Non omnia grandior setas
Quae fugiannis habet.





1. To face page 12. STANTON-LACY CHURCH. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
2. To face page 12. DOORWAY, Stanton Lacy. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
3. To face page 12. PISCINA, Stanton Lacy. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
4. To face page 37. STOKESAY CASTLE. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
6. To face page 144. MUNSLOW CHURCH. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
6. To face page 144. WINDOW, Munslow. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
7. To face page 184. DOUBLE PISCINA, Culmington. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
8. To face page 216. BROMFIELD CHURCH. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
9. To face page 224. HALFORD CHAPEL. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
10. To face page 234. LUDLOW CASTLE. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
11. To face page 234. LUDLOW CASTLE, Interior. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
12. To face page 294. LUDLOW CHURCH. Rev. J. Brooke, del.



Page 18, col. 2, 1. 9. For Gethnc read Gethne.
66, II. 4, 5, 6. For jurors reported the age of Robert de Beysin, the heir, to have been 19 years on February 2nd preceding, read jurors reported that the age of Robert de Beysin, the heir, would be 19 years on August 15th following.
1. 6. For March 3rd, 1263, read September 22nd, 1263.
103, I. 22. After (annually) insert and a new house.
235, I. 19. Nesta de Baskervill, who claimed Bradwardine in
1199, may possibly have been the widow rather than the daughter of Ralph de Baskervill. Both ladies were named Nesta. (Compare Vol. V, p. 104, II. 5-12.)
240, I. 22. For 1353 read 1253.
289, II. 4, 5. Insert Walter de Fenes as Constable of Brug between William le Enfant and Hugh de Donvile. Fenes seems to have held the office in 1270-1 (Rot. Hundred. II, 100).


36, 37. Correct what is said of Bradley by Vol. III, pp. 271-273.
99, I. 19. For But read And.
I. 20. For put in a claim read apposed, or sunk, their claim.
146, 147. Correct what is said of Ewdness by Vol. III, p. 113.
188. Correct what is said or implied here as to the Founder, and date of Foundation, of White-Ladies, by what is said Vol. III, p. 82, note 11.
210, I. 14. For (1308-9) read (May 24, 1409).
253, 1. 19. For iss ayde read is sayde.


41, I. 14. Dele of Quat.
I. 23. For Defs. Feb. 1413, read Obiit 1407-8.
53, I. 10. For disseizen read disseizin.
88, I. 34. After thirteenth insert century.
117, Title. For WOREILD read WORFIELD.
254, I. 5. For ten centuries read two centuries.
267, I. 4. For June read January.
356, col. 2, I. 23. For 291 read 298.
384, col. 1, I. 32. For 109 read 209.


Page 3, I. 7 to I. 17. Correct these statements by Vol. V, p. 17, note 51, and pp. 17, 18, 19.
42, I. 15. For two read too.
97, I. 34. For 1215 read 1315.
104, I. 7. For Hugh read Walter.
146, II. 18, 19. For Grantee; urther, read Grantee. Further.
171, I. 10. For Edmund, Earl of Arundel, read Edmund de Arundel.
184, I. 16. Reginald de Braose died, not in 1222, but shortly before June 9, 1228. (Vide Vol. IV, p. 215, note 84.)
195, I. 29. For Henry III read Henry I.
271, II. 3-8. (At the Assizes-in misericordia.) Note.- This transaction may perhaps refer to Overton, near Richard's Castle. If so, its proper place will be in Vol. V, p. 231.


Culvestan Hundred.

THE annexed Table of the Domesday Hundred of Culvestan involves some departure from the letter of the Record. The errors, thus assumed to exist in the Record, do not seem to be attributable, as in other cases, to the maladroitness of a supplementary Scribe. If they are errors at all, they are chargeable on the Original, which classifies three Manors, Cerletone, Eslepe, and Sudtelch, under Culvestan Hundred, and, as I think, inaccurately. As to St. Alkmund's Manor of Cerletone, its identity with Charlton near Shawbury is unquestionable. I conclude that the Domesday Scribe who wrote the words, "In Culvestan Hund". opposite to Cerletone did so in error, and that they ought to be expunged. On their removal, Cerletone will fall under Bascherch, as the Hundred of Pres. tone, the next preceding Manor. There in due course we shall recur to it.

As regards Eslepe and Sudtelch, the presumed error of the Scribe is different, viz. an error of omission. Eslepe is named consecutively with certain Culvestan Manors of William Pantulf, which Manors can still be identified- and in the expected quarter. But Eslepe is not to be found there, under that or any similar name. If it be identical with Sleap, as I shall hereafter show that it was, then the true marginal affix has been omitted by the Domesday Scribe. That affix should probably be "Bascherch Hundred". Of Sudtelch, which follows Eslepe on the Record, it is needless here to speak. Its removal from Culvestan Hundred is a Corollary of the textual emendation proposed in regard to Eslepe.

The remaining Manors of Culvestan Hundred are classified in the annexed Table in accordance with the letter of Domesday. The identity of one of them (Estune) is a question, but not so hopeless as to be suggestive of an error in the Record. Of Estune we shall speak in the ordinary course. All other Manors of Culvestan Hundred are to be identified with ease and certainty. They all passed


[For table, see Culvestan]


in the time of Henry I to the then created Hundred of Munslow, wherein, with one exception, they are still to be looked for. The exception is Clee Stanton, which, having been a St. Milburg's Manor, was, in the time of Richard I, attached to the Franchise of Wenlock.

The Palatine and other independent Manors which I add to Culvestan Hundred as a matter of classification, are all in the modern Hundred of Munslow. The Domesday Status of some of them was probably extra-hundredal, and some of them in certain relations continued independent to much later periods.

Stanton Lacy.

Aa Osbern fitz Richard and Ralph de Mortimer respectively bore the chief sway in the Domesday Hundreds of Overs and Condetret, so in Culvestan Hundred was the interest of Roger de Lacy predominant. His great Manor of Stanton, which he held immediately of the Crown, is thus described in the Survey. [1]-

"The same Roger holds Stantone. Sinuard held it (in Saxon times), and was a free man. Here are twenty hides and a half geldable. There is arable land enough for fifty ox-teams. In demesne there are ten teams, and twenty-eight teams amongst the male and female Serfs; and sixty-seven Villains and two Smiths and five Boors and four Cozets [2] have amongst them all twenty-three Teams. Here is a Church having a hide and half (of land), and the two Priests with two Villains have three Teams. Here are two Mills of 26s. (annual value). St. Peter of Hereford has here one Villain. Of this land, in the above Manor, Richard holds a hide and half, Azeline a hide and half; Roger a hide and half. These (three) have in demesne six teams, and six Serfs, and two Semi-Villains, and five Boors, and two Cozets with one team, and a Mill of 10s. (annual value). Out of the same Manor four serving men (Servientes)

[1] Domesday, fo. 260, b, 1 and 2.
[2] The Cozets and Cotarii of Domesday were not quite identical, though the difference between them cannot now be determined. They were Tenants of cottages, and are supposed to have been somewhat above the degree of mere Villains, but authorities differ as to how far they were removed from Villeinage, and in what their superiority consisted.


have land sufficient for three teams, and (have) a ferling, and they have four Teams and ten acres of land. [3] Here are three Radchenistres having land sufficient for two teams and a half, and here they have that number of teams. And one man, Auti, holds one member of this Manor, wherein are three hides; and thereon he has one Team with a Semi-Villain. [4] The whole manor in King Edward's time was worth 24. (per annum); now it is worth 25."

Here we notice, in the first place, how liberally this Manor was stocked. There were upon it many teams more than it was estimated to require. Of the five Shropshire Manors which Roger de Lacy held of the King, Siward the Saxon had previously enjoyed four, viz. Hopton (Wafre), Cleobury (North), Stanton (Lacy), and Aldon. Under the two first I have already spoken of Siward, [5] and it remains here to notice how appropriate is his presumed designation, as "a rich man of Shropshire", to his possession of two such Manors as Stanton and Aldon.

It is here fitting that I should insert the little that is known of the origin and antecedents of Roger de Lacy. He was the eldest son and heir of Walter de Lacy, who died in the year preceding that in which the Domesday Survey was completed.

WALTER DE LACY was undoubtedly that Sire de Lacie whom Mestrier Wace enrols among the heroes of Hastings. [6] His Norman Fief was considerable, but the place which gave him his name was Lassy in the Arrondissement of Vire and Diocese of Baieux. At Lassy and at Campeaux Walter de Lacy was Tenant of a Knight's-fee under the Bishop of Baieux. Bishop Odo, the Conqueror's Brother, and one of the chief leaders of the English expedition, was therefore, at the time of that Invasion, Walter de Lacy's Suzerain. There is some probability that Walter de Lacy enjoyed an estate in Herefordshire in the days of the Confessor. Domesday, giving account of four Carucates of land in the Chatellany of Clifford, which, at the time of the Survey, were held by

[3] De eodem Manerio habent IIII servientes, terram ad III carrucas, at unum ferling. at ipsi habent IIII carucas et X acras terrae.- Over the number X the Record has the mark , corresponding with a similar mark in the margin opposite ferling. I conceive it to indicate the transposition of words, which is evident without any such notification. The four Servientes had, I suppose, land sufficient for three teams, and had a ferling (i.e. a virgate) and ten acres besides; and they had stocked the whole with four Teams.
[4] The Dimidii Villani of Domesday I take to be the same as the Coliberti; that is Villains partially enfranchised.
[5] Supra, Vol. III, pp. 22, 23. Vol. IV, 183.
[6] Roman de Rou (Taylor), p. 220.


Roger de Lacy, adds the words Pater ejus tenuit, [7]- an expression which all analogy directs us to refer to a period before the Conquest. Such an interest in Herefordshire, though small, may account for Sir Walter de Lacy's subsequent feoffment in the Western Counties. Ordericus, under the year 1070, tells us how King William bestowed the Earldom of Hereford on William fitz Osbern, Seneschal of Normandy, and how the King associated Walter de Lacy and other approved Warriors, with the Earl, in opposition to the threatening attitude then assumed by the Welsh. [8] This account of the King's policy and actions is probably correct in the main, but there is reason to think that Fitz Osbern's destination to the West was somewhat earlier. Indeed Ordericus's knowledge of the chronological sequence of these events was, as he himself shows, not correct; for he represents Fitz Osbern's Earldom as a gift consequent upon the death of Earl Edwin and the imprisonment of Earl Morcar; while the fact is, that Earl William fitz Osbern was slain in Flanders on February 20, 1071, and therefore some weeks, if not months, before the sad fate of the two Saxon Earls was definitely sealed. Domesday tells us incidentally of a Feoffment bestowed on Walter de Lacy by Earl William fitz Osbern, [9] but it is impossible to say what proportion of the estates enjoyed by Roger de Lacy in 1086 were derived from the Earl's grants to his Father, and what accrued subsequently to the Earl's death. [10] And this remark will apply to estates in Shropshire as well as in Herefordshire; for, as we have seen under Cleobury Mortimer, the Earl of Hereford's Palatinate was not limited to his own County. Walter de Lacy's advancement was steady and progressive. The Deposition of Archbishop Stigand is known to have been effected at Easter in 1072, and Domesday shows one of his Gloucestershire Manors to have fallen to Lacy. But Walter de Lacy's conduct in 1074, when he opposed the rebellion of his own Suzerain, Earl Roger de Britolio, was perhaps the crowning cause of his advancement. His loyalty was exhibited most opportunely; for the Earl's fall placed a vast Fief at the King's disposal. Hence what we find stated of two Manors in Domesday, may be true of fifty, viz. that Earl William's

[7] Domesday, fo. 184, a, 1.
[8] Ordericus, p. 521, D.
[9] Domesday, fo. 185, a, 1, Ulferlau.
[10] Domesday, fo. 184, b, 1. Hanc terram (Lestret) dedit Willielmus Comes Ewen Britoni. Modo tenet Willielmus de Rogerio de Laci.- And also (fo. 184, b, 2.) Hanc terram (scilicet Pionic) tenuit Ewen Brito de Willielmo Comitie. Rex vero Willielmus dedit Walterio de Laci.


Feoffees were displaced, and that the King gave those Manors to Walter de Lacy.

For whatever else is known of Walter de Lacy I refer elsewhere. [11] He died on March 27, 1085, in consequence of a fall received while superintending the building of that Monastery at Hereford which figures in Domesday as the "Church of St. Peter". Part of Walter de Lacy's endowment of this Church is connected with our present subject.- A Monastic Record informs us that he gave thereto ten Villains in ten distinct Vills of his Fief; [12] that is, he gave as much land in each instance as was held in Villeinage by one Tenant. Two of these ten Vills were Staunton and Stoke in Shropshire; and Domesday, as we have seen above, distinctly confirms the truth of the Monastic Record, by assigning to St. Peter's of Hereford a Villain in Stantone.

ROGER DE LACY, eldest son and heir of Walter de Lacy and Ermelina his wife, succeeded to his Father's Barony shortly before the Domesday Survey was undertaken. That Record exhibits one instance where the Son had been already a Grantee of King William, viz, in a fourth part of a certain Manor, three-fourths of which had been bestowed on Walter de Lacy by Earl William Fitz Osbern. [13] Roger de Lacy was now the Tenant of upwards of a hundred Manors in Berkshire, Shropshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire, and Gloucestershire; but I reserve some further account of him and his Successors till I come to Ludlow. Here I will proceed with the specific history of Stanton Lacy. Under that name the Manor first occurs when, at least seventy years after Domesday, a Charter of King Henry II restored it or confirmed it to Hugh de Lacy. [14] In 1187, during a temporary Escheat which befell the House of Lacy, I find Stanton assessed 5 merks to a King's Tallage. [15] In 1221, Robert de Staunton, probably a Tenant here, appears as Attorney for the men of Staunton in a Suit which they, in common with the men of Ludlow, had about a right of pasture against the Abbot of Gloucester.
[16] By Fine dated May 1228, Ralph de Clune quit-claims for half a merk a half-virgate in Stanton for which he had sued Thomas de Wiggelegh and Margery his wife under writ of mort d'ancestre.

The reason why public Records supply so very little as to such

[11] Dugdale's Baronage, I, 95. See also Domesday (fo. 182, b, 2) for Walter de Lacy's grant of Lecce to Gloucester Abbey,- a gift unnoticed by Dugdale.
[12] Monasticon, I, 547, b.
[13] Domesday, fo. 185, a. 1, Ulferlau.
[14] Additional MSS. (Brit. Mus.) No. 6041, fo. xxxvij.
[15] Rot. Pip. 33 Hen. II, Salop.
[16] The Priory and Manor of Bromfield, adjoining to Stanton, were subject to Gloucester Abbey.


Manors as Stanton Lacy will now be apparent. The Inquisitions of Hundreds taken in 1255, include Stanton Lacy in no particular Hundred, though the Munslow Jurors spoke of the franchises which the heirs of Lacy claimed to exercise in Ludlow and Stanton. These franchises were, to have a gallows, to hold pleas of bloodshed and hue and cry, and to assize beer;- also to try, under writ-of-right, all civil causes within their jurisdiction. [17]

Stanton Lacy was in fact at this time free from all Hundredal subjection, and so its own twelve Jurors responded to the queries propounded by the Justiciars who took these Inquests. The Jurors' names were Helias de Sutton, Robert Dovile, Roger de Akes, William de Avenitre, Robert Clerk of Doddemore, Robert fitz William, Thomas le Harpur, William de la Hall, Robert and Adam de Heyton, Richard Conni (i.e. Gunny), and Richard fitz Odo. [18] These Jurors gave a somewhat full account of the knights'-fees and lands which owed service to Ludlow Castle; but the particulars of their statement belong to other sections of our subject. Of the state and tenure of their own Manor of Stanton-Lacy, they said not a word, nor indeed were any of the questions put to them calculated to elicit this kind of information. The only matter which they spoke of, and which can be taken as strictly local, was how one Roger de Heiton had for six years paid 13d. per annum for the Advowry of the Preceptor of Lidley: that is, I suppose, a Trader resident at Stanton had escaped the payment of all local dues by associating himself with the Order of Knights Templars, whose Advowry, or Patronage, extended to numberless Clients, and conveyed to those Clients a participation in the great immunities of the Order.

At the County Assizes of January 1256, the Manor of Stanton was represented by its twelve Jurors. Robert de Malmesey was Chief Bailiff. The Jurors were Robert de Deuvill, Elyse de Sutton, Roger de Staunton, William de Wodinton, Robert de Buddemory, Robert Cusifot, William de Avenetre, Robert fitz William of Stanton, Nicholas fitz Roger of Stanton, Roger fitz Walter of Henton, Robert de Malmeshull, and Richard Gabythewaye. These Jurors gave account of all Pleas of the Crown arising within their Liberty. A civil Suit however, which came before the Court, shows us more of the then state of the Manor as held in Coparcenery by the heirs of Lacy. William de Stanton Lacy, as son and heir of Richard de Stanton Lacy, sued William de Songare under writ of mort d'ancestre for a messuage here. The Tenant, William de Songare, called

[17] Rot. Hundred. II, 72.
[18] Ibidem, p. 80.


Robert fitz Robert to warranty, the latter similarly called Roger de Staunton, and he, having been enfeoffed by Gilbert de Lacy, long since deceased, alleged the Charter of said Gilbert, and further called his heirs to warranty. The said heirs were Geoffrey de Genville and Matilda his wife, daughter and coheir of Gilbert de Lacy, on the one hand, and Nicholas de Verdon, son of Margery, daughter and the other Coheir of Gilbert de Laci, on the other hand. Nicholas de Verdon, it appeared, was a Minor, in custody of his Father, John de Verdon, and so the cause was adjourned till he should be of age. [19]

In June 1261 William le Harpur of Stanton was on an Inquest which found that Hugh de Hauckeford, a prisoner for the murder of Roger fitz Nicholas, was blameless in the matter. The two had had a quarrel. [20] At the Forest Assizes of February 1262, Robert de Stanton occurs as one of the Regarders of the Long Forest. In Easter Term 1263, Emma, Widow of Walter de Fenhampton, was suing Roger Eylrich and others for dower in Staunton, Ludlow, etc., but the cause was adjourned. At the Assizes of August 1267, Edelina, daughter of Richard Carpenter of Diddlebury, with Roger and Walter her sons, quit-claim their right in five acres in Staunton to Richard fitz Odo of Heyton and his heirs. In January 1271, Reginald Phlasse, a Clerk, has a Writ of Novel Disseizin against Roger atte Ales of Stanton Lacy, for a tenement there. At the Assizes of September 1272, Roger de Camvull appeared as Chief Bailiff of Stanton Lacy; the Jurors being William de Wodeton, Robert de Stok, William de Suche, William de Avetre, Robert Doville, Robert Kangefot, Richard de Dodemor, Roger de Acres, William Gonny, Walter Colet of Stanton, Walter de Strangeford, and William de Haemon.

On a Ludlow Jury of November 11, 1274, I find the names of William Gunni and Roger Wymund of Heyton, and of Robert de Stok in Stanton, as he is here called.

The Jurors who, on November 26, 1274, answered the King's Justices as to divers matters concerning the Liberty of Stanton Lacy were, Roger de Aka, Walter de Strongeford, William de Avenetre, William de Rocle, Robert de Stanton, William Gunny, Richard de Heymon, William de Haemon, Walter Colet, Robert de Furchis, Hugh fitz Alan, and William de Hopton. They said that Sir Geoffrey de Genvill held the Manor in capite per baroniam; and indeed, on the partition of Lacy's estates, Stanton seems to have

[19] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 8 dorso.
[20] Inquisitions, 45 Hen. III, No. 53.


fallen wholly to the share of this Geoffrey, as husband of Matilda de Lacy. Sir Geoffrey had a right of free warren at Stanton, but not so as to injure his neighbours. The further report of these Jurors relates chiefly to acts of injustice suffered by the Liberty or its Freeholders at the hands of the Sheriffs or other Officers of the King or of neighbouring Barons. Thomas de Grete, Bailiff of Munslow Hundred under the Shrievalties of Hamo le Strange and Ralph de Mortimer, had extorted a fictitious penalty of 5. from the Liberty in general, and committed other acts of injustice. John de Peirebruge, a Sheriff's Receiver;- The Serjeant of the Peace under Hamo le Strange;- William le Enfant, Bailiff of Munslow under William Bagod's Shrievalty;- Roger de Boreford, Under Bailiff to Thomas de Grete;- John Baril, Undersheriff to Hugh de Mortimer;- Hugh de Mortimer himself;- Philip de Clinton, Coroner;- the Bailiffs of John Esturmy, Constable of Ludlow;- John de la Watre, Constable of Corfham.- All these had in several ways and at different times been guilty of acts of extortion or wrong by which the Vills of Stanton, Upper Heyton, Hopton, and Sutton had suffered. Several individuals also complained, and amongst others these, viz. Robert de Furchis, William Gunny, William de Hopton, Nicholas de Stanton, Matilda de Heyton, and Hugh Clerk of Stanton. [21]

The Feodary of 1284 gives Staunton as held by Peter de Genevill, by gift of Geoffrey de Genevill, his Father, who held the Manor in capite per baroniam.

The circumstances under which Peter de Genevill acquired Stanton Lacy in his Father's lifetime shall be more particularly given under Ludlow. On June 8, 1292, the said Peter was deceased, and in obedience to the King's Writ of that date, a Jury assembled at Ludlow on July 17 to give account of his estate.- Conjointly with Johanna his wife, he had held Stanton Lacy of Sir Geoffrey and Matilda, his Father and Mother, by knight's service, while Geoffrey and Matilda held it in capite, by service of 2 knights'-fees for this and all other their lands in England. The Valuation of this Estate was as follows.- A Capital messuage and Garden, 20s. Four carucatea of land, 16. Thirty acres of meadow, 3. 6s. 8d. A Water-Mill, 1. 10s. A Vivary, 2s. Pasture-land, 10s. Eighty acres of wood, 5s. Rents, 10. Pleas and Perquisites of the Manor Court, 2. Total, 34. 13s. 8d. The Deceased had left three daughters, his

[21] Rot. Hundred. II, 106, 107.


heirs, viz. Johanna, born Feb. 2, 1286, Beatrix, born in 1287, and Matilda, born in 1291, and not yet a year old. [22]

Two of these Ladies became Nuns at Acornbury, while Johanna, the eldest, carried the whole inheritance of her family to her husband Roger de Mortimer, Earl of March. Hence the Feodary of 1316 gives Roger de Mortimer as Lord of Stanton juxta Ludlow. [23]

As regards UNDERTENANTS in this Manor I have merely to add the names of some who constituted the Jury at the Assizes of 1292. These were- Nicholas Eylrich, Chief Bailiff;- and William de Doddemore, Roger Colet, John de Borewardesleye, William Gobythewey, Richard Gunny, William Barker of Stanton, William de Haumon, William de Avenetre, and Robert Clerk of Stanton, Jurors.


Shortly before Domesday, Walter de Lacy gave two-thirds of the Tithes of Stanton to his Monastery of St. Peter's at Hereford.
[24] Domesday speaks of the Church here as endowed with a hide and a half of land and apparently as served by two resident Priests. Domesday seldom speaks of Tithes, but it is probable that the remaining third of the Tithes of Stanton Lacy was retained for the Parochial Church. On April 24th, 1290, Stanton Lacy was visited by Bishop Swinfield. The Prior of Lanthony, whose interest here will presently appear, provided hay and straw for the horses of the Bishop's Suite, whilst Master Richard de Heyton, who has before occurred to us as a Portionist of Holgate, made a present of oats. [25] In 1291 we find the Prior of Lanthony in Monmouthshire to be Rector of Stantone Lacy in the Deanery of Ludlow. His interest was valued at the large sum of 36. 13s. 4d. per annum, while the Vicar's portion was 11. more. [26] I imagine that this Advowson must have been given to Lanthony by Hugh de Lacy (I) early in the twelfth century, but the grant is nowhere extant; nor is there any Record of the negotiations which must have taken place with St. Peter's of Hereford, or Gloucester Abbey, [27] before Lanthony could have been entitled to the whole of this Rectory.

In 1341 the Church Taxation of Stanton Lacy was quoted by the Assessors of the Ninth at 71 merks (47. 13s. 4d.). They taxed

[22] Inquisitions, 20 Edw. I, No. 132.
[23] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 397.
[24] Monasticon, I, 547, b.
[25] Household Roll, p. 70.
[26] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 166, b.
[27] St. Peter's of Hereford was subjected to Gloucester Abbey, in 1101, by Hugh de Lacy.


the Parish only 10. to the Ninth, because the greater Sum included glebe, hay-tithes, tithes of Mills (or a Mill), Offerings, and other small tithes, not relevant to the current impost. [28]

In 1534-5 the preferment of John Browne, Vicar of Staunton Lacy, is put at 4. per annum in glebe, and 10. 13s. 4d. in tithes. These receipts were chargeable with 7s. 8d. for procuration and synodals; while at the triennial visitation a sum of 2. 13s. 8d. payable to the Bishop was equal to a further annual deduction of 17s. 9d. [29]


ADAM DE BROMHAL, Subdeacon, was instituted on Oct. 7, 1300, at presentation of the Prior and Convent of Lantonia prima (i.e. Lanthony in Monmouthshire).

RICHARD DE PENEBRUGG resigned this Living in 1340, having exchanged preferments with-

GRIFFIN DE WESTON, late Coporcioner of Landewey Trefendak (Menev. Dice.), who was instituted here on Oct. 3, 1340, at presentation of the King. [30] This Incumbent was here in 1344.

SIR WILLIAM DE CURYNTON resigning this Living in 1350-

SIR JOHN DE GAYNESBOURGH, Priest, was instituted on June 28 of that year, being presented by the Abbot and Convent of Lantonia prima.


It is impossible to say whether this member of the Domesday Manor of Stantone was the hide and half held by Richard, or one of the similar estates held by Azeline and Roger, or the three hides held by Auti. In 1165 William de Hopeton was Tenant of a Knight's-fee under Hugh de Lacy, and I doubt not was Lord of Hopton. [31] His Tenure is classed among those of new feoffment: that is, he or his Ancestor would ordinarily be understood to have obtained entry here later than the reign of Henry I. However, as I have intimated under Rushbury, the Fees of New Feoffment in Lacy's Barony (all apparently in Shropshire) seem to have been classified as of new feoffment under some exceptional circumstances; and I do not think that such classification necessarily implies that none of the Tenants of 1165 were hereditary representatives of the

[28] Inquisitiones Nonarum, p. 188.
[29] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 201.
[30] Compare Patent. 13 Edw. III, p. 2, m. 5, which makes the presentation a year earlier than the institution.
[31] Liber Niger, I, 154.



[For engravings, see pdf.]


Domesday Tenants, or, in other words, of the Tenants by old feoffment.

In October 1199 I find mention of Herbert Cangefot as Recognizor in a Suit concerning Clee St. Margaret. [32] He was, I doubt not, Lacy's Tenant at Hopton, and from him the place took its distinctive name of Hopton Cangeford, but how he was descended from William de Hopton I cannot say. At the Assizes of October 1203, Herbert Cangeford essoigned his attendance under the Common Summons, his Essoignor being Roger de Hupton.

In March 1227, one whose name is written as William Kangelot, may possibly have belonged to this succession. [33] But in or about 1210, Nicholas de Hopton held one knight's-fee in Hopton under Walter de Laci. [34] He was, I think, a Cangeford by descent, but with him the original name of his family became disused. His Successor, probably his Son, was Thomas de Hopton, who in 1250 fines half a merk for some Writ; [35] and who in 1251 was impleaded by Philip de Thongland for disseizing the said Philip of a right of common in Hopton and Poston. In 1255 the Stanton-Lacy Jurors returned Thomas de Hopton as holding a knight's-fee,- one of those which were deemed to be appurtenant to Ludlow Castle. [36] This fee was doubtless Hopton Cangeford; but I cannot say how Roger de Hopton, who occurs in the same year, was related to Thomas. On August 28, 1255, this Roger was impleading Margery de Lacy (Widow of Walter above-named) for disseizing him (Roger) of a tenement in Hopton. He paid 2 merks for the Writ ordering trial of his suit.

At the Assizes of January 1256 Thomas de Hopton was found to have disseized Philip de Grete of 3 acres in Hopton. Judgment went in default of Thomas's appearance. His Sureties were William fitz John of Hopton and William de Heyton. [37] In February 1259, Roger de Hopton takes out a writ of novel disseizin against Thomas de Hopton and others. In May 1259, Roger, son of Thomas de Hopton, takes out a similar writ against William de la Aungl. A tenement in Hopton was in dispute in each case. Again in May and July of the same year, two several writs of novel disseizin were taken out by William de Cambray against Ernald de

[32] Supra, Vol IV, p. 62.
[33] Supra, Vol. III, p. 341, note 41.
[34] Testa de Nevill, pp. 45, 48, 50.
[35] Rot. Pip. 34 Hen. III, Salop.
[36] Rot. Hundred. II, 69, 80.
[37] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 3 dorso. Philip de Grete and Philip de Thongland were probably identical (Supra, Vol. IV, p. 337).


Berkeley for a tenement in Hopton. In April 1285, Roger, son of Thomas de Hopton, has a Writ of novel disseizin against William de Langele for a tenement in Hopton. In 1270, John de Halcton has a similar writ against Hugh de Halcton for a tenement in Hopton Kangefote. In 1282-3 Robert Cangefot of Hopton in Staunton Parish is sued by Joseas fitz Mansell, a Jew, for a debt of 4 merks. [38] This Robert Cangefot [39] was not however Lord of Hopton; for the Feodary of 1284 gives Roger de Hopton as holding the Vill under Peter de Genevill (one of Lacy's Coheirs), by service of a knight's-fee.

The Inquest on the death of Robert Burnell, Bishop of Bath and Wells, taken Dec. 10, 1292, found him to have had 24s. annual rent in Hopton Langefot, which he held of Peter de Genevile's heir, by doing Suit to the Manorial Court of Stanton Lacy. [40] Similarly Edward Burnell, dying in 1315, held a messuage, 30 acres of land, and 2 acres of meadow, in Hopton Cangefot, and his estate there is called a "member of Holegod". [41] Nevertheless the chief Seigneury in Hopton remained all this time with De Verdon, Lacy's other coheir, and the chief tenancy with the Hoptons.

A Fine levied at Shrewsbury in November 1292 may be taken as a technical mode of entailing this estate.- Roger de Hopton and Johanna his wife, Deforciants, acknowledge themselves to have given to Roger de Cheney, Plaintiff, the Manor of Hopton Cangefot. This was clearly in trust, for Cheney in return conceded the Manor to Roger de Hopton and his wife for the life of either,- to hold at a rose-rent and by performance of capital services;- with remainder to John, son of Roger de Hopton, and Margery, John's wife, and the heirs of their bodies,- to hold of the Lords of the fee;- with further remainder to the right heirs of the said John de Hopton.

The Inquest taken on the death of Theobald de Verdon in March 1317, found that John de Hopton Kandinant held under the said Theobald a Knight's-fee in Hopton, the annual value of which was 100s. [42]


This Chapel was, I suppose, originally subject to Stanton Lacy Church; and I find no separate valuation of its endowment till after

[38] Placita de Jurat. et Assiz. et Starra Judaeorum, 10 and 11 Edw. I, m. 7 dorso.
[39] He has occurred above as a Juror for Stanton Lacy Liberty in 1272.
[40] Inquisitions, 21 Edw. I, No. 50.
[41] Inquisitions, 9 Edw. II, No. 67.
[42] Inquisitions, 10 Edw. II, No. 71.


the Reformation. The following list of its Incumbents will therefore constitute its early history.

SIR JOHN DE CONTERTON, Priest, admitted to the Perpetual Chantry of the Chapel of Hopton Cangefot, Nov. 30, 1325.- Patron, John de Hopton.

SIR RICHARD DE HODYNTON, Priest, presented to the Free Chapel of Hopton Cangynont, Feb. 15, 1349, by Margaret, Widow of John Lord of Hopton.

SIR RICHARD DE BIRCHES, Chaplain, instituted, April 3, 1358, to the Chapels of Hopton Cangenont and Ledewich;- presented by the same Lady and by Juliana de Ledwich. On Feb. 17, 1366, he exchanges Hopton Cangenont with-

RICHARD DE LA MAR, late Rector of St. Owens, Hereford, who is presented to Hopton by Margaret de Hopton.

JOHN CRYTE, Clerk,- instituted to Caungenotes Hopton, Feb. 1, 1374.- Patron, the Bishop, jure devoluto.

WILLIAM BROWN, Chaplain, instituted to the free Chapel of Opton Gangeford, Feb. 10, 1386.

SIR WILLIAM OPYNTON, Priest, presented Dec. 8, 1392, by William de Eton and Joanna his wife, John de Lotteley and Katherine his wife, and Walter Scoht.

SIR WILLIAM CACHEPOLL, Chaplain, presented March 11, 1394, by Walter Scote, of Ludlow, John Luttley and Catherine his wife, and William de Eton and Johanna his wife.

SIR WILLIAM LAMPERY, Chaplain, presented March 5, 1399, by the Bishop, jure devoluto.

SIR JOHN HOVEWELL, Chaplain, instituted to Cangefoth Opton, Nov. 3, 1399, on presentation of William Eton and Joanna his wife.


This was clearly another of the four members of Stanton Lacy indicated in Domesday; but which of the four Feoffees of Domesday held it I have no means of judging. In 1165 I think Wootton had reverted to the Lords of the Fee; for I can detect no probable Tenant thereof among the names of Lacy's Feoffees. Within ten years afterwards I suppose William de Wodeton, as he was called from this tenure, had feoffment here, for there was sometime a Charter whereby the Chevalier Hugh de Lacy fixed the service due from William de Wotton on Wotton and Onebury, viz. he was to hold both Manors by service of half a knight's-fee in the Host,


and in Castle-guard (en le hoste et garde); and if the Chief or Lord Paramount levied any aid on his Knights, then the said William and his heirs were to pay in proportion to three-fourths of a fee. [43] In 1176 William de Wudeton was amerced four merks for the nonappearance of his Brother in some Lawsuit, [44] he having been his Surety I suppose. This William de Wudeton has, I think, already occurred to us under Higley, [45] but without his Christian name. I take him to have been the husband of that Cecilia de Hugley whose posterity by him shared in the Manor of Higley. He is also the person who between 1179 and 1189 has occurred in a testing clause (given under Willey), and in a position which marks his high standing among the Knights of the County. [46] When I come to speak of Coolmere near Ellesmere, I shall show that this William de Wudeton had an interest there, and that his predecessor in such interest was Hugh de Lacy of Coolmere, but who the said Hugh de Lacy was I will not here inquire.

If William were the name of Cecilia de Hugley's husband, as above suggested, it is not easy to distinguish this William de Wudeton from his son of the same name; but it seems to be the Son who was entrusted, for some cause or other, with the custody of Mochtre Forest by Hugh de Lacy of Ewyas. The latter Baron died in 1185, before which date therefore Cecilia de Hugley's son will have been of age. William de Wudeton, son of Cecilia de Hugley, is in one instance described as a Clerk. [47] He was however lawfully married, and the Father, as we shall see, of Robert de Wudeton. In 1198 the Staffordshire Pipe-Roll exhibits William de Wudeton as fining three merks to have a writ of right against John de Kilpec for one Knight's-fee in Nordbiri. Norbury, Staffordshire, was a Manor of Lacy's Seigneury, and was afterwards held by Kilpec's heirs under Lacy, so that Wudeton's claim would appear to have been unsuccessful. At the Shropshire Assizes of October 1203, William de Wodeton essoigned his attendance, his Essoigner being Henry Despenser. In Michaelmas Term 1207 William de Wodeton was impleaded by Walter de Lacy, "for that he had made waste of Moketree Forest, at the time when he was Custos thereof by appointment of Hugh de Lacy, Walter's Father". The Defendant asked that View should be had of the premises, which the Court granted. [48] Robert

[43] Additional MSS. (Brit. Museum), 6041, fo. xxxvii.
[44] Rot. Pip. 22 Hen. III, Salop.
[45] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 261.
[46] Supra, Vol. II, p. 63. Vol. IV, p. 262.
[48] Placita, Mich. Term, 9 John, m. 6.


de Wodeton, whom William named as his Attorney, was possibly his son.

Of Robert de Wudeton, the Son of William de Wudeton, Clerk, I have given many particulars under Higley. He came to occupy a prominent position in Shropshire. A Patent of July 29, 1282, appoints him and others as special Justiciars to try Richard de Leghe, then lying in Salop Gaol on a charge of Larceny. In June 1233, another Patent names him as one of the Collectors of the tax of the Fifteenth then being levied; and in November 1281 he was a Justice for delivery of Salop Gaol. In or about 1240, Robert de Wodeton is duly entered as holding half a Knight's-fee in Wodeton, under Walter de Lacy. [49] He appears, as I have shown under Higley, to have died shortly before November 1246. I think that he left a Widow Agnes, who remarried to Peter de Lacy, and a daughter and sole heir Amicia, who became the wife of Robert de Lacy; for I can by no other supposition reconcile all that has been said under Lower Millichope and Higley about this succession, with what I have now further to relate. In 1250 Robert de Lascy is amerced 20s. for unjust detention. In 1251 a Praestitum or Loan of 50 merks is charged against him as due to the Crown. In 1255 among those who being Tenants in Stanton Lacy owed service at Ludlow Castle, Sir Robert de Lacy is said to hold half a fee in Wodeton, and 20s. rent in Onibury and Walton, and a fourth-part of a Knight's-fee in Donton (Downton Hall) by such service. [50] At the Assizes of January 1256, in consequence of some litigation not detailed, a day for receiving their Chyrograph was given to Robert de Lacy, Plaintiff, and to Peter de Lacy, concerning lands which said Peter with Agnes his wife held as dower of Agnes in the inheritance of Amicia, wife of Robert. [51] The day given was in the Quinzaine of Easter; but the Chyrograph, or Fine levied, does not bear date till the octaves of Michaelmas 1256. The Fine purports to be about a sum of 20. which Robert de Lacy required that Peter should pay to him; and about a further sum of 60. which Robert and his wife

[49] Testa de Nevill, pp. 45, 48, 50.
[50] Rot. Hundred. II, 69, 80.
[51] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 11. There appear to have been two Cotemporaries named Peter de Lacy; one who occurs above, in January 1256, with a wife Agnes, another who occurs in Herefordshire on January 26, 1256, with a wife Margery. I have inadvertently mentioned the two (supra, Vol. IV, p. 8) as if identical. Mr. Blakeway quotes a Deed whereby Peter de Lacy and Margery his wife give to Sir Robert de Waufre and Amice his wife lands in Hampton and Mershtone. This I conclude to be a Herefordshire Deed.


Amicia similarly required from Peter and his wife Agnes,- whereof had been plea of debt. Robert and Amice now renounced all claim on the whole 80.; for which Peter and Agnes demised and conceded to Robert and Amice all lands in Shropshire which were of Agnes's dower and of Amice's inheritance on the day of Concord;- to hold to Robert and Amice and the heirs of Amice.

At the Forest Assizes of 1262, Sir Robert de Lacy, Knight, was amerced 20s. for some default. At the General Assizes of 1267, Robert de Lacy was found not to have disseized Richard Bacun of a right of common in Wutton, which the latter claimed as appurtenant to his tenement in Shelderton. [53] In September 1272, Robert de Lacy's Widow, Amicia, was again impleaded, for that her late husband had disseized Roger le Oyselur and Richard Bacun of a right of common similar to the above. Amicia does not appear to have pleaded the previous settlement of the case in regard to one Plaintiff, but some general right of her own. This occasioned the Court to give the Plaintiffs leave to withdraw their Writ. [54] In August 1271, Robert de Lacy was deceased, and as I have said under Higley, his Widow, calling herself daughter of Robert, former Lord of Wodetone, sold her share of Higley to Sir Roger de Mortimer. In 1274 Amicia was seized of Wootton; for the Jurors of the Liberty of Staunton Lacy (in reply to a query as to any recent appropriations or excesses of free-chace and warren) stated that the Lady of Wodeton had Warren and Free-chace, but dared not exercise her right as her Ancestors had done, because of Sir Roger de Mortimer and his men. [55] In Easter Term 1277, Walter de Hopton (if I understand the Record) released to Thomas de Grete, and Amicia, his wife, all right of common which he had claimed in Wodinton as appurtenant to his lands in Shelderton. At the same time the said Walter withdrew a charge of disseizin which he had alleged against the same Thomas and Amicia about 500 acres of Bosc. The parties accorded; and a perambulation of the boundaries of their respective estates was entered on the Rolls. [56] Walter de Hopton thus occuring was of Hopton, near Clungunford, while Amicia, wife of Thomas de Grete, was the Widow of Robert de Lacy. It appears

[52] Pedes Finium, 40 Hen. III, Salop, No. 207.
[53] Assizes, 51 Hen. III, m. 6 dorso.
[54] Assizes, 56 Hen. III, m. 10.
[55] Rot. Hundred. II, 107.
[56] Abbreviatio Placitorum, p. 193. Thomas de Crete appears to have been person of some importance long before his marriage with the heiress of Wootton. On March 31, 1261, a Patent of Henry III gives him custody of the Hundred of Munslow for three years; he having fined for the same.


however from the Feodary of 1284 that Robert de Lacy had left a son, then still living;- for the Record says that Thomas de Grete holds Wodeton of the heir of Amicia his wife; the said heir holding it of Peter de Genevill for half a knight's-fee.

Not long after this, Robert de Lacy's heir, whose name was Gilbert, will probably have died without issue; for the ostensible heirs of Amicia de Wodeton were her children by Thomas de Grete, whose names were Roger, Matilda, and Agnes. In 1291, or earlier, Philip Burnel had acquired the two Manors of Wootton and Lower Millichope from their former Lords; for his Charter of Free Warren, dated in that year, extends to both Manors. [57] The Fine has been already quoted by which in June 1293, Amice, then the wife of William de Schippeye, concurred with her third husband and her second husband's son, in formally conveying Wootton and Milichope, and also Onibury and Walton to Philip Burnel. [58]


This member of Staunton Lacy was held under the Baronial Lords of that Manor, in 1255, by the same Robert de Lacy whom I have spoken of as their Tenant at Wootton. [59] The ancient names of this estate were Donton and Donington Lacy; and Robert de Lacy's tenure was by service of a fourth part of a Knight's-fee. Doubtless he acquired this estate, like Wootton, with his wife. It was one of those Fees which were reputed to be appurtenant to Ludlow Castle.

In August 1259 I find William de Devises taking out a writ of novel disseizin against Robert de Lacy for a tenement in Birche (The Birches near Downton). I have already spoken of Robert de Lacy's alleged disloyalty in 1265, his forfeiture of Dunton, and his attempt to recover the same in 1267, against William de Hugford. [60] A fine of one merk proffered by Robert de Lacy in 1267 for a writ of Pone was probably connected with some further attempt to regain this estate. In Michaelmas Term 1268 he seems to have succeeded; though the composition which he then effected seems to have been with the Prior of Wenlock, to whom Hugford had probably conveyed his interest in Dunton. The Record represents Robert de Lacy and Amicia his wife as giving 20s. for license to accord with the said Prior. Their agreement was a formal quit-claim by the Prior to certain lands and tenements in Dunton, for

[57] Dugdale's Baronage, II, 61.
[58] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 8.
[59] Rot. Hundred. II, 69, 80.
[60] Supra, Vol. III, p. 16.


which quit-claim Lacy and his wife gave five merks. [61] In 1270 Katerina de Lacy (she was Prioress of Acornbury and daughter of Walter de Lacy) has a writ of novel disseizin against Geoffrey de Genevill and John de Normaunt concerning a tenement in Donygton Lacy. Another writ on the same subject issued in May 1272, where Geoffrey de Genevill and others are the Defendants, and the premises described to be in Dorington Lacy. This suit probably concerned only a part of the Manor; for, whether as a guardian or otherwise, I think that in 1271 Walter or William de Fenes held Downton as a whole under Genevill; and the interest of Robert de Lacy's Widow does not appear. In October 1271, Walter de Fenes is sued for disseizing John de Middleton of a right of common in Middleton. In October 1272, however, William
[62] de Fenes sued William de Hugford for disseizing him of common pasture in Middleton, which pertained to said William de Fenes's tenement in Dunton.- Hugford gained a verdict. [63] The Feodary of 1284 gives Gilbert de Lacy, whom I take to have been son and heir of Robert de Lacy, as holding the vill of Dounton under Peter de Genevill for one-fifth of a knight's-fee.


This member of Stanton Lacy was one of the many estates which were held under Lacy by the great Herefordshire family of Devereux. Dugdale, at the commencement of his account of this family, assigns to it a Norman origin, viz. from the notable town of Evreux. He also mentions one or two instances of the name occurring in England in the twelfth and beginning of the thirteenth centuries. [64] These hints (for the great Genealogist intended them as nothing more) have been unwisely embodied by later Authors into a connected Pedigree. [65] The result, as might be expected, is a tissue of falsehood.

If we take the Manors held by Devereux under Lacy in the thirteenth century, and then refer back to their Domesday status, we shall find that no two of them were common to the same Domesday Tenant. To assume then that any Ancestor of Devereux is

[61] Abbreviatio Placitorem, p. 167.
[62] The name William is probably miswritten for Walter. Walter de Fenes was Constable of Brug Castle in 1271 or 1272 (Rot. Hund. II, 100). I have omitted to name him in his proper place,- Vol. I, p. 289. At a later period he was one of the Coroners for Shropshire, but was dead in 1292 when Michael de Fenes, as his heir, responded for his acts at the Assizes.
[63] Assizes, 56 Hon. III, memb. 8.
[64] Baronage, Vol. II, p. 175.
[65] See Collins's Peerage, Vol. VI, p. 1.


written in Domesday will be an assumption of what cannot be proved and is in fact less than probable. The earliest mention of the name in Herefordshire occurs under the following circumstances.- Walter de Lacy who died in 1085 (the year before Domesday) gave certain land at Hide in Herefordshire in marriage with a Lady named Helewise, who was perhaps the Baron's kinswoman. In 1086 Tezelinus was Roger de Lacy's Tenant at Hide.
[66] If we are empowered to conclude anything from this, it is that Tezelinus was the husband of Helewise. However, between the years 1113 and 1130, Helewise, as the Widow of William de Ebrois, gave land at Hide to Gloucester Abbey. [67] Nothing follows from this but that William Devereux, deceased in 1130, was perhaps the second husband of Helewise, Lady of Hide. Nevertheless, till some one more probable be suggested, we may assume this William to have been Ancestor, or akin to the Ancestor, of the Devereuzes of Herefordshire. In 1165 there were two branches of this family, each holding under Lacy and each holding by old feoffment; that is, they or their Ancestors had been enfeoffed earlier than 1135. In 1165 Roger de Ebroicis, who I think was the Ancestor of the line afterwards ennobled, held four fees of Hugh de Lacy, whilst Walter de Ebroicis held three fees. [68] In succession to Roger came Stephen Devereux; but whether as Roger's son I cannot say. The mother of Stephen Devereux was a sister of Stephen de Longchamp. The latter having been enfeoffed by Walter de Lacy in the Vill of Frome Herbert, Herefordshire, had King John's Confirmation of the gift, bearing date March 11, 1201; [69] but afterwards he sub-enfeoffed his Nephew Stephen Devereux in the same; and this transfer was confirmed by King John on July 26, 1205. [70] For other particulars about Stephen Devereux, not connecting him with Shropshire, I refer elsewhere. [71] That which is less known of him is that he married Isabella daughter of the first William de Cantilupe, and died shortly before March 17, 1228, leaving his heirs in minority. [72] His wife remarried to Ralph de Pembruge, and so appears in various documents under three different names, being called by the name of each of her husbands, while she herself, granting apparently in her second widowhood, reassumes her maiden name of Cantilupe. [73] William Devereux, eldest son and heir of Stephen, was apparently of age in 1240, when he confirmed

[66] Domesday, fo. 184, b, 1.
[67] Monasticon, I, p. 547, b.
[68] Liber Niger, I, 154.
[69] [70] Rot. Chart. pp. 90, 156.
[71] Dugdale's Baronage, Vol. II, p. 175.
[72] Rot. Fin. I, 168.
[73] Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica, II, 250.


his Father's grants to Wormley Priory in Herefordshire. [74] Three Feodaries of the years 1240 give William D'Everous or D'Ebraicis as holding half a knight's-fee in Lower Heyton of Walter de Lacy. [75] At the same date or within two years thereof, I make out that he or his mother held either mediately or immediately no less than seven estates in Lacy's Herefordshire and Gloucestershire Barony. The caput of this fief was the Castle of Lonhalles or Lenhalles, called also Lenshall or Leonshall. It was near to Weobley, and, as we are told, came to Devereux by marriage with the heir-general of Marburge. [76] Another authority intimates that William Devereux's tenure under Lacy was by service of 4 knights'-fees. The cotemporary Tenure of Cecilia Devereux and her son Nicholas was less; and they, I take it, represented the second branch of this family; Nicholas being the lineal descendant of Walter Devereux living in 1165. I have before alluded to the interest which Sir William Devereux, his Widow Matilda, and his son William, had in the concerns of the Shropshire family of Beysin. [77] I have also said how Sir William Devereux (I) fell on the rebel side at Evesham in 1265. His Widow Matilda was Sister of Walter Giffard, Bishop of Bath and Wells. She had an independent interest in Nether Heyton, for her husband, and she had purchased from Roger Tyrel two merks rent there. This rent Matilda afterwards conveyed to Elyas de Sutton, of whom we shall hear more in the sequel. The Feodary of 1284 gives William Devereux (II) as holding the Vill of Lower Heyton of the Barony of Peter de Genevill by half a knight's-fee. A Fine levied at Westminster on October 6, 1285, is a curious and instructive document. It is between Bishop Robert Burnell, Plaintiff, and William Devereux, Deforciant, of one Mill, 5 acres of meadow, and 24 merks rent in Heydon; which premises were now held for life by Matilda Devereux and Walter de la Barre. William Devereux now concedes that the reversion of the two moieties held by Matilda and Walter shall go to the Bishop and his heirs, after the respective deaths of the said Matilda and Walter, when such reversion would otherwise pertain to William himself. The Bishop is to hold the whole at a penny rent under William and his Heirs. He is said to give a sore sparrow-hawk for the grant. Clauses appended to this Fine indicate the professional caution of the great Chancellor who was a party thereto.- Walter de la Barre came

[74] Monasticon, VI, 400, Num. iii.
[75] Testa de Nevill, pp. 45, 48, 60.
[76] Leland's Itinerary, Vol. IV, fo. 175, b.
[77] Vol. I, p. 66; Vol. II, pp. 20, 22, 23; Vol. IV, pp. 165, 166.


into Court and acknowledged that all his interest was a life-tenure, by demise of William Devereux, at a penny rent; and he did fealty to the Bishop. Also Matilda came into Court and declared that she claimed nothing in the premises save as her dower, except indeed two merks rent, which she and her husband had formerly bought from Roger Tyrel, and which she and her heirs were to hold under said Roger and his heirs for ever. [78] These two merks I presume were not conveyed by the Fine.

An inquest of October 12, 1299, declared that Elias de Sutton might without prejudice to the King or any other, assign two merks rent in Heyton to the Prioress and Convent of Acornbury. He held the same rent under John Devereux by a chief-rent of 6d.; and for this and all other services his remaining Estate was amply sufficient. [79] In pursuance of this design Elyas de Sutton conveys by deed to the Church of St. Cross of Acornbury two merks rent in the Vill of Heytone Inferior, which he had by gift of Dame Matilda Devereux. The said rents were chargeable thus- viz. 22s. on a virgate held by William Haumon, and 4s. 8d. on the tenement of Richard fitz Robert. The Deed reserves all services due to the Crown or to the Lords of the Fee.- Witnesses,- Sir Roger de Baskervile, Sir Roger Tyrel, knights; William de Clifford, Master Richard de Heyton, and Master William Andrew. [80]

This Deed should obviously be of nearly even date with the Inquest; and it would almost seem that Dame Matilda Devereux was living at the time of both, and confirmed Elyas de Sutton's Deed. At all events she then gave or had already given the land on which the said rent arose, to the Nuns of Acornbury. This is proved by another Deed, in which we again observe how the yet unexplained connection between the houses of Devereux and Beysin held good in the case of Lower Heyton.- Between the years 1311 and 1319 "Thomas de Beiseyn quit-claimed to Katherine de Genville, [81] Prioress, and her Convent of Acornbury, all his right in two merks rent arising from lands in Nethere Heytone, which lands William de Hauman and Richard fitz Robert held of the Prioress, who had them by gift of Matilda de Ebroycis". [82]

[78] Pedes Finium, 13 Edw. I, Salop.
[79] Inquisitions, 27 Edw. I, No. 72. William de Hagemon was one of the Jurors.
[80] Acornbury Chartulary, fo. lxiij.
[81] This Prioress I take to have been either sister or daughter of Peter de Genevill who died in 1292; if daughter, her baptismal name was probably Beatrix or Matilda (vide supra, p. 11).
[82] Acornbury Chartulary, fo. lxiv. Witnesses.- Elyse de Suttone, John de Aldeham, John de Bromfeld, Roger de Haightone, Robert Brown (of Upper Hayton), William de Sutton juxta Sugwas.



One whose name stands printed as Radulfus de Richetot held 100 solidates of land under Hugh de Lacy in 1165, [83] but no military service was reserved on his tenure, which I suppose to have been in Upper Hayton, and that the Tenant's name should have been printed Crichetot. In or about 1240 this member of Stanton Lacy was held under Walter de Lacy by service of half a knight's-fee. The heirs of Michael de Kriketot or Kirketot were the Tenants. [84] In 1265, John, as son and heir of Michael de Criketot, was suing the Prioress of Brewood under writ of mort d'ancestre, for a rent in Heyton. In Hilary Term 1283, John son of Osbert de Westhop, Agnes his wife, and Alice, Agnes's sister, Deforciants, quit-claim for themselves and the heirs of Agnes and Alice, by Fine and for 100s. two messuages and a virgate in Over Horton (sic) to William de Stepelton, Plaintiff. In 1284 we have William de Stepleton as Peter de Genevill's Tenant of half a knight's-fee in Upper Heyton, [85] but by what descent from Criketot I do not know. Again in March 1317 Robert Brown was Tenant of Theobald de Verdon deceased, at Overheyton. It was half a knight's-fee, and extended at 40s. per annum. [86]

THE UNDERTENANTS of Upper Hayton cannot always be distinguished from those of Lower Hayton. However in Michaelmas Term 1281 Walter de Northon and Hawys his wife, Impedients, convey by Fine, to Master Richard de Heyton, Plaintiff, a messuage and virgate in Over Heyton, as their gift;- to hold to said Richard and the heirs of his body under Walter and Hawys and the heirs of Hawys at a rent of one rose.- Remainder to Reginald, brother of Richard, and his heirs of his body.- Remainder to the right heirs of Richard. For this the Plaintiff gave 40s.

Robert Wymont of Heyton was a Juror for the Liberty of Stanton at the Assizes of 1292.

POLE.- This member of Stanton Lacy, still traceable in Poles Farm, I do not hear of as a distinct estate till 1240, when John Pirun held it for one-fourth part of a knight's-fee of Walter last Baron Lacy. [87] In 1255 it was one of those estates which are entered on the Inquisitions of Stanton Lacy and Ludlow as pertaining to Ludlow Castle. John Pirun was still the Tenant, and his service

[83] Liber Niger, I, 155.
[84] Testa de Nevill, pp. 45, 48.
[85] Kirby's Quest.
[86] Inquisitions, 10 Edw. II, No. 21.
[87] Testa de Nevill, p. 45.

ROCK. 25

the same. [88] At the Assizes of January 1256 a cause was tried which shows us that John Pirun had been preceded here by Walter Pirun his Father.- John le Cruthur and Alice his wife sued John de la Pole and Richolda his wife for half a virgate in La Pole as the right of Alice; alleging that John de la Pole had no ingress therein save through John de Colton, Alice's former husband, who had demised it while living. John de la Pole however called John Pyrun to warranty, who said that he inherited the premises from Walter Pyrun his Father who died seized thereof. The Court ordered an Inquisition to be had on the matter, but the parties accorded. Their Fine was that John le Cruther and Alice renounced all claim to John Pyrun for 2 merks. [89]

In 1284 Walter Pirun held this vill under Peter de Genevill for a fourth part of a knight's-fee. [90]

AKS, now ROCK.- This member of Stanton Lacy is described in old writings by the name "Aks", usually supposed to be equivalent to "Oaks". The old name is now lost, but the Vill is identical with the present township of Rock. [91] I find that before the year 1240 Nicholas fitz Peter of London, * * * Malore, and another tenant of Walter de Lacy in the vill of Akes, sold their interest there to Peter Undergod of Ludlow. The latter was founder of St. John's Hospital at Ludlow, and he gave all his land of Akes thereto, Walter de Lacy, the Chief-Lord, confirming. It appears that beside the land thus conveyed Peter Undergod was entitled to all amerciaments assessed on his Under-tenants at Akes in the manorial Court of Stanton Lacy. These profits he similarly gave to St. John's Hospital. [92]

In 1255 Akes or Hokes was thus held.- The Brethren of Ludlow Hospital had eight virgates there; said to be "of the eleemosynary grant of Walter de Lacy", which was not quite the whole truth. Roger de Stanton held one virgate there, the rent of which, viz. 8s., was payable to Dame Margery de Lacy as part of her dower. Another rent of 5s. was payable by the same Roger for an assart and a pasture called the Old Vivary, both probably in Akes, and the said rent being also part of Margery de Lacy's dower. Further the Villate or community of Akes seems to have rented another pasture in the

[88] Rot. hundred. II, pp. 69, 80.
[89] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 14.
[90] Kirby's Quest.
[91] I cannot discover any etymological connection between Aks and Rock, but I am inclined to believe that there was one. The Parish in Worcestershire now known as Rock was unquestionably written Aka or Alke in the thirteenth century.
[92] Monasticon, VII, 681.


same way, for 3s. per annum. [93] I have nothing further to say of Aks under that name. In 1534-5 St. John's Hospital at Ludlow was in receipt of 7. 2s. 2d., the rents and ferms of its estate at Rocke. [94]

WIGLEY - was another member of Stanton Lacy. Here in 1255 Robert Dovile held two virgates of land, his service being to guard the Keep of Ludlow Castle for fifteen days in war-time. For twelve acres of land, which he also held here, he paid 2s. per annum to Dame Margery de Lacy as part of her dower. [95] In 1272 and 1292 Robert Dovill sat as a Juror for Stanton Liberty at the County Assizes. In March 1317 the Inquest on the death of Theobald de Verdon gives Robert son of Robert Dovyle as holding a fourth part of a knight's-fee in Wyggele of the deceased. Its value was 20s. [96] There was also a family which took name from this place; e.g. John de Wygele, on a Ludlow Inquest in 1284, and a Juror for Munslow Hundred at the Assizes of 1292 ,- also Roger de Wyggeleye a Juror for Stanton Liberty at the latter Assizes.


THIS was another Manor held by Roger de Laci immediately of the King. It is described in Domesday thus:- "The same Roger holds Alledone. Siuuard held it (in Saxon times) and was a free man. Here are 2 hides geldable. There is arable land (sufficient) for XV ox-teams. In demesne there are II teams, and there are VIII teams among the male and female Serfs; and there are XXIIII Villains, II Boors, and one Cottager (Cozet), with VIII teams among them all. Here is a Mill of 5s. (annual value). Of the land of this Manor, Richard holds hide, and AEldred one member of land. Thereon is one team and XII Villains, VII Boors, and III Serfs, with III teams. The Church has half a hide of land, and the Priest has a Team with one Cottar. The whole Manor used to render 105s. in King Edward's time. Now, that part which Roger (de Laci) holds is worth 8.; that which his Men (Richard and AEldred) have is worth 16s., that which the Priest has is worth 5s. (per annum)". [1]

[93] Rot. Hundred. II, 80, 69.
[94] Monasticon, VII, 682, Num. iii.
[95] Rot. Hundred. II, 80.
[96] Inquisitions, 10 Edw. II, No. 71.
[97] Domesday, fo. 260, b.


Again we notice a Manor of small extent, but uncommon richness, stocked with eight teams beyond its estimated requirements, realizing more than 2. per hide in Saxon times, and more than 3. 12s. per hide to its Norman Lords. Aldon seems to have been granted by the Lord thereof to some new Feoffee, either in the reign of Stephen or Henry II; so that I suppose the Domesday Tenancies of Richard and AEldred to have lapsed. Among the Fees of new feoffment returned by Hugh de Lacy in 1165 is this entry;- Feod. de Cauledon dim. milit.; [2] that is, the Fee or Fees of Aldon (as I suppose) owed the service of half a knight's-fee to Lacy. This unusual mode of expressing the tenure may possibly have been caused by the Manor being already held by Coheirs; a state in which it always occurs in the next century. On this coheirship I shall not here make any comment, but give the few facts which I have collected, and which require further evidence to show the mode of descent satisfactorily. At the Assizes of 1221 Thomas de la Le (one of these coheirs as I think) was found to have disseized Hugh Senesot of 6 acres in Euledon. The damages were 10s. [3] In or about 1240 Roger le Poer and his Coparceners are said to hold half a knight's-fee in Euledon, or Culedon, of Walter de Lacy. [4] In 1255 the Coparceners named are Thomas de Le, Stephen de Smethcot, Thomas Purcel, Richard de Thongland, and John, Parson of Bissopeston. They are said to hold Lower and Higher Guledon and Weho (now Yeo) of Walter de Lacy's heir, for two and a half hides of land (the Domesday measurement). They did suit to Munslow Hundred, and paid the King 2s. 6d. for Stretward and Motfee. [5] It would seem, from a note to this entry, that these Coparceners had withdrawn some suit of 6d. value; for the Tenants of Over and Nether Guldon are said to appear (at the Inquest), and to answer concerning 6d. withdrawn. I should notice for future reference that at this time Stephen de Smethcot and Thomas Purcel were Coparceners in the Manor of Acton Scott, also Philip de Smethcot and Thomas Purcel were Coparceners in Smethcot. In Trinity Term 1263 Philip de Thongland sued Thomas de Grete for a carucate in Eweledon as his right. View thereof was ordered by the Court.
[6] The Feodary of 1284 gives John Purcel only, as Tenant of half a Knight's-fee in Euledon, but at the Assizes of 1292 the Munslow Jurors showed the vill of

[2] Liber Niger, I, 154.
[3] Assizes, 6 Hen. III, m. 2 dorso.
[4] Testa de Nevill, pp. 45, 48.
[5] Rot. Hundred. II, 70.
[6] Placita, Trin. Term, 47 Hen. III, m. 24 dorso. The Pipe-Roll of 1267 charges Philip de Thongland 20s. for the Writ in this case.


Euldon as still held by four Coparceners. These were John Parcel, John de Lee, Reginald Scot with his wife Isabella, and Gilbert de Lacy with his wife Agnes.


Though Aldon had a Church and a Priest at Domesday, it is certain that that Church was afterwards transferred to Stokesay. We have had one similar case before, viz. where the Domesday Church of Patton was transferred to Long Stanton. [7] Instances of this are however very rare; and it is remarkable that in both the present cases the transfer took place in Lacy's Fief. We must date the change early in the twelfth century,- that period which is illustrated by so few ecclesiastical Records. We know that in Bishop Betun's time the principle that every congregation required a Church was acted upon in his Diocese. This led to the building of affiliated Chapels in most instances; but in cases like Aldon and Patton, where the original caput of a Parish had perhaps become less populous than one of the members, there is no difficulty in seeing that the natural course was to transfer the Mother Church itself to the greater Vill, and leave the Chapel to the lesser. That a Chapel or Chantry, with some land attached, remained at Aldon, I now proceed to show.

In 1317, Sir Walter de Greneburg, Perpetual Vicar of Stokesay, was at issue with William de Davyntre and nine other Parishioners of Stokesay, resident in Aldon, about the Vicar's liability to maintain a Chantry in Aldon Chapel, situated within the limits of his Vicarage. The case seems to have been adjudicated upon by a Commission appointed by Adam de Orleton, then Bishop of Hereford; - and Nicholas, Abbot of Haghmon, Master Robert de Preston, Rector of Fitz, and Sir Walter, Perpetual Vicar of Bucknell, certified the following ordinance of the Commission, viz. that the Vicar of Stokesay should provide a Chaplain to celebrate Mass three days in a week (Sundays, Wednesdays, and Fridays) in Aldon Chapel, except on certain Feast-days. All Churchings, marriages, and confessions were to be at the Mother Church of Stokesay. This Ordinance was dated in the said Mother Church on June 18, 1317, in presence of John de Butterley, John de Routon, William de Smethecote, and Thomas de Wolstanton, Chaplain.

It appears by another document in the Haughmond Chartulary that the Money received at these Masses, and half a virgate and

[7] Vide supra, Vol. IV, p. 39.


nine acres of land, were deemed to be anciently appurtenant to Aldon Chapel. However on Sept. 1, 1414, we find the Abbot of Haughmond seized of this very quantity of land in Upper Aldon, and granting or rather renewing a lease thereof to a Tenant for life at a rent of 6s. 8d.; except a grange and a plot of ground which were retained by the Abbey. [8] Hence the Ministers' Accounts of 1541-2 give among the Assets of the late Monastery a rent of 6s. 8d. arising from a Tenement in Aldon. [9]

The Chapel had probably at this period been long disused, even if such a building existed. The Vicar of Stokesay would, according to the spirit of the times, be glad to be released from his obligation to maintain a Chaplain, while the Abbot of Haughmond was equally content to appropriate the Chapel glebe.


WE have a fact relating to this Manor anterior to Domesday, but not, as in the case of Stanton Lacy, memorialized in that Record. Walter de Lacy endowing his Foundation of St. Peter's at Hereford, gave thereto a Villain at Stoke in Shropshire, and also two-thirds of the tithes of the said Vill. [1]

Domesday speaks of this Manor as held by Roger de Laci (son of Walter) of the King in capite.-

"The same Roger holdeth Stoches. AEldred held it (in Saxon times), and was a free man. Here are VII hides geldable. The arable land is sufficient to employ XIIII ox-teams. In demesne there are V teams, and (there are) XVI teams among the male and female Serfs, and (there are) XX Villains with VIII teams, and IX Female Cottars. Here is a Mill rendering IX quarters (summas) of corn (yearly), and here is a Miller and a Keeper of bees. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 10. per annum". [2]

Again we notice in this Manor of Lacy's, that the Stock thereon was more than double the quantity estimated to be necessary. AEldred, the dispossessed Saxon, was probably identical with him

[8] Chartulary: Tit. Aldon.
[9] Monasticon, VI, 113.
[1] Monasticon, I, 547, b.
[2] Domesday, fo. 260, b, 2.


who retained at Domesday a portion of the neighbouring Manor of Aldon.

Within thirty years of Domesday Roger de Lacy or his brother Hugh enfeoffed the Says in three of their Shropshire Manors, viz. in Wheathill, already noticed, in Stoke, afterwards called South-Stoke or Stokesay, and in Stoke, afterwards called North Stoke or Stoke upon Tern. The first of these Says of whom I find mention was Theodoric de Say, living in the time of Henry I. This Theodoric has been represented as Ancestor of the Says of Richard's Castle. I have seen no proof, and can imagine no probability for such a descent. It is inconsistent with every known fact. I shall have more to tell of Theodoric de Say under Stoke upon Tern. I take him to have been a Cadet of the Baronial house whose Ancestor, Picot de Sai, was Domesday Lord of Clun. My reason for thinking this is, that the successor (probably the son) of Theodoric de Say was named Helias, and the cotemporary Baron of Clun was also named Helias. The position and descendants of these two cotemporaries were however very different. We have seen one Helias de Sai, accompanied by other Tenants in Lacy's Fief, attesting Philip de Belmeis' grant to the Buildwas Abbey in 1138 or 1139. [3] His position in the testing-clause indicates Helias de Sai of Stokesay rather than Helias de Sai of Clun; for the latter would certainly have preceded Philip fitz Odo. An inferior witness of the same Charter is Hugh de Sai; and of this name I think there were also two Cotemporaries, viz. the eldest son of Helias de Sai of Stokesay, and the Brother of Osbern fitz Hugh of Richard's Castle. The witness of Belmeis' charter was, I imagine, the Son of Helias de Sai. The same Hugh de Say, not however preceded by his presumed Father Helias, stands sixth witness of another charter of Philip de Belmeis, which I have set forth elsewhere and dated as between 1139 and 1145. [4] It is not usual to find a son thus attesting at least twenty years before his Father's death; for, as I shall presently show, Helias de Say of Stokesay was living in 1165. However I find that any other supposition as to the identity of these witnesses will involve us in more anomalies than the single one, which disturbs but does not controvert the above calculation.

In 1165 Hugh de Lacy returning a statement of the Knights'-fees of his Barony, intimates that "Helyas de Sai acknowledges a tenure by service of three Knights'-fees, but denied a further service of two Knights'-fees; nor could Hugh de Lacy obtain the

[3] Supra, Vol. II, p. 203.
[4] Supra, Vol. II, p. 205.


latter service until the question was settled by due process of law". [5] It will appear that the service of five knights thus expected by the Lord, and the service of three, acknowledged by the Vassal, became eventually a service of four, probably by compromise. All that I have further to relate of Helyas de Say is, that Pope Alexander's Bull of May 1172 mentions a grant of his to Haughmond Abbey, and the assent thereto of Hugh his son. The particulars of the said grant belong to another locality. The name of Helyas de Say's wife was Egeline.

Hugh de Say probably succeeded his father very soon after 1165. About the year 1174 he gave Stokesay Church to Haughmond Abbey. His deed, making mention of his Father Helias and his Mother Egeline, was confirmed by Hugh de Lacy (who died in 1185) as Seignoral Lord. I have given, under Wheathill, a Charter by this Hugh de Say which is attested by his wife Olympias. [6] The latest that I find of him is his essoigning his appearance in a lawsuit at Westminster on November 12, 1194, [7] at which period his age was probably very great.

The son and successor of Hugh de Say was a second Helias de Say; and I imagine Hugh's death to have taken place about the end of 1194. There are two Charters which evidently passed in a full County Court of Shropshire. One of them must have been executed early in 1195, the other either in 1195 or 1196, and both have the attestation of Helias de Sai in a prominent position. [8] A Fine of September 1199 places Helias de Sai's previous succession beyond all doubt. It was to settle the dower of his Mother Olympias, Widow of Hugh de Sai, in Southstoke, Northstoke and Morton (now Morton Say). All that I need here say of the particulars is, that Olympias relinquished her claim in respect of South-Stoke.

Helias de Say confirmed his Father's grant of Stokesay Church to Haughmond. [9] I have before alluded to certain Irish interests which were common to Herbert de Rushbury and Helias de Say in the year 1200. [10] The following Deed again connects these two Tenants of Lacy.- "Elias de Say, with consent of his wife Anisia, gives to Andrew fitz Milo of Ludlow, for his homage and service, and for 23 merks the Mill of Stokes and Wetelington, with suit of

[5] Liber Niger, I, 154.
[6] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 288.
[7] Rot. Curiae Regis, I, 194.
[8] Salop Chartulary, No. 16, and Harl. MSS. 1396, fo. 253.
[9] Haughmond Chartulary: Tit. Stoke Say.- Witnesses: Simon de Haburiden, Robert de Say, Walter Hacket.
[10] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 96.


his men, and a messuage and meadow,- to hold in fee, for a rent of one pound of pepper.- Witnesses: Herbert de Rusburi, Samson le Poher, Gerard Angevin". [11]

Andrew fitz Milo, thus enfeoffed, granted 5s. of the rent of the said Mill to Haughmond Abbey, and Nicholas his son and heir granted 5s. more, in a deed attested by Nicholas a Chaplain, and by Henry and William Muneno. [11] Later still in the lifetime of Helias de Say the Abbey seems to have got the whole fee-simple of this Mill, for "Helias de Say, for the souls of Amicia his wife, Hugh de Say his Father, and Olympias his Mother, gave the said Mill to the Abbey with a messuage, etc., as in his former grant to Andrew fitz Milo. This last Deed passed between 1216 to 1224, and is tested by John fitz Alan, John le Strange, and Robert Corbet (of Caus). [11]

Before 1224 Helias de Say was dead. The Haughmond Chartulary preserves a Deed whereby he gave, with his body in burial, a merk rent to that House. It also preserves a part of his Will, in which, calling himself Elias de Say of Stoke, he commends his soul to God, his body to the Church of Haghmon, and together with his body gives the merk rent above mentioned, and also six oxen and one horse from Southstoke, and ten quarters (summas) of rye (Segle) growing on the ground at Nothstoke, and ten quarters of oats in the barn of Southstoke. [12]

I infer that Helias de Say (II) died without issue; for his Successor was his Brother Robert, who was apparently a Clerk in Holy Orders. Robert de Say confirmed his brother Helias' grant of Stoke and Wetlington Mill to Haughmond; Walter de Lacy attesting his confirmation. He also confirmed the merk rent above mentioned in a deed which, being attested by Baldwin de Hodnet and Stephen his brother, must have passed before 1225, when the said Baldwin was dead. [13] Robert de Say, previous to his succession, comes more than once under notice. At the County Assizes of October 1203 he was amerced half a merk, as was Richard de Stirchley, for some false averment or verdict. This juxtaposition of the two names reminds us of a testing clause of about that period, where Richard de Stirgle is followed by Robert de Say. [14] Other testing-clauses in

[11] Chartulary, ut supra.
[12] The original Will, or rather an extract therefrom (but written in a ooeval hand, and having sometime had its own seal) is in possession of Richard Corbet Esq., of Adderley. I shall recur to this curious document under Stoke-upon-Tern.
[13] Chartulary, ut supra.
[14] Vol. II, p. 124, note 65.


which Robert de Say occurs I need not quote, as they do not enable me further to determine the period of his succession, or the time during which he held the estates of his family. His death, without issue, is indicated by the fact that he was succeeded by a third brother, Walter.-

Walter de Say, in or about the year 1240, was holding four knights'-fees under Walter de Lacy. [15] These Fees may be thus divided, viz. Stoke upon Tern and Moreton Say- 1 fee; Wheathill - 1 fee; Stokesay and its members- 2 fees. Walter de Say was a Benefactor to Haughmond Abbey. Styling himself Lord of Stoke, he gave "for the souls of himself and Amicia his wife, the whole Moor called Pencheres-medowe, as the bank of the Onie surrounded the said Moor under the Mill of Stokes and Wetlington, which Mill, Elias his brother gave to the Abbey. Witnesses,- Sir Thomas de la Lee, Hugh de Cheyne, Henry Mile. By another Deed, Walter de Say, calling himself son of Hugh de Say, gave with his body, and for the souls of himself and Amicia his wife, half a merk rent of an assart in Stokesay Wood, viz. in Marlebeche. Witnesses,- Adam, Vicar of Stoke, Robert de Lacy.

In the Quinzaine of Easter 1250 a very important Fine was levied, at Westminster, after a conventional Suit. The Fine is between Hugh de Sey, Plaintiff, and Walter de Sey, Deforciant,- of the Manors of Suthstok and Northstok. Walter acknowledged the right of Hugh, who regranted the Manors to Walter for life,- to hold at a rent of 1d., and by performance of all capital services. Remainder was covenanted to Hugh and his heirs; and Walter undertook not to alienate the premises. [16] For license to levy this Fine, Hugh de Sai paid the large sum of 100s. [16]

Hugh de Say, thus named, became in due course the Successor to Walter, and was I presume his nephew, Son of his brother Hugh. The life-tenure of Walter de Say, coupled with the remaindership of his Nephew Hugh, are curiously illustrated by two deeds in the Haughmond Chartulary, which will have passed between 1250 and 1255. By the first, Walter de Say gives to the Abbey half a merk rent in Watlington, arising from a virgate of land held by Philip, Rector of Wistanstow. By the second, Hugh de Say, son of Hugh de Say, confirmed what Walter de Say his Uncle gave, and he himself gives out-and-out the virgate from which the rent arose. These deeds were coeval, being attested by the same witnesses (Robert de

[15] Testa de Nevill, pp. 45, 48, 50.
[16] Pedes Finium, and Rot. Pip. 34 Hen. III, Salop. Placita, Easter Term, 34 Hen. III, m. 4.


Lacy, Richard de Thonglande, and Hugh de Cheyne), and because both Grantors join in a precept memorializing Philip Parson of Wistanestowe, of their act. [17]

Hugh de Say, nephew of Walter, and, soon after 1250, Successor to his whole estate, had it seems been in possession (as Tenant) of Moreton Say as early as 1248; for that is the date assigned by competent witnesses for his withdrawal of the said Manor from suit of County and Hundred. [18] We are expressly told that this Hugh de Say gave up his Manor of Stoke upon Tern to John de Verdon, his Suzerain, in exchange for property in Ireland. There is good reason to think that Stokesay was a part of this exchange, which must have taken place between 1250 and 1255. In the latter year Hugh de Say was unquestionably living; for Wheathill is said to be held under him; [19] but Robert de Say, son of Hugh, held Moreton Say immediately of John de Verdon, whilst John de Verdon was Lord of the fee-simple of Stoke upon Tern and Stokesay. It is probable then that Hugh de Say, having alienated all or nearly all his Shropshire Estates, had settled in Ireland. In the year 1256 I find Olimpias de Wallington (Wettleton) naming her Attorney in a suit against Hugh de Say.
[20] This proves that Hugh de Say was living, not that he was still seized of Stokesay; for Olimpias, probably his relation and former Feoffee, may have had some claim upon him, which in the wholesale exchange with John de Verdon had not been respected. I hear nothing more of Hugh de Say or his descendants in connection with Stokesay, but shall have to speak of them elsewhere.

I now return to John de Verdon, whom the Inquisition of 1255 duly registers as Lord of Stoke Say, Wetliton, and Neuton. He is said to hold the Manor of the Heir of Walter de Lacy, that is, he, a Coheir of Lacy, held it of the general estate of Lacy, of which full partition was not as yet made. It was 5 hides; that is, two hides less than its Domesday measurement. It did suit to Munslow Hundred, and paid 5s. annually for Stretward and Motfee. [21] Other parts of the same Record speak of Stokesay as held by two knights'-fees, and as pertaining to Ludlow Castle. [21] Whatever were its services due at Ludlow, it also owed the services of one knight in ward of Montgomery Castle in time of war for forty days. [21] This last

[17] Chartulary: Tit. Watlington.
[18] Rot. Hundred. II, 57.
[19] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 285.
[20] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 9.
[21] Rot. Hundred. pp. 69, 70, 71, 80.


liability was common to several Manors in Lacy's Barony, as we have already seen under Patton.

A Deed, which I am now going to set forth, shows that in 1270 John de Verdon had ensured to one Philip de Whichecote 8 merks rent, arising annually from Ludlow Mills; and a further salary of 5. per annum in compensation of the acceptable services of the said Philip, who was probably a Civilian. On September 1, 1270, Sir John de Verdon conveys to the said Philip his Manor of Stokesay for a term of three years, in return for 24. paid by Philip to the Grantor. The Manor was valued at 40 merks (26. 13s. 4d.) per annum; but the considerations which induced Sir John de Verdon to borrow money at so extravagant a cost do not appear.-

The term of three years being ended, Philip was to hold the Manor for the further term of his own life, but at the full rent of 40 merks; that is, he was to pay 24 merks yearly to John de Verdon at Weobley, and the balance of 15 merks he was to retain as equivalent to John de Verdon's annuities (8 merks and 5) due to himself on the other accounts above mentioned. During this second term the Wardships and Escheats of the Free Tenants in the Manor were reserved to John de Verdon, but the rents were to be Philip's. Verdon reserved a power of re-entry, in case Whichecote failed to pay the rent at stated times. On the Manor reverting to Verdon (i.e. on Whichecote's death) there were to be left thereon two waggon-loads of hay, twelve waggon-loads of forage, and a number of implements (utensilia) said to be specified in a schedule (cyroprapho). The Deed was sealed in duplicate by either party, and copies thereof exchanged. [22]

Inquisitions on the death of John de Verdon were ordered by Writ of October 17, 1274. One, purporting to be held at Stok Say, met on November 7, following; but it is clear from the return of the Jury, that, by the place here called Stok Say, Stoke upon Tern was meant. [23] The Inquests on the death of John de Verdon say in fact nothing about Stokesay proper; probably because at the time of his death be held nothing in demesne there. Theobald de Verdon, his son and

[22] Charter in possession of Richard Corbet, Esq., of Adderley.- This Charter has had a seal attached, but it is gone. It closes with the words Hiis testibus; showing that a testing clause was intended to be added, but no names are given. This omission may possibly imply that the Deed never took effect, but if so I cannot account for its having been sealed.
[23] Inquisitions, 2 Edw. I, No. 34. There is another instance of this confusion between the two Stokes, viz. where the Church Taxation of 1291, describes the Church of Stoke-upon-Tern as Stokesay Church.


heir, was twenty-two years of age and upwards. John de Verdon's Feoffee at Stokesay at the time of his death, was not Philip de Whichecote, as we should have expected, but Reginald de Grey (of Wilton, I presume). The Inquest of Munslow Hundred, held on November 26, 1274, tells how "John de Verdon had withdrawn the Suit of the vill of Stok Sey from that Hundred, whereas all the free-men and four Jurors with a Provost had been previously used to do the said Suit twice a year at the Sheriff's Great-Tourn".
[24] The Jurors added that Reginald de Grey now held the said Manor in the same way, i.e. without doing the Suit aforesaid. How Reginald de Grey came to be Verdon's Tenant in Stokesay I cannot discover. Soon after this the said Reginald (presumptively of Wilton) seems to have conveyed his interest in Stokesay to his son John; which John however did not generally succeed his Father till the death of the latter in 1308,- when the said John was declared by one out of several Inquests to be 50 years of age. [25]-

I am particular in stating this because it shows John de Grey to have been of full age in 1279, and so capable of the feoffment above suggested. It is certain too that John de Grey, thus or otherwise seized of Stokesay, conveyed the whole to Laurence de Ludlow, in or before the year 1281. The sale, for such undoubtedly it was, is indicated by a Fine dated Jan. 18, 1281, and levied between Laurence de Ludlowe, Plaintiff, and John de Grey and Matilda his wife, Impedients, of the Manor of Stokesay, whereof was Plea of Warranty of Charter. John and Matilda acknowledge the Plaintiff's right as arising by their gift. A rent of 8d. is reserved to John and Matilda, and the heirs of Matilda, in lieu of all services, suits-of-court, reliefs, aids, scutages, wards, custodies, marriages, regal services, customs and exactions. For this the Plaintiff is said to give a Sore Sparrow-hawk. A Royal Charter of 1281 shows Laurence de Ludlow in full possession of Stokesay. [26] It gives him the privilege of Free-Warren in his demesnes of Stokesay, Neuton, and Wetlinton. In "July 1281", or more probably 1282 (for the date given in the Deed involves some error), Laurence de Ludlowe, Lord of Stokesay, came to an agreement with Henry, Abbot of Haughmond, concerning previous disputes. This arrangement took place at Shrewsbury before Sir Roger Sprenchose, then Sheriff of Shropshire, Sir Roger de Sibbeton, and others. [27] In the Feodary of 1284 Laurence de

[24] Rot. Hundred. II, 100.
[25] Inquisitions, 1 Edw. II, No, 54.
[26] Rot. Chart. 9 Edw. No. 23.
[27] Haughmond Chartulary: Tit: Newton juxta Stokesay.


[For engraving, see pdf.]


Ludlow is said to hold the Vill of Stokesay for one knight's-fee under John de Grey, which John held it under Theobald de Verdon, who held of the King.

In 19 Edw. I (1290-1), Laurence de Ludlow obtained a license to strengthen his mansion with a wall of stone and lime, and to crenellate, or embattle, the same. [28] The result was, probably, the erection of that fortified Manor-House whose remains are now known as Stokesay Castle.

At the Assizes of 1292 the Munslow Jurors presented Laurence de Ludlow as claiming a right of free-warren in Stoke Say. On January 20th, 1296, Laurence de Ludlow being dead, a Fine was levied between Agnes his Widow, and William de Ludlow (his son), Complainants, and Peter Gilmyn of Ludlow, and Matilda his wife, Impedients,- of 48 acres of land in Stanton Lacy, whereof was Plea of Warranty. Peter and Matilda recognised the Complainants' right thereto, as by their own gift,- to hold to Agnes and William, and the heirs of William. For this the Complainants gave 40. In March 1316, the Nomina Villarum gives William de Lodelowe and Cecilia de Halghton as Lords of the Vill of Stokesay. [29] On August 25 of that year, William de Ludelowe, Lord of Stokesay, settled some disputes, about quit-rents of certain tenements in this Manor, with the Abbot of Haughmond. [30]

On November 11, 1316, William de Ludlow being dead, an Inquest states him to have held only two-thirds of Stok-Sai. He held, says the Record, under John de Verdon, [31] in free socage, and at a rent of 8d. The value of his estate here was 12. 17s. 7d. per annum. Matilda, wife of the deceased, and Laurence his son and heir, who would be 16 years of age on March 2, 1317, are both mentioned in the Inquest. [32]

The Inquest on Theobald de Verdon's death, taken in March 1317, gives the Heirs of Sir William de Lodelowe as holding of the deceased a knight's-fee in Suthstoke. Their estate was worth 6. per annum. [33] In Hilary Term 1322 Laurence, son of William de Lodelowe, recovered a third part of Stokesay Manor against William le Wynne and Matilda his wife. [34] I shall have future opportunities

[28] Patent, 19 Edw. I.
[29] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 398.
[30] Chartulary (Tit. Stoke Say). Witnesses,- Laurence, son of William de Lodelowe, and Master William de Asshaten, Rector of the Church of Pontesbury.
[31] A confusion apparently between John de Grey, of Wilton, and Theobald de Verdon, the Mesne and the Seignoral Lord.
[32] [33] Inquisitions, 10 Edw. II, Nos. 69, 71.
[34] Abbreviatio Placitorem, p. 339.


of speaking more in detail of this family of Ludlow, which rose to great eminence in Shropshire.

