presented by Pope Gregory. [89] Pope Gregory IX must be the Pontiff here alluded to, and, whereas he died August 21, 1241, we thus get an explanation of the fact before quoted, viz. that in 1244 Stephen Hanniball had summoned the Rector in possession out of the kingdom,- doubtless that their respective

[87] Blakeway's MSS.
[88] Supra, Vol. I, p. 121.
[89] Dukes's Antiquities, pp. 239, 240.


claims might be submitted to Papal arbitration. Pope Alexander's letter of 1256 seems to indicate-

"JOHN MATISEL, the King's Clerk", as the then wrongful Incumbent of Stottesden. At the time when the Appropriation of this Church was being arranged, that is, 1283-1286, it was vacant, owing, as we have already seen, to the death of-

RALPH DUNGOUN, the last Rector; but on Sept. 4, of the latter year, Bishop Swinfield admits the first Vicar, viz.-

SIR WILLIAM DE LA GRENE, Chaplain, [90] presented by tire Abbot ' and Convent of Salop. This Vicar has occurred to us before in 1294. [91]

THOMAS DE LODELOWE, Priest, was admitted Jan. 16, 1301. (Same Patrons.)

HAMO DE SCHIDWIC, Priest, admitted Jan. 21, 1321, was, at a Visitation in the same year, found to have deserted his Church, and was summoned on August 22, 1321, to show cause why-

WALTER DE FINGHAM be not admitted on presentation of the Abbot and Convent of Shrewsbury. The latter was so admitted; and, on his resignation (April 5, 1326),-

PHILIP DE GOSINTON was instituted on a like presentation. On Dec. 12, 1328, he exchanged preferments with-

WILLIAM TALBOT, late Rector of St. Swithin's, Worcester, who occurs as Vicar of Stottesden in 9 Edw. III (1335-6).

SIR JOHN GODEFERN, Chaplain, was admitted to this Vicarage, March 27, 1400, on the usual presentation of the Abbot and Convent of Salop.


These Vills I suppose to have constituted the two and a half hides which Domesday annexes to Stottesden Church, but which subsequently were occupied as an estate of Salop Abbey. Whether any and what portion of this estate was allowed as Glebe to the successive Rectors of Stottesden, I cannot determine. The litigation already noticed, under date of 1242, touched the question directly, but we know not the issue of that litigation. However in 1255 the Stottesden Jurors estimated the Abbot's estate at Dudelwyk as one and a half hides, adding, that the Abbot was enfeoffed therein

[90] This and the following names are copied from Blakeway'e List.
[91] Supra, Vol. III, p. 62. Perhaps also he was the "Chaplain" named under Alveley in 1266 (Vol. III, p. 137).


by Earl Roger. They could not remember that the Abbot had ever done Suit (to County or Hundred) for the same. [92] The Charter of Free-Warren obtained by the Abbot in 1256 includes his demesne-lands at Duddlewick. [93] The Feodary of 1284 describes the Abbot's Manor as that of Dodelewyk cum membris, meaning I suppose Hinton and Presoote, and calls the whole correctly a tenure in capite. [94]

Between the years 1278 and 1292, "William, son of Thomas de Bardeley, grants and quit-claims to the Abbey all his right in the Vill of Prestecote, which is of the Fee of the said Abbot and Convent.- Witnesses: Sirs Thomas Boterel, John fitz Aer, and John de la Lee". [95]

In 1291 the Abbot of Shrewsbury is said to have at Wodlewyk (read Dodlewyk) two carucates of arable land, yielding 1. yearly; meadow-land, yielding 3s. 4d.; a Mill, yielding 13s. 4d.; his assized rents there were 6. 10s. 2d.; the Pleas and Perquisites (of his local Court) were 6s. 8d.: total, 8. 13s. 6d. [96]

For the year ending Michaelmas, 1534, the assized rents of the Manor of Duddylwyke were returned among the Temporalities of the Abbey at 13. 7s. 5d.; [97] while the Ministers' Accounts of 1541-2 value the temporal proceeds of this estate at 15. 7s., viz. Assized Rents, 1. 13s. 1d.; Rents of Customary Tenants, 4. 17s. 8d.; Diverse Ferms, 6. 16s. 8d. (three items which will be found exactly equal to the Valuation of 1534). The Perquisites of Court, estimated at 1. 19s. 7d. in the Ministers' Accounts, [98] constitute the only difference between the two statements. [99]


I shall hardly be expected to name categorically the seven unspecified Vills which Domesday speaks of as the seven Berewicks of Stottesden. I take them to have been collectively equivalent to the five hides which, in 1255, had been lost to the central Manor.

[92] Rot. Hundred, II, 82.
[93] Salop Chartulary, No. 53.
[94] Kirby's Quest.
[95] Chartulary, No. 108.
[96] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 163.
[97] Valor Ecclesiasticons, III, 189.
[98] Monasticon, III, 526. In the Valor of 1534 the Abbot had returned the proceeds of all his Manorial Courts at 20s. collectively !
[99] I refer to Mr. Dukes's Antiquities (pp. 240-243) for a further account of the Abbatial estates in Stottesden, Duddlewick, Prestcott, Hinton, and Loughton, together with the advowsons of Stottesden and its subject Chapel of Farlow, how they were bestowed after the Dissolution. Loughton, I should observe, though it had become much involved with these Stottesden estates, has an early and distinct history of its own.


I also find good reason to suppose that this disintegration of the Manor commenced in the time of Earl Hugh de Montgomery, and was completed before the death of King Henry I. We must therefore expect to find the detached territory held subsequently in capite of the Crown, and not under the Lords of Stottesden. The following Vills will be found not only to correspond pretty nearly, both in number and hidage, with the territory inquired after, but to fulfil all other conditions necessary to establish a proximate identity

1. Dowles; detached in time of Henry I; hidage nowhere stated.

2, 3. Wrickton and Walkerslow; two Vills, probably detached by King Henry I; hidage- 1 hides.

4. Newton; detached between 1196 and 1235; extent hide.

5. Northwood; probably detached at the same time as Newton; extent 6 virgates, usually equivalent to 1 hides.

6. Bardley, a till held in severalty; probably detached in time of King Henry I; extent variously stated as 1 virgates, or 6 virgates, or 7 virgates, equivalent respectively to hide, 1 hides, and 1 hides.

7. Pickthorn (part of); first assessed as a detachment in 1167, but probably detached much earlier; extent 8 acres.

If we take Bardley, Dowles, and Pickthorn to have been collectively 1 hides, we have the hidage sought, as well as the required number of Berewicks.


This place occupies the very south-eastern angle of Shropshire: it is cut off from Stottesden by eight miles of intervening territory, and by the Forest of Wyre, a barrier which even at the present day will not seem insignificant. But Dowles, thus isolated and distant, was yet, under another name, a member of the Domesday Manor of Stottesden. Its ancient name was Achisey, or Hakieshey. Either one of the Palatine Earls, or else King Henry I, granted it to Wydo, son of Helgot, at a ferm or rent of 2s. per annum. Of Wydo, son of Helgot, I have spoken under Quat. I have also shown how, previously to the year 1127, he granted Achisey to Malvern Priory, a grant conceded by King Henry I, who at the same time released the Monks from the annual ferm of 2s. payable to the Suzerain. [100] I must now quote further from King Henry's Winchester Charter of 1127, in order to show more fully that the land conveyed to the Malvern Monks was identical with Dowles.

[100] Supra, Vol. III, pp. 174, 175.


The King is reciting a grant he had made of land eastward of the Severn, and perhaps a part of the Royal Manor of Kidderminster. He uses these words, [101] "I give them also the land of Northw', [102] to assart between Hauekesbroc and Lindrugesithe from Heneduneia to the Severn, to hold quietly and freely for ever". He then adds, "And on the other side of the Severn I give them two solidates of land, that is Hakiesheia, together with a certain part of the wood which pertained unto Stottesd', according to those bounds, whereof Fulco, the Sheriff, has caused perambulation to be made, which Fulco hath seized them (the Monks) thereof by my command; and this land I allow to be free of the said 2s. and of all other services".

Of Dowles under its new name, and as a possession of Malvern Priory, we hear next to nothing for two centuries. Malvern was a Cell of Westminster Abbey, and the great Franchises of the latter House extended to its affiliations. Hence any outlying estate of Malvern Priory seldom came into such circumstances as would lead to its mention in national or provincial Records. One exception to this silence illustrates the general rule. In October, 1292, the Prior of Great Malvern was sued under process of Quo Waranto, for his right of holding Pleas of the Crown, of seizing the chattels of his men, when fugitive or convicted (of felony), and of having wayf in his Manor of Doules. The Prior appeared, and said that he held two great Courts yearly, composed of his own men, in which he tried all pleas which Sheriffs ordinarily tried in their Tourns; he also had wayf and the chattels alleged, and in justification of all this he cited Henry III's comprehensive Charter to Westminster Abbey and its Cells. This Charter certainly seems to countenance all that the Prior claimed and much more besides, especially as it provides that even if any of the allowed franchises had not been exercised they might be exercised in future. It was to this point that Hugh de Louther, the King's attorney, addressed himself, stating that the King himself (Edward I) had exercised these franchises in question till the Prior appropriated them of his own authority. The matter went to a Jury, which found that the Prior had never held the said two Courts, nor tried any Pleas of the

[101] Monasticon, III, 448, No. III.
[102] The name North-Wood is still preserved: it is eastward of the Severn, and exactly opposite to Dowles Wood on the western bank. Both Hakieshey (Hawkeshay) and Hauekesbroc (Hawkesbrook), one west the other east of the Severn, were perhaps connected in local nomenclature with Hawkbatch, a little north of Dowles, a place which still retains its name.


Crown till three years back, when he obliged his men of Doules to cross the Severn and attend his Court of Nortwode, in Worcestershire. The Suit of Court thus lost to the Crown they valued at 2s. per annum. So on this Point the Prior was in misericordia; he forfeited the said suits and their appurtenant franchises, which remained to the King; he also had to pay 6s. damages for the three years above-mentioned. Afterwards the Judges conceded the disputed Courts to the Prior for an annual rent of 6s. 8d. if the King would accept it. As to the Chattels and Wayf, two clauses of King Henry's Charter were thought sufficient warranty for the Prior's claim thereof. [103]

The Taxation of 1291 omits the Prior of Malvern's interest in Dowles, unless a carucate of land at Northwod, and 20s. of assized rent there, can be supposed to include both estates.
[104] In 1534, Dowlys and Northwood are collectively valued as a Shropshire estate of Malvern Priory. The assized rents and rents of Tenants-at-will were 9. 18s. 9d.; the fines, heriots, and amercements of Court were 10s.; the average profits from wood were 1.; the total of 11. 8s. 9d. was lessened by 10s., the annual value of some structure (kedelli) in the Severn which had been destroyed by the King's order. [105] The Ministers' Accounts of 1542-3 give a total of 12. 15s. 6d. as arising from similar sources, but mention Dowles only as the estate thus valued. [106]


It is difficult to conjecture how this Church came to exist. Had it been built before the Manor passed to Great Malvern, it would surely have been also an affiliation of Stottesden Church. On the other hand, we know that Monks were not prone to found Parish Churches, though seldom backward in appropriating them when founded by others. In the case before us, so exceptional in many points, even Monachism may have departed from its practice and built a Church. More singularly still, Dowles Church was never appropriated by the Malvern Monks, but remained a Rectory till the Dissolution. It was dedicated to St. Laurence. The earliest notice of its existence is implied in the List of its Incumbents, presently to be given. The Valor of 1534 gives the Rectory of Dowlyz as in the Deanery of Burford, and as worth 4. per annum

[103] Placita de Quo Waranto, p. 676.
[104] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 226, b.
[105] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 238.
[106] Monasticon, III, p. 453.


in Glebe and Tithes, Thomas Blakwey being then Incumbent. The Prior of Malvern had also a Pension of 13s. 4d. therefrom. [107]


JOHN DE BARNEWALL, Priest, presented April 14, 1334, by the Prior and Convent of Great Malvern.

HENRY DE RYIGALE, presented Oct. 16, 1368, by the Bishop of Herefora, in right of lapse (jure devoluto).

JOHN MARSH, Chaplain, presented Sept. 10, 1385, by the Prior and Convent of Great Malvern.

JOHN BULKERE, Clerk, presented July 23, 1390, by the same. On Dec. 2, 1390, he exchanges preferments with-

EDWARD DABENEYE, late Vicar of Thorneton (Lincoln Diocese), on whose resignation, Aug. 20, 1393,-

SIR PHILIP DE HORDELEY, Chaplain, was presented by the Prior and Convent: he resigned in 1435.


These two Vills, undoubted members of the Domesday Manor of Stottesden, have usually been combined by circumstances, and therefore should be treated of together. That Earl Hugh, after Domesday, continued to hold one, and probably both of them, in demesne, is proved by his granting two-thirds of the tithes of Walkerslow to Salop Abbey. I have spoken of the family of Beysin under Billingsley, Badger, Broseley, West-bradley, and Ashfield. Under the last locality I attributed the Serjeantry held by them to the foundation of King_Henry I. [109] He, as Lord of Stottesden, had undoubtedly the power to alienate any of its members. That he so alienated Walkerslow, and constructively Wrickton, I find further proof in Bishop Betun's confirmation of Tithes to Salop Abbey, soon after the death of Henry I; for the Bishop speaks of the Lord of Walkerslow as a distinct person from the Lord of Stottesden. This Lord of Walkerslow was probably also Lord of Wrickton, holding both Vills by Serjeantry and by gift of King Henry I, and transmitting both to his descendants, the Beysins. I think there was a Robert de Beysin of this line living in the time of Henry II, but deceased in 1194, the date when his son, or successor, Adam, was amerced for marrying Mabel de Burwardsley. Robert's widow, Petronilla, seems to have survived him twenty-six years, as I shall presently show.

[107] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 214, 240.
[108] From Blakeway's MSS.
[109] Supra, Vol. 111, p. 346.


In a Record of the very beginning of the thirteenth century I find the earliest statement as to the nature and extent of De Beysin's Serjeantry.- "Adam de Beisin holds in Burkinton (read Wurkinton, i.e. Wrickton) and in Walkeslawe one carucate of land, of his Serjeantry, in demesne, and two carucates in Villanage. The same holds in Effield (Ashfield) a fourth part of a carucate in Villanage. The Demesne is worth 12s., the Villanage worth 60s. (per annum). The same holds two Mills which are worth 8s. (per annum). He holds (the whole I presume is meant) by custody of one of the King's Hawks." [110] In 1203 Adam de Beysin's Serjeantry was assessed to the fourth Scutage of King John at half a merk, the current rate being two merks on each Knight's-Fee. At the Autumn Assizes of the same year he essoigned his attendance under the common summons, his Essoignor being Robert fitz Aulin. The next year he was assessed 1. to the fifth Scutage of King John, as if he were a tenant in capite of three-fifths of a Knight'sfee, the current rate of Scutage being 2 merks per fee. In 1211 Adam de Bersin (read Beisin) is entered among the Shropshire Tenants by Serjeantry: his service is to act as the King's Falconer (Austrucarius). [111] Another Record names his Tenure as in Wyketon. [112] At the Assizes of November, 1221, I find Matilda fitz Henry and Leticia her Sister in misericordia for not prosecuting their Suit of mort d'ancestre against Adam de Beisin". [113] The Stottesden Jurors at the same time presented that Petronilla, widow of Robert de Beyssin, was in the King's gift, her land (held in capite in their Hundred) being worth 2 merks annually. [114] In 1228, Nicholas de Beisin, whom I have mentioned as suing the daughter of Adam de Beisin for land in Ashfield, [115] had a similar suit of mort d'ancestre against the Father for two virgates in Walkerslow, but renounced his claim by Final Concord, dated May 31, he receiving 2 merks for such surrender. [116] In August, 1228, Adam de Beysin is suing his neighbour Ralph de la Lowe (i.e. The Low) for unlawful erection of some stank. [117] The Defendant's amercement (half a merk) is entered on the Pipe-Roll of 1232. The last that I hear of Adam de Beysin (I) is his attendance on a Jury of Knights, who had to try a great Shropshire cause before the King at Worcester. This was in October, 1237, and the next year he died. It was probably towards the close of his life that he

[110] Testa de Nevill, p. 61 b.
[111] [112] Testa de Nevill, pp. 55, 417.
[113] [114] Assizes, 6 Hen. III, m. 6 dorso and 9 recto.
[115] Supra, Vol. III, p. 347.
[116] Pedes Finium, 14 Hen. III, Salop.
[117] Patent, 12 Hen. III, dorso.


granted to the Monks of Shrewsbury, towards the bettering of their Kitchen, half a virgate, four acres, and one seilion of land in Walkeslowe together with Henry fitz Edward, the Tenant thereof; he also gave the Monks housebote and heybote in the wood of Walkeslowe.- Witnesses: William, then Dean of Stottesdone; Master Gilbert de Westone; Wydo de Gleseleg (Glazeley); Ralph de Burtone; George de Clottone; Roger de Elmetone; William, Porter of Salop Abbey. [118]

Adam de Beysin (II) did homage, and was charged his Relief as Tenant in capite of Wyrkyton and Walkelow, before Michaelmas 1288. His attestation of a Pickthorn Deed, in 1241-2, proves him to be then a Knight. [119] Robert, his son and heir, was born August 15, 1242; and on Dec. 13, 1243, Adam died, so that his Relief still appears in arrear on the Pipe-Roll of 1250.

In 1255, the Jurors of Stottesden made a report as to "Wyrketon", which must be taken to include Walkerslow. It was as follows:- "Robert, son of Adam de Beyssin, who is in custody of Baldwyn de Freville, by the King's appointment, is Lord thereof. Therein is a hide and half of land, which the same Robert, when he shall have come of age, should hold of the King in capite, his service being to keep one Hawk for mewing, and to carry the same before the King, from the feast of Michaelmas to the Purification of the Virgin; and he shall receive from the King for the aforesaid service 5d. per day, and two robes per annum for his Serjeantry. The said lands do Suit to the Sheriff's Tourn twice in the year, but not to the Lesser Hundred Court, nor to the County, nor do they pay Stretward nor Motfee". [120] I have before explained that at this period the actual Guardian of Robert de Beysin was Philip le Bret, whose daughter he had also married. The lands of the Ward were estimated at 100s. annual value. The Inquisition ordered to be taken May 4, 1261, has been before alluded to, [121] and in one instance with some inaccuracy. The defaced condition of the document only allows us to conclude that it speaks of Wrickton and Walkerslowe as two Manors. It is not an Inquisition on the death of Adam de Beysin, but an Inquisition to prove the age of his heir, which it fixes as nineteen years, on August 15, 1261. How Sir William Deverenx came at this period to be involved in the affairs of Robert de Beysin, and indeed to exercise guardianship over him,

[118] Salop Chartulary, No. 10.
[119] Supra, Vol. I, p. 240.
[120] Rot. Hundred, II, 82, 83.
[121] Supra, Vol. I, p. 66; Vol. II, p. 20.


I cannot further discover. The interference which I have noticed under Billingsley and Broseley extended to Wrickton and Walkerslow; for at the Forest Assizes of February, 1262, the Justices, assessing a fine of half a merk on the wood of Wlokeslowe (Walkerslow), because being within Regard of Shirlot Forest it had been long wasted, call it "the Bosc of William D'Everens". [122] The Inquisition of September, 1263, [123] which reported the full age of Robert de Beysin, described his deceased Father's Tenure in capite of the Manor of Wirketon and Walkeslawe. It further stated William Devereux's right of wardship to have been derived from Sibil Gifford, which seems irreconcilable with other accounts before given. Sir William Devereux fell on the rebel side at Evesham, on August 4, 1265. The favour shown to his Widow by a Patent of Oct. 12 following, [124] was on December 12, 1266, extended to his Son. The Patent, then issued by the King at Kenilworth, records that the elder Devereux had stood with the King at Lewes, and dates his offences against the King and Prince Edward as subsequent. It allows his heir to redeem his lands by payment of three years' value thereof, except such lands as had already been granted to Matilda, widow of the deceased, for the support of herself and her children. [125]

I have, under Broseley, related how Robert de Beysin dying before Sept. 19, 1267, Hugh de Beaumes had the disposal of his widow in marriage, and custody of his infant heir's lands at Wrickton and Walkerslowe. In Trinity Term, 1271, we have an illustration of this. Hugh de Beumes duly appeared coram Rege as against Adam de Bolde, who, when Hugh's servants had taken a fox in Hugh's demesne at Wyrketon, and had conveyed it to Hugh's Manor-house (Curiam), had come and forcibly abstracted the said fox. Hugh laid his damages at 40s., but the decision of the case was adjourned. [126]

The Feodary of 1284 exhibits Walter de Beysin (son and heir of Robert) as holding the Manor of Wirketon and Walkerlowe of the King in capite, by service of keeping one hawk in winter-time at the King's cost. [127] At the Assizes of October, 1292, the Munslow Jurors estimated the Beysin Serjeantry to extend over two carucates of land, which they placed in Wyrketon, and valued at 16. 11s.

[122] Forest Roll, 46 Hen. III, m. 6.
[123] Inquisitions, 47 Hen. III, No. 26.
[124] Supra, Vol. II, p. 20.
[125] Patent, 51 Hen. III.
[126] Plac. coram Rege, memb. 9.
[127] Kirby's Quest.


per annum. All the other details of their statement point to lands in Ashfield, and have been already given. [128] It is probable that they mentioned Wrickton unadvisedly: it was not in their Hundred. The cotemporary Jurors for Stottesden Hundred [129] reported Walter de Beysin's default in due attendance at the Assizes, also his Tenure in capite of Wrickton and Walkerslowe, and how the peculiar service which he owed the Crown was returnable on a summons by the King's Wobode. [130] Between the years 1294 and 1301, I find Walter de Beysin employed on various Royal Commissions as an Assessor and Collector of taxes and as a Commissioner of Array. His estates, of more than 20. annual value, caused him to be served with the usual Military Summonses in parts beyond Sea in 1297, and against the Scots in 1301. In 1302 he was returned as Knight of the Shire of Salop to the Parliament which was to assemble at London or Westminster at Michaelmas, and on Oct. 14 he obtained his Writ of Expenses for so attending. [131] In 1308 and 1309, he again appears as a Commissioner of Array, and on July 30, 1309, had Military Summons against the Scots. His last Commission bears date December 18, 1309, and related to some judicial inquiries in Herefordshire. [132] But on January 4, 1310, he was deceased, for then did the King's Writ of Diem clausit extremum issue to the proper Officer. [133] The Inquest held at Brug, on January 19 following, is very full as to his various tenures and relations. He had held Wrickton and Walkerslow in capite of the King. A third of Broseley he had held of the Prior of Wenlock by the peculiar service before pointed out. [134] In Staffordshire he had held a third of Ashley in capite; also the Hamlet of Shuston of the Prior of Wenlock, by a quit-rent of 10s. per annum; also 20s. of rents at Longenore, for which he paid a quit-rent of 6s. 8d. to the Baroness of Stafford; also 40s. rents at Eton (Church Eaton), where his Seigneur was the Bishop of Chester. His wife Alice was a daughter of Sir Hugh Burnel, and it would appear that on her marriage a settlement of some other Estates had been made, securing her an ample portion in case of survivorship. Thus the deceased and his wife had been jointly enfeoffed by the said Sir Hugh

[128] Supra, Vol. III, pp. 348, 350.
[129] Placita Coronae, m. 20 recto et dorso.
[130] Perhaps Gebod (message), or Geboda (messenger), was the Saxon word intended.
[131] Parliamentary Writs, I, 456.
[132] Parliamentary Writs, IV, pp. 507, 508.
[133] Inquisitions, 3 Edw. II, No. 58. Originalia, 3 Ed. II, Rot. 6.
[134] Supra, Vol. II, p. 19, note 62.


in two-thirds of Billingsley (held under the Abbot of Seez), to hold to them and their heirs, of their bodies, with remainder to the right heirs of Walter de Beysin; a messuage and virgate and an acre of meadow-land in Broseley, held under Richard de Pychford, by a quit-rent of 12d., had been settled to the same uses by a deed wherein Jordan de Sulderne (Souldern) was Feoffor; lastly, a ninth of Broseley, held of the Prior of Wenlock and worth 7s., per annum, had been similarly settled by Deed of Sir Hugh Burnell. Thomas de Beysin, son and heir of the deceased, was twenty-two years of age Jan. 8, 1310.

This Inquest omits the Beysin Tenures in West-Bradley and Silvington, which being understood, we easily see why the Nomina Villarum of March, 1316, makes Thomas de Beysin joint Lord of Burwardsley (Shropshire) and Ashley (Staffordshire), and Lord of Church Eaton in the latter County; also why Alice de Beysin stands cotemporarily as Lady of Wyrketon, Billingsley, and Sinerton (Silvington), in Shropshire. [135] On January 21, 1318, the King's Writ of Diem clausit eztremum issued, on the death of Thomas de Beysin. [136] It is needless to repeat the several particulars which the consequent Inquisitions reported, as to his various tenures at Ashley, Wrickton, Walkerslow, Broseley, Billingsley, and Silvington. His Tenure in the latter would make it probable that he had succeeded his Mother there, while his holding only a third of Wrickton and Walkerslow would indicate that she was still living. His heir was his Brother Walter, born March 25, 1291, and now twenty-seven years of age. In May, 1324, Walter de Beysin, "Man at Arms", was summoned from Shropshire to a Great Council at Westminster. [137] It will explain many former allusions, as well as complete an interesting subject, if I give some account of this family of Beysin till the extinction of its male line.-

In January, 1343, a marriage was in contemplation between John, eldest son of Walter de Beysin and Margaret, daughter of Hugh de Mortimer of Chelmarsh. The proposed Bridegroom was in his sixteenth year, the Bride cannot have passed her twelfth. On January, 26, 1343, the King orders inquiry to be made, whether it would injure the Crown if the King allowed Sir Walter de Beysin to give the Manors of Wrickton and Walkerslow to the said John and Margaret,- to hold to them and the heirs of their bodies, of

[135] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 507.
[136] Inquisitions, 12 Edw. II, No. 33; Orig. 12 Edw. II, Rot. 7.
[137] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 508.


the King in capite, with remainder to the right heirs of Walter de Beysin; also whether it would injure the Crown, if the same Walter enfeoffed Henry de Mortimer, Senior, and Roger de Chyllinton, Chaplain, [138] in two-thirds of Ashley,- to be further settled as follows:- first, on Walter de Beysin for life; then on John his son, and the heirs of said John by Margaret de Mortimer, with remainder, in default of such heirs, to the right heirs of Walter de Beysin. The return to these Writs was favourable, and stated that, after the proposed transfers, no lands in either Shropshire or Staffordshire would remain to Walter de Beysin. [139] In the same year (1343) Walter de Beysin, and Alice his wife, seem to have conveyed two-thirds of the Manor and Advowson of Burwardsley to the same Henry de Mortimer, Senior, who resettles the premises by Fine;- first, to the use of Walter and Alice for their lives; then to John, son of Walter, and the heirs of his body;- with remainder to the right heirs of Alice.

As regards Wrickton and Walkerslow, it would appear that Walter de Beysin did not, as his License proposed, convey them at once to his son and that son's wife, but he granted forty merks annual rent, the issues thereof, to Sir Hugh de Mortimer, the Lady's Father. This was in trust, as a Deed of the said Sir Hugh, dated at Chelmarsh on March 31, 1343, sufficiently shows. [140] Thereby Sir Hugh grants that "if his daughter, now wife of John de Beysin, die before she be twelve years of age, without issue of herself and the said John, the former grant of forty merks per annum shall hold good till Sir Hugh and his heirs should have raised a sum of 280 merks out of the Manors of Wrickton, Walkerslow, and Eynwode". This sum of 280 merks had probably been agreed upon as a provision for the marriage, and advanced by Sir Hugh; for the Deed continues to declare that, if Margaret should live to attain the age of twelve years, the said grant to Sir Hugh should be void; whilst, on the contrary, if she died within three years of the then present time, or at any period greater or less than three years, then whatever Sir Hugh should have received of the said rent of 40 merks should be reckoned in abatement of the debt of

[138] Trustees evidently; the first, as I think, Uncle to the Bride (vide supra, Vol. III, p. 44).
[139] Inquisitions, 17 Edw. III, Second Numbers, No. 63.
[140] Blakeway's MSS. The Beysin seal on this deed was the simple Coat. Quarterly per fesse indented, without any charge in the first quarter.


280 merks, and when that debt was fully paid, the rent of forty merks should be done away with.

On November 20, 1344, Walter de Beysin was deceased, and the King's Writ of Diem clausit extremum issued as usual. The Inquisitions which followed [141] show us the result of the above and other settlements, which he had been busied in making. "He held nothing in capite in Shropshire", and Wrickton and Walkerslow are not mentioned in the Inquests,- obviously because he died seized of no interest therein. As to Billingsley, it will have been settled like the two-thirds of Ashley before mentioned; for the Inquest states that the deceased had held it for life, "by concession of Henry de Mortimer, Senior, and Roger de Chillyngton, Chaplain", with remainder to John, son of said Walter, and to Margaret, wife of John, and the same further remainders as affected Ashley. The Suzerain of Billingsley was now Edward Earl of Cornwall (The Black Prince). As to Broseley, the joint interest for life of the deceased and his wife, in certain lands and tenements there, is stated in the Inquest, which adds, that they were held of John de Eyton by a rent of 40d., a circumstance which is partly explained by a Pedigree already given. [142] The next remainder stated on the Inquest, viz. to John de Beysin and Margaret his wife, and the heirs of their bodies, is not quite equivalent to the Remainder covenanted in the Fine of 1343. As to Ashley, the Interest of the deceased was precisely as at Billingsley, and the Remainders were just what we should expect from the terms of the License sought in 1343. Church Eaton and Longnor had similarly been conveyed to Henry de Mortimer, Senior, as Trustee, and similarly resettled. [143] The deceased, said one Inquest, died on Nov. 15, 1344, and his son and heir John was eighteen years of age on Aug. 1, 1344.

Margaret de Mortimer, wife of John de Beysin, cannot have lived ten years after her husband's succession. She died without issue;- otherwise an eventual coheirship, in the estates of Mortimer of Chelmarsh, would have remained for any descendants she may

[141] Inquisitions, 18 Edw. III, No. 23.
[142] Supra, Vol. II, p. 13.
[143] Mr. Blakeway quotes a Deed whereby Henry de Mortimer, in 17 Edw. III (1343-4), settled Longenore (Staffordshire) on Sir Walter de Beysin, with other remainders. Mr. Blakeway calls Henry de Mortimer "son and heir of Sir Hugh", which I conceive is not a quotation from the Deed, but an opinion, and an erroneous one.


have had by John de Beysin. The latter remarried, but was deceased before August 25, 1360.

The Inquests on his death mention his estates at Ashley, Waterton (Water Eyton, Staffordshire), Longnor (Staffordshire), Wrickton, Walkerslow, Billingsley, Broseley, and also Melinghope (Millichope). His second wife, Anna, survived him. Elizabeth, his sole daughter and heir, was only five years of age on February 2, 1360. [144]

In this same year the King committed two-thirds of the lands of the deceased to Edmund, Earl of Arundel, till the heir shnuld be of age, the said two-thirds being extended at 15. 14s. 10d. per annum. [145] I suppose the remaining third to have been the dower of John de Beysin's Widow, who appears to have been remarried to Thomas Latymer, while Elizabeth, sole heiress of the Beysins, became in 1269 the wife of Roger de Cherleton". [146]

WRICHTON CHAPEL.- The only evidence which I have of this Foundation is the mention thereof, clearly as an affiliation of Stottesden Church, in the Deed of Bishop William de Vere, already quoted [147] and shown to have passed between 1186 and 1190. Tradition seems to support the documentary evidence".


When Earl Hugh de Montgomery gave two-thirds of his demesne of Neutone to Salop Abbey, there can be no doubt that Newton, near Stottesden, was the place indicated: but when, about 1138, Bishop Robert de Betun confirmed to Salop Abbey two-thirds of the tithes of the Lord of Neutun, there may be a doubt whether Newton near Stottesden or Neenton was meant; therefore we cannot certainly conclude, as in the case of Walkerslow, that before 1138 Newton was held by any Feoffee of the Lord of Stottesden. However I cannot doubt that a Baskerville was enfeoffed both in Newton and Northwood, either by Earl Hugh, Earl Robert, or King Henry I; for it is clear that neither place came to the hands of King Henry II as part of his demesne of Stottesden, and any feoffment by King Stephen would have been set aside. I have spoken of the head branch of the Shropshire Baskervilles under Pickthorn and Aldenham. Pickthorn, though in another Domesday Hundred, stands

[144] Inquisitions, 34 Edw. III, No. 80.
[145] Originalia, 34 Edw. III, Rot. 9.
[146] Compare Dukes's Antiquities, pp. 255, 263, 264.
[147] Supra, p. 154.
[148] Dukes's Appendix, p. xiv.


nearly midway between Newton and Northwood. Baskerville's feoffment therefore, in these two members of Stottesden, realized an estate, tolerably compact, though held under different Lords. As to Newton in particular, it occurs only as held by Under-Tenants of Baskerville: one of these we have already seen surrendering land in Pickthorn, and 9s. rent in Newton to Roger de Baskerville, then (i.e. about 1242) Lord of both Manors. [149] The Inquisition of Tenures in Stottesden Hundred, taken in 1255, says that Newton contained half a hide, which was held under Walter de Baskerville. The Vill did suit to the Hundred, and paid 2d. Stretward and 4d. Motfee. [150] Here, though the name of Baskerville's Tenant is not given, there is no doubt that it was Ralph Sprengehose, himself on the Jury which made the return. The same Ralph Springthose was a Juror for the Hundred at the Assizes of 1256, and occurs on other local Inquests in January, 1257, and December, 1259. At the Forest Assizes, February, 1262, half a merk was assessed upon the Bosc of Ralph Sprenghose, in Neuton, which had been long wasted: it was within regard of Shirlot Forest. About five years later and we have Ralph Sprenchose attesting a Chetton Deed already set forth. [151] In 1269 we have certain Under-Tenants in the neighbouring Vill of Charlcott possessed also of some interest in La Neuton. [152]

In 1292 a Cadet of the House of Baskerville seems to have been Under-Tenant here; for the Stottesden Jurors presented at the Assizes how Thomas de Herefordshyre, having challenged Thomas de Baskerville of Neweton in the County Court for beating and maiming him, and for breach of the King's Peace, had withdrawn his appeal on the third Court-day, and was since dead. [153] The Accused was now found to have acted in self-defence. [154]


The earliest document which bears upon Baskerville's feoffment in Northwood has been already quoted; [155] but it indicates nothing more than that Thomas de Baskerville (the Cotemporary Lord of Pickthorn) was interested here. In 1255 Walter, Grandson of that

[149] Supra, Vol. I, p. 240.
[150] Rot. Hundred, II, 82, 81.
[151] [152] Supra, Vol. I, pp. 178, 158.
[153] The Challenger in such cases had to repeat his appeal in five County Courts before further steps could be taken. (Compare Vol. III, p. 12, note 9.)
[154] Plac. Coronae, 20 Edw. I, m. 20 dorso.
[155] Supra, Vol. I, p. 225.


Thomas, was Lord of both Vills. The Stottesden Jurors spoke of Northwood nearly as follows:- "Walter de Baskerville, son of Roger de Baskerville (which Walter is in custody of Sibil Giffard by grant of the King), is Lord (of Northwood). Therein are six virgates of land; and he (Walter) should hold them of the King in capite. He does suit to the Hundred twice a year at the Sheriff's Tourn, but not to the lesser Hundred-Courts, because his (Walter's) Ancestors never did (the latter Suit). It pays 2d. for stretward and 4d. for motfee (the usual charge on two virgates, or half a hide). Philip de Girros holds half a virgate of land for doing suit to the lesser Hundred-Court for the said vill". [156] Sibil Giffard's Custody of Walter de Baskerville's lands has been set forth already in another place. [157] Philip de Girros, the Under-Tenant named by the Stettesden Jurors, was himself of their number. He may possibly be identical with that Philip, son of Philip de Girros, whom we have spoken of as interested in Burwarton twenty-nine years earlier. [157]

At this time however (1255) the principal Tenant of young Walter de Baskerville at Northwood was Hugh de Baskerville: he was, I think, Son of Isolda or Hisota, Sister of that Thomas de Baskerville of Pickthorn who died in 1241. He bore therefore his Mother's name; but whereas we shall see that both his Sisters, Juliana and Helewise, occasionally bore the name of Botterell, I think that Isolda's husband and Hugh's Father was a Botterell. We have heard of this Hugh de Baskerville under various circumstances and dates, ranging from 1241 to 1292, [158] for I doubt not that the same person is indicated throughout. I now proceed to offer the documents which bear upon his tenancy in Northwood. About 1240, as I presume, "Thomas de Baskerville grants to Hugh de Baskervill and Marjory his wife that virgate in Northwood which Hisota, sister of the Grantor, held". [159] The only Witness given for this Deed is Sir Roger de Baskerville, whom I presume to have been son and heir expectant of the Grantor, and, if I rightly fix the relations of the parties concerned, first Cousin of the Grantee. By another Deed, which I cannot venture to date, Juliana Botterell grants (or quit-claims) to her Brother, Hugh de Baskerville, that virgate in

[156] Rot. Hundred, II, 82.
[157] Supra, Vol. I, p. 238; Vol. III, p. 34.
[158] Supra, Vol. I, pp. 240, 241; Vol. II, p. 23.
[159] Blakeway's MSS., whence also many of the Charters which I quote under Northwood are derived. Those taken from the originals at Pitchford by myself are so distinguished.


Northwode which their Mother Ysolda de Baskerville held. At the Assizes of January, 1256, I find that Hugh de Baskerville (with his Sureties, Thomas de Bardley and Richard de Stottesden) was in misericordia for non-prosecution of a suit which he had against Ralph d'Arraz for erection of a stank which injured Hugh's free tenement in Northwode. [160] Also at the same Assizes Helewise de Baskerville and Juliana her Sister were in misericordia for not prosecuting a suit of mort d'ancestre against Hugh Peche concerning a virgate (a second virgate, I presume) of land in Northwud. [161] By Patent, dated at Shrewsbury, August 24, 1267, King Henry III grants that Hugh de Baskerville shall not, for the rest of his life or against his will, be put on any Assize, Jury, etc. [162] On May 4, 1271, Helewyse Boterel sued out a writ of mort d'ancestre against Hugh de Baskerville for a messuage and virgate in Nortwode. [163]

About this time Emma fitz Paen of Northwood grants to Hugh de Baskerville and Margery his wife part of her land in Northwood, viz. four acres in different quarters, and partly bounded by land which said Hugh had held in time of Emma's husband, William: rent 4d., payable at the Feast of St. Milberg, in February. The Grantees had given said Emma 16s. for this in her urgent necessity, and for sustenance of herself and daughter Matilda, who assented to the sale.- Witnesses: Adam de Bold, Thomas de Berdeleg, William de Pilarditon, Stephen de Bold, Thomas de Northgrave, William de Bardeleg, John de Drayton, Adam Sauvage, Hamo Gamel of Stottesden. [164]

Hugh de Baskerville's non-attendance at the Assizes of 1292 has been mentioned under Pickthorn. His great age, and the King's Patent twenty-five years before, will equally account for his Default. And within a year he died, though Margery, for fifty years his wife, survived him; for in 21 Edw. I (1292-3) Margery, Widow of Hugh de Baskerville, quit-claims to her son, Baldwin, all her right in Northwode, having first, as I suppose, by another deed given "to her son John that virgate in Northwode which Thomas de Baskerville Lord of Pickthorne gave her".

Soon after this date (1292-3) Robert, son of Emma Payn of

[160] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 4 dorso.- Another similar suit by the same Plaintiff was also withdrawn. (Supra, Vol. I, p. 240.)
[161] Assizes, ut supra, memb. 1.- Their Sureties were Henry, son of the Priest of Bold (living) in Burwarton, and Philip fitz Hugh of Heston (Aston Botterell).
[162] Patent, 51 Hen. III.
[163] Patent, 55 Hen. III, dorso.
[164] Charter in possession of John Cotes, Esq., of Pitchford.


Northwood, gives to Nicholas de Byriton, for two merks, an acre in the fields of Northwood, bounded by lands of Margery de Baskerville and Baldwin de Baskerville: he also gives four seilions.- Witnames: Ralph de Araz, Robert de Dodinton, Adam de Bold, Stephen his Brother, Hugh Boterel, Hugh Heved. [165] I next find "Baldwin de Baskerville giving his Brother John three ridges (cursones) in the field of Northwode.- Witnesses: Robert Lord of Doditone", etc.

On March 19, 1303, John fitz Nicholas of Northwod grants to Hugh le Mou of Hokswood, for four merks, a messuage in Northwod, bounded by the messuages of Henry and William Blundell; also 11 acres in the fields towards Chorleye, bounded by lands of Bald- win and John de Baskerville, William de Chorleye, Nicholas de Byriton, and by the Mill of Sudbyr (Sidbury).- Witnesses: Ralph d'Arraz, Knight, Gwido de Glazeley, John de Ludlowe of Neenton, William de Hokeswod, etc.: dated at Northwod. [166]

On Dec. 20, "4 Edw". (i.e. Dec. 20, 4 Edw. II, 1310) Richard, son of Hugh le Mou, gives to John de Baskerville of Northwude, for a sum of money, all his messuage, lands, and tenements, which John de Hoxwode gave to Hugh his Father in the Vill and fields of Northwude, to hold of the Lords of the Fee.- Witnesses: Sir Roger de Baskerville, Sir Ralph d'Arraz, Knights; Wydo de Glazeley, Geoffrey Lord of Uverton, Thomas his brother: dated at Northwud. [167]

Also, in 4 Edw. II (1310-1), Nicholas de Byriton grants to John, son of Hugh de Baskerville of Nordwode, all his land in the said vill.- Witnesses: Sir Roger de Baskerville (he was Lord of the Fee) and Sir Hugh Fitz-Aer, Knights.

John, son of Hugh de Baskerville, was deceased in 10 Edw. II (1316-7), for then Thomas, son of John le Baskerville, of Northwood, releases all his right in Northwood to John son of Thomas le Baskerville (who appears to have been of Eaton Mascott).- Witnesses: Peter de Overton, etc. The Grantee in this Deed seems soon afterwards to have reconveyed the premises to the Grantor, for life, with remainder to himself; but in 19 Edw. II (1325-6) he grants to "William le Persones, of Middulton, called Clerk, who had married his daughter Margaret, that messuage and land in Northwood, which Thomas son of John le Baskerville then held for life. And the said Tenant-for-life, in the same year, calling himself

[165] [166] [167] Charters at Pitchford.


Thomas, son of John le Baskerville, of Northwood, reiterates his former release in favour of "William de Middulton, called Le Persones, and Margaret his wife, daughter of John le Baskerville, of Eton Marschot.- Witnesses: Malcolumb de Harley, Peter Lord of Overton, Henry Blundel", etc.

Another Deed of 13 Edw. III (1339-40) closes this series in a way not intelligible, without further connecting evidence. Thereby "John, son of Roger de Baskerville, Knight, grants for two merks to Roger, son of William de Pykethorn, Margery his wife, and Roger their son, a place of land in Northwood, called Fellingleye, to hold for the longest of their lives.- Witnesses: Richard de Baskerville, Peter de Overton, Adam d'Arraz, John Boterel, Richard de Forde: dated at Lauton". [168]

I now return to say something of other Under-Tenants in Northwood and at an earlier period. In Michaelmas Term, 1266, Isabella, widow of William de Northwood, was suing Roger de Northwood, Reginald de Cherlee (Chorley), Ralph de Arraz, John le Clerk, of Suthbury (Sidbury), Nicholas de Cherlee, Nicholas de Northwode, and Agnes le Warener, for her dower or thirds in several messuages or small parcels of land in Northwode. [169] Soon afterwards Ema de Norwod is suing Hugh Peche (of whom we have heard before), under writ of mort d'ancestre, for half a virgate and seven acres in Norwood. [169] About this time Emma Paen, of Nordwud (already mentioned), gives to John de Langeberge, Clerk, an acre in Nordwud, for half a merk paid down and a d. rent.- Witnesses: Nicholas le Forcer, Ralph de Lawa (The Low) and William his son, William de Stepple, John de Beaulieu (Bello loco), Hugh de Hwrthin. [170]

In June, 1269, Nicholas de Cherleye has a Writ of novel disseizin against Ralph d'Arraz and Walter de Baskerville, concerning a tenement in Stottesden; and in July following Hugh de Plessetis has a similar writ against Ralph d'Arraz, concerning a tenement in Norwode. [171] The latter person was also concerned in a suit about land in Northwood, in 1270. [172]

The following deed must belong to the fifth year of Edward II

[168] This Deed (among the muniments at Pitchford) is endorsed with a memorandum by Adam Otteley, of Pitchford, stating himself to be kinsman and heir both of "Roger Baskerville and William Pykethorn", mentioned therein. The succession necessarily belongs to a much later period than I can here deal with.
[169] Placita apud Westm. 11 dorso and 30 dorso.
[170] Charter at Pitchford.
[171] Patent, 53 Hen. III, dorso.
[172] Supra, Vol. III, p. 61.


(July 28, 1311), rather than to the fifth of Edward I (1277), to which my authority assigns it. [173]- "Henry, son of Roger de la Wodehouse, grants to Sir Roger de Baskerville and Dame Joan his wife three acres in the fields of Northwod, bounded by lands of John de Baskerville, etc.- Witnesses: Sir Ralph de Arras: Sir Walter Haket, knights; Wydo Lord of Glasley; Geoffrey Lord of Uverton (Overton); Richard Lord of Aston Boterel; William de Ribbeleye". The Deed passed at "Le Wodehous juxta Stottesden". Reserving a further account of the head branch of the Shropshire Baskervilles (then represented by this Sir Roger) till I reach Lawton, I now pass to another ancient member of Stottesden Manor, viz.:-


In the year 1167 two parcels of land in Bardley seem to have become chargeable with an annual quit-rent to the Crown. [174] It was the year when Alan de Nevill held a great Forest Assize in Shropshire, and I doubt not that it was that Justiciar who detected the liability of these lands to the said quit-rent. The Occupants of the lands, or their ancestors, had, I think, held them since the time of Henry I, otherwise, when Henry II gave Stottesden to Godfrey de Gamages, Bardley would have been involved in the gift, which it certainly was not. From and after the year 1167, the Sheriff of Shropshire (or at times the King's Escheator) accounts on the annual Pipe-Rolls for the quit-rents of these two parcels of land: he received 6s. per annum on one parcel and 3s. per annum on the other. Sometimes the Receipt is stated to be for lands in Stottesden, sometimes, and perhaps with a view to brevity rather than accuracy, it is classified under the heading of Escheats or Purprestures. The specific situation of the lands, viz. Bardesley, is usually given on the Pipe-Rolls.

I propose to treat first of the greater of these parcels of land, which the Pipe-Rolls uniformly estimate as one virgate while other Records make it more. In one instance it is said to be four and a half virgates. This estate was held in capite by the Lords of Badger, the hereditary Foresters of Shirlot, a family which, as I have shown already, [176] was represented by Philip fitz Stephen at the time

[173] Blakeway (vide supra, Vol. I, p. 228, +tote 38). The original, among the Muniments at Pitchford, I have since seen: it confirms the accuracy of Mr. Blakeway's transcript; but the date (1311) is undoubted.
[174] Rot. Pip. 13 Hen. II, Salop.
[175] Supra, Vol. II, pp. 64, 65.


(1167) when Bardley was first subjected to a quit-rent. The first positive mention of the Tenant in capite of this virgate is in a Roll of Shropshire Serjeantries in 1211. Roger de Bageshour was then in possession thereof. [176] Consistently with the known succession of the Lords of Badger, we learn from the Inquisition of Stottesden Hundred, in 1255, that "Philip de Beggesoure holds in the Vill of Berdel four virgates of land in capite, paying 6s. annually at the Exchequer". [177] The Inquisition, ordered Dec. 2, 1258, on the death of this Philip, puts his estate at Bardel' at 4 virgates; particulars of his son's Livery thereof, in February, 1259, I have already given.
[178] In November, 1274, the Hundredal Inquest says, that Philip de Beggesovre holds 4 virgates in the vill of Berdeleg of the King in capite, paying 6s. [179] The Feodary of 1284 makes consistent mention of the Tenure, but the Inquisition on Philip de Badger's death, in 1291, gives fuller particulars, viz. that the deceased had "held, in capite, 4 virgates in Bardeleg, not of the Crown, but of the King's Escheat, accruing by Robert de Beleem (Belesme): and the land is of the Honour of Stottesden, and held by 6s. payable to the Sheriff, and it is a Socage, and is worth 50s. per annum". [180]

I now return to speak Of ANOTHER AND SMALLER ESTATE AT BARDLEY, uniformly estimated on the Pipe-Rolls at half a virgate, but stated in other Records to have been five times that quantity. This was held by a family which took name from the place. The Tenant paid 3s. rent to the Sheriff, but there is a probability that a further service was attached to the Tenure. The first of this family whom I find mentioned is Richard de Berdeleg, who appears in October, 1199, as Recognizor in a Suit at Law, given under Clee St. Margaret. [181] He was succeeded by William de Bardley, witness of a Middleton Prior's deed very early in the thirteenth century, [182] and who, in 1211, is enrolled among those Shropshire Tenants by Serjeantry, whose duty it was to accompany the Sheriff when conveying the Ferm of the County twice a year to the Exchequer. The Record then proceeds:- "The aforesaid William de Berdeleg holds half a virgate of land, and pays annually 3s. by hand of the Sheriff at the

[176] Ibidem, p. 70.
[177] Rot. Hundred, II, 82.
[178] Supra, Vol. II, p. 74.
[179] Rot. Hundred, II. 108.
[180] Inquisitions, 19 Edw. I, No. 10. The distinction between Ancient Demesne and Ancient Escheat of the Crown, thus accurately marked in this Inqueet, has before been noticed (Vol. I, p. 70, note).
[181] Placita, Mich. Term, 1 John, m. 10.
[182] Supra, Vol. III, p. 338.


Exchequer". [183] Another cotemporary Record gives William de Bardesley's tenure as one virgate. [184] Soon after this, Thomas de Bardley succeeded to William, unless there were a Richard between them. Thomas has been already mentioned under another locality. [185] He is entered on the Stottesden Hundred-Roll of 1255 as holding "two virgates in capite of the King, for which he paid 3s. at the Exchequer, but did no other service". [186] His Serjeantry had probably been done away with. Again at the Assizes of 1272, Thomas de Bardeleye was a Juror for Stottesden Hundred, and the Inquisition of November, 1274, represents him as holding two and a half virgates in Berdeleg, of the King, in capite, and by a rent of 3s. [187] On January 29, 1278, he was deceased, and the King's Writ of Diem clausit extremum issued as usual on the death of a Tenant in capite. [188] The consequent Inquest reported his tenure as of two virgates, his rent as 3s., and the value of the said estate as 17s. 4d. Besides Bardley he had held two virgates of the Abbot of Wigmore, paying rents of 7s. and 1 lb. of pepper: also of the Abbot of Shrewsbury he had held 3 virgates at 13s. 4d. rent, the full value being 20s. William, son and heir to the deceased, was upwards of fifty years of age, [189] a fact quite consistent with the long period during which Thomas had been seized of his estates. William paid his relief in the same year. [190] William de Bardley's surrender of his tenancy under Salop Abbey, at Prestcote, has already been given. [191] The Feodary of 1284 gives his Tenure in capite as one carucate. [192] At the Assizes of 1292 it appeared that much of this Tenure had been illegally alienated. The Stottesden Jurors, after presenting Thomas de Bardley's former tenancy as one carucate in Bardle and Henle, held in capite by 3s. rent, and being worth 20s. per annum, proceed to say that three acres thereof were now held by Robert de Dodyton, two acres by Roger fitz Agnes of Kynlet, eight acres by William Bryd, sixteen acres by Roger de Yatton; and as to what was in Henle, it was worth 5s. per annum, and Brian de Bromton held it all, not under Thomas de Bardley's heir, but under the King and over the said heir. Fines or Seizures of all these parcels were ordered by the Court. [193]

[183] Testa de Nevill, p. 56 (corrected).
[184] Liber Ruber Scacc. fo. cxxxvii.
[185] Supra, Vol. I, p. 56. If Richard de Berdell, who occurs in 1221, was of Bardley, the transaction there alluded to must be dated too early.
[186] Rot. Hundred, II, 82.
[187] Ibidem, II, 108.
[188] [189] Originalia, I, 30. Inquis. 6 Edw. I, No. 15.
[190] Rot. Pip. 6 Edw. I, Salop.
[191] Supra, p. 159.
[192] Kirby's Quest.
[193] Plac. Coronae, 20 Edw. I, m. 20 dorso.


The King's writ of Diem clausit extremum, on the death of William de Bardeleye, bears date April 29, 1295. The Inquest, held Sept. 20 following, valued his lands, held in capite, only at 2s. 3d. more than his quit-rent to the Crown. His Tenure in Balbeneye (Baveney), under Sir Henry de Ribbeford, was another matter. Though he cannot have been much less than seventy at his death, we find that Richard, his son and heir, was under two years of age at the same period, having been born May 1, 1293.
[194] This Richard seems to have died in 2 Edw. II (1308-9).
[195] The Nomina Villarum of 1316 gives the King as Lord of Bardelegh, [196] but the reason of this I have yet to inquire.

CHORLEY, KINGSWOOD, and WOODHOUSE were members of Stottesden, of which occasional mention occurs in ancient writings, but it is not clear whether they were members of the central Manor or of the detached Berewicks which we have been noticing. I have nothing to say of either, except to identify Roger de Bosco Regis (a Juror for Stottesden Hundred in 1274) [197] as the then Tenant of Kingswood, a vill which probably acquired its name when the whole Manor was in the hands of Henry I.


THIS place, though parochially a member of Stottesden, was manorially distinct, even as early as the time of Edward the Confessor. And the Norman Earl of Shrewsbury continued the severance, by enfeoffing a Tenant therein.

"Alcher", says Domesday, "holds Havretescote of the Earl. Eluuard held it (in Saxon times) and was a free man. Here is I hide geldable. There is arable land (sufficient) for V ox-teams. In demesne there is I such team, and (there are) III Serfs and VI Boors, with IIII Teams. It formerly was worth 7s. (per annum), and afterwards 5s.: now (it is worth) 12s". [1]

Of Alcher, his tenures at Harcott and elsewhere, I have said

[194] Inquisitions, 28 Edw. I, No. 7.
[195] inquisitions, 2 Edw. II. (Calendar I, p. 231.)
[196] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 398.
[197] Rot. Hundred, II, 107.
[1] Domesday, fo. 259, b, 2.


much already; [2] and how it was this particular tenure of Harcott, under the Earl, which made his descendants Tenants-in-capite under the Crown. To avoid repeating former statements, I pass to the year 1203, when William, son of Geoffrey Carbunell, [3] impleaded the third Robert Fitz Aer and his mother Emma for half a hide in Havercot, alleging that his said Father, Geoffrey, had been seized thereof. The result has been already given. [4] In 1211 we have the first statement of the Serjeantry or service, by which this Robert Fitz Aer held Harcott. He was bound to find "one serving foot-soldier, with a bow and arrows, to attend the King's army in Wales". [5] The death of this Robert Fitz Aer, and the succession and death of William Fitz Aer (whom I now find to have been Brother of Robert), have been before spoken of. [6] The minority of John Fitz Aer, in 1255, is fully proved by the return of the Stottesden Jurors as to Havekercot, of which "John Fitz Cleri" (read Aeri) was Lord, he being in custody of Philip le Bret, by grant of the King. The Jurors gave the contents of the Manor as half a hide,- "held in capite of the King by service of one Serjeant, with a bow and three arrows, in Wales, when the King goes thither to levy war". The Vill did suit twice a year to the Sheriff's Tourn, but not to the Lesser Hundred Courts, nor to the County Court. It paid 2d. for Stretward, and 4d. for Motfee. The land, by tenure of which John Fitz Aer became a Ward of the Crown, was collectively worth nine marks per annum. [7] The Stottesden Jurors of 1274 repeated, in substance, the former statements as to the service by which John Fitz Aer held Havekercote. [8] The Feodary of 1284 [9] gives the same account as the Inquisition of 1255. It may lead to some further discovery, as to the relations of this John Fitz Aer, if I point out that he was in receipt of a large rent-charge from the Warwickshire Manor of Farnborough. His receipt of 100s. thereof (apparently an instalment only) from Henry Marshall of Farnbarwe, bears date 15 Edw. I (1286-7), and is sealed with a Lion Passant. [10]

John Fitz Aer died seized, inter alia, of Haverscote, previous to January 16, 1293, the date of the King's Writ of Diem clausit

[2] Supra, Vol. I, p. 199 et seq.
[3] The Carbonells were apparently Tenants of Fitz Aer, at Aston Eyre, fifty years later (supra, Vol. I, p. 206).
[4] Supra, Vol. I, p. 203.
[5] Testa de Nevill, p. 55.
[6] Supra, Vol. I, pp. 203, 204, and note 26.
[7] Rot. Hundred, II, 83.
[8] [9] Ibidem, II, 108, and Kirby's Quest.
[10] Dugdale's MSS. K, fo. 61.


extremum. The Inquest of February 12 following, found his son and heir, Hugh, to be then thirty years of age. [11] An Escheator's Roll of the same year intimates that the Archer, whose service was due from Harcott in the Welsh Wars, was to remain with the King till he had exhausted his arrows on the persons of the King's enemies. [12] A Fine of Hilary Term, 1306, exhibits Hugh le Fitz Aer as entailing a considerable estate on his son William, probably on the marriage of the latter with Christiana, daughter of John de Redmarleye. It purports to be levied between Hugh le Fitz Aer, Plaintiff, and Henry le Waleys (a Trustee, I think), Deforciant, of a messuage, a carucate of land, and 100s. rent, in Criddon (Salop), and of 10. rent in Franberew (Warwickshire), which Hugh acknowledges to be Henry's by his (Hugh's) gift, and whereof was plea of convention. Henry in turn settles the premises on Hugh for life, with remainder to William, son of Hugh, and to Christiana, William's wife, and their heirs of their bodies,- to hold of the Lords of the respective Fees,- with further remainder to the right heirs of William. [13] In 4 Edw. II (1310-1), I find Hugh Fitz Aer fining twenty merks with the Crown for license to enfeoff William Canne in lands at Havercoute. [14] This doubtless was in connection with some contemplated settlement of the estate; but, as I intend to follow the history of the Fitz Aers under Wythiford, I here say no more than that, on the death of Hugh, in 7 Edw. II (1313-4), Thomas was found to be his son and heir; and that Alyna Fitz Ayer, entered as Lady of Harcott in the Nomina Villarum of 1316, [15] was Hugh's Widow.

HARCOTT CHAPEL.- Tradition is cited as the authority for such a foundation. [16] All probability is in favour of this tradition, but I cannot otherwise support it. The Chapel, if parochial, was of course an affiliation of Stottesden Church.

[11] Inquisitions, 21 Edw. I, No. 44.
[12] Kirby's Quest.
[13] Pedes Finium (Diverse Counties), Bund. V, No. 48.
[14] Originalia, 4 Edw. II, Ro. 20.
[15] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 398.
[16] Dukes's Appendix, XII. Harcoat


Hopton Wafre.

THE Manor, thus called in later times, is spoken of in Domesday as follows:-

"The same Roger (de Laci) holds Hoptone, and Widard (holds it) of him. Siuuard, a free man, held it (in Saxon times). Here are III hides geldable. There is (arable) land (sufficient for) IIII ox-teams. In demesne there is one (such team), and (there are) I Serf, I Radman, II Villains, and III Boors, with I team. In time of King Edward the Manor was worth 10s. (annually), and afterwards it was worth 12s.; now it is worth 9s. 2d". [1]

It is worth remark, that of the five Shropshire Manors which Roger de Lacy held immediately of the Crown at Domesday, four had been the property of the Saxon Siward. Widard, the Domesday Tenant of Hopton, was probably identical with Widard, the Domesday Tenant of Farlow; but I can trace no subsequent connection between the respective Feoffees of these Manors. I have marked a much closer association between Hopton Wafre and Cleobury North, in my account of the latter Manor, viz. how the Church of Worcester had been sometime seized of both Manors, how, Siward the Saxon and Roger de Lacy were interested in both, how both passed from Lacy to Bernard de Newmarch, and how one, if not both, were held under the said Bernard by Walter de Cropus, the presumed Ancestor of Le Wafre. [2]

The annexed Genealogy proposes to show how the whole, or a greater part, of the Honour of Brecknock (of which Cleobury North and Hopton Wafre came to be reputed members) descended from Bernard de Newmarch to De Bohun Earl of Hereford. This, it will be observed, was in two ways; first, by the marriage of Humphrey de Bohun (III) with Margaret, eldest daughter of Milo Earl of Hereford; secondly, by the marriage of Humphrey de Bohun (VI) with Alianora de Braose, who was already his Cousin in the fourth degree, owing to the former match. It was by the first of these marriages that Cleobury North and Hopton Wafre

[1] Domesday, fo. 260, b, 1.
[2] Supra, Vol. III, pp. 22, 23, 25.


[For pedigree, see pdf.]


passed to De Bohun, for, as will presently be seen, Humphrey de Bohun (V) was Seignoral Lord of both Manors in 1255, a time when his Son, and not he, will have been Lord of all such portions of the Honour of Brecknock as accrued with the Coheiress of De Braose.

I now proceed to give some account of the family which held Hopton Wafre and Cleobury North, immediately under the Lords of Brecknock. The names of Le Wafre, Baskerville, and Weldeboeuf, occur frequently in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, in connection with certain localities in Brecknockshire and Herefordshire. Tedston Wafre, in Herefordshire, was held by Le Wafre under Weldeboeuf, and by Weldeboeuf of the Honour of Brecknock. Again, one Robert le Wafre, about 1220, had to wife a Lady who was apparently a Baskerville. One or two quotations from the Charters of Brecknock Priory are relevant to the subject in hand. About 1200-1210, William de Weldebeof grants to that House "the wood which belongs to the land, which was formerly Bernard Unspac's, [3] which passes from Brecon to Abreschir.- Witnesses: Sir William de Braose, Matilda his wife, William their heir, Robert Wafre".