OF UNDERTENANTS in Stokesay I have already named some incidentally, and one of them, Nicholas, son of Andrew fitz Milo, has occurred as granting here to Haughmond Abbey. At the Assizes of January 1256, this person, under the name of Nicholas Andreu, of Ludlow, was Defendant in a suit of novel disseizin for a tenement in Stokesay. The Prosecutor, Richard de Kinere, failed to appear, so he and his Sureties, viz. Richard fitz Gilbert of Euledon (Aldon), and William de Kinere of Euledon, were in misericordid. [35]

At these same Assizes Nicholas de Haseloure appeared against Coleman le Whyte in a plea of convention concerning thirds of several messuages and parcels of land in Whettlinton, Stokesay, and Stiventon. Coleman le White not appearing, the Sheriff was ordered to have his body in Court in one month of Easter. [36] It would appear that this plea of convention was connected with a cross-suit of mort d'ancestre which was adjourned at these Assizes; Coleman le Blund making Nicholas de Haselore his Attorney therein, against Herbert de Ledewych. [37] A Fine levied at Westminster in Trinity Term 1256, explains more of this matter. Nicholas de Haselour, Plaintiff, quits to Colemann le Whyte, Deforciant, a third of three messuages, a virgate, and eight acres of land, three acres of meadow, and fifty-one acres of land in Wettelyton, Stok-Say, Sete (Sheet), and * * *, [38] whereof was plea of convention. In return Coleman le Whyte (having, I suppose, gained his cause against Herbert de Ledwych) concedes to Nicholas de Haselour a messuage and 20 acres in La Sete; eleven acres of which had sometime been held by Herbert de Ledewych. Nicholas and his heirs were to hold the same under Le Whyte at d. rent.

The heir of Coleman le Whyte above mentioned was apparently his Nephew. The latter as Coleman de Ludelawe, son of Roger Blund of Ludlaw, quit-claims to his Lord, Sir John de Verdun, all right in 11 acres of land and 3 acres of meadow in the fields of Stoksay, which Coleman de Ludelawe, the Grantor's Uncle (avunculus) purchased of Walter de Say. In return Sir John pays the Grantor 30s. and releases the suit which he owed to Stoksay Manor-Court every three weeks, but his suits twice a year (at Michaelmas and Easter) are retained. Witnesses,- Sir Roger Bardolf, Adam, Vicar of Stok, then Dean (i.e. Rural-Dean) of Clun, John de Wetthamsted,

[35] [36] [37] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 1 dorso, 15 dorso, 9 recto.
[38] Stevinton probably is the word defaced.


Constable of Anneton, William de Rowell, Constable of Braundon, Henry de Schavinton, then Bailiff of Stok, Ranulf Forester, William de Eccleshall, Warin Luvell, Peter Pychard, Yvor de Buton, Luke de Weho, and Nicholas his Brother. [39]

I date this Deed as between 1260 and 1270. The same limits may perhaps be assigned to another Deed, whereby Philip de Lega, Parson of Wistanestowe, quit-claims to John de Verdon a virgate in Wetlinton, which he (Philip) had by gift of Hugh de Say, formerly Lord of that Vill. Witnesses,- Sirs R. Bardulf, W. de Hopton, Gilbert de Bukenhull, Wivian de Rossale, Nicholas de Egedun, John de Say, William fitz Hugh, Stephen de Coston, Robert le Chein, and others. [40]

In May 1259 Avice Richard (probably Pichard) has a writ of novel disseizin against John de Verdon for tenements in Wlonkslow (Longslow), Longford, and Suthstock.

On February 4, 1260, Ysabel, daughter of Alan Miller, late of Haukeford, quit-claims to Sir John de Werdon for 20s. all her right in half a virgate in the Vill and territory of Wetlinton, which had belonged to Alan, her Father. Witnesses,- Sir Adam Vicar of Stoke, Ranulph de Stoke, Roger Vixi, Richard de Hauekeford, Hugh his brother, Adam fitz Edtyt (Qy Edith) of Wetlington, William fitz Adam of Wetlinton, and others. [41]

About the same time, as I suppose, Hugh, son of William de Eton, quit-claims to his Lord, Sir John de Verdon, 3s. rent which he bought from William fitz Matthew, and which arose from land formerly held by Alan Miller, in Wytlington. For this Sir John gave 20s. Witnesses,- Robert de Heysauwe (Helshaw), Henry de Savinton, Henry de Pecchesey, William de Eccleshal, William fitz Adam of Wetlyngton, Roger Wiksy, and others. [41]

Also about the same time, as I suppose, William son of William the Moneyer (Monetarii), of Ludelowe, and Alice his wife, quit-claim to Sir John de Verdon, for 20s., all their right in half a virgate in Wetlintone, formerly held by Henry Walsh. Sir John is to hold under the Grantors and their heirs, paying one pound of cumin for rent. Witnesses,- Stephen de Buterley, Philip de Wichecote, Radulf de Stoke, Richard de Eccleshall, Nicholas fitz Elias, Roger Wixi, Hugh de Haueeford, Richard his brother, Lovel the Provost. [41]

[39] [40] Charters in possession of Richard Corbet, Esq., of Adderley. The last Deed would seem to make John de Verdon Tenant of the virgate in question under Haughmond Abbey (vide supra, p. 33).
[41] Charters, ibidem.


It will presently appear that Alice, in her widowhood, sought to recover this or a similar estate from the Tenants then in possession.

In August 1266, Thomas de Grete has a writ of novel disseizin against John de Verdon for a tenement in Stoksay and Bromfield. In 51 Henry III (1266-7), Peter, son of Henry le Forester, of Stokesay, has a similar writ against Hugh fitz Ranulf, and others, for a tenement in Neuton. At the Assizes of 1272, Alice, Widow of William le Moneur of Ludlow, claiming a messuage and half-virgate in Wedlington, as her marriage portion, against John le Forester and Richard Hok, was non-suited. [42]

In Easter Term 1289, Walter Pyrun de la Pole, and Margery his wife, Impedients, acknowledge by fine their gift of a virgate in Wetlynton to Laurence de Ludlow, Plaintiff, to hold to him and his heirs under Walter and Margery, and the heirs of Margery, at a rose-rent, and by performance of capital services. For this Laurence gave a sore sparrow-hawk.

HAUGHMOND ABBEY FEE.- The interests of Haughmond Abbey, in Stokesay, Wettleton, and Newton, require some notice beyond that which has already been taken as illustrating the descent of the House of Say. Some Tenant of the Says at Newton, styling himself "William Lord of Newton", gave to the pittance of the Canons of Haughmond for 24s. paid, and at a rent of one penny, three and a half acres in the fields of Newton. Witnesses,- Roger Wixi, Roger de Dodemoneston, Luke de Weho, Ranulf de Stoke. [43]

Two somewhat later Deeds indicate Newton to be then held by Cadets of the family of Say.- Hugh, son of Hugh de Say, of Neuton, gives to Haughmond one acre of 2 seilions in Neuton. Witnesses,- Roger de Sibeton, Luke de Neuton.

Hugh de Say, of Neuton (probably the same Grantor), gives to the Abbey half an acre of land, and one of meadow in the meadow between Haneford Bridge and the Abbey's Grange. Same witnesses.
[44] In April 1279 Hugh de Say, of Neuton, gives the Abbot 5 acres in exchange for 2 acres and 8 Seilions in Newton. Witnesses,- Luke de Routon, Hugh Rondolf, Nicholas de Neuton.

The Abbot also exchanges land with Roger, son of Roger Wixi, of Neuton. Hiis testibus: Domino A. Vicario de Stoke, Luca de Weho. [45]

In 1291 the Abbot of Haughmond's income from Stokesay is said to be 10s. for the Mill, and 6s. 8d. for certain land called Calut. [46]

[42] Assizes, 56 Hen. III, m. 7.
[43] [44] [45] Chartulary, ut supra. The last Deed passed before 1277:- but I find Luke de Wehou on a Ludlow Inquest in 1299.
[46] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 163.


The Valor of 1535-6 gives the Abbot 7. 13s. 8d. of assized Rents in Newton juxta Stokesay, [47] but this estimate probably included all the Abbot's receipts from Aldon, Culmington, and Siefton. The Ministers' Accounts of 1541-2 specify the following rents and ferms of the Abbey, viz. Stokesay, 16s. 8d., Weltylton, 5s. 8d., Newton, 1s., 17s., and 1s. 6d. [48]


No Church is mentioned as existing here at the time of Domesday, but that which then existed at Aldon was, as I suppose, removed to Stokesay soon afterwards, the latter becoming the most important place in the Parish. When Walter de Lacy endowed St. Peter's of Hereford, before Domesday, with two-thirds of the tithes of Stoke, tithes of his demesne must be understood. St. Peter's of Hereford was in 1101 subjected by Hugh de Lacy to Gloucester Abbey. Again, in Henry II's reign, Bromfield Priory was subjected to the same Abbey. Hence a small pension, which was, I suppose, originally receivable from Stoke Say Church in lieu of the tithes granted to St. Peter's of Hereford, seems to have been subsequently payable to Gloucester Abbey, and then by appointment of that House to Bromfield Priory. Hugh de Lacy, the Founder of Lanthony in Monmouthshire, seems also to have granted some tithes at Stokesay to that Abbey, which grant likewise came to be represented by a pension. Again, at some period whereof, in the middle of the thirteenth century, memory was not, some Lord of Stokesay granted part of the demesne tithes of Stokesay to Wenlock Priory. This right of the Priory was likewise commuted for a pension.

Hugh de Say's grant of the Church of "St. John of Suthestokes" to Haughmond Abbey has been already mentioned. It certainly passed between the years 1172 and 1181, and probably early in the interval. It was tested by Marescot, Master David Wal, and Gilbert Deacon of Fernlege in the Peak. Hugh de Lacy's confirmation seems to have been cotemporary. It speaks of the Church as dedicated to St. John the Baptist. It reserves the Grantor's right, as Suzerain I suppose. It is tested by Osbert fitz Hugh and William son of William fitz Alan. This grant of Stokesay Church was testified by the cotemporary Bishop of Hereford,

[47] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 192.
[48] Monasticon, VI, 113, 114.


Robert Foliot I presume, [49] consecrated Oct. 6, 1174. It was confirmed by his four Successors, William de Vere, Giles de Braose, Hugh de Mapenore, and Hugh Foliot. Richard, Abbot of Haughmond, obtained for it the sanction of Baldwin, Archbishop of Canterbury, whose deed must have passed in 1186-7, being attested by Reyner, Bishop of St. Asaph, Ralph, Abbot of Shrewsbury, Ralph, Abbot of Buildwas, and Walter, Abbot of Lilleshull. Lastly it was confirmed by Pope Honorius III on Sept. 25, 1223. [50]

Which of the Bishops of Hereford first granted to Haughmond the Appropriation of Stokesay Church I cannot say. Such Appropriation was certainly earlier than 1248; for on September 29th in that year some disputes between the Prior of Wenlock and Abbot of Haughmond were settled by a Composition, of which the substance was as follows. Certain Tithes were in dispute, viz. two garbs (per acre I suppose) on the whole demesne of Suthstok de Say. These the Prior had collected from time immemorial; but now the Abbot, having obtained an appropriation of the Church, covenants to pay the Prior 24s. per annum in lieu of the said tithes and in the name of a perpetual ferm. [51]

The Haughmond Chartulary supplies an instance of the mode in which Impropriate Rectors dealt with the Glebe of their Churches. The Abbot demises to Sibil, widow of Roger fitz Walter, for her life, half a virgate in Stokesay which belonged to the Church, and which Ancharet previously held: the rent to be 4s.

On April 27, 1290, the Church of Stoke de Say was visited by Bishop Swinfield; Master Richard de Heyton, already mentioned more than once, provided hay for the horses of the Bishop's suit. The Lord Abbot of Haughmond found the corn. [52]

In 1292 the Abbot of Haughmond's Church of Stokesay, in the Deanery of Ludlow, that is the Rectory thereof, was valued at 8. per annum. The Prior of Wenlock's Portion of 1. 4s., the Prior of Bromfield's of 8s. 4d., the Prior of Lanthony's of 6s. 8d., were over and above the Rectorial value: the Vicarage, or Vicar's portion, was 4. 6s. 8d. [53] In 1341 the Assessors of the Ninth very erroneously quoted the Church-Taxation of Stokesay as 12 merks (8.) instead of 14. 5s. 8d. They further reduced this false Taxation

[49] The Chartulary calls this Bishop, Richard. The name was probably represented by the initial R. in the original Charter.
[50] Chartulary ut supra.
[51] Register of Wenlock, in Lord Forester's possession, fo. 34.
[52] Household Roll, pp. 78, f, and clxxxix.
[53] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 166.


of 8. to an assessment of 3. on the Parish, for its Ninth of wheat, wool, and lamb, on these grounds;- because the Glebe, included in the Church-Taxation, was worth five merks per annum, because 6 virgates in the Parish lay untitled, because the hay-tithes (value 40s.), small tithes, Oblata, and other profits included in the Taxation, could not be regarded as affecting the Ninth. [54] The whole of the last reason for diminution was, we may observe, false. These items were not included in the Church-Taxation of 8. which the Commissioners adopted. The reason of this fraud perhaps lies in the fact that the Abbot of Haughmond himself presided over the Inquests which determined the amount of these assessments.

On April 9, 1458, a second dispute about tithes between the Prior of Wenlock and Abbot of Haughmond was settled by mediation of William Burley of Bromcroft. The Prior's pension was reduced to 9s., and some arrears (3. 6s. 8d.) were paid. [55]

In 1534-5 Roger Williamson's preferment as Vicar of Stokesay was valued at 4. 8s. 4d. in tithes. Procurations and Synodals of 7s. 8d. were chargeable thereon, and the Fee of 2. 13s. 3d., due triennially at the Bishop's Visitation, was equal to a further annual charge of 17s. 9d. [56]

The Abbot of Haughmond's return of his Spiritualities in 1535-6 does not include this Rectory, but why I cannot understand; for Roger Wylleston (the Incumbent who is called "Williamson" in the Valor) had been presented by the Abbot on March 26, 1530. Also after his death and on May 8, 1543, Roger Haywarde and John Wydder (two of the Grantees of the dissolved Abbey's estates) presented to Stoke-Say Church. [57] The Valor of 1535-6, I should observe, makes no mention of the pensions anciently chargeable on this Church.


MASTER ADAM, Rector of Stoke, is mentioned as occurring between 1200 and 1216, and again between 1219 and 1234. [58] If so, we nearly get the date of Appropriation, for-

ADAM, Vicar of Stoke, attests a Charter of Walter de Say above quoted, and which probably passed about 1250. [59]

[54] Inquis. Nonarum, 188, 182, a.
[55] Chartulary ut supra.
[56] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 202.
[57] The Ministers' Accounts of 1641-2 reckon the following item among the Assets of the dissolved Abbey, viz. Newton,- Firma Recturiae, 4. 13s. 4d. This I take to be the Ferm of the Rectorial tithes of Stokesay (Monasticon, VI, 114).
[58] Blakeway.
[59] This Vicar had some dispute with Haughmond Abbey about land in Stoke Say (Chartulary: Tit. Stoke Say).


SIR WALTER DE ASTELEYE, Chaplain, was instituted to this Vicarage, March 17, 1277.

WILLIAM DE GRONORBARWE, Priest, was instituted May 22, 1312, on presentation of the Abbot and Convent of Haughmond. As William Grenebawe, Perpetual Vicar of Stoke Say, he occurs in October 1330. On April 18, 1346, Sir Nicholas de Cardynton is appointed Coadjutor to Sir William, Vicar of Stoke Say. After the said William's death and on Aug. 24, 1350-

SIR EDMUND DE TONELEYE, Priest, was instituted at presentation of the Abbot and Convent of Haughmond.

SIR WILLIAM LAUMPREY was instituted Aug. 22, 1369, on like presentation.

SIR WILLIAM DE GRENEBURG occurs as Perpetual Vicar here about 1377.


FROM the Manors held by Roger de Lacy in capite at Domesday, we pass to those which he held of Earl Roger de Montgomery. Of Corfton Domesday says:- "The same Roger holds Cortune (of the Earl), and Herbert holds it of him. Alsi held it (in Saxon times). Here are III hides geldable. In demesne are II ox-teams, and there are IIII Neat-herds, and IIII Villains, and I Boor, with II Teams, and other two Teams there might be. Here is a Haye for taking kids. The value of the Manor (in Saxon times) was 16s. Now it is worth 12s. per annum". [1]

The Saxon Alsi I identify with AElsi, Saxon Lord of Middlehope, and with Elsi, Saxon Lord of Charlcott. [2] Herbert, Lacy's Domesday Tenant at Corfton, also held Patton, Long-Stanton, and Middlehope, under the same Baron. I have intimated an opinion that this Herbert was the Ancestor of De Furchis. [3] The following circumstances almost prove the fact. We can trace a subsequent Tenant-interest of De Furchis in Patton, Corfton, and Middlehope, though we lose it in the anomalous case of Long Stanton. But the Herefordshire Domesday best settles this question of descent. There

[1] Domesday, fo. 256, b. 2.
[2] Supra, Vol. I, p. 152.
[3] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 52, note 4.


we find Herbert holding a hide and half in Bodeham under Roger de Lacy; [4] and in 1243 we find that William de Furchis held a hide in Bodeham of Lacy's Barony, Isabella de Furchis then having the same in dower. [5] When distant Manors thus appear in the same name or family after the lapse of a century and half, we naturally conclude that the later Lords are descendants of the earlier. The Successor, probably the son, of Herbert seems to have been William de Furcis. He has occurred to us as attending a great Synod at Castle Holgate about 1115, [6] and his Grandson, another William de Furcis, spoke of him as we have seen [7] in 1205 as having in 1135 been seized of the Manor of Oxenbold. Herbert de Furcis, who has occurred to us about 1160 in connection with Patton, [8] I take to have been son of William, and Grandson of Herbert. He had apparently a son William, of whom we hear from 1165 to 1208. In the former year Hugh de Lacy, making a return of the Tenants of his Barony, enters William de Furcis as holding two knights'-fees of old feoffment, whilst a third fee was matter of litigation (in calumpnia); [9] that is, it was a question whether De Furchis held his lands under Lacy by service of two or of three knights'-fees. In Easter Term 1200 we have William de Furcis as a Knight and Juror of a Grand Assize, which I have mentioned under Nordley Regis. From 1204 to 1208 we have seen him disputing the Manor of Oxenbold with Robert de Girros; his claim being as Grandson and heir of William de Furcis who lived in 1135. [10] The Assize-Roll of November 1221 proves the previous succession of a third William de Furcis, son and heir of the second William. The case was this,- Juliana de Corfton (whose son Nicholas was her Attorney) had a suit about lands, unspecified, against Adam de Ludelawe and his wife Emma. [11] This Emma appears elsewhere on the same Roll as Emma fitz Richard, and as seeking by process of law to compel William de Furche to appear in warranty of a virgate in Corfton, which she claimed to hold under him, and whereof she had the Charter of William de Furche, his Father. William de Furchis, the expected Warrantor, did not appear, and an attachment issued against him for the morrow of St. Hilary at Warwick. The same time and place were fixed for the appearance, by her Attorney, of Juliana, widow of Roger the Provost, who was suing Emma for the premises,

[4] Domesday, fo. 184, a, 1.
[5] Testa de Nevill, p. 64, b.
[6] Supra, Vol. III, p. 234.
[7] [8] Supra, Vol. IV, pp. 21, 43.
[9] Liber Niger, I, 154.
[10] Supra, Vol. IV, pp. 20-22.
[11] Assizes, 6 Hen. III, m. 3 dorso, and 8 recto.


and who therefore was identical with Juliana de Corfton. A marginal note on the Roll intimates some objection to Emma fitz Richard's suing singly, for it says that she "has a husband": [12] Adam de Ludelawe of course is meant. On the morrow of St. Hilary, at Warwick, the Plea-Roll gives Susanna, widow of Roger the Provost, suing Adam * * * and Emma his wife for half a virgate in Corfton, and the Defendants calling William, son of William de Furchis, to warranty. [13] The result does not appear. At these same Shropshire Assizes William de Furchis and Isabella his wife duly appeared in some suit, apparently relating to lands in Herefordshire, against Roger Pichard. The latter essoigned himself. [14]

In or about 1240 we have William de Furchis as holding one Knight's-fee in Corfton under Walter de Lacy. [15] In January 1248 he seems to have been dead; for Isabella de Furches, clearly his widow, held part of Bodenham (Herefordshire) in dower under William de Furchis, [16] that is, under her son, I presume, viz. William de Furchis (IV). Cotemporary with William de Furchis (III) was Roger de Furchis. He occurs in 1221 and 1226, and was perhaps William's brother.

William de Furchis (IV) appears in November 1248 as being called to warrant 4 acres in Corfton to Hugh de Ernewode. This he did, but forthwith conveyed the premises by Fine to Petronilla de Culmynton, who claimed them. Petronilla was to hold them of William de Furchis at a rent of 12d., and she paid 20s. down. This Fine I take to have been a technical mode of transferring a tenancy. William de Furchis occurs again in March 1249, under circumstances before noticed. [17]

In 1250 the Arrentation of Forest-land by Geoffrey de Langley assessed Isabella de Furcis at 6d. for half an acre in Crofton. [18]

The Munslow Inquisition of 1255 duly presents William de Furches, who was one of the Jury, as holding Corfton of the heir of Walter de Lacy. The Manor was estimated at two hides (instead of the three hides of Domesday) and paid 2s. stretward and motfee. It did suit to both County and Hundred. [19] Cotemporary mention of William de Furchis, as owing ward at Montgomery Castle, was probably

[12] Assizes, 6 Hen. III, m. 3 dorso, and 6 recto.
[13] Warwick Assizes, 6 Hen. III, m. 1 dorso.
[14] Salop Anises, 6 Hen. III, m. 5.
[15] Testa de Nevill, pp. 45, 50.
[16] Ibidem, p. 64, b.
[17] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 5.
[18] Rot. Pip. 38 Hen. III.
[19] Rot. Hundred. II, 70. This discrepancy of hidage may be partly accounted for. Half a hide in Corfton, not noticed in the Hundred Roll, belonged to the Church of Diddlebury.


in respect of the sometime interest of his Ancestors in Patton
[20] He was still, as we shall see, Mesne-Lord of Middlehope. At the Assizes of January 1256 Sir William de Furcis acted as a Juror of Grand Assize. He was also in office as one of the four Coroners of Shropshire. In July 1256, a writ of mort d'ancestre for lands in Corfton, Diddlebury, Parva Sutton, and Magna Camberson, was had against William de Furchis by Nicholas son of John de Kentewell. By Charter, dated at Hereford on August 3, 1256, King Henry III. granted to his faithful and beloved servant (ministro) William de Furch, that for the rest of his life he should not be put on any Assize, Jury, or Recognition, nor be made Sheriff, Coroner, Escheator, Verderer, Forester, Agistator, Regarder, or in any other way Bailiff to the King, against his will. [21] Yet in 1257 William de Furchis was one of a jury of twelve which had been amerced 40s. for some misdemeanour. In 1259 he had been individually amerced five merks for some non-appearance. This affair was probably of some standing, as he had paid half the debt to Philip de Pres, Receiver of Robert de Grendon, whose Shrievalty ceased in October 1255. In 1267 I find Sir William de Furches attesting two instruments whereby Sir Henry de Pembruge affected to secure to Roger de Mortimer the Manor of Pembruge, [22] which affair I have narrated under Tong. The Feodary of 1284 gives Walter de Cokesaye as holding the Vill of Corfton under Peter de Genevill. [23] This Walter de Cokesaye I have before mentioned as a Clerk. [24] His tenure of Corfton was perhaps in trust, for certain it is that Robert Burnell, Bishop of Bath and Wells, died in 1292, seized of Corfton and holding it of Peter de Genevill's heir. His tenure was by service of one knight's-fee and by doing suit-of-court at Ludlow. The Capital messuage and demesne lands of Corfton were valued at 34s. per annum, a wood there at 6s.;- the rents of free tenants were 4. 14s. 11d., of Customary Tenants 8s. 6d. The pleas and perquisites of the Manor Court were 2s. Total 7. 5s. 5d. [25]

I cannot conclude my account of the head branch of the family of De Furcis without observing that its interests in Middlehope and Patton, and not only in Corfton, went to the Burnells. In Herefordshire however its estates passed with an heir female to the Warwickshire family of Lucy of Charlecote, an ancestor of whom, Sir William, had on August 1, 1234, been appointed Steward of Ludlow

[20] Vide supra, Vol. IV, pp. 43, 45.
[21] Forest Roll, No. IV, Salop.
[22] Liber Niger de Wigmore, fo. 95.
[23] Kirby's Quest.
[24] Supra, Vol. I, pp. 335-6.
[25] Inquisitions, 21 Edw. I, No. 50.


Castle by Walter de Lacy. About the Christian name of the heiress of De Furchis, as well as that of her Father, Authors differ so widely that I am content to leave to a note an investigation which belongs properly to the history of another County. [26]

I now return to speak of Roger de Furchis, presumed to have been brother of William de Furchis (III). At the Assizes of November 1221, this Roger occurs as Surety of Howel fitz Adam, whom I shall speak of under Lawton. Also at these Assizes Roger de Furchis withdrew his suit against William fitz Warin for common pasture in Corfton. His Sureties were Richard fitz Cufi, Gerard the Beadle, and Walter fitz Baldwin. In 1226 he was on a great Jury, about the Forest of Stiperstones. In 1257 he had been succeeded by a son Robert, who on July 29, calling himself Robert son of Roger de Furches, had a writ of mort d'ancestre against Thomas de Grete and others for a tenement in Diddlebury, and who in August of the same year has a writ of novel disseizin against William de

[26] Compare Dugdale's Warwickshire (Thomas), pp. 502, 503, and Duncumb's Herefordshire, II, 34.

Dugdale's statements on this subject are so apparently probable in themselves, and yet so utterly irreconcilable with the descent of De Furchis as implied in the text, that I must needs give both stories, though I freely confess that the result is only a complex difficulty.-

Walter de Hereford, Constable of England, was living at Michaelmas 1159. He was deceased soon afterwards, and was succeeded by his Brother Henry, who was probably dead in 1163, certainly so in 1165.

Between 1160 and 1165 we may safely date a Deed (transcribed by Dugdale,- MS. K. p. 22) whereby Hanricus de Hereford, Constable of the King, gives to William de Furgis, in fee, 10 librates of land, viz. Kingestun, for the service of half a knight's-fee. Other conditions follow, not very intelligible in themselves, but implying that if this feoffment should ever be increased to 20 librates of land, the Feoffee should owe the service of a whole Knight's-fee, and also shewing that William de Furgis claimed some other inheritance which in case of his success would make him the Liege of some other Lord. The Deed seems to have passed at Brecknock, and was attested by the Grantor's wife Isabel.

So far a comparison of dates will not prevent our assuming that this William de Furgis was identical with William who succeeded Herbert de Furchis as De Lacy's Tenant, between 1160 and 1165.

Dugdale tells us nothing of any intermediate generations of this family till he comes to Amicia, daughter and heir of William de Furchis, heir also of William fitz Warin, and wife of William, son of William de Lucy of Charlcote. Dugdale derived this information from a Deed which he had seen at Charlcote, and a transcript of which remains among his MSS. It runs thus:- "William fitz Warin grants to William de Luscy, son and heir of William de Luscy, Amicia his (William fitz Warin's) heir, and daughter and heir of William de Furches, for his wife, with all her inheritance and all lands which can accrue to her. He (Fitz Warin) undertakes that when William de Lucy, the Father, shall please, he (Fitz Warin) will go, with the counsel of the said William de Lucy, to the lands of Amicia, viz. her lands at Corftun and Kingestun, and will give William de Luscy (Junior) and Amice, seizin thereof. Witnesses,- Sir Henry de Trasey, Sir Henry de Trublevil, Sir William de Hodenet, Sir Philip de Fifhyd, Master Nicholas de Neuport, Thomas de Neuport, John Walensis, Stephen de Luscy, Hugh de Portes, Walter de Swyneford", and others. The Deed was sealed with a difference of the well-known arms of the Shropshire Fitz Warins, viz. with arms,- Quarterly, per fesse indented, Gules and Argent.

Dugdale (History of Warwickshire, pp. 502-8) intimates that William de Lucy Senior, named in this Deed, was he who died about 1248, that he had a wealthy brother Stephen who died in or before 1233. I know from other sources (Testa de Nevill, p. 71, a), that William Fitz Warin, Sheriff of Herefordshire from Sept. 18, 1282 to 1234, died before 1240. This Deed then passed before 1240, probably before 1233, and there is nothing in the names of its other witnesses to contradict such an assumption. Possibly also it accounts for the appointment of William de Lucy as Seneschal of Walter de Lacy in 1234.

But then comes the question,- How if the line of De Furchis had ended in a female heir before 1240, how is it that we find William de Furchis holding a knight's-fee in Kingestun in 1243, under the Earl of Hereford (Testa de Nevill)? How too is it that we find still later notices of Corfton, etc., being held by the male line of De Furcis, as stated in the text? These are questions which I cannot answer; for to suppose that the above Deed falsely asserts Amicia's heirship is to tamper with direct evidence. Moreover the marriage with this heiress has been a standing tradition in the House of Lucy, a tradition supported strongly by the simple fact of these Deeds being in possession of the Lucys, and by the further fact of which Duncumb (Vol. II, p. 34) assures us, viz. that Bodenham Furches continued in the family till the reign of Elizabeth. Duncumb indeed ascribes the marriage of a Lucy with the heiress of De Furchis, to a much later period; but then that later marriage does not account for the above Deed of the thirteenth century.

Copy of Charter in possession of Sidney Steadman Smith, Esq., of Bridgnorth.


Curly for a tenement in Corfton. For these writs Robert de Furchis is charged 1 merk, and half a merk, on the Pipe Rolls of 1257 and 1258 respectively. The Pipe Roll of 1259 informs us of the result in each case; for Robert son of Roger de Furchis stands amerced 40d. for false claim, and William de Curly a like sum for disseizin. This Robert de Furchis was occasionally styled of Aston, and his Father Roger, of Diddlebury. This appears from a deed whereby, about 1250-60, "John Hortwall, son of Adam de Hortwall, grants to Robert de Firches of Aston, son of Roger de Firches of Diddlebury, a messuage and half-virgate in the vill of Aston, which Herbert de la Hull formerly held of the Grantor;- this for a sum of 3 merks now paid. Witnesses,- John de Wigeley, Thomas de Stoke, Thomas Clerk of Munslow, John fitz Robert of Munslow, John de Aston, Henry de Hernewood, Roger de Hordeslee". [27] One of the sons of Robert de Furchis was Richard de Furchis, against whom, in August 1266, Simon de la Hethe has a writ of mort d'ancestre for a messuage and half a virgate in Corftou. The case was tried


at Shrewsbury, in August 1267, Simon de la Hethe alleging that his father Herbert had died seized thereof. Richard de Furches, as tenant, called his elder brother Henry to warranty, he being heir of their father Robert, and therefore bound to uphold a Charter by which the said Robert had given to his son Richard of Diddlebury (the present Defendant) half a virgate in Corfton for his life. Simon rejoined that Robert de Furchis did not die seized of the premises, since he had given them to Simon himself by a Charter which he (Simon) now produced. The cause was adjourned till the full age of Henry de Furchis; [28] but I may observe that Simon de la Hethe's plea, grounded on a grant to himself, seems inconsistent with the plea of heirship necessarily implied by every suit of mort d'ancestre. Henry de Furchis occurs somewhat later, in the following series of Deeds, from the first of which I infer that his mother, Christiana, was an heiress in Aston.- Robert de Aston, with assent of Christiana his wife, grants to Henry de Forches that messuage and half- virgate in Aston which Henry's father had held and which Christiana, Henry's Mother, had granted to him (Robert) in fee. He also grants to the same, 4 shillings rent arising from a messuage and half-virgate in the town and fields of Corfton, which were held under him (Robert) by Richard Russell. Witnesses,- William L'Enfant, of Dudelbury, Richard de Pautheloe, of Dudelbury, William in-the-Hole, Clerk of Munsloe, John de Wiggeleye in Aston, Thomas de Stoke in Aston, William son of William de Corfton, Roger Wallings of Munslow.

Henry de Furches occurs on two Corfham Juries in 1299.

By a deed dated at Diddlebury, and which probably passed in September 1306, John son [29] of Richard Purcil of Corfton, grants, for 20 merks, to Henry de Furches of Aston, half a virgate in the field of Corfton, with a messuage formerly held by Herbert de la Lythe. Witnesses,- Elyas de Sutton, Richard L'Enfant, John de Wiggele, Thomas Scrymote of Aston, Giles de Toggeford.

In March 1308 Henry le Firches grants to his daughter Alice a virgate of his demesne of Corfton, and half a virgate late belonging to Joan, daughter of Richard Purcel. Witnesses,- Richard L'Enfant, Henry son of Henry de Corfton, John de Wiggele, Roger Wallings of Munsloe, Thomas Scrimote of Aston, William son of William de Aston, John de Muddele.

In March 1334 William Stedemon of Corfton grants to Hugh

[28] Placita, 61 Hen. III, m. 7 dorso.
[29] I suspect that the words of the transcript, viz. Johannes filius should be Johanna filia.


de Preston a messuage in the vill of Corfton and 4 acres in the fields of Corfton. Witnesses,- Richard L'Enfant of Dudulburi, William L'Enfant, Roger de Longenorle, Roger Lemmon, John L'Enfant. [30]

Some further notices of Corfton refer to other Undertenants in the Manor. We have William de Corfton as Essoignor of William de Furchis in October 1205. In January 1256, Alice, Wife of Roger le Wayn, and Aldith her sister, as sisters and heirs of Stephen, son of Osbern le Harpur, sued Ingerich Spigh and Johanna de Corfton for 10 acres in Corfton, but the latter were shown not to be tenants-in-common (non tenere communatim), so the case failed for want of form; but the Plaintiffs were allowed to amend their mode of procedure. [31] At the same Assizes Alice fitz Simon withdrew her suit of novel disseizin against Roger le Chapelain and others for a tenement in Corfton. [32] On May 28, 1256, Roger de Diddlebury has a writ of novel disseizin against William Parson of Diddlebury, for tenements and lands in Diddlebury, Corfton, and Northon. On June 19, 1259, William de Corfton has a like Writ against Adam le Bedel for a tenement in Corfton; for which Writ the cotemporary Pipe-Roll charges him half a merk. In September 1263 William son of Henry le Mouner has a Writ of mort d'ancestre against Peter son of Robert le Mouner for a tenement in Crofton.

THE CHAPEL, sometime existent here, must be taken to have been a mere Dependency of the Church of Diddlebury.


THIS place, like Corfton, is now a township in the Parish of Diddlebury, but was at Domesday a Manor in itself.- "Roger de Laci holds Mildehope (of the Earl of Shrewsbury), and Herbert holds it of him. AElsi held it (in Saxon times). Here is one hide geldable. In demesne are II ox-teams, and (there are) IIII Serfs, II Villains, IIII Boors, and I Radman, with II teams. In King Edward's

[30] These Deeds or transcripts are all in the possession of Sidney Steadman Smith, Esq., of Bridgnorth.
[31] [32] Assizes, 56 Hen. III, m. 7 and 5.


time the Manor was worth 7s. (per annum); afterwards it was worth 2s., now it is worth 20s". [1]

Of AElsi the Saxon, and of Herbert the presumed Ancestor of De Furchis, I have spoken under Corfton. William de Middelhope seems to have been the chief Feoffee of De Furchis in this Manor very early in the thirteenth century. There was also one William de Stanton, [2] a Tenant of about a third of the Manor, but who seems to have conveyed his share to the said William de Middelhope. At the Assizes of October 1203, William de Middelhope appears as a Juror of causes tried by Grand Assize, and as one of the Coroners of Shropshire. He was probably a Knight. In Michaelmas Term 1204, he is named as a Visor who had to investigate the validity of an essoign de malo lecti, Warner de Wililey being Essoignee. Michaelmas Term 1205, he was Attorney for Robert de Girros in the Suit noticed under Oxenbold. At the Forest Assizes of March 1209 he was assessed in two distinct Regards of the Long Forest, being called in one "Lord of Middelhope", in the other "William de Middelhope". Between this year and 1215 William Middelhope, and Richard, his son, attest a Charter to Buildwas Abbey, which I shall set forth under Leighton. In or about 1215 we have already had an attestation by Richard de Middlehope, [3] indicating his previous succession to his Father William. In November 1221 Richard de Middelhope occurs as Surety of Howel fitz Adam. On October 2, 1224, a King's Writ exonerates him from serving on any Juries, etc., in consideration of his office as a Verderer of the Forest. [4] In August 1226 he occurs however on a Great Jury, which had to investigate several matters relating to Stiperstones Forest. On Nov. 2, 1234, he was appointed a Justice to deliver Shrewsbury Gaol; again in October 1237, a Justice to try several civil suits in Shropshire, and also to deliver the Gaols of Shrewsbury and Brug. On July 14, 1241, he was, with three others, once more appointed to try a civil suit, and to deliver Shrewsbury Gaol. In January 1246 he was Foreman of a Jury which was to investigate the Forest-rights of Thomas Corbet of Caus. The latest notices which I have of him are in 1248, on an Inquest concerning Wythiford Mill;- in March 1250, when, in virtue, I suppose, of his Office as Verderer, he is

[1] Domesday, fo. 256, b, 1.
[2] I think that this William de Stanton may have been identical with a person of the same name who has been mentioned under Lutwyche as occurring about 1250. If so, he was perhaps also identical with the person called William fitz Robert of Lutwych (vide Vol. IV, pp. 114, 115).
[3] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 33.
[4] Claus. I, 623.


stated to have given some information which was used in the Forest arrentations of Geoffrey de Langley;- and in 1251 when he is said to have granted to Ludlow Hospital half a virgate in Corfham, of 4s. annual value. [5] His wife was Avicia, daughter of Thomas fitz Odo, and sister of Thomas de Chabbenour, as I have stated under Higley.

In one of his numerous attestations of Charters, Richard de Middelhope is followed by Roger de Middelhope. [6] Their relationship was perhaps that of Father and Son; but the eldest son, and successor of Richard, was William de Middelhope, whom the Munslow Inquest of 1255 registers as then holding Midelhope of William de Furcis for a hide of land. William de Furcis did suit for the Manor to both County and Hundred, from which suits his Tenant was therefore exempted. The latter however paid the annual sum of 1s.,- the Stretward and Motfee chargeable on the Manor. [7] At the Assizes of January 1256 William de Middelhope makes his brother Roger his Attorney in a suit against Master William de Roe.

A Patent of May 20, 1259, appoints certain Justices to inquire whether William son of Richard de Middelhope had slain his Brother Thomas accidentally or not. A second Patent of July 20, 1259, relinquishes, as far as the King is concerned, all prosecution of William son of Richard de Middelhope, who had slain his Brother Thomas by accident. At the Forest Assizes of February 1262 one Herbert de Middelhop stands on the list entitled Essonia Mortis, and one Reginald de Middelhop was amerced 12d. for Vert. I cannot say how these persons were related to William de Middelhope. He seems to have died about this time, and was succeeded by a son William. To the latter, called "William son of William de Middelhope", a Patent of March 4, 1264, grants leave to hunt throughout the King's Forests in Shropshire. Richard son of William de Middelhope, on April 27, 1266, has a Writ of novel disseizin concerning a tenement in Middelhope against William de Middelhope; that is, I presume, against his elder brother. In 1267 one Thomas de Middelhope, perhaps another brother of William, was Surety for a party suing for lands at Munslow. The same Thomas, as Under-Bailiff to Thomas de Grete, Bailiff of Munslow Hundred, was charged at the Liquisitions of November 1274 with

[5] Rot. Hundred. II, 65.
[6] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 34, note 8.
[7] Rot. Hundred. II, 71.


corrupt practices. [8] Thomas de Midelhope too, with Geoffrey his brother, having been in the service of Hugh Dovile, Constable of Brug Castle, were accused of extortionate conduct. [9]

Meanwhile, at the Assizes of 1272, William de Middelhope, Lord of this Manor, sat as a Juror for Munslow Hundred. He was sued for a third part of the Manor (saving half a virgate) by Robert son of William de Stanton, who alleged that the said William de Stanton his Father had merely demised the premises, for a term of ten years now expired, to William de Middelhope, Great-Grandfather of the present Defendant. The Defendant however got judgment by producing the Charter whereby William de Stanton had enfeoffed his Great-Grandfather. [10] This Suit very satisfactorily confirms the succession of the four first Lords of Middlehope as deduced from other evidence.

On the Munslow Inquisition of November 1274 William de Midelhop sat as third Juror. A matter personal to himself was reported. He, as Lord of Midelhope, had agreed with another for the purchase of some land. Each party covenanted by a writing to pay a penalty of 40 merks to Sir Roger de Mortimer if he did not fulfil his part of the agreement. Afterwards by the advice of mutual friends, it was determined to cancel the said agreement. However, the penal bond was not destroyed, but remained in custody of G. Andreu, from whom it was extorted by John de Blechedon and Geoffrey de Venur, two of Mortimer's Bailiffs. The latter forthwith distrained William de Middelhope on the ground of this Bond, alleging that he had acted contrary to it. They actually got from him 22 merks. [11]

In Michaelmas Term 1278 some Law-proceedings seem to have resulted in the following judgment, viz. that William de Middlehope held the Manor of Middlehope under William de Furchis. [12] On May 12, 1284, Sir William de Middelhope sat second Juror on an Inquest about the Woods of Idshale; [13] and at the Assizes of October 1292 he was one of the two Munslow Jurors who selected their ten associates. Like Corfton the seigneural interest of De Furcis at Middlehope had at this time passed to Robert Burnell, Bishop of Bath and Wells. The Inquest on that Prelate's death does not allude to this acquisition; but at the Shrewsbury Assizes of 1292 the King sued William de Middelhope for this Manor

[8] [9] Rot. Hundred. 11,101, 110.
[10] Assizes, 56 Hen. III, memb. 1 dorso.
[11] Rot. Hundred. 11, 101.
[12] Abbrev. Placitorum, p. 195.
[13] Inquisitions, 12 Edw. I, No. 84.


under Writ-of-Right, alleging that William de Middelhope, the Defendant's Father, had held the same of King Henry III by half a Knight's-fee, and that such service had been already legally required from the Defendant and refused. The King now therefore sued for the Manor itself, to hold in demesne. William de Middelhope left it to a Jury to say whose right was the best: whether the King's,- to hold the Manor as he required it, or William's,- to hold it by one-third of a knight's-fee under Philip Burnel as kinsman of Bishop Burnel. The Jury found for the Defendant, [14] and indeed it is difficult to imagine any possible pretext for this claim of the Crown. William de Middelhope was himself on a Jury which tried certain others of these causes of Quo Waranto.

The Inquest on the death of Philip Burnel, taken in May 1295, values William de Midelhope's lands in Midelhope at 8. 0s. 2d. per annum, but states him to have held them of the deceased by service of three fourths of a Knight's-fee. [15]

Onibury. THE Domesday account of this Manor must be taken to include Walton. The Bishop of Hereford was the Lord Paramount, and it was his only Manor in Culvestan Hundred. Domesday says,- "The same Bishop held Aneberie in King Edward's time, and now Roger de Laci holds it of the Bishop. Here are III hides geldable. In demesne there is one ox-team, and there IIII Villains in gross (Villani integri), and VI Semi-Villains (Dimidii), and a Priest and one Cottar (Cozet) with III teams. Here is I Serf. Here one Knight holds a hide, and has an ox-team and V Villains. In King Edward's time there were in this Manor IX ox-teams, and it was worth 40s. annually. Now it is worth 20s". [1]

We hear something further of Onibury at a period very shortly after Domesday; for Roger de Lacy, who was banished in 1195, gave the tithes of Aneberie to Shrewsbury Abbey. King Henry I's Charter, confirmatory of this and other grants to the Abbey,

[14] Placita de Quo Waranto, p. 680.
[15] Inquisitions, 22 Edw. I, No. 45, d.
[1] Domesday, fo. 262, a, 2.


mentions it in each a sequence as to leave it supposable that Roger de Lacy's offering was on the day of Earl Roger's burial; [2] that is, in July 1093 or 1094. Such a mark of deference to the name of his deceased Suzerain and political Ally will appear more probable from certain remarks which I shall have to offer under Ludlow. The return made in 1165-6 of the Knights'-fees held under the See of Hereford states, that during the whole time of Gilbert Foliot, the late Bishop, that is from Sept. 5, 1148, to March 24, 1163, Hugh de Lacy had held and performed the service due upon two knights'-fees, but that then (1165-6) he denied all service on one of the said fees. [3] Now passing the question whether Hugh de Lacy had been in possession for so long a period as is here described, and passing also another assertion of the Bishop; viz. that these two fees ought to be of the Bishop's demesne (which I do not understand), I proceed to say that Lacy's tenure under the See of Hereford continued to be a single knight's-fee; and that John Cumin, Custos of the vacant See in 1168, answering for the Scutage then collected, leaves the sum of 1 merk, due on one of Lacy's fees, unpaid, saying that Hugh de Lacy denied the debt. [4] Whatever service was ultimately performed by Lacy to the See of Hereford, it is certain that such service was performed wholly or partly for the Manor of Onibury. From what I have said under Wootton, it will be seen that William de Wootton was before 1175 Lacy's Under-tenant at Onibury, and that he held both Onibury and Walton for half or three-quarters of a knight's-fee, according as his Lord required a military or a pecuniary aid. The succession of the Lords of Onibury, from this period downwards, has been given under Wootton. A few local particulars have still to be added regarding Onibury. The neighbouring Priory and Manor of Bromfield were subject to Gloucester Abbey. Hence in June 1243 we find Henry, Abbot of Gloucester, suing (I think amicably) Robert de Wodeton as Tenant of 30 acres of land and 10 acres of Bosc in Bromfeld. By Fine then levied, the Abbot enfeoffs Robert in the premises, reserving a rent of 3s. For this, Robert paid the Abbot two merks in money, and conceded to him a right of free-chase and free fishery throughout his (Robert's) lands in Wodeton, Onybury, and Walton.

The Inquest of 1255 says that "Robert de Lascy (son-in-law of Robert de Wodeton, I think) holds Walton and Oniburi of the heir

[2] Salop Chartulary, No. 35.
[3] Liber Niger, I, 150.
[4] Rot. Pip. 14 Hen. II, Herefordshire.


of Walter de Laci", but the Bishop of Hereford's seigneury over the said heir is omitted. "Robert de Lacy did suit to Munslow Hundred, and paid 3s. for stretward and motfee, as on 3 hides",- the Domesday estimate of the Manor. [5] Other Inquests couple Robert de Lacy's tenure in Honneburi and Waleton with the Manor of Stanton Lacy, and service at Ludlow Castle. They state his interest here to consist of 20s. rent. [6]

In February 1256 Robert de Lacy and Amice his Wife (Impedients) convey by Fine to Walter de Strangeford (Plaintiff) 1 virgates in Waleton, whereof was Plea of Warranty of Charter. They acknowledge the premises to be their gift;- to hold to the Plaintiff and his heirs, of Robert and Amice, and the heirs of Amice, at 1s. rent. Walter gave one sore sparrow-hawk.

In 1284 the Feodary gives Thomas de Grete as holding Oneburi and Walton of the Lords of Ludlow for half a knight's-fee, whilst the said Lords held under the Bishop and Chapter of Hereford. Thomas de Grete, as I have before said, succeeded Robert de Lacy as husband of Amice, the heiress of Wootton, Onibury, etc. The Fine has been already set forth by which William de Schippeye, third husband of the said Amice, concurred with her, and her son Roger de Grete, in June 1293, in conveying the Manor and Advowson of Onibury to Philip Burnell. [7] Philip Burnell died in the following year, and the Inquisitions say nothing of his recent acquisition of the Manor of Onibury; but the Advowson of the Church, worth 20 merks per annum, is duly noted as his. [8] His Widow Matilda had the Manor of Onibury and Walton in dower, and so held it when the Nomina-Villarum return was made in March 1316. [9]


The Priest mentioned in Domesday probably betokens the then existence of a Church here. Roger de Lacy's grant of the tithes of Onibury to Shrewsbury Abbey is not inconsistent with that idea; for it may be proved in numberless instances that the Normans granted away the whole or parts of their manorial tithes at discretion, and without reference to parochial necessities. However I cannot find that Shrewsbury Abbey eventually realized any such right in Onibury. In 1291 the Church-Taxation gives 10. as the annual value of the Church of Onebury in Ludlow Deanery, and

[5] [6] Rot. Hundred. II, 70, 69, 80.
[7] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 3.
[8] Inquisitions, 22 Edw. I, No. 45, d.
[9] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 398.


no pension whatever was then chargeable on the Church. [10] In 1341 the Assessors of the Ninth, quoting the Church-Taxation of 10., assessed the Parish of Onebury at 50s. only. Thirty virgates in the Parish lay unfilled, so heavy were the local burdens on the Tenantry. The Glebe-land and Alterages of the Church, worth 100s., the hay-tithes, worth 10s., the small tithes, offerings, and other profits, worth 40s., went to swell the Church-Taxation, but could not be taken to imply any such properties as were now to be assessed. [11] The Valor of 1534-5 gives Thomas Slade as Rector of Onybury. His preferment was in Glebe 3. 6s. 8d., in Tithes 7. 2s. He paid to the Archdeacon and Commissaries 11s. per annum for procuratious and synodals. [12]


ROGER DE LODELOWE, Rector of Onebury, has a license to study for one year, dated March 27, 1276.

On May 7,1349, King Edward III forbids the Bishop of Hereford to admit any Parson to this Church, till it be decided whether the Patronage belong to Reginald de Cobham, Knight, and Johanna his wife, or to Nicholas Burnell, Knight. Before the Bishop can have received this Writ, viz. on May 8, 1319, he instituted-

SIR THOMAS ASSELOTE, Priest, on presentation of Sir Nicholas Burnel, Knight.

WILLIAM DE STRETTONE occurs as Rector here in 43 Edw. III (1369-70).

JOHN HYDE, Clerk, was instituted June 15, 1375, on presentation of "Sir Nicholas Burnel, Lord of Holgot".

SIR JOHN DE ONEBURY (perhaps the same person) resigned this Living on Feb. 3, 1386, and on Feb. 7 following-

HENRY DE COLLYSMOR was instituted at the presentation of Hugh Burnell, Lord of Holgot. This Rector is apparently the same as Henry Cotesmere, who was presented to Rushbury on July 11, 1388. [13] And accordingly we find-

SIR THOMAS WILLIAM DE LA LOWE, Chaplain, instituted to Onibury on July 26, 1388, at presentation of Hugh Burnell, Lord of Holgate.

[10] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 166, b.
[11] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 188.
[12] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 201.
[13] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 105.



WITH this place we may introduce certain Manors in Culvestan Hundred which Helgot held of the Norman Earl. Domesday describes Bouldon as follows:- "The same Helgot holds Bolledone. Seuuard and Elmund held it (in Saxon times) for Two Manors, and were free. Here are two hides geldable. The arable land is sufficient for III ox-teams. In demesne are II Teams, and IIII Neatherds. The old value was 8s. (per annum); the present value is 15s. Helgot found the Manor waste". [1]

A family which took name from the place was enfeoffed in Bouldon before the year 1135; for the Knight's-Fee held by William de Bullardon in 1165, under Herbert de Castellis, was of old fee ment. [2]

In September 1199 William de Bolledon was dead. His widow Alice, whom I take to have been his second wife, had sued Robert de Bolledon for dower in Bolledon and Hologodes Castle. Robert de Bolledon was probably son of William by a former wife. A Fine was levied between the parties, whereby Alice renounced all her claim, and Robert conceded to her a virgate in Bolledon, half of which she herself already held, and half of which was held by Richard de Bolledon, Robert's son. Alice was to hold this virgate for life,- of Robert and his heirs at 3s. rent, with remainder to Nicholas son of Alice, and his heirs, in fee, but at a rent of 6s. [3]

In November 1201 Robert de Boledon occurs as a Recognizor in a trial about land in Wittingslow. At the Assizes of October 1203 he was amerced 1 merk. [4] In Trinity Term 1205, before the King at Portsmouth, Thomas Malduit (then Baron of Holgate) sued Robert de Bulardun to compel him to perform the service of one knight's-fee for the land he held under the Plaintiff in Bullardun. Robert appeared, and, saying that his service was only half a knight's-fee, he put himself on trial by Grand Assize. [5] In Michaelmas Term

[1] Domesday, fo. 258, b, 2.
[2] Liber Niger, I, 147.
[3] Pedes Finium, 1 John, Salop.
[4] Assizes, 6 John, m. 6 dorso. The Sureties for this amercement were Martin de Castello and William Mauduit, as were they also Sureties for half a merk in which one Bertram de Bulardon was amerced.
[5] Abbreviatio Placitorum, p. 48.


1205 this Suit, originally a Placitum Servitii, is called a Placitum audiendi electionem, that is, one Party was suing the other to follow the case to its proper issue. In this instance Osbert, the Attorney of Robert de Bulardon, essoigned himself by Simon de Endelebi. [6] After further adjournments and in Easter Term 1206, Robert de Bullardon proffered half a merk for license to accord with Thomas Mauduit concerning the service of half a knight's-fee, his Sureties being William de Furchis (of Corfton) and William de Say. [7] Robert de Bullardon's debt appears in the Pipe Roll of that year as "one merk pro licentia concordandi", [8] and the Concord itself happens to be preserved. It recites the preliminaries of the case, exactly as we should expect;- William, Thomas Mauduit's Clerk, being his Attorney. Mauduit concedes to the Tenant the whole Vill of Bullardune in fee and inheritance, to hold of himself (Mauduit) by service of three parts of a knight's-fee, in lieu of all other services. For this the Defendant paid 100s. We may say then summarily, that in this instance the service of a fourth part of a knight's-fee was bought and sold for 5. In June 1237 special Justices are appointed to try a suit of novel disseizin, which the Prior of the Knight's Hospitallers had against Robert Bullardon and his fellows, concerning pasture in Clye (Clee St. Margaret). [9] The Feodary of 1240 gives Robert de Bellardedon as holding fee in Bellardedon of Thomas Mauduit's Barony. [10] An Instrument which shows Robert de Bouldon to have been Constable of Castle Holgate in 1248 has been set forth already.
[11] In March 1249 he was a Juror in the Inquest quoted under Millichope. In 1255 the Munslow Jurors presented Robert de Bolledon as holding Bolledon for II hides (the Domesday measurement) under William Mauduit. He did suit to Munslow Hundred, but paid only 8d. for stretward and motfee. Why he paid less than two hides were ordinarily liable to pay, the Jurors could not tell. [12] In 1256 Robert de Walledon (probably Bolledon) appears on the list of those who, holding 15 librates of lands and being Tenants by knights'-service, were yet not Knights. [13] At the Assizes of this year Robert de Buleden having a plea of land

[6] Osbert himself is elsewhere called "De Hetlebi", another form of "De Endelebi". (Supra, Vol. IV, p. 21.)
[7] [8] Placita, East. Term, 7 and 8 John, m. 1 dorso. Rot. Pip. 8 John, Salop.
[9] Compare Vol. IV, p. 77.
[10] Testa de Nevill, pp. 46, 48, 50.- In two cases of the three the name is converted into Buraston.
[11] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 65.
[12] Rot. Hundred. II, 71.- The usual rate on two hides in Munslow Hundred would have been 2s.
[13] Dukes's Antiquities, p. vii.


and convention against John Cunseyl, names Robert de Munselaue (Munslow) as his Attorney. [14] In 1259 Robert de Beledon is amerced for some non-attendance (quia non venit), James de Bolden, Clerk, is amerced for trespass, and Robert de Bullindon is amerced 40s. for default. In 1262 Robert de Buledon appears as a Regarder of the Long Forest. In 1267 one John de Bulledon occurs as surety for one of the parties in a Munslow Suit. The Feodary of 1284 gives Hugh de Bulledon as holding this Vill of Robert Burnell, Bishop of Bath and Wells, for fee. The Bishop held of the Earl of Cornwall, the Earl of the King;- the ratio of which tenures has been explained under Castle Holgate. In January 1293 Hugh de Bolesdon did not appear, though summoned, to answer to a Writ of Quo Waranto, calling upon him to do suit to the King's Hundred of Muttalowe (read Munslow). Afterwards, on the morrow of Ascension Day, he appeared at Westminster and acknowledged that he owed the said suit and service. It was worth 2s. per annum. The Justices excused him all amercement, because it was not he who actually withdrew the Suit. [15] In May 1295 Hugh de Bolledon was Tenant of one-third of a Knight's-fee in Bolledon of the annual value of 4. 6s., being held of the estate of Philip Burnell, deceased. [16]

Upper Poston.

AN extraordinary but not unsatisfactory collection of fragments has to be arranged relating to this small Manor. Domesday says thus:- "The same Helgot holds Possetorne (of the Earl). Aluric held it (in Saxon times). Here is one virgate of land, geldable. The arable land is sufficient for half an ox-team. The Manor was and is waste". [1] Aluric I observe had been Saxon Lord of the adjacent Manors of Great Sutton and Little Sutton, Manors which were in the same parish with Upper Poston, viz. Diddlebury.

We have already had a notice of Upper Poston, as soon after Domesday as the reign of Henry I. It was related under Dudmaston, how Helgot's son, Herbert, enfeoffed Harlewyne de Butailles,

[14] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 12.
[15] Placita de Quo Waranto, p. 707.
[16] Inquisitions, 22 Edw. I, No. 45, d.
[1] Domesday, fo. 258, b, 2 .


ancestor of the Dudmastons, in three virgates, held by six Under-tenants in Possethorne. [2] This gift of three virgates, where Domesday speaks but of one, I cannot explain. Neither do I find that the Dudmastons maintained their mesne interest in Poston, but nevertheless persons who were tenants of the Dudmastons at Lye-Hall had, as we shall see, in the thirteenth century a tenant-interest in Poston. In the latter part of the twelfth century the Mesne-Lord of Possetorn, under the Barons of Holgate, was that Robert de Girros whom I have already noticed as holding Oxenbold, Burwarton, Long Stanton, and Charlcott, under the same Barons. The Escheator, who in 1195 received the profits of Robert de Girros's estates, accounts for 6 shillings as arising from Possetorn. [3] It is clear that the Tenant of Robert de Girros at Poston was a Cadet of his own family. Of the line of these Cadets I have spoken under Long Stanton, [4] and shall have more to say under Little Sutton. Roger de Girros of Stanton, Father and Son, seem to me to have held Upper Poston under the head of their family for a great part of the thirteenth Century. They, again, had an Undertenant here of whom we have heard more than once before. This was Richard Snell, alias Kene, the son of Richard fitz Fulco and the Father of three daughters, Susanna, Alice, and Matilda atte Legh. Referring generally to what I have said under Dudmaston and Romsley about this family, [5] I repeat that Richard Kene was deceased in 1250. Further, as I have shown under Greet-Chapel, Richard Kene, previous to his decease, gave half a virgate in Possethorne in pure alms to the said Chapel, of which Philip de Thongland was at the time, or berame soon afterwards, Incumbent. [6] Hence the Munslow Inquisition of 1255 states, that "Philip de Thongland holds Upper Possethorne of Roger de Girrhos". The Alanor was in this case estimated to contain one-twelfth of a hide, that is, only a third part of a virgate. It did no suit either to County or Hundred, nor paid stretward nor motfee. [7] The said suits had been withdrawn twenty years, which probably indicates the period of Richard Kene's grant, viz. l235. The loss to the King by this withdrawal was 2s. per annum; the loss by the non-payment of stretward and motfee was 1d. per annum.

[2] Supra, Vol. III, p. 186.
[3] Rot. Pip. 7 Ric. I.
[4] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 37. See also pp. 22, 24, 50, 115, 116, for several attestations of Roger do Girros of Stanton, Father and Son, ranging from 1220 to 1270.
[5] Vol. III, pp. 191, 193, 198-200.
[6] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 336.
[7] Rot. Hundred. II, 70,


These particulars are quite consistent with the grant in frank almoign which we have ascertained from other sources. The whole ratio of the Tenure is not given in the Inquisition, but we may presume that the heirs of Robert de Girros held Upper Poston over Roger de Girros, and under the Lords of Holgate. The ever varying estimate of the contents of this Manor it is impossible to account for, but we learn that such inconsistencies are no disproof of identity. In 1259 I find Philip de Thongland accounting for a heavy amercement, viz. 10 merks for false claim and for transgression, but other particulars are not given. In 1267, as I have pointed out under Greet Chapel, Susanna and Alice de la Leye, two of Richard Kene's daughters, failed to dispossess him (Philip de Thongland) of Poston. We have yet one more phase of this matter. At the Assizes of September 1272, John de Escot and Susanna his wife, with Alice, Susanna's sister, sued Thomas de Hanleye and Juliana his wife for half a virgate in Possethorn Muchwardeknoll as the right of Susanna and Alice, who alleged that the Defendants had no ingress into the premises save after an act of disseizin by which Mabel de la Leygh dispossessed the Father of the female Plaintiffs, here called Richard de la Leygh. 8] It is necessary here to explain that Richard de la Leygh is identical with Richard Kene, that John de Escot was second husband of Susanna de la Leygh, and that Mabel, here mentioned, was the wife (probably the second wife) of Richard fitz Fulco, alias Richard Kene (I), alias Richard Snell (I), and was the Mother or Stepmother of Richard Kene (II), alias Richard Snell (II), alias Richard de la Leygh. The present suit failed because Thomas de Hanleye and Juliana proved that they were not Tenants of the premises, but that one Richard fitz Walter was tenant both now and on July 10, 1272,- the day on which the Plaintiffs obtained their Writ. The Plaintiffs here withdrew all prosecution of their Suit;- and well they might, for their renewal of it in the present instance must have been with a knowledge that the Charter which had five years before defeated their Suit of mort d'ancestre, disproved the averments of the present suit.

The Inquisition taken in May 1295, after the death of Philip Burnel, shows the continued interest of the Lords of Holgate here, though represented only by the receipt of a small rent. [9]

Another Inquest taken in February 1301, in obedience to a Writ of Certiorari, states that Philip Burnel, deceased, had held Possethorne

[8] Assizes, 56 Hen. III, m. 8 dorso.
[9] Inquisitions, 22 Edw. I, No. 45, c.


in socage under Roger Bonamy, of Brug. Gunceline de Badlesmere then had the vill in custody till the full age of Philip's heir. [10]

A fine levied Oct. 6, 1303, between Elias de Sutton (Plaintiff) and Hugh his son (Deforciant), is merely a settlement of his estate by the former. He acknowledges Hugh's right to two messuages, a carucate of land, and 62 shillings rent in Overe Posthorn and Thonglond. Hugh in turn concedes the premises to Elyas for life at a rose-rent, payable to Hugh, and by performance of all capital services.- Remainder to Hugh and his heirs,- to hold of the Lords of the fee.

The Feodary of 1316 gives Roger de la Mar as then Lord of Posthorn. [11]

Great Sutton.

Domesday describes this Manor as follows:- "The same Helgot holds Sudtone, and Herbert holds it of him. Aluric held it (in Saxon times) and was free. Here are II hides geldable. The arable land (is sufficient) for V ox-teams. In demesne there are II (teams), and (there are) IIII Neatherds, IIII Villains, and I Boor with III teams. Here is a Mill of 3s. (annual value). In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 20s. (per annum). Now it is worth 25s. (Helgot) found it waste". [1] Between the year of the Domesday-Survey (1085) and the returns known as the Liber Niger (1165), there were several changes in the Baronies of Helgot and De Lacy. No existing Record hints at the ground of these changes, but two of them seem to have had some mutual reference. I have said that Lacy, the Domesday Lord, and Herbert, the Domesday Tenant of Long Stanton, lost all their interest there; [2] also I have shown a probability that the Lords of Holgate acquired a partial interest there. [3] With Great Sutton a change nearly but not exactly converse took place. The Lords of Holgate lost the Seigneury, and Lacy gained it, not in fee, but as holding over the said Lords; also

[10] Inquisitions, 28 Edw. I, No. 24.
[11] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 398.
[1] Domesday, fo. 258, b, 2.
[2] [3] Supra, Vol. IV, pp. 32, 36, 37


Herbert's interest (which should subsequently be represented by De Furcis) vanished altogether. Again, under Tong I have noticed two Charters which passed during the usurpation of Stephen, and also at a period when Lacy's Barony was under Escheat; and these two Charters, attested by several well-known Tenants in Lacy's Barony, are also attested by Herbert de Castellis, the then Baron of Holgate. [4] At the same period then, I conceive, certain transactions were on foot which resulted in the following fact. In 1165 Hugh de Lacy (whose honours had previously been restored to his Father) returned Herebert de Castellis as holding II fees of new feoffment in his (Lacy's) Barony. [5] It is further probable, from the context of Lacy's Return, that these two fees were in Shropshire; and it is certain, from later evidences, that Great Sutton, including Wichcott, constituted one of them. I think then that the following supposition may be ventured, viz. that Long Stanton having been dismembered during Lacy's forfeiture, and the King (Henry II) being unable to restore it integrally to Lacy, gave or confirmed an estate there to the Lords of Holgate, on condition of their relinquishing their Seigneury at Great Sutton, and holding the latter Manor by service of one Knight's-fee at Ludlow Castle, and that so, Ludlow being restored to Lacy, this fee was said to be Lacy's, and to be of new feoffment. [6]

In or about 1240 Thomas Mauduit (then Lord of Holgate) is said to hold one Knight's-Fee in Sutton and Wichecot, of Walter de Lacy; [7] and in 1255 William Mauduit holds the same as one of the Fees pertaining to Ludlow Castle, and therefore held under the Heirs of Lacy. [8] About the year 1257, the King of Almagne having acquired Mauduit's Shropshire estates, whether held in capite or otherwise, alienated the whole to the Knights Templars, who are consequently said by the Jurors of Stanton Lacy, in November 1274, to be holding this fee in Sutton and Wychecote. [9] But in 1284 Robert Burnel, Bishop of Bath and Wells, though he is said to hold the Manor of Castle Holgate under the Earl of Cornwall,

[4] Supra, Vol. II, pp. 203-206.
[5] Hearne's Liber Niger, I, 154.
[6] What was the other foe held by Herbert de Castellis under Hugh de Lacy, it is difficult to determine. If it was any estate at Long-Stanton, the service due thereon was probably made afterwards returnable at Montgomery Castle, which was in the Crown, and which received services from other Manors of Lacy's Fief. I cannot conjecture how Lacy's Manors became thus chargeable at Montgomery, but it is easy to conceive that Lacy's Seigneury might easily become effaced in any Manor so chargeable.
[7] Testa de Nevill, pp. 45, 48, 50.
[8] Rot. Handred. II, 69, 80.
[9] Ibidem, p. 107.


holds the vill of Sotton under Theobald de Verdon (Lacy's Coheir), and that sine medio. This was however only half the Manor, and was held by only half a knight's-fee; for Wichcot (the other half-fee) is said to be held by Robert Brom, of the same Theobald.

However Robert Burnell was, ere this, Mesne-Lord of Wichcot, as I shall presently show. Therefore the Inquisition taken Dec. 10, 1292, after his death, says that he had held the Vills of Magna Sutton and Whichecote of Sir Theobald de Verdon by service of one Knight's-fee, and by doing suit to the Court of Ludlow. The extent or annual value of the whole was as follows:- A capital messuage and garden, 4s. Two Carucates of demesne, worth 4. Eight acres of meadow, worth 12s. A Water-Mill, worth 7s. Rents of free Tenants, 4. 14s. 11d.; of Customary Tenants, 1. 2s. 1d. Labour-dues from Customary Tenants, worth 6s. 9d. Pleas and perquisites of Court, 2s. [10] Robert Brun, be it observed (the second of the Jurors on this Inquest), was identical with Robert Brom above mentioned, and was doubtless Burnell's Tenant at Wichcott, and the chief of the Free-Tenants mentioned as paying the rents of 4. 14s. 11d. In March 1317 the Inquest after Theobald de Verdon's death gives Sutton and Wychcote as if they were two Tenures, one held by Robert Broun, and one by John de Hanlou, Lord of Holgate, but as if held jointly by service of one knight's-fee, and valued aggregately at 4. per annum. [11] The undoubted fact is that Hanlou held the whole under Verdon, and Broun the half under Hanlou. This Robert Broun, I should observe, was Verdon's immediate Tenant at Over Hayton.

The earliest UNDERTENANTS in this Manor, of whom I find mention, were Robert de Benthall and Robert his son, of whom I have given account under Benthall. They held Wichcott, apparently under the Lords of Holgate, but the Sub-Tenant of Wichcott, under Robert de Benthall, Senior, was (as I have said) Martin de Castello, a person of some importance, and probably related to the Lords of Castle Holgate. We have had this Martin de Castello attesting a Charter of William de Vere, Bishop of Hereford, in or soon after the year 1190. [12] In 1203 he occurs with William Mauduit (brother of the then Lord of Holgate) as Surety for Robert de Bouldon, a Tenant in that Honour. At these same Assizes he appears as a Juror of causes tried by Grand Assize, and therefore as a Knight. It was, I suppose, in Michaelmas Term 1204, that Robert de Benthall,

[10] Inquisitions, 21 Edw. I, No. 50.
[11] Inquisitions, 10 Edw. II, No. 71.
[12] Supra, Vol. I, p. 209.


Senior, being dead, his Widow Emma was suing Martin de Castello for her dower in Wichcott. The Plea Roll (apparently of that Term) gives a day (in three weeks of Hilary) to the parties, and orders Emma to have her Warrantor with her in Court, as Martin would not answer her without. [13] An Essoign-Roll of the same Term calls the Defendant Martin fitz Robert, and names the Essoignor in the present instance, viz. Henry son of Henry Sidenude. The Plaintiff was to have a Writ to the Sheriff, ordering him to compel the appearance of Robert, son of Robert (de Benthall), who ought to be her Warrantor, but who was now in ward to the Prior of Wenlock (as Seignoral Lord of Bentball). [14] The Fine which eventually settled this matter passed in London, in one month of Easter 1205. It purports to be between Emma, widow of Robert de Benthall (Plaintiff) and Martin de Castellis (Tenant) concerning Emma's dower in the free tenement of her late husband in Wichecote, which dower Robert, son and heir of her said husband, had warranted to her. The said Robert (Junior) now acknowledged the land to be the right of Martin,- to hold to Martin and his heirs by the free service of 2 merks per annum; so however as that Martin, by concession of the same Robert, should pay the said rent to Emma for her life in the name of dower. For this, Martin gave to Emma 4 merks of silver.

The cotemporary Assize-Roll enters the last gift as a debt pro fine facto, to be paid by instalments, viz. 2 merks on June 24, 1 merk on Sept. 29, and 1 merk on Dec. 25; and in pledge of such payments Martin placed his fee of Wichecot. [15]

All I have further to say of Martin de Castello is that, having served as one of the Coroners of the County, he was deceased before the Assizes of November 1221.

At the Assizes of 1256 John son of Alexander de Duddebir (Diddlebury) failed to prosecute his assize of novel disseizin against John Bacun for a Tenement in Magna Sutton. [16] In May 1271 Geoffrey de Whycecote has two Writs of novel disseizin, one against Philip de Whycecote and others, the other against William de Whycecote and Agnes his wife, concerning tenements in Whycecote. In Easter Term, 1283, John Burnel and Margery his wife, and John de Cantred and Alice his wife (Deforciants), quit-claim for themselves and the heirs of Margery and Alice, to Robert Burnell, Bishop of

[13] [14] Placita et Essonia incerti temporis, No. 75, m. 13, No. 66, m. 1.
[15] Placita incerti temporis, No. 6, m. 9 dorso.
[16] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 3 dorso.


Bath and Wells, two-thirds of two messuages, 2d. rent, and half a knight's-fee in Whychecote. The Bishop gave 100s. for this. [17] At the Assizes of 1292, Robert Broun (of Wichcote) was on the Jury for Munslow Hundred. A survey of the Burnel Estates taken by Royal Order in February 1301, shows us how a mesne-tenure may have existed for nearly a century without being once mentioned in any public document. The Lords of Benthall were still Mesne-Lords of Wichecote; that is, Wichecote, an estate of Philip Burnel, deceased, worth 1. 6s. 8d. per annum, had been held by him in socage of the Lords of Benthale, and was now in custody of Gunceline de Badlesmere, with other Burnel estates. The same Survey gives a Tenement in Benthall itself lately held by Philip Burnell under John de Benthall (then Lord of Benthall), and worth 13s. 4d. per annum. [18] This Tenure I have already described fully. [19] By Fine levied in November 1305, Geoffrey fitz Philip of Magna Sutton and Agnes his wife (Deforciants) quit-claim for themselves and the heirs of Agnes, one messuage, 38 acres of arable land, and 5 acres of meadow in Magna Sutton and Corvedale, to Robert de Eton (Plaintiff), who gives them 20.


THIS place, though now only a township in the Parish of Ludford, is spoken of in Domesday as a distinct Manor.- "The same Helgot holds Scevinton (of the Earl). Reuensuard held it (in Saxon times)

[17] Pedes Finium, 11 Edw. I, Salop.-

This Fine indicates, I think, the mode in which Benthall and Wichcott descended. The male line of the older Benthalls, represented by Philip de Benthall, in 1274, seems to have failed before 1283, and three Coheiresses, probably daughters of Philip, to have succeeded. Two of these presumed Coheiresses are named in the above fine, the third I take to have been Cecily, wife of Nicholas Collyng (mentioned Vol. III, p. 277). Margery, wife of John Burnell, was probably the eldest Coheiress. Her husband became the reputed Lord of Benthall, and in process of time was called De Benthall.

[18] Inquisitions, 28 Edw. I, No. 24.-

The subinfeudations of this period were so complex as almost to defy explanation. The same individual is often found to have had a twofold interest int he same estate, that is, his name occurs twice over in the scale of tenures. Thus it was, I suppose, with Wichcott on Philip Burnel's death in 1294.- Robert Broun held it of Philip Burnet, Philip Burnet of John Burnet, John Burnet of the Lord of Holgate (i.e. of Philip Burnet his own Subtenant), the Lord of Holgate of Theobald de Verdon, and Theobald de Verdon of the King in capite.

[19] Supra, Vol. III, p. 277.


and was a Free Man. Here is one hide geldable. The (arable) land is (sufficient) for IIII ox-teams. In demesne there are II (such teams), and there are IIII male, and II female Serfs, and III Villains, with II teams. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 12s. (per annum). Now it is worth 15s". [1]

A family named Christian was perhaps, in the twelfth century, enfeoffed here by the Lords of Holgate. Robert Christian who attests Ralph de Baskervill's grant to Shrewsbury Abbey, may have been of Steventon. [2] More certainly Henry Christian was, who has occurred to us in 1194 as a Knight of the County. [3] In September 1199 this Henry Christian, then called Senior, appears in connection with Steventon. His son, another Henry, had sued Richard le Veil and Alice his wife for half a virgate in Stevinton, under Writ of mort d'ancestre. He now renounced all his right, to them and their heirs, by consent and will of his Father being present. For this his Father gave him another half virgate in the same vill, viz. that which Walter fitz Estmar held, to hold by service of 1lb. of Cumin (in lieu of all, except forinsec, services), and payable to Henry Senior and his heirs. At the Assizes of 1203 one Henry de Stiventon occurs as the Essoignor of Simon Falconer, and perhaps was identical with Henry Christian, Senior or Junior. We shall hear no more at present of this family under either name. The Steventons whom I have noticed as resident near Shiffnal in the thirteenth century were perhaps of the same stock. [4]

In the same century the Barons of Holgate had two distinct Feoffees at Steventon. This is shown by the Inquisition of 1255, which says, that Nicholas fitz Andrew and William de Aldenham hold one hide of land, Stivinton, of the Barony of William Mauduit. These Tenants did Suit to the greater and lesser Hundred-Courts but paid neither stretward nor motfee. As to Suit of the County, William Mauduit discharged that, both for Castle Holgate and for these Tenants, inasmuch as they held of his demesne of Castle Holgate. [5] There was therefore no knight's-service retained on Steventon. WILLIAM DE ALDENHAM here mentioned, was the same person as he whom I have before noticed as holding Aldenham under Baskerville of Pickthorn. He seems to have underlet his share of Steventon. I have already given some particulars of a case where a second William de Aldenham, in 1267, warranted a noke in Steventon to Adam fitz David, and, his title to do so proving unsound, was

[1] Domesday, fo. 258, b, 2.
[2] Supra, Vol. I, p. 232.
[3] Supra, Vol. III, p. 87.
[4] Supra, Vol. II, pp. 329, 330.
[5] Rot. Hundred. II, 70.


forced to provide an equivalent for his Feoffee. [6] The successful Plaintiff in this case was Wyard de Stevinton, who recovered as son and heir of Roger fitz Aldith of Stevinton, a former Tenant. The Pipe-Roll of the same year gives Adam fitz David as amerced half a merk for unjust detention, but this must have been some other affair. In 1270 I find William, son of William de Aldenham, taking out a writ of novel disseizin against Thomas de Krete (probably Grete) and others, for a tenement in Stevynton. Also in Easter Term 1270, diverse matters between Wyard de Stevinton (Plaintiff), and Adam fitz David (tenant), of a messuage and a noke (less 14 acres) in Styvinton, were settled by Fine. Adam acknowledged the right of Wyard who, by his Attorney (William son of Roger le Moneur), conceded this messuage and noke to Adam and his heirs,- to hold by payment of 27d. rent to Wyard, and by discharge of all capital services. It appears that Adam fitz David had previous to this Fine demised certain rents in Steventon, amounting to 14s. 5d., to Wyard and his heirs. This transfer he allows in the present Fine, reserving a rent of one clove to himself.

About this time a Family surnamed Aylrich or Eyldrich was of some importance in the Borough of Ludlow, and in 1284 we find Nicholas Eyldrich as one of the Coparceners in Steventon. [7] How he acquired it I cannot say, but the two Coparceners held it for one-fourth of a Knight's-fee of the Heir of John fitz Alan, which heir held under the Bishop of Bath and Wells, who held of the Earl of Cornwall. Thus the Seigneury of the Lords of Holgate remained; but since the year 1255 a mesne interest of Fitz Alan had been established here. Something of the same kind happened at The Heath, where John Fitz Alan (II) obtained a mesne interest under the Lords of Holgate between 1255 and 1263. [8]

I now return to NICHOLAS FITZ ANDREW, who in 1255 was the other Coparcener in this Manor. His Father, Andrew fitz Milo, was, I conceive, a wealthy Burgess of Ludlow early in the thirteenth century. At the Assizes of 1203, Andrew fitz Milo was amerced 20s. for breach of some Assize, and the Pipe-Roll of 1204 informs us that it was the Assize of Cloth (assiza pannorum), a manufacture then confined to Borough Towns. This Andrew fitz Milo, as well as his son Nicholas, being enfeoffed in Stoke Say Mill, granted 10s. issuing therefrom to Haughmond Abbey, as I have

[6] Vol. I, p. 80, 81.
[7] Kirby's Quest. In 1308 one Roger Eilrich was holding fee at Richard's Castle, of the Lords thereof.
[8] Supra, Vol. IV, pp. 16, 17.


before shown. I also find Nicholas fitz Andrew, with Geoffrey and James his Brothers, attesting a grant to the same Abbey, which I shall give under Upper Ashford. In the Ludlow Inquisition of 1255 we find Nicholas fitz Andrew as Tenant of a Shop in Ludlow, for which he paid 1lb. of Cumin as rent to the Lords of the Vill. At the same time Geoffrey Andreu was Foreman of the Ludlow Jury, and Nicholas fitz Andrew of Ludlow was on the Jury for Munslow Hundred, and was William Mauduit's Tenant at Clee St. Margaret [9] as well as in half Steventon. It was his tenure at Clee St. Margaret which in 1256 brought Nicholas fitz Andrew into collision with the Lord of The Heath. [10] I have already alluded, under Stokesay, to one matter in which Nicholas fitz Andrew was at this time concerned, and to another which involved some minor interest in Steventon. [11] In 1259 Nicholas Andrew was on the Inquisition, after the death of William de Stutevill. In 1266 he was himself dead; for early in that year Sibil and Joanna his daughters were suing John his son for disseizing them of a tenement in Steventon. [12] These Plaintiffs fined half a merk in August to have a second Writ appending a different Justiciar to tay this matter. [13]

An entry on the Assize-Roll of 1267 exhibits Dulce and Cecily, daughters of Thomas le Waleys, recovering a messuage and half-virgate in Stevinton from several Undertenants, viz. William le Pescur, Geoffrey fitz Andrew, John fitz Nicholas, Geoffrey atte Walle, and Nicholas fitz Herbert. The four first had called John Andreu to warranty. John Andrew pleaded in vain that Thomas le Waleye had only died seized of 2s. rent in Stevinton, while Nicholas fitz Herbert in vain asserted that the said Thomas had enfeoffed his Father Herbert. The consequent losses of his Under-tenants were ordered to be made good by John Andrew. [14] However, a later entry gives Dulcia la Walesche and Cecilia her Sister quitting all claim in the premises to John Andreu and Nicholas fitz Herbert. [15] The consideration does not appear.

The Successor of John Andrew, both at Clee St. Margaret and in his moiety of Steventon, was Master William Andrew, a Clerk, and perhaps John's son. The Feodary of 1284 calls him William Ondreu, and states his tenure at Steventon as coordinate with that of Nicholas Eyldrich. All that I have further to say of Master William Andrew has been said under Clee St. Margaret. [16]

[9] [10] Supra, Vol. IV, pp. 77, 16.
[11] Supra, p. 38.
[12] [13] Fines II, 443. Rot. Pat. 50 Hen. III, dorso.
[14] [15] Assizes, 51 Hen. III, m. 4 and 8.
[16] Vol IV, p. 78.


In Easter Term 1300, Roger de Bromfeld and Matilda his wife, for themselves and the heirs of Matilda, quit-claim 12 acres in Stevynton juxta Ludlow, to Richard le Orfeure of Ludlow, Plaintiff, who gives six merks. [17]

The Sheet.

THIS is another member of the Parish of Ludford, but was a Domesday Manor,- the only one in Culvestan Hundred which Ralph de Mortimer held in capite.- "The same Radulf holds Setha, and Ingelrann holds it of him. Leuenot held it (in Saxon times), together with one Berewick. Here are II hides geldable. The (arable) land is (sufficient) for IIII ox-teams. In demesne are II Teams, and (there are) IIII Neat-herds and II Villains with half a team. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 5s. (per annum); afterwards it was worth 2s.; now it is worth 10s". [1]

Not attempting to guess where the Berewick anciently attached to Sheet can have been, I proceed to show with regard to Sheet itself that the usual rule holds good, viz. that whatever was held under Mortimer by Ingelrann at Domesday, is found afterwards to be held by Le Savage or some of his Coheirs under the same Baron's Descendants. William de Bosco, who has occurred to us in 1221, [2] was, I think, one of Le Savage's Coheirs, and also Lord of Sheet and Letton,- both Ingelrann's Manors at Domesday. However in 1240 the two manors of Sete and Letton are said to be held under Ralph de Mortimer (II) by Philip de Mortimer, and for one knight's-fee. [3] I think Philip de Mortimer must have been Feoffee in trust, or as having wardship of the heir. In 1255 Richard de Boys (or Bosco) held the Vill of Sete of Roger de Mortimer. It contained II hides of land, did suit to Munslow Hundred, and paid 2s. annually for Stretward and Motfee. [4] In 1256 we have had other instances of Richard de Bosco's concern in estates which were once of the Fief of Savage. [5]

[17] Pedes Finium, 28 Edw. I, Salop.
[1] Domesday, fo. 260, a, 2.
[2] Supra, Vol. III, p. 51, note 10.
[3] Testa de Nevill, p. 45. For an attestation by Philip de Mortimer see Vol. III, p. 62, note 12.
[4] Rot. Hundred, II, 70.
[5] Vol. III, p. 54.


On the death of Edmund de Mortimer in 1304 Adam de la Sete was his Tenant of a Knight's-fee in Sete. [6]

Of UNDERTENANTS in this Manor I can only name several who were involved in litigation at the Assizes of 1256. Colemann de Ludlow (who has occurred under Stokesay as Coleman le Blund or le Whyte [7]) claimed as heir of his deceased Uncle, another Colemann de Ludlow, the following, viz. a messuage and 44 acres in Sete, half a virgate in Wetlington, a messuage and 2 acres in Stokes (Stokesay). The Tenants whom he sued were Juliana, his Uncle's widow, Adam de Stok, William Coterel, Simon Holegod, Henry Milde (probably Mile), Herbert de Ledwych, Alicia Meyle, Isolda la Nune, the Master of St. John's Hospital at Ludlow, Adam fitz David, and Roger brother of Stephen le Walsse. One of these Tenants, the Widow Juliana, showed that the Plaintiff ought to be her Warrantor for her dower, viz. as heir of her deceased husband; Alicia Meyle said that Colemann de Ludlow Senior did not die seized of the premises, but had a son, a third Colemann, to whom he gave them, and that the latter conceded them to herself and all the other Tenants. The Jury found that Colemann, Senior, died seized, and that his Nephew was his heir. So all the Tenants were non-suited and in misericordia, except Juliana, who was dismissed sine die. [8] In another cause at the same Assizes, Juliana de Sete (probably the same widow), and Nicholas de Haselour with Christiana his wife, sued Colemann de Ludlow for disseizing Juliana of a ninth part of a messuage, and for disseizing Nicholas and Christiana of a whole messuage in Sete. The Plaintiffs got judgment. [9] Some later law-proceedings which concerned many of the, parties above mentioned, included lands in Stokesay, Whettlinton, Steventon, and Sheet, and have been given under Stokesay. Henry Mile, who sat on a Ludlow Jury in 1284, was probably of Sheet.


THIS place, now a township in the Parish of Ashford Carbonel,

[6] Inquisitions, 38 Edw. I, No. 63, b.
[7] Supra, p. 88.
[8] [9] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 5, and 14 dorso.


was at Domesday a Manor held by Ralph de Mortimer of the Earl of Shrewsbury.- "The same Radulf holds Hantenetune, and Turstin holds it of him. Ludi held it in Saxon times. Here is a hide and half geldable. In demesne are II ox-teams, and there are IIII Serfs, [1] II Villains, II Boors, and I Radman with one team; and there might be another team here. Here is a Mill of (that is, paying a rent of) 400 Eels. The old value of the Manor was 10s. (per annum); afterwards it was worth 5s. Now it is worth 10s". [2]

Turstin, Mortimer's Tenant at Huntington and elsewhere, was, I think, identical with the person called Turstin de Wigmore in other passages of Domesday. We have seen under Cleobury Mortimer that Turstin de Wigmore was originally Earl William fitz Osbern's Feoffee in that Manor, but that when it came to form a part of the Barony of Mortimer, Turstin was removed. Probably Mortimer gave him Huntington, Lingen, and Shirley, instead; for of these three Manors Turstin was Mortimer's Tenant in 1086. It is probable also that Turstin held something (undeclared in Domesday) in the Chatellany of Wigmore, whence he took his distinctive name. But these are not all the antecedents of Turstin de Wigmore. In the reign of Edward the Confessor, and while Earl Godwin and his son Harold were in exile, there was one Osbern, probably a Norman, holding the two Herefordshire Manors of Burghill and Hope of the King. This Osbern was Uncle (avunculus) of Alured de Merleberge, which Alured was also Lord of a large Manor in Herefordshire during the Confessor's reign. On the ascendency of the Normans being established in Herefordshire, Alured de Merleberge was greatly enfeoffed by Earl William fitz Osbern, who gave him a number of estates which had been Earl Harold's. On the forfeiture of the Earls of Hereford, King William allowed all William fitz Osbern's grants to Alured de Merleberge. From this and other favours Alured de Merleberge figures in Domesday as one of the greater Tenants in capite of Herefordshire and Wiltshire, and also as holding Manors in Surrey, Hampshire, and Somersetshire. His Tenant for some land in Ewias, for the Manors of Stratford in Herefordshire, and part of Chenete in Wiltshire, was Turstin, and Domesday gives us farther particulars of the relations of Lord and Vassal. Turstin de Wigmore had married Agnes the daughter of Alured de Merleberge, which Agnes is said herself to be holding Cuure (Cowarne Magna), and a large Manor, unnamed, in Tornelaus

[1] This word is underlined, and Bovarii (Neat-herds) written over in correction.
[2] Domesday, fo. 2543, b,


Hundred, at the time of Domesday, and under her Father. [3] When I add to all this that Turstin held Stanford under Roger de Laci, eight carucates in the Chatellany of Carleon under William de Scohies, and Merchelai under Turstin fitz Rolf, [4] it is plain that Turstin de Wigmore was a man of great connections and wealth at the time of Domesday, even supposing that one or two of these entries relate to another person.

Now this Turstin de Wigmore is said by Genealogists to have been Ancestor of the great Herefordshire family of Lingen; an assertion which is backed by one main consideration, viz. that the Lingens are found in the thirteenth century to be holding under Mortimer precisely the same Manors which Turstin de Wigmore held under Mortimer in the eleventh. I do not indeed find the Lingens succeeding to the estates which Turstin held under others than Mortimer at Domesday, but I find them asserting claims to very great estates which they never recovered. Of this however hereafter.

The Genealogists, I should observe, who derive the Lingens from Turstin de Wigmore, have further identified the latter with Turstin the Flandrian. This, if not an error, would go far to annihilate the descent of the Lingens assumed above, for Turstin Flandrensis suffered exile and total forfeiture, [5] and consequently transmitted nothing to any English descendants. If however this forfeiture were anterior to Domesday, and I think it was, [6] then the identity of Turstin Flandrensis and Turstin de Wigmore is impossible.

For nearly a century after Domesday I hear nothing of the Lingens or any other descendants of Turstin de Wigmore. Previous to the year 1182 one Ralph de Lingein had been put in charge in Dorsetshire for a Fine of 100 merits due to the Crown. It was that he (Ralph) might recover his share in ten knights'-fees against Robert

[3] Domesday, fo. 186.
[4] Elsewhere called Turstin fitz Rollo, or Turatis fitz Rou le Blanc. He bore Duke William's Gonfanon at the Battle of Hastings, and appears as a Domesday Landholder in several Counties besides Herefordshire.-

Mr. Blakeway mentions him as the reputed Ancestor of the family of Sollars; but on what authority I know not.

[5] Monasticon, I, 594.
[6] Turstin the Flandrian was Lord of Duntune (now Downton Castle) by gift of Earl William Fitz Osborn. At Domesday Oidelard held it under Ralph de Mortimer, which looks as if Turstin's forfeiture was before Domesday. It is true that Turstin the Flandrian attests a Charter at Salisbury in January 1103, in presence of Henry I, and in behalf of Philip de Braose (Monasticon, VII, 1083); but it does not follow from this attestation that the said Turstin was not an Alien at the time.


de Maisi. In 1182 this charge is transferred to the Herefordshire Pipe-Roll, obviously because Ralph de Lingein was resident in that County. I find the full sum of 100 merks charged against Ralph de Lingein on the Herefordshire Pipe-Rolls of the next seven years, its non-payment being explained by a note to the effect that he had never been able to get to trial in the matter of his claim. [7] Meantime the Shropshire Pipe-Roll of 1188 gives Ralph de Lingein as amerced half a merk at the recent Assizes;- the Herefordshire Pipe-Roll of 1185 gives Ralph de Linguein as similarly amerced in the current year for unjust disseizin; and the Worcestershire Pipe-Roll of 1186 gives Ralph de Lingein as amerced on a third and later occasion half a merk for disseizin. Again in 1188 Robert Marmion and his associates visiting Shropshire amerced Ralph de Linguein 20s. for novel disseizin, and the fine was paid. So far as the Tradition is true which represents a Lingen to have been concerned in the Foundation of Lymbroke Nunnery in Herefordshire, this Ralph de Lingen will have been the person alluded to. [8] He is said in a Genealogy of much apparent probability to have been succeeded by a Son, Grandson, and Great Grandson, all named John. It would certainly appear that soon after 1189 Ralph de Lingen was succeeded by a son or other heir,- John de Lingen. The latter occurs on the Wiltshire Pipe-Roll of 1196 as fining 100 merks to have trial (pro habendo recto) in respect of his share in fifteen knights'-fees in Eilun and Pecton and Stana, against Robert, son of Robert de Maisi. I have not even discovered where the places thus mentioned were, much less have I attempted to ascertain any genealogical bearings which the claims thus set up in two successive generations may possibly have. Such inquiries would involve me far too deeply in the history of distant Counties.

Some time previous to the year 1222 John de Lingene had enfeoffed Ralph de Cambray in a virgate in Aschford (probably Ashford Jones);- but one Walter fitz Odo had sued Ralph de Cambray for the same. The latter called John de Lingene to warranty, and John de Lingene had been obliged to concede the same by fine to the said Walter fitz Odo. Consequently upon this, Ralph de Cambray sued John de Lingene for a virgate in Aschford in exchange of

[7] Sed nondum habuit rectum, vel habere potuit (Rot. Pip. 1 Rich. I, p. 142).

[8] Monasticon, IV, 182. I should add, in confirmation of the Legend which attributes the foundation of Lymbroke to a Lingen, that at the Dissolution the Nuns had lands in Shirley, Amestrey, Cowarne Magna, and Lingen;- in all which places we can trace a previous interest of the Lingens.


the one which he had failed to warrant. It would appear that John de Lingene had no such virgate to grant; so by a Fine levied in Easter Term 1222 he gives to Ralph a virgate in Huntiton, half of which was held by Osbert Cailac, and half by Adam Carlis;- to hold to Ralph and his heirs in fee, together with two other virgates which Ralph had previously held of John de Lingene. The whole was to be held by service of one-seventh part of a knight's-fee. For this John de Lingene remitted a rent of four ducks, which Ralph had been used to pay him for 3 acres in the same vill. [9] I am unable to date a Deed whereby this John de Lingen, or one of his successors, grants land in Wigmore to Helias fitz Harald. The Deed is attested by Brian de Brampton and Roger de Langaburgh. [10] I should not quote it but that it shows the Lingens to have had lands in the Lordship of Wigmore, and so accounts for their presumed Ancestor being called Turstin de Wigmore.

John de Lingen, perhaps the second of his name, had a transaction in November 1236 with his Suzerain, Ralph de Mortimer. The particulars relate to land at Lingen itself; where they shall be given. The same John in 1240 is said to hold half a fee in Lingaine under Mortimer, [11] and about that time we have seen him attesting two deeds which bore upon his Patron's interests. [12] In January 1243 we have John de Lingaine holding half a hide under the Abbey of Lanthony in Gloucestershire. It was at Kenchester (Herefordshire), and had previously belonged to the honour of Snodhull. [13] Also at Kovenhop (Conhope), Herefordshire, he was Mesne-Lord of a fourth part of a knight's-fee, Mortimer of Wigmore being his Seigneur. [14] A Covenant dated July 81, 1258, arranges the terms on which Grimbald, son and heir of Sir Richard Pancefot, was to wed Constance the daughter of Sir John de Lingayn. I refer elsewhere for the particulars of a tale of female devotion which is said to have formed a sequel to this marriage. [15] Beauty, love, and heroism are transcendently associated with the name of Constance de Lingen; and though a Critic might carp at one or other feature of her story, its substantive truth is supported by circumstances of much general probability.

The Inquisition of Munslow Hundred in 1255 tells us of John de Lingenie holding Huntiton of Roger de Mortimer. He did suit

[9] Pedes Finium, 6 Hen. III, Salop.
[10] Liber Niger de Wigmore: Tit. Wigmore.
[11] Testa de Nevill, p. 45.
[12] Vol III, p. 52, notes.
[13] [14] Testa de Nevill, 63 b, 64 a.
[15] Duncomb's Herefordshire, II, 97-99.


to the Hundred, and paid 18d. annually for stretward and motfee, [16]- which shows that the Manor preserved its Domesday measurement of 1 hides. Within the next ten years Sir John de Lingen stands first witness of two important deeds already set forth. [17] In 1259 and 1260 he was chief of the Commissioners (Dictators they are called) who were nominated by the King to preserve the truce with Lewellyn. Patents of October 15, 1259, and January 14, February 25, and May 28, 1260, instruct John de Lingen and his associates as to their proceedings in this trust, particularly as to their obtaining satiafaction from the Welsh for certain breaches of the truce and other trespasses. [18]

In Easter Term 1283, I find Walter de Pedwardine suing Ralph de Lingeyn and others for trespass at Bereford, [19] but I cannot say whether this Ralph was head of his family. In 1297 John de Lingeyne was one of those who held lands or rents in Shropshire of the annual value of 20. and upwards, and so was summoned with horses and arms for Foreign Service, the Muster being fixed for July 7, at London. [20] The same John, in 1301, was summoned from Herefordshire for military service against the Scots, the Muster being fixed for June 24, at Berwick upon Tweed. [21] In March 1316 John de Lingeyne was one of the Lords of the several Vills of Credenhill, Conhope, and Leye, in Herefordshire; [22] and in 1324 Sir John Lyngeyne, Knight, was among those summoned from Herefordshire to attend a Great Council, to be held at Westminster, on May 30. [23]

The principal UNDERTENANCY in Huntington was that of the family of Cambray. As early as 1199 Ralph de Cambray occurs as having been amerced half a merk for the unlawful erection of some fence. [24] This Ralph was probably the same person with him whom I have already mentioned as John de Lingen's Tenant here in 1222. In 1237 William de Cambray accounts to the Sheriff for half a Fine of one merk which he had proffered for having some seizin, unspecified by the Record. [24] His sureties were John de Lingede (Lingen) and Odo de Hodenet. Again in 1249 William de Cambray accounts for a larger Fine, viz. 20 merks, which he had given for some Inquisition to be had. [24] His Sureties were Geoffrey de Ledwych, Hugh Carbonel, and two others. Fifteen merks of

[16] Rot. Hundred. II, 70.
[17] Vol. III, p. 28, note 22;- and p. 54, note 21.
[18] Patent, 44 Hen. III. Foedera I, 394.
[19] Placita coram Rege, No. 75, m. 15.
[20] [21] Parliamentary Writs, I, pp. 291, 349.
[22] [23] Ibidem, IV, pp. 365, 639.
[24] Rot. Pip. de eisdem annis.


this Fine were still due in 1252. In 1259 William de Cambray appears thrice on the Rolls as fining in sums of one merk, one merk, and half a merk, to have an assize. [24] Two of these fines related to his suit against Ernald de Berkeley, mentioned under Hopton Cangeford. The ground of the third does not appear. In the same year he was amerced 20s. for a false oath. In this year (1259) we have mention of another Undertenant here, viz. Robert de Huntindon, who was amerced 8s. 4d. for not producing one for whom he was pledge. [24] On August 11, 1266, Nicholas de Brumfield has a Writ of novel disseizin against William de Huntinton and Aldith, widow of Robert de Huntinton, concerning a tenement in Huntinton.

Upper Ashford or Ashford Jones.

THE Domesday notice of Huntington is followed by that of another Manor in the same quarter (ibidem), similarly held by Ralph de Mortimer of the Norman Earl; but its name is not given. Its identity with Upper Ashford is however quite clear. "The same Radulf (de Mortimer) holds in this quarter one Manor, and Richard holds it of him. Azor held it (in Saxon times). Here is a hide and a half geldable. In demesne there is one ox-team and a half, and (there are) IIII Serfs, II Villains, and II Boors, with one team. The former value of the Manor was 5s. Now it is worth 10s. (per annum)". [1]

I have intimated under Neen Savage and Kinlet, that the Successors of Mortimer's Tenant, Ricardus, were not of one family only, and indeed there is a probability that his estates came to be divided amoug Coheirs. His successors at Burley and at Upper Ashford, if not elsewhere, were the Burleys, of whom I shall only say here that Simon de Burley was Lord of Burley in 1240, and that he is expressly entered as Mesne-Lord of Upper Ashford in 1255, and that at the decease of Edmund de Mortimer in 1304, John de Burleye was found to have held Asshton, Ashford and Kynton, under the deceased by service of 1 knights'-fees. [2]

It is of the UNDERTENANTS in Upper Ashford that I now speak.

[24] Rot. Pip. de eisdem annis.
[1] Domesday, fo. 256, b, 2.
[2] Inquisitions, 32 Edw. I, No. 63, b.


At the Assizes of November, 1221, Walter fitz Odo, Plaintiff, recovered against Ralph de Cambrai, the Tenant, a virgate in Eisford. The trial was by Grand-Assize, and the question was whose was the better right. The Sureties of Ralph de Cambrai were John Carbonel and Reginald de Eisford. There is a note appended to the recital of this case, purporting that the Tenant had called John de Lingen to warranty in the County Court; that the said John had failed in warranty, and was therefore summoned to appear at Warwick, whither the Justiciars were proceeding. [3] The sequel I have given under Huntington.

Reginald de Ashford, just now named, seems to have been Burley's Chief Tenant here, for John de Esseford, who is said in 1240 to hold half a fee in Easeford, under Ralph de Mortimer, [4] was son of Reginald; but that his tenure was not immediately under Mortimer is proved by the Munslow Inquisition of 1255, which says that John son of Reginald holds Upper Asford of Simon de Burleg. It contained a hide-and-half,- the Domesday estimate: did suit to Munslow Hundred, and paid 18d. per annum for stretward and motfee. John fitz Reginald was on the Jury which made this report. [5]

In 1256 John de Esseford was returned among those who holding twenty librates of land were not knights. In 1259 I find a second Reginald de Asford sitting as a Juror on the Inquest after William de Stutevill's death; but I cannot say positively that this Reginald was of Upper Ashford.

Notwithstanding Ralph de Cambray's failure in keeping possession of that virgate in Ashford in which he had been enfeoffed by John de Lingen, it would appear that his successor at Huntington, viz. William de Cambray, had an interest also in Ashford. Nay, the latter actually styles himself William de Cambray of Asford in a Charter whereby, about the year 1250, he granted to Haughmond Abbey, for the souls'-health of his Ancestors and Heirs, a rent of 12d. arising out of land in Asford, which Milo of Little Hereford held of the Grantor. The witnesses hereto were Hugh Carbonell, Henry de Budlers, John de Asforde, Nicholas fitz Andrew, Geoffrey and James his brothers. [6]

On May 19, 1284, a Fine was levied between John Mauveysin and Isabella his wife, Plaintiffs, and William de Mortimer, Deforciant,

[3] Assizes, 6 Hen. III, m. 3.
[4] Testa de Nevill, p. 45.
[5] Rot. Hundred. II, 70.
[6] Haughmond Chartulary: Tit. Asfords.


of a messuage, a carucate of land, and 40s. rent in Ovver Asseford. John and Isabella acknowledge the right of William as arising by their own grant. In return, William concedes the premises to them for their lives, reserving a rose-rent and capital services. Remainder is covenanted for Peter, son of Peter de Grete, who is to hold of the Lords of the Fee. [7]

Ashford Carbonel.

THIS was the only Manor in Culvestan Hundred which was held by the Barons of Richard's Castle. They held it immediately of the King, and the following is its description in Domesday. "The same Osbern (fitz Richard) holds Esseford. Ledi held it (in Saxon times). Here are II hides geldable. The (arable) land is (sufficient) for IIII ox-teams. Here one Frenchman and IIII Villains have II teams. Here is a Mill of (the annual value of) three quarters of corn (summis annon). In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 16s. (annually). Now it is worth 8s. He (Osbern) found it waste". [1]

Whether the Frenchman (Francigena) alluded to in this entry were ancestor of the Carbonels I cannot say, but I think the Carbonels were seated at Ashford at an earlier period than we should assign as the date of a Charter of feoffment which I shall presently quote; and if so the said Charter must be taken as an instrument, settling in writing the terms of their feoffment, rather than originating that feoffment.

Carbonel was unquestionably a Norman name, [2] and the Domesday Survey gives us one Carbonel as then holding a Herefordshire Manor (Lacre) of the King in capite. [3] In the next century there was one Geoffrey Carbonel, of whom all that we know is, that his son William asserted him in 1203 to have died seized of half a hide in the Manor of Harcott. [4] We have seen William Carbonel (the same son of Geoffrey, I presume) attesting, as William Carb de Hesefordia (William Carbonel of Heseford or Ashford) a Charter of the

[7] Compare the Fine given under Nash (supra, Vol. IV, p. 332).
[1] Domesday, fo. 260, a, 1.
[2] Stapleton's Rot. Normaniae, I, pp. lxxxiv, cxxvii.
[3] Domesday, fo. 187, b, 1.
[4] Vide supra, p. 181.


then Lord of Richard's Castle, which seems to have passed about 1174. [5]I think that the following Charter of Feoffment passed later, that is between the year 1174 and 1185, the latter being the date of the Grantor's death.

"Osbern fitz Hugh grants, with consent of Hugh his Brother, to William Carbunel and his heir,- to hold of the Grantor and his heirs, all his land, viz. Hesford and Huvertone, [6] for service of half a knight's-fee.- Witnesses: Hugh de Say, Hugh his Son, Peter de Grette, Philip his Son, Robert Esturmi, Gilbert de Muleston, Robert Wiard, William de Witinton, Hugh his Son, Richard Chaplain, Master Godefrid, Pain de Ludeford, Ralph de Bintan, John Trussebu Seneschal, and nine others". [7]

The Shropshire Pipe-Roll of 1183 gives William Carbunell as paying an amercement of one merk for false claim. In Easter Term 1200 he was one of the twelve knights who formed the Jury noticed under Nordley Regis; [8] and in 1210 a Feodary of the Honour of Richard's Castle has William Carbunel as holding half a fee therein. [9] Consistently with all this we have had William Carbonel attesting Geva de Tenbury's grant to Haughmond Abbey before 1185; [10] also attesting a deed of Hugh de Ferrars between 1196 and 1204. A Deed too of Robert de Mortimer, between 1209 and 1219, confirming several grants to Haughmond Abbey, has the attestation of William Carbonel. Lastly, the Grant of Herbert de Tenbury's daughters, given under Cornewood, has the attestation of William Carbonel and of John and Pagan his sons. [10] In November 1221 William Carbonel was dead, for John and Pagan Carbonel, brothers and knights, appear as Jurors of certain causes tried at Shrewsbury. John Carbonel, the eldest of these brothers, appears again in August 1226 among the chief knights of the County, who then made Inquisition concerning the Forest of Stiperstones. Of Pain Carbonel I shall hereafter speak under Wooferton. The Feodary of Richard's Castle, which I account to have been drawn up about 1230, gives Pain Carbonel as living; but John Carbonel was apparently dead, for Hugh Carbonel, whom

[5] Vol. II, p. 67, note.
[6] Overton in Burford Manor (vide supra, Vol. IV, p. 343).
[7] I get this Charter from a transcript by Dugdale (Ashmol. Library, Vol. K.). The original was with Sir Simon Archer in 1637. It had two seals,- the first (that of Osbern fitz Hugh) repreeenting a knight on horseback, charging sword in hand. The second seal had the figure of a Lion passant, and the words HUGONIS DE SAI of the Legend still remaining.
[8] Vol. III, p. 157.
[9] Liber Ruber Scacc. fo. cxxxviii.
[10] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 331.


I take to have been his son and heir, is entered as holding half a fee in Esford. [11] The same tenure is repeated in the Feodary of 1240, William de Stutevill being then Baron of Richard's Castle. [12] Also the Inquisition of 1255 gives Hugh Carbonel as holding Aysford Carbonel of William de Stutevill. It contained 14 hides (the Domesday estimate), did suit to Munslow Hundred, and paid 18d. annually for stretward and motfee. [l3] In 1256 Hugh Carbonel was one of those who held fifteen librates of land in this County and was not yet a Knight. In 1259 he was a Juror in the Inquest taken on the death of William de Stutevill. Before November 1266 Hugh Carbonel was deceased, leaving a widow, Joanna, and a successor, doubtless his son, Richard Carbonel. Joanna and Richard were then sued respectively for one-third and two-thirds of a virgate in Asseford, but the case was adjourned. The Plaintiffs were Geoffrey, son of Geoffrey le Tayleur, and William de la Val with his wife Joan; and their Essoignors were William fitz Roger, Robert fitz William, and Robert de Furche. [14] Richard Carbonel was, in 1265-6, one of the witnesses of Hugh de Mortimer's Charter to the Burgesses of Burford. Hugh Carbonel having slain Philip de Grete, a Patent of the year 1267 directs certain Justiciars to try whether the act were one of self-defence. This Hugh I take to have been younger brother of Richard Carbonel of Ashford. The latter was on the Jury for Munslow Hundred at the Assizes of September 1272, and on a Ludlow Inquest in January 1284. The Feodary of 1284 gives him as holding Asford Carbonel for half a knight's-fee, under Robert de Mortimer. In 1287 this tenure is repeated, only, as I have said under Overton, that vill was held by Richard Carbonel jointly with Ashford Carbonell. [15] The whole tenure was estimated at 100s. per annum. The Inquisition taken on the death of Matilda de Mortimer, in April 1308 gives Hugh Carbonel (probably son of Richard) as then holding the Manors of Aysford Carbonel and Overtone by half a knight's-fee. [16] The same was Lord of the Vill of Ashford when, in March 1316, the Return called the Nomina Villarum was made. [17]


Ashford Carbonel and the Vill of Huntington were originally in

[11] Liber Ruber Scacc. fo. cxlv.
[12] Testa de Nevill, p. 45.
[13] Rot. Hundred. II, 70.
[14] Placita, Mich. Term, 50 and 51 Hen. III, m. 26 dorso.
[15] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 343.
[16] Inquisitions, I Edw. II, No. 59.
[17] Parliamentary Writs, iv. 398.


the Herefordshire Parish of Little Hereford. The Church (now a Perpetual Curacy annexed to the Vicarage of Little Hereford) was doubtless founded as a Chapel, and in strict subjection to the Mother-Church. The date of such foundation I can by no means indicate. The non-mention of the Chapel in Records of the thirteenth century is by no means conclusive as to its non-existence at that or an earlier period.

Middleton Higford.

WITH this Manor we introduce a series of four Manors in Culvestan Hundred which William Pantulf held at Domesday under the Earl of Shrewsbury.-

"The same William (Pantulf) holds Middeltone, and Berner (holds it) of him. Uluric and Eduin held it (in Saxon times) for two Manors. Here are II hides geldable. There is (arable) land (enough) for VIII ox-teams. In demesne (there are) II teams and (there are) IIII Neat-herds, I Villain, and VIII Boors with I team, and (there is) a Mill of 2s. (annual value). The old value of the Manor was 20s. (per annum). Now it is worth 14s". [1]

Taking the Domesday Uluric and Aluric to have been one person, we find him supplanted by William Pantulf in seven instances, four of which were in Culvestan Hundred. Helgot was his Successor in a less number of cases. The bulk of William Pantulf's Shropshire estates lay in and around Wem, where I shall speak more fully of his origin and descendants. His Manors in South Shropshire seem mostly to have been disunited from his Barony, a fact to which I have already adverted in two instances [2] and which will now appear yet further in detail. Berner, Pantulf's Tenant at Middleton, was, as I have said, almost surely the Ancestor of the Hugfords, but the Hugfords are not found at any later period to hold Middleton under Pantulf. They held it first under Lacy, then under Fitz Alan. The four fees of old feoffment which in 1165 were held by Nicholas de Hungerford under Hugh de Lacy were unquestionably Higford (two fees), Middleton (one fee), and Upper Ledwich (one fee). Higford was of Lacy's seigneury at Domesday, Middleton and Upper Ledwich were not. The question is then as to why

[1] Domesday, fo. 257, b. 1.
[2] Vol. IV, pp. 27, 189.


these two last fees passed to Lacy. Now I can hardly suggest that they were given to Lacy in compensation for certain dismemberments of his Fief, which took place during the forfeiture of his House. In that case they would scarcely have been classed as fees of old feoffment. I rather think that they must have been allotted to Lacy early in Henry I's time. It was obviously the policy as well as the practice of our Kings, to maintain a coordinate share in the government and disposition of the greater Castles of the Kingdom. Ludlow Castle came into being shortly after Domesday. The Crown was interested in its maintenance and security, so long as its Lords were loyal. The territorial arrangements of Domesday had been made with no apparent prospect of this Castle being built. The King, in respect of the loyalty of the first Hugh de Lacy, or in remembrance of the disloyalty of his predecessor, or with a view to the strengthening of Ludlow Castle and the maintenance of his own influence there, may have procured from William Pantulf the resignation of one of his Manors in South Shropshire, in order that competent ward might be provided for this great fortress. Such ward was afterwards due at Ludlow from the Manor of Middleton, and I know not how the obligation can have arisen, save by interference of the Crown. That from owing service to Ludlow this Manor came to be reputed as of Lacy's Fief, is a process by no means unintelligible.

Thus much as regards the treatment of a single Manor.- The policy of the Crown being admitted as obvious, viz. to qualify the absolute control of any great Feudatory over a given Fortress, that policy may be shown to have had a wide practical range;- for certain Manors, which were not of Lacy's original Fief and which never became (even nominally) annexed thereto, owed ward at Ludlow, [3] whilst on the other hand, several Manors [4] which were originally of Lacy's Fief, and one which became annexed thereto, [5] were charged with Castle-Guard at Montgomery.

The next that we hear of Middleton must be understood to include Higford and Upper Ledwich. All three were given by Hugh de Lacy about the year 1175 to William fitz Alan (II), who then married the daughter of the said Hugh. Henceforth then these Manors were held by the Hugfords under Fitz Alan, and formed the four knights'-fees which in 1240 Walter de Huggeford is said to

[3] Viz. Kenley, Henley, and Great Sutton.
[4] Viz. Stokesay, Corfton, Middlehope, and Patton.
[5] Viz. Upper Ledwich.


hold of John Fitz Alan in Huggeford and its appurtenances. [6] The service due at Ludlow Castle was not hereby qualified;- for the Ludlow and Stanton-Lacy Inquisitions of 1255 both state Middleton to be "a knight's-fee pertaining to Ludlow Castle, and which" (that is, the territorial seigneury thereof) "had been given to William Fitz Alan with the Sister of Walter de Lacy". [7] The Manor was still held to be in Munslow Hundred, for the Jurors of that Hundred said that Walter de Hugeford held Midelton of John fitz Alan. [8] The Record states it to contain III hides, but it paid 2s. for stretward and motfee, which is proportioned to a Manor of two hides,- the Domesday estimate. It did suit to Munslow Hundred.

In 1270 Robert de W**re and Katherine his wife sue William de Hugeford for novel disseizin in Middelton. In 1271 John de Middleton (a tenant probably of Hugford's) has a similar writ against Walter de Fenes and others. In January 1272 Isabella, widow of Richard Huberd, was suing William de Hugford for her dower in 30 acres, and was suing Adam Huberd for her dower in a messuage and 1 virgates in Middleton. William de Hugford, having had, I suppose, some surrender from Richard Huberd, sued Adam Huberd, probably Richard's heir, in a plea of warranty. Adam Huberd, as against Isabella, called William Paternoster to warranty and sued him thereupon. [9] Both cases were adjourned. At the Assizes of September 1272, the said Isabella accorded both suits, in what way does not appear. The thirds sought against Hugford are said to be of 24 acres, against Adam Hubert, of two messuages and two virgates. [10]

The Feodary of 1284 gives William de Hugford as holding Middelton under the heir of Fitz Alan for a whole knight's-fee, the said heir holding it of the King. Some other particulars of Hugford's interest here I have given under Higford. [11] At the Assizes of 1292 William de Hugford was reported by the Munslow Jurors as a Defaulter in due attendance.

THE CHAPEL of Middleton, whenever founded, was in subjection to Bitterley. However, the Priory of Wenlock is said to have had the tithes of Hugford Myddylton from ancient time, [12] though their value is not stated. I have shown under Bitterley that this right of the Priory was represented for centuries by a pension chargeable

[6] Testa de Nevill, p. 44.
[7] Rot. Hundred. II, 69, 80.
[8] Ibidem, p. 70.
[9] Placita, Hilary Term, 56 Hen. III, m. 12 dorso.
[10] Assizes, 56 Hen. III, m. 6 dorso.
[11] Supra, Vol. III, p. 17.
[12] Register at Willey, fo. 36, b.


on the Church of Bitterley. How Wenlock Priory became first entitled to such a due, is a matter on which, in the absence of all evidence, conjecture would be vain.

Upper Ledwich.

"THE same William (Pantalf) holds Ledewic (of the Earl), and Berner holds it of him (Pantulf). Uluric held it (in Saxon times). Here are II hides geldable. The (arable) land is enough for IIII ox-teams. In demesne there is I team, and there are II neat-herds, II Villains and IIII Boors, with I team. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 13s. 4d. (per annum). Now it is worth 10s. He (Pantulf) found it waste". [1]

As regards its Saxon Owner Uluric, its Domesday Lords, William Pantulf and Berner, its transfer to Lacy and then to Fitz Alan, and the descent of Berner's interest to De Hugford, the early history of Upper Ledwich is exactly that of Middleton Higford.

The subsequent difference between the two was that while Middleton came to be charged with service at Ludlow Castle, Upper Ledwich owed a similar service at Montgomery.

Under Rudge, Abdon, and Cleeton, I have given some particulars of a family which took its name from this place. These Ledwiches were De Hugford's Tenants in this Manor. The first of whom I hear is Roger de Ledewic, who attests in 1120 a Charter cited under Beckbury. [2] Next comes Geoffrey de Ledewich, amerced 2 merks in 1185 for unjust disseizin, and who also has occtured to us in 1197. [3]

Before Easter, 1203, this Geoffrey was dead, for a Suit at Westminster, between his widow (here called Hawise) and Walter de Huggeford, is entered on a Roll of that Term as settled by accord. However, another suit arose between the same parties wherein the Widow's name is several times written as Juliana. Hugford sued her at the Salop Assizes of October 1203, for custody of half the vill of Ledwic. She did not appear till the Justices-in-Eyre had reached Gloucester. There Hugford's Attorney (Warin) claimed

[1] Domesday, fo. 257, b, 1.
[2] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 133.
[3] Supra, Vol. III, p. 305.


the custody of the premises for his Principal as having the wardship of Geoffrey de Ledwic, infant son of Geoffrey deceased, which latter had held both Ledwic and other lands under Hugford. Juliana replied that the moiety of Ledewic in dispute was her dower, which her infant Son aforesaid ought of right to Warrant to her. Hugford's Attorney rejoined that it was not her dower, for she had for dower the land of Clie, [4] and had held it days and years since her husband's death, and thereof he produced evidence. The cause was further adjourned to Oxford, where Hugford's Attorney was to produce the Ward, without whom, as her Warrantor, Juliana would not plead further. She named Roger de Mora as her Attorney. [5]

We have seen Geoffrey de Ledwich (II) to have been of age in 1222, [6] and occurring at Abdon [7] and Rudge from 1226-7 to 1240. Geoffrey de Ledwich, who in 1248 was Surety for William de Cambray's fine, and who in 1251 fines one merk for some Writ, was perhaps identical with the last-named Geoffrey, but, as I have shewn under Cleeton, Geoffrey de Ledwich (II) was deceased in 1253, leaving a Widow, Agnes, and a son and heir, Geoffrey. Nor were the differences before recited between the Widow and the Heir confined to Cleeton, for in the same year Agnes, widow of Geoffrey de Ledewic, alleges a disseizin in Ledewic against Geoffrey de Ledewic.

The Inquisition of 1255 says that "Geoffrey de Ledewich holds Ledewich of Walter de Huggeford. It contained II hides (its Domesday measurement), and did suit to Munslow Hundred, and paid the King 2s. for stretward and motfee". [8] Here the Seigneury of Fitz Alan, over Hugford, is not expressed, probably because the entry follows that of Middleton, where the higher Tenure had been set forth. However, the same Record informs us that Geoffrey de Ledewich was bound to find one soldier to do ward at Montgomery for forty days in time of war, and that the said service was in arrear. [8] This, as I have already intimated, is very consistent with the idea that Upper Ledwich had been sometime of Lacy's Fief, though now annexed to Fitz Alan's. In 1256 Geoffrey de Ledewyz was one of those who, holding 15 librates of land in Shropshire, were not yet Knighted. At the Assizes of this year, Agnes de Ledwic names Ralph de Arras, or Thomas de Ledwic, her Attorney, against Geoffrey de Ledwic, and the latter was found to have disseized Agnes of

[4] Perhaps something at Cleeton, adjacent to the Titterstone Clee Hill.
[5] Assizes, 5 John, memb. 5 dorso, and 3 dorso.
[6] [7] Supra, Vol. III, p. 56, and IV, 129.
[8] Rot. Hundred. II, 70, 71. THE CHAPEL. 89

15 acres of land and a third part of a Mill in Ledewych. [9] In 1258 Geoffrey de Ledewik fined half a merk of gold to have respite of taking knighthood. It would seem from a Deed already set forth, [10] that he had not attained that rank in 1260, or later. At the Forest Assizes of February 1262, Geoffrey de Ledewych was accused of having taken a Doe (damam) on Tuesday after the Invention of the Cross, 1257.

The Feodary of 1284 gives Geoffrey de Ledewich as holding the vill of Ledewich by a knight's-fee under William de Hugford, omitting Fitz Alan's seigneury;- for the same reason, I presume, as the Record of 1255. At the Assizes of 1292, Geoffrey de Ledwich was reported by the Jurors of Munslow Hundred as a Defaulter in due attendance. [11]

THE CHAPEL.- This Chapel must be taken to have been originally dependent upon Bitterley, the Parish into which the now Churchless district has returned. Nevertheless, the Church of Ledewych, as it is called in the Taxation of 1291, is mentioned without any appearance of dependency, though worth less than 4. per annum. [12] It was, like Bitterley, in the Deanery of Ludlow. The assessment of the Ninth in 1341 makes the Taxation of the Chapel of Ledewych to be 6 merks, i.e. 4. The Assessors rated the Parish only 4s. to the current impost, because, said they, "the Parish was annexed to the Church of Butterley, and taxed to its true value together with the same". Nothing in fact belonged to Ledewych Chapel but a bovate of land for the sustenance of a Chaplain who said mass on Sundays, and who also had the offerings of the Vill on one day in the year. [13] The Valor of 1534-5 takes no notice of a Chapel here, and I suppose it was either destroyed or unserved.


WILLIAM DE MARTON, Acolyte;- instituted June 7, 1285. Patron, Geoffrey de Ledewich.

SIR RICHARD DE BIRCHES;- instituted April 3, 1358, to the Chapels of Hopton Cangynont (Hopton Cangeford) and Ledewich. Patrons, Margaret de Hopton and Juliana de Ledewich.

JOHN MYKYLWODE, Clerk,- instituted to Ledwich, Aug. 27, 1866,- Patron, the Bishop, jure devoluto.

[9] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 1 and 10.
[10] Supra, Vol. III, p. 28, note 22.
[11] Placita Coronae, 20 Edw. I, m. 4 dorso.
[12] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 166.
[13] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 188.


SIR RICHARD NYHETYNGALE, Priest; instituted Jan. 16, 1374. Patron, the Bishop, jure devoluto.

SIR JOHN WYGYNTON;- instituted to this Church June 3,1391,- Patron, "the Noble Lady", Margaret Priseley.

SIR THOMAS MALMESHULL, Chaplain;- instituted March 1, 1396. Patron, William Pryseleg of Shirreves-ledewych. [14]

Little Sutton.

THIS Manor is noticed in Domesday as follows:- "The same William (Pantulf) holds Sudtone (of Earl Roger). Aluric held it (in Saxon times). Here is half a hide geldable. There is (arable) land (sufficient) for II ox-teams. In demesne is one team, with II Neat-herds and I Boor. The Manor (in King Edward's time) was worth 3s. (per annum). Now it is worth 9s. He (Pantulf) found it waste". [1]

William Pantulf lost the Seigneury of this Manor at some early but unrecorded period, not I think by forfeiture, but by some arrangement with the Crown; an idea already suggested in the cases of Middleton, Higford, and Upper Ledwich. However, the King did not assign this Manor to Lacy's Fief, but made it a Serjeantry, and the next that we hear of it is its being held under the Crown by a family which took name from the place and discharged the service presently to be mentioned.

Thomas de Sudton, a Recognizor in October 1199, in the suit mentioned under Clee St. Margaret, may have been one of these Tenants by Serjeantry. If so, he was the earliest I can name. More surely Osbert de Sutton, amerced half a merk in 1207, was of this place, and perhaps identical with that Osbert de Sutton whom we have seen in the following year to renounce a claim and a tenure in Boraston. [2] But in 1211 William de Sutton was registered as one of the King's Tenants by Serjeantry, his duty being to accompany

[14] That is, Sheriffs-Ledwich; but why this place was so distinguished it is difficult to say. I can only observe suggestively that William fitz Alan (II) who acquired the Seigneury from Lacy was Sheriff of Shropshire from 1190 till 1201.

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

[2] Supra, Vol. IV, pp. 326-7.


the Sheriff, twice in each year, when the latter conveyed the ferm of the County to the Exchequer. The King, however, paid William de Sutton's expenses. [3]

William de Sutton was succeeded, apparently before the year 1215, by Robert de Sutton, whose Tenure is stated in an Assize-Roll of 1227 to be 2 merkates of land in Sutton, held by service of finding one horse to convey the King's treasure towards London twice a year. [4] This Robert de Sutton commenced in 1215 and continued till 1239, a series of feoffments in his Serjeantry;- that is, he alienated several small parcels of land to Undertenants, and apparently without license. In 1240 and 1245 his son and successor, Osbert de Sutton, continued these alienations. I have already given some account of the steps taken by the Crown in 1246 and 1247 against the Alienators of Serjeantries in general, and those of Shropshire in particular.
[5] Robert Passelewe, the King's Commissioner, visited Shropshire probably about March 1247. His Arrentation, as it is called, of Osbert de Sutton's Serjeantry, is a lengthy document, but very instructive as to the mode of his procedure. He found eight greater and five lesser alienations in Little Sutton, besides the small residue which we may suppose to have remained to Osbert de Sutton. Other Records inform us of one or two alienations of which Passelewe's Roll takes no notice. The whole matter was treated as follows:- First the Record recites that "the Serjeantry of Osbert de Sutton, in Sutton (for which he should provide for the King a horse with a head-stall (capistro) to convey the King's treasure yearly at Michaelmas from Shrewsbury to London) is alienated in part". Then follow the names of the five lesser Tenants whose collective holdings were 1 Bovate and 22 (or 20) acres, of the annual value of 4s. 9d. For these lesser Tenants, and by their consent, Osbert de Sutton covenanted to pay an annual rent to the Crown of 2s., [6] to be repaid him ratably by the said Tenants. Also, and I suppose in lieu of his former Serjeantry, Osbert himself was to perform the service of a fiftieth part of a Knight's-fee. As to the eight greater Tenants, they fined with Passelewe individually and collectively: that is, they covenanted to pay several rents to the Crown, amounting altogether to 18s. per annum, and to discharge in common the service of one thirtieth part of a knight's-fee. Thus on the whole Osbert de Sutton's Seijeantry was commuted for an annual rent of 1., and the

[3] Testa de Nevill, p. 56, and Liber Ruber, fo. cxxxvii.
[4] Testa de Nevill, p. 54.
[5] Supra, Vol. II, p. 144.
[6] The duplicate Roll eays 3s., but inaccurately I think.


performance of the service due on about one 19th of a Knight's-Fee. [7] There are other Records relating to this matter. The Pipe Roll of 1250 charges the eight greater Tenants with 3 years' arrears of their rent, but omits all charge on Osbert de Sutton. An Assize-Roll, probably of the year 1251, enumerates the names of all the then Tenants, but calls Sutton anachronously the "Fee of Sir Robert de Sutton". [8] In 1254 the Aid for marrying the King's daughter was put in charge at the rate of 40s. on every Knight's-fee. Osbert de Sutton was charged 9d. on one 30th of a Fee. The eight greater Tenants were not charged (as we should have expected) 16d. in common on one 30th of a fee, but 16d. each, as if they held two 30ths of a fee. However, the whole was paid. [9] The Hundred-Roll of 1255 says that Robert de Sutton (formerly) held Sutton for half-a-hide, of the King. It then recites his Serjeantry, as before stated, and intimates his having owed suit to Munslow Hundred, which suit had been withdrawn two years before (i.e. in 1253) by Osbert son of the said Robert, whence a yearly loss of 2s. resulted to the Crown. [10] In January 1259, Osbert de Parva Sutton, being dead, his Widow Alina sued several of the cotemporary Tenants for dower. The thirds claimed by her were seized pro tempore by the Crown; [11] but the Roll which should contain a further hearing of the cause is lost.

In 1260 the Scutage of Wales was assessed at 40s. per fee. The assessment of this Tenure thereto is copied verbatim from the assessment of 1254. When therefore Osbert de Sutton's name stands charged with 9d. on one 30th of a fee, [12] this is no proof that he was living, and the same may be said of each of the eight Tenants. In fact we do not hear again of any interest retained here by descendants of Osbert de Sutton. The lands of course remained chargeable with the same military service as before, and the Munslow Inquisition of November 1274 duly records the liability of divers tenants in Little Sutton to pay the King an annual rent of 20s. [13]

From the Records already cited, when compared with and corrected by each other, and from other sources, I now proceed to give a distinct account of each alienation of this Serjeantry and the descent of each Feoffee therein.-

1. ROBERT DE CHELES was enfeoffed in one Noke at 12d. rent, and at a period whereof, in 1255, memory was not. It was probably

[7] Testa de Nevill, pp. 58, 59.
[8] Ibidem, p. 60, a.
[9] Rot. Pip. 38 Hen. III.
[10] Rot. Hundred. II, 70, 71.
[11] Placita, Hil. Term, 43 Hen. III m. 25.
[12] Rot. Pip. 44 Hen. III.
[13] Rot. Hundred. II, 100.


before the year 1215. Passelewe's Arrentation in 1247 makes Robert de Cheles' tenement to be 1 bovate and 4 acres, worth 4s. 9d. annually. The rent and service to the Crown, then fixed on this Tenement, was included in the 2s. rent and one 30th of a fee chargeable upon Osbert de Sutton. In November 1249 Robert de Cheles was sued for half an acre in Little Sutton by Johanna and Lucia, daughters of Alexander Chaplain, who were Coparceners in another tenement. [14] The result does not appear. Robert de Cheles is mentioned among the Tenants of 1251, and of 1255; but in the latter year his chief-rent of 1s., which had previously been paid through Osbert de Sutton, was paid at once to the Crown. Robert de Cheles was succeeded by his son Roger, probably in 1259, when an indistinct allusion to the relief payable on such succession occurs on the Rolls. This Roger had, in 1245, been enfeoffed by Osbert de Sutton in 4 acres at a rent of 1d. In 1260 Roger de Cheles takes out two writs, paying a merk and half for the same. One was probably against Richard de Millenhop and Edith his wife, who appoint an Attorney against him in the same year.

I suppose that in succession to Roger de Cheles came Robert Cheles; for a Jury which sat at Great Sutton, on January 14, 1316, found that Robert Cheles had, in the time of King Edward I, held a messuage and 20 acres in Little Sutton by a rent of 10d., payable to the Crown, and by making two appearances in a year at the Hundred-Court of Munslow. The premises were worth 7s. 6d. per annum. Margaret, Widow of Robert Cheles, now (that is, in 1316) held a third thereof, and fermed the other two thirds of the King. Richard Cheles, son and heir of Robert, was found to have been 21 years of age on January 25, 1315. [15] The latter occurs on a local Inquest in 1823.

2. WILLIAM FITZ HENRY was enfeoffed by Robert de Sutton in 1215 for an annual rent of 4s., payable to the Feoffor. This rent among others Robert de Sutton conveyed, before 1240, to Henry the Moneyer (Monetario). William, son and heir of Henry the Moneyer quit-claimed this and other rents to the King "before the Justices", and probably in 1247. The Arrentation of 1247 estimates William fitz Henry's tenement at half a virgate and nine acres, of 12s. annual value, but this probably included another tenement of 11 acres, in which he had been enfeoffed between 1240 and 1247 by Osbert de Sutton at 1d. rent. The Arrentation of 1247 fixes his Crown-rent at 4s. In Easter Term 1250 he was

[14] Placita, Mich. Term, 33 and 34 Hen. III, m. 38 dorso.
[15] Inquisitions, 9 Edw. II, No. 29.


sued by Johanna and Lucia (above mentioned) for 10 acres in Little Sutton. The cause was heard in Michaelmas Term following. The Plaintiffs alleged that William fitz Henry had no other ingress into the premises than by Osbert de Parva Sutton, to whom Alicia de Sutton, the Plaintiffs' Guardian, had demised the premises while the Plaintiffs were in ward. William fitz Henry replied that as to 8 acres he held them by feoffment, not of Osbert de Sutton, but of Roger son of Robert de Stanton (a matter to which I shall recur), and as to the two remaining acres he held them indeed by feoffment of Osbert, but Osbert had them, not from the said Alice, but from his own Father,- Robert de Sutton. A Jury of the Vicinage, to whom this matter was referred, verified William fitz Henry's statement, and the Plaintiffs were non-suited, but their amercement was excused on account of their poverty. [16] In this year (1250) William fitz Henry, as one of the Greater Tenants of Sutton, was charged his Crown-rent of 4s. per annum, with the arrears then due. His name occurs on the list of Sutton Tenants in 1251. From the Hundred-Roll of 1255 it appears that his Crown-rent of 4s. was made up of two sums, viz. 2s. 6d. and 1s. 6d., chargeable respectively on his feoffment of 1215, and on his more recent feoffment by Osbert de Sutton. To both the Aid of 1254, and the Scutage of 1260, William fitz Henry was charged 16d. as on one 30th of a Knight's-fee. In January 1259 William fitz Henry was one of those whom Osbert de Sutton's Widow sued for dower, viz. for thirds in 8 acres of his Tenure. William fitz Henry must have lived to a great age; for his earliest feoffment was in 1215, and the King's writ of diem clausit extremum on his death bears date August 26, 1278. The consequent Inquest found his tenure-in-capite at Sutton to be half a virgate and eight acres, and his rent to the Crown 4s. He also held twelve acres under Roger de Stanton, for which he paid a rent of 13d., whilst Roger in turn paid 12d. thereof to the Crown. His whole estate was worth 8s. 8d. per annum, and William his son and heir was of full age. [17] In the same year I find William son of William fitz Henry, paying his relief as a Tenant-in-capite, which is all I shall say of this Tenure.

3. WILLIAM LE FRANCEIS was enfeoffed in 1215 by Robert de Sutton, whose reserved rent was 3s. This rent Robert de Sutton transferred to Henry the Moneyer, and William, Henry's son, quit-claimed it to the King. The Arrentation of 1247 gives William le

[16] Placita, Mich. Term, 34 and 35 Hen. III, m. 30.
[17] Inquisitions, 6 Edw. I, No. 9.


Franceys' tenement as half a virgate, worth 8s. yearly. He fined for a rent of 2s. 6d. to the Crown, and was charged at that rate in 1250. To the Aid of 1254 he was assessed at one 30th of a fee. He was deceased before October 10, 1256, when the Inquisition on his death duly states him to have held 29 acres in capite, by service of 2s. 6d. rent. For other 2 acres held under Osbert de Sutton, formerly Lord of Sutton, he paid d. rent to said Osbert, and 1d. to the King for Stretward. His son William was 26 years of age. [18] To the scutage of 1260 William le Franceys is charged on one 30th of a fee; but in the same year Margery, Juliana, and Alice, daughters and coheirs of William le Fraunceis, are registered as having fined 20d. each in 1258 for their relief of his inheritance. Either then the age of William le Franceys, Junior, was much understated at his Father's death, or these women were his Sisters. The estate seems eventually to have centred in Alice; for a Writ of October 16, 1306, orders an Inquest to be taken on the death of Alisia de Frense, and a Jury which met on October 31st, found that the Deceased had held 36 acres in capite at Sutton;- that the service arrentated thereon was 2s. 6d. per annum;- that the tenement was worth 13s. per annum, and that Roger le Frense was heir to the deceased, and upwards of 28 years of age. [19]

In April 1323 Roger le Frensh being dead, an Inquest taken at Munslow found him to have held a messuage and 30 acres in capite at 2s. 6d. rent, and by service and suit at Munslow Hundred-Court every three weeks. William le Frensh his son was aged twenty-one on March 25, 1323. [20]

4. ROGER DE GIRROS was enfeoffed in 1225 by Robert de Sutton in half a virgate, for a reserved rent of 2d. Roger de Girros in 1231 transferred his interest to-

WILLIAM DE CORNE, on whom the Arrentation of 1247 sets a Crown-rent of 2s. 6d., valuing his tenement at 8s. per annum. Consistent mention is made of William de Corne on the Pipe-Roll of 1250 as paying a rent of 2s. 6d. per annum, and on the Scutage Rolls of 1254 and 1260 as owing one 30th of a knight's-fee. Also on the Hundred-Roll of 1255 we have his tenure and rent duly stated; but I hear no more of his family as connected with Sutton, and I think that their interest must have gone to some other Tenant.

5. ALEXANDER THE CHAPLAIN, otherwise called Alexander de Thideliby, was enfeoffed in one virgate, at 3d. rent, by Robert de

[18] Inquisitions, 40 Hen. III, No. 5.
[19] Inquisitions, 34 Edw. I, No. 246.
[20] Inquisitions, 16 Edw. II, No. 14.


Sutton in 1225. He was dead in 1247, and no Arrentation was set upon his infant daughters, whose rights indeed seem to have been invaded by the other Tenants during their minority. In November 1249 Nicholas de la More was allowed at Westminster to sue John le King and others in behalf of the said Infants. Four suits followed, but in three cases out of the four the Defendants made out a good title, and the fourth case was adjourned. The list however of 1251 gives two maidens, Johanna and Lucia, among the Co-tenants of Sutton, so that they had either retained or regained something. The Hundred-Roll also of 1255 says that Johanna and Lucia, daughters and Grantees of Alexander the Chaplain, paid the King an annual rent of 3s. 4d., which indicates a considerable interest. However, to Aid and Scutage they were never assessed in their own names. In 1256, as we shall see, another Tenant in Sutton recovered certain land against them. Again in Easter Term 1260 Nichola de Corfton was suing Johanna fitz Alexander, Lucia her Sister, William fitz Hugh, Geoffrey de Wychecot, Robert his son, and Richard Achilles, to oblige them to keep an agreement which they had made with Simon de London, [21] Nichola's Brother, about 21 acres in Sutton and in Diddlebury. The Defendants failed to appear, and the case was adjourned to Michaelmas Term. Meantime, that is in October 1259, I find Richard son of Roger Buffard suing Richard le Waleys for disseizin in Little Sutton. The cause, long unheard, eventually assumed another form. In August 1267 Richard Buffard sued several petty Tenants for 5 acres in Sutton, of which he asserted his Father Roger to have died seized. Richard said that Lucia and Johanna, daughters of Alexander the Chaplain, having the premises in fee, had enfeoffed his Father, and then conceded them to Richard le Waleys. On the other hand it was shown that Roger Buffard had only had a nine-years' term in the premises from Lucia and Johanna. So Richard Buffard was non-suited. [22] Another Suit of mort d'ancestre, which the same Richard had against Geoffrey de Sutton for a quarter of an acre, was withdrawn. [22]

6. WILLIAM CHELES was enfeoffed in a noke at a rent of 1d. in 1231, and by Robert de Sutton. Perhaps he was dead in 1247; for William de Cheles Junior was then Tenant of 16 acres, of 4s. annual value. The Arrentation set upon him was probably 2s., though in one of the duplicate Rolls it is stated to be 1s. He was

[21] For Simon de London, see Vol. II, p. 119.
[22] Assizes, 51 Hon. III, m. 5 recto and dorso.


in minority at the time. In Easter Term 1250 Cristina de Cheles was impleaded by Joanna and Lucia fitz Alexander for 4 acres in Parva-Sutton. In November following, Cristina, who was widow of William de Cheles Senior, appeared in Court. The Plaintiffs sued under the same form as they sued William fitz Henry, viz. as having obtained ingress through Osbert de Sutton, etc. Cristina showed that she held one-third of the premises in dower, and two-thirds as Guardian of her Son William. The case was adjourned till the said William should have attained his majority. The Pipe-Roll of 1250, the Tenant-list of 1251, the Hundred-Roll of 1255, the Assessments to the Aid and Scutage of 1254 and 1260,- all mention William de Cheles as a Sutton Tenant. His rent to the Crown was 2s.; his tenure too was assessed as one 30th of a Knight's-fee. In January 1256 William de Cheles, being apparently of age, sued Lucia and Johanna fitz Alexander for 6 acres, Ingretha Spich and Johanna de Corfton for 2 acres, and Elyas de Sutton for half an acre in Sutton. Elyas called William le Chapeleyn to warranty; the latter called Johanna and Lucia, who therefore were the main Defendants in the case. William Cheyles recovered the whole, as his inheritance derived from his Father. [23]

7. THOMAS DE BASKERVILLE was enfeoffed in 11 acres at 1d. rent, by Robert de Sutton in 1235. This was Thomas de Baskerville of Pickthorn, Northwood, etc., of whom I have spoken so often, and who will recur again to us under Lawton. No Arrentation was set upon this Tenure in 1247, nor is it named on the Roll. However it still existed, for in 1251 Walter, son of Roger de Baskerville, is entered on the list of Sutton Tenants;- not quite accurately perhaps; for in 1255 Anastasia, relict of Roger son of Thomas de Baskerville, was holding this tenement in dower.

8. ROBERT DE STANTON LACY was enfeoffed in 30 acres, at 3d. rent, by Robert de Sutton in 1235. Robert de Stanton gave 18 acres of this estate to Nicholas fitz Reginald de Stanton. Moreover Roger, son of Robert de Stanton, gave the residue (here said to be 13 acres) to William fitz Henry before mentioned, reserving a rent of 5s. [24] thereon. One of these transfers was before, the other after the Arrentation of 1247, for that Record exhibits Nicholas de Stanton as holding 16 acres and Roger de Stanton as holding a bovate. [25]

[23] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 13 dorso.

[24] Sic.

[25] Various Records make the Bovate to have consisted of from 8 to 24 acres. We have had an instance (Vol. IV, p. 33) where it was equivalent to a fourth-part of a virgate, i.e. to 15 acres, according to the usual estimate of the virgate in Shropshire. Here again we have the Borate equal to from 12 to 14 acres.


in the Sutton Serjeantry. The then annual value of these tenures was 6s. 8d. and 4s., and an arrentation of 2s. and 1s. was set upon them respectively. The two sub-tenancies which thus arose I must speak of separately.-

Nicholas de Stanton's alleged feoffment by Robert de Stanton before 1247 has to be reconciled with another fact. John le King was impleaded in Michaelmas Term 1249 by Johanna and Lucia fitz Alexander for 10 acres. In Michaelmas Term 1250 John le King showed that he was Tenant for life of these 10 acres, not having ingress therein through Osbert de Sutton, as the Plaintiffs alleged, but through Robert de Stanton, whose Deed he produced. The Jury confirmed this statement, and the Plaintiffs were non-suited. I conceive then that Nicholas fitz Reginald had the reversion or fee-simple of these 10 acres, and that so his name appears in the Arrentation of 1247, the Tenant-list of 1251, the Aid-Roll of 1254, the Hundred-Roll of 1255, and the Scutage-Roll of 1260, his Crown-rent being 2s., his nominal Tenure one 30th of a Knight's-fee.

As to Roger de Stanton who inherited the residue of this tenement from his Father, his name figures in the same Records as the person liable to the Crown for 1s. rent and the service of one 30th of a Knight's-fee. However he had sub-enfeoffed William fitz Henry before Easter Term 1250, when the latter was impleaded by Lucia and Johanna fitz Alexander for 10 acres, eight of which, as he afterwards proved, he had by feoffment of Roger, son of Robert de Stanton. I have already quoted the Inquisition of 1278, which so accurately distinguishes the Tenement held in capite by William fitz Henry, deceased, from the 12 acres which he held under Roger de Stanton, at a rent of 13d., the said Roger being responsible for the King's rent of 1s. assessed thereon.

9. RICHARD FITZ PHILIP was enfeoffed in one noke at 6d. rent in 1235, and by Robert de Sutton. This rent (variously stated as 1s.) was one of those given by Robert de Sutton to Henry the Moneyer, and quit-claimed, by the son of the latter, to the Crown before 1247. The Arrentation of that year estimates Richard fitz Philip's tenement at 18 acres, worth 6s. 8d. yearly, and sets thereon a Crown-rent of 2s. The Records of 1251, 1254, 1255, and 1260 make consistent mention of this tenure, adding Richard fitz Philip's liability as Tenant of one 30th of a Knight's-fee.

10. REGINALD DE HEYTON was enfeoffed by Robert de Sutton in 1239, at d. rent. The Arrentation does not assess him, his Tenure


being one of those included in Osbert de Sutton's fine, where he is called Reginald fitz Wymund. In 1255 his Tenure was detached from this group, and his proportion of Crown-rent said to be 3d. He was one of the Tenants impleaded by Osbert de Sutton's Widow in 1259, viz. for a third of 2 acres; which 2 acres were, I suppose, all he held. Adam de Heyton had succeeded to Reginald in 1262, and John, son of Reginald de Heyton, occurs at Sutton in 1306.

11. HERBERT DE WICHCOTE was enfeoffed in 3 acres, by Robert de Sutton in 1239, at d. rent. Like Reginald de Heyton his Crown-rent of 3d. is first apportioned on him in 1255. Alina, widow of Osbert de Sutton, sued him for dower in 1259, viz. for a third of 2 acres. Herbert's successor was probably Geoffrey de Wichcote, who has been mentioned under Great Sutton as occurring in 1271, [26] and also under Stokesay. [26] An Inquest taken at Little Sutton Feb. 20, 1309, on the death of Hugh, son of Geoffrey de Wychcote, states his tenure in capite there to have been 8 acres and his arrentation 6d. The annual value thereof was 2s. 8d. A messuage and 15 acres which he had in Great Sutton were held under Matilda Burnel. Hugh his son and heir was aged 26 years and more on Nov. 1, 1308. [27]

12. ELYAS DE SUTTON was enfeoffed in 1240 by Osbert de Sutton in one noke, at 1d. rent, also in 7 acres, at 2d. rent. The Arrentation of 1247 estimates his tenure as 2 bovates, worth 7s. per annum, and fixes his Crown-rent at 2s. The Records of 1251, 1254, and 1260 make consistent mention of this tenure and Crown-rent, but the Hundred-Roll of 1255 inaccurately specifies only 1s. of Crown-rent. This is the last of the eight greater Tenures in Sutton, each said to owe the serviee of one 30th of a knight's-fee. The Inquest on Elyas de Sutton's death is preserved. The Writ of Diem clausit bears date July 20, 1262. Among the Jurors are Adam de Heyton, Robert Wymund, and William fitz Henry de Sutton. The deceased had held 25 acres in Little Sutton of 4s. 8d. annual value, by a service of 2s. yearly to the Crown. He also had held of the King of Almagne a carucate of land, worth 34s. per annum, at a rent of 10s. (The latter tenure was in Great Sutton.) Elyas, son and heir of the deceased, was at least 24 years of age. In this same year (1262) John, son of Elyas de Sutton, was amerced 12d. for vert, and assessed 12d. for an imbladement within Regard of the Long Forest. At the Assizes of 1272 Elyas de Sutton (John's elder brother) was a Juror for Munslow Hundred; so too at the Inquisition of 1274.

[26] Supra, pp. 96 and 67.
[27] Inquisitions, 2 Edw. II, No. 11.


He was again on the Munslow Jury at the Assizes of 1292, and one of the Jurors to try Pleas of Quo Waranto at the same Iter. I have already given particulars of Elyas de Sutton's interest in Lower Hayton, and of his grant thereof to Acornbury Nunnery in 1299. [28] The Inquest which defined his estate in Lower Hayton said further that besides his grant to Acornbury he had three carucates of land in Sutton and Possethorne, and 100s. annual rent in the same vills. [29]

In June 1300 Helias de Sutton occurs as one of the Verderers of the Royal Forests of Shropshire. [30] The time of his death I cannot ascertain, but he was succeeded by his son Richard, who was deceased May 27, 1324. The said Richard's tenure in capite was found by Inquest, held August 10 following, to have been a messuage, 12 acres of land, and one acre of meadow, the arrentation whereon was 1s. He held also a messuage, 36 acres of land, and 5s. rent in Great Sutton of Sir John de Handlo, by service of 7s. rent. John de Sutton, son and heir of Richard, was 15 years of age on June 24, 1324. [31]

13. RICHARD WALSH (Walensis) held by rent of 12d. under Robert de Sutton; which rent Robert de Sutton gave to Henry the Moneyer, together with a meadow, for which the said Henry was to pay 3d. per annum. William, Henry's son, quit-claimed the rent of 12d. to the Crown, and gave the meadow up to Stephen de Buterley, the King's Escheator. These surrenders were probably before 1251. Then Richard Wallicus is entered as a Sutton Tenant. He is called Richard le Waleys in 1259, when Alina, widow of Osbert de Sutton, sued him for thirds of a messuage and 6 acres in Sutton. Roger le Walse, perhaps of this family, occurs on a Sutton Jury in 1306.

14. Other Tenants were Robert Merth, enfeoffed before 1255 by Osbert de Sutton in a messuage and garden, worth 4s. per annum, at d. rent;- John fitz Henry, holding 4 acres in 1247, worth 2s. per annum;- Richard le Mazun, sued in 1259 by Osbert de Sutton's widow for thirds of a messuage and 8 acres;- Henry de Parva Sutton and Eve his wife, similarly sued for thirds of 2 acres;- and lastly William le Moneur of Parva Sutton, who occurs in 1292.


This place has no mention in Domesday, but can hardly be considered

[28] Supra, pp. 22, 23.
[29] Inquisitions, 27 Edw. I, No. 72.
[30] Salop Chartulary, No. 279.
[31] Inquisitions, 18 Edw. II, No. 55.


a member of Little Sutton, inasmuch as the latter maintained its Domesday hidage independently. However I prefer to speak of Lawton here, because it now forms one township with Little Sutton, and was associated therewith by several circumstances of ancient tenure. Like Little Sutton, Lawton had in the twelfth century become a Serjeantry, and was held in capite by those same Baskervilles whom I have mentioned under Aldenham, Pickthorn, Northwood, Newton, and Little Sutton. I return for a moment to the question of the origin of these Baskervilles whose estates, be it remembered, were not only in Shropshire, but also at Bradwardine, in Herefordshire, and at Helidon, in Northamptonshire. Connected as they undoubtedly were with the Baskervilles of Eardisley, that connection has only served to confuse all accounts of the two races after they became distinct. One statement would lead us to infer that a Ralph de Baskervill, of the elder line, acquired Eardisley and Willersley by marriage with Sibil, daughter of Adam de la Port; [1] but surely Eardisley belonged to the Fief of Lacy, rather than to that of La Port. However in this statement we have perhaps an element of a much more probable theory, viz. that a Cadet of the Baskervilles of Eardisley, by some such marriage, and early in the twelfth century, acquired Bradwardine,- a fee which, as we have already seen, [2] was held in 1165 by Ralph de Baskervill under Adam de la Port. There are other circumstances which I have not yet alluded to, but which are illustrative not only of this Ralph de Baskervill's Tenures in Herefordshire and Shropshire, but of his personal history and tragical death. Like his cotemporary, Robert de Baskerville of Eardisley, Ralph de Baskervill was a Benefactor to the Priory of Brecknock. "He gave", says my authority, "to the Monks of Brecknock lands at Bredwardine". His Charter was attested by William de Braose (who then enjoyed La Port's Barony) and by William de Braose the younger. [3] A renewal of this Charter seems to have had the attestations of William de Braose Senior, Maud de St. Valeri his wife, and Ralph Abbot of Wigmore [3] (who occurs in office in 1180 and 1185). Ralph de Baskervill by another Charter, gave Trosdref Mill, on the river Llyfni, to Brecknock, [3] and this grant, being made in the presence of Peter Bishop of St. David's, must have passed between 1176, when that Prelate succeeded, and 1191-2, when Ralph de Baskervill seems to have been assassinated. We cannot be far wrong in assuming that it was this Ralph de

[1] Jones's Brecknockshire, II, 79.
[2] Supra, Vol. I, pp. 231-2.
[3] Monasticon, III, 261, b.


[For pedigree, see pdf.]


Baskervill who gave to the Knights Templars of Lidley his Mill of Lawton. [4] If so, the grant will have been made between 1185 and 1192; for in the former year a Record of all the Templars' possessions in Shropshire was not inclusive of this item.

The wife of Ralph de Baskervill has been before alluded to as having remarried to Roger fitz William, suspected to have been her first husband's Murderer. This Lady was undoubtedly the same with Nesta ap Griffith, who after Ralph de Baskervill's death is said to have contested his grant of Trosdref Mill to the Monks of Brecknock. Ultimately she withdrew this opposition and became herself a Benefactress of the Priory. Her Quit-claim seems to show that she was surviving later than the year 1203. [5]

I have on former occasions mentioned three of Ralph de Baskervill's children, viz. Thomas his heir (under age at his Father's death), Nesta, who in 1199 claimed Bradwardine as her inheritance, and Isolda, who seems to have married a Botterell. He had perhaps other issue, [6] but of his daughter Nesta I must here speak particularly, inasmuch as he is said to have enfeoffed her in Lawton before his decease. In 1211 we accordingly find Nesta de Baskerville among the Tenants of Shropshire Serjeantries. Her duty was to provide oue serving-man with a lance for the King's army of Wales. [7] The husband of Nesta de Baskervill was Howell fitz Adam, who appears to have been in rebellion and under forfeiture at the close of King John's reign. A precept of Henry III, dated October 18, 1217, informs the Sheriff of Shropshire that Huwell fitz Adam had returned to his allegiance, and commands that his estates be restored to him. [8] In 1219 Nesta de Baskervill was deceased. A King's Writ, dated November 23, orders the Sheriff of Shropshire to seize the land, lately hers, in Lauton, and to allow nothing to be removed therefrom till further orders. [9] In this instance the deceased is called

[4] Testa de Nevill, p. 60.
[5] Jones's Brecknockshire, II, pp. 79, 80.- This Quit-claim is attested by Magister G. de Barri, and by G. Archdeacon of Brecon, his Nephew; that is, I presume, by Giraldus Cambrensia, and his Nephew William (Gulielmus), to whom Giraldus in or about the year 1204 resigned the Archdeaconry of Brecknock.
[6] There was an Alice de Baskervill who granted to Brecknock Priory a messuage in Bredwardine, which "Adam the Smith had formerly held under her Brother". She may have been a Sister or a daughter of Ralph de Baskervill, but the meagre way in which her Deed is quoted by Jones, destroys its genealogical bearing. It is tested by Sir Walter de Baskerville,- of Eardisley I presume. The Heads of that House from 1186 to 1282 were all named Walter.
[7] Testa de Nevill, p. 55.
[8] Rot. Claus. I, 330.
[9] Rot. Fin. 4 Hen. III, m. 9.


Nesta Bogham, a name which I suppose belonged to her as the wife of Howel fitz Adam. Another King's Writ dated November 23, 1220, recites that Hoel fitz Adam was the surviving husband of Nesta de Baskerville, and had issue by her. This alluded to his rights by Courtesy of England, and the King enjoins that he have seizin for life of all her inheritance in Lautun. [10] It would seem that Howell fitz Adam's title was under dispute, the Counter-claimant being his brother-in-law Thomas de Baskervill. Both in Hilary and Easter Terms 1221 the latter appeared in the Courts of Westminster in his suit against Howel fitz Adam. The case was adjourned till the Justices Itinerant should visit Shropshire; and the land was seized into the King's hand in consequence of the Defendant's non-appearance. At the Assizes of November 1221 the case was again adjourned; for on some ground or other the Defendant was under imprisonment in one of the King's Gaols. According to the last entry only half a virgate of land in Lauton was in dispute, but the Westminster Plea-Roll of Trinity Term 1222 shows that half a hide, or in other words, the whole Manor was in litigation. The question seems to have been whether Nesta de Baskervill had really been enfeoffed by her Father Ralph, or had only had a life-interest in the estate. The Sheriff of Shropshire had empanelled a Jury of the Vicinage to ascertain this point. Accordingly, in Trinity Term aforesaid, the Sheriff reported to the Court at Westminster that he found by Inquisition that Nesta had been seized of Lauton before her Father's death, viz. from a period commencing between Christmas (Dec. 25) and the Purification (Feb. 2), and ending at the feast of St. Augustine (May 26). The latter was probably the day of Ralph de Baskervill's murder; for the Jurors further reported that "after her Father's death Nesta was in like manner seized of Lawton".

I cannot discover any proof that Howel fitz Adam or his issue by Nesta de Baskervill maintained any claim in Lawton. In the year ending Michaelmas 1223 Thomas de Baskervill fined in the large sum of 12 merks for some Inquest to be had. In October 1224 he names Hugh Peche as his Attorney in a plea of land against Roger de Furchis, [11] and this land appears by an entry on the Plea-Roll of Hilary Term 1225 to have been half a virgate in Lauton. Cotemporarily Roger de Furchis had a counter-suit, about certain chattels, against Thomas de Baskervill; and the Courts of Westminster issued an order prohibiting him from prosecuting the latter

[10] Rot. Claus. I, 441.
[11] Rot. Claus. II, 154.


suit in Court-Christian, as he had commenced doing. In July 1226 three Coheiresses appear as claiming half the Manor of Lauton against Thomas de Baskervill. These were Alice wife of John fitz Simon, Agnes wife of Peter de Aldermoneston, and Isabel wife of Hugh de Radenovre. Each claimant seems to have made her husband an Attorney in the suit, but the result I know not.

In 1228 Thomas de Baskerville pays a Crown debt of 5 merks, which had previously been charged in Norfolk against Master Michael Belet on behalf of the said Thomas.

Thomas de Baskervill died, as I have before shown, in 1241, and his son and heir Roger died in 1244, leaving a Widow, Anastasia, and a son Walter, then an Infant. An Inquisition of Munslow Hundred, taken about 1251, represents the "Heir of Roger de Baskervill as holding Lanston by Serjeantry". [12] This was not quite correct; for the said heir was still in minority, and his Mother Anastasia was holding Lauton in dower. In Michaelmas Term 1253 Anastasia had remarried to Robert Mauduit, and Henry le Maratin was suing Robert Mauduit and Anastasia his said wife, for a debt of 9 merks. The Defendants had been attached by William Selmund of Lauton, but did not appear. The Munslow Jurors of 1255 said that Robert Mauduit held Lauton by Serjeantry of the King, in the name of the dower of Anastasia his wife. It contained half a hide of land. The service due from the Tenant was to find one Archer with bow and arrows for 15 days, in time of any Welsh war, at his own cost. The Manor did Suit to the Hundred, and paid 6d. yearly for stretward and motfee. The whole estate of "Anastasia, Lady of Lauton" was further valued at 100s. per annum. [l3] The Feodary of 1284 represents Robert Mauduit as still living and holding Lauton by Serjeantry, but forty days' service with the King in Wales is said to be due from the foot-soldier whom he had to provide. The Munslow Jurors at the Assizes of 1292 stated the older service, viz. that of an Archer for fifteen days. They represented Roger de Baskervill as then seized of Lauton. Its contents were 2 carucates. Unlike other Serjeantries, nothing of this estate had been alienated, no services were in arrear, and Roger de Baskervill had done homage to the King as Tenant. [14] Another entry on the same Roll contradicts this last statement, and represents Roger de Baakervill as fining half a merk to have respite in regard of his doing homage till January 1293. His estate in Lauton is valued at 40s. per annum. [15]

[12] Testa de Nevill, p. 60.
[13] Rot. Hundred. II, 70, 71.
[14] [15] Placita Coronae, 20 Edw. I, m. 3 dorso, and 4 dorso.


The following Deed passed in the first sixteen years of the fourteenth century, and probably on occasion of the marriage of Richard, son and heir-apparent of Roger de Baskervill.- The said Roger grants to Richard, his eldest son, for a sum of money all his Manor of Pykethorne with 40s. rent in his Manor of Lauton, saving to himself the suit of the Tenants paying that rent;- to hold of the Grantor,- to Richard and Juliana his wife, and their heirs lawfully begotten, at a rent of 30. for the Grantor's life. Witnesses,- Richard Talbot, Alexander de Frevile, Richard de Baskervill (of Eardisley, I think), Richard le Brut, Roger Tirel, and Walter Devereus, Knights, Stephen de Neuton. [16]

The sequel of the history of the Shropshire Baskervills is a genealogical curiosity, and I cannot forbear transgressing my usual limits to give it. The Table already given will supply some of the details. Other facts are as follows.- Roger de Baskervill died about January 1339. The Serjeantry whereby he then held Pickthorn had been changed, probably owing to the previous subjugation of Wales. He was to furnish the King with a barbed arrow as often as the King came to hunt in Corndon Chace. He died seized not only of Lawton, but of the Manor of Weston Bradwardine in Herefordshire, and of a messuage and rents in the vill of Bradwardine. The latter item was held under the Earl of Hereford (evidently as heir of De Braose) by the twentieth-part of a knight's-fee. [17]

Richard de Baskervill, son and heir of Roger, was "upwards of 40 years of age" at his Father's death,- an expression which does not preclude the idea that he was more than 50. He was deceased in 1344. Walter, his son and successor, married Elizabeth Lacy, who was an heiress, and brought the Manor of Cressage to her husband. On May 1, 1344, died Joanna de Baskerville, Walter's Grandmother. She had held Lawton in dower to the day of her death. [18] Walter de Baskervill died in 1368. The Inquisition on his death has been lost. We only gather, from an ancient quotation thereof, that his interest at Hellidon in Northamptonshire was still maintained. [19] Sir John de Baskervill, son of Walter, died April 3, 1374. The Inquests on his death record his interests in Lawton, Pickthorn, Cressage, Helidon, Weston-super-Wye, and

[16] Pitchford Muniments. If the first witness be Richard Talbot of Eckleswell, rather than his younger son Richard Talbot of Richard's Castle, the Deed will have passed before 1306.
[17] Inquisitions, 13 Edw. III, No. 31.
[18] Inquisitions, 18 Edw. III, No. 12.
[19] Calendar of Inquisitions, Vol. II, p. 285.


Bradwardine. He died in foreign parts. His son John was only two years of age at his death. [20] His wife Katherine survived him, remarried to Robert Parys, and died October 29, 1428, seized of a third of Cressage, and probably of other portions of the Baskervill estates.

John, only son of John de Baskervill, died in infancy and without issue on January 2, 1383. With him expired the elder male line of his House, nine generations of which have therefore been traced with a degree of certainty seldom attainable in such cases. The heir of John de Baskervill was his first Cousin, Thomas Foulshurst, the infant son of his Aunt Margaret, sometime wife of Robert Foulshurst. [21] Thomas Foulshurst came of age on May 25, 1390. [22] He died in 2 Henry IV (1400-1); but the Inquest on his death has been lost, and we are left to conclude from an abstract thereof, that he had estates at Weston-in-Bradwardine (Herefordshire), and at Lawton, Pickthorn, Cressage, and Stanton Lacy in Shropshire. [23] I learn from other sources that his son and heir, a second Thomas Foulshurst, was under age at his Father's death. According to one account he was still under age at the time of his own death, which took place in November or December 1416. He was however seized of two-thirds of the Manors or vills of Pickthorn, Cressage, Weston, and Bradwardine; the remaining third of each being still held by his Great-Aunt Katherine in dower. [24]

John Foulshurst, eldest son of Thomas (II), was three years of age at the time of his Father's death. Several Inquisitions [25] taken in Shropshire and Herefordshire in October 1435 found him to be of full age, and heir of Weston, Bradwardine, Pickthorn, and Cressage, the thirds of which Manors had reverted to his estate while he was a Minor, viz. on October 29, 1423, when his Great-Great-Aunt Katherine died. However one-fourth of Cressage and one-third of Pickthorn were now the dower of Isabella, Mother of John Foulshurst, and so continued in 1440.

[20] Inquisitions, 48 Edw. III, No. 12; 49 Edw. III, No. 15.
[21] [22] Inquisitions, 6 Ric. II, No. 11; 13 Ric. II, No. 18.
[23] Calendar of Inquisitions, Vol. III, p. 272.
[24] Inquisitions, 6 Hen. V. No. 22.
[25] Inquisitions, 13 Hen. VI, Nos. 18 and 22. One of these Inquisitions makes Thomas Foulshurst (I), John's Grandfather, to have been son of Alice, daughter of John Baskervill, not of Margaret, sister of the same John. In the annexed Table I have followed the statement of the more coeval Inquests, which is doubtless correct. In fact, this Inquest, of 13 Hen. VI, asserts a descent which chronology shows to have been impossible.


John Foulshurst died in September 1436 without issue. William his Brother, was his heir, and being of full age succeeded to Helidon in Northamptonshire, to Pickthorn and Cressage in Shropshire, and to Weston and Bradwardine in Herefordshire, except so far as his Mother had dower in those estates. [26] William Foulshurst died on the 16th or 21st of October 1439 without issue. His estates, enumerated in an Inquisition of the following year, were the Manor of Helidon in Northamptonshire, called Baskervyle's Manor, the Castle of Bradwardine and the Manor of Weston in Herefordshire, three-fourths of Cressage and two-thirds of Pickthorn in Shropshire. [27]

William Foulshurst was the last of his line. One authority names Joyce his sister, but she, if a real personage, must have died before him and left no issue. It was now necessary to go back several generations in order to identify the next heir of this House. The said heir was found to be John de Baskervill, son of Richard, son of Richard, son of Richard de Baskervill, which last Richard was younger brother of that Walter de Baskervill who married Elizabeth Lacy, and died in 1368. It is clear therefore that nothing of the blood of Elizabeth Lacy was in John de Baskervill. Cressage hereupon escheated to William, Duke of York, as Lord of the Fee, and in default of any known heir of Elizabeth Lacy. Sir John Baskervill, Knight, then upwards of 30 years of age, succeeded in 1440 to the Baskervill estates proper. I have not examined all the authorities which supply further details of this subject. I must be content therefore to conclude with a summary of what I believe to have been the sequel. The younger male line, represented in 1440 by Sir John de Baskervill, failed. The next heir was found by reverting one generation further back than in the last instance. Joanna, daughter of Roger de Baskervill, who died in 1339, had been the wife of Peter de Overton. The line of Overton had ended in a female heir,- Johanna wife of William Worthyn. Again the line of Worthyn had ended in an heiress, Eleanor or Ellen, wife of John Bruyn. Margery Bruyn, great-granddaughter, and eventually sole heir of the said John and Eleanor, married William Otley of Pitchford. Thus the Otleys came to represent the eldest extant line of the Shropshire Baskervills.

But this was not all. There was a younger House of Baskervills which also seems to have become extinct, and its representation to have gone to the Otleys as the next known heirs. The Ancestor of

[26] Inquisitions, 16 Hen. VI, No. 17.
[27] Inquisitions, 18 Hen. VI, No. 54.


this younger house seems to have been Thomas de Baskervill of Newton, living in the last half of the thirteenth century, and being probably either the Nephew or younger son of that Roger de Baskervill who died in 1244. Thomas de Baskervill, styled of Newton, seems to have had a son John, styled of Eaton Mascott. From Margaret, daughter and heir of John, descended Roger de Pickthorn, but in what way is not quite clear. Roger de Pickthorn was however son of William de Pickthorn, and William de Pickthorn was cotemporary with Roger de Baskervill who died in 1339.

William de Pickthorn and Roger de Baskervill are incidentally mentioned in a Deed of 1339-40, which I have already quoted under Northwood. [28] The curious indorsement of that Deed by Adam Otteley of Pitchford, I have also adverted to. The consanguinity and heirship asserted in the said indorsement, I have now endeavoured, and I trust not unsuccessfully, to verify.

Merstun, Mershton, Marston.

THIS place seems to have been in the Parish of Diddlebury, but its exact situation I am unable to trace. Domesday notices it as follows:- "The same William (Pantulf) holds Merston (of the Earl). Gamel and Uluric held it (in Saxon times). Here is a hide and a half geldable. There is (arable) land (sufficient) for III ox-teams. In demesne there is I team, and II Serfs and III Boors. The Manor was formerly worth 15s. per annum. Now it is worth 10s". [1]

The Saxon interest of Uluric (or Aluric) associates this Manor with those other three in Culvestan Hundred which we have already noticed as going to William Pantulf. In another respect the history of Merston differs very remarkably from that of Middleton Higford, Ledwich, and Little Sutton. The Seigneury of Merstun remained with William Pantulf's Representatives for at least two centuries after Domesday; and very little more than this is known about the place. The Munslow Inquisition of 1255 says that Ralph le Butiler (he was then Baron of Wem) holds Meryston of the King. It was estimated to contain two carucates and one virgate. It did

[28] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 176, note 168.
[1] Domesday, fo. 257, b, 1.


no suit to the Hundred, nor did it pay stretward or motfee. Moreover it is noted that the Vill of Merston made no appearance at the taking of this Inquest. [2]

These immunities, singular as they are in such a case, may perhaps be associated with a fact in the history of the House of Pantulf, to which I shall hereafter refer.

In Hilary Term 1278, Ralph le Botyler of Wemme, and Matilda his wife, concurred in a Fine which was substantively a grant or settlement of this Manor to the use of Nicholas Seymor and Alice his wife, with remainder to the heirs of Nicholas by the said Alice. On failure of such heirs and on death of the Survivor of Nicholas and Alice, the Manor was to revert to Ralph le Botyler and his wife, or to the heirs of the latter, quit of any other heirs of Nicholas. A rent of one rose was reserved to the Grantors, and the Grantees are said to pay 100. for the Fine. [3]

John de Merston, probably an Under-tenant here occurs on a Jury at Little Sutton in 1306.

MARSTON CHAPEL.- A List of Destroyed Chapels points out one at Mershton alias Marston, in Diddlebury Parish, and quotes the Hereford Registers in support of its sometime existence. [4] Nothing can be more probable than that an isolated Manor should have such a Chapel, but the site thereof is of course less determinable than that of the Manor itself.

Clee Stanton.

THIS was the only Manor in Culvestan Hundred held by the Monastery of Wenlock, at Domesday. That Record describes it as follows:- "The same Church (St. Milburg's) held (in Saxon times) and still holds Clee. Here are II hides. Here is one Tenant (homo) and one ox-team, and there is capability for six other teams. Its former value was 18s., now it is worth 6s. per annum". [1]

[2] Rot. Hundred. II, 71, 72.
[3] Pedes Finium, 6 Edw. I, Salop. I observe that this Fine bars the succession of any supposable heirs of Alice by a second husband. It is difficult to say whether it represents a purchase or a gift.
[4] Dukes's Antiquities, Appendix, p. xii.
[1] Domesday, fo. 252, b, 2.