Between 1216 and 1222, a confirmation by Reginald de Braose is attested by Robert de Wafre, and, vice versa, Sir Reginald de Braose attests the Charter whereby- "Robert le Wafre, with consent of his wife Alice, eldest daughter of Roger de Baskerville, confirms to the Monks of Brecon the Mill of Landevaillane, which Ralph de Baskerville [4] had first given them". [5]

The obit of Alice, wife of Robert le Wafre, was annually celebrated in Hereford Cathedral; and it was their son, intimates my authority, [6] another Robert, who, in 1243, is said to hold one hide in Thoddesthorne (Tedston), of John de Weldebef, of the Honour of Brecknock. [7]

Another, and nearly cotemporary Record, represents Robert le Wafre's Tenure in Tedethorn as immediate, under the Earl of Hereford, and by service of a fourth part of a knight's-fee. [8] About this

[3] We shall hear of Bernard Unspac again under Kinlet.
[4] This Ralph de Baskerville seems to be identical with the so- named Lord of Bradwardine and Pickthorn, of whom I have given account under the latter place (vol. I, p. 232 et seq.). The Brecon Charters, quoted Monasticon, III, 261, vary however so much from my transcripts of the same MSS. that I speak with some doubt on the subject.
[5] Carte's MSS. (in Bibl. Bodl.) LLLL. Caput 19, fos. 280, b, and 283.
[6] Duncumb's Herefordshire, II, p. 263.
[7] [8] Testa de Nevill, pp. 65, 67.


time, Sir Robert le Wafre and Sir John de Weldeboeuf attest a Charter of Herbert fitz Peter, then a Coparcener in the Honour of Brecknock. [9]

We now turn to Hopton Wafre, concerning which the Inquisition of Stottesden Hundred, in 1255, found as follows:- "Robert le Wafre is Lord of Hopton, in which are two and a half hides of land geldable; and the said lands do suit to the Hundred Courts, and give hydage; and he (Robert le Wafre) holds in capite of the Earl of Hereford, of the Honour of Breckenock, and renders to the Sheriff 10d. for Stretward, and 20d. for Motfee". [10]

At the County Assizes of 1256, Robert de Wafre of Hopton was reported as a Defaulter in due attendance. The period of this Robert le Wafre's death I am unable to ascertain, but he was living in 1265, after which he attests, as a Knight, a great Charter which Humphrey de Bohun (VII) expedited to Brecknock Priory. [11] I imagine it to have been at least ten years later that Lucia, his sole daughter and heir, married to Roger, younger son of Roger Lord Mortimer, of Wigmore. The Feodary of 1284 tells us accordingly, that "Roger, son of Roger de Mortimer, holds Hopton Waffre of the Earl of Hereford, of the Honour of Brekeynoc, and the same Earl of the King in capite". [12] In 1285 I find that Roger de Mortimer presented, to Tedston-Wafre Church; [13] and on May 6, 1286, Roger de Mortimer of Chirk had a grant of Free-Warren in Hopton Waffre, as well as in six Herefordshire Manors, one of which was Todesterne. [14] In the Nomina Villarum of 1316, [15] Roger de Mortimer is entered as Lord of Upton Wafre; but I here quit a subject, for further details of which, as connected with the Baronial House of "Mortimer of Chirke", I may refer elsewhere. [16]


I can assign no probable date for this Foundation. I have a note of Ralph, Bishop of Hereford, having, in 1236, confirmed the Tithes of Hopton Wafre to Brecknock Priory. [17] The Advowson however of Hopton Wafre belonged, before 1278, to the Abbot of Wigmore. The Taxation of 1291 makes due mention of this Church as in the

[9] Monasticon, III, 266, No. IX.
[10] Rot. Hundred, II, 81.
[11] Carte's MSS. (ut supra) fo. 249, b.
[12] Kirby's Quest.
[13] Duncumb (ut supra).
[14] Rot. Cart. 14 Edw. I, Num. 20.
[15] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 398.
[16] Dugdales's Baronage, I, 155.
[17] Monasticon, III, 262, b.


Deanery of Burford, and as of the annual value of 4. 2s. 6d., besides which the Prior of Brecon drew an annual portion of 6s. 8d. therefrom, and the Abbot of Wigmore a portion or pension of similar amount. [18] The Inquisition of the Ninth, taken in 1341, seems to take account of only one of these pensions, and quotes the Church-Taxation accordingly as 4. 9s. 2d. It assesses the Parish at 6s. 8d. to the Ninth, the reasons for the diminution being want of sheep-stock and the non-cultivation of two carucates of land from poverty of the Tenants. [19] In 1534-5 the gross value of this Rectory, then held by John Pontney, was returned as 5. 14s. 8d., a sum which was chargeable with 6d. for Procurations and Synodsls, with a Pension of 6s. 8d. to the Abbot of Wigmore, and a Pension of 6s. to the Prior of Brecknock. [20] The return of the Prior himself gives his pension from Uppton Waffres as only 2s., [21] while the Ministers' Accounts for 1539-40 give the Wigmore Pension from Hopton Wafer as 6s. [22]


WILLIAM DE BRAY, Clerk, is promised admission to this Church, on Oct. 29,1278, by the Bishop of Hereford, and at instance of the Abbot of Wigmore, but on condition that the Presentee should procure himself to be legitimated and should enter into Holy Orders before Easter. On April 26,1279, he is instituted, on the Abbot's presentation.

WILLIAM DE MORTON resigned this Living in 1322, having exchanged Preferments with-

WILLIAM DE SCHEYNESTON, [24] late Portioner of Holgate. (Patrons: The Abbot and Convent of Wigmore.)

MASTER PHILIP DE LA MORE, Clerk and friend of the Bishop, is instituted to this Chapel tanquam non curatam. (Patron: the Bishop by lapse.) He resigned in 1331, when on July 11-

SIR HUGH DE NEENTON, Priest, was instituted. (Patrons: the Abbot and Convent of Wigmore.) In 1346, an order issued to this Rector to reside, which was afterwards dispensed with. On Sept. 18,1349,-

JOHN DE ORLETONE, Deacon, was instituted. (Same Patrons.)

SIR ELYAS MUSARD, Priest, instituted Nov. 10, 1349, on a like

[18] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 165, b.
[19] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 187.
[20] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 214.
[21] [22] Monasticon, III, 268, and VI, 355.
[23] From Blakeway's MSS.
[24] Compare p. 73, where the name is spelt Cheyneston.


presentation, was on Dec. 10, 1856, the subject of a Commission, which was to remove him for unlicensed absence.

RICHARD, Rector of Hopton Wafre in 1359, seems to be identical with-

SIR RICHARD DE BIRILUS, who resigned in 1862, when on Dec. 10-

GILBERT AUNGER, Priest, [25] was instituted on presentation of the Abbot and Convent of Wigmore. He exchanged with-

JOHN DE LA OWENE, late Rector of Wheathill, who was instituted here Sept. 20, 1374, and soon exchanged with-

JOHN BODY, late Vicar of Momele, who was instituted here Sept. 27, 1374. [26] (Same Patrons.)

RICHARD BAKER, of Lenthale Zevoles, was instituted Nov. 22, 1390. (Same Patrons.)

JOHN LE PROWDE, of Cherlustr', Priest, instituted Feb. 5, 1391, resigned in 1399, having exchanged with-

SIR WILLIAM CHEYNY, Rector of Half Bodyngton (Lincoln Dioc.), who was instituted here Jan. 10, 1399, and resigned in the same year, exchanging with-

RICHARD DODYNGTON, late Rector of Allertone (Wigorn. Dioc.), who was admitted here on Oct. 18, 1399.


Ing, in Saxon, is a meadow; peoppi, or peopig, a field or farm, as I have before explained. [1]

This small Manor, the only one held by William Pantulf in Condetret Hundred, is noticed by Domesday in the supplementary form already described. [2]

"The same W. (Will. Pantulf) bolds Ingurdine. Eduin held it (in Saxon times) and was a free man. Here is I virgate geldable. There is arable land (sufficient) for half an ox-team. It (the half-team) is in demesne, with one Serf. The former and present value (of the Manor) was and is 5s". [3]

At one only period subsequent to Domesday do I find a distinct

[25] [26] Compare, supra, p. 13.
[1] Supra, Vol. I, p. 137.
[2] Supra, p. 27.
[3] Domesday, fo. 257, b, 1.


statement as to the Seigneury of Ingwardine. Analogy with certain other Manors in South Shropshire would induce me to think that Pantulf's interest here lapsed to Fitz-Alan, and that Ingwardine was annexed to the Fees of De Hugford, that is, to those various estates which the latter held in Fitz Alan's Barony.

What I have further to say of the place relates chiefly to its Under-Tenants. At Michaelmas, 1188, the Justices of the Forest had amerced Alexander de Ingwrdin 2s. for some default. [4] This Alexander, whose real name was De Cauz, appears to have inherited Ingwardine from his elder brother Robert, who was deceased without issue in 1187, but who left a widow, Lucia. The said Lucia obtained, in 1187, by Suit-at-law, from Alexander, her late husband's brother, an assignment of dower in Ingwrdin. Her right was decided by a Jury, and embodied in a Chirograph or Fine, whereby Alexander warranted the premises to Lucia. In 1 Ric. I (1189-90) a Claimant to the whole of Ingwardine rose up, in the person of William de Spineto. Suing Alexander de Ingwardine for the estate, he recovered it. A second Chirograph, between Alexander and William, embodied a quit-claim of the whole land of Ingwardine from the former to the latter; and the former also gave sureties that he would convict the Jurors in the former trial of perjury, and so oust Lucia de Cauz of her dower. Without waiting for so formal a process, it appears that William de Spineto at once disseized the said Lucia. A Suit now sprang up between the latter parties. On Nov. 8, 1194, I find Lucia de Hingwordin essoigning her appearance at Westminster in the said suit, by the essoign called de malo veniendi, her Essoignor being Richard Irish (Hiberniensis). On November 28, 1194, however, she appeared in Court, having given security to show cause why she had sued William de Spineto under writ of novel disseizin. The said William now pleaded the Chirograph of 1 Ric. I. Lucia, on the contrary, relied upon that of 1187, and asked for judgment of the Court as to whether Alexander de Ingwardine was competent to over-ride his first Fine by a second (utrum finem facere potuit supra finem prius factam). The Jurors, by whose verdict the first Fine had been levied, had it seems been bound over to appear at this trial. They came, and so did Alexander de Ingwardine; but instead of convicting them of perjury, he could allege nothing against them but the Chirograph or document itself. Lucia hereupon had sentence in her favour, viz.

[4] Rot. Pip. 34 Hen. II, Salop.


"that she should hold peaceably"; and "William" (it should surely be Alexander) "and his Sureties were in misericordia because he had not convicted the Jurors of perjury". [5]

These details of one of the earliest lawsuits on any English Record have an interest of their own, though they concern but a part of a very small estate. To continue,- I find mention of one Robert de Ingwardine, as paying half a merk in 1199 for some withdrawal,- probably of a lawsuit. [6] In 1221, we have already heard of a William de Ingwardine, accused of robbery; [7] and in 1226 we have had mention of Alexander de Caus. [7]

The Hundred Roll of 1255 tells us, that Walter de Pedwrthin (Pedwardine) was Lord of Ingwrthin, but nothing as to the Seignoral Lord. It was a virgate of land (as at Domesday), did suit to the Hundred (of Stottesden) twice a year, but not to the lesser Hundred Courts nor to the County Court. It paid the Sheriff 1d. for Stretward and 2d. for Motfee. [8] Of Walter de Pedwardine we shall hear again, in very different relations.

At the Assizes of 1256, William le Venur and Loreta his wife were found to have disseized Robert de Hope of eight acres in Ingarton. [9] In October, 1269, one Ralph Sprenchehose was suing Felicia, widow of another Ralph Sprenchehose, under writ of mort d'ancestre, for a messuage and noke in Ingworthyn. The suit is again mentioned in 1270. [10]

At the Assizes of 1272, Richard de Ingwrdin was a Juror for Stottesden Hundred. The Feodary of 1284 helps us to determine the true ratio in which this Manor was held:- "Walter de Pedewardin held it of William de Hugford, the said William of Richard fitz Alan and of the Honour of White-Minster, and the said Richard of the King in capite". [11] Others, whom I have now to mention, were probably Pedwardine's Under-Tenants here, viz. Roger and Richard de Ingwardine, Jurors at Pickthorn in March, 1286, and again at Chetton in June, 1290; Richard de Ingwordine, a Juror at Brug in 1292; [12] and Roger and Richard de Ingwrdin, Jurors at Cleobury North in March, 1301.

THE WHITE LADIES OF BREWOOD had sometime an estate here.

[5] Rot. Curia Regis, I, 83, 111.
[6] Rot. Pip. 1 John, Salop.
[7] Supra, Vol. I, pp. 300, 191.
[8] Rot. Hundred, II, 82.
[9] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 5 dorso.
[10] Pat. 53 and 54 Hen. III, dorso. These two Sprenchoses were probably Father and Son, and of the family named under Newton (supra, p. 172).
[11] Kirby's Quest.
[12] Supra, Vol. III, p. 216.


It is not noticed in the Taxation of 1291, and was perhaps acquired subsequently. In 27 Henry VIII (1335-6) it was estimated to yield 1. 1s. 1d. per annum. [13]


Domesday speaks of this place in a way which marks the wonderful, but unconcerted accuracy of that Record:-

"IN CONDETRET HUNDRED Widard hath one Manor,- Ferlau;- of I hide and III virgates of land. It lies in Leominstre, the King's Manor in Herefordshire, and there it is valued. He (Widard) holds it of the King". [1]

Turning to that part of the Survey which treats at some length of the King's vast Herefordshire Manor of Leofminstre, [2] we find Fernelau named as the last of sixteen members thereof: we also find that one Vitard paid 3s. (per annum) to the Central Manor.

Whether the little which I have to say of Farlow belongs properly to a Shropshire History is hardly worth consideration. Domesday is the only Record which has placed it in a Shropshire Hundred, and that with the careful qualification above set forth. Domesday being my Text-book, I will therefore speak of Farlow as connected with, but not contained in, Shropshire. The first Lord of Farlow whom I can name after Domesday was one who, written as Philip de Pharlawe, and being in November, 1194, a Recognizor in a trial about lands in Holicott, essoigns himself by Roger fitz Siward. [3] This Philip was, I doubt not, the same person with Philip de Linley, Lord of Linley, who has already occurred to us in 1196 and 1200, in connection with that place.
[4] At the Assizes of October, 1203, we have him, as Philip de Fernlawe, amerced five merks for some transgression, and also as empanelled on a Jury with the principal Knights of Shropshire.
[5] Again, in April, 1206, we have him as a Juror of Grand Assize concerning land in Oxenbold; and at the Shropshire Forest Assizes, in March, 1209, the Justices amerced him half a mark, as Surety of some one in Staffordshire. [6]

[13] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 198.
[1] Domesday, fo. 259, b, 2.
[2] Ibidem, fo. 180, a, 1.
[3] Rot. Curiae Regis, I, 123.
[4] Supra, Vol. II, p. 40.
[5] Assizes, 6 John, m. 6 dorso and 4 recto.
[6] Forest Roll, 10 John, m. 1.


In 1221-2 we have mention of one Henry de Fernlawe; but him I find only as associated with Neenton. [7] The Successors of Philip de Farlow were two Coheiresses, one of whom, Isolda, took estates at Brockton and Farlow to her husband Wydo, who seems to have assumed her name of Farlow. Of this Wydo or Guy I have already said something, [8] associating him, about 1230-1240, with the neighbourhoods of Brockton and Farlow. An earlier occurrence in the latter connection is of date November, 1221, when one written as Wiard de Vuerlawe appears as Surety of William Botterell (of Aston Botterell). Of Philip, son and heir of Wydo de Farlow, I have spoken under Brockton. [9] He was living in or about 1255, as we have seen under Stottesden. [10] The following Deed must have passed within five years of that date. Thereby "Roger de Pynelesdone grants to Robert de Harlegh, in frank marriage with Alice, his daughter, half a merk annual rent which William de Donvill paid for a tenement held under the Grantor in the Vill of Farlowe:- Witnesses: Hugh de Legh, Andrew de Wylilegh, Hugh Burnell". [11]

Hugh de Donvile, who was Fermor of Stottesden Hundred and Constable of Brug Castle in or before the year 1274, was associated with the neighbourhood of Fallow; but with Farlow itself, or the above-named William de Donvill, I cannot connect him. That the same parties succeeded the Farlows at Farlow and at Brockton, a Fine of May 5, 1280, will clearly show, if compared with the two cotemporary Fines cited under Brockton.
[12] This third Fine purports to be levied between John de Cleton and Alice his wife, Plaintiffs, and Matilda, widow of Richard de Sutton, [13] Impedient (by Hugh de Charlecote, her attorney), of half a carucate and 60s. rent in Farlawe and Lylleye (perhaps Linley), whereof was Plea of Warranty of Charter. Matilda now grants the whole to John and Alice, and the heirs of John, at a rent of one rose. The Plaintiffs gave for this one Sore Sparrow Hawk.

FARLOW CHAPEL.- Bishop Vere, about 1188, mentions this Chapel as a Dependency of Stottesden Church; [14] so also Bishop Swinfield's Ordinance of 1286 gives the Tithes of the Chapel of Farlowe, valued at fifteen merks per annum, to the Vicar of Stottesden. [15]

[7] Supra, Vol III, p. 56.
[8] Supra, Vol. II, p. 98.
[9] Supra, Vol. II, p. 99.
[10] Supra, p. 150.
[11] Dugdale's MSS., vol. 39, fo. 80.
[12] Supra, Vol. II, p. 99.
[13] Identical with "Matilda de Farlawe" of the former Fine.
[14] Supra, p. 153.
[15] Dukes's Antiquities, p. 240.


Cleobury Mortimer.

The Domesday account of this Manor and its adjuncts is especially valuable, for it suggests certain facts of which we have no other Record. It is as follows:-

"The same Radulf de Mortemer holds Claiberie (of the King). Eddid held it (in Saxon times). Here are IIII hides geldable. There is (arable) land (sufficient) for XXIIII ox-teams. In demesne are IIII Teams, and XIIII Serfs, XX Villains, a Priest, II Radmans, and VIII Boors have, among them all, XX Teams. Here is a Mill rendering II horse-loads of corn: a wood, capable of fattening 500 swine, renders 40s. In time of King Edward, the Manor was worth 8 (per annum); and afterwards its value was the same; now it is worth 12". [1] But further,- this value was inclusive of the three small estates of Melela (Mawley), Lel, and Fech, which "when Turstin de Wigmore received them from Earl William, he joined to the superior Manor of Claiberie". It was also inclusive of Dodentone (now Earls Ditton), a small Manor, usually accounted to be in Overs Hundred, but which, inasmuch as it is thus valued under Cleobury, Domesday would seem to classify with the latter Manor.

When in the above and in other passages of Domesday, we read of certain Shropshire and Herefordshire Manors held by Eddid, or Eddied, in the days of the Confessor, we see at first nothing to arrest the attention or call for remark. Yet to this Eddid attaches a story of the most romantic interest. We have before us the name of a Queen,- of Edith, the sister of King Harold, the unhonoured wife of King Edward himself. [2] How it came to pass that Edith should be thus described as having singly held estates in her husband's lifetime, I can only conjecture. It may be a feature of the estrangement which other Records show to have existed between the Royal pair, or these estates may have been hers by gift of her father, Earl Godwin. Of the treatment which Edith met with at the hands of William the Conqueror we know little. She died at Winchester, then a Royal Capital, on December 14, 1074, and was

[1] Domesday, fo. 260, a, 1.
[2] Domesday (fo. 183, b, 1) says of Lintehale (a Herefordshire Manor of Mortimer), Eddied regina tenuit; of Stoches it says,- Eddied tenuit. Hence the Manor still bears the name of Stoke- Edith.


honoured by the King with a magnificent funeral and a resting-place in Westminster Abbey, by the side of her husband. But whereas Edith's sympathies as a Queen had ever been shown on the side of her own family, rather than on that of Edward and his Norman Favourites, it is very possible that this sumptuous funeral was a sequel to less considerate treatment on the part of the Conqueror. And here Domesday will furnish a specific fact, for it proves that Edith was not permitted to retain all, if any, of her estates. We can show this most satisfactorily in the case before us, for Domesday constructively tells us that the Conqueror had bestowed Claiberie and its adjuncts on Earl William, who in turn had enfeoffed Turstin de Wigmore therein. Now, as Earl William, thus mentioned, was no other than William fitz Osborn, Earl of Hereford, and as William fitz Osborn was slain in Flanders on Feb. 20, 1071, that is nearly three years before the death of Queen Edith, it follows that he occupied certain of her estates during her life. And this leads to another inference from Domesday.-

As I have before pointed out, Earl William fitz Osborn was Lord of Wigmore, and built the Castle thereof. [3] We now see that he was also Lord of Cleobury; and these two estates were the principal of all the estates, in Herefordshire and Shropshire respectively, which were afterwards held in capite by Mortimer. I conclude that many other estates which Ralph de Mortimer held at Domesday, of the King, and in those two Counties, had been first Earl William fitz Osborn's, had reverted to the King on the forfeiture of Earl Roger de Britolio in 1074, and had then been granted to Mortimer, as the Conqueror of Edric Sylvaticus and the King's ablest Lieutenant in the West.

Again, it appears from Domesday that Turstin de Wigmore, though enfeoffed by Earl William in Cleobury, had been removed, we will not say deprived, by Mortimer. Under Mortimer he continued to hold elsewhere, as I shall have other opportunities of showing. Meanwhile Mortimer took Cleobury into his own demesne. It became his chief residence in Shropshire, and as such it is the place under which we may most fittingly give account of the-


In several contradictory expressions of ancient Chroniclers we discern

[1] Supra, Vol. III, p. 50.


one uniform tradition and idea, viz. that the two Anglo-Norman Families of Warren and Mortimer were descended from a common Ancestor. An Antiquary of the present Century, [4] having brought a mass of Charter-lore and consummate critical skill to bear upon the question, has not only verified the fact of this relationship, but in a great measure shown its mode. Gunnora, wife of Richard I, Duke or Count of the Normans, had a Brother Herfastus and several Sisters. Herfastus was Father of Osbern de Crepon, and Osbern de Crepon was Father of that William fitz Osbern of whom we were just now speaking. On the other hand, a Sister of Gunnora, marrying to some one, unnamed by the Chroniclers, became Mother of a daughter also unnamed, which daughter was wife of Hugh, afterwards Bishop of Coutances, and Mother by him of three Sons, Rodolf, Roger, and Godfrey. Of Rodolf and Roger we are to speak.- They must have been born before the year 990, when their Father's Episcopacy had commenced, and their Mother was inferentially deceased. The elder, Rodolf, was known as Rodolfus filius Episcopi and as Rodolf de Warren; the younger, Roger, was similarly called at one time Rogerius filius Episcopi, at another-

ROGER DE MORTEMER. So then these two Brethren were Cousins in the second degree of affinity to William fitz Osbern on the one hand and to Robert (I) Duke of Normandy, father of William the Conqueror, on the other hand. The Fiefs of Rodolf de Warren and Roger de Mortemer were both in the Pays de Caux. The Caput of Mortemer's Barony was at one time the Castle from which he took his name. It was situate at the source of the River Eaulne, and near this Castle, in the year 1055, Roger de Mortemer, commanding on behalf of William Duke of Normandy, defeated the forces of Henry III of France, commanded by Ralph de Montdidier and others, and threatening to devastate Normandy. The French Count, Montdidier, fell into the hands of Mortemer, was confined for three days in the neighbouring Castle, and then released, without the sanction of Duke William, and on the feudal pretext that Mortemer had sometime done homage to his captive. This homage seems to have been in respect of certain lands in the French diocese of Amiens, and there are reasons for thinking that Mortemer was not only the Vassal, but the Son-in-Law of Montdidier. His two-sided allegiance cost him dearly. Duke William exiled him from

[4] The late Thomas Stapleton, Esq.- See his Observations on the Rotuli Normanniae (Vol. II, p. cxix et seq.), and his Essay on the Pretended marriage of William de Warren, Earl of Surrey (Archaeological Journal, Vol. III, pp. 1-26).


[For pedigree, see pdf.]


Normandy in the first instance, and when ultimately he admitted him to reconciliation, he confiscated that Castle of Mortemer which had been the scene of his offence. More than thirty years afterwards the Duke, then King of England, is represented by Ordericus as recounting these circumstances on his deathbed. The narration ends with the King saying that he gave the forfeited Castle to William de Warren, a kinsman (consanguineo) of Mortemer and a loyal youth (legitimo tyroni). William de Warren, thus mentioned, was in fact Mortemer's Nephew, the son of his Brother Rodolf. He accompanied Duke William to England in 1066, was made Earl of Surrey by William Rufus, and transmitted the Castle of Mortemer to his descendants as Caput of the Honour of Warren in Normandy.

Roger de Mortemer, recovering the other lands of his Fief, chose the Castle of St. Victor en Caux as the Caput of his Norman Barony. It is not quite clear who represented the House of Mortemer at the so-called Battle of Hastings in 1066. The great age of Roger de Mortemer, though he survived that event at least eight years, must place his name out of the question. The Wigmore Annalist, whose inaccuracies I have before adverted to, [5] makes Ralph de Mortemer to have been not only present at, but the prominent hero of Duke William's achievement; but the fact can hardly be concluded from this testimonial of a later age. On the other hand, at a date shortly preceding the Conquest, we find William and Hugh mentioned as the sons, and apparently the eldest sons, of Roger de Mortemer and Odain his wife. [6] And in very sufficient harmony with this evidence, Mestre Wace, living in the first half of the twelfth century, gives-

HUE DE MORTEMER as one of the Chieftains at Hastings. [7] The eventual Successor to Roger de Mortemer in Normandy was unquestionably-

RALPH DE MORTEMER, the Domesday Baron: and this Ralph I should have taken to be Son of Hugh and Grandson of Roger on chronological grounds, did not an authority, to which I defer, name him as Roger's son. [8] Roger de Mortemer, I should now observe, was living in 1074, when, with Haduisa his wife, he procured the Priory of St. Victor en Caux, previously a cell to the Abbey of St. Ouen at Rouen, to be itself erected into an Abbey. Whether

[5] Supra, Vol. III, pp. 36, 37.
[6] Archaeological Journal, III, 13.
[7] Roman de Rou (by Edgar Taylor, Esq., 1837), p. 239, where a part of the Author's criticism on Wace seems to be unfounded.
[8] Rotuli Normanniae, II, cxx, note.


Hawise, wife of Roger de Mortemer in 1074, was identical with Odain, his wife before mentioned, I cannot determine. It is conjectured that with Hawise Roger de Mortemer obtained lands in the Diocese of Amiens, and it was on Ralph, as son, I presume, of Hawise, that those lands afterwards devolved. The forfeiture of Earl Roger de Bretolio in 1074 and the reduction of Edric Sylvaticus (events which must have been nearly cotemporary) placed large estates in Shropshire and Herefordshire at the redisposal of King William I, and, as I have before suggested, [9] Ralph de Mortimer, as the antagonist of the said Edric, acquired a Fief in those Counties, which Fief he held in capite at Domesday. Of the Manors which he held under Earl Roger de Montgomery a nearly similar account has to be given.- In many of these his predecessor had been Edric Sylvaticus. Ralph de Mortimer too was related to Earl Roger much in the same way as he was related to the King; for as King William was Great-Grandson of the Countess Gunnora, so were Earl Roger and Ralph de Mortemer respectively descended from two Sisters of that Countess.

But there is a circumstance connected with Mortemer's tenure under the Norman Earls, which, though I learn it only from tradition, is so corroborated by other evidence, and throws such light upon an obscure passage of English History, that I cannot but accept it as partially true. In the commencement of the fourteenth century a local Jury declared that Mortemer "held the Manor of Cleobury Mortimer of the King in capite, as of the Escheat of Robert de Belesme formerly Earl of Salop, by service of being Seneschal of the said Earl in regard of all the said Earl's lands in Shropshire, and also by service of being Custos of the Castle of Bruges", and each succeeding Mortemer was bound to pay "a relief as for one Knight's Fee, viz. a relief of 100s". [10] Now it is not true that Mortemer thus held Cleobury, for it had never been of the Seigneury of the Norman Earls, and therefore could not be of Earl Robert's Escheat. Nor yet is it true that Mortemer held Cleobury by service of being Castellan of Bruges, for Cleobury was Mortemer's before the Castle of Bruges was built or even projected. But I have no doubt that what Ralph de Mortemer did hold in Shropshire under Earl Roger was by service of being his Seneschal, a service which, on the subsequent foundation of Brug Castle by Earl Robert, may have been construed to involve the custody of that Fortress. I shall have future reason to recur to

[9] Vide supra, Vol. III, pp. 49, 50.
[10] Inquisitions, 32 Edw. I, No. 63.


this subject, but the very next fact which, after Domesday, occurs in the life of Ralph de Mortemer, is, from the way in which it is related, apposite to the idea of his Seneschalcy: I speak of the rebellion against William Rufus as described by Florence of Worcester. [11] He tells us how Bernard de Newmarch, Roger de Lacy (who had already invaded Hereford), and Ralph de Mortemer, joint Conspirators, with the Vassals of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury and a great army of Normans and Welsh, proceeded to threaten Worcester. The order in which the rebels are mentioned seems to associate Mortemer with Earl Roger's Vassals. The Earl himself, though he secretly fomented the insurrection, is said to have taken no prominent part therein. In the next year (1089) we find Ralph de Mortemer among those Normans who garrisoned their Castles north of the Seine in support and at the cost of William Rufus. [12] There is no evidence that Mortemer's tenure under the Earls of Shrewsbury, whatever was its nature, involved him in the rebellion of Robert de Belesme. As to the custody of Brug Castle, Belesme certainly entrusted that to others, and during the rest of Henry I's reign, whatever we know of Brug Castle favours the idea that it was in custody of the Viceroy or Sheriff of the County. In 1104, two years after Belesme's expulsion, Ralph de Mortemer was in Normandy, and one of those zealous partisans of Henry I who received the King on his visit to the Duchy, and participated in his designs on his Brother's Crown. [13] And this is perhaps the latest authentic notice which we have of Ralph de Mortemer; for though the Wigmore Annalist has inferentially represented him as General of King Henry's forces at Tenerchebray in 1106, and as the Captor of Courteheuse, the story is not worth a moment's consideration, seeing that Ordericus not only omits all mention of Mortemer on that occasion, but contradicts the Wigmore story in every essential particular. The name of Ralph de Mortemer's wife, as we learn from competent authority, was Melisendis, [14] but we know not who she was and only that her husband survived her. I have before alluded to the name, and the impossible parentage which the Wigmore Annalist has foolishly assigned to the wife of-

HUGH DE MORTEMER, son and heir of Ralph. [15] Of the early career of this Hugh we have no particulars, and there is a general probability that the Wigmore Annalist is right in representing

[11] Florence Wygorn: II, 24.
[12] Ordericus, p. 681 A.
[13] Ordericus, p. 814 A.
[14] Rot. Normanniae, II, cxx.
[15] Supra, Vol. III, pp. 36, 37.


him to have succeeded his Father at a youthful age. During the Usurpation of Stephen he comes first under notice. There can be little doubt that the Patent by which Stephen gave the Earldom of Hereford to Robert de Bossu, already Earl of Leicester, passed in 1140. That Patent mentions Hugh de Mortemer first of those Barons of Herefordshire, whose feudal subjection to the proposed Earl was not guaranteed by Stephen, but apparently reserved, sine medio, to the Crown. [16] The private feuds of that period must not always be construed to imply the political leanings of the parties concerned. What we hear of Mortemer's sympathies and antipathies would of itself favour rather than disprove the idea that he was a partisan of Stephen. His subsequent conduct leaves little doubt on the point, and therefore it will be interesting to trace those previous symptoms of a political faith, which on the succession of the lawful heir to the Crown, drew Mortemer into wild and arrogant rebellion. In 1142-3 (no more probable date can be assigned to the circumstance) Robert de Betun, Bishop of Hereford, took refuge with the Canons of Shobdon, who at the time were under the protection of Mortemer and his Steward, Oliver de Merlimond, whilst Milo, Earl of Hereford, the strenuous partisan of the Empress, was the person from whose antagonism the Bishop fled. Then again in 1143 Oliver de Merlimond, disgraced and persecuted by Mortemer, betook himself to the same Earl Milo, who sheltered and befriended him. Mortemer's Feuds with Roger Earl of Hereford, son and heir of Milo, are broadly spoken of, but with no specific date or circumstance. Earl Roger was uniformly a friend to the cause of legitimacy till it had triumphed in the accession of Henry II. Then Earl Roger fell off, but in this instance he appears to have acted in concert with Mortemer. Lastly we observe that Hugh de Mortemer had great Feuds with Joceas de Dinan, Lord of Ludlow, and, as the story goes, was waylaid and imprisoned by him till he paid a ransom of 3000 merks. Cotemporarily the Chief of the House of Lacy was on terms of intimacy with Mortemer, and the feud and the friendship were natural consequences one of the other; but I know not of any political bearing which can be attributed to these circumstances. They happened at a time (between 1148 and 1153) when political partisans are not easily distinguished, and, as between Lacy and Dinan, it is an ulterior question which was the Legitimatist.

For all the minute details which fill up this outline, and of

[16] Duncomb's Herefordshire, I, 232.


which I am giving a criticism rather than a summary, I refer elsewhere. [17] Meanwhile it is well to observe how exactly the progressive character of Hugh de Mortemer tallies with what we should expect of the youth and manhood of a feudal Chieftain circumstanced as he was. At first on his succession we have him devoted to his pleasures and amusements, delegating all weightier concerns to his Steward, Oliver de Merlimond, particularly leaving to that functionary the execution of a pious work (the foundation of a Monastery), which was, as it were, a legacy from his Father. Then we have him active in private feuds or political combinations, successful in arms against the Welsh, making their Chieftains prisoners and founding Castles within their territory. [18] At length, blinded with ambition or arrogance, he refuses to do homage to Henry II, and within a few months of that Prince's accession has fortified the three Castles of Brug, Cleobury, and Wigmore in defiance of the Crown. When we look at the names of those who rallied round the Throne on this occasion, we have the fullest assurance of the insanity of Mortemer's rebellion; but his particular conduct in defending Brug, a Royal Castle, against the King himself, though at first sight it strikes us as the very summit of audacity, may perhaps be partially explained. Stephen had probably permitted Mortemer to assert his traditionary office of Seneschal over the Royal Demesnes of Shropshire. That office, in the absence of the hereditary Sheriff, Fitz-Alan, had given to Mortimer the custody of Brug Castle. On the accession of Henry II, all his Predecessor's dealings with Royal Demesnes were brought in question, and generally reversed. It was therefore the command of Brug Castle which was disputed between the young King and his Vassal. The sequel has been narrated already, [19] and it remains to recapitulate the one circumstance which is most pertinent to our present subject, viz. that, according to the best account of Mortimer's [20] rebellion, Cleobury was the first of his three Castles which was taken, and the only one which was destroyed. The surrender of Brug Castle was followed, in July, 1155, by what the Chroniclers describe as the "settlement of

[17] Monasticon, VI, 344-360. History of Ludlow (by Thomas Wright, Esq.), pp. 102-132.
[18] Vide Powel, sub anno 1143, and Monasticon, VI, 349.
[19] Supra, Vol. I, p. 248 et seq.
[20] It is not from mere caprice that I here turn to the English mode of spelling this name. It seemed proper to use the original Norman form Mortemer while dealing with the antecedents of the family.


the King's peace with Mortimer". The terms of the treaty are nowhere given, but the expression quoted indicates, I think, a very large consideration shown by the King for some prescriptive or hereditary claims of the late Rebel, other than the custody of Brug Castle. This introduces a further and very interesting question.- Mortimer had lost both the name and office of Seneschal of Shropshire. By that office probably, and by no other service, had his Father held his Barony under the Norman Earls. Whatever in Shropshire had been held by his Father of the King, had probably during the reign of Stephen been incorporated with the Tenure by Seneschalcy, and we consequently never hear at any subsequent period that Mortimer's Shropshire Barony was divided as to its mode of Tenure. The question then is this,- Did this office of Seneschal confer certain privileges and immunities?- and if it did, were those privileges, or some of them, secured to Mortimer long after his office had vanished except as a Legend? This inquiry will best be met by some observations drawn from the public Records of the century and half which followed Mortimer's rebellion. During that period died five Chiefs of the House of Mortimer, and there were consequently five successions to its Honours. In no instance, except the fifth of these, do I find any record of a Writ of Diem clausit extremum having issued, or an Inquest having been taken as to Mortimer's Shropshire Barony. The exceptional case, that of 32 Edw. I (1304), shall be considered in its place. Of Reliefs paid by succeeding Mortimers I will also speak in due order. I now notice a second appearance of immunity. It is true that Mortimer's Shropshire Fief was reputed to contain a certain number of Knight's-fees, but that seems usually to have affected only the relations between the Baron and his Vassals. Mortimer owed no military service to the Crown for his Shropshire Fees. Hence in the Liber Niger, which purports to be a retun of the Knights'-fees then (1165-6) composing each Barony in the Realm, we find no return by Mortimer of Wigmore; nor was this an accidental omission, for his Barony is not, like that of Mortimer of Richard's Castle, summarily described in any of those entries which form the supplementary portion of the Liber Niger. [21] Consistently with all this, we find that the Shropshire Barony of Mortimer of Wigmore was never except once put in charge to a Scutage, and never except once put in charge to an Aid, during the whole period of which I speak. The exceptional

[21] Vide supra, Vol. I, p. 3.


instances were a Scutage and an Aid, which involved many other such anomalies. On the whole then it may be stated that Mortimer's Barony, in respect of certain immunities, stood alone among the Baronies of Shropshire; and if the reason of this has not been suggested above, I know not where to look for it.

I now return to give further particulars of Hugh de Mortimer and his Successors, but in so doing shall confine myself to matters hitherto unnoticed or misapprehended. In 1162 the Sheriff of Staffordshire answered for the Danegeld assessed on Mortimer's lands in Warwickshire, Leicestershire, [22] and, I presume, Staffordshire, but it does not appear that his Shropshire estates were assessed. In 1176 the Sheriff of Shropshire records against him a debt of 307. 18s., the balance apparently of a debt which had been previously charged in the Hampshire Pipe-Roll. He also now owed the King 100.,- an amercement of which this was the ground. Mortimer had seized the working cattle (averia) of one of his Knights. The latter had apparently appealed to the King, who ordered Mortimer to restore them, taking Surety for whatever claim he might have on his Vassal. Mortimer refused, and the King sentenced him thus heavily. In 1177 Mortimer paid the small instalment of 18s. 9d. on his Hampshire debt, which also appears to have been an amercement. The balance of this debt and the whole of the other were charged against Hugh de Mortimer on the successive Pipe-Rolls of Herefordshire and Shropshire till his death. They were then charged on Roger, his son and heir; but in 1184 I find that the Sheriff of Herefordshire had orders to respite the debt of 100. till the King should return to England. However, no formal acquittance of either debt appears on any later Roll, nor more than a small instalment of either was ever paid. In 1201 403. 16s. 1d. is still charged in Berkshire against Roger de Mortemer for the "misericordia of his Father". [23] Leaving this instance of Feudal independence, I return to another subject.-

The Annalist, already quoted, dates the completion of Hugh de Mortimer's Foundation of Wigmore Abbey in 1179; and gives the Founder's death as having taken place on Feb. 26, 1185. The latter date is probably four years too late, and the work of piety was accordingly a closing act in Mortimer's life. It was in the year 1181 that his debts to the Crown were first charged against his Son

[22] Rot. Pip. 8 Hen. II, Legrecestrescir' et Warewichscr'.
[23] Rot. Canc. 3 John, p. 258.


Roger. We may therefore place Hugh's death as on Feb. 26, 1181, seeing that the anniversary observed by Wigmore Monastery would probably be a safe guide as to the day, rather than the year, of the Founder's obit. There is a French Chronicle of the Mortimers, which I have often quoted, and which seems to be a much more authentic document than the Latin Historia Fundationis. This French Chronicle seems to intimate that at the time of Hugh de Mortimer's death, his son Roger was the Prisoner of Henry II, because of the death of one Cadwallan, whom Roger's attendants had killed. So, continues the Writer, "the King's Servants held the Castle of Wigmore with its appurtenances". He then proceeds to describe the miraculous escape of some Welsh prisoners from the Castle, and, after that, Roger de Mortimer's enlargement from custody and return to Wigmore. [24] We have the means of verifying the non-miraculous part of this narrative in a most satisfactory way.- The Sheriff of Shropshire accounting at Michaelmas, 1181, charges himself with a sum of "16. 1s. 9d. of the issues of the land of Hugh de Mortimer, for the term wherein it was in the King's hand. He (the Sheriff) had paid 14. into the King's Treasury; he had expended 2. 1s. 9d., by the King's order, in maintenance of Hugh's hounds and hawks previous to the time when the King took possession of them. And he (the Sheriff) was quit". [25] The term here spoken of must be taken to have been half a year. At the same time (Michaelmas, 1181) the Sheriff of Herefordshire is charged "8. 0s. 10d. for the fixed rent (de redditu statuto) of the land of Roger de Mortimer in his Bailiwick, viz. for one term, and according to the Sheriff's own asseveration". The one term here spoken of must be a quarter of a year, for the Sheriff of Herefordshire, in 1182, is again charged with a similar sum of 8. 0s. 10d. on the same account, but for a quarter of a year. On the whole the accounts of the two Sheriffs (of Shropshire and Herefordshire) tally, though one describes the escheated estate under the name of the deceased Father, the other under the name of the succeeding Heir; one reckons the half-year of forfeiture in gross, the other in distinct quarters, and with less punctuality. Again I should observe that in 1182 the Sheriff of Herefordshire, balancing his account for the year 1181, is allowed a sum of money

[24] History of Ludlow, p. 124.
[25] Idem Viscomes r. c. de 16. 21d. de exita terre Hugonis de Mortuomari de termino quo fuit in manu Regis.- In thesauro 14. Et in liberatione canium et avium ejusdem Hugonis antequam Rex eos haberet 41s. 9d., per breve Regis. Et Quietus.


for custody of the Castle of Cameriun, which, if I mistake not, was one of the Welsh Castles of Mortimer. [26]

ROGER DE MORTIMER, with whom our narrative proceeds, had, some years previous to his Father's death and his own disgrace, been in favour with Henry II. He had probably taken an active part on the King's side in the rebellion of 1173-4, for in the latter year the Sheriff of Shropshire paid to Roger de Mortimer 8. 13s. 4d. out of the ferm of the King's Manor of Halis (afterwards Hales Owen), in obedience to the King's order. This grant appears as equivalent to 16. 16s. 8d. in the year 1175, and to 16. per annum in 1176, 1177, 1178, and 1179. In 1180 it is suspended and does not again appear, a circumstance which would seem to fix the date of Roger de Mortimer's disgrace as about Michaelmas, 1179. The Worcestershire Pipe-Roll of that year verifies this conclusion, and gives a further instance of the King's previous favour. It assigns to Roger de Mortimer, as usual, fifty Librates of Crown land in Merlega and Bremesgrava as a Royal gift, but yet at the moment of completing the account these lands were in the King's hand. The Sheriff accounts 4. 13s. 6d. for the issues of Roger de Mortimer's lands, and 4. 17s. 9d. which was found upon the person of Simon de Ribbeford, his Dapifer or Seneschal,- both having been arrested, I presume. It is very satisfactory to find that the results thus arrived at, from collating a monastic Chronicle with the Records of the Exchequer, are confirmed by more general history. Diceto actually gives the day (September 22, 1179) when Cadwallan, a Prince of South Wales, was waylaid and murdered in returning from the King's Court, and whilst under the King's guarantee of safe-conduct. Diceto tells us of the hatred and fear which existed between Cadwallan and the English; also how his murderers were punished. Some, who were proved guilty, were put to the rack, and forfeited all their worldly possessions; others, who were suspected, were forced from the pale of society; [27] but Diceto does not tell us who was the principal offender, nor how he suffered two years' forfeiture and imprisonment. The Wigmore Annalist has given to

[26] Powel (sub anno 1142) says, that Melienyth was conquered and Castle Cymaron fortified by Hugh (Ranulph is meant) Earl of Chester. The Wigmore Annalist attributes the building of Castle Camareon to Hugh de Mortimer. Again, Powel (sub anno 1194) attributes the conquest of Melyenyth and the building of Castle Cymaron to Roger de Mortimer.
[27] Diceto, p. 607.- The Sheriff of Herefordshire, in 1179, charges 2 merks for taking the prisoners who were accused of the death of Cadewill to the Court at Windsor, and to Worcester, as the King had ordered.


Roger de Mortimer two wives,- the first, Milesaunt, daughter of the Earl of Derby; the second, Isabella, daughter of the Lord de Ferrers, of Lechlade. It has been suggested, if not shown, by the keen-sighted Antiquary, whose criticisms I have been largely appropriating, [28] that this alleged first wife is probably imaginary, her Christian name being borrowed from that of Roger de Mortimer's Grandmother, her relationship to the Earl of Derby being a confusion with Mortimer's wife, Isabella, who was a Ferrars. The French Chronicle, so often quoted above, is again in this instance a faithful Record, for it mentions only one wife of Roger de Mortimer, viz. Isabel de Ferrars, of Lechlade.

Of Roger de Mortimer, during the eventful reign of Richard I, English Records speak but little. The Welsh Chronicles, with an inconsistency already pointed out, represent him to have conquered that part of Radnorshire called Melyenyth, and to have built Castle Cymaron in 1194. [29] We also learn from the same authority (and in this instance the story is corroborated by other evidence) that within the next two years Roger de Mortimer and Hugh de Say (Lord of Richard's Castle) suffered a signal defeat under the walls of Radnor Castle, and at the hand of Rees, Prince of South Wales. [30]

The events which followed the Coronation of King John were emphatically calculated to give prominence to the names of such English Barons as held large Fiefs in Normandy. Mortimer had estates in not less than thirteen English Counties, to say nothing of his acquisitions in Wales. In Normandy his Honour of St. Victor-en-Caux may be estimated by the fact that it owed the service of five knights to the reigning Duke, while thirteen and a half knights'-fees represented that portion of the Fief which owed service to the Lord Mortimer as distinct from the Ducal Suzerain. [31] In King John's contest with Philip Augustus, Roger de Mortimer seems uniformly to have adhered to the cause of the former, and to his own English interests. In 1201 King John's second Scutage was levied for the Army of Normandy. Roger de Mortimer was not assessed thereto in respect of his Shropshire Barony, but in six other Counties he was assessed in the first instance, and excused by Writ-Royal in the next. On April 1, 1202, I find him in King John's retinue at Montfort sur Rile, and about the same time he acquired, by discharging a mortgage thereon, au estate which was

[28] Stapleton (Rot. Norman.), II, cxxi.
[29] [30] Powel, pp. 179, 180.
[31] Rot. Normanniae (Stapleton), II, cxix.


part of the Fief of Ferrieres, [32] and so belonged to the Seigneury of Henry de Ferrars (Mortimer's brother-in-law). On July 8 and 11, 1202, King John, then at Bonport, procures two loans of 100 (Anjovin) each, for the use of his "faithful and beloved" Roger de Mortimer, the King himself covenanting to see to the repayment thereof. [33] On February 5, 1203, the King, at Rouen, cancels a debt of 25 (Anjovin) which was the interest accruing on a principal debt of 100, due from Roger de Mortimer to certain Jews. [34] In 1203 (it was the very year in which King John lost Normandy), the fourth Scutage of his reign was assessed on the Tenants-in-capite of Shropshire. Mortimer's Barony was in this instance assessed as owing the service of five knights'-fees, and on that assessment was paid the proportionate scutage of ten merks. [35]

The revolution which deprived Roger de Mortimer of his Norman Fief had among its indirect results the augmentation of his English estates. His wife Isabel was the daughter of Walcheline de Ferrars, Lord of Ferrieres in Normandy, also of Oakham (Rutlandshire) and Lechlade (Gloucestershire) in England. Walcheline de Ferrars left two sons, Henry and Hugh. On Henry, as the eldest, devolved the Norman Fief of Ferrieres, as well as the bulk of the English estates. To Hugh, the youngest, Walcheline gave Lechlade and Langeberge (Longborough) in Gloucestershire. The Lord of Ferrieres, on the rupture between France and England, sided with Philip Augustus, and so lost his estates on this side the Channel. His brother Hugh, Lord of Lechlade, had good cause for a different choice. He had married Margaret de Say, in whose right he held the great Fief of Richard's Castle. This Hugh de Ferrars died, without issue, about the month of August, 1204. His elder Brother was excluded, as an Alien, from all claim on his paternal inheritance. No such disqualification attached to his Sister Isabel. Hence, about August, 1204, we find that "Ysabell de Mortimer gives the King 300 merks and one Destrier to have seizin of the Manors of Lechelade and Langeberge, which were Hugh de Ferrars, her brother's, by gift of their Father, Wakeline, whose heir she asserts herself to be;- so however as that she will stand to trial about the premises if auy one shall choose to sue her for the same". King John ordered security to be taken for this Fine, and seizin to be given to Isabel. The Chattels on the lands were to be retained

[32] Rot. Normanniae, (Hardy), pp. 18, 19.
[33] Rot. Patent. (Hardy), p. 14.
[34] Rot. Normanniae, (Hardy), p. 74.
[35] Rot. Pip. 5 John. Salop.


for the King, to whom Isabel had made over her interest therein. [36] On May 2, 1205, King John allows Ysabella de Mortimer some indulgence as to the time at which she was to pay her Fine for Lechlade; [37] and on May 25 he orders his Treasurer to allow a praestitum or loan of 200 merks to the wife of Roger de Mortimer. [38] The reason of all this appears in a third Writ of August 18, 1205, where it appears that the loan was required by Isabella for the "redemption of her husband". [39] A fourth Writ directed to the Sheriff of Shropshire orders him to allow Isabella to levy scutage on all Knights'-fees held in capite by her husband, such scutage being lent by the King for her husband's redemption. [40] A fifth Writ, dated Dec. 28, 1205, would make it appear that the previous Loan had not yet been fully paid to Isabella, and that Mortimer was still a captive. [41] The Wigmore Annalist enables us to explain these fiscal documents, whilst they in turn correct the marvellous misapplication of dates and persons under which that Writer gives the main circumstances of his story. Roger de Mortimer "being in Normandy to defend to the best of his power the rights of John, King of England, as was the custom of his Ancestors, was taken prisoner by the King of France in an engagement where the odds were a hundredfold against him". This story the Annalist tells of Ralph de Mortimer, second son of Roger, dating it in 1221, and yet in the time of King John who died in 1216. [42]

On June 12, 1207, we find Roger de Mortimer again in England, and apparently having custody of Knighton Castle, a trust which the King orders him to surrender to Robert de Sireford as Bailiff of Thomas de Erdinton, the newly appointed Castellon.
[43] It was apparently in September, 1207, that Roger de Mortimer and Ysabella his wife gave the King a fine of 700 merks and seven Palfreys to have possession of the Rutlandshire Manor of Oakham. [44] The nature of Isabella's title to this estate has been already indicated. On November 27 the King extends the terms at which this Fine was primarily covenanted to be discharged. [45] A Roll of Shropshire Tenures, which I date in the year 1211, enters Roger de Mortimer as a Baron holding in capite of the King by service of five Knights. [46] This I take to be a general expression, indicating little more than

[36] Rot. Fin. p. 209.
[37] [38] [39] [40] [41] Claus. I, pp. 30, 34, 46 b, 47, 65 b.
[42] See Rot. Normanniae (Stapleton), II, cxxiii. for the substance of these remarks.
[43] Claus. I, 85, b.
[44] Rot. Fin. pp. 398, 399.
[45] Claus. I, 97.
[46] Testa de Nevill, p. 55.


that Mortimer's tenure was per Baroniam. Mortimer's service in the King's army under any general summons may possibly have been that of five Knights, and the only Scutage ever assessed on Mortimer in Shropshire was on such a basis; but I think that both the service of five knights and the said scutage were exacted from him as a Baron of the Realm and in regard of his tenures in aggregate, not with reference to his Shropshire Fief individually. In May 1213 we have Roger Mortimer named as one of the twelve Barons who stood sponsors for the good faith of King John, then soliciting the return of Archbishop Langton to England. [47] It was apparently about this time that Mortimer and his wife proffered some enormous fine for the custody of the lands, and marriage of the heir, of William de Beauchamp of Elmley. On November 20, 1213, the Barons of the Exchequer are ordered to respite some instalment of this Fine. [48] Its amount may be gathered from the fact that in June 1214, 1011. thereof was still in arrear. The heir whose wardship Mortimer thus obtained is variously named Wilikin, or Walcheline, or Walter de Beauchamp, and he seems to have married a daughter of his Guardian. The last that I hear of Roger de Mortimer is his quittance in May 1214 of the scutage of Poitou, because his son was personally serving in that Province. [49] It appears that, finding his end approaching, he sent to King John (then in Poitou) and requested that Monarch's assent to his wish of resigning all his estates to the use of his Son. This assent seems to have been given, and Roger de Mortimer died on June 24, 1214, if we accept the day of his obit, as recorded by the Wigmore Annalist and at the same time correct by a year the date of 1215 furnished by the same authority. In harmony with this amended date we find that between June 26 and July 8, 1214, the Letters-Close of Peter, Bishop Winchester, then Viceroy of England, speak of Isabella de Mortimer as a Widow. These Letters, addressed to the Sheriffs of more than twenty Counties (Shropshire included), order that as soon as the said Isabella shall have been certified by the Barons of the Exchequer to have paid 500 merks of the 1011. which were in arrear of the Fine for Beauchamp's heir, then that those Sheriffs should put Isabella in seizin, both of her own inheritance, her dower out of Mortimer's lands, and the whole of Beauchamp's estates. [50] There is a Letter of King John dated at La Rochelle, July 10, 1214, instructing his Viceroy as to certain steps to

[47] Rot. Patent. pp. 99, 114.
[48] Rot. Fin. p. 506.
[49] Claus. I, 201.
[50] Claus. I, 208.


be taken in respect of Mortimer's Fine and consequent custody of Beauchamp's estates. It is obvious from the terms of this Letter that the King had not heard of Mortimer's death; at the same time the surveillance which the Viceroy is empowered to exercise is in perfect consistency with the idea that the King had been apprised of Mortimer's failing energies. [51] A second Letter of the King to his Viceroy, dated at St. Maixent on July 19, indicates that news of the Baron's death had reached the Court, and moreover that the King had completed an understanding with Mortimer's Widow, whereby the latter was still to have custody of Beauchamp's heir. [52] About the same time but certainly before August 5, 1214-

HUGH DE MORTIMER, son and heir of Roger, being in Poitou as I have said, proffered to the King a Fine of 500 merks that he might have all those lands and tenements "of which his Father had been seized on the day when he was first attacked with that sickness, under stress of which he had sent to the King, asking the King's assent to resign them to his Son". The King acquiesced. His Precept to the Bishop of Winchester orders that, security being taken for the said Fine, Hugh shall have instant seizin of the aforesaid lands, and if the deceased "after the day specified had given or in any other way alienated ought, save only with his own body (in burial)", Hugh should have restitution thereof. [53] A similar Precept to the Sheriff of Shropshire mentions Hugh's Proctor as the person to be put in seizin. [54] Writs of the Viceroy, dated August 5, 1214, intimate to the Sheriffs of Herefordshire and four other Counties that they are to give the seizin in question when they hear from the Sheriff of Shropshire that he has got the required security. [55] A King's Writ to the Viceroy, dated August 19, allows that all receipts from the lands of Mortimer and Beauchamp, which had accrued while the said lands had been in manu Regis, should be allowed in abatement of the Fines of Hugh and his Mother Ysabella respectively. [56]

Before I continue my account of Hugh de Mortimer, I should state that his Mother Isabella became the second wife of Peter fitz Herbert, whom, as well as her two sons, she survived. She enjoyed the Barony of Walcheline de Ferrars her Father for life, and endeavoured to settle Lechlade on her Grandson Roger de Mortimer; but at her death, about 1252, the King seized on these estates, and

[51] Claus. I, 168.
[52] Claus. I, 168, b.
[53] [54] Rot. Fin. pp. 530, 535-670.
[55] [56] Claus. I, 209 b, 170.


an attempt to establish an hereditary title for Roger de Mortimer in 1259 was abortive. Isabella it would seem was not the heir of Ferrars of Oakham, and though she had been allowed to hold the Barony as the sole denizen representative of the family, her tenure was not in fee, but only at will of the Crown. To the King then, after her decease, these lands reverted as an Eschaeta de terris Normannorum. [57]

Hugh de Mortimer, at the time of his Father's death, was serving King John in Poitou, but Hugh's wife Annora was, at the same time, in one of the King's English Prisons. She was a daughter of that ill-fated House of Braose which afforded so many victims to the unrelenting hatred and cruelty of John Plantagenet. The King returned from Poitou in October, 1214, and being at Windsor on the 27th, ordered the liberation of this Lady, in deference to the prayer of Nicholas, the Papal Legate, [58] whom John, in his then state of disgrace and fear, was anxious to conciliate. For the remaining two years of John's life Hugh de Mortimer was one of his few steadfast adherents. On Feb. 16, 1215, the King allows him to take four hinds (bissas) in Morf Forest, two for his own use and two for the use of his Mother. [59] On April 30 in the same year Hugh de Mortimer being with other Barons at Gloucester, has a military summons to meet the King at Cirencester on May 4 following, and there expect his commands. [60] On May 17th the King presents Mortimer and his associate Barons with a Destrier each, of those which the Sheriff of Gloucestershire had in keeping. The same day the King concedes to Mortimer the Gloucestershire Manors of Tetbury and Hampnett, which had been the marriage portion of his wife. [61] On August 19 the King appoints him to the custody of Strattondale (Church Stretton) Castle. [62] His alleged interest in Stottesden under a Royal Grant has been already spoken of. [63] On May 26, 1216, he was appointed a Commissioner to make peace on the King's behalf with Reginald de Braose [64] (his brother-in-law). On June 3, 1216, the King gives him seizin of certain fees which Saer Earl of Winchester (one of the twenty-five Magna-Charta Barons) held under Mortimer. [65] On August 8, 1216, he and three others are appointed Keepers of Elmley Castle and all other tenements and lands of Walter de Beauchamp, till the said Walter should have been to the Papal

[57] Rot. Normanniae (Stapleton), II, cxxv.
[58] [59] Rot. Patent. p. 122. Claus. 188.
[60] [61] [62] Patent. pp. 134 b, 137, 153.
[63] Supra, p. 147.
[64] [65] Pat. p. 184. Claus. I, 274.


Legate and obtained the benefit of absolution. [66] On Sept. 13, 1216, the defection of Thomas Mauduit resulted, as I have before said, in Mortimer's obtaining possession of Castle Holgate. The latest Charter of King John which appears on the Rolls, bears date at Lincoln on September 28, 1216. [67] The attestation of Roger de Mortimer proves his fidelity to the King in the last extreme. Three weeks later, and the earthly career of John Plantagenet had closed.

On January 27,1217, the young King, Henry III, gives to Hugh de Mortimer, by Patent, the lands of all the King's enemies which were of Mortimer's Fee; that is, the King empowered him to confiscate all the estates of his anti-royalist Tenants.

In October, 1217, the first Scutage of King Henry III was about to be collected. The Sheriffs of nine Counties were ordered to assist Isabel de Mortimer, and the Sheriffs of seventeen Counties were ordered to assist Hugh de Mortimer in enforcing payment on their respective Tenants. [68] The Sheriff of Shropshire had an order in each case, and probably by mistake; for the point to be noticed is, that the said Sheriff, in his subsequent account of the money actually collected, makes no mention of Mortimer's Barony either as assessed or exempted. [69] During the troubled period which closed the reign of John and ushered in that of his infant son Henry, Lewellyn Prince of Wales had been consolidating his power. Among other acquisitions was Mortimer's territory of Melenyth. This Lewellyn surrendered to King Henry in May, 1220, the date when he met the King in amicable conference at Shrewsbury. On the 19th King Henry, again at Westminster, orders Henry de Audley to give possession of Melenyth to Hugh de Mortimer. [70] In February, 1221, Hugh de Mortimer served in person at the siege of Biham, and had the usual Letters empowering him to collect his own Scutage. [71] On May 31, 1223, the King gives him 20 merks towards strengthening Wigmore Castle. [72] In August of the same year, the Scutage of Montgomery being in process of collection, eighteen Sheriffs (the Sheriff of Shropshire included) had orders to allow Hugh de Mortimer to collect his own Scutage. [73] As usual, the Sheriff of Shropshire neither enters any assessment or exemption of Mortimer's Barony. [74] In July, 1225,

[66] Pat. p. 192.
[67] Rot. Cart. p. 224.
[68] [69] Claus. I, 371, 372. Rot. Pip. 2 Hen. III, Salop.
[70]] [71] [72] [73] Claus. I, 418 b, 475, 548 b, 571.
[74] Rot. Pip. 8 Hen. III, Salop.


I find Hugh de Mortimer suing Peter fitz Herbert and Isabella his wife (she was Mortimer's Mother) for lands in Langebergh.
[75] On March 23, 1226, the King grants to Hugh de Mortimer, till the King should come of age, the privilege of holding an annual Fair at his Manor of Cleybiry, the said Fair to last for three days, viz. Sept. 13, 14, and 15. [76] Another Writ of July 5 changes these days to the 28th, 29th, and 30th of August, [77] and a third Writ, dated August 24, 1227, substitutes the first- named days, but grants the Fair in perpetuity. [78] Hugh de Mortimer died on the 10th of November, 1227, leaving no surviving issue. Consequently Ralph, his next Brother, was his Heir. But before I proceed with any account of the latter, I should notice a prominent feature in the history of these powerful and haughty Barons, viz. the extreme indifference with which they contracted debts with the Crown, the carelessness with which they treated them when contracted, and the apparent inability or unwillingness of the King to enforce payment. At his death Hugh de Mortimer owed the King no less a sum than 1015. 2s. 4d., besides a Destrier and two Hawks. Of this 511. 2s. 4d. had been an arrear of his Father's Fine for the wardship of Walter de Beauchamp, contracted at least fourteen years before. The balance was composed of debts contracted by Hugh himself, the principal one being his Fine of 500 merks for Livery, and on this debt, of thirteen years standing, he had never paid a single farthing.

The wife of Hugh de Mortimer was Annora, daughter of William and sister of Reginald de Braose. Her Father gave with her in marriage 100 solidates of land in Cherleton and Chiriton. She had no issue by Mortimer, and survived him some years. On September 28, 1232, Henry III confirms to her, as long as she shall live in seclusion (in reclusagio), her Father's grant, but directs an ultimate reversion thereof to the right heirs. [79]

RALPH DE MORTIMER, on his succession, was accountable for all his father's debts. His own Livery, and Seizin of Wigmore Castle, granted by the King on November 23, 1227, [80] cost him, or rather increased his nominal liabilities by, 100. more. [81] But on July 8th, 1229, the King, for his faithful service, pardoned more than half

[75 [76] [77] [78] Claus. pp. 78, 103b, 126b, 198b.
[79] Patent, 16 Hen. III, m. 2.- The Wigmore Annalist did not know that Hugh de Mortimer was ever married (Monasticon, VI, 350).
[80] Patent, 12 Hen. III.
[81] Rot. Fin. 12 Hen. III, m. 8; and 13 Hen. III, m. 6.


of this cumulative debt. It was now to stand at 500, and to be paid off at the rate of 20. per annum. [82] What service Ralph de Mortimer as a younger Son may have rendered to the Crown, I am unable to ascertain. Once, viz. in February, 1216, he seems to have been diplomatically employed by King John, [83] but I find no other mention of his name till after his succession to the Barony. It must have been after his said succession that Ralph de Mortimer contracted a marriage which greatly augmented the subsequent pretensions of his House. Gladuse Duy, the daughter of Lewellyn the Great, by Joan, illegitimate daughter of King John, was the second but childless wife of Reginald de Braose, who died shortly before June 9, 1228. [84] This Princess re-married to Ralph de Mortimer obviously in or after 1228, and, as the Wigmore Annalist tells us, Lewellyn gave with her the lands of Kery and Kedewyn. On failure, at a subsequent period, of all other legitimate descendants of Lewellyn the Great, the Principality of North Wales was, not without reason, said to be in the representatives of Gladuse Duy. Here then was proper fuel for the future ambition of the House of Mortimer.

Of Ralph de Mortimer's debt of 500. to the Crown, I have not ascertained further than that it remained undiminished in 1231.
[85] It was further increased by Praestita and Fines, which he seems to have treated with similar indifference.