In the twelfth century Hugh and Ivo de Clinton were successive Tenants of Clee Staunton under Wenlock Priory. I have said under Henley that Ivo de Clinton, who was living in 1194, was deceased in 1203. Within the same interval Joibert Prior of Wenlock expedited the following curious Charter, allowing to Ysabella, widow of Ivo de Clinton, half the vill of Stanton in dower, and giving her the other half, in custody with her son Hugh, the infant heir of Ivo, and making other contingent provisions which the Deed itself will explain.- "Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Josbertus Prior de Wenloke, consensu totius Conventus nostri, concessi et hac carta nostra confirmavi Ysabellae uxori Yvonis de Clintuna medietatem villae de Stauntuna quae ad nos pertinebat cum custodia filii sui, haeredis ejusdem villae, Hugonis nomine.- habendam et tenendam cum pertinenciis suis usque ad legitimam aetatem memorati Hugonis:- reddendo inde et de alia parte villae, quam habet nomine dotis, annuatim duas marcas argenti. Et si praedictus Hugo interim forte moriatur, qui superfuerit de fratribus ejus, filiis Yvonis, ei, sub hac convencione, succedet. Quod si omnes pueros illos contingat interim mori, soror illorum, ad quam haereditas illa devolvenda est, ad manus Prioris et Conventus de Weneloke et donacionem, cum terra illa de Stauntuna solite revertetur. [2] Taliter concessum est praedictae Ysabellae pro decem marcis argenti, quas nobis pro hiis habendis dedit. Et si forte praenominata Ysabella ante legitimam aetatem haeredum suorum moriatur, Willielmus de Burleia, frater ejusdem, memoratam custodiam sub prtescripta convencione habebit. Et si ipse Willielmus decesserit, Helyas de Huggaleia avunculus predictae Ysabellae id ipsum tenebit. His testibus Helia de Huggaleia, Wilhelmo de Burleia, Magistro Willielmo, Idnardo Portario, Wilhelmo de Longavilla, Rogero Barat, Waltero de Stauntuna et Petro fratre ejus, et multis aliis". [3]

I am at a loss for any proof of Hugh de Clinton's eventual succession. Philip de Clinton represented the family in 1240, and in 1255 this same Philip is entered as Lord of Staunton, holding it of the Prior of Wenlock, and still paying a chief-rent of 2 merks per annum. Philip was fourth Juror for the Liberty of Wenlock, and

[2] That is, if Ivo de Clinton's daughter eventually became an heiress, the Prior and Convent, not her Mother, were to dispose of her in marriage.
[3] Wenlock Register at Willey, fo. 5. There is a peculiarity in the style of this deed which makes it probable that it was dictated by Prior Joibert himself rather than composed by an ordinary Conveyancer. Its lucidity and comparative fairness do credit to its Author,- whether the rich and prosperous Pluralist I have suggested, or some one else.


consequently one of those who made this presentment. His Antecessors at Clee Staunton had done suit to Munslow Hundred till the time of King Richard, when as in other of St. Milburg's Manors, their suit was transferred to the Franchise of Wenlock. [4] At this time, I should observe, Stoke St. Milburg is said to contain no more than 20 hides, though inclusive of Clee Staunton. I have already commented on this presumed mistake, [5] which unless understood might prevent our identifying the Clee of Domesday with the Clee Staunton of a later period. Such diminutions of the reputed hidage of a Manor or Manors were in most cases encroachments on the rights of the Crown; but in the present instance the change was little likely to be observed, for in respect of St. Milburg's Manors the Crown had no longer any rights dependent on hidage to guard.

At the Assizes of January 1256 William fitz Hugh of Stanton was suing Philip de Clinton to allow him to have estovers in Philip's wood of Stanton. Philip did not appear, but by a Fine levied at Westminster in Michaelmas Term following, he conceded the right in the woods called Hanacre and Bondiwode, while the Plaintiff renounced all claim in the woods called The Pitte and the Hawe. In this same year Philip de Clinton was returned among those who holding 15 Librates of lands were not yet Knights. A Patent, dated in July, exempts him from the implied obligation for an indefinite period. In 1261 I find mention of Philip de Clinton as one of the Coroners of Shropshire; and at the Assizes of 1272 his name appears among those who were to give account of their conduct in that office. At these same Assizes William fitz Hugh served on the Jury for Munslow Hundred: an obligation however which can hardly have arisen from any interest which he may have had in Clee Stanton. The Ecclesiastical Taxation of 1291 registers the Prior of Wenlock's seignoral right in Staunton as an assized rent of 1. 6s. 8d., i.e. 2 merks per annum. [6]

Ivo de Clinton who succeeded to Philip sometime between 1274 and 1284, appears at the Assizes of October 1292, as answering for Philip's discharge of his duties as Coroner during the latter part of his life. Ivo de Clinton was himself holding that office, and had to answer on his own account. He was living in 1300, as I have shown under Henley, but in March 1316 John de Clinton was Lord of Henley. [7] In conclusion I observe that the Foreign Rent-Roll of

[4] Rot. Hundred. II, 85.
[5] Supra, Vol. IV, pp. 7, 8.
[6] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 164.
[7] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 397.


Wenlock Priory, taken in 1521-2, gives the Lord of Clee Staunton as still paying his chief-rent of 1. 6s. 8d. to that house. [8] The Ministers' Accounts of 1541-2 record the same due among the Assets of the late Priory.

Hope Bowdler, formerly Fordritishope.

Domesday has the following notice of this Manor:- "The same Hugh (fitz Turgis) holds (of Earl Roger) Fordritishope. Edric Salvage held it (in Saxon times). Here are III hides geldable. The (arable) land is (sufficient) for VI ox-teams. In demesne are II teams and (there are) IIII Serfs, II female Serfs, and II Villains with one team. There are two leagues (leuuae) of wood. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 25s. (per annum). Now it is worth 15s". [1]

Of Edric Sylvaticus or Savage I have already spoken at length.
[2] Though Mortimer of Wigmore was enriched with most of his Shropshire estates, we have here an exception to that rule. Who Hugh fitz Turgis was I cannot say, more than that he held two other Manors, Wilderley and Chelmick, under Earl Roger at Domesday. It is probable that his Shropshire interests expired with those of Earl Robert de Belesme; for in the next succeeding period we find his three Manors annexed to the Honour of Montgomery, that is, to the Fief which King Henry I bestowed on Baldwin de Bollers.

A word now as to the different names by which this place has been known. In some early Saxon aera, unchronicled by Domesday, it was the Hope, or Valley, [3] of Forthred. Hence its Domesday name of Fordritishope. In the hands of Baldwin de Bollers or his descendants it acquired the distinctive name of Hope Bollers or Buthlers, of which Bowdler is the modern form. We shall see it occasionally described simply as the Manor of Hope.

I do not propose here to give any account of the succession of

[8] Register at Willey, fo. 39.
[1] Domesday, fo. 258, b, 2.
[2] Supra, Vol. III, pp. 48-50.
[3] To what I have already stated (Vol. IV, p. 1) as to the meaning of the word Hope, I should add that Camden understood it to be "a hill-side".


the Lords of Montgomery, though they will occur occasionally as Seignoral Lords of Hope Bowdler.

In the year 1201 Robert de Bullers was Lord of Montgomery, and Roger de Say was apparently his Tenant in the Fee of Hope Bowdler. Both had been impleaded by Richard de Wilderley (who then held Wilderley of the same Honour of Montgomery) for the Vill of Hop. The suit seems to have been one of mort d'ancestre originally, but had been partially arranged; for in the Quinzaine of Michaelmas, a precept issued from the Courts at Westminster ordering that Richard de Wilderley should, before the Quinzaine of St. Martin, give security to the said Robert and Roger for the money which he had agreed to pay them. [4] Another precept in the same term orders the parties to come and receive their Chirograph in Hilary Term 1202. [4] The Fine thus indicated is preserved. It was levied at Westminster in Hilary Term, 1202. It purports to be between Richard de Wildredeslege, Plaintiff, and Robert de Bullers and Roger de Say, Tenants, of the whole vill of Hope, whereof there had been suit of mort d'ancestre. Robert and Roger now acknowledged the said vill to be Richard's right and inheritance, to hold to Richard and his heirs for ever, under them and their heirs, by the service pertaining to the land in question;- saving however to one Robert Witbret his former tenement in the same fee,- to hold to the said Robert Witbret and his heirs under Richard de Wildredeslege and his heirs, Robert Witbret performing the same services to the said Richard as he (Witbret) had previously performed to Robert de Bollers. For this recognition and fine, Richard de Wildredeslege gave to Robert de Bullers 110 merks, and to Roger de Say 50 merks. [5]

Of Roger de Say I shall have other occasion to speak as a Tenant elsewhere in the Honour of Montgomery. His interest in Hope Bowdler will have been effaced or rendered merely nominal by the above Fine. Richard de Wilderley now became the Tenant-in-fee of Hope. I shall speak of him again under Wilderley, which Manor with other lands he granted to Haughmond Abbey at a certain rent. This rent, and with it all his interest in Wilderley, was abandoned to the same Abbey by Stephen, son and heir of Richard de Wilderley. Hope Bowdler therefore remained as the principal estate of the said Stephen, who consequently appears in all instances under the name of Stephen de Hope.

[4] Placita, Mich. Term, 3 John, m. 4 and 14 dorso.
[5] Pedes Finium, 3 John, Salop.


At the Assizes of August 1226, Stephen de Hop, Philip Whytherd, Roger fitz Hugh, Walter fitz Emma and Herbert Gallicus were found to have disseized the Prior of Wenlock of his free tenement in Tykelworthin (Ticklerton). Damages of 12s. were awarded. The Sureties of the Defendants were Gregory de Hope, Robert Whytbert, John, Richard, Eborard, and Robert de Raggedon, Adam fitz Baldwin, Richard fitz Helin, and Adam de Chelmundewyk. [6] At the same Assizes Philip Wytberd, with twenty-seven others, was found to have wrongfully raised a fence in Tykelworthin, thereby injuring the Prior of Wenlock's Tenement there. Damages of 40s. were given in this instance. [6]

In 1240 William de Cantilupe being Lord of the Honour of Montgomery, Stephen de Hope and the Abbot of Hanghmond are entered as holding one knight's-fee under the said William, in Hop and Wilderdeleg. [7] Stephen's estate was Hope Bowdler, and the Abbot's was Wilderley, but the two were perhaps collectively responsible for the services implied by this entry.

Between the years 1240 and 1255 Stephen de Hope's interest in Hope Bowdler passed to Odo de Hodnet, then Seneschal of Montgomery, but in what way I cannot discover. In 1255 the Honour of Montgomery was in custody of Prince Edward as having wardship of the infant heirs of William de Cantilupe, late Lord of the said Honour. Odo de Hodnet held "Hupe Budlers" of the said heirs. He did suit to County and Hundred, and is said to pay 4d. for stretward and motfee. [8] The last payment is proportionable to a Manor containing only a third of a hide. The Manor then which Odo de Hodnet thus held was probably not the whole of the Domesday Manor. I shall presently endeavour to point out other constituents of the Domesday Manor, but the collective territory thus ascertained will still be very short of the Domesday estimate of three hides. Such discrepancies, as we have often seen, do not disprove identity.

At the Assizes of January 1256 William le Bret failed to prosecute a suit of novel disseizin against Odo de Hodnet, concerning a tenement in Hope Bulers. George de Cantilupe, last Lord of Montgomery, of the male line of his House, died in the month of October 1273. Wilderley and Hope Bowdler constituted one knight's-fee in his Barony, the service due on each being one-fifth and four-fifths

[6] Assizes, 10 Hen. III, m. 4.
[7] Testa de Nevill, p. 46.
[8] Rot. Hundred. II, 70.


of a fee respectively. The whole was conventionally called the Fee of Hope Boulers. [9]

Robert Burnell, Bishop of Bath and Wells, among his great purchases in Shropshire, seems to have obtained from De Hodnet a feoffment of this Manor. The Feodary of 1284 gives the Bishop as holding Hope Boulers for one fourth of a Knight's-fee under William de Hodnet, who held under the heirs of Cantilupe. On the death of Philip Burnel (Nephew and heir of the Bishop) in 1294, his tenure of the Manor of Hope Bowdler is duly recorded. [10] So too Edward Burnell, dying in 1315, is said to have held Hope Boudlers under William la Zouche. [11] The latter, as is well known, was son and heir of Eudo la Zouche by his wife Milicent, sister and cohheir of George de Cantilupe above mentioned.

BUILDWAS ABBEY FEE.- William, son of William de Chelmick, otherwise called William Erdulf, was a Tenant in Hope Bowdler under Stephen de Hope, or at least became so by the following Deed, which seems to me to have passed about 1240:- "Stephen, Lord of Hope, grants to William, son of William de Chelmundewik, for his homage, that assart which was Richard de la Lude's. Witnesses,- Walter le Scot, of Acton (Acton Scott), Roger fitz Swein, Philip de Wiboldeston, Richard de Chelmundewyk, Richard fitz Jarward, etc". [12] Again at a later period "William, son of William de Chelmundewik, gave with his body in burial to the Abbey of the Blessed Mary of Buildwas, that half-virgate in the vill of Hope, which Baldwin, son of William de Montgomery, held". [12]

Stephen de Hope seems to have married Matilda, widow of William, son of William de Chelmick, for the latter as Widow of Stephen de Hope released all claim to the land granted to Buildwas by her said first husband. [12]

The Inquisition of 1255, after giving the status of Hope Bowdler, adds that the "Abbot of Buildwas holds half a virgate therein of the gift of William Erdulf". [13] In 1272 Isabella, granddaughter of William, son of William de Chelmundewick, joined with her husband, Richard de la Haye, in releasing by Fine a claim which they had set up against Adam, Abbot of Buildwas, to half a virgate in Hope. They quit-claimed "whatever the Abbot held in the said vill of the tenement of William, son of William de Cheilmundewyk, Isabella's Grandfather. For this the Abbot gave one merk".

[9] Haughmond Chartulary: Tit. Wildurley.
[10] Inquisitions, 28 Edw. I, No. 45, c.
[11] Inquisitions, 9 Edw. II, No. 67.
[12] Harleian MSS. 1396, fo. 65, b.
[13] Rot. Hundred. II, 71.


In 1291 the Abbot of Buildwas had 18s. assized rent, and 2s. perquisites of court in Hope Budlers. [14] If the Abbey retained anything here at the Dissolution, it is probably included in its receipts from Ragdon.

RAGDON.- I am rather inclined to treat this as originally a member of Hope Bowdler than of Chelmick, though it is nearer the latter. My reason will appear immediately.- At the Assizes of October 1203 John le Poer and Christiana his wife, Richard de Lindleg and Matilda his wife, and Baldwin fitz Robert and Margery his wife, were joint Suitors against Richard de Wilderley, of whom we have heard as Lord of Hope Bowdler. He essoigned himself, [15] but the case came on at Gloucester, whither the Justices Itinerant proceeded. The suit proved to be one of mort d'ancestre, the three female Plaintiffs claiming two virgates in Raggedon as daughters and Coheiresses of one William, whom they alleged to have died seized thereof. Richard de Wilderley adduced his Fine of Hilary Term 1202 with Robert de Boulers, which, be it remembered, was of the whole of Hope Bowdler. This Fine, as he maintained, barred all collateral claims: nay Simon de Patshull, a Justiciar before whom the Fine was levied and who was now in eyre, seems to have testified that the present Plaintiffs had actually apposed (or sunk) their claims at the time of the Fine. Richard de Wilderley called Baldwin de Boulers, the heir of Robert de Boulers, to warranty, and an adjourned healing was to take place at Oxford. [15] I find nothing further of this suit, but we shall hear of these three Coheiresses again in other relations. Ragdon remained a member of Richard de Wilderley's Fee of Hope Bowdler, and his interest there passed eventually to De Hodnet. The Tenant of Richard de Wilderley, or of his son Stephen de Hope, at Ragdon, was probably one Robert de Leye, which Robert de Leye sometime between the years 1224 and 1227 follows John Bonet, Sheriff, or rather Custos, of the County, in attesting a Charter to Buildwas Abbey. [16] In the year ending Michaelmas 1228, Robert de Leie himself acted as Custos under Henry de Audley, then Sheriff. Robert de Leye had a Son, a Clerk, called Robert de Acton. This Robert de Acton I find to have been

[14] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 163.
[15] Assizes, 5 John, m. 1 recto, and 3 dorso.
[16] Monasticon, V, 358, No. 12. John Bonet was Custos or Deputy-Sheriff first to the Earl of Salisbury, and then to Henry de Audley. In two of the years in question, viz. 1225 and 1226, the Pipe-Rolls name him as Cuatos without indicating his Principal; but that he was acting either under the Earl or under Audley I cannot doubt. It was usual in Deeds to call such a Deputy Vicecomes, but Provicecomes would have been a more accurate style.


amerced at the Assizes of Autumn 1227, for not producing one for whom he was Surety. In 1230 Robert, Clerk of Acton, as he is called, first accounts for an annual ferm of 4d., which he had undertaken to pay to the Crown for removal of two acres of land from out of Regard of the King's Forests. The charge is repeated on the annual Rolls of 1231 and 1232. In the year ending Michaelmas 1237 Robert de Acton served as Deputy Sheriff to John le Strange. I shall have to speak of him elsewhere, but must here notice particularly his grant to Buildwas Abbey, which must have passed between the years 1245 and 1255.

Thereby calling himself "Robert de Acton, Clerk, son of Robert de Lega", he gives to the Abbey, for the souls of his Father, etc. all his land of Raggedone, in pure alms, together with all his common-rights in the Manor of Hope. His Deed mentions and reserves a certain due which lay upon that portion of the premises which was held by one John de Ragdon, viz. to provide one foot-soldier to do ward for fifteen days at Montgomery Castle. The witnesses are Sirs Thomas Corbet, Hugh de Scheyntone (Shineton), and William de Lectone (Leighton), Nicholas Parson of Hope, Philip Burnel, Benedict de Frodesleg, Richard de Eton, and Peter de Cristesheth (Cressage). [17]

The Inquisition of 1255 tells us consistently that the "Abbot of Buildwas holds Raggedon of the gift of Robert de Acton". It contained one hide, and paid 12d. per annum for stretward and motfee. Odo de Hodnet did suit both to the County and to Munslow Hundred for Ragdon and for Hope. [18]

It is obvious from this that the mesne-interest of Stephen de Hope at Ragdon had passed as an appurtenance of Hope Bowdler to De Hodnet. At this period then Hope Bowdler, the Buildwas Abbey Fee therein, and the Manor of Ragdon, contained altogether 1 hides and 1 virgate;- so much less than the three hides of the Domesday Manor that we are tempted to search for other ancient members of the latter. Such a search will, I believe, be vain, and we must leave Hope Bowdler among that large Category of Manors whose original hidage and liabilities had either been relaxed by the Crown, or tampered with by the Tenants.

To return to Ragdon itself, the Abbot of Buildwas had, in 1291, annual rents there amounting to 1. [19] The Valor of 1535-6 gives the Abbot's receipts from Kynnerton and Ragdon together, as

[17] Rot. Cart. 20 Edw. I, No. 40.
[18] Rot. Hundred. II, 70.
[19] Pope Nich. Taxation, 163.


3. 16s. 8d., [20] but the Ministers' Accounts, a year later, separate the two, leaving the rents of Raggedon 1. as before. [21]


The earliest notice which I have of this Church will fall under the year 1231, when Stephen de Hope was remembered to have been its Patron, according to evidence given in a Lawsuit of 1256.

In 1291 the Church of Hope Boulers, in the Deanery of Wenlock, is valued at 4. 13s. 4d. per annum. The Rector of Rushbury had also a Portion of 2s. therein. [22] An Inquest of the year 1386 states this Pension to be in lieu of a certain small amount (particulae) of tithe due to the Rector of Rushbury, but arising from land in Hope Bowdler Parish.

In 1341 the Taxation of this Church, being correctly quoted at 4. 15s. 4d., the Assessors of the Ninth taxed the Parish only 1. 6s. 8d. The mountainous nature of the district, the poverty of the Tenants, and a murrain among the sheep, were partly the causes of this reduction. Moreover the hay-tithes, small-tithes, offerings, and glebe-land were worth 2. 13s. 4d. per annum, and though reckoned in the Taxation, were excluded from the current assessment. [23] In 1534-5 the Preferment of John Masse, Rector of Hope Bowdler, in glebe and tithes, was valued at 6. 13s. 4d.- less 6d. per annum for Synodals. [24]


The Rector presented by Stephen de Hope in 1231 is not named. Perhaps it was-

NICHOLAS, "Parson of Hope Bulers", who in November 1248 was amerced one merk for a false claim before the Justices then in eyre at Salop, [25] whom also we have had attesting a Buildwas Charter about the same time. At the Assizes of January 1256 this Nicholas sued the Prior of Wenlock for estovers and common-pasture in certain woods lying in the Prior's Manor of Eaton, which he claimed in right of his Church. The Prior showed that the Parson of Hope Bowdler had enjoyed these privileges by permission only of Stephen de Hope, Patron of this Church twenty-five years back, which Stephen

[20] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 191.
[21] Monasticon, V, 361.
[22] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 167, b.
[23] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 186.
[24] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 208.
[25] Rot. Pip. 34 Hen. III.- In which year the amercements of this Iter appear on the Roll.


had them solely by unjust disseizin of the Prior. The Court gave judgment for the Prior. [26]

ROBERT DE STAPLETONE;- instituted Oct. 4, 1275. Patron, Sir Eudo la Zouche.

RICHARD PATERIKE;- instituted Dec. 22, 1275. Same Patron.

MASTER WILLIAM DE BODECOTE;- instituted January 23, 1280, he obliging himself by oath of his Proctor to take Subdeacon's Orders. Patron, Dame Milisent de Montalt. [27]

SIR JOHN DE CHESTER, Subdeacon;- instituted September 24, 1289. Same Patron. This Rector seems to have vacated by neglecting to take Priest's Orders in conformity with a Decree of the Council of Lyons. His Successor was-

SIR RICHARD DE BURY, Acolyte;- instituted Dec. 6, 1289. Same Patron.

RICHARD DE HEATON was presented to this Church by a Patent of 1296, the King assuming the right of Patronage as Custos of Philip Burners heir. [28] It is not probable that the Advowson was of the said heir's inheritance, but I find no remonstrance by Milisent de Montalt, who was still living.

ALEXANDER DE BOKENHALE, Acolyte;- instituted Oct. 18, 1303, on presentation of William de la Zouche, has license to study, Feb. 22, 1304.

JOHN DE BEYSTAN;- instituted Sept. 3, 1349. Patron, Sir William de la Zouche, of Haryngworth.

SIR ROGER DE CHELMEDWYKE, Chaplain; [29]- instituted March 14, 1355. Patron, Sir William de la Zouche of Haryngworth.

JOHN MARCHAUNT, probably the unnamed Rector concerned in an Institution bearing date May 4, 1370, resigned on Nov. 26, 1381, exchanging preferments with-

HENRY DE KYLPSHAM, late Rector of the Church of St. Mary Magdalen, of Blatherwyce (Line. Dioc.). Patron, William la Zouche.

SIR RICHARD Ronnz resigned this Living April 24, 1385, when-

SIMON BROUNE, Clerk, was instituted. Patron, William la Zouche, Lord of Totteneys. On Januaay 27, 1386, Broune exchanges with-

ROGER DE HOUNDESLOWE, late Rector of Candelesby (Linc. Dioc.). Same Patron.

[26] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 11.
[27] Widow of Endo la Zouche, but usually called De Montalt after her previous husband.
[28] Patent, 24 Edw. I, m. 17.
[29] Vide supra, Vol. IV, p. 105.



ONLY two Culvestan Manors are recorded in Domesday as pertaining to the Fief of Rainald Vicecomes. The first is Cardington, of which the Record says:- "The same Rainald holds Cardintune (of the Earl). Austin, and a second Austin, held it in King Edward's time for two Manors. Here are five hides. In demesne there is one ox-team, and (there are) V Serfs, XV Villains, and I Radman, with VII teams amongst them all, and still there might be VIII teams more here. Here are II leagues of wood. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 40s. (per annum). It is now worth the same". [1]

The Manor, thus described, probably comprehended Enchmarsh, Chatwall, and Willstone, all which are in the Parish of Cardington. [2] That Alan fitz Flaald and his descendants the Fitz Alans succeeded to the Domesday estates of Rainald Vicecomes, is a rule with very few exceptions. The first William fitz Alan gave to the Order of Knights Templars, Cardington, Enchmarsh, and half the Vill of Chatwall, also 3 merks receivable annually from Cardington Church, and 5s. receivable from Cardington Mill. These gifts were probably made in the first three years of Stephen's reign, or the first six years of Henry II's reign. The probability arises in this way.- The Order of Knights Templars had its origin in the East about A.D. 1118. Their introduction into England is placed by good authority as early in Stephen's reign, which will coincide with the aera of Roger de Mowbray, one of their chief Patrons, and who gave them his Lordship of Balshall, in Warwickshire. Balshall became a Preceptory of the Order; and all Shropshire grants were reputed to be within the Bailiwick of Warwick. William fitz Alan who for the last sixteen years of Stephen's reign had little or no power to deal with his Shropshire estates, was restored in 1155 and died in 1160. To this period therefore we may safely attribute his grants to the Templars. The Knights fixed their House at Lidley,

[1] Domesday, fo. 255, a, 1.
[2] The Parish of Cardington also contains Broome, Comley, Holt Preen, Lydley Heys, and Plash, but these did not belong to the Domesday Manor, and were in fact not in Culvestan Hundred.


an estate which they must have acquired nearly cotemporarily by grant of Herbert de Castello and Emma de Pulverbatch his wife.

The next notice which I have of Cardington belongs to the year 1167, when it is called "Templars' Cardinton" (Cardinton Templariorum), and when the Vill was amerced 2 merks by Alan de Nevill, Justice of the Forest. [3] The debt was paid in 1170.
[3] In 1185 we have a full survey of the Shropshire estates of the Templars. [4] I here enumerate those which they had by gift of William Fitz Alan and confirmation of the King. In Carditon itself they had 18 Tenants holding half a virgate or more, and 16 Tenants holding less quantities. The rents varied from 3s. 4d. to 2s. on each half-virgate, the virgate consisting apparently of 40 acres. For smaller quantities than a quarter-virgate the rent was uniformly 2d. per acre. Of the thirty-four Tenants, six are said to pay from 6d. to 1d. each pro fraternitate, that is, for the privilege of participating in the immunities of the Order; an extra rent for a messuage or a mansion is also charged in three cases. Among the Tenants are Odo the Provost, and Inard the Priest (Sacerdos), who had a wife, Matilda; and it is curious that both the Priest and his (so-called) wife were put in charge pro fraternitate, viz. 6d. and 4d. distinctively. Six Widows also were among the Tenants, and two of them paid 6d. and 1d. pro fraternitate. The total receipts from Carditon were 5. 4s.

At Huchemers (now Enchmarsh) the Knights had seven Tenants of half a virgate, and three of lesser quantities. The same rates of rent were paid as in Carditon, and there was one payment pro fraternitate. The total receipts were 1. 9s. 2d.

At Chatewelle were eight tenements, four of which were half a virgate or more. Separate rents are charged on a garden, two messuages, and pro fraternitate. The total receipts were 16s. 10d.

We may reckon the whole of this estate as equal to half the Domesday Manor of Cardington, that is, to 2 hides. When I add that it now amounted to 19 virgates- which at Domesday would have constituted nearly five hides- we get a good instance of the altered ratio which a century had worked, as between the hide and the virgate.- The same hide which in 1085 contained 4 virgates was made to supply nearly 8 virgates in 1185.

Returning to the Survey which I have been quoting, I have to add that Roger Miller was Life-Tenant of Cardington Mill at a rent of 5s., and that Arnolf, Parson of the Church of Cardinton,

[3] Rot. Pip. 13 and 16 Hen. II, Salop.
[4] MS. quoted Vol. I, p. 363, note 479.


paid the Templars three merks per annum for the Church, and 1s. for their fraternity. The customs of Cardington were that every acre of land newly assarted, in Cardington or its hamlets, should pay 2d. per annum for the three first years of cultivation. Also all tenements of less than a quarter-virgate were for life only, and reverted to the Lords on a Tenant's death, unless the said Tenant's heirs were willing to pay as much as any other bidder. Other customs, which related also to Lidley, shall be given under that Manor.

In 1187 I find the Vill of Cardinton again amerced for waste by Justices of the Forest. Half a merk was charged in this instance, but it was excused in 1189, in accordance with a Franchise granted by Royal Charter to the Knights of the Temple. In 1200 the Vill of Kartington was again amerced one merk for waste; but in the following year the Templars obtained a King's writ ordering their acquittance, in conformity with their Charter. In October 1237 I find the Master of the Templars suing Gregory de Bottefeld and Adam de Wilureton for disseizing him of a tenement in Cardinton.

At the Munslow Inquisition of 1255 the vill of Cardington made no appearance at all, and was not reported of. What was said of a moiety of Chatwall is an index to the state of the whole territory of the Templars. "The Templars of Lidley hold half a hide in Chatwalle. They do no suit to either County or Hundred, nor pay stretward nor motfee". The King was damaged 2s. per annum for the twenty years during which the Jurors said that the Templars had thus held this moiety of Chatwal1. [5]

From the Inquisition of 1274 it would appear that the Templars were then possessed of a part of Willstone, for they are presented as having withdrawn the suit of one-third of the vill of Wilferstone from the Sheriff's Great Tourn. [6] I must consign to a note the extraordinary account which the Feodary of 1284 gives of Cardington. [7]

The forfeiture of the English Templars seems to have been decided upon in 1308. The suppression of the Order throughout Europe was consummated by the Council of Vienna in 1311, when all its possessions were, by an Edict of Pope Clement V, conveyed to the Knights Hospitallers. It is clear however that in England

[5] Rot. Hundred. II, 72, 71.
[6] Ibidem, p. 100.
[7] "Magister Corlicie (read Militie) Templi tenet Manerium de Carditon de dono Alani filii Ploc, et idem Alanus tenet de Rege in capite". Is it possible that Alan fitz Ploc was a legendary representative of Alan fitz Flaald ? The aera of the latter was however far too early for any other than a supposititious grant to the Templars.


many of the Templars' estates reverted, in the first instance, to the Heirs of the original Donors. [8] I find a statement, which, as regards Cardington, shows very satisfactorily how matters were arranged between the Knights Hospitallers and the Heir of the Donor. "The Knights granted it to Edmund fitz Alan, Earl of Arandel", [9] who was, in fact, the heir in question. Hence the territorial Survey of March 1316 enrols the Earl as "Lord of the Vill of Cardington". [10] A Deed of 18 Edw. II (1324-5) is quoted as a grant and confirmation of this Manor to the same Earl Edmund by the Prior of the Hospitallers. The Deed will have been a Confirmation only, though, as was often the case, it may have borne the appearance of an original grant.

CHATWALL.- That which I have to say distinctively of this member of Cardington relates chiefly to the moiety which was not granted to the Templars. This moiety of course remained with Fitz Alan as seignoral Lord. In the beginning of Henry III's reign it seems to have been held under Fitz Alan by Gilbert de Buckenhull (of whom we shall hear more elsewhere) and under Gilbert by one Alan de Draiton. In 1255 William, son and successor of Alan de Draiton, held half a hide in Chatewalle of Gilbert de Buckenhull. He did suit to neither County nor Hundred, the said suit having been withdrawn twenty years previously, whereby the king was damaged 2s. per annum. He paid 6d. for stretward and motfee; and the Munslow Jurors said that he owed suit to their Hundred. [11] William de Draiton died without issue. His heir was his Sister Petronilla, wife of John de la Lee. She was dead in January 1276, but John de la Lee, having issue by her, was then holding half Chatwall by Courtesy of England. In that month he was suing Brother Richard Lovel, Master of the Templars, for disseizing him of 100 acres of bosc in Chatwall. The Master pleaded that the said bosc was of his demesne, and that John de la Lee was entitled only to housebote therein. John proved the former seizin of Alan de Draiton, and deduced his own title as I have given it above;- whereupon he recovered against the Templars. [12] I shall have more to say of this succession under Berrington, in which Manor the Draitons, and after them the Lees, were Coparceners.

How Robert Burnell, Bishop of Bath and Wells, obtained ingress at Chatwall I cannot discover. His Charter of Free-Warren, granted

[8] Dugdale's Warwickshire (Thomas), II, 965, a.
[9] Dukes's Antiquities, p. 226.
[10] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 397.
[11] Rot. Hundred. Vol. II, p. 71.
[12] Salop Assizes, 4 Edw. I.


in 1281, includes his demesne-lands in Chatewall, [13] by which I understand that member of Cardington which we are now considering. Again the Inquisition taken in October 1315, after death of Edward Burnell names a moiety of Chatwall among his estates. [14]

WILLSTONE, or WILSON.- Among the Tenants of Fitz Alan's Barony in 1165, I observe three names, following each other, and each holding a Muntator's-Fee. These names are Walter, Nicholas Maucovenant, and John de Hanewode. [15] There is more or less doubt as to the locality of their Tenures, but one of them, perhaps Walter, was probably Tenant of Willstone. If this conjecture be right, Walter was ancestor of the family of Muneton or Minton, represented certainly by one Walter de Muneton in 1199. I shall have more to say about this family elsewhere, but here observe that in 1240 Adam de Muneton was holding half a knight's-fee (the usual equivalent of a whole Muntator's fee) in Wilureston, under Fitz Alan. [16]

In 1255 Peter de Muneton, son of Adam, had an Undertenant here; for Mile de Hop is said to hold Wiluriston for two hides of land under Peter de Muneton. He did suit to the Court of John fitz Alan at Upton under Haemon, i.e. Upton Magna. He paid the King 2s. per annum for Stretward and Motfee. A memorandum, annexed to this return of the Munslow Inquisitors, seems to intimate that the Tenant in question had latterly paid only 4d. per annum for stretward and motfee, and was now summoned to give account of this change. [17] An Extent of Fitz-Alan Fees, taken at Oswestry on June 25, 1272, seems to have mentioned Wolurestone as an estate held of that Barony; but the Record itself is utterly defaced. [18]

Another defaced Inquest, taken apparently about 1275, includes Wilverston among the Vills whose suit had been withdrawn from (I think) Munslow Hundred, and by the Master of the Templars. [19]


The Parish of Cardington was and is extensive. Its members,

[13] Rot. Chart. 9 Edw. I, No. 80.
[14] Inquisitions, 9 Edw. II, No. 67.
[15] Liber Niger, I, 144.
[16] Testa de Nevill, pp. 48, 49. A third list (page 44 of the same Record) gives Adam de Muneton's tenure as one-fourth of a knight's-fee. I take the evidence of two lists as preferable to that of one.
[17] Rot. Hundred. II, 71.
[18] Inquisitions, 56 Hen. III, No. 36. Calendar, Vol. I, p. 40.
[19] Inquisitions, Incerti Temporis (Calendar, Vol. I. p. 42, b).


if I mistake not, lay in three Domesday Hundreds, viz. Culvestan, Conodovre, and Lenteurde.

The Antiquity of the Church was probably much greater than is implied even by the very early mention thereof in Fitz Alan's grant to the Templars. In the thirteenth century the Templars had the Rectory, as well as the Advowson of the Vicarage of this Church, and we hear no more of the mere Pension previously receivable therefrom. [20] In 1291 the Church of Cardynton, in the Deanery of Wenlock, belonging to the Templars, is valued at 13. 6s. 8d. It was exempt from the Tenths paid by most Parochial Churches of the Kingdom to the See of Rome. Besides this Rectorial value the Vicar's Portion in Cardington Church was 4. per annum. [21]

On the suppression of the Templars in 1308 the Advowson of Cardington was for a space in the Crown, then it went to the Hospitallers with whom it remained; for they did not convey the Advowson together with the Manor to the Earl of Arundel.

In 1341 the Taxation of Cardington Church being duly quoted as 17. 6s. 8d., the Parish was taxed only 5. to the Ninth. The destruction of corn, murrain among sheep, and the non-cultivation of the lands of twenty off-gone Tenants were among the reasons of this reduction. Also the Glebe and Altarages of the Church went to form the higher sum, and had no relation to the current levy. [22]

The Valor of 1534-5 gives no account of the Rectorial value of this Church. The Vicarage then held by William Halle, was worth 6. 10s. in Glebe and Tithes, whereon a sum of 7s. 8d. was annually chargeable for Archdeacon's Procurations and Synodals. [23]


ARNOLF, Rector of this Church in 1185, paid as I have already said, a pension of three merks to the Templars.

[20] It seems doubtful when the Templars obtained an Appropriation of Cardington Church. Ms. Blakeway names an Episcopal Instrument for that purpose as bearing date November 9, 1303; but he seems to have questioned the accuracy of this; for he remarks that Hugh was Archdeacon at the time of the Appropriation. As far as the history of the Templars is concerned, the commencement of the thirteenth century is a very probable, and the commencement of the fourteenth a very improbable, period for them to have obtained this privilege. Moreover I find only one Hugh in office as Archdeacon of Salop (Hereford Diocese) during the whole period in question. This was Hugh Foliot who occurs as Archdeacon in 1214, and became Bishop in 1219.- According to this the approrpriating Bishop will have been either Giles de Braose (1200-1216) or Hugh de Mapenore (1216-1219).
[21] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 167, b.
[22] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 187.
[23] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 210.


ERNALD, Chaplain to Bishop William de Vere, seems to have been Incumbent between 1186 and 1199.

SIR ROBERT BASSET, Chaplain;- instituted Oct. 10, 1278, on presentation of Brother Robert de Turevile, Master of the Templars in England.

WALTER DE DYNNOEL, Subdeacon;- instituted Feb. 17, 1301, on presentation of Brother William de la More, Master of the Templars in England.

SIR NICHOLAS DE MOMELE, Priest;- instituted May 12, 1301, on a similar presentation.

JOHN MAHER, presented by King Edward II (in 1307-8) on ac-count of the cotemporary forfeiture of the Templars. [24]

WILLIAM DE STAUNTON, Priest;- instituted May 8, 1328, on presentation of Brother Thomas L'Archer, Prior of the Knights Hospitallers in England.

RALPH DE TURNEYE, Priest;- instituted Dec. 3, 1334, on presentation of Brother Leonard de Tybeton (read Tybertis), Prior of the Hospitallers. [25]

WALTER, Perpetual Vicar of Cardington, was succeeded on July 31, 1349, by-

SIR THOMAS DE HALGHTON, Priest;- presented by Brother Philip de Thame, Prior of the Hospitallers.

RICHARD SETE, Chaplain;- instituted Dec. 10, 1387, on presentation of Brother Hildebrand Inge, Prior, etc.

SIR RICHARD HASTON, Chaplain;- instituted May 14, 1388, on presentation of Brother John Radyngton. On July 11, 1395, he exchanges with-

ADAM TRESELL, late Vicar of Moneford, who is instituted here on presentation of the Prior of the Hospitallers. He again, on April 29, 1398, exchanges with-

PHILIP HALGHTON, late Rector of the Free Chapel of Greete, [26] who was instituted here on presentation of Brother Richard Normantun, as Deputy of the Prior of the Hospitallers. This Vicar resigned in 1418.

[24] Patent, 1 Edw. II, p. 2, m. 20.
[25] This Incumbent took an oath to reside "juxta formam constitutionum Dominorum Otonis et Ottoboni".
[26] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 337.



A LARGE Manor in Culvestan Hundred, held under the Earl of Shrewsbury by Rainaldus Vicecomes, is thus described in Domesday.- "The same Rainald holds Estune. Elmund held it in King Edward's time. Here are eight hides and a half geldable. In demesne (there are) II ox-teams, and (there are) VI Serfs, V Villains, VIII Boors, a Priest, one Frenchman, and one Radman, with V ox-teams among them all; and still there might be IX teams more (employed) here. Here is a Mill of three measures of corn (annual value). In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 65s. (per annum). Now it is worth 40s. He (Rainald) found it waste". [1]

This Manor I trace, as regards name, in the present Vill or Township of Aston, near Munslow. I would notice, in support of this idea, that Bouldon, a Manor about two miles to the south-east of Aston-near-Munslow, was in Saxon times held in part by the same Elmund who was Lord of Estune. As regards extent, I think that the Domesday Manor of Estune involved Munslow as a member, and that the Church (indicated by the Domesday mention of a Priest) was subsequently transferred to Munslow as to a place which outstripped Aston in importance. We have already had similar instances of the transfer of Parish Churches, viz. from Patton to Long Stanton, and from Aldon to Stokesay. But other great changes have to be accounted for in the case before us, for at present the identity of Estune with Aston-Munslow and Munslow rests only on the following view of the case, viz. that the Domesday Manor has no other possible representatives in the known area of Culvestan Hundred; and that unless Estune be the Domesday antecedent of Aston and Munslow, the two latter have no Domesday type.

I now proceed to enumerate and, as far as I am able, to account for the changes above alluded to.-

First.- Munslow became the caput of the collective Manor. This was, I presume, in the time of Henry I, when Munslow was fixed upon as the caput of the new Hundred, to which it has given

[1] Domesday, fo. 255, a, 1.


a name, and which in great measure supplanted the older Hundred of Culvestan.

Secondly.- Though Estune was of the Fief of Rainald the Sheriff, Aston and Munslow are not found in the Fief of Rainald's ordinary and almost uniform Successors, the Fitz Alans. This may be accounted for thus. There can be no doubt that the Fief of the Sheriff was for a time, long or short, in the hands of Henry I. In regranting it to the Ancestor of Fitz Alan, the King very possibly reserved Estune as the Manor which contained the Caput of the projected Hundred of Munslow, a Hundred which we certainly know was retained for the Crown. Or perhaps the Manor was surrendered to the Crown, the King wishing to make it independent of Fitz Alan's Fief, and so better adapted for the centre of a new jurisdiction.

Thirdly.- We find that Aston and Munslow collectively never equalled, as regards hidage, the great estimate given by Domesday for Estune. To meet this anomaly I suggest that the newly organized Manor or Manors may have been allowed, as a privilege, to stand at a lower hidage than their predecessor. Indeed I have often mentioned circumstances which suggest that Domesday hidage was essentially an estimate of liability to taxation,- an estimate formed with reference to presumed value rather than to any measurement actually taken. If so, there is no absurdity in supposing that the reputed hidage of a Manor could at any time be lessened at will of the Crown.

I proceed now to treat of Estune under its later status, and as represented by the two Manors of Munslow and Aston-Munslow.

Munslow and Aston Munslow.

Hundredal Seigneury heing, as I have said, retained by the Crown, the King (Henry I, I presume) granted the manorial estate to a subject, who will consequently have become a Shropshire Tenant in capite. Who this Grantee was, can, I think, be ascertained.

We have seen that about the year 1115 a quarrel arose between the Monks of Wenlock and Stephen, Rector of Munslow, about certain Tithes. The Rector was non-suited by sentence of Richard


de Belmeis, presiding over a judicial assembly at Castle Holgate. The proceedings incidentally mention the love and respect entertained by the Monks for a person who is merely mentioned as "Lord" of the non-suited Rector. [2] This person was then, I conceive, Lord of Munslow. I think too that his name is given in another part of Belmeis' Patent, viz. in the Testing-Clause. The second Layman who attests is Richard Banastre, [2] whom, on various grounds, I venture to name as Lord of Munslow and Aston Munslow in 1115, holding the same in capite under Henry I, and standing high in provincial importance. I think however that Richard Banastre was a greater man in Cheshire than in Shropshire. I cannot enlarge on a subject and a genealogy in which I obtain small help from the Historians of Cheshire. Suffice it for me to point out how, in May 1106, a Deed of Richard, Earl of Chester, and the Countess Ermentrude his Mother, names Richard Balaste (read Balastre or Banastre) as one of the Barons of Cheshire; [3] how also Richard Banaster stands next to the same Countess in the testing-clause of another Charter; [4] how, lastly, between the years 1120 and 1128 the same Richard Banaster is a prominent witness to a Charter of Ranulf de Meschines, third Earl of Chester of his line. [5]

The successor of Richard Banaster, both in Cheshire and Shropshire, was Thurstan Banaster, probably his Son. I refer to two Charters of Ranulph de Girnons, fourth Earl of Chester of his line, one of which shows how high Thurstan Banaster stood in the Palatine Court of the Earl, while the other illustrates, though it does not prove, Thurstan Banaster's connection with Shropshire. These Deeds probably passed after 1141, and certainly before 1154. The first, a declaration by the Earl of Eustace fitz John's hereditary right to be Constable of Chester, is tested by Thurstan Banester as third witness, he having precedence of Norman de Verdon, Richard de Vernon, Walcheline Maminot, and William Malebenge, all men of Baronial rank. [6] The other deed is Earl Ranulph's exemption of the Monks of Shrewsbury from payment of toll in the City and County of Chester. It is tested by Abbot Ralph (of Chester, I suppose). If so it passed after January 1141. The other witness is Turstan Banastre. [7]

The elder male line of Thurstan Banaster ended with himself or

[2] Supra, Vol. III, p. 233; Vol. IV, p. 2.
[3] [4] [5] Leycester's Antiquities, pp. 115, 110, 127.
[6] Leycester's Antiquities, p. 161.
[7] Salop Chartulary, No. 312.


with his successor of the same name, and I think in the time of Henry II (1154-1189). There was indeed a Thurstan Banaster in Henry III's time, but he was clearly of a collateral line. Thurstan Banaster, whose male line expired in the twelfth century, left two daughters, his coheirs, viz. Margery wife of Richard fitz Roger, and Matilda wife of William de Hastings. Of William de Hastings, who was deceased in 1182, and left a son Henry, not then fifteen years of age, I shall speak presently. Richard fitz Roger was of Lancashire, in which county he seems to have had grants of land from John, Earl of Moreton, afterwards King of England. In May and July 1199 I find two Essoigns in a suit of land, wherein Richard fitz Roger and Matilda de Hastings were the Litigants. [8] The cause was entered upon in August at Westminster. Matilda de Hastings (here called by her maiden name Matilda Banastre) appeared against Richard fitz Roger, Margery his wife, and Robert de Stocf' (read Stocport) their Attorney. The suit was about the shares of the sisters (Matilda and Margery) in certain lands; but as the Plaintiffs did not appear, judgment was given for Matilda, leaving to the Plaintiffs whatever right of recovery they could otherwise establish. [8] I suppose it was before this sentence that Richard fitz Roger proffered a fine of 40 merks to King Richard that his wife might have her share of the lands of Thurstan Banaster her Father, which Fine seems to have been increased to 100 merks on the accession of King John. [9] Richard fitz Roger was deceased in 1201, leaving Margery his wife surviving and five daughters his Coheirs. These were Matilda, then wife of Robert de Stockport, Margery, Avice wife of William Mulum, Quenilda and Amur, three of whom were unmarried. Various Fines followed, purporting to secure to Robert de Stockport his wife's share of Richard fitz Roger's lands, also the custody of his three unmarried Sisters-in-law, further to exempt the widow of Richard fitz Roger from any obligation to remarry. [9] A Charter dated March 14, 1301, also secures some of John Earl of Moreton's grants to the heirs of the Grantee. [9]

Meanwhile Richard fitz Roger's Fine of 100 merks remained in arrear, and is so entered in the Warwickshire and Leicestershire Pipe-Roll of 1201. [10] In 1204 "Margery Banastre, widow of Richard fitz Roger", renewed this fine, adding a palfrey to the 100 merks, and stipulating that her husband's fine of 40 merks proffered

[8] Rot. Cur. Reg. I, pp. 227, 351, 359.
[9] Oblata, pp. 116, 117; Rot. Canc. 3 John, p. 115; See also Rot. Cart. p. 90, b.
[10] Rot. Canc. 3 John, p. 7.


to King Richard should be cancelled. Her object was to have a right share, as eldest Sister, of the lands of Thurstan Banastre her Father, which share her Sister Matilda refused to allow her". [11] Early in 1206 Robert de Stockport seems to have been dead; for Matilda Banastre, his widow I think, fines 20s. to have an assize concerning land in Appleby, Leicestershire, before the King himself. [11] Certainly it was Matilda widow of Robert de Stockport, rather than her Aunt, Matilda, widow of William de Hastings, who calling herself Matilda Banastre, fined 20 merks and a palfrey with King John that she might not be compelled to marry, unless by her own wish and with the King's consent; also that she might have her share, as eldest coheiress, of the lands of Richard fitz Roger, her Father, and Margery Banastre, her mother (both apparently deceased). The King's mandate issued accordingly to the Sheriffs both of Lancashire and Leicestershire. [11] Cotemporarily William de Mulum with Avice his wife, and Thomas de Bothum with Amur his wife, fined 20 and 40 merks respectively for the shares of the said Avice and Amur in the lands of their Father and Mother,- Richard fitz Roger and Margery Banastre. [11] I now close this branch of the subject remarking that the Leicestershire inheritance here mentioned, or part thereof, was the Manor of Little Appleby and the Advowson of Great Appleby, [12] sometime held by Richard fitz Roger and Margery his wife under Ferrars Earl of Derby.


In the division of Thurstan Banaster's estates, Munslow and Aston fell undoubtedly to the share of Matilda wife of William de Hastings. Their descendants became therefore Tenants in capite in Shropshire, and I must pause awhile to give some account of the origin of a House whose early history has never yet been treated with that accuracy which its subsequent greatness would seem to deserve.

In the time of King Henry the Conqueror, or rather perhaps of William Rufus, there was one Radulphus, called Dapifer, because

[11] Rot. Fin. pp. 213, 347, 352-3.
[12] Burton in his Description of Leicestershire (page 15) cites a Deed whereby Robert de Stokeport gave this Manor and Advowson in fee, to William de Vernon and his heirs. Ho dates the Deed in King John's time. Again (page 12) he adduces proof that in 1221 the Patron of Appleby Church was some heir of Richard fitz Roger. These considerations are important to the Histories of other Counties, but especially as furnishing a material correction to the received genealogy of the so-called Barons of Stockport.


he held the hereditary Stewardship of the Abbey of St. Edmundsbury in Suffolk, an office which involved a tenure of three knights'-fees in the estates of the Abbey. A Charter, more probably of William Rufus than of his Father, orders the restoration of certain lands (Lidgate and Blunham) to this Radulphus, [13] which lands it seems were part of his fee as Steward of St. Edmundsbury. Between the years 1115 and 1119 Albold Abbot of St. Edmundsbury gives this Stewardship to Maurice de Windleshore, together with all the land which Radulphus Dapifer, Maurice's Predecessor, held therewith, adding other lands, to be held in fee and inheritance by service of two knights'-fees, over and above the former three. [13] We can only suppose that Maurice de Windleshore was the heir of Radulphus, because his office was hereditary, and after his own death descended to a collateral heir. Also in 1130 Maurice de Windsor and Egidia his wife made an eleemosynary grant to Norwich Cathedral, the object being to establish a Cell or Convent of Monks to pray for the soul of Radulphus Dapifer; [13]- a fact most strongly suggestive of a blood relationship. Maurice de Windleshore was living in Stephen's reign (1135-1154); for that King confirmed to him his office and all his lands of whomsoever held. [13] In the same reign he probably died, and without issue, as will presently appear.

Cotemporary with Maurice de Windsor was William de Hastings, concerning whom some things are doubtful, [14] but one thing certain, viz. that before 1130, being a claimant of the Master-Marshalship of the Court of Henry I, against Gilbert Marshall and John his son (ancestors of the Earls of Pembroke) his claim was disallowed. [15] It is proximately evident that this William de Hastings held a subsidiary Office as one of the Stewards (Dispensatores) of the King's household, and also that his wife was Sister, and in her issue heir, of Maurice de Windsor. By this Lady, William de Hastings seems to have left two sons, Ralph and Hugh. Of Hugh I will speak

[13] Brakelond's Chronicle (Camden Society), pp. 116, 118.
[14] Some accounts trace the pedigree of Hastings to Robert de Hastings, Portgreve of Hastings (See Collins, Vol. III, p. 84). It is probable that there was such an Officer; for in 1130 William, son of Robert de Hastings is held accountable to the Crown for the Lestage of Hastings and Rye (Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. I, p. 68). But I cannot think that this William, son of Robert, was identical with the William in the text, for the latter was apparently deceased in 1130, whilst Juliana, the wife of the former, was already a wealthy heiress in 1130 (Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. I, p. 58), and so must have been a different person to the sister of Maurice de Windsor, whose heirs at the time can only have been expectant.
[15] Rot. Cart. 1 John, m. 13.


[For pedigree, see pdf.]


presently as the youngest. Of Ralph de Hastings I hear nothing till the reign of Henry II. That King, by a Charter which appears to have passed very soon after his accession, concedes and confirms to Ralph de Hastynges, Steward (Dopifero) of the Queen, and to his heirs, all the lands and Tenements formerly belonging to Ralph, Steward of St. Edmund's, and to Maurice de Windsor, maternal Uncle of the said Ralph de Hastings, of whatever fee the said lands were held. The King also expressly confirms the Stewardship of St. Edmund's to Ralph de Hastings as previously held by Ralph and Maurice, Stewards in the time of the Kimg's Predecessors. [16]

It is remarkable that this Charter, passing as I suppose, in 1155, is addressed to the King's Lieges in Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Bedfordshire, and Northamptonshire, in which five Counties (as also in Dorsetshire, Berkshire, and Middlesex) Maurice de Windsor is known to have had lands in 1130. [17]

Other proofs of the favour in which Ralph de Hastings stood with King Henry II are not wanting. He attests some of the King's earliest Charters. In 1156, 1157, and 1158 his lands in Middlesex, Berkshire, and Gloucestershire are exempted by Writ Royal from several current imposts. [18] The King had himself given him 20 librates of land at Fordeham, Cambridgeshire, and 10 librates at Witham, in Somersetshire. [18] His office in the household of Queen Eleanor is illustrated by his receipt of various large sums of Money, paid to him by the fiscal Officers of the Crown for the Queen's use. [18] This Ralph de Hastings (about whom Dugdale says not a word) was deceased in 1165, and without issue. I must now revert to an earlier period in order that I may show more clearly how a second William de Hastings came to be his heir. William de Hastings, father of Ralph, seems to have had a younger son Hugh. This William (the Father of Ralph and Hugh) was, as I have said, apparently deceased in 1130. In that year Hugh de Hastings accounted for 90 merks and 2 Destriers, being the whole or the balance of a Fine which he had given to the King "for having the land and the niece of Robert de Flamenvill". [19]

Erneburga daughter of Hugh de Flamville and niece and heir of Robert de Flamville, is known, on other evidence, to have married Hugh de Hastings. The exemption which in 1130 Hugh de Hastings had from paying his quota of Danegeld in Leicestershire, Warwickshire,

[16] Brakelond (ut supra), p. 117.
[17] He is excused his quota of Danegeld in the eight Counties indicated (Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. I, passim).
[18] Rot. Pip. 2, 3, 4 Hen. II, passim.
[19] Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. p. 87.


Buckinghamshire and Middlesex, must be taken to have been in respect of lands acquired with his wife. [20] Of these it will suffice if I here identify one Manor, viz. that of Aston Flamvill in Leicestershire, and refer elsewhere for a list of various other Manors held under the See of Lichfield, by the Flamvilles of Henry I's time. [21]

Before the year 1165, William son and heir of Hugh de Hastings and Erneburga de Flamville became also the heir of his Uncle Ralph de Hastings. A charter of King Henry II, which by its own internal evidence, must have passed in 1165 or 1166, confirms to William de Hastyngs, called by the King his own Steward (Dispensatori), [22] the Stewardship (dapiferatum) of St. Edmund's, with all its appurtenances, as Ralph the paternal Uncle (patruus) of the said William, or Maurice the maternal Uncle (avunculus) of the said Ralph, had held the same. [23]

Another Charter of Henry II confirms to William de Hastings his other heritages, paternal and maternal. This Charter seems to have been a Pedigree in itself. It mentions William de Hastings, the Grandfather, and Hugh de Hastings the Father of the Grantee, as living in time of Henry I. It also enumerates lands given to Robert de Flamenville by Robert de Limesi, Bishop of Coventry, and in time of Henry I,- lands given therefore between 1100 and 1117. It lastly shows Erneburga de Flamville to have been Mother of the Grantee, and to have stood in all other relations as the annexed Pedigree declares. [24]

I now turn to the Liber Niger, or Feodary of 1165, for a further illustration of this subject.-

[20] Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. I, passim.
[21] Dugdale's Baronage, p. 574, a.
[22] It appears that the words Dapifer and Dispensator were indifferently applied to the office held by De Hastings in the Royal Household: also we observe that Ralph de Hastings' ministry in the Queen's Household was only a temporary arrangement. The Serjeantry of De Hastings whereby he held in capite the Norfolk Manor of Ashele, was the same thing as his Royal Stewardship. It is always associated with his office of Dispensator; and in one instance the Royal Pantry is mentioned as the department of these particular Stewards. The form which the Serjeantry assumed at a later period is given by Dugdale (Baronage, ut supra). There were in Henry I's time, and afterwards, several Dispensatores and several Dapiferi in the Royal Household, and most of their offices were hereditary. The subject would fill an interesting volume.

I need hardly observe that the Stewardship of St. Edmund's, so often alluded to in the text, had no connection whatever with the Household Stewardship of De Hastings, though accidentally held by the same family.
[23] Brakelond (ut supra), p. 120.
[24] Dugddale's Baronage (ut supra).


There I find William de Hastings holding five fees in the Honour of St. Edmund, [25] two fees of the Earl Ferrars (which, in time of Henry I, had been held by Robert de Chartres and Henry de Cunegeston), [25] one fee under Robert Marmiun, [26] and one knight's-fee and twenty librates of land in the Honor of Clare. [27] These were all of old feoffment. Of new feoffment William de Hastings had three fees in the Honour of Gloucester. [28]

This William de Hastings it was who married Matilda daughter and coheir of Thurstan Banaster: a match which still further increased the inheritance of his descendants. In proof of his attendance on the King's Court, I may instance his attestation of two Royal Charters: one of which passed at Woodstock, probably in March 1163, [29] the other some years later, at Le Mans. [30] In 1182 this William de Hastings was deceased. His wife Matilda Banaster survived him, to all appearance about forty years. His eldest son Henry was an Infant in 1182, and remained so at least six years later. This youth was under the protection of his Uncle Thomas de Hastings, said by Genealogists to have been Ancestor of the Earls of Huntingdon of the Hastings name. Brakelond tells us how on April 1, 1182, Thomas de Hastings appeared before the Abbot of St. Edmundsbury, with a great retinue of Knights, and leading his Nephew Henry, not yet a knight, but for whom he demanded his hereditary office, here called by the Chronicler his Seneschalcy. The Abbot appears to have objected to the incompetence of such a youth, and a deputy was for a time appointed. [31] In 1188 Robert de Flamvill, probably a relation of young Hastings, was acting in this behalf. [31] However in 1190 Henry de Hastings was old enough to accompany King Richard to Palestine; and a Scutage assessed in 1191 on the fees held by him under St. Edmundsbury is excused on that account. It would seem that Henry de Hastings died in this service or shortly after his return, and without issue; for in 1194 his Brother William proffered 100 marks for his Relief of the lands and Serjeantry of the said Henry, and 100 merks more for the King's Favour in regard that he did not then accompany the King into Normandy. [32] This William de Hastings (third of his name) married Margery daughter of Roger Bigod, Earl of Norfolk, falsely supposed

[25] Liber Niger, I, pp. 281, 220.
[26] [27] [28] Ibidem, pp. 207, 294, 164.
[29] Old Monasticon, I, 518.
[30] Harl. Charter, 43, C. 23.
[31] Brakelond (ut supra), pp. 20, 117.
[32] Dugdale quoting Rot. Pip. 6 Ric. I, Norf. and Suff.

William de Hastings accounts for one of these Fines in 7 Rich I. (Madox Exchequer, 216. f.)


by some to have been his Mother. [33] The Shropshire Assize Roll of 1203 shows his real Mother, Matilda Banaster, in connection with that County. She essoigned her attendance under the common summons, an attendance which was probably due in respeot of her seigneury at Aston and Munslow, those vills being of her own, not of her late husband's inheritance.

Her Essoignor in this instance was William fitz Aldith. The same person, on the same occasion, essoigned Matilda Banastre's appearance in a suit wherein she was impleaded by Thomas Grossetost.

William de Hastings (III) attended the Parliament of Lincoln in November 1200, when William, King of Scots, did homage to King John. In the same year a Feodary of St. Edmundsbury gives William de Hastinges as holding 5 knights'-fees under the Abbey, viz. 3 in Lidgate, Blunham, and Herlinge, and 2 in Tibenham and Gissing. [34] I refer elsewhere for some further particulars concerning this William de Hastings, [35] to which I might add many more, but in so doing should be in danger of saying that of him which may refer to a cotemporary of the same name, and who had estates in some of the same Counties. [36] It was clearly William de Hastings, the Steward, who was in rebellion against King John in 1216; for a Writ of April 10 orders the Constable of Norwich to destroy his Castles and lay waste his lands, [37] whilst a second writ of April 22nd gives up to his Suzerain, the Abbot of St. Edmund's, all lands which he held in the Abbot's Fee. [38] Another Writ of King John, dated at Clun, August 8, 1216, grants away William de Hastings' lands in Warwickshire and Leicestershire. [39] On June 17, 1222, William de Hastings fines 10 merks for two hides in Astun (Shropshire), which Matilda Banister his Mother held in capite. [40] To this period therefore I assign the death of his said Mother. His own decease will have taken place shortly before January 28, 1226, when Henry his son and heir, being of full age, had livery for a Fine of 50 merks. The King's precept, allowing the same, is addressed to the Sheriffs of Warwickshire, Leicestershire, Salop, Bedfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk, [41] those being the Counties where most of his lands lay. In 1235-6 I find mention of another Matilda de Hastings, holding apparently

[33] Dugdale (Baronage p. 547);- a mistake partly corrected by the same Author (p. 133).
[34] Brakelond (ut supra), notes p. 88.
[35] Dugdale, ut supra.
[36] I allude to William de Hastings whose chief estates were in Gloucestershire, but who is, when distinguished at all, called William de Hastings of Eton, from an estate which he had in Berkshire.
[37] [38] [39] Rot. Claus. I, 260, 265, 279.
[40] Rot. Fin. I, 87.
[41] Ibidem, I, 137. William de Hastings of Eton died seized of lands in Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Gloucestershire, and, I think, Warwickshire, shortly before Feb. 29, 1224, when Osbert Gifford purchased the wardship of his heir, which heir was also named William.


half a knight's-fee in the Honour of the Earl Ferrars, and in Warwickshire or Leicestershire! Who this Lady was I cannot say, but possibly she was the widow, and if so, had been the second wife of William de Hastings (III).

In or about 1240 we have Henry de Hastings (written Hastont) enrolled as Tenant-in-capite of one-fourth of a knight's-fee in Eston and Mosselawe. [43] We have nearly cotemporary notices in the same Record of his Tenures under the Crown, the Earls Ferrars, the Lords Marmion, and others in several counties. Many of these estates were his inheritance from his Father, but many more had accrued by his own fortunate marriage with Ada, youngest sister and coheir of John Scot, Earl of Huntingdon. I have spoken on this subject before, under Worfield, and have carried down my account of this Barony some generations later. [44] Here therefore I return to some more specific and earlier details connected with the Manors now before us.

MUNSLOW and ASTON were in 1167 amerced half a merk and one merk respectively by Alan de Nevill, Justice of the Forest. At this time one or both of these Vills, or some part thereof, were, I think, held under Matilda Banaster and her husband by one Robert fitz Walkeline. This Robert fitz Walkeline was, I further think, the person who in 1165 held two Knights'-fees under the Earl Ferrars. [45] If so, he and William de Hastings, his Lord here, were fellow-vassals in another Fief. Robert fitz Walkeline joined the Rebellion of 1173, in which we have ample assurance that his Suzerain, the Earl Ferrars, was deeply involved. [46] His tenure in Shropshire hereupon escheated to the Crown for a time; at least I thus explain the fact that in 1174 the Sheriff of Shropshire accounts 51s. 4d. for the issues forth of the "land of Robert fitz Walkeline, who was with the King's enemies".

In 1187 the Vills of Musselawe and Eaton were jointly amerced 40s. for some default (pro defectu). The debt was discharged in 1191. In October 1199 a Fine was levied between Robert Baratin, Plaintiff, and Amicia, widow of Robert fitz Walkeline, Tenant, of a carucate of land in Meselawe, whereof was suit of mort d'ancestre.

[42] Testa de Nevill, pp. 90, 91.
[43] Ibidem, p. 45.
[44] Supra, Vol. III, pp. 107-110.
[45] Liber Niger, I, 219.
[46] Dugdale'e Baronage, p. 259.


Robert Baratin, for five merks, now renounced all his claim to Amicia and her heirs for ever.

During the next fifty years I find no statement or hint as to the tenure of Aston and Munslow; nor can I indicate from other sources the succession of De Hastings' Feoffees in either Manor. Subsequently the two Manors have a history sometimes distinct, sometimes confused, and at all times fragmentary and unsatisfactory.

In 1255 William de Venables was Mesne-lord of Munslow, holding the same of the fee of Henry de Hastings. The, Vill was estimated at two hides. It did Suit to the Hundred, but paid neither Stretward nor Motfee. Under Venables three Coparceners held the Manor. They are described as John de Chandurs, Nicholas de Stubbings, and Dame Armetrewe, [47]- a description which, being unable to illustrate, I will not venture to correct.

At the same time Geoffrey de Lusignan, half-brother to Henry III, [48] had Aston in custody with the infant heir of John de Hertwalle [49] (Hasting's late Feoffee there). The Vill was estimated at two hides. It did suit neither to County nor Hundred, and paid neither stretward nor motfee. The Jurors of Munslow Hundred knew it to be of the Fee of Henry de Hastings.

The Feodary of 1284 ostensibly gives account of the Vill of Munslow only, saying that Alice de Seymor and Adam de Herkwall held it of John de Hastings for a fourth-part of a knight's-fee. - I suppose Alice de Seymour [50] to have been Lady of Munslow, and Adam de Herkwalle Lord of Aston. At the Assizes of 1292 it was reported that the Vill of Aston and Munselowe used to appear at the Sheriff's-Tourn, twice yearly, by four men and a Provost; and that one of the four men had been withdrawn twelve years previously by William de Munslow, a Tenant then deceased. The Sheriff was ordered to compel the Tenant then seized to appear.

In March 1316 Robert de Beek is enrolled as Lord both of Munslow and Aston. [51] He appears to have been Hastings' immediate Tenant in Munslow at least; and in 1324 we shall find him

[47] Rot. Hundred, II, 71.
[48] Called Gaufridus de Lesynum frater Regis in the Record. He was a younger son of Hugh le Brun, Earl of Marche and Lusignan, by Isabella, widow of King John.
[49] John de Hertwalle or Herkwall, deceased in 1255, has, I think, occurred to us already under Corfton, viz. as John, son of Adam de Hortwall, and as granting in Aston. (Vide Supra, p. 49).
[50] Alice de Seymour has already occurred under Marston (Supra, p. 111).
[51] Parliamentary Writs, IV, p. 398. Robert de Beek was of a very ancient Staffordshire family, holding two knights'-fees in Over and Nether Tayne, etc. under the Barons Stafford.


disputing the right of Advowson with Sir John de Hastings. As to Aston, though not mentioned on this occasion, I have reason to think that the Hertwalls remained Hastings' Tenants there to a much later period.

Among the Tenants of a still lower degree in Munslow and Aston, that is, those who holding under one or other of the greater Tenants, were actually the resident occupants of the lands, I may name a few.-

William de Camera of Aston has already occurred to us in 1249. [52] We have also had mention of Roger de Furches of Aston, of whose family I have given account under Corfton. Before 1255 John de Wigley, Thomas de Stoke, Thomas Clerk of Munslow, John fitz Robert of Munslow, John de Aston, Henry de Ernwood, and Roger de Hordeslee were Under-Tenants in Aston, Munslow, or Corfton. In October 1258 William de Corfton sues Roger de Hordesley for disseizin in Eaton. In June 1259 the latter person, called Roger de Haderlegh, and his wife sue William fitz Elen and others for disseizin in Aston. In 1259 Roger Ernold of Munslow is amerced 20s. for a false oath. About the same time we hear of one Robert de Munslow. In 1262 Thomas de Munslow was a Regarder of the Long Forest. In the same year it was found by the Justices of the Forest that the Bosc of Sir Roger de Ridware at Munslow was wasted of old time. In 1267 we find the latter person described as Roger de Redewelle. He with Agnes his wife sued Thomas le Clerk of Munslow and John de Brewes (Braose) for disseizing them of a messuage and half a virgate in Munslow. Thomas le Clerk pleaded that he claimed nothing in the premises but a tenure of thirty years, by demise of William de Estanford, father of Agnes the Plaintiff. He produced the lease in question, but was non-suited. Among his Sureties was Henry de Aston. [53] In this same year Thomas de Munslow was amerced half a merk for some non-attendance (quia non venit). In July 1271 John de Breus was suing Roger de Clifford, Senior, Roger, his Son, and Stephen Tyrel for disseizin in Munslow.

At the Assizes of 1272 Robert de Musselawe was a Juror for Munslow Hundred. In November 1277 there was a Fine levied between William de Munsselowe, Clerk, Plaintiff, and Roger de Ridware and Agnes his wife, Impedients, of a messuage, 4 virgates, and 18s. rent in Munslow and Aston. Roger and Agnes acknowledged the premises to be the Plaintiff's by their own gift, to hold

[52] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 5.
[53] Salop Assizes, 51 Han. III, m. 3.


to him and his heirs under them and the heirs of Agnes at 40s. rent. For this William paid 100s. The Plaintiff or rather Feoffee in this case was probably the same person with William-in-the-hole, Clerk, of Munslow, whom we have seen with other cotemporary tenants in Aston and Munslow attesting a Deed given under Corfton. [54] In January 1284 Robert de Munselow was Foreman of a Ludlow Jury. At the Assizes of 1292 Henry de Aston was a Juror for Munslow Hundred, whilst Margaret the widow, and William the Infant son of William de Munslow, deceased, were the persons called to account in the matter of that withdrawal of suit which I have noticed above. The names of some later Tenants in Aston and Munslow may be found in the Deeds quoted under Corfton. [54]


The Domesday Church of this Parish was, as I have already said, probably situated at Aston. We have seen however that before the year 1115 the Church was known as the Church of Munslow, and that it claimed a certain parochial jurisdiction [55] which shows that its Parish was one of the original and extensive Saxon Parishes of Shropshire. In 1252 the King presented to Munslow Church, during the minority of Henry de Hastings' heir. On Sunday, April 23, 1290, Munslow Church was visited by Bishop Swinfield. [56] No Procuration seem to have been furnished by the Rector, who was probably non-resident.

The Taxation of 1291 values the Church of Munslow, in Wenlock Deanery, at 11. 6s. 8d. per annum. This was the Rectory. The Vicar's Portion, as it is called, was under 4. [57] In 1341, the Taxation of 15. 6s. 8d. being first quoted, the Assessors of the Ninth rated this Parish at 3. only. [58] The corn had been destroyed by storms: there had been a general murrain among the sheep, and five carucates of land lay unfilled. Moreover the Glebe and Altarages of the Church were included in the Church-Taxation, but excluded from the current assessment.

The Valor of 1534-5 gives the preferment of John Lytilton, Rector of Monslowe, as worth, in glebe and tithes, 22. 16s. 8d. The Bishop's triennial visitation-fees equalled an annual charge of 13s. 4d. Procurations, payable annually to the Bishop's Commissary,

[54] Supra, pp. 49, 50, 51.
[55] Supra, Vol. III, p. 2.
[57] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 167, b.
[56] Household Roll, p. 77; Annotations, p. clxxxvi.
[58] Inquisitiones Nonarum, p. 186, b.


were 6s. 8d. Synodals payable to the Archdeacon were 1s. 6d. The Net value of the Rectory was therefore 21. 15s. 2d. [59]


STEPHEN, Rector of Munslow, in or about 1115, has already occurred.

JOHN DE COVINTRE was presented January 14, 1252, by the Crown, as having custody of Henry de Hastings' heir. [60]

ROBERT DE SHEPPEYE was Rector in 1311, when, on April 27, he presents WILLIAM DE TIKENHALE to the Vicarage. The Rectory was vacant in 1324, and the right of patronage contested between Sir John de Hastings and Robert Bek. A King's Writ of May 12 forbids the Bishop to admit any Parson pendente lite; but another Writ of July 21 certifies that Hastings is the Patron. Meanwhile, that is, on June 26, Sir John de Hastings had presented-

MASTER WILLIAM DE LODELOWE. The same person called-

MASTER WILLIAM DE ROUTON, being Rector here, was cited in 1333 for non-payment of Procurations. In 1337 he was excommunicated, and a Writ was out for his arrest. On his ("Master William de Lodalowe's") death, viz. on July 22, 1349-

ADAM DE HOPTON, Clerk, was presented by the King as Custos of the land and heir of Sir Laurence de Hastings, late Earl of Pembroke. [61]

SIR WILLIAM RYCHARDYN, Priest, was instituted Oct. 3, 1371;- on presentation of Sir John de Hastings, Earl of Pembroke, Lord Wexford and Abergavenny. A Commission of December 13, 1385, concerns charges of scandalous immorality against this Rector; and on March 8, 1386, he has the Bishop's dispensation for five years' absence, and license to demise the fruits of his Church, for that period, to Sir Richard Talbot, Lord of Blakmere. Rychardyn resigned in 1396, exchanging benefices with-

SIR WILLIAM CACHEPOLLE, who on May 5, 1400, again exchanges with-

SIR RICHARD LEYNWARDIN, late Rector of Dale, in Canterbury Diocese.

[59] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 209.
[60] Patent, 36 Hen. III.
[61] Patent, 23 Edw. III, p. 2, m. 24.



[For engravings, see pdf.]

Corfham. 145


Domesday describes this Manor as follows. [1]-

"The Earl himself holds Corfan. King Edward held it (in Saxon times) with four berewicks. Here are IIII hides geldable. In demesne are V ox-teams, and there is capability for a sixth (et sexta posset esse). Here III Villains and III Boors have III ox-teams, and there is capability for II teams more. Here are X Neat-herds.

"Of this land one of the Earl's Knights holds half a hide, and has thereon one ox-team, and II Serfs, and II Villains with one team. It is worth 5s. (per annum).

"The Church of St. Peter holds the Church of this Manor, with one hide. The arable land is enough for III ox-teams. It yields to the Monks 18s. (yearly)".

"To this Manor (Corfan) pertains the whole of Comestane Hundred and Patinton Hundred. In time of King Edward, the Manor, together with two pennies from the Hundreds, [2] yielded 10. of the Ferm. [3] Now, together with the Hundreds, it yields 6. to the Earl".

Corfham then, in Saxon times and at Domesday, was Caput of the two Hundreds of Culvestan and Patinton. King Edward's Manors were many of them thus united with an Hundredal Jurisdiction. Morville, a case in point, has already been disposed of. When, on the forfeiture of Earl Robert de Belesme, all his Seigneuries reverted to Henry I, that King, re-arranging the Hundreds of Shropshire, made Munslow the Caput of its Hundred, which Hundred mainly represented the more ancient ones of Culvestan and Patinton. Corfham then became simply a Manor of Royal Demesne. It was combined with two adjacent Manors, Culmington and Siefton, and all three came to the hands of Henry II, as constituting an estate of Royal Demesne, whose fiscal value was 31.

[1] Domesday, fo. 253, b, 1.
[2] That is, 2d. out of every 3d. yielded by the Pleas and perquisites of the Hundred-Courts. The third penny (tertium denarium) belonged as usual to the Saxon Earl of the County, that is, to Earl Algar or his son Earl Edwin.
[3] That is, 10. of the sum known as the Firma Comitatus.


per annum;- a great increase on the reputed value of the same estate in Saxon times or at Domesday.

I have told, under Ditton Priors, how this estate was, together with the said Ditton, given by Henry II, in the first year of his reign (1155) to Hugh de Periers, and how it so remained till the death of Hugh de Periers, about Christmas 1175. [4] Then Corfham, Culmington, and Siefton reverted to the King, and from then till Michaelmas 1177 the Sheriff accounts at the rate of 31. per annum for these Manors, as if they again constituted an estate of Royal demesne, rated at so much in the County Ferm.

But at Michaelmas 1178 this plan was altered.- The Sheriff, describing the whole estate as the land of Corfham, claims quittance for himself of 31. (the previous year's ferm thereof), saying that he, the Sheriff, had delivered up the same according to the King's precept. [5] And this entry is in substance repeated on every Pipe-Roll till the year 1190. The truth is that about Michaelmas 1177 the King had granted this estate to a subject, and the reason why the Grantee's name was so unusually excluded from a public document like the Pipe-Roll, is not difficult to discover.- The Grantee in question was Walter de Clifford, Father of King Henry's Paramour, Fair Rosamond. The gift was, in short, the wages of dishonour,- wages long in arrear and at length paid stealthily. Policy perhaps as much as shame dictated the concealment; for Henry's affairs, both in relation to Queen Eleanor and the kingdom, had only recently recovered from a crisis which had wellnigh overwhelmed him.


WALTER DE CLIFFORD, of whom I am now to speak, was the son of Richard fitz Ponce, and the Nephew and apparently the heir of Walter and Drogo fitz Ponce, [6] two persons who figure in Domesday as holding several Manors in Oxfordshire, Berkshire, Wiltshire,

[4] Supra, Vol. III, p. 330. I should add to the account of Hugh de Periers that in 1162 he was acquitted of 42s., the sum assessed for Danegeld, on his Shropshire estates.
[5] Rot. Pip. 24 Hen. II, Salop.- Et in quietantia terrae de Corfham quam Vicecomes liberavit ad preceptum Regis 31. per breve Regis.
[6] There was also a fourth Brother, Osbern fitz Ponce. He had a son Ralph (vide Monasticon, II, 422, No. xiii). Again there was a fifth Brother, Simon (vide Monasticon, III, 449, No. iv).

The story which identifies Poncius, the Father of these Brethren, with the famous William of Arques (Uncle to William the Conqueror) is simply ridiculous.


[For pedigree, see pdf.]


Gloucestershire, Worcestershire, and Herefordshire. I can add nothing to what Dugdale has said about Richard fitz Ponce, except that he was living in or after the year 1115, [7] and Walter de Clifford, his son, had succeeded him before 1138. [8] Of Walter de Clifford's conduct during the war of succession which ensued, we know nothing. A close attention to Chronology will however supply, in connection with his name, some traits in the character, and some facts in the career, of a greater personage. Henry, Duke of Normandy, was of the age of nineteen years and two months when on May 18, 1152, he married the Princess Eleanor of Poitou, who six weeks previously had been divorced by Louis VII of France. The match was a hasty one, but to Duke Henry it promised great political advantages. On the other hand the beauty and attractions of the Princess had already been blackened by tales of the foulest scandal. On Eleanor's fidelity, whilst the wife of Henry Plantagenet, I believe no imputation has ever been thrown. Her excesses as Queen of England were of another kind. Let us see how far they may have been provoked by the conduct of her husband. Prince William, be it observed, the eldest son of Duke Henry and Eleanor, was born on August 17, 1153; Prince Henry, their second son, on Feb. 18, 1155. On January 6th, 1153, Duke Henry had landed in England to make a great effort for his Crown. After the campaign and the well-known treaty with Stephen, he recrossed to Normandy on April 4, 1154. In this interval commenced, and during a great part of this interval continued, the amour of Henry with Rosamond, daughter of Walter de Clifford. The result was that the births of William and Geoffrey, the two sons of Henry and Rosamond, took place between the births of William and Henry, the two eldest children of Henry and Eleanor. [9]

The first notice which I have of Walter de Clifford after Henry II's accession, is a grant of 10s. to him, paid in 1158 by order of the King through the Sheriff of Herefordshire. [10] This may have been connected with the successful expedition which, as Keeper of

[7] He attests a Charter of Bernard, Bishop of St. David's, who was consecrated in that year (Carte's MSS. LLLL. Caput 17, fo. 274).
[8] Walter de Clifford exchanged the Manor of Eastleach for that of Glasbury with Gloucester Abbey before 1138, when King Stephen confirmed the transaction (Monasticon, I, 551, b). The Monastic account (p. 547, a, ibidem) would make the transaction later, viz. in the time of Abbot Gilbert (1139-1147); but this testimony is of inferior weight.
[9] The seniority of Geoffrey, Archbishop of York, over Prince Henry is distinctly noted by the Biographer of the former (Anglia Sacra, II, 378).
[10] Rot. Pip. 4 Hen. II, Herefordshire.


the Castle of Lhanymdhyfri, he made into the territory of Rees ap Gruffyth, Prince of South Wales, and which happened, according to the Welsh Chronicles, in the same year. [11] In 1165 he appears as holding one knight's-fee under the Bishop of Worcester, [12] and one knight's-fee under the Bishop of Hereford. [13] He seems to have made no return of his tenures in capite; for that portion of the Liber Niger which says that "he holds Corfham and Culminton, and the Haye of Erneston and Lesclines, by service of one knight", is supplementary and of a later date than 1177, as I have already shown. [14] In 1187 he was charged 20s. to the scutage of Galway for a knight's-fee in Wiltshire. [15] He seems to have died in 1190, and evidently at an advanced age.

Walter de Clifford's name is connected with many eleemosynary charters which, whether we consider them as works of piety or remorse, tell us something further of his family and private concerns. His grant to Dore Abbey of Cantersclif seems to have been made in hope that a subject Abbey would be founded at the latter place. It was made with consent of his wife Margaret and all his heirs. It was for the souls' health of himself and his wife, their parents, and their sons and daughters, also of Osbern fitz Hugh (who has been said to have married a daughter of Clifford). The Deed is attested by David, Bishop of St. David's (1147-1176), Osbern fitz Hugh, Margaret de Clifford, Walter de Clifford the younger (juvene), Rosamund his Sister, Ralph de Bascherville, and others. [16]

This Charter probably passed before the year 1173;- a date determined by a series of events which evidently were subsequent, and which I must incorporate in my story. In March 1173 Prince Henry left his Father's Court in Normandy, and sought that of his Father-in-law, Louis VII of France. The Princes Richard and Geoffrey followed their Brother; and Queen Eleanor, who, actuated as it is said by jealousy, had planned this domestic rebellion, also absconded. The Queen fell into the hands of her husband, and with

[11] Powel, p. 152.
[12] [13] [14] Liber Niger, I, 174, 150, 149.
[15] Liber Ruber Scaccarii, fo. xlix.
[16] Monasticon, V, 555, No. viii.- Margaret wife of Walter de Clifford (I), is said, with probability, to have brought him Clifford Castle in frank-marriage, she being a daughter of Ralph de Toni, Domesday Lord of that Castle. When the Genealogists further assart that the said Margaret was descended from William fitz Osbern, Earl of Hereford, they forget that, if daughter of Ralph de Toni, the said Margaret was niece of William fitz Osbern's wife who was sister of the said Ralph.

An equally probable account of the mode in which Clifford-Castle left the succession of De Toni is that Maud, wife of Richard fitz Ponce, was a daughter of Ralph de Toni.


the exception of a short interval in 1185-6, continued a close prisoner for the remaining sixteen years of his life. Immediately on the Queen's imprisonment, Rosamond Clifford became openly and avowedly the Paramour of the King. [17] For an indefinite time previous she had been secretly domiciled at Woodstock. The Charter above quoted must have passed still further back and before she left her Father's House.

The avowed profligacy of Henry's conduct, dating as I have said in 1173, is curiously parallelled by another event of that year. Rosamond's second son, Geoffrey, though not yet twenty years of age, was actually elected Bishop of Lincoln, and this was doubtless by the King's procurement. However the Mother's career ended soon after the change in her position. She died then about 1175-6, for I cannot put a wider construction on the expression of the Chronicle, [18] and was buried at Godstow,- a place ostensibly dedicated to the holiness of female chastity!

There are two Charters to Godstow Nunnery, which, passing as they did within ten years of Rosamond Clifford's death, next claim our attention. Walter de Clifford for his soul's health, and for the souls of his wife Margaret and their daughter Rosamond, gave to the Nuns aforesaid his Mill of Framton, with a meadow near thereto. Also he gave them his Salt-pit in Wich. This he did with consent of the King (Henry II), and of his own heirs. And Walter de Clifford Junior, calling himself son and heir of the Grantor, concedes the gift in a distinct clause of the Charter. There were witnesses of the whole, Osbern fitz Hugh, Hugh de Say, Richard de Clifford, William his Brother, Richard de Karesi, William Charbunell. [19]

Osbern fitz Hugh's cotemporary grant to Godstow I have already given in another place, [20] and I have only here to repeat that it mentions, more precisely than the last Deed, the previous death of Margaret and Rosamund Clifford, and the burial of both at Godstow.

Of Walter de Clifford's grant to Haughmond Abbey between 1177 and 1185 I shall speak under Culmington. The cotemporary benefactions of Osbern fitz Hugh to that house have been already noticed.

I have said that Walter de Clifford died about 1190. We have seen also that he had three sons, Walter, the eldest, Richard, and William. It is quite certain and very remarkable that-

[17] Bromton, p. 1151.
[18] Sed illa cite obiit (Bromton).
[19] Monasticon, IV, p. 366, xiii.
[20] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 306.


RICHARD DE CLIFFORD, the second son, succeeded to Corfham and the Shropshire estates of the Father,- and this for a Fine of 300 merks proffered to and accepted by King Richard I, before Michaelmas 1190. [21] The Sheriff of that year deducts 31. from his liabilities for the ferm of Corfham in the same mode as had been used during the life of Walter de Clifford (I), but the Pipe-Roll also contains Richard de Clifford's Fine, of which 130 merks had already been paid. And on the Roll of 1191 the Sheriff claims quittance for this 31. for the Manor of Corfham, adding that Richard de Clifford had the same by the King's order;- which entry is repeated on the annual Rolls to the year 1199 inclusive. Also Richard de Clifford's Fine, all but 21 merks, had been liquidated in 1193, and the balance had been assured by the undertaking of a third person.

The inquiry now arises as to why Richard I thus ignored the rights of the elder Brother and dictated or allowed this anomalous succession. For want of a positive answer I venture on a suggestion. Of all Henry's sons, Richard Duke of Aquitaine was the most distinguished for steady devotion to the cause and person of his Mother. Under the circumstances of the Royal pair, Richard's affection for his Mother necessarily implied hostility to his Father. This hostility was increased, if we may believe the story, by a monstrous personal injury suffered by Richard himself. In January 1168, during a temporary peace between Louis VII and Henry, Richard, then a boy in his eleventh year, did homage to the King of France for the Duchy of Aquitaine, and was affianced to Adelais the infant daughter of Louis. The care and education of the Princess was entrusted to her intended Father-in-law. She was conveyed to England, and it is broadly asserted by one of the Chroniclers that on the death of Rosamond Clifford the affianced bride of Richard became the mistress of King Henry. There is too much reason to believe this story. Subsequent events strongly corroborate it. Henry sought a divorce from Queen Eleanor in order, it is supposed, that he might marry Adelais. Philip Augustus peremptorily demanded the surrender of the Princess, his Sister, and Richard, whose earliest love had been thus atrociously outraged, leagued himself with the French King and defied his Father.

On Henry's death, Richard's first act was to liberate his Mother. While Richard was occupied with the affairs of Normandy, Eleanor

[21] Rot. Pip. 2 Ric. I, Salop. Dugdale has entirely misrepresented the object of this Fine, confusing it apparently with proceedings of a later date which concerned Frampton in Gloucestershire.


acted as Regent of England. Two years later and a Bishop of Lincoln ordered the body of Rosamond Clifford to be removed from its sepulchre in the Church of Godstow, and to be buried without the walls. All these things combined, certify us of something thither, and more relevant to our provincial subject. We learn the severity with which Richard will have regarded everything connected with the infamous passions and crimes of his Father; we learn the disgust with which he must have listened even to the name of Clifford, so associated with his Mother's wrongs. What wonder then if when, according to established routine, he was called upon to confirm his Father's grant of one of the finest Crown estates in Shropshire to the heir of the first Grantee, he should have refused to do so, though he gave it to a younger brother? Of Richard de Clifford, Lord of Corfham and Culmington during the remainder of King Richard's reign, I have nothing further to say at present. A curious problem now demands our notice.- It is evident that-

WALTER DE CLIFFORD (II) was seized, during Richard's reign, of other estates of his inheritance, though not of Corfham. I offer a few incidental hints of this fact. His influence, as one of the Lords Marchers of Herefordshire, is shown in the circumstance that in 1191 he had custody of Knighton Castle. This trust was apparently his by the direction of the Chancellor, Longchamp, by whose orders the Sheriff of Worcestershire paid Walter de Clifford 25 merks for the purpose in question. Also the Sheriff of Shropshire paid for 60 hogs required by Walter de Clifford for the stores of Knighton Castle. [22] Again in 1194 the scutage on a knight's-fee in Berkshire was charged to the name of Walter de Clifford. [23] The same thing recurred in 1196, when also Walter de Clifford was charged with scutage on half a knight's-fee in Wiltshire. [23] He was also charged with the scutage of 1199 in Berkshire. [23] But King John had been crowned little more than two months, when the following Fine appears on the Rolls:- "Walter de Clifford gives the King 300 merks to have the King's confirmation of the Manor of Corfam and of Colminton, and of the Haye of Ernestre and of Les Clies". [24] Before September 29, 1199, he had paid 50 merks of this Fine into the Treasury. He was acquitted of 19. 8s. 9d. more, in respect of disbursements which, as Sheriff of

[22] Rot. Pip. 3 Ric. I, Wrorcestershire and Salop.
[23] Liber Ruber, fo. xlix, et seqq.
[24] Rot. Fin. 1 John, m. 17; Rot. Pip. 1 John, Salop.


Herefordshire in the year then ended, he had made over and above his receipts. [25] The balance of 147. 4s. 7d. was discharged in subsequent years.

Now the King's Charter, which was secured by this Fine, is extant.- It bears date at Chambrais August 8, 1199, and gives the premises to Walter de Clifford and his heirs, to hold of the King by service of one Knight's-fee. It moreover grants the premises with all appurtenances, "as King Richard, our Brother, granted and confirmed the same to Richard de Clifford, the Grantee's brother, whose heir the said Walter is". [26] The Charter then apparently supposes the previous death of Richard de Clifford without issue. Whether Richard de Clifford was really so deceased is the problem before us. If he was, then Walter de Clifford had still another brother Richard to dispute his title. [27] In short, either the Richard de Clifford named in King John's Charter proved to be living, or another Richard de Clifford contested the Charter; and if so, probably on the ground that King Richard's previous grant had made Corfham the appanage of a younger brother. This problem I will not attempt to solve, but will give the progress of the litigation between the two Brothers as far as I can collect it.-

In Easter Term 1200 a day of that Term (April 17) was given to Walter de Clifford and Richard his Brother concerning the land of Korfham. The Litigants were to appear before the King himself, if he should be in England, on the given day; if not, then they were to appear at Westminster. Richard de Clifford named Oliver de Bekelay (perhaps Berkeley) his Attorney ad lucrandum vel perdendum. [28] On the day given Walter de Clifford essoigned himself by Fulk de Beinfeld and Robert Clerk. [29] A postponement of a fortnight was allowed by the Court. The further process of this interesting case, and consequently the pleadings, are, I fear, lost. We have however the result in a Fine levied at Westminster in Michaelmas Term 1200. It purports to be between Richard de Clifford, Plaintiff, and Walter de Clifford, his Brother,- Tenant, of Corfham and of Clyes and of Colminton, and of the Haye of Ernestrie, whereof was suit between the parties. Richard de Clifford now renounces all claim of himself or his heirs, and in favour of Walter and his heirs. In return, Walter de Clifford gives to

[25] Rot. Pip. 1 John, Salop.
[26] Rot. Cart. p. 8.
[27] It was by no means a solecism at that period for two brothers to have the same Christian name.
[28] Rot. Curiae Regis, II, 159.
[29] Essoign-Roll, 1 John.


Richard de Clifford and his heirs, begotten of Leticia de Berkelay his wife, the whole Manor of Framton,- to hold of the Grantor by service of one Knight's-fee; but in case the Grantee should have no issue by his said wife, the Manor was (at his death) to revert to the Grantor and his heirs. Moreover the said Walter gave to the said Richard a life annuity of 10., to be paid in equal half-yearly payments by the hands of Hugh de Dunre and John de Solers, and, in case of their deaths before the death of the Annuitant, to be similarly paid by their heirs. And further, Richard, for his life, was to be quit of the Knight's service reserved on Framton to Walter, and was to render only the King's and Chief-Lord's services due thereon; but the heirs of Richard, begotten of Leticia as aforesaid, were afterwards to render the knight's service, temporarily released, by one Knight doing ward at Clifford Castle for forty days. Hugh de Dunre and John de Solers, being present at this agreement, undertook for themselves and their heirs to fulfil the conditions regarding. the above annuity of 10. [30]

All that we can say of this is, that Richard de Clifford's claim on Curfham, etc., must have been very cogent, otherwise so valuable a consideration would not have been given for its abandonment.

One of Walter de Clifford's first acts on obtaining or securing his possession of these Shropshire estates, was a grant to Haughmond Abbey. He gave to the Canons, for the sustenance of their Kitchen and their refections in fresh fish, the Mill of Culmitone and the Mill of Syneton (Siefton); also half a virgate in Syneton, with a messuage pertaining to the latter mill; also all usual suit and aid due from his Tenants of Culmitone in support and in repair of the said Mills. The Deed mentions the previous interests of Walter de Clifford, the Grantor's Father, and of Hugh de Perares (Periers) in the premises. The witnesses were Hugh de Ferrars [31] (the husband, that is, of the Grantor's Great-niece, Margaret de Say); Walter de Clifford son of Walter the Second (son, that is, of the Grantor); Simon Falconer, then Seneschal. [32]

It is a very remarkable circumstance that the Canons of Haughmond obtained a confirmation from "Richard, son of Walter de Clifford", of the above grant. This, I take it, was done ex abundanti cautela; and either during the progress of the litigation between the Brothers, or else in forestalment of any future revival of Richard de Clifford's claim, notwithstanding the fine of October

[30] Pedes Finium, 2 John, Salop.
[31] He died in 1204. (Vol. IV, p. 310),
[32] Haughmond Chartulary: Tit. Cinion. Monasticon, VI, 109, iv.


1200. The witnesses of Richard de Clifford's Confirmation were Reginald de Balun and Robert Corbeth,- names which accord well with its supposed date.

The trust and favour with which Walter de Clifford (II) was almost continuously regarded by King John are proved by numerous entries on the Rolls of that reign. We find him sometimes in personal attendance at Court; sometimes he is the Custos of Royal Castles, either that of Hereford or those on the Welsh Border of Herefordshire. Onewhile he has a present of Deer from the King's Forest. Hostages and escheated lands are entrusted to his keeping, the latter sometimes for his own personal benefit. He held the Shrievalty of Herefordshire in 1199, and again for another period, commencing at least as early as April 1205, and ending in May 1208. His conduct in this office seems to have been extremely rapacious; but a Fine of 1000 merks prevented any troublesome inquiries, and secured the King's good will, suspended, it would appear, at the moment. [33] This was in the Summer of 1208, and a document of the previous year distinguishes this Walter de Clifford from his son of the same name by the appellation Vetus. [34] It is probable indeed that at the time he was upwards of seventy years of age; and though he lived till 1220, it is very doubtful whether some intermediate appearances of a person called merely Walter de Clifford do not belong to the Son. It was however Walter de Clifford the elder who, in June 1211, was returned as holding the Manor of Corfham by gift of King Henry II and by service of one knight's-fee, "which Manor" the Record says most intelligibly "used to render 31.", [35] i.e. to the Royal Exchequer, yearly. Again it was Walter de Clifford the elder who about August 1213, and in consequence of his Brother Richard's death, gave King John 100 merks and a palfrey for custody of the lands and heirs of the said Richard. The said heirs were to be married at the King's will, and the Sheriff of Gloucestershire was to be reimbursed his outlay on certain buildings at Frampton, [36]- an outlay apparently incurred since the estate came into the King's hand by Richard de Clifford's death. Again, when on April 30, 1215, we find Walter de Clifford summoned, with other Barons then at Gloucester, to meet the King with horses and arms at Cirencester, [37] we should suppose that Walter de Clifford the elder was concerned. However the cotemporary

[33] Rot. Pip. 10 John, Herefordshire.
[34] Rot. Finium, p. 458.
[35] Testa de Nevill, p. 56.
[36] Rot. Finium, p. 485.
[37] Rot. Patent. p. 134, b.


importance of his Son, hereafter to be shown, and the knowledge that about this time Walter de Clifford Junior held four knights'-fees in the escheated Honour of Brecknock, independently of his Father, and dependently only on the King, [38] induce a doubt whether the Veteran now under notice was the person thus addressed. The same doubt arises as to the identity of that Walter de Clifford who on May 28, 1216, was commissioned to treat with Reginald de Braose, and to bring him to King John; [39] and who on August 8, 1216, was appointed one of the Keepers of Beauchamp's Castle of Elmley. [40] However Walter de Clifford the elder died shortly before January 23, 1221, when the Sheriffs of Wiltshire and Salop were ordered to give his lands to Walter Junior, his son and heir. [41] A word now as to-

AGNES DE CUNDY, Lady of Cavenby and Glentham, the great heiress who as wife of Walter de Clifford (II) so materially increased the importance of his House. In November and December 1191, I find Walter de Clifford (II) concerned in litigation about lands in Kent. [42] Doubtless these lands were at Wickham or some other Kentish estate of his wife Agnes. Also Walter de Clifford's interest in Essex, mentioned in 1198, [43] probably accrued with the same Agnes. His contest in 1199 and 1200 with the Lincolnshire Abbey of New-house about a Nottinghamshire Advowson, [44] his grants to the Lincolnshire Abbey of Barlings and the Nottinghamshire Nunnery of Brodholm [45] are facts which faintly indicate the great estates which were of Agnes de Cundy's inheritance in those Counties. In 1201 Walter de Clifford's fine of fifteen merks that he should not be compelled to cross the seas in the King's service, shows him to have been a Tenant in capite of five knights'-fees, and the Fine too is registered under Nottinghamshire. [46] About March 1208 a Fine was tendered singly by Agnes, wife of Walter de Clifford,- viz. one palfrey that she might hold all her life her Manor of Wicham (in Kent), and that her Tenants there might be quit of certain suits and aids. [47] The King's Patent of March 20th grants the privileges sought, in corresponding terms, [48] but the anomaly

[38] Liber Ruber, fo. cxlv.
[39] [40] Rot. Patent. pp. 184, b. 192.
[41] Rot. Claus. I, 446, b.
[42] [43] Rot. Curiae Regis, I, 79, 94, 179.
[44] Ibidem, I, 237, and II, 194.
[45] Monasticon, VII, 9l8, Num. v, and 919, Num. i. The former document gives the ancestry of Agnes de Fundy. I can only add that Roger de Cundy, her Father, held in 1165, no less than eight knights'-fees under the Bishop of Lincoln (Liber Niger, I, 261). His office of Seneschal to those powerful Prelates descended to the Cliffords.
[46] [47] Rot. Finium, pp. 153, 435.
[48] Rot. Patent p. 80.


of a wife thus fining in her husband's life-time, seems to have been incomprehensible even to the cotemporary Clerk of the Pipe, who in the same year enters the debt incurred to the Crown as that of Agnes, widow (qua fuit uxor) of Walter de Clifford. [49] A Patent dated October 10, 1216, again presents Agnes de Clifford in a somewhat independent position. It certifies that Walter, "Chaplain of Agnes, wife of Walter de Clifford Senior", in journeying anywhither through the said Walter's Manors, is under Royal letters of safe-conduct, without any limit as to time. [50]

Many of the circumstances which I have now narrated had suggested to my mind the idea that Walter de Clifford (II) was intermittently or continuously imbecile during the last few years of his life. I have however met with extracts from a most interesting document,- the Will of Dame Agnes Clifford, [51]- which exhibit the Lady in a less independent position than the King's Patents, and show also that, when the Will was made, her husband was both living and competent to act. We know not indeed the date of this Will, that is, how long it preceded Walter de Clifford's death, and so the doubt about his state in the last few years of his life may remain. I pass to the Document itself. Thereby Dame Agnes de Clifford bequeaths 100 solidates of land to the Prior and Convent of the Holy Trinity (i.e. the Cathedral Monastery) at Canterbury. This bequest was together with her body in burial, by consent of her Lord, Walter de Clifford. To the Augustine Monastery at Canterbury she gives 40s., to St. Gregory's Church, 20s., and to the Church of St. Sepulchre, 20s. Her bequest to Wenlock Priory follows, as I have already given it. [52] As a provision for Emilia her daughter (Basiliae filiae meae consulendae), she leaves 20 merks; to Dame Cecilia, 5 merks; to Walter her son, a golden ring; to her own Mother, [53] a ring; to her sons, Roger, Richard, Simon, and Giles, some bequest unspecified; and to each of her daughters a golden ring. To fulfil this her Testament she certifies that her Lord, Walter de Clifford, has conceded the issues of the Manor of Cavenby arising in the year after her death. She appoints as her Executors Sir Walter de

[49] Rot. Pip. 10 John, Kent.
[50] Rot. Patent. p. 199.
[51] Dodsworth, Vol. 68, fo. 91.
[52] Supra, Vol. III, p. 239.
[53] This Lady was named Basilia. She was still living in December 1225, when the King (Henry III), describing her as Grandmother of Walter de Clifford (III), grants her some privileges in the Forest of Brill in Buckinghamshire. She was then resident at Middleton, a Manor which, if I mistake not, was in Oxfordshire, and constituted part of the Fief first held by De Cundy and afterwards by Clifford of the See of Lincoln.


Clifford, the Bishop of Hereford, and the Prior of Christ-Church, Canterbury.

WALTER DE CLIFFORD (III), with whom I now proceed, attested his Father's Charter to Haughmond in the very beginning of the thirteenth century. On May 23, 1208, he was sent from Winchester by King John to certify his Father that his successor in the Shrievalty of Herefordshire had been appointed. [54] Omitting many problematical notices of a Walter de Clifford, which occur from this time forward without distinguishing Father and Son, I insert others which certainly relate to the Son only, and in which he is usually distinguished as Junior or Juvenis. In February 1210 King John sends letters from The Tower to Walter de Clifford Juvenis. [55] In the sequel of that year we have repeated proofs of his being in Ireland with the King. [56] On August 14, 1215, King John appointed him Sheriff of Herefordshire in succession to Nicholas de Lymesye, [57] and on the 18th of November made him Custos of the See of Hereford, vacant by the death of Bishop Giles de Braose. [58] On February 25, 1216, he was ordered to resign the latter trust to another; [59] and on August 15, 1216, Walter de Lacy was appointed his Successor in the Shrievalty. [60] That this was no sign of the Royal displeasure we find from a Writ of August 19, whereby the King gives Dimmoc to Walter de Clifford Junior, to maintain him in the Royal service. [61] His steadfast adherence to King John is certified by his attestation of a Royal Charter at Lincoln, on September 28, 1216, just three weeks before the King's death. On October 28, 1217, Dimmack, which had been temporarily seized for the Crown as Royal demesne, was restored to Walter de Clifford by writ of Henry III. [62] On January 22, 1221, succeeding to his paternal inheritance, his Relief is fixed at 100. [63] The same year he had the usual letters of scutage, he being personally with the King at the siege of Biham. On December 16, 1231, he fines 100. for custody and marriage of the heirs of his deceased Brother Roger.
[64] In August 1233 Walter de Clifford, "a distinguished soldier", is noticed as one of the Confederates of Richard, Earl Marshall. The King precipitated their threatened rebellion by "denouncing the said Confederates as proscribed exiles, without judgment of his Court or sentence of their Peers. He ordered their personal arrest, and gave their lands to

[54] Rot. Patent p. 83, b.
[55] [56] Misae, p. 148; Praesita, 177 et passim.
[57] [58] [59] [60] Rot. Patent, pp. 153, 159 b, 166, 193.
[61] [62] Claus. I, 282, b, 334, b.
[63] [64] Rot. Finium, I, 59, 219.


the Poitevins". Thus much of this affair we learn from a Chronicle. [65] The evidence is circumstantially illustrated by a King's Writ bearing date August 14, 1233, which orders the Sheriff of Shropshire to seize Walter de Clifford's Manor of Corfham with the Castle thereof, and all corn, stores, and chattels belonging thereto, and to keep them safely till further orders. Similar Writs to the Sheriffs of Kent, Oxfordshire, and Lincolnshire, ordered the seizure of Clifford's lands in those Counties. [66] The treason of Walter de Clifford was very short-lived. A Patent of September 1, 1233, dated at Haye, gives safe-conduct through the King's land to Richard fitz Simon and others of Clifford's men who were in garrison at Clifford Castle. A second Patent, dated at Montgomery on September 16, gives safe-conduct to Walter de Clifford himself, in coming to the King to treat of peace. On March 17, 1234, H. de Trublevill is ordered to give up Clifford Castle to its Lord, to whom the King had restored it. At Michaelmas 1235 and Easter 1236 Walter de Clifford was separately assessed in Shropshire for his proportion of the Aid due on marriage of the King's Sister. He paid in all 1. 18s. 2d., that is, at the rate of 2 merks per fee, on one fee of old feoffment, and one-third and one-tenth of a fee of new feoffment. [67] These additions to the original service of one fee will be explained elsewhere. In November 1236 a Fine was levied between Richard Prior of Little Malvern, Plaintiff, and Walter de Clifford, Deforciant, of 90 quarters (summis) of corn, (value 13. 10s.), being the arrears of an annual due of 6 quarters claimed by the Prior. Clifford undertook to pay the due in future at Corfham, and the Prior remitted the arrears. I doubt not that it was in respect of this Lawsuit that Walter de Clifford figures on the Pipe-Roll of 1238 as owing the King 20 merks for unjust detention. In or about 1240 we have Walter de Clifford's Shropshire Tenure entitled a Barony. [68] It may however be a question whether the expression could properly be used, except with reference to his collective estates, here and elsewhere. In Trinity Term 1243, and again in Easter Term 1244, I find allusion to another Suit between the Prior of Little Malvern and Walter de Clifford.

Walter de Clifford was now of advanced age and the father of an only child, a female. To this we may attribute a Patent of April 30, 1244, which intimates the King's desire that a contract of marriage

[65] Wendover, Vol. IV, p. 271.
[66] Originalia, 17, Hen. III.
[67] Testa de Nevill, pp. 60, 61.
[68] Testa de Nevill, p. 48.


should be made between Matilda de Clifford and one of the sons of William Longespee. We shall recur to this subject again. In or about the month of January 1250 Walter de Clifford again appears in a rebellious attitude. "Being", says the Chronicler, "not least among the Barons Marchers, in power, wealth, and privileges, he was accused of violent and disgraceful treatment of a King's Messenger. He had compelled the said Functionary to swallow, seal and all, the Royal Epistle of which he was bearer. Clifford submitting to the King's sentence, hardly escaped forfeiture and death. He lost however his franchises (libertatem), was fined 1000 merks, and, being dismissed under pledge of select Sureties, went home without imprisonment". [69] Certain Crown-debts of Walter de Clifford recorded on the Shropshire Pipe-Roll of 1252 may possibly involve a balance of this amercement. He is said to owe 77. 8s. on two debts, payment whereof was required in Buckinghamshire. Also he owed 20 merks for default and transgression,- a debt put in charge in Warwickshire.

The Inquisition on the Manor of Corfham in 1255 must be understood to include under that term Culmington, Siefton, and Diddlebury, with their adjuncts. The Manor was estimated to contain 7 hides, whereas the same territory at Domesday was equal to 14 hides. Sir Walter de Clifford held the Manor of the King by service of one Knight. He had a franchise here, by grant of the King's ancestors. He had gallows, assize of bread and beer, and held pleas of blood-shed, hue and cry, and other lesser pleas. Besides these he was entitled to the breve de recto, that is, I suppose, to a King's Writ, ordering any local suit to be tried in the Manorial Court. [70]

A fine of 2 merks of gold for a grant of Market, Fair, and Free-Warren, was proffered by Walter de Clifford in 1258, and entered on the Shropshire Pipe-Roll of 1239. I do not find however any corresponding Charter securing these privileges to his Shropshire estates, though a Charter of 1261 confers them in his Herefordshire Manor of Clifford. [71] On May 19, 1263, a Patent to Walter de Clifford undertakes that the King will look to Matilda de Longespee, Walter's daughter, for payment of his debts due to the Crown.

On December 16, 1263, Walter de Clifford was deceased, for then did Margaret his Widow (so describing herself) bequeath her heart

[69] M. Paris (Watts) I, 772.- Anyone aware of the dimensions and material of the Great Seal of Henry III, will not think lightly of the Messenger's obligation;- that is, if the story be taken literally.
[70] Rot. Hundred. II, 64, 65, 72.
[71] Rot. Cart. (Calendar) p. 90.


to be buried at Acornbury, appointing 15 merks and all expenses of the said burial to be paid to the Nuns there. Her Deed, which passed at Ross, in Herefordshire, was sealed with the seals of Samson, Abbot of Kingswood, and Henry, Abbot of Dore;- probably because the Lady had not as yet a seal of her own, proper to her recent state of widowhood. [72] On December 23, 1263, the Sheriff of Shropshire is ordered to seize for the Crown the lands of Walter de Clifford, deceased. Having died in the King's debt, his Executors are not to administer his goods and chattels till further instructions. [73]

MARGARET, the above-mentioned wife of Walter de Clifford (III), was a daughter of Lewellyn, Prince of Wales. She could not have been married to Clifford before 1231-2, in one of which years her first husband, John de Braose of Brember, was killed by a fall from his horse. Consequently her daughter Matilda cannot have been twelve years of age when in April 1244 the King proposed her marriage with a son of William Longespee. By this means the said son, viz. William Longespee (III), being Great-Grandson of Rosamond Clifford, became the husband of his Father's second Cousin, Matilda de Clifford. This match was productive of one only daughter, Margery, whom I reckon to have been under five years of ages [74] when her Father, in December 1256, negotiated for her marriage with Henry de Lacy, afterwards Earl of Lincoln, then a boy of about the same age as his proposed wife. Within two months of this negotiation, that is, about January 1257, William Longspee (III) died in the flower of his youth, and Matilda his Widow became seized of her dower in his estates. In 1263, and while still a Widow, she succeeded to the whole Barony of her Father Walter de Clifford. For the circumstances of her subsequent abduction by John Giffard of Brimsfield, I refer elsewhere. [75] A Patent dated March 10th, 1271, legalized her marriage with the said John Giffard as far as the King was concerned.

At the Inquisitions of November 1274 many were the complaints of the neighbourhood against John Giffard and his Officers at Corfham. The Jurors of the Hundreds of Munslow and Stottesden,

[72] Monasticon, VI, 480, Num. vi.- The date, as printed in the Monasticon, needs correction, or rather punctuation, as it tends to the erroneous inference that Walter de Clifford was deceased in December 1260.
[73] Rot. Finium, II, 407.
[74] Margery, Countess of Lincoln, is said, in an Inquisition of 27 Edw. I (1299), to be then 30 years of age, but she must have been at least forty-two, according to the date of her Father's death.
[75] Dugdale's Baronage, p. 500.


and the Jurors of the Borough of Ludlow, had numberless grievances and oppressions to allege against John del Ewe, Constable of Corfham, and John, his Beadle. Nor was the tyranny of these men exercised on strangers only. The Jurors of Corfham itself had various exactions to report within the Liberty. The most flagrant, and perhaps the tritest of their allegations, concerned an offence against the Crown, rather than against themselves individually. Sir John Giffard, they said, through his Constable (here called De Aqua) had often arrested Felons, and had subsequently released them without trial. These Corfham Jurors further knew well the history of their Manor, how it was ancient demesne of the Crown, how Henry II had given it to Walter de Clifford "for love of Rosamond his daughter", how too Priors-Ditton had anciently been appurtenant to Corfham. [76]

In Trinity Term 1276 I find John Giffard and Matilda his wife impleading many persons for hunting in their Forest of Corfham.
[77] In 1283 Matilda, wife of John Giffard, was deceased, but he continued to hold her estates as Tenant by Courtesy of England. Hence the Feodary of 1284 says that "John Giffard holds the Manor of Corfham by right of Matilda de Longespeye, formerly daughter and heir of Walter de Clifford, for one Knight's-fee".

In October 1292 John Griffard was questioned, under Writ of Quo Waranto, for holding Pleas of the Crown within his Manor of Corfham. He answered that he claimed to hold two great Courts (annually) for the said Manor, and in such Courts to inquire into all matters of the peace usual to such Courts, and to hold the same Pleas as were held in the Sheriff's Tourn, and to have infangethef and wayf. But, whereas John Giffard was only Tenant for life, and the Manor was the inheritance of the four daughters of his deceased wife, the youngest of whom was produced in Court and shown to be under age, the cause was adjourned. [78]

John Giffard died May 28, 1299. The heirs of his first wife, Matilda de Clifford, were found to be Margery, Countess of Lincoln, her daughter by William Longespee, and Catherine, Eleanor, and Maud, her daughters by John Giffard. Of these, Catherine, already wife of Nicholas de Audley, was twenty-seven years of age, Eleanor was twenty-four, and Maud twenty-two. The Inquest which states these facts values the whole Manor and Estate of Corfham and Culmington at 20. 10s. 8d. per annum; but the

[76] Rot. Hundred. II, 93, 94.
[78] Placita de Quo Waranto, p. 685.
[77] Abbreviatio Placitorum, p. 190.


Castle and buildings of Corfham were put down as less than valueless; for the said buildings threatened to tumble down, and could not be kept up and repaired for 40s. per annum. A separate Inquest shows that John Gifford had purchased a Tenement at Peton (value 5s. 10d. per annum), which was to be held of the Lords of Corfham by payment of a Chaplet of Roses at Corfham Castle on the day of St. John Baptist's Nativity. The heir to this Tenement was his son, John Gifford, by a third wife, which son was twelve years of age. [78]

On the division of the Clifford estates between the above-named Coheiresses, Corfham fell to the share of Eleanor Gifford, who, before the close of Edward I's reign, became the wife of Fulk le Strange of Blackmere. Hence the Return of March 1316 gives the said Fulk as Lord of Corfham. [80] Of him and his Line I shall have to speak elsewhere. Having now traced the Old Barony of Clifford to an Abeyance, out of which, notwithstanding some opinions to the contrary, [81] I conceive that it has never been taken, I here quit this branch of my subject.

Having thus far been speaking of Corfham in respect of its Lords Paramount, I must say a word as to its-

MANORIAL JURISDICTION, and in so doing, I necessarily include Culmington and Siefton, which, though distinct Manors at the time of Domesday, came afterwards to be mere members of that Liberty of which Corfham was the Caput.

The Assize-Roll of October 1203 allots a distinct space to the VILLATA DE CORFHAM, a space which, though not filled up with any report of local concerns, shows that the Franchise was recognized as extra-hundredal, and separately responsible. In 1250 I find the Manor of Corfham amerced three merks de fine ante judicium; [82]

[79] Inquisitions, 27 Edw. I, No. 55. The Escheator for the year ending Michaelmas 1306 accounts for 6s. as the issues of a tenement in Peyton, late John Gifford's (Rot. Forinsec. Compotus Walteri de Gloucester).
[80] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 397.
[81] The heir to the Barony of Walter de Clifford (III) is usually said to have been Roger de Clifford (II), his Nephew. The latter succeeded to the lands and dignity (whatever it was) of his own Father, but can in no way have been heir to his Uncle. His Descendants attained Baronial rank through the marriage of his Son, Roger (III), with the Coheiress of De Vipont. Perhaps the fittest designation for this branch of the Cliffords till the death of Roger (II) would be "Clifford of Tenbury", for they held that Manor under the elder House.

It should be remembered, that though Roger de Clifford (I) married a great heiress, Sibil d'Ewyas, that did little to increase the permanent importance of his House, for the heir of the said Sibil was her son by a former husband.
[82] Rot. Pip. 34 Hen. III, Salop.


that is, I suppose, the Manorial Court had allowed some Suit to be accorded by fine in an irregular way, and without sentence first given. [83] In 1255 the Manor, or rather Franchise of Corfham had its separate Inquest. It was similarly represented by its twelve Jurors at the Assize of 1256; but at those of 1272 a Bailiff and eight Jurors appeared for Corfham, and a note on the Roll marks the deficiency. At the Inquisition of 1274 twelve Jurors reported on this Liberty; but at the Assizes of 1292 the presentments of a Bailiff and only six jurors seem to have been deficient in no point of form.

I now turn to a complicated subject, viz. the several Feoffments, or rather Tenancies, which occur in Corfham. The first of these seems to have been a transfer, actual or alleged, of the whole Manor. I will call it the-

TENURE OF BRAOSE. It will appear that Margery or Margaret, wife of the third Walter de Clifford, was widow of John de Braose. This John had died in 1231-2, leaving two sons in infancy. The name of the second of these sons does not appear, and therefore I am by no means positive that it was that John de Braose whom I have now to introduce. This John had in 1257 acquired, by feoffment or otherwise, a very considerable interest in Culmington and Siefton, of which I shall take due notice elsewhere. It would appear that he had also some claim upon Corfham; for on April 15, 1259, Nicholas de Handlou was appointed to investigate a charge of disseizin preferred by John de Breus against Walter de Clifford. The tenure sought to be recovered was in Corfham; and we know from a later Record that the hearing by Nicholas de Handlou terminated in favour of the Plaintiff. Clifford however, conceiving himself to be injured, seems to have appealed to a higher Court. His appeal stood for hearing before the King himself in Michaelmas Term 1260. Then John de Brehus failing to appear, his Manucaptors were declared to be in misericordia, and the cause was adjourned. [84] The further pleadings are lost, but the result appears in a Patent of May 6, 1262, which directs James d'Audley to

[83] Two Litigants compounding any Suit in the King's Court without license so to do, and before sentence given, were liable to amercement. The reason was because the Crown thus lost the amercement chargeable on the defeated party. The same Rule held good in the case of a Manorial Court, only that the amercement went ordinarily to the Lord of the Franchise. In 1250 the Lord of Corfham was, as we have seen (p. 160), under forfeiture of his Franchises. Hence the King profited by the illegal transaction of the Manorial Court.
[84] Placita coram Rege, Mich. Term, 44 and 45 Hen. III, m. 5.


"give up the Castle of Corfham to Walter de Clifford, seeing that the said Walter had recovered seizin thereof against John de Breus". Again Braose seems to have tried a Counter-appeal; for a Writ of July 8, 1262, appoints Henry de Bratton to try an Assize concerning a Tenement in Corfham, wherein John de Breuse was Plaintiff and Walter de Clifford Defendant. [85] A similar Writ, issued on March 22, 1263, appointing Robert de Briwes to try the cause, which in this instance is called an assize of novel disseizin. [85] After an interval of great political disturbance, during which Walter de Clifford died, I find this Suit renewed against his daughter; for in a Roll of Michaelmas Term 1266 Matilda, Widow of William Longespe, names her Attorney in a plea of land against John de Breuse. [86] After this I hear nothing of Braose's pretensions in Corfham,- a sufficient reason for thinking that they eventually failed in law.

I must now enumerate those members of the Manor of Corfham which I suppose to have formed its four Domesday Berewicks. These were perhaps Bromcroft, Peaton, Diddlebury, and Sparchford; and in giving some account of each I shall necessarily be introducing the name of many Feoffees in the collective Manor of Corfham.

BROMCROFT was, I think, held under the Lords of Corfham by the family of Tyrel; but whatever was the Tenure of these Tyrels in Corfham Manor, I cannot discover that any knight's-service or other acknowledgment was reserved thereon. There was a Richard Tyrel who in 1234-5 and in 1242-3 held a knight's-fee in Skipton Chamfleur, Gloucestershire, under Roger de Chandos. [87] The same person, I think, appears as one of the Manucaptors of Walter de Clifford in a Suit of Easter Term 1243, and was amerced one merk for the non-appearance of his Principal. In January 1246 this Richard Tyrel was second on a great Inquest taken by Knights from all parts of Shropshire. At the Assizes of November 1248, and afterwards, he was one of the Coroners of Shropshire, but though living, was no longer in office in January 1256. In 1250 Richard Tyrel fined five merks "that Wyloc might be under plevin". This Wyloc was, I think, a Corfham Tenant. I have mentioned Richard Tyrel's name in connection with Norncott in 1255, and with Cold Weston in 1256. [88] In 1257 Sir Richard

[85] Patent. 46 and 47 Hen. III, dorsis.
[86] Placita, Mich. Term, 50 and 51 Hen. III, m. 39.
[87] Testa de Nevill, p. 75; Collect. Topogr. et Geneal. V, 144.
[88] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 13 and Vol I, p.68.


Tyrel and Sir Roger de Chandos are witnesses of the third Walter de Clifford's Charter to Dore Abbey. [89] A little later and we have Sir Richard Tirel attesting a Corfham Deed, which I shall quote on a future occasion. Richard Tyrel's successor in Shropshire was Roger Tyrel, who, himself or one of his name, had held lands in Herefordshire, under De Lacy, as early as 1242. In March 1265 Roger Tyrel occurs on a Great Herefordshire Inquest concerning the estates of Acornbury Nunnery. [90] In or about 1267 he attests a Pembridge Deed. [91] In November 1268 he was appointed a Justice for gaol-delivery at Brug. Soon afterwards he attests Matilda Longespec's Charter to Shrewsbury Abbey, as will hereafter appear. We have had various notices of him about the same period in former Volumes. [92] His later occurrences in Shropshire are in December 1274, when he was Foreman of a Jury at Burford, and in 1292, when he was reported by the Corfham Jurors as non-attendant at the Assizes. Whether Sir Roger Tyrel, whom we have seen attesting a Rushbury Deed in 1315-6, [93] were of this family I cannot say.

PEATON.- In Easter Term 1241 Richard le Skynnere was sued for disseizing William fitz Adam, Roger Dun, Walter fitz Ivo, and Richard Balle, of common pasture in Peton. [94] These were Clifford's Tenants in this quarter. William fitz Adam, of Petton, and William fitz Ivo, of Petton, appear in Easter Term 1243 as Manucaptors for Walter de Clifford's appearance in a Law-suit. They, as well as Richard Balle, were entered accordingly as debtors of half a merk each on the Pipe-Roll of that year, because they had not produced the said Walter in Court (quia non habuerunt). In 1255 Roger Dun, Richard Balle, Walter fitz Ivo, and Walter fitz William, were on the Jury which took the Corfham Inquest. The three last appeared in a similar capacity at the Assizes of 1256. In October 1260 Walter fitz Ivo and Richard Balk, both of Peton, were Manucaptors for John de Braose in a cause already noticed. [95] At the Assizes of August 1267 Hugh de Boledon, with Geoffrey and William his Brothers, were found to have disseized Walter fitz William of a perch of laud in Petton. [96] At the Assizes of 1272 Richard Balle and Hawkyn fitz Ivo were Corfham Jurors. Three Jurors on

[89] Monasticon, V, 535, Num vii.
[90] Inquisitions, 49 Hen. III, No. 20.
[91] Liber Niger de Wigmore, fo. 95.
[92] Supra, Vol. I, p. 68, and III, p. 20.
[93] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 101.
[94] Placita de eodem termino, m. 34 dorso.
[95] Supra, p. 164.
[96] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, memb. 7.


the Corfham Inquest of 1274 were of Peaton. Two of them were apparently of the name Balle, but the Record is defaced. The third was Ralph Yve, i.e. fitz Yvo. Walter fitz William, of Peton, was one of those who had suffered from the oppressions of John Giffard's Officers. [97] In Trinity Term 1299 Hugh son of Hugh de Cheyny with Cecilia his wife, Plaintiffs, acknowledge by Fine their gift of two messuages and a virgate in Peton to Roger de Cheyny and Margery his wife, Deforciants. The latter reconvey the premises to the Plaintiffs for life, at a rent of one rose annually, and to revert to themselves. I shall have more to say of the family concerned in this Fine elsewhere. Walter fitz William de Peton was a Corfham Juror at the Assizes of 1292. Among the Tenants mentioned in the Inquest of July 1299, these were perhaps of Peaton, viz. Walter fitz William paying a chief-rent of 10s. 8d. to the Lord of Corfham, and William fitz Adam paying 5s. 8d.

DIDDLEBURY.- In speaking of Diddlebury as an appurtenance of the Manor of Corfham, and perhaps one of its Domesday Berewicks, I must be understood to treat of the Lay-Fee of Diddlebury only. A great part of the district was Church-land, and so never came to the Seigneury of Clifford. This Spiritual-Fee will require a separate notice.

The principal Tenant of the Lay-Fee in Diddlebury was perhaps that Achilles who attests Hugh de Periers' grant of Ditton to Wenlock Priory, about the year 1175. [98] Achilles and his descendants continued to hold under the Cliffords in Diddlebury, but whereas they also held Beche under the same Lords, I shall reserve what I have to say of their descent till I come to that Township. The names of other Tenants in the Lay-fee of Diddlebury may be gathered from the following notes.-

In 1243 Roger fitz Roger, of Duddelby, was a Manucaptor for Walter de Clifford. In 1245 William, son of William de Dudelibir', fines one merk that he may have an assize. It was perhaps connected with the following.- In 1249, at Exeter, Walter de Clifford duly presented himself before Roger de Thurkelby (a Justiciar who had visited Shropshire in 1248). His object was to compel William de Dudelesbir' to attend and receive a Cyrograph or Fine which had been levied between himself (Walter de Clifford) as Plaintiff, and the said William, Defendant,- of a virgate in Dudelesbir', before the Justices last in eyre. Clifford's suit was adjourned to Westminster

[97] Rot. Hundred. II, 93.
[98] Supra, Vol. Ili, p. 332.


in consequence of the Defendant's non-appearance [99]. The Pipe-Roll of 1249 further shows that Thurkilby, whilst in Shropshire, bad amerced the Vill of Dudlebir' one merk for not arresting some offender. At the Inquest of 1255, Wyot de Dudelebir', Thomas de Musselawe, and Richard de Panteleg, were on the Corfham Jury. At the Assizes of 1256 the same three persons officiated in a like Capacity. John Blethwath, another Juror, was perhaps identical with John Bledenoch, who, with Robert de Furches and William L'Enfaunt, lost certain tenements in Diddlebury at these Assizes, because the said tenements were frank-almoign, and belonged to the ecclesiastical fee. Again at these Assizes Matilda, Widow of William le Bedel, sued Walter de Clifford, Robert le Devenois, Adam Pocock, and others, for disseizing her of 4 acres and a messuage in Dudelebir. The Court directed her to sue Ernald de Berkele, the Tenant then in seizin. [1] In 1257 we find Richard Balle taking out a Writ of mort d'ancestre against Richard de Pauntele and others, concerning a messuage and tenements in Corfton and Diddlebury. [2] Soon after this, we have William L'Enfant, of Diddlebury, and Richard de Pantheloe (as he is called), attesting a Deed already given under Corfton. At the Assizes of 1267 Richard fitz Roger recovered four acres in Dudelebyr, of which Richard Koc, his Uncle (avunculus), had died seized. The Tenants now ousted were entitled to have an equivalent out of the lands of Thomas Clerk of Munslow, their Warrantor. [3] At these same Assizes, Johanna de Clifford, as Sister and heir of Dionisia de Clifford, sued William fitz Alexander of Hulton, for two-thirds of half a virgate in Dodelibir'. The Tenant called William de Clifford to warranty, and the cause was adjourned. [3] In June 1271 Elyas fitz Alexander, of Dudelibi, has a writ of novel disseizin against Richard de Paun-teleye for a tenement in Dudelibi. [3] At the Assizes of 1272 William le Enfant was Bailiff of Corfham, whilst Richard de Paunteley, William fitz Wyot, Thomas de Munslow, and William de Clifford, were Corfham Jurors. So were Richard de Panteleg, and William Wyot, at the Inquisition of 1274; and they complained of various oppressions suffered by William Wyot, Thomas de Munselowe, and Ricliard de Paunteleg. [4] The latter it appears had been Juror at a

[99] Placita apud Exon: 33 Hen. III, m. 2 dorso.
[1] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 8. Another suit about land in Diddlebury I have already detailed, Vol. I, p 371.
[2] Patent, 41 Hen. III, dorso:- bis.
[3] Assizes, 51 Hen. III, m. 3 dorso and 6.
[4] Rot. Hundred. II, 93, 94.


trial already alluded to,- between Matilda, Lady of Corfham, and John de Braose. [4] In Easter Term 1281 a Fine was levied between John Purcel and Wymarca his wife, Plaintiffs, and William, son of Adam Purcel, of Dodelibury, and Cecilia his wife, Deforciants,- of a messuage and virgate in Dodelibury, whereof was plea of convention: the Deforciants conceded the premises to the Plaintiffs,- to hold to them and the heirs of John Purcel at a rent of 4s., payable to the Deforciants and the heirs of Cecilia. For this, John Purcel conceded to the Deforciants and the heirs of Cecilia a messuage and virgate in Norbury, at a rent of one clove, and all capital services. John Purcel also paid 31 merks to the Deforciants. Another Fine (levied June 25, 1283) was between Richard de Duddelebury, Clerk, and Emma his wife, Plaintiffs, and John Purcel and Wymarca his wife, Deforciants, of a messuage and 60 acres in Duddelebury, whereof was Plea of Convention. The Deforciants conceded the premises;- to hold to the Plaintiffs at a rent of one Rose, payable to the Deforciants and the heirs of Wymarca, and by performance of all capital services. For this the Plaintiffs gave 67 merks. A Ludlow Inquest of January 1284 was attended by William le Enfant and Richard de Paunthele. A Fine was levied Feb. 3, 1291, between John le Child, Plaintiff, and William son of Richard de Heyton with Alice his wife, Impedients;- of a messuage and half virgate in Dudelbury, whereof was Plea of Warranty. The Impedients surrendered the Premises as their own gift, to be held by the Plaintiffs of the Lords of the Fee. For this a sore sparrow-hawk purports to have been given. At the Assizes of 1292 William de Clifford was presented by the Corfham Jurors as failing in due attendance. From the Inquest taken in July 1299 on the death of John Giffard, I gather the following names of Tenants whose holdings were probably in Diddlebury, viz. William de Paunteley, paying 3s. rent; Richard de Paunteley, paying 6s. 8d.; also Roger de Bethenagh, Adam de Pauntley, and William de Clifford, paying other small quit-rents. That the family of L'Enfant or Child remained subsequently interested here, we infer from Deeds already quoted under Corfton and Aston.


This, I suppose, was a Saxon Foundation. According to the Charters of Shrewsbury Abbey, the Church of Diddlebury was

[4] Hot. Hundred. II, 93, 94.


among the first grants made by Earl Roger de Montgomery and his Countess Adeliza to that House. Earl Roger's own Charter records the gift. "I gave", says the Earl, "the Church of Dudelebury, with all things which pertain thereto". [5] The Confirmation too of King William I, or his son Rufus, records the grant as that of the Earl and Countess, adding that Spertford (Sparchford) and half a hide in Corston (Corfton) were the appurtenant possessions of Diddlebury Church. [5] The evidence of Domesday is marvellously consistent with that of the monastic Charters; for though at first sight Diddlebury Church would not seem to be mentioned in that Record, a little consideration shows us that by the "Church of the Manor of Corfham" is meant the Church of Diddlebury. This then, with its hide of land yielding to the Monks 18s. yearly, was in 1085 a possession of the Church of St. Peter, that is, of Shrewsbury Abbey. [6] It is singular that in the very next year Earl Roger should have granted a third of his tithes at Corfham to the Collegiate Church of Quatford. [7] The fact that he did so is nevertheless substantiated by a piece of later evidence which I shall offer in its proper place.

Earl Roger's grant of Diddlebury Church to Shrewsbury Abbey had the confirmations of Henry I and Stephen, also those of Henry II and Henry III. The two latter were however (in this instance) mere formal repetitions; for the Abbey had lost the Church before Henry II came to the throne. I have alluded on former occasions, and particularly under Billingsley, to the claims which the Norman Abbey of Seez made, and in some measure maintained, on certain possessions of Shrewsbury Abbey. [8] The Sagian Monks were already, it would seem, in seizin of the Church of Dudenebury, when about the year 1147, Bishop Robert de Betun's Charter informs us of the settlement of all disputes between the two Abbeys. Among the various transfers and concessions then agreed upon, Ranulf Abbot of Shrewsbury, gave up to John Abbot of Seez, the Church of Dudenebury. [9]

We have only fragmentary evidence as to the mode in which the Abbey of Seez dealt with this Advowson. An unvouched note (of

[5] Monasticon, III, 520, 521.
[6] Supra, p. 145.
[7] Supra, Vol. I, p. 109.
[8] Supra, Vol. I, pp. 34, 35, 65.
[9] Salop Chartulary, No. 337.- Gilbert, Abbot of Gloucester, Reginald (i.e. Reynald) Prior of Wenlock, Edmund, Prior of Leominster, William, Archdeacon of London, and Godfrey, Archdeacon of Worcester, were present in the Chapter of Hereford when Bishop Betun expedited this Charter.


Mr. Blakeway's) implies that one "Osbern, Parson of Diddlebury, was instituted by Robert, Bishop of Hereford, between 1164 and 1186 on the presentation of the Monks of Olverton"; moreover that the said Osbern was still "living in 1237". The Bishop here alluded to must be either Robert de Melun, who sat from Dec. 22, 1163, till Feb. 27, 1167, or Robert Foliot, consecrated Oct. 6, 1174, and who died May 9, 1186. Now I shall have that hereafter to say about Osbern Parson of Diddlebury, which will show that his institution should rather be ascribed to Bishop Robert de Betun, and should therefore date before April 22, 1148, the day of that Prelate's death. We have here to inquire how it was that, within a year of the time when we have supposed this Bishop to have assigned the Advowson of Diddlebury to Seez, the Monks of Olverton are found acting as Patrons? By Olverton must be meant Alcester, sometimes called Oversley, a Benedictine Abbey in Warwickshire, founded in 1140, and very possibly associated by some early tie with the Foreign House of Seez. We are positively assured that sometime or other the Monks of Alcester were so seized of the Advowson of Diddlebury as that they were enabled to transfer it to the Chapter of Hereford, [10] and yet that the latter body, when late in the thirteenth century its title was brought into question, applied immediately to the Abbey of Seez for documentary proof thereof. [11] My own impression is, that whatever was done by the Monks of Alcester in regard to Diddlebury Church, they did as Proctors or Trustees of the Abbey of Seez. I shall now adduce a piece of evidence which shows that in 1212 the then Rector of Diddlebury was bound to pay an annual acknowledgment of 45s. to the Abbot of Seez through the Bailiff of the latter. This I think proves that the Abbot was still Patron of the Church, and that before he had presented this Rector thereto, he had required security for the future payment of the said pension. The Rector in question is styled "Osbern, Parson of the Church of Doudelebere", and was evidently the second Incumbent of that name. Being 2. 18s. 4d. in arrears of his acknowledgment of 45s. per annum, he covenants on March 13, 1212, with N., Bailiff of the Abbot of Seez, to pay the said annuity in future, and gradually to liquidate the arrears. He attorns Alexander his Chaplain to pay the annuity to the Bailiff or Messengers of the Abbot. Alexander undertakes the charge; and Osbern covenants that he will not force Alexander to pay to himself the rent thus transferred to the Abbey:- that is, Osbern will fairly

[10] [11] History of Shrewsbury, II, 12, I, 142.


allow this payment in his own reckoning with his Chaplain. Osbern's Sureties in this matter, besides his corporal oath, were Alexander the Dean, Osbern fitz William, Aschilles a Knight, and Osbern fitz Deacon. The three first, with William Foliot, a Monk, Adam Parson of Hactun, John Dougee, and William fitz Herluin, attest the Composition, which was executed in duplicate, sealed with the Seals of Osbern and of the Abbot's Bailiff, and most curiously dated with reference to the Great Interdict under which the Realm of England then lay. [12]

Pursuing now the subject of the Abbot of Seez' continued Patronage of this Church, we find an Ordinance of Ralph de Maydenestun, Bishop of Hereford, dated in June 1236, which expressly declares that right of Patronage, without any mention of the Monks of Alcester. The Abbot and Convent of Seez had, it appears, felt a great danger (spiritual danger, I presume) in regard to their right of Patronage, "inasmuch as living in foreign parts they could not, as was right and decent, provide a fitting Pastor for this Church". They had therefore besought the Bishop to devise some remedial plan for this their danger, and had committed the cure and ordination of the said Church to the Bishop for ever, undertaking to ratify the Bishop's ordinance, whether it should convert the Church to his own uses, or to the uses of the Sagian Monks, or to the uses of any other, and also approving, if, on the next vacancy, the Bishop should confer the Church on one single Parson". The Bishop accordingly proceeds with his pious task, which, with all due deference to mediaeval sanctity, we shall see that he converted into a scandalous job. He first considers the poverty of the Church of Seez, and for the sustenance of the poor men who there serve God (he means the Monks) he allots an annuity of 10 merks (6. 13s. 4d.), to be paid out of the fruits of the Church of Dudelebury in the name of a benefice for ever. Meantime however,- that is, till the Church should be vacant,- O. (Osbern, I presume), the Rector, and W. (William), the Vicar of Diddlebury, were for their lives to receive their accustomed portions, and the Abbot of Seez was to be content with his ancient pension (that is, 45s. I suppose). Further, the Church itself was to remain for ever subject to the Ordination of the Bishop of Hereford, for the time being, saving the above pension of 10 merks to Seez. [13]

In the same month Stephen, the Dean, and the Chapter of Hereford inspected, recited, and confirmed the Ordinance of their

[12] Madox, Formulare, No. cli.
[13] Madox, Formulare, No. xii.


Diocesan. [13] Thus the Advowson of Diddlebury was lost to the Abbey of Seez; but for some cause or other, in the year 1257, that House directed one Ralph, a Sagian Monk and its Proctor in England, to get a copy of the Charter of Bishop Maydenestun, or to borrow the original. It was judged hazardous at that period to send original documents about the Country, and so copies of the Bishop's Ordinance and of the Dean and Chapter's Inspeximus were taken; and both were submitted to the inspection of John (II), Bishop of Chichester, who verified them, and attested their accuracy under his own seal. [13] I now return to the year 1255, when Osbern, Rector of Diddlebury, was apparently dead, and William de Ros was Parson. He had seemingly been so for seven years, and I think it probable that he was identical with "W.", the Vicar named by Bishop Maydenestun in 1237. I have alluded elsewhere to certain tithes in Corfham, of which, with 16d. of other income, William de Ros deprived the Collegiate Church of St. Mary Magdalene of Brug, appropriating them to his own Church of Diddlebury. [14] These tithes, I doubt not, represented Earl Roger's original grant of the third of the Tithes of Corfham to Quatford College. The Jurors of Corfham in 1255 were interrogated as to any rights or liberties within their Franchise which, being ordinarily appurtenant to the Crown, had been withdrawn. They answered more fully than the Jurors of Brug above-quoted, viz. that the tithe withdrawn was a third of the tithes of Walter de Clifford's demesne at Corfham; that Master William de Ros had withdrawn it seven years before, and apparently under the authority of the Bishop of Hereford. [15] We happen to know that William de Ros died in 1276-7, and it was then probably that Bishop Maydenestun's Ordinance came into full operation. Diddlebury Church had already been given, or was now given, by the Bishop of Hereford to his own Chapter. But in 1283 the Abbey of Shrewsbury had revived its ancient claim to this Advowson, and took occasion of the Court of Common Pleas sitting at Shrewsbury to sue the Chapter of Hereford for the same. The Chapter, in a letter of March 14,1283, requested the Abbot of Seez to search his muniments on the subject. "On two days", says the letter, "had this Plea been before the Court, and the third day fixed for its hearing, viz. May 2nd, was approaching". [16] Any further proceedings in the Civil Court I cannot trace; but Shrewsbury Abbey in this same year came to

[13] Madox, Formulare, No. xii.
[14] Supra, Vol. p. 77.
[15] Rot. Hundred. II, 64.
[16] Hist. Shrewsbury, I, 142, note 4.


an understanding with Richard de Swinfield, Bishop of Hereford. The result appears in an award of that Prelate. The Abbey was allowed to appropriate its own Church of Stottesden. In return, it gave up its claim on Diddlebury, as well as its rights in the Advowsons of Tugford and Holgate, or rather, in two out of the three Prebends of Holgate. Swinfield forthwith gave Diddlebury to his own Chapter, and kept Tugford and the two Holgate Prebends for himself. This was done by Swinfield under the specious pretext of facilitating the hospitality and other good works of Shrewsbury Abbey. [17] A more consummate job, covered by more thorough cant, it is impossible to conceive. In the twelfth century we have seen how Bishops and Monks conspired against the parochial rights of the rural districts; in the thirteenth, the conspiracy still continued, the Bishop proving himself the cleverer rogue of the two, by plundering not only the public, but his own former accomplice. Pleasant it is however to find a good springing out of intolerable evil. To this day do the Dignitaries of the Church of Hereford enjoy the greater part of the Rectorial tithes of Diddlebury, whilst the Bishop presents to the Rectories of Holgate and Tugford;- Tithes and Rectories which, had they been left in 1287 with Shrewsbury Abbey, would now be in the hands of Lay Impropriators.

Bishop Swinfield's Award was, in the case of Diddlebury, confirmed by a Fine levied in the Curia Regis at Westminster in October 1283. Thereby John, Abbot of Salop, Plaintiff, surrenders and quit-claims for ever to John the Dean and the Chapter of the Church of St. Ethelbert of Hereford, Deforciants, the Advowson of Dudelebir, whereof was Suit at Law between the parties. For this quit-claim the Deforciants are said to pay a Sore Sparrow-hawk.

lt is remarkable that in Bishop Swinfield's Visitation of 1290 the Churches of Diddlebury, Holgate, Tugford and Stottesden were all omitted. The Taxation of 1291 values the Church of Duddelebury in the Deanery of Ludlow at the high rate of 38. 13s. 4d., besides which a portion of 1. 6s. 8d. in the Church of Alberbury belonged to the Rectory of Duddelebury. The Vicarage of Duddelebury was moreover worth 7. 6s. 8d. per annum. [18] The Rectory of Diddlebury must from this period be taken as appropriated by the Dean and Chapter of Hereford. The Rectory of Long Stanton,

[17] Ibidem, I, 46, 47.
[18] Pope Nich. Taxation, pp. 166, b, 167.


as I have already shown, fell to the same Impropriators in 1295. [19] I now give an instance of the mode in which they farmed these Rectories. On June 15, 1322, the Deanery of Hereford being vacant, the Chapter grant to their Fellow-Canon, Master Richard le Vernoun, P.C.L., [20] for his life, their Churches of Dodelebur' and Longestaunton; he paying yearly 60. sterling to the Collegiate body.

In 1341 the Assessors of the Ninth accurately quoted the Church- Taxation of Dodlebury as 69 merks (46.). They assessed the Parish only at 9. This reduction was allowed because six carucates of land lay untilled on account of diverse taxes which oppressed the Tenants here, because also the Glebe land, worth 3., the hay-tithes, worth 6., the tithes of Mills, worth 5., the Vicarage and other small-tithes, offerings, and profits, worth 20. per annum, went to swell the Church-Taxation, but were not to be reckoned in estimating the Ninth. [21]

In 1534-5 the Rectories of Diddlebury and Long Stanton were returned, as I have before stated, as jointly worth 40. per annum. [22] The Vicarage of Dedulbury, then held by Thomas Slade, was worth in tithes of all kinds 13. 6s. 8d. per annum, which income was chargeable with 7s. 8d. for procuration and synodals, and 17s. 9d., the annual proportion of the Bishop's triennial charge for Visitation. The net annual value of the Vicarage was therefore 12. 1s. 3d. [23]


ALURIC, Clerk of Dudelibi, and OSBERN his Priest, who about the year 1115 were present at the Synod of Castle-Holgate, [24] must I think be taken to have represented the Rector and Vicar of a later period. I will not suppose that Osbern, the Subordinate of 1115, became afterwards the Rector, but at all events one-

OSBERT DE DUDDELEBIR, Clerk, occurs between the years 1155 and 1159 under circumstances which show him to have been a person of great ecclesiastical importance. The facts are these. [25]- In that interval died William, Archdeacon of London, a person well-known in Staffordshire history, and who had held, among other things, the Church of Bradeley by presentation of Robert, second

[19] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 40.
[20] He had the Prebend of Inkbarrow, in Hereford Cathedral.
[21] Insquis. Nonarum, p. 188.
[22] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 41.
[23] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 202.
[24] Supra, Vol. III, p. 233.
[25] These particulars are taken from the Stone Chartularies (Cotton MSS., Vespas. E. xxiv, and Cotton Charters, xiii, 6).


Baron Stafford of his name. On the Archdeacon's death, the Canons of the Church of Gnowsall claimed the Advowson of Bradeley; also Osbert de Diddlebury claimed the vacant Incumbency, but whether as a Dignitary of the Church of Gnowsall, as Presentee of that Collegiate body, or in some other right, is not clear. Robert de Stafford on the other hand presented Master Richard de Salop to Bradeley Church. A contest arose, which ended in Bishop Walter Durdent admitting Stafford's Nominee. It also appears that Osbert de Duddelebir had been brought to renounce his claim before Helias, Archdeacon of Stafford, and Robert de Stafford, for which renunciation Master Richard de Salop gave Osbert seven solidates of land in Shradicot. The last transaction was certified in a letter, written long afterwards by Robert de Stafford, to R. the Bishop, and G. the Dean, of Hereford, by whom I understand,- Robert Foliot (consecrated 6 Oct., 1174, died 9 May, 1186), and Geoffrey known to have been Dean of Hereford in and about 1173. About this time the Advowson of Bradeley seems again to have been subject of dispute, but Richard Peche, Bishop of Lichfield, ignored the claim of the Church of Gnowsall, sanctioned that of Robert de Stafford, and confirmed Bradeley Church, at the presentation of the said Robert, to Stone Priory.

Now it does not appear from the Stone Chartularies why Robert de Stafford should memorialize the Bishop and Dean of Hereford about matters which belonged to another Diocese. The Bishop and Dean were, as I suggest, Judges Delegate in this ecclesiastical contest;- but what is more to our present purpose is that Robert de Stafford's letter speaks of Osbert de Dudelebir as if still living and renewing his claim to Bradeley Church. [26] On the whole I conclude that Osbern, Rector of Diddlebury, was presented to Diddlebury in 11417-8, as before shown, [27] claimed the Church of Bradeley between 1153 and 1159, and again in or after the year 1174. How much longer he lived I cannot say, because he had a cotemporary, apparently a Layman, who though usually called Osbert de Sturchley was also called Osbert de Diddlebury, and to distinguish between the Clerk and Layman is not always possible. I must now pass to a second,-

[26] "Duxi testificare super causa inter Canonicos de Stane et Osbertum de Duddelebir de ecclesia de Bradel', Talis olim pax inter Magistrum Ricardum de Salopp et prefatum Osbertum clericum facta est. Osbertus renuntiavit, et coram Helia Archidiacono suo de Stafford in capella Sancti Nicholai de Stafford abjuravit, me presente".
[27] Supra, p. 171.


OSBERT, Parson of Diddlebury, who was living in the time of Richard I (1189-1199). Him we have seen attesting a Bitterley Charter about 1210, [28] and in March 1212 he undertook as Rector to pay the Abbot of Seez' Pension in this Church through the hands of-

ALEXANDER, his Chaplain, whom I take to have been the cotemporary Vicar. By an extraordinary coincidence, this second Osbert, Rector of Diddlebury, had a second lay Cotemporary, sometimes called Osbert de Diddlebury, sometimes Osbert de Stirchley, and sometimes Osbert fitz William; as for instance in attesting the Bitterley deed just now quoted, and as in March 1212, when he was one of the Sureties of Osbert the Parson. To increase this confusion, we find that Osbert the Parson had also an interest in Stirchley. That some near relationship existed between the two is evident, but what it was I dare not conjecture. The next notice which distinctly belongs to Osbert the Parson of Diddlebury, is in a Suit of 1226, where he is fully designated as I shall show hereafter. In 1230 too, Osbert Parson of Dudlesbir', had been amerced 20s. for disseizin by Stephen de Segrave. In July 1232 Osbert, Parson of Diddlebury, levied a Fine of lands in Stirchley, which I shall set forth elsewhere. In June 1236 he was doubtless that Rector whom Bishop Maydenestun's Ordinance describes only by the initial letter of his name, and in the same document we have "W.", representing the cotemporary Vicar, probably some WILLIAM, who may also have been identical with William de Roe, a subsequent Rector. Having nothing more which I can positively state about Parson Osbert (II), I proceed to the said-

WILLIAM DE ROS, already shown to have been Rector of Diddlebury in 1248 and 1255. He has also occurred to us under Corfton in 1256 as William, Parson of Diddlebury. [29] He occurs as Treasurer of Hereford in 1272 and 1275, and died in 1276 or 1277. He was the last Rector of Diddlebury, and the date of his death corresponds well with the institution of the first Vicar nominated by the Dean and Chapter of Hereford. This was-

WALTER DE LODELOWE, Deacon, instituted 1 April, 1278, by Bishop Cantilupe. On Dec. 23, 1312-

JOHN DOLE, Deacon, was instituted Vicar on a like presentation. He is probably the same with-

SIR JOHN LE BOLE, who occurs as Vicar in 1314.

RICHARD, Vicar of Diddlebury, occurs in 4 Rich. II (1380-1), and is probably the same with-

[28] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 368.
[29] Supra, p. 51.


RICHARD LODELOWE, who on Nov. 1, 1384, exchanges this Vicarage for the preferment of-

JOHN DAVYES, previously Perpetual Chaplain of the Free Chapel within the Castle of Corfham. [30] A second institution of Davyes is dated 7 March, 1388.

SIR JOHN SUTTON was instituted to this Vicarage Aug. 12, 1396.


The principal Feoffees of the Rectors of Diddlebury were I think that Osbert and that Osbert fitz William whom I have already mentioned as cotemporaries of the first and second Rectors of the same Christian name. Osbert de Stirchley, as he is called, occurs in 1167, 1176, and 1180, in connection with Sturchley; but in 1193, being amerced half a merk for some false claim, he is called Osbert de Dudelebi. Sometime between 1193 and 1207 this Osbert was succeeded in estate both at Stirchley and Diddlebury by Osbert fitz William. On October 6, 1207, Osbert fitz William appears as Attorney of Walter de Clifford (II) in a Fine concerning lands in Buckinghamshire. [31] On November 5, 1208, a Fine was levied between Osbert fitz William, Plaintiff, and Walter de Stircheleie, Tenant, of one hide in Stircheleie and one virgate in Dodelibir, for which lands Walter was suing Osbert under writ of mort d'ancestre. He now relinquished his demand. In return Osbert conceded to Walter the said virgate, as well as the messuage in Dodelebir held by Alexander the Priest, also half a virgate in Spareford held by one Wiard;- to hold to Walter and his heirs under Osbert and his heirs at a rent of 16s. per annum. [31] As to the hide in Stircheleie, Walter was also to hold that, but for life only, and on terms which I will state elsewhere. At Assizes of the Forest held in 1212, one Walter de Budebir (probably Dudelibir), was assessed one merk for a new purpresture. Him I take to be the same with Walter de

[30] This is not the only notice which have met with of this Chapel. Mr. Dukes in giving Corfham on his list of destroyed Chapels is doubtless correct; but his reference to Domesday for the former existence of such a Chapel is erroneous.

Besides the two Chaplains of Corfham Chapel implied above we have-

THOMAS CHYKENRULLE, who died in 1422, when on Dec. 29,-

ROGER, was presented by John Talbot, Lord of Corfham.

The Free Chapel within the Castle of Corfham was existent as late as 1635, but then certified to be in decay.

[31] Pedes Finium, 9 John, Bucks, and 10 John, Salop.


Stircheleie of the former fine. In 1227 some misunderstanding arose about the said Fine, and a Placitum finis facti, as it was termed, resulted in a second composition, annihilating the first. This Fine was levied at Reading on Dec. 14, 1227, between Osbert fitz William, Plaintiff, and Walter de Stirchleg, Deforciant, of a hide in Stircheleg, and a virgate in Dudelebir. Walter again acknowledged the right of Osbert, who conceded him the Diddlebury virgate, in fee as before, and at a rent of 16s. The change made was in regard of part of the hide in Stirchleg, which part was now granted to Walter in fee, perhaps in lieu of the former concession in Sparchford. It is very singular and very perplexing to find that on the death of Walter de Stirchley in 1232, Osbert, Parson of Diddlebury, and not Osbert fitz William, settled with Walter's widow her claim of dower in a hide at Stirchley. There is indeed a piece of evidence suggesting the idea that Osbert fitz William was dead in 1231, but the same evidence would show that his son William fitz Osbert was his heir, not Osbert the Parson. This evidence is as follows.- On July 1, 1231, Avelina, Widow of Richard de Diddelbir, sued William fitz Osbert for a third part of 30 acres in Diddelbir as her dower. William pleaded that Avelina was not married to Richard "because she was his Aunt" (amita sua)- an expression which is ambiguous, and does not determine whether Avelina is said to be Aunt of Richard, or of William, or of both, if they were brothers. William further seems to have pleaded that Richard, after his alleged marriage with Avelina, took another woman to wife, and had her for sixteen years, and died so having her; moreover that Richard never had any land, for he died in his Father's life-time, and married no wife with his Father's consent. Avelina was non-suited. [32] Reserving all attempt to explain this matter till I come to Stirchley, I proceed to say that in 1233 and 1234 I find mention of Osbert de Stirchley, and in 1238 of Osbert de Dodelebyr, in connection with Stirchley. I cannot doubt that Osbert fitz William, and not Osbert the Parson, was in each case meant. I think too that this Osbert fitz William may have been second of his name, Grandson that is of Osbert fitz William, living in 1227, and Son of William fitz Osbert, living in 1231. I should say further of him here that about 1243, and as "Osbert de Stirchley", he gave half his Manor of Stirchley to Buildwas Abbey;- that by Fine, dated July 1, 1247, he confirmed this half and apparently gave the other half to the same House, that in the said

[32] Placita, Trin. Term, 15 Hen. III, m. 19 dorso.


Fine he is called "Osbert de Styrcheleg"; but in Charters nearly equivalent to and cotemporary with the said Fine, he calls himself Osbert fitz William, Lord of Stirchley, and speaks of Richard his Uncle (avunculus) as a former Grantor to Buildwas. He died probably soon after, and was buried at Buildwas, if the intention expressed by one of his Charters was duly carried out. He seems to have been succeeded by a second William fitz Osbert; for at the Assizes of 1256 such a person stood warranty for Wylecok, son of Robert le Prestre, a tenant of a messuage in Dudelebyr, who was impleaded for the same by Roger Skynnar, as brother and heir of Robert le Chapeleyn, which Robert was alleged to have died seized thereof. William fitz Osbert was dismissed sine die. [33]

This is the latest notice which I have of the family of which I treat. I now revert to instances where I suppose other Undertenants of the Church of Diddlebury to be mentioned. In August 1226 Susanna de Corfton came before the King sitting in his Court at Salop, and withdrew a suit of novel disseizin which she had preferred against Osbern Parson of Dudesbir', for a tenement in Spertford (Sparchford). Philip and Yvo de Wyluredeston and William the Dean are mentioned as Sureties in this case. [34] In 1230 when Osbert, Parson of Diddlebury, was amerced 20s. for disseizin, William fitz Alexander (I think his tenant) was amerced 2 merks for the same. The latter occurs as William fitz Alexander de Dudelbir in 1240, when he was amerced 20 merks for trespass. In 1255 the Corfham Jurors said that "Master William de Ros, Parson of the Church of Dudelebur had liberty with respect to his men in the Fee of the said Church", that is, he and his Tenants were exempt from the ordinary jurisdiction of Corfham Liberty. He, William de Ros, had assize of beer, of blood-shed, and held other lesser Pleas in his Court. [35] At the Assizes of 1256 a Jury was impanelled to try whether a messuage, 26 acres of arable land, and 7 acres of meadow, in Duddebir, were free almoign pertaining to the Church of Duddebir, whereof William de Ros was Parson, or were the lay-fee of Robert de Furchis, William l'Enfaunt, and John Bledenoch. William de Roe pleaded that Osbert his predecessor, being seized in demesne of the premises in the time of Richard I, had alienated them. William le Enfaunt's warrantor was Robert de Furchis, while the latter and John Bledenoch further called their Feoffor, viz.

[33] Assizes, 40 Hen. III. m. 10.
[34] Assize coram Rege, 10 Hen. III, m. 3 dorso.
[35] Rot. Hundred. II, 65.


Ranulf son of Walter de Harpcote, [36] to Warranty. On a subsequent day of the Assizes this Ranulf appeared in warranty, and pleaded that the premises were not almoign, for that neither the said Osbert, nor any other predecessor of William de Ros, was seized of them as almoign, or had held them in demesne, or had any other interest in them save a certain rent. The Jury however found that the premises were frank almoign and not the lay-fee of Ranulf de Harpcote. The said Ranulf accordingly lost them, and had to provide an equivalent elsewhere for each of his dispossessed feoffees. [37] By this we learn that the Rectors of Diddlebury were unable legally to give feoffment of any part of the Church's lands. Such feoffments however had been given, and it is probable that some were of so ancient a date as to defy the challenge of the last-named Rector. Of other interests of the family of De Furchis in Diddlebury I have spoken incidentally under Corfton. The land which the Church of Diddlebury had in the latter manor will account for the association between the two places.

I may conclude the subject before us by mentioning a transfer of land in Diddlebury and Sparchford, which was most likely of the ecclesiastical fee, and was conveyed by Sibil Edrych to Roger Mortimer of Wigmore, probably between 1266 and 1282. [38] Also William fitz Aldith and William Finch, both Tenants in Sparchford, are named in 1274 as having suffered by the extortions of John de Aqua, constable of Corfham. [39]


This was at Domesday, like Corfham, a Manor of Earl Roger's demesne. "The same Earl holds Comintone, Edric held it (in Saxon times). Here are V hides geldable, with III berewicks. In demesne are II ox-teams; and (there are) IIII Serfs and XII Villains,

[36] Walter de Harpcote attests about 1220-30 a grant by Osbert Lord of Stirchley to Wombridge Priory (Supra, Vol. II, p. 315).

[37] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 5 dorso.

[38] Additional MSS. (Brit. Mus.) 6041, fo. xxxvii.

[39] Rot. Hundred. II, 94, 100. Sparchford in the latter passage is expressly said to be without the liberty of Corfham.


with III teams; and still there might be VII teams more here. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 4. annually; now it is worth 6". [1] The Edric here spoken of was probably Edric Savage, many of whose Manors were retained by the Norman Earl. The three Berewicks of Culmington were undoubtedly Bache, Norton, and Burley, of each of which I shall speak separately in the sequel. The history of Culmington itself, as Caput of a Manor, may almost be said to end with Domesday. Like Corfham it escheated to Henry I, and was held as Royal demesne till Henry II gave it first to Hugh de Periers and then to Walter de Clifford. Thus associated with Corfham, it became a dependency thereof, and consequently the general history of its seignoral Lords has already been given. I now speak of minor matters immediately relating to Culmington.- In 1175, when Hugh de Periers granted Ditton to Wenlock Priory, he reserved the rights of Walenger and Alberic his Brother, as Tenants there. [2] I think it probable that Walenger of whom I have spoken more fully elsewhere, [3] was also a Feoffee in Culmington. In 1221 Walinger fitz Hugh, perhaps his descendant, was sentenced to give a third of a virgate in Culmington to Elias le Parker, whom he had enfeoffed in half a virgate in Richard's Castle, and who being sued by Richard fitz Osbert and Lucia his wife for the said half virgate, as dower of Lucia, had lost it, and became thus entitled to an equivalent. The marriage between William Longespee and Matilda de Clifford was first proposed by King Henry III, as we have seen, in 1244. This marriage was not consummated for some years after. A good authority assigns to the year 1254 a grant in frank-marriage of the Manor of Culmington to the said William and Matilda by Walter de Clifford her Father. [3] Culmington was then valued at 28. 8s. 2d. per annum, which sum was to be made good out of Corfham in the event of any deficiency. [4] The whole settlement of Walter de Clifford on his daughter was to be 200. per annum. Culmington, thus transferred, must be taken to indude the mesne-tenure not only of Beche and Norton, but also of Siefton, a Manor which though originally independent had gradually been absorbed in Culmington. By what means the whole came to the hands of John de Braose I cannot declare, but in 1257 he was clearly seized of

[1] Domesday, fo. 251, a, 1.
[2] Supra, Vol. III, pp. 331, 345.
[3] Kennett's Parochial Antiquities, p. 248. The grant was attested by Hervey, Prior of Burcester, Sir Roger de Clifford, Sir James de Audley, etc. I suppose it was cotemporary with the consummation of the marriage in question.
[4] Dugdale's Baronage, p. 337.


Matilda de Clifford's interest in all, for he then had the King's Charter of Free-Warren in Culminton, Smeton (Siefton), Norton, and La Bache, and also a grant of Market and Fair in Culminton. [5] Also at the Forest Assizes of 1262, a wood at Sineton (Siefton), which being within regard of the Long Forest was assessed at half a merk for waste thereof, is called "the Bosc of Sir John de Breuse". It does not account for De Braose's Tenure to state that Matilda de Clifford's first husband, William Longespee, died early in 1257; for John de Braose has never been suggested as her second husband: in fact it is more probable that he was her half-brother, and we know also that the two had litigation together at a later period. We have seen also that from 1259 to 1263 John de Braose extended his claims even to Corfham, still held by Walter de Clifford, Matilda's Father. Walter de Clifford (III) died about December 1263, and then it appears certain that Culmington was possessed by Margery his Widow, whose tenure must have been in dower. She, be it remembered, was a daughter of Lewellyn, Prince of Wales, who in the year 1264 so actively seconded Montfort's rebellion against Henry III. On the other hand Roger de Clifford, nephew of Walter de Clifford, deceased, had in that year become a firm and distinguished Royalist. In 1264 and 1265, while the King was a captive, Roger de Clifford's name is usually associated with the names of Roger de Mortimer and Hamo Le Strange, in those fabricated Patents which were devised by Montfort for the purpose of entrapping or getting rid of these Patriots of the Marches. Prince Edward, it will be remembered, escaped from Hereford on May 30, 1265. It was a signal for the Royalist Leaders to bestir themselves. On July 25, Roger de Clifford ejected its Welsh Mistress from the Manor of Culmington, and took possession of it himself. Ten days later and he fought under Prince Edward at Evesham, and fourteen days later the emancipated King gave him Custody of all the Forests citra Trent. [6] Other favours to him and to his son Roger followed; but it is more to our present purpose to state that Roger de Clifford Senior retained possession of Culmington till June 24, 1270. In the previous year he had been repeatedly impleaded for the same by one Walter de Wanford, and had as often failed to appear. At last sentence went by default, viz. "that Walter de Wanford do recover the said Manor". [7] This suit I find to have been a mere fiction, for on June 24, 1270, Walter de Wanford entered on possession under the sentence

[5] Rot. Cart. 41 Hen. III.
[6] Patent, 49 Hen. III.
[7] Placita divers rum Comitat. 53 Hen. III, m. 2.


aforesaid, and on June 26th he enfeoffed Roger de Clifford Junior in Culmington. Meantime Margery de Clifford was stirring to recover the Manor. A Writ of 1270 appoints Master Richard de Stanes to try her action of novel disseizin against Roger de Clifford concerning her tenement in Colminton. [8] On August 29, 1271, she got sentence in her favour after a trial taken before Walter de Helyun, a Justiciar of that period; but it appears that she did not thus obtain re-entry, for a Writ of January 27, 1272, orders Walter de Helyun to certify the King of the particulars of an Assize, which had been taken between Margaret de Clifford and Roger de Clifford Senior concerning a tenement in Kilmington. Another Writ of July 26, 1272, explains this. It recites how Margaret de Clifford had complained to the King that, though she had long before recovered seizin of the Manor of Culmington against Roger de Clifford Senior and Junior, and though her damages had been taxed at 70., the two Defendants still held the Manor. The Writ further orders that the period of such unlawful tenure be ascertained by Inquest. That Inquest was held at Ludlow on October 11, 1272, and furnishes the principal materials of the foregoing narrative, This story, I should observe, in no way countenances the idea before alluded to, viz. that Roger de Clifford, Senior, was or claimed to be heir of his Uncle's Barony. He had seized on Culmington by force, and at a lawless period. His object in procuring his son's feoffment was probably to escape the first effect of an action for disseizin which he knew could only be valid against the Tenant in possession: a manoeuvre which seems to have been counteracted by Margaret de Clifford suing both him and his son jointly. She of course ultimately recovered possession, though I have no evidence of the fact. We know however that the Manor afterwards returned to her late husband's heirs, for it was part of the estates of which John Giffard died seized in 1299.

Of UNDERTENANTS here, I may notice,- Alexander de Cheney, who, in June 1250, sues Walter de Clifford for disseizin in Culminton and Sireton (Siefton), and pays 20s. for the Writ. In 1299 John, Bailiff of Culminton, is named as a Tenant under John Giffard, deceased.


Siefton, though originally a distinct Manor from Culmington, was in the same Parish. When Earl Roger in 1186 endowed

[8] Patent, 54 Hen. III, dorso.
[9] Inquisitions, 56 Hen. III, No. 43.


[For engraving, see pdf.]


Quatford Church with a third of his tithes in Culminton and Ciraton (i.e. Siefton), [10] it is probable that the other two-thirds were reserved for an existing or a contemplated Parish Church. Of this Church we first hear positively about a century later. It was between the years 1177 and 1185 that Walter de Clifford, then first seized of Culmington, gave the Church thereof to Haughmond Abbey, provided the King (Henry II) should be pleased to assent to the grant. Because the Church was very poor, yielding ouly 2. per annum, Clifford added to his gift a virgate of land in Siditonia (Siefton), held by Master Roger de Beche at a rent of 5s. The witnesses of this were Osbert fitz Hugh (he was dead in 1185), Walter the Grantor's son, William de Eton, Robert de Beche, Master Roger his brother. [11] Between the years 1220 and 1226 Hugh Foliot, Bishop of Hereford, received, at the presentation of Osbert, Abbot of Haghmon, John de Wrocestre to the Church of Culminton, and instituted him as Parson, saving however the perpetual Vicarage of the said Church as taxed (i.e. apportioned) by the Bishop. Witnesses,- Adam, Chaplain of Westbury, Thomas, Precentor of Hereford, Robert Grossoteste, and Richard de Hereford, the Bishop's Official. [12] In May 1248 an Assize of Dernier Presentment about this Church was tried at Gloucester. Walter de Clifford asserted that he had presented Adam, the Parson last deceased, and in the present King's reign. The Abbot asserted that his Predecessor Osbert had presented John, his Clerk; that the said John was the last deceased Parson, and that Adam was only Vicar. [13] The matter ended in a fine between Walter de Clifford (III), Plaintiff, and Gilbert, Abbot of Haggeman, Deforciant, whereby the Abbot resigned his right to this Advowson. In return, Clifford conceded to the Abbot the homage of Richard Bell (Balle) and his heirs in Sydinton (Siefton), to hold in pure almoign for ever. [14]

In 1291 the Church of Culmynton in the Deanery of Ludlow was taxed at 10. annual value. [15] In 1341 the Assessors of the Ninth, quoting this Church-Taxation, reduced the assessment on the Parish to 3. 1s.- Much land lay unfilled by reason of the burdens on the tenantry. The glebe, worth 30s., the hay-tithes, worth 30s., and the small tithes and other profits, worth 79s. per annum, were constituents of the Church Taxation, but were not to be reckoned

[10] Supra, Vol. I, p. 109.
[11] [12] Haugbmond Chartulary: Tit. Culmiton.
[13] Gloucester Assizes, 32 Hen. III. m. 1.
[14] Pedes Finium, 32 Hen. III, Salop.
[15] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 166, b.


in the present instance. [16] The Valor of 1534-5 gives the Rectory of Culmynton, of which Charles Parsons was then Incumbent, as annually worth 1. 3s. 4d. in glebe-land, and 18. in tithes, the charge on which income was 14s. 4d. for procurations and synodals. The net value was therefore 18. 9s. [17]


JOHN DE WROCESTRE (Wroxeter), presented about 1223 by the Abbot of Haughmond, has already been noticed.

ROGER DE LEYE, Acolyte, was admitted Feb. 20, 1296.

FULCO, son of Sir Roger [18] CORBET, knight, was instituted on the 9th of the ides of March (perhaps March 7) 1311 on presentation of Sir Fulk Le Strange. The Church was also commended to Master William de Bosco, Chancellor of Sarum. On April 10, 1312, it was commended to Sir Roger de Eyton, Priest; and on March 27, 1314, to William de Eyneton, Priest.

SIR WALTER occurs as Rector in 1346.

SIR TAOMAS CAMOYLL, Chaplain, was instituted Nov. 11, 1360, on the death of a previous Incumbent, and in compliance with a Patent of King Edward III, who presented, as Custos of the lands and heir of Sir John le Strange of Whitchurch (De Albo Monasterio), Knight.

JOHN DE HALLE, Clerk, instituted March 20, 1367, on presentation of Maria le Strange, Lady of Corfham, occurs again in 1389.

SIR JOHN DAVIES, Chaplain, instituted August 12, 1396, on a like presentation, occurs as Rector in 1398, 1407, and 1420. He died in 1423, when, on Sept. 28-

SIR ROGER STEDEMAN, Chaplain, was instituted on presentation of Sir John Talbot, Lord Talbot, Furnyvall, and De Corfham. He resigned in 1425, when, on October 12-

SIR ****, son of Robert HENRYSSON, was instituted on a like presentation.


Hugh de Periers' grant of Ditton to Wenlock Priory passed 1175. He mentions Achilles among those whose Tenant-rights at Ditton arc to be preserved. Among the witnesses of the Deed are Achilles

[16] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 188, a.
[18] Mr. Blakeway supposes Roger to be here written by mistake for Robert.
[17] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 201.

BECHE. 187

himself and Master Roger. [19] They were Brothers, and each of them was a Tenant elsewhere under Hugh de Periers, viz. at Beche and Siefton. The particulars of Master Roger de Beche's tenure in Siefton have been incidentally given under Culmington Church. Walter de Clifford's Deed, there recited, gives us the name of a third Brother, viz. Robert de Beche, who, as well as Master Roger, is among the witnesses. This was between 1177 and 1185. Again I must refer to my account of Wheathill for a Deed which I have ventured to date between 1180 and 1196, the two first witnesses of which are Master Roger de la Beche and Achilles his brother. [20] At the County Assizes of October 1203, Anchell de Bach, as he is written, essoigned his attendance at the common summons. He is the Knight Aschilles who in March 1212 witnessed the agreement of Osbern, Rector of Diddlebury, with the Abbey of Seez, and who stood Surety for Osbern's performance of his part of the Covenant. The Assize-Roll of November 1221 gives Achilles de la Bech as having been one of the four Coroners of Shropshire, probably since the last preceding Assizes. Of three of them the Roll states that they were dead;- of Achilles de la Bech, that he was ill (languidus est). [21] In a Schedule of amercements inflicted in this Eyre, one merk is charged against "Achilles de Bech, one of the Coroners, because he came not to give answer concerning his time", i.e. his period of office. [21] The cotemporary Pipe-Roll records the amercement more briefly, viz. as inflicted on Achilles, quia non venit. We thus get at the meaning of the latter expression, so common on Amercement-Rolls of the period. Achilles de Beche was at this period (1221) very old. The same Assize-Roll gives us the names of two of his sons,- William and Richard. Richard fitz Achilles had been already married and was dead. It was proved that on his marriage his Father Achilles dowered his wife Isabella, at the Church Door, of a tenement in Beche; that Richard died in Autumn just past, and that after his death Isabella remained seized of her said dower till the very time when the Justices Itinerant reached Shrewsbury; that then William fitz Achilles (her Brother-in-law) and Robert fitz Ingerii (probably Ingenulf) disseized her. She now, while the Justices were still at Shrewsbury, recovered her seizin and had damages against the Defendants of 30s. 6d. in money, and two cows of 13s. value. [21] The cotemporary Pipe-Roll gives William fitz Achilles as owing half a merk to the Crown for disseizin. I have

[19] Supra, Vol. III, pp. 331-2.
[20] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 288.
[21] Assizes, 6 Hen. III, membranes 3, 12, 7.


spoken under Abdon of William Achilles' interests there in 1226 and 1227. [22] In the latter year he seems to have been again at issue with his brother's Widow about her dower. The Lady in this instance is called Isabella de Taunglaunt, by which I understand either that Thongland was her maiden name or the name of her second husband. In October 1227 a Fine was levied at Salop between William fitz Achilles, Plaintiff, and Isabella de Taunglaunt, Tenant, of the vill of Beches, which William had claimed under assize of mort d'ancestre. Isabella now renounced all the right which she had in name of dower, and similarly all right in all other lands at Diddlebury, Abdon, and Dudinghop, which she was requiring from the said William on the day of this Concord. In return William gave and conceded to Isabella an annuity of 42s. for her life, to be paid half-yearly at Beches, by William and his heirs or their Bailiffs. In default of payment, a power of re-entry into the vill of Beches is reserved to Isabella. The Feodaries of 1240 vary in stating that William Achilles, or Attehill, then held one tenth, or fourth, of a knight's-fee in Diddlebtuy under Walter de Clifford. [23] The Tenure was doubtless one-tenth of a fee, and lay in Beche as well as Diddlebury. Before 1246 William Achilles was deceased, and his son, called Richard fitz William, or Richard Achilles, had succeeded. The latter had neglected to pay his Aunt the annuity of 42s. covenanted by his Father. She therefore, with Henry de Bradelegh, now her husband, had sued him for the same under a placitum finis facti as it was termed. A second Fine was the result,- levied at Westminster in January 1216. Thereby Richard fitz William again undertook to pay Isabella's life-annuity of 42s., but at Diddlebury, instead of at Beche. He also re-admitted her power of distress, and paid her and her husband 100s. for their damages.