I now pass to the Aid collected in 1235-6 for the marriage of the King's Sister. Ralph de Mortimer's Shropshire Barony was

[82] Rot. Fin. 12 Hen. III, m. 8; and 13 Hen. III, m. 6.
[83] Rot. Patent. p. 166.
[84] Dugdale has given this date six years earlier, and I have inadvertently followed him in the Table given above (p. 184). It is important to have ascertained the dates and relationships stated in the text for two reasons, one of which will hereafter be noticed, the other I will now mention. The story that Lewellyn hung William de Braose for adultery with Joan, Lewellyn's wife, is told by more than one of the Chroniclers under the year 1230. As this William de Braose was son and heir of Reginald named in the text and as Reginald married the daughter of Joan herself, the alleged crime of De Braose will at first sight seem to have been an incest of the most improbable character. We are accordingly surprised that the Chroniclers do not notice this feature of the case. However, on fuller examination, we find that Gladuse was not Mother of William de Braose, but his step-mother. The alleged crime therefore, though not actual incest, was of so revolting a character that it would account for the summary vengeance taken by Lewellyn. However, when one of the Chroniclers (Matthew Paris) tells us that Joan was executed also, and another that she survived till 1237, and was buried with circumstances of honourable consideration, we may still be allowed to doubt a story which accuses the Princess of adultary with her daughter's Stepson.
[85] Rot. Pip. 15 Hen. III, Salop.


assessed under the name of the "Honour of Clebiry". There is some confusion or inaccuracy in the Record, but there is every probability that the "Honour" was estimated at 124 knights'-fees, over and above another fee which properly belonged to the Honour of Wigmore. It is moreover quite clear that Mortimer paid the first half of this assessment. He paid apparently the sum of 13 merks 11s. 1d., which was, to a penny, at the current rate of 1 merk on each of 13 fees. Litfot, Seneschal of Cleobury, was the person who paid the money to the Collectors. [86] The other instalment of one merk per fee is charged in two items, amounting to 13 merks 12s. 10d., which is rather above the proper rate. This does not seem to have been paid at the time; and 2. 0s. 6d. is entered as an arrear thereof still due in 1248, [87] the year after Ralph de Mortimer's death. Meanwhile, that is about the year 1240, we have three distinct lists of the Shropshire Barony of Ralph de Mortimer, viz. of the Knights'-fees which composed it. [88] Two of these Lists agree with each other except in some scribal particulars, and estimate the Barony of Ralph de Mortimer as containing 10 Knights'-fees. The third List enumerates not only the same 10 Fees, but adds thereto 7 and fees, some of them in Herefordshire, but more in Shropshire. The total which should, according to the items, amount to 18 and fees, is increased in the Record by half a fee more. The details of these Lists belong properly to the specific Manors enumerated. Here I need only observe that Cleobury is given at the head of each list as held by Ralph de Mortimer himself by one Knight's-Fee. In this year (1240) the Justices-in-Eyre being at Shrewsbury, Ralph de Mortimer compounded for some trespass by a Fine of 20 merks, half of which was paid at once. [89]

Ralph de Mortimer died August 6, 1246, leaving by his wife Gladuse, who survived him, a son and heir Roger, with other issue. On December 11, 1246, the King directs that the Executors of the Will of Ralph de Mortimer shall pay his debts to the Crown at four different terms, the first of which was to be Easter, 1247. The said debts aniounted to 425 merks, [90] showing that Mortimer in his lifetime had done little to diminish his liabilities.

ROGER DE MORTIMER, at his Father's death, cannot have been much more than seventeen years of age. The public Records do

[86] Testa de Nevill, pp. 60, 61.
[87] Rot. Pip. 32 Hen. III, Salop.
[88] Testa de Nevill, pp. 48, 50, 45.
[89] Rot. Pip. 25 Hen. III, Salop.
[90] Rot. Fin. II, 4.


not inform us of this nonage, but treat his Livery, granted on February 26, 1247, as in the ordinary course. That he was however for six months a ward of the Crown appears indirectly in this way.- The King's Officers had sown and tilled his lands, and when his Livery was allowed, it was stipulated that he should repay the cost of these operations. His Fine for Livery, 2000 merks, may further be taken to be not a mere Fine on succession, but a purchase of the King's remaining right of wardship. The Dower of Gladuse, his Mother, was reserved to her by a special provision in the King's Writ. [91] One portion of those Wigmore Annals, which I have so often quoted, was written during the life of this Roger de Mortimer, probably about the year 1265. The Writer, be it observed, becomes more accurate as he speaks from his own recollections, for he not only mentions the minority of Roger de Mortimer and the King's temporary custody of his lands, but he intimates that fifteen years intervened between the date of Roger's Livery and the evident approaches of civil war. [92] The calculation will be found true to a nicety.

Returning to earlier events we find that about the time when he came into possession of his estates, but more certainly before the end of the year 1247, [93] Roger de Mortimer took to wife Matilda, the eldest daughter and Coheir of that William de Braose, whom Lewellyn had put to death in 1230. This Lady brought with her not only a third of the Honour of Braose of Brecknock, but also her proportionate share in the Honour of the Earls Marshall, of the last of whom her Mother Eva was a Sister and Coheir. [94] Mortimer thus acquired the Lordship of Radnor, as well as large estates in Carmarthenshire, and elsewhere in England, Wales, and Ireland. At this point the History of the House of Mortimer passes from the scope of a merely provincial Record, and becomes a feature in the Annals of a nation. My business therefore is to add to greater accounts such local illustrations as will best befit my limits.

In the year 1255, the Inquest of Tenures in Stottesden Hundred describes the status of Cleobury Mortimer with little indication of those peculiar privileges which were afterwards obtained or claimed for the lands of Mortimer.- "Roger de Mortimer was Lord of the Vill, and held it in capite of the King. It contained five hides, which were geldable; it did suit to the Hundred, paid hydage, and

[91] Rot. Fin. II, 7-8.
[92] Monasticon, VI, 350.
[93] [94] Claus. 31 Hen. III; Rot. Pat. 32 Hen. III.


paid yearly to the Sheriff 20d. for Stretward and 40d. for Motfee". [95] The extent here given of Cleobury is one hide greater than the Domesday estimate; but whereas Cleobury now included Earls Ditton, Mawley, and two other estates, [96] collectively measuring 2 hides at Domesday, the change of arrangement was, as usual in such cases, to the advantage of the Lord of the Fee and the injury of the Crown. Cleobury should in short have been reckoned, in 1255, to contain at least 6 hides, and paid higher sums for Stretward, etc.; but it is no presumption to say that the fiscal officers of the thirteenth Century had less comparative knowledge of Domesday than may be acquired in the nineteenth by any diligent Antiquary. In May and July, 1256, I find the King ordering an Inquest to be taken concerning a right of common pasture in Hundesnene, which seems to have been in dispute between the Queen's Bailiffs on the one part, and Roger de Mortimer and his men of Cleobury on the other. [97] On January 18, 1257, Roger de Mortimer has letters of protection while employed in the King's service in Wales. [98] On April 30, 1258, the King promises large pecuniary aid to enable Mortimer to maintain his Welsh warfare. [98] On Feb. 27, 1259, the Coheiresses of William de Braose having come to an agreement as to their shares in his inheritance, Giles de Erdinton has orders to assign to Matilda, wife of Roger de Mortimer, her esnecy, or elder sister's share, viz. 100 solidates of such lands as lay nearest to the previous possessions of Roger and Matilda. [98] On June 11, of the same year, Mortimer is appointed one of the Commissioners to demand satisfaction from Lewellyn ap Griffyth, for breaches of truce, with power to prolong the truce and to treat of peace. [98] On June 25, the Commissioners concluded on a year's truce, at Montgomery. [99] A Patent of May 8, 1260, enables Mortimer to levy Customs for seven years ensuing towards the fortifications of Knighton Castle; [1] another, of May 18, appoints John de Lingen, a commissioner, to obtain satisfaction from Lewellyn for injuries done to Prince Edward, to Roger de Mortimer, and to the Earl of Gloucester. [1] An entry on the Shropshire Pipe-Roll of 1260 shows that the King

[95] Rot. Hundred. II, 81.
[96] Vix. the Lel and Fech of Domesday. There is also some probability that one of the Domesday Nenes (Richard's Nene), containing 1 hides, had ere this been absorbed in Cleobury. Of that however hereafter.
[97] Pat. 40 Hen. III, dorso. Hundesnene will hereafter be shown as identical with Neen Savage, and the Queen's interest there accounted for.
[98] Rot. Pat. de eisdem annis.
[99] Foedera, I, 387.
[1] Patent, 44 Hen. III.


had been for thirteen years paying an annuity of 320 merks to Simon de Montfort and Eleanor his wife, the King's Sister, in respect of the dower to which the said Eleanor was entitled out of the Irish estates of her first husband, William, Earl Marshall. Mortimer was now charged in turn for his wife's proportion of this, as advanced by the King. His debt being at the rate of 26 merks, 8s. 10d. per annum, had now accumulated to 346 merks, 8s. 10d. on this item of account. On July 17, 1260, Mortimer arrived in London to attend a Great Council to which he had been summoned. That day the Welsh took Builth Castle, of which Mortimer had the custody on behalf of Prince Edward. The news reached London on the 20th. The King and Prince issued a Writ acquitting Mortimer of all blame; but afterwards Prince Edward seems to have retracted that admission. [2] In August following Mortimer was again named on a commission to treat with Lewellyn, [3] but a Truce concluded on the 22nd has not his name attached. In June, 1262, Lewellyn had complained to the King of breaches of Truce committed by Roger de Mortimer and John le Strange, and the King appointed Commissioners to discuss and arbitrate the matter. [4] In December of that year, Lewellyn besieged and took Mortimer's Castle of Knoklas, and another Castle, Kenenchles, was surrendered. The Marches were in a fearfully disturbed state. The Wigmore Annalist attributes the loss of Mortimer's Castles to the treachery of his men; but the cotemporary Bishop of Hereford writing to tell the King, just returned to England, of the state of the Marches, describes Mortimer as himself surrendering Kenenchles, and marching out with all his people, unresisting and uninjured. The Bishop did not mean to impugn the fidelity of the King's Lieges, but he represents that the local panic was increased by a general impression that the whole disaster was the result of fraud and evil machinations. [5] The subsequent career of Mortimer belies any suspicion or insinuation which ever questioned his loyalty. On the 18th of February, 1263, he, with Brian de Brompton, John de Lingen, Matthew de Gamages, Ralph de Araz, and Robert Corbet, have the King's Letters of Protection till June 24 following, and whilst the war should last with Wales. [6] On November 13, the King promises to provide for Edmund, Son of Roger de Mortimer, Clerk, some competent Benefice, as soon as opportunity shall offer. [6] Hence we learn that the eventual heir of Wigmore was originally destined to

[2] Foedera, I, 398.
[3] Patent, 44 Hen. III.
[4] [5] Foedera, I, 420, 423.
[6] Rot. Pat. 47, 48 Hen. III.


the Church. On Nov. 23, the former Letters of Protection are renewed for Roger de Mortimer and his Knights. [6] On Dec. 18, the King grants to Mortimer and his heirs an annuity of 100, till such time as he should give them 100 Librates of land. [6] In December, 1263, Mortimer and Prince Edward were on the King's side as against the Barons, when both parties agreed to defer to the arbitration of St. Louis, King of France. [7] On Dec. 24, 1263, Jan. 20, and Feb. 7, 1264, Mortimer is put on different commissions to treat of peace with Lewellyn, and as Keeper of the Peace in Shropshire. [8] On April 6th, when the King won a signal success at Northampton, Mortimer was one of the leaders of his army, according to Matthew Paris's Continuator; whilst another Chronicle assigns to Mortimer the chief credit in the affair. [9] From the less fortunate field of Lewes, on May 14 following, Mortimer seems to have been absent. The King's captivity, instead of awing the Barons of the West, seems to have associated them in an indissoluble league against Montfort. Roger de Mortimer, Roger de Clifford, James de Audley, Roger de Leyburn, and Hugh de Turbervile, are the chief names in this noble alliance. Montfort soon attacked them, but the result is the subject of several very discordant accounts. One Writer describes Montfort as ravaging Mortimer's lands, and then concluding a peace at Montgomery with the Lords Marchers, who gave hostages to Montfort. Another represents Mortimer and his associates as throwing down their arms, surrendering their Castles, and being condemned by sentence of their Peers to various terms of expatriation in Ireland. Another says, that they lingered on the Sea-coast, or among the Welsh mountains, awaiting the turn of events; a fourth, that they took refuge in the Welsh Castles of Prince Edward, and lived by plundering the natives. The Patent-Rolls exhibit another phase of the story. On June 4, 1264, one of the forged Patents of the period invites Roger de Mortimer to attend a Council at London, and bring with him the Prisoners he had taken at Northampton, five of whom are named. Between this time and the 24th of April, 1265, I find Roger de Mortimer's name figuring in at least sixteen Pseudo- Patents, which variously exhort or command him to come to the King under safe-conduct, and render and receive what is just;- to come to the King with his Prisoners;- to

[6] Rot. Pat. 47, 48 Hen. III.
[7] Foedera, I, 434.
[8] Rot. Pat. 48 Hen. III.
[9] Rogerus de Mortuomari cepit Northampton et vexilliferos milites in illa quiadecim, quos misit ad diversa castra (Leland, Coll. I, 174).


give up the Castles which he held in trust for the King;- to come with horses and arms to assist the King against Foreigners, who are threatening an invasion of England;- to take himself and his family to Ireland for the peace of the realm. What Mortimer was actually doing or suffering during this period, neither Patent nor Chronicle has specifically declared. What he was planning became sufficiently apparent on the evening of the 30th of May, when by his chivalrous contrivance, Prince Edward bade adieu to his Gaolers on the Plain of Widmarsh, and supped with Mortimer in Wigmore Castle.

I pass over the stirring but well-known incidents of the next two months till, on the 4th of August, three Leaders expected the march of Montfort on the field of Evesham. They were to all appearance, and as regarded age and experience, no match for the craftiest politician, and perhaps the ablest General of the day. Edward Plantagenet had lately completed his thirty-sixth year, Roger de Mortimer was probably a year younger, Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester, was not yet twenty-seven. Compare these three Confederates in other respects, and the contrast will be not unfavourable to Mortimer. Edward, though the heir of his Father's throne, had at one time been a partisan of the Barons, and so an instrument of his Father's difficulties. Since then Edward had fought at Lewes, but by his indiscretion had lost the day. Had it not been for the knight-errantry of Mortimer, Edward had still been the Prisoner of Montfort. As to De Clare, he too had fought at Lewes, but against the Crown, and his recent conversion to Loyalty had much in it of a selfish manoeuvre. The man who stood on the field of Evesham conspicuous for valour, conduct, and patient consistency, was Roger de Mortimer of Wigmore. After the victory of that day, no privilege, reward, or honour was too great for Mortimer to ask, or the King to grant. It would be vain to attempt an enumeration of particulars, and a local matter shall have our first attention. I have before given the substance of a Charter which Mortimer obtained at Kenilworth on November 9, 1266. [10] This Charter ostensibly made Cleobury and Chelmarsh a single Manor, which, with its members, was henceforth to be independent of all suits to County or Hundred, was in fact to be a Hundred in itself. On the strength of this, Mortimer professed to consider not less than twenty Manors to be members of Cleobury and Chelmarsh, and consolidating them all into one Franchise, he set up his central Court at

[10] Supra, Vol. III, pp. 40, 206, 207.


Cleobury. By this process the King's Hundred of Stottesden lost the suit not only of Cleobury and Chelmarsh, but of Kinlet, Higley, Catsley, Neen Savage, The Low, Eudon George, Sidbury, Neenton, Overton, Burwarton, Mawley, Stepple, and part of Charlcott; Corley, Hints, and Hope Baggot were taken from the Hundred of Overs; Ashford Jones, Huntington, and Sheet, from the Hundred of Munslow and Shipley and Rudge, from the King's Liberty of Claverley. [11] Other advantages taken by Mortimer under his Kenilworth Charter shall be spoken of hereafter. On February 11, 1270, Mortimer was of the King's Council at Westminster, when a curious plan was discussed and adopted for improving the Sheriffs' annual accounts, commonly known as the Pipe-Rolls. [12] On August 2, Prince Edward, about to leave England for Palestine, names Mortimer as one of the Trustees who were to have charge of his estates. [13] It was during the absence of Prince Edward, and after King Henry's death, that Ralph, son and heir-apparent of Roger de Mortimer, was appointed to the Shrievalty of Shropshire and Staffordshire. This office he held from January, 23, 1273, till Michaelmas of the same year, when Robert de Trillek, his Under-Sheriff, accounted on his behalf at the Exchequer. [14] At Michaelmas, 1274, no Sheriff appeared for these Counties; but at Michaelmas, 1275, Ralph de Mortimer was deceased, and another Sheriff (Bogo de Knovill) accounted for the year then ended; also Robert de Trillek accounted for the year omitted, on behalf of Ralph de Mortimer deceased. [15] The Wigmore Annalist mentions Ralph de Mortimer as a Knight, and as dying in his Father's lifetime. He can hardly have been more than twenty-six years of age, but the mode of his death has still to be ascertained.

In November, 1274, the Jurors of Stottesden and other Hundreds made various presentments as to the mode in which Roger de Mortimer had been, since the siege of Kenilworth, attracting the suits of the various Manors before enumerated to his Court of Cleobury. Moreover it was shown how his Bailiffs held a great Tourn before the Sheriff held his Tourn; how also they decided Pleas of land with or without a King's Writ, as it happened. They distrained Tenants of an acre of land without a house to attend their great Tourn, like other free Tenants. Moreover Sir Roger de Mortimer claimed to have extract and return of all Writs,

[11] Rot. Hundred, II, 30, 100, 103, 108.
[12] Foedera, I, pp. 483, 484.
[14] [15] Rot Pip. de eisdem annis.


and to hold Pleas of forbidden distress in his Court of Cleobury. He had a Gallows there and other Royal Franchises, and he held pleas as to the assize of bread and beer. [16] There is an undated and nearly illegible Inquisition, which about this time reported on these and other disturbances of the Shropshire Hundreds. It estimates the yearly damage to the Crown which resulted from each withdrawal of Suit. I make out that 6s. 8d. was the value of the two appearances, which Cleobury Mortimer had ceased to make at the Sheriff's Tourn in Stottesden Hundred. [17]

Roger de Mortimer, in 1277, when the King's army was to muster at Worcester against Lewellyn on July 1, made a statement of the Knights' service due from his Western Barony. His return is very illustrative of a question already discussed. He acknowledged himself to owe the service of six Knights, viz. 3 for Wigmore, 2 for Elveyn, and 1 for the heritage of William de Braose; [18] nothing, be it observed, for his Honour of Cleobury.

Passing over events of greater or less notoriety, I come to the death of Roger de Mortimer, which seems to have taken place at Kingsland (Herefordshire), on October 27, 1282. No Inquisition after his decease seems to have been taken as to his Shropshire estates. His wife Matilda survived him nineteen years. Edmund, as the Survivor of Ralph his elder brother, was Roger's next heir. [19] He was now 27 years of age or thereabouts, and doing his homage had Livery of his lands on Nov. 24, 1282. [20] According to the Wigmore Annalist he was taken to Court, knighted by King Edward, and afterwards espoused to a kinswoman of the Queen,- a Spanish Lady named Margaret de Fendles, if we accept the orthography of the same Writer. It may be a question as to what order of time these events occurred in. At the time of his Father's death Edmund de Mortimer was not only already knighted, but an active participator in King Edward's invasion of Wales. In the same year the King had entrusted him with the custody of the Castles of Oswestry and Arundel. When, on December 11, 1282, Lewellyn fell at Builth, Edmund de Mortimer was in command of the detachment by whose instrumentality that tragedy was consummated. His eldest son Roger was born either on April 25 or May 3, 1286 or 1287 (for the Inquisitions which state his age vary), and so his Father's marriage

[16] Rot. Hundred. II, 108.
[17] Inquisitiones incerti temporis (Calendar I, p. 42, No. 25). The Calendar attributes the Inquest to the time of Henry III, but I think it later.
[18] Parliamentary Writs, I, 205.
[19] Inquisitions, 11 Edw. I, No. 28.
[20] Rot. Finium, 11 Edw. I, m. 26.


may very possibly have been subsequent to the death of his Grandfather.

EDMUND DE MORTIMER'S numerous summonses and public employments I must leave to other Records. [21] I have before shown how in 1292 he was sued under Writs of Quo Waranto for the various Franchises arrogated by his Father. [22] Besides Shipley and Rudge already mentioned, he claimed to have wayf and to hold pleas of the Crown in Coreley, Hints, Hope Baggot, Ashford (Jones), Huntinton, Sheet, and Shineton, alleging them to be members of Cleobury. As to Overton and more than twenty Manors in the Southwest of Shropshire, they were named in the Writ of Quo Waranto, but no pleadings followed in regard to them. The King's Attorney denied Shipley and Rudge to be members of Cleobury, and the result of that issue I have already given. As to the Manors in general, the same Attorney pleaded that the privileges claimed were essentially a part of the Crown, by which the King was a King, [23] and without a specific grant of the King, they could not be separated from the Crown. The question as a whole was adjourned thrice; the third time to be heard before the King himself, whenever he should be in England. [24]

Another Writ of Quo Waranto prosecuted Edmund de Mortimer for withdrawing the Suits of most of the Manors before enumerated, [25] from the Hundreds of Stottesden, Munslow, and Overs. Mortimer appealed as before to King Henry's Charter in respect of Cleobury and Chelmarsh, alleging all the other places to be members of Cleobury. Hugh de Louther answered that the King's Charter only purported to extend to what Mortimer's Father held in demesne, and instanced several Manors, neither so held by Roger at the time, nor by Edmund now. The cause was adjourned, and I lose the issue. [26]

There is some doubt about the exact time and place of Edmund de Mortimer's death. Dugdale altogether misunderstood the Wigmore Annalist in saying, that it was in consequence of "mortal wounds received in battle at Buelt". It was Lewellyn's death that the Annalist thus alluded to. What the said Annalist says of

[21] See Parliamentary Writs, Vol. I, pp. 748, 749.
[22] Supra, Vol. III, 207.
[23] Faciunt quandam coronam integram, per quam quis est Rex.
[24] Plac. de Quo Waranto, p. 675.
[25] Supra, p. 222. Overton, Mawley, Stepple, and Charlcott are omitted from the enumeration. Ernwood is added, so are Hampton and Sutton (members of Chelmarsh).
[26] Plac. de Quo Waranto, p. 677.


Mortimer's death is that it took place in Wigmore Castle on July 26, 1304. The day named is certainly erroneous, perhaps also the place. The King's writ of Diem clausit extremum, on the death of Edmund de Mortimer, bears date at Stirling, on July 25, 1304. Either then Mortimer died in Scotland (and he certainly had summons to attend the King's northern expedition in person) or else he died some days before July 25, in England. The Inquests after his death were various. The one which sat at Cleobury Mortimer, on August 21, made that statement about his Tenure by Seneschalcy, which I have so fully weighed already. The age of his son and heir was 16 years according to the Wigmore Annalist, 18 according to one Inquest, and 17 according to three. The two most authoritative Inquests further agree in naming April 25 as his birthday, in opposition to May 3. [27]

ROGER DE MORTIMER, who now succeeded as Baron of Wigmore, seems to have inherited and combined the worst qualities of the three races whose blood mingled in his veins,- the Norman, the Castilian, and the Cambro-Briton. His career, having been a mixture of violence and ambition, of pride and folly, of intrigue and treachery, ended on a scaffold. His great power on the Borders had suggested his elevation to a new title,- the Earldom of March, a dignity which, being forfeited by his Attainder, was not restored to his Son, but reappeared in four subsequent generations of his male line. His descendants and lineal representatives in the seventh generation were two sceptred Kings. [28] Of the many great names which are now merged in the Royalty of England, that of Mortimer, if it be far less than the brightest jewel of the Crown, must always be associated with great reminiscences, must ever point to the wisest morals which the Rulers of mankind can contemplate.

OF THE UNDER-TENANTS in a Manor of Mortimer's demesne we can expect to hear but little. Most of them were probably Copy-holders, and their affairs usually settled by the local Court. Two Fines in 1240 and 1256 are legal memoranda which I find in exception to the general rule, and they, speaking indistinctively of small tenements in Cleyburi, may very possibly belong to Cleobury North. I give them, in a note. [29]

[27] Inquisitions, 32 Edw. I, No. 63.
[28] Edward IV and Richard III.
[29] Nov. 12, 1240. Fine between John de Molleng, plaintiff, and William de Wheybull, Tenant, of 1 acre, whereof was assize of mort d'ancestre. John concedes it to William,- to hold of John at 12d. rent. Jan. 27, 1256. Fine between William son of Adam Faber, plaintiff, and David le Venur, and Hawise his wife, Tenants, of half a virgate in Cleyburi. William remits all claim to the Tenants and their heirs. They, at William's request, concede half the premises to Richard fitz Geoffrey of Pecheleg, to hold under themselves, etc.- I should observe, with respect to a name in the last Fine, that one Geoffrey le Venour was Seneschal of Cleobury Mortimer in 1273 (supra, Vol. I, p. 226).


Among the Jurors who, at the Assizes of 1272, represented the Franchise of Cleobury, I notice Auger de la More, Thomas de Northgrave, John le Clerk, and Richard de Sutton, but there is no certainty that their Freeholds were in Cleobury Mortimer itself. A Fine of April, 1285, more surely belongs to Cleobury Mortimer. Thereby Robert de le Holte and Alice his wife quit-claim to Edmund de Mortimer their right to a messuage, a virgate, and 3 acres of Bosc in Clebury, for which Mortimer gives 100s.

In November, 1305, Roger, son of John Aunger, Plaintiff in a Fine, conveys to Walter, son of Elyas de Tyllshope, and to Juliana, Walter's wife, a messuage and 10 acres in Cleobury Mortimer, which premises they in turn settle on Roger and his heirs, with remainder to Agnes, Roger's sister, and her heirs of her body, with further remainder to the right heirs of Roger.

WIGMORE ABBEY FEE. An estate in and about Cleobury Mortimer was sometime acquired by Wigmore Abbey. In 1534 the Rents and Ferms of Cleobury-Mortymer, Neen-Monell, and Morehall, were returned by the Abbey as 11. 17s. 2d. less a chief-rent of 9d., payable to the Crown for such portion of the estate as lay in Cleobury- Mortymer. [30] In 1539-40 the Minister's Accounts give the late Monastery's rents and ferms in Cleobury-Mortymer, etc. as 11. 13s. 2d., the Perquisites of the Abbot's Court there as 1. [31]


The Priest spoken of as resident here at the time of the Domesday Survey implies, I think, a pre-existent Church, perhaps the foundation of Queen Edith herself. In 1179, when Hugh de Mortimer effectually founded his Abbey of Wigmore, he is stated to have given among its endowments the Church of Cleobury. [32] Before the close of the twelfth century we have another positive mention of the Church of Cleobury. A son of Sir Roger de Mortimer and of the Lady Isabel de Ferrers, which hardly survived its birth, is stated to have been buried here. The Canons of Wigmore were careful to record the circumstance, because the sorrows of the Mother, blended

[30] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 202.
[31] Monasticon, VI, 353.
[32] Monasticon, VI, 349, a.


[For engraving, see pdf.]


with a grateful sense of her own recovery from great suffering and danger, resulted in a noble donation to their House. [33] In 1291 the Church of Clebury Mortymer, in the Deanery of Burford, is set down as the Abbot of Wygmore's and valued at 10. per annum. The Vicar's portion therein was less than 4. [34]

In 1341 the Taxation of this Church is set down as 10., the Vicar's portion being evidently omitted. The Parish was assessed at 6. 13s. 4d. to the Ninth, but the reasons given for the deduction seem to be inaccurately worded, and make the whole entry unintelligible. The Abbot of Wigmore is however styled Rector of the Church, and his glebe yielded 40s. of annual rent. The Offerings, which belonged to the Vicarage, with the small tithes and other incidental income (advencionibus), are apparently valued at 6. [35]

The Valor of 1534-5 names William Bradok as Vicar of Clyberye Mortymer. His income from certain tithes of grain was 16s., from small tithes 12. 2s. 6d. The total of 12. 18s. 6d. was chargeable with 7s. 8d. for Archdeacon's Procurations and Synodals. There was also a Chantry in the Church, of which Edward Troye was Priest. Its income in lands and tenements, acquired by Royal license, was 4. 6s. 9d. [36] The Abbot of Wigmore's cotemporary return gives his Tithes of hay and corn arising from Cleobury Mortimer, Neen Monell, and Morehall, as 16. 16s. [37] The Minister's Accounts in 1539-40 give the same tithes as 17. [38]


JOHN SCHEREMON, of Ludlow, Priest, was instituted 20 Jan., 1321, on presentation of the Abbot and Convent of Wigmore.

RICHARD occurs as Vicar here in 1348.

SIR WILLIAM DE CURDEWALL, or GURDEWALL, Priest, was presented on 13 October, 1349. On his resignation, viz. on 28 May, 1362,-

ROGER MAY, Priest, was instituted.- Same Patrons.- On 7 Jan., 1367, this Incumbent exchanged with-

WILLIAM HUNTE, late Rector of Whitynton (Wygorn: Dioc:). On Dec. 18, 1371, Hunte exchanges preferments with-

ALAN DE LA VISE, late Rector of Byllesly (Wygorn: Dioc:). [40]

[33] Monasticon, VI, 348, a.
[34] Pope Nich. Taxation, pp. 165, 175.
[35] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 188.
[36] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 214.
[37] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 203.
[38] Monasticon, VI, 355.
[39] From Blakeway's MSS.
[40] Dugdale (History of Warwickshire, p. 719) mentions William le Hunt, Vicar of Cleobary Morteyn (Heref: Dioc:), as Incumbent of Billesley (Warwickshire) between 1361 and 1398, and after an exchange with Alan de Vyse, Priest.


SIR HUGH CHEYNY, Chaplain, was instituted 18 April, 1899, on presentation of the Abbot and Convent of Wigmore.


This was founded by Roger, son of Edmund de Mortimer; that Roger, I presume, who died in 1860, as Earl of March.

SIR WILLIAM, Vicar of Cleobury Mortimer, resigned this Chantry in 1359, when, on August 3,-

SIR STEPHEN DE DERLYNG, Chaplain, was instituted on presentation of Roger de Mortimer, Earl of March.

WALTER DE MALLOR, Priest, Was instituted Jan. 19, 1362, on presentation of Johanna, Countess of March. [42]

SIR WILLIAM BREYLZ, Chaplain, was instituted Aug. 16, 1373.

SIR JOHN SPECHESLEY, Chaplain, was instituted Oct. 81, 1375, on presentation of Philippa, Countess of March.

WILLIAM THORLWYNDE resigned this Chanty in 1387, when, on Nov. 23,-

GRIFFIN WATERDEN, Chaplain, was instituted on presentation of the King. This Incumbent died in 1412.


Domesday, after describing Ralph de Mortemer's Manor of Cleobury, as held of the King, adds as follows:-

"The same Ralph holds Melela (a Manor) of I hide, and Lel (a Manor) of I virgate, and Fech (a Manor) of I virgate of land. These were three Manors, and were geldable. Three Thanes held them (in Saxon times) and were free men. When Turstin de Wigemore received them from Earl William he joined them to the superior (or above-named) Manor of Cleberie, and both then and now

[41] From Blakeway's MSS.
[42] There must be some error here. The Countess Joan died in 1356. Philippa was the name of the Dowager Countess of 1368.


they were and are valued therein". [1] Consequently Domesday gives us no separate valuation of Melela, Lel, and Fech, their value being obviously included in the 12 which was the annual Income from Cleobury. The other allusions of Domesday I have before explained, viz. how William fitz Osborn, Earl of Hereford, was the first Lord of Cleobury and Mawley after the Conquest, how he enfeoffed Turstin de Wigmore therein, and how the latter was removed when the King bestowed the Seigneury of the whole estate on Ralph de Mortimer. As to Lel and Fech, no vills or hamlets adjacent to Cleobury can now be found to correspond with such names; but I think it very probable that the two virgates thus called are now involved in the East Foreign, or the West Foreign, Liberties of Cleobury. It is further possible that the name Fech was entered in Domesday improperly as that of a place. A Saxon named Fech had held a virgate in Barbingi (Baveney) in Saxon times, and still retained it at Domesday, [2] and this virgate had apparently been sometime associated with Cleobury. I am not suggesting that this virgate was identical with the one called Fech in Domesday, only that the latter was inaccurately used as the name of a place or district, being really the name of a person. Under such circumstances it is no wonder that Fech, as a locality, cannot now be identified.

Melela, the remaining Manor, is unquestionably Mawley, and of that I proceed to speak. It was not, like Cleobury, held by the Mortimers in demesne;- but the name of their Feoffee very seldom occurs. In or about 1240 the said Feoffee was John de Melleleg, holding it of the Barons Mortimer, by service of one-fourth part of a knight's-fee. The Hundred-Roll of 1255, treating, as I have shown, the Manor of Cleobury in a comprehensive way, makes no distinct mention of its various members, and consequently does not tell us who then held Mawley. I find, however, one John de Malleye as a Juror for the Liberty of Cleobury at the Assizes of 1272, and also as attesting a quit-claim to Sir Roger de Mortimer about 1275. Further, the Inquest on the death of Edmund de Mortimer, in 1804, mentions his Tenant of one-fourth of a fee in Mauleye, the name of the said Tenant being apparently John. [3] In subsequent Feodaries the Knight's service due on Mawley is variously stated as 1 fee, fee, and fee.

[1] [2] Domesday, fos. 260, a, 1, and 257, a, 1.
[3] Inquisitions, 32 Edw. I, No. 63, b.


Neen, Richard's Neen, Neen Monell.

IT may be safely asserted, as a general rule, that among our local and provincial names we shall find traces of the oldest language in the names of streams and rivers. It is further probable that the names of very many streams and rivers meant simply Stream or River in the language to which they originally belonged. [1] Thus the original meaning of the word Neen is said to be a Stream, [2] and accordingly we find two places in Shropshire so named to be situated upon streams. Besides this we hear that the River Rea was occasionally called The Neen;- and it is no wonder that the names were interchanged, for Rea itself means simply River.

Nene at the time of Domesday was the name of two Manors or else of a divided Manor; being held by two several Feoffees of Ralph de Mortemer, who held the whole of the King.- Of the first of these, the Record says- "The same Ralph (de Mortemer) holds Nene, and Richard (holds it) of him. Uluric held it (in Saxon times) and was a free man. Here is one-hide-and-a-half geldable. The (arable) land is (sufficient) for three ox-teams and a half. Here are I Serf and I Villain, with half a team. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 15s. (per annum); afterwards it was worth 3s.; now it is similarly worth 3s". [3]

Richard, Mortimer's Tenant in many Shropshire and Herefordshire Manors, held among others those of Kinlet and Brompton (afterwards Brompton Brian). We might be inclined to assume that the Bromptons, who subsequently held those two distant

[1] The name Nile is a notorious instance of this, its original meaning being River.
[2] Nan, a brook, is one of the asserted remains of a primitive language. Its derivatives, or cognates, are certainly found very widely. We have Nen or Nine, still the name of a River in Northamptonshire. We have the Welsh Nant, signifying a brook: and perhaps the same root produced the Greek van (to flow); whence vana, a stream. As to Rhe, or some such word, originally significant of a stream, we may trace it more widely than Nan. We have the Latin Rivus (a river), besides Rhenos (the Rhine), Rhodanus (the Rhone), Eridanus (the Po), and Ramon, the old legendary name of the Tiber. We have also the Greek riw (to flow), and the British Rhiw (a river), all probably derived from the same primeval root.
[3] Domesday, fo. 260, a, 2.


Manors, were sole representatives of Richard. Such an assumption would be too great, for the Bromptons did not succeed to all Richard's Domesday Tenures; and the first known ancestor, in the male line, of the Bromptons was cotemporary with, but certainly distinct from, Richard. I conclude that Richard's Domesday estates lapsed to an Heiress or to Coheiresses, who, or one of whom, married an Ancestor of the Bromptons, and so carried to him a great part of those estates. As to the residue of the said estates, I do not find them subsequently in any particular succession. I think that sometime they reverted to Mortimer as Suzerain, and were retained in his demesne or regranted in small parcels at his pleasure. As to Richard's Manor of Nene, we cannot trace its existence, as a whole, at any period subsequent to Domesday. Either, then, it came to be absorbed piecemeal in some greater Manor, or being first disintegrated it was apportioned in parcels to different Manors. In either case we must not expect to trace this lost Manor by finding what other Manors in this Hundred increased upon their Domesday hidage. Kinlet so increased, but not in the degree required by any supposed addition of a Manor of 2 hides, nor in any degree which may not be accounted for in other ways. Cleobury Mortimer so increased; but then its increase of one hide, though perhaps understated, is more than accounted for by the annexation of other Manors than Richard's Nene. [4] All means of proof failing, I am content in this matter to offer an opinion.- Mr. Blakeway considered Richard's Manor of Nene to be represented by Cleobury Lodge, now a place in the West Foreign Division of Cleobury Mortimer. I can think of no more probable conjecture, and it is tantamount to the idea already expressed, viz. that Richard's Neen sometime reverted to Mortimer, as Seigneur, and was annexed to his Capital Manor of Cleobury.

I further think that it was a part of Richard's Neen, which being granted to Wigmore Abbey, is included, in the Taxation of 1291, among the Temporalities of that House. The Abbot had assized rents, also a Mill and 8 acres of land in Nene, which yielded altogether

[4] Viz. Wall-Town, Mawley, Lel, Fech, and Earls Ditton. However, I consider the hidage returned, in 1255, as delusive; and as it failed to give account of ascertained additions to Cleobury, so it very possibly concealed other additions which we cannot now detect. A comparison with modern acreage strongly supports such an opinion.- The 7671 acres, which now compose the Manor of Cleobury Mortimer, should at the very lowest calculation include at least 9 Domesday Hides, and we cannot get that number without throwing Richard's Nene into the combination.


1. 16s. 4d. [5] Now as the Abbot had no such temporal estate in Neen Savage or Neen Sollars, we are obliged to conclude that Richard's Neen was the locality here spoken of.

Lastly, I suppose that this Abbatial estate in Richard's Neen was the identical estate which was afterwards said to be in Neen-Monell. This distinctive name, Neen-Monell, though I first find it in actual use in the sixteenth century, was, I think, a revival; that is, I suppose Richard's Neen to have been first called Neen-Monell from some Tenant thereof, after Domesday, but before it reverted to Mortimer. The particulars of a temporal estate, and of tithes, which, in 1534, were enjoyed by the Abbot of Wigmore in Cleobury Mortimer, Neen-Monell, and Morehall, have already been given under Cleobury Mortimer. [6]

Neen Savage, Hundesnene.

MORTIMER'S other Manor of Nene is described in Domesday as follows: "The same Ralph (de Mortemer) holds Nene (of the King), and Ingelrann (holds it) of him. Huni [1] held it (in Saxon times) and was free. Here are IIII hides geldable. The arable land is (sufficient) for V ox-teams. In demesne there is one team, and there are IIII Serfs, III Villains, and III Boors with one team. Here is a Mill of 2s. (annual value)". [2]

About the identity of this Manor we can have little difficulty.- The family of Le Savage would seem to have been generally interested where Ingelrann had preceded. To them therefore we may, with good reason, assign a descent from Ingelrann. That Manor of Nene which was Ingelrann's at Domesday, came to them and was thenceforth known as Neen Savage, to distinguish it not only from Richard's Neen, but from Neen Sollers, a third Manor in the same Hundred, but of a totally different status.

I have spoken, under Eudon-George, of William le Savage (living

[5] Pope Nich. Taxation, 165, a.
[6] Supra, pp. 226, 227. The Table given above (page 141) would imply that Richard's Nene became absorbed in Neen Savage. That idea was premature, and must be qualified by what has been now said in the text.
[1] It was, I presume, with reference to this Huni, or Hunit, that Neen Savage was sometimes called Hundesnene, i.e. Hunit's-Nene.
[2] Domesday, fo. 260, a, 2.


in the time of Henry II), and of his Son and Grandson, both named Adam. [3] One of the latter occurs as sitting in the Curia Comitatus, at Shrewsbury, in 1189. On May 2, 1199, Adam Sauvage, of Shropshire, essoigns himself by Richard fitz Henry in a plea of land which he had against Eudo Martell, [4] which Eudo Martell appears about the same time to be litigating the Advowson of Steeple Winterburn (Dorsetshire) against Roger de Mortimer. [5] In October, 1199, Adam Salvage was Recognizor in a Suit which I have noticed under Clee St. Margaret, [6] and in October, 1203, he stands Surety for Roger de Mortimer in a Suit which concerned Brace-Meole. At the same time he was a Knight and a Juror in many causes then tried at the County Assizes. His suit with John de Brompton, in 1210, I shall give under Kinlet. Adam le Savage (II) was deceased, as I have stated under Eudon George, in 1221, when his six Sisters, or their heirs, were his representatives. At the Assizes of November, 1221, Christiana le Sauvage, Margery, wife of Walter de Verdun, and Roheis de Pedewurdin sued Hugh de Mortimer for 3 carucates of land in Niene and in Siete (Sheet), which they claimed as heirs of their brother Adam, whom they asserted to have died seized thereof in demesne. Mortimer pleaded that the three Plaintiffs had had three other Sisters, which Sisters had left issue, yet surviving. The Plaintiffs admitted the fact, and the admission was fatal, obviously because the parties necessary to such a Suit were not all taking part in it. [7] In 1240, of the Coheirs of Le Savage, William de St. George alone is named as having an interest in Neen; but it is clear that Geoffrey de Overton's Fee was partly in Neen Savage. [8] This will appear from the Hundred-Roll of 1255, which says that- "William de St. George is Lord of Nene Savage, together with Geoffrey de Overton. Therein are two and a half hides of land, of which William de St. George holds three parts, and Geoffrey de Overton, together with Nicholas his son, the fourth part. And these hides of land are half a knight's-fee, and are geldable, and do suit to the Hundred-Courts, and are held in capite of Roger de Mortimer, by service of doing ward at said Roger's Castle of Wigmore for 15 days in time of war between England and Wales, and they pay hydage, and pay the Sheriff 10d. for Stretward and 20d. for Motfee". [9] Here we again notice the great decrease on the Domesday measurement, viz. 2 hides instead of the 4 hides which we should have looked for

[3] Supra, Vol. III, p. 61.
[4] [5] Rot. Curiae Regis, I, 265, 325, 334.
[6] Supra, p. 76.
[7] Assizes, 6 Hen. III, m. 5 dorso.
[8] Supra, Vol. III, p. 52.
[9] Rot. Hundred. II, 81.


from the Domesday Manor. At the Assizes of January, 1256, William de St. George being sued for disseizing Ralph de la Lawe of common-pasture in 30 acres of heath at Nene, pleaded that the Plaintiff was never fully seized thereof, and so got a verdict. [10]

By a Patent of May 8, 1256, it would appear that William de St. George had sometime previously conceded (on mortgage, I suppose) this Manor to the Queen of Henry III. The Patent directs William Trussell to inquire whether Roger de Mortimer and his men of Cleobury had violently entered certain demesne pasture in Hundesnene (now in the Queen's hand by concession of William de St. George), and had depastured their cattle there against the King's Peace; or whether the said men, who were Free Burgesses, had a prescriptive right to the said common pasture, as having used it in the time of William de St. George and his Ancestors, as Roger de Mortimer affirmed the said Burgesses to have done? [11]

On July 27 of the same year, William Trussell is again commissioned to investigate the quarrel between the Queen's Bailiffs on the one hand, and Roger de Mortimer and the men of Cleobury on the other, concerning pasture in Hunesnene; and the Sheriff of Shropshire is enjoined to summon Recognizors in the case, so many and of such sort, as that no defect in the Jury shall cause the Inquest to be further delayed.

At the Assizes of 1272, Adam de St. George was the Juror who chose his eleven associates for the Liberty of Cleobury.

The Inquisition on the death of Edmund de Mortimer, in 1304, gives John de St. George as Tenant of one knight's-fee in Eudon George and Neen Savage. [12] Having already said much of the families of Overton and St. George under Eudon George, and having more to say under other localities, I insert here one or two minor matters specially relating to Neen Savage.

At the Salop Assizes in Oct. 1203, Edith, Sibil, and Muriel fitz Samson had a suit pending concerning half a virgate in Nene. The result, settled by an adjourned hearing at Worcester, gave a third of the premises to each of the three Sisters, of whom Muriel, wife

[10] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 2 dorso.
[11] Rot. Pat. 40 Hen. III, dorso. William Trussell is similarly commissioned to investigate the relative dates and circumstances of two apparently incompatible mortgages or demises which Hugh de Mortimer of Chelmarsh had executed; one to his brother, Roger de Mortimer of Wigmore; and another to the Queen of England, of certain lands in Chelmarah. The matter is irrelevant here, but I mention it in a note because I have omitted it in its proper place.
[12] Inquisitions, 32 Edw. I, No. 63, b.


of Philip fitz Hugh (or, as he is less accurately written in one instance, Samson fitz Philip), is certified to be the eldest. [13] In 1251, William le Carpenter and Margery his wife, take out a Writ of novel disseizin against Stephen de Overton concerning a tenement in Nethercott and Nene. A second Writ, sued out in the same year, was to convict the Jurors who had decided the former case unjustly. [14] In 1252, William de St. George was suing Ralph de Arras, under Writ of novel disseizin, for a tenement in Eldekote (Elcott, a member of Neen Savage). [15] In 1254, Stephen de Overton was amerced half a merk for non-prosecution of some Suit.


This was one of the Churches which Hugh de Mortimer bestowed on Wigmore Abbey in 1179, so that it appears that the Advowson had not been granted with the Manor to Le Savage. The date of Appropriation is not discoverable, but in 1291 the Abbot of Wigmore's Rectorial interest is valued at 6. 13s. 4d., whilst the Vicar's Portion was less than 4. The Church was in Stottesden Deanery. [16] In 1341, the Church Taxation of Neinsavage being first quoted as 6. 13s. 4d., the Parish was assessed to the Ninth at 4. 10s. The reasons for the difference were a prevalent murrain among the sheep, and because the small tithes, a Mill, the Offerings, and Glebe, with other profits, went to compose the Taxation, and were not now to be reckoned. Moreover, there were no lambs nor wool in the Parish, and eight virgates of land lay unfilled. [17] In 1534-5, the Valor gives John Haymond as Vicar of Nyende Savage, and values his preferment at 5. 17s. 6d., out of which he paid a pension of 13s. 4d. to the Abbot of Wigmore, and 7s. 8d. for Archdeacon's Procurations, and Synodals. [18] The Abbot of Wigmore's cotemporary return seems to acknowledge the Receipt of the said Pension, [19] but the Great Tithes are not mentioned.


JOHN DE STEPELTON, Acolyte, whose "true ordination and institution" to this Living is certified to have been on Dec. 29, 1316, was a second time instituted on March 21, 1317.- Patrons: The Abbot and Convent of Wigmore.

[13] Assizes, 6 John, memb. 1 and 6.
[14] [15] Patent, 35 and 36 Hen. III, dorso.
[16] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 166, b.
[17] Inquisitiones Nonarum, p. 191.
[18] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 211.
[19] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 203.

236 THE LOW.

ROGER DE LA SETE, Priest, was instituted Dec. 18, 1320.- Same Patrons.

WALTER DE MITLETON, Priest, was instituted Oct. 26, 1349.- Same Patrons.

STEPHEN DERELYNGS, Priest, was instituted Dec. 21, 1361.- Same Patrons.

The Low.

As a general rule, whenever we find either of the syllables Low, Lowe, Lau, or Lawe, forming, singly or in composition, the name of a place, we may expect in that place to find or to hear of some artificial tumulus or burial-ground. The Saxon word Hlaep (that which covers a grave) came secondarily to designate a hill, simply because ancient burial-grounds usually formed a hill. It is curious that exactly the converse has taken place in regard to the Latin word tumulus, which, meaning primarily any slight elevation of the earth's surface, is secondarily, and in the present day, almost exclusively applied to such elevations only as are supposed to contain sepulchral remains.

The Low now before us was another of the Manors held immediately of the Crown by Ralph de Mortemer. It is thus described in Domesday:- "The same Radulf holds Lau, and Richard (holds it) of him. The Church of St. Peter held it (in Saxon times). Here is one hide geldable. There is arable land (sufficient) for two ox-teams. In demesne there is one Team, and (there are) II villains and I Boor with a Team. Its value (in Saxon times) was 5s.: now it is worth 10s. He (Richard) found it waste". [1] The Church of St. Peter here mentioned, was a Saxon Parish Church in the Eastern suburb of Shrewsbury, and which at the time of Domesday, and under the auspices of Earl Roger de Montgomery, was growing into the great Benedictine Abbey of St. Peter and St. Paul. Had Ralph de Mortimer held The Low under the Earl, and not immediately of the King, its restoration to the Church would have been almost certain. As it was, Mortimer, who took no part in the foundation of Shrewsbury Abbey, transmitted this seigneury to his descendants. The family which held this estate under Mortimer in

[1] Domesday, fo. 260, a, 2.

THE LOW. 237

the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth Centuries, took its name from the place. In 1185, John de la Lawa pays the King 20s. that he may have right against Hamo Pincerna as to ten merks, [2] an alleged debt, I presume. At the Assizes of October, 1203, I find two entries under Stottesden Hundred relating to one Moses de la Lawe, perhaps an Under-Tenant here, and who in one instance is described as "Moses, the man of Hugh". This Moses essoigns himself, by Robert fitz Owen, in a challenge which he had against Gilbert de Duvra or Dunee, for wrongfully taking from him his hounds. It is added, that Gilbert is an Outlaw for another matter, viz. "the society of Fulk fitz Warin". [3] Also, Robert de Girros, whose name seems to have been mixed up in Moses' challenge, is declared to be "quit in the matter". [4] At the Assizes of November, 1221, Ralph de la Lawe is named as a Surety for William Botterell, of Aston Botterell. He occurs also in 1228 and 1232. [5] In 1240, the same or another Ralph de la Lawe is said to hold a Knight's-fee in La Lawe of Mortimer's Barony. [6] Again in 1251, Ralph was the name of the possessor of this estate. [7] The Inquest of Tenures in Stottesden Hundred, taken in 1255, [8] shows that The Low maintained its Domesday measurement of I hide. "Ralph de la Lowe was Lord thereof. He did Suit to County and Hundred, paid hydage, and held immediately of Roger de Mortimer, and did suit to said Roger's Court of Wigmore. He owed ward at Wigmore Castle, in war-time, for forty days, as for one knight's-fee in war-time. [9] He paid the Sheriff 4d. for Stretward and 8d. for Motfee". In 1256, Ralph de la Lawe was returned among those Tenants of twenty librates of land in Shropshire, who were not knights. In 1259, he fines half a merk of gold to have some Inquest, [10] perhaps on the question of his obligation to receive knighthood. In 1260, he is amerced half a merk for not producing one whose Surety he was. [11] From 1251 to 1262, Ralph de Lawe was one of the Agistators of

[2] Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. II, Salop.
[3] Assizes, 6 John, m. 1 recto and 2 dorso. Fulk fitz Warin's outlawry was revoked by a Patent of Nov. 15, 1203. Among his accomplices, similarly pardoned, was Gilbert de Dovre (Patent, 5 John, p. 36).
[4] Compare, supra, Vol. III, p.60, whence it will appear probable that "Hugh", whose "man" Moses is called, was Hugh de Sidbury.
[5] Supra, p. 164.
[6] Testa de Nevill, p. 45.
[7] Supra, Vol. III, p. 53.
[8] Rot. Hundred, II, 81.
[9] The meaning of this seems to be, that the service which the Tenant of a Knight's-Fee ordinarily owed in the host, or moving array, of his Chief, was commuted in this instance for forty days' Castle-guard.
[10] [11] Rot. Pip. 43, 44, 51 Hen. III.

238 THE LOW.

Shirlot, and other Royal Forests in Shropshire, and with his associates was chargeable with the balance of his receipts in 1267. [12] In September, 1263, Ralph de la Lawe and William de la Lawe were Jurors on the Inquest which ascertained the age of Robert de Beysin, and about the same time they stand together in a testing clause, which shows William to have been son of Ralph. [13] William de la Lawe was at the Assizes of September, 1272, one of the Jurors who sat for the Liberty of Cleobury.

On Nov. 27, 1274, John de la Lowe was on the Jury which took the Inquisition of Stottesden Hundred. On January 2, 1294, an Inquest was held as to the estate of one John Budde, who had been hanged for felony. It was a messuage and half-virgate of land in "La Lowe juxta Farnlowe". It is well known how the real estate of felons usually reverted to the Crown for a year and a day, and then to the Lord of the Fee. The Jury on this occasion (Robert le Bercher, of The Low, being one of them) found that Edmund de Mortimer, "by reason of his Liberty of Cleobury", had had the King's year and day, and should answer to the King for the same, unless he had the King's warrant. Mortimer still held the premises. The immediate Lord over John Budde was Simon, son of Ralph de la Lowe. [14]

The Inquest on the death of Edmund de Mortimer, in 1304, gives Ralph de la Louwe as Tenant of half a knight's fee in La Louwe, [15] and the Nomina Villarum of March, 1316, again registers Ralph de la Lowe as Lord of the Vill. [16] On April 20, 1350, King Edward III having licensed the Abbot of Wigmore to acquire certain lands not held in capite, orders an Inquest to ascertain whether it would injure the Crown if Robert Partrich, William Randol, and Robert de Brugge, Chaplain, should convey to the said Abbey the whole Manor of Lowe, a quarter of the Manor of Hyntys (Hints), and other lands at Nethurlye (Herefordshire). The Manor of Lowe, said the Jury, was held of Roger de Mortimer by fee. The land there was "cold". The fourth part of Hyntys was held of the same Roger. After parting with these estates, Robert Partrich would have sixty solidates of land at Milston, held of the Lord of Burford, for 6s. 8d. rent. [17] The Valor of 1534-5 gives, among the temporalities of the Abbot of Wigmore, 60s. as the rents and ferms

[12] Rot. Pip. 43, 44, 61 Hen. III.
[13] Supra, p. 176.
[14] Inquisitions, 22 Edw. I, No. 104.
[15] Inquisitions, 32 Edw. I, No. 63, b.
[16] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 398.
[17] Inquisitions, 24 Edw. III. Second Nos. 39.


of Lee Lowe (read Le Lowe). [18] The Minister's Accounts of 1539-40 record no such asset of the late Monastery, but give l. 13s. 5d. as the rents of Hyntys and Brokrowe. [18]


This place, now a mere member of Neen Savage, was, at the time of Domesday, a Manor in itself, and held by Ralph de Mortemer of the King. It is thus described in that Record:- "The same Radulf holds Steple, and Goisfrid holds it of him. Godric held it (in Saxon times) and was free. Here is one hide and a half geldable. The arable land is (sufficient) for IIII ox-teams. In demesne is I Team, and there are III Serfs and VI Boors with I Team. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 12s. (per annum): afterwards and now it was and is worth 7s". [1]

It would seem that the Savages came to have some interest or claim in this Manor. I cannot otherwise account for their coheir, William de St. George, including a knight's-fee in Stepley among the estates which about the year 1240 he quit-claimed to Ralph de Mortimer, his Suzerain. [2]

In or about 1240 Ernulf de Kamape held La Steple under Mortimer as one-third of a Knight's-Fee. [3] William de Stepple, who occurs about 1268, was probably Tenant here. [4] William de Stepple and Nicholas de Stepple were Jurors for Cleobury Liberty at the Assizes of 1272. In 1304, the service due on Steppley is one-third of a Knight's-fee, but the Tenant's name is illegible. [5] The Survey of March, 1316, probably alludes to this place in giving Walter de Stephe as Lord of Stephe. [6]

An Inquisition was held Oct. 25, 1325, on the death of Walter de la Stepple, by reason of his Suzerain Roger de Mortimer being then under forfeiture. He had held of Wigmore Castle by service of a third part of a knight's-fee. He owed suit to Wigmore Court every three weeks, and to the Court of Cleobury Mortimer at the two

[18] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 203.
[1] Domesday, fo. 260, a, 2.
[2] Supra, Vol. III, p. 52.
[3] Testa de Nevill, p. 45.
[4] Supra, p. 176.
[5] Inquisitions, 32 Edw. I, No. 63, b.
[6] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 399.


great Tourns. He also paid 5s. rent for his lands in Stepple. William his son and heir was twenty-four years of age on March 12, 1325. [7]


The etymology of this name is directly illustrative of the earliest fact ascertainable in the history of the place. The Saxon adjective Cyne signifies royal, and Laet (a lathe, or district) is a word still used in Kent. Now Kinlet, before the Conquest, was a Manor of the Saxon Kings, for in Edward the Confessor's days it was one of the estates enjoyed by Edith his Queen,- the Eddid of Domesday, as I have already shown under Cleobury Mortimer. The said Record speaks generally of Kinlet as follows

"The same Radulf (de Mortemer) holds Chinlete (of the King), and Richard (holds it) of him. Eddid held it (in Saxon times). Here are IIII hides. The arable land is (sufficient) for VIII ox-teams. In demesne there are II Teams, and there are VI Serfs, VIII Villains, II Radmans, VI Boors, and I Frenchman, with VI Teams. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 60s. (per annum), and afterwards it was worth 30s.: now it is worth 40s". [1]

An incidental expression of Domesday has led us to infer that, on the Conquest of Mercia, Cleobury was first given to William fitz Osbern, Earl of Hereford, and did not pass to Ralph de Mortemer till the forfeiture of Roger de Britolio, Earl William's Successor. [2] Analogy would suggest the same transfers of Kinlet. Of Ralph de Mortemer's Domesday-Tenant, Richard, I have spoken under Neen-Monell, [3] and intimated that Richard's successors were of more than one family, and were probably related to him as coheirs. At Kinlet we can show that his successors, the Bromptons, were descended from a male ancestor, cotemporary with, but quite distinct from, Richard.

It is most rare that the genealogy of any family, of mere knightly rank, can be traced in the male line, and on good evidence, so far back as Domesday. In Shropshire this is especially the case; because

[7] Inquisitions, 20 Edw. II, No. 63 (so calendared erroneously).
[1] Domesday, fo. 260 a. 2.
[2] Supra, pp. 194, 229.
[3] Supra, pp. 230, 231.


there was a period, from 1086 to 1166, which is nearly a vacuum as regards the existence of any Records likely to bear upon such a research. I am now about to introduce a genealogy which is unquestionably older than Domesday, and so a remarkable exception to the general rule. It is that of the Bromptons sometime of Kinlet and Brompton Brian, and it stands on accidental but yet perfect evidence.

In the time and probably in the Court of King William the Conqueror there lived one-

BERNARD FITZ OSPAC. He stands last witness to a Charter of that King in favour of the Norman Abbey of Fecamp, a Charter which probably passed in Normandy in 1074 or 1075, but which we may positively date between 1070 and 1078 wherever it passed. [3] Again, there is a great Charter by which King William the Conqueror records, accepts, and confirms the donations made by his Barons to his own Foundation,- the Abbey of St. Stephen at Caen. The witnesses to this Charter have their names appended thereto in a form which leaves it doubtful whether they were not also contributors to the Foundation. The first witness is King William himself, the last but one is Bernard fitz Ospac, and if the other witnesses were cotemporarily present (a matter not always certain in these early documents), then the Deed was probably written in the Autumn of 1077. [5] Again, King William, being evidently in Normandy, confirms an eleemosynary grant of the first William de Braose which, it will be sufficient to state here, passed either in 1074, 1075, or 1080. It was a grant to the Church of St. Florence at Salmur. The King's Confirmation, necessarily later than the grant, is attested in the last place by Bernard fitz Uspach. [6] Bernard fitz Uspach, thus frequenting the Court of King William, does not, that I know of, appear anywhere in Domesday. [7] The same remark applies to Bernard de Newmarch who, though a witness of King William's Charters, and commissioned by that Monarch to the Conquest of Brecknockshire, does not seem to have been encouraged

[4] Monasticon, VII, 1082 b.
[5] Monasticon, VII, 1071, Num. III.
[6] Monasticon, VII, 669 a. An ingenious note in the Monasticon fixes the day of Braose's Deed as January 30, 1076. From the same premises, differently interpreted, I think it must have been January 30, 1074 or 1080, and the names attesting the King's confirmation make the last year (1080) most probable. The said confirmation will therefore have been added between 1080 and 1083, for Queen Matilda, who follows her husband in confirming, died in 1083.
[7] There was one Radulf fitz Unspac holding a Kentish Manor of the Archbishop of Canterbury (Domesday, fo. 4, a), and he possibly was a Brother of Bernard.


or rewarded by any grants of English territory. This comparison between Bernard fitz Uspach and Bernard de Newmarch is not so irrelevant as it may at first sight appear. They were not identical, that is certain, but I am much mistaken if they were not both concerned in the conquest of Brecknockshire. I have already quoted a Charter which passed in the beginning of the thirteenth century, but which speaks of land near to Brecon as having once belonged to Bernard Unspac. [8] This local reminiscence of Bernard Unspac, perhaps eighty years after he had ceased to live, is quite consistent with the idea that he was one of Bernard de Newmarch's companions in conquest and one of his original Feoffees. What I have next to say about Bernard Unspac is much more positive. He was Lord of Kinlet in the time of Henry I, and he was Father of Brien Unspac, also of Kinlet.

The following Precept of King Henry II belongs to the earlier part of his reign, [9] probably to the year 1157 or 1158, in each of which he visited Worcester.-

"H Rex Angliae et Dux Normanniae et Aquitaniae et Comes Andegaviae Vicecomiti et omnibus Ministris suis de Salopescire salutem. Si Brienus Unspac poterit monstrare per legales homines de hundredo de Stodesdone quod Bernardus Unspac pater ejus habuit haiam suam ad fugandum in villa, de Chinlet tempore Regis Henrici avi mei, tunc precipio quod ipse Brienus eam juste habeat, et ne quis in ea super hoc fuget sine licentia ejus prohibeo. Teste Willielmo de Bellocampo, apud Wigorniam". [10] (If Brian Unspac could prove by the testimony of lawful men of Stottesden Hundred that his father Bernard had a right of chace in Kinlet in time of King Henry I, then Henry II, about 1157-8, directs that such right be restored to the son.) Here we have an early instance of the name of an Ancestor (Unspac) being adopted as the surname of a family without the interposition of the usual word filius or fitz. We have also a proof of what I have before asserted, viz. that the Domesday Hundreds of Shropshire were changed earlier than Henry II's reign, if not as early as Henry I's, otherwise the memory of persons in Stottesden Hundred would be appealed to inappropriately. We have

[8] Supra, p. 185.
[9] The character of the document favours this idea. It is of a restitutional kind and so suitable to a period of tranquillity following a period of disorganization. William de Beauchamp, the sole witness, was Sheriff of Worcestershire from 1156 to 1170. (See Vol. II, p. 64, note 4 for farther remarks on a similar matter.)
[10] Dugdale's MSS. Vol. 39.- From Lacon evidences.


lastly, a genealogical statement spanning the darkest interval in Shropshire Annals, the reign of Stephen. I must now speak of-

BRIAN DE BROMPTON, known to have been living in 1176 and 1179. He was either identical with, or else the son of, Brian Unspac. The question is a chronological one only. It is possible that a son and heir may be living a century after the appearance of his Father in public life. Hugh de Mortimer of Wigmore living in 1180 was an instance of this. Perhaps the three first generations of the Feoffees at Kinlet were parallel in point of duration to the same number of generations in the family of the Suzerain. If so, Brian Unspac and Brian de Brompton were identical, but such instances are very rare. [11] To continue.- In 1176 the King having held Pleas of the Forest in Worcestershire had amerced Brien de Bromton in the sum of 6 merks. [12]

Hugh de Mortimer's foundation of Wigmore Abbey is said to have been definitely resolved on in 1179. The French Annals, which I have often quoted, without dating the event give very full particulars. Brian de Brompton and his son John were most urgent about the undertaking. "Hugh de Mortimer laid the first stone. Brian de Brompton laid the second, and promised 100s. in aid of the work: but he gave no money, though he granted the Canons all easements in his lands, which easements were of great avail. John, son of the said Brian, laid the third stone and neither gave nor promised anything, but what he did not then do in promise he performed fully afterwards in deed, for by him was the Church of Kynleth given to the Abbey". [13]

This Brian de Brompton had a Brother Roger, called Roger de Kinlet from the Tenant-interest which he had in this Manor. The two brothers joined in a grant to the Norman Abbey of Lira, giving thereto "one man, together with his land in the Manor of Kinled", which grant purports to have been previously made by the Ancestors of Brian de Brompton. The said Brian also gave to Lira two-thirds of the tithes of his demesne of Kinled and Frenchcote (Foxcote I suppose) and Walton. [14] The same two Brothers, Brian

[11] In a note I may state my own thorough conviction that Brian Unspac and Brian do Brompton were Father and Son. Roger de Kinlet, brother of the latter, was alive in 1193, that is nearly 120 years after Bernard fitz Unspac's first appearance. It is therefore all but certain that both he and his Brother Brian were Grandsons and not Sons of the said Bernard.
[12] Rot. Pip. 22 Hen. II. Wirecestr'.
[13] Wright's Ludlow, pp. 120, 121.
[14] Monasticon, VII, 1095, Num. XXI. Lira was founded by William fitz Osbern, created Earl of Hereford by King William the Conqueror.