In 1255 the Corfham Jurors included Bach among the 7 hides of the collective Manor of Corfham. Richard Achillis, they said, held it of Sir Walter de Clifford by service of one-tenth of a knight's-fee, returnable, it would seem, by four days' ward in time of war at Corfham Castle, and at the Tenant's cost. Richard Achilles did suit to the Court of Corfham. His name, printed as Richard Athill, appears among the Jurors who made this return. [24] Richard Achilles was also a Corfham Juror at the Assizes of 1256. In February 1259 I find Henry de Bradelegh and his wife Isabella again suing Richard fitz William, as he is called, for his neglect in observing the

[22] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 129.
[23] Testa de Nevill, pp 46, 48, 50.
[24] Rot. Hundred. II, 64.

BECHE. 189

Fine levied between Isabella and William fitz Achilles, Richard's Father. The case was adjourned to Trinity Term in consequence of the nonappearance of the Defendant. [25]

In October 1260 Richard Achilles was one of the Manucaptors of John de Braose in the cause mentioned under Corfham. [26] A suit of the same year concerning lands in Little Sutton and Diddlebury, and in which Richard Achilles was concerned, has been given under Little Sutton. [26]

At the Assizes of 1267 Richard Palemose claimed half a virgate in La Bache, as heir of his Father, Robert Palemose, alleged to have died seized thereof. Hugh de Haluton, the tenant in possession called William Moil of Ludlow to warranty; William Moil similarly called Hugh Russel; and the latter called Richard Achilles, who deposed that he possessed no tenement such as to enable him to vouch a warranty. Evidence was given that he had a messuage and certain rents, and the Court ordered him to vouch a warranty so far as the said tenement and rents were available for that purpose. The result does not appear. [27] At the same Assizes Richard Achilles of Dudelbir', Hugh Russel, Hugh de Haluton, and others were found to have disseized William de Sineton and Margery his wife of a messuage and half-virgate in Beche. Hugh de Haluton deposed that he had bought the premises from William Moyl, and so his amercement was excused. [27] Lastly, at these Assizes Richard Achilles, Hugh de Cheyney, and Roger de Bradeley were sued for disseizing Isabella, Widow of Henry de Bradeley, of 32s. (sic) rent in Bache. Hugh and Rog,er only were found to have been the Disseizors. [27]

Roger de Bradeley here mentioned seems at this period to have acquired most of Richard Achilles' estate in Beche, and probably by purchase. Possibly he was the son of Henry de Bradeley, and had disseized his Mother of her dower. The Feodary of 1284 gives him as Mesne-Lord of La Bache, holding the vill under John Giffard. His cotemporary interest in Thonglands [28] seems to be connected with the circumstance of Isabella, his presumed mother, having on a former occasion been called De Taunglaunt. He has also occurred to us in 1292, as having an interest in Holgate. [29]

In October 1296 a Fine was levied at Westminster, whereby

[25] Placita, Hil. Term, 43 Hen. III, m. 35 dorso.
[26] Supra, p. 96.
[27] Assizes, 51 Hen. III, membranes 3, 6, and 5 dorso.
[28] Supra, Vol. IV, pp. 86, 87.
[29] Ibidem, p. 69.


Roger de Cheyne and Margery his wife acknowledge themselves to have given to Richard de Chiplade and Mabilla his wife a messuage, two virgates, and 16s. rent in Bache juxta Norton Cheyne;- to hold to the Grantees and the heirs of Richard, of the Lords of the Fee. For this 40. were given.

In 1299 the Quit-rent receivable from the vill of Bache by John Giffard, deceased, is said to have been 4s., but the name of the Feoffee is not given.


Of this member of Culmington, the first Feoffee whom I can name was Alexander de Chendneto or Cheney, who, being described as of Norton, was in 1231 amerced half a merk by Justices of the Forest for some default. In September 1235 Alexander de Cheny appears as Seneschal of Walter de Clifford. [30] In or about 1216 Hugh de Chenay (or de Cheene) is variously represented as holding half a fee and a third of a fee in Norton under Walter de Clifford. [31] The last statement is the true one; for the Inquest of 1255, reckoning Norton among the seven-and-half hides of Corfham, says that Hugh de Cheyne holds the vill of Sir Walter de Clifford for one-third of a Knight's-fee,- that is, by doing 15 days' ward at Corfham Castle in war-time at his own cost. Hugh de Cheyne also did suit to the Court of Corfham. [32] In 1256 Hugh de Cheney was returned among those who, holding 15 Librates of land in Shropshire, were not yet knighted. About 1260 we shall see him as Hugh de Chennei attesting a Charter to Acornbury. He has already occurred under Beche in 1267.

In 1284 John de Cheyne held the vill of Norton under John Giffard for a third part of a knight's-fee. In July 1299 the Inquest after death of the said John Giffard, gives a second Hugh de Cheney as the Tenant of various lands in Corfham Manor, for which his rents were 1 lb. of pepper, value 1s., and 1 lb. of cumin, value 1d.


The history of this member of Culmington is chiefly derived from Charters. The year 1230 may be safely assigned as the proximate date of the following.- "Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Walterus de Clifford filius Walteri de Clifford et Agnetis de Cundy dedi

[30] Testa de Nevill, p. 61.
[31] Ibidem, pp. 46, 48, 50.
[32] Rot. Hundred. II, 64.


Katerine filie Walteri de Lacy totam terram et tenementum quod vocatur Burle, etc., de quibus eam posui et tenui in seisynam de feodo meo de Corfham:- tenendum et habendum sibi et heredibus, etc., libere ab omni secta Curie. Hiis Testibus Domino Johanne de Monemue, Domino Rogerio de Clifford, Domino Symone de Clifford, Domino Alexandro de Cheyne, Domino Ricardo de Middlehope, Domino Johanne de Ebroicis, Domino Roberto de (read le) Wafre et multis aliis. [33]

Why Walter de Clifford (III) should thus have enfeoffed Walter de Lacy's daughter does not appear. It can hardly have been in any prospect of the pious uses to which, about thirty years afterwards, the Lady converted her estate. Between the years 1257 and 1262 Catherine de Lacy granted the whole tenement which she held of Sir Walter de Clifford in the Manor of Corfham to the Church of the Holy Cross of Acornbury, and to the Prioress and Nuns there serving God. Her Charter, which, as printed elsewhere, [34] I need not more fully transcribe, included Borleye, the bosc called Brenhales, a virgate held by Eytrop de Siretone (Siefton), and two nokes held by William Glorn. Her object was to maintain a Chaplain at Acornbury to celebrate daily mass for the health of the said Walter de Clifford and Margaret his wife, and Dame Mathildis de Longespee their daughter, [35] and Margaret her daughter. Together with this grant Catherine de Lacy, for greater security, surrendered to the Nuns the charter which she herself had sometime had from Sir Walter de Clifford. Her Deed is attested by Sir William Devereux, Sir Roger de Clifford, Sir Richard Tirel, Sir Robert de Lacy, Sir William Racheford, Vicar of Tenbury, Hugh de Chennei, (i.e. Cheney) Warin de Grendon, and William de Wodetun. [36]

Sir Walter de Clifford's Charter most fully confirming Katherine de Lacy's grant, may well be of even date. It is printed elsewhere, [37] and was attested by Sir Henry, then Abbot of Dore, Sir William de Braose, [38] Sir Roger de Clifford, [38] Sir Hugh his Brother, [38] Sir Robert le Bret, Sir William le Rocheford, then Vicar of Tenbury, Richard le Bret, and Griffin Wendhout.

Very soon after this, and by a Charter dated at Corfham on August 10, 1262,

[33] Acornbury Chartulary (Augmentation Office), No. iv.
[34] Monasticon, VI, 490, Num. iv.
[35] I infer that William Longespee was dead, which establishes one of the limits of date above assigned.
[36] Chartulary (ut supra), No. iii.
[37] Monasticon (ut supra), No. v.
[38] The Grantor's Stepson and his two Nephews.


Walter de Clifford concedes to the Prioress and Nuns of Acornbury, and to their tenants in his Lordship of Corfham, that they should he free of Suit at his Court and Hundred of Corfham. [39] Witnesses,- Sir John de Balun, Sir Walter de Balun his brother, Sir Simon de Clifford, [40] William Vaughan, then Constable of Corfham, Master John the Physician (Medicus), [41] and Warin de Grendon. [42]

It is remarkable that in this very year (1262) we are told that Catherine de Lacy herself was Prioress of Acornbury. [43] It was probably in the year 1264, that is immediately after Walter de Clifford's death, that his daughter "Matilda Longespye conceded to Acornbury her Father's grant to Dame Katherine de Lacy in the Fee of Corfham. Witnesses,- Sir William de Braose, Sir Roger de Clifford, Sir Hugh de Clifford, Sir Richard de Braose, Sir William de Rocheford, then Vicar of Tenbury". [44]

Katherine de Lacy was living in 1266. On February 3rd of that year, she appears at Westminster as prosecuting seven persons who, during the late disturbances, had seized her goods at Middlehope, to the value of 30. The Defendants were William de Middlehope, Eustace Bohan, Philip and William de Chesneye brothers, John son of Richard de Westhope, John Beadle of Corfham, and John his brother. The result does not appear, nor can I say how Katherine de Lacy came to have such interest at Middlehope.

Burley continued in possession of the Nuns of Acornbury till the Dissolution. In 1534-5 it was returned as yielding in rents and ferms 2. l8s. 3d. per annum. [45] The Ministers' Accounts, two years later, give nearly the same estimate, but the income derived by the Nunnery from Ludlow and other places is mixed up with that derived from Burley. [46]

Of UNDERTENANTS here I may instance John de Borleg, occurring

[39] A significant expression, showing the independence of Corfham and its adjuncts, of any other hundredal jurisdiction.
[40] Cousin, I think, of Sir Walter, and a Canon of Hereford (Vide Monasticon, V, 555, Num. vi).
[41] The Deed of Margaret, Walter de Clifford's widow, to Acornbury, passed Dec. 16, 1263, as before (pp.160-1) stated. It was sealed with the seal of Henry, Abbot of Dore, and attested inter alios, by William, Vicar of Tenbury, Master John the Physician (Physicus), and Henry de Clifford.
[42] Chartulary (ut supra), No. vi.
[43] Duncumb's Herefordshire, II, 170. The Deed to which Mr. Duncumb appears to refer does not call Catherine de Lacy Prioress. I conclude that he had other authority for stating her to have been so.
[44] Chartulary (ut supra), No. vii.
[45] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, p. 18.
[46] Monasticon, VI, 491.


in 1274, and Roger de Borlegh, or Berley, occurring in 1292 and 1299, who also held other lands at 4s. 8d. rent of John Giffard in the latter year.


LIKE Corfham and Culmington, this was at Domesday a Manor of Earl Roger's demesne.- "The same Earl holds Sireton. Edric held it in Saxon times. Here are V hides. In demesne are III ox-teams, and (there are) II female Serfs, III Villains, and III Boors, with one team, and yet there might be VII teams more here. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 6. (per annum). Now it is worth 100s". [1]

In its Saxon owner, Edric, as well as in most subsequent particulars, Siefton is associated with Culmington. In 1086 (the year after Domesday) Earl Roger grants part of his tithes in both Manors to Quatford Church. Here the place is written Ciraton: in fact it is a remarkable instance of the vicissitudes to which local names have been subjected.

HAUGHMOND ABBEY FEE.- I have already stated that Walter de Clifford (I) gave about 1180 a virgate in Siditon to Haughmond Abbey, and that about 1200 Walter de Clifford (II) gave inter alia a Mill, a messuage, and half a virgate of land in Syneton to the same House. It would seem that this second Walter de Clifford, while as yet he was seized of the Gloucestershire Manor of Frampton, gave to Haughmond a grant of a certain quantity of beans produced there,- I presume annually. This grant was commuted by Walter de Clifford (the third I think) for an annual rent of 8s. issuing out of two half-virgates of land which Richard Balle held of him in Ciniton. Witnesses,- John le Strange, Richard de Middelhope, Richard Tirrel. [2] Again we have seen that in 1248 Walter de Clifford (III), recovering by Fine the Advowson of Culmington from Haughmond Abbey, conceded in return the homage of Richard Balk and his heirs in Sydinton. [3] This concession was in its nature more extensive than the grant of the whole or any part of Richard Balle's rent; for it made him over to the Abbey as Tenant, with all

[1] Domesday, fo. 264, a, 1.
[2] Haughmond Chartulary: Tit. Ciniton.
[3] Supra, p. 186.


a Tenant's liabilities. The Charter which Walter de Clifford expedited in furtherance of the Fine, and probably directly afterwards, well illustrates this. He grants the whole land, with all appurtenances, which Richard Balle held of him in the vill of Sinetun, viz. the two half-virgates from which the Canons already received 8s. per annum, and all other land held by Richard Balle for which he had hitherto paid 2s. per annum to the Grantor. Witnesses,- Sir Matthew de Mans, Sir Richard Tirrel, Sir William de Furchis. Well then did the Corfham Jurors of 1255 say that the "Abbot of Haghmon had 10s. of assized rent in Corfham Manor by gift of Sir Walter de Clifford seven years past". Richard Balle's personal appearance on the said Jury perhaps accounts for this accuracy. [4] The same Jurors less accurately declared that the "Abbot of Hagemon had held two Mills and half a virgate of land in Corfham Manor from the time of Henry II, they knew not by what warranty, but the Mills and land were worth 5 merks per annum". This is evidently in allusion to the grant of Walter de Clifford (II), but as the Jurors could not specify the Grantor, they were not likely to know the date of the Grant, viz. that it was in the reign of John. I should observe that the grant of a virgate in Siditon by the first Walter de Clifford was in Henry II's time, but it must have been nullified ere this, together with the grant of the Advowson which it was intended to augment.

In 1291 the Abbot of Haughmond's Mills in Culminton and Silveton are valued at 2. per annum; his rents from two Tenements there were 6s. 8d. [5] The Haughmond Chartulary supplies us with several demises by the Abbot of these tenements, viz.- one to Richard Balle and Petronilla his wife of half a virgate in Ciniton, reserving a rent of 5s. and suit of the Abbot's Court of Neuton (Newton near Stokesay);- another to William Burley, of Cinetone-Mill and a messuage, reserving 16s. rent and a Heriot;- a third, dated in 1334, to John son of William Balle of Cineton, leasing the Mill of Culmiton and Cineton for life.

The Valor of 1535-6 probably includes the Abbot's receipts from Culmington and Siefton among those of Newton juxta Stokesay, which were 7. 13s. 8d. [6] The Ministers' Accounts in 1541-2 are a little more specific, giving a Water-Mill at Cibeton as worth 1. 2s. 8d. per annum, and a rent of 2s. 2d. from Corbeton (probably the same place). [7]

[4] Rot. Hundred. II, 65.
[5] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 163, b.
[6] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 192.
[7] Monasticon, VI, 113, 114.


Among other UNDERTENANTS in Siefton I should notice Warin de Grendon, who in October 1259 has a Writ of novel disseizin against Walter de Clifford for a tenement in Syneton, and who in 1270 has a similar Writ against Lewellyn de Braose for a tenement in Cyneton. This latter cause was heard at the Assizes of 1272. It was for 9s. 4d. rent in Cyneton; but as Lewelin de Breuwic (sic) called John Giffard and Matilda his wife to warranty, it was adjourned. [8] This Warin de Grendon had property also in Ludlow. He was son of that Warin de Grendon who from 1219 to 1221 acted as Under-Sheriff of Herefordshire for Walter de Lacy. Under Lacy he held the Herefordshire Manor of Grendon-Warin, which thus acquired its distinctive name. [9] About the year 1262 Katherine de Lacy, so often mentioned above, granted to Acornbury a rent of 2 merks in Stoke Bliss (Herefordshire). Her deed is attested by Sir William Rector (Query Vicar) of Tenbury, Sir Roger Rector of Grendon, and by Warin de Grendon, her Seneschal. [10]

Other Tenants under Clifford and his heirs, had their holdings probably in Siefton. Of these I may instance Walter Meyler, occurring in 1255, 1256, 1260, 1272, and 1274, Adam Balle and Roger Chaplain of Cyneton, occurring in 1274, and Isabella de Sineton occurring in 1299.

CLIFFORD PRIORY FEE.- This also seems to have been in Siefton. Clifford Priory I should observe was founded by Simon de Clifford, apparently a Brother of the first Walter de Clifford. At a later period there was one Simon, a Feoffee in Corfham, and who, if a Clifford, was brother I think of the second Walter. This Simon had two sons, Richard and Simon. Richard has already occurred to us as Richard fitz Simon, and as having in 1233 custody of Clifford Castle. [11] In the year 1248 Sir Richard fitz Simon, with Sir Simon his brother (who I believe was sometime a Canon of Hereford), joined in granting a virgate-and-half of land and an assart in Corfham Manor to Clifford Priory. The gift was worth 2 merks annually, said the Jurors of 1255, but a chief-rent of 2s. to Sir Walter de Clifford was payable thereon. [12] I can trace little

[8] Assizes, 56 Hen. III, m. 9.
[9] Duncumb's Herefordshire, II, 118.
[10] Chartulary (ut supra) No. xv. The Deed by which Dame Catherine de Lacy acquired most part of the rent thus transferred is dated July 20, 1262. It has the attestations of Warin de Grendon and of Sir Henry de Bradelegh (Duncumb, II, 161-2).
[11] Supra p. 159. There was also a Simon de Clifford, brother of the third Walter. He I think was Prior of Careswell (Herefordshire), and in that capacity attested a Charter of Walter de Lacy's before 1231 (Monasticon, VI, 490, Num. iii).
[12] Rot. Hundred. II, 61.


more of this estate. In 1299 the Prior of Clifford appears among the rent-paying Tenants of Corfham. The Ministers' Accounts of 1536-7 give also a Shropshire estate or estates of Clifford Priory, viz. a tenement and land in Sybington (perhaps Siefton) yielding 16s., and Hylhall Manor yielding 13s. per annum. [13]

Besides the various UNDERTENANTS to whom I have endeavoured to assign a fitting mention under Corfham, Culmington, and Siefton, many others remain;- but as I cannot fix the locality of their holdings I must mention them in mass as Tenants in the aggregate Manor. These were,- William fitz Matilda, Adam Tropin, and William de Opford, Jurors on the Inquest of 1255;- also Reginald Chaplain of Dourleg, Master John the Physician of Blockeleg, Philip Sturmi, and Richard le Franseys of Hulton, Defaulters on the same occasion. Philip Esturmy, William de Furchis, and Roger fitz Faber appear as Corfham Jurors, under Robert de Luntel, their Bailiff, in 1256. Roger de Mutti was a Juror in 1272, and Richard fitz Alice, John Fillet, Roger de Monte, William de Bulledon, and Adam the Beadle, were Jurors or tenants in 1274. Simon de Byssell was Chief Bailiff, and Philip de Cheyny, Hugh Sturmy, Adam le Bedel, and Nicholas le Barber, were Jurors at the Assizes of 1292. Hugh Stormy, Thomas de Monte, Richard de Middelhope, Nicholas le Barber, Walter Tropyn, Hugh de Bolledon, Adam le Bedell, Roger Faber, and William le Yunge, occur on local Juries of 1299, which Juries name Hugh Stormy, William le Yunge, Ricard Jug, William de Hulle, Nicholas le Barber, Martin le Lechour, Richard Faber, William Maddok, William de Bondy, Alice de Caunville, William le Porter, Richard de Middelhope and William de Lodelowe as Corfham Tenants.

The Clee Forest.

THIS was one of the Palatine and afterwards Royal Forests of Shropshire. In Saxon times I should rather suppose it to have been appurtenant to Ditton, a Manor of the Mercian Earls, than to King Edward's Manor of Corfham. In Henry II's time Hugh

[13] Monasticon, V, 43, Num. vi.


de Periers probably had it from that King, together with Ditton, Corfham, Culmington, and Siefton; but when Henry II conceded Ditton to Wenlock Priory, and gave Corfham, Culmington, and Siefton to Walter de Clifford, he detached the Clee Forest from the neighbouring Manor of Ditton, and, by the name of the "Haye of Ernestry and Les Clives", bestowed it as an appurtenance of the three more distant Manors. Here then did the Cliffords exercise those rights which ordinarily belonged to Royal Forests. King John confirming the Manor of Corfham and Culmington to Walter de Clifford (II) in 1199, adds "the Haye of Ernestreu and Les Clines". At the Assizes of 1203 it would almost seem that the Clee Forest was represented by distinct Jurors, as if not involved in the Liberty of Corfham. A space at least is allotted on the Roll for the "Clies" as well as for Corfham, though no presentments were entered under either. The Foresters of Walter de Clifford (II) were wont to levy a certain impost, called Doverett, on all lands within jurisdiction of the Clee Forest. The great Manor of Prior's Ditton was thus assessable; but it appears that Joybert, Prior of Wenlock, came to some agreement with Clifford, acquitting his tenants of the liability. In Trinity Term 1230 I find Prior Imbert suing Walter de Clifford (III) to observe the convention made by his Father. Clifford appeared not, and the case was adjourned to November following. [1] Before that time Clifford's aggression had assumed another character; for the Prior charged Walter de Clifford, Hugh de Kynarder, Philip Angevin, William de Clifford, Peter de Middleton, John Wyard, Roger and Herbert, Foresters, Walter de Parin (Paris), Roger Dun of Peton, Walter fitz Ivo, William Oliver, Wylloc Beadle of Corfham, and William fitz Adam of Peton with grave trespasses, viz. with wounding and imprisoning the Prior's men. This charge was first preferred in the County Court; but the Prior, conceiving that a false judgment was given by that Court, appealed to Westminster. The King's Justices ordered the Sheriff of Shropshire to make record in a full County-Court of the proceedings in this case, and to return the same to Westminster before Oct. 20th, 1230. The Sheriff failed to do so, and the Justices made a similar order returnable by the Sheriff in three weeks of Hilary 1231. [2] The Rolls of that Term are lost; but we have a Fine of Hilary Term 1232 which probably settled all the points at issue. It was between "Prior Imbert,

[1] Placita, Hil. Term, 14 Hen. III, m. 17.
[2] Placita, Mich. Term, 14 and 15 Hen. III, m. 10.


Plaintiff, and Walter de Clifford, concerning quittance of the doverett of Walter's Foresters through the whole land of St. Milburg round the Clee Hills (quae est circa Clivas), and concerning quittance of 100 eggs, 20 hens, and 20 pence per annum". The Prior's complaints were, that Clifford's Foresters would not suffer the Prior or his men at Dodinton (Ditton Priors) and Stoke (St. Milburg) to keep any dogs not expeditated, nor to have pasture for their goats in the Boscs of Ditton and Stoke; also that Clifford denied the Prior and his men the right of common which they used to have for their animals in the Haye of Hernestre. The Convention was as follows.- The Prior conceded that Clifford should maintain the same Forest (i.e. Forest-rights) in the boscs of Ditton and Stoke, as he maintained in the boscs pertaining to his Forest of Clive.- The Prior was to keep in tillage all lands in the Hayes of Stoke and Ditton which were under tillage at the date of this Fine; also to assart 40 acres more in Pakemore, but he was not to build any house on the said assarted lands. Clifford conceded that the Prior and his Successors should be quit of the customs first alluded to in the Fine, and should have certain common pasture and easements. The Prior and his Successors should moreover have their own Foresters in their demesne-boscs of Stoke and Ditton, provided the said Foresters swore fealty to Clifford concerning good care to be taken of his venison, and prosecuted all attachments against the Prior's men (being malefactors against venison), according to the mode and custom of the Forests of England. The men thus attached should be dealt with in Clifford's own Court. The Prior and his Successors should have the tenth beast of those taken in the said demesne-boscs of Stoke and Ditton, and also of those started in the said boscs and taken elsewhere. Lastly, Clifford should have Foresters of his own, to keep the said boscs in conjunction with the Prior's Foresters.

In October 1253 Walter de Clifford was suing William Mauduit, William fitz John, and Hugh de Dudmaston, before the King in Council, for taking a Boar in the Forest of Corfham (which I suppose to be the Clee Forest rather than that portion of the Long Forest which pertained to Corfham). The Defendants had often failed to appear to this charge. The Sheriff was now ordered to distrain Mauduit and arrest his two Esquires, as they are called. [3]

In 1255 the Jurors of Stottesden Hundred complained that the Foresters of Sir Walter de Clifford required from every house

[3] Placita coram Rege, 37, 38 Hen. III, m. 9 dorso.


within the Bailiwick of La Clye one hen at Christmas and 5 eggs at Easter; and that they collected wheat-sheaves (garbas) in autumn from the vills of Wheathill, Luchton (Loughton), Aston Botterell, Burwarton, and Cleobury North, and that if men denied these imposts they grievously distrained them, the Jurors knew not by what warrant. [4] I have before taken notice of Walter de Clifford's relaxation of his rights in respect of a part of the Clee Forest known as the bosc of Cleobury North. [5] I have also shown how Matilda de Longespee, his daughter, claimed in 1267 Royal privileges for the Clee Forest, and how she and her officers (William de Clifford and John le Forfer) resisted an encroachment on those privileges when attempted by the Lord of Aston Botterell. [6] We have also had mention of Ernestre Forest in 1274, and John Giffard's attempt to enlarge the same by trespass on the Abbot of Shrewsbury's Manor of Tugford. [7] The Jurors of Stottesden Hundred complained at the same time that John de la Watere, Constable of Corfham, compelled all the Vills which were within his Lord's free-chace of Clines to attend and hold pleas of the chace every six weeks,- a thing which had never been done till the time of the said Constable, and till within the last four years. The Vills which refused to attend were heavily fined by the Constable. He had also placed four or five Deer-Keepers where there used to be but one, and this was at the cost of the country. He would not permit the Lord of any Manor to take aught from such Lord's own proper woods if within the free-chace aforesaid;- and this was contrary to former custom. He also compelled the Free-Tenants within the Chace of Clyes to serve on Juries, without the King's precept. This was apparently said with reference to the Manorial Court of Corfham. Moreover these Jurors represented that John Giffard had for four years appropriated a right of warren within his Free Chace, no such right having previously existed. Other special trespasses these Jurors alleged against John de la Watere, in respect of the Forest jurisdiction of his Lord. I have alluded to these in their fitting place. The Jurors wound up their charges by protesting that the whole country round the Chace of the Clyes was nearly ruined by these and other extortions, whereof the number was unknown. [8] The Jurors of Wenlock Liberty also joined in the outcry, showing specially how the Prior and his men

[4] Rot. Hundred. II, 83.
[5] [6] [7] Supra, Vol. III, pp. 27, 28; Vol. I, p. 226; Vol. IV, p. 82.
[8] Rot. Hundred. II, 108, 110.


of Ditton could take nothing out of the Prior's own wood of Clyes without being liable to the amercements of John del Ewe. [8]

The Stottesden Jurors, at the Assizes of 1292, presented John Giffard as claiming free-chace in Cleyes and free-warren in the Abbot of Shrewsbury's lands at Loghton, in Walter Haket's lands at Wheathill, and in the lands of other persons. The Corfham Jurors on the same occasion presented that John Giffard claimed Free-Chace in La Clee and a Free-Haye in Ernestre, as pertaining to his Manor of Corfham, in the whole of which Manor he also claimed Free-Warren. A consequent but not quite accurate Writ of Quo Waranto questioned him (inter alia) for "having Free-Chace in his Manors of Corfham and Cley",- to which he answered pertinently enough, that Cley was a mountain within Corfham Manor, i.e. no Manor of itself. [9] The rest of his defence did not touch on the question of Free-Chace, but was in fact a refusal to plead, as I have before set forth. [10] The Inquisition on his death in 1299 gives the profits on Ernestre-Bosc as 6s. 8d. per annum, and on a pasture on Le Cle, called Heymedewe, as 6s. 8d. also. I conclude this branch of the subject with remarking that the great Forest-Perambulation of 1300, which relaxed so much of the Royal claims in Shropshire, did not touch the jurisdiction of the Clee Forest.

FORESTERSHIP OF THE CLEE.- The office of at least one Forester under the Cliffords was held in fee and inheritance, or at least alleged to be so held by the family of Wyard, who anciently had it. The Progenitor of this family is called "Wiard the Forester" in the only notice which I have of him, and which has been given under Burwarton. [11] It there appears that he was dead in 1199, leaving a Widow Alice, whose dower lay in some place not quite legible in the Record, but which I think may possibly stand for Loughton. William Wiard was then at issue with Alice, who had remarried to Roger de Burwarton. This William was doubtless Wiard's son and heir, and though he was said fifty years after, by his own Grandson, to have held the Clifford Forestership in Henry II's time, I venture to doubt that assertion. He occurs again, I think, at the Assizes of 1203 under the name of William fitz Wiard, when he gives the King half a merk for license to accord some suit, his Surety being Walter Haket (of Wheathill, I think). [12] William Wiard was succeeded by

[8] Rot. Hundred. II, 108, 110.
[9] De Quo Waranto, p. 685.
[10] Supra, p. 162.
[11] Supra, Vol. III, p. 34.
[12] Assizes, 6 John, in. 4 dorso.


a son Philip, which Philip was said by his own son John in 1249 to have lived in Richard I's reign; but this was probably inaccurate, though I can find no dated mention of the said Philip. John Wyard had certainly succeeded to Philip in or before 1230, when, with two others of Walter de Clifford's Foresters, he participated in his Lord's outrage on the Prior of Wenlock, as already described. Precisely at this time, if I may judge from the names of persons common to both transactions, Clifford was making great concessions to Shrewsbury Abbey in respect of that part of the Clee Forest which abutted on Loughton. These concessions it seems touched upon John Wyard's interests as Forester. About the year 1247 he seems to have made terms with the Abbey. By one Charter "John Wyard, son of Philip Wyard, releases to the Abbey 120 acres of the Bosc of Luchton, which Sir Walter de Clifford had already dis-forested and clearly conceded to the Monks. John Wyard however reserves to himself three roads called Dukesli, Hageswey, and Fulewey, by the which he might drive his Cattle to his free pastures without hindrance of the Monks. For this the Abbot gave him one merk. Witnesses,- Sir Robert de Halechton, Philip de Baggesour, W. (Walter) Haket". [13] By another Charter, "John Wyart, son of Philip Wyart, gives up to the Abbey, for five merks, one assart which he held of the Monks at the vill of Luchton, and also all the forestership (that is, rights of forestership), with its appurtenances, which he had had in the Monks' Wood of the same vill of Luchton. Witnesses,- Robert de Halechton, Richard Tyrel, Thomas de Costentin, Knights". [13]

We have seen that Walter de Clifford incurred forfeiture in 1233 for his alleged rebellion. He seems also to have suffered a partial forfeiture for his rebellious conduct in 1250. On the latter occasion the Clee-Forcst was in the King's hand, and, as Clifford afterwards deposed, the King gave John Wyard's Bailiwick to one Roger de Hogelawe. John Wyard however, contradicting Clifford, stated that Clifford himself had ejected him, in or about the year 1251. Wyard certainly seems to have acted in accordance with the latter idea. The Pipe-Roll of 1252 gives John Wyard as fining one merk for a Writ of Pone, i.e. to change the venue of some pending cause. From the Shropshire Assize-Roll of 1256 we probably learn what that cause was.- "Walter de Clifford appeared in Court to answer John Wyard in the following Plea, viz. that he, Clifford, should permit Wyard to have a Bailiwick in the Forest, viz. in Northlye". The

[13] Salop Chartulary, No. 128, c and d.


duties of the Bailiwick seem to have been that Wyard "should travel with one horse and a boy to make attachments of the forest, as his ancestors, he said, had done, of right and of fee, from time whereof memory was not, viz. William Wyard his Grandfather, in time of Henry II, Philip Wyard his Father, in time of King Richard, and himself in the present King's time for ten years and more". Clifford, he added, had ejected him five years before, whereby he was damaged 10. Clifford replied that "Wyard had no Charter on the subject, nor had he possession of the tenement to which the Bailiwick in question appertained, but that he had held office merely by favour: moreover, as to the tenement to which the Bailiwick appertained, Roger de Hogelawe held that, as well as the Bailiwick, by gift of the King, when the Bailiwick was in the King's hand". [14] The result I cannot trace, but in December 1258 John Wyard was one of the Jurors on the death of Philip de Baggesore, a Royal Forester.


My sole reason for treating of this place here is that a great part of the Manor consisted of lands taken from the Clee Forest. I cannot find the original Manor of Loughton in Domesday, [15] but early in the next century it belonged to Salop Abbey. Now whereas the Chartulary of that House does not inform us how it came into possession of Loughton, we naturally search for a probability that Loughton was involved in some Domesday Manor in which the Abbey had already an interest. Stottesden and Morville present themselves as alone likely, and if to Morville was attached the distant Berewick of Cold Weston, and if Duddlewick and Prestcot were members of Stottesden, analogy would lead us to suppose that Loughton might have been a member of either Morville or Stottesden, and so have come to Salop Abbey with its other share of either Manor. But we are minutely told what the vills were which the Abbey acquired in Morville and Stottesden, and Loughton is not among them. Again Loughton was parochially a member of Chetton, and it is reasonable just to ascertain whether its manorial condition

[14] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 9 dorso.

[15] Roger fitz Corbet had a Manor Luchetune in Ruesset Hundred (Domesday, fo. 255, b), but that was undoubtedly Loton,- now Loton Park. Also Robert Corbet gave some land (terram unam) named Loketon to Salop Abbey between 1108 and 1121. It is not necessary now to inquire where this land was. It could hardly have been Loughton, for Robert Corbet had nothing in that quarter of Shropshire, if we are to trust in Domesday.


may not have been similar. This is easily done, and the result is negative. No grant in Chetton was ever made to Shrewsbury Abbey; and Chetton in the thirteenth century was so far from having lost aught of its Domesday adjuncts, that its hidage was increased. Summarily then we conclude that Loughton is omitted in Domesday, that is, it neither appears under any specific name, nor can we assign it as a member of any greater Manor. I have often said that lands, exclusively forest, are not surveyed in the Shropshire Domesday. My idea is that Loughton was then involved in the Clee Forest, but subsequently colonized by the Monks of Shrewsbury under some unrecorded relaxation or permission of the Norman Earls, or of the Crown. I have adverted in a note to the very slender possibility that Loughton was identical with certain land called Loketon, which was given by Robert Corbet to Shrewsbury Abbey between 1108 and 1121. Even if this were so, my main conclusion holds good, viz. that Loughton is unmentioned in Domesday, for that Record gives Robert Corbet nothing in the neighbourhood now under notice.

Passing from theories to facts, we find Loughton in possession of Shrewsbury Abbey about the year 1138, when Bishop Betun's confirmation to that House, after naming certain tithes in Dudelwich, Stottesden, and Walkerslow, further allows the Monks two parts of the tithes of their demesne of Luchton, and all the tithes of their demesne of Tugford. [16] Luchton, mentioned in such a sequence, is assuredly Loughton, and the reservation of a third of its tithes was probably connected with its parochial subjection to Chetton.

About the year 1225, as I think, Walter de Clifford for one merk paid to him by the Monks of Salop, gave license that their Goats should go and feed in the Bosc of Luhtune.- Witnesses, Egidius de Clifford the Grantor's brother, Richard Tyrel, John d'Ebroicis (Devereux), Thomas de Baskerville, Thomas de Costantin, Symon de Leeg Clerk, William de Clifford Constable of Corfham. [17]

About 1230 Walter de Clifford grants to Salop Abbey 100 acres of Bosc in the Bosc of Luhtone, whereof each acre was to be 40 perches by 4 perches, and each perch 25 feet.- Witnesses, Richard Tyrel, Richard fitz Symon Knights, Robert de Estone Constable of Corfham, Hugh de Kynsithelege, Robert de Bolledon, Richard de Ballecote, John de (sic) Wyard, Walter de Paris, Herbert Forester of Clye. [18]

[16] Chartulary, No. 334.
[17] Salop Chartulary, No. 8.
[18] Ibidem, No. 9. It is observable that four of these witnesses participated in Clifford's trespass on Wenlock Priory in 1230. Hence the date which I assign to the deed.


There is another, and, judging by the witnesses' names, a nearly cotemporary grant of Walter de Clifford's to Salop Abbey, but whether it was intended to reconvey the premises named in the last, under a corrected measurement but with a considerable addition, or whether it is as a grant de novo, conveying 120 acres over and above the hundred acres of the last, I cannot say.- Styling himself "Walter de Clifford son of Walter de Clifford and Agnes de Cundy", he grants to Salop Abbey in pure almoign, 120 acres of the Bosc of the said monks at Luhtone, of which the Bosc and site were already theirs, to assart, fence, and dispose of as they liked; provided the beasts of his forest should be able to pass in and out according to the custom of the forest; provided also that the said acres should be those nearest to the vill of Luhtune and consist of uncultivated (frisca) land and bosc, between Roger de Ondeslawe's Assart and the watercourse (Sichet) towards Burwarton. Each acre in this case was to be 40 perches by 4 perches, but each perch was to be only 24 feet. The witnesses are the same as in the last, except that Sir Richard de Clifford, Knight, occupies the second place, and Hugh de Kynsithelege is omitted. [19]

John Wyard'a Charters, supplemental to Clifford's, have before been given. It is observable that the Stottesden Jurors of 1255 exclude Loughton from their ordinary Survey. The probable reason was that they had no precedents or Records enabling them to fix its status,- a natural consequence of its omission in Domesday. Again in 1256 the Charter of Free-Warren, granted to Shrewsbury Abbey, includes Duddlewick and Tugford, but omits Loughton. The reason was because the latter was within the jurisdiction of the Clee Forest.

At the Assizes of 1256 Simon fitz Philip of Lutton sued Ralph Parson of Lynrugg (Lindridge) Robert de Furches, Ralph fitz Robert of Hul, and Benedict de Duderhul for disseizing him of 3 acres in Lutton. Roger Bonoste and William de la Lawe, two of the Recognizors in this cause, did not appear; but the Jury found that John Wyard having first enfeoffed the Plaintiff in the premises, had afterwards disseized him, that then John Wyard had enfeoffed Ralph Parson of Lindridge in these and other lands, that the said

[19] Salop Chartulary, Nos. 6 and 7, collated. The former is printed Monasticon, III, 520, Num. vi.

Richard de Clifford, Knight, attesting this Deed is, I think identical with Sir Richard fitz Symon attesting No. 9.


Ralph had enfeoffed Philip de Wychecot who was now seized. The Plaintiff was allowed to obtain a remedy by some other process. [20]

It is probable that the above suit concerned land in Clifford's fee, not in the Shrewsbury Abbey estate.

In June 1259 Matilda, daughter of Richard de Lowton, sues the Abbot of Shrewsbury and others for disseizin in Lowton.

Between the years 1266 and 1271, William Abbot of Shrewsbury concedes to Robert fitz Adam of Stoke, for his own life and for the lives of any two Assignees he might choose, for 5 merks paid, all the assart made by Adam de Stoke in the field of Luchton called Haselovere.- Rent to be 2s. Witnesses, Richard de Baggesovere, Walter de Norton. [21]

In February 1268 the Abbot of Shrewsbury proposes to sue Matilda de Longespee for disseizing him of a tenement in Louthon. [22] Egidius de Erdinton was the Justiciar appointed to try the cause. This dispute probably resulted in the Charter whereby, within the next four years, Matilda Longespee confirmed her Father's Grants to Shrewsbury Abbey,- Roger Tirel, Thomas Boterel, and William de Monkyton, her Seneschal, attesting her Confirmation. [23]

Between the years 1272 and 1278 Luke, Abbot of Shrewsbury, grants to Sir Thomas Botterel a messuage in the vill of Lucton, and 9 acres in the fields thereof, lying in Wetemore, between Borewarton and Lucton.- To hold in fee, at a rent of 3s. 4d.- Witnesses, Sir Ralph de Arras, Sir John de la Lee, and Sir John fitz Aer. [24]

In 1291 the Abbot of Shrewsbury's receipts from Loughton are probably included in those of Duddlewick. [25]

The Valor of 1534 and the Ministers' Accounts of 1541-2 are equally indistinct as to any separate estimate of Loughton.

LOUGHTON CHAPEL.- The only notices which I have of this Chapel have been already given under Chetton Church. [26] This parochial subjection of Loughton to Chetton still remains. It is an anomaly greater even than that which besets the manorial conditions of Loughton.

[20] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 11 dorso.
[21] Salop Chartulary, No. 107.
[22] Patent. 52 Hen. III, dorso.
[23] Monasticon, III, 620, No. vi. It is remarkable that Maud Longespee's Inspeximus, purporting to confirm her Father's Charters, recites only one of the three (the third above given), and then appends thereto the witnesses of another (the first above given). A similar mistake made in a later day I have ventured to suppose in a case of transcription (Supra, Vol. II, pp. 55-6, note 25).
[24] Salop Chartulary, No. 407.
[25] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 159.
[26] Supra, Vol. I, pp. 183, 184.


UNDER the heading Quad tenet (ecclesia) Sancti Michaelis, Domesday says:- "The Church of St. Michael holds Possetorn of the Earl. Chetel held it (in Saxon times). Here is one virgate of land. The (arable) land (is enough for) half an ox-team. One Tenant renders for the same a bundle of box on Palm Sunday". [1] If Upper Poston is (as we have seen it to be) identical with the Domesday Possetorne, the probability that Lower Poston represents the second Possetorn of Domesday, is very reasonable. We also determine that the Hundred of the latter, not expressed in Domesday, was Culvestan, the known Hundred of Upper Poston. As to Chetel, Saxon Lord of Lower Poston, he had also a part of that Manor of Stanton which afterwards was called the Manor of Holgate. [2] Earl Roger then gave one of Chetel's Manors to Helgot; the other he bestowed on his own Chapel within the Castle of Shrewsbury, known in Domesday as the "Church of St. Michael". I refer elsewhere for an account of the latter foundation. [3] That a Tenure, secured only by payment of a bundle of box to deck the Church on Palm Sunday, should speedily vanish is no matter of surprise. The acknowledgment was almost worthless in itself, and came from a most unreasonable distance. Except in Domesday, we hear nothing of St. Michael's interest in Lower Poston. The Seigneury of this small Manor became Fitz Alan's, in what way I cannot tell. In 1251 I find Philip de Thongland suing Thomas de Hopton for common pasture in Hopton and Poston of which he had been disseized. [4] Philip de Thongland we know held Upper Poston at the time, and I suppose that what he claimed lay in Hopton Cangeford and Lower Poston, two very distant places. What Thomas de Hopton can have had to do in Lower Poston is quite as inexplicable to me as Philip de Thongland's concern in Hopton Cangeford.

In 1255 Richard de Thongland is said to hold Possethorne of John Fitz-Alan. It did suit to the Hundred of Munslow, and contained half a hide (double the Domesday estimate) and paid Stretward

[1] Unus homo reddit inde fascem buxi in die palmarum (Domesday, fo. 252, b, 2).
[2] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 51.
[3] History of Shrewsbsry, II, 416.
[4] Patent. 35 Hen. III, dorso.


and Motfee accordingly, viz. 6d. [5] This was Lower Poston undoubtedly; and the same Richard de Thongland held Thonglands under the same Suzerain. I have said more of him under that Manor. [6] The connection between Thonglands and Lower Poston does not end here, for the Feodary of 1284, after describing Roger de Bradeley's tenure of Thonglands under Fitz Alan, intimates that a place written Posselme was annexed to the tenancy.

I can find nothing more relating to this small estate, and will conclude by observing that its Manorial distinctiveness is well paralleled by something in its parochial condition, for while Upper Poston is in the Parish of Diddlebury, Lower Poston is, like Thonglands, in the Parish of Munslow.


UNDER the Title Quod tenet Ecclesia Sanctae Mariae, Domesday says as follows:- "The same Church holds Brunfelde, and there it is built (ibi consistit). [1] Here are now X hides, and in demesne there are VI ox-teams, and there are XII Neat-herds, XV Villains, and XII Boors, with VIII teams. It is worth 50s. (annually) to the Canons; and Nigel the Physician has 16s. (annually) from this Manor. In this Manor there were in King Edward's time XX hides, and XII Canons of the said Church had the whole. One of them, Spirtes by name, had alone X hides; but when he was banished from England, King Edward gave these X hides to Robert fitz Wimarch as to a Canon. But Robert gave the same land to a certain son-in-law of his. Which thing, when the (other) Canons had shown to the King, forthwith (the King) ordered that the land should revert to the Church, only delaying (to enforce this order) till at the Court of the then approaching Christmas he should be able to order Robert (personally) to provide other land for his Son-in-law. But the King himself died during those very festal days (of Christmas), and from that time till now the Church hath lost the land.

[5] Rot. Hundred. II, 70.
[6] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 86.
[1] It is singular that this expression did not prevent the Compilers of Domesday from confusing the entries which belonged to St. Mary's of Bromfield with those which belonged to St. Mary's of Shrewsbury. The cause and extent of that confusion have already been fully explained (Supra, Vol. IV. p. 377).


This land Robert now holds under Earl Roger, and it is waste, and was found waste (by the said Robert). One part with another, the arable land (of the whole XX hides) is sufficient to employ LIIII ox-teams". [2]

It is seldom that Domesday gives us so many traits of personal character, and so many historical allusions as are involved in the above entry. Edward the Confessor, injudicious in his choice of favourites, zealously pious in his intentions, dilatory and irresolute in his actions, is here drawn in outline. The King was attacked by the fever, of which he died, on December 24, 1065. His Court was, as usual at that season of the year, assembled at Westminater, and Edward, though struggling with mortal disease, presided for three days over the festivities. On the 28th he was too ill to witness the consummation of his darling project,- the consecration of Westminster Abbey, and on the 5th of January he died. Thus passed the "festal days" alluded to in Domesday. Other names mentioned in the Domesday notice of Bromfield have a history of their own, and it will be better to take them in chronological order.

SPIRTES, the Canon, who in his day engrossed half the emoluments of this Saxon and Collegiate Church, was himself a Saxon, and is elsewhere called Spiritus, or Spirtes Presbyter. He lived in the reigns of three Saxon Kings, Harold I, Hardicanute, and Edward the Confessor. With the two first he was a special favourite; the last banished him, for what cause is not known. The Herefordshire Domesday refers to a period of the Confessor's reign, when Spirites the Priest held four Manors in that County under the Church of St. Guthlac. At Domesday St. Guthlac had lost the Seigneury of these Manors, and the same Nigel the Physician, who had an interest in Bromfield, held them all, independently of the Church. [3] Again we are told that Spirtes had a rich Brother named Earnwi, who being a layman, was Praepositus under the Church of Worcester, of the Manor of Cotheridge. Earnwi made over Cotheridge to Spirtes, to the intent that Spirtes, when he paid Earnwi a visit, should, in going and returning, have lodging there. When Spirtes was banished, Richard Scrob seized upon Cotheridge, and so the Church of Worcester lost it, and was still dispossessed when Heming, the Worcester Monk, who tells this story, was writing. [4]

The Worcestershire Domesday calls Cotheridge "Codrie", and describes it as a member of the Bishop of Worcester's Manor of

[2] Domesday, fo. 252, b, 2.
[3] Domesday, fo. 183, a, 1.
[4] Monasticon, I, 594.


Gremanhil (Grimley). This part of the Record refers apparently to a period of the Confessor's reign after the banishment of Spirtes, and says that Ricardus (meaning doubtless Richard Scrupe) had then held Codrie by such service as the Bishop required. The Lord of Codrie at the time of Domesday was Osbern fitz Richard (Richard Scrupe's son). [5] His descendants clearly held Cotheridge in capite of the Crown and not of the Bishop, and so far Heming's account seems more accurate even than Domesday. To return to Spirtes, he was also a Canon of the Collegiate Church of St. Alkmund, Shrewsbury. His Prebend therein was Wistanstow, both the Church and the Manor. The Shropshire Domesday refers back to a period of the Confessor's reign when Spirtes Presbyter (not yet an exile), was holding Wistanstow of St. Alkmunds. [6] A monastic memorial of great credibility, tells us nothing of Spirtes' previous banishment, but begins with the fact of Edward the Confessor bestowing the Prebend of Wistanstow on Godric Wiffesune, on whose death, says the same record, Earl Roger gave the Prebend to Nehel, a Clerk, his own Physician. [7] Domesday, in all but perfect harmony, gives Nigel the Physician as Lord of Wistanstow, but holding it of the King, not of Earl Roger. Further particulars of this local subject shall be given under Wistanstow. Of Nigel the Physician we shall also speak elsewhere. His presentation to the benefices, once Spirtes the Priest's, resulted in another instance besides the six already mentioned. Of ROBERT FITZ WIMARC, Spirtes' successor in ten hides of Bromfield, I observe that in King Edward's time he was Lord of the Herefordshire Manor of Torchestone. [8] There can be little doubt, I think, that he was identical with Robert the Deacon, a Norman, who was allowed to remain in England when Edward the Confessor, awed by Earl Godwin and his Sons, expelled the Normans in general. If this identification be accepted as true, then that Son-in-law of Robert fitz Wimarch, whom the Domesday notice of Bromfield mentions without giving his name, can have been no other than Richard Scrupe. I have before adverted to the fact that the Norman Canons, introduced by Earl Roger to English Prebends, were not bound by the laws of celibacy. Under the Saxon rule such an obligation had never, I imagine, been thought of. [9] In

[5] Domesday, fo. 172, b, 2.
[6] Domesday, fo. 260, b, 2.
[7] Lilleshall Chartulary, fo. 100.
[8] Domesday, fo. 186, b, 1.
[9] See History of Shrewsbury, Vol. II. p. 21, for further remarks on this subject. It appears that the Synod of Winchester forbade the marriage of Canons of Collegiate Churches in 1076,- a date which must very nearly tally with some of the earliest of Earl Roger's presentations.


Robert fitz Wimarc we have an instance of a Canon, acknowledged as such by the scrupulous Edward, but who, as a Father-in-Law, must also have been legally a Father.

The Domesday notice of Bromfield requires one more observation. The Record names a certain Robert as Earl Roger's, Tenant of 10 hides in Bromfield, whereas we should have expected that Richard Scrupe, the presumed Son-in-law of Robert fitz Wimarc, and himself a Norman, would have remained undisturbed in this Tenure till his death, and that then Osbern fitz Richard his son, succeeding thereto, would have been seized at Domesday. I find however no subsequent evidence of any such lay tenure in Bromfield as will correspond with these 10 hides. I conclude that Earl Roger, as was his wont, restored them to the Church on proof of its undoubted title.


The Church of St. Mary at the time of Domesday probably preserved much of its Saxon constitution, that of a College of Secular Canons, without any ostensible Head, but damaged somewhat in estate by recent changes. I have shown under Morville and under Wenlock, and shall show in other cases, that it was not the Norman policy to maintain these Saxon institutions on their original plan. How soon a change came upon Bromfield, and what the first change was, are things not easy to determine. A Charter of King Henry II, presently to be cited, speaks of Canons of Bromfield and their Prebends as existing in the time of Henry I, and at his own accession,- as if the Saxon College had in no way been remodelled. However an unvouched authority which speaks of Bromfield as founded in 1105, may possibly allude to some change of that date, [10] and when I find Osbert, Prior of Bromfield, attesting about 1115 an ordinance of the Viceroy Belmeis, [11] and also attesting a grant to Kenilworth Priory, which must have passed between 1130 and 1135, [12] I am assured that his presidency, under the title of Prior, indicates some previous change in the constitution of this Church. A greater change however took place in the reign of Henry II.- A Chronicle of Gloucester Abbey informs us that in 1155 "the Canons of Bromfeld gave up themselves and their Church to the Monkish profession or rule (ad monachatum) of the Church of St. Peter's, Gloucester, by mediation (per manum) of Gilbert Bishop

[10] Monasticon, I, 537, a.
[11] Supra, Vol. III, p. 233.
[12] Monasticon, VI, 231, No. iii.


of Hereford, and authority of Theobald Archbishop of Canterbury, Legate of the Apostolick See". [13] Another account represents the matter as if the Canons actually undertook to pass their monastic life in Gloucester Abbey under the then Abbot,- Hameline. [14] All the names thus mentioned consist with the date alleged (1155), and the result, whatever the mode and process of the change, was that Bromfield became a Benedictine Priory, inhabited by its own Monks, but subject to Gloucester Abbey. This change cannot have been valid without Royal consent; for Henry II, as having by escheat the Palatine Earldom of Shrewsbury, was doubtless Patron of every Canonry in this Collegiate Church. Accordingly we have a Charter of Henry II, on the subject, [15] which (from the witnesses' names) may well have passed in his first year (1155), but which, by its internal evidence, can only be proved to have passed in one of his first fifteen years. It is remarkable that this Charter, though it sanctions a change from Canonicism to Monachism within the Church of Bromfield, reserves the land-tenures of the existent Canons, and says nothing about subjection to Gloucester Abbey, though perhaps the attestation of William Earl of Gloucester may be taken as an indication that the proposed subjection was tacitly recognized. The King calls the Church of St. Mary of Bromfeld his own, and gives it to a Prior and Monks already located there (ibidem Deo servientibus),- to hold of himself and his heirs in pure almoign, as a chapel of royal demesne (sicut nostram dominicam capellam), [16] with all its prebends (which he enumerates), and saving

[13] [14] Monasticon, IV, 155, No. i; and Vol. I, p. 545.
[15] Monasticon, IV, 155, Num. ii.

I find another Charter of Henry II, to Bromfield Priory;- inspected and confirmed by his Grandson Henry III, and transcribed on the Shropshire Forest-Roll of 46 Hen. III, (m. 3 dorso). As regards the territory secured to the Monks, this Charter is not quite so full as the above; but it gives them license to assart, and otherwise do as they pleased, with their own woods, and it specially takes their Bosc of Doddinghope out of Regard, the same "having previously been within the bounds of the King's Forest". This Charter is attested by T. Chancellor, that is by Thomas a Becket. It passed therefore (see Vol. I, p. 291), between 1155 and 1158.
[16] The precise effect of this expression was well understood at the time. It meant that Bromfield, in whatever state (Collegiate or Monastic), was exempt from Episcopal Jurisdiction. So Bishop Gilbert Foliot interpreted and accepted the King's Charter in another of his own. Therein he acknowledged not only his own want of Jurisdiction over Bromfield Priory, but that the Prior was not obliged to find him Procuration except as a matter of favour. This I learn from the valuable annotations of the editor of Bishop Swinfield's Household Roll (Vol. II, p. clxxxviii, note). From the same source I conclude that Henry II's Charter to Bromfield must have passed within the first nine years of his reign; for Bishop Foliot, who thus indorsed it, was translated to London in 1163.


the life-tenures of the existing Canons, as aforesaid. After the deaths of these Canons the prebendal lands were to revert to the proper uses and demesne of the said Chapel and the Brethren there, with all franchises, quittances, free-customs, and royal dignities. Witnesses,- Hyllary Bishop of Chichester, Reginald Earl of Cornwall, William Earl of Gloucester, and Richard de Humez Constable (of Normandy).- Dated at London. This Charter of King Henry II names four Canons of Bromfield, and intimates that there were other Canons (unnamed) in a similar position, viz. as having held or still holding Prebends in Bromfeld Hurnisse, either in the time of King Henry I, or of King Henry II himself. The Canons named are-

Frethericus clericus de Bureford, i.e. Frederick de Burford, Clerk.

Robertus Calemon de Pontesbyr, i.e. Robert Calemon of Pontsbury.

Edricas presbyter de Bromfield, i.e. Edric de Bromfield, Priest.

Robertus presbyter de Feltune, i.e. Robert de Felton, Priest.

The expression Bromfeld Hurnisse [17] is interpreted by the Charter itself. It meant "all the lands and vills of Haverford (Halford), and of Dudingehope (Dinchope), and of Efford (Ashford [18]), and of Feltune (Rye Felton and Clay Felton), and of Burgeheye (Burway), and of Lethewic (Lower Ledwich), and three Prebends in Bromfield, and three Prebends in Halintone (Hill-Halton, Lady-Halton, and Priors-Halton).

A subsequent Charter, or rather Precept, was issued by King Henry II in favour of the "Prior and Monks of his Church of St. Mary of Bromfeld". The attestation of Geoffrey Bishop of Ely, fixes the date of this Charter as between 1174 and 1189. It enjoins that the said Prior and Monks shall have free and peaceable power of venery [19] in their Bosc of Mouhtre (Mocktree) and the Bosc of Ailricheswude, viz. from Whitebroc as far as the fount of Werebroc, and in their Bosc of Kanerwude and of Dudingehope, and in their Bosc of Esrugge, viz. from Eilsichewey even into Ludeford, along the road called the Rugwey. The King also wills that the said Prior and Monks hold well and peaceably their Haye in their aforesaid

[17] The word hurnisse or harness which is sometimes found thus compounded with the names of places is in reality the Saxon Hyrnes, i.e. a parish, a province, that which is aubject or obedient,- derived from the verb Hyran, to hear, to obey.
[18] Thie place is now lost. It existed at the Dissolution.
[19] The word "venationem" is printed donacionem in the Monasticon;- to the absolute mystification of the whole Charter.


bosc of Moctre, with the land and pasture of Beneth, so freely and quietly, in all respects pertaining to a Free-Haye, as that there shall be no road for man or beast through the said Haye.

To some of the localities here indicated I shall have to revert in the sequel. At present I follow the main but disjointed History of the Priory itself. In 1188 I find it designated as the "little Cell of Brumfeld", by Giraldus the Historian, who passed hereby in company with Archbishop Baldwin, after preaching the Crusade in the West. [20]

In 1203 and 1208 Elias Prior of Bromfield occurs in some law-proceedings which I shall detail hereafter.

At the Gloucester Assizes of 1221 the Abbot of Gloucester was suing William Falconer and others in a plea of pasture. It appears that William Falconer represented the joint communities of Ludlow and Stanton Lacy, the real Defendants in this suit. It was adjourned, the men of Ludlow making Ralph Aurifaber their Attorney, and the men of Stanton naming Robert de Stanton as theirs. It is obvious that the interests in dispute were those of Bromfield Priory.

A Patent of May 26, 1228, expresses the King's assent to the election of Henry, late Prior of Bromfeld, as Abbot of Gloucester. On July 16, 1235, King Henry III inspected and confirmed the two Charters of his Grandfather above described. [21] The Prior and Convent of Bromfield paid 100s. for this confirmation. [22]

In 1243 we have an instance of the subject condition of this Priory; for the Abbot of Gloucester endeavours by suit-at-law to regain certain lands in Bromfield, on the ground that Elyas, former Prior of Bromfield, had demised the same without consulting the Chapter of Gloucester. The Munslow Inquisition of 1255 says that the Prior of Bromfeld claimed to have certain franchises in Bromfeld. He had gallows, held pleas of blood-shed, and hue and cry; he assized beer, and tried local causes under a writ de recto. [23] On January 18, 1257, the Prior of Bromfield has the King's letters of protection for ten years. At the Assizes of 1292 the Munslow Jurors presented the Prior as claiming Free-Warren in Bromfield. The Prior defended his right under Henry II's Charter, which Charter was also taken to imply a right of Infangthef;- and it was

[20] Giraldus Cambrensis, Liber II, Cap. iii. Wenlock, Bromfield, Ludlow, Leominster, and Hereford, were the last places visited by this Mission.
[21] Rot. Cart. 19 Hen. III, m. 5.
[22] Rot. Pip. 20 Hen. III, Salop.
[23] Rot. Hundred. II, 72.


shown that in virtue of the last, one Henry de la Chapele had been hanged in Bromfield for theft, being tried and condemned by the Prior.

I refer elsewhere for the names of some of the last Priors of Bromfeld, [24] as also for a proof that its subjection to Gloucester Abbey continued till the Dissolution, and how its possessions were then disposed of. [25]

BROMFIELD MANOR.- Something should be said generally of the Manor and such of its members as were usually held in demesne by the Monks. It is impossible to enumerate all these members with certainty, but Burway, Clay-Felton, Rye Felton, Whitbatch, Halford, and Dinchope, were surely of the number; whilst Priors Halton, Lady-Halton, and places called Chapel and Ashford, were less positively so. Of members alienated by early feoffment, I shall speak separately hereafter. I here give first an instance of feoffment hardly amounting to alienation.-

In Hilary Term 1243 the Abbot of Gloucester commenced the suit above alluded to, viz. against Robert de Wudeton, for 30 acres of arable land and 10 acres of bosc in Bromfeud, which the Abbot alleged to have been unlawfully demised by a former Prior of Bromfield to William de Wudeton the Defendant's Father. Robert de Wudeton's defence was that the premises were in Wudeton,- a manor which he (Robert) held under Walter de Lacy (meaning Walter de Lacy's heirs). [26] The Fine which resulted left Robert de Wudeton Tenant-in-fee of the premises, paying a rent of 3s. to the Abbot. The other particulars I have given under Onibury. [27] In 1255 the Prior of Bromfeud is said in the Munslow Inquest to hold the vill of Bromfeud with its appurtenances, of the frank almoign of King Henry II. This tenure was estimated at five hides, and the Prior did no Suit either to County or Hundred for the same, having, as was alleged, a chartered franchise. [28] The Feodary of 1284 gives the Prior as holding the Manor of Bromfeld with its members, of the King in capite, but by unknown services.

The Taxation of 1291 gives the following estimate of the Prior of Bromfield's income as Lord of this Manor, and as holding much of it in demesne.- Eight carucates of land yielded 4. per annum. The hay (ten loads at 1s. 6d.) was worth 15s. The assized rents and tallage of natives amounted to 22. 13s. 4d. The Pleas and

[24] Dukes's Antiquities, p. 116.
[25] Monasticon, IV, 154-157.
[26] Placita, Hilary Term, 27 Hen. III, m. 11.
[27] Supra, p. 56.
[28] Rot. Hundred. II, 70.


perquisites of Court, the labour-dues, and the fines (on copyhold lands) were 3. The pannage of swine yielded 2s., and three Mills yielded 3. These temporalities amounted to 33. 10s. 4d. per annum, an income increased by 7. 2s. from profits on Stock (8 cows and 260 ewe-sheep). Total, 40. 12s. 4d. [29]

The Nomina Villarum of 1316 gives the Prior of Bromfield as Lord of the Vill. [30]

In 1534-5 the Income of the Priory appears to have been mainly derived from the Manor of Bromfield and its adjuncts. A few items came from external sources, but I shall include them here, both for the sake of compression and because the non-existence of any Bromfield Chartulary prevents my tracing the external acquisitions of the Priory to their sources,- an investigation which, could it have been pursued, might have added something to the history of the other places in question. According to the Valor the Prior's assized rents from customary and Free Tenants were,-

. s. d. In Bromfelde (that is, Bromfield proper): 10 18 8 In Burway, Chapel, [31] and Clay Felton: 5 4 8 In Whitebach: 6 13 4 In Rye Felton: 9 19 4 In Dodingthorpe (i.e. Dinchope and perhaps Halford): 3 3 8 In Leddewiche (i.e. Lower Ledwich): 4 0 0

The above were all in Bromfield Parish.

The Valuation thereof seems to have been held to be too low, at all events a sum of: 10 18 4 must be added to these items in order to produce the eventual total. The remaining income was, -From Rent of certain land in Overton-field in the Parish of Richard's Castle (Herefordshire): 0 2 0

From corn-tithes of Hawkeford (probably Halford), and Dodinghope (Dinchope) in Bromfield Parish: 2 0 0

From corn-tithes of Priors Halton and Ludford [32]: 2 13 4

[29] Pope Nich. Taxation, pp. 163, 164.
[30] Parliamentary Writs, IV. 397.
[31] This locality I cannot trace.
[32] The reason that these two places are thus coupled was probably that the tithes were farmed by the same person.-

Ludford was originally in Bromfield Parish, and its Church a Chapel to Bromfield. This very account gives among the outgoings of the Priory a salary of 2. payable to the Chaplain who officiated at Ludford.


. s. d.

From corn and hay-tithes of Lower Ledwich, Sheet, and Steventon [33]: 3 10 0 Corn and hay-tithes of St. Mary's Halton of Hyll [34]: 2 1 0 Corn and hay-tithes of Burway, Chapell, Whitbach, and Rye-Felton: 4 0 0 Corn and hay-tithes of Clay-Felton, Assheforde, [35] Bromfield, and Cookeridge: 6 13 4 A portion of the corn-tithes of Stokesay [36]: 0 8 4 Issue of lands in hand, appropriated to the hospice of the Priory: 3 13 4 Rent of a water-mill and Fishery in Bromfield: 2 3 4 Perquisites of the local Court: 0 16 8

Total: 78 19 4 [37]


I know not whether the Priory-Church was distinct from the Parish-Church, but suppose that it was. The Parish of Bromfield was evidently one of Saxon origin, involving Ludford, and all the modern Parish of Ludford, also Halford and its Parish, and we know not what more beside.

Bishop Swinfield, in his Visitation of 1290, was at Bromfield on April 26. He received nothing in the name of Procuration from the Prior of Bromfield, whose peculiar privileges exempted him from any such dues. Forage for the horses of the Bishop's Suite was however provided by the Prior as a gift. Swinfield's other expenses on this day were 1. 19s. 3d., and he paid them himself. [38]

The Taxation of 1291 puts down the Church of Brompfield (in the Deanery of Ludlow) as the Prior's own, that is, the Prior was Rector. His income in that respect was 23. 6s. 8d. Besides this the Parish Church furnished a Vicar's portion of less than 4., and a portion to the Prior of Wenlock of 1. [39]

[33] Sheet, Steventon, and Lower Ledwich, anciently in Bromfield Parish, are now annexed to Ludford.
[34] Halton beatae Maria de Hyll, now Lady Halton.
[35] This Ashford was in Bromfield Parish, and must, I think, have been near Bromfield. It was probably the Efford named in Henry II's Charter. I cannot trace it in any modern locality.
[36] Vide Supra, pp. 41, 42.
[37] Valor Ecclesiasticus, II, 422.
[38] Household Roll (Camden Soc.), p. 78.
[39] Pope Nich. Taxation, p.166, b. The Portion of Wenlock was devoted to the Pittance of the Monks. A Portion in Stokesay Church was possessed by Wenlock, and another by the Prior of Bromfield.


[For engraving, see pdf.]


In the assessment of 1341 the Taxation of Bromfield Church is erroneously and unaccountably quoted as 26 merks, i.e. 17. 13s. 4d. The assessment of the Parish purporting to be grounded on this Taxation, exposes but does not correct the error. The Assessors rated the Parish at 9. to the Ninth of wheat, wool, and lamb, adding that they had considered the non-cultivation of 4 carucates of land in the Parish; also that the Glebe was worth 10., the hay-tithes worth 1., the small tithes, offerings, and profits 3. [40] Such an estimate was more probably founded on the real taxation of the Church (about 28. 6s. 8d.) than on the ostended one of 17. 13s. 4d.

The Value of the Rectory of Bromfield in 1534-5 has already been given in effect, or may be gathered from the account of the Prior's Tithes. A Pension of 1. thereon was still payable to Wenlock Priory. The Bishop of Hereford was now avowedly entitled to Procurations at his triennial visitation of this Church,- a charge averaging 1. 11s. 1d. per annum. Also the Archdeacon of Salop had 6s. 8d. annually for his Procurations. Further the Prior is said to pay an annual pension of 2. 13s. 4d. to the Perpetual Vicar of Bromfelde for his table. [41]

The Valuation of the Vicarage (then held by John Tylar) takes no notice of this last receipt, but states the Vicar's income from tithes to be 6. 10s. only;- which sum was burdened by procurations of 6s. 8d., and Bishop's Visitation-fees at the rate of 17s. 9d. per annum;- leaving the Vicar's net income as 5. 5s. 7d. [42]


SIR THOMAS DE BROMFEUD, Chaplain, was instituted to this Vicarage 12 Feb. 1285. Patrons, the Abbot and Convent of Gloucester.

SIR ROGER PHUS (perhaps Philipps), instituted 20 August, 1369. Same Patrons.

SIR RICHARD MARTYN, Chaplain, instituted 31 May, 1384. Same Patrons.

SIR WILLIAM LYDUM, late Vicar of Clifford, instituted 22 March, 1386. Same Patrons.

SIR GEOFFREY WHYTE, instituted 20 Oct. 1390. Same Patrons. On 10 Sept. 1395 this Vicar exchanges preferments with-

[40] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 188.
[41] Valor Ecclesiasticus, II, 422.
[42] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 202.


THOMAS KYNOWE, late Rector of St. Michael of Estymllewyn (Landav. Dioc.). He is called Sir Thomas Kenner on his resignation in 1415.

LITTLE BROMFIELD alias SIMON'S BROMFIELD. Simon Gernun, whom I shall presently show attesting a Bromfield Charter of the twelfth Century, was, I think, Lord of this place, and Father of the person usually called Robert fitz Simon, of whom I have further particulars.-

The King's Justices, in the Autumn of 1203, visited Shrewsbury, Worcester, Gloucester, and Oxford, in succession. At each place some steps were taken in a double suit wherein Elyas, Prior of Bromfield, and Robert fitz Simon were the Litigants. The Prior sued the Layman under a plea of fine levied, and under a plea of land. The particulars of the latter only are given. It was for half a hide of land in Bromfield which the Prior claimed to hold of the King in frank almoign as the right of his Church of Bromfield. [43] The result at Oxford was that Robert fitz Simon put himself on a Grand Assize, which was to say who had the better right, he or the Prior. This caused an adjournment to the next Eyre in Shropshire. [43] That was in November 1208, when Ralph de Ardern and his associates visited the County. Their general proceedings are not extant, but their Fines are. The recognition of Grand Assize above mentioned was thus terminated.- The Prior allowed the right of Robert fitz Simon (Tenant) to the said half hide;- to hold to him and his heirs, of the capital Lord. He however and his heirs were to pay the Prior and his Successors one pound of frankincense yearly at the Nativity of the Virgin, in quittance of all claims of the said Prior and his Successors. I should observe that the Capital Lord above alluded to was not the Prior, but evidently the Lord holding immediately over Robert fitz Simon, and so holding mediately between him and the Prior. Who this Mesne Lord was at the time, I cannot say, but we shall presently discover evidence that the subinfeudations so common at the time, had been introduced on these estates of the Church. Simon's Bromfield was so called, I presume, from Simon the father of Robert fitz Simon.

In Hilary Term 1243 it was ordered by the Courts at Westminster that the Sheriff of Shropshire should summon a Jury and proceed to make Perambulation between the lands of Robert de Wudeton

[43] Assizes, 5 John, membranes 4 dorso, 6 recto, 3 dorso. The Son of Robert fitz Simon and William de Linghend (a Bromfield Monk) are mentioned as Attorneys for the parties.


and Hugh de Bromfeud. This having been done, it was further ordered that the Perambulation should be embodied in a Chyrograph, and that the Litigants should attend to receive their counterparts of the said Chyrograph when the Justices in Eyre next visited Shropshire. The reason of the delay was because "there were many Lords in the Vills where the disputed lands lay, and it would thus appear whether the said Lords were willing to sink (apponere) their claims or not".

I suppose the main question here to have been one of boundary between Walton and Onibury on the one hand, and Simon's Bromfield on the other, but that there were contingent interests to be guarded. Hugh de Bromfield, of whom I find no other mention, was I presume Lord of Simon's Bromfield, but how related to Robert fitz Simon I cannot say. Probably he was a Gernon.

Robert fitz Simon seems to have been represented in 1255 by one Walter Gernum, whom the Munslow Jurors reported to be then holding half a hide of land in Simon's-Bromfeud of Henry de Fraxino. Walter de Gernon did suit to Munslow Hundred, and paid the King 6d. annually for stretward and motfee. [44] Thus we see that lands which, except by a nominal rent were alienated from the Church, lost their original privileges. In this case the suit and service originally due at the Prior's Court at Bromfield were exacted elsewhere, and in other forms. In 1284 the representative of Walter de Gernon in Bronsfeld parva, as it is called, was William fitz Hugh. He held the vill for the eighth part of a knight's-fee under Hugh de Freyne (i.e. Fraxino), and Hugh held it under Emfred (i.e. Humphrey) de Bohun. Emfred de Bohun is further said to hold it of the King, [45]- so completely had the mesne-interest of Bromfield Priory been effaced. By Emfred de Bohun I presume we must understand the cotemporary Earl of Hereford. How the Bohuns obtained an interest here is another question. The family of Du Fresne, or De Fraxino, held largely under the Bohuns elsewhere. It would seem that the Tenant of a small Manor or Vill, though he might succeed in getting rid of one Seigneural Lord, was by law, custom, or his own interest, obliged to adopt another, and in respect of that particular holding. Such a power or necessity is often alluded to in Domesday, but I have found no declared instance of its exercise in later records. But to continue.- William fitz Hugh, of Bromfield, was at the Assizes of 1292 one of the two Munslow Jurors who had to elect their fellows. In 1300 one Roger de Bromfield,

[44] Rot. Hundred. II, 70.
[45] Kirby's Quest.


I think of the same family, occurs as having an interest in Stevinton, and again in 1318-9 a Charter of Free Warren, obtained by John de Bromfield, extended to lands both in Bromfield and Ste venton. [44]

At the Dissolution of the Monasteries all distinction between Bromfield proper and Simon's Bromfield seems to have vanished. The latter Vill had somehow been regained by the Priory, but I do not know that even its situation can now be traced.

WEST HALTON, now LITTLE HALTON.- The following Deed exhibits an early Lord of Halton, not I think holding under the Prior of Bromfield, but in some other way of which we have no evidence.- Robert son of Radulf de Halenctune, with the assent of his heirs, and for the souls' health of himself, his ancestors and successors, gives in pure almoign to the Church of St. Mary of Bromfelde, and to the Prior and Monks thereof, all his share in the Moor of Wulnroughale, viz. that part which lies between the old foss and the bank of Hemedg (or Nemedg). He also concedes full power of assarting the same. Witnesses,- Robert de Cuwerne, Simon Gernun, Walter de Capella, Henry Mile, Pagan de Acley, Gregory Priest (Sacerdote), John Clerk. [47] This Deed I can only judge from its writing to have passed at the close of the twelfth Century.

In or about 1210 a second Ralph de Halton seems, from what I shall have to say under Wofferton, to have succeeded to the estates of his family.

Adam de Halton was Lord of this Vill as well as of Oakley in 1221. His position seems to have been like that of his neighbour at Simon's Bromfield. He was to all appearance independent of the Prior. What feudal obligations he was under instead, must be gathered from the sequel.

In November 1221 a suit of mort d'ancestre which William Gernun had against Adam de Halegton for a half virgate in Halegton, resulted in a Fine.- William renounced his claim, and Adam in return gave and conceded to William 16 acres of the premises, [48] to hold in fee, of the Grantor, at a rent of 20d. in lieu of all, except forinsec, services. [48]

The successor of Adam de Halton was a second Robert de Halton,

[46] Rot. Cart. 12 Edw. II, No. 62.
[47] Facsimile by T.F. Dukes, Esq. (in Bibl. Bodl.).
[48] Described as situated in Chissemoresich, and on Schelefurlong, and near Jungalres, Ulebot-Wodwinesich, and Sundermore.
[49] Pedes Finium, 6 Hen. III, Salop.


who occurs about 1280, and in 1246 was amerced 40d. for failing in some suit or attendance (quia non venit). Soon afterwards Robert de Halton enfeoffed his son Simon, both in West Halton and in Oakley. In 1254 I find Simon de Haleweton fining 20s. for some Writ. In 1255 Simon de Alton appears as a Juror on the Inquest of Munslow Hundred, and, as Simon de Halton, is said to hold West Halhton of Robert his Father. The tenure was half a hide of land. Simon did suit to Munslow Hundred, and paid the King 6d. annually for stretward and motfee. [49]

At the Assizes of January 1256, Simon de Alton was again a Munslow Juror. At these Assizes Margery, apparently Simon's Sister, but only called daughter of Robert de Halton, sued Robert de Halton (I suppose her own father) for disseizing her of a tenement in Halton, viz. 15 acres and a curtilage. Her suit failed, but she being under age, her amercement was excused. [50]

Six months later and Robert de Halton was dead; for on July 26, 1256, a Patent orders trial of a suit of mort d'ancestre which Stephen Drak had against Simon de Halucton and Johanna widow of Robert de Halucton, for half a knight's-fee in Halucton.

In August 1257 I find Robert Dovill and his wife suing Simon de Haluton for disseizing them of a tenement in Haluton. In the same year Simon de Haleghton was one of twelve Jurors who fined 40s. in atonement of some trespass or wrong, done by themselves. In 1259 Simon de Halton was on the Inquest held on decease of William de Stuteville. At the Assizes of 1272 Simon de Hakinton, as he is called, was one of the two who chose their fellow Jurors for Munslow Hundred.

The Feodary of 1284 gives Simon de Halaton as holding the vills of Halaton and Okeleye for half a knight's-fee of Edmund de Mortimer, who held them of the King. [51] How Mortimer of Wigmore obtained ingress here is much the same question as De Bohun's ingress in Simon's-Bromfield.

The following notices relate probably to Halton's UNDERTENANTS here.- In 1255 Hugh de Halton was a Defaulter in attendance at the Munslow Inquest. [52]

In Michaelmas Term 1269, Nicholas Orm is suing William de Corfton for a moiety of 24 acres in Halcton. Also William fitz Richard is suing Richard de la Chapele for a moiety of 2 acres in

[49] Rot. Hundred. II, 70.
[50] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 2 dorso.
[51] Kirby's Quest.
[52] Rot. Hundred. II, 70.


Haleton. [53] At the Assizes of 1272 Henry son of Ralph le Pestur and Alice his wife, renounce for 60s. a suit of mort d'ancestre which they had against Philip le Moneur of Ludlow, for a moiety of 6 acres in Overton and Halaton.

Again the same Plaintiffs together with Agnes daughter of Thomas de la Chapele, renounce for two merks, their claim against William fitz Milo for 5 acres in Overton. [54] Their renunciation was to bind themselves and the heirs of Alice and Agnes,- probably sisters and coheiresses.

HILL HALTON.- I suppose it was this place which, under the name of La Hull, was affected by the following Fines, but under whom the parties held I cannot say.

On July 1, 1302, Nicholas de Rigate, Deforciant, surrenders a messuage, 69 acres of land, 1 acre of meadow, and 4 acres of Bosc in La Hull juxta Bromfield, to William de la Hulle and Alice his wife, whereof was plea of convention. The Plaintiffs pay 20. and are in future to hold the premises under the Lords of the Fee. In Easter Term, 1305, John de Horsned and Constancia his wife, and Hugh Body and Alianore his wife, for themselves and the heirs of Constancia and Alianore, concede to the same William and Alice, Plaintiffs, two Mills in La Hull for 100s.,- whereof was Plea of Convention. [55]

OAKLEY.- The Haltons held Oakley, as I have already intimated under West Halton. Their tenure of the two is distinguished in the Munslow Inquisition of 1255, merely by Acley being stated to contain a quarter of a hide, and consequently to pay 3d. for Stretward and Motfee. Its tenure by Simon de Halton under his father Robert, and his obligation to do suit to Munslow Hundred, are the same as at West Halton.

What I have else to say of Oakley chiefly concerns Halton's Undertenants there. One of these, Pagan de Acley, has occurred

[53] Placita, 53 Hen. III, memb. 1.
[54] Placita Finium, 56 Hen. III, Salop. The Prior of Bromfield had land in Overton, near Richard's Castle. It was probably his Tenants there who were thus at issue.
[55] Pedes Finium, 30 and 33 Edw. I, Salop.-

William de la Hulle, party to these Fines, was surely identical with the person who was Lord of, and took his name from, Hulle near Burford. The coincidence of his having property in two places of the same name, was perhaps the reason why those places are distinguished in two Fines, as "Hulle near Bromfield", and "Hulle near Hyntes" (Vide supra, Vol. IV, p. 345). The second of the Fines, quoted above in the text, marks no such distinction, and consequently there may be a question as to which Hulls was the place concerned.


above, attesting a Deed, I think of the twelfth Century. The same or another Pagan de Acle sued Adam de Halton in 1221 for disseizing him of common-pasture in Acle. He was non-suited, and Roger de Buterley stood Surety for his amercement. [56]

In 1228 Pagan de Acle fines for license to accord some law-suit. His successor seems to have been Adam de Oakley, who was deceased before May 1259, when Richard son of Adam de Oclee, takes out a Writ of mort d'ancestre against Simon de Halton for a tenement in Oclee. [57] The result is not recorded, but we find the same Richard fitz Adam taking out similar Writs in November 1259, and February 1261. [58]

Again in Easter Term 1260, Geva, widow of Adam de Okeley, sues Simon de Halton for her dower, viz. a third of a messuage and 7 acres in Okeley. Simon pleaded that the deceased was his Villain, but the Jury found him to have been a Free Tenant. So Geva recovered her dower. [59]

BURWAY.- In 1194 Richard de Patesbi had a suit with Robert the Prior and the Convent of Brunfeld for a virgate in Burgeia. In the Curia Regis he acknowledged the said virgate to be the pure and free almoign of the Church of St. Mary; for which quit-claim the Prior undertook to pay the said Richard an annuity of 4 merks for life, but on his death the Prior was to have the premises quit of all obligation.

The Prior of Bromfield took the unusual precaution of having this Quit-claim recorded on the Great Roll; for which privilege he paid 1 merk to the Crown. At the foot of the Shropshire Pipe-Roll of the sixth year of Richard I, the Memorandum is still to be seen.

Possibly Henry Mile, who, sooner or later than this, attests the Deed given under West Halton, was a Tenant in Burway. Again Henry Mile of Ludlow, a Juror for Munslow Hundred at the Inquest of 1255, and the Assizes of 1256, was so, I think, in respect of a feoffment in Burway, but under whom he held I cannot say. In November 1258 John le Mercer, Plaintiff, quit-claims by Fine, and for 40s., a suit which he had against Henry Mile, Tenant of half a virgate and 9 acres in Borwey Halhton. [60]

HALFORD. [61]- Of Halford and Dinchope, as an estate held by the

[56] Assizes, 6 Hen. III, memb. 5.- At these Assizes Hawise de Acle, wife of William the Porter of Bromfield, was found to have been murdered by Philip de Venur.
[57] [58] Patent. 43, 44, and 45 Hen. III, dorsis
[59] Placita, Pasch. Term, 44 Hen. III, m. 1.
[60] Pedes Finium, 43 Hen. III, Salop.
[61] I am by no means sure that it is right thus to classify Halford and Dinchope as constituents of the 20 hides which formed the Domesday Manor of Bromfield. The question is one which, notwithstanding the dearth of evidence on either side, must probably recur again; for if Halford and Dinchope were not members of the Domesday Bromfield they must be reconsidered under another Hundred than that of Culvestan.


Priors of Bromfield in demesne, I have already said all that can be expected to transpire as to lands so occupied. The estate however was comparatively distant from the Parish Church of Bromfield, and so Halford had its-

CHAPEL, dependent indeed on Bromfield Church, but which attests to this day its own antiquity. No written Record corroborates this more interesting testimony, and all that I can learn of Halford Chapel previous to the Dissolution is that in 1534-5 its Chaplain was receiving a pension of 2. per annum, for his services there, at the hands of the Prior of Bromfield. [62]



[For table, see Cutestornes]

[62] Valor Ecclesiasticus, II, 422.
[1] E.G. Ashford Bowdler, Overton, Batchcott, Moor, etc. (ut infra).


[For engraving, see pdf.]


Cutestornes Hundred, Herefordshire.

THE above Table indicates but one part of an undoubted fact, viz. that the Domesday boundaries between Herefordshire and Shropshire have been to a great extent altered. Shropshire, at the time of Domesday, contained several Manors which are now in Herefordshire;- but of that elsewhere. Conversely, we see from the above Table that parts of a district which Domesday places in the Herefordshire Hundred of Cutestornes are now in Shropshire.

It is the latter district which I now propose to survey according to the plan indicated by the said Table. I should observe however that though Ludford appears on the Table, it is not thereby suggested that Ludford has ever been included in Shropshire. Mention of the place was necessary to a synoptical view of the subject before us, and must frequently occur in connection with the details on which I now propose to enter.

Richard's Castle, formerly Auretone.

THE Castle, thus named from Richard Scrupe its Founder, was in Herefordshire, where also the Vill of Richard's Castle still remains. But the greater part of the territory once attached to this Castle, is now in Shropshire, and to introduce any intelligible notice thereof I must first say something of the whole Lordship. It is thus noticed in two passages of the Domesday Survey.- After Ludeforde (held by Osbern fitz Richard and placed in Cutestornes Hundred) the Record says,- "The same Osbern has XXIII men in Castle-Auretone, and they pay (him) 10s. This Castle is worth to him 20s. (per annum)". [1] I suppose some little territory was annexed to the Castle at the time, and the garrison fermed half thereof.