[For pedigree, see pdf.]


and Roger, joined in granting a virgate in Kinlet to the Order of Knights Templars, and a Record of the possessions of that Order, drawn up in 1185, mentions the said virgate as held by one Abraham, at a rent of 4,. per annum, and names the Donors as "Brian de Branton and Roger his Brother". This grant to the Templars I take to have been some time anterior to the Foundation of Wigmore. The same may be said of a deed [15] which I shall now quote, and which refers to a period when John de Brompton was not as yet heir-apparent of his Father Brian, but had an elder Brother Simon living. By the said deed "Roger de Kinlet renders to Sir Brian his Brother, Norton, a part of his (Brian's) Manor of Kinlet, which part Roger had in custody for his life from Sir Brian his Brother. [16] Roger also renders up his share of Kinlet. He further testifies that the said Brian, in his presence, had given the same land, viz. Norton, together with a part of the wood of Kinlet, and together with his (Brian's) Manor of Walton [17] in Somersetshire, to John his (Brian's) son, and at Roger's petition. Further, the said Sir Brian, in his Court, had received the homage of the aforesaid John, and had caused Simon his Son and Heir also to receive the homage of John, his (Simon's) Brother. And to the end that there should be no tergiversation thereafter on the part of Roger, he himself as a lawful witness of this donation, attached his seal to the Writing". [18] This deed is one of a class common in the reign of Henry II, and an example of which has been given already. [19]- A Tenant wishing to convey his estate to another (in this instance to make provision for the younger of two nephews), does not do it by direct transfer, but by a kind of surrender-in-trust to the Suzerain. In 1193 the Sheriff of Shropshire enters on his account an amercement of 2 merks inflicted on Roger de Killet for difforciament, and adds that the sum should be required from the Sheriff of Worcestershire, who had received it. [20]

JOHN DE BROMPTON succeeded to the general estate of his Father sometime between 1179 and 1193, his elder Brother Simon having, I presume, died without issue. In 1199 I find John de Brompton

[15] Dugdale's MSS. ut supra.
[16] Mr. Blakeway queries the word fratre here written, and suggests the word patre. His belief was evidently tantamount to my own, viz. that Brian Unspac and Brian de Brompton were Father and Son.
[18] The deed had for a Seal, the figure of a Knight on horseback, brandishing a sword.
[17] Walton (Somersetshire) was Ralph de Mortimer's in 1086, and held under him by Richard,- obviously the same Richard who held Kinlet, etc. (Domesday, fo. 96 b, 2).
[19] Supra, Vol. II, 66.
[20] Rot. Pip. 5 Ric. I. Salop.


engaged in a lawsuit with his sister Margery, called in one instance de Bocton, in another de Burmingeham. The first steps in this suit are- an Essoign because of John de Bramton's alleged illness at Bramton, which Essoign was withdrawn before View had been made thereof;- an interpellation by Roger de Mortimer as Seignoral Lord of Kinlet, who before Geoffrey fitz Piers (Chief Justice of England) claimed to try the cause in his own Court;- and a writ from the Chief Justice staying further process at Westminster. Nevertheless, on October 13, 1199, a day (viz. November 17) was given in the Curia Regis to the Litigants, on which they were to come and take their chirograph in a plea of land in Kilet, and subsequently another day, viz. Feb. 10, 1200, was given for the same purpose. In the last instance Margery, a daughter of John de Brompton, was ordered to appear in Court to give evidence of an exchange which had been made as to the premises in dispute. [21]

A deed of about this period comes in very appropriately here, not in respect of the above litigation, but to show what became of Margery, John de Brompton's daughter. Thereby- "John de Brampton grants to Margaret, his daughter, whom Hugh de Turbervile hath taken to wife, all his (John's) part of Flavel. [22]- Witnesses: Sir William de Braose, William, his son, Stephen de Evereus (Devereux)". [23]

This Deed aptly introduces another wherein mention is made of Matilda de Braose, John de Brompton's wife. She was, I take it, Daughter of one and Sister of another of the above witnesses. The Deed which probably passed on the death of this Lady, I can find only in an abridged form. It runs thus.- "I, John de Bromton, have given to the Church of All Saints of Kinlet, and to the Canons of Wigmore, for the Soul of Matildis de Breus, my wife (sponsae meae), a part of my land in Kinlet, and a sum of 5s. on my said wife's anniversary".

Matilda de Braose is said, on good authority, [24] to have been Widow of Sir Henry de Tracy.

By another Deed, John de Bronton, for the souls of his Father and Mother, and his wife Matildis, releases to his men of Eiston

[21] Rot. Curiae Regis, Vol. I, pp. 291, 326, and Vol. II, pp. 13, 32, 115.
[24] Sandford,- as quoted and confirmed by Blakeway. The idea that the Lady was an heiress is not substantiated. That the Bromptons quartered the arms of Braose is true, but no proof of such a fact as heirship.
[22] Perhaps Flavell Fliford (Worcestershire), a Manor belonging to the Fief of the Abbot of Westminster.
[23] Dugdale's MSS. (ut supra). Dugdale considered this deed to be of the time of Henry II or Richard I.


(Aston, Herefordshire) the service of carriage (sumagium) and all other services which they were used to perform on Sundays. The Seal of this Deed had the Effigy of a Knight on horseback; and the Legend- SIGILLUM JOHANNIS USPAC DE BRONTUNIA, shows that the real name of the family had not yet been lost.

On July 20, 1201, a Fine was levied at Northampton between William de Vilers, Prior, and the Brethren, of the Hospital of Jerusalem, Plaintiffs, and Roger de Mortimer, Tenant (Adam le Sauvage acting as his Attorney), of one virgate of land in Claibury and in Kinlet, whereof was Plea, etc. The Prior, etc. remitted their right to half the premises, viz. that half which lay in Claibury, and was called Frogemore. The other half, in Kinlet, called Dudeletle, remained to the Prior. [25]

On November 12, 1211, a Fine was levied at Hereford between Adam le Sauvage, Plaintiff, and John de Bramton, Tenant, of one carucate in Kinlee, whereof was Plea, etc.- Adam remitted his claim, receiving 100s. [26]

At the Assizes of November, 1221, Jordan de Alneto and Amice, his wife, sued John de Bramton for 2 carucates in Killet, Amice claiming to be heir to Roger de Killet, her Uncle, who was said to have died seized thereof. John de Bramton showed that Amice had four other Sisters, mothers of children; so the Plaintiffs were non-suited, but allowed to follow up the matter in another form if they chose. [27] Soon after this, John de Brompton was succeeded by-

BRIAN DE BROMPTON (II), his son and heir, who, according to the following Deed, must have been married in his Father's lifetime, viz. about 1214-5, when,- "Walter de Nova Meinil gives to Brian de Brompton, with Alice, his daughter, in free marriage, four virgates in Foxcott, [28] in the territory of Idelburi.- Witnesses: E. (Egidius), Bishop of Hereford, Hugh de Mortimer, William de Mortimer, Philip de Mortimer, William de Burley". [29]

[25] Pedes Finium, 3 John, Salop.
[26] Ibidem, 13 John, Salop.
[27] Assizes, 6 Hen. III, m. 6 and 2 dorso. Ranulf de Solariis or Engeram de Fraxino, were named by Jordan de Alneto as his Attorneys in this cause.
[28] This Foxcott must not be mistaken for Foxcote near Kinlet. It is Foscote, near Idbury, in Oxfordshire. Idbury was a member of Mortimer's Fief, and was afterwards held wholly by the Bromptons (I suppose as heirs of Neufmesnil) under Mortimer, by service of 1 knights'-fees.
[29] Collins's Peerage, Vol. IV, p. 232.- The wife assigned to John de Brompton by the same Author, on the strength of the Herald' Visitations, is Maud de Braose, widow of Roger de Mortimer of Wigmore;- an astonishing error, for the Lady was probably unborn at the time of John de Brompton's death, and Roger de Mortimer left her a Widow, not before 1282. John de Brompton's wife was probably Great-Aunt of Roger de Mortimer.


Again, I find a Deed quoted, whereby "Walter de Newfmenell, with consent of Sara his wife, gave to Brian, son of John de Bromton, lands in Iterberge, with Alice his (Walter's) daughter". [30]

In 1233, King Henry III requiring Hostages of the Barons Marchers for their fidelity, Ralph de Mortimer delivered up Henry, Son and Heir of Sir Brian de Brompton, who was thereupon committed to the custody of William de Stuteville. [31] In or about 1244, Brian de Brompton held the following Knights'-Fees under Mortimer, viz. Kinlet (1 fee), Brompton Brian (1 fee), both these reputed to be in Shropshire;- Pertewurth ( fee), Audrinton ( fee), and Tockeham ( fee), all in Wiltshire;- Idbury (1 fees), in Oxfordshire; and Easton (1 fee), in Herefordshire. [32] On May 7, 1246, Brian de Brompton was Juror on an Inquest touching diverse rights of the Barons of Caus. On Feb. 6, 1252, Brian de Brompton had the King's Charter for Free-Warren, in Kynlet (so far as it was not within the bounds of the Forest), for a Market on Tuesdays at Brompton, and a Fair, also at Brompton, on June 10th, 11th, and 12th, yearly. On August 17 following, he had another Charter for Free-Warren, in Brampton, Bucton, Stanegge, Weston, and Pittes (all placed in Shropshire), in Aston (Herefordshire) and in Wauton (Somersetshire}. [33]

The Inquest of 1255 gives Brian de Brompton as Lord of Kynlet. Therein were V hides of land geldable, whereof Roger de Foxcot

[30] Blakeway'a MSS. - And yet Mr. Blakeway suggests that Brian de Brompton was not son of John but his collateral heir.

This Lady (Alice, daughter of Walter de Neufmesnil) is converted by Collins into "Alice, daughter and coheir of Walter de Remenyle, Lord of Botteley and Condover, Co. Salop". Other Genealogists repeat the error as to the Lady's surname, but rightly place Condover and Botteley in Hampshire.

Botley, in Hampshire, was held under Mortimer. So also Condovre, in Hampshire, was of Mortimer's fee at Domesday;- and it is worth noting that one Oidelard was Mortimer's Tenant thereof (Domesday, fo. 47, a, 1).

[31] Dugdale's Baronage, I, 140, b.
[32] Testa de Nevill, pp. 45, 150,b. 113, 62,b.- Of these Manors, Kinlet, Brompton Brian, and Aidritone, had been held by Richard at Domesday. Easton or Eston had been given to the ancestors of John de Brompton, by the Mortimers, in exchange for Grimsby (Lincolnshire),- a manor which had also been held by Richard at Domesday. (Testa de Nevill, p. 70. Domesday, fos. 72, b. l and 363, a. 1). As to Tocheham and Idbury, they had been held under Mortimer by one Oidelard at Domesday. I think they descended to Brian de Brompton from Neufmesnil, and that Neufmesnil was the descendant of Oidelard.
[33] Rot. Chartarum, 36 Hen. III, m. 6 and 21.- Of these Manors Wauton (i.e. Walton) had been Richard's at Domesday. Bucton had been Oidelard's.


held one hide under the aforesaid Brian, by service of doing suit for the said Brian to County and Hundred Courts for the whole Manor. Four hides were held (by Brian de Brompton) immediately of Roger de Mortimer. [34] Here we observe that Kinlet was, in 1255, reputed to contain one hide more than at Domesday. The difference was perhaps in part supplied by a recognised encroachment on the King's Manor of Stottesden. More probably some part of the neighbouring Forest of Wyre, or of the suppressed Manors of Richard's-Neen and Wall-Town, had been apportioned to Kinlet by license of the Suzerain.

I come now to the last Will and Testament of Sir Brian de Brompton, a document of great interest, dated November 27, 1262, telling us of three Nephews and a Niece of the Testator, besides of Brian, his eldest son and heir; telling us also how his Ancestors had been customarily buried in the Priory Church of Great Malvern.

But such a document should speak its own language.- "In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, Ego Brianus de Bromton Senior, anno Domini 1262, in vigilia Apostolorum Simonis et Judae, condo testamentum meum. Volo corpus meum sepeliri in Prioratu Majoris Malverniae inter predecessores meos, et cum corpore palefridum meum cum harnesio et equum summarium cum lecto meo. Lego Agneti Lannath nepti meae I marcam,- Briano nepoti meo quem nutrivi 100s. ad terram emendam,- Herberto nepoti meo 3 marcas. Hujus autem testamenti mei executores constituo Dominum Johannem de Tureberevill nepotem meum et dominum Brianum filium meum primogenitum". [35]

On February 18, 1263,-

BRIAN DE BROMPTON (III), son and heir, I suppose, of the above Testator, has the King's letters of protection till June 24 following, or as long as the Welsh war should last. [36] In May 1265, Adam Pauncefot, with Johanna and Lora, his Sisters, are suing Brian de Brompton under Writ of Mort d'ancestre for land in Kinlet. [37]

On July 14, 1269, the King gives to Brian de Brampton, for his praiseworthy services, custody of the Manor of Cruches (Crich,

[34] Rot. Hundred. II, 81.
[35] This Will was sealed with the Testator's Arms- Two Lions passant.- Dugdale's Transcript (Ashmol. Library, Vol. 39) seems to be an extract rather than the whole. Nevertheless I give it, as the Original is probably destroyed. I think that the Knight's bequest was of his Destrier, his Sumpter-Horse and Bed, to the Monks of Malvern, together with his body. A literal construction of the above (whether it be Dugdale's abbreviation or the Original) would imply that the whole were to be buried with the deceased.
[36] [37] Pat. 47 Hen. III, and 49 Hen. III, dorso.


Derbyshire), late Ankaret de Freschville's, deceased. Brian is to hold it, according to the form of the Dictum de Kenilworth, till the Heir should be of age. [38] At the Assizes of 1272, John de Kingeshend, as heir of Adam, his deceased Brother, sued Brian de Brompton, Nicholas and Juliana fitz Oliver and William fitz Walter, for a messuage, a virgate, and 14 acres in Metone (Meaton). Brian de Brompton said that the Plaintiff had formerly withdrawn this suit before John de la Linde and other Justices. A search of the Rolls proved the truth of this, and of course the Plaintiff was non-suited. [39]

In 1277, Brian de Brompton (III) was living, but apparently too old for military service. Brian de Brampton, Junior, his Grandson I suppose, was one of the five knights named by Sir Roger de Mortimer as ready to serve with him against Lewellyn;- the muster to be at Worcester on July 1. [40]

It was Brian de Brompton Senior, I presume, who on March 15, 1282, being in company with the Prior of the Augustine Friars of Ludlow, and several Knights and other persons, saw, as the Annals of Worcester assure us, three Suns at Kinlet; one in the East, one in the West, and one (I suppose a real one) in the South. [41]

The first wife of Sir Brian de Brompton (III) was Emma, daughter of Thomas Corbet, and Sister of Peter Corbet, successive Barons of Caus. This Lady died in 1284. Her Will, bearing date at Brompton, on August 1, 1284, is abridged by Dugdale. It runs as follows:- "I, Emma, wife of Sir Brian de Brompton, being of sound memory, commend my soul to God, and my body to be buried where my Lord (Sir Brian), and my brother, Sir Peter Corbet, shall wish. Item:- I bequeath all my movables to the disposal of these persons, viz. of my Lord, Sir Brian de Bromton, and of Sir Walter de Bromton".

This Will was sealed with a Seal containing two Shields of Arms. On the Dexter shield were two Lions Passant (the arms of Brompton); on the Sinister Shield were also two Lions Passant, but a label of three points over all. [42]

[38] Patent. 53 Hen. III.
[39] Assizes, 56 Hen. III, m. 11 dorso. It is singular that on the sixth membrane of the Assize Roll of John de la Lynde (at Salop, in 1267), we find the very trial referred to, but with a little variation. The names given are John de Kingeshmede, Nicholas fitz Oliver de le Boys, and Walter fitz Walter. Instead of 14 acres of land, 20 acres of Bosc are mentioned. Roger de Hauberdin was Surety for the retracting Plaintiff.
[40] Parliamentary Writs, I, 205.
[41] Anglia Sacra, I, 506.
[42] Dugdale's MSS. (ut supra), vol. 39, fo. 80, b.


After the decease of Emma Corbet, the aged Sir Brian remarried. The name of his second wife was Sara, but of what family she was, I cannot say. It was probably in anticipation of his immediate death that Sir Brian made his last Will and Testament, dated on Sunday, July 27, 1287. Thereby he bequeaths "his body to be buried in the Chapel of the Blessed Virgin, in the Monastery of Wigmore, near the tomb of his Mother, Alice". He appoints his eldest son (filium meum primogenitum), Sir Walter, and Sir Peter Corbet, his Executors; but his wife, Dame Sara, and his son, "Brother Hugh", are to superintend the said Executors, and nothing of consequence (nihil notabile) is to be done without the counsel and consent of these superintendents. [43]

SIR WALTER DE BROMPTON now succeeded his Father, Sir Brian. A Charter of his, wherein he styles himself "Walter de Bromton, Knight, Lord of Boston", bears date at Ludlow, in 16 Edw. I (i.e. between November, 1287, and November, 1288). [44]

In the following year (17 Edw. I), Walter de Bromton and John de Bromton, Knights, together with Richard de la Bane, acknowledge their joint obligation to repay 40s. of the money received on loan from Laurence de Ludlowe, on the 1st of August, 1289, at his House in Ludlowe. [45] We learn from another Deed that Sara, widow of Sir Brian de Bromton, released to Sir Walter de Bromton, all claim of dower in Bromton, Stanage, Stowe, Weston, Ayeston (Aston, Herefordshire), and Idesberie, so that she might have Kinlett, and a tenement in the New Park at Knowle, and a Salt-rent at Wich, for her dower. [46] We know from an Inquisition of a much later date that Sara, widow of Brian de Brompton, retained Kinlet till her death. [47]

Sir Walter de Brompton seems to have died between the years 1289 and 1292. His successor was a fourth-

SIR BRIAN DE BROMPTON, whom I should have supposed to have been his Brother, were it not for a piece of evidence which convinces me that he was his Son.- The Mother's name of Sir Brian (IV) was Joane, not Emma or Sara, so that it is clear that he was not a son of Sir Brian (III), consequently not Brother of Sir Walter. In 21 Edw. I (1292-3), the above-named Joane, whom I take to have been Widow of Sir Walter de Brompton, having an estate called Ewellye of her own inheritance, having also Idesberie as her

[43] Dugdale's MSS. (ut supra), vol. 39, fo. 80.
[44] [45] [46] Dugdale's MSS. (ut supra).
[47] Inquisitions, 2 Edw. II, No. 62.


dower, covenants with "her Son, Brian de Brompton" not to alienate Ewellye. [48]

In 22 Edward I (1293-4) we are told that Brian de Brompton paid his Relief to two of his Suzerains, viz. 60. to Edmund de Mortimer, of Wigmore, and 10. to the Earl of Warwick [49] (then William de Beauchamp), but what he held of the said Earl we are not informed.

I have assumed above that this Brian de Brompton was he who served under Roger de Mortimer in 1277. He had otherwise occurred in the lifetime of his Father and Grandfather, if the verdict of a local Jury may be taken as correct. Apparently he had held, in 1284,, some land near Kinlet, perhaps by feoffment of his Grandfather. At all events he was stated by the Jurors of Stottesden Hundred, in 1292, to have appropriated three acres of the King's Fee in the Manor of Stottesden eight years previously. The value of the land was 1s. per annum. Brian had also, said the Jurors, enclosed two years previously a high-road which led from Chorley towards Strongeford, Kynlet, Kidderminster, and Worcester. As to the first charge, Brian replied that Stottesden was in possession of John de Segrave, who might sue him if he chose. As to the road, he said that a straighter and more convenient road was still open. This the Jurors denied. The old road was therefore ordered to be reopened, and Brian was in misericordia. [50]

On December 28, 1294, Brian de Brompton, the last of the elder male line of his House, was deceased. A Writ of Diem clausit extremum was issued on the said day by Edward I, then at Aberconway. The Jurors who reported his Shropshire Tenures on February 28, 1295, said that he had held twenty acres of the King in capite in Kinlet Park, by service of a twentieth part of a Knight's Fee, that he had done homage to the King for the said Tenure, which was worth 6s. per annum. [51] It was this holding evidently which had induced the Writ of Diem clausit extremum. The land in question had probably been thrown into Kinlet Park at a very remote period, having been originally a portion of Stottesden. The deceased, continued the Jurors, had held three acres (value 1s. per annum) in the same Park, of the King and of the Fee of Stottesden,

[48] [49] Blakeway's MSS. The Earl of Warwick was at this time Guardian of Hugh de Mortimer of Richard's Castle, under whom the Bromptons held Stanage.
[50] Placita Coronae, 20 Edw. I, m. 20.
[51] Inquisitions, 23 Edw. I, No. 136.- Collins (Peerage, Vol. IV, p. 232) says that Brian de Brompton died May 19. 1293, but this is impossible, as his youngest daughter was born nineteen months later.


but by service of giving the Lord of Stottesden a doe yearly. Several other Manors held by the deceased are valued, but Kinlet itself is omitted, being probably still held in dower by Sara, widow of the Deceased's Grandfather. The deceased left two daughters, his Coheirs;- the elder, Margaret, born October 27, 1293, was now little more than a year old; the younger, Elizabeth, born December 16, 1294, was less than three months old.

It is astonishing, when we look at the great Estates of the Bromptons, that a single tenure in capite of 20 acres, by knights'-service, should have entitled the Crown to a control over all. An Escheator's Roll of 1294-5 carefully records the fact that "land in Kynlet Park, Salop, late Brian de Brompton's, viz. 20 acres, is held of the King in capite for a twentieth part of a knight's-fee". [52] This gave the King a right to dispose of the daughters of the last Brian de Brompton in Marriage. Margaret, not yet three years of age, was thus bestowed by Patent, dated June 21, 1296. [53] The King gave her in marriage to "his beloved Clerk", Malcolm de Harley, for the behoof of Robert de Harley, nephew of the said Malcolm, and son of that Richard de Harley whom I have so often mentioned in these pages as husband of the Heiress of Willey. In 1300 I find mention of the death of one John de Brampton; said to have held of the heir of Walter de Brompton then a ward of the Crown. [54] This John was, I think, brother of Sir Walter, and his tenure in 1300 was, strictly speaking, under the Granddaughters and coheirs of the said Walter. At all events the Escheator ultra Trent was ordered to seize his lands for the King, as having his Suzerain or Suzerains in custody. A King's Writ of October 10, 1304, orders the Escheator ultra Trent to extend or value all lands, seized into the King's hand and formerly held by Brian de Brompton, deceased. An extent of Kinlet was consequently taken on Dec. 5. A messuage and garden, Water-Mill, two carucates, or 120 acres, of land worth 20s. per annum, at 2d. per acre, a carucate of land newly brought into cultivation by Walter Hakelut, a Park containing 100 acres (reckoned by the short hundred),- these were some of the items which realized a total annual value of 14. 12s. 9d. The principal Tenants in the Manor were John de Arderne, John Bernard, Roger de Bradeleye, William de Wynnewode, and Thomas de Elnecote. [55] A Feodary, drawn up after the death of Edmund de Mortimer, viz. on 10 Feb. 1305, records

[52] Kirby's Quest.- Escheats 22 and 23 Edw. I.
[53] Patent. 24 Edw. I, sub die.
[54] Originalia, I, 110.
[55] Inquisitions, 33 Edw. I, No. 78.


that Brian de Brompton held or had held 1 fee in Brompton, fee in Pedwardine and Meton, 1 fee in Kinlet and Foxcote, and 1 fee in Boucton of Mortimer's Barony. [56]

Other Inquisitions as to the Brompton Estates were taken in pursuance of an order by Edward II, dated 28 Nov., 1308. One of these is nearly illegible, but mentions Sarra de Foxcot and John Vicar of Kinlet, as holding lands in that Manor. Another values the Manor at 25. 9s. 7d. per annum. A third values 23 acres in Kinlet Park at 7s. 8d. per annum. [57]

A Writ of King Edward II's followed these Inquests, reciting that Margaret, wife of Robert de Harley, was now of full age (she must have been under sixteen), and ordering the Escheator to give her and her husband full seizin of the following, viz. the Manor of Brompton, the Hamlet of Weston, the Manor of Bucton, 33s. rent in Stowe, all in the Marshes of Wales, certain land in Kinlet Park, Salop, and the Manor of Ashton, in Herefordshire. [58] Hence came it to pass that in the beginning of the present Century, Brompton Bryan was in the hands of Edward Harley, Earl of Oxford and Mortimer, as the lineal descendant of Robert de Harley and Margaret de Brompton.

I should now say something of Elizabeth, the other Coheiress of De Brompton. King Edward I, before the year 1300, entrusted Edmund de Cornwall with custody of all or great part of the lands, late Brian de Brompton's, till the heirs should be of full age. In consequence of this grant, Edmund de Cornwall was, in 1300, and afterwards, empowered to levy Scutage on the Tenants of these Estates for several Armies of Scotland. [59] This Edmund was the eldest son of Richard de Cornwall, which Richard was an illegitimate son of Richard, Earl of Cornwall and King of the Romans, the illustrious Brother of King Henry III. Edmund de Cornwall, having then this general custody of the Brompton estates, married Elizabeth

[56] Inquisitions, 32 Edw. I, No. 63, b.
[57] Inquisitions, 2 Edw. II, No. 62.
[58] Rot. Claus. 2 Edw. II, m. 10.
[59] Parliamentary Writs, III, 456.
[60] This word, though undoubtedly correct, once created a ferment. The use thereof, by Thomas Mines, in his Catalogue of Honour (first published in 1610), gave great offence to Sir Thomas Cornwall, provincially known as the "Great Baron", who was descended from Geoffrey, a younger son of Richard de Cornwall. The proofs offered for Richard de Cornwall's legitimacy seem to be that Edmund Earl of Cornwall called one of the said Richard's sons "Nephew"; and King Edward II called another son "Cousin",- which are no proofs at all. Mr. Blakeway, who states the whole question fully, quotes a curious and angry letter on the subject, by Sir Thomas Cornwall, to Augustine Vincent, dated Oct. 25, 1623.


the youngest Coheir, and on Dec. 7, 1309, did homage to King Edward II for her purparty thereof. King Edward II, ordering that Edmund de Cornwall should have power to collect the arrears of such Scutages as he was entitled to as aforesaid, calls him his beloved Cousin. [61] I here suspend a narrative which would involve many further details before I could arrive at the mode in which partition of the Brompton estates was ultimately settled between the Coheirs. Suffice it to say that while the Feodary of 1316 gives Edmund de Cornwall as Joint Lord of Ashton (Herefordshire) and of Idbury, Foxcote, and other estates in Oxfordshire, it treats the Manor of Kinlet as if it were still in the hands of the Lord Paramount,- Roger de Mortimer. [62] Nevertheless Kinlet, as held under Mortimer, was wholly allotted, previously or subsequently, to the purporty of Elizabeth, wife of Edmund de Cornwall, and so descended to her heirs.

OF UNDERTENANTS in Kinlet, very few notices occur, and those have been in great part already given in connection with the history of the Mesne-Lords. In 1252 I find Walter fitz Nicholas, of Kinlet, fining I merk for some Writ. [63]


The French Chronicle of Wigmore gives us the first information about Kinlet Church, saying that John de Brompton gave it to that Abbey. [64] If this was so, the gift took place probably soon after 1179. The same Chronicle, a little lower down, names the Church of Kynleth, apparently among those given to the Abbey by Hugh de Mortimer. [64] He, as we have seen, died in 1181. There is little of contradiction in these statements, for the Grant of an Advowson usually necessitated the concurrence of the Seignoral Lord.

From Sunday, April 16, to Tuesday, April 18, 1290, Bishop Swinfield, then visiting his Diocese, was at Kinlet. The Abbot of Wigmore, Rector of Kinlet as he is called, supplied corn, and fuel for baking bread, to the Bishop's Suite, besides forage and litter for the thirty-six horses of his train. The party had to send to Kidderminster for other provisions. Their purveyor paid 1d. to the Guide, who may be supposed to have led him through the Forest of Wyre, and 4d. for crossing and recrossing the Severn by a ferry. A matter of far greater interest is associated with Bishop Swinfield's visit to

[61] Parliamentary Writs, III, 448.
[62] Ibidem, IV, 398.
[63] Rot. Pip. 36 Hen. III, Salop.
[64] Wright's Ludlow, pp. 121, 122.


Kinlet.- He probably employed the time in writing his famous letter to Pope Nicholas IV, alleging the Miracles which had been performed at the tomb of his Predecessor, Cantilupe, and soliciting the Canonization of that Prelate. His letter bears date at Kinlet on the 18th, but its prayer was not complied with till May, 1320, when another Bishop occupied the See of Hereford, another King the throne of England, and another Pope the Chair of St. Peter. [65]

In 1291 the Church of Kynleth (that is, the Rectory thereof) is set down as the Abbot of Wigmore's, and valued at 10. The Portion of the Vicar in the same was less than 4. [66]

In 1341 the Assessors of the Ninth, quoting the Church-Taxation as 10., charged the Parish 5. 10s. for the ninth of its wheat, wool, and lamb. The reasons of the diminution were,- because the Abbot of Wigmore, Rector of the Church, had two carucates of land, his glebe as it were, of the annual value of 5. 6s. 8d. Also the tithes of hay, oblations, and small tithes were worth 3. 1s. 4d. [67]

In 1534-5 the preferment of Thomas Mason, Vicar of Kynlett, was valued at 8. 10s., in glebe and Tithes, a sum chargeable with 7s. 8d., for Procurations and Synodals. [68] The Abbot of Wigmore's cotemporary return does not specifically acknowledge the receipt of any great tithes from Kinlet. It is probable however that his receipts in the way of tithes from Kinlet are included in the total of 16. 16s., said to arise from "Cleobury Mortimer, Neen Monell, and Morehall". [69]


The Abbot and Convent of Wigmore exercised the right of patronage in each of the undermentioned cases, except where the contrary is expressed.

WILLIAM PHILIPPE,- presented May 28, 1288.

JOHN DE MONSTREWORTH, Priest,- presented June 22, 1296. The Bishop institutes him suo periculo, and saving the right of any other. His Predecessor, it appears, had entered upon a Monastic

[65] Household Roll, pp. 76, 76. Abstract and Illustrations clxxv to clxxxiv.
[66] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 166. Decanatus de Stottesdone.
[67] Inquisitions Nonarum, p. 191. The Assessors took it for granted that items now realizing 8. 8s. had gone to make up the Church Taxation of 10., and they allowed a proportionate deduction of 4. 10s. in estimating the Ninth. They were evidently deceived, for the Taxation of 10. was not the full value of the Church.
[68] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 211.
[69] Supra, p. 227.- Moor-Hall was certainly in Kinlet Parish.
[70] From Blakeway's MSS.


[For engraving, see pdf.]


life in Haughmond Abbey, but had not yet passed his year of probation, nor been fully professed.

RICHARD JUDAS, of Turpliton (Trippleton), Priest,- presented August 16, 1312.

WILLIAM LE CARBONER,- presented January 19, 1315. On December 27, 1320, the Bishop suspends William le Colliare from his Ministrations, as an illiterate person, having an incurable bodily disease, and a defect in his eye-sight. John de Underdele was appointed his Coadjutor, but, Colliare resisting that appointment, the Bishop names his Official, Master R. de Vernoun, as Commissary in a suit against Colliare for disobedience in comporting himself as Vicar of Kynlet. On April 14, 1331, Sir William de Falowe is made Curator and Coadjutor to Coliare, and he dying in 1331, Sir William de Wynewood, Priest, is appointed Curator on June 11.

SIR JOHN UPINTOUPE, presented Oct. 18, 1331.

SIR JOHN DE POSTES, presented Nov. 25, 1343.

SIR JOHN HALFPENY, of Shrewsbury, Priest, presented Nov. 13, 1349. (Patron,- the Bishop, by lapse.) He resigned in 1374, and on Feb. 10-

RICHARD BRAHULL, or BURHILL, late Vicar of Wolverley (Dioc. Wygorn.) was instituted. On his resignation-

SIR JOHN PURSLOWE, late Vicar of Caynham, succeeds;- being instituted January 24, 1388. Sir John Passelowe resigned Sept. 29, 1399, when-

SIR JOHN MERSCHE, or MARCH, was instituted. He resigned in 1405.


This was apparently that member of Kinlet which Roger de Foxcote has been mentioned as holding under De Brompton in 1255. [71] The same Roger was a Juror on the Inquest, which stated the said Tenure. In the same year he is amerced half a merk for unjust detention. [72] He also attests a Higley Deed in 1271. Soon after this William de Foxcote occurs as a local witness.

In May, 1284, William de Foxcote and Alice his wife, Plaintiffs, acknowledge by Fine their gift to Roger de Foxcote and Constance his wife of a messuage and carucate of land in Foxcote, whereof was a plea of convention. Roger and Constance in return concede the

[71] Supra, pp. 248-9.
[72] Rot. Pip. 39 Hen. III. Salop. See also Vol. III, p. 54, for other cotemporary mention of Roger de Foxcote.


premises to William and Alice for their lives, at a Rose-rent, with remainder to themselves and the heirs of Roger.

William de Foxcote was still living and a witness of local deeds in 1293 and 1296.


At the Assizes of 1272 John Pauncefot, as heir of his deceased Uncle (avunculi) Herbert de Gerys, sued Brian de Brompton, as withholding from him two virgates in Bradeleg. Brian got judgment on the ground that Herbert de Gerys had only been Tenant-at-Will of Brian de Brompton, the Defendant's Father. [73]


An estate in Great Metene vas in 1281 held under Brian de Brompton by Adam de Kyngeshemede, nephew and heir of another Adam. Roger de Mortimer, Senior, required the services due on this land from the Tenant in possession, not from the Mesne Lord, and distrained for the same. The said services were due on a messuage and virgate, and were in the proportion of 1d. when a scutage of 40s. per knight's-fee was being collected. Adam de Kyngeshemede now sued Brian de Brompton as Mesne Lord, to acquit him of all such liability to the Lord Paramount. By a Fine levied in Easter Term, 1281, Brian engages so to do, and acknowledges the right of Adam in the said Tenement as heir to his Uncle, and as holding the same by 4d. rent. Adam in return remits all damages arising out of the distress aforesaid. [74]


This intmduces to our notice a series of six Manors in Condetret Hundred, which, at the time of Domesday, were held by Ralph de Mortemer, not of the King, but of the Norman Earl.- "The same Radulf (de Mortemer) holds (of the Earl) Barbingi, and Fech (holds

[73] Assizes, 56 Hen. III, m. 13 dorso.
[74] Pedes Finium, 9 Edw. I. Salop. Some previous transactions relative to this tenure in Meaton have been detailed above (p. 250). Adam de Kyngeshemede, here named, was son of John, brother of Adam.


it) of him. Alsi and Fech held it (in Saxon times) for two Manors. Here is half a hide. One virgate of these two (virgates comprised in half a hide) used to lie in Claiberie. Here now II Radmans and II Boors have one ox-team. The former value (of the Manor) was 10s.: its present value is 6s". [1] The distinction between the two virgates which composed this Manor was probably thus notified because Cleobury Mortimer was now held in capite of the King. The original Manor of Cleobury had therefore lost a virgate. Of Fech the Saxon I have already spoken under Mawley. He had been Lord of the Worcestershire Manor of Broc, but Mortimer held that at Domesday, and apparently Fech was no longer interested there as Tenant. Baveney came to be held under Mortimer by a family called De Ribbesford, being also Mortimer's Feoffees at Ribbesford in Worcestershire. Of these the first who occurs is Simon de Ribbeford, that Seneschal of Roger de Mortimer who in 1179 was involved in his Lord's concern with the death of Cadwallan, Prince of Wales. [2] Again Henry and Tristram de Ribbeford occur in Mortimer's affairs in Nov. 1221, as we shall presently see under Higley. Again, Henry de Ribbesford, or Ripeford, occurs in 1235 and about 1240, as holding three parts of a knight's-fee in Ribbesford under Ralph de Mortimer. [3] On November 7, 1246, Simon de Ribeford occurs on an inquest at Higley, [4] and in or about March, 1259, the same person was appointed a Justice for the Gaol-delivery of Salop and Brug. [5] Between 1268 and 1274 Henry de Ribbesford attests a Worcestershire Deed. [6] William de Bardeley, who died in 1295, held a Tenement in Balbeneye under Sir Henry de Ribbeford at a rent of 2d. [7] This same Sir Henry was apparently he who, on the death of Edmund de Mortimer, in 1304, was holding Babbeney by service of a third part of a knight's- fee, [8] and who, on the 1st of December, 1310, presented Simon de Ribbesford to Ribbesford Church. [9] Baveney passed eventually from this family to the Foxcotes, but the Ribbesfords remained at Ribbesford some generations longer.

Baveney was and is in the Parish of Neen Savage.

[1] Domesday, fo. 257, a, 1.
[2] Supra, p. 206.
[3] Testa de Nevill, pp. 40, 41, 42.
[4] Inquisitions, 31 Hen. III, No. 12.
[5] Supra, Vol. I, p. 280.
[6] Nash's Worcestershire, II, 270.
[7] Supra, p. 180.
[8] Inquisitions, 32 Edw. I, No. 63, b.
[9]Nash, II, 273.



"The same Radulf (de Mortimer) holds Cateschesleie (of the Earl) and Ulf (holds it) of him. Edric held it (in Saxon times). Here is half a hide. In demesne is I ox-team and (there are) II Neat-herds, I Villain, and II Boors, with one team. Its old value was 6s. 6d. (per annum): now it is worth 8s. [1]

Ulf it appears had been Saxon Lord of Isom-bridge in North Shropshire, had been ousted from thence by Mortimer before Domesday, and placed at Catsley. He soon afterwards made way at Catsley for the Lingens, the alleged descendants of that Turstin de Wigmore whom I have before mentioned. In 1240 William de Forda and Thomas de Bardeleg are said to hold half a fee in Cathesleg of Ralph de Mortimer. [2] The tenure was not sine medio, as we shall presently see.

In 1255 William de la Forde and William de Bardeley are set down as joint Lords of Catekesle, holding the same of John de Lyngayne for a rent of 20s. per annum. The Manor was half a hide (as at Domesday), did suit to the Hundred but not to the County, and paid 2d. Stretward and 4d. Motfee. [3] Here the Seigneury of Mortimer over Lingen is omitted to be mentioned. William de Bardley, one of the joint Lords, was son and heir apparent of Thomas de Bardley, having I suppose obtained a transfer of this estate from his Father, who lived till 1278. I have already said all that I know of their further concerns in this neighbourhood. [4]

Catsley was and is in the parish of Kinlet, but, as we have seen, was manorially independent.


Domesday thus desciibes this Manor:- "The same Radulf (de

[1] Domesday, fo. 257, a, 1.
[2] Testa de Nevill, p. 45.
[3] Rot. Hundred. II, 81.
[4] Supra, p. 179.


Mortemer) holds Hugelei (of the Earl). The Countess Godeva held it (in Saxon times). Here are III hides geldable. In demesne there is one ox-team and a half; and VI Villains, VI Boors, and I Radman have two teams and a half. Still there might be II additional teams. Here is a wood which will fatten XXXVI swine. In time of King Edward, the Manor was worth 15s. (annually); afterwards it was worth 3s.; now it is worth 18s". [1]

Of the Countess Godeva I have spoken under Chetton. [2] We here may notice the almost waste condition in which a Manor of the Mercian Earls seems to have passed to the hands of the Normans.

In the time of Henry II this Manor was held under Mortimer by one William de Hugley. This William had a son Helias and four daughters. Helias de Hugley, living in and after 1194, was deceased in 1203 without issue, so that his four Sisters or their Representatives became his heirs. These Sisters were, (1) Cecilia wife of * * * de Wudeton, (2) a Sister unnamed, but wife of * * * de Burley, (3) another Sister unnamed, and whose husband is also unnamed, but whose daughter, commonly called Margery de Chabbenore, was the wife of Thomas fitz Odo, (4) Sibil who, being uniformly styled Sibil de Hugley, was perhaps never married. How Higley was at first divided among these Coheiresses I cannot say, but certain it is that one complete moiety went to Sibil. Sibil, evidently single at the time, occurs in 1203, as essoigning her attendance at the County Assizes under the common summons. [3] When the next Assizes were held, viz. in November, 1221, Sibil de Hugley had been more than a year deceased, and without issue; and her estate (a moiety of Higley) came to be litigated among the representatives of her three Sisters, each claimant asserting a title to one sixth of the whole Manor. The proceedings are rendered rather complex by the circumstance that Hugh de Mortimer, as Seigneural Lord, affected to settle the matter in his own Court. The details of the litigation may with these prefatory remarks speak for themselves.- William de Burley and Margery de Chabenoure, nephew and niece of Sibil de Hugley, had entered a suit of mort d'ancestre against Robert de Wunerton (Wodeton) for half the vill of Hugley of which they alleged their said Aunt to have died seized. William de Burley now withdrew from the suit, but being called into Court was pronounced, with his sureties, to be in misericordia. The trial proceeded on Margery's part, but the Defendant here showed that

[1] Domesday, fo. 257, a, 1.
[2] Supra, Vol. I, p. 165.
[3] Assizes, 5 John, m. 1, dorso.


he was not seized of the premises, but was himself urging a suit of novel desseizin against Hugh de Mortimer, who had deprived him thereof. The Court decided that the present Suit should await the issue of the other. [4] The other suit was tried later at the Assizes, and the Record thereof is a most instructive document. [5]-

Robert de Witton (Wodeton) sued Hugh de Mortimer, Henry de Ribbeford, William de Burley, Tristram de Ribbeford, Thomas Clerk, and Nicholas de Ernewude for disseizing him of his free tenement in Hugley. The Defendants having said nothing why the trial should not proceed, the Jurors found as follows:- "That when Sibil, youngest daughter of William de Hugley, died, she having had a fourth part of the inheritance of her brother Helias, and so dying without issue, Robert de Witton (as being son of William de Witton, Clerk, son of Cecilia, eldest sister of Sibil) and William Burnel (read Burley) and Margery de Chabbenour, with Christiana her Sister, being descended from the two other Sisters of Sibil, went to Hugh de Mortimer, the Chief Lord, to Wigmore, and proposed to give the said Hugh 80 merks as their joint Fine for Sibil's inheritance:- that Robert de Witton asserted on that occasion that he had never yet received an equitable share under the former apportionment (viz. on Helias de Hugley's death); for that while the other Coparceners had had 2 carucates of land apiece he had had but one, and he wanted computation to be made, and his loss under the first division to be recompensed now:- that to this William de Burley, Margery, and Christiana objected, saying that the present division was the only matter to be settled;- that, Robert de Witton persisting in his demand for a general computation, Hugh de Mortimer gave them a day at Higley, and sent his Knights there to hear their computation, but that no agreement could be arrived at;- that then Robert de Witton went to Wigmore and fined 40 merks with Hugh de Mortimer that he might have seizin of the whole premises, and that Mortimer might receive his homage: all however on condition that he (Robert), being seized, should give their just shares to the other claimants according to the consideration of Hugh's Court; that Mortimer received his homage, and put him in seizin;- that William de Burley and Margery were present, and still persisted in offering their homage, which it seems was not taken, for Robert asserted his right to

[4] Assizes, 6 Hen. III, m. 3. The Sureties of William de Burley were Hugh de Seinton (Shineton), Roger Sprenghose, Herbert de Lothwic (Lutwyche) and Thomas de Chabenour (son of Margery).
[5] Ibidem, memb. 6.


do homage as the issue of the eldest Sister;- that subsequently Robert de Witton went to Ireland and stayed there a year and more, receiving meanwhile the issues (esplees) of the whole estate;- that on his return Mortimer and the other Defendants in the present trial went to Higley, ejected him from the estate, carried away his corn, etc". "And", added the Jurors, on their oath, "they knew not whether the ejection of one who had obtained ingress in the way stated was a disseisin or not;- that Mortimer had since restored to each Coparcener his or her share of the premises, and Robert de Witton had his share". The Court reserved its judgment.

Robert de Wudeton may have been a Minor at the time of Helias de Hugley's death, but his Father was living, and so it is difficult to account for the injustice alleged to have been suffered in the original division. Mortimer's conduct in the present instance appears to have been both vigorous, sensible, and just. Whatever form the ultimate sentence of the Court took, it is evident that the moiety of Higley thus litigated continued in three portions, each being a sixth of the whole Manor, but it appears that Robert de Witton and Margery de Chabbenour, at a subsequent period, neglected to perform the capital services due on their shares, and that Mortimer ousted them both. Hence another litigation.-

On Oct. 27, 1225, Margery de Chabenore and Robert de Witton name their Attorneys in the plea of land which they had against Hugh de Mortimer and others. [6] On Jan. 26 (1226 as I suppose) Hugh de Mortimer essoigns himself in the plea of intrusion which Robert de Wudeton and Margery de Chabenour had against him. A day was given to the parties, viz. Feb. 28. [7] In the same term, 1226, Hugh de Mortimer (being attached to answer these Plaintiffs as to wherefore he had intruded himself into a third part of half a Knight's-fee in Hugele, which Robert de Wudeton claimed, and into one-sixth of a knight's-fee in the same, which parts the said Robert and Margery had on a previous occasion recovered against Mortimer before the Justices itinerant) appeared to the charge. He acknowledged the previous recovery by the Plaintiffs, and conceded to them their seizin, saying that he claimed nothing thereof but the services due. The Court awarded to Robert de Wudeton such seizin of his third of a moiety of the Manor as he had formerly

[6] Placita, Mich. Term, 9 and 10 Hen. III. 13 dorso.
[7] Placita incerti temporis Regis Johannis (so labelled), m. 2 dorso.


recovered. As to Margery de Chabenour's claim, it appeared that, in the Writ originally sued out by her, Richard de Middlehop and Avice his wife were named as parties to her cause, and should have been now present. This part of the matter was adjourned to May 10, when the said Richard and Avice were to appear in Court. Meanwhile Margery's sixth share was to be in manu Regis. [8] On May 10 it came out why Richard and Avice had not joined with Margery, who was, in fact, Avice's Mother. They claimed the impounded sixth as their own entirely, saying that Margery had given all her right thereto in frank-marriage with Avice, and so they (Richard and Avice) had entered therein when Margery first recovered seizin. Margery now denied the alleged gift in frank-marriage, and demanded her seizin. She recovered it, and Richard de Middlehope was in misericordia. [9]

At this juncture then, all that we can conclude about Higley is that it was divided into two moieties. The holder of the first moiety has not appeared in these proceedings as such; the second moiety was subdivided into three shares, held respectively by William de Burley, Robert de Wodeton, and Margery de Chabbenur; for of Constancia, Margery's Sister, we have ceased to hear. We next find the Manor mentioned as if divided into two moieties only, of which Robert de Wodeton had one; the other, after some litigation, was ceded to Roger de Burwardsley as heir thereof, but by what mode of descent it is difficult to conjecture. The facts and appearances are these. In a deed already quoted, as of date about 1225, [10] Philip de Burwardsley and Robert de Wodetun follow each other in the testing-clause of a deed in which it is difficult to discover any interest of Robert de Wudeton, except that he may have been connected with some of the other parties: with Philip de Burwardsley, for instance. On the 30th of August, 1228, the King appoints Justices to try a cause between Roger de Burwardsley and Ralph de Mortimer (of Wigmore), concerning a tenement in Huggele. [11] The Commission is renewed on May 10, 1229, the suit being described as one of mort d'ancestre, [12] which shows, as I have before suggested, [12] that Roger de Burwardsley must have claimed through his Mother; for Philip, his elder and probably half-brother, was living at the time. The Fine which resulted from this Suit

[8] Placita, Hil. Term, 10 Hen. III, m. 17 dorso.
[9] Placita, Easter Term, 10 Hen. III, m. 9 dorso.
[10] Supra, Vol. II, p. 71.
[11] [12] Patent. 12, 13 Hen. III, dorso.
[13] Supra, Vol. II, p. 17.


is dated Nov. 21, 1236, and purports to be between Ralph de Mortimer, Plaintiff, and Roger de Burwardel, Tenant, of a carucate in Huggel', etc. Roger acknowledges the right of the Plaintiff, who in turn concedes the premises to Roger, to have and to hold to him and his heirs at a rent of one pair of white gloves or 1d. yearly at Easter, and by performance of forinsec services. [14] Hence Robert de Wodeton (whom I find to have been Assessor of the King's Tallages in Shropshire in 1235) appears about 1240 as holding Huggeleg jointly with Roger de Burwardesley under Ralph de Mortimer, and by service of one knight's-fee. [15] I can trace no subsequent and continuous interest in Higley as inherited by the Coheirs of Roger de Burwardsley. [16]

In 1242 Robert de Wodeton has already appeared as a Justice for Gaol-delivery at Brug and Salop, [17] and in 1243 Robert de Wudinton figures as having been amerced 5 merks for transgression, and for not producing one for whom he was Surety.
[18] It seems that the Seigneury of Robert de Wudeton's share of Higley had been assigned by Hugh de Mortimer, who died in 1227, as part of the dower of his (Hugh's) Mother Isabella. Hence perhaps it was that Isabella de Mortimer, in 1247, had fined 40s. "to have an Inquisition"; [19]- for an Inquest taken in the Church of Huggele on November 7, 1246, stated (in reply to a Writ of Henry de Wingham, addressed to Sir William Hunaud, Escheator of Shropshire) that Robert de Wodeton had held half the Manor of Huggele by half a knight's-fee, under Isabella de Mortimer, to whom Hugh son of Roger de Mortimer, had assigned the same in dower. The Tenant-interest was valued at 7. 10s. per annum. [20] A King's Writ, on Dec. 9, 1246, recites accordingly that the King is assured that Hugh de Mortimer had assigned to Isabel, relict of Roger de Mortimer, dower in half a fee held by R. de Wudeton in Hugley; and the Escheator is ordered to give custody thereof to the said Isabella. [21]

In 1255 Robert de Lacy appears as sole Lord of Hugele, but how it came to him I cannot say, unless it were that Amice, sole

[14] Pedes Finium, 21 Hen. III, Salop.
[15] Testa de Nevill, p. 45.
[16] The Beysins reappear with an estate here in the time of Edward II, which was then purchased by Sir Walter de Beysin from Robert de Beysin of Higley, evidently a Cadet of his House. As the Beysins were Coheirs of Burwardley elsewhere, they may have derived their interest in Higley from the same source.
[17] Supra, Vol. I, p. 278.
[18] Rot. Pip. 27 Hen. III, Salop.
[19] Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. III, Salop.
[20] Inquisitions, 31 Hen. III, No. 12.
[21] Dodsworth, vol. 109.


daughter and heir of Robert de Wodeton, was his wife. It contained two hides of land, geldable,- did Suit to County and to Hundred, and paid the Sheriff 8d. for Stretward and 16d. for Motfee. It was held of Roger de Mortimer by service of doing ward for one knight's-fee at Wigmore Castle in time of war, viz. for forty days. [22]

I have spoken of Robert de Lacy under various relations and dates, viz. in 1256, 1262, and 1267. [23] I shall hereafter have more to say of him. On August 22nd, 1268, he takes out a Writ of novel disweizin against Roger de Mortimer concerning his tenement in Huggele, [24] which I think to have been in the hands of the Suzerain, by reason of Lacy's real or alleged disloyalty during the Barons' war. A second Patent, dated Oct. 10, 1268, declares that Robert de Lacy had faithfully adhered to the King during the late disturbances, and orders that he be not molested with any unjust suspicions, but have indemnity for all his losses. [24]

In August, 1271, apparently, "Amicia de Wodyntone, daughter of Robert formerly Lord of Wodyntone, in her widowhood, quit-claims to Roger de Mortimer her Manor of Huggeley, which she held of him. For this he gave her 100.- Witnesses: Sirs Brian de Brompton, Ralph de Arraz, Hugh Burnel, Adam de Elmerugge, Walter de Mungomery, Stephen de Buterley, knights: William de Hampton, John le Poer of Rameslegh, Roger de Foxcote, Thomas de Bardelegh, Robert de Dodynton, Thomas de Northgrave". [25]

A Certificate by the same Lady, whom I conclude to have been Widow of Robert de Lacy, apprises her Tenants of Huggeley that she has made this transfer. It is dated at Gloucester, August 11, 1271, and, I presume, fixes the date of the above Deed. [26]

By Deed dated at Kyngeslane in June, 1307, Roger de Mortimer gives to Dame Margaret, his Mother, the land of Kery and the Manor of Norton near Presthemede, while she renounces her dower in Hugleye and other places. From this time till 1316 I can find nothing of Higley. At the latter date Roger de Mortimer is set down as Lord of the Manor, [27] which confirms the above intimations of a previous and full reversion to the Seigneur.

BREWOOD FEE. The White Nuns of Brewood bad from an early time a small estate at Higley. At the Assizes of November, 1221, Robert de Witton was found to have disseized the Prioress of

[22] Rot. Hundred. II, 81.
[23] Supra, p. 3; Vol. I, p. 281; and Vol. III, p. 67.
[24] Patent, 52 Hen. III, dorso et recto.
[25] [26] Liber Niger de Wigmore, fo. 63 b.
[27] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 398.


St. Leonard of Brewud of a tenement in Huggele, for which she recovered 11s. damages. [28] In 1249 the Prioress of St. Leonard, is suing Brian de Brompton for levelling a stank in Huggeley. [29] In 1291 the White Nuns of Breowode had half a virgate of land in Huggeleye yielding 6s. 8d., and a mill rented at 16s. per annum. [30] In 1535-6 the White-Ladies' rents in Highley were returned at 1. 10s. 8d. [31] In 1536-7 the same rents are stated to arise from a Messuage and Mill in Higsley. [32]

Of UNDERTENANTS in Higley I have only one notice. At the Assizes of 1203 William de Kinetun and Petronilla, his wife, had a suit of mort d'ancestre against Ralph Hunter (Venatorem) for a virgate in Hugel'. Ralph Hunter at first appeared not, but afterwards came and showed that he was a Tenant in villainage under Sibil fitz William, whose demesne the said virgate was.
[33] Sibil fitz William, I need hardly point out, was the Coheiress who has been named above as Sibil de Hugley.


There was a Church here early in the twelfth century, though Domesday does not mention one in the eleventh. Between the years 1143 and 1148 the Lord of Higley, that is, Hugh de Mortimer's Feoffee there, at the request of the said Hugh, gave the Church of Huggeley to certain Augustine Canons then settled at Shobdon under their Prior Robert, and one day enjoying the patronage, another day suffering from the persecution of Mortimer. This gift took place at a great assembly at Leominster presided over by Robert de Betun, Bishop of Hereford. [34] Though Mortimer's fit of piety soon passed away, the gift of the Lord of Higley endured, and when, in 1179, the Shobdon Canons definitely settled at Wigmore, Mortimer confirmed Higley Church to the Abbey. [35]

So the Church-Taxation of 1291 says that the Church of Hugleye in the Deanery of Stottesden is the Abbot of Wigmore's, and is worth 2. 13s. 4d. per annum. [36] The Inquisition of 1341 quotes this Taxation and assesses the Parish at 22s. to the Ninth. The Taxation involved 17s. for glebe and rents and 13s. 2d. for small tithes; items which swelled the Church Taxation, but indicated no value

[28] Assizes, 6 Hen. III, m. 7.
[29] Patent, 33 Hen. III, dorso.
[30] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 162.
[31] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 193.
[32] Monasticon, V, 731.
[33] Assizes, 5 John, m. 5 recto et dorso.
[34] Wright's Ludlow, p. 110.
[35] Monasticon, VI, 349.
[36] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 166.


as regarded the present assessment. The non-cultivation of a great part of the Parish was another ground for reduction. [37] The Valor of 1534-5 gives the preferment of Thomas Rusbury, Vicar of Higley, as worth 7. in tithes. This sum was chargeable with 1s. for Archdeacon's Synodals, and 1. as a pension to the Abbot of Wigmore, a composition, it would seem, for his Rectorial rights. [38] The due is acknowledged in the Abbot of Wigmore's Account of his receipts, [39] as also in the Ministers' Accounts of 1539-40. [40]


NICHOLAS DE OXON, Deacon;- instituted to Hugefeld 15 March, 1279. Patrons: the Abbot and Convent of Wigmore.

PHILIP DE LA LOWE, Deacon;- instituted 23 Dec., 1312. Same Patrons.

JOHN DE STEPELTON resigns this Vicarage 23 Dec., 1328, exchanging with-

WALTER BRES, Priest, late Perpetual Vicar of Wiggemor.

SIR WALTER DE BOLLYNGHOPE, resigns this Living 5 Feb., 1351, and-

SIR WILLIAM DE POUNDRE, Priest, is instituted thereto. Same Patrons.

WILLIAM DE LA WALL;- instituted 13 Dec., 1369. Same Patrons.

SIR JOHN LONG, exchanges this Living 23 Nov., 1390, with-

RICHARD ODAM, late Vicar of Stoke St. Milburg.

SIR JOHN PALMER was instituted here 26 Nov., 1392, and on 25 Aug., 1397, exchanges with-

SIR HUGH DAVID, late Vicar of Holmere, in the Deanery of Hereford.

JOHN HARRIS resigns this Living 9 Nov., 1401, exchanging with-

RICHARD GODERICH, late Incumbent of Momele (Heref. Dioc.). Same Patrons.

[37] Inquis. Nonaram, p. 190.
[38] [39] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 211, 203.
[40] Monasticon, VI, 355.
[41] From Blakeway's MSS.



THIS Township of Stottesden Parish, was once a distinct Manor, thus described in Domesday:- "The same Radulf (de Mortemer) holds Ovretone and Ingelrann (holds it) of him. Edric held it (in Saxon times). Here are two hides. In demesne there is one ox-team, and (there are) II Neat-herds, III Villains, and II Boors, with one team. Its former and present value was and is 20s". [1] This Manor, like others held by Ingelrann at Domesday, and by Edric Savage before Domesday, came afterwards to the Savages, or rather I find it first in the hands of one of their representatives, one who, I think, very possibly married a Sister and Coheir of the second Adam le Savage. Richard de Overton has already been mentioned as a Visor of works at Brug Castle in 1193, [2] the period at which his presumed brother-in-law occupied a prominent position in County affairs. In 1198, Richard de Overton was amerced half a merk for diseizin. The same Richard has further occurred in 1199 as Tenant of, and as buying off, for 15s., a counter claim on a virgate in Overton, viz. the claim of Warin de Middleton. [3] A cotemporary Fine purports to be between Richard fitz Eiltrop, Plaintiff, and Warin fitz Hamon, Tenant, of twelve acres in Overton, whereof was recognition of Grand Assize. Warin conceded the premises to Richard, receiving a sum of 15s. [4] It is most probable that we have in these two fines the same parties, but described first by their local and then by their patronymic names. In November, 1208, we have Richard de Overton mentioned in connection with Corley. A Hugh de Overton, probably of this family, has been named as occurring at the Assizes of November, 1221, [5] but Geoffrey de Overton, a Knight and Grand Juror on the same occasion, was more surely head of his house. The same Geoffrey was one of the Visors of the Shropshire Forests in 1235. [6]

In October, 1237, this Geoffrey attended as Juror in a great Shropshire cause, heard before the King at Worcester, and in November, 1240,

[1] Domesday, fo. 257, a, 1.
[2] [3] Supra, Vol. I, pp. 255, 195.
[4] Pedes Finium, 1 John, Salop.
[5] Supra, Vol. III, p. 51, note 10.
[6] Supra, Vol. III, p. 215.


he was himself commissioned, with three others, to act as Justiciars in a particular suit. About this time he is set down as holding a Knight's Fee in Overton, Eudon (George), and Cornley (Corley), under Mortimer of Wigmore. [7] There seems at this period to have been some litigation among the Coheirs of Le Savage as to their respective rights. William de St. George's Quit-claim to Ralph de Mortimer has been already set forth, [8] and though the Manor Of Overton is included, the name of Geoffrey de Overton is not mentioned as Tenant thereof. The Deed must therefore be taken as a transaction between the Suzerain, and one of several Tenants, not as indicating any composition among the Tenants themselves. However it is clear that about this time some weighty matter abided a legal decision, in which Geoffrey de Overton was concerned, for at Michaelmas, 1241, he had fined the unusual sum of fifteen merks that the King might order some Inquisition. [9] His attestation of a Pickthorn deed in 1241-2, as Sir Geoffrey de Huvaratun, [10] should be noticed before I pass to some occurrences of a Geoffrey de Overton who possibly may have been the same person, but more probably his son and Successor.-

In 1251, Geoffrey de Overton was impleading William de St. George about a Tenement in Eudon. [11] In the same year, Geoffrey de Overton had been amerced half a merk for transgression, and Stephen de Overton had fined 30s. for a Writ of Attaint. [12] This was against the Verdict of a Jury, and related to property in Neen Savage, as I have shown under that Manor. [13] In 1255, Geoffrey de Overton was returned as Lord of Overton, which he held of Roger de Mortimer for half a knight's- fee. The Manor contained 1 hides, did suit to Stottesden Hundred, and paid the Sheriff 6d. for Stretward, and 12d. for Motfee. [14] Geoffrey de Overton's cotemporary interest in Eudon George, Corley, and Neen Savage, are set forth under those localities. In Neen Savage he is mentioned, together with his Son Nicholas; but in 1256, we find that he had two sons, William and Nicholas, both mentioned under Eudon George. [15] At the Assizes of that year, Geoffrey de Overton names his son William, his Attorney, in a Suit of land against Robert Corbet. [16] The latest that I find of Sir Geoffrey de Overton is perhaps

[7] Testa de Nevill, p. 45.
[8] Supra, Vol. III, p. 52.
[9] Rot. Pip. 25 Hon. III, Salop.
[10] [11] Supra, Vol. I, p. 240; Vol. III, 53.
[12] Rot. Pip. 35 Hen. III, Salop.
[13] Supra, p. 235.
[14] Rot. Hundred. II, 82.
[15] Supra, Vol. III, p. 54.
[16] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 9.


his attestation of a Deed already given under Broseley. [17] In 1257, William de Overton appears on a local Jury, as if he were then the head of his family. [18] At the Assizes of 1272, we hear of a case which probably concerned Undertenants in this Manor.- Hugh Bray failed to prosecute a Writ de Ingressu against Richard fitz Robert of Overton, for seven acres; against Alice de Clone for nine acres and half a messuage; against Philip le Moneur for two acres; and against William de Fulurde (Fulwardine) for two acres, all in Overton: so the said Hugh Bray, and his Sureties Henry fitz Philip and Roger Hewel, were in misericordia. [19]

In October, 1290, it would appear that William de Overton was dead, for his widow Matilda conceded by Fine to Thomas de Overton, Plaintiff, a messuage, a carucate of land, and 3s. 6d. rent in Feghelesworthyn (Fulwardine) for a life annuity of five merks, payable to herself. [20] I think that the Tenant of a knight's-fee in Overton and Cornleye, mentioned in the almost illegible Inquisition on the death of Edmund de Mortimer in 1304, is Geoffrey de Overton. [21] On December 20, 1310, we have had Geoffrey, Lord of Overton, and Thomas, his brother, attesting a local Deed, [22] and a similar deed of July, 1311, has the attestation of Geoffrey, Lord of Uverton. [23]

The Return of 1316, known as the Nomina Villarum, gives Ralph Barraz (meaning D'Arraz) as Lord of the vill of Overtone, [24] but this I cannot understand, for I have already cited a Deed of 1316-7, which relates to a neighbouring vill, and is primarily attested by Peter de Overton. [25] The same Peter has also occurred as Lord of Overton in 1325-6, and as Peter de Overton in 1339-40. [26] I shall have more to say of his Family elsewhere.

Walton Savage.

THIS Vill, like Overton, is parochially a member of Stottesden, but was in ancient times a distinct Manor. Domesday thus mentions it:- "The same Radulf (de Mortemer) holds Waltone (of

[17] Supra, Vol. II, p. 37.
[18] Inquisitions, 41 Hen. III, No. 37.
[19] Assizes, 56 Hen. III, m. 3.
[20] Pedes Finium, 18 Edw. I, Salop.
[21] Inquisitions, 32 Edw. I, No. 63, b.
[22] [23] Supra, pp. 176, 177.
[24] Parliamestary Writs, IV, 398.
[25] [26] Supra, pp. 175, 176.