Another passage of the Herefordshire Domesday gives as "the land of Robert Gernon, Larpol, in Ulfei Hundred". Robert Gernon

[1] Domesday, fo. 186, b, 2.


held it of the King. Richard Scrupe had held it in Saxon times. It was III hides. (The later name of this place is Yarpole.) Then follows, under Cutestorn Hundred, this entry,- "The same Robert (Gernon) holds five and a half hides in the Chatellany (castellaria) of Auretone. Richard held it (in Saxon times). This land is not geldable. In demesne there are V ox-teams, and there are XXXIIII Villains, VI Boors and a Smith, with XV ox-teams among them all, and they pay 20s. (per annum). Here are X Serfs and a Mill rendering four measures (modios) of corn (annonae) and XV sticks of Eels. The value in time of King Edward, and since, and now, was and is 7". [2]

It is clear to me that the Richard here mentioned as owner of the Chatellany in Saxon times was Richard Scrupe. Of Robert Gernon all that I have further to say is that he held of the King 13 Manors in Hertfordshire, 9 in Cambridgeshire, 2 in Middlesex, and 1 in Buckinghamshire, but that after Domesday we never hear of him in connection with Herefordshire. It is difficult to account for his tenure of Larpole and the Chatellany of Auretone, because, at the period of Domesday, Osbern, the son and heir of Richard Scrupe, was under no forfeiture, but generally stood in succession to his Father's Manors. Certain however it is that both Yarpole and the Chatellany of Auretone returned to Osbern fitz Richard or his heirs, and that the name of their original owner was revived. The whole district was in fact called The Honour of Richard's Castle, a term which must be taken to include whatever land was attached to the Castle itself at Domesday and already in the hands of Osbern fitz Richard or his men.

The next account which I have of this district speaks only of the Herefordshire part thereof. That, in 1243, was reputed to be three hides. John Esturmi, Richard de Kinardesley, and Jordan de Ludeford, were enfeoffed therein, their services being a half, a fourth, and a fourth, of a Knight's-fee respectively. [3] These feoffments had been granted by Robert de Mortimer, and therefore before 1220.

I now turn to the Shropshire constituent of the Honour of Richard's Castle. This, in 1255, contained five hides, four of which were then in the hands of seven distinct Feoffees. The fifth hide, Wollerton, was held by Sir William de Stutevill, in demesne. The five

[2] Domesday, fo. 185, a, 2.
[3] Testa de Nevill, pp. 66-68. Jordan de Ludeford also held Ludeford (a hide) under Ichenard de Aumerugge, who held of the Honour of Richard's Castle;- but Ludford is not included in the three hides noticed in the text.


hides collectively were called the Franchalimot of Wollerton. "William de Stutevill", said the Jurors of Munslow Hundred, enjoyed a Franchise here which dated further back than any man's memory, but his warranty the Jurors knew not. He did Suit to neither County or Hundred, but of the ground of his exemption they were equally ignorant. [4] Connecting this with what Domesday had said about 5 hides in the Chatellany of Auretone not being geldable, the coincidence is striking, and perhaps we are informed why the Domesday notice of Osbern fitz Richard's interest in the residue was so meagre. Some prescriptive independence may have preserved the full details from the scrutiny of the Commissioners. At the Assizes of 1292 the Munslow Jurors reported that Hugh son and heir of Robert de Mortimer, being then a Minor and in Custody of the Earl of Warwick, claimed free-warren in Wolferton.

I now proceed to give account of the several Vills or Estates which formed the Shropshire part of the Honour of Richard's Castle.-

WOOLVERTON, WOLLERTON, or WOOFFERTON, already mentioned, retains something of its ancient status; for though in the Shropshire Hundred of Munslow, it is in the Herefordshire Parish of Richard's Castle.

A Feodary of the Honour of Richard's Castle, drawn up about 1210 gives Ralph de Halictone as holding one-twentieth of a fee thereof. [5] This was in Woolverton; for a later Feodary (about 1230) gives Robert de Halton as holding the same twentieth in Wolferton. [6] Also at the latter period Pagan Carbonel held another part of Wolverton by one fourth part of a fee.

De Halton's Feoffment here seems afterwards to have reverted to the Seignoral Lord, but Carbonel's continued; so that, from the Hundred-Roll of 1255, we must not conclude that all Woolerton was in the demesne of William de Stuteville. The Feodary of 1284 gives William Carbonel as holding fee of Robert de Mortimer in the Vill of Wolferton, which Vill Mortimer held in capite for a whole Fee. [7] And again, on Robert de Mortimer's death in 1287, William Carbonel held a carucate in Wulferton, of 10s. annual value, for one-fourth of a Knight's-Fee. [8] So also in 1304 an Inquest states William Carbonel's chief-rent for Wulfreton to be 12d. and Ranulph Carbonel's 1d., [9] and another Inquest, in 1308, makes William Carbonell Tenant of fee in Wolferton. [10] Those whom I

[4] Rot. Hundred. II, 69.
[5] [6] Liber Ruber, cxxxviij, cxiv. The Haltons have occurred already (supra, p.220).
[7] Kirby's Quest.
[8] Inquisitions, 15 Edw. I, No. 15, m. 4 dorso.
[9] Inquisitions, 32 Edw. I, No. 48.
[10] Inquisitions, 1 Edw. II, No. 59


have now to speak of were probably Carbonel's UNDER-TENANTS here.

At the Assizes of 1221 Edith, as daughter and heir of Robert de Wulferton, sued Pagan Carbonell for a virgate in Wulferton under Writ of mort d'ancestre. The Defendant got judgment on the grounds that he was not Tenant of the whole premises,- having enfeoffed two Undertenants, viz. Pagan de Wulfreton and Ralph Goldsmith (Aurifaber) in a few acres thereof. [11] By a subsequent Fine he conceded two-thirds of the virgate to the Plaintiff,- to hold in Fee, for 4s. rent. The Capital Messuage and remaining third were to continue his, but he gave another messuage in the vill, in lieu of the capital messuage, and covered by the reserved rent. It appears that Ralph Goldsmith thus occurring, sold a messuage and noke in Wolferton to Richard fitz Roese, which Richard, his first wife Matilda being dead, was married at the time of this purchase to a second wife Hillaria, who was jointly enfeoffed, by the Charter of the Vendor. Hillaria had a daughter Sibil, who became wife of Adam Berde, and these two, together with one William le Tayllur, were holding the premises in 1256. Then Richard de Brumfeud, as son and heir of Richard fitz Roese, sued these Tenants under writ of mort d'ancestre; but it was shown that he was son of Richard fitz Roese by his first wife Matilda, whose issue had no place in the deed of feoffment. It is difficult to see why so clear a case should have induced Adam and Sibil Berde to fine half a merk pro licentia concordandi, and to concede half the premises to Richard son of Richard de Bromfeld (as he is called in the Fine) at a penny rent. [12] At these same Assizes John son of Ralph de Huntington, sues John de Wlfreton for a virgate in Wlfreton, but the case was adjourned to Westminster. [13]

By a Fine of Michaelmas Term 1292 John de Horsened and Constancia his wife, give a messuage and 7 acres in Wulferton to Ranulf Carbonel for 7 merks. Of the Grantors in this Fine we have heard before under Hill Halton. [14]


This member of Richard's Castle got its distinctive name from the family of Bollers, Boulers, or Budlers, which held it in fee. The first of this family (which perhaps was an off-shoot from that of the

[11] Assizes, 6 Hen. III, m. 4 dorso.
[12] Assizes, 40 Hen. III. memb. 2.
[13] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 14 dorso.
[14] Supra, p. 222.


ancient Lords of Montgomery) is Roger de Boulex, who at the Assizes of 1203 was Surety for one Gilbert de Gerevill, who was amerced half a merk for disseizing William Harang and Alice his wife of a tenement in Efford (Ashford). [15] By a Fine levied in November 1221 William fitz Roger relinquishes the suit of mort d'ancestre which he had against William Haring and Alice his wife, as Tenants of a virgate in Eschford. The premises are to remain to the heirs of Alice. For this Quit-claim the Recognizor received 28s. The Mesne-Lord of Ashford at this time, or rather later, was Henry de Boulers, whom the oft-quoted Feodary of about 1230 gives as holding Esford by one-fourth of a Knight's-Fee of the Honour of Richard's Castle. The Feodary of 1240 ascribes the same tenure to Henry de Bodleys. [16] Again in 1255 Henry de Budlers is stated to hold I hide in Asford Bullers of the same Honour. [17] At the Assizes of 1272 Robert de Boudlers was sued in vain by John le Fevere and others, who, holding tenements in Asford Carbonell, pretended to a right of common in Asford Boudlers. [18] Previous to these Assizes, but in the same year, Peter de Grete had taken out two writs, one against Robert de Boliers for disseizin in Esford Boliers and Wlferton, the other against the same Robert de Bulers and Emma his wife for disseizin in Asford. The case actually tried at the Assizes was for a messuage and 16 acres in Asheford Boulers and Wolferton. The Defendants' only plea was that five of the said acres were in Overton. They lost the cause. [19] In 1284 we have Robert de Boulers holding the vill of Asford for fee of Robert de Mortimer; and the same statement is repeated on the death of Mortimer in 1287, only that the tenure is styled a Manor, and extended as of 4. annual value. [20] A Richard's-Castle Feodary, taken in April 1308, makes John de Boudlers Tenant of a fee in Asford Budlers. [21]


I must speak of this member of the Franchalimot of Wollerton under two heads, for it was divided as to tenure. The first Tenement I will call the-

HUBAUD'S FEE.- It is sometimes said to be in Overton, sometimes in Hulle, a place apparently near to Overton, but now lost.

[15] Assizes, 5 John, m. 6.
[16] Testa de Nevill, p. 45.
[17] Rot. Hundred. II, 69.
[18] Assizes, 56 Hen. III. m. 3 dorso.
[19] Assizes, 56 Hen. III, m. 7.
[20] Inquisitions, 15 Edw. I, No.15. Robert de Boulers was Foreman of the Jury on this Inquest.
[21] Inquisitions, 1 Edw. II, No. 59.


Sometimes it is described as in Overton and Hulle. The Hubolds or Hubauds were very ancient Feoffees of the Lords of Richard's Castle. Between the years 1163 and 1173 I find that Hugh Hubald was Mesne-Lord of Stratton under Osbern fitz Hugh, his service being to find one foot-soldier to serve eight days in the year on the Marches of Wales under that Baron. [22] Where this Stratton was, I am not prepared to say, but this same Hugh Hubald was also Osbern fitz Hugh's Tenant of Ipsley, in Warwickshire, being probably a descendant of one Hugh, who held that Manor under Osbern fitz Richard at Domesday, and whose presumed descendants remained there in Dugdale's time. [23] Henry Hubaud occurs in two Ipsley Fines, viz. in 1 John (1199-1200), and 5 John (1203-4). Dugdale thinks he was deceased in 13 John (1211-2), but was eventually succeeded by another Henry, his son. If so, the latter is he whom a Richard's-Castle Feodary (of about 1230) represents as holding half a knight's-fee in Overton and Hulle. [24] In October 1227 Walter fitz Odo, claimant of a virgate in Hovertun under writ of mort d'ancestre, renounces his right to Henry Hubaud, Tenant thereof, for two merks. [25] Of Walter fitz Odo we have already heard under Ashford Jones. Henry Hubouth was holding a knight's-fee at Ipsley, in Warwickshire, in 1236; [26] and Henry Hubaut was holding half a fee at Halle, in Shropshire, in 1240, [27] both of the Barony of Richard's Castle. Again in 1252 one Henry Hubald was Lord of Ipsley, while the Hundred-Roll of 1255 gives Henry Hubaud as holding 1 hides in Overton and Hulle. [28] Dugdale shows Henry Hubaud as in rebellion in 1265-6, and as suffering forfeiture of his Warwickshire estates. A Charter of King Henry III, dated January 20, 1266, grants the estates of several Shropshire Rebels to Matilda wife of Roger de Mortimer of Wigmore. Among others Hulle is thus bestowed; but the owner deprived thereof is said to be William (not Henry) Hubaud. [29] If this is correct, William was perhaps Undertenant to Henry, at Hulle, and shared in his rebellion. Dugdale gives further facts about Henry Hubaud, who, he says, died in 15 Edw. I (1286-7). Our Shropshire Feodary of 1284 gives Henry Hubaud as holding the vill of Hulle, and half the vill of Overton for half a knight's-fee under Robert de Mortimer. On the death of Robert de Mortimer, the Shropshire Inquest (taken August 13, 1287)

[22] Harleian Charters, 50, A, 45.
[23] Dugdale's Warwickshire (Thomas), p. 737.
[24] Liber Ruber, fo. cxlv.
[25] Pedes Finium, 11 Hen. III, Salop.
[26] [27] Testa de Nevill, pp. 84, 45.
[28] Rot. Hundred. II, p. 69.
[29] Liber Niger de Wigmore, fo. 37, a.


gives Laurence de Ludlow as holding the vill of Overton for half a knight's-fee in free socage of the said Baron, [30] but the Warwickshire Inquest gives Henry Hubaud as holding the Manor of Ippeston for half a knight's-fee, also of the said Baron. In August 1290 however, a Jury of Knights, assembled at Kidderminster, declared that Henry Hubaud (then deceased) had not held Ippele of Robert de Mortimer's heir, but under John de Hastings, [31] who in fact was Mesne-Lord. The King probably lost the wardship of Henry Hubaud's heir by this Verdict, but I need not pursue a subject which at this point ceases to be connected with Shropshire.

OVERTON'S FEE.- The other part of Overton was a fourth part of a Knight's-fee held by Robert de Overtone in or about 1210, [32] and by the same in or about 1230, [32] and in 1240. [32] In 1255 this tenement was stated to be three parts of a hide, and Richard de Overton was Tenant. [33] This Richard was a Juror on the Inquest of 1259, after the death of William de Stutevill. At the Assizes of 1267 Richard son of Richard de Overton sued Henry fitz Philip and Nesta his wife for disseizing him of a messuage and four acres in Overton, but it was shown that the whole matter had already been sifted in the Court of Sir Hugh de Mortimer (the Suzerain); and so the Defendants had judgment in their favour. [34] The Inquisition of 1287 gives John de Overton as Tenant of the vill of Overton under Robert de Mortimer, deceased,- by fee. The tenement was valued at 40s. per annum. [35] So too an Inquest of April 1308 gives John de Overton as holding fee in Overton in that part of the Richard's Castle Barony which had been allotted to Thomas de Bikenore and Johanna his wife. [36]

Of UNDERTENANTS in Overton I notice that in Michaelmas Term 1232 Pama widow of Hugh de Overton sued Robert de Overton for dower,- viz. a third of 32 acres. Robert asserted Hugh to have been his Villain, and so the cause was referred back to a local Jury. [37] In Michaelmas Term 1250 Agnes fitz William sues Rese de Overton and Agnes his wife for 66 acres in Overton. Rese not appearing,

[30] Inquisitions, 15 Edw. I, No.15.- The Duplicate Inquisition (marked 2 Edw. I, No. 58) omits this Tenure altogether.
[31] Inquisitions, 18 Edw. I, No. 35.- Dugdale tells us that John de Hubaud was a Minor at his Father's death (in 1286-7), and still a Minor in 12 Edw. II (1318-9), which shows that his account of this descent is not to be implicitly relied on.
[32] Liber Ruber, fos. cxxxviii, cxlv; Testa de Nevill, p. 45.
[33] Rot. Hundred. II, 69.
[34] Assizes, 51 Hen. III, memb. 5.
[35] Inquisitions, 15 Edw. I, No. 15.
[36] Inquisitions, 1 Edw. II, No. 59.
[37] Placita, Mich. Term, 17 Hen. III, m. 16.


the land was seized into the King's hand till an adjourned day. [38] At the Assizes of 1256 it appears that Rese de Overton and Agnes his wife being Tenants in villainage under Henry Hubaud, had given 15 acres in Overton to Agnes fitz Richard de Overton, whom Henry Hubaud now sued for the same. Agnes asserted that she obtained the premises as heir of her Mother Juliana, but the Jury found otherwise. [39] On Nov. 18, 1290, a Fine was levied between John de Bradeford (Plaintiff), and Gilbert le Corvisur and Agnes his wife (Impedients), of 9 acres in Ludford (Herefordshire), and a messuage and 4 acres in Overton juxta Richard's Castle (Salop). Gilbert and Agnes recognized the Plaintiff's right as by their own gift, and they and the heirs of Agnes would warrant the same. [40]

BATCHCOTT.- I know nothing more of this member of the Franchalimot of Wollerton than that in 1255 it was held by Geoffrey Leky and William de la Hulle under William de Stutevill. With two other vills now to be mentioned, it formed a hide of land. [41]

MORA, one of these vills, is now represented by MOOR Park. William de Bachecot held it in 1255. [41]

WHITEBROC, the other of these vills, I cannot now trace. At the Assizes of 1221 Ralph fitz Roger sued the Master of the Hospital of Richard's Castle for an acre in Wydibroc of which his Father had died seized. The Master produced Ralph's own Charter granting him the land, since his Father's death. But Ralph, it was proved, was under age, both when the charter was drawn up, and now. So the Court ordered the Charter to be destroyed (carta frangatur) and the Prior (read Master) was in misericordia. [42] In 1255, Walter Hakelutel was William de Stutevill's Tenant of Whitebroc. [43] At the Assizes of 1256, the Jurors of Munslow Hundred reported Walter Hakelutel as non-attendant on the proper day. At the Assizes of 1272 David de la Grene and Amelina his wife withdrew a suit of mort d'ancestre which they had against Walter Hachletel about a messuage and 3 acres in Wythebrok. [44] The same David and Amelina gave half a merk for license to accord with Giles Hachletel about half a virgate (except a messuage and 3 acres) in Withebrok. Their Fine, which is preserved, purports to be the conclusion of a suit of mort d'ancestre. David and Amelina, the Demandants, renounce their claim to Giles Hakelitel for 40s.

[38] Placita, Mich. Term, 34 and 35 Hen. III, m. 18 dorso.
[39] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 2 dorso.
[40] Fines Divers. Comitat. 18 Edw. I, Herefordsh. & Salop.
[41] Rot. Hundred. II, 69.
[42] Assizes, 6 Hen. III, m. 4.
[43] Rot. Hundred. II, 69.
[44] Assizes, 66 Hen. III, memb. 3.


TURFORD.- I cannot trace the Vill which bore this name, but I think it must have been in the Shropshire part of the Manor of Richard's Castle, that is, in the Franchalimot of Wollerton. Some early Lord of Richard's Castle seems to have given this Vill to the Templars, and they to have transferred it to the Hospitallers of Dinmore.

At the Assizes of October 1227, David and John de Turford (apparently Tenants here), were amerced half a merk for not producing one for whom they were Sureties. The Sheriff of Shropshire received the amercement, but handed it over to the Knights Templars, by reason of their Franchise under Royal Charter. [45]

The Munslow Jurors at the Inquest of 1255, after enumerating the several vills of the Franchalimot of Wollerton, pass to the hamlet of Turford which they said was held by the Hospitallers of Dunemor "by grant of the ancient Lords of Richard's Castle". The place contained 2 virgates and did no suit either to County or Hundred. [46] This tenure had existed from a period anterior to all memory (a tempore unde nemo recolit), [46] which accounts for these Jurors representing the Hospitallers as the original Grantees.


A REFERENCE to the Map will show that a series of Domesday Manors, already identified and described, did, with their members, form an irregular but continuous circle round the site of the Town of Ludlow. Bromfield, Stanton Lacy, Middleton-Higford, Henley, Lower Ledwich, Sheet, Steventon, and Ludford are the Manors to which I allude. And now comes the question,- Where is Ludlow itself?- Ludlow, a place whose very name bespeaks antiquity, whose very stones tell of an existence almost if not quite as early as Domesday,- where is Ludlow in that Record? Are we to conclude that architectural features are no tests of antiquity, and that Legends are wholly false, or are we to adopt the still more startling alternative that Domesday is an imperfect, an incomprehensive Record ? I believe

[45] Rot. Pip. 12 Hen. III, Salop. The Templars, it seems, were entitled to all amercemente inflicted on their Tenants in the Curia Regis.
[46] Rot. Hundred. II, 70, 72.


that we may arrive at the truth without any such violent conclusions.

The Chronicle of the Fitz Waring, says of Earl Roger de Belehealme (meaning Earl Roger de Montgomery) that "he commenced a Castle at Brugge, and another Castle he commenced at Dynan; but he finished them not". [1] By Dynan the Writer means Ludlow, though he uses the name Dynan anachronously, that is twenty or thirty years before any cause of its being so named can have arisen.

Now if Earl Roger de Montgomery commenced Ludlow Castle, it was commenced within eight years of Domesday, that is between 1086, when Domesday does not mention it, and 1094, when the Earl died or was dead. This date for the foundation of Ludlow Castle is exceedingly probable on many grounds; but on the ground given, viz. that the foundation was the work of Earl Roger, it cannot be maintained. Earl Roger was not the Founder of Ludlow Castle, and the assertion of the Fitz-Warin Chronicle that he was, though it has obtained implicit credence from the twelfth to the nineteenth century, is the chief reason why the probable truth of the matter has been uninvestigated. We may reject the assertion of the Fitz-Warin Chronicle on two specific grounds: first, the context of the Chronicle itself, next, the contradiction which it gives to the better evidence of Domesday. Earl Roger is said, in the context, to have "begun but not to have finished a Castle at Brugge". If by Brugge is meant Bridgnorth,- and that is most likely to be the Writer's meaning,- we can prove that Earl Roger commenced no Castle there; if Quatford be meant, we know that whatever of Castle or fortified mansion he commenced there, he also finished.

The evidence which Domesday furnishes in contradiction to the Fitz-Warin Chronicle is constructive, but complete. Earl Roger had no territory in Shropshire which can correspond in name or circumstances with Ludlow or Dynan. In Herefordshire he had nothing at all. Of the Shropshire and Herefordshire Manors which have been mentioned above, as encircling the site of Ludlow, Earl Roger had not one in demesne. He had the Seigneury of only three, and those insignificant. They were Middleton, Henley, and Steventon; and all three remained in the succession of their Domesday Lords, that is, were never resumed into the Palatine demesne. Earl Roger therefore did not found Ludlow Castle for two reasons;- first, because the only authority which says that he did, is not to be

[1] History of Fulk Fitz Warine (Warton Club, 1855), p. 8.



[For engravings, see pdf.]


believed in the matter; secondly, because he had not an acre of land whereon to found it.

And now, having no direct statement as to this foundation except a false one, we must needs go to probabilities for a solution of the question- Who founded Ludlow Castle? The argument constructed from Domesday is this.- The Lords of the surrounding lands were, the Canons of Bromfield, Helgot, William Pantulf, Rainald the Sheriff, Osbern fitz Richard, Ralph de Mortimer, and Roger de Lacy. The Canons are out of the question, as Castle-Founders;- the three next had very inconsiderable interests in this quarter;- Osbern fitz Richard had a Castle near at hand already;- Mortimer had one not far off, at Wigmore. Roger de Lacy then remains as on this ground likely to have founded Ludlow Castle. Add that he had no other Castle in Shropshire, that Ludlow was environed on the North-west by his enormous Manor of Stanton, that his interest in the adjoining Hundred of Culvestan was equalled by no other, and the probability is increased. Add that Ludlow appears in course of time as the recognized inheritance of Roger de Lacy's successors, and the probability is still stronger.

Now let us turn again to facts, and see if we cannot find Ludlow in Domesday,- find the centre of the tenitorial circle which I have described, as well as its circumference.- At the time when the Survey was taken, Herefordshire contained a Hundred called Cutestorn or Cutestornes. The bulk of this Hundred lay in a semicircle, West, North, and East of the City of Hereford; but, like the Shropshire Hundred of Bascherch, Cutestornes Hundred had two distant detachments. One of these, with which we have nothing here to do, lay in Ewias-land, but the other comprised the Chatellany of Auretone (that is Richard's Castle),- and Ludford,- and a Manor of two hides called in the Record "Lude".

Now there were three Ludes in Cutestorn Hundred at Domesday. Two of them were held by Roger de Laci, in capite, and, from their position in the Record, I should judge, but cannot affirm, them to have been in that part of Cutestorn Hundred which was near to Hereford. Two places, afterwards distinguished as Lude Much-gros and Lude Sancy, were in that quarter and were in Lacy's Fief. I therefore speak now of the third Lude only. This was in the detached portion of Cutestorn Hundred, if we take the same test,- viz. that of position in the Record; for below it and next to it we have a notice of Ludford, and below and next to that, a notice of Castle Auretone. In short we have these three places mentioned in Domesday


exactly as we should read off their presumed representatives, Ludlow, Ludford, and Richard's Castle, on a modern Map. About this Lude, which I thus suppose to be the Ludlow of Domesday, that Record speaks as follows. "The same Osbern (fitz Richard) holds (of the King) Lude, and Roger de Laci (holds it) of him. Saisi held it (in Saxon times). Here are II hides geldable. In demesne there are II ox-teams and (there are) one Villain, a Bailiff (prepositus), and a Smith, with II teams. The Manor was worth 25s. (per annum) in Saxon times. Now it is worth 30s". [2] This improved value of the Manor of Lude, coupled with the mention of a Provost and a Smith there, may not be enough to suggest the idea of an existent Borough or the intended residence of a great feudal Chief, but the ideas being suggested already, they are in strict harmony therewith.

Lude then, identified in theory with Ludlow, I take further to have been the whole thereof; for Ludlow as a territory was never large. An objection which presents itself in limine to this new theory I must at once dispose of. If Osbern fitz Richard were Seignoral Lord of Lude, how are we to account for the Lords of Richard's Castle never appearing as Seignoral Lords of Ludlow? How, in other words, did Osbern fitz Richard lose the Seigneury? The answer is,- possibly by exchange with his greater Feoffee; possibly by the law of might against right; or possibly the Seigneury became effaced by will of the Crown, under which it was expedient that such a Fortress as Ludlow should be held immediately. But the negative proof is always the best in such cases.- Osbern fitz Richard was Seignoral Lord of a certain Lude in Herefordshire at Domesday. Osbern fitz Richard's successors never afterwards had such a Seigneury. They therefore lost such a Seigneury, and that loss cannot be accounted for in any better way than by supposing Lude to be Ludlow, held as it was by Lacy,- the only Tenant of Osbern fitz Richard who was more powerful than his Lord.

It appears probable that Ludlow Castle, though non-existent at Domesday, was founded within the next ten years. And, supposing Roger de Laci to have been its Founder, two events happened in that same interval of ten years which will at once account for such an endeavour on his part to strengthen his position. In 1088, two years after Domesday, Roger de Lacy joined the English rebellion against William Rufus and in favour of Courteheuse. Roger de Laci was the first to act in the West; for he had already attacked

[2] Domesday, fo. 186, b, 2.


Hereford, when, joined by Bernard de Newmarch and Ralph de Mortimer, and seconded by the aid and influence of Roger Earl of Shrewsbury, these three Chieftains threatened Worcester. Their defeat, and the probability that they suffered but little in estate for this treason, have been often alluded to in these pages. It is to this combination between Roger de Lacy and the Earl of Shrewsbury that I attribute the Legend or idea which has made the Earl Founder of Ludlow Castle. He may have prompted, he may have promoted and assisted the work, but if so, it was only as a political friend and partisan, not as having any jurisdiction in the matter. In 1095 Earl Roger was dead and Roger de Laci joined the second rebellion against Rufus, that of Robert de Mowbray. For this he was never forgiven; he lived and died in exile; his English estates, or the greater part of them, being bestowed by the King on Hugh de Lacy, his brother. [3]

In identifying Ludlow with the Domesday Lude, I oblige myself to state an etymological opinion in which I shall have small support from former Writers. All authorities of any note have, I believe, interpreted the name Ludlow as Leobe-hlaep (Leode-hlaew),- the tumulus, grave, or hill of the people; and Ludgate, London, has been plausibly (but perhaps erroneously) [4] instanced as involving an analogous idea. But this notion falls to the ground directly that we find three places in Herefordshire named Lude;- for Lude, if it means people, is senseless when used singly as the name of a place. The different ways in which the three Ludes were compounded, after Domesday, with other words, was to distinguish them from each other,- a special necessity, seeing that all three were in Lacy's Fief. Lude Muchgros and Lude-Sancy were so called from Lacy's Tenants there: Ludlow got its distinctive name from the low or tumulus which was a prominent feature of the town. Another notion about the word Ludlow would derive it from Lud or Luda, a man's name; [5] but this too fails, because the name Lude, if it be that of a person, can never have stood in the nominative case for the name of a place. In short, some meaning must be found for Lude which in a non-composite form will indicate a locality.-

[3] Ordericus, p. 704, C.
[4] I think the origin of Ludgate to have been Hhb-gear, a postern-door.
[5] We shall hereafter see the name Luda incorporated in a Ludlow Legend,- apparently as the name of an Irish Saint; but the Legend was probably a fabrication. Ludi was also a Saxon name. Such a person was Lord of Huntington in the Confessor's days (Vide Supra, p. 74). The same or a similar Saxon name seems to enter into composition, in cases like Ludston, Luddesdon, Luddington, etc.


Twice already in these pages I have given instances where the word Lode stands in connection with a stream or river, and as I think, indicates a ford. [6] This idea will suit the locality under notice, and I shall suppose that the original vill was called Lude from some adjacent ford of the River Teme. It is true that no such word as Lude, signifying a ford, is to be found in the Saxon glossaries; but then the word very possibly belonged to an older language than the Saxon, and its meaning was unknown to that people. [7] This idea will account for another phenomenon. If Lude be a ford, then the name Ludford involves a redundancy; but I account for this in a very simple way.- I take Ludford to have been populated after the word Lude had become obsolete as meaning a ford, and was significant only of a locality. To call a more recent vill Ludford,- that is to name it after a neighbouring vill and a neighbouring ford,- was natural, for in such a case the redundancy would be unfelt or disregarded.

I must now incorporate my further account of Ludlow with that of-


Of HUGH DE LACY, whose loyalty and rectitude Ordericus contrasts with the conduct of his elder Brother Roger, little is known. He is reputed to have added, by Conquest, the land of Ewias to his original Fief. [8] This must be taken with some qualification.- Lands in the Chatellany of Ewias had been granted to Walter de Lacy, father of Roger and Hugh, by William fitz Osborn Earl of Hereford, and therefore before 1071. [9] Roger de Lacy had obtained other lands in the same province before Domesday. The best authenticated instance of Hugh de Lacy's connection with Ewias-land is his Foundation therein of the famous Monastery of Lanthony. I refer to a Monkish Chronicle for a full account of particulars, and only observe that this so-called foundation of Hugh de Lacy was rather a great enrichment and extension of a previous monastic establishment, and that it was after the year 1108;- for that was the year when the rude church of the yet unendowed settlement was consecrated. [10] This Chronicle, though it magnifies the liberality

[6] Supra, Vol. II, 221, note 76. Vol. III, p. 138, note 68.
[7] The comparative antiquity of the names of certain streams and rivers has been before alluded to (Vol. IV, pp. 230, 279). The theory seems applicable here.
[8] Dugdale's Baronage, I, 96, quoting Giraldus.
[9] Domesday, fo. 184, a, 1.
[10] Monasticon, VI, 138, et seq. No. i.


and other virtues of Sir Hugh de Lacy, tells us nothing of the time or manner of his death, and only gives us a hint about his succession, a hint of which in due course I shall avail myself.

In 1101 Hugh de Lacy subjected or conveyed to Gloucester Monastery the Church of St. Peter's (Hereford), with all its possessions, as founded and endowed by his Father. [11] Hugh de Lacy, I should observe, had a brother Walter, who was at this time a monk of Gloucester, having entered the Monastery in 1080 when yet very young. On August 3, 1130, Walter de Lacy received the episcopal benediction as Abbot of Gloucester, in which high office he died 8 Feb. 1139. Hugh de Lacy his brother made further grants to Gloucester Monastery, and apparently in the year 1101.-

The assertions that this Hugh de Lacy was a Benefactor to the Church of St. David's and the Monastery of Monmouth are probably founded in error. [12] Hugh de Lacy the elder (vetus) was said by a provincial Jury in 1255, to have given two virgates in Ludlow to the Knights Hospitallers of Dinmore, [13] but there are reasons for doubting whether the Grantor alluded to can have been the Hugh de Lacy whose very uncertain history I am endeavouring to trace. I have found only one more direct mention of the latter and it is embodied in one of those little-to-be- trusted Records,- a Monastic Fundatorum Progenies. "Hugh de Lacy", says this document, "the Founder of Lanthony in Wales, came into England at the Conquest". This announcement obliges us to receive with some caution the further statement that "he died without issue, whereby his inheritance descended to his two Sisters,- Ermelina (who died issueless) and Emma, who being married (to a husband unnamed) had issue Gilbert. Gilbert would appear to have taken the name of Lacy, for the Chronicle calls him Gilbert de Lacy without further comment. [14]

Now I cannot find any account of Hugh de Lacy's death, nor can I fix its period except by conjecture. I think it took place between 1108 and 1121. No doubt he died without issue, and most unquestionably

[11] Monasticon, I, 547.
[12] Dugdale quotes Leland (Coll. II, 89, b) for the first statement, but the passage in question refers to Lanthony. The Church of David, incidentally mentioned in an etymological discussion a few lines higher, seems to have misled Dugdale. As to Hugh de Lacy's grant to Monmouth, Dugdale only supporta that by a Deed which appears to belong to a much later aera than that of this Hugh de Lacy. (See Monasticon, IV, 597, Num. iv.)
[13] Rot. Hundred. II, 69.
[14] Monasticon, VI, 135, b. This account receives incidental confirmation in the fact that the name of Hugh de Lacy's Mother was Ermelina.


[For pedigree, see pdf.]


his estates escheated to the Crown; but whether by forfeiture during his life-time, or by the King's non-recognition of his heir I will not affirm. The former was perhaps too great a catastrophe to escape the direct notice of cotemporary Chroniclers; the latter might more easily be passed over. Henry I evidently ignored the claims of Gilbert or any other heir of Hugh de Laci. It seems to me that the King gave or entrusted Ludlow, Ewias, and Weobley to Pagan fitz John. With less certainty I fix upon Hamo Peverel as Grantee or Trustee of Lacy's estates in North Shropshire. The proofs of all this are circumstantial. I have never seen the name of Hugh de Lacy or of Pagan fitz John directly associated with Ludlow, but I know that the daughter and the Grandson of Pagan fitz John were claiming Ludlow and Weobley, and probably Ewias, in 1198 as their hereditary right. I also know that Pagan fitz John was Lord of Ewias in Henry I's time, for Giraldus expressly says so. [15] All else that is known of Pagan fitz John is quite consistent with the idea that he was entrusted with Ludlow Castle by Henry I. I therefore proceed to give account of this sometime Lord of Ludlow.

PAGAN FITZ JOHN is with great likelihood said to have been brother of Eustace fitz John, [16] a powerful favourite of King Henry I, at whose Court both Eustace and Pagan are found in frequent attendance. At Easter 1121 King Henry I is known to have been at Berkeley in Gloucestershire. It was probably on this occasion that he expedited a Charter to Richard de Capella, Bishop of Hereford. [17] That Charter is addressed to and attested by Walter de Gloucester and Adam de Port, two great Herefordshire Barons. Their attestation is followed by that of Pagan fitz John; and this is the first hint I have of any interest of the latter in the affairs of Herefordshire. Between the years 1123 and 1127 Pagan fitz John was appointed Viceroy of Shropshire in succession to Richard de Belmeis. I have before alluded to this fact and given the proofs thereof. [18] I have also shown Pagan fitz John as having custody of Brug Castle in 1128; [18] and I have shown him as addressed by Henry I, at Condover, in 1129 or 1130, in a way which almost proves his Viceregal power in Shropshire; for though on some occasions he is called Sheriff, on this the Sheriff of the County is also addressed. [19]

The Pipe-Roll of 1130 extends to neither Herefordshire nor Shropshire.

[15] Giraldi Itin. (Hoare) Vol. I, p. 37.
[16] Dugdale's Baronage, I, 572.
[17] Duncomb's Herefordshire, I, 296.
[18] Vol. I, pp. 246, 247; Vol. II, 200.
[19] Vol. I, p. 247, note 17.


It exhibits Pagan fitz John as a land-holder in Oxfordshire, Gloucestershire, Berkshire, and Norfolk; also as a Justiciar who with Milo de Gloucester (his usual associate) had held pleas in Staffordshire, Gloucestershire, and Pembrokeshire. [20] About this time and in company with the same Milo de Gloucester (whom however Giraldus calls by anticipation Earl of Hereford), Pagan fitz John is noticed as a Secretary and Privy-Counsellor of King Henry I, and under circumstances which leave little doubt but that the two were associated in the government of the Welsh Marches. Pagan fitz John is also called "Lord of Ewias". [21] Under the year 1134, Ordericus relates how the Welsh, exasperated by the oppressions of the English, seized upon and burnt a Castle of Pagan fitz John called Cans, and slaughtered every inmate, male and female. [22] In 1136, the first year of Stephen, Pagan fitz John was slain by the Nyelsh; and John Hagustald adds to the circumstance a remark on this Baron having been somewhat prompt to acquiesce in the usurpation of Stephen. [23] The Writer of the Gesta Regis Stephani confirms this to the letter, calling Milo de Gloucester and Pagan fitz John Governors of the Provinces of Herefordshire and Shropshire; relating how, under King Henry I, these two had extended their power from the Severn to the Sea;- how through all the borders of England and Wales they had harassed the natives with vexatious Law-suits and compulsory services;- how both concurred in doing fealty to Stephen; and how Fitz John fell in a Welsh foray, pierced through the head by a spear, while none other of his band was wounded. This Writer hints that these two Lords of the West were actuated rather by a personal fear of Stephen than any inability to oppose him. [24]

Pagan fitz John left two daughters his coheirs, [25] viz. Cecily and Agnes. Cecily married before the year 1139 to Roger, eldest son

[20] Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. I, passim.
[21] Giraldus (ut supra), p. 37.
[22] Ordericus, 900, A. Dugdale makes the Cans of Ordericus to be Caus, and the two letters involved in the question have been constantly changed by transcribers. A Border Castle is doubtless spoken of, but I cannot suggest what Pagan fitz John may have had to do with that of Caus.
[23] J. Hagastald, pp. 259, 260. A satisfactory proof of Pagan fitz John's attendance at the Court of Stephen, in or about March, 1186, may be seen in Hearn's Liber Niger (Vol. II, p. 808).
[24] Gesta Regis Stephani, pp. 15, 16. The Welsh Chronicle calls the oppressor of Wales William fitz John (Powel, p. 138). Richard Hagustald attributes his death to an ambuscade.
[25] Dugdale (Baronage, p. 572), has erroneously given him a son, Robert fitz Pain, a totally different person, and who was living in 1217.


of Milo de Gloucester, and it was probably on this occasion that Stephen gave to the said Cecily all the lands of Pain fitz John her Father, with whatever else she had of the gift of the said Pain, of the honour of Hugh de Lacy; also what Sibil, wife of Pain had granted to her in dower of his (Pain's) inheritance. [26] We have here a proof of Pagan fitz John's occupation of a part of Lacy's Fief, and, I think, a distinction taken between lands held by him as of his own inheritance and lands held under the escheat of Lacy. Cecily became in due course Countess of Hereford. She was neglected if not deserted by her husband (Earl Roger), who died childless in 1155. She lived to a great age; for she was born before 1127 and died about January 1207. Agnes, the other and I presume younger daughter of Pagan fitz John, was born about 1127. She married * * * * de Munchensi and had by him a son, William de Munchensi, with other issue. She was living in 1185, but deceased in 1198, when William de Munchensi together with his Aunt, the Countess Cecilia, had tendered that Fine to which I have before alluded, viz. "to have their right in Ludelawe and Wibelay (Weobley) and (apparently) Ewias". [27] It is obvious to me, not that they had such a right, but that their claim was founded on their relations to Pagan fitz John, who consequently must be taken to have been sometime seized of Ludlow. A Writ of King John's, dated May 7, 1207, speaks of "Cecilia Countess of Hereford and William de Munchensy her Nephew and heir". This William was therefore at that date the sole representative of Pagan fitz John; but, as he never succeeded in establishing any claim on Lacy's Fief or on Ludlow, I shall here leave him and revert to other matters.-

The Fitz-Warin Chronicle, after reciting the treason and banishment of Earl Robert de Belesme, tells us of the redistribution of his lands by Henry I. "The Castle of Dynan", says the Writer, "and all the country round towards the river of Corve, with all the Honour, he (the King) gave to Sir Joce his Knight; who thenceforth retained the name of Dynan, and was called everywhere Joce de Dynan. This Joce completed the castle which Roger de Belehealme (Earl Roger is meant) in his time began; and he was a strong and valiant Knight. Now, the town was a very long time called Dynan, which is now called Ludlow". [28]-

The whole of this is probably false. We know that Earl Roger

[26] Baronage (ut supra) quoting Glover's Collections.
[27] Rot. Curiae Regis, I, 144. The last name is written T*ias or Twias. That Ewias was meant I cannot doubt.
[28] History (ut supra), p. 4.


did not commence Ludlow Castle. We know that the Honour of which Ludlow was a part did not fall to the disposal of Henry I by the forfeiture of Earl Robert, but as an Escheat of Lacy. [29] We have seen the probability that Henry I gave it to Pagan fitz John. Moreover, Joceas de Dynan is never heard of in Henry I's time, and when he does appear, so far from taking his name from Dynan, it is only possible that for a brief period he caused Ludlow to be called Dynan;- but of its being so called at any time we have no other proof than the assertion of this Chronicle. Other authorities, with as little to back them as the Chronicle, talk of a Sir Fulk de Dynan, onewhile as the Grantee of Earl Robert de Belesme (who never had Ludlow to bestow), onewhile as the Grantee of Henry II, who we happen to know bestowed Ludlow in a very different way. Utterly discarding all these stories about Sir Fulk or Sir Joceas de Dynan, I proceed to state what is positively known and what may be reasonably concluded about Sir Joceas de Dynan,- the only real person of the two. Joceas de Dynan was, I conceive, a Foreigner, taking a name from his native town of Dinant in Bretagne. This obvious supposition is backed by a curious circumstance in the subsequent history of his family. The third Fulk fitz Warin was Grandson and Coheir of Joceas de Dynan and when outlawed in the reign of John he took refuge for a season in Bretagne.

Joceas de Dynan first appears in the reign of Stephen. On the death of Pagan fitz John, the king probably seized that Baron's lands, and especially Ludlow Castle, which was garrisoned for the Crown. This reservation by Stephen will be more evident in the sequel. I suppose that the King appointed Joceas de Dynan Castellan of Ludlow, giving him a share of Lacy's or rather Pagan fitz John's lands, to support him in that service. Stephen had occupied the throne little more than two years when several Barons revolted from his allegiance. [30] The Norman Writer who records their names must be understood to place the event soon after Easter 1138. [31] By some unaccountable accident he has represented Paganell as holding the Castle of Ludelaue against the King; and this substitution of Ludlow for Dudley has been adopted without question by every Writer since;- I say since, because there was one cotemporary Writer, a Monk of Worcester, who gave the true account, but unfortunately

[29] See Mr. Blakeway's remarks to the same effect; printed among the "Documents connected with the History of Ludlow pp. 25, 26.
[30] Chronica Normanniae (Duchesne), p. 977.
[31] Not Easter 1139, as the marginal date would lead us to suppose.


no one has followed him. [32] Hence the history of Ludlow at this period, meagre and unsatisfactory as it is, has been encumbered with an additional and gratuitous difficulty. It was clearly in July or August 1138 (that is immediately before the siege of Shrewsbury), that Stephen marched to the Castle of "Duddelaege" which (as the Worcester Monk intelligibly tells us) "Radulf Paignel" (its owner to wit) "had fortified against the King". The King burnt and plundered the neighbourhood, and then moved off to attack Shrewsbury.

In the next year (1139) we have an undoubted piece of Ludlow History; and it was the hearing of this I think that confused the usually accurate Norman Writer, whom I have above mentioned, and who probably did not know that Dudley and Ludlow were two places. It was on April 9th, 1139, that Matilda, Stephen's Queen, accorded with Prince Henry of Scotland at Durham. The Prince went to Nottingham, where Stephen was, and remained with the King the whole summer. There was that in Stephen's character and exploits which might justly be called chivalry had it not been tainted with perjury and ingratitude. The fair side of his character was that which attracted the nephew of the Empress Maud to his Court. On April 30th, Stephen, with a royal retinue, visited Worcester in state. Thence he went to Ludelawe and encamped before it. He built two counter-forts against the Castle, and leaving it, apparently in a state of siege, moved away through Worcestershire, as if towards London. The Worcester Chronicler never tells us who defended Ludlow. It was doubtless Joceas de Dynan;- and he had rebelled against Stephen. It was to this occasion that the Norman Chronicler alludes when he tells us how Prince Henry, riding under the Castle-walls, was seized by a grappling-iron thrown out by the besieged, and being thus dragged from off his horse would have been made a prisoner had not Stephen, by a splendid effort of personal courage, rescued him. This Chronicler adds some words which imply that Stephen succeeded in reducing Ludlow. [33] The Monk of Worcester tells a very different story, but in such obscure terms that I will only venture on a general statement of what I conceive to be his meaning. The Knights whom Stephen had left besieging Ludlow seem to have got up some tournament or passage-of-arms among themselves. It was numerously attended, and some fatal casualties occurred. Stephen hearing thereof, turned back from his London expedition, recrossed Worcestershire, reached Ludlow, settled all disturbances

[32] Flor. Wigorn. Contin. II, 110.
[33] Chron. Normann. p. 978, A.


there, and then proceeded to Oxford. [34] It was at Oxford, as we know, in the end of June, that he arrested the Bishops of Salisbury and Lincoln,- a step the most portentous and the most disastrous ever taken by him. Ludlow, I imagine, remained unreduced.

Recurring now to the fact, hitherto assumed, that Joceas de Dynan rebelled against his Benefactor Stephen, I shall not attempt to account for it, but be satisfied if I can adduce one or two circumstances to show that I have not gratuitously assumed it. I have before spoken of the Charter by which Stephen gave the Earldom of Hereford to Robert de Bossu, Earl of Leicester. [35] It is almost certain that this Charter passed in 1140. It gives to the proposed Earl the County of Hereford generally, but excepts from the grant the great Fiefs of Mortimer, Richard's Castle, and Braose;- which of course were still to be held immediately of the Crown. It also excepts the "Fee of Godso de Dinan which before was Hugh de Lacy's", but with this remarkable proviso, that "If the Earl of Leicester could so deal with the said Godso as that he himself should be willing to hold the fee aforesaid under the Earl,- that the King fully allows". [36] It is evident that the King was not in a position to guarantee anything about Joceas de Dinan or his Fief. The fealty of the Lord of Ludlow was not the King's to grant. The new Earl was to get it if he could.

I will now exhibit Joceas or Gotso de Dinan in the Court of the Empress, which will prove his political leaning beyond doubt. There are two Charters of the Empress to Shrewsbury Abbey. They were probably cotemporary, and one is dated at Devizes (in Wiltshire), a town which the Empress never obtained till after the defeat of Stephen at Lincoln in February 1141. In that year, one, and probably both, of these Charters passed. One is attested by Goc' de Dinan, the other by G. de Dinan. [37] I shall here be justified in assuming that Stephen's grant of the lands of Pagan fitz John to his daughter Cecily, then wife of Roger, son of Milo de Gloucester, must have been in antagonism to Joceas de Dinan's interests. Also

[34] Florence Wigorn. Contin. II, 115, 116.
[35] Supra, Vol. IV, pp. 201, 305.
[36] "Et excepto feodo Godsonis de Dinan quod fuit Hugonis de Laci. Quod si Comes Leycestria poterit facere versus praefatum Gotsonem, quod ipse voluerit feodum illum praedictum tenere de eo, bene concedo".
[37] Salop Chartulary, Nos. 40, 50.- One Charter is tested by Rainald Vicecomes de Cornubia, the other by Rainald Comes de Cornewallia. Reginald de Dunstanvill, created Earl of Cornwall in 1140 by the Empress, is the person meant. The word Vicecomes in one Charter I take to be a mere error of transcription.


it is clear that Stephen made this grant before the Autumn of 1139, when, on the landing of the Empress, Milo de Gloucester openly forsook the King. The month of April 1139 was also the period of Joceas de Dinan's defection and the siege of Ludlow, so that probably Stephen's Charter to Cecily passed between April and September 1139. And when Milo had deserted him, Stephen, naturally enough, resorted to a third shift, and granted Milo's Earldom to Robert de Bossu, viz. in 1140. I will now show the persistent adherence of Joceas de Dinan to the cause of the Empress, as well as his continued tenure of Ludlow Castle notwithstanding the enmity of Stephen.-

I have often commented on the great accuracy of a certain French Chronicle which details the fortunes of the House of Mortimer. I have also pointed out several reasons for supposing that Hugh de Mortimer who lived in Stephen's reign was a constant friend to the Usurper. Naturally then we expect to find him a foe to Joceas de Dinan And so it was. After the death of Bishop Robert de Betun (April 22, 1148) and before the accession of Henry II (1154) "a great war arose", says the Chronicle, "between Sir Hugh de Mortimer and Sir Joce de Dinan, then Lord of Ludlow, insomuch that this same Joce could not freely or at pleasure enter or quit his Castle of Ludlow for fear of Sir Hugh, so pertinaciously the latter pursued the war. And because Joce could prevail nothing against Sir Hugh by force, he set spies along the roads where he heard that Sir Hugh was to pass unattended, and took him and held him in his castle in prison until he had paid his ransom of three thousand merks of silver, besides all his plate and his horses and birds (hawks). And to hasten, this ransom as speedily as possible, Sir Hugh requested aid of his friends on all sides", etc. [38] The truth of this story is confirmed by the testimony of the Fitz-Warin Chronicle, which, as secondary evidence, has its value. The Writer speaks of the sometime captivity of a Mortimer in Ludlow Castle, and says that in his time a certain tower ("the highest in the third bail of the castle") was called Mortimer. [39] This Writer lived in the thirteenth or fourteenth century;- but the name and position of Mortimer's Tower are still known in the nineteenth. [39]

Returning to Joceas de Dinan, I have one more proof of his continuous attachment to the cause of legitimacy during the civil war.

[38] History of Ludlow (Wright), p. 113.
[39] History of Fulk fitz Warine, p. 34. See also Mr. Wright's note, identifying the Tower in question.


Prince Henry, as Duke of Normandy, first landed in England in January 1153. In the course of the year the Duke, being at Gloucester, granted a site for the Staffordshire Abbey of Radmore. His Charter was attested inter alios by Gozo, i.e. Gotso de Dinan, whose name however has been converted by the hands of transcribers into Sozo de Dinam. [40] The earliest extant Pipe-Roll of Henry II's reign is that of 1156. It exhibits Joceas de Dinan with an enormous grant of Crown-lands in Berkshire, viz. "76. blanch, of lands in Lamborn". The same grant is repeated on the Pipe-Rolls of succeeding years, and we know from other authority that the King made this grant without reserving any service to the Crown. My belief is that the grant was not altogether in discharge of the King's debt of gratitude to Joceas de Dinan. I think it was also in compensation of a claim upon Ludlow, which circumstances obliged the King to disallow. Of that however hereafter. Joceas de Dinan lived probably till 1166. In 1167 he was certainly deceased. [41] He left two daughters and coheirs, Hawise, wife of the second Fulk fitz Warin of Whittington, and Sibil wife of Hugh de Plugenai; but of this succession I cease to speak here, inasmuch as the title of the family to Ludlow was never recognised after Henry II's accession.

I must now return far back, to trace, if I can, something of the fortunes of the disinherited House of Lacy.- I have before quoted a Charter of King Stephen, which, passing about March 1136, was attested by Pagan fitz John as a Baron. [42] It will somewhat perplex our former argument to observe that the second signature preceding Pagan fitz John's purports to be that of "Gilbert de Lacy,- Baron". We at once conclude that Stephen had recognised the title of Hugh de Lacy's Nephew, and this is inexplicable if he had also recognised that of Pagan fitz John. But the whole difficulty arises in an error of transcription. Another Charter of Stephen's, on a cognate subject, passed at the same time, probably on the same day as the last. Of its 36 witnesses 30 had attested the former Charter, one was Grantee in the former Charter, and four are new witnesses. The 36th or remaining witness is Ilbert de Laci, Baron, corresponding to the Gilbert de Lacy of the former Charter". Doubtless

[40] Monasticon, V, 447, Num. v.
[41] The Berkshire Pipe-Rolls from 1162 to 1166, mention the Crown-grant of 76. blanch in Lamborn; but the Grantee's name ceases to be entered. The Roll of 1167 shows Lamborn partly resumed by the Crown, partly given to Hugh de Plugenai, partly given to others.
[42] Liber Niger, II, 811.
[43] Madox, Exchequer, p. 10, note s.


Ilbert de Lacy of Pontefract was the actual witness in both cases;- and he was one whose allegiance to Stephen became afterwards a matter of no small notoriety. There can be little doubt I think that the Lacies of Ewias and of Pontefract were originally of the same stock, though each family had had its own representative from a period anterior to Domesday. I say this, not to account for the confusion just noticed, but to introduce another branch of this investigation.-

At the death of Richard Bishop of Baieux in 1188, two Knights, Gilbert and Henry, are registered as holding two fees in that Norman See. Their collective fief is called Feodum de Lacey cum Campellis (the fee of Lacey and Campeaux). [44] These two Knights I take to be Gilbert, the nephew of Hugh de Lacy of Ewias, and Henry, younger brother of Ilbert de Lacy of Pontefract. Both families were then under escheat in England, but not, it would seem, in regard of this their tenure in Normandy. On the death of Henry I, all persons disinherited in England naturally anticipated that, in the coming struggle and confusion, something might be gained by those who had nothing to lose. Ilbert de Lacy of Pontefract joined Stephen; his brother Henry, if not at first, yet in course of time, adhered to the Empress. Gilbert de Lacy's first movement I cannot detect; but a kinsman of his (Geoffrey Talbot) primarily joined Stephen, and attested as a Baron the very Charter noticed above as bearing the signature of Ilbert de Lacy. A careful collation of different Chronicles enables me to give the following account of progressive events. After Easter (April 8) 1138 Geoffrey Talbot rebelled, and fortified Hereford Castle against Stephen. [45] Stephen heard of this just after Ascension Day (May 12) at Gloucester. He marched to Hereford, spent four or five weeks there, and was crowned in the Cathedral on Whit-Sunday (May 22). The Castle was surrendered. Stephen also took the town of Wibbeleag (Weobley, once a member of Lacy's Fief) which the same Geoffrey Talbot, who now had fled from the neighbourhood, had fortified against the Crown. On the 15th of June, Stephen having left Hereford (the City half burnt, but the Castle well garrisoned), Geoffrey Talbot

[44] Rot. Normanniae (Stapleton), II, lxx. Laceium and Caspelli are shown on Mr. Stapleton's map of Normandy, one to the N.E., the other to the N.W. of Vire, in the Diocese of Baieuz.
[45] Chron. Normanniae, p. 977. "Post Pascha vero exarsit rabies proditorum nefanda. Quidam namque, Talbot nomine, tenuit contra Regem castellum Herefort in vallibus (read in Wallia, the usual designation of Hereford at the time), quod Rex per obsidionem in sua recepit." Compare also Ann. Waverl. p. 153.


attacked the former, and burnt all the suburb beyond the Wye. This month of June was marked by a great event, the revolt of Bristol, at the behest of its illustrious Earl, Robert the Consul, who in the end of May had openly and formally published his renunciation of all allegiance to Stephen. To Bristol Geoffrey Talbot now betook himself. One day (probably in July) Talbot, with William Hoset and another (unnamed by the Worcester Monk), made an excursion from Bristol for the purpose of reconnoitring Bath, then held by its Bishop,- a partisan of Stephen. The Bishop, having some suspicion of their object, took such measures that Talbot was arrested;- but the two others escaped. The Castellans of Bristol instantly appeared at Bath with force sufficient to back a threat that if Talbot was not released, the Bishop and his retinue should be hanged. The Bishop gave up his prisoner, but nearly lost his Mitre, so enraged was Stephen at hearing of his pusillanimity. [46] The writer of the Gesta Regis Stephani tells this story, describing Geoffrey Talbot as one whom a previous part of his narrative (now lost) had shown to be under sentence of exile from England;- but, what is more to our purpose, he gives the name of Geoffrey Talbot's other companion in the exploit at Bath. It was his "kinsman Gilbert de Lacy, a prudent man, and one of great foresight and activity in any military undertaking". This writer attributes Lacy's escape to his making a more skilful and a fiercer resistance than Talbot. The rest of the story is told at much length, and with circumstances which show that the method by which Lacy and his party procured the release of Talbot was tainted with sacrilege and perjury. [47] In August 1140 Geoffrey Talbot was slain in a skirmish near Bath. The Worcester Monk says that he was "an active but treacherous Soldier, now in the King's party, now in the Earl's, doing all things in guile". [48] It was by the times in which they lived that such characters were formed. Talbot was probably not much better nor much worse than the generality. He was buried in the Monastery of Gloucester, and his kinsman [49] Glbert de Lacy survived him. On July 25, 1141,

[46] Flor. Wigorn. Contin. II, 106, 107, 108.
[47] Gesta Regis Stephani, p. 37.
[48] Flor. Wigorn. Contin. II, 128.
[49] The alleged consanguinity of Geoffrey Talbot and Gilbert de Lacy inclines me to think that there was some affinity between Pagan fitz John, or his wife, and the Lacies - for Cecily, Countess of Hereford (Pagan fitz John's daughter) succeeded, after one Walter de Meduana, to the estates of Geoffrey Talbot. If then Gilbert de Lacy and the Countess Cicely were akin to the same person (Geoffrey Talbot), they were very probably akin to each other.

Again, who was Agnes de Lacy presently (infra, note 65, 66) to be mentioned? I cannot help imagining an answer to this question which might clear a great deal of this obscure subject,- but I will not tamper further with conjecture. Let this note rather stand as an advertisement for evidence.


when the Empress having Stephen a prisoner, issued at Oxford that famous Charter which gave to her devoted follower, Milo de Gloucester, the Earldom of Hereford, Gilbert de Lacy was in her Court and attested her Charter. [50] I suppose it was owing to the Empress's inability or unwillingness to fulfil Lacy's expectations, or to some inducement offered by Stephen, but it is clear that, for some cause or other, Lacy afterwards changed his political faith. Stephen had already encouraged three claimants to the whole or a part of Lacy's inheritance. Pagan fitz John had been killed; Joceas de Dynan had betrayed the cause of Stephen; the husband of Cecilie fitz Pagan, Stephen's third nominee, was the son of Milo de Gloucester, now Stephen's bitterest foe. No wonder then that Stephen should be glad to enlist a fourth Grantee, and one who could claim as an heir. The symptoms of Gilbert de Lacy's change of sides are as follows: - At Devizes, in September 1146, Robert fitz Roy, Earl of Gloucester, in the presence of Mathildis the Empress, quit-claimed to Philip, then Bishop of Bayeux, all the fiefs of Ilbert and Gilbert de Lacy which they held of the said Bishop, at Lassey, and at Campeaux, and elsewhere. [51] Ilbert de Lacy was, I repeat, a known partisan of King Stephen. Inferentially Gilbert de Lacy was at this time the same;- and the Empress and her Brother concurred in a measure which was meant to deprive them both of their Norman Fiefs. About the same time we have an indication that-

GILBERT DE LACY was in possession of his Lordship of Ewias, and on terms of friendship with Hugh de Mortimer of Wigmore, the latter fact implying that he was also a supporter of Stephen. It appears that Oliver de Merlimond (whom I have mentioned as Mortimer's Steward) held something at Lanthony in the Lordship of Ewias. This estate he seems to have given, previously to the year 1143, to certain Canons whose residence at Shobdon he had taken much pains to procure. Oliver de Merlimond's disgrace, his taking refuge with Earl Milo, and Mortimer's harsh treatment of the Shobdon Canons, I have before alluded to. It was between the years 1143 and 1148 that Sir Gilbert de Lacy, noting Mortimer's animosity to these Canons, and thinking to please him, "came to Lantony and took by seignory all the things which belonged to the Canons, and caused their wheat to be carried away, worth a great sum of

[50] Selden's Titles of Honor, p. 537.
[51] Rot. Normanniae (Stapleton), II, p. lxx.


money. [52] This incident can have no meaning unless it indicates Gilbert de Lacy as contemporary Lord of Ewias, and so of Lanthony.

I must now turn to the Fitz-Warin Chronicle, which exhibits the traditionary accounts of a long-enduring feud between Walter de Lacy of Ewias and Joceas de Dynan of Ludlow. If there be any truth in the particulars related, they must have transpired at a period when all law and kingly authority were in abeyance. Such a period was the reign of Stephen as regarded Shropshire and Herefordshire; and so far as Joceas de Dynan was concerned, he never had anything at Ludlow after the accession of Henry II. His antagonist was undoubtedly Gilbert, not Walter, de Lacy; but whether Lacy recovered Ludlow Castle by stratagem, as the Legend declares, or by some more formal assertion of his hereditary right, he can only have been permitted to retain it on the latter ground, as sanctioned by Henry II. For there is no doubt that Gilbert de Laci's partisanship with Stephen and Hugh de Mortimer was overlooked by Henry II, and that he was regarded with much favour by that Monarch. As a proof of this I may instance one fact.- In 1158 a Donum was exacted from most English Counties, and Gilbert de Lacy was excused, by Writs of the King, his proportion in the several Counties of Herefordshire, Gloucestershire, and Shropshire. [53] Gilbert de Lacy became I think a Templar before his death; for the Monkish Chronicler of Lanthony, after recording the virtues of the first Hugh de Lacy and the sanctity of his brother Walter (the Abbot of Gloucester), further informs us that "Hugh had a Nephew, a most approved soldier, who, after winning a reputation for innumerable acts of valour, and coming off triumphant in many contests and wars, did not refuse to work in the Christian cause under the habit of a Templar". [54] That Gilbert de Lacy was here alluded to, I think probable from the terms used, but morally certain when I find that the Calendar of the Templars' lands taken in 1185 records benefactions in Guttingres (Guiting Temple), Holford, and Winchelcumbe, as having been made to the Order by Gilbert or G. de Lacy. [55] Another Record makes Gilbert de Lacy the Grantor of many tenements and lands attached to the Preceptory of the Templars at Quenyngton, in Gloucestershire. [56]

[52] History of Ludlow (Wright), p. 109.
[53] Rot. Pip. 4 Hen. II, pp. 144, 169, 170.
[54] Monasticon, VI, 130, b.
[55] Monasticon, VII, 823, 836. Agnes de Lacy and Cecilia Countess of Hereford, with William Pictavensis, appear to have primarily given the Preceptory of Quenington to the Order.


I cannot indicate the precise period of Gilbert de Lacy's death, or retirement from the world. One or both events will have taken place between 1158 and 1163, according to a fact already stated, and the further fact that "Gilbert Bishop of Hereford (translated to London in 1168) received from Hugh de Lacy the service of two knights'-fees which he was reputed to hold of the Bishop, but half of which service Hugh afterwards denied". [57] I have purposely withheld a part of the expression used in this quotation, because it bears upon another question, viz. as to when Hugh de Lacy entered upon public life and whether it was not some time before his Father's death? The Bishop of Hereford of 1165 asserted Hugh de Laci to have rendered service on two fees during the whole time of Bishop Gilbert. Now Gilbert Foliot was consecrated in September 1148, and if the above expression be literally true, Hugh de Lacy will have had seizin of these ecclesiastical fees long before his Father's death. He appears also in another matter earlier than we should ordinarily expect. It was before the year 1155 that the Shobdon Canons, whom I have so often alluded to, were allowed to migrate to Aymesty, a permission which Sir Hugh de Lacy as a friend of Sir Hugh de Mortimer persuaded the latter to revoke on the ground of its impolicy. The Canons were consequently removed to Wigmore. [58] This Sir Hugh was, I doubt not, the person whom all authorities agree to have been son and heir of Gilbert de Lacy.

HUGH DE LACY, probably on his succession, obtained a Charter of confirmation from Henry II. That Charter is not known to be in existence, but it once formed a part of the muniments preserved at Wigmore Castle, and was described in a catalogue of those muniments as the Charter which King Henry made to Sir Hugh de Lacy of the Manors of Stauntone Lacy, Lodelow, Webbeleye, Ewyas, and Arkhulle (Child's Ercall)". [59] These appear to me to have been the Manors of Lacy's demesne. The Feodary of 1165-6 contains the return of Hugh de Lacy.- The great Chief probably compiled the Document himself, and it is worthy of very particular attention. He considered himself entitled to the services of 58 knights'-fees, whereof 53 were of old and 5 of new feoffment. Besides this he had nine Tenants, each holding from 6 libratea down to a virgate of land, but without any specific knight's-service assessed on their Tenements. Some of these lived in Sir Hugh's household, some were in

[57] Liber Niger (Hearne), I, 150.
[58] History of Ludlow (Wright), p. 115.
[59] Additional MSS. (Brit. Muse.) No. 6041, fo. xxxvij.


his Welsh mansions, and he provided the necessaries of life to both the latter classes. [60] Sir Hugh's return does not directly allude to this long forfeiture which his Father had suffered; and he merely describes his fees of old feoffment as having been held over the respective Tenants, by his Antecessors in time of King Henry I. However, the services on 3 of these old fees were now refused or questioned by the Tenants. The 5 Fees of new feoffment had probably been granted during the Lacy forfeiture.- Two of them were held by Herbert de Castellis, and all of them appear to have been in Shropshire, as I have shown or shall show elsewhere.

The first Aid, assessed according to the returns enrolled in the Liber Niger, was put in charge in 1168, in consequence of the marriage of the King's daughter. An extreme view seems to have been taken of Lacy's liabilities; for instead of being assessed on 58 fees he was assessed on 60, and so was entered as accounting (at the rate of 1 merk per fee) for a sum of 40. 3s. 4d. [61]

In October 1171 Hugh de Lacy accompanied King Henry II in his expedition to Ireland; and when in April 1172 more urgent affairs obliged the King to make a hurried return, Hugh de Lacy was left, doubtless for the purpose of furthering his Master's interests across the Channel. [62] The rebellion of Prince Henry broke out in Normandy in April 1173. The King instantly recalled Hugh de Lacy from Ireland to aid him at this critical juncture; for the rebellion of his Son was prompted by the Councils, and seconded by the arms of Louis VII of France. Parties in Normandy were divided. On the side of the Prince stood the powerful Earl of Chester. The aged and experienced Earl of Arundel, and the chivalrous Hugh de Lacy, were constant in their devotion to the King. On July 6 Louis invested the important frontier town of Verneuil. It was magnanimously defended by Hugh de Lacy and Hugh de Beauchamp, its Governors, who held out for more than a month. On August 9, King Henry himself relieved Verneuil, and Louis was forced to retreat. The rebellion of Prince Henry had now extended to England, and the King can hardly be said to have recovered secure possession of his throne before the Winter of 1174. Under these circumstances it is not probable that Hugh de Lacy was permitted to return to Ireland. Judging from Hugh de Lacy's appearances

[60] Liber Niger (Hearne), I, 153-155.
[61] Rot. Pip. 14 Hen. II, Herefordshire.
[62] Hoveden says that tho King on this occasion gave the whole territory of Meath to Hugh de Lacy, to hold by service of 100 knight'-fees; also that he appointed him Custos of the City of Dublin and Justice (i.e. Viceroy) of Ireland.


in the King's Court, and from the constructive evidence of certain Charters, I am further inclined to think that he did not revisit Ireland till 1177. It was probably in this interval (1174-1177) that he negotiated the marriage of young William fitz Alan with a daughter of his own, whose name I cannot declare, but I think that she was at the time an infant. Four of Lacy's Shropshire Fees were given in frank-marriage on this occasion, and so went to augment the Barony of Fitz Alan. Meanwhile, Richard Earl of Strigoil, had been appointed Justiciar (i.e. Viceroy) of Ireland. He died in that office on April 5, 1176, and William fitz Adeline, one of the King's Dapiferi, was appointed to succeed him. It was early in May 1177 that King Henry, in a Great Council at Oxford, declared his son John to be King of Ireland, and exhibited a Papal sanction of the appointment. On this occasion the King renewed his former Charter to Hugh de Lacy, so far as the Province of Meath and the City of Dublin were concerned; but nothing was said about the Justiciarship [63]. Now probably Hugh de Lacy returned to Ireland, his mind filled with projects of a large if not of a selfish ambition. Early in 1179, the King being at Windsor, heavy complaints reached the Court about the excesses of William fitz Adeline and Hugh de Lacy, the Lords of Meath and of Wexford. [64] What view the King took of this does not appear; but the same year he shipped a quantity of corn from Bristol for the use of his retainers (familiae suae) in Ireland, and this corn was conveyed by servants of Hugh de Lacy. [65] Early in the year 1181 the King being in Normandy heard that Hugh de Lacy had married a daughter of the King of Connaught. This was without the royal license, and therefore the King sent the Constable of Chester and Richard de Pecco to supersede Lacy in his office of Custos of the City of Dublin. [66] So far the Chroniclers' accounts are substantiated by an entry on the Staffordshire Pipe-Roll of 1181; for the Sheriff actually charges an outlay which he had been ordered to make in forwarding the two new functionaries to their destination. But the Pipe-Rolls go historically much further than this, and assure us that Hugh de Lacy's offence was viewed as nothing less than High Treason. In short, there can I think be little doubt that King Henry suspected Lacy of an intention to found an independent Kingdom for himself in Ireland.
[67] Ludlow Castle was seized to the Crown in 1181, and

[63] Hoveden, 323, b, 324.
[64] Benedictus Abbas, p. 287.
[65] Rot. Pip. 25 Hen. II, Herefordshire.
[66] Benedictus Abbas, p. 354.
[67] I find this broadly asserted by one of the Chroniclers (Newburgh, p. 238). Newburgh says also that the King recalled Lacy from Ireland, but that Lacy set the mandate at nought. Newburgh gives a fuller account of Lacy's assassination than I have elsewhere seen. It differs from the account given by Dugdale, and adds a characteristic trait of King Henry II, viz. that he heard of the event with vast delight.


Turstin fitz Simon held the King's Herefordshire Manor of Linton for that year, in payment of 16. 10s., his salary for custody of the said Castle. A similar allowance was made to Turstin fitz Simon in 1182, 1183, and indeed till 1189 inclusive. Meantime, that is on July 25, 1185, Hugh de Lacy had been assassinated at Durrow, in Ireland. He left issue, says my authority, "four sons, Walter, Hugh, Gilbert, and William, and two daughters, AEgidia wife of Richard de Burgh, and Elena wife of Richard de Belfou". [68] The first of these Ladies is erroneously named as a daughter of Hugh de Lacy, and we may put in her stead that other daughter who was the wife of William Fitz Alan.

Walter de Lacy was evidently a Minor, or under political disqualification, perhaps both, at his Father's death. In 1186 the Sheriff of Herefordshire accounts 10. to the King for the issues of the lands of Hugh de Laci within his Bailiwick. In 1187 Lacy's Fief was assessed to the scutage of Galway as containing no less than 51 fees of old, and 11-1/10 fees of new feoffment. Ralph de Ardern, Sheriff of Herefordshire, levied and accounted for the whole sum of 62. 7s. thus arising. He so accounted because the Honour of Hugh de Lacy was in manu Regis. Further, the same Sheriff had received 47. for a year's issues of Hugh de Lacy's lands in Herefordshire. Out of this he had paid 37. for the cost and custody of the Castles of Ewyas and New Castle (Novi Castri) from August 1, 1186, to Michaelmas 1187, and 10. for the custody of Weobley Castle during the same period. In this year also Ludlow was assessed to a Royal Tallage at the high rate of 20 merks, as being in manu Regis. In 1188 Ralph de Arderne had again received 47. from Lacy's Herefordshire Fief, and had again expended it on the custody of Lacy's three Herefordshire Castles. I should observe in connection with this fragmentary account of Lacy's Escheat, that a House which he had in Shrewsbury was seized by the Crown, apparently about March 1185, and 1s. (the half-year's income therefrom) was accounted for by the Sheriff at Michaelmas 1185 as a new Escheat. Two Shillings per annum are

[68] Stapleton (Rot. Normanniae, II, lxxi).

AEgidia de Lacy was a daughter of Walter de Lacy, and so Granddaughter of Hugh (Fines, 9 Hen. III, m. 4).


afterwards regularly entered as arising from this source till Michaelmas 1188 inclusive.

About Midsummer 1189 Henry II appears to have restored the lands of Walter son and heir of Hugh de Lacy. Accordingly the various Accountants at the Michaelmas Exchequer of 1189 (King Richard had then succeeded) answer for only three quarters of a year's receipts from the Lacy estates. Lacy's Manor of Bretford in Wiltshire had thus yielded 19. 6s., his Herefordshire Fief 35. 5s., his House in Shrewsbury 1s. 6d.,- all for the King's use. [69]

In 1190 a Scutage, I think for Wales, was somewhat irregularly assessed throughout different parts of the Kingdom. Walter de Lacy was charged in Herefordshire for the same, on 51 knights'-fees only, that is, he was charged 25. 12s. 6d. at 10s. per fee. Not yet had Ludlow Castle been restored to Walter de Lacy; for I find that in this very year the Sheriff of Shropshire had stored the said Castle with corn, oats, bacon, and wine, at the order of the Chancellor (Longchamp) and at an expense of 10. 9s. 8d. Moreover the said Sheriff had paid to Gilbert de Essartis 100s. for custody of the same Castle under a like authority. The following year these payments were suspended, and I infer that Ludlow Castle was again in the hands of its Lord. In 1194 Walter de Lacy was put in charge to the Scutage for the King's Redemption. He was assessed on 51 fees, that is 51. 5s., at the rate of 1. per fee. "During this year", says my authority, "the ravages committed by Walter de Lacy, in conjunction with John de Courcy Lord of Ulster, upon the territory of the King in Ireland, caused a seizure of his lands into the King's hands". [70] A few extracts from the Pipe-Rolls will illustrate this statement. The King's Eacheator received at Michaelmas 1194, 1s. for the rent of an escheated house in Shrewsbury; at Michaelmas 1195 he received 3s. for the same; and afterwards 4s. per annum was accruing on this account till Michaelmas 1197, when the payment ceases. [71] At this period Walter de Lacy was evidently in treaty with King Richard for the royal pardon. The Herefordshire Pipe-Roll of 1197 enters him as owing 1000 merks, without any

[69] Rot. Pip. 1 Ric. I, pp. 98, 146, 178. The same Roll (p. 223) charges King Richard for a Palfrey and Accoutrements, (evidently provided on some state occasion) for the use of Hugh de Lacy,- I presume the second son of Hugh de Lacy, deceased.
[70] Stapleton, ut supra.
[71] Rot. Pip. 6 to 9 Ric. I.- It is nowhere stated whose the house was, but the former Escheat and a comparison of dates show it to have been Walter de Lacy's.


explanation of such a Fine. The Roll of 1198 assures me that such a proffer had been rejected as inadequate, and gives more of the actual transaction, as follows. [72]- "Walter de Laci renders account of 3100 merks (2066. 13s. 4d.), for having the King's good-will and seizin of his land. Into the Treasury he has paid 200., and he owes 1866. 13s. 4d.; of which debt he has paid 1100 merks (Quaere 1000 merks or 666. 13s. 4d. ?) in Normandy, and the residue (he will pay) at the Exchequer in England, viz. 200. at each Exchequer. And he owes 1200". [73]

I have already alluded to the assertion of Hoveden, that Ludlow Castle was seized into the King's hands by the Viceroy Hubert Walter, at Christmas 1197. [74] I do not question the fact; but whether the seizure was only pending the King's negotiations with Lacy, or whether it was intended that Ludlow should be an exception to the general reseizin accorded to Lacy I cannot declare. I think however that the latter was the case; for the next notice I have of Ludlow exhibits it, both town and Castle, as in the hands of King John.

I should pause here a moment to notice another feature in the annals of this remarkable family. The Norman Fief of De Lacy was at this time as great as his English, and perhaps as his Irish possessions. An idea of its magnitude may be gathered from the account which the King's Escheator rendered of his receipts from Lacy's estates in Normandy during the year before they were restored to the heir. That Officer had actually received therefrom 750. in money, besides produce-in-kind of diverse sorts,- grain, wine and fish. [75]

That King John at his succession looked upon Lacy with suspicion is probable. A Writ of September 4, 1199, mentions the outrages committed by W. de Lacy and John de Courci on the King's territory, as if they were not yet forgotten or else had been renewed, and yet we know that, on the very day previous, Walter de Lacy was in the King's Court at Rouen. Again in the next year he appears to have gone with the King to Normandy; for he occurs in the Court at Falaise on June 4. On November 9 he was with King John at Feckenham, in Worcestershire; and about this time it was

[72] King Richard was in Normandy all this time, and Lacy had evidently gone thither to make his peace.
[73] 820. of this balance was still due at Michaelmas 1201 (Rot. Canc. p. 108). Mr. Stapleton's version of the matter is as far from accurate as Dugdale's.
[74] Supra, Vol. I, p. 264.
[75] Rot. Scacc. Normanniae, A.D. 1098, m. 5 dorso.


that he contracted marriage with Margaret, one of the daughters of William de Braose, and on the day of marriage pledged himself to the said William by oath, that from that day forward, during the whole term of his life, he would hold in his own hands all his land in England and Normandy, so as not to have it in his power to give, sell, or mortgage any part of his land to any one, whereby the heirs, of his wife, daughter of the said William, might suffer decrease of their inheritance, unless it should be done by consent and wish of the aforesaid William".

William de Braose was at this time a special favourite of King John, and by a fine of 20 merks and a palfrey he secured the King's Charter dated Nov. 19, 1200, which ratified the hold which he had acquired on his Son-in-law. [76]

How vain in this instance were such precautions! In less than four years Lacy had lost his Norman Fief under a law stronger than that of mortgage,- the law of conquest. In less than ten years he and his Father-in-law were Outlaws and exiles, by sentence of the very King who had sanctioned their domestic contract.

In January 1201 I find Walter de Lacy in attendance on King John at Lincoln. The same year his Herefordshire Fief was assessed, as containing 51 Knights'-fees, to the second scutage of King John. This evidently included his Shropshire Fees; but one fee in Berkshire and 211 fees in Oxfordshire were separately assessed. [77]

After this we usually find Lacy's Shropshire Fief assessed to Scutages by itself. Thus in 1202 and 1203 it was put at 10 knights'-fees, and so answered to the third and fourth scutages of King John. In the latter instance William de Braose was held responsible for the charge, "because", says the Record, "he had Walter de Lacy's land in custody". In this same year (1203) it becomes evident that Ludlow was in the King's hand; for a tillage of 10 merks was set upon the Vill in common with other estates of the Crown. In 1204 Walter de Lacy had quittance in Shropshire from the fifth scutage of King John. He had gone over to his Irish estates, [78] and with the King's sanction; for a Patent of March 14, 1204, speaks of him as being in the King's service there, and directs that, as long as he was so, the Sheriffs of Shropshire and Herefordshire should protect his interests in those Counties. [79] Another Patent of March

[76] Stapleton, ut supra, p. lxxi.
[77] Rot. Canc. 3 John, pp. 110, 262, 280.
[78] The King seems to have taken six hostages from Walter de Lacy before he went to Ireland, that is, in February or March (Rot. Liberate, p. 106).
[79] Rot. Patent, p. 89.


26, shows him as one of King John's Commissioners in Ireland, in Judicial matters of great import; [80] another of August 31 addresses him side-by-side with Maurice fitz Henry the Viceroy of Ireland, relative to some proceedings to be taken against John de Courcy, eight Cantreds of whose land, in case judgment went against him, were to go to augment the Fiefs of Walter and Hugh de Lacy. [80]

A Charter of September 3, 1204, allows Walter de Lacy various privileges in respect of his Irish estates. [81] A Patent of November 2 enjoins him to take possession, on behalf of the Crown, of the City and Cantred of Limerick, which the King had hitherto entrusted to William de Braose, but was now advised to resume. Lacy was accordingly to hand the same over to the Viceroy of Ireland. [82] Two Charters of November 13 give to Walter de Lacy and his Brother Hugh no less than fourteen Irish Cantreds, but these Charters were brought back from Ireland by one of the Nuncios entrusted therewith, and were afterwards cancelled. [83]

This indication of distrust is strengthened by passages in the Close-Rolls, which show that in January and June 1205 King John had in his custody certain hostages as security for Walter de Lacy's conduct.

Moreover a Letter which, on June 30, 1205, the King addressed to his Irish Viceroy, though it indicates unshaken confidence in Hugh de Lacy (Earl of Ulster), yet seems to enjoin the Viceroy to defer to the advice of Walter de Lacy more as a matter of expediency than confidence. [84] In this year, and in 1206, Walter de Lacy's Shropshire Fief was rated to the sixth and seventh scutages of King John as consisting of eight Knights'-fees. Though there was a Tallage in each year, Ludlow was not assessed. It appears indeed that before May 26, 1206, Walter de Lacy had fined 400 merks for repossession of the Castle and land of Ludelawe; for a King's Writ of that date tells the Barons of the Exchequer to let the said Fine be liquidated at the rate of 100 merks per annum, instead of 200 (as originally agreed)

A Patent of February 21, 1207, shows that Walter de Lacy had been openly at variance with the Irish Viceroy about Limerick. The King thanks the Barons and Knights of Meath (Lacy's own Vassals) for their loyalty to the Crown, and for their efforts to keep their Lord

[80] Rot. Patent. p. 45.
[81] Rot. Cart. p. 136.
[82] Rot. Patent. p. 47.
[83] Rot. Cart. pp. 139, 140.
[84] Claus. I, 40.
[85] Claus. I, 71.


from contrary conduct. [86] That these efforts were unavailing, is proved by a Patent of March 5, 1207, which shows how Ludlow Castle was reseized by the King, having been temporarily in charge of William de Braose. The latter is to give it up to Philip de Albinyac, to whom the King had entrusted it, to keep during pleasure, and in the same way as the Justiciar (i.e. the Chief-Justice of England) had formerly kept it. [86] A Precept of March 10 shows that 20 merks had already been paid to Philip de Albinyac for this purpose; [87] a second orders wine of the King's to be sent from Bristol for the stores of Ludlow Castle. [88] In further proof of Lacy's disaffection, we have a Patent of April 14, 1207, offering him security if he will come to the King's Court, and there do and receive justice. [89] This was accompanied by a Letter-Close to the Viceroy of Ireland, telling him not to proceed to confiscation against Lacy, if he would so come and take his trial. [89] Again a Patent of May 23 exhibits Walter and Hugh de Lacy as both in Ireland, and trespassing on the rights of the Crown. [90]

On the 13th of July, 1207, Philip de Albiniac is ordered to deliver the Castle and Vill of Ludlow to William de Braose, [91]- a half indication that Lacy had come or was coming to terms with the King. On July 16 we accordingly find him in the Court at Winchester, and on September 27 in the Court at Bristol. On December 4th we hear of the King's releasing one of his hostages; and, on the 5th, the King informs the Viceroy of Ireland that he has committed to his faithful and beloved Walter de Lacy the Cantred of Ardmull, to hold during pleasure, and the Viceroy is not to allow him to be impleaded in any suit so long as he is, by the King's will, in England. [92] In January 1208, though we find mention of one of Lacy's hostages being still in the King's custody, the Baron himself is with the Court, and has the King's letters of Protection for himself and his Suite. [93] His full restoration to Royal confidence appears to have taken place in March. On the 19th of that month King John being at Clarendon, writes to inform the Viceroy of Ireland that "Walter de Lacy has made peace for his Irish estates". The Viceroy, if he has attacked Lacy's Tenants or Territory in any way, is to desist, and to leave him and them in peaceable possession. [94] A Patent of the same day orders that as soon as William

[86] Patent, p.69, bis.
[87] [88] Claus. I, pp. 79, 80.
[89] Patent, p. 70. Claus. I, 81.
[90] Patent, p. 72.
[91] Patent, p. 74.
[92] Claus. I, 98.
[93] Patent, 79.
[94] Claus. I, 106.


de Braose shall have delivered up his son to Walter de Lacy, to abide the King's pleasure (as a hostage for Braose, I presume), from that moment the King acquits Braose in respect of Ludlow Castle, which the King had committed to him to keep and to surrender when ordered. "This trust was not to continue because of a Charter thereon, which it seems had been executed by Braose and given to the King, but which the King had mislaid. When found, that Charter should be restored to Braose". [95]

On March 20th Walter de Lacy is still with the Court at Clarendon; on the 23rd a Patent styles him faithful and beloved; on the 9th of April the King (as if vouchsafing a special favour) allows that Hugh de Lacy, one of Walter's hostages, shall be permitted to go without irons, but still must be safely guarded. [96] On April 24, 1208, the King, at the request of Walter de Lacy, expedited a great Charter securing to him and his heirs his land of Meath, to hold by 50 Knights'-fees, and his fief of Finegal, in the Vale of Dublin, to hold by seven knights'-fees, of the King and his heirs for ever, under certain provisions as to the jurisdiction of the said provinces. [97] Soon after this, Lacy returned to Ireland; for a Patent of May 29, 1208, gives him the King's protection as long as he should remain there in the King's service. [98] At this period the loss of a great part of our national Records prevents our tracing the progress of events with anything like accuracy. It is difficult on the other hand to extract from the Chroniclers anything more than a general idea of the causes which induced King John's expedition to Ireland in the Summer of 1210. Suffice it to say that the great Houses of Lacy and Braose were in open rebellion, so that Meath, Ulster, and Munster were arrayed against the King. John's campaign was on the whole successful. It closed with the outlawry and banishment of Walter and Hugh de Lacy, and of the elder Braose. They retired to France. The wife and the eldest of Braose's Sons fell into the King's hands, and never reappeared. Tradition has it that they were famished in the dungeons of Windsor. [99] Walter and Hugh de Lacy, according to one account, took refuge in the Monastery of St. Taurin, at Evreux, but without declaring their rank. They maintained themselves for some time by servile employments; but the Abbot at length discovered who they were, and interceded with

[95] Patent, p. 80.
[96] Claus. I, 110.
[97] Rot. Cart. p. 178.
[98] Patent, p. 84.
[99] A much more circumstantial, and therefore more probable account of their deaths in Corfe Castle, is quoted by Mr. Wright (Hist. of Ludlow, p. 63).