Earl Roger), and Ingelrann holds it of him (Radulf). Edric held it and was free. Here is half a hide geldable. In demesne are one ox team, and IIII Serfs, and VI Boors. Its value (in Saxon times) was 10s. per annum. Its present value is 8s. He (Radulf) found it waste". [1] This is the third Manor which has come under notice as held in 1086 by Mortimer's Tenant, Ingelrann. There were at least seven such Manors, [2] and one of them was the Hampshire Manor of Anne. Now, when I say that in each of these seven Manors Ingelrann was succeeded by Le Savage, I fortify my former presumption [3] that Ingelrann was the Ancestor of that Family. Besides these seven Manors I can name four [4] not held by Ingelrann at Domesday, but in which Le Savage or his Coheirs had, or seem to have had, a subsequent Interest. These four Manors were held among four distinct Domesday Tenants, whom I do not reckon to have been Ancestors of Le Savage, but think that Le Savage's Fief was increased after Domesday by several grants of the Suzerain, as Manors from time to time came to his redisposal. Of the eleven Manors which form the above two classes, I observe that in Saxon times four [5] had been held by Edric Savage, but this I think to be accidental, and not to imply any blood descent from Edric Savage to Ingelrannus or the Savages. All Edric's Manors did not come to Mortimer, and of those which did, the majority are not subsequently found to be held by Ingelrann, or by his descendants. Therefore the genealogical temptation which I have before alluded to, [6] and which might induce us to recognise an ancestor of Le Savage in Edric Savage, must be resisted.

I find no cotemporary Record (further than the name) that speaks of Walton Savage at the time when it was held by Le Savage. In the absence of any Chartulary of Wigmore Abbey, I can only

[1] Domesday, fo. 257, a, 1.
[2] Viz. Neen Savage, Overton, Walton-Savage, Sheet, Lectune, Watford, and Anne (vide Domesday, fo. 47, a, 1). The last Manor was afterwards called Anne Savage (Testa de Nevill, p. 233).
[3] Vide supra, p. 222.- A Pedigree (in the Harleian MS., No. 1087) actually describes the Domesday Ingelrann as "Engeron Salvagius Dominus de Walton". This said pedigree makes Engeron to have been Father of William, whose son Adam was Father of Adam II and Hugh. Hugh purports to have been Father of Adam III and Thomas;- and Adam III to have had issue Henry and Hugh. As this Genealogy will not stand the test of better evidences it is worthless, except to point out the tradition that Ingelrann was ancestor of the Savages, which Tradition some Herald has apparently done his best to falsify by the exercise of his own fancy.
[4] Viz. Eudon-George, Stepple, Rudge, and Corley.
[5] Viz. Overton, Walton Savage, Eudon-George, and Rudge.
[6] Supra, Vol. III, p. 50.


suggest that a House founded by the Mortimers was likely to be enriched by the contributions of Mortimer's chief Vassals. In 1255, the transfer of Walton to Wigmore Abbey was complete, and the state of the Manor was thus returned by the Jurors of Stottesden Hundred:- "The Abbot of Wygemore is Lord of Walton Savage, and is enfeoffed by Roger de Mortimer. Therein is half a hide of land. It does suit to the Hundred twice yearly, but not to the Lesser Hundred Courts. It pays the Sheriff 2d. Stretward, and 4d. Motfee". [7]

King Henry III, by Charter dated at Windsor, Oct. 4, 1265, granted to the Abbot and Convent of Wigmore, that they and their Tenants at Shobdon (Herefordshire), and at Kayham and Walton (Shropshire), "which estates they had by gift of the Ancestors of Roger de Mortimer", should be quit of all Suits of County and Hundred, quit also of View of Frankpledge, Scott, Geld, Toll, and Aids of Sheriffs, or other Officers; also that they should appropriate the amerciaments of their own tenants, and all fines pro licentia concordandi, and all fines paid by persons arrested within the said Manors in lieu of imprisonment, whatever were the offence for which they should be imprisoned;- saving only all attachments for Pleas of the Crown. [8]

On the strength of this Charter, and soon after it passed, that is after the siege of Kenilworth, the Abbot of Wigmore withdrew the Suit of Walton from Stottesden Hundred, as also did he withdraw the Suit of Caynham from Overs Hundred, [9] thus imitating his Patron Roger de Mortimer in an attempt to establish the independence of his Manors. In 1291, the Abbot of Wigmore's assized rents in Walton were 3. 3s. 9d. He had also rents there appertaining to vesture (profits on woodland, I suppose) amounting to 1. 6s. 8d. Manual labours performable by Customary Tenants in Cainham and Walton were valued at 10s. 8d. [10]

In 1534-5 the Abbot's Ferms and Rents in Walton were 5. 1s. 10d. Among his tithes of corn and hay 7s. arose from Walton, [11] but whether this was another form of a pension of 13s. 4d. which he had at one time received from Stottesden Church [12] I

[7] Rot. Hundred. II, 82. The alleged Feoffment by Roger de Mortimer is a general term, not necessarily implying anything more than that the consent of the Suzerain had been given to a grant by his Vassal.
[8] Rot. Chart. 49 Hen. III, m. 3.
[9] Rot. Hundred. II, 108, 103.
[10] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 165, a.
[11] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 203.
[12] Supra, p. 155.


cannot determine. In 1539-40 the Ministers' Accounts enter the following assets of the late Monastery under Walton.- Assized rents, 13s. Rents of Customary Tenants, 2. 8s. 10d. Sundry Ferms, 2. 0s. 10d. Tithes, 7s. 4d. Perquisites of Court, 2s. 8d. Total, 5. 12s. 8d. [13]

Wall Town.

The very name of Wall-Town, as Mr. Blakeway observes, is suggestive of a Roman origin. Mr. Blakeway follows up this idea by a description of a Roman encampment at Wall Town, conspicuous in his day, and still clearly traceable, but which he says had at the time he wrote escaped general notice. It was in the form of an exact square, each side measuring 400 feet. The old road from Bridgnorth to Cleobury passed right through its centre, entering at the Praetorian and passing out at the Decuman Gate. The present Road goes out at the South-East corner. No coins or other remains had been discovered in Mr. Blakeway's time. He notices that in digging out a Cellar for a farm-house, [1] the soil was observed to be very black, and was evidently mixed with charcoal.

THERE can be little doubt that Wall-Town, now a member of Neen Savage, was represented by the Domesday Manor of Walle.- "The same Radulf (de Mortemer) holds (of the Earl) Walle, and Richard holds it of him. Uluric held it (in Saxon times). Here is one hide geldable. There is arable land sufficient for two ox-teams. Here there is one (such team), with II Neatherds. Its former value was 6s. Now it is worth 8s. (per annum)". [2] It will be remembered that Uluric the Saxon had been Lord of a part of Neen, and that that part was held by Richard at Domesday. It seems to me that nothing of these two Tenures of Richard's descended to the Bromptons, nor yet were they annexed to Le Savage's share of Neen. The bulk of them was, I think, annexed to the demesne of Cleobury Mortimer, a part was given to Wigmore Abbey, and the residue became the subject of several minor feoffments or other transactions in which the Suzerain is constantly interested.- And here I must speak of WALL-TOWN, ELCOTT, NETHERCOTT, collectively, as also of a place called ROCHULL, near to Wall-Town. I

[13] Monasticon, Vol. VI, 355.
[1] This farm-house is, I presume, the one which still occupies a part of the site of the encampment. It is the property of Wm. Lacon Child, Esq., of Kinlet.
[2] Domesday, fo. 257, a, 1.


take the following Deeds to have passed about 1200-1210.- "Roger de Mortimer grants to William de Spyneto, for his homage, the land of Rockehull:- the Grantee to pay six Woodcocks [4] at the feast of St. Andrew (Nov. 30). Witnesses:- Walter de Nonememill, [5] Adam Salvage, Ralph de Mortimer,Robert Corbet, Ernald de Bosco, Thomas Clerk, who wrote the Charter". This William de Spineto occurs as a Knight and Juror of a Grand Assize which I have mentioned under Nordley Regis as having been tried at the Assizes of 1203. [6] He was possibly the same person as he whom I have noticed still earlier under Ingwardine. [5] At the Assizes of November 1240, a Fine was levied "between William de Eyton and Matilda his wife, [7] Plaintiffs, and Roger de Rochull, Tenant, of two thirds of a virgate in Rochull; also between the same Plaintiffs and the said Roger, whom Agnes de Rochull called to warranty, and who vouched such warranty,- of a third of a virgate there, whereof was Plea, etc. Roger in both cases acknowledged the right of Matilda, who, together with her husband, conceded the premises to Roger,- to have and to hold, under William and Matilda and their heirs, at an annual rent of 20s". [8] Agnes, here named, was, I suppose, Mother of Roger de Rochull. The other parties to the Fine will occur elsewhere.

On November 8, 1248, a Fine was levied "between Arnald de Berkele, complainant (through Philip de Pres, his Attorney), and Robert Lune and Juliana his wife, Impedients,- of half a virgate in La Walle whereof was Plea of Warranty of Charter. Robert and Juliana acknowledged the premises to be the Complainant's by their own gift,- to hold to him and his heirs, of Robert and Juliana and the heirs of Juliana at a penny rent. Arnald gave for this 10 merks". [9] This affair was clearly a sale. Of the Purchaser we shall hear again elsewhere, but here I should notice that in January 1266, and again in Hilary Term 1268, Arnald de Berkele appears before the King

[3] Liber Niger de Wigmore, fo. 62.
[4] Withecocos is the word which I translate "woodcocks", without any authority other than a guess.
[5] Was this Witness the person already mentioned as Walter de Neufmesnil,- Father-in-Law, about 1214-5, of Brian de Brompton (II.) (vide supra, pp. 247-8); or was he some Feoffee of Mortimer in the vill afterwards known as Neen-Monell (vide supra, p. 230) and supposed to be identical with the Richard's-Nene of Domesday? Or, lastly, was there some connection between these similar names which I have failed to detect?
[6] Supra, Vol. III, p. 157. Vol. IV, p. 189.
[7] I have mentioned William de Eyton said Matilda his wife, under the same date but a very distant locality, viz. Leonard's Lee (Vol. II, p. 315).
[8] [9] Pedes Finium, 25 and 33 Hen. III, Salop.


in a suit against Walter de Pedwardine, who, during the late disturbance of the realm, had seized the working cattle and done other injury at Rokulle. [10] The following Deeds passed between 1270 and 1282.- "Agnes, Widow of Richard de Benebelle, quit-claims to Roger de Mortimer all her right in certain lands, etc. lying in Rochull-a-la-Walle, Eldecote (Elcott), Nene and Fencote, and wherever her Brother Ernald de Berkeley held in Shropshire. Witnesses:- Sirs Thomas Corbet (of Tasley I presume), William Corbet (of Chetton probably), Robert Blundel, Thomas Boterel, William de Huggeford, Matthew de Gamages, Adam le Butiler, Master John de Croft".

"William Faber of Nethercotc quit-claims to Roger de Mortimer that land in La Walle, which he bought of said Roger. Witnesses:- William de la Stepple, John de Malleye (Mawley), John de Beaulieu, Nicholas de Hyntes, William de Foxcote, Nicholas de Eldecote (Elcott)". [11]

Forest of Wyre.

BEWDLEY FOREST, under its more ancient appellation of Wyre, was a district so vast as that a whole County got its name therefrom; for Wyre-ceastre (Worcester) was a Roman station in this Forest, and becoming the chief City of the district, that district was called Worcestershire. I am now to notice the Forest of Wyre as greatly reduced from this primeval state;- no longer extending along the Severn to Worcester, but being rather in Shropshire than Worcestershire; that is, while its southern and smaller half was in the latter County, its greater half occupied the south-eastern angle of Shropshire.

This greater half is that which I must needs notice as forming a principal feature in the territory which owned the Seigneury of Mortimer. I have more than once observed that Domesday tells us nothing of these Forest-lands, neither of their state in Saxon times nor of their assignment under the Normans. What we are not told can however easily be inferred in the case before us. There

[10] Placita coronae Rege, 50 Hen. III, m. 7, and 52 Hen. III, m. 9.
[11] Liber Niger de Wigmore, fo. 62.


were four Manors within a short distance of the Shropshire part of Wyre Forest, which, from their position and status, might, any one of them, be supposed to have had such a Forest as an appurtenance. They were Stottesden, Higley, Cleobury, and Kinlet, the two first belonging to the Earldom of Mercia, the two last to the Saxon Crown. The two last are nearer to Wyre Forest than the two first, and the greater the Forest the more likely was it to belong to a King than an Earl. I therefore assume that in Saxon times the Shropshire part of Wyre Forest was attached to Cleobury and Kinlet, that it went with both Manors to William fitz Osbern, Earl of Hereford, then to Ralph de Mortimer, but that when Mortimer enfeoffed a Tenant in Kinlet, he retained the Forest or the bulk of it as an adjunct of his demesne-manor of Cleobury. I should observe that the proper and technical designation of a Forest when no longer held by the Crown was a Chace, and the fact that Wyre was yet called a Forest after it was dissevered from the Crown is only an additional proof of its sometime Royal ownership. In process of time, and under the rule of Mortimer, several Vills sprang up within the Forest of Wyre which are unnoticed in Domesday, obviously because they were not then in existence. One of these, Earnwood (i.e. eagle-wood), bears in its very name a conviction that the spot was so called before it was known as a habitation of man. Of this vill, which I cannot properly class as a member of any Domesday Manor, I will speak presently. I will here proceed at once to the only Record which tells us of Mortimer's progressive dealings with this Forest as a whole, and of the jurisdiction which he endeavoured to maintain, obviously as Lord of a Forest sometime Royal. At the time (1270) when Prince Edward was embarking for Palestine, the Forest of Wyre was fenced for miles, so as to prevent any depredations of the beasts of chase in the cultivated districts adjoining. Roger de Mortimer, the hero of Evesham, took occasion of his great position, to enlarge or revive his rights as the case may have been. Before the close of the year 1274 he had levelled no less than two leagues of the above fence, so that the beasts of the Forest, going in and out at pleasure, wrought the greatest havoc throughout the country. Moreover, he arrogated to himself a right of free-chace, not only in Wyre Forest, but in the Manors of his Tenants at Kinlet and Baveney. Even Sir Nicholas de Segrave, the King's Tenant of Stottesden, and another King's Tenant at Bardley could no longer call their woods their own. No one dared to hunt in those woods because of Mortimer's asserted jurisdiction. "Thus",


said the Stottesden Jurors of 1274, "has Roger de Mortimer exceeded the limits and boundaries of his Chace". [1]

This testimony of the Stottesden Jurors is curiously illustrated by a coeval document of a very different nature, but showing another mode in which the dormant jurisdiction was being revived. By a deed dated at Lichfield on April 21, 1270, Ralph, the Dean, and the Chapter of Lichfield recite how Sir Roger de Mortimer had given them license to fence a wood called Sechele, [2] which was within his Free Chace of Wyre, but belonged to the Dean and Chapter's Church of Arle (Upper Arley). They covenant to remove the fence at the end of seven years, commencing on Trinity Sunday 1270. [3]

I have nothing further to relate as to the success of Mortimer's attempt to revive a quasi-royal status for the Forest of Wyre. When I come to speak of the Forest of the Clee-Hill, which, having been likewise Royal, was given to the Cliffords, the attempted maintenance of a similar jurisdiction will, with all its grievances, more circumstantially appear.


EARNWOOD, now a Manor in the Parish of Kinlet, was originally a Forest-residence (with a Park attached) of the Mortimers. On February 13, 1225, King Henry III commands Hugh de Nevill (he was Justice of the Forest) to let Hugh de Mortimer have ten Does (damas) from Feckenham (a Royal Forest in Worcestershire) which the King has given him towards stocking his Park of Ernewud. [4] In Trinity Term 1251 Roger de Ernewude and Marilla his wife, Deforciants of half a virgate in "Maubeg, near the great Park of Wyre", concede the same by fine, and as their gift, to Lucas le Marescall, who is to hold it of the Lord of the Fee. The Purchaser, for such he clearly was, gives 20 merks to the Vendors. [5]

Mortimer then had allowed a partial occupation of this district for agricultural purposes. We next hear of his using his own Manor House of Ernewoode somewhat in the way of a prison. He conveyed Henry de Pembruge hither, probably to complete certain purposes of extortion which I have before set forth. [6] This was in 1267. In 1293 we have Edmund de Mortimer concerning himself in

[1] Rot. Hundred. II, 108.
[2] Seckley Wood is still so called. It lies west of the Severn, about a mile below Upper Arley, which is on the east of the same river.
[3] Liber Niger de Wigmore, fo. 62.
[4] Claus. II, 16.
[5] Pedes Finium, 25 Hen. III, Salop.
[6] Supra, Vol. II, pp. 228, 229.


this district. On Sept. 29 Roger, son of Roger de la Broctoke, quit-claims to the said Edmund all his right at La Broctok in Wynnewode (now Winwoods) in exchange for a tenement in Gurdechirche which he (Roger) then held by Charter of said Edmund.- Witnesses:- William de Foxcote, Walter de la Stepple, Richard de Clebury. [7] On April 19, 1296, the same person, calling himself Roger de Brochok, gives to Sir Edmund de Mortimer and Margaret his wife, for 2 merks, all his wood lying between Kyneleteswode (Kinlet-wood) and Sir Edmund's own Bosc, and extending from the field at Metene (Meaton) as far as to Doules. [8]- Witnesses: Sir Ralph de Araz, Sir Adam de St. George, William de Foxcote, Walter de la Steple, Ralph de la Lowe of Neen, Nicholas de Oldecote, Clerk, and Nicholas de Oldecote (Elcott) [9].


AFTER an enumeration of Rainald the Sheriff's Alnodestreu Manors, Domesday mentions two in Condetret Hundred, viz. Nortone and Dodintone, and then reverts to a Manor in Bascherch Hundred, viz. Etbritone, which (apparently from some peculiarity in its status) had been omitted in its proper place, and reserved to the end of the list. Of Norton in Condetret Hundred, Domesday speaks thus:-

"The same Rainald (Sheriff) holds Nortone (of the Earl) and Toret (holds it) of him. He (Toret) held it freely in time of King Edward. Here are II hides geldable. In demesne there is I ox-team and (there are) VI Serfs and V Villains, with II teams and other two teams might yet be (employed) here. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 20s. per annum. Now it is worth 15s". [1] There is no appearance of error in this part of the Domesday Record,

[7] Liber Niger de Wigmore, fo. 62.
[8] By Doules we are not to understand the vill of Dowles, which was four miles distant from Meaton. Such a supposition would make this Charter an enormous transfer. Dowles was originally the name of the stream which, rising near Meaton, falls into the Severn close to Dowles. The vill took its name from the stream, and that name belongs to an older language than the Saxon (compare supra, p. 230).
[9] Liber Niger de Wigmore, fo. 61, b.
[1] Domesday, fo. 255, b, 1.


and as regards Dodintone, its accuracy is substantiated by later Records, for a Manor so called, in Stottesden Hundred, continued with the Fitz Alans, the Successors of Rainald. As regards Nortone in Condetret Hundred, held by Toret in King Edward's time, and in 1086 held by the same Toret of Rainald, and which we expect to find afterwards Fitz Alan's, I must speak with some conjecture. I think it was Norton, adjoining Aston Botterell, another of Rainald's Manors; and I first fortify this opinion by stating that Aston Botterell contained I hide at Domesday and Nortone II hides, whilst in the Record of 1255 Aston Botterell alone is estimated to contain III hides, and Norton is not mentioned, having been I suppose annexed to Aston, [2] as it is at this day both parochially and manorially. As to Toret's connection with Nortone, and its discontinuance as regards Toret's descendants, that, so far from being inexplicable, is in keeping with all analogy.- I have before shown that the Norman policy was to remove even the most favoured Saxons from their ancient possessions, [3] giving them something elsewhere, and that this work went on after Domesday was compiled. Of Toret we know specifically that his descendants inherited estates which were not his at Domesday, and conversely, that they did not inherit all which appear as his in that Survey. Again the very name of Norton shows me that it was not originally a member of Aston Botterell, for it lies nearly south of the latter Vill, and must have been called North-town from some other ancient relation. I conclude then that Rainald or one of his Successors removed Toret or his descendants from Norton and annexed the Vill to the Fee of Aston Botterell.

Of Aston Botterell as a whole, I have already given account. It remains to add one or two particulars as to this its member. I find one Walter de Norton (doubtless Botterell's Tenant here) attesting a Loughton Deed about 1268, [4] and sitting as a Juror of Stottesden Hundred at the Assizes of 1272 and again at the Inquest of 1274, when it appeared that Hugh Donvil, sometime Bailiff of the Hundred, had taken 12d. from him, and being so bribed had removed him from some panel. [5] Moreover, John de la Watere, Constable of Corfham, had extorted 20s. from him, requiring him to give up the heir of his Brother, which heir he never saw. One John de Norton had also been accused of theft by John Baril (Under Sheriff) at instigation of Roger, Clerk of Plesse (Receiver of the County). Thus half a merk had been extorted from him. The Feodary of 1284

[2] Vide supra, Vol. I, p. 225, note 19.
[3] Supra, Vol. II, p. 49.
[4] Salop Chartulary, No. 107.
[5] Rot. Hundred. II, 107, 109.


enumerates four members of Aston Botterell. [6] One of them is written Necton, and stands doubtless for Norton. Walter de Norton above-mentioned occurs again as a Juror for Stottesden Hundred and on a Jury at Bridgnorth in 1292. [7]

Detton, formerly Dodintone.

"THE same Rainald (Sheriff) holds Dodintone (of the Earl) and Robert holds it of him (Rainald). Eluuard and Elric held it (in Saxon times) for two Manors, and were free. Here are II hides geldable. In demesne are II ox-teams, and (there are) VII Serfs, I Villain, IIII Boors and I Radman with I team only. In time of King Edward the Manor was worth 24s. per annum. Now it is worth 15s. He (Rainald) found it waste". [1]

Such is the Domesday account of the Manor of Detton, now represented by Detton-Hall, in the Parish of Neen Savage, but of whose early history we know little, and are somewhat left to conjecture. In 1165 the Record of Fees constituting the Barony of Fitz Alan mentions Hugh de Cunedoure as holding by the services of one Muntator. [2] That his Feoffment lay in the quarter of Shropshire whereof we are now treating, is probable from his name being mentioned between those of Fitz-Alan's Feoffees at Brockton and Upton (Cressett). Moreover, if Detton were not Hugh de Cunedoure's Fee, I am at a loss to conjecture what was, nor can I possibly fix upon any other name in this list of Feoffees as likely to represent the Lord of Detton. After an interval of sixty years a piece of evidence arises to strengthen this opinion that Hugh de Cunedoure was Lord of Detton. At the Assizes of November 1221 the Manor of Dodinton was subject to a trial by Grand Assize, Simon de Cone claiming it against Robert de Cunedour, the Tenant in possession. [3] Robert's right was found to be the better, and Simon, with his Sureties (Ralph de la Low and Richard de Berdell) were in misericordia. It is added that Thomas fitz Roger apposes, that is sinks, his claim. [4] It is vain

[6] Supra, Vol. I, p. 227.
[7] Supra, Vol. III, p. 216.
[1] Domesday, fo. 255, b, 1.
[2] Liber Niger, I, 144.
[3] Assizes, 6 Hen. III, m. 4.
[4] Thomas fitz Roger was cotemporary Lord of Cleobury North (vide supra, Vol. III, p. 26).


to guess at the several relations which this Suit may imply between the three parties named. Robert de Cunedour, of 1221, I take to have been representative of Hugh de Cunedour in 1165. The Descendants of Robert de Cunedour assumed, I think, the name of Dodinton. There was one Adam de Dodinton who occurs under circumstances which associate him with this neighbourhood in 1226, 1242, and again between the latter year and 1251. [5] I do not however think that he was Lord of Detton, for about 1240 we have good assurance that Robert de Dodinton was holding Dodinton by half a knight's-fee (the usual equivalent to a whole Muntator's Fee), of the Barony of Fitz Alan. [6] This Robert seems to have been succeeded by one John de Dodinton, and the latter to have died before 1255, leaving a son under age. Hence the Inquest of Stottesden Hundred, in 1255, reports of Dodyton, that Roger de Pynelesdon, as Custos of the son and heir of John de Dodyton, holds the Manor, he having that custody by grant of John fitz Alan (the Suzerain). The Manor was estimated to contain a hide and a half, and accordingly paid 6d. for Stretward, and 12d. for Motfee, but this estimate shows a decrease of half a hide from that of Domesday. Dodyton did Suit to the Hundred. [7] I find Robert de Dodinton (probably the Minor aforesaid) sitting as a Juror on the Beysin Inquest of September, 1263. The Inquisition on the death of the third John Fitz Alan, in 1272, is so defaced that I am obliged to appeal to an abstract thereof taken long since, and which places Dodinton among his Fees. [8] At the Assizes of 1272 and the Inquest of 1274, Robert de Doditon sat as a Juror for Stottesden Hundred. Robert de Trillec (Under Sheriff) had taken a bribe from him for removing him off some Jury. It was a ring worth 2s. In 1278 one Thomas de Dodinton sat at the Inquest on the death of Thomas de Bardley. Again, in 1280, we have had mention of Robert de Doditon (doubtless Lord of Detton), who with Isolda his wife, appose (or sink) their claim to a part of the estate lately held by Philip de Farlow. [9] It is probable that Isolda was a Coheiress in that estate. The Feodary of 1284 says of Dodington that "Robert de Dodington holds it of Richard Fitz Alan, of the Honour of White-Minster, for half a knight's-fee, and the said Richard holds it of the King in capite". [10] In November, 1291, Robert de Dodinton sat on the Inquest after the death of Philip de Badger. In 1292 he appears as a Juror for

[5] Supra, Vol. I, pp. 191, 225, and Vol. II, p. 99.
[6] Testa de Nevill, p. 44.
[7] Rot. Hundred. II, 81.
[8] Calendar of Inquisitions, Vol. I, p. 40.
[9] Supra, Vol. II, p. 99.
[10] Kirby's Quest.


Stottesden Hundred, and as a Tenant of 3 acres in the neighbouring estate of Bardley. [11] In December, 1292, he was on a Jury at Bridgnorth. [12] He also appears as a witness in more than one undated Deed of this period, [13] and was perhaps the person who, as Robert de Dotinton, sat a Juror on the great Forest Perambulation of 1300. [14] More of him I cannot say, but his successor is probably indicated by the Nomina Villarum of March 1316, where John de Dodinton is entered as Lord of this Vill. [15]

DETTON CHAPEL. Some remains of this Structure were existent within memory. [16] The district was parochially a member of Neen Savage, and where the Lords of two adjacent Manors were so essentially distinct as in the case before us, a Chapel was almost sure to be founded in whichever Manor was not the seat of the Mother Church.


THIS place figures in Domesday as Waltha (Waltham), a name so different from Wheathill in sound and signification, that we must ascribe the change to a mere error of the Clerk who wrote the following passage in the Survey.- "The same Roger (de Laci) holds Waltha of the Earl. Elmund held it (in Saxon times). Here are III hides. In demesne are II ox-teams and X Serfs; and IIII Villains with a Provost have II Teams. In time of King Edward the Manor was worth 40s. (per annum). Now it is worth 60s., besides a rent of one sparrow-hawk". [1] I omit the tedious but nevertheless infallible process by which it may be proved that the Manor thus described was Wheathill. Suffice it to say that of Lacy's subsequent possessions in Stottesden Hundred, Wheathill alone would have no Domesday representative, if it be not described as above, and Waltham can correspond in circumstances of Tenure and position with no later Manor except it be Wheathill. Wheathill was then the only Manor in Condetret Hundred, which Roger

[11] Supra, p. 179.
[12] Supra, Vol. III, p. 216.
[13] Supra, Vol. II, pp. 55 n. 75 n.
[14] Salop Chartulary, No. 279.
[15] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 398.
[16] Blakeway's MSS. and Dukes's Appendix, p. xii.
[1] Domesday, fo. 256, b. 2.


de Lacy held of the Norman Earls, for he held Hopton (Wafre) of the King. Elmund, the Saxon Lord of Wheathill, had been also Lord of Morton (i.e. Morton Say in North Shropshire). This too was Roger de Lacy's at Domesday, and to complete the parallel, Morton and Wheathill were in after-times held under Lacy by the same Feoffee, viz. Say of Stokesay. I am not proposing to give under Wheathill any successional account of Lacy, the Seignoral Lord, nor yet to detail all that I have collected as to his immediate Tenant, De Say. The Under-tenants of the latter, De Girros and Hacket, will form the prominent subject. However, it may be fitting to premise that the Says were enfeoffed in Wheathill by Lacy before the death of Henry I, that is, between 1086 and 1135, for the three knights'-fees which Helyas de Sai acknowledged himself in 1165 to be then holding of Hugh de Laci were of old feoffment. [2] There were also two other fees which he denied holding under Laci; that is, Laci could obtain no service from the same without legal process. These five fees afterwards resolved themselves into four, and of those four Wheathill was unquestionably one. The earliest notice which I have of the Hakets, who became De Say's Tenants here, is very possibly of a date prior to their feoffrnent in Wheathill. In 1176 King Henry II, having held Pleas of the Forest at Worcester, had amerced Walter Haket 10 merks and William Haket 50 merks. [3] In 1180 a Tenant in Wethale named Wuniet was charged 6d. by the Justices of the Forest for an imbladement of one acre; but the whole Vill of Hwethull, described as belonging to William de Girras, was amerced half a merk for waste. [4] This was that Wiliam de Girros, whose grant of half a hide in Leverdegrene to Wenlock Priory, was confirmed towards the close of the twelfth Century by Hugh de Sai, as Seignoral Lord, in a Deed which I shall set forth more fully when I come to speak of that member of Wheathill anciently known as Leverdegrene. In November, 1194, I find Walter Hachet (then, I think, of Wheathill) associated with other Jurors of Stottesden Hundred, in a Suit which I have mentioned under Chetton. [5] Whether Oliver Haket (who in October 1199 was Recognizor in a Suit given under Castle Holgate) [6] was of Wheathill, I cannot say.

[2] Liber Niger, I, 154.
[3] Rot. Pip. 22 Hen. II, Worcestershire.- It is perhaps irrelevant to observe that Wheathill was within the jurisdiction of the Clee Forest, which, at the time of this Assize, would seem on other evidence to have been in the King's Hand.
[4] Forest Roll, No. I.
[5] [6] Supra, Vol. I, p. 181. Vol. IV, p. 62.


At the Assizes of October 1203 Walter Haket is twice named as Surety of certain Litigants, and on these accounts, or some other, stands on the amercement-list as a debtor of one merk. On November 3, 1236, a Fine was levied between John le Poher, Plaintiff, and Juliana daughter of Walter Haket, Tenant, of a virgate in Whethull, whereof was assize of mort d'ancestre. The Plaintiff renouncing his claim, received 20s. [7] About the year 1240 we have three Lists of the Shropshire Tenants of Walter de Lacy. All three are inaccurate, but supply, when collated, the following fact,- that Walter de Say then held four knights'-fees of that Barony, viz. in Northstok, Suthstok, and Wethul;- that is, Stoke upon Tern, Stokesay, and Wheathll. [8] The Undertenants in each are not given.

In Easter Term 1244, Amice widow of William Aurabu was suing Roger de Ledewys and John de Hunseslaw for her dower, viz. a third of two several virgates in Whethille. [9] In Michaelmas Term 1249, a Grand Assize was pending between the Prior of Wenlock, Plaintiff, and Walter Haket, Tenant of 53 acres of wood in Stok (Stoke St. Milburg). [10] In Michaelmas Term 1250, the still unawarded land is described as in Wodhull. [11]

In 1255 the Jurors of Stottesden Hundred returned Walter Haket as Lord of Whethull. "He held it of Hugh de Say by service of one knight's-fee. It contained three hides of land, and did suit to the Hundred Courts. It also owed ward at Montgomery, for 40 days in war-time. It paid the Sheriff 12d. for Motfee and 2s. for Stretward". [12] Here the Seigneury of De Lacy's heirs is not stated, though it existed. The service of Castle-Guard at Montgomery was common to several Manors, originally of Lacy's Fief. Patton, already noticed, [13] is an instance of this. Walter Haket was himself on the Jury which made the above report. At the Assizes of January 1256 John de Brondon sued Walter Haket for disseizing him of a right of common-pasture in Egarton, which right pertained to the Tenement which the said John held under the said Walter in Brondon (now Bromden). Walter Haket pleaded that if there had been any disseizin it was by Margery his (Walter's) Mother, whose heir he was. The Jury found that Margery had indeed disseized John de Brondon, but that the latter had still sufficient common-pasture

[7] Pedes Finium, 21 Hen. III, Salop.
[8] Testa de Nevill, pp. 46, 48, 50.
[9] Placita, Easter Tm. 28 Hen. III, m. 9 dorso.
[10] [11] Placita, Mich Term, 33 & 34 Hen. III, m. 10 and 28 dorso. Mich. Term, 34 & 35 Hen. III, m. 19 dorso.
[12] Rot. Hundred. II, 82, 81.
[13] Supra, Vol. III, pp. 44, 45.


according to the Statute of Merton. [14] Another Suit gives Walter Haket as suing John de Bromden for disseizing him of common pasture in Wethul, and taking means to prevent him driving his cattle to the said pasture, by erecting a fence. The Jury were satisfied as to the disseizin, but as to the fence, it had been erected by Haket's consent, and after a consideration paid to the said Haket by the Defendant. [15] At the same Assizes, Avice Widow of William le Orfeure, sued John de Bromton (Bromden) for a third of a virgate in Whethul as her dower. The Defendant called Roger Constantyn to warranty, but Roger Constantyn did not appear on the right day. [16] Afterwards, viz. on Feb. 5, Roger Constantyn appeared, and called Walter Haket to warranty, but the result does not transpire, except that certain land of Roger Constantyn having been seized in manu Regis for his first default in warranty, is restored to him on Feb. 14, under pledges. [17] At these same Assizes Walter Haket was a Juror for Stottesden Hundred. In August 1256 Walter Haket fines one merk to have an assize, [18] apparently one of novel disseizin against William de Ledewic and others who had disseized Haket of a tenement in Wethul and common-pasture in La Clye (The Clee). [19] In January 1257 Walter Haket occurs on a neighbouring Jury, and in December 1258 John de Brimidon occurs on another. At the Assizes of September 1272 Walter Haket was a Defaulter in attendance, and was reported as Tenant of a Knight's-fee, and yet not a Knight, though of full age. I should have supposed him to have been dead, and his son under age, for in November 1274 the Inquest on Stottesden Hundred found that Sir Robert de Torbervil had for four years previously been holding pleas as to the Assize of Beer in his Court of Wethul. He had also for the same period withdrawn the Suit of this Manor from Stottesden Hundred. The same Inquest reported how Hugh Donvil, a former Bailiff of the Hundred, had removed John de Brandon from some Jury for a bribe of 12d.; how John de la Watere, Constable of Corfham, had extorted half a merk from Roger le Burger of Wethul, for taking a bundle of thorns from the woods of the Lord of Corfham, and a similar sum from Richard fitz Agnes of

[14] Assizes, 40 Hen. III. memb. 12.- The statutes of Merton (20 Hen. III) gave the Lords of Manors license to approve against their Tenants; that is, to enclose and cultivate waste lands, so that sufficient Common was left.
[15] Ibidem, memb. 2 dorso.
[16] [17] Ibidem, membranes 12 and 16 dorso. Roger de Constantine was cotemporary Lord of Fulwardine (vide supra, Vol. I, p. 138).
[18] [19] Rot. Pip. 40 Hen. III. Pat. 40 Hen. III, dorso.


Wethul, for taking one hazel-rod from the same. [20] Sir Robert de Turberville above mentioned was probably Guardian of young Walter Haket, now in minority. We have heard of him before as marrying the Widow of Robert de Beysin between 1267 and 1272. [21] It was he, I doubt not, who, with John de Turbervill, is noticed as a Marcher (Commarcio) in a Patent of Dec. 15, 1264, and urged to desist from depredations which Roger de Mortimer and other Marchers had agreed should be suspended. These Turbervilles were evidently Royalists of the Mortimer stamp. In 1284 the Lacy Seigneury here was in Theobald de Verdon one of Lacy's Coheirs; the mediate interest of the Says was in Laurence de Ludlow, and Walter Haket was entered as the Lord of the Fee, holding the same by service of one knight's-fee under Ludlow, who held of Verdon, who held of the King in capite. [22] The Stottesden Jurors, at the Assizes of October 1292, presented under the head De Valettis, that this Walter was of full age and Tenant of a whole knight's-fee, and yet not a Knight. On Sept. 22, 1300, Walter Haket had a grant of a weekly market on Thursday, and of an annual Fair on the eve and the day of Trinity Sunday, both at Whethull, also a grant of Free-Warren in Eggarton (Salop) and Croule (Worcestershire). [23] In 5 Edw. II (1310-11) Sir Walter Haket, Knight, attests a Charter at The Woodhouse (near Stottesden), and it was he I suppose who in 1307 had been returned as Knight of the Shire for Worcester, to the Parliament of Carlisle. [24] The Feodary of March 1316 gives him as Lord of the Vills of Weshull and Eggarton, Shropshire. [25] For his various Commissions, offices, and concerns from 1313 to 1324 I refer to a compendious account elsewhere. [26]

Of UNDERTENANTS in Wheathill I have only one further notice. In Trinity Term 1297, a Fine was levied, whereby Richard fitz Roger of Ingewordyn and Agnes his wife, acknowledge, for themselves and for the heirs of Agnes, that they have given four bovates in Wethull to Henry de Quercu. The latter pays 100 merks.

LEVERDEGRENE. This member of Wheathill, now no longer

[20] Rot. Hundred. II, 108, 109.
[21] Supra, Vol. II, p. 21.
[22] Kirby's Quest. Walter Haket, as will appear presently, was still a Minor in 1284, and apparently in ward to the Bishop of Hereford.
[23] Rot. Cart. 28 Edw. I, No. 9. Crowle (Worcestershire) was held about 1240 by Walter Haket under Roger le Poher, by Le Poher under William de Beauchamp, and by Beauchamp under the Barons of Richard's Castle.
[24] Parliamentary Writs, I, 187.
[25] [26] Parliamesstary Writs, IV, 964-6. I cannot trace that member of Wheathill which was anciently called Eggarton.


existent under any similar name, was, between 1180 and 1196 the subject of the following Deed. [27]-

Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Hugo de Sai concedo et confirmo donacionem dimidiae hidae terrae scilicet Leverdegrene, quam Willielmus de Giros pro anima suit et predecessorum suorum Deo et ecclesiae de Woneloc et monachis ibidem Deo servientibus in perpetuam eleemosynam dedit et legavit libere, quiete, pacifice cum omnibus libertatibus et liberis consuetudinibus perpetuo tenendam. Prefatae autem terrae donacionem pro salute animae meae et antecessorum meorum pro posse meo manutenebo. Et ut haec donacio rata et firma permaneat sigilli mei attestacione corroboravi. His testibus Magistro Rogero de la Beche, Achille fratre ejus, Magistro Adam de Brumefeld, [28] Osberto de Dudelebur', Willielmo de Finemunt, Herberto de Etton, Lunemon, Olimpias uxore Hugonis de Sai, Margareta filia Willielmi, et aliis.

William de Leverdegrene, whom I presume to have been the Prior of Wenlock's Tenant here, occurs frequently in the thirteenth Century. In 1254, as William de Lyrdegrane, he fines 20s. to have some assize; as William de Lendthegrene he occurs in December 1258, on the Inquest as to the estate of Philip de Baggesore (of Bardley, Cleobury-North, and Badger). At the Assizes of 1272 William Lardegrene was one of the non-attendants for Stottesden Hundred.- The reason appears in the presentment of the Stottesden Jurors at the Assizes of 1292. They said that the Free Tenants and four men and the Provost of the Vills of Lordegrene and Hugeleye (Higley) used to come to the Sheriffs-Tourn twice a year, till forty years since, when the Prior of Wenlock had withdrawn the said Suits to the Court of Wenlock. The Prior appeared to this charge, and said that he claimed nothing in Huggeleye, seeing that it was in tenure of Edmund de Mortimer, against whom the King had issued another writ on the very subject. As to Lordegrene, the Prior said that he had one Tenant there, and he pleaded Henry III's Charter as excusing the lands of St. Milburg from all Suits, etc. etc. The Jury found that neither Henry III nor Edward I had ever been seized of the Suit of Lordegrene; so the Prior was quit. [29]

[27] In possession of Mr. George Morris of Shrewsbury.
[28] Master Adam de Bromfeld occurs as a judge Delegate of the Pope in March 1202 (Anglia Sacra, II, 560). Other Documents show a Master Adam de Brumfeld, occurring between 1174 and 1180, and that there were two persons so styled who were Father and Son (Cotton MS. Domitian A, III, fos. 58, b, 79, b). Both were of Brimfield in Herefordshire.
[29] Placita Coronae, 20 Edw. I, m. 20 dorso.


[For engraving, see pdf.]


On January 2, 1294, Richard de Lordegrene, Roger de Bromden, and John le Fremon of Egerton sat as Jurors in an Inquest at The Low.

In none of the Wenlock Rent-Rolls do I find the Prior's interest in Leverdegrene particularized. In the time of Prior Roland the Convent-Infirmary was entitled to a rent of 3s. 8d. from Thomas Banastre of Bromton; [30] and the Ministers' Accounts in 1541-2 give a rent of 6s. 8d. from a tenement in Bromton among the Assets of the dissolved Priory. [31] These entries possibly refer to the estate more anciently known as Leverdegrene.


We have already seen that in the time of Bishop William de Vere the Chapel of Wethull was treated as a mere Dependency of Stottesden Church, [32] obviously because the Saxon Parish of Stottesden involved this district. The Taxation of 1291 values the Church of Wethull in Stottesden Deanery at 5. per annum, adding that the Church is elsewhere beneficed. [33] This remark is a mere mistake, an inversion of the real fact; for Wethull paid a portion of 2s. to the Vicar of Stottesden, in composition doubtless of the old parochial subjection; it also, like other Churches of Lacy's Shropshire Barony, paid a Portion (6s. 8d.) to the Prior of St. Guthlac's, at Hereford. In accordance with all this, the Inquisition of 1341 quotes the Church-Taxation of Wethull as 5. 8s. 8d., and proceeds to assess the Parish at 25s. only.- Four virgates of land lay fallow. Also the Foundation of the Church with lands and rents annexed (worth 8s.), certain tithes (worth 7s.), the small tithes, offerings, and other profits of the Church (worth 2. 13s. 4d.) were all exceptional to any estimate of the Ninth of wheat, wool, and lamb in the Parish. [34] In 1534-5 the Preferment of Richard Coston, Rector of Whetall, was in tithes 7. 6s. 6d., and the only charge thereon was 1s. for Archdeacon's Synodals. [35]

[30] Lord Forester's Register, fo. 40, b.
[31] Monasticon, V, 81, b.
[32] Supra, p. 153.
[33] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 166, a.
[34] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 190. This was an unusually low assessment. Generally the Assessors did not allow the whole reduction ascertained by analyzing the component parts of the Church-taxation; but in this case they allowed not only that, but 15s. 4d. for the unfilled land.
[35] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 211.



REGINALD SON OF REGINALD FITZ STEPHEN Of Ludlow, instituted June 12, 1284;- the Bishop presenting "by reason of the custody of the Vill of Wethull". [37] St. Guthlac's pension is specially reserved.

ROBERT DE TURBERVILE, Clerk. [38] Inst. 9 Nov., 1288. Patron Sir Walter Haket. [39]

JOHN DE YARPOL, Subdeacon. Inst. Nov. 27, 1296. Patron Sir Walter Haket, Knight.

RICHARD DE BODENHAM, Priest. Inst. 18 July, 1816. Same Patron.

JOHN HAKET, Subdeacon and Rector of Wheathill, has, on 25 Oct., 1334, a dispensation for the purpose of two years' study. A Royal Patent of July 6, 1342, appoints special Justices to inquire "what Malefactors seized John Hakette, late Parson of Whethull, by night, at Whethull, and took him to Lodelowe, and feloniously drowned him in the water called Temede (The Team.)". [40]

This was an affair of some months' standing, for we have,-

SIR JOHN JOKEWYNE, instituted April 25, 1342, to this Living.

RALPH DE LA LOWE. Inst. Jan. 13, 1363. Patron John de Stoke, Lord of Whethull.

JOHN DE BROMFELD, Priest. Inst. 15 Aug., 1366. Same Patron.

JOHN DE LA OWENE, Rector of Wheathill, was removed to Hopton Wafre, [41] in 1374, and-

SIR GILBERT AUNGER, late Rector of Hopton Wafre, was instituted here on Sept. 20, at presentation of William de Ayleston.

SIR JOHN WIRLEY resigned this living in 1399, and on Nov. 9,

SIR REGINALD COKES, Chaplain, was instituted at presentation of Thomas Stokes and Joanna his wife.

[36] From Blakeway's MSS.
[37] Walter Haket's minority would seem to have been a very long one; and his Guardians to have been changed; but my evidences about this family are slight and unsatisfactory.
[38] This Rector was probably a near Relation to Sir Robert de Turberville, late Guardian of Walter Haket. He is the same who has occurred to us (Vol. II, p. 35) as Rector of Broseley, and (Vol. I, pp. 75, 97, and Vol. III, p. 217) as a Prebendary of Bridgnorth.
[39] The Stottesden Jurors of 1292 presented him however as not then a Knight.
[40] Patent, 16 Edw. III, p. 2, m. 30 dorso.
[41] Supra, p. 188.


Neen Sollars.

THE more ancient name of this place was Neen Baldwin. The reason of the change will appear below. It was the only Manor in Condetret Hundred held by Osbern fitz Richard, Lord of Richard's Castle. He held it immediately of the King, and soon after Domesday it was annexed to Overs Hundred, in which Osbern fitz Richard had a predominant interest. Domesday notices the Manor thus:- "The same Osbern holds Nene, and Siuuard (holds it) of him. The same Siuuard held it (in Saxon times), and was a free man. This Manor was never hidaged, nor ever paid geld. There is arable land (sufficient) for five ox-teams. In demesne is one team and ten Serfs, and a Mill paying a bushel (modium) of corn. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 40s. per annum. Now it is worth 18s". [1]

Of Siward the Saxon I have spoken under Cleobury North. [2] He held great estates in Shropshire in the reign of the Confessor, and some of them he held under the Church of Worcester. Neen is not one of the Manors named as having ever belonged to that Church, but the Church is said to have lost other Manors besides those enumerated by the Chronicler. The extraordinary immunities which Neen had enjoyed from remote times make it very possible that it had been Church-land, and if so, held by Siward of the Church of Worcester.

Siward seems eventually to have lost his Tenancy under the Barons of Richard's Castle, for Osbern fitz Hugh, grandson of Osbern fitz Richard, gave Nene, before 1185, to one who is called by my authority the "Childe Baldwine", his ordinary name being, I suppose, Baldwin le Poer. Baldwin le Poer being dead, and leaving only daughters, and Hugh de Say, nephew of Osbern fitz Hugh, being Lord of Richard's-Castle, the latter gave a seignoral right over the Coheiresses to one Roger de Solariis, who thus became Mesne Lord of Neen. The Deed by which this was effected, must have passed between 1190 and 1196, but I have only an abstract of its contents. [3]- "Hugh, son of Hugh de Say, grants to Roger de Solers,

[1] Domesday, fo. 260, a, 1.
[2] Supra, Vol. III, pp. 22, 23.
[3] Abstract of the original Deed, inserted on a Coningsby Pedigree, in possession of the Rev. John Brooke, of Haughton.


Neen, which Osbern fitz Hugh, his Uncle, did give to the Childe Baldwine.- The Daughters of Baldwine, if they have any right, are to hold by one knight's-fee under Roger de Sollers. Witnesses:- Walter Clifforde, William de Mara, Walter de Solers, Robert Sturmy, William de Clifford, William Earby, Robert Wyard, William de Grete, John Walsh (Walensis)". The names of Baldwin le Poer's three daughters were Petronilla, Elena, and Eustachia. The first was married to * * de Fraxino, the two others to relations of Roger de Solariis. Thus there came to be three families named De Solariis which had an interest in Neen, a circumstance which makes their distinct history a matter of no little difficulty. I will first speak of ROGER DE SOLARIIS, the Mesne Lord, and his descent. He appears to me to have been of Dorston, in Herefordshire, a Manor held by service of one Knight's-Fee under the Barons Clifford, who were closely connected with the Barons of Richard's Castle. The successor, probably the son of Roger de Solariis, was named William, and he it was who in a Feodary of about the year 1230, is said to hold a Knight's-fee in Nene under the Lords of Richard's Castle. [4] This William, or his son of the same name, appears in January, 1243, as holding Dorsinton (Dorston) under the third Walter de Clifford. [5] Again William de Solariis occurs in 1255, as Mesne Lord of Neen Sollers, and in 1272, he occupies a similar position, being called to warranty by some of the Coparceners who held under him, and being distinguished from one of those Coparceners as "William de Sollers de Dorsington".

EUSTACHIA LE POER, the eldest daughter, as I believe, of Bald- win le Poer, married * * * * de Solariis, and had by him a son John de Solariis, or else her husband himself was John de Solariis. The former is the statement on Record, [6] the latter much more probable on chronological grounds. Eustachia's husband, whatever his name, seems to have enfeoffed a Tenant in his share of Neen, viz. one Jordan de Alneto. Hence a Feodary of about the year 1210, gives Jordan de Alneto, Ranulf de Solers, and Engeram de Fraxino, as each holding one-fourth of a Knight's-fee in the Honor of Richard's Castle. [7] I do not suppose that the exact Tenure of each is here stated correctly, and the Mesne tenure of Roger de Solers

[4] Liber Ruber Scaccarii, fo. cxlv.
[5] Testa de Nevill, 66, b.
[6] The descent of the coheirs of Neen is taken from the Plea Roll of Easter Term, 34 Hen. III. The Roll is in duplicate. The pedigree is on the dorse of the 16th membrane of one copy (No. 80), and on the face of the 16th membrane of the other (No. 81).
[7] Liber Ruber Scaccarii fo. cxxxviij.


of Dorston is omitted altogether. These three Coparceners were living in November 1221, when, as I have elsewhere said, Jordan de Alneto, having a lawsuit against John de Brompton, named Engeram de Fraxino, and Ranulf de Solariis, his Attorneys. [8] The Tenant of this share of Neen Sollars, in 1240, was Walter de Esse, of whom I shall say more under Nash. He and his Partners are set down as holding a Knight's Fee in None Baudewin, under the Barons of Richard's Castle, all Mesne interests being again omitted. [9] In Easter Term 1250, Richard de Harleg sued William de Esse for two-thirds of a messuage and carucate of land in Ene (read Nene). William de Esse called his Seigneur, William de Solariis (son of John de Solariis), to warranty. William de Solariis vouched the warranty, and pleaded that he was only a Coparcener, for that Baldwin le Poer had had three daughters, whose descendants he proceeded to specify.- Eustachia, one of the said daughters, had issue John de Solariis, and the said John had issue William de Solariis, the present Defendant. It was proved that one of the other Coparceners was a Minor, so the case was adjourned till he should come of age. [10] The share thus held by William de Esse under William de Solariis, fell within the next five years to William de Clifford, as Tenant. The latter sat as a Juror on the Inquisition of Overs Hundred in 1255, and the finding as to Nene Bauwyn was as follows:- William de Clifford, Hugh de Fraxino, and Philip de Mungamery (Custos of the heir of William fitz Randulph), hold one Knight's-fee of William de Solers [11] in the Vill of Nene, of the Barony of Burford, and they do no other Suit than to the two Tourns of the Sheriff annually. [12]

In 1256, I find that Walter de Clifford and William de Solariis were at issue about some market improperly established, [13] but by which of the parties or where does not appear; but it is probable that the William de Solariis concerned was he who then held a share of Neen over William de Clifford, and under William de Solariis, of Dorston. In August 1257, I find Amicia del Esse suing William de Clifford under writ of novel disseizin for a tenement in Esse (Nash) and Nene, [14] that is, I presume, a representative

[8] Supra, p. 247.
[9] Testa de Nevill, p. 46.
[10] Placita, Easter Term, 34 Hen. III, m. 16 dorso.
[11] This William de Solers was of Dorston obviously, and not identical with the William last named.
[12] Rot. Hundred. II, 74. Et alias, sectam non faciunt nisi ad duos turnos Vicecomitis per annum, (to which is added) ad capud illius ad unum arable. The addition I cannot interpret.
[13] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 9.
[14] Patent, 41 Hen. III, dorso.


of the late Tenant of this share of Neen, alleged that she had been unjustly ousted by the present Tenant.

At the Assizes of 1272, Roger de Solers (one of the other Coparceners of Neen) claimed 4s. rent in Neen as heir of Juliana de Pernell, his deceased Aunt. He sued William de Clifford for 1s. 8d. of the said rent, and Agnes, Widow of Adam de la Re, for 2s. 4d. Agnes called William de Solers to warranty. He seems to have vouched a warranty in both cases, for it is added that he called William de Solers, of Dorsinton, to warranty of the whole. [15] In this same year, John le King, of Ayston, with Alice his wife, take out a writ of novel disseizin against William de Clifford and Walter Partrik, concerning a Tenement in Solers Neyn. [16] At the Inquisition of Overs Hundred (November 1274) each of the three Feoffees of Neen were on the Jury, viz. William de Clifford, Hugh de Frene, and Roger de Solars. [17] They also occur on a local Jury in August 1278, and the Feodary of 1284 gives them as holding Neen Solers by one knight's-fee under Edmund de Mortimer, who held under Robert de Mortimer. [18] This statement brings to light a change in the Seigneury of Neen Sollars, which had taken place at some previous period. Edmund de Mortimer, of Wigmore, held the whole Manor under Robert de Mortimer of Richard's Castle, but how he acquired this tenure I cannot say. Nor yet can I say whether Sollers of Dorston held under Edmund de Mortimer and over the Coparceners, or whether it was Solers' intermediate interest which Edmund de Mortimer had acquired. Lastly, it is doubtful whether some Tenant holding next over William de Clifford is not omitted in the above statement. The Inquisition on the death of Robert de Mortimer, taken August 13, 1287, says that Edmund de Mortimer was Tenant of the deceased, both of the Manor and Advowson of Nene Solers. He held by service of one Knight's-fee. The Manor was worth 16. per annum; the Church was worth 20 merks. [19] So again the Inquest of February 1305, on the death of Edmund de Mortimer of Wigmore, states him to have had the Advowson of Neen Solers and that the Coparceners (Parcenarii) held the Manor under the deceased by one knight's-fee. [20] And again in Apri1 1308,

[15] Assizes, 56 Hen. III, m. 6 dorso.
[16] Patent, 56 Hen. III, dorso.
[17] Rot. Hundred. II, 103.
[18] Kirby's Quest.
[19] Inquisitions, 15 Edw. I, No. 15. The Calendar gives a less perfect Copy of this Inquest under 2 Edw. I, No. 68 (Calendar, Vol I, p. 58). The date is assigned without any authority in the Inquest itself, and the name (Hugh de Mortimer) to which it is ascribed, is altogether an error of transcription.
[20] Inquisitions, 32 Edw. I, No. 63, b.


Roger de Mortimer (of Wigmore) is set down as holding a Knight's-fee in Nen Solers of the estate of Matilda, the then deceased Widow of Hugh de Mortimer of Richard's Castle. [21]

I must now return to speak of the other daughters of Baldwin le Poer, and their descendants.-

PETRONILLA LE POER, probably the second of these daughters, married * * * de Fraxino, or de Frene. Her son (or, as I think, her husband) Ingeram de Fraxino, occurs under the dates of 1203, 1210 and 1221. Ingeram's successor was Hugh de Fraxino, the same, I imagine, as he who, in 1243, held two hides in Sutton St. Nicholas (afterwards called Sutton Frene) and Marden, both members of the Honour of Kington, and situated in Herefordshire. These he held by half a knight's-fee. [22] He also held half a knight's-fee in Moccas, of the Earl of Hereford, and of the same honour of Kington. [23] Like William de Esse, his Coparcener in Neen, this Hugh de Fernes, as he is written, was sued by Richard de Harlegh in Easter Term 1250, for one carucate, less five acres, in Nene. Like William de Esse, he pleaded his tenure in Coparcenery, and showed that Richard, son of William de Solers, the third Coparcener, and a necessary party to the Suit, was under age. [24] Hugh de Nene, a Juror for Overs Hundred, at the Assizes of January 1256, may have been identical with Hugh de Fraxino, and William de Frene, another Juror, may have been his relation and Undertenant. On January 18, 1266, King Henry III grants, inter alia, to Matilda, wife of Roger de Mortimer of Wigmore, the lands which were Hugh de Fraxino's in Nene and Gurlokesho, the said Hugh having been an adherent of Simon de Montfort. [25] This Hugh de Fraxino occurs as interested in Neen under the further dates of 1255, 1272, 1274, and 1284. The particulars have been already given, or shall be included in what I have to say of the third Coparcener in this Manor.-

ELENA LE POER, presumed to have been youngest daughter of the "Childe Baldwin", married * * * de Solariis. Her son, or husband, Ranulph de Solariis has occurred above under dates of 1210 and 1221. The son and heir of Ranulph de Solariis was named William. He was called William fitz Ranulph, to distinguish him, I presume, from two cotemporaries of his name. He was dead in 1250, and his son Richard, then a Minor, was the third Coparcener

[21] Inquisitions, 1 Edw. II, No. 59.
[22] [23] Testa de Nevill, 64, 66.
[24] Placita, Easter Term, 34 Hen. III, m. 16 recto.
[25] Liber Niger de Wigmore, fo. 37.


on whose account Richard de Harley's Suit of that year was postponed. In 1555, the heir of William fitz Ranulph was still a Minor, and in ward to Philip de Montgomery. It is probable that Richard fitz William died in infancy, or at all events without issue. Roger de Solariis, his heir, I take to have been his younger brother. In 1272, John de Arundel prosecuted Hugh de Frene and Roger de Sollers for disseizing him of common-pasture in three carucates in Sollers Nene, a right said to appertain to John's tenement in Tateneshul and Merebroch. The Defendants appeared not, and a verdict was recorded against them. [26] They appealed against this, and sued out a Writ for twenty-four Jurors to be empanelled, who should convict the former twelve of a false verdict. The second trial was called on, but again they appeared not. The Judges ordered them to be committed to prison. Afterwards they accorded with John de Arundel, he renouncing his claim. [27] This Roger de Solariis further occurs as a Juror for Overs Hundred in 1272, and in 1274, 1278, and 1284, according to the particulars already given.


This Church does not occur to my notice till the year 1287, when Mortimer of Wigmore had obtained the Advowson from Mortimer of Richard's Castle. It was then valued at 20 merks (13. 6s. 8d.) per annum. [28] The Taxation of 1291 gives the Church of Nenesolers in the Deanery of Burford as worth 8. per annum, besides a portion of 3s. which the Abbot of Wigmore had therein. [29] In 1341 the Assessors of the Ninth quoted the Church-Taxation of Niensolers as 8. 3s., but rated the Parish at 5. to the current Levy. Three carucates of land there lay fallow, the Tenants being impoverished. Also the Glebe, small-tithes, the offerings, and some other spiritual dues worth 60s. per annum, were not included in the Taxation of the Church. [30] The Valor of 1534-5 speaks of Nyende Solos and Milston as constituting one Rectory. This combination probably was as old as Domesday when Milson, though not in Condetret Hundred, was yet accounted a Berewick of Neen. The preferment of Richard Lucy, Incumbent of this Rectory in 1534-5, was in Glebe and

[26] [27] Assizes, 56 Hen. III, 4 dorso, 13 recto.
[28] Supra, p. 294.
[29] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 165, b.
[30] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 188. I quote the Record ae it stands. Two reasons are given why the Assessment varies from the Church Taxation. The first is intelligible enough and in favour of reducing the Assessment. The second is unusual, and if it is correctly worded, it is an argument for raising, not reducing, the Assessment.


Tithes, 13. 10s. 5d. per annum; which sum was chargeable with 7s. 2d. for Procurations and Synodals. [31]


RICHARD LE FORT,- admitted 19 Sep., 1314. Patron, Sir Roger de Mortimer, Lord of Wigmore.

RICHARD DE WYTON, Rector of this Church, has a license of Absence, dated 9 December, 1320.

WILLIAM LODELOWE, Presented to the Church of Solyers Nient, in the year 1341. Patron,- The King, the Honour of Mortimer being then in manu Regis. [33]

SIR RICHARD NOWEL, admitted Feb. 23, 1342. On May 13, 1350,-

MASTER ROBERT DE MALLEY, late Rector of Schirreve's-Upton (Wygorn. Dioc.) is admitted here, having exchanged with the last Incumbent. On 18 July, 1356,-

RICHARD NOWEL, having re-exchanged is re-admitted. On 6 March, 1361,-

JOHN DE CLEOBURY, late Rector of Flamstede (Lincoln Dioc.), is admitted, having exchanged with the last Incumbent.- Patron, The King, as Custos of the heir of Roger de Mortimer, Earl of March. This Rector resigned Oct. 18, 1361, and-

WILLIAM DE GURDEWELL was admitted May 14, 1362.- Patron, the King, as before. He resigned 7 Feb., 1385, and on Feb. 23, 1385, the King as Custos of the Heir of Edmund de Mortimer, Earl of March, presents-

RICHARD DE WELYNGTON, who exchanges with-

SIR WILLIAM DE EGGINTON, late Vicar of Cleobury Mortimer. The latter is admitted here on July 27, 1418, at presentation of Edmund, Earl of March, Lord of Wigmore and Clare. This Rector died in 1456.

[31] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 214.
[32] From Blakeway's MSS.
[33] Patent, 15 Edw. III, p. 2.



Ovres Hundred.

THIS is one of the only two Shropshire Hundreds which retain their Domesday names. The reason why it is identical in name, and for the most part in extent, with the Domesday Hundred, is that the Lords of Richard's-Castle had the chief manorial interest here as well as the Soke or Hundredal Seigneury. The changes of boundary which have been made are so perfectly intelligible in themselves that in following the history of this Hundred we learn the theory which guided the preservation of ancient boundaries or, if circumstances suggested it, annihilated them. When the Shropshire Hundreds were generally rearranged, in the time of Henry I, Overs lost nothing except Earls Ditton, which Domesday had already recognised as a member of Cleobury Mortimer. It therefore went to the Hundred (Stottesden), in which Cleobury Mortimer was then placed. At the same time, Neen Sollars was annexed to Overs, in which Hundred, Milson, a Berewick of Neen Sollars, was placed at Domesday. The reason of this increase to Overs Hundred was because the Lord of Richard's Castle was Manorial Lord of Neen Sollars. When after the battle of Evesham, Roger de Mortimer and the Abbot of Wigmore obtained Charters which exempted several of their Manors from all subjection to Hundred-Courts, Cainham and Coreley were severed from Overs Hundred; but when these franchises of Mortimer and Wigmore Abbey were destroyed, Cainham and Corley were not restored to Overs Hundred, but annexed to Stottesden, to which many of Mortimer's not yet independent Manors had before the battle of Evesham belonged. This annexation to Stottesden Hundred was probably a mistake,- the result of a false association. To this day however the error stands, and we see Overs Hundred severed in twain by a long strip of land,- an offshoot as it were of Stottesden Hundred.

Other changes of Overs Hundred have been as follows:- Lower Ledwich was detached therefrom by the special Franchises of the Prior of Bromfield, but at what period I cannot say. Now like Bromfield itself, in which Parish it anciently stood, Lower Ledwich is annexed to Munslow Hundred.


Secondly, in the thirteenth century we find Henley in a state of separation from Overs Hundred by reason of its temporary connection with Ludlow Castle. Now that part of Henley which is in Bitterley Parish has been restored to its original Hundred of Overs, but another part which is in Stanton-Lacy Parish is, I presume, reputed to be in the Hundred of Munslow.

Thus much I have said as to the changed boundaries of this Domesday Hundred, and now it will be fitting to state something as to the progressive alterations in the Soke or Jurisdiction.- The Lord of the Hundred at the time of the Conquest was the Lord of Burford and Richard's Castle. This was Richard fitz Scrobi, a Norman who had been settled in England many years before the Conquest, and was a favourite of Edward the Confessor. This Richard fitz Scrobi being one of the few Normans who had not incurred the hatred of the Saxons, was allowed to remain in England in 1052, when the party of Earl Godwin procured the expulsion of the majority of such Settlers. [1] He survived the Conquest, and these facts confirm the truth of the assertion, made two centuries afterwards, [2] that he was Lord of Overs Hundred at the time of that event. After his time his Successors, finding that "they could not distribute justice nor punish the folk" of the district, gave half of the Hundred to the King, on condition of receiving aid in such matters. [3] This joint jurisdiction existed in the year 1255. The Hundred then was nominally paying 16s. per annum for the enjoyment of its usages. Half of this sum went to the Crown and half to the Lord of Burford. The Sheriff, I presume, accounted 8s. in the ferm of the County for this item of Royal revenue, but the actual sum which he received from his Bailiff of Overs was 100s. [4] The difference was of course realized by all kinds of extortion exercised by the subordinate officer. The Hundred was represented at the Assizes of 1203, 1221, and also at the Assizes of 1256, by twelve Jurors and a Bailiff,- Adam Wele in 1256. They made the usual presentments, and said that the Hundred was worth 100s. per annum, a statement which, compared with the former account, is intelligible, but hardly full enough. The Inquisition of 1274 gave a very different account of the value of this Hundred. At the time of the battle of Evesham it seems to have been worth 10

[1] Florence of Worcester, I, 210. II, 1.
[2] Rot. Hundred. II, 74.
[3] Non potuerunt placitare nec gentes fusticare;- where I presume a particular punishment stands for punishment in general.
[4] Rot. Hundred. II, 74.



[For table, see Over]

merks (7.). When the Manors of Roger de Mortimer and the Abbot of Wigmore were withdrawn, this value was reduced to 4. 13s. 4d., whereof the Lord of Burford had 2. and the King 2. 13s. 4d., one share being more productive than the other by reason of the Royal power (propter potenciam Regis). The same Record attributes to the Baron of Burford the right of having a gallows and holding assize of bread and beer. These were prescriptive adjuncts of his Jurisdiction as Lord of the Hundred. The Jurors remembered how John Baril, Under Sheriff to Hugh de Mortimer of Chelmarsh, had exacted 4 merks from Hugh de Mortimer of Burford, because the latter ejected the said Under Sheriff from the Liberty of Burford, and would not allow him to hold Inquisitions there, which indeed he had no right to hold. This, I presume, was a question which regarded the Manor of Burford only, but I mention it here because it exhibits one Lord of the Hundred upholding his manorial rights at the expense of his


general franchise, and resisting the Officer of the other Lord of the Hundred. The Jurors made many other complaints on this occasion, but uniformly against the conduct of the King's Officers, rather than that of the Lords of Burford. [5]


IN the name of this place we have the Saxon words Buph (a town) and Fopb (a ford) in most intelligible juxtaposition. Domesday desciibes the Manor as follows:-

"Osbern Fitz Richard holds Bureford of the King. Richard,

[5] Rot. Hundred. II, 103, 104.


his Father, held it (in Saxon times). Here are six hides and a half geldable. The arable land is sufficient to employ XXIX oxteams. Here Osbern has II Mills, rendering XII quarters of corn (summas annonae), and here are VI Serfs, XII Villains, III Radmans, XXIV Boors, VII Coliberti, and a Church with two Priests. Among them all they have XXIII ox-teams. Here is a wood which will fatten a hundred swine, and therein is one Haye. In time of King Edward the (annual) value (of the Manor) was 100s. Now it is 4". [1]

Burford was the Caput of Osbern fitz Richard's Shropshire Barony. This therefore is the proper place to give some account of his origin and successors, and in so doing I shall dwell rather on matters of local interest than on the general history of this House, except indeed where I can render some former accounts more definite or more correct.


RICHARD SCROD, otherwise called RICHARD FITZ-SCROB, was one of the Norman Favourites of King Edward the Confessor, one of those too who escaped the rancour of Earl Godwin and his Sons in 1052, and were not forced to leave the kingdom with others of their fellow-countrymen. This was not alone due to the King's partiality, but, as we are told, to the blameless conduct of the favoured few towards the native Saxons. Robert the Deacon, a Norman, whose daughter Richard Scrob had married, was another who remained. [2] We gather from Domesday an account of Richard Scrob's possessions in the time of King Edward. He had four Manors in Worcestershire and one in Shropshire (Burford). He had also an interest in Herefordshire, where he is alluded to as Richard Scrupe, [3] but the Herefordshire Domesday refers to a period of the Confessor's reign when Osbern fitz Richard was already seized of sixteen Manors in that County. [4] I conclude that his Father had given them up to him. Richard Scrupe survived the Conquest, and obviously threw his weight into the scale of the Normans. In the year 1067 we find him associated with the Castellans of Herefordshire, and not very successfully resisting

[1] Domesday, fo. 260, a, 1.
[2] Florence Wigorn. I, 210.- Robert the Deacon was probably identical with Robert son of Wimarch, of whom I shall have more to say under Bromfield.
[3] [4] Domesday, fos. 185, a, 2, and 186, b, 2.


[For pedigree, see pdf.]


Edric the Forester, who still continued to maintain the Saxon cause in the West. [5] Richard Scrupe is said to have built Richard's Castle in Herefordshire, and its name to have been derived from him as its Founder. This trenches on a very curious but difficult question. The Herefordshire Domesday identifies no such Castle, but under the land of Osbern fitz Richard it mentions a Castle called Auretone in Cutestornes Hundred, which was worth 20s. per annum to Osbern fitz Richard, and wherein he had twenty-three men who paid him half the said income. [6] Another page of the same Record speaks of a Manor of 5 hides in the Chatellany (castellaria) of Auretone as having been held in the days of the Confessor by one Richard. [7] This Richard I doubt not to have been Richard Scrupe, and Auretone to have been the Castle afterwards called Richard's Castle, but why the Castle came to his son Osbern without the estate I cannot imagine. I shall have more to say on this subject hereafter. Richard Scrupe was deceased before Domesday, and his son-

OSBERN FITZ RICHARD was seized of numerous Manors, held under the King or the Earl of Shrewsbury, and in the Counties of Herefordshire, Shropshire, Worcestershire, Warwickshire, and Bedfordshire. Of all these, his Father had held five in the Confessor's reign, while Osbern himself had held two in Worcestershire, sixteen in Herefordshire, and two in Shropshire at the same early period. The remainder had been acquired since the Conquest. From Osbern fitz Richard I pass to his son-

HUGH FITZ OSBERN, living in the time of Henry I, but of whom very little seems to be known. As "Hugh son of Osbern son of Richard", he stands first witness to a very remarkable grant made by Osbern fitz Pontius to the Abbey of Pershore. He is followed by Turstin his Brother and Baldric his knight in this attestation. [8] The wife of Hugh fitz Osbern was Eustachia de Say, whom most accounts would induce us to associate with the Says of Shropshire, i.e., the Barons of Clun or the Lords of Stokesay. Either supposition is, as far as I know, without foundation. Nevertheless Eustachia de Say must have been a person of importance, for she

[5] Florence Wigorn. II, 1.
[6] Domesday, fo. 186, b, 2.
[7] Domesday, fo. 185, a, 2. Robert Gernon was Tenant of the estate of Auretone at Domesday, holding it apparently of the King. The same person held Larpol of the King, and that is expressly said to have been Richard Scrupe's in Saxon times. It is Yarpole, about four miles south of Richard's Castle. After Domesday it oertainly reverted to the Barons of Richard's Castle.
[8] Harleian Charter, 50, B, 22.


left her own surname with the descendants of herself and her husband. She and her son, Osbern fitz Hugh, may justly be esteemed as Founders of the Nunnery of Westwood in Worcestershire. Their grants in Westwood and elsewhere to the Anjovin monastery of Fontevrauld resulted in a Convent of Nuns being placed at Westwood under the sanction of Henry II. The King's License or Confirmation bears date at Worcester, and must have passed within the first four years of his reign. [9]

OSBERN FITZ HUGH, of whom I am now to speak, had succeeded his Father before the year 1140,- for that was undoubtedly the date of Stephen's Patent, giving the Earldom of Hereford to Robert Earl of Leicester. The King does not give the new Earl any Seigneury over the Fief of Osbern fitz Hugh, but excepts it from his grant. [10] It appears from good but unvouched authority that the wife of Osbern fitz Hugh was Amicia, daughter of Walter de Clifford. [11] We may estimate the probability of this match by what we shall hear of the friendly relations of the two families. I find Walter de Clifford and Osbern fitz Hugh attesting a grant of Roger Earl of Hereford to Brecknock Priory, which cannot have passed later or earlier than 1155. [12]

In the year 1161 there was a Scutage or Aid levied in Herefordshire, but not in Shropshire. The object of this levy is not recorded. Osbern fitz Hugh was originally charged 20. for fifteen Knights'-fees, that is, 2 merks per fee, but the King excused by Writ the sum of 4. 6s. 8d.,- that being apparently the proportion assessed upon his Knights in Shropshire. [13] In 1165-6 Osbern fitz Hugh made a return of the Knights'-fees composing his Barony,- an invaluable Document were it in existence. The reason of its loss I have before explained. [14] In 1167 Osbern fitz Hugh was amerced ten merks by Alan de Nevill, Justice of the Forest; but the King excused the whole penalty. [15] In 1168 he was charged twenty-three merks to the Aid on marriage of the King's daughter: that is, his Barony was assumed to consist of 23 Knights'-fees.

[9] Monasticon, VII, 1004, No. i. Nash (Hist. of Worcestershire, Vol. I, p. 350) says that Osborn fitz Richard and Hugh fitz Osbern had contributed to the endowment of Westwood. If so, I suppose it was in the form of previous grants to Fontevrauld.
[10] Duncombes Herefordshire, I, 233.
[11] Nash, Vol. I, p. 241.- This Pedigree of the Says is far the most correct of any I have seen; the one which I annex to this account is corrective of a very few errors, and supplies some important dates.
[12] Monasticon, III, 265, No. iv.
[13] Rot. Pip. 7 Hen. II. Herefordshire.
[14] Vol. I, p. 3, note 5.
[15] Rot. Pip. 13, 14, 15 Hen. II, Herefordshire.


He paid 19 merks at once, and 1 merk in 1169, but 3 merks were left in arrear some time afterwards. [16] In 1176 Osbern fitz Hugh and Walter de Clifford were each amerced 6 merks, by the King himself, for forest-trespass in Worcestershire. The latest occurrence of Osbern fitz Hugh is his confirmation of an act of Baldwin Bishop of Worcester, and therefore after August 1180, the date of that Prelate's consecration. He is, in this instance, called Osbern de Say, and is accompanied by his brother Hugh. In 1185 he was deceased without issue, and his said Brother, being his heir, fined 200 merks for livery of his lands. [17] Before I proceed with Hugh de Say I should say something of the eleemosynary and other deeds of Osbern fitz Hugh, besides his share in the foundation of Westwood. He was Lord of Tenbury in Worcestershire, a Manor where Walter de Clifford was his Tenant. Walter de Clifford was Lord of the neighbouring Manor of Rocheford in Herefordshire. The Chapel of Rocheford was an affiliation of the Church of Tenbury. Hence we find Osbern fitz Hugh quitting his claim to that Church in favour of the Norman Abbey of Lira, and Walter de Clifford coincidently quitting all claim both to Tenbury Church and Rocheford Chapel in favour of the same Religious House. [18] Osbern fitz Hugh's grant to the Nunnery of Godstow is a document of peculiar interest, and very consistent with the idea that his wife was a Sister of Rosamund Clifford. He gives a salt-pit in Wich called Vacca, which pertained to his Manor of Wichbold, to the Nuns, at request of Sir Walter de Clifford, and for the soul's health of Margaret de Clifford, Walter's wife, and of Rosamund, Walter's daughter, whose bodies were resting at Godstow. This grant was made with the assent of King Henry II and of Hugh the Grantor's Brother, and was attested by Walter de Clifford, Richard his son, Lucia his daughter (she was wife of Hugh de Say), and William de Heton. [19] An apparently cotemporary grant by Walter de Clifford himself to the same Nunnery has the attestations of Osbern fitz Hugh and Hugh de Say. [19]

Osbern fitz Hugh was also a Benefactor to Haughmond Abbey.

[16] Rot. Pip. 13, 14, 15 Hen. II, Herefordshire.
[17] Dugdale's Baronage, I, 464.- Osbern fitz Hugh's name is put down as liable to the Scutage of Wales in 1190, viz. as owing 11. 10s. at the current rate of 10s. per fee. But this is a mere mistake, his name representing his Barony. The charge remained undiminished for years.
[18] Monasticon, VII, 1094, Nums. xxvii and xviii.
[19] Monasticon, IV, 366, Nums. xiii and xv. Fair Rosamund died in 1175 or 1176, so that 1176 and 1186 are the limits of date for both these deeds.


He gave the Canons a Cup of Gold of the value of 4 merks of Gold. [20] He also gave them a virgate at Richard's Castle, viz. in Witebroc.- Witnesses: Walter de Clifford, Walter his son, Hugh de Say and Lucie his wife. [21] He further gave the same Canons the Mill of Wichebolde.- Witnesses: Richard, a Chaplain, and Philip Estham. [22] A Feoffment by this Osbert fitz Hugh, which eventually benefited the same Abbey, involves an admission which can only have been placed upon Record in an age of lax morality. Osbern, with consent of Hugh de Say, his Brother and Heir, gave to Matilda daughter of John Poher the vill called Hugelmeston or Parva Cotheridge, etc. on condition that, if she should have an heir, either by the Grantor, or by any espoused husband, she and her heirs should hold the vill hereditarily. Hugh de Say attested the Deed, and apparently after his Brother's death confirmed it, receiving from the lady "a golden ring with a turquois in the Hall of Bureford". [23]

HUGH DE SAY, brother and heir of Osbern fitz Hugh, fined 200 merks, as I have said, in 1185 for his livery. He seems to have come into notice earlier, if it were indeed he who in 1176, was amerced 20 merks for Forest-trespass in Dorsetshire or Somersetshire. [24] Of his fine for livery he continued to pay instalments till the year 1190, when a balance of 23. 3s. 4d. stood against him; but in that year he died; for a Fine of 100. by Hugh de Say, then recorded, [25] indicates the succession of Hugh de Say (II), his son and heir. Of him I shall speak presently. Hugh de Say, the father, was undoubtedly the husband of Lucia de Clifford, and I suppose it was with this Lady that he acquired a feoffment of the Manor of Rocheford, already spoken of. Hence in the Haughmond Chartulary we find a Deed whereby,- "Hugh de Say, and Lucia his wife, daughter of Walter de Clifford, son of Richard fitz Poncius, gave to that Abbey the Mill of Rocheforde with suit, etc. thereof.- Witnesses: Walter de Clifford Junior, Richard de Clifford his Brother". The first witness, calling himself "Walter de Clifford, son of Walter, son of Richard fitz Poncius, confirmed this grant, calling Hugh de Say's wife his (Walter's) Sister.- Witnesses: Hugh de Say and Richard de

[20] [21] [22] Haughmond Chartulary: Tit. Racheforde; Richard's Castell; Wichebolde. All these grants seem to have passed between 1172 and 1185.
[23] Chartulary: Tit. Coderugge. The Grantee, in the time of Hugh de Say (II) bequeathed the land or a part of it to Haughmond Abbey, together with her body. She seems to have been childless, for the Bequest, which was conditional on her death without heirs, ultimately took effect.
[24] Dugdale's Baronage, p. 454.
[25] Rot. Pip. 2 Ric. I, Herefordshire.


Clifford". [26] It is observable that in this Confirmation Walter de Clifford (II) calls Hugh de Say "his Lord", while in respect of Rocheford, where the grant lay, he was Hugh de Say's Lord. The explanation is that Clifford held the much more important Manor of Tenbury under Hugh de Say. Hugh de Say (I) died, as I have said, in 1190. He left his wife Lucia surviving and two sons Hugh and Richard. Richard (apparently from a misconstruction of the Haughmond Chartulary) has been supposed to have been the elder of these two Brothers, and to have died without issue. The latter idea is, I presume, only a corollary of the former, but the former being false, the latter does not follow. The facts are these.-

"Lucia de Say, daughter of Walter de Clifford, with consent of her son (evidently her eldest son) Hugh de Say, gave to Haughmond Abbey, three virgates and some lesser parcels of land in the vill of Rocheforde, the Canons returning to her that Cup of Gold which Osbern fitz Hugh had given them.- Witnesses: Hugh de Say (her son I presume) and Walter de Clifford (her Brother probably)".

Also "Richard son of Hugh de Say", having I suppose a younger son's portion in Rocheford, "confirms his Father's and Mother's joint grant of Rocheford as well as the grant of three virgates, etc., which his Mother, after his Father's death had given to the same Abbey.- Witnesses: Walter de Clifford, Gilbert de Say, Robert Wyard, John his son".

But Lucia de Say seems to have remarried to Bartholomew de Mortimer; for calling herself daughter of Walter de Clifford, and alleging the consent of the said Mortimer her husband, she "releases certain claims to Haughmond Abbey in Rocheford, and also certain land about which she and the Abbey had lately had contention.- Witnesses: William Carbonel, Robert Wiarde". [27]

HUGH DE SAY (II) had fined 100. for Livery before Michaelmas 1190. The balance of his Father's Fine, viz. 23. 3s. 4d., was still due, and remained so till Michaelmas 1195, when also the balance on the Son's Fine had been reduced to 40. 3s. 8d. Here a curious artifice seems to have been imposed upon the Officers of the Exchequer.

[26] Haughmond Chartulary Tit. Racheforde. The grant seems to have passed in the time of Walter de Clifford (I), that is before 1190; the Confirmation after his death, and therefore in 1190, for in that year Hugh de Say himself died also. But possibly the first witness of the Confirmation may be Hugh de Say (II).
[27] Chartulary (ut supra). Bartholomew de Mortimer was deceased before November 1226. His Nephew, Matthew Morlay was his heir (Claus. II, 159, b).


At Michaelmas 1195 Hugh de Say pays a further instalment of 6. 13s. 4d., but taking advantage of the identity of his own and his Father's names, he pays the said instalment as a part of the lesser balance left due by his Father. The next year no instalment on either balance was paid, for a reason which will presently appear. Hugh de Say (II) seems immediately on his succession to have been employed in the Wars of Wales. At Michaelmas 1191 I find that the Sheriff of Shropshire had paid him 25 merks for ward of the Castle of Norton (in Radnorshire) and 6. 8s. for 40 swine wherewith to victual the said Castle. This was by the King's order expressed through the Chancellor (Longchamp). In 1194 he was with King Richard in Normandy, and for that reason the King excuses him a sum of 23. which had been charged on the 23 Fees of his Barony for the Scutage which had purchased the King's Redemption. In 1195 he was again in Wales, for the Sheriff of Herefordshire pays him 100s. by order of Archbishop Hubert towards fortifying the Castle of Blidewach. Before Michaelmas 1196 I should infer from the Pipe-Rolls that he was dead. His debts above mentioned were undiminished. He also owed 23. for the Scutage of Normandy assessed in 1195, and 23. for the second Scutage of Normandy assessed in 1196. All the arrears which thus stood against this Barony were repeated without any attempt at liquidation on the Pipe-Roll of 1197. These Details have something of an interpretation in other Records. It is not quite clear whether the Welsh Chronicle intends to fix the battle of Radnor in 1195 or 1196. If it was shortly before Archbishop Hubert's Welsh campaign (and the Chronicle implies as much), then it was shortly before August 1196. In that battle Hugh de Say was associated with Roger de Mortimer of Wigmore, and both were defeated. [28] The Chronicle does not inform us that Hugh de Say was killed, but I learn from other authority that he fell in the wars of Wales, [29] and I doubt not that it was at or soon after the battle of Radnor. The wife of this Hugh de Say was Mabel daughter of Robert Marmion. She survived her husband, and had the whole of Cotheridge and more than 11. per annum in Wichbold for her dower, as awarded by a judicial decision in Michaelmas Term 1199. [30]

[28] Powel, p. 180.
[29] Banks' Peerage, I, 169.
[30] Rot. Curia Regis, II, 158. In March 1200, as I think, Mabel de Say makes her second husband, Reginald, her Attorney in a Suit of dower against Hugh de Ferrars, claiming lands in Shropshire and Worcestershire. (Placita tempore Regis Johannis, No. 49;- one of the Rolls to which an erroneous date has been assigned.)


HUGH DE FERRARS became the next Baron of Richard's Castle by marrying Margaret, sole daughter and heir [31] of Hugh de Say. This marriage he obtained in 1197 by a fine of 300 merks, whereof 100 seem to have been paid down at once to Archbishop Hubert. His Sureties for the whole were Geoffrey de Say, and Walcheline de Ferrars. [32] The latter we know to have been Father of Hugh, and Lord of Okeham, in Rutlandshire. At the date of this Fine, and probably for many years later, Margaret de Say was under age. She was certainly so in Easter Term 1200, when a cause in which she was called to warranty was adjourned till she should be of age. In the same Term, Hugh de Ferrars appears as if seized of the Barony; for there was a suit about land and warranty in which he and Richard de Say (Margaret's Uncle, I presume) were concerned. [33] Hugh de Ferrars' Fine seems to have been afterwards considerably increased; at all events his debts to the Crown in 1201, in connection with this Barony, stood at 236. 17s., [34] or more than 850 merks, though some instalments had been paid to reduce it to that balance. In the current year he paid or pleaded further reductions, which left the balance against him 153. 3s. 8d. The second scutage of King John was levied in this year, and Hugh de Ferrars had acquittance in the several Counties of Warwickshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire, and Berkshire. [35] In Shropshire he was not put in charge at all. The same may be said of the third and fourth Scutages of John's reign, but for the fifth Scutage, assessed in 1204, Hugh de Ferrars had a special exemption addressed to the Sheriff of Shropshire. [36] In this year Hugh de Ferrars died, without issue by his infant wife Margaret. His own inheritance, which he had enjoyed for a season in succession to his elder Brother Henry, was now claimed by his Sister Isabella, whom I have already noticed as wife of Roger de Mortimer of Wigmore. Meanwhile, two Writs-Close, dated August 15 and 25, 1204, order the Sheriffs of Shropshire,

[31] Nash's Pedigree gives to Hugh de Say (II) two Sons, Helias and Robert, represented to have died s.p. This is an error, arising from a misconstruction of the Haughmond Chartulary. The two individuals, Helias and Robert, were possibly Sons of a Hugh de Say, but I shall speak of them elsewhere as members of a different family, viz. Say of Stokesay.
[32] Rot. Pipe, 9 Ric. I, Herefordshire.
[33] Rot. Curiae Regis, II, pp. 223, 269. The latter case probably concerned land in Rocheford. The name of Hugh de say is inserted in the entry as if a party to the Suit. This could not have been actually the case, and the error must be ascribed to the Law-Clerk. Probably Hugh de Say was mentioned as then represented by Hugh de Ferrars.
[34] Rot. Canc. 3 John, pp. 108, 38.
[35] Ibidem, pp. 14, 110, 134, 263.
[36] Rot. Pipe, 6 John, Salop.


Herefordshire, and Worcestershire, to give William de Cantilupe possession of such lands as had been Hugh de Ferrar's in right of Margaret his wife. Cantilupe was to hold them during the King's pleasure. [37] Margaret de Say still remained a child though a Widow.

In October 1204, I find the first mention of Thomas de Galwey, afterwards Earl of Athol, as in the service and pay of King John. In March 1205, it appears that this Thomas de Galwey had furnished certain Ships manned with mercenaries, for the King's service, to whom the King promises one half of the goods which they should gain from the King's foes, besides their full and proper pay. [38] Other marks of the King's oonsideration for Thomas de Galwey occur in the same year, and on November 8 he informs the Sheriffs of Shropshire, Herefordshire, and Worcestershire, that he has given the wife of Hugh de Ferrars to Thomas de Galwey, who is immediately to have seizin of all lands which the said Hugh held in right of his said wife, but not of any other lands held by Hugh. [39] Thomas de Galwey does not seem to have actually married the great Heiress, but the matter was a long time pending. On June 30th, 1207, Thomas de Galwey appears to lie under some temporary suspicion, for his Bailiffs are ordered to render up to William de Cantilupe three Castles, and all other things belonging thereto, which he held by the King's pleasure, viz. Richard's Castle, Stapleton Castle, and Hamm Castle. [40] But on August 18 following, the Constable of Chester having apparently offered himself as a Guarantee for Thomas de Galwey, the King orders William de Cantilupe to give the land and stock of Thomas de Galwey, described as lying in Herefordshire, to the said Constable, but to keep certain Castles till the Constable shall have sent his Steward to do fealty to the King for their safe custody. [41] Thomas de Galwey seems to have recovered his position by a Fine of 1000 merks, proffered about September 1207, "that he might have the land of Hugh de Say". He was to pay 30 merks at the present Term of Michaelmas, 80 merks at Easter following, and at a higher rate annually afterwards, when he should have had to wife the daughter and heir of the said Hugh de Say. William de Cantilupe was ordered to give the proper seizin after taking security for the Fine. [42] This provisional arrangement probably existed up to May 14, 1208, at which time the Fine and

[37] Rot. Claus. I, 5. Patent, p. 45.
[38] Patent, p. 51.
[39] Claus. I, 56, 57.
[40] Patent, 73, b.
[41] Claus. I, 90, b. Oblata, p. 393.
[42] Oblata et Fines, pp. 407-8.


Close-Rolls, which would have indicated any change, are broken off. The Patent and Charter Rolls are further preserved down to May 6, 1209, and they indicate no interruption of the King's understanding with Thomas de Galwey. Between that time and June 1211, though we have no Record asserting the fact, we may conclude that-

ROBERT DE MORTIMER fined for and obtained the marriage of Margery de Say, and became Baron of Richard's Castle. Coincidently we know that Thomas de Galwey came into great disgrace, and it was not till August 1212, that the King, at request of William King of Scots, remitted the anger which he had conceived against Thomas de Galwey, Earl of Athol, for a raid (raptu) at York. [43]

Of the antecedents of Robert de Mortimer, thus advanced, it is difficult to say anything with certainty, because he had a Cotemporary, Robert de Mortimer of Attilberg, from whom we cannot always distinguish him. [44] When Dugdale suggested that he was either son or Brother of the first Hugh de Mortimer of Wigmore, the great Antiquary was assigning a wrong date to evidence which, thus interpreted, would place Robert de Mortimer's era at least forty-two years earlier than his marriage with the heiress of Richard's Castle. There is no proof nor any reasonable probability that he was nearly related to the Mortimers of Wigmore. Calling him Robert de Mortimer of Essex for the present, I will merely state my impression that he was more nearly connected with the House of Attilberg than that of Wigmore. [45]

On Dec. 1, 1205, King John gives to Robert de Mortimer eight librates of escheated lands in Essex, [46] and on May 1, 1206, the King fixes the grant to be in Estham. [47]

In June, 1211, owing to his marriage with Margery de Say, Robert de Mortimer is entered as a Tenant is capite of Shropshire by

[43] Patent, p. 93. Thomas de Galway appears often afterwards as in the trust and favour of King John, but never in any connection with the Barony of Richard's Castle. These two may well indicate relationship, but the Arms borne by Mortimer of Wigmore had little affinity with either.
[44] Mortimer of Attilberg's Fief lay in Norfolk, Lincolnshire, and Cambridgeshire. The paternal inheritance of Mortimer of Richard's Castle was in Essex.
[45] The Arms borne by Mortimer of Attilberg were,- Or. Semee de flour de lis Sa. Those borne by Mortimer of Essex and Richard's Castle were,- Barry of six, Or and Vert;- sixteen fleur de lis counterchanged.
[46] [47] Claus. I. 58, b, 69, b.


the service of five knights'-fees. [48] At the same time, or nearly so, he holds 6 fees in Worcestershire, expressly said to have been acquired with the daughter and heir of Hugh de Say, and by gift of the King. [49] In Herefordshire his tenure is put at 1 knights'-fees, of the Barony of Richard's Castle. [50] To this period may also be referred that supplementary entry in the Liber Niger which I have just alluded to as having deceived Dugdale, and which I had previously noticed as utterly unintelligible in the printed version of Hearne. [51] The original is as follows:- "Robertus de Mortuomari tenet xxiii feoda in honore Castelli Ricardi cum filia Hugonis de Say, herede Osberti filii Hugonis",- a statement which needs no further comment.

About July 1213 Robert de Mortimer proffers "to serve the King for a year with nine other Knights, and at his own cost, if he may be quit of the debt which he owes the King for his Fine for having his wife". [52] On August 31, 1213, he was one of the Commissioners appointed for Herefordshire to inquire as to the injuries done to the Church in the late period of discord. [53] On November 7, 1213, the King had evidently accepted his proffered services, for he excuses him his debt or debts of 500 merks, in consideration of his recent Fine. [54] Accordingly, from his attestation of Royal Writs only, we learn that in 1214 he was with King John in Poitou. Besides this, a Writ dated at St. Maixent on August 23, 1214, orders him to have restitution of land taken from him in Herefordshire; [55] another Writ, dated at Partenay on Sept. 2, ensures his enjoyment of such franchises as his predecessors had enjoyed in those Counties where his lands lay. [56] He seems to have had some difficulty in obtaining his Wife's estates, for on July 30, 1215, Margery de Say, in presence of the King at Brug, names Robert de Mortimer her husband as her Attorney to sue Gilbert de Say and all others, against whom she wished to proceed in obtaining her inheritances. [57] On December 3, 1215, Robert de Mortimer has restitution of the land of Berewic in Sussex which, having been the property of Mabel de Say, mother of Mortimer's wife, was now in the hand of Robert Marmion Senior. [58] On February 25, 1216, the Sheriff of Leicestershire (read Lincolnshire) is ordered to give ten librates of land in Herlaveston to

[48] [49] [50] Testa da Nevill, pp. 55, 43, 44, 69. A cotemporary list in the Liber Ruber (fo. cxxxvii) gives his Shropshire fees at 5.
[51] Supra, Vol. I, p. 3, note 5.
[52] Fines, p. 473.
[53] Claus. I, 164.
[54] Fines, pp. 503, 504.
[55] [56] Claus. I, 170, b, 171, b.
[57] Patent, p. 181.
[58] Claus. I, 240.


Robert de Mortimer, such land having belonged to Robert de Mortimer of Norfolk (i.e. Attilberg) who was now with the King's enemies. [59] On August 9, 1216, King John, being at Oswestry, gives him all such lands in his Worcestershire Fief as were held by Tenants adverse to the King. [60] At Shrewsbury on August 12 the King gives him a right to hold a weekly market on Thursdays at Richard's Castle, and also a yearly Fair at the Feast of St. Owen (Aug. 26), to last for six days. [61] Another instance of the King's favour is dated at Bedford on September 15, [62] and in the following month the King died. The accession of Henry III was no disadvantage to those who had faithfully adhered to his Father. Among other marks of favour, I notice particularly Letters-Close of October 1217, which enabled Robert de Mortimer to receive his own scutage in Essex. [63] The latest that I hear of Robert de Mortimer, as living, is under date of January 26, 1219, when the King puts him on a commission to deliver certain Castles of the Welsh Border to Hubert de Burg. [64] On July 3, 1219, Robert de Mortimer was dead, for the King, being at Hereford, orders the Sheriff of Essex to assign to Margery de Say his widow, dower in such lands in Essex as were of the inheritance of her late husband. [65] On July 5, 1219, the King took the homage of Margaret de Say at Gloucester, and ordered the Sheriffs of Herefordshire, Northamptonshire, Worcestershire, Berkshire, Gloucestershire, Shropshire, Warwickshire, and Oxfordshire to give her seizin of Richard's Castle and all other lands of her inheritance. She was also to have all arrears of scutages which her Tenants should have paid, in the first instance, to Hugh de Ferrars, her former husband, and which the King had since ordered to be paid to Robert de Mortimer in his time. [65] The King's Letter to this Lady in anticipation of her third marriage is unusually deferential, but indicates a mourning of only four months. It runs thus:- "The King to Margery, formerly wife of Robert de Mortimer, greeting.- Know that it is well pleasing to us if at the same time it be a matter of complacence to you, that you take our faithful and beloved William de Stutevill for your husband, and to this we give our assent. At Westminster,- on the fifth of November (12] 9)". [67] It appears that on November 23 following, William de Stutevill gave the King the small Fine of two Palfreys for this marriage, and forthwith had seizin of Margery's inheritance.
[68] Her

[59] [60] [61] [62] [63] Claus. I, 249, 280, 281, 288, 373.
[64] [65] Claus. I, 386. Fines, I, p. 34.
[66] [67] Claus. I, 394-5, 407.
[68] Fines, I, p. 39.


Son by Robert de Mortimer was probably very young and will not as yet occur to our notice. Of-

WILLIAM BE STUTEVILL, who thus became Lord of Richard's Castle, I know nothing previous to his advancement, [69] unless it were he whom a Writ of King John's, in July 1216, mentions with some appearance of distrust. [70] At the Assizes of 1221 the Jurors of Overs Hundred presented Margery de Say's previous marriage to Stutevill as by the King's act. Her lands in this Hundred they valued at 10. per annum. In August 1228 William de Stutevill was serving the King in the Army of Wales. He was therefore permitted to gather his own Scutage from his Knights in Herefordshire, Gloucestershire, Oxfordshire, Warwickshire, Shropshire, Northamptonshire, Worcestershire, and Berkshire, as also to levy an Aid on his free tenants in some of those Counties towards his own support in the King's service. [71] In 1224 he had quittance of the Scutage of Bedford. In February 1226 he is in attendance on the King at Windsor; [72] and in May 1227 has custody of Kenilworth Castle for the Crown. [73] In 1229 he was charged 10 merks for the Scutage of Keri, in respect of the five reputed fees of his Shropshire Barony, [74] but in 1230 was excused the Scutage of Brittany. [75] In 1231 the Scutage of Poitou, assessed at 3 merks per Fee, was charged on his Shropshire Barony;- viz. at 10. on 5 fees. [76] In 1232 he was acquitted of the Scutage of Elveyn. [77] In some instances the Barony of Burford is not noticed on the Scutage Rolls of Shropshire, it being assessed in gross under some other County. When distinguished from other Counties, it is usually reputed to have been five knights'-fees. In 1235-6, when the Aid on marriage of the King's Sister was collected in Shropshire, William de Stutevill paid one instalment, as if his Barony consisted of 4 fees, the other as if of 4 fees. Robert Busun, Seneschal of Richard's Castle, went to Brug with the money. [78] About four years later, and we find the Shropshire part of this Barony estimated in one instance to contain 5 fees, in another only 3 fees. [79] The same Record enumerates its fees in Worcestershire, Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, Warwickshire, Oxfordshire, and Berkshire.

[69] Banks, in his Peerage (Vol. p.175) calls William de Stuteville "son of Osmund", and gives him an ancestry and a succession which I do not question, but cannot substantiate.
[70] [71] Claus. I, pp. 250, 571.
[72] [73] Claus. II, 97, 184.
[74] [75] [76] Rot. Pip. 13, 14, 15 Hen. III, Salop.
[77] Rot. Pip. 16 Hen. III, Salop.
[78] Testa de Nevill, pp. 61, 60.
[79] Ibidem, pp. 45, 48, 50.


In Michaelmas Term 1242, Margery de Say being apparently dead, Hugh de Mortimer, her son and heir, was suing William de Stuteville for waste. The first move in this litigation failed for want of form, and the Plaintiff had leave to prosecute in some other mode. It appeared that Stuteville had had issue by Margery de Say, and so held the Barony by Courtesy of England.
[80] Again in Easter Term 1243, the Suit was renewed, [81] but ended in a Fine whereby Mortimer withdrew all impeachment of waste in the woods of Burford, Richard's Castle, etc., receiving at once the Manor of Hamme, in Worcestershire, the service of Robert de Clifton, in Clifton (Worcestershire), and the lands called Cascope. [82] In 1245, William de Stutevill Wall assessed at 5. on five Shropshire Fees to the Aid on marriage of the King's daughter, [83] and in 1246 had quittance of 10. similarly assessed for the Scutage of Gannok. [84] In 1255, Wrilliam de Stutevill was returned as holding Bureford in capite. It was a free Manor, that is, owed no Suits or Gelds. Stutevill had two carucates there in his demesne. [85]

On May 20, 1259, the King's Writ of Diem clausit extremum issued on the death of William de Stutevill. Inquests were held in Worcestershire and Shropshire. The latter found him to have held nothing of his own inheritance, but only per legem Angliae, and of the inheritance of Margery, his former wife. Bureford, Wulfreton, Stepleton, and Wililegh in Walcheria were thus held. The Heir to all was Hugh de Mortimer, now forty years of age.

HUGH DE MORTIMER had done homage to the King for his Barony on June 12, 1259. His Relief was fixed at 100. [87] In 1260, his acquittance of the Scutage of Wales in respect of five Shropshire Fees, is improperly recorded as an acquittance of William de Stutevill. [88] A Patent of November 23, 1263, guarantees a protection for Hugh de Mortimer and his Knights, pending the War with Wales, against all suits at law, except Pleas of Dower, Mort d'Ancestre, and Novel Disseizin. In the stirring events which followed, we usually find Hugh de Mortimer of Richard's Castle, associated both in principles and actions with Roger de Mortimer of Wigmore. I refer elsewhere for some particulars of this. [89] Another

[80] [81] Placita, Mich. Tm. 26 Hen. III, m. dorso, and Easter Tm. 27 Hen. m, 23.
[82] Fines (divers. Comitat.), 27 Hen. III, No. 77.
[83] [84] Rot. Pip. 29, 30 Hen. III, Salop.
[85] Rot. Hundred. II, 74.
[86] Inquisitions, 43 Hen. III, No. 23.
[87] Fines, II, 302.
[88] Rot. Pip. 44 Hen. III, Salop.
[89] Dugdale's Baronage, I, 152, 153.


fact is, that the King's Letters of protection, dated February 18, 1263, include Hugh de Mortimer, Richard de Lecton, Robert de Mortimer (possibly a Brother of Hugh), Peter de Grete, and Richard Carbonel. [90] How Hugh de Mortimer suffered for his loyalty at the hands of Montfort, we are told elsewhere. [91] His conduct at the Battle of Evesham may be concluded from a Patent dated August 9, 1265, which appoints him to the custody of Feckenham, a great Manor and Forest of the King's in Worcestershire. Being apparently at the siege of Kenilworth with the King, a Patent, date July 21, 1266, allows him to hunt the Hare, Fox, Weasel, and Wild Cat, in any of the King's Forests in Shropshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire. A Charter dated also at Kenilworth on November 16, 1266, grants him a weekly Market on Saturdays, and an annual Fair of three days (March 24, 25, and 26) at Burford, and the privilege of Free-Warren in Wichbold. [92]

The supposition that this Hugh de Mortimer was at any time Sheriff of Shropshire is erroneous. It was his Cotemporary, Hugh de Mortimer of Chelmarsh, who held that office. I have avoided mentioning some trivial particulars about both persons, where it was not clear which of the two was concerned. The King's Writ of Diem clausit extremum on the death of Hugh de Mortimer of Richard's Castle, issued on Nov. 28, 1274, and an Inquest in pursuance thereof was held at Burford, on December 15 following. The Jurors found that the deceased had held two carucates in demesne in Burford Manor, that two out of the three portions of Burford Church belonged to him as Patron, and that the Barony of Burford commanded no less than 32 Knights'-Fees in different Counties. Half the Pleas and Profits of Overs Hundred belonged to Burford. This half was still worth 2. per annum. It used to be worth 4., but the withdrawals of Roger de Mortimer and the Abbot of Wigmore had reduced the value. The Pleas and Perquisites of the Manorial Court were 16s. The Manor was held per Baroniam, and its gross annual value from all sources was 27. 7s. 10d. Robert de Mortimer, son and heir of the deceased, was of full age, viz. 22 years old. [93]

It is singular that on the very day on which the King's Writ of Diem clausit extremum issued, as above mentioned, the Justices made Inquisition as to the state of Overs Hundred at Shrewsbury. The Jurors spoke of the Barony and Manor of Burford being in the

[90] Patent, 47 Hen. III.
[91] Dugdale (ut supra).
[92] Rot. Chart. 51 Hen. III, m. 11.
[93] Inquisitions, 3 Edw. I, No. 42.


King's hand, or that of his Escheator John de Erkalewe, till the Heir should have fined for his Livery. They said that the late Hugh de Mortimer had procured Burford to be made a Free Borough by Henry III, after the battle of Evesham, but that no Ferm was paid to the Crown on that account. Also since the said Battle the "Baron of Bureford" had appropriated a right of Free-Warren in Burford the Jurors knew not by what warrant. [94]

It is remarkable that about the time (1265-6) at which, according to the above Jurors, Henry III made Burford a free Borough, a Deed of which the following is the substance must necessarily have passed.-

Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Hugo de Mortuomari Dominus de Castro Ricardi dedi et concessi omnibus liberis Burgensibus meis de Bureford omnia Burgagia eorum cum pertinentiis;- tenenda de me et heredibus meis, eisdem Burgensibus et heredibus suis, libere et quiete, pro 12 denariis pro quolibet Burgagio annuatim solvendis. Concessi etiam quod teneant Burgagia sua secundum libertatem et consuetudines Legis Britollii, sicut praedicta libertas usa est in civitate Herefordiae. Hiis Testibus.- Domino Johanne Esturmi, Domino Adam de Elmesrugge, Domino Petro de Grete, Domino Rogero Pichard, Domino Henrico de Turbervill, Ricardo le Cursun, Ricardo Carbonel, Willielmo de Clifford, Symone de la Hull. [95]

Burford then, I presume, became at this period a Corporate Town, paying a Quit-Rent to its Lord at the rate of 1s. for each Burgage, but enjoying in other respects the same Franchises as the Town of Bristol enjoyed, and as their exercise was exemplified in the City of Hereford. [96]

ROBERT DE MORTIMER, the succeeding Baron of Burford, paid 100. for Livery of his inheritance. The first Military Summons with which he was served was that against Lewellyn, when the Muster was to be at Worcester, on July 1, 1277. [97] We have here a good example of the different estimates of the number of Knights'-Fees which belonged to or constituted any particular Barony. The actual number of Fees which were held under a feudal Lord was always

[94] Rot. Hundred. II, 103.
[95] Blakeway's MSS. The Deed was sealed with the Arms of Mortimer of Richard's Castle (as above, p. 312, note 45);- but the shield is divided into seven compartments instead of six, i.e. (heraldically speaking) it is charged with three bars, not divided into barry of six. The fleurs de lis are equally distributed over the whole.
[96] For the Customs of Bristol, see Hist. Shrewsbury (Owen and Blakeway), Vol. I, pp. 83, 89.
[97] Parliamentary Writs, I, 201.


greater than the number at which that Lord was assessed to any Scutage. Again the Fees assessable to Scutage were of higher amount than the number of Knights to be provided for any Military expedition. Though Mortimer's Barony was composed of more than 30 Fees, and though he was assessed to Shropshire Scutages, as if his Barony in that County consisted of 5 Fees, yet to the Summons against Lewellyn he only acknowledged that the personal services of three Knights were due in respect of his Western Baronies, viz. Richard's Castle and Burford united. These services he proffered to perform by himself and five servientes, viz. William and Hugh de Mortimer (perhaps his brothers), Thomas de Hunteleye, Philip de Stok, and Richard Carbonel. If more he owed, more he undertook to perform. His later military services may be estimated by various Writs of the years 1282 and 1283;- but his Summons to the Parliament of Shrewsbury, to be holden on September 30, 1283, was a matter of more personal distinction. [98]

The Feodary of 1284 gives Robert de Mortimer as holding the Barony of Burford in capite, "for three knights'-Fees", [99] a statement which was only true as regards forinsec services. I cannot indicate the period of Robert de Mortimer's death more nearly than by saying that an Inquisition consequent thereon sat at Burford on Angust 13, 1287. His Shropshire Fees were 7 in number. Their gross annual value, to his several Tenants, was 89. 15s. [1]

Robert de Mortimer left his wife Joyce la Zouche surviving him She had for her dower the Manors of Burford and Cotheridge. Robert de Mortimer also left two sons, Hugh and William. Hugh was under age at the time of his father's death, and had not livery of his inheritance till 1296. I cannot but think that he was son of a Wife of Mortimer's earlier than Joyce la Zouche. William, undoubtedly the son of Joyce la Zouche, succeeded eventually to his Mother's inheritance, and was called William la Zouche de Mortimer. As son of Robert de Mortimer, and probably having a younger brother's portion in Rochford, he confirms his Ancestors' grants of Rochford Mill to Haughmond Abbey, [2] which is all that I shall say of him here.

HUGH DE MORTIMER (II), last Baron of his line, was in 1290 in Ward to William de Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, but obtained his

[98] Parliamentary Writs, I, 749.
[99] Kirby's Quest.
[1] Inquisitions, 16 Edw. I, No. 16. See also the Inquisition nurnbered in the Calendar as 2 Edw. I, No. 58. They are nearly duplicates, and both of them utterly misrepresented in the Calendar.
[2] Chartulary: Tit. Racheforde.


livery in 1296, having however been married at least five years previously. His Summonses, Military and Parliamentary, are very numerous for the five years (1297 to 1301) of his short public career. [3]

In November 1297 Hugh de Mortimer settled his estates by a Fine and Counter-Fine, levied at Westminster, under a Royal Precept. By the Fine he conveys to William, Bishop of Bath and Wells, Plaintiff, his Manors of Farleye (Hampshire), Aumbreden and Hobrigg (Essex), Nymyngton Regis (Devonshire), Norton (Northamptonshire), Cotheridge (Worcestershire), and Burford (Shropshire), for which the Bishop is said to pay 1000. [4]

The Counter-Fine, dated a week later, gives the Bishop conveying these same Manors to Hugh de Mortimer and Matilda his wife, and the heirs of Hugh, for a like sum of 1000. [5] Hugh de Mortimer (II) seems to have died shortly before August 5, 1304, the date of the King's Writ of Diem clausit extremum. An Inquest held on August 30th, recites how he had settled Burford on Matilda his wife, for her life, they having been jointly enfeoffed therein by William de la March, Bishop of Bath and Wells (Trustee as above), with remainder to the heirs of Hugh de Mortimer. These heirs were two infant daughters,- Johanna, who was 12 years of age on Nov. 25, 1303, and Margaret, who was 8 years of age on Sept. 14, 1303. The Jurors said that the deceased had held Borevrd of the King per Baroniam, and for the service of 2 knights'-fees. Matilda, Widow of Hugh de Mortimer, is also said to have had three other Manors in Devonshire, Essex, and Northamptonshire, settled upon her in like manner. [6] Wichbold and a large estate in Wales were further assigned for her dower in 1304, and this was subsequently increased; for upon her death, shortly before March 11, 1308, her dower was found to be far more extensive. [7] At this time her eldest daughter Joan was wife of Thomas de Bykenore, on whose death without issue she remarried to Richard Talbot. Margaret, the youngest daughter, though little more than twelve years of age at the time of her Mother's death, was already the wife of Geoffrey de Cornwall. Between these Coheiresses was the Manor of Burford divided. The Barony is still in Abeyance among their Descendants.

I should observe that in this same year (1308) died William de Mortimer of Hamme, and an Inquest held on Dec. 9, at Ludlow, found the two Coheiresses of Burford to be also his Coheirs in several

[3] Parlianneniary Writs, I, 749.
[4] [5] Fines (Diverse Counties), 25 Edw. I, No. 35, and 26 Edw. I, No. 37.
[6] Inquisitions, 32 Edw. I, No. 84.
[7] Inquisitions, 1 Edw. II, No. 59.


small estates in Herefordshire and Worcestershire. [8] As one of these estates was held by demise of Robert de Mortimer, I conclude this William de Mortimer to have been brother of that Robert who died in 1287, and so Great-Uncle of Joan and Margaret. We may further notice how ignorant local Juries were as to the exact age and state of infant heiresses; for this Inquisition of December 1308 makes Joan and Margaret each one year older than the Inquisition of 1304. Moreover the Ludlow Inquest of December 1308 says that Margaret was still in the King's custody, while the Worcestershire Inquest of even date gives the name of her husband.

In speaking of the UNDERTENANTS of Burford I must here confine myself to those of the Vill of Burford only, for the many members of the Manor will require a separate notice.

On May 4, 1216, King John orders that Roger de Ledeswic shall have seizin of a Mill and of a Noke of land in Bureford, his efforts to recover which, by process of law, had been impeded by the War [9] (apparently preventing all judicial proceedings at Westminster). John Anglicus the Tenant of the Mill would seem to have been accused of some treasonable conduct untruly. In June 1236, one Geoffrey de Burford occurs, as enfeoffed by Hervey, Abbot of Haughmond, in three virgates in Rocheford, at a rent of 40s. 7d., and for 4 merks paid down. "Geoffrey, surnamed Junior, son of Philip de Burford", afterwards quit-claimed these premises to the Abbot; Sir Peter de Grete and Sir John de la Mare, Knights, attesting the surrender. [10]

In February 1259, William, son of Robert Chone, has a Writ of Novel Disseizin against Simon de Prene for a tenement in Burford. [11] For this Writ he is charged 20s. on the cotemporary Pipe-Roll.


The Church which, with two Priests, Domesday assigns to this Manor, was probably Collegiate from a still earlier period. It is in Trinity Term 1253 that I next hear of Burford Church. It then consisted of three Portions, one of which, being vacant, was claimed to be in the patronage of the Lords of Burford, then represented by William de Stutevill. Peter de Grete was the other Claimant, and obtained the presentation pro hac vice from Stutevill by an agreement, for which Peter paid 1 merk. Stutevill's concession reserved

[8] Inquisition, 2 Edw. II, No. 65.
[9] Rot. Claus. I, 268.
[10] Haughmond Chartulary: Tit. Racheforde.
[11] Patent, 43 Hen. III, dorso.


the future right of the Heir of Burford (Hugh de Mortimer). [12] On the death of Hugh de Mortimer in November 1274, it was found by Inquest that the Church was in three Portions. Two of these, valued at 20 and 15 merks respectively, were in patronage of the Lords of Burford, the third was in the gift of the Lord of Greet. [13] The Inquest on the death of Robert de Mortimer in 1287, gives him all three Portions, and values the third Portion at 10 merks, the others as before. [14]

The Taxation of 1291 gives the three portions of Burford Church, in the Deanery of Burford, as worth 16. 13s. 4d., 9., and 5. 6s. 8d. respectively: that is, 25, 13, and 8 merks. [15] It should be observed that the least valuable of these three portions was nevertheless styled the second Portion, and as such I shall hereafter speak of it. An Inquisition of 1308 gives the three Portions of Burford as worth 20., 20 merks, and 10. respectively, and puts them all as having been in the gift of Matilda de Mortimer, late Lady of Burford. [16] In 1325, the Rectors of the first and second portions having claimed their prebends to be without cure of souls, an Inquest held in July found that each Prebend was charged with such a Cure, and that they were taxed, the first at 25 merks, the second at 8 merks, and the third at 13 merks. [17] In 1341, the Inquisition of the Ninth quoted the Taxation of Burford Church correctly at 31., but as if there were certain Chapels included in that estimate. [18] The Assessors rated the Parish at 12. 0s. 3d. only, to the Ninth. The reasons for the reduction were because eleven virgates lay fallow, being held by incapable Tenants, and because the Foundation, Rents, and Lands of the Church (valued at 7. 2s. 6d.), the Hay-tithes (valued at 5.), the small-tithes, offerings, and other ecclesiastical profits (valued at 10.), were included in the Church-Taxation, and as I presume could not be taken to indicate any quantities of wheat, wool, and lamb, produced in the Parish, such as were now proposed to be assessed.

In 1531-5, John Hewys, Richard Benson, and John Gorle, the then three Portionists of Burford, certified their collective preferment to be worth 23. 13s. 4d. per annum in Glebe land and Tithes.

[12] Placita, Trin. Term, 37 Hen. III, m. 8 dorso.
[13] [14] Inquisitions, 3 Edw. I, No. 42; 15 Edw. I, No. 15.
[15] Pope Nich. Tax. p. 165, b.
[16] Inquisitions, 1 Edw. II, No. 59.
[17] Blakeway,- from Hereford Register.
[18] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 187.- The Chapels of Burford were Boraston, Nash, Whitton, and Greet. The two last are now joined.


[For engraving, see pdf.]


The Archdeacon's Procurations and Synodals chargeable on that income were 15s. 4d. annually; the Bishop's triennial Procurations averaged a further charge of 17s. 9d. per annum. [19]


HAMO DE CURSUN, a Rector of Burford, is noticed in 1255 as having prosecuted two Laymen before Judges Delegate. One (Hugh Carbonel) had accused him of killing a Chaplain; the other (William Harang) had taken security from Hamo for a debt due to him. [20] It is not clear that this Hamo held the first Portion, nor can I tell which Portion of Burford it was that was cotemporarily held by the notorious-

GILES DE NORFOLK, so often mentioned in these pages. [21]

WILLIAM DE BLANKENEYE, Incumbent of the first Portion, dying in 1274, the King, on Dec. 15, as Custos of the lands late Hugh de Mortimer's, presented-

STEPHEN DE ST. GEORGE to the same. [22] On May 21, 1278, the King had heard that this, his beloved Clerk, was molested by the Bishop of Hereford, who sought to enforce residence upon him, and to oblige him to take further Orders. The King reminds the Bishop of what he believed him to know already, viz. "that the King's Clerks need not keep residence nor take full Orders, so that they be in some Orders". The Bishop is ordered to desist. Stephen de St. George is the first-named Incumbent in the Taxation of 1291, but on October 23rd of that year, he was deceased, and the King, as Custos of the heir of Hugh de Mortimer, presented-

HUGELINE DE GERARDINGES, of Lucca, to his vacant Portion. [23]

SIR RICHARD DE WYNTON, Deacon, was instituted to a prebendal portion here, April 19, 1301, on resignation of his Predecessor.- Patron, Sir Hugh de Mortimer, Knight.

JOHN DE SAYNGRAVE, Acolyte, instituted to a prebendal portion Angust 17, 1302. Patron, Sir Hugh de Mortimer, Knight.

SIR A. DE OSGODSBY, a Prebendary here, being deceased on Sept. 13, 1316,-

SIR WILLIAM DE AIRMAIGNE, Deacon, was instituted, and the Institution renewed on September 29. Patron, Sir Thomas de Bykenore, Lord of Richard's Castle.

[19] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 214.
[20] Rot. Hundred. II, 69, 72, 74.
[21] Supra, Vol. I, pp. 378-9, and III, 108. Infra, p. 327.
[22] Rot. Patent. 3 Edw. I, m. 33.
[23] Rot. Patent. 19 Edw. 1, m. 4.


SIR WALTER DE ISLIP, Prebendary here, was succeeded on Feb. 14, 1326, by-

JOHN DE ELLERHER, Clerk. Patron, Sir Richard Talbot.

SIR JOHN DE WOTTON, Priest, instituted April 9, 1331, on presentation of Dame Joan Talbot.

JOHN DE NORTHAMTON resigned this Prebend 8 May, 1352, having exchanged with-

WILLIAM, late Rector of Lillingston Dansy (Linc. Dioc.).

ROBERT DE LA MARE, Incumbent of this Portion in 1366, agrees in the presence of Sir John Talbot, the Patron, to provide a Chaplain. On his death, viz. on May 1, 1385,-

RICHARD DE LA FELD was presented by the King.

WALTER BAYNTONE was presented in 1400 by Sir Matthew Gournay, Knight, and Philippa his wife, and on May 13, 1401-

WILLIAM DE REPYNGDON, Chaplain, was presented by Elizabeth Archdeacon, Lady of Richard's Castle. He died in 1435.


MASTER WILLIAM DE MORTIMER, on March 27, 1276, has Corporal possession of this Portion given to him "in the name of custody" and to hold during Bishop Cantelupe's pleasure. He was Incumbent in 1291.

ROBERT DE SEYNESBURY, Priest, instituted Oct. 14, 1316. Patron, Sir Geoffrey de Cornwall, Knight. To him succeeded-

THOMAS DE WESTON, Clerk, on August 16, 1320. Same Patron. On 26 October he has Letters Dimissory for all Orders.

RICHARD DE ALDMESTRE was presented in 1321 to the Prebend late Thomas de Weston's, by Sir Geoffrey de Cornwall, Knight.

SIR THOMAS DE CHEDDEWORTH was to have been succeeded on 14 February, 1326, by-

PETER DE BELGRAVE in this Portion, but an Inquest found that the Portion was not vacant, and the Court of Canterbury forbade Belgrave's institution pendente lite. However on 6 Dec., 1330, Belgrave, as a Portioner of Burford, has a license to study.

SIR GEOFFREY DE BURFORD, Incumbent of this "Curative Portion", being deceased in 1349, the King, on August 6, and because the heir of Richard de Cornewall was then a ward of the Crown, presented-

MASTER JOHN, SON OF JOHN LE FEROUR, of Northampton, thereto. [24] Him the Bishop instituted on August 19.

[24] Patent, 28 Edw. III, p. 2, m. 13.


WILLIAM PRENE, resigning this Portion in 1387, his Successor-

JOHN ROULEY, Clerk, of the Diocese of Lichfield and Coventry, was instituted on March 24, Sir Brian de Cornwall, Knight, being Patron. On the death of John Rowell in 1388, viz. on May 28 of that year-

NICHOLAS BAKER, Chaplain, was instituted, at presentation of John Lord of Burford.

SIR WILLIAM BAMBUROH, dying in 1397, his Successor in this Portion, viz:

SIR WILLIAM LYNGEYN, Chaplain, was instituted On June 28, John Lord of Burford presenting. Lyngeyn resigned in 1408.


GEOFFREY DE BUREFORD, Clerk, occurs on Oct. 6, 1276, as entitled to this portion, of which however John de Sheldesley is to have present custody. Geoffrey has cotemporary license to study for three years, and to receive 6 merks per annum out of his Benefice. He seems to have been very young, and to have been distinguished by a sobriquet accordingly; for the Episcopal Register informs us that Geoffrey, surnamed Le Joevene, Incumbent of this Prebend, died on March 29, 1284, by reason of a wound on his head.

This entry is curiously supplemented by a Presentment of the Overs Jurors at the County Assizes of 1292. They told how that Geoffrey Young (Juvenis) of Bureford and Geoffrey, Parson of the Church of Burford, had fought in the fields of Burford; how Young had struck the Parson on the head with a staff, whereby after three weeks he died. Young was now a Fugitive. He was outlawed. He had no Chattels to be forfeited. The Vills of Buraston and Overton were amerced for not having duly attended the Coroner's Inquest in this case. The King, for some cause or other, sent for a Copy of this Process, and the Court ordered one to be forwarded. [25] Geoffrey Young's Successor at Burford was-

MASTER ROBERT DE LACY, Priest, instituted Sept. 18, 1284; the Bishop exercising a lapsed right of Patronage. Lacy is named as Incumbent of this third Portion in the Taxation of 1291.

ADAM DE NEWEHAGH, Clerk, was instituted in January 1316 to a Portion here, Sir Geoffrey de Cornwall presenting.

[25] Placita Coronae, 20 Edw. I, m. 33 dorso. There is either a confusion of names in this Record, or else there were two Geoffreys surnamed Young;- one a Clerk, the other a layman; one murdered, the other his Murderer.


GEOFFREY DE EVESHAM occurs as a Prebendary of Burford between 1325 and 1328.

SIMON DE BRAYBROK, Clerk, resigns this Portion on 22 July, 1333, having exchanged preferments with-

MASTER JOHN DE LUGWARDINE, late Rector of Fardington (Linc. Dioc.), who is instituted here on presentation of Sir Geoffrey de Cornwall.

JOHN DE ROULTON, Priest, succeeds to Lugwardine's Portion on January 27, 1362, Sir Geoffrey de Cornwall presenting.

ROGER DE ASTON resigns this Portion in 1364, having exchanged preferments with-

JOHN, surnamed LE SMYTHES OF BEDEWARDYN, late Rector of St. Andrew's, Worcester. The latter was instituted here on July 18, at presentation of Sir Geoffrey de Cornwall. In 1365 it was found by Inquest that Le Smythes' Portion was non-curative, but compatible with the tenure of a second Benefice. John de Bradwardine, as he is called, was succeeded Dec. 25, 1367, by-

MASTER ROGER DE SUTTON, Clerk, who was presented by the King as Custos of Geoffrey de Cornwall's heir. [26]


The Domesday estimate of Burford equals it to 6 hides. The Manor waa probably coterminous with the Parish, and, if so, comprehended various Townships, which, according to later Surveys, will, with Burford proper, more than satisfy the required hidage. Thus we have Burford proper estimated to contain 2 carucates of demesne, Boraston is put at 2 hides, Whetmore at 1 carucate, Nash at hide, Tilsop at 1 hide, Weston at 1 hide, Stoke at 1 hide, and Whitton at hide. The total of 6 hides and 3 carucates does not include Greet, whose contents I nowhere find stated. Thus Burford, as a whole, is found to have increased its reputed hidage very considerably, and that without any probable absorption of other Manors.


This member of Burford was granted by one of the Lords of Burford to Worcester Priory. In 1188 Warin and Simon de Bureston had paid the Sheriff of Shropshire half a merk for the plevin of Reginald fitz Warin. At the Assizes of October, 1203, Geoffrey de Bureston essoigned his attendance at the common summons, his Essoignor being Adam de Bureston. On Nov. 4, 1208, two Fines were levied, in each of which Osbert de Sutton was Plaintiff under a

[26] Patent, 41 Edw. III, p. 2, m. 10.


Writ of Grand Assize against Geoffrey and Adam de Burston, Tenants of half a virgate each in Burston. Each Tenant gave to Osbert 10s. for foregoing his claim.

In 1255 the Jurors of Overs Hundred found that the Prior of Worcester held two hides in Burestone of Sir William de Stutevill, and by gift of his Predecessors. The Prior only answered (in services I suppose) for one hide, and not for the other, and he did no Suit whatever. [27] Symon de Burestone, a Juror on this occasion, officiated in a like capacity at the County Assizes of January, 1256, and on a local Inquest in 1259. He was probably the Prior's Tenant. In 1259 Milo de Boraston and Thomas de Bereford (Burford) occur as Sureties for a fine of 6s. 8d. inflicted on the notorious Giles de Norfolk for some withdrawal (quia retraxit se). In November 1274 it was one of the charges against Robert de Trillek (Under Sheriff) that having Richard de Letybury of Buraston in prison on a charge of Larceny, he allowed him to go free. [28] On Dec. 15, 1274, William de Buraston sat on a Burford Jury. These were all probably Tenants of the Prior of Worcester, whose interest at Boraston in 1291 is duly stated to consist of 5. assized rents; four acres of meadow, worth 4s. per atanum, and 10d. per annum for pannage of swine. [29]

By a Deed of 30 Edward I (1301-2) the Prior and Monks of Worcester grant to Richard de Temedabur (Tenbury), Clerk, and John son of Richard de Boreford, his nephew, a messuage in Burraston held by William Freman.- Witnesses: Robert Estormy, Walter de Clifford, William de la Hull, Adam de la Hull, and Robert de Lodewich. [30]

BORASTON CHAPEL, as having been a mere dependency of Burford Church, has no distinct notice in ancient Records.