King John in their behalf. This story consists with a probability that the Monastery of Foure, in Ireland, a cell to the Norman Abbey of St. Taurin, was afterwards founded and endowed by Walter and Hugh de Lacy,- grateful, we may suppose, to the friends of their adversity. [100]

It was during Walter de Lacy's exile, and probably in the years 1211 and 1212, that two Shropshire Surveys speak thus of his estates.- "Walter de Lacy used to hold of the King by Barony. He owed the service of ten Knights. His lands are in the King's hand". And again,- "The Castle and Vill of Ludellawe, with their appurtenances, are in the King's hand. Engelard Engayn (read Cigoyn), Sheriff of Herefordshire, is responsible for the same". [1]

Before June 1, 1213, Walter de Lacy sent Letters to King John, asking for permision to return into England (or to come to the King in England) on certain conditions. The King promised that he might safely and at once do so. [2] The result of the conference was that on July 29 the King wrote to Engelard de Cigony, enclosing a copy of an undertaking made by Lacy, and desiring that as soon as Lacy should have delivered four hostages [3] and other securities to the said Engelard, he should give him full seizin of all his lands except Ludlow, which the King retained during pleasure. If any stores or stock had been removed from the said lands since June 24 last, they were to be replaced. A similar precept was addressed to Hugh de Nevill, Justice of the Forest, probably as having custody of the Forest of Ewyas. [4] The same day another Mandate tells Engelard de Cigoin that, as soon as Lacy shall have found security for paying 40. per annum towards custody of Ludlow Castle, he (Engelard) is to give him seizin of the Manor of Ludlow, with all its appurtenances, except the Castle. [5] A mandate of August 7 enjoins the same thing in other words, viz. that Engelard de Cigoin do give to Walter de Lacy seizin of the Manor of Ludelawe for 40. per annum. [6] That this was not done is clear; for the Borough of Ludlow remained in the King's hands, probably because Lacy failed to find the required securities. Consequently in 1214 we find the Vill of Ludlow assessed at 50 merks to a King's Tallage. [7]

[100] Rot. Normanniae (Stapleton), II, lxxij.
[1] Testa de Nevill, pp. 55, 56.
[2] Claus. I, 134; Patent, p. 99.
[3] The hostages were to be the sons of Miles Pichard, John Pichard, Gilbert de Lacy, and of William de Fuishes (read Furches).
[4] Claus. I, 147.
[5] [6] Fines, pp. 480, 487.
[7] Rot. Pip. 16 John, Salop.- In 2 Hen. III (1218) Engelard de Cycomato acknowledged himself to have received 30 merks of this Tallage. The Vill of Ludlow is charged with the Balance. (Rot. Pip. 2 Hen. III, Salop.) It was paid in the following year.


In that year Walter de Lacy was serving King John in France. We have news of his having landed at Rochelle before March 14, and of his going to Narbonne on April 13 to purchase horses for the King. On this occasion he is styled "our faithful and beloved" by the King. [8] On May 26 the King's Letters exempt Walter de Lacy generally from the Scutage of Poitou, which had its effect in Shropshire by the Sheriff's acquitting him of 21 merks, the assessment proportioned to seven knights'-fees.

On October 28 the King, having come to some agreement about Ludlow with Walter de Lacy, orders Engelard de Cigoyn to deliver up the Vill instantly to the said Walter. [9] Another Writ followed, on November 2, about the Castle. It is worth giving in the King's own words:- "The King to Engelard de Cygon, greeting. What thou reportest thyself to have done in the matter of the swine" (probably alluding to some garrison stores) "is well done. And although it may be better worth while to restore the Castle of Ludelawe (to Lacy) than to pay 40 merks per annum for its custody, yet keep you the said Castle in our hand, and let Walter de Lacy have the vill according to the agreement between him and us, because we don't wish to flinch from the said agreement". [10]

On Dec. 26, 1214, King John, being at Worcester, commands Engelard de Cygoin to allow Walter de Lacy to have all the franchises which Hugh de Lacy his Father rightfully had in Henry II's time. The Sheriff is to support and protect Lacy, his tenants, and his property. [11] In the next year (1215) we have innumerable instances of the favour and trust with which King John at last regarded this influential but often disloyal Baron. Walter de Lacy is onewhile charged with commissions of great import in Shropshire, Staffordshire, and Herefordshire; at other times he is found in the King's Court. The King allows him to hunt in Dean Forest, presents him with a Destrier, prevents his being unduly taxed, gives him custody of escheated lands, and releases his Brother William from a four-years prison, Walter being one of the Manucaptors for the said William's future fidelity. The more important negotiations of that year were as follows. On March 15, Lacy proffered a great Fine to King John at The Tower. Till he could satisfy the King on the subject of this Fine (i.e. his means and securities for paying

[8] Patent, pp. 112, 113.
[9] [10] Claus. I, 175, 173.
[11] Claus. I, 182.


it), he gave up every Deed and Charter relating to his property in England or Ireland. These Documents the King lodged at the Temple, and undertook, by Patent, to restore them to Lacy when he (the King) was satisfied as aforesaid. [12] On the 12th of April the King ordered Engelard de Cigoyn to deliver up to "our faithful and beloved Walter de Lacy, his Castle of Ludlow". [13] On July 6, Walter de Lacy had not yet found the security for his Fine about his Irish estates, but the King orders the Keepers of his Irish Castles, no less than eight of which are named, to deliver them up to Lacy the instant that the Viceroy should inform the said Keepers of the security aforesaid being found.
[14] It is evident that part of this security was that Gilbert, the eldest son of Walter de Lacy, should be given up as a hostage to the King. The youth reached the King at Ludgershall (Wiltshire) on July 9th, and a Patent of the 10th certifies the fact. [15]

Lacy's Fine and Convention, or rather the restoration of his Irish Estates conditioned thereby, was to take effect from July 5, 1215. We have the document in full.- Lacy covenants to give the King 4000 merks to have his land in Ireland, now in the King's hand, viz. that land which he had on the day of his forfeiture. His Castle and land of Drogheda were however to be retained by the King for three years, with several provisoes in case the King's then intended Crusade (peregrinatio) should last a longer or shorter time than the said three years. The 4000 merks were to be paid in three instalments (of 1000, 1500, and 1500 merks each) before Michaelmas 1216. Lacy was to find security for such payments before he had seizin, and his son was to remain a hostage for his loyal service till the money was actually paid. On the said son's being released, the King, if he chose, was to have another hostage, a legitimate son or daughter of Walter de Lacy, if he had either. The Fines (on any grant or renewal) with Lacy's Irish Tenants were to be the King's up to July 5, 1215; those subsequent were to be Lacy's. The Knights Hospitallers of London were to keep this and all other writings made between the King and Lacy, till the Convention should be fulfilled. The Viceroy of Ireland, if he could only get security for one of the four thousand merks, was not on that account to delay the proposed restoration, for the hostage given by Lacy was sufficient security for the residue. [16]

Patents of July 27 and Aug. 1, inform Lacy's Tenants in Meath,

[12] [13] [14] Patents pp 131, 132, 148.
[15] Patent, p. 149.
[16] Rot. Finium, pp. 562-564 and 601-603; Patent, p. 181.


and in Ireland generally, of his restoration to the King's favour and his estates; but something is still said in one of these about the conditioned securities which, when found, the Viceroy should in due course certify to have been so found. [17] On August 2, the King releases six hostages from Hereford Castle at the prayer of Walter de Lacy. On Sept. 13, the King orders that, all instalments of Lacy's fine, received in Ireland, be lodged in the Church of the Holy Trinity at Dublin. [18]

The year 1216, the last of John's life, can only be called conventionally the last of his reign. Practically his kingdom had departed from him. Nevertheless Walter de Lacy, like other Barons of the West, forgot all former grievances, and was found loyal at the last. A letter of King John to his Irish Viceroy, dated April 12, implies that Walter de Lacy had paid 1000 merks of his Fine, and prolongs the terms at which the remainder was to be exacted. [19] Similar marks of favour, and many proofs of trust, continue to occur in the King's Writs of the succeeding months. A Patent of July 30th may be only apparently of another complexion.- The King, not liking that there should be so many boys (hostages) in Devizes Castle, takes measures to remove Walter de Lacy's son from thence and to bestow him in custody somewhere in the Marches of Wales. [20] On August 8th, the King appoints Walter de Lacy one of the Keepers of Elmley Castle. [21] On August 18th, he appoints him Sheriff of Herefordshire, and Walter de Clifford junior is to give up the Castle and County to his Keeping, for as long as the King shall please. [22] On the same day the King restores to him three Irish Castles which his Brother Hugh and another had held in his Fief. [23] A Patent of August 19th is a startling document for English ears. It allows and gives license to the faithful and beloved Walter de Lacy that, if Louis (Prince Louis of France was then in England) should come and besiege Hereford Castle so that the siege could not be raised without the intervention of an army,- that in that case Lacy need not venture his person within the said Castle during the siege, but only see that it be garrisoned by those who might he trusted, as surely as Lacy might, to defend it without loss of the King's honour and advantage. [24] On August 30, Walter de Lacy appears as Custos of the vacant See of Hereford. [25] An act of October 10th indicates not merely King John's deference to Lacy's

[17] Patent, p.151.
[18] Claus. I, 228.
[19] Claus. I, 260.
[20] [21] [22] [23] [24] Patent, pp. 191, 192, 193, 194.
[25] Claus. I, 285


every wish, but perhaps something of remorse for his own past conduct. The King gives a tract of land in Acornbury Forest to Margaret de Lacy (Walter's wife) whereon she may found a house of religion for the souls of William de Braose her Father, Matilda her Mother, and William her Brother. [26] This reminiscence of his former victims was addressed by John to Walter de Lacy himself,- as Sheriff of Herefordshire I presume. Lacy was with the King or coming to him at the time; for he transacted business for him at Lincoln on October 17th. [27] On the 19th King John died.

There seems never to have been the least interruption to the good understanding which existed between King Henry III and Walter de Lacy, from the date of that Prince's accession to the day of his great Vassal's death. Lacy was continued seven years in the Shrievalty of Herefordshire, sometimes accounting himself, sometimes by a Deputy. The Royal Writs to him in that capacity indicate the greatest favour and confidence. Other Writs of the young King tend to give full effect to his Father's Charter, and to Margaret de Lacy's efforts in relation to her proposed foundation of a House of Religion at Acornbury. Others again, addressed to two successive Viceroys, insist upon that full restoration of Walter de Lacy's Irish estates which had been guaranteed by the Convention of 1215. Lacy meanwhile appears to have remained in England. In 1218 his Shropshire Fees, estimated to be seven in number, are assessed to the first Scutage of Henry III. In 1221 he has quittance of the Scutage of Biham. On the 24th of April 1222, I find that he was in Ireland, having gone thither in the King's service. [28] Later in the year, he is seen to have been active in recovering his lost estates, the King still urging the Viceroy, by letters, to assist him. On December 27th, 1222, we have notice of Gilbert, a younger Brother of Walter de Lacy, crossing the Channel as a King's Messenger to the second Brother,- Hugh Earl of Ulster.

Before July 1223 Walter de Lacy had returned to England. A Patent dated at Worcester on the 5th of July offers safe-conduct to Lewellyn, Prince of Wales, if he will meet the King at Ludlow.
[30] Henry however does not seem to have visited Ludlow on this occasion; probably because his offer was declined. He remained at Worcester nearly a fortnight longer, and then went southwards. On July 14 I find Walter de Lacy superintending his successor in the

[26] Patent, 199.
[27] Claus. I, 291.
[28] [29] Claus. I, p. 493, 527.
[30] Patent, 7 Hen. III, sub die.


Shrievalty, in respect of certain works at Hereford Castle. [31] In August 1223 Walter de Lacy had Quittance of the Scutage of Wales, in respect of his lands in seven Counties, viz. Shropshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Wiltshire, Staffordshire, Gloucestershire, and Oxfordshire. In the four first Counties he was farther empowered to levy an Aid on his Tenants, "wherewith to sustain himself in the King's service".
[32] A Writ of November 16 following, informs the Viceroy of Ireland that the King still retains Walter de Lacy for his service in England, and desires that all Suits commenced against the said Walter since he left Ireland shall be adjourned till Easter 1224. [33] That Feast found Lacy indeed in Ireland, but on other business than litigation. The Earl of Ulster and the men of Meath were in rebellion against King Henry, and Walter de Lacy had been sent to subdue his own brother and his own Vassals.

A Writ of March 30th, 1224, certifies these facts to the Sheriff of Herefordshire, who is consequently desired to exact no Suit of County or Hundred from Walter de Lacy's demesnes during his absence. [34] Another Writ of the same day enjoins the Viceroy of Ireland to provide accommodation in Trim Castle for Walter de Lacy and his Followers, so long as the said Walter should be in that quarter, levying war on the enemies of the King and of himself. [35] A Patent of the 15th of April 1224, which commands Walter de Lacy to give custody of Ludlow Castle to William de Gammages, must, under the circumstances, be taken as a security for his fidelity while in Ireland. [36] In this year his Shropshire Fees were acquitted of the scutage of Bedford.

A Writ of April 21, 1225, mentions incidentally a Cantred in Ireland sometime given by Walter de Lacy in marriage with his daughter Egidia to Richard de Burgh. [37] Another Writ of April 22 mentions William de Lacy (Walter's brother, I presume) as if under escheat. Before May 13 Walter de Lacy had fined 3000 merks with the King to have seizin of all the lands in Ireland which had become forfeit by the rebellion of Hugh de Lacy or his Tenants, except the lands of three of the latter who had already come to terms with the King. Lacy's Fine covenants for further privileges, and inter alia that he may have the Castle of Ludlow which the King had retained in his hand because of the late war. Lacy pledged all his English land to the King, that he would find Securities for this Fine within a stated period, and the King accepted the whole

[31] [32] Claus. I, 555, 571.
[33] [34] [35] Claus. I, pp. 575, 590, 591.
[36] Vide supra, Vol. IV, p. 148.
[37] Vide supra, p. 256.


contract, and certified William Marshall Earl of Pembroke (now Viceroy of Ireland) of its terms. The Earl was to give Lacy seizin accordingly. [38] On October 5 of this year I find a Certificate that Lacy was in the King's service in England, [39] and on the 22nd the King gives him some indulgence as to the term of paying one instalment of his fine. [40]

A Writ of March 23, 1226, shows that the King still retained Walter de Lacy in England; [41] another, of July 4, would imply his previous return to Ireland; for it informs Geoffrey de Mariscis (now Viceroy) of the particulars of the said Walter's Fine, and enjoins him, on having security for the residue thereof, to give Lacy its benefits. [42] A Writ of January 6, 1227, shows the King supporting a construction of this Fine which was in Lacy's favour; [43] but later Writs show that Lacy was dealing harshly, not only with his Brother's Tenants, but with his Brother himself, towards whom the King appears to relent. At the same time that the King defers to the previous discretion of Walter de Lacy, in retaining certain of Hugh de Lacy's Castles, which the King had ordered him to restore, the King enjoins that the adjacent territories be at least given to Hugh, and adopts a plan by which the responsibility of restoring the Castles would devolve on himself. [44]

In 1229 and 1230 Walter de Lacy's Shropshire fees (still reputed to be seven) were acquitted of the scutages of Keri and Brittany. A Patent of April 20th, 1230, dated at Portsmouth, names him among those whose property etc. was to be protected while they were with the King in foreign parts.

The arrangement thus indicated was probably reversed soon after; for in July 1230, the King of Connaught, hearing of the King's absence in France, attacked the English in Ireland, and was defeated with enormous loss by Geoffrey de Mariscis, the Viceroy, two divisions of whose army were commanded by Walter de Lacy and Richard de Burg. [45]

In 1231 Walter de Lacy was assessed to the scutage of Poitou, in respect of his seven Shropshire Fees, and paid a part of the charge. In 1232 he was excused his contribution to the Scutage of Elvein. About the year 1233 died Gilbert, the only son and the heir-apparent of Walter de Lacy. He left a son, Walter, and two daughters, by his wife Isabella, daughter of Ralph Bigot; which Isabella surviving him, had before April 11, 1234, remarried to John fitz

[38] [39] [40] Claus. II, 39, 64, 67.
[41] [42] Claus. II, 104, 125.
[43] [44] Claus. II, 206, 182.
[45] Matthew Paris, I, 366 (Watts).


Geoffrey. A Patent of that date assigns to her and to him the Castle and Honour of Ewyas-Lacy, as Isabella's dower out of the estate of her former husband.

I have said that Gilbert de Lacy left at his decease a son Walter. This fact, hitherto unnoticed by any Genealogist, is embodied in a Charter which belongs to the very year at which our narrative has arrived. The said Charter moreover informs us that the elder Walter de Lacy was that year in Ireland: it tells us too of the kingly state which he kept there, and how meanwhile hc managed his English estates, and especially his great Castle of Ludlow. [46]

On the 1st of August 1234, Walter de Lascy, being at Trim in Ireland, certifies that he has given and conceded to William de Lucy, for his homage and service, the Stewardship (Scenescalitiam) of all the lands which he (Walter) then had, or might by any chance have, in England. Likewise he gives to the same William two carucates of the demesne of his Castle of Lodelawe. The said William and his heirs were to hold the said Stewardship and land, of the Grantor and his heirs, in fee. In consideration of the said two carucates, William and his heirs were to be Constables of Lodelawe Castle, which they should keep, or cause to be kept, at their own cost for ever. They were further to maintain a Chaplain, a Porter, and two Sentinels there, as they had been maintained aforetime. This was to be the Rule when the Grantor or his heirs proposed to make any short stay at Ludlow Castle; but, in time of hostility, the Grantor and his heirs should garrison the Castle, and the Grantee and his heirs should remain in the Outer Bailey, so long as such garrison should be there. [47] The Grantee and his heirs were further to take, in the Grantor's absence, such rates (prisas), taxed upon bread and beer, in the vill of Ludelawe, as the Grantor had been accustomed to take, or could lawfully take, when present. The repairs which William de Lucy and his heirs were to do at the walls and dwellings of the Castle, were to be at the Grrantor's cost, under view (i.e. valuation) of two lawful men of the Vill. The Grantee and his heirs should have fuel from the same Bosc, as former Constables.

[46] Dugdale's MSS. K, fo. 19.-from a Charter in possession of Sir Thomas Lucy of Cherlcote, in 1638.
[47] This version of the passage differs considerably from Dugdale's, as given page 502 of his History of Warwickshire (Thomas' Edition). I have preferred to follow Dugdale's transcript of the original Latin Deed, as far as possible;- but it is evident that the said transcript was carelessly taken at first, sad that when Dugdale came to translate it, it confused him. If he himself was thus led into an erroneous interpretation, I very probably have renewed the mistake in another form.


If William or his heirs, by command of the Grantor or his heirs, should go anywhither on the Grantor's territory to hold a Court, to audit accounts, or expedite other of the Grantor's affairs, they should be provided in all necessaries of food and drink for themselves and five horses. Further the Grantor would provide, for the Grantee and his heirs male, all garments and accoutrements as for a Knight of his own household. Lastly, if Walter son of Gilbert de Lascy, when he should be of age, should wish to have the aforesaid two carucates in his own hand, he should give the Grantee a fair equivalent elsewhere.

This Charter was witnessed by Sir Richard Bishop of Meath, Sir Geoffrey de Marisco, [48] Symon de Lascy, Almaric de Lascy, Symon de Tylleshope, Michael de Criktot, Philip de Wichecot, Hugh de Stanton then Chancellor to Walter de Lacy, and William de Ponte Clerk, the Notary who drew up the Deed. It was attested by the Grantor's seal, charged with a simple Fesse, the well-known cognizance of his House.

At Michaelmas 1285, and Easter 1236, the Aid in marriage of the King's Sister was assessed on eight fees of Walter de Lacy in Shropshire. The first moiety of 8 merks was paid by hand of Robert de Stanton. [49] On the 24th of February, 1241, the King had heard of Walter de Lacy's decease, and ordered the Sheriffs of Herefordshire and Shropshire to take custody of his lands. [50] Matthew Paris dates the death of Walter de Lacy as about Easter 1241. [51] In his old-age he had lost his sight, and suffered from many other infirmities. The Chronicler justly gives him the pre-eminence among all the Nobles of Ireland, and adds sententiously, but not accurately, that he left his inheritance to be divided among his daughters. [52]

Walter son of Gilbert, and Grandson of Walter de Lacy, died in infancy between the years 1234 and 1241. The heirs of Walter de Lacy Senior, were his two Granddaughters Matilda and Margaret, of whom I shall speak presently. His wife Margaret survived him, and on June 25, 1241, had respite of a debt of 12. which she owed the King for certain chattels which she had had out of the estate of her deceased husband. [53] A Writ-Close of November

[48] He had now ceased to be Viceroy of Ireland.
[49] Testa de Nevill, pp. 61, 60. Five end a half merks more were paid by the Tenants of Lacy's Fief in 1242 (Rot. Pip. 26 Hen. III).
[50] Rot. Finium, I, 337.
[51] M. Paris, p. 552 (Watts).
[52] Ibidem, pp. 577-8.
[53] Rot. Finium, I, 346, 413.


27, 1241, assigns to the said Margaret a part of her dower in Ludlow.

I now arrive at a somewhat difficult subject,- rendered so, partly by an accidental similarity of names, partly by the, errors of former Writers. Instead of commenting unnecessarily on these errors, I will follow my usual plan of quoting authentic Records in chronological sequence. Where such Records exist, the conclusions which they suggest will seldom be found uncertain or untrue.

On February 19, 1244, the King commands the Sheriff of Herefordshire to value and make equal partition of the lands, late Walter de Lacy's, in that County, and to deliver one portion thereof to Peter de Geneva and Matilda his wife, granddaughter (neptem), and one of the Coheirs of the said Walter. The other portion, belonging to Matilda's Sister, was to be as yet retained in the King's hand. [54]

Peter de Geneva, here mentioned, was a Provenal of mean birth, but a great favourite with King Henry III, who having the Wardship of the granddaughters of Walter de Lacy, gave the eldest in marriage to this Foreigner. [55]

On March 15,1244, the King commands John le Strange, Justice of Chester, to deliver to Peter de Geneva "the Castle of Ludlow, which belonged to the said Peter's wife". [56] A Certificate of June 25, 1245, shows that the King had allowed to Peter de Geneva 100. per annum at the Exchequer, till certain portions of his wife's inheritance should be delivered to him (donec dotes [57] de haereditate uxoris suae deliberentur). This annuity was now being commuted for Crown-grants of another kind, not relevant to our subject. [58] In this same year, seven knights'-fees in Shropshire were assessed, in the name of Walter de Lacy, to the Aid in marriage of the King's daughter. The assessment was 7., whereof Margaret de Lacy (Walter's Widow, I presume) paid 5., and remained due. The Scutage of Gannok, at 3 merks per fee, was also assessed in 1246 on Walter de Lacy, but no instalment on this debt of 14. was paid at the time

Meanwhile, that is, on December 19, 1245, it appears that nearly 1000. had been owing by Walter de Lacy to certain Jews, whose

[54] Rot. Finium, I, 346, 413.
[55] Matth. Paris (Watts), I, 771. The Historian erroneously calls Matilda de Lacy daughter of Walter.
[56] Patent, 28 Hen. III, sub die.
[57] The word dotes is here used in an uncommon but not improper sense, viz. things brought by a wife to her husband.
[58] Rot. Finium, I, 437, 445.


assets were now the King's. The King excused Peter de Geneva and Matilda his wife their moiety of this debt; but the moiety of John de Verdun and Margery his wife (Lacy's other Coheir) was to be by them accounted for. [59]

In 1248-9, Peter de Geneva was appointed Governor of Windsor and two other Royal Castles; [60] but in the course of the latter year he died. [61] Consistently with this date, in October 1249, we find Matilda de Lacy singly impleaded at Westminster, by the Widow of one of her Shropshire Tenants, for dower. [62] Matilda de Lacy had issue by Peter de Geneva a son and a daughter; but it is evident that the former died in infancy. She remarried to Geoffrey de Genevill, whom Dugdale (misled by the similarity of the names Geneva and Genevill) has erroneously set down to be her Son. The first that I hear of Geoffrey de Genevill is in October 1253, when he and Matilda his wife appear as having jointly the Seigneury of the same Shropshire Manor, for dower in which Matilda had been singly impleaded in 1249. [63] Geoffrey de Genevill or Joinville was of the town so named in Champagne. He was son of Simon de Joinville by his second wife Beatrice of Burgundy. His usual style was Joinville de Vaucolour to distinguish him (says my authority [64]), from his Brother Sir John de Joinville, of whom I shall say something hereafter.

On September 18, 1254, King Henry III, by Patent, restored to Geoffrey de Gyanvill the Castle of Trim in Ireland, as the right of Matilda de Lacy his wife. [65] In this same year the Aid for knighting Prince Edward was put in charge; but the Shropshire Fees of Lacy were not mentioned in the Assessment for that County.

It is clear to me that at this time no final partition had been made between the Coheirs of Lacy. As to Ludlow Castle, I suppose it to have been in the hands of Geoffrey de Genevill, but the Inquisitions of 1255 do not so much as mention his name. Those Records however give us a very vague account of "things which pertained to the

[59] Rot. Finium, I, 437, 445.
[60] Dugdale's Baronage, 769.
[61] Matthew Paris expressly gives 1249 as the date of Peter de Geneva's death. Mr. Blakeway (Documents, p. 33), rightly correcting M. Paris as to Matilda's relationship to Walter de Lacy, seems to question this date, and Matthew Paris' account generally. I therefore corroborate the date by other evidence. Mr. Blakeway's own error in ignoring the existence of Peter de Geneva altogether, and assigning Geoffrey de Genevill as the only husband of Matilda de Lacy, was, for him, a most extraordinary one.
[62] Placita, Mich. Term, 33, 34 Hen. III, m. 21 dorso.
[63] Placita, Mich. Term, 37, 38 Hen. III, m. 5.
[64] Documents (ut supra), p. 32.
[65] Rot. Vascon. 38 Hen. III.


Castle of Ludlow", that is, I presume, of the various Tenements in Shropshire which were charged, or had customarily been charged, with services of Castle-guard or other dues to the Lords of Ludlow. Two knights'-fees in Stoke Say, half a fee in Wootton, land yielding 20s. rent in Onibury and Walton, a fourth part of a fee in Downton, a fee in Hopton Cangeford, a fee in Bitterley, half a fee in Rushbury, half a fee in Kenley, half a fee in Henley, a fee in (Great) Sutton and Wichcott, a fee in Middleton by Bitterley, a fourth part of a fee in Pole,- these were stated or implied to be appurtenances of Ludlow Castle. In the same category we have also,- eight virgates in Hakes (now Rock) held by the Hospitallers of Ludlow in frank almoign;- various other tenements in Hakes whose issues were apportioned to the dower of Margery de Lacy; [66] two virgates in Wigley, for which Robert Duvile, the Tenant, owed fifteen days' ward in the Tower of Ludlow Castle, in war-time;- twelve acres in Wigley, for which he paid 2s. rent (also apportioned to Margery de Lacy's dower);- two carucates of land in Ludlow-fields, part of the same dower;- the Old Vivary which paid a pound of wax at the Castle on St. Mary Magdalene's day;- a rent of 18d. for a messuage; another of a pair of forces (sic) for a parcel of land; other rents of,- a spur, a pound of pepper, two several pounds of cumin, and 4d. in money, arising respectively from a parcel of land, a virgate of land, two shops (soldae), and a Smithy;- these were the items which completed the incongruous list. [67]

Writs of military Summons addressed to Geoffrey de Genevile in 1256 and 1260 show him recognised in the position of a Baron-Marcher of Shropshire. On June 11, 1260, we at length hear that partition of Weobley and Ludlow was made by Charter, between Geoffrey de Genevill and John de Verdon, [68] but the particulars are not preserved. We must learn the same from subsequent Records. In the same year the Scutage of Wales was assessed on no part of Lacy's Shropshire Barony, but John de Verdon appears under military summons as a Baron-Marcher. On December 24, 1263, John de Verdon was named with Roger de Mortimer, John fitz Alan, James d'Audley, and Hamo le Strange as one of the King's Commissioners for Keeping the Peace in the Counties of Salop and Stafford. His subsequent loyalty proved him worthy of a place in such a fraternity. He shared also in their misfortunes; for

[66] Widow of Walter, I presume.
[67] Rot. Hundred. II, 69 and 80, collated.
[68] Additional MSS. (Brit. Museum), No. 6041, fo. xxxvij.


during the rebellion which ensued, his Warwickshire Castle of Brandon was demolished by the Barons' party. [69]

One of the Chroniclers (Rishanger), relating the events which followed the Battle of Lewes, and which closed the year 1264, speaks of a series of successes won by Simon de Montfort against the Western Barons. Backed by Lewellyn he first took the Castles of Hereford and Haye and devastated with fire and sword the estates of Roger de Mortimer of Wigmore. Hugh de Mortimer of Richard's Castle surrendered that fortress and his own person to the Earl. Ludlow Castle was in turn reduced. Finally at Montgomery, Roger de Mortimer was constrained to come to terms with Montfort, and, as we are told, gave hostages in pledge of his peaceful intentions. [70]

There may be some doubt whether these statements are not exaggerated. Their Author was a zealous anti-royalist, a believer too in the miracles and the sainthood of Simon de Montfort. The Continuation of Matthew Paris (a Chronicle supposed to be another work of the same Rishanger) repeats the story of Montfort's campaign with very little variation,- except that it places the whole series of events in the commencement of 1265. [70] On the whole I think it probable that about this period Ludlow Castle was actually won by the Barons; for Rishanger enumerates Lodelawe among the places which were reduced by the Lords Marchers immediately after Prince Edward's escape from Hereford and before the Battle of Evesham. [70] Rishanger's admission of the recapture of Ludlow is perhaps the best proof of his veracity in regard to its previous capture.

After these troubles, viz. in January, 1266, a Writ of the King orders that all Law-Suits wherein John de Verdon was Plaintiff, should be postponed till Easter Term. [71] A partition of all the fees pertaining to the Barony of Lacy seems eventually to have been made between Geoffrey de Genevill and John de Verdon. The latter, whose remaining history I will now give, accompanied Prince Edward in the Crusade of 1270. His wife Margery de Lacy was already deceased, and, about a year after his departure, his eldest son by her, viz. Nicholas de Verdon, died also. It is evident that during John de Verdon's absence this Nicholas was to stand seized of a part of his Mother's Barony. Accordingly, on his death, a King's Writ, dated August 5, 1271, ordered the Inquisitions usual

[69] Dugdale's Baronage, I, p. 473.
[70] Rishanger's Chronicle (Ed. Halliwell), pp. 35 and 13; M. Paris Contin. (Ed. Watts), p. 997.
[71] Patent, 50 Hen. III.


on the death of a Tenant in capite to be taken. By one Jury he was found to have died seized of the Castle of Ewyas Lacy; by another, of half the Barony of Weobley; by a third, of half the Borough of Ludlow. In his moiety of Ludlow were rents of 10. 4s. in money, half a pound of pepper, and two pounds of cumin. He also had had a share of the tolls, and 7s. of the rents termed forinsec. Of land without the Borough he had held 23 acres in demesne, and had had half the proceeds of four Mills, equal to 13. per annum. He had owed the services of 7 knights'-fees to the Crown. His heir was his Brother Theobald, now 23 years of age and over. [72] On September 18, the King received the homage of the said Theobald, and ordered the Eacheator citra Trent, to give him seizin of, all his deceased Brother's lands, after taking security for his Relief. [73]

Edward, now King of England, returned from his Crusade in August 1274. Whether John de Verdon came home before or with the King does not appear. On October 17 following, he was deceased, and the usual Writ of Diem clausit extremum set the Inquests in motion. The particulars of his Manor of Stoke-upon-Tern I reserve to a more fitting occasion. He is described as having died seized of a moiety of Ludlow, in terms which contain not the slightest allusion to the previous seizin of his two Sons there. Twenty-three acres of demesne, 10. 10s. of assized rents, 13. for a share of the Mills, 8. for pleas, perquisites of Court, and Fairs,- these with other items yielded a total income of 31. 17s. 8d., which constituted his share of Ludlow. Under him Sir Stephen de Buterley had held 1 fees, Philip de Clinton a fee, Roger de Burchull fee, and the Preceptor of the Templars of Lidley a fee. Ludlow or Lod, as it is written, was accounted to be a member of Weobley, and Verdon's whole moiety of the Barony of Weobley and Ewyas was held by service of 7 knights'-fees due to the Crown. Theobald, son and heir of the deceased Baron, is said by one Jury to be of full age, by another to be more than 22, while we know that he was at least 26 years of age. [74]

The Ludlow Jurors of November 26, 1274, spoke of two recent Escheats which had befallen Verdon's moiety of the Manor. John fitz Aer, Escheator for Henry III, had held it from August 10 to September 29, 1271, receiving 41s. of the issues thereof during that period. This was after the death of Sir Nicholas de Verdon; whilst since the death of Sir John de Verdon, which took place on October

[72] Inquisitions, 55 Hen. III, No. 27.
[73] Rot. Finium, II, 548.
[74] Inquisitions, 2 Edw. I, No. 34.


21 last, [75] the King had had the said moiety again in his hand, but of the receipts therefrom the Jurors knew nothing. [76]

John de Verdon, I should observe, had remarried after the death of Margery de Lacy, and his second wife Alianore survived him. For the career of his son Theobald and an account of his later descendants I refer elsewhere. [77]

I now return to Geoffrey de Genevill who, being second husband of Matilda de Lacy, enjoyed, in her right, the Castle and the other moiety of the Manor of Ludlow.- On September 14, 1267, King Henry III, being at Shrewsbury, renewed to the said Geoffrey and Matilda and at their request, his former Charter concerning the Castle of Trim in Ireland. [78] At Michaelmas in the same year Geoffrey de Genevill granted the Manor of Stanton, to Dame Catherine de Lacy (she was his wife's Aunt), on certain conditions and for a term. [79]

It was also, I presume, in the year 1267 that "Geoffrey de Grenvill, with the assent and free-will of Matilda de Lacy his wife, gave to the Prioress and Convent of Acornbury a moiety of four Mills in Lodelowe, with the Suits thereof, also half a merk rent receivable from the tenements of seven Burgesses of Lodelowe, as an equivalent for lands worth 20 merks per annum, which the said Geoffrey and Matilda were thereafter to provide for the Grantees in some place nearer to their Convent. Witnesses,- Sirs Robert Walerund, John de Balun, Walter de Balun, and William de Colevill, Knights, and Brother Walter, Prior of Lanthony the first. [80]

On September 22, 1267, Matilda de Lacy came before the King's Justices then sitting at Shrewsbury, and conceded to the Prioress of Acornbury the above grants of herself and her husband Geoffrey. [81]

It would seem that the Prioress of Acornbury was not contented with these securities; for in Michaelmas Term 1269 she fines one merk pro licentia concordandi cum Galfrido de Genevill et Matilda uxore, de placito warantiae carte; that is, she had sued them, amicably or otherwise, for a further warranty, and now moved the Court for license to levy a Fine as Habent Cyrographum are the words added to denote the acquiescence of the Court. Nor is the Fine thus levied wanting from its proper repository. It purports to be levied

[75] The same day is given for John de Verdon's obit, by Dugdale, from other authority.
[76] Rot. Hundred. II, 100.
[77] Dugdale's Baronage, 473-475.
[78] Harleian MSS. 1240, fo. cclxxiij.
[79] Additional MSS. (Brit. Museum), No. 6041, fo. xxxvii.
[80] Acornbury Chartulary, p. 21, No. II.
[81] Assizes, 51 Hen. III, m. 4.
[82] Placita, Mich. Term, No. 161, m. 3.


low, in point of antiquity, ranks second only to Shrewsbury. In treating of this question I must appeal to a species of historical evidence, very satisfactory in itself, but so seldom available, that I have not, in these pages, had occasion as yet to allude thereto.- I mean the evidence of Coins.

Our Anglo-Saxon Monarchs permitted or encouraged Mintmen to exercise their craft in every quarter of the Kingdom. It is probable that these Artisans were controlled in their operations by some central authority. A passage in King Canute's Laws further intimates that each Mintman worked under the surveillance of the Gerefa or Reeve of the Town in which he resided; for in Towns only were they permitted to dwell.

Athelstan was the first Anglo-Saxon King in whose reign the money was generally stamped with the name of its place of coinage. In his reign Shrewsbury had its Moneyers; and Coins of Edgar, Ethelred II, Canute, Edward the Confessor, and Harold II, are known to have been minted at Shrewsbury. It does not as yet appear that any money was coined at Ludlow so early as the reign of Athelstan, but the subsequent series is more complete than that of Shrewsbury. Coins were struck by Ludlow Moneyers in the reigns of Edgar, Edward II, Ethelred II, Canute, Harold I, and Edward the Confessor. In all cases the name of the place is given, either as Lud, Luda, or Lude. [89] Some other coins stamped Ludan, Ludo, and Lyda, are not taken into this account, nor will I venture to say that one of William the Conqueror's coins, stamped Ludeie, came from a Ludlow Mintman. I believe that no later coin which can possibly be ascribed to a Ludlow Moneyer has been discovered. The licensed coinage of this Borough therefore ceased in or before the reign of William I, viz. at or about the very period when, on independent historical grounds, we should have expected it to cease.

The Praepositus said by Domesday to be resident at Lude, must be taken as the Reeve, or Chief-Officer of the Borough, under Roger de Lacy. After that period we have no allusion to the municipal affairs of Ludlow till the reign of Henry II, and then I can find but three. The first of these is in the year 1180, when William de Ludelaw (perhaps Provost here) was amerced 2. 6s. 8d. by Ranulf de Glanvill, because he wrongfully seized a pack-horse belonging to the Knights Templars. [90] Some question of toll on the one hand,

[89] For most of these particulars I refer to Ruding's Annals of the Coinage, Vol. I, p. 131, et seq.; Vol. II, p. 209.
[90] "Quia cepit equituturam Templariorum injuste".


and the immunities of this privileged Order on the other, had, I conclude, given rise to this decision. It is very remarkable that the two other instances in which Ludlow occurs in this reign should both refer to matters of coinage. I could imagine that local tradition had preserved some knowledge of the coining which had formerly been permitted there, and that some of the inhabitants were tempted to use this knowledge for unlawful purposes. I should premise that owing to the adulterated state of the coinage, Henry II, in 1180 or 1181, called in the old money and issued new. [91] It does not appear that trading with the old money was at once made illegal, but I could quote several instances to show that the legal value of the old money became from 10 to 20 per cent. lower than that of the new. Consequently traders, who used old money as equal in value to the new, acted fraudulently. There was an Assize, or Law, for the purpose of restraining such practices, and, though the Statute itself seems to be lost, the Pipe-Rolls of that period give us several instances of its application. Among others the Herefordshire Pipe-Roll of 1183 records the following amercements by Thomas fitz Bernard and his associate Justices.- "Roger de Ludelaw owes six merks of old money, of which he was an Exchanger"; and again "Roger Young (Javenis), of Ludelaw, renders account of 20 merks because he bought and sold with old money, contrary to the Assize", that is, without properly allowing for its depreciated worth. The latter delinquent had probably traded to some effect, for he was able to pay 14 merks of his Fine at once.

In 1187 Robert Marmion and his Associates visiting Shropshire, amerced Herbert Provost of Ludelaw 5. His offence was that he had not produced before the Justices a certain Money-forger, who had lodged in his Borough. [92] I have already mentioned the cotemporary amercement of Hugh de Esketot for not producing a certain woman who had dealings with Money-forgers. [93] His penalty is followed by those of Roger Young (Juvenis) in 15 merks, William the Moneyer (Monetarius) in 5 merks, and Walter Smith (Faber) in 8 merks, for the same offence. One of these persons certainly, and all probably, were Burgesses of Ludlow.

At the Assizes of 1203 the Vill of Ludelawe appeared as an independent Liberty, but no presentments of its Jurors are entered on the Roll. The Justices amerced Basilia de Ludelowe half a merk for breaking some assize; also Roger the Moneyer, and William the

[91] Ruding (ut supra, Vol. p. 171).
[92] "Quia non habuit hospitem falsonarium coram Justiciariis".
[93] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 968.


Moneyer his Brother, were amerced 9 merks and 20s. for a like offence. These three names follow each other on the Roll, and I think that these two Monetarii were of the Ludlow family so named. At the same Assizes Walter de Mucegros essoigns himself against William Clerk of Ludlow, in a plea of appeal. This plea was altogether withdrawn soon after. It appears that a certain Richard Auceps (Fowler) lodging in the house of Edelina de Ludlow, had risen in the night and carried off all the plunder he could collect. The Vill of Ludlow followed him with hue and cry (levato clamore) and he was killed. William Clerk had fined 8 merks to have an Inquest held as to his share in the matter. He was now pronounced blameless. This affair is placed among the presentments of Munslow Hundred. At the Assizes of 1221 the Vill of Ludelawe appeared by its Provost and twelve Jurors. No special entry was made of their presentments.

On December 17, 1282, a Patent issued conferring facilities for a plan of enclosing the Town of Ludlow with a Wall. At Robert de Lexinton's Eyre in 1240, the following amercement was recorded. "The whole foreign Court (Curia forinseca) of Walter de Lacy of Ludelauwe, except the Borough, renders account of 15 merks for two Robbers wrongfully released". The Curia forinseca here spoken of, was probably that of Stanton Lacy Liberty: if so, the distinction from the Borough Court is well shown. Half the fine was paid in 1242. It appears that in 1252 the Men of Montgomery having obtained a Charter of Privileges from the King, had used the said Charter to the disadvantage of the Men of Ludlow. A Writ of August 20th in that year directs that it shall be ascertained by Inquest "what Franchises the Men of Ludlow had enjoyed in the King's Town of Montgomery previous to the said Charter?". The answer was that at all previous periods the Men of Ludlow had exercised all manner of trading at Montgomery, and had both bought and sold as freely as the Men of Montgomery themselves, without paying any toll and without suffering any hindrance. [94]

The Inquisition of 1255 tells us nothing of any customs or privileges exercised by the Municipality of Ludlow. The fact of a separate Inquisition being taken, shows of itself that this was an

[94] Inquisitions, 86 Hen. III, No. 26.-

This immunity of the men of Ludlow when trading at Montgomery may be compared with the fact of so many of Lacy's Tenants owing ward at Montgomery Castle. Both incidents doubtless resulted from a state of things, in the time of Henry I or Stephen, of which no direct memorial exists.


independent Jurisdiction. In 1256 the Borough of Ludlaw appeared at the Assizes by its Bailiff, Richard de Chabenoure, and twelve Jurors. A Patent of July 1260 empowers Geoffrey de Genevill to levy customs, or murage, for five years, towards walling the Town. Similar Patents for Murage at Ludlow occur in 1267, 1272 (where Theobald de Verdon is the Patentee), 1280, 1285, 1290, 1294 (where Geoffrey de Genevill is again the Patentee), 1301, and 1304.

To return,- on October 1, 1267, John de la Lynde, a King's Justice, presided at an Inquisition at Ludlow. The case was one of homicide in self-defence; but the man tried, as well as the Jurors, belonged to a distant part of the County. Perhaps therefore the visit of John de la Lynde was for the general purposes of Assize, and in continuation of his recent sittings at Shrewsbury. It is the only instance which I have found of Ludlow being thus visited. At the Assizes of 1272 the Borough of Ludlow was represented by Richard de Momele (its chief Bailiff) and twelve Jurors. At the Inquisition of 1274 the Jurors of this Borough had various acts of oppression and extortion to complain of, as committed against members of their community by public Officers or the Retainers of neighbouring Barons. John Baril, late Under-Sheriff of the County, Hugh de Dadmaston, and Thomas de Grete, sometime Bailiffs of Munslow Hundred, John de Blecchedon Constable of Wigmore, William Mauveysin Constable of Richard's Castle, John de Aqua Constable of Corfham, the Serjeants (servientes) of Munslow Hundred, the Bailiffs and Foresters of Wigmore,- all these had committed some injustice on the Borough, its liberties, or inhabitants. I will give one or two specimens of these complaints.- There was a quarrel between the Community of Ludlow and William le Gardiner, a Fellow-Burgess. The latter sheltered himself under the patronage (advocacionem) of Sir Roger de Mortimer (of Wigmore). Then came the Bailiffs and Serjeants of Wigmore, and entering on the Liberty and free demesne of the Lords of Ludlow, took the cattle feeding therein, and drove the said cattle to Bromfield, where, by the said driving, a certain heifer, worth 4s., was lost. Again- On St. Laurence's-day (Aug. 10) 1274, at Ludlow Fair, Arnold de Brondesleg, with his Son, and with Luke Beadle of Cleobury (Mortimer) arrested, and proposed to take away and imprison at Cleobury, Roger Tyrel, Custos of Caldeford Gate. Roger's offence was that he would not allow these men to pass the said gate with the oxen which they had purchased in the Fair, unless they produced their


tallies; he, Roger, being posted at the gate and sworn in for this very duty. Hereupon the three wounded him in such a way as to draw blood, and took from him some chattel, [95] worth 12d. But Thomas de Wulfreslauwe, Bailiff of Ludlow, came up with his Serjeants and found the trio taking off the said Roger like a Prisoner, and within the Liberties of the Town;- and the Bailiff would fain have released him, when Hugh de Donvill, then Bailiff of Stottesden Hundred, with a great posse, interfered, intending to arrest and take away the Bailiffs (of Ludlow) and their Serjeants, and when he (Donvill) was unable to do this, he took from them some article [96] worth 8d., by violence and force. Again,- John de Aqua, Constable of Corfham, extorted from Richard de Olreton, a Burgess of Ludlow, 45s. 7d. on the following pretext:- A cart of Sir John Giffard's was driving through Ludlow and smashed a certain caldron; the carter not having wherewithal to pay the damage, voluntarily gave up a horse out of his team, so that the aforesaid Richard (owner of the Caldron) was recompensed. But when the said John de Aqua heard of the affair, he caused the cattle of Dame Sibil de Olreton at Clee St. Margaret, to be attached;- and detained the said cattle eight days till (Richard de Olreton) fined 60s. for his act; of which fine as aforesaid he had, under constraint, already paid 45s. 7d. [96]

An Inquest taken in September 1288, shows that Ludlow had the usual privilege of a free Borough, viz. that the corporate body was sufficient for the discharge of certain responsibilities which in unchartered towns were an excuse for the interference of a Sheriff, an Escheator, or other Officer of the Crown. A messuage in Ludlow, late in the tenure of a convicted Felon, was, according to Law, the King's, for a year and a day;- after which Term it ought to revert to the Tenant, holding over the outlaw. The question in this instance was whether the messuage formerly held by John de Brumesgrove, a Felon, under Agnes widow of Gilbert le Mareschal, had so been in the King's hands for a year and a day. The answer was in the affirmative; that is the Borough of Ludlow held the premises, and was answerable to the Crown for the issues thereof. [97] An Escheator's Roll, about A.D. 1325, supplies an instance of a contrary kind, viz. where the Crown interfered in the concerns of Ludlow in a summary, and, as I think, a most vexatious manner.- Theobald de Verdon, late Tenant-in-capite of half the Vill, had conveyed to one Nicholas de Rughton 7 acres in Ludlow, without , first obtaining

[95] Hackam denoscham:- "A Danish axe", Faye Mr. Wright (Hilt. Ludlow, p. 184).
[96] Rot. Hundred. II, 99, 100.
[97] Inquisitions, 11 Edw. I, No. 34.


a license from the Crown. The premises had been confiscated on this ground, and were still in the hands of the Escheator, who accounts 6s. 8d. for the issues thereof. [98]

I now return to an earlier period, and propose to give the names and some other particulars of the principal BURGESSES OF LUDLOW in the thirteenth Century.-

In 1210 we have three Fines whereby Warin de Grendon, Plaintiff, quit-claims three several thirds of a Messuage in Ludlow to Andrew fitz Milo, William Falconer, and Roger fitz Osbert, who pay the said Warin 3 merks each. Gilbert Young (Juvenis) was an Attorney in the case.

In Trinity Term 1220, Adam de Dublin and Agnes his wife, remit their claim on a third part of a messuage in Ludelaw for 10s., given by Alan Swein, Robert Faber, and another. [99]

At the Assizes of 1221 it appeared that a certain Hugh had formerly given to William Faber of Stanton a merk in frank-marriage with his daughter Hawise, "according to the Law of Brestoil; i.e. Bristol; [1] but Hugh, not having the merk at hand, mortgaged half a messuage in Ludlow for that sum, to his said son-in-law. Afterwards Nicholas Bum, the son of Hugh, and therefore the Brother of Hawise, redeemed this mortgage, and then enfeoffed Wimund fitz Wimund in the whole messuage. On William Faber's death Hawise remarried to Roger Faber of Stanton, and the two sued Wimund fitz Wimund as having no ingress in the premises save through William Faber, whom, whilst living, his wife Hawise could not contradict. They asserted in short that the half messuage had been given out-and-out to Hawise in frank-marriage, not mortgaged only. The Jury found otherwise; so Wimund and Nicholas were dismissed sine die. [2]

At these same Assizes, Roger fitz Milo sued Robert fitz Roald for half a messuage in Ludlow, but the latter did not appear. [3]

In October 1227, Amicia widow of Geoffrey Darnes, remits for 16s. to Nicholas Fisher (Pistor) her claim to dower, viz. to one-third of a messuage in Ludlow.

In Michaelmas Term 1232 (if I rightly date the Roll), Cecilia widow of Simon fitz Adam sues Henry Mile, Walter fitz Walter and Dionisia his wife, for a third of a messuage in Ludlow as her

[98] Escheat-Roll inter Nomina Villarum (Queen's Remembrancer).
[99] Placita, Trin. Term, 4 Hen. III, m. 29.
[1] Compare supra, Vol IV, p. 318, note 96.
[2] [3] Assizes, 6 Hen. III, m. 6 dorso, 7 recto.


dower. The Defendants appeared not. [4] In 1255 the following was the Jury-List for Ludelawe,- viz. Geoffrey Andrew, Peter Milesant, William de Radnor, Thomas Minch, William le Folur, Roger de Olreton, Wiffiam de Olreton, Walter de Brug, Richard Sparke, William Mile, Henry le Wantur, William Harang.-

The Inquisition also mentions Richard Eilrich (a Clerk), John Trie, Thomas de Doddinghop, William Fisher, Thomas de Herford (a Clerk), and Richard de Routon, apparently as inhabitants of the Borough, and as either prosecutors of, or sufferers from, illegal suits and demands. At the Assizes of January 1256, Geoffrey fitz Andrew, Peter Milisent, William de Radnor, Thomas Mympe, Richard Balls, William Coterel, Geoffrey le Dunan, Henry fitz Meiade, Ralph Goldsmith, Roger Feremon, Nicholas Fisher, and Roger de Hesford (Ashford) were the Ludlow Jurors. At these Assizes Martin Bussard and Margery his wife, with Agnes fitz Walter of Stevinton, Plaintiffs, renounce for half a merk their suit against Henry Wade, Petronilla his wife, and Richard fitz Peter, for a messuage in Ludlow, which they claimed under a writ de ingressu as the right of Margery and Agnes (probably Sisters). [5]

In Easter Term 1258 Robert de Ludelowe, Plaintiff, quit-claims for 2. 6s. 8d. a messuage in Ludlow, to Nicholas fitz Stephen the Tenant. [6] In Hilary Term 1259 John le Mercer is suing Walter de Lyney for a Burgage in Ludlow; and Matilda Widow of Roger Harang is suing William Harang, Roger fitz John Attegate, and others, for her dower, viz. thirds of several messuages, etc. in Ludlow. [7] In August 1266 Peter Pallefrey has mite of mort d'ancestre and novel disseizin against Hugh de Midd and Alice his wife, for tenements in Ludlow.

In Trinity Term 1269 Henry de Irelond and Agnes his wife, enfeoff (by Fine) Walter de Burweye in a messuage in Ludlow for 10 merks. He is to hold of Henry and Agnes and the heirs of Agnes at d. rent, and to perform all capital services.

In Michaelmas Term 1269 Reginald fitz Stephen was suing Robert Ailriche, Richard de Ruton, and others, for insulting him and besieging him in a house at Ludlow; but he withdrew the charge and was in misericordia. The grounds of this quarrel I shall state elsewhere. In 1270 William son of Petronilla de Ludlow has a writ of novel disseizin against his Brother Roger for a tenement in

[4] Placita de tempore Hen. III, No. 39, m. 16.
[5] Assizes, 40 Hem. M, m. 5.
[6] Pedes Finium, 42 Hen. III, Salop.
[7] Placita, Hil. Term, 43 Hen. III, m. 34, 37.


Ludlow. In Easter Term 1271, Isolda Widow of William fitz Geoffrey, sues Henry le Masun for her dower, viz. half two messuages in Ludlow. [8]

In January 1272 Richard de Erleton, Essoignor of William de Erleton, failed to appear in a suit which he had against Nicholas Pyewan for half a Burgage in Ludlow. The Defendant was therefore dismissed sine die. [8]

In June 1272 John son of William le Paumer has a Writ of mort d'ancestre against Roger de Eylrich and others, for four messuages in Ludlow. At the Assizes, in October following, John le Espeter and Agnes his wife were named as the Plaintiffs in this suit, but did not prosecute it. [9]

At these Assizes the Jurors for Ludlow were- William de Radnor, Roger Coterel, Reginald fitz Stephen, William Mutbert, Richard de Olreton, Geoffrey de Leominster, Robert Clerk, Gervase de Plumpton, Milo de Dinane, Roger le Scheremon, William le Gardin', and John de Tutbury. Also at these Assizes Agnes Widow of Roger le Yonge sued William Pygeyn of Radenor for half a messuage in Ludlow as her marriage-portion. An Inquest was ordered to investigate the case. [10] Also Roger de Weston and Margery his wife claimed one-third of a messuage in Ludlow as Margery's dower. The Tenant, Richard de la Noke, called William fitz Andrew de Pyre to warranty. [11]- Also Roger le Mouneur recovered a messuage in Ludlow from William le Mouneur. [12]- Also Roger son of Roger le Moneur sued Henry le Masun, Gilbert de Mortimer and Susanna his wife, and others, for various plots of ground in Ludlow. [13] Later at these Assizes in the case of Yonge versus Pygin, the latter got sentence in his favour showing himself to hold nothing except at the will of John de Verdun, whereas the Plaintiff averred him to have had ingress in consequence of a demise unlawfully made by her late husband, Roger le Yonge, to one Richard Attehay. [14] By a Fine of July 1, 1273, Gilbert le Marescall and Agnes his wife enfeoff Thomas Aylrich in a messuage in Ludlow, reserving a pepper-corn rent, and binding the Feoffee to the discharge of all capital services. Thomas gave 6 merks. On November 11, 1274,

[8] Placita, Pasch. Term, 55 Hen. III, m. 36 dorso, and Hil. Term, 56 Hen. III, m. 27 dorso.
[9] Assizes, 56 Hen. III, m. 8. Philip le Epeter and Agnes his wife have already occurred in a way which only increases the confusion of names (supra, Vol. III, p. 269).
[10] [11] [12] [13] Assizes, ut supra, membranes 6 dorso, 8 dorso, 10 dorso, 12 recto.
[14] Ibidem, memb. 13 dorso.


Roger le Schiremon and Geoffrey le Dynan were Jurors on a Ludlow Inquest. The Borough Inquisition of November 26 following, was taken by Roger Coterel, Reginald fitz Stephen, Richard de Olreton, William le Cardiner (Quaere Gardiner), William Modbert, Milo de Dynan, William le Muneur, Robert Clerk, Geoffrey Leominster, Roger the Moneyer (Monetarius), Richard de Hulle, and William de Bradeston. Among Burgesses or other inhabitants of Ludlow, who had suffered from the oppressions of the time and district, were William fitz Sabur', Geoffrey Goldsmith, Thomas Trie, Reginald le Fulur, Elyas the Miller, Thomas fitz Roger, William de Cachesford, Robert Elyrich, William Palefrey, John Trie, and Henry Pigin, besides several of the Jurors themselves, and other Burgesses, [15] whom I have incidentally mentioned elsewhere.

By Fine of Nov. 3, 1276, Richard son of Geoffrey de Dynan, and Isolda Richard's wife, enfeoff Hugh le Tanur, in a messuage in Ludlow, for eight merks paid down, and a rent of one Rose, reserved to the Grantors and the heirs of Isolda. The following Ludlow Fines I may give in a more summary form.-

October 1277. Robert le Keu de Appeleg and Johanna his wife enfeoff Philip fitz Stephen in a messuage and shop, at 1d. rent.

October 1277. Hugh Brayn and Alice his wife enfeoff Philip fitz Stephen in a messuage, for 40s. paid, and a d. rent.

November 1277, Ralph son of Henry le Gaunter, and Christiana his wife, enfeoff Walter son of Walter fitz Philip, in a shop, for half a merk rent.

Trinity Term, 1280.- William Gul and Cecilia his wife enfeoff Alan le Trippere in a messuage, whilst Alan enfeoffs them in another messuage, each party reserving a Rose-Rent but Alan also giving 10 merks.

February 1281.- Reginald Bule and Alice his wife enfeoff Thomas son of Roger Pywar, in a messuage, for 16 merks paid, and a rent of one rose.

Trinity Term 1281.- Philip le Bum and Cecilia his wife, quit-claim a messuage to Richard de Cachepol and Emma his wife, for 2 merks.

Same term.- Nicholas son of Roger Pywar, and Agnes his wife, enfeoff John le Pestur of Ashford in a messuage, for 20 merks paid, and a clove-rent.

Trinity Term 1282. Nicholas Herebert and Emma his wife enfeoff Roger Bruton in a messuage, for 40s.- Rent,- one rose.

[15] Rot. Hundred. II, 98-100.


Same Term.- William fitz Walkelin and Cecily his wife, enfeoff Richard le Pestur of Ashford in a messuage, for 8 merks. Rent,- one Rose.

Easter Term 1283.- Hugh Dru and Dionysia his wife, enfeoff William, son of Hugh le Teynturer in a messuage, for 40s. Rent,- a clove.

June 1283. Thomas le Gaunter enfeoffs Peter le Furbur, Holdeburga his wife, and the heirs of Peter, in two messuages, one shop and two shillings rent. Rent,- one Rose, and capital services reserved.

Trinity Term 1283. Thomas de Corfton and Eve his wife, enfeoff Henry le Furbeur in two-thirds of two messuages. Rent,- one Rose. The remaining third (now held by Hugh Brayn and Alice his wife, as the latter's dower in Eve's inheritance) was also to revert to the Feoffee.

Same Term. Richard de Routon and Alice his wife, enfeoff Agnes daughter of Roger de Routon in a messuage, for 100s. Rent,- one Rose.

February 1284. John Triye, Chaplain, enfeoffs Richard de Ruton in a messuage, for 100s. Rent,- one Rose, and capital services reserved.

November 1285. Peter Furbet and Oldeburgh his wife, enfeoff Laurence de Ludlow in a messuage and shop in Ludlow;- to hold of the Grantors and the heirs of Oldeburgh at a rent of one Rose. One sore-sparrow-hawk is said to be paid for this Grant.

Easter Term 1289. Walter Pyrun of La Pole and Margery his wife, enfeoff Laurence de Lodelowe in a virgate in Lodelowe, with the same reserved rent as in the last Fine, and capital services.

Same Term. John fitz Simon and Matilda his wife, enfeoff the same Laurence in another measuage, with similar reservations.

June 1289. Hugh de Doddemore and Emma his wife, enfeoff Walter le Tyrpur and Cecily his wife in half a messuage. Rent,- one Rose.

The famous Statute of Quia Emptores passed in 18 Edward 1 (1290). It put a stop to the multitudinous and complex subinfeudations of the previous age. Up to this time no tenant could give or sell his land without creating a mesne-tenure, that is, he must reserve something to himself,- a rent nominally or really sufficient to answer any claims which the superior Lord may have had on himself as Feoffee. This statute directed that in all Sales and Feoffments of lands, the Feoffee should hold the same, not of his immediate


Feoffor, but of the Chief Lord of the Fee, under whom such Feoffor or had previously held. The result of this Statute is immediately seen in the Fines of the period. All the following convey tenements to the Grantees;- "to have and to hold of the Chief Lords of the Fee", and reserve nothing to the Feoffor whose interest of course vanishes. In short they represent absolute sales rather than subinfeudations.-

November 1290. William Schekenhurste and Alice his wife convey a Messuage in Ludlow to Roger Foliot who gives a sore hawk.

Same date. William de Cleybury North and Alice his wife convey a messuage to Simon Parson of the Church of Butterleye for a similar consideration.

November 1291. William le Belyatere and Agnes his wife convey a messuage to Roger Foliot for a similar consideration.

October 1292. William de Leominster and Petronil his wife, quit-claim a messuage to Roger Pywan, whom Laurence de Ludlow called to warranty thereof.

November 1292. Dionysia, daughter of Geoffrey fitz Peter, for 4 merks, quit-claims a messuage to Geoffrey le Ken.

Same date. Roger de Bromfeld and Matilda his wife convey to Geoffrey Schorre, Smith, and Margery his wife a messuage, for which a sore hawk purports to be paid. At the Assizes at which the three last Fines were levied, Roger de la Dene appeared as Chief Bailiff of the Borough of Ludlow. The Jurors were- Henry de Lodelowe, Clerk, Henry Pygyn, Adam de Kayham, Thomas Eylrich, Nicholas Eylrich Junior, Richard de Cachepol, Adam de Lyneye, Andrew Blachod, William de Haltune, Thomas le Webbe, Henry le Furbisur, and Peter Gylmyn.

Among the presentments of these Jurors was one which I believe reveals to us the original condition of the great and prosperous family of Ludlow.- Laurence de Ludlow, the Founder of that family, was, as I have shown under Stokesay, already Lord of that Manor and Castle. The Jurors of his native Town spoke of him in 1292 in a very different capacity. He had been selling cloth, contrary to the Assize. Doubtless then Laurence de Ludlow acquired his great wealth as a Ludlow clothier. There are other evidences that the trade of Ludlow was at this period very prosperous, but Laurence de Ludlow may be considered as the type of a class, the creature of a social change. It was not till the reign of Edward I that mercantile wealth could thus readily be exchanged for territorial importance.


Subsequently to the Assizes of 1292, the following Ludlow Fines occur, bringing the series down to the close of Edward I's reign.-

November 1293. John de Lebury and Agnes his wife, give to Robert Agat a messuage for 100s.

November 1295. Richard de Ayssheford and Christiana his wife, give a messuage to Richard de Pirefeld for 208.

October 1301. Henry Pygyn and Johanna his wife, Plaintiffs, give to John de Bromfeld, Deforciant, 3 messuages, 2 shops, 36 acres of land, and 23s. 1d. rent. John de Bromfeld in return grants the premises to the Plaintiffs for their lives, they paying a rose for rent and performing all capital services.- The premises to revert to John de Bromfield,- William Orin of Ludlow apposes his claim thereto.

November 1301. Adam de Kaynham and Juliana his wife, grant a messuage to Dionisia widow of Geoffrey le Ken, for 60 merks.

October 1303. Walter le Wylde of Wenlock, and Juliana his wife, grant 2 messuages and 15 acres in Ludlow, Steventon, and Sheet, to Richard le Orfeure of Ludlow, for 20.

October 1304. William Therlewynd and Matilda his wife, grant three shops to Roger Pywan for 10 merks.


Looking at the circumstances of the surrounding district I should imagine Ludlow to have been originally in the Parish of Bromfield, and so Ludlow Church to have been originally a dependency of the Saxon Church of St. Mary's of Bromfield. For the word originally, a very wide meaning is here bespoken.- The earliest existing Records give not the slightest hint or trace of such a dependency, and this silence, though it does not disprove the fact, proves that any such fact must have belonged to a period far too remote for Antiquarian research.

If there was already a Town at Lude in the reign of Athelstan, there was probably also a Church or Chapel. We have given some proof that there was such a Town, and according to the validity of that proof we infer that Ludlow Church or Chapel was founded at least 150 years before Domesday.

There is another consideration which suggests a high though still indefinite antiquity for this ecclesiastical foundation.- In the end of the twelfth century (the year 1199) a story was palmed off upon the inhabitants of Ludlow which bespoke for their Town and Churchyard,


if not for their Church, an antiquity of something more than six hundred years. However exaggerated this estimate may have been, it is obvious that the Editors of the Story dared not to have uttered it, had they not believed that no stretch of traditional memory could convict them of falsehood. Now it is probable that if the Church and Town of Ludlow were founded aa late as the reign of Athelstan (925-941), there would, in 1199, have been some tradition extant among the inhabitants which would have clashed with any theory implying that foundation to have been earlier than 600. Such a theory was however boldly propounded, and apparently without any fear of this kind of refutation.

We may now detail the circumstances which seem to have suggested and facilitated the invention and utterance of this Story.- In the year 1199, the inhabitants of Ludelau finding their Church insufficient for the increasing population of the place, determined to enlarge it. This they did by lengthening it towards the East. The only obstacle to their plan was a Lowe or tumulus in that direction, doubtless the very Lowe which had already given a distinctive name to the Town itself. This tumulus was levelled, and as we may well believe, was found, during the progress of the work, to contain human remains. Now we shall hear what use the Clergy (Clerici) of Ludlow made of this diseovery.- They asserted that these human remains were the bodies of three Irish Saints, who, as far as I can make out from other evidences, must have lived and died in the sixth Century. The Ludlow Clerks carefully collected these remains, deposited them in a wooden Coffer, and decently placed the whole, on April 11th, inside their church, "covering them up", says the Narrator of the transaction, "till such time as the Lord should be pleased to perform certain virtues (miracles are meant) by the merits and intercessions" of the said Saints.

The motive thus assigned exposes the whole affair. Ludlow Church must at the time have been slenderly endowed; for its Parish was small. Its Clerks had in short few tithes, and what was worse they had no reliques. This source of income, which could no longer be spared, was supplied by the above device.

I must not however leave this matter without noticing the proof which the Ludlow Clergy offered as to the identity of the disentombed skeletons.- On one of the three was found a Scroll, rolled up and preserved,- inwardly by wax, outwardly by lead; which Scroll declared as follows, but in the British tongue.- Hic requiescunt S. Fercher, pater Brendani, beatu pignora, sancti scilicet Ibernensis,


pulchra lapide et solo inclusa. Sancta quuoque Corona, mater praelibati Brendani, matertera videlicet Columkilli, electi Dei. Sanctus ... Cochel, germanus ejusdem Sanctae. Hic nempe quindenis deguerunt annis, dum sanctorum Britanniae adirent patrocinium post obitum Ludae increduli. [16]

The three Irish Saints then, said in 1199 to have been found buried at Ludlow, were first, St. Fercher the Father of St. Brendan, secondly, St. Corona the Mother of the same St. Brendan and the Aunt of St. Columkill, and thirdly, Saint ... Cochel the brother of Saint Corona. These three, said the Scroll, "lived on the spot for fifteen years, what time they adopted the protection of the Saints of Britain, distrustful" (of their native country, I presume) "after the death of Luda".

Now without any disrespect to the memory of the Irish Saints of the sixth century, and without any deep knowledge of their respective relations, I venture to state that they were not related in the way that this Scroll intimates; moreover that the Scroll was written, waxed, leaded, and buried in the Ludlow tumulus, within a few days before its discovery.

However, though this Scroll was a mere fraud, and though it tells us no truth as regards Irish Sainthood and Irish Martyrdom, we may use it for another purpose, viz. to illustrate the Priestcraft, as well as the local history, of the time and place at which it was written and discovered. The Ludlow Clergy resorted to Ireland for the materials of their myth, because such a plan was less open to jealousy and detection than if they had tampered with an English Legend. They were also (these Clergy) possibly Irish themselves, some or all of them; at all events they lived at a time and in a place when and where Irish ideas will have been very current, for the passing and repassing of De Lacy's Clerks and Retainers between his English and Irish estates must have been constant.

I now proceed to another subject.- It may be taken as a general axiom that our parochial and ecclesiastical boundaries are much older, and have been preserved far more intact than our civil and manorial boundaries. When therefore Ludlow is found in all written Records to have given name to a Deanery, we might be inclined to assume, on this ground, the great ecclesiastical antiquity of Ludlow. I believe that such an assumption or inference would not be sound; for it is certain that some Deaneries have taken their names from towns which have come into existence since the Conquest.

[16] Wright's Ludlow, p. 14, note.


All that can be said therefore on this head is that Ludlow is, and has been during all memory, the Caput of a Deanery, that it probably became so before the Conquest, but that possibly it attained this eminence since.

In 1291 the Church of Lodelawe, in the Deanery of Lodelawe, was valued at 13. 6s. 8d. per annum. [17]

The Inquisition of March 1317, taken on the death of Theobald de Verdon, values his moiety of Ludlow Church only at 3. 6s. 8d. per annum.

In 1341 the slender acreage of Ludlow as a Manor prevented its being taxed according to its Church value, and under the Deanery of Ludlow. It was taxed as a mercantile town, and by verdict of a special Jury, which valued the Ninth of the moveable goods of the Burgesses at 72. 12s. 11d.

This great assessment (far larger than that of Shrewsbury, and fourfold that of Bridgnorth) indicates an acquired wealth rather than a growing prosperity in this Borough.- The Jury thought fit to give several reasons why they had not assessed Ludlow still higher. These reasons are interesting and instructive, if I may presume to interpret them;- for though I think the Verdict to be intelligible, it is certainly not grammatical.- I understand it to have been represented that several Merchants of Ludlow (among whom were Roger de Orleton, Nicholas Eylrich, Dionisia de Orleton and John de Lynie), who had been used in times past to give a fifteenth of their goods to the King, could not now give any tax, because the King had taken from them their goods and chattels, in the shape of wool, both at home and abroad. A general plea of poverty seems to have been further set up for the above and other merchants of Ludlow. As to those Burgesses who lived by agriculture, their income arose from without the Vill, and in sundry other parishes, so that they were already taxed elsewhere to a ninth of their wheat, wool, and lamb. The latter kinds of produce it is intimated did not form any part of the Revenues of the Church of Ludlow, so that it would have been unfair to have taken the Church Taxation as indicating any such properties of the parishioners as were now proposed to be taxed. [18] On the whole then Ludlow was assessed, not in respect of any increasing trade or agricultural wealth, but on the moveable goods of its inhabitants, that is, on their effects and properties

[17] Not at 3. 6s. 8d. as in the printed Record (Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 166). The error is proved by the Total at the Foot of the Column, and also by the Tenth of the value being stated as 1. 6s. 8d.
[18] Inquisitiones Nonarum, p. 191.


[For engraving, see pdf.]


actually realized and found in their hands. The Valor of 1534-5 gives the Rectory of Ludlow, then held by John Crage, as worth 20. per annum, viz. 19. 13s. 4d. for tithes, and 6s. 8d. for glebe. The only charge on this income was 7s. 8d. for Archdeacon's Procurations and Synodals. [19]


In 1277 Theobald de Verdon, Geoffrey de Geneville and Maud his wife, agreed in presenting a Clerk to this Rectory, but Bishop Cantilupe instituted another. Hereupon, viz. on May 7, 1277, the said Patrons brought their action of Quare incumbravit against the Bishop's Presentee, and with apparent success; for on Feb. 18, 1278-

SIR JOHN DE MENDONE was instituted, Sir Theobald de Verdon being Patron hac vice.

SIR WILLIAM DE BEVERLEY, Chancellor of the King in Ireland, was instituted Jan. 30, 1288. The same Patron presented hac vice; his right to do so being recognised by Peter son of Sir Geoffrey de Genevyle.

SIR JOHN DE VAUCOLOUR (Valle Coloris) [20] was admitted (by his Proctor) on April 23, 1289, and instituted April 5, 1290. Patron,- Sir Peter de Genevyle hac vice.

JOHN DE NIETHLES, Priest, was instituted May 14, 1305. Patron,- Sir Theobald de Verdon, hac vice.

JOHN DE WOTTENHULL was presented by Patent, late in 1326, the Crown claiming the right of Patronage by reason of the forfeiture of Roger de Mortimer of Wigmore. [21] This presentation probably took short or no effect; for on Nov. 15, 1326-

SIR RICHARD LE FORT was instituted to Ludlow. He or another, called-

THOMAS FORT, was Rector in 1328, when, on June 27-

JOHN DE EVESHAM, Clerk, was instituted as his successor. Patron,- the King as Custos of the heirs of Sir Theobald de Verdon. [22] This Rector occurs in 1353 and 1365.

[19] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 200.
[20] This Rector was undoubtedly of the Genevill family. Geoffrey de Genevill father of Peter, was sometimes called Joinville de Vaucouleur and Dominus de Vaucouleur. It is hinted (Swinfield Roll, p. clxix, note) that John de Vaucoulour Rector of Ludlow, was Grandson of Sir John, brother of Geoffrey de Genevill. This Sir John de Joinville was Grand Seneschal of Champagne. He accompanied St. Louis of France in his Crusade of 1248, and wrote a history thereof.
[21] Patent, 20 Edw. II, m. 3.
[22] Patent, 2 Edw. III, p. 1, m. 2.


WILLIAM DE HUMBERSTANE, was instituted Sept. 10, 1369. Patron,- the King as Custos of the heir of Roger de Mortimer, late Earl of March.

ROBERT DE FARYNGTON was instituted Nov. 28, 1371, on presentation of the Crown.

SIR ROGER DE LA NASSHE, Priest, was instituted May 17, 1372, on presentation of Sir John de Crophull, Knight. On June 6, 1384, he exchanges with-

JOHN PIERS, late Rector of Kyngestone (Heref. Dioc.). [23]


A proposition by Henry Pygyn to assign certain rents in Ludlow for the foundation and maintenance of this Chantry, was made matter of Inquisition in 1291. [24] The King's assent to the plan was given in the year following. [25]

WILLIAM TOGGEFORD, Priest, was instituted to this Chantry, Nov. 24, 1363, and-

RICHARD EWYAS, Chaplain, was collated thereto June 6, 1410, by the Bishop, jure devoluto.


Is described as situate "at the Altar of St. Mary and St. Gabriel the Archangel, in the Nave of Ludlow Church". It may have been founded in augmentation of St. Mary's Chantry. One Oliver Beaupre presented thereto in 1518. [26]

The Valor of 1534-5 mentions only one Chantry in Ludlow Church, and that of the foundation of Peter Beaupre. Its endowment then consisted of 7. 16s. per annum, arising from lands and tenements. This income was chargeable with an annual quit-rent of 4s. 4d, payable to the Bailiff of Ludlow, and with 10s. the cost of the annual celebration of the obits of Founders, on which occasion a further sum of 1s. was distributed to the poor. [27]


A Tradition, which dates this foundation as early as the reign of Edward the Confessor, [28] is too absurd to prove anything more than

[23] For a continuation of this List see Documents, etc. (ut supra), p. 35, et seq.
[24] Inquisitions, 19 Edw. I, No. 69.
[25] Patent, 20 Edw. I, m. 11.
[26] Documents (ut supra) p. 37.
[27] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 202.
[28] Dukes's Antiquities, p. 65.


that it asserted for the Town of Ludlow an existence in Saxon times;- a fact which I have been constantly labouring to prove from other and better evidence.

Ludlow Hospital was founded between the years 1220 and 1230 by Peter Undergod, a rich Burgess of Ludlow. It was dedicated to the Holy Trinity, St. Mary, and St. John the Baptist. It stood on the North side of the Teme, near the Bridge; a situation which (like that of St. John's Hospital at Bridgnorth) was evidently selected with a view to the future usefulness of the establishment as a Hospital or Hospice. The Founder, Peter Undergod, had purchased the site of this House from one Walter fitz Nicholas. He had bought lands at Akes (now Rock) from several persons, and he had bought a Fulling Mill in Ludlow (to which all the Fullers of the town owed suit) from Gilbert son of Walter de Lacy. These, with all his other purchases and possessions in Ludlow, Ludford, or elsewhere, he conferred on the Hospital. It is probable that he was himself the first Custos of this House; for his Foundation-Charter, which is extant, speaks of the Brotherhood as already assembled, and only directs the mode in which a Custos or Master shall be appointed, as a step to be taken after his own decease. For other particulars I refer to the Charter itself, which was attested by Sir Walter de Lacy, Sir John de Monemue, Pagan de Ludford, Pagan Carbunell, Philip de Colevile, and Edmund de Ludlow. [29]

Sir Walter de Lacy, as Seignoral Lord, confirmed to Peter de Undergod his purchases from * * * * Malore, in Akes, and approved of the said Peter's having appropriated the same to this Hospital. Sir Walter, moreover, for the souls of himself, his wife Margery, and his son Gilbert, concedes this confirmation as a gift in frank-almoign, remitting all rents and services heretofore accruing to himself from the premises. He also enumerates and allows Peter Undergod's other grants to the Hospital. His Charter was attested by Sir John de Monemue, Walter de Pegerton, Richard de Midlehope, Master Richard de Cranefeud, Master John Eaton, Philip de Thaigland (Thongland) * * * de Greete, William de Ponte-clivo, and Richard de Pipe, Notary of the Charter. [30] This Confirmation was probably cotemporary with the Foundation-Charter above quoted. It was inspected, recited, and confirmed by a Charter of King

[29] Monasticon, VII, 681, Num. i.
[30] Ibidem, Num. ii. There seems to have been a second Charter of Confirmation by Walter de Lacy. The witnesses, one of whom is Pain de Ludford, are given by Mr. Wright (Hist. of Ludlow, p. 98).


Henry III, dated at Kenilworth on the 18th of July in his fiftieth [31] year, i.e. 1266.

The Inquisition of 1255 erroneously attributes it to a grant of Gilbert de Lacy that the Brethren of Ludlow Hospital then stood seized of five burgages and a Mill there, worth 40s. per annum. The Jurors reported another acquisition, viz. of a messuage worth 4s. per annum, the gift of Roger Eylrich Senior. [32]

In 1267 I find the Master of the Hospital of St. Mary of Luddlane fining half a merk for some Writ. [33] I must refer to other Authorities for later additions to Peter Undergod's Foundation. [34]

In 1534-5 John Cragge, the Master of this Hospital, is styled its Dean. I doubt if he were not the same with the Cotemporary Rector of Ludlow. The Hospital Revenues were (in gross) as follows:- From Rocke (formerly Akes), 7. 10s. 2d.;- from Hawkebatch (near Dowles), 1. 11s.;- from Overton (Richard's Castle), 2. 0s. 8d.;- from Ludford, 3. 14s. 5d.;- from Ludlow, 11. 2s.;- from Demesne-Lands, 5.

This Revenue was chargeable with certain Quit-rents, viz.:- to the Lords of Rocke, 8s.; to the Dean of Lichfield, for Hawkbatch, 4s.; to William Wollascote, for Ludford, 8d.; to the Bailiff of Ludlow, 2.; to the Chamberlain of Ludlow, 10s. The net income of the Hospital was set down as 27. 16s. 7d. The Hospital at this time supported two Chaplains, who performed services for the souls of its Founders at a salary of 2. each, per annum. It gave 3. 6s. 8d. yearly (in alms) to the poor, 13s. 4d. to its own Steward, and 2. 13s. 4d. to a Receiver. The King had one Corrody in the House worth 4. per annum. [35]

The Master and Brethren of this Hospital conveyed it, with all its possessions, to Edmund Fox by a Lease, dated 20th September, 1535. This step was anticipatory of, if not identical with, its Dissolution, and it had the consent of the Crown. The lengthy document from which I gather this, shows that a larger Salary was subsequently secured for the two Chaplains above mentioned, and was still chargeable on the Hospital Estates. [36] This was probably because the said Chaplains continued to perform divine service in the King's Chapel of St. Peter within the Castle of Ludlow,- a Cure, for

[31] Not anno quinto as printed in the Monasticon. The correction is too obvious to need proof.
[32] Rot. Hundred. II, 69.
[33] Rot. Pip. 51 Hen. III, Salop.
[34] Monasticon, VII, 681, Note a. Dukes's Antiquities, p. 65.
[35] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 200.
[36] Monasticon, VII, p. 682, Num. iv.


which the Master and Brethren of the Hospital had been previously responsible.


The Friars of St. Augustine were established in or near Ludlow at least as early as the year 1282, when their Prior is mentioned as a witness of a curious natural phmnomenon described already. [37] Again we have mention of these Friars in 1284, when King Edward I, after receiving the report of a local Inquest, issued a Patent in their favour. [38]

The Inquest alluded to sat on January 24, 1284, and found that it would not injure tbe King or any other, if the King allowed the Prior and Brethren of the Order of St. Augustine of Ludlow to enclose with wall and fence, and to keep enclosed, a certain lane (venellam) contiguous to the space (areae) already occupied by the Fraternity in the Suburbs of Ludlow. The said lane extended from John le Hor's messuage in Holdestret (Old-street) to the Street called Galdeford. [39]

The next that I hear of this Establishment is in a letter of Swinfield, Bishop of Hereford, dated August 16, 1299, and addressed to King Edward I. The Bishop earnestly complains of a violation of Sanctuary committed by the men of Ludlow, in that they had dragged from the Church of the Friars of St. Augustine, nigh Ludlow, a Clerk who had fled thither for his life. [40] For the particulars of a later grant to this Friary I refer elsewhere; [41] as also for an account of a House of-


sometime established in Ludlow, but the Foundation of which probably belongs to a period later than that to which I ordinarily wish to confine myself.

Some other Religious Houses had interests in Ludlow, of which I should take brief notice.

WENLOCK PRIORY FEE.- This in 1255 consisted of 7s. 6d. rent, arising from three messuages granted to the Priory by Walter de Brug, Alnoth Red, and Richard Palefrey before the year 1241. [42]

These Rents or part of them appear still with the Priory shortly before its Dissolution; e.g. about 1516, the Sacristan of Wenlock

[37] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 250.
[38] Rot. Patent. 12 Edw. m. 15.
[39] Inquisitions, 12 Edw. I, No. 52.
[40] Household Roll, Abstract, p. lxxiij.
[41] Dukes's Antiquities, p. 63.
[42] Rot. Hundred. II, 69.


had 3s. 8d. rent from Ludlow, [43] and some other Officer of the Convent had a second rent of 1s. 6d. from a tenement in Ludlow. [43] Also about 1520 the Infirmary of Wenlock had a rent of 1s. 6d. from St. John's Hospital at Ludlow for a tenement there. [43]

WIGMORE ABBEY FEE.- This consisted of four messuages, given by Burgesses of Ludlow to the Abbey before 1241, and yielding in 1255 a rent of 8s. 2d.

After the Dissolution, viz. in 1539-40, the Ministers' Accounts give two rents (of 1s. and 6s.8d.) in Ludlow among the receipts of the late Abbey. [44]

CRESSWELL PRIORY FEE.- Walter de Lacy, who founded this Priory, gave thereto the ninth sheaf of grain, except oats, in his Manors (Demesnes) of Ludelawe, Stanton (Lacy), and Akes in Shropshire. He also gave a man in Ludlow, viz. Stephen the Soap-boiler (saponarium), with all his lands, tenements, and suit (family). This grant was confirmed by Henry III on August 21, 1231, which gives the latest limit of its date. [45] In 1255 the Ludlow Jurors reported the Prior of Crassewalle as having one Burgage in the Town of 12d. annual value, and one shop (soldam) bringing in 4d., both of the gift of Walter de Lacy. [46] I find no later notice of these interests of Cresswell Priory.

KNIGHTS HOSPITALLERS' FEE.- This consisted of no less than twelve Burgages and two virgates of land, in the Town and Manor of Ludlow, granted by the elder Hugh de Lacy [47] to the Hospitallers seated at Dinmore in Herefordshire. In 1255 the twelve Burgages realized 12s. rent to the Commandery of Dinmore, but the two virgates of land had been assigned by the Order for the maintenance of the Chaplain of ST. LEONARD'S CHAPEL in Ludlow; [48]- but where St. Leonard's Chapel was, or aught further about it, I cannot declare. The Jurors of Ludlow further reported how four of their Townsmen, viz. Nicholas le Savoner, Robert de Brag, Thomas de Capella, and Adam Cotele, had become Tenants of the Hospitallers of Dunmore, for their land in the will of Ludlow, for the sake of obtaining the Advowry or patronage of the said Order. [48] This Advowry freed its possessors from all those imposts from which the

[43] Wenlock Register at Wiley, fos. 30, b;31, b;40, b.
[44] Monasticon, VI, 356.
[45] Monasticon, VII, 1035, Num. ii.
[46] Rot. Hundred. II, 69.
[47] "A donacione Hugonis de Lascy veteris". I do not understand why Hugh de Lacy, who died in 1186, should be called vetus. Still he must be the person intended; for Dinmore Commandery was not founded till Henry II's reign.
[48] Rot. Hundred. II, 69.


Order of Hospitallers was exempt. It is evident that the four persons named were Traders; for the Jurors went on to show how the King lost 52s. per annum by their exemption from toll, portage, and passage,- while travelling, I presume, in pursuit of their calling.

I should here state the grounds which induced the men of Ludlow in 1269 to assault Reginald fitz Stephen, as before alluded to.
[49] He was clearly one of those who had this Advowry of the Hospitallers, and on the strength thereof he declined to pay any local dues. All parties agreed to refer their disputes to Sir Geoffrey de Genevill and Sir Martin de Littlebury (a Justiciar of that period). The Arbitrators decided that, in respect of the tenement which the said Reginald held under the Hospitallers, he should be free of tallages and gelds, but that he should be in scotto et lotto with the other Burgesses in respect of all other tenements, and in respect of all mercantile transactions by him done. [50]

[49] Supra, p. 286.
[50] Placita coram Rege, Mich. Term, 53 and 54 Hen. III.


Return to top of page

URL of this page: http://www.melocki.org.uk/eyton/Vol05.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.