The immediate Tenants of this member of Burford were of a knightly family, named Sturmy, or more anciently Esturmi. They also held Sutton (sometime known as Sutton Sturmey), Stanford (often caned Stanford Sturmey), and a part of Lower Sapey, all in Worcestershire, under the Barons of Burford. Half a hide too in Richard's Castle, Herefordshire, and Nash, another member of Burford, were constituents of their Fee. The first of this race who

[27] Rot. Hundred. II, 74.
[28] Rot. Hundred. II, 104.
[29] Pope Nich. Tax. p. 163, a.
[30] Sheriffs of Shropshire, p. 142.


occurs to my notice is Hugh Esturmi, amerced five merks in 1176 for trespass in the Forests of Worcestershire. The next is Robert Esturmi, who in 1183 is amerced half a merk, with some other Burford Tenants, for not making inquisition about some treasure-trove. About this time he attests a Charter of Osbern fitz Hugh, which I shall give under Ashford Carbonell. He was living, and occurs more than once in the time of Hugh de Say II, that is between 1190 and 1196. At the Shropshire Assizes in October 1203 Robert Esturmi essoigns himself by Robert Barat in a suit of mort d'ancestre against Richard Wetemore. Afterwards at Worcester, this Suit was accorded, Robert de Sturmi giving one merk for license so to end it. His Surety was Robert Wal. [31] To Robert succeeded John Esturmi, who, having been in rebellion at the close of King John's reign, had returned to his allegiance before June 22, 1217, when Henry III orders the Sheriff of Shropshire to reinstate him in his possessions. [32] A Feodary of the Honour of Richard's Castle, which is entitled as belonging to the 13th year of King John (1211-12), but which must have been drawn up at least fourteen years later, gives John Esturmy as Tenant of 1 knights'-fees in Sutton, Worcestershire, [33] but makes no mention of his mesne interest in Whetmore. A list of Shropshire Fees pertaining to the Barony of Burford, and drawn up about 1240, gives John Storam (read Stormi) as holding fee thereof in Wetemor. [34] A Worcestershire Feodary, drawn up within five years of the same time, gives John Sturmi as holding fee in Stanford Esturmi, fee in Sapy, and 1 fee in Sutton (all in William de Stutevill's Worcestershire Barony); also fee in Richard's Castle, Herefordshire. [35] In Easter Term 1258 one Philip Esturmy was Manucaptor for Walter de Clifford's appearance in a Suit at Westminster, and was fined one merk for the default of his Principal. [36] Hence the Shropshire Pipe Roll of the same year has the following entry:- Philippus Esturmy debet I marcam quia non habuit; the words quem plegiavit being always understood to follow this very usual and summary entry. The Hundred Roll of 1255 gives John Esturmi as then Mesne Lord of Wetemore in the Fee of Burford. It was reputed to contain one carucate of land, and to be a fourth part of a Knight's-fee. [37] At the Assizes of January 1256 John son of John de Chirchehull was suing John son of John Les Sturmy for 6. arrears of an annual rent of

[31] Assizes, 5 John, m. 6.
[32] Claus. I, 312.
[33] Liber Ruber Scaccarii, fo. cxlv.
[34] [35] Testa de Nevill, pp. 45, 39, 41, 68.
[36] Placita, East. Tm. 27 Hen. III, m. 10.
[37] Rot. Hundred. II, 74.


40s. due to him. The Defendant appeared not, but the matter was settled by a Fine at the same Assizes, whereby the Defendant undertook to pay the rent-charge in future and 4 merks of the arrears. The Plaintiff in turn remitted all further claim for damages.

In the same year (1256) John de Stormy was returned among those who, holding 15 Librates of land, were not Knights. About 1266 Sir John Esturmi, Knight, stands first witness of Hugh de Mortimer's Charter to the Burgesses of Burford. On the death of Robert de Mortimer in 1287, John Sturmy was found to have held the Minors of Kyngeshemede and Asche (Nash) under the deceased by fee and fee respectively. Their annual value was 10., but nothing is said about Whetmore. In 1301-2 we have already had Robert Estormy attesting a local Deed. [38] From 1309 to 1322 Robert Sturmy occurs in many important situations in Worcestershire, [39] but the connection of the family with Shropshire seems to have ceased. It is this Robert, I take it, who attested William la Zouche of Mortimer's Confirmation to Haughmond Abbey, already noticed.

THE UNDERTENANTS who held Whetmore under Esturmi come into frequent notice. In May 1199 Margery, apparently second wife and Widow of Reginald (it should be Peter) de Wetemore, was suing her step-son Simon, son of Peter de Wetemore, for dower in Wetemore, Shropshire, and Sutton, Worcestershire. There were several adjournments owing to the essoign or non-appearance of the Parties. Therefore the Sheriff of Shropshire seized into the King's hand a third of Wettemore and 19s. 2d. rent there, and a Mill of 5s. annual value; also the Sheriff of Worcestershire seized one-third of Sutton. [40] A year afterwards, viz, on June 8, 1200, a Fine was levied between Margery de Wettemore, Plaintiff, and Simon de Wettemore, Tenant, of one virgate in Sutton, and of one-third of the vill of Wettemore, one-third of the mill there, and 2s. rent there; all which she claimed as her dower by gift of Peter de Wettemore, her late husband. Simon conceded the whole to Margery for life, whereupon Margery renounced her right as far as regarded a third of the land pertaining to the aforesaid Mill. [41]

One Richard de Wetemore has been mentioned as having a Suit with Robert Esturmi in 1203. He was perhaps the same person with Richard de Wetemore, whom a Feodary, drawn up about 1230,

[38] Supra, P. 327.
[39] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 1475.
[40] Rot. Curiae Regis, I, 282, 337, 341, 348, 388.
[41] Fines (Divers. Comitat.), 2 John, No. 13.


gives as holding one-fourth part of a knight's-fee in Wetemore of the Honour of Richard's Castle; [42]- but here the mesne-tenure of Esturmi is omitted. In 1253 Robert de Wetemore has a writ of novel disseizin against Adam Wele for a tenement in Wetemore. In 1255 Ernald de Barkeley was John Esturmi's Tenant of a carucate in Wetemore. He paid 2s. annual rent, and did no suit to the Hundred. [43]

At the Assizes of January 1256 Osbert Barat names his son John as his Attorney in a suit against Ernald de Berkeley, whom he accused of having disseized him of seven acres in Wetemor. On the Defendant's part it was shown that one Richard de Wetemore having formerly enfeoffed his son Robert in the premises, had afterwards ejected him and enfeoffed Osbert Barat. Upon this Robert de Wetemore had sued his Father for disseizin, and recovering the premises, had enfeoffed Ernald de Berkeley. The Jury found that it was only 1 acre and 3 roods which Robert de Wetemore had thus recovered against his Father, but that he had nevertheless occupied and transferred to Ernald de Berkeley seven acres. So that in fact ErnaId was not the Disseizor of Osbert Beret, but, if any one, Robert de Wetemore was. The Plaintiff, Osbert Barat, had leave to sue in another form. [44] Some of these names will occur again. At the Assizes of 1272, the Inquisition of 1274, and the Assizes of 1292, William de Wetemore was on the Jury for Overs Hundred.

Some other names occur in connection with this Township.-

On September 24, 1199, a Fine was levied between Peter de Knitteton (Knighton, Worcestershire), Plaintiff, and Bernard de la Putte, and Hugh his Brother, Tenants, of half a virgate in Wettemor, whereof was recognition of mort d'ancestre. Peter now renounces all claim, receiving one merk. This Bernard de la Putte occurs again at the Assizes of 1203, when he, with Alice his wife, withdrew a suit of novel disseizin against William Botterell for a tenement in Weston [45] (Weston, near Burford, I presume).

CORNEWOOD.- The vill or hamlet bearing this name is now lost, but Knighton Common, which lies over against Whetmore, across the Worcestershire border, is also called to this day Cornewood Common. Here it was that Geva de Tenbury, daughter of William, and Sister of Adam le Salvage, under consent and confirmation of Osbert fitz Hugh, granted four acres to Haughmond Abbey.- Witness:

[42] Liber Ruber Scacc. fo. cxiv.
[43] Rot. Hundred. II, 74.
[44] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, membranes 9, 10 dorso, 14 dorso.
[45] Assizes, 5 John, m. 1 dorso.

NASH. 331

Hugh de Say, Robert Stormy, William Karbunel, Robert Wyarde. [46] This Deed passed before 1185. Between 1199 and 1201 a Confirmation thereof by Hugh de Ferrars, in return for a Palfrey presented to him by the Abbot of Haughmond, is attested by Walter de Clifford, John Haber, and William Carbonell. [46]

The husband of Geva de Tenbury had been Herbert de Tenbury, and his daughters Alice and Felicia, before the year 1221 confirmed their Mother's grant.- Witnesses: William Carbonel, John and Pagan his sons, Simon Chaplain, Robert Chaplain of Burford. [46] In 1291 an assized rent of 2s. in Cromwode appears among the assets of Haughmond Abbey. [47] The Abbey, it appears, subsequently demised these four acres to one William Maye, for 4s. rent, but Robert Maye, son and heir of the said William, gave all his Tenements in Cornewood (these four acres included) to William de la Hulle, of Wetemore. A deed remains in the Haughmond Chartulary whereby, on July 28, 1348, Richard, Abbot of Haughmond, renews the old understanding with William de la Hulle. [48] In 1541-2, a tenement in Tenbury, yielding 10s. 10d. per annum, appears as having belonged to the late Monastery of Haughmond. [49] I find the following notices of other interests in Cornwood:- Richard de Duvill (in Easter Term 1241) failed in a suit of novel disseizin against Hamo de Curzun. The land in dispute was two acres in Cornewode. [50] Of Hamo de Curzun we shall hear again. Also in 1255 one Osbert de Cornewode was a Juror for Overs Hundred, and in 1256 one Robert de Corwod a Recognizor in a Whetmore Inquisition.

NASH, anciently ESSES.

This member of Burford was held under the Seignoral Lords by Esturmi. Esturmi's Undertenant took name from the place. Hence the Feodary of 1230, before quoted, gives Walter de Esses as holding half a fee in Esses of the Honour of Richard's Castle; omitting to mention the mesne-tenure of Esturmi. I have spoken of this Walter de Esse under Neen Sollars, [51] of a third of which Manor he was Undertenant in 1240. To him succeeded William de Esse, who has also occurred to us under date of 1250; and as at Neen Sollars so at Nash did William de Clifford succeed to the interest

[46] Haughmond Chartuhtry: Tit. Cornewode.
[47] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 163.
[48] Chartulary, ut supra. The agreement is attested by John de Hulle.
[49] Monasticon, VI, 113.
[50] Placita, 24 and 25 Hen. III, m. 34.
[51] Supra, p. 293.


of William de Esse. Hence the Inquisition of 1255 says that William de Clifford holds three-fourths of a hide in Esses of John Esturmi for a rent of 100s. per annum, and does suit to Overs Hundred. [52] William de Clifford was on the Jury which made this return, as also was he on the Overs Jury at the Assizes of 1256. On June 30, 1257, William son of Walter de Clifford is suing William de Clifford and others for disseizing him of a Tenement in Esses, and Amicia del Esse in a writ of novel disseizin, taken out in August following, alleges a disseizin by the same Defendant both in Esse and Neen. The relations of these parties I cannot discover without further evidence. I find William de Clifford on several subsequent Juries, viz. that on the death of William de Stutevill in 1259; at the Assizes of 1272; the Overs Inquisition of November 1274; the Inquest on Hugh de Mortimer's death in December 1274, and on an Inquest concerning Greet in August 1278. On the last occasion one William des Esses was also a Juror. At the Assizes of October 1292, Walter de Clifford, probably successor of William, was on the Overs Jury.

Here, or hereabouts, a branch of the great house of MAUVEYSIN had sometime an interest, but the mode of their tenure I cannot declare. William Mauveysin, a Juror on a Whetmore Inquest in 1256, sued John Baret at the Assizes of that year, for disseizing him of common pasture in 24 acres in Esses, and got a verdict. [53] On May 19, 1284, John Mauveysin and Isabella his wife allow themselves by Fine to have given to William de Mortimer a messuage and virgate in Aysse, on which a rent of one rose is reserved to themselves and the heirs of John. [54] In Easter Term 1292 the same John and Isabel allow by Fine a similar gift in Ayshe juxta Bureford to John de la Devise, who is said to give them a sore sparrow-hawk. [54] At the Assizes of 1292 John Mauveysin was on the Overs Jury.

Other persons also occur as interested here.- In 1252 Hamo de Curzun sues William de Puclesdon for disseizing him of a tenement in Esse; and another Writ taken out in 1254 charges the disseisin as in Esse, Burford, and Wetemore. One Simon de Esse fines a merk in 1254 for some Assize, or trial at Law, and Hamo de Curzun was amerced half a merk in the same year for making a false claim, and 40s. for non-prosecution of a claim.

SHIRE is an appurtenance of Nash, but has something of a distinct

[52] Rot. Hundred. II, 74.
[53] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 4 dorso.
[54] Pedes Finium, 12 and 20 Edw. I, Salop.


history. In 1253 Hugh fitz Edward proposes to sue Adam Wele for disseizing him of a tenement in Shire. His Writ seems to have cost him half a merk, as charged in the Pipe Roll of 1256, pro habenda assisa. In the last year he was himself sued by his Father's widow for her dower, viz. by Alice widow of Edward Ate-Chire, for a third of half a virgate in Chyre. The Court gave him license to render it up. In 1272 (as alluded to under Aston Eyre) [55] John fitz Aer sued Adam Wele of Hulle for a messuage and half-virgate in Schyre. It seems that Adam Wele's seizin arose through the demise of Hugh le Cak of Schyre, whom Fitz Aer alleged to be a Tenant in Villanage, and so incapable of transferring his tenancy. It appeared that if so, he did not hold under John Fitz Aer, but under John Fitz Aer's Mother. The Litigants accorded.

NASH CHAPEL.- This was undoubtedly an affiliation of Burford Church, and apparently retained in absolute subjection thereto.

On April 15, 1330, King Edward III grants license to William de la Hulle to assign land and rent, of the yearly value of five merks, to a Chaplain serving in the Chapel of St. John Baptist, of Ash Sturmy, for the souls of himself, etc. [56] I only find mention of one Incumbent, viz.,-

JOHN BARET, nephew of William de la Hulle. He occurs in 1331.


Elmbridge in Worcestershire was held under the Barons of Richard's Castle by a race of Knights who took their name from the place. These Elmbridges also held Tilsop under the same Barons. Isnard who, in 1183, with other Burford Tenants was amerced half a merk for not attending an Inquest on treasure-trove, was I think of this family. In or about 1210 Stephen de Almerige holds fee in Shropshire of the Honour of Richard's Castle, [57] but the Feodary of about 1230 makes his tenure to be fee in Tillesope. [57] In 1231 I find an amercement of Miles Pichard guaranteed by Stephen de Elmerug and Roger le Pohyer. In 1235-6 Stephen de Elmerug accounted to an Aid as holding fee in Ellebrug (Worcestershire) of William de Stutevill. [58] In or about 1240 Ynardus de

[54] Vol. I, p. 205.
[55] Patent, 4 Edw. III.
[57] Liber Ruber, fos. cxxxvij, cxlv. That Stephen de Elmbrugg was son of Isnard or Inard is proved by his grant of land in Wich to Westwood Nunnery, wherein he styles himself Stephanus de Elmbrugg filius Inardi (Cotton. Vespasian, E. ix, fo. 7, b).
[58] Testa de Nevill, pp. 40, 41.


Elmrugge, whom we know to have been Son of Stephen, [59] held fee in Elmrugge, and the same person at the same time is written as Ichenard de Tileshop, and said to hold fee in Tileshop of the same Baron. [60] In May 1246 Ichenard de Tilleshop appears on a Jury of Shropshire Knights.

In 1255 Simon de Tilleshope held a hide in Tilleshope of Sir Ichenard de Aumerugge for term of his life. It was of the Fee of Burford, was estimated to be held for a third part of a knight's-fee, and did suit to Overs Hundred. [61] Before 1266 (as I infer from the testing clause of Hugh de Mortimer's Charter to the Burgesses of Burford) Ichenard de Elmbridge was succeeded by Sir Adam de Elmbridge. At the Shropshire Assizes of October 1272, Adam de Elmerugg, Knight, was a Juror on causes of Grand Assize, as well as for Overs Hundred. In August 1278 he was first Juror on an Inquest concerning a Tenement in Greet. In 1284 the Feodary gives him as holding Tilleshopp of Robert de Mortimer for half a knight's-fee. In August 1287 he is set down as having held, under Robert de Mortimer deceased, the Manor of Tilesope by a third of a knight's-fee. Its annual value was 5.
[62] On the decease of Matilda, widow of Hugh de Mortimer, in March 1308, Adam de Elmerugge was found to hold Elmrugge (Worcestershire), and also the Manor of Tilleshop (the last by a third part of a knight's-fee) in the Barony of Burford. [63]

Before September in this year (1308) Adam de Elmerugg was dead, and an Inquest held at Tilsop valued his estate there at 4. 17s. 2d. per annum. Roger his son and heir was aged 26 years at Michaelmas 1307. Another Inquest valued Aumeridge in like manner, [64] obviously because the Barony of Burford was in custody of the Crown, and not yet apportioned between the heirs.


Greet and Weston were members of Burford, and were held under the Barons by a family which took its name from Greet. The first of these is Peter de Grete, amerced half a merk in 1183 for not

[59] As Inardus de Elmbrugg filius Stephani he confirmed his Father's grant to Westwood Nunnery (Cotton. Vespasian, E, ut supra).
[60] Testa de Nevill, pp. 39, 45. Two cotemporary lists have him, one as Ithen de Chiseleshop, the other as Thomas de Chileshop (Testa de Nevill, 48, 50).
[61] Rot. Hundred. II, 74.
[62] Inquisitions, 15 Edw. I, No. 15.
[63] Inquisitions, 1 Edw. II, No. 59.
[64] Inquisitions, 8 Edw. II, No. 18.

GREET. 335

making Inquest as to treasure-trove. About the same time Peter de Grete and Philip his son attest a Charter of Osbern fitz Hugh, which I shall give under Ashford Carbonell. The attestation of William de Grete to a Deed of Hugh de Say (II), between 1190 and 1196, may possibly be an error of transcription. I have given this Deed under Neen Sollars. A nearly cotemporary Deed in the Haughmond Chartulary has the more intelligible attestation of Philip de Grete. [65] In 1199 Philip de Greet became party to a lawsuit about land in Stoke, which lasted five years. I will give the details under Stoke. In or about 1210 Philip de Grete held two-thirds of a knight's-fee of the Honour of Richard's Castle. [66] I shall show under Weston that Philip de Greet was still living in November 1221. His successor was Geoffrey de Greet, who appears as holding fee in Greet in a Feodary which the Record attributes to the 13th year of King John (1211-12), but which was probably drawn up about 1230. In 1237 Geoffrey de Crette and John de Bedesdon are jointly amerced half a merk for some non-attendance. [67] The Feodaries of 1240 are unanimous in assigning to Geoffrey de Grete the tenure of a whole knight's-fee in Grete, under the then Baron of Richard's Castle. [68] In Trinity Term 1243 Geoffrey de Grete being dead, Agnes his Widow was suing William de Stutevill for one-third of the Manor of Grete as her dower. Stutevill not appearing, the land was seized for the Crown, and the cause adjourned till August: Agnes named her brother Richard as her Attorney therein. [69]

To Geoffrey de Grete succeeded Peter de Grete (II), who in 1254 fines one merk for license to accord some lawsuit. In 1255 Philip de Thonlonde (Thongland) held three-fourths of a fee in Grete, at ferm under Peter de Grete, of the Fee of Burford. He did suit to Overs Hundred. [70] On April 15, 1259, Margery de la Berne has a Writ against Peter de Grete for disseizing her of a tenement in Grete. The Pipe-Roll of the same year gives Peter de Grete as amerced half a merk for disseizin. In 1263 Peter de Grete, in company with his Suzerain Hugh de Mortimer, had the King's Letters of Protection before spoken of. [71] He occurs as a Knight in or about 1266. [71] At the Assizes of 1272 Sir Peter de Grete appears as a Juror in causes tried by Grand Assize, and also as a Juror for

[65] Chartulary: Tit. Dene.
[66] Liber Ruber, fos. cxxxviij, cxlv.
[67] Rot. Pipe, 21 Hen. III, Salop.
[68] Testa de Nevill, pp. 45, 48, 50.
[69] Placita, 27 Hen. III, membranes 11 and 12 dorso.
[70] Rot. Hundred. II, 74.
[71] Supra, p. 317.


Overs Hundred. In August 1278 an Inquest sat to report on the estate of Henry Russel,- an outlaw for felony. He was found to have held a messuage and half virgate in Groete under Peter de Groete. The King had already had the premises in hand for the customary period,- a year and a day. [72] In 1284 Geoffrey de Grete having succeeded to Peter, held Grete under Robert de Mortimer for half a knight's-fee. [73] On Mortimer's death in 1287, the tenure of Geoffrey de Grete is said to be by two-thirds of a knight's-fee, and the Manor is valued at 8. per annum. [74]

In April 1308, Philip de Greet was found to be Tenant of this Manor by service of half a knight's-fee. Both he and William de Greet were of the Jury which made this return. [75]

GREET CHAPEL.- The Advowson of this Chapel was sometime in the patronage of the Lords of Greet as distinct from the Seignoral Lords,- the Barons of Burford. Philip de Thongland, whom I have mentioned as Lord of Upper Poston and Fermor of Greet in 1255, was a Clerk, and, in fact, the Incumbent of Greet Chapel. In August 1267 this Philip de Yanglonde, as he is written, names Thomas de Grete as his Attorney in a suit of mort d'ancestre against Susanna de la Leye. The question tried was whether "Richard Kene, father of Susanna and Alice de la Leye, had died seized of half a virgate in Possethorne, now held by Philip de Thongelande, Parson of the Church of Grete"? Philip's defence was that he had already been impleaded in this matter by others, and that the present Plaintiffs should properly vouch him a warranty of his tenure, for he produced a Charter whereby Richard Kene their Father had granted this half virgate in pure alms to the Church of St. James of Thonglande (it should surely be Grete). The Plaintiffs maintained that their Father had died seized of the premises. The Jury found otherwise, and the Sisters were non-suited, but excused all amercement on account of their poverty. [76]

In 1291 we find the Church of Grete, in Burford Deanery, valued as under 4., but as if independent of Burford Church. [77] Nevertheless the Inquisition of 1341 evidently intends to include it among the Chapels of Burford. The Valor of 1535 gives Grete as a Rectory, held by John Pratte, and worth 5. per annum in Glebe

[72] Inquisitions, 6 Edw. I, No. 66.
[73] Kirby'a Quest.
[74] Inquisitions, 16 Edw. I, No. 30.
[75] Inquisitions, 1 Edw. II, No. 59.
[76] Assizes, 51 Hen. III, m. 2 dorso.- We have heard before of Richard Kene and his daughters (Vol. III, pp. 191, 193). The subject will again recur.
[77] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 165.

GREET. 337

and Tithes. Archdeacon's Synodals (10d.) were the only charge upon that income. [78]

Greet Chapel seems now to be transferred to Whitton. The latter Chapel is associated with the second portion of Burford Church.

The following INCUMBENTS of Greet have occurred to my notice.-

PHILIP, PARSON OF GRETE, whom we have seen attesting a Deed on March 12, 1227, [79] was probably identical with-

PHILIP DE THONGLAND, whom I find attesting a Charter of Walter de Lacy, nearly, if not quite as early [80] and who, according to what has been said above, occurs as Rector here in 1255 and 1267.

MASTER WILLIAM DE LODELOWE was Rector of Greet in 1277. He was also Official to the Bishop of Hereford.

NICHOLAS, surnamed PISTOR, of Ludlow, was instituted Dec. 11, 1307, on presentation of Philip, Lord of Greet; This Rector has license for a year's study, dated Sept. 10, 1315.

SIR JOHN DE BIGETON, or BIKETON, instituted June 13,1312, resigned in 1371.

WILLIAM DE BOURLEY, Clerk, was instituted to this "Free Chapel" Feb. 19, 1371, on presentation of George de Baggeshaw, hac vice.

PHILIP HALGHTON, Rector of this "Free Chapel", exchanges preferments on April 29, 1398, with-

SIR ADAM TRUSSELL, late Vicar of Cardington, who is instituted here on presentation of the "Noble person John de Ludlow, then holding the Barony of Hodenet". This Rector exchanges preferments on May 12, 1400, with-

WILLIAM DE TOONG, late Vicar Of the Altar of Holy Cross, in the Parish Church of Monksforiete, Salop.

HARTALL was a member of Greet, and when the Hundred Roll of 1255 tells us that Dame Agnes de Grete holds half a hide in Herthale of Peter de Grete, the latter doing suit for the same, [81] we have one of the results of the litigation of 1243, when, as we have seen, Agnes widow of Geoffrey de Grete was a Suitor for her Dower. At the Assizes of 1272, John, son of William de Herthal, having taken out a writ de ingressu against Clarice and Pridiana, daughters

[78] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 214.
[79] Supra, Vol. III, p. 341, note 41.
[80] Monasticon, VII, 682.
[81] Rot. Hundred. II, 74.


of Giles, Rector of Burford, [82] concerning a messuage and land in Grete, did not prosecute his Suit. [83] William de Herthale was a Juror on the Inquest after Hugh de Mortimer's death in 1274.


This member of Burford was, from 1199 to 1204, the subject of a lawsuit of which I give the details as they stand on the Rolls. I should observe first that Philip Estham, whom we have seen attesting a Charter of Osbern fitz Hugh before 1185, was doubtless of Eastham in Worcestershire. And now for the details of the Law-suit.-

May 2, 1199.- Samson de Storp (read Stoke) essoigns himself in a plea of land against Philip de Grete by William Trannel. Margaret de Stok' does the same against the same, her Essoignor being Walter de Estham. A day (May 24) was given.

On a day unnamed, but probably in Easter or Trinity Term 1199, Philip de Grete, and Samson and Margery de Stoke, are summoned to come and hear judgment, in three weeks of Michaelmas. In the Quinzaine of Michaelmas 1199 Samson de Estham essoigns himself in a plea of land against Philip de Grete. A day (in the Quinzaine of Hilary) is given to him, and also to Margery de Stoks. [84]

In the Quinzaine of Hilary 1200 Margery de Stok essoigns herself by William Tranill or Turmel. A day (in three weeks of Easter) is given. [85]

Nov. 12, 1201.- The Suit is unsettled and a day in Easter Term (1202) is given in consequence of an essoign by Margery de Stokes.

Michaelmas Term 1202.- There is another essoign by Margery; and a day in the Quinzaine of Hilary is given to her and Samson de Estham, now named as her Attorney.

Michaelmas Term 1203.- A day (in the Quinzaine of Hilary 1204) is given to Philip de Grete, Margery do Estham, and Samson de Estham, to hear sentence in their cause.

Hilary Term 1204.- A day (in one Month of Easter) is further given, and Philip de Grete is called Plaintiff in the case.

Michaelmas Term 1204.- A further day (in the Quinzaine of St. Martin) is given in this cause, at the request of all parties. Philip de Grete is named as Plaintiff. Samson de Estham and Agnes his

[82] Giles de Norfolk (vide supra, p. 323).
[83] Assizes, 56 Hen. III, m. 13.
[84] Rot. Curiae Regis, I, 261, 371.
[85] Placita and Essoign Rolls, passim.

STOKE. 339

wife with Margery, Sister of Agnes, were Defendants. The land in dispute was a virgate in Stoke, [85] but I cannot find the result of the suit. We learn or may infer that part of the estate of two coheiresses, Agnes and Margery de Stoke, of whom Agnes was wife of Samson de Estham, was claimed by Philip de Greet.

The Feodary of 1210 gives Samson de Estham as holding one-sixth of a fee in the Shropshire part of the Barony of Richard's Castle, and William de Spineto as holding another sixth. [86] I suppose these two sixths to have constituted the fee by which two Coparceners appear at subsequent periods to have held Stoke. If so, William de Spineto was probably husband of her who had previously been called Margery de Stoke. About 1230 we have Margaret and Roger de Estham as together holding fee in Stoke, of the Honour of Richard's Castle. [87] Here, I presume, the name De Estham is intended to apply to Roger only; for Margaret, being probably either widow or daughter of William de Spineto, can only have been called De Estham by mistake. Roger de Estham was doubtless son of Samson. In 1255 we find Dame Agnes de Stoke and the Infant heir of William the Moneyer (Monetarii) as Coparceners in Stoke, but by what descent from the former Coparceners I cannot say. Probably Agnes represented Roger de Estham. The Record makes Stoke to be a hide of land, half of which was held by Dame Agnes de Stoke for an eighth part of a fee, under William de Stutevill; the other half was held by Master Simon de Radnor as Guardian of the Minor above-named, and by the eighth part of a fee. Each moiety did suit to the Hundred.
[88] In 1256 Simon de Radnor fines half a merk for some Writ, and in 1259 we find him associated with Henry fitz William and others, in a Fine, the purport of which is not declared, besides himself fining 20s. for license to accord a lawsuit. Henry fitz William thus named, seems to be identical with Henry le Moneur the heir of a moiety of Stoke. We find him under the latter name as a Juror at the Assizes of 1272, on the Hundred Inquest of November 1274, on the Inquest after Hugh de Mortimer's death in December of the same year, and on a Ludlow Inquest in January 1281. Meantime the other moiety of Stoke, held by Dame Agnes de Stoke in 1255, went to Robert de Munslow. He seems to have been Bailiff of Overs Hundred under Hamo le Strange, and therefore between the years 1262 and 1267. His conduct in that office was straightly questioned by the Overs

[85] Placita and Essoign Rolls, passim.
[86] [87] Liber Ruber Scaccarii, fos. cxxxiii, and cxiv.
[88] Rot. Hundred. II, 74.


Jurors in 1274. A Simon de Stoke was Juror on an Inquest, given under Greet, in 1278, but who he was I know not. Also one Thomas de Stoke sat on a Ludlow Jury in January 1284. The Feodary of 1284 gives Robert de Mumselauwe and Henry le Muntare as jointly holding Stoke of Robert de Mortimer by one-third of a Knight's-Fee, a statement which is substantively repeated by the Inquest on Robert de Mortimer's death in August 1287. It is added on the latter Record, that the whole Hamlet was worth 4. per annum. At the Assizes of 1292, Henry le Moneur was one of the two who chose the Overs Jury. An Inquest of April 1308 gives Henry le Moneour and Margery le Blak as holding the Hamlet of Stok for of a knight's-fee. [89] Henry le Moneour was soon afterwards succeeded by his son John, as will presently appear under Whitton.


This member of Burford was held by the Cliffords under the Lords of Richard's Castle and by the Lords of Greet under Clifford. Hence in November 1221 a Fine is levied whereby Philip de Gretham, Tenant of half a virgate in Weston, enfeoffs Richard, son of Richard Lupus, in the same, at 5s. rent and for 5 merks paid down. The premises had hitherto been in dispute between Philip and one Richard Pulein, who claimed them under writ of mort d'ancestre, but now acknowledged himself to have been only a Tenant in villainage under Philip. [90] In 1255 Philip de Thongland (whom we have heard of under Greet) held a hide in Weston at ferm. He held it (like Greet) of Peter de Greet, and it was of the Fee of Sir Roger de Clifford. It did suit to Overs Hundred. The Record omits to say that it was a member of Burford, and so held by Roger de Clifford under William de Stutevill. [91] In 1256 one William Cokerel of Weston was reported by the Overs Jurors as non-attendant at the Assizes. The same person, called William Keterel of Weston, was, with Nicholas de Estham, Surety for one party in a suit concerning land in Bitterley. He was probably an Under-Tenant, as was Nicholas de Weston, whom John Baril (Under-Sheriff to Hugh de Mortimer of Chelmarsh) first arrested for larceny, and then let go without other warrant than a bribe of 4s. [92] On the death of Robert de Mortimer in 1287, we find the Heirs of Roger de Clifford holding the Hamlet of Weston under the deceased for half a knight's

[89] Inquisitions, 1 Ed. II, No. 59.
[90] Pedes Finium, 6 Hen. III.
[91] Rot. Hundred. II, 74.
[92] Rot. Hundred. II, 104.


fee. Its annual value was 40s. [93] William de Weston, occurring about this time on local Juries, was probably Clifford's Undertenant here.

An Inquest of April 1308 represents the Earl of Lincoln as holding the hamlet of Weston by half a knight's-fee in Burford Barony. [94] This Earl, I should observe, represented the elder line of the Cliffords,- not the line of Roger de Clifford above named.


About the year 1174 William de Witet (or Wicetre, as I misrendered the name [95]) attests a charter of Osbern fitz Hugh already given. About the year 1180 William de Witinton, Tenant I suppose here under Osbern fitz Hugh, attests a Charter of that Baron which I shall give under Ashford Carbonell. In the last attestation he is followed by Hugh his son, who I suppose succeeded him in estate; for one Hugh de Wittindon being dead in September 1199, his Widow Margery levies a Fine with William de Wittindon, whereby she renounces for 4 merks all claim of dower in Wittinton. [96] William de Witenton, thus succeeding, was I suppose he who was put in misericordia at the Assizes of 1203 for essoigning some Juror improperly, when the homicide of Walter de Snitton was to be investigated by the Hundred of Overs. The next entry on the Roll mentions one Osbert de Witenton, who having found a man crushed by a fallen tree, was not forthcoming to give account of the matter. [97] He also appears on the essoign-roll as essoigned by Roger fitz Julian. He was nevertheless in misericordia. The Feodary of 1210 gives William de Witinton as holding under the Lords of Richard's Castle by Serjeantry, but the nature of his service is not stated. [98] In Michaelmas Term 1233 John de Whitington essoigns himself in a plea of land against Walter Black (Nigrum) and Agnes his wife, the Essoignors being Hugh fitz Nigel and Gilbert de Whitington. [99] In Easter Term 1236 a Plea appears on the Rolls which indicates, I think, a prospective sale by John de Witton of some property here. A day (in the Quinzaine of Michaelmas) is given to Walter Tug' of Estham and Agnes his wife, Plaintiffs, and to John de Witton, Tenant; evidently that they may attend and receive a Chyrograph; for it is added, that John de Witton

[93] Inquisitions, 15 Edw. I, No. 30.
[94] Inquisitions, 1 Edw. II, No. 59.
[95] Supra, Vol. II, p. 67, note.
[96] Pedes Finium, 1 John, Salop.
[97] Assizes, 5 John, m. 2.
[98] Liber Ruber, fo. cxxxviii.
[99] Essonia, 17 Hen. III, m. 5 dorso.


undertook to have in Court certain Villains of his whom he had quit-claimed to the Plaintiffs, and that he made Hugh de Rokehill his Attorney to receive his Chyrograph. Also Henry Rugefef, a free tenant of John de Witton, was to be in Court the same day, and acknowledge the services by which he held. [1] On November 15, 1236, a suit of mort d'ancestre wherein John le Waleis and Matilda his wife impleaded John de Whitenton, Tenant, for half a virgate in Whitenton, ended in a Fine.- The Plaintiffs renounced their claim, and John de Whitenton enfeoffed them in 9 acres at 12d. rent. [2] Again on February 3, 1237, a Fine was levied between William le Neir (Noir) and Agnes his wife, Plaintiffs, and John de Whitinton, Tenant of 1 virgates in Eston, Worcestershire, and of half a hide in Whitinton, Salop, whereof was Plea. The Plaintiffs renounce their claim, but John de Whitenton gives them Feoffment in 1 virgates in Rochull, Salop;- to hold at 2d. rent;- to William and Agnes and the heirs of Agnes under John de Whitenton and his heirs. [3] In 1255 half a hide in Wyttone had come by some means to the heir of William le Mouner (Monetarii) of Ludlow. This estate owed suit to Overs Hundred, and like Stoke was in custody of Master Symon de Radnor, as Guardian of William le Mouner's heir. [4] A Deed of 1311-2 has the attestation of "John de" (read le) "Muneter, Lord of Whyttone".

The following were probably Undertenants to Le Mouner.- William Bonet, a Juror on the Overs Inquest of 1255, was Tenant of a messuage and quarter-virgate in Wytton, for which Walter fitz Alured sued him in 1256 alleging his (Walter's) brother, Adam fitz Alured, to have died seized thereof. The prosecution failed. [5]

In William le Blak, a Juror at the Assizes of 1272 and on the Overs Inquest of November 1274, we recognise a descendant of William le Neir, the Feoffee of 1237. In December 1274 we have John le Neyr as Juror on a Burford Inquest, and both John le Blak and William le Blak as Jurors on a Greet Inquest in August 1278. In Hilary Term 1278 we have Richard le Neyr and Margaret his wife conveying by Fine 3s. 2d. rent in Rokhull and Stoke to Hugh de Vuylle, whereof was plea of warranty. Hugh and his heirs are to pay d. rent to Richard and Margaret and the heirs of Margaret,

[1] Placita, 20 Hen. III, m. 11. Among the oblata of 20 Hen. III is one of John de Witinton, viz. one merk pro licentia concordandi.
[2] Pedes Assizes, 21 Hen. III, Salop.
[3] Fines Divers. Comitat. 21 Hen. III. Rockhill is near to Whitton.
[4] Rot. Hundred. II, 74.
[5] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 10 dorso.


and to perform all capital services in their stead. For this Hugh gave a sore sparrow-hawk. In January 1284 John le Blak occurs as Juror on a Ludlow Inquest.

WHITTON CHAPEL seems to be merely a modern substitute for the more ancient Chapel of Greet. At all events, if Whitton had an ancient Chapel of its own, that Chapel was most implicitly subject to Burford Church, and not a single Incumbent thereof appears on the Hereford Registers.


A place thus named is now lost, but it seems to have been manorially a member of Burford, though by circumstances of tenure it is usually associated with Ashford Carbonel, which was in Culvestan Hundred. I distinguish as best I can between this Overton, in Overs Hundred, and another place of the same name which was a member of the Manor of Richard's Castle. The Carbonels held the former Overton of the Barons of Burford; but I shall speak of the Carbonels more fully under Ashford Carbonel. In 1255 Hugh Carbonel is said to hold a quarter of a hide in Wn'tone, of William de Stntevill, and to do suit to Overs Hundred. [6] On the death of Robert de Mortimer in 1287, the Inquest associates Overton with Ashford Carbonel as both held by Richard Carbonel for half a Knight's-fee. [7] So in April 1308 Hugh Carbonel held both manors of the estate of Matilda de Mortimer, deceased, and was himself on the Jury which made this return. [8]


Hulle in Overs Hundred was a member of Burford, but there was another Hulle a member of Richard's Castle, not always distinguishable from this. The Hulle of which I now speak was held in 1221 by William de la Hulle, against whom William de Stutevill, having a suit at law, was essoigned. [9] The Feodary which I have ventured to date about 1230 gives Robert de la Hulle as holding a twelfth part of a Knight's-fee in Hulle of the Barony of Richard's Castle, [10] and it is noticeable that the tenure is stated between the tenures of Stoke and Tilsop. In 1240 Hugh de Hulle held an eleventh part of a fee in Hulle of the Barony of William de

[6] Rot. Hundred. II, 74.
[7] Inquisitions, 15 Edw. I, No. 30.
[8] Inquisitions, 1 Edw. II, No. 59.
[9] Assizes, 6 Hen. III, m. 11.
[10] Liber Ruber Scacc. fo. cxlv.


Stutevill. [11] In 1255 the Jurors of Overs Hundred, of whom Adam Wele was one, represented the said Adam as holding a hide at ferm in La Hulle under Roger de Pynlesdone, till the heir of Robert de la Hulle should be of age. It was held for the eleventh part of a knight's-fee, and did suit to the Hundred.
[12] The Record does not state the fact that it was held under William de Stutevill as Lord Paramount, nor yet that Roger de Pynlesdone was Guardian only of the heir; which I presume to have been the case. At the Assizes of 1256 Adam Wele was Bailiff of Overs Hundred, but Simon de la Hulle, whom I take to have been his late Ward, occurs as Surety for Hamo de Curzun in a Lawsuit. Adam Wele appears on a local Jury in 1259, and in 1272 has been mentioned under Shire, [13] a place close adjoining to Hulle. About 1266 we have had Symon de la Hulle attesting Hugh de Mortimer's Charter to the Burgesses of Burford. [14] At the Assizes of 1272 and at the Overs Inquisition in November 1274 Simon de la Hulle was a Juror, and in December following both he and Adam Wele sat on the Inquest on the death of Hugh de Mortimer. Adam Wele was a Juror at the Assizes of 1272 and on a Greet Inquest in 1278. In Trinity Term 1283 Symon de la Hulle was I think dead, leaving a son Adam, and a widow Dionysia, now the wife of Ralph de Shyreburne. This is suggested by a Fine wherein the said Ralph and Dionysia his wife quit-claim to Adam de la Hulle a messuage and a third part of a virgate in Hulle which was Dionyaia's dower in the inheritance of the said Adam. For this release Adam gave 9 merks. [15] The Feodary of 1284 gives Adam de la Hull as holding the vill of Hull in Overs Hundred under Robert de Mortimer by one-sixth of a Knight's-fee.
[16] The Inquest on Robert de Mortimer's death in 1287 gives Adam de la Hulle as still Tenant of the Hamlet of Hulle, of 20s. annual value, but as held by the eleventh part of a Knight's- fee. [17] At the Assizes of 1292 Adam de la Hulle was a Juror for Overs Hundred.

Adam de la Hulle was succeeded as Lord of Hulle by William de la Hulle, whom I take to have been son of the said Adam; but cotemporary with, and probably holding under William, was another Adam de la Hulle, whose Father's name appears to have been Hugh. A Deed, which has been set forth under Boraston, exhibits William

[11] Testa de Nevill, p. 45.
[12] Rot. Hundred. II, 74.
[13] Supra, p. 333.
[14] Supra, p. 318.
[15] Pedes Finium, 11 Edw. I; Salop.
[16] Kirby's Quest.
[17] Inquisitions, 15 Edw. I, No. 30.

HULLE. 345

de la Hulle and Adam de la Hulle as fellow-witnesses in 1301-2.
[18] By Fine levied in Easter Term 1305, John de Horsned and Constancia his wife, and Hugh Body and Alianore his wife, Tenants of two Mills in La Hull, quit-claim the same, for themselves and the heirs of Constancia and Alianore, to William de la Hull and Alice his wife. The Fine purports to be the result of a Plea of Convention; and William de la Hull paid 100s. for the same. [19]

Again, in Easter Term 1307 a Fine was levied between William de la Hull and Alice his wife, plaintiffs, and Adam son of Hugh de la Hull, Deforciant, of one messuage, one carucate of land, 8 acres of meadow, 40 acres of bosc, and 17s. rent in La Hull juxta Hyntes, whereof the parties had a plea of convention. William de la Hull first acknowledges that the premises are the Deforciant's by his (William's) gift, whereupon Adam concedes them to William and Alice and the heirs of William, to hold of the Lords of the Fee. For this, William is said to give 10.
[19] The Inquest held at Burford, April 2, 1308, on the death of Matilda, widow of Hugh de Mortimer, gives William de la Hull as then holding the Hamlet of La Hulle for the eleventh part of a knight's-fee, of the Lords of Burford. Adam de Hulle was one of the Jurors who made this return. [20] By Deed dated at Bishop's Castle, Dec. 14, 1311, William de Mortimer, Canon of Hereford, gives, for a sum of money, to William de la Hulle and Alice his wife, a messuage and lands in Rokhulle and Greete, together with all rents and services due from William son of Roger de Ledewych, Geoffrey son of Peter de Rokhulle, and William son of the Lady of Greete.- Witnesses: John de (read le) Muneter Lord of Whyttone, Philip Lord of Greete, Walter de Clifford. [21]

One Thomas de la Hulle occurs in November 1316 as Juror in the Inquest taken on the death of William de Ludlow; [22] but I cannot affirm that this Thomas was of the place now under notice. William de la Hulle was certainly living in 1331, when he grants to John Baret his Nephew, Chaplain of Ash Stormi (i.e. Nash), certain land, to pray for the souls of the Grantor and of Alice his late wife, for the souls of his heirs and successors and of Geoffrey de Cornwall, Lord of Burford, and Margaret his wife. [23]

[18] Supra, p. 327.
[19] Pedes Finium, 33 & 35 Edw. I, Salop.
[20] Inquisitions, 1 Edw. II, No. 59.
[21] Blakeway's MSS., quoting Vincent Wood's Collection. See also Sheriffs of Shropshire, p. 143, where the same Deed is quoted as in W. Mytton's Collection.
[22] Inquisitions, 10 Edw. II, No. 69.
[23] Sheriffs of Shropshire, p. 142.


For a continuation of this subject I may now refer elsewhere. [24] I am content to have added something to the early history of a family whose origin and rise must needs be matter of interest to every Shropshire Genealogist. [25]


Domesday, after describing Nene in Condetret Hundred as held by Siward under Osbern fitz Richard, proceeds as follows:- "To this Manor (Nene) there is adjacent one Berewick, Mulstone in Ovret Hundred. Here are three and a half hides geldable. The arable land is enough for VI ox-teams. Here III Radmans and III Villains have III Teams. In time of King Edward it was worth 14s. (per annum); now it is worth 10s. He (Osbern fitz Richard) found it waste". [1] This instance of a Manor being in one Hundred while its Berewick was in another, is less remarkable than a case already discussed under Morville. [2] When Neen (Sollars) became annexed to Overs Hundred, the previous anomaly of course vanished, and both Milson and Neen Sollars are to this day reputed to be in Overs Hundred, though their Manorial connection has entirely ceased. I presume Siward to have been Domesday Tenant of Milson, though the Record hardly implies as much. The next mention which I find of the place is as held by Feoffees of the Lords of Burford, who had adopted the local name of "De Muleston". We have seen William de Muleston attesting, about 1174, a Charter of Osbern fitz Hugh his Suzerain. [3] A later Charter of the same Baron, which I shall give under Ashford Carbonel, has the attestation of Gilbert de Muleston. About 1210, according to a Feodary of the Honour of Richard's Castle, William de Mulestone was holding half a knight's-fee

[24] Sheriff's of Shropshire, pp. 142, 179, et seq.
[25] Mr. Blakeway considers William de la Hulle, last named in the text, to have been Ancestor of all the families of Hill which have since become so prominent in Shropshire history. I cannot however assent to every point in Mr. Blakeway's mode of stating the subsequent descent. Some corrective matter will be found below, under Hope Baggot Chapel, of which in the fourteenth century the Hulls had the Advowson.
[1] Domesday, fo. 260, a.
[2] Supra, Vol. I, p. 27.
[3] Supra, Vol. II, p. 67, note.


fee thereof; [4] and the Feodary, supposed to have been drawn up about 1230, repeats the Tenant's name and fixes Muleston as the locality. [5] The Feodary of 1240 still continues a William de Muleston as holding half a fee in Muleston, of William de Stutevill. [6] On Jan. 2, 1250, William de Mileston and Nichola his wife fine 20s. to have a lawsuit transferred from Herefordshire to Westminster. [7] In 1255 the hidage of Mullestone appears as 2 hides,- one hide less than the Domesday estimate. William de Mullestone was still Stutevill's Tenant here by half a knight's-fee, and did suit to the Hundred of Overs. He had been in ill health the whole year. [8] At the Assizes of 1256 William de Mulleston was found to have disseized Hugh de Wodenerton of half a virgate in Mulleston, but the Defendant did not appear in the cause. [9] He was also reported as a Defaulter by the Jurors of the Hundred. It is probable that he was of advanced age; for, on the death of William de Stutevill in 1259, the first Juror on the Inquest was Nicholas de Muleston. In Easter Term 1260, Nichola, Widow of William de Muleston, had been suing several of her late husband's Undertenants for her dower, viz. Robert fitz William of Wychecot, William fitz John and Eva his wife, William fitz Richard and Matilda his Mother, Philip fitz Hugh and Emma his Mother, for thirds of small parcels of land in Dodestone, etc. All the said Tenants had called Nicholas son of William de Muleston to warranty, but he had repeatedly failed to appear. So now it was decided that they should all hold their tenements in peace, and that Nichola should have an equivalent of her claims out of Nicholas de Muleston's lands. [10] At the Assizes of August 1267 Nichola Widow of William de Milston was sued for disseizing Sibil fitz Robert of six acres in Milston. The prosecution failed because the Plaintiff, a Minor, had never been seized. [11] The Overs Inquisition of 1274 speaks of one William fitz Hugh, whom I shall presently show to have been a Coparcener in Milson, as having sat in the full Hundred-Court of Overs between 1272 and

[4] [5] Liber Ruber, fos. cxxxviii, cxlv.
[6] Testa de Nevill, p. 45.
[7] Fines, Vol. II, p. 68.
[8] Rot. Hundred. II, 74.
[9] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 12.
[10] Placita, Pasch. Term, 44 Hen. III; m. 24.- It is observable that the Pipe Roll of 1260 records, among the Nova Oblata, an amercement of 6s. 8d. on William de Milleston and Nichola his wife for non-prosecution of some suit-at-law. This points to the decease of William as later than Michaelmas 1259. I may here remark that the appearance of an elder son on a Jury does not necessarily imply the Father's previous death, though it is consistent with an idea of the Father's superannuation.
[11] Assizes, 51 Hen. III, m. 8.


1274. Another less intelligible statement seems to imply that in the year 1271 or 1272 this William fitz Hugh had been challenged for a murder, that the then Sheriff was Hugh de Mortimer, but that a succeeding Sheriff had seized and still detained the chattels of the accused, valued at 10 merks. [12]

In Trinity Term 1277 a Fine between Nichola de Mulston, Plaintiff, and William le Mareschal and Alice his wife, Impedients, conveyed a messuage and 20 acres in Mulston to the Plaintiff, as the gift of Christiana de Gardino, whose Cousin and heir Alice was,- to hold to Nichola and her heirs, of William and Alice and the heirs of Alice, at 1d. rent. Nichola gave 10 merks for this. In Hilary Term 1283, Nichola, widow of William de Mulstone, Plaintiff (Hugh de Dunville being her Attorney), obtains by Fine a quit-claim of a messuage and half virgate in Mulstone, from Thomas de la More and Matilda his wife,- granting for themselves and the heirs of Matilda. Nichola, for this, gave one merk. On June 25, 1284, a Fine was levied between William son of Hugh de Cloune, Plaintiff and Nichola daughter of Nicholas de Mulstone, Deforciant, of half two messuages, two-thirds of a carucate of land, and 41s. rent in Mulston and Dodeston. Nichola acknowledged herself to have given the premises to the Plaintiff, reserving a clove-rent and capital services. She also concedes that all Tenements which Sibil, widow of Nicholas de Mulstone, held in dower, and which after said Sibil's death would revert to herself, should go to the Plaintiff. This Fine, for which the Plaintiff paid 80 merks, was levied in presence of the said Sibil, who came into Court acknowledging that she claimed nothing except as her dower; for which she did fealty in Court to William son of Hugh. In 1284 the Feodary gives John Godard and William fitz Hugh as holding Mulston by half a knight's fee of Robert de Mortimer. On the death of Robert de Mortimer in 1287, the Inquest states that the Heirs of William de Mulston were Tenants of the Manor, and that it was worth 8. per annum. [13] How John Godard and William fitz Hugh were heirs of William de Muleston I cannot determine. At the Assizes of 1292 Hugh Godard was a Juror for Overs Hundred. An Inquisition of April, 1308, gives Hugh Godard as holding the Manor of Mulaton for half a knight's-fee of the Barony of Burford. [14]

The Nomina Villarum of 1316 gives Hugh Godard alone as Lord of this Vill. [15]

[12] Rot. Hundred. II, 104.
[13] Inquisitions, 15 Edw. I, No. 30.
[14] Inquisitions, 1 Edw. II, No. 59.
[15] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 399.


In 1338 William de Frene granted lands in Milston to John Goddard and Margaret his wife. [16]

Of Robert Partrick's interest in Milson in 1350 I have already spoken under The Low. [17]

MILSON CHURCH.- The constant subjection of this Church to that of Neen Sollars has been already pointed out. The Dependent Church is never therefore the subject of any distinct Record. Its date is also uncertain, except so far as may be gathered from architectural features of some antiquity.

Tedenesolle or Tetneshull and Merebrook.

THE former of these two places is the only one described in Domesday. It is noticed as follows:-

"The same Osbern (fitz Richard) holds (of the King) Tedenesolle. Sauuard held it (in Saxon times) and was a Free Man. Here is I hide geldable. There is (arable) land (sufficient) for three and a half ox-teams. In demesne there is one team, and (there are) III Serfs and III Boors with half a team. There is a wood which will fatten XL swine. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 6s. (per annum); now it is worth 10s". [1]

The Manor thus described in Domesday is sometimes called in later documents the Manor of Merebrook; sometimes Merebrook and Tetneshull are spoken of as two Manors, sometimes as different members of one Manor. Now I have before shown that Cleobury North, Hopton Wafre, and a place called Maerebroc, were early in Edward the Confessor's reign the property of the Church of Worcester, and though the Church lost the two former, Seuuard, or Siward, continued Tenant of both till a later period. [2] The same thing seems to have happened with regard to Merebroc; for we must treat Tedensolle and Maerebroc as convertible names when applied to the Manor now under notice; and as to the identity of Seuuard and Sauuard, that is very obvious. The situation of this Manor

[16] Blakeway's MSS.
[17] Supra, p. 538.
[1] Domesday, fo. 260, a, 1.
[2] Compare Supra, Vol. III, pp. 22, 23.


is the next question; and it is one which will call for a good deal of evidence, and yet remain, I fear, in some doubt.

The question is, whether this Manor stood in the South-Eastern or in the North-Eastern extremity of Overs Hundred?- The collective evidence on each side would be decisive in itself, were it not neutralized by the collective evidence on the other side. I will state the alternatives of this curious dilemma as completely as I am able.

In favour of the Manor having been in the South-Eastern quarter of Overs Hundred, we have the following considerations. A glance at the Map will detect a district of Shropshire lying southward of Milson and Neen Sollars, but surrounded on the East, South, and West, by Herefordshire. In this district the River Rea unites with a small stream called Mill-brook, and the two thus joined are afterwards known only as the Rea. Near to their confluence is a place called Malbrook; and on the Rea, previous to their confluence, stands Tetstill Mill. In these names I think we may have the representatives of the more ancient Maerebroc and Tedenesolle; and I shall give one instance of Maerebroc having been called Melbrook as far back as the thirteenth century. But I will render other reasons for thinking it probable that Tedenesolle, alias Maerebroc, lay in this particular quarter. The two adjoining Manors on the North are Milson and Neen Sollars. Both of these were, like Tedenesolle, held by Siward in the reign of the Confessor, and all three were Osbern fitz Richard's at Domesday. Also in the thirteenth century, as I shall presently show, this Manor of Maerebroc is mentioned in the Surveys consecutively with Milson and Neen Sollars. Again, in 1272 we have the Lord of Tetneshull and Merebrok suing the Lords of Neen Sollars for rights of common in the latter Manor,- a very strong argument that the Manors were adjacent. Lastly, in 1292 we have the widow of a Lord of Tetneshull claiming dower both there and in Neen Sollars.

In favour of considering this Manor to have been in the North-Eastern quarter of Overs Hundred I submit the following evidences:-

Mr. Blakeway identifies Maerebroc which belonged to the Church of Worcester, with Morbrook near Aston Botterell; and his account seems to intimate that one of the tributaries of the Rea, rising in the Clee-Hill, was at its source called Morbrook. This information was not intended by Mr. Blakeway as relative to the situation of the Manor of Tetneshull and Maerebrok, but rather as showing how


common the name Morbrook, or Merebrook, was. In fact, I suppose that any small stream rising among moorlands might be called Morbrook itself, and might impart the same name to any Vill or settlement on its banks.

But a document of the year 1301 describes the Manor about which we are inquiring by a very pertinent name, viz. as Tetneshull under the Cle. Now as Overs Hundred did not approach the Great Clee Hill, and as it nearly surrounded the Titterstone Clee Hill, one might suppose that we have in the latter that Clee under which was Tetneshull. Moreover it is not very extravagant to suggest that the names Titterstone and Tetneshull may have originated in a common root. A glance at the Map makes it further apparent, I think, that the district about the Titterstone Clee Hill stood aloof from the nearest of surrounding Manors; neither is there anything in the early history of these surrounding Manors which would suggest an idea that any of them trenched on this district. On these grounds one might be inclined to assume that the Manor and the lost Vills of Tetneshull and Maerebrook occupied a district adjacent to the Titterstone Clee Hill.

I now proceed with the history of the district whose situation is thus left undetermined.- The Manor of Tedenesolle, alias Maerebroc, came at a very early period to be held under the Barons of Richard's Castle by another Baronial house, viz. that of Corbet of Caus. The Corbets of Caus held also two Manors in Worcestershire under the Barons of Richard's Castle, viz. Impney by a whole Knight's-Fee, and Astwood by half a fee. This Feoffment of Corbet probably indicates a gift in frank-marriage with some Lady of the house of Say to a Corbet of Caus. The Tenants of Corbet in each of the three Manors which he thus held of the Honour of Richard's Castle were different. Impney was held by a younger branch of Corbets; Astwood by a family called De Astwood; Tedenesolle by the Arundels, who also held Habberley, a member of Corbet's own Barony. Of these Arundels, Lords of Tedenesolle and Maerebroc, I have the following particulars.-

Between the years 1180 and 1199 Adam de Arundel, Lord of this Manor, occurs more than once in the general affairs of the County or in those of his Suzerain,- Robert Corbet of Caus. At the same period was living one John Walsh (Wallensis), who is found in company with Robert Corbet on an indifferent occasion hereafter to be noticed, but who seems to have disputed Adam de Arundel's title to this Manor. In 1195 John Wallensis fined "three merks


to have right against Adam de Arundel in respect of half a knight's-fee in Tatehal and Marebroc". [3] This suit was still unsettled in 1199, when John Wallensis is opposed to Wido de Arundel, the successor of Adam, and to Robert Corbet, whom the said Wido had called to warranty. [4] Thus among the Essoigns at Westminster on June 27, 1199, we find Robert Coket (read Corbet) and Wido de Arundel essoigned against John Wallensis by Richard Russell and William Brito. In Hilary Term 1200 "Robert Corbet appoints in his own place Wido de Arundell, against John de Seldes" (another name of the Plaintiff) "in a plea of warranty in Totenhill and Merebroc, wherein Wido calls Robert Corbet to warranty". [5] In Easter Term 1200 the cause came on for hearing, John Walensis suing Robert Corbet immediately for half a Knight's-fee in Tutenishill and in Merebroc. Corbet appeared, and at once called to warranty the heir of his own Feoffors, the Says. This was Margery, daughter of Hugh de Say, an Infant at the time; and the Suit was consequently adjourned till she should be of age. [6] In Easter Term 1201 Guido de Arundell was again a Defendant for his interest in Thikeshell and in Marebroc. It was one hide (the Domesday measurement of Tedenesolle), and was claimed by one William de Lendeslee as his right. Guido in this instance made no appeal to Corbet his immediate Seigneur, but at once called the daughter of Hugh de Say to warranty, who being still in minority this case also was adjourned. [7] The Feodary, which I have ventured to date about 1230, gives a second Adam de Arundel as holding half a knight's-fee in Tetneshull and Marebroc of the Honour of Richard's Castle. [8] Here Corbet's mesne interest is omitted, as it again is in the Feodary of 1240, which gives Adam de Arondel as holding half a fee in Merebroc of the Barony of William de Stotevill. [9]

In 1255 the Jurors who made Inquest as to the Tenures in Overs Hundred seem to have been Knights. John de Arundel is the second on the Panel. Among their statements is this one.- "John de Arundel holds one hide of land in Marebroc of Sir

[3] Rot. Pip. 7 Ric. I, Salop.
[4] Rot. Curiae Regis, I, 254.
[5] Placita, Hil. Term, 1 John, m. 7. (This Roll has been erroneously headed as of 10 John.)
[6] Rot. Curiae Regis, II, 223.
[7] Placita, Pasch. Term, 2 John.
[8] Liber Ruber, fo. cxlv.- This tenure follows those of Milson and Neen Sollars on the list.
[9] Testa de Nevill, p. 46.- Two other nearly cotemporary Lists (pp. 48, 50) give Alan as the name of the Arundel thus seized. It is merely an error of transcription.


Thomas Corbet for half a Knight's-fee, and does suit to Overs Hundred". [10] At the Assizes of 1256 John de Arundel was again second Juror for Overs Hundred. On February 3, 1264, John, son of John de Arundel, has a Writ of mort d'ancestre against Thomas Corbet concerning a messuage and lands in Habberley and Tetneshull. [11] John de Arundel the second, as I presume he may be called, was Foreman of the Jury which took the Overs Inquest in November 1274. He was second Juror on an Inquest about Greet, in August 1278. In 1284 we have the statement which I have before alluded to as strengthening the notion that we have in Malbrook the place usually, but not always, called Merebroc in the thirteenth century. In this instance it is called Melbrok; and John de Arundel is stated to hold it for half a Knight's-fee of Peter Corbet, while the same Peter held it of Robert de Mortimer. [12] On the death of the latter Baron in 1287, the tenancy of Arundel here is not mentioned in the Inquest; but Peter Corbet is said to have held, on the day of Mortimer's decease, the Manor of Tettreshull and Marebrok for half a knight's-fee, and the Manor to be worth 8. per annum. [13] On May 8, 1288, we have Sir John de Arundel, knight, attesting a Buildwas Charter. [14]

Before October 1292 John de Arundel (II) was deceased, leaving a Widow Isabella and a Son (a third John) his heir. At the Assizes of that year, Isabella, the Widow, was suing several Tenants of her late husband for dower. She sued Agnes, daughter of John de Arundel, for thirds of a messuage and half virgate in Taneshull and Burywod; she sued Sibil, widow of Nicholas de Multon (Milson, I presume [15]) for thirds in Neen Solers; and she sued Isabel, widow of William de Stepelton, for thirds in La Wodehouse. All these Tenants called John, son of John de Arundel, to warranty. The result in the first case of the three was that Agnes had an equivalent for the thirds sought against her out of the lands of the said John de Arundel (III). In the second case, Sibil showed that she was only Tenant for life; the premises in Neen Solers being entailed on her daughter Agnes. They both agreed

[10] Rot. Hundred. II, 74. In this case Marebroc is mentioned between Neen Baldwin (i.e. Neen Sollars) and Milson.
[11] Patent, 48 Hen. III, dorso.- John de Arundel is charged 1 merk on the Pipe-Roll of 1267, pro habenda assiza.
[12] Kirby's Qrest.- In this instance Melbrok is named after Burford and before Neen Sollars and Milson.
[13] Inquisitions, 15 Edw. I, No. 15.- Here the Manor is named between Neen Sollars and Milson.
[14] Monasticon, V, 358, Num. x.
[15] Vide supra, p. 348.


in calling John de Arundel (III) to warranty, who stated that his late Father had given his wife Isabel an equivalent for this item of her dower, viz. a mill and a garden. To this Isabel replied, that the said gift of a mill, etc., was a simple gift, and no exchange. So Isabel had her dower in this instance, and Sibil her equivalent, out of John de Arundel's estate. In the third case, Isabel de Stepelton showed that she held for term of life, and with remainder to Robert her son. John de Arundel being called to Warranty, said, as to this parcel in La Wodehouse, that his Father could never have given dower in that, because he had never been himself seized thereof. This plea he afterwards withdrew, and had to find an equivalent for the dower taken out of Isabel de Stepelton's tenement. [16]

On October 6, 1297, a Fine was levied, whereby John de Arundel entailed, subject to his own life and with a small reservation, two parts of the Manors of Tetteneshul and Habberley on Robert Corbet of Moreton, Matilda his wife, and the heirs of the said Robert. According to the language of the Fine, John de Arundel, Plaintiff, acknowledges the right of Robert Corbet to the premises, except three messuages and two virgates in Tetteneshul and Habberley. In return, Robert Corbet and Matilda his wife concede the premises to John de Arundel for life;- to hold of Robert and Matilda and the heirs of Robert at a rose-rent, and by performance of all capital services;- with remainder to Robert and Matilda,- to hold of the Lords of the Fee. [17]

On the 15th of November, 1300, Robert Corbet having died, and the Escheator having seized the Manors of Haberleye and Tetneshull-under-the-Cle into the King's hands; and Matilda, Robert Corbet's widow, having complained to the King that she was enfeoffed in these and other estates conjointly with her late husband, the King orders the said Escheator to send him full information on the subject. An Inquest held at Moreton Corbet on January 15, 1301, found that Robert Corbet and his wife had been jointly enfeoffed by John, son of John de Arundel, in all the said John's lands in the vills of Habberleye and Tetneshull and Merebrok:- also that John de Arundel was still holding for life two-thirds of the premises, but that Robert Corbet had died seized of the remaining third; and that the whole constituted a knight's-fee held under Peter Corbet. [18] It is clear then that Robert Corbet

[16] Assizes, 20 Edw. I. m. 6.
[17] Pedes Finium, 25 Edw. I, Salop.
[18] Inquisitions, 29 Edw. I, No. 45.


had been enfeoffed in the whole of these estates previous to the above Fine, and that the Fine was only a subsequent and temporary arrangement in respect of two-thirds thereof.

Whether Adam Arundel, who has been named on an Easthope Jury in 1306, [19] was descended from the old Lords of Tetneshull I cannot declare. Certain it is that Robert Corbet's descendants enjoyed the fee simple of the estate now under notice.

A Feodary of April 2, 1308, mentions only the mesne tenure of Peter Corbet of Caus, viz. that he held, under the Lords of Burford, the Manor of Teteneshull and Marebrok for half a knight's-fee. [20] An Inquisition ordered June 12, and held June 20, 1309, on the death of Matilda, widow of Robert Corbet of Moreton, found her to have held the Manors of Tetneshull, Marebrok, and Habberleye, under Sir Peter Corbet, for half a knight's-fee. The Inquest values the pleas of the Manorial Courts at 1s. only, because the said Courts had none who did suit thereto (quia non habent sectatores). [21]

OF UNDERTENANTS in this Manor I have no notice, unless it be in the instance of William, son of Geoffrey de Tetteshill, who at the Assizes of 1226 was amerced 6s. 8d. for disseizin, [22] and who, as William de Tetneshull, was acquitted of a second charge of the same nature. [23]

Earls Ditton.

Domesday supplements its account of Cleobury Mortimer, in Condetret Hundred, with mention of Mawley and two other small estates, which had been so annexed to Cleobury as to be valued therewith in the Record. The Survey then proceeds thus,- "And in Ovret Hundred there is I hide, Dodentone, which itself also is valued in the same," [1] i.e. in Cleobury. We have seen in the case of Ditton Priors, that the Dodentone of Domesday became Ditton; also in the case of Detton, that that is the contracted form of a place written in Domesday as Dodentone. A third very similar instance is the one before us; for there can be no doubt that this distant

[19] Supra, p. 119.
[20] [21] Inquisitions, 1 Edw. II, No. 59, 2 Edw. II, No. 34.
[22] Rot. Pip. 10 Hen. III, Salop.
[23] Abbrev. Placitorum, p. 104.
[1] Domesday, fo. 260, a, 1.


member of the modern Parish of Cleobury Mortimer represents a part of the Domesday Dodentone in Overs Hundred;- I say a part, because Earls Ditton lies in a greater district, known as the Doddington Liberty of Cleobury Mortimer. It is Doddington Liberty therefore which represents as a whole the Domesday Dodentone, so that we have the uncontracted form for the district in general and the contracted form for a parcel thereof. The addition of "Earls" before Ditton marks a distinction from Detton and Ditton Priors. The prefix alludes to the Seigneury of the Mortimers as Earls of March, and therefore we do not find it used in the thirteenth century.

The territory here spoken of was probably held in demesne by the Mortimers; and what we have said of their Manor of Cleobury in general, must be taken to include Doddington Liberty. There is one remarkable exception to this rule: for I think it was here that the estate lay which in 1260 was settled by Roger de Mortimer of Wigmore, on the marriage of his daughter Isabel with the heir-apparent of the House of Fitz Alan. A Fine levied at Westminster, on May 14, 1260, sets forth the whole contract. John Fitz Alan (II) is Deforciant of 100 merkates of land in Norton and Atton, whereof was plea of convention between him and Roger de Mortimer, Plaintiff. The said John concedes, that if it should come to pass that he should outlive John his son and heir, who, not being yet fourteen years of age, had married Isabel, Roger de Mortimer's daughter, then that the said 100 merkates of land should remain to Isabella,- to hold under John (II) and his heirs for her life, in name of dower. Again, if John fitz Alan, Junior, when he arrived at 14 years of age, should wish to oppose the marriage-contract between himself and Isabel, the 100 merkates aforesaid should nevertheless remain to Isabel for life, and be for her maintenance, but after her death should revert to John fitz Alan and his heirs. In return, Roger de Mortimer conceded, in marriage of his daughter Isabel, 40 Librates of land in Dudinton, Salop;- to hold to John fitz Alan, Junior, and Isabel, and their heirs, under Roger and his heirs for ever. If John fitz Alan, Junior, died without heirs, and Isabel survived him, she was to have the said 40 Librates for life, with reversion to Mortimer. And besides this, Roger de Mortimer paid down 400 merks of silver. [2]

[2] Fines Divers. Comitat. tem. Hen. III, Bundle VI. No. 67, Oxon, Salop. Norton, and I presume Atton, were in Oxfordshire.


EARLS DITTON CHAPEL.- Some remains of this structure were visible at the commencement of the present Century. [3]


THIS was a Manor of Overs Hundred. It is thus described in Domesday:- "Radulf de Mortemer holds Cornelie of the King. Siuuard held it (in Saxon times) for two Manors, and was a free man. Here are II hides geldable. There is arable land (sufficient) for four ox-teams. In demesne there is one team and there are IIII Serfs, I Villain, II Boors, and I Radman, with half a team. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 48s. per annum. Now it is worth 10s. When he (Mortemer) received it, it was worth 3s". [1]

There can be little doubt, I think, that this Manor went to constitute a part of the great fief which Le Savage held under Mortimer, but there is no evidence that, in this case as in many, Le Savage was preceded by Ingelrannus. The inference is, that Le Savage's Tenure was not all inherited, but increased by successive grants of the Suzerain. Le Savage's successor at Corley was De Overton, of whom I have said so much under Eudon George and Overton. Richard de Overton's interest in Corley seems to have arisen before the extinction of Le Savage's male line; for Adam le Savage was living in 1210, while in November 1208 a Fine was levied, whereby Aldith and Margery fitz Benedict, Plaintiffs, conceded to Richard de Huverton, Tenant, half a virgate in Corneleg, whereof was suit of mort d'ancestre. For this renunciation the Tenant gave them 8s. It is probable therefore that Richard de Overton was Savage's Undertenant or Grantee before he was definitively his Coheir. I just repeat the former statement, that in 1240 Geoffrey de Overton's tenure of a knight's-fee under Ralph de Mortimer was in Overton, Eudon George, and Cornley, and pass to the year 1255, when the Overs Inquisition says, that Geoffrey de Wuerton holds one (hide) of land in Corley of Sir Roger de Mortimer for a fourth part of a knight's-fee, and does suit to Overs Hundred. The other hide (which had helped to constitute the Domesday Manor) was held by Nicholas de Hintes under Geoffrey

[3] Blakeway's List of Destroyed Chapels.
[1] Domesday, fo. 260, a, 1.


de Wuerton, for another fourth part of a knight's-fee, and did suit to the Hundred. [2] Geoffrey de Overton then must be supposed to have held the whole two hides under Mortimer.

In April 1263 we have Master William Gunny and Avelino his wife, Tenants of 1 virgates in Cornleye, renouncing their right in the same to Nicholas, son of Nicholas de Hintes. The fine purports to follow a Plea of Convention and the transfer to be a gift. The Grantee is to hold the premises of the Lord of the Fee. He gives the Recognizors a sore sparrow-hawk. [3]

Corley was one of those Manors which, soon after the battle of Evesham (1265), Mortimer removed from Overs Hundred and annexed to his Honour of Cleobury. An Inquest which took more particular cognizance of this matter than the Hundredal Inquest of 1274, estimates the King's loss as 2s. per annum, from the withdrawal of the Lord of Cornlegh from those Hundred Courts of Overs which were held every three weeks;- at 18d. for the withdrawal of the Vill from two annual appearances;- and at 12d. from the discontinuance of the Hundred fee. [4]

In Hilary Term 1278 a fine was levied between Hugh le Vuylle, plaintiff, and Roger son of William (which William was Parson of the Church of Cornleye) impedient, of a messuage and 50 acres of land in Cornleye. Roger acknowledged Hugh's right as by his (Roger's) gift. Hugh conceded the premises to Roger for life, at a rent of 28d. payable to himself;- and with reversion to himself, to hold of the Lords of the Fee. [4]

Later in the same Term, Hugh de Vuilla and Matilda his wife, Impedients, quit-claim for 10 merks to Nicholas de Hintes, Plaintiff, a messuage, 60 acres of land, and 3 acres of wood in Hintes and Cornleye, whereof was Suit-at-law. William de Hyntys, son of William de Hyntys, is said to appone his claim. [5]

In Michaelmas Term 1288 John de la Donne, Junior, and Agnes his wife, Deforciants, quit-claim to Richard, son of John de la Donne (Senior), Plaintiff, a messuage, 12 acres of land, 1 acres of meadow, and 10 acres of Bosc in Hintes and Cornleye. This quit-claim, for which 40s. was paid, binds the Deforciants and the heirs of Agnes. [5]

The Inquest on the death of Edmund de Mortimer in 1305 gives

[2] Rot. Hundred. II, 74.
[3] Pedes Finium, 47 Hen. III, Salop.
[4] Inquis. incerti temporis Hen. III, No. 25.
[5] Pedes Finium, 6 and 16 Edw. I, Salop.


Overton and Cornleye as held by one fee, but the Tenant's name is illegible. [6] I suppose it was Geoffrey de Overton.


The earliest notice which I have of Corley Church is implied in the Presentments of the Overs Jurors at the Assizes of 1292. They recorded how in 1261 a Robber having taken sanctuary there, had confessed to many larcenies, and had abjured the Realm before Philip de Clinton, Coroner. [7]

In 1291 the Church of Cornleye in the Deanery of Burford was valued at 6. per annum, and the Rector had also a portion of 1. from the Church of Stottesden [8]- a right whose origin I cannot conjecture. In 1341 the Church-Taxation of Corleye being first quoted at 6., the Parish stands assessed to the Ninth at 2. Absence of sheep-stock, non-cultivation of four virgates of land, and the Taxation including hay and other small tithes, as well as offerings and glebe land,- these were the reasons of the discrepancy. [9] In 1534-5, William Waddyngton being Rector of Corley, his preferment in Glebe and tithes is valued at 6. Instead of receiving a pension from Stottesden Church, Corley now paid a pension of 6s. 8d. to Wigmore Abbey. The Procuration and Synodals due on Corley were 7s. 8d. [10]


WILLIAM, Parson of this Church in 1278, has been mentioned above.

NICHOLAS DE REYGATE, Subdeacon, had this Church committed to him March 7, 1285.

PETER DE BROMPTON, Clerk, was instituted June 23, 1286, on presentation of Geoffrey de Overton; but custody of both Church and Incumbent was committed to William le Berner, Chaplain.

THOMAS DE OVERTON being deprived of this Church, as holding it against a Statute of the Council of Lyons, his Successor-

WALTER DE HYNESTOK, Priest, was instituted Feb. 16, 1299, on presentation of Geoffrey de Overton.

WALTER DE BASKERVYLE, Clerk, [11] was instituted in 1316 on presentation of Peter de Overton.

[6] Inquisitions, 32 Edw. I, No. 63, b.
[7] Placita Coronae, 20 Edw. I, m. 34.
[8] Pope Nich. Taxation, pp. 165, 166.
[9] Inquisitiones Nonarum, p. 187.
[10] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 214, 208.
[11] This Rector and his Successor were perhaps Brothers-in-law of the Patron.


ROGER DE BASKERVILE, Subdeacon, was instituted January 19, 1321, on presentation of the same.

MALCULINE DE KYNESDELEYE was instituted January 17, 1342, on presentation of the same. He resigned in 1359, when, on September 20-

ROGER DE LA HAY, Clerk, was instituted at presentation of John de Overton. This Rector occurs in 1361.

JOHN SCHAKELL, Chaplain, exchanges this Rectory on Oct. 8, 1399, for the Preferment of-

SIR WILLIAM SEYNT GEORGE, late Rector of Cleobury North, who was instituted here on presentation of William Worthyn. St. George resigned in 1411.


THIS was the only Manor in Overs Hundred which Ralph de Mortimer held of the Earl of Shrewsbury. Domesday describes it as follows:- "The same Radulf holds Caiham. Earl Morcar held it (in Saxon times). Here are VIII hides geldable. In demesne are IIII hides, and thereon are II ox-teams, and there are II Serfs, X Villains, and V Boors, with IIII teams. Here is a Mill; and two horse-loads of salt from Wich (belong to the Manor). There is a wood which will fatten 200 swine, and therein are III hayes. In the whole Manor the (arable) land is enough for XIX ox-teams. Of the said land of this Manor, Robert Veci holds III hides, and Walter I hide, of Radulf. In demesne they have II teams, and VII Serfs; and there are IIII Villains, and IIII Boors, with I team only. The whole Manor in King Edward's time was worth 8., and afterwards it was worth 60s. Now, that which Radulf (de Mortemer) holds is worth 40s. That which his Knights hold is worth 38s. [1]

This is the fourth of Earl Morcar's Shropshire Manors which has come under notice. I have observed with regard to two Manors of his Brother Earl Edwin, that the salt-pits attached thereto naturally resulted from that Earl's interest in the Wickes of Cheshire and Worcestershire. [2] This will not apply to a Manor of Earl Morcar,

[1] Domesday, fo. 256, b, 2.
[2] Vide supra, Vol. II, p. 174, note 1, and Vol. III, p. 329.


who had no share, or at least a very small one, in these Wickes. The annual quantity of salt therefore which was due to Cainham from one of the Wiches (of Worcestershire probably), was perhaps annexed to the Manor by the Norman Earl, or by Ralph de Mortimer. I now proceed to speak of that moiety of Cainham which Ralph de Mortimer held in demesne at Domesday. The Wigmore Annalist, telling how Hugh de Mortimer founded and endowed that Abbey, places those events in 1179, and gives the Manor of Kayham as part of the said endowment. [3] The French Chronicle, on the accuracy of which I have learnt much rather to depend, couples this grant of Caynham with circumstances other than the foundation of Wigmore Abbey.- "Hugh de Mortimer gave Caynham to the said Abbey with his body", and so in prospect of his own burial at Wigmore. [4] "But a Lady", adds this Writer, "continued to hold the town of Snytton in the name of dower". Hugh de Mortimer lived to see the Abbey of Wigmore dedicated, which, if the date of foundation were 1179, will have been within two years after; for Mortimer died in 1181. On the day of Dedication he renewed and confirmed his grant of Caynham. Roger de Mortimer, his Successor, had no sooner come into possession than he challenged the title of Wigmore Abbey to Caynham, and otherwise oppressed the Canons. When the Lady, who held Snytton in dower, died, he at first allowed their title to that appurtenance of Caynham; then he took it back again as a convenient halting-place in his journeys between Wigmore and Cleobury. It seems that on one of these journeys his wife, Isabel de Ferrars, was seized with sudden labour at Snytton. The death of her infant, her own danger, and the place where this visitation overtook her, seem to have suggested to a pious and impressible mind some of those reflections which the Churchmen of that day never failed to turn to account.- She had been visited not with the ordinary curse of Eve, but with a judgment on the sacrilege of her husband. At her representation and prayer Mortimer restored the vill of Snytton to the Abbey,- to hold freely with the Manor of Caynham for ever.

The Inquest of Overs Hundred in 1255, says accordingly that the Abbot of Wyggimore holds IIII hides of land, in almoign, of Sir Roger de Mortimer, in Kahiham, and does suit to Overs Hundred. [5] John de Cainham, a Juror on this occasion, was probably the Abbot's

[3] Monasticon, VI, p. 349, a.
[4] Wright's Ludlow, pp. 121, 126, 127.
[5] Rot. Hundred. II, 74. John de Keynham was again juror for Overs Hundred at the Assizes of 1266.


Tenant here, and apparently of knightly rank. It is evident that Caynham, thus described, included Snitton, and that the two constituted those four hides of the Manor which were Mortimer's demesne at Domesday. On the strength of Henry III's Charter (granted Oct. 4, 1265), the Abbot of Wigmore withdrew the suit of Cainham from Overs Hundred. He also assumed the privileges of having a gallows and of assizing bread and beer in the Manor. [6] In 1291 the Abbot's receipts from Kayham and Snitton are returned as follows.- Rents, 16. A Mill, 1. 10. Pleas and Perquisites, 13s. 4d. Profits from a Coal-mine, 5s. Total, 18. 8s. 4d. [7]

In October 1302, William Beneth, Plaintiff in a Fine, acknowledges himself to have given a messuage and half virgate in Kaynham to Richard, son of William Beneth, and to Alice, daughter of Richard le Feure of Ashton. The latter, for themselves and the heirs of Richard son of William, regrant the premises to William Beneth, for life, at a rose-rent, and he performing all capital services. Remainder to Richard and Alice. This Fine is evidently in the nature of a marriage settlement. [8]

In October 1304, Hugh Body and Alianore his wife, Plaintiffs in a Fine, convey a messuage, 70 acres of land, 1 acre of meadow, and 4 acres of wood in Caynham and Hopebagard to Philip, son of Roger Coterel of Ludlow, who in turn settles the premises on the Plaintiffs for their lives, with remainder to their son Hugh and Isabel his wife, and the heirs of their bodies, and in default of such heirs to the right heirs of Hugh son of Hugh. [8]

In 1534-5 the Abbot of Wigmore returned his rents and ferms derived from Caynham and Sutton (read Snitton) at 37. 3s. 9d.; the ferms and rent of certain corn (probably tithes) were 2. The Demesne lands, including two small rents, yielded 8. 7s. 4d. The Profits of the Court, from Fines, Heriots, Reliefs and amercements, were 3. 6s. 8d. The total Income from Caynham was therefore 50. 17s. 9d. [9] The Minister's Accounts, of 1539-40, give the rents and ferms of Caynham as 37. 6s. 11d. The Ferm of a Mill (13s.); a pension of 1. 13s. 4d., receivable from the Vicar, and the Perquisites of Court, 6s. 8d., are the other items of this later valuation, which amounts altogether to 39. 19s. 11d.; the demesne lands not being included and other items reduced. [10] The Pension from the Vicar was perhaps a recent composition, in lieu of Rectorial Tithes.

[6] Rot. Hundred. II, 103.
[7] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 165.
[8] Pedes Finium, 30, 32 Edw. I, Salop.
[9] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 202, 203.
[10] Monasticon, Vol. VI, 355.


[For engraving, see pdf.]



The Advowson of this Church was probably involved in Mortimer's gift of the Manor to Wigmore Abbey.

In 1291 the Church of Kayham, in the Deanery of Ludlow, is said to be the Abbot's, and his, the Rectorial, income therefrom to be 3. 6s. 8d. The Vicar's Portion, as it is called, was under 4. [11] The Church of Bitterley had a pension from Kayham, and I doubt not that Kayham had been originally in Bitterley Parish, [12] and that this pension was in lieu of any other acknowledgment of dependence on the Mother Church.

In 1341 the Taxation of Caynham Church is quoted at 10 merks (6. 13s. 4d.), which included the Rector of Bitterley's portion of 6s. 8d., and would seem to include the Vicarial portion and to make it 3. The Assessors of the Ninth taxed the Parish only 3. 0s. 8d. Two virgates lay unfilled therein: the hay-tithes and glebe were worth 20s., the offerings and small tithes were worth 3. 6s., and these, together with the Pension to Bitterley, though they swelled the Taxation, could not be calculated in estimating the Ninth of wheat, wool and lamb. [13]

In 1534-5 the Rectorial income from Caynham seems to be included among the Temporalities of Wigmore Abbey, as above stated. Richard Pach, the Vicar, had glebe land worth 1. per annum, and 3. 9s. from tithes. The total of 4. 9s. was charged with 1s. for synodals, yearly. [14]


ACHELARD, Parson of Caynham, died in the time of Henry II; [15] probably about the year 1179. The Rectory will then have been appropriated by the Canons of Wigmore, who presented all the under-mentioned Incumbents. These must therefore be classed as VICARS.

SIR JOHN DE CAYNHAM, instituted Jan. 19, 1280.

JOHN DE STEPLETON, Priest, instituted Dec. 18, 1320.

SIR JOHN DE DORITON, Priest, presented Aug. 16, 1349.

SIR ROGER DE COSTONE, Priest, instituted May 3, 1353.

SIR JOHN POSSELOWE, instituted Feb. 17, 1370.

[11] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 166.
[12] Snitton, a member of Caynham manorially, is to this day in Bitterley Parish.
[13] Inquisitiones Nonarum, p. 188.
[14] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 201.
[15] Wright's Ludlow, p. 120.


SIR WILLIAM BOUR, instituted April 22, 1399, was Vicar here in 1420.


This was unquestionably a member of the Domesday Manor of Cainham, and part of the four hides not held by Mortimer in demesne. But whether Hope were part of Robert Veci's three hides, or identical with the one hide held by Walter, I cannot say. I rather suppose the latter. This vill never passed to Wigmore Abbey as an appurtenance of Cainham, but was held under Mortimer as a distinct Manor, and by Feoffees whose name Bagard accounts for the distinctive title by which the place is now known. By a Fine levied in November 1240, Henry Faber of Rushbury, Plaintiff, renounces to Robert Baggard, Tenant, a noke and three acres in Hop, which he had previously claimed under Writ of Grand Assize. In return, Baggard conceded him the noke at a rent of 2s. and on condition that he should at his own cost furnish two men to assist in Baggard's Autumn-harvest for one day yearly. By another cotemporary Fine, Walter fitz Maurice, Tenant, renounces to John de Whytinton, [16] Plaintiff, half a virgate in Hope Bagard; whereof was Plea. In return John de Whytinton concedes the premises to the Recognizor, to hold under himself at 5s. rent, and by performance of all capital services. "And this concession", says the Record, "was made in the presence and by consent of Robert Bagard under whom Walter previously held". [17] A Feodary drawn up at this very period gives Robert Bagard as holding half a knight's-fee in Hop under Ralph de Mortimer. [18] Two nearly cotemporary Lists very erroneously describe the Tenure as being under the Barony of William de Stutevill, i.e. of Richard's-Castle. [18] At the Inquisition of Overs Hundred in 1255, Robert Baghard, of Hop (himself on the Jury), is said to hold one hide in Hope of Sir Roger de Mortimer, for half a Knight's-fee. He did Suit to the Hundred of Overs. [19] Robert Bagard, of Hope, was on the Overs Jury at the Assizes of 1256.

This was another of the Vills whose suit was withdrawn from Overs Hundred by Mortimer, on the strength of his oft-mentioned Charter of 1266. The undated Inquest which I have before quoted values the suits of Court at 4s., and the Hundred-fee, thus lost, at 14d. per annum.

[16] This John de Whytinton has occurred above, pp. 341, 342.
[17] Pedes Finium, 25 Hen. III, Salop.
[18] Testa de Nevill, pp. 46, 48, 50.
[19] Rot. Hundred. II, 74.


At the Assizes of 1272 Roger Bagard was one of the Jurors who represented the then independent Franchise of Cleobury Mortimer.

The Pleas of the Crown entered as pertaining to Overs Hundred on the Assize Roll of 1292, show that in regard of some matters Hope Baggot was still reckoned in that Hundred: e.g. A Deodand of 7s. is recorded as chargeable on two wheels and a mill-stone in the Mill of Hope; the inner wheel having dragged down Valentine, the Miller, whereby he died. The Inquest taken after the death of Edmund de Mortimer, in February 1305, gives Robert Bagard as holding half a knight's-fee in Hope Bagard under the deceased.


In 1291 the Chapel of Hopbagard, in the Deanery of Ludlow, being of less than 4. annual value, was charged with a Pension to Bitterley: evidently as the Mother Church. [20] In 1341 the Assessors of the Ninth taxed the Parish only 20s.; not quoting any previous Church-Taxation, but stating the actual value of the Foundation of the Church to be 6s. 8d. and the value of the small-tithes, offerings, and other profits to be 6s. 8d. more.
[21] In 1534-5 this Chapel is styled a Rectory, of which William Wyndell was Incumbent. Its glebe was worth 13s. 4d. per annum, its tithes 2. 6s. 8d. It paid 6d. for Synodals to the Bishop, yearly. [22]


ROGER BAGART, Clerk, instituted June 15, 1288, on presentation of Robert, his Brother.

MASTER THOMAS DE LA HULLE, instituted 21 July, 1341. Patron, William de la Hulle. [23]

SIR ROGER DE BRADESTON, Chaplain, instituted on 19 Nov. 1355, on presentation of William Hulle, Lord of Hulle.

SIR JOHN WETEMORE, Priest, instituted to this "Rectory" 1st Sept., 1393. "Whytmere" resigned in 1397, having exchanged preferments with-

SIR JOHN GRYTE, late Vicar of Llangadok (Landav. Dioc.), who is instituted here 24th May, 1397, on presentation of Johanna Hulls. "John Crit" resigned in 1398, having exchanged preferments with-

[20] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 176, b.
[21] Inquisitiones Nonarum, p. 193.
[22] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 201.
[23] This William de la Hulle was, I suppose, son and heir of that William do la Hulle, Lord of Hulle (near Burford) who has occurred to us above (p. 345) as living in 1331.


SIR NICHOLAS HENRICI DE EYTON, [24] late Vicar of Rotteley [25] (Lichf. Dioc.), who was instituted here on 7 Dec. 1398, at presentation of Johanna de la Hulle, Lady of Hulle.


This place is parochially a member of Corley, but there can be little question that at the time of Domesday it was manorially an appurtenance of Cainham;- for Corley, as a Manor, maintained its Domesday hidage in 1255, without including Hints; whilst Cainham at the same time, and even when reckoned to include Hope Bagard and Hints, was still two hides short of its Domesday complement.

Three nearly cotemporary Lists of the Barony of Richard's-Castle have often been quoted above as belonging to the year 1240. [26] Each of them contains an entry, which, on examination, will be found referable to Hints. One of these Lists has Roger de Foxcote and his Coparceners as holding half a fee in Hintes of William de Stutevill. The other two Lists indicate Foxcote as the locality of the same Tenure, which is a palpable error. Less apparent but not less real is the error of all three lists in making the Tenure to be under Stutevill. It was under Mortimer of Wigmore. The same mistake occurring in the case of Hope Baggot induces the idea that it arose from Stutevill being Lord of Overs Hundred. The Overs Inquisition of 1255 both explains and corrects these earlier statements. Then the three Coparceners in Hintes were Roger de Foxcote, Nicholas de Hintes, and the Infant Heir of William de Hintes. The latter was in custody of John de Lectone. The whole Manor was estimated as one hide, held of Sir Roger de Mortimer for half a knight's-fee and doing suit to Overs Hundred. [27] We have already heard of Roger de Foxcote, [28] and of Nicholas de Hintes,- of the latter as Tenant of a hide in Corley. [28] In Easter Term 1260 Nicholas de Hinter was dead, and Felicia his Widow was suing his Undertenants or Feoffees for various parcels of dower. She sued Dionysia de Hintes (probably daughter of the deceased) for a third of a messuage and carucate in Hintes; she sued one John fitz Alan for a third of a carucate, and William Gunny for a third of 3 acres in Cornlegh; also she sued Ralph Tette and Richard the Carter, each

[24] That is, I suppose, Nicholas, son of Henry de Eyton.
[25] "Quaere Botteley", says Mr. Blakeway.
[26] Testa de Nevill, pp. 45, 48, 50.
[27] Rot. Hundred. II, 74. Nicholas de Hintes was one of the Jury which made this return. His name is written or transcribed as Byntos.
[28] Supra, pp. 257, 357.


for a third of half a virgate in Upmaneton (a place near Bitterley); also Walter de Pedwardine, for a third of a virgate and half in Walleford, and John de Lingeyn and others, for various thirds in the same. All these parcels were seized into the King's hand, and the cause adjourned. [29] Nicholas de Hints was generally succeeded by his son, another Nicholas, who has occurred to us under Corley, in 1263. Hints, after the Battle of Evesham, was withdrawn by Mortimer from Overs Hundred. The Suits and appearances thus lost were valued at 4s. per annum. The Hundred-fee paid by the vill had been 1s. At the Assizes of 1272 Nicholas de Hintes was one of the Jurors for the Franchise of Cleobury. In 1305 the Inquest after the death of Edmund de Mortimer gives John de Hintes as holding half a fee in Hintes and Opemonekete.

HILL UPPENCOTT or LUPPENCOTT is in Bitterley Parish, but must be taken to have been another of the Domesday members of Cainham. It is the place already alluded to twice as Upmaneton and Opemonekete. I have nothing further to say of it. A glance at the Map will show the extent of the district which lay between Cainham, Hope Baggot, Corley and Hill Uppencott. This then was the territory which formed the bulk of the eight hides assigned by Domesday to Caynham, and the subsequent estimates (which mention only six hides in Cainham, Corley, and Hope Baggot) must be taken to include the same territory as Domesday, rating it, as usual, at a lower hidage.


THIS Manor was the only one which Roger de Lacy had in Overs Hundred. He held it of the Earl at Domesday.- "The same Roger holds Buterlie. Goduin held it (in Saxon times) and was a free man. Here are III hides geldable. In demesne there is I ox-team, and there are IIII teams among the Serfs, male and female. [1] There is a Church, a Priest, VI Villains, and I Boor, with III teams; and yet there might be III other teams here. Here are II Hayes. In

[29] Placita, Pasch. Term, 44 Hen. III, m. 32 dorso.
[1] Et IIII (carucae) inter servos et ancillas;- an indication that the female Serfs worked at the plough.


King Edward's time the Manor was worth 60s. per annum, and afterwards it was waste, now it is worth 40s". [2]

A family named Esketot or Scotot held three Knights'-fees of old feoffment in Lacy's Herefordshire Barony. In 1165 the representative of this family was Richard de Esketot; [3] but one Roger de Esketot, probably a Cadet of the House, had since the death of Henry I (1135) been enfeoffed by Lacy in a Knight's-fee and accordingly the Record of 1165 enters him as holding the same by new feoffinent. [4] This Fee was undoubtedly Bitterley; and we find this identical Roger de Scotot granting 4s. rent out of his Mill of Butterleg to Haughmond Abbey. His grant was attested by Nicholas de Huggeford and Ivo the Priest. Hugh de Lacy, as Seigneural Lord, confirmed this grant; William, son of William fitz Alan, attesting [5] The names thus combined in this transaction indicate that it took place between 1173 and 1177. The Successor of Roger de Esketot was Hugh de Esketot, who in 1187 having failed to produce before the Justices-in-Eyre some woman, who had apparently been associated with Money-forgers, was amerced in the heavy penalty of 15 merks. [6] In 1192, 7. 12s. 6d. of this debt being still due, the charge was transferred from the Shropshire to the Herefordshire Pipe-Roll. [7] In Easter Term 1200, Hugh de Asketot was one of twelve knights chosen to try a cause of Grand Assize, which I have mentioned under Nordley Regis. [8] Within the next ten years, as I conjecture, Hugh de Esketot was succeeded by his son Roger; for the latter, calling himself "Roger de Scotud son of Hugh de Scotud," confirms the grant of 4s. rent, which his Ancestors had made to Haughmond Abbey. [9] The witnesses of this are Osbert Parson of Diddlebury, Roger Parson of Butterley, and Osbern fitz William of Diddlebury; names which allow of a much later date than that which I assign to this Deed, and by inference to Roger de Esketot's succession. However, the first and third witnesses appear together in another document as early as 1212, and I am much mistaken if Roger de Scotud was not the person who before 1221 was usually known as Roger de Bitterley. I have already noticed the interest which this Roger de Bitterley had acquired in the Fief of Fitz Odo before 1221. [10] I think that it came either through his wife or mother,

[2] Domesday, fo. 256, b. 1.
[3] Richard de Esketot occurs again in 1187 as Lacy's Herefordshire Feoffee (Rot. Pip. 33 Hen. II, Heref.)
[4] Liber Niger, I, 153, 154.
[5] Haughmond Chartulary: Tit. Butterley juxta Ludlow.
[6] [7] Rot. Pip. 33 Hen. II, Salop, and 4 Ric. I, Herefordshire.
[8] Supra, Vol. III, p. 157.
[9] Chartulary, ut supra.
[10] Supra, p. 96.


being a Fitz Odo; but I have no specific evidence on the point. Roger de Bitterley was succeeded by Stephen de Bitterley, who in the Feodary of 1240 holds one knight's-fee in Buterleg of Walter de Lacy. [11] I think this Stephen de Bitterley was the same with Stephen de Scotot who in May 1246 occurs as a Juror in a Wentnor Inquisition. [12] In November 1248 Stephen de Buterlegh, Deforciant, conceded to Walter de Huggeford, Plaintiff, a right of common-pasture in Nether-butterleg, viz. for 16 oxen, 7 cows, and 1 bull. Stephen retained his right of making assarts, and Walter renounced all claim of common-pasture in Stephen's demesne-lands. [13] In 1251 Stephen de Buterleg fines 1 merk pro habendo pone;- that is, I suppose, to change the jurisdiction of some lawsuit from the County to Westminster; for in Michaelmas Term of the same year Walter de Huggeford appeared against him at Westminster to compel him to abide by the Fine already quoted. [14] Stephen however did not appear, and the Sheriff was ordered to compel his attendance in Easter Term by distraint. At the Inquest of Overs Hundred in 1255 Sir Stephen de Buterleg was Foreman of the Jury. "He held three hides in Bitterley of Dame Margery de Lacy, by service of one Knight, and did suit to Overs Hundred". [15] The Seigneury of this Manor was, at the time, part of the dower of Walter de Lacy's Widow. Stephen de Buterle was again Foreman of the Overs Jury at the Assizes of 1256. In August 1260 and in February 1263 I find him addressed as the King's Escheator in Shropshire. In 1266, when King Henry III was before Kenilworth, he granted to this Stephen de Buterlegh a license to hunt in all the Forests of Shropshire. This was allowed at the instance of Peter de Nevill. [16] On January 28, 1268, Stephen de Buterleg was exempted by Patent from serving on any Jury, Assize, Recognition, etc. This was at instance of Roger de Mortimer. I have already quoted the Fine by which in June 1274 Stephen de Boterley Senior settled Rushbury on himself and his wife Alice for their lives, and with remainder to his Son Stephen. [17] The settlement of Bitterley was precisely the same, except as regarded a messuage and a carucate of land there, which went at once to Stephen de Boterleye, Junior, being described as the "messuage and carucate which Matilda, Widow

[11] Testa de Nevill, p. 45.
[12] Inquisitions, 30 Hen. III, No. 24.
[13] Pedes Finium, 33 Hen. III.
[14] Placita, Mich. Term, 35 Hen. III, m. 35 dorso.
[15] Rot. Hundred. II, 74.
[16] Forest Rolls, Salop, No. VI.
[17] Supra, p. 97.


of Roger de Scotot sometime held". An Inquest taken on November 11, 1274, gives Sir Stephen de Buterleg as holding 1 fees (Bitterley and Rushbury) in the Barony of John de Verdon deceased (one of Lacy's Coheirs). [18] What became of Stephen de Bitterley, Junior, I cannot declare, nor how he was related to Roger de Bitterley, who before October 1283 had succeeded to Rushbury and Bitterley. In 1284 this Roger is entered as holding Buterleye of Theobald de Verdon for a knight's-fee, [19] and the same year he had a grant of Free-Warren here. [20] At the Assizes of 1292 Roger de Butterle was on the Overs Jury. So also was he a Juror on the Great Perambulation of the Shropshire Forests in June 1300. In Trinity Term 1306 Stephen son of Stephen de Buterleye with Agnes his wife are Complainants in a Fine whereby they convey the Manor and Advowson of Buterleye to John de Bromfeld, who in turn settles the same on the Complainants and on the heirs of Stephen's body, at a nominal rent payable to said John, and the Complainants performing all capital services.- After deaths of Stephen and Agnes and in default of heirs of Stephen's body, remainder to John de Bromfeld and his heirs,- to hold of the Lords of the Fee.

In March 1316 Stephen de Butterley was certified as Lord of the Vill of Bitterley, [21] and the Inquest, taken in March 1317, after the death of Theobald de Verdon, says that Stephen de Butterleye held a knight's-fee in Buterleye on the day of that Baron's death. [22] The Manor was valued at 10. per annum. A few years later and we have both Stephen and Roger de Buterley, men-at-arms, summoned from Shropshire to attend a Council at Westminster, on May 30, 1324. [23]

Of UNDERTENANTS in Bitterley I only notice the following.- In 1256 Margery widow of Richard Landien, having taken out a Writ of Dower against Richard le Franceys for her share in a tenement here, withdrew the Suit. Her Sureties were Nicholas de Estham and Will Keterel of Weston. [24]

On Oct. 24, 1256, Henry Owen has a Writ of novel disseisin against Stephen de Buterleg and Alice his wife concerning a tenement in Essebach (Asbach).

[18] Inquisitions, 2 Edw. I, No. 34.
[19] Kirby's Quest.
[20] Rot. Chart. 12 Edw. I.
[21] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 399.
[22] Inquisitions, 10 Edw. II, No. 71.
[23] Parliamentary Writs, III, 648.- This Roger de Buterley was Lord of Asbach, a Member of Bitterley. He has occurred to us before in 1318-9 (supra, p. 100).
[24] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 6 dorso.



Here was a Church at Domesday and a Priest. The former was doubtless one of those Saxon Foundations whose extensive Parishes we can partly identify by existing evidences, but which probably involved much more than can now be determined. The present Parish of Bitterley comprises Cleeton, Henley, Middleton, and Snitton. The Saxon Parish surely included Cainham and Hope Baggot; probably Upper Ledwych and Silvington. I have noticed under Stockton and Rushbury how the Churches of Lacy's Shropshire Fief were usually charged with pensions to St. Guthlac's Priory at Hereford, and given the probable reasons for that fact. [25] Bitterley, as we shall see, was no exception to the rule. On April 25, 1290, Bishop Swinfield visiting his Diocese, was at Bitterley, and was entertained by the Rector, who considered such Procuration a gratuity and not a due. [26] In 1291 the Church of Buterleye in the Deanery of Ludlowe was returned as worth 21. 6s. 8d. per annum; but this included two pensions, one from Cainham, known to have been 6s. 8d., and one from Hope Bagard. Over and above this the Prior of Hereford had a Portion of 1. 10s. in Buterleye Church. [27] In 1311 the Assessors of the Ninth rightly quoted the Church-Taxation of Butterley as 22. 16s. 8d. They charged the Parish 9. 7s. 8d. to the current tax, 9s. of which was apportioned on the temporalities of the Abbot of Wigmore within the Parish (at Snitton I suppose). The general reasons for reduction from the standard fixed by the Taxation were,- that four virgates in the Parish lay fallow; the site of the Church, with its rents and lands annexed, was worth 5., the hay-tithes were worth 2., the small tithes, offerings, and other profits of the Church, having no relation to the Ninth, were worth 5. Thus a sum of 12. went to swell the Church-Taxation, which could not be accounted of in estimating the Ninth of Wheat, Wool, and Lamb. [28] In 1534-5 the gross value of this Rectory, then held by Richard Bluntston, was 22. 11s. 8d., viz. 3. 0s. 8d. from glebe and 19. 11s. from Tithes. The charges thereon were the Prior of St. Guthhac's pension of 30s., [29] a pension of 1. 3s. 4d. payable

[25] Vol. II, p. 147. Vol. IV, p. 104.
[26] Household Roll, pp. 78 and 187.
[27] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 166, b.
[28] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 188.
[29] Vide Monasticon, III, 626, b, where the Prior of St. Guthlac's cotemporary return acknowledges this pension among the assets of his House. It seems after the Dissolution to have been sold by the Crown, together with other possessions of the late Monastery (Ibidem, p. 624, n).


to the Prior of Wenlock for Middle Higford, a sum of 14s. 4d. for Archdeacon's Procurations and Synodals, and 17s. 9d., the annual proportion of a threefold sum payable at the Bishop's triennial Visitation. [30] The net value of the Living was therefore 18. 6s. 3d.


ROGER, Parson of Butterley, has occurred above, about 1200-1210. [31]

SIR SYMON, Rector of Bitterley and Rushbury, had a year's license for study in 1278 ss He occurs in 1294 as Sir Simon de Buterlee.

REGINALD DE BROMFELD was instituted to Bitterly January 12, 1315, on presentation of Stephen de Buterle.

RICHARD DOBYN, Acolyte, was instituted March 6, 1316, on presentation of the same. He has a license for non-residence in the same year. As Richard Parson of Buterley he occurs in 1322 as I cannot say whether-

ROBERT DOBYN, Parson of Bitterley, named in a Patent of 2 Edw. III (1328-9), is to be reckoned as another Incumbent, or whether there has been some error of transcription.

JOHN, Rector of Bitterley, who in 1346 has a two-years' license for non-residence, is probably the same with-

JOHN DE BITTERLEY, who being dead in 1375,-

SIR EDWARD HORTON, Chaplain, was instituted on October 8 of that year.- Patron Sir Hugh Cheyne, Knight. This Rector occurs here in 1397, 1408, and 1420.


CLEETON, so called from its proximity to the Titterstone Clee Hill, is not mentioned in Domesday. It is however very difficult to say in what Domesday Manor it was involved. Bitterley and Silvington,

[30] Valor Ecclesiaticus, III, 200.
[31] Vide supra. p. 368.
[32] Vide supra, p. 105.
[33] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 625.


[For engraving, see pdf.]


the two Manors most likely to have involved Cleeton, maintained their Domesday hidage in 1255 independently of Cleeton.

Cleeton then possibly was an independent Manor at the time of Domesday, and was accidentally omitted in that Survey. [1] Certainly it was a Manor-Sole in the thirteenth Century, and as such I must speak of it somewhere in Overs Hundred. I prefer to speak of it here because parochially it is a member of Bitterley.

I am not aware of any Record of the thirteenth Century which intimates who were the Seignoral Lords of Cleeton, but that the Ledwiches, who held it over the Tenants-in-fee, held it immediately of the Crown I cannot for a moment suppose. Of these Ledwiches I have spoken already under Rudge and Abdon, [2] and shall have to say more under Upper Ledwich, the place from which they took their name. In 1253 the second Geoffrey de Ledwich being dead, his widow Agnes, on October 8, fines one merk for a Writ of novel disseizin to be heard by Nicholas de Turri, a Justiciar of that period. We know from the Patent ordering the Trial that she proposed to sue Geoffrey de Ledwich (her son or stepson) for a tenement in Ledwich. [3]

Previous to this, viz. in Trinity Term 1253, this same Agnes had been suing two Undertenants at Cleton for her dower there. These Undertenants were William de Ledewyz, who apparently held the whole Manor except two virgates and a noke, and Thomas de Ledewyz, who held 1 virgates and 6 acres. With respect to the thirds of these tenements thus claimed by Agnes, the two Undertenants aforesaid sued their superior Lord, Geoffrey de Ledewyz (III), to appear in warranty, [4] but the cause was adjourned, and I hear no more of it. About this time a fifth Litigant appears in this same family; for a Patent of 1253 appoints Gilbert de Preston to hold trial of a suit (jurata) which Roger de Ledwic had against William de Ledwic for a tenement in Cleton. [5]

In 1255 William de Cletone (identical I doubt not with the

[1] It is on the other hand possible, I think, that Cleeton was a member of Cainham at Domesday; but the evidence that it was so is very slight.
[2] Supra, Vol. III, p. 205, and Vol. IV, p. 129.
[3] Fines, II, 272. Patent, 27 Hen. III, dorso.
[4] Placita Trin. Term, 37 Hen. III, m. 15 dorso.
[5] Patent, 37 Hen. III, dorso.- The Pipe-Roll of 38 Hen. III records various debts due from the Ledwiches with reference to their recent disputes; e.g.- Vicecomes r. e. de 40s. de Rogero de Ledewic et sociis pro habenda attincta. Et de I marc' de Agnete de Ledewic pro habendis catallis. Et de I marc de Agnete de Ledewic pro habenda assisa. Et de I marc de Thoma de Ledewic pro habenda assisa.


last-named William de Ledwich) is entered as holding one hide in Cletone under Geoffrey de Ledwich, to whom he paid a rent of 2s. per annum. He also did Suit to Overs Hundred. [6]

At the Assizes of 1256 a cause was tried which shows us something more of the relations of these Ledwiches. One Geoffrey de Stratton, claiming to be son and heir of Isabel de Ledewych deceased, sued William de Ledewych as holding half a virgate in Cleton of which he (Geoffrey) alleged his mother to have died seized. William de Ledewych replied that Isabel had had an elder son Richard, who on Isabel's death came before Robert de Lexinton (his eyre was in 1240) and sued one Geoffrey de Ledewyz under writ of mort d'ancestre for this very half-virgate, and that he (Richard) then recovered the same, but had since enfeoffed Roger de Ledewyz therein, and that Roger had in turn enfeoffed William the present Defendant. William thus gained the cause, in the progress of which Roger de Ledewyz is called his Uncle, and Geoffrey de Ledewyz of 1240 his Father. [7] In 1257 I find William de Ledewich fining half a merk for a writ of Pone. In 1259 under the name of William de Cleton he appears as a Juror on the Inquest after the death of William de Stutevill. At the Overs Inquisition of 1274 Robert Clerk of Cleton was on the Jury. At the Assizes of 1292 John de Cleatun occupied a similar position. The Feodary of March 1316 gives John de Cleton as Lord of the Vill of Cleton. [8] Doubtless the Lords of Upper Ledwich still retained their Mesne interest here.


THIS, the only Manor in Overs Hundred held by Rainald the Sheriff, is thus described in Domesday:- "The same Rainald holds Haneleu (of the Earl), and Roger holds it of Rainald. Elmund held it (in Saxon times) and was free together with this land. Here

[6] Rot. Hundred. II, 74.
[7] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 8 dorso. On referring to the Fines levied on Robert de Lexinton's Iter in 1240 I do not meet with the one above quoted, but, singularly enough, another Fine appears whereby the same Richard de Stratton suing one Robert Marescall for another half-virgate in Cleoton, recovers the same under suit of mort d'ancestre, and then concedes it in fee to the Recognizerr, at a rent of 4s.
[8] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 399.


is I hide geldable. In demesne is half an ox-team, and (there are) IIII (teams) among the Serfs, male and female; and there are II Villains and I Boor with I team. Here is a Mill of 4s. (annual value). The old and present value of the Manor was and is 12s". [1] Roger, who thus held Henley under Rainald, may possibly have been Ancestor of the Clintons, the subsequent Tenants of this Manor, under Fitz Alan. The first Clinton of whom I hear is Hugh de Clinton, who in 1165 held a Muntator's fee (Henley no doubt) in the Barony of William fitz Alan. [2] It was a fee of old feoffment; that is, Hugh's ancestors had held it before the death of Henry I. In 1166 I find Hugh de Clinton amerced 20 merks for having renounced a Duel, the cause of which was some evil word spoken against the King, [3] but whether by Hugh or his proposed Antagonist does not appear. Coincidently Hugh de Clinton was amerced one merk by Alan de Nevill, Justice of the Forest. [3] After the Liber Niger was drawn up, there was an intermarriage between the families of Lacy and Fitz Alan, and a transfer of some Lacy fees to the latter Barony. How far the marriage and the transfer were connected as cause and effect does not appear, but the transfer was not all one way. Henley at least left the Seigneury of Fitz Alan and passed to the Honour of Lacy, probably because its propinquity to Ludlow was advantageous to the latter. In 1194 Hugh de Clinton was dead, and Ivo de Clinton, probably his son, was Lord of Henley and of Clee Stanton, the latter of which he held under Wenlock Priory. In December 1194, Mabilia de Hennele, perhaps the widow of Hugh de Clinton, had a suit of dower against Ivo de Clinton, in which she essoigned herself by William Geran. [4] Ivo de Clinton was deceased before 1203, leaving Hugh, his son and heir, in minority, with other issue, by Isabel his surviving wife, who was Sister of that William de Burley, and niece of that Helias de Hugley, whom I have mentioned under Higley. [5] The next of this family whom I shall notice is Philip de Clinton, who in 1240 held Henle or Henneleg by half a knight's-fee, but held it not under Fitz Alan, but under Walter de Lacy. [6] A further result of this change of Seigneury was that Henley became separated from Overs Hundred. The Inquest of the Manor of Ludlow, taken in 1255,

[1] Domesday, fo. 255, a, 1.
[2] Liber Niger, I, 144.
[3] Rot. Pip. 12 Hen. II, Salop. Hugo de Clinton reddit compotum de xx mare. pro duello quod reliquit de maledicto de Rege.
[4] Rot. Curiae Regis, I, 136.
[5] Supra, p. 261.
[6] Testa de Nevill, p. 50.


speaks of half a knight's-fee held by Philip de Henneleg as pertaining to Ludlow Castle. [7] I suppose that it was this annexation which exempted Henley from the jurisdiction of any other Hundred. It was in fact a member of the Liberty of Ludlow. Philip de Henley thus spoken of was doubtless identical with Philip de Clinton, the cotemporary Tenant of Clee Stanton under Wenlock Priory. The Inquest taken in November 1274, after the death of John de Verdun, gives Philip de Clinton as his Tenant of half a knight's-fee. [8] In 1284 Henley would seem to have been annexed to Munslow Hundred; for under the Tenures of that Hundred, Ivo de Clinton is entered as holding the vill of Henneleg for half a knight's-fee under Theobald de Verdon. [9] Ivo de Clinton in 1292 was one of the Jurors who tried so many Pleas of Quo Waranto between the Crown and its Shropshire Lieges. In 1300 he was a Juror on the great Perambulation of the Shropshire Forests. I shall have more to say of this family under Clee Stanton, and only add here that in March 1317 the Inquest after the death of Theobald de Verdon (II) gives Roger de Welyngton as Tenant of half a fee in Henneleye of the annual value of 40s., and held under the deceased Baron. [10]

Of UNDERTENANTS in Henley, I can only instance Walter de Buterley, sued in August 1257 for a Tenement here by Amicia, daughter of Hugh de Scotod under Writ of novel disseizin. On May 30, 1261, Amice fitz Hugh has a similar writ against the same Walter. At the Assizes of September 1272, one William de Hanleg was Bailiff of Overs Hundred. The Hundred-Roll of 1274 calls him and Richard de Haunleye, Beadles of Overs Hundred under Hugh de Mortimer's Shrievalty (March 1271-January 1273), and alleges against them both an act of extortion, viz. that they took half a merk from the vill of Neen Sollers for non-attendance at the Gaol-delivery of Brug. Also William de Hanleye and another had appropriated 2s. 8d., the value of the Chattels of two Welsh Robbers who had been hanged, which money was the King's. [11]

[7] Rot. Hundred. II, 69, 80.
[8] Inquisitions, 2 Edw. I, No. 34.
[9] Kirby's Quest.
[10] Inquisitions, 10 Edw. II, No. 71.
[11] Rot. Hundred. II, 104.


St. Mary's Manor now Lower Ledwich.

AMONG the possessions of the Church of St. Mary (Quod tenet Ecclesia Sanctae Mariae) Domesday says that-

"The same Church held (in Saxon times) and still holds half a hide in Ovret Hundred. It was waste and so remains". [1]

The Historians of Shrewsbury, perceiving that Domesday confuses the Church of St. Mary at Shrewsbury with that of St. Mary of Bromfield, account for the error of the Record in a most satisfactory way.- "Domesday", they observe, "was put together in London from loose notes collected in the Country: and it is highly probable that the Officers of the Exchequer finding two sets of entries of a Church of St. Mary in Shropshire, erroneously classed them together". [2] The same Writers seem to me not to have made the most of their discovery when they assign St. Mary's half-hide in Over Hundred to St. Mary's of Shrewsbury: but of that presently. I would here remark how Domesday, that unrivalled Record of facts, is instructive even in its omissions. The Officers of the Exchequer unhesitatingly adopted a classification which took it for granted that more than one great Church dedicated to St. Mary was not to be reckoned on in a single Country. We have in this an illustration of the fact that the Domesday Churches of Shropshire were very few in number.

The wasted half-hide which belonged to St. Mary's Church, in Overs Hundred, was very naturally without a name at the time of Domesday. Afterwards it was called Priest-Ledwich, and was a well-known possession of the great Saxon Church of St. Mary's of Bromfield. King Henry II, probably in the very first year of his reign, expedited a Charter of Confirmation to the Church in question. Among the possessions which the Canons enjoyed in the time of King Henry I, and which his Grandson enumerates and confirms, that of Lethewic is the one which I here notice. [3] A century later and Presteledewych was reputed to be a whole hide instead of the half-hide which we should have expected. The Inquest of Overs Hundred, taken in 1255, stated that the Prior of Bromfield held this hide of the King. He did no suit to Overs Hundred; the Jury knew not by what warrant, but added that the Canons had a sufficient charter of acquittance. [4] Roger de Ledewych, one of these Jurors, and apparently a Knight, was not, I think, the Prior's Tenant, but a Cadet of that family of Ledwiches which held

[1] Domesday, fo. 252, b, 2.
[2] Hist. of Shrewsbury, II, 303, note I.
[3] Monasticon, Vol. IV, 155.
[4] Rot. Hundred, II, 74, 103.


Cleeton, in this Hundred. The Overs Jurors of 1274 said that the Prior of Bromfield had, in the time of Henry III, withdrawn the Suit, of Ledewich and such other customs as he had been used to do to their Hundred. [5] When this withdrawal was first disallowed I cannot say; but the result is that Lower Ledwich, instead of having been restored to Overs Hundred, was annexed to Munslow, where it still remains. The Valor of 1534-5 places Leddwiche in the Parish of Bromfield, and gives 4. as its annual value, in rents paid to the Prior. The Ferm of the corn and hay tithes of Ledewich, Seete (Sheet), and Stevinton, also receivable by the Prior, was 3. 10s. [6] Lower Ledwich is now in Ludford Parish. I conceive that Ludford and all its present members (Lower Ledwich, Sheet, and Stevinton) were in Saxon times in the Parish of Bromfield.

St. Remige's Manor, now Silvington.

HERE is another Manor described in Domesday only by its extent and Tenure;- yet its situation and subsequent name are to be far more certainly identified than is the case with many Manors of which Domesday gives both the names and the fullest particulars. Under the title of Terra Sancti Remigii, and with the marginal affix of "In Ovret Hundred", Domesday says as follows:- "The Church of Saint Remigius held (in Saxon times) and holds of the King one Manor of one hide, and here there were and are II ox-teams. Its former and present value was and is 10s. 8d". [1]

The great Benedictine Abbey of St. Remigius at Rheims had four other Manors or Estates in England at the time of Domesday. That Survey places two of them, Mepford and Rideware, in Staffordshire, and says that Earl Algar gave them to St. Remigius. [2] The other two (Lepelie and Mersetone) Domesday, for some cause or other, places in Northamptonshire, retaining however the name of their Hundred as Codwestan. [3] And in Cuddleston Hundred, Staffordshire, one, if not both of these Manors, was undoubtedly situated.

[5] Rot. Hundred. II, 74, 103.
[6] Monasticon, IV, 157.
[1] Domesday, fo. 252, a, 2.
[2] Domesday, fo. 247, b, 1.
[3] Domesday, fo. 222, b, 2.


This was Lapley, long time a Cell of St. Remige's Abbey, and the head of its English possessions. Lapley was a gift by Earl Algar to the Foreign House, though of that fact Domesday does not inform us. If we are to suppose that Silvington also was given to St. Remigius by Earl Algar, it will probably have been at some unrecorded period a member of Cainham.

We are now to inquire the cause and the circumstances of the favour shown to a French Monastery by Algar, Earl of Mercia. The story is that Aldred, Archbishop of York, going on a mission to Rome, took with him many noble Englishmen, and among the rest, Burchard, a promising youth, the Son of Algar, Earl of Mercia.

The Archbishop, returning by way of Rheims, this illustrious youth was there seized with mortal sickness, but before his death he requested that he might be buried in the Abbey of St. Remigius, promising in return that certain vills and farms of his inheritance should be given to that House. Earl Algar, with consent of Edward the Confessor, is said to have fulfilled his dying son's promise.

There can be little doubt that this story contains the substantive cause of St. Remige's English endowments. Archbishop Aldred's embassy to Rome indeed was early in 1061, and the death of Earl Algar, if correctly placed in 1059, would suggest some doubt as to the particulars being true, but I find that a much later date is assigned by some authorities for Earl Algar's death, viz. 1063, [4] which will not be inconsistent with the above narrative. The Monks of Rheims preserved a Charter purporting to be Earl Algar's grant of Lapley. [5] I see no reason to suspect the document. It is in perfect consistency with the story above related, and is attested among others by Gisa Praesul, which proves it, if genuine, to have passed in or after 1161; for Gisa, Bishop of Wells, was consecrated to that See at Rome in April 1161, being, in fact, one of Archbishop Aldred's companions.

Henry I, I think soon after the banishment of Earl Robert de Belesme, addresses Richard de Belmi (Belmeis) and Fulqueius Sheriff, and all his Barons of Shropshire. He commands that the Monks of St. Remigius be allowed to hold the land which they have in Shropshire as quietly as they held it in the time of William I and William II. If any one injure the Monks, the said Officers

[4] I have already (Vol. III, p. 63, note 3) placed Earl Algar's death in 1069. I had Dugdale's authority for this; but the statement which dates his death in the same year with that of Gruffyth Prince of Wales (1063) is perhaps the true one.
[5] Monasticon, VII, p. 1042, No. i.


are to do them full justice. This Deed is attested by "Waldric, a Chaplain, at Westminster in Council," and must have passed in December 1102. [6]

We have another Charter of King Henry I, addressed to Robert, Bishop of Chester, Nicholas, Sheriff of Staffordshire, and Richard de Belmeis, Sheriff of Shropshire. It forbids these persons from summoning the Monks of St. Remigius at Rheims to attend Hundred or County Courts, but it allows them to send their Bailiffs or one of their Tenants. It is tested by Henry, Earl of Warwick, at Waltham, and must have passed between 1102 and 1108. [7] As yet therefore St. Remige's estate in Shropshire has been distinguished by no specific name. We find it however called Silvintone before the year 1118. The Monks of Rheims preserved a most curious document, whereby Azmar [8] their Abbot, by advice of Robert, Bishop of Coventry, [9] concedes to Aluric, a Clerk, the vill of Silvintone for 40s., to be paid on the feast of St. Martin (November 11th). The Tenant is to do homage by oath. His wife Edith and his sons and daughters shall also do homage to St. Remigius and the Monks, and serve them as free men, i.e. not as Villains. If Aluric die and his wife survive, 20s. is to be paid to the Monks; if the wife die first, Aluric is to pay the Monks a third part of the goods which he shall have in the Vill. In case of any infringement of their duty to the Monks the Lessees shall do full justice at Lapley, [10] in the Abbot's Court there, I presume. The Deed passed in the Court of St. Remigius, so that all its witnesses are Foreigners. I suppose it may be called a Lease, for a Fine presently to be paid, and for a second Fine on the termination of the shortest of two lives. No rent is reserved, and the vill probably was to revert to the Monks on the expiration of the second life.

It appears that Silviton in Hereford Diocese was confirmed to the Monks of Rheims by Pope Alexander; probably the third of that name. [11] I omit to mention other Confirmations of Henry I,

[6] Monasticon, VII, p. 1043, No. v, compared with p. 1099, another transcript of the same Deed. For proof of the date I assign thereto, see Vol. II (supra), p. 194, note 6.
[7] Monasticon, VII, p. 1043, No. vii, compared with p. 1099.
[8] Azenarius, Abbot of St. Remigius, was elected A.D. 1100. He abdicated in 1118 (Gallia Christiana, IX, 232).
[9] Probably Robert de Limesi. (1102-1117).
[10] Mosasticon, VII, 1042, No. ii.
[11] Ibidem, p. 1043, No. ix. I know nothing about the Decima de Roniaco, which is confirmed in this Bull, as if in Hereford Diocese. The Bull is described as of date 1154, which is inconsistent with its assignment to any Pope Alexander.


Stephen, Henry II, and Edward I, to Rheims, seeing that they make no specific mention of Silvington.

The next notice which I have of Silvington is as held by those Beysins whom I have spoken of so often. They held it in fee of the Prior of Lapley as representing the Abbot of St. Remigius. Hence the Overs Inquisition of 1255 certifies that "Philip le Bret holds 1 hide in Silveton, and is Custos of the heir of Adam de Beysin, and he holds it of the Prior of Lappele for 24s. per annum. The vill does suit to the two Tourns of the Sheriff, but not to the lesser Hundred-Courts. Philip le Bret had (apparently) discontinued the latter suit eight years back, whereby the King lost 1s. per annum, half of which would belong to Sir William de Stutevill". [12]

The Beysin Inquisition, taken in 1261, seems to have made mention of their Tenure of Silvington. [13] That of 1263, proving the age of Robert de Beysin, says that his Father Adam held Silvington at 24s. rent and of the Abbot of St. Remigius, under whom he also held a virgate at Hydeslond, in Staffordshire, at 4s. rent. [14] Thus these Beysins were Tenants of two Foreign Abbeys, St. Remigius at Rheims, and Seez in Normandy; also Tenants of Wenlock Priory, and Tenants in capite of the Crown.

I find no further mention of their interest in Silvington till the death of Thomas de Beysyn in 1319, when the Inquest values his receipts from this Manor at 5 merks per annum, and says that he had held it of the Prior of Lapley. [15] On October 6, 1347, a Fine was levied between Richard de Haukiston and Agnes his wife, Plaintiffs, and Mathew, Parson of the Church of St. Nicholas of Silveton, and Roger of the More, Chaplain, Deforciants, of the Manor of Silveton, whereof was Plea of Convention. The Plaintiffs acknowledge the Deforciants' right to the same, as given by themselves. The Deforciants (evidently as Trustees) then settle the Manor on Richard and Agnes for their lives;- remainder to Robert, son of Richard, and Sibil, Robert's wife, and the heirs of their bodies;- remainder, after the deaths of Robert and Sibil without issue, to Richard, Robert's brother, and the heirs of his body;- remainder to Thomas, Richard's brother, and the heirs of his body;- remainder to the right heirs of Richard de Haukiston (the Plaintiff). [16] The fee-simple of the Manor had therefore left the Beysins.

[12] Rot. Hundred. II, 74.
[13] The Calendar of Inquisitions (Vol. I, p. 21) names Silmerton. The original document is defaced.
[14] Inquisitions, 47 Hen. III, No. 26.
[15] Inquisitions, 12 Edw. II, No. 33.
[16] Pedes Finium, 21 Edw. III, Salop.



This Church, dedicated to St. Nicholas, was, I presume, originally a Chapel, subject to the Church of Bitterley. In 1291 the Church of Silvyntone in the Deanery of Ludlow was returned as of less than 4. annual value. [17] The Valor of 1534-5 gives it as a Rectory held by Peter Watson, and endowed with Glebe worth 13s. 4d. per annum, and tithes worth 2. 13s. 4d. The only charge upon the gross income of 3. 6s. 8d. was 6d. for Synodals and Procurations. [18]


WILLIAM, Rector of Silvinton, was one of the Proxies sent by the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Salop to the Parliament of Carlisle in 1307.

WILLIAM SWYNEYE, Sub-deacon, has various licences, studendi gratia, in 1319, 1321, 1322, and 1325.

WILLIAM LE FORSTER, Chaplain, was presented Oct. 6, 1333, by Sir Walter de Beysyn, but he afterwards renounced, and-

MATHEW DE LA HETHE, Chaplain, was presented next day by Richard de Haukeston. He occurs, as above, in 1347.

PHILIP DE LA RODE, Priest, instituted Sept. 28, 1349. Patron, Richard de Haukestone.

SIR JOHN DE LA HALLE, Priest, inst. Nov. 21, 1352. Same Patron.

SIR JOHN BODY, Priest, [19] inst. Feb. 12, 1353. Same Patron.

WILLIAM DE FARLOWE, Priest, inst. Jan. 13, 1363. Patron, Robert de Hawkestone.

SIR WILLIAM DE ENEFELD, Chaplain, inst. May 19, 1395. Patron, George de Hawkestone. He occurs as Rector in 9 Hen. IV (1407-8) and 9 Hen. VI (1430-1).

SIR HUGH JONES, Rector of Silvington, died in 1457.

[17] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 166.
[18] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 201.
[19] He was afterwards Vicar of Stoke St. Milberg (vide supra, p. 13).


Return to top of page

URL of this page: http://www.melocki.org.uk/eyton/Vol04.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.